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 5 CONTENTS 

NOTATION ........................................................................................................................... iv

ENGLISH/METRIC AND METRIC/ENGLISH EQUIVALENTS ..................................... xi

APPENDIX K: GREATER SAGE-GROUSE INSTRUCTIONAL 

 MEMORANDA, CONSERVATION MEASURES, 

 AND CORE AREA PROTECTION STRATEGIES .............................. K-1 

APPENDIX L: GOVERNMENT-TO-GOVERNMENT AND NATIONAL 

 HISTORIC PRESERVATION ACT SECTION 106 

 CONSULTATIONS ................................................................................ L-1 

APPENDIX M: COOPERATING AGENCY AND U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL 

 PROTECTION AGENCY LETTERS ..................................................... M-1 

 M.1 Cooperating Agency Letters ................................................................................ M-3 

 M.2 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Comment Letter and Bureau 

 of Land Management Response Letter ................................................................ M-283 

COMMENT RESPONSE DOCUMENT .................... following Appendix M (electronic version) 

 OR provided on attached DVD (print version) 
Final OSTS PEIS 

iv 

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 

v 

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 

vi 

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 

vii 

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 

viii 

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 

ix 

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 

x 

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 

xi 

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 

xii 

This page intentionally left blank. 
Final OSTS PEIS K-i 

APPENDIX K: 

GREATER SAGE-GROUSE INSTRUCTIONAL MEMORANDA, CONSERVATION 

MEASURES, AND CORE AREA PROTECTION STRATEGIES 
Final OSTS PEIS K-ii 

This page intentionally left blank. 
Final OSTS PEIS K-iii 

CONTENTS 

K.1 Instruction Memorandum 2010-071: Gunnison and Greater Sage-Grouse 

 Management Considerations for Energy Development (Supplement to National 

 Sage-Grouse Habitat Conservation Strategy) .............................................................. K-1 

K.2 USFWS Letter Agreeing to Management of Greater Sage-Grouse ............................. K-4 

K.3 A Report on National Sage-Grouse Conservation Measures ........................................ K-8 

K.4 Instruction Memorandum 2012-043: Greater Sage-Grouse Interim Management 

 Policies and Procedures ................................................................................................ K-83 

K.5 State of Wyoming Executive Order 2011-5: Greater Sage-Grouse Core Area 

 Protection ...................................................................................................................... K-92 

K.6 Instruction Memorandum 2012-044: BLM National Greater Sage-Grouse 

 Land Use Planning Strategy ......................................................................................... K-111 

K.7 Instructional Memorandum WY-2012-019 with Attachments: Greater 

 Sage-Grouse Habitat Management Policy on Wyoming Bureau of 

 Land Management Administered Public Lands Including the Federal 

 Mineral Estate ............................................................................................................... K-115 
Final OSTS PEIS K-iv 

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

K.1 Instruction Memorandum 2010-071: Gunnison and Greater Sage-Grouse 

Management Considerations for Energy Development (Supplement to National SageGrouse Habitat Conservation Strategy) 
Final OSTS PEIS K-2 
Final OSTS PEIS K-3 
Final OSTS PEIS K-4 

K.2 USFWS Letter Agreeing to Management of Greater Sage-Grouse 
Final OSTS PEIS K-5 
Final OSTS PEIS K-6 
Final OSTS PEIS K-7 
Final OSTS PEIS K-8 

K.3 A Report on National Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation Measures 
Final OSTS PEIS K-9 
Final OSTS PEIS K-10 
Final OSTS PEIS K-11 
Final OSTS PEIS K-12 
Final OSTS PEIS K-13 
Final OSTS PEIS K-14 
Final OSTS PEIS K-15 
Final OSTS PEIS K-16 
Final OSTS PEIS K-17 
Final OSTS PEIS K-18 
Final OSTS PEIS K-19 
Final OSTS PEIS K-20 
Final OSTS PEIS K-21 
Final OSTS PEIS K-22 
Final OSTS PEIS K-23 
Final OSTS PEIS K-24 
Final OSTS PEIS K-25 
Final OSTS PEIS K-26 
Final OSTS PEIS K-27 
Final OSTS PEIS K-28 
Final OSTS PEIS K-29 
Final OSTS PEIS K-30 
Final OSTS PEIS K-31 
Final OSTS PEIS K-32 
Final OSTS PEIS K-33 
Final OSTS PEIS K-34 
Final OSTS PEIS K-35 
Final OSTS PEIS K-36 
Final OSTS PEIS K-37 
Final OSTS PEIS K-38 
Final OSTS PEIS K-39 
Final OSTS PEIS K-40 
Final OSTS PEIS K-41 
Final OSTS PEIS K-42 
Final OSTS PEIS K-43 
Final OSTS PEIS K-44 
Final OSTS PEIS K-45 
Final OSTS PEIS K-46 
Final OSTS PEIS K-47 
Final OSTS PEIS K-48 
Final OSTS PEIS K-49 
Final OSTS PEIS K-50 
Final OSTS PEIS K-51 
Final OSTS PEIS K-52 
Final OSTS PEIS K-53 
Final OSTS PEIS K-54 
Final OSTS PEIS K-55 
Final OSTS PEIS K-56 
Final OSTS PEIS K-57 
Final OSTS PEIS K-58 
Final OSTS PEIS K-59 
Final OSTS PEIS K-60 
Final OSTS PEIS K-61 
Final OSTS PEIS K-62 
Final OSTS PEIS K-63 
Final OSTS PEIS K-64 
Final OSTS PEIS K-65 
Final OSTS PEIS K-66 
Final OSTS PEIS K-67 
Final OSTS PEIS K-68 
Final OSTS PEIS K-69 
Final OSTS PEIS K-70 
Final OSTS PEIS K-71 
Final OSTS PEIS K-72 
Final OSTS PEIS K-73 
Final OSTS PEIS K-74 
Final OSTS PEIS K-75 
Final OSTS PEIS K-76 
Final OSTS PEIS K-77 
Final OSTS PEIS K-78 
Final OSTS PEIS K-79 
Final OSTS PEIS K-80 
Final OSTS PEIS K-81 
Final OSTS PEIS K-82 
Final OSTS PEIS K-83 

K.4 Instruction Memorandum 2012-043: Greater Sage-Grouse Interim Management 

Policies and Procedures 
Final OSTS PEIS K-84 
Final OSTS PEIS K-85 
Final OSTS PEIS K-86 
Final OSTS PEIS K-87 
Final OSTS PEIS K-88 
Final OSTS PEIS K-89 
Final OSTS PEIS K-90 
Final OSTS PEIS K-91 
Final OSTS PEIS K-92 

K.5 State of Wyoming Executive Order 2011-5: Greater Sage-Grouse Core Area 

Protection 
Final OSTS PEIS K-93 
Final OSTS PEIS K-94 
Final OSTS PEIS K-95 
Final OSTS PEIS K-96 
Final OSTS PEIS K-97 
Final OSTS PEIS K-98 
Final OSTS PEIS K-99 
Final OSTS PEIS K-100 
Final OSTS PEIS K-101 
Final OSTS PEIS K-102 
Final OSTS PEIS K-103 
Final OSTS PEIS K-104 
Final OSTS PEIS K-105 
Final OSTS PEIS K-106 
Final OSTS PEIS K-107 
Final OSTS PEIS K-108 
Final OSTS PEIS K-109 
Final OSTS PEIS K-110 
Final OSTS PEIS K-111 

K.6 Instruction Memorandum 2012-044: BLM National Greater Sage Land Use Planning 

Strategy 
Final OSTS PEIS K-112 
Final OSTS PEIS K-113 
Final OSTS PEIS K-114 
Final OSTS PEIS K-115 

K.7 Instruction Memorandum WY-2012-019 with Attachments: Greater Sage-Grouse 

Habitat Management Policy on Wyoming Bureau of Land Management (BLM) 

Administered Public Lands Including the Federal Mineral Estate 
Final OSTS PEIS K-116 
Final OSTS PEIS K-117 
Final OSTS PEIS K-118 
Final OSTS PEIS K-119 
Final OSTS PEIS K-120 
Final OSTS PEIS K-121 
Final OSTS PEIS K-122 
Final OSTS PEIS K-123 
Final OSTS PEIS K-124 
Final OSTS PEIS K-125 
Final OSTS PEIS K-126 
Final OSTS PEIS K-127 
Final OSTS PEIS K-128 
Final OSTS PEIS K-129 
Final OSTS PEIS K-130 
Final OSTS PEIS K-131 
Final OSTS PEIS K-132 
Final OSTS PEIS K-133 
Final OSTS PEIS K-134 
Final OSTS PEIS K-135 
Final OSTS PEIS K-136 
Final OSTS PEIS K-137 
Final OSTS PEIS K-138 
Final OSTS PEIS K-139 
Final OSTS PEIS K-140 
Final OSTS PEIS K-141 
Final OSTS PEIS K-142 
Final OSTS PEIS K-143 
Final OSTS PEIS K-144 
Attachment 3 

Final OSTS PEIS K-147 

Attachment 5 
Final OSTS PEIS K-148 
Final OSTS PEIS K-149 
Final OSTS PEIS K-150 
Final OSTS PEIS K-151 
Final OSTS PEIS K-152 
Final OSTS PEIS K-153 
Final OSTS PEIS K-154 
Final OSTS PEIS K-155 
Final OSTS PEIS K-156 
Final OSTS PEIS K-157 
Final OSTS PEIS K-158 
Final OSTS PEIS K-159 
Final OSTS PEIS K-160 
Final OSTS PEIS K-161 
Final OSTS PEIS K-162 
Final OSTS PEIS K-163 
Final OSTS PEIS K-164 
Final OSTS PEIS K-165 
Final OSTS PEIS K-166 
Final OSTS PEIS K-167 
Final OSTS PEIS K-168 
Final OSTS PEIS K-169 
Final OSTS PEIS K-170 
Final OSTS PEIS K-171 
Final OSTS PEIS K-172 
Final OSTS PEIS K-173 
Final OSTS PEIS K-174 
Final OSTS PEIS K-175 
Final OSTS PEIS K-176 
Final OSTS PEIS K-177 
Final OSTS PEIS K-178 

Attachment 6 
Final OSTS PEIS K-179 
Final OSTS PEIS K-180 
Final OSTS PEIS K-181 
Final OSTS PEIS K-182 
Final OSTS PEIS K-183 

Attachment 7 
Final OSTS PEIS K-184 
Final OSTS PEIS K-185 
Final OSTS PEIS K-186 
Final OSTS PEIS K-187 
Final OSTS PEIS K-188 
Final OSTS PEIS K-189 
Final OSTS PEIS K-190 
Final OSTS PEIS K-191 
Final OSTS PEIS K-192 
Final OSTS PEIS L-i 

APPENDIX L: 

GOVERNMENT-TO-GOVERNMENT AND 

NATIONAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION ACT SECTION 106 CONSULTATIONS 

 
Final OSTS PEIS L-ii 

This page intentionally left blank. 

 
Final OSTS PEIS L-iii 

CONTENTS 

 L.1 Introduction .......................................................................................................... L-1 

 L.2 Government to Government Consultation ........................................................... L-1 

 L.3 Section 106 Consultation ..................................................................................... L-17 

 L.3.1 State Historic Preservation Officers ......................................................... L-17 

 L.3.2 Advisory Council on Historic Preservation ............................................. L-21 

 L.3.3 Interested Parties ...................................................................................... L-23 

 L.4 References ............................................................................................................ L-31 

ATTACHMENT 1: TRIBAL CORRESPONDENCE ......................................................... L-33 

ATTACHMENT 2: STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER 

 CORRESPONDENCE ......................................................................... L-57 

ATTACHMENT 3: ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISTORIC PRESERVATION 

 CORRESPONDENCE ......................................................................... L-85 

ATTACHMENT 4: INTERESTED PARTY CORRESPONDENCE ................................. L-95 

TABLES 

L-1 Index of Agency and Tribal Government Consultation ............................................. L-2 

L-2 Summary of Consultation with Federally Recognized Native American Tribes ...... L-3 

L-3 Index of Consultation with State Historic Preservation Officers ............................... L-18 

L-4 Summary of Consultation with State Historic Preservation Officers ........................ L-19 

L-5 Index of Consultation with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation ............. L-21 

L-6 Summary of Consultation with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation ....... L-22 

L-7 Index of Consultation with Interested Parties ............................................................ L-24 

L-8 Summary of Consultation with Interested Parties ..................................................... L-25 

 
Final OSTS PEIS L-iv 

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

APPENDIX L: 

GOVERNMENT-TO-GOVERNMENT AND 

NATIONAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION ACT SECTION 106 CONSULTATIONS

L.1 INTRODUCTION 

 This appendix presents the correspondence pertaining to government-to-government and 

National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA) Section 106 consultation for the Oil Shale 

and Tar Sands Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (OSTS PEIS). Section L.2 

provides copies of correspondence with all the tribes, and Section 3 presents copies of 

correspondence with interested parties. 

L.2 GOVERNMENT-TO-GOVERNMENT CONSULTATION 

 As detailed in Chapter 7 of the PEIS, the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land 

Management (BLM) coordinates and consults with federally recognized tribes whose interests 

might be directly and substantially affected by activities on public lands. It strives to provide the 

Indian tribes with sufficient opportunities for productive participation in BLM planning and 

resource management decision-making. In addition, Section 106 of the NHPA requires federal 

agencies to consult with Indian tribes on undertakings on tribal lands and on historic properties 

of significance to the tribes that may be affected by an undertaking (Title 36, Part 800.2 (c)(2) of 

the Code of Federal Regulations (36 CFR 800.2 (c)(2)). BLM Manual 8120 (BLM 2004a) and 

Handbook H-8120-1 (BLM 2004b) provide guidance for Native American consultations. 

 In July 2011, the BLM distributed a letter to 25 tribes notifying them of its intention to 

take a fresh look at land use allocation decision made in 2008 regarding the management of oil 

shale and tar sands resources. The BLM has followed up with additional letters, e-mails, phone 

calls, and meetings for tribes who have indicated that they wish to continue government-togovernment consultation or have cooperating agency status. Once the Draft PEIS was completed 

(BLM 2012), a second mailing was sent to all federally recognized tribes with interests in the 

area under consideration. Follow-up meetings and discussions occurred after the issuance of the 

Draft PEIS. 

 To date, eight tribes have responded by letter, e-mail, or telephone, or have met with 

local BLM personnel. Two tribes, The Paiute Indian Tribe of Utah and Pueblo of Santa Clara, 

have both indicated through the Tribal Response Form that they do not require consultation at 

this time. One tribe, the Eastern Shoshone, has indicated interest in becoming a Cooperating 

Agency; however, they have not signed the required Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to 

gain that status. The Hopi and the Navajo Mountain Chapter of the Navajo Nation, indicated 

through their response forms that they would like to meet to discuss the project. Both tribes have 

been contacted by the BLM and consultation is ongoing. The Ute Mountain Ute Tribe, The Ute 

Indian Tribe, and the Southern Ute Indian Tribe, have met with the BLM to further discuss the 

project, and consultation is ongoing. No response was received from the remaining 17 tribes. 
Final OSTS PEIS L-2 

 A summary of tribal consultation is provided below in Tables L-1 and L-2. Copies of 

correspondence can be viewed in Attachment 1. 

 Consultation opportunities for all federally recognized tribes will continue to be provided. 

In addition, the BLM will continue to implement government-to-government consultation on a 

case-by-case basis for any oil shale and tar sands lease application and development projects. 

TABLE L-1 Index of Agency and Tribal Government Consultation 

Date 

Originating Agency/ 

Tribal Government 

Recipient 

Organization Page 

 

Multiple Tribes 

July 2011 BLM Tribal leaders 

(see distribution list) 

L-34 

January and February 2012 BLM Tribal leaders (see 

distribution list) 

L-39 

 

Eastern Shoshone Tribe of the Wind River Reservation 

April 11, 2012 Helen Hankins, BLM Wilfred Ferris, THPO L-47 

 

Hopi 

July 29, 2011 J.T. Morgart, Legal Researcher BLM L-49 

 

Navajo Nation-Navajo Mountain Chapter 

July 29, 2011 Alex Bitsinnie, President BLM L-50 

Paiute Indian Tribe of Utah 

August 5, 2011 Dorena Martineau, Cultural 

Resources Coordinator 

BLM L-51 

 

Pueblo of Santa Clara 

August 22, 2011 Ben Chavarria, NAGPRA contact BLM L-52 

 

Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah and Ouray Reservation 

April 11, 2012 Helen Hankins, BLM Irene Cueh, 

Chairwoman and 

Betsy Chapoose 

L-53 

 

Ute Mountain Ute Tribe 

April 11, 2012 Helen Hankins, BLM Terry Knight, 

NAGPRA 

Representative 

L-55 

Abbreviations: BLM = Bureau of Land Management; NAGRPA = Native American Graves Protection 

and Repatriation Act; THPO = Tribal Preservation Officer. 
TABLE L-2 Summary of Consultation with Federally Recognized Native American Tribes Organization BLM Contact Tribal Response Eastern Shoshone Tribe of the Wind River Reservation July 2011─Letter from BLM State Office giving notice of the PEIS and inviting to become a cooperating agency. Aug. 8, 2011─Sherri Thompson sent Draft MOU for cooperating agency status sent to Wes Martel. Sept. 26, 2011─Sherri Thompson sent a reminder to Mr. Martel to sign agreement before he could receive materials as a cooperator. Sept. 28, 2011─Sherri Thompson responded, explaining the time line for distribution of the preliminary draft and signature requirement. 

Jan. 20 2012─Letter from the BLM Wyoming State 

Office transmitting the Draft PEIS and inviting consultation and participation. Letter also described public open house meetings that would be held in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming. April 3, 2012─E-mail from Ranel Capron inviting 

Eastern Shoshone to attend a consultation meeting with the Colorado BLM and other tribes on May 2–3, 2012, to discuss protection of wickiup sites. April 11, 2012─Letter from the BLM inviting Eastern Shoshone to attend a consultation meeting with the Colorado BLM and other tribes on May 2–3, 2012, to discuss protection of wickiup sites. 

July 2011─Wes Martel contacted Sherri ThompCooperating Agency status for the Eastern ShosSept. 28, 2011─Mr. Martel responded that he is requested time line information. Information on well as a Draft Cooperating Agency MOU. The and returned. July 25, 2012─Wilfred Ferris cancelled the connot rescheduled. July 31, 2012—Wilfred Ferris called Sherri Thowould be unable to attend the August 1, 2012, mand Ute Mountain Ute to discuss wickiup sites, came up. Wilfred told Sherri that he would call but Sherri never received a phone call. 
TABLE L-2 (Cont.) Organization BLM Contact Tribal Response Eastern Shoshone Tribe of the Wind River Reservation (Cont.) April 18, 2012─E-mail from Daniel Haas to Wilfred Ferris, inquiring if Eastern Shoshone will attend May 2 meeting and if further consultation is needed July 24, 2012─E-mail from Sherri Thompson to Wilfred Ferris transmitting PowerPoint about project for conference call to be held on July 25. August 1, 2012─BLM held a field visit for the Eastern Shoshone and Ute Mountain Ute to visit and discuss protection of wickiup sites. Hopi Tribal Council July 2011─Letter from BLM State Office giving notice of the PEIS and inviting to become a 

cooperating agency. 

Aug. 16, 2011─E-mail to Terry Morgart inquiring 

about meeting request and offering additional information. 

Jan. 25, 2012─Letter from the Utah State Office transmitting the Draft PEIS and inviting consultation and participation. Letter also described public open house meetings that would be held in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming. 

July 29, 2011─John T. Morgart, Legal Research

response form. Hopi have concerns to discuss acontacted. 
TABLE L-2 (Cont.) Organization BLM Contact Tribal Response Kaibab Paiute Tribal Council July 2011─Letter from BLM State Office giving notice of the PEIS and inviting to become a cooperating agency. Jan. 25, 2012─Letter from the Utah State Office transmitting the Draft PEIS and inviting consultation and participation. Letter also described public open house meetings that would be held in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming. Navajo Nation July 2011─Letter from BLM State Office giving notice of the PEIS and inviting to become a cooperating agency. Jan. 25, 2012─Letter from the Utah State Office 

transmitting the Draft PEIS and inviting consultation and participation. Letter also described public open house meetings that would be held in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming. 

Navajo Nation, Aneth Chapter 

July 2011─Copied on letter from BLM State Office 

to the Navajo Nation giving notice of the PEIS and inviting to become a cooperating agency. Jan. 25, 2012─Letter from the Utah State Office transmitting the Draft PEIS and inviting consultation and participation. Letter also described public open house meetings that would be held in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming. 
TABLE L-2 (Cont.) Organization BLM Contact Tribal Response Navajo Nation, Dennehotso Chapter July 2011─Copied on letter from BLM State Office to the Navajo Nation giving notice of the PEIS and inviting to become a cooperating agency. Jan. 25, 2012─Letter from the Utah State Office transmitting the Draft PEIS and inviting consultation and participation. Letter also described public open house meetings that would be held in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming. Navajo Nation, Historic Preservation Dept. July 2011─Copied on letter from BLM State Office to the Navajo Nation giving notice of the PEIS and inviting to become a cooperating agency. Jan. 25, 2012─Letter from the Utah State Office 

transmitting the Draft PEIS and inviting consultation and participation. Letter also described public open house meetings that would be held in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming. 

Navajo Nation, Mexican Water Chapter 

July 2011─Copied on letter from BLM State Office 

to the Navajo Nation giving notice of the PEIS and inviting to become a cooperating agency. Jan. 25, 2012─Letter from the Utah State Office transmitting the Draft PEIS and inviting consultation and participation. Letter also described public open house meetings that would be held in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming. 
TABLE L-2 (Cont.) Organization BLM Contact Tribal Response Navajo Nation, Navajo Mountain Chapter July 2011─Copied on letter from BLM State Office to the Navajo Nation giving notice of the PEIS and inviting to become a cooperating agency. Aug. 16, 2011─E-mail from Byron Loosle inquiring about meeting and offering additional information. Aug., 17, 2011─E-mail from Byron Loosle with the July 2011 letter. Jan. 25, 2012─Letter from the Utah State Office transmitting the Draft PEIS and inviting consultation and participation. Letter also described public open house meetings that would be held in 

Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming. 

July 29, 2011─Alex Bitsinnie, Chapter Presiden

response form. Would like to be contacted to diconcerns. 

Navajo Nation, Oljato Chapter 

July 2011─Copied on letter from BLM State Office 

to the Navajo Nation giving notice of the PEIS and inviting to become a cooperating agency. Jan. 25, 2012─Letter from the Utah State Office transmitting the Draft PEIS and inviting consultation and participation. Letter also described public open house meetings that would be held in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming. 
TABLE L-2 (Cont.) Organization BLM Contact Tribal Response Navajo Nation, Red Mesa Chapter July 2011─Copied on letter from BLM State Office to the Navajo Nation giving notice of the PEIS and inviting to become a cooperating agency. Jan. 25, 2012─Letter from the Utah State Office transmitting the Draft PEIS and inviting consultation and participation. Letter also described public open house meetings that would be held in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming. Navajo Nation, Teec Nos Pos Chapter July 2011─Copied on letter from BLM State Office to the Navajo Nation giving notice of the PEIS and inviting to become a cooperating agency. Jan. 25, 2012─Letter from the Utah State Office 

transmitting the Draft PEIS and inviting consultation and participation. Letter also described public open house meetings that would be held in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming. 

Navajo Utah Commission July 2011─Copied on letter from BLM State Office 

to the Navajo Nation giving notice of the PEIS and inviting to become a cooperating agency. Jan. 25, 2012─Letter from the Utah State Office transmitting the Draft PEIS and inviting consultation and participation. Letter also described public open house meetings that would be held in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming. 
TABLE L-2 (Cont.) Organization BLM Contact Tribal Response Northern Arapaho Business Council July 2011─Letter from BLM State Office giving notice of the PEIS and inviting to become a cooperating agency. Jan. 20 2012─Letter from the Wyoming State Office transmitting the Draft PEIS and inviting consultation and participation. Letter also described public open house meetings that would be held in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming. Northwestern Band of Shoshone Nation July 2011─Letter from BLM State Office giving notice of the PEIS and inviting to become a cooperating agency. Jan. 25, 2012─Letter from the Utah State Office transmitting the Draft PEIS and inviting 

consultation and participation. Letter also described public open house meetings that would be held in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming. 

Paiute Indian Tribe of Utah Tribal Council

July 2011─Letter from BLM State Office giving notice of the PEIS and inviting to become a cooperating agency. Jan. 25, 2012─Letter from the Utah State Office transmitting the Draft PEIS and inviting consultation and participation. Letter also described public open house meetings that would be held in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming. 

Aug. 5, 2011─Dorena Martineau, Paiute Indian 

Resources, returned tribal response form. They information and do not require consultation at th
TABLE L-2 (Cont.) Organization BLM Contact Tribal Response Pueblo of Laguna July 2011─Letter from BLM State Office giving notice of the PEIS and inviting to become a cooperating agency. Jan. 25, 2012─Letter from the Utah State Office transmitting the Draft PEIS and inviting consultation and participation. Letter also described public open house meetings that would be held in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming. Pueblo of Nambe July 2011─Letter from BLM State Office giving notice of the PEIS and inviting to become a cooperating agency. Jan. 25, 2012─Letter from the Utah State Office transmitting the Draft PEIS and inviting 

consultation and participation. Letter also described public open house meetings that would be held in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming. 

Pueblo of Santa Clara July 2011─Letter from BLM State Office giving 

notice of the PEIS and inviting to become a cooperating agency. 

Jan. 25, 2012─Letter from the Utah State Office transmitting the Draft PEIS and inviting consultation and participation. Letter also described public open house meetings that would be held in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming. 

Aug. 22, 2011─Ben Chavarria, Land and Cultur

the tribal response form. They have received sudo not require consultation at this time. 
TABLE L-2 (Cont.) Organization BLM Contact Tribal Response Pueblo of Zia July 2011─Letter from BLM State Office giving notice of the PEIS and inviting to become a cooperating agency. Jan. 25, 2012─Letter from the Utah State Office transmitting the Draft PEIS and inviting consultation and participation. Letter also described public open house meetings that would be held in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming. Southern Ute Tribe June 14, 2011─Letter from BLM State Office giving notice of the PEIS and inviting to become a cooperating agency. Feb. 2, 2012─Letter from the Colorado State Office 

transmitting the Draft PEIS and inviting consultation and participation. Letter also described public open house meetings that would be held in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming. April 2, 2012─Letter from Sherri Thompson inviting Southern Ute to attend a consultation meeting with Colorado BLM and other tribes on May 2–3, 2012, to discuss protection of wickiup sites. April 25, 2012─E-mail from Sherri Thompson to Alan Naranjo with information on a June 6, 2012, consultation meeting among the BLM, Southern Ute Tribe, Ute Mountain Ute, and Eastern Shoshone to discuss identification and protection of wickiup sites. 

April 4, 2012─E-mail from Alden Naranjo to Shindicating he would like to attend the site visit, bMay 2–3. Asked if they could schedule another June 6, 2012─Alden Naranjo attended consultat

Kristen Bowen, Kent Walter, Daniel Haas, and would like to see a 200–500 m avoidance buffer project, although he understands that would not 
TABLE L-2 (Cont.) Organization BLM Contact Tribal Response Southern Ute Tribe (Cont.) June 6, 2012- Daniel Haas, Kristen Bowen, Kent Walter, and Sherri Thompson met with Alden Naranjo. June 26, 2012─Sherri Thompson called Alden Naranjo to inquire if Alden was attending the July 18, 2012, consultation trip. Sherri was unable to get a hold of Alden. July 18, 2012─E-mail from Sherri Thompson, BLM, to Alden Naranjo asking if there were any concerns he had about wickiups and if there were future mitigation measures he would like to see. Ute Indian Tribe of the 

Uintah and Ouray Reservation 

June 14, 2011─Letter from BLM State Office 

giving notice of the PEIS and inviting to become a cooperating agency. Sept. 19, 2011─Sherri Thompson called the Northern Ute Indian Tribe to ask them if they still would like to lease their lands for oil shale and tar sands within the reservation. Sept. 19, 2011─Sherri Thompson left a message with Bruce Vergies of the Energy and Minerals Department. Sept. 20, 2011─Sherri Thompson left a message with Manual Myore of the Energy and Minerals Department Oct. 3, 2011─Sherri Thompson e-mailed Valentino 

Jones seeking confirmation of the Utes’ desire for development of split estate lands. 

Sept. 21, 2011─Sherri Thompson received a calShe explained to him that the BLM is taking a fmade in the 2008 Oil Shale and Tar Sands PEIS give the tribe the opportunity to confirm that theleasing tribal lands for oil shale and tar sands rereservation. Mr. Jones said he would have to “ruhe will get back to the BLM. May 2, 2012─Betsy Chapoose attended consult

could not attend, but indicated he would like an She informed Byron Loosle, BLM, that the tribe landscape as a whole, including plants and animlook proactively at an area instead of on a projeMay 30, 2012─Clifford was appreciative of bei

concerns are visual impacts on wickiup sites and 
TABLE L-2 (Cont.) Organization BLM Contact Tribal Response Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah and Ouray Reservation (Cont.) Feb. 02, 2012─Letter from the Utah State Office transmitting the Draft PEIS and inviting consultation and participation. Letter also described public open house meetings that would be held in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming. April 11, 2012─Letter from the BLM inviting Ute Indian Tribe to attend a consultation meeting with the Colorado BLM and other tribes on May 2–3, 2012, to discuss protection of wickiup sites. May 2, 2012─Byron Loosle and Daniel Haas, BLM, met with Betsy Chapoose. May 30, 2012─Kent Walter and Kristen Bowen met with Clifford Duncan. 

June 4, 2012─Sherri Thompson called Irene Cuch 

at the suggestion of Betsy Chapoose, to personally tell her about the OSTS PEIS. Left message with the secretary. The secretary said it may be a couple of weeks before Irene can get back to her. 

June 28, 2012─Sherri Thompson left message for 

Irene Cuch. July 16, 2012—E-mail from Sherri Thompson to Betsy Chapoose asking if there are any further concerns or potential future mitigation suggestions Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming. 
TABLE L-2 (Cont.) Organization BLM Contact Tribal Response Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah and Ouray Reservation (Cont.) April 11, 2012─Letter from the BLM inviting Ute Indian Tribe to attend a consultation meeting with the Colorado BLM and other tribes on May 2–3, 2012, to discuss protection of wickiup sites. May 2, 2012─Byron Loosle and Daniel Haas, BLM, met with Betsy Chapoose. May 30, 2012─Kent Walter and Kristen Bowen met with Clifford Duncan. June 4, 2012─Sherri Thompson called Irene Cuch at the suggestion of Betsy Chapoose, to personally tell her about the OSTS PEIS. Left message with the secretary. The secretary said it may be a couple of weeks before Irene can get back to her. 

June 28, 2012─Sherri Thompson left message for 

Irene Cuch. July 16, 2012—E-mail from Sherri Thompson to Betsy Chapoose asking if there are any further concerns or potential future mitigation suggestions August 7, 2012—Sherri Thompson left a voicemail for Irene Cuch. 

Ute Mountain Ute Tribe June 14, 2011─Letter from BLM State Office 

giving notice of the PEIS and inviting to become a cooperating agency. 

March 20, 2012─Representatives for the Ute Mthey would like to see the wickiup village near Yfrom potential leasing and development. Requesthree Ute Tribes and the Eastern Shoshone to diwickiup sites. 
TABLE L-2 (Cont.) Organization BLM Contact Tribal Response Ute Mountain Ute Tribe (Cont.) Feb. 2, 2012- Letter from the Colorado State Office transmitting the Draft PEIS and inviting consultation and participation. Letter also described public open house meetings that would be held in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming. March 21, 2012─Dan Haas and Sherri Thompson, met with Ute Mountain Ute. April 11, 2012─Letter from the BLM inviting Ute Mountain Ute Indian Tribe to attend a consultation meeting with the Colorado BLM and other tribes on May 2–3, 2012, to discuss protection of wickiup sites. 

April 25, 2012─E-mail from Sherri Thompson to Lynn Hartman with information on a June 6, 2012, consultation meeting among the BLM, Southern Ute Tribe, Ute Mountain, and Eastern Shoshone to discuss identification and protection of wickiup sites. June 15, 2012─Daniel Haas and Sherri Thompson, 

pushed the meeting back to July 18. July 2, 2012─Dan Haas told Lynn Hartman that he would send her information on the project since she and Terry could not attend. July 12, 2012─E-mail from Sherri Thompson to Lynn Hartmann with meeting details for an August 1, 2012, meeting. 

June 15, 2012─Lynn Hartman requested the Jul

to the 18th. July 2, 2012─E-mail from Lynn Hartman indicaKnight were not able to attend the July 2 meetindays that would work for a meeting and the meeAug 1, 2012─Terry Knight expressed his conceenergy development in the area and its impacts herds. The wickiup sites are hunting related, and wildlife. If the wildlife is cared for, the wickiup Ute used wickiups as permanent structures to prand cold weather; temporary brush structures wTerry also expressed an interest in brush fences game drives for elk and wild horses. Lynn Hartmann stated that she does not see a nethat have already been surveyed unless cultural The Ute Mountain Ute believe that the BLM shyards away from ACECs. They would like to sedescribing projects, would like information on tand are interested in how ruins and wickiups are grazing. 
TABLE L-2 (Cont.) Organization BLM Contact Tribal Response Ute Mountain Ute Tribe (Cont.) Aug 1, 2012─BLM held field visit for the Ute Mountain Ute and Eastern Shoshone to visit and discuss protection of wickiup sites. Kent Walter, Kristen Bowen, and Daniel Haas met with Lynn Hartmann and Terry Knight. White Mesa Ute Band July 2011─Letter from BLM State Office giving notice of the PEIS and inviting to become a cooperating agency. Jan. 25, 2012─Letter from the Utah State Office transmitting the Draft PEIS and inviting consultation and participation. Letter also described public open house meetings that would be held in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming. 
Final OSTS PEIS L-17 

L.3 SECTION 106 CONSULTATION 

 This section presents the interactions that occurred as part of the NHPA Section 106 

review for the PEIS. A brief overview of the consultation process with State Historic 

Preservation Officers (SHPOs), the Advisory Council of Historic Preservation (ACHP), and 

interested parties is provided below. 

L.3.1 State Historic Preservation Officers 

 In September 2011, the BLM distributed a letter to the Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming 

SHPOs, notifying them of BLM’s intention to take a fresh look at land use allocation decisions 

made in 2008 regarding the management of oil shale and tar sands resources. The letter invited 

SHPOs to participate on issues related to Section 106 of the NHPA and included maps of the 

development area as well as a list of interested parties who received a copy of the letter. 

 The Colorado SHPO responded to this letter on October 31, 2011. The Colorado SHPO 

indicated he was unsure of the request as presented in the September 22, 2011, letter. He 

expressed that he would like to see a historic context study completed and inquired as to the 

status of the new Programmatic Agreement. The Colorado SHPO requested a conference call or 

meeting to further discuss the project. The BLM met with the Colorado SHPO on April 11, 2012. 

 In January and February 2012, the BLM distributed the Draft PEIS, as well as a 

notification letter inviting the SHPOs to submit comments and concerns. The letter outlined the 

comment period deadline, provided instructions on how to comment, and provided information 

on upcoming public meetings. 

 The Utah SHPO responded by letter on February 23, 2012 indicating that her letter 

“served as comment on the determinations made within the consultation process.” 

 In April 2012, the BLM followed up with the Colorado and Wyoming SHPOs in order to 

determine if either office had any comments or concerns related to the Draft PEIS. The 

Wyoming office indicated it was concerned about the language used to describe eligibility of 

trails to the National Register. The BLM met with the Colorado SHPO on April 11, 2012, to 

further discuss the OSTS project. A presentation covering the different alternatives, PEIS 

schedule, and dates of public open house meetings was given. The Colorado SHPO sent a letter 

in May recommending that cultural resource surveys be completed for individual site-specific 

development plans. 

 In August and September 2012, the BLM sent letters to the Colorado, Wyoming, and 

Utah SHPOs notifying them of BLM’s determination of “no historic properties affected.” The 

letter provided a summary of the undertaking as well as a summary of Section 106, tribal, and 

public consultation efforts. The letter also asked for SHPO concurrence with BLM’s decision. 

As of this writing, the Wyoming and Colorado SHPOs have concurred with BLM’s findings. 
Final OSTS PEIS L-18 

TABLE L-3 Index of Consultation with State Historic Preservation Officers 

Date 

Originating 

Organization/Agency Recipient Organization/Agency Page No. 

 

Colorado, Utah, 

and Wyoming 

SHPOs

 

September 2011 BLM Edward Nichols, Colorado SHPO 

Lori Hunsaker, Utah SHPO 

Mary Hopkins, Wyoming SHPO 

L-58 

 

January and 

February 2012 

BLM Edward Nichols, Colorado SHPO 

Lori Hunsaker, Utah SHPO 

Mary Hopkins, Wyoming SHPO 

L-61 

 

Colorado SHPO 

October 31, 2011 Edward Nichols Dan Haas, BLM L-64 

May 4, 2012 Edward Nichols BLM L-65 

Sept. 7, 2012 Helen Hankins, BLM Edward Nichols L-67 

Sept. 26, 2012 Edward Nichols Helen Hankins L-73 

 

Utah SHPO 

Feb. 23, 2012 Lori Hunsaker BLM L-75 

Sept. 10, 2012 Juan Palma, BLM Martin Wilson L-76 

 

Wyoming SHPO 

Aug. 30, 2012 Donald Simpson, BLM Mary Hopkins L-80 

Sept. 21, 2012 Richard Currit Donald Simpson, BLM L-85 

 A summary of SHPO consultation is provided in Tables L-3 and L-4. Copies of 

correspondence can be viewed in Attachment 2. 
TABLE L-4 Summary of Consultation with State Historic Preservation Officers Organization BLM Contact Organization 

Colorado State Historic Preservation Office Sept. 22, 2011

─Letter from BLM State Office giving 

notice of the PEIS and inviting to consult on Section 106-related issues. February 02, 2012

─Packet from the BLM containing 

notification letter and the Draft PEIS. March 20, 2012

─E-mail from the BLM requesting a 

meeting with the SHPO, asking for comments on the Draft PEIS, informing the SHPO of consultation with other parties. Consultation summary was attached. April. 11, 2012

─The BLM met with the Colorado 

SHPO. A presentation was given on the OSTS project. September 7, 2012

─Letter from the BLM notifying 

the SHPO of BLM’s determination of “no historic 

properties affected.” The letter summarized consultation efforts and asked for SHPO concurrence with BLM’s determination. 

October 31, 2011—Letter tresponse to Sept. 2011 lettehe is unsure of the request aSeptember 22, 2011 letter. historic context study woularchaeological data in a mesynthesis and would providguide in future consultationinquired as to if the commewere incorporated into the Agreement (PA) and inquirnew PA. The SHPO requesmeeting. May 4, 2012

─Letter thanki

meeting on April 11, 2012. SHPO expects consultation occur and recommends thasurvey be completed for inddevelopment plans. September 26, 2012

─Lette

notifying the BLM that the with BLM’s findings. 
TABLE L-4 (Cont.) Organization BLM Contact Organization 

Utah State Historic Preservation Office Sept. 29, 2011─Letter from BLM State Office giving notice of the PEIS and inviting to consult on Section-106-related issues. Jan. 25, 2012─Packet from the BLM containing notification letter and Draft PEIS. September 10, 2012─Letter from the BLM notifying the SHPO of BLM’s determination of “no historic properties affected.” The letter summarized consultation efforts and asked for SHPO concurrence with BLM’s determination. Feb. 23, 2012─Letter ackn

of the Draft PEIS. Wyoming State Historic Preservation Office Sept. 27, 2011─Letter from BLM State Office giving notice of the PEIS and inviting to consult on Section 106-related issues. 

Jan. 20, 2012─Packet from BLM containing notification letter and Draft PEIS. March 7, 2012─E-mail from Ranel Capron inquiring if there are any comments/concerns on Draft PEIS. August 30, 2012─Letter from the BLM notifying the 

SHPO of BLM’s determination of “no historic properties affected.” The letter summarized consultation efforts and asked for SHPO concurrence with BLM’s determination. 

March 8, 2012─E-mail from Archaeologist, expressing clanguage used to describe tGovernor’s office is supporAlternative. September 21, 2012—Lettenotifying the BLM that the with the BLM’s findings. 
Final OSTS PEIS L-21 

L.3.2 Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 

 On March 30, 2012, the BLM sent a letter to the ACHP describing its intention to take a 

fresh look at land use allocation decisions made in 2008 regarding the management of oil shale 

and tar sands resources. The letter provided a background description of the 2008 project, a 

description of the planning area and current action, and informed the ACHP of the BLM’s most 

recent actions to meet its responsibilities under Section 106. The letter also invited the ACHP to 

participate in consultation on issues related to Section 106 of the NHPA and included maps of 

the development area. 

 The ACHP responded on July 17, 2012, acknowledging the BLM’s decision. The ACHP 

indicated that it continues to believe the most appropriate course of action would be the 

execution of a Programmatic Agreement. The ACHP indicated that the BLM’s efforts to identify 

historic properties is a proactive step, and the ACHP looks forward to working with the BLM 

when Section 106 consultation is initiated for site-specific projects. 

 A summary of ACHP consultation is provided below in Tables L-5 and L-6. Copies of 

correspondence can be viewed in Attachment 3. 

TABLE L-5 Index of Consultation with the Advisory Council on Historic 

Preservation 

Date 

Originating Organization/

Agency Recipient Organization/Agency Page No. 

 

Advisory Council On Historic Preservation 

March 30, 2012 Michael Nedd, BLM Reid Nelson, ACHP L-87 

July 17, 2012 Reid Nelson, ACHP Michael Nedd, BLM L-94 
Final OSTS PEIS L-22 

TABLE L-6 Summary of Consultation with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 

Organization BLM Contact Organization Response 

 

Advisory Council on 

Historic Preservation 

March 30, 2012— Mike Nedd, BLM, sent a 

letter to the ACHP describing the BLM’s 

intention to take a fresh look at land use 

allocation decisions made in 2008 regarding 

the management of oil shale and tar sands 

resources. The letter provided a background 

description of the 2008 project and a 

description of the current action and 

planning area. The letter informed the ACHP 

that the BLM sees its Section 106 

responsibilities proceeding in accordance 

with three stages of the decision-making 

process regarding the potential leasing and 

development of oil shale and tar sands 

resources which include: (1) land use 

amendment process to determine lands 

available to OSTS development, (2) BLM’s 

consideration of lease applications, and 

(3) BLM’s consideration of site-specific 

plans of development for leased areas. The 

letter also informed the ACHP that the BLM 

had initiated tribal consultation and updated 

the Class I Cultural Resources Overview. 

The BLM had not identified any effects to 

historic properties as a result of the 

undertaking; however, they indicated that 

consultation was not complete and that they 

would make a determination of effects after 

reviewing all available information. The 

letter invited the ACHP to participate in 

consultation on issues related to Section 106 

of the NHPA and included maps of the 

development area. 

July 17, 2012—Letter in response to the 

March 2012 letter. The ACHP states that 

it continues to believe the most 

appropriate course of action would be to 

execute a Programmatic Agreement that 

would cover BLM’s decisions from the 

upcoming decision through the 

consideration of site-specific plans. The 

ACHP acknowledges BLM’s decision 

that no historic properties will be 

affected. The ACHP understands that the 

BLM has conducted identification efforts 

to identify historic properties and that 

these efforts will inform the decision to 

possibly limit lands available for leasing. 

The ACHP looks forward to working 

with the BLM when Section 106 is 

initiated for individual lease applications 

and site-specific plans. 

 
Final OSTS PEIS L-23 

L.3.3 Interested Parties 

 On October 1, 2011, the BLM distributed a letter to 28 interested parties notifying them 

of the BLM’s intention to take a fresh look at land use allocation decisions made in 2008 

regarding the management of oil shale and tar sands resources. The letter included maps of the 

development area and invited them to participate on issues related to Section 106 of the NHPA. 

 Six organizations accepted the invitation to consult: Alliance for Historic Wyoming 

(AHW); Biodiversity Conservation Alliance; Colorado Plateau Archaeological Society; 

Dominquez Archaeological Research Group, Inc.; National Historic Trails, Intermountain 

Region, Salt Lake City Field Office; and the Old Spanish Trail Association, Grand Junction 

Local Chapter. 

 On January 20, 2012, the BLM distributed a packet containing the Draft PEIS and a 

notification letter to the six interested parties who accepted the invitation to consult. The letter 

invited the parties to submit comments and concerns on the Draft PEIS, outlined the comment 

period deadline, provided instructions on how to comment, and provided information on 

upcoming public meetings. 

 In April 2012, the AHW submitted comments on the Draft PEIS via letter. The AHW 

expressed concern regarding the effect of the project on water resources, historic trails, cultural 

sites, rock art, archaeological sites, and the small-town tourism. 

 The BLM followed up by phone with the additional five interested parties in February, 

March, and April 2012. The remaining parties had no comments or concerns at this time and 

consultation efforts are ongoing. 

 A summary of interested party consultation is provided below in Tables L-7 and L-8. 

Copies of correspondence can be viewed in Attachment 4. 

 
Final OSTS PEIS L-24 

TABLE L-7 Index of Consultation with Interested Parties 

Date 

Originating Organization/

Agency Recipient Organization/Agency Page No. 

 

Multiple Interested 

Parties

 

Oct. 1, 2011 BLM See distribution list L-102 

Jan. 20, 2012 BLM See distribution list L-105 

 

Alliance for Historic 

Wyoming

 

Oct. 19, 2011 Hilery Lindmeir Sherri Thompson, BLM L-106 

April 24, 2012 Lesley Wischmann BLM L-107 

 

Biodiversity 

Conservation Alliance

 

Oct. 6, 2011 Erik Molvar Sherri Thompson, BLM L-112 

 

Colorado Plateau 

Archaeological Alliance

 

Nov. 3, 2011 Jerry Spangler Sherri Thompson, BLM L-113 

 

NPS-National Historic 

Trails-Intermountain 

Region, Salt Lake City 

Office

 

Nov. 2, 2011 Lee Kreutzer Sherri Thompson, BLM L-114 

 

Old Spanish Trails 

Association-Grand 

Junction, Local Chapter

 

Oct. 11, 2011 Vicki Felmile BLM L-115 
TABLE L-8 Summary of Consultation with Interested Parties Organization BLM Contact Organization R

Alliance for Historic Wyoming-Casper Office Oct. 2011

─Letter from BLM State Office giving notice 

of the PEIS and inviting to consult on Section 106-related issues. Oct. 20, 2011

─E-mail from Sherri Thompson with 

Wyoming Map. Sherri indicated she will resend hard copies. Jan. 20, 2012

─Packet from the BLM containing 

notification letter and Draft PEIS. Feb. 29, 2012

─Sherri left message for Hilery 

Lindmeir. 

Oct. 19, 2011

─E-mail from H

indicating the Alliance for Hisis considering interested party new copy of the Wyoming maFeb. 29, 2012

─Hilery Lindme

Thompson’s phone call. She iDraft PEIS package and Lesleputting together comments. 

Alliance for Historic Wyoming-Laramie Office 

Oct. 2011

─Letter from the BLM State Office giving 

notice of the PEIS and inviting to consult on Section 106-related issues. Jan. 20, 2012

─Packet from the BLM containing 

notification letter and Draft PEIS. March 5, 2012

─Sherri Thompson left voicemail for 

Lesley Wischmann. 

March 6, 2012

─Lesley Wisch

Thompson’s phone call. Lesleto review the document. She aSection 106 process work from perspective. She indicated her about the “fraying of the trailsthorough landscape analysis, eTrails; particularly, the OverlaThe AHW believes the socioesections need to address Heritalong I-80. AHW will seek cofor cumulative effects under SApril 24, 2012

─Lesley Wisch

comments to the Draft PEIS. AHW would like to be considat every stage. They encourageffective” outreach to affected possible. Major concerns inclu
TABLE L-8 (Cont.) Organization BLM Contact Organization R

Alliance for Historic Wyoming-Laramie Office (Cont.) will affect water resources; th

trails, cultural sites, rock art, aand the effect of development The AHW believes that the BLof evaluating Wyoming’s Lanis inadequate when dealing wiletter requests off-site compencumulative effects through the 

Biodiversity Conservation Alliance Oct. 2011─Letter from BLM State Office giving notice of the PEIS and inviting to consult on Section 106-related issues. Jan. 20, 2012─Packet from the BLM containing notification letter and Draft PEIS. 

Feb. 29, 2012─Sherri called Erik Molvar and spoke with his receptionist. March 5, 2012─Sherri spoke with Erik Molvar. 

Oct. 6, 2011─Phone call to KaMolvar. Erik stated that the BAlliance would be interested iFeb. 29, 2012─The receptionireceived the Draft PEIS packaoffice and he gave Sherri ErikMarch 5, 2012─Erik Molvar rbut did not recall getting a lettreviewed the document and wquestions or comments. 

Center for Biological Diversity Oct. 2011─Letter from BLM State Office giving notice 

of the PEIS and inviting to consult on Section 106-related issues. 

Colorado Environmental Coalition Oct. 2011─Letter from BLM State Office giving notice 

of the PEIS and inviting to consult on Section 106-related issues. 
TABLE L-8 (Cont.) Organization BLM Contact Organization R

Colorado Plateau Archaeological Alliance Oct. 2011─Letter from BLM State Office giving notice of the PEIS and inviting to consult on Section 106-related issues. Jan. 25, 2012─Packet from the BLM containing notification letter and Draft PEIS. Feb. 29, 2012 ─Sherri Thompson left voicemail for Jerry Spangler. March 5, 2012─Sherri Thompson called Jerry Spangler to follow up on the Draft PEIS. Sherri sent public meeting information via e-mail. Nov. 3, 2011─E-mail to Sherr

John Spangler accepting the inconsulting party. March 5, 2012─Jerry received PEIS. He looked at it briefly agood, but wanted to review thdetail. Jerry asked for informadates. 

Defenders of Wildlife-National Headquarters 

Oct. 2011─Letter from BLM State Office giving notice of the PEIS and inviting to consult on Section 106-related issues. 

Dominguez Archaeological Research Group Inc. 

Feb. 02, 2012─Packet from the BLM containing notification letter and the Draft PEIS. Feb. 29, 2011─Sherri Thompson called Carl Conner to follow-up on the Draft PEIS. 

Feb. 29, 2011─Carl Conner re

He did not have any questions He complimented the way the together and appreciated the uinformation. 

National Trust for Historic Preservation Oct. 2011─Letter from BLM State Office giving notice 

of the PEIS and inviting to consult on Section 106-related issues. 

National Trust for Historic PreservationMountains/Plains Office Oct. 2011─Letter from BLM State Office giving notice of the PEIS and inviting to consult on 

Section 106-related issues. 
TABLE L-8 (Cont.) Organization BLM Contact Organization R

National Wildlife Federation-Rocky Mountain Natural Resource Center Oct. 2011─Letter from BLM State Office giving notice of the PEIS and inviting to consult on Section 106-related issues. Natural Resources Defense Council- Headquarters Oct. 2011─Letter from BLM State Office giving notice of the PEIS and inviting to consult on Section 106-related issues. Nine Mile Canyon Coalition Oct. 2011─Letter from BLM State Office giving notice of the PEIS and inviting to consult on Section 106-related issues. NPS - National Historic Trails - Intermountain Region, Santé Fe Field Office Oct. 2011─Letter from BLM State Office giving notice of the PEIS and inviting to consult on Section 106-related issues. 

NPS -National Historic Trails - Intermountain Region, Salt Lake City Field Office 

Oct. 2011─Letter from BLM State Office giving notice 

of the PEIS and inviting to consult on Section 106-related issues. Jan. 20, 2012─Packet from the BLM containing notification letter and Draft PEIS. Feb. 29, 2012─Sherri Thompson left a voicemail for Lee Kreutzer. 

Nov. 2, 2011─Phone call from 

Sherri Thompson. Lee indicatconsultation. March 2, 2012─Lee Kreutzer Thompson’s phone call. She rDraft PEIS but did not have a planned on attending a public City. 

Old Spanish Trail Association Oct. 2011─Letter from BLM State Office giving notice 

of the PEIS and inviting to consult on Section 106-related issues. 

Old Spanish Trail Association, Grand Junction Local Chapter 

Oct. 2011─Letter from BLM State Office giving notice of the PEIS and inviting to consult on Section 106-related issues. 

Oct. 11, 2011─Phone call from Sherri Thompson. Vicki woulinvitation to consult. 
TABLE L-8 (Cont.) Organization BLM Contact Organization R

Old Spanish Trail Association, Grand Junction Local Chapter (Cont.) Feb. 29, 2012─Sherri Thompson called Vicki Felmile in regard to Draft PEIS. Feb. 29, 2012─Vicki Felmile 

no concerns at this time. Oregon-California Trails Association, Missouri Chapter Oct. 2011─Letter from BLM State Office giving notice of the PEIS and inviting to consult on Section 106-related issues. Oregon-California Trails Association, Wyoming Chapter Oct. 2011─Letter from BLM State Office giving notice of the PEIS and inviting to consult on Section 106-related issues. Red Rock Forests Oct. 2011─Letter from BLM State Office giving notice of the PEIS and inviting to consult on Section 106-related issues.. 

Sierra Club- Rocky Mountain Natural Resource Center 

Oct. 2011─Letter from BLM State Office giving notice 

of the PEIS and inviting to consult on Section 106-related issues. 

Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance Oct. 2011─Letter from BLM State Office giving notice 

of the PEIS and inviting to consult on Section 106-related issues. 

The Nature Conservancy, Worldwide Office 

Oct. 2011─Letter from BLM State Office giving notice of the PEIS and inviting to consult on Section 106-related issues. 

The Nature Conservancy, Moab Project Office 

Oct. 2011─Letter from BLM State Office giving notice of the PEIS and inviting to consult on Section 106-related issues. 
TABLE L-8 (Cont.) Organization BLM Contact Organization R

The Wilderness Society Oct. 2011─Letter from ffice BLM State Office giving notice of the PEIS and inviting to consult on Section 106-related issues. Utah Professional Archaeological Council Oct. 2011─Letter from BLM State Office giving notice of the PEIS and inviting to consult on Section 106-related issues. Utah Rock Art Research Association Oct. 2011─Letter from BLM State Office giving notice of the PEIS and inviting to consult on Section 106-related issues. Western Colorado Congress Oct. 2011─Letter from BLM State Office giving notice of the PEIS and inviting to consult on Section 106-related issues. 

Western Resource Advocates Oct. 2011─Letter from BLM State Office giving notice 

of the PEIS and inviting to consult on Section 106-related issues. 

Wilderness Workshop Oct. 2011─Letter from BLM state officeBLM State 

Office giving notice of the PEIS and inviting to consult on Section 106-related issues. 
Final OSTS PEIS L-31 

L.4 REFERENCES 

BLM (Bureau of Land Management), 2004a, Manual 8120, Tribal Consultation under Cultural 

Resources, Release 8-74, 45, U.S. Department of the Interior. 

BLM, 2004b, Handbook H-8120-1, General Procedural Guidance for Native American 

Consultation, Release 8-75, U.S. Department of the Interior. 

BLM 2012, Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement and Possible Land Use Plan 

Amendments for Allocation of Oil Shale and Tar Sands Resources on Lands Administered by the 

Bureau of Land Management in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming, Vols. 1–4, DES 12-01, Jan. 

 
Final OSTS PEIS L-32 

This page intentionally left blank. 

 
Final OSTS PEIS L-33 

ATTACHMENT 1: 

TRIBAL CORRESPONDENCE 
Final OSTS PEIS L-34 

(a) All Tribes 

 
Final OSTS PEIS L-35 
Organization First Last Title Address City ST Zip 

Hopi Tribal Council LeRoy N. Shingoitewa Chairman P.O. Box 123 Kykotsmovi AZ 86039 One Main SKaibab Paiute Tribal Council Manuel Savala Chairperson HC 65, Box 2 Fredonia AZ 86022 250 N Pipe Navajo Nation Ben Shelly President P.O Box 7440 Window Rock AZ 86515 Office of th

Hill Drive, 

Navajo Nation, Dennehotso Chapter Chester Begay President P.O. Box 301 Dennehotso AZ 86535 Navajo Nation, Mexican Water Chapter Jerry Tsosie President HC 61 Box 38 Teecnospos AZ 86514 Navajo Nation, Navajo Mountain Chapter Alex Bitsinnie President P.O. Box 10264 Tonalea AZ 86044 Navajo Nation, Teec Nos Pos Chapter Roy Kady President P.O. Box 209 Teec Nos Pos AZ 86514 Navajo Nation, Historic Preservation Dept. P.O. Box 570 Window Rock AZ 86515 Southern Ute Tribe Jimmy R. Newton, Jr. Chairman P.O. Box 737 Ignacio CO 81137 356 Ouray Ute Mountain Ute Tribe Gary Hayse Chairman P.O. Box 248 Towaoc CO 81334-0248 125 Mike W

Towaoc, C

Shoshone-Bannock Tribes Alonzo A. Coby Chairman P.O. Box 306 Fort Hall ID 83203-0306 1 Pima DrivPueblo of Laguna John E. Antonio, Sr. Governor P.O. Box 194 Laguna NM 87026 101 CapitoPueblo of Nambe Ernest Mirabal Governor Route 1, Box 117-BB Santa Fe NM 87501 15-A NP 10Pueblo of Santa Clara Walter Dasheno Governor P.O. Box 580 Espanola NM 87532 1 Tea StreePueblo of Zia Marcellus Medina Governor 135 Capitol Square 

Drive 

Zia Pueblo NM 87053-6013 135 Capito

NM 87053-

Navajo Nation, Aneth Chapter 

John Billie President P.O. Box 430 Montezuma 

Creek 

UT 84534 

Navajo Nation, Oljato Chapter

James Black President P.O. Box 360455 Monument 

Valley 

UT 84531 

Navajo Nation, Red Mesa Chapter 

Herman Farley President P.O. Box 422 Montezuma 

Creek 

UT 84534 

Navajo Utah Commission Clarence Rockwell Executive 

Director 

P.O. Box 570 Montezuma 

Creek 

UT 84534 ANETH AD

Utah 84510 

Northwestern Band of Shoshone Nation

Gwen Davis Chairman 707 N. Main St Brigham City UT 84302 

Paiute Indian Tribe of Utah Tribal Council 

Jeanine Borchardt Chairperson 440 N. Paiute Drive Cedar City UT 84720-2613 

Ute Indian Tribe Richard Jenks Chairperson P.O. Box 190 Ft. Duchesne UT 84026 899 South 7

UT 84026 

Northern Arapaho Business Council 

Jim Shakespeare Chairman P.O. Box 396 Fort 

Washakie 

WY 82514 533 Ethete 

Eastern Shoshone Business Council 

Mike Lajeunesse Chairman P.O. Box 217 Fort 

Washakie 

WY 82514 14 Norfork 

WY 82514 

White Mesa Ute Band Leona Eyetoo Councilwoman P.O. Box 7096 White Mesa UT 84511 14 Willow 
Final OSTS PEIS L-37 
Final OSTS PEIS L-38 
Final OSTS PEIS L-39 
Final OSTS PEIS L-40 
Final OSTS PEIS L-41 
Final OSTS PEIS L-42 

 
Final OSTS PEIS L-43 

Also sent to: 

 
Final OSTS PEIS L-44 

. 

 
Final OSTS PEIS L-45 

 
Final OSTS PEIS L-46 

Also sent to: 

 
Final OSTS PEIS L-47 

(b) Eastern Shoshone Tribe of the Wind River Reservation 
Final OSTS PEIS L-48 

 
Final OSTS PEIS L-49 

(c) Hopi 

 
Final OSTS PEIS L-50 

(d) Navajo Nation─Navajo Mountain Chapter 

 
Final OSTS PEIS L-51 

(e) Paiute Indian Tribe of Utah (PITU) 

 
Final OSTS PEIS L-52 

(f) Pueblo of Santa Clara 

 
Final OSTS PEIS L-53 

(g) Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah and Ouray Reservation 
Final OSTS PEIS L-54 

This letter also sent to: 

 
Final OSTS PEIS L-55 

(h) Ute Mountain Ute Tribe 

 
Final OSTS PEIS L-56 

 
Final OSTS PEIS L-57 

ATTACHMENT 2: 

STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE CORRESPONDENCE 

 
Final OSTS PEIS L-58 

(a) Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming State Historic Preservation Offices 

 
Final OSTS PEIS L-59 

Appropriate project maps were sent to each SHPO. 

 
Final OSTS PEIS L-60 

 
Final OSTS PEIS L-61 

September 2011, Initial Notification Letter – SHPO Distribution List 

Name Contact Address1 City St Zip 

Utah SHPO Lori Hunsaker 300 S. Rio Grande Street Salt Lake City UT 84101 

Colorado SHPO Edward Nichols 1200 Broadway Denver CO 80203 

Wyoming SHPO Mary Hopkins 2301 Central Avenue Cheyenne WY 82002 
Final OSTS PEIS L-62 

 
Final OSTS PEIS L-63 

September 2011, Initial Notification Letter – SHPO Distribution List 

Name Contact Address1 City St Zip 

Utah SHPO Lori Hunsaker 300 S. Rio Grande Street Salt Lake City UT 84101 

Colorado SHPO Edward Nichols 1200 Broadway Denver CO 80203 

Wyoming SHPO Mary Hopkins 2301 Central Avenue Cheyenne WY 82002 
Final OSTS PEIS L-64 

(b) Colorado State Historic Preservation Office 
Final OSTS PEIS L-65 
Final OSTS PEIS L-66 

 
Final OSTS PEIS L-67 

 
Final OSTS PEIS L-68 

 
Final OSTS PEIS L-69 

 
Final OSTS PEIS L-70 

 
Final OSTS PEIS L-71 

 
Final OSTS PEIS L-72 
Final OSTS PEIS L-73 

 
Final OSTS PEIS L-74 

(c) Utah State Historic Preservation Office 

 
Final OSTS PEIS L-75 

 
Final OSTS PEIS L-76 

 
Final OSTS PEIS L-77 

 
Final OSTS PEIS L-78 

 
Final OSTS PEIS L-79 

(d) Wyoming State Historic Preservation Office 

 
Final OSTS PEIS L-80 

 
Final OSTS PEIS L-81 

 
Final OSTS PEIS L-82 

 
Final OSTS PEIS L-83 

 
Final OSTS PEIS L-84 
Final OSTS PEIS L-85 

ATTACHMENT 3: 

ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISTORIC PRESERVATION CORRESPONDENCE 

 
Final OSTS PEIS L-86 
Final OSTS PEIS L-87 

 
Final OSTS PEIS L-88 

 
Final OSTS PEIS L-89 

 
Final OSTS PEIS L-90 

 
Final OSTS PEIS L-91 

 
Final OSTS PEIS L-92 

 
Final OSTS PEIS L-93 

 
Final OSTS PEIS L-94 

This page intentionally left blank. 

 
Final OSTS PEIS L-95 

ATTACHMENT 4: 

INTERESTED PARTIES CORRESPONDENCE 

 
Final OSTS PEIS L-96 

(a) Multiple Interested Parties 

 
Final OSTS PEIS L-97 
Final OSTS PEIS L-98 

 
Final OSTS PEIS L-99 

 
Final OSTS PEIS L-100 

 
Final OSTS PEIS L-101 
October 2011, Initial Notification Letter – Interested Parties Distribution List Name1 Address1 Address2 City St Zip 

Alliance for Historic Wyoming PO BOX 51201 Casper WY 82605 Alliance for Historic Wyoming 712 S Second Street Laramie WY 82070 Lesley WiBiodiversity Conservation Alliance PO BOX 1512 Laramie WY 82073 Erik MolvCenter for Biological Diversity 1095 Market Street, Suite 511 San Francisco CA 94103 Melissa G Colorado Environmental Coalition 1536 Wynkoop Street #5C Denver CO 80202 Elise JoneColorado Plateau Archaeological Alliance 2529 S Jackson Avenue Ogden UT 84401 Jerry D SpDefenders of Wildlife 1130 17th Street, NW Washington DC 20036 Rodger ScNational Trust for Historic Preservation 1785 Massachusetts Avenue NW Washington DC 20036-2117 Stepahnie National Trust for Historic Preservation 535 16th Street, Suite 750 Denver CO 80202 Barbara PNational Wildlife Federation 2260 Baseline Road, Suite 100 Boulder CO 80305 Kathleen C Natural Resources Defense Council 40 West 20th Street New York NY 10011 Amy Mall Nine Mile Canyon Coalition PO BOX 402 Price UT 84501 Pam MilleNPS - National Historic Trails - Intermountain Region 100 Old Spanish Trail Santa Fe NM 87504 Aaron MaNPS -National Historic Trails - Intermountain Region 324 S State Street, Suite 200 Salt Lake City UT 84111 Lee KreutOld Spanish Trail Association 178 Glory View Drive Grand Junction CO 81503 Vicki FelmOld Spanish Trail Association PO BOX 909 Las Vegas NV 87701 Dennis DiOregon-California Trails Association PO BOX 1019 Independence MO 64051-0519 John Mark Oregon-California Trails Association 112 W Second Street Casper WY 82601 Tom Rea, Red Rock Forests 90 W Center Street Moab UT 84532 Terry SheSierra Club 2725 Black Canyon Road Colorado Springs CO 80904 Kirby B HSouthern Utah Wilderness Alliance 425 E 100 S Salt Lake City UT 84111 David GarThe Nature Conservancy 4245 S Fairfax Drive, Suite 100 Arlington VA 22203 Mark TercThe Nature Conservancy PO BOX 1329 Moab UT 84532 Joel Tuhy The Wilderness Society 1615 M Street, NW Washington DC 20036 Chase HuUtah Professional Archaeological Council Department of Anthropology 

800 SWKT 

Provo UT 84602 James R A

Utah Rock Art Research Association PO BOX 511324 Salt Lake City UT 84151-1324 Troy ScotWestern Colorado Congress 124 N 6th Street PO BOX 1931 Grand Junction CO 81502 Heather TWestern Resource Advocates 22200 Baseline Road Boulder CO 80302 Mike ChirWilderness Workshop PO BOX 1442 Carbondale CO 81623 Peter Hart 
Final OSTS PEIS L-103 
Final OSTS PEIS L-104 

 
Final OSTS PEIS L-105 

January 2012, Draft PEIS - Distribution List Interested Parties 

Name Contact Address1 City St Zip 

Alliance for Historic 

Wyoming 

Lesley Wischmann 

and Hilery Lindmier 

712 S Second Street Laramie WY 82070 

Biodiversity Conservation 

Alliance 

Erik Molvar, 

Executive Director 

P.O. Box 1512 Laramie WY 82073 

Colorado Plateau 

Archaeological Alliance 

Jerry D Spangler 2529 S Jackson Avenue Ogden UT 84401 

Dominguez Archaeological 

Research Group Inc. 

Carl Conner P.O. Box 3543 Grand Junction CO 81502 

NPS -National Historic Trails 

- Intermountain Region, Salt 

Lake City Field Office 

Lee Kreutzer 324 S State Street, Suite 

200 

Salt Lake City UT 84111 

Old Spanish Trail Association, 

Grand Junction Local Chapter 

Vicki Felmile 178 Glory View Drive Grand Junction CO 81503 

 
Final OSTS PEIS L-106 

(b) Alliance for Historic Wyoming 

 
Final OSTS PEIS L-107 
Final OSTS PEIS L-108 
Final OSTS PEIS L-109 
Final OSTS PEIS L-110 
Final OSTS PEIS L-111 

 
Final OSTS PEIS L-112 

(c) Biodiversity Conservation Alliance 

 
Final OSTS PEIS L-113 

(d) Colorado Plateau Archaeological Alliance 

 
Final OSTS PEIS L-114 

(e) NPS-National Historic Trails-Intermountain Region, Salt Lake City Office 

 
Final OSTS PEIS L-115 

(f) Old Spanish Trails Association-Grand Junction Local Chapter 

 
Final OSTS PEIS L-116 

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

APPENDIX M: 

COOPERATING AGENCY AND 

U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY LETTERS 

 
Final OSTS PEIS M-2 

This page intentionally left blank. 

 
Final OSTS PEIS M-3 

APPENDIX M: 

COOPERATING AGENCY AND 

U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY LETTERS 

M.1 COOPERATING AGENCY LETTERS 

 Several of the cooperating agencies, notably the States of Utah and Wyoming, and Uintah 

County, Utah, submitted comments on the Draft 2012 Oil Shale and Tar Sands (OSTS) 

Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS), wherein they asserted that the Preferred 

Alternative presented in the 2012 Draft OSTS PEIS is inconsistent with their officially approved 

or adopted resource-related plans, policies, or programs. 

 Specifically, the State of Wyoming has stated that the Preferred Alternative in the Draft 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Plan is inconsistent with the Governor’s Executive 

Order 2011-5, which does not preclude mineral development in core population areas for sagegrouse; rather, it establishes conditions designed to maintain and enhance greater sage-grouse 

habitat. The BLM has modified the Preferred Alternative’s approach from the Draft PEIS in the 

Final PEIS/Proposed Plan to maintain consistency with Wyoming’s Greater Sage-grouse Core 

Area Protection Strategy. This is also more consistent with how the BLM is managing sagegrouse habitat for other resources in Wyoming. 

 The State of Wyoming has also indicated that the 2012 Draft OSTS PEIS is inconsistent 

with the Wyoming Environmental Quality Council’s April 10, 2008, Very Rare and Uncommon 

Designation for the Adobe Town Area. The Council’s designation allows for in situ or 

underground mining to take place in this area, and only closes the area to surface mining for oil 

shale resources, while the Preferred Alternative in the Draft PEIS excludes the entire area from 

leasing and development. The BLM has determined that because we are in the embryonic stages 

of achieving economic oil shale production in the United States on public lands, at this time, it is 

important to continue to manage the Adobe Town area conservatively with regard to oil shale 

leasing and development, and thus the exclusions set out for the Adobe Town area in the Draft 

PEIS will continue under the Final PEIS/Proposed Plan Amendment. 

 For its part, Uintah County has adopted into its General Plan, language that states, 

“Further, additional lands in Uintah County should be approved for full oil shale and/or oil sands 

leasing and development if they either have a minimum resource thickness of 15 feet, or are 

estimated to produce a minimum yield of 15 gallons of oil per ton of ore.” To the extent that the 

County asserts this language is inconsistent with the PEIS, it is important to note that 

Section 369 of the 2005 Energy Policy Act directed the Secretary of the Interior to complete a 

PEIS for a commercial leasing program for oil shale and tar sands resources on public lands, 

with an emphasis on the “most geologically prospective areas” in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming. 

In preparing that PEIS in 2008, the BLM determined that the most geologically prospective areas 

should be identified on the basis of the grade and thickness of the deposits. The Secretary, 

through the BLM, determined the meaning of this phrase in 2008, and has carried it forward into 

this 2012 planning initiative, which is consistent with the Energy Policy Act’s focus on 

appropriate development of these energy resources, for the reasons explained in Section 1.2 of 

the Draft 2012 PEIS. The standards developed by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 
Final OSTS PEIS M-4 

Conservation Division, and subsequently adopted by the BLM, use 15 gal/ton and 15 ft thick as 

the prospectively valuable classification standard for oil shale resources. When the USGS was in 

charge of leasing oil shale resources in the 1970s and early 1980s, the USGS further defined oil 

shale leasing area criteria on a regional basis as 25 gal/ton and 25 feet thick. For both planning 

initiatives, the 2008 PEIS, and this 2012 PEIS, the most geologically prospective resources in 

Colorado and Utah are defined as those deposits that yield 25 gal/ton or more and are 25 ft thick 

or greater. In Wyoming, where the oil shale resource is not of as high a quality as it is in 

Colorado and Utah, the most geologically prospective resources are defined as those deposits 

that yield 15 gal/ton or more and are 15 ft thick or greater. The intent of using these definitions 

for planning purposes is to establish an area inside of which applications for leases can be 

accepted. Industry can make its own determinations on what target it may want to pursue within 

that area. An alternative that would apply the Wyoming criteria to Colorado and Utah was 

considered but eliminated from detailed analysis in the PEIS, as discussed in Section 2.5.2. In 

that discussion, it is reasoned that it would not make economic sense to open larger areas in 

Colorado and Utah to potential oil shale leasing where the resource is of low grade and unlikely 

to be developed at this time, because interest in future leasing would be directed at higher grade 

deposits. It is further noted that, in the future, additional planning and National Environmental 

Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) analysis could be conducted to open areas with lower grade deposits 

if economically warranted. 

 The State of Utah stated that the Draft OSTS PEIS is inconsistent with state law, 

specifically, Utah Code Section 63J-8-103(4), which provides that, “the public lands should not 

be segregated into separate geographical areas for management that resembles the management 

of wilderness, wilderness areas, wildlands, and the like.” 

 The State of Utah and Duchesne and Uintah Counties in Utah, expressed concerns that 

the BLM Proposed Plan is not consistent with the Energy Zones established by the State of Utah 

and Uintah, Duchesne, and Daggett Counties in the 2012 Uintah Basin Energy Zone legislation 

(Utah Code Sections 63J-8-102 and 105.5) containing oil shale and tar sands resources that 

provides for energy development as the priority use within this Zone. 

 Uintah County, Utah, also expressed concerns that the PEIS was inconsistent with the 

County Plan for Managing and Developing Oil Shale and Oil Sands Resources within the 

Borders of Uintah County. 

 To the extent the Final PEIS/Proposed Plan Amendment is inconsistent with state and 

county plans, policies, or programs, the BLM nevertheless believes that because of the nascent 

character of the oil shale and tar sands technologies, a measured approach should be taken to oil 

shale and tar sands resources leasing and development. 

 In addition, several of the cooperating agencies passed County Resolutions objecting to 

this planning process and its proposed outcome. To the extent that the Final PEIS/Proposed Plan 

Amendment is inconsistent with the County Resolutions, the BLM believes it is necessary to 

maintain a focus on research, development and demonstration projects. This will allow the BLM 

to obtain more information about technological and environmental consequences before 

committing to broad-scale development. The cooperating agency comments follow, and the 

responses can be found in the Comment Response Document in Volume 5 of this Final OSTS 

PEIS. 
Final OSTS PEIS M-5 
Final OSTS PEIS M-6 
Final OSTS PEIS M-7 
Final OSTS PEIS M-8 
Final OSTS PEIS M-9 
Final OSTS PEIS M-10 
Final OSTS PEIS M-11 
Final OSTS PEIS M-12 
Final OSTS PEIS M-13 
Final OSTS PEIS M-14 

 
Final OSTS PEIS M-15 
Final OSTS PEIS M-16 
Final OSTS PEIS M-17 
Final OSTS PEIS M-18 
Final OSTS PEIS M-19 
Final OSTS PEIS M-20 
Final OSTS PEIS M-21 
Final OSTS PEIS M-22 
Final OSTS PEIS M-23 
Final OSTS PEIS M-24 
Final OSTS PEIS M-25 
Final OSTS PEIS M-26 
Final OSTS PEIS M-27 
Final OSTS PEIS M-28 
Final OSTS PEIS M-29 
Final OSTS PEIS M-30 
Final OSTS PEIS M-31 
Final OSTS PEIS M-32 
Final OSTS PEIS M-33 
Final OSTS PEIS M-34 
Final OSTS PEIS M-35 
Final OSTS PEIS M-36 
Final OSTS PEIS M-37 
Final OSTS PEIS M-38 
Final OSTS PEIS M-39 
Final OSTS PEIS M-40 
Final OSTS PEIS M-41 
Final OSTS PEIS M-42 
Final OSTS PEIS M-43 
Final OSTS PEIS M-44 
Final OSTS PEIS M-45 
Final OSTS PEIS M-46 
Final OSTS PEIS M-47 
Final OSTS PEIS M-48 
Final OSTS PEIS M-49 
Final OSTS PEIS M-50 
Final OSTS PEIS M-51 
Final OSTS PEIS M-52 
Final OSTS PEIS M-53 
Final OSTS PEIS M-54 
Final OSTS PEIS M-55 
Final OSTS PEIS M-56 
Final OSTS PEIS M-57 
Final OSTS PEIS M-58 
Final OSTS PEIS M-59 
Final OSTS PEIS M-60 
Final OSTS PEIS M-61 
Final OSTS PEIS M-62 
Final OSTS PEIS M-63 
Final OSTS PEIS M-64 
Final OSTS PEIS M-65 
Final OSTS PEIS M-66 
Final OSTS PEIS M-67 
Final OSTS PEIS M-68 
Final OSTS PEIS M-69 
Final OSTS PEIS M-70 
Final OSTS PEIS M-71 
Final OSTS PEIS M-72 
Final OSTS PEIS M-73 
Final OSTS PEIS M-74 
Final OSTS PEIS M-75 
Final OSTS PEIS M-76 
Final OSTS PEIS M-77 
Final OSTS PEIS M-78 
Final OSTS PEIS M-79 
Final OSTS PEIS M-80 
Final OSTS PEIS M-81 
Final OSTS PEIS M-82 
Final OSTS PEIS M-83 
Final OSTS PEIS M-84 
Final OSTS PEIS M-85 
Final OSTS PEIS M-86 
Final OSTS PEIS M-87 
Final OSTS PEIS M-88 
Final OSTS PEIS M-89 
Final OSTS PEIS M-90 
Final OSTS PEIS M-91 
Final OSTS PEIS M-92 
Final OSTS PEIS M-93 
Final OSTS PEIS M-94 
Final OSTS PEIS M-95 
Final OSTS PEIS M-96 
Final OSTS PEIS M-97 
Final OSTS PEIS M-98 
Final OSTS PEIS M-99 
Final OSTS PEIS M-100 
Final OSTS PEIS M-101 
Final OSTS PEIS M-102 
Final OSTS PEIS M-103 
Final OSTS PEIS M-104 
Final OSTS PEIS M-105 
Final OSTS PEIS M-106 
Final OSTS PEIS M-107 
Final OSTS PEIS M-108 
Final OSTS PEIS M-109 
Final OSTS PEIS M-110 
Final OSTS PEIS M-111 
Final OSTS PEIS M-112 
Final OSTS PEIS M-113 
Final OSTS PEIS M-114 
Final OSTS PEIS M-115 
Final OSTS PEIS M-116 
Final OSTS PEIS M-117 
Final OSTS PEIS M-118 
Final OSTS PEIS M-119 
Final OSTS PEIS M-120 
Final OSTS PEIS M-121 
Final OSTS PEIS M-122 
Final OSTS PEIS M-123 
Final OSTS PEIS M-124 
Final OSTS PEIS M-125 
Final OSTS PEIS M-126 
Final OSTS PEIS M-127 
Final OSTS PEIS M-128 
Final OSTS PEIS M-129 
Final OSTS PEIS M-130 
Final OSTS PEIS M-131 
Final OSTS PEIS M-132 
Final OSTS PEIS M-133 
Final OSTS PEIS M-134 
Final OSTS PEIS M-135 
Final OSTS PEIS M-136 
Final OSTS PEIS M-137 
Final OSTS PEIS M-138 
Final OSTS PEIS M-139 
Final OSTS PEIS M-140 
Final OSTS PEIS M-141 
Final OSTS PEIS M-142 
Final OSTS PEIS M-143 
Final OSTS PEIS M-144 
Final OSTS PEIS M-145 
Final OSTS PEIS M-146 
Final OSTS PEIS M-147 
Final OSTS PEIS M-148 
Final OSTS PEIS M-149 
Final OSTS PEIS M-150 
Final OSTS PEIS M-151 
Final OSTS PEIS M-152 
Final OSTS PEIS M-153 
Final OSTS PEIS M-154 
Final OSTS PEIS M-155 
Final OSTS PEIS M-156 
Final OSTS PEIS M-157 
Final OSTS PEIS M-158 
Final OSTS PEIS M-159 
Final OSTS PEIS M-160 
Final OSTS PEIS M-161 
Final OSTS PEIS M-162 
Final OSTS PEIS M-163 
Final OSTS PEIS M-164 
Final OSTS PEIS M-165 
Final OSTS PEIS M-166 
Final OSTS PEIS M-167 
Final OSTS PEIS M-168 
Final OSTS PEIS M-169 
Final OSTS PEIS M-170 
Final OSTS PEIS M-171 
Final OSTS PEIS M-172 
Final OSTS PEIS M-173 
Final OSTS PEIS M-174 
Final OSTS PEIS M-175 
Final OSTS PEIS M-176 
Final OSTS PEIS M-177 
Final OSTS PEIS M-178 
Final OSTS PEIS M-179 
Final OSTS PEIS M-180 
Final OSTS PEIS M-181 
Final OSTS PEIS M-182 
Final OSTS PEIS M-183 
Final OSTS PEIS M-184 
Final OSTS PEIS M-185 
Final OSTS PEIS M-186 
Final OSTS PEIS M-187 
Final OSTS PEIS M-188 
Final OSTS PEIS M-189 
Final OSTS PEIS M-190 
Final OSTS PEIS M-191 
Final OSTS PEIS M-192 
Final OSTS PEIS M-193 
Final OSTS PEIS M-194 
Final OSTS PEIS M-195 
Final OSTS PEIS M-196 
Final OSTS PEIS M-197 
Final OSTS PEIS M-198 
Final OSTS PEIS M-199 
Final OSTS PEIS M-200 
Final OSTS PEIS M-201 
Final OSTS PEIS M-202 
Final OSTS PEIS M-203 
Final OSTS PEIS M-204 
Final OSTS PEIS M-205 
Final OSTS PEIS M-206 
Final OSTS PEIS M-207 
Final OSTS PEIS M-208 
Final OSTS PEIS M-209 
Final OSTS PEIS M-210 
Final OSTS PEIS M-211 
Final OSTS PEIS M-212 
Final OSTS PEIS M-213 
Final OSTS PEIS M-214 
Final OSTS PEIS M-215 
Final OSTS PEIS M-216 
Final OSTS PEIS M-217 
Final OSTS PEIS M-218 
Final OSTS PEIS M-219 
Final OSTS PEIS M-220 
Final OSTS PEIS M-221 
Final OSTS PEIS M-222 
Final OSTS PEIS M-223 
Final OSTS PEIS M-224 
Final OSTS PEIS M-225 
Final OSTS PEIS M-226 
Final OSTS PEIS M-227 
Final OSTS PEIS M-228 
Final OSTS PEIS M-229 
Final OSTS PEIS M-230 
Final OSTS PEIS M-231 
Final OSTS PEIS M-232 
Final OSTS PEIS M-233 
Final OSTS PEIS M-234 
Final OSTS PEIS M-235 
Final OSTS PEIS M-236 
Final OSTS PEIS M-237 
Final OSTS PEIS M-238 
Final OSTS PEIS M-239 
Final OSTS PEIS M-240 
Final OSTS PEIS M-241 
Final OSTS PEIS M-242 
Final OSTS PEIS M-243 
Final OSTS PEIS M-244 
Final OSTS PEIS M-245 
Final OSTS PEIS M-246 
Final OSTS PEIS M-247 
Final OSTS PEIS M-248 
Final OSTS PEIS M-249 
Final OSTS PEIS M-250 
Final OSTS PEIS M-251 
Final OSTS PEIS M-252 
Final OSTS PEIS M-253 
Final OSTS PEIS M-254 
Final OSTS PEIS M-255 
Final OSTS PEIS M-256 
Final OSTS PEIS M-257 
Final OSTS PEIS M-258 
Final OSTS PEIS M-259 
Final OSTS PEIS M-260 
Final OSTS PEIS M-261 
Final OSTS PEIS M-262 
Final OSTS PEIS M-263 
Final OSTS PEIS M-264 
Final OSTS PEIS M-265 
Final OSTS PEIS M-266 
Final OSTS PEIS M-267 
Final OSTS PEIS M-268 
Final OSTS PEIS M-269 
Final OSTS PEIS M-270 
Final OSTS PEIS M-271 
Final OSTS PEIS M-272 
Final OSTS PEIS M-273 
Final OSTS PEIS M-274 
Final OSTS PEIS M-275 
Final OSTS PEIS M-276 
Final OSTS PEIS M-277 
Final OSTS PEIS M-278 
Final OSTS PEIS M-279 

 
Final OSTS PEIS M-280 

 
Final OSTS PEIS M-281 

 
Final OSTS PEIS M-282 

This page intentionally left blank. 

 
Final OSTS PEIS M-283 

M.2 U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY COMMENT LETTER AND 

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT RESPONSE LETTER 

 
Final OSTS PEIS M-284 
Final OSTS PEIS M-285 
Final OSTS PEIS M-286 
Final OSTS PEIS M-287 
Final OSTS PEIS M-288 
Final OSTS PEIS M-289 
Final OSTS PEIS M-290 
Final OSTS PEIS M-291 

 
Final OSTS PEIS M-292 

 
Final OSTS PEIS M-293 

 
Final OSTS PEIS M-294 

 
Final OSTS PEIS M-295 

 
Final OSTS PEIS M-296 

 
Final OSTS PEIS 

COMMENT RESPONSE DOCUMENT

SUMMARY OF PUBLIC COMMENTS AND BLM RESPONSES ON THE DRAFT 

PROGRAMMATIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT AND POSSIBLE 

LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENTS FOR ALLOCATION OF OIL SHALE AND 

TAR SANDS RESOURCES ON LANDS ADMINISTERED BY THE BLM 

IN COLORADO, UTAH, AND WYOMING 

 
Final OSTS PEIS 

This page intentionally left blank. 
Final OSTS PEIS 

 iii 

CONTENTS

NOTATION 

A. Introduction ................................................................................................................... 1 

B. Public Comment Process .............................................................................................. 2 

 B.1 Public Involvement .............................................................................................. 2 

B.2 Public Comment Submittal Metrics ..................................................................... 2 

B.3 Campaign Submittals ........................................................................................... 3 

B.4 Summary of Issues Raised by the Commentors on the Draft OSTS 

 PEIS and the Agencies’ Responses ...................................................................... 7 

 B.4.1 Issue Outline ............................................................................................... 8 

 B.4.2 Issue Summaries and Responses ................................................................ 32 

C. Submission Report ........................................................................................................ 173 

TABLES 

B-1 Commentor Distribution by State .............................................................................. 2 

B-2 Organizations Submitting Campaigns ....................................................................... 3 

B-3 OSTS CRD Commentor Index .................................................................................. 13 

 
Final OSTS PEIS 

 iv 

This page intentionally left blank. 
Final OSTS PEIS 

 v 

NOTATION 

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

measure used in this document. 

GENERAL ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS 

ACEC Area of Critical Environmental Concern 

AQRV air quality–related value 

BLM Bureau of Land Management 

BMP best management practice

CEQ Council on Environmental Quality 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

CHAT Critical Habitat Assessment Tool 

CO2 carbon dioxide 

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

CRD Comment Response Document 

EA environmental assessment 

E.O. Executive Order 

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

ESA Endangered Species Act of 1973 

FLPMA Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 

FR Federal Register 

GAO U.S. Government Accountability Office 

GHG greenhouse gas 

HAP hazardous air pollutant 

KOP key observation point 

LWC lands having wilderness characteristics 

MMTA Mechanically Mineable Trona Area

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

NHPA National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 

NOA Notice of Availability 
Final OSTS PEIS 

 vi 

NOSR Naval Oil Shale Reserves

NSO No Surface Occupancy 

NTSA National Trails System Act 

NTT National Technical Team 

OSEC Oil Shale Exploration Company 

OSTS oil shale and tar sands 

PEIS programmatic environmental impact statement 

PFYC Potential Fossil Yield Classification 

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 

PRLA preference right lease area 

PSD Prevention of Significant Deterioration

RD&D research, development, and demonstration 

RFDS reasonably foreseeable development scenario 

RMP Resource Management Plan

ROD Record of Decision 

ROI region of influence 

ROW right-of-way 

SHPO State Historic Preservation Office(r) 

TDS total dissolved solids 

UDWR Utah Division of Wildlife Resources 

UGS Utah Geological Survey 

USC United States Code 

USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

USGS U.S. Geological Survey 

VOC volatile organic compound 

VRI visual resource inventory 

VRM Visual Resource Management 

WEQC Wyoming Environmental Quality Council 

WGFD Wyoming Game and Fish Department 

WSA Wilderness Study Area 

WSR Wild and Scenic River 

 
Final OSTS PEIS 

 vii 

UNITS OF MEASURE 

bbl barrel(s) 

ft foot (feet) 

gal gallon(s) 

L liter(s) 

m meter(s) 

mg milligram(s) 

mi mile(s) 

MW megawatt(s) 

 
Final OSTS PEIS 

 viii 

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) 
Final OSTS PEIS 1 

A. INTRODUCTION 

 This Comment Response Document (CRD) presents an analysis of public comments on 

the 2012 Draft Plan Amendments and Oil Shale and Tar Sands Programmatic Environmental 

Impact Statement (Draft OSTS PEIS); presents the Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM’s) 

responses to public comments; and identifies changes made in the Final OSTS PEIS in 

accordance with these responses. 

 Section B is the comment analysis and comment response portion of the CRD. 

Section B.1 is a review of the public meetings and comment period on the Draft PEIS, 

Section B.2 presents comment submittal statistics, and Section B.3 presents a summary of the 

concerns raised in campaign letters received. 

 Section B.4 presents the public comment analysis. A summary of issues raised in public 

comments and the BLM’s responses to these issues is presented, including a description of 

changes made in the Final OSTS PEIS. Table B-3 is the Commentor Index. It lists the names 

and/or organizations of commentors, assigns an identification number to each commentor 

submittal, and lists all of the issue numbers assigned to each submittal. Section B.4.1 presents the 

Issue Outline, which is organized by topic and which presents the issue numbers. Section B.4.2 

presents a summary of each numbered issue followed by the BLM’s response to each issue. 

Responses describe the disposition of the issue, including any changes made in the Final OSTS 

PEIS in response to the issue or to individual comments contributing to an issue. 

 Section C is the Submission Report. It presents the identification of individual comments 

within all of the comment submittals. The comment submittals presented are facsimiles of the 

original comment letters or Web site submittals, with individual comments identified in brackets. 

The header of each submittal gives the submittal identification number, which is also presented 

in Table B-3. Delineated comments are numbered sequentially within each submittal. 

 All comment documents received during the public comment period were assigned a 

unique identifying number. Individuals who submitted comment documents via the Web site will 

have received a receipt containing their ID number (OSTS2012D5xxxx). Comment documents 

received by other means have an ID number starting with OSTS. Each ID number is followed by 

a dash and a 1-, 2, or 3-digit number (e.g., 50001-12). This is the comment number. The 

comment numbers associated with each numbered issue are listed after the issue number and title 

in Section B.4.2, where only the five-digit ID number is used (e.g., 50001). The Submission 

Report contains the text of each comment letter/submission. The bracketed numbers in red 

indicate the beginning and end of each comment. The issues associated with a given comment 

directly follow the opening red bracket. 

 
Final OSTS PEIS 2 

B. PUBLIC COMMENT PROCESS 

B.1 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT 

 The BLM filed a Notice of Availability (NOA) for the Draft OSTS PEIS on February 3, 

2012 (77 FR 5833–5835). The NOA announced the start of a 90-day comment period that closed 

on May 4, 2012. 

 The public was provided with three methods for submitting comments on the Draft OSTS 

PEIS: 

• Via the OSTS public Web site, 

• Postal mail, and 

• Via written comment form or other written material submitted at the public 

meeting. 

 Public meetings on the Draft OSTS PEIS were held at four locations in March of 2012: 

Silt, Colorado (March 12), Vernal, Utah (March 13), Salt Lake City, Utah (March 14), and 

Rock Springs, Wyoming (March 15). The public meetings were attended by nearly 290 people 

(Salt Lake City─138; Vernal─44; Rock Springs─30, and Silt─72). Presentation materials 

from the meetings, including slide presentation, are available on the project Web site 

(http://ostseis.anl.gov) 

 All comment documents received during the public comment period were assigned a 

unique identifying number. Individuals who submitted comment documents via the Web site 

will have received a receipt containing their ID number (OSTS2012D5xxxx). In the following 

sections, only the five-digit ID number is used (e.g., 50001). Comment documents received by 

other means have an ID number starting with OSTS. 

B.2 PUBLIC COMMENT SUBMITTAL METRICS 

 Comment documents were received from approximately 

600 individuals; organizations (including environmental groups 

and other special interest groups); private businesses and industry; 

and local, state, and federal agencies. Submissions were received 

from 37 states plus the District of Columbia. About 70% of the 

submissions were from Colorado, Wyoming, and Utah. Table B-1 

shows the percentages for the five states with the most comments. 

Each of the remaining states had fewer than nine submissions. About 

370 submissions were via the OSTS public Web site; slightly more 

than 200 were received via postal mail, and about 30 were submitted 

at the public meetings. 

TABLE B-1 Commentor 

Distribution by State 

State Percentage 

 

Colorado 43 

Utah 20 

Wyoming 07 

California 06 

All others 24 
Final OSTS PEIS 3 

B.3 CAMPAIGN SUBMITTALS 

 In addition to the individual submittals, several organizations prepared their own 

campaign letter that could be submitted as is or edited by members of the public. These 

campaign letters were sent to the OSTS project as paper copies by mail, and as Excel or Word 

files on CDs, or via the OSTS public Web site. Table B-2 provides information on the campaign 

letter source and the number of people submitting the letter. A summary of each campaign is 

provided below.

 Approximately 160,000 individuals submitted campaign letters originating from various 

organizations. Table B-2 provides information on the organizations submitting campaigns and 

the number of individuals associated with each campaign. Files containing submittals from each 

organization have been included in Volume 5 of this Final PEIS. 

 Center for Biological Diversity: The Center for Biological Diversity submitted a 

campaign opposing any action by the BLM that would allow any new oil shale and tar sands 

development on public lands and stating that the Draft PEIS should have included an alternative 

that removed public lands from development. The organization and its members pointed out 

the importance of the tourism and recreation industries to the regions’ economies and stated that 

oil shale and tar sands technology would adversely affect the environment, threatened and 

endangered species, and local water supplies, and would exacerbate global climate change. The 

letter urges the BLM to carefully evaluate and disclose all impacts on the environment from oil 

shale and tar sands development. 

 Several people altered the original campaign letter to express additional concerns about 

oil shale and tar sands development. Many commentors expressed a preference for energy 

conservation or alternative forms of energy over oil shale and tar sands development, including 

solar and wind power, algae biodiesel, conventional oil, and natural gas. Many commentors 

expressed concerns over oil shale and tar sands technologies; that they are too resource intensive 

and net energy is negative, that impacts are uncertain and may include increased seismic activity, 

TABLE B-2 Organizations Submitting Campaigns 

Organization 

No. of 

Commentors 

 

Center for Biological Diversity 33,300 

Colorado Environmental Coalition 590 

Defenders of Wildlife 39,400 

Earthjustice 33,700 

Institute for Energy Research 450 

National Wildlife Federation 20,590 

Sierra Club 29,790 

The Wilderness Society 1,860 

Unidentified campaign 380 
Final OSTS PEIS 4 

that they are more likely to produce an oil spill, and that the fuel is dirtier than conventional 

fuels. One commentor suggested that the BLM should require developers to fully compensate 

and clean up local areas in case of a spill. Many commentors were also concerned with water use 

during the extraction process and its effects on the Colorado River and the water supply of 

Las Vegas. Some commentors also suggested that oil shale resources should be left in place as a 

source of fuel for future supply emergencies. 

 Colorado Environmental Coalition: The Colorado Environmental Coalition campaign 

letter stated that the Draft PEIS should have included an alternative that removed public lands 

from development. It pointed out the importance of the tourism and recreation industries to the 

regions’ economies and stated that oil shale and tar sands technologies are unproven and not 

expected to generate revenue for the next 10 years. The letter urges the BLM to carefully 

evaluate all impacts on the environment from oil shale and tar sands development. 

 Many people altered the original campaign letter to express additional concerns about 

oil shale and tar sands development. Many commentors expressed a preference for energy 

conservation or alternative forms of energy over oil shale and tar sands development. Many 

commentors were also concerned with water use during the extraction process and its effects 

on local water quality and quantity. Commentors also suggested that the process is too energy 

intensive and would contribute to global climate change. One commentor expressed strong 

support for oil shale and tar sands development. Another commentor voiced support for the 

Preferred Alternative. 

 Defenders of Wildlife: The Defenders of Wildlife campaign letter expressed support for 

Alternative 3 and noted concerns about the impacts of oil shale and tar sands development on 

wildlife, including threatened and endangered species, and their habitat. The letter also expressed 

concern about the tourist and recreational activities on these public lands as well as concern 

about the economic viability of oil shale and tar sands and the amounts of resources needed to 

extract these fuels. The letter suggested that oil shale and tar sands activities should take place on 

private lands. 

 More than 1,700 letters were altered to express additional concerns about oil shale and tar 

sands development and its impacts on water, human heath, and seismic activity. Commentors 

voiced additional concerns about the oil shale and tar sands extraction technologies and their 

economic and energy viability. Many commentors expressed a preference for energy 

conservation or alternative forms of energy over oil shale and tar sands development, including 

solar and wind power, biomass, and nuclear, and for higher fuel efficiency standards. Some 

commentors also voiced specific concern for the black-footed ferret, its habitat, and the recovery 

of its population. Commentors also expressed a preference for public lands to be kept free of oil 

shale and tar sands development. One commentor expressed support for oil shale and tar sands 

development to proceed on public lands because it was a proven source of energy and could 

create jobs in the surrounding regions. 
Final OSTS PEIS 5 

Earthjustice: The Earthjustice campaign letter detailed the organization’s concerns 

about oil shale and tar sands development. While Earthjustice felt that the Preferred Alternative 

was a step in the right direction, it would prefer an alternative that does not allow any public 

lands to be open for oil shale and tar sands research and development. The signatories to the 

letter suggested that there is time to thoroughly assess the impacts of development because the 

oil shale and tar sands industry is not expected to produce significant revenues in the near term. 

They stated that the lands designated for oil shale and tar sands development are some of the best 

for wildlife habitat in the West and pointed out the economic importance of recreation, tourism, 

farming, and ranching to the region. 

 Many people altered the text of the original campaign letter to add additional concerns 

about oil shale and tar sands development. Many commentors expressed a preference for energy 

conservation or alternative forms of energy over oil shale and tar sands development, including 

solar and wind power, and nuclear, and for higher fuel efficiency standards. Some commentors 

expressed concerns about reclamation and requested that bonding and restoration programs be 

instituted. Others suggested that there might be an increased earthquake risk associated with oil 

shale and tar sands development. A number of commentors expressed concerns about oil shale 

and tar sands impacts on water resources and climate change. One commentor did not approve of 

the economic analysis used in the PEIS, while others questioned whether oil shale and tar sands 

could be economically viable. One commentor expressed concern that his comment would never 

be read or considered. 

Institute for Energy Research: The Institute for Energy Research campaign letter asked 

the Department of the Interior (DOI) to adopt the “No Action” Alternative. It claimed that the 

DOI’s Preferred Alternative was at odds with the President’s energy policy. It also pointed out 

that most of the affected counties in Colorado favored oil shale development and supported 

commercial leasing with proper safeguards. 

 National Wildlife Federation: The National Wildlife Federation campaign letter urged 

the BLM to choose the Preferred Alternative. It supported the exclusion of vital habitats from oil 

shale and tar sands development as well as limiting leasing in order to investigate whether 

impacts on wildlife, air, and water resources can be avoided. The letter stated the importance of 

the West for big game migration, mule deer, and sage-grouse habitat. 

 Several people altered the original campaign letter to express additional concerns about 

oil shale and tar sands development. Many commentors expressed a preference for energy 

conservation or alternative forms of energy over oil shale and tar sands development, including 

solar and wind power, algae biodiesel, conventional oil, and natural gas. Commentors 

recommended increasing gas mileage standards, switching to electrically powered vehicles, and 

instituting population control regulations. Several commentors were concerned about the visual 

impacts of “scarred” landscapes, while many others suggested that there might be an increased 

earthquake risk associated with oil shale and tar sands development. One commentor was 

concerned about dust. One commentor stated that the BLM must manage its lands for multiple 
Final OSTS PEIS 6 

use. Another commentor stated that a PEIS was not the right approach for oil shale and tar sands 

development and warned that the document will subject the BLM to legal challenges. 

 Sierra Club: The Sierra Club campaign letter expressed support for Alternative 3, with 

concerns about the environmental impacts of oil shale and tar sands development, including 

climate change and impacts on land, wildlife, air, and water resources. The letter expressed 

opposition to any oil shale or tar sands development on public lands. 

 More than 2,400 people altered the text of the original campaign letter to express 

additional concerns about oil shale and tar sands development. Many commentors expressed a 

preference for energy conservation or alternative forms of energy over oil shale and tar sands 

development, including solar and wind power, biomass, and nuclear, and for higher fuel 

efficiency standards. One commentor recommended instituting population control regulations. 

Others suggested that there might be an increased earthquake risk associated with oil shale and 

tar sands development. A number of commentors expressed concerns about oil shale and tar 

sands impacts on human health, water resources and climate change, while others were 

concerned about visual impacts, birds, or recreation and tourism. Several commentors suggested 

that a carbon tax be implemented, and one recommended that a law be passed requiring oil 

produced from oil shale and tar sands resources to stay in the United States. Profit-sharing 

mechanisms and risk premiums were also recommended. Some commentors stated that oil shale 

and tar sands resources require too much energy to extract. 

 The Wilderness Society: The Wilderness Society campaign letter expressed the 

organization’s concerns about oil shale and tar sands development. It pointed out the importance 

of the recreation industry to Colorado’s economy and stated that oil shale and tar sands 

technology is unproven, uses large amounts of water and electricity, and would contribute to air 

pollution and carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. The organization expressed its support for the 

Preferred Alternative, saying that it would close many valuable and important lands to oil shale 

and tar sands development, protect wilderness, wildlife, and clean air, and protect water supplies. 

 Many of the commentors who submitted the Wilderness Society campaign letter added to 

or edited the original letter’s text. The majority of these commentors expressed their desire to see 

alternative forms of energy, such as solar and wind power, be pursued rather than oil shale and 

tar sands development. Other commentors were concerned about the climate change impacts that 

could result from oil shale and tar sands development. One commentor suggested that oil shale 

and tar sands development would increase earthquake risk. 

 Unidentified Campaign: This campaign letter expressed support for Alternative 1, 

saying that oil shale is an important resource for the nation’s economy, national security, and 

energy independence. It stated that environmental conservation and economic development are 

not mutually exclusive. The commentors found it shocking that government resources were spent 

to re-do the 2008 PEIS, which they thought concluded with a preferable alternative. They 
Final OSTS PEIS 7 

expressed concern that a negative precedent was set by allowing a lawsuit to prompt revision of 

the PEIS. 

 A few people presented ideas not discussed in the original letter. One person suggested 

that climate change is “scientific fraud.” Another commentor recommended that oil shale and tar 

sands development take place first in areas that have the infrastructure to handle increased truck 

traffic and development activity. The third commentor to alter the letter stated that national 

security and economic security revolve around energy independence and should thus be primary 

considerations in the PEIS. The remaining two commentors voiced general support for oil shale 

and tar sands development on public lands. 

B.4 SUMMARY OF ISSUES RAISED BY THE COMMENTORS ON THE DRAFT 

OSTS PEIS AND THE AGENCIES’ RESPONSES 

 Commentors on the Draft OSTS PEIS identified a number of major topic areas of 

concern. These topics regarded concerns about the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

(NEPA) process; the alternatives analyzed; the analysis of impacts of oil shale and tar sands 

resource development on the environment, wildlife, cultural and visual resources, human health, 

and regional economies; cumulative effects on resources; mitigation of effects; the state of 

development and the effects of representative oil shale and tar sands technologies; and land use 

conflicts. In addition, many commentors identified concerns regarding the BLM’s policies, such 

as those concerning implementation of the 2005 Energy Policy Act; the identification of lands to 

be excluded from leasing; the role of future NEPA analyses; stakeholder participation; and the 

adequacy of the alternatives evaluated in the PEIS. Finally, commentors expressed concerns of a 

general nature that were out of the scope of the PEIS. 

 In response to these comments, several changes were incorporated into the Final PEIS, 

and some land allocations in the PEIS were modified based on additional information. For 

example, land allocations under Alternative 2 were found to conflict with Wyoming state-level 

policy regarding management of greater sage-grouse populations. Consequently, core or priority 

sage-grouse habitat in Wyoming is not closed under Alternative 2, the Proposed Plan, in the 

Final PEIS; the management of such areas is deferred to the state. Colorado and Utah do not 

have similar conflicts. However, maps used to delineate core or priority sage-grouse habitat in 

those states have been updated since the Draft PEIS was prepared. These changes have resulted 

in an overall increase in the acreage available for leasing under Alternative 2 in the Final PEIS. 

 Similarly, commentors requested that the BLM revisit its classification of lands with 

wilderness characteristics, which are likewise closed to leasing under Alternative 2, suggesting 

that the BLM had miscategorized some lands. Updated data received from BLM field offices in 

Wyoming since the issuance of the Draft PEIS, in fact, confirmed that lands with wilderness 

characteristics inventories in that state did not identify any such lands within oil shale areas. This 

update resulted in a further increase in acreage within Alternative 2. 

 Finally, under the Proposed Plan the split estate lands (federal minerals, tribal surface) 

within the Hill Creek Extension of the Uintah and Ouray Reservation will remain open for 
Final OSTS PEIS 8 

potential oil shale and tar sands leasing and development. The Record of Decision for the 2008 

Oil Shale and Tar Sands PEIS opened these lands for potential oil shale and tar sands leasing and 

development in accordance with the expressed desire of the Ute Indian Tribe. 

 The overall result of these changes was to increase the total amount of land available for 

leasing under the Proposed Plan from about 462,000 acres for oil shale and 91,000 acres for tar 

sands under the Preferred Alternative in the Draft PEIS to about 677,000 acres for oil shale and 

130,000 acres for tar sands under the Proposed Plan. 

 In addition, specific requests for additional information were made by several 

commentors. These requests were reviewed and information was incorporated into the PEIS as 

appropriate. For instance, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency requested that impaired 

surface waters be identified in the Final PEIS. This information was added to the relevant 

sections of the Final PEIS. In other submissions, commentors requested specific clarifications or 

suggested specific revisions to the PEIS. As appropriate, such revisions were made to the Final 

PEIS. However, many concerns, suggestions, and questions raised in other comments did not 

require any changes to be made to the PEIS. Explanations of changes made or not made to the 

Final PEIS in response to public comments on the Draft PEIS can be found in the following 

subsections. 

 The following sections present the disposition of issues raised in public comments on the 

Draft PEIS received during the public comment period. The BLM identified issues raised in one 

or more submittals of comments on the Draft PEIS and categorized them according to various 

topic areas as described above. The following begins with the Issue Outline followed by the 

Commentor Index, Table B-3, which links comment submittals to issue numbers. The 

Commentor Index is followed by a descriptive summary of each issue, including a list of all 

associated comments, and the BLM’s response. Responses identify locations in the PEIS that 

present the relevant information supporting the response and identify any changes made to the 

Draft PEIS in response to issues raised in comments in preparing the Final PEIS. Following the 

comment summaries and responses is the Submission Report, which brackets the original 

comments within comment submittals, assigns a comment number, and lists all issue numbers 

associated with each comment. Commentors may track the BLM’s response to their comment 

submittals through the issue numbers assigned to their submittal in Table B-3 and the comment 

numbers listed with each issue summary and response. 

B.4.1 Issue Outline 

 1 NEPA Analysis 

 1.1 Public Involvement 

 1.1.1 Extension of Comment Period 

 1.2 Government-to-Government Consultation 

 1.3 State and Local Government 

 1.4 Agency Consultation 

 1.5 Inadequate/Biased NEPA Analysis 
Final OSTS PEIS 9 

 2 Alternatives 

 2.1 Alternative 1, No Action 

 2.1.1 Support of Alternative 1 

 2.2 Alternative 2, Conservation Focus 

 2.2.1 Support of Alternative 2 

 2.3 Alternative 3, Oil Shale Research Lands Focus and Tar Sands Pending 

 Commercial Lease Research 

 2.3.1 Support of Alternative 3 

 2.4 Alternative 4, Moderate Development 

 2.4.1 Support of Alternative 4 

 2.5 New Alternative Suggestions 

 3 Environmental Issues 

 3.1 Land Use 

 3.1.1 Support of Additional Resource Protection 

 3.1.2 Impacts on Recreational Lands 

 3.1.3 Protections for Lands with Wilderness Characteristics and ACECs 

 3.1.4 Support of Leasing 

 3.1.5 Objections to Certain Land Use Protections 

 3.1.6 Out of Scope 

 3.1.7 Errata/Editorial Comments 

 3.1.8 No Response Required 

 3.2 Soil and Geology 

 3.3 Paleontological Resources 

 3.3.1 Fossil Locations 

 3.3.2 Role of the State Historic Preservation Officer 

 3.4 Water Resources 

 3.4.1 Water Quantity and Quality 

 3.4.2 Project-Level Water Use 

 3.4.3 Water Use by Oil Shale and Tar Sands Technologies 

 3.4.4 Comments Requiring Individual Responses 

 3.4.5 Editorial Comments 

 3.4.6 No Response Required 

 3.5 Air Quality 

 3.5.1 Climate Change 

 3.5.1.1 Inadequate Discussion of Climate Change 

 3.5.1.2 Editorial Comments 

 3.5.1.3 Mitigation and Compliance 

 3.5.1.4 Mitigation of GHG Emissions at the Project Level 

 3.5.1.5 Reduction of GHG Emissions 

 3.5.1.6 No Response Required 

 3.5.1.7 Long-Term Adaptation 

 3.5.1.8 Comments Requiring Individual Responses 

 3.5.2 Wintertime Ozone 

 3.5.3 Additional Power Needs for Oil Shale and Tar Sands 

 3.5.4 Quantitative Analysis 
Final OSTS PEIS 10 

 3.5.5 Data 

 3.5.6 VOCs and Dust Mitigation 

 3.5.7 No Response Required 

 3.5.8 Comments Requiring Individual Responses 

 3.5.9 Impacts of Dust 

 3.6 Noise 

 3.7 Ecological Resources 

 3.7.1 Aquatic Resources 

 3.7.1.1 Recommended Habitat Protections 

 3.7.1.2 Aquatic Impact Analysis 

 3.7.2 Vegetation 

 3.7.3 Wildlife 

 3.7.3.1 Habitat Loss/Fragmentation 

 3.7.3.2 Exclusion of Horses and Burros 

 3.7.3.3 Discussion of Birds by Orders 

 3.7.3.4 Pond Impacts on Birds 

 3.7.3.5 Raptor Response to Fire 

 3.7.3.6 Cumulative Impacts on Wildlife Habitat/Connectivity 

 3.7.3.7 Change in Text/Tables 

 3.7.3.8 Alternative Comparison of Wildlife Impacts 

 3.7.3.9 Mitigation 

 3.7.3.10 Raptor Areas and Data 

 3.7.3.11 Wildlife Contamination 

 3.7.3.12 Comments Requiring Individual Responses 

 3.7.4 Threatened and Endangered Species 

 3.7.4.1 Impacts on Threatened and Endangered Species 

 3.7.4.2 Land Exclusions To Protect Threatened and Endangered 

 Species 

 3.7.4.3 Requests for Updated Information 

 3.7.4.4 Mitigation and Conservation Measures 

 3.7.4.5 Editorial Comments on Tables and Figures 

 3.7.4.6 Cumulative Impacts on Threatened and Endangered Species 

 3.7.4.7 Effects of Climate Change on Threatened and Endangered 

 Species 

 3.7.4.8 Impacts and Stipulations on Sage-Grouse Core/Priority 

 Habitat 

 3.7.4.9 Updated Sage-Grouse Information 

 3.7.4.10 No Response Required 

 3.7.4.11 Comments Requiring Individual Responses 

 3.7.5 Sage-Grouse 

 3.7.5.1 Conservation, Data, and Analysis 

 3.7.5.2 Cumulative Effects 

 3.7.5.3 Specific Revisions 

 3.8 Visual Resources 

 3.8.1 General Concerns 

 3.8.2 Visual Resource Inventory/Visual Resource Management Concerns 
Final OSTS PEIS 11 

 3.8.3 Visual Resources Photos 

 3.8.4 Visual Resources Terminology 

 3.9 Cultural Resources 

 3.9.1 Historic Trails 

 3.9.2 Cultural/Tribal Public Outreach 

 3.9.3 Tribal Consultation 

 3.9.4 Protection of Historic Resources (Policy) 

 3.9.5 Heritage Tourism 

 3.9.6 Effects of Leasing 

 3.9.7 Commitment of Resources 

 3.10 Socioeconomics 

 3.10.1 Socioeconomic Data, Methods, and Assumptions 

 3.10.2 Impacts on Local Government 

 3.10.3 Local Economic Development Benefits 

 3.10.4 Recreation Impacts 

 3.10.5 Economic Viability 

 3.11 Recreation 

 3.12 Environmental Justice 

 3.12.1 Agricultural Water Use 

 3.12.2 Analytical Methods, Data, and Scope 

 3.12.3 Support of Economic Development as a Means of Addressing 

 Environmental Justice Issues 

 3.13 Hazardous Materials/Waste 

 3.14 Health and Safety 

 3.15 Geographic Information System 

 4 Cumulative Impacts 

 4.1 Programmatic Cumulative Impacts and Subsequent NEPA Analysis 

 4.2 Cumulative Impacts on Resources 

 4.3 Impacting Factors and Other Assumptions 

 5 Mitigation and Reclamation 

 6 Resource and Technological Concerns 

 6.1 Resource Assessments 

 6.1.1 Geologically Prospective 

 6.1.2 2008 PEIS Was Reasonable 

 6.2 Power and Energy Needs 

 6.2.1 External Energy Source 

 6.2.2 Produces More Energy Than It Consumes 

 6.2.3 Uses a Large Amount of Energy 

 6.3 Technology 

 6.3.1 Technical Comments on Technologies and Processes 

 6.3.2 Water Use 

 6.3.2.1 Water Use Figures Are Overinflated 

 6.3.2.2 Too Much Water Needed 
Final OSTS PEIS 12 

 6.3.3 In Situ Technologies 

 6.3.3.1 Limits to In Situ Technologies 

 6.3.4 Feasibility 

 6.3.5 Commercial viability 

 6.3.6 Surface Mining 

 6.4 Spent Shale 

 6.5 Data 

 6.6 Oil Shale and Tar Sands Differences 

 7 Economics/Cost Benefit 

 8 Multiple Use Conflicts 

 8.1 Recreation 

 8.2 Grazing 

 8.3 Oil and Gas 

 9 Policy 

 9.1 Purpose and Need 

 9.2 Legal/Compliance Issues 

 9.2.1 Lands with Wilderness Characteristics, Secretarial Order 3310 

 9.2.2 Section 369 of the Energy Policy Act 

 9.2.3 Other Comments on the Energy Policy Act 

 9.2.4 Sage-Grouse Policy 

 9.2.5 Federal Data Quality Act 

 9.2.6 Requirements for Lessees 

 9.3 Future NEPA Analysis 

 9.4 Region-Wide Analysis 

 9.5 Consistency with Local Plans 

 9.6 Leases 

 9.6.1 Technology Double Standard 

 9.7 RD&D 

 9.8 Revision of 2008 PEIS 

 10 Out of Scope 

 10.1 Revision of 2008 PEIS 

 10.2 Defer for R&D Results 

 10.3 Oil Shale Regulations and National Policy 

 10.4 Bonding and Reclamation 

 10.5 Royalties, Subsidies, Incentives, and Taxes 

 10.6 National Energy Strategy 

 10.6.1 Use Fewer Fossil Fuels 

 10.6.2 Conventional Oil and Gas 

 10.6.3 Energy/National Security 

 10.7 Pavement 

 10.8 Better Here Than There 
Final OSTS PEIS 13 

 11 General Support 

 11.1 Tar Sands 

 11.2 Oil Shale 

 12 General Opposition 

 12.1 Tar Sands 

 12.2 Oil Shale 

 12.3 Use of Public Lands 

 13 Editorial Comments 

TABLE B-3 OSTS Commentor Index (Note: ID numbers in parentheses are duplicate submittals 

or informational attachments.)

Commentors (Name/Organization) ID Number Issue Number 

Aaslan, Bill OSTS_162 2.1.1 

Adams, Greg 50217 12.0 

Adams, Oliver OSTS_031 2.5; 3.8.1; 6.3.2.2 

Aegerter, Bob 50167 2.3.1; 3.4.1; 3.10.3; 3.10.4 

Albury, Kathryn F. 50279 1.0; 3.4.1; 3.5.1.6; 3.13; 9.8; 

Allen, John and Mickey OSTS_198 12.0 

Alliance for Historic Wyoming 50125 1.1; 1.2; 3.4.1; 3.9.1; 3.9.2; 3.9.3; 

3.9.5; 3.9.7; 3.10.4; 4.1; 5.0 

Alliance for the Wild Rockies 50175 12.3 

Amador, Robert 50228 2.3.1; 3.1.1; 3.4.1 

American Petroleum Institute 50310 1.1.1; 1.5; 2.0; 2.1; 2.1.1; 2.2; 2.3; 

2.4; 3.1.7; 3.1.8; 3.4.4; 3.4.5; 3.4.6; 

3.5.1.8; 3.7.4.5; 3.9.6; 3.10.1; 3.12.2; 

4.2; 4.3; 6.2; 6.2.1; 6.3; 6.3.2.1; 6.3.5; 

6.3.6; 8.3; 9.1; 9.2.2; 9.2.4; 9.3; 9.6; 

9.7; 9.8; 10.3; 13.0 

American Shale Oil, LLC 50090 1.3; 2.0; 2.2; 2.4; 3.4.1; 3.4.3; 3.5.1.2; 

3.8.3; 3.10.1; 3.10.3; 3.12.2; 4.2; 5.0; 

6.1; 6.1.1; 6.2.1; 6.3; 6.3.1; 6.3.2.1; 

6.3.5; 6.4; 9.1; 9.2.3; 9.6; 9.8 

Americans for Prosperity, Colorado OSTS_092 2.1.1; 2.2; 3.10.3; 9.8 

Anson, Mardi OSTS_157 2.1.1; 11.2 

Arguello, Fares J. 50222 2.3.1; 3.10.2 

Aridas, RoseMarie 50173 12.0 

Armstrong, Laurel 50291 2.3.1 

Atiya, Gabe 50126 2.3.1 

Avery, Sara 50215 2.3.1; 3.0; 3.1.1; 3.4.1 

Backcountry Hunters and Anglers, Utah Chapter 50258 2.2; 2.3; 2.5; 9.2.6; 9.8; 10.4 
Final OSTS PEIS 14 

TABLE B-3 (Cont.)

Commentors (Name/Organization) ID Number Issue Number 

Bailey Sr, John R. 50020 11.0 

Bailey, Gary OSTS_190 2.1.1; 6.2.2; 6.3.2.1; 9.6; 10.5 

Ballantyne, Corey 50048 12.3 

Bambino, Mike OSTS_186 2.1.1; 9.2.1 

Barr, Cassie G. 50057 10.6.1 

Baumgardner, Randy OSTS_149 2.1.1; 9.2.1; 9.8 

Baysinger, Jonathan OSTS_173 2.1.1; 9.8 

Behm, Gregory 50133 2.2; 3.0; 3.10.3; 12.3 

Bell, Karen OSTS_103 2.1.1; 9.0; 10.8 

Bell, Richard OSTS_106 3.10.3; 9.8; 11.0 

Bell, Thomas A. 50124 3.4.1 

Benson, Susan E. 50187 12.3 

Berger, Bruce N. 50207 12.0 

Betz, Kelsie OSTS_178 2.1.1; 2.2 

Biodiversity Conservation Alliance 

Californians for Western Wilderness 

Colorado Environmental Coalition 

Jackson Hole Conservation Alliance 

Rocky Mountain Wild 

50329 2.3.1; 3.1.1; 3.7.3.1; 3.7.3.9; 3.7.3.12; 

3.7.4.1; 3.7.5.1; 3.7.5.2; 3.8.2; 3.9.4; 

5.0; 6.1.1 

Bitter, Merrill 50214 2.3.1; 3.0; 3.1.1; 3.4.1 

Blackburn, Casey M. 50050 11.0 

Blackman, Janet OSTS_193 2.1.1 

Blair, Dan and Janet 50300 2.5; 3.4.1; 3.10.4; 3.10.5; 12.0 

Blevins, Philip B. 50032 2.3.1 

Boak, Jeremy 50271 2.1.1; 2.2; 2.4; 2.4.1; 3.1.4; 6.1; 6.3; 

6.3.2.1; 9.2.6; 9.6; 9.7; 10.3 

Borgenicht, Roger OSTS_017 10.6.1 

Borman, Kevin OSTS_113 1.1.1; 2.1.1 

Bowers, Krista OSTS_005 3.5.1.7; 12.0 

Bowman, Chris 50182 12.0 

Brady, Kimber A. 50069 12.0 

Brandon, Jarry OSTS_099 1.1.1; 2.1.1; 10.6.3 

Brandon, Jody OSTS_104 1.5; 2.1.1; 2.2 

Brauner, John 50316 10.6.1 

Brown, Casey L. 50197 2.5 

Burch, Jan OSTS_220 3.0 
Final OSTS PEIS 15 

TABLE B-3 (Cont.)

Commentors (Name/Organization) ID Number Issue Number 

Bureau of Land Management, Utah State Office 50277 2.2; 3.1.3; 3.1.7; 3.4.5; 3.4.6; 3.5.1.6; 

3.5.3; 3.5.8; 3.6; 3.7.1.2; 3.7.2; 

3.7.3.7; 3.14; 3.15; 6.0; 6.1.1; 9.1; 

9.6; 13.0 

Burkett, William OSTS_163 1.1.1; 2.1.1 

Burns, Stephen A. 50266 2.3.1; 3.0; 3.1.1; 3.4.1 

Burrows, Thomas OSTS_183 1.1.1; 2.1.1 

Burton, Priscilla 50334 2.3.1 

Butcher, Chris E. 50252 12.0 

C., R. 50140 12.0 

Calder, Milo OSTS_006 1.1 

Campaign - unidentified OSTS_233 2.1.1; 9.8 

Cannon, Cynthia 50146 2.2; 3.0; 3.10.3; 12.3 

Capozzelli, J. OSTS_175 2.2.1 

Capozzelli, J. OSTS_216 2.5; 3.0; 3.10.3; 6.2.3; 12.3 

Carbon County 50290 

(50292) 

1.1.1; 1.3; 2.1.1; 2.2; 3.1.3; 9.2.1; 9.8 

Carbon County OSTS_082 1.1.1; 1.3 

Carlile, Fenwick OSTS_229 3.5.1.6; 3.10.3; 6.3.2; 9.0; 9.6 

Carlin, Mercedes 50372 9.0 

Carter Technologies Co. 50063 6.0; 9.2.6; 11.0; 11.2 

Cavanaugh, Terri OSTS_116 2.1.1 

Centennial Institute OSTS_109 1.5; 2.1.1; 2.2; 2.3; 9.8 

Center for Biological Diversity campaign 50341 

(50344; 

50345; 

50347; 

50348; 

50350) 

2.5; 3.0; 3.10.4; 12.3 

Center for Regulatory Effectiveness 50308 1.1; 2.1.1; 2.2; 3.1.3; 3.1.5; 3.4.2; 

6.1.2; 6.3.2.1; 9.2.1; 9.2.3; 9.2.4; 

9.2.5; 9.3; 9.8; 10.6.3 

Channel, Abbey OSTS_165 2.1.1 

Chapp, Lewis 50221 12.0 

Chazen, Matin and Jeanne OSTS_168 2.1; 2.1.1 

Child, Kiristen 50117 3.10.3 

Chowen, Carole OSTS_224 3.0 

Christensen, Neil J. 50248 3.1.1 

Christiansen, Bonnie R. 50282 3.4.1; 3.5.1.1 

City of Grand Junction 50154 2.0; 3.10.2; 9.0; 9.3; 10.5; 10.6; 11.0 
Final OSTS PEIS 16 

TABLE B-3 (Cont.)

Commentors (Name/Organization) ID Number Issue Number 

City of Rifle, Colorado - City Council 50110 2.0; 3.10.2; 10.5 

Clark Mining Services, LLC 50160 1.0; 2.1.1; 9.2 

Clark, Donald 50188 12.0 

CLUB 20 50227 1.3; 2.1.1; 2.2; 3.10.3; 6.3.2.1; 9.2.2; 

9.3; 9.5; 9.6; 9.7; 9.8; 10.5; 11.0 

Coalition of Local Governments 

Lincoln County 

Lincoln Conservation District 

Little Snake River Conservation District 

Sublette County 

Sublette County Conservation District 

Sweetwater County 

Sweetwater County Conservation District 

Uinta County 

Uinta County Conservation District 

50324 

(50342) 

1.1.1; 1.5; 2.0; 2.1.1; 2.3; 2.4; 2.5; 

3.1.3; 3.1.7; 3.6; 3.7.2; 3.7.3.2; 3.9.1; 

3.10.3; 6.1.1; 6.3.2; 6.3.5; 6.5; 8.0; 

8.3; 9.0; 9.1; 9.2; 9.2.1; 9.2.2; 9.2.3; 

9.2.4; 9.3; 9.5; 9.8; 10.7; 13.0 

Cohn, Barbara M. 50085 10.6.1; 12.1 

Coles, Tyler S. 50208 2.3.1; 3.0; 3.1.1; 3.4.1 

Collins, Carol L. 50064 2.3.1 

Colorado Department of Health and Environment - 

Air Pollution Control Division 

50071 3.5.5 

Colorado Department of Health and Environment - 

Air Pollution Control Division 

50072 3.5.3; 3.5.5; 6.3; 9.3 

Colorado Department of Public Health and 

Environment 

50118 3.4.1; 3.4.5; 3.4.6; 10.2; 3.10.2; 4.2 

Colorado Department of Public Health and 

Environment 

50119 3.10.2 

Colorado Department of Natural Resources and 

Colorado Department of Public Health and 

Environment 

50314 2.2.1; 2.2; 3.4.1; 3.5.3; 3.5.7; 3.5.8; 

3.7.3.1; 3.7.3.6; 3.7.4.1; 3.10.2; 

3.10.3; 3.10.4; 3.14; 4.1; 6.1.2; 6.2.1; 

9.7 

Colorado Environmental Coalition campaign OSTS_235 2.2; 3.0; 3.10.4; 12.3 

Colorado Parks and Wildlife 50180 2.3.1; 3.7.3.1; 3.7.4.1; 3.7.4.3; 

3.7.5.1; 3.7.3.8; 6.3.1 

Conner, Luke OSTS_095 2.1.1; 9.8 

Conner, Nicole OSTS_111 2.1 

Coppin, Terry 50367 2.2.1; 3.4.1 

Cordray, Cathryn OSTS_011 1.1 

Corey, Jean OSTS_018 2.4.1 

Corkle, Violet 50037 12.2 

Craig Chamber of Commerce OSTS_089 1.3; 11.0 

Crank, Jeff OSTS_065 11.0 

Crawford, Carol OSTS_223 3.0 
Final OSTS PEIS 17 

TABLE B-3 (Cont.)

Commentors (Name/Organization) ID Number Issue Number 

Crippen, Rick and Susan OSTS_214 2.1.1; 2.2 

Crowe, Richard D. 50293 11.0 

CryoRain Inc. 50297 

(50302) 

6.3.1 

Cupp, Brandon OSTS_187 2.1.1; 11.0 

Cupp, Jennifer OSTS_192 2.1.1 

Cuthbert, Barclay E. 50365 3.10.3; 6.1; 6.3.5; 9.3 

Dandeneau, Mark 50369 12.1 

Daub & Associates, Inc. 50087 1.3; 2.1.1; 2.2; 2.4; 3.4.3; 3.10.3; 

6.1.1; 9.6; 9.6.1; 9.7; 9.8; 10.3 

Davis, Angela 50139 2.2; 3.0; 3.10.3; 12.0; 12.3 

Defenders of Wildlife campaign 50309 2.3.1; 3.7.3.1; 3.10.3; 3.10.4; 6.3 

Delperto, Matt OSTS_004 1.1; 12.1 

DeNio, Douglas A. 50171 2.2.1; 3.10.2; 9.8 

DePooter, Ted R. 50296 1.1; 3.10.3 

Derr, Michael F. 50213 2.3.1; 3.0; 3.1.1; 3.4.1 

Dinas, Dean OSTS_008 3.10.2; 6.6; 10.7 

Doebbeling, Denis OSTS_025 10.6.1; 12.0 

DOI, BLM, Rawlins Field Office OSTS_230 3.1.7; 3.15 

Dombek, Iori J. 50079 12.0 

Dougherty, Eric OSTS_145 2.1.1; 9.6.1; 9.8 

Doyle, Dillon J. 50076 3.0 

Duchesne County Utah 50181 

(50183) 

(50185) 

1.3; 1.5; 2.0; 2.1.1; 2.2; 2.4; 3.1.2; 

3.1.5; 3.1.6; 3.1.7; 3.1.8; 3.2; 3.4.4; 

3.4.5; 3.5.1.5; 3.5.1.8; 3.5.5; 3.6; 

3.7.1.1; 3.7.2; 3.7.3.7; 3.7.4.4; 

3.7.5.1; 3.7.5.3; 3.8.3; 3.8.4; 3.10.1; 

3.10.2; 3.10.3; 3.10.4; 3.12.1; 3.12.2; 

3.13; 3.15; 6.2.1; 6.3; 6.3.2; 6.3.2.1; 

6.3.5; 6.5; 9.1; 9.2.1; 9.2.5; 9.5; 9.8; 

13.0 

Duchesne County Board of Commissioners, Utah 50184 1.3; 6.1; 9.0; 9.5; 11.0 

Duchesne County Utah 50186 1.1.1; 1.3; 1.5; 2.1.1; 2.2; 3.1.3; 

3.10.3; 6.1.2; 6.2.2; 6.3.2.1; 6.3.3.1; 

6.3.4; 9.2.1; 9.2.2; 9.2.5; 9.5; 9.8 

Dunn, Anna R. 50092 6.1; 6.3.5; 10.3; 10.6.3; 11.0 

Dunn, Lois OSTS_125 2.1.1; 3.10.3 
Final OSTS PEIS 18 

TABLE B-3 (Cont.)

Commentors (Name/Organization) ID Number Issue Number 

Earthjustice campaign 50355 

(50356; 

50357; 

50358; 

50360; 

50361; 

50362) 

2.2; 3.0; 3.10.4; 12.3 

ECCOS (Environmentally Conscious Consumers for 

Oil) 

50091 1.1.1 

ECCOS 50272 1.1.1; 2.1.1; 2.2; 3.10.1; 3.10.3; 6.2.1; 

6.3.2.1; 9.2.1; 9.8 

Eckerle, William 50267 2.2; 2.3; 2.5; 10.4 

Ehlers, Ruth OSTS_158 2.1.1 

Eichinger, Dennis OSTS_141 2.1.1 

Elected Officials in Tri-state area 50321 2.2.1 

Elms, Howard 50368 2.2.1; 3.4.1 

Enefit American Oil Company OSTS_026 2.1.1; 2.2; 3.1.3; 3.7.4.2; 3.7.4.8; 

6.3.5; 9.2.1; 9.2.3; 9.2.4; 9.6; 9.6.1; 

9.8 

Enefit American Oil 50268 1.1.1; 1.5; 2.0; 2.1.1; 2.2; 3.1.3; 3.1.7; 

3.15; 6.3; 6.3.5; 8.0; 9.1; 9.2.1; 9.2.3; 

9.2.4; 9.3; 9.6; 9.8; 10.3 

Esparza, Eva 50078 12.0 

Estes, Charlete 50239 12.0 

Excalibur Industries, Inc. OSTS_020 2.0; 3.4.2; 6.3; 11.2 

Excalibur Industries, Inc. OSTS_068 1.5; 2.1.1; 6.3; 6.3.1; 9.1; 9.2.2; 9.3; 

9.6 

ExxonMobil Exploration Company 50287 1.5; 2.0; 2.1.1; 2.2; 2.4; 3.1.5; 3.4.1; 

8.3; 9.0; 9.1; 9.2.2; 9.2.3; 9.2.4; 9.3; 

9.6; 9.7; 10.6.3 

Favret, Bruce 50086 6.3 

Fiandaca, Anastasia 50155 2.2; 3.0; 3.10.3; 12.3 

Firmage, Edwin OSTS_001 3.4.1; 3.5.1.6; 3.5.3; 8.0; 9.2; 12.0 

Fletcher, James OSTS_208 2.1.1 

Florence, Lauren O. 50169 2.3.1 

Floyd, Lindsy 50010 12.1 

Folland, Dave OSTS_062 2.2; 3.0; 3.4.10; 12.3 

Foothills Sustainability Institute 50301 12.0 

Ford, Julie 50225 2.3.1 

Ford, Leslie 50134 2.2; 3.0; 3.10.3; 12.3 

Forsberg, Charles W. 50303 6.3.1; 11.2 
Final OSTS PEIS 19 

TABLE B-3 (Cont.)

Commentors (Name/Organization) ID Number Issue Number 

Freeborn, Craig OSTS_124 2.2; 9.2.1; 9.6.1 

Friends of NW Colorado 50320 1.5; 2.5; 3.4.1; 3.7.3.4; 3.7.3.6; 

3.7.4.1; 3.7.5.1; 3.7.3.4; 3.7.3.6; 

3.10.3; 4.2; 6.2.1; 8.0; 9.7 

Front Range Water Council 

Aurora Water 

Board of Works of Pueblo 

Colorado Springs Utilities 

Denver Water 

Northern Colorado Conservancy District 

Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy 

 District 

Twin Lakes Reservoir and Canal Company 

50337 

(50294) 

1.1.1; 1.5; 3.4.1; 3.4.5; 3.4.6; 3.7.4.1; 

6.2.3; 6.3; 9.8 

Fryer, Brent OSTS_070 1.1; 1.5; 2.0; 2.2; 6.3; 6.3.5; 9.7; 10.3 

Futrell, Sherrill 50051 2.3.1 

Gabbott, Caylee A. 50274 10.6.1 

Gabow, Bruce 50359 12.0 

Garcelon, Gwen 50275 12.2 

Garcia, Yolanda 50054 2.3.1 

Garfield County Board of Commissioners OSTS_078 1.1.1; 1.3; 1.5; 2.1.1; 2.2; 3.1.3; 

3.10.3; 6.1.2; 6.2.2; 6.3.2.1; 6.3.3.1; 

6.3.4; 9.2.1; 9.2.2; 9.5; 9.8 

Gentry, Garry L. 50192 12.3 

Gentry, Nola A. 50193 12.3 

GeoX Consulting Inc. 50305 2.5; 12.3 

Gillespie, Al 50040 2.2.1 

Glen Canyon Institute 50352 2.3.1; 3.1.1; 3.4.1 

Goad, Rebecca OSTS_200 2.1.1; 9.8 

Godlewski, Alison 50229 3.10.3 

Goldsmith, Ken 50061 2.3.1 

Goodloe, Sid 50116 2.3.1 

Grand County, Utah 50017 1.1 

Grand Junction Area Realtors Association OSTS_114 1.1.1; 2.1.1; 9.8 

Grand Junction Chamber of Commerce OSTS_091 1.1.1; 2.1.1; 9.8 

Grand Junction Economic Partnership OSTS_176 2.1.1 

Greene, Jack 50034 12.2 

Greenwood, Rebekah OSTS_129 2.1.1; 2.2; 11.2 

Gregersen, Dylan 50327 12.0 

Gregory, Joan OSTS_010 3.5.1.7; 12.0 

Gregory, Linda OSTS_201 2.1.1; 9.8; 10.6.3 
Final OSTS PEIS 20 

TABLE B-3 (Cont.)

Commentors (Name/Organization) ID Number Issue Number 

Greig, Alexander J. 50023 12.2 

Griffee, Ingrid K. 50041 10.6.1 

Grote, Rolland P. 50289 10.6.1; 12.0 

Grow Our Western Economy OSTS_138 1.1.1; 2.1.1; 2.2 

Gruen, Tatianna OSTS_199 2.1.1; 2.2; 9.8 

Guise, Karen D. 50082 12.0 

Guldi, Christine 50263 6.1 

Gutierrez, Laureen OSTS_211 1.5; 2.1.1; 9.2.3 

Gutt, Ruth OSTS_234 3.0 

Halbower, Kathy 50224 12.3 

Hall, Rebecca 50011 12.1 

Hanson, Jake 50198 10.6.1; 12.0 

Hardebeck, Larry J. 50029 12.3 

Harding, William 50340 2.2 

Hardy, Jamie R. 50196 11.0 

Harkins, Joanne E. 50202 2.3.1; 3.0; 3.1.1; 3.4.1 

Harmon, Jay OSTS_160 2.1.1; 2.2; 9.2.1; 9.8 

Harmon, Kari OSTS_144 2.1.1; 9.8 

Haun, Marjorie OSTS_215 1.1.1; 2.1.1; 9.8 

Hawkes, Nathaniel 50190 10.6.1; 12.0 

HawkWatch International 50295 2.3.1; 3.7.3.1; 3.7.3.5; 3.7.3.6; 

3.7.3.9; 3.7.3.10; 3.7.4.1; 3.7.4.4; 

3.7.3.9; 3.7.3.10 

Hawley, Edward R. 50094 10.5; 10.6.3; 11.0 

Healy, Debbie OSTS_195 2.1.1; 2.2; 9.3 

Hemmer, Michelle OSTS_185 1.1.1; 2.1.1; 11.0 

Hilberman, Mark 50047 1.0; 2.2.1; 2.3.1; 3.1.2; 3.4.1; 3.5.1.1; 

3.5.1.6; 3.15; 6.2.3; 6.3.4; 9.0; 9.3; 

9.7; 10.4; 10.6.1 

Hills, Richard G. 50242 2.3.1; 3.0; 3.1.1; 3.4.1 

History Colorado 50306 1.4; 3.9.7 

Hollis, Jacqueline OSTS_015 2.3.1 

Holtzin, Rich K. 50209 1.5 

Hudson, Denise 50257 2.3.1 

Hull, Brian OSTS_213 2.1.1 

Hultgren, Sandra 50084 12.0 

Hunsinger, Jerry OSTS_172 2.1.1; 9.8 

Hunsinger, Phyllis OSTS_136 9.8 
Final OSTS PEIS 21 

TABLE B-3 (Cont.)

Commentors (Name/Organization) ID Number Issue Number 

Hurley, Michael A. 50033 11.0 

Hyde, Mike OSTS_027 2.1.1; 6.3.2.1; 9.8 

Ickes, Elizabeth 50049 12.0 

Ifill, Tim 50203 2.3.1; 3.0; 3.1.1; 3.4.1 

iMatter Utah 50014 3.5.1.6; 12.0 

Industrial Energy Consumers of America OSTS_232 2.1.1; 2.2; 3.10.3; 9.8; 11.0 

Industrial Systems, Inc. 50007 

(50008) 

11.2 

Ingalls, William 50070 2.3.1; 3.1.1; 10.6.1; 12.3 

Institute for Energy Research Campaign OSTS_217 2.1.1 

Irwin, Michele and Rob 50026 4.3; 5.0; 10.4 

Jefferson, Eleanor J. 50128 3.0; 12.0 

Jilka, Sarah 50307 12.0 

Johnson, Bill J. 50280 1.5; 2.1.1; 9.8 

Johnson, Curtis A. 50067 2.3.1 

Johnson, Richard B. 50205 2.3.1 

Johnston, Becky 50231 2.3.1; 3.0; 3.1.1; 3.4.1 

Johnston, Ward OSTS_139 12.0 

Jones, Anne E. 50220 2.3.1 

Jones, Don OSTS_130 2.1.1; 9.8 

Jones, Donna OSTS_219 3.0 

Jourgensen, Todd OSTS_120 2.1.1; 2.2; 9.8 

Jusek, Lauren 50168 3.10.2 

Justman, John OSTS_127 2.1.1 

JWBA, Inc. 50349 2.1; 9.2.2; 9.7 

Kaplowitz, Rena B. 50027 12.0 

Keown, Herald D. 50170 3.5.1.6; 6.2.3; 12.0 

Kerns, Craig OSTS_030 6.3.3 

Kiefer, Lois OSTS_154 2.1.1; 2.2 

King, Steve OSTS_177 2.1.1; 9.8 

King, Cindy 50261 2.3.1 

Klafehn, Brad 50162 1.1; 1.5; 2.2; 2.3.1; 3.2; 3.3.2; 3.4.1; 

3.4.6; 4.1; 5.0; 6.0; 6.3.2 

Klain, Kyle 50246 3.4.1; 3.8.1 

Kline, Stacy 50053 2.3.1 

Kllanxhja, Piera OSTS_221 3.0 

Kohls, Cyn OSTS_100 1.1.1; 2.1.1; 3.10.3 
Final OSTS PEIS 22 

TABLE B-3 (Cont.)

Commentors (Name/Organization) ID Number Issue Number 

Kohls, Jeff OSTS_105 2.1.1; 3.10.3 

Konola, Claudette 50089 2.3.1 

Kovats, Attila B. 50254 10.6.1 

Kresin, Bruce OSTS_102 2.1.1; 2.2; 3.10.3; 9.6 

Kresin, Teresa OSTS_107 2.1.1.; 6.2.2; 6.3.2.1; 10.6.3; 10.8; 

11.0 

Kroese, Ciru OSTS_203 2.1.1; 2.2; 6.3 

Lamb, Elsie Wattson OSTS_137 2.5; 3.0; 3.10.4; 3.10.5; 12.3 

Lambert, Kate OSTS_012 1.1; 12.0 

Larime, Barbara E. 50370 2.1.1 

Larsen, David 50143 3.0; 3.1.1; 3.3.1; 3.4.1; 3.5.1.1; 3.5.7; 

3.9.7; 3.10.3; 9.3; 10.5 

Latsch, Steve 50151 2.2; 3.0; 3.10.3; 12.3 

Laybourn, Royal 50319 12.0 

Leis, Ken OSTS_212 1.1.1; 2.1.1; 9.2.1; 9.6.1; 9.8 

Lenart, Joshua OSTS_019 2.3.1 

Lence, Bryan 50256 3.1.1; 12.0 

Lewis, Steve G. 50230 12.3 

Lincoln County Board of Commissioners OSTS_077 1.1.1; 1.3; 1.5; 2.1.1; 2.2; 3.1.3; 

3.10.3; 6.1.2; 6.2.2; 6.3.2.1; 6.3.3.1; 

6.3.4; 9.2.1; 9.2.2; 9.5; 9.8 

Lindermuth, John 50212 12.3 

Lish, Christopher 50165 2.2; 2.3.1; 3.5.7; 3.7.3.12; 3.10.3; 

3.10.5; 6.3.2.2; 9.8; 10.6.1; 12.3 

Little, Frank R. 50004 11.2 

Living Rivers/Colorado Riverkeeper 

 Center for Biological Diversity 

 Grand Canyon Trust 

OSTS_083 1.5; 3.1.1; 3.4.1; 3.4.6; 3.5.1.1; 3.5.2; 

3.5.4; 3.5.8; 3.7.1.2; 3.7.4.7; 3.7.4.10; 

4.2; 6.3.2; 9.2; 9.2.2 

Living Rivers OSTS_022 3.4.1; 4.2 

Livingston, Elaine D. 50311 12.0 

London, Floyd 50001 3.4.1 

Long, Randy OSTS_013 2.2; 2.3.1; 12.0 

Maclure, Carole A. 50299 12.3 

MacTavish, Jodie 50083 12.1 

Mahony, Eileen McGuire OSTS_128 1.1.1; 2.1.1; 2.2; 9.8 

Mansfield, Sandra OSTS_126 2.1.1; 10.8; 11.2 

Marsh, Douglas E. 50178 12.1 

Marshall, David OSTS_231 3.0; 3.10.3; 12.3 
Final OSTS PEIS 23 

TABLE B-3 (Cont.)

Commentors (Name/Organization) ID Number Issue Number 

Martin, Mary OSTS_222 3.0 

Martin, Melanie OSTS_024 1.1; 3.4.1; 3.7.3.1; 3.7.4.1; 3.7.4.11; 

3.13; 6.3 

Martin, Melanie J. 50276 3.4.1; 3.4.2; 3.5.1.6; 3.7.3.1; 3.10.3; 

3.13; 3.14; 10.6.1; 12.0 

Martinet, Melissa OSTS_016 1.1; 12.0 

Masefield, Deborah 50211 2.3.1; 3.0; 3.1.1; 3.4.1 

Masefield, Steve J. 50204 2.3.1 

Mates, Ben J. 50038 12.0 

Mathews, Frances 50080 10.6.1; 12.0 

McAndrews, Douglas 50127 11.2 

McArthur, Duncan OSTS_209 1.1.1; 2.1.1; 9.6.1 

McBride, Judith 50174 12.0 

McCabe, Eileen M. 50313 2.5; 3.0; 10.6.1 

McCarney, Kevin OSTS_155 2.1.1; 6.2.2; 6.3.2.1; 6.3.5 

McCoy, Hazel 50136 2.2; 3.0; 3.10.3; 12.3 

McRoberts, Timothy E. 50237 12.0 

Meinhart, Charity OSTS_167 1.1.1; 2.1.1; 9.2.1 

Mesa County Board of Commissioners OSTS_079 1.1.1; 1.3; 1.5; 2.1.1; 2.2; 3.1.3; 

3.10.3; 6.1.2; 6.2.2; 6.3.2.1; 6.3.3.1; 

6.3.4; 9.2.1; 9.2.2; 9.5; 9.8 

Mesa County Board of County Commissioners OSTS_033 2.2; 2.1.1.; 3.10.2; 5.0; 9.3; 9.7 

Messenger, Thomas J. 50326 2.3.1 

Meyer, Jeff 50298 3.4.1 

Michaelis, Margaret 50081 10.6.1; 12.0 

Miller, Dorian L. 50045 12.0 

Miller, Glen OSTS_084 3.4.4; 3.15; 6.1; 6.3.2; 6.3.3; 6.3.6; 

9.7 

Miller, Glen OSTS_085 3.1.8; 6.1; 6.3.6 

Miller, Jack E. 50233 2.3.1 

Miller, Neil and Jennifer 50247 10.6.1 

Miller, Roger K. 50363 3.4.1; 3.13; 9.0 

Moffat County Board of Commissioners OSTS_081 1.1.1; 1.3; 1.5; 2.1.1; 2.2; 3.1.3; 

3.10.3; 6.1.2; 6.2.2; 6.3.2.1; 6.3.3.1; 

9.2.1; 9.2.2; 9.5; 9.8 

Montrose County Board of County Commissioners OSTS_032 1.5; 2.1.1; 3.10.3 

Moore, Matt OSTS_132 1.1.1; 2.1.1 

Moore, Roger E. 50030 2.0; 2.2; 3.15; 6.3.6 
Final OSTS PEIS 24 

TABLE B-3 (Cont.)

Commentors (Name/Organization) ID Number Issue Number 

Moss, Timothy A. 50251 12.3 

Moyer, Larry OSTS_087 1.1; 2.0; 3.1.7; 3.4.6; 3.10.3; 3.15; 

6.1.1 

Mueller, Andy 50114 12.0 

Mueller, Marilyn 50115 12.0 

Mullins, Chad E. 50353 12.0 

Musser, R. OSTS_166 2.1.1 

Name withheld on request OSTS_009 1.1 

Name withheld on request OSTS_014 1.1; 12.0 

Name withheld on request OSTS_028 12.2 

Name withheld on request OSTS_034 3.4.1; 3.14 

Nagel, Peggy A. 50095 2.2.1; 10.6.1 

National Council of Churches 

Church of the Brethren 

Columbian Center for Advocacy and 

 Outreach 

The Episcopal Church 

Maryknoll Office of Global Concerns 

National Council of Churches USA 

Presbyterian Church (USA) Office of Public 

 Witness 

Union for Reform Judaism 

Unitarian Universalist Association of 

 Congregations 

United Church of Christ - Justice and 

 Witness Ministries 

United Methodist Church - General Board of Church 

and Society 

50021 2.2.1 

National Oil Shale Association 50074 

(50075) 

1.1.1; 2.1; 2.2; 2.3; 2.4; 3.1.4; 3.1.7; 

3.4.3; 3.15; 6.3.2; 6.3.2.1; 9.6; 9.6.1; 

9.8; 10.5 

National Parks Conservation Association 50253 2.3.1; 3.1.1; 3.1.2; 3.4.1; 3.5.4; 3.6; 

3.8.1; 3.10.4 

National Wildlife Federation 50323 1.5; 2.2; 2.2.1; 3.1.1; 3.1.2; 3.1.8; 

3.4.1; 3.4.2; 4.2; 3.7.1.1; 3.7.1.2; 

3.7.3.1; 3.7.3.9; 3.7.3.12; 3.7.4; 

3.7.4.1; 3.7.4.3; 3.7.4.9; 3.7.5.1; 

3.10.2; 3.10.4; 4.1; 4.2; 5.0; 6.3.2; 

9.2.1; 9.2.6; 9.4 

National Wildlife Federation campaign OSTS_228 2.2.1; 3.0 

Natural Soda, Inc. 50330 1.3; 2.2; 2.1.1; 3.1.5; 3.10.3; 6.3.3 

Neal, Marcia OSTS_121 2.1.1; 2.2 

No last name provided, Gordon 50317 12.3 
Final OSTS PEIS 25 

TABLE B-3 (Cont.)

Commentors (Name/Organization) ID Number Issue Number 

No last name provided, Mark 50002 2.1; 11 

No last name provided, Peg 50044 12.0 

No last name provided, Steve 50278 10.6.1; 11.2 

No name provided OSTS_023 3.0 

No name provided 50018 2.2 

No name provided 50022 12.2 

No name provided 50042 12.0 

No name provided 50065 2.3.1 

No name provided 50066 2.3.1 

No name provided 50073 1.1; 2.2 

No name provided 50120 2.2; 3.0; 3.10.4; 12.3 

No name provided 50121 2.2; 3.0; 3.10.4; 12.3 

No name provided 50129 2.2; 3.0; 3.10.3; 12.3 

No name provided 50130 2.2; 3.0; 3.10.3; 12.3 

No name provided 50131 2.2; 3.0; 3.10.3; 12.3 

No name provided 50137 2.2; 3.0; 3.10.3; 12.3 

No name provided 50141 12.0 

No name provided 50145 2.1.1 

No name provided 50152 1.1.1; 2.1.1; 9.8 

No name provided 50153 1.1 

No name provided 50156 3.4.1 

No name provided 50157 2.3.1; 3.7.4.10; 3.10.4; 3.10.5 

No name provided 50159 2.2; 3.0; 3.4.1; 3.10.3; 12.3 

No name provided 50166 2.2; 3.0; 3.10.3; 12.3 

No name provided 50172 2.2; 3.0; 3.10.3; 12.3 

No name provided 50177 12.0 

No name provided 50194 12.3 

No name provided 50218 3.1.1 

No name provided 50226 2.3.1; 3.0; 3.1.1; 3.4.1 

No name provided 50232 12.0 

No name provided 50240 2.3.1; 12.0 

No name provided 50288 12.0 

No name provided 50364 10.6.1; 12.0 

Oden, Marilyn OSTS_191 2.1.1 

Olson, Joyce OSTS_225 3.0 

Oswald, Lance M. 50262 2.3.1; 6.3.4; 10.4; 10.5 
Final OSTS PEIS 26 

TABLE B-3 (Cont.)

Commentors (Name/Organization) ID Number Issue Number 

Our Healthy Earth Foundation OSTS_021 3.10.2; 6.6; 10.7; 12.2 

Ouray County, Colorado 50269 2.2.1; 3.4.1; 3.10.2; 3.10.4; 5.0; 6.2 

Outdoor Alliance 

Access Fund 

American Canoe Association 

American Hiking Association 

American Whitewater 

International Mountain Biking Association 

Winter Wildlands Alliance 

50318 1.5; 2.3.1; 3.1.1; 3.4.1; 3.5.4; 3.5.6 

Pace, Stephanie 50009 12.3 

Park, Gerald M. 50315 11.0 

Parsons, Barbara W. 50019 8.0 

Pattison, Ben 50245 3.10.4; 6.3.2.2; 12.0 

Pearce, Daniel D. 50015 12.0 

Peeso, Sandy OSTS_156 1.1.1; 2.1.1; 2.2 

Peterson, Bonnie OSTS_170 1.1.1 

Peterson, Derek K. 50036 12.2 

Pettygrove, Don OSTS_119 1.1.1; 2.1.1; 2.2 

Pitkin County 50147 2.3.1; 3.4.1; 3.5.3; 3.5.4; 3.5.9; 

3.7.3.1; 3.7.3.6; 3.10.2; 3.10.4; 3.14; 

4.2; 6.2; 10.6; 10.6.1 

Pollard, John R. 50264 12.0 

Porter, Josephine 50216 2.3.1 

Pottorff, Verna R. 50003 2.2 

Powell, Krystal d. 50259 12.0 

Power, Nancy R. 50012 2.2.1; 10.6.1 

Public, Jean 50005 12 

Pugliese, John OSTS_202 2.1.1 

Pugliese, Rose OSTS_134 1.1.1; 2.1.1 

Rankin, Bob OSTS_180 2.0; 2.1.1; 9.6.1 

Rau, George OSTS_171 2.1.1 

Raymond, Wendy J. 50241 3.4.1 

Redmond, Dan OSTS_131 2.1.1 

Redstone, Cori 50281 12.0 

Reinhardt, Renee C. 50142 3.0; 3.10.3; 3.10.5 

Richards, Christopher 50189 3.0 

Richardson, Gail 50056 2.3.1 

Richardson, Scott 50260 3.4.1; 3.10.4 

Rio Blanco County Board of Commissioners OSTS_080 1.1.1; 1.3; 1.5; 2.1.1; 2.2; 3.1.3; 
Final OSTS PEIS 27 

TABLE B-3 (Cont.)

Commentors (Name/Organization) ID Number Issue Number 

3.10.3; 6.1.2; 6.2.2; 6.3.2.1; 6.3.3.1; 

6.3.4; 9.2.1; 9.2.2; 9.5; 9.8 

Rio Blanco County Board of County Commissioners OSTS_151 1.1.1 

Rio Blanco County Board of County Commissioners 50312 1.3; 1.5; 2.1.1; 2.2; 2.4.1; 3.1.3; 3.4.1; 

3.7.5.1; 3.10.1; 3.10.2; 3.10.3; 3.13; 

5.0; 6.2.1; 6.3; 6.3.2.1; 8.0; 9.1; 9.2.1; 

9.2.2; 9.7; 9.8; 10.5; 13.0 

Roaring Fork Sierra Club Group 50336 2.2; 2.3; 2.3.1; 3.1.2; 3.4.1; 3.5.1.1; 

3.10.4; 12.0 

Robar, Kenneth OSTS_207 2.1.1; 2.2; 2.3; 2.4; 9.6 

Rock Springs Grazing Association OSTS_029 11.2 

Rodgers, David E. 50322 2.3.1; 3.1.1; 3.4.1; 3.10.4; 10.6.1 

Rogers, Shannon OSTS_161 2.1.1 

Rogers, Tyler OSTS_108 2.1.1; 2.2; 9.8 

Rogier, Francesca E. 50373 12.0 

Romanski, Gene 50234 2.3.1; 3.0; 3.1.1; 3.4.1 

Roscetti, Dennis 50062 2.3.1 

Routt County 50144 2.0; 3.0; 3.1.2; 3.4.1; 3.10.2; 3.10.3; 

6.2.1 

Russell, Shannon OSTS_142 2.1.1 

Rutkowski, Robert E. 50201 2.3.1; 3.0; 3.1.1; 3.4.1 

Sachs, Kathryn C. 50236 3.4.1; 12.0 

Sachs, Mary A. 50265 12.0 

Samson Resources Company OSTS_086 1.5; 3.1.5; 3.1.7 

Sanders, Ashley B. 50013 12.1 

Schmitzer, Rob OSTS_123 2.1.1 

Schoenradt, Richard OSTS_148 2.1.1; 6.2.2; 6.3.2.1; 6.3.5 

Schweiss, Kraig 50371 10.6.1; 12.0 

Schwenke, Diane OSTS_117 2.1.1; 3.10.3 

Scott, Ray OSTS_143 2.1.1; 9.8 

Seelinger, Claire 50028 10.6.1; 12.1 

Severson, Dan OSTS_133 2.1.1; 2.2; 3.1.3; 9.2.1; 9.8 

Shablo, Carol A. 50043 11.0 

Shaffer, Adam 50058 2.3.1 

Sharp, Mike 50250 12.3 

Shell Frontier Oil and Gas, Inc. OSTS_066 1.1.1; 1.3; 2.1.1; 2.2; 6.2.1; 6.3.3; 

9.2.1; 9.8; 10.5; 10.6; 10.6.3; 

Shepherd, Janice OSTS_226 3.0; 3.2 
Final OSTS PEIS 28 

TABLE B-3 (Cont.)

Commentors (Name/Organization) ID Number Issue Number 

Sierra Club campaign OSTS_227 2.3.1; 3.0; 3.5.1.6; 12.3 

Sierra Club, Glen Canyon Group - Utah Chapter OSTS_090 2.3.1; 3.1.1; 3.4.1; 3.5.4; 3.7.4.10; 

3.7.5.1; 3.10.2; 6.3.2.2; 8.0 

Skowronski, Christopher OSTS_210 2.1.1; 9.2.1; 9.6 

Skubic, Carol OSTS_135 1.1.1; 2.1.1 

Sloan, Brenda OSTS_153 2.1.1; 9.8 

Smigh, Herschella OSTS_093 2.1.1; 9.8 

Smith, Jeff OSTS_118 2.2; 9.8 

Smythe, Steven OSTS_164 11.0 

Spach, D.T. OSTS_096 2.1.1; 6.3.5; 9.8 

Spach, Janet OSTS_101 1.1.1; 2.1.1; 3.10.3 

Spears, Connie 50052 2.3.1 

Speirs, Walt 50112 2.3.1 

Springer, Craig OSTS_147 1.1.1; 2.1.1; 2.2; 3.10.3; 9.8 

Stansfield, Katrina 50366 2.2.1; 3.4.1 

Staples, D. 50150 2.2; 3.0; 3.10.3; 12.3 

State of Utah 50333 1.1.1; 1.3; 1.5; 2.1.1; 2.2; 3.1.3; 3.4.2; 

3.4.3; 3.4.4; 3.4.5; 3.5.2; 3.5.5; 3.5.6; 

3.7.5.1; 3.10.3; 3.14; 4.3; 6.1.1; 6.2.1; 

6.3; 6.3.2; 6.5; 8.3; 9.2; 9.2.1; 9.2.2; 

9.2.3; 9.2.4; 9.5; 9.6; 9.6.1; 9.7; 9.8; 

10.5; 10.6; 11.0; 13.0 

State of Wyoming 50332 1.3; 3.1.3; 3.1.5; 9.2.1; 9.2.4; 9.7 

Steig, Brad OSTS_188 2.1.1; 9.8 

Steinbach, Larry W. 50006 2.1.1 

Stephens, Ed OSTS_159 2.1.1; 6.2.2; 6.3.2.1; 6.3.5 

Stern, Adam G. 50199 2.3.1 

Stevenson, Jason R. 50179 2.3.1; 3.1.2 

Stewart, Irwin I. 50148 6.3; 9.0; 9.8 

Stoker, Philip 50068 2.3.1 

Straub, Carolyn A. 50055 2.3.1 

Sundeen, Joan 50096 3.4.1; 3.5.7; 3.7.4.1; 3.10.3; 3.14 

Sunewin Energy OSTS_152 6.3.1 

Susuras, Sam OSTS_140 2.1.1 

Swanson, Fred 50195 2.3.1 

Sweetwater County Board of County Commissioners OSTS_150 2.0 
Final OSTS PEIS 29 

TABLE B-3 (Cont.)

Commentors (Name/Organization) ID Number Issue Number 

Sweetwater County, Wyoming 50255 1.1.1; 1.3; 1.5; 2.1; 2.1.1; 2.2; 2.5; 

3.1.3; 3.10.3; 6.1.2; 6.2.2; 6.3.2.1; 

6.3.3.1; 6.3.4; 9.2; 9.2.1; 9.2.2; 9.5; 

9.8; 10.6.3 

Syroid, Daniel 50025 12.2 

Syroid, Noah 50024 10.6.1; 12.0 

Tabin, Jean N. 50077 2.3.1; 10.6.1 

Taylor Energy 50304 6.3 

Terry, K. 50149 2.2; 3.0; 3.10.3; 12.3 

The Wilderness Society campaign OSTS_218 2.2.1; 3.0; 3.5.3; 3.10.4; 6.2.3; 6.3.2.2 

Thompson, Doug OSTS_204 2.1.1; 2.2; 9.8 

Thompson, Jeffrey OSTS_206 8.1; 11.0 

Thompson, Thurston 50060 12.0 

Tibbetts, Peggy 50031 12.0 

Tice, Larry OSTS_181 2.1.1; 11.2 

Tobin, Robert L. 50099 

(50097-50098) 

(50100-50109) 

3.2; 3.4.1; 3.4.5; 3.4.6 

Todd, Sam 50135 2.2; 3.0; 3.10.3; 12.3 

Town of Carbondale 50270 1.1; 3.1.2; 3.4.1; 3.7.3.12; 3.10.2; 

3.10.4; 6.2.1; 9.7; 9.8 

Town of New Castle 50249 2.2.1; 2.3.1; 3.4.1; 3.10.2; 3.10.4 

Trepanier, Lionel 50285 1.1; 1.5; 3.4.1; 3.14; 4.2; 6.3; 12.0 

Tucker, Pat and Gerry OSTS_169 2.1.1 

Tuke, Carla 50206 2.3.1; 3.0; 3.1.1; 3.4.1 

Turley, Steven 50210 2.3.1 

U.S. DOE, Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 6 OSTS_071 1.4; 2.2.1; 3.4.1.3; 3.4.6; 3.7.1.2; 

3.7.3.2; 3.7.3.3; 3.7.3.4; 3.7.3.5; 

3.7.3.6; 3.7.3.11; 3.7.3.12; 3.7.4.1; 

3.7.4.3; 3.7.4.4; 3.7.4.5; 3.7.4.6; 

3.7.4.11; 3.7.5.1; 3.7.5.3; 4.2; 4.3; 

5.0; 6.3; 6.3.2; 9.2; 9.3 

U.S. DOI, National Park Service, Intermountain 

Region 

OSTS_073 2.3.1; 3.1.1; 3.9.1 

U.S. DOI, U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) OSTS_074 3.7.3.12; 3.7.4.11 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 8 OSTS_072 1.4; 3.4.4; 3.4.5; 3.5.5; 3.5.8; 3.7.2; 

6.2.1; 9.3; 9.6 

Uintah County 50325 1.1.1; 1.3; 1.5; 2.1; 2.1.1; 2.2; 2.5; 

3.1.3; 3.1.7; 3.10.3; 6.0; 6.1.1; 6.1.2; 

6.2.2; 6.3.2.1; 6.3.3.1; 6.3.4; 6.3.5; 

9.1; 9.2.1; 9.2.2; 9.5; 9.8 
Final OSTS PEIS 30 

TABLE B-3 (Cont.)

Commentors (Name/Organization) ID Number Issue Number 

Uno, Kevin 50284 10.6.1; 12.0 

Urignen, Anthony OSTS_184 2.1.1; 9.6.1; 9.8 

Utah Science & Technology Research OSTS_002 10.7 

Varner, Clara L. 50122 2.2.1 

Vaughn, Chaz OSTS_174 2.1.1 

Vaughn, Colton OSTS_205 2.1.1; 9.8 

Venezia, Sherri 50223 12.3 

Vermillion Ranch Limited Partnership 50328 1.5; 2.1; 2.1.1; 2.2; 3.1.3; 3.1.7; 

3.10.3; 6.3.2; 6.3.5; 6.5; 8.2; 9.1; 

9.2.1; 9.2.2; 9.2.4; 9.5; 9.7 

Vernal Area Chamber of Commerce OSTS_112 2.1.1 

Vilnius, Douglas 50046 10.6.1 

Vohland, Michael OSTS_110 2.1.1; 9.8 

W (no other name provided) 50093 12.1 

Wade, Lowell E. 50123 2.2.1; 3.4.1; 3.10.3; 3.10.5 

Walker, Jerry OSTS_094 2.1.1 

Wallace, Jonathan 50176 12.0 

Walters, Sonya 50138 2.2; 3.0; 3.10.3; 12.3 

Warnick, Richard M. 50238 2.3.1; 3.0; 3.1.1; 3.4.1 

Waterson, Sarah 50164 2.3.1; 3.1.1; 3.4.1 

Wear, George H. 50354 2.2.1 

Weaver, Andrew OSTS_098 1.1.1 

Weaver, Megan OSTS_097 2.1.1 

Webb, Dean B. 50059 2.3.1 

Weber Sustainability Consulting 50351 3.4.1; 3.7.3.11; 5.0; 12.0 

Weber, Jana OSTS_067 12.3 

Weiblen, Peter M. 50191 12.0 

Welch, Jeffery OSTS_146 2.1.1 

Werschky, Dave E. 50244 3.4.1; 12.0 

West Slope Colorado Oil & Gas Association 50343 1.3; 2.2; 2.4; 3.4.1; 3.8.3; 3.10.1; 

3.10.3; 3.12.3; 5.0; 6.1; 6.1.1; 6.2.1; 

6.3; 6.3.2; 6.3.2.1; 9.3; 9.6; 9.8; 13.0 

Western Business Roundtable 50283 6.1.2; 10.6.3; 9.0; 11.0 

Western Colorado Jobs Alliance (WCJA) OSTS_122 2.1.1; 2.2; 9.8 

Western Colorado Contractors Association OSTS_196 1.1.1; 2.1.1; 3.10.3 
Final OSTS PEIS 31 

TABLE B-3 (Cont.)

Commentors (Name/Organization) ID Number Issue Number 

Western Resource Advocates 

Biodiversity Conservation Alliance 

Center for Biological Diversity 

Colorado Environmental Coalition 

Defenders of Wildlife 

EcoFlight 

National Parks Conservation Association 

Natural Resources Defense Council 

Sierra Club 

Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance 

The Wilderness Society 

Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment 

Western Colorado Congress 

Wild Utah Project 

Wilderness Workshop 

Wyoming Outdoor Council 

OSTS_069 1.4; 1.5; 2.2; 2.3.1; 3.1.1; 3.1.2; 3.1.7; 

3.4.1; 3.4.5; 3.5.1.1; 3.5.1.3; 3.5.1.4; 

3.5.1.6; 3.5.3; 3.5.4; 3.7.1.1; 3.7.1.2; 

3.7.4.1; 3.7.4.2; 3.7.4.3; 3.7.4.6; 

3.7.4.7; 3.7.4.8; 3.7.4.9; 3.7.4.10; 

3.7.5.1; 3.7.5.2; 3.7.5.3; 3.8.1; 3.8.2; 

3.10.2; 3.10.3; 3.10.4; 3.15; 4.1; 4.2; 

5.0; 6.1.1; 6.2; 6.2.1; 6.3; 9.0; 9.2.1; 

9.2.4; 9.2.6; 9.3; 9.7; 10.6.1 

Western Slope Conservation Alliance OSTS_189 2.1.1; 9.6.1; 9.8 

Wetzel, Angela 50273 3.10.3; 10.6.3; 11.0 

Wharram, April 50132 2.0; 3.0; 3.10.3; 12.3 

White, Dennis OSTS_197 2.1.1; 6.2.2; 6.3.2.1; 9.8; 11.2 

White, Leslie OSTS_179 2.1.1; 9.8 

Williams, Mary OSTS_007 2.3.1 

Williamson, Brenda 50158 12.3 

Williamson, Kirt E. 50039 12.0 

Willis, Cheryl 50243 3.4.1; 3.13 

Wolf, Wesley 50219 2.3.1; 3.1.1; 3.4.1 

Wolfe, Mary E. 50113 2.3.1; 12.0 

Worden, Bonnie J. 50161 2.2; 3.0; 3.4.1; 3.10.3; 12.3 

Worthen, Garry OSTS_194 2.1.1; 9.8 

Worthy, Crista 50200 2.3.1; 3.1.1; 3.4.1 

Wortmann, Craig OSTS_115 2.1.1; 9.8 

Wright, Jared OSTS_182 2.1.1; 2.2 

Wright, Tom 50235 2.3.1; 3.0 

Wuerthner, George 50111 2.3.1; 3.1.1 

Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality 50335 1.5; 2.2; 3.1.7; 3.4.2; 3.4.5; 3.5.4; 

3.5.6; 3.5.7; 3.13; 5.0; 6.0; 6.3; 6.4; 

9.1; 9.2; 9.3; 9.7 
Final OSTS PEIS 32 

TABLE B-3 (Cont.)

Commentors (Name/Organization) ID Number Issue Number 

Wyoming Game and Fish Department 50286 2.1; 2.2; 2.3; 2.4; 3.1.2; 3.7.3.1; 

3.7.5.1; 3.7.3.8 

Wyoming Office of State Lands & Investments 50163 9.2; 9.2.4 

Wyoming Outdoor Council OSTS_088 2.2; 2.3.1; 3.1.1; 3.4.1; 3.5.7 

Yazzie, Jane OSTS_003 2.2; 3.4.1; 10.6.1; 12.0 

Zigmund, Sean 50088 2.5; 10.6.1 

B.4.2 Issue Summaries and Responses 

1.0 NEPA ANALYSIS 

50047-16 50047-17 50160-2 50279-7 

Issue Summary: Commentors noted that the general Programmatic Environmental 

Impact Statement (PEIS) document was adequate. Other commentors noted that 

appropriate baseline measurements should be taken prior to the program’s 

implementation. 

Response: The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) will do baseline monitoring and 

baseline environmental studies at the appropriate time and in a focused manner prior to 

an area being leased, as noted on p. J-19 of the Draft PEIS. This approach would result 

in a cost-effective program that would produce relevant data. Appropriate baseline 

measurements were made for each of the research, development, and demonstration 

(RD&D) lease areas as part of an environmental analysis and plan of operations for both 

the state and the BLM. This information will be used to support the conversion to 

commercial leases. 

1.1 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT 

OSTS_004-1

OSTS_004-3

OSTS_006-1

OSTS_009-1

OSTS_011-1

OSTS_012-1

OSTS_014-1

OSTS_016-1

OSTS_024-1

OSTS_062-4 

OSTS_070-9 

OSTS_087-8 

50017-1 

50073-1 

50125-1 

50125-3 

50153-1 

50162-4 

50270-2 

50285-1 

50296-1 

50308-14 
Final OSTS PEIS 33 

Issue Summary: Some members of the public were concerned about the format of the 

meetings and also were concerned about the size of the meeting room, the lack of an open 

speaking forum, and the way the meetings format was publicized (or not). In addition, 

concerns were expressed about the content of the opening remarks and the lack of a 

presentation on the content of the Draft PEIS, while others expressed appreciation for the 

BLM’s response to their questions. Several commentors expressed concern that the 

public comments that the BLM received during the 90-day public comment period were 

not available for view by the public, on the oil shale and tar sands (OSTS) Web site, or on 

a public Web site such as regulations.gov. 

Response: For a number of purposes, external scoping meetings are held to notify 

agencies, organizations, tribes, state and local governments and the public that the BLM 

is about to prepare a National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA)/planning 

document and to provide opportunities for feedback on what needs to be analyzed in 

these documents. These meetings are also used to identify coordination needs, refine 

issues, and identify new issues and possible alternatives. The BLM generally does this 

through a public meeting with an open forum format whereby participants are each given 

an opportunity to express their views on the above issues. This information is 

incorporated and used in preparing the Draft PEIS/land use plan. The BLM holds public 

meetings on draft land use plans after it has circulated the document for comment. The 

intent of these meetings is to inform the public that the Draft is available and to respond 

to any questions the public may have regarding the Draft document. In general, the BLM 

will do this through a public open-house meeting. The format is an open-house format 

whereby posters and maps are arrayed around the meeting room and resource experts are 

available to answer specific resource questions. In addition, BLM staff are present to 

discuss policy and NEPA issues and concerns. Several members of the public expressed 

concerns about the size of the venue in Salt Lake City for the public meeting on the Draft 

PEIS. The size of the room was selected based on the number of attendees at the scoping 

meeting for the PEIS in Salt Lake City the previous year. Regarding presentations of the 

Draft PEIS, a continuous un-narrated slide presentation was run throughout the meeting, 

and several posters and maps were available, as were BLM and contractor resource 

specialists to explain the contents of the PEIS. In spite of this crowded condition, the 

BLM was able to hear a wide variety of concerns regarding the PEIS and respond to 

questions to groups or individuals during the meeting. Staff were available to answer 

questions through the full period of the meeting, and they engaged in several discussions 

with members of the public, especially toward that later part of the meeting, after 

members of the public had viewed the various visual presentations. The BLM publicized 

the format of the meeting through announcements in local newspapers in a manner that 

fairly and accurately described the format of the meetings. 

Several commentors expressed concern that the public comments that the BLM received 

during the 90-day public comment period were not available for view by the public, on 

the OSTS Web site, or on a public Web site such as regulations.gov. Several federal 

agencies have elected to use regulations.gov to request and make available public 

comments for NEPA processes. The commentors assert that failing to make such public 
Final OSTS PEIS 34 

comments available during the public comment period is not consistent with open 

government, in principle, and as advocated by the Obama Administration. 

Under the BLM’s planning regulations at Title 43, Part 1610.2(d) of the Code of Federal 

Regulations (43 CFR 1610.2(d)), any comments received from the public during public 

participation activities must be available for the record or in a summary and must remain 

open for 30 days, so that members of the public may correct or clarify their views. For 

the OSTS PEIS planning initiative, the BLM prepared a summary of public comments 

received during the scoping period that began on April 14, 2011, and posted that 

summary to the OSTS Web site in late summer 2011. The summary of comments 

received was also published with the Draft PEIS, on February 3, 2012. 

As for the public comments received during the 90-day public comment period, although 

the comments were not made available as they were received, they were posted on the 

OSTS Web site on August 21, 2012, after the close of the comment period. In addition, 

public comments are included, in full, in electronic form on the CD portion of Volume 5 

of this Final PEIS. Under the BLM planning regulations and in accordance with the 

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

comments received during the comment period, as well as the Final PEIS, will be 

available for at least 30 days, upon publication, before any decision is made regarding the 

proposed action of amending land use plans. 

1.1.1 Extension of Comment Period

OSTS_066-7 

OSTS_077-15 

OSTS_077-19 

OSTS_078-15 

OSTS_078-19 

OSTS_079-15 

OSTS_079-19 

OSTS_080-16 

OSTS_080-20 

OSTS_081-15 

OSTS_081-20 

OSTS_082-1 

OSTS_091-3 

OSTS_098-1 

OSTS_099-3 

OSTS_100-3 

OSTS_101-4 

OSTS_113-2 

OSTS_114-3 

OSTS_119-2 

OSTS_128-4 

OSTS_132-1 

OSTS_134-2 

OSTS_135-2 

OSTS_138-3 

OSTS_147-3 

OSTS_151-1 

OSTS_156-3 

OSTS_163-1 

OSTS_167-2 

OSTS_170-1 

OSTS_183-2 

OSTS_185-3 

OSTS_196-4 

OSTS_209-1 

OSTS_212-5 

OSTS_215-3 

50074-1 

50074-5 

50091-1 

50152-3 

50186-19 

50186-26 

50186-28 

50255-23 

50255-27 

50268-22 

50268-33 

50272-8 

50290-8 

50310-1 

50324-1 

50325-24 

50325-30 

50325-9 

50333-1 

50333-33 

50337-12 
Final OSTS PEIS 35 

Issue Summary: A number of parties requested that the comment period be extended by 

30, 60, or 90 days to include the period in which the draft oil shale regulations would be 

published so that both documents could be reviewed simultaneously. 

Response: The request for an extension of the public comment period for this PEIS was 

not granted. See the response to Issue 9.8, below, for an explanation of why an extension 

was not granted. In particular, it is noted there that the 2012 proposed land use plan 

amendment allocation and the proposed amendment to the rule are distinct proposed 

actions, which take place under distinct authorities according to distinct procedural 

requirements. The proposed rule amendment is not “closely related” to the proposed land 

use plan allocation amendment, so as to warrant discussion as a “connected action” under 

40 CFR 1508.25. Nor are they so dependent upon one another as to necessitate 

coordination of the public comment period for either process. 

1.2 GOVERNMENT-TO-GOVERNMENT CONSULTATION 

50125-2 

Issue Summary: One commentor asked the BLM to ensure that it conduct extensive 

outreach and consultation with tribes to identify cultural sites of importance. 

Response: The BLM has conducted outreach. The BLM has consulted with all the 

affected tribes and continues to consult with them through the Section 106 process, 

including asking them to identify landscape-wide sites of cultural importance to them. 

1.3 STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT 

OSTS_066-9 

OSTS_075-2 

OSTS_077-20 

OSTS_078-20 

OSTS_079-20 

OSTS_080-21 

OSTS_081-21 

OSTS_082-2 

OSTS_089-1 

50087-4 

50090-9 

50181-99 

50184-3 

50184-4 

50184-8 

50186-27 

50227-14 

50227-15 

50227-4 

50255-28 

50255-5 

50290-5 

50290-9 

50312-1 

50312-6 

50312-7 

50325-31 

50325-45 

50325-8 

50330-2 

50333-6 

50333-7 

50343-7 

Issue Summary: Certain county and city governments were concerned that the BLM did 

not solicit input and consideration from them. One commentor suggested that because the 

public hearings in Colorado were not held in the White River district, where the richest 
Final OSTS PEIS 36 

oil shale resource lies and where most of RD&D leases exist, the BLM’s focus had 

shifted away from the local connections with the resource. 

Response: As part of the cooperating agency process, the BLM sent cooperating agency 

invitation letters to all county governments in the planning area. It is BLM policy to 

solicit cooperating agency status from county governments. If a city government had 

requested to participate as a cooperating agency, that request would have been granted. 

Counties that did not indicate a desire to be a cooperating agency were not included as a 

cooperating agency. Regarding including original scoping comments in Chapter 7 or 

elsewhere in the PEIS, the BLM does not generally include individual scoping comments 

in a planning document; rather, a scoping report summarizing these comments and 

BLM’s determination of whether issues raised in such comments are within the scope of 

the document is provided. Such a summary report is provided as Appendix J in this PEIS. 

In accordance with 43 CFR 1610.3-1, when developing or revising Resource 

Management Plans (RMPs), BLM State Directors and Field Managers will invite eligible 

federal agencies, state and local governments, and federally recognized Indian tribes to 

participate as cooperating agencies. The same requirement applies when the BLM 

amends RMPs through an EIS. State Directors and Field Managers will consider any 

requests of other federal agencies, state and local governments, and federally recognized 

Indian tribes for cooperating agency status. Field Managers who deny such requests will 

inform the State Director of the denial. The State Director will determine whether the 

denial is appropriate. 

Under the BLM’s planning regulations at 43 CFR 1610.2(d), any comments received 

from the public during public participation activities must be available for the record, or 

in a summary, and must remain open for 30 days so that members of the public may 

correct or clarify their views. For the OSTS PEIS planning initiative, the BLM prepared a 

summary of public comment received during the scoping period that began on April 14, 

2011, and posted that summary to the OSTS Web site in late summer 2011. The summary 

of comments received was also published with the Draft PEIS, on February 3, 2012. 

In accordance with 43 CFR 1610.3-1, State Directors and Field Managers shall provide 

other federal agencies, state and local governments, and Indian tribes opportunity for 

review, advice, and suggestion on issues and topics that may affect or influence other 

agency or other government programs. The BLM will: 

(1) Ensure plans are as consistent as possible with existing officially adopted and 

approved resource related plans, policies or programs of other federal agencies, state 

agencies, Indian tribes, and local governments that may be affected, as prescribed by 

§1610.3–2 of this title; 

(2) Identify areas where the proposed guidance is inconsistent with such policies, plans, 

or programs and provide reasons why the inconsistencies exist and cannot be 

remedied; and 
Final OSTS PEIS 37 

(3) Notify the other federal agencies, state agencies, Indian tribes, or local governments 

with whom consistency is not achieved and indicate any appropriate methods, 

procedures, actions, and/or programs which the State Director believes may lead to 

resolution of such inconsistencies. 

In accordance with Section 202 (c)(9) of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 

1976 (FLPMA), the BLM has given consideration to those state, local, and tribal plans 

that are germane in the development of land use plans for public lands. Land use plans of 

the Secretary under this section shall be consistent with state and local plans to the 

maximum extent he finds consistent with federal law and the purposes of this Act. 

The BLM has published the written comments of cooperators who have unresolved 

disagreements over substantive elements of the PEIS in Appendix M of this PEIS. 

Public meetings were held in a central location in the planning area in each state. The 

meeting in Colorado was held in the Colorado River Valley Field Office in Silt, one of 

the three Colorado BLM offices within the planning area. The other two offices were 

49 mi (White River Field Office in Meeker) and 68 mi (Grand Junction Field Office) 

away, respectively. The meetings were held 8 mi from the location of the 2008 PEIS 

public meetings. 

1.4 AGENCY CONSULTATION

OSTS_069-25 OSTS_071-8 OSTS_072-9 50306-1 

Issue Summary: Commentors requested the BLM consult with relevant agencies in 

areas of their expertise. 

Response: The BLM received comments on the Draft PEIS from various federal 

agencies and has incorporated these comments into the Final PEIS and will continue to 

consult with agencies as appropriate. 

1.5 INADEQUATE/BIASED NEPA ANALYSIS 

OSTS_032-2 

OSTS_068-1 

OSTS_068-10 

OSTS_069-42 

OSTS_070-1 

OSTS_077-6 

OSTS_077-8 

OSTS_078-6 

OSTS_078-8 

OSTS_079-6 

OSTS_079-8 

OSTS_080-9 

OSTS_080-15 

OSTS_081-7 

OSTS_081-9 

OSTS_083-1 

OSTS_086-1 

OSTS_104-1 

OSTS_109-3 

OSTS_211-1 

50162-16 

50162-3 

50181-125 

50181-3 

50181-8 

50181-90 

50186-8 

50186-11 
Final OSTS PEIS 38 

50209-1 

50255-4 

50255-14 

50255-16 

50268-20 

50280-1 

50285-7 

50287-22 

50310-12 

50310-15 

50312-11 

50312-42 

50318-5 

50320-1 

50320-7 

50323-2 

50324-10 

50324-16 

50324-7 

50324-9 

50325-16 

50325-18 

50328-17 

50328-18 

50328-24 

50333-2 

50333-21 

50333-31 

50333-5 

50333-40 

50335-5 

50337-11 

Issue Summary: Many comments expressed concern that the NEPA analysis was 

flawed, inadequate, or biased for or against oil shale and tar sands development. 

Comments from industry and local governments suggested that the document did not 

satisfy NEPA requirements to protect the environment, but that it serves to establish 

barriers to oil shale and tar sands development on public land and thus violates NEPA 

and the 2005 Energy Policy Act. Some environmental groups suggested that, by allowing 

any oil shale and tar sands development, the Draft PEIS did not adhere to NEPA 

requirements to protect the environment or that the NEPA analysis was biased in favor of 

development on public lands. Several commentors also stated that the Draft PEIS lacks 

detail, data, and a sufficient analysis of impacts. 

The State of Utah commented that the PEIS inadequately analyzes oil shale technologies. 

One member of the public commented that on page J-6, in the analysis of Scoping 

Comments, the PEIS states that the comment that “deferment of decisions [should be 

made] until RD&D results are available” is outside the scope of the PEIS and disagreed 

that this comment was out of scope. 

One local government commentor noted that the PEIS fails to incorporate new data and 

listed pages where new data were needed. 

Response: The BLM disagrees that the PEIS is not following an open and unbiased 

process. The Draft PEIS was prepared in accordance with both FLPMA and NEPA land 

use planning requirements. While the BLM has a multiple use mandate, this does not 

mean that the BLM will allow every use on every acre. In accordance with FLPMA, the 

Secretary has the discretion to manage public lands as he determines appropriate. 

Regarding the withdrawal of Naval Oil Shale Reserves (NOSR) lands, as stated in 

Section 2.3.3, pages 2-30 and 2-31 of the Draft PEIS, the oil shale withdrawal is still in 

effect on NOSR lands 1 and 3, and these lands are closed and not available for future 

opportunity for lease for the development of oil shale resources under all alternatives. 

The BLM complied with the requirements of the Energy Policy Act in 2008, issuing both 

the PEIS and the regulation required by Section 369 of the Act. Nothing in the Energy 
Final OSTS PEIS 39 

Policy Act of 2005 specified how the Secretary must establish a commercial oil shale 

leasing program, apart from requiring the Secretary to consider the most geologically 

prospective areas in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming. The Energy Policy Act did not 

specify the acreage that must be available for such program, or how the requirements of 

such program should be balanced with other resource uses. Under FLPMA, the Secretary 

must manage the public lands in accordance with land use plans, and retains the 

discretion to establish, revise, and amend those land use plans, as appropriate, to address 

resource management issues. This means that no leasing or development of oil shale or 

tar sands resources may occur on the public lands unless such activity is consistent with 

the applicable land use plan. In view of the nascent character of the oil shale and tar sands 

industries, as well as in light of other resource management concerns, the Secretary, 

acting though the BLM, has decided to reconsider the appropriate federal lands to be 

available for leasing and development of these resources, as well as whether commercial 

leasing should be preceded by additional, vigorous RD&D. There may be different views 

as to whether the nascent character of the technologies argues for more land to be open, 

so that more lands may be available for RD&D, or whether fewer lands should be open, 

in order that such RD&D and eventual commercial development as does occur may be 

targeted in areas with few resource use conflicts, while leaving open some areas where 

the oil shale or tar sands resource has been identified as particularly rich. While the 

Energy Policy Act of 2005 encourages commercial development of oil shale and tar 

sands resources, these kinds of land management policy questions (how much land, 

where, with what restrictions, and so on) are left, under FLPMA, to the Secretary, acting 

through the BLM. The BLM believes the purpose and need statement to be appropriate to 

this proposed land use allocation planning action and consistent with the fostering of a 

robust RD&D oil shale program, and tar sands industry, leading to viable commercial 

development of both of these resources. 

Additional data from RD&D projects were added to the Final PEIS. Regarding the issue 

identified on page J-6, the BLM does not agree that the issue of deferment of a decision 

until RD&D results are available is not out of scope. An allocation decision is required to 

fulfill the purpose and need for which this PEIS has been prepared, regardless of whether 

RD&D results are available or not. While the PEIS under Alternative 3 analyzes an 

alternative that includes only lands within existing or pending RD&D leases and 

associated preference right lease areas (PRLAs), the selection of this allocation 

alternative would not depend on the availability of RD&D results. 

The BLM examined information on the cited pages of the Draft PEIS where the 

commentor noted information needed to be updated and updated information such as 

could be found in the Final PEIS. 

2.0 ALTERNATIVES 

OSTS_020-1 

OSTS_070-2 

OSTS_070-6 

OSTS_087-3 

OSTS_150-1 

OSTS_180-1 

50030-1 

50090-2 
Final OSTS PEIS 40 

50110-4 

50132-2 

50144-8 

50154-3 

50181-9 

50181-16 

50181-28 

50181-30 

50268-16 

50287-3 

50310-13 

50310-58 

50324-9 

50324-49

Issue Summary: Several people commented that the range of alternatives was 

insufficient to foster oil shale and tar sands development as mandated by the 2005 Energy 

Policy Act and unnecessarily restricts lands that would be available for future commercial 

oil shale leasing based on arbitrary land use policy judgments and speculation about 

future resource impacts that are currently unknown and unknowable. Some commentors 

asserted that the BLM had not presented a thorough enough analysis of the consequences 

of not developing oil shale and had improperly failed to consider an alternative of having 

no commercial leasing program, but had focused too much on the negative environmental 

consequences of developing the resources. The commentors cited the increased 

likelihood of stunted economic growth as a result of the high balance of payment deficit 

(the financial relationship between the United States and other nations), the need for a 

large military force to ensure a safe source of petroleum, and periodic wars to enforce 

that security. The commentors also suggested that the BLM compare shale oil to biofuels 

in terms of cost and water use or to the effects of gasoline rationing. 

Several commentors expressed their preference that the BLM adopt either the Preferred 

Alternative or any alternative that included the RD&D first procedural element. In 

addition, several commentors requested that the Secretary, the BLM, and members of 

Congress ensure, through federal regulatory or legislative processes, that local 

communities and the region where these resources are located are prepared for and have 

the necessary assistance in place prior to commercial development of oil shale. The City 

of Rifle (the City) is supportive of the efforts to expand oil shale and tar sands research 

and development activities, but is concerned about the impacts of such a program to the 

City’s economy, infrastructure, government services, recreational opportunities, and 

water supply. The City supports any alternative in which a strong RD&D program 

precedes oil shale and tar sands production. The availability of such data will allow the 

City to properly plan for any impacts, including the dedication of financial resources to 

mitigate potentially adverse impacts. The City requests that the federal government 

ensure that local governments directly affected by oil shale and tar sands development 

receive funding to address local impacts prior to the approval of commercial production. 

Several of the cooperating agencies responded to the BLM’s request that members of the 

public consider the suggestion put forward by several of the cooperating agencies that the 

BLM develop an alternative that would allow for larger scale leasing and development in 

Utah and Wyoming, where the majority of the cooperators support a program that makes 

more federal oil shale and tar sands resources available for application for future leasing, 

while limiting development in Colorado where the majority of the cooperators favor a 

more cautious approach to leasing and development (Draft PEIS, Section 2.4.4). These 
Final OSTS PEIS 41 

cooperators requested that the BLM develop such an alternative and present it for public 

comment. 

One commentor noted that the Table 2.6-1 header excluded the Vernal RMP and perhaps 

other oil shale development areas. 

Response: As required by NEPA and the regulations, the BLM considered a range of 

alternatives and explained its identification of Alternative 2(b) as the Preferred 

Alternative in the Draft PEIS. The conduct of rulemaking proceedings is outside the 

scope of this PEIS. The size and configuration of RD&D leases will be determined in the 

leasing process and are outside the scope of this PEIS. The Proposed Plan fosters a robust 

RD&D program as a first step toward a viable and environmentally acceptable oil shale 

industry. 

Under any of the alternatives analyzed, a viable commercial program would be possible. 

Even the alternative with the least amount of land allocated would provide more than 

30,000 acres of the richest oil shale resource being open for consideration for future 

leasing. Other extractive industries have mature and predictable technologies. Even the 

impacts of relatively new renewable energy technologies are generally predictable. Oil 

shale technologies are nascent and have not been proven commercially viable for 

production of liquid fuels. Federal law requires that the Secretary consider potential 

impacts on the environment in considering land use decisions. Under FLPMA, the 

Secretary has the authority and the discretion to engage in land use planning, including 

the establishment, revision, or amendment of land use plans. While oil shale is authorized 

under the 1920 Mineral Leasing Act, management of oil shale resources is also conducted 

pursuant to FLPMA. Under Section 302 of FLPMA, the Secretary can establish the 

conditions under which uses of the public land can take place. Because the technologies 

required to develop oil shale resources are in their infancy, the Secretary is proposing to 

require RD&D in order that the kinds of technologies and their impacts may be known 

before broad-scale commercial development takes place. In contrast, the technology 

required to develop oil and gas resources is well-established. 

The BLM has complied with the Energy Policy Act of 2005. The Act does not prevent 

the Secretary from proposing an amendment or amending land use plans. Under any of 

the alternatives analyzed, a viable commercial program would be possible. Even the 

alternative with the least amount of land allocated would provide for more than 

30,000 acres of the richest oil shale resource being open for consideration for future 

leasing. 

The BLM decided not to include a thorough analysis of the consequences of not 

developing oil shale in the PEIS, because these issues are beyond the scope of the 

purpose and need and analysis of the proposed action, which is a reassessment of the 

appropriate allocation of public lands for development of oil shale and tar sands 

resources, and reflects the congressionally established policy of encouraging the 

development of these resources on public lands. 
Final OSTS PEIS 42 

The BLM did not include in the PEIS an analysis to ensure that regions where these 

resources are located have the necessary assistance in place prior to the commercial 

development of oil shale. These issues are beyond the scope of the current land use 

planning allocation decisionmaking, and its purpose and need for reassessing the 

appropriate allocation of federal lands for leasing and development of these resources, 

and are not further addressed. 

In response to the cooperators’ request that the BLM develop an alternative that would 

allow for larger scale leasing and development in Utah and Wyoming, the BLM 

considered this suggestion, and this request, and decided not to develop such an 

alternative and present it for public comment—largely because such an alternative would 

consist of elements already analyzed and presented for public comment, and therefore 

this approach is not necessary. Further, the BLM did not receive public comments 

supporting this idea, beyond those of the cooperators who originally suggested this 

approach. 

Several commentors objected to any leasing of oil shale or tar sands resources for 

development. Adopting such a management plan would be inconsistent with the policies 

of the United States as expressed in the Energy Policy Act of 2005. 

The headings in Table 2.6-1 were corrected. 

2.1 ALTERNATIVE 1, NO ACTION 

OSTS_111-1 

OSTS_168-1 

50002-1 

50074-2 

50255-2 

50286-1 

50310-06 

50310-10 

50325-35 

50328-8 

50349-1 

50349-5 

Issue Summary: Some commentors voiced support for the 2008 PEIS and stated that 

there was little reason to reduce the acreage available to development because of legal 

action taken by opponents of oil shale and tar sands development. One commentor stated 

that the No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) is the only alternative justified under 

Section 369 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, and subsequent Record of Decision (ROD) 

of the original PEIS in 2008. 

One state-level wildlife agency commented that Alternative 1 would have adverse 

impacts on the environment and wildlife. Other commentors noted that Alternative 1 

would best ensure that industry would realize a return on investment and best secure 

energy resources for the future. 

Response: The impacts of Alternative 1 are described in Chapter 6 of the PEIS. Projectand site-specific NEPA analysis would further identify the specific impacts on the 

environment and wildlife of future commercial operations, as well as any potential 

mitigation measures. There is no basis for the commentor’s claim that Alternative 1 is the 
Final OSTS PEIS 43 

only justified alternative under the Energy Policy Act of 2005 or under the ROD for the 

2008 PEIS. Both the 2008 PEIS and the current PEIS analyze several valid allocation 

alternatives. The BLM appreciates the commentor’s concern for potentially impacted 

resources. Accordingly, the Proposed Plan would foster a robust RD&D program as a 

first step toward an economically viable and environmentally acceptable oil shale 

industry. Industry return on investment and federal energy policy are beyond the scope of 

this PEIS. 

2.1.1 Support of Alternative 1 

OSTS_026-7 

OSTS_027-3 

OSTS_032-3 

OSTS_033-2 

OSTS_033-7 

OSTS_066-2 

OSTS_066-6 

OSTS_068-11 

OSTS_077-16 

OSTS_077-18 

OSTS_078-16 

OSTS_078-18 

OSTS_079-16 

OSTS_079-18 

OSTS_080-17 

OSTS_080-19 

OSTS_081-16 

OSTS_081-18 

OSTS_091-1 

OSTS_091-2 

OSTS_092-4 

OSTS_093-2 

OSTS_094-1 

OSTS_095-1 

OSTS_096-2 

OSTS_097-1 

OSTS_099-2 

OSTS_100-1 

OSTS_101-1 

OSTS_101-3 

OSTS_102-1 

OSTS_103-1 

OSTS_103-4 

OSTS_104-3 

OSTS_105-2 

OSTS_107-5 

OSTS_108-3 

OSTS_109-4 

OSTS_110-2 

OSTS_112-1 

OSTS_113-1 

OSTS_114-1 

OSTS_115-2 

OSTS_116-1 

OSTS_117-1 

OSTS_117-3 

OSTS_119-2 

OSTS_120-3 

OSTS_121-2 

OSTS_122-3 

OSTS_123-1 

OSTS_125-1 

OSTS_125-3 

OSTS_126-3 

OSTS_127-1 

OSTS_128-3 

OSTS_129-3 

OSTS_130-1 

OSTS_131-1 

OSTS_132-2 

OSTS_133-4 

OSTS_134-1 

OSTS_135-1 

OSTS_138-2 

OSTS_140-1 

OSTS_141-1 

OSTS_142-1 

OSTS_143-2 

OSTS_144-2 

OSTS_145-3 

OSTS_146-1 

OSTS_147-5 

OSTS_148-2 

OSTS_149-1 

OSTS_149-4 

OSTS_153-2 

OSTS_154-2 

OSTS_155-2 

OSTS_156-1 

OSTS_157-2 

OSTS_158-1 

OSTS_159-1 

OSTS_160-1 

OSTS_161-1 

OSTS_162-1 

OSTS_163-2 

OSTS_165-1 

OSTS_166-1 

OSTS_167-3 

OSTS_168-2 

OSTS_169-1 

OSTS_171-1 

OSTS_172-2 

OSTS_173-2 

OSTS_174-1 

OSTS_176-1 

OSTS_177-2 

OSTS_178-1 

OSTS_178-3 

OSTS_179-2 
Final OSTS PEIS 44 

OSTS_180-3 

OSTS_181-2 

OSTS_182-1 

OSTS_182-3 

OSTS_183-1 

OSTS_184-3 

OSTS_185-2 

OSTS_186-2 

OSTS_187-2 

OSTS_188-2 

OSTS_189-3 

OSTS_190-5 

OSTS_191-1 

OSTS_192-1 

OSTS_193-1 

OSTS_194-2 

OSTS_195-3 

OSTS_196-1 

OSTS_196-3 

OSTS_197-5 

OSTS_199-3 

OSTS_200-2 

OSTS_201-1 

OSTS_202-1 

OSTS_203-3 

OSTS_204-3 

OSTS_205-2 

OSTS_207-5 

OSTS_208-1 

OSTS_209-3 

OSTS_210-3 

OSTS_211-3 

OSTS_212-4 

OSTS_213-1 

OSTS_214-1 

OSTS_214-3 

OSTS_215-2 

OSTS_217-1 

OSTS_232-1 

OSTS_232-3 

OSTS_233-1 

OSTS_233-3 

50006-1 

50087-7 

50145-1 

50152-1 

50160-1 

50181-104 

50181-5 

50186-25 

50227-2 

50255-24 

50255-26 

50268-26 

50271-9 

50272-1 

50272-9 

50280-2 

50287-6 

50290-7 

50308-1 

50308-20 

50310-2 

50310-21 

50312-43 

50312-5 

50324-2 

50325-25 

50325-27 

50328-1 

50330-6 

50333-15 

50333-34 

Issue Summary: Several commentors expressed support for the No Action Alternative 

(Alternative 1). Many commentors voiced their support for the 2008 PEIS and supported 

Alternative 1, because it would leave in place the conclusions from the 2008 PEIS. 

Commentors gave various reasons for their support of maximum acreage available for 

development, including (1) that oil shale and tar sands development relies on secure 

technologies, (2) that oil shale and tar sands energy extraction will be a profitable 

industry, (3) that it will provide jobs and local economic development, (4) that it will 

adhere to environmental regulations, (5) that it will ensure energy security for the 

country, and (6) that it best supports the goals of the 2005 Energy Policy Act. Other 

commentors wrote that Alternative 1 would provide the best structured and balanced 

process for commercialization and provide regulatory certainty for developers. 

Commentors also noted that Alternative 1 was the alternative preferred by the 

cooperating agencies, and some stated that Alternative 1 was the only alternative 

consistent with the goals of the 2005 Energy Policy Act. 

Response: Thank you for your comment supporting the No Action Alternative. The 

BLM appreciates the values the commentors place on economic development. 
Final OSTS PEIS 45 

Accordingly, the Proposed Plan would foster a robust RD&D program as a first step 

toward an economically viable and environmentally acceptable oil shale industry. 

Several commentors appeared to interpret the terms of Alternatives 2(b), 3, and 4(b) as 

closing lands to all commercial oil shale leasing. That is incorrect. Under each of those 

alternatives, the lands would remain open to commercial leasing. Under Alternatives 2(b) 

and 4(b), lessees would be able to acquire a commercial lease only through conversion of 

an RD&D lease. Under Alternative 3, while the lands would be open to commercial 

leasing, the lands are currently under existing RD&D leases, which may be converted to 

commercial leases. Under Alternative 3, should any of the existing RD&D leases 

terminate, expire, or be relinquished, those lands would remain open to future oil shale 

leases, whether RD&D or commercial. If the BLM were to adopt an Alternative 3(b), any 

future leases would include the RD&D first requirement. 

The BLM has complied with the requirements of the Energy Policy Act in 2008, issuing 

both the PEIS and the regulation required by Section 369 of the Act. Nothing in the 

Energy Policy Act of 2005 specified how the Secretary must establish a commercial oil 

shale leasing program, apart from requiring the Secretary to consider the most 

geologically prospective areas in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming. The Energy Policy Act 

did not specify the acreage that must be available for such program or how the 

requirements of such program should be balanced with other resource uses. Under 

FLPMA, the Secretary must manage the public lands in accordance with land use plans, 

and retains the discretion to establish, revise, and amend those land use plans, as 

appropriate, to address resource management issues. This means that no leasing or 

development of oil shale or tar sands resources may occur on the public lands unless such 

activity is consistent with the applicable land use plan. In view of the nascent character of 

the oil shale and tar sands industries, as well as in light of other resource management 

concerns, the Secretary, acting though the BLM, has decided to reconsider the 

appropriate federal lands to be available for leasing and development of these resources, 

as well as whether commercial leasing should be preceded by additional, vigorous 

RD&D. There may be different views as to whether the nascent character of the 

technologies argues for more land to be open, so that more lands may be available for 

RD&D, or whether fewer lands should be open, in order that such RD&D and eventual 

commercial development as does occur may be targeted in areas with few resource use 

conflicts, while leaving open some areas where the oil shale or tar sands resource has 

been identified as particularly rich. Although the Energy Policy Act of 2005 encourages 

commercial development of oil shale and tar sands resources, these kinds of land 

management policy questions (how much land, where, with what restrictions, and so on) 

are left, under FLPMA, to the Secretary, acting through the BLM. 

2.2 ALTERNATIVE 2, CONSERVATION FOCUS 

OSTS_003-1 

OSTS_013-1 

OSTS_026-4 

OSTS_033-1 

OSTS_066-11 

OSTS_066-9 

OSTS_070-7 

OSTS_077-7 
Final OSTS PEIS 46 

OSTS_078-7 

OSTS_079-7 

OSTS_080-10 

OSTS_081-5 

OSTS_081-8 

OSTS_088-1 

OSTS_092-2 

OSTS_102-2 

OSTS_104-2 

OSTS_108-1 

OSTS_109-2 

OSTS_118-2 

OSTS_119-1 

OSTS_120-2 

OSTS_121-1 

OSTS_122-1 

OSTS_124-1 

OSTS_128-2 

OSTS_129-2 

OSTS_133-3 

OSTS_138-1 

OSTS_147-1 

OSTS_154-1 

OSTS_156-2 

OSTS_160-2 

OSTS_178-2 

OSTS_182-2 

OSTS_195-1 

OSTS_199-2 

OSTS_203-1 

OSTS_204-2 

OSTS_207-1 

OSTS_214-2 

OSTS_232-4 

OSTS_235-2 

50003-1 

50018-1 

50030-3 

50073-1 

50074-7 

50087-5 

50087-10 

50087-11 

50090-18 

50090-19 

50090-21 

50090-3 

50120-2 

50121-2 

50129-2 

50130-2 

50131-2 

50133-2 

50134-2 

50135-2 

50136-2 

50137-2 

50138-2 

50139-3 

50146-2 

50149-2 

50150-2 

50151-2 

50155-2 

50159-2 

50161-2 

50162-1 

50165-3 

50166-2 

50172-2 

50181-4 

50181-19 

50181-20 

50181-93 

50186-9 

50227-3 

50227-6 

50255-15 

50258-2 

50267-1 

50268-17 

50268-18 

50271-1 

50272-4 

50277-2 

50277-12 

50286-4 

50286-5 

50287-10 

50287-14 

50287-17 

50290-2 

50308-3 

50308-19 

50310-3 

50310-15 

50310-16 

50312-44 

50314-13 

50323-1 

50325-14 

50325-17 

50325-36 

50328-17 

50328-20 

50330-1 

50333-26 

50333-38 

50335-4 

50336-1 

50340-1 

50343-1 

50343-14 

50343-15 

50343-17 

50343-6 

50355-2 

Issue Summary: Some commentors opposed the Preferred Alternative, saying it 

would prohibit or undermine oil shale and tar sands development by drastically and 
Final OSTS PEIS 47 

unnecessarily reducing the available acreage and by locating what was left in fragmented 

parcels, too small and isolated to adequately support commercial development. As such, 

the commentors said that the acreage allotted in the Preferred Alternative does not satisfy 

the purpose and need of the document. Other commentors noted that under the preferred 

alternative, some resource-rich lands were excluded. Others expressed concern that the 

Preferred Alternative did not have the support of the cooperating agencies. Several 

commentors noted that the Preferred Alternative, Alternative 2b, was not adequately 

analyzed in the Draft PEIS. 

Conversely, some commentors wrote that Alternative 2 allocated too much land as 

available for oil shale and tar sands lease applications and that they would like to see 

further reductions in lands available for leasing. Other commentors expressed support of 

the provisions in the Preferred Alternative that protected wildlife areas and other unique 

lands. 

With respect to the “RD&D First” provision of the Preferred Alternative, as presented in 

the Draft RMP Amendments/Draft PEIS, several reviewers noted that each oil shale 

RD&D lease in the study area would need to employ a different experimental technology. 

More specifically, under the Preferred Alternative, each potential lessee must first obtain 

an RD&D lease for a tract prior to converting that RD&D lease to a commercial lease. 

If an RD&D lessee establishes the viability of a particular technology on leasehold A, 

that lessee wishing to operate on leasehold B must first obtain an RD&D lease on 

leasehold B. However, because that technology would already have been proven in the 

study area (i.e., on leasehold A), it would no longer be the basis for obtaining an RD&D 

lease on leasehold B, because that technology would no longer be considered 

“experimental.” Reviewers noted that the inability to exploit or to license the proven 

technology for use off of leasehold A would be likely to inhibit the development of a 

commercial oil shale industry and would reduce the incentive to participate in the RD&D 

program. 

Similar to the previous issue, under the Preferred Alternative in the Draft PEIS, no 

provision is made for those instances where a potential lessee intends to employ a 

technology that has proved commercially viable either on nonfederal lands within the 

study area, or outside the study area. 

Response: In 2008, the BLM made a land use allocation decision based on the available 

information, emphasizing the potential of oil shale to provide a domestic source of liquid 

fuels. Although that consideration remains important, the BLM revisited that allocation 

decision, more squarely in the context of other resource management considerations. 

Each of the alternatives keeps lands available for RD&D and commercial development 

of oil shale. None of the alternatives is inconsistent with the policies expressed in 

Section 369 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005. 

The BLM has not been presented with a basis for estimating the optimal size of an oil 

shale operation. Several of the alternatives do result in small or irregular tracts being 

available for consideration for oil shale/tar sands leasing. Nothing in the Energy Policy 
Final OSTS PEIS 48 

Act of 2005 precludes the BLM from offering leases of less than 5,760 acres for oil shale. 

In the last round of RD&D, the BLM offered 640 acres and received 3 nominations. 

Under the oil shale regulations, potential lessees may obtain exploration licenses to 

investigate potential lease tracts, in order to anticipate how such tracts might be 

developed most efficiently, prior to leasing them. Further, as the experience of at least 

one of the current RD&D lessees demonstrates, in many locations, there are opportunities 

for potential developers to plan operations across federal and nonfederal lands. In its 

allocation alternatives, the BLM did not want to preclude these opportunities by closing 

off smaller tracts. 

As explained in the Draft PEIS, Alternative 2(b), the RD&D first alternative, adds only 

the procedural requirement that companies must first obtain an RD&D lease prior to 

obtaining a commercial lease. From the standpoint of environmental consequences, then, 

there is no difference between Alternative 2 and Alternative 2(b). The BLM denies that 

this Alternative (2) was ingredient to the 2011 settlement agreement, or that the 

United States was contractually obligated to pursue this alternative; rather, this approach 

was a late development that arose during the preparation of the Draft PEIS for 

publication. The BLM does not disagree that from a business management standpoint, 

there may be differences for potential lessees ingredient in this procedural distinction, 

and has addressed the several questions raised by commentors in the Final PEIS. 

With respect to the “RD&D First” provision of the Preferred Alternative, as presented in 

the Draft PEIS, Alternative 2(b) has been revised in the Proposed Plan, Section 2.5 of the 

Final PEIS, as follows: “In the areas open for oil shale leasing and development under 

Alternative 2(b), the Secretary may issue a commercial lease to an entity that has 

succeeded in converting an RD&D lease to commercial lease (or who holds the license to 

a technology that has converted from RD&D to commercial lease) for a tract on other 

lands open under Alternative 2(b). In these circumstances, such commercial lessee would 

not have to begin with another RD&D lease on the new leasehold.” 

Similarly, for those instances where a potential lessee intends to employ a technology that 

has proved commercially viable either on nonfederal lands within the study area, or 

outside the study area, Alternative 2(b) has been revised in the Proposed Plan, Section 2.5 

of the Final PEIS as follows: “The Secretary may issue a commercial oil shale lease on 

the lands open under the Proposed Plan, where the potential commercial lessee intends to 

employ technology which has proved commercially viable on non-federal lands in the 

study area[, or outside the study area,] and which the Secretary determines to be 

environmentally acceptable.” 

Finally, in response to comments received on the Draft PEIS, Alternative 2(b) has been 

revised in the Proposed Plan, Section 2.5 of the Final PEIS, to incorporate that element of 

Alternative 3 whereby the three potential RD&D leases currently undergoing NEPA 

analysis (two in Colorado and one in Utah) would be available for potential oil shale 

leasing. However, like the other areas that are available for potential oil shale leasing 

under this alternative, these areas are also open to RD&D first only. 

 
Final OSTS PEIS 49 

2.2.1 Support of Alternative 2 

OSTS_071-2 

OSTS_175-1 

OSTS_218-4 

OSTS_228-1 

50012-1 

50021-1 

50021-2 

50040-1 

50047-4 

50095-1 

50122-1 

50123-1 

50171-2 

50249-4 

50269-9 

50314-1 

50321-1 

50323-16 

50323-31 

50354-1 

50366-1 

50366-3 

50367-1 

50367-3 

50368-1 

50368-3 

50370-1

Issue Summary: Several commentors expressed support for the Conservation Focus 

Alternative (Alternative 2). Many commentors voiced their support for the Preferred 

Alternative, because it would protect important tourism and recreation industries; protect 

historic, cultural, air, and water resources; and protect wildlife and vegetation from 

adverse impacts. Most commentors stated that oil shale and tar sands development would 

pollute air and waterways and voiced concerns about the technology being in a nascent 

state. Some commentors supported oil shale and tar sands development but were 

concerned about uncertainty surrounding its impacts and thus supported the Preferred 

Alternative for its “balanced” approach to development. 

Response: Thank you for your comment supporting the Conservation Focus Alternative. 

2.3 ALTERNATIVE 3, OIL SHALE RESEARCH LANDS FOCUS AND TAR SANDS 

PENDING COMMERCIAL LEASE RESEARCH 

OSTS_109-2 

OSTS_207-3 

50074-8 

50258-3 

50267-2 

50286-6 

50310-4 

50310-55 

50324-55 

50336-2 

Issue Summary: Some commentors wrote that Alternative 3 was far too restrictive. 

Other commentors wrote that Alternative 3 takes a measured and cautious approach to oil 

shale and tar sands development and would promote understanding of technologies 

before a widespread OSTS development program was implemented. 

Response: Several commentors objected to Alternative 3, the Research Lands Focus 

Alternative, on the grounds that this alternative restricts leasing to the current first- and 

second-round RD&D lessees. This is incorrect. Should any of the current RD&D leases 

terminate, expire, or be cancelled or relinquished, the lands currently occupied by these 

RD&D leaseholders, as well as the preference right lease acreage associated with each of 

the existing RD&D leases, would remain open for future application to lease. Like the 

other alternatives, Alternative 3 could also, if eventually adopted, include a RD&D first 

requirement. 
Final OSTS PEIS 50 

2.3.1 Support of Alternative 3

OSTS_007-1 

OSTS_013-1 

OSTS_015-1 

OSTS_019-1 

OSTS_069-1 

OSTS_069-8 

OSTS_069-14 

OSTS_069-63 

OSTS_073-1 

OSTS_073-3 

OSTS_088-3 

OSTS_088-5 

OSTS_088-7 

OSTS_090-1 

OSTS_090-9 

OSTS_227-1 

50032-1 

50047-4 

50051-1 

50052-1 

50053-1 

50054-1 

50055-1 

50056-1 

50058-1 

50059-1 

50061-1 

50062-1 

50064-1 

50065-1 

50066-1 

50067-1 

50068-1 

50070-3 

50077-1 

50089-1 

50111-1 

50112-1 

50113-1 

50116-1 

50126-1 

50147-1 

50147-10 

50157-1 

50162-2 

50164-1 

50165-1 

50167-1 

50169-1 

50179-2 

50180-6 

50195-1 

50199-1 

50200-1 

50200-5 

50201-2 

50201-6 

50202-2 

50202-6 

50203-2 

50203-6 

50204-1 

50205-1 

50206-2 

50206-6 

50208-2 

50208-6 

50210-1 

50211-2 

50211-6 

50213-2 

50213-6 

50214-2 

50214-6 

50215-2 

50215-6 

50216-1 

50219-1 

50219-5 

50220-1 

50222-2 

50225-1 

50226-2 

50226-6 

50228-1 

50231-2 

50231-6 

50233-1 

50234-2 

50234-6 

50235-1 

50235-3 

50238-2 

50238-6 

50240-2 

50242-2 

50242-6 

50249-4 

50253-1 

50253-9 

50257-1 

50261-1 

50262-1 

50266-2 

50266-6 

50291-1 

50295-1 

50309-1 

50318-1 

50318-2 

50318-3 

50322-1 

50322-5 

50326-1 

50329-1 

50329-16 

50334-1 

50336-6 

50352-1 

50352-5 
Final OSTS PEIS 51 

Issue Summary: Several commentors expressed support for the Preferred Alternative 

(Alternative 2(b)), or for Alternative 3, and many expressed concern for resources other 

than oil shale or tar sands, including air, water, wildlife, climate, scenic and recreation 

values, and their concern for socioeconomic impacts. 

Response: Thank you for your comment in support of Alternative 3. The BLM 

appreciates the values you place on scenic, water, air, climate, wildlife and recreationrelated resources and has considered the economic and social history of oil shale 

development. The BLM has also considered the available information and analysis of 

impacts on water resources, energy requirements, and infrastructure. Accordingly, the 

Proposed Plan would foster a robust RD&D program as a first step toward an 

economically viable and environmentally acceptable oil shale industry. Information 

from each RD&D operation will be considered as pertinent in each subsequent decision 

concerning oil shale. 

The BLM also appreciates concern for resources other than oil shale, and those resource 

values are reflected in the Proposed Plan. However, concerns about local government 

actions are outside the scope of this PEIS. 

Several commentors appeared to interpret the terms of Alternatives 2(b), 3, and 4(b), as 

closing lands to all commercial oil shale leasing. That is incorrect. Under each of those 

alternatives, the lands would remain open to commercial leasing. Under Alternatives 2(b) 

and 4(b), lessees would be able to acquire a commercial lease only through conversion of 

an RD&D lease. Under Alternative 3, while the lands would be open to commercial 

leasing, the lands are currently under existing RD&D leases, which may be converted 

to commercial leases. Under Alternative 3, should any of the existing RD&D leases 

terminate, expire, or be relinquished, those lands would remain open to future oil shale 

leases, whether RD&D or commercial. If the BLM were to adopt an Alternative 3(b), 

any future leases would include the RD&D first requirement. 

One commentor noted that leaving public lands open for speculative development could 

foul lands and air and water quality, and result in large quantities of greenhouse gases 

(GHGs). The commentor supports Alternative 3. The BLM agrees that “speculative 

development” should be discouraged. As explained in this PEIS, the Proposed Plan 

fosters a robust RD&D program as a first step toward a viable and environmentally 

acceptable commercial oil shale industry. 

Several commentors emphasized the need for the BLM to obtain information from the 

RD&D leasing process pertaining not only to technical matters of extraction, but also 

to the environmental consequences of this use of the public lands, in order to inform 

future decisionmaking. The BLM agrees that the RD&D program and the information 

obtained from the current RD&D leases should provide insight into the environmental 

consequences of development of this resource, and acknowledges that any future 

decisionmaking regarding RD&D leases would need to be supported by appropriate 

environmental review, pursuant to federal statutes including, but not limited to, NEPA, 
Final OSTS PEIS 52 

the Endangered Species Act (ESA), the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), and 

others. 

2.4 ALTERNATIVE 4, MODERATE DEVELOPMENT

OSTS_207-4 

50074-9 

50087-14 

50090-20 

50181-22 

50181-23 

50181-112 

50271-2 

50286-7 

50286-10 

50287-8 

50310-5 

50310-57 

50324-59 

50324-63 

50343-16 

Issue Summary: Commentors remarked upon general similarities between Alternative 4 

and Alternative 1. Some commentors questioned why Alternative 4 was included in the 

PEIS. 

Response: The BLM considered a range of alternatives for land use allocations in this 

analysis. 

2.4.1 Support of Alternative 4 

OSTS_018-1 50271-9 50312-43 50312-5 

Issue Summary: Several commentors expressed support for Alternative 4, either as a 

first choice or as a second choice after Alternative 1. One noted various concerns, 

including the need for greater access to energy resources. Another commentor was 

concerned that the Preferred Alternative was not sufficiently vetted by the cooperating 

agencies. 

Response: The BLM is fully aware of the policies in favor of fostering a viable and 

environmentally acceptable oil shale industry. The views of the cooperating agencies 

have been carefully considered. The Proposed Plan allows for a robust RD&D program 

as a first step toward a sustainable oil shale industry. 

2.5 NEW ALTERNATIVE SUGGESTIONS

OSTS_031-1 

OSTS_031-4 

OSTS_137-1 

OSTS_216-3 

50088-1 

50088-3 

50197-1 

50255-1 

50258-4 

50267-3 

50300-1 

50305-1 

50313-3 

50320-13 

50320-2 

50320-8 

50324-61 

50324-62 

50325-34 

50325-39 

50341-3 
Final OSTS PEIS 53 

Issue Summary: Several commentors suggested that the BLM consider leaving even 

fewer lands open to oil shale or tar sands leasing and development than are represented 

by Alternatives 2 and 3. Some of those commentors noted their concerns for wildlife 

habitat, watersheds, and recreational values. 

Response: In Sections 2.5.7 and 2.5.13 of the Draft PEIS, the BLM considered leaving 

open even fewer lands than were considered under Alternatives 2 or 3, but did not carry 

these forward for further development, because such analysis would not be appreciably 

different than that presented under Alternatives 2 and 3, and excluding even more lands 

from potential oil shale and tar sands leasing and development would not be consistent 

with congressional policy encouraging development of these resources, or with the 

Secretary’s and the Director’s emphasis on developing and maintaining a robust RD&D 

process. 

3.0 ENVIROMENTAL ISSUES 

OSTS_023-1 

OSTS_137-3 

OSTS_216-1 

OSTS_216-6 

OSTS_218-1 

OSTS_219-1 

OSTS_220-1 

OSTS_221-1 

OSTS_222-1 

OSTS_223-1 

OSTS_224-1 

OSTS_225-1 

OSTS_226-1 

OSTS_227-4 

OSTS_228-2 

OSTS_231-1 

OSTS_231-4 

OSTS_234-1 

OSTS_235-1 

OSTS_235-3 

OSTS_235-5 

50076-1 

50120-1 

50120-3 

50120-5 

50121-1 

50121-3 

50121-5 

50128-1 

50129-1 

50129-3 

50129-5 

50130-1 

50130-3 

50130-5 

50131-1 

50131-3 

50131-5 

50132-1 

50132-3 

50132-5 

50133-1 

50133-3 

50133-5 

50134-1 

50134-3 

50134-5 

50135-1 

50135-3 

50135-5 

50136-1 

50136-3 

50136-5 

50137-1 

50137-3 

50137-5 

50138-1 

50138-3 

50138-5 

50139-2 

50139-4 

50139-6 

50142-1 

50143-7 

50144-5 

50146-1 

50146-3 

50146-5 

50149-1 

50149-3 

50149-5 

50150-1 

50150-3 

50150-5 

50151-1 

50151-3 

50151-5 

50155-1 

50155-3 

50155-5 

50159-1 

50159-3 

50159-5 

50161-1 
Final OSTS PEIS 54 

50161-3 

50161-5 

50166-1 

50166-3 

50166-5 

50172-1 

50172-3 

50172-5 

50189-1 

50201-1 

50202-1 

50203-1 

50206-1 

50208-1 

50211-1 

50213-1 

50214-1 

50215-1 

50226-1 

50231-1 

50234-1 

50235-2 

50238-1 

50242-1 

50266-1 

50313-1 

50341-1 

50341-5 

50355-1 

50355-3 

50355-5 

Issue Summary: Commentors expressed general concerns about the impacts of OSTS 

development on the region’s water, wildlife, communities, and public lands. Commentors 

suggested that the BLM carefully consider the impacts on wildlife, water, air, visual and 

cultural resources, and communities as they take another look at oil shale development.

Response: The BLM appreciates commentors’ concerns about these resources. A 

discussion of the affected environment for various resources can be found in Chapter 3 of 

the PEIS. Impacts on resources for oil shale technologies are discussed in Chapter 4 and 

for tar sands technologies in Chapter 5 of the PEIS. Chapter 6 presents a comparison of 

the PEIS alternatives and a discussion of cumulative impacts. The Preferred Alternative 

would foster a robust RD&D program as a first step toward an economically viable and 

environmentally acceptable oil shale industry. 

3.1 LAND USE 

3.1.1 Support of Additional Resource Protection 

OSTS_069-24 

OSTS_069-63 

OSTS_069-64 

OSTS_069-65 

OSTS_069-66 

OSTS_069-69

OSTS_069-70 

OSTS_069-71 

OSTS_069-72 

OSTS_069-73 

OSTS_069-74 

OSTS_069-75 

OSTS_069-77 

OSTS_069-78 

OSTS_069-79 

OSTS_069-80 

OSTS_069-81 

OSTS_069-82 

OSTS_069-83 

OSTS_069-84 

OSTS_069-85 

OSTS_069-86 

OSTS_069-87 

OSTS_069-88 

OSTS_069-89 

OSTS_069-90 

OSTS_069-91 

OSTS_069-92 

OSTS_069-93 

OSTS_069-94 

OSTS_069-95 

OSTS_069-96 

OSTS_069-97 

OSTS_069-98 

OSTS_069-99 

OSTS_069-100 

OSTS_069-101 

OSTS_069-102 

OSTS_069-103 

OSTS_069-104 

OSTS_069-105 

OSTS_069-106 

OSTS_069-107 

OSTS_069-108 
Final OSTS PEIS 55 

OSTS_069-109 

OSTS_073-2 

OSTS_083-8 

OSTS_088-2 

OSTS_090-8 

50070-1 

50111-1 

50143-4 

50164-2 

50200-4 

50201-5 

50202-5 

50203-5 

50206-5 

50208-5 

50211-5 

50213-5 

50214-5 

50215-5 

50218-1 

50219-4 

50226-5 

50228-4 

50231-5 

50234-5 

50238-5 

50242-5 

50248-1 

50253-2 

50256-1 

50266-5 

50318-4 

50318-7 

50322-4 

50323-22 

50323-23 

50323-24 

50323-25 

50323-27 

50323-29 

50323-30 

50324-51 

50329-2 

50329-3 

50329-4 

50329-5 

50352-4 

Issue Summary: Numerous commentors indicated they support providing protection 

from direct impacts from oil shale and tar sands development for a wide variety of BLMadministered lands by making them unavailable for oil shale or tar sands leasing. Other 

specific areas mentioned are currently identified as open to application for commercial 

development in one or more alternatives. Many specific recommendations for protection 

are included in the comments with supporting justification. Some examples include all 

lands with wilderness characteristics (LWC; as identified by the BLM), rivers (whether 

considered eligible or suitable as wild and scenic rivers [WSRs] or not, including their 

watersheds); all designated ACECs (including those not currently withdrawn from 

mineral entry); all potential Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs) 

considered in BLM RMPs but not designated; sage-grouse habitat; and larger viewsheds 

surrounding National Historic Trails. 

There was a mistake in the Draft PEIS, in footnote 11 on page 2-35, that indicated that 

proposed ACECs in place when the 2008 PEIS was prepared were excluded from leasing 

in Alternative 2. This statement was not correct. The calculated acreage open to leasing in 

Alternative 2 actually did include the proposed ACECs just as was done in the 2008 

document. Therefore, the acreage potentially available for leasing in Alternative 2 was 

correct. Several commentors supported the idea of excluding the potential ACECs. 

Many comments also indicate a concern for potential indirect impacts (e.g., visual 

impacts, impacts on the tourism economy) on areas managed both by the BLM and other 

agencies that are otherwise excluded from development of either oil shale or tar sands 

resources. Some examples include Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs), ACECs withdrawn 

from mineral entry, units of the National Park System (including night sky impacts), and 

the viewshed of Flaming Gorge National Recreation Area (managed by the U.S. Forest 

Service). 
Final OSTS PEIS 56 

Two commentors suggest that the 0.25-mi buffer used when considering historic trails is 

inadequate. Also a comment was provided recommending additional mitigation for 

impacts on National Historic Trails. 

There are numerous examples of commentors calling for protection of areas that have 

already been identified as being excluded from application for commercial leasing. 

Response: The range of alternatives considered in the PEIS would provide for all areas 

listed in the comments, with the exception of the proposed ACECs discussed in the 2008 

PEIS, to not be designated as available for application for commercial oil shale or tar 

sands leasing in one or more of the alternatives. This PEIS is a BLM planning and land 

allocation document; the PEIS focuses on whether lands will be open or closed to 

application for oil shale or tar sands development. Lands that may be determined to not 

be suitable for application for oil shale or tar sands leasing will not be made available for 

commercial oil shale or tar sands leasing, but they will not receive any additional 

designations in this PEIS. Current land use decisions regarding management of these 

lands in the existing RMPs will remain in effect. 

The commentors stated that in some cases, the 0.25-mi corridor extending from either 

side of the historic trail may not be adequate to provide these resources with meaningful 

protection. The PEIS, on page 2-32, states that the National Historic Trails in Wyoming 

will be excluded from oil shale leasing/development for a minimum distance of 0.25 mi 

on either side of the trail, regardless of the provisions of any existing applicable RMP. 

This buffer has been revised to reflect that prior to leasing, an “area of potential adverse 

impact” will be determined, where appropriate. The area of potential adverse impact will 

be based on information contained in the pertinent BLM RMP and the information 

obtained during the inventory for the area under consideration as well as consultation 

with stakeholders, through the Section 106 of the NHPA review. In the event that the 

BLM determines that the 0.25-mi corridor needs to be changed, the BLM will follow the 

appropriate planning process to lessen or increase this exclusion. Under the National 

Trails System Act, the BLM is also required to coordinate with the National Trail 

Administrator when the BLM receives an application for a proposed action where a 

National Trail Management Corridor has not yet been established but could exist. An 

additional commentor suggested mitigation for addressing impacts on historic trails 

(i.e., off-site mitigation). Mitigation strategies for impacts on historic properties such as 

National Historic Trails would be developed at the time of a lease application as part of 

the mandatory Section 106 of the NHPA review for a leasing action and in consultation 

with the trail administering agency and other stakeholders. 

3.1.2 Impacts on Recreational Lands 

OSTS_069-68 

50047-1 

50144-6 

50179-1 

50181-75 

50253-5 

50270-9 

50286-3 

50286-9 

50323-18 

50323-28 

50336-5 
Final OSTS PEIS 57 

Issue Summary: Comments on this issue related specifically to concerns for potential 

impacts on recreation activities; examples from all three states within the study area were 

provided. The majority of comments addressed the potential recreation impacts on areas 

and rivers/watersheds that are important to hunters and fishers. There was also a theme of 

the potential adverse impact on important recreation tourism economies that could be 

adversely affected by changes in conditions for fishing, hunting, and National Park 

tourism. 

Response: The descriptions of recreation resources within the oil shale and tar sands 

study area are general but provide a high-level picture of available resources, resource 

uses, and economic values at the programmatic level. Because of the dispersed nature of 

much of the public land recreation use, good estimates of use by specific activities are 

generally lacking and this contributes to the difficulty of providing good use estimates at 

this scale. As pointed out in many places in the PEIS, site-specific analysis associated 

with specific lease applications for oil shale or tar sands projects will be required to 

determine more accurate impacts on affected recreation resources. A description of 

recreation resources by field offices with a focus on specially designated areas and LWC 

is included in Section 3.1.1 of the PEIS. Existing conditions of recreation, ecological, and 

visual resources, and the recreation economy, are discussed in Sections 3.1, 3.7, 3.8, and 

3.11. Potential impacts on these uses/resources are described in Sections 4.2, 4.8, 4.9, 

4.12, 5.2, 5.8, 5.9, and 5.12.1 and Chapter 6 of the PEIS. 

3.1.3 Protections for Lands with Wilderness Characteristics and ACECs 

OSTS_026-6 

OSTS_075-4 

OSTS_077-1 

OSTS_078-1 

OSTS_079-1 

OSTS_080-1 

OSTS_081-1 

OSTS_133-2 

50186-1 

50255-9 

50268-08 

50268-12 

50268-29 

50277-1 

50290-4 

50308-12 

50312-10 

50312-13 

50324-6 

50325-3 

50325-10 

50328-02 

50328-10 

50328-12 

50328-13 

50328-14 

50333-08 

50333-10 

50333-18

Issue Summary: Most of these comments came from the States of Wyoming and Utah, 

county governments in the three states in the study area, a coalition of local governments, 

an oil shale company, and several individuals. The major point of these comments was 

that it is inappropriate to reduce the amount of land that was designated in 2008 as being 

available for application of oil shale or tar sands development. Commentors specifically 

object to considering removing LWC, potential ACECs, and the Adobe Town Very Rare 

and Uncommon Area from availability for leasing. Several of the commentors indicated 

that since decisions have been made in recent BLM RMPs regarding management of 
Final OSTS PEIS 58 

LWC, WSRs, and ACECs, it is inappropriate to be reconsidering the status of these lands 

in this PEIS. Many of the county and state government commentors challenged BLM’s 

actions as being inappropriate, because Congress expressly forbade implementation of 

Secretarial Order 3310 regarding LWC. The State of Utah raised the issue of the potential 

impact of BLM decisions on State Trust lands, because these lands are intermingled with 

BLM-administered public lands and reiterated language from the Energy Policy Act of 

2005 directing the BLM to place a priority on using land exchanges to block areas for 

potential mineral development. 

There was a mistake in the Draft PEIS, in footnote 11 on page 2-35, that indicated that 

proposed ACECs in place when the 2008 PEIS was prepared were excluded from leasing 

in Alternative 2. This statement was not correct. The calculated acreage open to leasing in 

Alternative 2 actually did include the proposed ACECs just as was done in the 2008 

document. Therefore, the acreage potentially available for leasing in Alternative 2 was 

correct. 

Response: The purpose of this PEIS is expressly to reconsider the land use allocations 

made in the 2008 OSTS PEIS. The alternatives considered in this PEIS provide a range of 

options for the lands that would be made available for application for commercial oil 

shale and tar sands leasing and fulfill the requirements of a settlement agreement that 

resulted from a lawsuit filed against BLM’s ROD for the 2008 PEIS. The lands that are 

excluded from the land allocation alternatives for oil shale and tar sands are described in 

Sections 2.3 and 2.4, respectively and are shown in Tables 2.3.2-2 and 2.4.2-2. 

This PEIS is a BLM planning and land allocation document, and it focuses on whether 

lands will be open or closed to application for oil shale or tar sands development. Lands 

that may be determined to not be suitable for application for oil shale or tar sands leasing 

will not be made available for commercial oil shale or tar sands leasing, but they will not 

receive any additional designations in this PEIS. Current land use decisions regarding 

management of these lands in the existing RMPs will remain in effect. 

The State of Utah commented that it is concerned over potential impacts on State Trust 

lands and specifically raised the issue of the requirement of the Energy Policy Act of 

2005 regarding placing a priority on land exchanges to facilitate recovery of oil shale and 

tar sands resources where federal, state, and private lands are intermingled. The BLM 

recognized this requirement in its ROD in 2008 and expressly noted in Section 1.1.1 of 

this Draft PEIS that this decision was being carried forward in this new planning process. 

3.1.4 Support of Leasing 

50074-17 50271-3 

Issue Summary: These two comments made the argument that many of the lands 

currently identified as available for application for oil shale leasing do not contain 
Final OSTS PEIS 59 

important recreation or wilderness quality lands and therefore that they should remain 

available for leasing. 

Response: The BLM is aware that there are competing visions for the use of public lands 

and has developed alternatives to consider an array of use allocations, and the lands 

mentioned by the commentors would be open for application for leasing under two of the 

four alternatives. Although portions of these areas are developed, other parts of the areas 

are not developed and there are many competing uses for them. 

3.1.5 Objections to Certain Land Use Protections 

OSTS_075-5 

OSTS_075-6 

OSTS_086-5 

50181-10 

50287-12 

50308-13 

50324-65 

50330-3

Issue Summary: These comments focused on the perceived lack of a rationale for 

considering providing protection for designated ACECs that are open to mineral 

development and for the Adobe Town Very Rare or Uncommon Area. In the case of 

ACECs not closed to mineral development, it was argued that because the areas were not 

closed to mineral entry in recent RMPs, it is not appropriate to protect them from oil 

shale or tar sands development. Likewise, it is argued that the Wyoming State 

designation identifying the Adobe Town Very Rare and Uncommon Area does not 

require that the area be made off-limits to oil shale leasing and that portions of the area 

are currently under development for oil and gas resources. 

Response: As stated in the Executive Summary of the Draft PEIS, the BLM determined 

there was reason to take a fresh look at the allocation of lands made in the 2008 Final 

PEIS. One possibility was to increase the amount of land excluded from application for 

development in one or more alternatives being considered. ACECs that were not 

withdrawn from mineral development were a reasonable choice for exclusion from 

potential development as were lands with wilderness characteristics, and lands identified 

in RMPs as having surface disturbance restrictions or seasonal limitations to protect 

known sensitive resources. In the case of the Adobe Town Very Rare and Uncommon 

Area, although this is a state designation, the only lands affected by the PEIS are public 

lands managed by the BLM. The recognition by the state and overlapping proposals for 

BLM management of all or parts of the area as LWC, Special Management Area, or 

WSA, warranted consideration for additional protection. Although this PEIS is a BLM 

planning and land allocation document, the principal focus is whether lands will be open 

or closed to application for oil shale or tar sands development. Public lands determined to 

be not suitable for application for oil shale or tar sands leasing will not receive any 

additional designation in this PEIS; the land use decisions for these public lands in 

existing RMPs will remain in effect. 
Final OSTS PEIS 60 

3.1.6 Out of Scope 

50181-44 

Issue Summary: The commentor questioned the authority of the Wyoming 

Environmental Council to designate an area as Very Rare or Uncommon. 

Response: This comment is outside the purview of the PEIS. 

3.1.7 Errata/Editorial Comments 

OSTS_069-76 

OSTS_086-2 

OSTS_086-3 

OSTS_086-4 

OSTS_086-6 

OSTS_087-4 

OSTS_230-1 

OSTS_230-2 

OSTS_230-3 

OSTS_230-4 

OSTS_230-5 

OSTS_230-6 

50074-18 

50181-25 

50181-42 

50181-43 

50181-91 

50181-92 

50181-96 

50181-115 

50268-23 

50268-31 

50277-4 

50277-5 

50277-6 

50277-15 

50277-16 

50277-1 

50277-19 

50277-20 

50310-25 

50324-29 

50324-33 

50324-39 

50324-50 

50324-57 

50325-37 

50328-5 

50335-12 

Issue Summary: Commentors offered a wide range of editorial comments and opinions 

and pointed out factual errors in the document. 

Response: After the suggested changes to the document had been checked, corrections or 

changes were made where appropriate. 

3.1.8 No Response Required 

OSTS_085-1 50181-45 50310-29 50323-26 

Issue Summary: Commentors offered opinions on various issues. 

Response: Thank you for your comments. 

 
Final OSTS PEIS 61 

3.2 SOIL AND GEOLOGY 

OSTS_226-2 

50099-2 

50162-10 

50162-11 

50181-46 

Issue Summary: These comments addressed concerns about the impacts of OSTS 

development on soils and geological resources. Comments dealt with geologic hazards, 

valley floor erosion observed in the Yellow C basin during large runoff events, concern 

that soils would be contaminated if pipelines were to break, and concern that toxic metals 

could leach into the soil. One commentor noted that erosion is more likely to occur by 

wind. 

Response: Erosion is described generally in Section 3.2.1.3. Specific descriptions of 

occurrences along Yellow Creek or other waterways are not discussed. No change was 

made to the document in response to this comment. 

Sections 4.3.1.1 and 4.5.1.3 were modified to address the potential for pipeline breakage 

and effects on soil or surface water resources. Leaching effects on water quality are 

discussed in Section 4.5.1.3. No change was made to the document in response to the 

comment. 

Finally, Section 3.2.1.3 was modified in response to a comment on wind erosion. 

3.3 PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES 

3.3.1 Fossil Locations 

50143-9 

Issue Summary: One commentor asked whether all the fossil localities within the 

proposed areas have been identified. 

Response: A paleontological overview study of the areas within Colorado, Utah, and 

Wyoming where oil shale and tar sands resources are present was prepared in support of 

the PEIS; its findings are the basis for the fossil potential designations assigned to the 

geologic units described in Chapter 3 of the Draft PEIS (see the study cited as Murphey 

and Daitch 2007 in the PEIS). The study evaluated geologic units in the study areas by 

researching their known fossil content, paleontological significance, stratigraphic 

relations, and geographic distribution. A limited fossil locality record search was also 

conducted as part of the study. Field surveys to find new fossil localities will occur later, 

based on likely fossiliferous outcrop areas highlighted in Potential Fossil Yield 

Classification (PFYC) maps, for exact areas of proposed ground disturbance. Note that 

the PYFC system classifies geologic units on the basis of the relative abundance of 
Final OSTS PEIS 62 

vertebrate or uncommon invertebrate or plant fossils and their sensitivity to adverse 

impacts. Although the classification may take into account known fossil localities, the 

presence of fossil localities does not necessarily indicate a higher PYFC class. 

3.3.2 Role of the State Historic Preservation Officer 

50162-13 

Issue Summary: One commentor expressed concern that the paleontological resource 

sections omitted a discussion of the role of the State Historic Preservation Officers 

(SHPOs) in protecting paleontological resources. 

Response: Paleontological resources, as defined in the Draft PEIS, are distinct from 

human remains and artifacts, which are considered archaeological or historical materials 

(see Section 3.3). Because the role of the SHPOs is to protect and preserve historic 

properties that have historical, cultural, and archeological significance (i.e., cultural 

resources), they are discussed in the mitigation measures section for cultural resources, 

Section 4.10.2. 

Paleontological resources, in differing from archaeological/historical materials, are 

protected under FLPMA, the Paleontological Resources Preservation Act, and other 

authorities and policy. Thus, there is close networking with the SHPO, where appropriate, 

for mutual areas of paleontological resource database management. In general, 

paleontological resources are managed by the BLM through partnerships, agreements, 

and policy with various museum, university, and geological survey curation facilities 

with paleontological resources databases. 

3.4 WATER RESOURCES

3.4.1 Water Quantity and Quality 

OSTS_001-4 

OSTS_003-4 

OSTS_022-1 

OSTS_024-4 

OSTS_034-1 

OSTS_048-1 

OSTS_064-1 

OSTS_069-16 

OSTS_069-18 

OSTS_069-26 

OSTS_069-28 

OSTS_069-29 

OSTS_069-32 

OSTS_069-33 

OSTS_071-21 

OSTS_083-2 

OSTS_083-3 

OSTS_083-6 

OSTS_088-4 

OSTS_090-2 

50001-1 

50047-14 

50047-2 

50090-7 

50096-2 

50099-4 

50118-1 

50123-3 

50124-1 

50125-4 

50143-3 

50144-2 
Final OSTS PEIS 63 

50147-2 

50156-1 

50162-8 

50164-3 

50167-2 

50200-2 

50200-3 

50201-3 

50201-4 

50202-3 

50202-4 

50203-3 

50203-4 

50206-3 

50206-4 

50208-3 

50208-4 

50211-3 

50211-4 

50213-3 

50213-4 

50214-3 

50214-4 

50215-3 

50215-4 

50219-2 

50219-3 

50226-3 

50226-4 

50228-2 

50228-3 

50231-3 

50231-4 

50234-3 

50234-4 

50236-1 

50238-3 

50238-4 

50241-1 

50242-3 

50242-4 

50243-1 

50244-1 

50246-2 

50249-2 

50253-4 

50260-2 

50266-3 

50266-4 

50269-3 

50269-5 

50270-5 

50276-3 

50279-2 

50279-3 

50282-1 

50285-5 

50285-6 

50287-25 

50298-1 

50300-3 

50312-18 

50314-5 

50314-6 

50318-6 

50320-9 

50322-2 

50322-3 

50323-8 

50336-3 

50337-4 

50337-5 

50337-7 

50337-8 

50343-4 

50351-2 

50351-3 

50352-2 

50352-3 

50363-2 

50366-2 

50367-2 

50368-2 

Issue Summary: This group of comments dealt with surface water and/or groundwater 

use, availability, and quality, at scales ranging from local to regional. Some comments 

also included reference to the possible effects of global climate change on water 

availability. 

Response: Water quantity and quality issues and impacts are discussed in Sections 4.5 

and 5.5 of the PEIS, and cumulative water impacts are discussed in sections in Chapter 6. 

The potential effect of global climate change on water resources is discussed in 

Sections 4.5.1.2 and 5.5.1.2. These issues are important; however, the document deals 

with programmatic-level impacts, rather than site-specific impacts. At the programmatic 

level of this EIS, information is not available on the exact water supplies that would be 

used for development of specific oil shale leases. For example, water supplies could 

come from conversion of existing water rights, application for new water rights, 

construction of new surface water diversion and storage facilities, construction of well 

fields, imported water from other watersheds, or a combination of these approaches. 
Final OSTS PEIS 64 

Given this uncertainty, this EIS is limited to acknowledging that water used for oil shale 

development will not be available for other purposes, but conclusions cannot be drawn as 

to which other water uses will have less supply available as oil shale development 

proceeds. An actual project would undergo two further levels of NEPA analysis (lease 

stage and project design phase). When subsequent tiers of NEPA analysis are performed 

on proposals for development of specific leases, information will become available about 

the proposed water supply for those leases, and an analysis of impacts on other water uses 

can be performed at that time. After development of multiple leases is analyzed, 

information will also become available concerning trends in water supply for oil shale 

development and aggregate water demand, allowing detailed analysis of cumulative 

impacts. Therefore, specific or quantified impacts on surface water or groundwater use or 

quality cannot be addressed in this document; these impacts would be addressed in 

project-specific NEPA documents. Also, decisions regarding water rights, which are 

included in some of the comments, cannot be regulated in this document. No changes 

were made to the PEIS in response to these comments. 

New information on water availability for future development in the Colorado River 

system within the State of Colorado recently became available. This analysis includes 

climate change evaluations. Relevant findings from this report were incorporated into 

Section 4.5.1.2 of the PEIS. 

3.4.2 Project-Level Water Use 

OSTS_020-2 

50276-4 

50308-17 

50323-09 

50323-10 

50333-36 

50333-51 

50333-52 

50335-10 

Issue Summary: These comments concerned various issues at the project level for oil 

shale and tar sands development. 

Response: Little information is currently available concerning the impacts from pilot 

projects. The PEIS deals with programmatic-level impacts, rather than site-specific 

impacts. An actual project would undergo two further levels of NEPA analysis (lease 

stage and project design phase). Therefore, specific or quantified impacts on surface 

water or groundwater use or quality cannot be addressed in this document; these would 

be addressed in project-specific NEPA documents. Possible mitigation measures are 

described in Sections 4.5.3 and 5.5.3. No changes were made to the PEIS in response to 

these comments. 

 
Final OSTS PEIS 65 

3.4.3 Water Usage by Oil Shale and Tar Sands Technologies

50074-14 

50074-15 

50087-17 

50090-33 

50333-24

Issue Summary: This group of comments dealt with water usage by oil shale and tar 

sands technologies and alleged discrepancies between the water use estimates of the 

Draft PEIS and those of industry pilot studies such as Red Leaf and Enefit. 

Response: The water use estimates of the Draft PEIS are based on RAND, AMEC Earth 

and Environmental, and U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) reviews (see 

Sections 4.1.2 and 4.1.3) and incorporate all estimated water requirements for scaled-up 

operations. These requirements are wide-ranging, as described in Section 4.5.1.2. 

Decisions regarding water rights, which are included in some of the comments, cannot be 

regulated in the PEIS. An actual project would undergo two further levels of NEPA 

analysis (lease stage and project design phase). The BLM may have the opportunity at 

such a future point in the NEPA process to review pilot-scale water use. At the current 

programmatic stage, the ratios of water usage stated in Sections 4.1.2 and 4.1.3 will be 

used in the PEIS analyses. No change was made to the PEIS in response to these 

comments. 

3.4.4 Comments Requiring Individual Responses 

OSTS_072-4 

OSTS_072-5 

OSTS_084-4 

50181-51 

50310-36 

50333-23 

Issue Summary: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 8 

recommended that the Final PEIS add additional information to more thoroughly 

characterize groundwater resources in Utah and Wyoming; specifically, the Final PEIS 

should include the delineated depth of underground source of drinking water in the study 

areas as well as the quality of each zone within these aquifers. Region 8 also recommends 

that all sources of drinking water in the study area be characterized in the Final PEIS. 

These sources include water in streams, rivers, lakes, springs, and aquifers that is used as 

a supply of drinking water. 

One commentor noted that, in Section 3.4.2, pages 3-76–78, the message that the lower 

aquifer groundwater is of “unusable” quality is in error. U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 

Open-File Report 78-734, prepared in cooperation with the BLM and EPA, notes that the 

average total dissolved solids (TDS) in the lower aquifer is 3,460 mg/L, and only one test 

hole encountered highly saline water. 

The State of Utah suggested that the characterization of water resource use in the Draft 

PEIS study area lacks the clarity necessary to satisfy the requirements of NEPA.
Final OSTS PEIS 66 

One cooperating agency noted that the PEIS cites old data that should be replaced with 

newer data. 

An industry group stated that, on page 4-39, lines 9–21, the data presented in this 

paragraph are from operations monitoring; however, the information lacks good context 

such as information on background or reference well data to demonstrate the impact of 

the RD&D activity. 

Response: Aquifer systems and water quality in the basins are described generally in 

Sections 3.4.2.1, 3.4.3.1, and 3.4.4.1, and geologic information is provided in 

Sections 3.2.1.2, 3.4.3.1, and 3.4.4.1. Thicknesses, water quality, and depths of the 

aquifers vary on a site-specific basis. Because the PEIS provides an overview of the study 

areas, site-specific information is not included. An actual project would undergo two 

further levels of NEPA analysis (lease stage and project design phase), during which 

aquifer depths and other information would be assessed in detail. No change was made to 

the PEIS in response to this comment. The PEIS also provides an overview of the 

hydrology of the study areas. Site-specific information is not included in the PEIS. An 

actual project would undergo two further levels of NEPA analysis (lease stage and 

project design phase), during which groundwater and surface water protection zones 

would be assessed in detail. Sections 3.4.2.1, 3.4.3.1, and 3.4.4.1 were updated to refer to 

the source water protection programs in the three states. 

The discussion in Section 3.4.2.1 about the range of TDS in the Upper and Lower 

Piceance Basin Aquifers is based on many data points summarized by Topper et al. 

(2003). This citation was added to the text. The information from Topper et al. is 

consistent with the commentor’s USGS report (78-734). 

The use of the phrase “highly developed” in the PEIS does not imply a fully developed 

condition (i.e., using all available water). As shown in Table 3.4.1-3, much but not all of 

the legally available water undergoes consumptive use. The PEIS does not describe 

Utah’s water allocation as being completely used. Section 3.4.1.4 was modified in 

response to this comment to link the terms demand and diversion and the terms 

consumption and depletion to give clarification on the values provided in Tables 3.4.1-2 

to 3.4.1-4. 

Although the cited material is based on reports from the 1970s, the reports themselves 

were based on decades of data. They are expected to remain adequate references for the 

basin-wide hydrologic information. No change was made to the PEIS in response to this 

comment. 

The cited paragraph in Section 4.5.1.3 describes the data as being limited and without 

spatial reference or other details. No conclusions can be drawn from the available data. 

No change was made to the PEIS in response to this comment. 
Final OSTS PEIS 67 

3.4.5 Editorial Comments 

OSTS_069-27 

OSTS_072-3 

50099-3 

50099-6 

50118-2 

50118-4 

50118-5 

50181-48 

50181-50 

50181-71 

50181-120 

50277-32 

50310-38 

50333-46 

50333-47 

50337-03 

50335-27 

Issue Summary: Commentors offered a wide range of editorial comments and opinions 

and pointed out factual errors in the document. 

Response: After the suggested changes to the document had been checked, corrections or 

changes were made where appropriate. 

3.4.6 No Response Required 

OSTS_071-20 

OSTS_083-5 

OSTS_087-5 

50099-1 

50099-5 

50118-3 

50162-14 

50162-15 

50277-26 

50277-27 

50310-37 

50337-9 

Issue Summary: Commentors offered opinions or nonsubstantive statements on various 

issues. 

Response: Thank you for your comments. No text change was required. 

3.5 AIR QUALITY 

3.5.1 Climate Change 

3.5.1.1 Inadequate Discussion of Climate Change 

OSTS_069-41 

OSTS_069-44 

OSTS_069-46 

OSTS_083-11 

50047-5 

50143-6 

50282-2 

50336-4 

Issue Summary: Several comments (1) claimed that the treatment of climate change in 

the Draft PEIS was nonquantitative or inadequate and one comment (2) noted the need 

to assess CO2, methane, black carbon, nitrous oxide, and all greenhouse gas (GHG) 

emissions. 
Final OSTS PEIS 68 

Response: (1) No text change was required. Decisions to be made on the basis of this 

Final PEIS are land allocation decisions, which do not result in emissions of any GHGs. 

In addition, the data needed for the detailed emissions estimates and level of analysis 

suggested in these comments are not available at this programmatic level; specific 

development sites have not been proposed, specific technologies have not been proposed, 

and detailed site development plans are unavailable. Even if data were available to make 

detailed GHG emission estimates, there are currently no tools for predicting the impact of 

individual sources on climate change. Because climate change is a global phenomenon, 

the overall climate impact of emissions from any source depends on the emissions from 

all other sources. The PEIS reflects this interdependence in Sections 4.6.1.1.3 and 

5.6.1.1.3 by summarizing the possible changes in GHG emissions that may be associated 

with oil shale and tar sands development. If and when an application for a lease for a 

specific project is made, a project-specific NEPA analysis subject to public and agency 

review and comment would be required. The BLM cannot approve leases and plans of 

development that do not comply with all applicable air regulations. If requirements in 

effect at that time require mitigation of GHG emissions or detailed assessment of the 

climate change impacts of the GHG emissions from a project, the BLM and the agencies 

responsible for enforcing such requirements will ensure that the project complies with 

these requirements. 

(2) As noted above, emissions of GHGs, which include CO2, methane, and nitrous oxide, 

are already adequately covered for a programmatic-level EIS. Text has been added to 

Sections 4.6.1.1.2 and 5.6.1.1.2 to acknowledge the importance of black carbon 

emissions. 

3.5.1.2 Editorial Comments 

50090-30 50310-56 

Issue Summary: One comment (1) suggested minor edits or changes in wording that 

would not affect the meaning of the text, and one comment (2) suggested adding a 

discussion of expected emissions when discussing cumulative impacts. 

Response: (1) The edits and changes were made. 

(2) No text change was required. Reasonable estimates of expected emissions cannot be 

made at this programmatic stage until specific lease applications proposing specific 

technologies have been made. In addition, emissions estimates for technologies still in the 

research and development phases are not available. However, text has been added to 

Section 6.1.3.5 to reference the emissions presented in Appendices A and B, which 

summarize potential emissions from existing oil shale and tar sands technologies. 
Final OSTS PEIS 69 

3.5.1.3 Mitigation and Compliance 

OSTS_069-21 OSTS_069-47 

Issue Summary: Two comments suggested that the BLM include language that would 

make granting commercial leases contingent upon adequate and acceptable analysis of 

impacts and detailed mitigation plans, including documentation of GHG emissions and 

demonstration of compliance with all applicable regulations. 

Response: No text change was required. As noted in Sections 4.6.1 and 5.6.1 of the 

PEIS, the BLM cannot authorize activities that would not comply with all applicable air 

laws, regulations, and standards so all leases will require lessees to comply with these 

requirements within the leased area. When a lease application is submitted to the BLM 

and specific information is known, a detailed assessment and project-specific NEPA 

review will be performed and could include a GHG emissions inventory and development 

of mitigation measures (Sections 4.6.1.1 and 5.6.1.1 of the PEIS). In addition, the 

developer will be required to obtain an air permit from the state. Requirements of NEPA 

and the state air permit would include preparation of a GHG emissions inventory, if 

required, and development of any required GHG mitigation measures. 

3.5.1.4 Mitigation of GHG Emissions at the Project Level 

OSTS_069-45 

Issue Summary: The EPA has commented, in recent NEPA reviews, that an analysis of 

reasonable alternatives be performed that includes an assessment of potential means to 

mitigate project-related GHG emissions. Specifically, the EPA suggested assessing 

carbon capture and sequestration technologies as well as measures from BLM’s 

Supplemental Information Report for the eight environmental assessments (EAs) in 

Montana, North Dakota, and South Dakota. These measures should be considered by the 

BLM in alternatives developed pursuant to NEPA prior to any further development of oil 

shale and tar sands resources. In addressing climate impacts, the BLM must craft longterm management prescriptions without permanent impairment and unnecessary or undue 

degradation to the resources in the face of climate change. Secretarial Order 3289 states 

that “[t]he realities of climate change require us to change how we manage the land, 

water, fish and wildlife, and cultural heritage and tribal lands and resources we oversee.” 

Without this critical analysis, the BLM cannot meet its NEPA obligations or other legal 

and policy mandates discussed above. 

Response: No text change was required. Decisions to be made on the basis of this Final 

PEIS are land allocation decisions, which do not result in emissions of any GHGs. This 

programmatic EIS does not treat specific projects, and detailed information on 

technology, capacity, emissions, and sites are unavailable. Without this detailed 

information, mitigation measures for GHGs cannot be developed. The PEIS discusses 
Final OSTS PEIS 70 

general methods for reducing GHG emissions in Sections 4.6.1.1.2 and 5.6.1.1.2 but, for 

the reasons just noted, cannot quantify the potential reductions. If and when an 

application for a lease for a specific project is made, a project-specific NEPA analysis 

subject to public and agency review and comment would be required. The BLM cannot 

approve leases and plans of development that do not comply with all applicable air 

regulations. If requirements in effect at that time require mitigation of GHG emissions, 

the BLM and the agencies responsible for enforcing such requirements will ensure that 

the project complies with these requirements. 

3.5.1.5 Reduction of GHG Emissions 

50181-76 50181-77 50181-85

Issue Summary: Several comments suggested that specific companies, including Read 

Leaf Resources, be contacted to ascertain how its new technologies reduce GHG 

emissions. 

Response: No text change was required. Appendices A and B discuss oil shale and tar 

sands technologies, including Red Leaf Resources. Emissions from production-scale 

units of these technologies could be quite different than those from pilot and 

demonstration units. The technologies discussed in these appendices provide a reasonable 

overview at this time. When and if a lease application is made, the developer will need to 

choose a specific technology based on a range of considerations and provide emission 

estimates, including GHGs, for that technology at the scale envisaged in the application. 

3.5.1.6 No Response Required 

OSTS_001-3 

OSTS_069-43 

OSTS_227-3 

OSTS_229-1 

50014-2 

50047-18 

50170-2 

50276-7 

50277-21 

50279-4 

Issue Summary: Some comments were informational, were nonsubstantive, expressed 

opinions, made no specific requests for changes, or identified no possible errors. 

Response: Thank you for your comments. No text change was required. 

3.5.1.7 Long-Term Adaptation 

OSTS_005-2 OSTS_010-2 
Final OSTS PEIS 71 

Issue Summary: Two comments suggested adoption of long-range climate adaption and 

mitigation plans consistent with the hypothesis that the atmospheric CO2 ceiling that 

must not be exceeded be adjusted downward from its current level. 

Response: No text change was required. The BLM has no authority to adopt climate 

adaption plans or mitigation measures not sanctioned by regulations. If laws and 

regulations are passed requiring actions to adapt the climate change or GHG mitigation 

measures, the BLM will require that producers comply with these requirements before a 

lease is granted, because the BLM cannot conduct or authorize activities that do not 

comply with all applicable laws, regulations, standards, and plans. 

3.5.1.8 Comments Requiring Individual Responses 

50181-52 50310-40 

Issue Summary: One commentor stated that, on page 4-57, line 4, the BLM should 

consider providing an update on the status of the proposed rulemaking for the Final PEIS. 

The same commentor asked the following of page 6-129, lines 4–6: What does this 

sentence add to defining the GHG emission concerns for the project? 

One commentor noted that on pages 3-103 through 3-105, the climate change predictions 

are filled with contradictions; for example, there are dire predictions of both drought and 

increased precipitation attributed to climate change. 

Response: The status of the rulemaking was updated. To answer the question, no text 

change was required. The statement is true and indicates that oil shale and tar sands 

emissions of GHGs could contribute to climate change. 

Several aspects of climate change as discussed in Section 3.5.1.2 should be noted. First, 

at the local level, changes can vary among localities. Second, climate change research 

indicates that extreme weather events will increase. There will be both more drought and 

more heavy rains. Text has been added to Section 3.5.1 to note that extreme events are 

expected to become more frequent. 

3.5.2 Wintertime Ozone 

OSTS_083-7 50333-35 

Issue Summary: Two comments noted that the Draft PEIS did not discuss the 

phenomenon of wintertime ozone, which may result from emissions from oil and gas 

development. One comment suggested that the results of the Uintah Basin 2012 Winter 

Ozone Study and the Three State Study be considered in the PEIS. 
Final OSTS PEIS 72 

Response: No text change was required. Section 3.5.3 of the PEIS already has a 

discussion of both summertime and wintertime ozone, including a discussion of the 

factors involved in wintertime ozone production and measured wintertime levels. 

3.5.3 Additional Power Needs for Oil Shale and Tar Sands 

OSTS_001-5

OSTS_069-38

OSTS_218-3 

50072-5

50147-4 

50277-28 

50314-7 

Issue Summary: Several comments dealt with issues related to the need for additional 

electricity generation to support oil shale production. (1) Some expressed concern that 

generating power needed for oil shale and tar sands production would emit large 

quantities of GHGs, particulates, and mercury and requested that the potential impacts on 

air quality and human health need to be acknowledged in the PEIS and the impacts 

analyzed. Several comments noted that up to 14,000 MW of new electric generation 

would be needed in Colorado alone. (2) One comment suggested strengthening the 

language in Section 6.1, replacing the current language stating that, “If the development 

of oil shale requires expansion of capacity of existing electric power plants” with 

language stating that “It is believed that the development of shale will require additional 

power capacity.” The potential impacts on air quality and human health need to be 

acknowledged. (3) One comment objected that presenting only coal use in Table 6.1.1-3 

makes development of shale appear worse than it really is, because other non-coal power 

plants may supply some of the power. 

Response: (1) Based on additional information, the BLM has reduced the assumed 

additional power need to 600 MW based on in situ oil shale production of 

50,000 bbl/day. Even with this reduction, the BLM agrees that there would be impacts on 

air quality and human health caused by emissions from producing the required electric 

power. Text was added to Section 4.1.6 of the Final PEIS similar to the text in 

Section 6.1.1.5 of the Draft PEIS to note that the emissions from producing this electric 

power would affect air quality, human health, and air quality-related values (AQRVs). 

However, quantitative estimates cannot be made at this programmatic stage. If new 

power plants were required to meet this demand, they would be subject to whatever 

regulations and requirements were in effect at the time they were built. Because any new 

fossil plants would be major sources of air pollution, permitting requirements would 

include detailed modeling requirements for impacts on National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards (NAAQS), prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) increments, and 

visibility. 

(2) No text change was required. No change in the language was required. When and if 

an in situ shale plant is built, the electric power could be supplied by non-fossil sources. 

The BLM has taken the approach of analyzing cases with larger air emissions. To the 

extent that power would be provided by non-fossil sources (e.g., wind or solar), air 

impacts would be reduced below the levels assumed in this Final PEIS. 
Final OSTS PEIS 73 

(3) The BLM added a natural gas–fired plant to Table 6.1.1-3. In addition, text was added 

to Sections 6.1.1.5, 6.1.2.5, and 6.1.4.5 to the effect that to the extent that some power 

needed by in situ oil shale production is supplied by non-fossil generating capacity, the 

emissions would be less than those in the table. 

3.5.4 Quantitative Analysis 

OSTS_069-34 

OSTS_069-36 

OSTS_069-37 

OSTS_069-39 

OSTS_083-7 

OSTS_090-4 

50071-1 

50147-4 

50253-3 

50318-8 

50318-9 

50335-30 

Issue Summary: Several comments noted that air quality impacts of oil shale and tar 

sands development, including cumulative oil and gas development, on NAAQS, PSD 

increments, and AQRVs (including visibility) had not been addressed quantitatively 

through the use of models. 

Response: No text change was required. The BLM has determined that deferment of 

analysis of environmental consequences to project-level NEPA evaluations is outside the 

scope of this PEIS (Section 1.2.1). In addition, the detailed level of analysis suggested in 

these comments is not available at this programmatic level; specific development sites 

have not been proposed, specific technologies have not been proposed, and detailed site 

development plans are unavailable. If and when an application for a lease for a specific 

project is made, a project-specific NEPA analysis subject to public and agency review 

and comment would be required. As part of this project-specific review, the BLM may, at 

its discretion, require detailed air quality modeling and analysis, including, as noted in 

Sections 4.6.1 and 5.6.1, near-field and far-field modeling and photochemical grid 

modeling. Furthermore, the BLM is required to notify Federal Land Managers in 

potentially affected areas of the potential impacts on AQRVs, including visibility. In 

addition, the prospective lessee would be required to apply for preconstruction air permits 

from air regulatory agencies. These applications generally require establishment of air 

quality protocols, extensive modeling and analysis of the types noted above for air 

impacts, including, if applicable, impacts on NAAQS, PSD increments, and AQRVs 

including visibility, and may require preconstruction monitoring to establish baseline air 

quality. The BLM cannot approve leases and plans of development that do not comply 

with all applicable air regulations. 

Regarding contributions to cumulative impacts from industrial development in the region, 

including fugitive emissions of methane, volatile organic compounds (VOCs), and 

hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) from oil and gas infrastructure and in addition to those 

from future oil shale and tar sands developments, such an analysis would require many 

assumptions that are premature at this programmatic stage in the review process for the 

reasons discussed above. If any lease applications are made, detailed analysis of such 

effects would be appropriately evaluated in project-specific NEPA analyses conducted 

prior to issuing the leases and approving plans of development. 

 
Final OSTS PEIS 74 

3.5.5 Data 

OSTS_072-7 50072-2 50181-53 50333-35 

Issue Summary: Several comments noted that some air data for nonattainment area 

emissions were outdated and that data for some areas were missing. 

Response: Air data, including those noted in comment, were updated in Sections 3.5.2 

(emissions) and 3.5.3 (air quality). The discussion of nonattainment areas in Section 3.5.3 

was updated. Data for Duchesne County, Utah, were added to Table 3.5.2-1. 

3.5.6 VOCs and Dust Mitigation 

50333-35 50335-30 

Issue Summary: Several comments either presented additional mitigating measures for 

dust and VOCs or noted that additional mitigating measures might be required based on 

modeling results or whether problems developed during the life of a project. 

Response: No text change was required. The PEIS gives examples of the mitigating 

measures that may be needed and is not intended to be exhaustive. For a specific project, 

a different set of mitigation measures may be more appropriate. Sections 4.6.2 and 5.6.2 

of this Final PEIS note individual leases and use authorizations could include specific 

mitigation measures that “could include, but are not limited to” those listed. As noted in 

Sections 4.6.1 and 5.6.1, the specific mitigation measures that will be required will be 

determined during the modeling and analysis conducted during lease application and air 

permit application reviews for specific projects. 

Mitigations, including emission controls, operating practices, and equipment 

specifications required by state and federal regulations such as the National Emission 

Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) and National Security and Public 

Safety (NSPS), will be required either through the BLM lease, state air permits, or both. 

The BLM will require ongoing monitoring during the life of the project to ensure that 

problems are identified and additional mitigations initiated as required. 

3.5.7 No Response Required 

OSTS_088-6 

50096-3 

50143-5 

50165-6 

50314-7 

50335-29 
Final OSTS PEIS 75 

Issue Summary: Some comments were informational, were nonsubstantive, expressed 

opinions, made no specific requests for changes, or identified no possible errors. 

Response: Thank you for your comments. No text change was required. 

3.5.8 Comments Requiring Individual Responses 

OSTS_072-7 OSTS_083-7 50277-28 50314-7 

Issue Summary: One comment noted the need to conduct a General Conformity analysis 

in nonattainment and maintenance areas. 

One comment noted that the PEIS must acknowledge the impacts of fugitive VOC 

emissions. 

One comment claimed that the Draft PEIS failed to supply information on surface 

retorting. 

One comment noted that the PEIS should include information about potential emissions 

of mercury, ozone precursors, and HAPS from oil shale development. 

Response: Text summarizing the General Conformity program was added to 

Section 3.5.3. Text was added at the ends of Sections 4.6.1 and 5.6.1 stating that a 

conformity applicability analysis needs to be conducted as part of the project-specific 

reviews and that a conformity determination may be required. 

Text was added to Sections 4.6.1.2.2 and 5.6.1.2.2 noting that VOCs are emitted from 

fugitive sources. 

No text change was required. Section B.6 in Appendix B presents information on surface 

retorting. 

No text change was required. Little information on emissions from oil shale and tar sands 

processing is available. Appendices A and B summarize the information available for 

preparing this Final PEIS. Data on mercury emissions were unavailable. Several 

processing technologies are currently under development. When a specific project is 

proposed for leasing and permitting, the proponent will be required to submit emissions 

information. Emissions information should also become available as part of the RD&D 

projects. 

3.5.9 Impacts of Dust 

50147-4 
Final OSTS PEIS 76 

Issue Summary: One comment requested that the impacts of dust on (1) health, 

(2) snow, and (3) climate change be evaluated. 

Response: (1) No text change was required. The primary NAAQS for particulate matter 

with a mean aerodynamic diameter of 2.5 μm or less and 10 μm or less (PM2.5 and 

PM10) have been set to protect public health with an adequate margin of safety. The 

modeling and analysis required for a specific project during the BLM lease application 

and state air permit application processes should ensure that the NAAQS are not violated 

and thus that there are no health impacts. 

(2) Information on snowmelt associated with dust was added to Section 3.5.3 and noted 

as a possible impact from oil shale and tar sands development in Sections 4.6.1 and 5.6.1. 

(3) Impacts of dust on climate change were added to Section 3.5.3 and noted as a possible 

impact from oil shale and tar sands development in Sections 4.6.1 and 5.6.1. 

3.6 NOISE

50181-116 

50181-054 

50253-6 

50277-29 

50324-31 

Issue Summary: Some comments were informational, were nonsubstantive, expressed 

opinions, made no specific requests for changes, or identified no possible errors. Other 

comments requested specific changes, corrections, or identified errors. 

Comment OSTS2012D50181-116: On page D-14, Table D-9, the correct reference to 

the Duchesne County Code for noise regulations is the Nuisance Ordinance, which is in 

Title 3, Chapter 1, Section 4(G) of the County Code. 

Response: Table D-9 was corrected using the citation provided in the comment. 

Comment OSTS2012D50181-54: On page 3-120, line 1, Duchesne County actually 

limits construction and mining activities to 7 a.m. to 9:30 p.m. on weekdays, 8 a.m. to 

9:30 p.m. on Saturdays, and 9 a.m. to 9:30 p.m. on Sundays and holidays. 

Response: The limits provided in the comment were included in Section 3.6 of the Final 

PEIS. 

Comment OSTS2012D50277-29: On page 6-12, line 8, the phrase, “Constructionrelated noise levels could exceed EPA guidelines and/or Colorado regulations (there are 

currently no state guidelines/regulations for Utah or Wyoming),” has no basis. There 

should be justification to use a statement like this. Noise needs to have receptors (such as 

people) to determine the applicability of noise standards. Most of the areas involved have 

few inhabitants. 
Final OSTS PEIS 77 

Response: No text change was required. Section 4.7.1.1 provides ample justification for 

the statement that construction-related noise could exceed EPA guidelines and/or 

Colorado regulatory levels. In the PEIS, these levels are used as indicators of the 

potential for problems. Although these areas currently have few inhabitants, populations 

do change over time. The applicability of the guidelines/regulations and whether 

measures must be taken to mitigate noise will be determined during project-specific 

NEPA analyses and the permit application procedures when a specific project is 

proposed. In addition, as discussed in Section 4.8, noise affects various ecological 

resources. 

Comment OSTS2012D50324-31: One comment (1) suggested changes in the discussion 

of applicable laws and regulations and (2) questioned the use of the EPA guideline in 

areas with sparse population. 

Response: (1) The suggestion deletion was not made. The statement in the Draft PEIS 

concerning the EPA guideline is true. The suggested addition was made in Section 2.2.1. 

(2) No text change was required. Section 4.7.1.1 provides ample justification for the 

statement that construction-related noise could exceed EPA guidelines. In the PEIS, this 

guideline is used as an indicator of the potential for problems. Although these areas 

currently have few inhabitants, populations do change over time. The applicability of the 

guideline and whether measures must be taken to mitigate noise will be determined 

during project-specific NEPA analyses and the permit application procedures when a 

specific project is proposed. In addition, as discussed in Section 4.8, noise impacts 

various ecological resources. 

3.7 ECOLOGICAL RESOURCES 

3.7.1 Aquatic Resources 

3.7.1.1 Recommended Habitat Protections 

OSTS_069-109 

50181-55

50323-17 

50323-26

50323-27

Issue Summary: The commentors requested that the BLM declare NOSRs and a number 

of watersheds ineligible for oil shale and tar sands development. In Colorado, these 

include all eligible WSRs, Parachute Creek Watershed Management Area, and all of the 

Trapper and Northwater Creek watershed. These watersheds contain valuable fish habitat 

and some support the Colorado River cutthroat trout. In Utah, eligible WSRs include the 

White River/White River ACEC, Bitter Creek, Nine Mile Creek, Range Cree, and Rock 

Creek. These waters support endangered species of fish. The commentors stated that 

numerous tributaries to the Green River contain cutthroat trout populations that should be 
Final OSTS PEIS 78 

protected. This includes the Greater Little Mountain Area between Flaming Gorge and 

Wyoming Highway 191, in which Trout Creek, Gooseberry Creek, Sage Creek, and 

Currant Creek are important waters for cutthroat trout populations. 

Response: In Section 1.2, the text states that the NOSRs will be identified as being 

unavailable for application for commercial oil shale leasing. For portions of Trapper 

and Northwater Creeks that are not included in the Trapper/Northwater Creek ACEC 

and the White River in the Vernal RMP, additional project-specific NEPA analyses 

would be conducted prior to any future leasing decisions to evaluate potential impacts in 

greater detail. The presence of cutthroat trout between Flaming Gorge and Wyoming 

Highway 191 was noted in Section 3.7.1.1.1. As stated in Section F.2.2 of Appendix F, 

oil shale and tar sands activities will be consistent with the June 2006 Conservation 

Agreement for Colorado River Cutthroat Trout (Oncorhynchus clarkia pleuriticus) in the 

States of Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming. 

3.7.1.2 Aquatic Impact Analysis 

OSTS_069-16 

OSTS_069-30 

OSTS_069-32 

OSTS_071-20 

OSTS_071-21 

OSTS_071-22 

OSTS_071-23 

OSTS_083-2 

50277-33 

50277-34 

50323-20

Issue Summary: The commentor recommended that the BLM mandate that lessees 

provide an analysis of the impact of oil shale projects on U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

(USFWS) efforts to protect four endangered species: the Colorado pikeminnow, the 

humpback chub, the bonytail, and the razorback sucker, including on the 15 Mile Reach 

in Colorado and the Green River below its confluence with the White River. Multiple 

commentors stated that the BLM should ensure that oil shale and tar sands development 

does not undermine protections provided under the Upper Colorado River Endangered 

Fishes Recovery Implementation Program. The commentors stated several potential 

impacts that could result from oil shale and tar sands development, and of particular 

concern were the impacts on aquatic biota from water depletions, water storage, and 

degradation of water quality from sediment and contaminant leaching, spills, and runoff. 

The commentors also requested more specific analysis of impacts of oil shale and tar 

sands developments on Colorado River cutthroat trout and threatened and endangered 

species and critical habitat in the Colorado River Basin. 

One commentor also stated that there was no scientific basis for the 2-mi buffer used to 

demarcate the area of indirect effects and that the use of a 2-mi buffer should be justified. 

One commentor stated that the in situ projects in Colorado are substantially different 

from the project in Utah and that there should be a distinction between in situ retorting 

and surface retorting. The commentor stated that impacts of surface retorting are known, 

but with in situ retorting, the environmental impacts are largely unknown. 
Final OSTS PEIS 79 

Response: The impacts of oil shale and tar sands development on native fish and 

endangered species were described in Sections 4.8.1.1 and 4.8.1.4, Threatened, 

Endangered, and Sensitive Species. Section 6.1.1.7.1 states that the 2-mi impact zone 

was used to assess direct impacts based on the assumption that as project development 

activities become more distant from waterways, the potential for negative effects on 

aquatic resources are reduced. The impacts of surface and in situ retorting are discussed 

separately in the Section 4.1 and in the individual resource sections. Section 6.1.3.4 

discusses water withdrawal requirements in Colorado versus those in Utah. Projectspecific NEPA analyses would be conducted prior to any future leasing decisions to 

evaluate potential impacts in greater detail. 

3.7.2 Vegetation 

OSTS_071-21 

OSTS_072-6 

50181-117 

50277-30 

50277-35 

50324-32 

Issue Summary: Comments included requests for updates in the vegetation sections of 

the PEIS. One commentor pointed out that the county code reference for Duchesne 

County was incorrect in Appendix D. A couple of commentors suggested that support for 

statements in Chapter 6 regarding reclamation should be added. Another commentor 

requested that avoidance of impacts on all wetlands, including nonjurisdictional, in 

addition to minimization and mitigation, should be emphasized in the PEIS. Finally, a 

commentor stated that federal law does not regulate noxious weeds or invasive species; 

they are regulated pursuant to state law. 

Response: The county code reference for Duchesne County was corrected in 

Appendix D. Section 4.8.1.2 provides supporting information for evaluations of impacts 

of alternatives. Additional text was provided in that section as appropriate. The text in 

Section 4.8.1.2 was revised to emphasize the need for avoidance of wetland impacts and 

to include nonjurisdictional wetlands. The text in Section 2.2.1 was revised as requested 

to reflect state regulation of noxious weeds and invasive species. 

3.7.3 Wildlife 

3.7.3.1 Habitat Loss/Fragmentation 

OSTS_024-2 

50147-3 

50180-1 

50180-2 

50276-6 

50286-1 

50295-3 

50309-2 

50314-3 

50323-11 

50323-13 

50323-14 

50323-21 

50329-10 

50329-11 
Final OSTS PEIS 80 

Issue Summary: These comments mentioned that habitat loss and fragmentation pose 

major concerns for wildlife, including big game and raptors. In addition to a general loss 

and fragmentation of habitats, specific mention was made regarding impacts on big game 

seasonal habitats. One comment suggested that loss of vegetation would have a large, 

rather than moderate, impact on raptors, while another stated that disturbance would 

affect raptors. One comment stressed the need to maintain migration corridors. 

Response: Sections 4.8.1.3.1 and 5.8.1.3.1 discuss wildlife impacts from habitat loss and 

fragmentation from oil shale and tar sands developments, respectively. The PEIS 

acknowledges that loss of important seasonal habitats could be a significant impact on 

big game and other wildlife species. It was not possible to conduct a more detailed sitespecific analysis for each species given the large areas involved and uncertainty in exact 

project locations. Impacts on raptors were concluded to be moderate rather than large 

because of nest avoidance and other protective actions that would be implemented to 

avoid, minimize, or mitigate impacts on raptors. Therefore, no population-level impacts 

on raptor species are expected. Additional lease-specific NEPA evaluations will be 

conducted for all lease applications tiering from this PEIS. If any important wildlife 

habitats (e.g., crucial winter habitats or parturition areas) occur in the vicinity of the 

proposed lease areas, additional lease-specific minimization or mitigation measures will 

be identified at that stage (including potential denial of the lease application). Greater 

specification in mitigation requirements, impact significance determinations, and 

measurable standards of protection will be deferred to specific project assessments that 

would be developed in consultation with state and federal natural resource management 

agencies. 

Mitigation measures and conservation measures, as well as those determined during 

lease-specific NEPA evaluations, will be implemented for each commercial development 

under the proposed program. Greater specification in mitigation requirements, impact 

significance determinations, and measurable standards of protection is also deferred to 

specific project assessments that would be developed in consultation with state and 

federal natural resource management agencies. It is expected that this consultation 

process will identify species and habitats of concern in the project area, the need for 

additional survey, quantitative significance criteria, and specific mitigation requirements. 

3.7.3.2 Exclusion of Horses and Burros 

OSTS_071-11 OSTS_071-33 50324-35 50324-36

Issue Summary: These comments mentioned that wild horses and burros should not be 

included with wildlife, because the BLM manages them under separate legislation and 

programs from their wildlife management program. 

Response: The discussion and analysis of wild horses and burros was moved to the land 

use sections in Chapters 3 through 6 of the PEIS. 
Final OSTS PEIS 81 

3.7.3.3 Discussion of Birds by Orders 

OSTS_071-15 OSTS_071-16 

Issue Summary: These comments noted that the headers used to describe birds in 

Section 3.7.3.2 of the PEIS do not address many of the bird species present in the study 

area. In particular, the use of neotropical migrants as a header is inaccurate, because it 

refers to many orders of birds, whereas the discussion under the header refers primarily 

to passerines. 

Response: In Section 3.7.3.2 of the PEIS, the “Neotropical migrant” header was changed 

to “Passerines and Other Landbirds.” Also, examples of bird orders discussed under each 

header are provided. 

3.7.3.4 Pond Impacts on Birds 

OSTS_071-21 OSTS_071-25 OSTS_071-28 50320-12

Issue Summary: Several comments requested that the potential use of wastewater 

impoundments or evaporation ponds by birds and mitigation measures to minimize bird 

mortality in those water bodies be discussed in more detail. Another comment expressed 

concern that big game loss could occur from drinking polluted waters. 

Response: Potential use and impacts of wastewater impoundments and evaporation 

ponds by birds and other wildlife were added to Sections 4.8.1.3.5 and 5.8.1.3.5 of the 

PEIS, while appropriate mitigation measures were added to Sections 4.8.2.3 and 5.8.2.3 

of the PEIS. 

3.7.3.5 Raptor Response to Fire 

OSTS_071-29 50295-3 

Issue Summary: Comments disagreed with the statements made in Section 5.8.1.3.9 

of the PEIS regarding raptor response to fire. One comment mentioned that over time, 

repeated fire in cheatgrass areas converts the areas to annual grasslands with negative 

consequences to raptor populations, while another comment mentioned that fire likely 

has a moderate to large impact on raptors rather than a small impact (e.g., golden eagle 

nesting success, nest starts, and productivity declines in intense fire years and loss of 

critical shrub cover declines for prey species). 

Response: Sections 4.8.1.3.9 and 5.8.1.3.9 of the PEIS were modified to include 

additional discussion of fire effects on raptors. Tables 4.8.1-3 and 5.8.1-3 were modified 

to indicate that fire could have a potential moderate impact on raptors. 
Final OSTS PEIS 82 

3.7.3.6 Cumulative Impacts on Wildlife Habitat/Connectivity 

OSTS_071-21 

50147-3 

50295-2 

50314-3 

50320-12 

Issue Summary: Some comments wanted the cumulative impacts of roads, pipelines, 

compressors, tanks, drill rigs, camps, and other infrastructure on wildlife and their 

habitats to be evaluated, while other comments wanted conventional oil and gas 

developments to be considered in addition to oil shale and tar sands developments. 

Another comment wanted coal extraction and power plants needed to supply power to oil 

shale and tar sands development to be assessed. 

Response: The cumulative effects analyses in the PEIS (Sections 6.1.6 and 6.2.6) 

consider the effects of nearby federal and nonfederal activities. Given the uncertainties in 

oil shale and tar sands development technology, the scale (size) of future projects, and 

their locations (including factors such as the amount of land disturbance and water 

requirements), an accurate assessment of the cumulative impacts of oil shale and tar 

sands development on wildlife species cannot be made. Any additional analyses required 

to more accurately determine cumulative impacts on wildlife species will be determined 

at the lease-specific level. 

3.7.3.7 Changes in Text/Tables 

50181-31 50181-40 50277-30 

Issue Summary: Some comments questioned the acreage of raptor nests listed in 

Tables 2.6-1 and 2.6-2 of the PEIS (Tables 2.7-1 and 2.7-2 of the Final PEIS). Another 

comment questioned the statement made that impacts such as habitat loss could continue 

beyond the termination of oil shale production. 

Response: “Raptor nests” was changed to “Raptor nesting areas” in the Chapter 6 tables 

that provide the acreage of wildlife habitat protected by stipulations in BLM RMPs. The 

raptor nesting areas refer to areas that are managed for raptor nest protection rather than 

referring to actual acres of raptor nests. 

3.7.3.8 Alternative Comparison of Wildlife Impacts 

50180-4 50286-4 50286-6 

Issue Summary: These comments discussed potential differences in impacts on wildlife 

and wildlife habitats for the various alternatives. One comment believed that there are 
Final OSTS PEIS 83 

many unknowns and variability in estimates to appropriately analyze impacts on wildlife 

and wildlife habitats from the various alternatives. 

Response: Given the uncertainties in technology, scale (size), and location, including 

factors such as the amount of land disturbance and water requirements, it is currently not 

possible to quantify the impacts of future oil shale and tar sands development on wildlife 

for the various alternatives. However, the potential for impact on ecological resources is 

assumed to be directly related to the amount of land disturbance that might be associated 

with potential future development. Therefore, the comparison of potential for impacts 

under each alternative was based upon the relative amount of surface area identified for 

land use plan amendments (Chapter 6). 

3.7.3.9 Mitigation 

50295-2 

50295-4 

50295-8 

50323-11 

50323-14 

50329-9 

50329-10 

50329-11 

Issue Summary: One comment suggested that a limit be set on surface disturbance that, 

when reached, would require reclamation before further development could occur. 

Comments also suggested that appropriate buffers be applied to protect raptor nests and 

habitats important for raptor nesting. Another comment stated that none of the mitigation 

measures in the PEIS would reduce the large, protracted loss of habitat associated with 

oil shale and tar sands development. Similarly, another comment stated that mitigation 

measures involving timing limitations during construction are not effective, because 

long-term habitat loss would still occur; rather, no surface occupancy (NSO) is preferred 

for big game habitats, such as crucial winter ranges, parturition areas, and migration 

corridors. Another comment stated that foraging areas for golden eagles, such as prairie 

dog colonies, need to be protected from development. 

Response: Mitigation measures are identified in Sections 4.8.2 and 5.8.2 of the PEIS. 

These programmatic mitigation measures and conservation measures, as well as those 

determined during lease-specific NEPA evaluations, will be implemented for each 

commercial development under the proposed program. Greater specification in mitigation 

requirements, impact significance determinations, and measurable standards of protection 

is also deferred to specific project assessments that would be developed in consultation 

with state and federal natural resource management agencies. It is expected that this 

consultation process will identify species and habitats of concern in the project area, the 

need for additional survey, quantitative significance criteria, and specific mitigation 

requirements. As discussed in the wildlife sections of Chapter 6 in the PEIS, the BLM 

RMPs contain various stipulations that provide protection to various wildlife species. 

These stipulations include lands designated as NSO, controlled surface use, and timing 

limitations. 
Final OSTS PEIS 84 

3.7.3.10 Raptor Areas and Data 

50295-6 50295-7 

Issue Summary: One comment suggested that substantial raptor data available from 

BLM field offices be utilized. Another comment suggested that key raptor areas 

identified within the region be given special consideration when oil shale and tar sands 

developments are being sited. 

Response: The wildlife sections in Chapter 6 of the PEIS discuss raptor habitat areas that 

are protected by stipulations in BLM RMPs. These key raptor areas would be given 

special consideration when locating oil shale and tar sands developments. In addition, 

some of the mitigation measures listed in Sections 4.8.2 and 5.8.2 of the PEIS would 

work toward avoiding, minimizing, or mitigating impacts on raptors and their habitats. 

Greater specification in mitigation requirements and measurable standards of protection 

is deferred to specific project assessments. These requirements and standards would be 

developed in consultation with state and federal natural resource management agencies. It 

is expected that this consultation process will identify species and habitats of concern in 

the project area and specific mitigation requirements. 

3.7.3.11 Wildlife Contamination 

OSTS_071-21 50351-5 

Issue Summary: The comments stated that wildlife would be affected from exposure to 

contaminants associated with oil shale and tar sands development. 

Response: Sections 4.8.1.3.5 and 5.8.1.3.5 of the PEIS discuss wildlife exposure to 

contaminants associated with oil shale and tar sands development. NEPA analysis done at 

the project level would address impacts on wildlife from contaminant exposure in greater 

detail. 

3.3.7.12 Comments Requiring Individual Responses 

OSTS_071-12 

OSTS_071-13 

OSTS_071-14 

OSTS_071-24 

OSTS_071-26 

OSTS_074-1 

50165-8 

50270-8 

50323-15 

50329-9 

Issue Summary: These comments addressed a variety of issues. One comment 

mentioned that the details used in defining impact categories for wildlife were not 

provided. Another comment believed that BLM’s wildlife management goals and 

objectives in Section 3.7.3 of the PEIS need to be explained more accurately. One 
Final OSTS PEIS 85 

commentor stated that the description of USFWS’s role in wildlife management on 

BLM-administered lands in Section 3.7.3 of the PEIS needs to be revised. 

Another comment requested that the description of important bird groups in 

Section 3.7.3.2 of the PEIS be modified to stress that all migratory birds receive equal 

importance regardless of their commercial or recreational importance to humans. Another 

commentor wanted data and information from the USGS Breeding Bird Survey included 

in Section 3.7.3.2 of the PEIS. 

One commentor requested that the Western Wildlife Critical Habitat Assessment Tool 

(CHAT) be used to identify wildlife corridors and crucial habitats. Another stated that the 

Draft PEIS does not include baseline information on population size and trends for big 

game species, and how populations would change under the various alternatives. 

Response: A footnote in the wildlife impact tables (e.g., Table 4.8.1-3) defines the 

“small,” “moderate,” and “large” impact categories. BLM’s wildlife management goals 

and objectives are more clearly defined in Section 3.7.3 of the PEIS. USFWS’s role in 

wildlife management on BLM administered lands was revised in Section 3.7.3 of the 

PEIS. 

The description of important bird groups in Section 3.7.3.2 of the Final PEIS was 

modified. 

Sections 4.8.1.3.4 and 5.8.1.3.4 of the PEIS were revised to state that the potential does 

exist for raptors to be electrocuted. Because of the uncertainties in location of oil shale 

and tar sands developments at the programmatic level, data from the USGS Breeding 

Bird Survey would not alter the analyses contained in the PEIS. More detailed 

information regarding the local abundance and distribution of wildlife species will be 

determined at the lease level in coordination with the appropriate state and federal 

agencies. At the lease level, USGS Breeding Bird Survey data would be appropriate to 

use, in conjunction with other data sources and pre-disturbance surveys, in order to 

identify species at risk. Project developers and interested stakeholders could use that 

information to work toward avoiding, minimizing, or mitigating impacts on birds and 

other ecological resources. 

Because of the uncertainties in location of oil shale and tar sands developments at the 

programmatic level, use of the Western Wildlife CHAT would not alter the analyses 

contained in the PEIS. However, at the project development stage, BLM Instruction 

Memorandum (IM) 2012-039 (“Identification and Uniform Mapping of Wildlife 

Corridors and Crucial Habitat Pursuant to a Memorandum of Understanding with the 

Western Governors’ Association”) would be appropriate and applicable. The regionallevel data and maps developed through CHAT would be useful to oil shale and tar sands 

developers, federal and state agencies, and other interested stakeholders in the siting of 

oil shale and tar sands projects and associated infrastructure. In addition, given the 

uncertainties in technology, scale (size), and location, including factors such as the 

amount of land disturbance and water requirements, it is not possible to quantify the 
Final OSTS PEIS 86 

impacts of future oil shale and tar sands development on big game species. Impacts on 

big game species were qualitatively determined by using best available information, 

which included spatial data pertaining to species occurrences and their habitat. Species 

were evaluated based on their known or potential occurrence to areas that may be 

affected by future oil shale and tar sands development activities. However, the potential 

for impact on big game species is assumed to be directly related to the amount of land 

disturbance that might be associated with potential future development. Therefore, the 

potential for impact can be compared for each alternative based upon the relative amount 

of surface area identified for land use plan amendments (Chapter 6). More accurate 

impact significance determinations and measurable standards of protection are deferred to 

specific project assessments that would be developed in consultation with state and 

federal natural resource management agencies. It is expected that this consultation 

process will identify species and habitats of concern in the project area, the need for 

additional surveys, quantitative significance criteria, and specific mitigation 

requirements. 

Sections 4.8.1 and 5.8.1 of the PEIS discuss potential impacts on ecological resources 

from oil shale and tar sands developments, respectively; and Sections 4.8.1.3 and 5.8.1.3 

specifically discuss potential impacts on wildlife. 

3.7.4 Threatened and Endangered Species 

3.7.4.1 Impacts on Threatened and Endangered Species 

OSTS_024-3 

OSTS_069-110 

OSTS_071-8 

50096-1 

50180-1 

50295-7 

50314-3 

50320-10 

50323-11 

50323-17 

50323-20 

50323-26 

50329-11 

50329-8 

50337-2 

50337-6 

Issue Summary: These comments mentioned the impact assessment performed for 

threatened and endangered species and requested modifications to the approach or overall 

impact determination made for various ecological resources. 

Response: Given the uncertainties in technology, scale (size), and location, including 

factors such as the amount of land disturbance and water requirements, it is currently 

not possible to quantify the impacts of future oil shale and tar sands development on 

individual threatened, endangered, and sensitive species. Impacts on threatened, 

endangered, and sensitive species were qualitatively determined by using best available 

information, which included spatial data pertaining to species occurrences and their 

habitat, as well as updated species distribution information. Species were evaluated based 

on their known or potential occurrence to areas that may be affected by future oil shale 

and tar sands development activities. It was not possible to conduct a more detailed site-
Final OSTS PEIS 87 

specific analysis for each species given the large areas involved and uncertainty in exact 

project locations. There are simply too many uncertainties to allow for a more 

quantitative analysis at the programmatic level (such as those pertaining to surface water 

and groundwater quantity and quality). However, the potential for impact on sensitive 

species (and ecological resources in general) is assumed to be directly related to the 

amount of land disturbance that might be associated with potential future development. 

Therefore, the potential for impact can be compared for each alternative based upon the 

relative amount of surface area identified for land use plan amendments (Chapter 6). 

Mitigation measures are identified in Section 4.8.2, which include many stipulations to 

protect sensitive species. Conservation measures for federally protected species are also 

provided in Appendix F. These programmatic mitigation measures and conservation 

measures, as well as those determined during lease-specific NEPA evaluations, will be 

implemented for each commercial development under the proposed program. Greater 

specification in mitigation requirements, impact significance determinations, and 

measurable standards of protection is also deferred to specific project assessments that 

would be developed in consultation with state and federal natural resource management 

agencies (including any necessary ESA Section 7 consultation). It is expected that this 

consultation process will identify species and habitats of concern in the project area, the 

need for additional survey, quantitative significance criteria, and specific mitigation 

requirements. 

3.7.4.2 Land Exclusions To Protect Threatened and Endangered Species

OSTS_026-6 OSTS_069-104 OSTS_069-105 OSTS_069-106 

Issue Summary: These comments identified certain areas (such as ACECs) that should 

be excluded from oil shale and tar sands activities under one or more of the alternatives. 

Response: This PEIS does not exclude all areas (including ACECs or other specially 

designated areas) that may provide potentially suitable habitat for sensitive species at a 

gross, programmatic level. Prior to any authorization of a lease, pre-disturbance field 

surveys would be required to determine the presence of sensitive species or their habitats 

in the vicinity of a proposed oil shale or tar sands project. Programmatic mitigation 

measures have been developed to avoid, minimize, or mitigate impacts on sensitive 

species. Additional lease-specific NEPA evaluations will be conducted, and any 

additional lease-specific minimization or mitigation measures identified at that stage will 

be implemented for each commercial development under the proposed program. Greater 

specification in mitigation requirements, impact significance determinations, and 

measurable standards of protection is also deferred to specific project assessments that 

would be developed in consultation with state and federal natural resource management 

agencies (including any necessary ESA Section 7 consultation). It is expected that this 

consultation process will identify species and habitats of concern in the project area, the 

need for additional survey, quantitative significance criteria, and specific mitigation 

requirements. 

 
Final OSTS PEIS 88 

3.7.4.3 Requests for Updated Information 

OSTS_069-52 

OSTS_069-53 

OSTS_069-110 

OSTS_069-111 

OSTS_069-112 

OSTS_069-113 

OSTS_069-114 

OSTS_069-115 

OSTS_071-7 

OSTS_071-18 

OSTS_071-30 

OSTS_071-31 

OSTS_071-42 

50180-2 

50323-19 

Issue Summary: These comments requested updates to the list of threatened, 

endangered, and sensitive species, their status, or the state and federal policies that 

regulate those species. 

Response: Revisions or updates to the number and status of special status species were 

provided in the Final PEIS and updated in Appendix E. The PEIS acknowledges the 

uncertainty in determining species potential occurrences in the vicinity of areas that may 

be considered for oil shale and tar sands lease authorizations. The PEIS mentions that 

these species are either known to occur or may have suitable habitat that may occur in 

areas potentially available for lease application, and if available, more detailed 

information regarding the species’ distribution in the study area is provided. More 

detailed information regarding the local abundance and distribution of special status 

species will be determined at the lease level in coordination with the appropriate state and 

federal agencies. 

3.7.4.4 Mitigation and Conservation Measures 

OSTS_071-37 

OSTS_071-38 

OSTS_071-40 

OSTS_071-42 

OSTS-071-43 

50181-121 

50295-4 

50295-5 

50295-8 

Issue Summary: These comments requested updates or modification to the mitigation 

measures identified in the PEIS, including those conservation measures described in 

Appendix F. 

Response: Conservation measures for regulated species are provided in Appendix F of 

the PEIS. The introduction to Appendix F was revised to include BLM sensitive species, 

state-listed species, and those protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act 

and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Greater specification in mitigation requirements, 

impact significance determinations, and measurable standards of protection is deferred to 

specific project assessments that would be developed in consultation with state and 

federal natural resource management agencies. It is expected that this consultation 

process will identify species and habitats of concern in the project area, the need for 

additional survey, quantitative significance criteria, and specific mitigation requirements. 

New or revised conservation measures may be determined during these lease-specific 
Final OSTS PEIS 89 

NEPA evaluations and consultations with the USFWS and other state and federal 

resource agencies. These changes could include but are not limited to changes to the list 

of species, buffer or setback distances around known locations for protected species, and 

measures to avoid or minimize impacts on particular habitats (e.g., wetlands). 

3.7.4.5 Editorial Comments on Tables and Figures

OSTS_071-10 

OSTS_071-17 

OSTS_071-34 

OSTS_071-39 

50310-49

Issue Summary: These comments requested changes to the format and/or location of 

tables and figures in sections discussing threatened, endangered, and sensitive species. 

Response: Tables and figures were edited for the Final PEIS. 

3.7.4.6 Cumulative Impacts on Threatened and Endangered Species 

OSTS_069-59 OSTS_069-60 OSTS_071-22 

Issue Summary: These comments requested modification to or additional analysis of the 

cumulative effects on threatened, endangered, and sensitive species. 

Response: The cumulative effects analysis in the PEIS considers the effects of nearby 

federal and nonfederal activities. Given the uncertainties in oil shale and tar sands 

development technology, the scale (size) of future projects, and their locations (including 

factors such as the amount of land disturbance and water requirements), an accurate 

assessment of the cumulative impacts of oil shale and tar sands development on sensitive 

species cannot be made. Any additional analyses required to more accurately determine 

cumulative impacts on sensitive species will be determined at the lease-specific level. 

3.7.4.7 Effects of Climate Change on Threatened and Endangered Species 

OSTS_069-116 OSTS_083-10 

Issue Summary: This comment requested additional discussion or analysis in the PEIS 

regarding effects of climate change on threatened, endangered, and sensitive species. 

Response: The ecological impacts of climate change are important; however, this 

document deals with programmatic-level impacts, rather than site-specific impacts. A 

discussion of the full range of possible impacts on sensitive species from climate change 

is not possible in this programmatic document. An actual project would undergo two 
Final OSTS PEIS 90 

further levels of NEPA analysis (lease stage and project design phase). More detailed 

analysis of impacts (including those pertaining to climate change, if necessary) would be 

addressed in project-specific NEPA documents. 

3.7.4.8 Impacts and Stipulations on Sage-Grouse Core/Priority Habitat 

OSTS_026-6 

OSTS_069-22 

OSTS_069-25 

OSTS_069-54 

OSTS_069-56 

OSTS_069-57 

OSTS_069-58 

Issue Summary: These comments asked for further evaluation of impacts on sagegrouse core/priority areas or additional restrictions placed around these areas 

(e.g., additional setback distances). Some of these comments also questioned the 

exclusion of these core/priority areas from oil shale and tar sands development. Included 

in this category are some comments that also stress the importance of excluding other 

important sage-grouse habitats (such as brooding and wintering areas) that may not occur 

within the boundaries of the core/priority areas. 

Response: As presented in the PEIS, the BLM has issued nationwide and state-specific 

guidance recommending the consideration of certain management practices to address 

the appropriate management of sage-grouse habitat in the context of land use actions. 

Although the greater sage-grouse is not federally listed as a threatened or endangered 

species under the ESA, the USFWS determined that listing of the species was warranted 

but precluded by higher priority listing actions (75 FR 13910). Considering the likelihood 

of future listing under the ESA, the BLM has adopted a conservation alternative 

(Alternative 2) to exclude all currently defined sage-grouse core and priority habitats 

from consideration for oil shale and tar sands lease applications in Colorado and Utah and 

to make oil shale and tar sands development activities consistent with the Wyoming 

Greater Sage-Grouse Core Area Protection Strategy in Wyoming (Wyoming Executive 

Order [E.O.] 2011-5). 

Sage-grouse core and priority habitats were determined by state wildlife agencies 

(Colorado Parks and Wildlife [CPW], Utah Department of Wildlife Resources [UDWR], 

Wyoming Game and Fish Department [WGFD]) with involvement from federal, state, 

and local governments. Revised sage-grouse core and priority habitat boundaries were 

released following the publication of the Draft PEIS. Updated boundaries were 

incorporated in the evaluation for the Final PEIS. 

Section 2.3.3.1 of the Final PEIS has been revised to note that unlike the states of 

Colorado and Wyoming, the state of Utah has not yet completed the process of 

identifying core or priority sage-grouse habitat. The information available from Utah is 

the map of occupied habitat, and this map was used in the development of the alternatives 

in the Draft PEIS, specifically the Preferred Alternative, Alternative 2(b), under which all 

such lands are excluded from oil shale/tar sands leasing and development. This map was 
Final OSTS PEIS 91 

updated by the State of Utah in September 2011, but still shows occupied habitat. For 

Utah, the state’s occupied habitat map represents the best source of information regarding 

sage-grouse habitat. Therefore, although the occupied habitat map almost certainly 

represents a larger area than will eventually be designated by the State of Utah as core or 

priority habitat, the Final PEIS will continue to rely on the 2011 map as a proxy for core 

or priority sage-grouse habitat. 

Other areas outside of these core and priority habitats may offer important habitat for the 

greater sage-grouse. These areas may include known brooding and wintering areas that 

do not coincide with the current core and priority habitat boundaries. Additional leasespecific NEPA evaluations will be conducted for all lease applications tiering from this 

PEIS. If any important sage-grouse habitats (e.g., brooding or wintering areas) occur in 

the vicinity of the proposed lease areas, additional lease-specific minimization or 

mitigation measures will be identified at that stage (including potential denial of the lease 

application). Greater specification in mitigation requirements, impact significance 

determinations, and measurable standards of protection will be deferred to specific 

project assessments that would be developed in consultation with state and federal natural 

resource management agencies. 

3.7.4.9 Updated Sage-Grouse Information 

OSTS_069-52 OSTS_069-53 50323-21

Issue Summary: These comments addressed sage-grouse policy, including updates to 

BLM policy and recent memoranda. 

Response: As presented in the PEIS, the BLM has issued nationwide and state-specific 

guidance recommending the consideration of certain management practices to address the 

appropriate management of sage-grouse habitat in the context of land use actions. 

Considering the likelihood of future listing under the ESA, the BLM has adopted a 

conservation alternative (Alternative 2) to exclude all currently defined sage-grouse core 

and priority habitats from consideration for oil shale and tar sands lease applications in 

Colorado and Utah and to make oil shale and tar sands development activities consistent 

with the Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Core Area Protection Strategy in Wyoming 

(E.O. 2011-5). Sage-grouse core and priority habitats were determined by state wildlife 

agencies (CPW, UDWR, WGFD) with involvement from federal, state, and local 

governments. Revised sage-grouse core and priority habitat boundaries were released 

following the publication of the Draft PEIS. Updated policy and BLM Instructional 

Memoranda (IM), as well as updated core and priority area boundaries, were incorporated 

in the Final PEIS. 

 
Final OSTS PEIS 92 

3.7.4.10 No Response Required 

OSTS_069-55 OSTS_083-4 OSTS_090-3 50157-2

Issue Summary: These comments did not substantively comment on any portion of the 

PEIS or did not request any modifications. 

Response: Thank you for your comments.

3.7.4.11 Comments Requiring Individual Responses 

OSTS_024-6 OSTS_071-9 OSTS_074-2 OSTS_074-3 

Issue Summary: 

024-6: Also, I’m trying to make sense of the following statement, which seems 

contradictory to me: “The construction and operation of commercial oil shale projects 

could affect threatened, endangered, and sensitive species and their habitats where 

individual projects are located within the 461,965 acres identified for oil shale leasing. 

There were no habitats for threatened, endangered, or sensitive species identified for 

spatial or temporal protection in BLM RMPs that would be present in the lease 

application areas.” How is it that no habitats have been identified for protection if the 

BLM acknowledges that such habitats are present? 

071-9: In Table 2.6.1, page 2-98, for Alternative 2 the PEIS states “no critical habitat will 

be affected under this alternative.” We do not agree with this statement because water 

depletions from the upper Colorado River Basin, as well as adverse changes to stream 

water quality, would have an adverse impact on critical habitat for the four endangered 

Colorado River Basin fish species. We recommend this statement of impacts be changed 

to indicate possible downstream impacts on critical habitat for listed fish. 

074-3: In Table 6.2.1-9, the degree to which populations may be affected depends on the 

status of the species; however, the table does not provide information about the status of 

the listed species. We suggest the Final PEIS provide a general summary of the status of 

the listed species. For example; the trends and status of the avian species listed can be 

found at http://www.mbr-pwrc.usgs.gov/bbs/bbs.html and in Sauer, J. R., J. E. Hines, 

J. E. Fallon, K. L. Pardieck, D. J. Ziolkowski, Jr., and W. A. Link, 2011, The North 

American Breeding Bird Survey, Results and Analysis 1966 – 2009, Version 3.23.2011 

USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Laurel, MD. 

074-2: On page 3-185, we suggest that the Final EIS include the data and information on 

the home range characteristics of adult Mexican Spotted Owls (Strix occidentalis lucida)

in southern Utah available in: Willey, D. W.;van, Riper, III, C., 2007, “Home range 

characteristics of Mexican Spotted Owls in the canyonlands of Utah,” Journal of Raptor 

Research 41:10–15. 
Final OSTS PEIS 93 

Response: 

024-6: Several of the BLM RMPs include various stipulations to provide protection for 

different 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) controlled surface use (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 timing limitation (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). 

RMP decisions are made and approved under the authority of FLPMA, as well as other 

pertinent regulations (e.g., NEPA). The BLM uses RMPs to identify and protect areas of 

importance to plants and wildlife. The absence of spatially defined protected areas in the 

RMPs does not imply that such habitat does not exist. 

071-9: Table 2.6-1 (Table 2.7-1 in the Final OSTS PEIS) presents a comparison of the 

impacts of each oil shale alternative. The table is correct in stating that critical habitat for 

the Colorado River endangered fish does not occur within lands identified for application 

for leasing under Alternative 2. Indirect impacts, such as those pertaining to water 

depletion, could occur under any of the four; these impacts are discussed under each 

alternative in Chapter 6. 

074-2: Home range information for the Mexican spotted owl, based on research provided 

in the comment, was added to the Final PEIS. 

074-3: The table already includes the listing status of each species. 

3.7.5 Sage-Grouse 

3.7.5.1 Conservation, Data, and Analysis 

OSTS_069-52 

OSTS_069-53 

OSTS_069-55 

OSTS_069-56 

OSTS_069-57 

OSTS_069-58 

OSTS_069-61 

OSTS_069-62 

OSTS_071-6 

OSTS_071-27 

OSTS_071-32 

OSTS_071-41 

OSTS_090-7 

50180-03 

50181-56 

50181-57 

50286-2 

50286-7 

50286-8 

50312-13 

50320-11 

50323-12 

50329-7 

50333-16 

Issue Summary: These comments provided specific scientific information that the 

commentors believe should be incorporated into the analysis. These requests included 
Final OSTS PEIS 94 

updates to the species’ biology, natural history, distribution, and threats. The comments 

also suggested data published subsequent to the publication of the Draft PEIS be added to 

the analysis (e.g., National Technical Team (NTT) report, priority habitat mapping), to 

ensure adequate protection of large expanses of sagebrush habitat. Some comments also 

discussed the use of current greater sage-grouse state and federal policies (e.g., Wyoming 

IM 2012-043, IM 2012-44, IM 2012-19, and E.O. 2011-5). 

Response: Given the uncertainties in oil shale technology, scale (size), and location, 

including factors such as the amount of land disturbance and water requirements, it is 

currently not possible to quantify the impacts of future oil shale and tar sands 

development on individual threatened, endangered, and sensitive species. Impacts on 

threatened, endangered, and sensitive species were qualitatively determined by using best 

available information, which included spatial data pertaining to species occurrences and 

their habitat. It was not possible to conduct a more detailed site-specific analysis for each 

species given the large areas involved and uncertainty in exact project locations. There 

are too many uncertainties to allow for a more quantitative analysis at the programmatic 

level (such as those pertaining to surface water and groundwater quantity and quality). 

Instead, the programmatic analysis discusses potential impacts on sensitive species (and 

ecological resources in general) in relation to the amount of land disturbance associated 

with potential future development. Therefore, the potential for impact can be compared 

for each alternative based upon the relative amount of surface area identified for land use 

plan amendments (Chapter 6). 

The BLM is currently evaluating Greater Sage-Grouse Planning Amendments/Updates to 

ensure conservation of this species across its range. In accordance with the BLM Greater 

Sage-Grouse NTT Report in December 2011, the Preferred Alternative avoids priority 

sage-grouse habitats recently mapped or identified in Colorado and Utah when 

identifying lands open for oil shale leasing. In accordance with Wyoming IM 2012-043, 

“Greater Sage-Grouse Interim Management Policies and Procedures,” potential oil shale 

development in Wyoming will adhere to E.O. 2011-5, Greater Sage-Grouse Core Area 

Protection. It is understood that any proposed oil shale leasing in Wyoming core areas 

would need to demonstrate development criteria consist with E.O. 2011-5 through leasing 

or project-specific NEPA. Any future oil shale and tar sands leasing and development 

activities would be required to comply with all ongoing BLM planning and management 

efforts to conserve greater sage-grouse and its habitat (e.g., IM 2012-43 and IM 2012-

44). Relevant conservation guidelines, policies, and IMs pertinent to greater sage-grouse 

conservation were provided in Appendix K of the Final PEIS. 

Mitigation measures are identified in Section 4.8.2, which include many stipulations to 

protect sensitive species, including measures for management of greater sage-grouse 

general habitat. Conservation measures for federally protected species are also provided 

in Appendix F. These programmatic mitigation measures and conservation measures, as 

well as those determined during lease-specific NEPA evaluations, will be implemented 

for each commercial development under the proposed program. Greater specification in 

mitigation requirements, impact significance determinations, and measurable standards of 

protection is also deferred to site-specific project assessments that would be developed in 
Final OSTS PEIS 95 

consultation with state and federal natural resource management agencies (including any 

necessary ESA Section 7 consultation). It is expected that this consultation process will 

identify the potential occurrence of greater sage-grouse and its habitat in the project area, 

the need for additional surveys, quantitative significance criteria, and specific mitigation 

requirements. 

3.7.5.2 Cumulative Effects 

OSTS_069-52 OSTS_069-59 OSTS_069-60 50329-7 

Issue Summary: These comments requested modification or additional analysis on the 

cumulative effects on the greater sage-grouse, as it relates to other ongoing projects (e.g., 

transmission lines), total loss of habitat (e.g., sagebrush treatments, previous industrial 

projects), or interconnected actions (threat of predation). 

Response: The cumulative effects analysis in the PEIS considers the effects of nearby 

federal and nonfederal activities. Given the uncertainties in oil shale and tar sands 

development technology, the scale (size) of future projects, and their locations (including 

factors such as the amount of land disturbance and water requirements), an accurate 

assessment of the cumulative impacts of oil shale and tar sands development on sensitive 

species cannot be made. The role of this programmatic document is to analyze allocation 

decisions. Programmatic environmental impact statements are used to evaluate broad 

policies, plans, and programs and provide an effective analytical foundation for 

subsequent project-specific NEPA documents. Any additional analyses required to more 

accurately determine cumulative impacts on sage-grouse (such as connected demographic 

impacts based on habitat loss) will be determined at the lease-specific level. 

3.7.5.3 Specific Revisions 

OSTS_069-52 

OSTS_069-53 

OSTS_071-41 

50181-56 

50181-57 

Issue Summary: These comments identified specific locations of the PEIS requesting 

updates to the status, biology, distribution, or ecology of the greater sage-grouse. 

Response: Revisions or updates to the status, ecology, or distribution of the greater sagegrouse, including updated tables, figures, and priority greater sage-grouse habitat 

mapping, were provided in the Final PEIS. The PEIS acknowledges the uncertainty in 

determining species potential occurrences in the vicinity of areas that may be considered 

for oil shale and tar sands lease authorizations. More detailed site-specific analysis, 

including information regarding the local abundance and distribution of special status 

species, will be determined at the lease level in coordination with the appropriate state 

and federal agencies. 
Final OSTS PEIS 96 

3.8 VISUAL RESOURCES 

3.8.1 General Concerns 

OSTS_031-3 

OSTS_069-69 

50246-1 

50253-5 

50253-7 

Issue Summary: An environmental organization and several individuals raised general 

concerns about the potential visual impacts of oil shale and tar sands development on 

scenic landscapes in the PEIS region, particularly on lands administered by the National 

Park Service. One comment noted night sky impacts as a particular concern. 

Response: Regardless of the technologies employed for production, oil shale and tar 

sands facilities involve substantial amounts of land disturbance. The presence and 

operation of large-scale facilities and equipment would introduce major visual changes 

into non-industrialized landscapes and could create strong visual contrasts in line, form, 

color, and texture, especially where viewed from nearby locations. 

Some degree of visual contrast and impact from oil shale and tar sands development on 

BLM-administered lands is unavoidable; potential impacts on visual resources are one 

factor among many that must be considered by the BLM in the complex process of 

identifying lands suitable for energy development. However, the identification of leasing 

areas under the various alternatives considered in the PEIS incorporated concerns for 

visual resources that resulted in avoidance or reduction of major impacts on many 

sensitive visual resource areas. Furthermore, when individual projects are proposed, 

additional consideration of potential visual impacts will be incorporated into the required 

site- and project-specific impact assessment that will occur, including further 

opportunities for public comment on potential visual impacts. Furthermore, there are 

numerous visual design features included in the PEIS that developers will be required to 

implement that will result in avoidance and/or reduction of potential visual impacts 

associated with energy facility construction, operation, and decommissioning.

3.8.2 Visual Resource Inventory/Visual Resource Management Concerns 

OSTS_069-67 50329-13 50329-6 

Issue Summary: Three comments from environmental organizations suggested the BLM 

prohibit lands from oil shale development based on either Scenic Quality Ratings (under 

BLM’s visual resource inventory [VRI] process) or a Visual Resource Management 

(VRM) Class rating of 1, 2, or 3 (under BLM’s VRM class designation process). 

 
Final OSTS PEIS 97 

Response: The BLM’s VRM System utilizes the Visual Contrast Rating System as 

described in BLM Manual Handbook 8431-1 to determine whether a proposed project 

conforms to the specified VRM class for the proposed project location. According to the 

manual, the assessment of visual contrast that determines VRM class consistency must be 

made from key observation points (KOPs). In other words, VRM class consistency is 

always judged from one or more specific locations where people would be expected to 

view the project area, and is not a blanket assessment of contrast that is independent of 

viewer location and that would apply regardless of the distance from the proposed 

project, the presence of screening topography, vegetation, or structures. Hence, it is 

possible that an oil shale or tar sands facility could conform with VRM Class III 

requirements if the relevant KOPs were sufficiently far away or had only partial views of 

the facility. 

The PEIS states that regardless of the technologies employed for production, oil shale and 

tar sands facilities involve substantial amounts of land disturbance. The presence and 

operation of large-scale facilities and equipment would introduce major visual changes 

into non-industrialized landscapes and could create strong visual contrasts in line, form, 

color, and texture, especially where viewed from nearby locations. In many if not most 

situations, oil shale and tar sands facilities would not be expected to conform with VRM 

Class III management objectives for nearby KOPs with unobstructed views of the 

facilities, but that determination would be made on a project-specific basis as part of the 

visual impact analysis when a project-specific environmental assessment would be 

conducted.

3.8.3 Visual Resources Photos 

50090-31 50181-78 50181-87 50343-24 

Issue Summary: Several commentors questioned the use of photographs of oil shale and 

tar sands development from facilities in other countries. 

Response: The photos in the PEIS do include photos from facilities in the United States 

(e.g., the Crown Asphalt Ridge Oil Sands Facility shown in Figure 5.9.1-5 of the PEIS); 

however, current U.S. facilities are pilot-plant or very small-scale experimental facilities 

and are not representative of the large commercial-scale facilities for which potential 

impacts are analyzed in the PEIS. Although each facility built in future would have some 

unique visual characteristics, the facilities and mining operations in Canada and Australia 

are closer in size and general visual characteristics to the commercial-scale facilities for 

which potential impacts are analyzed in the PEIS than are the very small-scale facilities 

currently in operation in the United States, and are therefore more representative of the 

likely visual impacts associated with the facilities discussed in the PEIS analysis. 

 
Final OSTS PEIS 98 

3.8.4 Visual Resources Terminology 

50181-79 

Issue Summary: One comment requested a clarification of the term “fall-line cut.” 

Response: A fall-line cut is the removal of vegetation (generally trees and shrubs) along 

the right-of-way (ROW) using straight-line boundaries between the cleared area and the 

natural vegetation outside the ROW. The “hard edge” between the cleared area and the 

surrounding vegetation is non-natural in its appearance and appears as a line contrast that 

may be visible for very long distances, especially for views along or parallel to the ROW. 

Fall-line cuts are so named because the cut mimics the “fall line” of the transmission 

towers, that is, an imaginary line running on either side of the transmission line at a 

distance corresponding to the height of the transmission tower, inside which vegetation 

must be cleared for safety reasons. 

3.9 CULTURAL RESOURCES 

3.9.1 Historic Trails 

OSTS_073-2 50125-6 50324-51 50324-41

Issue Summary: Two commentors suggested that the 0.25-mi buffer used in the 

consideration of historic trails is inadequate. One commentor recommended additional 

mitigation for impacts on National Historic Trails. Another commentor suggested adding 

text to the Draft PEIS about National Trails System Act of 1978 (NTSA) segments that 

intersect with prospective oil shale resources in Wyoming. 

Response: The commentors stated that in some cases, the 0.25-mi corridor extending 

from either side of the historic trail may not be adequate to provide these resources with 

meaningful protection. The PEIS, on page 2-32, states that the National Historic Trails in 

Wyoming will be excluded from oil shale leasing/development for a minimum distance 

of 0.25 mi on either side of the trail, regardless of the provisions of any existing 

applicable RMP. This has been revised to reflect that prior to leasing, an “area of 

potential adverse impact” will be determined, where appropriate. The area of potential 

adverse impact will be based on information contained in the pertinent BLM RMP and 

the information obtained during the inventory for the area under consideration as well as 

consultation with stakeholders, through the Section 106 of NHPA review. In the event 

that the BLM determines that the 0.25-mi corridor needs to be changed, the BLM will 

follow appropriate planning processes to lessen or increase this exclusion. Under the 

National Trails System Act, the BLM is also required to coordinate with the National 

Trail Administrator when the BLM receives an application for a proposed action where a 

National Trail Management Corridor has not yet been established, but could exist. An 
Final OSTS PEIS 99 

additional commentor suggested mitigation for addressing impacts on historic trails 

(i.e., off-site mitigation). Mitigation strategies for impacts on historic properties such as 

National Historic Trails would be developed at the time of a lease application as part of 

the mandatory Section 106 of the NHPA review for a leasing action and in consultation 

with the trail administering agency and other stakeholders. Text was added to 

Section 2.2.3 of the PEIS regarding NTSA segments that intersect oil shale areas in 

Wyoming. 

3.9.2 Cultural/Tribal Public Outreach 

50125-1 

Issue Summary: A commentor indicated that additional outreach should be undertaken. 

One group mentioned that it would like to be considered an interested party for the 

Section 106 review and that additional outreach should be conducted with groups 

interested in historic preservation. 

Response: The commentor will be added to the list of interested parties for the 

Section 106 NHPA review. Public outreach efforts undertaken for the PEIS are discussed 

in Sections 1.1 and 1.2.1 of the PEIS. In addition, the efforts undertaken for complying 

with Section 106 of the NHPA are discussed in Section 3.9.1. Future opportunities for 

public involvement will occur when lease applications are submitted. 

3.9.3 Tribal Consultation 

50125-2 

Issue Summary: A commentor indicated that Native American tribes should be 

consulted concerning traditional cultural properties. 

Response: As discussed in Sections 4.11.2 and 7.2, the BLM is committed to timely and 

meaningful consultation with federally recognized tribal entities that could be directly 

and substantially affected by oil shale and tar sands development on the lands the BLM 

administers. Table 7.2-1 lists the results of contacts made with 25 tribes and Navajo 

chapters. Consultation is ongoing and has included field inspection of potentially affected 

areas by Native American tribal cultural authorities (thus far, one visit by the Ute Tribe). 

Government-to-government consultation with the tribes would continue through all 

phases of leasing and development, including leasing and project proposals. Stipulations 

in lease sales would require that the leaseholders to take resources important to Native 

Americans into account during project development and operation and may require 

additional survey prior to a lease sale. 

 
Final OSTS PEIS 100 

3.9.4 Protection of Historic Resources (Policy) 

50329-12 

Issue Summary: A commentor suggested that larger areas be excluded from leasing 

consideration near significant historic properties. 

Response: The PEIS acknowledges in Section 3.10 that Native American tribes view 

traditional cultural properties and the landscapes in which they are situated as an 

integrated whole that is difficult or impossible to divide into segments. However, as 

discussed in Sections 4.11.2 and 5.11.2, through early and meaningful government-togovernment consultation with directly and significantly affected tribes through all stages 

of development, mutually acceptable accommodations can be reached that take landscape 

values into account and would reduce or mitigate adverse impacts on these resources. 

3.9.5 Heritage Tourism 

50125-8 

Issue Summary: One commentor was concerned that the leasing could affect heritage 

tourism. 

Response: Response provided in recreation comments. Response is provided in the file 

Issue 1 and 3 9_ST_KP_5-17-12. 

While the Draft PEIS analyzes the potential impacts of oil shale development on historic 

and cultural resources in the study area at a qualitative level, a more thorough analysis of 

such impacts would be done at the leasing and development stage in particular locations. 

Additional language was added to the recreational use sections under the land use 

planning heading in both Chapters 4 and 5 of the Final PEIS to acknowledge that 

recreational opportunities include heritage tourism and qualitatively the potential impacts 

of commercial development on these resources. 

3.9.6 Effects of Leasing 

50310-54 

Issue Summary: A commentor suggested that the effect of leasing is mischaracterized in 

the text. 

Response: Text changed in response to comment.

 
Final OSTS PEIS 101 

3.9.7 Commitment of Resources 

50125-5 50143-8 50306-1 

Issue Summary: Several commentors stated that unknown resources are likely present 

and that these resources should not be committed without additional surveys and 

consideration. 

Response: It is acknowledged in Section 1.1.1 of the PEIS that additional studies would 

be necessary prior to approval of a lease and plan of development. A Section 106 NHPA 

review would be conducted prior to the issuance of a lease and development. Chapter 3, 

Sections 3.9.1.2 and 3.9.1.3, identify the compliance efforts for leasing and development. 

Section 3.9 identifies the current level of cultural resource survey for each basin. In the 

PEIS, it is acknowledged that additional unknown cultural resources exist in these areas 

open for leasing applications. Currently unknown resources would be identified and 

considered during future environmental reviews that would occur before leasing. Thank 

you for your comments. 

3.10 SOCIOECONOMICS 

3.10.1 Socioeconomic Data, Methods, and Assumptions 

50090-25 

50181-58 

50181-59 

50181-60 

50181-63 

50181-64 

50181-66 

50181-67 

50181-68 

50181-122 

50181-123 

50272-5 

50310-53 

50312-19 

50312-20 

50312-22 

50312-23 

50312-25 

50312-35 

50312-37 

50312-38 

50312-39 

50343-19 

Issue Summary: Some commentors were concerned about the use of IMPLAN, and the 

need to include the latest economic data in analysis. Many commentors were concerned 

with the assumptions used in the analysis. 

Response: In order to capture a large proportion of impacts that would occur, a region of 

influence (ROI) was established, including the counties which included urban areas in 

which oil shale and tar sands construction and operations workers were most likely to live 

and spend their wages and salaries, and in which in-migrating workers were most likely 

to temporarily, in the case of construction workers, or permanently, in the case of 

operations workers, reside. Table 3.11.2-1 in the PEIS lists the counties and communities 

most likely to be affected by development of oil shale and tar sands resources. 
Final OSTS PEIS 102 

The cities of Blanding, Duchesne, and Naples were added to Table 3.11.2-1 in the PEIS. 

The cities of Del Norte, Monte Vista, and South Fork were deleted from Table 3.112.-7 

in the PEIS. 

Data for 2004 in Table 3.11.2-4 were updated to include 2009 data. 

The economic baseline for each ROI used data current in August 2011. Many of the data 

sources are updated annually and sometimes monthly. However, it is not the case that the 

impacts of oil shale and tar sands land allocations will change significantly with more 

recent baseline data, only the magnitude of the impacts compared to the forecasted 

baseline for the relevant peak construction year and first year of operations. Economic, 

fiscal, and demographic projections included in the report prepared by BBC Consulting 

were reviewed in the PEIS, and data included where appropriate. 

Although information collected in the interviews with stakeholders and community 

leaders included recent data, the purpose of the interviews was to provide the viewpoints 

of numerous local individuals of various aspects of oil shale and tar sands S development 

in the context of energy resource developments that have occurred in the past. It is clear 

from the material provided in these interviews that many of the issues associated with 

recent oil and gas development and oil shale developments since the 1970s are relevant to 

the future development of these resources, and oil shale and tar sands in particular. 

Because of the historical experience with the development of the resource, many 

individuals perceived development of oil shale resources to be associated with “boom and 

bust” development, and difficulties facing local communities in attempting to plan for 

rapid energy developments involving the large and rapid influx of population from other 

parts of the United States. Planning issues, in particular the provision of local public 

services, housing and transportation, associated with the rapid development perceived to 

be associated with oil shale leasing, are likely to differ from those in the past only in 

terms of scale, as individual projects are permitted and come into operation. It is unlikely, 

therefore, that conducting additional, more recent, interviews would provide any 

additional information that would be fundamentally different from that provided in the 

PEIS. 

As stated in Section 4.12 of the PEIS, with the size of the potential demand for housing 

by the in-migrating oil shale facility, power plant, and coal mine workers and families 

compared with the number of housing units projected to be available in each ROI, it was 

assumed that temporary housing would be required. Based on population density, the 

relative remoteness of rural communities, and likely driving distances to oil shale 

facilities, it was assumed that a relatively large percentage of oil shale and power plant 

workers and families would be housed in employer-provided housing, with the remainder 

accommodated in temporary housing of similar quality built in local communities in each 

ROI. In order to assess the impacts of in-migrants on local public service infrastructure, a 

gravity model was used to assign oil shale workers and their families not accommodated 

in temporary employer-provided housing to specific ROI communities (see Section 3.10). 

Gravity models mathematically estimate the interaction between pairs of points (the 

number of construction and operations workers and family members associated with each 
Final OSTS PEIS 103 

technology, nominally located at the oil shale resource centered in a state, and the 

population of each community in a state ROI) weighted by the linear distance between 

each pair of points. Linear, rather than roadway distance, was used in the analysis, 

because the location of oil shale and tar sands facilities and supporting roadway 

infrastructure and potential congestion data were not known. 

Worker and family population data associated with each technology were used to 

calculate the number of housing units required and the impact on vacant housing, as well 

as, in association with existing levels of service, the number of local government 

employees (police and fire personnel, general government workers, and teachers) and the 

relative impact on local government finances. A qualitative assessment of the potential 

impact of a large number of in-migrants on social disruption in small rural communities 

was made on the basis of evidence from extensive literature in sociology on potential 

social problems associated with boomtown energy development. 

As stated in Section 4.12 of the PEIS, many of the industries that would likely provide 

the appropriate materials, equipment, and other supplies in sufficient quantity for 

construction and operation of oil shale facilities and the associated power plants and coal 

mines are currently located outside the ROI in each state; thus, it was assumed that the 

majority of these resources would be purchased outside each ROI and shipped to the 

relevant oil shale, power plant, and coal mine facility locations. The values chosen for the 

extent of local purchases during construction and operation, and for employer-provided 

housing, were based on the presence and capacity of industries likely to provide materials 

and equipment to oil shale and tar sands facilities. While it may be the case that the 

ability of these industries to provide supplies to the oil shale and tar sands facilities may 

vary with developments in the economy of the ROI, these values were chosen as 

appropriate average values, given that many of the oil shale and tar sands and auxiliary 

facilities would not be constructed for some time. Similarly, the values chosen for the 

number of in-migrating direct employees were average values, rather than values based 

on specific projects constructed in particular years, to allow assessment of the impacts of 

oil shale and tar sands S facilities sometime in the future. Temporary housing would be 

subject to health and safety regulations provided in each of the three states. 

IMPLAN data used in the analysis were for 2010. More information on the IMPLAN 

model is presented in Appendix G of the PEIS. Appendix G also discusses the drawbacks 

of the IMPLAN model, in particular, that it cannot measure inflation and supply 

shortages if local sectors and labor resources cannot provide sufficient output and labor 

hours to support a particular project. Another drawback of the IMPLAN model is the 

absence of any allowance for technical change and its impact on future changes in the 

economic structure of the ROI around each oil shale or tar sands project. The PEIS 

assumes that because the majority of the ROI economies are growing fairly slowly, 

some have almost static growth rates, and many rely on a small number of traditional 

industries, such as agriculture, mining, and services, where it is reasonable to assume 

that any technical change likely to occur will not fundamentally affect output and 

employment, and with little movement of industries and firms in and out of the ROI, the 
Final OSTS PEIS 104 

economic structure of each ROI during construction and operation of oil shale or tar 

sands projects would be similar that in the IMPLAN model for each ROI. 

Direct employment data for in situ and surface mining processes taken from a number of 

sources, listed in Appendix G, were used as the basis for estimating economic impacts in 

each ROI. Data on direct employment and the associated temporary worker housing 

provided in earlier BLM NEPA reviews of oil shale and tar sands projects were used in 

preference to data that might have been available from more recent oil and gas projects, 

given differences in the scale and technology utilized in the two forms of development. 

In addition to the analyses of economic, public service, housing, and social impacts 

included in the PEIS, additional analyses of impacts would be included as part of the sitespecific NEPA review process conducted for individual oil shale and tar sands projects. 

These analyses would include facility-specific data on local purchasing of material, 

equipment, temporary housing, and in-migrating workers. 

3.10.2 Impacts on Local Government 

OSTS_008-2 

OSTS_008-5 

OSTS_021-3 

OSTS_021-5 

OSTS_033-3 

OSTS_033-4 

OSTS_069-20 

OSTS_069-49 

OSTS_069-50 

OSTS_069-51 

OSTS_090-5 

50110-1 

50118-1 

50119-1 

50144-3 

50144-7 

50147-6 

50154-1 

50154-5 

50168-1 

50171-3 

50181-88 

50181-94 

50222-1 

50249-1 

50269-1 

50269-4 

50269-8 

50270-6 

50270-10 

50312-21 

50312-24 

50312-26 

50312-27 

50312-28 

50312-29 

50312-3 

50312-40 

50314-10 

50323-8 

Issue Summary: Commentors were concerned about mitigation agreements, planning, 

revenue sharing, and housing and public service, infrastructure, and water use impacts. 

Response: The PEIS estimates the impacts of proposed oil shale and tar sands 

developments on local governments within the ROI through the estimation of impacts on 

local government and educational employment. The number of additional employees in 

both categories is calculated by using estimates of the number of in-migrants arriving in 

each ROI at the in the peak year of construction and in the first year of operations, based 

on existing levels of service provision (number of employees per 1,000 population) for 

jurisdictions within each ROI. Although the per-capita estimates of local jurisdictional 

expenditures in each ROI were based on older data, levels of service for local public 
Final OSTS PEIS 105 

services based on these data are intended to provide an indication of average expenditure 

levels in each ROI. Because no leases under the OSTS program would occur until 2022, 

attempts to project levels of expenditure per capita more than 10 years into the future is 

problematic, given fluctuations in ROI, regional and national economies, and other 

factors that might affect expenditure levels. 

As the PEIS describes in Section 3.11.1, the development of large energy-related projects 

can, as has happened in the past, lead to rapid expansion, followed by equally rapid 

contraction, in economic activity, leading to “boom-bust” socioeconomic impacts. Given 

the rural nature of many of the proposed leasing locations, which limits the number of 

locally available workers and the number in range of occupations required, it is likely that 

a large proportion of construction workers would temporarily locate in the ROI at each 

oil shale and tar sands project. The timing and magnitude of in-migration may mean that 

local jurisdictions would be unable to adequately plan and fund infrastructure, public 

services, and educational services to immediately cope with increases in service demand. 

There may also be housing market impacts if insufficient public infrastructure is in place 

to support sufficient private housing development. Local expansion in infrastructure and 

service provision might then be quickly followed by potential overprovision of 

infrastructure and services, leaving the remaining population burdened with a higher tax 

bill to maintain the new level of provision. 

In addition to the analyses of fiscal impacts included in the PEIS, additional analyses of 

impacts would be included as part of the site-specific NEPA review process that would 

be conducted for individual proposed projects. These analyses may provide information 

on the magnitude and timing of impacts on local government service provision and 

employment and on impacts on housing, roads, telecommunications infrastructure, and 

services, such as regional water providers and any loss of property tax revenues. Such a 

review may also include a variety of additional socioeconomic mitigation measures and 

revenue sources available to the BLM and local jurisdictions, such as payments in lieu of 

taxes (PILT), leasing versus ROW designation, and revenue sharing, making it possible 

for individual jurisdictions to develop more detailed expenditure plans to cope with 

population increases. Because the nature of specific mitigation measures developed at the 

project-specific level was beyond the scope of the PEIS, none were included in this part 

of the NEPA review. Additional NEPA analyses would also address the issue of the 

impacts of infrastructure upgrades and water rights allocations. Discussion of water 

quantity and quality impacts can be found in Section 3.4 of the PEIS. 

Although vacancy rates in each ROI were based on older data, housing availability using 

these data are intended to provide an indication of average availability levels in each 

ROI. Because no leases under the OSTS program would occur until 2022, attempts to 

project the level of housing availability so far into the future is problematic, with 

fluctuations in ROI, regional and national economies, and other factors that might affect 

housing availability. Economic, fiscal, and demographic projections included in the 

report prepared by BBC Consulting were reviewed in the PEIS, and data included where 

appropriate. 
Final OSTS PEIS 106 

As described in Section 3.1.2.2.7, the influx of large numbers of in-migrants could lead to 

ongoing social impacts associated with the transition from small community societies 

with traditional rural values, to larger communities with urban values, often requiring a 

higher level of social and educational service provision, and a larger supporting tax base. 

The extent to which social disruption impacts occur would be partly a result of the 

number of in-migrants and partly a result of the extent of differences between the social 

and cultural values of in-migrants and those of the local population. Because the nature 

and magnitude of these impacts are difficult to estimate, no mitigation measures are 

offered. Additional analyses of potential social impacts would be included as part of the 

site-specific NEPA review process conducted for individual proposed projects. 

To the extent that there is a relationship between the scale and pace of proposed 

development and anticipated adverse socioeconomic impacts, controlling the pace of 

development “to minimize rapid, disruptive social change” is recognized as an 

appropriate mitigation measure in the BLM National Environmental Policy Act 

Handbook, H-1790-1, Section 6.8.4, page 62: “Socioeconomic impacts are usually 

indirect and largely fall on communities and local government institutions, by definition 

located outside BLM-managed lands. While some mitigation strategies are within the 

BLM’s control, (such as regulating the pace of mineral exploration and development to 

minimize rapid, disruptive social change), most mitigation strategies require action by 

other government entities . . .” 

Individual lease applications would be subject to additional analyses, including the timing 

and sources of funding for local jurisdictions to support the additional growth in 

expenditure and employment likely with oil shale or tar sands developments, and the 

impact of changes in personal and property taxes. 

Although it is unlikely that the BLM would be able to require individual oil shale or tar 

sands developers to enter into mitigation agreements with local jurisdictions affected by 

development, there are likely to be significant tax revenue benefits through rental and 

capacity payments that would be made to the BLM by developers. Much of the revenue 

collected by the BLM from these sources would be distributed to local jurisdictions 

affected by development, and may be used to provide additional services and 

infrastructure for local community increases in population. 

3.10.3 Local Economic Development Benefits

OSTS_032-1 

OSTS_069-48 

OSTS_077-13 

OSTS_078-13 

OSTS_079-13 

OSTS_080-14 

OSTS_081-13 

OSTS_087-6 

OSTS_087-7 

OSTS_092-3 

OSTS_100-2 

OSTS_101-2 

OSTS_102-4 

OSTS_105-1 

OSTS_106-1 

OSTS_117-2 

OSTS_125-2 

OSTS_147-4 

OSTS_196-2 

OSTS_216-4 

OSTS_229-4 

OSTS_231-3 

OSTS_232-2 

50087-9 
Final OSTS PEIS 107 

50090-4 

50090-5 

50090-23 

50090-24 

50090-25 

50090-34 

50096-4 

50117-1 

50123-2 

50129-4 

50130-4 

50131-4 

50132-4 

50133-4 

50134-4 

50135-4 

50136-4 

50137-4 

50138-4 

50139-5 

50142-2 

50143-10 

50144-1 

50146-4 

50149-4 

50150-4 

50151-4 

50155-4 

50159-4 

50161-4 

50165-8 

50166-4 

50167-4 

50172-4 

50181-34 

50181-124 

50186-17 

50227-8 

50229-1 

50255-6 

50255-7 

50255-21 

50272-5 

50273-2 

50276-8 

50296-2 

50309-5 

50312-41 

50314-2 

50320-5 

50324-12 

50325-22 

50328-21 

50330-5 

50333-17 

50343-18 

50343-19 

50365-2 

Issue Summary: Some commentors expressed support for long-term, well-paid jobs in 

local communities, while others were concerned over impacts on property values and 

agriculture. Some commentors preferred a phased approach to avoid “boom-bust” 

economic development. Many commentors were generally opposed to or supported oil 

shale and tar sands based on economic development issues in each state ROI. 

Response: The purpose of the socioeconomic assessment in the PEIS is to estimate the 

impacts of the leasing land to accommodate specific production levels for each oil shale 

and tar sands recovery method on the ROI surrounding it. It may be the case, however, 

that smaller scale projects may result from the development of portions of proposed oil 

shale and tar sands acreage, with lower production levels, especially at larger lease tracts, 

meaning that the impacts of oil shale and tar sands development are a conservative 

estimate of impacts in one or each ROI. In addition to the analyses of economic impacts 

included in the PEIS, additional analyses of impacts would be included as part of the sitespecific NEPA review process conducted for individual oil shale and tar sands projects. 

Part of the process of performing additional environmental and socioeconomic analyses 

could be an assessment of the impacts of smaller scale projects and a phased approach to 

development. However, because the scale of development in each ROI is likely to be 

driven primarily by market factors, in particular the financial viability of projects of 

specific capacities, the involvement of the BLM in this aspect of oil shale and tar sands 

development, and the extent to which subsequent NEPA analysis might consider a range 

of proposed capacity level and development timelines, is likely to be limited. 
Final OSTS PEIS 108 

As discussed in Section 4.1 of the PEIS, oil shale and tar sands developments are likely to 

create significant direct construction employment benefits for residents in communities in 

each ROI. Construction jobs are likely to produce annual incomes significantly larger 

than the current average. As the higher-than-average wages and salaries of direct 

employees are spent in each ROI, indirect jobs will be created throughout the economies 

of each ROI. Additional employment and incomes will also be generated through the 

procurement of goods, materials, equipment, and services within each ROI during the 

construction phase of each project. In addition to the economic impacts of oil shale and 

tar sands facilities, there are likely to be significant tax revenue benefits from the 

construction and operation of oil shale and tar sands projects not only through sales and 

income taxes but also through annual payments that would be made to the BLM by oil 

shale and tar sands developers. Much of the revenues collected by the BLM from these 

sources would be distributed to local jurisdictions affected by such development. 

Potential impacts on agriculture are covered in Section 4.12.1.4 of the PEIS. 

Section 4.12.1.6 of the PEIS covers potential impact on property values, while 

Section 4.12.1.7 of the PEIS discusses the relationship between changes in amenity value 

and economic development in the western states. Economic, fiscal, and demographic 

projections included in the report prepared by BBC Consulting were reviewed in the 

PEIS, and data included where appropriate. Discussion of water impacts can be found in 

Section 4.5 of the PEIS. 

As the PEIS describes, socioeconomic mitigation measures could include training 

programs to ensure that the employment of a local labor force in the construction and 

operation of oil shale and tar sands projects is as large as possible, because there may few 

potential employees in the required construction occupations, given the economic profile 

of the ROIs, where agriculture, mining and services may be largest current employing 

sectors. To the extent that local labor resources and vendors can be utilized on oil shale 

and tar sands projects during both construction and operation, oil shale and tar sands 

developments could contribute to reducing unemployment that may have resulted from 

national recession or from declining demand for the products of ROI sectors traditionally 

providing significant local employment opportunities. Requiring project developers to 

undertake preferential hiring of residents, and to use vendors within the county or state 

where an oil shale and tar sands project is proposed, are in certain respects attractive as a 

means of addressing the project’s socioeconomic impacts. It is likely, however, that these 

requirements would be held to violate the interstate commerce clause. 

Analysis undertaken for the PEIS indicates direct and indirect employment growth 

associated with development of oil shale and tar sands facilities could lead to 

development on a scale likely to precipitate a “boom-bust” economic development 

trajectory at the majority of ROIs. The PEIS acknowledges that the influx of large 

numbers of in-migrants can lead to ongoing social impacts associated with the transition 

from small community societies with traditional rural values, to larger communities with 

urban values, which may fundamentally affect quality of life in small rural communities. 

Section 3.11.2.2.7 of the PEIS provides an analysis of the literature discussing the nature 

of these impacts. 
Final OSTS PEIS 109 

3.10.4 Recreation Impacts 

OSTS_069-20 

OSTS_069-31 

OSTS_069-50 

OSTS_137-2 

OSTS_218-1 

OSTS_235-4 

50120-4 

50121-4 

50125-7 

50147-6 

50157-4 

50167-3 

50181-65 

50181-81 

50245-1 

50249-3 

50253-8 

50260-1 

50269-7 

50270-4 

50300-2 

50309-4 

50314-4 

50322-6 

50323-7 

50323-28 

50336-5 

50341-4 

50355-4 

Issue Summary: Many commentors were concerned about impacts on tourism and 

recreation from oil shale and tar sands development and the importance of tourism and 

recreation to local economies. 

Response: As discussed in Section 3.11, the economic baseline established for recreation 

activities in each ROI identifies a number of sectors in which recreational expenditures 

would occur, including sporting goods retailers, automotive rental, hotels, recreational 

vehicle parks, campsites, and restaurants. Recreational activities in the vicinity of oil 

shale and tar sands projects could be affected by visual, air quality, or water quality 

impairments or reductions in populations of animals that provide hunting opportunities. 

A significant problem in the assessment of impacts of oil shale and tar sands 

developments on recreation lies in the measurement of recreational visitation, especially 

visitation related to specific recreational activities, and the extent to which individual 

activities are affected by aspects of oil shale and tar sands development, changes in the 

visual environment and related infrastructure, increases in traffic, and changes in the 

overall level of local economic development, property values, and quality of life. 

Moreover, visitation rates associated with various recreational activities, such as hunting, 

off-road vehicle use, bird-watching, hiking, and so on is often not measured, especially if 

there is no specific market transaction, such payment of camping fees, even though there 

may be significant associated expenditure on accommodation, gasoline, vehicle, and 

equipment rentals. While there have been several studies of specific recreational 

activities, such as off-road vehicle use, and in specific locations, such as public lands in 

Utah, there is no systematically collected data for all three ROIs to allow an assessment 

of the economic impacts of visitation related to all recreational activities. 

Various locations within the ROIs host healthy, tourism-based economies. During NEPA 

review at the project-specific level, agreements may be reached between local 

governments and oil shale and tar sands developers to allow energy development and also 

mitigate impacts on important employment and revenue-generating tourist and 
Final OSTS PEIS 110 

recreational sites, such as national parks and historic areas, including potential impacts on 

water, air, and ecosystem viability. 

3.10.5 Economic Viability 

OSTS_137-2 

50123-2 

50142-2 

50157-3 

50165-8 

50300-2 

Issue Summary: A number of commentors were concerned about the viability of oil 

shale and tar sands technologies and their revenue-generating potential. 

Response: Due diligence by the BLM in assessing project viability prior to issuing a 

lease is required for applications. In addition, under the Preferred Alternative, leases will 

be granted for RD&D projects. Developers will be required to prove that they have a 

viable technology. 

3.11 RECREATION 

Comments associated with recreation are addressed under Issue 8.1. 

3.12 ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE 

3.12.1 Agricultural Water Use 

50181-36 50181-88 

Issue Summary: Commentors were concerned about impacts on drinking and irrigation 

water. 

Response: Text was added to the PEIS to describe the potential for environmental justice 

impacts from changes in water supplies and water costs for drinking and irrigation water 

resulting from oil shale and tar sands developments. 

3.12.2 Analytical Methods, Data, and Scope 

50090-35 50181-35 50310-31

Issue Summary: Commentors were concerned that analysis did not present an accurate 

description of minority and low-income populations. 
Final OSTS PEIS 111 

Response: Low-income and minority data and maps in the PEIS were updated and are 

now based on data provided in the 2010 Census. 

An important part of the analysis of the potential impacts of oil shale and tar sands 

developments on low-income and minority communities is to establish the proximity of 

these communities to such developments. Once proximity has been established, the 

extent to which impacts that are high and adversely affect individuals in low-income and 

minority communities can be established by considering how environmental pathways or 

social, cultural, and economic interactions at the state level or within a 50-mi area around 

each leasing area could be affected by specific types of environmental or socioeconomic 

impacts of oil shale and tar sands projects. The PEIS establishes a basis for the 

examination of these impacts and provides design features that may be implemented to 

mitigate some or all of these impacts. Subsequent, project-specific NEPA assessments of 

individual oil shale and tar sands projects would consider in more detail the precise 

nature and magnitude of these impacts and establish a set of mitigation procedures. 

Under Presidential E.O. 12898, “Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in 

Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations,” federal agencies have the 

responsibility to “identify and address, as appropriate, disproportionately high and 

adverse human health or environmental effects of its programs, policies, and activities on 

minority populations and low-income populations.” The spirit of this policy—not a 

mechanical threshold—should guide any analysis of disproportional impact. Given that 

stipulation, using a quantitative threshold to determine impact is a useful and accepted 

tool for preparing environmental justice analyses. In its guidance accompanying 

E.O. 12898, CEQ proposes that: 

Minority populations should be identified where either: (a) the minority 

population of the affected area exceeds 50 percent or (b) the minority population 

percentage of the affected area is meaningfully greater than the minority 

population percentage in the general population or other appropriate unit of 

geographic analysis. 

No specific definition of “meaningfully greater” is offered; instead, it is meant to vary 

depending on the scale of the analysis and the level of expected impacts. Where adverse 

impacts appear to be negligible, it may be reasonable to set the threshold higher to avoid 

running through an environmental justice analysis that contributes nothing substantive to 

the understanding of impacts. Conversely, where there is a reasonable chance of adverse 

effects, the threshold should be set lower to ensure that such effects on minority or other 

environmental justice groups are well documented. The PEIS finds that “impacts 

resulting from the construction and operation of oil shale and tar sands facilities with the 

potential to affect low-income and minority populations are likely to be small,” justifying 

an increased threshold for determining whether environmental justice communities exist 

in the affected area. Despite this finding, the PEIS acknowledges that demographics 

could change and proceeds to list potential impacts on environmental justice 

communities. This (and other) sections also include applicable mitigation measures to 

address these impacts. 
Final OSTS PEIS 112 

Finally, “the OSTS PEIS will not eliminate the need for site-specific environmental 

review for future individual OSTS development proposals. ... The determination of the 

necessary level of additional NEPA analysis, however, would be made on a case-by-case 

basis at the time an OSTS energy project application was received.” 

3.12.3 Support of Economic Development as a Means of Addressing Environmental Justice 

Issues 

50343-27 

Issue Summary: One commentor advocated oil shale and tar sands development as a 

means of addressing poverty in each state ROI and providing economic opportunities for 

minority populations. 

Response: As discussed in Section 4.1 of the PEIS, oil shale and tar sands developments 

are likely to create significant direct construction employment benefits for residents in 

communities in each ROI, including low-income and minority individuals. Construction 

jobs are likely to produce annual incomes significantly larger than the current average. As 

the higher-than-average wages and salaries of direct employees are spent in each ROI, 

indirect jobs will be created throughout the economies of each ROI. Additional 

employment and incomes will also be generated through the procurement of goods, 

materials, equipment, and services within each ROI during the construction phase of each 

project, including establishments employing low-income and minority individuals. In 

addition to the economic impacts of oil shale and tar sands facilities, there are likely to be 

significant tax revenue benefits from the construction and operation of oil shale and tar 

sands projects not only through sales and income taxes but also through annual payments 

that would be made to the BLM by oil shale and tar sands developers. Much of the 

revenues collected by the BLM from these sources would be distributed to local 

jurisdictions affected by oil shale and tar sands development, including low-income and 

minority individuals. 

As the PEIS describes, socioeconomic mitigation measures could include training 

programs to ensure that the employment of a local labor force in the construction and 

operation of oil shale and tar sands projects is as large as possible, including low-income 

and minority individuals, as there may few potential employees in the required 

construction occupations, given the economic profile of the ROIs, where agriculture, 

mining, and services may be largest current employing sectors. To the extent that local 

labor resources and vendors can be utilized on oil shale and tar sands projects during both 

construction and operation, oil shale and tar sands developments could contribute to 

reducing unemployment that may have resulted from national recession or from declining 

demand for the products of ROI sectors traditionally providing significant local 

employment opportunities. Mitigation programs would also benefit low-income and 

minority individuals. 
Final OSTS PEIS 113 

3.13 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS/WASTE 

OSTS_024-5 

50181-82 

50181-86 

50181-89 

50181-98 

50181-114 

50181-118

50243-1 

50276-5 

50279-5 

50279-6 

50312-32 

50312-33 

50335-14 

50335-15 

50335-16 

50335-17 

50335-18 

50335-19 

50335-20 

50335-21 

50335-22 

50335-23 

50335-24 

50335-25 

50335-26 

50363-1 

Issue Summary: Commentors raised a number of technical and procedural issues related 

to the management of hazardous materials and wastes used in or produced by oil shale 

and tar sands operations. Duchesne County, Utah, provided citations for hazardous 

wastes and for solid wastes in its County Code to be added to Appendix D of the PEIS. 

This commentor also noted that spent tar sands do have commercial value and are not 

necessarily treated as a solid waste. Rio Blanco County, Colorado, noted that the 

assumption in Section 4.14.1 of the PEIS that produced waste waters would be collected 

in lined ponds and treated on-site was inconsistent with BLM’s history of not allowing 

such activities on public land. The Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality 

(WDEQ) made a number of comments on Section 4.14.1 regarding the procedural 

requirements and implementation of state and federal waste management regulations, as 

well as for reporting and cleaning up releases to the environment. Other commentors 

expressed general concerns regarding the use of hazardous materials by a future oil shale 

and tar sands industry and the effects of releases to the environment. 

Response: Appendix D was revised in accordance with information from Duchesne 

County on solid and hazardous waste regulations. In addition, Section 5.14.1.1 of the 

PEIS was revised to indicate that spent tar sands in Utah do have potential commercial 

value. Conversely, no change was made to the PEIS in response to suggested 

inconsistencies of assumptions regarding on-site storage and treatment of process 

waters and previous BLM policy on similar actions. With respect to comments from the 

WDEQ, Section 4.14.1 was revised in several places to address points made in these 

comments. Regarding general concerns about releases of hazardous materials or wastes 

used or produced in commercial operations, Oil Shale Section 4.14.2 and Tar Sands 

Section 5.14.2 list mitigation measures, including regulatory requirements, that would 

limit the release of hazardous wastes and minimize and mitigate the effects of any 

accidental releases. Management of spent shale is discussed in Section 4.14.1. 

 
Final OSTS PEIS 114 

3.14 HEALTH AND SAFETY 

OSTS_034-2

50096-5

50147-5

50276-2

50277-22

50277-23

50277-24

50285-4

50314-8

50333-49

Issue Summary: Commentors expressed concerns regarding potential exposure to 

chemical additives used in shale fracturing in the oil and gas industry and the use of 

“citrus solvent” in tar sands extraction. A commentor from the BLM state office in Utah 

recommended clarifications to the discussion of mine safety issues related to methane, 

hydrogen sulfide, and explosive dusts, and noted that Mine Safety Health Administration 

standards, if followed, would prevent unacceptable exposures to miners. A Utah State 

commentor pointed out that health effects estimates in Table 4.15.2 are based on 

1 million bbl/day oil shale production, while Chapter 4 analysis assumptions address a 

significantly smaller initial industry. 

Response: Regarding chemical additives used in oil and gas hydraulic fracturing, 

Section 4.14.1.4 of the PEIS discusses this issue, but notes that it is not clear that in situ 

oil shale processes would use processes or additives similar those for recovering oil and 

gas. Regarding all hazardous materials, mitigation measures and regulations discussed in 

Section 4.14.2 would limit exposures to worker and the public. Regarding mine safety, 

affected sections of the PEIS were revised in accordance with these comments. 

Regarding the health effects estimates in Table 4.15.2, these estimates may be scaled to 

any assumed oil shale industry size. No change was made in response to this comment. 

3.15 GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM 

OSTS_069-53

OSTS_084-6

OSTS_087-1

OSTS_230-5

50030-1

50047-12

50074-10

50181-12

50181-25

50268-15 

50277-8

50277-11

50277-12

50277-13

50277-14

50277-31

Issue Summary: Commentors identified errors in maps and figures. Commentors also 

suggested improvements for maps and figures or requested design changes, additions, or 

omissions from the maps and figures. 

Response: After reviewing comments, the BLM adjusted maps, figures, text, or tables to 

correct commentors’ issues as appropriate. 

The information displayed on the maps and figures is correct to the best of the BLM’s 

knowledge and reflective of the data available. The maps and figures contain an 

appropriate level of detail so as to relay the relevant information without overwhelming 

the reader. 
Final OSTS PEIS 115 

4.0 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS 

4.1 PROGRAMMATIC CUMULATIVE IMPACTS AND SUBSEQUENT 

NEPA ANALYSIS 

OSTS_069-11 

50125-6 

50162-5 

50314-11 

50323-3 

Issue Summary: Several commentors expressed views on the scope and nature of the 

cumulative impacts analysis in the PEIS. One commentor stated that cumulative impacts 

must be analyzed at the programmatic level in a manner sufficient to place an upper limit 

on development. Another commentor stated that carrying capacity thresholds should be 

used in the cumulative impacts analysis, including for mule deer and elk and for air and 

water resources. In addition, this commentor stated that the socioeconomic effects of oil 

shale and tar sands development should be analyzed on top of rapidly growing oil and 

gas, tourism, and recreation industries in a programmatic sense. A third commentor 

acknowledged language in the Draft PEIS to the effect that currently available 

information allowed only a qualitative analysis of cumulative effects, which, while 

sufficient to support the narrow allocation decision at hand, is not sufficient to support 

specific leasing decisions, and stated that, thus, the Final PEIS must (1) define the define 

the scope of subsequent NEPA analysis, including the scope of cumulative impacts 

analysis, and (2) define mitigation actions. Likewise, another commentor noted that the 

Draft PEIS does not quantitatively analyze effects on fish and wildlife, and thus 

subsequent NEPA analysis must construct a reasonably foreseeable development scenario 

(RFDS) and conduct a quantitative analysis of the effects on soil and vegetation, habitat 

structure, habitat fragmentation, water availability, and fish and wildlife habitat on 

specific lands. In addition, the Final PEIS must state that this analysis must be completed 

before a lease will be issued or a facility permitted. Finally, one commentor suggested 

that a mechanism should be set up through the NEPA process to provide off-site 

compensatory mitigation for cumulative effects on National Historic Trails to overcome 

inherent shortcomings of the Section 106 process. 

Response: In the PEIS, cumulative impacts analysis at a programmatic level has been 

conducted to the extent possible, as appropriate to the proposed land use allocation 

decision under consideration. The analysis summarizes the extensive current and 

planned other activities (e.g., oil and gas development, coal mining, minerals 

development) for the study area and offers a preliminary qualitative assessment of the 

impacts of those activities, combined with possible future oil shale and tar sands 

development, including but not limited to air, water, wildlife, and communities in the 

study area. Because of the limited character of the decision to be made on the basis of 

this PEIS (planning/allocation of lands where nominations to lease can be considered), 

because the locations and magnitude of future oil shale and tar sands development are 

highly speculative, and because there will be additional NEPA analysis prior to leasing, 

in this PEIS it is neither required nor possible to present a cumulative effects analysis 
Final OSTS PEIS 116 

showing the impacts of future leasing and development. Prior to leasing (when sitespecific and technology-specific data will be available) or approval of a plan of 

development (when accurate information on water use, air emissions, employment, and 

the like will be available), additional environmental analysis will be performed, 

including a cumulative analysis, as appropriate. 

The PEIS is a programmatic-level document, analyzing allocation decisions. 

Programmatic environmental impact statements are used to evaluate broad policies, 

plans, and programs and provide an effective analytical foundation for subsequent 

project-specific NEPA documents. At this time, it is not possible to provide a 

quantitative landscape-level analysis of impacts. There are many uncertainties regarding 

the amount of development that is reasonably foreseeable, the types of technologies that 

might be deployed, and the locations of potential projects. 

The BLM is taking a measured approach to oil shale development in which each step 

builds upon a prior step. This approach ensures that any commercial oil shale program 

meets the intent of Congress, is consistent with the requirements of NEPA and FLPMA, 

takes advantage of the best available information and practices to minimize impacts, and 

offers opportunities for states, tribes, local communities, and the public to be involved at 

each decision point. At future stages of environmental evaluation (i.e., leasing and/or 

plan of development), a landscape-level analysis will be performed, if appropriate. The 

scope of the analysis in subsequent NEPA documents would be dependent upon the 

number of applications received and the type and size of operations proposed by the 

applicant. This could result in a statewide, regional, basin-wide, or site-specific analysis. 

Issues such as the presence of wildlife, wildlife habitat, and wildlife habitat 

fragmentation will be considered, as appropriate. 

Regarding the view the PEIS must (1) define the scope of subsequent NEPA analysis, 

including the scope of cumulative impacts analysis, and (2) define mitigation actions, 

the text box on page 1-2 as well as the discussion in Section 1.1.1 on page 1-5 of the 

Draft PEIS highlights that the subsequent NEPA analysis will need to occur prior to oil 

shale and tar sands leasing and development and points out that the BLM may issue 

leases with stipulations and requirements for best management practices (BMPs) and 

may condition site-specific development documents with specific requirements to avoid 

minimize or mitigate adverse impacts on various resources. In addition, as required by 

CEQ regulations (40 CFR 1508.7 and 1508.8), this document and any subsequent NEPA 

documents prepared with respect to oil shale and tar sands development will analyze the 

direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of the proposed action, as appropriate. The 

cumulative analysis will include past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions 

on the full range of affected resources including but not limited to air quality, water 

quality, wildlife resources, habitat fragmentation, and socioeconomic impacts. In 

particular, the cumulative analysis will consider the present effects of past actions, to the 

extent that they are relevant, and present and reasonably foreseeable effects of federal 

and nonfederal actions within an area appropriate to the proposed action at issue. The 

reasonably foreseeable actions to be considered at that point can include information 

from the RFDS and pertinent federal or nonfederal actions or effects thereof. That 
Final OSTS PEIS 117 

analysis will present the incremental impact of oil shale and tar sands exploration and 

development when added to all reasonably foreseeable actions. That analysis will also 

help to form the basis for the development of mitigation measures, such as BMPs to 

mitigate short-term and long-term adverse impacts that might be associated with 

development of these resources. 

Finally, regarding off-site compensatory mitigation for cumulative effects on National 

Historic Trails, while the BLM has excluded from leasing National Historic Trails and a 

corridor extending at least 0.25 mi on either side, as noted on page 2-32 of the Draft 

PEIS, it is beyond the scope of this PEIS to establish a mechanism for an off-site 

compensatory mitigation of cumulative effects on National Historic Trails. Mitigations 

to further protect these resources, including off-site compensatory mitigation, would be 

considered at the leasing and project stage of oil shale development. 

4.2 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ON RESOURCES 

OSTS_022-1 

OSTS_069-59 

OSTS_071-36 

OSTS_083-6 

OSTS_083-7 

50090-8 

50118-1 

50147-3 

50285-4 

50310-56 

50320-14 

50323-10 

Issue Summary: Commentors expressed a number of concerns regarding cumulative 

effects and the analysis thereof on particular resources, including water, air, wildlife, as 

well as from hazardous and toxic materials that might be associated with future oil shale 

and tar sands development projects. With regard to cumulative effects on water resources 

from oil shale and tar sands development, concerns included contributions to water 

shortages, loss of watershed productivity, dust on snow effects, increased aridity, 

increased salinity, effects of proposed oil and gas projects, and loss of aquatic habitat. 

In addition, a commentor expressed the view that the Final PEIS must analyze the 

cumulative effects of potential reduced water supplies resulting from global warming. 

Finally, a commentor stated that the PEIS does not adequately account for contributions 

to stresses on public water and wastewater systems in communities affected by 

population growth from oil shale development. 

Regarding cumulative effects on air quality, including contributions to ozone production, 

one commentor stated that the PEIS must assess impacts on ozone formation and human 

health from fugitive emissions of methane, VOCs, and HAPs from existing and future oil 

and gas infrastructure and pipelines. 

With respect to wildlife and habitat, commentors expressed concerns that surface mining 

and in situ extraction would affect sage-grouse populations; that such activities must 

avoid sage-grouse leks and core and priority habitat; and that the PEIS must evaluate the 

cumulative effects of oil shale and tar sands infrastructure and development on habitat 

loss, fragmentation, and loss of continuity. 
Final OSTS PEIS 118 

Regarding the cumulative effects associated with hazardous and toxic wastes, a 

commentor noted that phosphate and other mineral mining in tar sands areas can 

contribute, along with tar sands development, to leaching of arsenic and selenium in the 

region and affect aquatic resources, fish, and migratory birds. Another commentor stated 

that the cumulative effects of toxic wastes released from oil shale and tar sands 

development has not been disclosed in the Draft PEIS. 

Response: It is important to note that the cumulative impacts discussion presented in the 

PEIS is a preliminary, programmatic one, appropriate to the land use allocation decision 

under consideration in this initiative. As purely a land use allocation decision, the 

proposed action can be understood to have effects, including cumulative effects, only in a 

limited way. Therefore, the analysis presented focuses on the effects from future oil shale 

and tar sands projects, in a preliminary and programmatic way, in order to provide 

decision makers with a sense of the kinds of impacts that could occur, in the future. The 

kinds of very specific analyses that most of the commentors appear to be calling for are, 

at this early stage, neither possible nor appropriate. In order to direct the reader to the 

specific discussions in the PEIS addressing the resources of interest to the commentors, 

the following information is provided. 

Regarding cumulative effects on water resources, Sections 4.5.1 and 5.5.1 of the PEIS 

describe common impacts expected from oil shale and tar sands operations, respectively. 

These discussions are of a qualitative or semi-quantitative nature, in the absence of 

specific knowledge of locations or types of future developments and the needs of the 

allocation decision at hand. Analysis of effects on both water availability and water 

quality are discussed in these sections and include effects of concern to commentors, 

including the potential contributing effects on water availability of climate change. 

Cumulative effects on various resources are discussed in Section 6.1.6.3 of the PEIS and 

include the effects on water supply and water quality and effects on terrestrial and aquatic 

habitats. Regarding future oil and gas development, Section 6.1.6.2 of the PEIS discusses 

projected levels of oil and gas development in the study area. With respect to the effects 

of climate change, Section 4.5.1.2, pages 4-36 and 4-37, of the Draft PEIS analyzes 

qualitatively the effects of future climate change on water availability in the study area. 

Sections 4.6.1.1.3 and 5.6.1.1.3 of the Draft PEIS discuss GHG emission sources 

associated with oil shale and tar sands development, respectively. As noted on page 4-59 

of the Draft PEIS, quantification of climate change effects from such sources is beyond 

the scope of the PEIS. Regarding additional loads on public water systems, while the 

PEIS analyzes the overall impact on surface water supplies from projected commercial 

oil shale development over the next couple of decades, this analysis is done in the context 

of regional Colorado River system, and not at any particular location. Thus, while 

additional loads will be placed on water supply and wastewater treatment systems from 

oil shale development and associated population growth, it is not possible to identify 

which systems will be affected or the degree to which they will be affected. Such analysis 

would be performed in future NEPA reviews at the lease and project development stages. 

 
Final OSTS PEIS 119 

Regarding contributions to cumulative impacts from industrial development in the region 

including fugitive emissions of methane (natural gas), VOCs, and HAPs from oil and gas 

infrastructure in addition to those from future oil shale and tar sands developments, such 

an analysis would require many assumptions that are premature at this programmatic 

stage in the review process. If any lease applications are made, detailed analysis of such 

effects would be appropriately evaluated in site-specific NEPA analyses conducted prior 

to issuing leases and approving plans of development. 

Regarding analysis of contributions to cumulative effects on sage-grouse and other 

wildlife from future oil shale developments, effects of habitat loss and fragmentation on 

wildlife and sensitive species are analyzed qualitatively in Section 6.1.6.3.7, and similar 

effects from tar sands developments are analyzed in Section 6.2.6.3.7 of the PEIS. 

Further, more quantitative, analysis of these effects would be done in future NEPA 

analyses at the leasing and project development stages. 

With respect to contributions to cumulative effects from leaching of arsenic and selenium 

from tar sands development in addition to those from other types of mining, 

Section 6.2.6.2.4 was revised accordingly to note such possible cumulative effects on 

aquatic systems, fish, and migratory birds. 

Finally, regarding toxic wastes, the cumulative effects of toxic wastes potentially released 

from oil shale and tar sands development in combination with similar wastes associated 

with oil and gas operations, coal and mineral mining, electric power generation, and other 

activities are described in Sections 6.1.6.3.13 and 6.2.6.3.13 of the PEIS for oil shale and 

tar sands development, respectively. 

4.3 IMPACTING FACTORS AND OTHER ASSUMPTIONS 

OSTS_071-35 

50026-1 

50310-59 

50310-60 

50310-61 

50310-62 

50310-63 

50333-50 

Issue Summary: Commentors expressed a number of concerns regarding technical 

aspects of the cumulative impacts analysis in the PEIS, including values used and 

currency of impacting factors used in the analysis, other assumptions used, and the 

acknowledgment of certain trends in the region. Commentors stated that the assumptions 

and values for impact-producing factors presented in the cumulative impacts analysis 

should be updated, particularly accounting for the use of well pads that support multiple 

wells, thus reducing surface disturbance overall; that information on coal mining in 

Table 6.1.6-2 should be reviewed using information from the three state agencies 

regulating mining, not from central/eastern states; and that Table 6.1.6-3 should be 

updated for coal-fired power plants and expanded to include gas-fired plants; that 

Section 6.1.6.3.11 on cumulative effects on socioeconomics should be updated in light 

of the ongoing RD&D projects and looking forward; that the discussion of hydraulic 
Final OSTS PEIS 120 

fracturing in Section 6.1.6.3.13 should be updated with more recent information; that 

gas-fired power plants should be included in the discussion of power plant wastes in 

Section 6.1.6.3.13; that the Table 6.1.6-5 listing of projected levels of tar sands 

development on private lands should be consistent with discussions of such development 

in Appendix B; and finally, that the PEIS must address downward trends from impacts 

from past and ongoing energy development. 

Response: Regarding impacting factors for ground disturbance from oil and gas drilling, 

in Table 6.1.6-1, on page 6-244, and Table 6.2.6-1, on page 6-481, in the Final PEIS, a 

footnote was added to summary Table 6.1.6-9 and Table 6.2.6-6 for oil shale and tar 

sands, respectively, noting that projected ground disturbance from future oil and gas 

wells could be reduced by up to an order of magnitude though the use of multiple-well 

pads. Regarding assumptions used for coal mining, Table 6.1.6-2 on page 6-246 of the 

PEIS does show data for the western United States for surface mining. To the extent that 

underground mining is conducted in the West, the data in the table for the eastern United 

States are sufficiently representative and encompassing of such mining operations for the 

PEIS, whose purpose is to indicate the types and order of magnitude of impacts 

associated with coal mining. 

Regarding Table 6.1.6-3, the data presented in this table in the Draft PEIS are sufficiently 

representative and encompassing of coal-fired power plant operations for the PEIS and 

thus were not updated for coal-fired plants. However, impacting factors for gas-fired 

plants were added to Tables 6.1.6-3 and 4.1.6-1 in the Final PEIS, so that impacts of this 

potential power source for future oil shale and tar sands development may be understood 

and compared with those from coal-fired plants. 

Regarding updating the cumulative effects analysis for socioeconomics in 

Section 6.1.6.3.11 of the PEIS with information from the ongoing RD&D projects, 

those projects have not yielded socioeconomic data that would override those used in 

Section 4.12 for analysis of impacts for oil shale development and thus result in updates 

to the cumulative effects analysis in Section 6.1.6.3.11. Regarding the discussion of 

hydraulic fracturing in Section 6.1.6.3.13 of the Draft PEIS, this section in the Final PEIS 

was updated with more recent information regarding this rapidly developing process. 

Regarding consistency of information on the projected levels of tar sands development on 

private lands in Utah, the current Table 6.1.6-5 entry of “Potential unknown” under 

“Level of Activity” is not inconsistent with information in Appendix B. Finally, 

regarding trends in cumulative effects in the region, effects from other energy 

development in oil shale and tar sands areas has been considered in the cumulative 

impacts analysis sections of the PEIS. Further analysis of such cumulative impacts will 

be performed as part of the required NEPA review conducted for future commercial oil 

shale lease applications and again at the project proposal stage. 

 
Final OSTS PEIS 121 

5.0 MITIGATION AND RECLAMATION 

OSTS_033-4 

OSTS_069-13 

OSTS_071-28 

OSTS_071-39 

50090-32 

50125-6 

50162-12 

50269-2 

50312-29 

50312-31 

50323-4 

50323-14 

50329-10 

50329-14 

50335-11 

50343-5 

50343-25 

50351-4 

Issue Summary: Commentors made a number of proposals related to impact mitigation 

and site reclamation that related to the implementation of mitigation measures. 

Commentors stated that government and industry should make advance investments and 

contributions to communities that will be affected by oil shale and tar sands development; 

that mitigations listed in Section 4.12.2 of the Draft PEIS should be made mandatory in 

the Final PEIS; that off-site compensatory mitigation for cumulative effects on National 

Historic Trails should be part of the NEPA process; and that an expressed call for 

regional mitigation planning and coordination be included in the Final PEIS. Other 

commentors, citing CEQ guidance, noted that mitigation measures are ongoing 

commitments that should include specific measureable performance standards and 

adequate mechanisms for implementation, monitoring, and reporting. Such mitigations 

would be appropriately specified in future NEPA reviews of proposals with specific 

technologies at the leasing and plan of development stages. In addition, commentors 

suggested that further consideration be given to protection of migratory birds, including 

from contaminated pits, and to bird collisions with power lines; that specific buffers sizes 

should be specified in mitigations for active raptor nests and ferruginous hawks; that 

additional review of migration corridor studies for big game be conducted; that mitigation 

measures should be specified to protect groundwater near in situ operations after 

production ceases; that experience from the 1980s shows that reclamation of oil shale 

areas can be successful and should inform BMPs for surface disturbance; that a detailed 

socioeconomic study be conducted for the ROI at the time of leasing; that timing or 

seasonal restrictions are not effective mitigations for big game or sage-grouse, but only 

avoidance is effective; and that mitigations for impacts on soil and geologic resources in 

Section 4.3.2 should list existing requirements for reclamation performance bonds. 

Response: Regarding considerations of making advance contributions to communities to 

mitigate the effects of oil shale and tar sands development; of making mitigations listed 

in Section 4.12.2 of the Draft PEIS mandatory; of including off-site compensatory 

mitigation for cumulative effects on National Historic Trails part of the NEPA process, 

and of making a specific call for regional mitigation planning in the PEIS, these topics 

are outside the scope of the PEIS, which is narrowly focused on a land allocation 

decision. With respect to making mandatory the socioeconomic mitigations listed in 

Section 4.12.2 of the PEIS, such a mandate would be premature at this time. Mitigations 

will be considered in greater detail at the leasing and plan of development stages, as was 

noted to be appropriate by other commentors. Similarly, additional mitigations to protect 
Final OSTS PEIS 122 

migratory birds, raptors, and big game may be added in future NEPA reviews, as may 

mitigations for protecting groundwater near in situ extraction operations. More detailed 

socioeconomic studies of specific ROIs would also be conducted at such time. Regarding 

avoidance of habitat for big game and sage-grouse, such an objective is addressed on a 

large scale by the formulation of various alternatives and may be addressed on a smaller 

scale on a case-by-case basis at the project implementation stage. Finally, regarding 

reclamation performance bonds, the existing requirement for such bonds was not added 

to the list of soil and geologic mitigation measures in Section 4.3.2, because this and 

similar sections focus on the technical aspects of mitigations rather than on the 

administrative aspects. 

6.0 RESOURCE AND TECHNICAL CONCERNS 

50063-2 

50162-7 

50162-9 

50277-7 

50325-44 

50335-8 

Issue Summary: Commentors expressed a number of concerns related to oil shale and 

tar sands resources and the technologies available to extract and process them. 

Commentors identified a need for specificity in oil shale and tar sands regulations, so that 

developers and the private sector could respond with technological developments to meet 

specified needs. Another inquired as to the properties of commercial synthetic crude oils 

in the context of pipeline corrosion. One commentor requested more detailed analysis of 

the cumulative effects from pipelines from an eventual commercial industry, while 

another questioned the statement in Section 1.2.2 of the Draft PEIS to the effect that 

information regarding the nature and extent of future development of oil shale and tar 

sands resources was speculative at the current time. Finally, one commentor urged that a 

review be conducted of the Rock Springs oil shale retort site in Wyoming that was 

operated between 1965 and 1979. 

Response: The commentor’s view on the need for specificity in regulations is noted. 

However, oil shale regulations are not within the scope of the PEIS. Regarding the 

properties of synthetic crude oils eventually produced on a commercial scale and their 

corrosion properties in pipelines, such properties are not yet known, because no 

commercial-scale oil shale operations are ongoing in the study area. Similarly, 

quantifying the cumulative effects of pipelines supporting a commercial industry is not 

possible at this time in the absence of a reasonable understanding of the eventual nature 

and size of such an industry. Regarding a review of the Rock Springs retort site operated 

between 1965 and 1979, because this time period is covered in Appendix A in reviews of 

other projects in the study areas and because more recent information from RD&D 

projects is now available, while the technology review was not intended to be exhaustive, 

information on the Rock Springs retort site is not needed for the PEIS and was not added 

in the Final PEIS in the interest of time. 

 
Final OSTS PEIS 123 

6.1 RESOURCE ASSESSMENTS 

OSTS_084-6 

OSTS_085-1 

50090-13 

50092-1 

50184-1 

50263-1 

50271-7 

50343-10 

50365-3

Issue Summary: Commentors expressed a number of concerns related to oil shale and 

tar sands resource assessments. One commentor took issue with the map of the White 

River Field Office RMP decisions shown in Figure 3.1.1-3 on page 3-11, as well as areas 

identified as LWC in Figure 2.3.3-1 on page 2-37, of the Draft PEIS. Another commentor 

pointed out technical disagreements on terms used to the describe oil shale conversion 

temperature on page 2-15 of the Draft PEIS, while another requested that the definition of 

crude oil presented in the PEIS glossary be clarified and expanded. Another commentor 

pointed out the existence of the Uintah Basin Energy Zone in Duchesne County, which 

includes oil shale and which has as a highest priority management and development of 

existing energy and mineral resources to provide long-term domestic energy and supplies 

for Utah and the United States. In Colorado, a commentor noted that oil shale resources 

in the Piceance Basin are the richest in the study area and likely to be developed first, 

while the area available of leasing would be greatly reduced under the Preferred 

Alternative. Finally, a commentor stated that tar sands resources in Utah are a fraction of 

those in Alberta, Canada, and would be produced at levels of no more than 25,000 to 

50,000 bbl/day. 

Response: Regarding Figure 3.1.1-3 on page 3-11 of the Draft PEIS, the text on the 

previous page points out that a number of decisions in the 1985 RMP from which the 

map in the figure was taken and which gave rise to the comments were superseded by 

decisions in the 2008 ROD, shown in Figure 2.3.2-1 of this PEIS. Regarding the areas 

identified in the latter figure as LWC, the lands were identified by the affected BLM 

Field Offices in field surveys that were updated as recently as 2011 following program 

guidelines for identifying such lands. Regarding the discussion of oil shale on page 2-15 

of the Draft PEIS and the definition of crude oil in the glossary, each of these sections 

was revised in accordance with the comments. In addition, the BLM notes the existence 

of the Uintah Basin Energy Zone in Duchesne County as well as the fact that the 

Piceance Basin contains rich oil shale resources that would likely be among the first 

developed in the study area. Regarding projected production levels of tar sands in Utah, 

Sections 5.1.1 and 5.1.2 of the PEIS assume production levels of 20,000 bbl/day for 

surface retort and in situ retort processes, respectively, in line with the levels suggested in 

the comment. 

6.1.1 Geologically Prospective

OSTS_069-117 

OSTS_087-2 

50087-8 

50090-11 

50277-18 

50324-22 

50324-44 

50325-42 

50329-15 

50333-32 

50343-9 
Final OSTS PEIS 124 

Issue Summary: Several commentors asked that the BLM clearly define what 

“geologically prospective” means in each state. They expressed concerns over why the 

BLM would make available lands that fall below the 25 gal/ton and 25-ft-thick threshold 

in Wyoming. Many commentors would prefer that all states meet the 25/25 standard. 

Other commentors suggested that industry is in a better position to decide which 

resources are economically recoverable. Commentors also stated that having different 

standards across state lines would constitute a decision that was arbitrary and capricious 

if such a decision was not logically reasoned. 

Response: In Section 369 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, Congress required the 

Secretary of the Interior to establish a commercial oil shale leasing program that focused 

on the most geologically prospective regions. This mandate included requiring the 

Secretary to determine the meaning of “most geologically prospective” for the purpose of 

identifying the oil shale resources on the public lands in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming. 

The Secretary, through the BLM, determined the meaning of this phrase in 2008, and 

has carried it forward into this 2012 planning initiative, for the reasons explained in 

Section 1.2. The standards developed by the USGS Conservation Division, and 

subsequently adopted by the BLM, use 15 gal/ton and 15 ft thick as the prospectively 

valuable classification standard for oil shale resources. The USGS further defined oil 

shale leasing area criteria on a regional basis as 25 gal/ton and 25 ft thick. For this PEIS, 

the most geologically prospective resources in Colorado and Utah are defined as those 

deposits that yield 25 gal/ton or more and are 25 ft thick or greater. In Wyoming, where 

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

geologically prospective resources are defined as those deposits that yield 15 gal/ton or 

more and are 15 ft thick or greater The intent of using these definitions in the PEIS is to 

establish an area inside of which applications for leases can be accepted. Industry can 

make its own determinations on what target it may want to pursue within that area. An 

alternative that would apply the Wyoming criteria to Colorado and Utah was considered 

but eliminated from detailed analysis in the PEIS, as discussed in Section 2.5.2. In that 

discussion it is reasoned that it would not make economic sense to open larger areas in 

Colorado and Utah to potential oil shale leasing where the resource is of low grade and 

unlikely to be developed at this time, because interest in future leasing would be directed 

at higher grade deposits. It is further noted that, in the future, additional planning and 

NEPA analysis could be conducted to open areas with lower grade deposits if 

economically warranted. 

6.1.2 2008 PEIS Was Reasonable 

OSTS_077-3 

OSTS_078-3 

OSTS_079-3 

OSTS_080-3 

OSTS_081-3 

50186-3 

50255-11 

50283-2 

50308-10 

50308-2 

50314-12 

50325-12 

Issue Summary: Several commentors suggested that the Preferred Alternative in the 

2008 OSTS PEIS was a reasonable response to the large amount of oil shale and tar sands 
Final OSTS PEIS 125 

resources available in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming. Commentors further suggested 

that the Preferred Alternative in the 2012 PEIS, because of reduced acreage open for 

application for leasing, would impede commercial development and thus requires strong 

justification. Another commentor supported evaluating the results of research and 

development projects prior to commercial leasing of public lands. 

Response: The Preferred Alternative identified in this PEIS would make more than 

600,000 acres of public land open for application for commercial oil shale leasing. Given 

the nascent stage of development of oil shale technologies and the recent and current rate 

of advancement of the industry, the amount of land available under the Preferred 

Alternative would present no significant barrier to development of the industry in the 

foreseeable future, while requiring RD&D first is a prudent management step in a 

reasoned, organized, and responsible path toward commercialization. 

6.2 POWER AND ENERGY NEEDS 

OSTS_069-17 

50147-7 

50269-6 

50310-34 

50310-35 

Issue Summary: A number of commentors expressed concerns that all impacts 

associated with oil shale and tar sands production be fully considered prior to issuing 

commercial leases, in particular, impacts from associated electrical power generation 

required to support production. Among these concerns was that energy return in the form 

of oil shale and tar sands products be compared to energy invested in such production in 

analysis of impacts. Others were concerned about the geographic range of impacts from 

commercial development, particularly on towns and communities, including from power 

production. Yet others noted that operations that are self-supplied with power would 

reduce impacts from electrical transmission. 

Response: The requirements and effects of power generation and transmission were 

considered in the preparation of this PEIS and are analyzed in Section 4.1 for oil shale 

production and Section 5.1 for tar sands production, along with several other factors 

potentially contributing to impacts that may extend beyond production locations. These 

discussions are of a general nature as appropriate for a programmatic level of analysis. 

Additional, more detailed analysis of such factors will be performed in future NEPA 

reviews at the leasing and project design level of commercial development. Some 

projects may be self-supplied with power as a by-product of operations, reducing effects 

from power transmission. Likewise, projects that generate production heat from 

combustion of product gases may have a lower water demand overall than those that use 

electricity for heating to the extent that electricity generation requires water. Air 

emissions, on the other hand, would occur at the operations site instead of at an external 

power plant, for aboveground retorting operations. Air emissions would be reduced 

overall for in situ operations that used self-supplied gas for combustion underground 

rather than electricity generated above ground. 
Final OSTS PEIS 126 

6.2.1 External Energy Source 

OSTS_066-14 

OSTS_069-38 

OSTS_072-8 

50090-27 

50144-4 

50181-73 

50270-7 

50272-6 

50310-33 

50310-44 

50310-45 

50310-47 

50312-36 

50314-9 

50320-6 

50333-48 

50343-20

Issue Summary: Several commentors questioned BLM’s assumption that coal would 

provide the supplemental energy required for oil shale or tar sands extraction. They 

requested that the BLM include scenarios in which the energy supply comes from gasfired power or from other energy sources. One commentor questioned the definition of 

60% efficiency assumed for coal-fired plants. Others pointed out that some operations 

may be self-supplied with energy from co-produced gases or natural gas and to such an 

extent would reduce the need for new power plants. Similarly, in situ operations that used 

combustion for heating rather than electricity should be considered in the PEIS analysis. 

Finally, a commentor noted that Section 4.9.1.3.2 assumes that, with respect to visual 

impacts, new coal-fired power plants built to support oil shale development would be 

1,500-MW units, whereas the PEIS assumes that only 600 MW would be needed to 

supply an initial industry, while the discussion of power plant construction activities 

should be moved from visual impacts Section 4.9.1.4.2 to Section 4.1.6, which covers 

expansion of generating capacity. 

Response: The BLM acknowledges that future energy required to support a commercial 

oil shale and tar sands industry would likely be provided by some source other than coal 

and, in the near term, would likely be provided by natural gas, which has lower CO2

emissions than coal-fired plants. The Final PEIS was revised in the appropriate places in 

accordance with this response, including in Section 4.1.6. Impact-producing factors for 

gas-fired generating plants were added to Tables 4.1.6-1, 6.1.6-3, and 6.2.6-3. The first 

footnote in Tables 6.1.6-3 and 6.2.6-3 was revised to read, “Power plants are assumed to 

operate at 60% capacity factor,” revised from “60% efficiency.” In addition, the text was 

revised to note that natural gas–fired energy production might be self-supplied at some 

oil shale operations, reducing loads on the grid. Otherwise, however, it is noted that selfsupplied natural gas–fired electric power would have roughly similar impacting factors as 

that produced by off-site generators supplying the grid using combined-cycle gas-fired 

plants. However, if self-supplied gas is used directly for heating, it is noted that water use 

could be reduced overall, compared to using electricity for heating, to the extent that 

electricity generation requires water, and that while air emissions would still occur for 

aboveground operations; they would not occur for below ground combustion for in situ 

operations, based on the assumption that combustion products are sequestered. The 

potential contribution to energy supplied by renewables, particularly wind energy, is now 

noted qualitatively in Section 4.1.6. No impact-producing factors are provided for 

renewables, but it is noted that several such factors, including air emissions and water use 

associated with wind energy, would be greatly reduced or eliminated compared to coal- 
Final OSTS PEIS 127 

or gas-supplied energy. Regarding the comment that the visual impacts discussion 

assumes that a new coal-fired plant would be 1,500 MW when only 600 MW is needed to 

support development, no changes were made in the Final PEIS. The assumption is 

reasonable because this is a typical size for a coal-fired plant. Not all of the output of a 

new plant would necessarily go to oil shale development. Likewise, the discussion of 

power plant construction activities was not moved as suggested, because the activities are 

discussed in the context of their visual impacts. 

6.2.2 Produces More Energy Than It Consumes 

OSTS_077-12 

OSTS_078-12 

OSTS_079-12 

OSTS_080-13 

OSTS_081-12 

OSTS_107-3 

OSTS_148-1 

OSTS_155-1 

OSTS_159-1 

OSTS_190-4 

OSTS_197-3 

50186-16 

50255-20 

50325-21 

Issue Summary: Several commentors stated that the energy available in oil shale and 

tar sands products exceeds the energy consumed in their extraction processes; that 

commercial technology is already available in other countries, while the RD&D projects 

in Colorado and Utah show some promising early results; and that water requirements of 

a commercial industry could be met with available supplies. 

Response: The BLM does not take issue with the characterizations of the performance of 

current oil shale technologies made in these comments as summarized above. 

6.2.3 Uses a Large Amount of Energy 

OSTS_216-5 

OSTS_218-3 

50047-15 

50170-1 

50337-10

Issue Summary: Several commentors stated that oil shale extraction requires a large 

amount of electricity that would necessitate the construction of new power plants. They 

expressed concerns over the additional GHGs produced from the extraction of oil shale 

relative to petroleum or natural gas. 

Response: A number of comments refer to an oil shale industry producing at a level of 

1 million bbl of oil per day. Section 4.1 in the PEIS assumes production levels of 25,000 

to 30,000 bbl/day for aboveground processing technologies and 30,000 to 50,000 bbl/day 

for in situ processing technologies for the purposes of analysis based on the current 

trajectory of the industry. Analysis of significantly higher levels of development would 

be speculative at this time. Section 4.6.1 of the PEIS assumes that an additional 600 MW 

of electrical power would be required to support a 50,000-bbl/day oil shale industry 
Final OSTS PEIS 128 

employing in situ extraction technologies, representing the upper end of the projected 

power need. Regarding quantitative comparisons of GHG emissions from oil shale and 

tar sands development to those from conventional oil and gas, such comparisons would 

similarly be speculative at this time. As noted in Section 4.6.1.1, it is not possible at this 

time to make adequate assumptions of GHG emissions from future commercial oil shale 

operations to estimate emission inventories, and thus to compare them to those from 

conventional fossil fuels. Such emission estimates might be possible when specific oil 

shale or tar sands projects are proposed. 

6.3 TECHNOLOGY 

OSTS_020-3 

OSTS_024-7 

OSTS_068-6 

OSTS_068-7 

OSTS_069-5 

OSTS_070-4 

OSTS_071-3 

OSTS_071-4 

OSTS_203-2 

50072-3 

50086-1 

50090-10 

50090-37 

50148-1 

50181-6 

50181-17 

50181-70 

50268-24 

50268-32 

50271-4 

50285-3 

50304-1 

50309-3 

50310-19 

50310-28 

50310-48 

50312-16 

50333-7 

50335-3 

50335-28 

50337-4 

50337-8 

50343-13 

50343-23 

Issue Summary: Commentors made a number of comments of a general nature 

regarding oil shale technologies and comparisons or suggested comparisons of oil shale 

resources and technologies within and outside the United States, including ongoing 

commercial oil shale production in Brazil, and suggested comparison to effects of oil 

sands production in Canada and to the effects of oil and gas development. They 

suggested that product upgrading could be done on already affected lands; that more 

details on the commercial technologies and equipment that would be used are needed for 

analysis of impacts; that the assumption in Section 4.1.3 that all combustible gases 

produced by commercial in situ oil shale processes would be consumed on-site as 

supplement fuel might not hold; that footnotes on page 1-17 of the Draft PEIS referring 

to RD&D ownership need to be revised; that Section A.5.3.2 describing AMSO’s RD&D 

project is outdated; that the Draft PEIS failed to mention TomCo Energy’s interests in oil 

shale development on nonfederal lands in the area; that Red Leaf Resource’s process 

requires less upgrading than analyzed in general in the PEIS; that Enefit’s RD&D process 

description in Appendix A should be revised; that some potential developers that require 

rich resources for testing may not be able to obtain RD&D leases in Colorado under the 

Preferred Alternative; that it is not possible to evaluate impacts of an industry for which 

technologies are under development; that the viability of oil shale technologies and land 

allocation decisions are separate issues; that use of produced water from the oil and gas 

industry for oil shale production be considered; that information on impacts of operations 
Final OSTS PEIS 129 

that would compose oil shale and tar sands development is already well known, readily 

available from experience in the oil and gas and mining industries in the affected states, 

and can be used to evaluate similar oil shale processes, and thus there is no need to delay 

commercial leasing until completion of further research on the impacts of oil shale 

technologies; that impacts for natural gas pipelines supplying retorting operations be 

analyzed; that non-water dust suppressants be considered; and that the PEIS does not 

adequately analyze the range of impacts on water resources from various oil shale 

technologies, from increased demand due to population growth associated with the 

industry, or from potential effects of depleting groundwater resources on affected surface 

habitats and surface water. 

Response: The BLM acknowledges that commercial oil shale and tar sands operations 

are ongoing in other countries; however, the economics and environmental impacts are 

not necessarily directly relatable to future commercial oil shale and tar sands operations 

in the study area. Regarding product upgrading at separate locations, including on already 

affected lands, the PEIS assumes on-site upgrading for completeness of analysis. With 

respect to analyzing technologies and processes at a greater level of detail, the analyses in 

the PEIS are at a level of detail sufficient for the land allocation decision at hand; further 

detailed analysis would be performed at the project level in future NEPA analysis when a 

specific technology is proposed. Regarding the assumption in question in Section 4.1.3, 

the text in the Final PEIS was revised to note that some flaring of combustible gases 

may occur, and footnotes on page 1-17 were revised to clarify RD&D ownership. 

Section A.5.3.2 was revised in light of updated plans of operation available from AMSO; 

Section A.5.3.4 was revised to update the description of Enefit’s RD&D project; and 

Section A.5.3.7 was revised to mention TomCo Energy’s lease holdings on private land 

and its licensing agreement to use Red Leaf Resource’s oil shale technology. The fact 

that much of the land available for leasing in Colorado under the Preferred Alternative is 

already committed to existing RD&D projects is acknowledged; however, abundant land 

is available for application in Utah and Wyoming, including areas with rich resources. 

Regarding analyzing the effects of an industry for which technologies are in early 

development, the PEIS performs conservative analyses by using data available from 

similar industries and from research projects and principles of operations of promising 

technologies to estimate impacts from a possible future industry. The BLM believes that 

these analyses allow a level of understanding of impacts sufficient to support the land 

allocation decision at hand, but is proceeding cautiously. Conversely, the BLM disagrees 

that the state of the required technologies has no bearing on the allocation decision. The 

state of technology and its relationship to the potential success and environmental 

impacts of a commercial oil shale and tar sands industry bears directly on decisions 

balancing multiple demands on public lands. Regarding possible use of produced water 

from oil and gas operations in oil shale production, text was added to Section 4.5.1.2 of 

the PEIS to note this possibility. Regarding the use of existing information from 

industries performing similar processes, the PEIS does in fact rely on information from 

the oil and gas and mining industries, as indicated in the first paragraphs of both Chapter 

4 and Chapter 5 of this PEIS. However, while useful in identifying the nature of impacts 

and estimating some impacting factors for a future oil shale and tar sands industry, this 

information does not allow a sufficiently detailed evaluation of the extent of 
Final OSTS PEIS 130 

environmental impacts to allow leasing directly, limiting this PEIS to an allocation 

decision. Regarding analyzing an additional ROW for a gas pipeline to support retorting, 

while this may be needed for some future projects, many of the current developers have 

indicated that such gas would be self-supplied with co-produced gas or natural gas, and 

thus would not require an external pipeline. Regarding dust suppressants, the use of nonwater suppressants is noted in Section 4.6.2 of this PEIS. Finally, regarding the full range 

of impacts of water use from an industry employing various technologies, the analysis in 

this PEIS is sufficiently detailed to permit an assessment of the availability of water to 

support a prospective industry using existing and emerging technologies as well as 

analysis of the potential effects on water resources. While attendant population growth 

supporting a new industry is acknowledged, additional water needs are within the 

uncertainty of the analysis. Estimating potential effects on surface habitats and surface 

water would be similarly uncertain and would be speculative at this point. Such analysis 

would be appropriately performed in future NEPA analysis at the leasing and project 

design stages. 

6.3.1 Technical Comments on Technologies and Processes 

OSTS_068-4 

OSTS_068-5 

OSTS_152-1 

50090-31 

50180-5 

50297-1 

50302-1 

50303-1 

Issue Summary: A number of commentors provided specific technical comments on 

technologies and processes, including that Section A.5.3.4 describing the Oil Shale 

Exploration Company (OSEC) RD&D rotary kiln technology is outdated; that text on 

page 1-13 of the Draft PEIS implies that clean technologies are excluded from analysis; 

that Figures 4.9.1-1 and 4.9.1-2 of the Draft PEIS show photos of an industrial 

technology not currently being considered in the United States; and that certain 

technologies favored or offered by commentors should be used or considered. 

Response: Regarding the OSEC technology described in Section A.5.3.4, this section 

was revised in the Final PEIS to describe the technology proposed by Enefit, the 

company that acquired the RD&D lease from OSEC. The text referred on page 1-13 of 

the Draft PEIS implies, not that clean technologies are excluded from the OSTS program, 

but that alternatives to an oil shale program that rely on such technologies are out of the 

scope of the PEIS. Figures 4.9.1-1 and 4.9.1-2 are used to show the nature of the visual 

contrasts with landscapes of industrial-scale oil shale operations and associated linear 

facilities, regardless of the current prospects for the particular technology shown. Finally, 

for the several technologies favored by commentors, endorsement of any particular 

technology is outside the scope and purpose of this PEIS. 

 
Final OSTS PEIS 131 

6.3.2 Water Use 

OSTS_071-19 

OSTS_083-5 

OSTS_084-3 

OSTS_229-2 

50074-14 

50162-6 

50181-113 

50181-119 

50323-8 

50324-11 

50328-19 

50333-24 

50333-47 

50343-21 

50343-26

Issue Summary: Several commentors expressed concerns about the effects of a 

commercial oil shale and tar sands industry employing various technologies on water 

supplies and water quality. They were concerned that estimates of wastewater quantities 

and means of treatment should be discussed in the PEIS; that water use by an oil shale 

and tar sands industry would contribute to future water shortages in the region; that 

in situ retorts would leach contaminants to groundwater after oil shale is extracted and 

that subsidence effects are unknown; that dust suppression and spent shale wetting are 

consumptive uses of water, not non-consumptive uses as implied in Section 4.1 of the 

Draft PEIS; that climate change effects would further stress future water supplies; that the 

effects of reservoir storage for a future oil shale industry on fish species and river systems 

were not adequately analyzed in the Draft PEIS; that the assumptions used in the PEIS 

are outdated and result in overestimates of water and power needs and land disturbance 

from oil shale development and that such erroneous assumptions contribute to the BLM’s 

conclusion that oil shale and tar sands technologies have not yet been proven to be 

commercially viable and that varying estimates of water use amount to a scientific 

controversy; that newer technologies, specifically that used by Red Leaf Resources, use 

less water than the PEIS assumption; that the BLM has failed to discuss vital issues with 

developers, including Enefit; that water from the Green River would also be available to 

tar sands developments in the Asphalt Ridge Special Tar Sand Area (STSA); that the 

term large with regard to water use or effects should be defined on pages 4-33 and 4-39 

of the Draft PEIS; and that the potential use of reverse osmosis to treat deep brackish 

groundwater to supply oil shale operations should be mentioned in Section 4.5.1.2 of the 

PEIS. 

Response: Regarding concerns about effects of oil shale and tar sands development on 

water supplies and water quality, the PEIS analyzes such effects for in situ and surface 

technologies in Sections 4.5 and 5.5 for oil shale and tar sands, respectively. Regarding 

wastewater production estimates and treatment, the quantify of wastewater can be 

estimated by using, for example, the value of 2 to 10 gal per ton of oil shale processed 

listed in Section 4.1.2 for surface retorts multiplied by the number of tons of oil shale 

processed per year. For example, an aboveground retort producing 30,000 bbl of oil 

produced per year, with 42 gal/bbl, and assuming 25 gal of oil per ton of shale would 

process about 50,000 tons of shale per year. Accordingly, roughly 100,000 to 500,000 gal 

of wastewater would be produced per year. The management of such wastewater is 

discussed in some detail in Sections 4.5.1.3 and 4.14.1 for oil shale operations and 

Sections 5.5.1.3 and 5.14.1 for tar sands technologies. Regarding contributions to future 

water shortages from oil shale and tar sands development, the estimated water 
Final OSTS PEIS 132 

requirements for an initial tar sands industry as a fraction of available surface water 

sources are presented in Section 4.5.2 for oil shale development and Section 5.5.2 for tar 

sands development. Although these estimates indicate that water supplies are currently 

available for the industry, at levels of a few percent of available supplies, they would 

represent a significant source of water consumption. The possibility that climate change 

could further reduce future water supplies is noted in Sections 4.5.1.2 and 5.5.1.2 of the 

PEIS. Regarding leaching of contaminants from underground oil shale retort zones, this 

concern is discussed in Section 4.5.1.3, while the possibility of subsidence is discussed 

in Section 4.5.1.4. The word non-consumptive has been removed from text in two places 

in Section 4.1 in accordance with the relevant comment. Regarding the potential effects 

on fish and aquatic habitats of future reservoir storage of surface water to support oil 

shale and tar sands developments, such possible effects are presented in Section 4.5.1.2 

of the PEIS. Further discussion of such effects on aquatic resources was added to 

Section 4.8.1.1 of the Final PEIS. Regarding the currency of assumptions of water use 

rates for oil shale production presented in the PEIS, the rates used in the 2008 PEIS were 

reviewed and affirmed in light of more recent reports, including the AMEC 2011 and 

GAO 2011 reports, as noted in Section 4.1.1 of this PEIS. Red Leaf Resource’s 

technology is reviewed in Section A.3.5.7 of Appendix A of the PEIS, where it is noted 

that the retort process requires no water. In this regard, it is similar to in situ technologies 

reviewed in the PEIS. Because estimates of rates of water requirements fall within a 

fairly narrow range as derived from numerous sources, the range of estimates presented 

by no means implies a scientific controversy. Uncertainties in future water needs for the 

industry are dominated by the size of the industry and the technologies used, not by rates 

of water use for various technologies. Despite the noted uncertainties in the estimates of 

future water needs for an oil shale and tar sands industry, the BLM believes that water 

needs and availability are sufficiently well understood to support the land allocation 

decisions being addressed by this PEIS. Regarding discussions with involved industries, 

the BLM has ongoing discussions with RD&D program participants and has met with 

Enefit in the preparation of the Final PEIS. Regarding availability of surface water to 

support tar sands operations in the Asphalt Ridge STSA, text was added to 

Section 5.5.2.2.1 of the Final PEIS to note this fact. Text containing the terms large or 

relatively large was revised in Sections 4.5.1.2, 4.5.1.3, and 4.12.1.4 in accordance with 

the relevant comments. Finally, the potential use of reverse osmosis to treat brackish 

groundwater is noted, but no change to the PEIS was made in response to this comment.

6.3.2.1 Water Use Figures Are Overinflated 

OSTS_027-2 

OSTS_077-11 

OSTS_078-11 

OSTS_079-11 

OSTS_080-12 

OSTS_081-11 

OSTS_107-3 

OSTS_148-1 

OSTS_155-1 

OSTS_159-1 

OSTS_190-3 

OSTS_197-2 

50074-16 

50090-28 

50090-29 

50181-11 

50181-49 

50181-69 

50181-84 

50181-109 

50186-15 

50227-7 

50255-19 

50271-6 
Final OSTS PEIS 133 

50272-10 

50308-17 

50310-18 

50312-15 

50312-17 

50325-47 

50343-22

Issue Summary: Several commentors noted that some reported technologies use less 

water than the rates used for analysis in the PEIS and that technologies with low water 

use are not represented in the PEIS. Conversely, one commentor noted that the current 

best estimates of water use of less than 3 barrels per barrel of produced oil have been 

agreed to by most of industry. Commentors further noted that the estimated water 

requirements and concerns about availability of water are not cited as a motivation for 

preparing this PEIS; that an oil shale operation in Bio Blanco County, Colorado, 

producing 550,000 bbl of oil per day in 2050 would require 37,900 to 42,000 acre-ft per 

year of water (1.5 to 1.6 bbl of water per barrel of oil produced); and that estimates of 

water use for power generation should reference natural gas–fired plants. In addition, 

commentors noted that oil shale and tar sands products contain substantially more energy 

than that needed to produce them and that other forms of energy, such as biofuels, and 

require relatively more water to produce and that sufficient water is available to support 

an oil shale and tar sands industry. 

Response: The BLM acknowledges that some technologies in the RD&D phases are 

purported to use somewhat less water than that assumed for commercial-scale operations 

in the PEIS. For example, Section A.5.3.7 reports that Red Leaf Resource’s technology 

requires no process water. The BLM stands by the water use rates presented, however, 

which cover a variety of technologies that could be used commercially. The rates 

projected in the relevant comment for Rio Blanco County in 2050 fall within the range of 

values for in situ processes assumed in the PEIS. Water use rates and other impacting 

factors for gas-fired power plants were added to Tables 4.1.6-1 and Table 6.1.6-3, 

alongside corresponding values for coal-fired plants. Regarding energy return in oil shale 

and tar sands products, the PEIS assumes that 600 MW of power would be required to 

produce 50,000 bbl of oil per day from oil shale using in situ technologies, which 

represents a net energy return of about 5.6 to 1. 

6.3.2.2 Too Much Water Needed 

OSTS_031-2 

OSTS_090-2 

OSTS_218-2 

50165-7 

50245-2 

Issue Summary: Commentors expressed concerns about regulations and limits on the 

amount of water used in commercial oil shale and tar sands operations; that water use 

rates for oil shale and tar sands production are somewhat higher than those assumed in 

the PEIS; and that population growth, agriculture, and climate change will reduce 

available water in the future. 
Final OSTS PEIS 134 

Response: Regarding regulations on water use by commercial oil shale operations, this 

issue is outside the scope of this PEIS. Regarding water use estimates for commercial oil 

shale and tar sands operations that are higher than those assumed in the PEIS, the BLM 

acknowledges that higher estimates exist, but stands by the values used in the PEIS, 

which fall between the lowest and highest water use estimates available. Future stresses 

on water availability from population growth, agriculture, and climate change are 

addressed in Sections 4.5.1.2, 5.5.1.2, 6.1.6.3.4, and 6.2.6.3.4 the PEIS.

6.3.3 In Situ Technologies 

OSTS_030-1 OSTS_066-4 OSTS_084-2 50330-4

Issue Summary: Several commentors pointed out positive attributes of in situ 

technologies. Conversely, one commentor noted that in situ technologies can exhibit low 

resource recovery compared to mining and aboveground retorting. 

Response: In situ technologies represent a major category of technologies that were 

evaluated in the PEIS. Resource recovery rates of such technologies were factored in 

to the PEIS analyses as they affect land requirements, production rates, and energy 

requirements. However, resource recovery as it relates to waste of resources as 

contemplated in the Mineral Leasing Act is beyond the scope of the PEIS. 

6.3.3.1 Limits to In Situ Technologies 

OSTS_077-14 

OSTS_078-14 

OSTS_079-14 

OSTS_080-8 

OSTS_081-14 

50186-18 

50255-22 

50325-23

Issue Summary: Several commentors stated that the 2012 OSTS PEIS improperly limits 

technology testing to strictly in situ efforts and does not allow for development of other 

technologies. 

Response: The PEIS does not limit technology testing to in situ efforts, nor could it. The 

selection of technologies for testing is outside the scope of the PEIS, while the PEIS 

analyzes the environmental effects of both in situ and aboveground retorting 

technologies. 

6.3.4 Feasibility 

OSTS_077-10 

OSTS_078-10 

OSTS_079-10 

OSTS_080-11 

50047-6 

50186-14 

50255-18 

50262-3 

50325-20 
Final OSTS PEIS 135 

Issue Summary: Several commentors stated that oil shale development is 

technologically and economically feasible, while others questioned such feasibility. 

Response: The technical and economic feasibility of oil shale and tar sands technologies 

is not evaluated in the PEIS, because such an evaluation is outside the scope of the PEIS. 

However, that these technologies are reasonably understood to be feasible or likely to be 

feasible bears on the need for preparing this PEIS. 

6.3.5 Commercial Viability 

OSTS_026-1 

OSTS_070-8 

OSTS_096-3 

OSTS_148-1 

OSTS_155-1 

OSTS_159-1 

50090-22 

50092-3 

50181-15 

50181-111 

50268-1 

50268-2 

50310-20 

50324-11 

50324-45 

50324-46 

50325-33 

50325-41 

50328-20 

50365-4 

Issue Summary: Several commentors stated that the technology to develop oil shale is 

available and commercially viable and that statements in the PEIS to the contrary are 

wrong and misleading. Companies have been operating in Estonia, China, and Brazil for 

many years, while Shell has demonstrated the viability of its process in Colorado. 

One commentor noted that commercial viability depends on the prevailing price of oil. 

Others referred to commercial oil sands operations in Canada. One commentor stated that 

most technologies under consideration are in fact not new and their viability has been 

discredited in previous efforts. 

Response: Statements in the PEIS to the effect that oil shale and tar sands technologies 

are nascent or not proven to be commercially viable describe the historic experience in 

the study area. As commentors pointed out, commercial viability depends on context, 

including the price of oil, and not simply on the technical ability to extract oil from shale 

oil or tar sands. The viability of commercial operations in other countries depends on the 

particular conditions and circumstances present at those locations, including the specific 

nature of the resources being tapped as well as the political and economic regime within 

which development takes place. With respect to Canadian oil sands, as the introduction 

to Appendix B and Section 2 of Attachment B1 of the PEIS clearly point out, are 

fundamentally different in character from tar sands resources in the study area. There are 

currently no commercial operations producing oil or other energy products from tar sands 

or oil shale in the study area. 

6.3.6 Surface Mining 

OSTS_084-5 OSTS_085-2 50030-2 50310-32 
Final OSTS PEIS 136 

Issue Summary: One commentor stated that an area of surface minable oil shale with 

less than 500 ft of overburden of roughly 65 mi2 lies along the northwest edge of the 

Piceance Basin and should be included within the most geographically prospective area 

for surface mining in Colorado. Commentors wondered whether surface mining is being 

discouraged in this basin and requested an explanation in Section 4.1.1 of its exclusion in 

Colorado from the scope of the PEIS. Commentors pointed out several advantages of 

surface mining, including cost, resource recovery, and absence of subsurface retorts. 

Response: Regarding the absence of identified areas available for surface mining in 

Colorado, as noted in footnote 4 on page 2-20 of the Draft PEIS, the BLM relied on data 

from Donnell’s 1987 paper for identifying such areas in Colorado. The absence of such 

prospective areas as identified from these data is the only basis for not including surface 

mining in Colorado within the scope of PEIS, its reported advantages notwithstanding. 

6.4 SPENT SHALE 

50090-26 50335-1 50335-2 

Issue Summary: Commentors questioned a statement of a 30% increase in volume of 

spent shale compared to mined shale on page 4-6 of the Draft PEIS. Another commentor 

stated that a mining technique that allows a greater percentage of spent shale to be 

disposed of inside the mine should be encouraged. 

Response: Text referring to a 30% increase in volume of spent shale was revised in 

Section 4.1.1 of the Final PEIS in accordance with the relevant comments. That mining 

techniques should consider spent shale disposal is noted. 

6.5 DATA 

50181-12 

50181-72 

50181-74 

50181-83 

50181-100 

50181-101 

50181-102 

50181-103 

50181-105 

50181-106 

50181-107 

50181-108 

50181-110 

50324-10 

50328-19 

50333-20 

50333-42 

50333-43 

50333-44 

50333-45 

Issue Summary: Several commentors identified data in the Draft PEIS as outdated 

and directed the BLM to new data available on oil shale and tar sands resources and 

technologies. Specifically, commentors identified data in Appendix A that should be 

updated with respect to in-place oil shale reserves, current domestic and Canadian crude 

oil sources supplying U.S. refineries, and oil shale RD&D technologies, particularly 

those employed by Enefit and Red Leaf Resources. Regarding Appendix B, commentors 
Final OSTS PEIS 137 

noted that Temple Mountain Energy has been operating in the Asphalt Ridge STSA since 

2006 and that Section B.3 should be updated with respect to current tar sands activity. 

Other maps and data cited by commentors as needing updating include Figure 1.2-1 and 

2.3-1 showing the identified most prospective oil shale resources and workforce and 

housing estimates in Section 4.1.5; self-supplied energy prospects in Section 4.1.6; and 

project timelines in Section 4.1.8. Other comments suggested that data should be clarified 

in Tables 4.1.1-1, 4.1.2-1, and 4.1.3-1, which present assumptions for impacting factors 

used for operations involving surface mining, underground mining, and in situ recovery, 

respectively. With respect to ongoing RD&D projects, commentors stated that the Draft 

PEIS omits progress reports from these efforts and, moreover, should revise downward 

power, water, and surface disturbance factors on the basis of such progress reports and 

other recent data. In addition, commentors stated that new information in the PEIS on 

sage-grouse habitat, LWC, and ACECs is vague, prevents meaningful review, and lacks a 

discussion of the resource values of such areas or of Wyoming’s sage-grouse strategy. 

Regarding resource assessments and identification of the most geologically prospective 

area for oil shale development, commentors stated that the PEIS did not use the 2010 and 

2011 USGS assessment reports or 2008 data from the Utah Geological Survey (UGS) to 

update the most geologically prospective area. 

Response: Regarding data on in-place oil reserves in Table A-1, the table was not 

updated using 2010 data from the USGS assessment, because the data from that 

assessment does not report oil shale resources on the basis of minimum interval 

thickness; Table A-1 reports on the basis of a minimum 15-ft thickness. However, 

Sections 6 and 7 of Attachment A of Appendix A summarizing domestic and Canadian 

crude sources were updated in the Final PEIS. The description of Enefit’s technology was 

updated in Section A.5.3.4 of the Final PEIS. The description of Red Leaf Resource’s 

technology was carried over from that in Section A.5.3.7 of the Draft PEIS. Section B.3 

in the Final PEIS describing ongoing tar sands mining activity was updated and now 

includes Temple Mountain Energy’s project. Figures 1.2-1 and 2.3-1 did not need to be 

updated because the most geologically prospective area has not changed since the 2008 

PEIS. Likewise, workforce and housing estimates in Section 4.1.5 were not revised; the 

current estimates are not inconsistent with estimates, for example, from Enefit. Section 

4.1.6 was revised in the Final PEIS to note the possibility of self-supplied energy 

projects, but the estimate of power needs for an initial industry were not changed. 

Generic project timelines in Section 4.1.8 were not revised in light of recent projections 

from Enefit, which benefit from Enefit’s particular experience in Estonia with an 

identical technology. Regarding clarifying entries in Tables 4.1.1-1, 4.1.2-1, and 4.1.3-1 

for assumed development footprint acres, total surface disturbance, and wastewater 

volume in gallons of water per ton of shale, and total employment, the meaning of each 

term is clearly and meaningfully defined in the associated footnotes and in the references 

cited therein. Total annual wastewater volume can be easily calculated for the stated 

annual production rates by assuming oil shale richness in gallon per ton. The 

methodology for calculating employment numbers is given in the cited Appendix G. 

Regarding progress reports from the ongoing RD&D projects, the principal available and 

relevant reports that synthesize results in a form useful for this PEIS are papers and 

presentations made by RD&D project representatives at the Oil Shale Symposium 
Final OSTS PEIS 138 

conducted annually in October. Relevant results from the presentations made at the 

October 2011 symposium were incorporated as appropriate into the Final PEIS. Although 

some of the RD&D project proponents expect somewhat lower water use than assumed in 

the PEIS, results are still too preliminary to affect these assumptions. Likewise, although 

some proponents expect that the eventual commercial-scale version of their technology 

will be self-supplied with power or will use co-generated gas or natural gas to heat their 

process, these projections likewise are too preliminary to change the PEIS assumptions of 

external power needs for a commercial industry, which are needed to evaluate potential 

demand on the grid and potential need for new power plants. Regarding the land 

categories that form the basis of lands closed to lease application in various alternatives, 

information was added to clarify some of the land definitions in the Final PEIS. 

Specifically, a text box was added in Section 3.7.4.3.1 describing how core or priority 

sage-grouse habitat is defined in each state and what data set was used to prepare maps of 

such areas. Additional discussion of sage-grouse habitat was added to the associated text, 

as was a description of Wyoming’s sage-grouse strategy. The process used in identifying 

LWC in the study area is described in Section 2.2.3 of the PEIS. Finally, regarding 

potential changes to the most geologically prospective oil shale area, which defines the 

study area, as well as lands considered for leasing, both the USGS 2010/2011 and the 

UGS 2008 reports cited in comments were reviewed in the preparation of the PEIS. 

Regarding the USGS 2010/2011 reports, as noted in Section 2.5.1, the BLM considered 

these data but concluded that it did not indicate that the most geologically prospective 

area should not be changed for the reasons cited there. 

The UGS 2008 report was likewise reviewed in the preparation of the PEIS, particularly 

oil shale isopach maps in Plate 3. From this review, it was concluded that the USG 

assessment was in good agreement with the most geologically prospective area as 

previously defined and thus that no change was needed to the most geologically 

prospective area in light of this assessment. A citation of this report has been added to 

Section 1.2 of the Final PEIS. 

6.6 OIL SHALE AND TAR SANDS DIFFERENCES 

OSTS_008-4 OSTS_021-2 

Issue Summary: Two commentors noted that oil shale processes and impacts are 

different from the processes and impacts of tar sands. They also suggested including 

findings from the University of Utah study “A Technical, Economic, and Legal 

Assessment of North American Heavy Oil, Oil Sands, and Oil Shale Resources” in 

the PEIS. 

Response: The 2007 report discussed in the comments from the University of Utah is 

now cited in Appendix B of the Final PEIS. 

 
Final OSTS PEIS 139 

7.0 ECONOMICS/COST BENEFIT 

There were no comments associated with this issue.

8.0 MULTIPLE USE CONFLICTS 

OSTS_001-2 

OSTS_001-4 

OSTS_090-6 

50019-1 

50268-19 

50312-9 

50320-3 

50324-37 

Issue Summary: Commentors stated that oil shale and tar sands development is 

inconsistent with the principle of multiple use on public lands, because it is resource and 

land intensive. Some commentors from industry groups suggested that Alternative 2 

impermissibly restricts the BLM’s discretion to manage lands according to FLPMA’s 

multiple (including oil shale and tar sands development) use mandate. 

Response: Although FLPMA requires the Secretary, through the BLM, to manage the 

public lands for multiple use, and sustained yield, in accordance with land use plans, 

developed on the basis of an inventory of the public lands and their resources, FLPMA 

does not require all uses to take place on all lands and does not specify particular 

acreages that must be allocated to particular uses. Nor does the Energy Policy Act of 

2005 speak to allocations of public lands for commercial oil shale or tar sands leasing, 

nor provide any standard by which the reasonableness of any particular acreage figure 

might be determined. The Secretary has wide latitude to allocate the public lands to 

particular uses, and to employ the mechanism of land use allocation to protect for certain 

resource values, or, conversely, develop some resource values to the detriment of others, 

short of unnecessary and undue degradation. None of the alternatives presented in the 

Draft PEIS, or the Proposed Plan presented in the Final PEIS, precludes the Secretary’s 

or the BLM’s exercise of discretion in managing the public lands for multiple use, or the 

appropriate use of an adaptive management approach. In the Proposed Plan, the 

Secretary, acting through the BLM, has made a policy decision that in view of the 

nascent character of the oil shale and tar sands industries, less land than allocated in 2008 

should remain open for development of these resources, at this time. 

8.1 RECREATION 

OSTS_206-2 

Issue Summary: One commentor suggested that outdoor recreation and tourism are 

economic drivers in the region and that oil shale and tar sands development has the 

potential to contribute to the region’s economic growth without threatening recreational 

activities. 
Final OSTS PEIS 140 

Response: Thank you for your comment. 

8.2 GRAZING 

50328-3 

Issue Summary: One commentor stated that the LWC classification would impair other 

multiple uses on the land, such as livestock grazing. 

Response: For the purposes of the PEIS, the classification of LWC in inventories 

conducted within the three study area states is used solely for the purpose of constructing 

alternatives for allocating lands as open or closed for application of leases for oil shale or 

tar sands development. 

8.3 OIL AND GAS 

50287-26 50310-52 50324-42 50333-32 

Issue Summary: Several commentors noted that oil shale and tar sands development can 

be compatible with development of other mineral resources and urged the BLM not only 

to develop leasing programs that accommodate multimineral leasing but also to identify 

areas where conflicts may arise. The State of Utah suggested that, in the PEIS, the BLM 

overestimated the amount of land truly available for leasing given that much of the land 

proposed has already been leased for oil and gas projects. In addition, the State of Utah 

provided updated data related to average annual drilling rates and estimates of number of 

wells in Duchesne and Uintah Counties over a 20-year planning horizon, as well as new 

oil production numbers. The State of Utah also requested that the discussion of Petroleum 

Administration for Defense District (PADD) be updated to reflect the new pipeline 

connecting Salt Lake City to the Las Vegas market. 

Response: Section 4.2.1.1 of the PEIS addresses other mineral development in oil shale 

areas and discusses BLM policies related to accommodations of oil and gas leasing in oil 

shale areas. Section 2.3.3 notes that the Mechanically Minable Trona Area in the Green 

River Basin in Wyoming would be closed to oil shale leasing under all allocation 

alternatives, while in Colorado, lands within the Multimineral Zone identified in the 

White River RMP would be open for application for oil shale leasing only for 

technologies that would not prevent the recovery of or otherwise destroy other minerals, 

such as nahcolite and dawsonite. Regarding current and future oil and gas leases affecting 

the amount of lands practically available for oil shale development, Section 4.2.1.1 does 

state in the first paragraph that, “a significant portion of the land within the most 

geologically prospective oil shale areas is already undergoing mineral development, 

particularly for the development of oil and gas resources.” The section goes on to explain 

that it is BLM’s policy to optimize the recovery of both oil and gas and oil shale 
Final OSTS PEIS 141 

resources. Chapter 6, page 6-3, lines 40-44, was rewritten to acknowledge that use 

agreements and various drilling technologies are available to resolve conflicts among 

willing parties. Mineral development conflicts would 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 design and subsequent lease 

agreements compatible with development. 

The new information provided by the State of Utah was incorporated into the document 

in Tables 6.1.6-5 and 6.2.6-4. 

9.0 POLICY 

OSTS_069-4 

OSTS_069-23 

OSTS_069-24 

OSTS_103-3 

OSTS_229-3 

50047-10 

50047-13 

50148-3 

50154-8 

50184-6 

50283-4 

50287-4 

50287-9 

50324-18 

50324-65 

50363-3 

50372-1

Issue Summary: Comments included general policy suggestions and requests such as 

one commentor who suggested that the BLM include language in the document providing 

that the BLM can, in appropriate circumstances, rely on the broad discretion it has under 

FLPMA to deny commercial oil shale lease and tar sands nominations without 

completing the NEPA process. Many other comments suggested changes that were 

outside the scope of the purpose and need for the proposed action or included opinions 

regarding oil shale and tar sands development on public lands. 

One commentor inquired about monitoring the fracking process during the RD&D phase. 

Another commentor remarked that if the DOI adopts the Preferred Alternative, FLPMA 

requires that the DOI issue a formal withdrawal. 

Response: These comments did not require a text change in the PEIS document. These 

comments address issues outside the scope of the purpose and need for the proposed 

action. To the degree to which some comments address merits of the Proposed Allocation 

Plan, expressions of opinion are not substantive comments requiring a response. 

The specifics of the BLM’s decisionmaking authority are outside the scope of the 

purpose and need for the proposed action. 

As noted in footnote 2 to Section 1.1 of the Draft PEIS, “See the description of oil shale 

in Section 2.3 of [the Draft PEIS]. This PEIS does not address opening or closing lands to 

development of other resources or the hydraulic fracturing of other types of shale for the 

production of oil and gas.” With some exceptions not relevant here, the system of 
Final OSTS PEIS 142 

classification of public lands for certain uses has been superseded by land use planning 

pursuant to FLPMA 

9.1 PURPOSE AND NEED 

OSTS_068-2 

50090-6 

50181-2 

50268-4 

50268-5 

50268-6 

50268-7 

50268-25 

50277-3 

50287-13 

50287-18 

50310-11 

50312-12 

50324-20 

50324-26 

50325-29 

50325-32 

50325-38 

50325-43 

50328-15 

50335-6 

Issue Summary: These comments addressed the purpose and need of the 2012 PEIS. 

Many commentors wrote that the purpose and need was insufficiently explained in the 

PEIS. Many people commented that the purpose and need was inconsistent with the 2005 

Energy Policy Act. Several commentors suggested that the purpose and need of the 

document was inconsistent with the need for domestic development of unconventional 

fuels. One commentor from industry suggested that the BLM return to the Purpose and 

Need statement in the 2008 PEIS. 

Response: The DOI complied with the requirements of the Energy Policy Act in 2008, 

issuing both the PEIS and the regulation required by Section 369 of the Act. Nothing in 

the Energy Policy Act of 2005 specified how the Secretary must establish a commercial 

oil shale leasing program, apart from requiring the Secretary to consider the most 

geologically prospective areas in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming. The Energy Policy Act 

did not specify the acreage that must be available for such programs, or how the 

requirements of such programs should be balanced with other resource uses. Under 

FLPMA, the Secretary must manage the public lands in accordance with land use plans 

and retains the discretion to establish, revise, and amend those land use plans, as 

appropriate, to address resource management issues. This means that no leasing or 

development of oil shale and tar sands resources may occur on the public lands unless 

such activity is consistent with the applicable land use plan. In view of the nascent 

character of the oil shale and tar sands industries, as well as in light of other resource 

management concerns, the Secretary, acting though the BLM, decided to reconsider the 

appropriate federal lands to be available for leasing and development of these resources, 

as well as whether commercial leasing should be preceded by additional, vigorous 

RD&D. There may be different views of whether the nascent character of the 

technologies argues for more land to be open, so that more lands may be available for 

RD&D, or whether fewer lands should be open, in order that such RD&D and eventual 

commercial development as does occur may be targeted in areas with few resource use 

conflicts, while leaving open some areas where the oil shale and tar sands resource has 

been identified as particularly rich. While the Energy Policy Act of 2005 encourages 
Final OSTS PEIS 143 

commercial development of oil shale and tar sands resources, these kinds of land 

management policy questions (how much land, where, with what restrictions, and the 

like) are left, under FLPMA, to the Secretary, acting through the BLM. The BLM 

believes the purpose and need statement to be appropriate to this proposed land use 

allocation planning action and consistent with the fostering of a robust RD&D oil shale 

program, and tar sands industry, leading to viable commercial development of both of 

these resources. 

Congress spoke to the importance for the national interest of developing the nation’s oil 

shale and tar sands resources in the Energy Policy Act of 2005. The Secretary’s planning 

initiative is not in conflict with the goals nor the mandate of the Energy Policy Act of 

2005, nor with E.O. 13212; rather, the current planning initiative focuses attention on the 

appropriate land use allocation and emphasis on RD&D in order to facilitate these 

interests being realized. Section 369 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 does not specify 

that any particular land use planning decision be made, nor provide any standard by 

which the reasonableness of the acreage available for such a commercial leasing program 

as called for in the Act might be determined. Section 369 expresses Congressional policy 

that the development of these resources should be conducted in an environmentally sound 

manner, using practices that minimize impacts. One practice available to the BLM under 

FLPMA for minimizing impacts is making land use allocations that reduce conflicts 

among resource uses in the first place. Another practice available to the BLM under 

FLPMA is to require that potential commercial developers pursue RD&D first, in order 

that more is known about the technologies for development, and their impacts, before 

broader scale development is undertaken. Each of the alternatives presented provides for 

lands to be available for development of these important resources. Under the purpose 

and need—reassessing the appropriate mix of allowable uses, in light of the still nascent 

character of the oil shale and tar sands industries—any of the four alternatives (or 

combination of elements thereof) presented for analysis could be selected for 

implementation. Although the BLM agreed in settlement to consider certain alternatives 

in the NEPA and planning processes, the Proposed Plan presented with this Final PEIS 

was not “predetermined.” Nor did the settlement agreement impermissibly “flip[...] 

NEPA’s requirements on its head, and preordain[...] the outcome” as claimed by one 

commentor. In fact, the measures agreed to by the United States in settlement are not 

inconsistent with its NEPA obligations under BLM’s planning regulations. 

In addition, the settlement of pending litigation challenging the 2008 OSTS ROD is an 

element of the background information for the purpose and need, not an element of the 

purpose and need itself. The Secretary has long expressed an interest in reassessment of 

the allocation decisions made in 2008 and a focus on a robust RD&D program; the terms 

of the settlement agreement are consistent with this policy direction. 

 
Final OSTS PEIS 144 

9.2 LEGAL/COMPLIANCE ISSUES 

OSTS_001-1 

OSTS_071-7 

OSTS_071-37 

OSTS_071-7 

OSTS_083-2 

50160-3 

50163-1 

50255-3 

50324-27 

50324-28 

50324-34 

50333-26 

50335-13 

Issue Summary: These comments address various laws, such as the Migratory Bird 

Treaty Act and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, and commentors were 

concerned that the BLM had not adequately addressed these in the PEIS. Other comments 

noted that there were a variety of environmental regulations that developers would need 

to comply with, and the PEIS should do a better job of outlining these regulations. Other 

commentors requested a change to the text of the PEIS to demonstrate what specific laws 

and regulations would apply to developers. 

Another commentor noted that, by creating a program to expand oil shale and tar sands

development, the BLM is not complying with its mission to sustain the health and 

diversity of the environment. 

Response: Where appropriate, the PEIS had added information about applicable laws and 

regulations facing developers. For example, one commentor noted that there was a 

missing reference to the requirement for a mine permit in Wyoming. The requirement for 

a mine permit in Wyoming was added to Table D-15 in Appendix D. 

The BLM has noted in the PEIS that developers will need to comply with all applicable 

laws and regulations as a condition of leasing. The BLM believes it has fulfilled its 

mandate under the 2005 Energy Policy Act, to develop a leasing program for 

unconventional fuels, while accomplishing its mission to sustain the health, diversity, and 

productivity of America’s public lands for the use and enjoyment of present and future 

generations. 

9.2.1 Lands with Wilderness Characteristics, Secretarial Order 3310 

OSTS_026-6 

OSTS_066-8 

OSTS_069-64 

OSTS_069-77 

OSTS_075-4 

OSTS_077-1 

OSTS_077-17 

OSTS_078-1 

OSTS_078-17 

OSTS_079-1 

OSTS_079-17 

OSTS_080-1 

OSTS_080-18 

OSTS_081-1 

OSTS_081-17 

OSTS_124-3 

OSTS_133-2 

OSTS_149-3 

OSTS_160-2 

OSTS_167-1 

OSTS_186-1 

OSTS_210-2 

OSTS_212-3 

50181-2 

50186-1 

50186-22 

50255-9 

50255-25 
Final OSTS PEIS 145 

50268-8 

50268-29 

50272-7 

50290-3 

50290-6 

50308-12 

50312-10 

50323-23 

50324-6 

50324-14 

50324-38 

50324-40 

50324-57 

50324-64 

50325-3 

50325-10 

50325-26 

50328-12 

50328-13 

50328-16 

50328-25 

50333-8 

50333-10 

50333-14

Issue Summary: These comments address BLM’s policies concerning LWC and 

Secretarial Order 3310. Commentors suggested that the PEIS’s Preferred Alternative, by 

eliminating from consideration lands that the BLM has identified as having “wilderness 

characteristics,” violates a spending moratorium put in place by Congress last year 

banning funds from being used to implement Secretarial Order 3310 and that only 

Congress can designate a wilderness area. 

Response: Several commentors claim that the current OSTS planning initiative and the 

continued development of BLM’s OSTS PEIS violates the April 21, 2011 Continuing 

Resolution and other Congressional prohibitions on “implementing, administering, or 

enforcing Secretarial Order 3310” (the “Wild Lands” order). 

Lands that the BLM identifies as having wilderness characteristics will be considered 

during this planning initiative as part of the planning process consistent with FLPMA and 

BLM Manuals 6301 (Wilderness Characteristics Inventory) and 6302 (Consideration of 

Lands with Wilderness Characteristics in the Land Use Planning Process). In accordance 

with congressional direction, this planning initiative will not consider designating Wild 

Lands. This current planning initiative does not rely upon the Secretarial Order as legal 

authority and does not implement, administer, or enforce it. Nothing in any of the 

congressional actions addressing Secretarial Order 3310, however, prohibits the Secretary 

from considering the wilderness value of lands in establishing, revising, or amending land 

use plans, pursuant to FLPMA. The Secretary has the authority and obligation, under 

Section 201 of FLPMA to “prepare and maintain on a continuing basis an inventory of all 

public lands and their resources and other values (including, but not limited to, outdoor 

recreation and scenic values), giving priority to areas of critical environmental concern” 

(Title 43, Section 1711[a] of the United States Code [43 USC 1711[a]]). As required 

under Section 202 of FLPMA, the BLM relies on its inventory information, such as the 

inventory of LWC assembled for this OSTS planning initiative, in developing land use 

plans. There is ample authority in FLPMA for the BLM to identify wilderness 

characteristics and, if it chooses, to manage lands to protect such characteristics, when 

found. In this instance, the BLM is merely considering whether to protect lands it 

identifies as having wilderness characteristics from the possible impacts of a technology 

still in its infancy. 

 
Final OSTS PEIS 146 

9.2.2 Section 369 of the Energy Policy Act 

OSTS_068-3 

OSTS_077-5 

OSTS_078-5 

OSTS_079-5 

OSTS_080-7 

OSTS_081-6 

OSTS_083-9 

50186-5 

50227-21 

50255-13 

50287-10 

50310-9 

50312-8 

50324-3 

50324-13 

50324-8 

50325-2 

50325-15 

50328-9 

50328-22 

50333-4 

50333-25 

50333-41 

50349-3 

Issue Summary: Industry group commentors suggested the 2012 OSTS Draft PEIS 

Preferred Alternative threatens to undermine the process and the work of the 2008 OSTS 

PEIS, and dismantle a reasonable and rational OSTS program in violation of Section 369 

of the 2005 Energy Policy Act. On the other hand, some commentors from environmental 

groups suggested that the program outlined in the PEIS would not meet the requirements 

of Section 369 of the Energy Policy Act, because the PEIS could not prove that oil shale 

and tar sands development could be carried out in an environmentally sound manner. 

In addition, the State of Utah noted that, unlike in 2008, the BLM had not consulted with 

the Governors of the states of Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming, regarding the level of 

support and interest in the states in the development of oil shale and tar sands resources, 

and that this failure to consult was inconsistent with the requirements of Section 369 of 

the Energy Policy Act of 2005. The State of Utah also commented that the PEIS should 

be reworded to discuss how the BLM will follow Congress’s mandatory directive in 

Section 369(n) of the Act that it will give priority to land exchanges. 

Response: Congress spoke to the importance for the national interest of developing 

the nation’s oil shale and tar sands resources in the Energy Policy Act of 2005. The 

Secretary’s planning initiative is not in conflict with the goals nor the mandate of the 

Energy Policy Act of 2005, nor with E.O. 13212; rather, the current planning initiative 

focuses attention on the appropriate land use allocation, and emphasis on RD&D in order 

to facilitate these interests being realized. Section 369 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 

does not specify that any particular land use planning decision be made, nor provide any 

standard by which the reasonableness of the acreage available for such a commercial 

leasing program as called for in the Act might be determined. Section 369 expresses 

congressional policy that the development of these resources should be conducted in an 

environmentally sound manner, using practices that minimize impacts. One practice 

available to the BLM under FLPMA for minimizing impacts is making land use 

allocations that reduce conflicts among resource uses in the first place. Another practice 

available to the BLM under FLPMA is to require that potential commercial developers 

pursue RD&D first, in order that more is known about the technologies for development, 

and their impacts, before broader scale development is undertaken. Each of the 

alternatives presented provides for lands to be available for development of these 

important resources. Under the purpose and need—reassessing the appropriate mix of 
Final OSTS PEIS 147 

allowable uses, in light of the still nascent character of the oil shale and tar sands 

industries—any of the four alternatives (or combination of elements thereof) presented 

for analysis could be selected for implementation. Although the BLM agreed in 

settlement to consider certain alternatives in the NEPA and planning processes, the 

Proposed Plan presented with this Final PEIS was not “predetermined.” In fact, the 

measures agreed to by the United States in settlement are not inconsistent with its NEPA 

obligations under the BLM’s planning regulations. 

Section 369 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 requires the Secretary, no later than 

180 days after the publication of the oil shale regulations whose development is required 

under this section, to consult with the governors of states with significant oil shale and tar 

sands resources on public lands, as well as with representatives of local governments, 

interested Indian tribes, and other interested persons, to determine the level of support 

and interest in the states in the development of oil shale and tar sands resources. The 

Secretary conducted this consultation in 2008, when the commercial oil shale and tar 

sands easing programs were established. It is anticipated that further consultation would 

occur in the future, in preparation for any Secretarial decision to conduct a lease sale in 

one or more of these states. At this time, however, no commercial lease sale is under 

consideration or anticipated. Rather, the BLM is engaged in a land use planning action 

pursuant to its authority under FLPMA. As part of the land use planning action, which 

involves a targeted plan amendment addressing land use allocation for future oil shale 

and tar sands leasing and development, as well as the associated NEPA analysis, the 

BLM has invited the state and local governments, as well as interested tribes, to 

participate in the NEPA process as cooperating agencies, and will provide a governors’ 

consistency review regarding the Proposed Plan, in accordance with the BLM’s planning 

regulations at 43 CFR 1610.3-2. 

As noted on page 1-12 of the Draft PEIS, analysis of the potential impacts of land 

exchanges is beyond the scope of the purpose and need for the proposed action. To the 

extent that the 2008 OSTS ROD adopted decisions regarding land exchanges, these 

decisions were carried forward, unchanged, in the current planning initiative. While 

Section 369 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 requires the Secretary to consider land 

exchanges, where appropriate and feasible, land exchange decisions are particular 

decisions not germane to this programmatic land use allocation planning process. 

9.2.3 Other Comments on the Energy Policy Act 

OSTS_026-5 

OSTS_211-2 

50090-17 

50268-17 

50287-16 

50308-8 

50324-43 

50333-30 

50333-31 

50333-33 

Issue Summary: These comments addressed miscellaneous issues regarding oil shale 

and tar sands development and the 2005 Energy Policy Act, with most commentors 
Final OSTS PEIS 148 

suggesting that the 2012 PEIS is in violation of the Act’s policy directive to develop 

unconventional fuels on federal lands. 

Response: Congress spoke to the importance for the national interest of developing the 

nation’s oil shale and tar sands resources in the Energy Policy Act of 2005. The 

Secretary’s planning initiative is not in conflict with the goals nor the mandate of the 

Energy Policy Act of 2005, nor with E.O. 13212; rather, the current planning initiative 

focuses attention on the appropriate land use allocation and emphasis on RD&D in order 

to facilitate these interests being realized. Section 369 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 

does not specify that any particular land use planning decision be made, nor provide any 

standard by which the reasonableness of the acreage available for such a commercial 

leasing program as called for in the Act might be determined. Section 369 expresses 

congressional policy that the development of these resources should be conducted in an 

environmentally sound manner, using practices that minimize impacts. One practice 

available to the BLM under FLPMA for minimizing impacts is making land use 

allocations that reduce conflicts among resource uses in the first place. Another practice 

available to the BLM under FLPMA is to require that potential commercial developers 

pursue RD&D first, in order that more is known about the technologies for development 

and their impacts before broader scale development takes place. Each of the alternatives 

presented provides for lands to be available for development of these important 

resources. Under the purpose and need—reassessing the appropriate mix of allowable 

uses, in light of the still nascent character of the oil shale and tar sands industries—any of 

the four alternatives (or combination of elements thereof) presented for analysis could be 

selected for implementation. Although the BLM agreed in settlement to consider certain 

alternatives in the NEPA and planning processes, the Proposed Plan presented with this 

Final PEIS was not “predetermined.” In fact, the measures agreed to by the United States 

in settlement are not inconsistent with its NEPA obligations under BLM’s planning 

regulations. 

9.2.4 Sage-Grouse Policy 

OSTS_026-6 

OSTS_069-22 

OSTS_069-25 

OSTS_069-52 

OSTS_069-54 

OSTS_075-3 

50163-2 

50268-10 

50268-11 

50287-7 

50287-11 

50287-19 

50287-20 

50287-21 

50287-23 

50287-24 

50308-11 

50310-16 

50324-5 

50324-48 

50324-54 

50324-60 

50328-6 

50328-11 

50333-3 

50333-16

Issue Summary: Several comments from industry groups expressed concern regarding 

exclusions of sage-grouse habitat from lands available for lease applications. Some 

commentors stated that there is no new information about the sage-grouse that warrants 
Final OSTS PEIS 149 

dramatic changes in the RMPs at this time. Other commentors noted that the BLM’s 

current RMPs have already addressed sage-grouse. One environmental group’s comments 

suggested that the BLM should coordinate with the USFWS to evaluate the impacts of 

development on sage-grouse areas of concern and that, under NEPA, the BLM is required 

to address sage-grouse conservation and analyze all reasonably foreseeable impacts on 

the species and its habitat. 

The State of Wyoming commented that the decision to analyze and consider excluding 

oil shale development in the greater sage-grouse core area is not consistent with 

Wyoming’s Greater Sage-Grouse Core Area Protection strategy. 

One cooperating agency objected to the exclusion of core priority sage-grouse habitat 

from development, saying that the BLM does not have jurisdiction to regulate wildlife. 

Response: Other information new since 2008, as noted in the Notice of Intent (NOI), was 

the USFWS determination regarding the status of the sage-grouse. The USFWS 

determination, that listing the species was warranted but precluded, nevertheless 

demonstrates that there is a vital need and an important opportunity for managing the 

habitat of the species on public lands to prevent the listing of the species as threatened or 

endangered. If the species were to be listed, there could be significant adverse impacts on 

several types of land uses, including oil shale and tar sands S development. The BLM has 

considered this information, and while the BLM agrees with the commentor that there are 

several methods, including but not limited to land use allocation decisions, to address 

reducing impacts on this species’ habitat, the BLM elected to consider the use of this 

method in order to address the anticipated resource conflicts. 

The BLM acknowledges that there may have been some confusion regarding how the 

sage-grouse habitat information has been developed and used in this planning process. In 

this planning effort, it was never the BLM’s intent to make allocation decisions on the 

basis of information to be acquired in the future. That is, as described in the Draft PEIS, 

the BLM received from the States of Colorado, Wyoming, and Utah, information about 

the location of sage-grouse habitat and adopted this information for use in considering 

allocation alternatives. In the cases of Wyoming and Colorado, the states had already 

identified core or priority sage-grouse habitat, and the BLM adopted that information as 

such. In the case of Utah, at the time the Draft PEIS was being developed, the only maps 

available were those showing occupied habitat. The BLM anticipated that the State of 

Utah would provide updated information showing core or priority habitat in time for 

inclusion in the Final PEIS. The BLM anticipated that this core or priority habitat would 

consist of a subset of the occupied habitat. Unfortunately, the State of Utah’s process for 

designation of core or priority sage-grouse habitat has not been completed as of the date 

this Final PEIS is going to press. Therefore, the BLM is relying upon the existing maps 

showing the location of occupied habitat to represent core or priority sage-grouse habitat 

in Utah in order to make its allocation decisions. 

As in many similar public land use and development decisions, even where lands remain 

open for leasing and development, the BLM may impose mitigation measures in lease 
Final OSTS PEIS 150 

stipulations or in conditions of approval in plans of development that would be consistent 

with law, regulation, and policy, and indicated by environmental review conducted at the 

time of the decision. 

In accordance with regulations promulgated by the CEQ, the BLM has relied in this PEIS 

on high-quality information, including the best available information concerning the 

habitat of sage-grouse in Utah. At the time the Draft PEIS was developed, the State of 

Utah had provided the BLM with maps showing “occupied” sage-grouse habitat. In the 

absence of more specific information from the State of Utah, the BLM relied upon this 

map to show where the core or priority habitat would be located and, therefore, what 

lands might be unavailable for oil shale and tar sands leasing under certain alternatives. 

While the State of Utah has informed the BLM that it anticipates finalizing its more 

specific maps in the near future, the BLM is not required to delay its land use planning 

decisions or this PEIS in the hope of new information from the State of Utah becoming 

available. Furthermore, the commentors did not present information indicating that the 

Proposed Plan amendment would conflict with any subsequent plan by the State of Utah 

for managing the habitat of sage-grouse. Under FLPMA’s multiple use mandate, the 

BLM must take into account wildlife, as well as other resource values. Although no law 

prevents the BLM from adopting land use plans that are more protective of a resource 

than the laws or policies of state or local governments, any future amendments of the 

applicable land use plans would take into account updated information from the State of 

Utah. The BLM acknowledges that there are many methods for protecting identified 

resources, of which land use plan allocations are only one; however, the BLM is 

considering the use of this method during this planning effort. Nonetheless, while the 

sage-grouse is not a listed species under the ESA, the BLM has the opportunity to 

accommodate valid existing rights of lessees. The lease terms include provisions for 

compliance with the ESA. 

The comment addressed issues relating to the specific information requirements for 

analysis of future project proposals and is beyond the scope of the purpose and need for 

the proposed action. The BLM has conducted sufficient analysis pursuant to the NEPA to 

support this land use allocation decisionmaking. The BLM will similarly determine the 

appropriate NEPA analysis required to support decisionmaking regarding any future 

proposed actions, including, but not limited to, additional planning, leasing, or 

development. 

Under BLM’s Preferred Alternative, as presented in the Draft PEIS, Alternative 2(b), oil 

shale leasing and development would have been excluded from greater sage-grouse core 

and priority habitat. That is not consistent with Wyoming’s Greater Sage-Grouse Core 

Area Protection strategy. Wyoming’s E.O. 2011-5 has been recognized by the USFWS as 

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

been adopted by the BLM Wyoming State Office. The Wyoming E.O. 2011-5 does not 

generally preclude mineral development; rather, it establishes conditions designed to 

maintain and enhance greater sage-grouse habitat (e.g., mitigation measures). In 

recognition of this coordinated approach to the conservation of the greater sage-grouse, 

the BLM has modified Alternative 2(b) in the Proposed Plan to maintain consistency with 
Final OSTS PEIS 151 

Wyoming’s Greater Sage-Grouse Core Area Protection strategy. Therefore, areas 

identified by the BLM as core or priority sage-grouse habitat in Wyoming would not be 

closed to future leasing of oil shale, but would be available for application, and managed 

consistent with how the BLM is managing sage-grouse habitat for other resource uses in 

Wyoming. Such modification does not require a supplement to the Draft PEIS, because 

these areas were analyzed as open for oil shale leasing and development under 

Alternative 1, the No Action Alternative. 

The BLM is not purporting to regulate wildlife in derogation of the authority of the 

states; rather, the BLM is making allocation decisions that take into account the value of 

protecting wildlife habitat, consistent with FLPMA’s recognition of wildlife resource 

values as appropriate for BLM management. As discussed in Section 3.7.4.3.1, the BLM

is working closely with state governments responsible for the management of wildlife, 

including sage-grouse, in order to develop appropriate management strategies. That said, 

no law prevents the BLM from taking a more protective approach to wildlife habitat that 

the BLM manages than that supported by the state. 

9.2.5 Federal Data Quality Act 

50181-6 50186-21 50308-14 50308-15 

Issue Summary: Commentors stated that the 2012 Draft PEIS relied on the same data as 

the 2008 PEIS and failed to incorporate new data, particularly the new information on oil 

shale and tar sands operations currently being employed on nonfederal lands. This failure 

to utilize the best available data constitutes a violation of the Federal Data Quality Act. 

Response: The BLM asked for information from those companies operating on public 

lands, as well as on nonfederal lands, in the study area and incorporated the information 

that was provided to the degree to which it constituted “high quality information” as 

required by CEQ regulations implementing NEPA, and BLM policy implementing the 

Federal Data Quality Act. 

9.2.6 Requirements for Lessees 

OSTS_069-16 

OSTS_069-17 

OSTS_069-18 

OSTS_069-19 

OSTS_069-20 

OSTS_069-21 

OSTS_069-22 

OSTS_069-33 

OSTS_069-40 

OSTS_069-47 

OSTS_069-51 

50063-2

Issue Summary: Comments suggested incorporating into the PEIS requirements in the 

leases that developers must meet, such as identifying water and energy demands. 
Final OSTS PEIS 152 

Response: These comments addressed issues relating to the specific information 

requirements for analysis of future project proposals and are beyond the scope of the 

purpose and need for the proposed action.

9.3 FUTURE NEPA ANALYSIS 

OSTS_033-6 

OSTS_068-9 

OSTS_069-2 

OSTS_069-3 

OSTS_069-10 

OSTS_069-12 

OSTS_69-35 

OSTS_071-1 

OSTS_071-5 

OSTS_071-8 

OSTS_072-1 

OSTS_195-2 

50047-9 

50047-11 

50072-1 

50072-4 

50072-6 

50143-1 

50154-4 

50227-5 

50268-30 

50287-19 

50308-6 

50308-16 

50310-12 

50310-13 

50310-14 

50310-26 

50324-47 

50335-7 

50343-4 

50365-1 

50365-5 

Issue Summary: Commentors suggested that this NEPA analysis is deficient and that the 

Final PEIS document must identify the timing and scope of subsequent NEPA analyses. 

Several commentors, representatives of state and local government wildlife, air quality, 

and other environmental review agencies, noted that, given the limited information 

provided in the PEIS, the technical expertise of their agencies could best be utilized at the 

site- and project-specific levels of oil shale and tar sands development. The USFWS 

expressed concern that the document did not contain enough information about the 

technologies to be employed in oil shale and tar sands development and that the policy 

of conducting supplemental EAs associated with future lease sales and projects could 

lead to a fragmented approach. They also suggested that, given the impacts of these 

technologies, the BLM include provisions requiring Section 7 consultation in future 

NEPA analyses. 

One cooperating agency commented that the BLM has sufficient information from the 

RMPs to identify general conditions of development and likely lease stipulations and will 

not need to further amend plans based on future NEPA analyses. 

A coalition of environmental groups noted that the BLM’s analysis in this PEIS and in 

future NEPA analyses must analyze together air impacts from oil shale and tar sands 

development with oil and gas development and other uses that degrade air quality. 

Response: The BLM will similarly determine the appropriate NEPA analysis required to 

support decisionmaking regarding any future proposed actions, including, but not limited 
Final OSTS PEIS 153 

to, additional planning, leasing, or development. The scope of any future environmental 

analysis would depend upon the specifics of the technology proposed for use, as well as 

the resources specific to the area proposed for leasing and/or development. Reference 

should be made to the applicable regulations governing oil shale and tar sands 

development for more specifics on the information that would or may be required from 

applicants to inform this analysis. 

The BLM appreciates the participation of its sister federal agencies, as well as interested 

state and local government agencies, with resource expertise and anticipates working 

closely with these agencies in the future, as appropriate. The BLM has conducted 

sufficient analysis pursuant to NEPA to support this land use allocation decisionmaking. 

The BLM will similarly determine the appropriate NEPA analysis required to support 

decisionmaking regarding any future proposed actions, including, but not limited to, 

additional planning, leasing, or development. The BLM has also fulfilled its obligation 

under Section 7 of the ESA to support this land use allocation decisionmaking. The BLM 

will similarly determine the appropriate NEPA analysis, as well as appropriate ESA 

Section 7 compliance, required to support decisionmaking regarding any future proposed 

actions, including, but not limited to, additional planning, leasing, or development. The 

BLM appreciates the assistance of the USFWS to date and anticipates continuing to work 

closely with the USFWS in considering these issues. 

Chapters 4 and 5 describe, in general terms, the type of technologies and impacts that 

might be expected, based upon the information the BLM has available at this time. 

Similarly, these chapters describe, in general terms, the types of mitigation or other 

protective measures that the BLM might impose, if warranted by the analysis conducted 

at the time of future decisionmaking. In this respect, the PEIS fulfills the important 

function of letting the public, and future decision-makers, know what they can reasonably 

expect in terms of requirements that might be placed on applicants for leases or 

development authorizations. As the technology to develop oil shale and tar sands into 

commercially viable energy sources is still in its nascent stages, it is premature to 

determine, with any further specificity, the likely lease stipulations that might be imposed 

on future development. The BLM has conducted sufficient analysis pursuant to the 

NEPA to support this land use allocation decisionmaking. The BLM will similarly 

determine the appropriate NEPA analysis required to support decisionmaking regarding 

any future proposed actions, including, but not limited to, additional planning, leasing, or 

development. The scope of any future environmental analysis would depend upon the 

specific technology proposed for use, as well as the resources specific to the area 

proposed for leasing and/or development. Reference should be made to the applicable 

regulations governing oil shale and tar sands development for more specifics on the 

information that would or may be required from applicants to inform this analysis. 

Regarding air quality, a discussion of cumulative impacts on air quality is presented in 

Section 6.1.6.3.5, and a description of future air quality modeling in Section 4.6.1.The 

type of modeling requested by the commentor is not possible to perform at this point 

because of the uncertainly of the nature and size of the eventual oil shale and tar sands 
Final OSTS PEIS 154 

industry. The necessary NEPA analysis will be performed at the leasing and development 

stages as described in Section 4.6.1. 

9.4 REGION-WIDE ANALYSIS 

50323-6 

Issue Summary: One comment on this topic was received from an environmental 

organization, which stated that no commercial leasing of oil shale and tar sands resources 

is appropriate at this time, because the RMPs amended by the PEIS did not outline much 

of the required information. 

Response: In general, the BLM planning process is guided by the requirements of 

FLPMA, the BLM planning regulations implementing FLPMA (at 43 CFR Part 1600), as 

well as official BLM guidance such as the BLM Land Use Planning Handbook 

H-1601-1. However, only the statutory and regulatory requirements are binding as a 

matter of law. The BLM Land Use Planning Handbook is a guidance document, intended 

to cover most land use planning situations. The provisions in the Handbook, while fairly 

detailed with respect to individual BLM programs like conventional oil and gas 

development or recreational use, are still relatively general and do not address, for 

instance, situations like oil shale and tar sands development, where little is in fact known 

about the technology that will be needed to commercially develop these resources or 

about the impacts that can be expected from the use of this technology. In a situation like 

this one, it is not possible to develop the kind of RFDS that would assist the BLM in 

developing appropriate resource protection measures, like stipulations with any kind of 

reasonable basis. In this situation, only a basic allocation decision can be made on 

whether or not the lands will be open or closed, in general, to application for commercial 

(including RD&D) leasing. Any more specific management goals, or protective 

measures, will need to await further information before they can be developed. For this 

reason, also, the BLM is committed to engaging in further NEPA and other 

environmental review prior to issuing any oil shale or tar sands leases. 

9.5 CONSISTENCY WITH LOCAL PLANS 

OSTS_077-9 

OSTS_078-9 

OSTS_079-9 

OSTS_080-5 

OSTS_081-10 

OSTS_081-19 

50181-7 

50181-14 

50181-95 

50181-126 

50184-5 

50184-7 

50186-20 

50186-29 

50227-16 

50255-17 

50324-4 

50324-15 

50324-23 

50324-24 

50324-53 

50324-56 

50324-58 

50325-5 

50325-19 

50325-28 

50325-46 

50328-4 
Final OSTS PEIS 155 

50328-10 

50328-23 

50333-9 

50333-12 

50333-13 

50333-19 

Issue Summary: Commentors expressed concerns that BLM plans were inconsistent 

with local plans. 

One cooperating agency organization stated that, while much of the Wyoming highpotential area is located in the Rock Springs Field Office, which initiated its plan revision 

in the spring of 2011, the OSTS Draft PEIS appears to use proposed LWC and ACECs 

that have not yet been fully addressed within the cooperating agency process. 

Response: Section 202 of FLPMA and BLM’s planning regulations require the BLM 

land use plans, including amendments, to be consistent with the planning of other federal 

departments and agencies, and of the states and local governments, to the extent 

consistent with the laws governing the administration of the public lands, including their 

purposes, policies, and programs. The BLM acknowledges that several of the cooperating 

agencies have identified the proposed plan amendments to be inconsistent with local 

plans, and has provided a more detailed discussion of these points in Section M.1 of 

Appendix M, as called out in Section 7.4 of the main document. 

Section 3.1.1.11 was adjusted to clarify that no decisions regarding designation of 

ACECs is being made during this planning initiative. Decisions regarding designation of 

ACECs in the Rock Springs Field Office will be made during the Rock Springs plan 

revision process. Any decisions regarding management of oil shale resources in areas 

designated as ACECs will be made, if appropriate, during, or subsequent to, that planning 

process as well. 

9.6 LEASES 

OSTS_026-3 

OSTS_068-8 

OSTS_072-2 

OSTS_102-3 

OSTS_190-1 

OSTS_207-2 

OSTS_210-1 

OSTS_229-5 

50074-11 

50074-3 

50074-4 

50087-15 

50090-12 

50090-14 

50090-15 

50090-16 

50090-36 

50227-19 

50268-13 

50268-14 

50268-21 

50268-27 

50268-28 

50271-10 

50271-11 

50277-9 

50277-10 

50277-17 

50287-15 

50310-27 

50333-29 

50343-9 

50343-11 

50343-12 

50343-28

Issue Summary: Many commentors had suggestions or requests for provisions to be 

included in the leases. One commentor requested that information be included in the 
Final OSTS PEIS 156 

Final PEIS outlining criteria the BLM may be considering for converting research leases 

to commercial-scale leases. Other commentors were concerned that, by issuing only 

RD&D leases, the Preferred Alternative would violate the Energy Policy Act. Some 

commentors from industry wrote that by restricting leasing to RD&D leases, the BLM 

would be deciding on technical strategies and selecting winners and losers in the industry. 

Others suggested that by restricting leasing to RD&D, decisions on commercial leasing 

would be deferred for years and essentially close the door to commercial leasing. 

Some commentors requested that the BLM clarify the legal rights of existing RD&D 

lease holders. One industry group had a series of questions about what happens when an 

RD&D lease holder relinquishes its lease. The same group suggested that the BLM 

should open the Mechanically Mineable Trona Area (MMTA) to oil shale leasing and 

development. 

Another industry group stated that the BLM had failed to explain how Alternative 2(b) 

would affect a company that has already demonstrated the ability to commercially 

develop oil shale, saying that the BLM fails to explain how the RD&D first alternative 

would be applied to a company that has already demonstrated the ability to proceed to 

commercial oil shale development. 

One commentor asked about the statement on page 2-26, which the commentor 

characterized as, “that if an RD&D lease holder relinquishes its lease, the area may be 

leased to another operator with the decisions in the RMP at the time of application.” 

Response: Particulars regarding the specific terms and conditions of the current RD&D 

leases are beyond the scope of the purpose and need for this proposed action. 

The BLM has conducted sufficient analysis pursuant to NEPA to support this land use 

allocation decisionmaking. The BLM will similarly determine the appropriate NEPA 

analysis required to support decisionmaking regarding any future proposed actions, 

including, but not limited to, additional planning, leasing, or development. The scope of 

any future environmental analysis would depend upon the specific technology proposed 

for use, as well as the resources specific to the area proposed for leasing and/or 

development. Reference should be made to the applicable regulations governing oil shale 

and tar sands development for more specifics on the information that would or may be 

required from applicants to inform this analysis. 

The practice available to the BLM under FLPMA for minimizing impacts is making land 

use allocations that reduce conflicts among resource uses in the first place. Another 

practice available to the BLM under FLPMA is to require that potential commercial 

developers pursue RD&D first, in order that more become known about the technologies 

for development and their impacts before broader scale development takes place. Each of 

the alternatives presented provides for lands to be available for development of these 

important resources. Under the purpose and need—reassessing the appropriate mix of 

allowable uses, in light of the still nascent character of the oil shale and tar sands 
Final OSTS PEIS 157 

industries—any of the four alternatives (or combination of elements thereof) presented 

for analysis could be selected for implementation. 

The BLM is not assuming industry’s role; it is continuing its statutory function under 

FLPMA. The BLM makes allocation decisions for multiple uses as part of its planning 

process. The BLM is not attempting to pick winners and losers, but needs to ensure that 

the technological and environmental impacts are well understood prior to commercial 

development. Any entity that believes it has a commercially viable technology could seek 

an RD&D lease at the next call for nominations. It would be irresponsible for the BLM to 

encourage speculative commercial leasing. The BLM is not proposing to eliminate 

commercial leasing but to require that the commercial viability of a technology is proven 

and the environmental impacts are evaluated prior to issuing such leases. 

Although the contractual terms of RD&D leases are beyond the scope of this PEIS, the 

rights and obligations of existing RD&D lessees are delineated in their respective leases 

and in the applicable regulations. If an RD&D lease holder relinquishes its lease, the 

area may be leased to another operator with the decisions in the RMP at the time of 

application. The application would be the new nomination of an area in response to a call 

for RD&D applications. Assignment of a lease means that the existing lease is transferred 

to a new lessee. The new lessee may carry out the approved plan of operations or may 

apply to the BLM for approval of a new plan of operations. Whether the new or modified 

process requires further analysis under NEPA would be a fact-specific determination. If 

Alternative 2(b) is adopted, as presented in the Proposed Plan in this Final PEIS, some of 

the acreage, as specified in the description of that alternative, would be removed from oil 

shale or tar sands leasing. Only the existing RD&D lessees or their successors-in-interest 

would retain whatever rights to those lands are afforded them under the terms of the 

existing leases. 

Several commentors suggested that the BLM should open the MMTA to oil shale leasing 

and development. As discussed in the 2008 PEIS and ROD and carried forward into this 

planning initiative (see Section 2.3.3 of the Final PEIS), the MMTA was established to 

protect the safety of underground trona miners. The BLM has determined that the MMTA 

would be excluded from oil shale leasing and development until technology is 

demonstrated that would allow the BLM to decide that oil shale operations would be 

compatible with the safe and effective mining of trona. 

The BLM has modified the Preferred Alternative, Alternative 2(b), to address questions 

raised by several commentors, regarding how the “RD&D First” aspect of Alternative 

2(b) would work. The intent of the RD&D First plan element is to focus on development 

of a robust RD&D program in order to answer questions about the requirements and 

impacts, both technological and environmental, of developing oil shale resources on 

public lands. This effort would be best informed by RD&D activities that take place on 

those public lands or, at least, within the Green River Formation Basins. In light of these 

considerations, as explained in Section 2.5, Proposed Plan, of the Final PEIS, the BLM 

has determined the following: (1) Areas identified in Alternative 2(b) as closed to oil 

shale and tar sands leasing would remain closed to any future application for leases, even 
Final OSTS PEIS 158 

if they are currently encumbered by an RD&D lease. That is, if Alternative 2(b) is 

adopted, as presented in the Proposed Plan in the Final PEIS, some of the acreage, as 

specified in the description of that alternative, would be removed from oil shale and tar 

sands leasing. Only the existing RD&D lessees or their successors-in-interest would 

retain whatever rights to those lands is afforded them under the terms of the existing 

leases. If the existing RD&D leases are relinquished, are terminated, or expire, the lands 

identified in Alternative 2(b) as closed to oil shale and tar sands development would not 

be available for potential future leasing of these resources. (2) As several commentors 

pointed out, as developed in the Preferred Alternative, each RD&D lease in the study area 

must employ a different experimental technology. More specifically, under the Preferred 

Alternative in the Draft PEIS, each potential lessee must first obtain an RD&D lease for a 

tract prior to converting that RD&D lease to a commercial lease. If an RD&D lessee 

proves up a particular technology on leasehold A, that lessee wishing to operate on 

leasehold B must first obtain an RD&D lease on leasehold B. However, because that 

technology would already have been proven in the study area (i.e., on leasehold A), it 

could no longer be the basis for obtaining an RD&D lease on leasehold B—that 

technology would no longer be considered “experimental.” The inability to exploit or to 

license the proven technology for use off of leasehold A is likely to inhibit the 

development of a commercial oil shale industry, and would reduce the incentive to 

participate in the RD&D program. In light of this circumstance and to encourage RD&D 

leasing, the BLM is including language in the Proposed Plan in the Final PEIS to the 

effect that, “In the areas open under Alternative 2(b), the Secretary may issue a 

commercial lease to an entity that has succeeded in converting an RD&D lease to 

commercial lease (or who holds the license to a technology which has converted from 

RD&D to commercial lease) for a tract on other lands open under Alternative 2(b). In 

these circumstances, such commercial lessee would not have to begin with another 

RD&D lease on the new leasehold.” Similarly, under the Preferred Alternative in the 

Draft PEIS, no provision is made for those instances in which a potential lessee intends to 

employ a technology that has proved commercially viable on nonfederal lands either 

within the study area or outside the study area. To address this issue, the BLM is 

including in the Proposed Plan in the Final PEIS the following modification to the 

Preferred Alternative: “The Secretary may issue a commercial lease on the lands open 

under the Proposed Plan, where the potential commercial lessee intends to employ 

technology which has proved commercially viable on nonfederal lands in the study area 

(i.e., in the Green River Formation Basins in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming), and which 

the Secretary determines to be environmentally acceptable.” 

The commentor is referring to the description on page 2-26 of the Draft PEIS of what 

could happen under the No Action Alternative. Under the No Action Alternative, under 

which all the areas currently under RD&D lease are designated in the applicable RMP as 

available for oil shale and tar sands S leasing, if a holder of a current RD&D lease were 

to relinquish the lease, the area could be nominated in response to a call for RD&D 

applications. The application would be the new nomination of an area in response to a 

call for RD&D applications. Assignment of a lease, by contrast, means that the existing 

lease is transferred to a new lessee. The new lessee may carry out the approved plan of 

operations or may apply to the BLM for approval of a new plan of operations. Whether 
Final OSTS PEIS 159 

the new or modified process requires further analysis under NEPA would be a factspecific determination. If Alternative 2(b) is adopted, as presented in the Proposed Plan 

in the Final PEIS, some of the acreage, as specified in the description of that alternative, 

would be removed from oil shale and tar sands leasing. Only the existing RD&D lessees 

or their successors-in-interest would retain whatever rights to those lands is afforded 

them under the terms of the existing leases. 

9.6.1 Technology Double Standard 

OSTS_026-5 

OSTS_124-2 

OSTS_145-2 

OSTS_180-2 

OSTS_184-2 

OSTS_189-2 

OSTS_209-2 

OSTS_212-2 

50074-6 

50087-13 

50333-27

Issue Summary: Commentors expressed concern that oil shale and tar sands industries 

looking to develop on public lands would be subject to requirements not faced by other 

extractive industries. These additional requirements discourage oil shale and tar sands 

development and thus conflict with the intent of the Energy Policy Act of 2005. 

Specifically, the requirement to first demonstrate a viable production technology to the 

government before being able to convert up to a commercial lease is a requirement not 

imposed on any other industry. 

Response: The BLM has complied with the Energy Policy Act of 2005. The Act does not 

prevent the Secretary from proposing an amendment or amending land use plans. Under 

any of the alternatives analyzed, a viable commercial program would be possible. Even 

the alternative with the least amount of land allocated would provide more than 

30,000 acres of the richest oil shale resource open for consideration for future leasing. 

Other extractive industries have mature and predictable technologies. Even the impacts 

of relatively new renewable energy technologies are generally predictable. Oil shale 

technologies are nascent and have not been proven commercially viable for production of 

liquid fuels. Federal law requires that the Secretary consider potential impacts on the 

environment in considering land use decisions. Under FLPMA, the Secretary has the 

authority and the discretion to engage in land use planning including the establishment, 

revision, or amendment of land use plans. 

9.7 RD&D 

OSTS_033-5 

OSTS_069-7 

OSTS_069-9 

OSTS_069-15 

OSTS_070- 3 

OSTS_075-1 

OSTS_084-1 

50047-7 

50087-6 

50227-20 

50270-3 

50271-4 

50287-2 

50310-17 

50312-14 

50314-12 

50320-4 

50328-7 

50333-28 

50335-9 

50349-4 
Final OSTS PEIS 160 

Issue Summary: Many commentors wrote to support BLM’s RD&D approach to oil 

shale and tar sands development in the PEIS. The WDEQ noted that more details on the 

RD&D projects are in the EAs, but the application of existing data from RD&D projects 

to support the qualitative statements in the PEIS would improve the quantitative 

reliability of the PEIS for the decision makers. 

One industry commentor wrote that the RD&D approach was inconsistent with the 

Energy Policy Act of 2005. 

The State of Utah commented that the justification for seeking more RD&D data is not 

valid in the case of oil shale companies that might seek federal leases in Utah, because 

many companies already develop oil shale and tar sands resources on state and private 

lands. 

Response: Thank you for your comment. The BLM has conducted sufficient analysis 

pursuant to NEPA to support this land use allocation decisionmaking. The BLM will 

similarly determine the appropriate NEPA analysis required to support decisionmaking 

regarding any future proposed actions, including, but not limited to, additional planning, 

leasing, or development. The BLM has made every effort to integrate the information 

about the current RD&D projects and their impacts that has been provided by the current 

lessees. However, it is important to note that the EAs prepared to support decisionmaking 

regarding issuing the existing RD&D leases described possible environmental 

consequences, foreseeable at the time these decisions were made, and that the RD&D 

projects are still in their early stages and little is yet known about actual environmental 

consequences of operations on these leases. 

The BLM complied with the requirements of the Energy Policy Act in 2008, issuing both 

the PEIS and the regulation required by Section 369 of the Act. Nothing in the Energy 

Policy Act of 2005 specified how the Secretary must establish a commercial oil shale 

leasing program, apart from requiring the Secretary to consider the most geologically 

prospective areas in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming. The Energy Policy Act did not 

specify the acreage that must be available for such program or how the requirements of 

such program should be balanced with other resource uses. Under FLPMA, the Secretary 

must manage the public lands in accordance with land use plans and retains the discretion 

to establish, revise, and amend those land use plans, as appropriate, to address resource 

management issues. This means that no leasing or development of oil shale and tar sands 

resources may occur on the public lands unless such activity is consistent with the 

applicable land use plan. In view of the nascent character of the oil shale and tar sands 

industries, as well as in light of other resource management concerns, the Secretary, 

acting though the BLM, has decided to reconsider the appropriate federal lands to be 

available for leasing and development of these resources, as well as whether commercial 

leasing should be preceded by additional, vigorous RD&D. 

The BLM has considered the information referred to by the State of Utah. Although the 

State of Utah refers to information about water quality and quantity from currently 

permitted oil shale and tar sands operations, none of these operations has been 
Final OSTS PEIS 161 

demonstrated to be a commercially viable source of energy, such that the information 

would be germane to BLM’s analysis of the impacts of such an industry. The BLM 

disagrees with the State of Utah’s assertion that an analysis of the commercial production 

of oil shale and tar sands can be surmised from consideration of the discrete elements of 

mining and retort processes. No particular combination of these processes has yet proved 

commercially viable; therefore, no concrete, substantiated information relevant to this 

question is available. 

Under the Preferred Alternative and the Proposed Plan, the restriction is not to RD&D 

only, but to RD&D first. That is, applicants would need to first secure an RD&D lease 

and then, assuming their technology proved commercially viable, could apply to convert 

the RD&D lease to a commercial lease. 

9.8 REVISION OF 2008 PEIS 

OSTS_026-2 

OSTS_027-1 

OSTS_066-1 

OSTS_066-3 

OSTS_077-2 

OSTS_077-4 

OSTS_078-2 

OSTS_078-4 

OSTS_079-2 

OSTS_079-4 

OSTS_080-2 

OSTS_080-4 

OSTS_080-6 

OSTS_081-2 

OSTS_081-4 

OSTS_091-2 

OSTS_092-1 

OSTS_093-1 

OSTS_095-1 

OSTS_096-1 

OSTS_096-4 

OSTS_106-2 

OSTS_108-2 

OSTS_109-1 

OSTS_110-1 

OSTS_114-2 

OSTS_115-1 

OSTS_118-1 

OSTS_120-1 

OSTS_122-2 

OSTS_128-1 

OSTS_130-2 

OSTS_133-1 

OSTS_136-1 

OSTS_143-1 

OSTS_144-1 

OSTS_145-1 

OSTS_147-2 

OSTS_149-2 

OSTS_153-1 

OSTS_160-3 

OSTS_172-1 

OSTS_173-1 

OSTS_177-1 

OSTS_179-1 

OSTS_184-1 

OSTS_188-1 

OSTS_189-1 

OSTS_194-1 

OSTS_197-1 

OSTS_199-1 

OSTS_200-1 

OSTS_201-3 

OSTS_204-1 

OSTS_205-1 

OSTS_212-1 

OSTS_215-1 

OSTS_232-5 

OSTS_233-2 

50074-19 

50074-20 

50087-1 

50087-2 

50087-3 

50087-18 

50090-1 

50148-2 

50152-2 

50165-2 

50171-1 

50181-1 

50186-2 

50186-4 

50227-1 

50255-10 

50255-12 

50258-1 

50268-3 

50268-9 

50270-1 

50272-2 

50279-1 

50280-2 

50290-1 
Final OSTS PEIS 162 

50308-4 

50308-5 

50308-7 

50308-9 

50310-7 

50310-8 

50312-2 

50312-4 

50324-7 

50324-52 

50325-1 

50325-4 

50325-6 

50325-7 

50325-11 

50325-13 

50325-40 

50333-3 

50333-11 

50337-1 

50343-2 

50343-3 

50343-29 

Issue Summary: Many commentors wrote in opposition to the 2012 PEIS, saying the 

2008 PEIS was sufficient and there has been no new information to justify a repeat effort. 

Several commentors objected to the fact that the Draft PEIS did not address the BLM’s 

proposed amendment to the 2008 oil shale rule, on that grounds that the two proposed 

actions—the land use plan allocation decisionmaking, and the proposed amendment to 

the rule—should be considered “connected actions” under CEQ’s regulations 

implementing NEPA (at 40 CFR 1508.25) and therefore discussed in the Draft PEIS. 

Several commentors also requested extensions of the comment period on the Draft PEIS 

on the grounds that they needed to see the proposed amendments to the rule in order to 

comment meaningfully on the proposed land use plan amendments. 

Response: Under FLPMA, the Secretary has the authority to establish, revise, and amend 

land use plans, and Congress has not abrogated that authority. The Secretary may engage 

in land use planning on the basis of changed circumstances, new policy considerations, or 

any combination of the two, as long as the correct procedures are followed. In this 

instance, a combination of factors—the still nascent character of the oil shale and tar 

sands industries, the new USGS information regarding the resource potential, the 

USFWS determination that listing of the sage-grouse as threatened or endangered under 

the ESA was warranted but precluded by the need to focus on other species, the fact that 

the BLM itself had identified additional LWC in the study area, as well as other policy 

considerations—contributed to the Secretary’s decision to propose this land use planning 

initiative. The interest in engaging this land use planning initiative also served to assist 

the United States in resolving pending litigation. 

Although these considerations, including the new information, prompted the initiation of 

this planning effort, in fact, as described in Section 1.1.1 of the Draft PEIS, upon 

consideration of the USGS studies, which focused on the potential resource, and after 

analysis of the issue, the BLM determined that the USGS studies did not provide a basis 

for revising the boundaries of the study area or the definition of the most geologically 

prospective area for oil shale. Still, through the planning process itself, including the 

analysis of alternative allocations under NEPA, and consideration of other resource 

issues, the BLM developed the Proposed Plan presented with this Final PEIS. 

As a result of this planning initiative, the BLM has been able to refine its inventories 

of resources it manages in the study area. Some lands previously identified as having 
Final OSTS PEIS 163 

wilderness characteristics were and are no longer considered to have these characteristics. 

In other instances, areas were reviewed and identified as having wilderness 

characteristics. 

Similarly, other information new since 2008, as noted in the NOI, was the USFWS 

determination regarding the status of the sage-grouse. The USFWS determination that 

listing the species was warranted but precluded, nevertheless demonstrates that there is a 

vital need and an important opportunity to manage the habitat of the species on public 

lands to prevent the listing of the species as threatened or endangered. If the species were 

to be listed, there could be significant adverse impacts on several types of land uses, 

including oil shale and tar sands development. The BLM has considered this information, 

and although the BLM agrees with the commentor that there are several methods, 

including but not limited to land use allocation decisions, to address reducing impacts on 

this species’ habitat, the BLM elected to consider the use of this method in order to 

address the anticipated resource conflicts. 

As in many similar public land use and development decisions, even where lands remain 

open for leasing and development, the BLM may impose mitigation measures in lease 

stipulations or in conditions of approval in plans of development that would be consistent 

with law, regulation, and BLM policy, and that would be indicated by environmental 

review conducted at the time of the decision. 

In addition, nothing in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 specified how the Secretary must 

establish a commercial oil shale leasing program, apart from requiring the Secretary to 

consider the most geologically prospective areas in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming. The 

Energy Policy Act did not specify the acreage that must be available for such programs or 

how the requirements of such program should be balanced with other resource uses. 

Under FLPMA, the Secretary must manage the public lands in accordance with land use 

plans and retains the discretion to establish, revise, and amend those land use plans, as 

appropriate, to address resource management issues. This means that no leasing or 

development of oil shale and tar sands resources may occur on the public lands unless 

such activity is consistent with the applicable land use plan. In view of the nascent 

character of the oil shale and tar sands industries, as well as in light of other resource 

management concerns, the Secretary, acting though the BLM, has decided to reconsider 

the appropriate federal lands to be available for leasing and development of these 

resources, as well as whether commercial leasing should be preceded by additional, 

vigorous RD&D. There may be different views on whether the nascent character of the 

technologies argues for more land to be open, so that more lands may be available for 

RD&D, or whether fewer lands should be open, in order that such RD&D and eventual 

commercial development as does occur may be targeted in areas with few resource use 

conflicts, while leaving open some areas where the oil shale and tar sands S resource has 

been identified as particularly rich. While the Energy Policy Act of 2005 encourages 

commercial development of oil shale and tar sands resources, these kinds of land 

management policy questions (how much land, where, with what restrictions, and so on) 

are left, under FLPMA, to the Secretary, acting through the BLM. 
Final OSTS PEIS 164 

The 2012 proposed land use plan amendment allocation and the proposed amendment to 

the rule are distinct proposed actions, which take place under distinct authorities 

according to distinct procedural requirements. The proposed rule amendment is not 

“closely related” to the proposed land use plan allocation amendment, so as to warrant 

discussion as a “connected action” under 40 CFR 1508.25. Nor are they so dependent 

upon one another as to necessitate coordination of the public comment period for either 

process. Neither the Proposed Plan amendment nor the proposed rule amendment is 

interdependent upon the other; neither automatically triggers the other; neither needs the 

other to proceed; neither depends on a larger action for justification. Any proposal to 

lease oil shale or tar sands, with or without a rule, must be consistent with the applicable 

land use plan. The PEIS reassesses the appropriate mix of allowable uses with respect to 

opening lands for future oil shale and tar sands leasing and potential development. 

Therefore, the proposed amendment to the oil shale rule is not discussed as a “connected 

action” in the Final PEIS, nor did the BLM extend the 90-day public comment period for 

the Draft PEIS. 

10.0 OUT OF SCOPE 

10.1 REVISION OF 2008 PEIS 

There were no comments associated with this issue. 

10.2 DEFER FOR RD&D RESULTS 

 There were no comments associated with this issue 

10.3 OIL SHALE REGULATIONS AND NATIONAL POLICY 

OSTS_070-5 

50087-12 

50087-16 

50092-2 

50268-22 

50271-8 

50310-20

Issue Summary: Commentors suggested that national oil shale regulations, including the 

program outlined in the PEIS, were too restrictive. Other commentors proposed that the 

United States model federal oil shale regulations on those already in practice in other 

countries with oil shale and tar sands industries. 

Response: The regulations surrounding oil shale development are beyond the scope of 

this PEIS. The purpose of this document is to outline a program to amend 10 land use 

plans in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming to describe those areas that will be open to 

application for commercial leasing, exploration, and development of oil shale and tar 

sands resources.   
Final OSTS PEIS 165 

10.4 BONDING AND RECLAMATION 

50026-2 

50047-8 

50258-5 

50258-6 

50258-8 

50262-2 

50267-4 

Issue Summary: Commentors cited the potentially adverse environmental impacts of oil 

shale development and suggested the developers should be financially responsible for 

disturbed landscapes and required to post bonds to facilitate the reclamation of the 

affected environment after development ceases. 

Response: Specific mitigation measures, such as bonding for reclamation, will be 

addressed at the project-specific NEPA level and are beyond the scope of this PEIS. 

10.5 ROYALTIES, SUBSIDIES, INCENTIVES, AND TAXES 

OSTS_066-12 

OSTS_066-13 

OSTS_190-2 

50074-12 

50074-13 

50094-2 

50110-3 

50143-2 

50154-6 

50227-9 

50227-17 

50227-18 

50262-4 

50312-30 

50333-31

Issue Summary: Commentors remarked upon the industry’s royalty rate, the tax 

revenues provided to local governments as a result of development, and financial 

incentives for oil shale and tar sands S development. Depending on their point of view, 

commentors supported using these financial mechanisms to encourage development or 

discourage extensive development and ensure developers were financially responsible for 

socioeconomic and environmental impacts. 

Response: The financial details of leases such as royalty payments, state severance tax 

revenues, and credits for mitigation will be addressed at the project-specific NEPA level 

and are beyond the scope of this PEIS. 

10.6 NATIONAL ENERGY STRATEGY 

OSTS_066-5 50147-8 50154-7 50333-39

Issue Summary: Commentors expressed support for the BLM to build a national energy 

policy that recognizes the importance of developing domestic energy resources such as 

oil shale and tar sands. One commentor suggested that energy resources developed 

domestically should be sold on the domestic market, rather than abroad. An industry 

commentor stated that the federal government should create a regulatory environment 

that encourages the investment in oil shale to meet the nation’s energy challenges. 
Final OSTS PEIS 166 

Response: Issues of national energy strategy and regulatory environment are beyond the 

scope of this PEIS. The purpose of this document is to outline a program to amend 

10 land use plans in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming to describe those areas that will be 

open to application for commercial leasing, exploration, and development of oil shale and 

tar sands resources. 

10.6.1 Use Fewer Fossil Fuels 

OSTS_003-3 

OSTS_017-1 

OSTS_025-1 

OSTS_042-2 

OSTS_062-2 

OSTS_069-6 

50012-2 

50024-2 

50028-2 

50041-1 

50046-2 

50047-3 

50057-1 

50070-4 

50077-2 

50080-1 

50081-1 

50085-1 

50088-2 

50095-2 

50147-9 

50165-5 

50190-1 

50198-2 

50247-1 

50254-1 

50274-1 

50276-9 

50278-2 

50284-2 

50289-2 

50313-2 

50316-1 

50322-7 

50364-1 

50371-1 

Issue Summary: These commentors voiced opposition to the program, stating 

that dependence on fossil fuel resources should be reduced and that development of 

alternative energy sources of energy such as wind, geothermal, and solar should be 

expanded. 

Response: The analyses in the PEIS were developed to evaluate the effects of the 

proposed action (i.e., amending 10 land use plans in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming to 

describe those areas that will be open and those that will be closed to application for 

commercial leasing, exploration, and development of oil shale and tar sands resources) 

and its alternatives. National energy policy and the development of other types of energy 

resources, such as renewables, are beyond the scope of this PEIS. 

10.6.2 Conventional Oil and Gas 

There were no comments associated with this issue. 

10.6.3 Energy/National Policy 

OSTS_066-10 

OSTS_099-1 

OSTS_107-2 

OSTS_201-2 

50092-4 

50094-1 

50094-3 

50255-8 
Final OSTS PEIS 167 

50273-1 

50283-3 

50287-1 

50287-5 

50308-18 

Issue Summary: Commentors suggested that, by expanding development of domestic 

sources of energy, the surrounding regions and entire country will enjoy the 

accompanying economic development benefits that result from a secure source of energy. 

Commentors also encouraged the BLM to make land available for leasing to reduce 

dependence on foreign oil supplies, which will promote national security. 

Response: The BLM appreciates commentors’ interest in the long-term sustainability of 

the domestic energy supply; however, issues of energy security and national security are 

beyond the scope of this PEIS. 

10.7 PAVEMENT 

OSTS_002-1 

OSTS_008-1 

OSTS_008-3 

OSTS_021-4 

50324-19

Issue Summary: Commentors noted that oil shale and tar sands resources have been 

developed for use in pavement materials and suggest that the PEIS should incorporate 

information from this industry in its analysis. 

Response: The purpose and need for the proposed action has been revised to 

acknowledge that while tar sands are used for pavement, the focus of this PEIS is on 

commercial development of tar sands as a fuel source. 

10.8 BETTER HERE THAN THERE 

OSTS_103-2 OSTS_107-4 OSTS_126-2 

Issue Summary: These comments express preference for oil shale and tar sands 

development in the United States over other countries that may have less stringent 

environmental controls and regulations. 

Response: Thank you for your comments. 

 
Final OSTS PEIS 168 

11.0 GENERAL SUPPORT 

OSTS_065-1 

OSTS_089-2 

OSTS_106-3 

OSTS_107-1 

OSTS_164-1 

OSTS_185-1 

OSTS_187-1 

OSTS_206-1 

OSTS_206-3 

OSTS_232-2 

50002-1 

50020-1 

50033-1 

50043-1 

50050-1 

50063-1 

50092-4 

50094-3 

50154-2 

50184-2 

50196-1 

50227-12 

50227-13 

50273-3 

50283-1 

50293-1 

50315-1 

50333-22

Issue Summary: A number of commentors expressed their support for oil shale and tar 

sands development. Commentors cited a variety of different reasons for their support, 

including the need for energy independence and national security, economic 

development, fuel supply and price stability, employment opportunities, retail sector 

growth, and low energy costs. 

Commentors also stated that the oil shale and tar sands industry has years of experience 

and will have as little environmental impact as possible, and that the tourism and 

recreation industries are not enough to support the economy. Many stated that the 

Preferred Alternative of the PEIS contains too many land restrictions and makes 

unreasonable demands on industry to prove its technology. 

Response: Thank you for your comments in support of oil shale and tar sands 

development. 

11.1 TAR SANDS 

There were no comments associated with this issue. 

11.2 OIL SHALE 

OSTS_020-4 

OSTS_029-1 

OSTS_126-1 

OSTS_129-1 

OSTS_157-1 

OSTS_181-1 

OSTS_197-4 

50004-1 

50007-1 

50063-3 

50127-1 

50278-1 

50303-1 

Issue Summary: These commentors expressed support for development, specifically for 

oil shale. 
Final OSTS PEIS 169 

Response: Thank you for your comments in support of oil shale development. 

12.0 GENERAL OPPOSITION 

OSTS_001-6 

OSTS_003-2 

OSTS_005-1 

OSTS_010-1 

OSTS_012-1 

OSTS_013-1 

OSTS_014-2 

OSTS_016-2 

OSTS_025-1 

OSTS_062-1 

OSTS_139-1 

OSTS_198-1 

50005-1 

50014-1 

50015-1 

50024-1 

50027-1 

50031-1 

50038-1 

50039-1 

50042-1 

50044-1 

50045-1 

50049-1 

50060-1 

50069-1 

50078-1 

50079-1 

50080-1 

50081-1 

50082-1 

50084-1 

50113-1 

50114-1 

50115-1 

50128-2 

50139-1 

50140-1 

50141-1 

50170-3 

50173-1 

50174-1 

50176-1 

50177-1 

50182-1 

50188-1 

50190-1 

50191-1 

50198-1 

50207-1 

50217-1 

50221-1 

50232-1 

50236-2 

50237-1 

50239-1 

50240-1 

50244-2 

50245-3 

50252-1 

50256-2 

50259-1 

50264-1 

50265-1 

50276-1 

50281-1 

50284-1 

50285-2 

50288-1 

50289-1 

50300-4 

50301-1 

50307-1 

50311-1 

50319-1 

50327-1 

50336-4 

50351-1 

50353-1 

50359-1 

50364-2 

50371-1 

50373-1

Issue Summary: A number of commentors expressed their opposition to oil shale and tar 

sands development. Commentors cited a variety of different reasons for opposing the 

program, including uncertain and/or negative environmental─particularly, 

water─impacts, adverse impacts on other sectors of the economy such as tourism, distrust 

of development corporations, concerns about the safety of oil shale and tar sands 

development technologies, and the unsustainability of oil shale and tar sands resources. 

Many commentors stated concerns regarding increasing global warming in their 

opposition to further fossil fuel development. 
Final OSTS PEIS 170 

Response: Thank you for your comments. 

12.1 TAR SANDS 

OSTS_004-2 

50010-1 

50011-1 

50013-1 

50028-1 

50083-1 

50085-2 

50093-1 

50178-1 

50369-1

Issue Summary: Commentors expressed opposition to the oil shale and tar sands 

development program, noting that they are especially against tar sands development. 

Many of these commentors suggested that the BLM consider the negative effects of tar 

sands development in the Canadian Province of Alberta. Commentors said that water had 

been polluted and forests had been cleared, and they were opposed to the same situation 

happening in their region. 

Response: Thank you for your comments.

12.2 OIL SHALE 

OSTS_021-1 

OSTS_028-1 

50022-1 

50023-1 

50025-1 

50034-1 

50036-1 

50037-1 

50275-1 

Issue Summary: Commentors expressed opposition to the oil shale and tar sands 

development program, noting that they are especially against oil shale development. 

Commentors cite reasons such as those cited by commentors opposed to all oil shale and 

tar sands development (see 12.0 above). 

Response: Thank you for your comments.

12.3 USE OF PUBLIC LANDS 

OSTS_035-2 

OSTS_036-1 

OSTS_037-2 

OSTS_038-2 

OSTS_039-2 

OSTS_040-2 

OSTS_041-2 

OSTS_042-3 

OSTS_043-2 

OSTS_044-2 

OSTS_045-2 

OSTS_046-2 

OSTS_047-2 

OSTS_048-3 

OSTS_049-2 

OSTS_050-2 

OSTS_051-2 

OSTS_052-2 

OSTS_053-2 

OSTS_054-2 

OSTS_055-2 

OSTS_056-2 

OSTS_057-2 

OSTS_058-2 
Final OSTS PEIS 171 

OSTS_059-2 

OSTS_060-2 

OSTS_061-2 

OSTS_063-2 

OSTS_064-3 

OSTS_067-1 

OSTS_137-1 

OSTS_216-2 

OSTS_227-2 

OSTS_227-5 

OSTS_231-2 

50009-1 

50029-1 

50048-1 

50070-2 

50120-2 

50121-2 

50129-2 

50130-2 

50131-2 

50132-2 

50133-2 

50134-2 

50135-2 

50136-2 

50137-2 

50138-2 

50139-3 

50146-2 

50149-2 

50150-2 

50151-2 

50155-2 

50158-1 

50159-2 

50161-2 

50165-4 

50165-9 

50166-2 

50172-2 

50175-1 

50187-1 

50192-1 

50193-1 

50194-1 

50212-1 

50223-1 

50224-1 

50230-1 

50250-1 

50251-1 

50299-1 

50305-1 

50317-1 

50341-2 

50355-2 

Issue Summary: These commentors were opposed to oil shale and tar sands 

development on public lands. These commentors noted that public lands should be 

open for the benefit of all citizens and should be kept in pristine condition for future 

generations. Some commentors also mentioned that there were sufficient private lands 

available for development. 

Response: Under the 2005 Energy Policy Act, the BLM was mandated to create a 

program that would facilitate development of oil shale and tar sands resources on federal 

public lands. 

13.0 EDITORIAL COMMENTS 

50181-13 

50181-18 

50181-21 

50181-22 

50181-24 

50181-26 

50181-27 

50181-29 

50181-32 

50181-33 

50181-37 

50181-38 

50181-39 

50181-41 

50181-47 

50181-61 

50181-62 

50181-80 

50181-97 

50277-4 

50277-25 

50310-22 

50310-23 

50310-24 

50310-30 

50310-39 

50310-41 

50310-42 

50310-43 

50310-46 

50310-50 

50310-51 

50312-34 

50324-17 

50324-21 

50324-25 
Final OSTS PEIS 172 

50324-30 50333-37 50343-8 

Issue Summary: These commentors noted general editorial issues in the PEIS, such as 

misspellings and grammatical errors. 

Response: Comments were reviewed and changes were made to the Final PEIS as 

appropriate. 

 
Final OSTS PEIS 173 

C. SUBMISSION REPORT 

 
Final OSTS PEIS 174 

This page intentionally left blank. 
Final OSTS PEIS 175 

CommentWorks® Submission Report

Initiative: OSTS 

Client Name: Agency 

Author: Georgia Anast 

Created Date: Tuesday, July 31, 2012 

Sort Order: No Sort Applied 

Selected Options:

Include Commenter 

Include Organization 

Include Additional Commenters 

Include Additional Commenter Organizations 

Include Commenter Type 

Include Classification 

Include Category 

Include Submitted As 

Include Form Letter Category 

Include Form Letter Master 

Include Task 

Include Attachment Data 

Include Bracketing 

Include Received Date 

Include Flags 

Preview as HTML 

Single File 

Number of Submissions: 606 

DELETED_by_Request_OSTS2012D50016 

Organization: Grand County Council Member, Audrey Graham 

Received: 2/10/2012 1:06:03 AM 

Commenter1: Audrey Graham - Maob, Utah 84532 (United States) 

Organization1:Grand County Council Member 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: klett 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50016.htm (DELETED_by_Request_OSTS2012D50016-58135.htm 

Size = 1 KB) 

Submission Text
Final OSTS PEIS 176 

Dear BLM, As a local elected official in Grand County Utah, where some of the proposed 

activities will take place, I request that a public hearing take place in our community in a timely 

and well-advertised manner. Thank you, Audrey 

DELETED_OSTS2012D50035 

Organization: X, Md. Dulal 

Received: 3/14/2012 2:58:40 AM 

Commenter1: Md. Dulal - Dhaka, California 12345 (United States) 

Organization1:X 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: klett 4/25/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50035.htm (DELETED_OSTS2012D50035-58239.htm Size = 1 KB) 

Submission Text

Please Help Me..... I am Md.Dulal and Leave In Bangladesh.I am a Poor Boy.Do You 

Know?When my Age 6 Years,I am Hard Working For My Life and Till Now! But I am Field.So 

I Need Your Help For My Life.Would You Help Me.........? My Information:- 

============================== 1:Full Name: Md.Dulal 2:Home Address: 173,East 

Rampura,Dhaka-1219. 3:Country:Bangladesh. BANK INFORMATION:- Account Name : 

Md.Dulal Bank Account No : 178 - 101 - 181474. Bank Name : Dutch- Bangla Bank Ltd. Bank 

Branch : Any Branch In Bangladesh. Country Name : Bangladesh* 

DUP_of_50007_OSTS50008 

Organization: Industrial Systems, Inc., Glenn Lewis 

Received: 2/6/2012 6:11:54 PM 

Commenter1: Glenn Lewis - Delta, Colorado 81416 (United States) 

Organization1:Industrial Systems, Inc. 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: klett 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50008.htm (DUP_of_50007_OSTS50008-58149.htm Size = 1 KB) 

Submission Text

Industrial Systems Inc.,(ISI) was founded in 1991. ISI is: A Service Disabled Veteran Owned 

Small Business employing about 35 employees full time. ISI has employed as many as 200 

employees depending on larger projects. ISI is currently completing a Pilot Shale Oil project in 

Piceance Creek area of western CO. This project has generated full time work for over 100 full 

time employees for the most part of the last two years. The above mentioned employees are not 

into account for the various companies who manufactured pipe, pumps, other pieces of 
Final OSTS PEIS 177 

equipment too numerous to list other firms, such as freight company, equipment dealers such as 

Catapillar, Ford, Chevy trucks, etc. co on and on. Many millions of dollars have went through 

ISI’s payroll and accounting systems. Failure to list these shale oil lands for lease would have of 

course, not allowed this important project to proceed. The shale oil leases must continue to 

insure America has a chance to not be dependent on foreign countries for our energy. This work 

is being done without adverse environmental stress or damage to the BLM lands. I strongly urge 

BLM support of continued leasing of BLM land to private companies to push forward with pilot 

programs ti insure America’s independence of other countries who may not have our best 

interests at heart regarding our energy future. Thank you Thank you 

DUP_of_50097_OSTS50100 

Organization: Robert Tobin 

Received: 4/23/2012 12:52:05 PM 

Commenter1: Robert Tobin - Meeker, Colorado 81641 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 

Submitted As: Web/E-mail/Mail 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: klett 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50100.htm (DUP_of_50097_OSTS50100-58506.htm Size = 1 KB) 

B.TobinPEIS2_OSTS2012D50100.pdf (DUP_of_50097_OSTS50100-58505.pdf Size = 11 KB) 

Submission Text

this page 2 of my attachment See Attachment. 

DUP_of_50098_OSTS50109 

Organization: Robert Tobin 

Received: 4/23/2012 1:01:14 PM 

Commenter1: Robert Tobin - Meeker, Colorado 81641 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: 

Submission Category: 50099 Attachment 

Submitted As: Web/E-mail/Mail 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: klett 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50109.htm (DUP_of_50098_OSTS50109-58533.htm Size = 1 KB) 

B.TobinPEIS10_Attach_1_OSTS2012D50109.pdf (DUP_of_50098_OSTS50109-58532.pdf 

Size = 26 KB) 

Submission Text

PAGE 10 OF 10 OF MY PEIS See Attachment. 

reference list 
Final OSTS PEIS 178 

DUP_of_50101_OSTS50102 

Organization: Robert Tobin 

Received: 4/23/2012 12:54:13 PM 

Commenter1: Robert Tobin - Meeker, Colorado 81641 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: 

Submission Category: 50099 Attachment 

Submitted As: Web/E-mail/Mail 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: klett 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50102.htm (DUP_of_50101_OSTS50102-58512.htm Size = 1 KB) 

B.TobinPEIS3_OSTS2012D50102.pdf (DUP_of_50101_OSTS50102-58511.pdf Size = 19 KB) 

Submission Text

This page 3 of my PEIS See Attachment. 

DUP_of_50181_OSTS50183 

Organization: Duchesne County, Utah, Duchesne County Commissioners 

Received: 4/30/2012 4:13:20 PM 

Commenter1: Duchesne County Commissioners - Duchesne, Utah 84021 (United States) 

Organization1:Duchesne County, Utah 

Commenter Type: Coop Agency - Local Govt 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 

Submitted As: Web Form and Mail 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: klett 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50183.htm (DUP_of_50181_OSTS50183-58793.htm Size = 1 KB) 

img-430123411_OSTS2012D50183.pdf (DUP_of_50181_OSTS50183-58792.pdf Size = 409 

KB) 

Submission Text

See attachment See Attachment. 

DUP_of_50241_OSTS50344 

Organization: Center for Biological Diversity, Campaign 

Received: 5/4/2012 6:03:46 PM 

Commenter1: - , (United States) 

Organization1:Center for Biological Diversity, Campaign 

Commenter Type: Environmental Organization 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: klett 
Final OSTS PEIS 179 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50344.htm (DUP_of_50241_OSTS50344-59080.htm Size = 1 KB) 

Batch_2_Comments_CBD_OSTS2012D50344.pdf (DUP_of_50241_OSTS50344-59079.pdf 

Size = 15153 KB) 

Submission Text

The following is the second batch of comments submitted on behalf of supporters of the Center 

for Biological Diversity. See Attachment. 

DUP_of_50286_OSTS_076 

Organization: Wyoming Game and Fish Department, John Emmerich 

Received: 5/4/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Commenter1: John Emmerich - Cheyenne, Wyoming 82006 (United States) 

Organization1:Wyoming Game and Fish Department 

Commenter Type: State Government 

Classification: none 

Submission Category: Letter 

Submitted As: Postal Mail 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: klett 

Attachments: OSTS2012D00077.htm (DUP_of_50286_OSTS_076-59131.htm Size = 1 KB) 

OSTS_076_WY_Game_and_Fish_Mail_OSTS2012D00077.pdf (DUP_of_50286_OSTS_076-

59130.pdf Size = 475 KB) 

Submission Text

See Attachment. 

DUP_of_50290_OSTS50292 

Organization: Carbon County Commission 

Received: 5/4/2012 12:30:38 PM 

Commenter1: Carbon County Commission - Price, Utah 84501 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: klett 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50292.htm (DUP_of_50290_OSTS50292-58930.htm Size = 1 KB) 

BLM_Oil_Shale_Tar_Sands_PEIS_Comments_050112_OSTS2012D50292.pdf 

(DUP_of_50290_OSTS50292-58929.pdf Size = 9068 KB) 

Submission Text

See Attachment. 

DUP_of_50337_OSTS50294 

Organization: Denver Water, Vicki Parks 

Received: 5/4/2012 12:49:05 PM 

Commenter1: Vicki Parks - Denver, Colorado 80204 (United States) 
Final OSTS PEIS 180 

Organization1:Denver Water 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: klett 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50294.htm (DUP_of_50337_OSTS50294-58935.htm Size = 1 KB) 

Submission Text

The attachment is being sent for Dave Little on behalf of the Front Range Water Users Council 

on May 4, 2012. 

DUP_of_50341_OSTS50345 

Organization: Center for Biological Diversity, Campaign 

Received: 5/4/2012 6:07:40 PM 

Commenter1: - , (United States) 

Organization1:Center for Biological Diversity, Campaign 

Commenter Type: Environmental Organization 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: klett 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50345.htm (DUP_of_50341_OSTS50345-59083.htm Size = 1 KB) 

Group_7_OSTS2012D50345.pdf (DUP_of_50341_OSTS50345-59082.pdf Size = 3646 KB) 

Submission Text

The following is the fourth batch of comments submitted on behalf of supporters of the Center 

for Biological Diversity. See Attachment. 

DUP_Of_50341_OSTS50347 

Organization: Center for Biological Diversity, Campaign 

Received: 5/4/2012 6:13:17 PM 

Commenter1: - , (United States) 

Organization1:Center for Biological Diversity, Campaign 

Commenter Type: Environmental Organization 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: klett 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50347.htm (DUP_Of_50341_OSTS50347-59086.htm Size = 1 KB) 

Group_5_OSTS2012D50347.pdf (DUP_Of_50341_OSTS50347-59085.pdf Size = 8381 KB) 

Submission Text
Final OSTS PEIS 181 

The following is the third of FIVE batches of comments submitted on behalf of the supporters of 

the Center for Biological Diversity. See Attachment. 

DUP_of_50341_OSTS50348 

Organization: Center for Biological Diversity, Campaign 

Received: 5/4/2012 6:13:43 PM 

Commenter1: - , (United States) 

Organization1:Center for Biological Diversity, Campaign 

Commenter Type: Environmental Organization 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: klett 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50348.htm (DUP_of_50341_OSTS50348-59089.htm Size = 1 KB) 

Group_6_OSTS2012D50348.pdf (DUP_of_50341_OSTS50348-59088.pdf Size = 7620 KB) 

Submission Text

The following is the fifth of FIVE batches of comments submitted on behalf of the supporters of 

the Center for Biological Diversity. See Attachment. 

DUP_of_50341_OSTS50350 

Organization: Center for Biological Diversity, Campaign 

Received: 5/4/2012 6:20:17 PM 

Commenter1: - , (United States) 

Organization1:Center for Biological Diversity, Campaign 

Commenter Type: Environmental Organization 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: klett 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50350.htm (DUP_of_50341_OSTS50350-59095.htm Size = 1 KB) 

Batch_5_Comments_CBD_OSTS2012D50350.pdf (DUP_of_50341_OSTS50350-59094.pdf 

Size = 723 KB) 

Submission Text

The following is the final batch of comments submitted on behalf of the supporters of the Center 

for Biological Diversity. See Attachment. 

DUP_of_50355_OSTS50356 

Organization: Earthjustice, Campaign, Alexander Rony 

Received: 5/4/2012 7:18:48 PM 

Commenter1: Alexander Rony - San Francisco, California 94111 (United States) 

Organization1:Earthjustice, Campaign 

Commenter Type: Environmental Organization 

Classification: 
Final OSTS PEIS 182 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: klett 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50356.htm (DUP_of_50355_OSTS50356-59103.htm Size = 2 KB) 

Comments_Earthjustice2_OSTS2012D50356.pdf (DUP_of_50355_OSTS50356-59102.pdf Size 

= 14005 KB) 

Submission Text

Earthjustice collected 33,698 comments regarding the Oil Shale and Tar Sands Programmatic 

EIS. Attached are comments 5,001-10,000. Here is the sample comment that people could edit: I 

am deeply concerned about the potential effects to our water, wildlife, communities and public 

lands if the BLM initiates a commercial oil shale leasing program. The two million acres in UT, 

WY and CO previously allocated for commercial leasing is a massive amount of public, taxpayer 

land that would be sacrificed for a singular use of the landscape. While the preferred alternative 

(Alternative 2) is a step in the right direction, BLM should consider an alternative that does not 

endorse giveaways of public lands to this unproven industry. Oil shale is currently producing no 

jobs and no revenue. The Congressional Budget Office confirmed that it is not expected to 

produce significant revenues through 2022. This means we have time to thoroughly assess the 

impacts of development to our water, wildlife and communities, and should not rush now to give 

away public lands. The land overlying oil shale resources in Utah, Colorado and Wyoming is 

some of the best wildlife habitat in the West. Outdoor recreation and tourism are huge economic 

drivers that depend on this habitat. The farming and ranching sectors require reliable access to 

water resources, which may be depleted by extensive commercial oil shale development. We 

must protect these jobs by making smart decisions about how we allow oil companies to move 

forward with oil shale speculation. I recommend that you carefully consider the serious impacts 

of oil shale production to our wildlife, water, air, and communities as you take another look at oil 

shale development. See Attachment. 

DUP_of_50355_OSTS50357 

Organization: Earthjustice, Campaign, Alexander Rony 

Received: 5/4/2012 7:20:43 PM 

Commenter1: Alexander Rony - San Francisco, California 94111 (United States) 

Organization1:Earthjustice, Campaign 

Commenter Type: Environmental Organization 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: klett 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50357.htm (DUP_of_50355_OSTS50357-59106.htm Size = 2 KB) 

Comments_Earthjustice3_OSTS2012D50357.pdf (DUP_of_50355_OSTS50357-59105.pdf Size 

= 14007 KB) 

Submission Text

Earthjustice collected 33,698 comments regarding the Oil Shale and Tar Sands Programmatic 

EIS. Attached are comments 10,001-15,000. Here is the sample comment that people could edit: 
Final OSTS PEIS 183 

I am deeply concerned about the potential effects to our water, wildlife, communities and public 

lands if the BLM initiates a commercial oil shale leasing program. The two million acres in UT, 

WY and CO previously allocated for commercial leasing is a massive amount of public, taxpayer 

land that would be sacrificed for a singular use of the landscape. While the preferred alternative 

(Alternative 2) is a step in the right direction, BLM should consider an alternative that does not 

endorse giveaways of public lands to this unproven industry. Oil shale is currently producing no 

jobs and no revenue. The Congressional Budget Office confirmed that it is not expected to 

produce significant revenues through 2022. This means we have time to thoroughly assess the 

impacts of development to our water, wildlife and communities, and should not rush now to give 

away public lands. The land overlying oil shale resources in Utah, Colorado and Wyoming is 

some of the best wildlife habitat in the West. Outdoor recreation and tourism are huge economic 

drivers that depend on this habitat. The farming and ranching sectors require reliable access to 

water resources, which may be depleted by extensive commercial oil shale development. We 

must protect these jobs by making smart decisions about how we allow oil companies to move 

forward with oil shale speculation. I recommend that you carefully consider the serious impacts 

of oil shale production to our wildlife, water, air, and communities as you take another look at oil 

shale development. See Attachment. 

DUP_of_50355_OSTS50358 

Organization: Earthjustice, Campaign, Alexander Rony 

Received: 5/4/2012 7:23:29 PM 

Commenter1: Alexander Rony - San Francisco, California 94111 (United States) 

Organization1:Earthjustice, Campaign 

Commenter Type: Environmental Organization 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: klett 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50358.htm (DUP_of_50355_OSTS50358-59109.htm Size = 2 KB) 

Comments_Earthjustice4_OSTS2012D50358.pdf (DUP_of_50355_OSTS50358-59108.pdf Size 

= 14014 KB) 

Submission Text

Earthjustice collected 33,698 comments regarding the Oil Shale and Tar Sands Programmatic 

EIS. Attached are comments 15,001-20,000. Here is the sample comment that people could edit: 

I am deeply concerned about the potential effects to our water, wildlife, communities and public 

lands if the BLM initiates a commercial oil shale leasing program. The two million acres in UT, 

WY and CO previously allocated for commercial leasing is a massive amount of public, taxpayer 

land that would be sacrificed for a singular use of the landscape. While the preferred alternative 

(Alternative 2) is a step in the right direction, BLM should consider an alternative that does not 

endorse giveaways of public lands to this unproven industry. Oil shale is currently producing no 

jobs and no revenue. The Congressional Budget Office confirmed that it is not expected to 

produce significant revenues through 2022. This means we have time to thoroughly assess the 

impacts of development to our water, wildlife and communities, and should not rush now to give 

away public lands. The land overlying oil shale resources in Utah, Colorado and Wyoming is 

some of the best wildlife habitat in the West. Outdoor recreation and tourism are huge economic 
Final OSTS PEIS 184 

drivers that depend on this habitat. The farming and ranching sectors require reliable access to 

water resources, which may be depleted by extensive commercial oil shale development. We 

must protect these jobs by making smart decisions about how we allow oil companies to move 

forward with oil shale speculation. I recommend that you carefully consider the serious impacts 

of oil shale production to our wildlife, water, air, and communities as you take another look at oil 

shale development. See Attachment. 

DUP_of_50355_OSTS50360 

Organization: Earthjustice, Campaign, Alexander Rony 

Received: 5/4/2012 7:25:02 PM 

Commenter1: Alexander Rony - San Francisco, California 94111 (United States) 

Organization1:Earthjustice, Campaign 

Commenter Type: Environmental Organization 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: klett 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50360.htm (DUP_of_50355_OSTS50360-59112.htm Size = 2 KB) 

Comments_Earthjustice5_OSTS2012D50360.pdf (DUP_of_50355_OSTS50360-59111.pdf Size 

= 13992 KB) 

Submission Text

Earthjustice collected 33,698 comments regarding the Oil Shale and Tar Sands Programmatic 

EIS. Attached are comments 20,001-25,000. Here is the sample comment that people could edit: 

I am deeply concerned about the potential effects to our water, wildlife, communities and public 

lands if the BLM initiates a commercial oil shale leasing program. The two million acres in UT, 

WY and CO previously allocated for commercial leasing is a massive amount of public, taxpayer 

land that would be sacrificed for a singular use of the landscape. While the preferred alternative 

(Alternative 2) is a step in the right direction, BLM should consider an alternative that does not 

endorse giveaways of public lands to this unproven industry. Oil shale is currently producing no 

jobs and no revenue. The Congressional Budget Office confirmed that it is not expected to 

produce significant revenues through 2022. This means we have time to thoroughly assess the 

impacts of development to our water, wildlife and communities, and should not rush now to give 

away public lands. The land overlying oil shale resources in Utah, Colorado and Wyoming is 

some of the best wildlife habitat in the West. Outdoor recreation and tourism are huge economic 

drivers that depend on this habitat. The farming and ranching sectors require reliable access to 

water resources, which may be depleted by extensive commercial oil shale development. We 

must protect these jobs by making smart decisions about how we allow oil companies to move 

forward with oil shale speculation. I recommend that you carefully consider the serious impacts 

of oil shale production to our wildlife, water, air, and communities as you take another look at oil 

shale development. See Attachment. 

DUP_of_50355_OSTS50361 

Organization: Earthjustice, Campaign, Alexander Rony 

Received: 5/4/2012 7:26:33 PM 

Commenter1: Alexander Rony - San Francisco, California 94111 (United States) 
Final OSTS PEIS 185 

Organization1:Earthjustice, Campaign 

Commenter Type: Environmental Organization 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: klett 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50361.htm (DUP_of_50355_OSTS50361-59115.htm Size = 2 KB) 

Comments_Earthjustice6_OSTS2012D50361.pdf (DUP_of_50355_OSTS50361-59114.pdf Size 

= 13993 KB) 

Submission Text

Earthjustice collected 33,698 comments regarding the Oil Shale and Tar Sands Programmatic 

EIS. Attached are comments 25,001-30,000. Here is the sample comment that people could edit: 

I am deeply concerned about the potential effects to our water, wildlife, communities and public 

lands if the BLM initiates a commercial oil shale leasing program. The two million acres in UT, 

WY and CO previously allocated for commercial leasing is a massive amount of public, taxpayer 

land that would be sacrificed for a singular use of the landscape. While the preferred alternative 

(Alternative 2) is a step in the right direction, BLM should consider an alternative that does not 

endorse giveaways of public lands to this unproven industry. Oil shale is currently producing no 

jobs and no revenue. The Congressional Budget Office confirmed that it is not expected to 

produce significant revenues through 2022. This means we have time to thoroughly assess the 

impacts of development to our water, wildlife and communities, and should not rush now to give 

away public lands. The land overlying oil shale resources in Utah, Colorado and Wyoming is 

some of the best wildlife habitat in the West. Outdoor recreation and tourism are huge economic 

drivers that depend on this habitat. The farming and ranching sectors require reliable access to 

water resources, which may be depleted by extensive commercial oil shale development. We 

must protect these jobs by making smart decisions about how we allow oil companies to move 

forward with oil shale speculation. I recommend that you carefully consider the serious impacts 

of oil shale production to our wildlife, water, air, and communities as you take another look at oil 

shale development. See Attachment. 

DUP_of_50355_OSTS50362 

Organization: Earthjustice, Campaign, Alexander Rony 

Received: 5/4/2012 7:28:08 PM 

Commenter1: Alexander Rony - San Francisco, California 94111 (United States) 

Organization1:Earthjustice, Campaign 

Commenter Type: Environmental Organization 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: klett 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50362.htm (DUP_of_50355_OSTS50362-59118.htm Size = 2 KB) 

Comments_Earthjustice7_OSTS2012D50362.pdf (DUP_of_50355_OSTS50362-59117.pdf Size 

= 10392 KB) 
Final OSTS PEIS 186 

Submission Text

Earthjustice collected 33,698 comments regarding the Oil Shale and Tar Sands Programmatic 

EIS. Attached are comments 30,001-33,698. Here is the sample comment that people could edit: 

I am deeply concerned about the potential effects to our water, wildlife, communities and public 

lands if the BLM initiates a commercial oil shale leasing program. The two million acres in UT, 

WY and CO previously allocated for commercial leasing is a massive amount of public, taxpayer 

land that would be sacrificed for a singular use of the landscape. While the preferred alternative 

(Alternative 2) is a step in the right direction, BLM should consider an alternative that does not 

endorse giveaways of public lands to this unproven industry. Oil shale is currently producing no 

jobs and no revenue. The Congressional Budget Office confirmed that it is not expected to 

produce significant revenues through 2022. This means we have time to thoroughly assess the 

impacts of development to our water, wildlife and communities, and should not rush now to give 

away public lands. The land overlying oil shale resources in Utah, Colorado and Wyoming is 

some of the best wildlife habitat in the West. Outdoor recreation and tourism are huge economic 

drivers that depend on this habitat. The farming and ranching sectors require reliable access to 

water resources, which may be depleted by extensive commercial oil shale development. We 

must protect these jobs by making smart decisions about how we allow oil companies to move 

forward with oil shale speculation. I recommend that you carefully consider the serious impacts 

of oil shale production to our wildlife, water, air, and communities as you take another look at oil 

shale development. See Attachment. 

DUP_of_70074_OSTS50075 

Organization: National Oil Shale Association, Roy Vawter 

Received: 4/5/2012 11:39:06 AM 

Commenter1: Roy Vawter - GLENWOOD SPRINGS, Colorado 81602 (United States) 

Organization1:National Oil Shale Association 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 4/16/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50075.htm (DUP_of_70074_OSTS50075-58320.htm Size = 10 KB) 

Submission Text

This is a copy of the attachment I submitted on the previous submission, in case you did not 

receive it or could not open it. BLM has decided to redo the Oil Shale and Tar Sand 

Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement.... (PEIS) and Commercial Oil Shale Leasing 

Regulations (Regulations) completed in 2008. BLM’s actions resulted from a settlement by the 

Department of Interior of law suits brought against the 2008 PEIS and Regulations. There is 

little, if any, new information to be considered, and the 2012 draft PEIS contains largely the 

same information as the 2008 final PEIS. However, the BLM has chosen a different preferred 

alternative 2(b) that significantly reduces the acreage available for oil shale leasing, eliminates 

the issuance of commercial leases, and restricts leasing to Research, Development and 

Demonstration (R,DandD) leases only. 

• Alternative 1, Oil Shale No Action Alternative, in the new PEIS, preserves the actions taken in 

the 2008 PEIS, and is the alternative favored by NOSA. 
Final OSTS PEIS 187 

• The 2008 PEIS was very professionally done, received thousands of comments, involved the 

public and resulted in a preferred alternative that provided a reasonable amount of acreage for 

potential commercial leasing, while still designating environmentally sensitive and other areas 

deemed unsuitable for leasing. 

• BLM’s preferred alternative (2b) in the new PEIS restricts leasing to R,DandD leases only and 

defers decisions on commercial leasing for years. This is a disincentive for companies that have 

access to technologies that are commercially viable. Going through the R,DandD process will 

delay bringing oil shale into production. Also, unknown lease terms for future R,DandD leases is 

yet another disincentive for companies interested in producing shale oil (e.g. 2nd round R,DandD 

leases offered insufficient Preference Right acreage to support a commercial project in the 

opinion of many companies), and other terms of the leases are more restrictive than those in the 

1st round R,DandD leases. Only three companies sought 2nd round R,DandD leases, whereas 

about 20 companies sought 1st round R,DandD leases). 

• Eliminating commercial leasing closes the door to some companies that could responsibly 

develop the resource, provide jobs, and produce tax revenues to local communities. Leasing oil 

shale is only the first step towards a commercial project. The BLM, Federal, State and local 

government agencies require a developer to go through additional environmental reviews and 

permitting activities that include public oversight before a project can go into production. It is 

estimated that two or three Environmental Impact Statements would be required, in addition to 

this PEIS, before a developer could break ground on a commercial venture. This PEIS and the 

2008 final PEIS, only designate where oil shale leasing may occur and directs BLM field offices 

to change their planning documents accordingly. 

• The draft 2012 oil shale leasing regulations have not yet been issued. It is difficult to comment 

intelligently upon the PEIS since the two are integrally linked. The BLM should consider 

extending the deadline for the comment period beyond May 4, 2012 to allow time for BLM to 

issue the regulations. 

• Under Federal mineral leasing laws industry is allowed to lease oil and gas and minerals from 

BLM without a prior demonstration of the technology to be used to recover the resource. BLM 

for some reason has a different standard for oil shale. Developers decide whether to risk the cost 

of leasing a resource. They pay bonus payments to the Federal Government (shared with local 

communities) to acquire the lease. And lease rental payments are made to keep the lease during 

the time the developer is deciding whether to pursue a commercial venture. During that period, 

jobs are created and local communities receive sales, and other tax revenues. 

• PEIS Alternative 2 reduces the acreage available for leasing to a level that most tracts in 

Colorado are too small and too dispersed to support a commercial project. The situation in Utah 

is somewhat better. Wyoming is similar to Colorado. 

• Alternative 3 restricts leasing to the current 1st and 2nd round R,DandD lessees. 

• Alternative 4(a) is very similar in acreage to Alternative 1, the No Action Alternative, but 

Alternative 4 (b) restricts leasing to R,DandD first leases only. 

• Maps are in error in all three states 1. The oil shale cut-off grade was not consistently applied 

across the three states (e.g. 15 gpt in Wyoming and 25 gpt in Utah and Colorado). Assumptions 

about mining are over generalized (e.g. 500 ft. maximum overburden for surface mining in Utah 

and Wyoming , no surface mining in Colorado, and no consideration of underground mining in 

Colorado); thus the Most Geologically Prospective Oil Shale Resource areas should be corrected 

in each state map. 2. Preference Right acreage for the 1st Round R,DandD leases is smaller than 

already agreed upon between BLM and lessees (Figures 2.3.3-4 and 2.3.3-5 show portions of 
Final OSTS PEIS 188 

Preference Right areas are not available for leasing). If maps are the legal description of the 

actions BLM plans to take, then the maps should be changed. 

• The fact that 2,000,000 acres were made available for leasing in the 2008 PEIS does not mean 

that amount of land would be leased or developed. Generally, industry chooses the acreage that it 

believes can be profitably developed. In the new PEIS, BLM has assumed industry’s role by 

choosing the lands it believes should be leased. Whereas the mineral leasing laws provide for 

leases of 5, 120 acres BLM is limiting the acreage to be leased, and deciding upon technological 

strategies to be employed by restricting leasing to an R,DandD first approach. So it seems BLM 

is choosing winners and losers, a role usually left up to industry. BLM has the authority to 

control development after leases are issued through environmental analyses and approval of 

development plans. 

• The current royalty rate for oil shale in the 2008 regulations is not a give-away. Oil shale is not 

oil and gas. Oil shale is more expensive to produce than conventional oil and gas. Thus the rates 

should be much lower initially during the pioneering phase of the industry. 

• In Canada the royalty rates for oil sands were set low initially in recognition of the pioneering 

nature of the industry. The Canadian government recently raised the royalty rates because the 

industry matured and could afford to pay higher rates. Canadians benefited from that strategy, 

and, as it works out, so did we in the United States, because today over a million barrels per day 

of oil from Canadian oil sands comes to U.S. refineries. 

• Water used in oil shale processing is reasonable compared with many other energy sources (e.g. 

much lower than water consumed producing bio fuels from irrigated corn). There is a wealth of 

information on water usage and quality. A recent GAO report indicates there is enough water for 

a 500,000 b/d shale oil industry. The water consumption estimates used by GAO are 

conservative. They assumed the use of electric power generated from coal fired – water cooled 

power plants would be used to liberate shale oil via insitu heating. This approach does not reflect 

a consensus of industry thinking at this time. Low water usage has been recently publicized by 

developers of new and improved technologies (e.g. AMSO, Red Leaf and Enefit). Many 

companies have water rights to meet their long term needs. 

A recent independent study sponsored by the Colorado River Conservation District showed that 

120,000 acre feet per year of water would be required for a 1.55 million barrel per day shale oil 

industry. This is about 2-3 % of the water that flows from the Colorado River into Lake Powell 

annually. This study also used some liberal water usage assumptions. Much more water flows 

from Western Colorado to Front Range cities to meet their growing water needs. 

Oil shale production produces more energy than it consumes. The range is 3:1 to 6:1. A huge 

drop in oil prices and political reasons caused oil shale development to stop in the 1980’s. It had 

nothing to do with its energy content or energy recovery efficiency. A similar resource, the oil 

sands of Canada, proceeded after the drop in oil prices, because of industry-government 

cooperation. That industry is producing 1.6 million barrels per day of crude oil and sending over 

1-million barrels per day of it to the U.S. The energy content of Canadian oil sands is less that 

the average Western U.S. oil shale. 

• The Piceance and Uinta Basins – where most of the oil shale resource is concentrated - are not 

pristine primitive areas. The cultural, wildlife, environmental, and recreational assets can be 

managed along with oil shale development as has been demonstrated by existing oil and gas 

operations in the region. The BLM appropriately designated certain sensitive areas inappropriate 

for leasing in the 2008 EIS. For some reason the preferred alternative in the 2012 PEIS 

designates substantially more acreage unavailable for leasing while relying on the same data. It 
Final OSTS PEIS 189 

also leaves a great deal of discretion to the BLM field offices to designate more sensitive areas in 

the future. 

• The concentrated nature of the oil shale resource (e.g. 1 to 1-1/2 million barrels per acre in the 

middle of the Piceance Basin of Colorado) reduces the land use effects over similar energy 

recovery operations. 

• Re-visiting the PEIS and leasing regulations is delaying the time oil shale can provide more 

jobs and economic development in the three-state region and nationwide. 

• Western U.S. oil shale resources – now estimated by U.S.G.S. at 4-trillion barrels - are an 

important domestic energy asset that should be developed for the benefit of the American people. 

Re-visiting the PEIS and regulations completed in 2008 is delaying the development of the oil 

shale resource. The time required to develop an oil shale project is long, and the work should not 

be further delayed. National Oil Shale Association, P.O. Box 3080, Glenwood Springs, CO 

81602 

DUP_of_OSTS_075_OSTS50332 

Organization: Matthew Mead 

Received: 5/4/2012 5:20:24 PM 

Commenter1: Matthew Mead - Cheyenne, Wyoming 82002 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: klett 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50332.htm (DUP_of_OSTS_075_OSTS50332-59058.htm Size = 1 

KB) 

20120504_Comments_on_BLM_2012_OSTS_DPEIS_OSTS2012D50332.pdf 

(DUP_of_OSTS_075_OSTS50332-59057.pdf Size = 56 KB) 

Submission Text

See Attachment. 

Dup_of_OSTS_235_OSTS_035 

Organization: Catherine Deuter 

Received: 3/29/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Commenter1: Catherine Deuter - Cedarede, Colorado 81413 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: none 

Submission Category: 035_Campaign 

Submitted As: E-Mail 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 4/20/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D00035.htm (Dup_of_OSTS_235_OSTS_035-58436.htm Size = 1 

KB) 
Final OSTS PEIS 190 

OSTS_035_Deuter_Email_OSTS2012D00035.pdf (Dup_of_OSTS_235_OSTS_035-58435.pdf 

Size = 80 KB) 

Submission Text

See Attachment. 

<([#1 [3] I am deeply concerned about the potential effects to our water, wildlife, communities 

and public lands if the BLM 

initiates a commercial leasing program. The two million acres in UT, WY and CO previously 

allocated for commercial 

leasing is a massive amount of public, taxpayer land that would be sacrificed for a singular use of 

the landscape. 

#1])>

<([#2 [2.2] [12.3] While the preferred alternative (Alternative 2) is a step in the right direction, I 

would like to have seen a draft document 

that does not give away hundreds of thousands of taxpayer lands to a failed industry to tinker 

with. I would have liked to 

have seen an alternative that does not endorse giveaways of even more public lands to this 

unproven industry. #2])>

<([#3 [3] Oil shale is currently producing no jobs and no revenue the Congressional Budget 

Office confirmed that it is not 

expected to produce significant revenues through 2022. So we have the time to assess the 

impacts of development to 

our water, wildlife, and communities. 

#3])>

<([#4 [3.10.4] The land overlying oil shale resources in Utah, Colorado and Wyoming is some of 

the best wildlife habitat in the West, 

outdoor recreation and tourism are huge economic drivers in the West. We must protect these 

jobs by making smart 

about how we allow oil companies to move forward with oil shale speculation. #4])>

<([#5 [3] Finally, I recommend that you carefully consider the serious impacts of new energy 

required for oil shale production and 

the potential devastating impacts to our wildlife, water, air, and communities as you take another 

look at oil shale 

development. #5])>

Dup_of_OSTS_235_OSTS_036 

Organization: Gary Roberts 

Received: 3/1/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Commenter1: Gary Roberts - Grand Junction, Colorado 81507 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: none 

Submission Category: 035_Campaign_Subset 

Submitted As: E-Mail 

Form Letter Category: 
Final OSTS PEIS 191 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 4/20/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D00036.htm (Dup_of_OSTS_235_OSTS_036-58438.htm Size = 1 

KB) 

OSTS_036_Roberts_Email_OSTS2012D00036.pdf (Dup_of_OSTS_235_OSTS_036-58437.pdf 

Size = 79 KB) 

Submission Text

See Attachment. 

I have lived in western Colorado since the 1960’s and have studied the oil shale question for over 

30 years. I was a BLM 

geologist in the Glenwood Springs Resource Area and worked on the Resource Area 

Management Plan in the 1980’s. I 

also toured the old Anvil Point retort and reviewed the burning slag pile in the gulch to the east 

of the retort. Even in 

the 1980’s the method of waste disposal was to dump it in the gulch. 

<([#1 [12.3] It is factually true that there is a lot of energy locked up in the rock formation. 

However, it is also factually true that 

there has not been a commercially viable technology to recover this energy historically or 

currently. 

I can not understand the thought processes involved that says industry has a right to more public 

land for oil shale 

study/extraction when there is no technology for extraction. It appears that there is sufficient land 

already provided to 

industry for the study of technology; however, the giving away of more public land for outright 

speculation by industry 

must not be allowed. 

The BLM should maintain its fundamental duty of multiple use of our public lands for the 

benefit of the public -- not 

strictly industry. 

#1])>

Dup_of_OSTS_235_OSTS_037 

Organization: Chandler Roth 

Received: 2/29/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Commenter1: Chandler Roth - New Castle, Colorado 81647 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: none 

Submission Category: 035_Campaign 

Submitted As: E-Mail 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 4/20/2012 12:00:00 AM 
Final OSTS PEIS 192 

Attachments: OSTS2012D00037.htm (Dup_of_OSTS_235_OSTS_037-58440.htm Size = 1 

KB) 

OSTS_037_Roth_Email_OSTS2012D00037.pdf (Dup_of_OSTS_235_OSTS_037-58439.pdf 

Size = 80 KB) 

Submission Text

See Attachment. 

<([#1 [3] I am deeply concerned about the potential effects to our water, wildlife, communities 

and public lands if the BLM 

initiates a commercial leasing program. The two million acres in UT, WY and CO previously 

allocated for commercial 

leasing is a massive amount of public, taxpayer land that would be sacrificed for a singular use of 

the landscape. #1])>

<([#2 [2.2] [12.3] While the preferred alternative (Alternative 2) is a step in the right direction, I 

would like to have seen a draft document 

that does not give away hundreds of thousands of taxpayer lands to a failed industry to tinker 

with. I would have liked to 

have seen an alternative that does not endorse giveaways of even more public lands to this 

unproven industry. #2])>

<([#3 [3] Oil shale is currently producing no jobs and no revenue the Congressional Budget 

Office confirmed that it is not 

expected to produce significant revenues through 2022. So we have the time to assess the 

impacts of development to 

our water, wildlife, and communities. #3])>

<([#4 [3.10.4] The land overlying oil shale resources in Utah, Colorado and Wyoming is some of 

the best wildlife habitat in the West, 

outdoor recreation and tourism are huge economic drivers in the West. We must protect these 

jobs by making smart 

about how we allow oil companies to move forward with oil shale speculation. #4])>

<([#5 [3] Finally, I recommend that you carefully consider the serious impacts of new energy 

required for oil shale production and 

the potential devastating impacts to our wildlife, water, air, and communities as you take another 

look at oil shale 

development. #5])>

Dup_of_OSTS_235_OSTS_038 

Organization: Cecelia Severance 

Received: 2/29/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Commenter1: Cecelia Severance - Walsenburg, Colorado 81089 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: none 

Submission Category: 035_Campaign 
Final OSTS PEIS 193 

Submitted As: E-Mail 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 4/20/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D00038.htm (Dup_of_OSTS_235_OSTS_038-58442.htm Size = 1 

KB) 

OSTS_038_Severance_Email_OSTS2012D00038.pdf (Dup_of_OSTS_235_OSTS_038-

58441.pdf Size = 79 KB) 

Submission Text

See Attachment. 

<([#1 [3] I am deeply concerned about the potential effects to our water, wildlife, communities 

and public lands if the BLMinitiates a commercial leasing program. The two million acres in UT, 

WY and CO previously allocated for commercial 

leasing is a massive amount of public, taxpayer land that would be sacrificed for a singular use of 

the landscape. #1])>

<([#2 [2.2] [12.3] While the preferred alternative (Alternative 2) is a step in the right direction, I 

would like to have seen a draft document 

that does not give away hundreds of thousands of taxpayer lands to a failed industry to tinker 

with. I would have liked to 

have seen an alternative that does not endorse giveaways of even more public lands to this 

unproven industry. #2])>

<([#3 [3] Oil shale is currently producing no jobs and no revenue the Congressional Budget 

Office confirmed that it is not 

expected to produce significant revenues through 2022. So we have the time to assess the 

impacts of development to 

our water, wildlife, and communities. 

#3])>

<([#4 [3.10.4] The land overlying oil shale resources in Utah, Colorado and Wyoming is some of 

the best wildlife habitat in the West, 

outdoor recreation and tourism are huge economic drivers in the West. We must protect these 

jobs by making smart 

about how we allow oil companies to move forward with oil shale speculation. #4])>

<([#5 [3] Finally, I recommend that you carefully consider the serious impacts of new energy 

required for oil shale production and 

the potential devastating impacts to our wildlife, water, air, and communities as you take another 

look at oil shale 

development. #5])>

Dup_of_OSTS_235_OSTS_039 

Organization: Bob Arrington 

Received: 3/2/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Commenter1: Bob Arrington - Battlement Mesa, Colorado 81635 (United States) 

Organization1: 
Final OSTS PEIS 194 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: none 

Submission Category: 035_Campaign 

Submitted As: E-Mail 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 4/20/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D00039.htm (Dup_of_OSTS_235_OSTS_039-58444.htm Size = 1 

KB) 

OSTS_039_Arrington_Email_OSTS2012D00039.pdf (Dup_of_OSTS_235_OSTS_039-

58443.pdf Size = 79 KB) 

Submission Text

See Attachment. 

<([#1 [3] I am deeply concerned about the potential effects to our water, wildlife, communities 

and public lands if the BLM 

initiates a commercial leasing program. The two million acres in UT, WY and CO previously 

allocated for commercial 

leasing is a massive amount of public, taxpayer land that would be sacrificed for a singular use of 

the landscape. #1])>

<([#2 [2.2] [12.3] While the preferred alternative (Alternative 2) is a step in the right direction, I 

would like to have seen a draft document 

that does not give away hundreds of thousands of taxpayer lands to a failed industry to tinker 

with. I would have liked to 

have seen an alternative that does not endorse giveaways of even more public lands to this 

unproven industry. #2])>

<([#3 [3] Oil shale is currently producing no jobs and no revenue the Congressional Budget 

Office confirmed that it is not 

expected to produce significant revenues through 2022. So we have the time to assess the 

impacts of development to 

our water, wildlife, and communities. #3])>

<([#4 [3.10.4] The land overlying oil shale resources in Utah, Colorado and Wyoming is some of 

the best wildlife habitat in the West, 

outdoor recreation and tourism are huge economic drivers in the West. We must protect these 

jobs by making smart 

about how we allow oil companies to move forward with oil shale speculation. #4])>

<([#5 [3] Finally, I recommend that you carefully consider the serious impacts of new energy 

required for oil shale production and 

the potential devastating impacts to our wildlife, water, air, and communities as you take another 

look at oil shale 

development. #5])>

Dup_of_OSTS_235_OSTS_040 
Final OSTS PEIS 195 

Organization: Lee Gelatt 

Received: 3/2/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Commenter1: Lee Gelatt - Grand Junction, Colorado (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: none 

Submission Category: 035_Campaign 

Submitted As: E-Mail 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 4/20/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D00040.htm (Dup_of_OSTS_235_OSTS_040-58446.htm Size = 1 

KB) 

OSTS_040_Gelatt_Email_OSTS2012D00040.pdf (Dup_of_OSTS_235_OSTS_040-58445.pdf 

Size = 80 KB) 

Submission Text

See Attachment. 

<([#1 [3] I am deeply concerned about the potential effects to our water, wildlife, communities 

and public lands if the BLM 

initiates a commercial leasing program. The two million acres in UT, WY and CO previously 

allocated for commercial 

leasing is a massive amount of public, taxpayer land that would be sacrificed for a singular use of 

the landscape. 

#1])>

<([#2 [2.2] [12.3] While the preferred alternative (Alternative 2) is a step in the right direction, I 

would like to have seen a draft document 

that does not give away hundreds of thousands of taxpayer lands to a failed industry to tinker 

with. I would have liked to 

have seen an alternative that does not endorse giveaways of even more public lands to this 

unproven industry. #2])>

<([#3 [3] Oil shale is currently producing no jobs and no revenue the Congressional Budget 

Office confirmed that it is not 

expected to produce significant revenues through 2022. So we have the time to assess the 

impacts of development to 

our water, wildlife, and communities. 

#3])>

<([#4 [3.10.4] The land overlying oil shale resources in Utah, Colorado and Wyoming is some of 

the best wildlife habitat in the West, 

outdoor recreation and tourism are huge economic drivers in the West. We must protect these 

jobs by making smart 

about how we allow oil companies to move forward with oil shale speculation. #4])>

<([#5 [3] Finally, I recommend that you carefully consider the serious impacts of new energy 

required for oil shale production and 
Final OSTS PEIS 196 

the potential devastating impacts to our wildlife, water, air, and communities as you take another 

look at oil shale 

development. #5])>

Dup_of_OSTS_235_OSTS_041 

Organization: Bill Dvorak 

Received: 3/3/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Commenter1: Bill Dvorak - Nathrop, Colorado 81236 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: none 

Submission Category: 035_Campaign 

Submitted As: E-Mail 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 4/20/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D00041.htm (Dup_of_OSTS_235_OSTS_041-58448.htm Size = 1 

KB) 

OSTS_041_Dvorak_Email_OSTS2012D00041.pdf (Dup_of_OSTS_235_OSTS_041-58447.pdf 

Size = 80 KB) 

Submission Text

See Attachment. 

<([#1 [3] I am deeply concerned about the potential effects to our water, wildlife, communities 

and public lands if the BLM 

initiates a commercial leasing program. The two million acres in UT, WY and CO previously 

allocated for commercial 

leasing is a massive amount of public, taxpayer land that would be sacrificed for a singular use of 

the landscape. #1])>

<([#2 [2.2] [12.3] While the preferred alternative (Alternative 2) is a step in the right direction, I 

would like to have seen a draft document 

that does not give away hundreds of thousands of taxpayer lands to a failed industry to tinker 

with. I would have liked to 

have seen an alternative that does not endorse giveaways of even more public lands to this 

unproven industry. #2])>

<([#3 [3] Oil shale is currently producing no jobs and no revenue the Congressional Budget 

Office confirmed that it is not 

expected to produce significant revenues through 2022. So we have the time to assess the 

impacts of development to 

our water, wildlife, and communities. #3])>

<([#4 [3.10.4] The land overlying oil shale resources in Utah, Colorado and Wyoming is some of 

the best wildlife habitat in the West, 

outdoor recreation and tourism are huge economic drivers in the West. We must protect these 

jobs by making smart 
Final OSTS PEIS 197 

about how we allow oil companies to move forward with oil shale speculation. #4])>

<([#5 [3] Finally, I recommend that you carefully consider the serious impacts of new energy 

required for oil shale production and 

the potential devastating impacts to our wildlife, water, air, and communities as you take another 

look at oil shale 

development. #5])>

Dup_of_OSTS_235_OSTS_042 

Organization: Jennifer Gray 

Received: 3/2/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Commenter1: Jennifer Gray - Loveland, Colorado 80538 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: none 

Submission Category: 035_Campaign 

Submitted As: E-Mail 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 4/20/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D00042.htm (Dup_of_OSTS_235_OSTS_042-58450.htm Size = 1 

KB) 

OSTS_042_Gray_Email_OSTS2012D00042.pdf (Dup_of_OSTS_235_OSTS_042-58449.pdf 

Size = 82 KB) 

Submission Text

See Attachment. 

<([#1 [3] I am deeply concerned about the potential effects to our water, wildlife, communities 

and public lands if the BLM 

initiates a commercial leasing program. Not to mention the affects it could have long term for the 

people that depend 

on the land for some part of their lives. The two million acres in UT, WY and CO previously 

allocated for commercial 

leasing is a massive amount of public, taxpayer land that would be sacrificed for a singular use of 

the landscape. #1])> <([#2 [10.6.1] We 

need to stop with the oil companies solution to energy and use new more renewable solutions. 

#2])>

<([#3 [2.2] [12.3] While the preferred alternative (Alternative 2) is a step in the right direction, I 

would like to have seen a draft document 

that does not give away hundreds of thousands of taxpayer lands to a failed industry to tinker 

with. I would have liked to 

have seen an alternative that does not endorse giveaways of even more public lands to this 

unproven industry. 

#3])>

<([#4 [3] Oil shale is currently producing no jobs and no revenue the Congressional Budget 

Office confirmed that it is not 

expected to produce significant revenues through 2022. So we have the time to assess the 
Final OSTS PEIS 198 

impacts of development to 

our water, wildlife, and communities. #4])>

<([#5 [3.10.4] The land overlying oil shale resources in Utah, Colorado and Wyoming is some of 

the best wildlife habitat in the West, 

outdoor recreation and tourism are huge economic drivers in the West. We must protect these 

jobs by making smart 

about how we allow oil companies to move forward with oil shale speculation. #5])>

<([#6 [3] Finally, I recommend that you carefully consider the serious impacts of new energy 

required for oil shale production and 

the potential devastating impacts to our wildlife, water, air, and communities as you take another 

look at oil shale 

development. 

#6])>

Dup_of_OSTS_235_OSTS_043 

Organization: Thomas Holzfaster 

Received: 3/4/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Commenter1: Thomas Holzfaster - Lakewooc, Colorado 80226 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: none 

Submission Category: 035_Campaign 

Submitted As: E-Mail 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 4/20/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D00043.htm (Dup_of_OSTS_235_OSTS_043-58452.htm Size = 1 

KB) 

OSTS_043_Holzfaster_Email_OSTS2012D00043.pdf (Dup_of_OSTS_235_OSTS_043-

58451.pdf Size = 80 KB) 

Submission Text

See Attachment. 

<([#1 [3] I am deeply concerned about the potential effects to our water, wildlife, communities 

and public lands if the BLM 

initiates a commercial leasing program. The two million acres in UT, WY and CO previously 

allocated for commercial 

leasing is a massive amount of public, taxpayer land that would be sacrificed for a singular use of 

the landscape. #1])>

<([#2 [2.2] [12.3] While the preferred alternative (Alternative 2) is a step in the right direction, I 

would like to have seen a draft document 

that does not give away hundreds of thousands of taxpayer lands to a failed industry to tinker 

with. I would have liked to 

have seen an alternative that does not endorse giveaways of even more public lands to this 
Final OSTS PEIS 199 

unproven industry. #2])>

<([#3 [3] Oil shale is currently producing no jobs and no revenue the Congressional Budget 

Office confirmed that it is not 

expected to produce significant revenues through 2022. So we have the time to assess the 

impacts of development to 

our water, wildlife, and communities. #3])>

<([#4 [3.10.4] The land overlying oil shale resources in Utah, Colorado and Wyoming is some of 

the best wildlife habitat in the West, 

outdoor recreation and tourism are huge economic drivers in the West. We must protect these 

jobs by making smart 

about how we allow oil companies to move forward with oil shale speculation. #4])>

<([#5 [3] Finally, I recommend that you carefully consider the serious impacts of new energy 

required for oil shale production and 

the potential devastating impacts to our wildlife, water, air, and communities as you take another 

look at oil shale 

development. 

#5])>

Dup_of_OSTS_235_OSTS_044 

Organization: Marilyn Kenny 

Received: 3/2/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Commenter1: Marilyn Kenny - Cheyenne, Wyoming 82009 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: none 

Submission Category: 035_Campaign 

Submitted As: E-Mail 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 4/20/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D00044.htm (Dup_of_OSTS_235_OSTS_044-58454.htm Size = 1 

KB) 

OSTS_044_Kenny_Email_OSTS2012D00044.pdf (Dup_of_OSTS_235_OSTS_044-58453.pdf 

Size = 80 KB) 

Submission Text

See Attachment. 

<([#1 [3] I am deeply concerned about the potential effects to our water, wildlife, communities 

and public lands if the BLM 

initiates a commercial leasing program. The two million acres in UT, WY and CO previously 

allocated for commercial 

leasing is a massive amount of public, taxpayer land that would be sacrificed for a singular use of 

the landscape. #1])>
Final OSTS PEIS 200 

<([#2 [12.3] [2.2] While the preferred alternative (Alternative 2) is a step in the right direction, I 

would like to have seen a draft document 

that does not give away hundreds of thousands of taxpayer lands to a failed industry to tinker 

with. I would have liked to 

have seen an alternative that does not endorse giveaways of even more public lands to this 

unproven industry. #2])>

<([#3 [3] Oil shale is currently producing no jobs and no revenue the Congressional Budget 

Office confirmed that it is not 

expected to produce significant revenues through 2022. So we have the time to assess the 

impacts of development to 

our water, wildlife, and communities. #3])>

<([#4 [3.10.4] The land overlying oil shale resources in Utah, Colorado and Wyoming is some of 

the best wildlife habitat in the West, 

outdoor recreation and tourism are huge economic drivers in the West. We must protect these 

jobs by making smart 

about how we allow oil companies to move forward with oil shale speculation. #4])>

<([#5 [3] Finally, I recommend that you carefully consider the serious impacts of new energy 

required for oil shale production and 

the potential devastating impacts to our wildlife, water, air, and communities as you take another 

look at oil shale 

development. #5])>

Dup_of_OSTS_235_OSTS_045 

Organization: Rich Ranieri 

Received: 3/3/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Commenter1: Rich Ranieri - Wolcott, Colorado 81655 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: none 

Submission Category: 035_Campaign 

Submitted As: E-Mail 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 4/20/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D00045.htm (Dup_of_OSTS_235_OSTS_045-58456.htm Size = 1 

KB) 

OSTS_045_Ranieri_Email_OSTS2012D00045.pdf (Dup_of_OSTS_235_OSTS_045-58455.pdf 

Size = 80 KB) 

Submission Text

See Attachment. 

<([#1 [3] I am deeply concerned about the potential effects to our water, wildlife, communities 

and public lands if the BLM 

initiates a commercial leasing program. The two million acres in UT, WY and CO previously 
Final OSTS PEIS 201 

allocated for commercial 

leasing is a massive amount of public, taxpayer land that would be sacrificed for a singular use of 

the landscape. #1])>

<([#2 [2.2] [12.3] While the preferred alternative (Alternative 2) is a step in the right direction, I 

would like to have seen a draft document 

that does not give away hundreds of thousands of taxpayer lands to a failed industry to tinker 

with. I would have liked to 

have seen an alternative that does not endorse giveaways of even more public lands to this 

unproven industry. #2])>

<([#3 [3] Oil shale is currently producing no jobs and no revenue the Congressional Budget 

Office confirmed that it is not 

expected to produce significant revenues through 2022. So we have the time to assess the 

impacts of development to 

our water, wildlife, and communities. #3])>

<([#4 [3.10.4] The land overlying oil shale resources in Utah, Colorado and Wyoming is some of 

the best wildlife habitat in the West, 

outdoor recreation and tourism are huge economic drivers in the West. We must protect these 

jobs by making smart 

about how we allow oil companies to move forward with oil shale speculation. #4])>

<([#5 [3] Finally, I recommend that you carefully consider the serious impacts of new energy 

required for oil shale production and 

the potential devastating impacts to our wildlife, water, air, and communities as you take another 

look at oil shale 

development. #5])>

Dup_of_OSTS_235_OSTS_046 

Organization: Georgeanne Spates 

Received: 3/4/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Commenter1: Georgeanne Spates - Southold, New York 11971 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: none 

Submission Category: 035_Campaign_Subset 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: Form Letter minus Text 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 4/20/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D00046.htm (Dup_of_OSTS_235_OSTS_046-58458.htm Size = 1 

KB) 

OSTS_046_Spates_Email_OSTS2012D00046.pdf (Dup_of_OSTS_235_OSTS_046-58457.pdf 

Size = 78 KB) 

Submission Text

See Attachment. 
Final OSTS PEIS 202 

<([#1 [3] I am deeply concerned about the effects of more attempts to develop oil from oil shale. 

So far it is a very dirty business. #1])>

<([#2 [12.3] [3] More importantly, I am enraged that a massive amount of public land would be 

leased for oil shale development with all 

the consequent problems for our lands, waters, wildlife, and communities. #2])>

<([#3 [3.10.4] The land overlying oil shale resources in Utah, Colorado and Wyoming is some of 

the best plant and wildlife habitat in 

the West. People who use this land for outdoor recreation and tourism are very significant to the 

economies there. #3])>

<([#4 [3] Please, very carefully consider the serious impacts of added energy use required for oil 

shale production and its 

potential devastating impacts as you take another look at oil shale development. #4])>

Thanks for your consideration of my comments. 

Dup_of_OSTS_235_OSTS_047 

Organization: Paul Taylor 

Received: 3/5/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Commenter1: Paul Taylor - Laramie, Wyoming 82073 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: none 

Submission Category: 035_Campaign 

Submitted As: E-Mail 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 4/24/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D00047.htm (Dup_of_OSTS_235_OSTS_047-58460.htm Size = 1 

KB) 

OSTS_047_Taylor_Email_OSTS2012D00047.pdf (Dup_of_OSTS_235_OSTS_047-58459.pdf 

Size = 80 KB) 

Submission Text

See Attachment. 

<([#1 [3] I am deeply concerned about the potential effects to our water, wildlife, communities 

and public lands if the BLM 

initiates a commercial leasing program. The two million acres in UT, WY and CO previously 

allocated for commercial 

leasing is a massive amount of public, taxpayer land that would be sacrificed for a singular use of 

the landscape. #1])>

<([#2 [12.3] [2.2] While the preferred alternative (Alternative 2) is a step in the right direction, I 
Final OSTS PEIS 203 

would like to have seen a draft document 

that does not give away hundreds of thousands of taxpayer lands to a failed industry to tinker 

with. I would have liked to 

have seen an alternative that does not endorse giveaways of even more public lands to this 

unproven industry. #2])>

<([#3 [3] Oil shale is currently producing no jobs and no revenue the Congressional Budget 

Office confirmed that it is not 

expected to produce significant revenues through 2022. So we have the time to assess the 

impacts of development to 

our water, wildlife, and communities. #3])>

<([#4 [3.10.4] The land overlying oil shale resources in Utah, Colorado and Wyoming is some of 

the best wildlife habitat in the West, 

outdoor recreation and tourism are huge economic drivers in the West. We must protect these 

jobs by making smart 

about how we allow oil companies to move forward with oil shale speculation. #4])>

<([#5 [3] Finally, I recommend that you carefully consider the serious impacts of new energy 

required for oil shale production and 

the potential devastating impacts to our wildlife, water, air, and communities as you take another 

look at oil shale 

development. 

#5])>

Dup_of_OSTS_235_OSTS_048 

Organization: Andy Blair 

Received: 3/7/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Commenter1: Andy Blair - Lander, Wyoming 82520 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: none 

Submission Category: 035_Campaign_plus 

Submitted As: E-Mail 

Form Letter Category: Form Letter plus Text 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 4/24/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D00048.htm (Dup_of_OSTS_235_OSTS_048-58462.htm Size = 1 

KB) 

OSTS_048_Blair_Email_OSTS2012D00048.pdf (Dup_of_OSTS_235_OSTS_048-58461.pdf 

Size = 81 KB) 

Submission Text

See Attachment. 

<([#1 [3.4.1] The school I work for runs trips on the Green River right through the heart of the 

Uintah Basin. Summer trips during 

drought years already contend with low water situations that make the trips a challenge. I am 
Final OSTS PEIS 204 

concerned that water 

used for oil shale will further deplete this scarce resource and directly impact our operations.

#1])>

<([#2 [3] I remain deeply concerned about the potential effects to our water, wildlife, 

communities and public lands if the BLM 

initiates a commercial leasing program. The two million acres in UT, WY and CO previously 

allocated for commercial 

leasing is a massive amount of public, taxpayer land that would be sacrificed for a singular use of 

the landscape. #2])>

<([#3 [2.2] [12.3] While the preferred alternative (Alternative 2) is a step in the right direction, I 

would like to have seen a draft document 

that does not give away hundreds of thousands of taxpayer lands to a failed industry to tinker 

with. I would have liked to 

have seen an alternative that does not endorse giveaways of even more public lands to this 

unproven industry. #3])>

<([#4 [3] Oil shale is currently producing no jobs and no revenue the Congressional Budget 

Office confirmed that it is not 

expected to produce significant revenues through 2022. So we have the time to assess the 

impacts of development to 

our water, wildlife, and communities. #4])>

<([#5 [3.10.4] The land overlying oil shale resources in Utah, Colorado and Wyoming is some of 

the best wildlife habitat in the West, 

outdoor recreation and tourism are huge economic drivers in the West. We must protect these 

jobs by making smart 

about how we allow oil companies to move forward with oil shale speculation. #5])>

<([#6 [3] Finally, I recommend that you carefully consider the serious impacts of new energy 

required for oil shale production and 

the potential devastating impacts to our wildlife, water, air, and communities as you take another 

look at oil shale 

development. #6])>

Dup_of_OSTS_235_OSTS_049 

Organization: Cassandra S. 

Received: 3/5/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Commenter1: Cassandra S. - Lafayette, Colorado 80026 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: none 

Submission Category: 035_Campaign 

Submitted As: E-Mail 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 
Final OSTS PEIS 205 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 4/24/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D00049.htm (Dup_of_OSTS_235_OSTS_049-58464.htm Size = 1 

KB) 

OSTS_049_Cassandra_S_Email_OSTS2012D00049.pdf (Dup_of_OSTS_235_OSTS_049-

58463.pdf Size = 80 KB) 

Submission Text

See Attachment. 

<([#1 [3] I am deeply concerned about the potential effects to our water, wildlife, communities 

and public lands if the BLM 

initiates a commercial leasing program. The two million acres in UT, WY and CO previously 

allocated for commercial 

leasing is a massive amount of public, taxpayer land that would be sacrificed for a singular use of 

the landscape. #1])>

<([#2 [2.2] [12.3] While the preferred alternative (Alternative 2) is a step in the right direction, I 

would like to have seen a draft document 

that does not give away hundreds of thousands of taxpayer lands to a failed industry to tinker 

with. I would have liked to 

have seen an alternative that does not endorse giveaways of even more public lands to this 

unproven industry. #2])>

<([#3 [3] Oil shale is currently producing no jobs and no revenue the Congressional Budget 

Office confirmed that it is not 

expected to produce significant revenues through 2022. So we have the time to assess the 

impacts of development to 

our water, wildlife, and communities. #3])>

<([#4 [3.10.4] The land overlying oil shale resources in Utah, Colorado and Wyoming is some of 

the best wildlife habitat in the West, 

outdoor recreation and tourism are huge economic drivers in the West. We must protect these 

jobs by making smart 

about how we allow oil companies to move forward with oil shale speculation. #4])>

<([#5 [3] Finally, I recommend that you carefully consider the serious impacts of new energy 

required for oil shale production and 

the potential devastating impacts to our wildlife, water, air, and communities as you take another 

look at oil shale 

development. 

#5])>

Dup_of_OSTS_235_OSTS_050 

Organization: Richard Engelmann 

Received: 3/23/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Commenter1: Richard Engelmann - Boulder, Colorado 80301 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: none 

Submission Category: 035_Campaign 

Submitted As: E-Mail 
Final OSTS PEIS 206 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 4/25/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D00050.htm (Dup_of_OSTS_235_OSTS_050-58466.htm Size = 1 

KB) 

OSTS_050_Engelmann_Email_OSTS2012D00050.pdf (Dup_of_OSTS_235_OSTS_050-

58465.pdf Size = 80 KB) 

Submission Text

See Attachment. 

<([#1 [3] I am deeply concerned about the potential effects to our water, wildlife, communities 

and public lands if the BLM 

initiates a commercial leasing program. The two million acres in UT, WY and CO previously 

allocated for commercial 

leasing is a massive amount of public, taxpayer land that would be sacrificed for a singular use of 

the landscape. #1])>

<([#2 [12.3] [2.2] While the preferred alternative (Alternative 2) is a step in the right direction, I 

would like to have seen a draft document 

that does not give away hundreds of thousands of taxpayer lands to a failed industry to tinker 

with. I would have liked to 

have seen an alternative that does not endorse giveaways of even more public lands to this 

unproven industry. #2])>

<([#3 [3] Oil shale is currently producing no jobs and no revenue the Congressional Budget 

Office confirmed that it is not 

expected to produce significant revenues through 2022. So we have the time to assess the 

impacts of development to 

our water, wildlife, and communities. #3])>

<([#4 [3.10.4] The land overlying oil shale resources in Utah, Colorado and Wyoming is some of 

the best wildlife habitat in the West, 

outdoor recreation and tourism are huge economic drivers in the West. We must protect these 

jobs by making smart 

about how we allow oil companies to move forward with oil shale speculation. #4])>

<([#5 [3] Finally, I recommend that you carefully consider the serious impacts of new energy 

required for oil shale production and 

the potential devastating impacts to our wildlife, water, air, and communities as you take another 

look at oil shale 

development. #5])>

Dup_of_OSTS_235_OSTS_051 

Organization: Tiffanie Rudow 

Received: 3/28/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Commenter1: Tiffanie Rudow - Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 (United States) 

Organization1: 
Final OSTS PEIS 207 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: none 

Submission Category: 035_Campaign 

Submitted As: E-Mail 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 4/25/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D00051.htm (Dup_of_OSTS_235_OSTS_051-58468.htm Size = 1 

KB) 

OSTS_051_Rudow_Email_OSTS2012D00051.pdf (Dup_of_OSTS_235_OSTS_051-58467.pdf 

Size = 80 KB) 

Submission Text

See Attachment. 

<([#1 [3] I am deeply concerned about the potential effects to our water, wildlife, communities 

and public lands if the BLM 

initiates a commercial leasing program. The two million acres in UT, WY and CO previously 

allocated for commercial 

leasing is a massive amount of public, taxpayer land that would be sacrificed for a singular use of 

the landscape. #1])>

<([#2 [2.2] [12.3] While the preferred alternative (Alternative 2) is a step in the right direction, I 

would like to have seen a draft document 

that does not give away hundreds of thousands of taxpayer lands to a failed industry to tinker 

with. I would have liked to 

have seen an alternative that does not endorse giveaways of even more public lands to this 

unproven industry. #2])>

<([#3 [3] Oil shale is currently producing no jobs and no revenue the Congressional Budget 

Office confirmed that it is not 

expected to produce significant revenues through 2022. So we have the time to assess the 

impacts of development to 

our water, wildlife, and communities. #3])>

<([#4 [3.10.4] The land overlying oil shale resources in Utah, Colorado and Wyoming is some of 

the best wildlife habitat in the West, 

outdoor recreation and tourism are huge economic drivers in the West. We must protect these 

jobs by making smart 

about how we allow oil companies to move forward with oil shale speculation. #4])>

<([#5 [3] Finally, I recommend that you carefully consider the serious impacts of new energy 

required for oil shale production and 

the potential devastating impacts to our wildlife, water, air, and communities as you take another 

look at oil shale 

development. #5])>

Dup_of_OSTS_235_OSTS_052 
Final OSTS PEIS 208 

Organization: Robert Spencer 

Received: 3/5/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Commenter1: Robert Spencer - Rock Springs, Wyoming 82901 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: none 

Submission Category: 035_Campaign 

Submitted As: E-Mail 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 4/25/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D00052.htm (Dup_of_OSTS_235_OSTS_052-58470.htm Size = 1 

KB) 

OSTS_052_Spencer_Email_OSTS2012D00052.pdf (Dup_of_OSTS_235_OSTS_052-58469.pdf 

Size = 80 KB) 

Submission Text

See Attachment. 

<([#1 [3] I am deeply concerned about the potential effects to our water, wildlife, communities 

and public lands if the BLM 

initiates a commercial leasing program. The two million acres in UT, WY and CO previously 

allocated for commercial 

leasing is a massive amount of public, taxpayer land that would be sacrificed for a singular use of 

the landscape. #1])>

<([#2 [12.3] [2.2] While the preferred alternative (Alternative 2) is a step in the right direction, I 

would like to have seen a draft document 

that does not give away hundreds of thousands of taxpayer lands to a failed industry to tinker 

with. I would have liked to 

have seen an alternative that does not endorse giveaways of even more public lands to this 

unproven industry. #2])>

<([#3 [3] Oil shale is currently producing no jobs and no revenue the Congressional Budget 

Office confirmed that it is not 

expected to produce significant revenues through 2022. So we have the time to assess the 

impacts of development to 

our water, wildlife, and communities. #3])>

<([#4 [3.10.4] The land overlying oil shale resources in Utah, Colorado and Wyoming is some of 

the best wildlife habitat in the West, 

outdoor recreation and tourism are huge economic drivers in the West. We must protect these 

jobs by making smart 

about how we allow oil companies to move forward with oil shale speculation. #4])>

<([#5 [3] Finally, I recommend that you carefully consider the serious impacts of new energy 

required for oil shale production and 
Final OSTS PEIS 209 

the potential devastating impacts to our wildlife, water, air, and communities as you take another 

look at oil shale 

development. #5])>

Dup_of_OSTS_235_OSTS_053 

Organization: Connie Wilcox-Timar 

Received: 3/5/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Commenter1: Connie Wilcox-Timar - Rock Springs, Wyoming 82902 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: none 

Submission Category: 035_Campaign 

Submitted As: E-Mail 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 4/25/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D00053.htm (Dup_of_OSTS_235_OSTS_053-58472.htm Size = 1 

KB) 

OSTS_053_Wilcox-Timar_Email_OSTS2012D00053.pdf (Dup_of_OSTS_235_OSTS_053-

58471.pdf Size = 80 KB) 

Submission Text

See Attachment. 

<([#1 [3] I am deeply concerned about the potential effects to our water, wildlife, communities 

and public lands if the BLM 

initiates a commercial leasing program. The two million acres in UT, WY and CO previously 

allocated for commercial 

leasing is a massive amount of public, taxpayer land that would be sacrificed for a singular use of 

the landscape. #1])>

<([#2 [2.2] [12.3] While the preferred alternative (Alternative 2) is a step in the right direction, I 

would like to have seen a draft document 

that does not give away hundreds of thousands of taxpayer lands to a failed industry to tinker 

with. I would have liked to 

have seen an alternative that does not endorse giveaways of even more public lands to this 

unproven industry. #2])>

<([#3 [3] Oil shale is currently producing no jobs and no revenue the Congressional Budget 

Office confirmed that it is not 

expected to produce significant revenues through 2022. So we have the time to assess the 

impacts of development to 

our water, wildlife, and communities. #3])>

<([#4 [3.10.4] The land overlying oil shale resources in Utah, Colorado and Wyoming is some of 

the best wildlife habitat in the West, 

outdoor recreation and tourism are huge economic drivers in the West. We must protect these 

jobs by making smart 

about how we allow oil companies to move forward with oil shale speculation. #4])>
Final OSTS PEIS 210 

<([#5 [3] Finally, I recommend that you carefully consider the serious impacts of new energy 

required for oil shale production and 

the potential devastating impacts to our wildlife, water, air, and communities as you take another 

look at oil shale 

development. #5])>

Dup_of_OSTS_235_OSTS_054 

Organization: Rita Thompson 

Received: 3/5/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Commenter1: Rita Thompson - Green River, Wyoming 82935 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: none 

Submission Category: 035_Campaign 

Submitted As: E-Mail 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 4/25/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D00054.htm (Dup_of_OSTS_235_OSTS_054-58474.htm Size = 1 

KB) 

OSTS_054_Thompson_Rita_Email_OSTS2012D00054.pdf (Dup_of_OSTS_235_OSTS_054-

58473.pdf Size = 80 KB) 

Submission Text

See Attachment. 

<([#1 [3] I am deeply concerned about the potential effects to our water, wildlife, communities 

and public lands if the BLM 

initiates a commercial leasing program. The two million acres in UT, WY and CO previously 

allocated for commercial 

leasing is a massive amount of public, taxpayer land that would be sacrificed for a singular use of 

the landscape. #1])>

<([#2 [2.2] [12.3] While the preferred alternative (Alternative 2) is a step in the right direction, I 

would like to have seen a draft document 

that does not give away hundreds of thousands of taxpayer lands to a failed industry to tinker 

with. I would have liked to 

have seen an alternative that does not endorse giveaways of even more public lands to this 

unproven industry. #2])>

<([#3 [3] Oil shale is currently producing no jobs and no revenue the Congressional Budget 

Office confirmed that it is not 

expected to produce significant revenues through 2022. So we have the time to assess the 

impacts of development to 

our water, wildlife, and communities. #3])>

<([#4 [3.10.4] The land overlying oil shale resources in Utah, Colorado and Wyoming is some of 
Final OSTS PEIS 211 

the best wildlife habitat in the West, 

outdoor recreation and tourism are huge economic drivers in the West. We must protect these 

jobs by making smart 

about how we allow oil companies to move forward with oil shale speculation. #4])>

<([#5 [3] Finally, I recommend that you carefully consider the serious impacts of new energy 

required for oil shale production and 

the potential devastating impacts to our wildlife, water, air, and communities as you take another 

look at oil shale 

development. 

#5])>

Dup_of_OSTS_235_OSTS_055 

Organization: Bill Thompson 

Received: 3/5/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Commenter1: Bill Thompson - Green River, Wyoming 82935 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: none 

Submission Category: 035_Campaign 

Submitted As: E-Mail 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 4/25/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D00055.htm (Dup_of_OSTS_235_OSTS_055-58476.htm Size = 1 

KB) 

OSTS_054_Thompson_Rita_Email_OSTS2012D00055.pdf (Dup_of_OSTS_235_OSTS_055-

58475.pdf Size = 80 KB) 

OSTS_055_Thompson_Bill_Email.pdf (Dup_of_OSTS_235_OSTS_055-58477.pdf Size = 81 

KB) 

Submission Text

See Attachment. 

<([#1 [3] I am deeply concerned about the potential effects to our water, wildlife, communities 

and public lands if the BLM 

initiates a commercial leasing program. The two million acres in UT, WY and CO previously 

allocated for commercial 

leasing is a massive amount of public, taxpayer land that would be sacrificed for a singular use of 

the landscape. #1])>

<([#2 [2.2] [12.3] While the preferred alternative (Alternative 2) is a step in the right direction, I 

would like to have seen a draft document 

that does not give away hundreds of thousands of taxpayer lands to a failed industry to tinker 

with. I would have liked to 

have seen an alternative that does not endorse giveaways of even more public lands to this 

unproven industry. #2])>

<([#3 [3] Oil shale is currently producing no jobs and no revenue the Congressional Budget 
Final OSTS PEIS 212 

Office confirmed that it is not 

expected to produce significant revenues through 2022. So we have the time to assess the 

impacts of development to 

our water, wildlife, and communities. #3])>

<([#4 [3.10.4] The land overlying oil shale resources in Utah, Colorado and Wyoming is some of 

the best wildlife habitat in the West, 

outdoor recreation and tourism are huge economic drivers in the West. We must protect these 

jobs by making smart 

about how we allow oil companies to move forward with oil shale speculation. #4])>

<([#5 [3] Finally, I recommend that you carefully consider the serious impacts of new energy 

required for oil shale production and 

the potential devastating impacts to our wildlife, water, air, and communities as you take another 

look at oil shale 

development. #5])>

Dup_of_OSTS_235_OSTS_056 

Organization: Kent Temur 

Received: 3/5/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Commenter1: Kent Temur - Rock Springs, Wyoming 82902 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: none 

Submission Category: 035_Campaign 

Submitted As: E-Mail 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 4/25/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D00056.htm (Dup_of_OSTS_235_OSTS_056-58479.htm Size = 1 

KB) 

OSTS_056_Temur_Email_OSTS2012D00056.pdf (Dup_of_OSTS_235_OSTS_056-58478.pdf 

Size = 80 KB) 

Submission Text

See Attachment. 

<([#1 [3] I am deeply concerned about the potential effects to our water, wildlife, communities 

and public lands if the BLM 

initiates a commercial leasing program. The two million acres in UT, WY and CO previously 

allocated for commercial 

leasing is a massive amount of public, taxpayer land that would be sacrificed for a singular use of 

the landscape. #1])>

<([#2 [12.3] [2.2] While the preferred alternative (Alternative 2) is a step in the right direction, I 

would like to have seen a draft document 

that does not give away hundreds of thousands of taxpayer lands to a failed industry to tinker 

with. I would have liked to 
Final OSTS PEIS 213 

have seen an alternative that does not endorse giveaways of even more public lands to this 

unproven industry. #2])>

<([#3 [3] Oil shale is currently producing no jobs and no revenue the Congressional Budget 

Office confirmed that it is not 

expected to produce significant revenues through 2022. So we have the time to assess the 

impacts of development to 

our water, wildlife, and communities. #3])>

<([#4 [3.10.4] The land overlying oil shale resources in Utah, Colorado and Wyoming is some of 

the best wildlife habitat in the West, 

outdoor recreation and tourism are huge economic drivers in the West. We must protect these 

jobs by making smart 

about how we allow oil companies to move forward with oil shale speculation. #4])>

<([#5 [3] Finally, I recommend that you carefully consider the serious impacts of new energy 

required for oil shale production and 

the potential devastating impacts to our wildlife, water, air, and communities as you take another 

look at oil shale 

development. #5])>

Dup_of_OSTS_235_OSTS_057 

Organization: Patrick Massaro 

Received: 4/3/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Commenter1: Patrick Massaro - Denver, Colorado 80203 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: none 

Submission Category: 035_Campaign 

Submitted As: E-Mail 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 4/25/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D00057.htm (Dup_of_OSTS_235_OSTS_057-58481.htm Size = 1 

KB) 

OSTS_057_Massaro_Email_OSTS2012D00057.pdf (Dup_of_OSTS_235_OSTS_057-58480.pdf 

Size = 81 KB) 

Submission Text

See Attachment. 

<([#1 [3] I am deeply concerned about the potential effects to our water, wildlife, communities 

and public lands if the BLM 

initiates a commercial leasing program. The two million acres in UT, WY and CO previously 

allocated for commercial 

leasing is a massive amount of public, taxpayer land that would be sacrificed for a singular use of 

the landscape. #1])>
Final OSTS PEIS 214 

<([#2 [2.2] [12.3] While the preferred alternative (Alternative 2) is a step in the right direction, I 

would like to have seen a draft document 

that does not give away hundreds of thousands of taxpayer lands to a failed industry to tinker 

with. I would have liked to 

have seen an alternative that does not endorse giveaways of even more public lands to this 

unproven industry. #2])>

<([#3 [3] Oil shale is currently producing no jobs and no revenue the Congressional Budget 

Office confirmed that it is not 

expected to produce significant revenues through 2022. So we have the time to assess the 

impacts of development to 

our water, wildlife, and communities. #3])>

<([#4 [3.10.4] The land overlying oil shale resources in Utah, Colorado and Wyoming is some of 

the best wildlife habitat in the West, 

outdoor recreation and tourism are huge economic drivers in the West. We must protect these 

jobs by making smart 

about how we allow oil companies to move forward with oil shale speculation. #4])>

<([#5 [3] Finally, I recommend that you carefully consider the serious impacts of new energy 

required for oil shale production and 

the potential devastating impacts to our wildlife, water, air, and communities as you take another 

look at oil shale 

development. #5])>

Dup_of_OSTS_235_OSTS_058 

Organization: Luke Schafer 

Received: 4/4/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Commenter1: Luke Schafer - Craig, Colorado 81625 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: none 

Submission Category: 035_Campaign 

Submitted As: E-Mail 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 4/25/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D00058.htm (Dup_of_OSTS_235_OSTS_058-58483.htm Size = 1 

KB) 

OSTS_058_Schafer_Email_OSTS2012D00058.pdf (Dup_of_OSTS_235_OSTS_058-58482.pdf 

Size = 81 KB) 

Submission Text

See Attachment. 

<([#1 [3] I am deeply concerned about the potential effects to our water, wildlife, communities 

and public lands if the BLM 

initiates a commercial leasing program. The two million acres in UT, WY and CO previously 
Final OSTS PEIS 215 

allocated for commercial 

leasing is a massive amount of public, taxpayer land that would be sacrificed for a singular use of 

the landscape. #1])>

<([#2 [2.2] [12.3] While the preferred alternative (Alternative 2) is a step in the right direction, I 

would like to have seen a draft document 

that does not give away hundreds of thousands of taxpayer lands to a failed industry to tinker 

with. I would have liked to 

have seen an alternative that does not endorse giveaways of even more public lands to this 

unproven industry. #2])>

<([#3 [3] Oil shale is currently producing no jobs and no revenue the Congressional Budget 

Office confirmed that it is not 

expected to produce significant revenues through 2022. So we have the time to assess the 

impacts of development to 

our water, wildlife, and communities. #3])>

<([#4 [3.10.4] The land overlying oil shale resources in Utah, Colorado and Wyoming is some of 

the best wildlife habitat in the West, 

outdoor recreation and tourism are huge economic drivers in the West. We must protect these 

jobs by making smart 

about how we allow oil companies to move forward with oil shale speculation. #4])>

<([#5 [3] Finally, I recommend that you carefully consider the serious impacts of new energy 

required for oil shale production and 

the potential devastating impacts to our wildlife, water, air, and communities as you take another 

look at oil shale 

development. #5])>

Dup_of_OSTS_235_OSTS_059 

Organization: John Cornely 

Received: 4/19/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Commenter1: John Cornely - Littleton, Colorado 80127 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: none 

Submission Category: 035_Campaign 

Submitted As: E-Mail 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 4/25/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D00059.htm (Dup_of_OSTS_235_OSTS_059-58485.htm Size = 1 

KB) 

OSTS_059_Cornely_Email_OSTS2012D00059.pdf (Dup_of_OSTS_235_OSTS_059-58484.pdf 

Size = 82 KB) 

Submission Text

See Attachment. 
Final OSTS PEIS 216 

<([#1 [3] I am deeply concerned about the potential effects to our water, wildlife, communities 

and public lands if the BLM 

initiates a commercial leasing program. The two million acres in UT, WY and CO previously 

allocated for commercial 

leasing is a massive amount of public, taxpayer land that would be sacrificed for a singular use of 

the landscape. #1])>

<([#2 [2.2] [12.3] While the preferred alternative (Alternative 2) is a step in the right direction, I 

would like to have seen a draft document 

that does not give away hundreds of thousands of taxpayer lands to a failed industry to tinker 

with. I would have liked to 

have seen an alternative that does not endorse giveaways of even more public lands to this 

unproven industry. #2])>

<([#3 [3] Oil shale is currently producing no jobs and no revenue the Congressional Budget 

Office confirmed that it is not 

expected to produce significant revenues through 2022. So we have the time to assess the 

impacts of development to 

our water, wildlife, and communities. #3])>

<([#4 [3.10.4] The land overlying oil shale resources in Utah, Colorado and Wyoming is some of 

the best wildlife habitat in the West, 

outdoor recreation and tourism are huge economic drivers in the West. We must protect these 

jobs by making smart 

about how we allow oil companies to move forward with oil shale speculation. #4])>

<([#5 [3] Finally, I recommend that you carefully consider the serious impacts of new energy 

required for oil shale production and 

the potential devastating impacts to our wildlife, water, air, and communities as you take another 

look at oil shale 

development. 

#5])>

Dup_of_OSTS_235_OSTS_060 

Organization: John Anderson 

Received: 4/19/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Commenter1: John Anderson - Laporte, Colorado 80535 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: none 

Submission Category: 035_Campaign 

Submitted As: E-Mail 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 4/25/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D00060.htm (Dup_of_OSTS_235_OSTS_060-58487.htm Size = 1 
Final OSTS PEIS 217 

KB) 

OSTS_060_Anderson_Email_OSTS2012D00060.pdf (Dup_of_OSTS_235_OSTS_060-

58486.pdf Size = 81 KB) 

Submission Text

See Attachment. 

<([#1 [3] I am deeply concerned about the potential effects to our water, wildlife, communities 

and public lands if the BLM 

initiates a commercial leasing program. The two million acres in UT, WY and CO previously 

allocated for commercial 

leasing is a massive amount of public, taxpayer land that would be sacrificed for a singular use of 

the landscape. #1])>

<([#2 [2.2] [12.3] While the preferred alternative (Alternative 2) is a step in the right direction, I 

would like to have seen a draft document 

that does not give away hundreds of thousands of taxpayer lands to a failed industry to tinker 

with. I would have liked to 

have seen an alternative that does not endorse giveaways of even more public lands to this 

unproven industry. #2])>

<([#3 [3] Oil shale is currently producing no jobs and no revenue the Congressional Budget 

Office confirmed that it is not 

expected to produce significant revenues through 2022. So we have the time to assess the 

impacts of development to 

our water, wildlife, and communities. #3])>

<([#4 [3.10.4] The land overlying oil shale resources in Utah, Colorado and Wyoming is some of 

the best wildlife habitat in the West, 

outdoor recreation and tourism are huge economic drivers in the West. We must protect these 

jobs by making smart 

about how we allow oil companies to move forward with oil shale speculation. #4])>

<([#5 [3] Finally, I recommend that you carefully consider the serious impacts of new energy 

required for oil shale production and 

the potential devastating impacts to our wildlife, water, air, and communities as you take another 

look at oil shale 

development. #5])>

Dup_of_OSTS_235_OSTS_061 

Organization: Robert LeClair 

Received: 4/20/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Commenter1: Robert LeClair - Westminster, Colorado 80234 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: none 

Submission Category: 035_Campaign 

Submitted As: E-Mail 
Final OSTS PEIS 218 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 4/25/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D00061.htm (Dup_of_OSTS_235_OSTS_061-58489.htm Size = 1 

KB) 

OSTS_061_LeClair_Email_OSTS2012D00061.pdf (Dup_of_OSTS_235_OSTS_061-58488.pdf 

Size = 82 KB) 

Submission Text

See Attachment. 

<([#1 [3] I am deeply concerned about the potential effects to our water, wildlife, communities 

and public lands if the BLM 

initiates a commercial leasing program. The two million acres in UT, WY and CO previously 

allocated for commercial 

leasing is a massive amount of public, taxpayer land that would be sacrificed for a singular use of 

the landscape. #1])>

<([#2 [2.2] [12.3] While the preferred alternative (Alternative 2) is a step in the right direction, I 

would like to have seen a draft document 

that does not give away hundreds of thousands of taxpayer lands to a failed industry to tinker 

with. I would have liked to 

have seen an alternative that does not endorse giveaways of even more public lands to this 

unproven industry. 

#2])>

<([#3 [3] Oil shale is currently producing no jobs and no revenue the Congressional Budget 

Office confirmed that it is not 

expected to produce significant revenues through 2022. So we have the time to assess the 

impacts of development to 

our water, wildlife, and communities. #3])>

<([#4 [3.10.4] The land overlying oil shale resources in Utah, Colorado and Wyoming is some of 

the best wildlife habitat in the West, 

outdoor recreation and tourism are huge economic drivers in the West. We must protect these 

jobs by making smart 

about how we allow oil companies to move forward with oil shale speculation. #4])>

<([#5 [3] Finally, I recommend that you carefully consider the serious impacts of new energy 

required for oil shale production and 

the potential devastating impacts to our wildlife, water, air, and communities as you take another 

look at oil shale 

development. #5])>

Dup_of_OSTS_235_OSTS_063 

Organization: Kerri Stroupe 

Received: 4/21/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Commenter1: Kerri Stroupe - Denver, Colorado 80211 (United States) 
Final OSTS PEIS 219 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: none 

Submission Category: 035_Campaign 

Submitted As: E-Mail 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 4/25/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D00063.htm (Dup_of_OSTS_235_OSTS_063-58596.htm Size = 1 

KB) 

OSTS_063_Stroupe_Email_OSTS2012D00063.pdf (Dup_of_OSTS_235_OSTS_063-58595.pdf 

Size = 81 KB) 

Submission Text

See Attachment. 

<([#1 [3] I am deeply concerned about the potential effects to our water, wildlife, communities 

and public lands if the BLM initiates a commercial leasing program. The two million acres in 

UT, WY and CO previously allocated for commercial leasing is a massive amount of public, 

taxpayer land that would be sacrificed for a singular use of the landscape. #1])>

<([#2 [12.3] [2.2] While the preferred alternative (Alternative 2) is a step in the right direction, I 

would like to have seen a draft document that does not give away hundreds of thousands of 

taxpayer lands to a failed industry to tinker with. I would have liked to have seen an alternative 

that does not endorse giveaways of even more public lands to this unproven industry. #2])>

<([#3 [3] Oil shale is currently producing no jobs and no revenue the Congressional Budget 

Office confirmed that it is not expected to produce significant revenues through 2022. So we 

have the time to assess the impacts of development to our water, wildlife, and communities.

#3])>

<([#4 [3.10.4] The land overlying oil shale resources in Utah, Colorado and Wyoming is some of 

the best wildlife habitat in the West, outdoor recreation and tourism are huge economic drivers in 

the West. We must protect these jobs by making smart about how we allow oil companies to 

move forward with oil shale speculation. 

#4])>

<([#5 [3] Finally, I recommend that you carefully consider the serious impacts of new energy 

required for oil shale production and the potential devastating impacts to our wildlife, water, air, 

and communities as you take another look at oil shale development. #5])>

Dup_of_OSTS_235_OSTS_064 

Organization: Don Thompson 

Received: 4/22/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Commenter1: Don Thompson - Alamosa, Colorado 81101 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: none 

Submission Category: 035_Campaign_plus 
Final OSTS PEIS 220 

Submitted As: E-Mail 

Form Letter Category: Form Letter plus Text 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 4/25/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D00064.htm (Dup_of_OSTS_235_OSTS_064-58598.htm Size = 1 

KB) 

OSTS_064_Thompson_Don_Email_OSTS2012D00064.pdf (Dup_of_OSTS_235_OSTS_064-

58597.pdf Size = 82 KB) 

Submission Text

See Attachment. 

<([#1 [3.4.1] Water is more important than potential oil. I can live without oil, but not without 

water. #1])>

<([#2 [3] I am deeply concerned about the potential effects to our water, wildlife, communities 

and public lands if the BLM initiates a commercial leasing program. The two million acres in 

UT, WY and CO previously allocated for commercial leasing is a massive amount of public, 

taxpayer land that would be sacrificed for a singular use of the landscape. #2])>

<([#3 [2.2] [12.3] While the preferred alternative (Alternative 2) is a step in the right direction, I 

would like to have seen a draft document that does not give away hundreds of thousands of 

taxpayer lands to a failed industry to tinker with. I would have liked to have seen an alternative 

that does not endorse giveaways of even more public lands to this unproven industry. #3])>

<([#4 [3] Oil shale is currently producing no jobs and no revenue the Congressional Budget 

Office confirmed that it is not expected to produce significant revenues through 2022. So we 

have the time to assess the impacts of development to our water, wildlife, and communities.

#4])>

<([#5 [3.10.4] The land overlying oil shale resources in Utah, Colorado and Wyoming is some of 

the best wildlife habitat in the West, outdoor recreation and tourism are huge economic drivers in 

the West. We must protect these jobs by making smart about how we allow oil companies to 

move forward with oil shale speculation. #5])>

<([#6 [3] Finally, I recommend that you carefully consider the serious impacts of new energy 

required for oil shale production and the potential devastating impacts to our wildlife, water, air, 

and communities as you take another look at oil shale development. 

#6])>

DUP-of_50324_OSTS50342 

Organization: SW WY CLG, John Woodward 

Received: 5/4/2012 6:02:57 PM 

Commenter1: John Woodward - Kemmerer, Wyoming 83101 (United States) 

Organization1:SW WY CLG 

Commenter Type: Cooperating Agency 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 
Final OSTS PEIS 221 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: klett 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50342.htm (DUP-of_50324_OSTS50342-59074.htm Size = 1 KB) 

clg_os_ts_eis_OSTS2012D50342.pdf (DUP-of_50324_OSTS50342-59073.pdf Size = 3904 KB) 

Submission Text

See Attachment. 

OSTS_001 

Organization: Edwin Firmage 

Received: 3/14/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Commenter1: Edwin Firmage - Salt Lake City, Utah 84124 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: none 

Submission Category: Comment Form 

Submitted As: SLC Meeting 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 4/20/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D00001.htm (OSTS_001-58357.htm Size = 1 KB) 

OSTS_001_Firmage_Form_and__Written_Comments_SLC_OSTS2012D00001.pdf 

(OSTS_001-58356.pdf Size = 314 KB) 

Submission Text

See Attachment. 

<([#1 [9.2] “I see all that we have ruined in order to have, all that was owned for a lifetime to be 

destroyed forever.” - Wendell Berry 

According to its mission statement, the purpose of the Bureau of Land Management is to 

“sustain the health, diversity, and productivity of the public lands for the use and enjoyment of 

present and future generations.” But if history is anything to go by, the BLM’s mission to 

sustain health and diversity is a stewardship more in the breach than the observance. The 

question before us today is whether this will continue to be the case, whether Wendell Berry’s 

words I just quoted will continue to characterize BLM decision making or whether we will at last 

begin to manage our public lands as we do our homes. It is my argument today that oil shale 

development in any form is inconsistent with the BLM’s role as the steward of the land for all 

generations. 

#1])>

Let me summarize my objections to oil shale development in four bullet points. 

<([#2 [8] First, oil shale development is inconsistent with the principal of multiple use, because 

all lands so developed are destroyed forever. Unlike subsurface forms of mining that have 

thrived in the West, oil shale mining involves the permanent removal of all soil, and therefore all 

other uses, and it does so on an enormous scale. It must be enormous in order to meaningfully 

offset our oil consumption, which is enormous. We have all witnessed the effects of such large-
Final OSTS PEIS 222 

scale earth removal on both natural and human communities in Appalachia. That is a disaster that 

we do not have to repeat. #2])>

<([#3 [3.5.1.6] Second, oil shale development is inconsistent with the imperative that we face to 

reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Summarizing the studies of over 450 primary researchers, 800 

contributing authors, and 2,500 peer reviewers around the world, the 2007 report of the 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change concluded that in order to avoid climate 

catastrophe, the world must effectively eliminate its use of fossil fuels by midcentury. The 

IPCC’s conclusion was delivered in the form of a range of probabilities for averting disaster. 

Based on data prior to 2007, the IPCC projected that eliminating 50% of world greenhouse gas 

emissions by 2050 would yield just a 15% probability of averting catastrophic climate change. 

An 85% reduction would yield an 85% probability of averting disaster. This, for many, is 

therefore the minimum world target. It’s an intimidating number. 

For the U.S., however, the numbers are even more stark, because of our disproportionate role in 

the production of global greenhouse gasses, of which we generate 20% despite having just 6% of 

global population. For the world to reach a 50% reductions target by 2050, the U.S. must cut its 

emissions by 88%, and for the world to hit its 85% target, the U.S. must cut its greenhouse gas 

emissions by 96%.1 Effectively, by mid-century we must eliminate the use of fossil fuels in this 

country. 

But this is not the direction in which we are presently headed. On the contrary, as is evidenced 

by the fact that we are debating the development of an entirely NEW fossil fuel, it’s clear that we 

have yet to come to terms with the implications of climate change for U.S. energy and land 

management policy. The IPCC’s 2007 recommendations have scarcely begun to be 

implemented, and climate change continues to accelerate beyond worst-case projections. As we 

contemplate our failure in years to come, we may look back on a 96% reduction by 2050 as a 

comparatively easy challenge. 

The effect of our refusal to recognize climate reality will be felt everywhere but perhaps 

especially here in the West, where average annual temperatures have risen not by the global 

average of 1.3°F but by 2.5°F or more. Such increases, and their associated changes in 

precipitation, snowpack, and the timing of snow melt, will forever alter natural and therefore 

human landscapes in the West. Our failure to respond appropriately to climate change will lead 

to the desertification and destruction of much of the West as we know it. 

In the 1930s, Walter Cottam, professor of botany at the University of Utah, surveyed the 

catastrophic destruction of Utah’s forests and valley grasslands due to massive overgrazing 

throughout the state. Cottam predicted the desertification of the state if swift and decisive action 

was not taken. Fortunately for us, government did respond, and our mountains and valleys are 

now healthier than they were then despite large increases in overall population. Government 

today, by contrast, is notably failing to deal with the climate crisis, and our children, not just our 

grandchildren, will reap the whirlwind for this failure. 

#3])>

<([#4 [3.4.1] [8] Third, oil shale development is inconsistent with multiple use because it will 

rob us of other resources on which all such use depends, and I speak here not only of the effect 
Final OSTS PEIS 223 

on public lands but also of the derivative effect on land in private hands. The key resource in this 

case is water. A recent study commissioned by the Colorado Department of Natural Resources 

and the Colorado Water Conservation Board found that to develop oil shale on a large scale in 

western Colorado would require in excess of 400,000 acre feet of water every year,2

 this in a 

river basin that is already oversubscribed and climate-threatened.3

 To put this number in 

perspective, that’s over 80% of the water that the entire Salt Lake valley uses in a year, and also 

more than Utah’s unallocated entitlements in the Colorado River. 

What emerges from this is the realization that the West faces a choice of absolute proportions: 

we can launch a new fossil fuel energy or we can develop our cities and our farms. We can 

preserve our public lands for many different uses, including some forms of mining, or we can 

develop oil shale. There is not water sufficient to do all of these. The likely casualty will be 

farming in the West. It’s loss represents a blow to diversity, not just on public lands but 

everywhere. And it represents a blow to sustainable living everywhere. One of the effects of 

climate change that is not presently much discussed in the U.S., though it is other countries that 

will be similarly affected, is the loss of agricultural productivity. With losses around the world 

projected to be on the order of 30-50%, today’s breadbaskets such as the Midwest, California’s 

Central Valley, and southern California desert farms, fed - incidentally exclusively by the 

Coloradowill all be hard-hit. We will be scrounging for farm land to make up the difference. But 

if we pursue large-scale energy development such as oil shale, there will be no such farm land 

and no water to bring it alive. Even as climate change and increases in fuel costs require us to be 

more regionally food-self-sufficient, we will be without the means to grow the food we need. 

#4])>

<([#5 [3.5.3] Fourth, oil shale is inconsistent with multiple use because it will entail a massive 

increase in air pollution and consequent effects for human health. Already today we see in 

sparsely populated areas such as Pinedale, WY, and Utah’s Uintah Basin air pollution levels that 

are higher than those of our dirtiest cities. This pollution is due entirely to oil and and natural gas 

development. Adding oil shale to the mix will make affected rural areas even unhealthier, and 

not only because of the obvious effects of the strip mining itself, bad as these will be. In the 

Colorado study I just mentioned, it is estimated that exploiting oil shale just in western Colorado 

will require the construction of 14,000 MW of new electrical power. This means the construction 

of new coal or natural gas plants, which themselves then become major new point sources of air 

and water pollution. To put that 14,000 MW in perspective, consider that Colorado’s largest coal 

plant today generates 1 ,000. We’re talking, then, about 14 new coal-fired plants as big as 

anything in Colorado today, each spewing out massive quantities of greenhouse gasses, 

particulates, and mercury, to extract oil that will also then be burned to generate greenhouse 

gases, particulates, and other pollutants. #5])>

<([#6 [12] What emerges from all of this is the conclusion that our government and its regulatory 

agencies such as the BLM have simply gone insane, criminally insane. In their mad pursuit of 

still more fossil fuels, instead of clean alternatives, the government and its agencies betrays their 

criminal disregard for their mission to protect not only the land for the people but the people 

themselves. Once again we see the truth of C. S. Lewis’s observation that, “What we call our 

power over Nature turns out to be a power exercised by some men over other men with Nature as 

its instrument.” 
Final OSTS PEIS 224 

The way we treat the land is the bell wether of the way we treat each other. Oil shale 

development anywhere in our country today, but especially in the arid West, is tantamount to a 

crime against humanity, and those who perpetrate it deserve to be treated as the war criminals 

that they are, for make no mistake, oil shale development is a war against the land and its people. 

#6])>

Firmage, BLM Testimony, 4/26/11 6 treated as the war criminals that they are, for make no 

mistake, oil shale development is a war against the land and its people. 

1

 See the excellent discussion in Arjun Makhijani, Carbon-Free and Nuclear-Free: A Roadmap 

for U.S. Energy Policy. Takoma Park, MD: lEER, 2007, 203ft. 

2 Energy Development Water Needs Assessment (Phase 1 Report). Prepared by URS 

Corporation for the Colorado, Yampa, and White River Basin Roundtables Energy 

Subcommittee. September 2008. 

3 On the threat that climate change poses to the Colorado Basin, see inter alia James Powell, 

Dead Pool. Berkeley: University of California, 2008. See also my own study of Utah water data 

provided on the accompanying CD. 

OSTS_002 

Organization: Utah Science and Technology Research, Alan Walker 

Received: 3/14/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Commenter1: Alan Walker - Salt Lake City, Utah 84108 (United States) 

Organization1:Utah Science and Technology Research 

Commenter Type: Misc. Organization 

Classification: none 

Submission Category: Comment Form and Attachment 

Submitted As: SLC Meeting 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 4/20/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D00002.htm (OSTS_002-58359.htm Size = 1 KB) 

OSTS_002_Walker_Form_and_Report_SLC_Mtg_OSTS2012D00002.pdf (OSTS_002-

58358.pdf Size = 2755 KB) 

Submission Text

See Attachment. 

Comment: <([#1 [10.7] I have attached two studies by Utah business schools indicating the 

economic viability of oil sand development for use as pavement. The study by the University of 

Utah demonstrates that agencies can save $45,000 per road mile. The study by Westminster 

College shows the oil sand pavement is competitive up to 530 miles from the mine. [See 

Attachments] 

#1])>

OSTS_003 
Final OSTS PEIS 225 

Organization: Jane Yazzie 

Received: 3/14/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Commenter1: Jane Yazzie - Craig, Utah 81626 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: addr 

Submission Category: Comment Form 

Submitted As: SLC Meeting 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 4/20/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D00003.htm (OSTS_003-58361.htm Size = 1 KB) 

OSTS_003_Yazzie_Form_SLC_Mtg_OSTS2012D00003.pdf (OSTS_003-58360.pdf Size = 553 

KB) 

Submission Text

See Attachment. 

<([#1 [2.2] The 2(b) BLM preferred alternative is wisest of 6 choices, but we sense it’s designed 

to combine gathering more knowledge with some degree of ‘stalling,’ hoping for clarification of 

a shale oil future or avoidance of either ecosystem degradation or lawsuits resulting from 

degradation (from SO or Tar Sands activity). #1])> <([#2 [12] Oil/gas corporations (American 

based) appear calm, ready for best practices requirements in APDs, even accepting the preferred 

alternative (Altern. 2(b)) RD&D phase, but those corporations are 

a) Driven by a world market and by futures buying to store up profit and capital, 

b) Driven to get most possible income/profit from remaining fossils, 

c) Driven to beat (in lease or APD terms) the arrival of greater regulations, 

d) Interested in being the capitalizers/profiteers of alternate fuel development and marketing in 

the future to control such fuels in some fashion now control fossils 

e) Realizing, if their costs, investments, buyouts, have them over-leveraged, worrying at 

regulations requiring more capitalizing of debt or their banks being pressured to increase 

capitalizing, that they must receive their habit of overleveraging debt and that they may lose out 

on their convienient accounting habit of listing certain O/G leases as assets. 

f) Driven by own economic habits to get BLM to open up leasable acreage always relatively 

cheap to lease, and then ‘play’ w such additional leases, as assets, among world banks and 

competitors, 

g) Thus, leading the BLM – a guardian of public lands, the nation’s only public lands – to accept 

more O/G leasing (shale oil & tar sands) to contribute in getting the United States “freer from 

imports of fossil fuels” when the reality of turning over public lands to shale oil/tar sands 

development would be exposing them, even more than now, to the global market (unaccountable, 
Final OSTS PEIS 226 

often indistinguishable, and greatly unregulated) as a new DRIVER of how our public lands are 

used. 

Finally, even more important than sagebrush habitat studies in typical Colorado BLM lands are 

studies barely begun of BLM lands’ water and air resources. Sensing how long the revving up, 

scientifically, of such studies would take and how much reflection such studies, esp. of water 

above or underground, would offer against hydrofracking, plus the unpreparedness of geology to 

predict, track, or control subsurface natural waters, fracked waters, or geo exchanges, it’s no 

wonder the fossil energy companies, reliant on fracking to produce product, are in a rush to lease 

it to lenient-as-possible terms of development. It’s also no wonder such companies have wages, 

even financial, public attacks on such bills as Colorado’s Clean Air/Clean Jobs Act. 

#2])>

<([#3 [10.6.1] As the agency (BLM) must know that natural gas (though tis burning releases 1⁄2 

the CO2 of burning an equivalent energy unit of coal) actually uses more water, more coal-fired 

energy and releases more methane during production than other fossil fuel productions, the BLM 

must consider moving away from new leases for SO/TS, rather than toward such leases. 

#3])>

<([#4 [3.4.1] The BLM’s resource responsibilities in these 3 Western states (UT,WY, CO) may 

center most on water. Yet “water” as a resource, gets short shift in RUDs, often 1-1.5 pages, 

which largely say water resources, drainages, riparians, etc. will be given minimal protection and 

some repair, “when possible,” “where feasible.” Let’s be reminded that the Alberta tar sands 

effort, ready, according to the DOE’s own Energy Information Administration, has worked 

through much of its most available and bitumen-rich deposits and thus, heading into more costly 

and destructive extraction, desperately wants the Keystone XL pipeline to push out product, get 

it to US poored market, and get best price before both production costs and risks and publicdemanded regulations limit profit. 

In other words, lands above the Ogallala Aquifer and our public lands in WY, UT, & CO are 

pawns in a big card game. We must understand this game and never assume it would stop. The 

land’s resources cannot be so used. Your PEIS effort is about far more than mere leasing. #4])>

Thank you. 

OSTS_004 

Organization: Matt Delperto 

Received: 3/14/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Commenter1: Matt Delperto - Salt Lake City, Utah 84115 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: none 

Submission Category: Comment Form 

Submitted As: SLC Meeting 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 4/20/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D00004.htm (OSTS_004-58363.htm Size = 1 KB) 

OSTS_004_Delperto_Form_SLC_OSTS2012D00004.pdf (OSTS_004-58362.pdf Size = 177 

KB) 
Final OSTS PEIS 227 

Submission Text

See Attachment. 

<([#1 [1.1] There are huge risks involved in this process. It seems that none of the experts could 

give an answer for why (with so little information) this process is even going through... other 

than to defer responsibility to other people, and other bodies like Congress. And that there is 

money to be made (this was not said publically). The format of the meetings seemed poorly 

suited as well. The request to diffuse and have separate conversations, with different “experts” 

(who seemed to have a hard time fielding many of the questions, which again brings into 

question the preparedness to push a project like this through in any kind of a safe manner [and 

furthermore, there is an assumption that this project IS a worthwhile endeavor. I believe that it is 

questionable that tar sands can ever be a safe or sustainable product for extraction])... 

The separation into groups fragmented the conversation, and made it impossible for 

conversations to be heard for all. I believe there should be another meeting (ASAP!) about these 

issues with the BLM (and ALL other involved parties) where there will be space for public 

comment and conversation to be had by all (bring a microphone! please!). While I feel that 

conversations like the ones I had with officials today can be great, if they are not combined with 

public presentation or conversations that all can be heard by all present (with opportunity for 

comment), then these types of meetings are hollow shows that are ineffective and undemocratic. 

#1])>

<([#2 [12.1] I believe that the BLM and individuals need to step up to the task of putting a cap 

on these tar sands development projects and to invest their energy in a truly sustainable future. 

#2])>

<([#3 [1.1] Incorporate room for public comment, public conversation, and direct address of 

questions please. 

Also, please invest time in making sure your ‘experts’ are well informed if you decide to have a 

similar format for future meetings. #3])>

OSTS_005 

Organization: Krista Bowers 

Received: 3/14/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Commenter1: Krista Bowers - Salt Lake City, Utah 84103 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: addr 

Submission Category: Comment Form 

Submitted As: SLC Meeting 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 4/20/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D00005.htm (OSTS_005-58365.htm Size = 1 KB) 

OSTS_005_Bowers_Form_SLC_OSTS2012D00005.pdf (OSTS_005-58364.pdf Size = 88 KB) 

Submission Text

See Attachment. 
Final OSTS PEIS 228 

<([#1 [12] Zero tar sands and oil shale extraction. #1])> <([#2 [3.5.1.7] Adopt long-range 

climate adaptation and mitigation plan for Utah consistent with the science of 350ppm. #2])>

OSTS_006 

Organization: Milo Calder 

Received: 3/14/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Commenter1: Milo Calder - Salt Lake City, Utah (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: none 

Submission Category: Comment Form 

Submitted As: SLC Meeting 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 4/20/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D00006.htm (OSTS_006-58367.htm Size = 1 KB) 

OSTS_006_Calder_Form_SLC_OSTS2012D00006.pdf (OSTS_006-58366.pdf Size = 153 KB) 

Submission Text

See Attachment. 

<([#1 [1.1] The opening of the meeting was poorly planned. The speaker should have given a 

summary of the past developments (re- Black Sunday – 5/2/1982) as per money spent and 

research methods and feasibility. Then spend two or three minutes new technology and what 

government subsidizing as what is proposed. 

As a lay person I didn’t know what PEIS meant. It was used extensively at the beginning. Finally 

I found a book that listed general acronyms and abbreviations. 

Also – you should have allowed a place on your forum for comments (2 min or so per person). 

#1])>

OSTS_007 

Organization: Mary Williams 

Received: 3/14/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Commenter1: Mary Williams - Salt Lake City, Utah 84115 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: none 

Submission Category: Comment Form 

Submitted As: SLC Meeting 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 4/20/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D00007.htm (OSTS_007-58369.htm Size = 1 KB) 

OSTS_007_Williams_Form_SLC_OSTS2012D00007.pdf (OSTS_007-58368.pdf Size = 84 KB) 

Submission Text
Final OSTS PEIS 229 

See Attachment. 

<([#1 [2.3.1] I want us off oil! The only choice is Amendment 3. Too much destruction of air, 

use of water, & destruction of our parks (the real income for UT). #1])>

OSTS_008 

Organization: United Mergers and Aquisitions Consultants, Dean Dinas 

Received: 3/14/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Commenter1: Dean Dinas - Midvale, Utah 84047 (United States) 

Organization1:United Mergers and Aquisitions Consultants 

Commenter Type: Affiliation Only 

Classification: addr 

Submission Category: Comment Form 

Submitted As: SLC Meeting 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 4/20/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D00008.htm (OSTS_008-58371.htm Size = 1 KB) 

OSTS_008_Dinas_Form_and_Written_Comments_SLC_OSTS2012D00008.pdf (OSTS_008-

58370.pdf Size = 324 KB) 

Submission Text

See Attachment. [Two comment forms were submitted]

<([#1 [10.7] Industrial distinctions between oil shale/sands show that oil sands can be a source of 

road materials, saving ~$45,000/mile and averting air emissions/water pollutants that oil shale 

would generate. Oil sands have been proven to provide a viable alternative to concrete and other 

materials. Self-sufficiency in asphalt can be achieved via responsible extraction of natural 

asphalt from oil sands in Uinta Basin. 

http://democrats.naturalresources.house.gov/content/files/2011-08-

24_HRE_EMR_Testimony_Spinti.pdf 

http://repository.icse.utah.edu/dspace/handle/123456789/10823 #1])>

See attached comments for consideration: 

-Industry application 

-Economic environment 

Thank you. 

Suggestions for Consideration in Context of BLM Oil Shale & Tar Sands PEIS March 2012 

<([#4 [6.6] Industrial Distinctions 

1. Oil shale extractive processes and products have distinct characteristics from Tar Sands 

a. Environmental impacts and energy inputs differ dramatically between OS/TS 
Final OSTS PEIS 230 

b. E&P processes vary in accordance with terrain and mineral content 

c. End-products can be combustible for energy production, or resource-conserving 

d. In 2007 responding to the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (Section 369-p), the University of Utah 

prepared “A Technical, Economic, and Legal Assessment of North American Heavy Oil, Oil 

Sands, and Oil Shale Resources,” for the US Dept of Energy, in which it drew from science and 

available technologies to illustrate clear distinctions between the E&P processes and products 

and their economic and environmental impacts. There are clear advantages/disadvantages that 

need to be included in BLM considerations, since this is a landmark study. 

#4])>

<([#5 [3.10.2] 2. Oil Shale fuel removal and Tar Sands applications have different costs, and 

local impacts 

a. Proximity to established roads makes haulage expensive, contributes emissions 

b. Local sourcing/local applications make Tar Sands more “user-friendly” #5])>

<([#3 [10.7] c. Asphalt content of Tar Sands offers immediate benefits, with proven lower costs 

d. Current testing and applications of native asphalt (derived closely from Tar Sands) on local 

roads is expected to lead to wider development of this process/product, with the concurrent 

completion of the Utah Department of Transportation’s recent performance test results 

(coordinated by USTAR). This is a more sustainable and non-combustible application vs. Oil 

Shale. 

#3])>

<([#2 [3.10.2] Economic Impacts 

-The Uinta Basin has a long track record of experience in energy source E&P, generating small 

business and high-wage job growth, State & Federal revenues 

-To sustain small business and job creation, and retain multinational business manufacturing in 

the region, choices need to be made with respect to access 

-High capital investment/costs of capital in the energy E&P industry require guarantees of 

longevity, and consideration of interstate competitive issues 

-In 2008, at request of the Uintah County Planning Commission, Strategic Leadership Partners 

conducted an exhaustive study analyzing the current and projected impact of [energy-source] 

extraction industry activities on economic, social, and environmental conditions in the County. 

This is a unique analysis, and should be included in the BLM’s considerations 

-Previous challenges from the availability of asphalt/asphalt oils in the region have shown that 

self-sufficiency is vital to meet the imperatives of infrastructure maintenance and expansion to 
Final OSTS PEIS 231 

avoid supply disruption/price volatility 

#2])>

OSTS_009 

Organization: Lee Anne Walker 

Received: 3/14/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Commenter1: Lee Anne Walker - Salt Lake City, Utah 84121 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: nameaddr 

Submission Category: Comment Form 

Submitted As: SLC Meeting 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 4/20/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D00009.htm (OSTS_009-58373.htm Size = 1 KB) 

OSTS_009_Walker_Form_SLC_OSTS2012D00009.pdf (OSTS_009-58372.pdf Size = 123 KB) 

Submission Text

See Attachment. 

<([#1 [1.1] This was awful. I am a candidate for the Utah legislature and wanted to educate 

myself. There was no chance to get an overview, listen to other’s questions. 

I assumed ‘No Action’ meant no development. Others thought so too. Persisted asking, found out 

it meant ‘Don’t stop the drive to development.’ Research. #1])>

OSTS_010 

Organization: Joan Gregory 

Received: 3/14/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Commenter1: Joan Gregory - Salt Lake City, Utah 84108 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: addr 

Submission Category: Comment Form 

Submitted As: SLC Meeting 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 4/20/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D00010.htm (OSTS_010-58375.htm Size = 1 KB) 

OSTS_010_Gregory_Form_SLC_OSTS2012D00010.pdf (OSTS_010-58374.pdf Size = 94 KB) 

Submission Text

See Attachment. 

<([#1 [12] Zero, 0, none. No tar sands and no oil shale extraction. #1])> <([#2 [3.5.1.7] Instead, 

adopt long range climate adaptation and mitigation plans for Utah, Wyoming, and Colorado 

consistent with the science of 350 ppm. #2])>
Final OSTS PEIS 232 

OSTS_011 

Organization: Cathryn Cordray 

Received: 3/14/2010 12:00:00 AM 

Commenter1: Cathryn Cordray - Salt Lake City, Utah 84102 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: addr 

Submission Category: Comment Form 

Submitted As: SLC Meeting 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 4/20/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D00011.htm (OSTS_011-58377.htm Size = 1 KB) 

OSTS_011_Cordray_Form_SLC_OSTS2012D00011.pdf (OSTS_011-58376.pdf Size = 106 KB) 

Submission Text

See Attachment. 

<([#1 [1.1] This public meeting is a very poor method of meeting. This room is too small and the 

staff was inadequately prepared to deal with the amount of people and concerns. There should be 

a question and answer period for everyone to hear the questions and answers. You need a much 

larger room so that the people can hear the different experts without shouting. #1])>

OSTS_012 

Organization: Kate Lambert 

Received: 3/14/2010 12:00:00 AM 

Commenter1: Kate Lambert - Salt Lake city, Utah 84103 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: none 

Submission Category: Comment Form 

Submitted As: SLC Meeting 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 4/20/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D00012.htm (OSTS_012-58379.htm Size = 1 KB) 

OSTS_012_Lambert_Form_SLC_OSTS2012D00012.pdf (OSTS_012-58378.pdf Size = 101 

KB) 

Submission Text

See Attachment. 

<([#1 [1.1] [12] I came with a negative view of oil shale and tar sands development and thus 

have only been reinforced by the format of this meeting. It seems designed to defuse input and 

prevent true learning and challenges. It is unnecessary to pursue a risky and environmentally 

degrading process when alternatives are available. #1])>

OSTS_013 
Final OSTS PEIS 233 

Organization: Randy Long 

Received: 3/14/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Commenter1: Randy Long - Salt Lake City, Utah 84121 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: addr 

Submission Category: Comment Form 

Submitted As: SLC Meeting 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 4/20/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D00013.htm (OSTS_013-58381.htm Size = 1 KB) 

OSTS_013_Long_Form_SLC_OSTS2012D00013.pdf (OSTS_013-58380.pdf Size = 97 KB) 

Submission Text

See Attachment. 

<([#1 [2.3.1] [2.2] [12] Wilderness must prevail. Alternative 3 would be best, although 

Alternative 2 would be alright. Oil shale and tar sands development must be stopped once and 

for ALL. When? NOW!!! #1])>

OSTS_014 

Organization: Anthony Magnetti 

Received: 3/14/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Commenter1: Anthony Magnetti - Salt Lake City, Utah 84103 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: nameaddr 

Submission Category: Comment Form 

Submitted As: SLC Meeting 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 4/20/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D00014.htm (OSTS_014-58383.htm Size = 1 KB) 

OSTS_014_Magneth_Form_SLC_OSTS2012D00014.pdf (OSTS_014-58382.pdf Size = 110 

KB) 

Submission Text

See Attachment. 

<([#1 [1.1] I felt the hearing was conducted very inefficiently. If they had a panel of people up 

front to answer peoples questions it could have been more help. #1])>

<([#2 [12] I’m against any tar sands/shale mining. Based on what I gathered here tonight these 

mining proposals are out of the question! #2])>

OSTS_015 

Organization: Jacqueline Hollis 

Received: 3/14/2012 12:00:00 AM 
Final OSTS PEIS 234 

Commenter1: Jacqueline Hollis - Ogden, Utah 84403 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: none 

Submission Category: Comment Form 

Submitted As: SLC Meeting 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 4/20/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D00015.htm (OSTS_015-58385.htm Size = 1 KB) 

OSTS_015_Hollis_Form_SLC_OSTS2012D00015.pdf (OSTS_015-58384.pdf Size = 92 KB) 

Submission Text

See Attachment. 

<([#1 [2.3.1] I support #3 option. If research on 32,000 acres is enough why would 500,000 acres 

be needed? #1])>

OSTS_016 

Organization: Melissa Martinet 

Received: 3/14/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Commenter1: Melissa Martinet - Salt Lake City, Utah 84105 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: none 

Submission Category: Comment Form 

Submitted As: SLC Meeting 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 4/20/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D00016.htm (OSTS_016-58387.htm Size = 1 KB) 

OSTS_016_Martinet_Form_SLC_OSTS2012D00016.pdf (OSTS_016-58386.pdf Size = 95 KB) 

Submission Text

See Attachment. 

<([#1 [1.1] The room was not large enough and the experts in different corners of the room was 

inefficient. People also should have been able to give spoken comments. #1])>

<([#2 [12] I’m totally opposed to any more oil shale and/or tar sands development in Utah. 

Where is the option for no more development? #2])>

OSTS_017 

Organization: Roger Borgenicht 

Received: 3/14/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Commenter1: Roger Borgenicht - Salt Lake City, Utah 84103 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: none 
Final OSTS PEIS 235 

Submission Category: Comment Form 

Submitted As: SLC Meeting 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 4/20/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D00017.htm (OSTS_017-58389.htm Size = 1 KB) 

OSTS_017_Borgenicht_Form_SLC_OSTS2012D00017.pdf (OSTS_017-58388.pdf Size = 90 

KB) 

Submission Text

See Attachment. 

<([#1 [10.6.1] Environmental degradation for a damaging energy source will damage the future 

for our children and on. Change to conservation and development of clean energy sources must 

be our long-term strategy for Utah and the planet. Don’t chase a dying, destructive solution.

#1])>

OSTS_018 

Organization: Jean Corey 

Received: 3/14/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Commenter1: Jean Corey - Sandy, Utah 84092 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: none 

Submission Category: Comment Form 

Submitted As: SLC Meeting 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 4/20/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D00018.htm (OSTS_018-58391.htm Size = 1 KB) 

OSTS_018_Corey_Form_SLC_OSTS2012D00018.pdf (OSTS_018-58390.pdf Size = 114 KB) 

Submission Text

See Attachment. 

<([#1 [2.4.1] Please go forward with Alternative 4a immediately. Stop holding up development 

of this valuable resource. Make us more energy and materials (plastics, etc) self sufficient. There 

are possible endangered species and historic sites everywhere. We can’t live in the stone age 

because of fears about this. Companies are now very accomplished at low impact energy 

development. Don’t listen to the luddites. #1])>

OSTS_019 

Organization: Joshua Lenart 

Received: 3/14/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Commenter1: Joshua Lenart - Salt Lake City, Utah 84105 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: addr 

Submission Category: Comment Form 
Final OSTS PEIS 236 

Submitted As: Postal Mail 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 4/20/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D00019.htm (OSTS_019-58393.htm Size = 1 KB) 

OSTS_019_Lenart_Form_Mail_OSTS2012D00019.pdf (OSTS_019-58392.pdf Size = 154 KB) 

Submission Text

See Attachment. 

<([#1 [2.3.1] I am a Doctoral candidate in English with a focus on environmental humanities and 

rhetoric. I teach technical writing in the Department of Chemical Engineering. I attended the 

BLM’s 2012 Oil Shale and Tar Sands Draft PEIS in Salt Lake City on March 14, 2012. I 

STRONGLY support Alternative 3. I also support recommendations made by the Theodore 

Roosevelt Conservation Partnership (TRCP) and Sportsman for Responsible Energy 

Development. #1])>

OSTS_020 

Organization: Excalibur Industries, Raymond Ridge 

Received: 3/14/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Commenter1: Raymond Ridge - Salt Lake City, Utah 84117 (United States) 

Organization1:Excalibur Industries 

Commenter Type: OSTS Tech Company 

Classification: addr 

Submission Category: Comment Form and Attachment 

Submitted As: SLC Meeting 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 4/20/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D00020.htm (OSTS_020-58395.htm Size = 1 KB) 

OSTS_020_Ridge_Form_and_Written_Comments_SLC_OSTS2012D00020.pdf (OSTS_020-

58394.pdf Size = 248 KB) 

Submission Text

See Attachment. 

BLM Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Wednesday, March 14, 2012, 7:00p.m. 

Comments of Raymond L. Ridge

Questions

1. By show of hands, how many of you here would have come tonight to protest the 

construction of a ski lift in a wilderness area erected by helicopter on cement pylons? 

2. By show of hands, how many of you here would have come tonight to protest the 

construction of an underground pipeline that denudes the surface the entire width of 

the right-of-way? 
Final OSTS PEIS 237 

3. By show of hands, how many of you here would have come tonight to protest the 

construction of an above-ground pipeline similar to the Alaska pipeline? 

4. By show of hands, how many of you here would have come tonight to protest the 

construction of a high-powered electric transmission line over the lands in question? 

5. By show of hands, how many of you here would have come tonight to protest the 

construction of an elevated, camouflaged conveyor belt that does no harm to wild 

lands or wildlife, similar to the Kennecott conveyor belt between the crushing plant 

and the smelter, but erected by helicopter on cement pylons? 

<([#1 [2] The problem with the draft Pro grammatic Environmental Impact Statement (“PEIS”) 

subject 

ofthis hearing is that it proposes to treat oil shale development as more hostile to the environment 

than the current shale gas drilling activities being conducted throughout the country, including on 

the Roan Plateau as depicted National Wildlife magazine dated June/July 2010. (Hold-up 

pictures) 

And, it leaves no room for anyprocess which is environmentally responsible and economic. In 

fact, 

the expressed preference for Alternative 2(b) would merely serve to prevent environmentally 

responsible methods from ever being employed, and effectively continue the reservation of oil 

shale 

for Big Oil against the day that traditional sources of crude are expended. No provision is made 

to 

reconsider Alternative 2(b) if presented an alternative for environmentally responsible methods. 

In 

fact, the prospect of future clean technologies has purposely been excluded from consideration; 

and 

the assumption has been made that all processing will be done “on-site”, on BLM oil shale lands, 

rather than possibly on “environmentally expendable” lands. 

#1])>

<([#2 [3.4.2] With respect to shale gas wells that are fraced, that process permanently eliminates 

enough 

water to support almost 100 persons, i.e. 6 Million gallons/143,000 Bbls/18.4 acre/ft. That would 

be enough to support at least 500,000 people if all 5,175 wells just approved in the Uinta Basin 

are 

to be fraced. 

Unlike the processing of tar sands in Canada, the water used in oil shale processing does not 

come into contact with the hydrocarbons, and the small amounts of water that leach from tailings 

prior to processing into 14 ancillary products can be rendered environmentally inert using plasma 

gasification subject of the Todd Foret patent for Plasma Whirl. The only substance which cannot 

be 

rendered “environmentally inert” using plasma gasification is radioactive material. 

#2])>
Final OSTS PEIS 238 

<([#3 [6.3] As for economic viability, Petro bras has continuously produced oil from oil shale 

since 1972 

using Paraho/Petrosix vertical retorts from 7% grade material rather than the 13%-18% grades in 

Colorado. Kennecott mines material worth a mere $20.00/ton while oil shale has a value in 

excess 

of $75.00/ton for the oil, without attributing any value to ancillary products; and four tons of 

Canadian tar sands produce but a single barrel of oil, while four tons of oil shale at 12% grade 

produces 3 bbls. of oil. 

#3])>

<([#4 [11.2] Shale Gas drilling activities are currently denuding much larger tracts than would be 

denuded 

by underground mining of oil shale (which is currently mandated by the State of Colorado) and 

its 

transpm1 by elevated, camouflaged conveyor belts descending through ravines & rail in already 

existing transpm1ation corridors to an environmentally expendable site for central site 

processing 

and refining. A site with no Sage Grouse! 

The question which m11st be asked is why is Secretary Salazar intent on withdrawing oil shale 

lands from development regardless of how environmentally responsible the method of extraction 

and 

processing might be, especially after I had informed him by letter December 14, 2010 of my 

Patent 

to produce oil shale without environmental impacts? 

And, why did he instigate this action within 60 days of receipt of my letter, i.e. learning that 

oil shale could be produced without hann to the environment? 

What is his true motivation to withdraw oil shale lands rather than merely define the level 

of cleanliness and mitigation of surface disturbance needed to protect the wildlands and wildlife? 

Why does the BLM propose to continue the exploitation of energy extraction using methods 

which are more harmful than those I propose for Oil Shale? 

Why does Secretary Salazar hide behind the Sage Grouse, when the methods I propose would 

not hann the Sage Grouse habitat? 

Why is Oil Shale the only resource absent from the President’s Energy Plan? 

Secretary Salazar knows that the industry cannot attract the capital needed without the 

prospect of access to the entire lands currently available under Option 1. He is intent on killing 

this 

nascent industry, and is hiding behind a veil of moderation and the Sage Grouse in doing so! 

The actions proposed by the BLM in this Draft PEIS as Options 2-4 are flawed and will be 

subjected to judicial review if adopted. That is likely the reason a separate PEIS relating to Sage 
Final OSTS PEIS 239 

Grouse alone was inititated in December 2011. The BLM is seeking to have two bites of the 

proverbial “Apple” to kill this nascent industry! 

#4])>

And, for those of you who think you are being informed by the Press, you should be aware 

that I’ve attempted to give this information to both Nancy Conway, Editor of The Salt Lake 

Tribune 

and Brandon Loomis, a “reporter” covering oil issues and publishing diatribe articles. They have 

refused to respond! The Salt Lake Tribune continues to propagate antiquated, misleading 

information to the public! 

OSTS_021 

Organization: Our Healthy Earth Foundation, Mary Russell 

Received: 3/14/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Commenter1: Mary Russell - Glenwood Springs, Utah 81602 (United States) 

Organization1:Our Healthy Earth Foundation 

Commenter Type: Misc. Organization 

Classification: none 

Submission Category: Comment Form and Attachment 

Submitted As: SLC Meeting 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 4/20/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D00021.htm (OSTS_021-58397.htm Size = 1 KB) 

OSTS_021_Russell_Form_and_Written_Comments_SLC_OSTS2012D00021.pdf (OSTS_021-

58396.pdf Size = 355 KB) 

Submission Text

See Attachment. 

<([#1 [12.2] Powering machines and vehicles and heating our buildings takes 84% of the 

petroleum used every year (American Chemical Society, “Chemistry in the Community, p. 176). 

Sixteen (16%) percent of it goes into making plastics, pharmaceuticals, fertilizers, as well as 

crayons, gum, ink, dishwashing liquid, deodorant, tires, and ammonia. Drilling, processing, and 

burning oil is dirty and damaging to the health of people everywhere, not to mention the health 

of the planet. Oil is running out. There needs to be an end to all future extraction of this nonrenewable resource. As Dr. Fatih Birol, Chief economist at the IEA (International Energy 

Agency) says, “we have to leave oil before oil leaves us, and we have to prepare a ourselves for 

that day.” The BLM is charged with the duty to manage all lands under this jurisdiction that 

protects all living organisms to survive and thrive. Continuing to work is within the paradigm of 

managing the public lands its held accountable for, with a high (illegible) for their economic 

benefit, is against the natural law of limits to growth. The lands in Colorado, Wyoming, and Utah 

are being taxed beyond their capacity to ever be redeemed or recovered. 

In 1989 the wall erected between East and West Germany was torn down. This collapse was a 

result of the collapse of the Soviet Union. It resulted in the collapse of the system put into place 

40 years earlier that caused Cuba to be dependent on oil from the Soviet Union. Cuba suffered, 

as the rest of us must, at the immediate loss of fertilizers to grow industrialized food systems. 
Final OSTS PEIS 240 

Within two years, Cuba developed into what is now considered a more resilient, self-sustaining 

nation, free from oil dependency, this timing through a new paradigm of less consumption “after 

decades plagued with poverty, public health crises, and environmental devastation, while Shell 

extracted millions of dollars worth of oil from under their homes, the Ogoni (of Nigeria’s 

Ogoniland) began to organize themselves to fight for their rights and their land.” We will fight 

for our land as well. #1])>

Attachment: 

SLC Mtg 3-14-12 

Suggestions for Consideration in Context of BLM Oil Shale & Tar Sands PEIS March 2012 

<([#2 [6.6] Industrial Distinctions 

1. Oil shale extractive processes and products have distinct characteristics from Tar Sands 

a. Environmental impacts and energy inputs differ dramatically between OS/TS 

b. E&P processes vary in accordance with terrain and mineral content 

c. End-products can be combustible for energy production, or resource-conserving 

d. In 2007 responding to the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (Section 369-p), the University of Utah 

prepared “A Technical, Economic, and Legal Assessment of North American Heavy Oil, Oil 

Sands, and Oil Shale Resources,” for the US Dept of Energy, in which it drew from science and 

available technologies to illustrate clear distinctions between the E&P processes and products 

and their economic and environmental impacts. There are clear advantages/disadvantages that 

need to be included in BLM considerations, since this is a landmark study. 

#2])> <([#3 [3.10.2] 2. Oil Shale fuel removal and Tar Sands applications have different costs, 

and local impacts 

a. Proximity to established roads makes haulage expensive, contributes emissions 

b. Local sourcing/local applications make Tar Sands more “user-friendly” 

#3])>

<([#4 [10.7] c. Asphalt content of Tar Sands offers immediate benefits, with proven lower costs 

d. Current testing and applications of native asphalt (derived closely from Tar Sands) on local 

roads is expected to lead to wider development of this process/product, with the concurrent 

completion of the Utah Department of Transportation’s recent performance test results 

(coordinated by USTAR). This is a more sustainable and non-combustible application vs. Oil 

Shale. 

#4])>

<([#5 [3.10.2] Economic Impacts 
Final OSTS PEIS 241 

-The Uinta Basin has a long track record of experience in energy source E&P, generating small 

business and high-wage job growth, State & Federal revenues 

-To sustain small business and job creation, and retain multinational business manufacturing in 

the region, choices need to be made with respect to access 

-High capital investment/costs of capital in the energy E&P industry require guarantees of 

longevity, and consideration of interstate competitive issues 

-In 2008, at request of the Uintah County Planning Commission, Strategic Leadership Partners 

conducted an exhaustive study analyzing the current and projected impact of [energy-source] 

extraction industry activities on economic, social, and environmental conditions in the County. 

This is a unique analysis, and should be included in the BLM’s considerations 

-Previous challenges from the availability of asphalt/asphalt oils in the region have shown that 

self-sufficiency is vital to meet the imperatives of infrastructure maintenance and expansion to 

avoid supply disruption/price volatility 

Also see: http://democrats.naturalresources.house.gov/content/files/2011-08-

24_HRG_EMR_Testimony_Spinti.pdf 

And http://repository.icse.utah.edu/dspace/handle/123456789/10823 

#5])>

OSTS_022 

Organization: Living Rivers, John Weisheit 

Received: 3/14/2010 12:00:00 AM 

Commenter1: John Weisheit - Muab, Utah 84532 (United States) 

Organization1:Living Rivers 

Commenter Type: Environmental Organization 

Classification: none 

Submission Category: Comment Form 

Submitted As: SLC Meeting 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 4/20/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D00022.htm (OSTS_022-58399.htm Size = 1 KB) 

OSTS_022_Weisheit_Form_SCL_OSTS2012D00022.pdf (OSTS_022-58398.pdf Size = 110 

KB) 

Submission Text

See Attachment. 

<([#1 [3.4.1] [4.2] Our main concern is cumulative impacts to water resources and the 

hydrologic cycle. The impacts include: over-allocation; imbalance of demand over supply; 

destruction of primary watershed productivity, dust on snow; increases loading of greenhouse 
Final OSTS PEIS 242 

gases; increased aridity & evaporation; increasing salinity; destruction of aquatic critical habitat. 

We will provide more thorough comments by the due date of May 4, 2012. #1])>

OSTS_023 

Organization: unknown unknown 

Received: 3/14/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Commenter1: unknown unknown - , Utah (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: none 

Submission Category: Letter 

Submitted As: SLC Meeting 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/18/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D00023.htm (OSTS_023-58401.htm Size = 1 KB) 

OSTS_023_unknown_SLC_illustration_OSTS2012D00023.pdf (OSTS_023-58400.pdf Size = 

71 KB) 

Submission Text

See Attachment. 

<([#1 [3] Illustration commenting on alternatives 1, 2, 3, and 4 [See attachment] #1])>

OSTS_024 

Organization: Melanie Martin 

Received: 4/2/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Commenter1: Melanie Martin - , (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: none 

Submission Category: Letter 

Submitted As: E-Mail 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 4/20/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D00024.htm (OSTS_024-58403.htm Size = 1 KB) 

OSTS_024_Martin_SLC_Email_OSTS2012D00024.pdf (OSTS_024-58402.pdf Size = 62 KB) 

Submission Text

See Attachment. 

<([#1 [1.1] I spoke with you at the BLM’s public meeting about prospective leasing of lands for 

oil shale and tar sands development a couple of weeks ago, and appreciated your thoughtful 

answers to my questions. #1])> I’m working with two local organizations that are concerned 

about proposed tar sands and oil shale developments in Utah: Peaceful Uprising and the Utah Tar 

Sands Resistance. I’m hoping you can answer a few questions of mine regarding these issues, 

and would greatly appreciate your input. 
Final OSTS PEIS 243 

<([#2 [3.7.3.1] The EIS states, in the section on oil shale development: 

“A total of 112,851 acres of wild horse HMAs, 172,339 acres of mule deer winter habitat, 

11,470 acres of mule deer summer habitat, 159,205 acres of elk winter habitat, and 11,465 

acres of elk summer habitat overlap lands that would be available for oil shale leasing.” 

How do you believe tar sands and oil shale development would affect these species, and in doing 

so, how would this affect the greater ecosystem? 

#2])>

<([#3 [3.7.4.1] Furthermore, regarding oil shale development, the EIS continues, “151 federal 

candidate, BLM designated sensitive, and state listed species, and 14 federally listed 

threatened or endangered species could occur in areas that are available for application for 

leasing under Alternative 2.” 

How might oil shale development affect these 14 federally listed species, and what species would 

be most at risk? What is the likelihood that they occur in the areas in question? 

#3])>

<([#4 [3.4.1] The EIS also states: “For Alternative 2, within the lease areas (including a 2-mi 

buffer), there are 37 perennial streams totaling 386 mi. The construction and operation of 

commercial oil shale projects within the lease areas could adversely affect aquatic 

resources in these streams.”

How would the streams be affected—would they be diverted, for example, and what effects would 

this have on local communities and agriculture? What effects might this have on wildlife and 

ecosystems? 

#4])>

<([#5 [3.13] Additionally, do you believe that hazardous chemicals from tar sands and oil shale 

extraction and processing will likely contaminate ecosystems? 

#5])>

<([#6 [3.7.4.11] Also, I’m trying to make sense of the following statement, which seems 

contradictory to me: “The construction and operation of commercial oil shale projects could 

impact threatened, endangered, and sensitive species and their habitats where individual 

projects are located within the 461,965 acres identified for oil shale leasing. There were no 

habitats for threatened, endangered, or sensitive species identified for spatial or temporal 

protection in BLM RMPs that would be present in the lease application areas.” 

How is it that no habitats have been identified for protection if the BLM acknowledges that such 

habitats are present? 

#6])>

<([#7 [6.3] Finally, I understand that the extraction process for Utah’s tar sands would be 

different than the process for Canadian tar sands. Would impacts on ecosystems and 

communities be potentially greater, or lower—or do we not have enough evidence to make 

such a determination? 

#7])>

Thank you very much for your time. I look forward to hearing your thoughts on these important 

issues. 
Final OSTS PEIS 244 

Best regards, 

Melanie Martin 

OSTS_025 

Organization: Denis Doebbeling 

Received: 4/7/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Commenter1: Denis Doebbeling - Salt Lake City, Utah 84105 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: none 

Submission Category: Comment Form 

Submitted As: Postal Mail 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 4/20/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D00025.htm (OSTS_025-58405.htm Size = 1 KB) 

OSTS_025_Doebbeling_form_mail_OSTS2012D00025.pdf (OSTS_025-58404.pdf Size = 241 

KB) 

Submission Text

See Attachment. 

<([#1 [10.6.1] [12] Earth, our planet, has experienced a previous global warming event which 

occurred 56 million years ago. It is not known what caused this massive release of carbon into 

the atmosphere. It is called the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum or PETM. It is estimated 

that if we burn through all of our planet’s reserve of coal, oil, oil shale tar sands, and natural gas, 

a similar situation will be created. The human caused PETM will take more than 150,000 years 

for oceans and forests to absorb the excess carbon and cool off our planet. In the meantime, all 

animal life will become extinct. New animal life will develop from a species of foram, a sand 

grain size creature that lives in the sands of oceans. 

This is the scenario that many scientists predict will occur unless we stop using fossil fuels. My 

suggestion is that we forget about developing tar sands and oil shale. We need to put our 

resources into developing clean energy. It will take time to turn this ship around but we must 

attack it as if we were at war. Stop the development of tar sands and oil shale. Develop clean 

energy to stop global warming. 

“With fossil fuels today, we are taking what took millions of years to accumulate and we are 

releasing them in a geologic instant.” (James Zachos, U of CA, Santa Cruz). 

The science I referred to I found in National Geographic Magazine, October 2011, Earth before 

Ice, p. 90. #1])>

OSTS_026 

Organization: Enefit American Oil Company, Gary Aho 

Received: 3/3/2012 12:00:00 AM 
Final OSTS PEIS 245 

Commenter1: Gary Aho - Vernal, Utah 84078 (United States) 

Organization1:Enefit American Oil Company 

Commenter Type: OSTS Tech Company 

Classification: none 

Submission Category: Comment Form and Attachment 

Submitted As: Vernal Meeting 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 4/25/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D00026.htm (OSTS_026-58407.htm Size = 1 KB) 

OSTS_026_Enefit_Aho_form_Vernal_OSTS2012D00026.pdf (OSTS_026-58406.pdf Size = 

269 KB) 

Submission Text

See Attachment. 

Enefit American Oil Company (Enefit), a subsidiary of Eesti Energia, hereby submits the 

following public comments on the Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) 

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. 

Enefit presented detailed comments in response to the Notice of Intent to Prepare a 

Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and Possible Land Use Plan 

Amendments for Allocation of Oil Shale and Tar Sands Resources and will submit additional 

formal comments in response to the Draft PEIS. 

<([#1 [6.3.5] The Administration continues to ignore the advancement of the oil shale industry 

worldwide. In 

February, testifying before the Senate Energy Committee, Secretary Salazar stated once again 

that the technology has not been developed and the “technology is not there” to develop our oil 

shale resources. This statement could not be further from reality. Estonian companies have 

been commercially producing oil from oil shale for decades and they meet all European Union 

environmental standards. This production is not subsidized and is a profitable business. 

Moreover, commercial production is occurring in Brazil and China as well. The key reason 

development is not occurring in the United States is because the Federal Government owns the 

vast majority of oil shale resources in this nation and has only made a small fraction available 

for limited development under uncertain conditions which do not justify the significant 

investments needed for permitting, engineering and full scale commercial development. Enefit 

was founded in 1939 and is the world’s largest oil shale processing company. 

In Estonia we mine up to 17 million tons of oil shale per year. We operate the world’s largest oil 

shale fired power plants with a total output of 2,380 MW. Enefit also owns the most advanced 

proprietary shale oil production technology. In total we have mined 1 billion tons of oil shale, 

produced 550 TWh of power and produced 200 million barrels of oil. We also employ 

approximately 7,000 people. Moreover, our Enefit 280 plant will go into production this year and 

will more than double our current oil production capacity. Enefit desires to bring this same, next 

generation technology to the Uinta Basin in Utah. Enefit will make very large capital 
Final OSTS PEIS 246 

investments, without government support and will bring approximately 2000 direct jobs to the 

State of Utah as well as produce hundreds of millions of barrels of oil over the life of the project. 

This massive investment in a project that will span decades is only possible because of our 

private Utah land holdings. Availability of Federal resources would attract similar investments 

from other companies. #1])>

<([#2 [9.8] Enefit opposes the Draft PEIS and encourages the Administration to revisit the need 

for this 

effort given that a comprehensive effort was completed in 2008, there is little justification or new 

information to support a repeat of this effort, and the oil shale industry in the United States is in 

its infancy. #2])> <([#3 [9.6] Enefit holds one of the five Federal RD&D leases ever granted 

which is located at 

the White River Mine in Eastern Utah. The Draft PEIS gives little assurance to Enefit and other 

RD&D lease holders that the property rights they have paid for, own, and spent their own money 

investing in will not be impacted. The Draft PEIS calls into question the lease holders’ ability to 

convert the RD&D leases into commercial leases and should clearly confirm that the potential 

and process for this conversion will not change. In some instances, great investment into these 

leases has occurred and the PEIS must provide a strong and clear statement that the terms and 

conditions of these existing rights will not change in any fashion. 

#3])>

<([#4 [2.2] The Draft PEIS is designed to prohibit development of America’s largest petroleum 

resource. 

Furthermore, at a time when the United States is facing an energy crisis in combination with a 

struggling economy, this is perhaps the worst possible timing to be removing over 75% of the 

world’s largest oil shale deposits from leasing and potential production. In conservative terms, 

the proposed PEIS would place off limits billions of barrels of recoverable oil to Americans at a 

time when oil prices exceed $100 per barrel and gas prices are approaching $5 per gallon in 

some markets. 

#4])>

<([#5 [9.2.3] [9.6.1] The Draft PEIS is also in direct opposition to the 2005 Energy Policy Act 

which required 

commercial leasing of Federal oil shale resources. Removing 75% of the resource from access 

and requiring proof of technology prior to commercial leasing violates the 2005 Act. The notion 

that a company willing to commit its own investment capital must demonstrate technology, 

demonstrate viable markets, and demonstrate commercial viability before even being allowed to 

enter into a mineral lease is in contravention with Federal leasing practices. No other extractive 

industry is faced with these requirements. Oil, gas, coal, potash, and other resources are put up 

for competitive lease and companies are free to bid on these resources and develop them 

pursuant to the applicable land, water, and air protections in existing law. All applicable 

environmental regulations will apply to oil shale as they do other heavy industries; yet, the Draft 

PEIS seeks to add additional requirements which prejudice and discourage the development of 

this critical resource in direct conflict with the intent of the 2005 Act. BLM fails to present a 

credible factual, legal or legitimate policy basis for proposing to amend the ten Resource 

Management Plans (RMP) currently in place. The Administration failed to vigorously defend the 

2008 PEIS in litigation and instead settled litigation to achieve a political policy decision as 
Final OSTS PEIS 247 

opposed to following the open public planning process required under FLPMA. The 2008 PEIS 

should be allowed to operate and then if issues arise from the current regulatory framework, 

those identified problems could be addressed in precise amendments to the current plans. 

#5])>

<([#6 [9.2.4] [9.2.1] [3.7.4.2] [3.7.4.8] [3.1.3] The preferred alternative in the Draft PEIS would 

exclude from commercial leasing lands that 

may have wilderness characteristics or are in “core or priority sage-grouse habitat”. Neither of 

these categories enjoy any regulatory protections but rather are assumed conditions by the 

BLM. Potential wilderness is not protected under the Wilderness Act unless designated as a 

Wilderness Study Area under the Act or through the FLPMA planning process. In terms of Sage 

Grouse, this species is not currently protected under the Endangered Species Act. Foreclosing 

lands due to the potential of these categories presupposes future designations or potential 

mitigation actions that could be taken and is premature. #6])>

<([#7 [2.1.1] Enefit believes that in the near future, production of oil from oil shale rock will 

occur in a 

responsible manner, meeting all environmental regulations, without government subsidies, and 

will be a profitable industry. The Federal Government should provide access to the world’s 

greatest deposits of oil shale in Utah, Colorado, and Wyoming. Oil shale development should 

be treated on an equal basis with other energy and mineral leasing activities. Enefit urges the 

BLM to withdraw the current Draft PEIS or select the no action alternative. #7])>

Enefit American Oil Co. 

OSTS_027 

Organization: Duchesne County, Mike Hyde 

Received: 3/13/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Commenter1: Mike Hyde - Duchesne, Utah 84021 (United States) 

Organization1:Duchesne County 

Commenter Type: Affiliation Only 

Classification: none 

Submission Category: Comment Form 

Submitted As: Vernal Meeting 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 4/20/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D00027.htm (OSTS_027-58409.htm Size = 1 KB) 

OSTS_027_Hyde_form_Vernal_OSTS2012D00027.pdf (OSTS_027-58408.pdf Size = 613 KB) 

Submission Text

See Attachment. 

<([#1 [9.8] This so-called “fresh look” is a waste of the taxpayer’s money. A perfectly fine PEIS 

was approved in 2008. Because the Obama administration is pandering to the environmental 

groups, the new proposed EIS reduces the land area for commercial leasing dramatically. 

Obama’s failure to encourage development of domestic sources of energy will guarantee he is a 

one term president. If this is a “fresh look,” why was there such a feeble attempt made to update 

the data in the PEIS? There is still a lot of data in it that is obsolete. If this were truly a “fresh 
Final OSTS PEIS 248 

look,” the data would be updated to the most current available. Too bad that the document is 

being rushed toward an approval that will appease the environmentalists rather than being a true 

“fresh look.” #1])> <([#2 [6.3.2.1] If this were truly a “fresh look,” the BLM would have made 

contact with Enefit and Red Leaf Resources to learn more about their technologies. Red Leaf can 

produce a barrel of oil with only 8 gallons of water. This is not recognized in the report, instead 

the report uses talking points from the environmental community in making water consumption 

to be a bigger issue than it truly is. #2])> <([#3 [2.1.1] The oil shale industry will move forward 

not because of the BLM making lands available but in spite of the BLM’s failure to make lands 

available. Technology will instead be proven on state and private lands. Only with a Republican 

Administration will BLM begin placing the interests of the energy-consuming public ahead of 

the interests of plants and animals. Duchesne County will be submitting detailed comments in 

writing before the May 4th deadline. Our hope is that the BLM will recognize these comments 

and select the No Action Alternative in spite of their settlement agreement with environmental 

groups. We need the energy and jobs for our growing population. 

#3])>

OSTS_028 

Organization: David Freeman 

Received: 3/15/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Commenter1: David Freeman - Rock Springs, Wyoming 82902 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: nameaddr 

Submission Category: Comment Form 

Submitted As: Rock Springs Meeting 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 4/20/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D00028.htm (OSTS_028-58411.htm Size = 1 KB) 

OSTS_028_Freeman_form_RockSprings_OSTS2012D00028.pdf (OSTS_028-58410.pdf Size = 

78 KB) 

Submission Text

See Attachment. 

<([#1 [12.2] I am not really in favor of oil shale development until we can answer many more 

questions. At this point it’s like riding a blind horse. #1])>

OSTS_029 

Organization: Rock Springs Grazing Association, Don Schramm 

Received: 3/15/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Commenter1: Don Schramm - Rock Springs, Wyoming 86902 (United States) 

Organization1:Rock Springs Grazing Association 

Commenter Type: Grazing Assoc 

Classification: none 

Submission Category: Comment Form 

Submitted As: Rock Springs Meeting 

Form Letter Category: 
Final OSTS PEIS 249 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 4/20/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D00029.htm (OSTS_029-58413.htm Size = 1 KB) 

OSTS_029_Schramm_form_RockSprings_OSTS2012D00029.pdf (OSTS_029-58412.pdf Size = 

86 KB) 

Submission Text

See Attachment. 

Comment: <([#1 [11.2] RSGA [Rock Springs Grazing Association] supports all oil shale leasing 

for development. RSGA has one active lease with Anadarko for the oil. Along with WY DEQ. 

#1])>

OSTS_030 

Organization: Craig Kerns 

Received: 3/15/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Commenter1: Craig Kerns - Green River, Wyoming 82935 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: none 

Submission Category: Comment Form 

Submitted As: Rock Springs Meeting 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 4/20/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D00030.htm (OSTS_030-58415.htm Size = 1 KB) 

OSTS_030_Kerns_form_RockSprings_OSTS2012D00030.pdf (OSTS_030-58414.pdf Size = 95 

KB) 

Submission Text

See Attachment. 

<([#1 [6.3.3] The in-situ process, when practical, appears to be the most advantageous, from an 

initial cash investment to confinement of the processing area (underground) containment of any 

solvents should be easily controlled due to laminate structure of the shale – looks like a great 

prospect for fuel, wealth & technology. #1])>

OSTS_031 

Organization: Oliver Adams 

Received: 3/22/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Commenter1: Oliver Adams - Boulder, Colorado 80302 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: none 

Submission Category: Letter 

Submitted As: Postal Mail 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/18/2012 12:00:00 AM 
Final OSTS PEIS 250 

Attachments: OSTS2012D00031.htm (OSTS_031-58417.htm Size = 1 KB) 

OSTS_031_Adams_letter_mail_OSTS2012D00031.pdf (OSTS_031-58416.pdf Size = 107 KB) 

Submission Text

See Attachment. 

<([#1 [2.5] The proposed plan for research and development of oil shale in the four corners 

region has to 

be adjusted drastically. The proposed area of land allocated for this project is 461,965 acres, 

covering areas in Colorado, Utah and Wyoming (BLM Draft Programmatic). In the proposal, 

it is clearly stated that there is currently not a sustainable or viable procedure for oil shale or 

tar sand extraction. Considering the case, the main point of this project should be researching 

a way to extract oil shale and tar sand in an economically viable way. So why does one need 

461,965 acres to plan and research the extraction of these resources. It seems that regardless 

of the lack of technology, there will still be massive mining operations occurring at these sites. It 

seems a lot more rational to establish a mining site in a resource rich area covering 100 acres 

tops. It would be best to establish these mining and research stations in several locations but 

there should be designated areas with limits to development. Having 4 or 5 stations covering 

100 acres each would be a lot less detrimental to the environment than having 461 ,965 acres 

open for development. #1])>

<([#2 [6.3.2.2] The other major issue is the required massive amounts of water needed to extract 

these 

resources in an area where water is very scarce. There should be regulations and limits to the 

amount of water consumed by these mining companies, as long as these projects aren’t large 

scale extraction sites this shouldn’t be a problem. #2])>

<([#3 [3.8.1] After traveling and conducting field work in this area for two months it is 

inevitable for me 

to bring up the aesthetic values. These canyons are some of the last pieces of land on earth 

that have not been developed, they are truly unique. Giving such a large amount of land for 

mining poses a serious threat for the conservation of these places. #3])> <([#4 [2.5] I agree that 

research 

and ‘development’ are necessary for the progression of our countries energy consumption, but 

these number are exaggerated. There can be sustainable research methods without the use of 

massive amounts of land. Help me in conserving this area and thank you for considering 

reducing the amount of land to a sustainable acreage. #4])>

OSTS_032 

Organization: Montrose County Board of County Commissioners, David White 

Received: 2/16/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Commenter1: David White - Montrose, Colorado 81401 (United States) 

Organization1:Montrose County Board of County Commissioners 

Commenter2: Gary Ellis - Montrose, Colorado 81401 (United States) 

Organization2:Montrose County Board of County Commissioners 

Commenter3: Ron Henderson - Montrose, Colorado 81401 (United States) 

Organization3:Montrose County Board of County Commissioners 

Commenter Type: Local Government 
Final OSTS PEIS 251 

Classification: none 

Submission Category: Letter 

Submitted As: Postal Mail 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/18/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D00032.htm (OSTS_032-58419.htm Size = 1 KB) 

OSTS_032_Montrose_County_mail_OSTS2012D00032.pdf (OSTS_032-58418.pdf Size = 174 

KB) 

Submission Text

See Attachment. 

As the elected County Commissioners for Montrose County, Colorado we are hereby 

submittingcomments as an interested party in response to the Draft Programmatic Environmental 

Impact 

Statement (Draft PEIS) for Allocation of Oil Shale and Tar Sands Resources which was 

published in the Federal Register on February 6, 2012. 

<([#1 [3.10.3] In general, we are concerned that this proposed action will adversely impact oil 

shale 

development within the State of Colorado. The economic benefits derived from development of 

domestically located natural resources are well known and deserve adequate consideration in 

actions such as this Draft PEIS. With the exception of the required “No Action” alternative, all of 

the proposed alternatives will significantly reduce the acreage available to oil shale development 

in Colorado. In fact, preferred alternative 2(b) would reduce the Colorado acreage available for 

oil shale leasing from 346,609 acres to 35,308 acres (Draft PEIS, Table 2.3.2-2). Given that 

proposed alternatives 2, 3 and 4 span the range from moderate to severe restriction of available 

lease lands, we believe that adequate consideration has not been given to the future economic 

impact of this action on oil shale development. #1])>

More specifically, we have concerns that the regulatory requirements ofNEPA have not been 

satisfied. NEPA regulations state: 

<([#2 [1.5] If the information relevant to reasonably foreseeable significant adverse impacts 

cannot 

be obtained because the overall costs of obtaining it are exorbitant or the means to obtain 

it are not known, the agency shall include within the environmental impact statement: 

a summary of existing credible scientific evidence which is relevant to evaluating 

the reasonably foreseeable significant adverse impacts on the human environment 

(CEQ- Regulations for Implementing NEPA, 43 CFR Part 1502.22.b(3)) 

In this Draft PEIS, the agency repeatedly mentions the “unknown” aspects of oil shale extraction. 

As an example, the section discussing potential development technologies states, “Because 

commercial oil shale development technologies are still largely in an R&D phase, many details 

regarding the specific technologies that may be used in the future to produce oil from oil shale 
Final OSTS PEIS 252 

are unknown” (Draft PEIS, § 2.3 .1, p.2-16 at 44-46). While it is true that extraction technology 

is 

continually evolving, we feel that the agency has relied upon a perceived uncertainty of oil shale 

extraction in the course of advancing overly restrictive alternatives. 

Furthermore, it does not appear that “a summary of existing credible scientific evidence” has 

been included to fulfill NEP A requirements or to support the concerns about the unknowns of 

the 

extraction process. It seems that the agency is relying on a general premise that all extraction 

activities are environmentally harmful and therefore any potential technology used to develop oil 

shale will also be significantly harmful. Evidence of this premise can be found in various places 

within the Draft PEIS. For example, “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” (Draft 

PEIS, § 6.1.6.3 .13, p.6-31 0 at 15-17). 

In closing, it is our opinion that making a determination that oil shale extraction/technology will 

be significantly harmful while failing to provide the required basis for that determination is a 

decision which does not satisfy NEPA or represent the needs of the public. #2])> <([#3 [2.1.1] 

We hereby, provide 

our unanimous support for the “No Action” alternative as stated in the Draft PEIS and request 

that further consideration be given to the agency’s position on oil shale extraction in this and any 

future actions. 

#3])>

OSTS_033 

Organization: Mesa County Board of County Commissioners, Craig Meis 

Received: 4/10/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Commenter1: Craig Meis - Grand Junction, Colorado 81502 (United States) 

Organization1:Mesa County Board of County Commissioners 

Commenter2: Janet Rowland - Grand Junction, Colorado 81502 (United States) 

Organization2:Mesa County Board of County Commissioners 

Commenter3: Steve Acquafresca - Grand Junction, Colorado 81502 (United States) 

Organization3:Mesa County Board of County Commissioners 

Commenter Type: Local Government 

Classification: none 

Submission Category: Letter 

Submitted As: Email & Postal Mail 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/11/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D00033.htm (OSTS_033-58421.htm Size = 1 KB) 

OSTS_033_Mesa_County_mail_OSTS2012D00033.pdf (OSTS_033-58420.pdf Size = 522 KB) 

Submission Text

See Attachment. 

Mesa County appreciates the opportunity to submit comments on the Draft 
Final OSTS PEIS 253 

Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (DPEIS) and Possible Land Use 

Amendments for Allocation of Oil Shale and Tar Sands Resources on Lands 

Administered by the BLM in Colorado, Utah and Wyoming. Mesa County has a long 

history of cooperation with the Forest Service and BLM through a variety of methods, 

including agreements for joint planning, and information sharing. We very much 

appreciate the efforts and cooperation of the Forest Service and BLM in this regard. 

We participated in the 2008 PEIS process as a Cooperating Agency, but did not feel it 

was necessary to act in that capacity with this latest PEIS effort. The ink was hardly 

dry on the previous decision when the BLM was required via the legal settlement to 

duplicate efforts to analyze potential alternatives for the allocation of lands for Oil 

Shale and Tar Sands resources. Accordingly, the following comments mirror our 

comments on the 2008 PEIS (see enclosed 2008 comments). 

<([#1 [2.2] Mesa County does not support the DPEIS’s preferred alternative - Alternative 2 (b).

#1])>

<([#2 [2.1.1] We strongly support Alternative 1 - “No Action,” approved as the preferred 

alternative 

in the 2008 PEIS. Mesa County is the economic regional center for western Colorado 

and Eastern Utah and although the resources analyzed in the DPEIS are not primarily 

located within Mesa County, multiple use of public lands throughout the region directly 

and indirectly impact the Mesa County economy, including energy development, 

tourism, agriculture, forestry, etc. #2])>

<([#3 [3.10.2] Our experience with the 1970s and 1980s development of the Colony Project 

confirms 

that the impacts of oil shale development will fall heavily on Mesa County and its 

municipalities. The positive and negative impacts of the “boom” and “bust” cycles 

remain ever clear to us including our experience with the energy industry over the past 

decade. Demands on local government services and Infrastructure during development 

occur significantly in advance of the tax revenues and other revenues that assist in 

mitigating local impacts. Our economy in Mesa County and in this general region is 

significantly different than it was in the late 1970’s and early 1980’s. However, although 

the energy industry has attempted to assist in many ways, impacts from recent 

exploration and development of natural gas stretch local resources. #3])>

<([#4 [3.10.2] [5] We strongly believe that government and industry need to make significant, 

early, 

up-front investments in and contributions to the infrastructures of local entities which 

will be impacted by oil shale development. These investments and contributions can 

be later credited against severance and/or other taxes and impact fees if appropriate 

as they come due. We believe that these investments and contributions should be 

considered in and required by the DPEIS process. Specifically, proactive 

socio-economic mitigation measures suggested in section 4.12.2 of the DPEIS (page 

4-181) should be mandatory in the Final EIS rather than simply suggestions for the 

future. We respectfully refer the BLM to the April 2008 Northwest Colorado Socioeconomic 

Analysis prepared by BBC Research & consulting for Associated Governments of Northwest 
Final OSTS PEIS 254 

Colorado. The purpose of the report “. . .was to analyze existing cumulative socioeconomic 

conditions in northwest Colorado (Garfield, Mesa, Moffat and Rio Blanco counties) and forecast 

how these conditions may change with future natural resource development.” 

#4])>

<([#5 [9.7] We support the Research Development, and Demonstration (RD&D) approach and 

program currently in place for oil shale. To the extent it can be expanded with the 

issuance of additional leases and the evaluation of additional technologies, we would 

support such expansion. Information and techniques presently being developed on the 

RD&D leases will be valuable in the site-specific process. We also appreciate knowing 

the United States Geological Survey is studying baseline water resources conditions to 

better understand potential commercial-scale oil shale development impacts on ground 

and surface waters. #5])>

<([#6 [9.3] We understand that completion of the PEIS under the Preferred Alternative will 

modify 

applicable Resource Management Plans (RMPs). Rather than amending these RMPs, 

we suggest nominations for additional RD&D leases and subsequent commercial 

development leases be allowed per the No Action Alternative. Site specific NEPA 

analyses will then be conducted on issued leases based on company-specific 

development technology and plans, which will reflect current technologies and impacts. 

Conditions are placed on a lease as an outcome of the site specific NEPA analysis. #6])>

<([#7 [2.1.1] In summary, we believe Alternative A, the No Action Alternative, is in the best 

interest 

of the United States, the State of Colorado, the region and Mesa County. The thoughtful 

and carefully regulated exploration and development of oil shale reserves is a vital 

component of energy development for our country and our local area. We note that 

the lands available for leasing in the other Alternatives are smaller and more scattered 

and we question whether those Alternatives would result in a situation in which development of 

the oil shale reserves becomes economically impossible. With this in 

mind, and with the basic assumption that the NEPA process will result in leases and 

projects which minimize and mitigate their negative impacts, we reiterate that 

Alternative A should be the Preferred Alternative. #7])>

We appreciate the opportunity to participate in the PEIS process and we look forward 

to cooperating with the BLM and participating in the site specific NEPA project 

analyses as oil shale development proceeds. 

[See PDF for 2008 comments.]

OSTS_034 

Organization: Sandra Hays 

Received: 4/17/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Commenter1: Sandra Hays - Sandy, Utah 84092 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 
Final OSTS PEIS 255 

Classification: nameaddr 

Submission Category: Comment Form 

Submitted As: Postal Mail 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 4/20/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D00034.htm (OSTS_034-58423.htm Size = 1 KB) 

OSTS_034_Hays_Mail_OSTS2012D00034.pdf (OSTS_034-58422.pdf Size = 222 KB) 

Submission Text

See Attachment. 

<([#1 [3.4.1] Comment: Initial drilling operations itself may consume 6,000-600,000 gallons of 

fracking fluids: Over its lifetime an average well will require up to an additional 5 million 

gallons of water for the initial hydraulic operation & possible restimulation frac jobs. (Highvolume hydraulic fracturing can use as much as 2-3 million gallons of fluid per well). #1])>

<([#2 [3.14] Over life of a typical well, chemical additives (used in fracturing fluids) may 

amount to 100,000 gallons of chemical additives. Some chemicals are carcinogens (causes 

cancer), neurotoxins (causes cancer), benzene (c. cancer and bone marrow failure), lead 

(damages the nervous system & causes brain disorders), ethylene glycol (antifreeze -> causes 

death), 2-butoxyethanol (causes hemolysis) Gamma-emitting isotopes (radioactive; can cause 

cancer) etc -> to many more to be named. This leaks into and found to be in peoples drinking 

water and milk. The 2011 US House of Rep. found 750 compounds in fracturing products. These 

manufacturers also withhold information and are injecting fluids containing unknown chemicals 

that they put down in our earth, water and air. 

Some European countries have banned fracking. 

I guess they value human life. 

#2])>

OSTS_062 

Organization: Dave Folland 

Received: 4/4/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Commenter1: Dave Folland - , (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: none 

Submission Category: Message 

Submitted As: E-Mail 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 4/25/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D00062.htm (OSTS_062-58594.htm Size = 1 KB) 

OSTS_062_Folland_Email_OSTS2012D00062.pdf (OSTS_062-58593.pdf Size = 57 KB) 

Submission Text

See Attachment. 
Final OSTS PEIS 256 

Kurt, Dave called me back today and let me know he did submit some written comments on the 

website, but he also wanted to discuss with me what those were. I’ve summarized them below; 

please 

add to our comments: 

<([#1 [12] - All Utahans do not think like the Utah State Government. #1])>

<([#2 [10.6.1] - Mr. Folland believes this country needs to focus on renewable energy. 

#2])> <([#3 [2.2] - Mr. Folland is in favor of the direction BLM has gone with the new PEIS.

#3])>

<([#4 [1.1] We also discussed the format of the meeting; I explained why we had the open house 

format versus an 

open microphone format. He said he understood, but that the BLM should do a better job of 

publicizing 

what format the meeting will be in. I agreed. #4])>

OSTS_065 

Organization: Jeff Crank 

Received: 4/26/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Commenter1: Jeff Crank - Colorado Springs, Colorado (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: none 

Submission Category: Message 

Submitted As: E-Mail 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/1/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D00065.htm (OSTS_065-58670.htm Size = 1 KB) 

OSTS_065_Crank_Email_OSTS2012D00065.pdf (OSTS_065-58669.pdf Size = 74 KB) 

Submission Text

See Attachment. 

<([#1 [11] Open all oil shale areas. We need jobs and energy now. Stop allowing the radical 

environmentalists to run the show. 

#1])>

OSTS_066 

Organization: Shell Frontier Oil and Gas, Inc., Dan Whitney 

Received: 4/26/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Commenter1: Dan Whitney - Denver, Colorado 80237 (United States) 

Organization1:Shell Frontier Oil and Gas, Inc. 

Commenter Type: Gas / Oil Company 

Classification: none 

Submission Category: Letter 

Submitted As: Postal Mail 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 
Final OSTS PEIS 257 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/2/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D00066.htm (OSTS_066-58672.htm Size = 1 KB) 

OSTS_066_Shell_Frontier_OSTS2012D00066.pdf (OSTS_066-58671.pdf Size = 507 KB) 

Submission Text

See Attachment. 

® Shell Frontier Oil and Gas, Inc. 

April 25, 2012 

Draft OSTS PEIS 

Argonne National Laboratory 

9700 S. Cass Ave. 

EVS,240 

Argonne, IL 60439 

Shell Frontier Oil & Gas, Inc. 

4582 S. Ulster Pkwy, Suite 1400 

Denver, CO 80237, U.S.A. 

SUBJECT: Comments on BLM’s February 3, 2012 Draft Programmatic Environmental 

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

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

Colorado, Utah and Wyoming 

Dear Sir or Madam: 

<([#1 [9.8] Shell Frontier Oil and Gas, Inc. appreciates this opportunity to comment on the 

subject Draft 

PEIS. As Shell previously stated in comments submitted on May 4, 2011 for the PEIS NOI, 

Shell views this second PEIS as an inefficient and unnecessary use of taxpayer money and as 

a significant deterrent to capital investment by Shell and others in the energy industry. #1])>

<([#2 [2.1.1] Given that the reopening of the PEIS has occurred, Shell supports “Alternative 1, 

No Action 

Alternative, No Change to 2008 Decision, Oil Shale”, so that approximately 2,000,000 

acres of public land remain available for potential development of oil shale and 430,000 

acres of public land remain available for potential development of tar sands. The basis for 

this recommendation is that the first PEIS has already adequately and thoroughly addressed 

this issue. #2])>

<([#3 [9.8] The Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPA’05) declared oil shale and heavy oil 

“strategically 

important resources that should be developed to reduce the growing dependence of the 

United States on politically and economically unstable sources of foreign imports”. Events 

since 2005 have only served to reinforce the need for domestic oil shale development as 

part of an “all of the above” solution. 

In September 2008, the BLM issued what was thought to be the Final PEIS; a comprehensive 

work consisting of 1,828 pages in three volumes. This document was published after a 120- 

day comment period in which more than 100,000 comment letters were submitted. The 

comments and the BLM responses are contained in a fourth volume containing over 7,000 

pages. Shell provided 226 comments covering nearly 80 pages. 

BLM has stated that the bases for reopening the PEIS are: ( 1) because there are presently “no 

economically viable ways yet known to extract and process” oil shale and tar sands, (2) 
Final OSTS PEIS 258 

because new information has come out (including revisions to the resource assessment and 

to the list of threatened/ endangered species) and (3) “to reassess the appropriate mix of 

allowable uses with respect to oil shale and tar sands leasing and potential development” 

that were apparently not sufficiently covered in the original PEIS. 

Regarding the first reason, the work that went into the PEIS was based on the assumption 

that a commercial development of oil shale would successfully emerge from the RD&D work. 

That is the objective of the RD&D program. If the RD&D work does not lead to a commercial 

development, there will be no demand for leases (and thus no need to withdraw lands from 

leasing consideration). 

The second reason for reopening the original PEIS is not valid given that new information 

and studies are being produced all the time. The existing, fully vetted, comprehensive, 

1,800 page PEIS is less than three years old and in the intervening time no substantive new 

information has emerged that merits revisiting the PEIS in such a short time. Additionally, 

the entire issue fails to recognize the comprehensive framework of regulatory checks and 

balances already in place in the form of environmental (and other) laws, including site 

specific NEPA review that will apply to every oil shale project under federal jurisdiction in 

the future. These laws and regulations are further elaborated on in Section 2.2.1 (Existing 

Relevant Statutory Requirements). 

The third reason for reopening the PEIS is also without warrant. Remarkably, all five areas 

proposed for removal from development as identified in the Notice (i.e. those with 

wilderness characteristics, “very rare or uncommon” designation, sage grouse habitat, 

“areas of critical environmental concern”) may be precluded under the existing leasing 

authority assigned to BLM land managers. 

Given the fact that there are already adequate checks and balances provided in existing 

regulatory programs to accomplish the stated bases for this PEIS, Shell views the new Draft 

PEIS as an inefficient and unnecessary use of taxpayer money and a significant deterrent to 

capital investment by Shell and others in the energy industry. The ramification of such a 

downsizing of the areas of potential development coupled with the increase in regulatory 

uncertainty could be ( 1) lower capital investment, (2) lower domestic oil production, (3) 

higher oil imports, (4) higher unemployment, (5) lower tax revenues from royalties, federal 

and state corporate and individual incomes taxes, severance tax, and property and sales 

taxes, and (6) lower overall economic growth. 

#3])> Shell’s Long Standing Commitment to Oil Shale Research 

2 

<([#4 [6.3.3] Shell has been investing in the technical and commercial development of the In situ 

Conversion Process (ICP) for oil shale since the early 1980s as a means to economically 

develop oil shale- in an environmentally responsible and socially sustainable manner. This 

effort has required considerable dedicated scientific effort and significant investment. To 

date, through persistence and much effort, a logical progression of work has been 

completed from desk top studies, to laboratory scale testing, to prototype scale testing, and 

finally to field pilot testing in Colorado. 

Shell’s seven previous Colorado pilot projects have tested broad technology themes, 

including (1) demonstrating that the technology works, (2) measuring energy balance and 

recovery efficiency necessary to estimate commercial project economics, (3) producing and 

measuring the properties of ICP oil and gas, (4) proving that the groundwater can be 

protected, and (5) testing the effectiveness of a variety of heat delivery methods. In the 
Final OSTS PEIS 259 

process, Shell has carried out extensive pre-operational environmental assessments. Shell 

has given careful attention to archaeologically sensitive areas by completely assessing and 

avoiding such areas, and has cooperated fully with agencies such as the State Historical 

Preservation Office and BLM to identify and avoid areas of critical environmental concern, 

including establishing conservation easements to provide permanent protection of certain 

areas. Shell has also funded research into environmental restoration, and has shown that 

disturbed lands can be returned to beneficial uses that are equivalent to the pre-disturbance 

conditions. And last, Shell has always stated our commitment to supporting a transparent 

and regulated NEPA process for a potential commercial project. 

#4])> <([#5 [10.6] The Pressing Need for Energy Solutions in the United States 

While questions and challenges remain regarding the future implementation of oil shale 

technology, Shell believes it is now time for increased commitment by the Federal 

Government to create a regulatory environment that encourages the investment in oil shale 

RD&D, including ICP technology. While perfect regulatory certainty can never be attained, 

the lack of policy consistency from one administration to another makes investment risky and 

potentially untenable. 

Shell firmly believes that if the ICP technology (or technologies being tested by other energy 

companies) can be proven through RD&D testing, a meaningful domestic source of energy 

can be successfully unlocked. The energy chc1llenges facing this nation and this planet are 

real and require working together to maximize the chance of finding cost effective, 

environmentally acceptable, and timely solutions. 

Shell intends to develop oil shale in a manner that is economically viable, environmentally 

responsible and socially sustainable. An environmentally based “no development” policy is 

unsustainable when considering socioeconomics, national energy needs, and the facts and 

realities of future U.S. energy requirements. As NEPA requires, the environmental and social 

impacts and benefits of any proposed action need to be considered. Our country needs 

energy in every form. There is clearly a path forward where our energy needs can be 

supplemented with oil shale, while also managing and mitigating the impacts of 

development. 

#5])> <([#6 [2.1.1] As previously stated, Shell supports “Alternative 1, No Action Alternative, 

No Change to2008 Decision, Oil Shale”, so that approximately 2,000,000 acres of public land 

remain 

available for potential development of oil shale and 430,000 acres of public land remain 

available for potential development of tar sands. 

#6])> Additional, and more specific comments can found in the following attachment to this 

letter. 

last, <([#7 [1.1.1] Shell reserves the right to submit additional comments to this PEIS in the 

event that the public comment is extended, as was requested by our letter of April 10, 2012. 

Because BLM 

intends to issue the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPR) for the commercial leasing 

regulations on or around May l51h, which is after the planned May 4th end of this initial 

comment period, there will be additional context in the NPR that will reflect directly on this 

PEIS. 

#7])> Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this important matter. 

Dan Whitney 

Heavy Oil Development 
Final OSTS PEIS 260 

<([#8 [9.2.1] PEIS Citation: Vol 1, Pg 2-76, Sec 2.4.4, line 12 Preferred Alternative 

Topic: Compliance with Section 369(e) of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 requiring 

COMMENCEMENT OF COMMERCIAL LEASING OF OIL SHALE AND TAR SANDS 

Comment: The DOI and BLM are attempting to alter federal law through a federal policy 

decision. 

Section 369(c) of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 requires establishment of a LEASING 

PROGRAM FOR RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT OF OIL SHALE AND TAR SANDS. 

Then, Section 369(d) requires development of a separate commercial leasing program for 

oil shale and tar sands by requiring a PROGRAMMATIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT 

STATEMENT for that program in Section 369(d) and COMMENCEMENT OF 

COMMERCIAL LEASING OF OIL SHALE AND TAR SANDS in Section 369(e). 

By recommending Alternative 2(b) as BLM’s chosen Preferred Alternative, BLM and DOI 

are essentially vacating the federal law by policy decision by making the RD&D program 

the only possible future avenue to commercial oil shale development. #8])>

<([#9 [1.3] [2.2] PEIS Citation: Vol 1, Pg 2-76, Sec 2.4.4, line 12 Preferred Alternative 

Topic: Compliance with 40CFR1501.6(a)(2) 

Comment: For multiple reasons, BLM should re-evaluate its decision to select Alternative 2(b) 

as the Preferred Alternative. In doing so, BLM and the DOI have demonstrated that the most 

stringent reductions of 

“operating space” for the oil shale industry are a matter of policy from the administration 

rather than taking into consideration the needs and desires of entities within the region of 

potential oil shale development. Not a single entity among the 14 Cooperating 

Agencies prefers Alternative 2(b) as the Preferred Alternative, and more than half of 

them {8) preferred Alternative 1, the No Action Alternative. Choosing a Preferred 

Alternative that is inconsistent with the consensus of all l4 of the Cooperating Agencies, 

and diametrically opposed to the preference of the majority (8 of 14) of the Cooperating 

Agencies appears to be in conflict with the requirements of 40 CFR 150 1.6(a)(2) which 

states that the lead agency (BLM) shall “Use the environmental analysis and proposals of 

cooperating agencies with jurisdiction by law or special expertise, to the maximum extent 

possible consistent with its responsibility as lead agency”. Putting forth a Recommended 

Alternative that has zero support among the Cooperating Agencies does not constitute 

using the proposals of the Cooperating Agencies to the maximum extent possible. #9])>

<([#10 [10.6.3] PEIS Citation: Vol l, Pg 2-76, Sec 2.4.4, line 12 Preferred Alternative 

Topic: National Energy Security 

Comment: Another reason BLM should re-evaluate its decision to select Alternative 2(b) as the 

Preferred Alternative has to do with National Energy Security. BLM is charged to be the 

steward of much of our nation’s Federal property, and those properties are to be 

managed for multiple uses. Yet, in the case of oil shale-containing lands, developing the 

mineral and energy resources of the single most concentrated hydrocarbon resource on 

the planet is taking the lowest priority among an idealistic Focus on environmental 

protection at a time when the economy is struggling, and our nation depends on external 

sources to supply more than half of our oil demand. In the mean time, we export 
Final OSTS PEIS 261 

approximately a half a trillion tax payer dollars a year to purchase oil that could be 

otherwise invested here in the United States. There is an extensive array of existing 

environmental regulatory programs in the US that are more than adequate to effectively 

manage, mitigate and restore the impacts of oil shale production activities. The selection 

of Alternative 2(b) does not appear to reflect the DECLARATION OF POLICY stated in the 

Energy Policy Act of 2005 that states that the “United States oil shale, tar sands, and 

other unconventional Fuels are strategically important domestic resources that should be 

developed to reduce the growing dependence of the United States on politically and 

economically unstable sources of foreign imports”. 

#10])>

 

<([#11 [2.2] PEIS Citation: Vol l, Pg 2-76, Sec 2.4.4, line 12 Preferred Alternative 

Topic: Regulatory Uncertainty 

Comment: Another reason BLM should re-evaluate its decision to select Alternative 2(b) as the 

Preferred Alternative has to do with regulatory uncertainty. Alternative 2(b) has reduced 

the acreage potentially available for oil shale and tar sands development by nearly 77%, 

and in Colorado, where the richest and most abundant oil shale exists, the acreage 

potentially available for oil shale development has been reduced by nearly 90%. 

Additionally, the acreage in Colorado now deemed suitable for oil shale development 

is so significantly dispersed and discontiguous, especially outside the area of the existing RD&D 

leases, that the opportunity for a company to put together a viable operation is nearly nonexistent. To have such wide variability in national oil shale policy is a significant disincentive to 

companies that have invested many millions of 

dollars into oil shale research and development, as well as other companies that are 

considering such investment. #11])>

 

<([#12 [10.5] PEIS Citation: Vol 1, Pg 2-82, Sec 2.5.12, line 7 

Topic: Establishment of Trust Funds 

Comment: In saying that socioeconomic impact mitigation through establishment of a trust fund 

should be left to site specific NEPA analyses of specific projects, BLM is failing to 

recognize and address the most significant socioeconomic impact associated with oil shale 

development. The issue is not site- or project-specific because it is so tied to the 

cumulative impacts of the developing industry. The issue is the disparity between when 

socioeconomic impacts will occur (primarily during project construction and start-up 

phases) versus when the revenue stream of royalty payments begins many years later. A 

legal/legislative mechanism needs to be devised to facilitate a flow of money on the front 

end to mitigate the impacts when they occur, tied to a credit against future royalty 

payments for the amount paid early on for impact mitigation. #12])>

<([#13 [10.5] PEIS Citation: Vol2, Pg 4-165, Sec 4.12, Line 10 

Topic: Socioeconomics 

Comment: In general, the PEIS fails to provide an assessment of both the potential negative and 

positive potential socioeconomic impacts of oil shale development. It should be better 

recognized that the opportunity for revenue distribution grows proportionally with the 

scale of the industry. For example, a 12.5% royalty on production of 1,000,000 barrels 
Final OSTS PEIS 262 

per day of oil at $100 per barrel would nominally generate $12,500,000 dollars in 

royalties {subject to standard deductions) each and every day, or $4.56 billion per year. 

In addition to that would be state severance taxes, property tax, federal and state income 

tax, and sales tax and other fees that would all go toward making an enormous amount 

of revenue distribution that contribute to the positive impacts that such a level of 

development would provide. Other positive impacts and benefits resulting from oil shale 

development include economic expansion and diversification, long-term, well-paying 

employment opportunities, educational/ academic growth and skill development 

opportunities, and the positive effects that revenue distribution will have on public sector 

infrastructure enhancement. #13])>

<([#14 [6.2.1] PEIS Citation: Vol 2, Pg 4-165, Sec 4. 12, Footnote 13 

Topic: Presumption of supplemental energy sources 

Comment: A scenario where the primacy: energy supply comes from new gas-fired power, and 

not coal-fired power, should be built into the PEIS as a likely option. Footnote 13 on 

page 4-165, and elsewhere, presumes that coal-fired power plants will be used to 

provide electrical power to oil shale developers. The PEIS fails to consider the likelihood 

that 1) natural gas fired power will almost certainly be preferential to coal because of the 

abundance of natural gas in the region, 2) C02 emissions of gas fired power are nearly 

half that of coal, and 3) that gas-fired power plants are faster and less expensive to build. 

There is also the high likelihood that the natural gas produced by some oil shale operators 

will be directly used to generate electricity and thus reduce demand off the grid. The PEIS 

also fails to consider that local power supplies might also be supplemented by wind 

power that is abundantly available in the region north of the Piceance Basin. 

#14])> -- - 

OSTS_067 

Organization: Jana Weber 

Received: 4/20/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Commenter1: Jana Weber - Rock Springs, Wyoming 82901 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: none 

Submission Category: Comment Form 

Submitted As: Postal Mail 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/1/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D00067.htm (OSTS_067-58674.htm Size = 1 KB) 

OSTS_067_Weber_Form_Mail_OSTS2012D00067.pdf (OSTS_067-58673.pdf Size = 151 KB) 

Submission Text

See Attachment. 

<([#1 [12.3] I have read about oil shale extraction and processing on the internet, the newspaper, 

and have attended meetings where the process was described. At this point in time (and possibly 

for decades to come) this extraction and processing would be an environmental disaster. It is 
Final OSTS PEIS 263 

critical that NO public lands be involved until technology exists which will truly protect the 

environment. #1])>

OSTS_068 

Organization: Excalibur Industries, Inc., Raymond Ridge 

Received: 4/18/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Commenter1: Raymond Ridge - Salt Lake city, Utah 84117 (United States) 

Organization1:Excalibur Industries, Inc. 

Commenter Type: OSTS Tech Company 

Classification: none 

Submission Category: Letter 

Submitted As: Postal Mail 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/7/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D00069.htm (OSTS_068-58676.htm Size = 1 KB) 

OSTS_068_Excalibur_Ridge_Mail_OCR_OSTS2012D00069.pdf (OSTS_068-58675.pdf Size = 

2992 KB) 

OSTS_068_Excalibur_Ridge_Mail.pdf (OSTS_068-58677.pdf Size = 19715 KB) 

Submission Text

See Attachment. 

The comments set forth below are intended to supplement, augment and correct the oral 

comments 

which Raymond L. Ridge provided during the Scoping Meeting of April26, 2011 (1 ‘1 session) 

at the Little 

America Hotel in Salt Lake City, UT and our comments dated May 12,2011, a copy of which, 

together with 

Exhibit Volumes I-V, is attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference as though 

newly submitted 

herewith. The undersigned demands that such materials be addressed as fully as any other 

comments now 

being submitted in response to the Draft Programmatic EIS bearing a date of January 2012 

(“Draft PEIS”). 

Introduction 

<([#1 [1.5] Bureau of Land Management (“BLM”) Land Use Policy has historically permitted 

multiple uses, 

provided those uses were not mutually incompatible. This policy is enshrined in the Federal 

Land Policy 

and Management Act of 1976 (“FLPMA”). 

The Draft PEIS is fundamentally flawed as it seeks not to protect the environment, but rather to 

kill 

the nascent oil shale industry by withdrawing lands requisite to attracting the capital needed to 

develop the 
Final OSTS PEIS 264 

industry. It was “born” from a contrived settlement agreement between Secretary Salazar and 

plaintiff 

environmental organizations, including The Wilderness Society, dated February 15, 2011, Civil 

Action No. 

09-cv-0009-JLK. It was contrived, because both Secretary Salazar and The Wilderness Society 

were aware 

of the technology subject of U.S. Patent 7,807,049, issued to the undersigned, dated October 5, 

2010, 

described as “Method and Apparatus For Recovering Oil From Oil Shale Without Environmental 

Impacts.”

Secretary Salazar was informed by letter dated December 14, 2010 from the undersigned. It is a 

fraud on 

the Federal Court dependent on tbjs contrived Draft PEIS for its full implementation! This 

fraudulent 

intent is corroborated by the decision of Secretary Salazar to persist in extending the withdrawal 

of the Naval 

Oil Shale Reserves Nos. 1 & 3 (56,238 acres) as detailed in the Draft PEIS on Page 2-31, lines 

29-32. 

Secretary Salazar’s position contravenes the clear intent of Congress when it authorized the 

transfer of those 

Naval Reserves from the Department of Energy’s Office ofNaval Petroleum and Oil Shale 

Reserves to the 

Department of the Interior! If acting in “good faith” Secretary Salazar should have sought 

clarification from 

Congress to the extent any question regarding “Congressional intent” really exists. 

It would appear that the environmentalist plaintiffs felt their chances for a favorable resolution 

lay 

with Secretary Ken Salazar and his sympathies towards environmentalists who had funded his 

election 

campaigns as a Senator, and the perception that he is “beholden” to them for delivering the 

“Colorado Vote” 

for President Obama in 2008, rather than risk a Federal court likely to honor the most recent 

evidence of 

Congressional Intent set forth in Section 369 of the Energy Policy Act of2005, also known as the 

“Oil Shale, 

Tar Sands, and Other Strategic Unconventional Fuels Act of2005” (the “Act”). It would be more 

difficult 

for a Court to set aside a voluminous rework of a Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement 

than that 

embodied in the 2008 PEIS. The Draft PEIS of 2012 is a continuing perpetration of that fraud, 

and 

involves the complicity of every employee of the BLM advancing the withdrawal of oil shale 

lands on 

the pretext of environmental protection. 
Final OSTS PEIS 265 

The Settlement and the Draft PEIS are an affront to Procedural Due Process protected by the 

U.S. 

Constitution, as it is intended to achieve by the appearance of propriety that which would not 

have been 

sanctioned by the Federal Court. As such it smacks of denying the nascent industry a full hearing 

on the 

merits, especially as it abuses the Power of Definition. It ignores traditional principles of “fair 

play and 

substantial justice”, and seeks to control the outcome of court decisions under the guise of an 

open and 

fair review of the 2008 PEIS. And, it borders on being “treasonous”, as it intends to deprive our 

Nation 

of a 1.5 Trillion barrel resource of hydrocarbons in oil shale capable of providing energy 

independence and 

strategic national security. America does not have just 2% of the world’s oil reserves, as the 1.5 

Trillion 

barrels represents a reserve equal to or in excess of all the oil the world has produced to date. 

Indeed, the 

link between our food chain and fossil fuels that provide transportation fuels would break 

without the 

transportation fuels needed to maintain high farm productivity. Peak Oil is a reality, and famine 

could result 

from diminished access to transportation fuels. 

#1])>

Abuse of the “Power of Definition” 

<([#2 [9.1] The Draft PEIS abuses the “power of definition” in the following particulars: 

1. “Need” for a New PEIS. The only attempt to define the “need” for a new PEIS is 

contained in the last sentence of the second paragraph of the introductory letter signed by 

Michael D. Nedd which states, “The purpose and need for the proposed planning action is

to reassess the appropriate mix of allowable uses with respect to oil shale ... leasing and

potential development. “ The “need” is neither explained nor defined; nor does it reference 

the Settlement Agreement! As such, it abuses the power of definition by failing to explain 

the attempt to reexamine land use policy without any intervening expression of 

Congressional Intent, environmental studies, nor technological improvements or 

degradations that would otherwise prompt a reexamination. 

#2])>

<([#3 [9.2.2] 2. Assumption that Oil Shale Technology is “Experimental”. “In the present 

experimental

stage of the oil shale . . . industr[y] ... , the BLM believes that the stages of NEPA

compliance will be different from those used in oil and gas.” [Page ES-5, second full 

paragraph]. This statement is made in derogation of the express intention of Congress 

quoted on page 1-3 of the Introduction citing paragraphs (d) and (e) of the Act to the effect 

that the Secretary shall: 
Final OSTS PEIS 266 

“ ... Complete a programmatic environmental impact statement for a commercial

leasing program for oil shale ... on public lands ... “ 

“ ... Not later than 6 months after completion of the programmatic environmental

impact statement . .. the Secretary shall publish a final regulation establishing such

[commercial/easing] program.”

Secretary Salazar is illegally conducting this review of the 2008 PEIS in violation 

Congressional intent that commercial leasing should have commenced six months after the 

completion of the 2008 PEIS! 

The only thing industry has been exploring as “experimental” are approaches to solve the 

environmental conundrum, e.g. “in-situ”, i.e. “Out-of-Sight/Out-of-Mind”. Oil shale 

processing has been proven to be “commercial”in Brazil, Estonia and China. In Brazil, for 

example, Petrobras has been producing continuously since 1972 using a Paraho retort from 

7% grade vs. the 13% grade generally available in Colorado and Utah. The only thing 

which has prevented those processes from being implemented i #3])> n the U.S. has been the 

challenges they present to do no harm to the environment. 

<([#4 [6.3.1] 3. Improper Assumptions About Technologies. “Underground mines with surface 

retorts

are assumed to be commercial implementations of the OSEC RD&D technology (see

Appendix A, Section A.5.3.4) “. Section A.5.3.4 of the Draft PEIS is outdated using 

information from 2007!! Since 2007, OSEC abandoned the ATP Taciukrotary kiln (which 

is that cited in the Draft PEIS) in favor ofPetrobras’ Petrosix vertical kiln; and then even 

later sold out the RD&D Lease to Enefit American Oil, a subsidiary of Enefit, an Estonian 

company, that has processed oil shale for decades using vertical retorts designed by Russian 

engineers. Enefit has not identified the method it proposes to use in the U.S., but has stated 

only that it is experimenting with U.S. oil shale. 

The thing which makes this approach so egregious is that the ATP Taciuk rotary kiln was 

never proven in Australia (as asserted by the BLM); in fact it was so damaging to the 

environment in Australia that it threatened the very existence of the Great Barrier Reef and 

was shut down at the insistence of GreenPeace. Subsequently, in 2008, Australia imposed 

a 20-year moratorium on oil shale development precisely because of the perceived 

environmental problems caused by the ATP Taciuk rotary kiln technology. 

In brief, the BLM has assumed the use of a technology already proven to be an 

environmental nightmare. In doing so, it has intentionally selected the most 

environmentally challenged method of oil shale production as the “model” for use in 

the Draft PEIS. Further, no rotary kiln technology will ever work in oil shale production 

and still be environmentally clean. The undersigned has been advised by Reaction 

Engineering International, experts in rotary kilns, that rotary kilns are at least 45% less 

efficient in transferring heat from “gas-to-particle” than a vertical kiln. Thus, every rotary 

kiln configuration using recycling gases must produce 45% more heat and carbon dioxide 

to heat the same amount of oil shale feed stock as a vertical retort. No rotary kiln can ever 
Final OSTS PEIS 267 

be environmentally preferred! 

#4])>

<([#5 [6.3.1] 4. Exclusion from the Draft PEIS of Consideration of Clean Technologies. How 

can one 

assess the need to withdraw BLM lands from leasing if one excludes by definition 

technologies proven to be commercial, and which have been improved to not impact BLM 

lands adversely? [See the last paragraph on page 1-13 of the Draft PEIS which 

definitionally excludes consideration of “renewable energy resources, clean technologies

and conventional oil and gas activities.] And, more importantly perhaps, there is no

provision for opening or re-opening BLM lands to environmentally clean technologies!

The BLM has excluded my environmentally clean technology from consideration even 

though it would not impact BLM lands adversely! Moreover, absent Congressional action, 

Secretary Salazar is imposing a predicate requirement to Commercial Leases in the form of 

RD&D Leases, which violates the Congressional Intent to proceed to commercial leasing 

as soon as possible. 

The only impact on BLM lands using my technology and concepts would be the use of 

underground mining and transport of resource material via elevated conveyor belts (across 

BLM lands) and rail (in already existing transportation corridors) to an environmentally 

expendable site for processing, i.e. a site where nothing grows and no Sage Grouse live. 

Underground mining would employ continuous mining machines, which have been 

developed in conjunction with the Colorado School of Mines for oil shale mining, and are 

readily available from Joy Mining Machinery and Caterpillar. Such machines have been 

available since at least 2004, as they were demonstrated at the Mining Convention in Las 

Vegas. See Appendix I attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. Such 

machines are capable of extracting 10,000 tons/day in two eight hour shifts, with the third 

shift allocated to maintenance and repair. Thus, BLM assertions that underground mining 

must be conducted using blasting and mucking procedures is ill informed and erroneous. 

Above-ground conveyors are used extensively in the mining industry, as depicted on 

Appendix II attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. Such conveyors are 

no more intrusive on wilderness lands and wildlife than ski lifts, electrical transmission 

lines, and pipelines (both underground and above ground), all of which are currently 

accessing BLM lands overlying oil shale deposits to support other kinds of energy 

production, e.g. shale gas and shale oil drilling. 

#5])>

<([#6 [6.3] 5. Exclusion from Draft PEIS of Impacts from Other Energy Activities. The 

BLM is 

allowing access to the same lands it seeks to exclude from oil shale activity for the purpose 

of shale gas and shale oil drilling. Those activities are far more destructive of the surface 

than would be underground mining and conveyor belt transport. See Appendix III attached 

hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, which portrays the surface destruction of 

shale gas drilling at Anvil Points, CO, the same site where the Bureau of Mines first 

demonstrated oil shale processing and extraction in 1948. If the Draft PEIS subject of this 

current inquiry were merely a re-evaluation of the 2008 PEIS, it would be appropriate to 
Final OSTS PEIS 268 

compare contemplated oil shale activity and its potential impacts against the damage already 

being imposed on the same lands by shale gas drilling and related activities. 

#6])>

<([#7 [6.3] 6. Assumption that Processing Must Occur on BLM Lands. There is an 

underlying 

assumption that all oil shale processing will be performed on BLM lands, rather than on 

distant environmentally expendable lands. This imposes unnecessary requirements on 

remediating spent shale and water. Spent shale can be processed into ancillary products, and 

water can be purified using Plasma Whirl plasma gasification. See Appendix IV attached. #7])>

<([#8 [9.6] 7. Ignoring Congressional Mandate for “Commercial Leasing”. The BLM has 

effectively 

asserted in the Draft PEIS that the Congressional mandate to permit “commercial leases” 

must be frustrated by first requiring an applicant to obtain an “RD&D Lease”, i.e. Preferred 

Alternative 2. It makes no sense for an applicant seeking to use a proven technology 

employed in Brazil, for example, to waste funds on an RD&D Lease and pilot plant; 

especially when it proposes processing the oil shale and spent shale on environmentally 

expendable lands using technology which solves the environmental conundrum. #8])>

<([#9 [9.3] 8. Alternative 2 (the Preferred Alternative): Changing the Fundamental Purpose and 

Use of the 2008 PEIS. Alternative 2 of the Draft PEIS deviates from Congressional intent 

in that it interposes and imposes on industry a requirement that a lease applicant spend 

monies to demonstrate its technology on an RD& D Lease, and reduces the acreage available 

as determined in the 2008 PEIS. 

The 2008 PEIS was intended to provide a “benchmark” for industry against which 

cleanliness would be measured and compared in the future, so that industry would not have 

to be burdened with extensive, costly and time-consuming environmental studies on each 

project. The BLM asserts in this Draft PEIS of 2012 that the NEPA process will be 

mandated for each future project, thus starting anew, for each project, an EPA assessment 

under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. This violates Congress’ intent as 

expressed in the Act. #9])>

<([#10 [1.5] The BLM fails to explain in ES.7 on page ES-9 the reason and authority for its 

deviation from Congress’ intent! #10])>

Conclusion 

<([#11 [2.1.1] The BLM should not deprive the Nation of this $150 Trillion asset and the jobs 

and revenues it can 

generate for the Nation and the U.S. Treasury, especially when it can be achieved without 

damage to the 

environment! 

The BLM can avoid further litigation by adopting Alternative 1, as the environmentalist 

plaintiffs have no continuing right to pursue litigation, having agreed to terminate the Case in 
Final OSTS PEIS 269 

return 

for the BLM conducting a review of the 2008 PEIS. 

If the final PEIS adopts any alternative other than Alternative 1, these issues will yet be finally 

adjudicated in a Federal Court, and will include individual defendants, both in government and 

from 

the environmental community; especially if no provision is made for environmentally clean 

technologies to access those lands. 

The lands themselves need not be withdrawn to protect the environment! The lands can still be 

protected using stringent environmental standards! 

#11])>

OSTS_069 

Organization: Western Resource Advocates, et al, Gary Graham 

Received: 4/27/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Commenter1: Gary Graham - Boulder, Delaware 80302 (United States) 

Organization1:Western Resource Advocates, et al 

Commenter Type: Environmental Organization 

Classification: none 

Submission Category: Letter 

Submitted As: Email & Postal Mail 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/4/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D00070.htm (OSTS_069-58705.htm Size = 1 KB) 

OSTS_069_WRA_etal_Mail_OSTS2012D00070.pdf (OSTS_069-58704.pdf Size = 6220 KB) 

Submission Text

See Attachment. 

Biodiversity Conservation Alliance - Center for Biological Diversity 

Colorado Environmental Coalition - Defenders of Wildlife - EcoFlight 

National Parks Conservation Association- Natural Resources Defense Council 

Sierra Club - Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance 

Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment- Western Colorado Congress 

Western Resource Advocates- The Wilderness Society 

Wilderness Workshop- Wild Utah Project- Wyoming Outdoor Council 

April27, 2012 

Draft OSTS PEIS 

Argonne National Laboratory 

9700 S. Cass Ave. 

EVS/240 

Argonne, IL 60439 

Re: Comments on Draft Oil Shale and Tar Sands Resources Programmatic EIS 

Dear Reviewers: 

Thank you for the opportunity to review and provide comment on the Draft Programmatic 

Environmental Impact Statement and Possible Land Use Plan Amendments for Allocation of Oil 
Final OSTS PEIS 270 

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

Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming (DPEIS). This analysis and clear statements about the limitations 

of existing technologies mark an important and fundamental shift from the oil shale and tar sands 

PEIS that the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) adopted in 2008. 

<([#1 [2.3.1] Our interest in this DPEIS stems from the fact that we represent individuals who 

live in close 

proximity to the areas identified for oil shale and tar sands leasing, many who recreate on these 

lands, and many others who are concerned about the fate of their public lands. Based on the 

BLM’s analysis in the DPEIS, commercial development of oil shale or tar sands would 

irreparably harm local lives and livelihoods. Development would also compromise a wide range 

of environmental values, including clean air, clean water, climate, recreation, water supply, and 

wildlife habitat. 

Our organizations continue to strongly oppose opening any federal lands for oil shale and tar 

sands development. As we have stated numerous times over the past four years, research must 

precede any consideration of commercial leasing, and any commercial leasing, should 

technologies be developed, must protect our land, air, water, wildlife, communities and 

economies. 

We are encouraged that the BLM, through this review, is taking clear and measured steps to 

restore order to the federal oil shale and tar sands policy. While Alternative 2(b) is a step in the 

right direction, we continue to believe that no lands should be allocated for commercial 

development until completion of research, including but not limited to federal research, design 

and demonstration (RD&D) leases, and an analysis of the impacts. F or that reason, we urge the 

BLM to adopt Alternative 3 in the Final PEIS. If, following completion of research activities the 

BLM concludes that lands should be open to application for commercial development, the BLM 

can then amend resource management plans and make land available. 

By placing off-limits areas containing important environmental and ecological values, and by 

requiring companies to first prove their technologies and evaluate the impacts to communities, 

human health and the environment, Altemative 3 helps ensure that any commercial development 

is initiated following a full understanding and evaluation of the impacts. The 2008 PEIS not 

only excluded such guarantees, but it facilitated research and commercial development as 

concurrent paths. 

#1])> <([#2 [9.3] Additionally, as a matter of law, we concur with the BLM’s many statements 

that the agency 

does not have enough information to conduct a thorough National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) 1 analysis, including a cumulative impacts analysis. As stated in the document “The 

current experimental state ofthe oil shale and tar sands industries does not allow this PEIS to 

include sufficient specific information or cumulative impact analyses to support future leasing 

decision within these allocated lands.”2 A cumulative impacts analysis is a cornerstone of 

NEPA analyses. 3 By identifying the limitations in this DPEIS and stating that additional NEPA 

analyses must address this deficiency, including the identification and enforcement of mitigation 

measures, the BLM is helping to en ure that future analyses take the broad look mandated by 

NEPA. 

1 40 C.F.R. § 1500.l(b), §§ 1508.25, 1508.7, 1508.8. 

2 Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement and Possible Land Use Plan 

Amendments for Allocation of 
Final OSTS PEIS 271 

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

in Colorado, Utah, 

and Wyoming, (hereafter DPEIS), at 1-2. 

3 40 C.F.R. § 1500.1 (b), §§ 1508.25, 1508.7, 1508.8. 

#2])> <([#3 [9.3] Finally, as the preferred altemative, Altemative 2(b) rests on the proposition 

that the BLM, in the 

Final PEIS, can define the protocols and param~:ters the agency will use in determining whether 

technologies are appropriate for commercial development. Should the BLM adopt Alternative 

2(b) in the Final PEIS, those protections would then take on greater importance in ensuring any 

development protects these lands, airsheds, water systems, wildlife, economies, and a host of 

other interests. 

In our comments below, we outline those parameters and tie the information needs to protection 

strategies. As we note in our recommendations, we are seeking to align federal policy across 

different energy sources. First, consistent with the terms specified in the second round oil shale 

RD&D lease terms, the final oil shale and tar sands PEIS and subsequent NEPA analyses must 

include, in addition to standard environmental analyses, a quantifiable analysis of the water and 

energy demands, water quality impacts, air impacts, greenhouse gas emissions, and greater 

sagegrouse 

protections. #3])> <([#4 [9] In addition, we believe the requirements described in the 

Supplement to the 

draft Solar PEIS for variance applications provides a template for moving forward those 

applications with the least direct impacts, and a similar process should be considered for other 

energy sources. 

#4])> <([#5 [6.3] As the BLM reviews these and other comments and make final decisions, it is 

imperative to 

remember that we have time. As Jeremy Boak, director of the industry-funded Center for Oil 

Shale Technology and Research at the Colorado School ofMines, stated in November 2011 , “It 

isn’t obvious to me yet that we need to be putting a bunch of commercial leases out there 

because 

no one has a commercial process yet. .. I don’t see anybody eager to go out and lease land now 

when they’re still running experiments.”4 

4 E&E News, November 18,2011. 

#5])> <([#6 [10.6.1] We also have time to ensure that any oil shale and tar sands leasing does not 

undermine or 

otherwise detract from the Secretary’s commitment to use public lands to support renewable 

energy projects. Building a new energy economy is central to the long-term economic, social 

and environmental health of our nation. We need to focus our resources on supporting energy 

efficiency and renewable energy sources that are known to protect the environment against the 

impact from climate change, and are economically sound. Those twin goals must remain our 

priority, and any consideration of oil shale and tar sands must be secondary to those goals. 

#6])> Respectfully submitted, 

ErikMolvar 

Executive Director 

Biodiversity Conservation Alliance 

Taylor McKinnon 
Final OSTS PEIS 272 

Public Lands Campaigns Director 

Center for Biological Diversity 

Elise Jones 

Executive Director 

Colorado Environmental Coalition 

Peter Nelson 

Director, Federal Lands Program 

Defenders of Wildlife 

Bruce Gordon 

Founder and President 

EcoFiight 

David Nirnkin 

Senior Director, Southwest Region 

National Parks Conservation Association 

Comments: 2012 Draft Oil Shale and Tar Sands PEIS 

Western Resource Advocates, et al. 

Page3 

Bobby McEnaney 

Deputy Director, Western Energy & Renewables Program 

Natural Resources Defense Council 

Devorah Ancel 

Associate Attorney, Environmental Law Program 

Sierra Club 

Stephen Bloch 

Energy Policy Director & Attorney 

Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance 

Dr. Brian Moench 

President 

Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment 

Gretchen Nicholoff 

President 

Western Colorado Congress 

Gary Graham 

Director, Lands Program 

Western Resource Advocates 

Nada Culver 

Senior Director, Agency Policy and Planning 

The Wilderness Society 

Peter Hart 

Conservation Analyst/Staff Attorney 

Wilderness Workshop 

Alison Jones 

Conservation Biologist 

Wild Utah Project 

Steve Jones 

Watershed Protection Program Attorney 
Final OSTS PEIS 273 

Wyoming Outdoor Council 

Comments: 2012 Draft Oil Shale and Tar Sands PEIS 

Western Resource Advocates, et al. 

Page4 

Detailed Comments on Oil Shale and Tar Sands DPEIS 

I. Overview - Restoring order to a failed oil shale policy 

II. The Legal Framework for the PEIS 

A. The National Environmental Policy Act- Cumulative Impacts Analysis 

B. Define the scope of subsequent NEP A 

C. Define mitigation actions 

III. Defining Stipulations and Reporting Requirements in Alternative 2(b) 

IV. Water Availability 

A. Opportunities to improve the PEIS 

B. Alternative 2(b) Data Needs-- Impacts on other uses 

V. Air Quality 

A. The BLM must conduct a comprehensive air quality analysis and consider the 

impact of development on existing air quality concerns in the study areas 

i. Ozone concentrations are high and final particulates are also a concern 

ii. Visibility in several Class I and Class II areas is already impacted 

B. The BLM must address the impacts associated with electricity requirements to 

power production activities 

C. Alternative 2(b)- Data Needs 

VI. Climate Change 

A. Legal and policy basis for the BLM evaluating climate change 

B. Alternative 2(b) -Data Needs 

VII. Socio-Economic Impacts 

A. Challenges facing western communities 

B. Assets at stake 

C. Alternative 2(b)- Data Needs 

VIII. Greater Sage-Grouse 

A. Problem with Figure 6.1.2-5 

B. Alternative 2(b)- Data Needs 

C. Additional details about the greater sage-grouse 

IX. Wilderness Areas, Lands with Wilderness Characteristics, and ACECs 

A. Wilderness areas and lands with wilderness characteristics 

B. Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC) 

C. Wyoming: Adobe Town, ACECs, and Other Lands to Be Protected 

i. Adobe Town 

a. Adobe Town: Historical, prehistorical, and archaeological values 

b. Adobe Town: Geological values 

c. Adobe Town: Wildlife values 

d. Adobe Town: Scenic values 

ii. ACECs and other areas in Wyoming 

a. Little Mountain area, including Greater Red Creek ACEC, Red 

Creek WSA, and Sugarloaf Basin SMA 

b. Adobe Town State Very Rare or Uncommon Area 
Final OSTS PEIS 274 

c. Adobe Town Dispersed Recreation Use Area (DRUA) 

d. Kinney Rim North and Kinney Rim South citizens’ proposed 

wilderness areas 

Comments: 2012 Draft Oil Shale and Tar Sands PEIS 

Western Resource Advocates, eta/. 

Page5 

e. The Flaming Gorge National Recreation Area 

f. Jack Morrow Hills planning area 

m. Areas proposed for wilderness protections 

D. Utah: ACECs, lands with wilderness characteristics, and other lands 

i. Utah proposed wilderness areas that should be protected from oil shale and 

tar sands development 

a. Dirty Devil and Fiddler Butte 

b. White Canyon/Fort Knocker Canyon 

c. Bitter Creek 

d. Dragon Canyon 

e. Lower Bitter Creek 

f. Sunday School Canyon 

g. Seep Canyon 

h. Turtle Canyon, Desbrough, and Desolation Canyon 

i. Sids Mountain 

ii. Potential ACECs in Utah that should be declared off-limits from oil shale 

and tar sands development 

a. Bitter Creek and Bitter Creek/PR Springs 

b. Nine Mile Canyon 

c. Range Creek 

d. San Rafael Canyon (lower) 

e. Main Canyon 

f. Dirty Devil!N orth Wash 

g. White River 

h. Coyote Basin-Kennedy Wash, Coyote Basin-Coyote Basin, Coyote 

Basin-Myton Bench, and Coyote Basin-Snake John 

i. Four Mile Wash 

j. Sids Mountain Potential ACEC 

E. Colorado: ACECs, lands with wilderness characteristics, and other lands 

i. Colorado proposed wilderness and wilderness-quality lands should be 

protected from oil shale development 

ii. Colorado ACECs that should be protected from oil shale development 

a. East Fork Parachute Creek 

b. Trapper/Northwater Creek ACEC 

c. The Duck Creek, Ryan Gulch, Dudley Bluffs ACECs 

iii. Potential ACEC’s in Colorado that should be declared off-limits from oil 

shale development 

a. Snake John Subcomplex of the Coyote Basin Complex 

b. Dudley Bluffs bladderpod and twinpod habitat outside of existing 

ACECs 
Final OSTS PEIS 275 

c. Graham’s Penstemon habitat outside the Raven Ridge ACEC 

d. Narrow-stem gilia habitat outside the existing Lower Greasewood 

ACEC 

e. Narrowleaf evening primrose habitat outside existing ACECs 

X. Wild and Scenic Rivers, and Watershed Protection 

XI. Other Species Protections 

Comments: 2012 Draft Oil Shale and Tar Sands PEIS 

Western Resource Advocates, eta!. 

Page6 

A. Sclerocactus 

B. Additional deficiencies 

C. Climate impacts on species 

XII. Lands with deposits 15 gallons/ton or more and 15 feet thick or less 

<([#7 [9.7] I. Overview - Restoring order to a failed oil shale policy 

The current federal oil shale policy is deeply flawed. While the issuance of federal research 

leases is part of the federal policy, the policy does not require that any research be completed 

prior to companies securing access to more than 2 million acres of public land. Nevertheless, as 

the 2008 PEIS and commercial leasing regulations acknowledge, the picture is not so rosy and 

there remain important questions about the ability of industry to create oil from oil shale and to 

do so in an environmentally-protective manner. Tar sands development raises similar questions 

and concerns. 

This DPEIS takes those concerns one step further by linking them with a more reasoned policy, 

one that ensures research be completed prior to any consideration of commercial leasing. #7])>

<([#8 [2.3.1] The 

cleanest means to accomplish that goal is by adopting Alternative 3. Under that alternative, the 

first and second rounds of research, design and demonstration (RD&D) leases would be 

completed, and then if it made sense to open lands to oil shale leasing, the BLM could then make 

available lands for commercial leasing on a Resource Management Plan basis. 

This alternative, we believe, addresses the concerns Secretary Salazar stated in February 2011 in 

announcing that the BLM would take a fresh look at the 2008 PEIS, 

For more than a century, and through many busts, we in the West have been trying to 

unlock oil shale resources to help power our country .... lfwe are to succeed this time, we 

must continue to encourage RD&D, determine whether the technologies would be viable 

on a commercial scale, and find a way to develop the resources in a way that protects 

water supplies in the arid West. With commercial oil shale technologies still years away, 

now is the time to ensure that our rules and plans reflect the latest information and will 

deliver a fair return to the American taxpayer. 

Towards this end, we are encouraged by the following statements in the DPEIS: 

The current experimental state of the oil shale and tar sands industries does not allow this 

PEIS to include sufficient specific information or cumulative impact analyses to support 

future leasing decisions within these allocated lands. 5 

In contrast, the present experimental state of the oil shale and tar sands industries does 

not allow this PEIS for land use plan amendments to include sufficient site-specific 

information or cumulative impact analysis to support issuance of a lease. 6 

The BLM’s approach is designed to ensure that oil shale technologies can operate at 
Final OSTS PEIS 276 

economic and environmentally acceptable levels before the agency authorizes full-scale 

commercial leasing on public lands. 7 

These and other similar statements in the DPEIS are important as they establish, as both a matter 

of law and policy, that due to the nascent state of the technology, the BLM will not at this time 

make available lands for commercial leasing. The 2008 PEIS likewise recognized the BLM’s 

limitations in analyzing the technologies and related impacts, but nevertheless opened lands to 

application for both oil shale and tar sands development. This change in policy is warranted and, 

we believe, is required under both the National Environmental Policy Act and Federal Land 

Policy Management Act. 

5 DPEIS, at 1-2. 

6 DPEIS, at 1-6. 

7 DPEIS, at 2-1. #8])>

<([#9 [9.7] II. The Legal Framework for the PEIS 

In 2008 the BLM understood that due to the nascent state ofboth oil shale and tar sands 

technologies, the agency lacked the necessary information to meet Congress’ directive in the 

Energy Policy Act of 2005 to develop a PEIS that could support commercial leasing. As the 

agency acknowledged, 

The BLM originally intended the PEIS to support the amendment of land use plans to 

allocate areas open to commercial leasing and development of oil shale and tar sands, as 

well as to upport the i suance of such leases. However, in consultation with the 

cooperating agencies, it was determined that the analysis to support immediate leasing 

decisions would require making speculative assumptions regarding potential, unproven 

technologies, and, consequently, the decision to offer specific parcels for lease was 

dropped from consideration in the PEIS. 

Nevertheless, the BLM amended 12 land use plans and made available for leasing more than 2 

million acres of oil shale and tar sands lands. 

In 2012, the BLM faces the same challenge. The technologies are no more advanced than they 

were in 2008. Land use decisions and supporting NEP A analyses made without the benefit of 

research will continue to suffer from the same fundamental flaws the BLM encountered when it 

issued the FPEIS. This time, though, the BLM is taking a far different tack in the proposed 

alternative - requiring companies to complete their research and evaluate its impacts prior to 

securing a commercial lease. In doing so, the BLM will, at least theoretically, secure good, 

current, independently-verifiable data to support land use decisions before large tracts of public 

land are committed to development. 

8 FPEIS, at ES-3 (emphasis added). 

#9])>

<([#10 [9.3] Nevertheless, due to these challenges, this NEPA analysis is deficient. For that 

reason, it 

remains imperative that the Final PEIS maintain the many provisions that provide the BLM 

cannot meet its NEPA responsibilities, and identify the timing and scope of subsequent analyses. 

As discussed below, due to the nascent state of the technology and the corresponding limitations 

of this DPEIS, subsequent NEPA analyses should include either another PEIS or require lessees 

to conduct environmental impact statements. Environmental assessments at the leasing stage 

would not sufficiently addresses the legal and other deficiencies contained in this DPEIS. 

#10])> <([#11 [4.1] A. The National Environmental Policy Act- Cumulative Impacts Analysis 
Final OSTS PEIS 277 

One critical change from the 2008 PEIS is the agency’s admission that it does not have sufficient 

information to conduct a cumulative impacts analysis, one of the cornerstones of the National 

Environmental Policy Act9 (NEPA). We applaud the frankness regarding the way the DPEIS 

addresses this requirement. 

As stated early in the DPEIS, “The current experimental state of the oil shale and tar sands 

industries does not allow this PEIS to include sufficient specific information or cumulative 

impact analyses to support future leasing decisions within these allocated lands.”10 Additionally, 

as expressed in Chapter 6, 

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. 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. 11 

Finally, 

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. 12 

As the BLM is aware, NEP A requires federal agencies to prepare a detailed statement on the 

environmental impacts of a proposed “major federal action” and all of the reasonable alternatives 

thereto before authorizing any such action. 13 An agency proposal for major federal action exists 

for NEP A purposes “at that the stage ... when an agency subject to [NEP A] has a goal and is 

actively preparing to make a decision on one or more alternative means of accomplishing that 

goal and the effects can be meaningfully evaluated.” 14 NEPA’s purpose is to promote efforts 

“which will prevent or eliminate damage to the environment”, 15 to inform the public of 

environmental consequence 16 and to “help public officials ... take actions that protect, restore, 

and enhance the environment.” 17 

Under NEPA, the PEIS must analyze “connected”, “cumulative”, and “similar” actions and three 

types of impacts. 18 Cumulative and connected impacts assessments help assure that FLPMA’s 

requirements regarding no degradation to the environment are met. Courts have held that there 

are situations where an agency must consider several related actions in a single NEP A 

document. 

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held that in a cumulative impact analysis, an 

agency should consider “(1) past and present actions without regard to whether they themselves 

triggered NEPA responsibilities and (2) future actions that are ‘reasonably foreseeable,’ even if 

they are not yet proposals and may never trigger NEPA-review requirements.”19 The court noted 

that the applicable law “does not limit the inquiry to the cumulative impacts that can be expected 

from proposed projects; rather, the inquiry also extends to the effects that can be anticipated from 

“reasonably foreseeable future actions.”20 

Similarly, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has specifically required analysis of 

activities on both public and private land, since both may impact federal resources; the court also 

found cumulative impacts analysis insufficient where it did not include foreseeable projects in 

the same geographical region. 21 Identifying these impacts is vital to the decision-making proce 

s 
Final OSTS PEIS 278 

as the “primary purpose” of the PEIS is to “insure that the policies and goals defined in [NEP A] 

are infused into the ongoing programs and actions of the Federal Government. “22 

Given that the BLM must delay until the leasing stage a full and complete cumulative impacts 

analysis, the Final PEIS must include two important provisions, both of which are discussed 

below: 

1. Define the scope of the subsequent NEP A analysis, including the scope of the cumulative 

impacts analysis. 

2. Define mitigation actions. 

9 42 u.s.c. §§ 4321-4370[. 

10 DPEIS, at l-2. 

11 DPEIS, at 6-242. (emphasis added) 

12 DPEIS, at 6-243. 

13 42 u.s.c. § 4332(2)(C). 

14 40 C.F.R. § 1508.23. 

15 42 u.s.c. § 4321. 

16 40 C.F.R. § 1500.l(b). 

17 ld at§ 1500.1(c). 

18 Id at§§ 1508.25,1508.7, 1508.8. 

19 See, Fritiofson v. Alexander, 772 F.2d 1225, 1245 (5th Cir. 1985). 

20 ld at 1243 

21 See, Natural Resources Defense Council v. U.S. Forest Service, 421 F.3d 797, 815-16 (9th 

Cir. 2005); 

Muckleshoot Indian Tribe v. U.S. Forest Service, 177 F.3d 800 (9th Cir. 1999). 

22 40 C.F.R. § 1502.1 

#11])> <([#12 [9.3] B. Define the scope of subsequent NEPA 

A landscape level analysis of proposed commercial oil shale and tar sands development must 

evaluate the distribution of resources and supporting facilities across the affected states. This 

analysis is a critical component of any NEP A analysis, and the BLM must use the Final PEIS to 

define the scope of subsequent analyses. 

Comments: 2012 Draft Oil Shale and Tar Sands PEIS 

Western Resource Advocates, eta/. 

Some items that the agency should require lessees to evaluate include in subsequent NEP A 

include: 

1. Energy infrastructure and refining projects that would be developed. The increased 

infrastructure and the clustering of projects to access and service the oil shale and tar 

sands leasing areas is likely to have a cumulatively significant effect on the resources in 

the area. Support facilities such as coal-fired electric power plants or other electricity 

sources must be analyzed for their impacts upon the lands, communities, and resources. 

2. Mainline and branch power lines that would be needed to run oil shale facilities. 

3. Emissions of greenhouse gases from these power plants or their contributions to global 

warming. 

4. Oil shale and tar sands development would require substantial new construction of 

regional and feeder pipelines and expansion of existing refineries to transport and process 

the kerogen and bitumen. These connected systems and their impacts must be analyzed. 

Other impacts and actions that should be addressed in a cumulative fashion include, but are not 
Final OSTS PEIS 279 

limited to: 

1. Road construction, 

2. Activities leading to soil and vegetation disturbance, 

3. Activities leading to changed habitat structure, 

4. Activities leading to habitat fragmentation, and 

5. Activities causing air or water pollution. 

Similarly, given that cumulative actions are actions that, incrementally, have significant impacts, 

even if the individual impacts are minor, the Final PEIS should state that subsequent cumulative 

impacts must include projects already approved under each resource management plan. First 

among many are oil and gas development. 

#12])> <([#13 [5] C. Define mitigation actions 

At the most fundamental level, NEP A is intended to help public officials make decisions that are 

based on an understanding of environmental consequences, and to take actions that protect, 

restore, and enhance the environment. 23 Federal agencies are required, to the fullest extent 

possible, to use all practicable means consistent with the requirements of NEP A to ‘restore and 

enhance the quality of the human environment and avoid or minimize any possible adverse 

effects of their actions upon the quality of the human environment.”24 A key element in meeting 

this mandate is developing and implementing mitigation measures. 

As the BLM acknowledges in the DPEIS, “NEPA analysis and other appropriate review would 

also be required before approval of a lease and subsequent plan of development on a lease, which 

would include analysis of particular activities at the specific location where development would 

occur. Appropriate stipulations and mitigation measures would be identified as part of both of 

these subsequent NEPA analyses.”25 

Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations define mitigation as: 

1. A voiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action. 

2. Minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its 

implementation. 

3. Rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected environment. 

4. Reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance 

operations during the life of the action. 

5. Compensating for the impact by replacing or providing substitute resources or 

environments. 26 

[n addition to these long-standing regulations, in January 2011, CEQ issued new mitigation 

guidance. 27 The guidance stresses the importance of mitigation in the alternatives analysis, in 

project design, and in other contexts. This guidance clearly provides that mitigation measures be 

“explicitly described as ongoing commitments and should specify measurable performance 

standards and adequate mechanisms for implementation, monitoring, and reporting.”28A key 

element of determining mitigation effectiveness is establishing baseline resource conditions. 

In general, the guidance directs agencies to: 

1. commit to mitigation in decision documents when they have based environmental 

analysis upon such mitigation; 

2. monitor the implementation and effectiveness of mitigation commitments; 

3. make information on mitigation monitoring available to the public; and 

4. remedy ineffective mitigation when the Federal action is not yet complete. 

The DPEIS attempts to define mitigation measures. However, due to nascent state of the 
Final OSTS PEIS 280 

technology, subsequent NEP A must define mitigation measures a lessee would take. Those 

measures must be tied to the technology developed, and other contemporary land use activities. 

23 See 40 C.F.R. § 1500.l(b). 

24 /d. at 1500.2(t). 

25 DPEIS, at 1-1. 

26 40 C.F.R. § 1508.20. 

27 76 Fed. Reg. 3843 (January 21, 2011). 

28 Id. #13])>

<([#14 [2.3.1] III. Defining Stipulations and Reporting Requirements in Alternative 2(b) 

As discussed throughout these comments, we strongly encourage the BLM to adopt Alternative 3 

in the Final PEIS. We continue to believe that no lands should be allocated for commercial 

development until completion of research, including but not limited to federal research, design 

and demonstration (RD&D) leases, and an analysis of the impacts. For that reason, we urge the 

BLM to adopt Alternative 3 in the Final PEIS. If, following completion of research activities the 

BLM concludes that lands should be open to application for commercial development, the BLM 

can then amend resource management plans and make land available. 

By placing off-limits areas containing important environmental and ecological values, and by 

requiring companies to first prove their technologies and evaluate the impacts to communities, 

human health and the environment, Alternative 3 helps ensure that any commercial development 

is initiated following a full understanding and evaluation of the impacts. The 2008 PEIS not 

only excluded such guarantees, but it facilitated research and commercial development as 

concurrent paths. 

#14])> <([#15 [9.7] We do not support the fact that Alternative 2 would open more than 462,000 

acres to research 

and development. Nonetheless, should the lands be open for this purpose, we agree with the 

premise of 2(b) to limit activities to research pending proof of viable technologies and a clear 

understanding of the impacts is both logical and necessary. A the BLM makes clear, this 

approach would require companies to secure answers to key questions prior to any consideration 

of commercial leasing, while avoiding what the BLM terms a few companies tying “up large 

areas with speculative commercialleases.”29 

As provided in the DPEIS “as the Draft PEIS was being developed, the idea for this alternative 

emerged. It is presented here in brief. This alternative is not noted elsewhere in the document but 

will be developed further in preparation of the Final PEIS.”30 The following helps define those 

terms and conditions that give rise to Alternative 2(b) or any Alternative that the BLM adopt that 

first requires companies to complete research before accessing any land for commercial 

development. 

The issues and ideas offered below recognize that in the nearly four years since the BLM issued 

the 2008 PEIS and Record of Decision (ROD), technology development has produced little new 

data. Companies have not yet developed any commercially-viable technologies, have not 

reported on their air and water emissions, have not provided data regarding their water demands, 

plus a host of other issues and concerns. They not even shown what products they will produce 

or where any manufacturing, including upgrading, might occur. 

Yet since the PEIS was issued in 2008, there is now good data regarding water challenges 

Colorado and Utah will face over the next 40 years, and important (and troubling) data regarding 

air quality impacts resulting from fo sil fuel development. (These issues are discussed below.) 
Final OSTS PEIS 281 

In that period the BLM has also taken steps to increase renewable energy and oil/gas 

development on some of the same areas proposed for oil shale and tar sands development. 

Taken together, it is imperative that the Final PEIS state in clear and unambiguous terms what 

companies will need to provide and what protections they will need to ensure before any 

consideration of commercial leasing. As noted in the cover letter, a good model the BLM should 

look to in defining Alternative 2(b) , or any chosen Alternative that allows applicants to move 

forward with commercial-scale leases, is the October 2011 Supplement to the Draft 

Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for Solar Development in Six Southwestern 

States (Solar SDPEIS), and how the BLM addresses variance applications. 

Consistent with the terms specified in the second round oil shale RD&D lease terms, the oil shale 

and tar sands Final PEIS and subsequent NEP A analyses should require that in addition to 

standard environmental analyses, there be a quantifiable analysis of the water and energy 

demands, water quality impacts, air impacts, greenhouse emissions, and greater sage-grouse 

protections. Additionally, by requiring companies to report on this data, not only will the BLM 

secure the necessary data, but it will place federal oil shale RD&D lessees and non-RD&D 

lessees on equal footing. 

One of the inconsistencies in federal oil shale policy is that RD&D lessees have a greater burden 

of proof than companies not holding an RD&D lease (“non-lessees”) that their technology is 

viable on a commercial scale. RD&D lessees must prove they can produce commercial 

quantities, but non-lessees do not. The Final PEIS should also require all potential lessees to 

provide quantifiable data showing they are technically and financially capable of producing 

commercial quantities, as well as data regarding the full suite of environmental impacts. Only 

then would all potential lessees be able to provide with any accuracy and detail the impacts 

identified below. 

29 DPEIS, at 2-35. 

30 /d. 

#15])> <([#16 [9.2.6] [3.4.1] [3.7.1.2] More specifically, in defining Alternative 2(b ), or any 

chosen Alternative, the BLM should 

include in the Final PEIS language that addresses the following. Under these terms, approval of 

any commercial leases would only be granted upon an adequate and acceptable analysis of those 

impacts, and clear and detailed plans for mitigating such impacts. 

Water demands - impacts to other water interests: Mandate that following completion of 

research activities lessees provide: 

a. An analysis of the impacts of utilizing water for oil shale on efforts to meet municipal & 

industrial, agricultural, and other water demands. 

b. An analysis of the economic and socio-cultural impacts of utilizing water for oil shale on 

communities, agricultural, recreation, and other water demands. 

c. An accounting of water demands and water rights, including: 

i. Specifying how much water all facets of an operation would require 

ii. Identifying the sources of all water 

iii. Identifying the impacts of surface diversions on existing users, including junior 

users 

d. An analysis of the impact on USFWS’ efforts to protect four endangered species - the 

Colorado pikeminnow, the humpback chub, the bonytail, and the razorback sucker including 
Final OSTS PEIS 282 

on the 15 Mile Reach in Colorado and the Green River below its confluence 

with the White River. 

#16])> <([#17 [9.2.6] [6.2] More specifically, in defining Alternative 2(b ), or any chosen 

Alternative, the BLM should 

include in the Final PEIS language that addresses the following. Under these terms, approval of 

any commercial leases would only be granted upon an adequate and acceptable analysis of those 

impacts, and clear and detailed plans for mitigating such impacts. 

Energy demands: Mandate that, following completion of research activities, lessees provide 

the following information as a condition of further development: 

a. Identify all sources of energy needed to support and power development. 

b. Evaluate the impact of such energy development and use on water availability, water 

quality, air quality, endangered species, wildlife, and other resources. 

#17])> <([#18 [9.2.6] [3.4.1] More specifically, in defining Alternative 2(b ), or any chosen 

Alternative, the BLM should 

include in the Final PEIS language that addresses the following. Under these terms, approval of 

any commercial leases would only be granted upon an adequate and acceptable analysis of those 

impacts, and clear and detailed plans for mitigating such impacts. 

Water quality: Mandate that, following completion of research activities, lessees provide the 

following information as a condition of further development: 

a. Document impacts to water quality. 

b. Document how any proposed project would avoid degrading water quality. 

c. Establish baseline surface water and groundwater conditions so that the BLM, EPA and 

state agencies can evaluate whether development activities would degrade water quality. 

#18])> <([#19 [9.2.6] More specifically, in defining Alternative 2(b ), or any chosen Alternative, 

the BLM should 

include in the Final PEIS language that addresses the following. Under these terms, approval of 

any commercial leases would only be granted upon an adequate and acceptable analysis of those 

impacts, and clear and detailed plans for mitigating such impacts. 

Air quality: Mandate that, following completion of research activities, lessees provide the 

following information as a condition of further development: 

a. Document that the proposed project will not result in further exceedances of NAAQS. 

b. Provide a full analysis of the direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of energy 

development on ambient PM2.5, PM10, NOx, S02, ozone, and HAP concentrations, 

including necessary mitigation measures. 

c. Provide a full analysis of the impacts to air quality from the cumulative impacts of oil 

shale and tar sands development with oil and gas development. 

#19])> <([#20 [9.2.6] [3.10.2] [3.10.4] More specifically, in defining Alternative 2(b ), or any 

chosen Alternative, the BLM should 

include in the Final PEIS language that addresses the following. Under these terms, approval of 

any commercial leases would only be granted upon an adequate and acceptable analysis of those 

impacts, and clear and detailed plans for mitigating such impacts. 

Socio-economic impacts: Mandate that, following completion of research activities lessees 

provide the following information as a condition of further development: 

a. Estimate the true costs associated with oil shale and tar sands development to private 

landowners, recreation, agriculture, and other viable industries at the time of the lease 

sale. 
Final OSTS PEIS 283 

b. Identify the increased public service and infrastructure costs associated with oil shale and 

tar sands development, and specify in detail how negative impacts would be mitigated. 

#20])> <([#21 [3.5.1.3] [9.2.6] More specifically, in defining Alternative 2(b ), or any chosen 

Alternative, the BLM should 

include in the Final PEIS language that addresses the following. Under these terms, approval of 

any commercial leases would only be granted upon an adequate and acceptable analysis of those 

impacts, and clear and detailed plans for mitigating such impacts. 

Greenhouse gas emissions: Mandate that, following completion of research activities, 

lessees provide the following information as a condition of further development: 

a. Document the greenhouse gas emissions from all phases of the project, including energy 

demands, construction of lease sites, production of fuel, and combustion of fuel 

ultimately produced. This analysis must include incremental contributions from 

individual projects. 

b. Show compliance with applicable federal and state policies and standards. 

More specifically, in defining Alternative 2(b ), or any chosen Alternative, the BLM should 

include in the Final PEIS language that addresses the following. Under these terms, approval of 

any commercial leases would only be granted upon an adequate and acceptable analysis of those 

impacts, and clear and detailed plans for mitigating such impacts. 

#21])> <([#22 [9.2.4] [9.2.6] [3.7.4.8] Greater Sage Grouse: Mandate that, following completion 

of research activities, lessees 

provide the following information as a condition of further development: 

a. Document that development would protect core and priority sage-grouse areas, as defined 

at the point of a lease sale. 

b. Document there would be no net decline in habitat or species viability, while furthering 

DOl’s goal of maintaining or enhancing the health of sage-grouse populations. 

c. Establish that proposed activities would comply with all applicable federal agency sage 

grouse policies, as well as state policies or standards. 

d. Analyze the cumulative impacts to grouse conservation of the proposed project, and other 

current and reasonably foreseeable projects or activities that could adversely affect 

populations. 

#22])> <([#23 [9] In addition to the requirements stated above, in defining Alternative 2(b ), or 

the Alternative 

selected, the Final PEIS must: 

1. Include language providing that the BLM can, in appropriate circumstances, rely on the 

broad discretion it has under FLPMA to deny commercial oil shale lease and tar sands 

nominations without completing the NEPA process. 

#23])> <([#24 [9] [3.1.1] In addition to the requirements stated above, in defining Alternative 

2(b ), or the Alternative 

selected, the Final PEIS must: 2. Include language requiring the BLM to coordinate with the 

National Park Service to 

ensure that development will not negatively impact the resources and values of units of 

the National Park System and other special status areas under NPS and/or BLM 

administration. This analysis would include potential air quality degradation of class 1 

air sheds. See Attachment 11 for impacts to Park Service units from commercial 

development. 

#24])> <([#25 [9.2.4] [1.4] [3.7.4.8] In addition to the requirements stated above, in defining 
Final OSTS PEIS 284 

Alternative 2(b ), or the Alternative 

selected, the Final PEIS must: 3. Include a provision requiring the BLM to coordinate with the 

USFWS to evaluate the 

impacts of development on sage grouse areas of concern. #25])>

<([#26 [3.4.1] IV. Water Availability 

Water resources in the West are scarce and are under increasing pressure from development. In 

Colorado and Utah, water will be largely, if not completely, spoken for by 2050, the time line the 

BLM projects industry could develop large-scale oil shale or tar sands operations. Any 

discussion and evaluation of water availability and water consumption projections for oil shale 

and tar sands- no matter how great or little- must be viewed in the context of states’ water 

availability projections, including both current and future demand. 

The State of Utah and Government Accountability Office (GAO) have spoken to the challenge. 

Utah, the nation’s second driest state, concluded in its 2011 10-year energy study: 

Limited quantities of water may be available for new energy development. Most areas of 

the state are closed to new surface- and ground-water appropriations (especially new 

consumptive appropriations) and those that are still open are primarily for ground water 

in relatively small quantities. What little may be currently available will undoubtedly 

decline over the next decade. Water currently used at other facilities or by other water 

users may be purchased for use in energy development in the future . ... Given Utah’s 

population growth and projected economic growth over the next decade, the possibility of 

increased drought, and with limited new water resources available, water consumption of 

energy resources should be given careful consideration .... As an arid state, an energy 

portfolio that encourages low water-use technologies should be considered. 31 

Like the State ofUtah, the GAO has also raised concern. The GAO’s October 2010 report on oil 

shale and water, “Energy-Water Nexus: A Better and Coordinated Understanding of Water 

Resources Could Help Mitigate the Impacts of Potential Oil Shale Development,” 32 concluded 

that oil shale would likely require 4-to-5 barrels of water for every barrel of oil produced from 

shale, higher than the BLM’s projections in the DPEIS.33 

Moreover the GAO offered this important cautionary note: 

Water is likely to be available for the initial development of an oil shale industry, but the 

size of an industry in Colorado or Utah may eventually be limited by water availability. 

Water limitations may arise from increases in water demand from municipal and 

industrial users, the potential of reduced water supplies from a warming climate, fulfilling 

obligations under interstate water compacts, and the need to provide additional water to 

protect threatened and endangered fishes. 34 

The GAO also offered the following: 

The unproven nature of oil shale technologies and choices in how to generate the power 

necessary to develop this resource cast a shadow of uncertainty over how much water is 

needed to sustain a commercially viable oil shale industry .... These nascent efforts do not 

adequately define current baseline conditions for water resources in the Piceance and 

Uintah Basins, nor have they begun to model the important interaction of groundwater 

and surface water in the region. 35 

Utah and Colorado understand the challenge industry would face and the impacts development 

would bring. The State of Utah projects that due to an increasing population statewide municipal 

and industrial (M&I) water demand would increase from 904,000 AF/yr in 1995, to 1,951,000 
Final OSTS PEIS 285 

AF/yr in 2050, a 115% increase. 36 With conservation, the state hopes to reduce the 2050 

demand, but none of these plans account for potential oil shale or tar sands development. 37 

In Colorado, the December 2010 Statewide Water Supply Initiative (SWSI) study projected that 

by 2050, after taking into account conservation, statewide M&I demand will increase by 

somewhere between 538,000 AF/yr and 812,000 AF/yr (55-83%) over 2008 baseline demand. 38 

M&I does not include water for oil shale or thermoelectric power production, o any water for 

oil shale, including water for electricity/energy production, will come in addition to statewide 

M&I demands. To meet these growing M&I demands- demands that are principally driven by 

an increasing population - large quantities of water currently used for agriculture would likely be 

diverted to M&I uses. 

As the State of Utah and the State of Colorado’s projections make clear, even without water for 

oil shale or tar sands, by 2050 the states will face enormous challenges in meeting demand for 

this increasingly scarce resource. Any water for oil shale or tar sands must therefore be analyzed 

in the context of competing water needs, as oil shale and tar sands development would have 

broad impacts on water availability. 

Climate change increases the challenges states will face. As the DPEIS makes clear, by 2050, 

water in the Colorado River Basin could be reduced by 6-20%. 39 Such reductions would further 

stress existing resources, compounding the problems posed by large development projects such 

as oil shale and tar sands. 

The DPEIS recognizes the importance of water, and makes clear that water requirements for 

commercial development could be substantial. It also projects how much water might be 

available for oil shale or tar sands development, and the impacts of using large quantities of 

water on existing demand and future uses. Based on those projections, the DPEIS cautions in 

Tables 3.4.1-2 and 3.4.1-3 and the corresponding text that demand in the Upper Basin could 

exceed what is legally available to the states. This conclusion is striking. It is reason alone why 

research must be completed and the impacts analyzed prior to any consideration of commercial 

leasing. 

Knowing that water could be a limiting factor, companies are working hard to reduce their water 

demand. Since the release of the PEIS in 2008, companies pursuing oil shale and tar sands 

development have claimed that they are reducing the amount of water that would be needed to 

produce oil. None of these claims appear to be supported by independently-verifiable data, and 

claims made to the media, on websites, and in power point presentations have consistently been 

devoid of facts or data. 

31 “Energy Initiatives and Imperatives: Utah’s 10-Year Strategic Energy Plan,” March 2011, at 

25. 

http: //www.energy.utab.gov/index.htm 

32 GAO, “Energy-Water Nexus: A Better and Coordinated Understanding of Water Resources 

Could Help Mitigate 

the Impacts of Potential Oil Shale Development”. October 2010. 

33 Id The GAO concluded the range of water-to-oil is 1:1 to 20:1. The report further stated 4-5 

barrels of water to oil 

was a good working figure. 

34 Id 

35 Id at 44-45. 
Final OSTS PEIS 286 

36 Utah Division of Water Resources, Utah’s M&J Water Conservation Plan: Investing in the 

Future, July 14, 2003, 

http://www.water.utah.gov/M&I/Plan7-14-03.pdf, page 4. 

37 Id 

38 Statewide Water Supply Initiative (SWSI), Final2010 M&I Water Use Projections, Table 3-3, 

“M&I Forecast by 

River Basin.” At 3-11 . hllp://cwcbweblink. tate.co.us/webtink/0/doc/ 

144800/Electronic.aspx?searchid=c 1469548- 

e589-49df-a54f-6b03612a38e3 (last accessed April 13, 20 12). 

39 DPEIS, at 4-36 through 4-37. 

#26])> <([#27 [3.4.5] A. Opportunities to improve the PEIS 

In Utah, water availability in the DPETS is projected through 2050. The data needs to be cross 

referenced against the state’s data included in “Utah’s M&I Conservation Plan.”40 That report, 

which was published in July 2003, provides more recent information than the BLM used it the 

DPEIS. 

#27])> <([#28 [3.4.1] Similarly, the Colorado data (section 3.4.1.4, “Water Use’” relies on old 

data, the 2004 SWSI 

study. That report was replaced by the 2010 SWSI study. 1 One of the primary differences 

between the two reports is that the 2004 report includes projections through 2035, while the 2010 

report includes projections through 2050. Importantly, the 2010 report also uses updated 

population projections and per capita water use rates, both vital data points when projecting 

water availability. 

40 Utah Division of Water Resources, Utah’s M&I Water Conservation Plan: Investing in the 

Future, July 14, 2003, 

http ://www. water.utab.gov/M&I/Plan7-1 4-03.pdf 

41 State of Colorado 2050 Municipal & Industrial Water Use Projections, July 2010, report 

prepared by Camp 

Dresser & Mckee, Inc. and Harvey Economics for Colorado Water Conservation Board, 

b.tto:/ /cwcbweb I ink. state. co. us/web I ink/0/doc/ 144800/E lectronic.aspx ?searchid=c 1469 

548-e589-49df-a54 f6b03612a38e3 

#28])> <([#29 [3.4.1] Another area where the PEIS can be improved is expanding the analysis of 

the impacts of using 

water for oil shale and tar sands on allocations and obligations under the Colorado River 

Compact. One of the great uncertainties and thus risks water managers face concerns water 

availability under the Colorado River Compact. The great unknown is how much water remains 

available for development, and the risk states face that large scale oil shale and tar sands 

development would result in a call under the Compact. 

To help answer these and other related questions, the Bureau of Reclamation initiated an 

evaluation to “define current and future imbalances in water supply and demand in the Colorado 

River Basin and the adjacent areas of the Basin States that receive Colorado River water for 

approximately the next 50 years, and will develop and analyze adaptation and mitigation 

strategies to resolve those imbalances. 42 That study will likely show that even without 

largescale oil shale and tar sands production, demands outstrip supply by millions of acre-feet. 

The Colorado Water Conservation Board is also in the early stages of a study focused on 
Final OSTS PEIS 287 

identifying how much water the state of Colorado may have left to develop under the Colorado 

River Compact- their “compact compliance study.” Information from these analyses and any 

subsequent analyses must be examined in all subsequent NEP A reviews that the BLM requires 

or undertakes as part of the oil shale and tar sands research and leasing program. 

42 http://www.usbr.gov/lc/region/programs/crbstudy.html #29])>

<([#30 [3.7.1.2] Further compounding the challenge companies would face in developing oil 

shale and tar sands 

is ensuring development does not undermine protections provided under the Upper Colorado 

River Endangered Fishes Recovery Implementation Program. However, as the DPEIS makes 

clear, those protections could be weakened: 

The Upper Colorado River Endangered Fishes Recovery Implementation Program 

considers any water depletions from the upper Colorado River Basin, which includes the 

watersheds of the Green River and the White River, an adverse effect on endangered 

Colorado River fishes that requires consultation and mitigation. Water depletions for 

individual projects could be quite large and represent a significant adverse impact on 

these riverine fish. 43 

43 DPEIS, at 4-122. 

#30])> <([#31 [3.10.4] Additionally, in Colorado alone, water-related activities inject into the 

economy between $7 

billion and $8 billion, and employ 85,000 people.44 Non-consumptive uses are fundamental to 

these industries. It is thus imperative that subsequent NEP A analyses evaluate the impact 

diverting water for oil shale and tar sands development would have on these industries. 

#31])> <([#32 [3.4.1] [3.7.1.2] Finally, one other issue that should be included in any subsequent 

NEP A analysis is the impact 

of storing water for oil shale and tar sands development. Much if not most of the water required 

by development would need to be stored in reservoirs. Big :flows only happen in the Spring, yet 

industry would need water all year round. The impacts of storage projects, required to sustain oil 

shale and tar sands operations on endangered fish species, healthy river flows, plus a host of 

other concerns must be evaluates as part of any proposed project. 

44 htto://cwcb.state.co.uslenvironment/oon-consumptive-needs/Pages/main.aspx 

#32])> <([#33 [3.4.1] [9.2.6] B. Alternative 2(b) Data Needs -- Impacts on other uses 

The Final PEIS must require potential lessees to provide quantifiable data on the impact 

development would have on water demands and uses. This data is vital in ensuring oil shale and 

tar sands’ impacts are understood and fully analyzed prior to the issuance of any commercial 

leases. As noted in Section III of these comments, in defining Alternative 2(b), or any 

Alternative selected for the Final PEIS, the BLM has an opportunity to require all potential 

lessees to detail the amount of water a given development project would require and the impacts 

on other users. 

There are a number of unanswered questions that must be addressed before considering 

commercial development. For these reasons, it is imperative that the Alternative selected in the 

Final PEIS mandate that following completion of research activities lessees provide the 

following information: 

A. An analysis of the impacts of utilizing water for oil shale on efforts to meet municipal & 

industrial, agricultural, and other water demands. 
Final OSTS PEIS 288 

B. An analysis of the economic and socio-cultural impacts of utilizing water for oil shale on 

communities, agricultural, recreation, and other water demands. 

C. An accounting of water demands and water rights, including: 

i. Specifying how much water all facets of an operation would require 

ii. Identifying the sources of all water 

iii. Identifying the impacts of surface diversions on existing users, including junior 

users 

D. An analysis of the impact on USFWS’ efforts to protect four endangered species- the 

Colorado pikeminnow, the humpback chub, the bonytail, and the razorback sucker including 

on the 15 Mile Reach in Colorado and the Green River below its confluence 

with the White River. 

#33])> <([#34 [3.5.4] V. Air Quality 

The PEIS does not fully analyze air quality impacts, but the analysis contained therein raises 

serious concern. The quality of air resources in western Colorado, eastern Utah and 

outhwestern Wyoming is quickly degrading due to ongoing oil and gas development. Oil shale 

and tar sands development would further impact regional air quality. With that, human health 

and environmental health would be further compromised. Economies that depend on clear air 

would also suffer. Protecting air quality alone is cause for the BLM to adopt Alternative 3 as the 

preferred alternative. 

Accordingly, before considering any development of these deposits, the BLM must be up front 

with the public and fully disclose the potential impacts to human health and the environment 

from this significant source of S02, NOx, PM, CO and C02 emissions. Prior to any further 

leasing activity, the BLM must complete an assessment of the impact of the emissions from the 

power generation for development and determine adequate mitigation measures that demonstrate 

compliance with all ofthe NAAQS (including S02, PM, N02 and ozone) and the PSD 

increments and that prevent visibility degradation and acidification of lakes in affected areas. 

#34])> <([#35 [9.3] The following comments rely on those submitted by Megan Williams and 

incorporated herein 

(see Attachment 1). 

A. The BLM must conduct a comprehensive air quality analysis and consider the 

impact of development on existing air quality concerns in the study areas 

The DPEIS does not contain an air quality impact analysis, but instead, as discussed above, 

defers the analysis to address emerging technologies and site-specific conditions. Deferring this 

analysis undermines NEPA requirements. As Williams notes in Attachment 1, 

Under NEPA, the BLM has obligations to assess and report the near-field, far-field and 

cumulative impacts of expected emissions in the various development areas on the 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), prevention of significant 

deterioration (PSD) increments, and air quality related values (AQRVs) and to identify 

alternatives or other mitigation measures sufficient to prevent expected violations of 

NAAQS, PSD increments and adverse impacts on AQRVs (e.g., visibility impairment). 

(40 C.F.R. §§ 1502.14(a), (f), 40 C.F.R. § 1502.16(h) and 40 C.F.R. § 1508.27(b)(l0)). 

As Williams also discusses, “The Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) mandates 

that, “[i]n the development and revision of land use plans, the Secretary shall ... (8) provide for 

compliance with applicable pollution control laws, including State and Federal air, water, noise, 

or other pollution standards or implementation plans ... “ (43 U.S.C. § 1712(c)(8)).” 

Compliance with these requirements is central to preventing unnecessary or undue degradation 
Final OSTS PEIS 289 

of public lands and the environment. That analysis cannot be done in a vacuum. Given existing 

air quality concerns on oil shale and tar sands lands, the BLM’s analysis in this PEIS and in 

future NEP A analyses must bring together air impacts from oil shale and tar sands development 

with oil and gas development and other uses that degrade air quality. An analysis that fails to do 

so is a violation ofNEPA. 

#35])> <([#36 [3.5.4] 1. Ozone concentrations are high and final particulates are also a concern 

Wintertime ozone pollution resulting from oil and gas development is an increasing problem, and 

would overlap with oil shale and tar sands areas. Essentially, there is no room for growth in 

emissions that contribute to these harmful levels of ozone pollution in the region-namely, NOx 

and VOC. Yet, the BLM is proposing with both research and commercial development to allow 

increased NOx emissions and VOC emissions. 

Oil shale and tar sands development produce both NOx and VOC emissions (e.g., from coalfired 

power plants that supply electricity for in-situ processes, from drilling engines, compressor 

engines, diesel generators, heaters, boilers, mining equipment and from solvent extraction plants 

as well as from flares, storage tanks and retort processes, etc.). Without completing a dispersion 

modeling analysis, it is difficult to gauge the resultant impacts research and development would 

bring on regional air quality. As Williams makes clear any increase in emissions of ozone 

precursors will exacerbate the negative health effects of ozone in the region and is almost certain 

to cause significant health-based impacts.” To protect human health and comply with ozone 

standards, the BLM must ensure that ozone concentrations in the region do not increase further. 

A NEPA analysis must rigorously analyze increased pollution and its impacts on regional air 

quality and the health of nearby residents. 

Moreover, as Williams notes, 

In addition to ozone, ambient concentrations of particulate matter-both fine particles 

(PM2.5) and coarse particles (PM10)-in the potential lease areas in Colorado, Utah and 

Wyoming indicate high concentrations and cannot be characterized as having relatively 

low concentrations compared with the NAAQS, as suggested. In these areas, background 

concentrations ofPM2.5, PM10 and ozone are already at or exceed the NAAQS and leave 

virtually no room for additional growth in emissions. 

The areas that would be opened for research and then development under Alternative 2(b) 

already experience ambient concentrations that exceed, or are close to exceeding, the level of the 

short-term PM25 NAAQS. The BLM cannot therefore promote development without 

demonstrating quantitatively that development would not cause or contribute to violations of the 

NAAQS. As Williams notes, major sources of fine particles from oil shale and tar sands 

development would include but are not limited to: 

../ products of combustion (e.g., coal-fired power plants used to generate electricity for insitu 

oil shale development, on-site drilling engines, boilers, diesel generators, heaters and 

compressors used during oil shale extraction and retort) 

../ fugitive dust from travel on unpaved roads and from construction activities 

../ fugitive dust emissions from in-situ oil shale development. 

../ spent tar sands from solvent extraction plants, and 

../ fugitive dust frommining operations (e.g., the mine pit, storage piles, crushing 

operations, etc.). #36])>

<([#37 [3.5.4] 2. Visibility in several Class I and Class II areas is already impacted 

As Williams makes clear, “Several recent modeling analyses performed by the BLM for 
Final OSTS PEIS 290 

projectspecific 

EISs, Environmental Assessments (EA) and RMPs in the study areas indicate that 

visibility in several Class I areas and sensitive Class II areas is threatened by ongoing 

development.” Further, as the 2007 RD&D EAs make clear, the combined effect of the five 

RD&D sites in Colorado with Exxon Mobil’s Piceance Development Project will result in 

significant adverse effects on visibility at the Flat Tops Wilderness Area Class I area. 45 Thus, 

the potential air quality impacts of the oil shale RD&D sites are already quite significant. 

Additional development would further impact air quality. In Colorado, Utah and Wyoming, the 

BLM has concluded that oil and gas development would further impact Class I air-sheds.46 

The near-field modeling performed for the draft EGL (now AMSO) oil shale RD&D EA showed 

that the project alone would directly cause violations of the 24-hour average Class II PMw and 

S02 increments.47 For the final EA, the BLM revised the emissions inventory and modeling 

such that there are no Longer predicted violations of these PSD increments. However, the 

modeling done for the final RD&D BAs still shows that the EGL project consumes nearly all of 

the 24-hour Class II PM10 and S02 increment and that the Chevron RD&D site also consumes 

nearly all of the available Class II 24-hour PM10 increment. 48 

Similarly, the recent Gasco DEIS did not include a comprehensive increment consumption 

analysis, however, even without such an analysis the BLM s modeling shows that Gasco project 

sources alone consume almost 287% of the available Class II 24-hour PM10 increment. 49 The 

Class II 24-hour PM10 increment will, therefore, also likely be exceeded when considering all 

other increment affecting sources in the area that impact the same area impacted by the Gasco 

development area. 

As Williams explains, in Wyoming, the maximum modeled in-field pollutant concentrations for 

the Supplemental EIS for the Pinedale Anticline Oil and Gas Exploration and Development 

Project indicate that Pinedale Anticline project sources will result in pollutant impacts greater 

than the PSD Class TI increment for N02 of 25 ~g/m3 (annual average), greater than the PSD 

Class II increment for PM10 of30 ~g/m3 (24-hour) and greater than (be PSD Class II increments 

for PM2.5 of 9 ~g/m3 (24-hour) and 4 f,.lg/m3 (annual). 50 Similarly, the Jonah Infill 

Development 

Project EIS showed that project sources will result in pollutant impacts greater than the PSD 

Class II increment for PM10 (24-hour) and greater than the PSD Class 11 increments for PM2.s 

(24-hour and annual). 51 

45 See, e.g., BLM White River Field Office, Shell Frontier Oil and Gas Final EA (CO-Il 0-2006-

117 -EA), p. 151. 

http://www.blr:n.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/co/ field offices/white river field/oil shale/ he ll 

frontier oii. Par.555 

36.File.dat/Fina!VersionShellEA1101 06.pdf. 

46 See Williams comment letter, pages 20-24. 

47 EGL Resources Inc. Oil Shale research, Development and Demonstration Tracts Draft 

Environmental Assessment 

~C0-11 0-2006-118-EA), July 2006 at 21. 

8 Modeled 24-hour PM10 direct concentrations from operation are 28.6 f1g/m3 compared with 

the Class U 24-hour 

PMIO increment of30 f1g/m3 
Final OSTS PEIS 291 

. See final EA (C0-110-2006-118-EA, November 2006) at 23. Modeled 24-hour PM10 

direct concentrations from operations are 25.86 ~glm3 • See final EA (C0-110-2006-120-EA 

November 2006) at 28. 

49 BLM Vernal Planning Area Uinta Basin Natural Gas Development Project Gasco DEIS, 

October 2010, at 4-l 3. 

http://www.blm.gov/ut/stlen/fo/vemal/planning/nepa /gasco energy eis.htrnl 

50 BLM, Pinedale Field Office, Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the 

Pinedale Anticline Oil 

and Gas Exploration and Development Project, June 2008, Appendix 16, Table 16.8. 

http://www.blm.gov/wy/stlen/info/NEP Aldocuments/pfo/anticline/seis.html. Direct Modeled 

Impacts: annual N02 = 

31.6 f1.g/m3 (annual Class II P D increment is 25 f1.g/m3); 24-hour PM 10 = 76.3 f1g/m3 (24-

hour Class fl PSD 

increment is 30 11g/m3); 24-hour PM2.s = 15 11g/m3 (24-hour Class II PSD increment is 9 

J.lg/m3); annual PM1.5 = 5.4 

f1.g/m3 (annual Class IJ PSD increment is 4 f1g/m3). 

51 BLM Final Air Quality Technical Support Document for the Jonah lnfill DriLLing Project 

EfS, January 2006, 

Appendix E: Early Project Development Stage Modeling Results, Table G-E.5.1 . 

http://www.blm.gov/wy/st/enlinfo/NEPA/documentslpfo/jonah.html. Direct Modeled Impacts: 

24-hour PM1o = 82.6 

f1g/m3 (24-hour Class II PSD increment is 30 ~g!m3); 24-hour PM2.5 = 36.2 f1g/m3 (24-hour 

Class II PSD increment 

is 9 11glm3)· annual PM2.s = 6.2 11glm3 (annual Class II PSD increment is 4 f1g/m3). 

#37])> <([#38 [3.5.3] [6.2.1] B. The BLM must address the impacts associated with electricity 

requirements to 

power production activities 

As the BLM concluded in 2008, this DPEIS assumes that the electricity for in-situ oil shale 

development would come from coal-fired power plants. As the BLM noted in the DPEIS, 

‘Other types of electrical generation might be used, including natural gas, synthetic natural gas, 

nuclear, and renewable energy, but for the purposes of this PEIS, coal is assumed to be the fuel 

to avoid underestimating the impacts.” 52 

As provided in the DPEIS, based on conversations with industry representatives and others, the 

BLM reduced the in-situ oil shale production level estimates from 200,000 barrels/day (as 

provided in the 2008 PEIS) to 50,000 barrels/day. 53 The electricity requirements were also 

reduced by a factor of four to 600 MW of additional electrical generating capacity. The 

electricity needs to support this level of development are equivalent to 15% of the generation 

from the e1ectric power industry (from coal) in 2010 in Colorado and Utah and 12% in 2010 in 

Wyoming. 54 

In Table 6.1.6-3, the BLM presents assumed emission rates for coal-fired power plants and states 

that “power plants are assumed to operate at a 60% efficiency.” As Williams explains, 

The BLM does not indicate what type of efficiency this represents (i.e., gross thermal 

efficiency, net thermal efficiency or something else entirely) but it cannot possibly 

represent either gross or net them1al efficiency of the assumed plant- modem IGCC 

(Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle) and supercritical pulverized coal units can only 

achieve net thermal efficiencies in the high 30s to low 40 percent range. 55 
Final OSTS PEIS 292 

Even assuming the 600 MW of additional power will come from plants with not-yet-seen-today 

efficiencies of 60% the emissions from these plants, based on the BLM’s assumed emission rates 

in Table 6.1.6-3, will be significant. 

The BLM must acknowledge the full suite of emissions that would result from the increased 

need for electrical power generation to support in-situ oil shale production, even at the RD&D 

level. It is quite possible that the region simply cannot withstand, without adverse effects, the 

significant increases in emissions that would result from increased power needs. 

52 DPEIS, at 4-13 . 

53 DPEIS, at 4-2. 

54 EIA, Net Generation by State by Type of Producer by Energy Source (EIA-906, EIA-920, and 

EIA-923). 

CO: 34,559,290 MWh from Total Electric Power Industry (coal)* (lyrl8760hr) = 3,945 MW and 

600MW I 3,945MW = 15% 

UT: 34,057,265 MWh from Total Electric Power Industry (coal)* (1yrl8760hr) = 3,888 MW and 

600MW I 3,888MW = 15% 

WY: 42,986,523 MWh from Total Electric Power Industry (coal)* (1yrl8760hr) = 4,907 MW 

and 

600MW I 4,907W = 12% 

55 EPA-430/R-061006, July2006 Final Report on Environmental Footprints and Costs of CoalBased Integrated 

Gasification Combined Cycle and Pulverized Coal Technologies. 

#38])> <([#39 [3.5.4] C. Alternative 2(b)- Data Needs 

As discussed above and throughout these comments, the BLM’s analysis falls short of meeting 

its NEPA and FLPMA requirements. The agency, for instance, has not analyzed whether the 

proposed oil shale and tar sands RD&D activity allowed under the RMP revisions will comply 

with the NAAQS and will prevent significant deterioration (PSD) of air quality, as required by 

the Clean Air Act (CAA). The BLM must complete an analysis to determine compliance with the 

NAAQS and also to determine how much of the incremental amount of air pollution allowed in 

clean air areas (i.e. , PSD increment) has already been consumed in the affected areas and how 

much additional increment consumption will occur due to the proposed RD&D program. 

Without this analysis, the BLM cannot ensure that the air quality in the study areas will not 

deteriorate more than allowed under the CAA. Finally, the BLM should complete an analysis of 

impacts to air quality related values, including visibility, in impacted Class I and sensitive Class 

II areas. 

#39])> <([#40 [9.2.6] The Final PEIS must address these deficiencies. As noted above, the BLM 

should require 

potential lessees to provide quantifiable data on the impact development would have on air 

quality. As noted in Section. III of these comments, in defining Alternative 2(b) or any 

Alternative selected for the Final PEIS, the BLM has an opportunity to require all potential 

lessees to detail the air quality emissions and associated impacts. This data is vital to ensuring 

oil shale and tar sands’ impacts are understood and fully analyzed prior to the issuance of any 

commercial leases. 

There are a number of unanswered questions that must be addressed before considering 

commercial development. For these reasons, it is imperative that Alternative 2(b) or the 

Alternative selected in the Final PEIS mandate that following completion of research activities 

lessees provide the following information: 
Final OSTS PEIS 293 

A. Documentation that the proposed project will not result in further exceedances of 

NAAQS. 

B. Full assessment if the direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of energy development on 

ambient PM2.s, PM10, NOx, S02, ozone, and HAP concentrations, including necessary 

mitigation measures. 

C. Quantification of the impacts to air quality from the cumulative impacts of oil shale and 

tar sands development with oil and gas development. 

#40])> <([#41 [3.5.1.1] VI. Climate Change 

We are encouraged by the BLM’s inclusion of climate change as a serious issue that needs to be 

thoroughly evaluated prior to an initiation of commercial leasing. BLM’s discussion in section 

3.5.1.2 is a significant improvement on the agency’s analysis in the 2008 PEIS where the BLM 

was reticent to link climatic change to human activity. 

As the BLM discusses in the DPEIS, climate change has been intensely studied by the world’s 

scientists, and broad consensus exists around its causes, magnitude, and effects. In February 

2007, the IPCC declared, “[w]arming of the climate system is unequivocal,” and it is “very 

likely ‘ that most of the warming since the middle of the 20th century is the result of human 

pollutants. Climate change is a global phenomenon with well-documented and serious local 

impacts. Those impacts affect both the ecosystems and the welfare of citizens not only around 

the world but in the United States and the nation’s Western states in particular. 

However, we strongly question the BLM’s assertion that the impact from development might not 

be that great. Specifically, the DPEIS states: 

GHG emissions and changes to carbon sinks would be small relative to state, regional, 

and global GHG emission inventories. Consequently, global or regional scale modeling 

may be unlikely to yield meaningful predictions of climate change impacts in relation to 

GHG emissions attributable to oil shale and tar sands activities alone. 6 

Independent analyses have concluded that barrel-to-barrel, oil shale would produce more GHG 

than conventional oil. According to a report by Dr. Adam Brandt, Dr. Jeremy Boak, and Dr. 

Alan Burnham, 57 “without mitigation or technology improvements, full-fuel-cycle carbon 

dioxide (C02) emissions from oil shale derived liquid fuels are likely to be 25-75% higher than 

those from conventional liquid fuels.” Dr. Brandt is a professor at Stanford University. Dr. Boak 

runs the Center for Oil Shale Technology and Research, an industry funded research center at the 

Colorado School of Mines. Dr. Burnham is the Chief Technology Officer with AMSO, one of 

the RD&D lessees. 

As these three scientists note, emissions of C02 from oil shale derived fuels come from three 

stages: retorting of hale, upgrading and refining of raw shale oil, and combustion of the finished 

transportation fuels. 58 As they make clear, “emissions from these stages represent 

approximately 

25-40%, 5-15%, and 50-65% of total fuel-cycle emissions, respectively, the most uncertain 

source of emissions is the retorting stage, due to variation in emissions with shale quality and 

retorting technology used.’ Brandt, Boak, and Burnham conclude that “the primary opportunity 

for reducing C02 emissions from oil shale retorting lies in the substitution of low- or zero-carbon 

energy sources for high carbon sources.” That means, “given the potential scale of emissions, it 

is clear that mitigation of C02 emissions from oil shale development will be needed to comply 

with any future C02 regulation.” Thus oil shale upgrading and refining will unquestionably 

lead to significant increases in GHG emissions that BLM must account for in the Final PEIS. 
Final OSTS PEIS 294 

56 DPEIS, at 4-59 (oil shale) and 5-50 (tar sands). 

57 Adam Brandt, Jeremy Boak, Alan Burnham, “Carbon Dioxide Emissions from Oil Shale 

Derived Liquid Fuels”, 

Attachment 8. 

58 Id. 

#41])>

<([#42 [1.5] A. Legal and policy basis for the BLM evaluating climate change 

As the BLM makes clear in the DPEIS the agency is required to evaluate the impacts of its land 

use decisions on climate change and to take action is clear. In 2007, the Supreme Court’s 

decision in Massachusetts v EPA 59 recognized the severity of the climate change crisis, and the 

EPA’s obligation to confront the problem. The Supreme Court noted “the enormity of the 

potential consequences associated with man-made climate change,”60 and the contribution of 

carbon dioxide emissions to global warming. 61 The Supreme Court concluded, “[t]he harms 

associated with climate change are serious and well recognized,’ 62 and that the federal 

government has a responsibility to take action to reduce it, even if such action may not 

completely reverse global warming or if the emission are small in comparison to global 

emissions. 63 

In connecting climate change with an agency’s NEPA responsibilities, the U.S. Court of Appeals 

for the Ninth Circuit has stated that, a with any relevant information, an agency must take a 

“hard look” at the effects of climate change in its EIS. 64 This requirement flows in part out of 

the cumulative effects analysis requirements of NEPA 65 Accordingly, the analysis is one of 

considering “the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable future actions,’ including the impacts of climate change. 66 BLM is not 

exempt from this responsibility. 

Indeed, Interior Secretary Salazar understands the great importance of Interior agencies 

analyzing the impacts of agency decisions on our climate. As noted in the DPEIS, Secretarial 

Order (S.O.) No. 3289 unequivocally mandates that all Department of the Interior agencies 

“analyze potential climate change impacts when undertaking long-range planning exercises, 

setting priorities for scientific research and investigations, developing multi-year management 

plans and making major decisions regarding potential use of resources under the Department’s 

purvi ew.’’67 The DPEIS falls squarely under this guidance and BLM must assess impacts from 

the proposed actions that may directly, indirectly, or cumulatively result in exacerbating climate 

change within this document. 

Further, NEPA regulations require that NEPA documents address not only the direct effects of 

federal proposals, but also “reasonably foreseeable” indirect effects. These are defined as: 

Indirect effects, which are caused by the action and are later in time or farther removed in 

distance, but are still reasonably foreseeable. Indirect effects may include growth 

inducing effects and other effects related to induced changes in the pattern of land use, 

population density or growth rate, and related effects on air and water and other natural 

systems, including ecosystems.”68 

BLM is required to take a hard look at direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts to and from 

climate change in the planning area in the RMP. 

59 Massachusetts v. EPA, 127 S. Ct. 1438, 1455 (2007). 

60 Id at 1458. 

61 Id. at 1457-58. 
Final OSTS PEIS 295 

62 Id at 1455. 

63 Id. at 1458. 

64 Ctr.for Biological Diversity v. Nat’! Hwy. Traffic Safety Admin., 538 F.3d 1172, 1214-15 

(9th Cir. 2008). 

65 Id. at 1215 (citing Klamath-Siskiyou Wildlands Ctr. v. Bureau of Land Mgmt., 387 F.3d 989, 

994 (9th Cir. 2004)). 

66 Id. (quoting 40 C.F.R. § 1508.7). 

67 S.O. 3289, incorporating S.O. 3226. 

68 40 C.F.R. § 1508.8(b) (emphasis added). 

#42])>

<([#43 [3.5.1.6] FLPMA likewise provides relevant guidance [on climate change]. In enacting 

FLPMA, Congress enacted a policy that “the public lands be managed in a manner that will 

protect the quality of scientific, scenic, 

historical, ecological, environmental, air and atmospheric, water resource, and archeological 

values .... “ 69 Further, FLPMA directs BLM to manage the lands under its jurisdiction in such a 

manner that will “best meet the present and future needs of the American people;” “provide 

sufficient latitude for periodic adjustments in use to conform to changing needs and conditions;” 

and “take[] into account the long-term needs of future generations for renewable and 

nonrenewable resources, including, but not limited to, recreation, range, timber, minerals, 

watershed, wildlife and fish .... “70 In addition, the statute requires BLM to “minimize adverse 

impacts on the natural, environmental, scientific, cultural, and other resources and values 

(including fish and wildlife habitat) of the public lands involved.”71 

69 43 U.S.C. at§ 170l(a)(8). 

70 ld § 1702(c). 

71 ld § 1732(d)(2)(a). 

#43])>

<([#44 [3.5.1.1] The Council on Environmental Quality’s (CEQ) 2010 draft guidance on how 

NEPA should 

consider and evaluate greenhouse gas emissions and climate change in instructive. Under this 

draft guidance, the agency should quantify and disclose its estimate of the expected, annual 

direct and indirect greenhouse gas emissions. Specifically, where a proposed action is anticipated 

to cause direct, annual emissions of 25,000 metric tons or more ofC02-equivalent greenhouse 

gas emissions, a quantitative and qualitative assessment is required together with the 

consideration of mitigation measures and reasonable alternatives to reduce greenhouse gas 

emissions. 

#44])> <([#45 [3.5.1.4] EPA has commented, in recent NEP A reviews, that an analysis of 

reasonable alternatives be 

performed that includes an assessment of potential means to mitigate project-related greenhouse 

gas emissions. 72 Specifically, EPA suggested assessing carbon capture and sequestration 

technologies as well as measures from BLM’s Supplemental Information Report for the eight 

EAs in Montana, North Dakota and South Dakota. 73 These measures should be considered by 

BLM in alternatives developed pursuant to NEP A prior to any further development of oil shale 

and tar sands resources. 

In addressing climate impacts, BLM must craft long-term management prescriptions without 

permanent impairment and unnecessary or undue degradation to the resources in the face of 
Final OSTS PEIS 296 

climate change. S.O. 3289 states that “[t]he realities of climate change require us to change how 

we manage the land, water, fish and wildlife, and cultural heritage and tribal lands and resources 

we oversee.” Without this critical analysis BLM cannot meet its NEP A obligations or other legal 

and policy mandates discussed above. 

72 January 7, 2011, EPA, Comments on the Gasco Uinta Basin Natural Gas Development 

Project Draft EIS, CEQ# 

20100386. 

73 BLM’s Supplemental Informational Report for the eight EAs in Montana, North Dakota and 

South Dakotahttp:// 

www.blm.gov/mt/st/enlprog/energy/oil and gas!leasing/leasingEA .html 

#45])>

<([#46 [3.5.1.1] B. Defining Alternative 2(b) 

As the DPEIS makes clear, the numerous uncertainties regarding development affect the BLM’s 

ability to catalogue and quantify with any reasonable certainty. Some of those uncertainties 

include, but are not limited to: 

./ Nature of the technologies 

./ Sources and amount of electricity to power production 

./ Transportation needs, including types of vehicles 

./ Carbon sequestration 

./ Emission capturing technology 

./ Rate of development 

Despite these uncertainties, the DPEIS provides, “The maximum potential increase in cumulative 

GHG emissions from all potential oil shale and tar sands activities cannot be predicted with 

accuracy.”74 Given these significant uncertainties, BLM cannot simply state that cumulative 

GHG emissions cannot be predicted and proceed with permitting development activity. BLM 

does not have the analytical basis to claim that future oil shale and tar sands development is 

unlikely to cause significant impacts to climate. Until enough information is known to be able to 

reasonably quantify the potential environmental impacts from further oil shale and tar sands 

resource development, BLM must not open up any lands for development activity. If at any 

point in the future, technology development progresses to the point that commercial development 

is viable, the BLM must conduct a comprehensive analysis of impacts prior to the issuance of 

any lease. 

Towards this end, BLM must commit to inventory GHG emissions from future oil shale and tar 

sands development and to seriously investigate the alternatives available to avoid or minimize 

these impacts as required by 40 C.F.R. § 1502.1, 40 C.F.R. § 1502.14 and 40 C.F.R. § 1502.16. 

That inventory should include impacts from other phases of extraction and production-energy 

demands, vehicles/transportation, construction site development, refineries, and combustion of 

fuel-and incremental impacts from individual projects. 

74 DPEIS, at 4-59. 

#46])> <([#47 [3.5.1.3] [9.2.6] Additionally, in defining Alternative 2(b ), or the selected 

Alternative, the Final PEIS must 

mandate that following completion of research activities lessees: 

A. Document the greenhouse gas emissions from all phases of the project, including 
Final OSTS PEIS 297 

energy demands, construction of lease sites, production of fuel, and combustion of 

fuel ultimately produced. This analysis must include incremental contributions from 

individual projects. 

B. Show compliance with applicable federal and state policies and standards #47])> . 

<([#48 [3.10.3] VII. Socio-Economic Impacts 

Over the past 30 years, western economies have shifted from largely extractive industries to 

more diversified economies based on recreation, tourism, knowledge-based industries, and the 

professional and service sector. A 2004 study examining the impact of public lands on economic 

well-being in eleven western states found that only 3% of western counties could be classified as 

resource-extraction dependent. 75 There is a vast and growing body of research that indicates 

that 

the environmental amenities provided by public lands are an important economic driver in the 

rural West. Given the changing nature of these economies, prioritizing oil shale and tar sands 

development at the expense of non-extractive economic drivers may harm the economy of the 

region in the long run by depleting the natural amenities currently responsible for the economic 

growth of western communities. 

It is especially important to consider these demographic and economic shifts given the region 

where oil shale and tar sands development is being proposed. Since the 1982 oil shale bust, 

northwest Colorado has successfully transitioned from an economy dependent on extraction of 

natural resources to one that relies more heavily on the protection of the natural amenities. This 

area has developed a thriving retirement community, and has begun to market itself as a 

destination for outdoor recreation. In fact, many rural communities in the Rocky Mountain 

region are benefiting from the increase in demand for outdoor recreation, especially activities on 

federal public lands. The President’s America Great Outdoors Initiative recognizes the social, 

economic and spiritual values of our pub tic lands for recreation, 76 so in analyzing the 

socioeconomic 

impacts of oil shale and tar sands development, the Final PEIS and subsequent NEPA 

must account for these benefits. 

Oil shale and tar sands development threaten these economic drivers. It is imperative that the 

relationship between protected public lands in the area and the local economy be given a more 

thorough comprehensive examination across the tri-state region. A rural communities diversify 

their economies, the framework for making public land management decisions must also evolve. 

Management plans for public land need to account for all aspects of the economic and social 

systems of these communities, including investment and retirement income, recreation, tourism, 

and entrepreneurial businesses attracted to scenic locations, when evaluating alternatives. 

Management plans must also consider the increasing importance of industries and economic 

sectors that rely on these public lands, but not necessarily on the extraction of natural resources. 

As the population of the entire country grows, the presence of undeveloped lands becomes 

increasingly important because these lands strengthen western rural economies by meeting 

growing needs for clean air and water, wildlife habitat, and recreation opportunities. 

75 R. Rasker, B. Alexander, J. van den Noort and R. Carter.2004. The Sonoran Institute, Public 

Lands Conservation 

and Economic Well-Being. Tucson AZ: The Sonoran Institute. 

http ://sonoran.o(g/index.pbp?option=com docman&task=cat view&gid=152&Ttemid=74. 

76 http://a.mericasgreatoutdoors.gov/ #48])>
Final OSTS PEIS 298 

<([#49 [3.10.2] A. Challenges facing western communities 

A 2008 report by BBC Consulting evaluating the economic impacts of oil shale development in 

western Colorado highlights the challenge and needs communities could face. 77 The report, 

which was prepared for the Associated Governments of Northwest Colorado, offers a number of 

startling conclusions. Two in particular bear attention. 

First, concurrent oil/gas and large-scale oil shale development would cause existing towns to 

reach capacity. New towns would have to be built. The report also notes baseline population 

projections already strain most municipalities. Second, even with payments made to the cities 

and counties, growth-related capital costs are projected to exceed energy revenues by $1.4 

billion. The report suggests some of the revenue loss could be made up from state grants, but 

given the state’s budget challenges and budget projections, that assumption is highly 

questionable. Communities in eastern Utah and southwestern Wyoming would face similar 

challenges. 

BBC detailed the most significant challenges currently facing this region: 

1. Providing roads, increased wear and tear, and congestion 

2. Providing workforce housing 

3. The demand for industry workers creates inflation for labor and supplies 

4. Timing mismatch between upfront costs associated with developmental impacts and 

when local government revenues arrive 

5. Geographical mismatch between costs created and the revenues generated 

6. Lack of strategic partnership with the industry to address upfront industry impacts 

The dichotomy of when the costs are created and the revenues are generated cannot be 

overstated. In their comments on the on the 2008 draft PEIS, Club 20, a group representing the 

22 counties in western Colorado, noted that based on these economic considerations, “the federal 

government must encourage industry to make appropriate up-front investments in the 

infrastructure of locally-impacted communities.” 8 Club 20 further noted, “We are concerned 

about the socio-economic impacts to the local communities. As the PEIS anticipates, rapid 

increases in population and immigration in parts of each region of influence could impact quality 

of life, in particular requiring a transition from traditional rural, to more urban lifestyles, and 

potentially cause large social disruption impacts.” 

Specifically, as Club 20 noted, “With the increasing natural gas development activity in 

northwestern Colorado, we are already experiencing: 

1. housing shortages, 

2. dramatic increases in retail and housing prices, 

3. overwhelming demands on the community’s social and physical infrastructure (schools, 

police and fire services, social services, water and sewer), and 

4. a lack of available workforce to sustain each community’s traditional Main Street 

economy.” 

BBC ascribes these challenges to the fact that the “four counties included in the study are located 

in rural Colorado and have minimal infrastructure, topographic barriers, lack housing, major road 

networks, and service capacity, and over 68 percent of the land in the region is public lands.” 

Like these four counties in western Colorado, infrastructure presents an enormous challenge for 

local municipalities in Utah and Wyoming. While the energy industry is creating new jobs, as 

BBC notes, “due to tight labor markets, they are competing with traditional industries like 

tourism/recreation, agriculture, and the public sector for workers and materials.” 
Final OSTS PEIS 299 

It is especially important to consider demographic and economic shifts given the location where 

this large-scale oil shale development is being proposed. As rural communities diversify their 

economies, the framework for making public land management decisions must also evolve. 

Management plans for public lands need to account for all aspects of the economic and social 

systems of these communities, including investment and retirement income, recreation, tourism, 

and entrepreneurial businesses attracted to scenic locations, when evaluating alternatives. 

Management plans must also consider the increasing importance of industries and economic 

sectors that rely on these public lands, but not necessarily on the extraction of natural resources. 

As the population of the entire country grows, the presence of undeveloped lands becomes 

increasingly important because these lands strengthen western rural economies by meeting 

growing needs for clean air and water, wildlife habitat, and recreation opportunities. 

77 Northwest Colorado Socioeconomic Analysis and Forecasts, April2008. http 

://agnc.org/reports/08- 

ocioecomic/agnc fmal mail report’ 4-07-08.pdf (last accessed Aprill3, 2012). 

78 Club 20, Comments on 2008 Oil Shale and Tar Sands DPEIS, March 2008, at 4. (on file with 

the BLM) 

#49])> <([#50 [3.10.4] [3.10.2] B. Assets at stake 

While oil shale and tar sands proponents extoll the potential economic value resulting from 

large-scale development, they often downplay or ignore the economic value development, were 

it feasible, would undermine. 

Environmental quality, including the quality of the social and natural environments, is a critical 

economic asset in this region. Oil shale and tar sands development would overlap with 

increasing tourism, agriculture, and recreational opportunities. Older workers and retirees are 

drawn to the West and bring with them investment, retirement, and other non-employment 

income. Younger people are likewise drawn to the area because of the quality of life they find 

here. The recovery of Colorado’s West Slope from the oil shale and energy collapse of the early 

1980s, for example, rests strongly on outdoor recreation opportunities, scenic beauty, open 

space, small towns, and an influx of retirees. 

Consider the following: 

./ Substantial conversion of water rights currently used for agriculture “could have large 

impacts on the economy of each ROI.” 

./ A September 2008 report prepared for the Colorado Division of Wildlife concluded that 

the 2007 direct annual expenditures in Colorado from hunting and fishing alone were 

approximately $1.1 billion. 79 Secondary impacts of the dollars re-spent within the 

economy in 2007 are estimated to be $767 million, for a total economic impact of more 

than $1.8 billion. The same study found wildlife-watching yields an additional total 

economic impact of $1.2 billion annually. Wildlife plays a similarly important role in 

Utah and Wyoming . 

./ The DPEIS identified “172,339 acres of mule deer winter habitat, 11,470 acres of mule 

deer summer habitat, 159,205 acres of elk winter habitat, and 11,465 acres of elk summer 

habitat overlap lands that would be available for oil shale leasing.” 80 

./ In Utah, for tar sands alone, “57, 708 acres of mule deer winter habitat, 17, 110 acres of 

mule deer summer habitat, 52,361 acres of elk winter habitat, and 17,170 acres of elk 

summer habitat overlap lands that would be available for tar sands leasing.”81 

./ Oil shale tar sands and ancillary facility development “may fragment or destroy wildlife 
Final OSTS PEIS 300 

habitat and affect the behavior of migratory big game species such as elk and mule deer, 

which fonn an important basis for recreational activities in many parts of each ROI.”82 

./ As the DPEIS provides, recreation would decline. Specifically, 

o In Colorado, oil shale would result in a loss of up to 2,830 jobs and $36.5 million 

in income annually in the ROI. Additional economic impacts would be felt 

elsewhere. 

o In Utah, 1,552 jobs and $12.6 million in income would be lost from oil shale and 

tar sands in the ROI. Additional economic impacts would be felt elsewhere. 

o In Wyoming 2,719 jobs and $14.4 million in income would be lost. Additional 

economic impacts would be felt elsewhere. 

Impacts from the development scenarios considered in Alternatives 1 and 4 would be 

significantly greater. 

79 BBC Research & Consulting, The Economic Impacts of Hunting, Fishing and Wildlife 

Watching in Colorado, 

Final Report, revised September 18, 2008, report prepared for Colorado Division of Wildlife, 

page 1. Main report 

web page: http ://wildlife.state.co.us/About/Reports/Economklmpactsl; report-specific web page: 

http:/ /wild I i fe. state.co. us/SiteCollectionDocuments/DO WI AboutDow/Rev ised2004DO 

WEcooomiclmpactReport. pd 

f. 

80 DPEIS, Table 2.6-1 at 2-96. 

81 DPEIS, Table 2.6-2 at 2-121. 

82 DPEIS, at 4-176. 

#50])> <([#51 [3.10.2] [9.2.6] C. Alternative 2(b)- Data Needs 

The economic impacts on communities, jobs, and existing business remain highly unclear. 

Following completion of research activities, potential lessees should be required to: 

A. Estimate the true costs associated with oil shale and tar sands development to private 

landowners, recreation, agriculture, and other viable industries at the time of the lease 

sale. 

B. Identify the increased public service and infrastructure costs associated with oil shale and 

tar sands development, and specify in detail how negative impacts would be mitigated. 

#51])>

<([#52 [3.7.5.1] [9.2.4] [3.7.4.3] [3.7.4.9] [3.7.5.2] [3.7.5.3] VIII. Greater Sage-Grouse 

As the BLM is acutely aware, listing the greater sage-grouse under the Endangered Species Act 

(ESA) is not hypothetical. The disappearance of greater sage-grouse habitat and the decline of 

populations indicate the need to implement effective conservation immediately. While federal 

land management agencies and state wildlife agencies are taking steps to conserve greater 

sagegrouse 

populations and habitat, the species is still in decline, demonstrating that past efforts have 

been inadequate. 

Since the 2008 PEIS was issued, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 

determined that listing the sage-grouse as threatened or endangered rangewide is “warranted but 

precluded by higher priority listing actions.” As the agency cautions, “Evidence suggests that 

habitat fragmentation and destruction across much of the species’ range has contributed to 

significant population declines over the past century. If current trends persist, many local 
Final OSTS PEIS 301 

populations may disappear in the next several decades, with the remaining fragmented 

population vulnerable to extinction.”83 The USFWS determined that southwestern and central 

Wyoming and northwestern Colorado are strongholds for sage-grouse, with some of the highest 

estimated densities of males anywhere in the remaining range of the species. The USFWS also 

identified this “high-density sagebrush area as one of the highest priorities for conservation 

consideration as it comprises one of two remaining areas of contiguous range essential for the 

long-term persistence of the species.”84 

The BLM recognizes the challenge it faces in meeting energy demand and protecting the greater 

sage-grouse. That’s one of the reasons why the agency issued Instruction Memorandum 2012- 

043 “Greater Sage-Grouse Interim Management Policies and Procedures.”85 Oil shale and tar 

sands development would further exacerbate the challenge, as development could occupy as 

much as 100% of the leasehold surface, thereby eliminating all grouse habitat on the lease, and 

effectively rendering adjacent habitat unsuitable and causing abandonment by sage-grouse 

populations due to industrial activity on the lease. Mention of this memorandum is missing from 

the DPEIS. This oversight should be corrected in the Final PEIS. 

In addition, an excellent compilation of greater sage-grouse conservation is contained in “A 

Report on National Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation Measures.’ This December 2011 report 

by the BLM’s sage-grouse National Technical Team (NTT) establishes the BLM’s objective is 

“to develop new or revised regulatory mechanisms, through Resource Management Plans 

(RMPs), to conserve and restore the greater sage-grouse and its habitat on BLM administered 

lands on a range-wide basis over the long term.”86 With the NTT and the sage-grouse plan 

amendments, the BLM is taking steps to achieve its goal to “maintain and/or increase sagegrouse 

abundance and distribution by conserving, enhancing or restoring the sagebrush 

ecosystem upon which populations depend in cooperation with other conservation partners. “ 87 

The NTT further provides “Until such time as more specific conservation objectives relative to 

sage-grouse distribution or abundance by sage-grouse management zone, state, or population are 

developed, BLM will strive to maintain or increase current distribution and abundance of 

sagegrouse 

on BLM administered lands in support of the range-wide goals.”88 

The NTT provides fairly detailed suggestions on how the BLM should identify priority 

sagegrouse 

habitats, and recommended to achieve conservation goals, including limiting disturbance 

to 3% surface per square mile of the land where activities such as oil shale and tar sands would 

take place. Overall, effective conservation will require that the BLM designate large, contiguous 

tracts of prime sage-grouse habitat that are set-aside from development or protected via stringent 

management protections. Otherwise, the agency cannot meet its goal of maintaining and 

enhancing populations and habitats. 

As BLM finalizes a new policy based on the NTT’s recommendations to achieve the long-term 

viability of the species, and the USFWS moves toward reconsideration of its warranted but 

precluded finding, all priority sage-grouse habitat should be placed off limits to oil shale and tar 

sand research and development, including adequate buffers to protect priority and core habitat on 

adjoining lands. (See Molvar Comment, Attachment 3.) Additionally, the BLM needs to 

address the extent to which adjacent lands may warrant protection because they are likely to 

provide important habitat in the future, as climate change results in shifting habitat types and 

ecosystem conditions. Adaptation is recognized as a key strategy for addressing the impacts of 

climate change. 
Final OSTS PEIS 302 

Under NEP A, the BLM is required to: 

1. take a hard look at sage-grouse conservation, including new information and science 

regarding the current biological status of the species, and 

2. thoroughly analyze all direct, indirect, cumulative, and reasonably foreseeably impacts to 

sage-grouse habitat and populations that could also be impacted by future oil shale or tar 

sands development. 

Additionally, consistent with the court ruling in Western Watersheds Project v. Salazar, 89 oil 

shale or tar sands proposals must fully consider cumulative impacts to sage-grouse populations 

and habitat, in addition to proposed leasing and development for oil shale and tar sands. Existing 

and reasonably foreseeable oil and gas leases, wind generation projects, and associated roads, 

transmission and other infrastructure from both fossil fuel and renewable energy development 

must be considered in a rigorous cumulative impacts analysis analyzing the total impact on 

sagegrouse 

from projects on both public and private lands in the bird’s range. 

83 http://www.fws.gov/rnountain-prairie/specie /birds/sagegrouse/ (last accessed March 29, 

2012) 

84 75 Fed. Reg. 13910, 13950 (March 23, 2010)(citing Wisdom eta!. (in press, p. 23)). 

85http: //www.blm.gov/wo/stlen/info/regulations/lnstruclion Memos and Bulletins/national 

instruction/20 12/IM 20 

12-043.html (last accessed April23, 2012) 

86 BLM, “A Report on National Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation Measures,” December 2011, 

page 4. 

87 Id. at 6. 

88 Id. 

89 Case No. 4:08-CV-516-BLW (D. Idaho 2011). 

#52])> <([#53 [3.7.5.1] [3.15] [3.7.4.3] [3.7.4.9] [3.7.5.3] A. Problem with Figure 6.1.2-5 

We believe there is a problem with the overlay used to develop Figure 6.1.2-5. As provided in 

the DPEIS, 

Areas including greater sage-grouse habitat and lek sites are shown in Figure 6.1.2-5. 

Although greater sage-grouse core and priority habitats are excluded from oil shale 

development under this alternative, core and priority habitats may occur in close 

proximity (<1 mi [1.6 km]) 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, BLMdesignated sensitive species, and other special status species would not be available for 

lease application under Alternative 2. 90 

While it is hard to discern the specific cause of the problem, based on what the Utah 

organizations signing these comment have been told by the Utah State BLM Office, it appears 

that in the DPEIS the BLM is using the wrong layer for what they are calling priority habitat in 

Utah. Sage grouse priority habitat, as it is currently defined by the state of Utah, include 100% 

of Doherty’s breeding density (occupied leks buffered out to 4 miles), plus associated winter 

habitat and associated breeding habitat with those leks, as delineated by the Utah Division of 

Wildlife Resources and recently updated (last month) on their website. 

The newly-convened Utah Sage Grouse Working Group are starting the process of developing a 
Final OSTS PEIS 303 

new age grouse plan for Utah. The maps they are using track Doherty’s. Additionally, 

according to the state office of the BLM, going forward all land use planning and NEP A 

analysis 

on Utah BLM lands will use this layer until the RMP amendments are completed, or until they 

receive the final preliminary priority habitat maps from the state. 

With that layer, it appears that 10% of the areas that would be opened for oil shale under 

Alternative 2 overlap with sage-grouse habitat. There is about the same amount of overlap for 

tar sands in the Uinta Basin. (See Attachment 2.) 

#53])> <([#54 [9.2.4] [3.7.4.8] B. Alternative 2(b)- Data Needs 

In order for the BLM to meet its aforementioned goals, it is imperative that the agency closely 

scrutinize all research data and development proposals. Among other provisions, the Final PEIS 

should include language mandating that following completion of research activities lessees: 

A. Document that development would protect core and priority sage-grouse areas, as defined 

at the point of a lease sale. 

B. Document there would be no net decline in habitat or species viability, while furthering 

DO I’ s goal of maintaining or enhancing the health of sage-grouse populations. 

90 DPEIS, at 6-82. 

C. Establish that proposed activities would comply with all applicable federal agency sage 

grouse policies, as well as state policies or standards. 

D. Analyze the cumulative impacts to grouse conservation of the proposed project, and other 

current and reasonably foreseeable projects or activities that could adversely affect 

populations. 

#54])> <([#55 [3.7.5.1] [3.7.4.10] C. Additional details about the sage-grouse 

As an umbrella species, the health of greater sage-grouse populations is a good indicator of 

overall ecosystem health for the sagebrush ecosystem. Landscape scale conservation strategies 

targeting the sage-grouse also benefit dozens of additional sagebrush obligate wildlife species, 

from pronghorns and pygmy rabbits to BLM Sensitive songbirds. 91 The maintenance of 

highquality 

sagebrush steppe habitats, particularly nesting and wintering habitats, is necessary to 

maintain viable sage-grouse populations. That’s why large sage-grouse core areas like South 

Pass and the Kinney Rim/Vermillion have been proposed for protection from future oil and gas 

leasing under the BLM’s Wyoming sage-grouse plan amendment. 

91 Mezquiza et al. 

#55])> <([#56 [3.7.5.1] [3.7.4.8] Northwest Colorado has smaller greater sage-grouse numbers 

than Wyoming and may not retain 

as many large contiguous blocks of relatively intact and unfragmented habitat as Wyoming. 

Accordingly, sage-grouse conservation in Colorado needs to be appropriately scaled to maximize 

the chances that these populations recover to healthy levels, leaving little room for error and no 

room for loss of important habitat in northwest Colorado. 

#56])> <([#57 [3.7.5.1] [3.7.4.8] Additionally, Colorado, Utah and Wyoming sage-grouse 

populations are genetically connected. 

Impacts from development to the populations in one state are likely to negatively influence 

populations in other states. As populations in Colorado and Utah are generally more 

compromised and at-risk than Wyoming, special care must be taken to appropriately scale 

conservation efforts to tates with smaller populations. Corridors and genetic connections 

between different populations and across state lines must inform decision-making. Additional 
Final OSTS PEIS 304 

habitat fragmentation and infrastructure impacts that further isolate populations must be avoided.

#57])>

<([#58 [3.7.5.1] [3.7.4.8] To ensure viable sage-grouse populations, it is important to consider 

nesting, brood-rearing, and 

winter habitats. Holloran and Anderson found that 64% of sage-grouse females nested within 5 

km of a lek. 92 Connelly proposed comprehensive guidelines regarding the management of 

sagegrouse, 

focused around the conservation of breeding/nesting habitat, late summer brood-rearing 

habitat, and wintering habitat. 93 

In western Wyoming, Lyon found that sage-grouse moved an average of 1.1 km from the nest 

site for early brood-rearing, and late brood-rearing habitats averaged 4.8 km distant from the 

early brood-rearing areas. 94 In Bates Hole Holloran found that early brood rearing habitats are 

typified by decreased sagebrush cover and height and increased forb abundance, and movement 

to riparian sites occurred as uplands became desiccated. 95 In addition, as Erik Molvar, a 

Wyoming-ba ed wildlife biologist and a signor to these comments explains in Attachment 3, “the 

availability of forage with a high nutritional content is an important factor determining brood 

success. Broods require forbs, insects and cover for growth, concealment and shade (Autenreith 

1985).” Additionally, Molvar explains, “Mesic meadows and surface waters are focal points of 

sage-grouse activity during certain times of year. Mesic sites associated with springs, seeps, and 

streams are critical for sage-grouse on a year-long basis, and assume even greater importance as 

brood rearing habitat.” 

As for winter habitats, non-migratory sage-grouse winter on their nesting and brood-rearing 

habitats, while migratory populations may travel some distance to winter on traditional wintering 

areas. A western Wyoming study determined sage-grouse traveled at least 35 lcm to separate 

wintering grounds. 96 In Colorado’s North Park, Beck found that grouse migrated 5-20 km away 

from breeding areas during winter. 97 

Additionally, researchers appear to be unanimous in their recommendations that sage-grouse 

winter habitat be protected from disturbance. According to Beck and Braun, ‘“Areas of winter 

concentrations of sage-grouse need to be documented and afforded maximum protection.”98 

Lyon recommended that sage-grouse wintering habitats be placed off-limits to oil and gas 

development. 99 Thus, in the oil shale and tar sands planning areas, the BLM needs to rapidly 

identify sage-grouse winter concentration areas and place the areas off-limits to surface 

disturbance. Since development would remove all shrubs, development clearly falls into the 

category of activities that should be prohibited by the BLM. 

92 Holloran, M.J., and S.H. Anderson. 2005. Spatial distribution of greater sage-grouse nests in 

relatively contiguous 

sagebrush habitats. Condor 107:742-752. 

93 Connelly, J.W. M.A. Schroeder, A.R. Sands, and C.E. Braun. 2000. Guidelines to manage 

sage-grouse 

populations and their habitats. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 28:967-985. 

94 Lyon, A.G. 2000. The potential effects ofnatw-al gas development on sage-grouse 

(Centrocercus urophasianus) 

near Pinedale, Wyoming. M.S. Tbesi Univ. ofWyoming, 121 pp. 

95 HolLoran, M.J. 1999. Sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) seasonal habitat use near 

Casper, Wyoming. M.S. 
Final OSTS PEIS 305 

Thesis, Univ. of Wyoming, 130 pp. 

96 Berry, J.D., and R.L. Eng. 1985. Interseasonal movements and fidelity to seasonal use areas 

by female sage~ 

rouse. J. Wild!. Manage. 49:237-240. 

7 Beck, T.D.I. 1977. Sage-grouse flock characteristics and habitat selection in winter. J. Wildl. 

Manag. 41:18-26. 

98 Beck, T.D.I., and C.E. Braun. 1980. The strutting grow1d count: Variation, traditionalism, 

and management needs. 

Proc. Ann. Conf. West. Assn. Fish and Wildl. Agencies 60:558-566, at 564. 

99 Lyon, A.G. 2000. The potential effects of natural gas development on sage-grouse 

(Centrocercus urophasianus) 

near Pinedale, Wyoming. M.S. Thesis, Univ. ofWyoming, 121 pp. 

#58])> <([#59 [3.7.5.2] [4.2] [3.7.4.6] In the PEIS the BLM must also evaluate the aggregated or 

cumulative effects of all industrial 

activities on sage-grouse populations. Strip mining for coal has been shown to impact sagegrouse 

populations through major local decreases in recruitment. 100 Because oil shale 

development either involves strip mining directly, or in the case of in situ methods a level of 

habitat destruction roughly equivalent to strip mining, areas near sage-grouse leks and other core 

and priority habitat 101 must be avoided with adequate buffers to avoid adverse impacts. Road 

development can also lead to lek abandonment. 102 

100 Braun, C.E. 1986. Changes in sage-grouse lek counts with advent of surface coal mining. 

Proc. Issues and 

Technology in the Management of Impacted Western Wildlife, Thorne Ecol. Inst. 2:227-231. 

#59])> <([#60 [3.7.4.6] [3.7.5.2] When evaluating these and other impacts, oil and gas 

development provide a good starting point 

for the BLM’s analysis. As Molvar explains, over the past 10 years, oil and gas development has 

posed perhaps the greatest threat to sage-grouse viability. Over 8% of the total range of 

sagegrouse 

has already been impacted by oil and gas development· in addition the Wyoming Basin 

and Colorado Plateau ecoregions are among those areas that have the greatest proportion of land 

under lease (and therefore at risk for future industrialization). In a study near Pinedale, 

Wyoming, sage-grouse from disturbed leks where gas development occurred within 3 k:m of the 

lek site showed lower nesting rates (and hence lower reproduction), traveled farther tone t, and 

selected greater shrub cover than grouse from undisturbed lek . 103 Oil shale development, while 

having a much greater intensity of development- up to 100% landscape destruction rather than 

the 3-5% of a typical oil and gas field- also involves heavy vehicle traffic, human activity at the 

site of production, and networks of roads and potentially pipelines to support it. 

101 The BLM defines “priority habitat” in Instruction Memorandum No. 2010-071. 

102 Id. 

#60])> <([#61 [3.7.5.1] The best available science establishes that current BLM nest buffers for 

oil and gas of~ mile for 

NSO and 2 miles for seasonal stipulations have proven grossly inadequate to maintain 

sagegrouse 
Final OSTS PEIS 306 

viability. The lek buffer must be based not only on maintaining the lek but also the 

nesting habitat that surrounds the lek. In addition, seasonal prohibitions that prohibit only 

construction activities near leks are pointless: If roads or wells are built near leks during the 

offseason, 

the resulting regular vehicle traffic will have major negative impacts when the sagegrouse 

are present, effectively circumventing any mitigation value of delaying construction 

activities. We therefore recommend that the Final PEIS and RMP amendments include a 3-mile 

NSO and no surface disturbance/vegetation treatment buffer at minimum (5 miles would be 

preferable) for sage-grouse leks, winter habitat, and other vital sage-grouse habitats. 

#61])> <([#62 [3.7.5.1] In summary, the BLM’s sage-grouse analysis and decisions must be 

informed by the goal of 

maintaining or increasing sage-grouse abundance and distribution by conserving, enhancing or 

restoring the sagebrush ecosystem upon which populations depend. A broad group of 

stakeholders works for effective sage-grouse conservation policies that will foster the recovery of 

populations and habitat to avoid the need for a listing, the BLM must ensure that the oil shale 

and tar sands PEIS does not undermine that shared goal. 

In addition to these comments, Erik Molvar’s comments in Attachment 3 are included as part of 

these general comments and are incorporated herein. Those comments detail scientific 

justifications for our policy recommendations, and provide bases for additional use restrictions 

necessary to protect the sage-grouse. 

103 Lyon, A.G. 2000. The potential effects of natural gas development on sage-grouse 

(Centrocercus urophasianus) 

near Pinedale, Wyoming. M.S. Thesis, Univ. of Wyoming, 121 pp. 

#62])>

<([#63 [3.1.1] [2.3.1] IX. Lands with Wilderness Characteristics, ACECs, and Other Areas to be 

Protected 

While we strongly endorse Alterative 3, we are encouraged that Alternative 2(b) would place 

off-limits to development both wilderness lands, including lands with wilderness characteristics, 

and ACECs. We also believe the preferred alternative can be strengthened. 

In addition to the many areas discussed below, the BLM should protect core areas and corridors 

within Heart of the West Wildland Network Design from oil shale and tar sands development. 

104 

The Heart of the West conservation plan is a science- and GIS-based blueprint for sustainable 

development in the Wyoming Basins Ecoregion spanning southeast Idaho, southwest Wyoming, 

northwest Colorado and northeast Utah. 

104 htt p://www.voiceforthewi ld.org/Heart of the West/HeartoftheWcstPian.pdf (last accessed 

March 30, 2012) 

#63])> <([#64 [9.2.1] [3.1.1] A. Wilderness areas and lands with wilderness characteristics 

As we noted in our May 2011 scoping comments on this DPEIS, the congressional funding 

limitation for fiscal year 2011 limiting implementation of S.O. 3310 does not relieve the BLM 

from either considering wilderness as part of this PEIS, or relieve the BLM from fulfilling its 

statutory obligations to inventory and manage federal lands for wilderness characteristics. 

FLPMA requires the BLM to “maintain on a continuing basis an inventory of all public lands 

and their resource and other values (including, but not limited to, outdoor recreation and scenic 
Final OSTS PEIS 307 

values), giving priority to areas of critical environmental concern. This inventory shall be kept 

current so as to reflect changes in conditions and to identify new and emerging resource and 

other values.’”05 This requirement, we noted in 2011, stands despite the 2003 Norton-Leavitt 

settlement that rescinded the Wilderness Inventory Handbook, and the funding limitation 

Congress imposed prohibiting the BLM from implementing S.O. 3310 for fiscal year 2011. As 

the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently held, wilderness characteristics are one 

of the resources of the public lands that the BLM must inventory under FLPMA, as confirmed by 

federal courts. As the Court stated, 

wilderness characteristics are among the “resource and other values” of the public lands 

to be inventoried under§ 1711. BLM’s land use plans, which provide for the 

management of these resources and values, are, again, to “rely, to the extent it is 

available, on the inventory of the public lands, their resources, and other values.” 43 

U.S.C. § 1712(c)(4). 106 

In addition, the Ninth Circuit stated that it did not need to consider the legality of the 2003 

Norton-Leavitt settlement, acknowledging that: “Wilderness values are among the resources 

which the BLM can manage under 43 U.S.C. §§ 1712 and 1732.’’ 107 In other words, BLM has 

ongoing obligations to fulfill FLPMA’s mandate to inventory and manage the resources of the 

public lands. 

In addition to the agency’s legal obligations to inventory lands with wilderness characteristics, 

the BLM must make decisions regarding how to balance the management of resources on public 

lands, including wilderness-quality lands. Once the BLM identifies lands with wilderness 

characteristics, the agency should apply management to preserve those qualities under FLPMA 

and the Land Use Planning Handbook, notwithstanding the status of S.O. 3310. 

For these and other reasons, we are encouraged that the DPEIS includes protections for lands 

with wilderness characteristics and urge BLM not to retract on these protections in the Final 

PEIS. 

105 43 U.S.C. § 1711(a) 

106 Or. Natural Desert Ass ‘n v. BLM, 531 F.3d 1114, 1119 (9th Cir. 2008). 

107 Id. at 1132 

#64])> <([#65 [3.1.1] B. Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC)108 

FLPMA defines ACECs as “areas within public lands where special management attention is 

required to protect and prevent irreparable damage to important historic, cultural, or scenic 

values, fish and wildlife resources, or other natural systems or processes, or to protect life or 

safety from natural hazards.” 109 Under FLPMA, BLM is obligated to “rive priority to the 

designation and protection of areas of critical environmental concern.” 10 As the DPEIS makes 

clear, BLM would not be able to prevent undue degradation to important values for which 

ACECs were designated should oil shale or tar sands development proceed: 

Existing ACECs that are not closed to mineral development may be available for 

application for commercial oil shale leasing. Oil shale and transmission or pipeline 

development on any ACEC would result in a loss of all or a part of the resources or 

values for which the area was originally designated. Oil shale development within the 

viewshed of these areas may also result in adverse impacts on scenic values of these 

areas. 111 

The DPEIS further provides: 

ACECs that are not closed to mineral leasing include approximately 44,000 acres and are 
Final OSTS PEIS 308 

shown in Table 6.1.1-1. Should oil shale development occur in these areas, the R&I 

values within these designated ACECs would be lost. 112 

In the 2008 PEIS, BLM opened all ACECs to application for commercial leasing, except for 

lands where mineral development is not currently allowed. This commitment to protect only a 

portion of ACECs was insufficient. While all ACECs are designated to protect different and 

unique values, commercial-scale oil shale and tar sands development would undermine the 

values for which these ACECs were designated. 

Moreover, the DPEIS, through the preferred alternative, improves upon the 2008 decision by 

excluding from commercial development all ACECs, including those areas under consideration 

for designation as ACECs under current planning processes. 11 We support those additional 

protections and urge their inclusion in the Final PEIS. 

The BLM should go one step further by prohibiting potential development from all ACECs, even 

those already open for mineral development. Given the relatively small number of acres of 

designated ACECs that overlap prospective oil shale and tar sands development areas, all 

ACECs should be closed to oil shale and tar sands development. These areas where mineral 

development occurs, and thus oil shale and tar sands development would be allowed, contain 

critical values. Protecting those values, when combined with the significant impacts 

development would bring, are a strong reason to close all ACECs to oil shale and tar sands 

development in a Final PEIS. 

108 In support of this discussion, please see Attachment 9, NRDC maps. 

109 43 U.S.C. § 1702(a). 

110 43 U.S.C. § 1712(c)(3). 

111 DPEIS, at 4-21. 

112 DPEIS, at 6-5 

113 DPEIS, at E-S 6 and 2-28. 

#65])>

<([#66 [3.1.1] C. Wyoming: Adobe Town, ACECs, and Other Lands to be Protected 

i. Adobe Town 

The State of Wyoming’s 2008 designation of the Adobe Town area as Very Rare or Uncommon 

under the state Environmental Quality Act is critical to protecting this area. We are thus 

encouraged that the BLM is proposing to protect Adobe Town from development in both 

Alternative 2(b) and Alternative 3. We strongly support this decision and urge the BLM to 

include such protections in the Final PEIS. 

In the 2008 PEIS, only lands designated as WSA within Adobe Town were protected from 

commercial development. With Very Rare or Uncommon designation being finalized in 2008 

following the issuance of the FPEIS, the BLM now has a strong basis for protecting this area’s 

environmental and cultural resources. (Note: in Figure 2.3.3-3, Adobe Town is listed as “Rare 

and Irreplaceable Land”. That should be changed to “Very Rare or Uncommon.) 

Adobe Town has been called the crown jewel of the Red Desert, encompassing irreplaceable 

ecological, geological, historical and recreation values. At 180,910 acres, Adobe Town is 

Wyoming’s largest and most spectacular desert wilderness. Stretching 26 miles north to south 

and 19 miles east to west, this area is one of the last places in Wyoming where visitors can take 

in views of pristine landscape that stretch from horizon to horizon. The landscape ranges from 

banded badlands to mazes of arches, pinnacles, and spires, offering spectacular scenic vistas and 

important wildlife habitat. 
Final OSTS PEIS 309 

Adobe Town was designated “Very Rare or Uncommon” due to its geological, fossil, scenic, 

wildlife, and cultural/historical values. Non-coal surface mining (which would include oil shale) 

is expressly prohibited in Very Rare or Uncommon areas, except in cases where surface mining 

would not detract from such qualities. Because scenic qualities are part of the designation, there 

is no possibility that an exemption for oil shale mining could be issued. 

In its formal designation of this area, Wyoming’s Environmental Quality Council stated, “The 

designation protects the area from non-surface coal mining only. The designation would prevent 

surface mining for oil shale and uranium, as well as gravel pit mining.” 114 While part of the 

Very Rare or Uncommon area is a WSA, the remainder is outside the WSA. All of Adobe Town 

as a state of Wyoming Very Rare and Uncommon area, not just the WSA, and should be 

protected from oil shale development. Further, Adobe Town geological formations, abundant 

fossil resources, historical and prehistoric sites and features, rare and sensitive (including crucial) 

wildlife habitats, and scenic values are comparable to existing national park w1its, and thus are 

of 

national value. Left unprotected, these treasures are at risk of elimination. 

The Adobe Town area should be managed on a landscape level, through a variety of 

management designations. By managing this area a a whole, the BLM can better protect its 

important and varied values. This concept i supported by the America’s Great Outdoors report, 

which recommends the agency incorporate landscape-scale conservation and restoration as a 

priority in BLM resource management plans and programs. 115 

a. Adobe Town: Historical, prehistorical, and archaeological values 

Adobe Town has a number of historical, prehistorical and archaeological values that meet the 

criteria for Very Rare or Uncommon designation. It is mentioned prominently in the journals of 

the Geological Exploration of the 401 

h Parallel (circa 1869), and was used as a hideout for fresh 

horses by Butch Cassidy and his gang during the Tipton train robbery of 1900. The area has a 

high density of archaeological sites dating back 12,000 years, and is still used as an important 

religious site by Native Americans today. 

Adobe Town is mentioned prominently in the Report of the Geological Exploration of the 40th 

Parallel, authored by eminent geologist Clarence King in 1869. This area was identified by King 

as the most superlative geological landscape found along the survey route. King described the 

general landscapes as follows: 

From twelve to fourteen miles southwest of the head of Bitter Creek are seen 

exposures of the soft green clays, marls, and whitish-gray ands of which the upper 

beds of the Bridger group are made. Passing eastward of Pine Bluffs [known 

today as Pine Butte], the country is covered with more or less drifting sand, which 

forms noticeable trains of dunes. The sand suddenly gives way to the soft Bridger 

beds which are intricately eroded into branching ravines [Adobe Town and Skull 

Rims]. This bad-land country extends southeastward to the mouth of a dry valley 

[Sand Creek] north of Cherokee Ridge [Powder Rim/Cherokee Rim], and from 

that point a chain of bluff escarpments extends northeasterly for twelve or 

fourteen miles. 116 

Government Printing Office. 

Comments: 2012 Draft Oil Shale and Tar Sands PEIS 

Western Resource Advocates, eta/. 
Final OSTS PEIS 310 

Page43 

In addition to the historical noteworthiness of the Geological Exploration, Adobe Town is 

also unusually rich in archaeological sites. According to BLM, 

Significant archaeological resources are found throughout the (Adobe Town] 

WSA, representing continuous occupation from Paleo Indian through late 

Prehistoric periods, that is, for the past 12,000 years. The cultural site density of 

the WSA is estimated to be 30 surface sites per square mile, which is unusually 

high. 117 

b. Adobe Town: Geological values 

Adobe Town is a geological masterpiece, dominated by outcroppings of the Washakie formation, 

a deep bed of volcanic ash deposited 50 million years ago during the Yellowstone eruptions as 

airborne ash and fluvial deposits of ash interbedded with reddish sandstone that forms rimrock. 

In 1981, BLM described the geology of the rims as follows: 

They are composed of green, gray, and red tuffaceous and arkosic sandstone and 

minor beds of green shale, light-gray and green tuff, gray siltstone and 

conglomerate. The exposed beds have created the colorful landscape the Adobe 

Town Area is known for. 118 

These are the epitome of fragile lands, with highly erodible soils (both the tuffaceous sandstone 

and the stabilized sand dunes mantled with a fragile veneer of vegetation) and the towers, arches, 

and balanced rocks which would easily be toppled by mechanical disturbance. 

Above the rims, unique geological features include desert pavement and stabilized sand dunes. 

The rims have been whittled by erosion into spires and pinnacles, solifluction caves (known 

locally as ‘mud caves’) large enough to walk through, natural arches, lone towers, groups of 

castellated pillars, window rocks, grottoes, buttes, caprocks, mushrooms hat rocks, and eroded 

badlands banded with pink, red, and purple tones. According to BLM, “Skull Creek Rim, in the 

core of the area recommended for wilderness, contains some of the most unique and extensive 

badlands formations in Wyoming.” 119 BLM described the effect ofthis surreal landscape as 

follows: 

Many of the spires take on strange life-like forms- stone sentinals (sic) frozen in 

time standing guard over their silent desert domain. Walking amidst groups of 

these strange spires gives one the eerie feeling of being watched- by beings who 

have witnessed the evolution of Adobe Town for millennia. 120 

In addition, the paleontological resources of Adobe Town are among the finest deposits of 

Eocene mammals and reptiles in the world. According to BLM, “The Adobe Town area is 

known as one of the three most valuable sites in North America for certain types of mammalian 

fossils.” 121 BLM further noted, 

The WSA is nationally known for the educational and scientific study of 

paleontological resources. Fossil remains of mammals are numerous and widely 

distributed throughout the area. Two notable mammalian fossils found in the area 

are the Uintathere and Titanothere. The Uintathere was a large mammal about the 

size and configuration of an African rhinoceros. The species of Titanothere found 

in the WSA was a tapir-like mammal, about 40 inches in height. This area has 

been identified as one of the premiere sites in North America for paleontological 

resources. 122 

c. Adobe Town: Wildlife values 
Final OSTS PEIS 311 

Adobe Town also has a host of sensitive wildlife habitats that are crucial or vital to meeting the 

very rare or uncommon designation criteria. These habitats include nest sites, sage-grouse lek 

sites, prairie dog colonies, and big game crucial winter ranges. The cbffs and pillar found 

throughout Adobe Town provide ideal nesting habitat for raptors, offering numerous nesting 

platfonns out of the reach of ground-based nest predators. Raptor nest sites, sage-grouse lek 

sites, and big game crucial winter ranges are exceptionally sensitive to, among other things, 

development as temporary disturbances can lead to nest failure or displacement of big game 

onto marginal ranges where they may not be able to survive. 

The white-tailed prairie dog, a BLM Sensitive Species, is also recognized as a Sensitive Species 

by the Wyoming Game and Fish Department. There is a small white-tailed prairie dog colony 

observed at T 14N R97W sec. 12, SE V4, which has been active at least between 2001 and 2006· 

white-tailed prairie dogs were also observed in Section 13 NW Y4 of the arne township in 2006. 

Active white-tailed prairie dog colonies also occur in Horseshoe Bend south of the 

Haystacks.123 

There are a number of known golden eagle nest sites, including two nest sites along the western 

end of The Haystacks (T16N R97W Sec. 10 NE ~and Tl6N R97W Sec. 15 SW l/4), one along 

Haystack Wash as it leaves the rimrock area (T16N R96W Sec. 30 NW ~) , and one on the lower 

rim (T15N R96W Sec. 18 NW ~). In the Rawlins Field Office, two golden eagle nests occur in 

the southern end of the WSA, with additional nests known from the Willow Creek Rim in the 

eastern proposed expansion unit and on outcrop to the west of Sand Creek in the southeastern 

part of the area. 

The greater sage-grouse, another BLM Sensitive Species, is also listed as a Sensitive Species by 

the Wyoming Game and Fish Department. (Sage-grouse are discussed in further detail above.) 

There are three known sage-grouse leks- one in the southeastern proposed expansion, another 

north of the WSA and south of The Haystacks, and a third in the northeastern lobe of the WSA. 

Sage-grouse leks are the hub of nesting activity, and typically most of the hens bred at a lek nest 

within 3 miles of the lek site. Thus, the area around each lek also constitutes important nesting 

habitat. 

There is a desert elk herd, known to the Wyoming Game and Fish Department as the Petition 

Herd, which is one of the few true desert elk herds in North America, spending the entire year in 

the Red Desert. This elk herd is therefore very rare. Its activities are centered on the Powder 

Rim. 

Known prairie falcon nest sites within the proposed Very Rare or Uncommon area include one at 

Tl6N R95W Sec. 19 NW lf.l; two near Manuel Gap (T16N R97W Sec. 27 SW 1;4 and T16N 

R97W Sec. 28 SW lf.l); and Tl5N R96W Sec. 19 NE 1;4. 124 Prairie falcons with fledgling 

young 

were observed roosting on a pinnacle just off the Skull Creek Rim at Tl3N R97W during the 

early summer of both 2005 and 2006. Prairie falcons with fledgling young were also sighted at 

T15N R97W Section 19 SW 1;4 on July 9, 2006. A known prairie falcon nest also was recorded 

by BLM on the bluffs above Willow Creek in the eastern proposed expansion. 

Several other raptors are on the BLM and Wyoming Game and Fish Department Sensitive 

Species List . The burrowing owl, which is a prairie dog obligate species that nests in burrows of 

prairie dog towns, has one known nest location in the southwestern comer of the WSA. The 

ferruginous hawk, the largest hawk in Wyoming, has nest sites confirmed by BLM two miles 

south of Manuel Gap and in the southeastern proposed expansion. 

Due to the rugged and inaccessible nature of much of Adobe Town, no thorough and systematic 
Final OSTS PEIS 312 

inventory of nesting raptors has ever been performed. For instance, there are several known nest 

sites of ferruginous hawks active in recent years which are not in the BLM’s database, even in 

accessible areas. An occupied and active ferruginous hawk nest was observed by Erik Molvar 

and Joel Sartore on the eroded walls far below East Fork Point at T14N R96W Section 8 SWSE 

on May 4, 2004. In addition, an active and occupied ferruginous hawk nest was documented in 

the Haystacks at T17N R96W Section 33 SWSE by Liz Howell, and separately by Erik Molvar, 

during summer of 2005. The same nest was found to be active again in 2006 by Erik Molvar. 

The mountain plover is recognized as a BLM Sensitive Species and as a Sensitive Species by the 

Wyoming Game and Fish Department. Until recently, it was listed as Threatened under the 

Endangered Species Act (ESA). The Horseshoe Bend area south of the Haystacks contains vital 

mountain plover nesting habitat with a number of confirmed plover sightings. 125 Mountain 

plovers have also been sighted atop the Adobe Town Rim at T15N R98W Section 25 NE lf.l, and 

at the southern edge of the Adobe Town Rim. 

The Great Basin gopher snake is listed as a BLM Sensitive Species. This species has been 

photographed along the Adobe Town Rim at T15N R97W Section 19, NW 1,4. 

The Haystacks is identified by the Wyoming Game and Fish Department as crucial mule deer 

winter habitat. There is also a substantial amount of pronghorn crucial winter range south of 

Horseshoe Bend along the branches of Haystack Creek. In addition, portions of the area on the 

north slope of the Powder Rim are mule deer crucial winter range. 12 

d. Adobe Town: Scenic values 

The scenic values of Adobe Town are the most impressive of any desert landscape in Wyoming. 

It has long attracted the attention of writers and authors. In the 2006-2007 edition of Wilderness 

magazine, writer Allen Best characterizes Adobe Town as “a giant museum of geological 

curiosities.” In 2004, Kerry Brophy wrote of Adobe Town in Wyoming Wildlife magazine as 

“about as lonesome and lovely a place as you’re likely to find”. Adobe Town is also featured in 

the guidebook Wild Wyoming, which characterized the area as “a landscape worthy of National 

Park status.” World-renowned author Annie Proulx described Adobe Town as “The maze of 

badland formations, mesas, and buttes combine with brilliantly colored rock strata to create 

spectacular canyonland scenery.” 

More recently, Adobe Town has become a mecca for photographers, and photographs have been 

included in calendars, coffee table books such as Wind River Wilderness and Red Desert: 

History 

of a Place. A scenic photograph of Adobe Town appeared in the July 2005 issue of National 

Geographic. Internationally known nature photographer Tom Mangelson noted, ‘Adobe Town is 

truly one of the crown jewels of the West, one of the signature Red Desert landscapes that cannot 

be allowed to fall under the blade of the bulldozer.”127 Photographer Ron Marquart described 

Adobe Town as follows: “Its landscape is comparable to Bryce Canyon, Canyonlands and 

Badlands National Parks, and represents the most intricate, outstanding badlands topography in 

the U.S.” Adobe Town was also featured in the new book of photography published by Laguna 

Wilderness Press, Wyoming’s Red Desert: A Photographic Journey. 

These scenic values are also important economic values. Both must be protected. 

114 Final Order at 18. Available online at 

http://deg .state.wy.uslegc/orders/Rare%20or!l/o20Uncommon%20Closed%20Cases/07- 

ll01 %20Adobe%20Town/Adobe%20Final.pdf (last accessed April13, 2012). 
Final OSTS PEIS 313 

115 http ://americasgreatoutdoors.gov/report/ 

116 King, Clarence. 1870. Report of the Geological Exploration ofthe Fortieth Parallel. 

Washington, DC: 

117 BLM 1991. Wyoming statewide wilderness study report: Wilderness Study Area specific 

recommendations. 

Cheyenne: BLM Wyoming State Office. 

118 BLM 1981 . Overland Planning Unit, URA Step III (Present Situation), .48 Wilderness 

Resources. Rawlins: 

BLM. 

119 BLM 1991, at 184. 

120 BLM 1981, at 4. 

121 BLM 1991, at 187. 

122 BLM 1991, at 188. 

123BLM 2003. Draft Environmental Impact Statement, Desolation Flats Natural Gas Field 

Development Project. 

Rawlins Field Office, Figure 3-1, at I-7. 

124 BLM 2001. Decision Record/FONSI/Environmental Assessment, Veritas Haystacks 

Geophysical Project. Rock 

Springs Field Office. 

125 BLM 2003. Draft Environmental Impact Statement, Desolation Flats Natural Gas Field 

Development Project. 

Rawlins Field Office. Figure 3-2, p. I-10 

126 BLM 2005. Environmental Assessment for the Cherokee West 3D Seismic Project. Rawlins 

Field Office. 

127 Protect Adobe Town, today, Rawlins Daily Times, January 19, 2006, p. 7 

#66])>

<([#67 [3.8.2] ii. ACECs and other areas in Wyoming 

As the BLM recognizes, “Commercial oil shale development is incompatible with recreational 

use (e.g., hiking, biking, fishing, hunting, bird watching, OHV use, and camping). Recreational 

use would be excluded from areas leased for oil shale production once development activities 

begin.” 128 We strongly agree with this conclusion. For that reason, we are encouraged that the 

BLM in the preferred alternative is proposing to protect the following areas from development. 

We strongly support including these protections in the Final PEIS. 

Further, because oil shale development includes 100 percent scarification to the land, and 

represents one of the most major types of visual intrusions possible on BLM lands, leasing 

should not allow any surface disturbance on lands of Visual Resource Management Class I, II, or 

III lands. The objectives for Class I and II lands are to ‘ preserve” and “retain” the “existing 

character of the land, while Class III lands are managed to “partially retain the existing character 

ofthe land.”129 

Oil shale development cannot possibly meet these objectives. Based on the definitions for these 

lands, only the objectives for VRM Class IV, which “provide for management activities which 

require major modification of the existing character of the landscape” and permit a level of 

change that is “high,” are compatible with oil shale development. The BLM has recently 

completed a Visual Resource Inventory for portions of the Rawlins and Rock Springs Field 

Offices, and we recommend that this VRI be incorporated into the PEIS process for oil shale as 
Final OSTS PEIS 314 

part of its Affected Environment analysis. Notably the Visual Resource analysis in the DPEIS 

for the Washakie Basin notes that this is “an area of active energy development” and that 

associated visual disturbances are found in the basin. This section fails to acknowledge that most 

of the Washakie Basin is in an undeveloped state, however, and contains some ofthe most 

outstanding scenic resources in either the Rawlins or Rock Springs Field Offices, including the 

Adobe Town Very Rare or Uncommon Area, the Kinney Rim citizens’ proposed wilderness 

areas, the Powder Rim, and the Adobe Town Dispersed Recreation Use Area. In order to 

maintain conformity with local RMPs pursuant to FLPMA, under the preferred alternative, the 

BLM should limit potential oil shale development to VRM Class IV lands. 

128 DPEIS, at 4-20. 

129 BLM Manual 8431 -Visual Resource Contrast Rating, Appendix 2. 

#67])> <([#68 [3.1.2] a. Little Mountain area, including Greater Red Creek ACEC, Red 

Creek WSA, and Sugarloaf Basin SMA 

These areas were established under the Green River RMP and constitute an outstanding big game 

hunting resource. According to the Wyoming Game and Fish Department, the elk hunt in this 

area is the single most sought-after tag in the entire state. Oil shale activities would drive away 

elk and destroy the recreational quality of this area. 

#68])> <([#69 [3.1.1] [3.8.1] b. Adobe Town State Very Rare or Uncommon Area 

As discussed above, the scenic and wilderness qualities in this area and its viewshed need to be 

protected from oil shale leasing in order to maintain the scenic and wilderness qualities in this 

area. Oil shale leasing should be precluded from this area in order to maintain FLPMA-required 

consistency with the state designation preventing non-coal surface mining. Portions of this area 

also now fall within the Adobe Town Dispersed Recreation Use Area designated under the 

Rawlins RMP. 

#69])> <([#70 [3.1.1] c. Adobe Town Dispersed Recreation Use Area (DRUA) 

The Adobe Town DRUA was established under the Rawlins RMP, and includes not only the 

Very Rare or Uncommon area, but also portions of the Kinney Rim North and South citizens’ 

proposed wilderness areas, the western Powder Rim, and the Prehistoric Rim area to the east of 

Adobe Town. 130 The DRUA is of high value for dispersed and primitive recreation, including 

hiking, wildlife viewing, hunting, and camping. It should be excluded from oil shale leasing. 

130 Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan for Public Lands 

Administered by the Bureau of 

Land Management Rawlins Field Office, BLM, 2008, at Appendix 37, and see Maps 2-17 and 2-

58. 

#70])> <([#71 [3.1.1] d. Kinney Rim North and Kinney Rim South citizens’ proposed 

wilderness areas 

These lands provide a roadless, primitive/semi-primitive recreation experience, and represent an 

increasingly rare large tract of public land in the Red Desert that is free of industrial 

development. Parts of these now fall within the Adobe Town Dispersed Recreation Use Area 

designated under the Rawlins RMP. 

#71])> <([#72 [3.1.1] e. The Flaming Gorge National Recreation Area 

This area lays entirely within th~; area proposed for oil shale leasing in Wyoming. In the DPEIS, 

National Recreation Areas are not specifically listed as units of the National Landscape 

Conservation System that will he excluded f1·om oil shale leasing. However, all of this NRA as 
Final OSTS PEIS 315 

well as its viewshed should be excluded from oil shale leasing consideration in order to preserve 

the scenic and recreational qualities found here. 

#72])> <([#73 [3.1.1] f. Jack Morrow Hills planning area 

This is an area highly important for both dispersed recreation and elk hunting. It contains the 

Boars Tusk and White Mountains Petroglyph Site, both of which are culturally important to 

Native American tribes. In addition, an archaeological site in the northwest comer of this area is 

an ACEC and its setting needs to be protected as well. The “most prospective” oil shale area in 

Wyoming includes portions of the Jack Morrow Hills planning area, a subset of the Rock Springs 

Field Office set aside from the Green River RMP in the 1990s for special planning due to its 

outstanding wildlife resources and strong public interest. 

#73])> <([#74 [3.1.1] iii.. Areas proposed for wilderness protections 

The following areas are proposed for wilderness protection in Wyoming. These areas should be 

protected from oil shale development: Adobe Town, Kinney Rim North, Kinney Rim South, 

Devils Playground, 131 Red Creek Badlands, 132 Buffalo Hump, and Sand Dunes, including 

citizens’ proposed additions to existing WSAs. These lands are identified on GIS datasets 

included as Attachment 4. 

The Adobe Town citizens’ proposed wilderness, which is discussed at great length above under 

the Adobe Town Very Rare or Uncommon Area, encompasses the entire citizens’ proposed 

wilderness. It is important to note that lands recognized as possessing wilderness characteristics 

(the “Adobe Town Fringe”) are not shown on Figure 3.1.1-13 and Figure 3.1.1-14; this oversight 

merits correction. We recommend that the entire Adobe Town citizens’ proposed wilderness 

outside the Wilderness Study Area be shown as “Lands to be Managed to Protect Wilderness 

Characteristics.” 

Additionally, the Kinney Rim is a lofty ridge rising like a wave from a sea of sagebrush. The 

Kinney Rim North and South citizens’ proposed wilderness areas are listed as “Lands to be 

Managed to Protect Wilderness Characteristics” on Figure 3.1.1-13 and Figure 3 .1.1-14, a 

designation with which we concur. These lands appear to be withdrawn from oil shale leasing 

under Alternative 2, a decision we strongly support. 

131 See Attachment 5 for complete inventory. 

132 See Attachment 6 for complete inventory. #74])>

<([#75 [3.1.1] The Devils Playground/Twin Buttes citizens’ proposed wilderness is a land of 

arid, windswept 

badlands immediately to the west of Flaming Gorge National Recreation Area, offering 

outstanding hiking opportunities for visitors to the Recreation Area, in addition to habitat for the 

rare midget faded rattlesnake. The Devils Playground/Twin Buttes WSA is listed for the Rock 

Springs Field Office, but the corresponding citizens proposed wilderness (or WCA) has 

apparently been overlooked. 133 In light of the absence of industrial activity within the lands 

encompassed by the citizens’ proposed wilderness, this area should be protected. BLM should 

evaluate the WCA surrounding the existing WSA and protect all the lands contained therein from 

oil shale development. Neither the currently designated WSA nor the citizens’ proposed 

wilderness appear to be mapped as “Lands with Wilderness Characteristics” on Figure 2.3.3-3, 

and portions of this area appear to be made available for oil shale leasing under Alternative 2 in 

Figure 2.3 .3-6. This oversight should be corrected, and these lands should be withdrawn from 

oil 
Final OSTS PEIS 316 

shale leasing in the Final PEIS. 

133 DPEIS, at Figure 3.1.1-14. #75])>

<([#76 [3.1.7] The Red Creek Badlands citizens’ proposed wilderness encompasses a maze of 

shallow canyons 

through redbeds studded with junipers and pinyon pines. The “Lands with Wilderness 

Characteristics” mapped for the Red Creek unit do not appear to correspond with either the WSA 

or the citizens’ proposed wilderness. See Figure 2.3.3-3. However, these lands being outside the 

“Most Geologically Prospective Area” do not appear to be offered for lease under any 

alternative, rendering this oversight of limited substantive importance. 

#76])> <([#77 [3.1.1] [9.2.1] D. Utah: ACECs, lands with wilderness characteristics, and other 

lands 

As the DPEIS and other BLM planning documents make clear, Utah is home to important 

landscapes. ACECs, proposed wilderness areas, and lands with wilderness characteristics, to 

varying degrees, overlap with oil shale deposits, and should be declared off-limits to research 

and development. 

i. Utah proposed wilderness areas that should be protected from oil shale 

and tar sands development 

As noted throughout these comments, we strongly support Alternative 3 which would exclude 

BLM identified wilderness character areas from oil shale and tar sands leasing while still leaving 

over 32,000 acres in the three state analysis area available for commercial oil shale leasing and 

2,100 acres of tar sands leasing in Utah. BLM confirmed these areas’ wilderness characteristics 

in a series of inventories leading up to the 2008 Vernal, Price, Richfield, and Monticello resource 

management plans and record of decision. 134 

To the extent that BLM previously determined proposed wilderness areas to lack wilderness 

characteristics, but is now proposing to make them available for oil shale and/or tar sands 

leasing, those decisions should be revisited. Secretarial Order 3310 (December 23, 2010) 

acknowledges that BLM decisions made prior to the release of the Order regarding the 

management of non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics must be revisited. 135 BLM 

recently released Manual 6310 which contains its “policy and guidance for conducting 

wilderness characteristics inventories under Section 201 of[FLPMA] and supersedes all 

previous guidance on this topic.”136 BLM’s determinations in the Vernal and Price planning 

process that proposed Desolation Canyon wilderness areas lack such values was made before the 

March 2012 release of BLM Manual6310. BLM should revisit these finding and incorporate 

any necessary changes before issuing its final decision. 137 

134 See PEIS at 2-34 and 2-36,2-43,2-66 to -67, and 2-70 (explaining that under either 

Alternative 2 or 3lands with 

wilderness characteristics will not be available for oil shale or tar sands leasing). 

135 SO§§ 5, 5(e){3). See also id. §§ 1, 4 (The Order establishes that management of wilderness 

characteristics is a 

“high priority” for BLM and directs the agency’ to protect wilderness characteristics through 

land use planning and 

project-level decisions unless the BLM determines, in accordance with this Order, that 

impairment of wilderness 

characteristics is appropriate and consistent with other applicable requirements of law and other 
Final OSTS PEIS 317 

resource 

management considerations.”) (emphases added). 

136 BLM Manual6310.01 (March 15, 2012). 

137 See BLM Manual6310.06(4). 

#77])>

<([#78 [3.1.1] The following discussion concerns areas proposed for wilderness protection in 

Utah but that are 

not currently identified as lands with wilderness characteristics. The BLM should reinventory 

these areas, and once it determines that they contain wilderness characteristics, exclude them 

from potential oil shale and/or tar sands leasing and development. 138 

a. Dirty Devil and Fiddler Butte 

The Dirty Devil and Fiddler Butte Citizen Proposed Wilderness (CPW) contain an abundance of 

archeological resources. Studies by the NPS and the BLM in this area have suggested that this 

region contains an average density of twenty-four archeological sites per square mile. This 

means that in the Dirty Devil region alone there are likely hundreds and hundreds of rock 

shelters, campsites, lithic scatters, stone tool quarries, and petroglyph sites. 

The Dirty Devil CPW wilderness is home to antelope, bighorn sheep, and at least nine species of 

plants and animals identified as “sensitive” by the BLM. It is a landscape of narrow redrock 

canyons surrounded by vast slickrock bowls and cliffs. Plateaus above the canyons provide 

important habitat for plants and animals. This area was also frequented by outlaws; Butch 

Cassidy and the Wild Bunch were the most famous of the lawbreakers to hang out here. The 

Dirty Devil has served as the setting for many Western novels, including one by Zane Grey. 

The Fiddler Butte area possesses some of the most spectacular scenery in the United States. This 

area, along with the Dirty Devil River CPW, would be totally inappropriate for tar sands 

development. 

The BLM agrees that the majority of the relevant Dirty Devil and Fiddler Butte CPWs contain 

wilderness characteristics. The relevant resource management plan even manages portions of this 

area to preserve those wilderness characteristics. 

138 See PEIS at 2-34 and 2- (describing that under either alternative 2 or 3 “[a]ll areas that the 

BLM has identified or 

may identify as a result of inventories 26 conducted during this planning process, as [lands with 

wilderness 

characteristics] will not be available for leasing). 

#78])> <([#79 [3.1.1] The following discussion concerns areas proposed for wilderness 

protection in Utah but that are 

not currently identified as lands with wilderness characteristics. The BLM should reinventory 

these areas, and once it determines that they contain wilderness characteristics, exclude them 

from potential oil shale and/or tar sands leasing and development. 

b. White Canyon/Fort Knocker Canyon 139 

Each year nearly 100,000 visitors explore Natural Bridges National Monument, searching for the 

solitude, beauty, and silence that are unique to the Colorado Plateau. Few of these visitors realize 

that the 7 ,600-acre national monument is surrounded by thousands of acres of BLM wild lands 

including the drainages of White Canyon. 
Final OSTS PEIS 318 

White Canyon has carved a maze of canyons deep into the Cedar Mesa Sandstone layer. These 

canyons are among the world’s foremost displays of erosion sculpting, and the upper part of 

White Canyon was included within Natural Bridges National Monument in recognition of this 

distinction. The sinuous canyons on the BLM l:ands alternately narrow down into cool, dark, 

arm 

span-width slots and then widen again into coves littered with 40-ton house-sized rocks and 

pocket forests of cottonwood, ponderosa, and fir. 

The canyon walls are honeycombed with alcoves, arches, windows, hanging gardens, and 

grottoes; the canyon floors are riddled with potholes. In places, natural spring water forms deep 

pools, and occasional rainstorms bring torrents of floodwater raging through the boulder gardens 

and thundering over pour-offs in spectacular waterfalls. Well over 100 miles of narrow, winding 

canyons in the White Canyon proposed wilderness complex (including White Canyon, Fort 

Knocker Canyon and Tuwa Canyon) form a network so labyrinthine that outstanding solitude is 

assured. Fort Knocker Canyon winds through sandstone bench lands surrounded by thousandfoot 

high mesas and buttes, and feeds into the lower reaches of White Canyon before it flows 

into the Colorado River arm of Lake Powell. This remote area is becoming internationally 

recognized for its dark night skies, offering some of the best stargazing in the world. 

White Canyon’s intermittently flowing water is an attraction for wildlife, and surely attracted the 

Ancestral Puebloans to the area, as remnants of their culture, ranging from scattered 

stoneworking 

sites to impressive cliff dwellings, are located throughout the proposed wilderness. 

The Glen Canyon/San Juan River area contains significant cultural resources. 

The cultural resources found within the jurisdiction of the [Monticello Field 

Office] constitute some of the most aesthetically appealing and scientifically 

significant resources anywhere on the Colorado Plateau. The more than 26,000 

documented archaeological sites in the area, the majority on ELM-administered 

lands, constitute the most significant concentration of cultural resources in the 

state ofUtah. The extraordinary number and density of sites (cf. DEIS 1-4) makes 

the region among the most significant concentrations of archaeological sites 

anywhere in the western United States. 140 

A more recent report prepared by the Colorado Plateau Archaeological Alliance entitled 

“Farming and Foraging on the Southwestern Frontier,” further details the significant cultural 

resources found within the proposed master leasing plan for this area. 141 

139 See Utah Wilderness Inventory, at 94 (1999) (describing Fort Knocker Canyon). 

http://www.access.gpo.gov/blm/utah/pdf/se94.pdf. (last accessed April 23, 2012) 

140 Colorado Plateau Archaeological Alliance Comments re: Monticello DEIS/DRMP at 3 

(submitted Jan. 31, 2008). 

141 A copy of”Farming and Foraging on the Southwestern Frontier” is available online at 

https://re earch. w ulibs. w u.edu: 443/dspace/handle/2376/2643. 

#79])>

<([#80 [3.1.1] c. Bitter Creek142 

The Bitter Creek proposed wilderness unit straddles the Colorado/Utah state lines high in the 

remote Eastern Book Cliffs. The area contains spectacular scenic vistas and offers sublime 

opportunities for solitude. Deep canyons cut through the pale Mesa Verde sandstone, and 

crenellated ridges buttress the sky. Within the unit, elevations range from 6,000 to 8,000 feet, 
Final OSTS PEIS 319 

and canyon slopes rise 600 to 800 feet. Bitter Creek and Rat Hole Canyon two major drainages, 

wind through the area, each extending a number of side canyons like fingers into the surrounding 

mesas. 

Vital riparian zone support box-elders and aspens, willows, sedges, and various reptile and 

amphibian species along the waterways in the canyon bottoms. Many wet meadow areas 

punctuate the folded landscape and support communities of grasses and wildflowers, insects and 

bird . At lower elevations, bench- and ridge-top vegetation consists of sagebrush, rabbitbrush, 

greasewood, and a variety of grasses. Above 7,400 feet, the drainages are dominated by 

pinyonjuniper 

woodlands on south facing slopes, and by Douglas-firs and quaking aspens on the 

northern aspects. Peregrine falcons and golden eagles nest in the cliffs and hunt in the river 

drainages, deer and elk forage along the mesa tops and in the canyons, and black bears roam the 

broken terrain. 

With its convoluted topography, screening vegetation and wide variety of plant and animal 

species, the Bitter Creek Addition provides outstanding opportunities not only :for solitude, but 

also for primitive and unconfined recreation. Hunting, fishing, camping, hiking, photography, 

and wildlife viewing are all popular in the area. Backpacking and horseback riding opportunities 

abound in the area’ many and extensive scenic side canyons. 

In addition to the inspiring scenery and vital habitat, a number of pictograph and petroglyph 

sites, as well as historic homesteads, grace the area, lending it archaeological and historical 

significance. Queen Chip eta, wife of Ute Chief Ouray, was intelligent, talented, and 

hardworking, 

a model of constancy and courage during a desperate time. She acted as a messenger of 

goodwill between Indians and Whites, meeting with President McKinley and performing many 

acts of kindness and sacrifice, and thus earning her place among tribal leaders. Her eponymous 

canyon traverses the heart of the Bitter Creek Wilderness in Utah and provides access to many 

side canyons. Her legend informs the rich cultural heritage of the area. 

142 In its 1999 Utah Wilderness Inventory, BLM determined that the so-called “Cripple 

Cowboy” wilderness 

inventory area had wilderness characteristics, http://www.access.gpo.gov/blrnlutah/pdf/ne 

142.pdf, a determination 

BLM confirmed in the Vernal RMP- along with acknowledging for the first time that the 

citizen’s “Bitter Creek” 

unit have wilderness characteristics. Vernal PRMP/FEIS at 3-45 to -47. See generally 

http://www.blm.gov/ut/st/en/fo/vemal/planning/ upplemental nnplbackground documents.html. 

The citizen’s 

proposed “Bitter Creek” unit includes both the Cripple Cowboy and Bitter Creek units. 

#80])> <([#81 [3.1.1] d. Dragon Canyon 

The Dragon Canyon proposed wilderness unit consists of several large canyons that run south to 

north to Evacuation Creek. These include Davis, Side, Atchee, and Dragon Canyons in Utah, and 

Little Whiskey Creek in Colorado. 

In this area, vital riparian zones support box elders and aspens, willows, sedges, and various 

reptile and amphibian species along the waterways in the canyon bottoms. Many wet meadow 

areas punctuate the folded landscape and support communities of grasses and wildflowers, 

insects and birds. At lower elevations, bench- and ridge-top vegetation consists of sagebrush, 
Final OSTS PEIS 320 

rabbitbrush, greasewood, and a variety of grasses. Above 7,400 feet, the drainages are dominated 

by pinyon-juniper woodlands on south facing slopes, and by Douglas-frrs and quaking aspens on 

the northern aspects. Peregrine falcons and golden eagles nest in the cliffs and hunt in the river 

drainages; deer and elk forage along the mesa tops and in the canyons; and black bears roam the 

broken terrain. Other wildlife species include Townsend’s big-eared bat, dwarf shrew, ringtail 

cat, Lewis’ woodpecker, and ferruginous hawk and black bear fall concentration area. Expanding 

upon the important watershed values in Utah, the area provides protection for Whiskey Creek, 

Little Whiskey Creek, Tent Creek, Davis Creek, and West Evacuation Creek. 

Significant cultural resources are found within the broader area. According to the Colorado 

Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation there are forty-three registered sites with the 

Colorado portion of the Dragon Canyon unit alone. The type and significance of these sights is 

not available to the public. It is likely that the Utah portion of the Dragon Canyon unit also 

contains a similarly-high density of archaeological sites. 

Superior visual resources exist in the area. These values are also significant, relevant and 

important given the threats these and similar values face in the broader landscape. The Utah 

BLM found the Utah portions of the Dragon/ Atchee/Davis Canyon area to have relevant 

“Scenic, 

cultural resources and natural systems.” 143 Within the broader context of the Piceance Basin 

and 

the threats to the area these values are of substantial significance and must be protected. 

143 Vernal RMP DEIS, at G-7. 

#81])> <([#82 [3.1.1] e. Lower Bitter Creek 

The Lower Bitter Creek proposed wilderness unit is dominated by Lower Bitter Creek itself, 

with its rich riparian corridor and intermittent stream that runs northwest to southeast through the 

center of the unit. Several deep washes enter Bitter Creek as it passes through this unit. In 

addition, some portions of the unit are desert landscape with sparse vegetation, while other 

locations support thick pinyon and juniper forests intermixed with sagebrush parks. The unit also 

has several prominent unnamed rock buttes that present striking features in the landscape. 

Bitter Creek and its drainage provide excellent wildlife habitat for many State sensitive species 

including ferruginous hawk, burrowing owl, sage grouse, bald eagle, dwarf shrew, ringtail cat, 

black-footed ferret, as well as big game species such as mule deer and elk. Occasionally, a 

cougar or a bobcat can be seen. This unit may also be home to the Graham Beardtongue 

(penstemon Grahamii), a state sensitive plant species. A short day hike to several of the buttes 

provides unsurpassed views of this unique geologic region. 

In 2007, the Vernal Field Office determined that 11,417 acres of the proposed Lower Bitter 

Creek wilderness unit contain wilderness characteristics. 

#82])> <([#83 [3.1.1] f. Sunday School Canyon 

The Sunday School Canyon proposed wilderness unit is adjacent to the northern boundary of the 

Winter Ridge WSA and is bounded topographically by Wood Canyon on the south, Buck 

Canyon to the north, the Willow Creek drainage on the west, and Seep Ridge to the east. Beyond 

adopting the name of its most prominent feature the unit encompasses the entire Sunday School 

Canyon drainage. Upper portions of this canyon system are broad, shallow, and park-like. The 

canyon becomes increasingly entrenched as one proceeds down through its multiple layers of 

exposed geology. During wetter periods, the area i drained by an intermittent stream that runs 

through this canyon. 
Final OSTS PEIS 321 

Pinyon and juniper forests that dominate the higher elevations within the unit become less 

prominent in lower areas. Other vegetation, including sagebrush cactus, yucca, rabbitbrush, and 

native grasses are interspersed throughout the unit. The transition from lower desert to higher 

forested areas is important to wildlife and primitive recreation opportunities. 

Wildlife viewing opportunities abound, as the unit is critical deer and elk winter habitat. In 

addition, on a hike up a canyon or along a ridge, a visitor may observe wild horses galloping 

through the landscape, or raptors circling for prey or soaring on thermals. The unit also contains 

either substantial, high-value, or substantial habitat for certain species of special concern, 

including: the state threatened ferruginous hawk, bald eagle, the burrowing owl, big free-tailed 

bat, sage grouse, Lewis’ Woodpecker, ringtail cat, dwarf shrew, short-eared owl, Townsend’s 

big-eared bat, and Utah Milk Snake. Special status plant species within the unit include the 

federally threatened Uinta Basin Hookless cactus, the Graham’s beardtongue (an ESA 

candidate), and the Bameby’s columbine, the Caespitose Cats-eye, the Grass Goldenweed, and 

Garrett’s beardtongue. 

The varied topography, wildlife, scenic vistas, and vegetation combine to create an 

overwhelmingly natural landscape with outstanding opportunities for solitude and a primitive, 

unconfined type of recreation. The unit offers incredible sight-seeing, with dramatic views of 

several prominent geological features including Big Pack Mountain, the Uinta Mountains, the 

Willow Creek drainage, the southern portions of Seep Ridge, and Bates Knolls. In addition, the 

potential for cultural sites exists along Willow Creek and its side drainages, as well as along 

Seep Ridge. #83])>

<([#84 [3.1.1] g. Seep Canyon 

The Seep Canyon proposed wilderness un.it is comprised of sandstone rimrocks, towering cliffs, 

broken slopes, broad valleys, and endless ridge lines. Besides Seep Canyon and Seep Ridge, 

other predominant canyons and ridges include Park Canyon, Park Ridge, Crooked Canyon and 

many other side canyons and nameless draws and ridge lines. The several canyon systems drain 

north toward Sweet Water Canyon. The scenery created by this topographic feature is both 

stunning and intricate, and more distant views of the prominent buttes within the Lower Bitter 

Creek proposed wilderness unit, and McCook Ridge are spectacular. 

Dense pinyon and juniper forests that dominate the landscape are interspersed with sagebrush, 

grasses, oakbrush, cacti, yucca, and other species. Isolated stands of aspen and Douglas fir are 

also present within the unit. 

The Seep Canyon wilderness unit is important habitat for elk, deer, and several other wildlife 

species; cougar and golden eagles are also present. In addition, the area overlaps lands subject to 

a long-term black bear study by Brigham Young University and sponsored by the Utah Division 

of Wildlife Resources. The area contains habitat for the federal and state threatened Mexican 

spotted owl, the federal and state endangered willow flycatcher, and the state threatened 

Ferruginous Hawk. The area also provides critical habitat for the northern goshawk, and ringtail 

cat. It is also high value habitat for the bald eagle, burrowing owl, Lewis’ woodpecker, 

Williamson’s sapsucker, Townsend’ big-eared bat, and the Utah milk snake. 

#84])> <([#85 [3.1.1] h. Turtle Canyon, Desbrough, and Desolation Canyon 

All three of these units are found in the western Book Cliffs and West Tavaputs Plateau. They 

are remarkable areas, rich with wildlife habitat, soaring escarpments, and delicate ecology. The 

BLM agrees that these areas contain wilderness characteristics. Oil shale or tar sands 

development in any of these areas would destroy the primitive character of this area. These three 
Final OSTS PEIS 322 

units help form possibly the largest unprotected roadless areas in the contiguous United States. 

#85])> <([#86 [3.1.1] i. Sids Mountain 

The Sids Mountain citizen wilderness proposal area encompasses a large portion of the 

remarkable San Rafael Swell. This large geologic uplift is a maze of canyons, cliffs, shrubland, 

and arroyos. It is home to the largest population of desert bighorn sheep in Utah. 

#86])> <([#87 [3.1.1] ii. Potential ACECs in Utah that should be declared off-limits from oil 

shale 

and tar sands development 

As noted throughout these comments, we strongly support Alternative 3 which would exclude 

the following BLM identified potential areas of critical environmental concern from oil shale and 

tar sands leasing while still leaving over 32,000 acres in the three state analysis area available for 

commercial oil shale leasing and 2,100 acres of tar sands leasing in Utah. BLM confirmed these 

areas’ relevance and important values in a series of inventories leading up to the 2008 Vernal, 

Price, Richfield, and Monticello resource management plans and record of decision. 144 

The PEIS, however, mistakenly identifies in Figure 2.3.3-5 and Figure 2.4.3-2 portions of several 

BLM identified potential ACECs as in fact available for leasing under Alternative 2. 145 These 

errors should be corrected in the revised FPEIS. 146 

144 See PEIS at 2-34 and 2-36, 2-43, 2-66 to -67, and 2-70 (explaining that under either 

Alternative 2 or 3 potential 

ACECs will not be available for oil shale or tar sands leasing). 

145 See id. at 2-41 (Figure 2.3 .3-5) and 2-69 (Figure 2.4.3-2). 

146 The PEIS, Alternatives and 2 and 3, mistakenly identifies portions of the following BLM 

identified potential 

ACECs as being available for leasing: Vernal RMP (Nine Mile, Four Mile Wash, Coyote BasinMyton Bench, 

White River, Bitter Creek, Bitter Cree/P.R. Springs, and Coyote Basin-Snake John); Price RMP 

(Nine Mile, Range 

Creek, Sids Mountain, San Rafael Canyon Lower); Richfield (Dirty Devil/North Wash). See 

Attachment 12. 

#87])>

<([#88 [3.1.1] The following potential ACECs in Utah that should be protected from oil shale 

and tar sands 

development: 

a. Bitter Creek and Bitter Creek/PR Springs 

This 14 7 ,425-acre potential ACEC is located high in the remote Book Cliffs of eastern Utah. 

The 

Vernal RMP considered this ACEC in order to protect “old-growth pinyon pine, cultural 

resources, historical features, and watersheds.” 47 Utah BLM found the Bitter Creek and Bitter 

Creek-P.R. Springs area to meet relevance and importance criteria for designation as an area of 

critical environmental concern (ACEC) based on these same values, stating: 

Relevance Criteria: The area has relevance due to the existence of an old growth forest, 

significant cultural and historic resources, important watershed, and critical ecosystem for 

wildlife and migratory birds. 

Importance Criteria: The relevant values described above have substantial significance 

due to qualities that make it fragile, sensitive, rare, irreplaceable, exemplary, and unique. 
Final OSTS PEIS 323 

The ancient pinyon forest is over 1,200 years old, and includes the Utah champion 

pinyon, which is irreplaceable. Within the unit is the ancestral home of the Northern Ute 

Tribe when they were relocated from Colorado in the late 1800s. Many features, 

including graves, are within the potential ACEC, but specific locations are not known. 

Also in the potential ACEC is the most extensive wetland in the multi-state Book Cliffs. 

It exists because of a uniquely perched water table. This wetland and surrounding 

watershed is unique as a critical ecosystem for migratory birds and a wide variety of 

wildlife. 148 

All of these relevant values would be severely impacted by oil shale or tar sands development. 

147 Vernal Proposed RMP and Final EIS at 4-428. 

148 Vernal RMP Draft RMP at G-4 to -5. #88])>

<([#89 [3.1.1] The following potential ACECs in Utah that should be protected from oil shale 

and tar sands 

development: 

b. Nine Mile Canyon 

Nine Mile Canyon is often referred to as the world’s longest art gallery for good reason. This 

stunning area is replete with cultural resources. Few areas have a higher concentration of known 

cultural resources in such a limited place. 

This potential ACEC is split between the Price and Vernal field offices. The Price RMP 

considered an ACEC up to 49,000 acres in size. 149 The Vernal RMP considered an ACEC that 

would have included 81,168 acres. 150 The BLM identified this area because of its world-class 

archeological treasures. It includes “Fremont, Ute, and Archaic rock art and structures.” 151 

Although both the Price and Vernal RMPs designated an ACEC that would protect some of the 

resources of this area the designated ACEC is smaller than potential ACECs for this area that 

were considered in both plans. 

149 Price Proposed RMP and Final EIS at 2-116. 

150 Vernal Proposed RMP and Final EIS at 4-434. 

151 Id. 

#89])> <([#90 [3.1.1] The following potential ACECs in Utah that should be protected from oil 

shale and tar sands 

development: c. Range Creek 

The Range Creek potential ACEC contains “nationally significant, outstanding cultural 

resources. It holds hundreds, if not thousands, of Fremont archaeological sites. This is the most 

complete collection of existing, pristine Fremont sites.”152 

152 Price Proposed RMP and Final EIS at 2-116. 

#90])> <([#91 [3.1.1] The following potential ACECs in Utah that should be protected from oil 

shale and tar sands 

development: d. San Rafael Canyon (lower) 

The San Rafael Canyon (lower) potential ACEC contains “the San Rafael River [which] has cut 

a channel creating what is known as the ‘Little Grand Canyon’ as viewed from the Wedge. The 

Black Boxes are world renowned.” 153 
Final OSTS PEIS 324 

153 Id. 

#91])> <([#92 [3.1.1] The following potential ACECs in Utah that should be protected from oil 

shale and tar sands 

development: e. Main Canyon 

Main Canyon is a large, potential ACEC that was considered in the Vernal RMP. This potential 

ACEC covers 100,915 acres. Sitting in the heart of the remote Book Cliffs region, the Main 

Canyon ACEC is home to crucial habitat for deer and elk. 154 It also contains sites of the 

historical Northern Ute migration route. 

154 Id. at 4-435. 

#92])> <([#93 [3.1.1] The following potential ACECs in Utah that should be protected from oil 

shale and tar sands 

development: f. Dirty Devil/North Wash 

This large potential ACEC covers some of the most spectacular scenery on the Colorado Plateau. 

The Richfield RMP considered a potential ACEC that would have designated 205,300 acres of 

land for the protection of such values as scenery, cultural resources, paleontological resources, 

wildlife, and special status species. 155 The Mexican spotted owl is among the sensitive species 

that make their homes in this potential ACEC.156 

155 Richfield Proposed RMP and Final EIS at 2-121. 

156 Id. 

#93])>

<([#94 [3.1.1] The following potential ACECs in Utah that should be protected from oil shale 

and tar sands 

development: g. White River 

The Vernal RMP included a potential ACEC of 47,130 acres surrounding the deep canyon of the 

White River. This potential ACEC would have protected “unique geologic formations with 

pectacular vistas and the high-value river riparian ecosystem.” 157 The White River “provides 

critical habitat for the endangered Colorado pikeminnow, as well as habitat for other threatened, 

endangered, and sensitive species, including the razorback sucker, flannel mouth sucker, 

roundtail chub, Yellow-billed Cuckoo, Peregrine Falcon, and Bald Eagle.”158 

157 Vernal Proposed RMP and Final EIS at 4-433. 

158 Id. #94])>

<([#95 [3.1.1] The following potential ACECs in Utah that should be protected from oil shale 

and tar sands 

development: h. Coyote Basin-Kennedy Wash, Coyote Basin-Coyote Basin, Coyote 

Basin-Myton Bench, and Coyote Basin-Snake John 

This complex of potential ACECs in the Vernal Field Office would provide protection for a 

myriad of sensitive species. Those special species that use this area include the pronghorn, 

bobolink, ferruginous hawk, peregrine falcon, sage grouse, long-billed curlew, grasshopper 

sparrow, short-eared owl, big free-tailed bat, black-footed ferret, ringtail cat, and dwarf 

shrew. 159 

159 Id. at 4-430. #95])> <([#96 [3.1.1] The following potential ACECs in Utah that should be 
Final OSTS PEIS 325 

protected from oil shale and tar sands development: i. Four Mile Wash 

This 50,280-acre potential ACEC is located along the Green River just north of Desolation 

Canyon. It includes “high-value scenery, riparian ecosystems, and special status fish species” as 

resources worthy of protection. 160 This potential ACEC includes amazing examples of more 

recent rock art. For example, visitors to this area can find representations of railroad trains drawn 

by Utes. BLM described the area as containing “spectacular scenery” that “[h]as significance 

due to qualities that make it fragile, sensitive, rare, irreplaceable, exemplary and unique.”161 

160 Id. 

161 Id. at 3-89. #96])> <([#97 [3.1.1] The following potential ACECs in Utah that should be 

protected from oil shale and tar sands development: j. Sids Mountain Potential ACEC 

The Sids Mountain potential ACEC was identified by the BLM as containing outstanding 

scenery with a large diversity of landforms and colors. “Landforms include rounded domes, high 

truncated buttes, and vertical cliffs dissected by deep canyons. The change in form and elevation 

is highly visible.” The BLM also stated that “[ v ]ivid colors range from light buff and brown 

sandstones to the light gray-green vegetation on the mesas and in the canyons.” #97])>

<([#98 [3.1.1] E. Colorado: ACECs, lands with wilderness characteristics, and other lands 

As the DPEIS and other BLM planning documents make clear, Colorado is home to important 

landscapes. ACECs, proposed wilderness areas, and lands with wilderness characteristics, to 

varying degrees, overlap with oil shale deposits, and should be declared off-limits to research 

and development. 

i. Colorado proposed wilderness and wilderness-quality lands should be 

protected from oil shale development 

As noted above while we strongly endorse Alternative 3, we support the provision that 

Alternative 2(b) would exclude from commercial development “[a]ll areas that the BLM has 

identified or may identify as a result of inventories conducted during this planning process, as 

land having wilderness characteristics (LWC).” 162 The DPEIS makes clear that impacts of oil 

shale development are not compatible with protection of wilderness quality: 

Commercial oil shale development and associated development of transmission line and 

pipeline ROWs within areas with wilderness characteristics would cause a loss of those 

characteristics in and around the disturbed areas. Development of oil shale and related 

facilities on nearby lands within the viewshed of an area with wilderness characteristics 

also could result in adverse impacts on wilderness characteristics. 163 

The dearth of areas that retain wilderness character within Colorado portions of the planning 

area, combined with the economic and environmental import of these areas, necessitate 

protection of wilderness character to the exclusion of any oil shale development. 

While the DPEIS does a substantially better job addressing lands with wilderness character than 

the 2008 PEIS-the 2008 PEIS included virtually no discussion of these areas- the DPEIS does 

not include a complete list of areas within the geologically prospective study area with 

wilderness character. Nor too does the DPEIS describe LWCs in specificity in all cases. For 

example, for L WCs within the White River Field Office in Colorado, the DPEIS provides the 

number of acres to be protected, but does not provide a land description or place name. There is 

also no discussion of L WCs in the Grand Junction Field Office, and it is not clear at all that the 

Field Office has undertaken an updated and thorough review to date. 

Similarly, a 2000 wilderness inventory undertaken for the Roan Plateau Planning Area found 
Final OSTS PEIS 326 

19,322 acres of wilderness quality lands. 164 (That entire landscape has been included in federal 

wilderness legislation.) In a decision that has been challenged and remains unresolved the BLM 

decided not to manage these areas to protect the wilderness character. While not all of the LWCs 

inventoried in 2000 overlap with the area opened to oil shale development in 2008, 10,389 acres 

in the East Fork of Parachute Creek met the criteria for a WSA165 and were opened to oil shale 

development in the 2008 PEIS and corresponding R.MP amendments. This 2012 DPEIS 

indicates 

that there are another five areas that retain wilderness character in the White River Field Office 

overlapping the most geologically prospective areas for oil shale development. 166 The five 

areas 

retaining wilderness character in the White River Field Office total only 21,974 acres. 167 

Because areas with wilderness character like East Fork Parachute Creek and the five areas 

identified in the White River Field Office retain a wealth of visual, botanical, wildlife, and 

ecological values, oil shale should be excluded from these areas. 

As stated above, BLM does have a statutory obligation to maintain an active and updated 

inventory of wilderness quality lands and to consider protecting those areas in management 

decisions. A thorough and updated wilderness inventory is a necessary prerequisite to opening 

vast swaths of public land to oil shale development. The relatively few areas that retain 

wilderness characteristics should be protected from oil shale development in any final plan. 

To the extent that the BLM does not have an up-to-date inventory of lands with wilderness 

character for any of the impacted Colorado field offices, the agency must undertake such an 

inventory and consider protecting existing wilderness characteristics by disallowing development 

of oil shale. To the extent that recent inventories have been undertaken by the agency, those 

inventories must form the basis for analysis. 

162 DPEIS, at ES-6. 

163 DPEIS, at 4-21. 

164 Roan FEIS (2006), at 3-113. 

165 Roan Plateau RMP A (2002), at 20. 

166 DPEIS, at 3-12. 

167 DPEIS, Table 6.1.1-2 at 6-7. #98])>

<([#99 [3.1.1] In addition, Colorado State Wildlife Areas (SWAs) should be protected from oil 

shale 

development. Six SW As abut BLM lands or overlap with BLM managed subsurface resources 

opened for oil shale development in 2008. These areas include: 

• Shell Oil SW A - hunting lease 

• Yellow Creek Unit 

• Square S Summer Range Unit 

• Square S Ranch Unit 

• Little Hills Unit 

• North Ridge Unit of the Piceance SWA 

These areas provide important habitat for wildlife, as well as recreational opportunities and an 

economic draw for local communities. These areas must be protected from both direct and 

indirect impacts associated with oil shale development. 

#99])> <([#100 [3.1.1] ii. Colorado ACECs that should be protected from oil shale development 

The following ACEC’s should be protected from development in the Final PEIS. 
Final OSTS PEIS 327 

a. East Fork Parachute Creek 

It appears that BLM will revisit and correct the illegal decision made in the 2008 PEIS and 

corresponding Record of Decision to open Naval Oil Shale Reserves (NOSRs) Nos. 1 and 3 to 

oil shale leasing. That 2008 decision ignored a withdrawal on the NOSRs preventing those lands 

from being leased for oil shale development. See DPEIS at 3-7. 

We support BLM’s direction in the 2012 DPEIS to correct the 2008 decision opening the NOSRs 

to oil shale development. BLM must identify the NOSRs as unavailable for application for 

commercial oil shale leasing in any Final PEIS barring issuance of an opening order. Such a 

decision would eliminate the threat of commercial oil shale development in the East Fork of 

Parachute Creek. Again, we support the direction in the DPEIS and urge BLM to ensure that the 

East Fork Parachute Creek area is unavailable for research and development. 

Further, the East Fork Parachute Creek area should be unavailable for oil shale development 

regardless of decisions made related to the NOSRs because of rare and important values that are 

incompatible with such development. The area was designated as an ACEC for visual, wildlife, 

fisheries, botanical and ecological values. 168 East Fork Parachute Creek is a biologically 

significant tributary to the Colorado River. 169 Any oil shale development in this area will likely 

have significant impacts on the important values for which this ACEC was designated. 

This creek provides year-round habitat for Colorado River Cutthroat Trout (CRCT), the only 

native trout in the Colorado River basin. The CRCT has been designated a “special status 

species” by the BLM and is classified as a “sensitive species” by Regions 2 and 4 of the US 

Forest Service, and the states of Colorado, Utah, New Mexico and Wyoming. 170 

East Fork Parachute Creek is also identified as one of the five areas containing conservation 

populations by the Conservation Agreement and Strategy for Colorado River Cutthroat Trout in 

the States of Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming. 171 These populations also meet the BLM’s own 

criteria for a conservation population. 172 The Conservation Agreement gives highest priority 

for 

management and protection to streams identified as containing conservation populations. 

Populations of CRCT in East Fork Parachute Creek are at least 90% genetically pure. 173 The 

BLM considers the entire watershed to be important to the long-term functionality of vital 

ecosystem processes that maintain upland and stream habitats important to these fishes. 174 

Also, 

the BLM declared, “these streams are regionally and nationally important producers of native, 

genetically pure and naturally reproducing Colorado River cutthroat trout,” going on to proclaim 

that these streams should be given the “highest priority for management and protection.”175 

The importance of these trout populations is clear. This area must be protected from oil shale 

development in order to ensure the subspecies continues reproducing and recruiting. Oil shale 

development will likely result in increased sedimentation, reductions in water quantity and 

quality, ground water flow alteration, and increased likelihood of water contamination with toxic 

byproducts. These impacts will add stresses to CRCT populations and, in so doing, may 

undermine one of the values this ACEC was designated to protect. 

Other values for which this ACEC was designated include scenery as well as unique and rare 

plant communities. Of special note is a 200-foot canyon waterfall. The BLM has described the 

waterfall as a “national park quality scenic attraction.” The ROD for the Designation of ACECs 

for the Roan RMPA and EIS designated the lower stretches of the East Fork of Parachute Creek 

as a VRM 1. 176 
Final OSTS PEIS 328 

A rare community of Mancos columbine, and a BLM “sensitive plant,” Eastwood’s 

monkeyflower, are also present in the unique hanging gardens in this ACEC. Also found are 

several plant communities such as the Colorado blue spruce/red osier dogwood, the boxelder, 

narrowleaf cottonwood, red osier dogwood community, and the Indian ricegrass shale barrens 

community. These communities are considered rare globally and in Colorado. 

There are also a few imperiled plants in this ACEC that may be particularly susceptible to oil 

shale development. Utah fescue, for example, is a perennial grass and an oil shale endemic 

species found within East Fork Parachute Creek ACEC. Hanging garden sullivantia is found in 

this area. Southwest stickleaf, a BLM sensitive species, is an oil shale endemic that frequently 

occurs in the area. The Roan Plateau Final EIS makes it clear that this ACEC “contains a 

diversity of rare or uncommon riparian plant communities and BLM sensitive plant species.” 177 

The EIS goes on to say: “the rare plants and plant communities found in this drainage are of 

excellent condition and abundance and are vulnerable to adverse change.” 178 

For these reasons, East Fork Parachute Creek ACEC is inappropriate for oil shale research and 

development and should be closed to development in the Final PEIS. 

168 Roan Plateau Plan Amendment (2002), at 20. 

169 ROD Designating ACECs for the Roan Plateau RMPA and EIS (2008), at 5. 

170 Conservation Status of Colorado River Cutthroat Trout, USDA Forest Service (1996), at 1; 

Available at: 

http://www. fs. fed .us/rm/pubs rm/rm gtr282.pdf. 

171 Available at: http://www.USFWS.gov/mountain-prairie/species/fishlcrct/CRCT /. 

172 A conservation population is defined as: “A reproducing and recruiting population of native 

cutthroat trout that is 

managed to preserve the historical genome and/or unique genetic, ecological, and/or behavioral 

characteristics 

within a specific population and within geographic units.” See Roan Plateau Planning Area 

Proposed Plan/Final EIS, 

pp. 3-114. 

173 Roan Plateau Plan Amendment (2002), at 20. 

174 Id 

175 Id. 

176 ROD (2008), at A-8. 

177 Roan Plateau FEIS (2006), at 3-116. 

178 Id. #100])>

<([#101 [3.1.1] Colorado ACECs that should be protected from oil shale development: b. 

Trapper/Northwater Creek ACEC 

Trapper/Northwater ACEC is also almost entirely within the NOSR and cannot be opened for oil 

shale development absent issuance of an opening order reversing the withdrawal that currently 

applies to the areas. See DPEIS at 3-4. As with East Fork Parachute Creek, it appears that the 

BLM is prepared to correct the illegal decision made in 2008 opening the area to oil shale 

development. See supra discussion related to East Parachute Creek. We support that decision. 

Importantly, though, this area should be unavailable for development regardless of the existing 

withdrawal due to the myriad of unique and important values that are incompatible with oil shale 

development. This area was designated for wildlife, fisheries, botanical and ecological values, 

and all values therein should be protected. Trapper and Northwater Creek are tributaries to the 
Final OSTS PEIS 329 

Colorado River, and the creeks provide year-round habitat for CRCT. This ACEC is a critical 

conservation area for the CRCT. Three of the five conservation populations of CRCT that exist 

atop the plateau are found within this ACEC. Included in these are “core conservation 

populations,” identified by a genetic purity of 99% or higher. 179 

The BLM considers the entire watershed vital to the long-term functionality of ecosystem 

processes that maintain upland and stream habitats important to these fishes. 180 The BLM also 

said, “These streams are regionally and nationally important producers of native, genetically pure 

and naturally reproducing Colorado River cutthroat trout.”181 The nearly pure genetic 

populations of CRCT that exist in this area are irreplaceable, and should be protected from any 

habitat degradation that may accompany development of oil shale in the area. 

Botanical and ecological values sought to be protected in this ACEC include hanging garden 

sullivantia and Utah fescue. Combining known occurrences of hanging garden sullivantia in the 

Trapper/Northwater Creek ACEC with known occurrences in the East Fork Parachute Creek 

ACEC accounts for 62% of total known occurrences. 182 Utah fescue is a perennial grass and an 

oil shale endemic. The Indian ricegrass shale barrens community can also be found in this 

ACEC. This community is found in only three other Western Colorado counties. 183 

The important CRCT populations as well as rare plant communities and species in this ACEC, 

should be protected. Opening this area to oil shale development may undermine protection of 

these values and undermine stated BLM management priorities. 

For these reasons, the Trapper/Northwater Creek ACEC is inappropriate for oil shale research 

and development, should be closed to development in the Final PEIS. 

179 Id. at 3-116. 

180 Roan Plateau Plan Amd. (2002), at 27. 

181 Roan Plateau FEIS (2006), at 3-116. 

182 Id. at 3-117. 

183 Id. 

#101])> <([#102 [3.1.1] Colorado ACECs that should be protected from oil shale development: 

c. The Duck Creek, Ryan Gulch, Dudley Bluffs ACECs 

These areas are located within the White River Field Office in the northern portion of the 

Piceance. These ACECs provide habitat for several federally and state-listed threatened plant 

species and candidate pecies. 184 Federally threatened endangered, proposed, and candidate 

species include the Dudley Bluffs bladderpod, the Piceance twinpod, the Ute-lady’s tresses 

orchid, the Graham beardtongue, and the White River beardtongue. 

Along with important and imperiled plant species these ACECs also retain unique and 

irreplaceable cultural resources. 185 Among cultural resources of note is a Wickiup Village in 

and 

around the Duck Creek ACEC. 186 This village is listed on the National Register of Historic 

Places and is one of the cultural resources that should remain unharmed by oil shale 

development. Other cultural resources in these ACECs identified by the cultural resource 

interpretation program undertaken by the White River Field Office should also be preserved. 

184 DPEIS (2007) at 3-125. 

185 Id. 

186 White River Field Office RMP Amd. (2007), at 4-69. 

#102])>
Final OSTS PEIS 330 

<([#103 [3.1.1] iii. Potential ACEC’s in Colorado that should be declared off-limits from oil 

shale development 

The 2008 PEIS provided “potential ACECs that are currently under consideration for designation 

as part of ongoing land use planning eff011s would be available for application for commercial 

leasing in the future.’” 87 The 2008 ROD opened these areas to oil shale development. 

Given the critical nature of environmental values at risk in these ACECs and the BLM’s 

admission that oil shale development is incompatible with other uses, including ACEC values, 

we urge BLM to make potential ACECs unavailable for future oil shale development. 

Alternative 2(b) would do exactly that. We support that part of the preferred alternative. 

187 FPEIS (2008), at 4-21. 

#103])> <([#104 [3.1.1] [3.7.4.2] Potential ACEC’s in Colorado that should be declared offlimits from oil 

shale development: a. Snake John Subcomplex of the Coyote Basin Complex 

Portions of the Snake John Subcomplex that occur in the White River Field Office were 

nominated by the Center for Native Ecos~stems (CNE; now Rocky Mountain Wild) in 2007 due 

to mapping of white-tailed prairie dogs. 1 8 This area and this habitat should be protected from 

oil 

shale development. 

The Snake John Subcomplex is also important habitat for the endangered black-footed ferret. 

The black-footed ferret i one of the most endangered mammals in North America. Ferrets 

historically occupied more than 100 million acres of western grasslands, from the Rocky 

Mountains eastward throughout the Great Plains, but are now reduced to a handful of 

reintroduction sites in the wild. Healthy ferret populations require very large prairie dog 

complexes. Dramatic prairie dog declines have taken a brutal toll on the ferret. Prairie dogs make 

up 90% of the ferret’s diet. 

The Coyote Basin complex is thought to have been among the most robust white-tailed prairie 

dog colonies in Colorado historically. Reintroduced black-footed ferrets currently occupy the 

Wolf Creek complex in Colorado, the Coyote Basin complex in Utah and Colorado, and the 

Snake John complex in Utah. These complexes constitute the most important habitat for 

whitetailed 

prairie dogs and black-footed ferrets in Colorado and Utah, and are within the portions of 

the white-tailed prairie dog’s range in Utah and Colorado that are expected to see the most 

substantial increases in oil and gas development over the next 20 years. These areas were also 

opened to oil shale development through the 2008 PEIS and corresponding Record of Decision 

and RMPs. In areas where energy development overlaps occupied white-tailed prairie dog 

habitats, the resulting habitat Joss and fragmentation will have negative effects on individuals 

and populations, including mortality, noise disturbance, and habitat loss and fragmentation. 

There is a threshold level at which point habitat loss and fragmentation will threaten local 

whitetailed 

prairie dog populations and reduce prairie dog abundance to a level that is too low to 

provide an adequate prey base for black-footed ferrets. 

In addition to being a federally listed endangered species black-footed ferrets are a Colorado 

Division of Wildlife Endangered Species and a Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy 

Science Forum Species of Most Concern. The fact that the endangered black-footed ferret is 
Final OSTS PEIS 331 

dependent on healthy populations of white-tailed prairie dog warrants special management of the 

habitat 

that these specie rely upon to protect them from oil shale development. 

188 Attachment 10. #104])>

<([#105 [3.1.1] [3.7.4.2] Potential ACEC’s in Colorado that should be declared off-limits from 

oil 

shale development: b. Dudley Bluffs bladderpod and twinpod habitat outside of existing 

ACECs 

There are occurrences of Dudley Bluffs bladderpod and Dudley Bluffs twinpod outside of 

existing ACECs. These areas were nominated as ACECs by the CNE in 2007. 189 In that 

nomination, CNE recommended 300-foot buffers protecting all known occurrences of these 

plants to ensure ongoing function of ecosystem processes. USFWS ‘s 1993 recovery plan and the 

agency’s 2008 5-Year Review of the Dudley Bluffs bladderpod and Dudley Bluffs twinpod listed 

oil shale development as “the primary threat to both species ... “ 190 The Review called oil shale 

development an “imminent” threat. 1 1 BLM’s own analysis lists threats to these plants 

associated with oil shale development: 

... direct injury and mortality of individuals, soil and seed bank disturbance and removal, 

vegetation clearing, habitat fragmentation, dispersal blockage, alteration of topography, 

changes in drainage patters, erosion, sedimentation from runoff, oil and contamination 

spills, fugitive dust, increased human access and human collection, spread of invasive 

plant species, air pollution, and loss of pollinator habitat. 192 

In the USFWS’s 5-year review, the agency estimated that 36% of known occupied habitat for 

both the bladderpod and the twinpod is not protected by ACEC designation, and that 

“[p]ermanent protective land management designations are necessary on all, or nearly all, 

occupied BLM land in order to fully achieve recovery. 193 In other words, protection of 

occupied 

Dudley Bluffs bladderpod and twinpod habitat in areas proposed for ACEC designation are 

necessary to ensure recovery of these listed species. The BLM should make these areas 

unavailable for oil shale development in the Final PEIS. 

189 Id. 

190 See http ://www.U FWS.gov/mountaioprairie/species/plants/dudleybluffs/FinaiSYearReview.pdf, at 12. 

191 Id. 

192 Bureau of Land Management-White River Field Office. 2007. Piceance Development 

Project Assessment and 

Decision Record C0-110-2005-219-EA. 316 pp. See also, 

http://www.USFWS.gov/mountainWairie/ 

species/plants/dudleybluffs/Finai5YearReview.pdf. at 13. 

93 See http://www. USFWS.gov/mow1tainprairie/species/plants/dudleybluffs/Fina15YearReview.pdf, at 5. 

#105])> <([#106 [3.1.1] [3.7.4.2] Potential ACEC’s in Colorado that should be declared offlimits from oil 

shale development: c. Graham’s Penstemon habitat outside the Raven Ridge ACEC 
Final OSTS PEIS 332 

In 2007 CNE petitioned for expansion of the existing Raven Ridge ACEC to include a USFWS 

designated critical habitat unit for Graham’s penstemon. The petition included half-mile buffers 

around all known Graham’s penstemon occurrences per recommendation of Dr. Vince Tepedino 

of the Logan Bee Lab. Half-mile buffers are necessary to protect Graham’s penstemon 

pollinators. Again, these areas should be closed to oil shale development. 

#106])> Potential ACEC’s in Colorado that should be declared off-limits from oil 

shale development <([#107 [3.1.1] Potential ACEC’s in Colorado that should be declared offlimits from oil 

shale development: d. Narrow-stem gilia habitat outside the existing Lower Greasewood 

ACEC 

In 2007 CNE petitioned for expansion of the existing Lower Greasewood ACEC to include 

known additional occurrences of narrow-stemmed gilia. Known occurrences should be protected 

from oil shale development with 300-foot buffers. 

#107])>

<([#108 [3.1.1] Potential ACEC’s in Colorado that should be declared off-limits from oil 

shale development: e. Narrowleaf evening primrose habitat outside existing ACECs 

In 2007 CNE petitioned for ACEC designation of two known narrow leaf evening primrose 

occurrences near existing and proposed ACECs in the White River Field Office. The petition 

also recommended a 300-foot buffer around known occurrences. These proposed ACECs should 

be protected from oil shale development. 

#108])> <([#109 [3.1.1] [3.7.1.1] X. Wild and Scenic Rivers, and Watershed Protection 

We support management direction across the DPEIS alternatives that all areas eligible for Wild 

and Scenic River (WSR) designation be protected from oil shale and tar sands development. 194 

As part of recent revisions of a number of land use plans, WSR inventories have been 

undertaken. Where a river or river segment is found to be “eligible” for inclusion in the WSR 

system as part of one of these inventories, the BLM’s Land Use Planning Handbook(H-1601-1) 

(BLM 2005) directs the BLM to protect the lands along the eligible segment with a 1/4 mile 

buffer. We urge the BLM to go a step further and consider protection of these WSR segments 

and other critical river segments on a watershed scale. 

In Colorado, BLM examined the eligibility of streams and stream segments for Wild and Scenic 

River status in 2002. The eligibility report showed portions of East Fork Parachute Creek, East 

Middle Fork Parachute Creek, Trapper Creek, and Northwater Creek are all eligible for Wild and 

Scenic River status. 195 These streams are all “free-flowing” and contain outstandingly, 

remarkable values -unique, rare, or exemplary botanical/ecological, scenic features or fishery 

values that are significant on a regional or national scale. These river segments hold many and 

various important values and should not be open to commercial oil shale development. These 

areas, along with all watersheds eligible for Wild and Scenic designation, should be offlimits to 

development. 

In addition, many other watersheds deserve protection. Some of these areas may have special 

designations, such as the Parachute Creek Watershed Management Area and portions of Trapper 

and Northwater Creeks designated as an ACEC. 196 Other undesignated watersheds also deserve 

protection. For example, portions of Trapper and Northwater Creeks are not included in the 

Trapper/Northwater Creek ACEC, but deserve protection from oil shale development. In fact, it 

is the critical high reaches of these watersheds that were excluded from ACEC designation. 

Obviously, industrial development higher up in these water beds bas the potential to impact 

downstream values, including the values for which the ACEC was designated. At risk, in this 
Final OSTS PEIS 333 

case, would be nearly all of the Northwater Creek and a significant portion of the Trapper Creek 

populations of CRCT. In Wyoming, the BLM determined that Skull Creek is among the 

watercourses found to be eligible for Wild and Scenic River designation. 197 

Potential impacts are serious. Sediment caused by surface disturbing activities may choke 

aquatic insects and trout eggs. In the event of a spill or a mining mishap, toxic effluent may do 

the same. In this drainage, downstream habitat is the best CRCT habitat. Below the confluence of 

Trapper and Northwater Creeks this drainage attains the volume and depth necessary to maintain 

suitable CRCT habitat. Allowing oil shale development, or any surface disturbing development, 

in the upstream portion of the Northwater drainage poses an unnecessary risk to CRCT 

populations lower in the watershed. In order to protect this sensitive resource, oil shale 

development be prohibited in the entire drainage. Importantly, we are not asking for expansion of 

the current ACEC boundary. We urge the BLM to eliminate the entire watershed from 

availability for future oil shale development to protect critical environmental values at risk. 

Other watersheds where oil shale development should not be allowed include: Clear Creek, 

Spring Creek, Corral Gulch, Ryan Gulch, Black Sulphur Creek, Fawn Creek, Hunter Creek, 

Willow Creek, West Fork Parachute Creek, Parachute Creek, Piceance Creek, and Dry Fork 

Piceance Creek. Protection of these important streams is important to protect values associated 

with fisheries, botanical resources, and municipal water quality. 

Eligible Wild and Scenic Rivers in Utah are: 

White River- The White River includes eligible segments for wild and scenic 

classification with the outstandingly remarkable values of scenery, fish, wildlife habitat, 

recreational resources, and historic resources. This remarkable river features a deep canyon often 

visited by canoeists and rafters. Importantly, it contains habitat for endangered fish. 

Evacuation Creek- This eligible recreational river includes historic values that are 

outstandingly remarkable. Evacuation Creek flows through a high, remote stretch of the Book 

Cliffs. 

Bitter Creek- This eligible scenic river includes the outstandingly remarkable values for 

fish, wildlife habitat, cultural resources, historic resources, and recreational resources. It creates 

the heart of a remarkable canyon where coyotes, elk, bear, and deer still roam unimpeded. This 

area is also home to historic resources, relicts of both Native American and European-based 

cultures. 

Nine Mile Creek- Nine Mile Creek has formed the world-class Nine Mile Canyon, an 

area extremely rich in cultural resources. In fact, the BLM refers to this area as the “world’s 

longest art gallery” because of its high number of rock art sites. This eligible recreational and 

scenic river includes outstandingly remarkable values of scenery and cultural resources. 

Range Creek - Range Creek is an area rich in cultural resources and remarkable wildlife 

habitat. This area was recently introduced to the public when a private ranch was transferred to 

public ownership. This eligible river includes the outstandingly remarkable values of cultural 

resources, scenery, historic resources, and wildlife. 

Rock Creek- This eligible river includes the outstandingly remarkable values of cultural 

resources, recreation resources, scenery, historic resources, and wildlife. It ultimately flows into 

the Green River in the deep Desolation Canyon. Rock Creek is a superb wild area high in the 

Book Cliffs. 

194 DPEIS, Table 2.3.2-2 at 2-28. 
Final OSTS PEIS 334 

195 Roan FEIS (2006), at 3-121. see also DPEIS (2012) at 3-8. 

196 The ROD for the Designation of ACECs for the Roan RMPA and EIS implemented a WMA 

for Parachute Creek. 

This management tool was implemented to protect important watershed values in Parachute 

Creek from looming 

threats like natural gas development. See ROD (2008), at 6. 

197 BLM 2008. Proposed Resource Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact 

Statement for the Rawlins 

Field Office, at 3-98. 

#109])>

<([#110 [3.7.4.1] [3.7.4.3] XI. Other Species Protections 

The DPEIS lacks basic information about the current status and trends of many species that are 

threatened by the proposed action. Those species include oil shale endemics and federally listed 

species. For some special status species, the DPEIS omits or gets wrong basic life history needs. 

For example, there were a number of sensitive species considered to be Wyoming Species of 

Concern (WYSC) that were not included in the DPEIS, thereby precluding the BLM from 

analyzing and disclosing to the public impacts of the proposed action to those species. 

In another example, Appendix E lists the habitat description for several other species, such as 

Penstemon laricifolius ssp. Exilifolius, as “not available.” However, a quick search on 

Natureserve (the Natural Heritage Program’s national database) provides eight citations with 

information relating to this subspecies. Where Appendix E lists this subspecies occurring only in 

one Wyoming county, Natureserve lists seven Wyoming counties and one Colorado county. 

Similarly, habitat descriptions for several species lack elevation ranges, or are otherwise so 

general as to preclude an impact analysis. For example, Appendix E lists habitat for Phacelia 

salina as simply “alkalai flats and clay slopes,” but fails to mention any elevation range or 

additional description of the plant’s habitat requirements. This sort of general habitat description 

precludes a meaningful impact analysis by failing to precisely identify the spatial coincidence of 

those species and the proposed development. 

#110])> <([#111 [3.7.4.3] A. Sclerocactus 

The case of Sclerocactus species provides another example of an inadequate analysis of current 

conditions and potential impacts to species from oil shale and tar sands leasing. As was the case 

with the 2008 PEIS, the DPEIS continues to confuse the Sclerocactus species. As noted in the 

Center for Biological Diversity’s comments on the 2008 DPEIS, Sclerocactus glaucus has been 

split into three distinct and federally threatened species; the two additional new species are 

Sclerocactus wetlandicus and Sclerocactus brevispinus. Appendix E lists S. glaucus as “Uinta 

Basin hookless cactus occurring in one Colorado and three Utah counties; USFWS lists S. 

glaucus as “Colorado hookless cactus” occurring in four Colorado counties. 198 Where USFWS 

lists S. wetlandicus as “Uinta Basin Hookless Cactus” occurring in three Utah counties, 199 

neither the Chapter 6 nor Appendix E make any mention of S. wetlandicus. Whether the BLM is 

confusing nomenclature or entirely overlooking a threatened species is unclear. 

Regardless, in its 2010 “Recovery Outline for the Sclerocactus wetlandicus (Uinta Basin 

Hookless Cactus), USFWS found that threats to S. wetlandicus from energy development, 

including oil shale and tar sands development, include outright destruction of individuals and 

habitat, soil erosion, soil compaction, sedimentation, dust accumulation and increased human 

collection and impacts from exotic plant spread facilitated by increased human access into 

energy development zones. 200 USFWS states that “energy development remains one of the 
Final OSTS PEIS 335 

largest threats to this species through direct loss of habitat, and it is occurring in S. wetlandicus 

habitat at a rate much greater than existed at the time of the 1979 listing” and that “a significant 

portion of the species’ range also is within areas with oil shale development potential.”201 

The USFWS also describes significant cumulative impacts of energy development that form 

baseline conditions for evaluating impacts of the proposed action to the species: 

[S]ixty-three percent of the total range of the species (approximately 117,000 ha or 

289,000 ac) occurs within approved energy field development projects (Service 2009). 

An additional 10 percent of S. wetlandicus potential habitat bas been disturbed by 

historical energy field development. Seventy-nine percent of the potential range on 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM) land is within oil and gas development project 

boundaries. Thirty-seven percent of the potential range on tribal lands is within oil and 

gas development project boundaries. 202 

None of this critical baseline information is included in the DPEIS, and the DPEIS fails to 

address S. wetlandicus altogether. 

198 See: http://ecos. fWs.gov/speciesProfile/profi le/speciesProfile.action?spcode=0 21 I 

199 See: btlp://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProflle/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=Q3N6 

200 See: ht:tp://www.fws.gov/mountain· 

prairielspecies/plautsfUj nlaBasin HooklessCacLUs/RccoveryOutl ineApri 120 I 0. pdf 

201 Id, at 4·5. 

202 Id, at 4. 

#111])> <([#112 [3.7.4.3] B. Additional deficiencies 

There are other deficiencies of federally listed species. The DPEIS cursory information about 

bonytail chub does not reveal that the species is virtually extinct due to the transformation of the 

Colorado River ecosystem. Similarly, there is no description of specific recovery measures set 

forth in the 2002 recovery plan for Colorado pikeminnow, or that the humpback chub is 

experiencing a declining population trend. The DPEIS also fails to discuss the fact that an 

interagency 

team declared in 1997 that the current strategy to recover the Utah prairie dog is not 

working and is unlikely to ever result in the recovery of the species, or that threats to the 

whooping crane include oil spills and gas leaks. 

#112])> <([#113 [3.7.4.3] The DPEIS likewise fails to make clear that all known populations of 

clay reed-mustard are 

located on federal lands that have been leased for oil and gas activities. The remaining 

individuals are underlain by oil shale deposits, and continued development of oil and gas wells 

and ancillary facilities, and future potential oil shale development, is likely to threaten the 

continued existence of this species. #113])>

<([#114 [3.7.4.3] For many listed species-including the autumn’s buttercup, Ute ladies’-tresses, 

clay reedmustard, 

Dudley Bluffs bladderpod, Dudley Bluffs twinpod, humpback chub, Jones cycladenia, 

last chance townsendia, Maguire daisy, Wright fishhook cactus, bonytail, Debeque phacelia, 

Parachute beardtongue, western yellowbilled cuckoo, and the White River beardtongue-the 

DPEIS lacks basic information about current status or population numbers, estimates or trends. 

For instance, the Dudley Bluffs bladderpod was surveyed in 2006, and the results indicate a 

declining population trend, but this information is not provided in the DPEIS. Meanwhile, the 

species is known to occur only in the Piceance Basin, an area where extensive oil shale 
Final OSTS PEIS 336 

development would be permitted under the proposed action. 

#114])> <([#115 [3.7.4.3] Similarly, the DPEIS does not mention that demographic monitoring 

of Wright fishhook cactus 

populations conducted between 1993 and 2000 found no sizeable populations with adult cacti 

greater than 9cm wide (the size class responsible for the most reproduction). That same survey 

noted low recruitment and a low mortality to-recruitment ratio, and indicated that populations of 

Wright fishhook cactus appeared to be in a slow decline. 

#115])> <([#116 [3.7.4.7] C. Climate impacts on species 

While the DPEIS acknowledges that rare species are inherently more vulnerable to the effects of 

disturbance that would accompany oil shale or tar sands development, the BLM must also 

consider how proposed action will contribute to climate change and therefore further imperil rare 

species in the region. Many of the rare plants that will be affected by oil shale and tar sands 

development are edaphic endemics (species tied to very specific substrates, many only found 

growing on oil shale.) These species may be particularly hard-pressed to respond to climate 

change, because the soils they rely on may be restricted to very narrow elevation and/or 

latitudinal bands that do not allow for refuge from warmer, drier conditions. These plants are 

literally tied down to oil shale soils, and cannot march up a mountain or move north in response 

to climate change without leaving behind the soils they require. The IPCC has come to consensus 

about several factors relevant to the potential threat of climate change to endemic species, 

including the following: 

• With global average temperature changes of 2°C above pre-industrial levels, many 

terrestrial, freshwater and marine species (particularly endemics across the globe) are at a 

far greater risk of extinction than in the recent geological past (medium confidence). 203 

• Warming and drying trends are likely to induce substantial species-range shifts, and 

imply a need for migration rates that will exceed the capacity of many endemic 

species. 204 

• The likely synergistic impacts of climate change and land-use change on endemic species 

have been widely confirmed. 205 

The Final PEIS must include this information, so that the environmental consequences of the 

proposed action may be meaningfully considered. Without establishing these baseline 

conditions, there is no way for the BLM or the public to fully understand, at this crucial, 

programmatic scale, the effects that the proposed action will have on the environment. 

203 Fishlin et. al. 2007 at p. 213. 

204 Id. at p. 226. 

205 Id. at p. 241. 

#116])> <([#117 [6.1.1] XII. Lands with deposits 15 gallons/ton or more and 15 feet thick or less 

In Colorado and Utah, the most geologically prospective oil shale deposits are “those deposits 

that yield 25 gallons of shale per ton of rocks (gal/ton) or more and are 25 ft. thick or greater. “ 

206 

In Wyoming, the standard is 15/15. The BLM’s determination to alter for Wyoming the 

definition of “geologically prospective” highlights how poor the deposits are in that state. It also 

raises serious questions regarding how the agency defines “geologically prospective.’ As the 

agency stated in the FPEIS, in Wyoming the oil shale resource is not as of high quality as it is in 

Colorado and Utah. 207 
Final OSTS PEIS 337 

The BLM cites EPAct as the basis for opening resource-poor oil shale deposit in Wyoming to 

commercial application. EPAct provides the BLM “shall complete a programmatic 

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

resources on public lands, with an emphasis on the most geologically prospective lands within 

each of the States of Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming.”208 In requiring the BLM to evaluate “the 

most geologically prospective lands” in each state, EPAct does not in turn require the BLM to 

open resource-poor lands to application for commercial development. That is a construct the 

BLM developed to meet a policy goal of opening large swaths of land for commercial 

development. 

The BLM acknowledges that deposits less than the 25/25 standard are inferior resources and 

likely not suitable for development: 

The BLM has determined that it would not make economic sense to open larger areas in 

Colorado and Utah to potential oil shale leasing where the resource is of low grade and 

unlikely to be developed at this time, because interest in future leasing would be directed 

at higher t:,rrade deposits .... In the future, once technology has progressed and the higher 

quality oil shale has been leased and developed, it may be economic to produce these 

lower--grade deposits. At that time, additional planning and NEPA analysis could be 

conducted to open these areas to leasing and development, where warranted. If however, 

technological progress and economic conditions rapidly come to support development of 

deposits less than 25 ft thick and yielding less than 25 gal/ton, the areas that would be 

open in Wyoming under Alternative 1, 2, or 4 would be available for future leasing 

without further land use planning amendments. 209 

Additionally, because the BLM uses different standards for different states, the agency must 

define what “geologically prospective” means in each case. Congress did not define it, and nor 

did the BLM in the DPEIS. The closest the BLM comes to defining “geologically perspective” is 

found in footnote 4 on page 1-10. In that footnote, the BLM states that 

Numerous sources of information were used to define the boundaries of the Green River 

Formation basins and the most geologically prospective oil shale resources. The basin 

boundaries were defined by digital data provided by the USGS taken from Green (1992), 

Green and Drouillard (1994), and Hintze et al. (2000). The most geologically prospective 

oil shale resources in the Piceance Basin were defined on the basis of digital data 

provided by the USGS taken from Pitman and Johnson (1978), Pitman (1979), and 

Pitman et al. (1989). In Wyoming, the most geologically prospective oil shale resources 

were defined on the basis of detailed analyses of available oil shale assay data (Wiig 

2006a,b ). In Utah, the most geologically prospective oil shale resources were defined by 

digital data provided by the BLM Utah State Office. 210 

The question remains, if industry cannot economically develop the high-grade deposits found in 

Colorado and Utah, why would the BLM make available lands that fall below the 25/25 

threshold in Wyoming. In October 2008, Scott Quillinan of the Wyoming State Geological 

Survey (WSGS) prepared a spatial analysis of oil shale deposits that met the 25/25 threshold. 

This analysis was based on data contained in the USGS Open-File Report 2008-1152, titled 

“Fischer assays of oil-shale drill cores and rotary cuttings from the greater Green River Basin, 

Southwestern Wyoming.” The WSGS analysis shows that a substantial acreage of Wyoming 

lands meet the 25/25 threshold. (See Attachment 7.) Thus, it is completely unnecessary to lower 

the threshold for oil shale leasing in Wyoming. The lack of a consistent standard across the 
Final OSTS PEIS 338 

three-state region suggests the BLM is acting arbitrarily and capriciously. 

The BLM was right in making deposits unavailable for leasing in Colorado and Utah that were 

less than 25/25, but wrong to lower the standard in Wyoming. By adopting the 25/25 standard for 

all three states, the BLM can provide collateral protections from ill-considered oil shale projects 

for core or priority sage-grouse habitats, big game crucial ranges and migration corridors, and 

other valuable resources in Wyoming which are underlain by uneconomic oil shale deposits. 

206 DPEIS, at 2-78. 

207 Id. 

208 EPAct Sec. 369(d)(l). 

209 DPEIS, at 2-78. 

210 DPEIS, at 1-10. #117])>

OSTS_070 

Organization: Brent Fryer 

Received: 4/27/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Commenter1: Brent Fryer - Henderson, Wyoming 89012 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: none 

Submission Category: Letter 

Submitted As: Postal Mail 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/7/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D00071.htm (OSTS_070-58804.htm Size = 1 KB) 

OSTS_070_Fryer_Mail_OSTS2012D00071.pdf (OSTS_070-58803.pdf Size = 473 KB) 

Submission Text

See Attachment. 

Brent C. Fryer, Sc.D. 

504 Winding Oak CT 

Henderson, NV 89012 

Telephone: 435-862-4848 

Email: fryerbc I @aol.com 

Date: April26, 2012 

BLM Oil Shale and Tar Sands Draft Programmatic PEIS 

Argonne National Laboratory 

9700 S. Cass A venue 

EVS 240 

Argonne, IL 60439 

Subject : Comments on “2012 Oil Shale and Tar Sands Draft 

Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (Draft PEIS)”. 

Summary of Comments 

The following statements summarize my general conclusions on the subject document as 

well as the DOI/BLM oil shale program as a whole: 

<([#1 [1.5] 1. As with the 2008 Draft/Final PEIS, this 2012 “Draft” is not a PEIS for 

commercial leasing as mandated by the Energy Policy Act of 2005 
Final OSTS PEIS 339 

(EPA2005). 

2. The 2008 Draft/Final PEIS was the result of the Bush 

Administration/DOIIBLM and some old guard republican/democrat senators 

bungling combined with the conniving of big oil and odd lot snake oil 

salesmen. That group and its policies has resulted in the largest historical 

giveaway of US natural energy resources to big oil (with the lion’s share 

going to foreign big oil at that) and snake oil promoters with essentially 

nothing in return for the US citizen .The 2012 Draft PEIS is a result of the 

Obama Administration/DOI/IBLM and a few key democrat politicians 

combined with environmental special interest groups. Following this latest 

group’s agenda will ultimately stop the development of this strategically 

important energy resource. Neither groups agendas are based on sound 

technical (engineering/science), economic, and environmental analysis 

combined with years of practical energy engineering experience. Both 

political groups and DOI/BLM administrators have systematically excluded 

small business/entrepreneur oil shale development that is based on sound 

technical, economic, and environmental science/engineering and may years of 

practical energy development experience. 

3. If a new republican political administration is elected in November 2012, we 

can expect the Obama administration to follow suit with the previous Bush 

administration’s action in late 2008/early 2009 wherein the Bushites rushed 

through so called “midnight” shale development regulations/legislation 

before Obama’s inauguration in January 2009. If Romney is elected then it 

can be expected there will be significant midnight rushing by the Obamaites to 

finalize their oil shale development agenda-and subsequent action by the 

Romney administration to overturn the Obama agenda. 

#1])> The following deals with specific statements made in the Draft and conclusions that can 

be drawn there from. 

From the Draft, with content of particular interest marked in red type: 

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

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

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

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

The BLM would issue a commercial lease only when a lessee satisfies the conditions of 

its RD&D lease and the regulations at 43 CFR Subpart 3926 for conversion to a 

commercial lease. The preference right acreage, if any, which would be included in the 

converted lease, would be specified in the RD&D lease. 

ES.7 PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 

2 

At this stage in the planning and NEP A process, the BLM has chosen Alternative 2(b) as 

the preferred alternative for oil shale, and Alternative 2 as the preferred alternative for tar 

sands. With respect to oil shale, the BLM would like to maintain focus on RD&D 

projects, so as to obtain more information about the technological requirements for 

development of this resource, as well as the environmental implications, before 

committing to broad-scale commercial development. For instance, the BLM looks 

forward to gaining a clearer understanding of the implications of development of oil shale 
Final OSTS PEIS 340 

for water quality and quantity. 

2.3.3.1 Alternative 2, Oil Shale Conservation Focus (Alternative 2a), with RD&D First 

Requirement (2b) 

Under this alternative, 10 land use plans in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming would be 

amended to designate less than 830,000 acres (acreage opened under Alternative C in the 

2008 OSTS PEIS) available for future commercial oil shale leasing. This alternative would 

exclude from commercial oil shale leasing the following categories or groups of categories of 

public lands and/or their resource values that may warrant protection from potential oil shale 

leasing and development: 

The benefits of Alternative 2(b) would include facilitating a robust RD&D program. It would 

also avoid allowing a few companies to tie up large areas with speculative commercial leases. 

Thus it would promote access by innovative small companies to the federal oil shale resource 

for RD&D. 

In the event that a commercially viable technology is demonstrated and becomes widely 

available in the near future, it is possible that Alternative 2(b) could result in delaying 

commercial leasing on federal lands. If that possibility, however speculative at the present, 

were to occur, the pertinent RMPs could be amended contemporaneously with review of 

proposed commercial leases. The oil shale leasing and management regulations at 43 CFR 

Part 3900 would not be affected by the selection of any alternative analyzed in this PEIS, 

and thus would remain available for future decisions concerning commercial leasing. 

As the Draft PEIS was being developed, the idea for this alternative emerged. It is presented 

here in brief. This alternative is not noted elsewhere in the document but will be developed 

further in preparation of the Final PEIS. Analytically, this subalternative is indistinguishable 

from Alternative 2(a) in terms of environmental consequences. Therefore further 

environmental analysis in preparation of the Final PEIS is not anticipated, although more 

detailed explanation may be provided, particularly in response to comments received. 

3 

Lands that fall under items 1 through 4, above, in and around the most geologically 

prospective oil shale areas in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming are shown in Figures 2.3.3-1, 2 

2.3.3-2, and 2.3.3-3, respectively. The Adobe Town “Very Rare or Uncommon” area is 

shown in Figure 2.3.3-3 in the eastern portion of the Washakie Basin in Wyoming. These 

various areas excluded from lands available for application under Alternative 2 are lands that 

were considered for exclusion under Alternative C of the 2008 OSTS PEIS as noted in item 

5 above. 

Lands available for application for oil shale leasing within the most geologically prospective 

area under Alternative 2 in Colorado, Utah and Wyoming are shown in Figures 2.3.3-4 

2.3.3-5 and 2.3 .3-6 respectively. Table 2.3.3-1 lists by state the approximate number of 

acres of BLM-administered land available for application for leasing under Alternative 2. 

Table 2.3.3-2 identifies the types of stipulations and restrictions in place for oil and gas 

leasing in each state that were used to identify those lands that would not be available for 

application for leasing for commercial oil shale development under Alternative C ofthe 2008 

OSTS PEl . These lands total 57,657 acres. 

[Commenter’s note: From Table 2.3.2.2 Alternative 2 lists 461,965 acres available for leasing 

with 35,308 acres in Colorado, 252,181 acres in Utah, and 174,476 acres in Wyoming. Of 

the 30,720 acres included in the existing RD&D leases only 6,612 acres within the current 

RDD leases would be available if current leaseholders relinquish their leases. Note also 
Final OSTS PEIS 341 

Table 2.3.3.1 is for Alternative 1 as stated in the Table, not Alternative 2 as stated in the 

above text. The entire discussion of alternative 2 throughout the “Draft” is confusing and 

misleading to say the least including the following paragraph.] 

In Alternative 2, portions of three of the five PRLAs for the Colorado RD&D leases are not 

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

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

two Colorado RD&D projects, Shell Sites 1 and 3, none of the PRLAs coincide with the area 

identified as available for application for commercial leasing. 

Also, as discussed in Section 2.3 .1, commercial leases for surface mining projects would be 

allowed only on those lands in Utah and Wyoming where the overburden is 0 to 500 ft thick. 

In Utah, under Alternative 2, lands available for application for leasing for surface mining 

projects total about 85,640 acres in the Vernal RMP planning area. In Wyoming, under 

Alternative 2, these lands total about 248,000 acres in the Green River RMP planning area. 

4 

2.4.3.2 Alternative 3, Tar Sands Pending Commercial Lease 

This alternative is designed as an analogue to the Research Lands Focus Oil Shale 

Alternative 3, described in Section 2.3.3.2, in order to respond to scoping comments that 

called for consideration of closing public lands to all development other than research 

projects. Unlike with respect to oil shale, there is no specific RD&D ‘ program for tar sands. 

Therefore, this alternative would also analyze foregoing the leasing of tar sands for the 

commercial development of fluid mineral resources entirely except for one tar sands lease 

currently under consideration. The Asphalt Ridge tar sands lease application, shown in 

Figure 2.4.3-3, is located approximately 11 mi south of Vernal, and the expression of 

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

prospective lease is for a commercial tar sands project; however as with oil shale the 

technology to develop tar sands commercially for fluid minerals development is in its nascent 

stages. 

My comments and conclusions based on the above report extracted statements: 

<([#2 [2] 1. The rationale and basis for the four alternatives selected for consideration are 

never explained-and have no technical, economic, or rational basis in fact. 

They are simply “political” selections without justification. This conclusion 

about “political selections” is made even more apparent by the last minute 

selection of alternative 2(b) as the preferred alternative for oil shale. The 

statements that Alternative 2(b) “emerged” apparently late in the development 

of the draft PEIS-and is described only briefly and will be developed further 

in the “FINAL” PEIS follows a pattern of the DOI/BLM not knowing what 

they are doing and also being directed politically to come up with some 

politicians correct answer. Recall that the PEIS mandated by the Energy 

Policy Act of 2005 started out as mandated by congress-however, half way 

through the whole effort was changed to a land use planning document 

without telling anyone. Furthermore, the Commercial Leasing Rule had a 

similar parallel-in that the final Rule lease rates were a big surprise in the 

FINAL Rule-they just appeared out of the blue without being included as a 

preferred alternative in the Draft Rule. 

#2])> <([#3 [9.7] 2. “The benefits of Alternative 2(b) would include facilitating a robust RD&D 

program”. Just how is this robust RD&D program going to be facilitated or 
Final OSTS PEIS 342 

evolve? Suggestions since 2004 to the DOI/BLM on the need for a common 

qualified RD&D site where all technologies could come and join in a national 

“cook off’ have been dissed by the DOVBLM under both the Bush and 

Obama administrations. Furthermore what has actually been done on the 

RDD leases issued to date? (1) next to nothing; (2) technologies proposed 

have been abandoned; and (3) technologies proposed are not new advanced 

technologies, but old in many cases. How will this new RDD program be any 

different? In most cases the technologies being pursued should be forbidden 

as a National Policy because of the their lousy total energy (including 

kerogen) in to high quality energy out ratio, waste of kerogen not even 

processed, economics, and environmental impact. No RDD tests or 

commercial attempts are needed to demonstrate bad ideas and bad 

engineering. #3])>

5 

<([#4 [6.3] 3. “It would also avoid allowing a few companies to tie up large areas with 

speculative commercial leases. Thus it would promote access by innovative 

small companies to the federal oil shale resource for RD&D”. [Section 2.3.3.1] What has 

happened in the past DOI/BLM oil shale development program-i.e. over the 

last 8 years since it was initiated in 2004? Large tracks of federal oil shale 

lands have become tied up by both big oil and smaller snake oil salesmen-all 

of which have been speculators, and two of which have already sold off their 

speculative leases-and both of which have changed their proposed 

technologies---one of which has changed technologies not only once but is 

now on their third technology. Furthermore although advanced new 

technology was a requirement for lease acquisition, in the one speculative case 

wherein three different technologies have been proposed and two 

abandoned-all three technologies are old technologies-not new, and 

certainly not advanced. As for the large big oil lease tracks what has been 

done--essentially nothing-and these tracks contain more recoverable oil 

than the total known proven conventional reserves of the US. And the small 

entrepreneur oil shale technology and project developer-has he obtained 

access to federal oil shale reserves for RDD/testing/cookoff? Thus far he has 

been excluded by one means or another. #4])>

<([#5 [10.3] 4. “In the event that a commercially viable technology is demonstrated and 

becomes widely available in the near future, it is possible that Alternative 2(b) 

could result in delaying commercial leasing on federal lands”. [Section 2.3.3.1] What’s implied 

here is that such a commercially viable technology could be developed outside 

of the DOIIBLM development program/agenda. If a viable technology is 

developed outside of the DOI/BLM program one would have to ask why did 

the developers have to accomplish this outside of having access to federal oil 

shale lands-must be something wrong with the DOI/BLM program. 

#5])> <([#6 [2] 5. If the focus is going to be on RDD, then why are large total acreages being 

considered at all? All DOIIBLM RDD leases and private development not 

part of the DOI/BLM program will not utilize more than fractions of an acre 

or less than 5 acres maximum in terms of oil shale resource area plan area. 

There is no basis in fact for the need for lease acreages any larger than that. 
Final OSTS PEIS 343 

#6])> <([#7 [2.2] 6. Alternative 2(b) excludes much of the PRLA land from commercial leasing 

although 

this is contractually committed to current RDD leases for PRLA what 

does this mean? Although the entire description of Alternative 2 is less 

than brief because it just recently “emerged”, what description there is 

contradictory and confusing. If this is the “preferred” alternative you’d think 

DOI/BLM could at least write up a complete and comprehensive description 

of that alternative. It also means that land already contractually committed to 

in the RDD leases would now be reneged on by the DOI/BLM as far as any 

new applicants are concerned-just another twisted example of the 

fecklessness, incompetence, and corruption of the politicos who control the 

DOI/BLM and the willingness of the DOIIBLM administrators and staff to go 

along with folks in power. #7])>

<([#8 [6.3.5] 7. DOVBLM continues to use the term “nascent” technologies and that these 

“nascent” technologies need RDD to prove their viability. The facts are most 

of the technologies under consideration are old and their viability has been 

discredited in prior projects. Other technologies which are regarded as new 

are either not new, or their viability can be debunked by thorough engineering 

analysis and no tests are required. This includes accurate estimates on energy 

input (including kerogen chemical energy) to high quality energy output, 

economics, environmental impacts, and total water use. For most of the 

technologies under development (old or new) they are non starters not worthy 

of the stockholders investment money, nor beneficial to the economy or 

strategic interests of the United States. DOl/BLM simply has no oiJ shale 

technology people, nor 3rd party consultants, qualified to conduct such 

analysis. Furthermore any meaningful environmental impact analysis must 

consider the specific technology--Qtherwise the entire environmental impact 

analysis is meaningless. #8])>

<([#9 [1.1] 8. Bottom line-(1) other than maintaining legal standing for future possible 

litigation it’s been a waste of time providing comments to the DOVBLM over 

the last 8 years. Time which would have been much better spent on the 

development of my proprietary BLACK BOX PYROLYSIS I & II processes; 

(2) The Federal Government (Presidential administrations, Senators, House 

of Representatives, and the DOI/BLM/EPA) is feckless, incompetent, and 

usually corrupt when it comes to stewarding the Federal land/resources as 

evidenced by the state of the DOI/BLM oil shale program. #9])>

This concludes my comments and conclusions. If there are questions or anyone within 

the DOI/BLM wishes to discuss the Draft PEIS or the DOI/BLM program or 

technologies under consideration fill free to contact me by mail, telephone, or e-mail. 

Sincerely, 

Brent C. Fryer, ScD 

OSTS_071 

Organization: U.S. DOE, Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 6, Noreen Walsh 

Received: 5/10/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Commenter1: Noreen Walsh - Denver, Colorado 80225 (United States) 
Final OSTS PEIS 344 

Organization1:U.S. DOE, Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 6 

Commenter Type: Federal Government 

Classification: none 

Submission Category: Letter 

Submitted As: E-Mail 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: aziech 5/18/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D00072.htm (OSTS_071-59121.htm Size = 1 KB) 

OSTS_071_FWS_Email_OSTS2012D00072.pdf (OSTS_071-59120.pdf Size = 1127 KB) 

Submission Text

Comments on the Draft Oil Shale and Tar Sands Resource Management Plan 

Amendments to address Land Use Allocation in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming 

Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) has reviewed the subject draft Programmatic 

Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS). These comments are submitted pursuant to our 

authorities under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, as amended 

(42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.); Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (16 U.S.C. §661 et seq.); 

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. §§1531 to 1543 et seq.); Migratory 

Bird Treaty Act of 1918, as amended (16 U.S.C. §703 et seq.); Executive Order 13186 for the 

Conservation of Migratory Birds; and, the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, as amended 

(16 U.S.C. §668 et seq.). 

We appreciate the considerable task before the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in achieving 

the requirements of Section 369 of the 2005 Energy Policy Act while also meeting the 

requirements of the NEP A. The subject draft PEIS analyzes the effects of amending 10 land use 

plans in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming to describe those areas that will be open and those that 

will be closed to application for commercial leasing, exploration, and development of oil shale 

and tar sands resources. 

The draft PEIS analyzes four alternatives in detail for allocation of oil shale leases (two of these 

include subalternatives) and four analogous alternatives for allocation of tar sands. The BLM 

has selected Alternative 2(b) as the Preferred Alternative for oil shale and Alternative 2 as the 

Preferred Alternative for tar sands. The Preferred Alternative would make something less than 

830,000 acres available for future leasing applications for commercial oil shale, but only for 

research, development, and demonstration (RD&D) purposes. The BLM would issue a 

commercial lease only when a lessee satisfies the conditions of its RD&D lease and the 

regulations at 43 CFR Subpart 3926 for conversion to a commercial lease. The preference right 

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

RD&D lease. The Preferred Alternative also would make something less than 229,000 acres 

available for application for commercial tar sands leasing. 

<([#1 [9.3] Our primary concern with the draft PEIS is the lack of information about the 

potential mining 

technologies to be employed, to the extent that identifying and mitigating cumulative impacts is 

extremely difficult. The BLM identified this problem in the draft PEIS “Because commercial oil 

shale development technologies are still largely in a research and development ·phase, many 

details regarding the specific technologies that would be used in the future to produce oil from 

oil shale are unknown” (p. 2-16). To remedy this concern, it is our understanding that once 
Final OSTS PEIS 345 

viable technologies are determined through the RD&D program, the BLM will conduct 

additional NEP A analyses to evaluate the large-scale cumulative effects of a leasing program, 

including specific areas to be leased and the conditions and stipulations under which leases will 

be sold. At the future leasing stage we believe there may be a need to consider additional 

programmatic NEP A review. 

#1])> <([#2 [2.2.1] The Service supports BLM’s selection of Alternative 2(b)/Alterative 2 as the 

Preferred 

Alternative. However, we believe more detailed information regarding direct, indirect, and 

cumulative impacts to water use and water quality in the Colorado River basin are needed to 

evaluate potentially substantial impacts on fish and wildlife resources. #2])> <([#3 [6.3] In 

addition, more details 

are needed about the type of heavy equipment, processing facilities, pipelines, storage tanks, 

industrial equipment, roads, and other infrastructure for fuel extraction and processing in order to 

adequately address the potential environmental implications. 

#3])> We have provided General Comments in Attachment 1 and Specific Comments in 

Attachment 2 

to assist the BLM in preparing the final PEIS. We appreciate the opportunity to provide 

comments. Please contact Michael Thabault, Assistant Regional Director- Ecological Services, 

at (303) 236-4210 if you have any questions or need further information. 

Attachments 

General Comments on the BLM’s Resource Management Plan Amendments and Draft

PEIS for the Allocation of Oil Shale and Tar Sands Resources on Lands Administered by

the BLM in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming (issued February 2012)

After reevaluating the earlier (2008) PEIS, the BLM proposes to amend 10 land use plans to 

designate lands available for commercial leasing of oil shale and tar sands. The BLM’s preferred 

alternative for oil shale allocation is 2(b ). This alternative would allow commercial oil shale 

development on available lease parcels only after the applicant satisfies the requirements under 

the Research, Development and Demonstration (RD&D) Program. The BLM’s preferred 

alternative for tar sands land allocation is alternative 2. Under alternative 2, commercial tar 

sands development can occur without the RD&D program requirement. The areas excluded for 

leasing both minerals are: 

• All areas that the BLM has identified or may identify as a result of inventories conducted 

during this planning process, as lands having wilderness characteristics; 

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

Wyoming Environment Quality Council on April 10, 2008; 

• Core or priority sage-grouse habitat, as defined by such guidance as the BL_M or the DOI 

may Issue; 

• All Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs) located within the areas analyzed in 

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

acreages as a result of Utah and Wyoming planning efforts recently completed); and 

• All areas identified as excluded from commercial oil shale and tar sands leasing in 

Alternative C of the September 2008 PEIS. 

USFWS understands that Section 369 requires the Department of the Interior to evaluate the 

effects of commercial leasing of ELM-administered lands in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming, and 

we appreciate the stepwise fashion in which BLM has approached the development of a 
Final OSTS PEIS 346 

commercial leasing program. It is our understanding that once viable technologies are identified 

through the RD&D program, BLM will conduct additional NEP A analyses to evaluate the 

large-scale impacts of a leasing program, including specific areas offered for lease and the 

conditions and stipulations under which leases will be sold. 

<([#4 [6.3] The draft PEIS strives to assess the broad implications of designating lands that could 

be made 

available for commercial leasing; however, that task is particularly difficult without knowing the 

viable mining technologies to be employed. More detail about the type of heavy equipment, 

processing facilities, pipelines, storage tanks, industrial equipment, roads, and other needed to 

extract these resources is necessary to appropriately evaluate impacts on wildlife resources. 

#4])> <([#5 [9.3] Although the draft PEIS states that additional NEP A analysis will be required 

prior to 

commercial leasing, it is unclear at what level additional analysis will take place. USFWS 

believes further NEP A analysis at the programmatic level will be needed to address the 

cumulative effects of a defined leasing program. We are concerned that without a programmatic 

level of analysis once technologies are determined and better understood, large-scale leasing may 

have significant impacts to certain listed and non-listed fish and wildlife resources. Cumulative 

effects resulting from incremental impacts on water quality, water quantity, air quality, traffic 

volume and other disturbance are some of the stressors that could affect populations of widely 

ranging species in the action area. 

#5])> <([#6 [3.7.5.1] Sage Grouse 

The preferred alternative (2b) in the oil shale/tar sands draft PEIS states that core or priority 

sage-grouse habitat would be excluded from leasing (Section 2.3.3.1; p. 2-34). However, the 

map of Colorado lands (Figure 2.3.3-4) that would be made available for oil shale lease 

applications under the preferred alternative appears to overlap areas that BLM has mapped 

[http://www.blm.gov/co/st/enfBLM Programs/wildlife/sage-grouse.print.html] as sage-grouse 

priority habitat. We recommend that all priority sage-grouse habitat be excluded from 

application for oil shale and tar sands leasing and that apparent inconsistencies in maps be 

resolved. 

#6])> <([#7 [3.7.4.3] [9.2] Bald and Golden Eagle 

Information concerning eagles in Chapter 3, Affected Environment, should be revised and 

updated to reflect the USFWS’ new regulations for take of bald and golden eagles and their nests 

under 50 CFR §§ 22.26 and 2.27, as summarized below. 

Activities that take eagles or eagle nests may violate the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act 

(BGEP A), That Act defines the “take” of an eagle to include a broad range of actions, including 

to: “pursue, shoot, shoot at, poison, wound, kill, capture, trap, collect, or molest or disturb.” In 

2009, USFWS issued regulations (50CFR 22.3) that define “disturb” as: 

to agitate or bother a bald or golden eagle to a degree that causes, or is likely to

cause, based on the best scientific information available, (1) injury to an eagle,

(2) a decrease in its productivity, by substantially interfering with normal

breeding, feeding, or sheltering behavior, or (3) nest abandonment, by

substantially interfering with normal breeding, feeding, or sheltering behavior.

Many of the field activities associated with oil shale and tar sands mining and processing have 

the potential to impact eagles, and protective measures necessary to comply with BGEP A will 

need to be considered. 

On a limited basis, USFWS has the ability to authorize the take of eagles when: thresholds for 
Final OSTS PEIS 347 

take in the eagle population have not yet been reached and take is compatible with stable or 

increasing breeding population; comprehensive measures to avoid and reduce take are developed 

in coordination with USFWS, and; any subsequent take is unavoidable. Permits will authorize 

limited, non-purposeful take of bald and golden eagles; authorizing individuals, companies, 

government agencies (including Tribal governments), and other organizations to disturb or 

otherwise take eagles in the course of conducting otherwise lawful activities. Removal of eagle 

nests would usually only be allowed when it is necessary to protect human safety or the safety of 

the eagles. Permits issued by USFWS may require pre- or post-project surveys, and may require 

that conservation measures be implemented to offset unavoidable take. #7])>

<([#8 [3.7.4.1] [9.3] [1.4] ESA Interagency Consultation 

USFWS commends BLM for including a discussion within the draft PEIS of threatened and 

endangered species and critical habitat that are likely to be encountered by future oil shale and 

tar sands development projects. We also recognize the efforts of BLM to coordinate with 

USFWS in the development of measures to support the conservation of federally listed 

threatened and endangered species presented in Appendix F. However, USFWS remains 

concerned about the lack of information available on mining technologies and the potential for 

cumulative impacts to federally listed species. 

With particular regard to the potential need for water and the impacts on water quality, the 

unknown effects of area-wide oil shale and tar sands development could threaten listed species 

within the Colorado River Basin. We encourage BLM to further develop and incorporate 

conservation measures for listed species in the final PEIS and into future NEP A documents 

associated with specific leasing and development actions. NEP A analyses should include 

specific conservation guidelines for special-status species that will be applied to site-specific 

NEPA, consultation, and implementation documents of all future proposed projects. We 

recommend that you contact our Field Offices for assistance in developing those guidelines. 

Including guidelines at this level of NEPA review would set standards to direct the future 

planning and implementation of oil shale projects and ensure that special-status species are 

considered in future site-specific projects within the PEIS study area. 

BLM is proposing to conduct Section 7 consultations when developing supplemental 

Environmental Assessments associated with future lease sales and projects. We have concerns 

that a fragmented consultation process will preclude the ability to conduct a cumulative effects 

analysis, not only for oil shale and tar sands development but also for other land development in 

the action area. Therefore, we recommend that a landscape level evaluation be used once viable 

technologies and program details are identified. Species that should have landscape level plans 

based on land use and future oil shale tar sand development include the four endangered fish of 

the Colorado River and tributaries, black-footed ferret, white-tailed prairie dog, and the greater 

sage-grouse. Early consultation considering a landscape-scale view can identify concerns early 

in the planning process and help identify strategies to assist in recovery of listed species. 

#8])>

Comment# EIS Section Page/Line Comment/Suggested Revision I 

<([#9 [3.7.4.11] 1) Table 2.6.1 2-98: For Alternative 2 the PEIS states “no critical habitat will be 

impacted under this alternative.” We do I 

not agree with this statement because water depletions from the upper Colorado River Basin, as 

well 

as adverse changes to stream water quality, would have an adverse impact to critical habitat for 
Final OSTS PEIS 348 

the 

four endangered Colorado River Basin fish species. We recommend this statement of impacts be 

changed to indicate possible downstream impacts on critical habitat for listed fish. 

#9])> <([#10 [3.7.4.5] 2) Table 2.6.1 2-123: It appears that information in the Table for 

Alternative 2 is incorrect. We recommend the BLM 

delete the reference to 4 71 acres designated as critical to the Mexican spotted owl from 

consideration for commercial tar sands leases under Alternative 2. 

#10])> <([#11 [3.7.3.2] 3) 3.7.3 and elsewhere: We do not believe wild horse and burros should 

be included as “wildlife” in the PEIS. BLM 

manages these animals under separate legislation and programs from their wildlife management 

program. For purposes of the PEIS, feral horse and burro information, discussions, and analyses 

should be separate from that of “wildlife.” This would apply to Chapters 3, 4, 5 and 6. 

#11])> <([#12 [3.7.3.12] 4) Chapter 3, Section 3. 7.3 3-158, 1: It is unclear whether the statement 

here refers to BLM’s wildlife management objectives. If so, 

please qualify the statement by explaining that in general the goals and objectives of wildlife 

management are broader than those stated here. 

#12])> <([#13 [3.7.3.12] 5) Chapter 3, Section 3. 7.3, 3-158, 7-9: If the text is supposed to be a 

statement about the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s (USFWS) roles and responsibilities relative 

to wildlife management then the statement is inaccurate and fails to fully 

describe this for USFWS. However, if the statement is supposed to reflect USFWS’ role in 

wildlife 

management relative to BLM lands then the statement should be revised to properly qualify it. 

#13])> <([#14 [3.7.3.12] 6) Chapter 3, Section 3. 7.3.2, 3-160, 14-15: “The following discussion 

describes important groups of birds ... “ This statement and the 

accompanying text infer an undefined ‘value’ on bird groups. Although some groups of 

migratory 

birds have greater value to humans than others, the BLM has a responsibility to comply with the 

Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) (and BLM’s MOU pursuant to E.O. 13186) to conserve 

migratory birds regardless of whether these species are “valued” by humans. 

#14])> <([#15 [3.7.3.3] 7) Chapter 3, Section 3. 7 3.2, 3-159-3-162: Headers used for Section 

3.7.3.2 Birds: The headers that are used do not address many bird species present in the PEIS 

study area. We suggest an alternate approach--to discuss each bird order that occurs in the PEIS 

area under a separate subheader. 

#15])> <([#16 [3.7.3.3] 8) Chapter 3, Section 3. 7.3.2, 3-161-3-162: The PEIS subsection for 

Neotropical Migrants is inaccurate since all of the birds listed on lines 

41-46 on page 3-161 and lines 1-2 on page 3-162 are passerines, whereas the term ‘neotropical 

migrant’ refers to about 3 86 bird species from 18 bird orders (see 

http://www.fws.gov/birdhabitat/Grants/NMBCA/BirdList.shtm) not just passerine species. 

#16])> <([#17 [3.7.4.5] 9) Table 3.7.3-2, Figure 3.7.3-2, 3-167, 168: The organizational format, 

with a table and figure for wild horses within the “Threatened, 

Endangered, and Sensitive species” subsection, is inappropriate. We recommend that Table and 

Figure be moved. 

#17])> <([#18 [3.7.4.3] 10) Chapter 3, Section 3.7.4.5, 3-201, 19-33: We recommend the 

discussion on the bald eagle also include language describing the prohibition of take under the 

Bald and Golden eagle Protection Act (BGEPA) and USFWS regulations. 

#18])> <([#19 [6.3.2] 11) 4.1.2, 4.5.1.3 Waste Water, 4-9, 4-37: The PEIS states that retorts 
Final OSTS PEIS 349 

produce 2 to 10 gallons of wastewater per ton of processed shale, which contains various organic 

and inorganic components that may need treatment depending on final use. Please quantify how 

much wastewater is likely to be produced overall, and how that water will be stored, treated 

and/or disposed. 

#19])> <([#20 [3.7.1.2] [3.4.6] 12) 4.5.1 Water Resources, 4-31 to 4-37: USFWS shares all the 

concerns of water quality impacts identified on pages 4-31 and 4-32 in Section 4.5. USFWS has 

particular concern for designated critical habitat for the Colorado pikeminnow, razorback sucker, 

bonytail, and humpback chub in the White and Green Rivers, plus their associated tributaries 

(e.g., Piceance and Yellow Creeks). The PEIS should clarify that water depletions would 

decrease the assimilative capacity of the receiving streams for any discharges associated with oil 

shale and tar sands development, and incorporating the following information: 

Many kinds of contaminants enter into the upper basin rivers- e.g., mercury from airborne power 

plant emissions, selenium entering the river via groundwater irrigation return, hydrocarbons 

running off of oil and gas development sites, pesticides from agricultural areas. 

In addition, this section should include more discussion on the possible contaminants that may 

come off of runoff from oil shale and tar sands operations, including selenium, which is of 

particular concern for endangered fishes. Water depletions and replacement with lower quality 

waters are of particular concern in feeder streams and backwater areas with limited flushing 

(Woodward et al. 1985). In sum, water depletions alone can lead to increased concentrations of 

existing contaminants; that is, water quality is tied to water quantity. If there is less water to 

dilute these contaminant loads in western rivers, the effect on all aquatic organisms, endangered 

fish included, is magnified. 

#20])> <([#21 [3.4.1] [3.7.1.2] [3.7.2] [3.7.3.4] [3.7.3.6] [3.7.3.11] 13) 4.5.1.3 Contaminants, 4-

37 to 4-39: Oil shale and tar sands development may cause significant effects to threatened and 

endangered species, migratory birds and other wildlife species, as well as, ground and surface 

waters (Bartis et al. 2005). 

Uncontrolled development associated with the oil shale industry in northeastern Estonia has 

resulted in significant ecological damage (Tuvikene et al. 1999). Runoff from oil shale mines, oil 

shale ash piles, and associated power plants have resulted in oil shale leachate polluting rivers 

and lakes (Truu 2004, Tuvikene et al. 1999). Pollution resulting from the leaching of oil shale 

deposits has also been documented in the United States (Amy et al. 1980, Strollenwerk and 

Runnells 1981 ). 

There are interrelated and interdependent effects from infrastructure associated with oil shale and 

tar sands development including new roads, new reservoirs, new powerplants, pipelines, and 

powerlines. In future correspondence and ESA interagency consultation, the USFWS will 

request a more detailed analysis of all effects of the proposed action on federally-listed 

threatened and endangered species, migratory birds, and wetlands. 

We recommend the BLM require ground and surface water quality data for each future project 

be measured and made available online. Waste water and leachate concentrations should be 

compared to established NPDES standards. 

For contaminants where no NPDES levels have yet been set, we recommend that a Biological 

Technical Advisory Group (BTAG) be organized with EPA, BLM, and the USFWS to identify 

which contaminants should be monitored and what concentration levels would trigger enhanced 

mitigation to protect fish, wildlife, and plants. 

#21])> <([#22 [3.7.1.2] [3.7.4.6] 14) 4.5.2 Water Budget, 4-41: All of the alternatives would 

require extensive water resources. The upper Colorado River basin is a 
Final OSTS PEIS 350 

heavily-developed, desert river system. If any future project (or series of projects) that requires 

large quantities of water from the upper basin rivers is authorized, meeting stream flow needs of 

endangered fishes will be difficult. 

Critical habitat has been designated for endangered fish species along segments of various large 

rivers in the upper Colorado River Basin, including the Green and White Rivers. Most of these 

rivers have established flow recommendations for endangered fish. (Flow recommendations for 

the 

White River are currently under development.) However, even when flow recommendations 

exist, 

this does not guarantee the flow recommendation will be met. As an example, in the San Juan 

River 

there is only one major dam being regulated by one agency and base flows are supposedly being 

protected by an established set of flow recommendations. Despite this, there have been years 

when 

the prescribed base flows were not met. This was the case in 2002, when the recommended 

minimum base flows of 500 CFS were not being met in the river channel downstream of 

Farmington, NM. In fact, flows were less than 250 CFS for long periods of time in almost 150 

miles 

of river. This had highly detrimental effects on the native fish community, concentrating both 

contaminants and nonnative fish into the same small pool habitats with the native fish. While 

most 

larger sub-adult and adult native fish were able to weather that low-flow summer, almost an 

entire 

year-class of newly-spawned native fishes (e.g., razorback sucker, Colorado pikeminnow, 

flannelmouth sucker, and bluehead sucker) were lost to predation by birds and nonnative fishes, 

high 

water temperatures (leading to temperature-related stress and “ich” { Ichthyophthirius multitiliis}

infections), and other associated stressors. The cumulative effect of large water depletion 

projects 

on flows for endangere9. fish and critical habitat should be thoroughly considered and disclosed 

to 

the public and other agencies in your analysis. 

#22])> <([#23 [3.7.1.2] 15) Secs 4.5.2.1 and 4.5.2.2, 4-46-48: Upwards of 8,000 acre-feet of 

water could be required per project (less for underground projects). 

Therefore, each project could be approaching 4.5 percent of the “available” water by 2050. We 

recommend that an analysis of how this might affect endangered fishes be included in the PEIS, 

and 

we provide the following information for your consideration: 

The White River, in particular, is at risk from oil shale related water depletions and potential . 

contamination. Flow recommendations are currently being developed by the Upper Colorado 

River 

Endangered Fishes Recovery Program (Schmidt and Orchard 2002, Irving et al. 2002). Once the 

flow recommendations are finalized, a Programmatic Biological Opinion will be developed for 

the 

White River. We recommend that BLM review the draft flow recommendations and determine 

the 
Final OSTS PEIS 351 

effects of oil shale development on flows in the White River. 

The White River has a relatively intact and healthy native fish community. Both the Utah 

Division 

Water Budget for of Wildlife Resources (UDWR) and the USFWS have documented that both 

endangered Colorado 

Colorado and Utah pikeminnow and the native three species (flannelmouth sucker, bluehead 

sucker, and roundtail chub) 

of fishes are present in promising numbers in the White River. During the recent period, the 

number 

of the endangered razorback sucker in the White River has increased, almost certainly due to 

augmentation of hatchery-raised fish. In 2011, razorback sucker larvae were collected in the 

White 

River for the first time, indicating that natural spawning likely occurred. 

The White River has relatively low numbers of nonnative fish species, which compete with 

native 

endangered fish. Low, steady river flows that occur year-round and which lack high spring flow 

runoff tend to favor survival and proliferation of introduced, nonnative fishes over native fish 

species. Thus, any water development individually or cumulatively in the White River basin (or 

any 

upper basin river), has the potential to modify the flow regime to favor introduced, nonnative 

fishes. 

The PEIS provides no real cumulative quantification or rigorous landscape level analyses of 

change 

given the overall developable acreage. 

#23])> <([#24 [3.7.3.12] 16) 4.8 Impacts to Ecological Resources, Tables 4.8.1: Terms for 

impacts that are used in the PEIS such as “Large”/”Small” give no indication of how the impact 

was analyzed or the scale or scope of those impacts. It appears throughout the document that this 

was a judgment call. We recommend the PEIS provide more detail regarding the science, 

qualification, and scale of these impacts. #24])>

<([#25 [3.7.3.4] 17) 4.8.1.3 Wildlife and Migratory Birds 4-85: Please modify the wording 

because migratory birds do not always “fly over” mine sites. Whereas, water in contaminated 

leachate pools often attract them to mine sites, especially during migration. 

The PEIS does not adequately address the potential use of wastewater impoundments or 

evaporation 

ponds for wastewater disposal or identify measures to prevent migratory bird mortality in these 

facilities. Large tailings ponds are used in the tar sands development sites of Alberta. Those 

extensive impoundments have resulted in the loss of large numbers of birds. 

#25])> <([#26 [3.7.3.12] 18) Chapter 4, Section 4.8.13.4 4-91,30-33: The PEIS states no raptors 

would be electrocuted because the spacing of the infrastructure would exceed that of the largest 

raptors in the study area. Without further definition of what the spacing would be this statement 

may be inaccurate. If the standard BLM intends to apply to any electric power lines constructed 

in conjunction with oil shale/tar sands development are those of the APLIC 2006 Suggested 

Practices manual then please be aware these standards will not eliminate raptor 

electrocutions. The current APLIC standards are based on “dry feather” conditions. That is the 

spacing recommendations from APLIC would prevent electrocutions only if the bird feathers are 

dry. If they are wet then the spacing requirements to fully prevent bird electrocutions would be 
Final OSTS PEIS 352 

greater. The APLIC 2006 Suggested Practices manual discusses this point directly. 

#26])> <([#27 [3.7.5.1] 19) 4.8.2 (and 1.4.6) Greater sage-grouse Mitigation Measures, 4-124 to 

4-126: We recommend that that the PEIS incorporate information related to the new effort by 

BLM to protect 

the greater sage-grouse through range-wide resource management plan amendments, including 

the 

relatively new delineation of priority and general habitat for sage-grouse (at least in Colorado). 

We also 

recommend incorporating the noise restrictions as set forth in the relatively new Disturbance 

Density 

Calculation Tool that is used for projects located in core or priority habitat areas. 

#27])> <([#28 [3.7.3.4] [5] 20) 4.8.2.3 Migratory Birds 4-129: We recommend a more detailed 

discussion be provided outlining the potential for migratory birds to 

be attracted to watery, yet contaminated, pits created for a project. Fencing and netting to prevent 

Wildlife and bird use may reduce potential impacts. Radar, noise makers, and regular 

effectiveness monitoring is also encouraged. 

#28])> <([#29 [3.7.3.5] 21) Chapter 5, Section 5.8.1.3.9, 5-84,45-46: We disagree with the 

statement in this section regarding raptor response to fire (burned habitat). Rangeland systems 

with repeated fire (i.e. cheat grass fire cycles) are over time converted to annual grasslands with 

negative consequences for raptor populations. Ongoing work in Utah (with involvement from 

UDWR and the USFWS) is demonstrating this quantitatively for golden eagle populations. This 

is likely true for many other raptors that inhabit rangeland systems but corresponding 

investigations to demonstrate this have not yet been undertaken. 

#29])> <([#30 [3.7.4.3] 22) Table 6.1.1-8, 6-38, Table 6.1.2-2, 6-97: Correction needed: The 

western yellow-billed cuckoo could be found in appropriate habitats in Colorado in Rio Blanco 

and Garfield Counties. 

#30])> <([#31 [3.7.4.3] 23) Table 6.1.1-8, 6-47: Correction needed: The Mexican spotted owl 

could be found in appropriate habitats in Colorado in Rio Blanco and Garfield Counties. 

#31])> <([#32 [3.7.5.1] 24) 6.1.2.7.4, Fig. 6.1.2-5 Greater sage-grouse Habitat, 6-80, 6-108: 

“Under this alternative [2], oil shale development would be excluded from core or priority 

habitats for the greater sage-grouse ... “ This statement and section, and associated maps, should 

be updated 

with the new Colorado Parks and Wildlife greater sage-grouse priority habitat map that was 

issued 

March 13, 2012 (http://www.blm.gov/co/st/en!BLM_Programs/wildlife/sage-grouse.html). This 

may result in some areas being removed from the preferred alternative that occur within priority 

habitat (e.g., scattered parcels in the southern portion of the potential lease area in Colorado). 

#32])> <([#33 [3.7.3.2] 25) Figure 6.1.2-3 6-81: It seems inappropriate to have the figure for 

wild herd management included here. 

#33])> <([#34 [3.7.4.5] 26) Table 6.1.2-3 Figure 6.1.2-4 Figure 6.1.2-5, 6-104 to 108: The 

location of this table and figure seems misplaced; they should be relocated to the section that 

refers to them. (This table and figure should be located where Figure 6.1.2.3 is.) 

#34])> <([#35 [4.3] 27) Sec. 6.2.6.1.1 Assumptions, 6-481: The assumptions presented here are 

based on data that are fairly old. We recommend that the 

information be updated. Most companies in the region are developing surface locations with 

multi- well pads (UDOGM, 20 12). Many existing 40-acre surface locations in Utah have 
Final OSTS PEIS 353 

multiple wells; in Colorado, most well pads have multiple wells. This is good since it restricts the 

amount of 20-acre surface developments; however, pad sizes have increased. Reclamation has 

not occurred at the levels anticipated with the continued expansion to add more wells to existing 

facilities. 

#35])> <([#36 [4.2] 29) 6.2.6.2.4 Major Activities in Tar Sands Areas Table 6.2.6-4: Please 

clarify that phosphate and other mineral mining have the potential to become cumulative 

contaminant point sources for leachate contaminants (i.e., selenium and arsenic) along with Tar 

Sands development. In a large landscape such as the Colorado River basin, or the Diamond Mine 

area, each of these cumulative contaminant inputs have the potential to become highly significant 

over time and space with impacts to aquatic resources, Colorado River Basin fishes, and 

migratory birds. 

#36])> <([#37 [3.7.4.4] [9.2] 30) F.1: The PEIS states that all post-lease activities will be 

required to comply with ESA, BGEPA, and MBTA. However, compliance with the MBTA is 

challenging. Oil shale and tar sands resources development is likely to result in the take of MBT 

A species and there is currently no mechanism for USFWS to permit the unintentional 

(incidental) take of migratory birds associated with these actions. The PDEIS should encourage 

the applicants to communicate with the USFWS to address and minimize the potential for 

unintentional take of migratory birds. 

#37])> <([#38 [3.7.4.4] 31) F.1: Text of the opening paragraph on page F-3 refers only to listed 

species. The text should be corrected 

to indicate that the appendix addresses conservation measures for eagles covered under the 

BGEP A, 

and birds covered under the MBTA, in addition to threatened and endangered species. 

We suggest that the intent of the introductory paragraph of Appendix F is to provide measures to 

address each statute. If so, we suggest the use of separate headers for ESA, BGEP A, and MBT 

A 

species and discuss conservation measures for each group of species covered under each of these 

Federal wildlife statutes. #38])>

<([#39 [3.7.4.5] [5] 32) page F-8: For item 6 on page F-8, the APLIC manual for avoiding bird 

collisions with power lines should also be cited-- Avian Power Line Interaction Committee 

(APLIC). 1994. Mitigating bird collisions with power lines: the state of the art in 1994. 

Washington, DC: Edison Electric Institute; 78 p --along with a recommendation to follow all 

measures in the manual that apply. (A revised version ofthe APLIC manual is due to be issued in 

2012.) #39])>

<([#40 [3.7.4.4] 33) F.2.8 F-17: We recommend surveys for the Dudley Bluffs bladderpod and 

twinpod extend up to 600 meters (roughly 2,000 feet) from project activities within suitable 

habitat. 

#40])>

<([#41 [3.7.5.1] [3.7.5.3] 34) F.3.1 F-19: Please incorporate greater sage-grouse as a priority and 

include general habitat maps for sage-grouse. We also suggest changing the wording of#3 to 

state “When possible, avoid siting energy developments in priority habitats,” rather than simply 

breeding habitats. #41])>

<([#42 [3.7.4.3] [3.7.4.4] 35) F.3.2 F-20: To our knowledge, the yellow-billed cuckoo has not 

been documented within the oil shale lease area in Colorado. However, this could be due to lack 

of survey effort as cuckoos may occur in this area. The cuckoo conservation measures should be 

applied to suitable habitat in Colorado as well as in Utah. 
Final OSTS PEIS 354 

#42])>

<([#43 [3.7.4.4] 36) F.4 F-21: The text provides three items that BLM recommends for 

migratory bird conservation. In addition to these three items, the USFWS recommends that 

project planning include surveys for migratory birds and nests that would be undertaken prior to 

construction activities, as well as the identification of measures that will be taken to conserve 

active nests when located. 

#43])>

OSTS_072 

Organization: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 8, Suzanne Bohan 

Received: 5/3/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Commenter1: Suzanne Bohan - Denver, Colorado 80202 (United States) 

Organization1:U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 8 

Commenter Type: Federal Government 

Classification: none 

Submission Category: Letter 

Submitted As: Email & Postal Mail 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: aziech 5/18/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D00073.htm (OSTS_072-59123.htm Size = 1 KB) 

OSTS_072_EPA_Email_OSTS2012D00073.pdf (OSTS_072-59122.pdf Size = 2679 KB) 

Submission Text

In accordance with our responsibilities under Section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental 

Policy Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. Section 4332(2)(C), and Section 309 ofthe Clean Air Act (CAA), 

42 U.S.C. Section 7609, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 8 (EPA) has 

reviewed the Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM) Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact 

Statement and Possible Land Use Plan Amendments for Allocation of Oil Shale and Tar Sands 

Resources on Lands Administered by the BLM in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming (Draft PEIS). 

Background and Project Description

In 2008, the BLM amended twelve land use plans in Colorado, Utah and Wyoming to designate 

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

sands 

development through the preparation of a PEIS (2008 OSTS PEIS). These 2008 amendments 

made 

approximately 2 million acres of public land available for application for leasing and 

development of oil shale, and approximately 431 ,000 acres of public land available for 

application for leasing and 

development of tar sands. In 2009 the 2008 OSTS PEIS was challenged in a lawsuit brought by a 

coalition of environmental organizations. As part of the resulting settlement agreement filed with 

the 

U.S. District Court in Colorado in February of2011, BLM decided to take a fresh look at the land 

allocations analyzed in the 2008 OSTS PEIS and consider excluding certain lands from future 

leasing of oil shale and tar sands resources. 

It is important to note that the Preferred Alternative represents an approximate 77% reduction in 

land 
Final OSTS PEIS 355 

proposed as available for application for oil shale leasing as compared to the 2008 OSTS PEIS 

decision. Similarly for tar sands leasing, the Preferred Alternative represents an approximate 

79% reduction in land proposed as available compared to the 2008 decision. These changes 

represent significant steps toward protecting environmental resources. The Draft PEIS analyses 

four alternatives: Alternative 1 (no action), Alternative 2 (conservation focus), Alternative 3 

(research lands focus) and Alternative 4 (moderate development). Alternative 2 consists of two 

options for oil shale. Alternative 2(a) excludes all lands having wilderness characteristics 

(LWC), the whole of the Adobe Town “Very Rare or Uncommon Area,” core or priority sagegrouse habitat and all areas of critical environmental concern (ACEC). Alternative 2(b) lands 

available for application for leasing and development of oil shale would be the same as 

Alternative 2(a); however, only for research, development and demonstration (RD&D) leases. A 

key benefit of Alternative 2(b) would be facilitation of a robust RD&D program for oil shale 

development. The BLM has identified Alternative 2(b) as the Agency’s Preferred Alternative. 

The EPA’s Comments and Recommendations

The EPA appreciates having had the opportunity to consult with the BLM on the Draft PEIS and 

to see that many of our specific comments have been addressed. We remain committed to 

working with BLM to seek ways to address a few additional comments. The EPA focuses these 

comments on the need for rigorous NEPA analysis at future leasing and project decisions, 

particularly analysis regarding water resources and air quality. Along with an explanation of 

these comments, we offer recommendations on how the BLM might address them. 

<([#1 [9.3] A. NEPA at Future Leasing and Project Decisions 

The EPA’s most essential remaining recommendation is that BLM make a strong and clear 

commitment in the Final PEIS that the agency will conduct additional NEP A analysis and 

disclosure prior to leasing any land for oil shale/tar sands development and also after 

development technologies and their potential impacts are better defined and understood. As the 

Draft PEIS explains, oil shale development will involve untested technologies where the 

magnitude and nature of impacts is currently undetermined, but may be significant. Furthermore, 

key information needed to evaluate and mitigate potential impacts is not yet available, including 

future project locations, operating characteristics, size and scope of the projects, and likely 

impacts and mitigation measures. 

Given this situation, the EPA is reviewing this document with the assumption that the level 

ofNEPA at future leasing and project decisions will be an EIS, and that BLM will perform 

rigorous NEPA analyses when technologies are better understood. We believe it is important for 

the Final PEIS to include a commitment to preparing EISs for future leasing and project 

decisions, and to confirm that BLM will fully disclose direct, indirect and cumulative impacts of 

future leasing and development decisions and apply mitigation necessary to reduce those 

impacts. 

The Draft PEIS notes that the concept for the Preferred Alternative emerged during development 

of this document, is presented only in brief, and will be developed further in preparation of the 

Final PEIS (page 2-35). The EPA believes the Preferred Alternative gives BLM an opportunity 

to acquire important data during RD&D leasing and prior to commercial leasing that will be 

useful to inform future NEP A analyses. The EPA recommends the Final PEIS discuss how the 

BLM intends to use the RD&D leasing process to assess potential impacts on water resources 

and air quality, thereby positioning BLM to mitigate these potential impacts in the event 

commercial leasing becomes viable. In addition, we recommend the Final PEIS identify the 
Final OSTS PEIS 356 

types of data sets that BLM may require be provided by RD&D lessees. #1])>

<([#2 [9.6] With respect to future leasing decisions, it would be useful to include information in 

the Final PEIS regarding criteria the BLM may be considering for converting research leases to 

commercial scale leases. This disclosure would be putting both industry and the public on notice 

regarding the decisionmaking process that BLM intends to undertake upon receipt of commercial 

lease applications. 

#2])> B. Water Resources 

<([#3 [3.4.5] I. Surface Water

The EPA recommends that the Final PEIS include the most up-to-date information on the 

existing 

quality of surface waters in these areas is included in the document, which can be obtained from 

each State (see below). This is particularly important since water bodies in portions of the study 

area 

are already impacted where significant oil and gas development is occurring. The number of 

impaired streams listed on the current 303(d) lists of impaired waters within both the Piceance 

Basin 

in Colorado and the Uinta Basin in Utah have increased since the previous listings, as outlined 

below. 

Under the Clean Water Act (CWA), states are required to establish and maintain water quality 

standards to protect water bodies such as rivers, lakes and streams. Water bodies that do not meet 

these standards are placed on the State’s Section 303( d) List of impaired waters. The Draft PEIS 

provides 2006 data for the 303(d) Lists from Colorado, Utah and Wyoming. Updated 

information is 

now available to replace 2006 impaired water body data in Table 3.4.1-1 (pages 3-64 and 3-65) 

within the study areas of Colorado, Utah and Wyoming. 2010 data is available for Utah, while 

2012 

data is in the process of being finalized for Colorado and Wyoming. The EPA recommends that 

the 

Final PEIS reflect these updates, as discussed in the following paragraphs. 

In Colorado, the draft 2012 303(d) List indicates that water quality has become further impaired 

in 

the Piceance Basin since 2006. This draft 2012 303(d) List identifies five additional river 

segments 

in the basin. Colorado’s Monitoring and Evaluation List (M&E List) identifies water bodies 

exhibiting some stress in the aquatic ecosystem, but where more data is needed to make an 

appropriate determination. The M&E List identifies one additional river segment within the 

Piceance-Yellow Creek watershed between the 2010 and 2012 lists. Based on the potential oil 

shale 

development in this area in addition to ongoing and planned oil and gas development, there is a 

trend 

toward further impairment and the potential for additional violations of surface water quality 

standards and the CW A if additional pollutant loads reach these impacted river segments. 

Colorado 

finalized their 2012 303(d) and M&E lists and submitted the 303(d) list to EPA on March 23, 

2012 
Final OSTS PEIS 357 

for approval. These lists can be found online at 

http://www.cdphe.state.co.us/op/wqcc/Reports/303( d)/93 20 12(03).pdf. The following table 

identifies 5 additional water segment impairments in the Piceance Basin. 

Colorado ID/Water/Segment Impairment

COLCWH13c /Yell ow Creek Fe/ (Tree) and Aquatic Life 

COLCWH14a/ Piceance Creek Fe/ (Tree) 

COLCWH15/ Piceance Creek/ Aquatic Life (provisional) 

COLCWH20/ Black Sulfur Creek/ Aquatic Life (provisional) 

COLCWH23/ W. Douglas Creek/ Aquatic Life 

Source: CDPHE, 2012 

In Utah, the 2010 303(d) List indicates that water quality has also become further impaired in the 

Uinta Basin since 2006. Based on the ongoing and planned oil and gas development in this area 

in 

addition to potential oil shale and tar sands development, there appears to be a high likelihood of 

further impairment and the potential for additional violations of surface water quality standards 

and 

the Clean Water Act if additional pollutant loads reach these impacted river segments. The 2010 

303(d) list can be found at http://www.epa.gov/waters/ir/index.html. 

Utah ID/Water/ Segment Impairment

UT14050007-003/ Evacuation Creek/ TDS 

UT14030001-001/ Cottonwood Wash/ Benthic Macro-invertebrate Assessment (BMAI) 

UT14060006-00 1/ Willow Creek/ BMAI 

UT14060004-002/ Indian Canyon Creek/ Arsenic and boron (in addition to TDS) 

UT 14060005-003/ Ninemile Creek/ Temperature 

Source: UDEQ, 2010 

In Wyoming, the draft 2012 303(d) List indicates that water quality impairments have not 

changed 

within the project’s study area portion of the Green River Basin since 2006. Wyoming finalized 

their 

draft 2012 303(d) list on March 27, 2012. This list can be found at 

http://deq.state.wy.us/wqd/watershed/Downloads/305b/2012/WY2012IR_Draft_Doc11-

1058.pdf. 

The EPA recommends that BLM include all updated 303(d) list information for each state in the 

Final PEIS. EPA also recommends that the Final PEIS provide a discussion of the changes 

between 

2006 and 2012 to clearly disclose any increases in impaired water bodies for each state’s study 

area. 

Inclusion of this data represents a key piece of information needed to fully disclose current water 

quality conditions and to evaluate, and if necessary mitigate, impacts of any future oil shale and 

tar 

sands development. #3])>

<([#4 [3.4.4] 2. Groundwater

In order to provide a baseline to accurately assess the potential impacts of the alternatives, we 

recommend that the Final PEIS add additional information to more thoroughly characterize 
Final OSTS PEIS 358 

groundwater resources in Utah and Wyoming. Specifically, we recommend the Final PEIS 

include 

the delineated depth of underground source of drinking water (USDWs) in the study areas as 

well as 

the quality of each zone within these aquifers, to the extent there is existing information to do so. 

Without this information, the Draft PEIS provides little information regarding the location or 

depth 

of USDWs. All groundwater that has not been exempted through the aquifer exemption process 

and 

meets the definition of USDW at 40 C.F.R. § 144.3 is protected under the Safe Drinking Water 

Act. 

A USDW is defined as an aquifer or portion of an aquifer that supplies any public water system 

or 

that contains a sufficient quantity of ground water to supply a public water system, and currently 

supplies drinking water for human consumption, or that contains fewer than 10,000 mg/1 total 

dissolved solids (IDS) and is not an exempted aquifer. Aquifers are presumed to be USDWs 

unless 

they have been specifically exempted or ifthey have been shown to fall outside the definition of a 

USDW (e.g., over 10,000 mg/L IDS). We provide the following sources for assistance to better 

characterize groundwater resources in the Final PEIS within Utah and Wyoming: 

• In Utah, the Utah Geologic Survey has collected detailed groundwater information for its 

Uinta Basin Water Study. The purpose of this study is to better understand and characterize 

groundwater resources in the Uinta Basin in recognition of the fact that areas of potential oil 

shale development overlap with natural gas fields in the basin. The study can be found at 

http://geology.utah.gov/emp/UBwater_study/. 

In addition, the Greater Natural Buttes Draft Resource Management Plan (RMP) provides 

extensive characterization of the three major aquifer systems in the Uinta Basin. This 

information is provided in Section 3.13.3 of the Draft RMP, and can be found at 

http://www. blm.gov /ut/st/enlfo/vemal/planning/nepa _I greater_ natural_ buttes.html. 

• In Wyoming, the Water Development Office recently completed the 2010 Green River Basin 

Plan Update, which presents a basinwide perspective on water resources and includes 

identification of the major aquifers in the basin and the physical and chemical characteristics 

of their groundwater. The plan can be found at http://waterplan.state.wy.us/planlgreenlgreenplan. 

html. 

#4])>

<([#5 [3.4.4] 3. Issues Pertaining to Both Groundwater and Surface Water

Baseline Characterization of Drinking Water Sources: 

In order to accurately assess the potential impacts of the alternatives on drinking water sources, 

we 

recommend that all sources of drinking water in the study area be characterized in the Final 

PEIS. 

These sources include water in streams, rivers, lakes, springs and aquifers that is used as a supply 

of 

drinking water. This can be accomplished by including a discussion in the Final PEIS of each 

State’s 

source water protection program, and including state-designated surface and groundwater 
Final OSTS PEIS 359 

protection 

zones. The EPA recommends this step so that the reader can fully understand the extent and 

location 

of these important resources. We recommend including a map illustrating locations of source 

water 

protection zones (both groundwater and surface water) for municipal supply. In addition, we 

provide 

the following contacts for assistance obtaining this information for each state: 

• John Duggan at the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, Water Quality 

Control Division at (303) 692-3534 

• Kate Johnson at the Utah Division of Environmental Quality, Division of Drinking Water at 

(801) 536-4206 

• Kim Medina at the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality, Water Quality Division 

at (307) 473-3476, and Mark Pepper at the Wyoming Association of Rural Water Systems at 

(307) 436-8636 #5])>

<([#6 [3.7.2] 4. Wetlands

The Draft PEIS indicates that BLM will ensure that impacts to jurisdictional wetlands (those 

under 

the regulatory jurisdiction of the Clean Water Act (CWA), Section 404, and the USACE) would 

be 

avoided or mitigated. The EPA would like to clarify that the CW A §404(b )( 1) guidelines 

require 

applicants to avoid, minimize and mitigate for impacts to all waters of the United States. We also 

note that according to Executive Order (EO) 11990, federal agencies are required to minimize 

the 

destruction, loss or degradation of wetlands, and to preserve and enhance the natural and 

beneficial 

values of wetlands in carrying out the agency’s responsibilities, regardless of the jurisdictional 

status 

of the wetlands. To this end, we recommend that the Final PEIS include a commitment from 

BLM to 

comply with these requirements for all wetlands, not solely jurisdictional wetlands. 

Throughout the Draft PEIS the BLM requires future projects to mitigate for impacts to wetlands 

and 

riparian areas. CW A §404(b )( 1) requires permit applicants to first avoid impacts to waters of 

the 

U.S., then minimize the unavoidable impacts, prior to mitigating the remaining unavoidable 

impacts. 

We recommend that the Final PEIS reflect these CWA 404(b)(l) requirements wherever there are 

anticipated impacts to waters of the U.S. This will ensure that potential applicants are on notice 

of 

the full extent of requirements for the protection of waters of the U.S. 

C. Air Quality #6])>

<([#7 [3.5.8] [3.5.5] 1. Need for Additional Disclosure of New Clean Air Act Designations

The Draft PEIS is lacking recently published important information regarding two CAA 
Final OSTS PEIS 360 

designations 

that will affect future development in the study area. While not a part of the NEPA requirements 

that 

must be included in the PEIS, before finalizing an approval of any project, the CAA requires that 

the 

BLM conduct a general conformity analysis for any project emissions occurring in such areas 

designated as nonattainment or maintenance for the National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS). The CAA states that in such areas, a determination must be made that the emissions 

(either direct or indirect) from a federal action will not exceed a de minimis threshold level 

measured 

in tons per year for the criteria pollutant of concern. If the Action exceeds the de minimis level, 

then 

a conformity determination is required to document how the federal action will affect 

implementation of the applicable implement plan to reach attainment. 

The EPA issued a final rule on April30, 2012, designating Sublette County and portions of 

Lincoln 

and Sweetwater counties in Wyoming as a marginal nonattainment area for ozone. Some of the 

proposed area available for oil shale leasing under the Preferred Alternative in Wyoming 

overlaps 

with this designated ozone nonattainment area in Sublette County and Sweetwater County. The 

final 

rule also designated Duchesne and Uintah counties in Utah as an ozone unclassifiable area. Some 

proposed areas for oil shale and tar sands leasing under the Preferred Alternative in Utah overlap 

with this designated ozone unclassifiable area in both Duchesne and Uintah counties. Given this 

situation, during the NEP A process for future leasing and project decisions in these areas, it will 

be 

important for BLM to fully analyze and disclose impacts and necessary mitigation, including the 

possibility of no net increase in emissions depending on the extent of the nonattainment problem. 

Therefore, the EPA recommends that future oil shale leasing and plan development in the 

designated 

ozone nonattainment area in Wyoming describe whether general conformity analysis is required 

(i.e., whether the relevant emissions exceed de minimis thresholds) and how the future proposed 

actions would comply with the applicable implementation plan. If a general conformity analysis 

is 

necessary, the EPA recommends that it be included in the BLM’s NEPA analysis. #7])>

<([#8 [6.2.1] 2. Power implications of in situ technologies for oil shale development

The Draft PEIS assumes future in situ projects would require 600 MW of additional electrical 

generation capacity when commercial production levels are reached, and that this new electricity 

capacity would be provided by conventional coal-fired plants. In view of the potential magnitude 

of 

this additional energy need and the air quality in the region, it will be essential to fully analyze 

and 

be prepared to discuss in future NEP A documents the potential environmental impacts and 

mitigation measures associated with additional energy sources. We also strongly recommend that 

BLM commit to analyze a range of power generation options, including natural gas and 

renewable 
Final OSTS PEIS 361 

sources in view of currently development activity and air quality. #8])>

The EPA’s Rating

<([#9 [1.4] Consistent with Section 309 of the CAA, it is the EPA’s responsibility to provide an 

independent review and evaluation of the potential environmental impacts of this project. In 

accordance with our policies and procedures for reviews under NEP A and Section 309 of the 

CAA, the EPA is rating this Draft EIS as “Environment Concerns - Insufficient Information” 

(EC-2). The “EC” rating indicates that our review has identified environmental impacts that 

should be avoided in order to fully protect the environment. Corrective measures may require 

changes to the preferred alternative or application of mitigation measures that can reduce these 

impacts. The “2” rating indicates that the Draft EIS does not contain sufficient information for 

the EPA to fully assess environmental impacts that should be avoided in order to fully protect the 

environment. We have enclosed a description of the EPA’s rating system for your convenience 

(Attachment 1 ). #9])>

We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this document, and hope our suggestions for 

improving it assist you with preparation of the Final PEIS. We would be happy to meet to 

discuss these comments and our suggested solutions. If you have any questions or requests, 

please feel free to contact either me at 303-312-6925 or David Fronczak of my staff at 303-312-

6096. 

OSTS_073 

Organization: U.S. DOI, National Park Service, Intermountain Reg, John Wessels 

Received: 5/3/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Commenter1: John Wessels - Lakewood, Colorado 80228 (United States) 

Organization1:U.S. DOI, National Park Service, Intermountain Reg 

Commenter Type: Federal Government 

Classification: none 

Submission Category: Letter 

Submitted As: E-Mail 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/17/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D00074.htm (OSTS_073-59125.htm Size = 1 KB) 

OSTS_073_NPS__Email_OSTS2012D00074.pdf (OSTS_073-59124.pdf Size = 3145 KB) 

Submission Text

See Attachment. 

United States Department of the Interior 

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE 

Intermountain Region 

12795 West Alameda Parkway 

Lakewood, CO 80228 

In Reply Refer to: N16 (IMDE-NR) MAY 0 3 2012 

Memorandum 

To: 

From: 

Subject: 
Final OSTS PEIS 362 

VIA ELECTRONIC COPY ONLY-NO HARD COPY TO FOLLOW 

Colorado State Director, Bureau of Land Management 

Attn: Sherri Thompson, Programmatic EIS Manager 

Regional Director, Intermountain Region 

National Park Service comments on Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact 

Statement and Possible Land Use Plan Amendments for Allocation of Oil Shale and Tar 

Sands Resources m1 Lands Administered by the Bureau of Land Management in 

Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming. 

The National Park Service (NPS) thanks you for the opportunity to comment on the Bureau of 

Land 

Management’s (BLM) subject Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS). 

These 

comments were developed jointly by the NPS’s Natural Resource Stewardship and Science 

Directorate 

and h1termountain Region staff reviewers. 

NPS Selection of Preferred Alternative 

We understand the scope of decision making under the PEIS is essentially an administrative 

action 

designating public lands administered by the BLM as either available or unavailable (allocation) 

for 

applications for commercial leasing, exploration, and development for oil shale and tar sands 

resources. 

NPS also recognizes that the allocation is programmatic in nature and based only upon available 

and 

known potential impacts on resources from BLM’s oil shale and tar· sands decision making. 

Numerous NPS units, including: Arches, Black Canyon of the Gunnison, Canyonlands, Capitol 

Reef, and 

Rocky Mountain National Parks; Colorado and Dinosaur National Monuments; Glen Canyon 

National 

Recreation Area; National Historic Trails; and National Natural Landmarks could be potentially 

impacted 

by the decision making on this PEIS. Resources potentially affected are: air quality and climate, 

natural 

sound, ecological resources (aquatic, wildlife, plants, threatened and endangered species), visual, 

cultural 

(cultural landscapes, historic structures and setting, archaeological sites), and night sky. 

<([#1 [2.3.1] Lacking successful demonstration of technologies necessary for commercial 

development of oil shale and 

tar sands, we believe it would be impractical to conduct site-specific National Environmental 

Policy Act 

(NEPA) or Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) analyses on any 

application for 

leasing oil shale or tar sand acreage at this time. We understand that BLM considers the most 

appropriate 

time to raise and consider leasing issues to be “if and when” commercial viability for oil shale 

and tar 
Final OSTS PEIS 363 

sands is demonstrated and leasing applications occur. Information gained from the BLM’s oil 

shale and 

tar sands research, development, and demonstration program is critical and necessary to leasing 

considerations. Therefore, the NPS supports Alternative 3- The Research Focus Alternative as 

the 

PEIS’s Preferred Alternative by chronological necessity. 

#1])> In addition to our comments herein, we incorporate by reference our previous subject 

correspondence: 1) 

April 18, 2008 comment memo on the 2008 PEIS, 2) May 16, 2011 seeping comment memo for 

the 

current PEIS in support of our selection of Alternative 3 as the preferred alternative and for 

future use, 

and 3) November 11, 2011 comment memo on the Administrative Draft PEIS. 

<([#2 [3.1.1] [3.9.1] National Historic Trails 

The NPS conveyed preliminary comments from the National Trails Intermountain Region 

(NTIR) office 

via a November 7, 2011 email to meet a comment deadline for Chapters 1 and 2. 

The NPS supports the PEIS having a justified and current approach to management of National 

Historic 

Trails. The NPS administers the California, Oregon, Mormon Pioneer, and Pony Express 

National 

Historic Trails, which all cross the Green River Basin of Wyoming. The PEIS states that the 

national 

historic trail corridor will consist of the trail and a corridor of “at least 0.25 mile” on either side 

of the 

trail. However, recent revisions to BLM Resource Management Plans across the western states 

are 

revising the past definition of a quarter-mile “trail corridor” and defining much broader corridors 

(up to 

five miles or more on either side of the trail tread, depending on the nature of terrain that is 

visible from 

contributing segments of the trail). In addition, new BLM guidance for the management of 

national 

historic trails corridors, currently in national-level internal review, may adopt a similarly 

generous 

definition of “trail corridor.” 

The NPS reiterates its belief that enough information exists at this time to devise a process for 

defining 

appropriate adequate protective corridors for the National Trails. Without conducting sitespecific 

analysis, the PEIS could recommend a sufficient average protective corridor when calculating 

acreage 

available or not available for application for commercial leasing. Instead of the specific acreage 

offered 

in PEIS alternatives, the PEIS could use a range based on a defined process for corridor 

determination. 
Final OSTS PEIS 364 

The NPS recommends this broader consideration of resource protection to National Historic 

Trails within 

this PEIS. 

#2])> <([#3 [2.3.1] Recommendation 

While the NPS understands that additional analyses of specific proposals and technologies for 

the 

development and production of oil shale or tar sands are committed to in this particular PEIS, 

NPS 

believes that only Alternative 3- the Research, Development, and Demonstration (RD&D) action 

alternative provides a phased process for resource protective decision-making. The NPS 

continues to 

prefer Altemative 3 as the action alternative. 

#3])> NPS Contacts 

The NPS appreciates the opportunity to provide comments on the PEIS. If you have questions, or 

if we 

can be of any further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact either of the NPS Cooperating 

Agency 

representatives: 1) Geologic Resources Division- Pat O’Dell at 303-969-2013, or 2) 

Intennountain 

Region- John Reber at 303-9q9-2418. 

cc: 

Tammy Whittington, Associate Regional Director, Resource Stewardship and Science, 

Intermountain Region (IMR) 

Patrick Malone, Assistant Regional Director for Natural Resources, IMR 

John Reber, Regional Energy Coordinator, Natural Resources, IMR 

.Chris Turk, Environmental Quality Program, IMR 

John Keck, Wyoming State Coordinator, IMR 

Denis Davis, Utah State Coordinator, IMR 

James Doyle, Chief of Communications and Legislation, IMR 

Cheryl Eckhardt, NEP All 06 Specialist, IMR 

Crystal Salas, Environmental Protection Assistant, IMR 

Nida Shaheen, Environmental Resource Specialist, IMR 

Paul Chattey, Program Manager; Cultural Resources, IMR 

Aar9n Mahr, Superintendent, National Historic Trails, IMR 

Michael Elliott, Cultural Resource Specialist, National Historic Trails, IMR 

Mary Risser, Superintendent, Dinosaur National Monument (NM) 

A. Wayne Prokopetz, Chief, Research and Resource Management, Dinosaur NM 

Kate Cannon, Superintendent, Canyonlands National Park (NP) 

Mark Miller, Chief, Resource Stewardship and Science, Canyonlands NP 

Todd Brindle, Superintendent, Glen Canyon National Recreation Area 

AI Hendricks, Superintendent, Capitol ReefNP 

Connie Rudd; Superintendent, Black Canyon of the Gunnison NP 

Chris Eckert, Superintendent, Colorado NM 

Vaughn Baker, Superintendent, Rocky Mountain NP 

Heather Germaine, National Natural Landmarks Program, IMR 

Dave Steensen, Chief, NPS-NRSS Geologic Resources Division (GRD). 
Final OSTS PEIS 365 

Gary Rosenlieb, Acting Chief, NPS-NRSS Water Resources Division 

Carol McCoy, Chief, NPS-NRSS Air Resources Division 

Pat O’Dell, Petroleum Engineer;NPS Co-Lead for OSTS DEIS, NPS-NRSS GRD 

Sarah Quinn, Renewable Energy Coordinator, NPS-NRSS GRD · 

Ray Sauvajot, Chief, Natural Resources Program, NPS-Pacific West Region 

OSTS_074 

Organization: U.S. DOI, U.S. Geologocial Survey (USGS), James Devine 

Received: 3/27/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Commenter1: James Devine - Reston, Virginia 20192 (United States) 

Organization1:U.S. DOI, U.S. Geologocial Survey (USGS) 

Commenter Type: Federal Government 

Classification: none 

Submission Category: Letter 

Submitted As: E-Mail 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/14/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D00075.htm (OSTS_074-59127.htm Size = 1 KB) 

OSTS_074_2012_BLM__OSTS_PEIS_USGS_OSTS2012D00075.doc (OSTS_074-59126.doc 

Size = 197 KB) 

Submission Text

See Attachment. 

United States Department of the Interior 

U. S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY 

Reston, VA 20192 

In Reply Refer To: March 27, 2012 

Mail Stop 423 

Bureau of Land Management 

Oil Shale and Tar Sands PEIS 

Argonne National Laboratory 

EVS Division, Building 240 

9700 South Cass Avenue 

Argonne, Illinois 60439 

Subject: Draft Resource Management Plan (RMP) Amendments and Draft Programmatic 

Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) for the Allocation of Oil Shale and Tar Sands 

Resources on Lands Administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in 

Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming 

Dear Sir, 
Final OSTS PEIS 366 

As requested by your correspondence of January 27, 2012, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 

has reviewed the subject draft resource management plan and draft programmatic environmental 

impact statement and offers the following comments. 

COMMENTS 

<([#1 [3.7.3.12] 3.7.3.2 Birds 

General: The document does not include the data and information available from the USGS 

Breeding Bird Survey. The USGS Breeding Bird survey includes routes that are close to the 

project area. We suggest the Final EIS include the data and information available from the USGS 

Breeding Bird Survey. 

Route locations are available at: 

http://www.pwrc.usgs.gov/BBS/results/routemaps/routeMapStatic.html. 

The list of species for each route is available at: 

https://www.pwrc.usgs.gov/BBS/PublicDataInterface/index.cfm. 

The routes are available at: 

http://www.pwrc.usgs.gov/BBS/results/routemaps/routeAssignMap.cfm. #1])>

<([#2 [3.7.4.11] Pg. 3-185: We suggest that the Final EIS include the data and information on the 

home-range characteristics of adult Mexican Spotted Owls (Strix occidentalis lucida) in southern 

Utah available in: Willey, D. W.; van, Riper, III, C. 2007. Home range characteristics of 

Mexican Spotted Owls in the canyonlands of Utah. Journal of Raptor Research 41:10-15 

#2])>

<([#3 [3.7.4.11] 6.2.1.7.4 Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Species 

Table 6.2.1-9: The degree to which populations may be affected depends on the status of the 

species; however, the table does not provide information about the status of the listed species. 

We suggest the Final EIS provide a general summary of the status of the listed species. For 

example; the trends and status of the avian species listed can be found at http://www.mbrpwrc.usgs.gov/bbs/bbs.html and in: Sauer, J. R., J. E. Hines, J. E. Fallon, K. L. Pardieck, D. J. 

Ziolkowski, Jr., and W. A. Link. 2011. The North American Breeding Bird Survey, Results and 

Analysis 1966 - 2009. Version 3.23.2011 USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Laurel, MD.

#3])>

Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the Draft RMP and Draft PEIS. If you 

have any questions concerning our comments, please contact Gary LeCain, USGS Coordinator 

for Environmental Document Reviews, at (303) 236-1475 or at gdlecain@usgs.gov. 

Sincerely, 

/Judy Nowakowski signed for/ 
Final OSTS PEIS 367 

James F. Devine 

Senior Advisor for Science Applications 

OSTS_075 

Organization: State of Wyoming, Matthew Mead 

Received: 5/4/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Commenter1: Matthew Mead - Cheyenne, Wyoming 82002 (United States) 

Organization1:State of Wyoming 

Commenter Type: Coop Agency - State Govt 

Classification: none 

Submission Category: Letter 

Submitted As: Email & Postal Mail 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/14/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D00076.htm (OSTS_075-59129.htm Size = 1 KB) 

OSTS_075_State_of_Wyoming_Email_OSTS2012D00076.pdf (OSTS_075-59128.pdf Size = 

169 KB) 

Submission Text

See Attachment. 

MATTHEW H. MEAD 

GOVERNOR 

May 4, 2012 

Office of the Governor 

Sherri Thompson, Project Manager 

Bureau of Land Management 

Colorado State Office 

9700 S. Cass Ave. 

Argonne, IL 60439 

STATE CAPITOL 

CHEYENNE, WY 82002 

RE: Comments on the Draft Resource Management Plan Amendments and Draft 

Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for the Allocation of Oil Shale and Tar 

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

Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming 

Dear Ms. Thompson, 

Thank you for allowing me to comment on the Draft Resource Management Plan (RMP) 

Amendments and Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (DPEIS) for the 

Allocation of Oil Shale and Tar Sands (OSTS) Resources. My comments are specific to 

Wyoming oil shale resources administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 

Wyoming state agencies will provide separate comment based on the particular charge of 

individual offices. 

<([#1 [9.7] Oil shale development technologies have not been proven on a commercial scale. 

Further 

research, development, and demonstration (RD&D) is warranted. I am optimistic that sensible 

RD&D will result in recovery methods consistent with Section 369 of the Energy Policy Act of 
Final OSTS PEIS 368 

2005. I support leasing land for RD&D, but not in the manner identified in any of the 

alternatives. 

I believe lease areas that are least susceptible to adverse impacts from oil shale pilot projects and 

easiest to reclaim are best suited to RD&D objectives. #1])> <([#2 [1.3] The exclusions 

identified in Alternatives 

2, 3 and 4 undermine a local, participatory approach to land determinations made via the RMP 

process in cooperation with state and local interests .. 

The BLM is required to consider precluding oil shale development in these areas; however it is 

not required to make changes to management decisions. 

#2])> 

<([#3 [9.2.4] Sage Grouse Core Areas 

The 2012 OSTS DPEIS requires the BLM to analyze and consider excluding oil shale 

development in the Greater Sage-Grouse core area. This decision is not consistent with 

Wyoming’s Greater Sage-Grouse Core Area Protection strategy. Wyoming’s Executive Order 

2011-5 is recognized by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service as an adequate regulatory mechanism 

for the conservation of Greater Sage-Grouse. Executive Order 2011-5 does not preclude mineral 

development. It establishes conditions designed to maintain and enhance Greater Sage-Grouse 

habitat. The BLM should modify its management objective as it applies to Wyoming to maintain 

consistency with Wyoming’s Greater Sage-Grouse Core Area Protection strategy. 

#3])> <([#4 [3.1.3] [9.2.1] Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

The preferred alternative of the 2012 OSTS DPEIS proposes to exclude oil shale development in 

all areas the BLM has identified or may identify during the planning process, as having 

wilderness characteristics. Section 201 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act requires 

the BLM to maintain an inventory of all public lands and their resources. There is no 

requirement to manage lands with wilderness characteristics. The Rock Springs Field Office is 

in the process of combining the Green River and Jack Morrow Hills RMPs to a single Rock 

Springs RMP. If the BLM precludes development in lands with wilderness characteristics, the 

BLM will unduly constrain the Rock Springs RMP range of alternatives. These decisions should 

be left to the RMP revision process. 

#4])> <([#5 [3.1.5] Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 

In the 2012 OSTS DPEIS preferred alternative, the BLM proposes to preclude oil shale 

development in all Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC), regardless of allowances 

for mineral development. This blanket decision should not be made. In Volume 1, (p. 2-10), the 

BLM states, “The BLM designates ACECs through land use plans that outline management 

objectives and prescriptions for each ACEC.” Prior land use plans have determined that some 

ACECs are open for mineral development. Management objectives for ACECs should be left to 

the RMP revision process. I request that the BLM make no additional determinations for 

management of ACECs in this OSTS DPEIS. 

At various points in the Draft RMP Amendments and DPEIS for the Allocation of OSTS 

Resources, as they relate to Alternative 2, the BLM precludes oil shale and tar sands leasing from 

“ ... all ACECs, but also areas that had been under consideration for designation as ACECs in 

the applicable plans undergoing revision or amendment at the time, but which were eventually 

not designated.” [Emphasis added] This has the potential to exclude oil shale development 

from a majority of lands throughout the planning area. The BLM should remove this 

management decision from further consideration. #5])>

<([#6 [3.1.5] Adobe Town Verv Rare and Uncommon Area 
Final OSTS PEIS 369 

The BLM proposed decision to close the Adobe Town Very Rare and Uncommon Area to oil 

shale development is not consistent with the Wyoming Environmental Quality Council’s 

decision allowing in-situ processes or underground mining. 

#6])> Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Please do not hesitate to contact me or my 

staff if you have questions or would like clarification. 

Sincerely, 

Matthew H. Mead 

Governor 

MHM:md 

cc: The Honorable Mike Enzi, U.S. Senate 

The Honorable John Barrasso, U.S. Senate 

The Honorable Cynthia Lummis, U.S. House of Representatives 

The Honorable John Hickenlooper, Governor, Colorado 

The Honorable Gary Herbert, Governor, Utah 

State BLM Director Don Simpson 

OSTS_077 

Organization: Lincoln County Board of Commissioners, Kent Connelly 

Received: 4/14/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Commenter1: Kent Connelly - , Wyoming (United States) 

Organization1:Lincoln County Board of Commissioners 

Commenter Type: Coop Agency - Local Govt 

Classification: none 

Submission Category: Resolution 

Submitted As: Postal Mail 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/16/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D00078.htm (OSTS_077-59133.htm Size = 1 KB) 

OSTS_077_Lincoln_County_Resolution_OSTS2012D00078.pdf (OSTS_077-59132.pdf Size = 

275 KB) 

Submission Text

See Attachment. 

THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 

LINCOLN COUNTY, WYOMING 

RESOLUTION# 

OPPOSING THE BLM’S 2012 OIL SHALE AND TAR SANDS PROGRAMMATIC 

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT, BLM PROJECT# W0-300-1310-PP-OSHL 

(HEREAFTER 2011 OSTS PEIS) 

FOR LANDS ADMINISTERED BY THE BLM IN COLORADO UTAH AND WYOMING 

This Resolution is adopted in open meeting after due opportunity for public comment, by the 

Board of Commissioners of Lincoln County, in order to redress the many violations of law, 

regulation, and policy by the BLM with respect to the BLM’s 2012 OSTS PEIS. 
Final OSTS PEIS 370 

BACKGROUND 

As background to this Resolution, Lincoln County recites the following grievances: 

WHEREAS, On April14, 2011 the BLM caused to be published in the Federal Register, 

Volume 76, No 72 Thursday, April 14, 2011, pages 21003-21005, a notice of intent to prepare 

the above-referenced 2012 OSTS PEIS; and 

<([#1 [9.2.1] [3.1.3] WHEREAS, the preliminary purpose and need statement in the notice of 

intent, states the PEIS 

will analyze removing from oil shale and tar sands leasing “All areas that the BLM has identified 

or may identify as a result of inventories conducted during this planning process, as lands 

containing wilderness characteristics[.]” Id., at page 21004; and 

WHEREAS, the notice of intent further states at page 21 004: 

Lands that the BLM identifies as having wilderness characteristics will be 

considered during this planning initiative, as described above, and consistent with 

Secretarial Order No. 3310, dated Dec. 22, 2010, and BLM Manuals 6301 and 

6302. Future leasing of lands determined by the BLM to have wilderness 

characteristics, if compatible with the allocation decisions stemming from this 

initiative, will subsequently be assessed in accordance with BLM Manual 6303, 

as appropriate (i.e., where the BLM has not determined, consistent with BLM 

Manual 6302, whether the lands with wilderness characteristics at issue should be 

receive a wild lands designation, BLM Manual 6303 will apply); and 

WHEREAS, this language documents the BLM’s intent to implement, administer and/or enforce 

Secretarial Order 3310 and one or more of the BLM guidance manuals promulgated under Order 

3310;and 

WHEREAS, any attempt by the BLM to implement, administer and/or enforce Secretarial Order 

3310, including any effort by the BLM to proceed further on the above-referenced Programmatic 

EIS, violates the spending moratorium of Section 1769 of the April21, 2011 Congressional 

Continuing Resolution to Fund Fiscal Year 2011 through September 30, 2011, which states: 

For the fiscal year ending September 30, 2011, none of the funds made available 

by this division or any other Act may be used to implement, administer, or 

enforce Secretarial Order No. 3310 issued by the Secretary of the Interior on 

December 22, 2010; and 

WHEREAS, this spending moratorium has been carried forward in all subsequent Congressional 

spending resolutions up to and including the current spending resolution; and 

WHEREAS, the 2012 OSTS PEIS, is an admitted attempt by the BLM to implement, administer 

and/or enforce Secretarial Order 3310 and its policies and objectives, all in violation of the 

Spending Moratorium of the 2011 Continuing Resolution; and #1])>

<([#2 [9.8] WHEREAS, the 2008 Oil Shale and Tar Sands Programmatic ElS (2008 OSTS PEIS) 

was 

required under Section 369 (d) (1) of the Energy Policy Act of2005 and was prepared in 

cooperation with 14 federal, state, and local governmental organizations; and 

WHEREAS THE 2008 OSTS PEIS was 3 years in the making, and it honored the input of a task 

force of Governors and other stakeholders as per requirement of the 2005 Energy Policy Act; 

WHEREAS, the Record of Decision (ROD) for the 2008 OSTS PEIS amended 10 land use plans 

in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming to make approximately 2 million acres of public lands 

available for potential leasing and development of oil shale and approximately 430,000 acres 

available for tar sands leasing. Together with the regulations published in 2006 and 2008 for oil 
Final OSTS PEIS 371 

shale and tar sands resources, the 2008 OSTS PEIS and subsequent land use amendments 

constituted a reasonable and rational establishment of an oil shale and tar sands program as 

mandated in the Energy Policy Act of 2005; and #2])>

<([#3 [6.1.2] WHEREAS, the oil shale and tar sands program to which the 2008 OSTS PEIS and 

related 

regulations gave birth, was a reasonable response to the fact that oil shale and tar sands 

resources in the Green River Formation located in northeastern Utah, northwestern Colorado 

and southwestern Wyoming may reach 8 trillion barrels of oil; and #3])>

<([#4 [9.8] WHEREAS, the preferred alternative in the draft 2012 OSTS PEIS drastically 

shrinks, 

diminishes and in many areas outright reverses virtually all of the lands made available for Oil 

Shale and Tar Sands development in 2008, and does so using the same data and science; and 

#4])> <([#5 [9.2.2] WHEREAS, such a drastic reversal in lands available for Oil Shale and Tar 

Sands development 

between the 2008 PEIS and the 2012 preferred alternative, violates regulatory ran Task Force 

requirements of certainty for industry and investors; and 

WHEREAS such a drastic reversal of lands available for Oil Shale and Tar Sands development 

in 2008, constitutes a de facto, piece-meal revision of previous BLM Resource Management 

Plans, in violation of the Section 202 Planning Process under FLPMA; 

WHEREAS, the preferred alternative in the draft 2012 OSTS PEIS entirely ignores the input of 

the task force and stakeholders which the 2005 Energy Policy Act directed the BLM to honor 

and follow; and moreover the draft 2012 OSTS PEIS may well violate various memoranda of 

understanding (MOUs) with counties which require the BLM to publish the written input of 

cooperators who disagree with the preferred alternative; 

WHEREAS the draft 2012 OSTS PEIS preferred alternative significantly restricts the acreage 

allotted in the 2008 PEIS for research and development leasing; 

WHEREAS the draft 2012 OSTS PEIS preferred alternative threatens to arbitrarily undermine 

the process and the work utilized in creation of the 2008 OSTS PEIS, and essentially dismantle a 

reasonable and rational oil shale and tar sands program in violation of Section 369 of the 2005 

Energy Policy Act; and #5])>

<([#6 [1.5] WHEREAS, the 2012 OSTS PEIS preferred alternative is the creature of a friendly 

lawsuit 

settlement agreement between the BLM and ideological opponents to oil shale development, and 

is therefore entirely pre-determined and pre-decisional in violation of NEPA, with no apparent 

rationale for revising the acreages approved in 2008; and 

#6])> <([#7 [2.2] WHEREAS, the BLM has settled on a preferred alternative in the 2012 OSTS 

PEIS admittedly 

without having first analyzed its impacts; BLM should be required to withdraw the preferred 

status of the alternative until it has performed this analysis; and 

WHEREAS, the acreage approved for Oil Shale and Tar Sands development in the draft 2012 

OSTS PEIS preferred alternative bears no rational relationship to the stated purpose and need; 

#7])> <([#8 [1.5] WHEREAS, the Department of Energy has basically abdicated the 

responsibility Congress 

placed upon it to defend and uphold a viable oil shale energy program in America, leaving it 

instead to the BLM encumbered by a host of anti-oil shale pro-wilderness groups steering BLM’s 

every move; 
Final OSTS PEIS 372 

#8])> <([#9 [9.5] WHEREAS, the alternative adopted in the ROD of the 2008 OSTS PEIS is 

now the No Action 

Alternative of the draft 2012 OSTS PEIS; and 

WHEREAS, the 2008 OSTS PEIS chosen alternative is consistent with the multiple use, 

sustained yield of the Federal Land Policy Management Act (FLPMA); and 

WHEREAS, the 2008 OSTS PEIS chosen alternative is consistent with county general plans and 

policies which call for responsible development of available energy resources; and #9])>

<([#10 [6.3.4] WHEREAS, the development and production of oil from oil shale has been 

proven beyond a 

doubt to be technologically and economically feasible; and #10])>

<([#11 [6.3.2.1] WHEREAS, this same technology to extract oil from the oil shale rock is not 

only economically 

feasible, but it requires little to no consumption of water, contrary to the myths which falsely 

claim that oil shale extraction requires large consumption of water resources; and 

#11])> <([#12 [6.2.2] WHERAS, the energy captured in the extract of oil from shale (natural gas 

capture, etc.,) more 

than makes up for energy consumed in that extraction process, thus dispelling the myth that the 

oil shale extraction process consumes more energy than it produces; 

#12])> <([#13 [3.10.3] WHEREAS, the rising price of gasoline, coupled with ever increasing 

loss of good paying jobs 

due to the Administration’s policies against energy development on western public lands, result 

in increasing hardships for families and the local economy, to the point where some fear the 

window of opportunity is about to close for a civil, lawful and orderly response as citizens feel 

more and more pressured and desperate financially; and 

#13])> <([#14 [6.3.3.1] WHEREAS, the 2012 OSTS PEIS improperly limits technology testing 

to strictly in situ efforts 

and does not allow for development of other technologies; and 

#14])> <([#15 [1.1.1] WHEREAS, the BLM has left insufficient time for the public and 

cooperators to meaningfully 

comment on the public draft 2012 OSTS PEIS by the present comment deadline of May 4, 2012, 

because a highly relevant commercial oil shale BLM regulation is not due to be published until 

May 15, 2012 and the public should have the right to view that regulation first and then submit 

comments on the draft 2012 OSTS PEIS in light of that regulation; and 

#15])> <([#16 [2.1.1] WHEREAS, the same problems with lack of consistency with local plans 

and policies and failure 

to honor the input of cooperators and all stakeholders, also besets many public lands EIS 

projects, in addition to the 2012 OSTS PEIS. The cooperators from Utah and Wyoming have 

already unanimously requested for the No-Action alternative in the draft 2012 OSTS PEIS 

become the preferred alternative. 

#16])> RESOLUTION 

<([#17 [9.2.1] NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY LINCOLN COUNTY, STATE OF 

WYOMING 

AS FOLLOWS: 

1. Lincoln County declares the BLM’s continuing to administer and carry out the 2012 

OSTS PEIS to be an open contempt and flaunting of the Congressional Spending Moratorium 

first imposed in the 2011 Continuing Resolution and carried forward in all subsequent 
Final OSTS PEIS 373 

Congressional spending resolutions up to and including the present; 

2. Lincoln County calls upon the BLM to cease all further activities with respect to 

administering and carrying out the 2012 OSTS PEIS, because doing so constitutes an open 

contempt and violation of the Congressional Spending Moratorium against implementing, 

administering and/or enforcing Secretarial Order 3310, which Spending Moratorium was first 

imposed in the 2011 Continuing Resolution and carried forward in all subsequent Congressional 

spending resolutions up to and including the present; 

3. Lincoln calls upon the BLM to immediately cease and desist all activities related to the 

above-referenced 2012 OSTS PEIS and immediately publish a revised notice in the Federal 

Register signifying its cessation of all work on the Programmatic EIS in obedience to the above 

quoted Spending Moratorium. Otherwise, the BLM would be in contempt of Congress; 

#17])> <([#18 [2.1.1] 4. Should BLM continue to go forward with the 2012 OSTS PEIS 

regardless of these 

grievances, the only legally, viable alternative would be if the BLM adopted the No-Action 

Alternative, which is identical to the Alternative chosen in the ROD of the 2008 OSTS PEIS; 

#18])> <([#19 [1.1.1] 5. The BLM should extend the May 4, 2012 deadline for public comment 

on the draft 2012 

OSTS PEIS at least 30 days after publication of the expected oil shale regulation due to be 

published on or around May 15, 2012. 

#19])> <([#20 [1.3] 6. The BLM should honor the input of cooperators, particularly if they are 

local 

governments, as required by Section 202(c)(9) of FLPMA, in all matters, not just with respect to 

the 2012 OSTS PEIS. #20])>

Adopted at the regularly scheduled meeting of the Board of County Commissioners of Lincoln 

County, held on the 4th day of April, 2012. 

BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 

T. Deb Wolfley 

OSTS_078 

Organization: Garfield County Board of Commissioners, Tom Jankovsky 

Received: 4/14/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Commenter1: Tom Jankovsky - Garfield County, Colorado (United States) 

Organization1:Garfield County Board of Commissioners 

Commenter Type: Coop Agency - Local Govt 

Classification: none 

Submission Category: Resolution 

Submitted As: Postal Mail 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/16/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D00079.htm (OSTS_078-59135.htm Size = 1 KB) 

OSTS_078_Garfield_County_Resolution_OSTS2012D00079.pdf (OSTS_078-59134.pdf Size = 

433 KB) 

Submission Text

See Attachment. 
Final OSTS PEIS 374 

STATE OF COLORADO ) 

)ss. 

COUNTY OF GARFIELD ) 

At a regular meeting of the Board of County Commissioners for Garfield County, Colorado, held 

at the County 

Administration Building in Glenwood Springs on the_day of 20___,) there were present: 

_Tom Jankovsky, Commissioner 

_Mike Samson, Commissioner 

_John Martin, Commissioner Chairman 

_Jean Alberico, Clerk to the Board 

when the following proceedings, among others were had and done, to-wit: 

RESOLUTION NO. 12-_ 

RESOLUTION OPPOSING THE BLM’S OIL SHALE AND TAR SANDS PROGRAMMATIC 

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT, BLM PROJECT# W0-300-1310-PP-OSHL 

(HEREAFTER 2011 OSTS PEIS) FOR LANDS ADMINISTERED BY THE BLM 

IN COLORADO, UTAH AND WYOMING 

WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Garfield County, State of Colorado 

(“BOCC”) is a legal and political subdivision of the State of Colorado for which the BOCC is 

authorized to act; and 

WHEREAS, this Resolution is adopted in open meeting after due opportunity for public 

comment, by the Board of Commissioners of Garfield County, in order to redress the many 

violations of law, regulation, and policy by the BLM with respect to the BLM’s 2012 OSTS 

PEIS; and 

BACKGROUND 

As background to this Resolution, the BOCC recites the following grievances: 

WHEREAS, on April14, 2011, the BLM caused to be published in the Federal Register, 

Volume 76, No 72ffhursday, April14, 2011, pages 21003-21005, a notice of intent to prepare 

the above-referenced 2012 OSTS PEIS; and 

<([#1 [9.2.1] [3.1.3] WHEREAS, the preliminary purpose and need statement in the notice of 

intent, states the 

PEIS will analyze removing from oil shale and tar sands leasing “All areas that the BLM has 

identified or may identify as a result of inventories conducted during this planning process, as 

lands containing wilderness characteristics[.]” Id, at page 21 004; and 

WHEREAS, the notice of intent further states at page 21004: 

Lands that the BLM identifies as having wilderness characteristics will be 

considered during this planning initiative, as described above, and consistent with 

Secretarial Order No. 3310, dated Dec. 22, 2010, and BLM Manuals 6301 and 

6302. Future leasing of lands dete1mined by the BLM to have wilderness 

characteristics, if compatible with the allocation decisions stemming from this 

initiative, will subsequently be assessed in accordance with BLM Manual 6303, 

as appropriate (i.e., where the BLM has not determined, consistent with BLM 

Manual 6302, whether the lands with wilderness characteristics at issue should 

receive a wild lands designation, BLM Manual 6303 will apply); and 

WHEREAS, this language documents the BLM’s intent to implement, administer and/or 

enforce Secretarial Order 3310 and one or more of the BLM guidance manuals promulgated 

under Order 3310; and 
Final OSTS PEIS 375 

WHEREAS, any attempt by the BLM to implement, administer and/or enforce 

Secretarial Order 3310, including any effort by the BLM to proceed ftu1her on the above 

referenced 

Programmatic EIS, violates the spending moratorium of Section 1769 of the April21, 

2011 Congressional Continuing Resolution to Fund Fiscal Year 2011 through September 30, 

2011, which states: 

For the fiscal year ending September 30, 2011, none of the funds made available 

by this division or any other Act may be used to implement, administer, or 

enforce Secretarial Order No. 3310 issued by the Secretary of the Interior on 

December 22, 2010; and 

WHEREAS, this spending moratorium has been carried forward in all subsequent 

Congressional spending resolutions up to and including the current spending resolution; and 

WHEREAS, the 2012 OSTS PEIS, is an admitted attempt by the BLM to implement, 

administer and/or enforce Secretarial Order 3310 and its policies and objectives, all in violation 

of the Spending Moratorium of the 2011 Continuing Resolution; and #1])>

<([#2 [9.8] WHEREAS, the 2008 Oil Shale and Tar Sands Programmatic EIS (2008 OSTS 

PEIS) 

was required under Section 369 (d) (1) of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 and was prepared in 

cooperation with 14 federal, state, and local governmental organizations; and 

WHEREAS, the 2008 OSTS PEIS was 3 years in the making, and it honored the input of 

a task force of Governors and other stakeholders as per requirement of the 2005 Energy Policy 

Act; and 

WHEREAS, the Record of Decision (ROD) for the 2008 OSTS PEIS amended 10 land 

use plans in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming to make approximately 2 million acres of public 

lands available for potential leasing and development of oil shale and approximately 430,000 

acres available for tar sands leasing. Together with the regulations published in 2006 and 2008 

for oil shale and tar sands resources, the 2008 OSTS PEIS and subsequent land use amendments 

constituted a reasonable and rational establishment of an oil shale and tar sands program as 

1nandated in the Energy Policy Act of 2005; and #2])>

<([#3 [6.1.2] WHEREAS, the oil shale and tar sands program to which the 2008 OSTS PEIS and 

related regulations gave birth was a reasonable response to the fact that oil shale and tar sands 

resources in the Green River Formation located in northheastem Utah, northwestern Colorado 

and 

southwestern Wyoming may reach 8 trillion1

 barrels of oil; and 

1

On information and belief, Garfield County believes 4 trillion barrels to be a more accurate 

estimate. 

#3])>

<([#4 [9.8] WHEREAS, the preferred alternative in the draft 2012 OSTS PEIS drastically 

shrinks, 

diminishes and in many areas outright reverses virtually all of the lands made available for Oil 

Shale and Tar ‘Sands development in 2008, and does so using the same data and science; and

#4])>

<([#5 [9.2.2] WHEREAS, such a drastic reversal in lands available for Oil Shale and Tar Sands 

development between the 2008 PEIS and the 2012 preferred alternative, violates regulatory ran 

Task Force requirements of certainty for industry and investors; and 
Final OSTS PEIS 376 

WHEREAS such a drastic reversal of lands available for Oil Shale and Tar Sands 

development in 2008, constitutes a de facto, piece-meal revision of previous BLM Resource 

Management Plans, in violation of the Section 202 Planning Process under FLPMA; and 

WHEREAS, the preferred alternative in the draft 2012 OSTS PEIS entirely ignores the 

input of the task force and stakeholders which the 2005 Energy Policy Act directed the BLM to 

honor and follow; and moreover the draft 2012 OSTS PEIS may well violate various memoranda 

of understanding (MOUs) with counties which require the BLM to publish the written input of 

cooperators who disagree with the preferred alternative; and 

WHEREAS the draft 2012 OSTS PEIS preferred alternative significantly restricts the 

acreage allotted in the 2008 PEIS for research and development leasing; and 

WHEREAS the draft 2012 OSTS PEIS preferred alternative threatens to arbitrarily 

undermine the process and the work utilized in creation of the 2008 OSTS PEIS, and essentially 

dismantle a reasonable and rational oil shale and tar sands pro grant in violation of Section 369 

of 

the 2005 Energy Policy Act; and #5])>

<([#6 [1.5] WHEREAS, the 2012 OSTS PEIS preferred alternative is the creature of a friendly 

lawsuit settlement agreement between the BLM and ideological opponents to oil shale 

development, and is therefore entirely pre-determined and pre-decisional in violation of NEPA, 

with no apparent rationale for revising the acreages approved in 2008; and #6])>

<([#7 [2.2] WHEREAS, the BLM has settled on a preferred alternative in the 2012 OSTS PEIS 

admittedly without having first analyzed its impacts; BLM should be required to withdraw the 

preferred status of the alternative until it has performed this analysis; and 

WHEREAS, the acreage approved for Oil Shale and Tar Sands development in the draft 

2012 OSTS PEIS preferred alternative bears no rational relationship to the stated purpose and 

need; and 

#7])> <([#8 [1.5] WHEREAS, the Depat1tnent of Energy has basically abdicated the 

responsibility 

Congress placed upon it to defend and uphold a viable oil shale energy program in America, 

leaving it instead to the BLM encumbered by a host of anti-oil shale pro-wilderness groups 

steering BLM’s every move; and 

#8])> <([#9 [9.5] WHEREAS, the alternative adopted in the ROD of the 2008 OSTS PEIS is 

now the No 

Action Alternative of the draft 2012 OSTS PEIS; and 

WHEREAS, the 2008 OSTS PEIS chosen alternative is consistent with the multiple use, 

sustained yield of the Federal Land Policy Management Act (FLPMA); and 

WHEREAS, the 2008 OSTS PEIS chosen alternative is consistent with county general 

plans and policies which call for responsible development of available energy resources; and

#9])>

<([#10 [6.3.4] WHEREAS, the development and production of oil from oil shale has been 

proven 

beyond a doubt to be technologically and economically feasible2; and 

2 Garfield County states this recital as: “WHEREAS the development and production of oil from 

oil shale in some 

processes has been proven to be technologically feasible; and, #10])>

<([#11 [6.3.2.1] WHEREAS, this same technology to extract oil from the oil shale rock is not 
Final OSTS PEIS 377 

only 

economically feasible, but it requires little to no consumption of water, contrary to the myths 

which falsely claim that oil shale extraction requires large consumption of water resources3

 ; and 

3

 Garfield County states this recital as: “WHEREAS, this same technology to extract oil from the 

oil shale rock requires little to no consumption of water; and” #11])>

<([#12 [6.2.2] WHEREAS, the energy captured in the extract of oil from shale (natural gas 

capture, 

etc.,) more than makes up for energy consumed in that extraction process, thus dispelling the 

myth that the oil shale extraction process consumes more energy than it produces; and 

#12])> <([#13 [3.10.3] WHEREAS, the rising price of gasoline, coupled with ever increasing 

loss of good 

paying jobs due to the Administration’s policies against energy development on western public 

lands, result in increasing hardships for families and the local economy, to the point where some 

fear the window of opportunity is about to close for a civil, lawful and orderly response as 

citizens feel more and more pressured and desperate financially; and #13])>

<([#14 [6.3.3.1] WHEREAS, the 2012 OSTS PEIS improperly lin1its technology testing to 

strictly· in situ 

efforts and does not allow for development of other technologies; and 

#14])> <([#15 [1.1.1] WHEREAS, the BLM has left insufficient time for the public and 

cooperators to 

meaningfully comment on the public draft 20 I 2 OSTS PEIS by the present comment deadline 

of 

May 4, 20 I 2, because a highly relevant commercial oil shale BLM regulation is not due to be 

published until May 15, 2012 and the public should have the right to view that regulation first 

and then submit comments on the draft 2012 OSTS PEIS in light of that regulation; and 

#15])> <([#16 [2.1.1] WHEREAS, the same problems with lack of consistency with local plans 

and policies 

and failure to honor the input of cooperators and all stakeholders, also besets many public lands 

EIS projects, in addition to the 2012 OSTS PEIS. The cooperators from Utah and Wyoming have 

already unanimously requested for the No-Action alternative in the draft 2012 OSTS PEIS 

become the preferred alternative. 

#16])> <([#17 [9.2.1] NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF 

COUNTY 

COMMISSIONERS OF GARFIELD COUNTY, STATE OF COLORADO AS FOLLOWS: 

1. Garfield County declares the BLM’s continuing to administer and carry out the 

2012 OSTS PEIS to be an open contempt and flaunting of the Congressional Spending 

Moratorium first imposed in the 2011 Continuing Resolution and carried forward in all 

subsequent Congressional spending resolutions up to and including the present. 

2. Garfield County calls upon the BLM to cease all further activities with respect to 

administering and carrying out the 2012 OSTS PEIS, because doing so constitutes an open 

Contempt and violation of the Congressional Spending Moratorium against implementing, 

administering and/or enforcing Secretarial Order 3310, which Spending Moratorium was first 

imposed in the 2011 Continuing Resolution and carried forward in all subsequent Congressional 

spending resolutions up to and including the present. 
Final OSTS PEIS 378 

3. Garfield County calls upon the BLM to immediately cease and desist all activities 

related to the above-referenced 2012 OSTS PEIS and immediately publish a revised notice in the 

Federal Register signifying its cessation of all work on the Programmatic EIS in obedience to the 

above- quoted Spending Moratorium. Otherwise, the BLM would be in contempt of Congress. 

#17])> <([#18 [2.1.1] 4. Should BLM continue to go forward with the 2012 OSTS PEIS 

regardless of 

these grievances, the only legally, viable alternative would be if the BLM adopted the No-Action 

Alternative, which is identical to the Alternative chosen in the ROD of the 2008 OSTS PEIS. 

#18])> <([#19 [1.1.1] 5. The BLM should extend the May 4, 2012 deadline fo1· public comment 

on the 

draft 2012 OSTS PEIS at least 30 days after publication of the expected oil shale regulation due 

to be published on or around May 15,2012. 

#19])> <([#20 [1.3] 6. The BLM should honor the input of cooperators, particularly if they are 

local governments, as required by Section 202( c )(9) of FLPMA, in all matters, not just with 

respect to the 2012 OSTS PEIS. 

#20])> 

DATED this __ day of ____,, 20_. 

ATTEST: 

Clerk to the Board 

BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF 

GARFIELD COUNTY, STATE OF COLORADO 

By: __________________________ __ 

Chairperson 

Upon motion duly made and seconded the foregoing Resolution was adopted by the following 

vote: 

STATE OF COLORADO ) 

) ss. 

• COUNTY OF GARFIELD ) 

Tom Jankovsky Aye 

Mike Samson Aye 

John Martin Aye 

Commissioners 

I, Jean Alberico, County Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the Board of County Commissioners in 

and for the County 

and State aforesaid do hereby certify that the annexed and foregoing Resolution is truly copied 

from the Records of the 

Proceedings of the Board of County Commissioners for said Garfield County, now in my office. 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of said County, at 

Glenwood 

Springs, this_ day of A.D. 20 . 

County Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of 

the Board of County Commissioners 

OSTS_079 
Final OSTS PEIS 379 

Organization: Mesa County Board of Commissioners, Sheila Reiner 

Received: 4/14/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Commenter1: Sheila Reiner - Mesa County, Colorado (United States) 

Organization1:Mesa County Board of Commissioners 

Commenter Type: Local Government 

Classification: none 

Submission Category: Resolution 

Submitted As: Postal Mail 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/16/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D00080.htm (OSTS_079-59137.htm Size = 1 KB) 

OSTS_079_Mesa_County_Resolution_OSTS2012D00080.pdf (OSTS_079-59136.pdf Size = 

361 KB) 

Submission Text

See Attachment. 

HCM 2012-034 

RESOLUTION OF MESA COUNTY 

STATE OF COLORADO 

OPPOSING THE BLM’S 2012 OIL SHALE AND TAR SANDS PROGRAMMATIC 

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT, BLM PROJECT #W0-300-1310-PP-OSHL 

(HEREAFTER 2011 OSTS PEIS) 

FOR LANDS ADMINISTERED BY THE BLM IN COLORADO, UTAH, AND WYOMING, 

This Resolution is adopted in open meeting after due opportunity for public comment, by the 

Board of Commissioners of Mesa County, in order to redress the many violations of law, 

regulation, and policy by the BLM with respect to the BLM’s 2012 OSTS PEIS. 

BACKGROUND 

As background to this Resolution, Mesa County recites the following grievances: 

WHEREAS, On April14, 2011, the BLM caused to be published in the Federal Register, 

Volume 76, No 721fhursday, April 14, 2011, pages 21003-21005, a notice of intent to prepare 

the above-referenced 2012 OSTS PEIS; and 

<([#1 [9.2.1] [3.1.3] WHEREAS, the preliminary purpose and need statement in the notice of 

intent, states the PEIS 

will analyze removing from oil shale and tar sands leasing “All areas that the BLM has identified 

or may identify as a result of inventories conducted during this planning process, as lands 

containing wilderness characteristics[.]” ld., at page 21004; and 

WHEREAS, the notice of intent further states at page 21004: 

Lands that the BLM identifies as having wilderness characteristics will be 

considered during this planning initiative, as described above, and consistent with 

Secretarial Order No. 3310, dated Dec. 22,2010, and BLM Manuals 6301 and 

6302. Future leasing of lands determined by the BLM to have wilderness 

characteristics, if compatible with the allocation decisions stemming from this 

initiative, will subsequently be assessed in accordance with BLM Manual 6303, 

as appropriate (i.e., where the BLM has not determined, consistent with BLM 

Manual 6302, whether the lands with wilderness characteristics at issue should be 
Final OSTS PEIS 380 

receive a wild lands designation, BLM Manual6303 will apply); and 

WHEREAS, this language documents the BLM’ s intent to implement, administer and/or enforce 

Secretarial Order 3310 and one or more of the BLM guidance manuals promulgated under Order 

3310;and 

WHEREAS, any attempt by the BLM to implement, administer and/or enforce Secretarial Order 

3310, including any effort by the BLM to proceed further on the above-referenced Programmatic 

EIS, violates the spending moratorium of Section 1769 of the April21, 2011 Congressional 

Continuing Resolution to Fund Fiscal Year 2011 through September 30, 2011, which states: 

For the fiscal year ending September 30, 2011, none of the funds made available 

by this division or any other Act may be used to implement, administer, or 

enforce Secretarial Order No. 3310 issued by the Secretary of the Interior on 

December 22, 201 0; and 

WHEREAS, this spending moratorium has been carried forward in all subsequent Congressional 

spending resolutions up to and including the current spending resolution; and 

WHEREAS, the 2012 OSTS PEIS, is an admitted attempt by the BLM to implement, administer 

and/or enforce Secretarial Order 3310 and its policies and objectives, all in violation of the 

Spending Moratorium of the 2011 Continuing Resolution; and #1])>

<([#2 [9.8] WHEREAS, the 2008 Oil Shale and Tar Sands Programmatic EIS (2008 OSTS 

PEIS) was 

required under Section 369 (d) ( 1) of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 and was prepared in 

cooperation with 14 federal, state, and local governmental organizations; and 

WHEREAS the 2008 OSTS PEIS was 3 years in the making, and it honored the input of a task 

force of Governors and other stakeholders as per requirement of the 2005 Energy Policy Act; and 

WHEREAS, the Record of Decision (ROD) for the 2008 OSTS PEIS amended 10 land use plans 

in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming to make approximately 2 million acres of public lands 

available for potential leasing and development of oil shale and approximately 430,000 acres 

available for tar sands leasing. Together with the regulations published in 2006 and 2008 for oil 

shale and tar sands resources, the 2008 OSTS PEIS and subsequent land use amendments 

constituted a reasonable and rational establishment of an oil shale and tar sands program as 

mandated in the Energy Policy Act of 2005; and 

#2])> <([#3 [6.1.2] WHEREAS, the oil shale and tar sands program to which the 2008 OSTS 

PEIS and related 

regulations gave birth, was a reasonable response to the fact that oil shale and tar sands resources 

in the Green River Formation located in northeastern Utah, northwestern Colorado, and 

southwestern Wyoming may reach 4 trillion barrels of oil; and #3])>

<([#4 [9.8] WHEREAS, the preferred alternative in the draft 2012 OSTS PEIS drastically 

shrinks, 

diminishes and in many areas outright reverses virtually all of the lands made available for Oil 

Shale and Tar Sands development in 2008, and does so using the same data and science; and

#4])>

<([#5 [9.2.2] WHEREAS, such a drastic reversal in lands available for Oil Shale and Tar Sands 

development 

between the 2008 PEIS and the 2012 preferred alternative, violates regulatory ran Task Force 

requirements of certainty for industry and investors; and 

WHEREAS such a drastic reversal of lands available for Oil Shale and Tar Sands development 

in 2008, constitutes a de facto, piece-meal revision of previous BLM Resource Management 
Final OSTS PEIS 381 

Plans, in violation of the Section 202 Planning Process under FLPMA; and 

WHEREAS, the preferred alternative in the draft 2012 OSTS PEIS entirely ignores the input of 

the task force and stakeholders which the 2005 Energy Policy Act directed the BLM to honor 

and follow; and moreover the draft 2012 OSTS PEIS may well violate various memoranda of 

understanding (MOUs) with counties which require the BLM to publish the written input of 

cooperators who disagree with the preferred alternative; and 

WHEREAS the draft 2012 OSTS PEIS preferred alternative significantly restricts the acreage 

allotted in the 2008 PEIS for research and development leasing; and 

WHEREAS the draft 2012 OSTS PEIS preferred alternative threatens to arbitrarily undermine 

the process and the work utilized in creation of the 2008 OSTS PEIS, and essentially dismantle a 

reasonable and rational oil shale and tar sands program in violation of Section 369 of the 2005 

Energy Policy Act; and #5])>

<([#6 [1.5] WHEREAS, the 2012 OSTS PEIS preferred alternative is the creature of a friendly 

lawsuit 

settlement agreement between the BLM and ideological opponents to oil shale development, and 

is therefore entirely pre-determined and pre-decisional in violation of NEPA, with no apparent 

rationale for revising the acreages approved in 2008; and #6])>

<([#7 [2.2] WHEREAS, the BLM has settled on a preferred alternative in the 2012 OSTS PEIS 

admittedly 

without having frrst analyzed its impacts; BLM should be required to withdraw the preferred 

status of the alternative until it has performed this analysis; and 

WHEREAS, the acreage approved for Oil Shale and Tar Sands development in the draft 2012 

OSTS PEIS preferred alternative bears no rational relationship to the stated purpose and need; 

and #7])>

<([#8 [1.5] WHEREAS, the Department of Energy has basically abdicated the responsibility 

Congress 

placed upon it to defend and uphold a viable oil shale energy program in America, leaving it 

instead to the BLM encumbered by a host of anti-oil shale pro-wilderness groups steering BLM’s 

every move; and #8])>

<([#9 [9.5] WHEREAS, the alternative adopted in the ROD of the 2008 OSTS PEIS is now the 

No Action 

Alternative of the draft 2012 OSTS PEIS; and 

WHEREAS, the 2008 OSTS PEIS chosen alternative is consistent with the multiple use, 

sustained yield of the Federal Land Policy Management Act (FLPMA); and 

WHEREAS, the 2008 OSTS PEIS chosen alternative is consistent with county general plans and 

policies which call for responsible development of available energy resources; and #9])>

<([#10 [6.3.4] WHEREAS, the development and production of oil from oil shale has been 

proven beyond a 

doubt to be technologically and economically feasible; and #10])>

<([#11 [6.3.2.1] WHEREAS, this same technology to extract oil from the oil shale rock is not 

only economically 

feasible, but it requires linle to no consumption of water. contrary to the myths which falsely 

claim that oil shale extraction requires large consumption of water resources; and 

#11])> <([#12 [6.2.2] WHERAS, the energy captured in the extract of oil from shale (natural gas 

capture, etc.,) more 

than makes up for energy consumed in that extraction process, thus dispelling the myth that the 
Final OSTS PEIS 382 

oil shale extraction process consumes more energy than it produces; and 

#12])> <([#13 [3.10.3] WHEREAS, the rising price of gasoline, coupled with ever increasing 

loss of good paying jobs 

due to the Administration’s policies against energy development on western public lands, result 

in increasing hardships for families and the local economy; and 

#13])> <([#14 [6.3.3.1] WHEREAS, the 2012 OSTS PEIS improperly limits technology testing 

to strictly in situ efforts 

and does not allow for development of other technologies; and 

#14])> <([#15 [1.1.1] WHEREAS, the BLM has left insufficient time for the public and 

cooperators to meaningfully 

comment on the public draft 2012 OSTS PEIS by the present comment deadline of May 4, 2012, 

because a highly relevant commercial oil shale BLM regulation is not due to be published until 

May 15, 2012 and the public should have the right to view that regulation first and then submit 

comments on the draft 2012 OSTS PEIS in light of that regulation; and 

#15])> <([#16 [2.1.1] WHEREAS, the same problems with lack of consistency with local plans 

and policies and failure 

to honor the input of cooperators and all stakeholders, also besets many public lands EIS 

projects, in addition to the 2012 OSTS PEIS. The cooperators from Utah and Wyoming have 

already unanimously requested for the No-Action alternative in the draft 2012 OSTS PEIS 

become the preferred alternative. 

#16])> <([#17 [9.2.1] RESOLUTION 

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY MESA COUNTY, STATE OF COLORADO AS 

FOLLOWS: 

1. Mesa County declares the BLM’s continuing to administer and carry out the 2012 OSTS 

PEIS to be an open contempt and flaunting of the Congressional Spending Moratorium first 

imposed in the 2011 Continuing Resolution and carried forward in all subsequent Congressional 

spending resolutions up to and including the present; 

2. Mesa County calls upon the BLM to cease all further activities with respect to 

administering and carrying out the 2012 OSTS PEIS, because doing so constitutes an open 

contempt and violation of the Congressional Spending Moratorium against implementing, 

administering and/or enforcing Secretarial Order 3310, which Spending Moratorium was first 

imposed in the 2011 Continuing Resolution and carried forward in all subsequent Congressional 

spending resolutions up to and including the present; 

3. Mesa County calls upon the BLM to immediately cease and desist all activities related to 

the above-referenced 2012 OSTS PEIS and immediately publish a revised notice in the Federal 

Register signifying its cessation of all work on the Programmatic EIS in obedience to the 

abovequoted 

Spending Moratorium. Otherwise, the BLM would be in contempt of Congress; #17])>

<([#18 [2.1.1] 4. Should BLM continue to go forward with the 2012 OSTS PEIS regardless of 

these 

grievances, the only legally, viable alternative would be if the BLM adopted the No-Action 

Alternative, which is identical to the Alternative chosen in the ROD of the 2008 OSTS PEIS; 

#18])> <([#19 [1.1.1] 5. The BLM should extend the May 4, 2012 deadline for public comment 

on the draft 2012 

OSTS PEIS at least 30 days after publication of the expected oil shale regulation due to be 

published on or around May 15, 2012; 
Final OSTS PEIS 383 

#19])> <([#20 [1.3] 6. The BLM should honor the input of cooperators, particularly if they are 

local 

governments, as required by Section 202( c )(9) of FLPMA, in all matters, not just with respect 

to 

the 2012 OSTS PEIS. 

#20])> DULY MOVED, SECONDED AND PASSED THIS 16th day of April, 2012 

Sheila Reiner 

Mesa County Clerk & Recorder 

BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF 

MESA COUNTY, COLORADO 

By: ______________ ~~------------------------------- 

Chairman 

OSTS_080 

Organization: Rio Blanco County Board of Commissioners, Shawn Bolton 

Received: 4/14/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Commenter1: Shawn Bolton - Rio Blanco County, Colorado (United States) 

Organization1:Rio Blanco County Board of Commissioners 

Commenter Type: Local Government 

Classification: none 

Submission Category: Resolution 

Submitted As: Postal Mail 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/16/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D00081.htm (OSTS_080-59139.htm Size = 1 KB) 

OSTS_080_Rio_Blanco_Resolution_OSTS2012D00081.pdf (OSTS_080-59138.pdf Size = 333 

KB) 

Submission Text

See Attachment. 

RESOLUTION NO. 2012- _ 

A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF RIO BLANCO 

COUNTY, COLORADO, OPPOSING THE UNITED STATE BUREAU OF LAND · 

MANAGEMENT’S (BLM) 2012 OIL SHALE AND TAR SANDS PROGRAMMATIC 

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT, BLM PROJECT# W0-300-1310-PP-OSHL 

(HEREAFTER 2012 OSTS PEIS) FOR LANDS ADMINISTERED BY THE BLM IN 

COLORADO, 

UTAH AND WYOMING 

Concerning Secretary of the Interior Secretarial Order 3310 issued December 22, 2010 

(“Secretarial Order 3310”). 

WHEREAS, On April14, 2011, the BLM caused to be published in the Federal Register, 

Volume 76, No 72/Thursday, April14, 2011, pages 21003-21005, a notice of intent to prepare 

the above-referenced 2012 OSTS PEIS; and 

<([#1 [9.2.1] [3.1.3] WHEREAS, the preliminary purpose and need statement in the notice of 

intent, states the 2012 
Final OSTS PEIS 384 

OSTS PEIS will analyze removing from oil shale and tar sands leasing “All areas that the BLM 

has 

identified or may identify as a result of inventories conducted during this planning process, as 

lands containing wilderness characteristics[.]” /d., at page 21004; and 

WHEREAS, the notice of intent further states at page 21004: 

“Lands that the BLM identifies as having wilderness characteristics will be considered 

during this planning initiative, as described above, and consistent with Secretarial Order 

No. 3310, dated Dec. 22, 2010, and BLM Manuals 6301 and 6302. Future leasing of lands 

determined by the BLM to have wilderness characteristics, if compatible with the 

allocation decisions stemming from this initiative, will subsequently be assessed in 

accordance with BLM Manual 6303, as appropriate (Le., where the BLM has not 

determined, consistent with BLM Manual 6302, whether the lands with wilderness 

characteristics at issue should be receive a wild lands designation, BLM Manual 6303 will 

apply)”; and 

WHEREAS, this language documents the BLM’s intent to implement, administer and/or enforce 

Secretarial Order 3310 and one or more of the BLM guidance manuals promulgated under 

Order3310;and 

WHEREAS, any attempt by the BLM to implement, administer and/or enforce Secretarial Order 

3310, including any effort by the BLM to proceed further on the 20120STS PEIS, violates the 

spending moratorium of Section 1769 of the April 21, 2011 Congressional Continuing 

Resolution to Fund Fiscal Year 2011 through September 30, 2011, which states: 

“For the fiscal year ending September 30, 2011, none of the funds made available by 

this division or any other Act may be used to implement, administer, or enforce 

Secretarial Order No. 3310 issued by the Secretary of the Interior on December 22, 

2010”; and 

WHEREAS, this spending moratorium has been carried forward in all subsequent Congressional 

spending resolutions up to and including the current spending resolution; and 

WHEREAS, the 2012 OSTS PEIS, is an admitted attempt by the BLM to implement, administer 

and/or enforce Secretarial Order 3310 and its policies and objectives, all in violation of the 

Spending Moratorium of the 2011 Continuing Resolution; and #1])>

Concerning the 2008 OSTS PEIS 

<([#2 [9.8] WHEREAS, the 2008 Oil Shale and Tar Sands Programmatic EIS (2008 OSTS 

PEIS) was required 

under Section 369 (d) (1) of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 and was prepared in cooperation with 

14 Federal, state, and local governmental organizations; and 

WHEREAS, the 2008 OSTS PEIS was three years in the making, and honored the input of a task 

force of Governors and other stakeholders as required by the 2005 Energy Policy Act; and 

WHEREAS, the Record of Decision (ROD) for the 2008 OSTS PEIS amended 10 land use plans 

in 

Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming to make approximately 2 million acres of public lands available 

for potential leasing and development of oil shale and approximately 430,000 acres available 

for leasing and development of tar sands. Together with the regulations published in 2006 and 

2008 for oil shale and tar sands resources, the 2008 OSTS PEIS and subsequent land use 

amendments constituted a reasonable and rational establishment of an oil shale and tar sands 

program as mandated in the Energy Policy Act of 2005; and 

#2])> <([#3 [6.1.2] WHEREAS, the oil shale and tar sands program which the 2008 OSTS PEIS 
Final OSTS PEIS 385 

and related 

regulations delivered, was a reasonable response to the fact that oil shale and tar sands 

resources in the Green River Formation located in northeastern Utah, northwestern Colorado 

and southwestern Wyoming are estimated to be the equivalent of 8 trillion barrels of oil; and 

#3])> <([#4 [9.8] WHEREAS, the 2008 OSTS PEIS chosen alternative is consistent with the 

multiple use, sustained 

yield of the Federal Land Policy Management Act (FLPMA); and 

#4])> <([#5 [9.5] WHEREAS, the 2008 OSTS PEIS chosen alternative is consistent with the 

County Master Plan and 

policies which call for responsible development of available energy resources; and 

WHEREAS, the alternative adopted in the Record of Decision (ROD) of the 2008 OSTS PEIS is 

now the No Action Alternative of the draft 2012 OSTS PEIS; and #5])>

<([#6 [9.8] Concerning the 2012 OSTS PEIS 

WHEREAS, the preferred alternative in the draft 2012 OSTS PEIS drastically shrinks, 

diminishes 

and in many areas outright reverses virtually all of the lands made available for Oil Shale and 

Tar Sands development in 2008, and does so using the same data and science; and 

#6])> <([#7 [9.2.2] WHEREAS, such a drastic reversal in lands available for Oil Shale and Tar 

Sands development 

between the 2008 PEIS and the 2012 preferred alternative, violates regulatory Task Force 

requirements of certainty for industry and investors; and 

WHEREAS, such a drastic reversal of lands available for Oil Shale and Tar Sands development 

in 2008, constitutes a de facto, piece-meal revision of previous BLM Resource Management 

Plans, in violation of the Section 202 Planning Process under FLPMA; and 

WHEREAS, the preferred alternative in the draft 2012 OSTS PEIS entirely ignores the input of 

the task force and stakeholders which the 2005 Energy Policy Act directed the BLM to honor 

and follow; and moreover the draft 2012 OSTS PEIS may well violate various memoranda of 

understanding (MOUs) with counties which require the BLM to publish the written input of 

cooperators who disagree with the preferred alternative; and 

WHEREAS, the draft 2012 OSTS PEIS preferred alternative significantly restricts the acreage 

allotted in the 2008 PEIS for research and development leasing; and 

WHEREAS, the draft 2012 OSTS PEIS preferred alternative threatens to arbitrarily undermine 

the process and the work utilized in creation of the 2008 OSTS PEIS, and essentially dismantle a 

reasonable and rational oil shale and tar sands program in violation of Section 369 of the 2005 

Energy Policy Act; and 

#7])> <([#8 [6.3.3.1] WHEREAS, the 2012 OSTS PEIS improperly limits technology testing to 

strictly in situ efforts and 

does not allow for development of other technologies; and 

#8])> <([#9 [1.5] WHEREAS, the 2012 OSTS PEIS preferred alternative is the creature of a 

friendly lawsuit 

settlement agreement between the BLM and ideological opponents to oil shale development, 

and is therefore entirely pre-determined and pre-decisional in violation of NEPA, with no 

apparent rationale for revising the acreages approved in 2008; and 

#9])> <([#10 [2.2] WHEREAS, the BLM has settled on a preferred alternative in the 2012 OSTS 

PEIS admittedly 
Final OSTS PEIS 386 

without having first analyzed its impacts; the BLM should be required to withdraw the 

preferred status of the alternative until it has performed this analysis; and 

WHEREAS, the acreage approved for Oil Shale and Tar Sands development in the preferred 

alternative of the draft 2012 OSTS PEIS bears no rational relationship to the stated purpose and 

need; and #10])>

Concerning Oil Shale Facts 

<([#11 [6.3.4] WHEREAS, the development and production of oil from oil shale has been 

demonstrated to be 

technologically and economically feasible elsewhere in the world; and 

#11])> <([#12 [6.3.2.1] WHEREAS, some technologies to extract oil from the oil shale rock are 

not only economically 

feasible, but require little or no consumption of water; and 

#12])> <([#13 [6.2.2] WHEREAS, the energy captured in the extraction of oil and other 

hydrocarbons from shale more 

than makes up for energy consumed in that extraction process; and 

#13])> Other Concerns 

<([#14 [3.10.3] WHEREAS, the rising price of gasoline, coupled with ever-increasing loss of 

good paying jobs 

due to the Administration’s policies against energy development on western public lands, 

results in increasing hardships for families and the local economy; and 

#14])> <([#15 [1.5] WHEREAS, the Department of Energy has basically abdicated the 

responsibility Congress placed 

upon it to defend and uphold a viable oil shale energy program in America, leaving it instead to 

a BLM encumbered by a host of anti-oil shale pro-wilderness groups steering the BLM’s oil 

shale 

policy; and #15])>

<([#16 [1.1.1] WHEREAS, the BLM has left insufficient time for the public and cooperators to 

meaningfully 

comment on the public draft 2012 OSTS PEIS by the present comment deadline of May 4, 2012, 

because a highly relevant commercial oil shale BLM regulation is not due to be published until 

May 15, 2012, and the public should have the right to view that regulation first and then submit 

comments on the draft 2012 OSTS PEIS in light of that regulation; and 

#16])> <([#17 [2.1.1] WHEREAS, the same problems with lack of consistency with local plans 

and policies and failure 

to honor the input of cooperators and all stakeholders, also besets many public lands EIS 

projects, in addition to the 2012 OSTS PEIS. The cooperators from Utah and Wyoming have 

already unanimously requested for the No-Action alternative in the draft 2012 OSTS PEIS 

become the preferred alternative; 

#17])> <([#18 [9.2.1] NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF 

COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF RIO BLANCO COUNTY, COLORADO, THAT: 

1. Rio Blanco County declares the BLM’s continuing to administer and carry out the 2012 

OSTS PEIS to be an open contempt and flaunting of the Congressional Spending Moratorium 

first imposed in the 2011 Continuing Resolution and carried forward in all subsequent 

Congressional spending resolutions up to and including the present one in effect. 

2. Rio Blanco County calls upon the BLM to cease all further activities with respect to 

administering and carrying out the 2012 OSTS PEIS, because doing so is an open contempt and 
Final OSTS PEIS 387 

violation of the Congressional Spending Moratorium against implementing, administering 

and/or enforcing Secretarial Order 3310, for which the Spending Moratorium was first imposed 

in the 2011 Continuing Resolution and carried forward in all subsequent Congressional 

spending resolutions up to and including the present. 

3. Rio Blanco County calls upon the BLM to immediately cease and desist all activities related to 

the above-referenced 2012 OSTS PEIS and immediately publish a revised notice in the Federal 

Register signifying its cessation of all work on the Programmatic EIS in obedience to the 

abovequoted 

Spending Moratorium. Otherwise, the BLM would be in contempt of Congress. 

#18])> <([#19 [2.1.1] 4. Should BLM continue to go forward with the 2012 OSTS PEIS 

regardless of these grievances, 

the only legally, viable alternative would be if the BLM adopted the No-Action Alternative, 

which is identical to the Alternative chosen in the ROD of the 2008 OSTS PEIS. 

#19])> <([#20 [1.1.1] 5. The BLM should extend the May 4, 2012, deadline for public comment 

on the draft 2012 

OSTS PEIS by at least 30 days after publication of the expected oil shale regulation which is due 

to be published on or around May 15, 2012. #20])>

<([#21 [1.3] 6. The BLM should honor the input of cooperators, particularly if they are local 

governments, as 

required by Section 202(c)(9) of FLPMA, in all matters, not just with respect to the 2012 OSTS 

PEIS. 

#21])> DULY MOVED, SECONDED, AND PASSED ON A VOTE OF __ FOR AND 

---·A GAINST THIS DAY OF 2012. 

ATTEST: 

Nancy R. Amick, Clerk to the Board 

BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF 

RIO BLANCO COUNTY, COLORADO 

Shawn J. Bolton, Chairman 

Kenneth C. Parsons, Commissioner 

Kai M. Turner, Commissioner 

OSTS_081 

Organization: Moffat County Board of Commissioners, Tom Gray 

Received: 4/23/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Commenter1: Tom Gray - Moffat County, Colorado (United States) 

Organization1:Moffat County Board of Commissioners 

Commenter Type: Local Government 

Classification: none 

Submission Category: Resolution 

Submitted As: Postal Mail 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/16/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D00082.htm (OSTS_081-59141.htm Size = 1 KB) 

OSTS_081_Moffat_County_Resolution_OSTS2012D00082.pdf (OSTS_081-59140.pdf Size = 

672 KB) 
Final OSTS PEIS 388 

Submission Text

See Attachment. 

MOFFAT COUNTY COMMISSION 

RESOLUTION NO. #1012-51 

A RESOLUTION OPPOSING THE BLM’S 2012 OIL SHALE AND TAR SANDS 

DRAFT PROGRAMMATIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT, 

BLM PROJECT #W0-300-131 0-PP-OSHL (HEREAFTER 2012 OSTS DPEIS) 

FOR LANDS ADMINISTERED BY THE BLM IN COLORADO, UTAH AND WYOMING 

This Resolution is adopted in open meeting after due opportunity for public comment, by the 

Board of 

Commissioners of Moffat County, in order to redress the many violations of law, regulation, and 

policy by the 

BLM with respect to the BLM’s 2012 OSTS DPEIS. 

BACKGROUND 

As background to this Resolution, Moffat County recites the following grievances: 

WHEREAS, On April 14,2011, the BLM caused to be published in the Federal Register, Volume 

76, No 

72/Thursday, April 14, 2011, pages 21 003-21005, a notice of intent to prepare the 2012 OSTS 

DPEIS; and 

<([#1 [9.2.1] [3.1.3] WHEREAS, the preliminary purpose and need statement in the notice of 

intent, states the PEIS will analyze 

removing from oil shale and tar sands leasing “All areas that the BLM has identified or may 

identify as a result 

of inventories conducted during this planning process, as lands containing wilderness 

characteristics[.]’’ Id., at 

page 21 004; and 

WHEREAS, the notice of intent further states at page 21004: 

Lands that the BLM identifies as having wilderness characteristics will be considered during this 

planning initiative, as described above, and consistent with Secretarial Order No. 3310, dated 

Dec. 22, 

2010, and BLM Manuals 6301 and 6302. Future leasing of lands determined by the BLM to have 

wilderness characteristics, if compatible with the allocation decisions stemming from this 

initiative, will 

subsequently be assessed in accordance with BLM Manual6303, as appropriate (i.e., where the 

BLM 

has not determined, consistent with BLM Manual 6302, whether the lands with wilderness 

characteristics at issue should be receive a wild lands designation, BLM Manual 6303 will 

apply); and 

WHEREAS, this language documents the BLM’s intent to implement, administer and/or enforce 

Secretarial 

Order 3310 and one or more of the BLM guidance manuals promulgated under Order 3310; and 

\VHEREAS, any attempt by the BLM to implement, administer and/or enforce Secretarial Order 

331 0, 

including any effort by the BLM to proceed further on the 2012 OSTS DPEIS, violates the 

spending 
Final OSTS PEIS 389 

moratorium of Section 1769 of the April21, 2011 Congressional Continuing Resolution to Fund 

Fiscal Year 

20 II through September 30, 2011 , which states: 

For the fiscal year ending September 30, 2011, none of the funds made available by this division 

or any 

other Act may be used to implement, administer, or enforce Secretarial Order No. 3310 issued by 

the 

Secretary of the Interior on December 22, 20 I 0; and 

WHEREAS, this spending moratorium has been carried forward in all subsequent Congressional 

spending 

resolutions up to and including the current spending resolution; and 

WHEREAS, the 2012 OSTS DPEIS, is an admitted attempt by the BLM to implement, 

administer and/or 

enforce Secretarial Order 3310 and its policies and objectives, all in violation of the Spending 

Moratorium of 

the 2011 Continuing Resolution; and #1])>

<([#2 [9.8] WHEREAS, the 2008 Oil Shale and Tar Sands Programmatic EIS (2008 OSTS 

PEIS) was required under 

Section 369 (d) (I) of the Energy Policy Act of2005 and was prepared in cooperation with 14 

federal, state, and 

local governmental organizations; and 

WHEREAS, the 2008 OSTS PEIS was 3 years in the making, and it honored the input of a task 

force of 

Governors and other stakeholders as per requirement of the 2005 Energy Policy Act; 

WHEREAS, the Record of Decision (ROD) for the 2008 OSTS PEIS amended 10 land use plans 

in Colorado, 

Utah, and Wyoming to make approximately 2 million acres of public lands available for 

potential leasing and 

development of oil shale and approximately 430,000 acres available for tar sands leasing. 

Together with the 

regulations published in 2006 and 2008 for oil shale and tar sands resources, the 2008 OSTS 

PEIS and 

subsequent land use amendments constituted a reasonable and rational establishment of an oil 

shale and tar 

sands program as mandated in the Energy Policy Act of2005; and 

#2])> <([#3 [6.1.2] WHEREAS, the oil shale and tar sands program to which the 2008 OSTS 

PEIS and related regulations gave birth, was a reasonable response to the fact that oil shale and 

tar sands resources in the Green River Formation 

located in northeastern Utah, northwestern Colorado and southwestern Wyoming may reach 4 

trillion barrels of 

oil; and 

#3])> <([#4 [9.8] WHEREAS, the preferred alternative in the 2012 OSTS DPEIS drastically 

shrinks, diminishes and in many 

areas outright reverses virtually all of the lands made available for Oil Shale and Tar Sands 

development in 

2008, and does so using the same data and science; and 
Final OSTS PEIS 390 

#4])> <([#5 [2.2] WHEREAS, the 2012 OSTS DP~IS fails to analyze alternative 2b, and the 

BLM admits as much on pages 2-35 of the 2012 OSTS DPEIS; and 

#5])> <([#6 [9.2.2] WHEREAS, such a drastic reversal in lands available for Oil Shale and Tar 

Sands development between the 2008 PEIS and the 2012 preferred alternative, violates 

regulatory Task Force requirements of certainty for 

industry and investors; and 

WHEREAS, such a drastic reversal of lands available for Oil Shale and Tar Sands development 

in 2008, 

constitutes a de facto, piece-meal revision of previous BLM Resource Management Plans, in 

violation of the 

Section 202 Planning Process under FLPMA; 

WHEREAS, the preferred alternative in the 2012 OSTS DPEIS entirely ignores the input of the 

task force, and 

stakeholders which the 2005 Energy Policy Act directed the BLM to honor and follow; and 

moreover the 2012 

OSTS DPEIS may well violate various memoranda of understanding (MOUs) with counties, 

cities \vhich 

require the BLM to publish the written input of cooperators who disagree with the preferred 

alternative; and 

WHEREAS, the 2012 OSTS DPEIS restricts the acreage allotted in the 2008 PWID for research 

and 

development leasing; 

WHEREAS, the 2012 OSTS DPEIS threatens to arbitrarily undermine the process and the work 

utilized in 

creation of the 2008 OSTS PEIS, and essentially dismantle a reasonable and rational oil shale 

and tar sands 

program in violation of Section 369 of the 2005 Energy Policy Act; and 

#6])> . .. . 

<([#7 [1.5] WHEREAS, the 2012 OSTS DPEIS is the creature of a friendly lawsuit settlement 

agreement between the 

BLM and ideological opponents to oil shale development, and is therefore entirely predetermined and predecisional 

in violation ofNEPA, with no apparent rationale for revising the acreages approved in 2008; and 

#7])> <([#8 [2.2] WHEREAS, the BLM has settled on a preferred alternative in the 2012 OSTS 

DPEIS admittedly without 

having first analyzed its impacts; BLM should be required to withdraw the preferred status of the 

alternative 

until it has performed this analysis; and 

WHEREAS, the acreage approved for Oil Shale and Tar Sands development in the 2012 OSTS 

DPEIS 

preferred alternative bears no rational relationship to the stated purpose and need; #8])>

<([#9 [1.5] WHEREAS, the Department of Energy has basically abdicated the responsibility 

Congress placed upon it to defend and uphold a viable oil shale energy program in America. 

leaving it instead to the BLM encumbered by 

a host of anti-oil shale pre-wilderness groups steering BLM’s every move; #9])>

<([#10 [9.5] WHERAS, the alternative adopted in the ROD of the 2008 OSTS PEIS is now the 
Final OSTS PEIS 391 

No Action Alternative of the 2012 OSTS DPEIS; and 

WHEREAS, the 2008 OSTS PEIS chosen alternative is consistent with the multiple use, 

sustained yield 

mandate of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) ; and 

WHEREAS, the 2008 OSTS PEIS chosen alternative is consistent with county general plans and 

policies 

which call for responsible development of available energy resources; and #10])>

<([#11 [6.3.2.1] WHEREAS, even prior to 2008, technology to extract oil from the oil shale rock 

is not only economically 

feasible, but certain oil shale recovery processes require little to no consumption of water, 

contrary to the myths 

which falsely claim that oil shale extraction requires large consumption of water resources; and 

#11])> <([#12 [6.2.2] WHEREAS, the energy captured in the extract of oil from shale (natural 

gas capture, etc.,) more than makes up for energy consumed in that extraction process, thus 

dispelling the myth that the oil shale extraction process 

consumes more energy than it produces; 

#12])> <([#13 [3.10.3] WHEREAS, the rising price of gasoline, coupled with ever increasing 

loss of good paying jobs due to the 

Administration’s policies against energy development on western public lands, result in 

increasing hardships for 

families and the local economy; and 

#13])> <([#14 [6.3.3.1] WHEREAS, the 2012 OSTS DPEIS improperly limits technology testing 

to strictly in situ efforts and does not allow for development of other technologies; and 

#14])> <([#15 [1.1.1] WHEREAS, the BLM has left insufficient time for the public and 

cooperators to meaningfully comment on the 

public 2012 OSTS DPEIS by the present comment deadline of May·4, 20 12, because a highly 

relevant 

commercial oil shale BLM regulation is not due to be published until May I 5, 2012 and the 

public should have 

the right to view that regulation first and then submit comments on the 2012 OSTS DPEIS in 

light of the 

regulation; and 

#15])> <([#16 [2.1.1] WHEREAS, the same problems with lack of consistency with local plans 

and policies and failure to honor the input of cooperators and all stakeholders, also besets many 

public lands EIS projects, in addition to the 2012 

OSTS DPEIS. The cooperators from Utah and Wyoming have already unanimously requested 

for the NoAction 

alternative in the 2012 OSTS DPEIS become the preferred alternative. 

#16])> 0 • ., • 

RESOLUTION 

<([#17 [9.2.1] NOW TH EREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY MOFFAT COUNTY, STATE OF 

COLORADO AS FOLLOWS: 

I. Moffat County declares the BLM’s continuing to administer and carry out the 2012 OSTS 

DPEIS, and 

updating any inventory of lands having wilderness characteristics, to be an open contempt and 

flaunting of the 
Final OSTS PEIS 392 

Congressional Spending Moratorium first imposed in the 2011 Continuing Resolution and 

carried forward in all 

subsequent Congressional spending resolutions up to and including the present; 

2. Moffat County calls upon the BLM to cease all further activities with respect to administering 

and 

carrying out the 2012 OSTS DP EIS, because doing so constitutes an open contempt and 

violation of the 

Congressional Spending Moratorium against implementing. administering and/or enforcing 

Secretarial Order 

33 10, which Spending Moratorium was first imposed in the 2011 Continuing Resolution and 

carried forward in 

all subsequent Congressional spending resolutions up to and including the present; 

3. Moffat County calls upon the BLM to immediately cease all activities related to the 2012 

OSTS DPEIS 

and immediately publish a revised notice in the federal Register signifying its cessation of all 

work on the 

Programmatic EIS in obedience to the above-quoted Spending Moratorium. Otherwise, the BLM 

would be in 

contempt of Congress; 

#17])> <([#18 [2.1.1] 4. Should BLM continue to go forward with the 20 12 OSTS DPEIS 

regardless of these grievances, the 

only legally, viable alternative would be if the BLM adopted the NO-Action Alternative, which 

is identical to 

the Alternative chosen in the ROD of the 2008 OSTS PEIS; #18])>

<([#19 [9.5] 5. Should BLM decide to proceed with the 20 12 OSTS DPEIS, it is still obligated 

under FLPMA to be 

consistent with State and Local plans to the maximum extent possible: 

#19])> <([#20 [1.1.1] 6. The BLM should extend the May 4, 2012 deadline for public comment 

on the 2012 OSTS DPE IS at least 30 days after publication of the expected oil shale regulation 

due to be published on or around May 15, 2012. 

#20])> <([#21 [1.3] 7. The BLM should honor the input of cooperators, particularly if they are 

local governments, as required 

by Section 202(c)(9) of FLPMA and the relevant terms of the BLM-Cooperator MOUs, in all 

matters, not just 

with respect to the 20 12 OSTS DPEIS. 

#21])> APPROVED AND 1\DOPTED by the Board of County Commissioners of Moffat 

County Commissioners of 

Moffat County this 23th day of April. 20 12. 

Tom Gray, 

District I 

OSTS_082 

Organization: Carbon County, Rex Sacco 

Received: 5/1/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Commenter1: Rex Sacco - Price, Utah 84501 (United States) 

Organization1:Carbon County 

Commenter Type: Coop Agency - Local Govt 
Final OSTS PEIS 393 

Classification: none 

Submission Category: Letter 

Submitted As: E-Mail 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/16/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D00083.htm (OSTS_082-59144.htm Size = 1 KB) 

OSTS_082_Carbon_Cnty_Reqfor_ext_Email_OSTS2012D00083.pdf (OSTS_082-59143.pdf 

Size = 175 KB) 

Submission Text

See Attachment. 

CARBON COUNTY PUBLIC LANDS DEPARTMENT 

Rex Sacco, Director 

120 East Main Street Price, Utah. 84501 

Phone 435-636-3712 Fax 435-636-3264 

rex.sacco@carbon.utah.gov 

May 1, 2012 

Oil Shale and Tar Sands Resources Draft Programmatic EIS Argonne National Laboratory 9700 

South Cass Avenue—EVS/240 Argonne, IL 60439. 

Sent Via Email Transmission: 

http://ostseis.anl.gov. 

cc. Sherri Thompson 

sthompso@blm.gov 

Dear Ms. Thompson, 

<([#1 [1.1.1] Please accept this correspondence as the Board of Commissioners of Carbon 

County, Utah’s request for at least a 30-day extension to the comment period on the on the Draft 

Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) and Possible Land Use Amendments for 

Allocation of Oil Shale and Tar Sands Resources on Lands Administered by the BLM in 

Colorado, Utah and Wyoming. #1])>

<([#2 [1.3] As we understand it, the reason that this action has taken place is to quell a legal 

challenge. The DOI has since agreed to a settlement. Since the terms of that settlement 

agreement has not been shared with us; we as cooperators have not been given the full ability to 

make substantive comments. In all likelihood the additional information would probably rate 

additional comments from us pertaining the planning and implementation of this action. Without 

knowing the need of or terms for the settlement, we in fact are not being allowed to comment on 

the scope of or purpose for this important action. Until such time as the settlement information is 

brought forth and we are given a reasonable amount of time to comment we doubt that BLM has 

legally adhered to the dictates of federal land management planning through the processes of 

coordination (as described in FLPMA 43 U.S.C. 1712 and 43 CFR 1610 (BLM)) and 

cooperating agency status (as described in Section 1501.6 of NEPA and 40 CFR 1508.5 (CEQ) 

Real cooperation will not happen until all information needed to initiate a true NEPA planning 

process is met. Until then it is not appropriate to expect us to think our comments are really 

given due diligence or consideration. #2])>

We will await your reply. 
Final OSTS PEIS 394 

Thank you for your consideration on this request. 

rls 

OSTS_083 

Organization: Living Rivers/Colorado Riverkeeper, etal, John Weisheit 

Received: 5/4/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Commenter1: John Weisheit - , Utah (United States) 

Organization1:Living Rivers/Colorado Riverkeeper, etal 

Commenter Type: Misc. Organization 

Classification: none 

Submission Category: Letter 

Submitted As: E-Mail 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/16/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D00084.htm (OSTS_083-59146.htm Size = 1 KB) 

OSTS_083_Weisheit_CBD_GCT_LR_CR_OSTS_Comments_Email_OSTS2012D00084.pdf 

(OSTS_083-59145.pdf Size = 196 KB) 

Submission Text

See Attachment. 

CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY 

GRAND CANYON TRUST 

LIVING RIVERS/COLORADO RIVERKEEPER 

May 4, 2012 

Draft OSTS PEIS 

Argonne National Laboratory 

9700 S. Cass Ave 

EVS/240 

Argonne, IL 60439 

Via e-mail 

Re: Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Oil Shale and Tar Sands (OSTS) 

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) for 

Colorado, Wyoming, Utah (tri-state area). 

Responsible Officials: 

Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments for the Draft OSTS PEIS; these 

comments, submitted by Center for Biological Diversity, Grand Canyon Trust and Living 

Rivers/Colorado Riverkeeper, supplement attached comments submitted by sixteen 

conservation groups dated April 27, 2012, which we incorporate by reference here. 

These supplementary comments specifically address cumulative impacts to water 

resources, air quality, climate, conservation of public lands, and conservation of 

threatened and endangered species. Our organizations are opposed to new or 

continued oil shale and tar sands development, leasing, or research on public lands. 

Commitments of public lands or resources to such greenhouse gas intensive energy 

development are incompatible with an energy or public lands policy to reduce 

greenhouse gas emissions on the timeframe that scientists tell us is absolutely 

necessary; such commitments also threaten Upper Basin water quality, water quantity, 
Final OSTS PEIS 395 

imperiled species and biological diversity, recreational, agricultural and other values. 

<([#1 [1.5] 1. Alternatives 

We appreciate the work of BLM and Argonne Labs in the development of the OSTS 

PEIS, however we do not fully support any of the proposed alternatives offered. It is our 

opinion that any study to develop unconventional oil reserves in the Colorado River 

Basin remains presumptuous as stated in our scoping comments of May 16, 2011. No 

alternative has been presented that would provide unequivocal protection of water and 

air resources and biological diversity in the Colorado River watershed; therefore the 

DPEIS as presented is incomplete and needs additional review. 

#1])> <([#2 [3.4.1] [9.2] [3.7.1.2] If the 2005 Energy Policy Act is designed to provide energy 

security for the nation, it 

conversely creates water insecurity for the Colorado River Basin. Simply stated, water is 

the fundamental resource allowing any prosperity to exist in the arid Southwest and 

development of water intensive energy resources such as OSTS will threaten water 

security for millions of downstream users. 

The cumulative loading of excessive greenhouse gases and dust into the atmosphere is 

already causing the annual snowpack of the Colorado River System to melt faster in the 

spring, creating runoff that will not be absorbed into mountain watersheds. Water 

moving too quickly through the system prevents groundwater absorption and prevents 

critical aquifers from recharging. 

Attempts to improve critical wildlife habitat in the Colorado River Basin are failing and 

especially for aquatic species. For example, the cooperative agreement for the 

Endangered Fish Recovery Program has been extended primarily because the original 

objectives have not been met, and the established goals are weakening administratively 

over time. 

In the Lower Basin of the Colorado River, two pieces of protective legislation have been 

introduced by Representative Raul Grijalva (D-AZ): 1) The Lower Colorado River 

Protection Act, and 2) The Grand Canyon Watershed Protection Act. It is important that 

decision makers and federal agencies understand that fossil and nuclear fuel 

development in the Upper Basin of the Colorado River, as detailed in the 2005 Energy 

Policy Act, would nullify the intent of this proposed legislation, if it is ever passed, and 

harm the drinking water supply of 25 million downstream users. 

In the Upper Basin, downstream water users came together with citizens of Moab, Utah 

to effect cleanup of the massive Atlas uranium mill tailings pile on the banks of the 

Colorado River. If watershed protection legislation had been implemented decades ago, 

for the entire Colorado River System, taxpayers would not be saddled with paying to 

clean up toxic waste dumps sited in the river floodplain. Sane energy policy would 

include protecting and securing the water resources of the Colorado River System in 

perpetuity. 

#2])> 2. Water Resources 

<([#3 [3.4.1] The Colorado River Basin no longer has surplus water. According to recent science 

compiled by the Department of Interior: 1) the Colorado River Compact is over-allocated 

by 2 million acre feet; 2) the demand for Colorado River water presently exceeds the 

natural supply; 3) the annual supply in the last 50 years has decreased one million acrefeet, 

and; 4) the decline in the annual flow is expected to further reduce another one 

million acre-feet by 2060. Excluded from these studies is the annual loss of 750,000 
Final OSTS PEIS 396 

acre-feet due to sublimation of the Rocky Mountain snowpack caused by fugitive dust 

derived from human activity and increasing aridity from anthropogenic climate change. 

According to the GAO report on oil shale development in the tri-state area, the amount 

of water necessary to fully develop this reserve is equivalent to 30 to 40 years of the 

entire Colorado River supply. Since water supply and demand is clearly imbalanced in 

the basin, all proposed OSTS development can only be speculative. Oil corporations 

may deliver clever messaging to the public about the ample resource awaiting full 

exploitation, but there is not enough water in the system to practically begin that 

development in the next decade. Also, there is no guarantee that existing water 

resources will not be further degraded by current development activity. 

The Uinta Basin watershed in Utah contains two types of aquifers, shallow and deep. 

Deep aquifers would be completely exhausted by proposed strip mining and processing 

operations in the region. Eventually, to continue mining, developers would have to 

procure water from the mainstems; the White, Green and Colorado Rivers. These water 

sources are currently over-allocated to downstream users. #3])>

<([#4 [3.7.4.10] In a strip mining scenario in the Uinta Basin, shallow aquifers, comprised of 

alluvium, 

would be transformed into piles of rubble and dust. Cloudbursts would mobilize toxins 

from residual chemical solvents used in processing, and stored in surface waste pits, 

and send them downstream toward the mainstems. The Colorado River via Westwater 

Creek is the closest mainstem to the PR Springs Special Tar Sands District. The mouth 

of Westwater Creek is home to a population of humpback chub in Westwater Canyon. 

Desolation Canyon on the Green River is prime spawning habitat for the Colorado 

pikeminnow. Labyrinth and Stillwater Canyons on the Green are prime nursery habitat 

for all the endangered fish species of the Colorado River. 

#4])> <([#5 [3.4.6] [6.3.2] In regard to oil shale development, for mining and surface retorting, 

water is needed for 

dust control during materials distraction, crushing, and transport; for cooling and 

reclaiming spent shale; for upgrading raw shale oil; and for various plant utilities 

associated with power production and environmental control (Bartis et al. 2005). The 

U.S. Water Resources Council estimates that oil shale development will increase annual 

consumptive water use in the Upper Colorado Region by about 150,000 acre-feet per 

year for each million barrels per day of production (Bartis et al. 2005). While the in situ 

process reduces a number of these water requirements, the facilities will still need 

considerable volumes for oil/natural gas extraction, postextraction cooling, products 

upgrading and refining, environmental control systems and power production (Bartis et 

al. 2005). Likewise, tar sands production also relies on large amounts of water (Dyer et 

al. 2008). It takes approximately 2-4.5 barrels of water to extract and upgrade one barrel 

of oil from a tar sands mine (Dyer et al. 2008). This is important because at the same 

time production of fuel from oil shale and tar sands in the U.S. will depend on large 

amounts of water, the greenhouse gas emissions from the project will contribute to the 

global warming which dangerously threatens the water supply. 

In a recent article published in Science, researchers found that an increase in 

atmospheric greenhouse gases has contributed to a “coming crisis in water supply for 

the western United States” (Barnett 2008). The research found that between 1950 and 

1999, a shift in the character of mountain precipitation occurred, with more winter 
Final OSTS PEIS 397 

precipitation falling as rain instead of snow, earlier snow melt, and associated changes 

in river flow (Barnett 2008). The variants among the “most important metrics of the 

western and the average January through March temperatures in the mountainous 

regions of the western U.S. (Barnett 2008). Using several climate models and 

comparing the results, the researchers found that “warmer temperatures accompany” 

decreases in snow pack and precipitation and the timing of runoff, impacting river flow 

and water levels (Barnett 2008). These researchers concluded with high confidence that 

up to 60 percent of the “climate related trends of river flow, winter air temperature and 

snow pack between 1950-1999” are human-induced (Barnett 2008). This, the 

researchers wrote, is “not good news for those living in the western United 

States.” (Barnett 2008). #5])>

<([#6 [4.2] [3.4.1] The impact greenhouse gas emissions and global warming is having on the 

western 

United States’ water resources is a critical consideration that the BLM must analyze in 

its final EIS. Likewise, it must analyze how the changes in the water systems in the 

project area will affect plants and animals that will be impacted by the project. Many 

species will be detrimentally affected not only by the direct impact of water usage by oil 

shale and tar sands facilities, but also by the cumulative impact the facilities will have on 

global warming and the resulting adverse effect on the river flow and water levels. The 

DPEIS must also analyze how the project’s direct impact on species from impacts like 

habitat destruction may act in a cumulative and synergistic way with impacts to species 

from global warming. #6])>

<([#7 [3.5.2] [4.2] [3.5.4] [3.5.8] 3. Air Quality 

We emphatically endorse the comments of our colleagues, Western Resource 

Advocates et al regarding air quality issues in attached document. Specifically, more 

time should be taken to adequately study cumulative air impacts establishing baseline 

information for existing impacts from industrial development in the region covered by the 

OSTS PEIS and from the reasonably foreseeable development scenario proposed as 

required by NEPA. 

In Utah, air quality monitoring in the heavily developed Uinta Basin over the past two 

winters revealed some of the nation’s highest ozone measurements, even outpacing 

San Bernardino County in Los Angeles. Emissions from Uinta and Duchesne counties’ 

15,000 oil and gas wells are suspect. The problem is being investigated in a 5.5 million 

dollar study conducted by the state, NOAA, EPA, the University of Colorado, BLM, the 

Energy Dynamics Lab, Uintah Impact Mitigation Special Service District and the 

Western Energy Alliance. Preliminary results and conclusions are scheduled for release 

in July 2012, however due to the lack of snow on the ground this winter which 

contributes to ozone formation; data gathered in winter 2012 will not reflect conditions 

present during snowy years. 

Air quality data used for analysis in the OSTS PEIS, if obtained from industry sources, 

should be verified by BLM, EPA, NOAA or some entity without financial interests in 

development scenarios. 

Fugitive emissions from oil and gas development infrastructure including pipelines, 

compressor stations, wells, storage tanks and transport trucks is a major source of 

methane, Volatile Organic Chemicals and Hazardous Air Pollutants, all of which is 

unmonitored and unmeasured. The DPEIS must assess and acknowledge impacts from 
Final OSTS PEIS 398 

fugitive emissions. The EPA has used FLIR video cameras to reveal the presence of 

these otherwise “invisible” sources. For example see www.youtube.com/watch? 

v=N2cHGx0Q1qM&feature=relmfu 

For a comprehensive database on known chemicals used in the oil and gas 

development industry and their effects on human health please see 

www.endocrinedisruption.com . The population of the Uinta Basin is at 30,000 

residents, and any heavily concentrated oil/gas development scenario such as 

proposed in the OSTS PEIS, which augments existing impacts, should assess possible 

effects on human health. #7])>

<([#11 [3.5.1.1] a. The DPEIS Must Assess Carbon Dioxide Emissions 

Carbon dioxide is one of the most important greenhouse gases and tends to stay in the 

atmosphere for centuries (Archer 2005). The IPCC found that emission rates of carbon 

dioxide have grown by 80 percent from 1970 to 2004 and that the 2005 atmospheric 

concentration of carbon dioxide at 379 parts per million greatly exceeded the natural 

range over the last 650,000 years (Bernstein et al. 2007). The rise of carbon dioxide 

emissions in the air is commensurate with the rise of global temperatures. 

Scientists have described the atmospheric carbon dioxide ceiling that must not be 

exceeded in order to avoid a dangerous rise in temperatures. Previously, scientists have 

described this “ceiling” as approximately 450 parts per million (ppm) of carbon dioxide, 

and have warned that this may need to be adjusted downwards (Hansen 2006, Hansen 

2006a,b). Recently, Dr. James Hansen has stated that the limit will need to be revised 

downward to 350 ppm (McKibben 2007). We are already well past that ceiling at 383 

ppm (McKibben 2007). 

It is possible to slow and then reverse the increase in carbon dioxide emissions 

concentrations by slashing anthropogenic emissions, improving land use, and utilizing 

alternative energy sources. See, e.g. Hansen 2006, Hansen et al. 2006a,b; Hansen and 

Sato 2004. However, the necessary measures have not yet been implemented, and 

carbon dioxide emissions have continued to increase by 2 percent per year since 2000 

(Hansen 2006; Hansen et al. 2006a,b). If this growth continues, the 35 percent increase 

in carbon dioxide emission between 2000 and 2015 will make it impossible to get below 

even the previously identified ceiling of 450 ppm (Hansen 2006; Hansen et al. 2006a,b). 

b. The DPEIS Must Assess Methane Emissions 

Methane is the most important of the non-CO2 pollutants, with a global warming 

potential 21 times greater than carbon dioxide, and an atmospheric lifetime of 12 years 

(Forster and Ramaswamy 2007). Methane constitutes approximately 20% of the 

anthropogenic greenhouse effect globally, the largest contribution of the non-CO2 

gases. As a precursor to tropospheric ozone, methane emissions have an even more 

powerful impact on climate. In the Arctic, which is already struggling in the face of global 

warming, this impact is strongest in winter months, which can result in an acceleration 

of the onset of spring melt (Shindell 2007). Tropospheric ozone, unlike other 

greenhouse gases, absorbs both infrared radiation and shortwave radiation (visible 

light). Thus, tropospheric ozone is a particularly powerful greenhouse gas over highly 

reflective surfaces like the Arctic, because it traps shortwave radiation both as it enters 

the Earth’s atmosphere from the sun and when it is reflected back out again by snow 

and ice. Reducing global methane emissions will reduce ozone concentrations in the 

sensitive Arctic and elsewhere. 
Final OSTS PEIS 399 

c. The DPEIS Must Assess Black Carbon or Soot Emissions 

Black carbon, or soot, consists of particles or aerosols released through the inefficient 

burning of fossil fuels, biofuels, and biomass (Quinn et al. 2007). Black carbon warms 

the atmosphere, but it is a solid, not a gas. Unlike greenhouse gases, which warm the 

atmosphere by absorbing longwave infra-red radiation, soot has a warming impact 

because it absorbs shortwave radiation, or visible light (Chameides and Bergin 2002). 

Black carbon is an extremely powerful greenhouse pollutant. Scientists have described 

the average global warming potential of black carbon as about 500 times that of carbon 

dioxide over a 100 year period (Hansen et al. 2007; see also Reddy and Boucher 2007). 

This powerful warming impact is remarkable given that black carbon remains in the 

atmosphere for only about four to seven days, with a mean residence time of 5.3 days 

(Reddy and Boucher 2007). 

Black carbon presents a particularly troubling problem for the Arctic. It contributes to 

warming in this region through the formation of “Arctic haze” and through deposition on 

snow and ice which increases heat absorption (Quinn et al. 2007; Reddy and Boucher 

2007). Arctic haze results from a number of aerosols in addition to black carbon, 

including sulfate and nitrate (Quinn et al. 2007). The effects of Arctic haze may be to 

either increase or decrease warming, but when the haze contains high amounts of soot, 

it absorbs incoming solar radiation and leads to heating (Quinn et al. 2007). 

Soot also contributes to heating when it is deposited on snow because it reduces 

reflectivity of the white snow and instead tends to absorb radiation. A recent study 

indicates that the direct warming effect of black carbon on snow can be three times as 

strong as that due to carbon dioxide during springtime in the Arctic (Flanner 2007). 

Black carbon emissions that occur in or near the Arctic contribute the most to the 

melting of the far north (Reddy and Boucher 2007; Quinn et al. 2007). Black carbon is a 

significant contributor to global climate change, and, like methane and carbon dioxide, 

its emissions must be reduced to curb future warming of the earth. 

d. The DPEIS Must Assess Nitrous Oxide and All Other Greenhouse Gas 

Pollutants 

Nitrous oxide has a global warming potential 310 times that of carbon dioxide and an 

atmospheric lifetime of approximately 114 years (Forster and Ramaswamy 2007). It 

constitutes the second largest proportion of anthropogenic non-CO2 gases at 7%. The 

main sources of nitrous oxide emissions are agriculture, wastewater, fossil fuel 

combustion, and industrial adipic and nitric acid production. As discussed further below, 

because oil shale and tar sands production relies heavily on fossil fuel combustion, and 

because the fuel eventually produced will also be burned by consumers, the project will 

likely lead to an increase in nitrous oxide emissions. The BLM must explore these 

emissions in its DPEIS. The BLM must also discuss any other greenhouse gas 

pollutants that may result from the proposed project. 

In sum, the science concerning greenhouse gases and global warming is advanced and 

makes clear that we must stop the growth of greenhouse gas emissions, and then 

rapidly reduce overall emissions to a very small fraction of current levels. The DPEIS 

fails to fully acknowledge this critical context in which the oil shale and tar sands 

development’s greenhouse gas emissions must be analyzed. The greenhouse gas 

intensive oil shale and tar sands development is completely incompatible with any 

rational energy policy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions on the timeframe that 
Final OSTS PEIS 400 

scientists tell us is absolutely necessary. Without analyzing the greenhouse gas 

emissions from the proposal within the overall context of the climate crisis we are 

facing, the BLM cannot comply with its legal obligations to fully analyze and disclose the 

unacceptable impact that a commercial leasing program will have on the environment. #11])>

<([#8 [3.1.1] 4. Public Lands 

The current custom and culture of the BLM allows even multi-national corporations to 

appropriate U.S. public lands and sue the federal government for obstructing their rights 

to develop wherever they please even when The Department of Interior chooses to 

withdraw certain special lands from mining activity. Such is the case with Interior’s 

recent uranium mining withdrawal at the Grand Canyon. Clearly there is a need for 

reform of the system. In the interim we are losing far more public land to destructive 

industrial development than is being protected by conservation measures; this status is 

not representative of balanced management. 

When the BLM was established in 1946 from the melding of the General Land Office 

and the Grazing Service, a preference for mining and grazing uses for federal public 

lands was embedded in the culture of the agency. Although implementation of the 

Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 allowed public participation in 

creation of BLM Resource Management Plans and gave a voice to other user groups 

such as hunters, fishermen, recreationists and other values such as clean air, clean 

water, intact wildlife habitat and wilderness; it did not effectively loosen the preferential 

grip of mining and grazing interests on public lands. We understand that Multiple Use 

does not mean every use on every acre of land, however the mining activities covered 

in the OSTS PEIS would relegate proposed mining areas to a single use in perpetuity. 

We do not believe that is an acceptable outcome. 

The Tavaputs Plateau and the Uinta Basin of northeast Utah includes Dinosaur National 

Monument, Flaming Gorge National Recreation Area, and counties including Daggett, 

Duchesne, Carbon, Emery, Grand and Uintah. The BLM has identified about 650,000 

total acres of potential contiguous wilderness in northeast Utah. These units include Bull 

Canyon (12,297 acres), Coal Canyon(61,430 acres), Cold Spring Mountain (17,682 

acres), Cripple Cowboy (15,200 acres) Daniels Canyon (2,496 acres), Desolation 

Canyon (290,845 acres), Diamond Breaks (35,380 acres), Floy Canyon (72,605 acres), 

Flume Canyon (50,800 acres), Jack Canyon (7,500 acres), Moonshine Draw (3,900 

acres), Turtle Canyon (33,690 acres), Spruce Canyon (20,900 acres), White River 

(13,500 acres) Westwater Creek (10,100 acres), Wild Mountain (500 acres). 

Additionally, the citizen’s proposal contained in America’s Red Rock Wilderness Act 

identifies a total of 838,600 acres of wilderness in this region. 

The special tar sands districts in the San Rafael Swell, the Triangle Tar Sands and 

White Canyon should be completely eliminated from the PEIS for reasons of their close 

proximity to extensive wilderness lands, Canyonlands National Park, Capitol Reef 

National Park, Glen Canyon National Recreation Area and the formerly proposed San 

Rafael Swell National Monument. 

Keeping these wilderness lands intact is an excellent opportunity to preserve pristine 

ecosystem functions for both wildlife and human enjoyment. In Utah, surface and 

underground mining for either tar sands or oil shale would be devastating to wilderness 

and national park values. Which of these uses is an appropriate and balanced 

management decision for the nation’s public lands? #8])>
Final OSTS PEIS 401 

<([#9 [9.2.2] 5. The Program Would Not Meet the Requirements of Section 369 of the 

EPAct. Oil Shale and Tar Sands Development Cannot Proceed 

Because, as the DPEIS Demonstrates, it Cannot Be Done in an 

“Environmentally Sound Manner.” 

Section 369 of the EPAct makes clear that as a substantive matter, oil shale or tar 

sands development on public lands in the Rockies may proceed, if at all, only in an 

“environmentally sound manner.” Thus, while NEPA standing alone does not necessarily 

mandate an environmentally sound outcome as a substantive matter, such result is 

required here. See, e.g., Wyo. Outdoor Council v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng’rs, 351 F. 

Supp. 2d 1232, 1240 (D. Wyo. 2005) (“NEPA mandates that federal agencies take into 

consideration the impacts of their actions on the environment in the hopes that such 

consideration will lead to environmentally sound decisions that balance the needs of 

humans and the environment in which they live”). 

The DPEIS and other studies demonstrate, however, that oil shale and tar sands 

development, as would be facilitated by the proposed action, would not proceed in an 

“environmentally sound” way. According to the DPEIS, the proposed development could 

destroy habitat, alter topography, displace birds and animals, kill animals, destroy plants 

including many oil shale endemic species, and could even drive some highly imperiled 

plant species to extinction, like the clay reed-mustard, Dudley Bluffs bladderpod, Dudley 

Bluffs twinpod, shrubby reed-mustard, and Uinta Basin hookless cactus. It will also, as 

described below, require vast energy inputs that may produce up to four times more 

greenhouse gas pollution than conventional oil production—rendering a global warming 

impact that the nation and world simply cannot afford. 

Indeed, such impacts are not just possible, but quite likely. Many studies have 

documented the severe environmental effects of oil shale and tar sands development. 

See, e.g., Environmental Defense (2008) at 7-18 (documenting impacts of tar sands 

development, including toxic contamination of air and water, and increased global 

warming); WWF (2008) at 13-53 (documenting impacts to land, air, water, and climate); 

Rand (2005) at 35-43 (documenting environmental and social impacts of oil shale 

development in the United States); OTAa (1980) at 255-356 (discussing environmental 

considerations relevant to oil shale development in the United States); OTAb. For 

example, tar sands development in Canada is some of the most polluting, toxic, 

greenhouse-gas emitting, energy-intensive, destructive, and unsustainable activities on 

earth, and it is most certainly not “environmentally sound.” Environmental Defense 

(2008); WWF (2008). Oil shale development on public lands is likely to have longlasting, 

devastating consequences. Rand (2005); OTAa (1980). As unconventional sources of 

fossil fuel energy, there really is no way to avoid the insidious impacts that will inevitably 

result from oil shale and tar sands development, or minimize them to an “acceptable” 

degree. 

At the very least, it is clear that the BLM lacks sufficient information to be able to 

evaluate fully the environmental consequences of such development—in particular, 

about project-specific technologies and their impacts to sensitive species and their 

habitats—as the agency itself acknowledges. If the BLM cannot determine whether oil 

shale and tar sands development will proceed in an environmentally sound manner, it 

cannot proceed with the proposed action. #9])>

<([#10 [3.7.4.7] 6. The DPEIS Must Analyze Greenhouse Gas Emissions’ Threat to 
Final OSTS PEIS 402 

Ecosystems and Endangered Species 

The dangerous consequences of continued “business as usual” greenhouse gas 

emissions are all too foreseeable. Global warming is already profoundly changing our 

planet, representing the most significant and pervasive threat to biodiversity worldwide 

and affecting both terrestrial and marine species from the tropics to the poles. 

The IPCC report recognizes this, finding that the resilience of several ecosystems is 

likely to be overcome this century by a dangerous brew of climate change, associated 

disturbances, such as flooding, drought, wildfire, insects and ocean acidification, and 

other environmental drivers like pollution and over-exploitation of resources (Bernstein 

et al. 2007). Along with increases in global average temperatures beyond 1.5-2.5o C 

and accompanying increased levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations will 

come major changes in ecosystem structure and function, species’ ecological 

interactions, and species’ geographical ranges (Bernstein et al. 2007). In fact, global 

warming has already resulted in the extinction of at least dozens of species (Pounds et 

al. 2006). Absent major reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, by the middle of this 

century upwards of 35 percent of the earth’s species will be extinct or committed to 

extinction as a result of global warming (Thomas et al. 2004). 

Other scientific reports have reached the same conclusion as the IPCC that 

anthropogenic warming has had a recognizable influence on biological systems (Adger 

et al. 2007). In a study published in Nature in 2003, the authors reported a “globally 

coherent fingerprint of climate change impacts across natural systems” (Parmesan and 

CBD, GCT, LR/CR comments for OSTS Draft PEIS 9 

Yohe 2003). In documenting this “fingerprint” of global warming on ecosystems, 

scientists have predicted three categories of measurable impacts from recent warming: 

(1) earlier timing of spring events and later autumn events (i.e. changes in “phenology”), 

(2) extension of species’ range poleward or upward in elevation, and (3) a decline in 

species adapted to cold temperatures and an increase in species adapted to warm 

temperatures (Parmesan and Galbraith 2003). 

In the abstract, changes in phenology, distribution, or even an abundance of a species 

may not by themselves be harmful to the species’ long-term persistence. But if such 

changes put essential life history traits of the species out of sync with other components 

of the ecosystem, or if natural or anthropogenic barriers prevent poleward or upward 

migration, the consequences can be catastrophic. 

The Edith’s checkerspot butterfly (Euphydryas editha) and the American pika 

(Ochotona princeps), two North American species, demonstrate such deleterious effects 

of global warming. The Edith’s checkerspot butterfly is one of the first species for which 

scientists documented a clear range shift due to global warming. The butterfly’s range 

has moved both northward and upward in elevation in response to a 0.72° C increase in 

regional warming (Parmesan and Yohe 2003). The range shift was not due to butterfly 

populations actually moving, but instead to a higher proportion of population extinctions 

in the southern and lowland portions of the range (Parmesan and Yohe 2003). These 

population extinctions are the result of the fact that the species’ host plant, Plantago 

erecta, now develops earlier in the spring, while the butterfly’s caterpillars continue to 

hatch at the same time (Parmesan and Yohe 2003). As a result, the caterpillars now 

hatch on plants that have already completed their lifecycle and dried up, instead of on 

younger edible plants (Parmesan and Yohe 2003). The tiny checkerspot caterpillars are 
Final OSTS PEIS 403 

unable to move far enough to find other food and, as a result, starve to death 

(Parmesan and Yohe 2003). 

Another animal struggling under the heavy hand of climate change is the American pika. 

This small mammal, a relative of the rabbit, is adapted to life in talus piles on high, 

treeless mountain peaks. Fossil evidence demonstrates that pikas once ranged widely 

over North America, but their range has contracted to a dwindling number of isolated 

peaks during the warm periods of the last 12,000 years (Krajick 2004). Pikas are limited 

by their metabolic adaptation to their cold habitat niche (Krajick 2004). 

Hence, while more mobile alpine species such as birds may be able to shift their ranges 

poleward as warming temperatures and advancing treelines, competitors, and predators 

impact their mountain habitat, pikas are generally incapable of such long range 

dispersal (Krajick 2004). Rather, they can only migrate upslope as the climate warms 

(Krajick2004). In large portions of its range, however, the American pika is already 

occupying the highest elevation talus habitats that exist on a given mountain range; in 

such cases there is no upslope habitat to migrate to, and the mountain’s population will 

ultimately disappear as the climate continues to warm. Already, at least 9 of 25 (36%) of 

pika populations found in the Great Basin have been extirpated and the pika range has 

shifted upslope by 900 feet in this region. This small creature may well become one of 

global warming’s first victims. 

Species like the checkerspot butterfly and American pika demonstrate how climate 

change brought about by global warming will influence the earth’s biodiversity as 

various species struggle to adapt to their changing habitats. Likewise, sensitive 

ecosystems, some literally melting under the impacts of global warming, have provided 

even more evidence of the dire consequence global warming will have on the earth’s 

biological balance. #10])>

Thank you for your consideration of these comments. 

Sincerely, 

/s/ 

Laura Kamala 

Grand Canyon Trust 

HC 64 Box 1705 

Castle Valley, UT 84532 

laurakamala@gmail.com 

/s/ 

John Weisheit 

Living Rivers/Colorado Riverkeeper 

PO Box 466 

Moab, UT 84532 

john@livingrivers.org 

/s/ 

Taylor McKinnon 

Center for Biological Diversity 

P.O. Box 1178 

Flagstaff, AZ 86002-1178 

tmckinnon@biologicaldiversity.org 

CBD, GCT, LR/CR comments for OSTS Draft PEIS 11 
Final OSTS PEIS 404 

Cited and Supporting Literature 

Aars, J., N.J. Lunn, and A.E. Derocher. 2006. Polar Bears: Proceedings of the 14th 

Working Meeting of the IUCN/SSC Polar Bear Specialist Group, 20-24 June 2005, 

Seattle, Washington, USA, at 44. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. 

Adger et. al. 2007. Summary for Policy Makers In Climate Change 2007: Impacts, 

Adaptation and Vulnerability Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment 

Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. [M.L. Parry, O.F. Canziani, 

J.P. Palutikof, P.J. van der Linden and C.E. Hanson, (eds.)] Cambridge University Press, 

Cambridge, UK. 

Alley et al. 2007. Summary for Policy Makers In Climate Change 2007: The Physical 

Science Basis Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. [Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. 

Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M.Tignor and H.L. Miller (eds.)]. Cambridge University 

Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA. 

Amstrup, S.C., I. Stirling, T.S. Smith, C. Perham, and G.W. Thiemann. 2006. Recent 

observations of intraspecific predation and cannibalism among polar bears in the 

southern 

Beaufort Sea. Polar Biology DOI 10.1007/s00300-006-0142-5. 

Amstrup, S.C., B.G. Marcot, and D.C. Douglas. 2007. Forecasting the Range-wide 

Status of Polar Bears at Selected Times in the 21st Century. U.S. Geological Survey, 

Reston, Virginia, USA. 

Arizona Game and Fish Department. 2001. Gila elegans. Unpublished abstract 

compiled 

and edited by the Heritage Data Management System, Arizona Game and Fish 

Department, Phoenix, AZ. 4 pp. 

American Geophysical Union. 2007. Human Impacts on Climate, Statement. Available 

at: http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/policy/climate_change_position.html. (Last visited 

March 17, 2008). 

Barnett, T. et al. Human-induced changes in the hydrology of the western United States. 

Science Express. 10.1126/science.1152538. 

Bartis, J. T., LaTourrette, T., Dixon, L., Peterson, D. J. and Cecchine, G. Oil shale 

development in the United States: Prospects and policy issues. Technical report, RAND, 

2005. 

Bernstein et al. 2007. Synthesis Report In Climate Change 2007: A Report of the 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Available at http://www.ipcc.ch. 

Brandt, A. and A. Farrell. 2008. Dynamics of the Oil Transition: Modeling Capacity, 

Costs, and Emissions. Technical report, University of California Energy Institute. 

CBD, GCT, LR/CR comments for OSTS Draft PEIS 12 

Brandt, A. Converting Green River oil shale to liquid fuels with the Alberta Taciuk 

Processor: energy inputs and greenhouse gas emissions; WORKING PAPER, Energy 

and Resources Group University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, CA 94720-3050, 

http://abrandt.berkeley.edu/ June 1st, 2007. 

Bureau of Land Management: Utah Wilderness Inventory, 1999. Government Printing 

Office. http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/search/pagedetails.action?st=utah+wilderness 

+inventory&granuleId=&packageId=GPO-DOI-BLM-UTAH99 

Bureau of Reclamation, Lower Colorado Region: Colorado River Basin Water Supply 
Final OSTS PEIS 405 

and Demand Study. http://www.usbr.gov/lc/region/programs/crbstudy.html 

Caldeira, K. and 25 others. 2007. Comment on “Modern-age buildup of CO2 and its 

effects on seawater acidity and salinity” by Hugo A. Loáiciga, Geophysical Research 

Letters 34: L18608. 

Chameides, W.L., and M. Bergin. 2002. Soot takes center stage. Science 297:2214- 

2215. 

Chazan, G. “Oil Sands are Shifting in Alberta. Costs, Regulation are Slowing Boom; 

Game for Big Players.” The Wall Street Journal. (Feb. 5, 2008). 

Clarke, K. May 10, 2006. Letter to Henry Maddox (2 pp.) with Enclosure: The Bureau 

of Land Management’s Formal Response to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s 

Proposed Threatened Status for the Penstemon grahamii and Graham’s Beardtongue 

with Critical Habitat (Proposed Rule: 71 Fed. Reg. 3158 (Jan. 19, 2006)) 

Denver Post, 2012: Salazar says Colorado River Compact over-allocated by 2 million 

acre-feet. http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_20359715/colorado-river-preservationsharingspotlight 

Derocher, A.E., N.J. Lunn, I. Stirling. 2004. Polar bears in a warming climate. Integrated 

Comparative Biology 44:163-176. 

Dowd, A. “Canadian emission rules target new oil sands plants.” Reuters. (March 10, 

2008). 

Dyer S., Moorhouse J., Laufenberg K., and Powell R. Under-Mining the Environment: 

The Oil Sands Report Card. Technical report, World Wildlife Fund, et al., 2008. 

Feely, R.A., C. L. Sabine, and V. J. Fabry. 2006. Carbon Dioxide and Our Ocean 

Legacy. 

Fischlin, A., G.F. Midgley, J.T. Price, R. Leemans, B. Gopal, C. Turley, M.D.A. 

Rounsevell, O.P. Dube, J. Tarazona, A.A. Velichko, 2007. Ecosystems, their properties, 

CBD, GCT, LR/CR comments for OSTS Draft PEIS 13 

goods, and services. Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. 

Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. [M.L. Parry, O.F. Canziani, J.P. Palutikof, 

P.J. van der Linden and C.E. Hanson, eds., Cambridge University Press]. 

Flanner, M. G., C. S. Zender, J. T. Randerson, and P. J. Rasch (2007), Present-day 

climate forcing and response from black carbon in snow. J. Geophys. Res., 112, 

D11202, doi:10.1029/2006JD008003. 

Gardner, T.A., I.M. Côtè, J.A. Gill. 2003. Long-term Region-wide Declines in Caribbean 

Corals. Science 301: 958. 

Hansen, J., L. Nazarenko, R. Ruedy, , M. Sato, , J. Willis, A. Del Genio., D. Koch, A. 

Lacis, K. Lo, S. Menon, T. Novakov, J. Perlwitz, G. Russell, G. A. Schmidt, N. Tausnev. 

2005. Earth’s Energy Imbalance: Confirmation and Implications. Science 308: 1431- 

1435. 

Hansen, J. 2006. Expert report submitted to the United States District Court, District of 

Vermont in regard to Case No. 2:05-CV-302 and 2:05-CV-304, Green Mountain 

Chrysler-Plymouth-Dodge-Jeep et al. v. Thomas W. Torti, Secretary of Vermont Agency 

of Natural Resources, et al. 

Hansen, J., M. Sato, R. Ruedy, K. Lo, D.W. Lea, and M. Medina-Elizade 

2006a. Global temperature change. PNAS Published online September 25, 2006, doi: 

10.1073/pnas.0606291103. 
Final OSTS PEIS 406 

Hansen, J., M. Sato, R. Ruedy, P. Kharecha, A. Lacis, R. Miller, L. Nazarenko, 

K. Lo, G.A. Schmidt, G. Russell, I. Aleinov, S. Bauer, E. Baum, B. Cairns, 

V. Canuto, M. Chandler, Y. Cheng, A. Cohen, A. Del Genio, G. Faluvegi, 

E. Fleming, A. Friend, T. Hall, C. Jackman, J. Jonas, M. Kelley, N.Y. Kiang, 

D. Koch, G. Labow, J. Lerner, S. Menon, T. Novakov, V. Oinas, Ja. Perlwitz, 

Ju. Perlwitz, D. Rind, A. Romanou, R. Schmunk, D. Shindell, P. Stone, 

S. Sun, D. Streets, N. Tausnev, D. Thresher, N. Unger, M. Yao, S. Zhang2 

2006b. Dangerous human-made interference with climate: A GISS modelE study. 13 

October 2006 Draft. Available at http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0610115. (Last visited 

March 17, 2008). 

Hansen, J. and M. Sato. 2004. Greenhouse gas growth rates. PNAS 101: 16109-16114. 

Hansen, J., M. Sato, P. Kharecha, G. Russell, D.W. Lea, and M. Siddall. 2007. Climate 

Change and Trace Gases. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A (2007) 365, 1925–1954 

doi:10.1098/rsta.2007.2052. 

Harvell, C.D., C.E. Mitchell, J.R. Ward, S. Altizer, A.P. Dobson, R.S. Ostfeld, M.D. 

Samuel. 2002. Climate Warming and Disease Risks for Terrestrial and Marine Biota. 

Science 296: 2158-2162. 

CBD, GCT, LR/CR comments for OSTS Draft PEIS 14 

Hatch C. and Price M. Canada’s Toxic Tar Sands: The Most Destructive Project on 

Earth. Technical report, Environmental Defence, 2008. 

Hoegh-Guldberg, O. 2005. Marine Ecosystems and Climate Change. Climate Change & 

Biodiversity, [Lovejoy, T.E., L. Hannah (eds.)]. 

Hoegh-Guldberg, O., P.J. Mumby, A.J. Hooten, R.S. Steneck, P. Greenfield, E. Gomez, 

C.D. Harvell, P.F. Sale, A.J. Edwards, K. Caldeira, N. Knowlton, C.M. Eakin, R. 

Iglesias-Prieto, N. Muthiga, R.H. Bradbury, A. Dubi, M.E. Hatziolos. 2007. Coral Reefs 

Under Rapid Climate Change and Ocean Acidification. Science 318: 1737-1742. 

Holland, M.M., Bitz, C.M., Tremblay, B. 2006. Future Abrupt Reductions in the 

Summer Arctic Sea Ice. Geophysical Research Letters. 33: L23503 

doi:10.1029/2006GL028024. 

H.R. 644: Grand Canyon Watersheds Protection Act of 2009 

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.644: 

H.R. 3481: Lower Colorado River Protection Act 

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.3481: 

Hughes, T.P. 1994. Catastrophes, Phase Shifts and Large-Scale Degradation of a 

Caribbean Coral Reef. Science 265: 1547-1551. 

Hughes, T. P., A. H. Baird, D. R. Bellwood, M. Card,2 S. R. Connolly, C. Folke, R. 

Grosberg, O. Hoegh-Guldberg, J. B. C. Jackson, J. Kleypas, J. M. Lough, P. Marshall, 

M. Nyström, S., R. Palumbi, J. M. Pandolfi, B. Rosen, J. Roughgarden. 2003. Climate 

Change, Human Impacts, and the Resilience of Coral Reefs. Science 301: 929-933. 

Johnson, H.R., P.M. Crawford, J.W. Bunger. 2004. Oil shale resources, technology and 

economics, volume II. Prepared for the Office of Deputy Assistant Secretary for 

Petroleum Reserves and the Office of Naval Petroleum and Oil Shale Reserves, U.S. 

Department of Energy. 

Kass, R.J. 2000. Demographic Monitoring of Wright Fishhook Cactus. In J. 

Maschinski, L. Holter, and Rocky Mountain Research Station (tech coords) 

Southwestern Rare and Endangered Plants: Proceedings of the Third Conference. 
Final OSTS PEIS 407 

September 25-28, 2000. USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-3. Flagstaff, AZ. 

Kizzia, T. 2008. Lacking Studies, State Still Disputes Polar Bear “Doom.” Anchorage 

Daily News. January 27, 2008. Available at http://www.adn.com/626/story/295420.html. 

(Last visited March 17, 2008). 

Kleypas, J.A., R.A. Feely, V.J. Fabry, C. Langdon, C.L. Sabine, L.L. Robbins. 2006. 

Impacts of Ocean Acidification on Coral Reefs and Other Marine Calcifiers: A Guide for 

CBD, GCT, LR/CR comments for OSTS Draft PEIS 15 

Future Research. Available at http://www.ucar.edu/news/releases/2006/report.shtml. 

(Last visited March 17, 2008). 

Kolbert, E. “Unconventional Crude. Canada’s synthetic-fuels boom.” The New Yorker. 

(Nov. 12, 2007). 

Krajick, K. 2004. All Downhill From here? Science 303: 1600-1602. 

Krishnan, S. 2007. Conservation Corner: Dudley Bluffs Bladderpod (Lesquerella 

congesta). In Aquilegia 31:1 (Spring 2007). 

Lovich J. and Melis T. 2007. The state of the Colorado River ecosystem in Grand 

Canyon: Lessons from 10 years of adaptive ecosystem management. Intl. J. River 

Basin Management Vol. 5, No. 3, pp. 207–221 

McKibben, Bill. “Remember This: 350 Parts Per Million.” The Washington Post. (Dec. 

28, 2007, A12). Available at: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/ 

content/article/2007/12/27/AR2007122701942.html (Last visited March 17, 2008). 

Meehl, G.A., T.S. Stocker, W.D. Collins, P. Friedlingstein, A.T. Gaye, J.M. Gregory, A. 

Kitoh, R. Knutti, J.M. Murphy, A. Noda , S.C.B. Raper, I.G. Watterson, A.J. Weaver, Z. 

Zhao. 2007: Global Climate Projections. Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science 

Basis of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment 

Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, [Solomon, S., D. Qin, M.] 

Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M.Tignor and H.L. Miller (eds.)]. 

Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA. 

Monnett, C. and J.S. Gleason. 2006. Observations of mortality associated with 

extended open water swimming by polar bears in the Alaskan Beaufort Sea. Polar 

Biology 29(8):861-687. 

Mueller, G.A. 2006. Ecology of bonytail and razorback sucker and the role of offchannel 

habitats in their recovery. Scientific Investigations Report 2006-5065. Fort Collins, CO: 

U.S. Geological Survey, Fort Collins Science Center. 64 p. 

Mueller, G and P Marsh. 1995. Bonytail and Razorback Sucker in the Colorado River 

Basin. In LaRoe, E.T., G.S. Farris, C.E. Puckett, P.D. Doran, and M.J. Mac (eds). Our 

living resources: a report to the nation on the distribution, abundance, and health of U.S. 

plants, animals, and ecosystems. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Biological 

Service, Washington, DC. 530 pp. 

National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC). 2007a. Arctic Sea Ice News Fall 2007. 

http://www.nsidc.org/news/press/2007_seaiceminimum/20070810_index.html (last 

visited March 17, 2008). 

NatureServe Explorer. 2008a. Colton’s Milkvetch (Astragalus coltonii var. moabensis). 

CBD, GCT, LR/CR comments for OSTS Draft PEIS 16 

Jones M.E. Website, www.natureserve.org/explorer, accessed March, 2008. 

NatureServe Explorer. 2008a. Ownbey thistle (Cirsium ownbeyi). Jones M.E. Website, 

www.natureserve.org, accessed March, 2008. 
Final OSTS PEIS 408 

Orr, J.C., V.J. Fabry, O. Aumont, L. Bopp, S.C. Doney, R.A. Feely, A. Gnanadesikan, N. 

Gruber, A. Ishida, F. Joos, R.M. Key, K. Lindsay, E. Maier-Reimer, R. Matear, P. 

Monfray, A. Mouchet, R.G. Najjar, G. Plattner, K.B. Rodgers, C.L. Sabine, J.L. 

Sarmiento, R. Schlitzer, R.D. Slater, I.J. Totterdell, M. Weirig, Y. Yamanaka, A. Yool. 

2005. Anthropogenic ocean acidification over the twenty-first century and its impact on 

calcifying organisms. Nature 437: 681-686. 

Painter, Thomas H., et al. 2010. Response of Colorado River runoff to dust radiative 

forcing in snow. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science. 

http://www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.0913139107 

Parmesan, C. & G. Yohe. 2003. A globally coherent fingerprint of climate change 

impacts across natural systems. Nature 421: 37-42. 

Parmesan, C. & Galbraith, H. 2004. Observed impacts of global climate in the U.S. Pew 

Center on Global Climate Change. 

Pounds, J.A., M.R. Bustamante, L.A. Coloma, J.A. Consuegra, M.P. L. Fogden, 

P.N. Foster, E. La Marca, K.L. Masters, A. Merino-Viteri, R. Puschendorf, S.R. Ron, G.A. 

Sánchez-Azofeifa, C.J. Still, B.E. Young. 2006. Widespread amphibian extinctions from 

epidemic disease driven by global warming. Nature 439: 161-167. 

Precht, W. & A. Aronson. 2004. Climate Flickers and Range Shifts of Reef Corals. 

Front. Ecol. Environ. 2(6): 307-314. 

Quinn, P.K., T.S. Bates, E. Baum, N. Doubleday, A. Fiore, M. Flanner, A. Fridlind, T. 

Garrett, D. Koch, S. Menon, D. Shendell, A. Stohl, and S.G. Warren. 2007. Short-lived 

pollutants in the Arctic: Their climate impact and possible mitigation strategies. 

Available at http://niflheim.nilu.no/spac/QuinnEtAl_EOSsubmitted.pdf. 

Raupach, M. R., G. Marland, P. Ciais, C. Le Quéré, J. G. Canadell, G. Klepper, and C. 

B. Field. 2007. Global and regional drivers of accelerating CO2 emissions. Proceedings 

of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 104:10288-10293. 

Reddy, M.S., and O. Boucher. 2007. Climate impact of black carbon emitted from 

energy consumption in the world’s regions. Geophysical Research Letters 34, L11802, 

doi:10.1029/2006GLO28904. 

Regehr et al. 2007. Effects of earlier sea ice breakup on survival and population size of 

polar bears in Western Hudson Bay. Journal of Wildlife Management 71(8):2673-2683. 

Rosenzweig, C., G. Casassa, D.J. Karoly, A. Imeson, C. Liu, A. Menzel, S. Rawlins, T.L. 

Root, B. Seguin, and P. Tryjanowski, 2007: Assessment of observed changes and 

CBD, GCT, LR/CR comments for OSTS Draft PEIS 17 

responses in natural and managed systems. Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation 

and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of 

the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, M.L. Parry, O.F. Canziani, J.P. 

Palutikof, P.J. van der Linden and C.E. Hanson, Eds., Cambridge University Press, 

Cambridge, UK, 79-131. 

Sabine, C.L., R.A. Feely, N. Gruber, R.M. Key, K. Lee, J.L. Bullister, R. Wanninkhof, 

Wong, C. S., D.W. R. Wallace, B. Tilbrook, F.J. Millero, T. Peng, A. Kozyr, T. Ono, 

A.F. Rios. 2004. The Oceanic Sink for Anthropogenic CO2. Science 305: 367-371. 

Santer, B. D., T. M. L. Wigley, P. J. Glecklera, C. Bonfilsd, M. F. Wehnere, K. 

AchutaRaoa, T. P. Barnettf, J. S. Boylea, W. Brüggemanng, M. Fiorinoa, N. Gilletth, J. 

E. Hanseni, P. D. Jonesh, S. A. Kleina, G. A. Meehlc, S. C. B. Raperj, R.W. Reynoldsk, 

K. E. Taylora, W. M. Washington. 2006. Forced and Unforced Ocean Temperature 
Final OSTS PEIS 409 

Changes in Atlantic and Pacific Tropical Cyclogenesis Regions. Proceedings of the 

National Academy of Sciences (PNAS). Published online September 19, 2006, 

doi:10.1073/pnas.0602861103. 

Shindell, D., 2007: Local and remote contributions to Arctic warming. Geophys. Res. 

Lett., 34, L14704, doi:10.1029/2007GL030221. 

Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance: Utah Wilderness Inventory. 

http://action.suwa.org/site/PageServer?pagename=WATE_longtoc 

Southwest Energy Efficiency Project (SWEEP). 2002. The New Mother Lode: The 

Potential for More Efficient Electricity in the Southwest. Available at: 

http://www.swenergy.org. (Last visited March 17, 2008). 

Stroeve, J. et al. 2008. Arctic sea ice extent plummets in 2007. Eos 89:13-20. 

Thomas, C.D., A. Cameron, R.E. Green, M. Bakkenes, L.J. Beaumont, Y.C. Collingham, 

B.F.N. Erasmus, M. Ferreira de Siqueira, A. Grainger, L. Hannah, L. Hughes, B. 

Huntley, A.S. van Jaarsveld, G.F. Midgley, L. Miles, M.A. Ortega-Huerta, A. Townsend 

Peterson, O.L. Phillips, S.E. Williams. 2004. Extinction Risks from Climate Change. 

Nature 427: 145-148. 

Udall, R. & A. Andrews. 2004. The Illusive Bonanza: Oil Shale in Colorado “Pulling the 

Sword from the Stone.” Energy Bulletin. 

Woynillowicz, D., C.S. Baker, M. Raynolds. 2005. Oil sands fever: The environmental 

implications of Canada’s oil sands rush. The PEMBINA Institute. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1994a. Utah Reed-Mustards Recovery Plan. Region 6. 

Website http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/recovery_plans/1994/940914.pdf, accessed March, 

2008. 

CBD, GCT, LR/CR comments for OSTS Draft PEIS 18 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1994b. Final Biological Opinion on the Operation of 

Glen Canyon Dam. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2001. Species Account: Bonytail. Website 

http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/life_histories/E020.html, accessed March, 2008. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2002a. Bonytail (Gila elegans) Recovery Goals: 

Amendment and Supplement to the Bonytail Chub Recovery Plan. Region 6; Denver, 

Colorado. Website www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/crrip/doc/rg/Bonytail.pdf, accessed 

March, 2008. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2002b. Colorado Pikeminnow Recovery Goals: 

Amendment and Supplement to the Colorado Squawfish Recovery Plan. Region 6; 

Denver, Colorado. Website http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/recovery_plans/2002/020828b.pdf, 

accessed March, 2008. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2002c. Humpback chub (Gila cypha) Recovery Goals: 

amendment and supplement to the Humpback Chub Recovery Plan. Region 6; Denver, 

Colorado. Website www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/crrip/doc/rg/Humpbackchub.pdf, 

accessed March, 2008. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2004. Appendix A. Recovery Report to Congress for 

Federally listed Threatened and Endangered Species. Region 6; Denver, Colorado. 

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. 2005. Whooping Crane (Grus americana) Draft Revised 

International Recovery Plan. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2008. Final Biological Opinion on the Operation of 

Glen Canyon Dam. 
Final OSTS PEIS 410 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2002. Humpback chub (Gila cypha) Recovery Goals: 

amendment and supplement to the Humpback Chub Recovery Plan. Region 6; Denver, 

Colorado. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2004. Appendix A. Recovery Report to congress for 

Federally listed Threatened and Endangered Species. Region 6; Denver, Colorado. 

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. 2005. Whooping Crane (Grus americana) Draft Revised 

International Recovery Plan. 

U.S. Geological Survey. 2003. An Overview of Status and Trend Information for the 

Grand Canyon Population of the Humpback Chub, Gila Cypha. Prepared by the Grand 

Canyon Monitoring and Research Center U.S. Geological Survey, Flagstaff, AZ For the 

Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Work Group Ad Hoc Committee on 

Humpback Chub 

CBD, GCT, LR/CR comments for OSTS Draft PEIS 19 

U.S. Geological Survey. 2005. Gloss, S.P., Lovich, J.E., and Melis, T.S., eds., The state 

of the Colorado River ecosystem in Grand Canyon: U.S. Geological Survey Circular 

1282, 220 

Utah Department of Environmental Quality, 2011. Uintah Basin Winter Ozone Study 

Plan and Budget. http://www.deq.utah.gov/locations/uintahbasin/docs/2012/Feb/ 

Unitah_Basin_Winter_Ozone_Study_V3noWatermark.PDF 

Utah Prairie Dog Implementation Team. 1997. Utah Prairie Dog Interim Conservation 

Strategy. National Park Service, U.S. Bureau of Land Management, USDA APHIS 

Wildlife Services, USDA Forest Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Utah Division 

of Wildlife Resources, and Utah State University. 

CBD, GCT, LR/CR comments for OSTS Draft PEIS 20 

OSTS_084 

Organization: Glen Miller 

Received: 5/3/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Commenter1: Glen Miller - Grand Junction, Colorado 81507 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: none 

Submission Category: Letter 

Submitted As: Email & Postal Mail 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/17/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D00085.htm (OSTS_084-59148.htm Size = 1 KB) 

OSTS_084_Miller1_Mail_OSTS2012D00085.pdf (OSTS_084-59147.pdf Size = 468 KB) 

Submission Text

See Attachment. 

SherriMy May 3, 2012 comment letter contains an error on Page 2. 

The reference noted in Comment #1 should be Vol. 1, pp 3-76, 77, 78 

Attached is a corrected copy of my letter. 

Sherri Thompson, Project Mgr., BLM 
Final OSTS PEIS 411 

Colorado State Office 

2850 Youngfield St. 

Lakewood, CO 80215-7093 

Dear Ms. Thompson: 

Glen A. Miller 

2264 Willow Wood Rd. 

Grand Jet., CO 81507 

May 3, 2012 

RE: Comments on DES 12-01 

Oil Shale and Tar Sands 

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on some aspects of the BLM 

management plans for oil shale. My comments are limited to the Piceance Basin, 

Colorado. I have 12 years experience as a Geologist-Hydrologist in the Interior 

Dept’s 1970’s-80’s prototype program. 

Because of location problems with several maps in the EIS, I may send 

additional comments. 

<([#1 [9.7] This EIS, presumably aimed at reducing the acreage available for oil shale 

leasing, includes several statements and maps that appear to be in error and/or 

misleading. Their use can adversely affect the prudent management/development 

of this very large oil shale reserve. (The 1.5 trillion bbl of shale oil in Piceance 

Basin, if fully recovered, could supply our country’s current needs for oil (20 

million BP Day) for 200 years!) This EIS does not appear to take the long-term 

view on such a valuable resource. 

This reviewer has no great problem with reducing the acreage available. 

We need a long period of intense R&D ahead before continuing to lease under 

present lease terms (most envision only a 20/40% recovery with no plans for 

recovery of several co-products). Some studies suggest that co-products 

(aluminum, cement, lithium, fertilizer, etc.) could double the value of oil shale. 

Current RD & D Leases: 

Because of the large array of uncertainties involving in-situ recovery, it 

would seem prudent to allow the existing leases (in Piceance) to “mature”, and 

thus provide a usable knowledge base, prior to issuing more leases based on in-situ 

methods. #1])> <([#2 [6.3.3] Several problems with in-situ methods are noted below: 

1. Low resource recovery. The publicly available projected resource recovery 

for in-situ ranges from less than 20% to about 40%. For an 8 square mile 

“commercial” lease (15 billion+ bbl resource) such low recovery is not 

good, is probably unacceptable to the taxpayer owners [at current prices 

$1.5 trillion], and appears to be contrary to the “waste of resources” 

provisions in the Mineral Leasing Act. A “prudent” resource owner would 

not normally settle for a return of 50 cents on the dollar, when more 

efficient methods are available. 

#2])> <([#3 [6.3.2] Several problems with in-situ methods are noted below: 

2. Water for In-Situ. Water needs and effects on groundwater are as yet 

unknown. Residual spent shale in in-situ retorts could require years of 

leaching or “rinsing”, and, thus, lots of water. Subsidence effects on the 
Final OSTS PEIS 412 

post-recovery aquifers are likely to be significant, and not beneficial, but 

are, as yet, unknown. 

#3])> SPECIFICCOMMENTS 

<([#4 [3.4.4] 1. VI PP.76, 77, 78 

The message that the lower aquifer ground water is of “unusable” 

quality is in error. USGS Report (open-file report 78-734, prepared 

in cooperation with BLM & EPA) is the definitive data source on 

ground water quality. It notes that the average TDS in the lower 

aquifer is 3460 mg/L, and only one test hole encountered highly 

saline water. Thus, perhaps several million acre-feet of stored 

ground water there cannot be casually written off, or placed in the 

“unprotected” EPA category of water quality regulation. #4])>

<([#5 [6.3.6] 2. V2 P .2-20, paragraph 2 lines 17-19 (Exclusion of surface mining 

leases): The rather remarkable conclusion that the 0-500’ overburden 

zone, although being “Geologically Prospective” is “ ... very limited, 

and it would be difficult to assemble a logical mining unit”, is an ill-drawn 

conclusion, according to the opinions of several experienced 

oil shale geologists and engineers. Along the NW edge of the basin 

are about 65 square miles of Federal oil shale with less than 500’ 

overburden. Oil shale resource here is about 20 billion bbl, or about 

2.5 Billion bbl on the eight (8) standard leases that would fit into the 

area. This federally owned area of less than 500’ of overburden (see 

Donnell, USGS PP 131 0) probably contains a minimum of 20 billion 

bbl oil equivalent. To not consider surface mining and retorting as a 

recovery method, even for this small area, is to potentially “waste” 

or lose about 1⁄2 or more of the resource, which would be about 10+/- billion 

bbl with a current oil value of$1 trillion (and perhaps $100 

billion in royalties to The Public Treasury (Fed & State). Surface 

mining, in the long run, probably would be less expensive and less 

detrimental to the environment than other methods. #5])>

<([#6 [3.15] [6.1] 3. Map, P 3-11 (“Decisions” Map) raises several questions. The small 

scale and lack of “locatable” features make reviewing it an uncertain 

effort. 

A. Around 100 mi2 of shallow shale, containing perhaps 50-100 

billion bbl of oil, appears to be left blank in the northern part 

of the basin (see Donnell Fig. USGS PP 1310). This area 

includes much/most of the “less than 500’ overburden area. 

B. The “multi-mineral” zone appears to generally match the thickest 

Nacholite area, but does not include a larger area of 

Dawsonite (alumina) resource. 

C. Why does the “underground mining” areas in the NW exclude a 

much larger area of “geologically prospective” resources? 

The existence of the two patterns on the map do not support 

such a decision. 

#6])> Note: per our recent phone conversation, I plan to submit 
Final OSTS PEIS 413 

more detailed review on some aspects of the above, many of 

the maps are difficult to interpret, especially as to more exact 

locations. I’m awaiting map data from other sources. 

Sincerely, 

Glen Miller 

Sherri Thompson, Project Mgr., BLM 

Colorado State Office 

2850 Youngfield St. 

Lakewood, CO 80215-7093 

Glen A. Miller 

2264 Willow Wood Rd. 

Grand Jet., CO 81507 

May 3, 2012 

RE: Comments on DES 12-01 

Oil Shale and Tar Sands 

Dear Ms. Thompson: 

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on some aspects of the BLM 

management plans for oil shale. My comments are limited to the Piceance Basin, 

Colorado. I have 12 years experience as a Geologist-Hydrologist in the Interior 

Dept’s 1970’s-80’s prototype program. 

Because of location problems with several maps in the EIS, I may send 

additional comments. 

This EIS, presumably aimed at reducing the acreage available for oil shale 

leasing, includes several statements and maps that appear to be in error and/or 

misleading. Their use can adversely affect the prudent management/development 

of this very large oil shale reserve. (The 1.5 trillion bbl of shale oil in Piceance 

Basin, if fully recovered, could supply our country’s current needs for oil (20 

million BP Day) for 200 years!) This EIS does not appear to take the long-term 

view on such a valuable resource. 

This reviewer has no great problem with reducing the acreage available. 

We need a long period of intense R&D ahead before continuing to lease under 

present lease terms (most envision only a 20/40% recovery with no plans for 

recovery of several co-products). Some studies suggest that co-products 

(aluminum, cement, lithium, fertilizer, etc.) could double the value of oil shale. 

Current RD & D Leases: 

Because of the large array of uncertainties involving in-situ recovery, it 

would seem prudent to allow the existing leases (in Piceance) to “mature”, and 

thus provide a usable knowledge base, prior to issuing more leases based on in-situ 

methods. Several problems with in-situ methods are noted below: 

1. Low resource recovery. The publicly available projected resource recovery 

for in-situ ranges from less than 20% to about 40%. For an 8 square mile 

“commercial” lease (15 billion + bbl resource) such low recovery is not 
Final OSTS PEIS 414 

good, is probably unacceptable to the taxpayer owners [at current prices 

$1.5 trillion], and appears to be contrary to the “waste of resources” 

provisions in the Mineral Leasing Act. A “prudent” resource owner would 

not normally settle for a return of 50 cents on the dollar, when more 

efficient methods are available. 

2. Water for In-Situ. Water needs and effects on groundwater are as yet 

unknown. Residual spent shale in in-situ retorts could require years of 

leaching or “rinsing”, and, thus, lots of water. Subsidence effects on the 

post-recovery aquifers are likely to be significant, and not beneficial, but 

are, as yet, unknown. 

SPECIFIC COMMENTS 

1. VI P.79, last paragraph, P. 80 cont’d: 

The message that the lower aquifer ground water is of “unusable” 

quality is in error. USGS Report (open-file report 78-734, prepared 

in cooperation with BLM & EPA) is the definitive data source on 

ground water quality. It notes that the average TDS in the lower 

aquifer is 3460 mg/L, and only one test hole encountered highly 

saline water. Thus, perhaps several million acre-feet of stored 

ground water there cannot be casually written off, or placed in the 

“unprotected” EPA category of water quality regulation. 

2. V2 P .2-20, paragraph 2 lines 17-19 (Exclusion of surface mining 

leases): The rather remarkable conclusion that the 0-500’ overburden 

zone, although being “Geologically Prospective” is “ ... very limited, 

and it would be difficult to assemble a logical mining unit”, is an ill-drawn 

conclusion, according to the opinions of several experienced 

oil shale geologists and engineers. Along the NW edge of the basin 

are about 65 square miles of Federal oil shale with less than 500’ 

overburden. Oil shale resource here is about 20 billion bbl, or about 

2.5 Billion bbl on the eight (8) standard leases that would fit into the 

area. This federally owned area of less than 500’ of overburden (see 

Donnell, USGS PP 131 0) probably contains a minimum of 20 billion 

bbl oil equivalent. To not consider surface mining and retorting as a 

recovery method, even for this small area, is to potentially “waste” 

or lose about 1⁄2 or more of the resource, which would be about 10+/- billion 

bbl with a current oil value of $1 trillion (and perhaps $100 

billion in royalties to The Public Treasury (Fed & State). Surface 

mining, in the long run, probably would be less expensive and less 

detrimental to the environment than other methods. 

3. Map, P 3-11 (“Decisions” Map) raises several questions. The small 

scale and lack of “locatable” features make reviewing it an uncertain 

effort. 

A. Around 100 mi2 of shallow shale, containing perhaps 50-100 

billion bbl of oil, appears to be left blank in the northern part 
Final OSTS PEIS 415 

of the basin (see Donnell Fig. USGS PP 1310). This area 

includes much/most of the “less than 500’ overburden area. 

B. The “multi-mineral” zone appears to generally match the thickest 

Nacholite area, but does not include a larger area of 

Dawsonite (alumina) resource. 

C. Why does the “underground mining” areas in the NW exclude a 

much larger area of “geologically prospective” resources? 

The existence of the two patterns on the map do not support 

such a decision. 

Note: per our recent phone conversation, I plan to submit 

more detailed review on some aspects of the above, many of 

the maps are difficult to interpret, especially as to more exact 

locations. I’m awaiting map data from other sources. 

Sincerely, 

Glen Miller 

OSTS_085 

Organization: 2264 Willow Wood Road, Glen Miller 

Received: 5/4/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Commenter1: Glen Miller - Grand Junction, Colorado 81507 (United States) 

Organization1:2264 Willow Wood Road 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: none 

Submission Category: Letter 

Submitted As: Email & Postal Mail 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/17/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D00086.htm (OSTS_085-59150.htm Size = 1 KB) 

OSTS_085_Miller2_Mail_OSTS2012D00086.pdf (OSTS_085-59149.pdf Size = 125 KB) 

Submission Text

See Attachment. 

Glen A. Miller 

2264 Willow Wood Road 

Grand Junction, CO 81507 

May 4, 2012 

Sherri Thompson, Project Manager 

BLM State Office 

2850 Youngfield Street 

Lakewood, CO 80215-7093 

2012 MAY -1 AM II: 59 

Re: Further Comments on the Piceance Basin part of DES 12-0; and my letter dated 5-3-12 

Dear Ms. Thompson, 

<([#1 [3.1.8] [6.1] During my review of the DES, I initially overlooked Figure 2.3.3.1 
Final OSTS PEIS 416 

(Exclusions, 

Alternative 2). The “Wilderness Characteristics” designation of a large area (more than 70 

square miles of oil shale resource is surprising. I did not find this in the 2008 FES 08-32. 

Using the resource map of Donnel (1987, Figure 19), the resource here ranges from 

about one-half million to more than 2 million bbl/acre, and contains more than 50 billion barrels. 

The “Wilderness” area appears to include 20-30 square miles of the “multi-mineral” area, which 

contains a large amount of Nahcolite and Dawsonite (aluminum). The area is underlain by 

productive gas-bearing strata. The “shallow” gas reservoir contains a large reserve, and the 

deeper (“Niobrara”-Mancos, etc.) resource may be larger. 

Several issues are apparent: 

1. I am a proponent of The Wilderness Act, have worked in the area, and am of the opinion 

that is falls far short of the necessary features for “Wilderness.” 

2. There are several well-used roads crossing the area. 

3. My map data are incomplete, but there appears to be several oil and gas leases and 

several wells in the area. 

4. The “Wilderness” coverage of most of the readily surface-mineable shale in northern 

Piceance Basin is of interest. The mid-2000’s RMP draft revision proposed a ban on 

surface mining. This proposed “Wilderness,” if put in place would do so. 

#1])> Glen A. Miller letter to Ms. Sherri Thompson dated May 4, 2012 -Page 2 

<([#2 [6.3.6] If the BLM has a policy against surface mining in Piceance, it owes the public an 

explanation. Too much is at stake. Potential market value of oil in the area is on the order of 5 

to 10 trillion dollars (and hundreds of billions in royalties). The value of natural gas, aluminum, 

and other co-products (fertilizer, lithium, etc.) could be several multiples of this value. However, 

the true value is much greater as raw materials for our industry, and eventually as consumer 

products. 

Discouraging surface mining will delay the much-needed R & D for this method, which 

currently is the ONLY known method to approach 100% resource recovery, and to recover 

potential co-products. Many reclamation experts, engineers and geologists are of the opinion 

that proper surface mining will cause minimum environmental damage and much better 

postmining land reclamation than other methods. 

#2])> Thank you for your interest in this important national resource. 

Sincerely, 

Glen A. Miller 

970-208-4586 

OSTS_086 

Organization: Samson Resources Company, John Witucki 

Received: 4/30/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Commenter1: John Witucki - Denver, Colorado 80202 (United States) 

Organization1:Samson Resources Company 

Commenter Type: Gas / Oil Company 

Classification: none 

Submission Category: Letter 

Submitted As: Postal Mail 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/17/2012 12:00:00 AM 
Final OSTS PEIS 417 

Attachments: OSTS2012D00087.htm (OSTS_086-59152.htm Size = 1 KB) 

OSTS_086_Witucki_Samson_Resources_Mail_OSTS2012D00087.pdf (OSTS_086-59151.pdf 

Size = 623 KB) 

Submission Text

See Attachment. 

p “: = Samson 

SUITE 3000 

370 17TH ST 

DENVER CO 80202 

USA 

720/904-1391 

FAX: 720/904-1392 

April 30, 2012 

Oil Shale and Tar Sands Resources Draft Programmatic EIS 

Argonne National Laboratory 

9700 South Cass A venue - EVS/240 

Argonne, IL 60439 

Re: Samson Resources Company Comments on the Oil Shale and Tar Sands 

Resources Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement 

Ladies and Gentlemen: 

Samson Resources Company (Samson) hereby submits the following comments in 

response to the Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM) Oil Shale and Tar Sands and Resources 

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (Oil Shale DEIS) as announced in the 

Federal Register on February 6, 2012. 77 Fed. Reg. 5833 (Feb. 6, 2012). Samson submits these 

comments to the BLM because of the potential impact the Oil Shale DEIS, and the information 

contained therein, may have upon Samson’s ongoing and future oil and gas operations on public 

lands within Wyoming. 

GENERAL COMMENTS 

Samson owns significant federal oil and gas leases within the United States, including the State 

of Wyoming. Samson has its principal place of business in Tulsa, Oklahoma, but maintains 

offices throughout the western United States including Denver, Colorado and Rawlins, 

Wyoming. Samson owns and operates numerous oil and gas fields in Colorado and Wyoming. 

Samson operates approximately 200 wells, 166,000 acres of federal oil and gas leases, and in 

2011 produced approximately 13,638 bcf of natural gas and 149 mbl of oil from federal lands. 

Given its existing operations on federal lands, and particularly those in Wyoming, Samson may 

be potentially significantly impacted by some of the BLM’s information analyses contained in 

the Oil Shale DEIS. 

Samson is particularly concerned about impacts of information analyses contained in the 

Oil Shale DEIS on its conventional oil and gas development projects in Wyoming. 

Representative of Samson, John Witucki, attended the BLM’s open house for the Oil Shale DEIS 

in Rock Springs, Wyoming on March 15,2012. 

Samson is the operator of three (3) federal units located within the Green River Resource 

Management Area (GRRA) and the Rock Springs Resource Management Area (Rock Springs 

RA) in south central Wyoming. In particular, Samson is the operator of the Barricade Federal 
Final OSTS PEIS 418 

Oil and Gas Exploratory Unit, BLM Serial Register No. WYW-16399X; the Endurance Federal 

Oil and Gas Exploratory Unit, BLM Serial Register No. WYW-168995X; and the Desolation 

Road Federal Oil and Gas Exploratory Unit, BLM Serial Register No. 177629X. These units are 

all located in or adjacent to areas the BLM has suggested contain wilderness characteristics. 

Samson currently operates 30 wells within these units and the surrounding lands. Samson’s oil 

and gas development within these units is a significant source of employment and local revenue 

for the federal government, the State of Wyoming, and the surrounding communities. Samson 

has expended over $71 million dollars developing oil and gas resources in the area, which has 

led to the direct and indirect employment of approximately 100 people per each of 20 wells 

drilled. Oil and gas development is critically important to the economy of Wyoming and, in 

particular, the communities surrounding Samson’s oil and gas operations in the region. 

<([#1 [1.5] Samson understands and acknowledges that “oil shale” as used in the Oil Shale DEIS 

does not include conventional oil and gas development or so-called shale oil. Oil Shale DEIS, 

pg. 2-15. Samson is, however, concerned that some of the information analyses in the Oil Shale 

DEIS is inaccurate, misleading, and may impact conventional oil and gas development on its 

lands and leases within the Rawlins RA and the GRRA [Green River Resource Management 

Area]. 

#1])> <([#2 [3.1.7] Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

Samson is concerned and opposed to, BLM’s decision to “designate” or “identify” lands with 

wilderness characteristics (LWCs) within the GRRA [Green River Resource Management Area] 

or the Rawlins RAin the Oil Shale DEIS. These designations are not consistent with or supported 

by the existing land use plans for the area or the actual condition of the lands in question. 

Samson is also opposed to the BLM’s decision to identify LWCs outside of a local, resource 

management plan (RMP) revision or amendment process. 

Under Alternatives 2 and 4 in the Oil Shale DEIS, the BLM has identified L WCs in 

which oil shale leasing and development will be prohibited. Oil Shale DEIS, pgs. 2-34- 2-36, 2- 

43 - 2-54. Unfortunately, the BLM’s analyses with respect to the Rawlins RA is incorrect 

because the BLM has identified L WCs that are different from, and even inconsistent with, those 

identified with even recently completed RMPs. The BLM also arbitrarily misinterpreted current 

land use designations and allocations in the existing Rawlins RMP and Green River RMP. The 

BLM should not use a programmatic process, such as that for oil shale and tar sands 

development, to create new and de facto L WCs in Wyoming. Instead, the BLM should rely 

upon locally driven RMP amendments and revisions to identify and develop appropriate 

mitigation measures for lands that allegedly contain wilderness characteristics. In the Oil Shale 

DEIS, the BLM suggests that the agency has identified L WCs in both the GRRA and the 

Rawlins RA that are inconsistent with past decisions of the BLM, past approvals of the BLM, 

and the current conditions on the ground. The BLM should remove any and all suggestions that 

the lands surrounding the Adobe Town Wilderness Study Area (Adobe WSA) contain or should 

be managed to protect L WCs. Although the BLM may intend the information analyses in the Oil 

Shale DEIS to apply only to future oil shale and tar sands leasing and development, opponents to 

conventional oil and gas development will certainly use the information analyses contained in 

the Oil Shale DEIS to prevent, delay or impair future oil and gas development, even on existing 

leases, within this area. For the past twenty (20) years, non-governmental organizations 

advocating the expansion of the Adobe WSA have challenged and delayed oil and gas 

development in the area arguing that the BLM is required to protect alleged wilderness 

characteristics and values within the area. Samson sets further additional information with 
Final OSTS PEIS 419 

regard to each resource area described in the Oil Shale DEIS below. #2])>

<([#3 [3.1.7] Green River RMP 

The BLM has identified two (2) areas outside of the Adobe WSA, but within the GRRA [Green 

River Resource Management Area], and suggested they are or should be managed for wilderness 

characteristics. These areas include 

the so-called Adobe Fringe Area and the Adobe Rare or Uncommon Area, a reference to an 

Order from the Wyoming Environmental Quality Council designating certain lands in Wyoming 

as Rare or Uncommon in April of 2010. See Oil Shale DEIS. Figure 3.1.1 - 13, pg. 3-35. 

Neither of these areas should be subject to a L WCs designation. 

Over the last several decades, the BLM has extensively considered the potential 

wilderness characteristics of lands outside of the Adobe WSA and declined to manage these 

lands to preserve any wilderness characteristics. The area was not included in the lands believed 

to have wilderness characteristics when the BLM prepared its recommendations for wilderness 

protection during the inventory and review process required by Section 603 of the federal Land 

Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA). 43 U.S.C. § 1782(a). The lands within the area 

are neither included in the 85 710 acres contained within the Adobe WSA nor the 10,920 acre 

subset of the Adobe Town that the BLM actually recommended for inclusion in the Wilderness 

System. See generally Adobe Town- Ferris Mountains Wilderness Final Environmental Impact 

Statement (1987). TI1e BLM specifically did not recommend more than 10,920 acres of the 

Adobe WSA for wilderness protection because of the area’s high potential for natural gas 

development and the likelihood of development. ‘The remaining 74 790 acres were 

recommended for non-wilderness because of the area s high potential for the development of 

natural gas. Given the WSA’s high potential for natural gas it is likely that development would 

indeed occur here, with a potential for wells located throughout the nonwilderness portion. 

Wyoming Statewide Wilderness Study Report Wilderness Study Area Specific 

Recommendations, Vol. I, pg. 187 (Sept. 1991). 

Further, as early as 1987 the BLM considered and rejected the option of creating a larger 

Adobe WSA because of low wilderness values and high potential for oil and gas development. 

“Through this examination, it was found that larger partial wilderness alternatives would either 

increase conflicts with oil and gas development on pre-FLPMA leases in areas of high 

wilderness values, or would add areas of low wilderness values on post-FLPMA leases.” Adobe 

Town - Ferris Mountains Wilderness Final Environmental Impact Statement, pg. 6. Even back 

in 1987 the BLM recognized that a larger wilderness alternative was “unmanageable” and the 

agency properly eliminated a larger Adobe WSA from consideration. Id. 

Then, as part of the planning process for the Green River RMP in the late 1990s, the 

BLM again evaluated the lands north of the Adobe WSA in the EIS accompanying the Green 

River RMP (BLM 1997). At the end of this multi-year process, which included extensive 

consultation with State and local governments, the BLM determined that the federal lands and 

minerals north of the Adobe WSA should be made available for oil and gas leasing and 

development under specific management guidelines and objectives. Green River RMP, pg. 37. 

In light of these determinations, the BLM cannot and should not suggest the areas 

surrounding Adobe WSA be treated as lands with wilderness characteristics. “BLM is not 

required to consider the likely effects of oil and gas exploration and development on wilderness 

characteristics or the overall suitability of the affected lands for wilderness designation or regard 

such impacts as significant, when it has previously determined, with administrative finality, that 
Final OSTS PEIS 420 

the area of public lands at issue does not qualify for wilderness designation.” Biodiversity 

Conservation Alliance, 171 IBLA 218, 234 (2007) (citing cases). The Interior Board of Land 

Appeals (IBLA) has made clear that “BLM need not consider the impact of such activity on 

possible future recognition by Congress ·or the Department, since it constitutes a remote and 

highly speculative impact.” Id. 

Moreover, the BLM should not treat these lands as L WCs simply because a nongovernmental 

organization suggests that they should be managed as such. The IBLA has also 

clearly recognized that the BLM is not required to manage areas for wilderness protection simply 

because a citizen group has suggested a different management approach from that contained in 

the governing land use plan. 

We have repeatedly rejected the notion that BLM must manage the public lands in 

light of proposals by the public to designated lands as wilderness ... We have 

repeatedly held that we know of no legal mandate that required BLM to manage 

[a public land area] on the basis that, although finally rejected as a [wilderness 

study area], it might, at some unspecified future time, be designated by Congress 

as a protected wilderness area. 

Biodiversity Conservation Alliance, eta!. 171 IBLA 313, 318-19 (2007) (citations and quotations 

omitted). The IBLA has recognized the BLM’s treatment of LWCs remaining consistent with a 

new inventory conducted. “We again reject the notion that citizens’ groups may negate or 

undermine BLM’s statutory authority and discretion by conducting their own inventory and then 

arguing that BLM must reconsider its inventories when it attempts to undertake land use 

decisionmaking.” !d. The BLM has repeatedly declined to manage lands around the Adobe 

WSA to preserve their alleged natural character. 

Existing Development 

Consistent with the management decisions in the Green River RMP, the BLM approved 

the Desolation Flats Oil and Gas Development project in 2004 (Desolation Flats). The 

Desolation Flats project approved the development of three hundred eight five (385) natural gas 

wells from three hundred sixty one (361) locations, five hundred forty two (542) miles of new or 

upgraded access roads, three hundred sixty one (361) miles of pipelines, one (1) gas processing 

plant, four (4) compressor stations, ten (10) water wells and two (2) water disposal wells. 

Desolation Flats Development Project Record of Decision, pg. 2; Desolation Flats Development 

Project Final Environmental Impact Statement, pg. 1-2. The Desolation Flats project was 

appealed to the IBLA on two (2) occasions and affirmed in both instances. See Biodiversity 

Conservation Alliance, et al., IBLA No. 1 (2008); Biodiversity Conservation Alliance, et al., 

IBLA No. 2005-218 (Jan. 31, 2007). The Desolation Flats Project area completely surrounds the 

Adobe WSA to the east and north, precisely within the areas the BLM has identified as L WCs 

as 

part of the Adobe RUC. This entire area has been extensively developed with more than 66 

wells and approximately 45 miles of pipelines. Although the BLM and operators in the area 

strive to reduce potential impacts, it is impossible to suggest the area contains or could be 

managed for wilderness characteristics. Please find attached as Exhibit A is a map showing 

existing oil and gas development and the areas allegedly being managed as L WCs. 

Further, the lands identified as the Kinney Rim North and Kinney Rim South L WCs are, 

again, far from undeveloped. Indeed, much of this area is already leased for oil and gas 

development, therefore making it impossible to suggest the area has been or could be managed 
Final OSTS PEIS 421 

for wilderness characteristics. As indicated on Exhibit A, these areas have been extensively 

developed for oil and gas resources. The area has been crisscrossed with miles of existing and 

upgraded roads and even a State Highway. Despite the erroneous allegations in the Oil Shale 

DEIS, these lands have not been managed for wilderness characteristics. 

More recently, the BLM evaluated lands north of the Adobe WSA area for wilderness 

characteristics in 2007 and again found them lacking. The BLM determined that the 

checkerboard portion (interspaced private and federal lands and minerals) of the lands in this 

area fails to meet the size and naturalness requirements necessary to manage the lands for 

wilderness characteristics. Ex. B, Desolation Road Amended EA, pgs. 24-25 (BLM 2010). The 

BLM also concluded that a slightly larger contiguous area of land managed by the BLM south of 

the checkerboard does not meet the naturalness and solitude requirements associated with 

wilderness characteristics. ld. 

In the Desolation Road Amended EA, the BLM confirmed its prior discussions that lands 

within the area north of the Adobe WSA lacked wilderness character. The BLM observed that 

the small size and isolated nature of federal lands in the area precludes wilderness management. 

Id. Further, the BLM determined that the larger contiguous portion of federal lands within the 

Desolation Road Project Area contained existing roads and other intrusions that precluded its 

management for wilderness characteristics. ld. Additionally, the BLM rejected the contention 

that the lands north of the Adobe WSA were undeveloped, explaining, “A number of existing 

approved and unapproved two-track roads exist in the Proposed Project Area. Grazing also 

occurs in the area.” Jd. at 145. The BLM also observed that “[n]umerous two-tracks from light 

vehicles and off-road vehicles (ORVs) are evident throughout the Project Area.” ld. at 47. 

Thus, the BLM has consistently determined that the lands surrounding the Adobe WSA lack 

wilderness character. It is inconsistent with existing and past determinations of the BLM to 

suggest lands surrounding the Adobe WSA have been or could be managed for wilderness 

characteristics. 

Monument Valley Management Area 

In the Oil Shale DEIS the BLM also suggests that lands within the Monument Valley 

Special Management Area (Monument Valley MA) could be more managed as L WCs. Oil Shale 

DEIS, pg. 3-37, lines 21 - 25. The Monument Valley MA is an area the BLM manages to 

provide protection of wildlife, geologic, cultural, watershed, scenic, and scientific values. Green 

River RMP/Record of Decision, pg. 37. The BLM has made lands within the Monument Valley 

MA open to oil and gas leasing, exploration, and development provided mitigation can be 

applied to protect resource values. ld. Additionally the BLM ha authorized three (3) separate 

oil and gas projects that are partially inside the Monument Valley MA: the Desolation Flats 

Project, the Mulligan Draw Project, and now the Desolation Road Project. Desolation Road EA 

pg. 23. As demonstrated above, the lands in this area are not managed for wilderness 

characteristics, nor has the BLM made a public, formal determination that such lands contain 

wilderness characteristics. As a practical matter, the lands to the north and east of the Adobe 

WSA have been extensively developed for oil and gas resources. To date there are currently 107 

oil and gas wells in the lands and federal oil and gas leases immediately north and adjacent to the 

Adobe WSA. The BLM should not manage or suggest the lands to the north or east of the 

Adobe WSA should be, or could be, managed as L WCs. The simple and undisputed fact is that 

the lands have been managed for multiple use for the past twenty (20) years, and will continue to 

be managed for multiple use, including oil and gas development, in the years to come. #3])>

<([#4 [3.1.7] Rawlins RMP 
Final OSTS PEIS 422 

The BLM also suggest that lands within the Rawlins RMP, and specifically in the area 

identified as the Kinney Rim South Area, should be managed for wilderness characteristics. Oil 

Shale DEIS, Figure 3.1.1-13, pg. 3-35. In fact, neither the Rawlins RMP nor the EIS 

accompanying said RMP contain any reference to the Kinney Rim area. 1The record of decision 

for the Rawlins RMP unequivocally states that there are no lands within the entire Rawlins RA 

managed for the protection of wilderness characteristics. Rawlins Record of Decision, pg. 1- 

3;see also, Director’s Protest Resolution Report, Rawlins Resource Management Plan pgs. 149- 

153. The BLM itself seems to recognize this fact in the Oil Shale DEIS by noting that no lands 

within the Rawlins RA are currently managed for wilderness characteristics. Oil Shale DEIS, 

pg. 3-34, lines 42- 45. Despite this clear admission, the BLM later suggested that lands within 

the Rawlins RA are managed as L WCs. The BLM must explain this inconsistency and provide 

information to the public demonstrating how and why lands within the Rawlins RA are or should 

be managed for wilderness characteristics despite the unequivocal language in the Rawlins RMP.

#4])>

<([#5 [3.1.5] Adobe Town Rare or Uncommon Area 

Finally, the BLM suggests that lands within the Adobe Town Very Rare or Uncommon 

Area (RU) as designated by the Wyoming Environmental Quality Council (WEDQ) require the 

lands to be managed for wilderness characteristics. The BLM’s position is untenable for several 

reasons. First, and as described above, the lands to the north and east of the Adobe WSA have 

been leased for oil and gas development and extensive oil and gas development has already been 

approved within those areas. As described above, the rare and uncommon area contains 22 wells 

and 100 miles of roads and pipelines. Second, the EQC RU designation approved by the WEDQ 

on April 10, 2008, specifically and unequivocally does not relate to or impact oil and gas 

operations. See Exhibit C EQC Order ~ 34, 35, and 36. Further, the RU designation does not 

prevent the construction of roads or other changes and current allowable uses. EQC Order~ 45. 

Oil and gas leasing development was specifically authorized prior to April 10, 2008, and is 

therefore not impacted by the RU designation. EQC Order ~ 45. Further, the Wyoming 

Supreme Court itself has recognized the RU designation does not, by itself, prohibit other 

activities including non-coal mining operations. Ristler&McMurry Co. v. State, 917 P.2d 1157, 

1162-63 (Wyo. 1996). The BLM’s position that the RU designation somehow equates to a 

wilderness characteristics management approach is inconsistent with the BLM’ s specific 

guidance for lands to the north and east of the Adobe WSA, inconsistent with Wyoming state 

law, and unsupportable. #5])>

CONCLUSION 

<([#6 [3.1.7] Overall, Samson has no disputes relating to BLM’ s proposed management for oil 

shale 

and tar sand leasing and development, so long as such development does not interfere with 

1 Instead, that term only appears in proposals from non-governmental organizations advocating 

the creation of 

additional wilderness areas within the Rawlins RA. 

conventional oil and gas development. Samson is concerned, however, and strenuously opposes 

the BLM’s description of lands with wilderness characteristics in both the GRRA and the 

Rawlins RA as the BLM’ s descriptions of these areas are inaccurate., misleading, and simply 

untrue. There are no lands north or east of the Adobe WSA that have been, or ever could be, 

managed for wilderness characteristics. As described herein, and in the BLM’s resource 

management plans for both the Green River RMP A and the Rawlins RMP A, the lands to the 
Final OSTS PEIS 423 

north and east of the Adobe WSA have been extensively leased and developed for oil and gas 

resources. It would appear from Samson’s review of the Oil Shale DEIS that BLM has followed 

the advice and recommendations of a few isolated, non-governmental organizations in their 

belief these areas can or should be managed for wilderness characteristics. Samson strenuously 

urges the BLM to update the information in the final environmental impact statement for the oil 

shale and tar sands leasing analyses to more accurately reflect accurate information. If the BLM 

prefers to withhold these areas from future oil shale or tar sands leasing, the BLM can certainly 

justify that decision based on other factors rather than on unsupported and erroneous 

assumptions regarding wilderness characteristics. Such characteristics are simply not pre ent 

and any suggestion by the BLM to the contrary is incorrect and could lead to substantial delays 

in future oil and gas development projects including those proposed by Samson. If you have any 

questions or comments regarding this matter please contact me at the letterhead address or by 

phone at (303) 222-0973. #6])>

SAMSON RESOURCES COMPANY 

~==·~~--------- 

OSTS_087 

Organization: Larry Moyer 

Received: 5/4/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Commenter1: Larry Moyer - Grand Junction, Colorado 81502 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: none 

Submission Category: Letter 

Submitted As: Postal Mail 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/17/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D00088.htm (OSTS_087-59154.htm Size = 1 KB) 

OSTS_087_Moyer_Larry_Mail_OSTS2012D00088.pdf (OSTS_087-59153.pdf Size = 822 KB) 

Submission Text

See Attachment. 

May 4, 2012 

Larry R. Moyer 

P.O. Box 1812 

Grand Junction, CO 81502 

lrmoyer@bresnan.net 

Via: Certified Mail Return Receipt 

7004 0750 0003 1404 3802 

Draft OSTS PEIS 

Argonne National Laboratory 

9700S. Cass Ave. 

EVS/240 

Argonne,IL 60439 

Re: Comments on DES 12-01 

I have reviewed electronic copies of the document and have the following comments. 
Final OSTS PEIS 424 

<([#1 [3.15] 1. Important maps in the document, Figure 2.3.3-1 (included as Exhibit A here) as 

an example contain no geographic registration information. i.e. Lat-Lon tick 

marks, township and range lines, etc. to accurately locate the items featured. I do 

not believe that the maps meet any reasonable standard of best practice nor does it 

meet criteria in Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence where rules on the 

reliability of scientific evidence consistent with the Supreme Court opinion in 

Daubert v. Merrell Dow, 509 where rules were set out. The lack of registration 

data inhibits evaluation of data presented. Further, no GIS data files were made 

available to allow for individual manipulation. The maps must be corrected. 

#1])> <([#2 [6.1.1] 2. The term “Most Geologically Prospective Area” is not defined in the 

glossary and is not a standard term used in resource assessments. I find no place in my review 

of the material in the OSTS where it is defined and what methods were used to 

determine the location. This is definately a very subjective term that undoubtedly 

does not meet the above mentioned criteria in the Reference Manual on Scientific 

Evidence. To the best of my knowledge it is not a term used in the USGS DDS69-Y Johnson, R.C. et al, 2010, An Assessment of In-Place Oil Shale Resources 

in the Green River Formation, Piceance Basin, Colorado. A more technically 

correct method must be used to evaluate the Oil Shale area. #2])>

<([#3 [2] 3. Important shallow Oil Shale Resources that may be amenable to surface mining 

where total recovery is possible were placed outside the “Most Geologically 

Prospective Area”. These resources are substantial as Exhibit B - Map from 

DDS-69-Y indicates. Something in the range of 60 billion bbls. The failure to 

consider and provide for opportunities for research and commercial developments 

that involve surface mining makes the DES 12-01 incomplete. This again fails to 

meet the criteria for scientific evidence. Surface Mining must be considered. The 

map on the following page is from DDS-69-Y and shows the resource estimates. 

#3])>

<([#4 [3.1.7] 4. In order to evaluate the “Lands with Wilderness Characteristics” on Figure 2.3.3- 

1, an image of the map page was stretched and squeezed into a mapping program 

that I use. A copy is shown as Exhibit C. This is a busy map, but it shows several 

things, some of which are better displayed in a subsequent map that I made 

incorporating oil and gas wells from the Colorado Oil and Gas Commission, the 

Mahogany Outcrop from GIS data associated with DDS-69-Y, Local Roads from 

the Colorado Department of Transportation, and Oil Shale Core holes from the 

GIS data associated with DDS-69-Y. 

I have been in the area on the ground and do not believe the area should be 

considered to have “Wilderness Characteristics” There are roads, oil and gas 

wells, and Oil Shale Core Holes. I challenge the designation as having 

Wilderness Characteristics. From the map the fabled flag pole looks to be in 

place. This means that dust from the road can blow in my face in the Wilderness. 

This is a corruption of the definition of Wilderness - Untouched by the hand of 

man. 

Further, I downloaded the Wilderness Study Area data from the Colorado BLM 

office and I do not see this area listed there. How and when were these lands 

designated to have Wilderness Characteristics? Who did the work? When was 

the work done? Was any of this work done recently when it is my understanding 
Final OSTS PEIS 425 

that Congress has forbidden any money to be spent on Wilderness 

Characterization? 

Clearly this does not meet a standard of best practices. #4])>

<([#5 [3.4.6] 5. The characterizations of the aquifers on pages 3-77 and 3-78 do not incorporate 

data from hydrology wells drilled in the last 15 years on BLM lands in the 

Northern Piceance basin. The Upper and Lower aquifers are an 

oversimplification, and the distribution of dissolved solids has been further 

refined. In general, only in near proximity to the dissolution surface will the 

water in the “Lower Aquifer” be above 10,000 IDS. Thus the OSTS fails to meet 

standards of best practice because not all data has been used. 

#5])> <([#6 [3.10.3] 6. On page 3-270 that statement is made that “the three-state ROI is 

primarily used for hunting and other forms of dispersed outdoor activities” I question this 

assertion. Being a hunter myself and an outdoor person, I also know what pays 

the freight with the economies. Look at the values generated from oil and gas in 

the Piceance Basin as an example. Look at the local tax bases. Look at the 

monies to the Federal Government. All of that is missing in this OSTS. 

The implication is that recreation is at odds with other uses. This is a false choice. 

I believe the economic analysis is incomplete and not supported by sound 

economic evaluation. This is best stated by the following: Dr. Thomas Sowell in 

his book Basic Economics has an entire chapter on “Non-Economic Values”: 

“Beware the people who moralize about great issues; moralizing is easier 

than facing hard facts. John Corry ... 

While economics offers many insights, and makes it easier to see 

through some popular notions that sound good but will not stand up under 

scrutiny, economics has also acquired the name ‘the dismal science’ 

because it pours cold water on many otherwise attractive and exciting - 

but fallacious - notions about how the world can be arranged. One of the 

last refuges of someone whose pet project or theory has been exposed as 

economic nonsense is to say: ‘Economics is all very well, but there are 

also non-economic values to consider.’ Presumably, these are supposed to 

be higher and nobler concerns that soar above the level of crass 

materialism. 

Of course there are non-economic values. In fact, there are only noneconomic 

values. Economics is not a value in and of itself. It is only a 

way of weighing one value against another ... 

What lofty talk about ‘non-economic values’ often boils down to is that 

some people do not want their own particular values weighted against 

anything. If they are for saving Mono Lake or preserving some historic 

building, then they do not want that weighted against the cost - which is to 

say, ultimately, against all the other things that might be done instead with 

the same resources .... 

In the world that people live in, and are likely to live in for centuries to 

come, trade-offs are inescapable. Even if we refuse to make a choice, 

circumstances will make choices for us, as we run out of resources for 

many important things that we could have had, if only we had taken the 

trouble to weigh alternatives.” 
Final OSTS PEIS 426 

I believe that the economic evaluation done in the OSTS exactly matches 

the situation discussed above by Dr. Sowell. Where is a discussion of 

values for the Oil shale? #6])>

<([#7 [3.10.3] 7. The BLM has a history of ignoring sound economics, and I urge you to do 

better. On April 7, 1995 I submitted the following comment on the White River 

Resource Draft Management Plan: 

“No determination or comparison of Values 

8. During the “Scoping” process the planning issues (page 1-7) included 

“Comparing the public values of oil and gas development with the public 

values of other alternative uses which may be precluded or impacted.” 

Also see 6/90 letter “Dear public land user” p. 3 which contains identical 

language and was used by the BLM during the scoping process. 

• The RMP does not determine the value of oil and gas 

resources.” 

On page A-81 of the June 1996 White River Resource Area Proposed Resource 

Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement the response by the 

BLM to my question ( 480) above was: 

“Response: The value of oil and gas resources are difficult to measure, as well as 

being very price dependent.” 

This response was insulting and displayed an appalling lack of economic literacy. 

It is proof to me that in the past, unsound economic analysis was done by the 

BLM during the planning process. This kind of action leads to impoverishment of 

the country. 

For this OSTS-What about the Oil and Gas in the Area? Where does that fit in? 

#7])> <([#8 [1.1] 8. I have reviewed the document and see that some Colorado entities are 

involved as 

cooperating agencies. I have also reviewed the preparers and best I can and it appears 

to me that there is not one Colorado Registered Engineer involved with the OSTS. Is 

that true? If so, is that not a violation of Colorado Regulations. Was the engineering 

in the OSTS done without a license? Very clearly this violates any kind of best 

practices effort. I do believe it is fair to question the technical expertise of the BLM 

preparers. #8])>

Statement of Qualifications: I am a member of a Western Colorado Territorial Family 

and I was raised outside of Meeker Colorado. I have been in Grand Junction for the past 

25 years. I hold a Master of Science in Geology from the University of Colorado. I have 

worked as a geologist for over 30 years. I have first hand experience in the Piceance 

Basin. 

It is my belief that not everyone is entitled to an opinion. People are only entitled to an 

informed opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant. 

My Father’s School Picture - Summer of 1934 Southeast of Meeker, Colorado 

This is what it looks like when resources are not available or miss-used. 

Do NOT let this come again. 

OSTS_088 
Final OSTS PEIS 427 

Organization: Wyoming Outdoor Council, Bruce Pendery 

Received: 4/27/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Commenter1: Bruce Pendery - Logan, Utah 84321 (United States) 

Organization1:Wyoming Outdoor Council 

Commenter Type: Misc. Organization 

Classification: none 

Submission Category: Letter 

Submitted As: Postal Mail 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/17/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D00089.htm (OSTS_088-59156.htm Size = 1 KB) 

OSTS_088_Pendery_WY_Outdoor_Council_Mail_OSTS2012D00089.pdf (OSTS_088-

59155.pdf Size = 509 KB) 

Submission Text

Wyoming Outdoor Council 

wyomingoutdoorcouncil.org 

444 East 800 North 

Logan, UT 84321 

t & f: 435.752.2111 

e: bruce@wyomingoutdoorcouncil org 

April27, 2012 

Oil Shale and Tar Sands Resources Draft Programmatic EIS 

Argonne National Laboratory . 

9700 South Cass A venue-EVS/240 

Argonne, IL 60439 

To whom it may concern: 

Please accept these comments from the Wyoming Outdoor Council 

regarding the Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM) “Draft Programmatic 

Environmental Impact Statement and Possible Land Use Plan Amendments for 

Allocation of Oil Shale and Tar Sands Resources on Lands Administered by the 

Bureau of Land Management in Colorado, Utah, ,and Wyoming” (hereinafter Oil 

Shale PEIS)’. The Wyoming Outdoor Council is Wyoming’s oldest statewide 

environmental advocacy group and has a 45-year history of seeking to ensure 

public lands management is protective of the natural environment on these 

important national assets. : 

Support for Provisions in the Oil Shale PEIS Preliminary Preferred 

Alternative. · . ... . . 

<([#1 [2.2] Areas of Support. 

The Wyoming Outdoor Council supports several of the provisions 

proposed for the preferred alternative specified in the Oil Shale PEIS, alternative 

2(b). The preferred alternative would make approximately 461,965 acres available 

for future consideration for commercial oil shale leasing (174,476 acres in 

Wyoming), but only for research, development, and demonstration (RD&D) 

leases. This is a significant reduction from the approximately 2 million acres 

approved for oil shale leasing pursuant to the environmental impact statement 
Final OSTS PEIS 428 

(EIS) BLM prepared in 2008. We appreciate that under the preliminary preferred 

alternative the following areas or kinds of lands would be excluded from oil shale 

leasing: (1) lands with wilderness characteristics; (2) the whole ‘of the Adobe. 

Town Very Rare or Uncommon area in south-central Wyoming; (3) Greater sage-grouse 

core areas; ( 4) all areas of critical environmental concern (ACEC); and (5) 

other areas identified as excluded pursuant to the 2008 EIS, including a 

requirement for future NEP A analyses and consultation activities to occur prior to 

any decision to lease and/or develop oil shale and tar sands resources, and a 

decision that the BLM will consider and give priority to the use of land exchanges 

to facilitate commercial oil shale development pursuant to Section 369(n) of the 

Energy Policy Act of 2005. 

In addition, under all alternatives commercial leasing would be excluded 

from all designated Wilderness Areas, wilderness study areas (WSA), areas that 

are components of the National Landscape Conservation System (NLCS), and 

lands within incorporated town and city limits. Moreover, the following areas also 

would not be available for leasing under all alternatives: (1) areas in the trona 

mining area in Wyoming; (2) segments of rivers and a 0.25 mile corridor on either 

side that the BLM has determined to be potentially eligible for Wild and Scenic 

River status; (3) historic trails identified by the BLM Wyoming State Office and a 

corridor 0.25 miles wide on either side of the trails; (4) the Monument Valley 

Management Area in the BLM’s Rock Springs, Wyoming Field Office; (5) 

Management Area 3 in the Jack Morrow Hills Planning Area in Wyoming; (6) 

urban expansion areas around Rock Springs and Green River, Wyoming; and (7) 

lands within incorporated towns and cities. 

We appreciate these provisions and urge the BLM to adopt them in its 

final EIS for this management decision and in the accompanying record of 

decision. 

We believe that making these areas unavailable for leasing is well justified 

and well supported. Wilderness quality lands have values of remoteness and 

opportunities for primitive and unconfined recreation that should not be 

compromised. Making these areas unavailable for leasing is consistent with 

BLM’s wild lands policy. The Adobe Town Very Rare or Uncommon Area 

“exhibits surface geological, historical, archeological, wildlife, and scenic values 

that is very rare or uncommon when compared to other areas of the state or 

region. These values are seldom found within the state and could become extinct 

or extirpated if left unprotected.”1

Sage-grouse core areas are critical to 

conserving sage-grouse populations and maintaining the long-term viability of 

this species, and thus perhaps avoiding a listing of this species pursuant to the 

Endangered Species Act.2 ACECs are established specifically because special 

management is required “to protect and prevent irreparable damage to important 

historical, cultural, or scenic values, fish and wildlife resources or other natural 

systems or processes, or to protect life and safety from natural hazards.” 43 

U.S.C. § 1702(a). These areas are only established after an exhaustive planning 

process that determines their “relevance” and “importance” and thus they should 

not be degraded by industrial development occurring within them. The other areas 

that would be excluded from leasing, such as components of the NLCS, historic 
Final OSTS PEIS 429 

trails, potential additions to the Wild and Scenic Rivers System, and areas such as 

the Monument Valley Management Area and Area 3 zones in the Jack Morrow 

Hills, also have important values making oil shale leasing in these areas 

unadvised. Consequently, we again support BLM’s proposed decision to make 

these areas unavailable for oil shale leasing. 

1

 Wyoming Environmental Quality Council, In the Matter of the Petition of Biodiversity 

Conservation Alliance for Designation of “Adobe Town” as Very Rare or Uncommon, Findings 

of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order, at 19 (April 10, 2008). 

2 See generally State of Wyoming Executive Department Executive Order, Order No. 20 ll-5 

(June 2, 20 I 1) (establishing the State of Wyoming’s sage-grouse core area policy which has 

been widely adopted and supported by agencies such as the BLM and the U.S . Fish and Wildlife 

Service). #1])>

<([#2 [3.1.1] Areas of Improvement Needed in the Preliminary Preferred Alternative. 

While we appreciate the above provisions that would accompany 

implementation of alternative 2(b ), we believe there are shortcomings in this 

proposal that should be rectified or improved upon. 

First, under this proposal some lands in the Adobe Town area in southcentral 

Wyoming would remain available for oil shale leasing. Oil Shale PEIS at 

Fig. 2.3.3-6. In our view no lands in the Adobe Town Area should be available for 

leasing. As shown in Figure 3.1.1-13 of the Oil Shale PEIS, there are a number of 

tremendously important areas or values that would essentially be adjacent to the 

areas available for leasing, such as the Monument Valley Management Area, 

Adobe Town WSA, the Adobe Town Very Rare or Uncommon Area, and the 

Kinney Rim North and Kinney Rim South lands with wilderness characteristics. 

As shown in Figure 6.1.2-8, the areas available for leasing in Adobe Town are 

within 5 miles or 15 miles of scenic resource areas, namely the Adobe Town 

WSA. There are also mule deer and elk winter ranges located in these available 

for leasing areas. Oil Shale PEIS at Figs. 6.1.2-1 and 6.1.2-2. Numerous sensitive 

species could potentially be negatively impacted by leasing in the Adobe Town 

area. Oil Shale PEIS at Table 6.1.2-2. 

Given these potential impacts, oil shale leasing should not be permitted 

anywhere in the Adobe Town area. Essentially the BLM is proposing to close this 

area to leasing with the exception of two rather small areas that would remain 

available for leasing, one on the north side of the area and the other on the west or 

southwest side of the area. See Oil Shale PEIS at Figs. 2.3.3-6 and 3.1.1-13. 

However, these two relatively small areas create potentially serious and 

destructive intrusions into the heart of the larger protected area, as Figure 3.1.1-13 

shows. These intrusions into this generally protected area should not be permitted 

because oil shale development would threaten wilderness, open space, and 

wildlife values in the overall protected area. We would note that if these areas 

were not available for leasing it would have little impact on the overall area that 

would remain available for leasing, even in Wyoming, as shown by Figure 2.3.3- 

6. The BLM should fulfill the overall protective management approach for the 

Adobe Town area evident in alternative 2(b) by ensuring the area is fully 
Final OSTS PEIS 430 

protected and not allow potential threats to the entire protected area by opening 

these two relatively small areas to oil shale leasing. 

The second area of concern we have relative to alternative 2(b) relates to 

the Jack Morrow Hills (JMH) area. It appears to us that a very small portion of 

this area would remain available for oil shale leasing. Oil Shale PEIS at Fig. 

3.3.3-6. This figure shows a very small area of leasing availability that is east of 

U.S. Highway 191. In our view, no lands east of highway 191 that are in the JMH 

planning area should be available for leasing. The JMH is replete with special 

values, including important wildlife habitats; special management areas such as 

ACECs, WSAs, and lands with wilderness characteristics; and national historic 

trails and numerous other historical, archeological, paleontological features. This 

area should not be allowed to be threatened by potential oil shale development, 

even on a small scale. See generally Figure 6.1.2-8 (showing scenic resource 

areas within 5 or 15 miles of this potential leasing area). Not making this area east 

of U.S. Highway 191 unavailable for leasing would have essentially no impact on 

the overall availability of lands for oil shale leasing in Wyoming. #2])>

<([#3 [2.3.1] The BLM Should Adopt Alternative 3 As its Preferred Alternative in the 

Final EIS and the Record of Decision. 

Pursuant to alternative 3 in the Oil Shale PEIS, rather than the 461,965 

acres that would be available for leasing under alternative 2(b ), only 32,640 acres 

would be available for potential oil shale leasing. Due to the highly experimental 

and uncertain environmental and social aspects and impacts of oil shale 

development we believe the BLM should adopt this alternative as its final 

decision for oil shale leasing. 

Under alternative 3, the six existing RD&D leases and the three new lease 

proposals would be available for development. These leases are in Colorado and 

Utah. We believe that development of these initial leases is the place to start in 

determining whether oil shale development will be acceptable from 

environmental and social standpoints, and that it would be inappropriate to open 

much larger areas to oil shale leasing before these impacts are fully illuminated 

and understood. 

The BLM has made a number of statements that emphasize the uncertain 

and experimental nature of oil shale development. For example in the press 

release related to the Oil Shale PEIS available at http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/ 

en/info/newsroom/2012/february/NR 02 03 2012.html, the BLM made these 

statements: 

• “Because there are still many unanswered questions about the technology, 

water use, and impacts of potential commercial-scale oil shale 

development, we are proposing a prudent and orderly approach that could 

facilitate significant improvements to technology needed for commercial scale 

activity. If oil shale is to be viable on a commercial scale, we must 

take a common-sense approach that encourages research and development 

first.” Statement of BLM Director Bob Abbey. 

• To date, technological and economic conditions have not combined to 

support a sustained commercial oil shale industry in the United States, and 
Final OSTS PEIS 431 

there is currently no commercial development of oil shale in the areas 

under review in the draft PEIS. 

• Additionally, following the recommendations of the Government 

Accountability Office3

- which determined that several fundamental 

questions about oil shale technologies remain unanswered, including 

critical questions about water demands- the United States Geological 

Survey (USGS) is undertaking an analysis of baseline water resources 

conditions to improve the understanding of groundwater and surface water 

systems that could be affected by commercial-scale oil shale development. 

Given these uncertainties, it is appropriate to initially allow for only 

approximately 32,000 acres of oil shale leasing, as would occur under alternative 

3, rather than the approximately 460,000 acres that would be available for leasing 

pursuant to alternative 2(b ). 

Moreover, other statements made by the BLM in the Oil Shale PEIS 

emphasize the uncertain and experimental nature of this technology. For example, 

• “With respect to oil shale, the BLM would like to maintain focus on 

RD&D projects, so as to obtain more information about the technological 

3

United States Government Accountability Office, Energy-Water Nexus, A Better and 

Coordinated Understanding of Water Resources could Help Mitigate the Impacts of Potential Oil 

Shale Development, GAO 11-35 (Oct. 2010). 

requirements for development of this resource, as well as the 

environmental implications, before committing to broad-scale commercial 

development. For instance, the BLM looks forward to gaining a clearer 

understanding of the implications of development of oil shale for water 

quality and quantity.” Oil Shale PEIS at ES-9. 

• “While it is not presently known how much surface water will be needed 

to support future development of an oil shale industry, or the role that 

groundwater would play in future development, it is likely that additional 

agricultural water rights could be acquired. Depending on the locations 

and magnitude of such acquisitions, there could be a noticeable reduction 

in local agricultural production and land use when the water is eventually 

converted to supporting oil shale development.” Oil Shale PEIS at 4-19. #3])>

<([#4 [3.4.1] In the PEIS the BLM emphasized some of the potential significant impacts 

to water resources, stating that there was concern regarding: 

• 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 nonpoint 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 
Final OSTS PEIS 432 

depression and reduce groundwater discharge to surface water bodies or to 

the springs or seeps that are hydrologically connected to the groundwater; 

• Accidental chemical spills or product spills and/or leakages could 

potentially contaminate surface water and/or groundwater; 

• Construction of reservoirs that might alter natural streamflow patterns, 

alter local fisheries, 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 contamination 

for salts, metals, and hydrocarbons for both surface and groundwater; 

• Degradation of groundwater quality resulting from 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; 

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

operations or from production of water for industrial uses; and 

• 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. 

Oil Shale PEIS at 4-31 to 4-32. Moreover, in the Oil Shale PEIS BLM estimates 

that for a 30,000- to 50,000-bbl/day in situ project in Wyoming, the amount of 

water consumption is estimated to be 2,800 to 8,700 ac-ft/yr. An underground 

mine with a surface retort project or a surface mine with surface retort projects at 

25,000 to 30,000 bbl/day are estimated to consume 2,450 to 4,500 ac-ft/yr of 

water. The remaining available water from the Colorado River in Wyoming is 

expected to decline from 226,000 ac-ft/yr in 2000 to a range of 80,000 to 202,000 

ac-ft/yr in 2030. With a range of 4,900 to 34,700 ac-ft/yr required for individual 

oil shale development projects, the water requirements per project represent 1.1 to 

3.9% of the currently available water and would be 1.2 to 10.9% of the water 

available in 2030. Oil Shale PEIS at 4-49. #4])>

<([#5 [2.3.1] So again, given these difficulties and uncertainties relative to water quality 

and supply it is proper and appropriate that only 32,000 acres be made available 

for oil shale leasing at this time rather than 460,000 acres. #5])>

<([#6 [3.5.7] In addition to impacts to water quality, oil shale development could also 

have significant impacts on air quality. Given that formerly pristine areas in 

Wyoming and Utah are rapidly moving into noncompliance with the National 

Ambient Air Quality Standard for ozone, the BLM should be cautious about 

unleashing industrial development that could exacerbate these problems. 

#6])> <([#7 [2.3.1] In addition to uncertain impacts related to water and air quality, the 

potential for oil shale development to significantly impact wildlife resources is 

clear. And there are very real concerns about the “boom and bust” economic 

difficulties that have accompanied oil shale development proposals in the past. So 

again, alternative 3 should be adopted as BLM’s final approved proposal for oil 
Final OSTS PEIS 433 

shale leasing in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming because this alternative will afford 

the BLM the best opportunity to address and mitigate the impacts of oil shale 

development. 

#7])> Conclusion. 

Provisions made in alternative 2(b) of the Oil Shale PEIS, BLM’ s current 

preferred alternative for oil shale development, would include important 

provisions for protecting important resources such as sage-grouse habitats and 

wilderness quality lands. For that reason we support these provisions and urge the 

BLM to adopt them in its final plan. However, in our view alternative 3, which 

would make less land available for oil shale leasing, is preferable to alternative 

2(b) because this alternative would better allow the BLM to investigate and 

consequently mitigate the numerous uncertain and unknown impacts of oil shale 

development, particularly relative to water and air resources, as well as impacts to 

wildlife and local communities. For that reason we believe the BLM should adopt 

alternative 3 as its preferred alternative in the record of decision for this project. 

Sincerely, 

Wyoming Outdoor Council 

444 East 800 North 

Logan, UT 84321 

Oil Shale and Tar Sands Resources Draft 

Programmatic EIS 

Argonne National Laboratory 

9700 South Cass Ave.--EVS/240 

Argonne, IL 60439 

OSTS_089 

Organization: Craig Chamber of Commerce, Christina Oxley 

Received: 4/27/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Commenter1: Christina Oxley - Craig, Colorado 81625 (United States) 

Organization1:Craig Chamber of Commerce 

Commenter Type: Local Government 

Classification: none 

Submission Category: Letter 

Submitted As: Postal Mail 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/17/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D00090.htm (OSTS_089-59158.htm Size = 1 KB) 

OSTS_089_Oxley_Craig_Chamber_of_Commerce_Mail_OSTS2012D00090.pdf (OSTS_089-

59157.pdf Size = 85 KB) 

Submission Text

See Attachment. 

360 E. Victory Way 
Final OSTS PEIS 434 

Craig, CO 81625 

CRAIG 

CHAMBER OF 

COMMERCE 

www.craig-chamber.com • info@craig-chamber.com 

Argonne National Laboratory 

9700 S. Cass Ave. 

EVS/240 

Argonne, IL 60439 

Re: Draft OSTS PEIS 

Dear sir /madam; 

1-800-864-4405 

(970) 824-5689 

(Y70) 824-0231 (fax) 

Thank you for the opportunity to offer input on the 2012 oil shale PEIS. It is important that the 

voice of 

local businesses and the community at large be heard during this important process. 

<([#1 [1.3] Whereas Moffat County connects the Green River Basin with the Piceance Basin oil 

shale reserves, 

making it a transportation hub for oil shale development; and, whereas, commercial oil shale 

development represents a major economic opportunity for the Western Slope and for the Craig 

region, 

The Craig Chamber of Commerce believes that the Bureau of Land Management should honor 

the input 

and opinions of the cooperating agencies and local communities when considering modifying 

any existing 

land management plans. #1])>

<([#2 [11] The Craig Chamber of Commerce fully supports responsible, commercial-scale 

development of our 

energy reserves. 

As you are aware, there have been some incredible advances made in the production of oil from 

shale, 

which are encouraging to say the least. Shell has recently made huge strides towards 

commercialization, 

in fact successfully producing several hundred barrels of oil from its RD&D lease in the 

Piceance Basin. 

The biggest obstacle to large-scale commercial development seems to be bureaucratic, as federal 

land use 

restrictions block the access required to pursue such development. 

In the interests of the long term economic health of our region, we would hope that the BLM will 

consider 

the input of those of us who live and work in the impacted areas. 

#2])> Sincerely, 

Executive director 
Final OSTS PEIS 435 

OSTS_090 

Organization: Sierra Club, Glen Canyon Group - Utah Chapter, Deb Walter 

Received: 4/26/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Commenter1: Deb Walter - Moab, Utah 84532 (United States) 

Organization1:Sierra Club, Glen Canyon Group - Utah Chapter 

Commenter Type: Environmental Organization 

Classification: none 

Submission Category: Letter 

Submitted As: Postal Mail 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/17/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D00091.htm (OSTS_090-59161.htm Size = 1 KB) 

OSTS_090_Walter_Sierra_Club_GlenCanyon_Mail_OSTS2012D00091.pdf (OSTS_090-

59160.pdf Size = 292 KB) 

Submission Text

See Attachment. 

SIERRA 

CLUB 

Draft OSTS PEIS 

Argonne National Laboratory 

9700 S. Cass Ave. 

EVS/240 

Argonne, IL 60439 

GLEN CANYON GROUP--UTAH CHAPTER 

P.O. BOX 622 

MOAB, UT 84532 

April26, 2012 

<([#1 [2.3.1] Research Design and Development of tar sands and oil shale has not yet 

come up with solutions to environmental, economic, and social issues. As 

steward of our public lands, the BLM has an obligation to make sure 

safeguards are in place before leases are issued. For this reason, the Glen 

Canyon Group of the Sierra Club advocates a decision which reduces 

lands available for leasing to those already allocated for RD&D. We 

endorse Alternative 3. If and when companies are ever able to mine the tar 

sands and oil shale on public lands in a manner that is not harmful to the 

water, the air, the habitat, the wildlife, and the people, then and only then 

should the BLM grant these leases. #1])>

<([#2 [3.4.1] [6.3.2.2] Preserve Water Quality and Quantity of Flow 

We can live without oil, but we cannot live without water. Utah is the 

second driest state in the United States. We need to take care of and 

cherish the water we have. It is our most precious commodity. The 

developers must prove that the energy they produce does not kill us in the 
Final OSTS PEIS 436 

process. That may seem like a radical statement, but in reality it is not. 

We cannot live without water. Yet producing a barrel of oil from oil shale 

takes 4 - 5 barrels of water and producing a barrel of oil from tar sands 

takes 4-6 barrels of water. With the recent and ongoing reduction in 

snowpack in the Rocky Mountains caused by climate change, our Colorado 

River will have less water flowing into it. With the growth in populations in 

Utah as well as in all areas downstream that depend on the Colorado 

River, human demand will be increasing for drinking water. With that 

population growth will come the need for more irrigation for agriculture. 

The bottom line is that tar sands and oil shale developers must not only 

prove they will not need large amounts of water to produce this energy 

source, they must also prove that they will be able to mine and produce it 

without the use of toxic chemicals that will contaminate our surface water, 

ground water, aquifers, watersheds, and the Colorado River. 

#2])> <([#3 [3.7.4.10] Protect Endangered Fish 

There are several endangered species of fish that live in the Colorado 

River. They need large amounts of water to survive. The endangered 

species are the canaries in the coal mine - they are indicators to us that we 

in fact are in danger. Is is time to take care of them. 

#3])> <([#4 [3.5.4] Preserve Air Quality 

Tar sands and oil shale developers must not be allowed to pollute our air or 

produce greenhouse gases. Health consequences of breathing polluted air 

completely undermine the quality of life for any species, whether human or 

wild. 

The RD&D sites are poor examples of responsible use of our air. In the 

process of building the site, strip mining the land, processing materials, 

extensive traveling on the roads, creating energy to run the operation, the 

strip miners create many toxic substances as well as ozone depleting 

chemicals and particulates. Citizens are protected from these forms of 

pollution by the Clean Air Act. Yet the pollution remains. The visibility, 

noise level of operating machinery, light pollution at night which disrupts 

wildlife habits, toxic contamination of the air, and creation of greenhouse 

gases are all reasons to limit acreage available for RD&D until the 

developers have proven that they can mine the tar sands and oil shale 

without polluting the air or contributing to global warming. They need to be 

proven to be in line with the Clean Air Act before they are issued leases. #4])>

<([#5 [3.10.2] Preserve Local Communities and Their Economies 

Tar sands and oil shale mining will hurt our communities and our way of 

life. Many people come to our area for recreation opportunities of hiking, 

biking, jeeping, river rafting, bird watching, hunting, fishing, camping, rock 

climbing, horseback riding, and any other activities in which they can 

experience clean air, clean water, scenic open vistas, quiet. The tourist 

and recreation industries in this part of Utah provide our livelihoods as well 

as a way of life. Service industries such as new hospitals, recreation 

centers, senior centers have grown up in the small towns. Retirees have 

moved to these areas because of the healthy community spirit and 
Final OSTS PEIS 437 

beautiful surroundings. The economies and way of life of the rural 

communities would be destroyed and would be replaced by inflation, 

inadequate infrastructures, population explosion, housing shortages, 

increase in demands on social services like schools, police protection, fire 

protection, health care. We in the small towns cannot afford these mining 

operations. The BLM should require mining companies to pay communities 

in advance for updating infrastructures as well as increases in all the other 

expenses the local communities will have to bear. 

#5])> <([#6 [8] Preserve Public Lands for Multiple Uses 

Public lands have historically been used for many purposes including 

hunting, camping, grazing, trail riding, recreation, fishing, etc. These 

multiple uses will have to cease if the mining of tar sands and oil shale 

causes environmental damage. The BLM should grant more permits for 

Research and Development for nonpolluting renewable sources of energy 

esp. wind and solar in Utah. The influx of those industries would benefit 

our energy development, benefit our environment, and benefit our 

communities. 

#6])> <([#7 [3.7.5.1] Preserve Wildlife Habitat for Endangered Greater Sage Grouse 

Wildlife habitat on public lands must be preserved. The Greater Sage 

Grouse is under protection of the Endangered Species Act and requires a 

contiguous range that encompasses its needs during various seasons and 

during various times in the life and breeding cycle. The Resilient Habitats 

Campaign of the Sierra Club has as its goal the preservation of critical 

habitats to insure the survival of species in the face of climate change, 

which causes the suitable available habitat to shrink in area. The 

developers who want to lease public lands must not be permitted any 

leases within the sagebrush ecosystem that is so critical to the survival of 

the Greater Sage Grouse. 

#7])> <([#8 [3.1.1] Preserve Lands with With Wilderness Characteristics and ACEC’s 

The BLM should consider all lands with Wilderness Characteristics or 

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern off limits to leasing for tar sands or 

oil shale exploration or Research Design and Development. The RD&D 

that we have seen so far greatly pollutes the water, the air, and completely 

destroys the land. These areas cannot undergo the burden of irresponsible 

development when the companies still have not proven they have the 

technology to develop the strip mining process. 

#8])> <([#9 [2.3.1] Choose Alternative 3 

In summary, the Glen Canyon Group of the Sierra Club endorses 

Alternative 3. The RD&D projects already have 32,640 acres available for 

them to develop technologies that extract oil in an environmentally sound 

manner. If they can prove to interested third parties that the technologies 

are dependably predictable and safe for the water, air, wildlife, and 

community impact, the BLM can issue permits at that time. Until that time, 

the land should be kept intact, safe from their experimentation with all its 

consequences. We must not put the cart before the horse, giving away our 

land without regard to the long term consequences. 
Final OSTS PEIS 438 

#9])> Thank you for your consideration of these issues. 

Sincerely, 

Deb Walter 

Volunteer, Glen Canyon Group of the Sierra Club 

Moab, Utah 

OSTS_091 

Organization: Grand Junction Chamber of Commerce, Phyllis Norris 

Received: 4/17/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Commenter1: Phyllis Norris - Grand Junction, Colorado 81501 (United States) 

Organization1:Grand Junction Chamber of Commerce 

Commenter Type: Local Government 

Classification: none 

Submission Category: Letter 

Submitted As: Postal Mail 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/17/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D00092.htm (OSTS_091-59163.htm Size = 1 KB) 

OSTS_091_Norris_Grand_Junction_Chamber_of_Com_Mail_OSTS2012D00092.pdf 

(OSTS_091-59162.pdf Size = 134 KB) 

Submission Text

See Attachment. 

Grand Junction Area 

April17, 2012 

Draft OSTS PEIS 

Argonne National Laboratory 

9700 S. Cass Ave. 

EVS/240 

Argonne, IL 60439 

Dear Sirs; 

<([#1 [2.1.1] The Grand Junction Area Chamber of Commerce, an organization of 1,000 mostly 

small 

businesses representing over 30,000 employees in Mesa County Colorado opposes the BLM 

preferred alternative number 2 found in the Draft OSTS PEIS. This alternative will drastically 

reduce the federal acreage available for potential development of oil shale in our area and impact 

our long term ability to create jobs and strengthen the local economy. Our organization joins 

more than 70% of the fourteen cooperating agencies in supporting alternative number 1, the NO 

ACTION OPTION. 

As an organization that represents business interests and understands and supports economic 

development we take this action based on the following; 

• Businesses will only invest in research and development if there is some degree of certainty 

that the raw materials for their processes will be available in sufficient quantities to recoup 

their upfront costs and make a profit. By drastically reducing the potential acreage that could 

be available in the future the BLM effectively insures that businesses will not make the 

upfront investments in technology that will be necessary to recover this national resource and 

kills any hope of developing the resource in the future. 
Final OSTS PEIS 439 

• The fact that 2,000,000 acres were deemed available for leasing in the 2008 PEIS does not 

mean that anywhere near that amount would be leases or developed. Industry would choose 

the acreage that it believed could be profitably developed. BLM has the discretion under its 

current proposals to limit acreage to be leased. BLM already has the authority to control 

development through environmental analyses and approval of development plans. 

• The oil shale resource is a huge domestic energy asset that should be developed for the 

benefit of the American people and American businesses, especially in light of the looming 

increases in the prices we pay at the pump based upon the price of imported oil that is out of 

our control. 

• The time to get into production is long, and even though it may be years away, we must start 

now to develop all our domestic energy supplies, including oil shale. 

#1])> <([#2 [9.8] [2.1.1] • Businesses need some degree of certainty within the regulatory 

framework in order to make 

long term investments. There was no valid reason for redoing the PEIS and Regulations 

completed in 2008. There is little if any new information to be considered, and the new draft 

PEIS looks largely as a reprint of the 2008 PEIS -except for BLM’s preferred alternative that 

dramatically reduces the acreage available for leasing. 

• Most local residents are more worried about jobs and economic development than the 

rehashing of the politics of oil shale development. The current re-visitation by this 

administration is just delaying the time that oil shale can provide more jobs in the region. 

Members of the Grand Junction Area Chamber include tourism entities and business owners that 

live in the region and support responsible development of all energy resources in a manner that 

allows free enterprise to thrive while protecting and enhancing the environment. This PEIS was 

not needed, is clearly not balanced in its approach and as a result the preferred alternative should 

be rejected in favor of the no change alternative. 

#2])> <([#3 [1.1.1] Additionally, we would request that the comment period on the PEIS be 

extended 90 days to 

allow for more thoughtful review. This is a reasonable request in light of the fact that the 

regulations regarding this PEIS are scheduled to be released AFTER the current comment period 

has expired on May 4th. #3])>

Sincerely, 

c;8u-~ 

Phyllis Norris 

Chairman of the Chamber Board 

Grand Junction Area 

360 Grand Avenue 

RETURN SERVICE REQUESTED 

Draft OSTS PEIS 

OSTS_092 

Organization: Americans for Prosperity, Jeff Crank 

Received: 4/15/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Commenter1: Jeff Crank - Colorado Springs, Colorado 80908 (United States) 

Organization1:Americans for Prosperity 

Commenter Type: Misc. Organization 

Classification: none 

Submission Category: Letter 
Final OSTS PEIS 440 

Submitted As: Postal Mail 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/17/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D00093.htm (OSTS_092-59165.htm Size = 1 KB) 

OSTS_092_Crank_Am_for_Properity_Mail_OSTS2012D00093.pdf (OSTS_092-59164.pdf Size 

= 182 KB) 

Submission Text

See Attachment. 

AMf-iJCffl ftR H·89Pf·R+Tr 

COLORADO 

PO Box 88003 • Colorado Springs, CO 80908 • 719.494.0797 • Fax: 719.495.5041 

BLM 2012 OS/TS PEIS 

Argonne National Laboratory 

9700 S. Cass Ave 

EVS/240 

Argonne, IL 60439 

Cc. BLM CRVFO 

2300 River Frontage Road 

Silt, CO 81652 

To whom it may concern, 

April 15, 2012 

<([#1 [9.8] As the state’s leading grass-roots free-market economic policy and advocacy 

organization, American’s For Prosperity Colorado would like to express some 

key concerns and recommendations regarding the 2012 oil Shale PEIS. 

First, and most critical, is our dismay at the reason for this most recent PEIS 

in the first place. The initial PEIS, completed in 2008, was very professionally 

done, and was the end product of three years of study, research, and input by 

many scientists, energy and environmental experts, every local government, 

and many members of the public. There has been no significant new 

information or evidence develop in the interim, and yet taxpayers money is 

being spent to completely redo the document. It seems incredible that the 

information contained in the 2012 is virtually identical to that in the 2008 

version, and yet the BLM’s conclusions are different. It is no secret, of course, 

that this is due to a settlement resulting from a lawsuit directed against the 

Department of the Interior over the findings of the 2008 PEIS, from 

environmental extremist lobby groups. We believe that it sets a terrible 

precedent, that any special interest group unhappy that the results of a public 

process did not fit their ideological agenda, can hijack that process using the 

courts. 

#1])> <([#2 [2.2] Beyond that, the BLM’s preferred alternative in the 2012 re-write, is far too 

restrictive, and hostile to commercial development of oil shale. The 2008 PEIS 

identified 2,017, 714 acres of the most geologically prospective oil shale lands in 

the tri-state area as being available for application for commercial leasing. This 

www afpcolorado com 
Final OSTS PEIS 441 

did not mean, of course, that all that acreage was to opened for development, 

but simply for application for leasing. This was a reasonable amount of land, 

which protected identified sensitive areas, and provided for an environmental 

review of individual lease application, but still provided the industry with the 

flexibility required to allow for future planning of commercial operations. The 

new Preferred Alternative, 2b, drastically slashes that acreage by more than 

70% overall, and by almost 90% in Colorado. It also places almost all of the 

Preference Rights Acreage off limits, and disperses the little bit of land it does 

leave available for leasing in small pockets throughout the area, with no 

consideration for access, geology, commercial viability, or any other relevant 

factors. As if all of that were not disincentive for investment and commercial 

expansion enough, Alternative 2b also places a draconian requirement for 

companies to demonstrate to the satisfaction of a federal bureaucrat, that their 

production technology is viable; this is an arbitrary determination, and 

something that no other industry must submit to. It should be up to the 

individual companies if they want to take the risk on paying for leases before 

their technology is ready, not the federal government. 

#2])> <([#3 [3.10.3] Oil shale is a vital national resource, representing 4 trillion barrels of 

recoverable oil, which holds the potential for American energy independence, 

and self-reliance. It can create jobs, prosperity and growth for a region 

currently experiencing 10% unemployment. This growth will generate revenue 

for local governments to remedy their funding shortfalls without raising the tax 

burden on their citizens. And it will do all this without government money- all 

of the investment currently in oil shale development is private, not subsidized 

with tax payer dollars. #3])>

<([#4 [2.1.1] With all of this in mind, we recommend that the BLM remove the government 

created obstacles to job growth and regional success, and adopt Alternative 1, 

the no-action Alternative, which re-instates the ROD from the 2008n PEIS, and 

offers the best chance at providing for economic recovery and prosperity, while 

protecting truly at-risk eco-systems. #4])>

Jeff r 

Colorado State Director 

Americans for Prosperity 

OSTS_093 

Organization: Herschella Smith 

Received: 4/27/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Commenter1: Herschella Smith - Grand Junction, Colorado 81504 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: none 

Submission Category: Letter 

Submitted As: Postal Mail 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/17/2012 12:00:00 AM 
Final OSTS PEIS 442 

Attachments: OSTS2012D00094.htm (OSTS_093-59167.htm Size = 1 KB) 

OSTS_093_Smith_H_Mail_OSTS2012D00094.pdf (OSTS_093-59166.pdf Size = 78 KB) 

Submission Text

See Attachment. 

2012 OS/TS PEIS 

Argonne National laboratory 

9700 S. Cass Ave 

EVS/240 

Argonne, ll 60439 

To whom it may concern, 

Apr i I 27, 2012 

<([#1 [9.8] I believe that this redoing of the 2008 oil shale PEIS is a waste of valuable tax 

dollars, and sets a terrible precedent for the future. Since the only reason that 

another PEIS was undertaken on this issue was because extreme environmentalist 

groups sued the federal government over the outcome of the one done in 2008, I 

presume we can now expect that it will be the status quo to sue whenever a public 

process does not produce a result that some particular interest group disagrees 

with. 

This is making a mockery out of the processes in place to establish such management 

plans, and of the EIS system in particular. Clearly, the process means nothing if 

its results are swept aside at the first complaint from society’ s fringe. The 2008 

PEIS incorporated the testimony, evidence and input from several local governmental, 

industry, environmental, and scientific organizations, experts, and studies, and was 

completed after months of work and evaluation. Is the BLM suggesting that all of 

that was for nothing? 

If this farce is continued, someone needs to take public responsibility for the 

millions of taxpayer dollars, and the hundreds of man-hours wasted in redoing what 

was adequately completed only a few short years ago. #1])> <([#2 [2.1.1] The only logical thing 

to do is 

for the BLM to choose the no action alternative. 

This 2012 PEIS would be a stereotypical caricature of government waste and 

mismanagement, if the stakes for the nation and the affected regions were not so 

high. #2])>

Sincerely, 

OSTS_094 

Organization: Jerry Walker 

Received: 4/25/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Commenter1: Jerry Walker - Whitewater, Colorado 81527 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: none 

Submission Category: Letter 

Submitted As: Postal Mail 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 
Final OSTS PEIS 443 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/17/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D00095.htm (OSTS_094-59169.htm Size = 1 KB) 

OSTS_094_Walker_J_Mail_OSTS2012D00095.pdf (OSTS_094-59168.pdf Size = 92 KB) 

Submission Text

See Attachment. 

April 25, 2012 

Draft OSTS PEIS 

Argonne National Laboratory 

9700 S. Cass Ave. 

EVS/240 

Argonne, IL 60439 

Re: 2012 Oil Shale Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement 

To whom it may concern, 

<([#1 [2.1.1] Oil shale development represents an incredible opportunity for northwestern 

Colorado, and indeed, the 

rest of the nation. The trillions of barrels of oil that exist in our own backyard easily outstrip the 

reserves 

in the middle east, and that can mean energy independence for America in a relatively short time. 

Given 

the advances made in oil shale recovery technology made not only by companies here in 

Colorado, but 

around the world, it seems the only thing standing in the way of realizing the potential of this 

vast 

resource is our own government. 

This PEIS offers four alternatives for the BLM to pursue going forward with regards to oil shale; 

only one, 

the alternative which calls for maintaining the acreage decided upon in the 2008 PEIS, even 

comes close 

to helping foster a commercial oil shale industry in this country. Alternative one will allow 

roughly 2 

million acres to be available for leasing - not actually open to development mind you - which 

means that 

each company that applies for a commercial lease will need to sweat out yet another 

Environmental 

Impact Statement, and the related red tape before they can proceed. In fact, this will inevitably 

mean that 

many of these acres will actually be placed of limits. 

This, however, is better than the other alternatives, including the BLM’s preferred one, which 

will cut that 

acreage available for leasing by over 70%. And not only is the acreage slashed, but the parcels 

that are left 

available are isolated little outposts here and there, selected with no regard whatsoever to the 

geology of 

the oil shale resource, or practical considerations for the energy companies trying to extract it. 

I, like most in western Colorado, appreciate the need to balance conservation and development. 

However, 
Final OSTS PEIS 444 

it appears that the scales are being tilted dangerously towards no development at all. As 

important as 

environmental factors are, the economic effects can not, and should not, be ignored. Allowing for 

commercial development of oil shale is good for the local economy, national energy security, 

and is in line 

with the 2005 Energy Policy Act. Alternative 1 is the only option in the PEIS that accomplishes 

all of the 

goals that the BLM should be pursuing. #1])>

Regards, 

OSTS_095 

Organization: Luke Conner 

Received: 4/24/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Commenter1: Luke Conner - Grand Junction, Colorado 81504 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: none 

Submission Category: Letter 

Submitted As: Postal Mail 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/17/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D00096.htm (OSTS_095-59171.htm Size = 1 KB) 

OSTS_095_Conner_L_Mail_OSTS2012D00096.pdf (OSTS_095-59170.pdf Size = 90 KB) 

Submission Text

See Attachment. 

April 24th, 2012 

Bureau of Land Management 

Argonne National Laboratory 

9700 S. Cass Ave 

EVS/240 

Argonne, IL 60439 

Colorado River Valley Field Office 

2300 River Frontage Road 

Silt, CO 81652 

Ref: 2012 Oil Shale Programmatic EIS 

<([#1 [2.1.1] [9.8] I would like to express my profound disappointment over the re-hashing of 

the 2008 effort to establish a 

set of rules and processes for oil shale development. 

As a result of a pair of lawsuits, and the subsequent settlement by the federal government, the 

entire 

years-long process, that involved work of hundreds, and input from many local counties, 

municipalities, 

and specialists, as well as hours of further input from the public, is being needlessly redone, at 

the 

expense of the taxpayer. 
Final OSTS PEIS 445 

The 2008 PEIS identified just over 2,000,000 acres for which a company could apply for a lease 

for future 

commercial development. This did not open up these 2,000,000 acres for development, merely 

made 

them available for lease application, subject to full NEPA analysis, EIS studies, etc. This would 

simply 

provide oil shale companies some flexibility in their long-term planning, and establish an orderly 

process 

for the expansion of the industry into large-scale commercialization. 

The alternative to this, the restriction of leasing to merely RD&D, is perpetual delays, an 

unfriendly 

environment of uncertainty for current and potential producers, and a denial of economic activity 

to one of 

the hardest hit regions in the state. 

A further result of rejecting the 2008 findings is to set our region up for a haphazard, impromptu 

development plan if and when circumstances, such as a national emergency, demand that oil 

shale be 

put on line in relatively short order, with predictable consequences for the environment and local 

municipalities. 

For these reasons, the only responsible course of action for the BLM to take is to either scrap the 

renewed PEIS altogether, or at the very least to adopt Alternative 1 (no action) as the preferred 

alternative. 

#1])> Sincerely, 

OSTS_096 

Organization: D.T. Spach 

Received: 4/24/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Commenter1: D.T. Spach - Fruita, Colorado 81521 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: none 

Submission Category: Letter 

Submitted As: Postal Mail 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/17/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D00097.htm (OSTS_096-59173.htm Size = 1 KB) 

OSTS_096_Spach_DT_Mail_OSTS2012D00097.pdf (OSTS_096-59172.pdf Size = 87 KB) 

Submission Text

See Attachment. 

April24, 2012 

Argonne National Laboratory 

9700 S. Cass Ave. 

EVS/240 

Argonne, IL 60439 

RE: BLM 2012 OS/TS PEIS 
Final OSTS PEIS 446 

To whom it may concern, 

<([#1 [9.8] I do not believe that there was any for a do-over on an Environmental Impact 

Statement 

that was already done in 2008. It seems to be a waste of tax payer’s money at a time 

when the government is supposed to be looking for ways to cut fat from the budget. This 

is exactly the type of redundant spending that makes people suspicious of, and angry at, 

the government. #1])>

<([#2 [2.1.1] With that said, the most sensible option for the BLM now is to adopt the No Action 

alternative, and enact the provisions in the original EIS. These call for 2 million acres of 

prime oil shale land to be made available for leasing, giving oil shale companies the 

flexibility to be able to plan ahead in an orderly manner for commercial development. #2])>

<([#3 [6.3.5] Despite what some opponents of energy development are saying, the technology is 

there 

to take the next step; oil shale is being produced on a commercial scale in Estonia and 

China, and Shell has recently reported commercial success with its project here in 

Colorado. 

#3])> <([#4 [9.8] The biggest obstacle to progress, the reason oil shale is “always 10 years 

away”, is largely 

due to land use restrictions, and failure on the part of government to enact a long-term 

management plan. 

The 2008 PEIS laid the groundwork for such a plan; the land allocation alternatives 

described in the 2012 PEIS will only serve to keep development on hold. It is bad 

enough that the government is wasting money redoing work already done, but for it to 

deny economic opportunity at the same time is frankly offensive. 

#4])> Thank you for allowing this opportunity to submit comment on this important matter. 

OSTS_097 

Organization: Megan Weaver 

Received: 4/22/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Commenter1: Megan Weaver - Fruita, Colorado 81521 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: none 

Submission Category: Letter 

Submitted As: Postal Mail 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/17/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D00098.htm (OSTS_097-59175.htm Size = 1 KB) 

OSTS_097_Weaver_M_Mail_OSTS2012D00098.pdf (OSTS_097-59174.pdf Size = 100 KB) 

Submission Text

See Attachment. 

2012 OSPEIS 

Argonne National Laboratory 

9700 S. Cass Ave 

EVS/240 
Final OSTS PEIS 447 

Argonne, IL 60439 

Apr. 22, 2012 

Re: 2012 Oil Shale Programmatic EIS 

<([#1 [2.1.1] I am writing in support of the no-action Alternative in the current PEIS. The noaction 

alternative (Alternative 1) offers the best balance of economic growth, conservation, and 

longterm 

planning. By keeping the same amount of acreage available for application for commercial 

leasing as was allowed in the previous 2008 PEIS, the BLM would allow not only for the widest 

range of options to be available to the industry for expansion and commercial development, but 

for an orderly system to be established for the commercial development of this important 

strategic resource. Failure to have such a system in place early on (for instance, by prohibiting 

commercial leasing as the BLM’s preferred alternative, and Alternatives 3 and 4b do), would 

only lead to the distinct likelihood of a more haphazard production system being implemented 

when and if development of oil shale becomes a national priority due to some emergency or 

shortage. 

Alternative one does not blindly open up large swaths of land to the oil shale industry, 

but offers them up for commercial lease application, which would involve a lengthy 

environmental audit and evaluation. Not all, perhaps even not most, of the land made available 

will ever actually developed - but keeping that acreage available at least presents more options 

to companies wishing to expand and commercialize, than the dispersed, isolated little pockets 

made available in Alternative 2b (the BLM’s current preference). 

Keeping these lands open for consideration is a much preferable approach than arbitrarily 

excluding huge tracts of land based on habitat studies that have not even yet been completed, 

wilderness characteristics that no one but congress has any business designating, and areas once 

under evaluation as Areas of Critical Environmental Concern, that later had that designation 

removed. Only Alternative One offers a controlled, orderly path to commercialization, and the 

economic and strategic benefits that come with it, while protecting the environment. #1])>

Sincerely, 

OSTS_098 

Organization: Andrew Weaver 

Received: 4/15/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Commenter1: Andrew Weaver - Fruita, Colorado 81521 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: none 

Submission Category: Letter 

Submitted As: Postal Mail 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/17/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D00099.htm (OSTS_098-59177.htm Size = 1 KB) 

OSTS_098_Weaver_A_Mail_OSTS2012D00099.pdf (OSTS_098-59176.pdf Size = 73 KB) 

Submission Text

See Attachment. 
Final OSTS PEIS 448 

April. 15, 2012 

BLM 2012 OSPEIS 

Argonne National Laboratory 

9700 S. Cass Ave 

EVS/240 

Argonne, IL 60439 

Cc. BLM CRVFO 

2300 River Frontage Road 

Silt, CO 81652 

To whom it may concern, 

<([#1 [1.1.1] I am writing to ask the BLM to please extend the public comment period for the 

2012 

Oil Shale/Tar Sands Programmatic EIS, long enough to allow important information 

that directly Impacts this issue to be released to the public. 

A new set of oil shale leasing regulations are due to be released on May 15, 11 days 

after the deadline for public comment on the PEIS. It seems only fitting that enough 

time be allowed for interested persons to review these regulations before 

commenting on the PEIS and the land use alternatives presented within. 

Furthermore, some of the alternatives exclude land from future oil shale leasing, 

based on Sage Grouse habitat, even though the study that designates that habitat 

has not yet been made public. It again would be useful to those who wish to 

participate in the process to have this information prior to making any sort of 

comment as to the suitability of the various alternatives. 

Please extend the 2012 OS/TS PEIS public comment period sufficiently to allow for 

review and incorporation of these critical documents. #1])>

OSTS_099 

Organization: Jarry Brandon 

Received: 4/27/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Commenter1: Jarry Brandon - Fruita, Colorado 81521 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: none 

Submission Category: Letter 

Submitted As: Postal Mail 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/17/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D00100.htm (OSTS_099-59179.htm Size = 1 KB) 

OSTS_099_Brandon_Jarry_Mail_OSTS2012D00100.pdf (OSTS_099-59178.pdf Size = 100 KB) 

Submission Text

See Attachment. 

Apr. 27, 2012 

RE: 2012 OSTS PEIS 

To whom it may concern: 

<([#1 [10.6.3] I was disappointed by the BLM’s decision to scrap the oil shale PEIS done in 
Final OSTS PEIS 449 

2008, and 

replace it with one that is far more restrictive, and that severely limits the commercial 

potential of oil shale. The regions in question contain as much as 4 trillion barrels of 

recoverable oil, far more than even the Middle East, and enough to satisfy America’s 

demand for oil for many, many years. It is as much a matter of national security that 

we develop this resource as it is an economic issue for the local region. 

#1])> <([#2 [2.1.1] Allowing the acreage that was made available in the 2008 PEIS to remain 

available for 

potential commercial leasing will go a long way towards realizing this potential, without 

posing any danger to the environment. The BLM, and other federal agencies, have strict 

processes in place to evaluate each lease individually. As the current PEIS even states 

clearly, not all of the 2 million-plus acres that the 2008 PEIS, as reflected in the No Action 

Alternative (Ait.1), leaves available for application for leasing, will ever actually 

be developed, due to these processes. Alt.1 will, however, provide far more options to 

companies wishing to expand, go commercial, or enter the oil shale market. The 

technology is there, and improving steadily, as demonstrated not only in places like 

Estonia and China, which are successfully producing oil from shale, but even here, as 

Shell commercially produced several thousand barrels from its limited RD&D lease in the 

Piceance Basin last month. I would therefore ask that you select Alt. 1 as the 

management plan. 

#2])> <([#3 [1.1.1] I would further ask that the public comment period be extended; as I 

understand it, the 

BLM is releasing a critical set of regulations regarding oil shale on May 15, 2012, and it 

would make sense for the public to see what these rules are, in order to make informed 

decisions and offer the best input. #3])>

Thank you for your time and for listening to the local communities on this issue. 

Sincerely, 

OSTS_100 

Organization: Cyn Kohls 

Received: 4/27/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Commenter1: Cyn Kohls - Grand Junction, Colorado 81505 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: none 

Submission Category: Letter 

Submitted As: Postal Mail 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/17/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D00101.htm (OSTS_100-59181.htm Size = 1 KB) 

OSTS_100_Kohls_C_Mail_OSTS2012D00101.pdf (OSTS_100-59180.pdf Size = 86 KB) 

Submission Text

See Attachment. 

2012 OSPEIS 

Argonne National Laboratory 
Final OSTS PEIS 450 

9700 S. Cass Ave 

EVS/240 

Argonne, IL 60439 

BLM Colorado River Valley Field Office 

2300 River Frontage Road 

Silt, CO 81652 

Dear Director, 

Apr. 27, 2012 

<([#1 [2.1.1] I would like to urge the Bureau of Land Management, that if they must continue 

with this redundant PEIS, to 

select Alternative one as their final management plan. Alternative one restores the available 

acreage to that 

which was decided upon after 3 years of intensive study and community input in the 2008 PEIS. 

This 

acreage allows oil shale developers the most flexibility and options in determining their longterm 

commercial plans. 

This is as opposed to the new PEIS, which closes off thousands of acres of land for even 

consideration for 

leasing, prohibits commercial production on any land remaining, and even places the existing 

Preferred 

Right Lease Areas. All that the land allocation alternatives (2 -4b) will accomplish is to delay 

indefinitely the 

commercial development and production of oil shale, and the jobs and opportunities that would 

come with 

such development. #1])>

<([#2 [3.10.3] It is unconscionable that this sort of economic development would be delayed 

further, at a time when the 

region is experiencing heavy unemployment, when families who have lived in the area for years, 

have 

made roots here, have aging parents living nearby, and kids in local schools, are forced to follow 

energy 

jobs to other parts of the country- and take their money with them -when this region sits on top 

of enough 

energy resource to keep these people and many others employed, and the nation’s engine 

running, for 

years to come. #2])>

<([#3 [1.1.1] Please not only reconsider completely undoing years of work and forward 

planning, and perpetually 

delaying economic development in the region, but I would also ask that you extend the public 

comment 

period at least until after the BLM oil shale regulations are published on May 15, 2012, in order 

allow 

sufficient time for the people of our affected communities to properly weigh in with all the facts.

#3])>

Sincerely, 
Final OSTS PEIS 451 

OSTS_101 

Organization: Janet Spach 

Received: 4/27/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Commenter1: Janet Spach - Fruita, Colorado 81521 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: none 

Submission Category: Letter 

Submitted As: Postal Mail 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/17/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D00102.htm (OSTS_101-59183.htm Size = 1 KB) 

OSTS_101_Spach_Janet_Mail_OSTS2012D00102.pdf (OSTS_101-59182.pdf Size = 110 KB) 

Submission Text

See Attachment. 

Bureau of Land Management 

2012 Oil Shale Programmatic EIS 

Argonne National Laboratory 

9700 S. Cass Ave 

EVS/240 

Argonne, IL 60439 

Dear Sir or Madam; 

<([#1 [2.1.1] I support the adoption of Alternative 1 (no-action) as outlined in the 2012 PEIS for 

3 main 

reasons; 1) the economic benefits that commercial oil shale development will bring to our 

region; 2) the advantages of having a structured process for commercialization in place, 

especially as related to local municipalities, and 3) the balanced approach that this 

Alternative offers. 

#1])> <([#2 [3.10.3] The socio-economic benefits of Alternative 1 are described in detail in 

Chapter 6 of the 

PEIS. Commercial oil shale development will bring hundreds of jobs to the region, in the 

form of construction, operations, homebuilding, and various support industries. These 

jobs will support the economies of the local municipalities and counties, and provide for 

growth and increased tax receipts for those local governments. These are good paying 

jobs that this industry will create, and that income will have a ripple effect on the region, 

and will benefit all local industries, including recreation and tourism. 

In addition, I support the orderly system of commercialization that Alternative 1 provides 

for, one that will simultaneously accommodate the industry’s growth, and give local 

governments a cushion to be able to plan for the complications that tend to arise from 

such growth. Is this not a more preferable approach than one where the sudden 

emergency need for oil shale production ends up overwhelming other planning concerns? 

I believe it is. 

#2])> <([#3 [2.1.1] I also feel that this Alternative, which preserves the actions agreed upon in 

the initial 
Final OSTS PEIS 452 

2008 PEIS, offers the most balanced approach between economic development, and the 

protection of the region’s environment. Both Alternative 1, and the 2oo8 PEIS, identify 

just over 2,ooo,ooo acres as being available for application for commercial leasing; 

however, as part of the process, each of these leases would be subject to a full NEPA 

analysis, including individual EIS’s, to determine any potential negative impact to any 

sensitive areas, before a lease could be issues. This provides the industry with the 

flexibility necessary for planning of commercial operations, while also ensuring that 

sensitive ecosystems will be properly identified and protected. #3])>

<([#4 [1.1.1] Finally, I would ask that the BLM extend the public comment period at least 30 

days, in 

order to give people the opportunity to see and evaluate the latest round of oil shale 

regulations that are set for release on May 15. This would give us all a clearer picture of 

how oil shale development might be impacted, or proceed under the various alternatives. 

#4])> Very Sincerely, 

OSTS_102 

Organization: Bruce Kresin 

Received: 4/27/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Commenter1: Bruce Kresin - Grand Junction, Colorado 81507 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: none 

Submission Category: Letter 

Submitted As: Postal Mail 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/17/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D00103.htm (OSTS_102-59185.htm Size = 1 KB) 

OSTS_102_Kresin_B_Mail_OSTS2012D00103.pdf (OSTS_102-59184.pdf Size = 128 KB) 

Submission Text

See Attachment. 

Apr. 27, 2012 

ATTN: 

Argonne National Laboratory 

9700 S. Cass Ave 

EVS/240 

Argonne, IL 60439 

To whom it may concern, 

<([#1 [2.1.1] I am writing in support of the no-action Alternative in the 2012 

oil shale Programmatic Environmental Statement. This Alternative 

(No.1) offers the best balance of commercial development 

opportunity, certainty for the industry, conservation of 

sensitive environmental areas, and an established process for 

orderly economic expansion in the region. 

By keeping the acreage available for application to leasing that 

was provided for in the initial, non-politicized PEIS in 2008, 
Final OSTS PEIS 453 

Alternative 1 provides oil shale companies more options in how 

to proceed with their long-term plans for expansion and 

commercial development. #1])> <([#2 [2.2] The drastically reduced acreage 

prescribed in your preferred alternative (No.2b), in addition to 

cutting off from availability most of that land, the remaining 

parcels that are open for lease application are small, widely 

spread out, and not cited with any consideration to access, 

interoperability with other leases, geological suitability, or 

any other factor that a business would need to take into 

consideration. This alone, in effect, blocks commercial 

development even from existing companies by denying them any 

reasonable opportunity for future planning and expansion. It 

certainly serves as a disincentive for any new company to move 

into the area. 

#2])> <([#3 [9.6] The other elements of the preferred alternative stifle 

commercialization as well. The requirement that a viable 

technology be demonstrated prior to the issuing of any 

commercial lease is a clear barrier to future planning. A 

company will not go through the expense and hassle of beginning 

development of a lease until they are certain they can get a 

return on their investment. However, as they near 

commercialization, they will want to have a long-term plan in 

place to properly manage their operations over the ensuing 

years. This includes, first and foremost, securing commercial 

leases, and starting the arduous NEPA ball rolling so that there 

is as little delay as possible, and as a cushion in the, 

oftentimes likely, event that their applied for lease is 

restricted due to the EIS identifying sensitive habitat or 

ecosystems. The land allocation alternatives prevent this 

sensible, and important, business step from taking place. #3])>

<([#4 [3.10.3] The tragedy of this is the loss of job growth that will result 

from overly restrictive BLM practices. With an unemployment rate 

stubbornly around 10% on the western slope, this is desperately 

needed economic development. This is not 1980 either; many 

things have changed, including the technology, management 

practices, and the source of capital - all of the current 

investment in oil shale is private, meaning that it is far less 

prone to being carelessly risked than was the government money 

that funded the industry prior to “Black Sunday”. 

Many lessons have been learned over the years. Many of those 

lessons were incorporated in the 2008 PEIS. It would be a shame 

to disregard them all for the shallow political considerations 

of a noisy minority. 

#4])> Cordially, 

OSTS_103 
Final OSTS PEIS 454 

Organization: Karen Bell 

Received: 4/15/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Commenter1: Karen Bell - Grand Junction, Colorado 81505 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: none 

Submission Category: Letter 

Submitted As: Postal Mail 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/17/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D00104.htm (OSTS_103-59187.htm Size = 1 KB) 

OSTS_103_Bell_Karen_Mail_OSTS2012D00104.pdf (OSTS_103-59186.pdf Size = 99 KB) 

Submission Text

See Attachment. 

April. 15, 2012 

2012 OSPEIS 

Argonne National Laboratory 

9700 S. Cass Ave 

EVS/240 

Argonne, IL 60439 

To whom it may concern, 

<([#1 [2.1.1] I would like to preface my comments by stating that I am an environmentalist, and 

one 

who believes in conserving our land, resources, and ecology. That is why I support the 

no-action alternative, and American oil shale development. #1])>

<([#2 [10.8] Oil shale is already being produced in other places in the world, including China, 

and 

Estonia, places with environmental records that are dismal at best. The United States 

has some of the world’s most stringent environmental controls and processes in place to 

monitor and protect air, water, plant and animal species, and sensitive eco-systems; 

therefore I would much sooner have the oil that the economic and industrial survival of 

our nation depends on produced here, where it is subject to such controls, than 

overseas, where no such controls exist, or are at best intermittently enforced. We may 

not be able to stop those countries from producing oil shale, but we need not cede the 

monopoly to them. #2])>

<([#3 [9] There is common agreement that oil shale will be produced at some time. It is quite 

simply too valuable a resource, not to develop. The question is, do we put an ordered 

system, and a long range plan in place now, or when we have no time for such steady, 

incremental growth? I believe that by keeping the maximum amount of suitable land 

open for consideration and planning, under the aegis of an evaluative process, we will 

create that essential long term planning, and avoid the massive impacts of pell-mell 

development on local communities. Allowing for commercialization now will provide 

time, impetus, and even money (through taxes garnered from the added employment, as 

projected in the PEIS Impacts of Alternatives chapter) to prepare for these impacts. 
Final OSTS PEIS 455 

#3])> <([#4 [2.1.1] Alternative one is the most responsible alternative environmentally, 

economically, and 

in terms of forward planning, and I would urge the BLM, as one who wishes to see the 

best for the region, and the world, to adopt it in place of the current preferred 

alternative. 

#4])> Signed, 

OSTS_104 

Organization: Jody Brandon 

Received: 4/30/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Commenter1: Jody Brandon - Fruita, Colorado 81521 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: none 

Submission Category: Letter 

Submitted As: Postal Mail 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/17/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D00105.htm (OSTS_104-59189.htm Size = 1 KB) 

OSTS_104_Brandon_Jody_Mail_OSTS2012D00105.pdf (OSTS_104-59188.pdf Size = 94 KB) 

Submission Text

See Attachment. 

Bureau of Land Management 

2012 OSTS PEIS 

Argonne National Laboratory 

9700 S. Cass Ave. 

EVS/240 

Argonne, IL 60439 

Dear Sir/Madam, 

<([#1 [1.5] I wish to register my objection to the overall tone of this latest Environmental Impact 

Statement regarding 

oil shale management on federal lands, as being one that is heavily tilted towards dissuading 

commercial 

development. The Environmental Protection Act of 2005 explicitly calls for the establishment of 

separate 

research and commercial development tracks for oil shale; however, the BLM’s preferred 

alternative, 2b, 

specifically does not allow for a commercial leasing option. This would seem to be in clear 

violation of an 

existing federal statute. 

#1])> <([#2 [2.2] Additionally, the amount and location of the land that is made available for 

application to leasing under 

Alternative 2b would suggest that the BLM has little or no interest in providing for commercial, 

or even 

R&D, expansion. The available acreage, reduced from 2,017,714 acres to 461, 968 (or from 
Final OSTS PEIS 456 

346,609 acto 

35,308 ac in Colorado), is located in small, isolated, non-contiguous pockets, with no regard 

given to 

commercial viability, access, or future expansion. Not only that, but the existing preferred rights 

leasing 

areas are almost entirely placed off limits, further discouraging commercial expansion, and the 

vast 

majority of existing RD&D leases would be also be excluded from development if the current 

leaseholders relinquish the lease. 

#2])> <([#3 [2.1.1] In contrast, Alternative 1, which would simply recognize the existing ROD 

from the 2008 PEIS, leaves a 

fairly contiguous 2,017,714 acres available for lease application, and leaves the preferred rights 

lease 

lands intact, and permits development of existing leases in the event that the current lease holder 

relinquishes the lease. It is recognized that not all2 million+ acres will actually be open to 

develop, as 

BLM NEPA processes will place much of the land off limits, but it does provide a much higher 

degree of 

flexibility for the industry, and some incentive to expand commercially. 

It should be incumbent upon the BLM to uphold existing government statutes and policies to 

enable a 

viable oil shale industry. No one is asking for preferential treatment for the industry, nor for 

subsidies; 

just for a reasonable policy of access to this invaluable national resource by private industry, as 

established in the 2008 PEIS. 

#3])> Thank you, 

OSTS_105 

Organization: Jeff Kohls 

Received: 4/27/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Commenter1: Jeff Kohls - Grand Junction, Colorado 81505 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: none 

Submission Category: Letter 

Submitted As: Postal Mail 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/17/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D00106.htm (OSTS_105-59191.htm Size = 1 KB) 

OSTS_105_Kohls_Jeff_Mail_OSTS2012D00106.pdf (OSTS_105-59190.pdf Size = 74 KB) 

Submission Text

See Attachment. 

April 27, 2012 

Draft OSTS PEIS 

Argonne National Laboratory 
Final OSTS PEIS 457 

9700 S. Cass Ave. 

EVS/240 

Argonne, IL 60439 

Re: 2012 Oil Shale /Tar Sands Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement 

Dear Sir: 

<([#1 [3.10.3] Thank you for the opportunity to express my opinions over this PEIS. I am 

concerned that the 

provisions outlined in this current draft would place undue restrictions on future oil shale 

development, and correspondingly limit job growth and economic opportunity for our region of 

north western Colorado. #1])>

<([#2 [2.1.1] The PEIS seeks to change the outcome of a previous PEIS, completed in 2008, 

which set aside 

just over 2,000,000 acres for possible commercial lease consideration. The preferred alternative 

(2) in the current one reduces that acreage by an almost unbelievable amount- by 77% overall 

(including the land in Utah and Wyoming), and by a staggering 90% in Colorado alone. This is 

especially striking when you look at the maps contrasting Alternative 1 and Alternative 2. 

I ask you to choose Alternative One, which leaves the land allocations originally made available 

in the 2008 document as is. There is no compelling reason to change the rules of the game on 

oil shale development right now. We should give the companies pursuing this resource some 

predictability and consistency in the regulatory scheme so that they can focus on getting this 

resource out of the ground. 

Please don’t buckle to political pressure from extremists. Out in Western Colorado, we need 

these jobs. 

#2])> Thanks for your consideration. 

OSTS_106 

Organization: Richard Bell 

Received: 4/25/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Commenter1: Richard Bell - Grand Junction, Colorado 81505 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: none 

Submission Category: Letter 

Submitted As: Postal Mail 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/17/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D00107.htm (OSTS_106-59193.htm Size = 1 KB) 

OSTS_106_Bell_R_Mail_OSTS2012D00107.pdf (OSTS_106-59192.pdf Size = 80 KB) 

Submission Text

See Attachment. 

April. 25, 2012 

2012 OSPEIS 

Argonne National Laboratory 

9700 S. Cass Ave 

EVS/240 
Final OSTS PEIS 458 

Argonne, IL 60439 

To whom it may concern, 

<([#1 [3.10.3] I am deeply concerned about the effect that re-visiting the PEIS on oil shale will 

have on the 

industry and the prospects for the overall region. This redo will only serve to delay the 

commercialization of oil shale development, and the jobs and economic growth that it would 

bring to the tri-state area. Western Colorado is currently experiencing double-digit 

unemployment, with the effects being felt throughout the region. Most of the people who 

live out here welcome the introduction of a major industry that produces a vital product, and 

provides jobs and income for thousands of families. 

#1])> <([#2 [9.8] Oil shale projects take a significant amount of time to construct and get up and 

running, so 

any delay now will only postpone actual development and production. This new PEIS is just 

the latest in a string of artificial delays that are keeping oil shale from achieving its full 

potential. The industry needs predictability in the regulatory and land allocation framework 

in order to make the investments needed to commercially develop oil shale. There is no 

reason to change the rules in the middle of the game. 

#2])> <([#3 [11] This is an important national resource that needs to be developed for the sake of 

national 

security, economic prosperity, and fuel supply stability. I call on the BLM to put an end to 

the delays, and allow the industry to move forward with oil shale development and the resulting 

job creation. #3])>

OSTS_107 

Organization: Teresa Kresin 

Received: 4/30/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Commenter1: Teresa Kresin - Grand Junction, Colorado 81507 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: none 

Submission Category: Letter 

Submitted As: Postal Mail 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/17/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D00108.htm (OSTS_107-59195.htm Size = 1 KB) 

OSTS_107_Kresin_T_Mail_OSTS2012D00108.pdf (OSTS_107-59194.pdf Size = 88 KB) 

Submission Text

See Attachment. 

TO: 2012 OSPEIS 

Argonne National Laboratory 

9700 S. Cass Ave 

EVS/240 

Argonne, IL 60439 

Dear Sir/Madam, 

<([#1 [11] I would like to offer my full support for oil shale development in northwestern 

Colorado, and the 
Final OSTS PEIS 459 

surrounding regions, and for BLM management practices that recognize the importance of this 

valuable 

resource. #1])>

<([#2 [10.6.3] Oil shale is an immense energy source that can help move America towards 

energy independence, 

and wean our nation off foreign oil. An estimated 4 Trillion barrels of recoverable oil lie 

underneath the lands 

being discussed in the current PEIS, enough to meet the United States’ energy needs for decades 

to come. 

#2])> <([#3 [6.2.2] [6.3.2.1] Oil shale is also efficient, in that it produces much more energy than 

it consumes in its development, at a 

ratio of between 3:1 and 6:1, depending on the retorting technology used. As well, the production 

of oil from 

shale uses far less water than its opponents would lead some to believe, in fact far less than some 

other fuel 

sources, such as biomass from corn, which requires irrigation. Many companies already own 

water rights 

sufficient to meet long-term, large scale commercial development. 

#3])> <([#4 [10.8] This vital resource can and will be developed responsibly. The main 

companies engaged in current 

oil shale RD&D have strict and well established environmental policies in place, and the track 

records to 

show successful stewardship. To back even that up, the United States, and Colorado in particular, 

have 

some of the most stringent environmental protections in the world, especially compared to some 

of the other 

places where oil shale development is taking place. It would be an environmental shame if oil 

shale 

companies and investors were to locate in these places, rather than develop the resource more 

responsibly 

in the U.S. 

#4])> <([#5 [2.1.1] All of these are reasons for a policy that simply allows oil shale development 

to occur. Restricting 

land access and delaying commercial leasing will not help in this regard. Alternative 1, noaction, provides 

the best balance of orderly conversion to commercialization, and a cushion to ensure protection 

of the 

environment, and to allow local municipalities the chance to adapt to the economic and 

population growth 

that will result. Please adopt Alternative 1 in the 2012 Oil Shale PEIS. 

#5])> Sincerely, 

OSTS_108 

Organization: Tyler Rogers 

Received: 4/28/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Commenter1: Tyler Rogers - Fruita, Colorado 81521 (United States) 

Organization1: 
Final OSTS PEIS 460 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: none 

Submission Category: Letter 

Submitted As: Postal Mail 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/17/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D00109.htm (OSTS_108-59197.htm Size = 1 KB) 

OSTS_108_Rogers_Mail_OSTS2012D00109.pdf (OSTS_108-59196.pdf Size = 77 KB) 

Submission Text

See Attachment. 

Bureau of Land Management 

2012 OS/TS PEIS 

Argonne National Laboratory 

9700 S. Cass Ave 

EVS/240 

Argonne, IL 60439 

Dear Sir/Madam, 

April. 28, 2012 

<([#1 [2.2] It is no mistake that of the 14 cooperating agencies in the 2012 Oil Shale PEIS, not 

one 

supported the BLM’s preferred alternative, 2b. It is similarly not surprising that a 

majority of them support Alternative 1, the no-action alternative, which keeps the 

acreage provided for in the original 2008 PEIS. 

The local governments out here know how important commercial oil shale development 

is to their communities, and they reflected that in their selections for a preferred 

alternative. By selecting 2b, which slashes the amount of land available for potential 

future lease applications by almost 80% overall, and allows only RD&D leases to applied 

for, the BLM shows just how out of touch it is with the people who live and work in the 

area they are establishing the plans for. #1])>

<([#2 [9.8] The entire re-working of the PEIS shows a level of contempt for not only the local 

governments, but of the many individuals, businesses, groups and associations which 

contributed hundreds of hours of work and testimony to the 2008 initiative. By 

arbitrarily rejecting the conclusions of that study, without any new evidence or 

information coming to light, the BLM is signaling that all that work and public comment 

was worthless, and that all that really matters is the opinion of a handful of activists 

who use the legal system to try and get their way. #2])>

<([#3 [2.1.1] I join with the majority of cooperating agencies in calling for the BLM to support 

Alternative 1. #3])>

Sincerely, 

OSTS_109 

Organization: Centennial Institute, John Andrews 

Received: 4/12/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Commenter1: John Andrews - Lakewood, Colorado 80226 (United States) 

Organization1:Centennial Institute 
Final OSTS PEIS 461 

Commenter Type: Misc. Organization 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Letter 

Submitted As: Postal Mail 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/17/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D00110.htm (OSTS_109-59199.htm Size = 1 KB) 

OSTS_109_Andrews_Centennial_Institute_Mail_OSTS2012D00110.pdf (OSTS_109-59198.pdf 

Size = 159 KB) 

Submission Text

See Attachment. 

CENTENNIAL 

INSTITUTE 

April12, 2012 

Bureau of Land Management 

Argonne National Laboratory 

9700 South Cass Ave 

EVS/240 

Argonne, IL 60439 

Ref: 2012 Oil Shale/Tar Sand Programmatic EIS 

To whom it may concern, 

Centennial Institute is a nonpartisan, nonprofit public policy center affiliated with Colorado 

Christian 

University. Our issues research, supported by the Centennial Fellows policy board of scholars 

and experts, 

includes a focus on energy, environment, economic growth, federalism, and regulatory reform. 

Based on this, we strongly recommend that the BLM adopt the No-Action Alternative 

(Alternative 1) as 

presented in the 2012 Oil Shale PEIS, and restore the land allocation plan decided on in the 2008 

PEIS. 

<([#1 [9.8] Oil shale development is important to both the regional economy of northwestern 

Colorado, and the energy 

security of the United States as a whole. As such, the federal government, which manages the 

majority of the 

land under which this valuable resource is deposited, should make it a priority to encourage 

responsible 

commercial development and production of oil shale by removing as many bureaucratic 

obstacles as possible, 

while still ensuring the protection of sensitive ecosystems. Unfortunately, this latest PEIS seems 

to take a much 

more restrictive approach, one which will actually discourage commercialization and 

development. 

The initial PEIS, completed in 2008, was thoroughly researched, and incorporated the input of 

many experts in 
Final OSTS PEIS 462 

the field, local governmental and economic development entities, and the public. The result of 

the many months 

of work that went into it was the identification of 2,017,714 acres of some of the most oil shalerich land in the 

world as eligible for commercial lease application. The fact that these 2 ,000,000- plus acres 

were only made 

available for lease applications all but ensured that not all of it would be developed- each 

commercial lease 

that was applied for under the plan would be subject to another full analysis, involving a new 

NEPA process, 

and several government agencies, before the lease would be granted. Clearly, this was not a land 

give-away to 

the oil shale industry. 

Nevertheless, a small number of vocal environmental extremists took issue with the results of the 

process, and 

initiated two lawsuits against the government, the settlements of which resulted, in part, with the 

current 

redone PEIS- redone, in spite of no new information being developed in the interim period which 

might 

otherwise justify the immense cost to the taxpayer, and further delays in the production of an 

important 

strategic resource, associated with restarting such an undertaking. 

#1])> <([#2 [2.3] [2.2] Under this new PEIS, the BLM has adopted as its preferred Alternative, 

one which would close off some 70% of the land deemed suitable in 2008 for eligibility for 

commercial leasing. Among the lands placed off limits are 

areas that may have wilderness characteristics (even though such a designation is strictly a 

Congressional 

responsibility and privilege), lands considered at one time for ACEC designation that were later 

determined not 

to qualify for such distinction, and sage grouse habitat- with no specification as to exact location 

or definition of 

such habitat. Not only is the acreage drastically reduced, but the remaining acreage is in isolated 

and noncontiguous 

portions, with absolutely no consideration given to geological suitability, or economical access. 

In fact, the preferred Alternative, like the other land allocation alternatives offered in the 2012 

redone PEIS, 

does not allow for near-term commercial development at all, calling instead for companies to 

demonstrate 

viability- an arbitrary requirement that lacks specific guidelines as to how viability is 

determined- which will 

necessarily exclude many smaller companies from entering the oil shale market. Alternative 3 

goes so far as to 

disallow any development beyond existing RD&D leases whatsoever. Both ofthese approaches 

are in 

contravention of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, which prescribed a dual and concurrent RD&D 

and commercial 
Final OSTS PEIS 463 

leasing program for oil shale. #2])>

<([#3 [1.5] The current PEIS ignores the science, expertise, and proven technological advances 

surrounding oil shale 

recovery, and instead caters to a narrow, agenda-driven interpretation ofthe facts, as promulgated 

by certain 

well-heeled interest groups. The facts are that oil shale generates many times more energy than it 

takes to 

extract it, uses far less water to produce than some other energy sources (such as biomass), and is 

well within 

reach of commercial production with current technologies. The main impediment to large scale 

oil shale 

production is the bureaucratic hurdles put up by the federal government. #3])>

<([#4 [2.1.1] The 2008 PEIS was a step in the direction of removing those hurdles in a 

responsible, environmentally 

conscious manner. It is the responsibility of the BLM, as an agency of the national government, 

to respect the 

honest work that went into drafting that professional PEIS, as well as to recognize the national 

strategic 

importance- and the economic benefits locally and to the state- of oil shale, and to adopt 

Alternative 1. #4])>

JOHN ANDREWS 

Director, Centennial Institute 

at Colorado Christian University 

OSTS_110 

Organization: Michael Vohland 

Received: 4/26/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Commenter1: Michael Vohland - Grand Junction, Colorado 81504 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: none 

Submission Category: Letter 

Submitted As: Postal Mail 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/17/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D00111.htm (OSTS_110-59201.htm Size = 1 KB) 

OSTS_110_Vohland_Mail_OSTS2012D00111.pdf (OSTS_110-59200.pdf Size = 99 KB) 

Submission Text

See Attachment. 

TO: Argonne National Laboratory 

9700 South Cass Ave 

EVS/240 

Argonne, IL 60439 

April 26th, 2012 

<([#1 [9.8] In regards to the 2012 Oil Shale PEIS, I have some concerns I would like to share 
Final OSTS PEIS 464 

with the BLM. The first 

revolves around the fact that a new PEIS is even being considered. A full PEIS was completed in 

2008, 

following months of input from local residents and the scientific community. Since that time, the 

federal 

government under the current administration has been steadily dismantling the programs put in 

place 

previously to provide for oil shale development, such as downsizing the second round of RD&D 

leasing 

so much as to make the available acreage unattractive for the industry, and settling lawsuits 

brought 

forth by radical environmental lobbyists in the plaintiffs favor, which the current PEIS re-do is a 

result of. 

This has all been done for purely political reasons, and not based on any new scientific or 

environmental 

evidence. #1])>

<([#2 [2.1.1] With this in mind it only seems proper for the BLM to select the no-action 

Alternative, which will restore 

the acreage and use plans developed and accepted in the initial, legitimate PEIS. The other 

presented 

alternatives in the current one will prevent commercial development from going forward by 

drastically 

reducing the land available for leasing for such development. The economic advantages to 

developing 

oil shale are clear, both locally and nationally. There has been incredible progress made towards 

commercialization- Shell has in fact been able to produce thousands of barrels from their limited 

RD 

and D leases. 

Anti-development opponents to energy and oil shale production like to say that oil shale is 

always 10 

years away from commercial production- which they will be if public policies keep them from 

expanding and actually going commercial. I would ask the BLM to allow the industry to break 

that cycle 

by keeping the maximum amount of land available for them to apply for expansion and 

development, as 

represented by the no-action alternative. #2])>

J 

OSTS_111 

Organization: Nicole Conner 

Received: 4/26/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Commenter1: Nicole Conner - Grand Junction, Colorado 81504 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: none 

Submission Category: Letter 

Submitted As: Postal Mail 
Final OSTS PEIS 465 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/17/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D00112.htm (OSTS_111-59203.htm Size = 1 KB) 

OSTS_111_Conner_N_Mail_OSTS2012D00112.pdf (OSTS_111-59202.pdf Size = 84 KB) 

Submission Text

See Attachment. 

April 261 

h, 2012 

Bureau of Land Management 

Argonne National Laboratory 

9700 South Cass Ave 

EVS/240 

Argonne, IL 60439 

Ref: 2012 OSTS PEIS 

To whom it may concern, 

<([#1 [2.1] I appreciate the opportunity to extend comment on the current PEIS for oil shale in 

Northwestern 

Colorado, Southwestern Wyoming and Northeastern Utah. This is a very important issue for 

many of us 

who live in the region, due to the tremendous economic impact that commercial oil shale 

development will bring. I think it is difficult for people who don’t live here to understand just 

how important oil shale 

development would be to our small towns in Western Colorado. 

A PEIS done in 2008 identified 2 million acres as being suitable for being kept available for 

possible 

development. In an action that has become far too common, certain lobby groups sued the 

government 

over this, and the settlement resulted in the PEIS needlessly being redone. As a resident of 

western 

Colorado, I resent my economic future, and that of my kids, being held hostage by political 

games. As a 

taxpayer, I am outraged that the government would waste my money on redoing an assessment 

that was 

done only a few short years ago, when nothing material has changed. 

There will always be small segments of society that object to development, however the vast 

majority of 

them do not live in the areas they are trying to lock up, and do not have to live with the 

consequences of 

their actions. It is unfortunate that these few can hold up the advancement of an entire industry 

that is as 

important to our nation’s energy strategy as it is to our regional economy. The only responsible 

approach 

for the BLM to take in regards to this PEIS is to select Alternative 1, which will restore the 

acreage 
Final OSTS PEIS 466 

properly allocated in 2008, and hopefully some sanity to the situation. 

There is absolutely no reason to reduce the acreage available for oil shale research and 

commercial 

development to less than what was decided in the 2008 PEIS. #1])>

Regards, 

v 

OSTS_112 

Organization: Vernal Area Chamber of Commerce, Adam Massey 

Received: 4/12/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Commenter1: Adam Massey - Vernal, Utah 84078 (United States) 

Organization1:Vernal Area Chamber of Commerce 

Commenter Type: Misc. Organization 

Classification: none 

Submission Category: Letter 

Submitted As: Postal Mail 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/17/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D00113.htm (OSTS_112-59205.htm Size = 1 KB) 

OSTS_112_Massey__Vernal_Chamber_of_Com_Mail_OSTS2012D00113.pdf (OSTS_112-

59204.pdf Size = 116 KB) 

Submission Text

See Attachment. 

Vernal Area Chamber of Commerce 

134 West Main • Vernal, Utah 84078 

April12, 2012 

Bureau of Land Management 

Argonne National Laboratory 

9700 S. Cass Ave. 

EVS/240 

Argonne, IL 60439 

RE: 2012 Oil Shale and Tar Sands Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement. 

To Whom It May Concern: 

<([#1 [2.1.1] The Vernal Area Chamber of Commerce, as part of our mission to advance the 

economic growth and health of our 

community, would like to offer our support for the adoption of Alternative 1 in the above 

referenced PEIS. 

Commercial Oil Shale development is important both on a local and a national scale. Locally, it 

will bring much 

needed employment, income, and economic growth to our region, both directly and indirectly. 

Nationally, oil shale 

represents a major resource that can fuel our economic recovery, lower the price of energy, and 

go a very long ways 

towards securing American energy independence. 

Alternative 1 of the current PEIS keeps the roughly 2 million acres of oil shale rich land 
Final OSTS PEIS 467 

available for commercial lease 

application that was identified in the original 2008 PEIS, thus maximizing the potential for the 

industry to pursue long 

range development and production. 

The other Alternatives, including the BLM’s preferred alternative, number 2, place most of this 

acreage permanently 

off limits, and discourage commercialization. This is clearly out of synch with the majority of 

local governments, 

businesses, economic development organizations, and Chambers of Commerce who wish to see 

this valuable 

resource developed in a responsible and economic manner, and may also violate the 2005 Energy 

Policy Act, which 

prescribes a dual track - R&D and commercial - for oil shale development. 

The Vernal Area Chamber does not feel it is in the best interests of our community and region 

for the Federal 

Government to continue to place unnecessary obstacles in the way of oil shale development. We 

firmly believe that 

we can produce the resources available in our own back yard in a responsible and balanced 

manner, without the 

Federal Government needing to micromanage every step of the way. 

In fact, we feel that this current PEIS is a waste of time and taxpayers money, considering that a 

very thorough and 

complete PEIS was done in 2008. No new scientific or ecological information has been 

developed in the interim, 

making this effort superfluous. That 8 of the 14 cooperating agencies in this process chose 

Alternative 1 (no action 

from the 2008 PEIS) is indicative that this sentiment is widespread throughout the affected 

region. We further believe 

that it sets a poor precedent when such a vast undertaking is re-done in response to a lawsuit by 

special interests 

who were unhappy with the previous outcome. 

That said, we appreciate the opportunity to contribute to the process, and strongly encourage the 

BLM to adopt the 

only economically responsible Alternative available, which is Alternative 1 (No Action). 

#1])> Sincerely, 

www.vernalchamber.com + vchambermgr@easilink.com 

“ Good for Business, Good for the Community” 

OSTS_113 

Organization: Kevin Borman 

Received: 4/25/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Commenter1: Kevin Borman - Grand Junction, Colorado (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: none 

Submission Category: Letter 
Final OSTS PEIS 468 

Submitted As: Postal Mail 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/17/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D00114.htm (OSTS_113-59207.htm Size = 1 KB) 

OSTS_113_Borman_K_Mail_OSTS2012D00114.pdf (OSTS_113-59206.pdf Size = 100 KB) 

Submission Text

See Attachment. 

April 25, 2012 

Bureau of Land Management 

Argonne National Laboratory 

9700 S. Cass Ave 

EVS/240 

Argonne, IL 60439 

RE: 2012 Oil Shale/Tar Sands Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement. 

Gentlemen: 

<([#1 [2.1.1] The purpose of this letter is to offer our comments and recommendation on the 

2012 Oil Shale Programmatic 

Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS). The Board of Directors of the Grand Junction Area 

REAL TORS® 

Association voted unanimously to support the selection of Alternative No. 1 as the option to be 

adopted by the 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM). We have made this recommendation based on the 

following comments: 

The current PEIS draft forecasts the impacts that the implementation of Alternative 1 would have 

on the local 

housing market. As detailed in the “Impact Assessment for Oil Shale and Tar Sands 

Alternatives” section under 

“Socio-Economic Impacts”, oil shale development and directly related projects will result in 

upwards of 1300 

housing construction jobs, representing over $25 million in revenue. In addition, the oil shale 

development 

provided for under Alternative 1 is projected to result in a population increase that could absorb 

2.9% to 6.2% of 

housing vacancies in the area. Two other projects directly related to commercial oil shale 

development, a power 

plant for the in-situ processing facility, and a coal mine, could absorb 3.8%- 6.4%, and .5%- 

2.9% of vacancies 

respectively, under Alternative 1. 

In contrast, the implementation of Alternative 3 is projected to result in only approximately 500 

housing 

construction jobs, representing $12 million in revenue- the overwhelming majority of that would 

be temporary 

housing and would have no measurable effect on the vacancy rate. The housing impacts for 

Alternatives 4, and 
Final OSTS PEIS 469 

the BLM’s preferred Alternative 2, were not analyzed in the PEIS. The document merely states 

that the impacts 

would be similar to those of Alternative 1, only to a lesser extent due to less acreage being made 

available for 

leasing in these options. On that basis, and taking into account that Alternative 2 cuts available 

acreage by 

roughly 70%, and 2(b) limits that acreage currently to RD&D leases, this could be considered to 

be a major 

understatement. 

At the outset, we find it questionable and disappointing that the BLM via the Secretary of the 

Interior would see 

fit to revisit this Issue in this manner and in this time frame. The companies involved in these 

operations need to 

be able to depend on the commitment of BLM to stand by the agreements that were made 

originally. For this 

reason and in light of the positive effects that Alternative 1 will have on the housing market, in 

general, and 

specifically the vacancy rate of the local area, we fully support the adoption of this Alternative. 

#1])> <([#2 [1.1.1] In addition, it is our understanding that the comment period for the 2012 Oil 

Shale PEIS expires on May 4, 2012, 

with implementation of the new Alternative scheduled for May 15, 2012. We would respectfully 

request the 

extension of this period to allow a reasonable amount of time for other members of the business 

community to 

comment on the PEIS. #2])>

Signed, 

Grand Junction Area REAL TORS® Association 

Kevin Borman 

Chairman, Board of Directors 

OSTS_114 

Organization: Grand Junction Area Realtors Association, Kevin Borman 

Received: 4/25/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Commenter1: Kevin Borman - Grand Junction, Colorado 81506 (United States) 

Organization1:Grand Junction Area Realtors Association 

Commenter Type: Misc. Organization 

Classification: none 

Submission Category: Letter 

Submitted As: Postal Mail 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/17/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D00115.htm (OSTS_114-59209.htm Size = 1 KB) 

OSTS_114_Borman__Grand_Junction_Realtor_Assoc_Mail_OSTS2012D00115.pdf 

(OSTS_114-59208.pdf Size = 95 KB) 

Submission Text

See Attachment. 
Final OSTS PEIS 470 

Apri125, 2012 

Bureau of Land Management 

Argonne National Laboratory 

9700 S. Cass Ave 

EVS/240 

Argonne, IL 60439 

GRAND JUNCTION AREA 

REALTOK 

ASSOCIATION 

RE: 2012 Oil Shale/Tar Sands Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement. 

Gentlemen: 

<([#1 [2.1.1] The purpose of this letter is to offer our comments and recommendation on the 

2012 Oil Shale Programmatic 

Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS). The Board of Directors of the Grand Junction Area 

REALTORS® 

Association voted unanimously to support the selection of Alternative No. 1 as the option to be 

adopted by the 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM). We have made this recommendation based on the 

following comments: 

The current PEIS draft forecasts the impacts that the implementation of Alternative 1 would have 

on the local 

housing market. As detailed in the “Impact Assessment for Oil Shale and Tar Sands 

Alternatives” section under 

“Socio- Economic Impacts”, oil shale development and directly related projects will result in 

upwards of 1300 

housing construction jobs, representing over $25 million in revenue. In addition, the oil shale 

development 

provided for under Alternative 1 is projected to result in a population increase that could absorb 

2.9% to 6.2% of 

housing vacancies in the area. Two other projects directly related to commercial oil shale 

development, a power 

plant for the in-situ processing facility, and a coal mine, could absorb 3.8%- 6.4%, and .5%- 

2.9% of vacancies 

respectively, under Alternative 1. 

In contrast, the implementation of Alternative 3 is projected to result in only approximately 500 

housing 

construction jobs, representing $12 million in revenue- the overwhelming majority of that would 

be temporary 

housing and would have no measurable effect on the vacancy rate. The housing impacts for 

Alternatives 4, and 

the BLM’s preferred Alternative 2, were not analyzed in the PEIS. The document merely states 

that the impacts 

would be similar to those of Alternative 1, only to a lesser extent due to less acreage being made 

available for 
Final OSTS PEIS 471 

leasing in these options. On that basis, and taking into account that Alternative 2 cuts available 

acreage by 

roughly 70%, and 2(b) limits that acreage currently to RD&D leases, this could be considered to 

be a major 

understatement. 

#1])> <([#2 [9.8] At the outset, we find it questionable and disappointing that the BLM via the 

Secretary of the Interior would see 

fit to revisit this issue in this manner and in this time frame. The companies involved in these 

operations need to 

be able to depend on the commitment of BLM to stand by the agreements that were made 

originally. For this 

reason and in light of the positive effects that Alternative 1 will have on the housing market, in 

general, and 

specifically the vacancy rate of the local area, we fully support the adoption of this Alternative. 

#2])> <([#3 [1.1.1] In addition, it is our understanding that the comment period for the 2012 Oil 

Shale PEIS expires on May 4, 2012, 

with implementation of the new Alternative scheduled for May 15, 2012. We would respectfully 

request the 

extension of this period to allow a reasonable amount of time for other members of the business 

community to 

comment on the PEIS. #3])>

Signed, 

Grand J unctio,n Area REAL TORS® Association 

i.nBorman 

Chairman, Board of Directors 

2743 Crossroads Boulevard • Grand Junction, Colorado 81506 

(970) 243-3322 • Fax: (970) 241-9324 • Email: gjboard@ wic.net 

GRAND JUNCTION AREA REALTOK 

ASSOCIATION 

2743 Crossroads Blvd. 

Grand Junction, CO 81506 

Bureau of Land Management 

Argonne National Laboratory 

9700 S. Cass Avenue 

EVS/240 

Argonne, IL 60439 

OSTS_115 

Organization: Craig Wortmann 

Received: 4/24/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Commenter1: Craig Wortmann - Fruita, Colorado 81521 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: none 

Submission Category: Letter 

Submitted As: Postal Mail 
Final OSTS PEIS 472 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/17/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D00116.htm (OSTS_115-59211.htm Size = 1 KB) 

OSTS_115_Wortmann_Mail_OSTS2012D00116.pdf (OSTS_115-59210.pdf Size = 91 KB) 

Submission Text

See Attachment. 

April 24th, 2012 

Bureau of Land Management 

Argonne National Laboratory 

9700 S. Cass Ave 

EVS/240 

Argonne, IL 60439 

Colorado River Valley Field Office 

2300 River Frontage Road 

Silt, CO 81652 

Ref: 2012 Oil Shale Programmatic EIS 

<([#1 [9.8] I would like to express my profound disappointment over the re-hashing of the 2008 

effort to establish a 

set of rules and processes for oil shale development. 

As a result of a pair of lawsuits, and the subsequent settlement by the federal government, the 

entire 

years-long process, that involved work of hundreds, and input from many local counties, 

municipalities, 

and specialists, as well as hours of further input from the public, is being needlessly redone, at 

the 

expense of the taxpayer. #1])>

<([#2 [2.1.1] The 2008 PEIS identified just over 2,000,000 acres for which a company could 

apply for a lease for future 

commercial development. This did not open up these 2,000,000 acres for development, merely 

made 

them available for lease application, subject to full NEPA analysis, EIS studies, etc. This would 

simply 

provide oil shale companies some flexibility in their long-term planning, and establish an orderly 

process 

for the expansion of the industry into large-scale commercialization. 

The alternative to this, the restriction of leasing to merely RD&D, is perpetual delays, an 

unfriendly 

environment of uncertainty for current and potential producers, and a denial of economic activity 

to one of 

the hardest hit regions in the state. 

A further result of rejecting the 2008 findings is to set our region up for a haphazard, impromptu 

development plan if and when circumstances, such as a national emergency, demand that oil 

shale be 

put on line in relatively short order, with predictable consequences for the environment and local 
Final OSTS PEIS 473 

municipalities. 

For these reasons, the only responsible course of action for the BLM to take is to either scrap the 

renewed PEIS altogether, or at the very least to adopt Alternative 1 (no action) as the preferred 

alternative. #2])>

Sincerely, 

OSTS_116 

Organization: Terri Cavanaugh 

Received: 5/4/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Commenter1: Terri Cavanaugh - Grand Junction, Colorado (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: none 

Submission Category: Letter 

Submitted As: Postal Mail 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/17/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D00117.htm (OSTS_116-59213.htm Size = 1 KB) 

OSTS_116_Cavanaugh_Mail_OSTS2012D00117.pdf (OSTS_116-59212.pdf Size = 97 KB) 

Submission Text

See Attachment. 

Draft OSTS PEIS 

Argonne National Laboratory 

9700 S. Cass Ave. 

EVS/240 

Argonne, IL 60439 

Re: 2012, Oil Shale Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement 

To whom it may concern, 

<([#1 [2.1.1] As a resident of the Western Slope, I felt compelled to offer my opinion that the 

responsible 

development of the vast oil shale resources in our region should be encouraged, and further that 

Alternative 1 in the current PEIS is the best solution for doing so. 

Enabling the development of oil shale on a commercial basis will bring many economic benefits 

to northwestern Colorado. The job growth that the adoption of Alternative 1 is estimated to 

generate will have direct and positive impacts on the quality of life within the region, not only 

through the direct jobs and income produced by the oil shale industry itself, but the residual job 

growth that such development will bring, from housing construction, to service industries, to 

retail growth. As well, the growth of a commercial oil shale industry will mean increased tax 

revenue at all levels, which will help provide for our local infrastructure needs, public schools, 

and police, fire, and ambulance services, along with other public amenities. 

Alternative 1 reflects the great efforts of many that went into formulating the 2008 EIS and 

management plan. By leaving over 2 million acres of resource-rich land available for application 

for commercial leasing, a balance is struck between maximizing the economic benefits of 

development, and the need to preserve our natural heritage. Each of these potential leases would 

be required to go through a full NEP A analysis prior to commercial leases being granted; 
Final OSTS PEIS 474 

therefore, any concerns over endangered species habitat, sensitive area’s and water issues would 

be addressed, without simply placing wide swaths of potential land off the table. 

We in Western Colorado take stewardship of our land and resources very seriously, and take 

great pride in our ability to provide for both economic prosperity and natural conservation. 

Denying our region the opportunity to realize our full economic potential by arbitrarily closing 

hundreds of thousands of acres to development of a resource of national importance is not only 

unsound, but unnecessary. Please strongly consider Alternative 1 as you go ahead with 

developing a plan to manage oil shale in our area. #1])>

Thank you for your time and efforts, 

OSTS_117 

Organization: Diane Schwenke 

Received: 5/2/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Commenter1: Diane Schwenke - Grand Junction, Colorado 81501 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: none 

Submission Category: Letter 

Submitted As: Postal Mail 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/17/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D00118.htm (OSTS_117-59215.htm Size = 1 KB) 

OSTS_117_Schwenke_Mail_OSTS2012D00118.pdf (OSTS_117-59214.pdf Size = 95 KB) 

Submission Text

See Attachment. 

Bureau of Land Management 

2012 Draft Oil Shale/Tar Sands PEIS 

Argonne National Laboratory 

9700 S. Cass Ave 

EVS/240 

Argonne, IL 60439 

Dear Director, 

<([#1 [2.1.1] I am writing to express my support for Alternative 1 in the 2012 Draft OSTS PEIS. 

This is the only alternative that 

takes into account the social and economic benefits of commercial oil shale development. #1])>

<([#2 [3.10.3] Chapter six of the 

document outlined the job growth and income generation that is projected to occur if Alternative 

1 is adopted, as 

well as housing construction impacts. A similar analysis of Alternative 3 demonstrates 

dramatically how these 

benefits would be reduced. 

No such detailed analysis was conducted for either the Preferred Alternative or Alternative 4. 

This is, in my opinion, 

a critical oversight. I do not believe that a land allocation plan should be prescribed without first 
Final OSTS PEIS 475 

assessing how that 

plan will impact the people, businesses and communities of the affected region. #2])>

<([#3 [2.1.1] Allowing a commercial oil shale industry to establish itself will not just bring jobs 

to the region, but also increase 

revenues going to local, state and federal government, through individual income taxes, sales and 

business taxes, and 

lease payments. This will help restore some of the funding shortfalls experienced in recent years, 

mostly as a result of 

high unemployment. 

The importance of this to the national economy should also not be overlooked. Production of oil 

shale would provide 

for the United States a steady, abundant source of energy, and contribute to American energy 

independence. 

Selecting Alternative 1 will signal to potential oil shale investors that the federal government will 

not stand in the 

way of commercial expansion beyond what is absolutely necessary to protect the most sensitive 

ecosystems, and in 

doing so will help the people of western Colorado provide for their own future. 

#3])> Sincerely, 

OSTS_118 

Organization: Jeff Smith 

Received: 5/2/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Commenter1: Jeff Smith - Craig, Colorado 81625 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: none 

Submission Category: Letter 

Submitted As: Postal Mail 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/17/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D00119.htm (OSTS_118-59217.htm Size = 1 KB) 

OSTS_118_Smith_Jeff_Mail_OSTS2012D00119.pdf (OSTS_118-59216.pdf Size = 74 KB) 

Submission Text

See Attachment. 

Argonne National Laboratory 

9700 S. Cass Ave 

EVS/240 

Argonne, IL 60439 

Ref. 2012 Oil Shale PEIS 

Ladies and Gentlemen, 

<([#1 [9.8] As someone who lives in a region that depends on energy production, and as 

someone whose livelihood also 

depends on energy, I find the 2012 oil shale PEIS very worrisome. If the BLM can whisk aside 

three years of study 
Final OSTS PEIS 476 

and effort on oil shale simply because an environmental obstructionist group decides to sue over 

the outcome, what 

is to stop them from doing the same every time any energy project is proposed on federal lands 

(which make up 

around 70% of the land in western Colorado)? By re-doing this PEIS, and tailoring the 

conclusions to the agenda of 

the environmentalists, the BLM has given the anti-development groups a potent weapon they can 

use against any 

new energy project or expansion of an existing one - be it oil shale, gas drilling, or mining. #1])>

<([#2 [2.2] In this case, the conclusions they have accepted include reducing the amount of land 

available for oil shale leasing by 

roughly 80%; disbursing the remainder into small, widely separated bits; placing the preference 

rights lease areas 

around existing RD&D leases mostly off limits; restricting leases to only RD&D; and only 

allowing commercial leases 

to be awarded if the applicant can demonstrate their production technology ahead of time. 

These provisions will ensure that a commercial oil shale industry does not get up and going in 

northwestern Colorado 

anytime soon. Sadly, it also means that many communities in northwestern Colorado will 

continue to suffer. #2])>

.. . ... ... 

OSTS_119 

Organization: DOn Pettygrove 

Received: 5/2/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Commenter1: DOn Pettygrove - Grand Junction, Colorado (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: none 

Submission Category: Letter 

Submitted As: Postal Mail 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/17/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D00120.htm (OSTS_119-59219.htm Size = 1 KB) 

OSTS_119_Pettygrove_Mail_OSTS2012D00120.pdf (OSTS_119-59218.pdf Size = 97 KB) 

Submission Text

See Attachment. 

BLM 2012 OS!TS PEIS 

C/0 Argonne National Laboratory 

9700 S. Cass Ave 

6/S/240 

Argonne, IL 60439 

Cc. BLM Colorado River Valley Field Office 

2300 River Frontage Road 

Silt, CO 81652 
Final OSTS PEIS 477 

Dear Sir or Madam, 

<([#1 [2.2] I would like to ask the 8LM to not unduly restrict oil shale development, as the 

provisions in your 

preferred Alternative in the 2012 PEIS dearly would do. Alternative 2b excludes almost 90% of 

the 

land in Colorado that was determined suitable for oil shale lease application in the original 2008 

document, and limits the remaining small, isolated parcels to further RD&D only. It places most, 

or in 

some cases all, of the preferred rights acreage surrounding the current RD&D leases off limits as 

well. This acreage was in place specifically to allow for commercial expansion from those 

existing 

RD&D leases. We need to provide as much area as possible to make any future development 

viable. Limiting the availability of the resource will limit the viability. This is not unlike telling a 

retail 

business that they can expand, they just can’t buy or construct a new building, and by the way, 

you 

can’t use the parking lot anymore either. If this is not a disincentive to commercial development. 

I 

would hate to see what is. 

Eliminating commercial leasing also shuts out smaller companies that might have otherwise been 

in 

a position to invest in oil shale development, and bring their operations, shops, money and jobs 

into 

the region. But who can blame any company for not wanting to take that step if they know that 

their hopes for commercial production could be kept years away by nothing other than 

government 

policy. Chances are they would set up shop somewhere else, perhaps Estonia or China where 

commercial oil shale development is already taking place, without, I might add, the 

environmental 

protections in place in this country. 

#1])> <([#2 [2.1.1] [1.1.1] As a final note, the draft 2012 oil shale regulations are not due for 

release until May 15, 11 days 

after the deadline for public comment. In addition to calling on your office to adopt Alternative 

1. 

which would restore the reasonable acreage provided for in the 2008 PEIS, and which is the only 

alternative to truly allow for commercial expansion of the industry, I also would ask that you 

extend 

the public comment period past the May 15th release of oil shale regulations. I believe that the 

full 

2,000,000 acres should be restored as previously studied. Enough study has been done, we need 

to progress with research and development. Do no restrict these to research only. Provide surety 

that development of the resource is going to happen if the research works. 

#2])> Yours Cordially, 

Don Pettygrove, P.E 
Final OSTS PEIS 478 

OSTS_120 

Organization: Todd Jourgensen 

Received: 5/2/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Commenter1: Todd Jourgensen - Craig, Colorado 81625 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: none 

Submission Category: Letter 

Submitted As: Postal Mail 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/17/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D00121.htm (OSTS_120-59221.htm Size = 1 KB) 

OSTS_120_Jourgensen_Mail_OSTS2012D00121.pdf (OSTS_120-59220.pdf Size = 81 KB) 

Submission Text

See Attachment. 

Re: BLM Draft 2012 OSTS PEIS 

To whom it may concern, 

<([#1 [9.8] There is no valid reason for this PEIS to have been re-done. The 2008 PEIS was a 

complete and thoroughly 

prepared document that took in all of the data, and resulted in a management plan that allowed 

for responsible oil 

shale development, and environmental preservation at the same time. Re-doing the entire PEIS, 

following yet another 

lawsuit by the green lobby, is a complete waste of taxpayer’s money, and will delay even longer 

the job growth and 

other socio-economic benefits of oil shale. #1])>

<([#2 [2.2] I ask the BLM to not be cowed by anti-development extremists who poison the well 

with many misconceptions and 

falsehoods about oil shale. The technology is available, as Shell demonstrated a few weeks ago, 

which means that 

the largest obstacle to unlocking this treasure remains the federal government and its regulations 

and restrictions. 

The Preferred Alternative in the 2012 PEIS is a clear example; by shutting out nearly all of the 

land previously made 

available for oil shale leasing, and excluding commercial leasing, the BLM is making it harder 

for companies to plan 

for the future, thereby making oil shale artificially unattractive. 

#2])> <([#3 [2.1.1] I ask that instead, the BLM revert to the 2008 land use plan, by adopting the 

no-action alternative. Doing so will take 

into account all of the information gathered in the initial process, and meet the dual objectives of 

allowing responsible 

development, and caring for sensitive environmental areas. 

Please do what is right for the people of the Western Slope, not the well-paid lawyers of the 
Final OSTS PEIS 479 

green lobby. 

#3])>

OSTS_121 

Organization: Marcia Neal 

Received: 5/2/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Commenter1: Marcia Neal - Grand Junction, Colorado 81506 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: none 

Submission Category: Letter 

Submitted As: Postal Mail 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/17/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D00122.htm (OSTS_121-59223.htm Size = 1 KB) 

OSTS_121_Neal_Mail_OSTS2012D00122.pdf (OSTS_121-59222.pdf Size = 90 KB) 

Submission Text

See Attachment. 

Argonne National Laboratory 

Q7()(l ~ r,H~S A-vP. 

EVS/240 

Argonne, IL 60439 

Re: 2012 Oil Shale and Tar Sands PEIS 

To whom it may concern, 

<([#1 [2.2] I am deeply concerned by a number of provisions in the 2012 oil shale PEIS, 

particularly as they relate to the possibility of commercial production. 

The Preferred Alternative (Alternative 2b) reduces the amount of land made 

available for leasing in the 2008 PEIS by an astonishing 77% overall-- even worse 

in Colorado, at 90%. It also eliminates commercial leasing, restricting leases to 

RD&D only. And the land that is left available is relegated to tracts so small and 

segregated that they cannot realistically support commercial-scale projects. 

This is sending a very clear statement that the BLM does not welcome commercial 

development of this rich resource on federal lands, under which most of the oil shale 

is located. This is a shame, when you consider the tremendous economic benefits 

that such development would bring. 

#1])> <([#2 [2.1.1] A commercial oil shale program, as mandated in the 2005 Energy Policy Act, 

would 

bring hundreds of new jobs to the tri-state region. It would also provide a revenue 

boost to local and state governments, whose budgets have been stretched thin for 

the last several years. The taxes, royalties, and lease payments would provide more 

money for local schools, emergency personnel, and other vital services. 

With this in mind, I recommend the BLM adopt the No Action Alternative, 

Alternative 1, for this PEIS, which retains the actions decided upon in the 2008 

PEIS. 

#2])> Thank you, 
Final OSTS PEIS 480 

~f)1 CJA.(~ J1~ 

Marcia Neal. 

1155 Lakeside Dr. #501 

Grand Junction, Colo. 81506 

OSTS_122 

Organization: WCJA, Kathy Hall 

Received: 5/2/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Commenter1: Kathy Hall - , (United States) 

Organization1:WCJA 

Commenter Type: Misc. Organization 

Classification: none 

Submission Category: Letter 

Submitted As: Postal Mail 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/18/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D00123.htm (OSTS_122-59225.htm Size = 1 KB) 

OSTS_122_Hall_WCJA_Mail_OSTS2012D00123.pdf (OSTS_122-59224.pdf Size = 127 KB) 

Submission Text

See Attachment. 

WCJA 

ATIN: BLM Draft 2012 OS/TS PEIS 

Argonne National laboratory 

9700 S. Cass Ave 

EVS/240 

Argonne, ll60439 

To whom it may concern, 

April 30, 2012 

<([#1 [2.2] We would like to object strongly to the 2012 Oil Shale PEIS on a number of grounds. 

First, the 

Preferred Alternative, 2b, places such extreme restrictions on commercial oil shale leasing as to 

effectively ban it. It reduces the amount of land available to the industry in Colorado to apply 

for leasing by 90%, and distributes what remains into small, segregated bits with no 

consideration given to any economic factors. 

Among the lands placed off limits are the vast majority of Preference Rights lease Areas, in 

place to accommodate commercial development from existing RD&D leases. This is a major 

disincentive to commercialize even the existing research acreage, where some companies have 

shown considerable potential, and only need to expand on what they have to make it viable. In 

fact, Alternative 2b, as well as 4b, disallows the issuance of commercial leases altogether, until 

an applicant can demonstrate their production technology to the satisfaction of government 

officials. 

Each of these proposals alone would serve as a serious impediment to commercial 

development of oil shale, and the job growth it would create. Together, they effectively shut 

down any prospects for economic growth, energy development, and regional prosperity from 

the oil shale industry whatsoever, for the foreseeable future. 
Final OSTS PEIS 481 

This is occurring in an area that is experiencing some of the worst unemployment in the state, if 

not the nation. Tourism and recreation, important as they are, cannot sustain themselves 

without a solid industry to form an economic base. Oil shale is at a point where it could provide 

this base for the long term, but the land allocation alternatives as spelled out in the 2012 PEIS 

would deny the region this opportunity, for no good reason. 

#1])> <([#2 [9.8] The most troubling issue surrounding this 2012 PEIS is that there shouldn’t 

even be a 2012 

document. Starting in 2005, the federal government dedicated three years, millions of dollars, 

and a great deal of effort to complete a PEIS, and develop a management plan for oil shale that 

complied with all relevant statutes, including the Energy Policy Act of 2005. They included the 

thousands of hours of input and testimony from a variety of local sources, agencies, 

governments, and the public, and came out in 2008 with a reasonable, workable model that 

identified just over 2,000,000 acres for potential future application for commercial leasing. #2])>

<([#3 [2.1.1] Radical environmental groups, in continuing their attack on the western slope, filed 

a lawsuit 

against the DOl over these findings. Now, as part of a settlement, the government is completely 

re-doing the PEIS, with the exact same information, only this time with a preferred alternative 

that mirrors the anti-development demands of the extremists who used the court system to 

bully the federal government. 

This is entirely unacceptable. The people of the Western Slope have a vested interest in 

preserving their natural heritage, but we realize that we can do that without sacrificing jobs and 

economic opportunity. The 2008 PEIS recognized this as well, and that is why we support the 

no-action alternative, Alternative 1, in the current PEIS. 

#3])>

Executive Director 

OSTS_123 

Organization: Rob Schmitzer 

Received: 4/25/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Commenter1: Rob Schmitzer - Craig, Colorado 81625 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: none 

Submission Category: Letter 

Submitted As: Postal Mail 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/18/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D00124.htm (OSTS_123-59227.htm Size = 1 KB) 

OSTS_123_Schmitzer_Mail_OSTS2012D00124.pdf (OSTS_123-59226.pdf Size = 99 KB) 

Submission Text

See Attachment. 

April25,2012 

Ref: BLM 2012 OS/TS PEIS 

Dear Sir/Madam, 
Final OSTS PEIS 482 

<([#1 [2.1.1] In reviewing this PEIS, it was interesting to note that of the 14 cooperating 

agencies taking part In its preparation, not 

a single one chose the BLM’s Preferred Alternative, 2b, as their own. A majority selected 

Alternative 1, the same one 

I am encouraging the BLM to adopt. Alternative 1 reinstates the Record Of Decision arrived at 

as a result of this very 

same process having been done in 2008. That process was three years in the making, and 

involved the cooperation 

and input of many stakeholders, including local governments, and a multi-state Governors task 

force. It culminated in 

opening around 2 million acres of oil shale land for possible future leasing. This was in 

compliance with the 2005 

Energy Policy Act, which mandated the establishment of a commercial oil shale program along 

with the RD&D 

program. 

This would lead to the beginning of an industry that would start producing the 4 trillion barrels 

of oil that lies 

underneath our region. This is enough resource to make America energy independent, and supply 

our demand for oil 

for generations. 

More locally, it would mean a vibrant industry creating jobs in our own backyard. Northwest 

Colorado needs this 

economic development, and the people of the region overwhelmingly support the establishment 

of a viable oil shale 

industry. 

What we do NOT support is the way a handful of environmentalists decided that they could 

hijack the system, and 

thorough litigation and a friendly settlement with their allies in the federal government, force the 

BLM to undermine all 

the work done on the 2008 PEIS, and ram through their anti-energy development agenda instead. 

Alternative 1 will help bring jobs and economic growth to this region, as detailed in the 

“Impacts” chapter of your 

PEIS. I urge you to adopt it, as opposed to Alternative 2b, as the BLM’s final Alternative. 

#1])> Sincerely, 

OSTS_124 

Organization: Craig Freeborn 

Received: 4/29/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Commenter1: Craig Freeborn - Grand Junction, Colorado 81501 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: none 

Submission Category: Letter 

Submitted As: Postal Mail 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/18/2012 12:00:00 AM 
Final OSTS PEIS 483 

Attachments: OSTS2012D00125.htm (OSTS_124-59229.htm Size = 1 KB) 

OSTS_124_Freeborn_Mail_OSTS2012D00125.pdf (OSTS_124-59228.pdf Size = 109 KB) 

Submission Text

See Attachment. 

BLM Colorado River Valley Field Office 

2300 River Frontage Road 

Silt, CO 81652 

Argonne National Laboratory 

9700 S. Cass Ave 

EVS/240 

Argonne, IL 60439 

Re: 2012 Oil Shale Programmatic EIS 

Apr. 29, 2012 

As part of the Public comment phase of this process, I want to point out a number of flaws that I 

see in the 2012 Oil Shale PEIS. 

<([#1 [2.2] The first and most obvious is the extreme reduction in the amount of land being made 

available for application for leasing in the BLM’s preferred alternative, 2b. The massive 

reduction in acreage is excessive and unnecessary. The 2 million acres allowed for under the 

2008 PEIS, and the no action alternative, are not actually open for development, but only for 

application for leasing. As the PEIS points out, this application process will include a full round 

ofEIS studies and evaluations, which will consider many different statutes. Much of this land 

will in fact be excluded under this process. But by leaving the maximum amount of acreage 

available to undergo the process, the BLM would be affording oil shale exploration and 

development companies a measure of flexibility in planning that is not afforded under the more 

restrictive alternatives. 

#1])>

<([#2 [9.6.1] Second is the bias against commercial development inherent in the 2012 PEIS. The 

reduced acreage in 2b, and the dispersed placement of the remaining available parcels, makes 

commercial planning and expansion, let alone new investments, most impracticable. 2b, the 

BLM’s preferred Alternative, further hinders commercialization by refusing to award ANY 

commercial leases until the applicant demonstrates viable technology. This is a very subjective 

and arbitrary request, and one that is not required of any other industry, even within the energy 

sector. The simple economic fact is that a company may wish to secure leases in preparation for 

commercial expansion, as part of their long-term planning process. 2b and 4b would deny them 

that management option. In addition, Alternative 3 prohibits any leasing beyond the existing 

RD&D leases currently held, and both 2 and 3 exclude most or all of the preferred rights lease 

areas around those RD&D leases, put in place specifically to allow expansion of those leases in 

the event of commercial success. #2])>

<([#3 [9.2.1] Finally, I am concerned with the legal ramifications. In the first place, the 

alternatives that hinder or prohibit commercial leasing seem to be doing so in direct defiance of 

the Energy Policy Act of2005, which calls for parallel commercial development programs in oil 

shale; The lands excluded under 2 and 2b for reasons of having “wilderness characteristics”, may 

represent an attempt at circumvention of the right of congress alone to define areas as 

“wilderness”; and the whole reason for doing the 2012 PEIS- a response to a lawsuit by 
Final OSTS PEIS 484 

environmental extremists - sets a bad precedent for the future, and for the EIS process in general.

#3])>

For these reasons, I recommend Alternative 1. 

Craig Freebo 

OSTS_125 

Organization: Lois Dunn 

Received: 4/20/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Commenter1: Lois Dunn - Grand Junction, Colorado 81506 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: none 

Submission Category: Letter 

Submitted As: Postal Mail 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/18/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D00126.htm (OSTS_125-59231.htm Size = 1 KB) 

OSTS_125_Dunn_Mail_OSTS2012D00126.pdf (OSTS_125-59230.pdf Size = 77 KB) 

Submission Text

See Attachment. 

April 20, 2012 

Bureau of Land Management 

Argonne National Laboratory 

9700 S. Cass Ave 

EVS/240 

Argonne, IL 60439 

RE: 2012 Oil Shale/Tar Sands Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement 

Dear Sir or Madam, 

<([#1 [2.1.1] I recommend Alternative 1 as the option to be adopted by the BLM regarding the 

current PEIS. 

As spelled out in Chapter 6, “Impact Assessment for Oil Shale and Tar Sands Alternatives” 

under “SocioEconomic 

Impacts”, commercial oil shale development, as provided for under Alternative 1, is projected to 

will 

provide thousands of jobs, and millions of dollars in personal and corporate income, and 

government revenue. 

This development, and directly related projects, will also be responsible for area population 

growth that will 

spur further economic activity, absorb housing vacancies, and attract even more, diversified 

services and 

industries to the region. #1])>

<([#2 [3.10.3] In contrast, the economic impacts of the ELM’s Preferred Alternative, 2b, were 

not analyzed, the document 

simply stating that the impacts would be similar to alternative 1, but lesser in scale due to the 

decreased acreage. 
Final OSTS PEIS 485 

This is not only an understatement, but signals to me that the BLM did not sufficiently do its 

homework in this 

regard before settling on a Preferred Alternative. The same is true of Alternative 4. The socioeconomic impacts 

of Alternative 3 were analyzed, and the results are a tiny fraction of the job creation and income 

generation that 

Alternative 1 would produce. #2])>

<([#3 [2.1.1] In light of the positive effects that Alternative 1 will have on the regional economy, 

to say nothing of the benefits 

to the nation of developing such a rich energy resource, I wholeheartedly recommend the 

adoption of this 

Alternative. 

#3])> Respectfully Submitted. 

OSTS_126 

Organization: Sandra Mansfield 

Received: 4/17/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Commenter1: Sandra Mansfield - Grand Junction, Colorado (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: none 

Submission Category: Letter 

Submitted As: Postal Mail 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/18/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D00127.htm (OSTS_126-59233.htm Size = 1 KB) 

OSTS_126_Mansfield_Mail_OSTS2012D00127.pdf (OSTS_126-59232.pdf Size = 91 KB) 

Submission Text

See Attachment. 

Bureau of Land Management 

2012 osrrs PEIS 

Argonne National Laboratory 

9700 S. Cass Ave 

EVS/240 

Argonne, IL 60439 

Apr. 17, 2012 

Dear Sir/Madam, 

<([#1 [11.2] I consider myself an environmentalist; I care deeply for the land, air, and water, 

enjoy spending time outdoors, and hope that this beautiful landscape will be around for my greatgrand children to enjoy. But I am embarrassed and insulted by those who claim to be 

environmentalists, and seem to have only one agenda, and that is to stop anything that could be 

considered development in its tracks, and do so through any means possible. 

The current debate over oil shale, and this PEIS in particular, is unfortunately being shaped by 

these sort of individuals. When a PEIS was published that did not agree with their idea’s 100%, 
Final OSTS PEIS 486 

they took it to court, wasting precious time and fiscal resources to hold up the entire oil shale 

process for years longer. Now they are actively pushing for the BLM to adopt the most 

restrictive of possible alternatives, one that would not allow any expansion of oil shale 

whatsoever. It was bad enough that they got their way with the Preferred Alternative, which 

slashes acreage previously available for leasing into bit pockets here and there, and limits any 

lease application to RD&D only. 

As I noted, I too care about the environment - but that does not mean that I support keeping it all 

closed down, off limits to all but a few. It also does not mean that I am blind to economic 

realities. The counties in this region are hurting, and allowing 

orderly, responsible expansion of an industry as important to our national economy and security 

as oil shale, only makes sense. If a process is not established now, it is quite possible that in a 

few years time, when some national disaster or emergency requires that we put oil shale online 

as soon as possible, that development will occur in a much more haphazard and environmentally 

damaging way. #1])>

<([#2 [10.8] I also do not want to cede energy production of this scale to countries like Estonia 

and China, where the environmental controls are rather less stringent than what we are 

accustomed to. #2])>

<([#3 [2.1.1] Therefore, as an environmentalist, I recommend the selection of Alternative 1 as 

the most responsible, forward thinking option in the current PEIS. #3])>

OSTS_127 

Organization: John Justman 

Received: 5/2/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Commenter1: John Justman - Fruita, Colorado 81521 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: none 

Submission Category: Letter 

Submitted As: Postal Mail 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/18/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D00128.htm (OSTS_127-59235.htm Size = 1 KB) 

OSTS_127_Justman_Mail_OSTS2012D00128.pdf (OSTS_127-59234.pdf Size = 78 KB) 

Submission Text

See Attachment. 

BLM 2012 Draft Oil Shale/Tar Sands PEIS 

Argonne National laboratory 

9700S. Cass Ave 

EVS/240 

Argonne Il 60439 

CcBLM CRVFO 

2300 River Frontage Road 

Silt, CO 81652 

To whom it may concern, 

<([#1 [2.1.1] Thank you for allowing this chance to comment on the 2012 Oil Shale / Tar Sand 
Final OSTS PEIS 487 

Programmatic Environmental 

Impact Statement. I fully support Alternative 1 and would urge the BLM to do the same. 

Keeping the amount of 

land provided for in the 2008 PEIS in place will provide a sense of security to oil shale producers 

that they will 

I have options available to them in the coming years as they plan their long-term strategies in 

regards to 

commercial-scale oil shale recovery. 

Choosing this Alternative will also provide some assurances to local residents that federal 

government agencies 

and regulations will not unnecessarily block this industry from getting off the ground. 

Unemployment remains 

high in tt1f region, many businesses are closing their doors, and many families are moving away. 

People in the 

region simply want to know that their government will work with them, not against them, as they 

try to recover 

from the grim past four years. 

Alternative 1 represents an example of government working with the local population. and 

should be considered 

for adoption by your agency. #1])>

Regards, 

c;JA 

John Justran 

OSTS_128 

Organization: Eileen McGuire Mahony 

Received: 4/15/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Commenter1: Eileen McGuire Mahony - Centennial , Colorado 80112 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: none 

Submission Category: Letter 

Submitted As: Postal Mail 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/18/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D00129.htm (OSTS_128-59237.htm Size = 1 KB) 

OSTS_128_Mahony_Mail_OSTS2012D00129.pdf (OSTS_128-59236.pdf Size = 106 KB) 

Submission Text

See Attachment. 

BLM 2012 OS/TS PEIS 

Argonne National Laboratory 

9700 S. Cass Ave 

EVS/240 

Argonne, IL 60439 

Cc. BLM CRVFO 
Final OSTS PEIS 488 

2300 River Frontage Road 

Silt, CO 81652 

To whom it may concern, 

April 15, 2012 

<([#1 [9.8] In reference to the current Oil Shale Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement 

(PEIS), it is important to note that one was already completed in 2008, which opened 

2,017,714 acres of geologically prospective oil shale land for possible (not preapproved) 

leasing, providing the best possibility for commercialization, expansion, 

job creation and economic development. This determination was based on three years of 

intensive work and study, and the input of geologists, environmental scientists, 

biologists, industry leaders, economists, local governments, and the public. #1])>

<([#2 [2.2] The preferred alternative of this new PEIS not only cuts that available land by over 

70% overall (around 90% in Colorado), but situates it in small, isolated pieces over 

the area, making it virtually impossible for any company to formulate any sort of 

long-range commercial production plan - contravening the clear directives of the 

Energy Policy Act of 2005 - and also making it unattractive for any new company to 

invest in the region. 

#2])> <([#3 [2.1.1] Regardless of the fact that this new PEIS was undertaken merely as the result 

of a 

lawsuit by fringe environmental factions against the 2008 one, it should not be the 

role of the BLM to actively dissuade any particular economic activity on the land 

under its care. The BLM is supposed to manage public lands for the good of the nation, 

not any specific interest group with their own political agenda. Oil shale is a 

strategic national resource with economic, trade, and national security implications. 

The BLM should be looking for the best way to manage the recovery of this resource, 

while concurrently minimizing impact on the environment, and maximizing the local and 

national socio-economic benefits. 

The 2008 PEIS accomplished this. It is therefore an egregious waste of taxpayer’s 

money, and the nation’s time and resources, to restart the process all over again, in 

the absence of any new information or empirical evidence to justify it. 

I therefore call on the BLM to abandon this fool’s errand, or, if seeing this 

redundant farce through is a foregone conclusion, to at least adopt Alternative 1, the 

no action alternative, which would restore the decisions properly made in the 2008 

PEIS. #3])> <([#4 [1.1.1] I further call on the BLM, in that event, to extend the public comment 

period at 

least until the ELM’s newest oil shale regulations are released on May 15th, to allow 

for comments based on the most complete information possible. #4])>

6971 S. Poplar Way 

Centennial CO 80112 

OSTS_129 

Organization: Rebekah Greenwood 

Received: 5/2/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Commenter1: Rebekah Greenwood - Craig, Colorado 81625 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: none 
Final OSTS PEIS 489 

Submission Category: Letter 

Submitted As: Postal Mail 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/18/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D00130.htm (OSTS_129-59239.htm Size = 1 KB) 

OSTS_129_Greenwood_Mail_OSTS2012D00130.pdf (OSTS_129-59238.pdf Size = 88 KB) 

Submission Text

See Attachment. 

BLM 

Argonne National Laboratory 

9700 S. Cass Ave. 

EVS/240 

Argonne, IL 60439 

Re: Draft OSTS PEIS 

To whom it may concern, 

<([#1 [11.2] In regards to the most recent PEIS on oil shale development in Northwestern 

Colorado, I would 

like to weigh in as a resident. Oil shale development represents a major opportunity for our 

region, in terms of job growth, economic development, revenue, and stability. This industry 

simply needs to be allowed to proceed without the type of hindrances that actions such as 

those prescribed in the 2012 PEIS Preferred Alternative, as well as alternatives 3 and 4b. #1])>

<([#2 [2.2] The Preferred Alternative, 2b, takes so much land off the table that it essentially shuts 

down 

any chance for a viable, commercial oil shale industry. The companies that would otherwise 

pursue this resource will look elsewhere if they are denied the opportunity to be able to plan 

future expansion, and to continue operating in the area in the long term. There is no question 

that oil shale is more expensive to produce that traditional energy, and no business will take 

the risk in the absence of a clear, set plan that provides some long-tern assurances. 

Eliminating 70 -90% of the oil-shale prospective land from leasing, and limiting the few spots 

that remain to only RD&D leasing does not provide this stability and assurance. 

It is also well established that oil shale projects take longer to become operational, so any delay 

inflicted on the industry just pushes farther off the day that the industry can become profitable 

and begin generating greater royalty revenue. #2])>

<([#3 [2.1.1] With all of this in mind, I choose to support Alternative 1, which will reopen a 

reasonable 

amount of land for application for leasing, and I urge the BLM to do the same. #3])>

Sincerely, 

OSTS_130 

Organization: Don Jones 

Received: 4/15/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Commenter1: Don Jones - Craig, Colorado 81625 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: none 
Final OSTS PEIS 490 

Submission Category: Letter 

Submitted As: Postal Mail 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/18/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D00131.htm (OSTS_130-59242.htm Size = 1 KB) 

OSTS_130_Jones_Mail_OSTS2012D00131.pdf (OSTS_130-59241.pdf Size = 101 KB) 

Submission Text

See Attachment. 

BLM 2012 OSTS PEIS 

Argonne National Laboratory 

9700 S. Cass Ave 

EVS/240 

Argonne, IL 60439 

Dear Sir or Madam, 

April 15, 2012 

<([#1 [2.1.1] The purpose of this letter is to express both my support for Alternative 1 in the 

2012 Oil Shale PEIS, and my outrage at the reason for the new PEIS in the first place. 

First, I support Alternative 1 because it provides the best opportunity for allowing a viable, 

profitable oil shale industry 

to take hold in this region. It keeps in place the outcome of the 2008 PEIS, leaving just over 

2,000,000 acres available 

to the industry for commercial lease application. Since each lease would have to undergo an 

individual NEPA 

analysis, so any threat to sensitive environmental areas would be negated. It also allows for a 

commercial oil shale 

program to be established, in accordance with the direction given in the Energy Policy Act of 

2005. All of this is 

important because of the great importance of oil shale no the nation and the region . 

Nationally, oil shale provides us a way to wean ourselves off of overseas oil. There is far more 

oil in the oil shale 

areas of the west, than there is in the entire middle east. This will provide for our nation’s 

demand for oil for such 

things as fuel, plastics, soap, and any number of other products. 

Regionally, oil shale means jobs, income, and a bright economic future for northwestern 

Colorado. Chapter 6 of the 

PEIS documents how many jobs this Alternative will help generate just for construction and 

operation of a few 

production facilities and in housing. In contrast, no similar jobs analysis was done on the 

Preferred Alternative presumably 

because the results would not be pleasant. #1])>

<([#2 [9.8] As for the reason that a new PEIS was done, let me just say that it is infuriating that a 

small group of environmental 

extremists can hire lawyers, and keep this development, and all of its benefits on hold for years. 

Even worse, is that 
Final OSTS PEIS 491 

as a result of their lawsuit, the taxpayer is now footing the bill for a whole new study, complete 

with a predetermined 

conclusion that oil shale development is bad, and should be severely limited. #2])>

It is important that extremists on all sides get the message that they cannot use the courts to so 

flagrantly manipulate 

the public policy process. Please help me do so by selecting Alternative 1, and restoring the work 

and properly 

formulated conclusions of the first PEIS. 

OSTS_131 

Organization: Dan Redmond 

Received: 5/2/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Commenter1: Dan Redmond - Fruita, Colorado 81521 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: none 

Submission Category: Letter 

Submitted As: Postal Mail 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/18/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D00132.htm (OSTS_131-59244.htm Size = 1 KB) 

OSTS_131_Redmond_Mail_OSTS2012D00132.pdf (OSTS_131-59243.pdf Size = 97 KB) 

Submission Text

See Attachment. 

Bureau of Land Management 

2012 OS/TS PEIS 

Argonne National Laboratory 

9700 S. Cass Ave 

EVS/240 

Argonne, IL 60439 

Cc. BLM Colorado River Valley Field Office 

2300 River Frontage Road 

Silt, CO 81652 

To whom it may concern : 

<([#1 [2.1.1] This most recent PEIS for oil shale is widely missing the mark, in my opinion. The 

bulk of the three 

land allocation Alternatives, including the BLM’s preferred Alternative, make no allowance for 

commercial expansion, the next major step in realizing the potential for oil shale. There is in the 

neighborhood of 4 trillion barrels of oil in this region, waiting to be tapped and used by our 

nation for 

domestic fuel, feedstock for a multitude of products, and for export. Allowing commercial 

production of 

oil shale could mean energy independence for America, and a permanent severing of any 

reliance on 

places that are unstable and hostile to the United States for energy needs. 
Final OSTS PEIS 492 

Placing giant swaths of land off limits to commercial leasing, including the preferred rights lease 

acreage at existing RD&D locations, and relegating the industry to a handful of tiny, remote, 

isolated 

bits scattered around the overall area, only AFTER they have proven to the federal government’s 

satisfaction that they have the technology the need, is in no way conducive to enabling this 

development. It is also more than a little insulting to the investors and engineers that devote their 

time, money and labor to recovering this energy. 

A far more sensible and pragmatic approach would be to return to the findings of the 2008 PEIS, 

which left just over 2 million acres available for potential leasing. This plan effectively balanced 

environmental protection by requiring that each lease applied for be subjected to a full EIS, and 

economic development, by providing oil shale companies the maximum flexibility and 

opportunity for 

planning their commercial operations. It also allowed for adequate expansion of existing RD&D 

leases 

into commercial by leaving the preferred rights acreage intact. 

Please reconsider your position on this PEIS, and adopt the No-Action alternative, Alt.1, which 

would 

restore a common-sense, scientifically based approach to oil shale development in our region. 

#1])>

Dan Redmond 

1321 17 RD 

Fruita, CO 81521 

OSTS_132 

Organization: Matt Moore 

Received: 5/2/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Commenter1: Matt Moore - Craig, Colorado 81625 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: none 

Submission Category: Letter 

Submitted As: Postal Mail 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/18/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D00133.htm (OSTS_132-59246.htm Size = 1 KB) 

OSTS_132_Moore_Mail_OSTS2012D00133.pdf (OSTS_132-59245.pdf Size = 84 KB) 

Submission Text

See Attachment. 

RE: BLM 2012 Oil Shaleff ar Sands Programmatic EIS 

Dear Madam/Sir, 

<([#1 [1.1.1] I would like to ask the BLM to extend the public comment period for this PEIS by 

lit le.1st 30 days, to allow more information to develop, and to allow public review of the 2012 

Oil Shale leasing guidelines that are due for release on May 15th. l think it is important to have 

this extra time allotted to make sure that local residents and businesses have all the pertinent 

information they need to make an honest assessment of this PEIS. This is especially vital given 
Final OSTS PEIS 493 

that much of the land excluded from potential leasing in Alternative 2b, the BLM’s Preferred 

Alternative, is done so on the basis of information that has not yet been made public, namely 

Sage Grouse habitat. The Forest Service has yet to release details of Sage Grouse habitat 

locations, but the Alternative excludes lands due to their containing this habitat. Similarly, 

knowing the details of the leasing regulations could prove very helpful when evaluating and 

commenting on land allocation alternatives that will determine what land is available for this 

leasing. #1])>

<([#2 [2.1.1] Should the BLM see fit not to extend the comment period, Alternative 1, which 

calls for no change from the 2006 Record of Decision, should be adopted. This Alternative keeps 

2 million acres available to oil shale developers to apply for commercial leasing, while keeping 

the most truly vulnerable ecosystems protected. This balances the economic need for 

development with the need to conserve. #2])>

OSTS_133 

Organization: Dan Severson 

Received: 4/15/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Commenter1: Dan Severson - Craig, Colorado 81625 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: none 

Submission Category: Letter 

Submitted As: Postal Mail 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/18/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D00134.htm (OSTS_133-59248.htm Size = 1 KB) 

OSTS_133_Severson_Mail_OSTS2012D00134.pdf (OSTS_133-59247.pdf Size = 82 KB) 

Submission Text

See Attachment. 

Argonne National Laboratory 

9700 S. Cass Ave 

EVS/240 

Argonne, IL 60439 

Re: BLM 2012 OSTS PEIS 

I believe that this newest PEIS, and especially the Preferred Alternative, is invalid. 

April15, 2012 

<([#1 [9.8] It is a re-do of the 2008 PEIS, without there being any new information to justify a 

revision or review, let alone 

a complete from the start do-over. It is simply being done in response to litigation put forth by 

environmental 

special interest groups who were not satisfied with how the process turned out the first time. This 

should not set 

the precedent of how public business is carried out. These groups had ample opportunity to 

present their 

opinions and offer their input during the public comment phase. The facts simply were not in 

their favor, as the 
Final OSTS PEIS 494 

results of the 2008 PEIS reflected. But for them to now go to the courts and use a bogus lawsuit 

to get your 

agency to change its conclusions (after needlessly spending tax dollars to rehash the same 

information), is 

ridiculous, and cannot be allowed to stand in a society that values process and rule of law. #1])>

<([#2 [9.2.1] [3.1.3] As for the new Preferred Alternative, by eliminating from consideration 

lands that the BLM has identified as 

having “wilderness characteristics”, the document violates a spending moratorium put in [place 

by Congress 

last year banning funds from being used to implement Sec. Order 3310, which would have 

granted the BLM 

that ability. As it is, only an act of Congress can designate a wilderness area. 

#2])> <([#3 [2.2] Finally, by allowing only RD&D leases, the Alternative violates the 2005 

Energy Policy Act, which called for a dual track (RD&D, and commercial approach to oil shale 

development. Alternative 2b clearly does not allow for 

a separate commercial development track, placing it at odds with the statute. Alternatives 3 and 

4b also run 

afoul of this law, by excluding commercial leasing. 

#3])> <([#4 [2.1.1] As such, Alternative 1 remains the only Alternative that is legal and valid.

#4])>

OSTS_134 

Organization: Rose Pugliese 

Received: 4/23/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Commenter1: Rose Pugliese - Palisade, Colorado 81526 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: none 

Submission Category: Letter 

Submitted As: Postal Mail 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/18/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D00135.htm (OSTS_134-59250.htm Size = 1 KB) 

OSTS_134_Pugliese_Mail_OSTS2012D00135.pdf (OSTS_134-59249.pdf Size = 96 KB) 

Submission Text

See Attachment. 

Bureau of Land Management 

Argonne National Laboratory 

9700 S. Cass Ave 

EVS/240 

Argonne, IL 60439 

Cc. CRVFO 

2300 River Frontage Road 

Silt, CO 81652 

Re: 2012 Oil Shale Programmatic EIS 
Final OSTS PEIS 495 

Ladies and Gentlemen: 

April23, 2012 

<([#1 [2.1.1] Thank you for extending this opportunity to express our views and concerns over 

this most recent PEIS involving oil shale. As a non -native resident of the Western Slope, I 

appreciate the natural heritage and beauty of Northwest 

Colorado. I also appreciate the fact that the people of this area are hurting due to double-digit 

unemployment; that 

Americans across the country are hurting from high fuel prices. 

This resource can be developed and produced in an environmentally responsible manner, and 

that can create enough 

jobs and economic activity to return prosperity and growth to the region. The tax revenue 

generated by a healthy and 

vibrant commercial oil shale industry will also ease the strain on local, state, and federal budgets, 

and help fund 

schools, roads, emergency personnel, and other key local government functions. Furthermore, 

having the ability to 

produce energy here at home will help relieve pressure on fuel prices, and enable the United 

States to scale back its 

reliance on foreign sources of oil. 

The 2008 PEIS, and the first, “No-Action” Alternative in the 2012 version that retains the 

recommendations of that 

thoroughly prepared document, is the best, most responsible and most legally acceptable 

approach to seeing these 

benefits come to fruition. The recommendations in the current PEIS, on the other hand, will only 

hinder and delay 

commercial production and economic development for well into the future. The BLM’s preferred 

Alternative, 2b, 

for example, would drastically scale back the amount ofland available for application for 

commercial leasing, from 

2, 017,714 acres to 461,968 acres. #1])>

<([#2 [1.1.1] I would also urge the BLM to extend the public comment period for at least 30 

days, in light of the fact that the draft 2012 oil shale leasing regulations are due to be released on 

May 15, nearly two weeks after the public comment 

period closes. Extending the period would help citizens to form comments with the benefit of 

more thorough 

information. #2])>

Thank you again for the opportunity to express my concerns, and I encourage you to adopt 

Alternative 1. 

OSTS_135 

Organization: Carol Skubic 

Received: 4/30/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Commenter1: Carol Skubic - Grand Junction, Colorado 81507 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: none 
Final OSTS PEIS 496 

Submission Category: Letter 

Submitted As: Postal Mail 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/18/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D00136.htm (OSTS_135-59252.htm Size = 1 KB) 

OSTS_135_Skubic_Mail_OSTS2012D00136.pdf (OSTS_135-59251.pdf Size = 93 KB) 

Submission Text

See Attachment. 

To: BLM 2012 OS/TS PEIS 

Argonne National Laboratory 

9700 S. Cass Ave 

EVS/z4o 

Argonne, IL 60439 

Cc: BLM CRVFO 

z3oo River Frontage Road 

Silt, CO 8165z 

Dear Sir/Madam, 

z340 Promontory Court 

Grand Junction, CO 81507 

April 30, 2012 

<([#1 [2.1.1] This letter is intended to provide comment on the zo1z Oil Shale/Tar Sand 

Programmatic Environmental Impact 

Statement (PEIS), which is a redo of the initial PEIS and Oil Shale Leasing Regulations 

completed in 2ooS. This current 

PEIS is being done as a result of a settlement between the Department of Interior and certain 

environmental groups 

who sued over the outcome of the 2008 PEIS and Regulations. There is little or no new 

information on which to base 

this second PEIS, and in fact the information contained in it is virtually identical to the 

information in the 2008 study. 

Despite this, the BLM settled on a different Preferred Alternative in the current one, Alternative 

2b, which substantially 

reduces the amount of land available for application for leasing, and eliminates commercial 

leasing. 

These terms are a disincentive to oil shale development, make it much harder for smaller 

companies to enter into the 

market, and delay the economic benefits of this development, such as jobs, growth, increased 

revenues to local and 

state governments, and the addition of domestically produced energy to the national mix. 

Alternative 1 in the current PEIS, the “No Action Alternative”, preserves the Record of Decision 

made in the 2008 PEIS, 

and should be adopted by the BLM in the Final PEIS draft. 

#1])> <([#2 [1.1.1] In addition, it should be noted that the 2012 draft of the Oil Shale Leasing 

Regulations are not being released until 11 days after the close of the public comment period. I 
Final OSTS PEIS 497 

believe that that comment period should be extended long enough to allow for those regulations 

to be released, and to give the public, local governments, businesses and other interested parties 

sufficient time to review these regulations, which are such an important part of the overall oil 

shale picture. 

Thank you for taking the time to consider my comments. 

#2])> Yours Sincerely, 

Carol Skubic 

OSTS_136 

Organization: Phyllis Hunsinger 

Received: 5/2/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Commenter1: Phyllis Hunsinger - Grand Junction, Colorado 81506 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: none 

Submission Category: Letter 

Submitted As: Postal Mail 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/18/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D00137.htm (OSTS_136-59254.htm Size = 1 KB) 

OSTS_136_Hunsinger_Mail_OSTS2012D00137.pdf (OSTS_136-59253.pdf Size = 94 KB) 

Submission Text

See Attachment. 

BLM Colorado River Valley Field Office 

2300 River Frontage Road 

Silt, CO 81652 

Argonne National Laboratory 

9700 S. Cass Ave 

EVS/240 

Argonne, IL 60439 

Ref: 20 12 Oil Shale PEIS 

To Whom It May Concern, 

<([#1 [9.8] I would like to express my outrage over this latest PEIS. At the very least it is a 

massive waste of the taxpayer’s money, since this is a redo of a PEIS finished in 2008. 

There was absolutely no new information develop between the 2008 PEIS and the 

current one, and still the BLM pursued this new one. The only reason they did so was 

in response to a lawsuit by a certain “Green” groups. It is outrageous that a handful of 

extremists would be able to hold jobs and economic development hostage, and more so 

that the BLM, an agency of the federal government, would allow it to happen. 

Oil shale development could mean hundreds, if not thousands, of jobs for western 

Colorado. The technology is quickly emerging, in some cases is in place already. The 

industry is no longer “10 years behind”. Commercialization is a distinct reality, and it 

is irresponsible of the federal government to needlessly hinder this based on the 

protests of a minority. The 2008 PEIS was a very well thought out, balanced document 

that allowed the maximum amount of land to be available for potential expansion, 
Final OSTS PEIS 498 

while still making sure that the environment is protected, and should be returned to. 

Please do not continue to let this fringe element dictate how the BLM and the people of 

western Colorado conduct their business. #1])>

Sincerely, 

Phyllis Hunsinger 

661 Tammarron Dr 

Grand Junction, CO 81506 

OSTS_137 

Organization: Elsie Wattson Lamb 

Received: 5/2/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Commenter1: Elsie Wattson Lamb - Tucson, Arizona 85719 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: none 

Submission Category: Letter 

Submitted As: Postal Mail 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/18/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D00138.htm (OSTS_137-59256.htm Size = 1 KB) 

OSTS_137_Lamb_Mail_OSTS2012D00138.pdf (OSTS_137-59255.pdf Size = 112 KB) 

Submission Text

See Attachment. 

Draft OSTS PEIS 

Argonne National Lab 

9700 S. Cass Ave. 

EVS/240 

Argonne, IL 60439 

To the Bureau of Land Management: 

<([#1 [12.3] [2.5] I am writing regarding the BLM’s “draft programmatic environmental impact 

statement” for oilshale 

and tar-sands development in Colorado, Utah and Wyoming. 

I am well beyond ‘concerned’ about the dilatory environmental effects if the BLM opens a 

commercial leasing program for oil-shale and tar-sands development. It would pollute our land, 

our 

air and our water and it would exacerbate climate change. Endemic, threatened and endangered 

species would be lost. People would be harmed. 

It is hard for me to imagine a much less prudent use of public lands than oil-shale and tar-sands 

development, which would contribute to the crisis of global warming, exacerbate species 

extinctions, and further deplete the Colorado River! 

I oppose action by the BLM to continue or to authorize any new oil-shale or tar-sand 

development 

on public lands, or to create or continue land-use allocations that would allow for such uses ever. 

The draft programmatic environmental impact statement should have included an alternative that 
Final OSTS PEIS 499 

does not in any way endorse additional public-land use for this unproven industry- one we 

already 

know is harmful on many fronts. 

#1])> <([#2 [3.10.4] [3.10.5] The Congressional Budget Office confirmed that the oil shale 

industry is not expected to produce 

significant revenues through 2022. Even if oil shale were an economic boom for a few, it would 

be 

devastating for the many-- simply NOT WORTH IT. 

The land on top of the oil-shale resources in Utah, Colorado and Wyoming is some of the best 

wildlife habitat in the West, and outdoor recreation and tourism are huge economic drivers for 

the 

region. We must protect this sustainable economy by making smart decisions based on sound 

information. It is not smart to des troy these lands, and it would be particularly stupid and 

shortsighted 

to do so for oil shale or tar sands. 

#2])> <([#3 [3] I ask that you evaluate carefully and disclose fully the serious impacts of all new 

energy required 

for oil-shale and tar-sand production and its potentially devastating impacts to our climate, as 

well 

as the threat it poses to wildlife, special-status , threatened and endangered species, and to the 

water, 

air and land on which people and communities depend. #3])>

848 N. Norris Ave. 

Tucson, AZ 85719 

OSTS_138 

Organization: Grow Our Western Economy, Jennifer Bailey 

Received: 4/30/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Commenter1: Jennifer Bailey - Grand Junction, Colorado 81502 (United States) 

Organization1:Grow Our Western Economy 

Commenter Type: Misc. Organization 

Classification: none 

Submission Category: Letter 

Submitted As: Postal Mail 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/18/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D00139.htm (OSTS_138-59258.htm Size = 1 KB) 

OSTS_138_GROW_Bailey_J_Mail_OSTS2012D00139.pdf (OSTS_138-59257.pdf Size = 104 

KB) 

Submission Text

See Attachment. 

Argonne National Laboratory 

9700 S. Cass Ave EVS/240 

Argonne, IL 604gg 

4/30/12 
Final OSTS PEIS 500 

PO 4437 . Grand Junction . Colorado . 81502 . 970.201.2670 . 

westerconeedsjobsnov.@gmail.com 

Re: 2012 Oil Shale/ Tar Sands Programmatic EIS 

To whom it may concern, 

<([#1 [2.2] We appreciate the opportunity to weigh in on this most recent Oil Shale PEIS draft. 

We feel that the 

BLM’s preferred alternative, 2b, is the wrong direction to go when planning the future of oil 

shale 

development. The sharp reduction in land available for leasing will present major obstacles to 

investment, development, and expansion of this important industry. Few companies, of any size, 

will be 

willing to expend the capital and other resources to develop an RD&D lease, without some 

assurance 

that they will be allowed to expand commercially in the future. 

The tragic result of this will be the denial of the many economic and social benefits to Western 

Colorado that such development would produce. Delaying or denying commercial oil shale 

development 

means delaying or denying good paying jobs in operations, construction, engineering, transport, 

finance, retail, and a host of other fields. It also means delaying or denying economic growth and 

increased tax receipts for not only the immediate area, but for the state and federal coffers as 

well. It 

could very well mean delaying or denying the opportunity for a bright, prosperous future for the 

people 

of this region. 

In addition, this would be delaying or denying the nation access to a vital resource that could fuel 

a 

national economic recovery, wean us off of foreign oil, and provide energy security for the long 

term, 

providing a cushion to allow the private sector to develop a replacement for oil. #1])>

<([#2 [2.1.1] Alternative 1 restores the findings of the 2008 PEIS, which took all of this, as well 

as important 

environmental factors, into account and produced a balanced, pro-growth land use plan. We 

recommend 

that Alternative 1, therefore, be selected as the BLM’s blueprint going forward. 

#2])> <([#3 [1.1.1] We would also ask that the public comment period be extended until early 

June. This will provide 

enough time for the public, including organizations like ours, to examine and take into 

consideration the 

new round of oil shale leasing regulations that are to be released on or near May 15th. 

#3])> Thank you for listening to our concerns, and we trust the BLM will take them into 

consideration during 

its final decision-making process. 

Sincerely, 

OSTS_139 

Organization: Ward Johnston 

Received: 5/4/2012 12:00:00 AM 
Final OSTS PEIS 501 

Commenter1: Ward Johnston - Grand Junction, Colorado 81501 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: none 

Submission Category: Letter 

Submitted As: Postal Mail 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/18/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D00140.htm (OSTS_139-59260.htm Size = 1 KB) 

OSTS_139_Johnston_Mail_OSTS2012D00140.pdf (OSTS_139-59259.pdf Size = 75 KB) 

Submission Text

See Attachment. 

Dear BLM, 

<([#1 [12] I am concerned to see oil and gas development on the western slope growing because 

I value my water, wildlife, and air quality. I feel the BLM is leasing land that belongs to every 

American and not considering the public opinion. I am extremely weary about “research” done 

by companies who have no stake in the land they destroy. I want the BLM to fully understand 

the reprecussions of this “research” and the environmental impacts it could have. Once we alter 

the land there is no going back. Please consider caution before destruction. #1])>

-Ward Johnston 

OSTS_140 

Organization: Sam Susuras 

Received: 5/4/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Commenter1: Sam Susuras - Grand Junction, Colorado 81506 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: none 

Submission Category: Letter 

Submitted As: Postal Mail 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/18/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D00141.htm (OSTS_140-59263.htm Size = 1 KB) 

OSTS_140_Susuras_Mail_OSTS2012D00141.pdf (OSTS_140-59262.pdf Size = 92 KB) 

Submission Text

See Attachment. 

Draft OSTS PEIS 

Argonne National Laboratory 

9700 S. Cass Ave. 

EVS/240 

Argonne, IL 60439 

To whom it may concern, 

<([#1 [2.1.1] 1 would like to offer my recommendation for Alternative 1, the no action 

alternative, in the 2012 Oil Shale 
Final OSTS PEIS 502 

Programmatic EIS. 

This recommendation is based on a number of factors; first, it represents the hours of hard work 

and input 

by various individuals, groups, and government agencies that went in to the initial PEIS, 

completed in 

2008. There has been no new information develop since that time to warrant a new PEIS process, 

and 

therefore I feel that the findings and acreage made available for commercial lease application 

identified in 

the 2008 document should stand. 

Second, I am concerned that the remaining alternatives, including the BLM’s preferred one, 

contravene 

the 2005 Energy Policy Act, which explicitly called for a separate commercial development track 

for oil 

shale, alongside an RD&D one. None of the other Alternatives presented in the 2012 PEIS allow 

for a 

concurrent commercial leasing program. 

Third, I believe that having an established process in place ahead of time, to allow for 

commercialization 

of this vast resource, is preferable to a hastily implemented, ad hoc program in the event of 

circumstances (national emergency, geo-political turmoil, external market conditions, etc.) 

dictating its 

rapid development. Under Alternative 1, the maximum amount of land is made available for 

commercial 

leasing; however, each lease applied for would be subject to a full NEPA evaluation, and 

individual EIS’s. 

This ensures the best balance between economic development, and environmental protection. 

Having 

such a program in place will also provide for an orderly adjustment on the part of local 

municipalities to 

cope with the effects of this development, including population increase, housing construction, 

infrastructure demands, and the like. 

Finally, I cannot ignore the social and economic benefits that will come to the region as a result 

of 

allowing commercial oil shale production. In addition to the jobs that will be created, the tax 

revenue 

generated by the additional workers, royalties, severance taxes and the like will help backfill the 

funding 

shortfalls experienced in recent years by local, county and state governments. 

I believe that Alternative 1 offers the most balanced, forward-thinking, and strategic option for 

going 

forward with the development of a local oil shale industry. 

#1])> Sam Susuras 

OSTS_141 
Final OSTS PEIS 503 

Organization: Dennis Eichinger 

Received: 4/19/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Commenter1: Dennis Eichinger - Grand Junction, Colorado 81506 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: none 

Submission Category: Letter 

Submitted As: Postal Mail 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/18/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D00142.htm (OSTS_141-59265.htm Size = 1 KB) 

OSTS_141_Eichinger_Mail_OSTS2012D00142.pdf (OSTS_141-59264.pdf Size = 78 KB) 

Submission Text

See Attachment. 

Argonne National Laboratory 

9700 S. Cass Ave 

EVS/240 

Argonne, IL 60439 

April19, 2012 

Re: ELM Draft 2012 Oil Shale/Tar Sand Programmatic EIS 

Dear Sir or Madam, 

<([#1 [2.1.1] I would like to state for the record that I have some concerns with this PEIS. 

Northwestern Colorado, along 

with parts of neighboring Utah and Wyoming, holds up to 4 trillion barrels of oil, according to 

the U.S. 

Geological Survey. That is 5 times as much oil as in the Middle East, trapped in shale. Industry 

has been 

researching this for years, and is now at the point where the technology is there to produce this 

oil. In fact, the 

Chinese and Estonians are already producing oil shale on a commercial scale. Here at home, 

Shell Oil, on one of 

its tiny research leases in Colorado, has already produced several hundred thousand barrels - off 

a research 

lease. Clearly, the industry is ready to move on to the next stage. 

In 2008, recognizing this, ELM conducted a PEIS which incorporated input from all the local 

governments, 

energy and environmental experts, and the public. The result was a reasonably balanced 

evaluation that 

identified just over 2 million acres of the most geologically prospective oil shale lands as being 

available for 

application for commercial leasing. 

Radical environmentalists sued the Department of the Interior over the outcome of the PEIS. 

Now, as a result of 

this lawsuit by the obstructionists, the ELM is redoing this PEIS- at a cost of millions of tax 
Final OSTS PEIS 504 

dollars - despite 

the fact that nothing has fundamentally changed. Not the science, not the environmental risks, 

not the input; 

just the ELM’s conclusion. 

This time, the ELM’s preferred alternative will slash the available acreage down by over 70%, 

and what is left 

available to the oil shale industry is scattered in small, isolated pockets that will only dissuade 

companies from 

investing in this resource, and in this region. In Colorado, the acreage is reduced by a shameful 

90%. 

Meanwhile, the people of Northwestern Colorado wait, struggling under double-digit 

unemployment. 

I ask your agency to please select Alternative 1, and go back to the good work done in the 2008 

PEIS. We do 

not wish any harm to the environment, and would never countenance any; we just want a viable 

industry to be 

allowed to establish itself here. #1])>

Sincerely, 

OSTS_142 

Organization: Shannon Russell 

Received: 5/2/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Commenter1: Shannon Russell - Craig, Colorado 81625 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: none 

Submission Category: Letter 

Submitted As: Postal Mail 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/18/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D00143.htm (OSTS_142-59267.htm Size = 1 KB) 

OSTS_142_Russell_Mail_OSTS2012D00143.pdf (OSTS_142-59266.pdf Size = 95 KB) 

Submission Text

See Attachment. 

Bureau Of Land Management 

2012 Oil Shale/Tar Sands Programmatic EIS 

To whom it may concern, 

<([#1 [2.1.1] I would like to ask the Department of the Interior, and the BLM, to not give in to 

pressure from radical 

environmental groups, and adopt Alternative 1 as your final decision in regards to this PEIS. 

Alternative 1 will help put in place the framework needed to establish a commercial oil shale 

industry in 

northwestern Colorado, by implementing the findings of the 2008 PEIS, by keeping available for 

leasing 

some 2 million acres of rich oil shale land. 
Final OSTS PEIS 505 

The Preferred Alternative would significantly reduce that land, disregarding the work and 

conclusions of 

the 2008 PEIS, and also making it infinitely more difficult for companies to expand, or enter the 

pil shale 

market. 

The industry is ready for this expansion. Not only is oil shale currently being produced 

commercially by 

other countries, certain companies here have had tremendous success with their RD&D projects, 

and need 

the assurance and flexibility provided by having land available to lease. 

The region is ready for this as well. We have been hurting since the recession took hold, and 

have 

experienced high unemployment, layoffs, businesses closing, and families moving away. We 

welcome an 

industry that will bring good jobs, spin off economic benefits, and that will produce a vital 

resource 

cleanly and responsibly. Oil shale can do this for us. 

The benefits of adopting Alternative 1 were well analyzed, yet no such analysis was provided for 

the 

preferred alternative. A full socio-economic evaluation should be done before selecting an 

alternative as 

the preferred one. 

The BLM should adopt Alternative 1; it offers the best balance of conservation and development, 

allows 

for a commercial oil shale program, job creation and economic vitality, and reflects the best 

work done by 

various agencies. #1])>

OSTS_143 

Organization: Ray Scott 

Received: 5/2/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Commenter1: Ray Scott - Grand Junction, Colorado (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Elected Official 

Classification: none 

Submission Category: Letter 

Submitted As: Postal Mail 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/18/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D00144.htm (OSTS_143-59270.htm Size = 1 KB) 

OSTS_143_Scott_Mail_OSTS2012D00144.pdf (OSTS_143-59269.pdf Size = 87 KB) 

Submission Text

See Attachment. 

Argonne National Laboratory 

9700 S. Cass Ave 

EVS/240 
Final OSTS PEIS 506 

Argonne, IL 60439 

Re: 2012 Draft Oil Shale/Tar Sands Programmatic EIS 

To Whom it May Concern, 

<([#1 [9.8] This latest version of the Oil Shale PEIS is an insult to the people of the Western 

Slope and a waste of 

taxpayer’s money. 

The initial PEIS, completed in 2008, was the culmination of 3 years of intensive study, hard 

work, and input from local governments, geological and environmental scientists, and the 

residents of the area in question. The PEIS concluded that just over 2,000,000 acres of the most 

geologically viable oil shale land was suitable for application for commercial leasing. Political 

opponents of oil shale development were unhappy with this result and sued the Department of 

the Interior. The product of the resulting settlement is this new PEIS, the preferred alternative, 

which cuts the acreage available for leasing by over 70% and limits those leases to RD&D only.

#1])>

<([#2 [2.1.1] The new PEIS provides disincentives to commercialization and economic 

development. This 

makes absolutely no sense at a time when fuel prices are rising and America is seeking ways to 

cut its dependence on foreign oil. Unemployment rates remains unacceptably high, a problem 

that could be directly addressed by the original PEIS. With tremendous advances in responsible 

oil shale recovery technology, the industry is poised to take the next step, only to find the wall 

of government bureaucracy in front of it. 

Adopting Alternative 1 for this PEIS, and keeping in place the findings of the 2008 study, would 

go a long way in removing this wall and bring jobs to the Western Slope. I would ask the BLM 

to please consider this, to not make policy at the behest of environmental extremists, and put 

the needs of the people of Colorado first. 

#2])> Ray Scott 

State Representative HD54 

OSTS_144 

Organization: Kari Harmon 

Received: 5/2/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Commenter1: Kari Harmon - Grand Junction, Colorado 81504 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: none 

Submission Category: Letter 

Submitted As: Postal Mail 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/18/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D00145.htm (OSTS_144-59272.htm Size = 1 KB) 

OSTS_144_Harmon_Mail_OSTS2012D00145.pdf (OSTS_144-59271.pdf Size = 93 KB) 

Submission Text

See Attachment. 

Argonne National Laboratory 

9700 S. Cass Ave 

EVS/240 
Final OSTS PEIS 507 

Argonne, IL 60439 

RE: 2012 Oil Shale/Tar Sands Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement. 

To whom it may concern, 

<([#1 [9.8] To the extent that this PEIS is valid, I would like to express my support for 

Alternative 1, and urge the BLM to 

do the same. 

I phrase it in such a way, because I believe that there was absolutely no legitimate reason to 

revisit the PEIS 

that was completed in 2008 following the input from many experts, local governments, and the 

community. A 

frivolous lawsuit leveled by one particular group unhappy with the outcome is not sufficient 

reason to waste tax 

payer’s money, and impose further delays on an industry and the region it supports, when there 

has been no 

new information come to light to support such a drastic move. #1])>

<([#2 [2.1.1] That said, Alternative 1, which will restore the Record of Decision arrived at from 

the 2008 PEIS, is the only 

logical, and moral choice. The excessive land restrictions and exclusion of commercial leasing 

prescribed in the 

Preferred Alternative are not decisions based on sound, un-biased scientific analysis but instead 

are the product 

of a friendly legal settlement with a special interest group. This is not the way public policy 

should be decided in 

this country. 

Commercial oil shale development is critical to the economic well being of the Western Slope, 

and to the nation 

at large. It is an immense energy resource that can supply our needs for many, many years to 

come, and provide 

growth and good paying jobs to an area that is suffering tremendously from the ongoing 

recession. There is no 

question, of course, that oil shale is a complex resource that require time and cutting-edge 

technology to bring 

on-line, but that is all the more reason to stop the endless delays and restrictions. The ingenuity 

inherent in the 

American private sector will find a way to produce this safely, responsibly, and profitably, if 

only it is allowed to 

do so. Recent developments suggest the industry may be at that point now, and Alte1·nativel is 

the only option 

on the table that will allow this industry, and this region, a future. #2])>

Yours very sincerely, 

OSTS_145 

Organization: Eric Dougherty 

Received: 5/4/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Commenter1: Eric Dougherty - Grand Junction, Colorado 81506 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 
Final OSTS PEIS 508 

Classification: none 

Submission Category: Letter 

Submitted As: Postal Mail 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/18/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D00146.htm (OSTS_145-59274.htm Size = 1 KB) 

OSTS_145_Dougherty_Mail_OSTS2012D00146.pdf (OSTS_145-59273.pdf Size = 67 KB) 

Submission Text

BLM 2012 OS/TS PEIS 

Argonne National laboratory 

9700 S. Cass Ave 

EVS/240 

Argonne, ll60439 

To whom it may concern, 

<([#1 [9.8] I appreciate the opportunity to comment on this important issue, although I find it 

appalling that 

this is even coming up again. A thoroughly prepared, well-thought-out EIS was completed only a 

few short years ago, in 2008. There have been no fundamental changes, new studies, or any 

information at all that would justify spending taxpayer money on redoing the PEIS. 

Nevertheless, 

because an extreme environmentalist group sued the government over the outcome, the BLM 

saw 

fit to do just that. 

In doing so, they kowtowed to the “green” lobby, by agreeing to cut the available acreage 

previously set aside for potential commercial oil shale leasing, from 2,017,714 acres to 461, 965, 

and not allowing commercial leases. #1])> <([#2 [9.6.1] Additionally, the requirement to first 

demonstrate a viable 

production technology to the government before being able to convert up to a commercial lease 

is a requirement not imposed on any other industry; certainly not the wind and solar industries, 

for example. #2])>

<([#3 [2.1.1] I strongly recommend adoption of Alternative 1 as the BLM’s preferred alternative, 

keeping the 

land use plans as determined in the 2008 PEIS. #3])>

OSTS_146 

Organization: Jeffery Welch 

Received: 5/4/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Commenter1: Jeffery Welch - Grand Junction , Colorado 81507 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: none 

Submission Category: Letter 

Submitted As: Postal Mail 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/18/2012 12:00:00 AM 
Final OSTS PEIS 509 

Attachments: OSTS2012D00147.htm (OSTS_146-59276.htm Size = 1 KB) 

OSTS_146_Welch_Mail_OSTS2012D00147.pdf (OSTS_146-59275.pdf Size = 65 KB) 

Submission Text

See Attachment. 

Bureau of Land Management 

2012 OS/TS PEIS 

Argonne National Laboratory 

9700 S. Cass Ave 

EVS/240 

Argonne, IL 60439 

To whom it may concern, 

<([#1 [2.1.1] The benefits of allowing a commercial oil shale industry in the western United 

States far outweigh any 

potential environmental costs. The national benefits are obvious; tapping the 4 trillion barrels of 

oil- at least 

500,000,000,000 of which are estimated as recoverable - would be a huge leap towards 

American energy 

independence. Additionally, having such a prolific domestic source of oil would help level and 

stabilize gas 

and other fuel prices. 

At the local level, oil shale will bring jobs and income to a very hard hit part of the nation. 

The environmental impacts will be minimized largely by processes currently in place. The NEPA 

analysis 

that will need to be done on each lease will ensure that environmental issues and concerns are 

adequately 

dealt with. 

I implore the BLM to take a hard look at this PEIS, and look at it from a cost/benefits analysis 

standpoint; I 

am convinced that if you do, you will arrive at the same conclusion as your agency did four years 

ago, and 

keep land available for commercial leasing opportunities. To that end, I support Alternative 1, 

and urge you 

to do the same. #1])>

Cordially, 

-- 

OSTS_147 

Organization: Craig Springer 

Received: 5/4/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Commenter1: Craig Springer - Grand Junction, Colorado 81505 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: none 

Submission Category: Letter 

Submitted As: Postal Mail 

Form Letter Category: 
Final OSTS PEIS 510 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/21/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D00148.htm (OSTS_147-59279.htm Size = 1 KB) 

OSTS_147_Springer_Mail_OSTS2012D00148.pdf (OSTS_147-59278.pdf Size = 128 KB) 

Submission Text

See Attachment. 

<([#1 [2.2] I have a number of concerns regarding this PEIS I would like to share. 

The first involves the amount of land taken off the table in the preferred alternative. The 2008 

PEIS identified a little 

more than 2 million acres for potential oils shale leasing; the current preferred alternative cuts 

that down by almost 

8o%. This drastically reduced acreage is then made even more unattractive to investors by being 

scattered over a large 

area, in small, segregated parcels. Moreover, much of this newly-excluded land is shut down on 

the basis of undefined 

Sage Grouse habitat, lands once considered for ACEC designation that are no longer, and lands 

that the BLM 

determines to have “wilderness characteristics’’, in spite of Congress last year passing a 

spending moratorium that 

prohibited the BLM from using this designation as an end-run around Congressional authority to 

alone designate 

wilderness areas. #1])>

<([#2 [9.8] My second concern involves the manner in which this PEIS came into being. The 

previously mentioned 2008 PEIS 

was an extensively researched and prepared study; the 2012 PEIS is a complete re-start of this 

effort, for no good 

reason. There has been no new infom1ation come about between 2008 and now, that would 

justify spending tax 

dollars re-doing the PEIS, only a settlement of a lawsuit brought against the DOI by radical 

environmentalists. This 

PEIS is solely the product of that settlement, which to me is a very corrupt way of doing 

business. 

#2])>

<([#3 [1.1.1] Third, I am concerned about when the public comment period ends in relation to 

the release of related, relevant 

information, including the Sage Grouse habitat designation, and the new oil shale leasing 

regulations coming out on 

May 15th. I would ask that he public comment period be extended at least 30 days to 

accommodate for this. #3])>

<([#4 [3.10.3] Finally, my greatest concern is with the Jack of attention given to the socioeconomic impacts of the Preferred 

Alternative. While a fairly detailed projection was provided for the job creation, income, and 
Final OSTS PEIS 511 

housing impacts of 

Alternative 1, there was no similar analysis done for 2 or 2b (the Preferred Alternative.) 

Considering the enormous 

benefits that the entire region will enjoy should a commercial oil shale industry emerge, and the 

fact that 

unemployment and reduced revenue is a huge continuing problem for the Western Slope, one 

would think that an full 

evaluation of the comparative in1pacts of the various alternatives would be a given. #4])>

<([#5 [2.1.1] With all of these factors in mind, I have no choice but to recommend Alternative 1 

as the final option for the BLM in its deliberations. #5])>

OSTS_148 

Organization: Richard Schoenradt 

Received: 5/4/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Commenter1: Richard Schoenradt - Grand Junction, Colorado 81501 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: none 

Submission Category: Letter 

Submitted As: Postal Mail 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/21/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D00149.htm (OSTS_148-59281.htm Size = 1 KB) 

OSTS_148_Schoenradt_Mail_OSTS2012D00149.pdf (OSTS_148-59280.pdf Size = 88 KB) 

Submission Text

See Attachment. 

<([#1 [6.2.2] [6.3.2.1] [6.3.5] A few facts about oil shale should serve to make the direction your 

agency should take a 

little more clear. 

1) The technology is available to economically develop this resource. Oil shale is already 

being produced commercially in China, Estonia, and Brazil, and the same processes 

being used in Estonia are ready for adaptation in the Utah portion of the field. And 

Shell has demonstrated the viability of its process by producing 117,000 barrels of oil 

from its RD&D lease in Colorado. To the extent that the technology is behind, it is 

only because of disincentives inflicted by government- why would anyone invest in 

R&D if the opportunity to go commercial is uncertain, or denied? 

2) Energy efficiency. Oil shale is an efficient source, providing more energy than it takes 

to produce it. Depending on the development process utilized, the efficiency ratio is 

between 1:3 and 1:6, units of energy consumed to units produced. 

3) Water usage. Oil shale development will not take up near the water resources 

claimed by its opponents. Independent and government studies confirm that a large 
Final OSTS PEIS 512 

scale oil shale industry will use only a fraction of the water available, less even than 

some other forms of energy (biomass, for example, which relies on irrigated corn). 

Also, many new processes use even less water-some almost none. 

4) Environmental damage. Opponents like to paint oil shale development as whole-scale 

strip mining-in fact most of the technologies being perfected are in-situ, meaning 

they occur underground, more like traditional drilling. Also, the industry in the U.S. 

has a long history of good environmental stewardship, many of the best practices 

having been developed and instituted by the industry itself. 

#1])>

<([#2 [2.1.1] The fact is that oil shale IS more expensive and time-consuming to produce; but 

that 

does not mean that it is impossible, or impracticable. It DOES suggest that if we as a 

nation and a region wish to benefit from this resource, we had better start planning for it 

now. Alternative 1 offers the best option for accommodating such planning, and should 

be the Alternative adopted by your agency. #2])>

OSTS_149 

Organization: Randy Baumgardner 

Received: 5/3/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Commenter1: Randy Baumgardner - Cowdrey, Colorado 80451 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Elected Official 

Classification: none 

Submission Category: Letter 

Submitted As: Postal Mail 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/21/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D00150.htm (OSTS_149-59283.htm Size = 1 KB) 

OSTS_149_Baumgardner_Mail_OSTS2012D00150.pdf (OSTS_149-59282.pdf Size = 170 KB) 

Submission Text

See Attachment. 

<([#1 [2.1.1] As a resident and Representative of Northwest Colorado, where a great deal of the 

land under consideration in this PEIS is located, I would like to support the adoption Alternative 

1, the “no-action” Alternative which would restore the findings of the initial PEIS, completed in 

2008. 

I embrace an “all-the-above” strategy when it comes to energy development in this country, and I 

believe that oil shale 

can be an important part of that strategy. Estimates by the U.S. Geological Survey place the 

amount of oil in place in 

the oil shale region at around 4 Trillion barrels- well more than the reserves of the entire Middle 

East. Allowing 

American companies to tap this resource would create hundreds of new, good paying jobs for 

northwestern Colorado, 
Final OSTS PEIS 513 

and provide new revenues to local, state, and federal governments for education, public safety 

and other important 

projects. It will also help make America more energy self-sufficient, and no longer reliant in any 

way upon volatile, 

oftentimes tyrannical regimes, many of which wish our country and her people harm. 

The 2008 PEIS, which was completed after three years of solid effort on the part of many people, 

organizations, and 

agencies, identified 2,017, 714 acres of geologically prospective oil shale land as being suitable 

for application for 

leasing. Each of those individual lease applications would then undergo a full NEPA analysis, 

making sure that nothing 

was being done that would harm critically sensitive environment. This approach offered the most 

opportunity and 

flexibility to the oil shale industry for long term planning purposes, while utilizing effective, 

existing processes to 

protect the land, water, air, and wildlife. 

This approach unleashes the entrepreneurial spirit of the American people, and the power of 

innovation and invention 

that has always permitted Americans to accomplish any goal they set their minds to. All too 

often, government, albeit 

with the best of intentions, only stifles that spirit, and mutes that power-- more often than not 

resulting in 

consequences more damaging than what they had hoped to remedy. I unfortunately find that to 

be the case with the 

land allocation alternatives in the 2012 PEIS, which severely limit land access, and place 

unreasonable restriction on 

the commercialization of this strategic resource. #1])>

<([#2 [9.8] Just as troubling to me and many of my constituents, is the reason why we are 

spending taxpayer money to re-do the PEIS-a settlement by the Department of the Interior in 

response to a lawsuit by a special interest group representing a 

minority of the population. I am forced to ask myself, how can the federal government re-do the 

same study, talk to the 

same people, and analyze the same data as they did only four years ago, and come up with 

different results? This is an 

all-too-common case of government pending money it doesn’t have on something it doesn’t need 

to spend money on. #2])>

<([#3 [9.2.1] And finally, I am concerned with the legality and propriety of this new PEIS; first, 

by not allowing for a distinct 

commercial leasing track, the Land Allocation Alternatives would seem to be in contravention of 

the Energy Policy 

Act of 2005. Also, in making unavailable for lease application lands with what the document 

states are “lands with 

wilderness characteristics”, the BLM seems to be attempting to circumvent Congress, which 
Final OSTS PEIS 514 

defunded Secretarial 

Order 331 0 which would have granted the BLM the right to designate such areas, a right and 

duty which falls solely to 

the Congress. I am certain this is not the case, and trust this was simply an oversight on the part 

of the BLM. 

#3])>

<([#4 [2.1.1] Alternative l, and the 2008 PEIS whose findings it reinstates, offers the best avenue 

for adopting a truly “All The Above” energy strategy, creating much needed wealth and job 

growth to get this economy moving again, and putting 

America on the path to energy independence, without causing harm to our environment. I hope 

and trust that the BLM 

will adopt this alternative as the most responsible, pragmatic, and balanced option available

#4])>

OSTS_150 

Organization: Sweetwater County Board of County Commissioners, Wally Johnson 

Received: 4/19/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Commenter1: Wally Johnson - Green River, Wyoming 82935 (United States) 

Organization1:Sweetwater County Board of County Commissioners 

Commenter Type: Coop Agency - Local Govt 

Classification: none 

Submission Category: Letter 

Submitted As: Postal Mail 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/21/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D00151.htm (OSTS_150-59285.htm Size = 1 KB) 

OSTS_150_Sweetwater_Cty_Mail_OSTS2012D00151.pdf (OSTS_150-59284.pdf Size = 448 

KB) 

Submission Text

See Attachment. 

NOTE: The attachment includes a resolution which was binned as part of Web submittal 50255

<([#1 [2] Sweetwater County hereby formally submits to the Bureau of Land Management 

Sweetwater County Resolution 

12-04-CC-02. By this Resolution, Sweetwater County joins other counties in Wyoming, Utah 

and Colorado in 

opposing the BLM’s OSTS PEIS for lands administered by the BLM in Colorado, Utah and 

Wyoming . 

Sweetwater County opposes the OSTS PEIS for the purposes of preserving the mineral based 

economy of the 

economy of the tri-state region, and for ensuring that the BLM’s OSTS PEIS National 

Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) review process is fair, allows enough for review and is in compliance with all applicable 
Final OSTS PEIS 515 

laws. 

#1])>

OSTS_151 

Organization: Rio Blanco County Board of County Commissioners, Kai Turner 

Received: 4/16/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Commenter1: Kai Turner - Meeker, Colorado 81641 (United States) 

Organization1:Rio Blanco County Board of County Commissioners 

Commenter Type: Local Government 

Classification: none 

Submission Category: Letter 

Submitted As: Postal Mail 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/21/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D00152.htm (OSTS_151-59287.htm Size = 1 KB) 

OSTS_151_Rio_Blanco_Cty_Apr_16_Mail_OSTS2012D00152.pdf (OSTS_151-59286.pdf Size 

= 124 KB) 

Submission Text

See Attachment. 

<([#1 [1.1.1] As the Commissioners have been preparing their comments for the 2012 OSTS 

PEIS it has come to our 

attention that the Draft BLM Oil Shale Regulations are not to be published until May 15, 2012. 

That date 

is almost 2 weeks after the aforementioned comments are due and yet it would seem that the 

OSTS PEIS 

and draft Oil Shale Regulations are intertwined and should be reviewed simultaneously. 

Our jurisdiction includes the richest and most promising of all the oil shale deposits within the 

Green River Formation and it seems most likely, given the proportion of RDD leases being 

developed in our county, that commercial leasing interest will be focused here: 

In the interest of developing sound public policy surrounding the future of this resource we 

respectfully request that the comment period for the 2012 OSTS PEIS be extended for 90 days so 

as to allow time for us and our staff to properly review both documents together. We believe our 

request to be consistent with the goals of the NEPA process and will result in a better final 

product for each document. 

#1])>

OSTS_152 

Organization: Sunewin Energy, Tom Schwerin 

Received: 5/4/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Commenter1: Tom Schwerin - Snowmass, Colorado 81654 (United States) 

Organization1:Sunewin Energy 

Commenter Type: Private Company 

Classification: none 
Final OSTS PEIS 516 

Submission Category: Comment Form 

Submitted As: Postal Mail 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/21/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D00153.htm (OSTS_152-59289.htm Size = 1 KB) 

OSTS_152_Schwerin_CommentForm_Mail_OSTS2012D00153.pdf (OSTS_152-59288.pdf Size 

= 220 KB) 

Submission Text

See Attachment. 

Appendix to PEIS Written Comment Form: 

<([#1 [6.3.1] Please consider by December,2012 publishing federal regulations and a call for a 

Research, 

Demonstration and Development Lease for exclusively underground mining seeking to extract 

15 gallon 

per ton kerogen shale in the Piceance Basin, Colorado. The size below grade should be several 

surface 

sections. 

NO strip mining in such an RD&D Lease. 

NO in-situ retorting. 

NO surface drilling or drilling rigs used for developing an in-situ retort system for liquid 

extractions. 

NO surface water requirements. My plans are to dewater the oil shale underground leaving the 

local 

water on site. 

NO surface protrusions except OSHA approved ventilations ducts and employee emergency 

exits. The 

3% grade rail entrance will be the only indication of underground RD&D work. 

Think Underground Mining of salt or potash. 

These mines have evolved into large scale underground rooms with 20 foot ceilings suitable for 

large 

scale equipment and direct underground ore loading onto all-electric trains. Specifically, the plan 

is to 

load 220 railroad gondola cars underground with dewatered oil shale rock on standard rail tracks 

for an 

all-electric delivery to Utah with union labor. In Utah, a central ‘special purpose’ refinery 

produces only 
Final OSTS PEIS 517 

high quality jet propulsion fuel, no gasoline. It also has ultra-low refinery carbon emissions. 

The RD&D lessee is required to post with the US Treasury $1.6 billion of AA rated bonds in 

exchange for 

a BLM supervised lease issued by the US Treasury. Here, the lessee needs to amortize its long 

term costs 

and furnish a $1.6 billion performance fee. 

Again, no surface drilling or surface modifications are needed nor any subsurface retorting. 

#1])>

OSTS_153 

Organization: Brenda Sloan 

Received: 5/2/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Commenter1: Brenda Sloan - Grand Junction, Colorado 81501 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: none 

Submission Category: Letter 

Submitted As: Postal Mail 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/21/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D00154.htm (OSTS_153-59291.htm Size = 1 KB) 

OSTS_153_Sloan_Mail_OSTS2012D00154.pdf (OSTS_153-59290.pdf Size = 76 KB) 

Submission Text

See Attachment. 

<([#1 [9.8] The current re-do of the BLM’s 2008 Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement 

regarding oil shale development, is a massive waste of tax-payer’s dollars, and 

unreasonably restricts development of a resource that dwarfs the oil reserves of the 

middle east. The BLM’s preferred land use alternative, in the 2012 re-do, cuts by nearly 

8o% the amount of land left available for oil shale companies to apply for commercial 

leases. This flies in the face of the three years of study and effort that went into preparing 

an oil shale plan in 2oo8. #1])>

<([#2 [2.1.1] The environmental lobby and their friends in the current White House seem intent 

on 

using our own tax dollars to make sure that oil shale forever remains unavailable to 

Americans, at the cost of jobs and energy security. For this reason, I support Alternative 1, 

as providing a more reasonable, forward-looking option. #2])>

OSTS_154 

Organization: Lois Kiefer 

Received: 4/15/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Commenter1: Lois Kiefer - Grand Junction, Colorado 81504 (United States) 

Organization1: 
Final OSTS PEIS 518 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: none 

Submission Category: Letter 

Submitted As: Postal Mail 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/21/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D00155.htm (OSTS_154-59293.htm Size = 1 KB) 

OSTS_154_Kiefer_Mail_OSTS2012D00155.pdf (OSTS_154-59292.pdf Size = 92 KB) 

Submission Text

See Attachment. 

<([#1 [2.2] The latest draft of the oil shale / Tar Sands Programmatic Environmental Impact 

Statement is a sad example of environmental obstructionism at its worst. The initial 

PEIS completed in 2008 was a very well-studied and forward looking document that 

opened 2,000,000 acres for application for commercial oil shale leasing. This put in 

place process for orderly expansion of oil shale into a commercial industry, while 

utilizing the processes in place to ensure proper environmental protections. 

It did not, however, fit with the extreme anti-development lobby, who sued, and under 

a friendly settlement made sure a few more millions of our tax dollars were spent to 

totally re-do the PEIS. Despite using the exact same date, this latest version comes 

to a completely different outcome, as Alternative 2b (the Preferred Alternative) 

reduces the amount of land available for leasing to a few hundred thousand acres - 

roughly 20% of what the 2008 PEIS left available. #1])>

<([#2 [2.1.1] Alternative 1 would leave the results of the 2008 PEIS in place, and allow for 

commercial development to begin on the approximately 4 trillion barrels of oil from 

the oil shale deposits in our region. With gas prices constantly rising, and the 

international situation increasingly unstable, it only makes sense to permit a 

domestic energy industry of this magnitude. 

As long-time residents, we do not wish to see harm come to the environment of this 

area. we love he natural beauty of western Colorado, and regularly take our kids 

hunting and camping in the area. We want as much as anyone to make sure that this will 

be available to them when they are grown. 

At the same time, we realize that that does not mean that development cannot or should 

not occur. We are also keenly aware of the pain inflicted on communities when economic 

development is halted by groups with a very narrow agenda. 

Please adopt Alternative 1 as being the only afforded option to balance the needs of 

environmental protection, and crucial economic development. 

#2])>

OSTS_155 
Final OSTS PEIS 519 

Organization: Kevin McCarney 

Received: 4/24/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Commenter1: Kevin McCarney - Clifton, Colorado 81520 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: none 

Submission Category: Letter 

Submitted As: Postal Mail 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/21/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D00156.htm (OSTS_155-59295.htm Size = 1 KB) 

OSTS_155_McCarney_Mail_OSTS2012D00156.pdf (OSTS_155-59294.pdf Size = 93 KB) 

Submission Text

See Attachment. 

<([#1 [6.3.5] [6.2.2] [6.3.2.1] Opponents of oil shale development are dusting off some 

commonly used fallacies in an attempt to coerce your agency into adopting a land allocation plan 

that is over1y restrictive and postpones commercial development of this valuable resource for 

years. 

Among the falsehoods is the one that the technology is not available to produce oil shale on a 

profitable, commercial basis. 

In fact, this technology is not only available, but is in use in several countries, including China 

and Estonia. This is the same 

type of technology and process that could be used in the Utah portion of the vast oil shale lands. 

Here in Colorado, 

companies such as Shell have proven that their processes work, by actually managing to produce 

sizable quantities from 

their RD&D projects. They now need to be able to expand those operations in order to be able to 

make the transition to 

commercial-level production. Aside from Alternative 1, the current PEIS does not allow for this 

to take place. 

Low energy efficiency is another anti-development myth. Oil shale is actually quite efficient, 

producing between 3 and 6 units 

of energy to each unit that it uses in its extraction and processing. 

Excessive water usage is also often claimed by the opponents, despite evidence to the contrary. 

Not only do most 

companies currently involved in oil shale research already own the water rights they require, but 

the Federal Government’s 

own estimate, as compiled by the GAO, predict that there is more than sufficient water to sustain 

a 500,000 barrel a day 

industry. Some oil shale extraction processes are being developed that actually use very little 

water. #1])>
Final OSTS PEIS 520 

<([#2 [2.1.1] These faulty assumptions, mainly derived from very loose interpretation, obsolete 

information, or political agendas, should not be the basis for formulating a land management 

plan that will have a huge impact on the regional and national economy. Alternative 1 , which 

was based on solid scientific information compiled between 2005 and 2008, should be the 

alternative chosen by the BLM to manage oil shale production in the near to long term. 

I am a former small business owner who knows all to well the impacts that an arbitrary political 

decision can have on the 

economy. I am personally asking your group not to give in to the scare tactics of the 

environmental lobby; to decide for jobs 

and the economy of Western Colorado and Eastern Utah. 

#2])>

OSTS_156 

Organization: Sandy Peeso 

Received: 4/15/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Commenter1: Sandy Peeso - Grand Junction , Colorado 81504 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: none 

Submission Category: Letter 

Submitted As: Postal Mail 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/21/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D00157.htm (OSTS_156-59297.htm Size = 1 KB) 

OSTS_156_Peeso_Mail_OSTS2012D00157.pdf (OSTS_156-59296.pdf Size = 100 KB) 

Submission Text

See Attachment. 

<([#1 [2.1.1] Thank you for this opportunity to offer input into the 2012 Oil Shale PEIS process. 

I support Alternative 1 (no action), and would urge the BLM to do the same. This alternative 

maintains the findings of the initial PEIS, completed in 

2008, which made available what I believe to be a suitable amount of land to encourage and 

enable private, 

commercial oil shale development. 

Businesses need options, flexibility and reasonable assurances of future growth potential in order 

to plan, forecast, and 

invest in a given venture or area The 2008 Record of Decision provided all of that, and in a way 

that ensured 

protection of the region’s air, soil, water, and any fragile habitats and ecosystems. #1])>

<([#2 [2.2] This new PEIS, however, undid most of the hard work that went into the 2008 

project, and made permanently 

unavailable almost 90% of the land (in Colorado) that was previously identified. The BLM’s 
Final OSTS PEIS 521 

preferred alternative, 2b, 

along with Alternative 4b, would also prohibit the issuance of commercial leases, until such time 

as the company 

applying for the lease demonstrated their production technology to the satisfaction of a 

government official. Not only 

does no other sector of any energy-related industry need to do such a thing, but the standards for 

‘passing’ such 

technology are arbitrary and not published. 

Finally, the lands excluded in this preferred alternative include land that was once considered for 

designation as an 

ACEC, but has since been determined not to be; lands the BLM designates as having “wilderness 

characteristics”, 

despite the fact that only Congress can make such a designation; and potential Sage Grouse 

habitat, even though the 

location of that habitat is still under review. #2])>

<([#3 [1.1.1] It is also worth noting that a new set of leasing regulations will be coming out on 

May 15, nearly 2 weeks after the public comment period ends. I would suggest strongly that the 

comment period be extended 30 days to accommodate 

for that release. #3])>

In closing, I wish to thank you and your office again, and once more urge you to select 

Alternative 1. 

OSTS_157 

Organization: Mardi Anson 

Received: 5/2/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Commenter1: Mardi Anson - Craig, Colorado 81626 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: none 

Submission Category: Letter 

Submitted As: Postal Mail 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/21/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D00158.htm (OSTS_157-59299.htm Size = 1 KB) 

OSTS_157_Anson_Mail_OSTS2012D00158.pdf (OSTS_157-59298.pdf Size = 85 KB) 

Submission Text

See Attachment. 

<([#1 [11.2] I am writing to express my disappointment over the BLM’s Preferred Altetnative in 

the current PEIS. Reducing the land 

available for application for potential leasing to a few thousand acres, on small, widely dispersed 

parcels, is a clear signal to the 

oil shale industry that the BLM does not support commercial development- not· apparently the 
Final OSTS PEIS 522 

jobs and economic opportunity 

that comes with such development Oil shale is an extremely valuable and rich resource, and 

holds up to 4 trillion barrels of 

recoverable oil -and perhaps more. The United States government should be encouraging the 

production of this as a key to 

long-term American energy independence. Instead, the government seems to again be influenced 

by the extreme fringe of the 

environmental movement, and is promoting policies that would keep this resource from being 

developed for years, perhaps 

ever. 

In addition to being a commodity of national importance, oil shale represents an incredible 

opportunity for the people of this 

region. Allowing commercial development, as called for in the 2005 Energy Policy Act, would 

bring jobs to the region that are 

sorely needed. It seems almost every day that we see another local business shut its doors or a 

family move to another state 

because there is such limited job growth here. The saddest part of that is that it is entirely 

unnecessary, given the amount of 

natural resource contained in the area. More often than not, it is government, doing the bidding 

of the “green” movement, 

which prevents the safe, responsible development of these resources. #1])>

<([#2 [2.1.1] We are not asking for any industry to receive handouts or subsidies; we do not want 

the government picking winners and 

losers. We simply ask that the roadblocks be removed, so that a viable oil shale industry can be 

allowed to proceed and bring 

with it the many benefits of a healthy, stable, long term industry. The only Alternative in the 

current PEIS that does this is 

Alternative 1, which I recommend to your office to be the final selection. #2])>

OSTS_158 

Organization: Ruth Ehlers 

Received: 5/2/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Commenter1: Ruth Ehlers - Grand Junction, Colorado 81507 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: none 

Submission Category: Letter 

Submitted As: Postal Mail 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/21/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D00159.htm (OSTS_158-59301.htm Size = 1 KB) 

OSTS_158_Ehlers_Mail_OSTS2012D00159.pdf (OSTS_158-59300.pdf Size = 67 KB) 

Submission Text

See Attachment. 
Final OSTS PEIS 523 

<([#1 [2.1.1] Thank you for this opportunity to provide comment on this PEIS. 

I would like to support Alternative 1, and urge the BLM to do the same. This Alternative keeps a 

sufficient amount 

of land available for leasing to help foster a commercial oil shale industry. 

Such an industry would provide increased employment in a region that has been struggling under 

9- 10% 

unemployment rates for the past several years. In addition, oil shale is an important resource that 

can add 

significantly to the U.S. energy mix, help stabilize fuel prices, and wean us off of overseas oil. 

Please adopt Alternative 1 as the final product of the 2012 Oil Shale PEIS. #1])>

OSTS_159 

Organization: Ed Stephens 

Received: 4/20/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Commenter1: Ed Stephens - Grand Junction, Colorado 81507 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: none 

Submission Category: Letter 

Submitted As: Postal Mail 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/21/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D00160.htm (OSTS_159-59303.htm Size = 1 KB) 

OSTS_159_Stephens_Mail_OSTS2012D00160.pdf (OSTS_159-59302.pdf Size = 92 KB) 

Submission Text

See Attachment. 

<([#1 [2.1.1] [6.2.2] [6.3.2.1] [6.3.5] I am writing to offer my input on the 2012 Oil Shale PEIS. 

I would specifically like to address a 

number of fallacies that opponents to oil shale are putting out there, and that this PEIS seems to 

validate. 

First, in terms of water usage, oil shale production will use far less than some would have us 

believe. There are, in fact, some processes that use little to almost no water at all. Further, the 

GAO estimates that there is sufficient water available to comfortably support a 500,000 barrel a 

day industry, far beyond what any accurate estimates predict the industry will actually use. 

Every company currently involved in oil shale says that their water consumption will be in the 

range of 1 to 3 barrels of water used per barrel of oil produced, an amount which can easily be 

accommodated. 

Second, is the argument that oil from shale is not efficient. The fact is that oil shale development 

produces far more energy than it consumes, to the tune of 3:1 - 6:1. 
Final OSTS PEIS 524 

Finally, is the fallacy that oil shale development technology remains years behind. In fact, oil 

shale is being produced commercially in several places around the world. Shell recently 

produced several thousand barrels of oil off one of its RD&D leases; the technology is clearly 

there, and improving every day. 

And finally is the fallacy that oil shale development will destroy the environment. This is 

nonsense, and is reminiscent of similar arguments against natural gas drilling in the area. There 

are several in -situ processes that require no surface mining, and the industry has a proven 

track record, and vested economic interest, in being good stewards. 

With this in mind, I recommend Alternative 1, which does by far the best job of permitting this 

industry 

to develop and create jobs and energy. 

#1])>

OSTS_160 

Organization: Jay Harmon 

Received: 5/3/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Commenter1: Jay Harmon - Grand Junction, Colorado 81504 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: none 

Submission Category: Letter 

Submitted As: Postal Mail 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/21/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D00161.htm (OSTS_160-59306.htm Size = 1 KB) 

OSTS_160_HarmonJ_Mail_OSTS2012D00161.pdf (OSTS_160-59305.pdf Size = 108 KB) 

Submission Text

See Attachment. 

<([#1 [2.1.1] This letter is in response to the 2012 draft PEIS for oil shale. I wish to register my 

opposition to the BLM’s Preferred Alternative, and the other Land Allocation Alternatives in the 

document, and express instead my support for Alternative 1, the No Action Alternative. 

Our nation is experiencing ever increasing fuel prices and an energy policy that has us reliant on 

hostile foreign 

governments for a good deal of our oil. Meanwhile, this region holds as much as 4 trillion barrels 

of oil in place, according to 

the U.S. Geological Survey, and perhaps even more. This is more oil than in the entire Persian 

Gulf, right in our backyard. 

#1])>

<([#2 [2.2] [9.2.1] So it was disappointing that the BLM chose as their Preferred Alternative, one 

that takes the acreage made available for oil shale commercial leasing in the original2008 PEIS, 

and cuts it from 2,017, 714 acres, to a mere 461,965 acres- a reduction of77%. Moreover, the 
Final OSTS PEIS 525 

acreage that is left is spread out in small, isolated pockets. It would also specifically not allow 

the issuance of commercial leases, until such time as the applicant demonstrated a viable 

recovery technology- a requirement that no other segment of the energy sector is subjected to. 

This is in violation of the 2005 Energy Policy Act, which explicitly called for a separate and 

concurrent commercial development program for oil shale. Also, by excluding lands that exhibit 

“wilderness characteristics” from being available for leasing, the BLM appears to be in violation 

of a Congressional spending moratorium from April21, 2011, that defunded the Secretary of the 

Interior’s Order 3310. #2])>

<([#3 [9.8] In addition, I feel the need to comment on the reason for redoing this PEIS in the first 

place; as part of a settlement over 

lawsuits directed at the Department of the Interior by certain extremist groups who were unhappy 

with the outcome of the 

three-year long 2008 PEIS. I think it sets a bad precedent for a particular interest group to be able 

to force the government 

to spend more money that it does not have to redo a major undertaking such as this, without any 

new information having 

been developed, just to appease that group. No unelected, unaccountable special interest 

organization should have that 

much power over critical national policy, and the national purse. This is another reason that the 

BLM should at least adopt 

the Alternative that reinforces the results of a lengthy, professionally done process that included 

thousands of hours of input 

from experts, scientists, local governments, and the people themselves. #3])>

Please adopt Alternative 1, and allow commercial oil shale development to take place 

responsibly in western Colorado. 

OSTS_161 

Organization: Shannon Rogers 

Received: 5/3/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Commenter1: Shannon Rogers - Fruita , Colorado 81521 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: none 

Submission Category: Letter 

Submitted As: Postal Mail 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/21/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D00162.htm (OSTS_161-59308.htm Size = 1 KB) 

OSTS_161_Rogers_Mail_OSTS2012D00162.pdf (OSTS_161-59307.pdf Size = 107 KB) 

Submission Text

See Attachment. 

<([#1 [2.1.1] I am supporting Alternative one in the current oil shale PEIS, that calls for no 

action from the original 2008 one. The 
Final OSTS PEIS 526 

preferred alternative in this PEIS poses a couple of problems for me as a Western Slope resident. 

Most important is 

the apparent lack of concern over economic effects and job creation. The Preferred Alternative 

drastically cuts 

acreage available for oil shale leasing, and will greatly discourage and even actively prevent 

commercial 

development of oil shale. This development would create hundreds of jobs in the region, both 

directly and indirectly. 

The income generated from these jobs will help backfill the shortfalls in local and state funding 

of infrastructure, 

schools and other services, and spur further economic activity in a region experiencing over 10% 

unemployment. 

The arguments against commercial oil shale development that led to this new PEIS are faulty; 

Leaving land open to 

be available for them to apply for leases and expand their operations does not automatically 

mean that the 

environment will be put at risk for the sake of these companies. The industry has a vested interest 

in looking after 

the land on which they operate, and in being good stewards of the environment. The energy 

industry in our area in 

fact has an excellent track record of doing so. The water issues that many opponents are so 

concerned about are also 

over-stated. Many of the industry’s established production technologies use very little water, and 

for the ones that 

use more, most of the necessary water rights are already owned by companies seeking to 

commercially develop this 

resource, and are accounted for. In fact, the oil shale industry will use considerably less water 

than some ‘renewable’ 

energies, such as bio-mass from corn which requires irrigation. 

The technology is available, and improves every day, to produce oil shale. They are already 

commercially 

developing it in Estonia, China, and elsewhere. Even here, Shell successfully produced several 

thousand barrels of 

oil just off one of its RD&D leases, and has done so with the utmost care being given to the 

environment. Each of 

the leases that would be allowed for under the Alternative 1 would be subject to NEP A analysis, 

providing a further 

level of protection. There is no excuse for the BLM to stand in the way of this industry from 

creating jobs and 

prosperity for western Colorado by adopting a more restrictive option. 

#1])>

OSTS_162 

Organization: Bill Aaslan 

Received: 5/3/2012 12:00:00 AM 
Final OSTS PEIS 527 

Commenter1: Bill Aaslan - , Colorado 81503 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: none 

Submission Category: Letter 

Submitted As: Postal Mail 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/21/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D00163.htm (OSTS_162-59310.htm Size = 1 KB) 

OSTS_162_Aaslan_Mail_OSTS2012D00163.pdf (OSTS_162-59309.pdf Size = 87 KB) 

Submission Text

See Attachment. 

<([#1 [2.1.1] ln regards to this PEIS, 1 support Alternative 1 as being the most economically 

sensible option available. The socio-economic benefits of oil shale are too great to ignore. ln 

terms of jobs alone, a commercial oil shale industry will directly create hundreds, in production 

operations, engineering, transport and logistics, directly-related construction, such as in-situ 

processing facilities, power plants and the like, hundreds more in operation of these facilities, 

and even more indirectly, through supporting industries, retail businesses, housing construction 

and so on. Much of the income from these jobs would be spent in the area, and some would go to 

local and state government in the form of taxes, providing money for schools, roads, and 

emergency services. Oil shale development would also provide a boost to non-related industries, 

such as tourism and recreation, and more people moved to the area, and more disposable income 

was generated to be able to pay for recreational activities. 

On a national level, oil shale could scarcely be more important. With fuel costs rising on an 

almost daily basis, and the geo-political 

situation getting progressively worse in the Middle East, America is, or soon will be, desperate to 

find ways to increase domestic sources of energy. Oil shale has the potential to do that, and to 

meet America’s demands for energy for the foreseeable future, without having to rely on oil from 

unstable and hostile foreign markets. 

Alternative 1 will keep 2 million acres of prime oil shale rich land available to the industry for 

lease application. Various processes already in place will ensure that environmentally fragile 

areas are adequately protected, and having a plan established for commercial development will 

provide local communities and municipalities the chance to prepare for the growth to come. This 

balanced method of addressing the issue of oil shale is the only option that makes sence from all 

angles, and should be adopted by the BLM in the final draft. #1])>

OSTS_163 

Organization: William Burkett 

Received: 5/3/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Commenter1: William Burkett - Fruita, Colorado 81521 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: none 
Final OSTS PEIS 528 

Submission Category: Letter 

Submitted As: Postal Mail 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/21/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D00164.htm (OSTS_163-59312.htm Size = 1 KB) 

OSTS_163_Burkett_Mail_OSTS2012D00164.pdf (OSTS_163-59311.pdf Size = 71 KB) 

Submission Text

See Attachment. 

<([#1 [1.1.1] I am writing to advocate for two things in regards to this oil shale PEIS; the first is 

to extend the public comment 

period at least 2 weeks beyond the date of the release of the new oil shale leasing regulations, 

which are due to 

come out May 15th. 

It seems only proper that sufficient time be allowed for interested persons to review these 

regulations before offering 

comment on the PEIS and the various land allocation alternatives. #1])>

<([#2 [2.1.1] The second thing I ask is for the BLM to reconsider its Preferred Alternative, and 

instead select Alternative 1. The 

Preferred Alternative, 2b, eliminates commercial leasing altogether, and takes far too much land 

off the table for any 

kind of leasing. Alternative 1 would restore the findings of the 2008 PEIS, the information 

underlying it still being valid, 

which would make just over 2,000,000 acres available for application to commercial leasing. It is 

important to note, 

that not all of these acres would ever be developed; this simply allows companies a wider option 

of land from which to 

apply for a lease. Each application would be vetted by the BLM, EPA, and other agencies, and 

any fragile 

environmental features, terrain, or habitat would be duly protected. #2])>

In summary, please extend the public comment period sufficiently to allow review of all the 

pertinent information, and 

in the meantime, consider Alternative 1 as your Preferred Alternative. 

OSTS_164 

Organization: Steven Smythe 

Received: 5/3/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Commenter1: Steven Smythe - Grand Junction, Colorado 81504 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: none 

Submission Category: Letter 

Submitted As: Postal Mail 
Final OSTS PEIS 529 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/22/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D00165.htm (OSTS_164-59314.htm Size = 1 KB) 

OSTS_164_Smythe_Mail_OSTS2012D00165.pdf (OSTS_164-59313.pdf Size = 107 KB) 

Submission Text

See Attachment. 

<([#1 [11] I want to convey my frustration with the current Draft PEIS for oil shale, and the 

manner in which it dismisses the 

“people element” - the social and economic factors that should enter into any public policy 

decision of this 

magnitude. 

Energy is the lifeblood of Colorado’s western slope, where much of the oil shale land is located. 

We not only 

understand the importance of these resources to a functioning modem society, and what their 

extraction means to 

the economic life of our local communities, we also know how to develop them in a way that is 

safe and respectful of 

our natural environment. Anyone who has been to Craig knows how closely we depend on coal 

mining, and how 

beautiful our landscape is, and how clean our air and water. There is no reason to suspect that we 

would deal with 

our other natural resources any differently. 

The new 2012 OS/TS PEIS contains land allocation alternatives that would suggest otherwise. 

Instead approaching 

oil shale as the 2008 PEIS, and Alternative 1 that would implement it does, the BLM’s preferred 

alternative, 2b, takes 

a highly restrictive approach, cutting off over 1.5 million acres from potential leasing, that had 

previously been 

determined acceptable. Alternative 3 goes even farther, by not allowing any development beyond 

the existing RD&D 

leases. 

The oil shale industry will never be able to establish itself and bring the job growth and 

economic development that it 

promises, if it is kept perpetually in the research phase by the government. If the technology truly 

is not there, the 

industry will not proceed; if it is there, then a process needs to be in place to allow orderly 

expansion and 

commercialization. Only Alternative 1 does that. 

I would ask the BLM to place some trust and faith in the people who live, work and raise their 

families in the areas 
Final OSTS PEIS 530 

you are determining land access policies for. We have more than proven that we know how to 

care for what we have 

been given, and simply ask the federa government to let us do it. #1])>

Thanks for the opportunity to offer comment on this important matter, 

OSTS_165 

Organization: Abbey Channel 

Received: 5/3/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Commenter1: Abbey Channel - Grand Junction, Colorado 81504 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: none 

Submission Category: Letter 

Submitted As: Postal Mail 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/22/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D00166.htm (OSTS_165-59317.htm Size = 1 KB) 

OSTS_165_Channel_Mail_OSTS2012D00166.pdf (OSTS_165-59316.pdf Size = 95 KB) 

Submission Text

See Attachment. 

<([#1 [2.1.1] I would first like to thank the BLM for extending the opportunity for public input 

into this important 

matter. As a resident of the Western Slope, I would further like to take advantage of the 

opportunity to 

express my support for the commercial development of oil shale in general, and for Alternative 

1, the 

no-action alternative, as described in the current 2012 Oil Shale PEIS. 

The politics of oil shale development have been, and will continue to be debated for some time. 

However, the reality on the ground for the affected communities is that the socio-economic 

benefits, 

the job growth, the income, and tax revenue that the commercialization of oil shale will bring are 

the 

foremost concerns. It is a shame that the politicization of the process has had the effect of further 

delaying the establishment of an industry that bears such promise. 

The PEIS completed in 2008 made available 2,000,000 acres for potential leasing; this is land 

that would 

not necessarily be developed, as much of the land may be unsuitable economically for leasing, 

and each 

lease would be subject to BLM assessment and approval prior to the lease actually being issued. 

This 

would, however, maximize the opportunity for careful expansion and commercial development, 

and the 
Final OSTS PEIS 531 

benefits that come along with it. 

The new proposals for land allocation in the current PEIS, undertaken only as a result of 

litigation by 

certain interest groups, would restrict the amount of land available for application for leasing, 

enough 

so that some companies with an interest in developing and producing oil shale and bringing good 

jobs to 

the region, would be forced to abandon their plans for Western Colorado and seek their success 

elsewhere. 

We who live and raise our families in western Colorado are as much or more concerned than any 

over 

the conservation and stewardship or our natural environment, in conjunction with our economic 

health 

and future. We believe that the two goals are not mutually exclusive; we trust that the BLM can 

make 

wise decisions regarding the approval of individual leases- we only ask that the BLM trust us 

enough to 

keep in place the acreage deemed suitable for application 4 years ago. 

#1])>

OSTS_166 

Organization: R. Musser 

Received: 5/3/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Commenter1: R. Musser - Palisade, Colorado 81526 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: none 

Submission Category: Letter 

Submitted As: Postal Mail 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/22/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D00167.htm (OSTS_166-59319.htm Size = 1 KB) 

OSTS_166_Musser_Mail_OSTS2012D00167.pdf (OSTS_166-59318.pdf Size = 91 KB) 

Submission Text

See Attachment. 

<([#1 [2.1.1] I support Alternative 1 in the above referenced PEIS, and hope that the BLM will 

as well. The current Preferred Alternative 

Is far too restrictive, not only in the amount of land that is has placed off limits to any 

consideration for leasing potential, 

but also in the fact that it does not allow for commercial leases to be issued at all, Instead 

permitting only RD&D leases 

until a viable technology is demonstrated by the lease holder. Part of the problem with this is that 

the acreage that is not 
Final OSTS PEIS 532 

excluded from leasing is so small and in such remote areas, that commercial expansion would 

prove impractical, if not 

Impossible. Even commercial expansion of existing RD&D leases would be severely limited, 

since the Preferred 

Alternative puts most of the preference rights leasing areas around them off limits as well - in 

many cases, 100% of that 

area. 

This obvious prevention of commercial development makes no sense from an environmental 

perspective; first, the larger 

acreage allowed for lease application under alternative 1 would not automatically be open for 

large scale development, 

each lease would first have to undergo a full NEPA environmental assessment. Secondly, the 

area deemed suitable under 

Alternative 1 had initially been determined to be following an extensive three-year 

environmental impact evaluation 

process - It was only after legal interference by environmental extremist organizations that vast 

swaths of additional land 

were also excluded. Finally, If the U.S. does not take the lead in oil shale development, we will 

cede the industry to places 

like Estonia and China, where oil shale development is already taking place on a commercial 

scale, and where 

environmental protections are considerably less stringent that they are here. 

It certainly makes no sense from an economic standpoint; allowing a commercial oil shale 

Industry to establish itself in 

this region would mean prosperity, growth, and opportunity for the people who live here. On a 

national scale, of course, it 

would mean a huge step towards energy independence, and a large, stable, long tern domestic 

fuel source. 

These are the reasons why I would urge the BLM to replace the current Preferred Alternative 

with Alternative 1. #1])>

OSTS_167 

Organization: Charity Meinhart 

Received: 5/3/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Commenter1: Charity Meinhart - Grand Junction, Colorado (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: none 

Submission Category: Letter 

Submitted As: Postal Mail 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/22/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D00168.htm (OSTS_167-59321.htm Size = 1 KB) 
Final OSTS PEIS 533 

OSTS_167_Meinhart_Mail_OSTS2012D00168.pdf (OSTS_167-59320.pdf Size = 85 KB) 

Submission Text

See Attachment. 

I believe that the 2012 Oil Shale PEIS is not valid in that it violates federal statute. 

<([#1 [9.2.1] By limiting leasing to RD&D and not allowing commercial leases until further 

requirements were met, the BLM’s 

Preferred Alternative contravenes the 2005 Energy Policy Act, which explicitly mandates a 

commercial development 

track for oil shale alongside the RD&D track. 

The 2012 oil shale PEIS also attempts to circumvent Congress by excluding huge swaths of land 

from any potential 

future leasing on the basis that they possess “wilderness characteristics”. As you are well aware, 

only Congress can 

designate wilderness area. A Secretarial Order attempting to grant the BLM the power to 

designate land as having 

“wilderness characteristics”, and subjecting it to the same restrictions as wilderness, was 

defunded last year by 

Congress. #1])>

<([#2 [1.1.1] Finally, excluding land from potential leasing due to the possibility of it containing 

Sage Grouse habitat before the 

details and boundaries of such habitat are released by the state Division of Wildlife disallows 

adequate assessment 

by the public. The BLM should extend the comment period at least until all such pertinent 

information (including the 

2012 oil shale leasing regulations) is made available to the general public. #2])>

<([#3 [2.1.1] Placing thousands of acres forever off limits, and relegating the remaining available 

acreage to a few small, scattered outposts that make commercial leasing unviable is a roadblock, 

not a management plan. In addition to extending the 

public comment period, I call on the BLM to reconsider its support for Alternative 2b, and 

instead consider Alternative 

1 as the most workable, prudent management alternative. 

#3])>

OSTS_168 

Organization: Martin and Jeanne Chazen 

Received: 5/2/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Commenter1: Martin and Jeanne Chazen - Grand Junction, Colorado 81506 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: none 

Submission Category: Letter 

Submitted As: Postal Mail 
Final OSTS PEIS 534 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/22/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D00169.htm (OSTS_168-59323.htm Size = 1 KB) 

OSTS_168_Chazen_Mail_OSTS2012D00169.pdf (OSTS_168-59322.pdf Size = 115 KB) 

Submission Text

See Attachment. 

<([#1 [2.1] Opponents of oil shale development who launched the lawsuit that created this new 

PEIS are offering conflicting excuses to not allow commercial oil shale leasing, as 

provided for in the 2008 PEIS, and Alternative 1 of the current PEIS. 

On one hand, they say that the technology is not there, that the industry is not ready 

for commercial development, and that the companies involved do not therefore 

really need or want the land at this time, and so there is no need to go ahead with 

any commercialization plan. 

Paradoxically, opponents claim that the influx of people that a commercial oil shale 

project would bring to the region would overwhelm the local communities, and that 

therefore commercial development should be further delayed to allow time for these 

communities to plan for it. 

So which is it? Is oil shale not viable, and therefore not ready to plan for commercial 

expansion, or will commercial leasing lead to such extensive and immediate 

economic development that it will quickly stress existing infrastructure and local 

services? Is commercial production an impossibility, or so likely that it is a “threat”? 

The fact is that the technology has advanced to the point where oil shale is not only 

viable, but actually being produced in various places around the globe, including on 

certain RD&D leases here. And if the industry does not need access to the land for 

expansion to commercial-level production, and strategic planning purposes, then 

why is it asking for it? 

As to the second contention, if the industry will lead to massive economic 

development, are they suggesting that it is better to not have a process in place to 

allow orderly commercial leasing, complete with NEPA processes being applied to 

each lease, and instead wait until such production is inevitable, or demanded in 

response to a crisis, and then approach it haphazardly? 

#1])>

<([#2 [2.1.1] Alternative 1, the No-Action alternative, puts such a process in place, by allowing a 

maximum safe amount of land available for application for commercial leasing. This 

will both allow for a commercial program to get going, and ensure that it is done in a 

safe, responsible, orderly manner. 

At any rate, if the introduction of an industry will create economic growth, isn’t that 

a pretty good problem to have right now? #2])>

OSTS_169 
Final OSTS PEIS 535 

Organization: Pat and Gerry Tucker 

Received: 5/2/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Commenter1: Pat and Gerry Tucker - Grand Junction, Colorado 80501 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: none 

Submission Category: Letter 

Submitted As: Postal Mail 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/22/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D00170.htm (OSTS_169-59325.htm Size = 1 KB) 

OSTS_169_Tucker_Mail_OSTS2012D00170.pdf (OSTS_169-59324.pdf Size = 133 KB) 

Submission Text

See Attachment. 

<([#1 [2.1.1] I support Alternative 1 in the 2012 Oil Shale PEIS, which would reopen land to 

potential commercial leasing, and provide a way forward for a commercial oil shale 

industry. I believe this industry is essential not only to our national energy security, 

but for the economy of western Colorado. 

Many of the arguments currently being made against oil shale development are 

reminiscent of the arguments made against oil sands in Alberta, Canada, 30 years 

ago. Opponents then claimed that oil sand development would use too much water; 

would ruin the land; and that anyway, the technology was not there to do it, and 

was too expensive. 

Now, 30 years later, we find that the water supply is more than adequate to 

support the industry; the apocalyptic environmental disasters did not come to 

pass; and that oil sand is being profitably produced on a large, commercial scale, in 

fact supplying the United states with the bulk of its imported oil. The town of Fort 

McMurray is thriving, Alberta’s unemployment rate is low, and many smaller 

companies are investing and entering the industry, creating even more jobs and 

income. The Alberta government runs a surplus that they do not know what to do 

with, and there is still hunting, fishing and related activities going on in 

northeastern Alberta. 

All of these benefits could be enjoyed by the people of western Colorado, and the 

tri-state area, if the government would just get out of the way, and let the industry 

establish itself. For that reason, I urge the BLM to adopt Alternative 1, which would 

allow this to happen. 

#1])>

OSTS_170 

Organization: CLUB 20, Bonnie Peterson 

Received: 4/13/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Commenter1: Bonnie Peterson - Grand Junction, Colorado 81502 (United States) 
Final OSTS PEIS 536 

Organization1:CLUB 20 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: none 

Submission Category: Letter 

Submitted As: Postal Mail 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/22/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D00171.htm (OSTS_170-59327.htm Size = 1 KB) 

OSTS_170_Peterson_Club20_Mail_OSTS2012D00171.pdf (OSTS_170-59326.pdf Size = 80 

KB) 

Submission Text

See Attachment. 

<([#1 [1.1.1] CLUB 20 members are in the process of reviewing the recently published 2012 

OSTS PEIS in order to 

provide comments on that voluminous document. It is our understanding that the highly relevant 

commercial Draft BLM Oil Shale Regulation document is not expected to be published until 

May 15, 

2012, well after comments are due on the 2012 OSTS PEIS. 

These two documents outlining impacted areas and development regulations are inextricably tied 

to 

one another and our members believe that making comments on one without the benefit of 

knowing 

the contents of the other may result in inconsistent and confusing responses, undermine the NEP 

A 

process, and interfere with the formation of well-considered public policy. It makes sense that 

comments should be considered simultaneously on these two important documents. In that light, 

CLUB 20 respectfully requests that the comment period on the 2012 OSTS PEIS be extended to 

at 

least 90 days past the publication of the Draft BLM Oil Shale Regulations. Thank you for your 

consideration. 

#1])>

OSTS_171 

Organization: George Rau 

Received: 5/2/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Commenter1: George Rau - Grand Junction, Colorado (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: none 

Submission Category: Letter 

Submitted As: Postal Mail 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/22/2012 12:00:00 AM 
Final OSTS PEIS 537 

Attachments: OSTS2012D00172.htm (OSTS_171-59329.htm Size = 1 KB) 

OSTS_171_Rau_Mail_OSTS2012D00172.pdf (OSTS_171-59328.pdf Size = 71 KB) 

Submission Text

See Attachment. 

<([#1 [2.1.1] This PEIS poses some serious questions and concerns for me. I am primarily 

concerned with how much land the new PEIS places off limits to oil shale leasing, and what that 

might mean for both the industry and the economic future of the region. Western Colorado is 

facing sustained unemployment levels of 9% and more, and these jobs would be key to turning 

this region’s economy around. 

I would prefer to see a return to the land use plan agreed upon in the 2008 PEIS, which left 

available just over 2 million acres for potential oil shale leasing. This was not done as a blanket 

land give-away, but as part of a set process that included additional EIS’s being done on each 

individual lease. This plan would in no way permit harm to the environment, but it would give 

companies the options they need to be able to plan for their own futures, and create jobs and 

wealth. 

Allowing these companies to lease land and expand their operations would also help fill the 

holes in our education and infrastructure funding, as royalties and taxes paid by the companies 

acquiring the leases, and the income and property taxes paid by the additional workers would 

help replace revenue that has been lost over the past 3 years. 

The best and only option available to allow all of this to happen is to not tinker with the plan 

agreed to in the 2008 study. Therefore, I support the no action alternative, Alternative 1, and urge 

the BLM to do the same. #1])>

OSTS_172 

Organization: Jerry Hunsinger 

Received: 5/2/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Commenter1: Jerry Hunsinger - Grand Junction, Colorado 81506 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: none 

Submission Category: Letter 

Submitted As: Postal Mail 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/22/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D00173.htm (OSTS_172-59331.htm Size = 1 KB) 

OSTS_172_Hunsinger_J_Mail_OSTS2012D00173.pdf (OSTS_172-59330.pdf Size = 91 KB) 

Submission Text

See Attachment. 

<([#1 [9.8] I would like to voice my objections to the current PEIS on the following grounds: 

First, the 2012 PEIS is redundant, the process having already been completed back in 
Final OSTS PEIS 538 

2008. That effort garnered the support and input of many different specialists, 

industry experts, county and local governments, development agencies, environmental 

interests, scientists, and more; it was a thorough, three year process, and resulted 

in a balanced management plan that encouraged commercial development of oil shale 

while protecting the environment. There has been nothing in terms of new evidence or 

information emerge since that time, that would begin to justify re-starting the whole 

process. 

Second, the reason for redoing the PEIS is frankly appalling, and makes a mockery of 

the whole NEPA system. To restart such a major undertaking solely because a small, 

radical environmentalist group sues because they don’t like the outcome, is not only 

ridiculous, but sets a terrible precedent; that each time the outcome of a government 

study, analysis or process is not to the liking of a particular special interest 

group, with no real legal claim, they can sue, under a more friendly administration, 

and have the entire process redone to fit their agenda. The current PEIS completely 

turns the findings of the original on its head, and reduces the amount of land 

available for potential commercial leasing by a huge margin, with disastrous effects 

on the outlook for future oil shale development. This is a tragic mistake. 

Third, is the cost involved. An EIS costs millions to prepare, in man hours, 

government resources, research, travel, etc. At a time when governments, businesses 

and families are tightening their belts, it makes no sense to waste valuable public 

dollars on something that was already done. It would be comical, if the stakes were 

not so high. #1])>

<([#2 [2.1.1] As a veteran I understand full well what it means to bear responsibility to the 

people 

and resources of this great nation. I would therefore urge you to either A) scrap this 

nonsense and commit to the professional, non-politically motivated PEIS completed four 

years ago, or B) adopt the No Action Alternative, to achieve the same result. #2])>

OSTS_173 

Organization: Jonathan Baysinger 

Received: 5/2/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Commenter1: Jonathan Baysinger - Craig, Colorado 81625 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: none 

Submission Category: Letter 

Submitted As: Postal Mail 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/22/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D00174.htm (OSTS_173-59333.htm Size = 1 KB) 

OSTS_173_Baysinger_Mail_OSTS2012D00174.pdf (OSTS_173-59332.pdf Size = 84 KB) 

Submission Text

See Attachment. 
Final OSTS PEIS 539 

<([#1 [9.8] The BLM should either scrap this PEIS now, or at least adopt Alternative 1, which 

calls for no action 

from the previous PEIS, finished only 4 years ago. Having environmental extremists mad at your 

agency is not sufficient reason to toss aside years of work, hours of public testimony, and 

exhaustive 

input from local governments, spend money that the government does not have, and re-write the 

entire PEIS. One can hardly blame our neighbors in Mesa County for refusing to participate this 

time 

around, after they already contributed extensively to the earlier one, noting that nothing 

substantial 

has changed. 

In fact the only thing that did change was the BLM’s conclusions. After analyzing the same data, 

and 

receiving the same input, your agency decided to reduce by hundreds of thousands of acres, the 

land 

to be made available for oil shale leasing, and to impose new requirements on companies seeking 

commercial leasing opportunities. Can you really tell me that your department could look at the 

same 

information a second time and come up with such a dramatically opposing conclusion, without 

there 

having been political factors involved? #1])>

<([#2 [2.1.1] We on the Western Slope are growing sick and tired of radical, left wing 

environmentalists 

constantly holding up development and job creation. It is obvious to most that energy 

development 

and nature can co-exist. We who actually live and try to make our livings out here full time not 

only 

know how to be good caretakers of the land, we want to. 

So when we ask you to support Alternative 1, and to maximize the potential of the oil shale 

industry 

to grow and bring all of us up along with it, we are not asking you to allow some sort of pillage 

of the 

land - we are simply asking for a chance. #2])>

OSTS_174 

Organization: Chaz Vaughn 

Received: 4/24/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Commenter1: Chaz Vaughn - Grand Junction, Colorado 81501 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: none 

Submission Category: Letter 

Submitted As: Postal Mail 
Final OSTS PEIS 540 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/22/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D00175.htm (OSTS_174-59336.htm Size = 1 KB) 

OSTS_174_Vaughn_Mail_OSTS2012D00175.pdf (OSTS_174-59335.pdf Size = 73 KB) 

Submission Text

See Attachment. 

<([#1 [2.1.1] I am writing to express my opposition to the Preferred Alternative in the 2012 oil 

shale PEIS, and to recommend Alternative 

1 as a replacement. 

The Preferred Alternative, 2b, severely restricts commercial leasing opportunities by slashing the 

land available for 

application to leasing, relegating what is left to small isolated pieces, and issuing only RD&D 

leases, imposing unreasonable 

requirements on companies before they can upgrade to a commercial lease. 

These provisions not only hamper and delay commercial development, and the regional and 

national economic benefits it 

would bring, but could even prove to be against the law, as the Energy policy Act of 2005 

specifically called for a dual track 

for oil shale development, an RD&D program, and a concurrent, but separate, commercial 

program. 

Alternative 1 retains in place the findings from her initial 2008 PEIS, which set aside roughly 2 

million acres for potential 

commercial leasing, subject to individual EIS’s. I recommend that the BLM adopt this as their 

final alternative. #1])>

OSTS_175 

Organization: J. Capozzelli 

Received: 5/2/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Commenter1: J. Capozzelli - New York, New York (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: none 

Submission Category: Letter 

Submitted As: Postal Mail 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/22/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D00176.htm (OSTS_175-59339.htm Size = 1 KB) 

OSTS_175_Capozzelli_J_May2_Mail_OSTS2012D00176.pdf (OSTS_175-59338.pdf Size = 72 

KB) 

Submission Text

See Attachment. 
Final OSTS PEIS 541 

<([#1 [2.2.1] I support the Bureau of Land Management’s preferred alternative in the draft plan 

for oil shale 

development. 

The preferred alternative would close many valuable and important lands to oil shale, such as 

lands with wilderness characteristics, areas of critical environmental concern, and sage-grouse 

habitat. Maintaining wilderness values and ecological integrity on our wild public lands 

contributes to our way of life and to our economy. 

The recreation industry in Colorado alone generates $3 billion of economic activity every year. 

We should not risk our water, air, pristine lands, crucial species habitat and outstanding 

recreation opportunities for any energy development, much less one dependent on unproven 

technology. 

For all the unknowns about oil shale, what is known is that it threatens water resources and clean 

air. To even attempt to generate a single barrel of oil from oil shale, 3-5 barrels of water are 

needed in the refining process alone. 

Taking the oil shale out of the ground will waste more water on top of that. And since this 

development would be taking place in western states like Colorado, water is already a very 

precious commodity, often in short supply. 

In addition to threatening our water, oil shale would also pollute our air. In order to create one 

million barrels of oil a day from oil shale, ten new coal-fired power plants would be needed, 

leading to the emission of 121 million tons of carbon dioxide. 

Oil shale is the world’s dirtiest fossil fuel. Please finalize the preferred alternative and ensure that 

wilderness, wildlife, clean air and precious water supplies are not sacrificed to oil shale. 

Thank you for your help on behalf of America’s irreplaceable lands, water and wildlife. #1])>

OSTS_176 

Organization: Grand Junction Economic Partnership, Kelly Flenniken 

Received: 5/2/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Commenter1: Kelly Flenniken - Grand Junction, Colorado 81501 (United States) 

Organization1:Grand Junction Economic Partnership 

Commenter Type: Misc. Organization 

Classification: none 

Submission Category: Letter 

Submitted As: Postal Mail 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/22/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D00177.htm (OSTS_176-59341.htm Size = 1 KB) 

OSTS_176_Flenniken_GJEP_Mail_OSTS2012D00177.pdf (OSTS_176-59340.pdf Size = 100 

KB) 
Final OSTS PEIS 542 

Submission Text

See Attachment. 

<([#1 [2.1.1] The Grand Junction Economic Partnership (GJEP) is the official economic 

development agency for Mesa 

County, Colorado. The mission of the organization is to enhance the economic vitality of our 

community 

creating a strong, diverse economy and an improved quality of life. GJEP focuses on five target 

industries, one of which is the energy industry. 

The 2012 PEIS has the potential of impacting the energy industry in the region. For this reason 

GJEP 

supports the adoption of Alternative 1 (no-action) as outlined in the 2012 PEIS. Our reasons for 

supporting this alternative focus on the following areas; 1) the economic benefits that responsible 

commercial oil shale development will bring to our region; 2) the advantages to local 

communities to 

having a structured process for commercialization in place. 

The development of the Western Slope’s energy resources has a positive and significant impact 

on our 

local economy through increased tax revenues, payrolls, local vendor purchases and the creation 

of 

quality jobs. Allowing for the responsible commercial expansion of oil shale development to take 

place 

will bring hundreds of jobs to the region, both directly and indirectly, in construction, production 

operations, housing, and various support industries. Understanding there is a direct correlation 

between 

energy activity and jobs and living in a time of increasingly restricted state and Federal budgets, 

we must 

continue to promote business opportunities in the area. 

Lastly, alternative 1 establishes an orderly system of commercialization, one that will 

accommodate the 

growth of the industry, while providing local entities the time and a stable framework under 

which to be 

able to appropriately plan for population growth, housing, and other impacts. Ultimately, GJEP 

supports 

responsible development of energy resources with consideration given to the strength and 

stability of 

local economies as well as the environment, health and public safety. 

For these reasons, we support the adoption of Alternative one, and urge the BLM to do the same.

#1])>

OSTS_177 

Organization: Steve King 

Received: 5/2/2012 12:00:00 AM 
Final OSTS PEIS 543 

Commenter1: Steve King - Denver, Colorado 80203 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Elected Official 

Classification: none 

Submission Category: Letter 

Submitted As: Postal Mail 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/22/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D00178.htm (OSTS_177-59343.htm Size = 1 KB) 

OSTS_177_King_Mail_OSTS2012D00178.pdf (OSTS_177-59342.pdf Size = 121 KB) 

Submission Text

See Attachment. 

I wish to express my support for Alternative 1 in the referenced PEIS, and also my deep concern 

over the 

way aspects of this process have been handled. 

<([#1 [9.8] Public policy for this nation should not be determined by a court settlement. This 

current PEIS is just that, 

the product of a settlement with opponents to oil shale development, unhappy with the outcome 

of the 

2008 PEIS. As a result of this settlement, the BLM has disregarded 3 years of hard work and 

input from 

community leaders, local governments, scientific experts, and the public. Instead they have seen 

fit to 

mold their conclusions based on the questionable motives and agenda of a few. 

It is unacceptable to allow environmental obstructionists to play the system for their own narrow 

and 

selfish agenda, at cost to the taxpayer. The cost of further delay in much needed economic 

development is 

also unacceptable. The people of the Western Slope do not want to see our tax dollars wasted on 

re-doing 

an Environmental Impact Statement for no other reason than to satisfy the environmental 

extremists’ 

quest for a renewable utopia that is not economically viable, functional, or practical at this time 

in the 

United States. #1])>

<([#2 [2.1.1] Alternative 1, and the 2008 Record of Decision that it would be upholding, offers 

the best balance of 

conservation and energy development. Oil shale is a tremendous national resource that holds one 

of many 

keys to our energy independence, and long-term energy stability. A commercial oil shale 

industry will 
Final OSTS PEIS 544 

create jobs, and help the Westem Slope out of this recession. The biggest obstacle to this is no 

longer 

technological; it is the federal government’s ill conceived and short sighted policies. 

The people of the Western Slope will never sacrifice our environmental heritage, or the health 

and safety 

of future generations. As stewards of our region, we realize that protecting our land does not 

mean 

placing it under lock and key, and sacrificing our economic future instead. #2])>

OSTS_178 

Organization: Kelsie Betz 

Received: 5/2/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Commenter1: Kelsie Betz - Grand Junction, Colorado 81501 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: none 

Submission Category: Letter 

Submitted As: Postal Mail 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/22/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D00179.htm (OSTS_178-59345.htm Size = 1 KB) 

OSTS_178_Betz_Mail_OSTS2012D00179.pdf (OSTS_178-59344.pdf Size = 83 KB) 

Submission Text

See Attachment. 

<([#1 [2.1.1] Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the 2012 oil shale PEIS. I believe 

that Alternative 1 is the only Alternative that meets all the proper requirements for being 

accepted as a land management plan. 

The initial PEIS, completed in 2008, allowed just over 2,000,000 acres to be available for 

consideration for commercial oil shale leasing. This new PEIS is simply a redo of the 2008 one, 

using the exact same information, yet arriving at a different Preferred Alternative. #1])>

<([#2 [2.2] The Preferred Alternative in this latest PEIS would reduce that available acreage by 

almost 80%, and locate what was left in widely scattered, tiny, parcels, too small and isolated to 

adequately support commercial development. It would also eliminate commercial leasing, until a 

“viable” technology was first demonstrated to the satisfaction of BLM officials - something that 

no other industry is subject to. #2])>

<([#3 [2.1.1] These land and leasing restrictions will have a further delaying effect on the 

industry, at a time when it is just getting started. The real tragedy of this is the denial of 

economic progress and prosperity to the people ofthe regions involved. Commercial oil shale 

development will bring muchneeded employment to this very hard-hit area. Also, the sheer size 

and potential of this resource dictates that it is in the national interest to produce it. With gas 

prices reaching all time highs, and increasing turmoil enveloping the Middle East, it would make 
Final OSTS PEIS 545 

sense to encourage, not hinder, the development of such an extensive domestic energy supply. 

For these reasons, I support Alternative 1, which restores the findings and land use plan agreed to 

in the 2008 PEIS, and I would urge this agency to do the same. #3])>

OSTS_179 

Organization: Leslie White 

Received: 5/2/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Commenter1: Leslie White - Littleton, Colorado 80120 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: none 

Submission Category: Letter 

Submitted As: Postal Mail 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/22/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D00180.htm (OSTS_179-59347.htm Size = 1 KB) 

OSTS_179_White_Leslie_Mail_OSTS2012D00180.pdf (OSTS_179-59346.pdf Size = 94 KB) 

Submission Text

See Attachment. 

<([#1 [9.8] I object strongly to the manner in which this current PEIS came about. It is a do-over 

of an earlier version completed in 2008, using the exact same information. The only reason it is 

being re-done is because some environmental zealots sued the DOI over the outcome, which 

allowed lease application on 2 million acres of prime oil shale land in the 

west. Now, as part of the friendly settlement, the BLM is taking my tax dollars, looking at the 

exact same information 

again, but this time adopting a Preferred Alternative that reduces the previously allowed acreage 

by 80%, and 

eliminated commercial leasing. 

What sort of message does this send, that every time a particular special interest group does not 

get their way, that 

they can sue for no solidly legal reason, and have the settlement reflect their agenda? This is a 

terrible precedent that 

is an affront to the way public policy decisions are supposed be made in America. #1])>

<([#2 [2.1.1] Allowing the free market the opportunity to develop oil shale on a commercial 

basis would have incredible benefits both for the nation and the local economy. Oil shale does 

represent a great technological challenge, but it is one that American industry is capable of 

meeting. Denying them the ability to take out commercial leases would only hinder and delay the 

establishment of this industry, and put off the job creation, royalty payments, energy 

independence, and other benefits for the indeterminate future. 

For this reason, I support Alternative 1, which calls for no action against the 2008 PEIS, keeping 

the 2 million acres 
Final OSTS PEIS 546 

available for commercial lease application and providing the same opportunities for oil shale 

developers as is 

afforded any other industry. #2])>

OSTS_180 

Organization: Bob Rankin 

Received: 5/2/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Commenter1: Bob Rankin - Grand Junction, Colorado (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: none 

Submission Category: Letter 

Submitted As: Postal Mail 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/22/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D00181.htm (OSTS_180-59349.htm Size = 1 KB) 

OSTS_180_Rankin_Mail_OSTS2012D00181.pdf (OSTS_180-59348.pdf Size = 103 KB) 

Submission Text

See Attachment. 

<([#1 [2] I am writing to object to the current 2012 Oil Shale Programmatic EIS, particularly in 

that it blocks 

commercial development of the resource. 

Each of the Land Allocation Alternatives, excepting number 1 (the “No Action” alternative), fail 

to 

allow for commercial leasing as prescribed in the 2005 Energy Policy Act. Alternative 2 not only 

drastically reduces the amount of prospective land available for application for leasing from 

2,017,714 

acres to 461,965 acres over the tri-state area (or from 346,609 acres in Colorado to 35,308 acres, 

a cut 

of neady 90%), but the acreage that :remains is widely scattered in small, isolated pockets, the 

locations decided upon with no regard as to commercial suitability, access, or geological 

considerations. The potential lease lands are not contiguous, either with each other or existing 

RD&D 

leases. All of this serves as a serious barrier to future planning, commercial expansion, as well as 

to 

the decision to go commercial in the first place. It certainly makes the region unattractive to new 

oil 

shale development. Furthermore, Alt 2 places nearly all of the existing Preference Rights 

Leasing 

Areas, set aside currently to allow for commercial expansion from existing RD&D leases, off 

limits. So 

even minor expansion from the RD&D leases currently in place would be disallowed under this 

alternative. #1])>
Final OSTS PEIS 547 

<([#2 [9.6.1] The BLM’s preferred alternative, 2b, goes even a step further, by requiring that a 

viable recovery 

technology first be demonstrated before a lease permit will be granted. This is a requirement 

unique 

to the oil shale industry- no other industry, including other energy industries, are subject to that 

test 

before they are allowed to secure leases. This will only deny companies the planning option of 

securing commercial land while they perfect their process. At any rate, no company would wish 

to 

risk their investment, and make lease payments, if’ they do not have a viable method for 

generating a 

return on their investment. There is also no defined standard for what constitutes “viable 

technology’’ 

in the BLM’s eyes, which would be a further disincentive to invest in this resource. 

#2])>

<([#3 [2.1.1] As for the remaining Alternatives, 3 makes absolutely no allowance for commercial 

development, limiting oil shale work to only the existing RD&D leases. 4b leaves a little more 

acreage available for 

leasing, but under the same restrictions as 2b, prohibiting commercial leases until a 

demonstration of 

viability. 

All of this adds up to a program purposely designed to delay and hinder commercial 

development of 

oil shale, at a time when there can be no argument that the jobs are needed, and the energy 

source is 

needed. I therefore strongly request that the BLM adopt Alternative l, and take no action 

deviating 

from the findings properly arrived at in the 2008 PEIS. #3])>

OSTS_181 

Organization: Larry Tice 

Received: 4/23/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Commenter1: Larry Tice - Grand Junction, Colorado (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: none 

Submission Category: Letter 

Submitted As: Postal Mail 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/22/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D00182.htm (OSTS_181-59351.htm Size = 1 KB) 

OSTS_181_Tice_Mail_OSTS2012D00182.pdf (OSTS_181-59350.pdf Size = 71 KB) 

Submission Text

See Attachment. 
Final OSTS PEIS 548 

<([#1 [11.2] I wish to thank the BLM for this opportunity to offer input on the 2012 oil shale 

Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement. This region holds a tremendous 

amount of energy, and it is incumbent upon the federal government to allow its 

development to go forward. This will benefit us as both a nation and as western 

Coloradans; the amount of oil that could potentially be produced is sufficient to 

meet America’s demands for petroleum and petroleum-based products for decades, 

and is also enough to replace the oil imports currently coming from places like the 

Middle East and Venezuela. On the regional side, the job growth that this industry 

would spur would generate enough wealth, income and revenue to lift the state out 

of the recession that has been holding us down for years now. #1])>

<([#2 [2.1.1] Alternative 1 is the only option presented in the 2012 OS/TS PEIS that will come 

close to adequately providing for such development, and I would ask the BLM to 

adopt it as the final Preferred Alternative. #2])>

OSTS_182 

Organization: Jared Wright 

Received: 5/2/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Commenter1: Jared Wright - Grand Junction, Colorado (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: none 

Submission Category: Letter 

Submitted As: Postal Mail 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/22/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D00183.htm (OSTS_182-59353.htm Size = 1 KB) 

OSTS_182_Wright_Mail_OSTS2012D00183.pdf (OSTS_182-59352.pdf Size = 83 KB) 

Submission Text

See Attachment. 

<([#1 [2.1.1] I wholeheartedly recommend the adoption of Alternative 1 in this PEIS. Alternative 

1 

will pave the way to job growth and economic development stemming from a 

productive commercial oil shale industry, by providing that industry with the options it 

needs to get started. #1])>

<([#2 [2.2] The BLM’s Preferred Alternative, on the other hand, severely limits the options 

available to the nascent industry by eliminating hundreds of thousands of acres of land 

from availability for leasing, and restricting what little bit is left to only RD&D leasing. 

This will make it next to impossible for smaller companies to enter the oil shale market, 

and make it all but impossible to establish a viable, profitable commercial oil shale 

industry in the United States. #2])>

<([#3 [2.1.1] This is just the kind of government interference, buoyed by an unaccountable, yet 

powerful, environmentalist lobby that prevents private sector job creation and 
Final OSTS PEIS 549 

economic recovery. At stake is not the health of the environment- the NEPA process 

ensures that every lease applied for on federally controlled land is properly evaluated 

for potential environmental impacts; and at any rate, the people who live and raise 

their families on the Western Slope, and who would be the backbone of any 

commercial oil shale project, are not about to place their own environment or their 

children’s health at risk. 

Please select Alternative 1 , and place the future of this region into the hands of those 

who are most affected by the policies that govern it. #3])>

OSTS_183 

Organization: Thomas Burrows 

Received: 5/1/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Commenter1: Thomas Burrows - Grand Junction, Colorado 81502 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: none 

Submission Category: Letter 

Submitted As: Postal Mail 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/22/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D00184.htm (OSTS_183-59355.htm Size = 1 KB) 

OSTS_183_Burrows_Mail_OSTS2012D00184.pdf (OSTS_183-59354.pdf Size = 74 KB) 

Submission Text

See Attachment. 

Concerning the oil shale PEIS, I would like to recommend: 

<([#2 [1.1.1] 2. The period for public comment should be extended. #2])>

<([#1 [2.1.1] 1. Alternative #1 should be followed instead of #2b. 

My reasoning includes the following points: 

I have attended public seminars describing the technological 

improvements which have been made in recent years. I believe much 

of the delay we are seeing currently is due to foot-dragging on the 

part of government agencies and (to an even greater extent) red 

herrings from extreme environmental organizations. As long as 

reasonable (as opposed to totally obstructionist) environmental 

concerns are kept in mind, technology will continue to improve. 

I am familiar with some of the tactics of the environmental groups 

trying to block this. These include abuse of the Equal Access to 
Final OSTS PEIS 550 

Justice Act (for raiding the public treasury) and the Endangered 

Species Act (for justifying blind opposition to human activity) . #1])>

OSTS_184 

Organization: Anthony Urignen 

Received: 5/2/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Commenter1: Anthony Urignen - Grand Junction, Colorado (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: none 

Submission Category: Letter 

Submitted As: Postal Mail 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/22/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D00185.htm (OSTS_184-59357.htm Size = 1 KB) 

OSTS_184_Urignen_Mail_OSTS2012D00185.pdf (OSTS_184-59356.pdf Size = 90 KB) 

Submission Text

See Attachment. 

<([#1 [9.8] The U.S. Geological Survey estimates that as much as 4 Trillion barrels of oil are 

trapped in shale under 

this region. That is far more than the amount of oil in the vast Persian Gulf fields, more even 

than 

Canada’s oil sands, which currently supplies the bulk of America’s oil imports, and enough by 

far to supply 

America’s energy needs well into the future, without needing to rely on oil from foreign, often 

hostile 

nations. 

The 2008 Oil Shale PEIS seemed to recognize this, and produced a reasonable, balanced plan for 

harvesting this important national resource, identifying around 2 million acres of the most 

geologically 

prospective oil shale lands as being available for application for potential future leasing, pending 

environmental assessments of the individual leases. While it is recognized that not all of this 

acreage 

would actually end up being available, it still offered companies looking to invest in oil shale 

development 

the flexibility required to plan into the future. 

That PEIS is now being re-done, at taxpayer expense, not because any new information has been 

discovered (none has), but instead, because of a lawsuit leveled at the government by a radical 

environmental lobby group. The BLM’s new conclusion from this PEIS is that most of the land 

deemed fit 

for consideration just 4 years ago, is now off limits. This includes the Preferred Rights acreage 

around 

existing RD&D leases. These land restrictions make it virtually impossible to expand 
Final OSTS PEIS 551 

commercially, and 

economically impractical to try. #1])> <([#2 [9.6.1] Alternative 2b goes as far as not allowing 

any commercial leasing until a 

company demonstrates a viable recovery technology. This is something that no other industry is 

required 

to do. If this was demanded of the renewable energy industry, for example, there would not be 

even as 

much of a solar industry as there is today. #2])>

<([#3 [2.1.1] Alternative 1 keeps in place the findings of the 2008 PEIS, and is therefore the only 

responsible, balanced, 

and economically viable alternative available to the BLM. I would urge you to do what is best 

for the 

people of the region, and for the country, and adopt Alternative 1 as management plan going 

forward. 

#3])>

OSTS_185 

Organization: Michelle Hemmer 

Received: 5/2/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Commenter1: Michelle Hemmer - Grand Junction, Colorado 81501 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: none 

Submission Category: Letter 

Submitted As: Postal Mail 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/22/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D00186.htm (OSTS_185-59359.htm Size = 1 KB) 

OSTS_185_Hemmer_Mail_OSTS2012D00186.pdf (OSTS_185-59358.pdf Size = 97 KB) 

Submission Text

See Attachment. 

<([#1 [11] I am writing to express both my concerns over the 2012 Oil Shale PEIS, particularly 

the BLM’s preferred 

alternative, 2b, as well as my support for the No-Action alternative. As a small business owner, I 

appreciate 

the positive impacts to the retail sector that the growth of a major industry can provide. Increased 

oil shale 

investment, development, and commercial production will bring employment opportunities to the 

region, and 

people to fill them. The resulting increase in both population and income will provide immediate 

benefits to 

businesses such as mine. We do not live in an economic vacuum, and the ripple effects of a 

successful and 

vibrant oil shale industry will reverberate throughout the region. 
Final OSTS PEIS 552 

It is therefore somewhat distressing to see that the BLM, this time around, favors a plan that 

would all but 

stop commercial oil shale development before it even has a chance to get started. The draconian 

land 

restrictions, along with unreasonable demands on oil shale companies to prove to the satisfaction 

of 

government officials that their production technology is good enough before a commercial lease 

is even 

considered, essentially ensure that no commercial production will ever take place on federal 

lands in the tristate 

area. Alternative 3 goes even farther, not allowing any expansion at all beyond the currently held 

RE&D 

leases; and alternative 4, while not reducing acreage available for leasing by quite as much as 2 

does, still 

comes attached with a sub-alternative, 4b, that would impose the same unreasonable 

requirements on 

companies as 2b. 

What all of this means for business people such as myself, is yet another delay in the job growth 

and 

economic development we are all hoping for to salvage our livelihoods. I doubt very much that 

there is any 

one of us who would support anything that would truly pose a serious risk to the environment, 

but we are 

not willing to stand aside and watch our businesses and families suffer, while extreme 

environmental groups 

continue to hold up economic progress and development. 

#1])>

<([#2 [2.1.1] I therefore ask two tings of the BLM in this matter: First, please adopt Alternative 

1, which would leave 

available sufficient land for possible commercial leasing, and set up a process by which a viable 

oil shale 

industry can emerge; #2])> and second, <([#3 [1.1.1] to please extend the public comment 

period, to allow for more input by the 

small business community in the region. #3])>

OSTS_186 

Organization: Mike Bambino 

Received: 4/19/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Commenter1: Mike Bambino - Grand Junction, Colorado (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: none 

Submission Category: Letter 

Submitted As: Postal Mail 

Form Letter Category: 
Final OSTS PEIS 553 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/22/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D00187.htm (OSTS_186-59361.htm Size = 1 KB) 

OSTS_186_Bambino_Mail_OSTS2012D00187.pdf (OSTS_186-59360.pdf Size = 81 KB) 

Submission Text

See Attachment. 

<([#1 [9.2.1] I am getting very sick and tired of hearing about radical environmentalists 

continually hijacking progress In this country. This latest PEIS is just the latest example. A 

perfectly well done PEIS was completed only four years ago, and simply because it dared to 

make enough land available for application for development to make it economically viable for 

the oil shale industry to expand and invest, the “greens” sued, and now we are spending who 

knows how many of our dollars to completely redo it to fit their anti-development views. 

This is completely outrageous. We have unemployment in this region above 10%, and the 

options in this new PEIS, other than 

the no action alternative, place heavy land restrictions and requirements on the industry that will 

prevent it from creating jobs. We are facing crippling debt, due to out of control spending, and 

the federal government adds fuel to the fire by re-doing a major PEIS in response to a complaint 

by a fringe group. 

Where will this end? #1])> <([#2 [2.1.1] Put some trust in the people who really run this nation, 

and allow for the oil shale industry to develop and expand. Adopt Alternative 1, which keeps in 

place the 2008 PEIS, and provides for enough land to be available for application for leasing that 

the industry might be able to invest and create jobs and economic opportunity for our region, and 

our young people. Please have more consideration for the people and future of the regions that 

are impacted by your decisions, than on a noisy, but small, group of radicals that have no 

consideration for anything but their own narrow agenda. #2])>

OSTS_187 

Organization: Brandon Cupp 

Received: 5/2/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Commenter1: Brandon Cupp - Fruita, Colorado 81521 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: none 

Submission Category: Letter 

Submitted As: Postal Mail 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/22/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D00188.htm (OSTS_187-59363.htm Size = 1 KB) 

OSTS_187_Cupp_Brandon_Mail_OSTS2012D00188.pdf (OSTS_187-59362.pdf Size = 96 KB) 

Submission Text

See Attachment. 

<([#1 [11] I would first like to thank the BLM for offering this opportunity to comment on this 
Final OSTS PEIS 554 

important matter. Oil shale 

development will affect all of us on Colorado’s Western Slope, and I appreciate the chance to let 

my voice 

be heard. 

Oil shale is an enormous resource with incredible potential. The best estimates are that 4 Trillion 

barrels of 

recoverable oil are trapped in the shale that lies underneath federal land in those parts of 

Colorado, 

Wyoming and Utah, that you are considering. It should be a national priority to encourage the 

production of 

that oil for both economic and security reasons. With the international situation being what it is, 

and the 

price of fuel continually rising to the point where families are going to have to choose between 

gas to get 

the kids to school, and groceries to get through the weekend, it only makes sense that we would 

develop 

our own resources, especially if they are among the largest deposits in the world. 

Forever cutting off the vast majority of those lands from even being considered for application 

tor leasing, is 

not the best way to go about that. No one, especially those of us who live and raise our families 

in western 

Colorado wish to see harm come to the environment. But the fact is that the energy industry has 

many 

years of experience in how to develop resources responsibly, and to leave as little impact as 

possible. 

Shutting off all access to these areas makes little sense from any perspective. 

What the Western Slope needs most right now is jobs. I have watched over the last few years 

many friends 

and neighbors moveaway, because the energy jobs had left. Tourism and recreation industries are 

great, 

but cannot sustain themselves; they need a vibrant, productive economy to produce the income to 

support 

them. #1])>

<([#2 [2.1.1] It is time to set political interests aside, and allow private industry to do what they 

do best, and create jobs 

and national prosperity. For this reason, I support Alternative 1, and ask the BLM to do the same.

#2])>

OSTS_188 

Organization: Brad Steig 

Received: 4/18/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Commenter1: Brad Steig - Fruuita, Colorado 81521 (United States) 

Organization1: 
Final OSTS PEIS 555 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: none 

Submission Category: Letter 

Submitted As: Postal Mail 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/22/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D00189.htm (OSTS_188-59365.htm Size = 1 KB) 

OSTS_188_Steig_Mail_OSTS2012D00189.pdf (OSTS_188-59364.pdf Size = 92 KB) 

Submission Text

See Attachment. 

<([#1 [9.8] I think it is an absolute shame that the taxpayer is paying for yet another 

Environmental Impact Statement, only four years after paying for one covering the exact same 

area, resource and issues. It is nothing less than insulting to consider why it is being done over in 

the first place. It is abhorrent that a federal government agency would allow itself to be used by 

any special interest, the way that the BLM has allowed its processes and procedures to be 

hijacked by the extreme environmentalists. By re-doing this PEIS, the BLM is in essence 

admitting that it screwed up the first time around, and that all of the work done by various 

agencies, institutions, and individuals was a waste of time and money. 

I for do not believe that to be the case. I know that the many cooperating agencies, including 

Mesa County, put a Jot of effort into ensuring a quality product, and a management plan that 

balanced the need for critical energy development with environmental stewardship. And the 

product of that 2008 PEIS was a reasonable document that allowed opportunity for companies to 

expand their operations, and begin the long process of developing an energy resource that bears 

the potential to wean America off of foreign oil, and give out nation more control over fuel 

prices, all while providing an economic boon for the people of the Western Slope, and north 

eastern Utah. 

Instead, in response to a frivolous lawsuit by some on the fringe of reasoned society, Our current 

administration chose to throw away all of that work, and abandon all of the important social and 

economic considerations, and go back to the drawing board with the extremists agenda as the 

driving principle. While we all foot the bill. #1])>

<([#2 [2.1.1] As a veteran, a business owner, a taxpayer, a local resident and a citizen, I urge, in 

the strongest terms, the BLM to put a stop to this nonsense before more money, time and 

opportunities are wasted. If it is too late for that, at the very least, the BLM needs to adopt 

Alternative 1, which will restore sanity to the situation, and return to the well thought out plan 

worked out in 2008. #2])>

Thank you for taking the time to read my comments, 

OSTS_189 

Organization: Western Slope Conservation Alliance, Sandra Pesso 

Received: 5/2/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Commenter1: Sandra Pesso - Grand Junction, Colorado (United States) 
Final OSTS PEIS 556 

Organization1:Western Slope Conservation Alliance 

Commenter Type: Misc. Organization 

Classification: none 

Submission Category: Letter 

Submitted As: Postal Mail 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/22/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D00190.htm (OSTS_189-59367.htm Size = 1 KB) 

OSTS_189_Peeso_WesternSlopeConservationAlliance_Mail_OSTS2012D00190.pdf 

(OSTS_189-59366.pdf Size = 89 KB) 

Submission Text

See Attachment. 

<([#1 [9.8] We would like to register our opposition to the 2012 PEIS, both in terms of the 

overly restrictive and antidevelopment 

land allocation alternatives it offers, particularly the BLM’s Preferred alternative, and in terms of 

how the 

process was handled. 

This PEIS is a redo of one completed in 2008, which involved years of study and extensive input 

from many and 

varied sources, and arrived at the conclusion that just over 2 million acres of land in the richest 

oil shale region should 

be made available for potential commercial leasing by the industry. Following a lawsuit from 

extreme environmental 

interests, the new administration settled, resulting in the entire PEIS being redone, all at 

taxpayer’s expense. 

No new information is contained in this new PEIS, and yet the conclusion is dramatically 

different; the BLM’s 

preferred Alternative cuts the available acreage down by 77% to a scant 461, 965 acres total. The 

total available 

acreage in Colorado is slashed by a stunning 90%, from 346,609 acres to a mere 35, 308, widely 

dispersed in small, 

isolated tracts that make even this little bit of acreage unattractive to commercial development.

#1])>

<([#2 [9.6.1] The Preferred Alternative does not, in fact, even permit commercial leasing, 

limiting the small allotment to RD&D leasing only, and not permitting conversion to a 

commercial lease until the BLM bureaucrats are sufficiently happy 

that the lease applicants technology meets their unpublished requirements. NO other industry 

within the energy 

sector is required to do such a thing- not oil and gas, not mining, certainly not solar, wind, or 

geothermal, whose 

technologies are far more experimental than those related to oil shale development. #2])>
Final OSTS PEIS 557 

<([#3 [2.1.1] Considering this, we support Alternative 1, which would return land access back to 

what was properly decided in the 2008 PEIS, and best allows for private-sector job growth, 

wealth creation, and American energy independence. We would urge the BLM to be guided by 

the best available science, and the best interests of the nation and the region, rather than by the 

agenda of an ideological extremist lobby, and to adopt Alternative 1 in the final draft. #3])>

OSTS_190 

Organization: Gary Bailey 

Received: 5/2/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Commenter1: Gary Bailey - Grand Junction, Colorado (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: none 

Submission Category: Letter 

Submitted As: Post Card 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/22/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D00191.htm (OSTS_190-59369.htm Size = 1 KB) 

OSTS_190_Bailey_G_Mail_OSTS2012D00191.pdf (OSTS_190-59368.pdf Size = 91 KB) 

Submission Text

See Attachment. 

<([#1 [9.6] In commenting on the 2012 oil shale PEIS, I would like to point out a number of 

fallacies that are being put out there 

by oil shale opponents. The first revolves around the amount of acreage that the 2008 PEIS 

opens to development. 

The opponents would have you believe that all 2 million acres are to be handed over to the oil 

shale industry. This 

is not so; as you are ware, that acreage is only open for application for leasing; each lease would 

be individually 

evaluated by the BLM, using the criteria spelled out in the PEIS itself, which lists dozens of 

statutes that these lands 

would need to comply with before being granted a lease. Given such a strict protocol, it makes 

sense to leave as 

much land available as possible, in order to have a possibility of a viable commercial oil shale 

operation. #1])>

<([#2 [10.5] Second, is the issue of the oil shale royalty rate. The environmental lobby claims 

that the rates amount to a give-away 

to the industry. The fact is that the initial rates are indeed lower than conventional oil and gas, 

because oil shale is not 

conventional oil and gas; it is more expensive to produced, due to its geological characteristics, 

and therefore it is a 

sensible incentive to keep the governments take a bit lower during the industry’s inaugural stage. 

The same system 
Final OSTS PEIS 558 

was used in Canada for their oil sands industry- that industry is currently driving the Canadian 

economy, providing 

the U.S. with the bulk of our non-domestic oil, and is now paying a higher, more normalized 

rate. #2])>

<([#3 [6.3.2.1] The third fallacy involves water usage. Not only do other energy sources use 

more water to produce (i.e. irrigating 

corn for bio-fuels), but the most recent GAO estimates conclude that there is enough water to 

account for an oil 

shale industry that consumes as much as 500,000 barrels/day- an amount that is at the high end 

of any legitimate, 

scientific consumption estimate. Several companies involved in oil shale are promoting 

‘technologies for oil shale 

production use very little water whatsoever. In addition •. many oil shale companies already own 

the water rights they 

require to meet their long term needs. #3])>

<([#4 [6.2.2] Finally, Oil from shale is far more efficient than opponents incredulously claim. 

The energy production-to-consumption 

ratio is between 3:1 and 6:1 depending on the processing technology used. This is eve~higher 

than the Canadian oil 

sand oil that provides so much our fuel feedstock. #4])>

<([#5 [2.1.1] It is imperative that the BLM move forward with all the facts, and not be beguiled 

by the false claims of a few 

extremists. It is bad enough that the government is devoting taxpayer dollars to re-doing this 

entire EIS based on just 

that, the wild claims of a fringe movement, but it ought not compound the mistake by adopting a 

plan that is overly 

restrictive and hostile to a commercial oil shale industry. Please support the no action alternative, 

Alternative 1. #5])>

OSTS_191 

Organization: Marilyn Oden 

Received: 4/27/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Commenter1: Marilyn Oden - Rifle, Colorado 81650 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: none 

Submission Category: Letter 

Submitted As: Postal Mail 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/22/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D00192.htm (OSTS_191-59371.htm Size = 1 KB) 

OSTS_191_Oden_Mail_OSTS2012D00192.pdf (OSTS_191-59370.pdf Size = 66 KB) 

Submission Text
Final OSTS PEIS 559 

See Attachment. 

<([#1 [2.1.1] I would like to offer my support for oil shale development, and Alternative 1 of the 

current PEIS. While I think it is a shame that this PEIS is being redone at all, after all of 

the effort, time, and money that went into the first one, I also think that if it is being done, 

that the BLM should adopt the alternative that best promotes the free market 

development of oil shale, for the good of both this area, and the country ion general. #1])>

OSTS_192 

Organization: Jennifer Cupp 

Received: 5/2/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Commenter1: Jennifer Cupp - Fruita, Colorado 81521 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: none 

Submission Category: Letter 

Submitted As: Postal Mail 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/22/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D00193.htm (OSTS_192-59373.htm Size = 1 KB) 

OSTS_192_Cupp_Jennifer_Mail_OSTS2012D00193.pdf (OSTS_192-59372.pdf Size = 90 KB) 

Submission Text

See Attachment. 

<([#1 [2.1.1] I feel that Alternative 1 as presented in the current Oil Shale PEIS represents the 

most 

balanced and reasonable approach to oil shale management on federal lands. 

Western Colorado relies heavily on energy production for our economic survival. We 

have seen what happens when government gets in the way of energy development. 

Allowing companies to begin commercial leasing is the first step in establishing a viable, 

productive oil shale industry here that will create jobs, and keep the Western Slope 

economy from falling even further behind. 

Tapping into the 4 Trillion barrels of oit under our feet in this region would go a long way 

towards increasing domestic production, freeing us from reliance on foreign oil, and 

keeping fuel prices reasonable. There is no good reason to prevent the commercial 

expansion of the oil shale industry, especially considering the many environmental 

safeguards and procedures in place to protect our air, water, and land. 

Please help us preserve our economy, our communities, and our way of life by selecting 

Alternative 1 for this current PEIS. #1])>

OSTS_193 

Organization: Janet Blackman 

Received: 4/15/2012 12:00:00 AM 
Final OSTS PEIS 560 

Commenter1: Janet Blackman - Grand Junction, Connecticut (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: none 

Submission Category: Letter 

Submitted As: Postal Mail 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/22/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D00194.htm (OSTS_193-59375.htm Size = 1 KB) 

OSTS_193_Blackman_Mail_OSTS2012D00194.pdf (OSTS_193-59374.pdf Size = 81 KB) 

Submission Text

See Attachment. 

<([#1 [2.1.1] This letter is to offer my support for the No Action alternative in the 2012 PEIS. I 

support oil shale development has a way to create jobs in our region, and to provide America 

with the energy needed to fuel her economic recovery and industrial might. There is an estimated 

4 trillion barrels of oil in oil shale lands right outside our back door, and tapping this resource 

should be a national priority. 

Instead, the BLM, egged on by extreme environmental groups, seems determined to obstruct the 

establishment of this industry in any way it can. The preferred alternative eliminates commercial 

leasing, allowing only leases for RD&D, which will inevitably delay commercial production, and 

the resulting economic benefits, for years to come. 

This alternative also drastically reduces the amount of land made available for leasing, which 

will act as a further deterrent to 

commercial investment. 

In contrast, Alternative 1 restores the findings of an earlier PEIS, which would allow companies 

to apply for commercial leases out of a pool of 2 million acres. While this may seem like a lot, 

the fact is that not all of this land would be developed. Since each lease would have to undergo a 

full environmental analysis, as per the protocols set in place for the BLM, EPA, and other 

agencies. 

To me, this seems like the most honest, balanced approach to dealing with development on 

public lands, as opposed to simply 

shutting down large swaths. For this reason, I recommend that your office select Alternative 1 as 

the management plan for oil 

shale in this PEIS. #1])>

OSTS_194 

Organization: Garry Worthen 

Received: 5/2/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Commenter1: Garry Worthen - Grand Junction, Colorado 81504 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 
Final OSTS PEIS 561 

Classification: none 

Submission Category: Letter 

Submitted As: Postal Mail 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/22/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D00195.htm (OSTS_194-59377.htm Size = 1 KB) 

OSTS_194_Worthen_Mail_OSTS2012D00195.pdf (OSTS_194-59376.pdf Size = 85 KB) 

Submission Text

See Attachment. 

<([#1 [9.8] I think it is outrageous that your department would authorize a re-do of the 2008 Oil 

Shale PEIS, 

simply because a handful of environmental extremists were unhappy over its outcome. What 

does 

this say about the systems we have in place, that anytime some special interest group decides it 

didn’t get exactly what it wants, it can sue and get a “do-over” at taxpayer’s expense? 

The three land allocation alternatives in the 2012 PEIS completely disregard science, economics, 

and the input of many people from many fields, and instead draw up plans from thin air to reduce 

acreage available for oil shale development, and impose restrictions on the industry. That this is 

being done not as a result of any new information, or new studies, but at the behest of a small, 

noisy bunch of extremists, is quite frankly disgusting. #1])>

<([#2 [2.1.1] Our government is not in place to cater to the whims of a loud minority who try to 

use the legal 

system as a back-door way to push their agenda. I ask that you adopt Alternative 1, which keeps 

the finding s of the original PEIS #2])>

OSTS_195 

Organization: Debbie Healy 

Received: 4/30/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Commenter1: Debbie Healy - Grand Junction, Colorado (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: none 

Submission Category: Letter 

Submitted As: Postal Mail 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/22/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D00196.htm (OSTS_195-59379.htm Size = 1 KB) 

OSTS_195_Healy_Mail_OSTS2012D00196.pdf (OSTS_195-59378.pdf Size = 97 KB) 

Submission Text

See Attachment. 

<([#1 [2.2] I am deeply concerned with a number of Items In the new 2012 PEIS for oil shale, 
Final OSTS PEIS 562 

especially as contained In Alternative 

2b, the BLM’s Preferred Alternative. 

2b markedly decreases the amount of land available for application for commercial leasing, by 

nearly 80%, from 2,017, 

714 acres to a mere 461,965 acres. The acreage that is left is distributed in portions too small and 

isolated to support a 

large-scale commercial industry. These locations were also not selected on any economic or 

geological basis. 

2b goes even further by not allowing for commercial leasing on these properties in the first place. 

Leasing would be 

restricted to RD&D only until the lease demonstrated a viable recovery technology. 

It should be left to the individual companies to make these sorts of management decisions. If a 

company wants to secure a 

lease without yet possessing the ability to develop it, it Is on that company to decide for itself if 

the long term strategic 

planning interests of having the lease outweigh the costs Of paying for it every year. That is 

NOT a decision for 

government to make. #1])>

<([#2 [9.3] The 2,000,000 acres allowed for in the 2008 PEIS, and in Alternative one which 

would retain its findings, would not 

automatically be given up for development; each lease applied for would have to undergo a full 

NEPA analysis, including 

at least one EIS, which would ensure that truly fragile eco-systems are granted any protection 

they warrant #2])>

<([#3 [2.1.1] Alternative lis the most prudent, balanced, and economically sound model, and I 

recommend its adoption. #3])>

OSTS_196 

Organization: Western Colorado Contractors Association, Chad Saunders 

Received: 4/25/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Commenter1: Chad Saunders - Grand Junction, Colorado 81505 (United States) 

Organization1:Western Colorado Contractors Association 

Commenter Type: Misc. Organization 

Classification: none 

Submission Category: Letter 

Submitted As: Postal Mail 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/22/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D00197.htm (OSTS_196-59381.htm Size = 1 KB) 

OSTS_196_Western_CO_Contractors_Assoc_Saunders_Mail_OSTS2012D00197.pdf 

(OSTS_196-59380.pdf Size = 129 KB) 

Submission Text
Final OSTS PEIS 563 

See Attachment. 

<([#1 [2.1.1] The purpose of this letter is to offer our comments and recommendation on the 

2012 Oil Shale Programmatic Environmental 

Impact Statement (PEIS). The Board of Directors of the Western Colorado Contractors 

Association voted to support the 

selection of Alternative No. 1 as the option to be adopted by the Bureau of Land Management 

(BLM). We have made this 

recommendation based on the following comments: 

The current PEIS outlines in its Socio-Economic Impacts section, Alternative No. 1 will result in 

a substantial amount of 

construction and corresponding job growth. The PEIS estimates that adoption of Alternative No. 

1 will create roughly 10,000 commercial jobs in the region and hundreds more in residential 

housing construction. The projected income associated with housing construction for oil shale 

workers and their families alone is in the range of $10 to $15 million. This figure does not 

include incomes for housing construction associated with ancillary projects such as a power plant 

for in-situ processing which would generate hundreds more construction jobs and millions more 

in income. 

In contrast, the implementation of Alternative 3 is projected to result in a reduction in housing 

construction jobs by over 2/3 

and that commercial construction jobs created would be approximately one quarter of the jobs 

created by Alternative No. 1. #1])>

<([#2 [3.10.3] The BLM’s preferred Alternative 2b, does not include an actual estimate of the 

economic impacts but only comments that the jobs and income generated would be “lesser in 

scale” due to the drastically reduced acreage available from the original project parameters.

#2])>

<([#3 [2.1.1] The wider economic benefits of oil shale development will not only benefit our 

membership but the community at large as well. Continuing with these development operations 

under Alternate No. 1 is critical to developing a reliable method of 

harvesting this immense natural resource which will contribute to the reduction of our nation’s 

dependence on foreign 

sources of energy production. Dictating a reduction in the land being made available for these 

projects by nearly 90% from the originally approved PEIS disrupts the process and potentially 

jeopardizes the feasibility of the projects for the participants. #3])>

<([#4 [1.1.1] For these reasons and in light of the positive effects that Alternative 1 will have on 

the local economy, we fully support the adoption of this Alternative. In addition, it is our 

understanding that the comment period for the 2012 Oil Shale PEIS expires on May 4, 2012, 

with implementation of the new Alternative scheduled for May 15, 2012. We would respectfully 

request the extension of this period to allow a reasonable amount of time for other members of 

the business community to comment on the PEIS. #4])>

OSTS_197 
Final OSTS PEIS 564 

Organization: Dennis White 

Received: 5/2/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Commenter1: Dennis White - Grand Junction, Colorado 81507 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: none 

Submission Category: Letter 

Submitted As: Postal Mail 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/22/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D00198.htm (OSTS_197-59383.htm Size = 1 KB) 

OSTS_197_White_D_Mail_OSTS2012D00198.pdf (OSTS_197-59382.pdf Size = 101 KB) 

Submission Text

See Attachment. 

<([#1 [9.8] Alternative 1 is the only responsible alternative for the BLM to select as you recomplete this PEIS process for oil shale. The efforts by a few highly ill-informed individuals and 

groups should not the basis for making major 

decisions that have national economic and security implications. The 2008 PEIS identified just 

over 2 million acres 

within the most geologically prospective oil shale area as being suitable for application for 

leasing. This would, 

among other things, maximize the opportunity for oil shale development, and ensure that 

sensitive areas were 

protected by conducting a full EIS analysis on each applied lease. 

There is little if anything of substance for opponents of oil shale development to intelligently 

debate about; the 

technology has made great strides since the much-ballyhooed “Black Sunday” crash back in 

1980, as evidenced 

by successful operations in other parts of the world, and exciting recent developments on Shell’s 

oil shale RD&D 

lease in Colorado. #1])> <([#2 [6.3.2.1] Properly estimated water usage is far less than the 

unscientific and fear-mongering claims of the opponents - in fact some surface retort processes 

use little to no water. #2])> <([#3 [6.2.2] Oil shale is highly efficient, in that it produces far more 

energy than it uses to produce it, at a ratio of between 3:1 and 6:1, depending on processing 

method used. Leaving the maximum amount of acreage available for potential commercial 

leasing puts in place 

an orderly process for such commercial expansion, allowing local towns and counties to prepare 

for greater 

economic development. The income and sales tax produced by greater employment would have 

immediate 

beneficial impacts on local and state coffers. And these projects are being funded by private 

investment, not 

taxpayer subsidies. 
Final OSTS PEIS 565 

#3])>

<([#4 [11.2] The benefits of oil shale are many and varied. Obviously, the economic activity and 

job growth would be a boon 

to the Western Slope. Making use of the processes in place to ensure environmental protection, 

establishing an 

orderly program for commercial development, and producing this resource here, rather than 

ceding it to less 

environmentally-conscious countries, are all of enormous benefit to the environment. And being 

able to replace 

the oil America purchases from mostly hostile regions of the earth, with a domestic product, is 

the lynchpin of an 

effective strategic, national energy program. #4])>

<([#5 [2.1.1] It is therefore in the best interests of the region, the environment, and the nation to 

adopt the least restrictive 

option on the table, Alternative 1. #5])>

OSTS_198 

Organization: John and Mickey Allen 

Received: 5/3/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Commenter1: John and Mickey Allen - Rangely, Colorado 81648 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: none 

Submission Category: Comment Form 

Submitted As: Postal Mail 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/22/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D00199.htm (OSTS_198-59385.htm Size = 1 KB) 

OSTS_198_Allen_Comment_Form_Mail_OSTS2012D00199.pdf (OSTS_198-59384.pdf Size = 

159 KB) 

Submission Text

See Attachment. 

<([#1 [12] A few years ago we marked the bicentennial of the Lewis and Clark expedition. 

About the same time, we heard that the furthest you could get from a road in the Lower 48 was 

27 miles. And we said, “If we had the bodies and the horses we had in 1965, we could probably 

cover that in one day.” We find that appalling. We accept that some of what’s left will have to be 

sacrificed for energy exploration, but it is beyond us that we are asked to gamble on a form of 

energy that required large amounts of our scarce water and more energy that it will produce to 

make use of it. And yes, we’ve been in Rangely for 36 years and we remember 1982. #1])>

OSTS_199 

Organization: Tatianna Gruen 

Received: 5/2/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Commenter1: Tatianna Gruen - Denver, Colorado (United States) 
Final OSTS PEIS 566 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: none 

Submission Category: Letter 

Submitted As: Postal Mail 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: klett 

Attachments: OSTS2012D00200.htm (OSTS_199-59387.htm Size = 1 KB) 

OSTS_199_Gruen_Mail_OSTS2012D00200.pdf (OSTS_199-59386.pdf Size = 131 KB) 

Submission Text

See Attachment. 

<([#1 [9.8] Thank you for this opportunity to voice key concerns on the draft 2012 Oil Shale/Tar 

Sands Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement. Oil shale has an important 

impact on our nation’s economy, security and future of our country especially in my 

home state of Colorado. 

As a taxpayer, I am very displeased by the reason behind this new PEIS. The final 

outcome of the 2008 PEIS, and the no action alternative in the current one which retains 

this outcome, allows for the delicate balance between environmental conservation and 

economic growth. Both the 2008 and 2012 PIES have nearly identical information but 

completely different conclusions. Little evidence has been discovered since the initial 

2008 PIES to warrant redoing the report. In reality, the only reason for this new PEIS is 

to please extremist environmental lobbying groups who have sued the Department of 

Interior in order to set their own agenda. 

It is unreasonable to waste taxpayer money, at a time when our national debt is nearly 

$15 trillion, when the initial PEIS 2008 study was professionally done. Wasting taxpayer 

dollars to produce a new PEIS sets a dangerous precedent of manipulating the courts to 

dictate public policy. #1])>

<([#2 [2.2] Oil shale exploration will help the United States reach 4 trillion barrels of oil lying 

below 

our soil. Not only will oil shale exploration allow our nation to become self reliant but will 

lead us towards an energy independent future. The 2008 PIES identified over 2 million 

acres of prospective oil shale lands in three western states. The preferred 28 alternative 

under the 2012 PIES would cut the previously recommended exploration by 90 percent 

in Colorado - and only permit exploration of small pockets in the area. If Alternative 28 

passes, it would be too limited and expensive for companies to even consider oil shale 

expiration in Colorado. #2])>

<([#3 [2.1.1] It is important for us to consider the impact of such a dangerous policy in Colorado. 

As a 

native Coloradan, and someone with strong ties to the Western Slope, I have seen the 

impact of job losses in the oil industry due to overzealous regulations. As federal and 
Final OSTS PEIS 567 

state-regulations against oil-exploration have tightened, I have-watched hundreds of 

Coloradans lose their jobs and homes and struggle to survive. With a 10 percent 

unemployment rate on the Western Slope and gas prices at $4 per gallon, the time is 

now to find a balance between economic development and environmental protections. 

As a native Colorado taxpayer, and former resident of the Western Slope, I stand firmly 

against these strangling regulations that have setback oil exploration, extracted jobs, 

harmed communities and thwarted our quest for oil independence. I strongly urge you to 

select Alternative 1 in the final 2012 PEIS report. #3])>

OSTS_200 

Organization: Rebecca Goad 

Received: 4/24/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Commenter1: Rebecca Goad - Grand Junction, Colorado 81506 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: none 

Submission Category: Letter 

Submitted As: Postal Mail 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/22/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D00201.htm (OSTS_200-59389.htm Size = 1 KB) 

OSTS_200_Goad_Mail_OSTS2012D00201.pdf (OSTS_200-59388.pdf Size = 87 KB) 

Submission Text

See Attachment. 

<([#1 [9.8] In regards to the most recent PEIS on oil shale development in Colorado, Utah and 

Wyoming, I find it appalling that we are even going through this again. This issue was studied, 

analyzed, and worked through only a few short years ago, and it is a waste of taxpayer’s 

money, not to mention an unjustifiable delay in progress towards commercial oil shale 

development, to redo the PEIS based solely on a lawsuit brought against the Department of the 

Interior by a handful of individuals discontented with the outcome of the first one. What does 

this say about the systems we have in place, and the EIS process? That every time the outcome 

of the long, expensive process is disputed, some group can sue until it receives a decision they 

like? Where does this end? 

There has been nothing, aside from a change in administration, happen between when 

the first PEIS was completed and this new one started, that would justify redoing the whole 

thing. As a taxpaying citizen, I am frankly outraged that our federal government would be so 

flippant with my money. #1])>

<([#2 [2.1.1] Oil shale development is crucial to the nation and the region, and is ready to take 

the 

next steps forward. It should not have to be held hostage by a process that seems intent on 

delaying it to death. 
Final OSTS PEIS 568 

With that said, the BLM should choose Alternative 1, the “no action alternative” and 

leave things the way they were after we went through this the first time in 2008. Anything else 

is just a political game. #2])>

OSTS_201 

Organization: Linda Gregory 

Received: 5/2/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Commenter1: Linda Gregory - Grand Junction, Colorado 81504 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: none 

Submission Category: Letter 

Submitted As: Postal Mail 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/24/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D00202.htm (OSTS_201-59391.htm Size = 1 KB) 

OSTS_201_Gregory_Mail_OSTS2012D00202.pdf (OSTS_201-59390.pdf Size = 117 KB) 

Submission Text

See Attachment. 

<([#1 [2.1.1] This letter is in response to the 2012 draft PEIS for oil shale. I wish to state my 

opposition to the BLM’s 

Preferred Alternative, and other Land Allocation Alternatives in the document and express 

instead my 

support for Alternate 1, the No Action Alternative. #1])>

<([#2 [10.6.3] Our nation is experiencing ever increasing fuel prices and an energy policy that 

has us dependant on foreign 

governments who are not our friends for a large percentage of our oil. Meanwhile, this region 

holds as 

much as 4 trillion barrels of oil in place, according to the U.S. Geological Survey and perhaps 

even more. 

This is more oil than in the entire Persian Gulf, right in our own backyard. #2])>

<([#3 [9.8] It is rather ridiculous to reduce the amount of acreage by 77% and then to spread 

them out in small isolated 

pockets. I expect this will cost the Oil Shale Companies more money to extract the oil. This is a 

violation 

of the 2005 Energy Policy Act, which explicitly called for a separate and concurrent commercial 

development program for oil shale. Putting limitations on oil shale development in this way 

points to a 

much larger problem. The larger problem I am referring to is the bullying being done by various 

environmental groups who brought a lawsuit against the outcome of the three-year long 2008 

PEIS. The 

intent of these groups is to make it impossible to drill for oil because of their ideological belief 

that the use 
Final OSTS PEIS 569 

of this substance causes damage to our earth’s atmosphere. As long as they are able, they will 

continue to 

hamper any form of oil shale development. It is about time that someone or some entity stood up 

to them 

and said “ENOUGH!” 

Just think what these environmentalists would have had to say about the expansion and growth 

of our 

country, the industrial revolution, the inventions of the automobile, airplanes, space rockets. We 

would still 

be a small but very crowded area located on the eastern seaboard and the rest of the country 

belonging to 

Mexico or Canada. I don’t think we would have the type of power plants that have efficiently 

powered our 

cities with many many daily electric conveniences. Their idea is to make everything so 

expensive that we 

as consumers cannot afford it. Just another thought- we would never have been able to travel to 

the moon. 

They seem to wish to move us backwards in time. Isn’t it time to say no to them and yes to a 

future based 

upon sound common sense. I think that the BLM should at least adopt the Alternative that 

reinforces the 

results of a lengthy, professionally done process that included thousands of hours of input from 

experts, 

scientists, local governments, and the people, who are the taxpayers and you are supposed to 

work for them. 

Please adopt Alternative 1, put a stop to the nonsense, and allow commercial oil shale 

development to take place responsibly in western Colorado. 

#3])>

OSTS_202 

Organization: John Pugliese 

Received: 4/23/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Commenter1: John Pugliese - Palisade, Colorado 81526 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: none 

Submission Category: Letter 

Submitted As: Postal Mail 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/24/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D00203.htm (OSTS_202-59393.htm Size = 1 KB) 

OSTS_202_Pugliese_Mail_OSTS2012D00203.pdf (OSTS_202-59392.pdf Size = 74 KB) 

Submission Text

See Attachment. 
Final OSTS PEIS 570 

<([#1 [2.1.1] Thank you for extending this opportunity to express our views and concerns over 

this most recent PEIS involving oil shale. This is a resource that can be developed and produced 

in an environmentally responsible manner, and that can 

create enough jobs and economic activity to return prosperity and growth to the region. 

The tax revenue generated by a healthy and vibrant commercial oil shale industry will also ease 

the strain on local, 

state, and federal budgets, and help fund schools, roads, emergency personnel, and other key 

local government 

functions. Furthermore, it goes without saying that having the ability to produce energy here at 

home will help 

relieve pressure on fuel prices, and enable the United States to scale back its reliance on foreign 

sources of oil. 

The 2008 PEIS, and the first, “No-Action” Alternative in the 2012 version that retains the 

recommendations of that 

thoroughly prepared document, is the best, most responsible and most legally acceptable 

approach to seeing these 

benefits come to fruition. 

I encourage you to adopt Alternative I. #1])>

OSTS_203 

Organization: Ciru Kroese 

Received: 5/2/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Commenter1: Ciru Kroese - Craig, Colorado 81625 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: none 

Submission Category: Letter 

Submitted As: Postal Mail 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/24/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D00204.htm (OSTS_203-59395.htm Size = 1 KB) 

OSTS_203_Kroese_Mail_OSTS2012D00204.pdf (OSTS_203-59394.pdf Size = 91 KB) 

Submission Text

See Attachment. 

<([#1 [2.2] This latest PEIS for oil shale is disappointing on many levels. First is the she~r 

amount of land that is placed off limits to any oil shale leasing. The 2008 PEIS 

identified about 2 million acres that could be made available to the oil shale industry 

to apply for commercial leases, and the Preferred Alternative in the new PEIS cuts 

that down to a mere 346,000, a fraction of the land allowed for in 2008. Shutting 

all of this land off forever will delay the commercial development of oil shale, and the 

economic benefits to the region that such development would bring. #1])>

<([#2 [6.3] This PEIS seems to buy into the many falsehoods spread about oil shale by its 

opponents; that the technology is not there to develop it, that it is a ‘dirty’ industry, 
Final OSTS PEIS 571 

that it will use all of the water, that it will destroy the land through extensive strip 

mining == none of these insinuations are true, based on scientific date that industry, 

academia, and even the federal government has compiled over the years, and yet the 

current PEIS, especially Alternatives 4b, 3, 2, and the Preferred Alternative, 2b, all 

seem to accept these allegations in prohibiting commercial leasing, and imposing 

extreme restrictions to land access. 

#2])>

<([#3 [2.1.1] It is mostly disappointing that the BLM would let the environmental lobby bully it 

into 

making these restrictive recommendations. A lot of work, time and money went into 

the 2008 PEIS, just to be dismissed at the behest of a couple environmentalist 

organizations. 

The BLM should start looking out for the people who live and work in and around 

the land they manage, not for their friends in the ‘green’ lobby, and they should start 

by selecting Alternative 1 as their new Preferred Alternative. #3])>

OSTS_204 

Organization: Doug Thompson 

Received: 4/15/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Commenter1: Doug Thompson - Grand Junction , Colorado 81506 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: none 

Submission Category: Letter 

Submitted As: Postal Mail 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/24/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D00205.htm (OSTS_204-59397.htm Size = 1 KB) 

OSTS_204_Thompson_Mail_OSTS2012D00205.pdf (OSTS_204-59396.pdf Size = 91 KB) 

Submission Text

See Attachment. 

<([#1 [9.8] There is no valid reason for the federal government to have restarted the 

Programmatic EIS on oil shale, just a few years after completing one in 2008. There has been 

virtually nothing change between then and now, except for the conclusions, which all of a 

sudden severely restrict oil shale development. 

Mesa County was entirely correct in not participating as a cooperating agency this time around, 

as they participated fully in the 2008 PEIS, and their input would not have changed one iota. 

Participating in this latest round, would have been a waste of time and money that we don’t have.

#1])>

<([#2 [2.2] With this PEIS, and the BLM’s stated preferred alternative which cuts land available 

for commercial oil shale lease application down from just over 2 million acres to just over 

460,000 acres, unreasonably prohibits commercial leasing, and even disallows commercial 
Final OSTS PEIS 572 

expansion off existing RD&D leases, the BLM is placing itself directly at odds with the people 

of the region, who are tired of rehashing old arguments, and simply want to see the industry 

establish itself, and bring in jobs and economic opportunity. #2])>

<([#3 [2.1.1] Despite what some misinformed opponents might say, this is not a choice between 

economic development and the environment. Both development and conservation can work hand 

in hand, as they have for many years in this very region. The land made available in the 2008 

PEIS is not ‘open for development” but ‘available for application for leasing”, meaning that each 

individual lease would be subject to vigorous environmental evaluation prior to a lease permit 

being issued. So the claims of environmental catastrophe by oil shale’s opponents are really just 

claims that your agency cannot do its job, something that we know is no more true than their 

many other claims regarding oil shale. 

The fact of the matter is that oil shale is a resource that has been proven feasible economically 

and technologically, and the only major impediment to commercial development in the United 

States is arbitrary government action, as determined by small but vocal extremist groups. Please 

do not let a special interest group determine our future; please select alternative 1 as your 

preferred alternative for oil shale 

management. #3])>

OSTS_205 

Organization: Colton Vaughn 

Received: 5/2/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Commenter1: Colton Vaughn - Grand Junction, Colorado 81501 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: none 

Submission Category: Letter 

Submitted As: Postal Mail 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/24/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D00206.htm (OSTS_205-59399.htm Size = 1 KB) 

OSTS_205_Vaughn_Colton_Mail_OSTS2012D00206.pdf (OSTS_205-59398.pdf Size = 100 

KB) 

Submission Text

See Attachment. 

<([#1 [9.8] The BLM is redoing an Oil Shale Programmatic EIS simply on the basis of a lawsuit 

brought against the 

Department of the Interior over the findings of the first one, completed in 2008. There has been 

absolutely no new information develop over the course of the few short years between that PEIS 

and 

the current one, and yet the BLM has adopted as its preferred alternative one that recklessly 

slashes 

the amount of land found under the 2008 PEIS to be suitable for application for oil shale leasing 

by 
Final OSTS PEIS 573 

90% in Colorado, and eliminated commercial leasing. 

If nothing has changed in terms of science, environmental analysis, economics, or any other 

factor, 

why such a drastic change in the BLM’s conclusions? The only possible reason for this is that 

the BLM 

is allowing itself to be held hostage by environmental extremists with an agenda that cares 

nothing for 

the economic and social well being of the people of the Western Slope. #1])>

<([#2 [2.1.1] The 2008 PEIS was a very thoroughly done project that involved all the local 

governments, the public, 

and experts in many fields, and resulted in a preferred alternative that provided for a reasonable 

amount of land to be made available for potential future commercial leasing, while excluding 

truly 

sensitive ecological areas from any development. 

This approach would maximize the economic potential of recovering some of the 4 trillion 

barrels of oil 

that is under this region (according to the U.S. Geological Survey), and provide hundreds or 

more of 

long-term, well-paying jobs. As a college student, this is vitally important to me, as I 

contemplate 

graduation facing student loan debt and a bleak job market. 

Alternative 1 of the current re-done PEIS preserves the findings of the 2008 PEIS, and should be 

the route chosen by the BLM. #2])>

OSTS_206 

Organization: Jeffrey Thompson 

Received: 4/24/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Commenter1: Jeffrey Thompson - Irvine, California 92606 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: none 

Submission Category: Letter 

Submitted As: Postal Mail 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/24/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D00207.htm (OSTS_206-59401.htm Size = 1 KB) 

OSTS_206_Thompson_Mail_OSTS2012D00207.pdf (OSTS_206-59400.pdf Size = 111 KB) 

Submission Text

See Attachment. 

This letter pertains to the BLM’s “draft programmatic environmental impact statement” 

for oil-shale and tar-sand development in Colorado, Utah and Wyoming. 
Final OSTS PEIS 574 

<([#1 [11] I am fully supportive of the BLM initiating a commercial leasing program for oilshale 

and tar-sands development in this area. It would provide much needed, domestically developed 

energy for our country, as well as providing gainful employment for 

thousands of people. 

Although there are those who claim that carbon dioxide has a significant impact on the 

earth’s climate, there has been significant recent research that clearly links changes in 

the sun’s activity level as the true driver of the earth’s climate. Therefore, there is no 

reason to not proceed with oil-shale and tar-sand development. 

I therefore fully support any action by the BLM to continue or to authorize any new oilshale 

or tar-sand development on public land, or create or continue land-use allocations 

that would allow for such uses in the future. The draft programmatic environmental 

impact statement properly endorses additional public-land use for oil shale extraction. 

#1])>

<([#2 [8.1] The land overlying oil-shale resources in Utah, Colorado and Wyoming is some of 

the 

best open land in the West, and outdoor recreation and tourism are huge economic 

drivers for the region. Based on the economic activity in the deserts of the southwest to 

develop solar plants, and on my own experience as a frequent visitor to the area, I have 

observed how recreation successfully co-exists with tar sands development, since the 

area developed is only a small percentage of the land in the region. In other words, 

there is enough land for everyone, and I think that striking a balance between recreation 

and oil shale development is readily achievable. #2])>

<([#3 [11] I ask that you approve oil shale and tar sand development for these areas. It is 

essential for our nation to continue to prosper and remain independent. #3])>

OSTS_207 

Organization: Kenneth Robar 

Received: 4/15/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Commenter1: Kenneth Robar - Grand Junction, Colorado 81506 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: none 

Submission Category: Letter 

Submitted As: Postal Mail 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/24/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D00208.htm (OSTS_207-59403.htm Size = 1 KB) 

OSTS_207_Robar_Mail_OSTS2012D00208.pdf (OSTS_207-59402.pdf Size = 98 KB) 

Submission Text

See Attachment. 
Final OSTS PEIS 575 

<([#1 [2.2] I would like to express and explain my objections to the land allocation alternatives 

as described in the PEIS 

referenced above. 

Alternative 2, and the BLM’s preferred Alternative 2b, both reduce the amount of land available 

for 

commercial lease application to such an extent, and into such small and widely dispersed tracts, 

that 

commercialization becomes all but impossible. Most of the tiny, isolated pockets that are not 

placed forever 

off limits to even consideration for leasing are far too small to support a commercial operation. 

In the 

meantime, the alternative also places the current Preferred Acreage Leases, designed to allow 

commercial 

expansion of existing research and development leases, mostly or, in some cases, completely off 

limits as 

well. #1])>

<([#2 [9.6] 2b, the “preferred Alternative”, also eliminates commercial leasing by only allowing 

RD&D leases until the 

applicant can demonstrate to the government its technology for producing the oil from shale. It 

should be 

none of the governments business to pass arbitrary judgment on a company’s tools and processes 

before it 

grants a lease. If a company wishes to take the risk of renting a lease before its technology has 

caught 

completely up, that is the business of that company; if they want to make the lease payments 

while 

perfecting their systems, let them. It is their call whether or not the reward is worth the risk, and 

laws of 

economics dictate that only companies that think they will be able to turn a profit relatively 

quickly off 

their investment will go ahead and bear the risk. But to deny them the flexibility of being able to 

secure 

those leases in the interim is an unconscionable intrusion on their rights as businesses, and a 

strong 

disincentive to investment. 

#2])>

<([#3 [2.3] Alternative 3 restricts leasing to existing RD&D leases only, without even pretending 

to be open to the 

possible of expansion. This is totally unacceptable. 

#3])>

<([#4 [2.4] Alternative 4 may be similar to the best Alternative, Alternative 1, but 4b places the 

same restrictions on 

commerdalleasing as does 2b. #4])>
Final OSTS PEIS 576 

<([#5 [2.1.1] Alternative 1 will keep available the 2,000,000 acres found in the 2008 PEIS to be 

suitable for commercial 

lease application, and as such is the only reasonable alternative to consider. #5])>

OSTS_208 

Organization: James Fletcher 

Received: 5/2/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Commenter1: James Fletcher - Palisade, Colorado 81526 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: none 

Submission Category: Letter 

Submitted As: Postal Mail 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/24/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D00209.htm (OSTS_208-59405.htm Size = 1 KB) 

OSTS_208_Fletcher_Mail_OSTS2012D00209.pdf (OSTS_208-59404.pdf Size = 92 KB) 

Submission Text

See Attachment. 

<([#1 [2.1.1] This letter is intended as part of the public comment period for the above 

referenced PEIS. I would like 

to express my support for Alternative 1, no-action. 

As a business owner in western Colorado, I understand the importance of energy development to 

the 

economy of the region. As a resident, I also understand the importance of conserving our rich 

natural 

areas. Alternative 1 is the only alternative in the 2012 PEIS, in my opinion, that manages to 

accomplish 

both. 

Unlike the Preferred Alternative, 2b, Alternative 1 leaves available for potential commercial 

leasing 

enough land to make it economical and practical for energy companies to invest and expand into 

the 

region. 2b, by leaving only a small fraction of that land available, locating it in widely separated 

parcels, and limiting leasing to only RD&D, deters both the establishment of a commercial-scale 

industry, and the long-range planning and investment that a commercial oil shale program would 

require .. 

This would not only hurt companies which might want to pursue oil shale extraction, but would 

deny 

the people of this region the opportunity to make a bright, more prosperous future for themselves 

and 

their children. Many families and businesses have already moved out of the area, and without a 
Final OSTS PEIS 577 

solid 

industry to sustain the local economy, many more will. 

Alternative one goes back to the land allocation plan that was decided upon in the 2008 PEIS, 

which 

collected years of data, and hours of testimony and input from the people and businesses in the 

region, and concluded that just over 2,000,000 acres of prime oil shale land was suitable to be 

made 

available for commercial leasing. This ensured that a process would be in place to evaluate each 

lease 

for environmental hazards, while also allowing industry the flexibility needed to plan 

commercial 

expansion. 

I would ask your office not to throw aside all the work done by various parties in developing a 

sound oil 

shale management plan that accommodates commercial development, in favor of the agenda of a 

handful of environmental obstructionists. Please make the right decision for our region’s 

economy, and 

our nation’s energy future, and adopt Alternative 1. #1])>

OSTS_209 

Organization: Duncan McArthur 

Received: 4/30/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Commenter1: Duncan McArthur - Grand Junction , Colorado 81503 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: none 

Submission Category: Letter 

Submitted As: Postal Mail 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/24/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D00210.htm (OSTS_209-59407.htm Size = 1 KB) 

OSTS_209_McArthur_Mail_OSTS2012D00210.pdf (OSTS_209-59406.pdf Size = 110 KB) 

Submission Text

See Attachment. 

<([#1 [1.1.1] In regards to the 2012 oil Shale PEIS, I would first like to request that the comment 

period 

be extended for 30 days for to allow the public to offer comments on the current PEIS in 

light of the release of the 2012 Oil Shale Leasing Regulations. #1])>

<([#2 [9.6.1] I also take issue with certain provisions in the preferred Alternative, 2b, and 4b. 

The 

requirement for companies to demonstrate their recovery technology is an unreasonable 

request that does not apply to any other industry to my knowledge, certainly not to any 
Final OSTS PEIS 578 

other energy sub-sector including oil and gas, solar or wind. There does not appear a 

reason for oil shale to be held to a different standard than any other form of energy other 

than a desire to prevent oil shale from becoming a viable commercial industry. 

This requirement added to the land restrictions imposed by alternatives 2, 2b, and 3, 

combine to serve as a disincentive for commercial development. This contributes to an 

indefinite delay in the economic benefits that could be reaped by the communities in the 

area by allowing a structured commercialization of the industry. Not just in terms of jobs 

not being created but in the loss of lease bonus payments and other taxes that would 

otherwise be going to the federal government. 

#2])>

<([#3 [2.1.1] The oil shale industry is not asking for special treatment or for the subsidies being 

granted 

other energy industries - most notably renewable energy. They simply want an equal 

opportunity to grow their businesses that every other industry enjoys. For this reason I 

support Alternative 1, the no-action alternative, for the current PEIS, which will preserve 

the more reasonable, pro-growth plan of the 2008 PEIS. #3])>

OSTS_210 

Organization: Christopher Skowronski 

Received: 5/2/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Commenter1: Christopher Skowronski - Craig, Colorado 81625 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: none 

Submission Category: Letter 

Submitted As: Postal Mail 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/24/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D00211.htm (OSTS_210-59409.htm Size = 1 KB) 

OSTS_210_Skowronski_Mail_OSTS2012D00211.pdf (OSTS_210-59408.pdf Size = 80 KB) 

Submission Text

See Attachment. 

<([#1 [9.6] The Land Allocation Alternatives in this PEIS contain restrictions on commercial 

leasing that are in violation of federal statutes and congressional orders. 

Most importantly, the Alternatives 2b (the Preferred Alternative) and 4b, both prohibit 

commercial leasing until such time as a developer demonstrates a “viable technology” for 

harvesting oil shale. This is in contravention of the 2005 Energy Policy Act, which explicitly 

calls for allowing a separate commercial leasing program, as distinct from the RD&D track. The 

BLM needs, therefore, to allow issuance of commercial leases alongside RD&D ones. Limiting 

leasing to only RD&D is not only in violation of the statute, but serves as a major disincentive to 

commercial investment and resulting growth. #1])>

<([#2 [9.2.1] Similarly, excluding lands from lease availability on the basis of having 
Final OSTS PEIS 579 

“wilderness characteristics”, is A) an attempted endrun around Congress, which alone has the 

authority to designate wilderness, and B) a violation of a Congressional spending moratorium 

issued last year to defund any activity related to Secretarial Order 3310, which would have 

permitted the DOI to label lands as having Wilderness characteristics”. #2])>

<([#3 [2.1.1] Unlike the specious claims of the environmentalist lobby that initiated the lawsuit 

that brought about the costly re-do of the 2008 PEIS, these are real violations that will most 

likely result in substantive lawsuits, should these provisions be enacted. It makes no sense for the 

BLM to continue on the path it is on, and willfully back an alternative that clearly breaks the law. 

Alternative 1 is the only real, legal option, and should be selected. #3])>

OSTS_211 

Organization: Laureen Gutierrez 

Received: 5/2/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Commenter1: Laureen Gutierrez - Grand Junction , Colorado 81506 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: none 

Submission Category: Letter 

Submitted As: Postal Mail 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/24/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D00212.htm (OSTS_211-59411.htm Size = 1 KB) 

OSTS_211_Gutierrez_Mail_OSTS2012D00212.pdf (OSTS_211-59410.pdf Size = 78 KB) 

Submission Text

See Attachment. 

<([#1 [1.5] The current oil shale PEIS is unacceptable. It is the result of a settlement stemming 

from a lawsuit over the 2008 

version, and not the result of fresh analysis or empirical evidence. Drastically reducing the 

amount of land available for leasing from just over 2 million acres to a few hundred thousand 

widely scattered acres is not conducive to cultivating a healthy regional industry, and will only 

serve to prolong the economic hardship of the northwest Colorado region. #1])>

<([#2 [9.2.3] Also, by limiting leasing to only RD&D, the preferred alternative in the 2012 

document may be a violation of federal statute. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 explicitly 

mandated a commercial oil shale program be permitted, separate and distinct from the RD&D 

program. #2])>

<([#3 [2.1.1] I urge you to reconsider this PEIS and return to the land allocation plan decided 

upon in the 2008 PEIS, as provided for by Alternative 1. #3])>

OSTS_212 

Organization: Ken Leis 

Received: 5/2/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Commenter1: Ken Leis - Grand Junction, Colorado 81501 (United States) 
Final OSTS PEIS 580 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: none 

Submission Category: Letter 

Submitted As: Postal Mail 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/24/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D00213.htm (OSTS_212-59413.htm Size = 1 KB) 

OSTS_212_Leir_Mail_OSTS2012D00213.pdf (OSTS_212-59412.pdf Size = 87 KB) 

Submission Text

See Attachment. 

<([#1 [9.8] It is my opinion that this most recent PEIS for oil shale is ill-founded in general, and 

the Preferred Alternative is unsound technically. 

The fact that the only reason for this latest version to have been drafted is as part of a settlement 

with an environmental extremist group, who disputed the amount of land left available for 

potential leasing in the 2008 PESI, is outrageous. The land allocation plan in the 2008 document 

was determined after three years of intensive study, and hours of community, government and 

scientific input. It makes no sense that the BLM would arrive at such a dramatically different 

conclusion, cutting the available acreage by well over 70%, without them being any new 

information develop since the original PEIS was drafted. #1])>

<([#2 [9.6.1] The Preferred Alternative (2b) does not only eliminate hundreds of thousands of 

acres from availability for potential leasing, but distributes the little remaining land into tiny, 

segregated tracts with no consideration given as to commercial viability or access. It limits 

leasing to RD&D only. and requires that in order to upgrade to a commercial lease, the operating 

company must demonstrate its technology to the satisfaction of the BLM. This is a requirement 

that is unique to the oil shale industry, and is very arbitrary, as there are no published guidelines 

for what constitutes a “viable” technology in the BLM’s eyes. Like the rest of this current 

process, this requirement seems extremely vulnerable to political whim. #2])>

<([#3 [9.2.1] Finally, the selection of which land to exclude in Alternative 2b is, at best, ill 

thought out. In excluding lands with what the BLM determines as having “wilderness 

characteristics”, seems to be an attempt to implement Secretarial Order 3310, in contravention of 

a Congressional spending moratorium passed last year which specifically prohibited doing so. It 

also excludes from any possibility for future leasing, potential Sage Grouse habitat, ahead of the 

Forest Service releasing details of where that habitat is located. 

#3])>

<([#4 [2.1.1] With all of this in mind, I call on the BLM to implement Alternative 1, which 

restores the findings of the 2008 PEIS. #4])> <([#5 [1.1.1] I would also ask that the public 

comment period be extended by at least 30 days, to allow for all the relevant information to be 

released and examined. #5])>

OSTS_213 
Final OSTS PEIS 581 

Organization: Brian Hull 

Received: 5/2/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Commenter1: Brian Hull - Grand Junction, Colorado 81504 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: none 

Submission Category: Letter 

Submitted As: Postal Mail 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/24/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D00214.htm (OSTS_213-59415.htm Size = 1 KB) 

OSTS_213_Hull_Mail_OSTS2012D00214.pdf (OSTS_213-59414.pdf Size = 78 KB) 

Submission Text

See Attachment. 

<([#1 [2.1.1] I would like to express my support for Alternative 1 as described in the 2012 Oil 

Shale Programmatic EIS. 

Alternative 1 offers the best opportunity for industry to expand commercially, and to bring jobs 

and 

prosperity to the region, while still ensuring that our environmental heritage is protected. 

Alternative 1 restores the findings of the initial PEIS done in 2008, and leaves 2 million acres 

available for 

potential commercial leasing, pending environmental analysis of each lease. This is an adequate 

amount 

of land to make commercial expansion attractive to oil shale companies, and to provide for a 

stable, 

long term industry. The industry will never take off if it is relegated by government to forever be 

stuck in 

research and development mode. Should that happen, the entire region will be denied the 

enormous 

economic benefits of a major industry, our local, state and federal governments will be denied a 

wider 

tax base, and our nation will be denied the energy security that we have been seeking for 

decades. 

As a veteran of this nation, I care deeply about its future, in terms of security, economics, and, 

yes, its 

environment. Putting a process in place now to provide for orderly commercial development of 

oil shale 

will help meet the requirements for each of these terms. Alternative 1 does this best, and I urge 

you to 

adopt it as your final position on this PEIS. #1])>

OSTS_214 
Final OSTS PEIS 582 

Organization: Rick and Susan Crippen 

Received: 4/25/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Commenter1: Rick and Susan Crippen - Grand Junction, Colorado 81507 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: none 

Submission Category: Letter 

Submitted As: Postal Mail 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/24/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D00215.htm (OSTS_214-59417.htm Size = 1 KB) 

OSTS_214_Crippen_Mail_OSTS2012D00215.pdf (OSTS_214-59416.pdf Size = 88 KB) 

Submission Text

See Attachment. 

<([#1 [2.1.1] As business owners in Grand Junction, CO, we wholeheartedly support oil shale 

development, and 

accordingly, alterative 1 in the current PEIS. This is the only alternative presented that makes an 

honest attempt at encouraging commercial development of this massive resource. In restoring the 

actions taken in the original 2008 PEIS, which set aside just over 2 million acres of federal land 

for 

commercial lease application, this alternative removes unnecessary obstacles from the path 

towards commercial development. #1])>

<([#2 [2.2] In contrast, the BLM’s preferred alternative, 2b, places the vast majority of this land 

off limits, and 

restricts what is left to only more RD&D leasing. This will do nothing to help the industry get 

itself up off the ground, and bring jobs, people, and dollars back into the region. This preferred 

alternative will in fact be a disincentive to commercial development, and even to more research, 

as few companies will want to enter into a market that they know will not be made available to 

them for commercial production for many years - or indefinitely. 

#2])>

<([#3 [2.1.1] Business owners on the Western Slope have for long enough been at the mercy of 

extreme 

environmentalist groups and their anti-business agenda. We are asking you, as agents of our 

elected federal government, to stand up for us and to allow reasonable, environmentally 

responsible oil shale leasing and development take place, as provided adequately for under 

Alternative 1. #3])>

OSTS_215 

Organization: Marjorie Haun 

Received: 5/2/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Commenter1: Marjorie Haun - Grand Junction, Colorado 81507 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: none 
Final OSTS PEIS 583 

Submission Category: Letter 

Submitted As: Postal Mail 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/24/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D00216.htm (OSTS_215-59419.htm Size = 1 KB) 

OSTS_215_Haun_Mail_OSTS2012D00216.pdf (OSTS_215-59418.pdf Size = 106 KB) 

Submission Text

See Attachment. 

<([#1 [9.8] I would like to voice my objection to the implication in the current, 2012 

Programmatic EIS for oil shale and tar 

sands, that the findings from the 2008 PEIS would somehow lead to wholesale damage to the 

environment. 

The 2008 document did indeed identify just over 2,000,000 acres for prime oil shale land as 

being available for 

application for commercial leasing, but that does not translate into 2,000,000 acres actually being 

leased, much 

less developed. In the first place, those acres available for leasing would be subject to a full 

NEPA analysis prior to actually being leased and developed. Also the BLM is taking upon itself 

to decide where the industry should take out leases and conduct its business. This is on top of its 

g1·anting itself the power to determine if a 

company’s technology is sufficient in the eyes of the government to be allowed to proceed. 

Combined with the 

proposed policy of only granting RD&D leases until it approves of a particular technology, this 

represents an 

egregious intrusion of government into private business decisions, and blesses the government 

with the sole, 

Caesar-like discretion of which companies and which technological processes succeed and which 

fail. 

The BLM should limit its role to analyzing the land in question, identifying which areas are truly 

in need of 

special protection, and opening up lands for commercial access based on that criteria, combined 

with an 

evaluation of the socioeconomic factors. The BLM did in fact sufficiently and thoroughly do 

this, resulting in a 

PEIS in 2008 which nicely balanced the needs for conservation with the economic development. 

#1])> <([#2 [2.1.1] I therefore 

recommend, and wholeheartedly support the adoption of Alternative 1, which maintains these 

findings. #2])>

<([#3 [1.1.1] I would also recommend that the public comment period be extended, in order to 

allow time for study of the new 

oil shale regulations coming out on May 15th. #3])>
Final OSTS PEIS 584 

OSTS_216 

Organization: J. Capozzelli 

Received: 4/25/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Commenter1: J. Capozzelli - New York, New York 10024 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: none 

Submission Category: Letter 

Submitted As: Postal Mail 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/24/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D00217.htm (OSTS_216-59421.htm Size = 1 KB) 

OSTS_216_Capozzelli_Apr25_Mail_OSTS2012D00217.pdf (OSTS_216-59420.pdf Size = 114 

KB) 

Submission Text

See Attachment. 

<([#1 [3] I am writing about the BLM’s “draft programmatic environmental impact statement” 

for oil-shale and tarsand 

development in Colorado, Utah and Wyoming. Oil-shale and tar-sands development are two of 

the 

filthiest ways to produce energy. 

I am deeply concerned about the potential environmental effects if the BLM initiates a 

commercial 

leasing program for oil-shale and tar-sands development. It would pollute our land, air and water 

and 

exacerbate climate change. Endemic, threatened and endangered species would be lost. 

Between global warming, rampant extinction and a quickly drying Colorado River-- problems 

that oil-shale 

and tar-sand development would only worsen -- it’s hard to imagine a less prudent use of our 

public lands. #1])>

<([#2 [12.3] I oppose any action by the BLM to continue or to authorize any new oil-shale or tarsand development on 

public land, or create or continue land-use allocations that would allow for such uses in the futur 

. #2])> <([#3 [2.5] The 

draft programmatic environmental impact statement should have included an alternative that 

does not in 

any way endorse additional public-land use for this unproven industry. #3])>

<([#4 [3.10.3] Oil shale is currently producing no jobs and no revenue; the Congressional Budget 

Office confirmed that 

it is not expected to produce significant revenues through 2022. 
Final OSTS PEIS 585 

The land overlying oil-shale resources in Utah, Colorado and Wyoming is some of the best 

wildlife 

habitat in the West, and outdoor recreation and tourism are huge economic drivers for the region. 

We 

must protect this sustainable economy by making smart decisions based on sound information.

#4])>

<([#5 [6.2.3] Oil shale requires a huge amount of electricity to heat it enough to extract liquid 

from the rock. The BLM 

estimates that producing one million barrels per day would require ten new coal-fired power 

plants, each 

with a capacity to power a city of 500,000 people. 

#5])>

<([#6 [3] During fracking millions of litres of water, sand and numerous chemicals most of 

which are toxic, 

carcinogic as well as teratogenic (they include benzene, toluene, ethyl benzene, xylene, ethylene 

glycol 

[antifreeze], diesel fuel, naphthalene [moth ball] compounds boric acid arsenic poly nuclear 

organic 

hydrocarbons, only to name a few of 600-odd chemicals used), are pumped into boreholes at 

high 

pressure to release natural gas (called shale gas) trapped in layers of underground rock. 

The toxic chemicals used in fracking have had devastating consequences across the countrycontaminating 

lakes and streams, and sickening and killing wildlife. Fracking creates many problems for 

wildlife besides increased mortality from toxic chemicals: increase of edge habitats, altered 

rnicroclimates, increased traffic -noise -lighting- well flares. 

We cannot develop this resource without putting the health and safety of our citizens at risk. The 

research 

increasingly shows that fracking has contaminated groundwater resources from Wyoming to 

Pennsylvania. 

I urgently ask that you evaluate carefully and disclose fully the serious impacts of all new energy 

required 

for oil-shale and tar-sand production and its potentially devastating impact to our climate, as well 

as the 

threat it poses to wildlife, special-status, threatened and endangered species, and to our water air 

and 

communities. 

#6])>

OSTS_217 

Organization: Institute for Energy Research Campaign, Johnny Russell 

Received: 5/8/2012 12:00:00 AM 
Final OSTS PEIS 586 

Commenter1: Johnny Russell - Washington, 20005 (United States) 

Organization1:Institute for Energy Research Campaign 

Commenter Type: Misc. Organization 

Classification: none 

Submission Category: Campaign Letter 

Submitted As: Postal Mail 

Form Letter Category: Form Letter Master 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: klett 

Attachments: OSTS2012D00218.htm (OSTS_217-59423.htm Size = 1 KB) 

OSTS_217_IER_Campaign_Mail_OSTS2012D00218.pdf (OSTS_217-59422.pdf Size = 74 KB) 

Submission Text

See Attachment. 

Re: Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for Allocation of Oil Shale and Tar 

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

and Wyoming 

<([#1 [2.1.1] The United States has 1 trillion recoverable barrels of oil in taxpayer-owned oil 

shale deposits, but the federal government is standing in the way of the production of this oil. 

I write to ask that the Department of Interior (DOI) reject the “preferred alternative” in the oil 

shale Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) and instead adopt the “no action” 

alternative allowing America’s vast, game-changing oil shale energy resources to be developed, 

consistent with federal law and our nation’s best interests. 

President Obama claims he favors an “all-the-above” energy strategy, but DOI’s preferred 

alternative locks up billions of barrels of oil. This is consistent with Interior Secretary Ken 

Salazar’s long anti-oil shale history. DOI’s preferred alternative is directly at odds with the 

President’s professed energy plan. If President Obama truly believes in an “all-the-above” 

energy policy, DOI would open more land for oil shale permitting. The fact that DOI’s preferred 

alternative locks up more oil and land shows that the administration is not serious about domestic 

oil production. 

It is notable that many of the most affected counties in Colorado have adopted positions that 

reject Secretary Salazar’s proposed plan and instead supporting commercial leasing with proper 

safeguards and the inclusion of more lands in the plan. I stand with those local counties in favor 

of oil shale development jobs, investment and national security and against the embargo of our 

own energy resources represented by the preferred alternative. I stand with those who want to 

produce energy domestically. 

#1])>

OSTS_218 

Organization: The Wilderness Society campaign, Juli Slivka 

Received: 5/4/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Commenter1: Juli Slivka - Denver, Colorado 80202 (United States) 

Organization1:The Wilderness Society campaign 
Final OSTS PEIS 587 

Commenter Type: Environmental Organization 

Classification: none 

Submission Category: CD 

Submitted As: Postal Mail 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: klett 

Attachments: OSTS2012D00219.htm (OSTS_218-59425.htm Size = 1 KB) 

OSTS_218_TWS_Campaign_CD_Mail_OSTS2012D00219.pdf (OSTS_218-59424.pdf Size = 

47 KB) 

Submission Text

See Attachment. 

I support the Bureau of Land Management’s preferred alternative in the draft plan for oil shale 

development. 

<([#1 [3] [3.10.4] The preferred alternative would close many valuable and important lands to oil 

shale, such as lands with wilderness characteristics, areas of critical environmental concern, and 

sage-grouse habitat. Maintaining wilderness values and ecological integrity on our wild public 

lands contributes to our way of life and to our economy. The recreation industry in Colorado 

alone generates $3 billion of economic activity every year. We shouldn’t risk our water, air, 

pristine lands, crucial species habitat and outstanding recreation opportunities for any energy 

development, much less one dependent on unproven technology. 

#1])>

<([#2 [6.3.2.2] For all the unknowns about oil shale, what is known is that it threatens our water 

resources and clean air. To even attempt to generate a single barrel of oil from oil shale, 3-5 

barrels of water are needed in the refining process alone. Taking the oil shale out of the ground 

will waste more water on top of that. And since this development would be taking place in 

western states like Colorado, water is already a very precious commodity, often in short supply. 

#2])> <([#3 [6.2.3] [3.5.3] In addition to threatening our water, oil shale would also pollute our 

air. In order to create I million barrels of oil a day from oil shale, I 0 new coal-fired power plants 

would be needed, leading to the emission of 121 million tons of carbon dioxide. 

#3])>

<([#4 [2.2.1] Therefore, I hope you will finalize the preferred alternative and ensure that 

wilderness, wildlife, clean air and precious water supplies are not sacrificed to oil shale. 

#4])>

OSTS_219 

Organization: Donna Jones 

Received: 5/3/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Commenter1: Donna Jones - Grand Junction , Colorado 81507 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: none 

Submission Category: Postcard Campaign 

Submitted As: Postal Mail 

Form Letter Category: 
Final OSTS PEIS 588 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: klett 

Attachments: OSTS2012D00220.htm (OSTS_219-59427.htm Size = 1 KB) 

OSTS_219_Jones_Postcard_OSTS2012D00220.pdf (OSTS_219-59426.pdf Size = 103 KB) 

Submission Text

See Attachment. 

<([#1 [3] I am deeply concerned about the potential effects to our water, wildlife, 

communities and public lands if the BLM initiates a commercial leasing 

program. The two million acres in UT, WY and CO previously allocated 

for commercial leasing is a massive amount of public, taxpayer land that 

would be sacrificed for a singular use of the landscape. 

Oil shale is currently producing no jobs and no revenue the Congressional 

Budget Office confirmed that it is not expected to produce significant 

revenues through 2022. So we have the time to assess the impacts of 

development to our water, wildlife, and communities. 

I recommend that you carefully consider the serious impacts of new energy 

required for oil shale production and the potential devastating impacts to 

our wildlife, water, air, and communities as you take another look at oil 

shale development. 

#1])>

OSTS_220 

Organization: Jan Burch 

Received: 5/3/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Commenter1: Jan Burch - Grand Junction, Colorado 81507 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: none 

Submission Category: Postcard Campaign 

Submitted As: Postal Mail 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: klett 

Attachments: OSTS2012D00221.htm (OSTS_220-59429.htm Size = 1 KB) 

OSTS_220_Burch_Postcard_OSTS2012D00221.pdf (OSTS_220-59428.pdf Size = 106 KB) 

Submission Text

See Attachment. 

<([#1 [3] I am deeply concerned about the potential effects to our water, wildlife, 

communities and public lands if the BLM initiates a commercial leasing 

program. The two million acres in UT, WY and CO previously allocated 

for commercial leasing is a massive amount of public, taxpayer land that A L 0 1H1 A 

would be sacrificed for a singular use of the landscape. 
Final OSTS PEIS 589 

Oil shale is currently producing no jobs and no revenue the Congressional 

Budget Office confirmed that it is not expected to produce significant 

revenues through 2022. So we have the time to assess the impacts of 

development to our water, wildlife, and communities. 

I recommend that you carefully consider the serious impacts of new energy 

required for oil shale production and the potential devastating impacts to 

our wildlife, water, air, and communities as you take another look at oil 

shale development. 

#1])>

OSTS_221 

Organization: Piera Kllanxhja 

Received: 5/3/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Commenter1: Piera Kllanxhja - Grand Junction, Colorado 81501 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: none 

Submission Category: Postcard Campaign 

Submitted As: Postal Mail 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: klett 

Attachments: OSTS2012D00222.htm (OSTS_221-59431.htm Size = 1 KB) 

OSTS_221_Kllanxhja_Postcard_OSTS2012D00222.pdf (OSTS_221-59430.pdf Size = 91 KB) 

Submission Text

See Attachment. 

<([#1 [3] I am deeply concerned about the potential effects to our water, wildlife, 

communities and public lands if the BLM initiates a commercial leasing 

program. The two million acres in UT, WY and CO previously allocated 

for commercial leasing is a massive amount of public, taxpayer land that 

would be sacrificed for a singular use of the landscape. 

Oil shale is currently producing no jobs and no revenue the Congressional 

Budget Office confirmed that it is not expected to produce significant 

revenues through 2022. So we have the time to assess the impacts of 

development to our water, wildlife, and communities. 

I recommend that you carefully consider the serious impacts of new energy 

required for oil shale production and the potential devastating impacts to 

our wildlife, water, air, and communities as you take another look at oil 

shale development. 

#1])>

OSTS_222 
Final OSTS PEIS 590 

Organization: Mary Martin 

Received: 5/3/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Commenter1: Mary Martin - Grand Junction, Colorado 81503 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: none 

Submission Category: Postcard Campaign 

Submitted As: Postal Mail 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: klett 

Attachments: OSTS2012D00223.htm (OSTS_222-59433.htm Size = 1 KB) 

OSTS_222_Martin_Postcard_OSTS2012D00223.pdf (OSTS_222-59432.pdf Size = 96 KB) 

Submission Text

See Attachment. 

<([#1 [3] I am deeply concerned about the potential effects to our water, wildlife, 

communities and public lands if the BLM initiates a commercial leasing 

program. The two million acres in UT, WY and CO previously allocated 

for commercial leasing is a massive amount of public, taxpayer land that 

would be sacrificed for a singular use of the landscape. 

Oil shale is currently producing no jobs and no revenue the Congressional 

Budget Office confirmed that it is not expected to produce significant 

revenues through 2022. So we have the time to assess the impacts of 

development to our water, wildlife, and communities. 

I recommend that you carefully consider the serious impacts of new energy 

required for oil shale production and the potential devastating impacts to 

our wildlife, water, air, and communities as you take another look at oil 

shale development. 

#1])>

OSTS_223 

Organization: Carol Crawford 

Received: 5/3/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Commenter1: Carol Crawford - Grand Junction, Colorado 81505 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: none 

Submission Category: Postcard Campaign 

Submitted As: Postal Mail 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: klett 

Attachments: OSTS2012D00224.htm (OSTS_223-59435.htm Size = 1 KB) 

OSTS_223_Crawford_Postcard_OSTS2012D00224.pdf (OSTS_223-59434.pdf Size = 95 KB) 
Final OSTS PEIS 591 

Submission Text

See Attachment. 

<([#1 [3] I am deeply concerned about the potential effects to our water, wildlife, 

communities and public lands if the BLM initiates a commercial leasing 

program. The two million acres in UT, WY and CO previously allocated 

for commercial leasing is a massive amount of public, taxpayer land that 

would be sacrificed for a singular use of the landscape. 

Oil shale is currently producing no jobs and no revenue the Congressional 

Budget Office confirmed that it is not expected to produce significant 

revenues through 2022. So we have the time to assess the impacts of 

development to our water, wildlife, and communities. 

I recommend that you carefully consider the serious impacts of new energy 

required for oil shale production and the potential devastating impacts to 

our wildlife, water, air, and communities as you take another look at oil 

shale development. #1])>

OSTS_224 

Organization: Carole Chowen 

Received: 5/3/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Commenter1: Carole Chowen - Grand Junction, Colorado 81502 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: none 

Submission Category: Postcard Campaign 

Submitted As: Postal Mail 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: klett 

Attachments: OSTS2012D00225.htm (OSTS_224-59437.htm Size = 1 KB) 

OSTS_224_Chowen_Postcard_OSTS2012D00225.pdf (OSTS_224-59436.pdf Size = 102 KB) 

Submission Text

See Attachment. 

<([#1 [3] I am deeply concerned about the potential effects to our water, wildlife, 

communities and public lands if the BLM initiates a commercial leasing 

program. The two million acres in UT, WY and CO previously allocated 

for commercial leasing is a massive amount of public, taxpayer land that 

would be sacrificed for a singular use of the landscape. 

Oil shale is currently producing no jobs and no revenue the Congressional 

Budget Office confirmed that it is not expected to produce significant 

revenues through 2022. So we have the time to assess the impacts of 

development to our water, wildlife, and communities. Water is essential! 
Final OSTS PEIS 592 

I recommend that you carefully consider the serious impacts of new energy 

required for oil shale production and the potential devastating impacts to 

our wildlife, water, air, and communities as you take another look at oil 

shale development. 

#1])>

OSTS_225 

Organization: Joyce Olson 

Received: 5/1/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Commenter1: Joyce Olson - Grand Junction, Colorado 81507 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: none 

Submission Category: Postcard Campaign 

Submitted As: Postal Mail 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: klett 

Attachments: OSTS2012D00226.htm (OSTS_225-59439.htm Size = 1 KB) 

OSTS_225_Olson_Postcard_OSTS2012D00226.pdf (OSTS_225-59438.pdf Size = 108 KB) 

Submission Text

See Attachment. 

<([#1 [3] I am deeply concerned about the potential effects to our water, wildlife, 

communities and public lands if the BLM initiates a commercial leasing 

program. The two million acres in UT, WY and CO previously allocated 

for commercial leasing is a massive amount of public, taxpayer land that 

would be sacrificed for a singular use of the landscape. 

Oil shale is currently producing no jobs and no revenue the Congressional 

Budget Office confirmed that it is not expected to produce significant 

revenues through 2022. So we have the time to assess the impacts of 

development to our water, wildlife, and communities. Yes. We live here - 

our water and air could be compromised - Please go slow on shale. 

I recommend that you carefully consider the serious impacts of new energy 

required for oil shale production and the potential devastating impacts to 

our wildlife, water, air, and communities as you take another look at oil 

shale development. 

#1])>

OSTS_226 

Organization: Janice Shepherd 

Received: 5/3/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Commenter1: Janice Shepherd - Grand Junction, Colorado 81506 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: none 
Final OSTS PEIS 593 

Submission Category: Postcard Campaign 

Submitted As: Postal Mail 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: klett 

Attachments: OSTS2012D00227.htm (OSTS_226-59441.htm Size = 1 KB) 

OSTS_226_Shepherd_Postcard_OSTS2012D00227.pdf (OSTS_226-59440.pdf Size = 110 KB) 

Submission Text

See Attachment. 

<([#1 [3] I am deeply concerned about the potential effects to our water, wildlife, 

communities and public lands if the BLM initiates a commercial leasing 

program. The two million acres in UT, WY and CO previously allocated 

for commercial leasing is a massive amount of public, taxpayer land that 

would be sacrificed for a singular use of the landscape. We are having yet another draugt. 2 

barrels of water per barrel produced oil is too much 

Oil shale is currently producing no jobs and no revenue the Congressional 

Budget Office confirmed that it is not expected to produce significant 

revenues through 2022. So we have the time to assess the impacts of 

development to our water, wildlife, and communities. 

I recommend that you carefully consider the serious impacts of new energy 

required for oil shale production and the potential devastating impacts to 

our wildlife, water, air, and communities as you take another look at oil 

shale development. 

#1])>

<([#2 [3.2] Underground heating may have unexpected environmental impact. Volume of 

material removed may lead to sink holes. Slow experimenting is the way to go. 

#2])>

OSTS_227 

Organization: Sierra Club Campaign, Kate Colarulli 

Received: 5/10/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Commenter1: Kate Colarulli - Washington, 20001 (United States) 

Organization1:Sierra Club Campaign 

Commenter Type: Environmental Organization 

Classification: none 

Submission Category: Campaign Letter 

Submitted As: CD and Postal Mail 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: klett 

Attachments: OSTS2012D00228.htm (OSTS_227-59443.htm Size = 1 KB) 

OSTS_227_Sierra_Club_Campaign_OSTS2012D00228.pdf (OSTS_227-59442.pdf Size = 125 

KB) 
Final OSTS PEIS 594 

Submission Text

See Attachment. 

Subject: Re: Draft Programmatic Environmental Impacts State for Oil Shale and Tar Sands 

Development --Please Choose Alternative 3 

<([#1 [2.3.1] Thank you for this opportunity to comment on the Draft Programmatic 

Environmental Impacts State for Oil Shale and Tar Sands development on our nation’s public 

lands. As a citizen concerned about the increasing impacts of climate change on our nation’s 

health and welfare, I am appalled by the notion of allowing oil companies to develop tar sands 

and oil shale projects on public lands. I thank the Obama administration for your work to roll 

back dangerous provisions enacted by the Bush administration, and I urge you and your agency 

to select Alternative 3 in the Final EIS. 

#1])>

<([#2 [12.3] The magnitude of potential impacts to the West’s delicate public lands and 

shrinking water resources is simply too great to grant unfettered access to the oil industry in 

these areas. It is foolhardy and irresponsible to open up public lands to these industries-- 

particularly before we even understand the magnitude their footprint. Public lands should be held 

in trust for American citizens, not for private profits #2])> . 

<([#3 [3.5.1.6] At a time of record-breaking temperatures, debilitating droughts, devastating 

floods, and increasingly severe weather, we simply cannot afford to increase our reliance on 

higher-carbon fuels. Producing oil from both tar sands and oil shale generates significantly more 

carbon pollution than production of conventional petroleum. Granting the oil industry access to 

our public lands to lock-in production of these types of fuels is simply incompatible with a 

sustainable energy future that will mitigate the impacts of climate change. 

#3])>

<([#4 [3] Large-scale development of oil shale and tar sands on our public lands would also 

come at a major cost to the West’s land, wildlife, air quality, and water resources. Already 

subject to significant oil and gas developments, some of the areas assessed in the DPEIS suffer 

extremely poor air quality. And although very little is known about the impacts of oil shale 

production, even the low-end ofthe estimates of how much water it would consume is 

significant: a 20 I 0 study by the Government Accountability Office demonstrated the range of 

estimated water impacts from 5-25 barrels of water consumed for every barrel of oil produced-- a 

toll the West simply cannot afford. 

#4])>

<([#5 [12.3] For all these reasons, I am strongly opposed to opening up our public lands to oil 

shale or tar sands development #5])> . 

OSTS_228 

Organization: Natonal Wildlife Federation campaign, Whitney Coombs 

Received: 5/2/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Commenter1: Whitney Coombs - Boulder, Colorado 80303 (United States) 

Organization1:Natonal Wildlife Federation campaign 

Commenter Type: Environmental Organization 

Classification: none 

Submission Category: CD 
Final OSTS PEIS 595 

Submitted As: CD and Postal Mail 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: klett 

Attachments: OSTS2012D00229.htm (OSTS_228-59445.htm Size = 1 KB) 

OSTS_228_NWF_Campaign_OSTS2012D00229.pdf (OSTS_228-59444.pdf Size = 34 KB) 

Submission Text

See Attachment. 

<([#1 [2.2.1] Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Bureau of Land Management’s 

2012 Oil Shale and Tar Sands Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement. I urge you 

to choose Alternative 2(b) of the Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement. I support this 

proposal to limit leasing to research and development projects and to exclude vital fish and 

wildlife habitats from all development activities for oil shale. It is the prudent way forward to 

safeguard wildlife and to investigate whether we can avoid impacts on our air and water. In 

addition to this, I urge the BLM to wait for the results from current research before permitting 

the use of any additional public lands. #1])>

<([#2 [3] The federal public land overlying oil shale resources in Utah, Colorado and Wyoming 

is some of the best fish and wildlife habitat in the West. It is home to the largest remaining big 

game migration in the lower 48 states. It is the “mule deer factory.” It provides important habitat 

for sage-grouse, a species that is on the brink. All of the proposed extraction methods for oil 

shale will have devastating impacts on wildlife and on other values of these public lands, 

including clean air and water. 

#2])>

OSTS_229 

Organization: Fenwick / Irene Carlile 

Received: 4/30/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Commenter1: Fenwick / Irene Carlile - , (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: none 

Submission Category: Letter 

Submitted As: E-Mail 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: klett 

Attachments: OSTS2012D00230.htm (OSTS_229-59447.htm Size = 1 KB) 

OSTS_229_Carlile_Email_OSTS2012D00230.pdf (OSTS_229-59446.pdf Size = 20 KB) 

Submission Text

See Attachment. 

Good Sirs: <([#1 [3.5.1.6] My knowledge is limited to that which Others-Cause Media-Covered. 

I’mconfident BLM-Awareness is Detailed—as necessary for Protecting-Public-Interest; that 

my-writing of aspects Already-Existing in Public-Concern, will be Accepted/ Recorded; I 

contend Obama/ Interior/ BLM Erred-Severely in Omitting-Concern about CO2 V Global- 
Final OSTS PEIS 596 

Warming. 

I’ve read the Mesa County Resolution 2012-034, Objecting BLM ‘s 2012 OSTS 

Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement(which I’ve-Not-read), and apparently 

this latter failed to mention Global-Warming/ Storm-Magnification/ Sea-Rise—HorrificSpecie-Suffering—because the Mesa Commissioners’ MCM-034, above-link, also so failed 

to Discuss-Such-Consequences. 

I suspect EISes rarely focus the Rising-Sea, when-expectedly more-germane-Issues are 

of Immediate-Consequence; however, this-aspect of disputed-Warming-Criticality—the 

‘Tipping/ Too-Late-Problem’, accepted by most-Scientists—IS-They-Believe ofImmediacy; thus-Here. 

https://www.google.com/#hl=en&gs_nf=1&gs_mss=the%20’too-&tok=3- 

tkEVwiEBaO7No7qEokdQ&cp=39&gs_id=4k&xhr=t&q=the+’toolate’+ 

timing+of+global-warming&pf=p&rlz=1C2GGGE_enUS452US455&sclient=psyab& 

oq=the+’too-late’+timing+of+globalwarming& 

aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_l=&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=be2 

1acf9a25b1028&biw=1280&bih=812 

I recall-constructively that Interior Failed to exercise it’s MMS/ EIS-Prerogative against 

BP’s Deepwater-Horizon drill-rig—NOT-suggesting a blast-stack, often-installed elsewhere, 

and-which if present—because-Environmentally, rig-blasts are NotUncommon, and Blast-Stacks ARE-Effective-Historically—would likely have limited 

damage to ‘Repairable’. 

The Essence-of-Safety IS-Prevention; that Warming is THE Premier-Application; 

BY FAR the Most-Expansive/ Permanent-Catastrophe Humans-Will-Have-Caused; NOT 

Presently to be Ignored in ANY-EIS, particularly when Billion?-Tons-CO2 is this(Mesa)- 

Object Outcome; and when You-at-BLM ARE(these-Leases) the Last-RegulatoryInfluence. 

#1])>

<([#2 [6.3.2] Other Environmental Comments: P4/par1 asserts ‘little/ no-water-consumption’ for 

the 

entire oil-shale oil-production-process, contradicting-’myths by prior-Objectors’. This 

does not-compare to my personal underground-experience, where stream-to-pond 

diversion and large-water-trucks were constantly-engaged in road/ floor-wetting, 

together with mixing-graders; I urge You contact several(for comparison) Miningschools( 

Nevada/ Colorado/ Missouri) with the specifics for shale-removal; also, to 

Schools-Knowledgeable(TX?) about subsequent-processing oil-refineries; also, WasteDisposition Experts: TVA-Kingston. I’ve read the Canadian-Tar Sands are quite-’dirty’, 

and that processing requires considerable-water; surely some correspondence would 

reward-specific-Awareness. ALL-about Water. 

If-indeed, no-significant-water is required, then only Lakewood-sized-piping/ meters 
Final OSTS PEIS 597 

need-be-installed. I think Integrity Ought-Be Expected-Throughout these-SubjectLeases. 

#2])>

<([#3 [9] P2/par7 refers to some 2.5million acres in(perhaps-not-’of’) Colorado set-aside for the 

Permanent-Use(Possession) of Business—not-unlike Railroad-Incentive—and probably 

‘near-free’, in Unlimited-Freedom, together-with-Water Rights. This Fed Land Ought be 

Overseen by an Agency(short-leash) of Colorado-Legislature; Oil-Turmoil will absolutely beAdverse to-Colorado-Law/ Citizens(imagine in-DC); Colorado-Legislature Ought-Be 

Continuum-Cognizant, with NO-Need to Ask-Permission/ Discuss-BLM. 

#3])>

<([#4 [3.10.3] Also, Colorado is Hurting-Financially. I think-Reasonable, that-NO GoverningEntity 

sustain-ANY-Cost, Ever. Not, for-Example, the Additional-Schooling/ Police/ Sheriff/ 

Administration/ Fire-required; HealthCare-Complete ought-be Company-Provided, to 

assure the Medical-Part of No Cost-Concept. I’m sure Mesa(Others) County will be SelflyConcerned. 

Lease-Documents Ought-Require Zero-Pollution/ Damage; because, as has-occurred 

with-livestock, fracking/ other-wells/ roads/ streams/ etc, there WILL OtherwiseDevelop a Cost/ Consequence-To-State/ Citizens; the ‘Mineral-Fee’ will be State-Utilized 

for Whatever-Issues, and will-NEVER get-to Individual-Citizens-Adversed; 

Examples-of-Which are in the Alleghany Coal Deposits: Poverty-StrickenFamilies(You’ve-seen the media.), Uneducated, Working-Unsafe; essentially-CompanySerfs. BLM/ Colorado Can/ Ought-Preclude That-Destiny for This-State, since BLM/ COHAVE-Now Sufficient-Control. Have I made a mistake in-Addressing my-CO/FedPoliticians?? 

#4])>

<([#5 [9.6] With Mine-Caused/ Acid-Discharges into WV/ CO-Streams, AlleghanyDemonstrated 

Collapsed-Ground(underground-openings failing), and Environmental-Problems occur— 

CO has Drill/ Fracking-problems, so Those-Lease-Contracts ARE-Failures—what kind 

Lease-Language will CO-Politicians(State/ Fed) Expect of BLM/ Interior. Has Salazar 

‘Gone-DC’?? Are Your-Speeches About-Environment for-naive School-Kid-Listening?? IAMInsistent; Environment-Failure, NOT-Success, IS-Oil(Coal-too)-History!!; plausible-Reason 

most-Citizens have Quite-Lost Political-Respect; here, 

UnDemonstrated-Integrity About-Citizen-Protection(Environment/ Budget); MesaResolution displaying scant Office-Concern-About Oil-Activity-Consequence; only AngstAbout That-Reduction. 

A CO-Lease-Complaint, is-that Leases Aren’t-Being-Pumped: just-’Held’, whichSpeculative-Behavior does-zero to reduce-fuel-price(Second-After-Jobs, US-EconomyBane.); ShaleOil-Ownership, by/for Rapid-Depreciation, without-Production, =NO-Jobs/ 

Fuel. 

BLM Ought-Write a Lease-Contract that, Besides-Protection, Benefits-US(reducing-gasprice), 
Final OSTS PEIS 598 

by Requiring-Prompt/ Continued Oil-Production; common-in-Construction, so 

Court-Proof; nor-can fundamental-Need(pump-price), of such-Lease-Terms be 

Successfully-Objected. 

Interior/ BLM’s-Reduced-Acreage(Go-Slow) Dissipates-’Rush’; sensible when a DifferentType-Refinery is ‘Proto’(Change-Anticipated). Nothing is Best first-time; a 3-x-larger 

‘Mesa-Rush’ will produce ‘scaled-errors/ costs/ bids that-are 3-x-greater(risk/ profit/ 

pump-price)’; larger-unit-cost for Rush-Mistakes, regardless-Issues, but especially 

where Oil-Controls-Policies—Intrinsically-For Self-Benefit—while Citizens-Engage 

Transferred-Responsibility for Expenses, and Oil-Collects-Profit. Citizens ALWAYS Lose ( 

Gain-Less) confronting-Corporations’-Lawyers. Writing-Leases is when NearEquality in Law is Available; Going-Slow—sequenced-Leases—reduces-Mistakes; Good/ 

Better/ Best-for BLM/ Citizens, which BLM-Realized. 

#5])>

OSTS_230 

Organization: DOI, BLM, Rawlins Field Office, Dennis Carpenter 

Received: 5/3/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Commenter1: Dennis Carpenter - Rawlins, Wyoming 82301 (United States) 

Organization1:DOI, BLM, Rawlins Field Office 

Commenter Type: Federal Government 

Classification: none 

Submission Category: Letter 

Submitted As: E-Mail 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: klett 

Attachments: OSTS2012D00232.htm (OSTS_230-59451.htm Size = 1 KB) 

OSTS_230_BLM_RawlinsFO_OSTS2012D00232.pdf (OSTS_230-59450.pdf Size = 569 KB) 

Submission Text

See Attachment. 

<([#1 [3.1.7] Page 3-34, Line 39: After the sentence ending” .. . overlaps 50,025 acres ofthe oil 

shale basin” 

insert «The WEQC ruling through EQC Docket No. 07-1101 at number 38 states, the designation 

protects the area from non-surface coal mining only. The designation would prevent surface 

mining for oil shale and uranium, as well as gravel pit mining. The designation does not limit oil 

and gas leasing, exploration, drilling, production or related construction. The designation does 

not limit or curtail any type of access to private in-holdings or for purposes other than non-coal 

surface mining on public lands, including livestock grazing.” 

#1])>

<([#2 [3.1.7] Page 3-34, Lines 39-41: Delete the sentence that reads “Finally, these areas are 

located within a 

much larger area of land that has been identified as having wilderness characteristics.” 

#2])>

<([#3 [3.1.7] Page 3-34, Lines 41 & 42: After the sentence “Table 3.1.1-7 presents the acreage 
Final OSTS PEIS 599 

overlapping 

the oil shale resource within the Adobe Town specially designated areas and identified lands 

with wilderness characteristics” add the following: As depicted in Figure 3.1.1-13, certain 

portions of the Adobe Town/Kinney Rim area have been determined to contain lands with 

wilderness characteristics; whereas other areas did not meet the size criteria or were determined 

to not have wilderness characteristics. Based on the proliferation of existing oil and gas leases in 

the Adobe Town areas outside the WSA, the Rawlins RMP determined these areas would not be 

managed for those wilderness characteristics, but rather, would remain available for multiple-use 

management with emphasis on reclamation. Specifically the RMP at page 1-3 states, “The

BLM’s analysis of wilderness characteristics is consistent with the agency’s policy and

guidance. BLM IM-2003-275 states that considering wilderness characteristics in the land use

planning process may result in several outcomes, including, but not limited to: 1) emphasizing

other multiple uses as a priority over protecting wilderness characteristics; 2) emphasizing other

multiple uses while applying management restrictions (e.g., conditions of use, mitigation

measures) to reduce impacts to some or all of the wilderness characteristics. As a result, the

BLM is not required to manage for wilderness characteristics just because they may exist. The

BLM chose not to carry the analysis of wilderness characteristics into the Proposed RMP/Final

EIS because valid existing lease rights prohibit implementation of management actions to protect

the wilderness characteristics identified. The BLM Approved RMP was selected from an

alternative in the Proposed RMP/Final EIS that did not include management for wilderness

characteristics.

Text on page 2-11 of the Proposed RMP/Final EIS is clarified to read as follows: “Because the

BLM found the lands to be unmanageable for wilderness character because of preexisting oil

and gas leases, the BLM elected to manage lands with wilderness character for multiple use and

not for protection of wilderness character. Accordingly, measures to provide protection for any

wilderness characteristics of lands (outside of previously established WSAs) will not be

considered in the alternatives in this RMP. This is consistent with BLM policy as presented in

BLM IM 2003-275.” 

The approved RMP at Management Objective 4 and Management Action 6 on page 2-25, as well 

as through Maps 2-17, 2-58, 2-59, and Appendix 37 designates the area within the Rawlins Field 

Office that surrounds the Adobe Town WSA as the Adobe Town Dispersed Recreation Use Area 

(DRUA). 

#3])>

<([#4 [3.1.7] Page 3-34, Lines 43-45: Delete this sentence “During the process of developing the 

Rawlins 

RMP, the BLM chose not to carry the analysis of wilderness characteristics into the Proposed 

RMP/Final EIS because valid existing lease rights prohibit management actions to protect the 

identified wilderness characteristics.” 

#4])>

<([#5 [3.1.7] [3.15] Page 3-35, Figure 3.1.1-13: This figure wrongly depicts areas to be managed 

for LWC. Please 

incorporate the attached Kinney Rim/Adobe Town 2002/2011 LWC Inventory Map which 

correctly depicts the LWC inventory status for the Adobe Town and Kinney Rim area. 

#5])>
Final OSTS PEIS 600 

<([#6 [3.1.7] Page 3-36, Table 3.1.1-7: Correct the values/numbers in this table to correlate with 

revised 

map/Figure 3-1.1-13. #6])>

OSTS_231 

Organization: David Marshall 

Received: 5/14/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Commenter1: David Marshall - Duncannon, Pennsylvania 17020 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: none 

Submission Category: Letter 

Submitted As: Postal Mail 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 6/1/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D00233.htm (OSTS_231-59453.htm Size = 1 KB) 

OSTS_231_Marshall_Mail_May_14_OSTS2012D00233.pdf (OSTS_231-59452.pdf Size = 114 

KB) 

OSTS_231_Marshall_Mail_May_14.pdf (OSTS_231-59454.pdf Size = 123 KB) 

Submission Text

See Attachment. 

This letter pertains to the BLM’s “draft programmatic environmental impact statement” 

for oil-shale and tar-sand development in Colorado, Utah and Wyoming. 

<([#1 [3] I am deeply concerned about the potential environmental effects if the BLM initiates a 

commercial leasing program for oil-shale and tar-sands development. It would pollute 

our land, air and water and exacerbate climate change. Endemic, threatened and 

endangered species would be lost. 

Between global warming, rampant extinction and a quickly drying Colorado River -problems 

that oil-shale and tar-sand development would only worsen -- it’s hard to 

imagine a less prudent use of our public lands. #1])>

<([#2 [12.3] I therefore oppose any action by the BLM to continue or to authorize any new oilshale 

or tar-sand development on public land, or create or continue land-use allocations that 

would allow for such uses in the future. The draft programmatic environmental impact 

statement should have included an alternative that does not in any way endorse 

additional public-land use for this unproven industry. #2])>

<([#3 [3.10.3] Oil shale is currently producing no jobs and no revenue -- the Congressional 

Budget 

Office confirmed that it is not expected to produce significant revenues through 2022. 

The land overlying oil-shale resources in Utah, Colorado and Wyoming is some of the 
Final OSTS PEIS 601 

best wildlife habitat in the West, and outdoor recreation and tourism are huge economic 

drivers for the region. We must protect this sustainable economy by making smart 

decisions based on sound information. 

#3])>

<([#4 [3] I ask that you evaluate carefully and disclose fully the serious impacts of all new 

energy 

required for oil-shale and tar-sand production and its potentially devastating impacts to 

our climate, as well as the threat it poses to wildlife, special-status, threatened and 

endangered species, and to our water, air and communities. #4])>

Thank you for your time and consideration regarding my comments. 

OSTS_232 

Organization: Industrial Energy Consumers of America, Paul Cicio 

Received: 5/6/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Commenter1: Paul Cicio - Washington, 20005 (United States) 

Organization1:Industrial Energy Consumers of America 

Commenter Type: Misc. Organization 

Classification: none 

Submission Category: Letter 

Submitted As: Postal Mail 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 6/1/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D00234.htm (OSTS_232-59456.htm Size = 1 KB) 

OSTS_232_Indust_Energy_Consumers_of_Am_Mail_May_16_OSTS2012D00234.pdf 

(OSTS_232-59455.pdf Size = 192 KB) 

Submission Text

See Attachment. 

Summary

As a result of the settlement by the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOl) in regards to lawsuits 

brought against the 2008 Oil Shale and Tar Sand Programmatic Environmental Impact 

Statement( PEIS) and Commercial Oil Shale Leasing Regulations (Regulations), the Bureau of 

Land 

Management (BLM) has solicited comments on a new draft PEIS. <([#1 [2.1.1] The Industrial 

Energy Consumers of 

America (IECA) urges BLM to reaffirm the 2008 PEIS and supports Alternative 1, Oil Shale No 

Action 

Alternative in the new draft PEIS. 

Commercial oil shale and tar sands leasing programs are in the best interest of the nation in 

helping 

to meet the country’s energy needs. Premature and precautionary removal of access to the vast 

majority of land with this resource potential will put the viability of continued research and 

development at risk by making commerciality of development far less likely. The proposed 
Final OSTS PEIS 602 

removal 

of 90 percent of lands in Colorado and three-quarters of currently available land in the three-state 

area will discourage continued Research, Development and Demonstration (RD&D) expenditure 

by 

drastically shrinking the size of, and introducing major uncertainty for, potential resource 

recovery. 

#1])>

Comments

The Industrial Energy Consumers of America is a nonpartisan association of leading 

manufacturing 

companies with $700 billion in annual sales and with more than 650,000 employees nationwide. 

IECA member companies are substantial consumers of natural gas, natural gas and coal fired 

power 

generation and refined crude oil products. The cost of energy can often determine 

competitiveness 

with offshore competitors. IECA membership represents a diverse set of industries including: 

chemicals, plastics, cement, paper, food processing, brick, fertilizer, steel, glass, industrial gases, 

pharmaceutical, aluminum and brewing. 

<([#2 [11] [3.10.3] IECA member companies have good reason to be concerned about access to 

Federal lands and the 

associated oil and natural gas resources. In the period from 2000 to 2005 natural gas prices 

doubled 

and tripled because demand exceeded supply. We recall that the Bureau of Land Management’s 

(BLM) permitting system, heavy with increased bureaucracy and inadequate staffing, resulted in 

thousands of drilling permit backlogs. Wells did not get drilled, oil and natural gas did not get 

produced, and the manufacturing sector and the economy as a whole suffered. There were plenty 

of 

oil and natural gas reserves and the Federal Government was directly responsible for the failure 

to 

allow producers access to the oil and natural gas in order to produce it for us, the consumer. 

The manufacturing sector lost 3.0 million jobs from 2000 to 2005 and a great number of these 

jobs 

were directly related to the high price of oil and natural gas. Thousands of chemical, plastics, 

fertilizer, steel, paper, glass and aluminum manufacturing plants shut down. We cannot and 

should 

not let this happen again. #2])>

<([#3 [2.1.1] The 2012 draft PEIS contains largely the same information as the 2008 final PEIS. 

There is little, if 

any, new information to be considered. However, the BLM has chosen a different preferred 

alternative 2(b) that substantially reduces the acreage available for oil shale leasing, eliminates 

the 

issuance of commercial leases, and restricts leasing to RD&D leases only. 
Final OSTS PEIS 603 

Alternative 1, Oil Shale No Action Alternative, in the new PEIS, preserves the actions taken in 

the 

2008 PEIS, and is the alternative favored by IECA. 

The 2008 PEIS was recent, and substantively and procedurally thorough. The preferred 

alternative 

provided a reasonable amount of acreage for potential commercial leasing, while still designating 

environmentally sensitive and other areas deemed unsuitable for leasing. #3])>

<([#4 [2.2] BLM’s preferred alternative 2(b) in the new PEIS restricts leasing to RD&D leases 

only and defers 

decisions on commercial leasing for years. This disaggregation of RD&D from commercial 

leasing 

simply discourages companies with commercially viable technology with delay, uncertainty and 

disincentive for resource development. 

Commercial leasing for oil shale development is merely a first step. The BLM and other 

government 

agencies require additional environmental reviews and permitting activities with public oversight 

before a project can begin. Two or three Environmental Impact Statements would be required, in 

addition to this PEIS, before a developer could break ground on a commercial venture. 

In the 2008 PEIS, 2,000,000 acres were made available for leasing, but the amount of land that 

would 

be leased or developed would likely be far less. Industry would choose the acreage that it 

believes 

can be profitably developed. Under the new PEIS, BLM appears be choosing the lands that hold 

commercial potential. 

#4])>

<([#5 [9.8] Western U.S. oil shale resources- 4 trillion barrels according to the USGS- are an 

important 

domestic energy asset that should be developed for the benefit of the American people. 

Revisiting 

the PEIS and regulations completed in 2008 is at best delaying and at worst destroying, the 

responsible development of the oil shale resource. #5])>

OSTS_233 

Organization: Unidentified Campaign 

Received: 4/30/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Commenter1: - , (United States) 

Organization1:Unidentified Campaign 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: none 

Submission Category: Campaign Letter 

Submitted As: E-Mail 
Final OSTS PEIS 604 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: klett 

Attachments: OSTS2012D00235.htm (OSTS_233-59458.htm Size = 1 KB) 

OSTS_233_Unidentified_Campaign_OSTS2012D00235.pdf (OSTS_233-59457.pdf Size = 38 

KB) 

Submission Text

See Attachment. 

Dear The Bureau of Land Management, 

<([#1 [2.1.1] Thank you for this opportunity to provide comment on the Draft 2012 Oil 

Shale/Tar Sands Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement. Oil shale is a vitally important 

national resource, and policies involving its management on federally controlled lands will have 

profound impacts on our nation’s economy, national security, and energy independence. 

I urge the The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to adopt Alternative 1, the no-action 

alternative, in the current PEIS, which would restore the findings of the 2008 PEIS. Like most 

Americans, I recognize the need to balance the twin objectives of environmental conservation, 

and economic development. I do not believe the two are mutually exclusive. The Record of 

Decision from the 2008 Oil Shale PEIS reflected this reality, and established a reasonable and 

balanced plan for going forward with development of our nation’s oil shale resources. This ROD 

protected sensitive areas and habitats, while providing private industry the opportunity and 

flexibility required to take the next step towards commercial production. It would have also 

provided much-needed employment and economic growth in one of the hardest hit regions of the 

nation. #1])>

<([#2 [9.8] I find it shocking that your agency would casually disregard the hours of input by 

scientists, experts, local government leaders and the public, and spend precious government 

resources to completely re-do this PEIS, in the absence of any new information or evidence. I 

further believe it sets a negative precedent to allow a special interest group to dictate public 

policy simply by suing when the outcome of a public process does not fit their agenda. 

#2])>

<([#3 [2.1.1] Oil shale is an abundant national resource that has the potential to meet America’s 

energy needs well into the future, cut our reliance on oil imports from unstable, often hostile, 

regions of the world and provide thousands of private-sector jobs and economic growth. The 

BLM should not be in the business of putting up obstacles to development and prosperity in 

response to a noisy fringe element of society. 

For these reasons I again urge the BLM to adopt Alternative 1 in the final PEIS. 

#3])>

Sincerely, 

OSTS_234 

Organization: Ruth Gutt 

Received: 4/25/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Commenter1: Ruth Gutt - New Canaan, Connecticut 06840 (United States) 
Final OSTS PEIS 605 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: none 

Submission Category: Letter 

Submitted As: Postal Mail 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: klett 

Attachments: OSTS2012D00236.htm (OSTS_234-59460.htm Size = 1 KB) 

OSTS_234_Gutt_mail_OSTS2012D00236.pdf (OSTS_234-59459.pdf Size = 100 KB) 

Submission Text

See Attachment. 

<([#1 [3] Just read an article by an environmental group about a push by an oil shale group 

wanting large acres of land in Colorado for oil shale development. I had heard that there has been 

some oil shale work or testing done in Pennsylvania - my childhood state and it had caused much 

damage to the land of farmers there. I realize it may be useful in some places. I hope you might 

be able to test it on a small scale before you approve of thousands of acres. It may be harmful to 

oru water, clean air, and wildlife. I understand that the technology has not been proven yet. 

#1])>

I know you must have a difficult job to do there. I’m trying to help. 

OSTS_235 

Organization: Colorado Environmental Coalition campaign 

Received: 7/27/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Commenter1: - , Colorado (United States) 

Organization1:Colorado Environmental Coalition campaign 

Commenter Type: Environmental Organization 

Classification: none 

Submission Category: Campaign Letter 

Submitted As: E-Mail 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: klett 

Attachments: OSTS2012D00237.htm (OSTS_235-59462.htm Size = 1 KB) 

OSTS_235_CEC_Campaign_Sample_Letter_OSTS2012D00237.pdf (OSTS_235-59461.pdf 

Size = 55 KB) 

Submission Text

See Attachment. 

<([#1 [3] I am deeply concerned about the potential effects to our water, wildlife, communities 

and public lands if the BLM initiates a commercial leasing program. The two million acres in 

UT, WY and CO previously allocated for commercial leasing is a massive amount of public, 

taxpayer land that would be sacrificed for a singular use of the landscape. 

#1])>
Final OSTS PEIS 606 

<([#2 [2.2] [12.3] While the preferred alternative (Alternative 2) is a step in the right direction, I 

would like to have seen a draft document that does not give away hundreds of thousands of 

taxpayer lands to a failed industry to tinker with. I would have liked to have seen an alternative 

that does not endorse giveaways of even more public lands to this unproven industry. 

#2])>

<([#3 [3] Oil shale is currently producing no jobs and no revenue the Congressional Budget 

Office confirmed that it is not expected to produce significant revenues through 2022. So we 

have the time to assess the impacts of development to our water, wildlife, and communities. 

#3])>

<([#4 [3.10.4] The land overlying oil shale resources in Utah, Colorado and Wyoming is some of 

the best wildlife habitat in the West, outdoor recreation and tourism are huge economic drivers in 

the West. We must protect these jobs by making smart about how we allow oil companies to 

move forward with oil shale speculation. 

#4])>

<([#5 [3] Finally, I recommend that you carefully consider the serious impacts of new energy 

required for oil shale production and the potential devastating impacts to our wildlife, water, air, 

and communities as you take another look at oil shale development. 

#5])>

OSTS2_230 

Organization: DOI, BLM, Rawlins Field Office, Dennis Carpenter 

Received: 5/3/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Commenter1: Dennis Carpenter - Rawlins, Wyoming 82301 (United States) 

Organization1:DOI, BLM, Rawlins Field Office 

Commenter Type: Federal Government 

Classification: none 

Submission Category: Letter 

Submitted As: E-Mail 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: klett 

Attachments: OSTS2012D00231.htm (OSTS2_230-59449.htm Size = 1 KB) 

OSTS_230_BLM_RawlinsFO_OSTS2012D00231.pdf (OSTS2_230-59448.pdf Size = 569 KB) 

Submission Text

See Attachment. 

See OSTS_230 

OSTS2012D50001 

Organization: Floyd London 

Received: 2/3/2012 9:01:58 PM 

Commenter1: Floyd London - Deatsville, Alabama 36022 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 

Submitted As: Web Form 
Final OSTS PEIS 607 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 4/13/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50001.htm (OSTS2012D50001-58125.htm Size = 1 KB) 

Submission Text

<([#1 [3.4.1] Having been born and lived in Montana i understand the importance of water. Lets 

research and plan mitigation that protects precious water resources. The United States needs the 

oil but we need to protect water resource to prevent the shale and tar sands areas from becoming 

wasteland. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this vital question. #1])>

OSTS2012D50002 

Organization: Mark 

Received: 2/4/2012 9:44:35 AM 

Commenter1: Mark - , California (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 4/13/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50002.htm (OSTS2012D50002-58127.htm Size = 1 KB) 

Submission Text

I am a practicing professional licensed geologist and an Sr engineering geologist for the State of 

California. I hold a degree in Geography, with a Rural Land Use Planning emphasis. <([#1 [11] 

[2.1] The potential petroleum reserves being discussed exceed those of Saudi Arabia. The full 

and unrestricted development of this resource should the primary focus of any government 

endeavor or agency action. If our next generation is to have any future, it will have to be 

powered with our own resources. The areas available for exploration should not be reduced from 

the 2008 levels. 

#1])>

OSTS2012D50003 

Organization: Verna Pottorff 

Received: 2/4/2012 3:25:44 PM 

Commenter1: Verna Pottorff - Grand Junction, Colorado 81501 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 4/13/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50003.htm (OSTS2012D50003-58129.htm Size = 1 KB) 

Submission Text
Final OSTS PEIS 608 

<([#1 [2.2] This comment is to express my approval of the steps taken to control the stampede of 

entities ready and willing to overrun Colorado and r western states with what I call “Gold 

Rushers”(from the 19th century) without regard to what the western states have become. . . A 

fragile, attractive, beautiful, home to millions of people. We must continue along the course 

being set for us by our Governor, the Bureau of Land Management, State Senators and the 

Interior Secretary: who are endeavoring to craft for the use of the oil/gas industries, a program to 

help them in gaining drilling leases. These “gold Rushers” enthusiasm reminds me of the frantic, 

loud, and uncaring attitudes of those who were just WILD over oil shale exploration (1960s), and 

remember, Gilsonite? JUST KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK. YES, i WILL VOTE FOR YOU 

AGAIN!!! #1])>

OSTS2012D50004 

Organization: FRANK LITTLE 

Received: 2/5/2012 10:47:41 AM 

Commenter1: FRANK LITTLE - GRAND JUNCTION, Colorado 81506 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 4/13/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50004.htm (OSTS2012D50004-58147.htm Size = 1 KB) 

Submission Text

I AM A LIFE-LONG RESIDENT OF WESTERN COLORADO. IN 1952 THE MESA JUNIOR 

COLLEGE (THEN)OFFERED A TERRIFIC CLASS IN WESTERN COLORADO 

GEOLOGY. A FIELD TRIP TOOK OUR CLASS TO A SITE JUST WEST OF RIFLE, 

COLORADO TO THE ANVIL POINTS OIL SHALE MINE. IT WAS OPERATIONAL AND 

WE TOURED THE INTERIOR OF THE MINE. IN SUCCEEDING MONTHS, OIL SHALE 

WAS PRODUCED AND RETORTED FOR USE BY THE U.S. NAVY. SINCE THEN (NOW 

72 YEARS LATER), <([#1 [11.2] OIL SHALE PRODUCTION HAS BEEN STUDIED AND 

STUDIED AD-NASEUM. BOTH SURFACE AND UNDERGROUND ESTRATION HAS 

BEEN USED. THIS ENORMOUS AREA OF OIL SHALE (UTAH, COLORADO, AND 

WYOMING) HAS MORE RECOVERABLE OIL THAN ALL OF SAUDI ARABIA. HERE IS 

MY COMMENT: THE CURRENT INTERIOR DEPARTMENT (SALAZAR AND 

OBAMA)SPEAK OUT OF BOTH SIDES OF THEIR MOUTHS, THEY SAY WE MUST 

STOP PURCHASING OIL FROM OUR ENEMIES YET NOW PROPOSE TO REDUCE THE 

AMOUNT OF AVAILABLE ACREAGE BY 90%. HOW ABSOLUTELY ABSURD IT IS 

ABSOLUTELY STUPID - THOUSANDS OF JOBS AND MILLIONS OF BARRELLS OF 

OIL ARE WAITING - AND IT CAN BE DONE ENVIRONMENTALLY SAFE. POLITICS, 

POLITICS, WE ARE GETTING SICK AND TIRED OF STUDIES AND WASTING OUR 

MONEY, 

#1])>

OSTS2012D50005 
Final OSTS PEIS 609 

Organization: jean public 

Received: 2/6/2012 11:18:59 AM 

Commenter1: jean public - not available, New Jersey 08822 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 4/13/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50005.htm (OSTS2012D50005-58141.htm Size = 1 KB) 

Submission Text

<([#1 [12] this land should not be touched by blm or developed. developign this land is hurtful to 

america. 2million acres is a big swath of destruction. you are destroying clean water with these 

plans. greed and money is paramount at blm. blm should be closed down it is a destructive 

cesspool of an agency. this attack on the west needs to be shut down. blm is a vicious, venal 

agency which just sent all the wild horses out to die grisly deaths in slaughterhouse. they killed 

them. blm gives giveaway leases/contracts to profiteers so that the land is left destroyed and the 

pubilc treasury gets nothing. the blm employees do though - they get bribe money, trips to 

superbowl, etc. these leases/sales are written by idioiits and involving hurting the taxpayers of 

this country. wilderness needs to be preserved. i reject totally this plan. it stinks to high heaven

#1])>

OSTS2012D50006 

Organization: Design Firm, Larry Steinbach 

Received: 2/6/2012 12:02:16 PM 

Commenter1: Larry Steinbach - Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 (United States) 

Organization1:Design Firm 

Commenter Type: Affiliation Only 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 4/13/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50006.htm (OSTS2012D50006-58143.htm Size = 2 KB) 

Submission Text

Although I or the firm I work for (A Canadian design firm headquartered in Toronto) are not in 

the Oil business we do get involved with the design of facilities and infrastructure related to the 

economic impacts of the oil development. Currently our Edmonton, Alberta office, along with 

one of my associates here in our Salt Lake City Office, is providing design services for new 

subdivisions in Edmonton and Fort McMurray, Alberta. The economic impact of the oil rich 

Alberta oil sands is far reaching. However, the US economy has caused much of the design 

professions to see heavy layoffs. I was recently told that fully 1/2 of licensed architects in 

Oregon were unemployed. I personally have had to work extensively in our Edmonton office and 

now in our Vancouver office because of diminished work in our Salt Lake City Office. It all 
Final OSTS PEIS 610 

started with the downturn in 2008. I am very concerned about world political issues, our 

dependence on oil (not to change anytime soon despite alternate energy options simply due to 

population growth worldwide as well as domestically), and the current economy sluggish to 

recover. I have managed to keep my job (I am nearly 63 and cannot retire under these conditions) 

by being willing to work extensively in our Canada offices away from my wife and family.<([#1

[2.1.1] I do not believe this BLM strategy is conducive to improving the current economic 

struggle. There are more than adequate environmental protections in current lay and plenty of 

opportunity for proponents and opponents to be heard. We must become less dependent on 

Middle Eastern oil and more self sufficient to make a more stable domestic economy. That will 

help my procession as a licensed architect and the construction industry as well. We cannot let 

politics dictate good thinking. I am not in favor of this lease are a reduction on BLM land. 

Opinions aside, technology will eventually make these resources and the vast oil reserve 

economically feasible. We must encourage this with all the protections needed to ensure 

minimizing environmental impacts, but restricting lease area is not the way. Thank you for this 

opportunity. I hope my firm and others in the design arena will not have to suffer further due the 

bureaucratic mismanagement of our public natural resources. #1])> Thank you. Larry Steinbach, 

AIA Architect 

OSTS2012D50007 

Organization: Industrial Systems, Inc., Glenn Lewis 

Received: 2/6/2012 6:11:53 PM 

Commenter1: Glenn Lewis - Delta, Colorado 81416 (United States) 

Organization1:Industrial Systems, Inc. 

Commenter Type: OSTS Tech Company 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 4/13/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50007.htm (OSTS2012D50007-58145.htm Size = 1 KB) 

Submission Text

Industrial Systems Inc.,(ISI) was founded in 1991. ISI is: A Service Disabled Veteran Owned 

Small Business employing about 35 employees full time. ISI has employed as many as 200 

employees depending on larger projects. ISI is currently completing a Pilot Shale Oil project in 

Pieance Creek area of western CO. This project has generated full time work for over 100 full 

time employees for the most part of the last two years. The above mentioned employees are not 

into acount for the various companies who manufactured pipe, pumps, other pieces of equipment 

too numerous to listOther firms, such as freight company, equipment dealers such as Catapillar, 

Ford, Chevy trucks,etc. co on and on. Many millions of dollars have went through ISI’s payroll 

and accounting systems. <([#1 [11.2] Failure to list theseshale oil lands for lease would have of 

course, not allowed this important project [a Pilot Shale Oil project in Pieance Creek area of 

western CO] to proceed. The shale oil leases must continue to insure America has a chance to not 

be dependent on foreign countries for our energy. This work is being done without adverse 

enviromental stress or damage to the BLM lands. I strongly urge BLM support of continued 

leasing of BLM land to private companies to push forward with pilot programs ti insure 
Final OSTS PEIS 611 

America’s independence of other countries who may not have our best interests at heart 

regarding our energy future. #1])> Thank you Thank you 

OSTS2012D50009 

Organization: Peaceful Uprising, Stephanie Pace 

Received: 2/6/2012 8:01:40 PM 

Commenter1: Stephanie Pace - , Utah 84103 (United States) 

Organization1:Peaceful Uprising 

Commenter Type: Affiliation Only 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 4/13/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50009.htm (OSTS2012D50009-58151.htm Size = 1 KB) 

Submission Text

<([#1 [12.3] This proposal does not go far enough; ‘far enough’ would mean no drilling on 

public lands; it would mean BLM awareness that tourism in Utah is the major money source for 

the future (along with alternate energy sources), but THIS IS NEVERTHELESS VERY GOOD 

NEWS! THANK YOU. #1])>

OSTS2012D50010 

Organization: Peaceful Uprising, Lindsy Floyd 

Received: 2/7/2012 9:31:30 AM 

Commenter1: Lindsy Floyd - Salt Lake City, Utah 84105 (United States) 

Organization1:Peaceful Uprising 

Commenter Type: Affiliation Only 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 4/13/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50010.htm (OSTS2012D50010-58131.htm Size = 1 KB) 

Submission Text

<([#1 [12.1] While I commend the BLM for reducing the number of available acreage for tar 

sands development, I believe that tar sands exploration/excavation in Utah should be completely 

prohibited. Extracting tar sands is extremely energy inefficient and requires more water than is 

sustainably available in the desert. NO tar sands! #1])>

OSTS2012D50011 

Organization: Rebecca Hall 

Received: 2/8/2012 5:17:49 PM 

Commenter1: Rebecca Hall - Park City, Utah 84098 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 
Final OSTS PEIS 612 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 4/13/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50011.htm (OSTS2012D50011-58153.htm Size = 1 KB) 

Submission Text

<([#1 [12.1] Thank you for limiting Utah’s exposure to Tar Sands development. I support an 

outright ban on this industry, But limiting it is an excellent first step. #1])>

OSTS2012D50012 

Organization: Nancy Power 

Received: 2/8/2012 6:17:50 PM 

Commenter1: Nancy Power - Altadena, California 91001 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 4/16/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50012.htm (OSTS2012D50012-58155.htm Size = 1 KB) 

Submission Text

<([#1 [2.2.1] I favor alternative 2. #1])> <([#2 [10.6.1] As a nation, we need to invest in clean 

energy that gets a high return on energy invested, such as wind, and hugely reduce our carbon 

dioxide emissions in order to stave off the worst effects of global climate change. To this end, we 

also need to require huge increases in the efficiency of the fossil fuels that we continue to use, 

such as raising the CAFE standards to 70 mpg, which would make us not need tar sands and oil 

shale. Climate change, according to the scientists, is happening faster than expected and has 

potentially catastrophic implications if we do not reduce our carbon dioxide and methane 

emissions now. #2])>

OSTS2012D50013 

Organization: Ashley Sanders 

Received: 2/8/2012 6:36:07 PM 

Commenter1: Ashley Sanders - Salt Lake City, Utah 84108 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 4/13/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50013.htm (OSTS2012D50013-58157.htm Size = 1 KB) 
Final OSTS PEIS 613 

Submission Text

<([#1 [12.1] Thank you for doing your job and reducing the number of acres available for tar 

sands extraction. This is hugely important in a state that has no extra water as it is, that boasts 

beautiful and delicate desert ecosystems, and that has plenty of other options for energy creation. 

This reduction is not adequate, however. There is no need for the tragedy of tar sands, especially 

when there are so many other options. If you want to cry, look at what tar sands has done to the 

boreal forest of Canada. It is an environmental and public health nightmare. Take all these lands 

off the table. #1])>

OSTS2012D50014 

Organization: iMatter Utah , Ryan Pleune 

Received: 2/9/2012 10:11:24 AM 

Commenter1: Ryan Pleune - Salt Lake City, Utah 84103 (United States) 

Organization1:iMatter Utah 

Commenter Type: Environmental Organization 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 4/25/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50014.htm (OSTS2012D50014-58159.htm Size = 1 KB) 

Hansen_et._al._A_Case_for_Young_People_OSTS2012D50014.pdf (OSTS2012D50014-

58158.pdf Size = 417 KB) 

Submission Text

<([#1 [12] Secretary Salazar I am writing to thank you for taking a stand against the Oil Industry. 

I call this a holding action that will buy some time for us to create a strong paradigm shift that 

leads to an ecologically sustainable, socially just and spiritually fulfilling human culture. By 

reducing acreage for oil shale and tar sands extraction on BLM lands you have helped buy us 

some time. I hope that in the future there will be zero exctraction of this type of dirty energy that 

is killing my future. Currently my wife and I do not feel comfortable having kids because the 

effects of climate change 50 years from now are likely to leave them without adequate food and 

water quality. Poor countries and communities in our country are feeling that effect now. Please 

use the attached scientific article about recommendations for ensuring a livable future for us. The 

title A Case for Young People refers to impacts during my life time. Please continue to be bold 

in your actions and decisions. There are many people out there that I work with in 350.org, 

iMatterMarch, Peaceful Uprising and the Citizen’s Climate Lobby that are willing to make large 

risks and sacrifices to make this issue a top priority. #1])> Thanks Ryan Pleune Salt Lake City 

Utah 84103 See Attachment. 

1 

<([#2 [3.5.1.6] The Case for Young People and Nature: A Path to a Healthy, Natural, Prosperous 

Future 

James Hansen1, Pushker Kharecha1, Makiko Sato1, Paul Epstein2, Paul J. Hearty3, Ove HoeghGuldberg4, Camille Parmesan5, Stefan Rahmstorf6, Johan Rockstrom7, Eelco J.Rohling8, 

Jeffrey 
Final OSTS PEIS 614 

Sachs1, Peter Smith9, Konrad Steffen10, Karina von Schuckmann11, James C. Zachos12, 

1 Columbia University Earth Institute, New York 

2 Center for Health and the Global Environment, Harvard Medical School, Boston 

3 Department of Environmental Studies, University of North Carolina at Wilmington, North 

Carolina 

4 Global Change Institute, University of Queensland, St. Lucia, Queensland, Australia 

5 Integrative Biology, University of Texas, Austin, Texas 

6 Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, Germany 

7 Stockholm Resilience Center, Stockholm University, Sweden 

8 Southhampton University, United Kingdom 

9 University of Aberdeen, United Kingdom 

10 Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences, University of Colorado 

11 Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, LOCEAN, Paris (hosted by Ifremer, Brest), 

France 

12 Earth and Planetary Science, University of California at Santa Cruz 

Abstract. We describe scenarios that define how rapidly fossil fuel emissions must be 

phased down to restore Earth’s energy balance and stabilize global climate. A scenario that 

stabilizes climate and preserves nature is technically possible and it is essential for the future of 

humanity. Despite overwhelming evidence, governments and the fossil fuel industry continue to 

propose that all fossil fuels must be exploited before the world turns predominantly to clean 

energies. If governments fail to adopt policies that cause rapid phase-down of fossil fuel 

emissions, today’s children, future generations, and nature will bear the consequences through no 

fault of their own. Governments must act immediately to significantly reduce fossil fuel 

emissions to protect our children’s future and avoid loss of crucial ecosystem services, or else be 

complicit in this loss and its consequences. 

1. Background 

Humanity is now the dominant force driving changes of Earth’s atmospheric composition 

and thus future climate on the planet. Carbon dioxide (CO2) emitted in burning of fossil fuels is, 

according to best available science, the main cause of global warming in the past century. It is 

also well-understood that most of the CO2 produced by burning fossil fuels will remain in the 

climate system for millennia. The risk of deleterious or even catastrophic effects of climate 

change driven by increasing CO2 is now widely recognized by the relevant scientific 

community. 

The climate system has great inertia because it contains a 4-kilometer deep ocean and 2- 

kilometer thick ice sheets. As a result, global climate responds only slowly, at least initially, to 

natural and human-made forcings of the system. Consequently, today’s changes of atmospheric 

composition will be felt most by today’s young people and the unborn, in other words, by people 

who have no possibility of protecting their own rights and their future well-being, and who 

currently depend on others who make decisions today that have consequences over future 

decades and centuries. 

Governments have recognized the need to stabilize atmospheric composition at a level 
Final OSTS PEIS 615 

that avoids dangerous anthropogenic climate change, as formalized in the Framework 

Convention on Climate Change in 1992. Yet the resulting 1997 Kyoto Protocol was so 

ineffective that global fossil fuel emissions have since accelerated by 2.5% per year, compared to 

1.5% per year in the preceding two decades. 

Governments and businesses have learned to make assurances that they are working on 

clean energies and reduced emissions, but in view of the documented emissions pathway it is not 

inappropriate to describe their rhetoric as being basically ‘greenwash’. The reality is that most 

governments13, strongly influenced by the fossil fuel industry, continue to allow and even 

subsidize development of fossil fuel deposits. This situation was aptly described in a special 

energy supplement in the New York Times entitled ‘There Will Be Fuel’ (Krauss, 2010), which 

described massive efforts to expand fossil fuel extraction. These efforts include expansion of oil 

drilling to increasing depths of the global ocean, into the Arctic, and onto environmentally fragile 

public lands; squeezing of oil from tar sands; hydro-fracking to expand extraction of natural gas; 

and increased mining of coal via mechanized longwall mining and mountain-top removal. 

The true costs of fossil fuels to human well-being and the biosphere is not imbedded in 

their price. Fossil fuels are the cheapest energy source today only if they are not made to pay for 

their damage to human health, to the environment, and to the future well-being of young people 

who will inherit on-going climate changes that are largely out of their control. Even a moderate 

but steadily rising price on carbon emissions would be sufficient to move the world toward clean 

energies, but such an approach has been effectively resisted by the fossil fuel industry. 

The so-called ‘north-south’ injustice of climate disruption has been emphasized in 

international discussions, and payment of $100B per year to developing countries has been 

proposed. Focus on this injustice, as developed countries reap the economic benefits of fossil 

fuels while developing countries are among the most vulnerable to the impacts of climate 

change, is appropriate. Payments, if used as intended, will support adaptation to climate change 

and mitigation of emissions from developing countries. We must be concerned, however, about 

the degree to which such payment, from adults in the North to adults in the South, are a modern 

form of indulgences, allowing fossil fuel emissions to continue with only marginal reductions or 

even increase. 

The greatest injustice of continued fossil fuel dominance of energy is the heaping of 

climate and environmental damages onto the heads of young people and those yet to be born in 

both developing and developed countries. The tragedy of this situation is that a pathway to a 

clean energy future is not only possible, but even economically sensible. 

Fossil fuels today power engines of economic development and thus raise the standards 

of living throughout most of the world. But air and water pollution due to extraction and burning 

of fossil fuels kills more than 1,000,000 people per year and affects the health of billions of 

people (Cohen et al., 2005). Burning all fossil fuels would have a climate impact that literally 

produces a different planet than the one on which civilization developed. The consequences for 

young people, future generations, and other species would continue to mount over years and 

centuries. Ice sheet disintegration would cause continual shoreline adjustments with massive 

civil engineering cost implications as well as widespread heritage loss in the nearly uncountable 

number of coastal cites. Shifting of climatic zones and repeated climate disruptions would have 
Final OSTS PEIS 616 

enormous economic and social costs, especially in the developing world. 

These consequences can be avoided via prompt transition to a clean energy future. The 

benefits would include a healthy environment with clean air and water, preservation of the 

shorelines and climatic zones that civilization is adapted to, and retention of the many benefits 

humanity derives from the remarkable diversity of species with which we share this planet. 

13 Some nations are working hard to reduce their emissions, some with notable success. But 

there is not global 

recognition that most of the remaining fossil fuel carbon cannot be emitted to the atmosphere 

without great damage 

to the future of young people. 

It is appropriate that governments, instituted for the protection of all citizens, should be 

required to safeguard the future of young people and the unborn. Specific policies cannot be 

imposed by courts, but courts can require governments to present realistic plans to protect the 

rights of the young. These plans should be consistent with the scientifically-established rate at 

which emissions must be reduced to stabilize climate. 

Science can also make clear that rapid transition to improved energy efficiency and clean 

energies is not only feasible but economically sensible, and that rapid transition requires a 

steadily rising price on undesirable emissions. Other actions by governments are needed, such as 

enforcement of energy efficiency standards and investment in technology development. 

However, without the underlying incentive of a price on carbon emissions, such actions, as well 

as voluntary actions by concerned citizens, are only marginally effective. This is because such 

actions reduce the demand for fossil fuels, lower their price, and thus encourage fossil fuel use 

elsewhere. The price on carbon emissions, to be most effective, must be transparent and 

acrosstheboard, for the sake of public acceptance, for guidance of consumer decisions, and for 

guidance of business decisions including technology investments. 

Here we summarize the emission reductions required to restore Earth’s energy balance, 

limit CO2 change to a level that avoids dangerous human-made interference with climate, assure 

a bright future for young people and future generations, and provide a planet on which both 

humans and our fellow species can continue to survive and thrive. 

Figure 1. Global surface temperature anomalies relative to 1951-1980 mean for (a) annual and 5-

year 

running means through 2010, and (b) 60-month and 132-month running means through March 

2011. 

Green bars are 2-s error estimates, i.e., 95% confidence intervals (data from Hansen et al., 2010). 

2. Global Temperature 

Global surface temperature fluctuates chaotically within a limited range and it also 

responds to natural and human-made climate forcings. Climate forcings are imposed 

perturbations of Earth’s energy balance. Examples of climate forcings are changes in the 
Final OSTS PEIS 617 

luminosity of the sun, volcanic eruptions that inject aerosols (fine particles) into Earth’s 

stratosphere, and human-caused alterations of atmospheric composition, most notably the 

increase of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) due to burning of fossil fuels. 

2.1. Modern Temperature 

Figure 1(a) shows annual-mean global temperature change over the past century. The 

year-to-year variability is partly unforced chaotic variability and partly forced climate change. 

For example, the global warmth of 1998 was a consequence of the strongest El Nino of the 

century, a natural warming of the tropical Pacific Ocean surface associated with a fluctuation of 

ocean dynamics. The strong cooling in 1992 was caused by stratospheric aerosols from the 

Mount Pinatubo volcanic eruption, which temporarily reduced sunlight reaching Earth’s surface 

by as much as 2 percent. 

Figure 1(b) shows global temperature change averaged over 5 years (60 months) and 11 

years (132 months), for the purpose of minimizing year-to-year variability. The rapid warming 

during the past three decades is a forced climate change that has been shown to be a consequence 

of the simultaneous rapid growth of human-made atmospheric greenhouse gases, predominately 

CO2 from fossil fuel burning (IPCC, 2007). 

The basic physics underlying this global warming, the greenhouse effect, is simple. An 

increase of gases such as CO2 makes the atmosphere more opaque at infrared wavelengths. This 

added opacity causes the planet’s heat radiation to space to arise from higher, colder levels in the 

atmosphere, thus reducing emission of heat energy to space. The temporary imbalance between 

the energy absorbed from the sun and heat emission to space, causes the planet to warm until 

planetary energy balance is restored. 

The great thermal inertia of Earth, primarily a consequence of the 4-kilometer (21⁄2 mile) 

deep ocean, causes the global temperature response to a climate forcing to be slow. Because 

atmospheric CO2 is continuing to increase, Earth is significantly out of energy balance – the 

solar 

energy being absorbed by the planet exceeds heat radiation to space. Measurement of Earth’s 

energy imbalance provides the most precise quantitative evaluation of how much CO2 must be 

reduced to stabilize climate, as discussed in Section 2. 

However, we should first discuss global temperature, because most efforts to assess the 

level of climate change that would be ‘dangerous’ for humanity have focused on estimating a 

permissible level of global warming. Broad-based assessments, represented by the ‘burning 

embers’ diagram in IPCC (2001, 2007), suggested that major problems begin with global 

warming of 2-3°C relative to global temperature in year 2000. Sophisticated probabilistic 

analyses (Schneider and Mastrandrea, 2005) found a median ‘dangerous’ threshold of 2.85°C 

above global temperature in 2000, with the 90 percent confidence range being 1.45-4.65°C. 

The conclusion that humanity could readily tolerate global warming up to a few degrees 

Celsius seemed to mesh with common sense. After all, people readily tolerate much larger 

regional and seasonal climate variations. 
Final OSTS PEIS 618 

The fallacy of this logic became widely apparent only in recent years. (1) Summer sea 

ice cover in the Arctic plummeted in 2007 to an area 30 percent less than a few decades earlier. 

Continued growth of greenhouse gases will likely cause the loss of all summer sea ice within the 

next few decades, with large effects on wildlife and indigenous people, increased heat absorption 

at high latitudes, and potentially the release of massive amounts of methane, a powerful 

greenhouse gas, presently frozen in Arctic sediments on both land and sea floor. (2) The great 

continental ice sheets of Greenland and Antarctic have begun to shed ice at a rate, now several 

hundred cubic kilometers per year, which is continuing to accelerate. With the loss of protective 

sea ice and buttressing ice shelves, there is a danger that ice sheet mass loss will reach a level 

that causes catastrophic, and for all practical purposes irreversible, sea level rise. (3) Mountain 

glaciers are receding rapidly all around the world. Summer glacier melt provides fresh water to 

major world rivers during the dry season, so loss of the glaciers would be highly detrimental to 

billions of people. (4) The hot dry subtropical climate belts have expanded, affecting climate 

most notably in the southern United States, the Mediterranean and Middle East regions, and 

Australia, contributing to more intense droughts, summer heat waves, and devastating wildfires. 

(5) Coral reef ecosystems are already being impacted by a combination of ocean warming and 

acidification (a direct consequence of rising atmospheric CO2), resulting in a 1-2% per year 

decline in geographic extent. Coral reef ecosystems will be eliminated with continued increase 

of atmospheric CO2, with huge consequences for an estimated 500 million people that depend on 

the ecosystem services of coral reefs (Bruno and Selig, 2007; Hoegh-guldberg et al., 2007; 

Veron et al., 2009). (6) So-called mega-heatwaves have become noticeably more frequent, for 

example the 2003 and 2010 heatwaves over Europe and large parts of Russia, each with 

heatdeath 

tolls in the range of 55,000 to 70,000 (Barriopedro et al., 2011). 

Reassessment of the dangerous level of global warming has been spurred by realization 

that large climate effects are already beginning while global warming is less than 1°C above 

preindustrial levels. The best tool for assessment is provided by paleoclimate, the history of 

ancient climates on Earth. 

Figure 2. Global temperature relative to peak Holocene temperature (Hansen and Sato, 2011). 

2.2. Paleoclimate Temperature 

Hansen and Sato (2011) illustrate Earth’s temperature on a broad range of time scales. 

Figure 2(a) shows estimated global mean temperature14 during the Pliocene and Pleistocene, 

approximately the past five million years. Figure 2(b) shows higher temporal resolution, so that 

the more recent glacial to interglacial climate oscillations are more apparent. 

Climate variations summarized in Figure 2 are huge. During the last ice age, 20,000 

years ago, global mean temperature was about 5°C lower than today. But regional changes on 

land were larger. Most of Canada was under an ice sheet. New York City was buried under that 

ice sheet, as were Minneapolis and Seattle. On average the ice sheet was more than a mile (1.6 

km) thick. Although thinner near its southern boundary, its thickness at the location of the above 

cities dwarfs the tallest buildings in today’s world. Another ice sheet covered northwest Europe. 

These huge climate changes were instigated by minor perturbations of Earth’s orbit about 
Final OSTS PEIS 619 

the sun and the tilt of Earth’s spin axis relative to the orbital plane. By altering the seasonal and 

geographical distribution of sunlight, the orbital perturbations cause small temperature change. 

Temperature change then drives two powerful amplifying feedbacks: higher temperature melts 

ice globally, thus exposing darker surfaces that absorb more sunlight; higher temperature also 

causes the ocean and soil to release CO2 and other greenhouse gases. These amplifying 

feedbacks are responsible for practically the entire glacial-to-interglacial temperature change. 

In these slow natural climate changes the amplifying feedbacks (ice area and CO2 

amount) acted as slaves to weak orbital forcings. But today CO2, global temperature, and ice 

area are under the command of humanity: CO2 has increased to levels not seen for at least 3 

million years, global temperature is rising, and ice is melting rapidly all over the planet. Another 

ice age will never occur, unless humans go extinct. A single chlorofluorocarbon factory can 

produce gases with a climate forcing that exceeds the forcing due to Earth orbital perturbations. 

[14 This estimate of global mean temperature is obtained from ocean sediments at many 

locations around the world 

(Zachos et al., 2001; Hansen et al., 2008). The composition of the shells of deep-sea-dwelling 

microscopic animals 

(foraminifera), preserved in ocean sediments, carry a record of ocean temperature. Deep ocean 

temperature change 

is about two-thirds as large as global mean surface temperature change for the range of climates 

from the last ice age 

to the present interglacial period; that proportionality factor is included in Figure 2.] 

During the climate oscillations summarized in Figure 2, Earth’s climate remained in near 

equilibrium with its changing boundary conditions, i.e., with changing ice sheet area and 

changing atmospheric CO2. These natural boundary conditions changed slowly, over millennia, 

because the principal Earth orbital perturbations occur on time scales predominately in the range 

of 20,000 to 100,000 years. 

Human-made changes of atmospheric composition are occurring much faster, on time 

scales of decades and centuries. The paleoclimate record does not tell us how rapidly the climate 

system will respond to the high-speed human-made change of climate forcings – our best guide 

will be observations of what is beginning to happen now. But the paleoclimate record does 

provide an indication of the eventual consequences of a given level of global warming. 

The Eemian and Hosteinian interglacial periods, also known as marine isotope stages 5e 

and 11, respectively about 130,000 and 400,000 years ago, were warmer than the Holocene, but 

global mean temperature in those periods was probably less than 1°C warmer than peak 

Holocene temperature (Figure 2b). Yet it was warm enough for sea level to reach mean levels 4- 

6 meters higher than today. 

Global mean temperature 2°C higher than peak Holocene temperature has not existed 

since at least the Pliocene, a few million years ago. Sea level at that time was estimated to have 

been 15-25 meters higher than today (Dowsett et al., 1999). Changes of regional climate during 

these warm periods were much greater than the global mean changes. 
Final OSTS PEIS 620 

How does today’s global temperature, given the warming of the past century, compare 

with prior peak Holocene temperature? Holocene climate has been highly variable on a regional 

basis (Mayewski et al., 2004). However, Hansen and Sato (2011) show from records at several 

places around the globe that mean temperature has been remarkably constant during the 

Holocene. They estimate that the warming between the 1800s and the period 1951-1980 (a 

warming of ~0.25°C in the Goddard Institute for Space Studies analysis, Hansen et al., 2010) 

brought global temperatures back to approximately the peak Holocene level. 

If the 1951-1980 global mean temperature approximates peak Holocene temperature, this 

implies that global temperature in 2000 (5-year running mean) was already 0.45°C above the 

peak Holocene temperature. The uncertainty in the peak Holocene temperature is a least several 

tenths of a degree Celsius. However, strong empirical evidence that global temperature has 

already risen above the prior peak Holocene temperature is provided by the ongoing mass loss of 

the Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets, which began within the last fewdecades. Sea level 

was relatively stable for the past five to six thousand years, indicating that these ice sheets were 

in near mass balance. Now, however, both Greenland and West Antarctica are shedding ice at 

accelerating rates. This is strong evidence that today’s global temperature has reached a level 

higher than prior Holocene temperatures. 

The conclusion is that global warming of 1°C relative to 1880-1920 mean temperature 

(i.e., 0.75°C above the 1951-1980 temperature or 0.3°C above the 5-year running mean 

temperature in 2000), if maintained for long, is already close to or into the ‘dangerous’ zone. The 

suggestion that 2°C global warming may be a ‘safe’ target is extremely unwise based on critical 

evidence accumulated over the past three decades. Global warming of this amount would be 

putting Earth on a path toward Pliocene-like conditions, i.e., a very different world marked by 

massive and continual disruptions to both society and ecosystems. It would be a world in which 

the world’s species and ecosystems will have had no recent evolutionary experience, surely with 

consequences and disruptions to the ecosystem services that maintain human communities today. 

There are no credible arguments that such rapid change would not have catastrophic 

circumstances for human well-being. 

Figure 3. (a) Estimated planetary energy imbalance in 1993-2008, and (b) in 2005-2010. Data 

sources 

are given by Hansen et al. (2011). 

3. Earth’s Energy Imbalance 

Earth’s energy balance is the ultimate measure of the status of Earth’s climate. In a period 

of climate stability, Earth radiates the same amount of energy to space that it absorbs from 

incident sunlight. Today it is anticipated that Earth is out of balance because of increasing 

atmospheric CO2. Greenhouse gases such as CO2 reduce Earth’s heat radiation to space, thus 

causing a temporary energy imbalance, more energy coming in than going out. This imbalance 

causes Earth to warm until energy balance is restored. 

The immediate planetary energy imbalance due to an increase of CO2 can be calculated 

precisely. It does not require a climate model. The radiation physics is rigorously understood. 
Final OSTS PEIS 621 

However, the current planetary energy imbalance is complicated by the fact that increasing CO2 

is only one of the factors affecting Earth’s energy balance, and Earth has already partly 

responded to the net climate forcing by warming 0.8°C in the past century. 

Thus authoritative determination of the state of the climate system requires measuring the 

planet’s current energy imbalance. This is a technical challenge, because the magnitude of the 

imbalance is expected to be only about 1 W/m2 or less, so measurements must have an accuracy 

that approaches 0.1 W/m2. The most promising approach to achieve this accuracy is to measure 

ongoing changes of the heat content of the ocean, atmosphere, land, and ice on the planet. 

The vast global ocean is the primary reservoir for changes of Earth’s heat content. 

Because of the importance of this measurement, nations of the world launched a cooperative 

Argo float program, which has distributed more than 3000 floats around the world ocean 

(Roemmich and Gilson, 2009). Each float repeatedly yoyos an instrument package to a depth of 

two kilometers and satellite-communicates the data to shore. 

The Argo program did not attain planned distribution of floats until late 2007, but 

coverage reached 90% by 2005, allowing good accuracy provided that systematic measurement 

errors are kept sufficiently small. Prior experience showed how difficult it is to eliminate all 

measurement biases, but the exposure of the difficulties over the past decade leads to 

expectationthat the data for the 6-year period 2005-2010 are the most precise achieved so far. 

The estimated standard error for that period, necessarily partly subjective, is 0.15 W/m2.15 

15 Barker et al. (2011) describe a remaining bias due to sensor drift in pressure measurements. 

That bias is reduced 

in the analysis of von Schuckmann and Le Traon by excluding data from floats on a pressurebias black list and data 

from profiles that fail climatology checks, but errors remain and require further analysis. 

Smaller contributions to the planetary energy imbalance, from changes in the heat 

content of the land, ice and atmosphere, are also know more accurately in recent years. A key 

improvement during the past decade has been provided by the GRACE satellite that measures 

Earth’s gravitational field with a precision that allows the rate of ice loss by Greenland and 

Antarctica to be monitored accurately. 

Figure 3 summarizes the results of analyses of Earth’s energy imbalance averaged over 

the periods 1993-2008 and 2005-2010. In the period 1993-2008 the planetary energy imbalance 

ranges from 0.57 W/m2 to 0.80 W/m2 among different analyses, with the lower value based on 

upper ocean heat content analysis of Levitus et al. (2009) and the higher value based on Lyman 

et al. (2010). For the period 2005-2010 the upper ocean heat content change is based on analysis 

of the Argo data by von Schuckmann and Le Traon (2011), which yields a planetary energy 

imbalance of 0.59 ± 0.15 W/m2 (Hansen et al., 2011). 

The energy imbalance in 2005-2010 is particularly important, because that period 

coincides with the lowest level of solar irradiance in the period since satellites began measuring 

the brightness of the sun in the late 1970s. Changes of solar irradiance are often hypothesized as 

being the one natural climate forcing with the potential to compete with human-made climate 

forcings, so measurements during the strongest solar minimum on record provide a conclusive 
Final OSTS PEIS 622 

evaluation of the sun’s potential to reduce the planet’s energy imbalance. 

The conclusion is that Earth is out of energy balance by at least ~0.5 W/m2. Our 

measured 0.59 W/m2 for 2005-2010 suggests that the average imbalance over the 11-year solar 

cycle may be closer to 0.75 W/m2. 

This planetary energy imbalance is substantial, with implications for future climate 

change. It means that global warming will continue on decadal time scales, as the 0.8°C global 

warming so far is the response to only about half of the net human-made climate forcing. 

Knowledge of Earth’s energy imbalance allows us to specify accurately how much CO2 

must be reduced to restore energy balance and stabilize climate. CO2 must be reduced from the 

current level of 390 ppm to 360 ppm to increase Earth’s heat radiation to space by 0.5 W/m2, or 

to 345 ppm to increase heat radiation to space by 0.75 W/m2, thus restoring Earth’s energy 

balance and stabilizing climate. 

Earth’s energy imbalance thus provides accurate affirmation of a conclusion reached 

earlier (Hansen et al., 2008), that the appropriate initial target level of atmospheric CO2 to 

stabilize climate is “<350 ppm”. This target level may need to be adjusted as it is approached, 

but, considering the time required to achieve a reversal of atmospheric CO2 growth, more 

precise 

knowledge of the ultimate target for CO2 will be available by the time CO2 has been restored to 

a 

level approaching 350 ppm. 

One reason that more precise specification than “<350 ppm” is inadvisable now is the 

uncertainty about the net effect of changes of other human-made climate forcings such as 

methane, other trace gases, reflecting aerosols, black soot, and the surface reflectivity. These 

forcings are smaller than that by CO2, but not negligible. 

Indeed, there is a concern that expected future reductions of particulate air pollution will 

exacerbate global warming via reduction of reflective aerosols. It has been suggested (Hansen et 

al., 2000) that a concerted effort to reduce methane, tropospheric ozone, other trace gases and 

black soot could substantially reduce the human-made climate forcing, possibly enough to 

counteract the warming effect of a decline in reflective aerosols. Our calculations of future 

global temperature in section 5 assume that a major effort will be made to reduce the non-CO2 

forcings sufficient to obviate warming due to a decline of reflective aerosols. To the degree that 

this goal is not achieved, future warming could exceed that which we calculate. 

Figure 4. (a) Decay of instantaneous (pulse) injection and extraction of atmospheric CO2, (b) 

atmospheric CO2 if fossil fuel emissions terminated at end of 2011, 2030, 2050. 

The important point is that CO2 is the dominant climate forcing agent and it will be all 

the more so in the future. The CO2 injected into the climate system by burning fossil fuels will 

continue to affect our climate for millennia. We cannot burn all of the fossil fuels without 

producing a different planet, with changes occurring with a rapidity that will make Earth far less 

hospitable for young people, future generations, and most other species. 
Final OSTS PEIS 623 

4. Carbon Cycle and Atmospheric CO2 

The ‘carbon cycle’ that defines the fate of fossil fuel carbon injected into the climate 

system is well understood. This knowledge allows accurate estimation of the amount of fossil 

fuels that can be burned consistent with stabilization of climate this century. 

Atmospheric CO2 is already about 390 ppm. Is it possible to return to 350 ppm or less 

within this century? Yes. Atmospheric CO2 would decrease if we phased out fossil fuels. The 

CO2 injected into the air by burning fossil fuels becomes distributed, over years, decades, and 

centuries, among the surface carbon reservoirs: the atmosphere, ocean, soil, and biosphere. 

Carbon cycle models simulate how the CO2 injected into the atmosphere becomes 

distributed among the carbon reservoirs. We use the well-tested Bern carbon cycle model (Joos 

et al., 1996)16 to illustrate how rapidly atmospheric CO2 can decrease. 

Figure 4 (a) shows the decay of a pulse of CO2 injected into the air. The atmospheric 

amount is reduced by half in about 25 years. However, after 500 years about one-fifth of the 

CO2 is still in the atmosphere. Eventually, via weathering of rocks, this excess CO2 will be 

deposited on the ocean floor as carbonate sediments. However, that process requires millennia. 

It is informative, for later policy considerations, to note that a negative CO2 pulse decays 

at about the same rate as positive pulse. Thus if we decide to suck CO2 from the air, taking CO2 

out of the carbon cycle, for example by storing it in carbonate bricks, the magnitude of the CO2 

change will decline as the negative increment becomes spread among the carbon reservoirs. 

It is also informative to examine how fast atmospheric CO2 would decline if fossil fuel 

use were halted today, or in 20 years, or in 40 years. Results are shown in Figure 4 (b). If 

emissions were halted in 2011, CO2 would decline to 350 ppm at mid-century. With a 20 year 

delay in halting emissions, CO2 returns to 350 ppm at about 2250. With a 40 year delay, CO2 

does not return to 350 ppm until after year 3000. 

[16 Specifically, we use the dynamic-sink pulse-response function representation of the Bern 

carbon cycle model 

(Joos et al., 1996), as described by Kharecha and Hansen (2008) and Hansen et al. (2008).] 

The scenarios in Figure 4 (b) assume that emissions continue to increase at the ‘businessasusual’ (BAU) rate of the past decade (increasing by just over 2% per year) until they are 

suddenly halted. The results are indicative of how difficult it will be to get back to 350 ppm, if 

fossil fuel emissions continue to accelerate. 

Do these results imply that it is implausible to get back to 350 ppm in a way that is 

essentially ‘natural’, i.e., in a way other than a ‘geo-engineering’ approach that sucks CO2 from 

the air? Not necessarily. There is one other major factor, in addition to fossil fuel use, that 

affects atmospheric CO2 amount: deforestation/reforestation. 

Fossil fuel emissions account for about 80 percent of the increase of atmospheric CO2 

from 275 ppm in the preindustrial atmosphere to 390 ppm today. The other 20 percent is from 

net deforestation (here net deforestation accounts for any forest regrowth in that period). We 

take net deforestation over the industrial era to be about 100 GtC (gigatons of carbon), with an 
Final OSTS PEIS 624 

uncertainty of at least 50 percent (Stocker et al., 2011)17. 

[17 Net historical deforestation of 100 GtC and historical fossil fuel use yield good agreement 

with historical growth 

of atmospheric CO2 (Figure S16 of Hansen et al., 2008), based on simulations with the Bern 

carbon cycle model.] 

There is considerable potential for extracting CO2 from the atmosphere via reforestation 

and improved forestry and agricultural practices. The largest practical extraction is probably 

about 100 GtC (IPCC, 2001), i.e., equivalent to restoration of deforested land. Complete 

restoration of deforested areas is unrealistic, yet a 100 GtC drawdown seems feasible for the 

following reasons: (1) the current human-enhanced atmospheric CO2 level leads to an increase 

of carbon uptake by vegetation and soils, (2) improved agricultural practices can convert 

agriculture from being a large CO2 source into a carbon sink, as discussed in the following 

paragraph, (3) part of this CO2 drawdown can be achieved by burning biomass at powerplants 

and capturing the CO2, with the provision that the feedstock for this bioenergy is residues and 

wastes, unlike most current-generation bioenergy sources, thus avoiding loss of natural 

ecosystems and cropland (Tilman et al., 2006; Fargione et al., 2008; Searchinger et al., 2008). 

Competing uses for land – primarily expansion of agriculture to supply a growing world 

population – could complicate reforestation efforts. A decrease in the use of animal products 

would substantially decrease the demand for agricultural land, as more than half of all crops are 

currently fed to livestock (Stehfest et al., 2009; UNEP, 2010). 

The 100 GtC ‘reforestation’ thus is a major task, but it is needed to get CO2 back to 350 

ppm and it is an opportunity to achieve other major benefits. Present agricultural practices, 

based on plowing and chemical fertilizers, are dependent on fossil fuels and contribute to loss of 

carbon from soil via land degradation. World agriculture could sequester 0.4-1.2 GtC per year 

by adopting minimum tillage and biological nutrient recycling (Lal, 2004). Such a strategy can 

also increase water conservation in soils, build agricultural resilience to climate change, and 

increase productivity especially in smallholder rain-fed agriculture, thereby reducing expansion 

of agriculture into forested ecosystems (Rockstrom et al., 2009). 

We thus assume a 100 GtC drawdown (biospheric C uptake) in our reforestation 

scenarios, with this obtained via a sinusoidal drawdown over the period 2031-2080. Alternative 

timings for this reforestation drawdown of CO2 would have no qualitative effect on our 

conclusions about the potential for achieving a given CO2 level such as 350 ppm. 

Figure 5. (a) Atmospheric CO2 if fossil fuel emissions are cut 6% per year beginning in 2012 

and 100 

GtC reforestation drawdown occurs in the 2031-2080 period, (b) Atmospheric CO2 with BAU 

emission 

increases until 2020, 2030, 2045, and 2060, followed by 5% per year emission reductions. 

Figure 5 (a) shows that 100 GtC reforestation results in atmospheric CO2 declining to 350 

ppm by the end of this century, provided that fossil fuel emissions decline by 6% per year 

beginning in 2013. Figure 5 (b) shows the effect of continued BAU fossil fuel emission (just 

over 2% per year) until 2020, 2030, 2045 and 2060 with 100 GtC reforestation in 2031-2080. 
Final OSTS PEIS 625 

The scenario with emission cuts beginning in 2020 has atmospheric CO2 return to 350 

ppm at about 2300. If the initiation of emissions reduction is delayed to 2030 or later, then 

atmospheric CO2 does not return to the 350 ppm level even by 2500. 

The conclusion is that a major reforestation program does permit the possibility of 

returning CO2 to the 350 ppm level within this century, but only if fossil fuel emission 

reductions 

begin promptly. 

What about artificially drawing down atmospheric CO2? Some people may argue that, 

given the practical difficulty of overcoming fossil fuel lobbyists and persuading governments to 

move rapidly toward post-fossil-fuel clean energy economies, ‘geo-engineering’ is the only 

hope. 

At present there are no large-scale technologies for air capture of CO2. It has been suggested 

that with strong research and development support and industrial scale pilot projects sustained 

over decades, it may be possible to achieve costs of about ~$200/tC (Keith et al., 2006). 

At this rate, the cost of removing 50 ppm18 of CO2 is ~$20 trillion. However, as shown 

by Figure 4 (a), the resulting atmospheric CO2 reduction is only ~15 ppm after 100 years, 

because most of the extraction will have leaked into other surface carbon reservoirs. The cost of 

CO2 extraction needed to maintain a 50 ppm reduction on the century time scale is thus better 

estimated as ~$60 trillion. 

In section 7 we note the economic and social benefits of rapidly phasing over to clean 

energies and increased energy efficiency, as opposed to continued and expanded extraction of 

fossil fuels. For the moment, we simply note that the present generation will be passing the CO2 

clean-up costs on to today’s young people and future generations. 

5. Future Global Temperature Change 

Future global temperature change will depend primarily upon atmospheric CO2 amount. 

Although other greenhouse gases, such as methane and chlorofluorocarbons, contributed almost 

18 The conversion factor to convert atmospheric CO2 in ppm to GtC is 1 ppm ~ 2.12 GtC. 

as much as CO2 to the total human-caused climate forcings over the past century, CO2 now 

accounts for more than 80 percent of the growth of greenhouse gas climate forcing (over the past 

15 years). Natural climate forcings, such as changes of solar irradiance and volcanic aerosols, 

can cause global temperature variations, but their effect on the long-term global temperature 

trend is small compared with the effect of CO2. 

A simple climate response function can provide a realistic estimate of expected global 

temperature change for a given scenario of future atmospheric CO2. Indeed, Hansen et al. (2011) 

show that such a function accurately replicates the results from sophisticated global climate 

models. In the simulations here we use the ‘intermediate’ response function of Hansen et al. 

(2011), which accurately replicates observed ocean heat uptake and observed temperature change 

over the past century, and we assume that the net change of other human-made climate forcings 

is small in comparison with the effect of CO2. 

One important caveat must be stressed. These calculations, as with most global climate 
Final OSTS PEIS 626 

models, incorporate only the effect of the so-called ‘fast feedbacks’ in the climate system, such 

as 

water vapor, clouds, aerosols, and sea ice. Slow feedbacks, such as ice sheet disintegration and 

climate-induced changes of greenhouse gases, as may occur with the melting of tundra and 

warming of continental shelves, are not included. 

Exclusion of slow feedbacks is appropriate for the past century, because we know the ice 

sheets were stable and our climate simulations employ observed greenhouse gas amounts. The 

observed greenhouse gas amount includes any contribution from slow feedbacks. Exclusion of 

slow feedbacks in the 21st century is a dubious assumption, used in our illustrative computations 

only because the rate at which slow feedbacks come into play is poorly understood. However, 

we must bear in mind the potential for slow feedbacks to fundamentally alter the nature of future 

climate change, specifically the possibility of creating a situation in which continued climate 

change is largely out of humanity’s control. 

Slow feedbacks are thus one important consideration that helps to crystallize the need to 

keep maximum warming from significantly exceeding 1°C. With the current global warming of 

~0.8°C evidence of slow feedbacks is beginning to appear, e.g., melting of tundra with release of 

methane (Walter et al., 2006), submarine methane release from dissociation of sea-bed gas 

hydrates in association with sea water temperature increase (Westbrook et al., 2009), and 

increasing ice mass loss from Greenland and Antarctica (Velicogna, 2009). The fact that 

observed effects so far are small suggests that these feedbacks may not be a major factor if 

maximum global warming is only ~1°C and then recedes. 

On the other hand, if BAU CO2 emissions continue for many decades there is little doubt 

that these slow feedbacks will come into play in major ways. Because the CO2 injected into the 

air stays in the surface carbon reservoirs for millennia, the slow feedbacks surely will occur. It is 

only a question of how fast they will come into play, and thus which generations will suffer the 

greatest consequences. 

There is thus strong indication that we face a dichotomy. Either we achieve a scenario 

with declining global CO2 emissions, thus preserving a planetary climate resembling that of the 

Holocene or we set in motion a dynamic transition to a very different planet. 

Figure 6. Simulated future global temperature for the CO2 scenarios of Figure 5. Observed 

temperature 

record is from Hansen et al. (2010). Temperature is relative to the 1880-1920 mean. Subtract 

0.26°C to 

use 1951-1980 as zero-point. Subtract 0.70°C to use 5-year running mean in 2000 as zero point. 

Can we define the level of global warming that would necessarily push us into such a 

dynamic transition? Given present understanding of slow feedbacks, we cannot be precise. 

However, consider the case in Figure 6 in which BAU emissions continue to 2030. In that case, 

even though CO2 emissions are phased out rapidly (5% per year emission reductions) after 2030 

and 100 GtC reforestation occurs in 2031-2080, the (fast-feedback) human-caused global 

temperature rise reaches 1.5°C and stays above 1°C until after 2500. It is highly unlikely that the 

major ice sheets could remain stable at their present size with such long-lasting warmth. Even if 
Final OSTS PEIS 627 

BAU is continued only until 2020, the temperature rise exceeds 1°C for about 100 years. 

In contrast to scenarios with continued BAU emissions, Figure 6 (a) shows the scenario 

with 6% per year decrease of fossil fuel CO2 emissions and 100 GtC reforestation in the period 

2031-2080. This scenario yields additional global warming of ~0.3°C. Global temperature 

relative to the 1880-1920 mean would barely exceed 1°C and would remain above 1°C for only 

about 3 decades. Thus this scenario provides the prospect that young people, future generations, 

and other life on the planet would have a chance of residing in a world similar to the one in 

which civilization developed. 

The precise consequences if BAU emissions continue several decades are difficult to 

define, because such rapid growth of climate forcing would take the world into uncharted 

territory. Earth has experienced a huge range of climate states during its history, but there has 

never been such a large rapid increase of climate forcings as would occur with burning of most 

fossil fuels this century. The closest analogy in Earth’s history is probably the PETM 

(Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum) in which rapid global warming of at least 5°C occurred 

(Zachos et al., 2001), probably as a consequence of melting methane hydrates (Zeebe et al., 

2009). The PETM is instructive because it occurred during a 10-million year period of global 

warming, and thus the methane release was probably a feedback effect magnifying the warming. 

Global warming that occurred over the period from 60 Mya (million years ago) to 50 

Mya can be confidently ascribed to increasing atmospheric CO2. That was the period in which 

the Indian subcontinent was moving rapidly through the Indian Ocean, just prior to its collision 

with Asia, when it began to push up the Himalayan Mountains and Tibetan Plateau. Continental 

drift over carbonate-rich ocean crust is the principal source of CO2 from the solid Earth to the 

surface reservoirs of carbon.19 

[19 The principal sink of CO2, i.e., the mechanism that returns carbon to the solid Earth on long 

time scales, is the 

weathering process. Chemical reactions associated with weathering of rocks results in rivers 

carrying carbonate 

sediments that are deposited on the ocean floor.] 

The global warming between 60 Mya and 50 Mya was about 5°C, thus at a rate less than 

1°C per million years. Approximately 55 Mya there was, by paleoclimae standards, a very rapid 

release of 3000-5000 GtC into the surface climate system, presumably from melting of methane 

hydrates based on the absence of any other known source of that magnitude. This injection of 

carbon and rapid additional warming of about 5°C occurred over a period of about 10,000 years, 

with most of the carbon injection during two 1-2 thousand year intervals. The PETM witnessed 

the extinction of almost half of the deep ocean foraminifera (microscopic shelled animals, which 

serve as a biological indicator for ocean life in general), but, unlike several other large warming 

events in Earth’s history, there was little extinction of land plants and animals. 

The important point is that the rapid PETM carbon injection was comparable to what will 

occur if humanity burns most of the fossil fuels, but the PETM occurred over a period that was 

10-100 times longer. The ability of life on Earth today to sustain a climate shock comparable to 

the PETM but occurring 10-100 times faster is highly problematic, at best. Climate zones would 
Final OSTS PEIS 628 

be shifting at a speed far faster than species have ever faced. Thus if humanity continues to burn 

most of the fossil fuels, Earth, and all of the species residing on it, will be pushed into uncharted 

climate change territory, with consequences that are practically impossible to foresee. 

6. Consequences of Continued Global Warming 

The unparalleled rapidity of the human-made increase of global climate forcing implies 

that there are no close paleoclimate analogies to the current situation. However, the combination 

of paleoclimate data and observations of ongoing climate change provide useful insight. 

Paleoclimate data serve mainly as an indication of likely long-term responses to changed 

boundary conditions. Observations of ongoing climate change provide information relevant to 

the rate at which changes may occur. 

Yet we must bear in mind that some important processes, such as ice sheet disintegration 

and species extermination, have the potential to be highly non-linear. That means changes can 

be slow until a tipping point is reached (Lenton et al., 2008) and more rapid change occurs. 

Sea level. If most fossil fuels are burned global temperatures will rise at least several 

degrees Celsius. The eventual sea level change in response to the global warming will be many 

meters and global coast lines will be transfigured. We do not know how rapidly ice sheets can 

disintegrate, because Earth has never experienced such rapid global warming. However, even 

moderate sea level rise will create millions of global warming refugees from highly-populated 

low-lying areas, who must migrate from the coastline, throwing existing global demographics 

into chaos. 

During the most recent prior interglacial period, the Eemian, global temperature was at 

most of the order of 1°C warmer than the Holocene (Figure 2). Sea level reached heights several 

meters above today’s level and there were instances of sea level change by 1-2 meters per 

century 

(Rohling et al., 2008; Muhs et al., 2011). Hearty and Neumann (2001) and Hearty et al. (2007) 

interpret geologic shoreline evidence as indicating a rapid sea level rise to a peak 6-9 meters 

above present late in the Eemian followed by a precipitous sea level fall, but there is not 

unanimity in the research community about this specific history. The important point is that the 

high sea level excursions in the Eemian imply rapid partial melting of Antarctic and/or 

Greenland ice when the world was little warmer than today. During the Pliocene, when global 

mean temperature may have been 2°C warmer than the Holocene (Figure 2), sea level was 

probably 15-25 meters higher than today (Dowsett et al., 1999, 2009; Naish et al., 2009). 

Expected sea level rise due to human-caused climate change has been controversial partly 

because the discussion and the predictions of IPCC (2001, 2007) have focused on sea level rise 

at a specific date, 2100. Recent estimates of likely sea level rise by 2100 are of the order of 1 m 

(Vermeer and Rahmstorf, 2009; Grinsted et al., 2010). Ice-dynamics studies estimate that rates 

of sea-level rise of 0.8 to 2 m per century are feasible (Pfeffer et al., 2008) and Antarctica alone 

may contribute up to 1.5 m per century (Turner et al., 2009). Hansen (2005, 2007) has argued 

that BAU CO2 emissions produce a climate forcing so much larger than any experienced in prior 

interglacial periods that a non-linear ice sheet response with multi-meter sea level rise may occur 

this century. 
Final OSTS PEIS 629 

The best warning of an imminent period of sustained nonlinear ice sheet loss will be 

provided by accurate measurements of ice sheet mass. The GRACE satellite, which has been 

measuring Earth’s gravitational field since 2003 reveals that the Greenland ice sheet is losing 

mass at an accelerating rate, now more than 200 cubic kilometers per year, and Antarctica is 

losing more than 100 cubic kilometers per year (Sorensen and Forsberg, 2010; Rignot et al., 

2011). However, the present rate of sea level rise, 3 cm per decade, is moderate, and the ice 

sheet mass balance record is too short to determine whether we have entered a period of 

continually accelerating ice loss. 

Satellite observations of Greenland show that the surface area with summer melting has 

increased over the period of record, which extends back to the late 1970s (Steffen et al., 2004; 

Tedesco et al., 2011). Yet the destabilizing mechanism of greatest concern is melting of ice 

shelves, tongues of ice that extend from the ice sheets into the oceans and buttress the ice sheets, 

limiting the rate of discharge of ice to the ocean. Ocean warming is causing shrinkage of ice 

shelves around Greenland and Antarctica (Rignot and Jacobs, 2002). 

Loss of ice shelves can open a pathway to the ocean for portions of the ice sheets that rest 

on bedrock below sea level. Most of the West Antarctic ice sheet, which alone could raise sea 

level by 6 meters, is on bedrock below sea level, so it is the ice sheet most vulnerable to rapid 

change. However, parts of the larger East Antarctic ice sheet are also vulnerable. Indeed, 

satellite gravity and radar altimetry reveal that the Totten Glacier of East Antarctica, fronting a 

large ice mass grounded below sea level, is already beginning to lose mass (Rignot et al., 2008) 

The important point is that uncertainties about sea level rise mainly concern the timing of 

large sea level rise if BAU emissions continue, not whether it will occur. If all or most fossil 

fuels are burned, the carbon will be in the climate system for many centuries, in which case 

multi-meter sea level rise should be expected (e.g., Rohling et al., 2009). 

Children born today can expect to live most of this century. If BAU emissions continue, 

will they suffer large sea level rise, or will it be their children, or their grandchildren? 

Shifting climate zones. Theory and climate models indicate that subtropical regions will 

expand poleward with global warming (Held and Soden, 2006; IPCC, 2007). Observations 

reveal that a 4-degree poleward expansion of the subtropics has occurred already on average 

(Seidel and Randel, 2006), yielding increased aridity in southern United States (Barnett et al., 

2008; Levi, 2008), the Mediterranean region, and Australia. Increased aridity and temperatures 

have contributed to increased forest fires that burn hotter and are more destructive in all of these 

regions (Westerling et al., 2006). 

Although there is large year-to-year variability of seasonal temperature, decadal averages 

reveal that isotherms (lines of a given average temperature) having been moving poleward at a 

rate of about 100 km per decade during the past three decades (Hansen et al., 2006). This rate of 

shifting of climatic zones exceeds natural rates of change. The direction of movement has been 

monotonic (poleward) since about 1975. Wild species have responded to this climatic shift, with 

at least 52 percent of species having shifted their ranges poleward (and upward) by as much as 

600 km in terrestrial systems and 1000 km in marine systems (Parmesan and Yohe, 2003). As 

long as the planet is as far out of energy balance as at present, that trend necessarily will 

continue, a conclusion based on comparison of the observed trend with interdecadal variability in 
Final OSTS PEIS 630 

climate simulations (Hansen et al., 2007). 

Humans may be better able to adapt to shifting of climate zones, compared with many 

other species. However, political borders can interfere with migration, and indigenous ways of 

life have already been adversely affected. Impacts are apparent in the Arctic, with melting 

tundra, reduced sea ice, and increased shoreline erosion. Effects of shifting climate zones may 

also be important for native Americans who possess specific designated land areas, as well as 

other cultures with long-standing traditions in South America, Africa, Asia and Australia. 

Loss of Species. Explosion of the human population and its presence on the landscape in 

the past few centuries is having a profound influence on the well being of all the other species. 

As recently as two decades ago biologists were more concerned with effects on biodiversity 

other than climate change, such as land use changes, nitrogen fertilization, and direct effects of 

increased atmospheric CO2 on plant ecophysiology (Parmesan, 2006). However, easily 

discernible impacts on animals, plants, and insects of the nearly monotonic global warming 

during the past three decades (Figure 1) has sharply altered perceptions of the greatest threats. 

A dramatic awakening was provided by sudden widespread decline of frogs, with 

extinction of entire mountain-restricted species attributed to global warming (Pounds et al., 1999, 

2006). Although there are somewhat different interpretations of detailed processes involved in 

global amphibian declines and extinctions (Alford et al., 2007; Fagotti and Pascolini, 2007), 

there is agreement that global warming is a main contributor to a global amphibian crisis: “The 

losses portend a planetary-scale mass extinction in the making. Unless humanity takes 

immediate action to stabilize the climate, while also fighting biodiversity’s other threats, a 

multitude of species is likely to vanish” (Pounds et al., 2007). 

Mountain-restricted species in general are particularly vulnerable to global warming. As 

warming causes isotherms to move up the mountainside so does the specific climate zone in 

which a given specific species can survive. If global warming continues unabated, i.e., if all 

fossil fuels are burned, many mountain-dwelling species will be driven to extinction. 

The same is true for species living in polar regions. There is documented evidence of 

reductions in the population and health of Arctic species living in the southern parts of the Arctic 

and Antarctic species in the more northern parts of the Antarctic. 

A critical factor for survival of some Arctic species will be retention of all-year sea ice. 

Continued BAU fossil fuel use will result in loss of all Arctic summer sea ice within the next 

several decades. In contrast, the scenario in Figure 5a, with global warming peaking just over 

1°C and then declining slowly, should allow some summer sea ice to survive and then gradually 

increase to levels representative of recent decades. 

The threat to species survival is not limited to mountain and polar species. Plant and 

animal distributions are a reflection of the regional climates to which they are adapted. Although 

species attempt to migrate in response to climate change, their paths may be blocked by 

humanconstructed 

obstacles or natural barriers such as coast lines. As the shift of climate zones 

Figure 7. Extant reefs used as analogs (Hoegh-Guldberg et al., 2007) for ecological structures 

anticipated 
Final OSTS PEIS 631 

for scenarios A (375 ppm CO2, +1°C), B (450-500 ppm CO2, +2°C), C (>500 ppm CO2, 

>+3°C) 

becomes comparable to the range of some species, the less mobile species will be driven to 

extinction. Because of extensive species interdependencies, this can lead to mass extinctions. 

The IPCC Working Group II assessment (IPCC WG-II, 2007) reviews studies relevant to 

estimating the eventual extinction rate for different magnitudes of global warming. If global 

warming relative to the pre-industrial level exceeds 1.5°C, they estimate that 9-31 percent of 

species will be committed to extinction. With global warming of 2.7°C, an estimated 21-52 

percent of species will be committed to extinction. 

Mass extinctions have occurred in conjunction with rapid climate change during Earth’s 

long history, and new species evolved over hundreds of thousands and millions of years. But 

such time scales are almost beyond human comprehension. If we drive many species to 

extinction we will leave a more desolate planet for our children, grandchildren, and as many 

generations as we can imagine. 

Coral reef ecosystems. Coral reef ecosystems are the most biologically diverse marine 

ecosystem, often described as the rainforests of the ocean. An estimated 1-9 million species 

(most of which have not yet been described; Reaka-Kudla 1997) populate coral reef ecosystems 

generating ecosystem services that are crucial to the well-being of at least 500 million people 

that populate tropical coastal areas. These coral reef ecosystems are vulnerable to current and 

future warming and acidification of tropical oceans. Acidification arises due to the production of 

carbonic acid as increasing amounts of CO2 enter the world’s oceans. Comparison of current 

changes with those seen in the palaeontological record indicate that ocean pH is already outside 

where it has been for several million years (Raven et al. 2005; Pelejero et al. 2010). 

Mass coral bleaching and a slowing of coral calcification are already disrupting coral reef 

ecosystem health (Hoegh-Guldberg et al 2007; De’Ath et al. 2009). The decreased viability of 

reef-building corals have led to mass mortalities, increasing coral disease, and slowing of reef 

carbonate accretion. Together with more local stressors, the impacts of global climate change 

and ocean acidification are driving a rapid contraction (1-2% per year, Bruno and Selig 2007) in 

the extent of coral reef ecosystems. 

Figure 7 shows extant reefs that are analogs for ecological structures anticipated by 

Hoegh-Guldberg et al. (2007) to be representative of ocean warming and acidification expected 

to accompany CO2 levels of 375 ppm with +1°C, 450-500 ppm with +2°C, and >500 ppm with > 

+3°C. Loss of the three-dimensional framework that typifies coral reefs today has consequences 

for the millions of species that depend on this coral reef framework for their existence. The loss 

of these three-dimensional frameworks also has consequences for other important roles coral 

reefs play in supporting fisheries and protecting coastlines from wave stress. The consequences 

of losing coral reefs are likely to be substantial and economically devastating for multiple nations 

across the planet when combined with other impacts such as sea level rise. 

The situation with coral reefs is summarized by Schuttenberg and Hoegh-Guldberg 

(2007) thus: “Although the current greenhouse trajectory is disastrous for coral reefs and the 

millions of people who depend on them for survival, we should not be lulled into accepting a 

world without corals. Only by imagining a world with corals will we build the resolve to solve 
Final OSTS PEIS 632 

the challenges ahead. We must avoid the “game over” syndrome and marshal the financial, 

political, and technical resources to stabilize the climate and implement effective reef 

management with unprecedented urgency.” 

Hydrologic extremes and storms. The extremes of the hydrologic cycle are intensified 

as Earth becomes warmer. A warmer atmosphere holds more moisture, so heavy rains become 

more intense and increase flooding. Higher temperatures, on the other hand, cause an 

intensification of droughts, as does expansion of the subtropics with global warming. The most 

recent IPCC (2007) report confirms existence of expected trends, e.g., precipitation has generally 

increased over land north of 30°N and decreased in more tropical latitudes. Heavy precipitation 

events have increased substantially. Droughts are more common, especially in the tropics and 

subtropics. Tropospheric water vapor has increased. 

Mountain glaciers. Mountain glaciers are in near-global retreat (IPCC, 2007). After a 

one-time added flush of fresh water, glacier demise will yield summers and autumns of 

frequently dry rivers originating in the Himalayas, Andes, and Rocky Mountains (Barnett et al., 

2008) that now supply water to hundreds of millions of people. Present glacier retreat, and 

warming in the pipeline, indicate that 390 ppm of CO2 is already a threat for future fresh water 

security. 

Human health. Children are especially vulnerable to the health impacts of climate 

change. Principal effects are categorized in Table 1 under the headings: (1) heat waves, (2) 

asthma and allergies, (3) infectious disease spread, (4) pests and disease spread across taxa: 

forests, crops and marine life, (5) winter weather anomalies, (6) drought, (7) food insecurity. 

Climate change poses a threat to child health through many pathways, especially by placing 

additional stress on the availability of food, clean air, clean water, and potentially expanding the 

burden of disease from vector-borne diseases (Bernstein and Myers, 2011). 

World health experts have concluded with “very high confidence” that climate change 

already contributes to the global burden of disease and premature death (IPCC WG-II, 2007). At 

this point the effects are small but are projected to progressively increase in all countries and 

regions. IPCC (WG-II, 2007) describes evidence that climate change has already altered the 

distribution of some infectious disease vectors, altered the seasonal distribution of some 

allergenic pollen species, and increased heat-related deaths. 

Table 1. Climate Change Impacts on Human Health 

Heatwaves. 

Heatwaves are not only increasing in frequency, intensity and duration, but their nature is 

changing. Warmer 

nighttime temps [double the increase of average temperature since 1970 (Karl et al.)] and higher 

humidity (7% 

more for each 1oC warming) that raises heat indices and makes heat-waves all the more lethal. 

Asthma and allergies. 

Asthma prevalence has more than doubled in the U.S. since 1980 and several exacerbating 
Final OSTS PEIS 633 

factors stem from 

burning fossil fuels. 

Increased CO2 and warming boost pollen production from fast growing trees in the spring and 

ragweed in the 

fall (the allergenic proteins also increase). Particulates help deliver pollen and mold spores deep 

into the lung sacs. 

Ground-level ozone primes the allergic response (and O3 increases in heat-waves). Climate 

change has extended 

the allergy and asthma season two-four weeks in the Northern Hemisphere (depending on 

latitude) since 1970. 

Increased CO2 stimulates growth of poison ivy and a chemical in it (uruschiol) that causes 

contact dermatitis. 

Infectious disease spread. 

The spread of infectious diseases is influenced by climate change in two ways: warming expands 

the 

geographic and temporal conditions conducive to transmission of vector-borne diseases (VBDs), 

while floods can 

leave “clusters” of mosquito-, water – and rodent-borne diseases (and spread toxins). With the 

ocean the repository 

for global warming and the atmosphere holding more water vapor, rain is increasing in intensity -

- 7% overall in 

the U.S. since 1970, 2”/day rains 14%, 4”/day rains 20%, and 6”/day rains 27% since 1970 

(Groisman et al., 

2005), with multiple implications for health, crops and nutrition. 

Tick-borne Lyme disease (LD) is the most important VBD in the U.S. LD case reports rose 8-

fold in New 

Hampshire in the past decade and 10-fold (and now include all of its 16 counties). Warmer 

winters and 

disproportionate warming toward the poles mean that the changes in range are occurring faster 

than models based 

on changes in average temperatures project. Biological responses of vectors (and plants) to 

warming are, in 

general, underestimated and may be seen as leading indicators of warming due to the 

disproportionate winter 

(Tminimum or Tmin) and high latitude warming. 

Pests and disease 

spread across taxa: 

forests, crops and 

marine life. 
Final OSTS PEIS 634 

Pests and diseases of forests, crops and marine life are favored in a warming world. Bark beetles 

are 

overwintering (absent sustained killing frosts) and expanding their range, and getting in more 

generations, while 

droughts in the West dry the resin that drowns the beetles as they try to drive through the bark. 

(Warming 

emboldens the pests while extremes weaken the hosts.) Forest health is also threatened in the 

Northeast U.S. 

(Asian Long-horned beetle and wooly adelgid of hemlock trees), setting the stage for increased 

wildfires with 

injury, death and air pollution, loss of carbon stores, and damage to oxygen and water supplies. 

In sum, forest pests 

threaten basic life support systems that underlie human health. 

Crop pests and diseases are also encouraged by warming and extremes. Warming increases their 

potential 

range, while floods foster fungal growth and droughts favor whiteflies, aphid and locust. Higher 

CO2 also 

stimulates growth of agricultural weeds. More pesticides, herbicides and fungicides (where 

available) pose other 

threats to human health. Crop pests take up to 40% of yield annually, totaling ~$300 billion in 

losses (Pimentel) 

Marine diseases (e.g., coral, sea urchin die-offs, and others), harmful algal blooms (from excess 

nutrients, loss 

of filtering wetlands, warmer seas and extreme weather events that trigger HABs by flushing 

nutrients into 

estuaries and coastal waters), plus the over 350 “dead zones” globally affect fisheries, thus 

nutrition and health. 

Winter weather anomalies. 

Increasing winter weather anomalies is a trend to be monitored. More winter precipitation is 

falling as rain 

rather than snow in the Northern Hemisphere, increasing the chances for ice storms, while 

greater atmospheric 

moisture increases the chances of heavy snowfalls. Both affect ambulatory health (orthopedics), 

motor vehicle 

accidents, cardiac disease and power outages with accompanying health effects. 

Drought. 

Droughts are increasing in frequency, intensity, duration, and geographic extent. Drought and 

water stress are 

major killers in developing nations, are associated with disease outbreaks (water-borne cholera, 

mosquito-borne 

dengue fever (mosquitoes breed in stored water containers)), and drought and higher CO2 
Final OSTS PEIS 635 

increase the cyanide 

content of cassava, a staple food in Africa, leading to neurological disabilities and death. 

Food insecurity. 

Food insecurity is a major problem worldwide. Demand for meat, fuel prices, displacement of 

food crops with 

those grown for biofuels all contribute. But extreme weather events today are the acute driver. 

Russia’s extensive 

2010 summer heat-wave (over six standard deviations from the norm, killing over 50,000) 

reduced wheat 

production ~40%; Pakistan and Australian floods in 2010 also affected wheat and other grains; 

and drought in 

China and the U.S. Southwest are boosting grain prices and causing shortages in many nations. 

Food riots are 

occurring in Uganda and Burkino Faso, and the food and fuel hikes may be contributing to the 

uprisings in North 

Africa and the Middle East. Food shortages and price hikes contribute to malnutrition that 

underlies much of poor 

health and vulnerability to infectious diseases. Food insecurity also leads to political instability, 

conflict and war. 

If global warming increases IPCC (WG-II, 2007) projects the following trends, where we 

include only those that are assigned either high confidence or very high confidence: (1) increased 

malnutrition and consequent disorders, including those related to child growth and development, 

(2) increased death, disease and injuries from heat waves, floods, storms, fires and droughts, (3) 

increased cardio-respiratory morbidity and mortality associated with ground-level ozone, (4) 

some benefits to health, including fewer deaths from cold, although it is expected that these 

would be outweighed by the negative effects. 

7. Societal Implications 

The science is clear. Human-made climate forcing agents, principally CO2 from burning 

of fossil fuels, have driven planet Earth out of energy balance – more energy coming in than 

going out. The human-made climate forcing agents are the principal cause of the global 

warming of 0.8°C in the past century, most of which occurred in the past few decades. 

Earth’s energy imbalance today is the fundamental quantity defining the state of the 

planet. With the completion of the near-global distribution of Argo floats and reduction of 

calibration problems, it is confirmed that the planet’s energy imbalance averaged over several 

years, is at least 0.5 W/m2. The imbalance averaged over the past solar cycle is probably closer 

to 0.75 W/m2. An imbalance of this magnitude assures that continued global warming is in the 

pipeline, and thus so are increasing climate impacts. 

Global climate effects are already apparent. Arctic warm season sea ice has decreased 

more than 30 percent over the past few decades. Mountain glaciers are receding rapidly all over 

the world. The Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets are shedding mass at an accelerating rate, 
Final OSTS PEIS 636 

already several hundred cubic kilometers per year. Climate zones are shifting poleward. The 

subtropics are expanding. Climate extremes are increasing. Summer heat of a degree that 

occurred only 2-3 percent of the time in the period 1950-1980, or, equivalently, in a typical 

summer covered 2-3 percent of the globe, now occurs over 20-40 percent of Earth’s surface each 

summer (http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2011/20110327_Perceptions.pdf). Within 

these expanded areas smaller regions of more extreme anomalies, such as the European heat 

wave of 2003 and the Moscow and Pakistan heat waves of 2010. 

Global climate anomalies and climate impacts will continue to increase if fossil fuel use 

continues at current levels or increases. Earth’s history provides our best measure of the ultimate 

climate response to a given level of climate forcing and global temperature change. 

Continuation of business-as-usual fossil fuel emissions for even a few decades would guarantee 

that global warming would pass well beyond the warmest interglacial periods in the past million 

years, implying transition to literally a different planet than the one that humanity has 

experienced. Today’s young people and following generations would be faced with continuing 

climate change and climate impacts that would be out of their control. 

Yet governments are taking no actions13 to substantially alter business-as-usual fossil fuel 

emissions. Rhetoric about a ‘planet in peril’ abounds. But actions speak louder than words. 

Continued investments in infrastructure to expand the scope and nature of fossil fuel extraction 

expose reality. 

The matter is urgent. CO2 injected into the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels remains in 

the surface climate system for millennia. The practicality of any scheme to extract CO2 from the 

air is dubious. Potentially huge costs would be left to young people and future generations. 

The apparent solution is to phase out fossil fuel emissions in favor of clean energies and 

energy efficiency. Governments have taken steps to promote renewable energies and encourage 

energy efficiency. But renewable energies total only a few percent of all energy sources, and 

improved efficiency only slows the growth of energy use. The transition to a post-fossil fuel 

world of clean energies is blocked by a fundamental fact, as certain as the law of gravity: as long 

as fossil fuels are the cheapest energy, they will be burned. 

However, fossil fuels are cheapest only because they are subsidized directly and 

indirectly, and because they are not made to pay their costs to society – the costs of air and water 

pollution on human health and costs of present and future climate disruption and change. 

Those people who prefer to continue business-as-usual assert that transition to fossil fuel 

alternatives would be economically harmful, and they implicitly assume that fossil fuel use can 

continue indefinitely. In reality, it will be necessary to move to clean energies eventually, and 

most economists believe that it would be economically beneficial to move in an orderly way to 

the post fossil fuel era via a steadily increasing price on carbon emissions. 

A comprehensive assessment of the economics, the arguments for and against a rising 

carbon price, is provided in the book The Case for a Carbon Tax (Hsu, 2011). An acrosstheboard 

price on all fossil fuel CO2 emissions emerges as the simplest, easiest, fastest and most 

effective way to phase down carbon emissions, and this approach presents fewer obstacles to 
Final OSTS PEIS 637 

international agreement. 

The chief obstacles to a carbon price are often said to be the political difficulty, given the 

enormous resources that interest groups opposing it can bring to bear, and the difficulty of 

getting the public to understand arcane economic issues. On the other hand, a simple, 

transparent, gradually rising fee on carbon emissions collected, with the proceeds distributed to 

the public, can be described succinctly, as it has by Jim DiPeso, Policy Director of Republicans 

for Environmental Protection http://www.rep.org/opinions/weblog/weblog10-10-11.html 

A gradually rising carbon price is the sine qua non, but it must be combined with a 

portfolio of other actions: energy research and development with demonstration programs; public 

investment in complementary infrastructure such as improved electric grids; global monitoring 

systems; energy efficiency regulations; public education and awareness; support for climate 

change mitigation and adaptation in undeveloped countries. In economic theory, within a nation 

or a common block of nations, a carbon trading system may be useful, but given the need for 

rapid global emissions reduction, a simple across-the-board carbon tax is the preferred approach 

from the standpoint of conservative economics (Mankiw, 2007). 

The basic matter, however, is not one of economics. It is a matter of morality – a matter 

of intergenerational justice. The blame, if we fail to stand up and demand a change of course, 

will fall on us, the current generation of adults. Our parents honestly did not know that their 

actions could harm future generations. We, the current generation, can only pretend that we did 

not know. 

Acknowledgements. A number of helpful suggestions have been received, which will be 

addressed before this paper is submitted for publication. 

References 

Ackerman, F., E.A. Stanton, S.J. DeCaanio, E. Goodstein, R.B. Howarth, R.B. Norgaard, C.S. 

Norman, K.A. 

Sheeran, 2009: The economics of 350: the benefits and costs of climate stabilization, October 

2009 report for 

ecotrust (www.ecotrust.org) and Stockholm environment Institute (www.sei-us.org), 50 pp. 

Alford, R.A., K.S. Bradfield, S.J. Richards, 2007: Global warming and amphibian losses, Nature, 

447, E3-E4. 

Barker, P.M., J.R. Dunn, C.M. Domingues, S.E. Wijffels, 2011: Pressure sensor drifts in Argo 

and their impacts, J. 

Atmos. Ocean. Technology, Early Online Release. doi: 10.1175/2011JTECHO831.1. 

23 

Barnett, T.P., D.W. Pierce, H.D. Hidalgo, et al., 2008: Human-induced changes in the hydrology 

of the Western 

United States, Science, 319, 1080-1083. 

Barriopedro, D., E. M. Fischer, J. Luterbacher, R.M. Trigo, R. Garcia-Herrera, 2011: The hot 

summer of 2010: 

redrawing the temperature record map of Europe, Science Express, 10.1126/science.1201224. 

Bernstein, A., S. Myers, 2011: Climate change and children’s health, Current Opin. Pediatrics, 

23, 221-226. 
Final OSTS PEIS 638 

Bruno, J.F., E.R. Selig, 2007, Regional decline of coral cover in the Indo-Pacific: timing, extent, 

and subregional 

comparisons: PLoS ONE, v. 2, p. e711. 

Cohen, A.J., H.R. Andrson, B. Ostro, K.D. Pandey, M. Krzyzanowski, N. Kunzli, K. 

Gutschmidt, A. Pope, I. 

Romieu, J.M. Samet, K. Smith, 2005: The global burden of disease due to outdoor air pollution, 

J. Toxicol. Environ. 

Health, 68, 1301-1307, doi:10.1080/152873905909361666 

De’ath, G., J.M. Lough, K.E. Fabricius, 2009: Declining Coral Calcification on the Great Barrier 

Reef, Science, 323, 

116-119. 

Dowsett, H. J., J. A. Barron, R. Z. Poore, R. S. Thompson, T. M. Cronin, S. E. Ishman, and D. A. 

Willard, 1999: 

Middle Pliocene paleoenvironmental reconstruction: PRISM2, U.S. Geol. Surv. Open File Rep., 

99-535. (Available 

at http://pubs.usgs.gov/openfile/of99-535) 

Dowsett, H.J., M.M. Robinson, K.M. Foley, 2009: Pliocene three-dimensional global ocean 

temperature 

reconstruction, Clim. Past, 5, 769-783. 

Epstein, P.R., J.J. Buonocore, K. Eckerle, M. Hendryx, B.M. Stout, R. Heinberg, R.W. Clapp, B. 

May, N.L. 

Reinhart, M.M. Ahern, S.K. Doshi, L. Glustrom, 2011: Full cost accounting for the life cycle of 

coal, Ann. New York 

Acad. Sci., 1219, 73-98. 

Fargione, J., J. Hill, D. Tilman, S. Polansky, P. Hawthorne, 2009: Land clearing and the biofuel 

carbon debt, 

Science, 319, 1235-1238. 

Fagotti, A., R. Pascolini, 2007: The proximate cause of frog declines? Nature, 447, E4-E5. 

Grinsted, A., J.C. Moore, S. Jevrejeva, 2010: Reconstructing sea level from paleo and projected 

temperatures 200 to 

2100 AD, Clim. Dyn., 34, 461-472. 

Groisman, P.Y., R.W. Knight, D.R. Easterling, T.R. Karl, G.C. Hegerl, V.N. Razuvaev, 2005: 

Trends in intense 

precipitation in the climate record, J. Clim., 18, 1326-1350. 

Hansen, J.E., 2005: A slippery slope: How much global warming constitutes “dangerous 

anthropogenic 

interference”? An editorial essay. Climatic Change, 68, 269-279, doi:10.1007/s10584-005-4135-

0. 

Hansen, J., M. Sato, R. Ruedy, K. Lo, D.W. Lea, M. Medina-Elizade, 2006: Global temperature 

change, Proc. Nat. 

Acad. Sci., 103, 14288-14293. 

Hansen, J.E., 2007: Scientific reticence and sea level rise, Environ. Res. Lett., 2, 1-6. 

Hansen, J., M. Sato, R. Ruedy, et al., 2007: Dangerous human-made interference with climate: a 

GISS modelE 

study, Atmos. Chem. & Phys., 7, 2287-2312. 

Hansen, J., M. Sato, P. Kharecha, D. Beerling, R. Berner, V. Masson-Delmotte, M. Pagani, M. 
Final OSTS PEIS 639 

Raymo, D.L. Royer, 

and J.C. Zachos, 2008: Target atmospheric CO2: where should humanity aim? Open Atmos. Sci. 

J., 2, 217-231. 

Hansen, J., R. Ruedy, M. Sato, K. Lo, 2010: Global surface temperature change, Rev. Geophys., 

48, RG4004, 29 pp. 

Hansen, J.E., and Mki. Sato, 2011: Paleoclimate implications for human-made climate change. 

http://arxiv.org/abs/1105.0968 pdf also available at http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/ 

Hansen, J., Mki. Sato, P. Kharecha, and K. von Schuckmann, 2011:Earth’s energy imbalance and 

implications. 

http://arxiv.org/abs/1105.1140 pdf also available at http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/ 

Hearty, P.J., A.C. Neumann, 2001: Rapid sea level and climate change at the close of the Last 

Interglaciation (MIS 

5e): evidence from the Bahama Islands, 2001: Quatern. Sci. Rev., 20, 1881-1895. 

Hearty, P.J., J.T. Hollin, A.C. Neumann, M.J. O’Leary, M. McCulloch, 2007: Global sea-level 

fluctuations during 

the last interglaciation (Mis 5e), Quarter. Sci. Rev., 26, 2090-2112. 

24 

Held, I.M., B.J. Soden, 2006: Robust rsponses of the hydrological cycle to global warming, J. 

Clim, 19, 5686-5699. 

Hoegh-Guldberg, O., P.J. Mumby, A.J. Hooten, R.S. Stenek, P. Greenfield, E. Gomez, C.D. 

Harvell, P.F. Sale, A.J. 

Edwards, K. Caldeira, N. Knowlton, C.M. Eakin, R. Iglesias-Prieto, N. Muthiga, R.H. Bradbury, 

A. Dubi, M.E. 

Hatziolos, 2007: Coral reefs under rapid climate change and ocean acidification, Science, 318, 

1737-1742. 

Hsu, S.-L., 2011: The Case for a Carbon Tax, Island Press, Washington (in pressf). 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Climate Change 2001: The Scientific 

Basis, Houghton, J.T., Y. 

Ding, D.J. Griggs, et al. (eds., Cambridge University Press, 881 pp. 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Climate Change 2007: The Physical 

Science Basis, S. 

Solomon, Q. Dahe, M. Manning, et al. (eds., Cambridge Univ. Press, 996 pp. 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (WGII), Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation 

and Vulnerability, 

M.L. Parry, O.F. Canziani, J.P. Palutikof, P.J. van der Linden, C.E. Hanson (eds., Cambridge 

Univ. Press, 996 pp. 

Joos, F., M. Bruno, R. Fink, U. Siegenthaler, T. F. Stocker, C. Le Quéré, J. Sarmiento, 1996: An 

efficient and 

accurate representation of complex oceanic and biospheric models of anthropogenic carbon 

uptake, Tellus B, 48/3, 

397-417. 

Karl, T.R., P.D. Jones, R.W. Knight, G. Kukla, N. Plummer, V. Razuvayev, K.P. Gallo, J. 

Linday, R.J. Charlson, 

T.C. Peterson, 1993: A new perspective on recent global warming: asymmetric trends of daily 

maximum and 

minimum temperature, Bull. Amer. Meteorol. Soc., 74, 1007-1023. 
Final OSTS PEIS 640 

Keith, D.W., M. Ha-Duong, J.K. Stolaroff, 2006: Clim. Change, 74, 17-45. 

Kharecha, P.A., and J.E. Hansen, 2008: Implications of “peak oil” for atmospheric CO2 and 

climate. Global 

Biogeochem. Cycles, 22, GB3012. 

Lal, R., 2004: Soil carbon sequestration impacts on global climate change and food security, 

Science, 304, 1623 – 

1627. 

Lenton, T.M., H. Held, E. Kriegler, J.W. Hall, W. Lucht, S. Rahmstorf, H.J. Schellnhuber, 2008: 

Tipping elements 

in the Earth’s climate system, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., 105, 1786-1793. 

Levi, B.G., 2008: Trends in the hydrology of the western U.S. bear the imprint of manmade 

climate change, Phys. 

Today, April 16-18. 

Levitus, S., J. Antonov, T. Boyer, R.A. Locarnini, H.E. Garcia, A.V. Mishonov, 2009: Global 

ocean heat content 

1955-2008 in light of recently revealed instrumentation problems, Geophys. Res. Lett., 36, 

L07608, 

doi:10.1029/2008GL037155 

http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/basin_data.html (1955-2010) 

Lyman, J.M., S.A. Good, V.V. Gouretski, M. Ishii, G.C. Johnson, M.D. Palmer, D.A. Smith, J.K. 

Willis, 2010: 

Robust warming of the global upper ocean, Nature, 465, 334-337, doi:10.1038/nature09043 

Mankiw, N.G., 2007: One answer to global warming: a new tax, New York Times, 16 

September, 

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/16/business/16view.html). 

Mayewski, P.A., E.E. Rohling, J.C. Stager, W. Karlen, K.A. Maasch, L.D. Meeker, E.A. 

Meyerson, F. Gasse, S. van 

Kreveld, K. Holmgren, J. Lee-Thorp, G. Rosqvist, F. Rack, M. Staubwasser, R.R. Schneider, E. 

J. Steig, 2004: 

Holocene climate variability, Quat. Res., 62, 243-255. 

Muhs, D.R., K.R. Simmons, R.R. Schumann, R.B. Halley, 2011: Sea-level history of the past 

two interglacial 

periods: new evidence from U-series cating of reef corals from south Florida, Quarter. Sci. Rev., 

30, 570-590. 

Kopp, R.E., F.J. Simons, J.X. Mitrovica, A.C. Maloof, M. Oppenheimer, 2009: Probabilistic 

assessment of sea level 

during the last interglacial stage. Nature 462, 863-867 

Krauss, C., 2010: There will be fuel, New York Times, Page F1 of the New York edition, 

November 17, 2010. 

Naish, T. et al., 2009: Obliquity-paced Pliocene West Antarctic ice sheet oscillations. Nature 

458, 322–328). 

Olson, S.I., P.J. Hearrty, 2009: A sustained +21 m highstand during MIS 11 (400 ka): direct 

fossil and sedimentary 

evidence from Bermuda, Quat. Sci. Rev., 28, 271-285. 

25 

Pelejero, C., E. Calvo, O. Hoegh-Guldberg, 2010: Paleo-perspectives on ocean acidification, 
Final OSTS PEIS 641 

Trends in Ecology & 

Evolution. doi: 10.1016/j.tree.2010.02.002. 

Parmesan, C., G. Yohe, 2003: A globally coherent fingerprint of climate change impacts in 

natural systems, Nature, 

421, 37-42. 

Parmesan, C., 2006: Ecological and evolutionary responses to recent climate change, Ann. Rev. 

Ecol. Evol. Syst., 37, 

637-669. 

Pfeffer, W.T., J.T. Harper, S. O’Neel, 2008: Kinematic constraints on glacier contributions to 

21st-century sea-level 

rise. Science 321, 1340–1343. 

Pounds, J.A., M.P.L. Fogden, J.H. Campbell, 1999: Biological response to climate change on a 

tropical mountain, 

Nature, 398, 611-615. 

Pounds, J.A., M.R. Bustamante, L.A. Coloma, J.A. Consuegra, M.P.L. Fogden, P.N. Foster, E. 

La Marcall, K.L. 

Masters, A. Merino-Viteri, R. Puschendorf, S.R. Ron, G.A. Sanchez-Azofeifa, C.J. Still, B.E. 

Young, 2006: 

Widespread amphibian extinctions from epidemic disease driven by global warming, Nature, 

439, 161-167. 

Pounds, J.A., M.R. Bustamante, L.A. Coloma, J.A. Consuegra, M.P.L. Fogden, P.N. Foster, E. 

La Marcall, K.L. 

Masters, A. Merino-Viteri, R. Puschendorf, S.R. Ron, G.A. Sanchez-Azofeifa, C.J. Still, B.E. 

Young, 2007: Reply, 

Nature, 447, E5-E6. 

Raven, J., K. Caldeira, H. Elderfield, O. Hoegh-Guldberg, P. Liss, U. Riebesell, J. Shepherd, C. 

Turley, A. Watson, 

2005: Ocean acidification due to increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide, Policy document 12/05, 

Volume ISBN 0 

85403 617 2: London Royal Society. 

Reaka-Kudla, M.L., 1997, Global biodiversity of coral reefs: a comparison with rainforests., in 

Reaka-Kudla, M.L., 

and Wilson, D.E., eds., Biodiversity II: Understanding and Protecting Our Biological Resources, 

Volume II, Joseph 

Henry Press, p. 551. 

Rignot, E., S.S. Jacobs, 2002: Rapid bottom melting widespread near Antarctic ice sheet 

grounding lines, Science, 

296, 2020-2023. 

Rignot, E., J.L. Bamber, M.R. van den Broeke, C. Davis, Y. Li, W.J. van de Berg, E. van 

Meijgaard, 2008: Recent 

Antarctic ice mass loss from radar interferometry and regional climate modeling, Nature 

Geoscience, 1, 106 – 110. 

Rignot, E., I. Velicogna, M.R. van den Brooke, A. Monaghan, J.T.M. Lenarts, 2011: 

Acceleration of the 

contribution of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets to sea level rise, Geophys. Res.. Lett., 38, 

L05503, 
Final OSTS PEIS 642 

doi:10.1029/2011GL046583 

Rockström, J., M. Falkenmark, L. Karlberg, H. Hoff, S. Rost, D. Gerten, 2009: Future water 

availability 

for global food production: The potential of green water for increasing resilience to global 

change, Water 

Resour. Res., 45, W00A12, doi: 10.1029/2007WR006767. 

Roemmich, D., J. Gilson, 2009: The 2004-2008 mean and annual cycle of temperature, salinity, 

and steric height in 

the global ocean from the Argo Program, Prog. Oceanogr., 82, 81-100. 

Rohling, E.J., K. Grant, M. Bolshaw, A.P. Roberts, M. Siddall, Ch. Hemleben, M. Kucera,, 

2009: Antarctic 

temperature and global sea level closely coupled over the past five glacial cycles. Nat. Geosci. 2, 

500-504. 

Rohling, E.J., K. Grant, C. Hemleben, M. Siddall, B.A. Hoogakker, M. Bolshaw, M. Kucera, 

2008: High rates of 

sea-level rise during the last interglacial period, Nat. Geosci., 1, 38-42. 

Schneider, S.H., and M.D. Mastrandrea, 2005: Probabilistic assessment of “dangerous” climate 

change and 

emissions pathways, Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci., 102, 15728-15735. 

Searchinger, T., R. Heimlich, R.A. Houghton, F. Dong, A. Elobeid, J. Fabiosa, S. Tokgoz, D. 

Hayes, T. Yu, 2008: 

Use of U.S. croplands for biofuels increases greenhouse gases through emissions from land-use 

change, Science, 

319, 1238-1240. 

Seidel, D.J., W.J. Randel, 2006: Variability and trends in the global tropopause estimated from 

radiosonde data, J. 

Geophys. Res., 111, D21101 

26 

Sherwood, S.C., M. Huber, 2010: An adaptability limit to climate change due to heat stress, 

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., 

Early Edition, www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.0913352107 

Socolow, R., et al., 2011: Direct air capture of CO2 with chemicals, American Physical Society 

report, 28 April, 

http://www.aps.org/policy/reports/popareports/loader.cfm?csModule=security/getfile&PageID=244407 

Sorensen, L.S., R. Forsberg, 2010: Greenland ice sheet mass loss from GRACE monthly models, 

in Gravity, Geoid 

and Earth Observations, S.P. Mertikas (ed.), International Association of Geodesy Symposia 

135, doi 10.1007/978- 

3-10634-7_70 

Steffen, K., S.V. Nghiem, R. Huff, G. Neumann, 2004: The melt anomaly of 2002 on the 

Greenland Ice Sheet from 

active and passive microwave satellite observations, Geophys. Res. Lett., 34, 

L204210/2004GL020444 

Stocker, B.D., K. Strassmann1, F. Joos, 2011: Sensitivity of Holocene atmospheric CO2 and the 

modern carbon 
Final OSTS PEIS 643 

budget to early human land use: analyses with a process-based model. Biogeosciences, 8, 69–88. 

Stehfest, E., L. Bouwman, D.P. van Vuuren, M.G.J. den Elzen, B. Eikhout, P. Kabat, 2009: 

Climate benefits of 

changing diet, Clim. Change, 95, 83-102. 

Tedesco, M., X. Fettweis, M.R. van den Broeke, R.S.W. van de Wal, C.J.P.P. Smeets, W.J. van 

de berg, M.C. 

Serreze, J.E. Box, 2011: The role of albedo and accumulation in the 2010 melting record in 

Greenland, Environ. 

Res. Lett., 6, 014005. 

Tilman, D., J. Hill, C. Lehman, 2006: Carbon-negative biofuels from low-input high-diversity 

grassland biomass, 

Science, 314, 1598-1600. 

Turner J. et al. (eds.), 2009: Antarctic Climate change and the environment: a contribution to the 

International 

Polar year 2007-2008, Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research, Scott Polar Research 

Institute, Lensfield Road, 

Cambridge UK. 

United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), 2010: Assessing the Enviromental Impacts of 

Consumption and 

Production: Priority Products and Materials, A Report of the Working Group on the 

Environmental Impacts of 

Products and Materials to the International Panel for Sustainable Resource Management, 

Hertwich, E. E. van der 

Voet, S. Suh, A. Tukker, M. Huijbregts, P. Kazmierczyk, M. Lenzen, J. McNeely, Y. Moriguchi. 

Velicogna, I., 2009: Increasing rates of ice mass loss from the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets 

revealed by 

GRACE, Geophys. Res. Lett., 36, L19503, doi:10.1029/2009GL040222. 

Vermeer, M., and S. Rahmstorf, 2009: Global sea level linked to global temperature, Proc. Natl. 

Acad. Sci., 106, 

21527-21532. 

Veron, J.E.N., O.Hoegh-Guldberg, T.M. Lenton, J.M. Lough, D.O. Obura, P. Pearce-Kelly, 

C.R.C. Sheppard, M. 

Spalding, M.G. Stafford-Smith, A.D. Rogers, 2009: The coral reef crisis: the critical importance 

of <350 ppm CO2, 

Marine Poll. Bull., 58, 1428-1436. 

von Schuckmann, K., P.-Y. Le Traon, 2011: How well can we derive global ocean indicators 

from Argo data? 

Walter, K.M., S.A. Zimov, J.P. Chanton, D. Verbyla, F.S. Chapin, III, 2006: Methane bubbling 

from Siberian thaw 

lakes as a positive feedback to climate warming, Nature, 443, 71-75. 

Westbrook, G.K., Thatcher, K.E., Rohling, E.J., Piotrowski, A.M., Pälike, H., Osborne, A.H., 

Nisbet, E.G., 

Minshull, T.A., Lanoisellé, M., James, R.H., Hühnerbach, V., Green, D., Fisher, R.E., Crocker, 

A.J., Chabert, A., 

Bolton, C., Beszczynska-Möller, A., Berndt, C., and Aquilina, A., 2009: Escape of methane gas 

from the seabed 
Final OSTS PEIS 644 

along the West Spitsbergen continental margin. Geophys. Res. Lett., 36, L15608, 

doi:10.1029/2009GL 039191. 

Westerling, A., H. Hidalgo, D. Cayan, T. Swetnam, 2006: Warming and earlier spring increases 

western U.S. forest 

wildfire activity, Science, 313, 940-943. 

Zachos, J., M. Pagani, L. Sloan, E. Thomas, and K. Billups, 2001: Trends, rhythms, and 

aberrations in global 

climate 65 Ma to present. Science, 292, 686-693. 

Zeebe, R.E., J.C. Zachos, G.R. Dickens, 2009: Carbon dioxide forcing alone insufficient to 

explain PaleoceneEreocene Thermal Maximum warming, Nature Geoscience, 2, 576-580. 

#2])>

OSTS2012D50015 

Organization: Daniel Pearce 

Received: 2/9/2012 3:04:33 PM 

Commenter1: Daniel Pearce - Claremont, California 91711 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/2/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50015.htm (OSTS2012D50015-58133.htm Size = 1 KB) 

Submission Text

<([#1 [12] I am against Fracking unless it is well proven to be safe for the environment as far as 

chemicals in the water table, discarded chemicals on the ground or in waterways, and earthquake 

risk. Do the science. #1])> Thank you 

OSTS2012D50017 

Organization: Audrey Graham 

Received: 2/14/2012 2:21:28 PM 

Commenter1: Audrey Graham - Moab, Utah 85432 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 4/13/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50017.htm (OSTS2012D50017-58137.htm Size = 1 KB) 

Submission Text

<([#1 [1.1] A second comment; in examining the maps more closely, I see that apparently the 

proposed area is not located in Grand County at all, nor in its watershed, except for the Green 
Final OSTS PEIS 645 

River. In addition, I can see that many communities which are located nearer than Moab to 

potential sites are not listed as hearing locations. I therefore respectfully withdraw my request to 

have a public hearing in Moab. #1])> Thank you. 

OSTS2012D50018 

Organization: 

Received: 2/20/2012 6:45:21 PM 

Commenter1: - Grand Junction, Colorado (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 4/13/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50018.htm (OSTS2012D50018-58139.htm Size = 1 KB) 

Submission Text

<([#1 [2.2] I am very disappointed with the BLM preference fore Alternative 2. It sounds like the 

BLM has taken a firm stance agains any Oil Shale Research and development programs. The 

BLM has obviously not asked for input from the industry, because this alternative does not 

provide incentive for industry to invest their monies into this resource. If it is the BLM 

responsiblity to manage our resources, I would say your progress so far has failed miserably. The 

BLM will be effectively shutting down the potential for long term job creation and sending a 

very bad message to the industry. What about national security? Is production of U.S. Oil 

reserves not part of the big picture? Alternative energies are a great mix to the energy spectrum, 

but you can’t walk around blind expecting them to take the place of fossil fuels in the near 

future. #1])>

OSTS2012D50019 

Organization: Barbara Parsons 

Received: 2/24/2012 2:25:15 PM 

Commenter1: Barbara Parsons - Rawlins, Wyoming (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 4/13/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50019.htm (OSTS2012D50019-58215.htm Size = 1 KB) 

Submission Text

<([#1 [8] At this time oil shale mining in not at all compatible with multiple use. It totally strips 

the land of any other use. Rehabilitation would be difficult. This type of development on the 

public lands should only be done in the future if there is a crucial need for it. Now, there is not!

#1])>
Final OSTS PEIS 646 

OSTS2012D50020 

Organization: John Bailey Sr 

Received: 2/25/2012 11:31:46 AM 

Commenter1: John Bailey Sr - Centreville, Virginia 201201527 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 4/13/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50020.htm (OSTS2012D50020-58217.htm Size = 1 KB) 

Submission Text

<([#1 [11] Every dollar’s worth of energy we can pull from our own ground, is a dollar less we 

have to borrow from the Chicoms to send to the Islamist. That makes for a stronger dollar and a 

stronger USA. This seems to me to be a no-brainer. #1])>

OSTS2012D50021 

Organization: National Council of Churches, Tyler Edgar 

Received: 2/29/2012 4:23:51 PM 

Commenter1: Tyler Edgar - , (United States) 

Organization1:National Council of Churches 

Commenter Type: Misc. Organization 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 4/13/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50021.htm (OSTS2012D50021-58265.htm Size = 1 KB) 

Thank_you_Letter_to_Interior-Grand_Canyon_and_Oil_Shale_OSTS2012D50021.pdf 

(OSTS2012D50021-58264.pdf Size = 44 KB) 

Submission Text

See Attachment. 

Mr. Ken Salazar 

Secretary 

Department of the Interior 

1849 C Street NW 

Washington DC 20240 
Final OSTS PEIS 647 

February 29, 2012 

Dear Secretary Salazar, 

<([#1 [2.2.1] As faith based organizations and religious institutions, we write to express our 

gratitude for recent decisions made by the Department of the Interior, regarding uranium mining 

in the Grand Canyon, as well as removing two million acres of public land from oil shale 

development. As people of faith, we are called to serve as stewards of God’s great Creation and 

we believe that lands serve as a place for reflection, prayer, and time with God. Each of these 

actions taken by the Department of the Interior will ensure more places and spaces are available, 

while limiting the amount of large scale development that can cause detrimental impacts to the 

lands and all those that depend on them. #1])>

Mining for uranium in the Grand Canyon has long been a controversial issue. Though we, as 

communities of faith, do not share a collective position on the use of nuclear power as an energy 

source, we do share the belief that mining for uranium is not appropriate in fragile places such as 

the Grand Canyon. The beauty of this place is irreplaceable and surface mining of this nature 

would have a devastating long-term impact on the health of the Grand Canyon and the areas that 

surround it. 

In addition to protecting the beauty of the Grand Canyon, we stand in solidarity with the tribal 

communities that oppose mining in the Grand Canyon and have cultural and spiritual ties to the 

Canyon. The Hopi, Navajo, and Havasupai, along with other tribal entities, oppose expanded 

mining and have suffered from historical mining in the region that has contaminated the local 

water and air. 

<([#2 [2.2.1] Finally, your decision to withdraw more than two million acres from proposed oil 

shale development is appropriate for this time and the place. Designating any public lands for 

energy development that is not yet commercially viable is not a wise use of the lands that have 

been given to us. Stewardship in our traditions addresses stewardship of all our gifts – including 

money and Creation. 

Within the territory withdrawn from oil shale development lies Adobe Town a unique formation 

in the heart of Wyoming’s Red Desert. Adobe Town represents those parts of God’s Creation 

that are worthy of permanent protection. While we believe that energy development is 

appropriate for certain parts of God’s Creation, there are places and spaces that should remain 

untouched so that future generations can enjoy the beauty of Creation while also having a place 

to pray and reflect as Christ, Moses, and Abraham did in Biblical times. 

Thank you for recognizing that using God’s Creation wisely and protecting unique and valuable 

parts of Creation should be central in our development of land use practices and policy. We look 

forward to working with you in the future as you continue to plan for the use of public lands all 

across the United States. #2])>

Sincerely, 
Final OSTS PEIS 648 

Church of the Brethren 

Columban Center for Advocacy and Outreach 

The Episcopal Church 

Maryknoll Office of Global Concerns 

National Council of Churches USA 

Presbyterian Church (USA) Office of Public Witness 

Union for Reform Judaism 

Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations 

United Church of Christ – Justice and Witness Ministries 

United Methodist Church – General Board of Church and Society 

OSTS2012D50022 

Organization: 

Received: 3/4/2012 11:07:38 AM 

Commenter1: - , Georgia (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 4/12/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50022.htm (OSTS2012D50022-58219.htm Size = 1 KB) 

Submission Text

<([#1 [12.2] I oppose the plans to open two million acres of public land to commercial leases for 

oil shale exploration and exploitation. Oil shale currently produces no jobs and no revenue. The 

Congressional Budget Office confirmed no significant revenues through 2022. Oil shale mining 

will destroy some of the best wild life habitat in Colorado, Utah and Wyoming. Outdoor 

recreation, tourism and agriculture are huge economic drivers in the West. The price of 

undisturbed wilderness is incalculable Already the West faces significant water shortages. 

Estimates range from 3 to 12 barrels of water are needed for every one barrel of oil produced 

from oil shales. Entire aquifers and watersheds could be polluted with heavy metal and chemical 

runoff. Thank you for your attention to this serious environmental decision. #1])> Cynthia 

Patterson 

OSTS2012D50023 
Final OSTS PEIS 649 

Organization: Alexander Greig 

Received: 3/6/2012 8:48:56 PM 

Commenter1: Alexander Greig - Berrien Springs, Michigan 49103 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 4/12/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50023.htm (OSTS2012D50023-58221.htm Size = 1 KB) 

Submission Text

<([#1 [12.2] I am an opponent of oil shale development anywhere, not only in Wyoming and 

Colorado. Oil extraction from shale will contribute to pollution of air and water on a massive 

scale, and once this source of fuel is tapped and hydrocarbons from this source are put into the 

air, we can say goodbye to the climate. #1])>

OSTS2012D50024 

Organization: Noah Syroid 

Received: 3/7/2012 12:44:14 PM 

Commenter1: Noah Syroid - Salt Lake City, Utah 84121 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 4/16/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50024.htm (OSTS2012D50024-58249.htm Size = 1 KB) 

Submission Text

<([#1 [12] While domestic energy is important, tar sands and oil shale go against common sense 

good practices and the prevailing science. Tar sands and oil shale extraction is energy intensive, 

which means more expense and more CO2 released. Local air pollution and water pollution is a 

great concern, and the science has not been adequate to show that extraction can be 

accomplished without significant pollution side effects. Additionally, too much water is used in 

the extraction process, particularly in areas where water is scarce (consider availability in severe 

to extreme droughts which are inevitable). #1])> <([#2 [10.6.1] BLM should be prioritizing 

solar, wind and geothermal sources of energy. 

#2])>

OSTS2012D50025 

Organization: Daniel Syroid 

Received: 3/7/2012 1:06:08 PM 

Commenter1: Daniel Syroid - Park City, Utah 84098 (United States) 

Organization1: 
Final OSTS PEIS 650 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 4/12/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50025.htm (OSTS2012D50025-58223.htm Size = 1 KB) 

Submission Text

<([#1 [12.2] Oil shale rock found in the Green river basin contains solid bituminous materials 

called kerogen. With great difficulty, expense, heat and water the rock can yield oil. After 

billions of government dollars spent over 86 years, all attempts to develop oil shale have failed. 

The BLM estimates that it takes 1 to 4 barrels of water to produce a barrel of oil. Water is scarce 

in Utah and oil shale demand will harm agriculture and future populations. Even with in-situ 

processes, water pollution is virtually inevitable and CO2 emissions are estimated to be 25 to 

75% higher than conventional oil. We live on a finite planet and must greatly reduce use of fossil 

fuels in the near future if the planet is to sustain our children. Scientists that study climate are 

nearly unanimous that global warming is serious and human caused. However, propaganda from 

the fossil fuel industry, has 60% of the general public in doubt. Clean solar and wind energy with 

electric vehicles are much better choices for Utah and the US. I strongly urge the BLM to end or 

greatly limit any oil shale development. 

#1])>

OSTS2012D50026 

Organization: Michele and Rob Irwin 

Received: 3/7/2012 4:31:08 PM 

Commenter1: Michele and Rob Irwin - Green River, Wyoming 82935 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 4/16/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50026.htm (OSTS2012D50026-58225.htm Size = 1 KB) 

Submission Text

<([#1 [4.3] The area being considered for oil shale development has already seen energy 

development that has negatively impacted wildlife and air quality. Before the BLM leases any 

new projects, the downward trends need to be addressed. #1])> <([#2 [5] [10.4] In addition, oil 

shale development under current technology uses too much water, and produces high levels of 

emissions. Any new development in this region needs to be held to a higher standard. The 

posting of bonds, a detailed plan to reduce impacts, and mitigation that should leave the 

environment better than before are minimal steps that need to be taken to ensure the long term 

sustainability of this ecoregion. The BLM could go a long way to rehabilitate this region by 

returning bison, whose beneficial influence has long been missing. The most important thing 

about this region is the open space, the lack of noise and people, clean air and water, and 
Final OSTS PEIS 651 

abundant wildlife. The whole is greater than the sum of the parts. All of these things need 

protected. #2])> Thank you. 

OSTS2012D50027 

Organization: CHC - Citizens for Huerfano County, Rena Kaplowitz 

Received: 3/7/2012 6:48:33 PM 

Commenter1: Rena Kaplowitz - La Veta, Colorado 81055 (United States) 

Organization1:CHC - Citizens for Huerfano County 

Commenter Type: Affiliation Only 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 4/12/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50027.htm (OSTS2012D50027-58227.htm Size = 1 KB) 

Submission Text

<([#1 [12] Living in a pristine environment where tourism is our number one source of income, I 

am strongly opposed to oil shale and tar sands exploration and extraction. Not only are these 

activities dirty, dangerous and environmentally unsound, but the economic base of our rural 

lifestyle is completely undermined. A tremendous amount of water is lost and the time to 

“recharge” is unknown. Surely this is madness. Fracking needs to be stopped, now, for the health 

of our forests, rivers air and land. Pity the poor ranchers that will go bankrupt when their 

properties are destroyed by the degradation attendant upon this type of drilling. Let adjacent 

communities decide the best use of BLM land, e.g. grazing, hiking, fishing, hunting. We need to 

protect our health and safety, and that of domestic and wild animals, not enrich foreign oil and 

gas interests. #1])>

OSTS2012D50028 

Organization: Claire Seelinger 

Received: 3/7/2012 7:03:58 PM 

Commenter1: Claire Seelinger - ABQ, New Mexico 87108 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 4/16/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50028.htm (OSTS2012D50028-58229.htm Size = 1 KB) 

Submission Text

<([#1 [12.1] Please end or greatly limit oil shale development. #1])> <([#2 [10.6.1] Solar, wind 

energy and electric vehicles are much better choices. #2])>

OSTS2012D50029 
Final OSTS PEIS 652 

Organization: Larry Hardebeck 

Received: 3/9/2012 8:45:11 AM 

Commenter1: Larry Hardebeck - Park City, Utah 84098 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 4/12/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50029.htm (OSTS2012D50029-58263.htm Size = 1 KB) 

Submission Text

Dear sirs:<([#1 [12.3] I strongly feel that the whole oil shale and tar sands issue is a total waste 

of our resources; especially our limited water supplies. This technology is unproven and 

devastating to the areas where it is done and will greatly degrade our environment and outdoor 

recreation in our state of Utah. I feel that no federal land should be leased to these companies 

until more renewable forms of energy are supported and explored. #1])> Sincerely, Larry 

Hardebeck 

OSTS2012D50030 

Organization: Roger Moore 

Received: 3/9/2012 12:30:04 PM 

Commenter1: Roger Moore - Grand Junction, Connecticut 815071280 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 4/25/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50030.htm (OSTS2012D50030-58268.htm Size = 1 KB) 

REMoore_Comments_on_PEIS_OSTS2012D50030.pdf (OSTS2012D50030-58267.pdf Size = 

26 KB) 

Submission Text

See Attachment. 

Comments on PEIS 

by Roger E. Moore, P.E. Chemical Engineer 

<([#1 [2] [3.15] The draft PEIS encourages surface mining in Utah and Wyoming and precludes 

surface mining 

in Colorado. The draft spells out the criteria for surface mining, < 500 ft of over burden and beds 

>25 ft thick, yet ignores the Donnell (1987) paper that the PEIS references. The Donnell paper 

identifies a large area in the northwest corner of the Piceance Basin which satisfy the selection 

criteria. Estimates of the surface mineable acreage are larger than the total proposed for new 

leasing in Alternative 2(b). (page 2-20). The maps in the various figure need section lines so they 
Final OSTS PEIS 653 

can be compared to previous work by others such as Donnell 

#1])> <([#2 [6.3.6] The retorting technology discussion does not mention the Brazilian oil shale 

surface retorting 

process, Petrosix. This technology has operated a large commercial retort since the 1980’s. (page 

2-19) 

The use of surface mining and surface retorting is probably the least expensive combination for 

producing shale oil commercially and is the most logical first step. Environmentally, it probably 

has the least long term impact, ie Unocal’s project, and avoids the unanswered questions of 

cleaning up in-situ retorts. 

#2])> <([#3 [2.2] The Alternative 2(b) identifies 35,000 acres to lease which is about 7% of the 

Picaence Basin 

resource. This PEIS is not encouraging development of the United States resources. (page 2-43) 

The leasing program does not need to be an RD&D lease first. If a company believes they can do 

a commercial project, they will have to meet all the regulations for emissions and cleanup. The 

PEIS seems to ignore what was done in the 1980’s. Shale mining and retorting was proven 

technically by Unocal but development stopped when the oil prices dropped from $30-35/bbl to 

$12-15/Bbl. We are certainly above those oil price levels now and those prices will never be 

seen again.(ES-7) 

Personally, this plan reflects Secretary Salazar’s “no development in Colorado” attitude. 

#3])>

. 

OSTS2012D50031 

Organization: Peggy Tibbetts 

Received: 3/12/2012 10:12:43 AM 

Commenter1: Peggy Tibbetts - Silt, Colorado 81652 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 4/12/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50031.htm (OSTS2012D50031-58231.htm Size = 1 KB) 

Submission Text

<([#1 [12] What saddens me more than anything is that to date billions of dollars have been 

spent and decades have been lost to oil shale exploration. Years and dollars that could have gone 

to alternative, renewable energy resources. If the BLM truly cared about our natural resources 

they would protect them, rather than exploit them. If the “energy” companies were truly about 

“energy” they would put their valuable time and money into energy sources that don’t obliterate 

the environment and make people sick. #1])>

OSTS2012D50032 

Organization: Philip Blevins 

Received: 3/12/2012 10:06:34 PM 

Commenter1: Philip Blevins - Salt Lake City, Utah 84103 (United States) 
Final OSTS PEIS 654 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 4/12/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50032.htm (OSTS2012D50032-58233.htm Size = 1 KB) 

Submission Text

<([#1 [2.3.1] In the recently-released Draft PEIS, the BLM’s preferred alternative (Alternative 

2b) proposes to make 252,181 acres available for shale leasing in Utah and 91,045 acres 

available for tar sands leasing. BLM’s proposal would leave these lands open for speculative 

development that could foul public lands, air and water quality, and result in large quantities of 

greenhouse gasses. I support the alternative that prohibits new oil shale leasing and most tar 

sands development. Under this alternative, only existing oil shale research, development, and 

design leases would remain on public lands. One commercial tar sands project just outside of 

Vernal could continue to undergo environmental reviews and permitting. #1])>

OSTS2012D50033 

Organization: Michael Hurley 

Received: 3/13/2012 3:20:26 PM 

Commenter1: Michael Hurley - Roosevelt, Utah 84066 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 4/12/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50033.htm (OSTS2012D50033-58235.htm Size = 1 KB) 

Submission Text

<([#1 [11] We should develop every viable oil producing means available to us. We certainly 

need oil as a nation, and as an economic contributor in this disaster of an economy! I fully 

support oil shale development in this nation, particularly on lands that are serving no real 

purpose for the people of this nation. #1])> Sincerely, Michael A Hurley 

OSTS2012D50034 

Organization: utah state university, jack greene 

Received: 3/13/2012 9:30:30 PM 

Commenter1: jack greene - smithfield, Utah 84335 (United States) 

Organization1:utah state university 

Commenter Type: Affiliation Only 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 

Submitted As: Web Form 
Final OSTS PEIS 655 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 4/12/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50034.htm (OSTS2012D50034-58237.htm Size = 1 KB) 

Submission Text

<([#1 [12.2] Given the current technology, I oppose oil shale development for the following 

reasons: Oil shale would foul our air and water, soak up enormous amounts of water, and disrupt 

local economies. Annual commercial oil shale production could require one-and-a-half times the 

water needs of all 1.3 million Denver Water customers. Where would that water come from? Oil 

and gas companies are abandoning oil shale research independently, yet the State of Utah is still 

preparing to turn over public resources for speculative development. That’s like building a 

factory before you know how to make the widget. It doesn’t economic, environmental, or social 

sense. #1])>

OSTS2012D50036 

Organization: derek peterson 

Received: 3/14/2012 10:19:16 AM 

Commenter1: derek peterson - salt lake city, Utah 84109 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 4/12/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50036.htm (OSTS2012D50036-58241.htm Size = 1 KB) 

Submission Text

To whom it may concern: <([#1 [12.2] Utah Government has always had a reputation of fiscal 

conservancy. With this established fact I would ask “why is the BLM moving forward with oil 

shale considerations”? Utahs western neighbor states have realized oil shale ventures are not 

commercially viable. Lets use our resources more pragmatically. #1])> Derek Peterson 

OSTS2012D50037 

Organization: Violet Corkle 

Received: 3/14/2012 10:47:43 AM 

Commenter1: Violet Corkle - Salt Lake City, Utah (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 4/12/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50037.htm (OSTS2012D50037-58243.htm Size = 1 KB) 

Submission Text
Final OSTS PEIS 656 

<([#1 [12.2] I do not support oil shale development. It is too dirty, too expensive and requires too 

much water. The process contaminates the ground. Other more productive sources of energy.

#1])>

OSTS2012D50038 

Organization: Ben Mates 

Received: 3/14/2012 11:04:43 AM 

Commenter1: Ben Mates - Salt Lake City, Utah 84106 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 4/12/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50038.htm (OSTS2012D50038-58245.htm Size = 1 KB) 

Submission Text

<([#1 [12] I urge you to reject the development of oil shale and tar sands in Utah and on any 

BLM lands. The net yield of energy (energy produced versus energy required to extract the 

resource)is small or even negative. Oil shale and tar sands carry onerous environmental costs to 

our air, water, landscape and climate that could be avoided by developing clean renewable 

energy resources. I will be watching your decision with interest and I will use my voice to ensure 

that my stand for a resilient and livable future is reflected by those who represent me in 

government. Thank you. #1])>

OSTS2012D50039 

Organization: Siera Club, Kirt Williamson 

Received: 3/14/2012 11:09:10 PM 

Commenter1: Kirt Williamson - Grantsville, Utah 84029 (United States) 

Organization1:Siera Club 

Commenter Type: Affiliation Only 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 4/12/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50039.htm (OSTS2012D50039-58247.htm Size = 1 KB) 

Submission Text

<([#1 [12] I have been doing a significant degree of research on the issue of global warming and 

I am convinced (despite what the current candidates for the Republican Nomination are 

claiming) that Global warming is a real and significant threat to the welfare of life on this earth. 

As a result I am in favor of limiting the amount of permits that are issued. I am especially against 

efforts to extract oil from shale and tar sands persuaded to believe it is an inefficient method to 

obtain the oil that we do extract. Thanks much. #1])>
Final OSTS PEIS 657 

OSTS2012D50040 

Organization: Al Gillespie 

Received: 3/15/2012 3:06:10 PM 

Commenter1: Al Gillespie - Grand Junction, Colorado 81506 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 4/12/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50040.htm (OSTS2012D50040-58251.htm Size = 1 KB) 

Submission Text

<([#1 [2.2.1] I do support the development of oil shale. I am in complete agreement on the latest 

BLM proposal to scale back the acerage available for research and development in UT, CO, and 

WY. These companies need to have a viable process developed along with an analysis of the 

resources needed and the impact on the land and communities before a large scale (commercial) 

program is allowed to go forward. #1])>

OSTS2012D50041 

Organization: Ingrid Griffee 

Received: 3/15/2012 3:35:08 PM 

Commenter1: Ingrid Griffee - Salt lake city, Utah 84124 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 4/16/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50041.htm (OSTS2012D50041-58253.htm Size = 1 KB) 

Submission Text

<([#1 [10.6.1] president Obama has spoken much about turning away from fossils fuels toward 

renewable sources. The BLM should set the example. If our public lands are to be used for any 

sort of energy exploration or production, then only for renewable, non-polluting projects such as 

wind and solar. Stop supporting fossil fuels and their air pollution and extravagant water usage. 

Give us clean energy - the feds should lead the way. Please! The last thing Utah needs is more 

fossil fuel mining or refinement. Talk to the EPA - our air quality already ranks among the worst 

in the nation. My kids need clean air! Please. #1])>

OSTS2012D50042 

Organization: 

Received: 3/15/2012 9:43:31 PM 

Commenter1: - , (United States) 

Organization1: 
Final OSTS PEIS 658 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 4/12/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50042.htm (OSTS2012D50042-58255.htm Size = 1 KB) 

Submission Text

<([#1 [12] NO DRILLING IN UT, CO, AND WY #1])>

OSTS2012D50043 

Organization: Carol Shablo 

Received: 3/16/2012 10:04:34 AM 

Commenter1: Carol Shablo - Bayfield, Colorado 81122 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 4/12/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50043.htm (OSTS2012D50043-58257.htm Size = 1 KB) 

Submission Text

<([#1 [11] I would really like to see the oil shale development and tar sands development take 

place in Colorado. America needs its own supply of oil and gas. why are we buying from other 

countries? Why are we buying from countries who are not really our friends and not buying from 

Canada who is our friend. I will vote this fall based on those issues and the issues of jobs in 

Colorado. #1])>

OSTS2012D50044 

Organization: Peg 

Received: 3/17/2012 3:46:02 PM 

Commenter1: Peg - , Colorado (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 4/12/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50044.htm (OSTS2012D50044-58259.htm Size = 1 KB) 

Submission Text

<([#1 [12] Extraction requires high temperatures, enormous supplies of water and huge amounts 

of energy with not much bang for the buck. I agree that land use much be restricted especially 
Final OSTS PEIS 659 

since the technology is questionable at best. If there is a spill (and there will be), tar sands oil 

sinks to the bottom of rivers/streams and cleanup is almost impossible. I want my public lands 

clean, my water clear and safe and my wildlife protected. Fracking and tar sands extraction are a 

dangerous mess with no proven method of clean-up or protection for those in its path. Finally, 

much of our current oil is sold to other countries. The US takes the risk and other countries and 

‘big oil’ benefit. #1])>

OSTS2012D50045 

Organization: Dorian Miller 

Received: 3/18/2012 6:16:47 AM 

Commenter1: Dorian Miller - Honolulu, Hawaii 96826 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 4/12/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50045.htm (OSTS2012D50045-58261.htm Size = 1 KB) 

Submission Text

<([#1 [12] Please stop the Oil Shale and Tar Sands extraction and spend the money on energy 

that won’t hurt the planet. The United States should be the leader in environmentally safe energy. 

We should not be thinking of ways destroy the planet. We are the greatest country on earth, we 

need to act like it. #1])>

OSTS2012D50046 

Organization: Douglas Vilnius 

Received: 3/18/2012 11:21:09 AM 

Commenter1: Douglas Vilnius - Park City, Utah 84098 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 4/16/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50046.htm (OSTS2012D50046-58269.htm Size = 1 KB) 

Submission Text

<([#2 [10.6.1] Please consider the cost-benefit of this enterprise.I only hope we would spend this 

much effort on solar and wind energy production. #2])>

OSTS2012D50047 

Organization: Mark Hilberman 

Received: 3/19/2012 6:17:00 PM 

Commenter1: Mark Hilberman - Redstone, Colorado 816232506 (United States) 
Final OSTS PEIS 660 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/1/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50047.htm (OSTS2012D50047-58271.htm Size = 1 KB) 

Comment_on_PEIS_for_western_Tar_sands_and_Oil_Shale_OSTS2012D50047.rtf 

(OSTS2012D50047-58270.rtf Size = 47 KB) 

Submission Text

See Attachment. 

March 19, 2012 

Comments on the BLM’s Programmed Environmental Impact Statement [PEIS] for Oil Shale 

and Tar Sands in Colorado, Utah and Wyoming, 

March 19, 2012 Mark Hilberman 

<([#1 [3.1.2] A group of worried ranchers attended the presentation of the draft document in 

western Colorado on March 12, 2012. None of the BLM maps in the PEIS show where and how 

existing land use will be disrupted by any of the proposed plans. Nevertheless, it is clear that 

fossil fuel extraction in these areas will disrupt existing ranching and recreational uses in these 

dry western lands. This arid portion of the country is projected to become dryer still. 

Furthermore, scars upon the land heal slowly: witness still evident 150 year old Pony Express 

and immigrant trails. 

#1])>

<([#2 [3.4.1] Water consumption and potential contamination is of great concern: the Colorado 

River no longer drains into the ocean as existing human and agricultural usage already consumes 

all its water. #2])> <([#3 [10.6.1] Moreover, DOE Secretary Chu’s recent statement to Congress 

that our priority goal should be to develop alternative energy sources is correct. 

#3])>

<([#4 [2.2.1] [2.3.1] With this in mind [land use change, water quality & quantity, and 

alternative energy goals] alternatives 2 or 3 make the most sense. Alternative 2b which requires 

and RD&D phase first is presently preferred by the BLM allows for the gathering of additional 

essential information for rational future decision making. 

· However, there is no evidence in this document that the BLM intends to gather new information 

beyond simple technical extraction issues. A significant part of the BLM’s responsibility to the 

American public is to determine the feasability, environmental cost and impacts of using these 

resources at this time. Therefore, this information should be obtained if RD&D leasing proceeds 

and such leasing should proceed slowly to facilitate the data gathering needed to decide upon 

more extensive commercial exploitation. #4])>
Final OSTS PEIS 661 

<([#5 [3.5.1.1] · In the past several decades the climate science community has become much 

more concerned about the future adverse impact of global warming: 

“Finally, we are close to dead certain, from the Greenland ice cores and other climate records, 

that abrupt climate changes did actually occur during the Ice Age, . . . The existence of abrupt 

climate change is by now more of an observational fact than a theory. . . . [A furry stuffed toy 

snake hangs in the window of Broecker’s office with a sign around its neck:] “I am the Climate 

Beast and I am Hungry.”[1] 

· In February of 2012 the USDA released it’s reclassification of the climate zone of Aspen from 

Zone 3 to the significantly warmer Zone 5, based upon minimal winter temperature 

measurements – this after only 22 years since the prior 1990 classification. We have just had one 

of the warmest winters on record, an unusual early spring and unusually early and violent 

tornados in the Midwest. Increases in greenhouse gas concentrations which have risen more 

steeply since ~1960 and record rising temperatures suggest these are harbingers of climate 

change rather than simply weather phenomena. It is clear that global climate change issues must 

be considered in the RD&D analysis. Moreover, the potential cost of climate change dwarfs the 

cost of working fast to minimize and then reduce greenhouse gas production. 

#5])>

<([#6 [6.3.4] · I asked George Richardson, a friend who knows energy business intimately to 

comment on my note. He referenced his group’s website www.usenergypolicycoalition.org and 

stated: 

“From my perspective, the scarcity of water, already an issue in the west, coupled with the 

dramatic amount of energy needed to produce these resources (EROEI, or energy return on 

energy invested) are enough to take them off the list of future energy choices without a viable 

method of CCS (Carbon Capture and Storage). From my 20 odd years in the oil and gas 

business, seldom did anyone ever deal with much more than “financial costs” and rates of return 

on a field or individual wells. . . . Oil shales, and tar sands, are “bottom of the barrel” choices in 

that they are heavier oils that are sticky bitumens that contain little or no of the high octane 

lighter hydrocarbons that combust at lower temperatures. . . . if one considers the true total 

“economic” cost per barrel, as compared to coal gasification or liquified natural gas, we will 

probably never develop these resources, especially if they are in competition with farmers who 

need lots of water to irrigate their crops. The normal game played by the petroleum industry is to 

try to garner subsidies that will help develop a profitable business model for oil shale 

development and then the subsidies never go away and the business flounders if the subsidies are 

withdrawn because the economics require perpetual subsidies by the government.” 

#6])>

<([#7 [9.7] · Given the land use, environmental, water, global climate, socioeconomic and other 

issues involved in progressing to full scale commercial development it is derelict for the BLM 

not to have specified an ongoing collaborative research endeavor in the PEIS. The high energy 

consuming forms of proposed fossil fuel extraction from rock and sand need to be evaluated 

critically and quantitatively in view of their apparent unnecessary and excessive contributions to 

climate change, compared to fluid oil and gas fossil fuels. Yet there is no clear statement of the 

goals and parameters to be evaluated by the government in the R&D phases of the project. #7])>
Final OSTS PEIS 662 

<([#8 [10.4] · Finally, I live around the corner from Coal Creek in Redstone, Colorado where the 

effluvia from an unrestored, abandoned coal mine site continues to pollute. Bonds may cover the 

RD&D phase, but once commercial exploitation is permitted a significant revenue stream, 

sufficient to cover worst case reclamation costs needs to be secured and set aside. If all the funds 

are not needed to reclaim the site from which they were derived they can be used to restore a 

multitude of sites such as Coal Creek and the abandoned Mid-Continent coal mine. #8])>

<([#9 [9.3] · p 62 [1-16]: The purely technical issues are likely to be solved an RD&D phase 

focused upon the technical feasibility of producing “commercial quantities of shale oil from the 

lease.” 

o On p 66, there is a provision for “site-specific analysis . . . prior to issuance of . . . leases, the 

environmental consequences to specific resource values and uses within areas . . . would be 

analyzed.” This vague hand waving should be replaced by a clear definition of comprehensive 

research objectives and decisional parameters. These obvious data requirements are nowhere 

specified, indeed in some sections it sounds as if they will not be obtained [see appendix J 3.1.3].

#9])>

<([#10 [9] · pp77-78: There should be specific acknowledgement of the excess energy, water use 

and possible contamination issues related to fracking or similar technologies used for in-situ

extraction of oil and gas from tar sands and shales. How will they be monitored during RD&D 

and or prevented or detected presuming leases are granted? #10])>

<([#11 [9.3] · p. 92. States BLM plan to do a NEPA analysis. At the risk of boring: what 

additional data will be collected prospectively upon which to base this decision? #11])>

<([#12 [3.15] · p 209 ff. A great deal of information about present, past and possible future uses 

of valuable fossil fuel deposits, recreational, farm and ranch use and other material. However, the 

maps presented completely fail to adequately depict present farm, ranch and recreational uses in 

the region. There is a great deal of land here that could be abused by little justified, poorly 

planned, overzealous use for poor grade fuel. #12])>

<([#13 [9] · Volume 2. 

This volume reviews the multiple impacts of the proposed technologies in detail. There is no 

plan for adequate measurement of adverse impacts which occur during the RD&D or initial 

commercial exploitation phases, nor does it specificy how such measurement would be used in 

the final decision processes for proceeding with commercial exploitation of these valuable fossil 

fuel resources. 

#13])>

 <([#14 [3.4.1] The proposed explorations are in an arid part of the country. Therefore, it 

is essential that the BLM measure the effect of the oil and gas research and commercial 

use phases on river water and underground water quality, especially in the RD&D phase. 

#14])> <([#15 [6.2.3] page 79 [4-55] It is a truism that localized GHG production will 
Final OSTS PEIS 663 

have a minimal impact on global GHG production. Nevertheless, the extra GHG 

produced extracting oil and gas from shale and sand make these dirty sources of energy 

compared to the use of fluid oil or gas. This extra impact should be quantified by the 

BLM with the EPA and DOE. #15])>

<([#16 [1] · Volume 3. 

The impacts are time broken down by the different proposed alternatives. Review of the BLM 

proposals would be facilitated by combining volumes 2 and 3. #16])>

· Volume 4: 

<([#17 [1] Reviews the comments made after the initial public presentations. What is not clear is 

why issues were considered outside the scope of the PEIS. As an example, the BLM rejected 

baseline environmental studies as involving too great an area to be practical [J.3.1.3, pp J-19 ff, 

or V.4, 425 ff]. However, the BLM does not appear to contemplate an essential step for future 

decision making: conducting a relevant set of measurements in each of the RD&D lease areas. 

Absent this information it is difficult to understand how final decisions can be properly made. 

#17])>

<([#18 [3.5.1.6] The comment that green plants mitigate CO2 release [V4 - p423 (J-17), line 46] 

is a truism and false: – green plants have not been able to keep up with the Anthropocene’s fossil 

fuel consumption and release of CO2 and this will not change. Available climate science data 

indicate that CO2 production needs to be slowed, then decreased and sooner rather than later. 

#18])>

[1] Broecker, WS and Kunzig, R: Fixing Climate: What past climate changes reveal about the 

current threat and how to counter it. Hill and Wang, 2008, pp129-130. 

OSTS2012D50048 

Organization: Corey Ballantyne 

Received: 3/22/2012 9:57:21 PM 

Commenter1: Corey Ballantyne - , California (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 4/12/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50048.htm (OSTS2012D50048-58282.htm Size = 1 KB) 

Submission Text

<([#1 [12.3] There should be NO extraction or “development” of fossil fuels on public lands. It 

is imperative for the safety of all people that we solve our energy crisis by rapidly ratcheting 

down our consumption of fossil fuels and rapidly ratcheting up development and utilization of 

carbon-neutral energy sources such as wind and solar energy. The use of public lands to pursue 

fossil fuels is a disgrace to our country and to humanity and makes me ashamed to be an 

American. We are tinkering with our climate, a system on which being alive depends. Our food 
Final OSTS PEIS 664 

crops, including staples such as rice and wheat, cannot produce a sufficient yield in a hotter 

climate, to feed us. It is unthinkable and unconscionable to even so much as RISK a disastrously 

hotter climate, yet you would have us blithely stay on track to guarantee this ugly outcome. We, 

the public, know that you all take bribes from oil companies to allow this. SHAME on you for 

even considering using our public lands in this way. #1])>

OSTS2012D50049 

Organization: Elizabeth Ickes 

Received: 3/23/2012 8:14:12 AM 

Commenter1: Elizabeth Ickes - Asheville, North Carolina 28803 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 4/12/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50049.htm (OSTS2012D50049-58284.htm Size = 1 KB) 

Submission Text

<([#1 [12] Considering the amount of energy and water necessary to extract oil which is then not 

commercially viable, is in my mind simply another boondoggle created to feather the nests of the 

already bloated, outlaw oil companies. I am totally against this plan for the rape of yet another 

huge acreage in the name of so called “oil security”. A better idea would be to disallow any sales 

of domestic oil abroad. #1])>

OSTS2012D50050 

Organization: Casey Blackburn 

Received: 3/23/2012 2:55:51 PM 

Commenter1: Casey Blackburn - Vernal, Utah 84078 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 4/12/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50050.htm (OSTS2012D50050-58286.htm Size = 1 KB) 

Submission Text

<([#1 [11] Please support responsible, multipurpose use of our public lands. Those of us that live 

work and play here have a vested interest in this, I seen the reclamation of land utilized for 

petroleum purposes and found the industry to be very responsible and comprehensive about 

maintaining our environment. Please don’t let the special interest groups (SUWA, etc.) twist 

your arm on this issue. #1])>

OSTS2012D50051 
Final OSTS PEIS 665 

Organization: Sherrill Futrell 

Received: 3/23/2012 3:26:24 PM 

Commenter1: Sherrill Futrell - Davis, California 956185421 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 4/12/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50051.htm (OSTS2012D50051-58288.htm Size = 1 KB) 

Submission Text

<([#1 [2.3.1] STOP THIS DESTRUCTIVE TAR SANDS DEVELOPMENT! Alternative 3 

prohibits new oil shale leasing and most tar sands development. Under this alternative, only 

existing oil shale research, development, and design leases would remain on public lands. One 

commercial tar sands project just outside of Vernal could continue to undergo environmental 

reviews and permitting. That’s it. #1])>

OSTS2012D50052 

Organization: Connie Spears 

Received: 3/23/2012 3:27:28 PM 

Commenter1: Connie Spears - , California (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 4/12/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50052.htm (OSTS2012D50052-58290.htm Size = 1 KB) 

Submission Text

<([#1 [2.3.1] In the recently-released Draft PEIS, the BLM’s preferred alternative (Alternative 

2b) proposes to make 252,181 acres available for shale leasing in Utah and 91,045 acres 

available for tar sands leasing. This is still too much! For that reason we support a different 

alternative (Alternative 3) that would go even further toward shutting the door on this 

“unconventional” fuels nightmare. Alternative 3 prohibits new oil shale leasing and most tar 

sands development. Under this alternative, only existing oil shale research, development, and 

design leases would remain on public lands. One commercial tar sands project just outside of 

Vernal could continue to undergo environmental reviews and permitting. That’s it. #1])>

OSTS2012D50053 

Organization: Stacy Kline 

Received: 3/23/2012 3:33:11 PM 

Commenter1: Stacy Kline - , California (United States) 

Organization1: 
Final OSTS PEIS 666 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 4/12/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50053.htm (OSTS2012D50053-58292.htm Size = 1 KB) 

Submission Text

<([#1 [2.3.1] In the recently-released Draft PEIS, the alternative (Alternative 2b) proposes to 

make 252,181 acres available for shale leasing in Utah and 91,045 acres available for tar sands 

leasing, but this is still too much! For that reason I support a different alternative (Alternative 3) 

that would go even further toward shutting the door on this “unconventional” fuels nightmare. 

Alternative 3 prohibits new oil shale leasing and most tar sands development. Under this 

alternative, only existing oil shale research, development, and design leases would remain on 

public lands. #1])>

OSTS2012D50054 

Organization: Yolanda Garcia 

Received: 3/23/2012 3:42:54 PM 

Commenter1: Yolanda Garcia - Peralta, New Mexico 87042 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 4/12/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50054.htm (OSTS2012D50054-58294.htm Size = 1 KB) 

Submission Text

<([#1 [2.3.1] There is still too much Tar Sands Leasing being proposed; dangerous and farfetched oil shale or tar sands leasing and development. In the recently-released Draft PEIS, the 

BLM’s preferred alternative (Alternative 2b) proposes to make 252,181 acres available for shale 

leasing in Utah and 91,045 acres available for tar sands leasing. This is still too much! I support 

support a different alternative (Alternative 3) that would go even further toward shutting the door 

on this “unconventional” fuels nightmare. Alternative 3 prohibits new oil shale leasing and most 

tar sands development. Under this alternative, only existing oil shale research, development, and 

design leases would remain on public lands. One commercial tar sands project just outside of 

Vernal could continue to undergo environmental reviews and permitting. #1])>

OSTS2012D50055 

Organization: Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance (SUWA), Carolyn Straub 

Received: 3/23/2012 3:43:27 PM 

Commenter1: Carolyn Straub - San Jose, California 95111 (United States) 

Organization1:Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance (SUWA) 

Commenter Type: Affiliation Only 
Final OSTS PEIS 667 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 4/12/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50055.htm (OSTS2012D50055-58296.htm Size = 1 KB) 

Submission Text

<([#1 [2.3.1] I agree with this, issued today, March 23, 2012, by Southern Utah Wilderness 

Alliance (SUWA): “We support a different alternative (Alternative 3) that would go even further 

toward shutting the door on this “unconventional” fuels nightmare. Alternative 3 prohibits new 

oil shale leasing and most tar sands development. Under this alternative, only existing oil shale 

research, development, and design leases would remain on public lands. One commercial tar 

sands project just outside of Vernal could continue to undergo environmental reviews and 

permitting. That’s it.” #1])>

OSTS2012D50056 

Organization: Gail Richardson 

Received: 3/23/2012 8:32:34 PM 

Commenter1: Gail Richardson - Bozeman, Montana 59715 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 4/12/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50056.htm (OSTS2012D50056-58298.htm Size = 1 KB) 

Submission Text

<([#1 [2.3.1] I believe that oil shale and tar sands development on our precious public lands 

should be limited because of the destructive nature of these extractions. Our scenic landscapes, 

our water and air, and our wildlife resources all suffer greatly when these projects are allowed. 

Often time these developments are proposed in prime recreational areas that are totally 

unsuitable for industrial development. I support Alt. 3 because it prohibits new oil shale leasing 

and most tar sands projects. Only existing research, development and design leases will be 

allowed to continue on public lands. One tar sands project by Vernal will continue with 

environmental reviews and permitting. Tar sands is the most egregious type of oil extraction and 

will have an overwhelming effect on our climate should it continue. Alberta is literally 

destroying its own environment, and we will all pay for its intransigence. Please do the right 

thing and adopt Alt.3. Thanks for listening to people who care about our environment over 

corporations which obviously do not. #1])>

OSTS2012D50057 

Organization: Sierra Club Wilderness Sub-Committee, cassie barr 

Received: 3/23/2012 9:05:06 PM 

Commenter1: cassie barr - Oakland, California 94619 (United States) 
Final OSTS PEIS 668 

Organization1:Sierra Club Wilderness Sub-Committee 

Commenter Type: Affiliation Only 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 4/16/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50057.htm (OSTS2012D50057-58300.htm Size = 1 KB) 

Submission Text

<([#1 [10.6.1] We need to put our efforts toward green energy and not effect Climate Change 

more by helping dirty Tar Sands Oil, an environmental disaster. #1])>

OSTS2012D50058 

Organization: Adam Shaffer 

Received: 3/23/2012 10:23:09 PM 

Commenter1: Adam Shaffer - Burlington, Iowa 52601 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 4/12/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50058.htm (OSTS2012D50058-58302.htm Size = 1 KB) 

Submission Text

<([#1 [2.3.1] Please approve alternative 3 as a path forward for this PEIS. I have studied the 

boom and bust cycle that has already been experienced with oil shale. I believe that developing 

this source of energy is a mistake both for the beautiful wild areas that it would impact and for 

energy policy in this country. It would open the path to another boom and bust cycle that would 

mostly waste water resources with very little benefit. #1])>

OSTS2012D50059 

Organization: Dean Webb 

Received: 3/23/2012 11:29:57 PM 

Commenter1: Dean Webb - Seattle, Washington 98199 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 4/12/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50059.htm (OSTS2012D50059-58304.htm Size = 1 KB) 

Submission Text
Final OSTS PEIS 669 

The BLM recently released its 2012 Oil Shale and Tar Sands Draft Programmatic Environmental 

Impact Statement (Draft PEIS), an effort by the BLM to determine what areas – if any – in Utah, 

Colorado, and Wyoming should be available for dangerous and far-fetched oil shale or tar sands 

leasing and development. <([#1 [2.3.1] In the recently-released Draft PEIS, the BLM’s preferred 

alternative (Alternative 2b) proposes to make 252,181 acres available for shale leasing in Utah 

and 91,045 acres available for tar sands leasing. This is still too much! For that reason I support a 

different alternative (Alternative 3) that would go even further toward shutting the door on this 

“unconventional” fuels nightmare. Alternative 3 prohibits new oil shale leasing and most tar 

sands development. Under this alternative, only existing oil shale research, development, and 

design leases would remain on public lands. One commercial tar sands project just outside of 

Vernal could continue to undergo environmental reviews and permitting. That’s it. Please do the 

right thing and adopt Alternative 3. 

#1])>

OSTS2012D50060 

Organization: Thurston Thompson 

Received: 3/24/2012 7:32:30 AM 

Commenter1: Thurston Thompson - Summerfield, North Carolina 27358 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 4/12/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50060.htm (OSTS2012D50060-58306.htm Size = 1 KB) 

Submission Text

<([#1 [12] We are against any tar sands or oil shale mining in the US. As a citizen I own these 

public lands in Utah, Wyoming and Colorado. Oil Shale and Tar Sands extraction is too 

damaging to the land. Do not allow it on my property. Thanks you, TMT 

#1])>

OSTS2012D50061 

Organization: Ken Goldsmith 

Received: 3/24/2012 8:08:34 AM 

Commenter1: Ken Goldsmith - Woodstock, Connecticut 06281 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 4/12/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50061.htm (OSTS2012D50061-58308.htm Size = 1 KB) 

Submission Text
Final OSTS PEIS 670 

<([#1 [2.3.1] I strongly OPPOSE the BLM’s preferred alternative (Alternative 2b) for the Draft 

PEIS. This alternative allows far too much public land to be made available for destructive oil 

shale or tar sands leasing and development. I urge you to adopt Alternative 3, allowing existing 

oil shale research, development, and design leases to remain on public lands. This is the only 

reasonable and prudent course of action until this technology is proven and the terrible 

environmental impacts are properly mitigated. #1])>

OSTS2012D50062 

Organization: Dennis Roscetti 

Received: 3/24/2012 12:47:04 PM 

Commenter1: Dennis Roscetti - Wauwatosa, Wisconsin 53213 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 4/12/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50062.htm (OSTS2012D50062-58310.htm Size = 1 KB) 

Submission Text

<([#1 [2.3.1] I support Alternative 3, the most restrictive Alternative. I believe the recovery of 

usable amounts of fuels from oil shale or tar sands is not possible without a) massive amounts of 

water resources, which aren’t available anywhere in the region; b) massive amounts of energy to 

mine the base material and extract the oil from it; and c) massive supporting infrastructure. If 

there is not an option to simply drop this moronic idea, then the extent must be limited until the 

boosters come to their senses. Thanks for your attention. #1])>

OSTS2012D50063 

Organization: Carter Technologies Co, Ernie Carter 

Received: 3/24/2012 3:39:37 PM 

Commenter1: Ernie Carter - Sugar Land, Texas 77498 (United States) 

Organization1:Carter Technologies Co 

Commenter Type: Private Company 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/2/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50063.htm (OSTS2012D50063-58312.htm Size = 4 KB) 

Submission Text

<([#1 [11] We need energy and no one chooses to freeze in the dark rather than use available 

resources. Blocking technological development out of fear rather than guiding it brings only 

poverty and want and war. Hydraulic fracturing in deep shale has now given us a 100 year 

supply of natural gas but we still need to import oil. In-situ heating and production of oil shale 

can make us energy independent in oil for 100 years if we embrace it. Then we will no longer be 
Final OSTS PEIS 671 

manipulated by other oil producing nations. If we let environmental fear dominate our thinking 

instead of innovation, then we will continue to offer tribute to foreign kings and tyrants begging 

their indulgence and compromising our ethical standards for foreign oil. The price of energy will 

continue to increase causing suffering for all the world’s poor. #1])> <([#2 [9.2.6] [6] Sound 

primary cementing techniques for wells and proper safe design and recycling of fracturing fluids 

are needed for safe shale gas production. So also we will need proper perimeter barriers such as 

wax sealant or grout walls and freeze walls to isolate the oil shale producing areas from 

groundwater. We need techniques to prevent pollution of water aquifers. The good news is that 

we can have anything we need if we place wise regulations and requirements in place instead of 

silly fear-based moratoriums and bans on a method rather than the outcome of a method. There is 

always some “environmental impact” but what we have to ask is “is it really significant 

compared to feeding the poor, preventing war, and improving the standard of living for all our 

people. Simply specify what is to be protected, define permissible impact and let the engineers 

do the rest. Show some leadership! Specify the recycling of the required water resources. Specify 

the levels of certainty and environmental foot print, place tax incentives on doing it better, and 

let private enterprise find the optimal solution without micro-managing it. New slot drilling 

techniques and underground electric heating allow efficient heating of subterranean areas to 

convert shale kerogen into liquid hydrocarbons in in-situ reservoirs a mile square. Vast quantities 

of oil and gas may be produced so that the world price of energy will be held in check. Depleted 

oil shale wells will make great carbon dioxide sequestration reservoirs if this is found significant 

to climate change. The rest of the world is going to produce oil shale whether we do or not. We 

have the chance right now to show them the most environmentally responsible way to do it. Or 

we can sit on our hands whining that “something may go wrong” and refuse to take 

responsibility for proper stewardship of the resources we are given. Throughout the world, 

children starve for lack of government economic leadership a thousand times more often than 

they are harmed by all kinds of energy production combined. #2])> <([#3 [11.2] Like every other 

kind of energy, oil shale conversion takes energy and water to produce energy. We will always 

need liquid hydrocarbons for plastics and chemicals even if we could invent batteries good 

enough to run electric cars. You will never be able to collect energy from sun or wind as cheaply 

as exploiting a source of energy that has already been concentrated for you. If you want to be 

greener, just spend the money to design safer nuclear power systems instead of using 70 year old 

technology that was never intended to be a long term plan. In addition to safety issues these old 

reactors waste 90 percent of the energy into waste. Fifth generation nuclear reactor designs can 

remain inherently safe with automatic shutdown even if cracked open by an earthquake or a 

terrorist bomb. Newer designs could actually burn the spent fuel from old reactors. Thorium 

based reactors generate no radioactive waste at all and stop instantly when you shut off the 

neutron generator. They could be used to safely generate the heat to harvest the oil shale if the 

government would be responsible and spend the money to develop them. If global warming was 

really an important issue we would have already been doing this research. Ignorance and 

environmental fear have made it too expensive for private industry to develop the clean nuclear 

energy we need. If we are not careful and wise, fear will also rob us of the wonderful resource 

represented by oil shale. 

#3])>

OSTS2012D50064 

Organization: Carol Collins 

Received: 3/24/2012 4:39:02 PM 
Final OSTS PEIS 672 

Commenter1: Carol Collins - Dover, Delaware 19904 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 4/12/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50064.htm (OSTS2012D50064-58314.htm Size = 1 KB) 

Submission Text

<([#1 [2.3.1] Still Too Much Proposed Tar Sands Leasing! In the recently-released Draft PEIS, 

the BLM’s preferred alternative (Alternative 2b) proposes to make 252,181 acres available for 

shale leasing in Utah and 91,045 acres available for tar sands leasing. This is still too much! For 

that reason I support a different alternative (Alternative 3) that would go even further toward 

shutting the door on this “unconventional” fuels nightmare. Alternative 3 prohibits new oil shale 

leasing and most tar sands development. Under this alternative, only existing oil shale research, 

development, and design leases would remain on public lands. One commercial tar sands project 

just outside of Vernal could continue to undergo environmental reviews and permitting. Thank 

you for taking my comments into consideration. #1])>

OSTS2012D50065 

Organization: 

Received: 3/24/2012 8:27:54 PM 

Commenter1: - Atlanta, Georgia (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 4/12/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50065.htm (OSTS2012D50065-58280.htm Size = 1 KB) 

Submission Text

Dear Sir or Madam, Please consider these comments regarding the 2012 Oil Shale and Tar Sands 

Draft PEIS, which will determine what areas Utah, Colorado, and Wyoming should be available 

for oil shale or tar sands leasing and development. <([#1 [2.3.1] I urge you to select Alternative 

3. Alternative 3 allows only existing oil shale research, development, and design leases on public 

lands. The commercial tar sands project near Vernal could continue to undergo environmental 

reviews and permitting. Three barrels of water are required to extract one barrel of oil. Ninety 

percent of this polluted water is dumped into tailing ponds. The discharge water is polluted with 

heavy metals, cyanide and ammonia. Tar sands are the fastest growing source of global warming 

in Canada. Tar sands extraction destroyed large areas of Canadian boreal forest, polluted water 

and poisoned the air. As gasoline prices inch upwards, there is pressure to drill and extract more. 

I urge you to protect our American West from the short-sighted destruction we see in Canada.

#1])>
Final OSTS PEIS 673 

OSTS2012D50066 

Organization: 

Received: 3/26/2012 2:07:30 PM 

Commenter1: - , (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 4/12/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50066.htm (OSTS2012D50066-58274.htm Size = 1 KB) 

Submission Text

<([#1 [2.3.1] BLM’s preferred alternative makes too much land available for shale leasing and 

sands leasing. I prefer Alternative 3 which prohibits new oil shale leasing and most tar sands 

development. Under this alternative, only existing oil shale research, development, and design 

leases would remain on public lands. One commercial tar sands project would continue to 

undergo environmental reviews and permitting. #1])>

OSTS2012D50067 

Organization: Curtis Johnson 

Received: 3/27/2012 3:20:10 PM 

Commenter1: Curtis Johnson - Green River, Wyoming 82935 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 4/12/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50067.htm (OSTS2012D50067-58276.htm Size = 1 KB) 

Submission Text

<([#1 [2.3.1] I support Alternative 3. Limiting shale development in all areas. #1])>

OSTS2012D50068 

Organization: Philip Stoker 

Received: 3/27/2012 3:48:37 PM 

Commenter1: Philip Stoker - Salt Lake City, Utah 84108 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 
Final OSTS PEIS 674 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 4/12/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50068.htm (OSTS2012D50068-58278.htm Size = 1 KB) 

Submission Text

<([#1 [2.3.1] In the recently-released Draft PEIS, the BLM’s preferred alternative (Alternative 

2b) proposes to make 252,181 acres available for shale leasing in Utah and 91,045 acres 

available for tar sands leasing. This is still too much! For that reason I support a different 

alternative (Alternative 3) that would go even further toward shutting the door on this 

“unconventional” fuels nightmare. Alternative 3 prohibits new oil shale leasing and most tar 

sands development. Let Canada ruin it’s land! Let’s keep ours! #1])>

OSTS2012D50069 

Organization: Kimber Brady 

Received: 3/29/2012 1:36:33 PM 

Commenter1: Kimber Brady - , Utah 84310 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 4/13/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50069.htm (OSTS2012D50069-58315.htm Size = 1 KB) 

Submission Text

<([#1 [12] Zero Destruction Management Plan please or prepare for a million Tim 

DeChristophers at your doorstep. #1])>

OSTS2012D50070 

Organization: William Ingalls 

Received: 4/2/2012 9:12:33 PM 

Commenter1: William Ingalls - Vernal, Utah 84078 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 4/16/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50070.htm (OSTS2012D50070-58316.htm Size = 1 KB) 

Submission Text

<([#1 [3.1.1] Shall we risk wilderness quality lands such as Fiddler Butte and White Canyon for 

this speculative and unconventional fuel boondoggle? Dust, noise, the risk of polluted aquifers 

and streams, wildlife fragmentation, carbon emissions for this wildly speculative industry? #1])>

<([#2 [12.3] I don’t know what you could be thinking. These are not sacrificial lands for the gas 

and oil industry or wall street, they are our lands. This is the trust Americans have left in your 

hands, to protect and handle them responsibly. Why are you giving them away? #2])> <([#3
Final OSTS PEIS 675 

[2.3.1] It’s ridiculous to assign 91,000 acres for tar sand experiments when there is already a tar 

sands project just south of Vernal, Utah doing nothing, 252,000 more acres for oil shale is even 

more stupidity. Continue environmental reviews and permitting for those projects already in 

operation. No additional land for further tar sands and oil shale research and development. #3])>

<([#4 [10.6.1] Try focusing your overly generous land giveaways onto the country’s transition to 

alternate means of energy, ones with a small and clean footprint. Renewable Energys such as 

Solar, Wind and a Smart Grid Infrastructure. #4])> Thank you..........Bill 

OSTS2012D50071 

Organization: Colorado Department of Health/Environment - Air Qu, Jim DiLeo 

Received: 4/4/2012 10:13:15 AM 

Commenter1: Jim DiLeo - Denver, Colorado 80246 (United States) 

Organization1:Colorado Department of Health/Environment - Air Qu 

Commenter Type: State Government 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 4/13/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50071.htm (OSTS2012D50071-58330.htm Size = 1 KB) 

TSP_Oil_shale-tar_sands_4-4-12_comments_OSTS2012D50071.docx (OSTS2012D50071-

58329.docx Size = 19 KB) 

Submission Text

See Attachment. 

Colorado Department Of Public Health & Environment 

Air Pollution Control Division 

Technical Services Program 

Modeling, Meteorology, and Emission Inventory Unit 

Technical Memorandum 

To: Jim Dileo 

From: Kevin Briggs 

CC: Chuck Machovec, Daniel Bon, Dale Wells 

Date: April 4, 2012 

Subject: Comments on : Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement and Possible Land 

Use Plan Amendments for Allocation of Oil Shale and Tar Sands Resources on Lands 

Administered by the Bureau of Land Management in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming- January 

2012 

<([#1 [9.3] [3.5.4] In Volume 2, Chapters 4 and 5, page 4-52, lines 32-38, the Draft PEIS states 

that 
Final OSTS PEIS 676 

“It is not possible to predict site-specific air quality impacts until actual oil shale projects are 

proposed and designed. Once such a proposal is presented, impacts on these resources would be 

further considered in project-specific NEPA evaluations and through consultations with the BLM 

prior to actual development. As additional NEPA analysis is done for leasing and site specific 

development, it may be necessary as part of the air quality analysis to conduct air quality 

modeling. The types of modeling that may be performed, when warranted, include near-field 

modeling, far-field modeling, and photo-chemical grid modeling.” 

Comment: 

As the RD&D projects are expanded from 160-acres to commercial leases, it is expected that 

local and cumulative air quality resources will be effected as stated throughout the documents. 

Prior to doing any NEPA analysis, an air quality modeling protocol needs to be submitted to 

reviewing agencies, including CDPHE, describing how near-field, far-field transport modeling 

and photochemical grid modeling will be performed for oil shale/tar sand development in order 

to reach an understanding of how the air quality impact analysis will be conducted. 

In addition, given the uncertainty in actual oil shale projects that may be proposed, the 

magnitude of development and how those projects might be designed, it is imperative that base 

line air quality be determined through a robust monitoring network prior to construction. The 

monitoring network should be constructed in a way to provide year-round characterization of 

existing air quality levels, improve the accuracy of modeling, and to improve the ability of 

CDPHE to issue air quality advisories to the general public if warranted by monitored 

conditions. It is recommended that BLM work with the State of Colorado to establish an air 

quality monitoring fund (or another method) to expand the existing air quality monitoring 

networks as deemed appropriate by CDPHE to gather meteorological and air quality data at 

micro, local, and regional scales for these projects. Funding levels should be sufficient to include 

AQRV/visibility monitoring at potentially affected mandatory federal Class I areas such as the 

Rocky Mountain National Park and the Flat Tops Wilderness Area. Funding should also be 

sufficient in order to provide and establish long term air quality monitoring throughout the 

project’s lifetime. CDPHE also recommends that such a funding source be flexible enough to 

allow for future monitoring to include HAPS (such as carbonyl compounds), speciated VOCs 

(especially BTEX) and greenhouse gases (especially methane). Monitoring of these types of 

emissions are notably absent in the oil and gas development areas of western Colorado. It is 

recommended that the private sector proponents of oil and gas development fund the regulatory 

monitoring network enhancements. 

#1])>

OSTS2012D50072 

Organization: Colorado Dept of Health/Environment - Air Quality Control DIvision, Jim DiLeo 

Received: 4/4/2012 10:14:55 AM 

Commenter1: Jim DiLeo - Denver, Colorado 80246 (United States) 

Organization1:Colorado Dept of Health/Environment - Air Quality Control DIvision 

Commenter Type: State Government 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 

Submitted As: Web Form 
Final OSTS PEIS 677 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 4/16/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50072.htm (OSTS2012D50072-58333.htm Size = 1 KB) 

OG_4-5-12_Team_Comments_on_Oil_Shale_PEIS_OSTS2012D50072.docx 

(OSTS2012D50072-58332.docx Size = 13 KB) 

Submission Text

See Attachment. 

Comments on Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) 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

<([#1 [9.3] General: There are very few conclusions reached in the PEIS and minimal technical 

data because of the speculative nature of this document. There are multiple references throughout 

the document to the effect that it is not possible to predict specific air quality impacts until actual 

oil shale projects are proposed and designed. Once a project is proposed, prior to a lease being 

approved a site-specific NEPA analysis must be submitted and approved. At this point, the 

Division’s technical expertise will be best used. #1])>

Specific Comments: 

<([#2 [3.5.5] Chapter 3.5.2 Existing Emissions, lines 39-41of page 3-105 states that, 

“...annual emission inventory data for criteria pollutants and volatile organic compounds (VOC) 

for 2002 for counties within and around the study are in Colorado...” 

Comment: There has been significant oil and gas expansion in the Piceance region, where the Oil 

Shale exploration will take place, since 2002. As a result the emission inventory is outdated. A 

more recent data set should be obtained and used. #2])>

<([#3 [6.3] Chapter 4.1.3 In Situ Retort Projects, lines 12-14 of page 4-12 states that, “100% 

of combustible gases recovered from the formation would be dewatered, filtered of suspended 

solids, and consumed on site as supplemental fuel in external combustion sources.” 

Comment: During an APCD inspection of the Shell Mahogany project, gases recovered from the 

formation were flared, not used as supplemental fuel. Suggested revision is to include possibility 

of flaring gases. #3])>

<([#4 [9.3] Chapter 4.6.1Common Impacts, lines 20-21 of page 4-53 states that, “Before oil 

shale development could occur, additional project-specific NEPA analyses would be performed, 

subject to public and agency review and comment.” 

Comment: Given the limited information provided in the PEIS, it’s at this site- and projectspecific level that the technical expertise of the O&G Team can be best used. #4])>

<([#5 [3.5.3] Chapter 6.1.1.5 Air Quality (of Alternative 1), line 26 of page 6-11
Final OSTS PEIS 678 

Chapter 6.1.2.5 Air Quality (of Alternative 2), line 1 of page 6-73

Chapter 6.1.4.5 Air Quality (of Alternative 4), line 21 of page 6-176 all chapters state that, “If 

development of oil shale requires expansion of capacity of existing electric power plants...” 

Comment: It is believed that the development of shale will require additional power capacity. 

Suggested revision is to strengthen this language to reflect that commercial development will 

more than likely require additional power capacity. #5])>

<([#6 [9.3] Chapter 6.1.5.5 Air Quality, lines 30-35 of page 6-229 states that, “...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.” 

Comment: It is unclear if BLM expects companies to halt production and expansion of a project 

from the RD&D phase to the commercial production phase or if this analysis will take place 

while a facility is expanding. Suggested revision: please clarify what is expected of a company 

and when the public and agencies have an opportunity to analyze additional impacts. #6])>

OSTS2012D50073 

Organization: 

Received: 4/4/2012 10:51:17 PM 

Commenter1: - , (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 4/13/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50073.htm (OSTS2012D50073-58318.htm Size = 1 KB) 

Submission Text

<([#1 [1.1] [2.2] I am relieved to see BLM taking a more sound approach to development of oil 

shale and tar sands on our public lands, and hope the agency will continue to close inappropriate 

places to leasing based on information received during the public comment period. #1])>

OSTS2012D50074 

Organization: National Oil Shale Association, Roy Vawter 

Received: 4/5/2012 11:34:12 AM 
Final OSTS PEIS 679 

Commenter1: Roy Vawter - GLENWOOD SPRINGS, Colorado 81602 (United States) 

Organization1:National Oil Shale Association 

Commenter Type: Oil & Gas Org 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 4/16/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50074.htm (OSTS2012D50074-58336.htm Size = 1 KB) 

NOSA_PEIS_Comments_final_OSTS2012D50074.docx (OSTS2012D50074-58335.docx Size = 

24 KB) 

Submission Text

Our comments are attached. <([#1 [1.1.1] Recommend extending the comment period to 60-days 

after the draft Oil Shale Leasing Regulations are issued. Both are linked, and have to be reviewed 

together. #1])> See Attachment. 

Comments on the 

Draft 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 January 2012 – Volumes 1 through 4 – DES 12-

01 

by 

National Oil Shale Association – P.O. Box 3080, Glenwood Springs, CO 81602 

natosa@comcast.net – www.oilshaleassoc.org 

April 2012 

• BLM has decided to redo the Oil Shale and Tar Sand Programmatic Environmental Impact 

Statement.... (PEIS) and Commercial Oil Shale Leasing Regulations (Regulations) completed in 

2008. BLM’s actions resulted from a settlement by the Department of Interior of law suits 

brought against the 2008 PEIS and Regulations. There is little, if any, new information to be 

considered, and the 2012 draft PEIS contains largely the same information as the 2008 final 

PEIS. However, the BLM has chosen a different preferred alternative 2(b) that significantly 

reduces the acreage available for oil shale leasing, eliminates the issuance of commercial leases, 

and restricts leasing to Research, Development and Demonstration (R,D&D) leases only. 

<([#2 [2.1] • Alternative 1, Oil Shale No Action Alternative, in the new PEIS, preserves the 

actions taken in the 2008 PEIS, and is the alternative favored by NOSA. 

• The 2008 PEIS was very professionally done, received thousands of comments, involved the 

public and resulted in a preferred alternative that provided a reasonable amount of acreage for 

potential commercial leasing, while still designating environmentally sensitive and other areas 

deemed unsuitable for leasing. 

#2])> <([#3 [9.6] • BLM’s preferred alternative (2b) in the new PEIS restricts leasing to R,D&D 

leases only and defers decisions on commercial leasing for years. This is a disincentive for 

companies that have access to technologies that are commercially viable. Going through the 

R,D&D process will delay bringing oil shale into production. Also, unknown lease terms for 
Final OSTS PEIS 680 

future R,D&D leases is yet another disincentive for companies interested in producing shale oil 

(e.g. 2nd round R,D&D leases offered insufficient Preference Right acreage to support a 

commercial project in the opinion of many companies), and other terms of the leases are more 

restrictive than those in the 1st round R,D&D leases. Only three companies sought 2nd round 

R,D&D leases, whereas about 20 companies sought 1st round R,D&D leases). 

#3])> <([#4 [9.6] • Eliminating commercial leasing closes the door to some companies that could 

responsibly develop the resource, provide jobs, and produce tax revenues to local communities. 

Leasing oil shale is only the first step towards a commercial project. The BLM, Federal, State 

and local government agencies require a developer to go through additional environmental 

reviews and permitting activities that include public oversight before a project can go into 

production. It is estimated that two or three Environmental Impact Statements would be required, 

in addition to this PEIS, before a developer could break ground on a commercial venture. This 

PEIS and the 2008 final PEIS, only designate where oil shale leasing may occur and directs 

BLM field offices to change their planning documents accordingly. 

#4])> <([#5 [1.1.1] • The draft 2012 oil shale leasing regulations have not yet been issued. It is 

difficult to comment intelligently upon the PEIS since the two are integrally linked. The BLM 

should consider extending the deadline for the comment period beyond May 4, 2012 to allow 

time for BLM to issue the regulations. 

#5])> <([#6 [9.6.1] • Under Federal mineral leasing laws industry is allowed to lease oil & gas 

and minerals from BLM without a prior demonstration of the technology to be used to recover 

the resource. BLM for some reason has a different standard for oil shale. Developers decide 

whether to risk the cost of leasing a resource. They pay bonus payments to the Federal 

Government (shared with local communities) to acquire the lease. And lease rental payments are 

made to keep the lease during the time the developer is deciding whether to pursue a commercial 

venture. During that period, jobs are created and local communities receive sales, and other tax 

revenues. 

#6])> <([#7 [2.2] • PEIS Alternative 2 reduces the acreage available for leasing to a level that 

most tracts in Colorado are too small and too dispersed to support a commercial project. The 

situation in Utah is somewhat better. Wyoming is similar to Colorado. 

#7])> <([#8 [2.3] • Alternative 3 restricts leasing to the current 1st and 2nd round R,D&D 

lessees. 

#8])> <([#9 [2.4] • Alternative 4(a) is very similar in acreage to Alternative 1, the No Action 

Alternative, but Alternative 4 (b) restricts leasing to R,D&D first leases only. 

#9])> <([#10 [3.15] • Maps are in error in all three states 

1. The oil shale cut-off grade was not consistently applied across the three states (e.g. 15 gpt in 

Wyoming and 25 gpt in Utah and Colorado). Assumptions about mining are over generalized 

(e.g. 500 ft. maximum overburden for surface mining in Utah and Wyoming , no surface mining 

in Colorado, and no consideration of underground mining in Colorado); thus the Most 

Geologically Prospective Oil Shale Resource areas should be corrected in each state map. 

2. Preference Right acreage for the 1st Round R,D&D leases is smaller than already agreed upon 

between BLM and lessees (Figures 2.3.3-4 and 2.3.3-5 show portions of Preference Right areas 

are not available for leasing). If maps are the legal description of the actions BLM plans to take, 

then the maps should be changed. 

#10])> <([#11 [9.6] • The fact that 2,000,000 acres were made available for leasing in the 2008 

PEIS does not mean that amount of land would be leased or developed. Generally, industry 

chooses the acreage that it believes can be profitably developed. In the new PEIS, BLM has 
Final OSTS PEIS 681 

assumed industry’s role by choosing the lands it believes should be leased. Whereas the mineral 

leasing laws provide for leases of 5, 120 acres BLM is limiting the acreage to be leased, and 

deciding upon technological strategies to be employed by restricting leasing to an R,D&D first 

approach. So it seems BLM is choosing winners and losers, a role usually left up to industry. 

BLM has the authority to control development after leases are issued through environmental 

analyses and approval of development plans. 

#11])> <([#12 [10.5] • The current royalty rate for oil shale in the 2008 regulations is not a giveaway. Oil shale is not oil and gas. Oil shale is more expensive to produce than conventional oil 

and gas. Thus the rates should be much lower initially during the pioneering phase of the 

industry. 

#12])> <([#13 [10.5] • In Canada the royalty rates for oil sands were set low initially in 

recognition of the pioneering nature of the industry. The Canadian government recently raised 

the royalty rates because the industry matured and could afford to pay higher rates. Canadians 

benefited from that strategy, and, as it works out, so did we in the United States, because today 

over a million barrels per day of oil from Canadian oil sands comes to U.S. refineries. 

#13])> <([#14 [3.4.3] [6.3.2] • Water used in oil shale processing is reasonable compared with 

many other energy sources (e.g. much lower than water consumed producing bio fuels from 

irrigated corn). There is a wealth of information on water usage and quality. A recent GAO 

report indicates there is enough water for a 500,000 b/d shale oil industry. The water 

consumption estimates used by GAO are conservative. They assumed the use of electric power 

generated from coal fired – water cooled power plants would be used to liberate shale oil via 

insitu heating. This approach does not reflect a consensus of industry thinking at this time. Low 

water usage has been recently publicized by developers of new and improved technologies (e.g. 

AMSO, Red Leaf and Enefit). Many companies have water rights to meet their long term needs. 

#14])> <([#15 [3.4.3] • A recent independent study sponsored by the Colorado River 

Conservation District showed that 120,000 acre feet per year of water would be required for a 

1.55 million barrel per day shale oil industry. This is about 2-3 % of the water that flows from 

the Colorado River into Lake Powell annually. This study also used some liberal water usage 

assumptions. Much more water flows from Western Colorado to Front Range cities to meet their 

growing water needs. 

#15])> <([#16 [6.3.2.1] • Oil shale production produces more energy than it consumes. The 

range is 3:1 to 6:1. A huge drop in oil prices and political reasons caused oil shale development 

to stop in the 1980’s. It had nothing to do with its energy content or energy recovery efficiency. 

A similar resource, the oil sands of Canada, proceeded after the drop in oil prices, because of 

industry-government cooperation. That industry is producing 1.6 million barrels per day of crude 

oil and sending over 1-million barrels per day of it to the U.S. The energy content of Canadian 

oil sands is less that the average Western U.S. oil shale. 

#16])> <([#17 [3.1.4] • The Piceance and Uinta Basins – where most of the oil shale resource is 

concentrated - are not pristine primitive areas. The cultural, wildlife, environmental, and 

recreational assets can be managed along with oil shale development as has been demonstrated 

by existing oil and gas operations in the region. The BLM appropriately designated certain 

sensitive areas inappropriate for leasing in the 2008 EIS. For some reason the preferred 

alternative in the 2012 PEIS designates substantially more acreage unavailable for leasing while 

relying on the same data. It also leaves a great deal of discretion to the BLM field offices to 

designate more sensitive areas in the future. 

#17])> <([#18 [3.1.7] • The concentrated nature of the oil shale resource (e.g. 1 to 1-1/2 million 
Final OSTS PEIS 682 

barrels per acre in the middle of the Piceance Basin of Colorado) reduces the land use effects 

over similar energy recovery operations. 

#18])> <([#19 [9.8] • Re-visiting the PEIS and leasing regulations is delaying the time oil shale 

can provide more jobs and economic development in the three-state region and nationwide. 

#19])> <([#20 [9.8] • Western U.S. oil shale resources – now estimated by U.S.G.S. at 4-trillion 

barrels - are an important domestic energy asset that should be developed for the benefit of the 

American people. Re-visiting the PEIS and regulations completed in 2008 is delaying the 

development of the oil shale resource. The time required to develop an oil shale project is long, 

and the work should not be further delayed. 

#20])>

OSTS2012D50076 

Organization: 4degrees, Dillon Doyle 

Received: 4/5/2012 2:33:50 PM 

Commenter1: Dillon Doyle - Denver, Colorado 80203 (United States) 

Organization1:4degrees 

Commenter Type: Affiliation Only 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 4/16/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50076.htm (OSTS2012D50076-58322.htm Size = 1 KB) 

Submission Text

<([#1 [3] I am deeply concerned about the potential effects to our water, wildlife, communities 

and public lands if the BLM initiates a commercial leasing program. The two million acres in 

UT, WY and CO previously allocated for commercial leasing is a massive amount of public, 

taxpayer land that would be sacrificed for a singular use of the landscape. I recommend that you 

carefully consider the serious impacts of new energy required for oil shale production and the 

potential devastating impacts to our wildlife, water, air, and communities as you take another 

look at oil shale development. 

#1])>

OSTS2012D50077 

Organization: Jean Tabin 

Received: 4/6/2012 2:39:44 PM 

Commenter1: Jean Tabin - Park City, Utah 84098 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 4/16/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50077.htm (OSTS2012D50077-58324.htm Size = 1 KB) 
Final OSTS PEIS 683 

Submission Text

<([#1 [2.3.1] I would prefer that lands are only used for RDandD and that no commercial leasing 

be allowed until oil shale and tar sands technologies are made both safe to the environment and 

truly economical. I would prefer Alternative 3 (RDandD) although I realize it may not allow 

much RDandD for tar sands. Once we open up this land, it may truly be destroyed and may not 

go back to “public/wildlife” usage. Oil shale may be very harmful to our water supplies.This 

likely will effect rivers, outdoor recreation (economy) and wildlife. #1])> <([#2 [10.6.1] We 

should be putting our resources towards cleaner more sustainable energy sources,not opening up 

large areas of public lands/water to a potentially harmful and economically nonsustainable 

industry. #2])> Thank You 

OSTS2012D50078 

Organization: Eva Esparza 

Received: 4/8/2012 11:10:42 PM 

Commenter1: Eva Esparza - Austin, Texas 78723 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 4/16/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50078.htm (OSTS2012D50078-58326.htm Size = 1 KB) 

Submission Text

<([#1 [12] I would like to see a Zero Destruction Management Plan. #1])>

OSTS2012D50079 

Organization: lori dombek 

Received: 4/9/2012 5:27:08 PM 

Commenter1: lori dombek - gorham, Maine 04038 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 4/16/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50079.htm (OSTS2012D50079-58328.htm Size = 1 KB) 

Submission Text

<([#1 [12] Oil shale and tar sands development is one of the filthiest ways to produce energy, 

and extracting oil from our public lands in this way would deal a disastrous blow to any hope of 

reducing atmospheric CO2 levels to below 350 parts per million — the level we need to reach 

soon to stabilize Earth’s climate. Besides helping push us toward global warming catastrophe, oil 

shale and tar sands development would destroy species habitat, waste enormous volumes of 
Final OSTS PEIS 684 

water, pollute air and water, and degrade and defile vast swaths of land. And since it’s so 

wasteful, it’s not even commercially viable yet. Don’t do it. #1])>

OSTS2012D50080 

Organization: Frances Mathews 

Received: 4/10/2012 8:52:26 AM 

Commenter1: Frances Mathews - Fullerton, California 92831 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 4/16/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50080.htm (OSTS2012D50080-58341.htm Size = 1 KB) 

Submission Text

<([#1 [10.6.1] [12] This energy can only be mined by generating huge amounts of CO2. Our 

climate is at stake; we should leave this energy in the ground and develop alternate energies. We 

should do everything possible to save energy by using it efficiently. This would include building 

insulation and efficient design, mileage standards for automobiles, alternative energies, etc. 

#1])>

OSTS2012D50081 

Organization: Margaret Michaelis 

Received: 4/10/2012 6:43:30 PM 

Commenter1: Margaret Michaelis - Phoenix, Arizona 85013 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 4/16/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50081.htm (OSTS2012D50081-58337.htm Size = 1 KB) 

Submission Text

<([#1 [10.6.1] [12] It is immoral for corporations to harm others in their pursuit of economic 

gain. That is happening in the development of dirty tar sands oil--most odiously by using up 

precious water sources, creating voluminous amounts of contaminated waste water, emitting 

copious amounts of CO2, destroying pristine lands, and destroying habitats of people and 

wildlife. There are better alternatives for energy that do not destroy our earth and will secure a 

better future for our children and grandchildren. We must put this future above all else and put 

our energies and money into significant development of non-fossil fuel energy development. 

#1])>

OSTS2012D50082 
Final OSTS PEIS 685 

Organization: Eco Birder, Karen Guise 

Received: 4/10/2012 8:01:56 PM 

Commenter1: Karen Guise - Middletown, Delaware 19709 (United States) 

Organization1:Eco Birder 

Commenter Type: Affiliation Only 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 4/16/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50082.htm (OSTS2012D50082-58339.htm Size = 1 KB) 

Submission Text

<([#1 [12] I oppose any and all shale oil/tar sands mining in the United States. #1])>

OSTS2012D50083 

Organization: Jodie MacTavish 

Received: 4/10/2012 8:43:01 PM 

Commenter1: Jodie MacTavish - Grand Junction, Colorado 81502 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 4/16/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50083.htm (OSTS2012D50083-58343.htm Size = 1 KB) 

Submission Text

<([#1 [12.1] I am appalled that you are even considering tar stands development in the United 

States - this is the dirties most environmentally damaging scheme EVER. Just take a LOOK at 

what it has done to the Alberta, Canada land and water - DESTROYED - it will NEVER be the 

same. Polluted water, forests totally decimated- WHAT are you thinking - oh I forgot everything 

in the US is for sale without regard to the consequences. #1])>

OSTS2012D50084 

Organization: Sandra Hultgren 

Received: 4/10/2012 9:36:46 PM 

Commenter1: Sandra Hultgren - Moab, Utah 84532 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 4/16/2012 12:00:00 AM 
Final OSTS PEIS 686 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50084.htm (OSTS2012D50084-58345.htm Size = 1 KB) 

Submission Text

<([#1 [12] We can not afford to have oil shale development in our country. All the water 

required is coming from where? Clean water sources. What about sensitive wildlife habitats? 

What about the few remaining horses that are wild? What about treasures such as ancient tribal 

lands? Ancient ruins? Beautiful rock art? What about recreational opportunities? If none of this 

matters to you, what about the fact that it takes just about equal amounts of energy to create the 

energy received? We’re scraping the bottom of the barrel for this energy and once it’s gone, then 

what? I say no to this whole idea. I do not live in an expendable area of the country. We treasure 

the beauty of everything we have here. #1])>

OSTS2012D50085 

Organization: Barbara Cohn 

Received: 4/10/2012 11:24:24 PM 

Commenter1: Barbara Cohn - Carlsbad, California 92008 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 4/16/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50085.htm (OSTS2012D50085-58347.htm Size = 1 KB) 

Submission Text

<([#1 [10.6.1] We need to be working on forms of alternative renewable energy. #1])> <([#2

[12.1] Tar Sands development not only uses excessive energy in the extraction and creates 

massive amounts of greenhouse gas, it uses precious water and destroys lands that cannot be 

reclaimed despite what the oil companies say. We cannot afford to keep destroying our planet in 

the name of greed and riches for a few. 

#2])>

OSTS2012D50086 

Organization: Bruce Favret 

Received: 4/11/2012 8:24:46 AM 

Commenter1: Bruce Favret - Cincinnati, Ohio 45208 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 4/16/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50086.htm (OSTS2012D50086-58351.htm Size = 1 KB) 

Patents_issued_to_VaryPetrochem_as_of_1-1-2012_OSTS2012D50086.pdf 

(OSTS2012D50086-58350.pdf Size = 126 KB) 
Final OSTS PEIS 687 

Submission Text

<([#1 [6.3] You should be aware that there is an American company based in Cleveland, Ohio, 

VaryPetrochem, LLC that has developed and patented (several already issued)a environmental 

friendly process for extracting the bitumen from the Utah and Canadian tar sands WITHOUT the 

use of any solvents. It is totally water based and the chemistry is recyclable. Checkout its 

website. http://www.varypetrochem.com/ See Attachment. #1])>

OSTS2012D50087 

Organization: Daub and Associates, Inc., Gerald Daub 

Received: 4/11/2012 1:10:50 PM 

Commenter1: Gerald Daub - Grand Junction, Colorado 81507 (United States) 

Organization1:Daub and Associates, Inc. 

Commenter Type: Misc. Organization 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/18/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50087.htm (OSTS2012D50087-58354.htm Size = 1 KB) 

DandA_comments-PEIS_OSTS2012D50087.doc (OSTS2012D50087-58353.doc Size = 46 KB) 

Submission Text

See Attachment. 

DAUB & ASSOCIATES, INC. 

Daub & Associates, Inc. 

Comments Regarding the US DOI-BLM 

Draft 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 

<([#1 [9.8] 1. Why has the Federal Government decided to take a “fresh look” at the land use 

plan allocation decisions made in the 2008 PEIS? The 2008 PEIS was and still is a good 

document that adequately considers the land use plan. #1])>

<([#2 [9.8] 2. Why does the Federal Government need to “reconsider” which lands should be 

open to future oil shale leasing when a perfectly good plan was already in place? #2])>

<([#3 [9.8] 3. Why did the Federal Government waste tax payers dollars on an unnecessary and 

expensive process to recreate yet another PEIS when the 2008 PEIS was acceptable? How much 

did this 2012 PEIS cost the American taxpayers? They have a right to know. #3])>

<([#4 [1.3] 4. Why did the Federal Government not directly solicit input and consideration from 

the County of Mesa and the City of Grand Junction, Colorado, the county and city with the 

largest population base in the region? #4])>
Final OSTS PEIS 688 

<([#5 [2.2] 5. Why has the Federal Government chosen a different preferred alternative (2(b)) 

that significantly reduces the acreage available for oil shale leasing, eliminates the issuance of 

commercial leases, and is far too restrictive? #5])>

<([#6 [9.7] 6. Why does the Federal Government want to restrict oil shale to Research, 

Development and Demonstration (RD&D) leases only? Industry will not be encouraged by these 

restrictions and is an open indication that the current administration does not want nor 

encourages oil shale development in a time when it could be developed and would help secure 

our energy independence. The bottom line is that, by developing an oil shale industry, the US 

could keep jobs here in the US, develop a road map to energy independence, help reduce our 

dependence upon unreliable foreign oil imports, reduce our trade deficit and potentially become 

a net oil exporter. Why does our Federal Government NOT want this to happen? #6])>

<([#7 [2.1.1] 7. We believe that alternative 1, Oil Shale No Action Alternative, in the 2012 PEIS, 

is similar to the actions taken in the 2008 PEIS, and is the alternative that should be implemented 

and would best promote the United States energy independence. #7])>

<([#8 [6.1.1] 8. Why and how can the Federal Government mandate what is a minable oil shale 

resource grade and thickness? This should be left for industry to determine because it is 

technology and resource dependent. #8])>

<([#9 [3.10.3] 9. The Federal Government continues to make it more difficult for industry to 

make oil shale commercially viable and as a result have lost good paying jobs and those 

companies have taken their technologies and oil shale interests to foreign countries. What does 

the Federal Government plan to do about this situation? The 2012 PEIS has promoted this 

ideology. #9])>

<([#10 [2.2] 10. BLM’s preferred alternative (2b) in the 2012 PEIS is far too restrictive and 

allows for only scattered lands that are not contiguous in the Piceance Creek Basin to be 

considered for future RD&D oil shale leasing. Why is this the case when the Piceance Creek 

Basin in Northwestern Colorado has the world’s richest and thickest oil shale deposits? 

#10])>

<([#11 [2.2] 11. The fact that alternative 2b only allows for scattered, non-contiguous parcels for 

potential RD&D oil shale leasing in the Piceance Creek Basin is unattractive to industry, why 

does the Federal Government want to promote this nonsensical approach? #11])>

<([#12 [10.3] 12. When will the draft 2012 oil shale leasing regulations be available for public 

review and determine how they can be integrated with the 2012 PEIS? #12])>

<([#13 [9.6.1] 13. Why does the Federal Government have a double standard by allowing 

industry to lease oil, gas and minerals from BLM without a prior demonstration of the 

technology to be used to recover the resource, but require a governmental mandated RD&D 

effort for oil shale? 

#13])>

<([#14 [2.4] 14. In the 2012 PEIS alternative 4(a) is very similar in acreage to Alternative 1, the 

No Action Alternative, but Alternative 4 (b) restricts leasing to the first round RD&D leases 
Final OSTS PEIS 689 

only, why? #14])>

<([#15 [9.6] 15. The Piceance Creek and Uinta Basins, where most of the significant US oil 

shale resources are concentrated, are not pristine, environmentally sensitive or primitive areas. 

The fact that 2,000,000 acres were made available for leasing in the 2008 PEIS does not mean 

that amount of land would be leased or developed. The oil shale industry should decide where 

their technology and process is best suited for development of the oil shale resource, NOT the 

Federal Government. #15])>

<([#16 [10.3] 16. Why doesn’t the Federal Government use other countries that have developed 

their oil shale resources (which are much less rich and thick) as examples and develop a similar 

US oil shale industry that will help the US economy? This 2012 PEIS does NOT do that. #16])>

<([#17 [3.4.3] 17. A recent GAO report noted the water requirements for a half a million barrel 

per day oil shale industry is available. Water is not the issue impeding oil shale development but 

is commonly used as a deterrent to the development of oil shale by people not knowledgeable 

about the subject. A recent independent study sponsored by the Colorado River Conservation 

District showed that 120,000 acre feet per year of water would be required for a 1.55 million 

barrel per day shale oil industry. This is about 2-3 % of the water that flows from the Colorado 

River into Lake Powell annually. 

#17])>

<([#18 [9.8] 18. Colorado, Utah and Wyoming oil shale resources have recently been estimated 

by the USGS at four trillion barrels. This is the United States’ most important domestic energy 

asset that should be developed for the benefit of the American people. Reconsidering the 2008 

PEIS and regulations completed in 2008 is delaying the development of the oil shale resource. 

The lead-time required to develop an oil shale project is significant, and the work should not be 

further delayed or burdened by unnecessary rules, regulations or roadblocks. 

#18])>

OSTS2012D50088 

Organization: Sean Zigmund 

Received: 4/12/2012 9:57:12 PM 

Commenter1: Sean Zigmund - Livingston Manor, New York 12758 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/7/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50088.htm (OSTS2012D50088-58349.htm Size = 1 KB) 

Submission Text

<([#1 [2.5] I am thankful that the Draft is going to significantly reduce the amount of land set 

aside for research and development of tar sands and oil shale, but I am asking you to consider 

and even smaller number. Zero. #1])> <([#2 [10.6.1] Our country, and the world, are changing 

rapidly in a dramatic way due to the ongoing release of hydrocarbons into the atmosphere and 
Final OSTS PEIS 690 

rather than promoting fossil fuels, renewable energy projects should be invested in and promoted 

by the U.S. government, including the BLM. #2])> <([#3 [2.5] Please consider removing all land 

from RandD and rewrite the Draft as such. I am a farmer, scientist, information technologist, 

family man and concerned citizen. #3])> Thank you. 

OSTS2012D50089 

Organization: Western Colorado Congress of Mesa County, Claudette Konola 

Received: 4/17/2012 6:32:53 AM 

Commenter1: Claudette Konola - Grand Junction, Colorado 81504 (United States) 

Organization1:Western Colorado Congress of Mesa County 

Commenter Type: Affiliation Only 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 4/25/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50089.htm (OSTS2012D50089-58355.htm Size = 1 KB) 

Submission Text

<([#1 [2.3.1] With the current price of natural gas, there will be no ivestors for oil shale in the 

near future. I support the alternatives that minimize the land available for commercial 

development until research and development can be completed on a smaller scale. Resources 

other than oil are present in oil shale, and long term recovery of those resources should also be a 

consideration. Please be advised that the resolution passed by Colorado’s Mesa County 

Commissioners on April 16 does not represent the opinion of many citizens of Mesa County. 

There were far more people testifying against that resolution, which appears to have been crafted 

by the oil and gas industry at a meeting in Vernal, Utah. This was a closed door meeting, which 

is in violation of Colorado’s Sunshine laws, and involved elected officials who are closely tied to 

the oil and gas industry. They don’t represent me, nor do they represent most of the citizens of 

this valley. Please consider the genesis of these resolutions against any of the proposed options, 

and reject them in your deliberations. #1])>

OSTS2012D50090 

Organization: American Shale Oil LLC, Alan Burnham, PhD 

Received: 4/17/2012 11:59:56 AM 

Commenter1: Alan Burnham, PhD - Rifle, Colorado 81650 (United States) 

Organization1:American Shale Oil LLC 

Commenter Type: OSTS Tech Company 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 4/30/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50090.htm (OSTS2012D50090-58431.htm Size = 1 KB) 

AMSO_Comments_on_Draft_PEIS_OSTS2012D50090.pdf (OSTS2012D50090-58430.pdf Size 

= 51 KB) 
Final OSTS PEIS 691 

Submission Text

See Attachment. 

1 

American Shale Oil, LLC 

110 East 3rd Street, Suite 201 

P.O. Box 1470 

Rifle, CO 81650 

Phone: 970-625-4324 

Fax: 970-625-4318 

Comments on the Draft PEIS on Oil Shale and Tar Sands 

#1. <([#1 [9.8] The introductory letter states that the BLM has decided to take a fresh look at 

land use in the 

2008 PEIS to reassess the appropriate mix of allowable uses with respect to oil shale and tar 

sands. On page 1-4, it is stated that the PEIS is a result of the settlement of a lawsuit. On what 

basis did the Department of the Interior decide such a settlement was in the best interest of the 

United States instead of taking the case to court? Was such a settlement merely a convenient 

excuse to change the PEIS for political purposes unrelated to any technical basis? What 

documents exist in the Department of the Interior that provide the basis for accepting this 

settlement? Since having land potentially available for leasing does not mean that the land must 

or will be leased, and since any activity will have to address any pertinent environmental issue 

currently identified or identified in the future, the relatively trivial new information that has 

come to light since 2008 is not a viable excuse for the massive change in the commercial leasing 

program. Is the Department of the Interior aware that there have been no directives from 

Congress to change that time period or reopen the PEIS process, and indeed there have been 

actions to the contrary, so that the Department of Interior is in violation of the spirit if not the 

letter of 2005 Energy Act? 

#1])> #2. <([#2 [2] An EIS is supposed to create the document facts and analyses that will enable 

an informed 

decision. The current document does not satisfy all the required NEPA criteria. Consequently, 

we think any decision based on this EIS is flawed. 

The only alternatives studied are various levels of leasing. The alternative of having no 

commercial leasing program is not considered. The adverse effects of not doing anything can 

include stunted economic growth due to a high balance-of-payments deficit, the need for a large 

military force to assure a safe source of petroleum, and periodic wars to enforce that security. 

Alternatively, it could compare shale oil to biofuels in terms of cost and water use. Or it could 

compare shale oil to the impacts of gasoline rationing. There are negative impacts to not 

developing oil shale. So the PEIS is not adequate to compare both the benefits of oil shale and 

the negative impacts of alternative. 

#2])> <([#3 [2.2] The preferred alternative 2b purports to provide a leasing program in Colorado, 

but the 

conditions are so onerous that it might effectively be considered a ban of commercial leasing in 

Colorado. Much of the land is on parcels too small or too gerrymandered to attract commercial 

interest. Industry comments about what would be needed have been ignored completely, so this 

alternative is effectively a no-leasing option, and therefore the implications of no one responding 

should be analyzed (see previous paragraph). The fact that best resource, in the center of the 
Final OSTS PEIS 692 

Piceance basin, is almost absent from the leasing plan is neither rational nor in conformity with 

the required cost-benefit analysis. 

#3])> 2 

<([#4 [3.10.3] The EIS discusses possible adverse effects of oil shale development on low 

income people but 

does not acknowledge the obvious and powerful advantages of oil shale development for low 

income people including job opportunities and a better standard of living. There are numerous 

statements about possible negative effects of oil shale development but essentially no discussion 

of the benefits. Consequently, the EIS fails to provide the information needed for an informed 

choice. #4])>

<([#5 [3.10.3] In the end, oil shale development, like many of the choices in life, is all about 

tradeoffs. 

Agriculture is the biggest user of water and destroyer of natural habitat, and it creates a bigger 

dead zone every year in the Gulf of Mexico than the Macondo blowout. But we all like to eat, so 

agriculture exists. This PEIS describes virtually every negative environmental impact 

imaginable, but it does not discuss the potential economic and environmental benefits. So there 

can be no rationale balancing of benefits and interests as required by the NEPA. 

Most egregiously, the PEIS does not acknowledge that the center of the Piceance Basin contains 

oil shale so rich in energy that the amount of energy produced per the amount of land disturbance 

per would rank it near the top of all energy sources. Nevertheless, this land has been all but 

taken out of the leasing program. Nor does it acknowledge that in any oil shale activity, the 

possibility exists to reconstruct the land in any desired manner to optimize habitat for desired 

species. #5])>

#3. <([#6 [9.1] Page ES-1 states that the BLM intends to take a hard look at whether it is 

appropriate for 

approximately 2,000,000 acres to remain available for potential development of oil shale. Why 

does this refer to the future? One could posit that the BLM made a decision on which alternative 

to pick without taking a hard look—facts are not important if the decision maker has a 

prejudicial commitment to a specific outcome. #6])>

#4. <([#7 [3.4.1] Page ES-9 states that the BLM looks forward to gaining a clearer understanding 

of the 

implications of developing oil shale. For water quality and quantity, for example, industry has 

provided much information on updated estimates of water needs for oil shale, and that 

information is used in Section 4. What else is needed? There are a variety of laws in existence 

that protect water quality, and any lessee would have to go through a NEPA process to 

demonstrate that their proposed activities will not violate existing laws and regulations. Further, 

if there is a compelling public need to limit water consumption by an oil shale company or 

industry to less than industry currently estimates, no further information is needed from 

industry—industry would simply be required to stay within that bound. That said, does the BLM 

have the position that water rights are not true property rights and can be revoked for political 

purposes? All industry analyses indicate that enough water rights are in place to support oil 

shale production in excess of 1 million barrels per day. #7])> <([#8 [4.2] Or if the issue is CO2 

emissions, they are 

outside the proper consideration of the PEIS as stated on pages 1-13 and 2-78, and the BLM does 

not have the authority to generate regulations of such not authorized by Congress. Further, CO2 

mitigation is primarily a financial issue, not a technology issue, and it can be addressed 
Final OSTS PEIS 693 

straightforwardly if and when regulations are implemented, for example via sequestration or sale. 

#8])> 3 

#5. <([#9 [1.3] On page 1-15, the PEIS lists governmental agencies that cooperated in the PEIS. 

What was 

their position on the amount of acreage that should be available for development, and is the PEIS 

consistent with the desires of the local governments? 

#9])> #6. <([#10 [6.3] On page 1-17, the footnotes say that EGL has been renamed “since the 

preparation of this 

PEIS”. To what PEIS does “this” refer? EGL was renamed AMSO in early 2008, well before 

the start of the current draft PEIS. OSEC was changed to Enefit in 2011 prior to the issuance of 

the current draft PEIS. 

#10])> #7. <([#11 [6.1.1] On page 2-13, on what basis did the BLM decide that commercial 

viability requires 25 ft of 

oil shale >25 gal/ton in Utah and Colorado but only 15 ft of 15 gal/ton in Wyoming? 

Economically recoverable depends on both depth and technology in a complicated way. The oil 

shale industry is in a much better position to decide what resource it can recover economically 

and where it will risk its capital. The BLM has is not in a position to make a similar calculations. 

#11])> <([#12 [9.6] And just because an area is open for commercial lease applications does not 

mean that any 

company will actually try to lease it if it does not see commercial viability. Concerns about land 

speculation are more appropriately addressed by performance clauses in the lease rather than 

taking them off the potentially leasable area. 

#12])> #8. <([#13 [6.1] There are technically incorrect statements about oil shale on page 2-15. 

Not all oil shale in 

the Green River formation is a marlstone. The Garden Gulch member is clay rich and does not 

fall within the marlstone field. The temperature required to generate shale oil varies with time. 

For timescales of human activity, temperature for significant shale oil generation is as low as 500 

oF, as that temperature for a few years will convert a substantial amount of kerogen. The 

processes being pursued by Shell and by AMSO will generate shale oil at temperatures primarily 

between 600 and 700 oF. While some people have recently misused the term “shale oil” to 

denote shale-hosted natural crude oil, the term “shale oil” has meant the product formed from 

destructive distillation of oil shale for hundreds of years. 

#13])> #9. <([#14 [9.6] On page 2-30, the statement is made that six existing RD&D leases have 

terms that could 

allow commercial development on up to 5120 acres each. The most obvious interpretation of 

this statement is that even though the option 2 acreage largely excludes the preference right lease 

area from commercial leasing (see, for example, Table 2.3.2-2), it would be allowed for 

commercial leasing to the RD&D lease holder by virtue of an existing contract, and this 

interpretation is supported by words on page 2-54. However, if it is suitable for commercial 

leasing, it should be included in the area available for commercial leasing. 

#14])> #10. <([#15 [9.6] On page 2-26, the statement is made that if an RD&D lease holder 

relinquishes its lease, 

the area may be leased to another operator with the decisions in the RMP at the time of 

application. Which application? The original RD&D lease application or a subsequent 

application after the original lease is terminated? Does that mean that if Alternative 2b is 

adopted, essentially all of that acreage would be removed from commercial leasing? What 
Final OSTS PEIS 694 

would occur if the lease is transferred to another entity rather than terminated? Would the new 

entity be required to pursue the same process originally proposed, or could the entity modify the 

process consistent with the old or a new environmental assessment? 

#15])> 4 

#11. <([#16 [9.6] The statement is made that MMTA would be excluded from oil shale leasing 

until 

technology or other factors exist to develop oil shale without jeopardizing trona mines. Does 

that mean that if a company demonstrates that it is possible, the land would be available for 

leasing? If so, a lease stipulation would be a more appropriate way to enforce that requirement. 

Multi-mineral extraction requirements are already in force for nahcolite and oil shale. 

#16])> #12. <([#17 [9.2.3] The first paragraph mentions geologically prospective areas not being 

excluded for any 

specific could be considered at a later time. Which areas are those, specifically, and for what 

reason did the Department of Interior not consider them at this time? This appears to be a 

violation of the intent of Congress in the 2005 Energy Act. The subsequent discussion on that 

page appears to describe the intent of the Department of the Interior to frustrate rather than 

facilitate oil shale development for the good of the American people, in direct violation of both 

the 2005 Energy Act and the Department’s own charter. 

#17])> #13. <([#18 [2.2] It is stated on page 2-35, in effect, that Alternative 2b was not 

conceived until the PEIS was 

in draft form and is not even properly discussed in the rest of the document. An obvious 

question, therefore, is what specific technical discoveries of the PEIS process motivated the 

creation of this alternative and its eventual adoption? If no technical discoveries were the cause, 

what specific meetings or actions precipitated the idea after the analysis of alternatives had been 

completed? It appears that the alternative was motivated by political forces completely separate 

from legitimate PEIS considerations and therefore with the spirit of the 2005 Energy Act. 

#18])> #14. <([#19 [2.2] Figure 2.3.3-1 on page 2-37 demonstrates that the preferred alternative 

directly contradicts 

the BLM’s stated rationale for the PEIS and leaves no doubt that this alternative was designed 

specifically to prevent commercial development of oil shale in Colorado in direct violation of the 

2005 Energy Act. 

Almost the entire Piceance Basin is excluded from commercial leasing applications even though 

it has not been identified as either Sage-Grouse Core or Priority Habitat or Lands with 

Wilderness Characteristics. Absurdly, part of the land proposed for commercial leasing 

applications is identified as Sage-Grouse critical! Finally, most of the land made available is in 

such small, isolated parcels that it would effectively prevent significant commercial 

development. #19])>

#15. <([#20 [2.4] As much Figure 2.3.3-1 is a farce, Alternative 4 shows a lack of thought 

concerning the 

definition of “moderate” in moderate development. Land proposed for commercial leasing 

includes Sage-Grouse critical habitat. Even though it is arguable that oil shale development 

could occur without adversely affecting the Sage Grouse and there is a paragraph outlining the 

responsibility of the field office in that regard, the amount of acreage so designated is so small 

that it could easily be eliminated without significant impact on the oil shale industry this century. 

The PEIS itself says the probability of leasing is low, so why not just take it off the table and 

save a lot of wasted effort? Similarly, there is a portion of the Cathedral Bluffs designated as 
Final OSTS PEIS 695 

Lands With Wilderness Characteristics that could easily be eliminated from leases without 

adversely affecting the oil shale industry. 

#20])> 5 

#16.<([#21 [2.2] In discussing a comment about limiting leases to those in process, the PEIS 

states that it is 

not consistent with the Secretary’s and Director’s emphasis on developing and maintaining a 

robust RD&D process. The preferred alternative has so little land available in such isolated 

parcels that it is not conducive to either R&D or commercial activity. The clearest evidence for 

this is that the number of proposals dropped from 20 to 3 when the preference right lease area 

was dropped from 5120 to 640 acres. While it may be profitable to perform multi-mineral 

extraction on a 640 lease tract, oil shale production alone is probably not feasible on such a small 

plot given the 500-ft restriction of activity from the border of the lease, which potentially reduces 

the available resource by one third. Further it is clear that a significant portion of the land made 

available will not even support a 640-acre lease. There is no rational justification for dividing 

the available acreage into tiny tracts other than to block commercial development without overtly 

abrogating existing RD&D lease contracts. 

#21])> #17. <([#22 [6.3.5] The statement is made that “Despite the absence of a commercially 

viable processing 

technology” is not intrinsically correct. Commercially viable depends on the market price for 

oil, so this statement presupposes some market price for crude oil. The assumptions circa 1980 

were that the price would be $90/bbl by 1990 and increasing thereafter. If that price prediction 

was correct, the processes at the time would have been commercially viable, and the statement 

here would be demonstrated to be false. In fact, the price of crude oil dropped dramatically in 

the early 1980s and fell to historic lows in the 1990s (<20/bbl), so the failure of oil shale to take 

off was simply due to a glut of inexpensive conventional crude oil, driven by discoveries and 

production in Alaska and the North Sea, among others, and not a failure of the technology of the 

time. In fact, the process being proposed by Enefit today is very similar to that pursued by 

Chevron and ExxonMobil. Of course, automation has improved in the past 30 years, so the 

process now will take fewer people to operate, but it is basically the same. And the reason that it 

is commercially viable now is that the oil price is at the $100+ dollar per barrel range considered 

in economic analyses of the late 1970s. So the correct statement would be “Under the incorrect 

assumption of $90-$100/bbl oil late in the 20th century,” 

#22])> #18. <([#23 [3.10.3] The statement of adverse impact of the oil shale bust in the early 

1980s is correct, but 

reading it in the absence of other economic history would suggest it is unique in the history of 

the United States. It is not. Speculative house building in many locations around the country 

based on the assumption of continued price escalation and economic growth has resulted in the 

foreclosure of millions of homes as a result of the real estate bust of 2008. This is just one of 

hundreds of stories of boom and bust that are characteristic of economic development across 

industries. While prudent action can and should be taken to minimize the probability, no human 

endeavor is without risk, and the oil shale industry should not be paralyzed due to a lack of 100% 

certainty in the economic and energy predictions for the next century. If this tack were taken for 

all proposed economic activity, all investment would cease. In fact, most proposed oil shale 

growth would occur at a measured pace using fewer workers per unit of production. Establishing 

a sound and gradually growing industry in the absence of national energy panic is the best way to 

avoid the catastrophes of the past. 
Final OSTS PEIS 696 

#23])> #19. <([#24 [3.10.3] The discussion on pages 3-241 through 244 is incongruous. 

Statements are made about 

rapid growth and employment due to the oil and gas industry and having to import skilled labor 

from afar, and statements are made that wages are increasing due to the oil and gas industry as if 

that is a bad thing. Now, the unemployment rates are about 10% in regions that would be 

affected by oil shale development, and foreclosures are common. Since it is doubtful that natural 

gas activities will reach the levels of 4 years ago in the coming decades due to established 

infrastructure and low natural gas prices, what is going to pull the economy of western Colorado 

out of its malaise? 

#24])> #20. <([#25 [3.10.1] [3.10.3] On pages 3.11.2.2.4, the PEIS states that rental housing in 

the Rifle area is all taken and 

there are no hotels available. That may have been true 3 years ago, but it is not true now. Rental 

housing is easy to find, and rents are dropping. Hotel rooms are plentiful, and construction of 

one hotel was stopped a few years ago because of the drop in demand. Foreclosures on houses 

are common, just like other parts of the country. There are several partially built apartment units 

in foreclosure. If the PEIS is supposed to give a basis for economic status on which to make 

decisions about oil shale, it must be up to date. Otherwise, it is giving a completely mistaken 

view of why economic development, including oil shale, is needed to maintain a healthy 

economy in the Rifle area in the long run. In other words, if it was worth redoing the PEIS, it is 

worth doing it right and not using data that is 3 years old as if it were current. Again, the way to 

avoid booms and bust is to have steady growth, and waiting to develop oil shale during a national 

crisis is exactly opposite to what the country should do. It should have leasing policy that 

enables enough high-quality resource to be available for leasing so that the industry can learn, 

mature, and grow gradually over the next 20-30 years. Alternative 2b, on the other hand, will 

prevent commercial oil shale development entirely, except possibly for a few small operations. 

#25])> #21. <([#26 [6.4] The statement on page 4-6 that spent shale volume would increase by 

30% over the volume 

of raw shale introduced into the retort is incorrect. The 30% increase in volume occurs during 

mining, and the volume of shale is basically unchanged during the retorting process. It would be 

correct if the statement were that the spent shale volume increases by 30% over its volume in the 

earth before mining. The same is true of the overburden for surface mining operations. 

#26])> #22. <([#27 [6.2.1] On page 4-13, the BLM has projected that the new electricity capacity 

needed for in-situ oil 

shale would be generated by coal as a worst case. That may be true if the electricity is generated 

in Utah and transmitted to Colorado, and of course, that changes the Colorado impact. If the 

electricity is generated nearer, it will probably be generated from a combination of co-produced 

gases and natural gas. This is an active choice that could be made to minimize impacts, and the 

PEIS ignores that possibility. In fact, no company is currently considering using coal-generated 

electricity as its preferred power source for major operations. The PEIS acknowledges that some 

proposed in-situ processes do not plan to use electrical heaters, but it does not reflect this in its 

subsequent analysis. It seems that it the PEIS would be better served by making a range of 

estimates of water usage, because the fact that this is a worst case will get lost in public 

discussions. 

#27])> #23. <([#28 [6.3.2.1] Section 4.5.1.2 grossly over-estimates water needs. Enefit claims 

lower water usage than 

2.6-4.0 bbl water per bbl oil—their web site says 1-3 tonne per tonne of shale oil. Also, the 
Final OSTS PEIS 697 

correct range for in-situ projects is zero to 3 bbls water/bbl of oil. Zero might come from 

working out of the aquifers (Garden Gulch member) and using the cleaned-up co-produced water 

for cooling needs. Also not mentioned is the possibility of using reverse osmosis or distillation 

of deep brackish water to supply the water needs for oil shale production. The economics appear 

tolerable, particularly if waste heat is used for a distillation method, but this has not been actively 

studied because of the availability of plentiful water at low cost—ironic due to the near hysteria 

about water availability. The point here is that shale oil production is such a high-value 

operation and its water needs sufficiently modest that it probably could get along with no 

significant draw on fresh-water supplies if the government insists upon confiscating current 

water rights—estimates are that more than a million barrels of oil per day could be produced 

with existing water rights. 

#28])> #24. <([#29 [6.3.2.1] It is likely that a 100,000 bbl/day oil shale industry would use less 

than 1% of the upper 

Colorado Basin remaining available surface water. Tables 4.5.2-1 and 3.4.1-2 indicate a water 

surplus of about 300,000 ac-ft/yr, and a generous estimate of water consumption by an in-situ 

industry would be only 10,000 ac-ft/yr according to Table 4.5.2-1 if it did not use electrical 

heating. So why is the Department of Interior ignoring this in their analysis of water use vs. 

water availability? 

#29])> #25. <([#30 [3.5.1.2] On page 4-54, the PEIS employs the phrases “at best, professional 

judgment” and “at worst 

would be speculation.” The PEIS should not be using speculative numbers from non-experts in 

its consideration. There are numerous good professional judgment numbers in the literature that 

agree reasonably well that one does not have to use the derogatory qualifier “at best”. The point 

here is that there will be a range of emission estimates for various candidate technologies, and 

establishment of regulations on CO2 emissions would affect the ultimate outcome. If the public 

has a compelling interest to establish a performance standard, and then it will be industry’s 

responsibility to figure out how to meet it. We don’t need national policy based on the “bring 

me another rock until I see one I like” principle. 

#30])> #26. <([#31 [6.3.1] [3.8.3] Figures 4.9.1-1 and 4.9.1-2 show pictures of a UMATAC 

industrial process. No one in the 

United States is considering using this technology, so why show pictures of it? It would seem 

more reasonable to show pictures from the new Enefit plants in Estonia and even a Petrosix plant 

in Brazil, as the latter is similar to the Paraho process favored by several US companies. 

#31])> #27. <([#32 [5] Nowhere in the vicinity of page 4-154 did I see a discussion of the fact 

that the oil shale 

activities in the 1980s generated a substantial experience on how to reclaim surface disturbance. 

It would seem to an uneducated reader that everything for the oil shale industry would have to be 

learned from scratch. In fact, photos of reclaimed areas would add more to the intelligent 

discussion of this issue than much of what is in the PEIS. 

#32])> #28.<([#33 [3.4.3] In the introductory sentence of 4.12.1.4, it is stated that “it is likely 

that oil shale 

technologies will require large amounts of water.” Compared to what? Has the BLM compared 

it to biofuels? In the arid west, typically 85-90% of the water is used for agriculture, and an oil 

shale industry will have only a minor effect on that number. So from one perspective, nothing 

but agriculture uses large quantities of water. Now if one uses a metric of economic value 

generated per unit of water consumption, how does oil shale compare to other industries. The 
Final OSTS PEIS 698 

Department of Interior should not repeat common misstatements about water crippling 

agriculture—it should undertake an honest in-depth analysis, using the technologies currently 

being contemplated and not those last used in the 1970’s. This is likely to lead to a conclusion 

that a significant oil shale industry would divert only a few percent of agricultural water, and that 

could easily be made up by more efficient use of water by agriculture. 

#33])> #29. <([#34 [3.10.3] The implicit attitude of section 4.13.1.3 is that the best thing we can 

do for poor people is 

to leave them alone so they can continue to be poor. Grand Junction and Carbondale are so far 

away from the oil shale development that any direct impact is clearly a stretch. An equivalent 

statement is that the skiing industry is hurting the poor people in Carbondale because skiing is a 

rich-person’s hobby and drives up real estate values, and therefore we should kill the ski 

industry. Instead, the oil shale industry will provide high-quality jobs and economic growth that 

will create many opportunities for people to escape poverty. The biggest threat to the health and 

well-being of poor people is an economy that cannot provide decent employment opportunities 

for all. A robust oil shale industry can help sustain long term economic growth in western 

Colorado. Early indications from ongoing RD&D activities fully support this conclusion. 

#34])> #30. <([#35 [3.12.2] It appears that the writer of this section [no section specified, but 

prior comment addresses section 4.13.1.3] was unaware of what all was discussed about oil shale 

and retorting in the preceding hundreds of pages. I recommend that the first two sentences 

be stricken as redundant and useless. 

#35])> #31. <([#36 [9.6] The bottom paragraph on page 6-1 states that making land available for 

lease applications 

has no impact on environmental or socioeconomic setting. It is the subsequent development 

work on the land that would have an impact, and it must be analyzed by the NEPA process. So 

what is the justification for removing essentially all the land in Colorado from the lease 

application process? It has been stated by many people many times that having land available 

for leases does not mean that it will be leased. If oil shale’s detractors are correct, few or no 

leases will ever be pursued because oil shale is fool’s gold and won’t ever be developed. The 

real truth was stated by Utah Senator Bennett, “What are you afraid of?...You are afraid it might 

work.” If the concern is merely companies tying up land on a speculation basis, as is sometimes 

said, that could easily be prevented by lease performance terms. 

#36])> #32. <([#37 [6.3] The information about AMSO LLC in section A.5.3.2 is extremely 

outdated. An 

Addendum to the original Plan of Operations was submitted in July 2008 and approved by the 

BLM in October 2008, and a Plan of Operations was submitted in May 2009 and approved by 

the BLM in September 2009. The stated reason for the update of the PEIS is to incorporate more 

recent information, and here is a case where the BLM has not incorporated relevant information 

contained within its own regulatory approval process. 

#37])>

OSTS2012D50091 

Organization: ECCOS (Environmentally Conscious Consumers for Oil Shale), Brad McCloud 

Received: 4/18/2012 11:56:44 AM 

Commenter1: Brad McCloud - Grand Junction, Colorado 81501 (United States) 

Organization1:ECCOS (Environmentally Conscious Consumers for Oil Shale) 

Commenter Type: Misc. Organization 

Classification: 
Final OSTS PEIS 699 

Submission Category: Letter 

Submitted As: Web Form and Mail 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 4/20/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50091.htm (OSTS2012D50091-58434.htm Size = 2 KB) 

April_2012_ECCOS_Letter_of_request_for_extending_the_comment_period_on_the_PEIS_OS

TS2012D50091.doc (OSTS2012D50091-58433.doc Size = 30 KB) 

Submission Text

ECCOS Environmentally Conscious Consumers for Oil Shale 

April 9, 2012 

BLM Oil Shale and Tar Sands Draft Programmatic EIS 

Argonne National Laboratory 9700 S. Cass Ave. Argonne IL 60439 

Ken Salazar, Secretary 

U.S. Department of the Interior 1849 C Street, N.W. Washington DC 20240 

Bob Abbey, Director 

Bureau of Land Management 1849 C Street, N.W., Room 5665 Washington DC 20240 

RE: 2012 OSTS PEIS Comment Period 

Dear Secretary Salazar, Director Abbey, et al: 

<([#1 [1.1.1] Currently members of Environmentally Conscious Consumers for Oil Shale 

(ECCOS) are in the process of reviewing the extremely comprehensive 2012 OSTS PEIS in 

order to provide comments. However, it has come to our attention that the Draft BLM Oil Shale 

Regulation document is not expected to be published until May 15, 2012. The comment period 

on the 2012 OSTS PEIS closes on May 4, 2012 and obviously does not allow time for review of 

the Draft BLM Oil Shale Regulation document prior to submitting comments. It seems logical 

that these two documents are inevitably tied to one another. These two documents outline 

impacted areas and regulations on development. Having both documents to review 

simultaneously will behoove those wishing to make relevant comments and help to avoid 

comments that may tend to be inconsistent and confusing without all the information available. 

Therefore, ECCOS requests that the comment period on the 2012 OSTS PEIS be extended to no 

less than 90 days past the publication of the Draft BLM Oil Shale Regulations. #1])> Thank you 

for your time and consideration. 

Respectfully, 

Brad McCloud Executive Director Environmentally Conscious Consumers for Oil Shale 

(ECCOS) 

See Attachment. 

OSTS2012D50092 

Organization: Norwest Corporation, Anna Dunn 

Received: 4/18/2012 12:34:36 PM 
Final OSTS PEIS 700 

Commenter1: Anna Dunn - Grand Junction, Colorado 81501 (United States) 

Organization1:Norwest Corporation 

Commenter Type: Affiliation Only 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 4/20/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50092.htm (OSTS2012D50092-58426.htm Size = 1 KB) 

Submission Text

<([#1 [6.1] The extensive deposits of Oil Shale located in the United States offer key advantages. 

The Oil Shale deposits located not only in the United States, but in Utah and Colorado are 

extensive, and very well defined. This would all but eliminate exploratory costs. The research 

field of Oil Shale is extensive and very active in local communities, universities and government 

facilities which would also eliminate the need for outside resources for development. #1])> <([#2

[10.3] Producing the Oil Shale does raise many environmental concerns, but the environmental 

policies being enforced are too strict and are choking the productivity and profitability of this 

massive natural resource we have on our own soil. #2])> <([#3 [6.3.5] Production is already 

close to the finished product market, and these markets are substantial enough to support 

development of the industry. #3])> <([#4 [10.6.3] [11] The refining process, though different, is 

markedly less than crude oil that we rely upon from foreign sources. Successful development of 

oil shale can greatly enhance the energy supply, economy and security of this local area which 

has been hit hard by the decline of the oil and gas production - as well as that of the entire 

country. Lessening our dependency on foreign commodities and foreign companies is a valid 

concern we need to face, and the production of United States Oil Shale is a huge step and 

advantage we should utilize. #4])>

OSTS2012D50093 

Organization: w 

Received: 4/18/2012 9:27:35 PM 

Commenter1: w - , Utah (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 4/20/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50093.htm (OSTS2012D50093-58424.htm Size = 1 KB) 

Submission Text

<([#1 [12.1] Tar Sands is bad for the environment, bad for Utah! Both the extraction and use of 

the product are hazardous to people. Therefore, I believe, 0 (zero) is the amount to be extracted.

#1])>

OSTS2012D50094 
Final OSTS PEIS 701 

Organization: Edward Hawley 

Received: 4/19/2012 2:23:07 AM 

Commenter1: Edward Hawley - Stuart, Florida 34996 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 4/20/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50094.htm (OSTS2012D50094-58428.htm Size = 1 KB) 

Oil_Shale_Development_Commitee_Comment_OSTS2012D50094.docx (OSTS2012D50094-

58427.docx Size = 14 KB) 

Submission Text

See attached. See Attachment. 

Comments on the 

Draft 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 January 2012 – Volumes 1 through 4 – DES 12-

01

By 

Edward R. Hawley 

<([#1 [10.6.3] As a Native American, (member of The Choctaw Tribe of Oklahoma), with 

significant European ancestry, I have a deep-seated respect for the environment. That said I also 

realize that there are situations that require individuals to remove their blinders, (political 

affiliations and/or personal agendas), and focus on what will provide the greatest benefits for 

America and Americans. It is the time to accept the reality that there is no substitute for oil. Not 

today or in the foreseeable future. Concerns as for what might be must be weighed with what is 

today’s reality. America cannot afford to delay the development of any of its oil resources; 

specifically its 4 trillion barrels of oil contained in the oil shale regions of Colorado, Utah and 

Wyoming. America must end its reliance on other countries for the oil required to fuel its 

economy. 

Oil’s importance to modern society is comparable to the importance of the buffalo to early 

Native Americans. When the buffalo were virtually exterminated, America’s Native American 

way of life vanished. The buffalo were more than a source of food. Shelter, clothing, weapons 

and many other necessities for Native Americans came from the buffalo. As with the buffalo, oil 

is more than just a source of energy. Oil is component of virtually every product important to 

modern society. 

As an American, I strongly support America’s free enterprise economy. But anyone that 

considers the oil industry as free enterprise is ignoring the reality of oil. America has gone to war 

to protect its oil supplies. America currently maintains a significant military presence in the oil 
Final OSTS PEIS 702 

producing regions of the world. Is it necessary for America to continue to provide international 

security at such a tremendous financial drain on our nation? (As a Navy veteran, I cannot fail to 

also draw attention to the irreplaceable American lives lost in multiple wars protecting oil 

resources of other nations.) The answer is clear: America cannot continue to support the world. 

It’s time for America’s leaders to place the needs of America and Americans first. 

What other country blessed with the natural resources that America has, would allow its people 

and economy to be held hostage by other, less than friendly oil producing countries? The answer 

is obvious: None! Not one! It is time for America to confront the reality of the fact that without 

an affordable, reliable and sustainable supply of oil, America’s way of life will follow our 

predecessors, the early Native Americans, with the loss of the buffalo. 

#1])>

<([#2 [10.5] Fossil fuels are a problem for the world’s environment. The significance of oil’s 

impact on the World’s environment is debatable. But what is not debatable is the fact that 

America will continue to rely on oil as its primary transportation fuel regardless of advances in 

green, renewable energy technology. Why not develop America’s oil resources contained within 

public regions and allocate a portion of the royalty and/or tax revenue to the development of 

cleaner energy technology? Environmentalists have achieved their objective and ingrained into 

American society the fundamental belief that Americans need to protect the environment for the 

benefit of future generations. But, it is important for America’s leaders and environmentalists to 

accept the fact that America needs a secure, reliable and affordable supply of oil to survive the 

transition to cleaner, more environmentally friendly energy sources and technology. 

#2])>

<([#3 [11] [10.6.3] The members of this BLM committee cannot undo the mistakes of the past. 

Without a doubt, there are obstacles that must be overcome to economically develop America’s 

oil shale. But unless efforts to develop America’s oil shale are not only allowed but encouraged, 

there is no chance that the challenges to the development of oil shale will ever be resolved. 

Rather than focus on ways to suppress the development of America’s oil shale, this BLM 

committee, as well as America’s leaders, need to be concentrating on how to maximize the 

economic benefits that could be derived from the development of America’s oil shale. 

I hope that the members of the BLM committee accept the seriousness of the task that they have 

been given. Decisions made by this committee will impact America’s security and economy for 

generations to come. America needs oil. There is no substitute for oil. 

Although the President and his administration make no secret as to their objectives, everyone 

needs set aside their political beliefs and personal agendas, (blinders), and do whatever is 

necessary to secure America’s oil supplies for today and tomorrow. The decisions made by this 

BLM committee will determine the future of America far beyond the time of the current political 

regime. Americans cannot continue to allow the lifestyle that has been created by our parents and 

their parents to continue to deteriorate. America can no longer afford to ignore its enormous oil 

resources, specifically, America’s oil shale. 

#3])>

http://ostseis.anl.gov/involve/comments/index.cfm 
Final OSTS PEIS 703 

OSTS2012D50095 

Organization: Peggy Nagel 

Received: 4/20/2012 8:44:36 PM 

Commenter1: Peggy Nagel - Fruita, Colorado 81521 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/18/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50095.htm (OSTS2012D50095-58490.htm Size = 1 KB) 

Submission Text

Hi Everyone, <([#1 [2.2.1] Just want you to know that I strongly support your decision to limit 

the number of public land acres available for oil shale and tar sands extraction. #1])> <([#2

[10.6.1] I think more energy and money needs to be spent on renewable energy instead of relying 

upon such polluting sources as oil, shale, and tar sands, in spite of what Craig Meis says #2])> . 

Thank you. 

OSTS2012D50096 

Organization: Joan Sundeen 

Received: 4/22/2012 8:53:40 PM 

Commenter1: Joan Sundeen - Carbondale, Colorado 81623 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 4/25/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50096.htm (OSTS2012D50096-58494.htm Size = 1 KB) 

Environmental_Impact_Statement_Comments_OSTS2012D50096.doc (OSTS2012D50096-

58493.doc Size = 33 KB) 

Submission Text

Refer to attachment. See Attachment. 

There are many points in this environmental impact statement that I find particularly disturbing 

and would like to comment on. 

<([#1 [3.7.4.1] First, after reviewing the endangered species section in chapter three, I could not 

help but notice how many areas dedicated to endangered species overlap with the oil shale and 

tar sand proposals. All 227 species listed rely heavily on BLM land for their survival. I also 

found it interesting that four out of twelve native species of fish are endangered and will go 

extinct due to decreased stream flow and stream warming. #1])> <([#2 [3.4.1] I would like to see 

what kind of research has been done to asses water sources with close proximity to the existing 
Final OSTS PEIS 704 

oil shale and tar sand sites and what kind of health those streams are in. what effect does run off 

from oil leaks have on the streams and rivers? I would also like to see what chemicals exist in 

fracking fluid and what effect they have one rivers and streams. #2])>

<([#3 [3.5.7] Secondly, The section on air quality in chapter three had many tables that clearly 

showed that the emissions in oil shale and tar sand counties were higher, sometimes much 

higher, than counties with no sites. Garfield County, the county I grew up in, has most of the 

highest emissions numbers in the state and has a large number of oil shale sites. #3])>

<([#4 [3.10.3] Thirdly, it saddened me to read about peoples’ relationships in towns disappearing 

due to transient oil field workers. On page 3-239 the Rifle Tribune was cited as saying that local 

relationships fizzled out with the influx of oil workers, as did the local economies that were 

replaced with goods preferable to the oil workers rather than the farmers and ranchers who are 

permanent residents of the area. It also said that the city found it increasingly difficult to find 

people to employ in public resource departments. Oil shale and tar sands might create thousands 

of jobs, but they are jobs given to migrant workers from out of state and those jobs are clearly 

detrimental to important community ties and employment. #4])>

<([#5 [3.14] Lastly, I would like to see a section on human health impacts. There was no 

evidence regarding if people living near the sites suffered from environment related health 

problems nor was there any remark as to whether that research had been done. I personally know 

people in my county who have suffered greatly since oil shale sites have moved onto their 

properties. Again I think that having access to a list of chemicals in fracking fluid would be 

appropriate. #5])>

Thank you for your time. 

OSTS2012D50097 

Organization: Robert Tobin 

Received: 4/23/2012 11:06:58 AM 

Commenter1: Robert Tobin - Meeker, Colorado 81641 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: 

Submission Category: 50099 Attachment 

Submitted As: Web/E-mail/Mail 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: klett 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50097.htm (OSTS2012D50097-58497.htm Size = 1 KB) 

B.TobinPEIS2_OSTS2012D50097.pdf (OSTS2012D50097-58496.pdf Size = 11 KB) 

Submission Text

Please refer to attachment See Attachment. 

Figure 1: Data from W & S 24th and Misc Wells, Diss. Solids 

OSTS2012D50098 
Final OSTS PEIS 705 

Organization: Robert Tobin 

Received: 4/23/2012 11:10:40 AM 

Commenter1: Robert Tobin - Meeker, Colorado 81641 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: 

Submission Category: 50099 Attachment 

Submitted As: Web/E-mail/Mail 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: klett 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50098.htm (OSTS2012D50098-58500.htm Size = 1 KB) 

B.TobinPEIS10_Attach_1_OSTS2012D50098.pdf (OSTS2012D50098-58499.pdf Size = 26 KB) 

Submission Text

Please refer to enclosed attached file See Attachment. 

Selected references 

OSTS2012D50099 

Organization: Robert Tobin 

Received: 4/23/2012 12:50:56 PM 

Commenter1: Robert Tobin - Meeker, Colorado 81641 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 

Submitted As: Web/E-mail/Mail 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/2/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50099.htm (OSTS2012D50099-58503.htm Size = 1 KB) 

B.TobinPEIS_1_OSTS2012D50099.pdf (OSTS2012D50099-58502.pdf Size = 40 KB) 

Submission Text

the total of of my PEIS is 10 pgs... but was unable to send all pages in one form so it will be 

submitted i 10 This # 1 See Attachment. 

Listed below, for your consideration, are several comments/concerns that apply to the hydrology 

assessment of the northern Piceance basin as presented in the SUBJECT REPORT. 

<([#1 [3.4.6] 1. P3-12; Hydrographs of springflow show that several springs in the vicinity of the 

nuclear blasts in the 

early 1970s were significantly impacted after detonation. 

#1])>

<([#2 [3.2] 2. P3-43; Extreme valley floor erosion in the Yellow C basin has occurred during 

large runoff events. #2])>

<([#3 [3.4.5] 3. P3-76; Introduced in the Geologic setting, the hydrologic characteristics of the 
Final OSTS PEIS 706 

Wasatch fm were not 

included in the aquifer descriptions of the Teritary-Cretaceous rocks in Piceance basin. #3])>

<([#4 [3.4.1] 4. The near surface hydrology in the basin (streams, and the numerous springs that 

flow from the fractured Uinta fm and valley alluvia) is an important source of good quality 

water. Are comprehensive data assessments for this important source included in EA and EIS 

presentations for the basin? #4])>

<([#5 [3.4.6] 5. The concentration range for dissolved solids in the major groundwater aquifers 

presented in this report 

is nebulous. A key USGS report (Welder and Saulnier, 1978), in which Saulnier describes the 

watercharacteristics in the two principal bedrock aquifers, is not referenced, and appears unused 

for evaluation purposes. Dissolved solids data from the Welder and Saulnier report and other 

wells are compiled and presented for your information in the attached figure 1. Similar data 

compiled from the USGS database for the basin are provided for streams (figs. 2-4) and springs 

(figs. 5-8). Water quality data for many of the the constituents sampled in the basin, when 

compiled and analyzed, are informative for determining both water source and movement, and 

would be useful for assessing general water conditions in the basin. [See figures in Comment 

#50097, 98, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109] #5])>

<([#6 [3.4.5] 6. Important supplemental data useful in the assessment of water quality along the 

White River mainstem 

can be found in the USGS report, Tobin, 1993. Water quality characteristics and dissolved solids 

loads 

in the White River are qualified and quantified for a period of 15 years that included record high 

and 

low flow annual discharges. #6])>

In addition to the enclosed figures 1-8, selected references (attachment 1) are included. 

OSTS2012D50101 

Organization: Robert Tobin 

Received: 4/23/2012 12:53:07 PM 

Commenter1: Robert Tobin - Meeker, Colorado 81641 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: 

Submission Category: 50099 Attachment 

Submitted As: Web/E-mail/Mail 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: klett 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50101.htm (OSTS2012D50101-58509.htm Size = 1 KB) 

B.TobinPEIS3_OSTS2012D50101.pdf (OSTS2012D50101-58508.pdf Size = 19 KB) 

Submission Text

this page 3 of my PEIS See Attachment. 
Final OSTS PEIS 707 

Figure 2: Dissolved Solids, Piceance C Trib, 19794-1990 

OSTS2012D50103 

Organization: Robert Tobin 

Received: 4/23/2012 12:55:31 PM 

Commenter1: Robert Tobin - Meeker, Colorado 81641 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: 

Submission Category: 50099 Attachment 

Submitted As: Web/E-mail/Mail 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: klett 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50103.htm (OSTS2012D50103-58515.htm Size = 1 KB) 

B.TobinPEIS4_OSTS2012D50103.pdf (OSTS2012D50103-58514.pdf Size = 24 KB) 

Submission Text

PAGE 4 OF MY peis See Attachment. 

Figure 3: Dissolved Solids, Piceance C, 1965-2002 

OSTS2012D50104 

Organization: Robert Tobin 

Received: 4/23/2012 12:56:28 PM 

Commenter1: Robert Tobin - Meeker, Colorado 81641 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: 

Submission Category: 50099 Attachment 

Submitted As: Web/E-mail/Mail 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: klett 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50104.htm (OSTS2012D50104-58518.htm Size = 1 KB) 

B.TobinPEIS5_OSTS2012D50104.pdf (OSTS2012D50104-58517.pdf Size = 19 KB) 

Submission Text

page 5 of my PEIS See Attachment. 

Figure 4: Dissolved Solids, Yellow C Drainage, 1965-2002 

OSTS2012D50105 

Organization: Robert Tobin 

Received: 4/23/2012 12:57:22 PM 

Commenter1: Robert Tobin - Meeker, Colorado 81641 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 
Final OSTS PEIS 708 

Classification: 

Submission Category: 50099 Attachment 

Submitted As: Web/E-mail/Mail 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: klett 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50105.htm (OSTS2012D50105-58521.htm Size = 1 KB) 

B.TobinPEIS6_OSTS2012D50105.pdf (OSTS2012D50105-58520.pdf Size = 17 KB) 

Submission Text

PAGE 6 OF 10 PAGES OF MY PEIS See Attachment. 

Figure 5: Sp. Cond/DS, Picenace Basin Springs in Tributaries to Piceance C, 1973-83 

OSTS2012D50106 

Organization: Robert Tobin 

Received: 4/23/2012 12:58:14 PM 

Commenter1: Robert Tobin - Meeker, Colorado 81641 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: 

Submission Category: 50099 Attachment 

Submitted As: Web/E-mail/Mail 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: klett 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50106.htm (OSTS2012D50106-58524.htm Size = 1 KB) 

B.TobinPEIS7_OSTS2012D50106.pdf (OSTS2012D50106-58523.pdf Size = 11 KB) 

Submission Text

PAGE 7 OF 10 OF MY peis See Attachment. 

Figure 6: Sp. Cond./TDS Piceance Basin Springs, 1973-83, Springs Along Piceance C 

OSTS2012D50107 

Organization: Robert Tobin 

Received: 4/23/2012 12:59:34 PM 

Commenter1: Robert Tobin - Meeker, Colorado 81641 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: 

Submission Category: 50099 Attachment 

Submitted As: Web/E-mail/Mail 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: klett 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50107.htm (OSTS2012D50107-58527.htm Size = 1 KB) 

B.TobinPEIS8_OSTS2012D50107.pdf (OSTS2012D50107-58526.pdf Size = 16 KB) 

Submission Text
Final OSTS PEIS 709 

page 8 of 10 my PEIS See Attachment. 

Figure 7: Spl Cond./DS, Sprs in Tribs to Piceance C and in Piceance C, 1973-83 

OSTS2012D50108 

Organization: Robert Tobin 

Received: 4/23/2012 1:00:27 PM 

Commenter1: Robert Tobin - Meeker, Colorado 81641 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: 

Submission Category: 50099 Attachment 

Submitted As: Web/E-mail/Mail 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: klett 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50108.htm (OSTS2012D50108-58530.htm Size = 1 KB) 

B.TobinPEIS09_OSTS2012D50108.pdf (OSTS2012D50108-58529.pdf Size = 9 KB) 

Submission Text

PAGE 9 OF 10 OF MY PEIS See Attachment. 

Figure 8: Sp. Cond/DS Piceance Basin Springs, 1973-83 in Tributaries to and in Yellow C 

OSTS2012D50110 

Organization: City of Rifle, Colorado - City Council, Mike Braaten 

Received: 4/23/2012 1:28:40 PM 

Commenter1: Mike Braaten - Rifle, Colorado 81650 (United States) 

Organization1:City of Rifle, Colorado - City Council 

Commenter Type: Cooperating Agency 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 

Submitted As: Web and E-mail 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/1/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50110.htm (OSTS2012D50110-58492.htm Size = 4 KB) 

Submission Text

<([#1 [3.10.2] The City Council of the City of Rifle greatly appreciates the Department of the 

Interior, Bureau of Land Management’s review of past decisions regarding oil shale leasing and 

development and offers the following comments: The City of Rifle, Colorado (population 9,500) 

sits at the base of the oil-shale rich Roan Plateau in the Piceance Basin. When commercial 

development of oil shale occurs, our community and region will again be the likely epicenter of 

oil shale development as it was in the late 1970s and early 1980s. Unfortunately, in 1982, our 

community was also the epicenter of the oil shale bust that resulted in an economic depression in 

our region that spanned close to two decades. In recent years our community and region was 

heavily impacted by natural gas exploration and production occurring in nearby private and 

public lands. Natural gas development brought significant growth to our community and placed 
Final OSTS PEIS 710 

considerable demands upon our municipal infrastructure, resulted in a shortage of affordable 

housing and essential community workforce, caused material and labor costs to skyrocket and 

strained social services and law enforcement capacities. Full-blown commercial development of 

oil shale may have similar impacts to our community and region. Although we are supportive of 

the current Oil Shale research and development activities, given oil shale’s history in our region, 

the City wants to ensure that we understand the impacts that may result from commercial 

production and from each company’s technologies on our community and region. Such questions 

as: What will development mean for our economy – both positive and negative aspects? How 

much water will be used, for what, and how will local watersheds be affected? How will our 

infrastructure, community services and facilities be impacted, including roads, water, sewer, 

housing, law enforcement, etc.? How will production activities be powered? How will the 

environment and wildlife be affected? What will be the impacts relating to hunting, fishing and 

recreation in the oil shale development areas? Often we hear anecdotal responses to these 

questions, but like the industry, we need factual data on which to base our planning and 

infrastructure investment decisions.We want to ensure that communities expected to be impacted 

by commercial development of oil shale have the appropriate and necessary financial resources 

to address and cope with the effects of production. Our community has learned from past energy 

development “booms” that investment in community services, facilities, and infrastructure is 

needed many years in advance of commercial production and the associated tax revenue. 

Additionally, as municipalities and counties in Colorado have experienced in recent years, 

energy tax revenues that have historically flowed to local governments to respond to energy 

development impacts have been usurped by the State Legislature to balance their budget in this 

down economy. As in past comments on Oil Shale Development, the Rifle City Council strongly 

supports action by the federal government to develop an oil shale cumulative community impacts 

study for the anticipated commercial production regions and dedicate funding to address the 

identified local impacts prior to approval of commercial production. #1])> <([#3 [10.5] 

Additionally, the federal government should develop an incentive program for oil shale 

companies to provide meaningful up-front and on-going investment in local communities and to 

local governments directly affected by oil shale development and production. #3])> <([#4 [2] 

Instead of selecting one of the alternatives put forward by BLM, the Rifle City Council requests 

that whatever alternative selected requires RDandD first. Additionally, we implore Secretary 

Salazar, BLM officials and our Congressmen and Senators to address the above mentioned issues 

through the federal regulatory or legislative processes to ensure that our community and region 

are prepared and have the necessary assistance in place prior to the commercial development of 

oil shale. #4])> Thank you for your consideration of our concerns. Respectfully submitted on 

behalf of the City Council of the City of Rifle, Colorado. 

OSTS2012D50111 

Organization: Foundation for Deep Ecology, George Wuerthner 

Received: 4/23/2012 3:28:50 PM 

Commenter1: George Wuerthner - Eugene, Oregon 97403 (United States) 

Organization1:Foundation for Deep Ecology 

Commenter Type: Affiliation Only 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 
Final OSTS PEIS 711 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 4/25/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50111.htm (OSTS2012D50111-58534.htm Size = 1 KB) 

Submission Text

<([#1 [2.3.1] [3.1.1] I think exploration for oil shales should be excluded from all WSAs, 

ACECs, sage grouse habitat, and any other special lands. I would prefer no leasing to occur, but 

if leasing must occur than limiting it to the smallest area possible is my choice. Therefore I 

support Alternative 3 is the best alternative of those proposed. #1])>

OSTS2012D50112 

Organization: Walt Speirs 

Received: 4/23/2012 4:05:45 PM 

Commenter1: Walt Speirs - Grand Junction, Colorado (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/1/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50112.htm (OSTS2012D50112-58536.htm Size = 1 KB) 

Submission Text

<([#1 [2.3.1] Would like to see the BLM minimize the amount of oil shale and tar sands 

development, until some good hard environmental data is obtained through Environmental 

Impact assessments. Very disappointed with our local Mesa County, Colorado decision on this 

topic which I feel does not represent the majority view here. #1])> Thanks, Walt Speirs 

OSTS2012D50113 

Organization: Mary Wolfe 

Received: 4/23/2012 4:36:14 PM 

Commenter1: Mary Wolfe - Durango , Colorado 81301 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 4/25/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50113.htm (OSTS2012D50113-58538.htm Size = 1 KB) 

Submission Text

<([#1 [2.3.1] [12] In regard to the development of tar sands and oil shale in this area, I ask that 

the BLM choose Alternative 1; the No Action Alternative [I believe commenter is confused and 

supports Alt 3]. Tar sands oil is one of the dirtiest and most corrosive forms of oil. The extraction 

process completely devastates land; removing the oil and leaving the land unusable. Production 

of tar sands oil “generates three times the global warming pollution of conventional crude 
Final OSTS PEIS 712 

production”. Extraction of tar sands oil is also very energy-intensive and costly and the refining 

process also uses obscene amounts of energy and water. Increasing the production of such dirty, 

energy inefficient oil would be outrageous. If the devastation that tar sands extraction will have 

on the environment isn’t enough, the lack of knowledge that we have about oil shale should be 

reason not to pursue this request. We know very little about the environmental impacts of oil 

shale production. As this PEIS states repeatedly, there are still many fundamental questions 

about the environmental implications that remain unanswered. There is not enough information 

available about the impact that extraction will have on “water quality and quantity”. Allowing 

this land to become available for leasing would not only have devastating, irreversible impacts 

on the land, but there is not enough known about oil shale production to reasonably allow this 

type of project. #1])>

OSTS2012D50114 

Organization: Andy Mueller 

Received: 4/23/2012 8:01:15 PM 

Commenter1: Andy Mueller - Ogden, Utah 84401 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 4/25/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50114.htm (OSTS2012D50114-58540.htm Size = 1 KB) 

Submission Text

<([#1 [12] I am to ally against the development of Oil Shale and Tar Sands energy. It is a 

hopeless source of energy, that isn’t viable, sustainable, or realistic. Please don’t tear up our 

lands for this crazy scheme so the oil companies can line their pockets with dirty money. #1])>

OSTS2012D50115 

Organization: Marilyn Mueller 

Received: 4/23/2012 8:02:15 PM 

Commenter1: Marilyn Mueller - Ogden, Utah 84401 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 4/25/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50115.htm (OSTS2012D50115-58542.htm Size = 1 KB) 

Submission Text

<([#1 [12] I am against the development of Oil Shale and Tar Sands. It is an all around BAD 

IDEA. #1])>
Final OSTS PEIS 713 

OSTS2012D50116 

Organization: Carrizo Valley Ranch, sid goodloe 

Received: 4/23/2012 10:18:05 PM 

Commenter1: sid goodloe - Capitan, New Mexico 88316 (United States) 

Organization1:Carrizo Valley Ranch 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 4/25/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50116.htm (OSTS2012D50116-58544.htm Size = 1 KB) 

Submission Text

<([#1 [2.3.1] The common sense way to go--in an environmentally sensetive way. #1])>

OSTS2012D50117 

Organization: Kristen Child 

Received: 4/24/2012 9:54:04 AM 

Commenter1: Kristen Child - Salt Lake City, Utah 84103 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 4/25/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50117.htm (OSTS2012D50117-58546.htm Size = 1 KB) 

Submission Text

<([#1 [3.10.3] Ensuring our limited open spaces in the United States are utilized, we must take 

the time to study the land and the impact of what drilling would do to it. Is drilling really the best 

LONG TERM economical, environmental, energy producing option? Would it benefit our 

economy more than the current jobs in that area? If the answer to those questions is yes, then we 

should consider drilling. However, Utah has enough ghost mining towns as it is. Most mining is 

not sustainabe long term. It is a superficial way to bring money to a community. If we are going 

to completely disrupt the ecosystem and economy to a region, it is imperative we study the 

effects, using NON-BIAS, NON-POLITICAL methods and agencies. This is not the time for our 

government to use our land and our heritage to leave their legacy behind. It is the time for us as 

American citizens to use our God and country-given rights to ensure our lands, our history, and 

our futures are protected. #1])>

OSTS2012D50118 

Organization: Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, Roger Kuster 

Received: 4/24/2012 10:06:58 AM 

Commenter1: Roger Kuster - Denver , Colorado 802461530 (United States) 

Organization1:Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment 
Final OSTS PEIS 714 

Commenter Type: Coop Agency - State Govt 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 4/25/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50118.htm (OSTS2012D50118-58548.htm Size = 3 KB) 

Submission Text

<([#1 [4.2] [3.4.1] [3.10.2] The Water Quality Control Division (Division) of the Colorado 

Department of Public Health and Environment continues to be concerned that the Draft PEIS 

inadequately addresses the cumulative impacts of the development of the oil shale and tar sands 

on water quality in Colorado. Specifically, the Division is concerned with the socioeconomic 

impacts related to public water systems and wastewater systems with respect to increased 

populations that will occur with development of oil shale resources in Colorado. While the PEIS 

discusses water withdrawals that will occur from the extraction activities, it does not take into 

account the additional stress upon water and wastewater infrastructure in nearby communities 

from both population growth and potentially reduced surface water flows due to extraction 

activities. In order to address this issue, the Draft PEIS should incorporate the projected 

population growth due to the extractive industries in communities near the leases. #1])> <([#2

[3.4.5] The water withdrawals discussed in the Draft PEIS do not take into account the effect that 

reduced instream water flow could have upon NPDES permits. For example, the PEIS does not 

address the potential impact to wastewater facilities from water withdrawals upstream of a 

wastewater facility and the concomitant reduction in NPDES permit limits that result. #2])>

<([#3 [3.4.6] In Section 3.4.1.2, the Draft PEIS focuses on salinity as the key parameter for 

potential water quality impairment in the Colorado River Basin. The Division agrees that salinity 

is a significant concern in the Colorado River Basin, but is concerned that the Draft PEIS does 

not significantly discuss the potential contribution of other contaminants to area waters from the 

proposed extraction activities. The Division is especially concerned about the potential of 

increased selenium loading to area waters from the proposed extraction activities. #3])> <([#4

[3.4.5] In Section 3.4.1.3, the 303(d) list of impaired water bodies needs to be updated to the 

current 2012 303(d) List. The current 2012 303(d) List for Colorado can be found in the Water 

Quality Control Commission Regulation No. 93 

(http://www.cdphe.state.co.us/regulations/wqccregs/93_2012(03).pdf). #4])> <([#5 [3.4.5] In 

Section 4.5.1, the Draft PEIS indicates that runoff from surface disturbances related to oil shale 

operations would be non-point sources. In fact, disturbances of one acre or more during 

construction would require a point source stormwater permit. This error is repeated in section 

4.5.1.1. 

#5])>

OSTS2012D50119 

Organization: Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, Roger Kuster 

Received: 4/24/2012 11:46:15 AM 

Commenter1: Roger Kuster - Denver, Colorado 802461530 (United States) 

Organization1:Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment 

Commenter Type: Coop Agency - State Govt 

Classification: 
Final OSTS PEIS 715 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/2/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50119.htm (OSTS2012D50119-58550.htm Size = 1 KB) 

Submission Text

<([#1 [3.10.2] The Division of Environmental Health and Sustainabilty (previously the 

Consumer Protection Division)submits the following comments: Labor camp housing is only 

inspected on a complaint basis. The Labor Camp regulations are the authority used to address 

man camps.The Labor Camp regulations were adopted in 1968 and a revision may be needed to 

address issues relative to amn camps. #1])>

OSTS2012D50120 

Organization: 

Received: 4/24/2012 12:11:13 PM 

Commenter1: - , (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: 

Submission Category: 035a_Campaign 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: Form Letter 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 4/25/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50120.htm (OSTS2012D50120-58552.htm Size = 2 KB) 

Submission Text

<([#1 [3] I am deeply concerned about the potential effects to our water, wildlife, communities 

and public lands if the BLM initiates a commercial oil shale leasing program. The two million 

acres in UT, WY and CO previously allocated for commercial leasing is a massive amount of 

public, taxpayer land that would be sacrificed for a singular use of the landscape. #1])> <([#2

[2.2] [12.3] While the preferred alternative (Alternative 2) is a step in the right direction, BLM 

should consider an alternative that does not endorse giveaways of public lands to this unproven 

industry. #2])> <([#3 [3] Oil shale is currently producing no jobs and no revenue. The 

Congressional Budget Office confirmed that it is not expected to produce significant revenues 

through 2022. This means we have time to thoroughly assess the impacts of development to our 

water, wildlife and communities, and should not rush now to give away public lands. #3])> <([#4

[3.10.4] The land overlying oil shale resources in Utah, Colorado and Wyoming is some of the 

best wildlife habitat in the West. Outdoor recreation and tourism are huge economic drivers that 

depend on this habitat. The farming and ranching sectors require reliable access to water 

resources, which may be depleted by extensive commercial oil shale development. We must 

protect these jobs by making smart decisions about how we allow oil companies to move 

forward with oil shale speculation. #4])> <([#5 [3] I recommend that you carefully consider the 

serious impacts of oil shale production to our wildlife, water, air, and communities as you take 

another look at oil shale development. #5])>

OSTS2012D50121 
Final OSTS PEIS 716 

Organization: 

Received: 4/24/2012 12:15:19 PM 

Commenter1: - , (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: 

Submission Category: 035a_Campaign 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 4/25/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50121.htm (OSTS2012D50121-58554.htm Size = 2 KB) 

Submission Text

<([#1 [3] I am deeply concerned about the potential effects to our water, wildlife, communities 

and public lands if the BLM initiates a commercial oil shale leasing program. The two million 

acres in UT, WY and CO previously allocated for commercial leasing is a massive amount of 

public, taxpayer land that would be sacrificed for a singular use of the landscape. #1])> <([#2

[2.2] [12.3] While the preferred alternative (Alternative 2) is a step in the right direction, BLM 

should consider an alternative that does not endorse giveaways of public lands to this unproven 

industry. #2])> <([#3 [3] Oil shale is currently producing no jobs and no revenue. The 

Congressional Budget Office confirmed that it is not expected to produce significant revenues 

through 2022. This means we have time to thoroughly assess the impacts of development to our 

water, wildlife and communities, and should not rush now to give away public lands. #3])> <([#4

[3.10.4] The land overlying oil shale resources in Utah, Colorado and Wyoming is some of the 

best wildlife habitat in the West. Outdoor recreation and tourism are huge economic drivers that 

depend on this habitat. The farming and ranching sectors require reliable access to water 

resources, which may be depleted by extensive commercial oil shale development. We must 

protect these jobs by making smart decisions about how we allow oil companies to move 

forward with oil shale speculation. #4])> <([#5 [3] I recommend that you carefully consider the 

serious impacts of oil shale production to our wildlife, water, air, and communities as you take 

another look at oil shale development. 

#5])>

OSTS2012D50122 

Organization: Weston County Historic Preservation Board, Clara Varner 

Received: 4/24/2012 4:29:05 PM 

Commenter1: Clara Varner - Newcastle, Wyoming 82701 (United States) 

Organization1:Weston County Historic Preservation Board 

Commenter Type: Affiliation Only 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 4/25/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50122.htm (OSTS2012D50122-58556.htm Size = 1 KB) 

Submission Text
Final OSTS PEIS 717 

<([#1 [2.2.1] I strongly back the alternative 2B which will protect the most important historic 

elements from any commercial invasion. Please take note that many Wyoming residents are 

aware and deeply concerned about saving Wyoming’s historic resources for the present and the 

future. #1])>

OSTS2012D50123 

Organization: Lowell Wade 

Received: 4/24/2012 4:46:39 PM 

Commenter1: Lowell Wade - Wheatland, Wyoming 82201 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 4/25/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50123.htm (OSTS2012D50123-58558.htm Size = 1 KB) 

Submission Text

<([#1 [2.2.1] I agree with your approach to “go slow” with oil shale development, making 

industry reasonably develop and prove their technologies before allowing for commercial 

leasing. #1])> <([#2 [3.10.3] [3.10.5] However, I am weary of opening thousands of acres to an 

industry that, in 100 years, has never created jobs nor produced revenue: why should this time be 

any different? We don’t know if oil shale will ever create jobs for our communities. The barrier 

to oil shale is the same as it’s been for 100 years, the rock itself. Yet the oil industry wants more 

of our precious public land and tax dollars for their speculation. Outdoor recreation, tourism, and 

agriculture are huge economic drivers in Wyoming. We must protect these jobs by making smart 

decisions about how we allow oil companies to move forward with oil shale speculation on our 

lands. #2])> <([#3 [3.4.1] We already face chronic water shortages in the arid steppes of 

Wyoming. We have no clear answers from industry about what potential oil shale development 

would mean for our water. It is simply not worth gambling away our water and real jobs we have 

now in farming and ranching. The people of Wyoming deserve better than speculation and 

unavoidable environmental degradation. We deserve our open spaces, water, and agricultural 

heritage that we all value. #3])> Thanks for listening. 

OSTS2012D50124 

Organization: AHW, WOC, Thomas Bell 

Received: 4/24/2012 5:28:15 PM 

Commenter1: Thomas Bell - Lander, Wyoming 82520 (United States) 

Organization1:AHW, WOC 

Commenter Type: Affiliation Only 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 4/25/2012 12:00:00 AM 
Final OSTS PEIS 718 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50124.htm (OSTS2012D50124-58560.htm Size = 1 KB) 

Submission Text

<([#1 [3.4.1] I am very familiar with this whole area and it is too important to tear up for oil 

shale. Besides where will the project get its water. #1])>

OSTS2012D50125 

Organization: Alliance for Historic Wyoming, Lesley Wischmann 

Received: 4/24/2012 6:07:49 PM 

Commenter1: Lesley Wischmann - Laramie, Wyoming 82070 (United States) 

Organization1:Alliance for Historic Wyoming 

Commenter Type: Historic / Cultural Resources Org 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 4/26/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50125.htm (OSTS2012D50125-58592.htm Size = 1 KB) 

PEIS_comments_OSTS2012D50125.doc (OSTS2012D50125-58591.doc Size = 273 KB) 

Submission Text

See Attachment. 

Lesley Wischmann 

Alliance for Historic Wyoming 

712 South Second Street 

Laramie, WY 82070 

307.742.5449 

lesleywisch@wyoming.com 

24 Apr 2012 

Mr. Michael Nedd, BLM Assistant Director 

Minerals, Realty and Resource Protection 

1849 “C” Street NW 

Washington, DC 20240 

Dear Mr Nedd: 

Thank you for this opportunity to comment on the Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact 

Statement for Oil Shale and Tar Sands Development in Wyoming. Please consider these the 

formal comments of the Alliance for Historic Wyoming (AHW), a statewide nonprofit 

organization dedicated to preserving our historic and cultural resources. We work with citizens 

around the state and across the country who are concerned about ensuring Wyoming’s 
Final OSTS PEIS 719 

irreplaceable historic resources exist for future generations. 

<([#1 [1.1] [3.9.2] As this project goes forward, we ask that AHW be considered an interested 

party at every stage of this process for all consultations under Section 106 of the National 

Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) as amended, and implementing regulations 36 CFR 

800.2(c)(5) and 800.3(f)(3). You may use the above listed address, phone number and email 

address to contact us as part of the Section 106 consultations. As you know, NHPA’s Section 

106 process recognizes that “the views of the public are essential to informed Federal decision 

making” and agencies are required to “seek and consider the views of the public in a manner that 

reflects the nature and complexity of the undertaking and its effects on historic properties, [and] 

the likely interest of the public in the effects on historic properties.” 36 CFR § 800.2(d)(1) 

Likewise, the Historic Sites Act of 1935 states that: “It is a national policy to preserve for public 

use historic sites, buildings, and objects of national significance for their inspiration and benefit 

of the people of the United States.” In the case of this project, we expect that interest could be 

especially high because of the nature of the potentially affected resources – the National Historic 

Trails, in particular – as well as the dramatically different nature of this potential undertaking 

from any that has previously been done in Wyoming. Therefore, we encourage you to reach out 

to the various nonprofit organizations dedicated to working on historic and prehistoric resources 

in this area, including the county historical societies, the certified local government 

organizations, TRACKS Across Wyoming, the Lincoln Highway Association and the local 

museums and tourism offices. Each of these groups will have valuable input to add to the Section 

106 process. 

#1])>

<([#2 [1.2] [3.9.3] We also want to encourage you to ensure that extensive and effective outreach 

be made to the affected tribes as early as possible in this process so that they might have the 

opportunity to do extensive on-the-ground surveys to identify landscape-wide cultural sites of 

importance to them. As you may be aware, it is often the case that the prehistoric and cultural 

features identified by SHPOs do not come close to being as inclusive as the sites identified by 

THPOs and tribal elders. Tribes often have not had the opportunity to do extensive ground 

surveys for decades or longer. Only through this kind of examination can they adequately 

contribute to the process of protecting their sacred sites in accordance with Executive Order 

13007. We would also remind you that EO 13007 defines a “sacred site” as “any specific, 

discrete, narrowly delineated location” that is “identified by an Indian tribe, or Indian 

individual determined to be an appropriately authoritative representative of an Indian 

religion....” (emphasis added) This secondary requirement of seeking identification by 

authoritative Indian individuals places a heavy responsibility on federal agencies to cast a wide 

net among the affected tribes to ensure that all potential sacred sites are identified. While we 

understand and appreciate that this level of consultation can be time-consuming and complicated, 

we believe that the need to protect these irreplaceable resources makes this process more than 

worthwhile. #2])>

<([#3 [1.1] As a representative of the Alliance for Historic Wyoming, I did have the opportunity 

to speak with Sherri Thompson about this project and appreciated her sensitivity towards our 

concerns and her willingness to reach out and offer us additional consultation opportunities. It is 

clear that the BLM has taken a very cautious approach to the potential for oil shale/tar sands 

development and we very much appreciate this go slow attitude since none of us have ever 
Final OSTS PEIS 720 

before dealt with an oil shale project and the technology itself remains experimental, with no 

proven track record of success. #3])>

<([#4 [3.4.1] Our concerns, in general, are concerns that I am sure you will hear from many 

others. In particular, the “dirty” nature of oil shale gives us great pause about this project. In 

addition, we are deeply concerned about how development of oil shale would affect the water 

resources in Wyoming, which I am sure you know is a high desert. Thanks to that high desert 

climate, we are blessed with the best remaining remnants of the historic emigrant trails – the 

Oregon, California, Mormon and Pony Express National Historic Trails. But the lack of water in 

our state is always a concern when development is proposed and with the changing climate 

patterns and our recent history of drought, it is doubtful that we can afford to use the quantities 

of water that would be necessary to make oil shale a viable commodity without seriously 

diminishing the water available for our communities. #4])>

<([#5 [3.9.7] Our specific cultural resource concerns center on the degradation of the historic 

trails and other cultural sites, including rock art and archaeology sites, which are being heavily 

impacted by the increasing industrialization of the I-80 corridor through southern WY. While 

many people look at this area and see only a heavily impacted transportation corridor, the 

Alliance for Historic Wyoming recognizes that this transportation corridor in fact tells the whole 

story of America’s development into a nation “from sea to shining sea.” It is along this corridor 

that one can experience the original historic emigrant trails, the shift in usage of the trails to a 

freighting operation (the Overland Trail), the connecting of the continent through the 

transcontinental railroad, the communications revolution that began with the Pony Express and 

continued with the telegraph lines, the first national roadway (the Lincoln Highway), the 

Eisenhower interstate road system and, more recently, the development of industrial wind 

energy. All of these advancements have helped to bind our nation together and southern 

Wyoming offers unique opportunities for interpretation and appreciation of these resources. 

When you look at these areas and the historic and cultural resources in them, we strongly 

encourage you to take this broader view. In particular, we believe that the BLM has done a 

generally poor job of evaluating Wyoming’s landscapes in terms of their potential for listing on 

the National Register of Historic Places as Rural Historic Landscapes or Traditional Cultural 

Properties. Very little consideration has also been given as to whether any of these areas might 

qualify as National Heritage Areas. Wyoming’s most iconic cultural feature is its wide-open 

spaces. Unfortunately, however, these vistas and their importance to our communities are rarely 

considered by the BLM when looking at the impacts of these large-scale projects. In our 

experience, the Section 106 process as outlined by the National Historic Preservation Act is often 

incapable of addressing these concerns. The Section 106 process requires that the participants 

define an area of potential effect (APE) and then address the potential adverse effects within 

those boundaries. But when you are talking about open vistas, it is impossible to draw 

boundaries around the space. 

#5])>

<([#6 [4.1] [5] [3.9.1] Additionally, we find the Section 106 approach increasingly inadequate 

when it comes to dealing with the National Historic Trails. The trails, by their very nature, are a 

single, contiguous resource that extends for hundreds of miles from their point of origin to their 

termination. When we are forced to confine our analyses to the impacts that occur within an 
Final OSTS PEIS 721 

APE, we are artificially segmenting these trails and doing irreparable harm to them in the 

process. In our experience, the Section 106 process is simply incapable of adequately addressing 

these cumulative effects. As a result of this recognition, we are now requesting that a mechanism 

be established to provide off-site compensatory mitigation for cumulative effects through the 

NEPA process. This not only provides an opportunity to deal with these difficult to address 

cumulative effects but has the added bonus of making it possible to provide grants to 

organizations that, for any number of reasons, might not be able to take part in the Section 106 

process, but which may well have new and innovative ideas about how to address the adverse 

effects. Should this project go forward, we hope that the NEPA documents will address this 

issue. #6])>

<([#7 [3.10.4] Our concerns about this project are not just limited to the environmental and 

cultural issues already addressed. We also recognize that cultural and historic resources are 

closely tied to recreational values and the socio-economic vitality of our small cities and towns. 

Wyomingites, by nature, are closely tied to their lands. We rely on our public lands for 

recreational opportunities. This extends very directly to the huge impact that tourism has on our 

state. As you may or may not know, tourism is Wyoming’s second largest industry, right behind 

energy development. And the fastest growing sector of the tourism industry is heritage tourism. 

Wyoming is blessed with a robust heritage tourism sector. People come from all over the world 

to experience “the West” in Wyoming. They are looking not only for our open vistas but also our 

historic ranches, our ghost towns, our unique little museums, our abandoned railroad spurs, our 

isolated cemeteries, our historic trails, our rock art and tipi rings, our forts and battlefields, and 

our natural landmarks. If they arrive in Wyoming and do not feel transported to another time and 

place, if all they see around them are the signs of industrialization that they can find in any other 

state, they will quickly move on. To lose this source of income would be devastating to our small 

communities, especially. As a state, we have experienced and absorbed and survived untold 

cycles of the boom and bust energy economy. What brings us through is our pristine landscapes 

and cultural assets which bring in the tourists with their tourism dollars. If energy booms are 

allowed to wipe out those assets, it is highly uncertain how we would weather the bust. 

Google some of our smaller towns along the I-80 corridor and you will see why we are 

concerned about giving the wandering heritage tourist the impression that there is little to see or 

do that cannot be found in a more densely populated and developed location. Take Superior, 

WY, for example. The website they maintain <superiorwyoming.net> explains their allure this 

way: 

We invite you to enjoy a modern day voyage into yesteryear to a town forgotten by time. Superior 

remains a diamond in the rough for those seeking real adventure in authentic old west 

sightseeing. In its heyday, Superior was a bustling town of over 3,000, lured by underground 

coal mines. Today, only 336 hearty souls keep this isolated “Ghost Town” alive. 

This is precisely the kind of description that calls the heritage tourist away from the interstate 

and invites them to explore. But if they are already discouraged by what they have seen while 

driving, they are likely to pass Superior by. Nearby Reliance, WY, depends on its historic tipple 

to create the same kind of draw. Built in 1936, the tipple was touted as being “the most modern 

all-steel tipple in the Union Pacific Coal Company’s extensive coal holdings” with “a capacity of 
Final OSTS PEIS 722 

500 tons of coal per hour.” Without the heritage tourists who stop to learn about a tipple, 

Reliance would certainly suffer. I would encourage you to visit the TRACKS Across Wyoming 

<tracksacrosswyoming.com> website and see all the fascinating little pieces of history that 

continue to thrive because heritage tourism is alive and well along the I-80 corridor. No NEPA 

analysis would be complete or adequate for energy development in this area if it doesn’t 

thoroughly examine the impacts such a project, especially a “dirty energy” project, would have 

on recreational tourism and the resulting potential for socio-economic loss. 

#7])>

<([#8 [3.9.5] As I am sure you know, Congress declared in NHPA that “the historical and 

cultural foundations of the Nation should be preserved as a living part of our community life and 

development in order to give a sense of orientation to the American people; [and] the 

preservation of this irreplaceable heritage is in the public interest so that its vital legacy of 

cultural, educational, aesthetic, inspirational, economic, and energy benefits will be maintained 

and enriched for future generations of Americans.” 16 U.S.C. 470(b)(2) and (b)(4) Moreover, 

NHPA states that: “It shall be the policy of the Federal Government...to foster conditions under 

which our modern society and our prehistoric and historic resources can exist in productive 

harmony and fulfill the social, economic, and other requirements of present and future 

generations; [and] encourage the public and private preservation and utilization of all usable 

elements of the Nation’s historic built environment.” 16 U.S.C. 470-1 (1) and (5) These findings 

place a high burden on our country’s land management agencies to ensure that all possible steps 

be taken to ensure the protection of our historic and cultural resources for future generations. 

AHW believes that no NEPA analysis can be complete or adequate if it doesn’t thoroughly 

examine the impacts that the proposed project, especially if it is a “dirty energy” project, would 

have on recreational opportunities, including the ability and desire to wander and discover the 

nation’s historic roots, heritage tourism and the potential socio-economic loss if such 

opportunities are sacrificed. 

#8])>

Thank you for your consideration of these comments. Should you have any questions about our 

concerns, please feel free to contact us. AHW looks forward to working with you as this project 

proceeds. 

Sincerely, 

Lesley Wischmann 

Founding Board Member 

Alliance for Historic Wyoming 

OSTS2012D50126 

Organization: Gabe Atiya 

Received: 4/24/2012 6:10:14 PM 

Commenter1: Gabe Atiya - salt lake city, Utah 84102 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: 
Final OSTS PEIS 723 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/1/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50126.htm (OSTS2012D50126-58562.htm Size = 1 KB) 

Submission Text

<([#1 [2.3.1] I am writing to urge caution in moving forward with oil shale and tar sand 

development. Although I am tentatively in favor of almost all ways to improve and expand 

Utah’s economy, I am concerned that this form of development is not the best way to use our 

lands and resources, nor the best way to improve the lives of our native citizens economically or 

otherwise. Although I am not an expert, cursory research suggests oil shale and tar sand 

development dubious propositions, which require a large quantity of water in an already dry 

region, and that long term environmental costs may not be worth the relatively short term 

benefits. I would favor continued research and development to immediately opening up lands for 

commercial exploitation. Contributing to my skepticism is also the unconvincing and 

overzealous rhetoric of the “drill baby drill” faction, who have yet to impress or sway me to their 

side. Until I can be given convincing evidence that this is a good idea, I certainly perceive the 

negatives to outweigh the positives of opening up vast scales of land to commercial shale and tar 

development. #1])>

OSTS2012D50127 

Organization: Douglas McAndrews 

Received: 4/24/2012 7:00:41 PM 

Commenter1: Douglas McAndrews - , Colorado 80610 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 4/25/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50127.htm (OSTS2012D50127-58564.htm Size = 1 KB) 

Submission Text

<([#1 [11.2] Oil shale development must proceed responsibly. Of course it’s a messy process, 

but harvesting anything is. Please proceed to allow responsible oil shale development. #1])>

Thank you! 

OSTS2012D50128 

Organization: Lakewood Fracktivists, Eleanor Jefferson 

Received: 4/24/2012 7:27:23 PM 

Commenter1: Eleanor Jefferson - Lakewood, Colorado 80226 (United States) 

Organization1:Lakewood Fracktivists 

Commenter Type: Affiliation Only 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 
Final OSTS PEIS 724 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/2/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50128.htm (OSTS2012D50128-58566.htm Size = 2 KB) 

Submission Text

To: BLM RE: Proposed Oil and Gas Leases <([#1 [3] I am not a a geologist or scientist and I 

have never considered myself an environmentalist. Never the less, a few things have become 

painfully obvious to me. The current state of oil and gas exploration and the State of Colorado, 

are no longer a good match.I was recently in Paonia, visiting a friend, and attended a meeting at 

the local high school, down the road in Hotchkiss.What was presented at that meeting was so 

disturbing, I will never forget it.Towns large and small, across the country, have been so 

adversely effected by the practice of fracking, they will never recover. Air pollution compared to 

that of Los Angeles, tap water not only undrinkable,but flammable and livestock and wildlife 

dying in the fields and on the banks of streams and rivers.Grasslands once productive, now laid 

waste. The organic farming community in the North Fork Valley is facing extinction secondary 

to the proposed leasing of 30,00 acres of BLM, otherwise known as public lands, on the edge of 

fruit orchids and vegetable farms. The town of Erie, only 40 miles north of Denver, as the winds 

blow, facing air pollution so severe that the NOAA (Boulder) report, requested by that 

community, could not soften the facts in front of their City Council on 2/21/12. Rifle, and its 

environs a total gasland. Scenic beauty gone and air that made me cough even as we stopped to 

briefly stretch our legs.Have we learned nothing from N.Y.,Penn.,Ohio and Wy. to mention a 

few?Rural residents there, in need of money, and unaware that there could be any secondary 

effects from fracking, have learned a disheartening lesson for us all. Plagued by respiratory 

aliments, reproductive changes and neurologic symptoms, including previously healthy children 

suffering the effects of Asthma, have found no redress from the drilling companies or from the 

state government sworn to protect their welfare. Is this the fate we want for Colorado? #1])>

<([#2 [12] The EPA is currently undertaking an extensive study of fracking. At the very least, 

there should be a moratorium on all drilling and all leases to drill, until this study is made public 

in 2014. Only than, can an informed public decide the fate of the State of Colorado and its 

citizens. #2])> Respectfully, Eleanor J. Jefferson, Lakewood,CO. 

OSTS2012D50129 

Organization: 

Received: 4/25/2012 6:22:27 AM 

Commenter1: - , (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: 

Submission Category: 035a_Campaign 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 4/25/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50129.htm (OSTS2012D50129-58568.htm Size = 2 KB) 

Submission Text

<([#1 [3] I am deeply concerned about the potential effects to our water, wildlife, communities 
Final OSTS PEIS 725 

and public lands if the BLM initiates a commercial oil shale leasing program. The two million 

acres in UT, WY and CO previously allocated for commercial leasing is a massive amount of 

public, taxpayer land that would be sacrificed for a singular use of the landscape. #1])> <([#2

[2.2] [12.3] While the preferred alternative (Alternative 2) is a step in the right direction, BLM 

should consider an alternative that does not endorse giveaways of public lands to this unproven 

industry. #2])> <([#3 [3] Oil shale is currently producing no jobs and no revenue. The 

Congressional Budget Office confirmed that it is not expected to produce significant revenues 

through 2022. This means we have time to thoroughly assess the impacts of development to our 

water, wildlife and communities, and should not rush now to give away public lands. #3])> <([#4

[3.10.3] The land overlying oil shale resources in Utah, Colorado and Wyoming is some of the 

best wildlife habitat in the West. Outdoor recreation and tourism are huge economic drivers that 

depend on this habitat. The farming and ranching sectors require reliable access to water 

resources, which may be depleted by extensive commercial oil shale development. We must 

protect these jobs by making smart decisions about how we allow oil companies to move 

forward with oil shale speculation. #4])> <([#5 [3] I recommend that you carefully consider the 

serious impacts of oil shale production to our wildlife, water, air, and communities as you take 

another look at oil shale development. #5])>

OSTS2012D50130 

Organization: 

Received: 4/25/2012 7:00:32 AM 

Commenter1: - , (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: 

Submission Category: 035a_Campaign 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 4/25/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50130.htm (OSTS2012D50130-58570.htm Size = 2 KB) 

Submission Text

<([#1 [3] I am deeply concerned about the potential effects to our water, wildlife, communities 

and public lands if the BLM initiates a commercial oil shale leasing program. The two million 

acres in UT, WY and CO previously allocated for commercial leasing is a massive amount of 

public, taxpayer land that would be sacrificed for a singular use of the landscape. #1])> <([#2

[2.2] [12.3] While the preferred alternative (Alternative 2) is a step in the right direction, BLM 

should consider an alternative that does not endorse giveaways of public lands to this unproven 

industry. #2])> <([#3 [3] Oil shale is currently producing no jobs and no revenue. The 

Congressional Budget Office confirmed that it is not expected to produce significant revenues 

through 2022. This means we have time to thoroughly assess the impacts of development to our 

water, wildlife and communities, and should not rush now to give away public lands. #3])> <([#4

[3.10.3] The land overlying oil shale resources in Utah, Colorado and Wyoming is some of the 

best wildlife habitat in the West. Outdoor recreation and tourism are huge economic drivers that 

depend on this habitat. The farming and ranching sectors require reliable access to water 

resources, which may be depleted by extensive commercial oil shale development. We must 

protect these jobs by making smart decisions about how we allow oil companies to move 
Final OSTS PEIS 726 

forward with oil shale speculation. #4])> <([#5 [3] I recommend that you carefully consider the 

serious impacts of oil shale production to our wildlife, water, air, and communities as you take 

another look at oil shale development. #5])>

OSTS2012D50131 

Organization: 

Received: 4/25/2012 7:13:06 AM 

Commenter1: - , (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: 

Submission Category: 035a_Campaign 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 4/25/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50131.htm (OSTS2012D50131-58572.htm Size = 2 KB) 

Submission Text

<([#1 [3] I am deeply concerned about the potential effects to our water, wildlife, communities 

and public lands if the BLM initiates a commercial oil shale leasing program. The two million 

acres in UT, WY and CO previously allocated for commercial leasing is a massive amount of 

public, taxpayer land that would be sacrificed for a singular use of the landscape. #1])> <([#2

[2.2] [12.3] While the preferred alternative (Alternative 2) is a step in the right direction, BLM 

should consider an alternative that does not endorse giveaways of public lands to this unproven 

industry. #2])> <([#3 [3] Oil shale is currently producing no jobs and no revenue. The 

Congressional Budget Office confirmed that it is not expected to produce significant revenues 

through 2022. This means we have time to thoroughly assess the impacts of development to our 

water, wildlife and communities, and should not rush now to give away public lands. #3])> <([#4

[3.10.3] The land overlying oil shale resources in Utah, Colorado and Wyoming is some of the 

best wildlife habitat in the West. Outdoor recreation and tourism are huge economic drivers that 

depend on this habitat. The farming and ranching sectors require reliable access to water 

resources, which may be depleted by extensive commercial oil shale development. We must 

protect these jobs by making smart decisions about how we allow oil companies to move 

forward with oil shale speculation. #4])> <([#5 [3] I recommend that you carefully consider the 

serious impacts of oil shale production to our wildlife, water, air, and communities as you take 

another look at oil shale development. #5])>

OSTS2012D50132 

Organization: April Wharram 

Received: 4/25/2012 7:45:32 AM 

Commenter1: April Wharram - Hightstown , New Jersey 08520 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: 

Submission Category: 035a_Campaign 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 
Final OSTS PEIS 727 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 4/25/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50132.htm (OSTS2012D50132-58574.htm Size = 2 KB) 

Submission Text

<([#1 [3] I am deeply concerned about the potential effects to our water, wildlife, communities 

and public lands if the BLM initiates a commercial oil shale leasing program. The two million 

acres in UT, WY and CO previously allocated for commercial leasing is a massive amount of 

public, taxpayer land that would be sacrificed for a singular use of the landscape. #1])> <([#2 [2] 

[12.3] While the preferred alternative (Alternative 2) is a step in the right direction, BLM should 

consider an alternative that does not endorse giveaways of public lands to this unproven industry.

#2])> <([#3 [3] Oil shale is currently producing no jobs and no revenue. The Congressional 

Budget Office confirmed that it is not expected to produce significant revenues through 2022. 

This means we have time to thoroughly assess the impacts of development to our water, wildlife 

and communities, and should not rush now to give away public lands. #3])> <([#4 [3.10.3] The 

land overlying oil shale resources in Utah, Colorado and Wyoming is some of the best wildlife 

habitat in the West. Outdoor recreation and tourism are huge economic drivers that depend on 

this habitat. The farming and ranching sectors require reliable access to water resources, which 

may be depleted by extensive commercial oil shale development. We must protect these jobs by 

making smart decisions about how we allow oil companies to move forward with oil shale 

speculation. #4])> <([#5 [3] I recommend that you carefully consider the serious impacts of oil 

shale production to our wildlife, water, air, and communities as you take another look at oil shale 

development. #5])>

OSTS2012D50133 

Organization: Gregory Behm 

Received: 4/25/2012 8:24:24 AM 

Commenter1: Gregory Behm - , Colorado 80526 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: 

Submission Category: 035a_Campaign 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 4/25/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50133.htm (OSTS2012D50133-58576.htm Size = 2 KB) 

Submission Text

<([#1 [3] I am concerned about the effects to water, wildlife, communities and public lands if the 

BLM initiates a commercial oil shale leasing program. The two million acres in UT, WY and CO 

previously allocated for commercial leasing is a massive amount of public, taxpayer land that 

would be sacrificed for a singular use of the landscape. #1])> <([#2 [2.2] [12.3] While the 

preferred alternative (Alternative 2) is a step in the right direction, BLM should consider an 

alternative that does not give away public lands to this unproven industry. #2])> <([#3 [3] Oil 

shale is currently producing no jobs and no revenue. The Congressional Budget Office confirmed 

that it is not expected to produce significant revenues through 2022. This means we have time to 

thoroughly assess the impacts of development to our water, wildlife and communities, and 

should not rush now to give away public lands. #3])> <([#4 [3.10.3] The land overlying oil shale 
Final OSTS PEIS 728 

resources in Utah, Colorado and Wyoming is some of the best wildlife habitat in the West. 

Outdoor recreation and tourism are huge economic drivers that depend on this habitat. The 

farming and ranching sectors require reliable access to water resources, which may be depleted 

by extensive commercial oil shale development. We must protect these jobs by making smart 

decisions about how we allow oil companies to move forward with oil shale speculation. #4])>

<([#5 [3] I recommend that you carefully consider the serious impacts of oil shale production to 

our wildlife, water, air, and communities as you take another look at oil shale development.

#5])>

OSTS2012D50134 

Organization: Leslie Ford 

Received: 4/25/2012 8:49:41 AM 

Commenter1: Leslie Ford - , Rhode Island (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: 

Submission Category: 035a_Campaign 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 4/25/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50134.htm (OSTS2012D50134-58578.htm Size = 2 KB) 

Submission Text

<([#1 [3] I am deeply concerned about the potential effects to our water, wildlife, communities 

and public lands if the BLM initiates a commercial oil shale leasing program. The two million 

acres in UT, WY and CO previously allocated for commercial leasing is a massive amount of 

public, taxpayer land that would be sacrificed for a singular use of the landscape. #1])> <([#2

[2.2] [12.3] While the preferred alternative (Alternative 2) is a step in the right direction, BLM 

should consider an alternative that does not endorse giveaways of public lands to this unproven 

industry. #2])> <([#3 [3] Oil shale is currently producing no jobs and no revenue. The 

Congressional Budget Office confirmed that it is not expected to produce significant revenues 

through 2022. This means we have time to thoroughly assess the impacts of development to our 

water, wildlife and communities, and should not rush now to give away public lands. #3])> <([#4

[3.10.3] The land overlying oil shale resources in Utah, Colorado and Wyoming is some of the 

best wildlife habitat in the West. Outdoor recreation and tourism are huge economic drivers that 

depend on this habitat. The farming and ranching sectors require reliable access to water 

resources, which may be depleted by extensive commercial oil shale development. We must 

protect these jobs by making smart decisions about how we allow oil companies to move 

forward with oil shale speculation. #4])> <([#5 [3] I recommend that you carefully consider the 

serious impacts of oil shale production to our wildlife, water, air, and communities as you take 

another look at oil shale development. #5])>

OSTS2012D50135 

Organization: Sam Todd 

Received: 4/25/2012 8:57:46 AM 

Commenter1: Sam Todd - , Colorado (United States) 

Organization1: 
Final OSTS PEIS 729 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: 

Submission Category: 035a_Campaign 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 4/25/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50135.htm (OSTS2012D50135-58580.htm Size = 2 KB) 

Submission Text

<([#1 [3] I am deeply concerned about the potential effects to our water, wildlife, communities 

and public lands if the BLM initiates a commercial oil shale leasing program. The two million 

acres in UT, WY and CO previously allocated for commercial leasing is a massive amount of 

public, taxpayer land that would be sacrificed for a singular use of the landscape. #1])> <([#2

[2.2] [12.3] While the preferred alternative (Alternative 2) is a step in the right direction, BLM 

should consider an alternative that does not endorse giveaways of public lands to this unproven 

industry. #2])> <([#3 [3] Oil shale is currently producing no jobs and no revenue. The 

Congressional Budget Office confirmed that it is not expected to produce significant revenues 

through 2022. This means we have time to thoroughly assess the impacts of development to our 

water, wildlife and communities, and should not rush now to give away public lands. #3])> <([#4

[3.10.3] The land overlying oil shale resources in Utah, Colorado and Wyoming is some of the 

best wildlife habitat in the West. Outdoor recreation and tourism are huge economic drivers that 

depend on this habitat. The farming and ranching sectors require reliable access to water 

resources, which may be depleted by extensive commercial oil shale development. We must 

protect these jobs by making smart decisions about how we allow oil companies to move 

forward with oil shale speculation. #4])> <([#5 [3] I recommend that you carefully consider the 

serious impacts of oil shale production to our wildlife, water, air, and communities as you take 

another look at oil shale development. #5])>

OSTS2012D50136 

Organization: Hazel McCoy 

Received: 4/25/2012 8:58:33 AM 

Commenter1: Hazel McCoy - , Colorado (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: 

Submission Category: 035a_Campaign 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 4/25/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50136.htm (OSTS2012D50136-58582.htm Size = 2 KB) 

Submission Text

<([#1 [3] I am deeply concerned about the potential effects to our water, wildlife, communities 

and public lands if the BLM initiates a commercial oil shale leasing program. The two million 

acres in UT, WY and CO previously allocated for commercial leasing is a massive amount of 

public, taxpayer land that would be sacrificed for a singular use of the landscape. #1])> <([#2

[2.2] [12.3] While the preferred alternative (Alternative 2) is a step in the right direction, BLM 
Final OSTS PEIS 730 

should consider an alternative that does not endorse giveaways of public lands to this unproven 

industry. #2])> <([#3 [3] Oil shale is currently producing no jobs and no revenue. The 

Congressional Budget Office confirmed that it is not expected to produce significant revenues 

through 2022. This means we have time to thoroughly assess the impacts of development to our 

water, wildlife and communities, and should not rush now to give away public lands. #3])> <([#4

[3.10.3] The land overlying oil shale resources in Utah, Colorado and Wyoming is some of the 

best wildlife habitat in the West. Outdoor recreation and tourism are huge economic drivers that 

depend on this habitat. The farming and ranching sectors require reliable access to water 

resources, which may be depleted by extensive commercial oil shale development. We must 

protect these jobs by making smart decisions about how we allow oil companies to move 

forward with oil shale speculation. #4])> <([#5 [3] I recommend that you carefully consider the 

serious impacts of oil shale production to our wildlife, water, air, and communities as you take 

another look at oil shale development. #5])>

OSTS2012D50137 

Organization: 

Received: 4/25/2012 9:07:18 AM 

Commenter1: - , (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: 

Submission Category: 035a_Campaign 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 4/25/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50137.htm (OSTS2012D50137-58584.htm Size = 2 KB) 

Submission Text

Dear Bureau of Land Management, <([#1 [3] I am deeply concerned about the potential effects 

to our water, wildlife, communities and public lands if the BLM initiates a commercial oil shale 

leasing program. The two million acres in UT, WY and CO previously allocated for commercial 

leasing is a massive amount of public, taxpayer land that would be sacrificed for a singular use of 

the landscape. #1])> <([#2 [2.2] [12.3] While the preferred alternative (Alternative 2) is a step in 

the right direction, BLM should consider an alternative that does not endorse giveaways of 

public lands to this unproven industry. #2])> <([#3 [3] Oil shale is currently producing no jobs 

and no revenue. The Congressional Budget Office confirmed that it is not expected to produce 

significant revenues through 2022. This means we have time to thoroughly assess the impacts of 

development to our water, wildlife and communities, and should not rush now to give away 

public lands. #3])> <([#4 [3.10.3] The land overlying oil shale resources in Utah, Colorado and 

Wyoming is some of the best wildlife habitat in the West. Outdoor recreation and tourism are 

huge economic drivers that depend on this habitat. The farming and ranching sectors require 

reliable access to water resources, which may be depleted by extensive commercial oil shale 

development. We must protect these jobs by making smart decisions about how we allow oil 

companies to move forward with oil shale speculation. #4])> <([#5 [3] I recommend that you 

carefully consider the serious impacts of oil shale production to our wildlife, water, air, and 

communities as you take another look at oil shale development. #5])> Sincerely, Heidi 
Final OSTS PEIS 731 

OSTS2012D50138 

Organization: Sonya Walters 

Received: 4/25/2012 9:54:32 AM 

Commenter1: Sonya Walters - San Rafael, California 94915 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: 

Submission Category: 035a_Campaign 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 4/25/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50138.htm (OSTS2012D50138-58586.htm Size = 2 KB) 

Submission Text

<([#1 [3] I am deeply concerned about the potential effects to our water, wildlife, communities 

and public lands if the BLM initiates a commercial oil shale leasing program. The two million 

acres in UT, WY and CO previously allocated for commercial leasing is a massive amount of 

public, taxpayer land that would be sacrificed for a singular use of the landscape. #1])> <([#2

[2.2] [12.3] While the preferred alternative (Alternative 2) is a step in the right direction, BLM 

should consider an alternative that does not endorse giveaways of public lands to this unproven 

industry. #2])> <([#3 [3] Oil shale is currently producing no jobs and no revenue. The 

Congressional Budget Office confirmed that it is not expected to produce significant revenues 

through 2022. This means we have time to thoroughly assess the impacts of development to our 

water, wildlife and communities, and should not rush now to give away public lands. #3])> <([#4

[3.10.3] The land overlying oil shale resources in Utah, Colorado and Wyoming is some of the 

best wildlife habitat in the West. Outdoor recreation and tourism are huge economic drivers that 

depend on this habitat. The farming and ranching sectors require reliable access to water 

resources, which may be depleted by extensive commercial oil shale development. We must 

protect these jobs by making smart decisions about how we allow oil companies to move 

forward with oil shale speculation. #4])> <([#5 [3] I recommend that you carefully consider the 

serious impacts of oil shale production to our wildlife, water, air, and communities as you take 

another look at oil shale development. #5])>

OSTS2012D50139 

Organization: Angela Davis 

Received: 4/25/2012 10:09:49 AM 

Commenter1: Angela Davis - Sonoma, California 95476 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: 

Submission Category: 035a_Campaign_Plus 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: Form Letter plus Text 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 4/25/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50139.htm (OSTS2012D50139-58588.htm Size = 2 KB) 

Submission Text
Final OSTS PEIS 732 

<([#1 [12] There are very few wilderness places left in the US with such beauty resonant with 

wildlife and and expansiveness. Some things should just be left alone....and this is one area. The 

land belongs to all of us, not the government, not commercial enterprises of this world.....but the 

people who share this land. To turn this land over to be pillaged is poor stewardship and has 

great potential to affect other necessary and natural resources of more value than oil......water, 

not to mention the habitat that lives there and the millions of people who enjoy the wilderness. 

Please (if that word means anything to you) don’t do this. I am part Native American Indian and 

watch, with deep sadness, the exploitation and raping of our land. Haven’t we done enough?

#1])> <([#2 [3] I am deeply concerned about the potential effects to our water, wildlife, 

communities and public lands if the BLM initiates a commercial oil shale leasing program. The 

two million acres in UT, WY and CO previously allocated for commercial leasing is a massive 

amount of public, taxpayer land that would be sacrificed for a singular use of the landscape. 

#2])> <([#3 [2.2] [12.3] While the preferred alternative (Alternative 2) is a step in the right 

direction, BLM should consider an alternative that does not endorse giveaways of public lands to 

this unproven industry. #3])> <([#4 [3] Oil shale is currently producing no jobs and no revenue. 

The Congressional Budget Office confirmed that it is not expected to produce significant 

revenues through 2022. This means we have time to thoroughly assess the impacts of 

development to our water, wildlife and communities, and should not rush now to give away 

public lands. #4])> <([#5 [3.10.3] The land overlying oil shale resources in Utah, Colorado and 

Wyoming is some of the best wildlife habitat in the West. Outdoor recreation and tourism are 

huge economic drivers that depend on this habitat. The farming and ranching sectors require 

reliable access to water resources, which may be depleted by extensive commercial oil shale 

development. We must protect these jobs by making smart decisions about how we allow oil 

companies to move forward with oil shale speculation. #5])> <([#6 [3] I recommend that you 

carefully consider the serious impacts of oil shale production to our wildlife, water, air, and 

communities as you take another look at oil shale development. 

#6])>

OSTS2012D50140 

Organization: R C. 

Received: 4/25/2012 10:34:20 AM 

Commenter1: R C. - , Oregon 97520 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 4/25/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50140.htm (OSTS2012D50140-58590.htm Size = 1 KB) 

Submission Text

<([#1 [12] BLM, U.S. citizens trust you to make wise decisions, and to protect our land. Please 

do so in rejecting any mining, drilling for oil, fracking....any processes that would endanger, or 

destroy the health of our forests, of the land, lakes, streams, or wildlife. Remember, it is the 

peoples land...not the corporations, or those looking to profit at any cost to the environment, to 

the land, to wildlife. #1])> Sincerely, Rosina Cretney 
Final OSTS PEIS 733 

OSTS2012D50141 

Organization: 

Received: 4/25/2012 10:42:04 AM 

Commenter1: - , (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/18/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50141.htm (OSTS2012D50141-58599.htm Size = 1 KB) 

Submission Text

<([#1 [12] I thought the title of this organization spoke for itself. SHOW RESPECT for the land 

and all that live upon it. We should NOT pander to big oil or other large corporations. Do not sell 

the land out -- protect it. #1])>

OSTS2012D50142 

Organization: Renee Reinhardt 

Received: 4/25/2012 12:05:58 PM 

Commenter1: Renee Reinhardt - Kalama, Washington 98625 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/18/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50142.htm (OSTS2012D50142-58601.htm Size = 2 KB) 

Submission Text

Dear Bureau of Land Management, 

<([#1 [3] I am deeply concerned about the potential effects to our water, wildlife, communities 

and public lands if the BLM initiates a commercial oil shale leasing program. The two million 

acres in UT, WY and CO previously allocated for commercial leasing is a massive amount of 

public, taxpayer land that would be sacrificed for a singular use of the landscape. While the 

preferred alternative (Alternative 2) is a step in the right direction, BLM should consider an 

alternative that does not endorse giveaways of public lands to this unproven industry. #1])>

<([#2 [3.10.3] [3.10.5] Oil shale is currently producing no jobs and no revenue. The 

Congressional Budget Office confirmed that it is not expected to produce significant revenues 

through 2022. This means we have time to thoroughly assess the impacts of development to our 

water, wildlife and communities, and should not rush now to give away public lands. The land 

overlying oil shale resources in Utah, Colorado and Wyoming is some of the best wildlife habitat 

in the West. Outdoor recreation and tourism are huge economic drivers that depend on this 

habitat. The farming and ranching sectors require reliable access to water resources, which may 

be depleted by extensive commercial oil shale development. We must protect these jobs by 
Final OSTS PEIS 734 

making smart decisions about how we allow oil companies to move forward with oil shale 

speculation. I recommend that you carefully consider the serious impacts of oil shale production 

to our wildlife, water, air, and communities as you take another look at oil shale development.

#2])>

OSTS2012D50143 

Organization: David Larsen 

Received: 4/25/2012 12:10:07 PM 

Commenter1: David Larsen - Layton, Utah 84040 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/18/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50143.htm (OSTS2012D50143-58603.htm Size = 3 KB) 

Submission Text

To Whom It may Concern, 

I have seevral concerns about use of public lands for oil production from tar sands and oil shale. 

The concerns are expressed below. 

<([#1 [9.3] 1) Modify the information on page 1-6 and justify the statement that oil production is 

“mature.” Oil shale and tar sands oil has never been produced in these areas. NEPA before 

leaseing is needed. #1])>

<([#2 [10.5] 2) How much will the US taxpayer get for the leases? The lands should not be given 

away. Roylaties should be at least as high if not higher than for conventional. The US taxpayer 

should get at least 16%. The information about leasing and royalties on page 1-2 should be 

clarified. #2])>

<([#3 [3.4.1] 3)How will tar and shale oil development impact existing oil and other activies and 

water use in the Pariette area as shown in Figure 1.2-2. Newfield Oil is already using a 

significant amount of water for a water flood project in this area? Change page 1-10 as needed. 

#3])>

<([#4 [3.1.1] 4) Tar sand and oil shale should be off the table in areas adjacent to national parks 

and monuments. The reasons seem obvious (recreation, encrouchment, air pollution and water 

pollution, wildlife wandering etc.). #4])>

<([#5 [3.5.7] 5) Text indicates climate is a factor.. As you know the Uintah Basin is already a 

non-attainment area for air quality. It seems oil and tar oil development will make things worse. 

#5])>

<([#6 [3.5.1.1] 6) Text indicates climate change is not considered. The impacts to climate change 

from development of tar sands are well known, with very large amounts of C02 beign emitted. 

The same will be true of oil shale - if not worse. Climate change is a valid issue to consider in 

terms of this document and in terms of future water availability and should be added as an item 

to consider in planning land use. The Nasa climate scientist James Hansen has said full 

development of the tar sands would mean it was “game over” for the climate. #6])>

<([#7 [3] 7) Modify the text and add a section that descibes the environmental impacts from tar 

sands prodcution in Canada. This has lead to a very large environemntal problems and the same 
Final OSTS PEIS 735 

problems would occur as a result of these activities in Utah, Wyo and Colorado. #7])>

<([#8 [3.9.7] 8) The beautiful lands on the south side of the Uintahs near Whiterocks will be 

highly impacted if tar sand is producded here. There are likely lots of archeoogical indian sites in 

this and other areas proposed for leasing or use that have not been idenified. How will these 

areas be protected? 

#8])>

<([#9 [3.3.1] 9) Have all important fossil localities been identified in the proposed areas? #9])>

<([#10 [3.10.3] 10) Will the EU and other foreign governmens buy tar and shale oil? How will 

this impact production? It seems that production of oil from tar and shale will be a big gain for a 

few and huge loss for many Americans. It will also lead to large environmental problems and 

consume large amounts of water in the very dry (and getting drier) west. #10])>

Dave Larsen 

OSTS2012D50144 

Organization: Routt County, Douglas Monger 

Received: 4/25/2012 12:41:00 PM 

Commenter1: Douglas Monger - Steamboat Springs, Colorado 80477 (United States) 

Organization1:Routt County 

Commenter Type: Local Government 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/24/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50144.htm (OSTS2012D50144-58636.htm Size = 1 KB) 

2012_Oil_Shale_and_Tar_Sands_PEIS_-_Comments_OSTS2012D50144.pdf 

(OSTS2012D50144-58635.pdf Size = 91 KB) 

Submission Text

See Attachment. 

The Routt County Commissioners greatly appreciates the Department of the 

Interior, Bureau of Land Management’s review of past decisions regarding oil 

shale leasing and development and offers the following comments: 

<([#1 [3.10.3] Routt County, Colorado is a neighboring county of the oil-shale rich Roan Plateau 

in the Piceance Basin. When commercial development of oil shale occurs, our 

region will again be the likely epicenter of oil shale development as it was in the 

late 1970s and early 1980s. 

In recent years our region was heavily impacted by natural gas exploration and 

production occurring in nearby private and public lands. Natural gas development 

brought siguificant growth to our region and placed considerable demands upon 

municipal infrastructure, resulted in a shortage of affordable housing and essential 

community workforce, caused material and labor costs to skyrocket and strained 

social services and law enforcement capacities. Full-blown commercial 

development of oil shale may have similar impacts to our region. 
Final OSTS PEIS 736 

Although we are supportive of the current Oil Shale research and development 

activities, given oil shale’s history in our region, the Routt County Commissioners 

want to ensure that we understand the impacts that may result from commercial 

production and from each company’s technologies on our region. Such questions 

as: What will development mean for our economy- both positive and negative 

aspects? #1])> <([#2 [3.4.1] How much water will be used, for what, and how will local 

watersheds 

be affected? #2])> <([#3 [3.10.2] How will our infrastructure, community services and facilities 

be 

impacted, including roads, water, sewer, housing, law enforcement, etc.? #3])> <([#4 [6.2.1] 

How 

will production activities be powered? #4])> <([#5 [3] How will the environment and wildlife be 

affected? #5])> <([#6 [3.1.2] What will be the impacts relating to hunting, fishing and recreation 

in 

the oil shale development areas? Often we hear anecdotal responses to these 

questions, but like the industry, we need factual data on which to base our 

planning and infrastructure investment decisions. #6])>

<([#7 [3.10.2] We want to ensure that communities expected to be impacted by commercial 

development of oil shale have the appropriate and necessary financial resources to 

address and cope with the effects of production. Our region has learned from past 

energy development “booms” that investment in community services, facilities, 

and infrastructure is needed many years in advance of commercial production and 

the associated tax revenue. Additionally, as governmental entities in Colorado 

have experienced increasing energy impacts in recent years, energy tax revenues 

that have historically flowed to local governments to respond to energy 

development impacts have been usurped by the State Legislature to balance their 

budget in this down economy. 

Routt County strongly supports action by the federal government to develop an oil 

shale cumulative community impacts study for the anticipated commercial 

production regions and dedicate funding to address the identified local impacts 

prior to approval of commercial production. Additionally, the federal government 

should develop an incentive program for oil shale companies to provide 

meaningful up-front and on-going investment in local communities and to local 

governments directly affected by oil shale development and production. 

#7])> <([#8 [2] Instead of selecting one of the alternatives put forward by BLM, the Routt 

County 

Commissioners request that whatever alternative selected requires R&D first. 

Additionally, we implore Secretary Salazar, BLM officials and our Congressmen 

and Senators to address the above mentioned issues through the federal regulatory 

or legislative processes to ensure that our region is prepared and will have the 

necessary assistance in place prior to the commercial development of oil shale. #8])>

OSTS2012D50145 
Final OSTS PEIS 737 

Organization: 

Received: 4/25/2012 12:59:52 PM 

Commenter1: - , (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/1/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50145.htm (OSTS2012D50145-58605.htm Size = 1 KB) 

Submission Text

<([#1 [2.1.1] We vote for alternative 1-allow commercial leases. You have enough rules and 

guidelines in place to assure protection of the environment, and to insure renewing the landscape. 

You can close off specific areas for protection. #1])>

OSTS2012D50146 

Organization: Cynthia Cannon 

Received: 4/25/2012 1:01:12 PM 

Commenter1: Cynthia Cannon - , (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: 

Submission Category: 035a_Campaign 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/1/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50146.htm (OSTS2012D50146-58607.htm Size = 2 KB) 

Submission Text

<([#1 [3] I am deeply concerned about the potential effects to our water, wildlife, communities 

and public lands if the BLM initiates a commercial oil shale leasing program. The two million 

acres in UT, WY and CO previously allocated for commercial leasing is a massive amount of 

public, taxpayer land that would be sacrificed for a singular use of the landscape. #1])> <([#2

[2.2] [12.3] While the preferred alternative (Alternative 2) is a step in the right direction, BLM 

should consider an alternative that does not endorse giveaways of public lands to this unproven 

industry. #2])> <([#3 [3] Oil shale is currently producing no jobs and no revenue. The 

Congressional Budget Office confirmed that it is not expected to produce significant revenues 

through 2022. This means we have time to thoroughly assess the impacts of development to our 

water, wildlife and communities, and should not rush now to give away public lands. #3])> <([#4

[3.10.3] The land overlying oil shale resources in Utah, Colorado and Wyoming is some of the 

best wildlife habitat in the West. Outdoor recreation and tourism are huge economic drivers that 

depend on this habitat. The farming and ranching sectors require reliable access to water 

resources, which may be depleted by extensive commercial oil shale development. We must 

protect these jobs by making smart decisions about how we allow oil companies to move 

forward with oil shale speculation. #4])> <([#5 [3] I recommend that you carefully consider the 
Final OSTS PEIS 738 

serious impacts of oil shale production to our wildlife, water, air, and communities as you take 

another look at oil shale development. #5])> Thank you. 

OSTS2012D50147 

Organization: Pitkin County, Michael Owsley 

Received: 4/25/2012 4:33:56 PM 

Commenter1: Michael Owsley - Aspen, Colorado 81611 (United States) 

Organization1:Pitkin County 

Commenter Type: Local Government 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 

Submitted As: Web Form and Mail 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/1/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50147.htm (OSTS2012D50147-58628.htm Size = 1 KB) 

BLM_Tar_Sands_4.25.12_OSTS2012D50147.pdf (OSTS2012D50147-58627.pdf Size = 694 

KB) 

Submission Text

Attached is a letter from the Pitkin County Board of Commissioners. See Attachment. 

@//) (~~ --------~--~---·---,~--~ • 

BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 

April 25, 2012 

Sherri Thompson 

Oil Shale/Tar Sands PEIS Project Manager 

Bureau of Land Management 

Colorado State Office 

2850 Youngfield Street 

Lakewood, CO 80215 

To Whom it May Concern, 

530 E. Main Street, 3rd FlOor 

Aspen, Colorado 8 l 6 l l 

phone (970) 920-5200 

fox (970) 920-5198 

<([#1 [2.3.1] Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on the Draft Oil Shale and Tar 

Sands 

Resources Programmatic EIS. Our comments are focused on oil shale development and 

research, as that is the resource that is predominantly present in Colorado. 

Pitkin County appreciates the fact that the Draft EIS incorporates an Alternative that responds 

directly to scoping comments we submitted in June, 2011. Specifically, Alternative 3 reflects 

our recommendation that an alternative be developed that limits leasing of public lands to 

existing research leases until such time as functional technology has been developed to the extent 

that true impacts may be accurately assessed in a NEPA process. 

The draft PEIS acknowledges that overall, “the current experimental state of the oil shale and tar 

SEtnds industries does not allow this PEIS to include sufficient specific information or 

cumulative 
Final OSTS PEIS 739 

impact analysis to support future leasing decisions within these allocated lands.” 1 We concur 

that more information must be obtained about the technological requirements for development of 

the oil shale resource, as well as associated environmental, cultural and economic implications, 

before committing any more public lands to broad scale commercial oil shale development. 

While we recognize that demand for fossil fuels is directly related to consumption, and that there 

is a need to produce oil and natural gas domestically as a matter of national security and the 

health of our economy, we don’t believe that energy resourc.e development should be at the 

expense of irreplaceable natural resources like clean air, clean water and an adequate water 

supply. Furthermore, new and existing energy development must be considered and analyzed in 

the context of cumulative impacts to wildlife habitat, human health, local economies and social 

cost/benefit. Based on the nascent character of the technology for development of oil shale and 

lack of definitive research and conclusions regarding cumulative impacts associated with 

development, we strongly recommend that the BLM adopt Alternative 3 in the Final PEIS. 

Alternative 3 will help to ensure that commercial development will n9t be initiated until a full 

understanding and evaluation of impacts is completed to a specified standard. 

1 2012 Draft PEIS for Allocation of Oil Shale & Tar Sands Resources, at 1-2 

#1])> 1 

<([#2 [3.4.1] Furthermore, we recommend that the Final PEIS provide direction that result in oil 

shale lessees 

evaluating/addressing the following issues in subsequent NEP A analysis: 

Water Quality and Quantity Oil shale production will likely utilize vast amounts of water from 

the Colorado River basin which is life-sustaining for all of the Colorado River Compact states; 

providing water for drinking by humans, livestock and wildlife, for irrigating agricultural lands 

and 

for outdoor recreation; all of which are critical to a resort economy upon which Colorado and 

particularly rural mountain communities depend. To assess oil shale production impacts to water 

quality and quantity, the Final PEIS should require that subsequent NEPA analysis determine the 

following: 

1. Quantity of water required for production annually;.and resulting impacts to the health and 

livelihood of other downstream and junior users; Impacts to fisheries (including Colorado 

River Cutthroat Trout fisheries), riparian and wetland areas and wildlife resulting from 

potential changes to stream and river flows; 

2. Level of toxins including but not limited to hydrocarbons, salts, trace metals that may be 

released and/or leached into streams, fisheries and groundwater as a result of production; and 

resulting impacts to fisheries, riparian and wetland areas and wildlife; and whether 

technologies are presently available to prevent salt loading and the introduction of other 

contaminants inte-the-Golorado River; 

3. Secondary impacts of large scale oil shale development (such as population growth; and use 

of power generation to extract oil from shale) on demand for limited water resources in the 

West; 

4. Impacts to recharge of deep-water aquifers in the event that in-situ extraction techniques 

. result in new areas of porous rock that function as shallow aquifers. 

While we support BLM’s coordinated work with the” U.S. Geologic Survey to analyze baseline 

water conditio’ns in areas where oil shale might be developed, we believe that it is premature to 

lease lands for such development before the impacts to water are determined. #2])>
Final OSTS PEIS 740 

<([#3 [3.7.3.1] [4.2] [3.7.3.6] Wildlife In addition to potential impacts to fisheries and streams 

that sustain all species of 

wildlife, the roads, pipelines compressors, tanks, drill rigs and general infrastructure associated 

with oil shale extraction and production will most likely result in overall loss of habitat and 

fragmentation of contiguous wildlands necessary to sustain wildlife. The cumulative impact of 

resource development infrastructure on habitat and wildlands contiguity must be evaluated.

#3])>

<([#4 [3.5.9] [3.5.3] [3.5.4] Air Quality Evaluate the impacts associated with the following 

aspects of oil shale production 

as it relates to air quality: 

1. Health and climate change impacts of dust created as a result of surface mining and 

associated truck traffic on roads; impacts of dust on snow as it relates to resort economies 

that rely upon snow for recreation-based tourism; 

2. Health and climate change impacts associated with power plant activity required for 

resource production; including but not limited to increases in ozone and nitrogen 

deposition; 

3. Impaired visibility on a regional level; and resulting impacts to tourism as one 

consideration; 

#4])> 2 

<([#5 [3.14] Overall Human Health Impact Evaluate all health issues and potential mitigations. 

Incorporate 

a health impact assessment which is a systematic, comprehensive methodology for assessing 

human health impacts. 

#5])> <([#6 [3.10.4] [3.10.2] Local Economy As a headwater area, Pitkin County has been 

diligent at a local, regional 

and State level, in protecting watersheds as a tneans of tnaintaining water quality and quantity to 

sustain wildlife, agriculture and our tourist econon1y. Rural resort communities such as ours and 

throughout the West are dependent upon the economic benefits of tourism, which is to a great 

extent reliant upon characteristics associated with clean water, clean air, healthy, intact 

ecosystems and vital wildlife populations on public lands. Additional NEP A analysis must 

weigh the impacts of oil shale development on rural and tourist-based economies against the 

economic benefits accrued to industry. #6])>

<([#7 [6.2] Social Cost/Benefit Finally, as a general matter in ultimately determining whether or 

not leases 

for commercial production of oil shale is appropriate, BLM should consider whether the amount 

of energy spent in oil shale production, as it compares to the amount of energy produced, is 

worth the potential impact to public health and public lands in the form of air and water quality, 

the overall health of ecosystems and wildlife populations; and tourism dependent economies of 

rural western Colorado. #7])> <([#8 [10.6] Also consider to what extent the production of oil 

shale will prolong our 

·ability to use fossil fuels, and whether the impacts associated with the extended timeframe are at 

a reasonable cost. In the event that public lands in western Colorado are to be sacrificed to 

produce domestic fuels, it would be prudent to stipulat~ that such fuels be used domestically, 

rather than sold on the world-wide market. #8])> <([#9 [10.6.1] Finally, as there is clearly a 

finite supply of fossil 

fuels, it is critical to ensure that the use of public lands for domestic fossil fuel production be tied 
Final OSTS PEIS 741 

to concurrent fuel consumption conservation measures - and that oil shale leasing, if found to be 

viable, is ultimately part of a long terril energy outlook and economy that also incorporates 

renewable energy resources. 

#9])> <([#10 [2.3.1] In closing, we emphatically endorse Alternative 3, as this is the only 

Alternative that ensures that 

no additional public land will be available for leasing of any kind until and unless technology for 

resource development and associated development impacts can be assessed and a determination 

made, that environmental impacts can be eliminated. Furthermore, we recommend that the Final 

PEIS require subsequent public review of standards that may be developed for commercial 

leasing as the direct result of data assessed from RD&D projects- prior to issuance of any 

commercial leases. We cannot stress enough our concern about potential impacts of oil shale 

· development ()ti air quality and implications for climate change, and ramifications of oil shale 

development on water availability that is already severely restricted in western states. 

#10])> Tharik you again for the opportunity to provide comments. Please direct any questions 

to·Ellen 

Sassano at 970-:-920-5098 or at ellens@co.pitkin.co.us 

“ 

Sincerely, 

PITKIN COUNTY RQ_ARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 

Jhrp1JV! ;# , 8/dvv1 

Michael M. Owsley, ChairmaY 

3 

OSTS2012D50148 

Organization: .Irwin Stewart 

Received: 4/25/2012 5:18:57 PM 

Commenter1: .Irwin Stewart - GRAND JCT, Colorado 81506 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: klett 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50148.htm (OSTS2012D50148-58631.htm Size = 1 KB) 

Oilshale_Talk_OSTS2012D50148.ppt (OSTS2012D50148-58630.ppt Size = 11061 KB) 

Submission Text

<([#1 [6.3] EIS should be based on Above Ground Retorting as well as Insitu Retorting. Insitu 

retorting needs vast quantities of water and electricity. #1])> <([#2 [9.8] The EIS should be 

scrapped and a new more truthful one written. It is wrong to reduce the amount of land available 

for lease based on incomplete information. #2])> <([#3 [9] Also, rules to protect the recourse 

from high grading should be incorporated. #3])> See Attachment - Powerpoint on Oil Shale. 

OSTS2012D50149 

Organization: K Terry 

Received: 4/25/2012 8:13:36 PM 
Final OSTS PEIS 742 

Commenter1: K Terry - , Illinois (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: 

Submission Category: 035a_Campaign 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/1/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50149.htm (OSTS2012D50149-58609.htm Size = 2 KB) 

Submission Text

<([#1 [3] I am deeply concerned about the potential effects to our water, wildlife, communities 

and public lands if the BLM initiates a commercial oil shale leasing program. The two million 

acres in UT, WY and CO previously allocated for commercial leasing is a massive amount of 

public, taxpayer land that would be sacrificed for a singular use of the landscape. #1])> <([#2

[2.2] [12.3] While the preferred alternative (Alternative 2) is a step in the right direction, BLM 

should consider an alternative that does not endorse giveaways of public lands to this unproven 

industry. #2])> <([#3 [3] Oil shale is currently producing no jobs and no revenue. The 

Congressional Budget Office confirmed that it is not expected to produce significant revenues 

through 2022. This means we have time to thoroughly assess the impacts of development to our 

water, wildlife and communities, and should not rush now to give away public lands. #3])> <([#4

[3.10.3] The land overlying oil shale resources in Utah, Colorado and Wyoming is some of the 

best wildlife habitat in the West. Outdoor recreation and tourism are huge economic drivers that 

depend on this habitat. The farming and ranching sectors require reliable access to water 

resources, which may be depleted by extensive commercial oil shale development. We must 

protect these jobs by making smart decisions about how we allow oil companies to move 

forward with oil shale speculation. #4])> <([#5 [3] I recommend that you carefully consider the 

serious impacts of oil shale production to our wildlife, water, air, and communities as you take 

another look at oil shale development. 

#5])>

OSTS2012D50150 

Organization: D. Staples 

Received: 4/25/2012 9:05:52 PM 

Commenter1: D. Staples - , (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: 

Submission Category: 035a_Campaign 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/1/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50150.htm (OSTS2012D50150-58611.htm Size = 2 KB) 

Submission Text

<([#1 [3] I am deeply concerned about the potential effects to our water, wildlife, communities 

and public lands if the BLM initiates a commercial oil shale leasing program. The two million 
Final OSTS PEIS 743 

acres in UT, WY and CO previously allocated for commercial leasing is a massive amount of 

public, taxpayer land that would be sacrificed for a singular use of the landscape. #1])> <([#2

[2.2] [12.3] While the preferred alternative (Alternative 2) is a step in the right direction, BLM 

should consider an alternative that does not endorse giveaways of public lands to this unproven 

industry. #2])> <([#3 [3] Oil shale is currently producing no jobs and no revenue. The 

Congressional Budget Office confirmed that it is not expected to produce significant revenues 

through 2022. This means we have time to thoroughly assess the impacts of development to our 

water, wildlife and communities, and should not rush now to give away public lands. #3])> <([#4

[3.10.3] The land overlying oil shale resources in Utah, Colorado and Wyoming is some of the 

best wildlife habitat in the West. Outdoor recreation and tourism are huge economic drivers that 

depend on this habitat. The farming and ranching sectors require reliable access to water 

resources, which may be depleted by extensive commercial oil shale development. We must 

protect these jobs by making smart decisions about how we allow oil companies to move 

forward with oil shale speculation. #4])> <([#5 [3] I recommend that you carefully consider the 

serious impacts of oil shale production to our wildlife, water, air, and communities as you take 

another look at oil shale development. #5])>

OSTS2012D50151 

Organization: Steve Latsch 

Received: 4/25/2012 10:12:56 PM 

Commenter1: Steve Latsch - Toledo, Ohio 43635 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: 

Submission Category: 035a_Campaign 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/1/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50151.htm (OSTS2012D50151-58613.htm Size = 2 KB) 

Submission Text

<([#1 [3] I am deeply concerned about the potential effects to our water, wildlife, communities 

and public lands if the BLM initiates a commercial oil shale leasing program. The two million 

acres in UT, WY and CO previously allocated for commercial leasing is a massive amount of 

public, taxpayer land that would be sacrificed for a singular use of the landscape. #1])> <([#2

[2.2] [12.3] While the preferred alternative (Alternative 2) is a step in the right direction, BLM 

should consider an alternative that does not endorse giveaways of public lands to this unproven 

industry. #2])> <([#3 [3] Oil shale is currently producing no jobs and no revenue. The 

Congressional Budget Office confirmed that it is not expected to produce significant revenues 

through 2022. This means we have time to thoroughly assess the impacts of development to our 

water, wildlife and communities, and should not rush now to give away public lands. #3])> <([#4

[3.10.3] The land overlying oil shale resources in Utah, Colorado and Wyoming is some of the 

best wildlife habitat in the West. Outdoor recreation and tourism are huge economic drivers that 

depend on this habitat. The farming and ranching sectors require reliable access to water 

resources, which may be depleted by extensive commercial oil shale development. We must 

protect these jobs by making smart decisions about how we allow oil companies to move 

forward with oil shale speculation. #4])> <([#5 [3] I recommend that you carefully consider the 
Final OSTS PEIS 744 

serious impacts of oil shale production to our wildlife, water, air, and communities as you take 

another look at oil shale development. #5])>

OSTS2012D50152 

Organization: 

Received: 4/26/2012 9:48:11 AM 

Commenter1: - , (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/1/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50152.htm (OSTS2012D50152-58615.htm Size = 1 KB) 

Submission Text

<([#1 [2.1.1] Please adopt Alternative 1. It is the only alternative that properly balances 

conservation and economic development. The restrictions and requirements in the other 

alternatives are unreasonable, and will unnecessarily block commercial development of a vital 

national resource. #1])> <([#2 [9.8] In addition, it is shameful that this PEIS is being redone at 

taxpayers expense, so soon after the 2008 one, when there is no new information of any kind.

#2])> <([#3 [1.1.1] Finally, I ask the BLM to please extend the comment period by 30 days, to 

allow review of the new leasing regulations due for release on May 15th. #3])>

OSTS2012D50153 

Organization: 

Received: 4/26/2012 10:23:49 AM 

Commenter1: - , (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/1/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50153.htm (OSTS2012D50153-58617.htm Size = 1 KB) 

Submission Text

<([#1 [1.1] That sounds like a threat when you say you are going to share personal information. 

What about free speech without threats? People should be able to share information without 

personal information being shared. You are the first site that I’ve heard do this! #1])>

OSTS2012D50154 

Organization: City of Grand Junction, Tom Kenyon 

Received: 4/26/2012 10:52:05 AM 

Commenter1: Tom Kenyon - Grand Junction, Colorado 81501 (United States) 
Final OSTS PEIS 745 

Organization1:City of Grand Junction 

Commenter Type: Local Government 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 

Submitted As: Web Form and Mail 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/1/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50154.htm (OSTS2012D50154-58634.htm Size = 1 KB) 

SignedLTR-PEis_OSTS2012D50154.doc (OSTS2012D50154-58633.doc Size = 98 KB) 

Submission Text

Please refer to the attached letter for comments. Thank you. See Attachment. 

April 26, 2012 

Argonne National Laboratory 

9700 S. Cass Avenue 

EVS/240 

Argonne, IL 60439 

Re: Draft 2012 Oil Shale and Tar Sand (OSTS) Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement 

(PEIS) 

Via http://ostseis.anl.gov/involve/comments/index.cfm 

Dear Comment Compiler, 

The City of Grand Junction (“City”) by and through the Mayor and City Council offers the 

following comments on the Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management (“BLM”) 2012 

OSTS PEIS. Please incorporate these comments into the official record of decision on that 

matter. 

<([#1 [3.10.2] Grand Junction and the Grand Valley of the Colorado River are filled with 

abundant natural beauty and natural resources. The City serves as the hub of commerce, social 

activity and health care for the Western slope of Colorado and Eastern Utah. We proudly serve, 

near and far, our sister communities and because of our regional importance we are both 

positively and negatively affected by the development in and around those communities and the 

greater region. 

Recently the City has been both benefitted and burdened by the exploration for and development 

of natural gas in the Colorado and Gunnison River basins near us. The exploration for and 

development of gas, some oil and other mineral resources has been an important economic 

engine for our community but it has also caused impacts to roads, schools, social services and 

virtually all publicly funded endeavors. Additionally, the gas exploration and development 
Final OSTS PEIS 746 

industry has created a shortage in housing and has strained already needy public programs and 

resources. 

The City experienced an oil shale boom once before and the aftermath of those events was to say 

the least not good. Because of that historical experience and because of the more recent 

experiences we have had with the gas and oil industry, we implore those that are deciding among 

the OSTS PEIS alternatives to step back and remember as is stated in the preamble to the 

National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”) that the purpose of an environmental review is: 

“To declare national policy which will encourage productive and enjoyable harmony between 

man and his environment; to promote efforts which will prevent or eliminate damage to the 

environment and biosphere and stimulate the health and welfare of man; to enrich the 

understanding of the ecological systems and natural resources important to the Nation...” 

2012 DRAFT OSTS PEIS – City of Grand Junction Comments 

By our comments on the OSTS PEIS alternatives we hope to encourage productive and 

enjoyable harmony between man and his environment and to stimulate our collective health and 

welfare. #1])> To that end we state the following regarding the 2012 OSTS PEIS: 

1)<([#2 [11] We are supportive of oil shale and tar sand research, development and 

demonstration (“RD&D”) projects. We conclude that additional RD&D is necessary and 

appropriate and that as a matter of Federal, State and local policy, public lands should be made 

available in 

sufficient quantity and with a reasonable regulatory structure that recognizes the importance of 

and presents an opportunity for responsible growth of the industry. #2])>

2) <([#3 [2] We recognize that reasonable alternatives are presented in the 2012 OSTS PEIS and 

that we do not possess the expertise to recommend one alternative over the other. What we are 

supportive of and would expect is that industry and the federal land administrators will come to a 

consensus position on an alternative that will allow the industry to grow but will not, absent a 

demonstration of the viability of the industry, to develop without regard to impacts and/or 

mitigation of those impacts. #3])>

3) <([#4 [9.3] Which alternative is chosen is not as important to the City as the development of a 

policy (whether applied via lease stipulations or as a matter of amendments to the BLM 

Resource Management Plan(s)) that requires a cumulative, regional impact study of any and all 

commercial activity as a pre-condition to and as a result of OSTS exploration and/or production 

and/or development. #4])>

4) <([#5 [3.10.2] A study(ies) must be performed before the impacts occur and must address the 

changes to the quality of life that will be/are visited on communities such as ours by the 

introduction of the commercialization of a new and valuable resource. From the silver and gold 

rush days to the first oil shale boom to the recent experience with gas exploration and 

development, the needs, the shortages and the aftermath of insufficient planning and more 

importantly the failure to invest before the full brunt of the impacts occur, is highly predictable. 

Because many of those impacts are predictable they are also preventable. We would ask that you 
Final OSTS PEIS 747 

help to prevent or at a minimum reduce the impacts from exploration and development of oil 

shale and tar sand resources. #5])>

5) <([#6 [10.5] The analysis and ultimate selection of an alternative must acknowledge that 

funding is crucial to the planning and mitigation of impacts. A pre-development, industry funded 

trust or other similar financing vehicle for the use and benefit of the communities ought to be 

advanced as a condition of all leasing. #6])>

6) <([#7 [10.6] The City Council strongly urges that the BLM, Secretary Salazar and our 

legislative delegation build a national energy policy that recognizes the importance of developing 

our oil shale, coal and natural gas resources and in turn reducing dependence on foreign oil. 

Likewise we encourage solar, wind, geothermal and hydro electric power development. As 

important as development of a comprehensive policy is, it must be written and enforced in light 

of and with the understanding of the impacts on communities and the environment that are 

associated with large scale development of any resource. #7])>

<([#8 [9] Please work to meaningfully develop and implement protections for our community.

#8])> Should you have any questions or if we may otherwise be of assistance to you as the 

matter proceeds to a record of decision, please let us know. 

CITY OF GRAND JUNCTION 

OFFICE OF THE CITY COUNCIL 

by: ________________________ 

Tom Kenyon 

Mayor 

Pc: City Council 

Rich Englehart, Acting City Manager 

John P. Shaver, City Attorney 

OSTS2012D50155 

Organization: Anastasia Fiandaca 

Received: 4/26/2012 12:15:40 PM 

Commenter1: Anastasia Fiandaca - San Francisco, California 94131 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: 

Submission Category: 035a_Campaign 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/1/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50155.htm (OSTS2012D50155-58619.htm Size = 2 KB) 

Submission Text
Final OSTS PEIS 748 

<([#1 [3] I’m writing because I am deeply concerned about the potential effects to our water, 

wildlife, communities and public lands if the BLM initiates a commercial oil shale leasing 

program. The two million acres in UT, WY and CO previously allocated for commercial leasing 

is a massive amount of public, taxpayer land that would be sacrificed for a singular use of the 

landscape. #1])> <([#2 [2.2] [12.3] While the preferred alternative (Alternative 2) is a step in the 

right direction, BLM should consider an alternative that does not endorse giveaways of public 

lands to this unproven industry. #2])> <([#3 [3] Oil shale is currently producing no jobs and no 

revenue. The Congressional Budget Office confirmed that it is not expected to produce 

significant revenues through 2022. This means we have time to thoroughly assess the impacts of 

development to our water, wildlife and communities, and should not rush now to give away 

public lands. #3])> <([#4 [3.10.3] The land overlying oil shale resources in Utah, Colorado and 

Wyoming is some of the best wildlife habitat in the West. Outdoor recreation and tourism are 

huge economic drivers that depend on this habitat. The farming and ranching sectors require 

reliable access to water resources, which may be depleted by extensive commercial oil shale 

development. We must protect these jobs by making smart decisions about how we allow oil 

companies to move forward with oil shale speculation. #4])> <([#5 [3] I recommend that you 

carefully consider the serious impacts of oil shale production to our wildlife, water, air, and 

communities as you take another look at oil shale development. 

#5])>

OSTS2012D50156 

Organization: 

Received: 4/26/2012 4:23:27 PM 

Commenter1: - , (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/1/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50156.htm (OSTS2012D50156-58620.htm Size = 1 KB) 

Submission Text

<([#1 [3.4.1] wake up people shale oil is not what they are interested in it is control of the water 

a much more valuable than oil in the future #1])>

OSTS2012D50157 

Organization: 

Received: 4/26/2012 4:26:00 PM 

Commenter1: - , (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 
Final OSTS PEIS 749 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/1/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50157.htm (OSTS2012D50157-58622.htm Size = 3 KB) 

Submission Text

<([#1 [2.3.1] As a supporter of Defenders of Wildlife and someone who cares about America’s 

wildlife and wild places, I am writing today to urge the Bureau of Land Management to protect 

millions of acres of public lands from oil shale development by selecting “Alternative 3” in the 

oil shale Draft Environmental Impact Statement, the alternative most protective of our public 

lands. I am pleased that BLM is taking clear and measured steps to restore order to the federal oil 

shale and tar sands policy. While the agency’s preferred alternative (2(b)) is a step in the right 

direction, a stronger approach is needed to protect our public lands. Alternative 3 in the Draft 

Environmental Impact Statement would not allow for commercial development of oil shale 

extraction until further research is done for a clearer understanding of its impacts on our public 

lands and the wildlife that live there. This alternative places important environmental and 

ecological areas off-limits to development and requires companies to prove their technologies 

and evaluate their impacts on communities, human health and the environment. The two million 

acres of land in Utah, Wyoming and Colorado being considered for oil shale development is a 

massive amount of America’s public land to be sacrificed for the development of a destructive 

and unproven energy source. #1])> <([#2 [3.7.4.10] These vast expanses of public lands are 

home to the iconic pronghorn, sage grouse, prairie dogs, golden eagles and other wildlife. They 

are also habitat that is key to the survival and recovery of the highly endangered black-footed 

ferret. #2])> <([#3 [3.10.5] Oil shale production is a dirty business that is not economically 

viable. The BLM itself estimates that its development would consume large amounts of water, 

cause significant air pollution and destroy thousands of acres of wildlife habitat. Oil shale is 

currently producing no jobs and no revenue. The Congressional Budget Office confirmed that it 

is not expected to produce significant revenues through 2022. The industry already has access to 

thousands of acres of public and private lands for research and development. We shouldn’t 

sacrifice even more western public lands for such a destructive and unproven energy source. 

#3])> <([#4 [3.10.4] These millions of acres of western public lands are vital to economies that 

rely on tourism and wildlife-related recreation. In Colorado alone these activities generate $3 

billion in economic activity. Protecting jobs and related revenue from these sustainable 

economies must be prioritized over the speculative investment in oil shale production on public 

lands. America’s wildlife and wild places are too valuable to squander on the destructive and 

unproven practice of oil shale development. #4])> Thank you for the opportunity to comment on 

this matter. 

OSTS2012D50158 

Organization: Brenda Williamson 

Received: 4/26/2012 9:38:19 PM 

Commenter1: Brenda Williamson - , (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 
Final OSTS PEIS 750 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/1/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50158.htm (OSTS2012D50158-58624.htm Size = 1 KB) 

Submission Text

<([#1 [12.3] Please do NOT hand over public lands to a dirty industry that is a menace to the 

public health and the environment. These lands are public -- this means they should be held in 

careful stewardship for all future generations, not sold out from under them. #1])>

OSTS2012D50159 

Organization: 

Received: 4/26/2012 11:12:06 PM 

Commenter1: - , (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: 

Submission Category: 035a_Campaign 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/1/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50159.htm (OSTS2012D50159-58626.htm Size = 2 KB) 

Submission Text

<([#1 [3] I am deeply concerned about the potential effects to our water, wildlife, communities 

and public lands if the BLM initiates a commercial oil shale leasing program. The two million 

acres in UT, WY and CO previously allocated for commercial leasing is a massive amount of 

public, taxpayer land that would be sacrificed for a singular use of the landscape. #1])> <([#2

[2.2] [12.3] While the preferred alternative (Alternative 2) is a step in the right direction, BLM 

should consider an alternative that does not endorse giveaways of public lands to this unproven 

industry. #2])> <([#3 [3] Oil shale is currently producing no jobs and no revenue. The 

Congressional Budget Office confirmed that it is not expected to produce significant revenues 

through 2022. This means we have time to thoroughly assess the impacts of development to our 

water, wildlife and communities, and should not rush now to give away public lands. #3])> <([#4

[3.10.3] The land overlying oil shale resources in Utah, Colorado and Wyoming is some of the 

best wildlife habitat in the West. Outdoor recreation and tourism are huge economic drivers that 

depend on this habitat. The farming and ranching sectors require reliable access to water 

resources, which may be depleted by extensive commercial oil shale development. We must 

protect these jobs by making smart decisions about how we allow oil companies to move 

forward with oil shale speculation. #4])> <([#5 [3] I recommend that you carefully consider the 

serious impacts of oil shale production to our wildlife, water, air, and communities as you take 

another look at oil shale development. 

#5])>

OSTS2012D50160 

Organization: Clark Mining Services, LLC, William Clark 

Received: 4/27/2012 11:09:11 AM 

Commenter1: William Clark - Centennial, Colorado 80111 (United States) 

Organization1:Clark Mining Services, LLC 

Commenter Type: Private Company 
Final OSTS PEIS 751 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/2/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50160.htm (OSTS2012D50160-58649.htm Size = 1 KB) 

BLM_OSTS_Draft_PEIS_CMS_Comments_27Apr12_OSTS2012D50160.pdf 

(OSTS2012D50160-58648.pdf Size = 137 KB) 

Submission Text

See Attachment. 

CMS 

Clark Mining Services, LLC 

Via Electronic Mail 

April27, 2012 

Comments Regarding: 

BLM Oil Shale and Tar Sands Draft PEIS 

<([#1 [2.1.1] The BLM should select Alternative 1 as their Preferred Alternative. 

Selecting Alternatives that reduce lands available for leasing (Alternative 2) or that 

require research, development and demonstration (RD&D) first (Alternatives 2b, 3 and 4) 

would likely eliminate the potential for sound development of certain projects. At this 

time, it is premature for the BLM to remove lands for potential leasing when teclmiques 

being developed or that may be developed are suited for specific geologic and/or surface 

conditions on lands removed from leasing. Further, requiring RD&D to be conducted on 

a specific lease first would preclude using a recovery technique proven acceptable and 

economical by one of the existing RD&D projects or by operations in another country. 

The fact that BLM administered lands would be available for potential leasing has no 

bearing on potential impacts from oil shale or tar sands development. More projects 

could lead to more impacts, but, as documented repeatedly in the Draft PEIS, each 

project would be subjected to rigorous reviews by local, state, and federal agencies. 

Potential impacts - in particular cumulative impacts -would be avoided, minimized, or 

mitigated and held below specific levels allowed by existing federal, state, and local 

regulations. 

#1])> <([#2 [1] This Draft PEIS is comprehensive and thorough with disclosure of the existing 

environment and the potential impacts from oil shale development. #2])>

<([#3 [9.2] This Draft PEIS also discloses regulatory agencies and regulations that are in place to 

reduce or prevent environmental impacts (Section 2.2.1 and Appendix D). However, 

with few exceptions (perhaps for the sake of brevity), little discussion exists concerning 

the role that most of these agencies have in approving oil shale development projects and 

the prevention of environmental impacts. Many readers may not realize the permitting 

requirements that every oil shale project would undergo. The Final PEIS should 

elaborate on these requirements. 

One of the exceptions can be found in a brief discussion beginning on page 4-52 that 

presents the state agencies that would regulate impacts to air quality and the reviews that 

each project would undergo. Impacts to air quality would be limited by these agencies. 
Final OSTS PEIS 752 

No oil shale project could operate without a permit that restricts air pollution. Currently, 

some of the RD&D projects are limited in scope to prevent impacts to air quality. 

However, other regulatory agencies and their permitting approvals are not discussed . For 

example: 

• The Colorado Division ofWater Resources (DWR) regulates the use of water in 

Colorado. Water rights, types ofuses, points of transfer, and points ofuse are all 

regulated by the DWR. Many of the decisions by the DWR, and by various water 

courts in Colorado, are open for public review. The regulation of water use in 

Colorado reduces the impact on all users of water in the state, and potential 

impacts to water from oil shale development would be mitigated by decisions of 

the DWR. However, the DWR is not mentioned in the Draft PEIS. 

• The Colorado Division ofReclamation, Mining and Safety (DRMS) was 

mentioned, but their role in preventing impacts to land surface, habitat, and water 

resources was not presented. Before any operation can proceed in Colorado, full 

disclosure of the operation, the methods to prevent impacts, and also the specific 

measures to reclaim the mining disturbances must be approved through a 

permitting process with full public disclosure. Each project must also post a bond 

sufficient to insure that the state could reclaim the disturbances should the mining 

company not. The DRMS operates under the Colorado Mined Land Reclamation 

Act, which is mentioned under eight of the categories in Table D.l “Regulatory 

Citations and Statutory Authorities.” It would seem that the role of an agency 

that regulates a significant portion of oil shale development activities and ensures 

no long term environmental impacts would be described in the Draft PEIS. 

• County regulations are listed in Appendix D. However, the requirements those 

regulations place on development are not. For example, Rio Blanco County, 

Colorado, assesses an impact fee on new capital facilities in the county as part of 

their land use permit process. This fe~ is based on the size of the operation and 

lessens potential impact to county infrastructure. Thus, the county collects fees at 

project initiation to insure, for instance, road maintenance. 

The concerned public should realize that any oil shale development will undergo 

exhaustive permitting at local, state, and federal levels; with most of the permit processes 

open to public input. The amount ofBLM administered land available for oil shale 

leasing has no bearing on the outcome of the permitting processes. However, restricting 

the amount of land open to leasing would likely eliminate the potential for sound projects 

and the refinement of recovery technologies. #3])>

Thank you for this opportunity to comment. 

Sincerely, 

/_<)~ 

W. Jack Clark 

Manager 

W. Jack Clark 

6052 South Newport Street 

Centennial CO 80111 

voice/facsimile 303/221-6588 

cellular 303/229-6030 

wjackclark@comcast.net 
Final OSTS PEIS 753 

OSTS2012D50161 

Organization: Bonnie Worden 

Received: 4/27/2012 11:18:41 AM 

Commenter1: Bonnie Worden - , 49720 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: 

Submission Category: 035a_Campaign 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/1/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50161.htm (OSTS2012D50161-58637.htm Size = 2 KB) 

Submission Text

<([#1 [3] I think it is important to Protect Public Land From Oil Shale Development. I am deeply 

concerned about the potential effects to our water, wildlife, communities and public lands if the 

BLM initiates a commercial oil shale leasing program. The two million acres in UT, WY and CO 

previously allocated for commercial leasing is a massive amount of public, taxpayer land that 

would be sacrificed for a singular use of the landscape. #1])> <([#2 [2.2] [12.3] While the 

preferred alternative (Alternative 2) is a step in the right direction, BLM should consider an 

alternative that does not endorse giveaways of public lands to this unproven industry. #2])>

<([#3 [3] Oil shale is currently producing no jobs and no revenue. The Congressional Budget 

Office confirmed that it is not expected to produce significant revenues through 2022. This 

means we have time to thoroughly assess the impacts of development to our water, wildlife and 

communities, and should not rush now to give away public lands. #3])> <([#4 [3.10.3] The land 

overlying oil shale resources in Utah, Colorado and Wyoming is some of the best wildlife habitat 

in the West. Outdoor recreation and tourism are huge economic drivers that depend on this 

habitat. The farming and ranching sectors require reliable access to water resources, which may 

be depleted by extensive commercial oil shale development. We must protect these jobs by 

making smart decisions about how we allow oil companies to move forward with oil shale 

speculation. #4])> <([#5 [3] I recommend that you carefully consider the serious impacts of oil 

shale production to our wildlife, water, air, and communities as you take another look at oil shale 

development. #5])>

OSTS2012D50162 

Organization: Brad Klafehn 

Received: 4/27/2012 1:04:01 PM 

Commenter1: Brad Klafehn - Denver, Colorado 80236 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/7/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50162.htm (OSTS2012D50162-58652.htm Size = 1 KB) 
Final OSTS PEIS 754 

Klafehn_OSTSEIS_Comments_OSTS2012D50162.doc (OSTS2012D50162-58651.doc Size = 

37 KB) 

Submission Text

See Attachment. 

Comments By Brad Klafehn, Denver, Colorado on 2012 Oil Shale and Tar Sands Programmatic 

EIS, April 27, 2012 

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the 2012 Oil Shale and Tar Sands Programmatic 

EIS. My name is Brad Klafehn from Denver, Colorado. I attended the May 4, 2011 Denver, 

Colorado Scoping Session on this EIS and testified publicly there. I am retired from the City and 

County of Denver Finance Office, and am the holder of a Master of Public Administration from 

the University of Colorado, with an emphasis on Policy Analysis. In the 1970’s, I was active in 

the oil shale leasing and regulatory arena as a staff member of the Colorado Open Space Council 

Mining Workshop. As such, I and others brought suit against the Department of Interior and the 

oil company lessees over the Programmatic EIS which was then being prepared as being 

inadequate. I also testified before Congress regarding oil shale leasing and toured the Piceance 

Basin lease sites numerous times. I was not involved in the 2008 lawsuit which forced 

preparation of this revision to the Programmatic EIS. 

<([#1 [2.2] While BLM is moving in the right direction by recommending that the over 2 million 

acres currently authorized for leasing be reduced, its preference for Alternative 2, making 

830,000 acres available for commercial development, is still too aggressive for an industry which 

has shown little ability to produce oil from shale and when data from the current R&D leases are 

so scarce. 830,000 acres represents 1,300 square miles of land. This is an obscene amount of 

public land to be tied up for potential commercial leasing, with all the uncertainties this creates 

for local governments and land administrators. #1])> <([#2 [2.3.1] It makes more sense from a 

public policy standpoint to adopt Alternative 3, restricting further leasing at this point to the 

areas surrounding the current six, and possibly nine, R&D tracts, if and when it can be shown 

that they can be developed profitably and environmentally. Alternative 3 would make available 

one-twenty-seventh of the land to be made available under Alternative 2. This is a sensible, 

precautionary alternative to Alternative 2, given that there is so little actual operating experience 

from the R&D tracts. Adopting Alternative 3 would let further leasing decisions be fully 

informed by the results of the R&D process, and would free the Bureau Field Offices from 

having to revise a bevy of land use plans for a commercial industry which may never occur. In 

the meantime, the industry owns sizeable quantities of private oil shale land which they can 

develop without federal leasing approvals. 

For the last 35 years that I have been observing the industry, the constant drumbeat from 

potential oil shale producers has been to grab as much land as soon as possible while conjuring 

visions of an immanently mature industry which would be ready to spring into existence were it 

not for governmental interference and restriction in the leasing and regulatory areas, given that 

the environmental impacts of full-scale, commercial oil shale development are said to be 

acceptable and manageable. As I noted in my Scoping Comments, this is the fairyland version of 

events. In reality, none of these assertions have come to pass during the last four decades, and in 

many ways, the current debate rehashes the same issues in the same manner from 35 years ago.
Final OSTS PEIS 755 

#2])>

<([#3 [1.5] In my opinion, the Bureau has done a better job than previously in providing citations 

to the relevant literature, but the analysis of that research data is superficial, the document has 

not incorporated much of this data into the discussion, and it still fails to present essential, 

critical real-life data. For example, in Appendix A, BLM seeks to describe the current research 

tracts, their technology, and impacts. But an examination shows that the only information 

presented comes from the 2006-2007 EAs and from operator-submitted Operation Plans. NO 

operational data is presented! Absurdly, the EIS contains statements like this one: 

“The next phase of the research was scheduled to occur in the spring of 2006 and was to involve 

a 30-day continuous operation of the retort using the Mahogany Ridge shale that is still at the 

research site. Over this period, additional data will be collected that will be essential for 

optimizing operating parameters for the retort, establishing reaction kinetics and 

thermodynamics to optimize yields, and more precisely evaluating the environmental impacts of 

the operation, including disposal of spent shale. (p. A-56, lines 8-13.) 

One has to wonder when this statement was actually written. “The next phase of research was 

scheduled to occur” 6 years ago? There haven’t been any developments since then that BLM can 

report to inform decision-making and the public? If this were a school paper, one would be 

tempted to give it an ‘incomplete’ and send it back for further work. If there have been no 

developments and no data generated in the last six years, then this speaks volumes about the 

unreadiness of operators to proceed in developing the resource, and thus, their lack of need for 

additional public land. If there have been developments since then, failure to present that further 

information is an indication of the failure of the EIS to present a reasonably accurate description 

of the known data and issues. In either case, the EIS’s justification for leasing 830,000 additional 

acres fails. 

However, the EIS indicates that this failure is a feature not a bug. Specifically, page J-6, in the 

analysis of Scoping Comments, states that the comment that “deferment of decisions [should be 

made] until RD&D results are available” is outside the scope of the PEIS. Surely, knowledge of 

specific impacts is exactly within the scope of the EIS and essential to a judgment on the 

desirability of proceeding with further leasing. By defining this issue away, BLM shows the 

bankruptcy of this process. 

#3])>

<([#4 [1.1] Likewise, at the scoping meeting, I recommended the formation of a technical 

advisory committee, such as the one that BLM had in the 1970’s, to keep the public and local 

governments involved and aware of technical developments. Speaking from personal experience, 

this was very useful in the past for me, as a member of the public, and others. However, here 

again, the Bureau has decided that this is ‘outside the scope’ of the EIS. This is ridiculous. BLM 

could easily commit to creating this group as part of the mitigation and stakeholder involvement 

processes, and it should do so as part of the final EIS. 

#4])>

<([#5 [4.1] In general, BLM has avoided addressing most of the cumulative impacts of its 

leasing decision by saying they are outside the scope of the analysis. However, if they are not 
Final OSTS PEIS 756 

addressed now as potentially setting an upper limit for development, when would they ever be 

addressed? What is a programmatic EIS for, if not for addressing programmatic impacts? 

#5])>

In what follows, I have specific comments on the impact analysis portion of the document. 

<([#6 [6.3.2] - P. 4-4, line 45: The water uses listed – dust suppression and ‘moisturizing’ spent 

shale (does the spent shale have dry skin?) are obviously consumptive uses, not 

‘nonconsumptive,’ as the water thus used will be lost to evaporation. This mistake repeats itself 

on p. 4-9, lines 32-35. #6])>

<([#7 [6] - P. 4-6, line 436ff: Does syncrude from oil shale have similar characteristics with the 

dilbit produced from oil sands in Canada, or Utah? What are the differences, as concerning 

viscosity and corrosivity? The Kalamazoo River pipeline leak seems to have been caused by 

corrosion due to dilbit. Will this be an issue for Colorado and Utah oil shale or tar sands 

transportation? #7])>

<([#8 [3.4.1] - P. 4-9, line 32-35: How much water is expected to be dewatered from 

underground mining operations? What are the exact water quality considerations and standards 

which must be met in order to apply this water in these ways? #8])>

<([#9 [6] - P. 4-12, lines 33-40: There is no analysis of pipelines required other than ‘feeder’ 

pipelines. If an attempt is not made to quantify these cumulative impacts now, when will they be 

quantified? #9])>

<([#10 [3.2] - P. 4-25, line 38: Pipeline breaks of any kind would affect water and soils – not just 

breaks due to ‘flood events.’ This is particularly true if the syncrude or dilbit is corrosive, a 

subject that the EIS does not address. #10])>

<([#11 [3.2] - P. 4-27, line 43: Toxic metals are subject to be being leached, as well. The text 

should be modified to reflect this. #11])>

<([#12 [5] - PP. 4-27 through 4-28, Mitigation Measures: This section should include a 

discussion of the BLM’s and the States’ requirements for reclamation performance bonds as one 

of the main mitigation measures for soil and geologic resources. 

#12])>

<([#13 [3.3.2] - P. 4-29: The discussion of the protection of paleontological resources totally 

ignores the role of the SHPOs – the State Historic Preservation Officers. #13])>

<([#14 [3.4.6] - P. 4-34, lines 1-2: Merely saying that “water may be obtained from major 

streams, groundwater, or reservoirs” is a tautology with no definable content. This programmatic 

EIS should include a programmatic analysis of the possible sources of water for commercial oil 

shale operations on the 830,000 acres it proposes to make available for leasing and development. 

Is water availability a limiting factor for development on this scale or not? The EIS cannot just 

punt this question into the future, as it tries to do by again claiming that the analysis is ‘outside 

the scope’ of the EIS (P. J-20, lines 26-38). #14])>
Final OSTS PEIS 757 

<([#15 [3.4.6] - P. 4-38, line 2: The EIS should acknowledge that injection wells not only have 

the potential to degrade water quality, but also to cause earthquakes, as stated by the USGS at a 

panel entitled “Are Seismicity Rate Changes in the Midcontinent Natural or Manmade?” 

presented to the Seismological Society of America’s 2012 Annual Meeting. #15])>

<([#16 [1.5] - P. A-61: This table needs to explain why ‘simulated in situ retorts’ are described, 

when actual data stemming from in situ retorting are available. For example, I have personally 

seen data from Anvil Points which indicated that in situ retort water contained arsenic in excess 

of 1,000 times the safe drinking water standard. This was obtained in our 1970’s lawsuit against 

DOI, but the data was placed under seal by the Court, and thus unavailable to those who were not 

counsel of record. In my scoping comments, I asked BLM to dig out that data and present it as 

part of this EIS, as it obviously has great significance for this analysis. This has not been done, 

calling into question whether this document is truly a scientific study or merely a political 

statement. (A schedule for the EIS handed out at the scoping meeting in Denver showed a final 

decision on the EIS was timed to coincide with a possible exit from power by the Obama 

Administration in January 2013. This information is nowhere to be found in this Draft EIS. This 

decision on future leasing is too important for its schedule to be dictated by re-election politics. 

The changes required to be made to this EIS may well push the schedule out past what appears to 

be an arbitrary deadline selected for political purposes.) 

In sum, this is a supposed programmatic EIS which resolutely refuses to conduct its analysis at a 

programmatic scale. BLM needs to re-examine its decisions as to which subjects are ‘outside the 

scope’ of the programmatic EIS and include them in the final EIS. 

BLM also needs to identify and analyze real data from oil shale operations from all available 

sources, and incorporate them into its analysis. 

Lacking this, this EIS will go down in the history books as so many have before it – as an effort 

to justify politically-motivated decisions without reaching the essential scientific and policy 

issues which must be addressed before undertaking a federal action of this magnitude. #16])>

OSTS2012D50163 

Organization: Wyoming Office of State Lands and Investments, Susan Child 

Received: 4/27/2012 5:29:52 PM 

Commenter1: Susan Child - Cheyenne, Wyoming 82002 (United States) 

Organization1:Wyoming Office of State Lands and Investments 

Commenter Type: State Government 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/2/2012 12:00:00 AM 
Final OSTS PEIS 758 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50163.htm (OSTS2012D50163-58655.htm Size = 1 KB) 

2012-004_OSTS_DPEIS_OSTS2012D50163.pdf (OSTS2012D50163-58654.pdf Size = 59 KB) 

Submission Text

See Attachment. 

Office of State Lands and Investments 

Funding Wyoming Public Education 

122 West 251 

h Street 

Cheyenne, VVY 82002 

Phone: (307) 777-7331 

Fax: (307) 777-5400 

s1finail@state.wy.us 

SENT VIA EMAIL 

BLM Oil Shale and Tar Sand PEIS 

Argonne National Laboratory 

EVS Division, Building 240 

9700 Cass A venue 

Argonne, Illinois 60439 

April 25, 2012 

Re: OSLI Project #2012-004 

Matthew H. Mead 

Governor 

Ryan M. Lance 

Director 

Draft Resource Management Plan Amendments and Draft PEIS for 

Allocation of Oil Shale and Tar Sands 

To Whom It May Concern: 

The staff of the Office of State Lands and Investments (OSLI) has reviewed the captioned 

document (PEIS) and offers the following comments relative to the proposed action insofar as 

it pertains to the mission of this office. 

The Office of State Lands and Investments (OSLI) manages significant surface and mineral 

acreage within the proposed oil shale project areas located in Wyoming. The Wyoming 

Constitution and statutes mandate that OSLI and the Board ofLand Commissioners manage 

these trust assets for both short- and long-term returns to the public schools and other 

designated beneficiaries. Accordingly, we view cautiously all federal land use allocations and 

actions that could directly or indirectly impede our ability to protect the underlying value of, or 

derive revenue from, those trust assets. OSLI manages state trust assets for two key purposes 

consistent with traditional trust principles: (1) long term growth in value, and (2) optimum, 

sustainable revenue production. That said, we are quite interested in any actions of the Bureau 

of Land Management (BLM) that could impact state trust resources. 

As stated in the document, the fact that commercial oil shale development technologies are still 

primarily in the research and development phase, and details regarding the specific 

technologies that may be used in a given area are unknown, it is difficult for us to provide the 

BLM Oil Shale and Tar Sand PEIS 

April25, 2012 
Final OSTS PEIS 759 

Page 2 

BLM with specific concerns relative to the direct/indirect impacts that our trust assets could 

encounter as a result of oil shale development and production. <([#1 [9.2] Aside from NEP A 

and other 

federal approvals, all oil shale project proponents are required to comply with the Rules and 

Regulations adopted by the Board of Land Commissioners in accordance with W.S. §36-2-1 07 

and W. S. §36-9-118, in the event that development occurs on, or it is necessary to traverse, 

state trust lands. 

#1])> <([#2 [9.2.4] Although the BLM’s management prescriptions for sage grouse core area 

protection are not 

consistent with the provisions of the Governor’s Executive Order 2011-5, the Board of Land 

Commissioners and OSLI will comply with all provisions of the Executive Order to ensure that 

all land use/management activities on lands under the jurisdiction of the Board of Land 

Commissioners provide for the maintenance and enhancement of sage grouse habitats and 

populations within the defmed core areas. 

#2])> At this time, we would encourage the BLM to carefully and critically evaluate the nature 

and 

extent ofthe proposed alternatives. My Office will look fotward to providing more substantive 

comments during the course of any project-specific NEPA analysis, at which time we will be 

better informed/prepared to determine how those projects will impact our ability to fulfill our 

fiduciary duty to our beneficiaries. 

We appreciate this opportunity to comment. If we may be of further assistance, please do not 

hesitate to contact this office. 

RL./sc 

OSTS2012D50164 

Organization: Sarah Waterson 

Received: 4/27/2012 8:04:36 PM 

Commenter1: Sarah Waterson - Fort Collins, Colorado 80521 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/1/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50164.htm (OSTS2012D50164-58639.htm Size = 1 KB) 

Submission Text

Hello, <([#1 [2.3.1] I am writing to ask the BLM to support Alertnative 3 as the smartest option 

to ensure our public land and parks are protected while still offering an option to continue 

research and development on oil shale and tar sands as an energy resource. #1])> <([#2 [3.1.1] I 

currently live in Northern Colorado and frequent our National Parks and Recreation Areas. They 

are national treasures. Though I understand our desire to access more fossil fuels, I worry 

tremendously about the short -sightedness in not protecting our parks for future generations. 

#2])> <([#3 [3.4.1] Perhaps even more worrisome is the amount of water needed for these 
Final OSTS PEIS 760 

activities. Water in the West is scarce and one of our most precious resources. Let’s use it as 

wisely as we can. #3])> Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Sarah Waterson 

OSTS2012D50165 

Organization: Christopher Lish 

Received: 4/27/2012 10:47:49 PM 

Commenter1: Christopher Lish - Olema, California (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/1/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50165.htm (OSTS2012D50165-58658.htm Size = 1 KB) 

120427_draft_oil-shale_tar-sands_peis_OSTS2012D50165.doc (OSTS2012D50165-58657.doc 

Size = 32 KB) 

Submission Text

Please see attached comment. See Attachment. 

Friday, April 27, 2012 

Draft OSTS PEIS 

Argonne National Laboratory 

9700 S. Cass Ave. 

EVS/240 

Argonne, IL 60439 

Subject: Please Choose Alternative 3: Don’t Use Public Lands for Oil-Shale or Tar-Sand 

Development -- Draft Programmatic Environmental Impacts State for Oil Shale and Tar Sands 

Development 

Dear Secretary Salazar, 

Thank you for this opportunity to comment on the Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM) 2012 

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impacts Statement (PEIS) for Oil Shale and Tar Sands 

development on our nation’s public lands. <([#1 [2.3.1] As a citizen concerned about the 

increasing impacts of climate change on our nation’s health and welfare, I am appalled by the 

notion of allowing oil companies to develop tar sands and oil shale projects on public lands. It 

would pollute our land, air, and water, and exacerbate climate change. Endemic, threatened, and 

endangered species would be lost. I urge you and your agency to select Alternative 3 in the Final 

EIS. 

“Our duty to the whole, including to the unborn generations, bids us to restrain an unprincipled 

present-day minority from wasting the heritage of these unborn generations. The movement for 

the conservation of wildlife and the larger movement for the conservation of all our natural 
Final OSTS PEIS 761 

resources are essentially democratic in spirit, purpose and method.” 

-- Theodore Roosevelt 

#1])>

<([#2 [9.8] I thank the Obama administration for its work to roll back dangerous provisions 

enacted by the corrupt Bush administration that would have opened 670,558 acres of public land 

for oil shale leasing and 430,686 acres for tar sands leasing in Utah alone, including some of the 

state’s most iconic wilderness-quality lands such as White Canyon and Fiddler Butte. #2])>

<([#3 [2.2] In the recently-released Draft PEIS, the BLM’s preferred alternative (Alternative 2b) 

proposes to make 252,181 acres available for shale leasing in Utah and 91,045 acres available for 

tar sands leasing. This is still too much! The BLM’s proposal would leave these lands open for 

speculative development that could foul public lands, air and water quality, and result in large 

quantities of greenhouse gasses. 

“Our government is like a rich and foolish spendthrift who has inherited a magnificent estate in 

perfect order, and then has left his fields and meadows, forests and parks to be sold and 

plundered and wasted.” 

-- John Muir 

#3])>

<([#4 [12.3] Between global warming, rampant extinction, and a quickly drying Colorado 

River—problems that oil-shale and tar-sand development would only worsen—it’s hard to 

imagine a less prudent use of our public lands. I therefore oppose any action by the BLM to 

continue or to authorize any new oil-shale or tar-sand development on public land, or create or 

continue land-use allocations that would allow for such uses in the future. I am very disappointed 

that the Draft PEIS did not include an alternative that does not in any way endorse additional 

public-land use for this unproven industry. 

“Wilderness is a resource that can shrink but not grow—the creation of new wilderness in the 

full sense of the word is impossible.” 

-- Aldo Leopold 

The magnitude of potential impacts to the West’s delicate public lands and shrinking water 

resources is simply too great to grant unfettered access to the oil industry in these areas. It is 

foolhardy and irresponsible to open up public lands to these industries—particularly before we 

even understand the magnitude their footprint. Public lands should be held in trust for American 

citizens, not for private profits. 

“As we peer into society’s future, we—you and I, and our government—must avoid the impulse 

to live only for today, plundering for our own ease and convenience the precious resources of 

tomorrow. We cannot mortgage the material assets of our grandchildren without risking the loss 

also of their political and spiritual heritage. We want democracy to survive for all generations to 

come, not to become the insolvent phantom of tomorrow.” 

-- Dwight D. Eisenhower 

#4])>

<([#5 [10.6.1] At a time of record-breaking temperatures, debilitating droughts, devastating 

floods, and increasingly severe weather, we simply cannot afford to increase our reliance on 

higher-carbon fuels. Producing oil from both tar sands and oil shale generates significantly more 
Final OSTS PEIS 762 

carbon pollution than production of conventional petroleum. Granting the oil industry access to 

our public lands to lock-in production of these types of fuels is simply incompatible with a 

sustainable energy future that will mitigate the impacts of climate change. 

“I think America will have come to maturity when it will be possible to erect somewhere in the 

United States a great bronze marker which will read: 

“‘Beneath these lands which surround you there lies enormous mineral wealth. However, it is the 

judgment of the American people, who locked up this area, that these lands shall not be 

disturbed, because we wish posterity to know that somewhere in our country, in gratitude to 

nature, there was at least one material resource that we could let alone.’” 

-- Freeman Tilden 

#5])>

<([#6 [3.5.7] Large-scale development of oil shale and tar sands on our public lands would also 

come at a major cost to the West’s land, wildlife, air quality, and water resources. Already 

subject to significant oil and gas developments, some of the areas assessed in the Draft PEIS 

suffer extremely poor air quality. #6])> <([#7 [6.3.2.2] And although very little is known about 

the impacts of oil shale production, even the low-end of the estimates of how much water it 

would consume is significant: a 2010 study by the Government Accountability Office 

demonstrated the range of estimated water impacts from 5 to 25 barrels of water consumed for 

every barrel of oil produced—a toll the West simply cannot afford. 

“Every man who appreciates the majesty and beauty of the wilderness and of wild life, should 

strike hands with the farsighted men who wish to preserve our material resources, in the effort to 

keep our forests and our game beasts, game-birds, and game-fish--indeed, all the living creatures 

of prairie and woodland and seashore--from wanton destruction. Above all, we should realize 

that the effort toward this end is essentially a democratic movement.” 

-- Theodore Roosevelt 

#7])>

<([#8 [3.7.3.12] [3.10.3] [3.10.5] The federal public land overlying oil shale resources in Utah, 

Colorado, and Wyoming is also some of the best fish and wildlife habitat in the West, and 

outdoor recreation and tourism are huge economic drivers for the region, whereas oil shale is 

currently producing no jobs and no revenue, and the Congressional Budget Office confirmed that 

it is not expected to produce significant revenues through 2022. These federal public lands are 

also home to the largest remaining big game migration in the lower 48 states. It is the “mule deer 

factory.” It provides important habitat for sage-grouse, a species that is on the brink. All of the 

proposed extraction methods for oil shale will have devastating impacts on wildlife and on other 

values of these public lands, including clean air and water. We must protect this sustainable 

economy by making smart decisions based on sound information. 

“Then I say the Earth belongs to each generation during its course, fully and in its own right, no 

generation can contract debts greater than may be paid during the course of its own existence.” 

-- Thomas Jefferson #8])>

<([#9 [12.3] I ask that you carefully evaluate and fully disclose the serious impacts of all new 

energy required for oil-shale and tar-sand production and its potentially devastating impacts to 

our climate, as well as the threat it poses to wildlife, special-status, threatened, and endangered 
Final OSTS PEIS 763 

species, and to our water, air, and communities. For all the reasons stated above, I am strongly 

opposed to opening up our public lands to oil shale or tar sands development. 

“A thing is right when it tends to preserve the integrity, stability, and beauty of the biotic 

community. It is wrong when it tends otherwise.” 

-- Aldo Leopold 

#9])>

Thank you for your consideration of my comments. Please do NOT add my name to your 

mailing list. I will learn about future developments on this issue from other sources. 

Sincerely, 

Christopher Lish 

Olema, CA 

OSTS2012D50166 

Organization: Concerned Citizen 

Received: 4/28/2012 12:33:20 PM 

Commenter1: Concerned Citizen - , (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: 

Submission Category: 035a_Campaign 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/1/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50166.htm (OSTS2012D50166-58641.htm Size = 2 KB) 

Submission Text

<([#1 [3] I am deeply concerned about the potential effects to our water, wildlife, communities 

and public lands if the BLM initiates a commercial oil shale leasing program. The two million 

acres in UT, WY and CO previously allocated for commercial leasing is a massive amount of 

public, taxpayer land that would be sacrificed for a singular use of the landscape. #1])> <([#2

[2.2] [12.3] While the preferred alternative (Alternative 2) is a step in the right direction, BLM 

should consider an alternative that does not endorse giveaways of public lands to this unproven 

industry. #2])> <([#3 [3] Oil shale is currently producing no jobs and no revenue. The 

Congressional Budget Office confirmed that it is not expected to produce significant revenues 

through 2022. This means we have time to thoroughly assess the impacts of development to our 

water, wildlife and communities, and should not rush now to give away public lands. #3])> <([#4

[3.10.3] The land overlying oil shale resources in Utah, Colorado and Wyoming is some of the 

best wildlife habitat in the West. Outdoor recreation and tourism are huge economic drivers that 

depend on this habitat. The farming and ranching sectors require reliable access to water 

resources, which may be depleted by extensive commercial oil shale development. We must 

protect these jobs by making smart decisions about how we allow oil companies to move 

forward with oil shale speculation. #4])> <([#5 [3] I recommend that you carefully consider the 

serious impacts of oil shale production to our wildlife, water, air, and communities as you take 

another look at oil shale development. 

#5])>
Final OSTS PEIS 764 

OSTS2012D50167 

Organization: Bob Aegerter 

Received: 4/28/2012 6:47:30 PM 

Commenter1: Bob Aegerter - Bellingham, Washington 982297931 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/1/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50167.htm (OSTS2012D50167-58643.htm Size = 1 KB) 

Submission Text

<([#1 [2.3.1] Alternative 3 is the preferred alternative. #1])> <([#2 [3.4.1] Water quality and 

water availability are critic unresolved issues. Smaller trial projects that prove the economic 

viability and the adequacy of environmental protections. #2])> <([#3 [3.10.4] The existing 

economy centered around the National Parks and Monuments must be protected. Projects that 

destroy the experiences of visitors will have significant negative impacts. #3])> <([#4 [3.10.3] In 

1982 Exxon ended the Colony Shale Project resulting in a great deal of economic disruption. The 

industry has not proved that the technology works and is economically viable. #4])>

OSTS2012D50168 

Organization: Lauren Jusek 

Received: 4/28/2012 11:47:19 PM 

Commenter1: Lauren Jusek - Garrettsville, Ohio 44231 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/1/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50168.htm (OSTS2012D50168-58645.htm Size = 1 KB) 

Submission Text

<([#1 [3.10.2] Not only do I not have a say in whether or not the oil companies drill all around 

my property, but it’s only my neighbors with money and the oil companies who will profit. I 

want to know who will reimburse me for devaluing my property and potentially polluting my 

water. #1])>

OSTS2012D50169 

Organization: NA, Lauren Florence 

Received: 4/29/2012 9:53:23 AM 

Commenter1: Lauren Florence - Salt Lake City, Utah 84109 (United States) 

Organization1:NA 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 
Final OSTS PEIS 765 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/1/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50169.htm (OSTS2012D50169-58647.htm Size = 1 KB) 

Submission Text

I live in Utah. As part of the general public, I am submitting input to help the BLM decide what 

public lands will and will not be available for oil shale and tar sand development in Utah, 

Colorado and Wyoming. In the Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement released by the 

BLM last month, <([#1 [2.3.1] I support Alternative 3 making 30,000 acres available in Utah for 

research, demonstration and development. 30,000 acres should be enough to prove the economic 

viability of oil shale. If it is, then more land could be considered later. #1])>

OSTS2012D50170 

Organization: 350.org in Laramie, Herald Keown 

Received: 4/29/2012 1:42:18 PM 

Commenter1: Herald Keown - Laramie, Wyoming 82070 (United States) 

Organization1:350.org in Laramie 

Commenter Type: Affiliation Only 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/1/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50170.htm (OSTS2012D50170-58659.htm Size = 5 KB) 

Submission Text

If You Build it They Will Come “If you build it, they will come,” the adage from “Field of 

Dreams,” has a parallel in the petroleum industry. “If we find it, they will buy it.” The public 

seems unaware of the environmental cost and the finiteness of oil. Extraction continues on 

almost an exponential curve. The first oil was easy. The Drake well near a tar spring at 

Titusville, Pennsylvania in 1859 was seventy feet deep. The first exploration was just to find a 

tar seepage and drill. Near the La Brea Tar Pits, now within Los Angeles, a huge field came in. 

The first Wyoming well was near a tar pit south of Lander. Early on oil was near where it was 

used. A well in front of the Oklahoma state capitol is nicknamed “Petunia #1”. Drilling began in 

the middle of a flowerbed. Where are the extremes today in keeping up with the demand? Two 

hundred miles off the coasts the largest companies build platforms that are the size of the Eiffel 

Tower, so large and expensive the major petroleum companies, the richest industrial 

organizations ever, must pool their funds. The platforms cost billions and the sub sea wells may 

be 7,000 feet just to the well hole. We know their danger. Operations bring billions in profits. 

With drill stems ready, the industry waits for an opening into the Artic National Wildlife Refuge. 

Tar sands come from beneath Canada’s boreal forest and fragile ecosystems are devastated. 

Google “Sixty Minutes,” “The Tar Sands of Alberta.” In a land where the winter temperature 

sometimes zooms up to zero degrees, twenty-four hours a day monster trucks move across the 

artic transporting sands to be processed into crude and sent out in pipelines. The largest, the 
Final OSTS PEIS 766 

Keystone XL, is intended to cross seven US states. Meanwhile, much of the public asks, Why 

not? What is the use of undeveloped Canada? <([#1 [6.2.3] The ultimate extreme would be to 

bake oil from shale in the Colorado Plateau region of Colorado, Utah and Wyoming. The BLM is 

planning to assist oil shale production like Canada does in Alberta. It would require enormous 

amounts of energy to make energy. Jim Bridger Power Plant, Wyoming’s largest, produces 2,000 

megawatts. Each day it uses 15,000 tons of coal. In coal cars that extends a mile and a half on the 

railroad track. Colorado Plateau oil shale averages one barrel of oil per three tons of shale. A 

Rand Corporation study indicates that a commercial-scale industry of a million barrels daily, one 

twentieth of the nation’s consumption of oil each day, would require ten 1,200 megawatts plants. 

Wyoming has eight main power plants. Ten plants would produce 100 million tons of 

greenhouse gasses annually. The requirement would be 60 million tons of shale for a single US 

day of oil. In 100-ton rail cars that much ore would reach across the US two times! #1])> <([#2

[3.5.1.6] The most urgent threat by far, even beyond the use of precious, already appropriated 

water, will be harm to our atmosphere. Oil produced from oil shale will end up where the other 

fossil fuels end up, as carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Nearly all organizations of scientists 

affirm the atmosphere and the earth’s surface is warming and climate change is the result 

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change). A recent study conducted 

by the National Academy of Sciences (http://www.pnas.org/content/107/27/12107.full) polled 

1,372 active atmospheric scientists. 97–98% of active climate researchers support the tenets of 

anthropogenic caused climate change outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 

Change. The ongoing study by the IPCC is the most exhaustive study ever on climate change. 

With two thousand other scientists, in 2007, Dr. Gabor Vali and Dr. Jason Shogren of the 

University of Wyoming received the Nobel Peace Prize for their research with the IPCC. #2])>

<([#3 [12] Conservation gets smothered in Wyoming. Eighty percent of the employment is tied 

to production of fossil fuels. We’re first in coal production among the states, second in natural 

gas, and seventh in oil. Wyoming produces more carbon to be released into the atmosphere as 

carbon dioxide than any of the U.S. states and most nations. In 1997 Wyoming was the first state 

to produce 200 million tons of coal in one year. It remains the only state to mine that much coal 

in one year. In 2008, a decade later, production more than doubled to 462 tons, more coal than 

the other three top coal-producing states, Pennsylvania, West Virginia and Kentucky, combined.

#3])> Duane Keown, Professor Emeritus, Science Education, University of Wyoming 

(dkeown@uwyo.edu) 

OSTS2012D50171 

Organization: Douglas DeNio 

Received: 4/29/2012 1:49:18 PM 

Commenter1: Douglas DeNio - New Castle, Colorado 81647 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/1/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50171.htm (OSTS2012D50171-58663.htm Size = 1 KB) 

BLM_Oil_Shale_OSTS2012D50171.docx (OSTS2012D50171-58662.docx Size = 12 KB) 
Final OSTS PEIS 767 

Submission Text

Please see Attachment See Attachment. 

To: BLM 4/30/2012 

Subject: 2012 Oil Shale and Tar Sands PEIS 

I am a resident of Garfield County, Colorado. For many years I lived in Parachute, Colorado and 

am very familiar with the dubious oil shale legacy including the various pilot projects currently 

underway. 

<([#1 [9.8] The 2008 PEIS was fundamentally flawed. The adverse impacts of dedicating nearly 

2 million acres of our Public Lands for industrial use at bargain basement prices, without a 

proven extraction technology and without having scientific data to measure impacts on the water, 

soil, air, wildlife resources and public health and safety was egregious. I commend the BLM for 

conducting this second stage PEIS to increase transparency and scientific rigor on this most 

import project. 

#1])> <([#2 [2.2.1] I support the BLM’s Preferred Alternative of allocating 462,000 acres for 

potential oil shale and tar sands leases as a measured response to enable the oil shale industry to 

conduct robust RD & D activities to identify viable extraction processes including cost/ benefit 

ratio, energy requirements, water requirements, resource environmental impacts, impacts on 

wildlife, social-economic impacts, and health – life safety concerns. 

As a registered professional engineer, I view the Preferred Alternative as a logical incremental 

progression in the decision matrix for oil shale development whereas the 2008 proposal was a 

political imperative to benefit the industry without transparency and scientific support. There are 

still groups (various County Commissions) with the misguided belief that the 2008 proposal is 

still preferred. The 2008 proposal was nothing more than an industry land grab that was not in 

the best interests for the citizens of the United States both economically and environmentally. 

#2])> <([#3 [3.10.2] The citizens of Western Colorado have been through several oil shale busts 

over the past years; the latest being 30 years ago. Today, industry proponents tout that another oil 

shale bust is impossible now or in the future. In the early 2000’s, the natural gas industry made 

similar claims that there “could never be an economic bust in natural gas like there was in oil 

shale”. The current economically depressed natural gas industry disproves the bravado claimed 

in the early 2000’s. #3])>

Thank you for the opportunity to comment. 

Sincerely, 

Douglas DeNio,PE. 

25 Buckskin Circle 

New Castle, CO 81647 

OSTS2012D50172 

Organization: 

Received: 4/29/2012 2:02:17 PM 

Commenter1: - , (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: 
Final OSTS PEIS 768 

Submission Category: 035a_Campaign 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/1/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50172.htm (OSTS2012D50172-58661.htm Size = 2 KB) 

Submission Text

<([#1 [3] I am deeply concerned about the potential effects to our water, wildlife, communities 

and public lands if the BLM initiates a commercial oil shale leasing program. The two million 

acres in UT, WY and CO previously allocated for commercial leasing is a massive amount of 

public, taxpayer land that would be sacrificed for a singular use of the landscape. #1])> <([#2

[2.2] [12.3] While the preferred alternative (Alternative 2) is a step in the right direction, BLM 

should consider an alternative that does not endorse giveaways of public lands to this unproven 

industry. #2])> <([#3 [3] Oil shale is currently producing no jobs and no revenue. The 

Congressional Budget Office confirmed that it is not expected to produce significant revenues 

through 2022. This means we have time to thoroughly assess the impacts of development to our 

water, wildlife and communities, and should not rush now to give away public lands. #3])> <([#4

[3.10.3] The land overlying oil shale resources in Utah, Colorado and Wyoming is some of the 

best wildlife habitat in the West. Outdoor recreation and tourism are huge economic drivers that 

depend on this habitat. The farming and ranching sectors require reliable access to water 

resources, which may be depleted by extensive commercial oil shale development. We must 

protect these jobs by making smart decisions about how we allow oil companies to move 

forward with oil shale speculation. #4])> <([#5 [3] I recommend that you carefully consider the 

serious impacts of oil shale production to our wildlife, water, air, and communities as you take 

another look at oil shale development. 

#5])>

OSTS2012D50173 

Organization: RoseMarie Aridas 

Received: 4/30/2012 8:19:05 AM 

Commenter1: RoseMarie Aridas - Laramie, Wyoming 82072 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/1/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50173.htm (OSTS2012D50173-58668.htm Size = 1 KB) 

oilshale_OSTS2012D50173.doc (OSTS2012D50173-58667.doc Size = 28 KB) 

Submission Text

See Attachment. 

<([#1 [12] I will reiterate what I put in a letter to the editor in the Laramie “Boomerang” but I 

have attached it below. This is an unproven, so far unproductive process that will not affect our 

dependence on foreign oil (only we will!), will destroy the landscape, use too much water, 

pollute the air, endanger recreation- and tourism-related jobs, and disrupt wildlife. The damage 
Final OSTS PEIS 769 

and any potential yield are absolutely not worth allowing exploration and drilling. 

I recently read literature and a website’s FAQs about oil shale. It reminded me of the 

commercial: “It’s not nice to fool Mother Nature.” Why? Because producing oil from oil shale 

involves using other natural resources and energy-consuming processes to convert fossilized 

organic matter embedded between layers of shale into conventional crude oil instead of letting 

Mother Nature do it for us! 

Scientists and experts can always be found to defend or refute a theory or a prediction; all that 

proves to me is that if that happens, it’s an issue serious enough to be thus debated. 

But various sources tell me that a 2020 industry prediction of 59,500 barrels/day is 0.3% of our 

daily oil consumption so oil shale production won’t reduce our foreign oil dependence; that up to 

5 barrels of water are needed to produce each barrel of oil from oil shale; that conventional crude 

oil is twenty times more efficient; that all of the energy consumed to do Mother Nature’s work 

will result in anywhere from 23%-75% more greenhouse gases. 

Why care? No matter your position on climate change, we’re experiencing drier, hotter weather 

and water-availability issues that affect tourism, recreation, agriculture and threaten associated 

“bird in the hand” jobs. Do we want to divert water to an unproven process that after 100 years 

hasn’t yielded one commercially-produced barrel? BLM proposals involve approximately 175K 

to over 1M acres in Wyoming - mostly in the Green River Basin - plus more in Utah and 

Colorado; that’s a whole lot of land to be given over to commercial leases without evidence of 

feasibility or an understanding of the impacts on wildlife, water, and people; Google the “Gillette 

Syndrome” to be reminded of what happens to small communities when temporary workers 

inundate a town, strain resources and infrastructure and change its life-style. 

I will participate in the BLM’s 90-day comment period on the oil shale - and tar sands - draft 

proposals opting probably for a restrictive alternative, but you should read more on oil shale; 

consult with experts; go to the BLM’s Information Center at http;//ostseis.anl.gov and take a 

stand one way or the other. #1])>

RoseMarie Aridas 

OSTS2012D50174 

Organization: Judith McBride 

Received: 4/30/2012 9:34:01 AM 

Commenter1: Judith McBride - , Wyoming 82070 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 
Final OSTS PEIS 770 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/1/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50174.htm (OSTS2012D50174-58664.htm Size = 1 KB) 

Submission Text

<([#1 [12] WATER,,,,,,HAS / MUST be our most prized natural resource.....Why use it for a 100 

year old search for a most speculative unsuccessful to date recovery of a product that only 

extends our selfish inability to find better ways for humans to care and grow on this planet. #1])>

OSTS2012D50175 

Organization: Alliance for the Wild Rockies, Raymond Berry 

Received: 4/30/2012 9:49:44 AM 

Commenter1: Raymond Berry - Salt Lake City, Utah 84109 (United States) 

Organization1:Alliance for the Wild Rockies 

Commenter Type: Environmental Organization 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/1/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50175.htm (OSTS2012D50175-58666.htm Size = 1 KB) 

Submission Text

<([#1 [12.3] My comments are submitted on behalf of the Alliance for the Wild Rockies and on 

my own behalf, as a resident of Wayne County, Utah, the home of Capitol Reef National Park. 

Allowing tar sands or oil shade development in the public lands that surround Capitol Reef and 

the other Utah national parks would be a great travesty, and a betrayal of the tradition of federal 

land conservation in the West. The only organizations likely to benefit from such programs will 

be energy speculators who tout these technologies to the investment community. If at some 

future time realistic and practical technologies are developed, ones that would not utterly destroy 

the surrounding environment, this question can be revisited. Until then please do not permit the 

wild public lands of Utah to be turned into the sort of national wastelands visible in Alberta.

#1])> Raymond S. Berry Board Member, Alliance for the Wild Rockies Resident, Torrey, 

Wayne County, Utah 

OSTS2012D50176 

Organization: Jonathan Wallace 

Received: 4/30/2012 10:15:15 AM 

Commenter1: Jonathan Wallace - Moab, Utah 84532 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/4/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50176.htm (OSTS2012D50176-58678.htm Size = 1 KB) 
Final OSTS PEIS 771 

Submission Text

<([#1 [12] I strongly oppose adding more lands for Oil Shale or Tar Sands extraction. I believe 

these destructive extraction methods are not truly proved safe and should only a last resort. What 

makes this proposal even worse is much of the land proposed for use is some of our most 

sensitive and beautiful land left in the country. Exploiting this land now to solve a short term 

problem is unjustified in my mind. #1])> Thanks for your time. Sincerely, Jonathan Wallace 

OSTS2012D50177 

Organization: 

Received: 4/30/2012 11:07:19 AM 

Commenter1: - , (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/4/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50177.htm (OSTS2012D50177-58680.htm Size = 1 KB) 

Submission Text

<([#1 [12] This is a terrible proposal. Developing these energy sources will lead to vast 

environmental destruction that may never be repaired. This is essentially giving away our public 

lands to massive corporations that have little regard for the health of our lands and will 

essentially destroy all recreation on them. Stop the development of all oil shale and tar sands in 

the United States. #1])>

OSTS2012D50178 

Organization: USPS, Douglas Marsh 

Received: 4/30/2012 1:40:20 PM 

Commenter1: Douglas Marsh - Eagan, Minnesota 551231806 (United States) 

Organization1:USPS 

Commenter Type: Affiliation Only 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/4/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50178.htm (OSTS2012D50178-58682.htm Size = 1 KB) 

Submission Text

<([#1 [12.1] It’s time to move on past dirty energy sources such as tar sands. #1])>

OSTS2012D50179 

Organization: Jason Stevenson 

Received: 4/30/2012 1:42:09 PM 

Commenter1: Jason Stevenson - Salt Lake City, Utah 84105 (United States) 
Final OSTS PEIS 772 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/4/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50179.htm (OSTS2012D50179-58684.htm Size = 2 KB) 

Submission Text

<([#1 [3.1.2] My name is Jason Stevenson. I am a resident of Salt Lake City, Utah. I am 

concerned that allowing oil shale and tar sands leases in the proposed areas would cause harm to 

nearby national parks and recreational areas. I enjoy hiking, car-camping, and driving in southern 

Utah with my family. We moved to Utah from Pennsylvania specifically because of the state’s 

outdoor amenities. In fact, we are planning a car camping trip with friends this June to visit 

Canyonlands, Arches, Grand-Staircase, and Zion. My job as an outdoors writer is directly 

connected to the availability and preservation of Utah’s world-famous recreation lands and 

activities. I worry that the untested and unknown technologies to extract oil shale and tar sands 

will harm the air quality, wildlife, roads, water quality and flow, and visitor experience at 

national parks and recreation lands in Utah where I live. Creating energy from oil shale and tar 

sands is the “cold fusion” of the petroleum industry. Maybe one day it will be possible, but we 

aren’t there yet. #1])> <([#2 [2.3.1] Oil shale and tar sands companies have been experimenting 

on state, private, and some public lands for decades--trying to figure out how to make oil shale 

and tar sands economical. After decades of hard work, they are closer to making it work, but they 

aren’t to the point where they should be given hundreds of thousands of acres of public lands to 

continue their experiments. Therefore, I think the BLM should choose the research-only 

Alternative #3, which allows only research development, and demonstrate leases on existing 

parcels. I believe these leases will give companies enough public lands to demonstrate the 

feasibility of their projects. The other options that allow more leases could create another boomto-bust energy grab, which would not only harm the public lands where the mining and 

processing takes place, but also whiplash the economy like it did on Black Sunday in May 1982. 

In summary, as a Utah resident, as someone whose livelihood depends on the preservation of this 

state’s national parks and public lands, and as a father who wants his son to enjoy the same 

access and enjoyment from public lands that I had as a child, I urge the BLM to choose the 

research-only Alternative #3. Thank you for reading my comments. #2])> -Jason Stevenson 

OSTS2012D50180 

Organization: Colorado Parks and Wildlife 

Received: 4/30/2012 3:36:53 PM 

Commenter1: - Grand Junction, Colorado 81505 (United States) 

Organization1:Colorado Parks and Wildlife 

Commenter Type: State Government 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 
Final OSTS PEIS 773 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/16/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50180.htm (OSTS2012D50180-58702.htm Size = 1 KB) 

Final_Draft_Internal_OSTS_DEIS_Letter_Signed_OSTS2012D50180.pdf (OSTS2012D50180-

58701.pdf Size = 63 KB) 

Submission Text

See Attachment. 

COLORADO PARKS & WILDLIFE 

Northwest Regional Service Center 

711 Independent Ave., Grand Junction, CO 81505 

Phone (970)255-61 00 • FAX (970)255-6111 

wildlife.state.co.us • parks.state.co.us 

Sherri Thompson, Project Manager 

Bureau of Land Management, Colorado State Office 

2850 Y oungfield St. 

Lakewood, CO 80215-7093 

May4, 2012 

RE: Colorado Parks and Wildlife Comments for the Draft Programmatic 

Environmental Impact Statement and Possible Land Use Plan Amendments for 

Allocation of Oil Shale and Tar Sands Resources on Lands Administered by the 

Bureau of Land Management in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming (January 2012). 

Dear Ms. Thompson: 

Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) appreciates the opportunity to work with BLM by 

providing comments and recommendations for the Draft Programmatic Environmental 

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

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

Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming (OSTS DPEIS). In December 2007 and May, 2008, 

Colorado Division of Wildlife, (now Colorado Parks and Wildlife) provided comments 

on the impacts to wildlife that would likely to occur as a result of land-use allocations and 

policy direction as presented in the BLMs Resource Management Plan Amendments for 

Oil Shale. 

<([#1 [3.7.3.1] [3.7.4.1] CPW s concerns and recommendations expressed in the 2007 and 2008 

OSTS PEIS 

comment letters remain valid for this OSTS DPEIS. (See Attachments) CPW 

respectfully restates that the Piceance Basin is home to the largest migratory mule deer 

herd in North America, a large migratory elk population, one of only six greater sagegrouse 

populations in Colorado, conservation and core conservation populations of 

Colorado River cutthroat trout, and a host of other wildlife species. These resources are 

of statewide economic, ecological, recreational, and aesthetic importance. Impacts to 

these wildlife resources from oil shale development will have local, regional, statewide, 

and even national implications to sportsmen and other wildlife enthusiasts. #1])>

<([#2 [3.7.3.1] [3.7.4.3] CPWs primary concern for wildlife due to commercial oil shale 

development is the 

overall loss and fragmentation of crucial wildlife habitat, the feasibility of reclamation of 

disturbed areas, and the damage that would accrue to wildlife populations. Due to the 
Final OSTS PEIS 774 

lack of available information, the detail provided in the OSTS DPEIS is insufficient to 

allow for an accurate or complete assessment of the cumulative impacts to wildlife 

habitats and populations that will occur from oil shale development. 

BLM identifies, generally, potential impacts to Colorado wildlife species, such as 

cutthroat trout and the greater sage-grouse; CPW recommends that the most current 

assessments, habitat maps, Resource Management Plans, or potential listing reviews be 

included for updates and assessments in the process as it moves forward. #2])>

<([#3 [3.7.5.1] Concurrent with the most recent mapping efforts, there is a heightened interest 

and sense 

of urgency to define sufficient protective measures for greater sage-grouse at the state 

and national levels and methods for incorporating those measures in RMPs. For instance, 

CPW in cooperation with BLM has developed revised priority habitat maps that differ 

from maps previously outlined in the Colorado Greater Sage-grouse Conservation Plan 

(2008). Results of the greater sage-grouse EIS should be incorporated into this OSTS 

DPEIS. CPW expects that the BLM will manage greater sage-grouse and their habitats 

wherever they occur in a manner that avoids the need to list the species under the 

Endangered Species Act. CPW is unclear how the process and outcomes of this OSTS 

EIS, especially leasing, will be merged with BLMs parallel process under the National 

Sage-Grouse Strategy to protect the greater sage-grouse. 

CPW points out that new (Spring 2012) greater sage-grouse habitat and population 

distribution information (map) is available and that this new information has the potential 

to influence the process and outcome of the OSTS DPEIS. #3])>

<([#4 [3.7.3.8] The BLM is offering four leasing alternatives with four sub alternatives 

(Alternative 2a, 

2b, 4a, and 4b). Each of the alternatives designates a specified amount of acreage that 

would be made available for lease; acreage amounts range from 32,640 to over 2 million 

acres with numerous permutations for partial and full lease exclusions. 

CPWs review of the leasing alternatives identified many crucial unknowns and variability 

in estimates concerning leasing scenarios, technologies that would be used, production 

output variability, and potential impacts to wildlife. The generalizations and lack of 

specific information presented in the document make it extremely difficult if not 

impossible to analyze the alternatives and provide meaning review and feedback with 

respect to impacts to wildlife and wildlife habitats as well as to provide strategies and 

methods for avoidance and minimization of those impacts. On page 2-83 BLM states 

that “The magnitude of these potential impacts cannot be quantified at this time because 

key information about the location of commercial projects, the technologies that maybe 

employed, the project size or production level, development time lines, and mitigation 

measures that would be applied, are unknown.” CPW agrees. 

Further, it appears that past and on-going RD&D projects have not produced substantive 

information to make informed decisions regarding impacts to wildlife resources that will 

result from oil shale development. Many of BLMs references to technologies refer to 
Final OSTS PEIS 775 

2005 research and not on-going efforts or recent findings. CPW believes that it would be 

unwise to move forward with the aggressive leasing alternatives #1 and #4 which have 

the most potential to impact Colorado’s wildlife. #4])>

<([#5 [6.3.1] CPW is intrigued by the Red Leaf R&D Resources EcoShale TM In-Capsule 

Technology 

claims of being self-sufficient power wise, its anticipated energy return on investment of 

10, and that it would not require Process Water. This approach appears to be the least 

intrusive to wildlife and reduces the negative effects of Oil Shale development. If these 

claims are proven to be true, this type of Oil Shale development technology should be 

required for oil shale leases across the region. #5])>

<([#6 [2.3.1] CPW firmly believes that until less detrimental methods for Oil Shale Development 

is 

proven; leasing is premature other than the 6 existing R&D Pilot Plots plus the 3 pending 

R&D Pilot studies (totaling 32,640 acres of public land - 26,880 in Colorado). The 

existing and planned R&D studies should be allowed to run their course, derive 

meaningful results (real data that can be used to develop accurate impact assessments), 

and attempt to establish an environmentally friendly cost effective extraction process. 

When such technologies are found and proven, appropriate oil shale extraction and 

mitigation regulations can be developed and implemented for all proposed BLM land 

allocations and leasing opportunities. #6])>

Thank you for this opportunity to comment. CPW looks forward to working 

cooperatively with BLM to ensure that impacts to wildlife and habitats associated with 

oil shale development are addressed in a careful and protective manner. 

Sincerely, 

/?on_f). (/~ 

Ron D. Velarde 

NW Regional Manager 

cc. Jeff VerSteeg, Assistant Director for Wildlife Programs 

Becky Mitchell, Water and Policy Issues Coordinator 

Ginny Brannon, Assistant Director, Energy and Minerals 

Dean Riggs, NW Assistant Regional Manager 

Sherm Hebein, NW Senior Aquatic Biologist 

Brad Petch, NW Senior Terrestrial Biologist 

Bill deVergie, Area Wildlife Manager 

Lyle Sidener, Area Wildlife Manager 

JT Romatzke, Area Wildlife Manager 

Jim Haskins, Area Wildlife Manager 

Perry Will, Area Wildlife Manager 

Michael Warren, NW Energy Liaison 

file 

OSTS2012D50181 

Organization: Duchesne County, Utah, Duchesne County Commissioners 

Received: 4/30/2012 3:56:57 PM 

Commenter1: Duchesne County Commissioners - Duchesne, Utah 84021 (United States) 
Final OSTS PEIS 776 

Organization1:Duchesne County, Utah 

Commenter Type: Coop Agency - Local Govt 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/10/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50181.htm (OSTS2012D50181-58791.htm Size = 1 KB) 

DPEIS_OSandTS_Comment_Letter_OSTS2012D50181.docx (OSTS2012D50181-58790.docx 

Size = 37 KB) 

Submission Text

See attachment See Attachment. 

April 30, 2012 

BLM Oil Shale & Tar Sands PEIS 

Argonne National Laboratory 

EVS Division, Building 240 

9700 South Cass Avenue 

Argonne, IL 60439 

RE: Comments on Draft BLM Oil Shale & Tar Sands PEIS 

Dear Reader: 

<([#1 [9.8] Duchesne County, Utah, a cooperating agency in this environmental review process, 

has summarized its comments in Resolution #12-08, attached hereto and incorporated herein. 

Rural counties in Utah, Wyoming and Colorado containing these vast and important energy 

resources will not stand idly by while the Obama Administration continues to wage war on 

energy production in the West. 

This so-called “fresh look” at lands available for oil shale and tar sands leasing is a colossal 

waste of the taxpayer’s dollars, which practice has become all too frequent during the Obama 

Administration. The 2008 PEIS, which Duchesne County spent significant staff hours reviewing 

and commenting on, as a cooperating agency, was consistent with the Energy Policy Act of 

2005, the state and local land use plans in the region (such as the Uintah Basin Utah Energy 

Zone designation) and the multiple use mandate of FLPMA. The draft 2012 PEIS violates all of 

these and makes no attempt to explain why greater consistency cannot be achieved. A copy of 

the Uintah Basin Utah Energy Zone Resolution #12-06, approved by Duchesne County, is 

attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. #1])>
Final OSTS PEIS 777 

<([#2 [9.1] [9.2.1] This DPEIS contains a flawed purpose and need statement based on the 

infamous Secretarial Order 3310, which Congress de-funded as stated in the Resolution 

enclosed. #2])> <([#3 [1.5] The DPEIS, given the substantial numbers of errors and omissions 

therein, shows an obvious attempt to rush this PEIS to approval before the end of the Obama 

Administration. #3])>

<([#4 [2.2] The BLM preferred Alternative, Alternative 2b, is not adequately analyzed in the 

DPEIS. #4])> <([#5 [2.1.1] Alternative 1 is the only alternative that can be legally justified.

#5])>

<([#6 [6.3] [9.2.5] The DPEIS fails to deliver the promised “fresh look” as it relies on basically 

the same data as the 2008 PEIS and fails to incorporate new data that has become available since 

2008; especially the important data associated with new oil shale and tar sands technologies 

being employed on non-federal lands in the region. This failure to utilize the best available data 

constitutes a violation of the Federal Data Quality Act. #6])>

<([#7 [9.5] Duchesne County, pursuant to our Cooperating Agency Memorandum of 

Understanding, Section V (E) hereby informs the BLM that we disagree on substantive elements 

of the DPEIS. These disagreements have not been resolved through the comment period to our 

satisfaction. We request, in accordance with the MOU, that the BLM describe the many 

substantial inconsistencies between its proposed action and the objectives of Duchesne County’s 

land use plans and policies and include a summary of Duchesne County’s views (as stated in this 

letter and in the enclosed Resolution) in the Final PEIS. #7])>

We have conducted a page-by-page review of the four-volume DPEIS and offer the following 

specific comments on the content of the document: 

<([#8 [1.5] Page ES-1, Line 19 and Page 1-4, Line 7: If the BLM has decided to take a “fresh 

look” at the land allocations from the 2008 PEIS, why does the 2012 DPEIS fail to utilize new 

data that has become available since the 2008 effort? Some sample pages where BLM has failed 

to incorporate new data are: Pages 2-15, 3-28, 3-29, 3-34, 3-62, 3-83, 3-85, 3-246, 3-247, 3-262, 

3-268 through 270, 3-272, 4-9, 4-198 through 199 and A-109 to name a few. #8])>

<([#9 [2] Page ES-5, Line 39: The lands identified as suitable for potential leasing under the 

2008 PEIS are considered the most geologically prospective oil shale and tar sands areas. It 

makes absolutely no sense to remove 75% of these lands from potential leasing given the strides 

made in technology, as demonstrated on non-federal lands, since 2008. #9])>

<([#10 [3.1.5] Page ES-6, Footnote 3: It makes no sense to remove lands from consideration 

because they are within ACEC’s that failed to warrant designation in BLM land use plans.

#10])>

<([#11 [6.3.2.1] Page ES-9, Line 15: BLM has ignored the low water use technologies being 

employed by Red Leaf Resources (Oil Shale), Temple Mountain Energy (Tar Sands) and others 

despite requests by cooperating agencies that such new information must be incorporated in the 

DPEIS to debunk the water use myth promoted by radical environmental groups. #11])>
Final OSTS PEIS 778 

<([#12 [6.5] [3.15] Page 1-8, Figure 1.2-1, Page 2-14, Figure 2.3-1: These figures were not 

updated to reflect the latest findings from the USGS 2011 Assessment of In-Place Oil Shale 

Resources. #12])>

<([#13 [13] Page 1-20, Line 31: Reference is made to a text box; but it is not clear that this text 

box appears on Page 1-2. #13])>

<([#14 [9.5] Page 1-21, Lines 32-41: The BLM has failed to cooperate with state and local 

governments to promote consistency with their land use plans. The State of Utah and many 

counties containing oil shale and tar sands resources have established an Energy Zone that 

provides for energy development as the priority land use. The BLM has made no attempt in the 

DPEIS to explain why its preferred alternative cannot be more consistent with such local plans.

#14])>

<([#15 [6.3.5] Page 2-1, Line 18: BLM fails to recognize that oil shale has already proven to be 

an economically viable resource. It has most recently been proven by Enefit American Oil, 

which recently hosted Uintah County, Utah officials at their operations in Estonia. Enefit 

operates economically on a three-foot thick seam of oil shale. Imagine how economically they 

could operate on a 25-foot or greater thickness of oil shale in NE Utah, if given the chance! 

Commercial production has also occurred in Scotland (see Page 4-200). #15])>

<([#16 [2] Page 2-1, Line 32: This description of the alternatives is poorly worded and could 

lead the reader to assume that the No Action Alternative does not allocate any lands for potential 

leasing. The alternatives could better be described as the No Action Alternative and three 

reduced land allocation alternatives. 

#16])>

<([#17 [6.3] Page 2-15, Line 17: BLM has failed to recognize the plans for commercial oil shale 

development by TomCo Energy, a London-based energy company that plans to seek permits on 

SITLA lands. It’s too bad that emerging companies are not able to access federal lands for their 

start-ups and must confine themselves to more progressive-minded state agencies and private 

land owners to prove the viability of their technology. #17])>

<([#18 [13] Page 2-16, Line 33...the BLM agreed to propose changes to the rule rather than 

purpose changes to the rule... #18])>

<([#19 [2.2] Page 2-35, Line 24: This paragraph demonstrates the lack of business sense by those 

currently in power in Washington D.C. No company is going to invest in costly oil shale 

technology on federal lands when such small acreages are made available under Alternative 2(b). 

It looks like the investments will continue on non-federal lands until the bureaucrats in 

Washington D.C. are replaced. #19])>

<([#20 [2.2] Page 2-35, Line 37: In this paragraph, the BLM admits that the preferred alternative, 

Alternative 2 (b), was “not noted elsewhere in the document but will be developed further in 

preparation of the Final PEIS. Duchesne County requests that the DPEIS be re-written and 

provided to us for at least a 30-day comment period after this alternative is more fully developed. 
Final OSTS PEIS 779 

It is impossible for cooperators and the general public to adequately comment on an alternative 

until it is fully developed in the draft PEIS. #20])>

<([#21 [13] Page 2-48, Line 8: Two periods at the end of the sentence. Page 2-48, Line 44: 

Delete the word “as” after the word “acreage.” #21])>

<([#22 [13] [2.4] Page 2-53, Tables 2.3.3-4 and 2.3.3-5, Page 2-75, Table 2.4.3-4, Page 2-76, 

Table 2.4.3-5: These tables needs to be re-designed to help the reader understand them. For 

example, in Table 2.3.3-4, the column entitled “Acres LWC and Sage Grouse needs to be moved 

to the right of the “Total” acreage column and then the data subtracted from that acreage to 

arrive at the acreage available for oil shale development after 75% of the lands with wilderness 

characteristics and sage grouse habitat are protected. Similar adjustments need to be made in the 

remaining tables. #22])>

<([#23 [2.4] Page 2-53, Line 14: This section is an analysis of Alternative 4. Why is Alternative 

2 mentioned here? #23])>

<([#24 [13] Page 2-66, Line 7: This section is an analysis of tar sands leasing under alternative 2. 

Replace “oil shale” with “tar sands” in this sentence. #24])>

<([#25 [3.15] [3.1.7] Page 2-68, Figure 2.4.3-1: Along the Green River, in Uintah County, there 

is shown a “Colorado River Wildlife Management Area.” We have not heard of this area before 

and cannot find reference to it on the internet. Being located along the Green River, we suspect 

that this map designation may be in error. #25])>

<([#26 [13] Page 2-71, Line 8 and footnote 22: The paragraph beginning on Line 8 and the 

footnote are repetitious. #26])>

<([#27 [13] Page 2-73, Line 45: Delete the word “follow” at the end of the sentence. #27])>

<([#28 [2] Page 2-76, Lines 32-38: The alternative mentioned here should be one of the 

alternatives analyzed in the DPEIS. Duchesne County requests that the DPEIS be re-written to 

include this alternative and that the DPEIS be made available for another 90-day comment period 

after such amendments are made. #28])>

<([#29 [13] Page 2-80, Lines 39-41 and Lines 44-47: These sentences are poorly worded, 

repetitive and redundant. #29])>

<([#30 [2] Pages 2-83 to 2-109, Table 2.6-1: For Alternative 1, why does this table refer only to 

the White River and Book Cliffs RMPs when the Vernal RMP and perhaps others include oil 

shale development areas? #30])>

<([#31 [3.7.3.7] Page 2-95, Table 2.6-1, Wildlife: We doubt that there are “106,092 acres of 

raptor nests” under Alternative 1 and “103,719 acres of raptor nests” under Alternative 4. #31])>

<([#32 [13] Page 2-100, Table 2.6-1, Visual Resources: The column for Alternative 4 

erroneously contains a reference to Alternative 2. #32])>
Final OSTS PEIS 780 

<([#33 [13] Page 2-101, Table 2.6-1, Cultural Resources: There is an acreage discrepancy (1.9 

million acres vs. 2,017,714) in the Alternative 1 column. #33])>

<([#34 [3.10.3] Page 2-104, Table 2.6-1 and Page 2-127, Table 2.6-2, Socioeconomics: The 

positive socioeconomic impacts are understated and the negative impacts are overstated here and 

throughout the DPEIS. #34])>

<([#35 [3.12.2] Page 2-105, Table 2.6-1 and Page 2-128, Table 2.6-2, Environmental Justice: 

The positive impacts of energy development on minority and low-income populations are 

understated and the negative impacts are overstated here and elsewhere in the document. #35])>

<([#36 [3.12.1] Page 2-106, Table 2.6-1 and Page 2-128, Table 2.6-2, Environmental Justice: 

Assumptions are made that energy development will have negative effects on air and water 

quality and decrease water available for agricultural use by low-income or minority populations. 

These assumptions are based on the myths perpetuated by radical environmental groups and do 

not take into account the technologies being employed on private and state lands by companies 

such as Red Leaf Resources. #36])>

<([#37 [13] Pages 2-111 through 2-130, Table 2.6-2: The acreage associated with tar sands 

leasing under Alternative 1 should be 430,686 rather than 2,017,714. The acreage associated 

with tar sands leasing under Alternative 2 should be 91,045 rather than 461,965. The acreage 

associated with tar sands leasing under Alternative 4 should be 425,790 rather than 1,963,414. 

See Page 2-121. Also, in this Table, the reference under Alternative 1 containing lands only 

within the White River and Book Cliffs RMPs appears to be erroneous. Lands within the Vernal 

RMP and perhaps others should be included. #37])>

<([#38 [13] Page 2-117, Table 2.6-2, Noise: The indication that there would be 1.9 million acres 

identified for potential tar sands leasing under this alternative is false. #38])>

<([#39 [13] Page 2-118, Table 2.6-2, Noise, (cont.): Reference is erroneously made to 

Alternative 2 in the Alternative 4 column. #39])>

<([#40 [3.7.3.7] Page 2-121, Table 2.6-2, Wildlife: We doubt that there are “7 acres of raptor 

nests” under Alternative 1 and “5 acres of raptor nests” under Alternative 4. #40])>

<([#41 [13] Page 3-4 and Figure 3.1.1-1: Section 3.1.1.1 notes that the Glenwood Springs BLM 

Field Office is now called the Colorado River Valley Field Office. However, Figure 3.1.1-1 (and 

several other figures throughout the document) still refer to this field office as Glenwood 

Springs. #41])>

<([#42 [3.1.7] Page 3-28, Line 6: The figure of 2,800 active oil and gas wells in the Vernal Field 

Office is out of date (2005). Data from the Greater Uinta Basin Cumulative Impacts Technical 

Support Document, August 2011, states that there are 9,036 productive wells in the region.

(http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/ut/vernal_fo.Par.57849.File.dat/GCW%20Cums%

20TSD%2003-22-12%20final.pdf) #42])>
Final OSTS PEIS 781 

<([#43 [3.1.7] Page 3-29, Line 15-20: This information regarding wild and scenic rivers is out of 

date (2005) and inconsistent with the ROD for the Vernal FO RMP (see Figure 14a of the 

Approved RMP). #43])>

<([#44 [3.1.6] Page 3-37, Line 22: What authority does the Wyoming Environmental Council 

have to designate an area as very rare or uncommon? #44])>

<([#45 [3.1.8] Page 3-40, Lines 16-18: The assertion is made that ACEC’s, WSA’s, SMA’s, 

national historic trails and lands with wilderness characteristics support higher levels of 

recreation use than most BLM administered areas. The opposite is true. These areas restrict 

public access and types of activities allowed to the point that they actually support lower levels 

of recreation use or prohibit recreation use by the majority of citizens. #45])>

<([#46 [3.2] Page 3-44, Line 2: Erosion by wind is more likely due to the lack of natural 

vegetative cover than overgrazing. #46])>

<([#47 [13] Page 3-61, Line 25: Was this water data collected from 1906 and 1986 or from 1906 

to 1986? #47])>

<([#48 [3.4.5] Page 3-62, Line 13-15: This section, if truly a “fresh look,” should be updated to 

include what the BOR’s Basin-wide Salinity Control Program has funded and accomplished 

since 2004. #48])>

<([#49 [6.3.2.1] Page 3-66, Section 3.4.1.4, Water Use: This entire section is flawed in that it 

fails to recognize modern oil shale technology being used by companies such as Red Leaf 

Resources, which use little to no water. #49])>

<([#50 [3.4.5] Page 3-78, Section 3.4.2.2, Surface Water Resources: This entire section is flawed 

in that it fails to recognize data available for the past six years; including 2011, which was a 

record water run-off year. #50])>

<([#51 [3.4.4] Page 3-83, Lines 38-44, Page 3-85, Lines 9-15: Again, old data (1941 to 1970) is 

being used when newer data is available and should be incorporated into the draft. #51])>

<([#52 [3.5.1.8] Pages 3-103 through 3-105: The climate change predictions on these pages are 

filled with contradictions; for example, there are dire predictions of both drought and increased 

precipitation attributed to climate change. #52])>

<([#53 [3.5.5] Pages 3-106 to 3-107, Table 3.5.2-1: The air emissions data in this table are from 

2002. Newer data is available and should be incorporated into this table. Also, data from 

Duchesne County, Utah is not included in the table. 

#53])>

<([#54 [3.6] Page 3-120, Line 1: Duchesne County actually limits construction and mining 

activities to 7 AM to 9:30 PM on weekdays, 8 AM to 9:30 PM on Saturdays and 9 AM to 9:30 

PM on Sundays and holidays. 
Final OSTS PEIS 782 

#54])>

<([#55 [3.7.1.1] Page 3-121, Line 38: A word is missing at the end of this sentence. The word 

could be “basin.” #55])>

<([#56 [3.7.5.1] [3.7.5.3] Page 3-134, Line 3: ...are present within in the Green River Basin...

#56])>

<([#57 [3.7.5.1] [3.7.5.3] Page 3-197, Lines 31-32: One major threat to sage grouse populations 

(see Page 4-91) is West Nile Virus. This threat is left out in this section. #57])>

<([#58 [3.10.1] Page 3-238, Line 20: The 1989 Gulliford report is apparently flawed. If 700 new 

schools would be needed to support the oil shale industry in Garfield County, Colorado, with 

3,000 teachers and staff, that calculates to about 4.3 teachers/staff members per school. Perhaps 

70 new schools would be needed? #58])>

<([#59 [3.10.1] Page 3-243, Table 3.11.2-1: It appears that the cities of Blanding, Duchesne and 

Naples, within the Utah ROI, have been omitted from this table. #59])>

<([#60 [3.10.1] Page 3-245, Table 3.11.2-4: This table contains a mixture of data from 2004, 

2007 and 2009, which makes the title of the table misleading and makes it difficult to draw 

conclusions from the data. Data from 2004 should be updated to 2009 data, if available. #60])>

<([#61 [13] Page 3-246, Lines 1-32: The employment data used in this section is from 2004. 

Updated employment data should be available in Utah from the Department of Workforce 

Services. #61])>

<([#62 [13] Page 3-251, Line 4, Page 3-254, Line 22, Page 3-255, Table 3.11.2-8, Page 3-261, 

Line 44: Duchesne is misspelled. #62])>

<([#63 [3.10.1] Page 3-262, Table 3.11.2-11: Much of the data used in developing this table is 6-

8 years old and should be updated. #63])>

<([#64 [3.10.1] Pages 3-268 and 3-269, Tables 3.11.2-15 and 3.11.2-16: Much of the data used 

in developing these tables is 6-8 years old and should be updated. #64])>

<([#65 [3.10.4] Page 3-270 and 271: The value of recreation resources is unlikely to be 

underestimated as many agencies have been known to inflate their visitation counts to justify the 

budget they wish to obtain. Also, a recent study by Utah State University [The Economic Costs 

of Wilderness, June, 2011] finds that wilderness areas actually have a negative impact on the 

local economy rather than a positive impact. #65])>

<([#66 [3.10.1] Page 3-272, Table 3.11.3-1: The 2004 data used in this table should be updated.

#66])>

<([#67 [3.10.1] Page 3-273, Lines 31 and 36: Out-of-date data is used here as well. #67])>
Final OSTS PEIS 783 

<([#68 [3.10.1] Page 3-276, Line 37: 2010 Census data should be available for use in Table 3.12-

1 rather than 2000 Census data. #68])>

<([#69 [6.3.2.1] Pages 4-8 through 4-11, Page 4-33, Section 4.5.1.2, Page 4-43, Table 4.5.2-1, 

Page 4-47, Line 27, Page 4-48, Section 4.5.2.2: Water usage estimates are high given today’s 

technologies being pioneered by companies such as Red Leaf Resources, which use very little, if 

any water. Some data used here [see Page 4-9, Line 11], is from 1973, which is ancient history.

#69])>

<([#70 [6.3] Page 4-10, Lines 34-40, Page 4-69, Section 4.7.1.6: Upgrading may not be as 

extensive as depicted here under today’s technologies being pioneered by companies such as Red 

Leaf Resources, #70])>

<([#71 [3.4.5] Page 4-48, Lines 41-43: The 2010 Western Resource Advocates water report is 

widely viewed to be a biased, flawed document that perpetuates the myths associated with water 

use in oil shale and tar sands development. Reference to this flawed report should be deleted 

from the document. Instead, the document should be updated to reflect more accurate 

information from companies working in the industry. #71])>

<([#72 [6.5] Page 4-13, Section 4.1.5. Workforce/Housing: The BLM should contact companies 

actively involved in oil shale production (such as Enefit and Red Leaf) for updated estimates.

#72])>

<([#73 [6.2.1] Page 4-13, 4-14, Section 4.1.6, Page 4-43, Table 4.5.2-1, Electricity needs: This 

section fails to account for today’s technologies being pioneered by companies such as Red Leaf 

Resources, which use synthetic natural gas to produce the energy needed for the process. New 

power plants may not be necessary. #73])>

<([#74 [6.5] Page 4-16, Section 4.1.8: The BLM should contact companies actively involved in 

oil shale production (such as Enefit and Red Leaf) for updated estimates. #74])>

<([#75 [3.1.2] Page 4-21, Section 4.2.1.4, Recreation use: The document should address how 

much land would actually be taken out of recreation use under the various alternatives. #75])>

<([#76 [3.5.1.5] Page 4-57, Section 4.6.1.1.2, GHG Emissions: This section fails to recognize 

today’s technologies being pioneered by companies such as Red Leaf Resources, who claim that 

GHG emissions are reduced by 2/3rds compared to previous technology. #76])>

<([#77 [3.5.1.5] Page 4-61, Section 4.6.2, Mitigation Measures: The BLM should communicate 

with companies such as Red Leaf Resources to determine how their new technologies reduce 

GHG emissions. #77])>

<([#78 [3.8.3] Pages 4-143 and 4-144, Figures 4.9.1-1 and 4.9.1-2: Why doesn’t the BLM obtain 

photos from companies that are actually operating or proposing to operate in Colorado and Utah 

(Enefit, Red Leaf Resources, etc...) instead of photos from Australia? #78])>

<([#79 [3.8.4] Page 4-154, Line 39: Please clarify what is meant by “fall-line cuts.” #79])>
Final OSTS PEIS 784 

<([#80 [13] Page 4-159: The four bullet points should be formatted with italics as was done on 

Page 4-162. #80])>

<([#81 [3.10.4] Page 4-180, Lines 14-20: In reality, the important recreational areas are 

adequately separated from the oil shale and tar sands areas so that both activities can function 

without adversely impacting the other. Also, while the tourism and recreational sectors of the 

economy are important, they do not produce the family wage jobs that the energy industry does.

#81])>

<([#82 [3.13] Page 4-191, Section 4.14.1.2 and Page 4-194, Section 4.14.1.4: These sections 

need to be updated to recognize today’s technologies being pioneered by companies such as Red 

Leaf Resources and Enefit. #82])>

<([#83 [6.5] Chapter 5, beginning on Page 5-1: This entire section should be updated to 

incorporate new technologies, such as those used by Temple Mountain Energy [see 

www.templemountainenergy.com]. #83])>

<([#84 [6.3.2.1] Page 5-34, Section 5.5.2, Water Use: The water usage here is vastly overstated 

given today’s technologies being pioneered by companies such as Temple Mountain Energy, 

where they re-use 93% of their water. #84])>

<([#85 [3.5.1.5] Page 5-45, Lines 1-2: Did the BLM contact Temple Mountain Energy, operating 

in the Asphalt Ridge area of Utah, to verify that their technology is not commercially viable?

#85])>

<([#86 [3.13] Page 5-65, Lines 1-7: Temple Mountain Energy claims that their spent tar sands 

are benign and can be sold as “clean, high-quality sand for applications such as hydraulic 

fracturing, glass making and other industrial uses.” Did the BLM contact this company to verify 

that not all spent tar sands are a pollutant? 

#86])>

<([#87 [3.8.3] Page 5-109, Figures 5.9.1-1 and 5.9.1-2: Did the BLM attempt to obtain photos of 

local operations, such as Temple Mountain Energy on Asphalt Ridge, rather than rely on photos 

from Alberta, Canada? #87])>

<([#88 [3.10.2] [3.12.1] Page 5-128, Line 24, Page 5-134, Line 16: If companies such as Temple 

Mountain Energy are able to recycle 93% of their water, the impacts on agriculture and lowmoderate income populations here are vastly overstated. #88])>

<([#89 [3.13] Page 5-139, Lines 12-14: Contrary to this statement, spent tar sands do have value 

[see www.templemountainenergy.com] and are not necessarily to be treated as solid waste. 

#89])>

<([#90 [1.5] Page 6-2, Lines 15-17 and Lines 41-44, Page 6-10, Lines 28-32, Page 6-11, Lines 

36-37, Page 6-12, Lines 26-28 and 40-41, Page 6-13, Lines 44-45, Page 6-17, Lines 23-24, Page 

6-21, Lines32-33, Page 6-48, Lines 39-41, Page 6-51, Lines 40-41, Page 6-56, Lines 36-37, Page 

6-57, Lines 32-33, Page 6-65, Lines 28-29, Page 6-66, Lines 23-24, Page 6-242, Lines 13-22, 
Final OSTS PEIS 785 

Page 6-321, Lines 20-22, Page 6-325, Lines 16-17, Page 6-327, Lines 21-22, Page 6-329, Lines 

30-31, Page 6-330, Lines 15-16, Page 6-331, Lines 5-6 and 19-20, Page 6-332, Lines 28-30, 

Page 6-334, Lines 36-37, Page 6-338, Lines 37-39, Page 6-349, Lines 34-35, Page 6-362, Line 

14, Page 6-363, Lines 33-34, Page 6-365, Lines 19-20 and Page 6-366, Lines 14-15: If the BLM 

admits that there is no environmental impact associated with Alternative 1, then it makes 

absolutely no sense to have gone through this exercise and spent scarce taxpayer funds; except 

for the desires of the Obama Administration to pander to environmental groups rather than stand 

up for what is best for this country. #90])>

<([#91 [3.1.7] Page 6-7, Table 6.1.1-2: The acreage in the table does not match the acreage under 

Footnote c. #91])>

<([#92 [3.1.7] Page 6-53, Figure 6.1.1-7, Page 6-110, Figure 6.1.2-7, Page 6-160, Figure 6.1.3-6, 

Page 6-218, Figure 6.1.4-7, Page 6-355, Figure 6.2.1-6, Page 6-356, Figure 6.2.1-7, Page 6-395, 

Figure 6.2.2-6, Page 6-396, Figure 6.2.2-7 and Page 6-459, Figure 6.2.4-6: These maps are 

incorrect with respect to the location of designated wild and scenic rivers in the Vernal Field 

Office. Nine Mile Creek and the Middle Green River were not designated. Neither were the 

White River, Evacuation Creek and Bitter Creek (See Figure 14a of the Approved RMP). If 

certain alternatives would recognize these considered-but-not-designated streams; such should be 

noted in a footnote to the Figure. #92])>

<([#93 [2.2] Page 6-67, Section 6.1.2: There is no analysis in the document of the BLM 

preferred alternative 2(b). This analysis must be provided and re-published for review by the 

public and cooperating agencies before the process moves forward to a final PEIS. 

#93])>

<([#94 [3.10.2] Page 6-114, Section 6.1.2.11: The loss of jobs, revenue and positive economic 

impacts associated with Alternative 2 are drastically understated here. 

#94])>

<([#95 [9.5] Page 6-171, Section 6.1.4: Alternative 4, which is subject to acreage reductions 

associated with potential sage grouse core habitat and lands with wilderness character, is 

inconsistent with local plans and polices, including the Uintah Basin Utah Energy Zone 

designated by the 2012 Utah Legislature, Uintah County, Duchesne County and Daggett County.

#95])>

<([#96 [3.1.7] Page 6-173, Line 27: Is the reference to Alternative 1 here really supposed to say 

Alternative 4? #96])>

<([#97 [13] Page 6-178, Line 20: correct typo “t49” perennial streams. #97])>

<([#98 [3.13] Page 6-312, Lines 5-9: This paragraph contains a mixture of references to oil shale 

and tar sands development when the section is supposed to be devoted only to a discussion of oil 

shale. #98])>

<([#99 [1.3] Page 7-1, Line 42 and Page J-5, Line 14: Duchesne County, Utah was left out of the 

list of local government cooperating agencies that submitted comments during the scoping period 

and before the release of the draft to the public. Why are the scoping comments and BLM’s 
Final OSTS PEIS 786 

response to such comments not included at the end of Chapter 7? #99])>

<([#100 [6.5] Page A-9, Table A-1: This table utilizes 1967 data, which should be replaced by 

newer data from recent USGS estimates of the oil shale resource. #100])>

<([#101 [6.5] Page A-19, Section A.2.2: This section regarding Utah oil shale activity must be 

updated to include the activities of companies including Enefit American Oil, Red Leaf 

Resources and TomCo Energy. 

#101])>

<([#102 [6.5] Page A-21 through A-48, Section A.3: This technology overview is out of date as 

it fails to address new technologies being pioneered by companies including Enefit American 

Oil, Red Leaf Resources and TomCo Energy. #102])>

<([#103 [6.5] Pages A-109 through A-115, Sections 6 and 7: The data in these sections is 2005-

2007 vintage and should be easy to update with current data. #103])>

<([#104 [2.1.1] Page A-118, Lines 24, 37 and 43 and Page A-119, Lines 3-4 and 18-19: The 

document recognizes that we are experiencing “declines in supply from existing major 

importers,” that “Alaska North Slope production has been in decline,” the “world demand for 

crude oil is expected to increase by 47% by 2030.” Because of these world supply issues, the 

document recognizes that “further international energy risk could provide additional incentive 

for utilization of domestic resources.” The document also recognizes that “Section 369 of the 

Energy Policy Act directs the Secretary of Defense to procure fuel derived from coal, shale oil 

and tar sands.” Based on these findings from the document, it makes absolutely no sense and is 

very short-sighted to select an alternative other than Alternative 1. Our national economy and our 

national security are at stake. Also, based on these findings, there is less likelihood of the boom 

and bust cycle occurring given the struggle of supply to keep up with demand. #104])>

<([#105 [6.5] Page B-4, Line 16: The document states that there are no commercial tar sands 

operations on public lands in Utah. Please check with the Utah State Institutional Trust Lands 

Administration to verify that this is correct. There is a company called Temple Mountain Energy 

that has been in operation on Asphalt Ridge, near Vernal, since 2006. We do not know if those 

lands are private or public. #105])>

<([#106 [6.5] Pages B-15 and B-16: Information regarding the Asphalt Ridge STSA is out-ofdate. It does not include the operations of Temple Mountain Energy at this location from 2006 to 

the present. #106])>

<([#107 [6.5] Page B-17, Lines 5-7: This information from the Utah Division of Oil, Gas and 

Mining should be updated. This information also demonstrates that tar sands development is 

commercially viable and that companies are being forced to “move forward without the feds” 

because of the bureaucratic paralysis the federal government is mired in under the current 

administration. #107])>

<([#108 [6.5] Page B-19, Lines 24-34: This 1995 Speight report is outdated given today’s tar 

sands technology. Information from the Temple Mountain Energy web site (2011) debunks many 
Final OSTS PEIS 787 

of the myths contained in this 1995 report. #108])>

<([#109 [6.3.2.1] Page B-20, Table B-2: The water use data in this table is too high and is not 

based on today’s technologies. For example, Temple Mountain Energy states that they re-use 

93% of their water, which will cut these water use figures dramatically. #109])>

<([#110 [6.5] Page B-31, Section B-5: This entire section is out of date as it does not take into 

account technologies being used by companies such as Temple Mountain Energy, at Asphalt 

Ridge. #110])>

<([#111 [6.3.5] Page B-58, Conclusions: These conclusions demonstrate that commercial tar 

sands development is economically viable; debunking the myths perpetuated by environmental 

groups. #111])>

<([#112 [2.4] Pages C-10, C-11, C-13, C-15, Table C-1: The statement under Alternative 4 on 

these pages that “All lands within the most geologically prospective oil shale area that are not 

excluded from commercial leasing under Alternative 2 will also be excluded under Alternative 

4” does not make sense as Alternative 4 would allow more lands to be leased than Alternative 2.

#112])>

<([#113 [6.3.2] Page D-9, Table D-5: Duchesne County, Utah has a Drinking Water Source 

Protection Ordinance in Title 4, Chapter 6 of its County Code. #113])>

<([#114 [3.13] Page D-10, Table D-6: Duchesne County, Utah regulates hazardous materials in 

its Nuisance Ordinance, which is located in Title 3, Chapter 1 of the County Code. #114])>

<([#115 [3.1.7] Page D-12, Table D-8: Duchesne County, Utah requires a conditional use permit 

for mining activities only when located on private lands. #115])>

<([#116 [3.6] Page D-14, Table D-9: The correct reference to the Duchesne County Code for 

noise regulations is the Nuisance Ordinance, which is in Title 3, Chapter 1, Section 4(G) of the 

County Code. #116])>

<([#117 [3.7.2] Page D-15, Table D-10: The correct reference to the Duchesne County Code for 

weed regulations is Title 3, Chapter 5 of the County Code. #117])>

<([#118 [3.13] Page D-16, Table D-11: The correct reference to the Duchesne County Code for 

solid waste regulations is Title 3, Chapter 4 of the County Code. #118])>

<([#119 [6.3.2] Page D-17, Table D-12: The correct reference to the Duchesne County Code for 

source water protection regulations is Title 4, Chapter 6 of the County Code as well as the 

Duchesne County Drinking Water Source Protection Ordinance #09-273. #119])>

<([#120 [3.4.5] Page D-18, Table D-13: The correct reference to the Duchesne County Code for 

water bodies and wastewater is Title 3, Chapter 1 of the County Code. #120])>
Final OSTS PEIS 788 

<([#121 [3.7.4.4] Page F-18, Line 7: Requiring a 300 foot setback from a threatened or 

endangered plant to any surface disturbance associated with oil shale or tars sands development 

is far too great of a setback and could place substantial areas of land off-limits for production of 

these vital natural resources. #121])>

<([#122 [3.10.1] Pages G-3 through G-9, Socioeconomic analysis : The data in this entire section 

is out-of –date and needs to be updated with readily available data from state and federal 

agencies. #122])>

<([#123 [3.10.1] Appendix H: The interviews of community leaders and stakeholders should be 

updated given the developments that have occurred in the past 5 years since the interviews were 

done. #123])>

<([#124 [3.10.3] Page H-3, Lines 19-21: While the boom and bust cycle has occurred in the past, 

the facts of increasing demand and supply issues noted in Appendix A are likely to lessen the 

severity of such cycles. #124])>

<([#125 [1.5] In summary, this draft PEIS is not the “fresh look” that the BLM intended. It is 

filled with outdated information that could have been easily updated if the BLM weren’t trying 

to rush this process to a conclusion before the end of the Obama Administration. Rather than 

fight for the family wage jobs and associated income that so many American citizens desperately 

need; rather than fight for responsible energy development that contributes to local, state and 

national economic health and security; the BLM has backed down to litigious environmental 

groups. #125])>

<([#126 [9.5] Again, the enclosed Resolution #12-08 summarizes our opposition to this process 

based on several points of law. The preferred alternative is inconsistent with state and local plans 

and policies, including the Uintah Basin Utah Energy Zone (see Resolution #12-06 enclosed). 

There has been no attempt, as required by FLPMA, to make the BLM Oil Shale and Tar Sands 

leasing effort as consistent with local plans as possible. If the Record of Decision adopts the 

BLM preferred alternative (2b), there will no doubt be legal ramifications. #126])>

Sincerely, 

DUCHESNE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 

Michael A. Hyde, AICP 

Community Development Director 

Enclosures 

Resolution #12-06 – Uintah Basin Utah Energy Zone 

Resolution #12-08 – Opposition to the BLM’s 2012 OSTS DPEIS 
Final OSTS PEIS 789 

pc: Ken Salazar, Secretary, Dept. of the Interior, 1849 C St., N.W., Washington DC 20240 

Bob Abbey, Director, BLM, 1849 C Street, N.W., Room 5665, Washington DC 20240 

Sherri Thompson, BLM State Office, 2850 Youngfield Street, Lakewood, CO 80215 

Juan Palma, BLM State Director, P.O. Box 45155, Salt Lake City, Utah 84145 

Mark Ward, Utah Assoc. of Counties, 5397 So. Vine Street, Salt Lake City, UT 84107 

Kathleen Clarke, PLPCO, 5110 St. Office Bldg., Box 141107, Salt Lake City, UT 84114 

Governor Gary Herbert, State of Utah, PO Box 142220, Salt Lake City, Utah 84114-2220 

Congressman Jim Matheson, 2434 Rayburn HOB, Washington, DC 20515 

Congressman Rob Bishop, 123 Cannon Building, Washington, DC 20515 

Congressman Jason Chaffetz, 1032 Longworth HOB, Washington, DC 20515 

Senator Mike Lee, 316 Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. 20510 

Senator Orin Hatch, 104 Hart Office Building, Washington, DC 20510 

P:\Mike\Pluc\BLM Comments\DPEIS OS&TS Comment Letter.docx 

OSTS2012D50182 

Organization: Chris Bowman 

Received: 4/30/2012 4:13:05 PM 

Commenter1: Chris Bowman - , Rhode Island (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: aziech 5/15/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50182.htm (OSTS2012D50182-58686.htm Size = 1 KB) 

Submission Text

<([#1 [12] The BLM should strongly consider NOT opening the proposed area to potential oil 

shale and oil sands development. Such development puts several protected areas, their 

geological, and biological integrity at risk. Various forms of pollution- air, water, noise, and light 

to name a few- will inevitably ensue and risk compromising wildlife corridors and the public’s 

ability to enjoy our beautiful parks. This proposal also highlights America’s increasingly 

hazardous dependence on fossil fuels, the present trajectory of which will place this dependance 

before the preservation of our wild lands. In an area where water is scarce and sunlight is not, we 
Final OSTS PEIS 790 

should not be wasting resources pursuing non-renewable energy sources. 

#1])>

OSTS2012D50184 

Organization: Duchesne County, Utah, Duchesne County Commissioners 

Received: 4/30/2012 4:14:48 PM 

Commenter1: Duchesne County Commissioners - Duchesne, Utah 84021 (United States) 

Organization1:Duchesne County, Utah 

Commenter Type: Coop Agency - Local Govt 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Resolution 

Submitted As: Web Form and Mail 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/10/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50184.htm (OSTS2012D50184-58796.htm Size = 1 KB) 

img-430123521_OSTS2012D50184.pdf (OSTS2012D50184-58795.pdf Size = 87 KB) 

Submission Text

See attached See Attachment. 

0 0 

1 RESOLUTION # 12-06 

2 

3 A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE PUBLIC LANDS SECTION OF THE DUCHESNE 

4 COUNTY GENERAL PLAN TO INCORPORATE THE UINTAH BASIN UTAH 

5 ENERGY ZONE 

6 

7 W~~REAS, Duchesne. County has a general plan adopted pursuant to Utah Code containing 

8 pohc1es for the appropnate use of private and public land within the county; and 

9 

10 WHEREAS, Duchesne County desires to amend its general plan to incorporate provisions 

11 associated with the Uintah Basin Utah Energy Zone (Senate Bi1183) that was established by 

the 

12 Utah Legislature in the 2012 General Session; and 

13 

14 WHEREAS, the Duchesne County Public Land Use Committee has reviewed and 

recommended 

15 approval ofthese amendments as set forth herein; and 

16 

17 WHEREAS, the Duchesne County Planning Commission has conducted a public hearing to 

18 review the proposed plan amendment and concurs with the recommendation of the Public 

Land 

19 Use Committee that this Resolution should be passed; 

20 

21 NOW, THEREFORE, THE DUCHESNE COUNTY GENERAL PLAN IS AMENDED BY 

22 INSERTING THE FOLLOWING AT THE END OF THE ENERGY AND MINERAL 

23 RESOURCES SUBSECTION OF THE PUBLIC LANDS SECTION OF THE GENERAL 
Final OSTS PEIS 791 

24 PLAN: 

25 

26 <([#1 [6.1] SECTION 1. There is established, pursuant to Utah Code, the Uintah Basin 

Energy Zone in 

27 Duchesne County for the purpose of maximizing efficient and responsible development of 

28 energy and mineral resources. The land area and boundaries of the Uintah Basin Energy Zone 

in 

29 Duchesne County consist offederal1ands within the Townships and Ranges described below 

and 

30 as depicted on the map attached hereto as Exhibit A, which is incorporated herein by 

reference: 

31 

32 Uintah Special Base and Meridian: 

33 Township 3N, Range 1 W; Township 3N, Range 2W; Township 3N, Range 3W; Township 

3N, 

34 Range 4W; Township 2N, Range 1 W; Township 2N, Range 2W; Township 2N, Range 3W; 

35 Township 2N, Range 4W; Township 2N, Range SW; Township 2N, Range 6W; Township 

IN, 

36 Range 6W; Township IN, Range 7W; Township IN, Range 8W; Township IN, Range 9W, 

37 Township SS, Range 8W, Township 5S, Range 9W; Township 6S, Range 3W; Township 6S, 

38 Ra~ge 4W; Township 6S, Range 5W; Township 6S, Range 6W; Township 6S, Range 7W; 

39 Township 6S, Range 8W; Township 6S, Range 9W; Township 7S, Range 4W; Township 7S, 

40 Range 5W; Township 7S, Range 6W; Township 7S, Range 7W; Township 7S, Range 8W; 

41 Township 7S, Range 9W. 

42 

43 Salt Lake Meridian: 

44 Township 8S, Range 15E; Township 8S Range 16E; Township 8S, Range 17E; Township 9S, 

45 Range 15E; Township 9S, Range 16E; Township 9S, Range 17E; Township 1 OS, Range 

14E, 

46 Township lOS, Range 15E; Township lOS, Range 16E; Township lOS, Range 17E; Township 

4 7 11 S, Range 1 OE; Township 11 S, Range 11 E; Township 11 S, Range 12E; Township 11 S, 

Range 

48 13E; Township 11 S, Range 14E; Township 11 S, Range lSE; Township 11 S, Range 16E; 

and 

49 Township 11 S, Range 17E. 

50 

51 SECTION 2. The county finds that the lands comprising the Uintah Basin Energy Zone 

contain 

52 abundant world-class deposits of energy and mineral resources, including oil, natural gas, oil 

53 shale, oil,sands, gilsonite, coal, phosphate, gold, uranium, and copper, as well as areas with 

high 

54 wind and solar energy potential. 

55 

56 SECTION 3. The highest management priority for all1ands within the Uintah Basin Energ~ 

57 Zone is responsible management and development of existing energy and ~eral resources m 

58 order to provide long-term domestic energy and supplies for Utah and the Umted States. 
Final OSTS PEIS 792 

#1])> 59 

.... u Resolution #12-06 

General Plan Amendment 

Uintah Basin Energy Zone 

Page2 

<([#2 [11] SECTION 4. The county supports: 

(a) Efficient and responsible full development of all existing energy and mineral 

resources located within the Uintah Basin Energy Zone, including oil, oil shale, natural 

gas, oil sands, gilsonite, phosphate, gold, uranium, copper, solar, and wind resources; and #2])>

<([#3 [1.3] The county supports: (b) A cooperative management approach among federal 

agencies, state, and local 

governments to achieve broadly supported management plans for the full development of 

all energy and mineral resources within the Uintah Basin Energy Zone. #3])>

<([#4 [1.3] SECTION 5. The county calls upon the federal agencies who administer lands within 

the 

Uintah Basin Energy Zone to: 

(a) Fully cooperate and coordinate with the county to develop, amend, and implement land 

and resource management plans and to implement management decisions that are 

consistent with the purposes, goals, and policies described in this section to the maximum 

extent allowed under federal law; 

#4])> <([#5 [9.5] The county calls upon the federal agencies who administer lands within the 

Uintah Basin Energy Zone to: (b) Expedite the processing, granting, and streamlining of mineral 

and energy leases and 

applications to drill, extract, and otherwise develop all existing energy and mineral 

resources located within the Uintah Basin Energy Zone, including oil, natural gas, oil 

shale, oil sands, gilsonite, phosphate, gold, uranium, copper, solar, and wind resources; 

#5])> <([#6 [9] The county calls upon the federal agencies who administer lands within the 

Uintah Basin Energy Zone to: (c) Allow continued maintenance and increased development of 

roads, power lines, pipeline infrastructure, and other utilities necessary to achieve the goals, 

purposes, and policies 

described in this section; #6])>

<([#7 [9.5] The county calls upon the federal agencies who administer lands within the 

Uintah Basin Energy Zone to: (d) Refrain from any planning decisions and management actions 

that will undermine, 

restrict, or diminish the goals, purposes, and policies for the Uintah Basin Energy Zone 

as stated in this Resolution; and 

(e) Refrain from implementing a policy that is contrary to the goals and purposes described 

within this Resolution. #7])>

<([#8 [1.3] SECTION 6. The county calls upon Congress to establish an intergovernmental 

standing 

commission among federal, state, and local governments to guide and control planning decisions 

and management actions in the Uintah Basin Energy Zone in order to achieve and maintain the 

goals, purposes, and policies described in this Resolution. #8])>

NOW, THEREFORE, THE DUCHESNE COUNTY GENERAL PLAN IS AMENDED BY 

INSERTING THE FOLLOWING POLICY AS SUBSECTION (h) AT THE END OF THE 
Final OSTS PEIS 793 

ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES POLICIES IN THE PUBLIC LANDS 

SECTION OF THE GENERAL PLAN: 

(h) For private lands within the County, the County supports the provisions of the 

Surface Owner Protection Act, which was enacted by the 2012 Utah Legislature to 

establish surface owner rights and responsibilities when working with energy 

development companies. 

DATED this \ lJ,-/!&- day of Ll.pvi [ 2012. 

ATTEST: DUCHESNE COUNTY 

BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 

~’-~”~ Diane Freston 

County Clerk/ Auditor 

OSTS2012D50185 

Organization: Duchesne County, Utah, Duchesne County Commissioners 

Received: 4/30/2012 4:16:38 PM 

Commenter1: Duchesne County Commissioners - Duchesne, Utah 84021 (United States) 

Organization1:Duchesne County, Utah 

Commenter Type: Coop Agency - Local Govt 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Attachment 

Submitted As: Web Form and Mail 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: klett 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50185.htm (OSTS2012D50185-58799.htm Size = 1 KB) 

img-430123531_OSTS2012D50185.pdf (OSTS2012D50185-58798.pdf Size = 127 KB) 

Submission Text

See attachment See Attachment. 

OSTS2012D50186 

Organization: Duchesne County, Utah, Duchesne County Commissioners 

Received: 4/30/2012 4:18:28 PM 

Commenter1: Duchesne County Commissioners - Duchesne, Utah 84021 (United States) 

Organization1:Duchesne County, Utah 

Commenter Type: Coop Agency - Local Govt 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Resolution 

Submitted As: Web Form and Mail 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/9/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50186.htm (OSTS2012D50186-58802.htm Size = 1 KB) 

img-430111832_OSTS2012D50186.pdf (OSTS2012D50186-58801.pdf Size = 246 KB) 

50186_Duchesne_Resolution_Cover_Letter.pdf (OSTS2012D50186-59142.pdf Size = 514 KB) 

Submission Text

See attached See Attachment. 
Final OSTS PEIS 794 

Cover Letter: 

Dear Reader: 

<([#28 [1.1.1] On April l6, 2012, Duchesne County, Utah passed a resolution opposing the 

BLM’s 2012 Oil 

Shale and Tar Sands Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (see enclosed). As a 

cooperating agency in this environmental review we respectfully request an extension to the 

comment period, currently set to expire May 4, 2012. It is our understanding that this request for 

an extension has also been made, by resolution, by eight other counties in Wyoming, Utah and 

Colorado, also acting under their cooperator status. Three distinct justifications necessitate this 

extension. 

First, under the friendly-lawsuit settlement agreement with environmental groups, the BLM 

agreed to develop new oil shale regulations. We understand the draft regulations are due to be 

published on or about May 15, 2012. As a cooperator, it is impossible for us to make clear 

concise comments on the PDEIS until we have the opportunity to understand, at least in some 

detail, the scope of these new regulations. Indeed, cooperators run a substantial risk in proffering 

inconsistent and confusing responses to the DPEIS and any draft regulations; thus, undermining 

the integrity ofNEPA process. Consequently an extension ofthe OSTS DPEIS comment period 

should be granted for at least 30 days after publication of these new oil shale regulations. 

Second, the sheer volume of the DPEIS necessitates a time consuming review. As a cooperator, 

Duchesne County requests additional time to vet and analyze the DPEIS. This need becomes 

even more prominent based on the anticipation of new draft regulations pending publication, for 

it is extremely difficult to adequately comment on a four-volume DPEIS if we do not have all 

relevant information. 

Third, as detailed in the attached Resolution, Duchesne County and various other cooperating 

agencies have raised numerous legal challenges to the legally flawed process of the BLM taking 

a “fresh look” at lands available for oil shale and oil sands. Granting an extension will allow the 

BLM to thoughtfully consider the legal consequences of continuing down this tenuous road and 

give time for the BLM to make the correct decision to cease and desist all actions related to the 

DPEIS. 

#28])> We look forward to your response to this request. If you have any questions regarding 

this letter, 

please contact Mike Hyde at mhyde@duchesne.utah.gov or by phone at 435-738-1151. 

Sincerely, 

DUCHESNE COUNTY COMMISSION 

RESOLUTION #12-08 

DUCHESNE COUNTY, STATE OF UTAH 

A RESOLUTION OPPOSING THE BLM’S 2012 OIL SHALE AND TAR SANDS DRAFT 
Final OSTS PEIS 795 

PROGRAMMATIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT, BLM PROJECT# W0- 

300-1310-PP-OSHL (HEREAFTER 2012 OSTS DPEIS) FOR LANDS ADMINISTERED BY 

THE BLM IN COLORADO, UTAH AND WYOMING, 

This Resolution is adopted in open public meeting after due opportunity for public comment, by 

the Board of Commissioners of Duchesne County, Utah in order to redress the many violations 

of law, regulation and policy by the BLM with respect to the BLM’s 2012 OSTS DPEIS. 

As background to this Resolution, Duchesne County recites the following grievances: 

WHEREAS, On Aprill4, 2011, the BLM caused to be published in the Federal Register, 

Volume 76, No 72/Thursday, Aprill4, 2011, pages 21003-21005, a Notice oflntent to prepare 

the above-referenced 2012 OSTS DPEIS; and 

<([#1 [9.2.1] [3.1.3] WHEREAS, the preliminary purpose and need statement in the notice of 

intent, states the PEIS 

will analyze removing from oil shale and tar sands leasing “All areas that the BLM has identified 

or may identify as a result of inventories conducted during this planning process, as lands 

containing wilderness characteristics[.]” Id., at page 21004; and 

WHEREAS, the notice of intent further states at page 21004: 

Lands that the BLM identifies as having wilderness characteristics will be 

considered during this planning initiative, as described above, and consistent with 

Secretarial Order No. 3310, dated Dec. 22, 2010, and BLM Manuals 6301 and 

6302. Future leasing oflands determined by the BLM to have wilderness 

characteristics, if compatible with the allocation decisions stemming from this 

initiative, will subsequently be assessed in accordance with BLM Manual6303, 

as appropriate (i.e., where the BLM has not determined, consistent with BLM 

Manual 63 02, whether the lands with wilderness characteristics at issue should be 

receive a wild lands designation, BLM Manual6303 will apply); and 

WHEREAS, this language above documents the BLM’s intent to implement, administer and/or 

enforce Secretarial Order 3310 and one or more of the BLM guidance manuals promulgated 

under Order 331 0; and 

WHEREAS, any attempt by the BLM to implement, administer and/or enforce Secretarial Order 

3310, including any effort by the BLM to proceed further on the above-referenced Programmatic 

EIS violates the spending moratorium of Section 1769 of the April21, 2011 Congressional 

Continuing Resolution to Fund Fiscal Year 2011 through September 30, 2011, which states: 

For the fiscal year ending September 30, 2011, none of the funds made available 

by this division or any other Act may be used to implement, administer, or 

enforce Secretarial Order No. 3310 issued by the Secretary of the Interior on 

December 22, 2010; and 

WHEREAS, this spending moratorium has been carried forward in all subsequent Congressional 

spending resolutions up to and including the current spending resolution; and 

WHEREAS, the 2012 OSTS DPEIS, is an admitted attempt by the BLM to implement, 

administer and/or enforce Secretarial Order 3310 and its policies and objectives, all in violation 

of the Spending Moratorium of the 2011 Continuing Resolution; and 

#1])> <([#2 [9.8] WHEREAS , the 2008 Oil Shale and Tar Sands Progrmmnatic EIS (2008 

OSTS PEIS) w. as 

required under Section 369 (d) (1) of the Energy Policy Act of2005 and was prepared m 

cooperation with 14 federal, state, and local governmental organizations; and 

WHEREAS THE 2008 OSTS PEIS was 3 years in the making, and it honored the input of a task 
Final OSTS PEIS 796 

force of Governors and other stakeholders as per the requirements of the 2005 Energy Policy 

Act; 

WHEREAS, the Record of Decision (ROD) for the 2008 OSTS PEIS amended 10 land use plans 

m Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming to make approximately 2 million acres of public lands 

available for potential leasing and development of oil shale and approximately 430,000 acres 

available for tar sands leasing. Together with the regulations published in 2006 and 2008 for oil 

shale and tar sands resources, the 2008 OSTS PEIS and subsequent land use amendments 

constituted a reasonable and rational establishment of an oil shale and tar sands program as 

mandated by the Energy Policy Act of 2005; and 

#2])> <([#3 [6.1.2] WHEREAS, the oil shale and tar sands program, to which the 2008 OSTS 

PEIS and related 

regulations gave birth, was a reasonable response to the fact that the recoverable oil equivalent 

from oil shale and tar sands resources in Utah, Colorado and Wyoming exceeds 4 trillion banels 

per the latest USGS scientific estimate; and #3])>

<([#4 [9.8] WHEREAS, the prefened alternative in the draft 2012 OSTS DPEIS drastically 

shrinks, 

diminishes and in many areas outright reverses virtually all of the lands made available for Oil 

Shale and Tar Sands development in 2008, and does so using the same data and science; and 

WHEREAS, the OSTS DPEIS fails to analyze BLM’s prefened Alternative 2b, and the BLM 

admits as much on page 2-35 of the DPEIS; and #4])>

<([#5 [9.2.2] WHEREAS, such a drastic reversal in lands available for Oil Shale and Tar Sands 

development 

between the 2008 PEIS and the 2012 prefened alternative, violates regulatory Task Force 

requirements of certainty for industry and investors; and 

WHEREAS such a drastic reversal oflands available for Oil Shale and Tar Sands development 

in 2008, constitutes a de facto, piece-meal revision of previous BLM Resource Management 

Plans, in violation of the Section 202 Planning Process under FLPMA; 

WHEREAS, the prefened alternative in the draft 2012 OSTS PEIS entirely ignores the input of 

the task force, the cooperating agencies, and the other stakeholders which the 2005 Energy 

Policy Act directed the BLM to honor and follow; and moreover the draft 2012 OSTS DPEIS 

may well violate various memoranda of understanding (MOUs) with counties, cities and local 

government coalitions which require the BLM to (1) publish the written input of cooperators 

who have unresolved disagreements over the substantive elements of the ElS document, and (2) 

describe the objectives of the cooperators’ land use plans and policies; and 

WHEREAS the 2012 OSTS DPEIS prefened alternative greatly restricts the already meager 

acreage allotted in the 2008 PEIS for research and development leasing; 

WHEREAS the 2012 OSTS DPEIS prefened alternative threatens to arbitrarily undermine all 

that was rationally and scientifically supported in the 2008 OSTS PEIS, and essentially dismantle 

a reasonable and rational oil shale and tar sands program in violation of Section 369 of the 2005 

Energy Policy Act; and #5])>

<([#8 [1.5] WHEREAS, the 2012 OSTS DPEIS prefened alternative is the creature of a fi:iendly 

lawsuit 

settlement agreement between the BLM and ideological opponents of oil shale development, and 

is therefore entirely pre-detennined and pre-decisional in violation ofNEPA, with no apparent 

rationale for revising the acreages approved in 2008; and 

#8])> <([#9 [2.2] WHEREAS, the BLM has settled on a prefened alternative in the 2012 OSTS 
Final OSTS PEIS 797 

DPEIS admittedly 

without having first analyzed its impacts; BLM should be required to withdraw the prefened 

status of the alternative until it has performed this analysis; and 

WHEREAS, the acreage approved for Oil Shale and Tar Sands development in the draft 2012 

OSTS DPEIS prefened alternative bears no rational relationship to the stated purpose and need;

#9])>

Resolution #12’.::”08 

Duchesne County, Utah 

April16, 2012 

Page 3 of4 

<([#11 [1.5] WHEREAS, the Department of Energy has basically abdicated the responsibility 

Congress 

placed upon it to defend and uphold a viable oil shale energy program in America, leaving it 

mstead to the BLM encumbered by a host of anti-oil shale, pro-wilderness groups steering 

BLM’s every move; #11])>

<([#29 [9.5] WHEREAS, the alternative adopted in the ROD of the 2008 OSTS PEIS is now the 

No Action 

Alternative of the draft 2012 OSTS DPEIS; and 

WHEREAS, the 2008 OSTS PEIS chosen alternative is consistent with the multiple use, 

sustained yield mandate of the Federal Land Policy Management Act (FLPMA); and 

“WHEREAS, the 2008 OSTS PEIS chosen alternative is consistent with county general plans 

and policies which call for responsible development of available energy resources, but in stark 

contrast the 2012 OSTS PDElS is plainly inconsistent with state and local plans and policies, 

plainly inconsistent with the Uintah Basin Energy Zone Legislation passed in the 2012 Utah 

Legislature (Senate Bill83- see Utah Code 63J-8-102 & 105.5), and it fails to adequately 

explain why consistency is not achievable; and 

#29])> <([#14 [6.3.4] WHEREAS, the development and production of oil from oil shale has 

been proven beyond a 

doubt to be teclmologically and economically feasible when market rates for oil are at least 

$65.00 per barrel, which is well below current market rates; and 

#14])> <([#15 [6.3.2.1] WHEREAS, this same teclmology to extract oil from the oil shale rock is 

not only economically 

feasible at $65.00 per barrel, but it requires little or no consumption of water, contrary to the 

myths which falsely claim that oil shale extraction requires large consumption of water 

resources; and #15])>

<([#16 [6.2.2] WHERAS, the energy captured in the extract of oil from shale (natural gas 

capture, etc.,) more 

than makes up for energy consumed in that extraction process, thus dispelling the myth that the 

oil shale extraction process consumes more energy than it produces; 

#16])> <([#17 [3.10.3] WHEREAS, the rising price of gasoline, coupled with ever increasing 

loss of family-wage jobs 

due to the Obama Administration’s policies against energy development on western public lands, 

result in increasing hardships for families and the local economy, to the point where some fear 

the window of opportunity is about to close for a civil, lawful and orderly response as citizens 

feel more and more pressured and desperate financially; and 

#17])> <([#18 [6.3.3.1] WHEREAS, the 2012 OSTS DPEIS improperly limits technology testing 
Final OSTS PEIS 798 

to strictly in-situ 

efforts and does not allow for development of other technologies; and 

#18])> <([#19 [1.1.1] WHEREAS, the BLM has left insufficient time for the public and 

cooperators to meaningfully 

comment on the public draft 2012 OSTS DPEIS by the present comment deadline of May 4, 

2012, because a highly relevant commercial oil shale BLM regulation is not due to be published 

until May 15, 2012 and the public should have the right to view that regulation first and then 

submit conunents on the draft 2012 OSTS DPEIS in light of that regulation; and 

#19])> <([#20 [9.5] WHEREAS, the same problems with lack of consistency with local plans 

and policies and failure 

to honor the input of cooperators and all stakeholders, also besets many public lands ElS 

projects, in addition to the 2012 OSTS DPEIS; and 

#20])> <([#21 [9.2.5] WHEREAS, while the 2012 OSTS PDElS repeatedly asserted the 

supposed need to take a “fresh 

look,” the BLM arbitrarily failed to do so by refusing to update the document with fresh, new oil 

shale teclmological data made available since 2008 and fresh new oil shale technology that has 

emerged since 2008, which failures constitute a violation by the BLM of the Federal Data 

Quality Act; 

#21])> NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY DUCHESNE COUNTY, UTAH AS 

FOLLOWS: 

Resolution #12-08 

Duchesne County, Utah 

Aprill6, 2012 

Page 4 of4 

<([#22 [9.2.1] I. Duchesne County declares the BLM’s continuing to administer and carry out 

the 2012 

OSTS DPEIS to be an open contempt and flaunting of the Congressional Spending Moratorium 

first imposed in the 2011 Continuing Resolution and carried forward in all subsequent 

Congressional spending resolutions up to and including the present; 

2. Duchesne County calls upon the BLM to cease all further activities with respect to 

administering and carrying out the 2012 OSTS DPEIS, because doing so constitutes an open 

contempt and violation of the Congressional Spending Moratorium against implementing, 

administering and/or enforcing Secretarial Order 3310, which Spending Moratorium was first 

imposed in the 2011 Continuing Resolution and carried forward in all subsequent Congressional 

spending resolutions up to and including the present; 

3. Duchesne County calls upon the BLM to innnediately cease and desist all activities 

related to the above-referenced 2012 OSTS DPEIS and immediately publish a revised notice in 

the Federal Register signifYing its cessation of all work on the Programmatic EIS in obedience 

to 

the above-quoted Spending Moratorium. Otherwise, the BLM would be in contempt of 

Congress; #22])>

<([#25 [2.1.1] 4. Duchesne County finds that the only way the BLM could go forward with the 

2012 

OSTS DPEIS in light of the Congressional Spending Moratorium, would be if the BLM adopted 

the No-Action Alternative, which is identical to the Alternative chosen in the ROD of the 2008 

OSTS PEIS; 
Final OSTS PEIS 799 

#25])> <([#26 [1.1.1] 5. Duchesne County requests that the BLM should extend the May 4, 2012 

deadline for 

public comment on the draft 2012 OSTS DPEIS at least 30 days after publication of the expected 

oil shale regulation due to be published on or about May 15, 2012. 

#26])> <([#27 [1.3] 6. Duchesne County requests that the BLM honor the input of cooperators, 

particularly if 

they are local governments, as required by Section 202(c)(9) ofFLPMA and the relevant tenns 

ofBLM-Cooperator MOUs, in all matters, not just with respect to the 2012 OSTS PEIS. 

#27])> DATEDthis~Udayof l1pv1·\ 2012. 

ATTEST: 

~~ .. ...”. “~’-.. ~~ “‘9”.. ..=~~ 

Diane Freston 

County Clerk/ Auditor 

DUCHESNE COUNTY 

BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 

OSTS2012D50187 

Organization: Susan Benson 

Received: 4/30/2012 5:56:18 PM 

Commenter1: Susan Benson - Hampton Bays, New York 11946 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/4/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50187.htm (OSTS2012D50187-58688.htm Size = 1 KB) 

Submission Text

<([#1 [12.3] Please do not give our lands away. #1])>

OSTS2012D50188 

Organization: Donald Clark 

Received: 4/30/2012 8:26:25 PM 

Commenter1: Donald Clark - Washington, 20036 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/4/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50188.htm (OSTS2012D50188-58690.htm Size = 1 KB) 

Submission Text

<([#1 [12] THANK YOU for hopefully overturning this short-term, short-sighted proposal to 
Final OSTS PEIS 800 

mine for oil in a very destructive manner to a valued ecosystem, while using an equally -or even 

more precious- resource, water. Deny this ill-considered plan. Parks are more for NATURE 

PRESERVATION, not short-sighted resource digging. #1])>

OSTS2012D50189 

Organization: Christopher Richards 

Received: 4/30/2012 11:15:00 PM 

Commenter1: Christopher Richards - Tucson, 85705 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/4/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50189.htm (OSTS2012D50189-58692.htm Size = 1 KB) 

Submission Text

<([#1 [3] As a long time outdoors person and professional photographer, I’d hate to see our 

irreplaceable national treasures damaged in a quest for cheap energy. Please protect our wild 

areas! #1])>

OSTS2012D50190 

Organization: Nathaniel Hawkes 

Received: 5/1/2012 1:42:22 AM 

Commenter1: Nathaniel Hawkes - Oakland, California 94610 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50190.htm (OSTS2012D50190-58694.htm Size = 1 KB) 

Submission Text

<([#1 [12] [10.6.1] I am deeply troubled to learn of the BLM’s proposal to to open vast areas of 

Western wilderness to oil shale and tar sand exploitation. These activities will degrade our 

landscape on a scale that will significantly damage our national heritage. Our government should 

be applying its resources toward developing alternative sources of energy, not leasing our public 

land to corporations who will destroy the very face of our country to make a buck. We need 

leadership, not greed. This proposal is unacceptable and must be stopped. #1])>

OSTS2012D50191 

Organization: Peter Weiblen 

Received: 5/1/2012 4:55:30 AM 

Commenter1: Peter Weiblen - Ada, Michigan 49301 (United States) 
Final OSTS PEIS 801 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/4/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50191.htm (OSTS2012D50191-58696.htm Size = 1 KB) 

Submission Text

<([#1 [12] These wild, and natural places must be preserved. This country needs to move away 

from the use of fossil fuels ASAP to avoid further environmental degradation and global 

warming. Just say no. #1])>

OSTS2012D50192 

Organization: Garry Gentry 

Received: 5/1/2012 8:03:02 AM 

Commenter1: Garry Gentry - Tifton, Georgia 31794 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/4/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50192.htm (OSTS2012D50192-58698.htm Size = 1 KB) 

Submission Text

<([#1 [12.3] I oppose opening up these public lands for many reasons but one of the main is 

environmental protection of these beautiful areas of our country. The other is that this OIL is for 

EXPORT and oil is a FINITE resource so there may come a day where we need to produce that 

oil for AMERICA and not global markets. We should hope by the time that day comes 

technology would allow much safer exploitation of these resources. #1])>

OSTS2012D50193 

Organization: Nola Gentry 

Received: 5/1/2012 8:03:42 AM 

Commenter1: Nola Gentry - Tifton, Georgia 31794 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/4/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50193.htm (OSTS2012D50193-58700.htm Size = 1 KB) 
Final OSTS PEIS 802 

Submission Text

<([#1 [12.3] I oppose opening up these public lands for many reasons but one of the main is 

environmental protection of these beautiful areas of our country. The other is that this OIL is for 

EXPORT and oil is a FINITE resource so there may come a day where we need to produce that 

oil for AMERICA and not global markets. We should hope by the time that day comes 

technology would allow much safer exploitation of these resources. #1])>

OSTS2012D50194 

Organization: 

Received: 5/1/2012 8:51:16 AM 

Commenter1: - , Maryland 20905 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/4/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50194.htm (OSTS2012D50194-58730.htm Size = 1 KB) 

Submission Text

<([#1 [12.3] I implore you to not open up western federal lands to increased oil and gas 

exploration. As an east-coast citizen who traveled through many western federal parks, lands, 

and forests after graduating from college, I believe developing these lands would fundamentally 

alter their character and ruin them for future generations. The negative impact on the lands far 

outweigh the benefit to taxpayers. Furthermore, oil and gas companies already make healthy 

profits. Opening up the nation’s unspoilt areas to them is unnecessary. 

#1])>

OSTS2012D50195 

Organization: Fred Swanson 

Received: 5/1/2012 9:02:20 AM 

Commenter1: Fred Swanson - Salt Lake City, Utah (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/4/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50195.htm (OSTS2012D50195-58732.htm Size = 1 KB) 

Submission Text

<([#1 [2.3.1] While I’m pleased that the BLM is apparently backing away from the wholesale 

leasing of millions of acres of public lands for oil shale and tar sands, I much prefer Alternative 3 

that would limit such development to existing RandD leases. At a time when our country needs 

to be a leader in moving away from the use of fossil fuels and adopting major conservation 
Final OSTS PEIS 803 

practices to reduce CO2 emissions, any development of fossil hydrocarbons takes us farther from 

this goal. The surface disturbance and associated infrastructure and population growth required 

to commercially develop oil shale and tar sands would spell the end of western Colorado and 

eastern and central Utah as a refuge from rampant urbanization, congestion, and air pollution--

not to mention the loss of this region’s superb night skies. Sooner or later we will have to learn to 

unhook our society from limitless fossil fuel consumption. We can try to do so now, when we 

still have some clean air and water left, or we can do it fifty or a hundred years from now, when 

the noise and stink of industrialization covers the entire West. I have little faith that our 

government will have much foresight in this matter, but one can always hope. #1])> Fred 

Swanson Salt Lake City,Utah May 1, 2012 

OSTS2012D50196 

Organization: JAMIE HARDY 

Received: 5/1/2012 9:39:32 AM 

Commenter1: JAMIE HARDY - WINDSOR, Colorado 80550 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/4/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50196.htm (OSTS2012D50196-58734.htm Size = 1 KB) 

Submission Text

<([#1 [11] I genuinely believe that we should open this land up for oil drilling in an effort to help 

control energy costs for consumers. While I am an avid outdoorsman and love to camp, ski, and 

enjoy nature with my family, I still sense a unique interest in accessing this land for the mineral 

rights that are contained therein. Please help open these lands in a quest for energy 

independence. #1])> Regards, Jamie R Hardy Windsor CO 

OSTS2012D50197 

Organization: P-REX, MIT, Casey Brown 

Received: 5/1/2012 10:23:33 AM 

Commenter1: Casey Brown - , North Carolina 28721 (United States) 

Organization1:P-REX, MIT 

Commenter Type: Affiliation Only 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: aziech 5/15/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50197.htm (OSTS2012D50197-58706.htm Size = 1 KB) 

Submission Text

<([#1 [2.5] Alternative 2 is the clear winner, but modifications should be considered. 1-15-30% 

contingency of buffer around lands with wilderness attributes, given the largely unknown effects 
Final OSTS PEIS 804 

of drill pads on wildlife. 2-Legally binding clawbacks that allow BLM to immediately cease 

operations in the event of wildlife/environmental harm. 3-Agency officials assigned to each 

major sector that are paid for by the leasing companies to ensure proper reporting of landscape 

impacts. Thank you for your considerations. Shepherding the public lands is of critical value for 

the future of the nation. 

#1])>

OSTS2012D50198 

Organization: Peaceful Uprising, Jake Hanson 

Received: 5/1/2012 1:30:42 PM 

Commenter1: Jake Hanson - Salt Lake City, Utah 841521011 (United States) 

Organization1:Peaceful Uprising 

Commenter Type: Affiliation Only 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: aziech 5/15/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50198.htm (OSTS2012D50198-58708.htm Size = 1 KB) 

Submission Text

<([#1 [12] Pursuing low-quality energy resources like oil shale and tar sands is short-sighted and 

misguided. Not only will these fuels exacerbate the climate crisis, but they also will have a 

detrimental effect on society at large by inhibiting the urgent transition to renewable energy and 

less consumptive lifestyles. #1])> <([#2 [10.6.1] I urge a thorough analysis be taken on the 

ERoEI (Energy Return on Energy Invested) -- or net energy -- of these fuels, and compare them 

to the returns given from renewable sources. Understanding energy budgeting on a meta level 

should be expected for those making energy policy: 

http://www.chrismartenson.com/crashcourse/chapter-17b-energy-budgeting 

#2])>

OSTS2012D50199 

Organization: Adam Stern 

Received: 5/1/2012 1:36:36 PM 

Commenter1: Adam Stern - Flemington, New Jersey 08822 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: aziech 5/15/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50199.htm (OSTS2012D50199-58710.htm Size = 1 KB) 

Submission Text

<([#1 [2.3.1] ALTERNATIVE THREE, PLEASE #1])>
Final OSTS PEIS 805 

OSTS2012D50200 

Organization: CRISTA WORTHY 

Received: 5/1/2012 1:37:23 PM 

Commenter1: CRISTA WORTHY - BOISE, Idaho 83714 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: 

Submission Category: 50201_Campaign 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: aziech 5/15/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50200.htm (OSTS2012D50200-58712.htm Size = 3 KB) 

Submission Text

Dear Bureau of Land Management, I am writing to submit comments on the Oil Shale and Tar 

Sands Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS). <([#1 [2.3.1] I have spent a 

lot of time exploring and hiking the Colorado Plateau, and studied its geology. I am convinced 

there is no other place like it in the world. I also believe that shale and tar sands are about the 

worst, most inefficient ways to develop energy. Put that together with the irreversible harm done 

to environments within the Colorado Plateau, and I conclude that this type of development is not 

worth it here, and should not be even considered. Since that Alternative doesn’t seem available, I 

urge you to choose Alternative 3, Research Only, as the BLM’s Preferred Alternative in the Final 

PEIS. This is essential to ensure that we have the best possible information before considering 

opening our natural open spaces and ecosystems to the development of oil shale and tar sand 

resources. #1])> Here are some of my specific concerns regarding the Draft PEIS: <([#2 [3.4.1] * 

The Draft Programmatic EIS needs to ensure water quality will not be adversely effected by 

development of oil shale and tar sand resources. The water usage for oil shale production far 

outstrips the amount of oil produced, even prior to the refinement process. Water resources in the 

West are already overused and the effects of climate change and increased population will only 

add further strain to an already depleted system. #2])> <([#3 [3.4.1] * The Draft Programmatic 

EIS should be conducted in such a way to address issues of dust, noise, and pollution in the 

affected areas. Heating oil shale in the ground can contaminate vital groundwater supplies. High 

salt concentrations in groundwater restricts water available to native plants and is harmful to 

agricultural production as well. The Colorado River Basin already spends millions of dollars 

annually on damages caused from high salinity. #3])> <([#4 [3.1.1] * The Draft Programmatic 

EIS should address the potential encroachment on protected areas and National Parks such as 

Glen Canyon Recreation Area and Canyonlands National Park. This includes a thorough analysis 

of the damage to these priceless parks by oil shale and tar sands development. #4])> <([#5

[2.3.1] This EIS should ensure that all alternatives seriously assess the issues outlined above. 

Considering the present lack of adequate information and the tremendous risks of misguided 

development, the only reasonable alternative at this point is Alternative 3, Research Only as 

outlined in the PEIS. #5])> Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Draft 

Programmatic EIS. Sincerely, Crista Worthy 13015 N Shafer Way Boise, ID 83714 

OSTS2012D50201 

Organization: Robert Rutkowski 

Received: 5/1/2012 1:41:23 PM 
Final OSTS PEIS 806 

Commenter1: Robert Rutkowski - Topeka, Kansas 66605 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: 

Submission Category: 50201_Campaign 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: Form Letter Master 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/4/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50201.htm (OSTS2012D50201-58714.htm Size = 3 KB) 

Submission Text

To: Bureau of Land Management, E: http://ostseis.anl.gov/involve/comments/index.cfm I am 

writing to submit comments on the Oil Shale and Tar Sands Draft Programmatic Environmental 

Impact Statement (PEIS). <([#1 [3] I am very concerned about the possible impacts of oil shale 

development on Glen Canyon, Grand Canyon, and the Colorado River. I believe that we need 

more research on the potential impacts of oil shale and tar sand development before allowing 

leasing of our public lands for this use. Such development could have serious and irreversible 

impacts, including on water supplies and quality, air quality, native ecosystems and wildlife, and 

recreational uses. #1])> <([#2 [2.3.1] I urge you to choose Alternative 3, Research Only, as the 

BLM’s Preferred Alternative in the Final PEIS. This is essential to ensure that we have the best 

possible information before considering opening our natural open spaces and ecosystems to the 

development of oil shale and tar sand resources. #2])> <([#3 [3.4.1] Here are some of my 

specific concerns regarding the Draft PEIS: * The Draft Programmatic EIS needs to ensure water 

quality will not be adversely effected by development of oil shale and tar sand resources. The 

water usage for oil shale production far outstrips the amount of oil produced, even prior to the 

refinement process. Water resources in the West are already overused and the effects of climate 

change and increased population will only add further strain to an already depleted system. #3])>

<([#4 [3.4.1] * The Draft Programmatic EIS should be conducted in such a way to address issues 

of dust, noise, and pollution in the affected areas. Heating oil shale in the ground can 

contaminate vital groundwater supplies. High salt concentrations in groundwater restricts water 

available to native plants and is harmful to agricultural production as well. The Colorado River 

Basin already spends millions of dollars annually on damages caused from high salinity. #4])>

<([#5 [3.1.1] * The Draft Programmatic EIS should address the potential encroachment on 

protected areas and National Parks such as Glen Canyon Recreation Area and Canyonlands 

National Park. This includes a thorough analysis of the damage to these priceless parks by oil 

shale and tar sands development. #5])> <([#6 [2.3.1] This EIS should ensure that all alternatives 

seriously assess the issues outlined above. Considering the present lack of adequate information 

and the tremendous risks of misguided development, the only reasonable alternative at this point 

is Alternative 3, Research Only as outlined in the PEIS. #6])> Thank you for the opportunity to 

comment on the Draft Programmatic EIS. Sincerely, Robert E. Rutkowski 2527 Faxon Court 

Topeka, Kansas 66605-2086 P/F: 1 785 379-9671 E-mail: r_e_rutkowski@att.net 

OSTS2012D50202 

Organization: Joanne Harkins 

Received: 5/1/2012 1:59:53 PM 

Commenter1: Joanne Harkins - Venice, California 90291 (United States) 

Organization1: 
Final OSTS PEIS 807 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: 

Submission Category: 50201_Campaign 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: OSTS2012D50201- Master 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/4/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50202.htm (OSTS2012D50202-58716.htm Size = 3 KB) 

Submission Text

Dear Bureau of Land Management, I am writing to submit comments on the Oil Shale and Tar 

Sands Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS).<([#1 [3] I am very 

concerned about the possible impacts of oil shale development on Glen Canyon, Grand Canyon, 

and the Colorado River. I believe that we need more research on the potential impacts of oil 

shale and tar sand development before allowing leasing of our public lands for this use. Such 

development could have serious and irreversible impacts, including on water supplies and 

quality, air quality, native ecosystems and wildlife, and recreational uses. #1])> <([#2 [2.3.1] I 

urge you to choose Alternative 3, Research Only, as the BLM’s Preferred Alternative in the Final 

PEIS. This is essential to ensure that we have the best possible information before considering 

opening our natural open spaces and ecosystems to the development of oil shale and tar sand 

resources. #2])> <([#3 [3.4.1] Here are some of my specific concerns regarding the Draft PEIS: * 

The Draft Programmatic EIS needs to ensure water quality will not be adversely effected by 

development of oil shale and tar sand resources. The water usage for oil shale production far 

outstrips the amount of oil produced, even prior to the refinement process. Water resources in the 

West are already overused and the effects of climate change and increased population will only 

add further strain to an already depleted system. #3])> <([#4 [3.4.1] * The Draft Programmatic 

EIS should be conducted in such a way to address issues of dust, noise, and pollution in the 

affected areas. Heating oil shale in the ground can contaminate vital groundwater supplies. High 

salt concentrations in groundwater restricts water available to native plants and is harmful to 

agricultural production as well. The Colorado River Basin already spends millions of dollars 

annually on damages caused from high salinity. #4])> <([#5 [3.1.1] * The Draft Programmatic 

EIS should address the potential encroachment on protected areas and National Parks such as 

Glen Canyon Recreation Area and Canyonlands National Park. This includes a thorough analysis 

of the damage to these priceless parks by oil shale and tar sands development. #5])> <([#6

[2.3.1] This EIS should ensure that all alternatives seriously assess the issues outlined above. 

Considering the present lack of adequate information and the tremendous risks of misguided 

development, the only reasonable alternative at this point is Alternative 3, Research Only as 

outlined in the PEIS. #6])> Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Draft 

Programmatic EIS. Sincerely, Joanne Harkins 2339 Walnut Ave venice, CA 90291 

OSTS2012D50203 

Organization: Tim Ifill 

Received: 5/1/2012 2:02:14 PM 

Commenter1: Tim Ifill - Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19146 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: 

Submission Category: 50201_Campaign 
Final OSTS PEIS 808 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: OSTS2012D50201- Master 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/4/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50203.htm (OSTS2012D50203-58718.htm Size = 3 KB) 

Submission Text

I am writing to submit comments on the Oil Shale and Tar Sands Draft Programmatic 

Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS). <([#1 [3] I am very concerned about the possible 

impacts of oil shale development on Glen Canyon, Grand Canyon, and the Colorado River. I 

believe that we need more research on the potential impacts of oil shale and tar sand 

development before allowing leasing of our public lands for this use. Such development could 

have serious and irreversible impacts, including on water supplies and quality, air quality, native 

ecosystems and wildlife, and recreational uses. #1])> <([#2 [2.3.1] I urge you to choose 

Alternative 3, Research Only, as the BLM’s Preferred Alternative in the Final PEIS. This is 

essential to ensure that we have the best possible information before considering opening our 

natural open spaces and ecosystems to the development of oil shale and tar sand resources. #2])>

<([#3 [3.4.1] Here are some of my specific concerns regarding the Draft PEIS: * The Draft 

Programmatic EIS needs to ensure water quality will not be adversely effected by development 

of oil shale and tar sand resources. The water usage for oil shale production far outstrips the 

amount of oil produced, even prior to the refinement process. Water resources in the West are 

already overused and the effects of climate change and increased population will only add further 

strain to an already depleted system. #3])> <([#4 [3.4.1] * The Draft Programmatic EIS should 

be conducted in such a way to address issues of dust, noise, and pollution in the affected areas. 

Heating oil shale in the ground can contaminate vital groundwater supplies. High salt 

concentrations in groundwater restricts water available to native plants and is harmful to 

agricultural production as well. The Colorado River Basin already spends millions of dollars 

annually on damages caused from high salinity. #4])> <([#5 [3.1.1] * The Draft Programmatic 

EIS should address the potential encroachment on protected areas and National Parks such as 

Glen Canyon Recreation Area and Canyonlands National Park. This includes a thorough analysis 

of the damage to these priceless parks by oil shale and tar sands development. #5])> <([#6

[2.3.1] This EIS should ensure that all alternatives seriously assess the issues outlined above. 

Considering the present lack of adequate information and the tremendous risks of misguided 

development, the only reasonable alternative at this point is Alternative 3, Research Only as 

outlined in the PEIS. #6])> Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Draft 

Programmatic EIS. Sincerely, Tim Ifill Philadelphia, PA 

OSTS2012D50204 

Organization: Steve Masefield 

Received: 5/1/2012 2:05:31 PM 

Commenter1: Steve Masefield - Virgin, Utah 84779 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 
Final OSTS PEIS 809 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/4/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50204.htm (OSTS2012D50204-58720.htm Size = 1 KB) 

Submission Text

<([#1 [2.3.1] The oil sands/gas are not “going anywhere” - please consider further research so 

any decison is based on hard fact rather speculative assumptions - Option 3 would appear to be 

good course to follow. #1])>

OSTS2012D50205 

Organization: Richard Johnson 

Received: 5/1/2012 2:06:58 PM 

Commenter1: Richard Johnson - Chiloquin, Oregon 97624 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/4/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50205.htm (OSTS2012D50205-58722.htm Size = 1 KB) 

Submission Text

<([#1 [2.3.1] Concerning the Oil Shale and Tar Sands draft PEIS. Alternative 3 is the only wise 

choice at this time! The experimental and potentially destructive nature of this kind of extraction 

calls for much further study. The economics of this kind of operation are nonsense and 

CONSERVATION is the only longterm answer for our nation, not exploitation. #1])> Richard 

Johnson 

OSTS2012D50206 

Organization: carla tuke 

Received: 5/1/2012 2:10:48 PM 

Commenter1: carla tuke - slc, Utah 841061822 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: 

Submission Category: 50201_Campaign 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: OSTS2012D50201- Master 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/4/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50206.htm (OSTS2012D50206-58724.htm Size = 3 KB) 

Submission Text

Dear Bureau of Land Management, I am writing to submit comments on the Oil Shale and Tar 

Sands Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS). <([#1 [3] I am very 

concerned about the possible impacts of oil shale development on Glen Canyon, Grand Canyon, 

and the Colorado River. I believe that we need more research on the potential impacts of oil 

shale and tar sand development before allowing leasing of our public lands for this use. Such 

development could have serious and irreversible impacts, including on water supplies and 
Final OSTS PEIS 810 

quality, air quality, native ecosystems and wildlife, and recreational uses. #1])> <([#2 [2.3.1] I 

urge you to choose Alternative 3, Research Only, as the BLM’s Preferred Alternative in the Final 

PEIS. This is essential to ensure that we have the best possible information before considering 

opening our natural open spaces and ecosystems to the development of oil shale and tar sand 

resources. #2])> <([#3 [3.4.1] Here are some of my specific concerns regarding the Draft PEIS: * 

The Draft Programmatic EIS needs to ensure water quality will not be adversely effected by 

development of oil shale and tar sand resources. The water usage for oil shale production far 

outstrips the amount of oil produced, even prior to the refinement process. Water resources in the 

West are already overused and the effects of climate change and increased population will only 

add further strain to an already depleted system. #3])> <([#4 [3.4.1] * The Draft Programmatic 

EIS should be conducted in such a way to address issues of dust, noise, and pollution in the 

affected areas. Heating oil shale in the ground can contaminate vital groundwater supplies. High 

salt concentrations in groundwater restricts water available to native plants and is harmful to 

agricultural production as well. The Colorado River Basin already spends millions of dollars 

annually on damages caused from high salinity. #4])> <([#5 [3.1.1] * The Draft Programmatic 

EIS should address the potential encroachment on protected areas and National Parks such as 

Glen Canyon Recreation Area and Canyonlands National Park. This includes a thorough analysis 

of the damage to these priceless parks by oil shale and tar sands development. #5])> <([#6

[2.3.1] This EIS should ensure that all alternatives seriously assess the issues outlined above. 

Considering the present lack of adequate information and the tremendous risks of misguided 

development, the only reasonable alternative at this point is Alternative 3, Research Only as 

outlined in the PEIS. #6])> Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Draft 

Programmatic EIS. 

OSTS2012D50207 

Organization: Bruce Berger 

Received: 5/1/2012 2:11:54 PM 

Commenter1: Bruce Berger - Aspen, Colorado 81611 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/4/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50207.htm (OSTS2012D50207-58726.htm Size = 1 KB) 

Submission Text

<([#1 [12] The amount of energy needed to extract energy from oil shale or tar sands makes it a 

poor economic choice while the extent of its damage on the ground is intolerable. The amount of 

investment necessary for its development should be directed to better choices. #1])>

OSTS2012D50208 

Organization: Glen Canyon Institute, Tyler Coles 

Received: 5/1/2012 2:16:07 PM 

Commenter1: Tyler Coles - Salt Lake City, Utah 84108 (United States) 

Organization1:Glen Canyon Institute 
Final OSTS PEIS 811 

Commenter Type: Affiliation Only 

Classification: 

Submission Category: 50201_Campaign 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: OSTS2012D50201- Master 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/4/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50208.htm (OSTS2012D50208-58728.htm Size = 3 KB) 

Submission Text

Dear Bureau of Land Management, I am writing to submit comments on the Oil Shale and Tar 

Sands Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS). <([#1 [3] I am very 

concerned about the possible impacts of oil shale development on Glen Canyon, Grand Canyon, 

and the Colorado River. I believe that we need more research on the potential impacts of oil 

shale and tar sand development before allowing leasing of our public lands for this use. Such 

development could have serious and irreversible impacts, including on water supplies and 

quality, air quality, native ecosystems and wildlife, and recreational uses. #1])> <([#2 [2.3.1] I 

urge you to choose Alternative 3, Research Only, as the BLM’s Preferred Alternative in the Final 

PEIS. This is essential to ensure that we have the best possible information before considering 

opening our natural open spaces and ecosystems to the development of oil shale and tar sand 

resources. #2])> <([#3 [3.4.1] Here are some of my specific concerns regarding the Draft PEIS: * 

The Draft Programmatic EIS needs to ensure water quality will not be adversely effected by 

development of oil shale and tar sand resources. The water usage for oil shale production far 

outstrips the amount of oil produced, even prior to the refinement process. Water resources in the 

West are already overused and the effects of climate change and increased population will only 

add further strain to an already depleted system. #3])> <([#4 [3.4.1] * The Draft Programmatic 

EIS should be conducted in such a way to address issues of dust, noise, and pollution in the 

affected areas. Heating oil shale in the ground can contaminate vital groundwater supplies. High 

salt concentrations in groundwater restricts water available to native plants and is harmful to 

agricultural production as well. The Colorado River Basin already spends millions of dollars 

annually on damages caused from high salinity. #4])> <([#5 [3.1.1] * The Draft Programmatic 

EIS should address the potential encroachment on protected areas and National Parks such as 

Glen Canyon Recreation Area and Canyonlands National Park. This includes a thorough analysis 

of the damage to these priceless parks by oil shale and tar sands development. #5])> <([#6

[2.3.1] This EIS should ensure that all alternatives seriously assess the issues outlined above. 

Considering the present lack of adequate information and the tremendous risks of misguided 

development, the only reasonable alternative at this point is Alternative 3, Research Only as 

outlined in the PEIS. #6])> Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Draft 

Programmatic EIS. Sincerely, Tyler Coles 2032 Emerson Ave Salt Lake City, UT 84108 

OSTS2012D50209 

Organization: rknetworking.net, Rich Holtzin 

Received: 5/1/2012 2:26:32 PM 

Commenter1: Rich Holtzin - Albuquerque, New Mexico 87104 (United States) 

Organization1:rknetworking.net 

Commenter Type: Affiliation Only 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 
Final OSTS PEIS 812 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/14/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50209.htm (OSTS2012D50209-58735.htm Size = 1 KB) 

Submission Text

<([#1 [1.5] Are you people out of your fuckings minds? I don’t even have comment on this 

idiotic proposal, except if you idiots get this passed I am damn coming after you with a hoard of 

lawyers and protestors. Goddamn oil people in your pockets and you have the balls to even 

consider a proposal like this? What the fuck is wrong with you jerks. Pull your heads out. You’re 

just inviting a lot of legal better minds than the corrupt people who are trying to buy you. We’ll 

put you in court for the rest of your days. We can do this legally. You are not, NOT, going to get 

away with this latest debacle of permit granting. Idiots, all! That’s you! #1])>

OSTS2012D50210 

Organization: Steven Turley 

Received: 5/1/2012 2:30:29 PM 

Commenter1: Steven Turley - Longmont, Colorado 80501 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/4/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50210.htm (OSTS2012D50210-58737.htm Size = 1 KB) 

Submission Text

<([#1 [2.3.1] I am writing to submit comments on the Oil Shale and Tar Sands Draft 

Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS). I am very concerned about the possible 

impacts of oil shale development on Glen Canyon, Grand Canyon, and the Colorado River. I 

believe that we need more research on the potential impacts of oil shale and tar sand 

development before allowing leasing of our public lands for this use. Such development could 

have serious and irreversible impacts, including on water supplies and quality, air quality, native 

ecosystems and wildlife, and recreational uses. I urge you to choose Alternative 3, Research 

Only, as the BLM’s Preferred Alternative in the Final PEIS. This is essential to ensure that we 

have the best possible information before considering opening our natural open spaces and 

ecosystems to the development of oil shale and tar sand resources. #1])> Thank you for your 

time and service. 

OSTS2012D50211 

Organization: Deborah Masefield 

Received: 5/1/2012 2:34:20 PM 

Commenter1: Deborah Masefield - Virgin, Utah 84779 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: 
Final OSTS PEIS 813 

Submission Category: 50201_Campaign 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: OSTS2012D50201- Master 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/4/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50211.htm (OSTS2012D50211-58739.htm Size = 3 KB) 

Submission Text

Land Management, I am writing to submit comments on the Oil Shale and Tar Sands Draft 

Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS). <([#1 [3] I am very concerned about the 

possible impacts of oil shale development on Glen Canyon, Grand Canyon, and the Colorado 

River. I believe that we need more research on the potential impacts of oil shale and tar sand 

development before allowing leasing of our public lands for this use. Such development could 

have serious and irreversible impacts, including on water supplies and quality, air quality, native 

ecosystems and wildlife, and recreational uses. #1])> <([#2 [2.3.1] I urge you to choose 

Alternative 3, Research Only, as the BLM’s Preferred Alternative in the Final PEIS. This is 

essential to ensure that we have the best possible information before considering opening our 

natural open spaces and ecosystems to the development of oil shale and tar sand resources. #2])>

<([#3 [3.4.1] Here are some of my specific concerns regarding the Draft PEIS: * The Draft 

Programmatic EIS needs to ensure water quality will not be adversely effected by development 

of oil shale and tar sand resources. The water usage for oil shale production far outstrips the 

amount of oil produced, even prior to the refinement process. Water resources in the West are 

already overused and the effects of climate change and increased population will only add further 

strain to an already depleted system. #3])> <([#4 [3.4.1] * The Draft Programmatic EIS should 

be conducted in such a way to address issues of dust, noise, and pollution in the affected areas. 

Heating oil shale in the ground can contaminate vital groundwater supplies. High salt 

concentrations in groundwater restricts water available to native plants and is harmful to 

agricultural production as well. The Colorado River Basin already spends millions of dollars 

annually on damages caused from high salinity. #4])> <([#5 [3.1.1] * The Draft Programmatic 

EIS should address the potential encroachment on protected areas and National Parks such as 

Glen Canyon Recreation Area and Canyonlands National Park. This includes a thorough analysis 

of the damage to these priceless parks by oil shale and tar sands development. #5])> <([#6

[2.3.1] This EIS should ensure that all alternatives seriously assess the issues outlined above. 

Considering the present lack of adequate information and the tremendous risks of misguided 

development, the only reasonable alternative at this point is Alternative 3, Research Only as 

outlined in the PEIS. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Draft Programmatic EIS. 

#6])> Sincerely, Deborah Masefield 815 W 150 S Virgin UT 84779 

OSTS2012D50212 

Organization: JOHN LINDERMUTH 

Received: 5/1/2012 2:43:42 PM 

Commenter1: JOHN LINDERMUTH - CARLSBAD, California 920081559 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 
Final OSTS PEIS 814 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/4/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50212.htm (OSTS2012D50212-58741.htm Size = 1 KB) 

Submission Text

<([#1 [12.3] Please preserve and protect these vital lands that have been placed in your trust.

#1])>

OSTS2012D50213 

Organization: Michael Derr 

Received: 5/1/2012 2:44:31 PM 

Commenter1: Michael Derr - Salt Lake City, Utah 84105 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: 

Submission Category: 50201_Campaign 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: OSTS2012D50201- Master 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/4/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50213.htm (OSTS2012D50213-58743.htm Size = 3 KB) 

Submission Text

Dear Bureau of Land Management, I am writing to submit comments on the Oil Shale and Tar 

Sands Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS). <([#1 [3] I am very 

concerned about the possible impacts of oil shale development on Glen Canyon, Grand Canyon, 

and the Colorado River. I believe that we need more research on the potential impacts of oil 

shale and tar sand development before allowing leasing of our public lands for this use. Such 

development could have serious and irreversible impacts, including on water supplies and 

quality, air quality, native ecosystems and wildlife, and recreational uses. #1])> <([#2 [2.3.1] I 

urge you to choose Alternative 3, Research Only, as the BLM’s Preferred Alternative in the Final 

PEIS. This is essential to ensure that we have the best possible information before considering 

opening our natural open spaces and ecosystems to the development of oil shale and tar sand 

resources. #2])> <([#3 [3.4.1] Here are some of my specific concerns regarding the Draft PEIS: * 

The Draft Programmatic EIS needs to ensure water quality will not be adversely effected by 

development of oil shale and tar sand resources. The water usage for oil shale production far 

outstrips the amount of oil produced, even prior to the refinement process. Water resources in the 

West are already overused and the effects of climate change and increased population will only 

add further strain to an already depleted system. #3])> <([#4 [3.4.1] * The Draft Programmatic 

EIS should be conducted in such a way to address issues of dust, noise, and pollution in the 

affected areas. Heating oil shale in the ground can contaminate vital groundwater supplies. High 

salt concentrations in groundwater restricts water available to native plants and is harmful to 

agricultural production as well. The Colorado River Basin already spends millions of dollars 

annually on damages caused from high salinity. #4])> <([#5 [3.1.1] * The Draft Programmatic 

EIS should address the potential encroachment on protected areas and National Parks such as 

Glen Canyon Recreation Area and Canyonlands National Park. This includes a thorough analysis 

of the damage to these priceless parks by oil shale and tar sands development. #5])> <([#6

[2.3.1] This EIS should ensure that all alternatives seriously assess the issues outlined above. 

Considering the present lack of adequate information and the tremendous risks of misguided 
Final OSTS PEIS 815 

development, the only reasonable alternative at this point is Alternative 3, Research Only as 

outlined in the PEIS. #6])> Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Draft 

Programmatic EIS. Sincerely, Mike Derr 1636 Laird Ave Salt Lake City, UT 84105 

OSTS2012D50214 

Organization: Merrill Bitter 

Received: 5/1/2012 3:00:54 PM 

Commenter1: Merrill Bitter - Salt Lake City, Utah 84106 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: 

Submission Category: 50201_Campaign 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: OSTS2012D50201- Master 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/4/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50214.htm (OSTS2012D50214-58744.htm Size = 3 KB) 

Submission Text

Dear Bureau of Land Management, I am writing to submit comments on the Oil Shale and Tar 

Sands Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS). <([#1 [3] I am very 

concerned about the possible impacts of oil shale development on Glen Canyon, Grand Canyon, 

and the Colorado River. I believe that we need more research on the potential impacts of oil 

shale and tar sand development before allowing leasing of our public lands for this use. Such 

development could have serious and irreversible impacts, including on water supplies and 

quality, air quality, native ecosystems and wildlife, and recreational uses. #1])> <([#2 [2.3.1] I 

urge you to choose Alternative 3, Research Only, as the BLM’s Preferred Alternative in the Final 

PEIS. This is essential to ensure that we have the best possible information before considering 

opening our natural open spaces and ecosystems to the development of oil shale and tar sand 

resources. #2])> <([#3 [3.4.1] Here are some of my specific concerns regarding the Draft PEIS: * 

The Draft Programmatic EIS needs to ensure water quality will not be adversely effected by 

development of oil shale and tar sand resources. The water usage for oil shale production far 

outstrips the amount of oil produced, even prior to the refinement process. Water resources in the 

West are already overused and the effects of climate change and increased population will only 

add further strain to an already depleted system. #3])> <([#4 [3.4.1] * The Draft Programmatic 

EIS should be conducted in such a way to address issues of dust, noise, and pollution in the 

affected areas. Heating oil shale in the ground can contaminate vital groundwater supplies. High 

salt concentrations in groundwater restricts water available to native plants and is harmful to 

agricultural production as well. The Colorado River Basin already spends millions of dollars 

annually on damages caused from high salinity. #4])> <([#5 [3.1.1] * The Draft Programmatic 

EIS should address the potential encroachment on protected areas and National Parks such as 

Glen Canyon Recreation Area and Canyonlands National Park. This includes a thorough analysis 

of the damage to these priceless parks by oil shale and tar sands development. #5])> <([#6

[2.3.1] This EIS should ensure that all alternatives seriously assess the issues outlined above. 

Considering the present lack of adequate information and the tremendous risks of misguided 

development, the only reasonable alternative at this point is Alternative 3, Research Only as 

outlined in the PEIS. #6])> Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Draft 

Programmatic EIS. Sincerely, Merrill Bitter 
Final OSTS PEIS 816 

OSTS2012D50215 

Organization: Sara Avery 

Received: 5/1/2012 3:11:42 PM 

Commenter1: Sara Avery - Lafayette, Colorado 80026 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: 

Submission Category: 50201_Campaign 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: OSTS2012D50201- Master 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/4/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50215.htm (OSTS2012D50215-58746.htm Size = 3 KB) 

Submission Text

I am writing to submit comments on the Oil Shale and Tar Sands Draft Programmatic 

Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS). <([#1 [3] I am very concerned about the possible 

impacts of oil shale development on Glen Canyon, Grand Canyon, and the Colorado River. I 

believe that we need more research on the potential impacts of oil shale and tar sand 

development before allowing leasing of our public lands for this use. Such development could 

have serious and irreversible impacts, including on water supplies and quality, air quality, native 

ecosystems and wildlife, and recreational uses. #1])> <([#2 [2.3.1] I urge you to choose 

Alternative 3, Research Only, as the BLM’s Preferred Alternative in the Final PEIS. This is 

essential to ensure that we have the best possible information before considering opening our 

natural open spaces and ecosystems to the development of oil shale and tar sand resources. #2])>

<([#3 [3.4.1] Here are some of my specific concerns regarding the Draft PEIS: * The Draft 

Programmatic EIS needs to ensure water quality will not be adversely effected by development 

of oil shale and tar sand resources. The water usage for oil shale production far outstrips the 

amount of oil produced, even prior to the refinement process. Water resources in the West are 

already overused and the effects of climate change and increased population will only add further 

strain to an already depleted system. #3])> <([#4 [3.4.1] * The Draft Programmatic EIS should 

be conducted in such a way to address issues of dust, noise, and pollution in the affected areas. 

Heating oil shale in the ground can contaminate vital groundwater supplies. High salt 

concentrations in groundwater restricts water available to native plants and is harmful to 

agricultural production as well. The Colorado River Basin already spends millions of dollars 

annually on damages caused from high salinity. #4])> <([#5 [3.1.1] * The Draft Programmatic 

EIS should address the potential encroachment on protected areas and National Parks such as 

Glen Canyon Recreation Area and Canyonlands National Park. This includes a thorough analysis 

of the damage to these priceless parks by oil shale and tar sands development. #5])> <([#6

[2.3.1] This EIS should ensure that all alternatives seriously assess the issues outlined above. 

Considering the present lack of adequate information and the tremendous risks of misguided 

development, the only reasonable alternative at this point is Alternative 3, Research Only as 

outlined in the PEIS. #6])> Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Sincerely, Sara Avery 

OSTS2012D50216 

Organization: Josephine Porter 

Received: 5/1/2012 3:29:42 PM 

Commenter1: Josephine Porter - Albuquerque, New Mexico 87122 (United States) 
Final OSTS PEIS 817 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/14/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50216.htm (OSTS2012D50216-58748.htm Size = 1 KB) 

Submission Text

<([#1 [2.3.1] I lived in Wyoming and now live in New Mexico. I travel all over the West and 

have for the past 50 years. I am especially connected to Wyoming and the Canyon Country of 

Colorado, Utah and Arizona visiting as often as I can. Traveling to Rainbow Bridge by 

horseback in 1960 made a lasting impression that changed my life. I raft the Green and the 

Colorado. I hike the Escalante and the Wind Rivers. Our West holds so much value that can not 

be priced and it is up to you to protect. Alternative 3 is the only choice that will investigate true 

costs of this development. #1])>

OSTS2012D50217 

Organization: greg adams 

Received: 5/1/2012 3:32:27 PM 

Commenter1: greg adams - , 92111 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/14/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50217.htm (OSTS2012D50217-58750.htm Size = 1 KB) 

Submission Text

<([#1 [12] Get off this ridicules hunt for oil and start coming up with viable alternatives..all the 

cheap gas and oil have already been exploited...water is the most valuable commodity on 

earth...protect it at all costs #1])>

OSTS2012D50218 

Organization: 

Received: 5/1/2012 3:35:07 PM 

Commenter1: - , (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 
Final OSTS PEIS 818 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/14/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50218.htm (OSTS2012D50218-58752.htm Size = 1 KB) 

Submission Text

<([#1 [3.1.1] PLEASE PROTECT OUR PUBLIC LANDS, AND NATIONAL PARKS. #1])>

OSTS2012D50219 

Organization: Wesley Wolf 

Received: 5/1/2012 3:40:01 PM 

Commenter1: Wesley Wolf - Barrington, Illinois 600103893 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: 

Submission Category: 50201_Campaign 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/16/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50219.htm (OSTS2012D50219-58754.htm Size = 3 KB) 

Submission Text

Dear Bureau of Land Management, <([#1 [2.3.1] I am very concerned about the possible impacts 

of oil shale development on Glen Canyon, Grand Canyon, and the Colorado River. I believe that 

we need more research on the potential impacts of oil shale and tar sand development before 

allowing leasing of our public lands for this use. Such development could have serious and 

irreversible impacts, including on water supplies and quality, air quality, native ecosystems and 

wildlife, and recreational uses. I urge you to choose Alternative 3, Research Only, as the BLM’s 

Preferred Alternative in the Final PEIS. This is essential to ensure that we have the best possible 

information before considering opening our natural open spaces and ecosystems to the 

development of oil shale and tar sand resources. #1])> Here are some of my specific concerns 

regarding the Draft PEIS: <([#2 [3.4.1] * The Draft Programmatic EIS needs to ensure water 

quality will not be adversely effected by development of oil shale and tar sand resources. The 

water usage for oil shale production far outstrips the amount of oil produced, even prior to the 

refinement process. Water resources in the West are already overused and the effects of climate 

change and increased population will only add further strain to an already depleted system. #2])>

<([#3 [3.4.1] * The Draft Programmatic EIS should be conducted in such a way to address issues 

of dust, noise, and pollution in the affected areas. Heating oil shale in the ground can 

contaminate vital groundwater supplies. High salt concentrations in groundwater restricts water 

available to native plants and is harmful to agricultural production as well. The Colorado River 

Basin already spends millions of dollars annually on damages caused from high salinity. #3])>

<([#4 [3.1.1] * The Draft Programmatic EIS should address the potential encroachment on 

protected areas and National Parks such as Glen Canyon Recreation Area and Canyonlands 

National Park. This includes a thorough analysis of the damage to these priceless parks by oil 

shale and tar sands development. #4])> <([#5 [2.3.1] This EIS should ensure that all alternatives 

seriously assess the issues outlined above. Considering the present lack of adequate information 

and the tremendous risks of misguided development, the only reasonable alternative at this point 

is Alternative 3, Research Only as outlined in the PEIS. #5])> Thank you for the opportunity to 

comment on the Draft Programmatic EIS. Sincerely, Wesley Wolf 
Final OSTS PEIS 819 

OSTS2012D50220 

Organization: Anne Jones 

Received: 5/1/2012 3:44:04 PM 

Commenter1: Anne Jones - Olivet, Michigan 49076 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/16/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50220.htm (OSTS2012D50220-58756.htm Size = 1 KB) 

Submission Text

<([#1 [2.3.1] For many years my salary was funded by the DOE. I am in favor of research for 

energy sources. Outside of MOAB is the DOE’s biggest cleanup - Have we not learned our 

lessons? Please, no development of more things that potentially pollute until 100% of the 

research is needed to make sure the DOE is not cleaning up a mess, if it can, the next time. I 

favor Alternative 3 - more time, more studies. #1])>

OSTS2012D50221 

Organization: lewis chapp 

Received: 5/1/2012 3:57:15 PM 

Commenter1: lewis chapp - somerville, New Jersey 08876 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/4/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50221.htm (OSTS2012D50221-58758.htm Size = 1 KB) 

Submission Text

<([#1 [12] Please don’t risk ruining the land. #1])>

OSTS2012D50222 

Organization: Fares Arguello 

Received: 5/1/2012 4:05:59 PM 

Commenter1: Fares Arguello - Salt Lake City, Utah 841082907 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 
Final OSTS PEIS 820 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/4/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50222.htm (OSTS2012D50222-58760.htm Size = 1 KB) 

Submission Text

<([#1 [3.10.2] In 2011 Utah’s tourism industry generated $842 million in state and local tax 

revenue and directly supported 2,200 local jobs in Glen Canyon National Recreation Area plus 

sustained another 1,600 jobs in Arches National Park. All the while keeping a low carbon 

footprint. Utah had one of it’s worst ski years in history and regardless of climate change denial, 

one wonders if continued decreases in yearly precipitation will not only negatively impact the ski 

industry but our water resource in general.Any further negative effect on our water resource with 

bad consequences for Utah and it’s citizenry via shale and tar sand development is unncecessary 

and unwise. #1])> <([#2 [2.3.1] BLM development alternative 3, research only, seems to be the 

one and only wise option. An option I strongly encourage and recommend. #2])> Fares Arguello, 

MD 

OSTS2012D50223 

Organization: Sherri Venezia 

Received: 5/1/2012 4:08:58 PM 

Commenter1: Sherri Venezia - Davis, California 95616 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/4/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50223.htm (OSTS2012D50223-58762.htm Size = 1 KB) 

Submission Text

<([#1 [12.3] I wish to register opposition to the proposed Oil Shale and Tar Sands project that 

may negatively impact the national parks in the Rocky Mountain regions. These parks are our 

links to the natural beauty of our country, to be preserved for posterity. Fracking, drilling and 

destroying habitat as the byproduct of attempting to remove oil deposits from tar sands and rock 

are short term ways of getting oil; we must reduce our dependency on this and look for 

alternative ways of fueling the economy. I oppose these practices near our national parks in the 

West. #1])>

OSTS2012D50224 

Organization: Kathy Halbower 

Received: 5/1/2012 5:09:37 PM 

Commenter1: Kathy Halbower - New York, New York 10010 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 
Final OSTS PEIS 821 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/4/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50224.htm (OSTS2012D50224-58764.htm Size = 1 KB) 

Submission Text

<([#1 [12.3] please keep these designated areas wild and untainted for our children and for 

biological diversity. #1])>

OSTS2012D50225 

Organization: Julie Ford 

Received: 5/1/2012 6:17:58 PM 

Commenter1: Julie Ford - Huntington Beach, California 926492244 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/4/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50225.htm (OSTS2012D50225-58766.htm Size = 1 KB) 

Submission Text

<([#1 [2.3.1] Please use Alternate 3. Oil shale operations have no place on public lands and 

should not even be considered. #1])>

OSTS2012D50226 

Organization: 

Received: 5/1/2012 6:19:33 PM 

Commenter1: - , (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: 

Submission Category: 50201_Campaign 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: OSTS2012D50201- Master 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/4/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50226.htm (OSTS2012D50226-58768.htm Size = 3 KB) 

Submission Text

Dear Bureau of Land Management, I am writing to submit comments on the Oil Shale and Tar 

Sands Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS). <([#1 [3] I am very 

concerned about the possible impacts of oil shale development on Glen Canyon, Grand Canyon, 

and the Colorado River. I believe that we need more research on the potential impacts of oil 

shale and tar sand development before allowing leasing of our public lands for this use. Such 

development could have serious and irreversible impacts, including on water supplies and 

quality, air quality, native ecosystems and wildlife, and recreational uses. #1])> <([#2 [2.3.1] I 

urge you to choose Alternative 3, Research Only, as the BLM’s Preferred Alternative in the Final 

PEIS. This is essential to ensure that we have the best possible information before considering 

opening our natural open spaces and ecosystems to the development of oil shale and tar sand 
Final OSTS PEIS 822 

resources. #2])> <([#3 [3.4.1] Here are some of my specific concerns regarding the Draft PEIS: * 

The Draft Programmatic EIS needs to ensure water quality will not be adversely effected by 

development of oil shale and tar sand resources. The water usage for oil shale production far 

outstrips the amount of oil produced, even prior to the refinement process. Water resources in the 

West are already overused and the effects of climate change and increased population will only 

add further strain to an already depleted system. #3])> <([#4 [3.4.1] * The Draft Programmatic 

EIS should be conducted in such a way to address issues of dust, noise, and pollution in the 

affected areas. Heating oil shale in the ground can contaminate vital groundwater supplies. High 

salt concentrations in groundwater restricts water available to native plants and is harmful to 

agricultural production as well. The Colorado River Basin already spends millions of dollars 

annually on damages caused from high salinity. #4])> <([#5 [3.1.1] * The Draft Programmatic 

EIS should address the potential encroachment on protected areas and National Parks such as 

Glen Canyon Recreation Area and Canyonlands National Park. This includes a thorough analysis 

of the damage to these priceless parks by oil shale and tar sands development. #5])> <([#6

[2.3.1] This EIS should ensure that all alternatives seriously assess the issues outlined above. 

Considering the present lack of adequate information and the tremendous risks of misguided 

development, the only reasonable alternative at this point is Alternative 3, Research Only as 

outlined in the PEIS. #6])> Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Draft 

Programmatic EIS. Sincerely, Richard A. Harm 454 Purrington Road Petaluma, CA 94952 

OSTS2012D50227 

Organization: CLUB 20, Bonnie Petersen 

Received: 5/1/2012 6:25:31 PM 

Commenter1: Bonnie Petersen - Grand Junction, Colorado 81502 (United States) 

Organization1:CLUB 20 

Commenter Type: Misc. Organization 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Letter & Resolution 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: aziech 5/15/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50227.htm (OSTS2012D50227-58788.htm Size = 1 KB) 

2012_OSTS_PEIS_comments,_5-1-2012_OSTS2012D50227.pdf (OSTS2012D50227-58787.pdf 

Size = 463 KB) 

Submission Text

See Attachment. 

May 1, 2012 

BLM Oil Shale and Tar Sands Draft Programmatic EIS Argonne National Laboratory 9700 S. 

Cass Ave. Argonne IL 60439 

Ken Salazar, Secretary 

U.S. Department of the Interior 1849 C Street, N.W. Washington DC 20240 Sent this date via 

email: exsec@ios.doi.gov 

Robert Abbey, Director 

Bureau of Land Management 1849 C Street, N.W., Room 5665 Washington DC 20240 Sent this 

date via email: Director@blm.gov 
Final OSTS PEIS 823 

(These comments also submitted electronically via the OSTSEIS website.) 

RE: CLUB 20 comments regarding 2012 Oil Shale & Tar Sands Programmatic EIS 

To whom it may concern: 

Thank you for the opportunity to submit comments regarding the BLM’s 2012 Oil Shale & Tar 

Sands Draft Programmatic EIS. CLUB 20 is a 59 year old membership organization representing 

individuals and businesses throughout Western Colorado’s 22-county region. 

We have attached a copy of CLUB 20’s Oil Shale Policy Statement supporting a “prudentlypaced commercial scale leasing program”. CLUB 20 recognizes that the U.S. Department of 

Energy estimates that as much as 1 trillion barrels of recoverable oil may exist within the oil 

shale deposits of the Green River Formation in Northwest Colorado, Southwest Wyoming, and 

Northeast Utah (the bulk of which is located in Northwestern CO) and this is the largest known 

deposit of oil shale in the world. Given our growing national dependence on foreign oil supplies 

and the increasing instability in most of these supplier regions, we believe it is prudent and 

necessary that we work to develop our domestic energy reserves to their full potential, while 

respecting the other environmental and cultural values that define our region’s quality of life. 

We believe that it is important for our country to be proactive and purposeful about preparing a 

well-conceived plan for the thoughtful development of this important 

resource in order to avoid getting pushed into a crisis-oriented, commercial-scale oil shale 

program as was the case in the late 1970’s and early 1980’s. A well thought out PEIS is an 

important part of that deliberate effort as is a well-designed energy plan as was required be 

developed under Section 369 of the Federal Energy Policy Act of 2005. 

<([#1 [9.8] CLUB 20 concerns regarding the “purpose and need” for a lengthy, costly PEIS in 

2011-2012. 

The preliminary purpose and need statement reflected in the notice of intent published in the 

Federal Register on April 14, 2011, indicates that this effort is engaged to implement Secretarial 

Order No. 3310, dated December 22, 2010. Further, one week after this stated purpose and need 

was published in the Federal Register, the Congressional Continuing Resolution to Fund Fiscal 

Year 2011 specifically stated that 2011 funds were not to be used to implement, administer 

and/or enforce Secretarial Order No. 3310. In light of these circumstances, CLUB 20 questions 

the validity of repeating a costly PEIS at this time. 

The 2008 OSTS PEIS has been considered by numerous parties, including CLUB 20, to have 

been a reasonable, cautious and acceptable approach to the development of oil shale. The 

document supported the research, development, and demonstration (R,D&D) program, and in 

doing so, the BLM provided an opportunity to ensure that oil shale technologies can operate at 

economic and environmentally acceptable levels before the authorization of full-scale 

commercial leasing on public lands. CLUB 20 strongly supported this R,D&D approach to oil 

shale development and urged additional opportunities for such leases; we continue to do so. 

Unfortunately, the 2012 OSTS PEIS serves to seriously restrict opportunities for R,D&D leases 

and ultimately restricts the research of oil shale development technologies to only those few 

where current leases are in place. The current lessees are exploring in situ technologies. This is a 

short sighted view eliminating the possibility of research using other technologies that may allow 

for development of this resource at even more economic and environmentally acceptable levels. 

Additionally, current R,D&D leaseholders are more uncertain of the future just as their research 

efforts are beginning to answer the questions about the feasibility of developing this resource 

because of the lack of continuity in Federal policies regarding oil shale development. 

The investment private companies will make in oil shale research and development is sure to 
Final OSTS PEIS 824 

decline given the uncertainty and inadequacy of the BLM preferred alternative in the 2012 OSTS 

PEIS. The unknown terms for future R,D&D leases is part of the disincentive for companies 

interested in pursuing oil shale research on Federal oil shale lands. The recent 2nd round BLM 

R,D&D leases offered insufficient Preference Right acreage to support a commercial project, and 

other terms of the leases are more restrictive than those in the 1st round R,D&D leases. The 

reduction or preclusion of that investmentwill represent billions of dollars in lost opportunity, not 

to mention the potential jobs such an investment would create. #1])>

<([#2 [2.1.1] CLUB 20 continues to support the 2008 OSTS PEIS preferred Alternative 

CLUB 20 supported Alternative B in the 2008 OSTS PEIS, which became the alternative 

implemented in the Record of Decision (ROD), “because it would make the largest amount of 

potential oil resources available for application for leasing while still providing for an 

environmentally sound program and would provide the greatest flexibility in locating future 

development.” We continue to support this concept; the Alternative in the 2012 OSTS PEIS that 

most closely reflects the ROD for the 2008 PEIS is the No Action Alternative. This alternative is 

consistent with the multiple use, sustained yield tenets of the Federal Land Policy Management 

Act (FLPMA) and is consistent with policies that call for responsible development of available 

energy resources. #2])>

<([#3 [2.2] Much of the 2012 OSTS PEIS document is exactly the same as the 2008 OSTS PEIS 

yet the BLM’s preferred alternative is significantly more restrictive. The BLM’s 2012 PEIS 

preferred alternative has not been analyzed for its impacts as is required by NEPA. #3])> <([#4

[1.3] Further, the 2012 OSTS PEIS is remiss and disingenuous in relation to cooperating 

agencies. BLM must coordinate closely with the local governments where oil shale is located, as 

required in FLPMA, 43 USC 1712(c)(9). The BLM’s refusal to consider the alternative preferred 

by most of the local governments – the No Action Alternative – is a clear failure to meet that 

obligation. State and local governments have jurisdiction to the extent that they regulate land use 

on private and state land and there is a consistency obligation for federal land. Once cooperating 

agencies have provided technical and material comments, the federal agency must address those 

comments; saying it ‘disagrees’ is not sufficient. #4])>

<([#5 [9.3] BLM lands are public lands and are required to be managed for multiple-use. As 

such, we believe it is appropriate to designate these lands as suitable for development 

consideration subject to additional NEPA analyses to be conducted prior to the issuance of 

commercial leases and site-specific NEPA analyses to be conducted during evaluation and 

approval of plans of development during the project development phase in order to identify 

potential project-specific impacts and define appropriate lease stipulations and required 

mitigation measures. #5])>

<([#6 [2.2] We believe that Alternative 2A is too limiting to be considered a legitimate 

alternative for developing oil shale resources. 

While we appreciate the BLM’s efforts to offer multiple development scenarios, and we 

recognize that the intent of Alternative 2A is to provide for more limited development, we are 

concerned about the economic feasibility of developing any of the oil shale resource on the lands 

identified within the alternative. Under the BLM preferred alternative, the lands proposed to be 

available for leasing are composed of relatively 

small, isolated tracts, most of which are currently leased. Because of this fact, we believe that the 

BLM preferred alternative does not provide for large enough contiguous parcels to warrant the 

substantial investment necessary to demonstrate the viability of producing commercial quantities 

of oil from these oil shale reserves. Alternative 2A is essentially economically unfeasible as 
Final OSTS PEIS 825 

proposed. #6])>

<([#7 [6.3.2.1] Development of oil shale and tar sands is becoming much more technical 

feasible. 

Oil production from oil shale has been proven to be technologically and economically feasible 

and production from the Green River Formation is expected to begin in some locations before 

the end of 2012. The technology to be used in this domestic oil production from oil shale is not 

only economically feasible, but it will require minimal water consumption. Worldwide, 

technically and economically feasible oil production from oil shale has proven to use little to no 

water; another reason to continue encouraging research into new technologies in the 

development of this resource rather than limiting opportunities for research. 

The Green River Formation is the best laboratory available for developing new technologies 

related to oil shale development. Private industry will invest billions of dollars to determine the 

best way to produce oil from oil shale given a consistent and reliable set of rules by which to 

operate. Billions of investment dollars will translate into jobs for families in a region that has 

suffered tremendously as a result of the recent recession. #7])>

<([#8 [3.10.3] Socio-economic impacts are not adequately addressed in the 2012 OSTS PEIS. 

We are concerned about the socio-economic impacts to the local communities with regard to the 

development, as well as the non-development of the oil shale resource. When the 2008 OSTS 

PEIS was conducted, natural gas development in Western Colorado was robust and contributed 

to a number of socio-economic challenges throughout the communities in Garfield, Rio Blanco 

and Mesa Counties. The situation is nearly opposite that now, with these counties facing 

widespread unemployment. While the PEIS reflects interviews and concerns, it does not provide 

specific socio-economic data that demonstrates potential beneficial or detrimental economic 

impacts for these areas. As was anticipated in the 2008 OSTS PEIS, “rapid increases in 

population in-migration in parts of each region of influence could impact quality of life, in 

particular requiring a transition from traditional rural, to more urban lifestyles, and potentially 

cause large social disruption impacts.” It is anticipated, however, that by using the R,D&D 

model, negative impacts could be more easily identified and addressed in a more reasonable 

timeframe. Indeed, economic activity associated with oil shale development would be an 

economic benefit to many Western Colorado communities and residents at this time. #8])>

<([#9 [10.5] We believe that as technology continues to prove technically feasible, economic and 

environmentally acceptable, government and industry need to make appropriate and 

substantial UP-FRONT investments in the infrastructure of each local affected 

community in order to enable these communities to grow their services to meet the 

demands associated with oil shale development. While we fully recognize that we DO 

have a collective responsibility to develop our domestic energy reserves in the interest of 

national security, we believe that we have an equal responsibility – as a nation – to ensure 

that the burden of this energy development isn’t borne disproportionately on the backs of 

local host communities. Specifically, 

We believe that the states’ traditional 50% share of the Federal Mineral Lease 

(FML) revenue MUST be restored with specific dedication of the vast majority of 

those funds to be used to mitigate the impacts of energy development on local 

communities. 

We believe that the BLM should encourage industry to make UP-FRONT 

investments in local community infrastructure by granting a pre-payment credit 

against their FML liability for any such investments. Without such up-front 
Final OSTS PEIS 826 

investments, local communities are continually chasing their tail trying to catch 

up with impact needs as they wait for months to receive the lease revenues 

associated with those impacts. Such up-front investments by industry will allow 

communities to invest ahead of the impacts, thus both facilitating the development 

of the resource while minimizing the disruptive impact on the community. 

Funding infrastructure needs during oil and gas development can put local jurisdictions 

under enormous financial pressure since tax revenues intended to mitigate impacts of 

energy development are not available largely until AFTER the impacts have occurred. 

Although the PEIS made a passing reference to impacts on community infrastructure, 

there was no effort to quantify how large this impact may actually be. We believe the 

PEIS should attempt to identify the types of physical infrastructure investments (if not an 

estimate of the costs associated with those investments) that local governments will be 

required to make in order to meet the demands associated with commercial oil shale 

development. 

#9])> Thank you again for this opportunity to comment on the Draft Oil Shale & Tar Sands 

Programmatic PEIS. 

Sincerely, 

Bonnie Petersen 

Executive Director 

CLUB 20 

Oil Shale, Development and Implementation of a National Strategy 

WHEREAS the U.S. Department of Energy estimates that as much as 1 trillion barrels of 

recoverable oil may exist within the oil shale deposits of the Green River Formation in 

Northwest Colorado, Southwest Wyoming and Northeast Utah (the bulk of which is located in 

Northwest CO), and this is the largest known deposit of oil shale in the world and one of the 

largest untapped hydrocarbon resources available for development; and 

WHEREAS CLUB 20 recognizes the potential value of this oil shale resource, and we also 

recognize the need to realize this value while sustaining the other existing social, economic and 

environmental values that comprise the overall quality of life in western Colorado; and 

WHEREAS oil shale development is important for our country’s national security to supplement 

our nation’s growing energy demand; and 

WHEREAS without a well-conceived strategic plan for oil shale development, Colorado, Utah 

and Wyoming may someday be faced with another crisis-driven, commercial-scale oil shale 

program; 

WHEREAS the U.S. Department of the Interior continues to evaluate the environmental impacts, 

socioeconomic consequences, technical feasibility and economic viability of activities proposed 

for and being conducted on Research Development and Demonstration (RD&D) leases for oil 

shale resources of Western Colorado and Utah; and 

WHEREAS section 369(e) of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPA05) requires that after 

consultation with affected States, local governments and other stakeholders, if the Secretary of 

the Interior finds sufficient support and interest exists in a State, the Secretary may conduct a 

lease sale in that State under commercial leasing regulations; and 

WHEREAS section 369(h)&(i) of the EPA05 requires the U.S. Department of Energy and the 

U.S. 

Department of the Interior to take certain actions to prepare for commercial oil shale 
Final OSTS PEIS 827 

development; 

<([#12 [11] THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that CLUB 20 supports research and 

development efforts leading to an environmentally sound, socially responsible, timely and 

economically viable oil shale program that will result in the efficient recovery of the resource; 

#12])> and 

<([#13 [11] BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that CLUB 20 supports section 369 of the Energy 

Policy Act of 2005 which directs the U.S. Departments of Energy, Interior and Defense, in 

cooperation with 

State and Local governments, to continue to develop and implement an oil shale strategy and 

urges that this strategy include the following: 

1. Implement a prudently-paced and timely commercial leasing program to allow available 

technologies to be put into commercial production; 

#13])> <([#14 [1.3] BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that CLUB 20 supports section 369 of the 

Energy Policy Act of 2005 which directs the U.S. Departments of Energy, Interior and Defense, 

in cooperation with 

State and Local governments, to continue to develop and implement an oil shale strategy and 

urges that this strategy include the following: 

2. Utilize the existing NEPA process to provide an opportunity for ongoing participation of 

directly impacted state and local governments as well as “Cooperating Agencies” and the public 

on the development of oil shale; 

#14])> <([#15 [1.3] BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that CLUB 20 supports section 369 of the 

Energy Policy Act of 2005 which directs the U.S. Departments of Energy, Interior and Defense, 

in cooperation with 

State and Local governments, to continue to develop and implement an oil shale strategy and 

urges that this strategy include the following: 

3. Federal decisions should reflect the consensus of “Cooperating Agencies” in a meaningful 

manner; 

#15])> <([#16 [9.5] BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that CLUB 20 supports section 369 of the 

Energy Policy Act of 2005 which directs the U.S. Departments of Energy, Interior and Defense, 

in cooperation with 

State and Local governments, to continue to develop and implement an oil shale strategy and 

urges that this strategy include the following: 

4. Utilize the Joint-Review Process to facilitate and coordinate the federal, state and local permit 

process; 

#16])> <([#17 [10.5] BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that CLUB 20 supports section 369 of the 

Energy Policy Act of 2005 which directs the U.S. Departments of Energy, Interior and Defense, 

in cooperation with 

State and Local governments, to continue to develop and implement an oil shale strategy and 

urges that this strategy include the following: 

5. Support of the existing Bureau of Land Management (BLM) RD&D oil shale leasing program 

and Encourage fair tax & royalty structures which incentivize ongoing research and commercial 

development while providing for infrastructure development and impact mitigation; 

#17])> <([#18 [10.5] BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that CLUB 20 supports section 369 of the 

Energy Policy Act of 2005 which directs the U.S. Departments of Energy, Interior and Defense, 

in cooperation with 

State and Local governments, to continue to develop and implement an oil shale strategy and 
Final OSTS PEIS 828 

urges that this strategy include the following: 

6. Provide for appropriate study of and mechanisms for the timely mitigation of impacts from 

development, including incentives for “up front” industry contributions to state agencies and 

local governments through establishment of a federal royalty credit for these contributions; 

#18])> <([#19 [9.6] BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that CLUB 20 supports section 369 of the 

Energy Policy Act of 2005 which directs the U.S. Departments of Energy, Interior and Defense, 

in cooperation with 

State and Local governments, to continue to develop and implement an oil shale strategy and 

urges that this strategy include the following: 

7. Issue commercial leases when the Secretary of the Interior has found that the applicant has 

demonstrated the capability of proceeding with a technically feasible, commercially viable and 

environmentally sound technology, and the federal, state and local governments have proper 

mechanisms in place (regulations, permitting program, NEPA review) to ensure prudent and 

responsible development; 

#19])> <([#20 [9.7] BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that CLUB 20 supports section 369 of the 

Energy Policy Act of 2005 which directs the U.S. Departments of Energy, Interior and Defense, 

in cooperation with 

State and Local governments, to continue to develop and implement an oil shale strategy and 

urges that this strategy include the following: 

8. Concurrent with the commercial leasing program, the BLM should continue to make RD&D 

leases available to provide interested companies the opportunity to develop and demonstrate 

viable technology; #20])> and 

<([#21 [9.2.2] BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that CLUB 20 supports section 369 of the Energy 

Policy Act of 2005 which directs the U.S. Departments of Energy, Interior and Defense, in 

cooperation with 

State and Local governments, to continue to develop and implement an oil shale strategy and 

urges that this strategy include the following: 

9. Urge the U.S. Departments of Energy, Interior and Defense to fulfill their mandates under 

section 369 of the EPA05. 

#21])> Adopted 4/1/05 

Amended 3/31/06 

Amended 9/8/06 

Renewed April 1, 2011 

Amended March 30, 2012 

OSTS2012D50228 

Organization: Robert Amador 

Received: 5/1/2012 6:49:49 PM 

Commenter1: Robert Amador - Napa, California 94558 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: 

Submission Category: 50201_Campaign_plus 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/16/2012 12:00:00 AM 
Final OSTS PEIS 829 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50228.htm (OSTS2012D50228-58770.htm Size = 3 KB) 

Submission Text

<([#1 [2.3.1] To concerned representatives at the Bureau of Land Management, I am writing in 

regards to the Oil Shale and Tar Sands Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement 

(PEIS). As a renewable energy scholar, with qualifications from the University of California, 

Irvine, and Cambridge University in the United Kingdom, I feel that my education and 

experience in the field provides me with the requisite perspective and knowledge base to 

comment on the Draft PEIS. In brief, I am very concerned about the environmental impacts of oil 

shale development along the entire length of the Colorado River (Grand/Glen Canyons 

included). Though the accepted body of research is not ‘complete’, there is a preponderance of 

evidence to support the position that oil shale and tar sand development has a detrimental and - 

in the short term - irreversible impact on the local and global environment. The Colorado River 

ecosystem is particularly vulnerable to the impacts of oil shale and tar sand development, as 

increased water harvesting - and subsequent increases in siltation - have created an increasingly 

acidic riparian environment. Globally, tar sand development is a particularly intensive form of 

energy development, one that is as detrimental to the environment/climate as it is energy 

intensive. I concur with the Glen Canyon Institute’s recommendation that the BLM choose 

Alternative 3, Research Only, as the the Preferred Alternative in the Final PEIS. This is essential 

to ensure that we have the best possible information before considering opening our natural open 

spaces and ecosystems to the development of oil shale and tar sand resources. #1])> <([#2 [3.4.1] 

Further, I concur with all of the GCI’s specific concerns/recommendations for the Draft PEIS, 

which follow in their entirety below. * The Draft Programmatic EIS needs to ensure water 

quality will not be adversely effected by development of oil shale and tar sand resources. The 

water usage for oil shale production far outstrips the amount of oil produced, even prior to the 

refinement process. Water resources in the West are already overused and the effects of climate 

change and increased population will only add further strain to an already depleted system. #2])>

<([#3 [3.4.1] * The Draft Programmatic EIS should be conducted in such a way to address issues 

of dust, noise, and pollution in the affected areas. Heating oil shale in the ground can 

contaminate vital groundwater supplies. High salt concentrations in groundwater restricts water 

available to native plants and is harmful to agricultural production as well. The Colorado River 

Basin already spends millions of dollars annually on damages caused from high salinity. #3])>

<([#4 [3.1.1] * The Draft Programmatic EIS should address the potential encroachment on 

protected areas and National Parks such as Glen Canyon Recreation Area and Canyonlands 

National Park. This includes a thorough analysis of the damage to these priceless parks by oil 

shale and tar sands development. #4])> I appreciate your thoughtful consideration and best 

efforts. Kind regards, Robert Amador Sustainability Research Group Centre for Climate Change 

Mitigation Research Cambridge University (Currently based in Napa, California 94558) T.310 

497 1559 

OSTS2012D50229 

Organization: Alison Godlewski 

Received: 5/1/2012 6:57:13 PM 

Commenter1: Alison Godlewski - Park City, Utah 84098 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 
Final OSTS PEIS 830 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/4/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50229.htm (OSTS2012D50229-58772.htm Size = 1 KB) 

Submission Text

<([#1 [3.10.3] Not worth it! Too little return for too much expense and sacrifice. Put your money 

into alternative transportation. THank you for listening. No response necessary. #1])>

OSTS2012D50230 

Organization: Steve Lewis 

Received: 5/1/2012 7:01:02 PM 

Commenter1: Steve Lewis - Steamboat Springs, Colorado 80477 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/4/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50230.htm (OSTS2012D50230-58774.htm Size = 1 KB) 

Submission Text

<([#1 [12.3] It is my understanding that these public lands belong to all of us. Is it possible that 

we would allow a wholesale degradation of them that runs against the will of the American 

people? Please say no to extraction on any large scale. Use one tenth for us and save the rest for 

our children. Please reserve these lands and these resources for the coming generations to count 

on. We should leave a worthy legacy for our children. #1])> Sincerely, Steve Lewis 

OSTS2012D50231 

Organization: Becky Johnston 

Received: 5/1/2012 7:04:14 PM 

Commenter1: Becky Johnston - Albuquerque, New Mexico 87114 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: 

Submission Category: 50201_Campaign 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: OSTS2012D50201- Master 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/4/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50231.htm (OSTS2012D50231-58776.htm Size = 3 KB) 

Submission Text

Dear Bureau of Land Management, I am writing to submit comments on the Oil Shale and Tar 

Sands Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS). <([#1 [3] I am very 

concerned about the possible impacts of oil shale development on Glen Canyon, Grand Canyon, 

and the Colorado River. I believe that we need more research on the potential impacts of oil 
Final OSTS PEIS 831 

shale and tar sand development before allowing leasing of our public lands for this use. Such 

development could have serious and irreversible impacts, including on water supplies and 

quality, air quality, native ecosystems and wildlife, and recreational uses. #1])> <([#2 [2.3.1] I 

urge you to choose Alternative 3, Research Only, as the BLM’s Preferred Alternative in the Final 

PEIS. This is essential to ensure that we have the best possible information before considering 

opening our natural open spaces and ecosystems to the development of oil shale and tar sand 

resources. #2])> <([#3 [3.4.1] Here are some of my specific concerns regarding the Draft PEIS: * 

The Draft Programmatic EIS needs to ensure water quality will not be adversely effected by 

development of oil shale and tar sand resources. The water usage for oil shale production far 

outstrips the amount of oil produced, even prior to the refinement process. Water resources in the 

West are already overused and the effects of climate change and increased population will only 

add further strain to an already depleted system. #3])> <([#4 [3.4.1] * The Draft Programmatic 

EIS should be conducted in such a way to address issues of dust, noise, and pollution in the 

affected areas. Heating oil shale in the ground can contaminate vital groundwater supplies. High 

salt concentrations in groundwater restricts water available to native plants and is harmful to 

agricultural production as well. The Colorado River Basin already spends millions of dollars 

annually on damages caused from high salinity. #4])> <([#5 [3.1.1] * The Draft Programmatic 

EIS should address the potential encroachment on protected areas and National Parks such as 

Glen Canyon Recreation Area and Canyonlands National Park. This includes a thorough analysis 

of the damage to these priceless parks by oil shale and tar sands development. #5])> <([#6

[2.3.1] This EIS should ensure that all alternatives seriously assess the issues outlined above. 

Considering the present lack of adequate information and the tremendous risks of misguided 

development, the only reasonable alternative at this point is Alternative 3, Research Only as 

outlined in the PEIS. #6])> Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Draft 

Programmatic EIS. Sincerely, Becky Johnston 4964 Quail Ridge Dr NW Albuquerque, NM 

87114 

OSTS2012D50232 

Organization: 

Received: 5/1/2012 7:45:40 PM 

Commenter1: - , (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/4/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50232.htm (OSTS2012D50232-58778.htm Size = 1 KB) 

Submission Text

<([#1 [12] This is a sacrifice of our environment in both the near and long term and these oil 

sands and shale should not be exploited. 

#1])>

OSTS2012D50233 
Final OSTS PEIS 832 

Organization: Jack Miller 

Received: 5/1/2012 10:12:41 PM 

Commenter1: Jack Miller - Petaluma, California 94952 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/4/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50233.htm (OSTS2012D50233-58780.htm Size = 1 KB) 

Submission Text

<([#1 [2.3.1] I am writing regarding the Oil Shale and Tar Sands PEIS.I urge that you decide on 

alternative #3. The threat to water quality in an arid area like this is just too great a risk. Our 

country is now exporting gasoline and will soon be energy independant. Perhaps someday the 

technology will exist to extract this resource safely and without threatening an entire ecosystem. 

That day is not today. Please choose alternative #3. #1])>

OSTS2012D50234 

Organization: Gene Romanski 

Received: 5/1/2012 11:35:43 PM 

Commenter1: Gene Romanski - Reno, Nevada 89509 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: 

Submission Category: 50201_Campaign 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: OSTS2012D50201- Master 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/4/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50234.htm (OSTS2012D50234-58782.htm Size = 3 KB) 

Submission Text

Dear Bureau of Land Management, I am writing to submit comments on the Oil Shale and Tar 

Sands Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS). <([#1 [3] I am very 

concerned about the possible impacts of oil shale development on Glen Canyon, Grand Canyon, 

and the Colorado River. I believe that we need more research on the potential impacts of oil 

shale and tar sand development before allowing leasing of our public lands for this use. Such 

development could have serious and irreversible impacts, including on water supplies and 

quality, air quality, native ecosystems and wildlife, and recreational uses. #1])> <([#2 [2.3.1] I 

urge you to choose Alternative 3, Research Only, as the BLM’s Preferred Alternative in the Final 

PEIS. This is essential to ensure that we have the best possible information before considering 

opening our natural open spaces and ecosystems to the development of oil shale and tar sand 

resources. #2])> <([#3 [3.4.1] Here are some of my specific concerns regarding the Draft PEIS: * 

The Draft Programmatic EIS needs to ensure water quality will not be adversely effected by 

development of oil shale and tar sand resources. The water usage for oil shale production far 

outstrips the amount of oil produced, even prior to the refinement process. Water resources in the 
Final OSTS PEIS 833 

West are already overused and the effects of climate change and increased population will only 

add further strain to an already depleted system. #3])> <([#4 [3.4.1] * The Draft Programmatic 

EIS should be conducted in such a way to address issues of dust, noise, and pollution in the 

affected areas. Heating oil shale in the ground can contaminate vital groundwater supplies. High 

salt concentrations in groundwater restricts water available to native plants and is harmful to 

agricultural production as well. The Colorado River Basin already spends millions of dollars 

annually on damages caused from high salinity. #4])> <([#5 [3.1.1] * The Draft Programmatic 

EIS should address the potential encroachment on protected areas and National Parks such as 

Glen Canyon Recreation Area and Canyonlands National Park. This includes a thorough analysis 

of the damage to these priceless parks by oil shale and tar sands development. #5])> <([#6

[2.3.1] This EIS should ensure that all alternatives seriously assess the issues outlined above. 

Considering the present lack of adequate information and the tremendous risks of misguided 

development, the only reasonable alternative at this point is Alternative 3, Research Only as 

outlined in the PEIS. #6])> Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Draft 

Programmatic EIS. Sincerely, Gene Romanski 462 Glenmanor Dr Reno, NV 89509 

OSTS2012D50235 

Organization: Tom Wright 

Received: 5/2/2012 12:10:19 AM 

Commenter1: Tom Wright - Tempe, Arizona 85282 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/4/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50235.htm (OSTS2012D50235-58784.htm Size = 1 KB) 

Submission Text

<([#1 [2.3.1] I support Alternative 3, Research Only. The potential impacts of this type of largescale energy development are poorly understood and they must be considered in a broader 

context of land use decisions, wise use of natural resources, energy sustainability, and 

preservation of traditional Western values including open space, outdoor recreation, hunting, 

wildlife habitat, historic and prehistoric archaeological sites, Native American concerns, and the 

quality of our air and water. We must make decisions very carfeully, and draw upon the best 

information possible, because whatever we do we will be living with the consequences from now 

on. #1])> <([#2 [3] The draft EIS is particularly deficient in addressing issues related to water 

consumption, conservation, and quality; noise and dust control; air quality control; impacts to 

adjacent public lands (including but not limited to revenue-generating National Parks and other 

scenic and recreational areas); and impacts to Native American cultural properties and religious 

practices that are closely tied to specific elements of the landscape. #2])> <([#3 [2.3.1] 

Alternative 3 is a “look before you leap” option that is badly needed in advance of such big 

decisions. 

#3])>

OSTS2012D50236 
Final OSTS PEIS 834 

Organization: Kathryn Sachs 

Received: 5/2/2012 2:06:28 AM 

Commenter1: Kathryn Sachs - Denver , Colorado 80209 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/4/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50236.htm (OSTS2012D50236-58786.htm Size = 2 KB) 

Submission Text

<([#1 [3.4.1] I have serious concerns about opening areas of Northwestern Colorado and Utah to 

Tar Sand and Oil Shale development. As a Colorado resident who enjoys spending time in those 

regions and someone employed in the oil and gas business, I recognize the need to balance the 

interests of resource development with resource conservation and protection. In the case of 

opening these regions to such intensive resource extraction. My reasons for this are many. These 

industries are highly water intensive - these regions are water poor. Allocating water rights to 

companies extracting oil seems to be a misuse of an important regional resource. While I also 

realize that this development may mean jobs for a region that also suffers economically, firmly 

believe that regional economic drivers should NOT supercede that national interests in protecting 

unique natural resources that are federally protected for the ongoing use of U.S. citizens. #1])>

<([#2 [12] I have spent time in Capital Reef, Arches, and Dinosaur National Monument. These 

are unique and beatiful landscapes. I also work in oil and gas development and I know that even 

the best intentions often are not realized. In a rush to develop, the companies often take shortcuts 

that prove harmful to the natural environment. These companies do NOT have long term 

interests in the region - and as someone who does, I request that you do not open these regions to 

Tar Sand and Oil Shale Development. 

#2])>

OSTS2012D50237 

Organization: Timothy McRoberts 

Received: 5/2/2012 7:12:53 AM 

Commenter1: Timothy McRoberts - Atlanta, Illinois 61723 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/4/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50237.htm (OSTS2012D50237-58789.htm Size = 1 KB) 

Submission Text

<([#1 [12] What is already there is worth more than could ever be taken from it. #1])>
Final OSTS PEIS 835 

OSTS2012D50238 

Organization: Richard Warnick 

Received: 5/2/2012 8:26:20 AM 

Commenter1: Richard Warnick - Draper, Utah 84020 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: 

Submission Category: 50201_Campaign 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: OSTS2012D50201- Master 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/4/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50238.htm (OSTS2012D50238-58805.htm Size = 2 KB) 

Submission Text

Dear Bureau of Land Management, I am writing to submit comments on the Oil Shale and Tar 

Sands Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS). <([#1 [3] I am alarmed 

about the potential impacts on our public lands. Oil shale and tar sand development have serious 

and irreversible impacts, including on water supplies and quality, air quality, native ecosystems 

and wildlife, and recreational uses. Because of the massive, irreversible environmental damage, 

leasing our public lands for oil shale and tar sands would violate the FLPM prohibition of “undue 

and unnecessary degradation.” #1])> <([#2 [2.3.1] I urge you to choose Alternative 3, Research 

Only, as the BLM’s Preferred Alternative in the Final PEIS. #2])> <([#3 [3.4.1] Here are some 

of my specific concerns regarding the Draft PEIS: * The Draft Programmatic EIS needs to 

ensure water quality will not be adversely effected by development of oil shale and tar sand 

resources. The water usage for oil shale production far outstrips the amount of oil produced, even 

prior to the refinement process. Water resources in the West are already overused and the effects 

of climate change and increased population will only add further strain to an already depleted 

system. #3])> <([#4 [3.4.1] * The Draft Programmatic EIS should be conducted in such a way to 

address issues of dust, noise, and pollution in the affected areas. Heating oil shale in the ground 

can contaminate vital groundwater supplies. High salt concentrations in groundwater restricts 

water available to native plants and is harmful to agricultural production as well. The Colorado 

River Basin already spends millions of dollars annually on damages caused from high salinity. 

#4])> <([#5 [3.1.1] * The Draft Programmatic EIS should address the potential encroachment on 

protected areas and National Parks such as Glen Canyon Recreation Area and Canyonlands 

National Park. This includes a thorough analysis of the damage to these priceless parks by oil 

shale and tar sands development. #5])> <([#6 [2.3.1] This EIS should ensure that all alternatives 

seriously assess the issues outlined above. Considering the present lack of adequate information 

and the tremendous risks of misguided development, the only reasonable alternative at this point 

is Alternative 3, Research Only as outlined in the PEIS. #6])> Thank you for the opportunity to 

comment on the Draft Programmatic EIS. Sincerely, Richard M. Warnick 14012 Timber Ridge 

Dr. Draper, UT 84020 

OSTS2012D50239 

Organization: charlene estes 

Received: 5/2/2012 8:33:30 AM 

Commenter1: charlene estes - Columbia, Missouri 65201 (United States) 

Organization1: 
Final OSTS PEIS 836 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/4/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50239.htm (OSTS2012D50239-58807.htm Size = 1 KB) 

Submission Text

<([#1 [12] Please think about this before you take the wrong steps on tar sand recovery. It is 

wrong for the enviromnent and wrong for the direction this country needs to take to get away 

from gas and oil. Burning fossil fuel has done so much damage and we don’t need to destroy any 

more of the natural beauty of the west for it. #1])>

OSTS2012D50240 

Organization: 

Received: 5/2/2012 10:27:00 AM 

Commenter1: - , Virginia 22902 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/4/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50240.htm (OSTS2012D50240-58809.htm Size = 1 KB) 

Submission Text

<([#1 [12] Oil shale and tar sands should NOT be a source of petroleum. The concomitant 

environmental costs are too great to do so. Direct damage to ecosystems is too great; the amount 

of carbon dioxide released to the atmosphere is too great to use these resources. #1])> <([#2

[2.3.1] If any of the alternatives must be used, use Alternative 3 which is the most restrictive.

#2])>

OSTS2012D50241 

Organization: Wendy Raymond 

Received: 5/2/2012 10:47:48 AM 

Commenter1: Wendy Raymond - Monrovia, California 91016 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/4/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50241.htm (OSTS2012D50241-58811.htm Size = 1 KB) 
Final OSTS PEIS 837 

Submission Text

<([#1 [3.4.1] We are already having battles over water usage - who gets how much, who must 

make do with less. There currently is not enough water to go where it’s needed, so exactly where 

do intend to get the Huge amount of water necessary for your proposed drilling? And what will 

be done with the waste water? We have polluted thousands of acres of land. We have poisoned 

countless species habitats including obviously our own. I feel we can not afford to irretrievably 

decimate further public land. It’s akin to fouling our own nest, of which we have become 

masters. We can not continue with “business as usual”. #1])> Thank you. 

OSTS2012D50242 

Organization: RICHARD HILLS 

Received: 5/2/2012 11:53:34 AM 

Commenter1: RICHARD HILLS - CENTERVILLE, Utah 840142303 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: 

Submission Category: 50201_Campaign 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: OSTS2012D50201- Master 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/4/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50242.htm (OSTS2012D50242-58813.htm Size = 3 KB) 

Submission Text

Dear Bureau of Land Management, This is to submit comments on the Oil Shale and Tar Sands 

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS). <([#1 [3] Mining shale and tar 

sands will have very distructive impacts on Glen Canyon, Grand Canyon, and the Colorado 

River. I believe that we need more research on the potential impacts of oil shale and tar sand 

development before allowing leasing of our public lands for this use. Such development could 

have serious and irreversible impacts, including on water supplies and quality, air quality, native 

ecosystems and wildlife, and recreational uses. #1])> <([#2 [2.3.1] I urge you to choose 

Alternative 3, Research Only, as the BLM’s Preferred Alternative in the Final PEIS. This is 

essential to ensure that we have the best possible information before considering opening our 

natural open spaces and ecosystems to the development of oil shale and tar sand resources. #2])>

<([#3 [3.4.1] Here are some of my specific concerns regarding the Draft PEIS: 1. The Draft 

Programmatic EIS needs to ensure water quality will not be adversely effected by development 

of oil shale and tar sand resources. The water usage for oil shale production far outstrips the 

amount of oil produced, even prior to the refinement process. Water resources in the West are 

already overused and the effects of climate change and increased population will only add further 

strain to an already depleted system. #3])> 2. <([#4 [3.4.1] The Draft Programmatic EIS should 

be conducted in such a way to address issues of dust, noise, and pollution in the affected areas. 

Heating oil shale in the ground can contaminate vital groundwater supplies. High salt 

concentrations in groundwater restricts water available to native plants and is harmful to 

agricultural production as well. The Colorado River Basin already spends millions of dollars 

annually on damages caused from high salinity. #4])> 3. <([#5 [3.1.1] The Draft Programmatic 

EIS should address the potential encroachment on protected areas and National Parks such as 

Glen Canyon Recreation Area and Canyonlands National Park. This includes a thorough analysis 

of the damage to these priceless parks by oil shale and tar sands development. #5])> <([#6
Final OSTS PEIS 838 

[2.3.1] This EIS should ensure that all alternatives seriously assess the issues outlined above. 

Considering the present lack of adequate information and the tremendous risks of misguided 

development, the only reasonable alternative at this point is Alternative 3, Research Only as 

outlined in the PEIS. #6])> Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Draft 

Programmatic EIS. Sincerely, RICHARD G HILLS 787 E CENTER ST CENTERVILLE, UT 

84014-2303 801-292-3744 

OSTS2012D50243 

Organization: Cheryl Willis 

Received: 5/2/2012 1:43:02 PM 

Commenter1: Cheryl Willis - San Francisco, California 94131 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/4/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50243.htm (OSTS2012D50243-58815.htm Size = 1 KB) 

Submission Text

<([#1 [3.4.1] [3.13] I am against oil shale production because of the caustic chemicals and great 

amounts of water inserted into the underground, possibly contaminating underground water 

sources, plus the residue which will have to be contained somewhere, otherwise it will lead to 

above-ground additional contamination. #1])>

OSTS2012D50244 

Organization: Dave Werschky 

Received: 5/2/2012 2:20:26 PM 

Commenter1: Dave Werschky - Moab, Utah (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/4/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50244.htm (OSTS2012D50244-58817.htm Size = 1 KB) 

Submission Text

<([#1 [3.4.1] As a resident of the great state of Utah, and an avid outdoors enthusiast, I feel that 

this proposal is leading towards a slippery slope of opening public land for these destructive 

purposes. Additionally the water requirement will undoubtedly cause strain to the already fragile 

conditions of southeastern Utah and southwestern Colorado. The nuclear power plant proposal 

near Green River already stated that there may be times the river would not be able to satisfy the 

needs of the plant, so why is there a proposal to put even more usage on the river? It is 

nonsensical, ineffective (mis)use of a water source and a threat to the beauty of the landscape 
Final OSTS PEIS 839 

that earned recognition as some of the most beautiful national parks in the west. #1])> <([#2 [12] 

As a tax paying, law abiding, active voting citizen I am absolutely against this proposal. 

#2])>

OSTS2012D50245 

Organization: Ben Pattison 

Received: 5/2/2012 2:26:07 PM 

Commenter1: Ben Pattison - Lawrenceville, Georgia 30045 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/4/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50245.htm (OSTS2012D50245-58819.htm Size = 1 KB) 

Submission Text

<([#1 [3.10.4] I wish to express my strong opposition to the federal proposal to allow oil shale 

and oil sands development in parts of Wyoming, Colorado, and Utah as they would be a major 

threat to the national parks in those states. In addition to providing those states with Billions of 

dollars of tourist and sales revenue, the proposed plan will negatively effect a quarter of a million 

jobs. In this unstable and fragile economy it would be utterly foolish to take on such a risk. #1])>

<([#2 [6.3.2.2] Additionally the proposed development would cause immeasurable 

environmental damage. It takes up to 210 gallons of water to extract every gallon of othat’s his 

means that the infrastructure required to divert that much water could require up to 122 billion 

gallons of water a year — equal to 1.5 times the annual consumption of Denver Water’s 1.3 

million customers. #2])> <([#3 [12] This plan would then not only negatively effect the outdoor 

industries of those states, but also the surrounding citizens thanks to the enormous amount of 

water consumption. I cannot urge you strongly enough to NOT approve these plans. 

#3])>

OSTS2012D50246 

Organization: Kyle Klain 

Received: 5/2/2012 2:40:46 PM 

Commenter1: Kyle Klain - Santa Fe, New Mexico (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/4/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50246.htm (OSTS2012D50246-58821.htm Size = 1 KB) 

Submission Text

<([#1 [3.8.1] As a visitor to the National Parks of the Great American Desert, I feel deeply 
Final OSTS PEIS 840 

troubled that we are considering these short-term profits over the long term environmental 

impact they may have on OUR parks. The new sites along the edges of Canyonlands and into the 

Lasals have already altered the vistas both day and night in that area. #1])> <([#2 [3.4.1] Beauty 

aside, the water in the area is so precious, I couldn’t imagine what gain could be made that could 

so alter the risk involved in drilling near or into aquifers that have provided water for thousands 

of years. Please, have some foresight. #2])>

OSTS2012D50247 

Organization: Neil and Jennifer Miller 

Received: 5/2/2012 4:09:41 PM 

Commenter1: Neil and Jennifer Miller - Basin, Wyoming 82410 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/4/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50247.htm (OSTS2012D50247-58823.htm Size = 1 KB) 

Submission Text

<([#1 [10.6.1] We are very concerned about using so much of our public lands for an experiment 

to produce more oil/fossil fuels which contribute to global warming which is one of the greatest 

threats facing earth. How can we offset the carbon that will be produced from this venture? That 

should be a major question addressed. Putting our efforts in renewable energy resources should 

be the focus of our efforts. We support an alternative that would make sure that commericail 

development would not happen until a full understanding of the impacts on the water quality 

resources as well as the quantity of scarce western water needed to produce this shale oil, 

impacts on air quality and health related issues for our residents, impacts on land use including 

tourism, and impacts on wildlife especially on sage grouse, sage sparrows, sage thrashers, 

mountain plovers and other sage dependent species. Specific standards must be set based on 

science. We say nix the whole project-go renewable. #1])>

OSTS2012D50248 

Organization: Neil Christensen 

Received: 5/2/2012 4:21:37 PM 

Commenter1: Neil Christensen - Salt Lake City, Utah 84106 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/4/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50248.htm (OSTS2012D50248-58825.htm Size = 1 KB) 

Submission Text
Final OSTS PEIS 841 

<([#1 [3.1.1] Please preserve our national parks! I’ve been going to them since I was a little kid 

and I plan to take my unborn children to them as well. #1])>

OSTS2012D50249 

Organization: Town of New Castle, Melody Harrison 

Received: 5/2/2012 4:37:28 PM 

Commenter1: Melody Harrison - New Castle, Colorado 81647 (United States) 

Organization1:Town of New Castle 

Commenter Type: Local Government 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/4/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50249.htm (OSTS2012D50249-58863.htm Size = 1 KB) 

PEIS_Comments_2012_OSTS2012D50249.doc (OSTS2012D50249-58862.doc Size = 134 KB) 

Submission Text

See Attached send on behalf of the New Castle Town Council See Attachment. 

Adopted by the New Castle Town Council at their regular meeting on May 1, 2012 

Re: Town of New Castle, Colorado 

2012 Oil Shale & Tar Sands PEIS - COMMENTS 

To be submitted via: http://ostseis.anl.gov/involve/comments/index.cfm 

The Town Council of the Town of New Castle appreciates the Bureau of Land Management’s 

review of past decisions regarding oil shale leasing and development and offers the following 

comments: 

<([#1 [3.10.2] The Town of New Castle, Colorado (population 4,500) sits at the western edge of 

the Rocky Mountains, just east of the oil-shale rich Piceance Basin. When commercial 

development of oil shale finally occurs, our community and region will be impacted by an 

economic boom just as it was in the late 1970s and early 1980s. Unfortunately, in 1982, our 

community was also the impacted by the oil shale bust that resulted in an economic depression in 

our region that spanned close to two decades. 

In recent years our community and region has been heavily impacted by natural gas exploration 

and production occurring in nearby private and public lands. Natural gas development has 

brought significant growth to our community and placed considerable demands upon our 

municipal infrastructure, resulted in a shortage of affordable housing and essential community 

workforce, caused material and labor costs to skyrocket and strained social services and law 

enforcement capacities. Full-blown commercial development of oil shale will likely have similar 
Final OSTS PEIS 842 

and greater impacts on our community and region. #1])>

<([#2 [3.4.1] Furthermore, the Town of New Castle jealously guards our water supply, clean air, 

open space and nearby BLM land. We will seek assurance that whatever technology is developed 

for oil shale extraction includes safeguards for the resources we value. In particular we fear the 

loss of scarce water supplies. The Town returns a large percentage of the water we withdraw for 

consumption back into the Colorado River. We are concerned that oil shale extraction 

technologies might consume water that cannot be returned to the ecosystem. We believe that 

more research is needed to develop technologies that have smaller impact on Western Slope 

water supplies. #2])>

<([#3 [3.10.4] Finally, in our attempt to avoid another oil/gas industry boom and bust, New 

Castle is working hard to diversify our economy. A major part of that diversification is to 

encourage recreational tourism, exploiting the Town’s easy access to the Flat Top Range and the 

hunting, fishing, hiking, camping and other recreational opportunities provided by the rich 

environment of our public lands. We oppose any industrialization which might harm this 

environment. #3])>

<([#4 [2.2.1] [2.3.1] While the Town has maintained a good relationship with the oil and gas 

industry and is supportive of well-regulated extraction, we urge the BLM to insist that research 

and development of oil shale technologies be completed and the impacts analyzed before moving 

forward with a commercial leasing program. Such analysis must include study of the economic, 

social and environmental impacts on affected communities. 

At this time it makes sense to endorse Alternative 3, limiting commercial development to the 

existing lease areas. We could also support Alternative 2(b), since it requires research before 

commercial licenses are issued. The final plan should reflect a common sense approach that 

protects the prosperity of our region. #4])>

OSTS2012D50250 

Organization: Mike Sharp 

Received: 5/2/2012 11:05:18 PM 

Commenter1: Mike Sharp - Denver, Colorado 80206 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/4/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50250.htm (OSTS2012D50250-58827.htm Size = 1 KB) 

Submission Text

<([#1 [12.3] I am wholly opposed to open our National Parks to the oil industry or any other 

industry that seeks to profit from the extraction of resources. One of the greatest assets we have, 
Final OSTS PEIS 843 

not only this country, but especially here in Colorado and surrounding areas are our National 

Parks. Allowing ‘Big Oil’ access to our lands sets an unbelievably dangerous precedent for the 

future. I believe it would be a disgusting betrayal of the people that place as much value on these 

lands as I do. #1])>

OSTS2012D50251 

Organization: Timothy Moss 

Received: 5/2/2012 11:05:38 PM 

Commenter1: Timothy Moss - Portland, Oregon 97206 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/4/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50251.htm (OSTS2012D50251-58829.htm Size = 1 KB) 

Submission Text

<([#1 [12.3] Please reconsider this invasion in such close proximity to a National Park Area that 

is so vital in terms of aesthetic beauty, environmental importance and fiscal stability for residents 

and visitors alike. We can find other ways! #1])> Thank you, Tim Moss 

OSTS2012D50252 

Organization: Chris Butcher 

Received: 5/3/2012 6:17:37 AM 

Commenter1: Chris Butcher - Cambridge, Massachusetts 12345 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/4/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50252.htm (OSTS2012D50252-58831.htm Size = 1 KB) 

Submission Text

<([#1 [12] I oppose the opening up of the 2.3 million acres to drilling for oil and gas. The 

potential return does not outweigh the risks. 

#1])>

OSTS2012D50253 

Organization: National Parks Conservation Association, Erika Pollard 

Received: 5/3/2012 7:03:01 AM 

Commenter1: Erika Pollard - Salt Lake City, Utah 84101 (United States) 

Organization1:National Parks Conservation Association 

Commenter Type: Misc. Organization 
Final OSTS PEIS 844 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/16/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50253.htm (OSTS2012D50253-58866.htm Size = 1 KB) 

NPCA_OSTS_PEIS_CommentsFINAL_OSTS2012D50253.pdf (OSTS2012D50253-58865.pdf 

Size = 167 KB) 

Submission Text

Please see attached comments. See Attachment. 

Southwest Region Office 

307 West 200 South Suite 5000 

Salt Lake City, UT 84101 

May 3, 2012 

Draft OSTS PEIS Argonne National Laboratory 9700 S. Cass Avenue EVS/240 Argonne, IL 

60439 

To Whom It May Concern, 

Please accept these comments from the National Parks Conservation Association regarding the 

Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM) draft Oil Shale and Tar Sands Leasing Programmatic 

Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS). Please note that we have signed onto more lengthy and 

detailed comments submitted by Western Resource Advocates, but would also like to include 

these additional comments relating specifically to the potential impacts to National Park Service 

managed lands within the PEIS planning area. 

The mission of the National Parks Conservation Association (NPCA) is to “protect and enhance 

America’s National Park System for present and future generations.” Founded in 1919, NPCA 

has become the leading private voice for the parks. It is a national non-profit headquartered in 

Washington, DC, with 23 regional and field offices. NPCA represents 600,000 members and 

supporters who care deeply about America’s shared natural and cultural heritage preserved by 

the National Park System. 

<([#1 [2.3.1] NPCA believes the BLM is heading in the right direction with the current preferred 

alternative 2(b) in the PEIS. This alternative drastically reduces the amount of land available for 

oil shale and tar sands leasing from the previous 2008 decision. However, we also concur with 

the National Park Service that oil shale and tar sands companies need to prove their technology 

works, is economically viable, and is environmentally compatible with surrounding land, water, 

and recreational needs. No lands should be allocated for commercial development until 

completion of research, including but not limited to federal research, design and demonstration 

(RD&D) leases, and an analysis of the impacts. For that reason, we urge the BLM to adopt 

Alternative 3 in the Final PEIS. If, following completion of research activities, the BLM 

concludes that lands should be open to application for commercial development, the BLM can 

then amend resource management plans and make land available. 

#1])> <([#2 [3.1.1] The National Park Service itself has identified eight national park units 

within Wyoming, Colorado and Utah that would be directly impacted by large-scale, commercial 

leasing of oil shale and tar sands: Fossil Butte National Monument in Wyoming, Black Canyon 

National Park and Dinosaur and Colorado National Monuments in Colorado, Canyonlands, 
Final OSTS PEIS 845 

Arches, and Capitol Reef National Parks and Glen Canyon National Recreation Area in Utah. 

And, in fact, many more units would be indirectly impacted if such development were to occur 

using current technology. 

If commercial leasing were to proceed on the approximately 2 million acres identified in 

Alternative 1 of the BLM’s PEIS for oil shale development and 430,000 acres of tar sands 

leasing and development, profound impacts would occur not only on the natural and cultural 

resources contained within iconic national park boundaries, but on the economic benefit they 

bring to local communities. The proximity of this proposed energy development to national park 

lands could have major impacts on the experience of tourists who visit to enjoy nature, solitude, 

starry night skies, clean air and water, and recreation. 

#2])> The following comments outline the specific issues relating to national parks that NPCA 

believes Alternative 3 would mitigate within the PEIS planning area: 

<([#3 [3.5.4] Air Quality 

One of the major concerns of large scale development of oil shale and tar sands near our national 

parks is the impact on air quality and the ability to meet long term goals for clear air in our Class 

I air-sheds. The energy requirements for oil shale and tar sands processing is expected to be 

substantial. The increased need for power will likely come from coal-powered plants, which 

produce significant emissions of greenhouse gases and particulates. The two different production 

methods of oil shale, mining and surface retorting and in-situ retorting, will also produce 

greenhouse gas emissions and particulate pollution. In fact, it has been estimated that oil shale 

would emit 25-75% more greenhouse gases than conventional liquid fuels from crude oil 

feedstocks1. The cumulative impact of new emissions from oil shale and tar sands production is 

particularly worrisome when added to emissions from existing oil and gas development in the 

potential leasing area. It is, therefore, important for the BLM to ensure that air quality will not 

deteriorate more than allowed by the Clean Air Act and that the National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards (NAAQS) will not be exceeded by oil shale/tar sands development. 

1 Adam R. Brandt “Converting Oil Shale to Liquid Fuels with the Alberta Taciuk Processor: 

Energy inputs and Greenhouse Gas Emissions,” Energy Fuels 23, no.12 (2009) 6253-6258, doi: 

10:1021/ef900678d, http://pubs.ascs.org/doi/abs/10,1021/ef900678d. #3])>

<([#4 [3.4.1] Water Quality and Quantity 

Intensive use of water and potential impacts to water quality from oil shale and tar sands 

development using existing technologies are major concerns for our national parks, which rely 

on surface and groundwater for ecological health as well as recreational opportunities. It has 

been estimated by both the GAO and the RAND Corporation that producing one barrel of oil 

from shale or tar sands using current technology requires one to five barrels of water (42-210 

gallons). This substantial water requirement on top of existing and projected water needs for 

Colorado and Utah will have broad implications for water availability, particularly from the 

Colorado River. Surface and groundwater quality may also be severely impacted by chemicals 

and organic material produced during the retort process and by leaching of spent shale byproducts into surface and groundwater supplies. 

Management of the Colorado River has a direct impact on the protection of resources within 5 of 

the 8 parks identified above: Dinosaur National Monument, Black Canyon, Canyonlands, and 

Arches National Parks, and Glen Canyon National Recreation Area. A change in river 

management to meet drastic increases in water demand from commercial oil shale and tar sands 

development, and subsequent water contamination from mining waste, could lead to the loss of 
Final OSTS PEIS 846 

aquatic and terrestrial habitat for native fish and wildlife, invasion of non-native vegetation, loss 

of archaeological sites and cultural resources, and erosion of river sandbars. In addition, 

recreational use of water within these national park units could be significantly impacted with 

reduced flows, poor water quality, and altered river management. #4])>

<([#5 [3.8.1] [3.1.2] Viewshed 

Large-scale commercial leasing near and adjacent to our national parks would severely mar the 

landscape and diminish the scenic qualities that draw visitors to our national parks. Specifically, 

tar sands development adjacent to Canyonlands National Park and Glen Canyon National 

Recreation Area would diminish the recreational quality of these remote, protected landscapes 

within the Colorado Plateau. Alternative 3 significantly reduces the impact on viewsheds of our 

national parks. 

#5])> <([#6 [3.6] Soundscapes 

Many people visit our national parks specifically to escape the sounds of urban life and to 

experience solitude. Noise can also affect wildlife behavior and communication. Sound 

management is therefore an important component of National Park Service management plans. 

Large-scale commercial development of oil shale and tar sands on lands adjacent to and near 

national parks would increase the noise levels on the landscape and potentially disturb the visitor 

experience of natural soundscapes within the parks. Again, Alternative 3 in the PEIS 

significantly reduces impacts to national parks from external noise created from oil shale and tar 

sands development. 

#6])> <([#7 [3.8.1] Night Skies 

Protecting dark night skies has become recognized as an important cultural, natural, and 

scientific resource by the National Park Service. Many visitors go to national parks just to 

experience the dark, starry skies, which in turn brings economic benefit to the parks and 

surrounding communities. In addition, wildlife species depend on natural patterns of light and 

dark for navigation, to cue behaviors, or hide from predators. Managing natural lightscapes and 

artificial light pollution is therefore a priority for the National Park Service from both a 

recreational and ecological perspective. Large-scale commercial development of oil shale and tar 

sands would likely include a significant increase in light pollution from drilling and mining 

activities. 

#7])> <([#8 [3.10.4] Economic Implications 

There is a serious risk that large-scale commercial development of oil shale and tar sands will 

destroy the very qualities that draw visitors to Colorado, Wyoming and Utah national parks, thus 

deterring visitors and negatively impacting the local tourism-based economies in these states. 

Public lands like national parks, national monuments, and recreation areas are major economic 

drivers in the West. They also create jobs. According to statistics from the National Park Service, 

Glen Canyon NRA directly supports 2,200 local jobs and Arches National Park sustains 1,600 

jobs. Together, the eight Park Service sites most endangered by large-scale oil shale and tar 

sands development support over 5,500 jobs in Utah, Wyoming, and Colorado. 

The western recreation economy extends beyond park borders to include companies like Petzl 

(Clearfield, UT), Black Diamond (Salt Lake City, UT), Osprey Packs (Cortez, CO), and NOLS 

(Lander, WY). These companies support thousands of diverse, well-paying jobs in 

manufacturing, design, transportation, and education that cross multiple sectors. According to the 

Outdoor Industry Association, the recreation economy supports 65,000 jobs in Utah, and pumps 

$5.8 billion into the state’s economy. In Wyoming, it generates $4.4 billion of economic 

spending, sustains 52,000 jobs and represents 17% of all the retail sales and services produced in 
Final OSTS PEIS 847 

the state. Meanwhile, Colorado racks up $10 billion in benefits from its recreational economy, 

and over 100,000 jobs. 

Visitor spending is strong as well. In 2010, national park visitation generated $612 million in 

local spending in Utah, $610 million in Wyoming, and almost $300 million in Colorado, 

according to NPS statistics. The four business sectors most directly affected by visitor spending 

are lodging, food, retail, and amusements. #8])>

Conclusion 

<([#9 [2.3.1] We appreciate the BLM’s effort to take a second look at their 2008 decision to 

open nearly 2.5 million acres of public lands to oil shale and tar sands development in Wyoming, 

Colorado, and Utah. We also appreciate that the National Park Service has been a cooperating 

agency throughout this current process and that many of their concerns have been incorporated 

into the Draft PEIS. However, we also believe that it is important to plan for smart energy 

development in the Western United States by taking a landscape scale approach and taking all of 

the potential environmental and socioeconomic impacts into consideration. We are not convinced 

that the energy companies have proven their technology and therefore believe that leasing should 

be limited to the RD&D leases existing at the time of the Record of Decision for the 2012 PEIS 

(Alternative 3). With so much at stake, we can’t afford to gamble with the health of our national 

parks, surrounding public lands, and tourism-dependent communities. 

#9])> Sincerely, 

Erika Pollard 

Southwest Program Manager 

OSTS2012D50254 

Organization: Attila Kovats 

Received: 5/3/2012 9:33:43 AM 

Commenter1: Attila Kovats - Stevensville, Montana 59870 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/4/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50254.htm (OSTS2012D50254-58833.htm Size = 1 KB) 

Submission Text

<([#1 [10.6.1] Let’s not let greed and short sightedness ruin this planet for future generations to 

enjoy. It’s time to concentrate our efforts towards sustainable, renewable energy sources. #1])>

OSTS2012D50255 

Organization: Sweetwater County, Wyoming 

Received: 5/3/2012 9:55:38 AM 

Commenter1: - Green River, Wyoming 82901 (United States) 

Organization1:Sweetwater County, Wyoming 

Commenter Type: Coop Agency - Local Govt 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Letter & Resolution 
Final OSTS PEIS 848 

Submitted As: Web/E-mail/Mail 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/16/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50255.htm (OSTS2012D50255-58869.htm Size = 1 KB) 

Sweetwater_County_Wy_2012_Oil_Shale_and_Tar_Sands_Draft_PEIS_Comments_5-3-

2012_OSTS2012D50255.pdf (OSTS2012D50255-58868.pdf Size = 2067 KB) 

Submission Text

See Attachment. 

BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 

o WALLY J. JOHNSON, CHAIRMAN 

o JOHN K. KOLB, COMMISSIONER 

o GARY BAILIFF, COMMISSIONER 

o REID 0 . WEST, COMMISSIONER 

o DON VANMATRE, COMMISSIONER 

Thursday, May 3, 201 2 

Sherri Thompson, Project Manager 

Bureau of Land Management - Colorado State Office 

2850 Youngfield Street 

Denver, CO 80215 

80 WEST FLAMING GORGE WAY, SUITE 109 

GREEN RIVER, WY 82935 

PHONE: (307)872-3890 

FAX:(307) 872-3992 

RE: Sweetvvater County’s comments regarding the Draft Programmatic Environmenta l Impact 

Statement and Possible Land Use Plan Amendments for Allocation of Oil Sha le and Tar Sands 

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

Wyoming. 

Dear Ms. Thompson: 

Sweetwater County would like to thank you for the oppottunity to comment on the Draft 

Programmatic 

EIS for Allocation of Oil Shale and Tar Sands Resources on lands administered by the Bureau of 

Land 

Management (BLM) in Colorado, Utah and Wyoming (20 12 OSTS DPEIS). 

<([#1 [2.5] After attending the BLM’s open house held in Rock Springs, Wyoming, on 

Thursday, March 15, 2012, 

and after reviewing the 2012 OSTS DPEIS, Sweetwater County recommends that the BLM 

adopt either 

ofthe following courses of action in regards to the 201 2 OSTS DPEIS: 

1. The BLM com pi ies with established laws and ceases all further activities related to the 20 J 2 

OSTS DPEIS and maintains its decision made in the 2008 OSTS PEIS; or 

#1])> <([#2 [2.1] Sweetwater County recommends that the BLM adopt either 

ofthe following courses of action in regards to the 201 2 OSTS DPEIS: 

2. The BLM selects in its ROD the 2012 OSTS DPEIS “No Action Alternative” that maintains 

1,000,453 acres of lands with in Wyoming open to consideration for oil shale leasing. 
Final OSTS PEIS 849 

#2])> <([#3 [9.2] Sweetwater County recommends these options for the following reasons: 

1. Sweetwater County’s rationale for recommendation one is based on its approva l of 

Sweetwater County Resolution 12-04-CC-02 (see attached). Sweet\Vater County, Wyoming 

has joined several other counties within Wyoming, Colorado and Utah in opposing the 201 2 

OSTS DPEIS. The reasons of this opposition are outlined be low: 

a. The creation of the 201 2 OSTS DPEIS was completed in open contempt and in vio lation 

of the spending moratorium of Section 1769 of the Apri I 21, 20 II Congressional 

Continuing Resolution to Fund Fiscal Year 2011 through September 30, 20 11 . 

#3])> Page 1 of3 

<([#4 [1.5] b. The 2012 OSTS DPEIS preferred altemative is the creation of a fr iendly lawsuit 

settlement agreement betvveen the BLM and ideological opponents to oil shale 

development and. therefore, this preferred alternative is entirely pre-detennined and predecis 

ional in violation ofNEPA. #4])>

<([#5 [1.3] c. The creation ofthe 20 12 OSTS DPEIS preferred alternative entirely ignores the 

input 

into the 2008 OSTS PEIS provided multiple cooperators including a Task Force of 

Governors, state and county govemments and other stakeholders, which was requi red by 

the Energy Policy Act of2005. #5])>

<([#6 [3.10.3] d. lf the 20 12 OSTS DPEIS preferred a ltemative is adopted in the Record of 

Decision the 

vast oil shale and tar resources of Wyoming, Colorado and Utah will be off limits to 

development, which would result in a loss of 8 trill ion barrels of oil from our nation ·s 

economy. #6])>

<([#7 [3.10.3] 2. Sweetwater County’s rationale for recommendation two is based on the 

following: 

a. Mineral development provides seventy percent of Sweetwater County’s ad valorem tax 

revenues and provides the economic base that supports the maj ority of the industries, 

businesses, jobs and housing within the County. Any reduction in mineral value or 

supply creates a major economic hardship for Sweet\.vater County and the State of 

Wyoming . 

To prevent this economic hardship, it is essential that the County and the State strive to 

maintain the highest market value for its mineral resources and to cont inue to explore and 

research the development of new minerals such as oil shale. If current research on 

developing ef fective oil shale extraction technologies is successful, it is li kely that the 

production of oil fi·om oi l sha le will play a major role supp01t ing our local, state and 

national economies. To take advantage of the promising economic benefits of this 

research, it is imperative that Sweet\vater County and the State of Wyoming supp01t the 

“No Action Altern ative” which will preserve the potent ial for over one million acres 

within Wyoming to be available for oil shale leasing. Without the availability of these 

acres for potential oil sha le development, we wi ll miss an impmtant opportunity to 

enhance our future economic base. 

#7])> <([#8 [10.6.3] b. The United States is currently in a growing economic crisis partially 

caused by an expmt 

I impmt cycle in which our Country exports its wealth to the Middle East and other 

regions of the world in exchange for oil imports to meet our Country’s energy needs. 

This export I import cycle not only transfers the wealth of our nation to other countr ies, it 
Final OSTS PEIS 850 

transfers opportunities for bus iness growth, j ob creation and quality of life for the c itizens 

within our own borders. 

To break this export I import cycle and to keep our nation’s wealth within its borders, our 

Country must develop its own mineral energy resources including oil, gas, coal, uranium 

and oil shale. By developing these resources, our nation will be creating wealth and jobs 

for its own citizens rather than for the c itizens of foreign countries. Through the use of 

proper environmental review and proven technologies, our nation’s energy resources can 

be developed in a manner that not only sustains our nation’s economy, but also protects 

our nation’s environment. 

If we continue down the path of developing other nation’s energy resource before we 

develop the energy resources within United States, we will only deepen our Nation’s 

economic crisis. This is not the path that Sweetwater County believes our nation should 

fo llow, and therefore, Sweetwater County supports developing our nation’s vast oil shale 

reserves, which are being considered in this Draft PEIS. 

#8])> In summary and based on the above comments, in regards to Sweetwater County’s 

recommendations on the 201 2 OSTS DPEIS, the County recommends e ither of the fo llowing 

tvvo 

options: 

1. The BLM complies with existing laws and cease all further activities related to the 2012 

OSTS DPEIS and maintain the Record of Decision it made in the 2008 OSTS PEIS, or 

2. The BLM selects the “No Action Alternative” in the 201 2 OSTS DPEIS, which maintains 

1,000,453 acres of lands within Wyoming open to consideration for oil shale leasing. 

If you have any questions concerning Sweetwater County’s above comments, please contact me 

a 307- 

872-3897. 

Sincerely, 

Enclosure: Sweetvvater County Reso lution 12-04-CC-02 

cc Governor Matt Mead 

Jerim iah Rieman, Governor’s Natural Resource Policy Advisor 

Wyoming’s Congressional Delegation 

John Ruhs, BLM High Desert District Manager 

Lance Porter, BLM Rock Springs Field Office Manager 

Sweeh,vater County Board of County Commissioners 

Temple Stoel linger, WCCA Natu ral Resource Attorney 

Kent Conne lly, President - Coalition of Local Governments 

Ma1y Thoman, President - Sweetwater County Conservation District 

Eric Bingham, Sweenvater County Land Use Director 

Page 3 of3 

RESOLUTlON 12-04-CC-02 

SWEETWATER COUNTY, STATE OF \t\!YOMING. 

OPPOSING THE BLM’S 2012 OIL SHALE AND TAR SANDS PRO<iRAMMATIC 

ENVlRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT, BLM PROJECT# W0-300-1310- 

PP-OSHL 

(HEREAFTER. 2011 OSTS PEIS) 

fOR LANDS ADMINISTERED BY THE BUil IN COLORADO, UTAH AND 

VlYOM.IN6, 
Final OSTS PEIS 851 

This Resolution is adopted in open meeting after due opportunity for public comment, by the 

Board of Commissioners of Sweetwater County, in order to redress the many violations of lm:v, 

regulation, and policy by the BLM with respect to the BLM’s 2012 OSTS PEIS. 

BACKGROUND 

As background to this Resolution, Sweetwater County recites the following grievances: 

WHEREAS, On April 14, 2011, the BLM caused to be published in the Federal Register, 

Volume 76, No 72/Thursday, April 14,2011, pages 21003-21005, a notice of intent to prepare 

the above-referenced 2012 OSTS PEIS; and 

<([#9 [9.2.1] [3.1.3] WHEREAS, the preliminary pmpose and need statement in the notice of 

intent, states the PEIS 

will analyze removing from oil shale and tar sands leasing “All areas that the BLM has identified 

or may identify as a result of inventories conducted during this planning process, as lands 

containing wildemess characteristics[.]” Id., at page 21004; and 

WHEREAS, the notice of intent further states at page 21004: 

Lands that the BLM identifies as having wildemess characteristics will be 

considered during this planning initiative, as described above, and consistent with 

Secretarial Order No. 3310, dated Dec. 22, 20 10, and BLM Manuals 6301 and 

6302. Future leasing of lands determined by the BLM to have ‘-Vildemess 

characteristics, if compatible with the allocation decisions stemming from this 

initiative, ·will subsequently be assessed in accordance with BLM Manual 6303, 

as appropriate (i.e., ‘where the BLM has not determined, consistent with BLM 

Manual 6302, whether the lands with wilderness characteristics at issue should be 

receive a wild lands designation, BLM Manual 6303 will apply); and 

WHEREAS, this language documents the BLM’s intent to implement, administer and/or enforce 

Secretarial Order 3310 and one or more of the BLM guidance manuals promulgated under Order 

3310; and 

WHEREAS, any attempt by the BLM to implement, administer and/or enforce Secretarial Order 

3310, including any effort by the BLM to proceed further on the above~referenced 

Programmatic 

EIS, violates the spending moratorium of Section 1769 of the April 21, 2011 Congressional 

Continuing Resolution to Fund Fiscal Year 2011 tlll’ough September 30, 2011, which states: 

For the fi seal year ending September 30, 2011, none of the funds made avai !able 

by this division or any other Act may be used to implement, administer, or 

enforce Secreta1ial Order No. 3310 issued by the Secretary of the Interior on 

December 22, 2010; and 

WHEREAS, this spending moratorium has been carried forward in all subsequent Congressional 

spending resolutions up to and including the current spending resolution; and 

WHEREAS, the 2012 OSTS PEIS, is an admitted attempt by the BLM to implement, administer 

and/or enforce Secretarial Order 3310 and its policies and objectives, all in violation of the 

Spending Moratorium of the 201 1 Continuing Resolution; and #9])>

<([#10 [9.8] WHEREAS, the 2008 Oil Shale and Tar Sands Programmatic EIS (2008 OSTS 

PEIS) was 

required under Section 369 (d) (I) of the Energy Policy Act of2005 and was prepared in 

cooperation Viith 14 federal , state, and local govermnental organizations; and 

WHEREAS THE 2008 OSTS PEIS was 3 years in the making, and it honored the input of a task 

force of Governors and other stakeholders as per requirement of the 2005 Energy Policy Act; 
Final OSTS PEIS 852 

WHEREAS, the Record of Decision (ROD) for the 2008 OSTS PEIS amended 10 land use plans 

in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming to make approximately 2 million acres of public lands 

available for potential leasing and development of oil shale and approximately 430,000 acres 

available for tar sands leasing. Together with the regulations published in 2006 and 2008 for oil 

shale and tar sands resources, the 2008 OSTS PEIS and subsequent land use amendments 

constituted a reasonable and rational establishment of an oil shale and tar sands program as 

mandated in the Energy Policy Act of 2005; and 

#10])> <([#11 [6.1.2] WHEREAS, the oil shale and tar sands program to which the 2008 OSTS 

PEIS and related 

regulations gave birth, was a reasonable response to the fact that oil shale and tar sands 

resources in the Green River Formation located in northeastern Utah, northwestern Colorado 

and southwestern Wyoming may reach 8 trillion barrels of oil; and 

#11])> <([#12 [9.8] WHEREAS, the preferred altemative in the draft 2012 OSTS PEIS 

drastically slu·inks, 

diminishes and in many areas outright reverses viitually all of the lands made available for Oil 

Shale and Tar Sands development in 2008, and does so using the same data and science; and 

#12])> <([#13 [9.2.2] WHEREAS, such a drastic reversal in lands available for Oil Shale and 

Tar Sands development 

between the 2008 PEIS and the 2012 prefened alternative, violates regulatory ran Task Force 

requirements of certainty for industry and investors; and 

WHEREAS such a drastic reversal of lands available for Oil Shale and Tar Sands development 

in 2008, constitutes a de facto, piece-meal revision of previous BLM Resource Management 

Plans, in violation of the Section 202 Planning Process tmder FLPMA; 

WHEREAS, the preferred alternative in the draft 2012 OSTS PEIS entirely ignores the input of 

the task force and stakeholders which the 2005 Energy Policy Act directed the BLM to honor 

and fo llow; and moreover the draft 2012 OSTS PEIS may well violate various memoranda of 

understanding (MOUs) with counties which require the BLM to publish the written input of 

cooperators who disagree with the preferred altemative; 

WHEREAS the draft 2012 OSTS PEIS preferred alternative signiticantly restricts the acreage 

allotted in the 2008 PEIS for research and development leasing; 

\VHEREAS the draft 2012 OSTS PEIS preferred alternative threatens to arbitrarily undermine 

the process and the work utilized in creation of the 2008 OSTS PEIS, and essentially dismantle a 

reasonable and rational oil shale and tar sands program in violation of Section 369 of the 2005 

Energy Policy Act; and #13])>

<([#14 [1.5] WHEREAS, the 2012 OSTS PEIS prefened alternative is the creature of a friendly 

lawsuit 

settlement agreement between the BLM and ideological opponents to oil shale development, and 

is therefore entirely pre-detem1ined and pre-decisional in violation ofNEPA, with no apparent 

rationale for revising the acreages approved in 2008; and #14])>

<([#15 [2.2] WHEREAS, the BLM has settled on a preferred altemative in the 2012 OSTS PEIS 

admittedly 

without having first analyzed its impacts; BLM should be required to withdraw the preferred 

status of the alternative unti l it has performed this analysis; and 

WHEREAS, the acreage approved for Oil Shale and Tar Sands development in the draft 2012 

OSTS PEIS prefen·ed altemative bears no rational relationship to the stated purpose and need; 

#15])> <([#16 [1.5] WHEREAS, the Department of Energy has basically abdicated the 
Final OSTS PEIS 853 

responsibility Congress 

placed upon it to defend and uphold a viable oil shale energy program in AmeLica, leaving it 

instead to the BLM encumbered by a host of anti-oil shale pro-wi lderness groups steering 

BLM’s 

every move; #16])>

<([#17 [9.5] WHEREAS, the alternative adopted in the ROD of the 2008 OSTS PEIS is now the 

No Action 

Alternative of the draft 2012 OSTS PEIS; and 

WHEREAS, the 2008 OSTS PEIS chosen alternative is consistent with the multiple use, 

sustained yield of the Federal Land Policy Management Act (FLPMA); and 

WHEREAS, the 2008 OSTS PEIS chosen alternative is consistent with county general plans and 

policies which call for responsible development of available energy resources; and 

#17])> <([#18 [6.3.4] WHEREAS, the development and production of oil from oil shale has 

been proven beyond a 

doubt to be technologically and economically feasible; and #18])>

<([#19 [6.3.2.1] WHEREAS, this same teclmology to extract oil from the oil shale rock is not 

only economically 

feasible, but it requires little to no consumption of water, contrary to the myths which falsely 

claim that oil shale extraction requires large consumption of water resources; and 

#19])> <([#20 [6.2.2] WHERAS, the energy captured in the extract of oil from shale (natural gas 

capture, etc.,) more 

than makes up for energy consumed in that extraction process, thus dispelling the myth that the 

oil shale extraction process consumes more energy than it produces; 

#20])> <([#21 [3.10.3] WHEREAS, the rising price of gasoline, coupled ·with ever increasing 

loss of good paying jobs 

due to the Administration’s policies against energy development on ‘“‘estern public lands, result 

in increasing hardships for families and the local economy, to the point where some fear the 

window of opportunity is about to close for a civil, lawfl!l and orderly response as citizens feel 

more and more pressured and desperate financially; and 

#21])> <([#22 [6.3.3.1] WHEREAS, the 2012 OSTS PEIS improperly limits teclmology testing 

to strictly in situ efforts 

and does not allow for development of other teclmologies; and 

#22])> <([#23 [1.1.1] WHEREAS, the BLM has left insufficient time for the public and 

cooperators to meaningfully 

comment on the public draf12012 OSTS PEIS by the present comment deadline of May 4, 2012, 

because a highly relevant commercial oil shale BLM regulation is not due to be published until 

May 15,2012 and the public should have the right to view that regulation first and then submit 

conm1ents on the draft 2012 OSTS PEIS in light of that regulation; and 

#23])> <([#24 [2.1.1] WHEREAS, the same problems with lack of consistency with local plans 

and policies and failure 

to honor the input of cooperators and all stakeholders, also besets many public lands EIS 

proj ects, in addition to the 2012 OSTS PEIS . The cooperators from Utah and Wyoming have 

already unanimously requested for the No-Action alternative in the draft 2012 OSTS PEIS 

become the preferred altemalive. #24])>

<([#25 [9.2.1] RESOLUTION 

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY SWEETWATER COUNTY, STATE OF 
Final OSTS PEIS 854 

WYOMING AS FOLLOWS: 

1 . Sweetwater County declares the B LM’ s continuing to administer and carry out the 2012 

OSTS PEIS to be an open contempt and flaunting of the Congressional Spending Moratorium 

first imposed in the 2011 Continuing Resolution and canied fonvard in all subsequent 

Congressional spending resolutions up to and including the present; 

2. Sweetwater County calls upon the BLM to cease all further activities with respect to 

administering and carrying out the 2012 OSTS PEIS, because doing so constitutes an open 

contempt and violation of the Congressional Spending Moratorium against implementing, 

administering and/or enforcing Secretarial Order 3310, which Spending fv1oratorium was first 

imposed in the 2011 Continuing Resolution and can·ied forward in all subsequent Congressional 

spending resolutions up to and including the present; 

3. Sweetwater Count calls upon the BLM to immediately cease and desist all activities 

related to the above-referenced 2012 OSTS PEIS and immediately publish a revised notice in the 

Federal Register signifying its cessation of all work on the Programmatic EIS in obedience to the 

above-quoted Spending Moratmium. Otherwise, the BLM would be in contempt of Congress; 

#25])> <([#26 [2.1.1] 4. Should BLM continue to go fol\vard with the 2012 OSTS PEIS 

regardless of these 

grievances, the only legally, viable alternative would be if the BLM adopted the No-Action 

Altemative, v·:hich is identical to the Alternative chosen in the ROD of the 2008 OSTS PEIS; 

#26])> <([#27 [1.1.1] 5. The BLM should extend the May 4, 2012 deadline for public comment 

on the draft 2012 

OSTS PEIS at least 30 days after publication ofthe expected oil shale regulation due to be 

published on or around May 15,2012. 

#27])> <([#28 [1.3] 6. The BLM should honor the input of cooperators, particularly if they are 

local 

govemments, as required by Section 202(c)(9) ofFLPMA, in all matters, not just with respect to 

the 2012 OSTS PEIS. 

#28])> Adopted at the regularly scheduled meeting of the Sweetwater County Board of County 

Commissioners, held on the 1 i 11 day of April 2012. 

BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 

~- ( / Jolm \ · . Kolb, Commissioner 

. - (../_ “-wi~~-~-- 

Don Van Matre, Commissioner 

~ (J. ~l-J»r.l’-- 

Reid West, Commissioner 

ATTESTED TO: 

OSTS2012D50256 

Organization: Bryan Lence 

Received: 5/3/2012 10:06:30 AM 

Commenter1: Bryan Lence - , Utah (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 
Final OSTS PEIS 855 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/4/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50256.htm (OSTS2012D50256-58835.htm Size = 1 KB) 

Submission Text

<([#1 [3.1.1] As a resident of Utah, I am very concerned about the proposed oil and gas activity 

near Arches National Park and Capitol Reef. Utah’s National Parks account for 65,000 jobs and 

$5.8 billion in revenue. They also provide millions of visitors the chance relax, spend time with 

families and friends away from a television, and get exercise, which we all desperately need.

#1])> <([#2 [12] I understand the importance of a comprehensive energy policy but allowing gas 

development, a process that will almost certainly blight the surrounding landscape, poison 

groundwater and put stable revenue and jobs at risk is the wrong decision. #2])>

OSTS2012D50257 

Organization: Denise Hudson 

Received: 5/3/2012 10:07:56 AM 

Commenter1: Denise Hudson - Flagstaff, Arizona 86004 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/4/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50257.htm (OSTS2012D50257-58837.htm Size = 1 KB) 

Submission Text

<([#1 [2.3.1] I urge you to adopt Alternative 3, research only! Thank you. #1])>

OSTS2012D50258 

Organization: Backcountry Hunters and Anglers/Utah , Ken Theis 

Received: 5/3/2012 10:20:52 AM 

Commenter1: Ken Theis - Smithfield, Utah 84335 (United States) 

Organization1:Backcountry Hunters and Anglers/Utah 

Commenter Type: Environmental Organization 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/7/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50258.htm (OSTS2012D50258-58872.htm Size = 3 KB) 

BHA_urges_cautious_approach_to_oil_shale_OSTS2012D50258.doc (OSTS2012D50258-

58871.doc Size = 34 KB) 

Submission Text

On behalf of the Backcountry Hunters and Anglers, a national conservation organization with a 

state chapter in Utah, I would like to submit the following comments regarding the proposed oil 

shale/tar sands Programmatic EIS: <([#1 [9.8] We commend the BLM for reconsidering the 
Final OSTS PEIS 856 

extent of land in Utah, Colorado, and Wyoming to be considered for leasing for oil shale and tar 

sands development. The PEIS represents a considerable effort and thought on the part of the 

BLM. #1])> <([#2 [2.2] While we appreciate the significant reduction in the amount of land to 

be made available for leasing under Alternative 2B (BLM’s preferred alternative), the potential 

for speculative lease acquisition along with the extensive area to be made available for RDandD, 

makes this alternative unsupportable. #2])> <([#3 [2.3] As a starting point, and to ensure the 

viability of oil shale extraction technology prior to issuing large scale leases, Alternative 3 offers 

a measured and cautious approach to allowing an oil shale/tar sands RDandD program to move 

forward (see attached commentary published in the Salt Lake Tribune, April 30, 2012.) #3])>

<([#4 [2.5] A new alternative that focuses on protecting high value wildlife habitat, watershed, 

and recreation values should be formulated during the BLM’s decision-making process that 

results in a reduction in acreage than is now proposed for leasing under Alternative 2B. #4])>

<([#5 [10.4] An adaptive management approach to OS/TS development should, above all, be 

made part of any alternative selected for implementation: rehabilitation of individual RDandD 

sites must be completed before allowing an individual company to open up new sites. #5])>

<([#6 [10.4] In addition to establishing the viability of oil shale/tar sands as a practical energy 

source, the feasibility of rehabilitating landscapes disturbed by any and all activities associated 

with oil shale development should be required before additional leases are permitted to 

individual development companies. This would help determine the potential for disturbed lands 

to be rehabilitated and would minimize wholesale displacement of wildlife populations in and 

adjacent to areas leased and developed for oil shale/tar sands extraction. Such an approach would 

enable other, potentially innovative approaches to oil shale extraction, development, and land 

rehabilitation than would occur under Alternative 3, since additional energy companies could 

demonstrate various technologies. #6])> <([#7 [9.2.6] Expansive road networks to multiple 

RDandD sites represent a highly disruptive potential impact to wildlife populations, not only by 

disturbances to habitat, but as a result of potential harassment and poaching. Road development 

should be allowed only to active extraction areas, not to be constructed to multiple sites in 

advance. Access roads to active RDandD sites should be closed and rehabilitated prior allowing 

new roads to be constructed. #7])> <([#8 [10.4] Participating energy companies should be held 

financially accountable and responsible for rehabilitating all areas disturbed by their individual 

RDandD activities , to the point of re-establishing functioning ecosystems, regardless if oil shale 

development proves viable or not. Taxpayers and sportsmen should not bear the financial and 

ecological liability of the potential impacts that oil shale and tar sands development represents. 

#8])> See Attachment. 

OSTS2012D50259 

Organization: Krystal Powell 

Received: 5/3/2012 10:31:37 AM 

Commenter1: Krystal Powell - Salt Lake City, Utah 84106 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/4/2012 12:00:00 AM 
Final OSTS PEIS 857 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50259.htm (OSTS2012D50259-58839.htm Size = 1 KB) 

Submission Text

<([#1 [12] I do not think that it is worth destroying millions of acres of natural beauty to meet a 

fleeting need. I implore you to take into account the cost of the damage to the natural 

surroundings which may not be able to be undone after the temporary endeavor of gathering oil 

resources is done. My hope is that we as a nation focus more on developing a long term solution 

to our oil dependence instead of destroying the very thing that gives us life, enjoyment and 

sustainability to solve for an issue that is short term. Trading our environmental stability for an 

increase in oil production is not good decision for our future. Please consider the external effects 

of this decision. There is more at stake here then not being able to fuel our cars. #1])>

OSTS2012D50260 

Organization: Scott Richardson 

Received: 5/3/2012 11:07:04 AM 

Commenter1: Scott Richardson - , Utah 84101 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/4/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50260.htm (OSTS2012D50260-58841.htm Size = 1 KB) 

Submission Text

<([#1 [3.10.4] This simply does not make any sense. The economic cost of this is not being 

holistically evaluated and the loss of jobs from outdoor recreation and tourism far outweighs this 

small bump in oil production. #1])> <([#2 [3.4.1] Additionally in our already severely severely 

water-starved west: diverting this inconceivable amount of water just for the extraction of oil is 

completely out of the question. There is absolutely no way this is sustainable or healthy for the 

western US population, environment or economy. 

#2])>

OSTS2012D50261 

Organization: Cindy King 

Received: 5/3/2012 11:15:00 AM 

Commenter1: Cindy King - Salt Lake City, Utah 84109 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/4/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50261.htm (OSTS2012D50261-58843.htm Size = 1 KB) 

Submission Text
Final OSTS PEIS 858 

<([#1 [2.3.1] I would like to propose Alternative #3, the closing of oil shale except for the six 

current RDandD leases. Develop a RDandD program and a similar one for commercial leasing 

that addresses: proof of viable technologies; water usage; air emissions including hazardous and 

criteria; wildlife habitat; restoration of areas; benefit of renewable sustainable energy sources to 

that of non-renewable using actual costs. For example: the actual cost of materials needed to 

produce the energy and transport to energy source use (i.e. communities, industries); liability 

issues if there is a malfunction, upset condition, or cleanup; balanced plan for measuring impacts 

of oil shale development. #1])>

OSTS2012D50262 

Organization: Lance Oswald 

Received: 5/3/2012 1:31:47 PM 

Commenter1: Lance Oswald - Grand Junction, Colorado 81503 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/4/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50262.htm (OSTS2012D50262-58845.htm Size = 3 KB) 

Submission Text

Common Sense Oilshale Development 05/02/12 By Lance Oswald <([#1 [2.3.1] I agree with The 

National Parks Conservation Association that the Bush-era plan be revised, and that the BLM’s 

preferred alternative allows far too many impacts. We should adopt a different alternative, one 

that would allow research only, and limit it to 34,740 acres in the Piceance and Uintah basins. 

This “requires oil shale and tar sands companies to prove their technology works, is 

economically viable, and is environmentally compatible with land, water and recreational 

needs.” I believe in a staged approach where commercial leasing will not take place until after 

successful technologies have been developed and proven. #1])> <([#2 [10.4] These also must 

Contain reclamation standards and ensure that companies post adequate bonds for long-term 

protection of resources. #2])> <([#3 [6.3.4] I disagree with the Mesa County commissioners who 

argued production of oil from oil shale is technically and economically possible, and the plan 

would “essentially dismantle a reasonable and rational oil shale and tar sands program.” Why do 

some county politicians make bloated resolutions claiming 8 trillion barrels of oil in the shale, 

more than six times the 1.5 trillion barrels, that other Congressional agencies and the BLM 

estimate? Political rhetoric in county courthouses or the halls of Congress won’t trump science 

and the marketplace. Historic “Black Sunday” reminds us we must prepare for much larger 

impacts of potential oil shale development than politicians acknowledge. #3])> <([#4 [10.5] Why 

should a giant corporation like Shell Oil with $7.2 billion in worldwide profits in just the third 

quarter of 2011 and with a history of investing millions of dollars over decades of effort in stillincomplete oil shale research, need reduced royalty rates or speculative leasing to move forward 

before acquiring rights to any federal land? Suddenly with surging oil prices, Oil Shale is being 

touted as a way for the U.S. to achieve energy independence But why should a nation seeking 

energy self sufficiency have among its largest exports “Finished Petroleum Products” to sell to 

other countries? It doesn’t make sense to me? Unless--- they want to turn our own citizens public 
Final OSTS PEIS 859 

oil reserves into gold bullion by the $Billions in their own banks: though political government 

subsidies. #4])> Sincerely Yours, Lance Oswald 196 27Road Grand Junction CO 81503 

OSTS2012D50263 

Organization: Christine Guldi 

Received: 5/3/2012 1:51:36 PM 

Commenter1: Christine Guldi - Dallas, Texas 75248 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/4/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50263.htm (OSTS2012D50263-58847.htm Size = 1 KB) 

Submission Text

<([#1 [6.1] The definition in the glossary of crude oil is somewhat helpful, but I think it could be 

clarified more. As I understand it, “crude oil” may refer to bitumen and similar highly viscous 

products that require dilution, high pressure and heating to move through pipelines. EIA reports 

list only crude oil, not dilbit or tar sand oil or oil sand oil or oil shale oil, as if all crude oils are 

very similar. To say that crude oil is liquid is true but misleading to a lay person if one considers, 

as some do, unprocessed bitumen to be liquid. What are the limits as to how viscous it can be or 

how much sand or other materials it may include and still be called crude oil? #1])>

OSTS2012D50264 

Organization: Backcountry Hunters and Anglers, John Pollard 

Received: 5/3/2012 1:54:04 PM 

Commenter1: John Pollard - Park City, Utah 84060 (United States) 

Organization1:Backcountry Hunters and Anglers 

Commenter Type: Affiliation Only 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/4/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50264.htm (OSTS2012D50264-58849.htm Size = 1 KB) 

Submission Text

<([#1 [12] Before you do ANY approvals of any kind someone from BLM has to visit the 

country in Eastern Europe where this is being done. I advise you to take a representative from an 

environmental org. It is shocking to me that nobody from BLM has been on site in Eastern 

Europe and asked the populace in the local area about their actual impacts. You do not have to 

reinvent the wheel. Please....do your job!! Investigate on the ground in the first person. 

#1])>

OSTS2012D50265 
Final OSTS PEIS 860 

Organization: Mary Sachs 

Received: 5/3/2012 3:36:13 PM 

Commenter1: Mary Sachs - Denver, Colorado 80218 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/4/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50265.htm (OSTS2012D50265-58851.htm Size = 1 KB) 

Submission Text

<([#1 [12] I believe this beautiful area should stay preserved. #1])>

OSTS2012D50266 

Organization: Stephen Burns 

Received: 5/3/2012 3:45:24 PM 

Commenter1: Stephen Burns - Ocean City, New Jersey 08226 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: 

Submission Category: 50201_Campaign 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: OSTS2012D50201- Master 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/4/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50266.htm (OSTS2012D50266-58853.htm Size = 3 KB) 

Submission Text

I am writing to submit comments on the Oil Shale and Tar Sands Draft Programmatic 

Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS). <([#1 [3] I am very concerned about the possible 

impacts of oil shale development on Glen Canyon, Grand Canyon, and the Colorado River. I 

believe that we need more research on the potential impacts of oil shale and tar sand 

development before allowing leasing of our public lands for this use. Such development could 

have serious and irreversible impacts, including on water supplies and quality, air quality, native 

ecosystems and wildlife, and recreational uses. #1])> <([#2 [2.3.1] I urge you to choose 

Alternative 3, Research Only, as the BLM’s Preferred Alternative in the Final PEIS. This is 

essential to ensure that we have the best possible information before considering opening our 

natural open spaces and ecosystems to the development of oil shale and tar sand resources. #2])>

<([#3 [3.4.1] Here are some of my specific concerns regarding the Draft PEIS: * The Draft 

Programmatic EIS needs to ensure water quality will not be adversely effected by development 

of oil shale and tar sand resources. The water usage for oil shale production far outstrips the 

amount of oil produced, even prior to the refinement process. Water resources in the West are 

already overused and the effects of climate change and increased population will only add further 

strain to an already depleted system. #3])> <([#4 [3.4.1] * The Draft Programmatic EIS should 

be conducted in such a way to address issues of dust, noise, and pollution in the affected areas. 

Heating oil shale in the ground can contaminate vital groundwater supplies. High salt 
Final OSTS PEIS 861 

concentrations in groundwater restricts water available to native plants and is harmful to 

agricultural production as well. The Colorado River Basin already spends millions of dollars 

annually on damages caused from high salinity. #4])> <([#5 [3.1.1] * The Draft Programmatic 

EIS should address the potential encroachment on protected areas and National Parks such as 

Glen Canyon Recreation Area and Canyonlands National Park. This includes a thorough analysis 

of the damage to these priceless parks by oil shale and tar sands development. #5])> <([#6

[2.3.1] This EIS should ensure that all alternatives seriously assess the issues outlined above. 

Considering the present lack of adequate information and the tremendous risks of misguided 

development, the only reasonable alternative at this point is Alternative 3, Research Only as 

outlined in the PEIS. #6])> Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Draft 

Programmatic EIS. Sincerely, Stephen A. Burns 905 Saint James Pl Ocean City, NJ 08226 

OSTS2012D50267 

Organization: William Eckerle 

Received: 5/3/2012 3:52:17 PM 

Commenter1: William Eckerle - Salt Lake City, Utah 84152 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/7/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50267.htm (OSTS2012D50267-58855.htm Size = 2 KB) 

Submission Text

I am a big game hunter and I would like to submit the following comments regarding the 

proposed oil shale/tar sands programmatic EIS: <([#1 [2.2] Alternative 2B (BLM’s preferred 

alternative), opens the door to speculative lease acquisition. It also provides for extensive area to 

be made available for RDandD, making this alternative unsupportable to me. #1])> <([#2 [2.3] 

Alternative 3 offers a better (measured and cautious) approach to allowing an oil shale/tar sands 

RDandD program to move forward. #2])> <([#3 [2.5] Preferably, a new alternative that focuses 

on protecting high value wildlife habitat, watershed, and recreation values should be formulated 

during the BLM’s decision-making process that results in a reduction in acreage than Alternative 

2B. #3])> <([#4 [10.4] In addition I am concerned that landscapes disturbed by any and all 

activities associated with oil shale development should be rehabilitated BEFORE additional 

leases are permitted to individual development companies. Road development should be allowed 

only to active extraction areas, not to be constructed to multiple sites in advance. Roads 

constructed for geological studies should be reclaimed as soon as these studies are complete. 

Access roads to active RDandD sites should be closed and rehabilitated prior allowing new roads 

to be constructed. Participating energy companies should be held financially accountable and 

responsible for re-establishing functioning ecosystems on all areas disturbed by their individual 

RDandD activities. Taxpayers should not bear the financial and ecological liability of the 

potential impacts that oil shale and tar sands development represents. 

#4])>

OSTS2012D50268 
Final OSTS PEIS 862 

Organization: Enefit American Oil, Allen Freemyer 

Received: 5/3/2012 5:02:46 PM 

Commenter1: Allen Freemyer - Washington, 20037 (United States) 

Organization1:Enefit American Oil 

Commenter Type: OSTS Tech Company 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 

Submitted As: Web Form and Mail 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/9/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50268.htm (OSTS2012D50268-58875.htm Size = 1 KB) 

Oil_Shale_Comments_OSTS2012D50268.pdf (OSTS2012D50268-58874.pdf Size = 13951 KB) 

Submission Text

See Attachment. 

Enefit 

BLM Oil Shale and Tar Sands PEIS 

Argonne National Laboratory 

EVS Division, Building 240 

9700 S. CassAve. 

Argonne, IL 60439 

Submitted online at: http://ostseis.anl.gov/involve/comments/index.cfm 

RE: Comments on Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact 

Statement (PEIS) 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 

Dear Sir or Madam: 

On January 27, 2012, the Bureau of Land Management (“BLM”) issued a Draft PEIS 

that examines alternatives for modifying ten land use plans in Colorado, Utah, and 

Wyoming, to make lands available or not available for application for commercial 

leasing for oil shale and tar sands development. As the holder of an existing oil 

shale Research, Development and Demonstration (“RD&D”) lease in Uintah County 

in northeastern Utah within the BLM’s Vernal Field Office jurisdiction, Enefit 

American Oil (“Enefit”) has a strong interest in BLM’s management of federal lands 

for the development of oil shale resources. Enefit submits these comments pursuant 

to 40 C.F.R. §§ 1503.1(a)(3) and 1506.6(d), and requests that this letter and all its 

attachments be included in the administrative record for this matter. 

I. INTRODUCTION 

<([#1 [6.3.5] A. Enefit Has a Long History of Successful Commercial Oil Shale 

Production 

Enefit was founded in 1939 and is the world’s largest oil shale to energy company. 

Enefit owns and operates oil shale mines producing up to 18 million tons of oil shale 

per year and owns and operates the world’s largest oil shale fired power plants with 

a total capacity of 2,380 MW. Estonia has also commercially produced oil from oil 
Final OSTS PEIS 863 

shale for almost 100 years. In total, Enefit has mined 1 billion tons of oil shale, 

produced 550 TWh of power, and produced more than 200 million barrels of oil. 

Enefit employs approximately 7,000 people. 

Enefit’s industrial oil production experience is unique in the world and is drawn from 

Enefit’s more than 30-year history of commercially operating its patented technology. 

After decades of research, development, and operations, Enefit has designed and is 

in the process of building the most efficient oil shale production technology available 

anywhere in the world. This is an advanced, new generation technology, based on 

Enefit’s commercially proven technology which has been operating in Estonia for 

more than 30 years. Enefit’s newest generation oil shale plant will go into production 

in Estonia this year and will more than double Enefit’s current oil production capacity 

in that country. Enefit desires to bring this same, new generation technology to the 

Uintah Basin in Utah to help America meet its domestic energy needs. 

Enefit owns extensive private oil shale resources in eastern Utah, holds State 

leases, and is the holder of the White River Mine federal RD&D lease. Enefit plans 

to make substantial capital investments, without government financing, and provide 

approximately 2000 direct jobs to the State of Utah. Enefit plans to produce 

hundreds of millions of barrels of oil over the life of its Utah project. Decades of 

experience in the mining and development of oil shale resources in Estonia provide 

Enefit with the knowledge, technology, and expertise to responsibly develop oil shale 

resources in the United States in an environmentally safe manner that will meet or 

exceed all current federal and state environmental standards. #1])>

<([#2 [6.3.5] B. Enefit’s Has a Proven Oil Shale Development Technology 

Enefit’s commercially proven technology allows oil extraction from fine oil shale 

particles. The base technology, developed by Estonian scientists and patented in 

2005, has operated continuously in Estonia for more than 30 years. In 2009, Enefit 

and Outotec formed a joint venture to undertake co-development of a new 

generation Enefit technology. The new Enefit technology combines Eesti Energia’s 

improved solid heat carrier process and Outotec’s Circulating Fluidized Bed 

technology, increasing efficiency and decreasing air emissions. The key benefits of 

Enefit’s technology are the following: 

> Only operational fines technology available. More than 50 years of 

experience developing the solid heat carrier process and 30 years of 

operational experience in Estonia. 

> The process is energy self-sufficient and no external fuel is required. 

> Gas combustion and the use of excess heat provide more power than 

the process requires. Energy left in the spent shale is used to generate 

heat for the process. 

> Heat from ash and stack gases is extracted for power generation. 

> Retort gas with a high calorific value that is released in processing can 

be used for power generation. 

> No organic residual is left in the ash, which can be used as a raw 

material in the construction industry. 

> The oil extraction process is water free. 

The modular design is essential to allow easy maintenance, process optimization, 

and streamlined adaptability to the individual characteristics of different oil shale 
Final OSTS PEIS 864 

deposits. 

#2])> <([#3 [9.8] C. The Draft PEIS Undermines BLM’s Promising 2008 Blueprint for 

Domestic Oil Shale Development 

The Draft PEIS marks a drastic and unwarranted departure from BLM’s 2008 

resource management plan amendments (“2008 RMP Amendments”). The 2008 

Amendments, together with the 2008 commercial oil shale regulation (“2008 OS 

Rule”) fairly implemented Congress’ directive that BLM establish a viable and 

sustainable program to encourage commercial oil shale development in the United 

States.1 BLM’s 2008 RMP Amendments offered a balanced approach for oil shale 

development and resource management: (1) protect known, sensitive environmental 

areas that warrant protection under existing laws and established BLM management 

directives, (2) designate areas of sufficient size and contiguity that may be allocated 

for future commercial oil shale development, and (3) incorporate adaptive 

management procedures to address particular, site-specific resource issues at later 

stages in the commercial leasing process when more is known about the relevant 

development techniques and the impacted resources. 

In contrast, the Draft PEIS sets forth a preferred alternative that severely restricts the 

amount of BLM lands available for future oil shale development without providing any 

substantive legal, policy, or ecological justification. BLM’s preferred alternative, if 

implemented, would cast a shadow over America’s domestic oil shale industry by 

undermining that regulatory certainty that is essential to investment in large-scale 

energy projects. BLM’s revised RMP proposal would undermine America’s oil shale 

program at a time of acute geo-political tensions in the Middle East and escalating 

gasoline prices at home. This approach is both arbitrary and capricious. Enefit 

recommends that BLM reverse its ill-advised proposal to severely restrict the 

acreage available for commercial oil shale development and stay the course by 

approving BLM’s “no action” alternative (Alternative 1) that would allow BLM’s 

recently-implemented 2008 RMP Amendments to guide oil shale development. 

1 Enefit focuses its comments in this letter on the portions of the proposed RMP Amendments 

that 

address oil shale leasing and development. 

#3])> <([#4 [9.1] II. THE PURPOSE AND NEED STATEMENT IS NOT CLEARLY 

DEFINED 

AND IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE 2005 EPACT 

The Council on Environmental Quality’s (“CEQ”) National Environmental Policy Act 

(“NEPA”) implementing regulations require that an EIS “shall briefly specify the 

underlying purpose and need to which the agency is responding in proposing 

alternatives including the proposed action.” 40 C.F.R. § 1502.13 (emphasis added). 

A project’s purpose and need statement forms the reference point for determining 

what constitutes a reasonable alternative. See Citizens Against Burlington, Inc. v. 

Busey, 938 F.2d 190, 194-95 (D.C. Cir. 1991) (citing Vermont Yankee Nuclear 

Power Corp. v. Natural Res. Defense Council, 435 U.S. 519, 551 (1978)). See a/so 

City of Carmel-By-The-Sea v. United States Dep’t of Transp., 123 F.3d 1142, 1155 

(9th Cir. 1997). Courts have held that “[alternatives that do not accomplish the 

purpose of an action are not reasonable and need not be studied in detail by the 
Final OSTS PEIS 865 

agency.” Citizens Comm. to Save our Canyons v. U.S. Forest Service, 297 F.3d 

1012, 1031 (10th Cir. 2002). 

Because the purpose and need statement articulates the basis for the agency’s 

action, and in turn circumscribes the appropriate range of alternatives and scope of 

analysis, it must be defined in a manner that is both clear and defensible. Most 

importantly, the purpose and need statement must be consistent with any legal 

mandate(s) the agency has been given by Congress. 

The purpose and need statement in the Draft PEIS fails to satisfy these well 

established principles. 

A. BLM’s Purpose and Need Statement Is Not Clearly Defined 

BLM offers the following rationale in Sec. 1.1, the “Purpose and Need” section of the 

Draft PEIS, for altering the recently implemented 2008 RMP Amendments: 

The purpose and need for this proposed planning action is to reassess 

the appropriate mix of allowable uses with respect to oil shale and tar 

sands leasing and potential development. Specifically, the BLM will 

consider amending the applicable RMPs to specify whether any areas 

in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming currently open for application for 

future leasing and development of oil shale or tar sands should not be 

available for such application and leasing development. 

Draft PEIS at 1-4. Although BLM description explains in very general terms “what” 

the agency proposes to do, it does not explain “why”. This vague statement cannot 

form the legal basis for revising BLM’s existing RMPs. 

BLM comes closer to explaining its real reason for upending its newly-minted RMPs 

in the Introduction section to the Draft PEIS: “As part of the settlement entered into 

by the United States to resolve the lawsuit and in light of new information that has 

emerged since the 2008 OSTS PEIS was prepared, the BLM has decided to take a 

fresh look at the land allocations analyzed in the 2008 OSTS PEIS and to consider 

excluding certain lands from future leasing of oil shale and tar sands resources.” Id., 

at 1-4. Contrary to BLM’s representations, neither BLM’s settlement agreement nor 

the alleged discovery of “new information” can establish the purpose and need for 

BLM’s proposal to dramatically revise its recently adopted RMPs. 

#4])> <([#5 [9.1] B. The Purpose and Need Statement Is Inconsistent with the 2005 

EPAct 

Oil shale deposits in the United States are estimated to contain roughly six trillion 

barrels of oil in place, with some 2 trillion barrels located in the tri-state region of 

Utah, Colorado, and Wyoming. Congress declared in Section 369(b) of the Energy 

Policy Act of 2005 (“2005 EPAct”) that such deposits are “strategically important 

resources that should be developed to reduce the United States’ growing 

dependence on politically unstable sources of foreign oil” and mandated that the 

development of oil shale should occur, with an emphasis on sustainability, to benefit 

the United States. 42 U.S.C. §15927(b)(1) & (3). 

Congress further directed BLM to: 

[C]omplete a programmatic environmental impact statement for a 

commercial leasing program for oil shale and tar sands resources on 

public lands, with an emphasis on the most geologically prospective 

lands within each of the States of Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming. 
Final OSTS PEIS 866 

Id., at §15927(d)(1) (emphasis added). Any purpose and need statement for 

revisions to the RMPs in this tri-state area must implement this congressional 

directive and offer alternatives that provide for leasing on the “most geologically 

prospective lands” within those states. The purpose and need statement in the Draft 

PEIS entirely fails to account for the clear direction Congress gave the agency in 

2005 EPAct. Instead, BLM arbitrarily assumes that it may amend the RMPs in any 

manner it chooses, and without considering the unambiguous congressional 

directive. Such an approach is arbitrary and capricious and cannot pass muster 

under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §§551-706. See also Atchison, 

Topeka & Santa Fe. Ry. Co. v. Witchita Bd. of Trade, 412 U.S. 800, 806 (1973) 

(agency’s course “must be consistent with its mandate from Congress.”) #5])>

<([#6 [9.1] C. The Purpose and Need Statement Is Inconsistent with the Need 

for Domestic Production of Unconventional Fuels 

The importance of developing America’s oil shale reserves has only increased since 

the 2005 EPAct was enacted. The global demand for oil that exceeds conventional 

supplies makes a strong case for development of the U.S.’s oil shale resources. If 

not quickly addressed, these deteriorating global market conditions, could, and likely 

will, result in even higher oil prices and reduced availability of oil resources. 

The importance of energy-related projects has been recognized in Executive Order 

13212, which states that the “increased production and transmission of energy in a 

safe and environmentally sound manner is essential to the well-being of the 

American people.” Further, the Executive Order establishes the policy that 

“agencies shall take appropriate actions, to the extent consistent with applicable law, 

to expedite projects that will increase the production, transmission, or conservation 

of energy.” Id. This policy forms the backdrop against which BLM should consider 

access to oil shale as a key energy resource. 

America’s rich and concentrated oil shale resources, if developed in a timely and 

economically efficient manner, offer the potential to help offset the anticipated global 

production declines of conventional oil, reduce oil imports and their economic costs, 

stimulate domestic employment and economic activity, and provide a reliable 

domestic source of liquid transportation fuels. Oil shale development can also play a 

vital strategic role in providing the United States military with long-term, secure 

access to domestic fuels. These fundamental energy policy needs must be 

incorporated into BLM’s purpose and need statement and must govern BLM’s 

proposed range of alternatives, and its selection of a preferred alternative. #6])>

<([#7 [9.1] III. BLM IMPROPERLY PREJUDGED PURPOSE AND NEED, 

IMPERMISSIBLY NARROWED THE RANGE OF ALTERNATIVES, AND 

VIOLATED FEDERAL LAW BY IMPLEMENTING DOI’S “WILD LANDS” 

POLICY 

A. BLM Improperly Predetermined the Outcome of Its NEPA Analysis 

BLM has improperly prejudged the purpose and need for the instant planning effort. 

On February 15, 2011, BLM entered into two separate settlement agreements with a 

group of oil shale opponents. Long before the court had ever ruled on plaintiffs’ legal 

challenge to the 2008 RMP Amendments, and indeed before BLM ever filed an 

Answer in the case, BLM entered into a gratuitous settlement in which the agency 

committed to propose a number of substantive changes to the recently-revised 
Final OSTS PEIS 867 

RMPs,2 See Exhibit A, 2008 RMP Settlement. 

In particular, BLM committed to prepare a new programmatic EIS and to propose at 

least two action alternatives that reduced the acreage allowable for commercial oil 

shale leasing. Id,, at 1J 2. The first of these required alternatives was the plaintiffs’ 

anti-development alternative that excluded from available leasing and development 

large geographic areas that corresponded with plaintiffs’ anti-development “wish list.” 

See id., at U 2(a). This alternative is being proposed in the Draft PEIS as Alternative 

2. See Draft PEIS, at 2-34 to 2-36. The settlement also requires BLM to offer a 

second anti-development alternative that removes some, but not all, of the lands on 

plaintiffs’ wish list. 2008 RMP Settlement, at 2(b). This alternative corresponds with 

BLM’s alternative 4 in the Draft PEIS. See Draft PEIS, at 2-43 to 2-48. 

Not only did BLM commit to propose RMP alternatives that drastically reduce the 

acreage available for commercial oil shale development, but it also agreed to 

prepare a purpose and need statement that would allow the agency to select either 

one of the plaintiffs’ anti-development alternatives. Under the settlement, BLM 

agreed that ‘Ttlhe purpose and need statement in the NEPA analysis supporting the 

RMP amendment process or processes shall be defined in such a manner that it can 

be met by any and all of the alternatives described in Paragraph 2(a) and 2(b) above 

[i.e., the two anti-development alternatives championed by plaintiffs].” 2008 RMP 

Settlement Agreement at U 2 (emphasis added). Curiously, BLM did not commit to 

construct a purpose and need statement that would also allow BLM to select the 

current planning regime that is represented by Alternative 1 (no action alternative) in 

the Draft PEIS. In other words, BLM impermissibly ruled out the no action alternative 

of leaving the 2008 RMPs in place. 

BLM has turned the NEPA process on its head. BLM should have first identified a 

concrete legal and/or policy rationale that would justify revising its newly established 

RMP revisions. After identifying and explaining this “purpose and need” for its 

action, BLM should then have selected and analyzed a range of alternatives that 

could satisfy this purpose and need. Instead, BLM (1) committed to analyze at least 

two anti-development alternatives in the context of settling a friendly lawsuit, (2) 

committed to prepare a purpose and need statement that could be satisfied by the 

two anti-development alternatives, and then (3) fabricated an unsupported purpose 

and need statement under the pretense that there were “changed circumstances” 

that justified revisions to BLM’s newly-minted RMPs. 

BLM is required to provide the public with a coherent, and legally supportable, 

reason for why it has elected to revise its RMPs at this time. In contrast, BLM’s 

course to date runs afoul of CEQ’s direction that “[a]gencies shall not commit 

resources prejudicing the selection of alternatives before making a final decision.” 

40 C.F.R. § 1502.2(f). BLM’s commitments in the 2008 RMP Settlement as 

implemented in the Draft PEIS violate the principle of administrative law that forbids 

federal agencies from predetermining the final outcome of their environmental 

analysis. See Daws v. Mineta, 302 F. 3d 1104, 1112-23 (10th Cir. 2002) (Court 

enjoined agency’s proposed project which was the product of predetermined 

environmental analysis); see also Metcalf v. Daley, 214 F.3d 1135, 1142-45 (9th Cir. 

2000) (invalidating agency’s predetermined environmental decision that resulted 

from contractual commitment to support Indian Tribe’s preferred action). 
Final OSTS PEIS 868 

2 While BLM cites the 2008 RMP Settlement as one of the reasons for revisiting the 

2008 RMP Amendments, BLM fails to explain why the agency settled the legal 

challenge to the 2008 RMP Amendments in the first place. In other words, does 

BLM believe the 2008 RMP Amendments were legally deficient? If so, why? The 

settlement of a lawsuit in and of itself provides no explanation for why BLM felt 

compelled to undergo a comprehensive revision to ten RMPs in a three-state area, 

especially since no commercial oil shale leasing has yet taken place within the 

geographic area made available for such leasing in the 2008 RMP Amendments. 

#7])>

<([#8 [9.2.1] [3.1.3] B. BLM’s Analysis Contravenes the Congressional Prohibition on the 

Implementation of the Department of Interior’s Wild Lands Policy 

BLM’s analytical method of excluding lands with wilderness characteristics from 

prospective oil shale development is a clear violation of federal law. By way of 

example, when BLM published its notice of intent to prepare the oil shale PEIS, BLM 

explained: 

Lands that the BLM identifies as having wilderness characteristics will 

be considered during this planning initiative, as described above, and 

consistent with Secretarial Order No. 3310, dated Dec. 22, 2010, and 

BLM’s Manuals 6301 and 6302. 

76 Fed. Reg. 21003, 21004 (April 14, 2011). Secretarial Order No. 3310 provided: 

BLM shall maintain a current inventory of land under its jurisdiction and 

identify within that inventory lands with wilderness characteristics that 

are outside of Wilderness Study Areas and that are pending before 

Congress or units of the National Wilderness Preservation System. 

The BLM shall describe such inventoried lands as “Lands With 

Wilderness Characteristics.” share this information with the public, and 

integrate this information into its land management decisions. All BLM 

offices shall protect these inventoried wilderness characteristics when 

undertaking land use planning and when making project-specific 

decisions . . . . 

Id. at 2 (emphasis added). From the outset of the current PEIS process, BLM made 

clear that one of the key reasons for revising its RMPs was to implement Secretary 

Salazar’s “Wild Lands Policy” as articulated in Secretarial Order No. 3310. 

However, on April 15, 2011, the President signed into law Pub. Law 112-10, the 

Department of Defense and Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act of 2011 (“2011 

C.R.”). Section 1769 of the 2011 C.R. provided 

For the fiscal year ending September 30, 2011. none of the funds 

made available by this division or any other Act may be used to 

implement, administer, or enforce Secretarial Order No. 3310 issued by 

the Secretary of the Interior on December 22. 2010. 

Id. (emphasis added). This spending moratorium was continued with subsequent 

spending bills and remains in force today. 

Notwithstanding this clear congressional moratorium, the Draft PEIS sets forth as its 

preferred alternative an alternative that excludes from future commercial oil shale 

leasing “[a]ll areas that the BLM has identified or may identify as a result of 
Final OSTS PEIS 869 

inventories conducted during this planning process as LWC [lands with wilderness 

characteristics].” Draft PEIS, at 2-34. Although BLM in the Draft PEIS no longer 

cites to the Secretarial Order No. 3310 as the basis for excluding lands with 

wilderness characteristics, the resulting resource management proposal is 

unmistakable: BLM is attempting to preclude from future commercial oil shale 

leasing a broad category of lands based on a management directive (Secretarial 

Order No. 3310) that BLM is legally barred from implementing, administering, or 

enforcing. 

#8])> 8 

<([#9 [9.8] IV. THERE IS NO NEW INFORMATION THAT JUSTIFIES BLM’S PROPOSAL 

TO DRAMATICALLY REVISE ITS RMPs 

BLM also suggests that “new information not available in 2008” justifies a change in 

the agency’s available acreage for commercial oil shale development. Draft PEIS, 1- 

4 & 1-5. According to BLM, there are three sources of new information: (1) a 2011 

assessment by the U.S. Geological Survey (“USGS”) regarding the oil shale and 

nacholite resources in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming, (2) a 2010 decision by the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (“FWS”) concluding that listing the Greater Sage 

Grouse as threatened under the federal Endangered Species Act was warranted, but 

precluded by higher priority species, and (3) BLM’s revised inventory of lands with 

wilderness characteristics in the three-state region. Draft PEIS at 1-5. None of 

these events justify unraveling the 2008 RMP Amendments. 

A. There Is No New Information About the Geologically Prospective 

Areas for Oil Shale Development That Justifies BLM’s Proposal to 

Overhaul Its Current RMPs 

BLM never explains why the 2011 USGS study justifies a major re-calibration of 

permissible commercial leasing areas. In fact, the PEIS never cites the study as one 

of the sources relied on by BLM to ascertain the “most geologically prospective oil 

shale resources.” See Draft PEIS at 1-10, n. 4 (citing the technical resources used 

by BLM to ascertain the most prospective oil shale resource areas). Tellingly, not 

one of the sources relied on by BLM to make its assessment of prospective oil shale 

areas post-dated the 2008 RMP Amendments. Id. 

In fact, later in its PEIS, BLM admits that Alternative 1 contains the lands with the 

most geologically prospective oil shale deposits: 

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

would remain available for future leasing consideration under the NoAction Alternative [i.e., Alternative 1]. These public lands comprise the 

most geologically prospective oil shale and tar sands areas 

administered by the BLM. including lands that are exempted by statute, 

regulation, or [Executive Orders]. . . 

Draft PEIS at 2-21 (emphasis added). BLM offers no new information that would 

justify a reduction in the acreage available for commercial oil shale leasing based on 

a reassessment of which lands contain the most geologically prospective deposits of 

oil shale. 

#9])> <([#10 [9.2.4] B. There is No New Information About the Sage Grouse That 

Warrants Dramatic Changes the RMPs At This Time 

Contrary to BLM’s representations in the Draft PEIS, the 2010 FWS1 decision on the 
Final OSTS PEIS 870 

Greater sage grouse cannot support a substantial restriction of the allowable oil 

shale lease acreage since the FWS has declined to add the species to the list of 

federally protected species at this time. 75 Fed. Reg. 13910 (Mar. 23, 2010). While 

Enefit understands the need to strategically manage the sage grouse in order to 

protect the species and prevent it from being listed on the federal endangered 

species list, the fact is that the species is not currently regulated under the 

Endangered Species Act (“ESA”) and BLM’s effort to eliminate large areas from oil 

shale leasing at this time is unwarranted and is not supported by accurate scientific 

data. 

1. BLM Cannot Lawfully Designate Sensitive Sage Grouse 

Habitat at this Time 

States such as Utah have not even completed their own processes for determining 

which areas should be protected as core or priority areas, and indeed, it does not 

appear that BLM has sufficient data to identify which areas should be protected 

under the various classifications. BLM even acknowledges that “BLM is currently 

working with the Utah DWR [Department of Wildlife Resources] to refine the 

delineation of priority habitats in the State of Utah.” Draft PEIS, at 3-197. This 

process, which represents a joint planning effort between the Division of Wildlife 

Resources, the Utah Governor’s office, and a number of other state and federal 

agencies, is not scheduled to be completed until the summer of 2012—after the 

close of the comment period for the Draft PEIS. 

According to recent press accounts, it is not even clear at this point whether the 

State of Utah will follow the model adopted by the State of Wyoming where certain 

areas are designated as “core areas,” within which mineral and other development is 

restricted to protect known sage grouse populations. According to Bob Budd—the 

range management specialist who helped develop the Wyoming sage grouse plan 

and is helping the State of Utah develop its plan—it remains an “open question” 

whether Utah will follow the “core area” approach. See April 30, 2012 article: 

“Saving the Sage Grouse,” KUER Local News.3 

Moreover, Utah DWR has recognized that rigorous development of new information 

is needed to explain how sage-grouse survival and productivity are affected by 

habitat loss or alteration from a variety of factors. Factors unrelated to energydevelopment 

include hunting mortality, West Nile virus, extreme weather conditions, 

non-native invasive plants (especially cheatgrass, which dramatically increases 

wildfire frequency, as well as severity), the proliferation of avian and mammalian 

predators, and other factors. See DWR, Utah’s Plan for Sage-Grouse and 

Development (Updated Jan. 24, 2010). The initial surveys have not even identified 

leks or sage grouse in some of the areas that the Draft PEIS broadly defines as core 

or priority habitat. As importantly, even after the general sage grouse planning 

activities are completed, determining the particular risks associated with oil shale 

development will require further rigorous evaluation even if the planning effort 

concludes that sage grouse numbers have been observed in or around the project 

area. 

The BLM is also in the early stage of its approach to address sage grouse in the 

context of the agency’s wider land use planning effort. On December 9, 2011, BLM 

and the United States Forest Service (“FS”) initiated a scoping process for a series 
Final OSTS PEIS 871 

of ElSes in order to assist the agency in “incorporate[ing] consistent objectives and 

conservation measures for the protection of greater sage-grouse and its habitat into 

relevant RMPs and LMPs by September 2014 in order to avoid a listing under the 

Endangered Species Act.” 76 Fed. Reg. 77008, 09. This wide-ranging NEPA 

process, which is part of BLM’s overall sage grouse conservation program, has only 

just begun and will not be completed until September of 2014. 

As significantly, the BLM and FS have committed to “coordinate and communicate 

with State, local, and tribal governments to ensure that the BLM and FS consider 

provisions of pertinent plans, seek to resolve inconsistencies between State, local, 

and tribal plans, and provide ample opportunities for State, local, and tribal 

governments to comment on the development of amendments or revisions.” Id., at 

77011. BLM’s stated commitment to collaboration and cooperation with State, local, 

and tribal governments in the larger sage grouse planning effort stands in stark 

contrast to BLM’s actions in the Draft PEIS where BLM is proposing to exclude 

significant areas from future oil shale leasing before the State of Utah has even 

completed its own planning effort, and without any apparent coordination with the 

county governments. 

In sum, it is impossible for BLM to know at this point either (a) what areas the State 

of Utah will designate as core or priority habitat for sage grouse (or even whether 

Utah will follow the core/priority framework)4 (b) how local BLM field offices will 

implement those state designations as they impact BLM lands subject to BLM’s 

multiple use mandate under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act 

(“FLPMA”), 43 U.S.C. §§ 1701-1787. 

BLM improperly discusses the sage grouse core and priority areas in the Draft PEIS 

as if these areas were already established, and implemented, by the BLM and the 

State of Utah. For example, BLM states: 

Although the current oil shale RD&D lease areas are excluded from 

greater sage-grouse core and priority habitats, a portion of the Enefit 

PRLA in Utah occurs within greater sage-grouse priority habitat 

(approximately 2.338 acres). 

Draft PEIS, at 6-140 (emphasis added); see a/so Figure 6.1.3-5 (showing roughly 

half of Enefit’s PRLA as covered by priority sage grouse habitat). Given its stated 

intent to work with the State of Utah to cooperatively manage sensitive sage grouse 

habitat, BLM cannot know what areas will be designated as core or priority sage 

grouse habitat at this stage in the process. BLM should wait for Utah to complete its 

sage grouse conservation process (a process which involves the participation of both 

the BLM and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) before jumping to conclusions about 

the location of sensitive sage grouse habitat in the context of BLM’s resource 

management plan revisions for oil shale. 

Moreover, even if these new designated sage grouse habitat withdrawal areas do 

not prevent Enefit from developing its existing RD&D areas (including the preference 

right lease area), they nonetheless create unnecessary uncertainty around Enefit’s 

existing lease and PRLA. The “one size fits all” approach also fails to give the local 

BLM filed offices the discretion to weigh the potential impacts of site specific plans in 

the context of reviewing particular oil shale development proposals. BLM’s 2008 

PEIS and ROD understood this need for field office flexibility and provided an 
Final OSTS PEIS 872 

adaptive management process whereby the impacts to sensitive resources such as 

sage grouse habitat could be addressed at the time when BLM was revising a 

concrete development plan. BLM itself acknowledges that it will likely have to 

undergo at least two more NEPA analyses before any commercial development 

proposals are approved: one before approving any specific commercial lease, and 

another before commercial oil shale development operations are approved. The 

local BLM field office is best suited to assess the risks of a particular leasing or 

development proposal on sensitive sage grouse areas at the time when those 

impacts are better identified and understood. 

Any reliance on purported “new information” concerning the sage grouse to withdraw 

or impose restrictions on lands suitable for oil shale development is premature, 

arbitrary and capricious, and would constitute an abuse of BLM’s discretion. 5 

U.S.C. § 706. So too, BLM’s proposal to exclude sage grouse habitat areas based 

on speculation runs afoul of CEQ’s regulatory mandate that “[ajgencies shall insure 

the professional integrity, including scientific integrity, of the discussions and analysis 

in environmental impact statements.” 40 C.F.R. § 1502.24. 

3 Available at 

http://www.pubticbroadcasting.net/kuer/ne\vs.ncwsmain/article/l/0/l925029/KUER.Local.News/

Savi 

ng.the.Satze.Grouse. (Last visited April 30, 2012). 

4 The Draft PEIS in many places appears to use the terms “core” and “priority” areas 

interchangeably. 

However, this only adds to the contusion about the current state of the various federal and state 

sage 

grouse planning efforts. For example, the BLM has recently discussed sage grouse conservation 

efforts in terms of “priority” and “general”1 areas, whereas states such as Wyoming have 

developed 

state-conservation strategies using “core areas.” Cp. BLM Instruction Memorandum No. 2012-

044, 

BLM National Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Planning Strategy, December 27, 2011 (available 

at 

http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/info/regulations/Instruction_Memos_and_Bulletins/national 

instruction 

/2012/1M_2012-044.html) with Wyoming Governor Mead’s June 2, 2011 Executive Order 

2011-5, 

Greater Sage Grouse Core Area Protection, (available at 

http://gf.state.wy.us/web201 l/Departments/Wildlife/pdfs/SAGEGROUSE_EO 

COREPROTECTION 

0000651 .pdf). BLM has an obligation to clearly define the terms it uses, and the context for 

those 

terms, when proposing wide-ranging revisions to its resource management plans. #10])>

12 

<([#11 [9.2.4] 2. BLM’s Current RMPs Have Already Addressed Sage Grouse 

BLM’s “new information” justification ignores the fact that BLM already considered 

the potential of oil shale leasing on sage grouse under its existing RMPs and made 
Final OSTS PEIS 873 

clear that further plan amendments may be appropriate at the commercial leasing 

stage (as opposed to the present land use allocation stage). In fact, BLM itself 

acknowledges that Alternative 1 and 4 provide for the flexibility to address specific 

sage grouse areas at the commercial leasing stage once more information becomes 

known: 

Depending on what the applicable RMP provides with respect to LWC 

[lands with wilderness characteristics] and core and priority sagegrouse 

habitat, it may be necessary to initiate a plan amendment at the 

leasing and/or development stage to make allocation decisions on an 

individual RMP basis regarding management of these lands with 

respect to oil shale and tar sands resources. The reason for qualifying 

the amount of acreage available for lease under this alternative is that 

while areas of core and priority sage grouse and areas of LWC are left 

open for potential future leasing and development of oil shale and tar 

sands resource, the likelihood of all this acreage as being available for 

further oil shale and tar sands resources leasing and development is 

low. National and state-specific guidance related to sage-grouse 

management and protection of core and priority habitat will likely result 

in substantially less acreage being available, as will field office 

management decisions related to the protection of LWC. 

Draft PEIS, at 2-48, 2-52 (emphasis added). Thus, BLM’s current RMPs 

(represented as Alternative 1 in the Draft PEIS) already provide a mechanism to 

address protection of key sage grouse habitat areas once that information becomes 

known., and as a process for protecting that habitat has been established through a 

cooperative federal-state process. 

BLM further explains the rationale for waiting until the leasing or development stages 

to make RMP modifications related to sage grouse habitat areas: 

It is difficult to establish disturbance amounts at the programmatic 

level, before more is known regarding the specifics of leasehold 

location and technology to be used. Tables 2.3.3-4 and 2.3.4-5 show 

what this might look like under different protective scenarios. The 

scenarios are only provided to illustrate this idea, but the decisions to 

protect these amounts are not being made at this time as part of this 

land use plan amendment initiative. These decisions would be made 

at the field office level as part of the NEPA and/or planning analyses 

completed for leasing and site specific development. 

Id., at 2-52. BLM admits that (1) lands available under the existing RMPs may need 

to be modified in the future to account for lands that are later identified as sensitive 

Sage Grouse habitat, but (2) those decisions are difficult to make at the land use 

allocation stage before the agency knows the specific needs of the species in each 

geographic areas and before knowing the particular oil shale technology may be 

used at that location. Far from being “new information,” the need to manage 

sensitive Sage Grouse habitat was known in 2008 when BLM established the 

existing RMPs. At that time, BLM incorporated an adaptive management strategy 

into the existing planning process to strategically protect sensitive habitat once it was 
Final OSTS PEIS 874 

identified. That approach was, and is, the most sensible approach to minimizing the 

impact of oil shale development on sensitive sage grouse habitat. #11])>

<([#12 [3.1.3] C. There is No New Information About Wilderness Characteristics 

That Justifies Re-Upending Current RMPs 

Contrary to BLM’s assertions in the Draft PEIS, there is no new information about 

areas with wilderness characteristics that justify revisions the RMPs. As BLM 

properly recognized, the current RMPs already protect those lands of known 

environmental sensitivity that BLM has concluded should be protected under existing 

law: 

[T]he BLM has determined that certain lands within the most 

geologically prospective oil shale resource areas must be excluded 

from commercial leasing, under all alternatives, to comply with existing 

laws and regulations . . . . As a result, commercial leasing is excluded 

from all designated Wilderness Areas, WSAs, and other areas that are 

part of the NLCS lands administered by the BLM (e.g., National 

Monuments, NCAs, WSRs, National Historic Landmarks, and National 

Historic and Scenic Trails), existing ACECs that are currently closed to 

mineral development, and lands within incorporated town and city 

limits. 

Draft PEIS, at 2-30. Even under the status quo, sizeable portions of lands that are 

geologically promising for oil shale development have been excluded from available 

development due to the need to preserve known areas of environmental sensitivity. 

Unlike Alternatives 2 and 3, however, the current RMPs do not unnecessarily restrict 

development on lands where mineral development is not precluded under current 

law, and for which other means might be used to protect potentially sensitive 

resources at the oil shale leasing and development stages. 

Moreover, the current RMPs empower individual BLM field offices to address 

particular lands with wilderness characteristics on a site-specific basis at the 

appropriate stage in the leasing process: 

fTIhe decision as to how to manage LWCs [lands with wilderness 

characteristics! was left to the discretion of the individual BLM field 

offices, which would determine the management of such areas through 

additional planning and NEPA processes. . . . 

Draft PEIS at 2-21 (emphasis added). BLM acknowledges that specific resource 

concerns may be addressed through future planning and environmental review 

processes. This is the only approach that makes sense when so much is unknown 

about the nature and impact of specific oil shale development technologies on 

particular areas that potentially contain wilderness characteristics. 

#12])> <([#13 [9.6] V. BLM MUST CLARIFY THE LEGAL RIGHTS OF EXISTING RD&D 

LESSEES 

Throughout the Draft PEIS, BLM represents that the existing RD&D leases will be 

governed by their lease terms and will not be subject to BLM’s proposed land use 

allocations. For example, BLM explains: 

The scope and analysis for this PEIS does not include review of the 

decisions by the Secretary of the Interior to issue RD&D leases 
Final OSTS PEIS 875 

described in Section 1.4.1. Those leases authorize activities on six 

160-acre parcels located in Colorado and Utah (see Figure 2.3.2 of this 

PEIS) and also identify conditions under which commercial 

development could occur on 4.970 acres of preference right lease 

areas (PRLAs) included in the leases. A total of 30,720 acres may be 

developed under the terms of these leases. . . . The RD&D leases are 

prior existing rights and are not the subject of decisions within the 

PEIS. with the exception that all alternatives address the subsequent 

availability of the lands contained in these leases should the initial 

leaseholder relinquish the existing leases. 

Draft PEIS at 1-12 (emphasis added). Similar representations about the status of 

the RD&D leases are found throughout the Draft PEIS. See, e.g., id., at 1-17 

(“These RD&D leases and the conversion right to commercial operations on 

preference acreage represent a prior existing right that may be exercised upon 

compliance with the terms of the lease.”) (emphasis added); Id., at 2-30 (“In all three 

allocation alternatives, the BLM recognized that the six existing RD&D leases 

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

leases and associated PRLAs totaling 30,720 acres.”). BLM’s representations fail to 

clarify the status of the existing RD&D leases. 

#13])> <([#14 [9.6] A. BLM Must Commit to Honor All RD&D Lease Terms 

BLM needs to revise the Draft PEIS to specify which provisions BLM considers to be 

included in the “terms of the lease” for each of the RD&D leases. For example, in 

section 1.4.1—the section which specifically addresses the relationship of the 

proposed action to the existing RD&D leases—lists a series of ‘terms” according to 

which BLM offered the RD&D leases in its initial Federal Register solicitation. Draft 

PEIS at 1-16. In chapter 2, BLM states that “a summary of the key lease terms and 

conditions regarding the PRLAs is provided in Section 1.4.1.” Draft PEIS at 2-30. 

However, nowhere in the Draft PEIS does BLM list the actual terms and conditions 

from the RD&D leases themselves, nor does BLM mention whether it intends to 

honor all these terms and conditions. 

In particular, the Draft PEIS fails to disclose whether BLM intends to honor all the 

terms and conditions of the June 27, 2007 RD&D lease that BLM issued to Enefit’s 

predecessor in interest, Oil Shale Exploration Company, L.L.C. See BLM Lease No. 

UTU-84087 (“Enefit RD&D lease”). Enefit’s RD&D lease includes an Addendum No. 

1 (“Lease Addendum”) that was executed and added to the lease in January 2009. 

Among the terms of the lease addendum is a provision that allows Enefit to elect to 

have the conversion of its RD&D lease governed by BLM’s 2008 OS Rule “in lieu of 

any subsequent regulation or amendments to regulations in effect” at the time Enefit 

desires to make the lease conversion. Lease Addendum, Sec. 2(a). 

The elective conversion option in the Lease Addendum is of considerable 

importance to Enefit since it provides Enefit with contractual certainty that its 

commercial development plans will be governed by an established regulatory 

framework rather than a new regulatory regime that is presently unknown and which 

may include provisions that undermine Enefit’s investment-backed development 

expectations. In short, Enefit is entitled to know whether BLM intends to honor its 

contract. To that end, BLM should include a clear and concise statement about the 
Final OSTS PEIS 876 

legal rights of the existing RD&D lessees. This statement must contain an 

unambiguous confirmation that the BLM intends to honor all of the terms in the 

existing RD& #14])> D leases, including the terms and conditions contained in the Lease 

Addendum. 

<([#15 [3.15] B. BLM NEEDS TO REVISE MAPS TO DEPICT APPROPRIATE 

DEVELOPMENT AREAS FOR RD&D LEASES 

BLM should revise its maps to make clear that even under Alternative 2, the RD&D 

lessees are entitled to convert their RD&D leases into commercial leases. For 

example, although BLM acknowledges Enefit’s right to develop its RD&D lease 

according to the terms of its existing RD&D lease, (Draft PEIS at 2-30), these areas 

are not reflected correctly on the relevant map depicting Alternative 2’s coverage in 

Utah at page 2-41 of the PEIS. This map should be corrected to make clear that 

Enefit’s PRLA is exempt from any of the new development restrictions included in 

Alternative 2. 

BLM needs to provide one consolidated map that clearly depicts both (1) the existing 

RD&D leases and PRLAs, and (2) the specific areas which BLM proposes to exclude 

from development by resource type (e.g., sage grouse habitat, lands with wilderness 

characteristics, waters with wild & scenic river characteristics, etc.). BLM’s current 

maps that show the lands that are excluded from leasing under Alternative 2 do not 

identify the existing RD&D leases or PRLAs. See, e.g, Figure 2.3.3-2, Draft PEIS at 

2-38 (showing lands withdrawn from leasing under Alternative 2, but failing to identify 

exiting RD&D lease areas). BLM also needs to clarify, both in the text of the Final 

PEIS and in associated maps, the precise relationship between any new 

development restrictions under Alternative 2 and the existing RD&D lessees’ PRLAs. 

#15])> <([#16 [2] VI. ALTERNATIVE 2 MIRRORS AN ALTERNATIVE THAT BLM HAS 

ALREADY REJECTED5 

In contrast to Alternative 1, each of the action alternatives in the Draft PEIS 

unnecessarily restricts lands that would be available for future commercial oil shale 

leasing based on arbitrary land use policy judgments and speculation about future 

resource impacts that are presently unknown and unknowable.6 None of these 

alternatives satisfies the Congressional directive in the 2005 EPAct that oil shale and 

tar sands are “strategically important domestic resources that should be developed 

to reduce the growing dependence of the United States on politically and 

economically unstable sources of foreign oil imports.” 42 U.S.C. § 15927(b). 

5 Unless specified, Enefit’s discussion of “Alternative 2” applies to both oil shale subalternatives: 

Alternative 2(a) and 2(b). Both sub-alternatives would drastically reduce the acreage available 

for 

commercial oil shale leasing, while Alternative 2(b) suffers from the additional defects as 

discussed in 

Section VII below. 

6 While Enefit focuses most of its discussion on Alternative 2 since that is the alternative BLM 

has 

put forward as its preferred alternative, Enefit also opposes alternatives 3 and 4 of the Draft 

PEIS. 
Final OSTS PEIS 877 

Alternative 4 contains some, and Alternative 3 contains all, of the Alternative 2’s infirmities 

identified 

in this section. Alternative 3 flaunts the clear direction of Congress to establish a commercial oi! 

shale leasing program since it would limit leasing to the existing RD&D leases. Alternative 4, for 

its 

part, would prematurely and unnecessarily restrict the acreage that is available for commercial 

oil 

shale leasing. 

#16])> <([#17 [2.2] [9.2.3] A. Alternative 2 Fails to Satisfy the Congressional Mandate to Make 

the Most Geologically Prospective Areas Available for 

Commercial Leasing 

Alternative 2, which is essentially a restatement of Alternative C from the 2008 Oil 

Shale and Tar Sands PEIS, would designate only 461,965 acres for application for 

commercial oil shale leasing, with only 252,181 acres available for commercial 

leasing in Utah. See Table 2.3.2-2; Draft PEIS, at 2-27. This represents more than 

a 75% reduction in available leasing acreage from the status quo. Id. (Alternative 1 

makes 2,017,741 acres available for application for commercial leasing overall, and 

670,558 acres in Utah). See also id., at 6-67 (describing reduction in available 

leasing acreage under Alternative 2). As such, Alternative 2 is essentially a nondevelopment 

alternative that would make sustainable commercial oil shale leasing 

extremely difficult. 

Alternative 2 is inconsistent with the Congressional mandate of the 2005 EPAct. 

BLM itself admitted this fact in 2008 when it rejected an alternative (Alternative C) 

that largely mirrors the current Alternative 2: 

Alternative C was not selected as the Proposed Plan amendment 

because the alternative would not make “the most geologically 

prospective lands in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming” as available for 

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

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

prospective acreage would be excluded under Alternative C; in 

particular areas which are in close proximity to three of the six RD&D 

leases would be excluded. 

2008 OS ROD, at 22 (emphasis added). BLM properly rejected this alternative in 

2008 because it was not consistent with Congress’ mandate to BLM, and BLM has 

provided no justification for ignoring Congress’ mandate in the Draft PEIS. 

By ignoring Congress’ mandate and dramatically reducing the surface acreage 

available for commercial leasing, Alternative 2 would result in correspondingly 

severe reduction in the potential recovery of the underlying oil shale resource. By 

way of illustration, Mr. Michael Vanden Berg, Project Geologist with the Utah 

Geological Survey, estimates that Alternative 2 would result in a 63% reduction in 

the recoverable oil shale resource from the No Action Alternative (69 billion barrels to 

25.7 billion barrels of in place oil). See Exhibit B, April 18, 2012 Memorandum from 

Michael Vanden Berg: Oil shale resource on U.S. BLM land proposed for leasing in 

Utah under 2012 PEIS Alternative 2b. 

Mr. Vanden Berg also estimates that Alternative 2(b) would result in a 53.5% 
Final OSTS PEIS 878 

reduction of recoverable oil shale resource on Enefit’s RD&D preference lease 

(848.4 million barrels to 394.8 million barrels) from the No Action Alternative based 

on surface development constraints outlined in the Draft PEIS. See Exhibit C, April 

18, 2012 Memorandum from Michael Vanden Berg: Oil resource (at 25 gpt) on 

Enefit American Oil’s preferential BLM RD&D lease. While the Draft PEIS 

represents that Enefit’s right to develop its existing RD&D lease will be governed by 

the terms of the RD&D lease rather than the proposed revisions the RMPs, (Draft 

PEIS at 1-12)7, Mr. Vanden Berg’s resource estimates illustrate the highly 

deleterious character of the BLM’s preferred alternative (Alternative 2(b)) in the Draft 

PEIS. 

1 See Section V above. #17])>

<([#18 [2.2] B. Alternative 2 Undermines Commercial Development by Relegating 

Commercial Oil Shale Leasing to Fragmented Lease Parcels 

Alternative 2 would limit commercial oil shale leasing and development to small, noncontiguous 

parcels. To illustrate, Alternative 2 drastically reduces the amount of 

acreage available for oil shale development in Utah from 670,358 acres in 

Alternative 1 to 252,181 acres in Alternative 2. Table 2.3.2-2; Draft PEIS at 2-27. 

The area made available for leasing under Alternative 2 is insufficient to justify 

commercial oil shale development. 

To take oil shale technology to the level of a commercial facility requires access to a 

relatively consolidated area of land so that power inputs, surface equipment, 

pipelines, roads, and other facilities can be located efficiently. Alternative 2 provides 

little contiguous acreage deemed suitable for oil shale leasing. Given the reduction 

of available surface area and available resources, Alternative 2 is overly restrictive 

and unnecessarily confines potential oil shale development opportunities. 

This “fragmentation” is another reason BUM rejected a comparable alternative during 

its last round of RMP revisions: 

[Alternative C1 unreasonably fragments the area that would be 

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

explored, leased, or developed. This could be an impediment to sound 

and rational development of the resource and can reduce the economic 

return to the public. If oil shale resources are by-passed because of 

the exclusions of Alternative C, that could also limit the benefits to the 

nation from exploitation of a domestic unconventional energy source. 

2008 OS ROD, at 22 (emphasis added). 

Further, the total area that will actually be developed will likely be even smaller and 

more fragmented than the area potentially available for leasing under the current 

Alternative 2 because regulatory and land management factors that will reduce the 

acreage will be applied in the future. For example, the pre-leasing NEPA process 

will provide BLM an opportunity to exclude areas that are environmentally sensitive 

and cannot be reasonably mitigated to protect resource values. In addition, areas 

may be restricted (even after leasing) by Endangered Species Act (“ESA”) 

requirements, National Historic Preservation Act requirements, and the effect of 

various BLM stipulations. 

The consideration and analysis of effects of post-leasing factors, like those on public 
Final OSTS PEIS 879 

lands available for natural gas, is illustrative. See National Petroleum Council, 

Balancing Natural Gas Policy, Vol. IV, p. 6-7 (2003) (finding that 17 percent of areas 

open to natural gas leasing in the Uintah-Piceance Basin were, nevertheless, 

undevelopable because they were subject to “prohibitive conditions of approval”). 

Thus, a significant percentage of acreage that is actually leased may never be 

developed. 

It is reasonable to assume that commercial project economics must be based on 

large-scale operations to support the initial development of project infrastructure. 

Section 369 of the 2005 EPAct recognizes this fact since it defined an oil shale lease 

as up to 5,760 acres. In general, Alternative 2 would allow development on 

generally small, fragmented parcels that are unlikely to be explored or developed 

because of the impracticality of operating in noncontiguous areas. 

Finally, there are a variety of business factors that, as a practical matter, restrict the 

acreage that would be developed. Once a company acquires a lease, it must learn 

more about the tract’s environmental factors, subsurface geology and hydrology. 

Different oil shale recovery technologies may operate better in one type of geology 

than in another, and in-depth analysis may reveal that there are geologic or 

hydrologic factors that affect the choice of technology, which may also modify 

proposed project plans. There may be economic or environmental benefits to 

locating facilities in one location rather than another, which could at least affect the 

sequence in which areas would be developed, as well as the siting of facilities or the 

proposed project plot plan. These, and other factors, will tend to restrict the amount 

of development that actually occurs, even if a large amount of land is potentially 

available as under Alternative 1. 

#18])> <([#19 [8] C. Alternative 2 Impermissibly Restricts BLM’s Discretion to Manage 

Lands According to FLPMA’s Multiple Use Mandate 

Alternative 2 appears to be defined by a premise that oil shale cannot be developed 

in a multiple land-use scenario. Alternative 2 automatically excludes major portions 

of federal lands at a very early stage without considering whether BLM can 

accommodate multiple use development at a future time. Because an additional 

site-specific NEPA analysis will be conducted before any commercial leases are 

issued, and a second site-specific NEPA analysis will be completed before BLM 

approves any commercial plan of development, BLM may decide on a case-by-case 

basis at a later stage whether an area should be open to commercial leasing and 

development and, if so, which protective measures and restrictions should be 

instituted to protect sensitive areas. 

BLM specifically considered, and rejected, a comparable and overly restrictive 

alternative as incompatible with its multiple use mandate under FLPMA: 

Selection of alternative C precipitously limits or restricts the 

decisionmaker’s discretion to balance oil shale use and the protection 

of resources or resource values, in accordance with FLPMA’s principal 

of ‘multiple use.’ . . . It would be premature to eliminate areas prior to 

site-specific analysis based on factors that are not known now, but that 

would be known at the leasing or operation permitting stages, such as 

location, timing and type of oil shale technology, that may show that 

these resources could be adequately protected through mitigation. 
Final OSTS PEIS 880 

2008 OS ROD, at 22 (emphasis added). These reasons apply with equal force to 

Alternative 2 in the Draft PEIS. 

Likewise, Alternative 2 fails to recognize the role of adaptive management in 

protecting sensitive resources at the appropriate stage in the oil shale leasing and 

development process. Section 202(c) of FLPMA, 43 U.S.C. § 1712, provides that BLM 

should use a multiple-use approach in its land use plans. This means that BLM must 

grapple with how to balance its many important surface resources with providing the 

energy America needs. Here, a massive oil shale resource—the largest in the 

world—is found in a relatively small area, and this nationally important resource 

should be given significant weight. 

Adaptive management can and should be used to guide BLM’s commercial oil shale 

program. The commercial leasing process envisioned in the Draft PEIS would 

require environmental analysis at the pre-leasing stage and at the plan-ofdevelopment 

stage. Both of these stages would precede any significant landdisturbing 

activities and, thus, provide an opportunity to evaluate environmental 

protection measures based on information then available to BLM. The technology 

for efficiently producing oil shale is likely to progress over time, and the body of 

knowledge concerning oil shale production impacts will increase as well. As new 

information becomes available, BLM will be have an increasingly clear basis for 

making decisions that are currently veiled by uncertainty. 

This adaptive management-based leasing process provides a clear basis for making 

Alternative 1 the most desirable alternative. Alternative 1 allows the broadest range 

for future decision-making and potential resource development. Nevertheless, it fully 

protects environmental resources because no resources can be disturbed without 

further environmental analysis and administrative action. Alternative 2, in contrast, 

inappropriately prejudges whether vast tracts containing vast energy resources are 

suitable without any site-specific analysis. #19])>

<([#20 [1.5] VII. Alternative 2(b) Would Undermine Commercial Oil Shale Development 

BLM’s has selected Alternative 2(b) as its preferred alternative for commercial oil 

shale leasing. Draft PEIS at 2-76. This alternative combines Alternative 2(a), which 

drastically reduces the acreage currently available for commercial oil shale leasing 

BLM’s existing RMP regime, with a “RD&D First” requirement. Under the RD&D 

First requirement, BLM could issue a commercial oil shale lease only after an 

applicant (1) applied for and obtained an RD&D lease, and (2) satisfied the 

conditions of its RD&D lease, including the requirements related to converting that 

lease to a commercial lease. Draft PEIS at 2-35. This alternative would undermine 

commercial oil shale leasing and development. 

A. The Draft PEIS Fails to Properly Analyze Alternative 2(b) 

Although BLM selects Alternative 2(b) as its preferred alternative, the agency offers 

almost no analysis of this alternative. BLM simply asserts: “As the Draft PEIS was 

being developed, the idea for this alternative emerged. It is presented here in brief. 

This alternative is not noted elsewhere in the document but will be developed further 

in preparation of the Final PEIS.” Draft PEIS at 2-35. BLM admits that it is 

proposing to select an alternative that the agency itself has not thought through and 

for which the stakeholders have received very little information. This approach is 
Final OSTS PEIS 881 

fraught with problems.8 

BLM is legally obligated to provide the public with an opportunity to review and 

comment on any material change to the current oil shale leasing regime. The 

agency has not done so. Given the systemic problems with Alternative 2(b), BLM 

should abandon it as the preferred alternative in the final PEIS. If, however, BLM 

persists in pursuing this alternative in the final PEIS, the agency must provide the 

public another opportunity to review and comment on this approach once the details 

are known and revealed, and before the agency amends the affected RMPs. 

B. BLM Misrepresents How and Why the Agency Decided to 

Consider Alternative 2(b) 

BLM’s claim that the idea for this alternative emerged “as the Draft PEIS was being 

developed” is disingenuous. In fact, BLM committed to propose to amend its oil 

shale commercial leasing regulations in a manner that would only allow BLM to issue 

a commercial lease (1) as part of a conversion of an RD&D lease, or (2) after BLM 

issues a call for expression of leasing interest. 2008 Rule Settlement, at fl 3(c). 

Contrary to BLM’s representations, the RD&D First proposal was not a recently 

discovered development option, but is rather an alternative that BLM has known 

about, and contractually committed to pursue, for over a year. BLM has an 

obligation to disclose to the public the true reason the agency has selected 

Alternative 2(b) as its preferred alternative. 

8 Enefit focuses its discussion in this letter on Alternative 2(b) because BLM has identified this 

as the 

agency’s preferred alternative. However, because Alternative 4(b) suffers from the same 

infirmities 

as those discussed in this section, Enefit also opposes Alternative 4(b). 

#20])> <([#21 [9.6] C. BLM Fails to Explain How Alternative 2(b) Would Impact a 

Company That Has Already Demonstrated The Ability to 

Commercially Develop Oil Shale 

BLM fails to explain how the RD&D first alternative would be applied to a company 

which has already demonstrated the ability to proceed to commercial oil shale 

development. This approach would be highly prejudicial to a company like Enefit 

which has a long and demonstrated history of developing oil shale on a commercial 

scale outside the United States. It would also unfairly penalize existing RD&D 

lessees which are able to demonstrate commercial development of oil shale 

resources. 

BLM must address how this alternative would impact three different development 

scenarios: (1) where a company successfully demonstrates commercial oil shale 

development technology on an existing federal RD&D lease, (2) where a company 

successfully develops commercial oil shale development technology on private or 

state lands in the United States, and (3) where a company has demonstrated the 

ability to commercially develop oil shale in other parts of the world. 

For example, would a company such as Enefit be permitted to apply for a new 

commercial lease once it converts its existing RD&D lease to commercial production, 

or would Enefit be required to apply for yet another RD&D lease if it wanted to 

acquire additional lease acreage over and above its current preference right lease 
Final OSTS PEIS 882 

acreage? 

Similarly, would Enefit be allowed to apply for a commercial lease based on a 

successful oil shale project located on private lands in Utah or elsewhere in the 

United States? Finally, will a company like Enefit with a long history of successful oil 

shale development projects in other countries such as Estonia and Jordan be 

allowed to apply for a commercial oil shale lease on BLM lands without first going 

through the RD&D process on BLM lands? Enefit and the other stakeholders are 

entitled to answers for each of these threshold questions. 

Enefit has been working diligently toward developing the RD&D lease that its 

predecessor-tn-interest acquired in 2007. As a company with a demonstrated ability 

to produce oil from oil shale on a commercial scale, Enefit stands ready and able to 

help America meet its domestic energy needs. Any proposal that requires Enefit to 

obtain and prove up yet another RD&D lease even after it has demonstrated its 

commercial development technology through its existing RD&D lease or activities on 

private lands would stifle commercial oil shale production and undermine Congress’ 

direction to BLM to establish sustainable domestic oil shale program. See EPAct, 42 

U.S.C. §16927(b)(3). 

#21])> <([#22 [1.1.1] [10.3] VIM. BLM MUST PROVIDE STAKEHOLDERS AN 

OPPORTUNITY TO 

RESPOND TO PROPOSED RMP REVISIONS AND REGULATORY 

CHANGES IN A COORDINATED AND INFORMED MANNER 

BLM has indicated that the public comment period for the Draft PEIS will end on May 

4, 2012.9 Although BLM mentioned in passing that it “will be proposing some 

amendments to [the 2008 OS Rule] in a separate rulemaking proceeding,” Draft 

PEIS at 2-7, BLM does not disclose (a) when it plans to issue the draft revised 

commercial oil shale leasing regulation, (b) what changes those draft regulations 

might contain, or (3) how any such changes might impact prospective commercial oil 

shale developers, including existing RD&D lessees. Instead, BLM discounts the 

impact of regulatory changes on the RMP amendment process: 

While the BLM is in the process of considering amendments to this 

[2008 OS Rule], this PEIS does not depend on any particular provision 

of the rule but anticipates that decisions regarding leasing and approval 

of plans of development will be informed by appropriate analysis 

documents as required by NEPA and other applicable authorities. 

Draft PEIS at 2-33. BLM’s approach of asking the public to analyze and comment on 

the proposed changes to the RMP Amendments with no knowledge of the changes 

BLM plans to propose to the commercial leasing regulation is not only bad policy, but 

it places Enefit and the other stakeholders in the impossible position of trying to 

speculate on BLM’s proposed regulatory changes when they are commenting on 

BLM’s RMP revisions. 

BLM’s staggered approach is even more troubling in light of commitments BLM has 

made in its settlement agreement involving the 2008 Rule. See Exhibit D, 2008 Rule 

Settlement. As part of this settlement agreement between BLM and a consortium of 

oil shale opponents, BLM committed to “publish a notice of proposed rulemaking 

(“NPR”) in which BLM will propose amendments to the [2008 OS Regulation] to 

address the royalty rate and environmental protection requirements applicable to oil 
Final OSTS PEIS 883 

shale commercial leasing.” BLM has committed to publish its notice of proposed 

rulemaking by May 15, 2012 (fifteen months after the settlement agreement was 

executed) and to publish a final regulation by November 18, 2012. See 2008 Rule 

Settlement, at Iffl 1, 5. Under the current schedule, BLM must publish its proposal to 

amend the commercial oil shale regulation within two weeks following the close of 

the comment period for the Draft PEIS. 

This approach makes no sense from a public policy or legal standpoint and appears 

to be designed to keep the public and existing oil shale lessees in the dark about 

material changes to the regulatory structure for commercial leasing at the same time 

those parties are expected to review and comment on BLM’s proposed RMP 

Amendments. While BLM mentions the 2008 Rule Settlement in the Draft PEIS, 

(e.g., Draft PEIS at 2-16), the agency does not alert the public to key commitments 

BLM made in that agreement. For example, BLM committed in the settlement 

agreement to (a) remove the current royalty rate for oil shale production, (b) change 

the conditions under which a RD&D lease may be converted to a commercial lease, 

and (c) amend the standard used by BLM for approving a commercial lessee’s plan 

of development. See 2008 Rule Settlement, at ffl| 2-4. These changes—the 

specifics of which will not be known until BLM publishes its rulemaking proposal— 

could radically alter the regulatory landscape for domestic oil shale production. 

For example, BLM’s current regulations currently set the royalty rate at 5% on 

products from oil shale for the first five years of commercial production. This rate will 

increase by 1% per year starting with the sixth year of commercial production until it 

reaches a maximum royalty rate of 12.5%. 43 C.F.R. § 3903.52 (b). Given the 

substantial capital investment required for a lessee to get to the commercial oil shale 

development stage, an increase in this royalty rate could well make commercial oil 

shale development uneconomical on federal lands in the United States. Other 

changes contemplated under the settlement could also undermine the viability of 

domestic oil shale production, and yet BLM has not even disclosed these proposed 

changes. BLM should extend the public comment period for the Draft PEIS by a 

minimum of 90 days to allow Enefit and other stakeholders to respond to all of BLM’s 

changes to its oil shale program in an informed and coordinated fashion. 

9 See BLM Issues Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for Oil Shale and Tar 

Sands, 

available at http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/intb/newsroom/2QI2/februarv/NR 02 03 2012.html. 

There seems to be some disagreement between BLM and the Environmental Protection Agency 

on 

exactly when the comment period ends. In its February 3, 2012 Notice of Availability (“NOA”) 

of 

the Draft PEIS, EPA indicated that the comment period closes on May 2, 2012- 90 days after the 

official publication of EPA’sNOA. See 77 Fed. Reg. 5513 (Feb. 3, 2012), available at 

http://www.gDo.gov/fdsvs/pkg/FR-2012-02-03/pdf/2012-2435.pdf. 

#22])> <([#23 [3.1.7] IX. BLM SHOULD CLARIFY THAT EVACUATION CREEK DOES 

NOT 

CONTAIN WILD AND SCENIC RIVER CHARACTERISTICS 

The Draft PEIS reflects confusion about the status of Evacuation Creek and its 
Final OSTS PEIS 884 

impact on Enefit’s right to develop its existing RD&D lease. The Final PEIS should 

be revised to clarify two key features of this intermittent stream. First, under the 

terms of its RD&D lease, Enefit is permitted to develop lands adjacent to Evacuation 

Creek subject to existing lease stipulations. BLM recognized this fact in its 2008 OS 

ROD: 

Under the terms of the existing RD&D leases, the Federal government 

has a commitment to grant the RD&D leases [ ] for commercial 

development within the original 160-acre lease, as well as its PRLA, 

provided the terms and conditions of the leases are met. As a result, 

all lands within the PRLAs would be available for issuance of 

commercial leases to the current RD&D lessees, subject to lease 

requirements. 

2008 OS ROD, at 16. Thus, regardless of whether portions of Evacuation Creek are 

determined to contain potentially eligible wild and scenic river characteristics, Enefit’s 

ability to develop areas in and around Evacuation Creek will be governed by the 

terms of Enefit’s lease instead of either the 2008 RMP Amendments or any 

subsequent RMP revisions. 

Second, the Draft PEIS mischaracterizes the current state of Evacuation Creek. By 

way of example, BLM suggests that: 

For Alternative 3, as is the case for Alternative 1, for the Enefit RD&D 

project in Utah, the same portion of the area that is not identified as 

available for lease also is not available for application for commercial 

leasing under Alternative 3 because of the presence of a potentially 

eligible WSR, Evacuation Creek (see discussion of this in Section 

2.3.3.1).10 

Draft PEIS, at 2-43. See a/so Figure 6.1.3-6, Draft PEIS, at 6-160 (mistakenly 

identifying Evacuation Creek as a Wild and Scenic River). This is not accurate. 

Although the 2008 RMP PEIS had identified portions of Evacuation Creek as 

potentially eligible for WSR designations, the BLM Vernal field office subsequently 

concluded that these segments were not eligible. See 2008 OS ROD, at 16 

(“Subsequent to the publication of the PRMP/FEIS, the 2008 Vernal Field Office 

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

inclusion.”). BLM should clarify in the Final PEIS that Evacuation Creek is no longer 

eligible for designation as a WSR and revise its maps in the Final PEIS accordingly. 

10 Notwithstanding BLM’s representation, the Draft PEIS provides no discussion of Evacuation 

Creek 

in Section 2.3.3.1. 

#23])> <([#24 [6.3] X. APPENDIX A SHOULD BE REVISED TO DESCRIBE 

DEVELOPMENTS IN 

ENEFIT’S RD&D PLAN AND SELECTED TECHNOLOGY 

Appendix A of the Draft PEIS provides a summary of the various oil shale 

technologies that are proposed for the existing RD&D leases. BLM’s description of 

Enefit’s technology as explained on pages A-75 to A-83, should be revised to 

incorporate the following summary of Enefit’s RD&D technology. 

Enefit American Oil (EAO) is a wholly owned subsidiary of Enefit (known as Eesti 
Final OSTS PEIS 885 

Energia for activities in Estonia). The Utah project was previously owned and 

operated by Oil Shale Exploration Company (OSEC). In March 2011, Enefit 

acquired 100 percent of OSEC’s shares and assumed full ownership and control of 

the project and all of OSEC’s assets. Enefit renamed OSEC as Enefit American Oil 

and has continued development of the project with several key modifications to the 

business plan and the RD&D plan put forward by OSEC and outlined in Appendix A 

of the PEIS. These modifications are currently under discussion and pending 

approval of BLM’s Vernal Field Office. As such, they are outlined only briefly below. 

The Utah Oil Shale Project, located in the Uinta Basin of eastern Utah, is designed to 

develop a green field oil shale mining and shale oil production complex producing 

approximately 30 million tons of oil shale rock per year and 50,000 barrels per day of 

premium quality refinery ready shale oil from the Green River Formation. Shale oil 

will be produced from multiple new generation Enefit Technology surface retorts with 

onsite upgrading of the raw oil. The proposed facility will be located in the Uinta 

Basin, approximately twelve miles southeast of Bonanza in Uintah County, Utah. 

The RD&D Development Phase is broken up into 2 sub-phases which build on the 

test work and progress of the previous sub-phase. The second sub-phase will 

include completion of the Enefit Pilot testing and PreFEED (Preliminary Front End 

Engineering Design) and completion of the application for conversion of the lease. 

New or unexpected information in an earlier phase may impact the timing or 

activities in a following phase. The RD&D Development Phase activities will be 

carried out on both the BLM RD&D lease property and EAO’s adjacent private 

Skyline property, as well as offsite at Enefit’s R&D center in Frankfurt Germany. As 

Enefit has a proven technology operating industrially in Estonia and is not developing 

a new technology, the RD&D phases’ goal will be to prove the technology of, and 

optimize the design for, this specific resource in Utah. 

#24])> XI. INCORPORATION OF OTHER COMMENTS 

In order to avoid unnecessary duplication, and to the extent not inconsistent with 

these comments, Enefit hereby incorporates by reference the comment letters from 

the following entities: 

> State of Utah 

> American Petroleum Institute 

> National Oil Shale Association 

> Utah Association of Counties 

> Utah Mining Association 

<([#25 [9.1] X. CONCLUSION AND SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS 

BLM’s PEIS proposes changes to BLM’s existing RMPs that would discourage 

domestic oil shale development, vitiate Congressional intent to encourage domestic 

oil shale development, and run afoul of the Congressional prohibition against the 

implementation of DOf’s Wild Lands Policy. Enefit recommends that BLM make the 

following changes in the Final PEIS: 

> Clarify that the purpose and need of the present RMP revision process 

is controlled by the 2005 EPAct’s directive that oil shale and tar sands 

deposits are “strategically important domestic resources that should be 

developed to reduce the growing dependence of the United States on 

politically and economically unstable sources of foreign oil imports”; 
Final OSTS PEIS 886 

> Eliminate from further consideration any alternative—such as 

Alternatives 2, 3 or 4—that violate the 2005 EPAct’s directive; 

#25])> > <([#26 [2.1.1] Select Alternative 1 as the proposed alternative; #26])>

<([#27 [9.6] Confirm that development of the current RD&D leases is governed by all the terms 

and conditions of those leases, including the Lease Addendum; #27])>

<([#28 [9.6] Confirm that a company which has demonstrated the ability to produce oil shale at a 

commercial scale may apply for a commercial lease on BLM lands without first going through 

the RD&D leasing process; 

#28])> > <([#29 [9.2.1] [3.1.3] Cease the illegal implementation of DOI’s “Wild Lands Policy”;

#29])>

<([#30 [9.3] Recognize that site-specific resource impacts, including those related to sage grouse 

and lands with wilderness characteristics, can be addressed at later stages in the leasing process 

when more is known 

about the particular resource and the attendant oil shale development 

technology; #30])>

><([#31 [3.1.7] Explain that Evacuation Creek is no longer considered by BLM to be 

eligible for listing as a wild and scenic river; #31])> <([#32 [6.3] Revise the summary of Enefit’s 

development technology in Appendix A as discussed in Section X above; #32])>

<([#33 [1.1.1] Finally, Enefit requests that BLM extend the comment period of the Draft PEIS 

by at 

least 60 days to provide Enefit and other stakeholders an opportunity to respond to 

any proposed revisions to the RMPs and any proposed changes to the 2008 OS 

Rule, in an informed and coordinated fashion. #33])>

Rikki Lauren Hrenko 

CEO 

Enefit American Oil 

28 

Case 1:09-cv-00085-JLK Document 63-1 Filed 02/15/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 10 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO 

Civil Action No. 09-cv-00085-JLK 

COLORADO ENVIRONMENTAL COALITION, 

WESTERN COLORADO CONGRESS, 

WILDERNESS WORKSHOP, 

BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION ALLIANCE, 

SOUTHERN UTAH WILDERNESS ALLIANCE, 

RED ROCK FORESTS, 

WESTERN RESOURCE ADVOCATES. 

NATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERATION. 

CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY, 

THE WILDERNESS SOCIETY, 

NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL, 

DEFENDERS OF WILDLIFE, and 

SIERRA CLUB, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 
Final OSTS PEIS 887 

KE”N SALAZAR, Secretary of the Interior, 

in his official capacity; 

WILMA LEWIS, Assistant Secretary, Land and Minerals 

Management, in her official capacity; 

BOB ABBEY, Director, Bureau of Land Management, in his official capacity; and 

THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR and 

THE BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, federal agencies. 

Defendants, and 

SHELL FRONTIER OIL & GAS INC., 

Intcrvenor Defendant. 

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT 

Page 1 of 10 

Case 1:09-cv-00085-JLK Document 63-1 Filed 02/15/11 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 10 

WIIEREAS, on November 17, 2008, the U.S. Bureau of Land Management issued an 

Approved Resource Management Plan Amendments / Record of Decision for Oil Shale and Tar 

Sands Resources to Address Land Use Allocations in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming and Final 

Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (‘‘2008 OSTS ROD”); 

WHEREAS, the 2008 OSTS ROD amended the decisions specific to oil shale and tar 

sands resources in twelve land use plans: Glenwood Springs Resource Management Plan 

(“RMP”), Grand Junction RMP, and White River RMP in Colorado; Book Cliffs RMP, Diamond 

Mountain RMP, San Rafael Resource Area RMP, Price River Resource Area Management 

Framework Plan (“MFP”), Henry Mountain MFP, and San Juan Resource Area RMP in Utah; 

and Great Divide RMP, Green River RMP, and Kcmmerer RMP in Wyoming; 

WHEREAS, on January 16, 2009, Plaintiffs Colorado Environmental Coalition. Western 

Colorado Congress, Wilderness Workshop, Biodiversity Conservation Alliance, Southern Utah 

Wilderness Alliance, Red Rock Forests, Western Resource Advocates, National Wildlife 

Federation, Center for Biological Diversity, The Wilderness Society, Natural Resources Defense 

Council, Defenders of Wildlife, and Sierra Club (collectively “Plaintiffs”) filed a Complaint for 

declaratory and injunctive relief against Ken Salazar, in his official capacity as Secretary of the 

Department of the Interior, Wilma Lewis, in her official capacity as Assistant Secretary for Land 

and Minerals of the U.S. Department of the Interior, the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bob 

Abbey, in his official capacity as Director of the U.S. Bureau of Land Management,1 and the 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management (“BLM”) (collectively “Defendants”), and filed a First 

Amended Complaint on June 15, 2009; 

WHEREAS, Plaintiffs allege that the issuance of the 2008 OSTS ROD violated BLM 

regulations, the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”). the Federal Land Policy and 

Management Act (“FLPMA”), the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”), and the 

Endangered Species Act (“ESA”); 

WHEREAS, on May 11, 2009, Shell Frontier Oil & Gas Inc. was granted status as 

Intervenor in this action; and 

1 Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(d), current agency officials have been substituted for their 

predecessors in office. 

Page 2 of 10 

Case1:09-cv-00085-JLK Document 63-1 Filed 02/15/11 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 10 

WHEREAS, Defendants and Plaintiffs (the “Settling Parties”), through their authorized 

representatives, and without any admission or final adjudication of the issues of fact or law with 
Final OSTS PEIS 888 

respect to Plaintiffs’ claims, have reached a settlement in this action; 

NOW, THEREFORE, Tl IE SETTLING PARTIES HEREBY STIPULATE AND 

AGREE AS FOLLOWS: 

I . No later than 120 days after this Settlement Agreement becomes effective. 

Defendants will publish a notice of intent (“NOT”) to consider amending each of the land use 

planning decisions made by the 2008 OSTS ROD. Such notice shall initiate scoping under 

NEPA in coordination with the RMP amendment process pursuant to 43 C.F.R. § 1610.2(c), 

which may be carried out on a programmatic or individual planning area basis. The NOI will 

propose to analyze the environmental effects of an alternative or alternatives in a NEPA analysis 

that would exclude from commercial oil shale or tar sands leasing: 

a. All areas that Defendants have identified, or may identify as a result of 

inventories conducted during this planning process, as lands containing 

wilderness characteristics; 

b. The whole of the Adobe Town ‘‘Very Rare or Uncommon” area, as 

designated by the Wyoming Environmental Quality Council on April 10, 

2008; 

c. Core or priority sage grouse habitat, as defined by such guidance as 

Defendants may issue; 

d. All areas of critical environmental concern (**ACEC”) located within the 

areas analyzed in the September 2008 Oil Shale and Tar Sands Resources 

Leasing Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement O’OSTS 

PEIS”); and 

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

leasing in Alternative C of the September 2008 OSTS PEIS. 

2. As part of the NEPA analysis initialed by the publication of the NOI, Defendants 

will analyze the environmental effects of at least the following three alternatives: 

a. An alternative or alternatives removing all of the lands described above in 

Paragraph 1 from applications for oil shale or tar sands leasing; 

Page 3 of 10 

Case 1:09-cv-00085-JLK Document 63-1 Filed 02/15/11 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 10 

b. At least one alternative that removes some, but not all, of the lands 

described above in Paragraph I from applications for oil shale or tar sands 

leasing; and 

c. The 4ino action” alternative. 

The purpose and need statement in the NEPA analysis supporting the RMP amendment process 

or processes shall be defined in such a manner that it can be met by any and all of the alternatives 

described in Paragraph 2(a) and 2(b) above. Nothing in this section shall limit Defendants from 

analy/.ing additional alternatives or from selecting an alternative that best meets Defendants’ 

objectives, 

3. In conjunction with the RMP amendment process or processes and supporting 

NEPA analysis, Defendants will provide a public protest period, pursuant to 43 C.F.R. §§ 1610.2 

and 1610.5-2, and provide for state consistency review, pursuant to 43 U.S.C. § I7l2(c)(9) and 

43 C.F.R. § 1610.3-2(e). 

4. During the RMP amendment process or processes and supporting NEPA 

process. BLM will consider information timely provided by Plaintiffs and other interested parties 

during scoping and other public comment opportunities. 
Final OSTS PEIS 889 

5. Subject to available appropriations and staffing and subject to compliance with 

applicable laws and regulations. Defendants will use best efforts to issue a final decision or 

decisions regarding amendments for each of the planning decisions made by the 2008 OSTS 

ROD no later than December 31, 2012. Pursuant to 43 C.F.R. § 1610.5-1 and 43 C.F.R. § 

1610.5-2, such final decision or decisions may not be issued until after the resolution of any 

protests. When Defendants issue such final decision or decisions. Plaintiffs may challenge such 

decision or decisions in a new action brought under applicable federal law. Defendants do not 

waive any defenses they might have against such a challenge. 

6. Defendants acknowledge that under the terms of the 2008 OSTS ROD, prior to 

the approval of an application to convert an oil shale Research, Development & Demonstration 

(“RD&D”) lease to a commercial lease, Defendants must conduct an analysis of the proposed 

conversion under NEPA in addition to the final OSTS PEIS supporting the 2008 OSTS ROD. If 

Defendants approve such an application, Plaintiffs may challenge the approval only in a new 

action brought under applicable federal law. Defendants do not waive any defenses they might 

have against such a challenge. 

Page 4 of 10 

Case 1:09-cv-00085-JLK Document63-1 Filed 02/15/11 USDC Colorado PageSoMO 

7. Prior to the publ icaiion of a new decision or decisions regarding amendments for 

each of the planning decisions made by the 2008 OSTS ROD, or January 15. 2013, whichever 

occurs first, Defendants will not issue a call for expression of leasing interest for commercial oil 

shale leases pursuant to 43 C.F.R. § 3921.30. In the event that Defendants conduct the new 

planning processes agreed to in this Settlement Agreement by addressing individual plans rather 

than by using a programmatic approach, Defendants will only issue a call for expression of 

leasing interest for commercial oil shale leases in planning areas subject to a new decision 

regarding plan amendments, as described in Paragraph 5. Nothing in this Settlement Agreement 

prohibits Defendants from soliciting the nomination of parcels to be leased for RD&D of oil 

shale recovery technologies in the Stales of Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming. If Defendants 

approve the issuance of an RD&D lease prior to the publication of a new decision regarding 

amendments for the applicable planning decision made by the 2008 OSTS ROD as set forth in 

Paragraph 5, Plaintiffs may challenge such a decision in a new action brought under applicable 

federal law. If Plaintiffs bring such a challenge to an RD&D lease issued prior to the publication 

of a new decision regarding amendments for the applicable planning decision made by the 2008 

OSTS ROD as set forth in Paragraph 5, they may not bring any claims that were raised or could 

have been raised in the above-caplioncd civil action with respect to the 2008 OSTS ROD. 

Defendants do not waive any defenses they might have against such a challenge. 

8. Prior to the publication of a new decision or decisions regarding amendments for 

each of the planning decisions made by the 2008 OSTS ROD, or January 15, 2013, whichever 

occurs first, Defendants will not, on their own initiative, offer lands for competitive tar sands 

leasing, or accept expressions of interest in tracts for competitive tar sands leasing pursuant to 43 

C.F.R. § 3141.6-1 through 43 C.F.R. § 3141.7. The commitment in the preceding sentence, 

however, does not apply to the Defendants’ ongoing consideration of the expression of 

commercial leasing interest for tar sands in the Asphalt Ridge Special Tar Sands Area near 

Vernal, Utah, submitted by Jones Leasing Service on behalf of Ocean Enterprise Group on 

November 16, 2009, or to the possible sale or issuance of a lease for some or all of the parcels 

identified in that expression of leasing interest. Plaintiffs may protest or challenge such potential 

actions as provided by law, but shall not raise any claim that was or could have been raised in the 
Final OSTS PEIS 890 

above-captioned civil action. In the event that Defendants conduct the new planning processes 

agreed to in this Settlement Agreement by addressing individual plans rather than by using a 

Page 5 of 10 

Case1:09-cv-00085-JLK Document 63-1 Filed 02/15/11 USDC Colorado Page 6 of 10 

programmatic approach. Defendants will only offer lands for competitive tar sands leasing, or 

accept expressions of interest in tracts for competitive tar sands leasing, in planning areas subject 

to a new decision regarding plan amendments, as described in Paragraph 5. 

9. Those acting with actual authority of Plaintiffs shall not authorize Plaintiffs to 

fund any other entity or person not a party to this Settlement Agreement specifically to 

commence or maintain a legal challenge against Defendants regarding the agency actions at issue 

in the above-captioned civil action. Defendants may terminate this Settlement Agreement upon 

notice to Plaintiffs of any violation of this paragraph, subject to the dispute resolution provisions 

of Paragraph 13. 

10. In consideration of Defendants’ agreement, as described above, to initiate a newplanning 

process addressing the land use planning decisions made by the 2008 OSTS ROD, 

Plaintiffs waive and release all claims against Defendants arising from the issuance of the 2008 

OSTS ROD. Nothing in this Settlement Agreement waives or limits in any way any legal claim 

Plaintiffs may pursue: (a) against any final decision or decisions regarding amendments for each 

of the planning decisions made by the 2008 OSTS ROD as set forth in Paragraph 5; (b) against 

any agency action that tiers to, relies upon, or incorporates any such final decision or decisions; 

(c) against any agency action that tiers to, relies upon, or incorporates by reference the 2008 

OSTS PHIS, except for any decision concerning an RD&D lease issued prior to the publication 

of a final decision regarding amendments for the applicable planning decision(s) made by the 

2008 OSTS ROD as set forth in Paragraph 5; or (d) against any agency action that tiers to, relies 

upon, or incorporates by reference BLM’s determination of “no effect1” pursuant to ESA 

Section 

7 concerning the 2008 OSTS RMP amendments, except for any decision concerning an RD&D 

lease issued prior to the publication of a final decision regarding amendments for the applicable 

planning decision made by the 2008 OSTS ROD as set forth in Paragraph 5. 

11. The Settling Parties agree to jointly move to administratively close this action 

pursuant to D. C. Colo. L. Civ. R. 41.2 as set forth in the attached joint motion and proposed 

order, which is hereby made a part of this Settlement Agreement. The terms of this Settlement 

Agreement shall become effective upon entry of an order by the Court administratively closing 

the action as set forth in the proposed order. Upon issuance of a new decision or decisions 

regarding amendments for each of the planning decisions made by the 2008 OSTS ROD, the 

Page 6 of 10 

Case 1:09-cv-00085-JLK Document 63-1 Filed 02/15/11 USDC Colorado Page 7 of 10 

Settling Parties shall promptly file a motion to voluntarily dismiss Plaintiffs’ claims with 

prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4l(a)(l)(A)(ii). 

12. Defendants” issuance of a new decision or decisions regarding amendments for 

each of the planning decisions made by the 2008 OSTS ROD discharges all of Defendants’ 

obligations under this Settlement Agreement. If Defendants fail to fulfill any obligation required 

by this Settlement Agreement. Plaintiffs’ sole remedy will be to move the Court to reopen this 

lawsuit, subject to compliance with D. C. Colo. L. Civ. R. 41.2 and Paragraph 13. Plaintiffs shall 

be permitted to move to reopen this action only on the following grounds: (a) Defendants fail to 

publish a notice of intent (“NOT’) by 120 days after the effective date of this Settlement 
Final OSTS PEIS 891 

Agreement to consider amending each of the land use planning decisions made by the 2008 

OSTS ROD, in violation of Paragraph 1; (b) Defendants issue a notice of intent proposing plan 

amendments that does not propose excluding from commercial oil shale or tar sands leasing one 

or more of the areas identified in Paragraph 1; (c) Defendants issue a NHPA document that does 

not analyze one or more of the alternatives identified in Paragraph 2; (d) Defendants fail to 

provide a public protest period pursuant to 43 C.F.R. §§ 1610.2 and 1610.5-2 or fail to provide 

for state consistency review pursuant to 43 U.S.C. § 17l2(c)(9) and 43 C.F.R. § 16l03-2(e) in 

violation of Paragraph 3; (e) Defendants fail to issue a new planning decision or decisions by 

December 31, 2012 as provided in Paragraph 5; (0 Defendants approve an application to convert 

an RD&D lease to a commercial lease before conducting additional NEPA analysis in violation 

of Paragraph 6; (g) prior to January 15, 2013, Defendants issue a call for expression of leasing 

interest for oil shale before issuing a new planning decision applicable to the area of the 

proposed leases in violation of Paragraph 7; or (h) prior to January 15, 2013, Defendants offer 

lands for competitive tar sands leasing, or accept expressions of interest in tracts for competitive 

tar sands leasing before issuing a new planning decision applicable to the area of the proposed 

leases in violation of Paragraph 8. This Settlement Agreement shall not be enforceable through 

a motion to enforce this Settlement Agreement or a proceeding for contempt of court. 

13. If there is a dispute over compliance with any term or provision of this Settlement 

Agreement, the disputing Settling Party will notify the other Settling Party in writing of the 

dispute. The Settling Parties shall meet and confer orally in an attempt to resolve the dispute. 

The Settling Parties shall attempt to negotiate a resolution of the dispute within 30 days of the 

written notification of the dispute. If the Settling Parties do not reach a resolution during the 30- 

Page 7 of 10 

Case1:09-cv-00085-JLK Document 63-1 Fifed 02/15/11 USDC Colorado Page 8 of 10 

day period, the disputing Settling Party may move to reopen this lawsuit based upon one of the 

grounds specified in Paragraphs 9 or 12. This Settlement Agreement shall terminate if the Court 

reopens this lawsuit. 

14. No provision of this Settlement Agreement shall be interpreted as, or constitute, a 

commitment or requirement that Defendants take action in contravention of the APA, BLM 

regulations, FLPMA, NRPA, the ESA, or any other law or regulation, either substantive or 

procedural. Nothing in this Settlement Agreement shall be construed to limit or modify the 

discretion accorded to Defendants by the APA, BLM regulations, FLPMA, NEPA, the ESA, or 

general principles of administrative law with respect to the procedures to be followed in making 

any determination required herein, or as to the substance of any final determination. 

15. Nothing in this Settlement Agreement shall be interpreted as, or shall constitute, 

a requirement that Defendants arc obligated to pay any funds exceeding those available, or take 

any action in contravention of the Anti-Deficiency Act, 31 U.S.C. § 1341, or any other 

applicable appropriations law, 

16. This Settlement Agreement was negotiated to avoid further litigation only. This 

Settlement Agreement has no precedential value and does not represent an admission or waiver 

by any Settling Party to any fact, claim, or defense relating to any issue in this lawsuit and may 

not be used as evidence of such fact, claim, or defense in any litigation. 

17. Rach Settling Party shall bear its own attorneys’ fees and costs. 

18. The undersigned representatives of each Settling Party certify that they arc fully 

authori/ed by the Settling Party or Parties they represent to agree to the Court’s entry of the 

terms and conditions of this Settlement Agreement and do hereby agree to the terms herein. 
Final OSTS PEIS 892 

19. This Settlement Agreement may only be supplemented, modified, or amended by 

written agreement of the Settling Parties. 

20. This Settlement Agreement represents the entirety of the Settling Parties’ 

commitment with regard to settlement. 

21. Counsel for Plaintiffs have reviewed this Settlement Agreement and have 

authorized Defendants’ counsel to file this Settlement Agreement on behalf of the Settling 

Parties. 

IT IS HEREBY AGREED. 

Page 8 of 10 

Case1:09-cv-00085-JLK Document 63-1 Filed 02/15/11 USDC Colorado Page 9 of 10 

Dated: February 15,2011 1GMACIA S. MORENO, 

Assistant Atlorney General 

/si Luke Hajek 

LUTHER L. HAJEK 

Trial Attorney 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Environmental & Natural Resources Division 

Natural Resources Section 

Ben Franklin Station, P.O. Box 663 

Washington, D.C. 20044-0663 

Tel: (202) 305-0492 

Uil<c.hiijck (/ iisdoi.gov 

A/ John H. Martin 

JOHN H. MARTIN 

Trial Attorney 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Environmental & Natural Resources Division 

Wildlife & Marine Resources Section 

999 18th Street, South Terrace Suite 370 

Denver, CO 80202 

Tel: (303) 844-1383 

j o I in J i. n i a nji v irn.i sd QJ4LQV 

Attorneys for Federal Defendants/Respondents 

Dated: February 15,2011 A/ Edward B. Zukoski 

EDWARD B. ZUKOSKI 

Barthjustice 

1400 Glenarm Place, Suite 300 

Denver, CO 80202 

Tel: (303) 996-9622 

l/ukoski’Y/carlhiuslii’o.om 

Attorney Tor Plaintiffs 

Joro Walker 

Western Resource Advocates 

150 South 600 East, Ste. 2A 

Salt Lake City, UT 84102 

Tel: (801) 487-9911 
Final OSTS PEIS 893 

jyva I k e r^M\xj stern rcsourccs.org 

Attorney for Western Resource Advocates 

Page 9 of 10 

Case1:09-cv-00085-JLK Document 63-1 Filed 02/15/11 USDC Colorado PagelOoMO 

Brendan R. Cummings 

Center for Biological Diversity 

351 California Street, Ste. 600 

San Francisco, CA 941 04 

Tel: (41 5) 436-9682, cxt. 314 

b c u m m i n s f / b i o i o i c a k i i v c r s i t . 

Attorney for Biodiversity Conservation Alliance., 

Center for Biological Diversity, 

Colorado Environmental Coalition, Defenders 

of Wildlife, Natural Resources Defense Council, 

Red Rock Forests, Sierra Club, Southern Utah 

Wilderness Alliance, Western Colorado 

Congress, Western Resources Advocates, 

The Wilderness Society, and Wilderness 

Workshop 

Eric E. Huber 

Sierra Club 

1650 38th St. Ste. 102W 

Boulder. CO 80301 

(303) 449-5595 ext.101 

(303) 449-6520 (fax) 

e r i ic . I HI be i” f’rsic rraclub.org 

Attorney for Plaintiff Sierra Club 

Page 10 of 10 

GARY R. HERBERT 

Governor 

GREG BEl.l, 

Lieutenant Governor 

State of Utah 

DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES 

MICHAEL R. STVI.ER 

Kxec-utive Din-it or 

Utah Geological Survey 

RICHARD C. ALLIS 

Stale Geologist/Division Director 

April 18,2012 

Memorandum to file 

Subject: Oil shale resource on U.S. BLM land proposed for leasing in Utah under the 2012 PEIS 

Alternative 2b 

Prepared by: Michael D. Vanden Berg, Project Geologist, Utah Geological Survey 

In 2008, the Utah Geological Survey calculated the available oil shale resource within a 

continuous zone averaging 25 gallons of oil per ton of rock (gpt) for lands proposed by the U.S. 
Final OSTS PEIS 894 

BLM for commercial oil shale leasing within the 2008 PEIS. The estimated oil shale resource 

for the 2008 preferred alternative totaled 69.0 billion barrels (UGS Special Study 128). In 2012, 

the BLM revised the oil shale/tar sand PEIS and developed a new preferred alternative, which 

reduced the amount of available land for oil shale leasing (Alternative 2b). Using the same 

methods applied in Special Study 128, UGS calculated the total oil shale resource at 25 gpt on 

lands available for commercial oil shale leasing under the 2012 PEIS Alternative 2b as 25.7 

billion barrels. 

These resource estimations reflect the total in-place oil within a continuous interval 

averaging 25 gpt. These estimations do not take into account any environmental, land-use, or 

economic constraints (besides a minimum grade of 25 gpt). 

UGS geologists believe that the quality of Utah lands available for commercial oil shale 

leasing is more important than the quantity and have worked hard to identify the areas of BLM 

land with the most potential for commercial development. 

1594 West North Temple, Suite 31 ID, PO Box 146100, Salt Lake City, UT 84114-6100 

telephone (801) 537-3300 . facsimile (801) 537-3400 - TTY (801) 538-7458 •geology.utah.gov 

GEOLOGICALSUKVEV 

DUCHESNE CO. UINTAH CO. 

BLM lands available for application for 

t>NR commercial oil shale leasing in Utah 

under the proposed 2012 PEIS preferred 

alternative 2b 

Lands available for leasing Thickness - 25 Gallons 

under alternative 2b Per Ton (GPTI Interval* 

Oil Shale Resource 

25 GPT Zone 

Mahogany zone outcrop 

Overburden contour 

(top of 25 apt zone) Total Within BLM 

Lease Area 

j County boundary 

Township/Range 

UGS disclaimer- Although this producl represents the work ol professional scientists 

the Utah Departmeni of Natural K.-simu.es. Utah Geological Survey, makes no 

warranty, eiptesseil or implied, regarding its suitably for a paiticular use. The Utah 

Department of Natural Resources. Utah Geological Sutvey. shaH not be Uable under 

ilri mages with lesp^cTIo daims by users or Ihi5 product. 

from UGS Spews/ Sfufly 128 tVancien Beta. 2008, 

GARY R. HERBERT 

Governor 

GREG BELL 

Lteutenanl davemor 

State of Utah 

DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES 

MICHAEL R.STYLER 

Kxeculiw Director 

Utah Geological Survey 
Final OSTS PEIS 895 

RICHARD G. ALLIS 

Stale Geologist/Division Director 

April 18,2012 

Memorandum to file 

Subject: Oil shale resource (at 25 gpt) on Enefit American Oil’s preferential BLM RD&D lease 

Prepared by: Michael D. Vanden Berg, Project Geologist, Utah Geological Survey 

In 2012, the BLM revised the oil shale/tar sand PEIS and developed a new preferred alternative, 

which reduced the amount of available land for oil shale leasing (Alternative 2b) from the 

previous 2008 PEIS process. A portion of Enefit American Oil’s BLM RD&D preference lease 

was excluded from the lands available for oil shale leasing under this new preferred alternative. 

The UGS calculated the oil shale resource within a continuous interval averaging 25 gallons of 

oil per ton of rock (gpt) on Enefit’s entire preference lease area as well as the preference lease 

area excluded as part of Alternative 2b. The methods used in calculating these resource 

estimations were the same as within UGS Special Study 128. 

Oil shale resource on Enefit’s entire BLM RD&D preference lease at 25 gpt = 848.4 million bbh. 

Oil shale resource on Enefit’s RD&D preference lease at 25 gpt excluded within the 2012 PEIS 

Alternative 2b = 394.8 million bbls. 

These resource estimations reflect the total in-place oil within a continuous interval averaging 25 

gpt. These estimations do not take into account any environmental, land-use, or economic 

constraints (besides a minimum grade of 25 gpt). 

1594 West North Temple. Suite 31 !0, PO Box 146100. Salt Lake City, UT 84114-6100 

telephone (801) 537-3300 . facsimile (801) 537-3400 . ‘ITY (801) 538-7458 . geology.utah.gov 

GEOLOGICAL 5UKVCY 

Case1:09-cv-00091-JLK Document 80-1 Filed 02/15/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 9 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO 

Civil Action No. 09-cv-00091-JLK 

COLORADO ENVIRONMENTAL COALITION, 

WESTERN COLORADO CONGRESS, 

WILDERNESS WORKSHOP, 

BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION ALLIANCE, 

SOUTHERN UTAH WILDERNESS ALLIANCE, 

RED ROCK FORESTS, 

WESTERN RESOURCE ADVOCATES, 

NATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERATION, 

CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY, 

THE WILDERNESS SOCIETY, 

NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL, 

DEFENDERS OF WILDLIFE, and 

SIERRA CLUB, 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

KEN SALAZAR, Secretary of the Interior, 

in his official capacity; 

WILMA LEWIS, Assistant Secretary, Land and 

Minerals Management, in her official capacity; 
Final OSTS PEIS 896 

BOB ABBEY, Director, Bureau of Land Management 

in his official capacity; and 

THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR and 

THE BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, federal agencies. 

Defendants, and 

AMERICAN PETROLEUM INSTITUTE and 

SHELL FRONTIER OIL & GAS INC., 

Intervcnor Defendants. 

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT 

Page 1 of 9 

Case 1:09-cv-00091-JLK Document 80-1 Fiied02/15/11 USDC Colorado Page2of9 

WHEREAS, on November 18, 2008, the U.S. Bureau of Land Management issued a 

Kinal Rule regarding Oil Shale Management, 73 Fed. Reg. 69,414 (Nov. 18, 2008) (“Oil Shale 

Final Rule”); 

WHEREAS, the Oil Shale Final Rule amends regulations governing the leasing of”federal 

lands for purposes of developing oil shale resources and are set forth at 43 C.F.R. Parts 3900 - 

3936; 

WHEREAS, on January 16, 2009, Plaintiffs Colorado Environmental Coalition, Western 

Colorado Congress, Wilderness Workshop, Biodiversity Conservation Alliance, Southern Utah 

Wilderness Alliance, Red Rock Forests. Western Resource Advocates, National Wildlife 

Federation. Center for Biological Diversity, The Wilderness Society. Natural Resources Defense 

Council, Defenders of Wildlife, and Sierra Club (collectively “Plaintiffs”) filed a Complaint for 

declaratory and injunclive relief against Ken Sala/ar, in his official capacity as Secretary of the 

Department of the Interior, Wilma Lewis, In her official capacity as Assistant Secretary for Land 

and Minerals of the U.S. Department of the Interior, the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bob 

Abbey, in his official capacity as Director of the U.S. Bureau of Land Management,1 and the 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management (“BLM”) (collectively “Defendants1”), and filed a First 

Amended Complaint on June 15, 2009; 

WHEREAS, Plaintiffs allege that the issuance of the Oil Shale Final Rule violated the 

Administrative Procedure Act O’APA”), the Federal Land Policy and Management Act 

(“FLPMA”), the Energy Policy Act (“EP Act”), the National Environmental Policy Act 

(“NEPA”), and the Endangered Species Act (“ESA”); 

WIIEREAS, on May 11, 2009, Shell Frontier Oil & Gas Inc. and the American 

Petroleum Institute were granted status as Intervenors in this action; and 

WHEREAS, Defendants and Plaintiffs (the “^Settling Parties’”), through their authorized 

representatives, and without any admission or final adjudication of the issues of fact or law with 

respect to Plaintiffs” claims, have reached a settlement in this action; 

NOW, THEREFORE, THE SETTLING PARTIES HEREBY STIPULATE AND 

AGRKE AS FOLLOWS: 

1 Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(d), current agency officials have been substituted for their 

predecessors in office. 

Page 2 of 9 

Case 1:09-cv-00091-JLK Document 80-1 Filed 02/15/11 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 9 

t . No later than 15 months after this Settlement Agreement becomes effective. 

Defendants will publish a notice of proposed rulemaking (“NPR”) in which BLM will propose 

amendments to the Oil Shale Final Rule to address the royalty rate and environmental protection 
Final OSTS PEIS 897 

requirements applicable to oil shale commercial leasing. The proposed amendments shall be 

within the discretion of the Secretary of the Interior and shall include, but not be limited to, the 

proposed amendments set forth below. 

2. The NPR will propose to remove the royalty rate for oil shale production, codified 

in the current regulation at 43 C.F.R. § 3903.52. 

3. The NPR will propose the following changes to the environmental protection 

requirements applicable to oil shale commercial leasing, codified at 43 C.F.R. Parts 3900 - 3936: 

a. Expressly stating that BLM may, in its discretion, deny an application to 

convert an oil shale Research, Development & Demonstration (“RD&D”) 

lease to a commercial lease based on environmental or other resource 

considerations. 

b. Expressly stating that BLM may, in its discretion, reject an oil shale 

commercial lessee’s proposed plan of development based on 

environmental or other resource considerations. 

c. Expressly stating that BLM will consider issuing a commercial oil shale 

lease only upon application of an RD&D lessee to convert its RD&D lease 

to a commercial lease, or after BLM issues a call for expression of leasing 

interest. 

d. Providing that BLM will not issue an oil shale commercial lease, will 

reject any proposal to convert an oil shale RD&D lease to a commercial 

lease, and will not approve any plan of development for an oil shale 

commercial lease unless it is shown that the operations can occur without 

unacceptable environmental risk. 

c. Providing that plans of development for oil shale commercial leases are 

required to include watershed and groundwater protection plans, airshed 

reviews, integrated waste management plans, and environmental 

protection and mitigation plans. The NPR will also propose to define the 

requirements of such plans and reviews. 

Page 3 of 9 

Case 1:09-cv-00091-JLK Document 80-1 Filed 02/15/11 USDC Colorado Page4of9 

4. During the rulemaking process, BLM will consider information timely submitted 

by the Plaintiffs and other interested parties during public comment opportunities. 

5. Subject to available appropriations and staffing and subject to compliance with 

applicable laws and regulations, Defendants will use best efforts to publish a final decision in the 

rulemaking process regarding oil shale management no later than November 18, 2012. When 

Defendants publish such a new final decision in the rulemaking process, Plaintiffs may challenge 

such new final decision in the rulemaking process in a new action brought under applicable 

federal law. Defendants do not waive any defenses they might have against such a challenge. 

6. Defendants acknowledge that, prior to the approval of an application to convert an 

oil shale RD&D lease to a commercial lease. Defendants must conduct an analysis of the 

conversion under NEPA in addition to the Oil Shale and Tar Sands Final Programmatic 

Environmental Impact Statement published in September 2008. If Defendants approve such an 

application, Plaintiffs may challenge the approval only in a new action brought under applicable 

federal law. Defendants do not waive any defenses they might have against such a challenge. 

7. Prior to the publication of a final decision in the rulemaking process regarding oil 

shale management, or January 15, 2013, whichever occurs first, Defendants will not issue a call 
Final OSTS PEIS 898 

for expression of leasing interest for commercial oil shale leases pursuant to 43 C.F.R. § 

3921.30. Nothing in this Settlement Agreement prohibits Defendants from soliciting the 

nomination of parcels to be leased for RD&D of oil shale recovery technologies in the States of 

Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming. If Defendants approve the issuance of an RD&D lease prior to 

the publication of a final decision in the rulemaking process regarding oil shale management. 

Plaintiffs may challenge such a decision in a new action brought under applicable federal law. If 

Plaintiffs bring such a challenge to an RD&D lease issued prior to the publication of a final 

decision in the rulemaking process regarding oil shale management, they may not bring any 

claims that were raised or could have been raised in the above-captioned civil action with respect 

to the Oil Shale Final Rule. Defendants do not waive any defenses they might have against such 

a challenge. 

8. Those acting with actual authority of Plaintiffs shall not authorize Plaintiffs to 

fund any other entity or person not a party to this Settlement Agreement specifically to 

commence or maintain a legal challenge against Defendants regarding the agency actions at issue 

in the above-caplioncd civil action. Defendants may terminate this Settlement Agreement upon 

Page 4 of 9 

Case1:09-cv-00091-JLK Document80-1 Filed02/15/11 USDC Colorado Page5of9 

notice to Plaintiffs of any violation of this paragraph, subject to the dispute resolution provisions 

of Paragraph 12. 

9. In consideration of Defendants’ agreement, as described above, to initiate a new 

rulernaking process regarding oil shale management, Plaintiffs waive and release all claims 

against Defendants arising from the promulgation of the Oil Shale Final Rule. Nothing in this 

Settlement Agreement waives or limits in any way any legal claim Plaintiffs may pursue: (a) 

against any final decision in the rulcmaking process regarding oil shale as set forth in Paragraph 

5; (b) against any agency action that tiers to, relies upon, or incorporates any such final decision 

in the rulcmaking process; (c) against any agency action lhat tiers to, relies upon, or incorporates 

by reference the 2008 environmental assessment on the 2008 Oil Shale Final Rule, except for 

any decision concerning an RD&D lease issued prior to the publication of a final decision in the 

rulernaking process as set forth in Paragraph 5; or (d) against any agency action that tiers to, 

relies upon, or incorporates by reference BLM’s determination of “‘no effect” pursuant to the 

RSA Section 7 concerning the 2008 Oil Shale Final Rule, except for any decision concerning an 

RD&D lease issued prior to the publication of a final decision in the rulemaking process as set 

forth in Paragraph 5. 

10. The Settling Parties agree to jointly move to administratively close this action 

pursuant to D.C. Colo. L. Civ. R. 41.2 as set forth in the attached joint motion and proposed 

order, which is hereby made a part of this Settlement Agreement The terms of this Settlement 

Agreement shall become effective upon entry of an order by the Court administratively closing 

this action as set forth in the proposed order. Upon issuance of a final decision in the 

rulemaking process regarding oil shale management, the Settling Parties shall promptly file a 

motion to voluntarily dismiss Plaintiffs’ claims with prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 

1 1 . Defendants’ promulgation of a final decision in the rulcmaking process regarding 

oil shale management discharges all of Defendants1 obligations under this Settlement 

Agreement. If Defendants fail to fulfill any obligation required by this Settlement Agreement, 

Plaintiffs” sole remedy will be to move the Court to reopen this lawsuit, subject to compliance 

with D. C. Colo. L. Civ. R. 41.2 and Paragraph 12. Plaintiffs shall be permitted to move to 

reopen this action only on the following grounds: (a) Defendants fail to publish a Notice of 
Final OSTS PEIS 899 

Proposed Rulemaking (“NPR”) by 15 months after this Settlement Agreement becomes 

Page 5 of 9 

Case1:09-cv-00091-JLK Document80-1 Filed 02/15/11 USDC Colorado Page6of9 

effective, proposing amendments to the 2008 Oil Shale Final Rule to address the royalty rate and 

environmental protection requirements applicable to oil shale commercial leasing, in violation of 

Paragraph I; (b) Defendants issue a notice of proposed rulemaking that does not propose to 

remove the royalty rate for oil shale production from the existing oil shale regulations in 

violation of Paragraph 2; (c) Defendants issue a notice of proposed rulemaking that does not 

propose one or more of the provisions identified in Paragraph 3; (d) Defendants fail to publish a 

final decision in the rulemaking process regarding oil shale management by November 18, 2012 

as provided in Paragraph 5; (e) Defendants approve an application to convert an RD&D lease to 

a commercial lease before conducting additional NRPA analysis in violation of Paragraph 6; or 

(f) prior to January 15, 2013, Defendants issue a call for expression of leasing interest for oil 

shale resources before issuing a final decision in the rulemaking process regarding oil shale 

management in violation of Paragraph 7. This Settlement Agreement shall not be enforceable 

through a motion to enforce this Settlement Agreement or a proceeding for contempt of court. 

12. If there is a dispute over compliance with any term or provision of this Settlement 

Agreement, the disputing Settling Party will notify the other Settling Party in writing of the 

dispute. The Settling Parties shall meet and confer orally in an attempt to resolve the dispute. 

The Settling Parties shall attempt to negotiate a resolution of the dispute within 30 days of the 

written notification of the dispute. If the Settling Parties do not reach a resolution during the 30- 

day period, the disputing Settling Party may move to reopen this lawsuit based upon one of the 

grounds specified in Paragraphs 8 or 11. This Settlement Agreement shall terminate if the Court 

reopens this lawsuit. 

13. No provision of this Settlement Agreement shall be interpreted as, or constitute, a 

commitment or requirement that Defendants lake action in contravention of the APA, BLM 

regulations. FUPMA, NRPA, the ESA, or any other law or regulation, either substantive or 

procedural. Nothing in this Settlement Agreement shall be construed to limit or modify the 

discretion accorded to Defendants by the APA, BKM regulations, FLPMA, NRPA, the HSA, or 

general principles of administrative law with respect to the procedures to be followed in making 

any determination required herein, or as to the substance of any final determination, 

14. Nothing in this Settlement Agreement shall be interpreted as, or shall constitute, 

a requirement that Defendants are obligated to pay any funds exceeding those available, or take 

Page 6 of 9 

Case1:09-cv-00091-JLK Document 80-1 Filed 02/15/11 USDC Colorado Page 7 of 9 

any action in contravention of the Anti-Deficiency Act, 31 U.S.C. § 1341, or any other 

applicable appropriations law. 

15. This Settlement Agreement was negotiated to avoid further litigation only. This 

Settlement Agreement has no precedential value and does not represent an admission or waiver 

by any Settling Parly to any fact, claim, or defense relating to any issue in this lawsuit and may 

not be used as evidence of such fact, claim, or defense in any litigation. 

16. Each Settling Party shall bear its own attorneys’ fees and costs. 

17. The undersigned representatives of each Settling Party certify that they are fully 

authorized by the Settling Party or Parties they represent to agree to the Court’s entry of the 

terms and conditions of this Settlement Agreement and do hereby agree to the terms herein. 

18. This Settlement Agreement may only be supplemented, modified, or amended by 
Final OSTS PEIS 900 

written agreement of the Settling Parties. 

19. This Settlement Agreement represents the entirety of the Settling Parties” 

commitment with regard to settlement. 

20. Counsel for Plaintiffs have reviewed this Settlement Agreement and have 

authorized Defendants’ counsel to file this Settlement Agreement on behalf of the Settling 

Parties. 

IT IS HEREBY AGREED. 

Dated: February 15, 201 1 1GNACIA S. MORENO, 

Assistant Attorney General 

/?/ Luke Hajck 

LUTHER L. HAJEK 

Trial Attorney 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Environmental & Natural Resources Division 

Natural Resources Section 

Ben Franklin Station, P.O. Box 663 

Washington, D.C. 20044-0663 

Tel: (202) 305-0492 

lukc.luijek 

Is/ ‘John H. Martin 

JOHN H. MARTIN 

Page 7 of 9 

Case 1:09-cv-00091-JLK Document 80-1 Filed 02/15/11 USDC Colorado Page 8 of 9 

Trial Attorney 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Environmental & Natural Resources Division 

Wildlife & Marine Resources Section 

999 18th Street, South Terrace Suite 370 

Denver, CO 80202 

Tel: (303) 844-1383 

iiilllLJl-1” a rtiiVfrusdoj.uov 

Attorneys for Federal Defendants/Respondents 

Dated: February 15. 201 1 Is/ Echvard B. Zukoski 

EDWARD B. ZUKOSKI 

Earthju slice 

1400 Glenarm Place, Suite 300 

Denver, CO 80202 

Tel: (303) 996-9622 

t/ukoskifr/’carthjiisiici’.orLji 

Attorney for Plaintiffs 

Joro Walker 

Western Resource Advocates 

1 50 South 600 East, Ste. 2A 

Salt Lake City, UT 84102 

Tel: (801) 487-9911 

Attorney for Western Resource Advocates 
Final OSTS PEIS 901 

Brendan R. Cummings 

Center for Biological Diversity 

351 California Street, Ste. 600 

San Francisco, CA 94104 

Tel: (415) 436-9682, ext. 314 

hcumniin 

Attorney for Biodiversity Conservation Alliance, 

Center for Biological Diversity, 

Colorado Environmental Coalition. Defenders 

of Wildlife, Natural Resources Defense Council, 

Red Rock Forests, Sierra Club, Southern Utah 

Wilderness Alliance, Western Colorado 

Congress, Western Resources Advocates, 

The Wilderness Society, and Wilderness 

Page 8 of 9 

Case 1:09-cv-00091-JLK Document80-1 Filed02/15/11 USDC Colorado Page9of9 

Workshop 

Eric E. Huber 

Sierra Club 

1 65038th St. Ste. 102W 

Boulder, CO 80301 

(303) 449-5595 exl.101 

(303) 449-6520 (fax) 

Attorney for Plaintiff Sierra Club 

Page 9 of 9 

OSTS2012D50269 

Organization: Ouray County, Colorado, Lynn Padgett 

Received: 5/3/2012 5:35:13 PM 

Commenter1: Lynn Padgett - Ridgway, Colorado 81432 (United States) 

Organization1:Ouray County, Colorado 

Commenter Type: Local Government 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/7/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50269.htm (OSTS2012D50269-58878.htm Size = 1 KB) 

Lynn_M_Padgett_letter_supporting_oil_shale_impact_assessment_approach_OSTS2012D50269

.pdf (OSTS2012D50269-58877.pdf Size = 87 KB) 

Submission Text

Please see the attached letter (pdf). Thank you, Lynn Padgett Commissioner, District 1 Ouray 

County, Colorado See Attachment. 

Lynn M Padgett, Ouray County Commissioner, District 1 

PO Box 2058 Ridgway, CO 81432 • 970-258-0836 • lpadgett@ouraycountyco.gov 
Final OSTS PEIS 902 

May 3, 2012 

2012 Oil Shale & Tar Sands PEIS - COMMENTS 

To be submitted via: 

http://ostseis.anl.gov/involve/comments/index.cfm 

Comments in support of conducting extensive research on environmental, socioeconomic, 

and other impacts to local and regional economies are required research 

before issuing commercial licenses. 

To whom it may concern: 

<([#1 [3.10.2] Whether the promises of energy independence from oil shale industry proponents 

could be 

truthful is not yet knowable. Before we rush into leasing, and allow research and development 

on vast tracks of arid western lands within the Piceance Basin and portions of Colorado, Utah, 

Wyoming, westerners and local governments need to be assured that the development plan 

addresses the full impacts of oil shale development. History of past oil shale and energy 

industry booms and busts show that the extensive needs for transportation, housing, schools, 

utilities (water, electric, telecommunications, broadband), and other health, safety and welfare 

services are immediate while financial help from fees or revenues lag years to decades behind 

these needs. It is impossible for a small community or county with less than 5,000 or even 

60,000 people create the infrastructure and deliver services for large numbers of temporary or 

permanent workers that come virtually overnight. 

Communities within the Colorado River Watershed that are working hard to ensure they have a 

healthy and diversified economy through agriculture, tourism, outdoor recreation, hunting, 

industry, and mining need to know if they will be subject to water calls from oil shale research 

or development activities downstream; and if they could suffer brown outs because the existing 

grid or telecommunications infrastructure is inadequate for the influx of workers or the demands 

that will come from extracting and processing the oil shale. 

Ouray County, Colorado is a rural county within the headwaters of the Uncompahgre River 

watershed which is within the Gunnison and Colorado River basins. There are no reservoirs or 

water storage facilities other than Mother Nature’s snowpack above us. Approximately 50% of 

our land is public land, mostly federal lands. Our valleys are green with working ranch lands. 

Our rural character and scenic beauty along with our mining, ranching and railroad heritage is 

essential to our collective livelihoods -- for Ouray County to survive we need to make sure we 

can continue our land use practices and have power and telecommunications that work when our 

residents, visitors, and businesses need it. We need to make sure that visitors continue to find 

our county and region an attractive place to visit. We need to make sure that our economy is 

not sacrificed for another’s. 

Currently, our telecommunications infrastructure is such that a music festival bringing 10,000 

people to a neighboring county can render most cell-phones unable to place outgoing calls for 

hours or days, because our current infrastructure is operating very close to capacity under 

“normal” conditions. 

#1])> <([#2 [5] The oil shale leasing and development plan must include a thorough vetting and 

deep 

understanding of potential impacts. Effective mitigation measures must be based on accurate 

data and be built into the plan, prior to leasing or activities, in order to ensure that if research 

and development of oil shale moves forward, it will not cause the demise of the long-existing 
Final OSTS PEIS 903 

communities connected over long-distances from the lease areas by hydrology or infrastructure. 

#2])> <([#3 [3.4.1] We need to be thorough and have a full understanding of potential impacts to 

the environment 

and our communities before we take steps toward large-scale commercial leasing or 

development of oil shale. The water needed to develop oil shale could be a game changer, 

transforming western Colorado’s agricultural heritage and precluding other options for its 

economy. We will continue to work with the Interior Department and are thankful for their 

partnership.” 

#3])> <([#4 [3.10.2] Some of the topics that must be detailed in the plan include at a minimum: 

- Ability of Local Governments to provide health, safety, welfare prior to any revenues or 

impact fees being generated or compounded; 

- Ability of existing transportation, education, health care, housing, local services, 

telecommunications and broadband, electricity, and other infrastructure to provide 

services that will be immediately demanded by oil shale leasing, research and 

development; 

#4])> <([#5 [3.4.1] - Potential impacts to water rights, not just in the immediate area, but 

hundreds of miles 

away where they may be impacts from a call, especially on the Colorado River system. 

Could areas with no positive revenue sources from oil-shale be dried up or subject to 

electrical or telecommunications brown outs? What if oil shale needs more water than is 

currently being discussed? Who will the winners and losers be? 

#5])> <([#6 [6.2] - Will power needs by the oil shale industry exceed the fuel to be gained by 

exploiting 

oil shale? The potentially affected area is much more vast than the areas currently 

proposed for leasing. We need to be assured that the range of influence of oil shale 

activities is properly assessed and that no community is significantly impacted 

unexpectedly. Local governments in Colorado such as Ouray County operate on very 

tight budgets. So do local cooperative utilities that distribute or provide our water and 

power. #6])>

<([#7 [3.10.4] - What will be the impacts to national parks, outdoor recreation, hunting, fishing, 

and 

tourism. Tourism in the rural mountain west is interconnected. Visitors may stay in one 

area only a few days to a week, but it is part of a longer and more diverse vacation 

itinerary that makes the trip worth the time and expense of getting to a rural and 

rugged region. Most visitors enjoy a blended vacation of outdoor recreation, heritage 

tourism, agricultural tourism, and arts events. If activities one or more of these 

categories does that diminish the tourism experience so much that that visitors forgo 

coming altogether? #7])>

<([#8 [3.10.2] We want to ensure that communities expected to be impacted by commercial 

development of 

oil shale have the appropriate and necessary financial resources to address and cope with the 

effects of production. We must have detailed scientific data in order to know how we can 

accommodate this industry, still provide basic health, safety and welfare services, and have 

livable communities with diversified and healthy economies. The range of influence extends far 

beyond the counties containing lease parcels. #8])>

<([#9 [2.2.1] It appears that Alternative 2(b) of the 2012 Oil Shale and Tar Sands Draft 
Final OSTS PEIS 904 

Programmatic 

Environmental Impact Statement that at least requires R&D prior to development with a 

conservation emphasis is on the right track. Please consider if Alternative 2 fully scopes my 

comments in ensuring that impacts to outlying communities will be investigated and mitigated 

effectively prior to conducting any activities. #9])>

Sincerely, 

Lynn Padgett 

5/3/2012 

Page 4 

Ouray County Commissioner, District 1 

Bin C, Ouray, CO 81427 

970-258-0836 

OSTS2012D50270 

Organization: Town of Carbondale 

Received: 5/3/2012 5:37:02 PM 

Commenter1: - Carbondale, Colorado 81623 (United States) 

Organization1:Town of Carbondale 

Commenter Type: Local Government 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/16/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50270.htm (OSTS2012D50270-58881.htm Size = 1 KB) 

DOC041_OSTS2012D50270.pdf (OSTS2012D50270-58880.pdf Size = 41 KB) 

Submission Text

To Whom it may concern: Please find attached a letter from the Carbondale Town Board 

concerning the Draft 2012 Oil Shale and Tar Sand (OSTS) Programmatic Environmental Impact 

Statement (PEIS). Sincerely, Jay Harrington Town of Carbondale See Attachment. 

TOWN OF CARBONDALE 

May 3, 2012 

Sherri Thompson 

Oil Shale/Tar Sands PEIS Project Manager 

Bureau of Land Management 

Argonne National Laboratory 

9700 S. Cass Avenue 

EVS/240 

Argonne, IL 60439 

511 Colorado Avenue 

Carbondale, CO 81623 

www.carbondalegov.org 

(970) 963-2733 Fax: (970) 963-9140 

Re: Draft 2012 Oil Shale and Tar Sand (OSTS} Programmatic Enviranmentallmpact Statement 

(PEIS} 
Final OSTS PEIS 905 

Via http://ostseis.anl .gov/ involve/ comments/ index.cfm 

Dear BLM Manager: 

<([#1 [9.8] I am writing this letter on behalf of the Town of Carbondale Board of Trustees. The 

Board would 

like to express our support for the PEIS process that is currently under way in Colorado, Utah, 

and 

Wyoming concerning land use plan amendments for allocation of oil shale and tar sands 

resources 

on lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management 

The Town of Carbondale fully supports the review process the BLM has engaged in since 

publication of a Notice of Intent on April14, 2011 in the Federal Register, and we urge the BLM 

to 

continue the process and make appropriate amendments to the land use plans under review.

#1])> <([#2 [1.1] It is 

noteworthy that the BLM held seven seeping meetings and that 4,663 individuals, organizations 

and governmental agencies commented or made suggestions about the scope of the PEIS that is 

part of the land use plan amendment process. 

As elected officials in Western Colorado, we believe it is essential that the final plan allows the 

BLM and affected communities to present key questions to be answered about the environmental 

impacts on water, air and land before opening millions of acres of public land to commercial 

energy development. #2])> <([#3 [9.7] We also support the BLM’s plan to require that the 

research and 

development of oil shale and tar sands technologies be completed and the impacts analyzed 

before moving forward with a commercial leasing program. The final result from the amendment 

process would ideally allow for oil shale and tar sands research and development in appropriate 

areas while protecting other important values that make public lands an important part of our 

economy. 

#3])> <([#4 [3.10.4] Our modern economy is largely dependent on tourism and outdoor 

recreation services and to a 

certain extent agriculture. These economic drivers rely on a healthy environment, clean air and 

water, and access to the backcountry. Our ranchers rely on grazing permits on USFS and BLM 

lands to support their businesses. Our retailers and guides rely on trout fishing, big game hunting, 

mountain and road biking and climbing, hiking and Nordic skiing. Our restaurants are supported 

by a mix of carbondale’s cultural and natural attributes to help draw diners. In short, this 

community’s economic prosperity is closely tied to the public lands that surround it, and thus has 

a considerable stake in how public lands in Northwest Colorado are managed and developed.

#4])>

<([#5 [3.4.1] The community of Carbondale wants to ensure that the BLM and local 

communities understand 

the impacts that may result from the various technologies that would be employed in commercial 

production. To gain the appropriate understanding we, like other elected officials in the region, 

believe there are a number of threshold questions that need to be answered before opening up 

vast portions of our public lands to oil shale commercial development. 

o How much water will be used, for what, and how will local watersheds be affected? #5])>

<([#6 [3.10.2] o How will our infrastructure, community services and facilities be impacted, 
Final OSTS PEIS 906 

including 

roads, water, sewer, housing, law enforcement, etc.? #6])>

<([#7 [6.2.1] o How will production activities be powered? #7])>

<([#8 [3.7.3.12] l) How will the environment and wildlife be affected? #8])>

<([#9 [3.1.2] o What will be the impacts relating to hunting, fishing and recreation in the oil 

shale 

development areas? #9])>

<([#10 [3.10.2] o How will local economies be affected, both positively and negatively? #10])>

We trust that the established process will address these issues. 

Thank you for the opportunity to comment. 

Sincerely, 

~~vl 

Stacey Bernot 

Mayor Town of Carbondale 

CC: Representative Scott Tipton 

Senator Michael Bennet 

Senator Mark Udall 

OSTS2012D50271 

Organization: Jeremy Boak 

Received: 5/3/2012 5:47:04 PM 

Commenter1: Jeremy Boak - Littleton, Colorado 80127 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: aziech 5/15/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50271.htm (OSTS2012D50271-58884.htm Size = 1 KB) 

BLM_PEIS_comments_050212_OSTS2012D50271.docx (OSTS2012D50271-58883.docx Size 

= 405 KB) 

Submission Text

See Attachment. 

I want to congratulate the Bureau of Land Management on the preparation of its Draft 

Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement. The BLM has defined alter-natives that 

definitely represent the range of options available to the Government in fulfilling its mandate to 

offer for lease Federal lands underlain by oil shale. How-ever, <([#1 [2.2] I believe that the 

preferred alternative reflects a drastic and unnecessary re-duction in the lands available for 

companies to investigate and eventually produce shale oil. #1])> <([#2 [2.4] I would argue that 

Alternative 4 (and possibly even the No Action Alterna¬tive) could accomplish the 

Administration’s stated goal of ensuring careful develop¬ment of oil shale with reasonable 

environmental impacts. #2])> I highlight a number of areas of concern below. 

1) <([#3 [3.1.4] Removing 85% of the Colorado lands available in the previous PEIS serves little 
Final OSTS PEIS 907 

purpose for environmental protection. I note that the lands of the Roan Plateau that provide the 

best opportunities for recreation to the Colorado portion of the oil shale area of interest are 

already removed in every alternative, even the No Action Alter¬native. For me the argument that 

critical habitat and scenic land were being offered up ignores this critical removal, and the likely 

impact on such recreational resources is already minimized by that withdrawal. #3])>

2) <([#4 [9.7] [6.3] I am aware of in situ processes still under development (and not yet patent 

pro-tected) that might be best applied in areas not part the current preferred alternative acreage in 

Colorado. The developers of those processes might find it exceedingly difficult to proceed even 

to the Research Development and Demonstration (RD&D) level of investigation under the 

preferred alternative. They need the thick, very rich resource of the Piceance Basin Green River 

Formation, and the very limited area of¬fered there cannot be assured to be geologically 

favorable for these methods. Most of the area available is already taken up by leases and lease 

preference areas of ex¬isting leases. 

#4])>

3) <([#5 [9.2.6] It is clear that the Bureau has adequate authority to manage a carefully staged 

development program even with a much larger land area covered by the PEIS. The Bureau states 

that, even if Alternative 4 were selected, parts of the land would not be available under current 

guidelines. BLM could assure the protection of Federal lands from speculators, technically 

unsound processes or environmentally destruc¬tive plans simply by stipulating that any 

application for a commercial lease would require documentation of: 

a. the commercial process that the applicant intends to apply to the lease, with suf¬ficient detail 

for the BLM to validate the technical and commercial viabil-ity of the process 

b. a water use plan that clearly defines the requirements for the commercial de¬velopment 

c. other environmental stipulations based upon existing law and regulations. 

This would avoid hasty or destructive development and allow BLM to estimate the water 

requirements before awarding any leases. As a reviewer on the previous RD&D lease technical 

review team, it is clear to me that BLM has wide discretion to require adequate input from lease 

applicants to ensure that the Bureau can carry out its stewardship responsibilities. 

#5])>

4) <([#6 [6.3.2.1] Much has been made about the need to have better estimates of water use, for 

example. There is an implication that current estimates are inadequate. However, the current best 

estimates of water use - <3 barrel of water per barrel of produced oil - have been agreed to by 

most of the industry. My own wider range of estimates for a process like Shell’s have been cited 

extensively, and the suggestion has been made by the Government Accountability Office that 

this work was supported by industry spon¬sors. This is inaccurate. The work was part of a 

Department of Energy project on water resources. The values reported were based upon data for 

the configuration of a very small test plot. Scaling up of these data to a more reasonable size 

(based in part upon the parallel work on carbon emissions by Adam Brandt of Stanford) give 

preliminary results very much in line with industry’s estimate. 

Given these results, further evaluation of the water use would be wasteful until BLM has offered 

a technically sound rationale for saying that the current range is unac¬ceptable. This, to my 

knowledge, has not been done. 

Estimates of water efficiency for various conventional and unconventional fuels are shown in the 
Final OSTS PEIS 908 

figure below. It is clear that water efficiency for oil shale production is well within the range for 

various alternatives, and greatly less that that for, for ex¬ample, biofuels for which irrigated 

crops are the feedstock. 

In addition, water use for oil shale development has been compared to home water use in 

municipalities like Denver. However, comparing home water use ignores the very large water 

use required to provide the goods and services required by these populations. The second figure 

shows a comparison of the water use for one barrel of oil from oil shale to the water use to 

prepare one 2-liter bottle of a sweetened soft drink. Given that current U. S. soft drink 

consumption appears to be in the vicinity of 1 million barrels per day, this is not a negligible 

quantity, and should be consid¬ered in any evaluation of whether water consumption is too high 

for oil shale devel¬opment. Much has been made of the transfer of water rights from agricultural 

to industrial uses for the oil industry, but the relative values created by those water uses has 

received far less attention. 

#6])>

5) <([#7 [6.1] The preferred option is most restrictive in Colorado, where more than 85% of the 

area originally planned for leasing has been removed. This is the richest part of the resource, and 

hence the area most attractive for leasing. The third figure summa¬rizes data on oil shale 

resources from the U. S. Geological Survey’s recent estimates for Colorado and Wyoming. It is 

clear that while the total resources are roughly com¬parable, the Piceance Basin of Colorado 

holds greatly larger resources of the richest material, that likely to be produced first. #7])>

6) <([#8 [10.3] Setting a precedent for opening only 35,000 acres may lead to the need for 

numer¬ous future PEIS iterations, needlessly delaying development of oil shale resources, 

whereas a single PEIS for as much of the land as possible would give a clear signal that the 

Bureau sought to encourage oil shale development without relinquishing its stewardship role. 

#8])>

7) <([#9 [2.4.1] [2.1.1] I urge the BLM to reconsider its highly restrictive choice of the preferred 

alternative, and instead choose either Alternative 4 or the No Action alternative, opening the 

wid¬est possible area, but making it clear that important requirements will need to be met to 

receive commercial leases. Especially in Colorado, the lands made availa¬ble in this Alternative 

are not so environmentally sensitive that they cannot be pro¬tected by appropriate elements of 

the leasing process. If there are significantly sen¬sitive areas in here, then perhaps there needs to 

be an additional more moderate option that provides a middle ground between the highly 

restrictive preferred alter¬native and the more open availability of the No Action alternative and 

Alternative 4. 

#9])>

8) <([#10 [9.6] Restricting leasing now to only RD&D fails to recognize that two compa¬nies 

are already proceeding with commercial development on private land in Utah. Neither of these is 

at the research stage of development. Other companies with plans for surface processing are 

working on available stockpiles, and do not neces¬sarily need RD&D leases when they are 

satisfied their process works. I urge the BLM not to restrict leasing, but rather to make it clear 

that lease applicants, whether for RD&D leases or for commercial leases must provide 

appropriate documentation of the present development stage of their technology to receive a 

lease. #10])>
Final OSTS PEIS 909 

<([#11 [9.6] The PEIS process for leasing is not the place to impose these restrictions, and to 

make choices better left to industry about which acreage is the most attractive for either research 

and development or ultimately for commercial development. The lease process can be defined to 

adequately control the pace of development without removing any but the most environmentally 

sensitive lands from availability. Plac¬ing such heavy limitations on land availability needlessly 

restricts the flexibility of companies with an interest and a right to apply for leasing of the lands 

that contain this potentially vital national resource. The law of the land clearly indicates that they 

should encouraged to, not discouraged from, doing so. #11])>

Jeremy Boak 

11438 West Fremont Drive 

Littleton CO 

303-384-2235 

jerryboak@comcast.net 

OSTS2012D50272 

Organization: ECCOS (Environmentally Conscious Consumers for Oil, Brad McCloud 

Received: 5/3/2012 6:07:06 PM 

Commenter1: Brad McCloud - Grand Junction, Colorado 81501 (United States) 

Organization1:ECCOS (Environmentally Conscious Consumers for Oil 

Commenter Type: Oil & Gas Org 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: aziech 5/17/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50272.htm (OSTS2012D50272-58887.htm Size = 10 KB) 

May_2012_ECCOS_Letter_of_comments_on_the_Draft_PEIS_from_Jan_2012_vols_1-

4_OSTS2012D50272.doc (OSTS2012D50272-58886.doc Size = 41 KB) 

Submission Text

RE: ECCOS comments on the BLM’s Draft 2012 Oil Shale and Tar Sands OSTS PEIS 

To whom it may concern: 

Thank you for your consideration of these comments as they are submitted in relation to the 

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement and Possible Land Use Plan Amendments 

for Allocations of Oil Shale and Tar Sands Resources on Lands Administered by the Bureau of 

Land Management in Colorado, Utah and Wyoming published in January by the Department of 

Interior (DOI) and Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 

<([#1 [2.1.1] ECCOS is a grassroots, nonprofit group based in Grand Junction, Colorado. We 

have members in Colorado and Utah with plans to expand to Wyoming in the coming year. Our 

mission is to help educate people about oil shale and energy issues. We are not an advocacy 

group. However, we would like to see research into oil shale development continue. 
Final OSTS PEIS 910 

It is currently recognized by the Department of Energy that the equivalent of approximately 1 

trillion barrels of recoverable oils exist in oil shale deposits located in the Green River Formation 

located in Northwest Colorado, North Eastern Utah and Southwest Wyoming. These are also 

believed to be the largest and richest reserves of oil shale deposits in the world (most of which 

are located in Colorado). 

According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (USEIA) the U.S will be dependent on 

oil and carbon based fuels sources for decades to come (93% of our vehicles will still run on oil 

in 2035, and world oil consumption is anticipated to increase 30% by 2035). For this reason 

ECCOS supports the ingenuity of American intellect and industry to deliver technologies and 

best practices that will allow for the development of oil shale in a socio-economic an 

environmentally responsible and sustainable manner. 

It is due to this information and the list of additional concerns with the 2012 PEIS that ECCOS 

supports the Alternative 1 “OIL SHALE NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE,” of the recent PEIS, 

and the previously BLM preferred alternative in the 2008 PEIS. #1])>

<([#2 [9.8] The following are additional concerns and comments by ECCOS on/in the Draft 

Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement and Possible Land Use Plan Amendments for 

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

Management in Colorado, Utah and Wyoming:

 The U.S. Congress recognized the critical need for development of domestic energy 

resources as a part of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct 2005) when it enacted the 

Oil Shale, Tar Sands and Other Strategic Unconventional Fuels Act of 2005. In fact, 

Congress declared that “...it is the policy of the United States that...oil shale, tar sands, 

and other unconventional fuels are strategically important domestic resources that 

should be developed to reduce the growing dependence of the United States on politically 

and economically unstable sources of foreign oil imports.” (EPAct Section 369(b); 

Public Law 109-58) 
Final OSTS PEIS 911 

 ECCOS finds that there is little, if any, new information in the 2012 PEIS to be 

considered in comparison to the findings of the 2008 PEIS. Therefore, we have 

confidence in the preferred alternative that the BLM selected in 2008. 

#2])>

<([#4 [2.2] 

 Currently, the BLM has stated that Alternative 2B is the current preference of the agency. 

 It is also a concern that the BLM’s preferred alternative is in contradiction to 100% of the 

14 cooperating agencies that participated in the 2012 PEIS. 

#4])>

<([#5 [3.10.1] [3.10.3] 

 ECCOS finds that statements in the PEIS in relation to socioeconomic impacts to be 

speculative and while focusing on perceived potential negative impacts the potential 

benefits are not represented effectively. In addition, the facts stated around available 

housing, rental availability and hotels is outdated and unrepresentative of the current 

environment. 

#5])> <([#6 [6.2.1] 

 It is also perceived that it is outdated to quote environmental impacts based on the use of 

coal fired power plants to generate power in the in-situ process are not representative of 

current developments by industry. Several in the industry are considering capturing and 

reusing natural gas to provide on-site power production. #6])>

<([#10 [6.3.2.1] Water usage and overall need of water in the oil shale development process 

appear to be greatly exaggerated. 
Final OSTS PEIS 912 

It is commonly recognized that companies in the industry already own the necessary water rights 

to support production needs. 

A recent independent study by the Colorado River Conservations District claims that 120,000 

acre feet per year of water would be required for a 1.55 million barrel per day oil shale industry, 

which is roughly 2-3% of the water that flows from the Colorado River into Lake Powell 

annually. #10])>

<([#7 [9.2.1] 

 One week after the notice of intent to conduct a new PEIS was published in the Federal 

Register on April 14, 2011 the Congressional Continuing Resolution to Fund Fiscal Year 

2011 explicitly stated 2011 funds were not to be used to implement, administer and/or 

enforce Secretarial order No 33103310. 

o Therefore ECCOS questions the 2012 PEIS and its findings to potentially all be in 

violation of the Spending Moratorium of the 2011 Continuing Resolution. 

#7])> <([#8 [1.1.1] 

 Lastly, the Draft BLM Oil Shale Regulation document is not expected to be published 

until May 15, 2012. The comment period on the 2012 OSTS PEIS closes on May 4, 2012 

and obviously does not allow time for review of the Draft BLM Oil Shale Regulation 

document prior to submitting comments. It seems logical that these two documents are 

inevitably tied to one another. 

o These two documents outline impacted areas and regulations on development. 

Having both documents to review simultaneously will behoove those wishing to 

make relevant comments and help to avoid comments that may tend to be 

inconsistent and confusing without all the information available. 

o Therefore, ECCOS reiterates its request that the comment period on the 2012 

OSTS PEIS be extended to no less than 90 days past the publication of the Draft 

BLM Oil Shale Regulations. 

#8])>

<([#9 [2.1.1] For these reasons ECCOS once again states its support of the thoughtful and 

proactive preferred alternative of the BLM’s 2008 PEIS and the current Alternative 1 “OIL 

SHALE NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE” of the 2012 PEIS. 

Furthermore, ECCOS requests that the BLM change course and support the Alternative 1 “OIL 

SHALE NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE” as well. 
Final OSTS PEIS 913 

#9])>

Thank you for your time and consideration. 

Respectfully, 

Brad McCloud 

Executive Director 

OSTS2012D50273 

Organization: Angela Wetzel 

Received: 5/3/2012 6:41:21 PM 

Commenter1: Angela Wetzel - , (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/4/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50273.htm (OSTS2012D50273-58857.htm Size = 1 KB) 

Submission Text

<([#1 [10.6.3] Opening up BLM land to drilling for oil shale will help the US become more 

independent when it comes to oil and gas production. We currently rely on overseas companies 

for the majority of our oil and gas and I think bringing these resources available would help the 

US stand on it’s own feet. #1])> <([#2 [3.10.3] Also, allowing companies to drill will create jobs, 

which are badly needed especially in Colorado. Creating jobs leads to people spending money 

which will bring our economy back to where it needs to be. Drilling on our own soil will also 

bring gas prices down which means people will spend money on things other than gas, which 

makes our economy more stable. #2])> <([#3 [11] Please consider opening these lands for 

drilling for a more economically stable Colorado. 

#3])>

OSTS2012D50274 

Organization: Caylee Gabbott 

Received: 5/3/2012 9:12:28 PM 

Commenter1: Caylee Gabbott - Bountiful, Utah 84010 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 

Submitted As: Web Form 
Final OSTS PEIS 914 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/4/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50274.htm (OSTS2012D50274-58859.htm Size = 1 KB) 

Submission Text

<([#1 [10.6.1] Uintas are my favorite place to camp. They are worth way more than the short 

term relationship we will have with tar sands. Lets develop other solutions to reduce our carbon 

footprint and energy use #1])>

OSTS2012D50275 

Organization: Gwen Garcelon 

Received: 5/4/2012 12:14:47 AM 

Commenter1: Gwen Garcelon - Carbondale, Colorado 816232111 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/4/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50275.htm (OSTS2012D50275-58861.htm Size = 1 KB) 

Submission Text

<([#1 [12.2] With the climate crisis intensifying it is unfathomable that we are even discussing 

further oil shale development. With even modest increases in conservation we can easily make 

up what we would gain from this destructive energy source. I categorically oppose further oil 

shale exploration and development. We are cooking our own goose and enough is enough. #1])>

OSTS2012D50276 

Organization: Melanie Martin 

Received: 5/4/2012 1:21:14 AM 

Commenter1: Melanie Martin - Salt Lake City, Utah 84102 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/7/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50276.htm (OSTS2012D50276-58890.htm Size = 1 KB) 

Comments_for_BLM,_Tar_Sands_OSTS2012D50276.docx (OSTS2012D50276-58889.docx 

Size = 17 KB) 

Submission Text

See Attachment. 

Dear BLM Review Committee: 
Final OSTS PEIS 915 

<([#1 [12] I have a number of grave concerns about tar sands and oil shale mining in Utah, 

Colorado, and Wyoming. In light of these concerns, which cannot be mitigated in any substantial 

way, I believe bringing these destructive mining and refining processes to the U.S. would be 

entirely unethical. #1])>

<([#2 [3.14] First, although U.S. Oil Sands claims the citrus solvent it uses to mine oil from tar 

sands is safer than methods used in Alberta, this solvent poses a grave environmental hazard. Dr. 

William Johnson, a geophysicist at the University of Utah, has spoken out about the danger of 

this solvent. The solvent makes carcinogenic compounds in tar sands mobile, he says, releasing 

these toxins into the ecosystem. Aquifers and waterways then become poisoned with 

carcinogens, which poison humans and ecosystems. 

In Canada, this scenario has led to tumors and mutations in animals as well as increased rates of 

rare cancers in humans. Often those who suffer most are Indigenous peoples. In Utah, proposed 

tar sands and oil shale mining areas overlap the Uintah/Ouray reservation, posing a serious threat 

to the people who live there. #2])>

<([#3 [3.4.1] Oil shale poses a severe threat for similar reasons. The Utah Physicians for a 

Healthy Environment say: “Oil shale beds often serve as the floor for aquifers. Heating the oil 

shale in place heats the aquifer. That causes the groundwater to become contaminated with 

elements like arsenic and fluoride, creating a groundwater nightmare. Because the Green River 

formation lies within the greater Colorado River drainage basin, any surface or groundwater 

contamination will not only affect the local population but will likely have a significant impact 

on water quality for the millions of downstream users.” #3])>

<([#4 [3.4.2] The huge demand for water imposed by tar sands and oil shale mining also 

demonstrates how unsustainable these practices are. Although companies claim that tar sands 

mining in the U.S. will require less water than in Alberta, the Bureau of Land Management and 

Argonne National Laboratory assert that water use will total at least several barrels of water per 

barrel of oil produced. This water must come from somewhere—from farming, from aquifers 

used for human consumption, from the ecosystem. I stand firmly against privileging industry by 

giving an oil company the water rights of a farmer, or the water rights of a tribe, or the water that 

should be fueling our tourism industry through pursuits such as rafting, before it makes its way 

downstream to other states and communities that need it. We cannot give away the water rights 

of other human beings, or allow ecosystems to dry up, so companies can profit from oil. 

As Western Resource Advocates points out about companies that wish to mine Utah tar sands, 

“they promise lower-water use techniques, but refuse to open their books to allow the 

community to understand how these methods would work and what the resulting broad resource 

needs and impacts would be.” The public needs to understand the true impacts of water uses 

through a transparent and independent processes, not through companies’ claims that they’ve 

tested. #4])>

<([#5 [3.13] Furthermore, this water, once used, cannot simply be released into the ecosystem, 

because it carries toxic pollutants. In the BLM’s environmental impact statement for tar sands 

and oil shale mining, the BLM states that enormous amounts of waste will be created from these 

mining practices. This waste cannot be easily contained. In Canada, it has become dispersed 

through waterways and ecosystems, directly affecting human health and harming wildlife. Even 

when companies claim to be following proper safety precautions, waste seeps out of the vast 

tailings dumps. Of course, the companies don’t plan for this to happen. BP didn’t plan for its oil 

spill in the Gulf. But when mining oil on a grand scale, disasters happens. Salt Lake experienced 

its own oil disaster not so long ago. With tar sands and oil shale mining, the devastation would 
Final OSTS PEIS 916 

be even more difficult to contain because of the vast amounts of toxic waste that would be 

produced—according to the BLM’s own environmental impact statement and the U.S. 

Government Accountability Office. #5])>

<([#6 [3.7.3.1] Habitat destruction poses another grave concern. Although companies have been 

vague about the specific mining processes they will use, tar sands mining has never been 

anything but abominably destructive to ecosystems. A diagram in a fact sheet of U.S. Oil Sands 

shows the mining process beginning with an extracted pile of rocks, and ending with the same. 

Vital wildlife habitat and some of our country’s most beautiful places would be torn up to allow 

toxic mining, destroying the habitat of endangered and threatened species like the bald eagle and 

boreal toad. Fragmentation of habitats would result. Infrastructure such as roads, pipelines, and 

pump stations would chase away wildlife, making the land inhospitable even if it weren’t on its 

way to becoming a toxic wasteland. #6])>

<([#7 [3.5.1.6] Furthermore, tar sands and oil shale mining and processing require tremendous 

amounts of energy. This would produce four to six times the greenhouse gases of petroleum, as 

Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment says. And that’s not considering the greenhouse 

gases produced when burning fuel produced from tar sands or oil shale itself. #7])>

<([#8 [3.10.3] Finally, producing dirty oil won’t significantly bring jobs to Utah. Conversely, 

greener technologies would boost employment, and keeping Utah’s wilderness beautiful would 

boost tourism, which is by far the most important industry in some Utah counties. Cornell 

University explains, “For every $1 million invested in renewable and clean energy, 16.7 jobs are 

created. By contrast, $1 million invested in fossil fuels generates 5.3 jobs.” We need to think 

sustainably in terms of our economy, investing in jobs that will better society and remain viable 

for more than a few years rather than degrading human health and the environment. #8])>

<([#9 [10.6.1] I believe these points demonstrate the urgent need for relinquishing the pipe 

dream of allowing the destructive practices of tar sands and oil shale mining. We have far better 

options—solar and wind, for example, preferably within and around cities—and the technology 

to pursue them. Tar sands and oil shale technology itself is just evolving, and Utah, Wyoming, 

and Colorado would become glorified laboratories for the proprietary methods of industry. It’s 

time to move forward into a clean energy future, not take a giant step backward into a toxic 

nightmare. #9])>

Sincerely, 

Melanie J. Martin 

References 

Cornell University, Global Labor Institute 

http://www.ilr.cornell.edu/globallaborinstitute/research/upload/Impact-of-Tar-Sands-Spills-onEmployment-and-the-Economy-summary.pdf 

Oil Shale and Tar Sands Programmatic EIS, Overview of the tar sands extraction process 

http://ostseis.anl.gov/guide/tarsands/index.cfm 

Physicians for a Healthy Environment 

http://www.energy.utah.gov/government/strategic_plan/docs/publiccomments/uphe10152010.pdf 

U.S. GAO 

http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-35 

University of Utah Institute for Clean and Secure Water 
Final OSTS PEIS 917 

http://www.netl.doe.gov/technologies/oilgas/publications/EPreports/FE0001243_TOR_23110_4.pdf 

Western Resource Advocates 

http://www.westernresourceadvocates.org/land/utosts/tarsands.php 

OSTS2012D50277 

Organization: BLM, Utah State Office, Roger Bankert 

Received: 5/4/2012 8:54:54 AM 

Commenter1: Roger Bankert - Salt Lake city, Utah 841450155 (United States) 

Organization1:BLM, Utah State Office 

Commenter Type: BLM 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/15/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50277.htm (OSTS2012D50277-58909.htm Size = 1 KB) 

Utah_BLM_comments_OSTS2012D50277.docx (OSTS2012D50277-58908.docx Size = 24 KB) 

Submission Text

See Attachment. 

BLM Utah State Office 

DEIS Comments 

May 4, 2012 

<([#1 [3.1.3] Page: ES-6 Line 19 Text in document: 1. All lands that the BLM has identified or 

may identify as a result of inventories conducted during this planning process, as lands having 

wilderness characteristics (LWC); 

Comment: Does this mean even though the lands are LWC and the BLM has chosen not to 

manage them for wilderness through the RMP process they are still unavailable for leasing? It 

appears you are singling out oil shale and tar sands as not being able to use the lands while other 

resources are allowed to use the lands because of the determination that they will not be managed 

for wilderness. #1])>

<([#2 [2.2] Page: ES-9 Line 8 Text in document: ES.7 PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 

Comment: Does this includes or excludes the existing pending tar sand lease at Asphalt Ridge?

#2])>

<([#3 [9.1] Page: 1-12 Line 15 Text in document: The scope of the analysis for this PEIS does 

not include review of the decisions by the Secretary to issue the RD&D leases 

Comment: Does this mean the current RD&D leases along with their preference right acreage are 

not bound or affected by the decisions resulting from this EIS? #3])>
Final OSTS PEIS 918 

<([#4 [13] [3.1.7] Page: 1-18 Line 18 Text in document: there are only 5 CHL’s from the mid 

1980’s still in existence 

Comment: In the mid 1990’s the BLM had another lease sale and there are 13 still in existence. 

They are also in the Pariette and PR Spring STSA’s. #4])>

<([#5 [3.1.7] Page: 1-18 Line: 19-20 “or tar sand claims” 

Comment: remove the phrase. 

Note: there are 11 conversion applications that include 102 oil and gas leases. One of the 

applications is located within the Tar Sand Triangle STSA and also lies within the boundary of 

the Glenn Canyon National Recreation Area. #5])>

<([#6 [3.1.7] Page: 1-38 Comment: The portion of this line should read, “leasing in STSAs 

within NPS units”. #6])>

<([#7 [6] Figure 2.3-2 

Comment: There should be some consideration in placing holdings of Enefit American Oil 

Company and Redleaf as stated on Page 2-15 to give more of a complete picture. #7])>

<([#8 [3.15] Page: 2-22 Comment: FIGURE 2.3.2-1, 2.3.2-2, 2.3.2-3 (Alternative 1). The maps 

are too vague. They need Townships so they are useful. #8])>

<([#9 [9.6] Page: 2-23 Comment: This shows that a portion of the OSEC preference area to be 

un available for leasing. This contradicts the lease and the lease grants a superior right. This 

should be changed. #9])>

<([#10 [9.6] Page: 2-35 Line: 9 Text in document: RD&D First requirement 

Comment: If a company proves up on a RD&D lease and their preference right acreage how will 

they be able to lease other lands in the future? THE PEIS states a RD&D lease is formed first for 

any leased lands. Need to address how a company with technology showed to be commercial on 

a RD&D lease can lease additional acreage in the future without having to prove up an additional 

RD&D process. #10])>

<([#11 [3.15] Page: 2-37 Comment: FIGURE 2.3.3-1, 2.3.3-2, 2.3.3-3. The maps are too vague. 

They need townships so they are useful. #11])>

<([#12 [3.15] [2.2] Page: 2-38 Figure 2.3.3.2 Comment: All maps show OSECs (Enefits) oil 

shale preference right lease acreage split with a no leasing zone because of evacuation creek. It is 

impossible for the company to develop their lease in this situation. The map should show the 

RD&D lease with the Preference Right Area. The references to the Tar Sands should be 

removed. A similar map should be available for the Tar Sands. This map should show the 500 

foot contour for strip mining and maybe a 3000 foot overburden line for showing the extent of 

conventional underground mining. (This should most likely be a constraint). #12])>

<([#13 [3.15] Page: 2-41 Comment: An interesting comparison would be to show the resources 

that would be equal to or greater than 25 gal/ton at 25 feet thick with this map. It appears that the 
Final OSTS PEIS 919 

oil shale resource has not been taken into account. The amount of estimated resources should be 

shown that would remain or removed. #13])>

<([#14 [3.15] Page: 2-41 Comment: The OSEC and AuraSource areas need to be enlarged in a 

special view. Township lines should be placed on them and the number should be on the outside 

margin of the map. The Tar Sand information should be removed. The land status should be 

shown. The field offices should be identified as field offices and not just “Price” or “Moab”. The 

White River should be identified. Remove the White River Field Office in Colorado on this map. 

The State oil shale leases should be shown. #14])>

<([#15 [3.1.7] Page: 2-43 Line: 20 Text in document: Alternative 3 because of the presence of a 

potentially eligible WSR, Evacuation Creek (see discussion on this in Section 2.3.3.1). 

Comment: It has already been determined in the 2008 RMP that Evacuation Creek is not eligible. 

Also this is not discussed in section 2.3.3.1 #15])>

<([#16 [3.1.7] Page: 2-53 Line 21 Text in document: Alternative 4 because of the presence of a 

potentially eligible WSR, Evacuation Creek (see discussion on this in Section 2.3.3.1). 

Comment: It has already been determined in the 2008 RMP that Evacuation Creek is not eligible. 

Also this is not discussed in section 2.3.3.1 #16])>

<([#17 [9.6] Page: 2-76 Line: 12 Text in document: 2.4.4 

Comment: If a company proves up on a RD&D lease and their preference right acreage how will 

they be able to lease other lands in the future? THE PEIS states a RD&D lease is formed first for 

any leased lands. Need to address how a company with technology showed to be commercial on 

a RD&D lease can lease additional acreage in the future without having to prove up an additional 

RD&D process. #17])>

<([#18 [6.1.1] Page: 2-78 Line 5 Text in document: For the purpose of... 

Comment: This is flawed thinking if it is acceptable to evaluate 15 gal/tn and 15 ft in one state, it 

should be acceptable to use the same criteria in other states. This is obviously, what the parties in 

the settlement agreement told the BLM to do. #18])>

<([#19 [3.1.7] Page: 3-13 Line 30 Text in document: 18 federal coal 

Comment: All the leases are gone. They were bought out years ago by the BLM #19])>

<([#20 [3.1.7] Page: 3-28 Line: 14 Text in document: The West Tavaputs Plateau West 

Tavaputs, Sunnyside, etc are in the Price Field Office not the Vernal Field Office #20])>

<([#21 [3.5.1.6] Page: 3-98 Line 21 Text in document: 3.5.1.2 Global Climate Change 

Comment: There is a lot of contradictory information about global climate change especially 

since the scandal of falsifying information. I do not think anything should be said is true fact 

about global climate change unless both sides are presented. #21])>

<([#22 [3.14] Page: 4-9 Line 20 Text in document: The statement “ Some mines would be 

“gassy”; 

Comment: The statement “ Some mines would be “gassy”; both H2S and CH4 would be present, 
Final OSTS PEIS 920 

placing additional demands on the ventilation system for worker safety and introducing 

additional controls for the use of explosives. “ is confusing. The terms gassy and non-gassy were 

classification terms that were used pre 1987 when MSHA used these classifications for non-coal 

mines. The term gassy means mines that require fresh air to keep methane (CH4) levels below 

the explosive limit. Gassy mines have nothing to do with H2S. After October 27, 1987 the 

classification of gassy was no longer used to classify mines but the word is still used in the 

MSHA regulations as a general term. Since October 27, 1987 all non-coal mines are classified 

under 30 CFR part 57 subpart T. Both the Colony and Long Ridge oil shale mines in Colorado 

were classified as non-gassy because they were close to the oil shale outcrop and contained no 

methane or no concentrations to make the mine classification as gassy. 

In short, if the mine is gassy, then there are gasses or contaminants that need to be removed to 

ensure miner health and safety. Larger ventilation systems would be required, which normally is 

not an issue. “The combination of CH4 liberated from the fragmentation of the blasted shale, the 

background CH4 emissions continuously released from the developed headings, and the finesized dust generated in localized high concentration clouds at the face would pose a potential 

localized ignition hazard during some underground oil shale mining operations.” (DOI, 1995, p. 

21) #22])>

<([#23 [3.14] Page: 4-204 Line: 20 Comment: the statement, The greatest concern for chemical 

hazards associated with underground mining centers on potential inhalation of airborne dusts 

(including silica dusts), inorganic gases (e.g., CO and H2S), and organic gases (e.g., CH4) by 

workers. Chronic inhalation of irritants such as mineral or metal particles causes pneumoconiosis 

or miner’s lung, a condition characterized by nodular fibrotic lung tissue changes. Prolonged 

inhalation of silica dusts causes a form of pneumoconiosis termed silicosis, which is a severe 

fibrosis of the lungs that results in shortness of breath. Both conditions can be fatal. Underground 

mining activities also present potential inhalation hazards from exhaust fumes from dieselpowered equipment, including diesel fuel vapors and criteria pollutants.” appears to project that 

these will happen. 

In fact the Mine Safety Health Administration applies the following standard, To evaluate the 

hazard of exposure to mineral dusts, the content of quartz or other crystalline form of free silica 

is first considered. The permissible exposure limit or threshold limit value (TLV), for mineral 

dust containing crystalline free silica is determined by analysis of a sample of respirable dust. 

Under current regulations, the TLV will vary depending on the percentage of free silica in the 

dust. For the great majority of respirable mineral dusts, the TLV will be in the range of 0.1-3.3 

milligrams per cubic meter of air (mg/m3). When the percentage of free silica is higher, the TLV 

will be lower. This means that the amount of silica-bearing dust that a miner can be exposed to 

will also be lower. Source: 

http://www.msha.gov/illness_prevention/healthtopics/HHICM06.HTM). 

30 CFR part 57.5001 states that any air borne contaminant will be controlled “using threshold 

limit values adopted by the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists, as set 

forth and explained in the 1973 edition of the Conference’s publication, entitled “TLV’s 

Threshold Limit Values for Chemical Substances in Workroom Air Adopted by ACGIH for 

1973,” pages 1 through 54...”, Diesel particulate standards are also put into place in order to 

protect the employee underground. This is found in 30 CFR part 57.5060 which states, “After 

May 19, 2006, any mine operator covered by this part must limit the concentration of diesel 
Final OSTS PEIS 921 

particulate matter to which miners are exposed in underground areas of a mine by restricting the 

average eight-hour equivalent full shift airborne concentration of total carbon, where miners 

normally work or travel, to 160 micrograms per cubic meter of air (160TC μg/m3).” 

As can be seen from the above references, great measures by MSHA are taken to eliminate the 

effects from these contaminates in mining and if they are followed there would be no affects.

#23])>

<([#24 [3.14] Page: 4-204 Line 31 Comment: The statement ,”Experimental mine and laboratory 

tests have shown that, given the proper pre dispersed concentrations, particle size, and kerogen 

or sulfur content, oil shale and sulfide ore dust can be ignited and cause an explosion (DOI 

1995), is very misleading. The actual quote from the referenced abstract is “Laboratory and 

experimental mine test have shown that oil shale and sulfide ore dusts can be ignited given the 

prosper pre dispersed dust concentrations, particle size, and kerogen or sulfur content.” Later in 

the report on page 5 it states “When fine particles of a combustible dust (Oil shale, sulfide ore, 

coal etc.) are suspended in an atmosphere that contains sufficient oxygen to support combustion, 

a dust explosion can occur. In underground mining, the energy required to ignite this dust cloud 

is supplied by the explosives used in the development and production blasting.” #24])>

<([#25 [13] Page: 4-204 Line: 40 Text in document: “one of the most hazardous occupations” 

Comment:The statement should read “one of the more hazardous occupations”. #25])>

<([#26 [3.4.6] Page: 6-9 Line 3 Text in document: “The following is a summary of these generic 

impacts:” This is a true statement for in-situ mining of the oil shale but there is much information 

that covers retorting of oil shale on the surface which is discussed in the earlier portion of the 

PEIS. This should be disclosed. #26])>

<([#27 [3.4.6] Page: 6-10 Line 13 Text in document: “and other sensitive water resources in 

Utah” 

Comment The phrase “and other sensitive water resources in Utah” should be enumerated. There 

is no such thing as a sensitive water resource. #27])>

<([#28 [3.5.3] [3.5.8] Page: 6-11 Line 27 

Comment: The phrase “Table 6.1.6-3 presents a summary of the emissions from coal-fired 

electric power plants.” It is un-necessary in an oil shale analysis. This type of analysis presumes 

that this will take place. Even if new power generation is required not all would be tied to the 

project. If new power generation requirements were necessary they may be handled with natural 

gas, geothermal, nuclear or other forms of electrical energy which has not been disclosed. By 

concentrating on coal emissions this makes the development of the shale appear worse than it 

really is. Again the PEIS has failed in supplying information on the surface retorting facilities. 

There are many in use throughout the world. The information on the air quality or air emissions 

should be made available in this process. #28])>

<([#29 [3.6] Page: 6-12 Line 8 

Comment: The phrase, “Construction-related noise levels could exceed EPA guidelines and/or 

Colorado regulations (there are currently no state guidelines/regulations for Utah or Wyoming).” 

has no basis. There should be justification to use a statement like this. Noise needs to have 
Final OSTS PEIS 922 

receptors (such as people) to determine the applicability of noise standards. Most of the areas 

involved have few inhabitants. #29])>

<([#30 [3.7.2] [3.7.3.7] Page: 6-16 Line 5 Comment: The phrase, “Some impacts (e.g., habitat 

loss) could continue beyond the termination of shale oil production.” is unsupported and 

unfounded in the PEIS. #30])>

<([#31 [3.15] Page: 6-78-Line: 79 These maps are almost impossible to read. There should be 3 

separate maps for this effort so it would be possible to understand what is being portrayed.

#31])>

<([#32 [3.4.5] Page: 6-125 Line 38-42 Comment: This makes some major assumptions that are 

not necessarily true. There has been no plan approved so there cannot be any assumptions made. 

Yes, there is a retention dam that was to protect the White River in case of a catastrophic event 

was to take place. Without discharge permits in place these sentences are a guess and are not 

fact. They should be removed. #32])>

<([#33 [3.7.1.2] Page: 6-130 Line: 38 Comment: There is no scientific basis for the 2 miles. Why 

not 1 mile or 5 miles? A reason should be stated for the basis. #33])>

<([#34 [3.7.1.2] Page: 6-131 Line 4 Comment:The in-situ projects in Colorado are substantially 

different than the project in Utah. The broad statements made for the in-situ projects in many 

cases do not apply to the Utah project. There should be a distinction between the in-situ retorting 

and the surface retorting. Impacts of the surface retorting are known because there are many 

retorts worldwide. This should be acknowledged and disclosed. It is true that the in-situ retorting, 

the environmental impacts are largely unknown. The ground water and the aquifers at the White 

River Oil Shale site have been documented in reports as late as 2002. #34])>

<([#35 [3.7.2] Page: 6-133 Line: 33 Comment: The phrase “The establishment and long-term 

survival of these species on reclaimed land may be difficult”, has no basis. There should be a 

reason given for this statement like past experience at the XXX site has shown that .... #35])>

OSTS2012D50278 

Organization: solar, steve 

Received: 5/4/2012 9:43:52 AM 

Commenter1: steve - carbondale,, Colorado 81623 (United States) 

Organization1:solar 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/14/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50278.htm (OSTS2012D50278-58891.htm Size = 1 KB) 

Submission Text
Final OSTS PEIS 923 

<([#1 [11.2] Please do not lease any oil shale. The energy it takes to get oil out of oil shale is a 

losing proposition for humans and the climate. #1])> <([#2 [10.6.1] Please reallocate the time 

and resources that the BLM and the Government are putting towards oil shale, and look at 

renewable energy. The energy payback is a lot quicker with a much lower carbon footprint.

#2])>

OSTS2012D50279 

Organization: Kathryn Albury 

Received: 5/4/2012 9:45:57 AM 

Commenter1: Kathryn Albury - Salt Lake City, Utah 84104 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/16/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50279.htm (OSTS2012D50279-58893.htm Size = 3 KB) 

Submission Text

<([#1 [9.8] I thank you for re-opening this PEIS and reducing the amount of BLM land under 

consideration. #1])> <([#2 [3.4.1] While it is claimed that mining in Utah will use less water than 

the Canadian Tar Sands, there is a need for a significant amount of water in this, a desert-like 

area. This area straddles the Green River, the largest tributary of the Colorado River which 

serves millions of people, to say nothing of the agricultural lands and wild life downstream. In 

drought years, how do we assure that critical water will not be diverted to oil production when it 

is critically needed downstream? #2])> <([#3 [3.4.1] In case of a spill/leak/truck accident—if the 

product leaving the mining area gets into the Green River, or any other waterway, have studies 

been done on how this type of petroleum product affects waterways? Does this product float or 

sink? How would a spill be contained in low river situations? In a raging flood? In a blizzard? 

Who is responsible for a potential clean-up? Are resources available for a timely response? The 

same questions need to be answered with regards to the “citrus solvent” which will need to be 

moved to the processing site in tremendous quantities. #3])> <([#4 [3.5.1.6] While the BLM is 

not an air quality agency, the quality of the air does impact the human and wild life population. 

What is the increase in greenhouse gas emission for this whole process—from the original 

disturbance of the land, transportation of equipment and supplies to the site(s). the processing of 

the tar sands onsite, transportation of the processed product to the petroleum refineries, refining 

the product, and, especially, included the final combustion of the finished product? #4])> <([#5

[3.13] Please examine the “citrus solvent.” It is hardly a benign substance. Is it attractive to wild 

life (citrus peels are in cattle feed)? Once the treated sands are replaced, are there traces of the 

solvent left? How does this affect the restoration of the area—will the same plants and animals 

be able to live there? #5])> <([#6 [3.13] The disturbance of the land will be massive and will 

inevitable produce heavy metals and other toxins. Are there provisions for testing for these 

products and plans for safely using or disposing of them? #6])> <([#7 [1] Please spare no effort 

or expense in determining the current state of any area to be mined—air quality, water quality, 

noise levels, soil testing, flora and fauna. There should be no opportunity for a developer to 
Final OSTS PEIS 924 

claim that they haven’t made anything worse than it was. #7])> Thank you for considering my 

comments. 

OSTS2012D50280 

Organization: Unconventional Fuels Congressional Task Force, Bill Johnson 

Received: 5/4/2012 10:15:57 AM 

Commenter1: Bill Johnson - Vernal, Utah 84078 (United States) 

Organization1:Unconventional Fuels Congressional Task Force 

Commenter Type: Affiliation Only 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/17/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50280.htm (OSTS2012D50280-58912.htm Size = 4 KB) 

BLM_PEIS_Comments_OSTS2012D50280.docx (OSTS2012D50280-58911.docx Size = 14 

KB) 

Submission Text

May 2, 2012 BLM Oil Shale and Tar Sands Draft Programmatic EIS Argonne National 

Laboratory 9700 S. Cass Ave. Argonne IL 60439 Ken Salazar, Secretary U.S. Department of the 

Interior 1849 C Street, N.W. Washington DC 20240 Sent this date via email: exsec@ios.doi.gov 

Robert Abbey, Director Bureau of Land Management 1849 C Street, N.W., Room 5665 

Washington DC 20240 Sent this date via email: Director@blm.gov (These comments also 

submitted electronically via the OSTSEIS website.) RE: Comments regarding 2012 Oil Shale 

and Tar Sands Programmatic EIS 

Greetings: <([#1 [1.5] I appreciate this opportunity to provide comments on the new Draft PEIS 

for oil shale development. My background and experience comes from my position on the 

Unconventional Fuels Task Force that was created in Section 369 of the Energy Policy Act of 

2005, Vice Chairman of ECCOS and as a local citizen with above average understanding of the 

oil shale and tar sands resource and the potential industry it holds. Because of this knowledge of 

local economics, energy and business development, demographics and business finance, I was 

appointed to represent the communities of affect within the State of Utah by Secretary Bodman. 

This Task Force was an unbiased collaborative effort among the States of Colorado, Utah, 

Wyoming, Mississippi and Kentucky, their communities and the Secretaries of Defense, Energy 

and Interior. Since 2005, countless hours of work and research has been put forth by this group 

to offer many of the answers that Congress and the energy markets are looking for in relation to 

commercial development of unconventional fuels, oil shale being a large part of that group. Very 

comprehensive volumes of our findings, annual reports, and other pertinent data can be found 

through the parties themselves, their web site www.unconventionalfuels.org or the SPR office of 

the Department of Energy. I bring these items to point as I do not believe that this PEIS has 

consulted with those documents properly especially in the area of business economics, 

economies of scale and return on investment for those that enter into this unique fuel 

development. There must be a financial advantage for a return on investment and the opportunity 

for a large scale industry. The lack of this insight on behalf of this PEIS has discouraged rather 

than encouraged more endeavors. Should we also question if DOI and the BLM are truly 
Final OSTS PEIS 925 

following the original scope of the law as passed in Section 369 of EPACT 2005? #1])> <([#2

[9.8] [2.1.1] A complete and acceptable PEIS was completed in 2008 at great expense to the 

taxpayers and small rural communities only to be thrown out to appease a very small contingent 

of obstructionists. In that event we have spent millions more to rebuild the “better mousetrap”! 

We have done this as our Nation’s economic future is in harm’s way with lower credit ratings, 

multi-trillion dollar budget deficits, near record unemployment and home foreclosures while we 

continue to pay high energy prices dictated to us by unstable and even hostile countries. Have we 

totally lost our minds here folks? This entire process is, as President Reagan paraphrased, the 

problem not the solution. We can no longer expect the majority of the United States to suffer at 

the hands of the special interest groups that wish to stop any and all development of the rich 

natural resources we have available. This PEIS is totally ludicrous and the only sensible solution 

at this point is Alternative 1-No Action along with a business friendly attitude to encourage 

responsible development of resources right here in our back yard. #2])> Sincerely, Bill Johnson, 

Utah Member US Congressional Task Force on Unconventional Fuels 483 E 700 N Vernal, UT 

84078 435-650-5572 See Attachment. 

OSTS2012D50281 

Organization: Cori Redstone 

Received: 5/4/2012 10:46:39 AM 

Commenter1: Cori Redstone - Salt Lake City, Utah (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/14/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50281.htm (OSTS2012D50281-58895.htm Size = 1 KB) 

Submission Text

<([#1 [12] Tar sands and oil shale will cause so much permanent damage to the land that the the 

cost of allowing private industry to mine oil on the land cannot ever be recuperated. Never mind 

the poisons, toxins, the morality of allowing this generation to permanently destroy land for 

following generations. Their development plans are not economically viable. The companies are 

lying to make a profit. The land will be permanently ruined. Oppose all tar sands, oil shale, oil 

sand etc. #1])>

OSTS2012D50282 

Organization: Bonnie Christiansen 

Received: 5/4/2012 10:48:57 AM 

Commenter1: Bonnie Christiansen - Salt Lake City, Utah 84115 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 
Final OSTS PEIS 926 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/14/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50282.htm (OSTS2012D50282-58897.htm Size = 1 KB) 

Submission Text

<([#1 [3.4.1] It is my understanding developing tar sands has the potential to contaminate water 

supplies. Contaminated water makes life for humans, livestock, wildlife and plants challenging if 

not fatal. There should be less than a .01% chance of water contamination occurring over a 100 

year period (from an insurance policy perspective) in order for the benefits of this resource to 

outweigh the risks. #1])> <([#2 [3.5.1.1] It should also be shown that development of this 

resource will not add to green house gas emissions, as according to the vast majority of climate 

scientists continued green house gas emissions will increase destructive weather phenomenon. 

#2])>

OSTS2012D50283 

Organization: Western Business Roundtable, Holly Propst 

Received: 5/4/2012 10:57:39 AM 

Commenter1: Holly Propst - Lakewood, Colorado 80401 (United States) 

Organization1:Western Business Roundtable 

Commenter Type: Misc. Organization 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/16/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50283.htm (OSTS2012D50283-58915.htm Size = 1 KB) 

WBRT_Comments_BLMOilShalePEIS_Revisit_FINAL_OSTS2012D50283.pdf 

(OSTS2012D50283-58914.pdf Size = 39 KB) 

Submission Text

The Western Business Roundtable appreciates the opportunity to comment. See our submission 

attached. See Attachment. 

Western Business Roundtable | 200 Union Boulevard, Suite 105| Lakewood, CO 80228 | 303-

384-9911 

info@westernroundtable.com | www.westernroundtable.com 

The opinions expressed in this letter represent the views of a majority of Roundtable Members, 

but not necessarily all of our members. 

May 4, 2012 

Oil Shale and Tar Sands Resources 

Draft Programmatic EIS 

Argonne National Laboratory 

9700 South Cass Avenue 

EVS/240 

Argonne, Illinois 60439 

Re: Draft PEIS for Allocation of Oil Shale and Tar Sands Resources on BLM Lands in Colorado, 

Utah and Wyoming 

Dear Sir/Madam: 
Final OSTS PEIS 927 

On behalf of the Western Business Roundtable (“Roundtable”), I am writing to provide our input 

regarding the Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM) decision to revisit the 2008 Programmatic 

Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) which has governed federal research-developmentcommercialization efforts for Western oil shale and tar sands resources.1 

As BLM notes, the planning area for the oil shale resource is the Piceance Basin in Colorado, the 

Uintah Basin in Utah and the Green River and Washakie Basins in Wyoming. For the tar sands 

resources, the planning area is within the Colorado Plateau in Utah. Given the West-centric 

concentration of these resources, the federal approach to oil shale/tar sands development has long 

been of interest to the Roundtable. 

The Roundtable is a broad-based coalition of companies doing business in the Western United 

States. Our members are engaged in a wide array of enterprises including: engineering, 

construction, communications, manufacturing, retail sales, refining, iron and steel, mining, 

electric power generation, and oil and gas exploration, development and distribution. We work to 

defend the interests of the West and support policies that encourage economic growth and 

opportunity, freedom of enterprise and a sound approach to conservation and environmental 

preservation. 

1 77 FR 5833, February 6, 2012 

<([#1 [11] We participated in the public input process for the BLM’s 2008 PEIS for oil shale 

development. In that context, we discussed the key elements important for implementing a viable 

long-term federal commercial oil shale leasing program. We have linked our 2008 comments 

below and ask that they be incorporated, by reference, in our comments here.2 

The Roundtable enthusiastically supported the goals of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 

(“EPAct05”) to establish a viable commercial leasing structure for oil shale on federal lands. The 

Roundtable believes that a responsible federal energy policy must include the environmentallysensitive development and utilization of all the domestic energy resources we have available to 

us. We believed then, and we do now, that Western oil shale resources offer significant potential 

as a longer-term solution to the United State’s growing energy needs. 

2 Roundtable Comments: 2008 BLM Oil Shale and Tar Sands Draft PEIS: 

http://www.westernroundtable.com/Portals/0/Docs/energy/2012/WBRT_Comments_OilShale_R

ule2008_FINAL.pdf and 

http://www.westernroundtable.com/Portals/0/Docs/energy/2008/WBRT_Comments_OilShale_P

EIS_FILED.pdf 

#1])> <([#2 [6.1.2] The oil shale resources of the West offer tremendous potential because the 

region is home to the world’s largest deposits of the resource. The Green River Formation in 

Colorado, Utah and Wyoming contains an estimated 1.5 to 1.8 trillion barrels of oil. Even by 

conservative estimates, there are 800 billion barrels of recoverable oil from oil shale in the area – 

that is three times greater than the proven oil reserves of Saudi Arabia. Seventy percent of these 

reserves are under the control of the federal government. #2])>

<([#3 [10.6.3] Tapping these extraordinary energy resources will lessen our reliance on hostile, 

foreign sources of energy, strengthen our domestic energy independence, help bolster the West’s 

economy and contribute greatly to the long-term prosperity of our nation. #3])>

<([#4 [9] The challenge of developing oil shale lies in identifying an economically efficient and 

environmentally responsible way to develop these vast resources. It is important for the BLM to 
Final OSTS PEIS 928 

recognize the capital investment and associated business risk that comes with developing the 

technology to produce this energy. BLM can best respond to these realities by: 

-Making a strong commitment to a commercial oil shale leasing program; 

-Providing greater certainty to the leasing process at every stage; 

-Developing a regulatory structure that makes allowances for the intensive investment that 

businesses must make to produce this domestic energy resource. 

Unfortunately, BLM’s “fresh look” appears more focused on hobbling commercial leasing than 

on encouraging development. We believe this approach is fundamentally wrong. 

Ironically, delay is hindering the development of the very technology many of the proponents of 

more delay are requesting. It certainly delays the objective of becoming a more energyindependent country in an unstable world, and it diminishes the economic opportunities for jobs 

in our Western communities. Perhaps most importantly, delay takes out of the mix a source of 

fuel that has the ability, in the future, to substantially mitigate the price volatility for fuels that 

has so battered American consumers in recent years. 

Absent a reliable structure for leasing over 70 percent of the potential resource, companies 

cannot accurately evaluate the risk versus the reward of pursing oil shale development. If BLM 

can provide greater certainty, both through a solid commitment to implement a commercial 

leasing program and through institution of reasonable leasing terms and requirements, businesses 

will respond to the opportunity. In that case, our nation will reap the benefits of a vast domestic 

energy resource. On the other hand, the uncertainty that persists – in the absence of a viable, 

appropriately-scaled commercial leasing regulatory structure -- will eventually smother the 

innovation needed to tap the West’s tremendous domestic oil shale resources. #4])>

CONCLUSION 

Thank you for your consideration of these comments. 

Holly Propst Executive Director / General Counsel Western Business Roundtable 14405 West 

Colfax Avenue, #159 Lakewood, CO 80401 1-800-410-1050 

OSTS2012D50284 

Organization: Kevin Uno 

Received: 5/4/2012 10:58:14 AM 

Commenter1: Kevin Uno - Salt Lake City, Utah 84103 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/14/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50284.htm (OSTS2012D50284-58899.htm Size = 1 KB) 

Submission Text

<([#1 [12] I oppose oil shale and tar sand extraction, especially in Utah. The long-term 

environmental consequences far outweigh the short-term gain of fossil fuel. #1])> <([#2 [10.6.1] 

I encourage Utah’s elected officials and business community to be leaders in developing clean 

energy alternatives. #2])>

OSTS2012D50285 
Final OSTS PEIS 929 

Organization: tarsandsutah.blueskyinstitute.org, Lionel Trepanier 

Received: 5/4/2012 11:01:34 AM 

Commenter1: Lionel Trepanier - Salt Lake City, Utah 84102 (United States) 

Organization1:tarsandsutah.blueskyinstitute.org 

Commenter Type: Affiliation Only 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/16/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50285.htm (OSTS2012D50285-58918.htm Size = 3 KB) 

Please_have_these_comments_on_your_proposal_to_lease_federal_Lands_for_tar_sands_OSTS

2012D50285.pdf (OSTS2012D50285-58917.pdf Size = 13 KB) 

Submission Text

Please have these comments on your proposal to lease federal Lands for tar sands/oil shale 

mining in Utah/Colorado/Wyoming. <([#1 [1.1] You need to hold a proper and sufficient public 

hearing in Salt Lake City. The hearing I attended on Wednesday, March 14, 2012 at the Grand 

America Hotel in Salt Lake City, was no public opportunity at all. The room did not fit. It was 

way way to small. Even though you must have known it was too small given the attendance at 

earlier presentations. Your presenters refused to answer questions and instead played musical 

chairs with the little room forcing most of the public to leave without answers. We want a public 

hearing and not the dog and pony show you presented! #1])> <([#2 [12] Further, I suggest, even 

demand, that you NOT expand the land available for tar sands/oil shale mining in 

Utah/Colorado/Wyoming. I understand there are several relatively small plots currently under 

lease for experimental tar sands/oil shale mining in Utah/Colorado/Wyoming. These sites should 

be promptly remediated and NOT expanded. No additional acres should be allocated to this loser 

project. In short hand: Several Problems with Tar Sands and Oil Shale Mining are: It requires 

huge amounts of energy to produce, leading to high greenhouse gas emissions. It releases toxic 

substances into the environments, including carcinogens. It uses massive amounts of water and 

will pollute ground water and surface waters now used for other purposes. It destroys habitat. It 

produces dirty energy that pollutes the environment. #2])> Specifically consider: <([#3 [6.3] The 

PEIS is deficient because you cannot determine the programmatic environmental impact of 

committing so many acres to this project when the technology intended to be used for the project 

is quite unknown and unproven. #3])> <([#4 [4.2] [3.14] Further we do know that toxic 

waste/citric solvent would be released during the project including carcinogens into the 

environment and the cumulative impact has not been disclosed in the PEIS. #4])> <([#5 [3.4.1] 

Also, recent research indicates that Oil shale beds often serve as the floor for aquifers and 

heating the oil shale in place will heat the aquifer. That will likely causes the groundwater to 

become contaminated with elements like arsenic and fluoride, creating a groundwater nightmare. 

Because the Green River formation lies within the greater Colorado River drainage basin, any 

surface or groundwater contamination will not only affect the local population but will likely 

have a significant impact on water quality for the millions of downstream users. #5])> <([#6

[3.4.1] Water use. While the details remain unclear, the implication is unmistakable – 

unconventional fuel development will increase demand for water in an arid region where demand 

for water often exceeds supply. Not all who seek water will be able to satisfy their thirst at a 
Final OSTS PEIS 930 

palatable cost, and non-consumptive uses will be pitted against powerful economic interests. 

#6])> <([#7 [1.5] This PEIS is fatally deficient. Best to rescind, research and reissue. #7])>

Sincerely, ____/ Lionel Trepanier____ Lionel Trepanier 411 s 800 e Salt Lake City UT 84102 

LionelTrepanier@gmail.com 801-487-2295 See Attachment. 

OSTS2012D50286 

Organization: Wyoming Game and Fish Department, John Emmerich 

Received: 5/4/2012 11:13:33 AM 

Commenter1: John Emmerich - Cheyenne, Wyoming 82006 (United States) 

Organization1:Wyoming Game and Fish Department 

Commenter Type: State Government 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 

Submitted As: Web Form and Mail 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/14/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50286.htm (OSTS2012D50286-58921.htm Size = 1 KB) 

wer11311.00f_signed_letter_OSTS2012D50286.pdf (OSTS2012D50286-58920.pdf Size = 1995 

KB) 

Submission Text

See Attachment. 

May 4, 2012 

WER 11311 

WYOMING GAME AND FISH DEPARTMENT 

5400 Bishop Blvd. Cheyenne, WY 82006 

Phone: (307) 777-4600 Fax: (307) 777-4699 

Web site: http://wgfd.wyo.gov 

Department of the Interior 

Bureau of Land Management 

Notice of Availability ofthe 

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Allocation of Oil Shale and Tar Sands Resources on 

Lands Administered by Bureau of Land Management 

in Colorado, Utah and Wyoming 

Oil Shale and Tar Sands Resources 

Draft Programmatic EIS 

Argonne National Laboratory, 

9700 South Cass Avenue-EVS/240 

Argonne, Illinois 60439 

Dear Sir/Madam: 

GOVERNOR 

MATIHEW H. MEAD 

DIRECTOR 

SCOTITALBOTI 

COMMISSIONERS 
Final OSTS PEIS 931 

AARON CLARK- President 

MIKE HEALY- Vice President 

RICHARD KLOUDA 

FRED LINDZEY 

T. CARRIE UTILE 

EDMIGNERY 

CHARLES PRICE 

The staff of the Wyoming Game and Fish Department has reviewed the Draft Programmatic 

Environmental Impact Statement for Allocation of Oil Shale and Tar Sands Resources on Lands 

Administered by Bureau of Land Management in Colorado, Utah and Wyoming. We offer the 

following comments regarding the four alternatives for your consideration. 

<([#1 [2.1] [3.7.3.1] Alternative 1- No Action 

This alternative would provide no additional protection for wildlife or habitat in Wyoming, but 

could have a number of potential negative effects on the state’s wildlife and habitat resources. 

Although there are no anticipated impacts from the allocation of leases in the Kemmerer, Rock 

Springs, and Rawlins Field Offices, Alternative 1 leaves an estimated 1,000,574 acres open for 

future commercial oil shale leasing in southwest Wyoming, including approximately 248,000 

acres available for surface mining operations. Given the amount of surface disturbance involved 

in all three methods of oil shale extraction - surface mining (5,760 acres), underground mining 

(1 ,650 acres), and in-situ process (5,760 acres) - the Department would anticipate the potential 

for negative impacts on wildlife and habitat resources related to habitat loss, fragmentation, and 

degradation, among other things. Project and site-specific NEP A would reveal those potential 

impacts, and is required for all future oil shale leasing. 

Although the allocation of leases in Alternative 1 does not necessarily mean that + 1 million 

acres 

of land in the Green River and Washakie Basins will be leased for commercial oil shale 

production, Alternative 1 would allow for the possibility of oil shale leasing on approximately 

31,000 acres of identified floodplains, wetlands, and riparian areas and could impact 228.7 miles 

of stream (includes a 2 mile buffer as described in the PEIS) on 18 different streams in these 

basins. Additionally, the leasing area proposed in Alternative 1 overlaps a number of sensitive, 

critical, and crucial habitats, including Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs) open 

to mineral development. As described in the PEIS, oil shale development and commercial 

production in these areas would have many short-term, long-term, direct, and indirect impacts on 

the state’s wildlife and habitat resources and would likely increase the difficulty of managing for 

healthy species populations in southwest Wyoming due to increasingly disturbed and fragmented 

habitat conditions. 

Specifically, the leasing area proposed in Alternative 1 overlaps 22 aquatic, terrestrial, and 

combination priority areas (i.e., crucial habitat) and enhancement areas that are defined in the 

Department’s Strategic Habitat Plan (SHP). The SHP was developed to help guide the 

Department in meeting the challenges of habitat conservation in the face of forces like energy 

development, climate change, invasive species, and drought. Future leasing and commercial oil 

shale development in these identified areas would necessarily create more complexity in 

managing for healthy wildl ife and habitat. The leasing area proposed in Alternative 1 overlaps 

thousands of acres of big game crucial winter range, including important winter habitats for 
Final OSTS PEIS 932 

pronghorn, mule deer, and elk. The disturbance, fragmentation, and long-term loss of crucial 

winter habitats is detrimental to the ability of these species survive difficult winter months and 

maintain good body condition, and so also impacting reproductive success. In addition to crucial 

winter range, the leasing area overlaps pronghorn, mule deer, and moose winter range, as well as 

elk calving areas. The Alternative 1 proposed leasing area overlaps both riparian and terrestrial 

key non-game wildlife areas in southwest Wyoming. Although some of these habitats may be 

protected by timing stipulations during the development phase, few protections would exist once 

commercial oil shale production begins. Moreover, timing stipulations do not mitigate the loss or 

fragmentation ofhabitat. It is unclear whether or not oil shale extraction would be treated like oil 

and gas activities and the leases would have resource protecting stipulations attached, or whether 

it is treated as a mining activity with very little restriction under existing mining laws. #1])>

The leasing area proposed in Alternative 1 overlaps thousands of acres of greater sage-grouse 

habitat, including areas designated as core population areas by the State of Wyoming Greater 

Sage-Grouse Core Area Protection Executive Order 20 11-5 (E.O. 2011-5). In June 2011 , 

Governor Mead signed E.O. 20 11-5 to replace E.O. 2010-4 signed by former Governor 

Freudenthal in August 2010, which replaced E.O. 2008-2, also signed by Governor Freudenthal, 

in August 2008. Wyoming’s “Core Population Area” strategy is a statewide conservation 

strategy developed in response to declining sage-grouse populations and the potential federal 

listing by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) ofthe greater sage-grouse as threatened or 

endangered. In March 2010, the Service rendered a status finding for the greater sage-grouse of 

wananted for listing but precluded. The Service will repeat its assessment and make a 

determination either to list the bird under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 or find that a 

listing is not wananted by September 2015 for the majority of the bird’s range (including 

Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming). 

<([#2 [3.7.5.1] Wyoming’s greater sage-grouse core area strategy defines priority conservation 

areas within the 

state and sets forth a permitting process and stipulations for development within those defined 

core areas. The strategy also has established two connectivity areas in northern Wyoming with 

stipulations for development. As noted in previous comments on the PEIS (see 5/16/ 11 letter), 

the area made available for application for oil shale leasing in Alternative 1 in Wyoming 

overlaps the Greater South Pass, Seedskadee, Uinta, Blacks Fork, and Salt Wells core areas. Per 

E.O. 201 1-5, each application for development in core area would require the use of the Density 

and Disturbance Calculation Tool (DDCT) as part of the permitting process and the application 

of stipulations for development, which, among other things, includes limits on surface 

disturbance and density of anthropogenic disturbances within core area. The Department has 

been on the front lines of implementing this statewide conservation strategy, and to date, some of 

the biggest baiTiers to its success are valid and existing lease and development rights on BLM 

lands. Given the extent to which oil shale operations disturb the surface - surface mining (5,760 

acres), underground mining (1 ,650 acres), and in-situ process (5,760 acres) - allowing for the 

allocation of oil shale leasing in Wyoming’s sage-grouse core areas has the potential to 

undermine E.O. 2011-5 and the core population area strategy by adding additional rights to lease 

and develop, that are not likely to be denied, in core sage-grouse habitat. Surface disturbance 

levels exceeding 5% in an area defined by the E.O. 2011 -5 DDCT process, and oil and gas and 

mining disturbance density levels that exceed an average of 1 per 640 acres are projected to 

cause declines in local sage-grouse populations in these areas. The declines would necessarily 
Final OSTS PEIS 933 

contribute to a future listing decision by the Service. #2])>

<([#3 [3.1.2] In addition to directly impacting various species and their habitats, the Department 

anticipates 

that commercial oil shale leasing could impact recreational hunting and angling opportunities in 

southwest Wyoming. #3])>

<([#4 [2.2] [3.7.3.8] Alternative 2 - Conservation Focus (2a), and with RD&D First Requirement 

(2b, 

Preferred) 

Of the four alternatives, this alternative offers the most protection to Wyoming’s wildlife and 

habitat, aside from no allocation of oil shale leases in Wyoming as described in Alternative 3. 

Alternative 2 reduces the amount of area available for future commercial oil shale leasing by 

approximately 826,000 acres, and Alternative 2a further restricts the issuance of commercial 

leases until an initial Research Development and Demonstration (RD&D) lease demonstrates 

both the technical and economic feasibility of the extractive technology, which is limited to a 

160 acre area. If the RD&D program requirements are met, the lease may be converted to a 

commercial production lease, which could include up to an additional 4,960 acres of contiguous 

area. 

Although there are no anticipated impacts from the allocation of leases in the Kemmerer, Rock 

Springs, and Rawlins Field Offices, Alternative 2 leaves an estimated 174,476 acres open for 

future commercial oil shale leasing in southwest Wyoming. Given the amount of surface 

distmbance involved in all three methods of oil shale extraction - surface mining (5,760 acres), 

underground mining (1 ,650 acres), and in-situ process (5,760 acres) - the Department would 

anticipate the potential for negative impacts on wildlife and habitat resources related to habitat 

loss, fragmentation, and degradation, among other things. Project and site-specific NEPA would 

reveal those potential impacts, and is required for all future commercial and RD&D oil shale 

leasing. 

With regard to this alternative, the Department would anticipate fewer (2a and 2b) and smaller 

scale (2b) impacts than the no action alternative. Both Alternative 2a and 2b exclude many 

critical and sensitive habitats in Wyoming from future oil shale leasing. Exclusions include: 

Lands with wilderness characteristics; Adobe Town; sage-grouse core areas; ACECs; land 

identified as having steep slopes and/or fragile, highly erosive soils; and identified, protected 

wetlands, riparian habitats, and floodplains. An estimated 79.6mi of stream (includes a 2 mile 

buffer as described in the PEIS) on 12 different streams in the Green River and Washakie Basins 

has the potential to be impacted by oil shale development under this alternative, which is ~ 150 

fewer miles than the no action alternative. A majority of big game crucial winter habitats in 

Wyoming are avoided, as well. #4])>

<([#5 [2.2] In addition to fewer and smaller scale impacts, Alternative 2b would allow existing 

technology 

to continue to advance and possibly become more efficient and a less disturbing and disruptive 

activity than it is at present. Also, the issuance of RD&D leases prior to conversion to 

commercial leases would allow operators to work with state and federal agencies early on in the

planning and siting processes, as well as in developing resource mitigation plans in advance of 

commercial development. #5])>
Final OSTS PEIS 934 

<([#6 [2.3] [3.7.3.8] Alternative 3 - Research Lands Focus 

Alternative 3 allows for additional RD&D leasing in existing oil shale development areas in 

Colorado, and therefore no RD&D or commercial leases would be available in Wyoming. The 

Department would not anticipate any terrestrial or aquatic wildlife and habitat impacts in 

southwest Wyoming resulting from this alternative. However, similar to Alternative 2b, this 

alternative would allow existing technology to continue to advance and possibly become more 

efficient and a less disturbing and disruptive activity than it is at present. Also, the issuance of 

RD&D leases prior to conversion to commercial leases would allow operators to work with state 

and federal agencies early on in the planning and siting processes, as well as in developing 

resource mitigation plans in advance of commercial development. #6])>

<([#7 [2.4] [3.7.5.1] Alternative 4 - Moderate Development (4a), and with RD&D First 

Requirement (4b) 

The potential impacts on Wyoming’s wildlife and habitat resources as a result of Alternative 4 

would be similar to those described under Alternative 1. Although there are no anticipated 

impacts from the allocation of leases in the Kemmerer, Rock Springs, and Rawlins Field Offices 

this alternative leaves an estimated 967,446 acres open to future commercial leasing (a 33, 128 

acre reduction from Alternative 1). Given the amount of surface disturbance involved in all three 

methods of oil shale extraction - surface mining (5 ,760 acres), underground mining (1 ,650 

acres), and in-situ process (5 ,760 acres) - the Department would anticipate the potential for 

negative impacts on wildlife and habitat resources related to habitat loss, fragmentation, and 

degradation, among other things. Project and site-specific NEPA would reveal those potential 

impacts, and is required for all future oil shale leasing. 

Although the allocation of leases in Alternative 4 does not necessarily mean that - 1 million acres 

of land in the Green River and Washakie Basins will be leased for commercial oil shale 

production, Alternative 4 would allow for the possibility of oil shale leasing on identified 

floodplains, wetlands, and riparian areas and could impact 217.3 miles of stream (includes a 2 

mile buffer as described in the PEIS) on 18 different streams in these basins. Additionally, the 

leasing area proposed in Alternative 4 overlaps a number of sensitive, critical, and crucial 

habitats, excluding only Adobe Town and ACECs. Lands allocated for leasing in this alternative 

overlap thousands of acres of big game crucial winter habitat; sage-grouse habitat, including 

defined core areas; Department-identified priority and enhancement areas; and key non-game 

wildlife areas as described under Alternative 1. Although some of these habitats may be 

protected by timing stipulations during the development phase, few protections would exist once 

commercial oil shale production begins. Moreover, timing stipulations do not mitigate the loss or 

fragmentation of habitat. #7])>

<([#8 [3.7.5.1] As with Alternative 1, the Department would have the same concerns about 

allocating oil shale 

leases in sage-grouse core area. Although Alternative 4 is a moderate development alternative 

when compared to the no action altemative, given the extent to which oil shale operations disturb 

the surface - surface mining (5,760 acres), underground mining (1,650 acres), and in-situ process 

(5,760 acres) - allowing for the allocation of oil shale leasing in Wyoming’s sage-grouse core 

areas has the potential to undermine E.O. 201 1-5 and the core population area strategy by 

adding 
Final OSTS PEIS 935 

additional rights to lease and develop, that are not likely to be denied, in core sage-grouse 

habitat. Surface disturbance levels exceeding 5% in an area defined by the E.O. 2011-5 DDCT 

process, and oil and gas and mining disturbance density levels that exceed an average of 1 per 

640 acres are projected to cause declines in local sage-grouse populations in these areas. The 

declines would necessarily contribute to a future listing decision by the Service. #8])>

<([#9 [3.1.2] Similar to Altemative 1, in addition to directly impacting various species and their 

habitats, the 

Department anticipates that commercial oil shale leasing could impact recreational hunting and 

angling opportunities in southwest Wyoming. #9])>

<([#10 [2.4] Under Alternative 4b, the Department would initially anticipate fewer and smaller 

scale impacts 

than alternative 4a or the no action alternative. In addition to fewer and smaller scale impacts, 

Alternative 4b would allow existing technology to continue to advance and possibly become 

more efficient and a Jess disturbing and disruptive activity than it is at present. Also, the issuance 

of RD&D leases prior to conversion to commercial leases would allow operators to work with 

state and federal agencies early on in the planning and siting processes, as well as in developing 

resource mitigation plans in advance of commercial development. 

#10])> Thank you for the opportunity to comment. If you have any questions or concerns, please 

contact 

Amanda Losch, Staff Biologist, at (307) 4 73-3436. 

Sincerely, 

~ John Emmerich 

Deputy Director 

JE/mflgb 

cc: USFWS 

Colin McKee - Office of Governor Mead 

Scott Smith-WGFD, Pinedale 

Hilda Sexauer- WGFD, Pinedale 

Jill Randall - WGFD, Pinedale 

Floyd Roadifer- WGFD, Pinedale 

Mark Zornes - WGFD, Green River 

Robb Keith - WGFD, Green River 

Ben Wise- WGFD, Green River 

Kevin Spence-WGFD, Green River 

Zack Walker - WGFD, Casper 

Bob Oakleaf- WGFD, Lander 

OSTS2012D50287 

Organization: ExxonMobil Exploration Company, Thomas Yelverton 

Received: 5/4/2012 11:36:39 AM 

Commenter1: Thomas Yelverton - Houston, Texas 77060 (United States) 

Organization1:ExxonMobil Exploration Company 

Commenter Type: Gas / Oil Company 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 
Final OSTS PEIS 936 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/10/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50287.htm (OSTS2012D50287-58924.htm Size = 1 KB) 

EMEC_BLM_OSTS_DPEIS_RESPONSE_5_4_12_FINAL-2._OSTS2012D50287.pdf 

(OSTS2012D50287-58923.pdf Size = 932 KB) 

Submission Text

Submitting on behalf of James V. White, ExxonMobil Exploration Comapny Attachment See 

Attachment. 

ExxonMobil Exploration Company 

Post Office Box 4778 

Houston, Texas 77210-4778 

May 4, 2012 

Oil Shale and Tar Resources Draft Programmatic EIS 

Argonne National Laboratory 

9700 South Cass A venue - EVS/240 

Argonne, Illinois 60439 

EJf(onMobil 

Exploration 

RE: Notice of Availability of the Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact 

Statement for Allocation of Oil Shale and Tar Sands Resources on Lands 

Administered by the Bureau of Land Management in Colorado, Utah and 

Wyoming, 77 Fed. Reg. 5833 (Feb. 6, 2012) 

Dear BLM Manager: 

ExxonMobil Exploration Company (“ExxonMobil”) appreciates the opportunity to 

comment on the Bureau of Land Management’s (“BLM’s”) Oil Shale and Tar Sands Resources 

draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (“2012 Draft PEIS”). <([#1 [10.6.3] The 

company 

believes a commercial oil shale and tar sands leasing program is in the best interest of the nation 

in helping to meet the country’s energy needs. BLM lands in Colorado, Utah and Wyoming 

present strategically important long-term domestic energy resource potential. ExxonMobil 

urges the BLM to take a similarly long term view of land use policy that may ultimately allow 

development of oil shale and tar sand resources in an environmentally sound manner, pursuant to 

The Energy Policy Act of 2005 (“EP Act”). #1])> <([#2 [9.7] Premature and precautionary 

removal of access to 

the vast majority of land with this resource potential will put the viability of continued research 

and development at risk by making commerciality of development far less likely. ExxonMobil 

is currently pursuing a Research, Development and Demonstration (“RD&D”) lease in Colorado 

to continue to develop and assess the feasibility of in-situ oil shale and nahcolite recovery. The 

proposed removal of90 percent oflands in Colorado and three-quarters of currently available 

land in the three-state area will discourage our and others’ continued RD&D expenditure by 

drastically shrinking the size of and introducing huge discontinuity for potential resource 

recovery. This action would have serious economic and national security implications and 

should not be taken before the viability, means and need for recovery of this resource are known. 
Final OSTS PEIS 937 

#2])> <([#3 [2] ExxonMobil is concerned that the alternatives analyzed, and the preferred 

alternative 

identified, in the 2012 Draft PEIS are overly restrictive and contrary to the purposes of the 

EP Act. BLM has already analyzed the potential environmental effects and identified lands that 

may be available for development of oil shale and tar sands resources in a 2008 Programmatic 

Environmental Impact Statement (“2008 PEIS”). In that document and the subsequent Record of 

Decision (“2008 ROD”), BLM correctly concluded that specific environmental impacts, and 

therefore appropriate mitigation, could not be adequately analyzed until the leasing or project 

approval phase. Notwithstanding, the 2012 Draft PEIS reverses this decision and purports to 

reanalyze the environmental impacts associated with amending ten land use plans in Colorado, 

Utah and Wyoming in order “to reassess the appropriate mix of allowable uses with respect to oil 

shale and tar sands leasing and potential development.”1 BLM’s Notice of Availability states 

that, while the 2012 Draft PEIS assesses various mitigation measures, “[n]o decision regarding 

the adoption of such measures is being made as part of this planning initiative; such measures 

may be applied, if appropriate, at the discretion of the decision-maker, at the time these resources 

are leased and/or developed.”2 This position is contrary to the preferred alternatives listed in the 

2012 PEIS. 

1 77 Fed. Reg. 5833, 5834 (Feb. 6, 2012) 

2 Id. at 5835 #3])> <([#4 [9] The U.S. oil shale industry needs consistency in federal policy and 

regulation to provide 

the confidence needed for industry to make long-term investments in technology and research 

demonstration projects. This important resource development must carefully balance other 

priorities with respect to the use of Federal lands, including environmental protection and the 

need for paced, sustainable development that is required to progress technology and 

infrastructure over a multiple-year horizon. #4])> <([#5 [10.6.3] While renewable or alternative 

energy supplies will 

make an important contribution to our energy mix, fossil fuels still supply the great majority of 

energy in the U.S. and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future. As Congress recognized 

in Section 369 of the EPAct, access to the oil shales of Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming is 

therefore critically important to sustain our country’s energy security. 

#5])> <([#6 [2.1.1] ExxonMobil continues to support the BLM in its efforts to develop a 

commercial leasing 

program to make Federal lands available for commercial oil shale and tar sands leasing. We 

strongly urge BLM to select the “no action alternative” and leave the current allocation decisions 

from the 2008 ROD in place. We believe that access to oil shale resources as outlined in BLM’s 

2008 PEIS and ROD could significantly increase domestic sources of energy supply in the years 

to come. The in-place oil shale resource for the Green River formation in the three-state area has 

been estimated at 1.5 to 1.8 trillion barrels. The size of the resource supports its strategic 

importance and the economic impact that its development would have. We believe that there 

would be significant economic benefits locally, statewide, and nationally as a result of oil shale 

development in the form of jobs and economic growth. 

Of the Alternatives presented, Alternative 1 (No Change to 2008 ROD) is the most 

consistent with the EPAct and the only reasonable alternative at this stage of the NEPA process. 

“The lands available for lease under the 2008 land use plan amendment decisions would remain 
Final OSTS PEIS 938 

available for future leasing consideration under the No Action Alternative. These lands comprise 

the most geologically prospective oil shale and tar sands areas administered by the BLM . . . but 

excluding lands that are exempted by statute, regulation, or Executive Order.”3 ExxonMobil 

supports the BLM’s 2008 amendment of land use plans to guide future management of 

geologically prospective areas where oil shale and tar sands resources are present. We believe a 

commercial oil shale and tar sands leasing program is in the best interest of the nation with 

respect to meeting the country’s energy needs. Thus, ExxonMobil strongly favors Alternative 1, 

the No Action Alternative, which would leave the current allocation decisions from the 2008 

ROD in place, and best meets the requirements of the EPAct. 

There is no compelling reason to change BLM’s well researched and considered oil shale 

and tar sands leasing decisions made in 2008. The process took several years, was thorough and 

involved broad public participation from all stakeholders. We believe the 2008 BLM ruling 

provides appropriate acreage for potential commercial leasing, while preserving the adequate 

measures for environmental and socioeconomic protection. We strongly believe that viable 

economic development can only be sustained if performed in a safe, environmentally sound way. 

The “no action alternative” would support a long-term approach that favors resource access, and 

regulatory and fiscal stability with a level of certainty that supports the significant research 

investments required to develop technologies to unlock these vast oil and gas resources. 

3 2012 Draft PEIS at ES-5 #6])>

<([#7 [9.2.4] Contrary to BLM’s conclusion in its 2008 PEIS and ROD, and without any 

explanation 

for its change in position, the 2012 Draft PEIS’s Preferred Alternative (Alternative 2) would 

impose mandatory mitigation measures for greater sage grouse by excluding “core or priority 

sage grouse habitat” from development. As an initial matter, neither “core” nor “priority” sage 

grouse habitat has yet been defined by BLM, even though the Preferred Alternative purports to 

incorporate restrictions on development in these areas. As a result, interested parties cannot 

meaningfully comment on these restrictions at this time, because BLM has not defined the 

relevant terms. 

Moreover, approval of this Alternative would still allow incorporation of mitigation 

measures identified as part of the ongoing efforts to increase the protections of sage grouse 

habitat, as BLM concedes additional NEPA analyses are required before any leases could be 

issued or developed. Thus, it is not the case here that BLM is ignoring its current policy on sage 

grouse management, rather BLM is presuming what such future guidance may entail and 

impermissibly imposing that guidance as mandatory mitigation at the programmatic stage. In 

fact, the total area actually developed even under Alternative 1 is certain to be smaller than 

outlined, precisely because regulatory and land management factors analyzed at the leasing and 

project approval phases have not yet been considered and will undoubtedly come into play. 

Indeed, as discussed further in the attached, BLM has recognized that the environmental impacts 

cannot be fully assessed at the programmatic level, but must be done at the leasing or project 

approval stage. Indeed, this would allow BLM to consider not only the resources that may be 

affected and whether any “core” or “priority” habitat are in the area, but also the actual 

technology being used and additional efforts by industry to reduce the impacts on sage grouse 
Final OSTS PEIS 939 

habitat. 

#7])> <([#8 [2.4] Although ExxonMobil strongly supports Alternative 1 in the 2012 Draft PEIS, 

we note 

that Alternative 4 (moderate development alternative) may also be consistent with the EPAct, 

unlike Alternatives 2 and 3. Alternative 4 is similar to Alternative 1 except that it would exclude 

from oil shale and tar sands leasing the whole of the Adobe Town “Very Rare or Uncommon” 

area, as designated by the Wyoming Environment Quality Council on April 10, 2008, and 76,666 

acres in existing Areas of Critical Environmental Concerns (ACEC) in the 2008 PEIS plus an 

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

completed.4 This less restrictive Alternative (Alternative 4) was also found to be consistent with 

the BLM’s 2011 settlement agreement with the Colorado Environmental Coalition, et al.5 It 

would manage sage-grouse habitat the same as under Alternative 1 but with individual field 

offices determining the management of such areas through additional NEP A and planning 

processes.fi As discussed further in the attached, BLM is undergoing a separate process to 

develop national management considerations, which would also apply to Alternatives 1 and 4. 

4 See 2012 Draft PEIS at ES-8 to ES-9 

5 Id. at ES-9 #8])> Additional detailed comments ofExxonMobil are provided in the attached 

document. 

Again, we appreciate the opportunity to comment on the 2012 Draft PEIS. Please do not hesitate 

to contact us with any questions. 

Thank you for the opportunity to comment. 

11 ld. at 2-48 to 2-54 

Sincerely, 

U.S. New Opportunity Manager 

ExxonMobil Exploration Company 

4 

DETAILED COMMENTS OF EXXONMOBIL EXPLORATION COMPANY 

ON THE DRAFT PROGRAMMATIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

FOR ALLOCATION OF OIL SHALE AND TAR SANDS RESOURCES ON 

LANDS ADMINISTERED BY THE BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT IN 

COLORADO, UTAH, AND WYOMING 

77 Fed. Reg. 5833 (Feb. 6, 2012) 

OUTLINE 

I. Background 

A. Energy Access Perspective 

II. BLM Has Not Adequately Explained its Change in Position from the 2008 ROD and its 

Decision to Issue a New PEIS. 

A. The 2012 Draft PEIS does not identify any new information to support exclusion 

of undefined “core or priority sage grouse habitat” from any oil shale or tar sands 

development. 

B. BLM does not explain its change of position to exclude all of Adobe Town, 

contrary to its decision in 2008. 

C. BLM’s voluntary settlement does not justify its change in position. 

III. The Preferred Alternative (Alternative 2) is Counter to the United States’ Energy Policy 

as Identified in the Energy Policy Act, Which Defines the Purpose and Need for the BLM 
Final OSTS PEIS 940 

Action Here. 

A. An RD&D-first component is inconsistent with the EPAct. 

B. The 2012 Draft PEIS is inconsistent with the EPAct and with FLPMA and BLM 

policy. 

C. The EPAct defines the Purpose and Need for this action, and BLM should return 

to the Purpose and Need statement in the 2008 PEIS and ROD. 

IV. As BLM Found in the 2008 ROD, Decisions Regarding Sage Grouse Mitigation Should 

be Considered at Later Planning Stages. 

V. Any Exclusion of Potential Oil and Gas Leasing on “To Be Defined” Sage Grouse 

Habitat may be viewed as Arbitrary and Capricious. 

A. Protection for the sage grouse should be deferred to the environmental reviews of 

leasing or project-specific actions. 

B BLM cannot impose mandatory limitations based on future “guidance.” 

C. BLM has failed to take a “hard look” at the potential impacts of the alternatives in 

the 2012 Draft PEIS. 

D. Basing a decision prior to defining the precise parameters of the agency action is 

arbitrary and capricious. 

VI. BLM Should Await Completion of its Ongoing Review of Sage Grouse Management on 

Public Lands. 

VII. Other Technical Comments 

A. Oil Shale development and water usage 

B. Multi-Mineral Leasing 

Comments of ExxonMobil Exploration Company 

Oil Shale and Tar Sands Draft PEIS 

May 4, 2012 

Page 2 

I. Background 

<([#9 [9] A. Energy Access Perspective 

Increased access to U.S. energy supplies will strengthen energy security, create jobs, 

stimulate economic growth, and generate tremendous revenues to federal and local governments. 

In order to increase U.S. energy supplies, expanded access is needed to both areas that are 

currently off-limits to the oil and gas industry and to areas with large unconventional oil and 

natural gas resources. Decisions and regulatory frameworks governing the development of these 

resources need to be efficient and transparent. They should also recognize current scientific, 

technological and economic realities of oil and natural gas exploration and production. 

The oil and gas industry currently faces significant regulatory challenges that are limiting 

development of our national resources. The business and national energy security implications 

of ever-growing barriers and regulatory requirements are significant and add uncertainty, time, 

and expense to the leasing and permitting process at all levels, making it more difficult, 

expensive, time-consuming and even possible to secure leases and to translate them into actual 

drilling permits, new drilling activity, and eventual production. 

U.S. energy policy should provide for responsible development of oil and gas resources 

to help meet the nation’s long term energy needs. Policies should provide for both conventional 

and unconventional oil and natural gas resources and must require that exploration and 

development be done in an environmentally and socially responsible manner. Recent studies 

project global energy demand will be about 30 percent higher in 2040 than in 2010, even with 
Final OSTS PEIS 941 

substantial gains in efficiency across all regions of the world. Meeting this demand will require 

all energy sources and must include development of new oil and natural gas supplies. One 

important resource that will help us meet this demand is oil shale. 

ExxonMobil supports development and use of high-quality scientific and technical 

knowledge bases to inform science-based regulation, leasing, and permitting decision making. 

Industry and the federal government should also continue to conduct and support research in key 

safety, health, and environment related areas associated with exploration. 

#9])> <([#10 [9.2.2] [2.2] II. BLM Has Not Adequately Explained its Change in Position from 

the 2008 ROD and 

its Decision to Issue a New PEIS. 

EPAct Section 369(d) required BLM to prepare a PEIS for a commercial leasing program 

for oil shale and tar sands resources, emphasizing “the most geologically prospective lands 

within each of the States of Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming.” Pub. L. No. 109-58, § 369(d)(1). 

Congress imposed stringent timelines to ensure that a leasing program would be in place by 

February 2008. Additional provisions in the EPAct evidences Congress’ intention to provide for 

diligent development of these resources. Id. § 369(d), (e), (f). BLM issued a Final PEIS in 

September 2008 and the Approved Resource Management Plan Amendments/Record of 

Decision (ROD) for Oil Shale and Tar Sands Resources to Address Land Use Allocations in 

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

November 2008. The 2008 ROD amended ten RMPs to open nearly two million acres of federal 

lands for potential oil shale and tar sands leasing. 

In the 2008 ROD, BLM rejected those alternatives that would not make the “most 

geologically prospective lands . . . available for application for leasing.” 2008 ROD at 22 (oil 

shale), 35 (tar sands). As BLM recognized, certain alternatives excluded much of the most 

geologically prospective acreage and unreasonably fragmented the area that would be available 

for application, resulting in parcels that are unlikely to be explored, leased, or developed. Id. at 

22, 35-36. BLM also recognized that the allocation decision was only a first step in the process 

to establish a commercial oil shale and tar sands program, and that prior to the leasing and 

development additional analyses under the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”) would 

be required. Id. at 38. BLM concluded, “[i]t would be premature to eliminate areas prior to 

sitespecific 

analysis based on factors that are not known now, but that would be known at the leasing 

or operation permitting stages, such as location, timing and type of oil shale technology, that may 

show that these resources could be adequately protected through mitigation.” Id. 22; see also id. 

at 36. 

Yet, Alternative 2 of the Oil Shale and Tar Sands Resources draft Programmatic 

Environmental Impact Statement (“2012 Draft PEIS”), which BLM has preliminarily selected as 

its Preferred Alternative, would “exclude from commercial oil shale leasing” numerous 

categories of public lands “and/or their resource value that may warrant protection from potential 

oil shale leasing and development.” 2012 Draft PEIS at ES-6 (emphasis added). This alternative 

would, among other things, exclude “[c]ore or priority sage-grouse habitat, as defined by such 

guidance as the BLM or the DOI may issue.”7 Id. “As a result, the acreage made available for 

application for commercial lease under Alternative 2 (461,965 acres) would be less than a 
Final OSTS PEIS 942 

quarter of that available under Alternative 1.”8 Id. at 6-114. BLM provides no rationale and 

cites no authority to support such blanket exclusions at this stage of the planning process. The 

Preferred Alternative would provide significantly less than the 830,297 acres that would have 

been available for oil shale leasing under a similar alternative rejected in 2008.9 In now 

identifying Alternative 2 as the “Preferred Alternative” in the 2012 Draft PEIS, BLM has taken 

the opposite approach than it took in 2008 by excluding lands from allocation even before a full 

environmental impact analysis can be completed.10 BLM has failed to adequately explain or 

support this change in position. 

7 This alternative would also exclude “[a]ll areas that the BLM has identified or may identify as 

a result of 

inventories conducted during this planning process, as lands having wilderness characteristics” 

and “[t]he whole of 

the Adobe Town ‘Very Rare or Uncommon’ area, as designated by the Wyoming Environmental 

Quality Council on 

April 10, 2008.” 2012 Draft PEIS at ES-6 (emphasis added). As noted further below, 

ExxonMobil questions the 

basis for these exclusions, including the procedural process by which BLM is purporting to 

exclude them from 

potential leasing. See, infra §II.B. and n.11. 

8 The Preferred Alternative would make an additional estimated 91,045 acres available for 

application for 

commercial tar sands leasing. 

9 This Alternative in the 2008 PEIS would have identified a total of 229,038 acres available for 

application for 

commercial tar sands leasing. 

#10])> <([#11 [9.2.4] A. The 2012 Draft PEIS does not identify any new information to support 

exclusion of undefined “core or priority sage grouse habitat” from any oil 

shale or tar sands development. 

As with the 2008 PEIS, the 2012 Draft PEIS “is limited to an allocation decision.” 2012 

Draft PEIS at 1-5. BLM concedes further analysis will be required at the leasing and project 

stages “when more specific information is known about the specific technologies being proposed 

and associated environmental consequences in the locations being proposed.” Id. The 2012 

Draft PEIS also recognizes that oil shale and tar sands development remains relatively new, and 

there is simply not sufficient information at this time to assess the environmental impacts. Id.; 

see also id. at 1-14, 1-20. Notwithstanding, BLM now proposes to exclude a significant portion 

of lands from any further consideration, contrary to its decision in 2008 and without adequate 

explanation. As the Supreme Court has found, “a reasoned explanation is needed for 

disregarding facts and circumstances that underlay or were engendered by the prior policy.” 

FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc., 129 S. Ct. 1800, 1811 (2009). BLM provides no 

explanation for its change in position. 

In 2008, BLM rejected alternatives that would unduly restrict the lands that may be 

available for oil shale and tar sands leasing. 

Unlike Alternative C,11 which excludes lands based on existing management 

decisions for oil and gas development, Alternative B12 provides the 

decisionmaker with the discretion to balance the oil shale use and protection of 
Final OSTS PEIS 943 

resources on the public lands during subsequent site-specific NEPA analysis. 

This balanced approach is consistent with the Federal Land Policy and 

Management Act (FLPMA) principles of “multiple use,” and “sustained yield.” 

The requirement to perform future NEPA analyses and to comply with other 

environmental laws allows the decisionmaker to optimize the recovery of energy 

resources, to establish appropriate lease stipulations to mitigate anticipated 

impacts, or to fully protect a resource or resource value by choosing not to offer 

an area for lease at any particular time. Even if some technologies may not allow 

mining of some tracts to proceed without unacceptable impacts to other resource 

values, Alternative B would allow the agency the opportunity to choose to offer 

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

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

a viable and sustainable commercial oil shale leasing program, while ensuring that 

any impacts to sensitive resources or resource values are mitigated to any 

commercial development. It is also consistent with the planning decisions for 

other mineral resources for these parcels which authorize leasing subject to 

restrictive conditions, rather than preclude leasing altogether. 

2008 PEIS at 16-17. Alternative 2, on the other hand, would amend the RMPs to designate less 

than the 830,000 acres opened under Alternative C in the 2008 PEIS as available for future 

commercial oil shale leasing, estimating only 461,965 acres would be available for oil shale 

leasing. BLM provides no explanation for abandoning this determination in the 2012 Draft 

PEIS. 

BLM contends it “decided to take a fresh look at land use allocations made in the 2008 

ROD,” because of new information not available in 2008. 2012 Draft PEIS at 1-5, 2-7. BLM 

purported such new information to be “nationwide and state-specific guidance recommending 

the consideration of certain management practices to address the appropriate management of 

sage-grouse habitat in the context of land use actions.” Id. at 2-21 (referencing a text box in 

Section 4.1.1 of the 2012 Draft PEIS). However, the information provided in the 2012 Draft 

PEIS concerning alleged impacts of oil shale leasing on greater sage grouse is taken practically 

verbatim from the same discussion of the impacts considered in 2008. Id. at 4-124 to 4-126. In 

fact, the only “new” information identified was that “BLM is in the process of updating its 

guidance regarding protection of sage-grouse habitat,” and that BLM is working with Utah to 

refine the delineation of preliminary priority sage grouse habitats. Id. at 4-126. BLM further 

states that “[i]t is anticipated that protection measures will be essentially as described.” Id. But 

again, the mitigation measures identified in the 2012 Draft PEIS are the same as those identified 

in the 2008 PEIS, and neither contains an outright prohibition on development in undefined 

“core or priority” sage grouse habitat. Id. See also 2012 Draft PEIS, App. F, at F-19.13 The fact 

that BLM may issue at some point in the future new sage grouse management policies does not 

justify closing off these areas from development entirely at this time, particularly when those 

policies must be adhered to in any subsequent leasing or project approval action.14 Indeed, the 

2012 Draft PEIS states that “[c]urrent BLM guidance on similar actions (e.g., fluid mineral 

resources) requires that the least restrictive stipulation that effectively accomplishes the resource 

objectives or resource uses for a given alternative should be used while remaining in compliance 

with the ESA.” 2012 Draft PEIS at 4-131. 

10 Throughout its analysis of the alleged impacts of the alternatives analyzed, as it did in the 
Final OSTS PEIS 944 

2008 PEIS, BLM 

recognized 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.” See, e.g., 2012 Draft PEIS at 6-68 (discussion of Alternative 2). “In general, 

potential impacts of 

future commercial development on specific resources located within the 461,965 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.” Id. at 6-68 to 6-69. 

11 Alternative C was the conservation alternative in the 2008 PEIS and ROD and would have 

excluded lands that 

are identified as requiring special management or resource protection in existing land use plans 

(which included, 

among other things, sage grouse leks and nesting habitat). 2008 PEIS at ES-5 to ES-6. 

12 Alternative B is the alternative that formed the basis of the 2008 RMP amendments and ROD. 

13 Without any support, therefore, BLM then states as possible mitigation “[a]void leasing 

and/or development in 

sage-grouse habitats.” 2012 Draft PEIS at 4-133. BLM, however, does not explain what “sagegrouse habitats” are 

being referenced here, or how this proposed mitigation differs from the current stipulations with 

respect to avoiding 

disturbances to leks or winter habitats. 

14 As BLM recognizes, the proposed amendments to the RMPs would themselves have “no 

effect” on species. See 

2012 Draft PEIS at 4-131 (“The conservation measures developed in initial consultation with the 

USFWS, then, will 

not necessarily be applied, unless warranted by the results of the consultation that will take place 

at the time the 

BLM prepares to issue leases.”). #11])>

<([#12 [3.1.5] B. BLM does not explain its change of position to exclude all of Adobe Town, 

contrary to its decision in 2008. 

Alternative 2 would also exclude “[t]he whole of the Adobe Town ‘Very Rare or 

Uncommon’ area, as designated by the Wyoming Environmental Quality Council on April 10, 

2008.” 2012 Draft PEIS at ES-6. The Alternatives considered in the 2008 PEIS included the 

designated Wilderness Study Areas within Adobe Town, but the “remaining fringe area was 

not.” 2008 ROD at 41.15 In 2008, BLM further stated: 

During the subsequent NEPA analysis, if an oil shale application is received for a 

parcel in the fringe area around the Abode Town WSA or the Monument Valley 

Management Area, when specific technical and environmental information is 

available for analysis at that time, any potential conflicts with the Wyoming 

Environmental Quality Council’s designation can be addressed. The appropriate 

BLM Field Office will consider all available information and a range of 

alternative actions to mitigate or eliminate impacts to resource values present. 
Final OSTS PEIS 945 

This is consistent with the intent of the “Very Rare or Uncommon” designation to 

provide a higher level of scrutiny when it comes to non-coal mine permits. 

Id. at 41-42. The 2012 Draft PEIS notes that “[d]uring the process of developing the Rawlins 

RMP, the BLM chose not to carry the analysis of wilderness characteristics into the Proposed 

RMP/Final EIS because valid existing lease rights prohibit management actions to protect the 

identified wilderness characteristics.” 2012 Draft PEIS at 3-34. BLM, however, provides no 

explanation for its decision now to exclude the broader area from potential leasing or of its 

assessment that the “whole” of Adobe Town should now be restricted in use, merely referencing 

Wyoming Environmental Quality Council’s designation of the area. Id. 

#12])> <([#13 [9.1] C. BLM’s voluntary settlement does not justify its change in position. 

In support of BLM’s change in position from the 2008 PEIS and ROD with respect to 

closing significant new areas from even the potential for leasing, BLM cannot rely on a 

settlement agreement with Colorado Environmental Coalition, et al. (“2011 Settlement”), to 

determine a purpose and need and to identify alternatives that are contrary to the EPAct.16 

Although BLM agreed as part of that settlement to consider alternatives that would exclude oil 

shale and tar sands leasing from various categories of lands, the plaintiffs conceded the 

settlement could not “prejudice the outcome of the RMP review process,” and did not 

irretrievably commit resources prior to the environmental review being conducted. Opp’n to 

Mot. to Reopen, Colorado Envtl. Coalition, No. 09-cv-0085, at 37 (citations omitted) [Docket 

No. 68]; see also Metcalf v. Daley, 214 F.3d 1135, 1142-45 (9th Cir. 2000) (government officials 

predetermined and prejudiced NEPA outcome when, prior to NEPA compliance, the officials 

signed a contract with an Indian tribe that required officials to support and help implement 

tribe’s proposal to resume whaling). As explained further below, infra § III.C., this settlement 

agreement conflicts with NEPA by mandating the analysis of certain alternatives, and requiring 

BLM to define the “Purpose and Need” so as to encompass the mandated alternatives. NEPA, 

on the other hand, requires an agency to first define the Purpose and Need for an action, and then 

develop a reasonable range of alternatives that meet the Purpose and Need. The 2011 Settlement 

flips NEPA’s requirements on its head, and preordains the outcome. Moreover, BLM’s 

implementation of a voluntary settlement agreement cannot override statutory requirements and 

cannot replace Congress’ clear policy decisions. See 43 C.F.R. § 1610.4-7. 

15 The description of the Wilderness Study Areas within Adobe Town appear somewhat 

inconsistent and should be 

clarified. Compare 2008 ROD at 41 with 2012 Draft PEIS at 3-34. 

16 In 2009, a coalition of environmental groups filed a lawsuit challenging the 2008 PEIS and 

ROD. Colorado 

Envtl. Coalition v. Salazar, No. 09-cv-0085 (D. Colo. filed Jan. 16. 2009). The parties entered 

into a settlement 

agreement in February of 2011, in which, citing to no authority, BLM agreed to analyze the 

environmental effects of 

an alternative or alternatives in a NEPA analysis that would exclude all of certain identified 

areas, including “core or 

priority sage grouse habitat, as defined by such guidance as Defendants may issue,” from 

commercial oil shale or tar 

sands leasing. At the time of the settlement, Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar nonetheless 
Final OSTS PEIS 946 

recognized the need 

to encourage further exploration of oil shale and tar sands resources: “For more than a century, 

and through many 

busts, we in the West have been trying to unlock oil shale resources to help power our country. 

... If we are to 

succeed this time, we must continue to encourage RD&D, determine whether the technologies 

would be viable on a 

commercial scale, and find a way to develop the resources in a way that protects water supplies 

in the arid West. 

With commercial oil shale technologies still years away, now is the time to ensure that our rules 

and plans reflect the 

latest information and will deliver a fair return to the American taxpayer.” DOI Press Release, 

Salazar: Technology, 

Water Supplies, and Fair Return Must Guide Nation’s Oil Shale Program (Feb. 15, 2011), 

http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/info/newsroom/2011/february/NR_02_15_2011.html. The 2012 

Draft PEIS does not 

explain how Alternative 2 can meet these goals. #13])>

<([#14 [2.2] III. The Preferred Alternative (Alternative 2) is Counter to the United States’ 

Energy 

Policy as Identified in the Energy Policy Act, Which Defines the Purpose and Need 

for the BLM Action Here. 

EPAct Section 369 highlights the critical role of energy supplies for the United States and 

expressly “declares that . . . oil shale [and] tar sands . . . are strategically important domestic 

resources that should be developed to reduce the growing dependence of the United States on 

politically and economically unstable sources of foreign oil imports.” Pub. L. No. 109-58, 

§ 369(b). While recognizing that such development should be conducted in an environmentally 

sound manner, Congress found that “development of those strategic unconventional fuels should 

occur, with an emphasis on sustainability, to benefit the United States while taking into account 

affected States and communities.” Id.; see also 43 U.S.C. § 1701(a)(12) (noting policy of United 

States to manage public lands “in a manner which recognizes the Nation’s need for domestic 

sources of minerals ...”); 30 U.S.C. § 21a. Alternative 2, however, would “exclude from 

commercial oil shale leasing” numerous categories of public lands “and/or their resource value 

that may warrant protection from potential oil shale leasing and development.” 2012 Draft PEIS 

at ES-6 (emphasis added). This alternative would, among other things, exclude “[c]ore or 

priority sage-grouse habitat, as defined by such guidance as the BLM or the DOI may issue.” Id. 

Although these core or priority habitat are not yet defined, BLM estimates that this Alternative 

would allow only 461,965 acres for oil shale resources to be “made available for application for 

commercial lease,” including only 6,612 acres of the 30,720 acres in existing RD&D leases.17 

Id. at 2-27. Exclusion of these areas at the programmatic stage of the NEPA analysis is 

unwarranted and counter to the EPAct. 

17 This alternative would also exclude “[a]ll areas that the BLM has identified or may identify as 

a result of 

inventories conducted during this planning process, as lands having wilderness characteristics.” 

2012 Draft PEIS at 

ES-6 (emphasis added). BLM cannot designate areas with wilderness characteristics, without 
Final OSTS PEIS 947 

complying with the 

requirements under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (“FLPMA”) and its own 

regulations for 

modifying RMPs. 43 U.S.C. §§ 1711(a), 1712. As BLM has recognized, the inventory does not 

“of itself change or 

prevent change of the management or use of the lands.” BLM California, Other BLM Lands with 

Wilderness 

Characteristics, http://www.blm.gov/ca/st/en/prog/wilderness/other_blm_lands_with.html (last 

updated Sept. 12, 

2011). Exclusion of areas from oil shale leasing that the BLM has identified or may identify as a 

result of 

inventories conducted during this planning process, as lands having wilderness characteristics 

combined with the 

unclear definition of what constitutes “core or priority sage-grouse habitat” make it virtually 

impossible for industry 

to either identify the excluded acreage or understand any associated restrictions. 

#14])> <([#15 [9.6] A. An RD&D-first component is inconsistent with the EPAct. 

The 2012 Draft PEIS Preferred Alternative for oil shale (Alternative 2.b.), which makes 

significantly less acreage available for potential oil shale leasing than what BLM found in 2008 

was necessary to make leasing feasible, appears to be in direct conflict with the goals of the 

EPAct. All policy and regulatory decisions made by the BLM with regard to development of oil 

shale on federal lands must comply with EPAct Section 369, which provides for a competitive 

commercial leasing program that is separate and distinct from the RD&D program.18 Under 

Preferred Alternative 2.b. for oil shale, it seems that the BLM decision to issue a commercial 

lease can only occur once a lessee satisfies the conditions of its RD&D lease. BLM’s new 

“contingency requirement” appears inconsistent with the EPAct. Moreover, in a separate 

settlement agreement, BLM agreed to issue a notice of proposed rulemaking in which it will 

propose amendments to its oil shale regulations19 to address the royalty rate and environmental 

protection requirements applicable to oil shale commercial leasing. See Attachment to Joint 

Motion for Order to Administratively Close the Case, Colorado Envtl. Coalition v. Salazar, No. 

09-cv-0091 (D. Colo. filed Feb. 15. 2011) [Docket No. 80-1]. Under the settlement agreement, 

the notice of proposed rulemaking is due by May 15, 2012. To the extent BLM determines that 

oil shale development should be done in two phases -- RD&D and then commercial development 

-- BLM can address such requirements in its proposed rule and should not select Alternative 2.b. 

as beyond the scope of this action, which is merely intended to allocate lands potentially 

available for oil shale and tar sands leasing. For these same reasons, Alternatives 3 and 4.b. must 

be rejected. 

18 With respect to RD&D leasing and the information developed therefrom, ExxonMobil also 

has concerns 

regarding the use of proprietary information obtained from such leasing. While we support 

appropriate 

environmental reviews and permitting processes, we feel that the current NEPA analysis presents 

a challenge for 

BLM and companies that invest a significant amount of dollars and resources to develop 

proprietary technologies. 
Final OSTS PEIS 948 

The review process must keep proprietary information confidential while providing the 

government agencies with 

all the necessary information for thorough environmental analysis. 

19 The challenged regulations were published at 73 Fed. Reg. 69,414 (Nov. 18, 2008). #15])>

<([#16 [9.2.3] B. The 2012 Draft PEIS is inconsistent with the EPAct and with FLPMA and 

BLM policy. 

Even if an RD&D first component within an alternative is appropriate to consider, none 

of the iterations of Alternative 2 is consistent with the EPAct. As noted above, in the 2008 ROD, 

BLM rejected those alternatives that would not be consistent with EPAct’s mandate. BLM 

recognized that certain alternatives would “unreasonably fragment[] the area that would be 

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

developed.” 2008 ROD at 22, 35-36. BLM found that “[t]his could be an impediment to sound 

and rational development of the resource and can reduce the economic return to the public.” Id. 

at 22, 36. Resources are likely to be by-passed because of the exclusions, limiting the benefits to 

the nation from exploitation of a domestic unconventional energy source. Id. at 22, 36. 

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

balance [oil shale or] tar sands use and the protection of resources or resource values, in 

accordance with FLPMA’s principal of ‘multiple use.’” Id. at 22, 36; see also id. (“Alternative C 

does not give the decisionmaker the necessary discretion to optimize the recovery of energy 

resources, establish appropriate lease stipulations to mitigate anticipated impacts, or to fully 

protect a resource or resource value by choosing not to offer an area for lease.”). 

Notwithstanding BLM’s conclusions in 2008 that the fragmented nature of lands under 

Alternative C would preclude development of the resources, Alternative 2 of the 2012 Draft 

PEIS would impose even more significant restrictions than the Alternative C rejected in the 2008 

ROD. Indeed, all of the versions of Alternatives 2 and 3 would make significantly less acreage 

available for potential oil shale and tar sands leasing than would have been made potentially 

available under Alternative C in the 2008 PEIS and ROD. Yet, the 2012 Draft PEIS fails to 

adequately explain how Alternative 2 can fulfill the requirements of the EPAct, given BLM’s 

prior determination that this approach would preclude development. BLM provides no reasoned 

explanation for the dramatic change in its assessment of appropriate areas for potential leasing.20 

As reflected in Figures 2.3.3-1 and 2.3.3-4 (Colorado), 2.3.3-2 and 2.3.3-5 (Utah), and 

2.3.3-3 and 2.3.3-6 (Wyoming) of the 2012 Draft PEIS, areas that would be excluded from 

development under Alternative 2 render the lands available for oil shale and tar sands leasing to 

be limited and widely scattered, despite BLM’s finding of these to be important areas of oil shale 

resources in the United States. Unduly restricting areas within this important resource would 

severely limit resource access, because the fragmented areas reduce operational efficiency and 

increase infrastructure impacts. It is BLM’s policy to optimize the potential for oil and gas 

development to secure the maximum return to the public in revenue and energy production, 

prevent avoidable waste of the public’s resources, honor the rights of lessees, and mitigate 

environmental impacts. See 2012 Draft PEIS at 2-13. Alternative 2 fails to comply with this 

policy. It would prematurely exclude areas, limiting the availability of continuous acreage to 

support a commercial operation that would justify the investments necessary to engage in such 

operations. 

Further, excluding lands in the manner proposed under Alternative 2 is inconsistent with 

the multiple use management mandate of FLPMA, as it may preclude any significant 
Final OSTS PEIS 949 

development of oil shale resources. The 2012 Draft PEIS goes against the mandate in the EPAct 

to promote the responsible development of this important energy resource. The primary 

difference between the new 2012 Draft PEIS and the 2008 PEIS is that the current document 

contains several alternatives that would dramatically reduce the acreage of BLM administered 

land where applications for oil shale and tar sands leases could be submitted. Yet, BLM has 

chosen Alternative 2.b. as its Preferred Alternative for oil shale, even though it previously found 

this approach would severely restrict the potential for oil shale development. 

This approach is counter to the EPAct and this nation’s energy policy, which governs 

BLM’s decisionmaking process. Indeed, the EPAct recognized the need for large, contiguous 

areas, expanding the size of potential oil shale leases under the Minerals Leasing Act. Pub. L. 

No. 109-58, § 369(i). Alternative 2 also unduly limits the land available for land exchanges, 

again contrary to the EPAct, which requires consideration of land use exchanges to consolidate 

land ownership and mineral leases into management areas “[t]o facilitate the recovery of oil 

shale and tar sands.” Id. § 369(n). On public lands within the Green River, Piceance Creek, 

Uintah, and Washakie geologic basins, BLM is to give priority to implementing land exchanges 

within those basins to determine the optimum size of lands to be consolidated. Id. The 2012 

Draft PEIS does not even consider possible locations for such land use exchanges. 2012 Draft 

PEIS at 1-12. Thus, Alternative 2 places restrictions on such exchanges and size of leases that 

was not intended by the EPAct, and unnecessarily constrains potential oil shale development 

opportunities before the full impacts of any potential development can be explored. 

20 Concerns regarding the limitations to development under Alternative C in the 2008 PEIS were 

raised in the public 

comments during the scoping process of the current PEIS. 2012 Draft PEIS, App. J. at J-39. 

BLM’s response was 

simply that such comments were “not relevant to the scope of the current analysis.” Id. #16])>

<([#17 [2.2] Further, given BLM’s policy to promote use of resources to the benefit of the 

public, 

BLM has not adequately analyzed the alternatives in the 2012 Draft PEIS. It wholly fails to 

explain how Alternative 2 may affect the ability to feasibly develop oil shale and tar sands 

resources, including development of valid existing rights on private lands. It also fails to assess 

state initiatives regarding the sage grouse, noting only that states are taking action. 2012 Draft 

PEIS at 3-197. Thus, it is unclear whether Alternative 2 appropriately applies a balanced 

approach, as it appears to be designed solely to significantly limit the ability to explore and 

develop any oil shale or tar sands resources. #17])>

<([#18 [9.1] C. The EPAct defines the Purpose and Need for this action, and BLM should 

return to the Purpose and Need statement in the 2008 PEIS and ROD. 

The Purpose and Need for BLM’s action here is to implement the requirements of 

Section 369 of the EPAct. Pursuant to NEPA, BLM must properly identify and reject 

alternatives based on the purpose and need of the proposed action as outlined in the EPAct, as it 

did in the 2008 PEIS. See Hells Canyon Alliance v. U.S. Forest Serv., 227 F.3d 1170, 1181 (9th 

Cir. 2000) (finding agency “had no obligation to consider an alternative unlikely to be 

implemented and inconsistent with basic policy objectives for managing the area”) (citations 

omitted); Headwaters, Inc. v. BLM, Medford Dist., 914 F.2d 1174, 1180 (9th Cir. 1990) (“Nor 

must an agency consider alternatives which are infeasible, ineffective, or inconsistent with the 
Final OSTS PEIS 950 

basic policy objectives for the management of the area.”) (citation omitted). 

In this case, Congress mandated that the purpose and need include the need to develop 

domestic oil shale and tar sands resources. Citizens’ Comm. To Save Our Canyons v. U.S. Forest 

Serv., 297 F.3d 1012, 1030 (10th Cir. 2002); see also Citizens Against Burlington, Inc. v. Busey, 

938 F.2d 190, 196 (D.C. Cir. 1991) (“Perhaps more importantly, an agency should always 

consider the views of Congress, expressed, to the extent that the agency can determine them, in 

the agency’s statutory authorization to act, as well as in other congressional directives.”) 

(citations omitted). In the 2008 PEIS, BLM identified the purpose and need to “describe the 

most geologically prospective areas managed by the BLM . . . and to decide which portions of 

those areas will be open to application for commercial leasing, exploration, and development.” 

2008 PEIS at 1-2. The 2008 PEIS was drafted “to meet the requirements of the Energy Policy 

Act of 2005.” Id. at 1-3. This stands in stark contrast with the purpose and need in the 2012 

Draft PEIS, which BLM structures to address the commitments it made in its voluntary 

settlement agreement. 

BLM is not required to craft a statement so broad that it requires consideration of 

alternatives that are inconsistent with the overarching purpose of the proposal. Northwest 

Ecosystem Alliance v. Rey, 380 F. Supp. 2d 1175, 1186 (W.D. Wash. 2005) (citation omitted). 

Moreover, NEPA is a procedural statute, and does not require an agency to choose 

environmental concerns over other policy choices. See Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens 

Council, 490 U.S. 332, 350 (1989); Biodiversity Conservation Alliance v. BLM, 404 F. Supp. 2d 

212, 216 (D.D.C. 2005). Here, Congress made the policy decision that “development of those 

strategic unconventional fuels should occur, with an emphasis on sustainability, to benefit the 

United States while taking into account affected States and communities.” 

BLM cannot rely on the 2011 Settlement to avoid its statutory directives. Paragraph 2(a) 

and (b) of the 2011 Settlement required that BLM consider “[a]n alternative or alternatives 

removing all of the lands described . . . from applications for oil shale or tar sands leasing” and 

“[a]t least one alternative that removes some, but not all, of the lands described . . . from 

applications for oil shale or tar sands leasing.”21 Attachment to Joint Motion for Order to 

Administratively Close the Case, Colorado Envtl. Coalition, No. 09-cv-0085, at 3-4 [Docket No. 

63-1]. It further provided that “[t]he purpose and need statement in the NEPA analysis 

supporting the RMP amendment process or processes shall be defined in such a manner that it 

can be met by any and all of the alternatives described in Paragraph 2(a) and 2(b) above.” Id. at 

4 (emphasis added). In the 2012 Draft PEIS, BLM merely states it seeks to “reassess” the 

allocations from the 2008 ROD. 2012 Draft PEIS at 1-4. 

The “purpose statement is an obvious place for the court to start when analyzing the 

adequacy of an environmental impact statement or an environmental assessment. It is from this 

statement that the agency, public, and, ultimately, the court may begin to judge whether the 

agency has fully analyzed the possible impacts of the action and reviewed a reasonable range of 

alternatives to that action.” Soda Mt. Wilderness Council v. Norton, 424 F. Supp. 2d 1241, 1261 

(E.D. Cal. 2006). “In sum, NEPA forces agencies to explain what it is they seek to do, why they 

seek to do it, what the environmental impacts may be of their proposed action, and what 

alternatives might be available to the agency that might lessen environmental impact. Without a 
Final OSTS PEIS 951 

clear ‘what and why’ statement, the public is kept in the dark.” Id. at 1262. Thus, when an 

agency evaluates alternatives to a proposed action in an impact statement, it “must answer three 

questions in order. First, what is the purpose of the proposed project? Second, given that 

purpose, what are the reasonable alternatives to the project? And third, to what extent should the 

agency explore each particular alternative?” Habitat Educ. Ctr., Inc. v. U.S. Forest Serv., 593 F. 

Supp. 2d 1019, 1026-27 (E.D. Wis. 2009), aff’d 609 F.3d 897 (7th Cir. 2010) (citing Simmons v. 

U.S. Army Corps of Eng’rs, 120 F.3d 664, 668 (7th Cir.1997)). In other words, the purpose of 

the action is to determine the “reasonable range of alternatives” to be considered. However, the 

2011 Settlement required BLM to identify the alternatives and then define the purpose and need. 

This turns NEPA on its head and must be rejected.22 

21 The lands described are those that are listed under Alternative 2. 

22 We are not aware that BLM provided notice or sought public comment on the 2011 

Settlement. Rather, the 

settlement was submitted to the Court only as an exhibit to a “Joint Motion for Order to 

Administratively Close the 

Case,” Colorado Envtl. Coalition, No. 09-cv-0085 [Docket No. 63]. Although Intervenors in the 

case identified 

potential NEPA violations with certain terms within the settlement agreement, BLM nonetheless 

chose to enter the 

settlement agreement. This flawed NEPA process is evidence that the federal government should 

invite more open 

discussion and seek public input to settlements that purport to address environmental protection 

concerns, including 

obtaining and considering the comments of industry who face unreasonable access barriers or 

permit restrictions as a 

result of the terms or conditions within the settlement agreement. In a very real sense, energy 

policy in the U.S. is 

increasingly driven by NGOs and not by Congress. EPA, DOI, NOAA and other federal agencies 

have settled 

environmental NGO lawsuits that have imposed new arbitrary barriers to oil and gas access 

under regulations 

pursuant to the Clean Air Act, ESA, Clean Water Act, Marine Mammal Protection Act, NEPA, 

Clean Water Act and 

other laws. #18])> <([#19 [9.3] [9.2.4] IV. As BLM Found in the 2008 ROD, Decisions 

Regarding Sage Grouse Mitigation 

Should be Considered at Later Planning Stages. 

Alternative 2 would eliminate significant lands from allocation even for potential 

consideration of leasing. It is premature to make this type of decision within the context of a 

PEIS, particularly on the bases of protection of a resource that has not yet even been defined. 

Exclusion of environmentally sensitive lands that may be impacted is a decision that is more 

appropriate to review and determine when a leasing or project-specific analysis is conducted. 

BLM should make more lands available at the PEIS stage and allow site-specific analyses to 

assess the local resources and appropriate measures. 

Amendment of the land use plans, along with the supporting PEIS, is the first step in a 

commercial oil shale and tar sands leasing program that includes federally mandated further 
Final OSTS PEIS 952 

reviews. Separate NEPA analyses, including compliance with the Endangered Species Act 

(“ESA”), would be required before leasing or site development activities could occur. As such, 

any commercial oil shale lease sales will undergo multiple site-specific environmental analyses 

and project-specific NEPA reviews prior to approval of any proposed projects on the oil shale 

leases. These subsequent environmental analyses for oil shale/tar sands leases will be the focal 

point of resolution for site-specific concerns (e.g., groundwater protection, historic and cultural 

resources, and threatened and endangered species). These analyses will allow for informed 

evaluation of the environmental impacts of proposed technologies and development plans at a 

time when those technologies are more mature and better understood. 

Leveraging the existing process is the most effective way to continuously evaluate land 

use. Conducting periodic revisions of the PEIS before specific operations are proposed and 

projecting speculative impacts from undetermined methods is not an effective or efficient way to 

proceed. The 2102 Draft PEIS fails to properly account for and utilize these subsequent NEPA 

reviews because they prematurely remove large areas of potential oil shale and oil sands leasing 

without allowing proper site-specific environmental reviews. 

Finally, the environmental reviews should take place after the access to the lands is 

granted to avoid large pre-investments required to gather the necessary environmental 

information. We must remember that assignment within a phased permit approach precludes 

operations until all permits and requirements are in place. Therefore, granting such a lease will 

not, in itself, allow or cause environmental impacts because no activities are authorized by the 

actual lease terms. Project development activities will continue to be subject to a project-specific 

NEPA analysis, which will require project development plans, as well as the required mitigation 

activities to meet local, state, federal regulatory requirements, and conformity of the lease to the 

applicable RMP. 

Indeed, this is the approach BLM took in the 2008 ROD. BLM found that the initial 

RMP amendments to address oil shale and tar sands resource development “serves as the first 

step in the process to establish a commercial oil shale and tar sands program that meets the intent 

of Congress while taking advantage of information and practices to minimize future impacts and 

ensure that states, local communities, and the public have the opportunity to be involved at future 

NEPA steps in the oil shale and tar sands program.” 2008 ROD at 38. “The allocation decision 

essentially removes an administrative barrier present today that prevents the BLM from 

accepting and considering applications to lease oil shale or tar sands without first amending the 

respective land use plan. Prior to the leasing and development phases additional NEPA analysis 

will be required.” Id. BLM correctly concluded at the time, “[i]t would be premature to 

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

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

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

through mitigation.” Id. at 36. 

In particular, in 2008, BLM recognized that subsequent project or site specific NEPA 

documents will be prepared to evaluate specific occurrences of sage grouse. 2008 PEIS, Vol. 4, 

at 509, 5485-5486 (Sept. 2008). Mitigation measures would also include recommendations from 

BLM’s national sage grouse habitat conservation strategy, as well as those contained in statewide 

and regional sage grouse conservation strategies that have been prepared by state agencies. Id. 

BLM recognized that site-specific review can more adequately map sage grouse habitat in 

relation to potential oil shale and tar sands development. Id. at 515. As BLM conceded, 

identifying lands for potential leasing “does not imply a commitment to leasing that is too large 
Final OSTS PEIS 953 

to be sustainable or that would threaten the existence of species.” Id. at 780. The agency retains 

discretion to decide which particular tracts to offer for leasing and the stipulations on such leases. 

Id. In any event, BLM must comply with the ESA in approving specific leases or projects and in 

the development of those areas. BLM correctly determined in 2008 that the initial allocation 

decision is not, however, the appropriate time to limit its ability to do so. 

The decision on viability and compatibility of oil shale commercial development with 

other alternative uses or preservation priorities on the land should be based on proposed 

techniques and specific plans of operations. Exclusion of lands without clearly understanding 

the technologies to be employed to develop the oil shale resource is therefore premature. 

Experience with onshore conventional and unconventional oil and gas operations indicates that it 

is possible to recover the mineral potential without adversely impacting the protected surface 

uses on lands that currently have stipulations for no surface disturbance or seasonal limitations. 

We can achieve the multi-use purpose intended for these lands through careful planning, 

management, mitigation and reclamation. 

There is no information BLM can point to support its 180-degree change of position. 

Subsequent project and site-specific NEPA analyses will still be required. Identification of 

sensitive resources, including sage grouse habitats, and appropriate mitigation measures, 

including those identified in BLM and state sage grouse conservation strategies, still must occur. 

BLM still retains the discretion to determine which specific tracts to offer for leasing and what 

stipulations will be imposed. BLM still must comply with the ESA, as well as all applicable 

laws. The only new information is BLM’s decision to settle litigation challenging its 2008 ROD, 

but that alone is inadequate justification for BLM’s abandoning its prior position. #19])>

<([#20 [9.2.4] V. Any Exclusion of Potential Oil and Gas Leasing on “To Be Defined” Sage 

Grouse 

Habitat may be viewed as Arbitrary and Capricious. 

A. Protection for the sage grouse should be deferred to the environmental 

reviews of leasing or project-specific actions. 

In any event, existing BLM and state recommendations concerning management of sage 

grouse habitat would not prohibit all development. Moreover, even without having defined these 

terms, it is clear Alternative 2 could eliminate any production of oil shale or tar sands resources 

due to the fragmented nature of the lands that BLM may open under this alternative. As BLM 

correctly concluded in its 2008 PEIS and ROD, such fragmentation would undermine the 

purposes of the EPAct. Again, BLM has not provided an adequate justification for its change of 

position excluding “core or priority sage-grouse habitat” from potential leasing. Moreover, it is 

important to recognize that the 2012 Draft PEIS is only intended to identify lands that may be 

“available for application for leasing.” 2012 Draft PEIS at ES-1 (emphasis added). As BLM 

recognized in 2008, the protections for the sage grouse, including identification of any areas 

where development may appropriately be limited, should be deferred to the environmental 

reviews of leasing or project-specific actions, by which time BLM can have defined the “core” 

and “priority” habitat areas to be protected. Consequently, BLM should choose Alternative 1 

(No Action) in the Final PEIS, affirming its 2008 decision. 

BLM is currently undergoing an assessment of its sage grouse conservation policies in 

the context of a separate NEPA process. Until that process is complete, each of the relevant 

States here has its own sage grouse conservation program that includes mitigation measures 

aimed at protecting the sage grouse, which can be used in the interim by BLM when considering 

leasing applications and specific projects. These measures are more appropriate than an outright 
Final OSTS PEIS 954 

prohibition on development of oil shale and tar sands resources in certain as-of-yet undefined 

sage grouse habitats. BLM should abandon its piecemeal approach, and determine the 

appropriate sage grouse conservation measures for all ground disturbing activities in the context 

of the on-going Sage Grouse Conservation NEPA process, the purpose of which is to develop 

BLM’s sage grouse conservation strategy. 

#20])> <([#21 [9.2.4] B. BLM cannot impose mandatory limitations based on future “guidance.” 

FLPMA requires public lands to be managed “in accordance with the land use plans 

developed.” 43 U.S.C. § 1732(a). Alternative 2 would exclude from the potential for leasing 

“core or priority sage-grouse habitat, as defined by such guidance as the BLM or the DOI may 

issue.” Subsequent BLM action, then, would be bound by some future guidance, which is 

subject to revision and change. This again, is a reversal from its position in the 2008 PEIS and 

ROD where the only lands excluded were those based on “existing laws and regulations, 

executive orders and other administrative designations or withdrawal.” 2008 ROD at 17. Even 

assuming BLM could explain its change from the 2008 ROD and that Alternative 2 meets the 

purpose and need identified in the EPAct, BLM cannot adopt in a ROD an alternative that relies 

on some future guidance to define its terms. 

First, reliance on such guidance violates the public participation requirements of NEPA 

and FLPMA. NEPA requires an analysis of alternatives that “sharply” defines the issues and 

provides a clear basis for choice among options by the decisionmaker and the public. 40 C.F.R. 

§ 1502.14. The EIS must also provide the scientific and analytic basis for the comparisons under 

Section 1502.14. Id. § 1502.16. “Accurate scientific analysis, expert agency comments, and 

public scrutiny are essential to implementing NEPA.” Id. § 1500.1(b). FLPMA also requires an 

opportunity for public involvement in the formulation of RMPs. 43 U.S.C. § 1712(a), (f); see 

also 43 C.F.R. § 1610.2 (“The public shall be provided opportunities to meaningfully participate 

in and comment on the preparation of plans, amendments and related guidance and be given 

early notice of planning activities.”) (emphasis added). 

BLM failed to meet these obligations. The 2012 Draft PEIS does not clearly define 

Alternative 2, BLM’s Preferred Alternative, because it incorporates as one of its principal 

elements some future guidance. Although the 2012 Draft PEIS includes maps and estimates of 

acreage of lands to be made available for allocation, BLM has made clear that its guidance is as 

yet to be developed and, moreover, applicable guidance can include any guidance developed by 

the Department of the Interior.23 The public, therefore, does not have an adequate opportunity to 

comment, because the lands to be excluded are not anywhere clearly defined. See Grand 

Canyon Air Tour Coal. v. FAA, 154 F.3d 455, 468 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (“An agency is required to 

provide a meaningful opportunity for comments, which means that the agency’s mind must be 

open to considering them.”) (citing McLouth Steel Products Corp. v. Thomas, 838 F.2d 1317, 

1323 (D.C. Cir. 1988)). 

BLM must manage its lands consistent with applicable laws and regulations and 

development of BLM lands must be consistent with the applicable RMP, which can only be 

amended after notice and an opportunity to comment. By committing now to prohibit 

development in areas defined by future guidance, BLM is impermissibly elevating the status of 

the future guidance to have the force and effect of law. The issuance of subsequent “guidance,” 

even if the public is allowed to comment on it, is insufficient to satisfy the public’s right to 

notice and comment before BLM makes binding decisions concerning development of BLM 

lands. See Kennecott Corp. v. EPA, 684 F.2d 1007, 1019 (D.C. Cir. 1982) (finding “[t]hat EPA 

allowed petitions for reconsideration is not an adequate substitute for an opportunity for notice 
Final OSTS PEIS 955 

and comment prior to promulgation”) (citation omitted); PPG Indus., Inc. v. Costle, 659 F.2d 

1239, 1250 (D.C. Cir. 1981) (finding subsequent publication of guidelines related to “new 

measurement technique” insufficient to meet notice requirement of Administrative Procedure 

Act). 

Second, reliance on subsequent guidance to define what lands will be excluded from 

leasing, a clear term of the amended RMPs, is insufficient to meet the requirements of FLPMA. 

A formal plan amendment is required whenever a proposed action changes a term, condition or 

decision of a RMP. Douglas Timber Operators v. Salazar, 774 F. Supp. 2d 245, 256-57 (D.D.C. 

2011) (citing Klamath Siskiyou Wildlands Ctr. v. Boody, 468 F.3d 549, 556-57 (9th Cir. 2006); 

Seattle Audubon Soc’y v. Robertson, 1991 WL 180099, at *9 (W.D. Wash. 1991)), appeal 

dismissed, No. 11-5137, 2011 WL 2618209 (D.C. Cir. June 24, 2011). “An amendment shall be 

initiated by the need to consider monitoring and evaluation findings, new data, new or revised 

policy, a change in circumstances or a proposed action that may result in a change in the scope of 

resource uses or a change in the terms, conditions and decisions of the approved plan.” 43 

C.F.R. § 1610.5-5. It is clear that, under Alternative 2, the substance of the future guidance 

would be “new or revised policy,” “a change in circumstances,” or a “change in terms.” BLM 

has regulations governing the requirements for amending a RMP, 43 C.F.R. Part 1610, which 

cannot be met through issuance of guidance. Thus, imposing a requirement to comply with 

future guidance does not meet FLPMA’s requirement to amend the RMP. 

Indeed, it is clear that BLM intends for this future guidance to have binding legal effect 

on parties. “A ‘legislative rule’ is one the agency has duly promulgated in compliance with the 

procedures laid down in the statute or in the Administrative Procedure Act.” Appalachian Power 

Co. v. EPA, 208 F.3d 1015, 1021 (D.C. Cir. 2000); see also General Elec. Co. v. EPA, 290 F.3d 

377 (D.C. Cir. 2002). Here the guidance would not merely give substance to clarify vague or 

ambiguous language, it would embody the requirements in the RMP, requirements that the 

public cannot adequately assess based on the 2012 Draft PEIS. Because subsequent agency 

action must comply with the applicable RMP, under Alternative 2 such “guidance” would have a 

legally binding effect and must be promulgated appropriately. Simply stating that future 

guidance would be binding on subsequent development clearly does not meet FLPMA’s 

requirements for amending an RMP or the requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act for 

promulgation of rules. 

23 Although the greater sage grouse has been identified as a candidate for listing, it has not yet 

been listed under the 

ESA. As a result, no critical habitat has been designated. #21])>

<([#22 [1.5] C. BLM has failed to take a “hard look” at the potential impacts of the 

alternatives in the 2012 Draft PEIS. 

An EIS serves two purposes: (1) “[i]t ensures that the agency, in reaching its decision, 

will have available, and will carefully consider, detailed information concerning significant 

environmental impacts”; and (2) “it ‘guarantees that the relevant information will be made 

available to the larger audience that may also play a role in both the decisionmaking process and 

the implementation of that decision.’” Dep’t of Transp. v. Public Citizen, 541 U.S. 752, 768 

(2004) (quoting Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Council, 490 U.S. 332, 349 (1989)). “The 

EIS must show that agency officials have ‘[thought] through the consequences of-and 

alternatives to-their contemplated acts,’ and must ensure that ‘citizens get a chance to hear and 

consider the rationales the officials offer.’” Habitat Educ. Ctr., Inc., 593 F. Supp. 2d at 1025 
Final OSTS PEIS 956 

(quoting Simmons, 120 F.3d at 666). BLM must demonstrate that it “has taken a ‘hard look’ at 

environmental consequences.” Kleppe v. Sierra Club, 427 U.S. 390, 410 n.21 (1976). It is 

unclear how BLM can purport to have taken a “hard look” at the potential environmental impacts 

as NEPA requires without having identified the lands that will, in fact, be defined as “core” or 

“priority” sage grouse habitat and therefore subject to the restrictions on allocation. By failing to 

define these lands, BLM has not engaged in “informed decision-making” or, as described above, 

has not provided for “informed public participation.” Habitat Educ. Ctr., Inc., 593 F. Supp. 2d at 

1025 (citation omitted). 

Alternative 2 is defined to exclude as of yet undefined “core or priority” sage grouse 

habitat that is to be based on as of yet issued guidance.24 Yet, BLM estimates the amount of 

acreage that would be available under this Alternative (and others)25 and, in so doing, it purports 

to identify various resources that will be impacted by future development. See, e.g., 2012 Draft 

PEIS at 6-71 (“Of the acreage designated under Alternative 2, a total of 423,292 acres (about 

92% of the 461,965 acres that would remain available under Alternative 2) have been identified 

as overlying geologic formations having a high potential to contain important paleontological 

resources (Murphey and Daitch 2007).”); 6-74 to 6-75 (“Under Alternative 2, 14 perennial 

streams and about 41 mi of perennial stream habitat within the Piceance, Uinta, and Washakie 

Basins are directly overlain by areas that would be potentially available for oil shale 

development. There are no perennial streams in the Green River Basin that are directly overlain 

by areas that would be potentially available for oil shale development.”). BLM fails to explain 

how it identifies these resources, providing only a map of purported “core or priority” sage 

grouse habitat.26 See, e.g., id. at 6-108 (Figure 6.1.2-5).27 The cumulative impacts analysis 

similarly makes only mere conclusory statements regarding habitat fragmentation, but provides 

no analysis of the cumulative impacts with respect to each alternative. Id. at 6-302. More 

important, the public cannot identify these lands nor can it fully understand the potential impacts 

of the alternative.28 

Further, BLM states it cannot quantify the impacts without project specific information, 

but it wholly fails to explain how the more limited amount of land available may affect the type 

of development or technology required to develop and, thereby, the differences in potential 

environmental impacts. For land use impacts for Alternative 2 (tar sands), for example, the 2012 

Draft PEIS merely states that the land use impacts “would be essentially the same as those listed 

for Alternative 1 in Section 6.2.1.1, with the following exceptions: ... Core or priority 

sagegrouse 

habitat, current and recommended ACECs, and about 86,000 acres of land identified as 

potential ACECs under Alternative C of the 2008 OSTS PEIS would be removed from 

application for commercial tar sands leasing.” 2012 Draft PEIS at 6-368 to 6-369. While BLM 

may not be able to identify site-specific impacts at this point, it must define the lands it is 

excluding and must clearly identify the differences in each. The key distinction among the new 

alternatives of alleged impacts appears to be the estimated lands that may be disturbed, but 

merely providing an estimated amount of land, without clearly explaining the data behind it, does 

not provide the decisionmaker, or the public, with the type of information required under NEPA. 

Moreover, BLM fails to take a hard look at the mitigation measures under each 

alternative with respect to sage grouse, noting only “[f]or Alternatives 1, 3, and 4, however, 

existing BLM policies regarding protection of sage grouse habitat would be implemented.” 2012 

Draft PEIS at 6-237. The Draft PEIS further recognizes that “Local sage grouse working groups 

have been formed across the region to support activities that support sage grouse population 
Final OSTS PEIS 957 

recovery. Executive Order (E.O.) 2011-5 for the State of Wyoming (Wyoming Governor’s 

Office 2011) outlined the identification and protection of ‘core population areas’ for the greater 

sage-grouse within the State of Wyoming. . . . Similarly, the State of Utah maintains a database 

of priority habitat areas for the greater sage-grouse. These priority areas were determined by 

Utah DWR field biologists in 2010. BLM is currently working with the Utah DWR to refine the 

delineation of priority habitats in the State of Utah.”29 Id. at 3-197 (citation omitted). The 2012 

Draft PEIS does not provide an assessment of these state programs in comparison to a 

prohibition on development in any “core” or “priority” sage grouse habitat as would be provided 

under Alternative 2. Indeed, as further explained below, BLM is undergoing a separate process 

that is seeking to make such an assessment, and BLM should not predetermine the outcome of 

that process. 

24 Similarly, Alternative 4 would remove “an undetermined percentage of the LWC and sagegrouse core habitat 

area.” 2012 Draft PEIS at 6-225. 

25 See 2012 Draft PEIS at 6-236. 

26 Nor is it easy to decipher how to compare this map with the other, various figures purporting 

to identify “Greater 

Sage-Grouse Core Habitat.” Compare 2012 Draft PEIS at 6-50 (Figure 6.1.1-5 - Alternative 1), 

with 6-215 (Figure 

6.1.4-5 - Alternative 4). 

27 Chapter 6 of the 2012 Draft PEIS states that, under Alternative 2, “oil shale 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 2005i).” 2012 Draft PEIS at 6-80. But, the 

reference used for this 

interim policy is: “BLM, 2005i, 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.” This appears to be an error, and, in any event, BLM cannot rely on a 

draft document as 

an “interim policy.” To the extent BLM intended to refer to its interim conservation policies and 

procedures for 

sage grouse, it addresses “Preliminary Priority Habitat.” In any event, these are only “interim,” 

and BLM should 

await the outcome of its ongoing process to assess management of sage grouse prior to making 

any amendments to 

RMPs that would unduly close off areas to leasing. 

28 This map appears different from the map in the 2008 PEIS regarding overlap of lands made 

available under the 

rejected Alternative C “with the Known Distribution of the Greater Sage-Grouse.” 2008 PEIS at 

6-101. In that 

map, leks, brood areas and winter ranges were identified. This can be contrasted with leks and 

the undefined 
Final OSTS PEIS 958 

“Greater Sage-Grouse Core Habitats” in Figure 6.1.2-5 in the 2012 Draft PEIS. “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).” 2012 Draft PEIS at 6-

82. 

29 On February 10, 2012, BLM issued Instruction Memorandum No. WY-2012-019, entitled 

“Greater Sage-Grouse 

Habitat Management Policy on Wyoming Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Administered 

Public Lands 

Including the Federal Mineral Estate,” which purports to be consistent with the State Executive 

Order. #22])>

<([#23 [9.2.4] D. Basing a decision prior to defining the precise parameters of the agency 

action is arbitrary and capricious. 

Without fully understanding the parameters of the sage grouse management decisions 

currently ongoing, any determination by BLM regarding excluding as yet undefined areas would 

be arbitrary and capricious. “Reasoned decisionmaking requires an agency to ‘examine the 

relevant data and articulate a satisfactory explanation for its action[s].’” Portland Cement Ass’n 

v. EPA, 665 F.3d 177, 187 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (quoting Motor Vehicles Mfrs. Ass’n v. State Farm 

Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 43 (1983)). In an analogous situation, the D.C. Circuit found 

EPA was arbitrary and capricious in setting a standard based on data that was affected by a 

separate, parallel rulemaking, before the subsequent rulemaking was completed. Id. In Portland 

Cement Ass’n v. EPA, EPA set a standard for Portland cement kilns, while at the same time 

undergoing a separate rulemaking to define the sources subject to those standards. Although a 

number of sources considered in setting the standard may not be covered by the standard, EPA 

considered them in setting the Portland cement kiln standard “because EPA had not yet decided 

the precise parameters of its definition.” Id. at 186-87. The court found this to be arbitrary and 

capricious. “The impending definition of an undeniably related source category is clearly a 

‘relevant factor[]’ or an ‘important aspect of the problem’ that must be considered.” Id. at 187 

(quoting Motor Vehicles Mfrs. Ass’n, 463 U.S. at 43). The D.C. Circuit found it was 

inappropriate for EPA to ignore the separate, ongoing rulemaking -- “an eventuality over which 

EPA had full control.” Id. “It is not absurd to require that an agency’s right hand take account 

of what its left hand is doing.” Id. Similarly here, BLM has “put the cart before the horse.” Id. 

at 188. BLM has full control over the timing of its actions with respect to adequately assessing 

appropriate sage grouse management on public lands. It is arbitrary and capricious to make a 

decision excluding areas for which BLM “had not yet decided the precise parameters.” #23])>

<([#24 [9.2.4] VI. BLM Should Await Completion of its Ongoing Review of Sage Grouse 

Management 

on Public Lands. 

Nothing in the 2012 Draft PEIS explains why BLM has identified exclusion of sage 

grouse “core or priority” habitat from even being considered for leasing. Nor does BLM explain 
Final OSTS PEIS 959 

why existing protections and mitigation measures are insufficient. Moreover, BLM utterly fails 

to explain why it would exclude lands based on guidance that is not yet even completed, when 

BLM is undergoing an entirely separate process to assess sage grouse management issues. 

In December of 2011, BLM and the U.S. Forest Service issued a notice of intent to 

prepare environmental impact statements and supplemental environmental impact statements to 

incorporate greater sage-grouse conservation measures into RMPs and land management plans 

(“LMPs”). 76 Fed. Reg. 77,008 (Dec. 9, 2011). Based on measures identified and assessed by 

the U.S. Fish & Wildlife service, the BLM and Forest Service propose to incorporate consistent 

objectives and conservation measures for the protection of greater sage-grouse and its habitat 

into relevant RMPs and LMPs by September 2014, in order to avoid a potential listing under the 

ESA. These conservation measures would be incorporated into RMPs and LMPs through the 

plan amendment and revision processes of the respective agencies. In this notice, BLM 

identified most of the same RMPs as potentially being amended as in the 2012 Draft PEIS. 

Under this process, BLM and the Forest Service intend to evaluate the adequacy of sage-grouse 

conservation measures in RMPs and selected LMPs. BLM Wyoming has already begun a 

programmatic EIS that will analyze amendments to all of the State’s RMPs not currently being 

amended or revised to address needed changes to the management and conservation of greater 

sage-grouse habitats. 

BLM should await the completion of this NEPA process, the sole purpose of which is to 

develop appropriate sage grouse conservation measures, before impermissibly imposing 

restrictions relating only to oil shale and tar sands.30 There is no reason for BLM to pre-judge 

the outcome of the sage grouse conservation NEPA process in the context of the PEIS. 

Experience with conventional oil and gas operations indicates that there are lands that currently 

have stipulations for no surface disturbance or seasonal limitations that can be leased and 

developed to recover the mineral potential without adversely affecting protected surface uses. 

This includes sage grouse habitat. BLM does not identify any different impacts on sage grouse 

resulting from oil shale or tar sands development to justify exclusion of large areas from 

consideration for leasing. Moreover, because as BLM concedes additional NEPA analyses will 

be required before any oil shale or tar sands resources can be developed, there is adequate time to 

complete the sage grouse conservation process and no need to impermissibly foreclose areas for 

potential development before that occurs. 

Thus, withdrawing lands from potential oil shale leasing due to sage grouse habitat 

protection appears to be premature given that no specific federal regulatory or administrative 

actions have occurred with respect to managing core or priority sage-grouse habitat. 

ExxonMobil supports development of multi-stakeholder conservation plans to protect and restore 

threatened and endangered species rather than simply instituting avoidance areas. In addition, 

the use of suggested management practices may make it possible to site future oil shale and oil 

sands projects without causing unacceptable impacts to the greater sage-grouse. ExxonMobil 

believes that there are compatible opportunities to further develop oil shale energy resources 

while simultaneously protecting the greater sage-grouse. As such, ExxonMobil believes that 

broad scale greater sage-grouse habitat mapping should not be the basis for eliminating large 

areas of important energy resources from future consideration. Adhering to the project-specific 

NEPA process where the scale of the evaluation is more granular with site-specific greater 
Final OSTS PEIS 960 

wildlife data is the best means to evaluate potential impacts and develop proper mitigation 

measures. 

Again, this would not leave sage grouse unprotected. As BLM recognizes, there are 

already numerous existing stipulations and state policies aimed at avoiding the listing of greater 

sage grouse. Each of the three states has established and implemented a greater sage grouse 

management plan in coordination with the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, which include 

conservation measures for the sage grouse. These policies can be utilized to develop leasing or 

project specific mitigation measures until BLM has completed its review.31 

30 Indeed, BLM’s “fresh look” is limited to the potential use of lands for oil shale and tar sands 

development. Other 

potential uses of the same lands could cause conflicts for eventual oil shale and tar sands 

developments. Applying 

restrictions to the lands available for potential oil shale and tar sands leasing favors other land 

uses without 

considering the overall benefit to society that multiple uses could generate. 

31 BLM has issued two instruction memoranda regarding interim conservation policies and 

consideration of the 

recommendations of the Sage Grouse National Technical Team (“NTT”). Under this interim 

policy, the 

conservation measures developed by the NTT must be considered and analyzed, as appropriate, 

through the land use 

planning process by all BLM State and Field Offices that contain occupied greater sage grouse 

habitat. BLM is to 

“refine” the habitat data through the land use planning process. It does not appear that BLM 

followed even this 

interim policy in identifying conservation measures or priority habitat. Nonetheless, these are 

“interim” policies that 

are only intended to guide action until the BLM and Forest Service review is completed. #24])>

<([#25 [3.4.1] VII. Other Technical Comments 

A. Oil Shale development and water usage 

Any leasing or project development would be subject to existing laws, including state 

water appropriation laws. ExxonMobil, therefore, expects no significant adverse impacts from 

oil shale development, as water usage in these areas is already regulated and any usage must be 

consistent with those requirements. 

In any event, ExxonMobil believes that responsible, low-impact, and sustainable water 

usage is both technically and economically feasible for the oil shale industry. We are 

committing significant capital and research toward developing technologies and processes to 

reduce energy usage in our project while protecting ground and surface water resources. We are 

also seeking an RD&D lease to successfully verify that our technology is viable, environmentally 

acceptable, and sustainable in order to proceed to commercial scale implementation. Although 

some uncertainty remains regarding the potential water use requirements for oil shale 

development technology, continued research and technology development will validate the 

environmental and economic viability prior to proceeding to commercial application. Water use 

requirements will continue to be evaluated in subsequent NEPA reviews where potential impacts 
Final OSTS PEIS 961 

will be assessed on a site and project-specific basis. These future detailed reviews will provide 

project, technology, and site-specific information on water use to BLM decision makers. #25])>

<([#26 [8.3] B. Multi-Mineral Leasing 

Oil shale development can be compatible with the development of other mineral 

resources, especially conventional oil and gas and nahcolite resources, on the same lands. 

Industry is currently developing technology to enhance this type of multimineral development, 

and we encourage the BLM to develop leasing programs that accommodate multimineral leasing. 

The use of such compatible technologies can be considered during site-specific analyses. 

#26])>

OSTS2012D50288 

Organization: 

Received: 5/4/2012 11:51:33 AM 

Commenter1: - murray, Utah (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/16/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50288.htm (OSTS2012D50288-58901.htm Size = 1 KB) 

Submission Text

<([#1 [12] WE need to start planning not just for OUR SELVES or for the NEXT 

GENERATION of PEOPLE, but for the GENERATIONS TO COME of all LIVING 

CREATURES and we must plan for OUR ETERNAL MOTHER, MOTHER EARTH!I am 

thirteen years old and I desperatly want to not only SEE OTHERS CREATING A 

DIFFERENCE, but I want to BE THE ONE to MAKE THAT DIFFERENCE. This is one way 

that I am helping and I can only HOPE that others will STAND UP not just behind me, but all 

around me, all over the world! #1])>

OSTS2012D50289 

Organization: Rolland Grote 

Received: 5/4/2012 12:07:28 PM 

Commenter1: Rolland Grote - Hawley, Pennsylvania 18428 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/14/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50289.htm (OSTS2012D50289-58903.htm Size = 1 KB) 

Submission Text

<([#1 [12] Oil shale and tar sands are two of the filthiest forms of energy on our planet. The US 
Final OSTS PEIS 962 

can, and must, get out of fosil fuels for the health of the planet and for future generations of 

Americans. Global climate change is REAL, and getting worse. Do we need another disaster to 

wake us up? #1])> <([#2 [10.6.1] STOP DRILLING AND START INVESTING IN 

ALTERNATIVE, NON-POLLUTING ENERGY SOURCES. #2])>

OSTS2012D50290 

Organization: Carbon County, Rex Sacco 

Received: 5/4/2012 12:13:36 PM 

Commenter1: Rex Sacco - Price, Utah 84501 (United States) 

Organization1:Carbon County 

Commenter Type: Coop Agency - Local Govt 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Letter & Resolution 

Submitted As: Web Form and Mail 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: aziech 5/18/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50290.htm (OSTS2012D50290-58927.htm Size = 1 KB) 

BLM_Oil_Shale_Tar_Sands_PEIS_Comments_050112_OSTS2012D50290.pdf 

(OSTS2012D50290-58926.pdf Size = 9068 KB) 

Submission Text

To Whom It May Concern, 

The Board of Commissioners ofCarbon County, Utah appreciates the 

opportunity to work with the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) as a 

Cooperating Agency in the preparation of the Draft PEIS for the Allocation of Oil 

Shale and Tar Sands Resources on Lands in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming. 

Carbon County expects that our comments will be used for creating a plan 

to support and further the multiple use mandates of the BLM and the utilization of 

our natural resources in the best interest of the American public. We expect these 

comments to be included as a part of the administrative record for the action and 

given due consideration. We also strongly support the comments rendered by the 

State ofUtah and those from our adjoining counties (Duchesne and Uintah 

counties) who are also involved in this endeavor. 

<([#1 [9.8] As you know Carbon County worked with BLM along with State agencies 

and counties from Utah. Colorado and Wyoming as well as various other agencies 

of the Federal Government hoping to help development a reasonable draft to 

management for exploration and extraction of Oil Shale and Tar Sands in an 

region containing the largest volume of oil in the world. At the end of a very rapid 

and whimsical experience that lasted almost four months BLM felt they could 

substitute this effort for the existing Oil Shale and Tar Sands program that took 

the previous administration three years of cooperative agency review between 

public comments to finalize. At the end of reviews of sometimes as much as 

1000 or more pages of information with a 2-week deadline the Cooperators were 

asked to consider an alternative they could support as the, “Agency Preferred 

Alternative.” The Cooperators not directly under the control of the Federal Administration were 

mostly unanimous in their position to make the No Action Alternative, (The Alternative that 

would 
Final OSTS PEIS 963 

leave the existing OS&TS program in tact) as their agency preferred alternative. 

Some time after that and before this PEIS was released for public comment decisions were 

made at the highest level of the Department of Interior to add two sub-alternatives to the four 

alternatives for oil shale and made the, Agency Preferred Alternative. Their reasoning for 

ignoring 

our recommendation after asked and replacing it with an option that we as cooperators were not 

asked to consider or support was stated as, thus far, technological and economic conditions have 

not 

combined to support a sustained commercial oil shale industry in the United States, and tar sands 

is 

not at present a proven commercially-viable energy source, the DOI/BLM is adding these oil 

shale 

alternatives in support of the BLM and the Department’s emphasis on a robust RD&D program. 

Although many of the cooperators informed BLM of many countries using technology to 

extract Oil Shale and Tar Sands and in one case Uintah County, Utah provided a slide 

presentation 

of the Commissioners visiting a site in Estonia that has been economically producing oil from 

Tar 

Sands for many years, the BLM chose to ignore the facts and go with the spin. 

#1])> <([#2 [2.2] The new Preferred Alternative; Alternative 2 known as the Conservation Focus 

Alternative is analyzes removing from possible oil shale and tar sands leasing the following 

kinds of areas: 

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

during this planning process, as lands containing wilderness characteristics (preliminary 

information may be found in chapters 2 and 3 of the 2008 Programmatic EIS; 

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

Wyoming Environment Quality Council on April 10, 2008; 

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

Department of the Interior may issue; 

4. All areas of critical environmental concern (ACEC) located within the areas analyzed in the 

September 2008 Oil Shale and Tar Sands Resources Leasing Final EIS; and 

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

Alternative C of the September 2008 OSTS Programmatic EIS. 

Also, under this Alternative lands open for future leasing consideration would be the same as 

those in Alternative 2(a), but only for oil shale Research, Development, and Demonstration 

(RD&D) leases. The BLM would issue a commercial lease only when a lessee satisfies the 

conditions of its RD&D lease and the regulations at 43 C.F.R. subpart 3926 for conversion to a 

commercial lease. The preference right acreage, if any, which would be included in the 

converted 

lease, would be specified in the RD&D lease. 

The Record of Decision (ROD) for the 2008 OSTS PEIS amended 10 land use plans in 

Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming to make approximately 2 million acres of public lands available 

for 

potential leasing and development of oil shale and approximately 430,000 acres available for tar 

sands leasing. Together with the regulations published in 2006 and 2008 for oil shale and tar 

sands 
Final OSTS PEIS 964 

resources, the 2008 OSTS PEIS and subsequent land use amendments constituted a reasonable 

and 

rational establishment of an oil shale and tar sands program as mandated in the Energy Policy 

Act of 

2005, which was approved and passed by Congress. The oil shale and tar sands program from 

which the 2008 OSTS PEIS and related regulations came was a reasonable response to the fact 

that 

the recoverable oil equivalent from oil shale and tar sands resources in northeastern Utah, 

northwestern Colorado and southwestern Wyoming exceeds 4 trillion barrels per the latest USGS 

scientific estimate would been available to the American public for extraction and use. 

The preferred alternative in the 2012 OSTS PEIS drastically shrinks, diminishes and in many 

areas outright reverses virtually all of the lands made available for Oil Shale and Tar Sands 

development in 2008, and does so using the same data and science. Such a drastic reversal in 

lands 

available for Oil Shale and Tar Sands development between the 2008 PEIS and the 2012 

preferred 

alternative, violates the regulatory standards from the Task Force requirements of certainty for 

industry and investors; and would probably also violate the Data Quality Act of 2000. 

Regarding the preliminary purpose and need statement in the notice of intent, which states 

the PEIS will analyze removing from oil shale and tar sands leasing “All areas that the BLM has 

identified or may identify as a result of inventories conducted during this planning process. as 

lands 

containing wilderness characteristics. #2])>

<([#3 [9.2.1] On April 14, 2011, the BLM caused to be published in the Federal Register, 

Volume 76, No 72/Thursday, April 14,2011 pages 21003-21005, a notice of intent to prepare the 

above-referenced 2012 OSTS PEIS. The notice of intent further states at page 21004: 

Lands that the BLM identifies as having wilderness characteristics will be considered 

during this planning initiative, as described above, and consistent with Secretarial 

Order No. 3310, dated Dec. 22, 2010, and BLM Manuals 6301 and 6302. Future 

leasing of lands determined by the BLM to have wilderness characteristics, if 

compatible with the allocation decisions stemming from this initiative, will 

subsequently be assessed in accordance with BLM Manual6303, as appropriate (i .e., 

where the BLM has not determined, consistent with BLM Manual 6302, whether the 

lands with wilderness characteristics at issue should be receive a wild lands 

designation, BLM Manual 6303 will apply.) 

This language documents the BLM’s intent to implement, administer and/or enforce 

Secretarial Order 3310 and one or more ofthe BLM guidance manuals promulgated under Order 

3310. Carbon County and others have reminded BLM that any attempt by the BLM to 

implement, 

administer and/ or enforce Secretarial Order 3310, including any effort by the BLM to proceed 

further on the above-referenced Programmatic EIS, violates the spending moratorium of Section 

1769 of the April 21 , 2011 Congressional Continuing Resolution to Fund Fiscal Year 2011 

through 

September 30, 2011, which states: 

For the fiscal year ending September 30, 2011 , none of the funds made available by this 

division or any other Act may be used to implement, administer, or enforce Secretarial Order No. 
Final OSTS PEIS 965 

3310 issued by the Secretary of the Interior on December 22,2010. The spending moratorium has 

been carried forward in all subsequent Congressional spending resolutions up to and including 

the 

current spending resolution and the 2012 OSTS PEIS, is an admitted attempt by the BLM to 

implement, administer and/or enforce Secretarial Order 331 0 and its policies and objectives, all 

in 

violation ofthe Spending Moratorium of the 2011 Continuing Resolution. BLM in no way can 

distance this PEIS from Order 3310. Truly, no excuse rendered will avail. All one has to do is 

look 

at the provisions of the PEIS in light of the February 2011 court settlement agreement, to realize 

that 

the center-piece of this effort is to repeal oil shale and tar sands development on lands with socalled 

wilderness characteristics, which have just about everything to do with the now defunct Order 

3310 

Wildlands Policy. It is brazen disregard of the CR, for the BLM to now pretend that this PEIS 

hostile 

as it is to oil shale and tar sands development on “wilderness characteristics’’ lands, 

suddenly has nothing to do with the now defunct and Congressionally barred Wildlands Order. 

BLM apparently is too blatant to even bother amending the April l4th NOI, which expressly ties 

this 

PEIS to the CR barred Order 3310 Wildlands Policy. It is either sheer brazenness, or 

bureaucratic 

inability to alter BLM’s pro-stance of Order 3310 allowing its continued direction to move along 

on 

the same illegal course despite the moratorium of the CR. At this point even though through the 

review process ofthis PEIS the references to Secretarial Order 3310 might be removed; it will 

never 

legitimatize this project. It underscores this administration’s motivation to stop all domestic 

sources 

of energy from being explored and extracted. 

#3])> <([#4 [3.1.3] BLM stated that they have recently completed updating its inventory of lands 

with 

wilderness characteristics in each of the three states for the planning area, and the status of 

several 

areas originally proposed to be Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs) in Utah has 

changed since the preparation ofthe 2008 PEIS. In light of the combined weight of these several 

developments, as well as other policy considerations, the BLM has decided to take another look 

at 

the land use plan allocations made in the 2008 ROD 

That is an incorrect statement for the RMPs in Utah. The only legitimate inventorying of 

lands with wilderness characteristics in Utah was completed as part of the process to revise the 

six 

Resource Management Plans (RMPs) in Utah (Price, Vernal, Moab, Monticello, Richfield and 

Kanab). Out of that process the Price BLM Field Office identified 97,100 acres of wilderness 

characteristics lands suitable for wilderness characteristics management. Additionally, the lands 
Final OSTS PEIS 966 

looked at for Wilderness Characteristics through the RMP on the West Tavaputs where this PEIS 

would apply in Carbon County was found as having a higher value for oil and gas production. 

Map 

R-11 ofthe Price RMP/ROD states, “Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics not 

Carried 

Forward into the Approved Plan.” Therefore. in our view. any attempt to augment wilderness 

characteristics inventory already completed in Utah would be invalid, because it was done under 

the 

auspices of now defunct Secretarial Order 3310, which is barred by the moratorium (see 

discussion 

above). Moreover, no attempt has been made to amend any of the Utah RMP determinations of 

wilderness characteristics lands worthy of wilderness characteristics management. Therefore, 

any 

attempt to try to prop up the supposed necessity of the present PEIS with notions of so-called 

‘recently completed’ wilderness characteristics inventories is invalid and merely belies further 

the 

illegitimate agenda-driven nature of this PEIS. 

Further, while the updated inventory of lands with wilderness characteristics has been 

considered in the development of the alternatives and will be considered in the analysis of 

environmental consequences of possible future leasing and development, BLM noted in the April 

14, 2011, NOI, “because this is a targeted planning process focusing on allocation of oil shale 

and 

tar sands resources, this planning initiative will not consider designating Wild Lands.” further 

exposes the invalid, circular nature ofBLM’s concerted effort with the wilderness advocacy 

group 

lawsuit plaintiffs to manufacture a de facto wilderness allocation without legitimately amending 

an 

existing RMP and without complying with the 2003 Utah-Norton Wilderness Settlement 

Agreement. The updated inventory oflands (illegitimate as it is) appears to be a step toward 

ultimate designation of the implementation of Secretarial Order 3310. That is a transparent · 

assertion, especially when considered in light of the April 14, 2011 NOI which clearly parked 

this 

whole effort under the Wildlands Order. This is all about an agenda to ratchet down a previously 

legitimate allocation of oil shale and tar sands lands to conform to the lawsuit plaintiffs’ own 

vision 

of wilderness designation, plain and simple. #4])>

<([#5 [1.3] Since BLM has categorically given the involved State and Counties an open door 

treatment 

in allowing us to join them as a cooperating agency and the thrown out our comments and 

recommendations, violated the Energy Policy Act, The Data quality Act and the Congressional 

moratorium on Wildlands secretarial order 3310 and then placed into the draft an Agency 

preferred 

alternative that was never commented on by the cooperators and in place before the public 

comment 

process took place, Carbon County believes that this entire process should be thrown out and the 

existing Oil Shale and Tar Sands regulations be implemented without any need to amend RMP’s 
Final OSTS PEIS 967 

that considered and planned for it during the RMP process. 

#5])> Included with these comments is our Resolution No. 2012-02 that we want incorporated as 

part of the comments. It had been pleasure to comment again with the hope some of this 

information will be used or at least considered on this go-round. But judging by our past 

experience 

we will tend not to expect much from this agency to support the security of this nation to allow 

domestic extraction and production of its own natural resources. 

Very truly yours, 

CARBON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 

Michael S. Milovich 

Commission Chairman 

RESOLUTION NO. 2012-02

RESOLUTION OF CARBON COUNTY

STATE OF UTAH

OPPOSING THE BLM’S 2012 OIL SHALE AND TAR SANDS PROGRAMMATIC 

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT, BLM PROJECT# W0-300-13 1 0-PP-OSI IL 

(HEREAFTER 2011 OSTS PEIS) 

FOR LANDS ADMINISTERED BY THE BLM fN COLORADO. UTAH AND WYOMING, 

This Resolution is adopted in open meeting by the Board of Commissioners of Carbon County. 

Utah in order to redress the many violations oflaw, regulation, and policy by the BLM with 

respect to the BLM’s 2012 OSTS PEIS. 

BACKGROUND

As background to this Resolution, Carbon County, Utah recites the following grievances: 

WHEREAS. On April 14. 2011, the BLM caused to be published in the Federal Register, 

Volume 76. No 72ffhursday, April 14.2011, pages 21003-21005. a notice of intent to prepare 

the above-referenced 2012 OSTS PEIS; and 

WHEREAS, the preliminary purpose and need statement in the notice of intent, states the PEIS 

will analyze removing from oil shale and tar sands leasing ‘‘All areas that the l3LM has 

identified 

or may identify as a result of inventories conducted during this planning process, as lands 

containing wilderness characteristics[.)” /d.. at page 2 1004; and 

WHEREAS. the notice of intent further states at page 21004: 

Lands that the BLM identifies as having wilderness characteristics will be 

considered during this planning initiative, as described above, and consistent with 

Secretarial Order No. 3310, dated Dec. 22, 2010, and BLM Manuals 630 I and 

6302. Future leasing of lands determined by the BLM to have wilderness 

characteristics, if compatible with the allocation decisions stemming from this 

initiative. will subsequently be assessed in accordance with BLM Manual 6303. 

as appropriate (i.e., where the BLM has not determined, consistent v.ith BLM 

Manual 6302, v. hether the lands with wilderness characteristics at issue should be 

receive a wild lands designation. BLM Manual 6303 v..ill apply); and 

WHEREAS, this language documents the BLM’s intent to implement, administer and/or enforce 

Secretarial Order 3310 and one or more of the BLM guidance manuals promulgated under Order 

3310;and 

WHEREAS, any attempt by the BLM to implement, administer and/or enforce Secretarial Order 
Final OSTS PEIS 968 

3310. including any effort by the BLM to proceed further on the above-referenced Programmatic 

EIS. violates the spending moratorium of Section 1769 of the April 21. 2011 Congressional 

Continuing Resolution to Fund Fiscal Year 2011 through September 30.201 L \\hich states: 

For the fiscal year ending September 30.2011, none of the funds made available 

b) this division or any other Act rna) be used to implement. administer. or 

enforce Secretarial Order No. 33 10 issued b)’ the Secretary of the Interior on 

December 22. 20 I 0; and 

WHERFAS. this spending moratorium has been carried forward in all subsequent Congressional 

spending resolutions up to and including the current spending resolution: and 

WHEREAS. the 2012 OSTS PEIS. is an admitted attempt by the BLM to implement. administer 

and/or enforce Secretarial Order 3310 and its policies and objectives. all in violation of the 

Spending Moratorium ofthe 2011 Continuing Resolution; and 

WHEREAS, the 2008 Oil Shale and Tar Sands Programmatic EIS (2008 OSTS PEIS) was 

required under Section 369 (d) (l ) of the Energ:y Policy Act of 2005 and was prepared in 

cooperation with 14 federal, state. and local governmental organizations: and 

WHEREAS THE 2008 OSlS PEIS was 3 years in the making. and it honored the input of a task 

force of Governors and other stakeholders as per requirement of the 2005 Energy Policy Act: 

WHEREAS, the Record ofDecision (ROD) for the 2008 OSTS PEIS amended 10 land use plans 

in Colorado. Utah. and Wyoming to make approximately 2 million acres of public lands 

available for potential leasing and development of oil shale and approximately 430.000 acres 

available for tar sands leasing. Together with the regulations published in 2006 and 2008 for oil 

shale and tar sands resources. the 2008 OSTS PEIS and subsequent land use amendments 

constituted a reasonable and rational establishment of an oil shale and tar sands program as 

mandated in the Energ: Policy Act of 2005: and 

WHEREAS, the oil shale and tar sands program to which the 2008 OSTS PEIS and related 

regulations gave birth. \~.:as a reasonable response to the fact that oil shale and tar sands 

resources in the Green River Formation located in northeastern Utah. nortlnvestem Colorado 

and southwestern Wyoming may reach 8 trillion barrels of oil: and 

WHEREAS. the preferred alternative in the draft 2012 OSTS PEIS drasticallv shrinks. 

diminishes and in man) areas outright reverses virtually all of the lands made available for Oil 

Shale and Tar Sands development in 2008. and does so using the same data and science: and 

WHEREAS. such a drastic reversal in lands available for Oil Shale and 1 ar Sands development 

between the 2008 PEIS and the 2012 preferred alternative. violates regulatory ran Task Force 

requirements of certainty for industry and investors: and 

WHEREAS such a drastic reversal of lands available for Oil Shale and Tar Sands development 

in 2008. constitutes a de facto. piece-meal revision of previous BLM Resource Management 

Plans. in violation of the Section 202 Planning Process under FLPMA; 

WHEREAS, the preferred alternath e in the draft 2012 OSTS PEIS entirely ignor~s the input of 

the task force and stakeholders which the 2005 Energy Policy Act directed the BLM to honor 

and folio~: and moreo\ er the draft 2012 OSTS PEIS may well ‘iolate various memoranda of 

understanding (\.10Us) with counties v,hich require the BLM to publish the written input of 

cooperators \\ho disagree with the preferred alternative: 

WHEREAS the draft 2012 OSTS PI::.IS preferred altematiYe significant!} restricts the acreage 

allotted in the 2008 Pr IS for research and deYelopment leasing: 

WHEREAS the draft 2012 OSTS PUS preferred alternative threatens to arbitrarily undermine 

the process and the work utilized in creation of the 2008 OS IS PEIS. and essentially dismantle a 
Final OSTS PEIS 969 

reasonable and rational oil shale and tar sands program in \ iolation of Section 369 of the 2005 

Energ~ Policy Act: and 

WHEREAS, the 2012 OSTS PEIS preferred alternative is the creature of a friendly law.;uit 

settlement agret:!ment betv,:een the BI M and ideological opponents to oil shale de\elopment. 

and 

is therefore entirely pre-determined and pre-decisional in violation ofNEPA. ‘‘ ith no apparent 

rationale for rc,ising the acreages approved in 2008: and 

WHEREAS. the BL~1 has settled on a preferred altemati\e in the 2012 OS IS PEIS admittedly 

without ha\ ing tirst analyzed its impacts: BLM should be required to withdra’’ the preferred 

status ofthc alternative until it has performed this analysis; and 

WHEREAS, the acreage approved for Oil Shale and Tar Sands de\elopment in the dran 2012 

OSTS PFIS preferred altemath e bears no rational relationship to the stated purpose and need: 

\VI IEREAS. the Department of Energy has basically abdicated the responsibiltty Congress 

placed upon it to defend and uphold a\ iable oil shale energ~ program in America. lea\ ing it 

instead to the BLM encumbered b~ a host of anti-oil shale prO-\\ilderness groups steering 

BL.\.1”s 

e\ery mo\e: 

WHEREAS, the altematn e adopted in the ROD of the 2008 OSTS PEIS is nO\\ the “‘-Jo Action 

Altemati’ e of the draft 2012 OSTS PEIS; and 

WHEREAS. the 2008 OSTS PEIS chosen alternative is consistent with the multiple use. 

sustained yield of the Federal Land Policy Management Act (FLP~1A): and 

WHEREAS. the 2008 OSTS PEIS chosen alternative is consistent with county general plans and 

policies which call for responsible development of available energy resources: and 

WHEREAS. the de,elopment and production of oil from oil shale has been pro\en beyond a 

doubt to be technologicall~ and economical!} feasible; and 

WHEREAS. this same technolog) to cxtract oil from the oil shale rock is not only economically 

feasible. hw it requires liule to no consumption o[waTer. cotmar) to the myths which false)~ 

claim that oil shale extraction requires large consumption of water resources; and 

WHERAS. the energy captured in the extract of oil from shale (natural gas capture. etc .. ) more 

than makes up for energy consumed in that extraction process, thus dispelling the myth that the 

oil shale extraction process consumes more energ)’ than it produces: 

WHEREAS. the rising price of gasoline. coupled with ever increasing Joss of good paying jobs 

due to the Administration’s policies against energy development on western public lands, result 

in increasing hardships for fami lies and the local economy. to the point where some fear the 

‘“indO\\ of oppm1unit) is about to close for a civil. lawful and order!)’ response as citizens feel 

more and more pressured and desperate financially; and 

WHl:.REAS. the 2012 OSTS PEIS improperly limits technology testing to stricti) in situ efforts 

and does not allow tor development of other technologies; and 

WHEREAS, the BLM has left insufficient time for the public and cooperators to meaningfully 

comment on the public draft 2012 OSTS PETS by the present comment deadline of May 4. 2012. 

because a highly relevant commercial oil shale BLM regulation is not due to be published until 

May 15. 2012 and the public should have the right to view that regulation first and then submit 

comments on the draft 20 I 2 OSTS PEIS in light of that regulation; and 

WHEREAS. the same problems with lack of consistency with local plans and policies and failure 

to honor the input of cooperators and all stakeholders. also besets many public lands EIS 

projects. in addition to the 2012 OSTS PEIS. The cooperators from Utah and Wyoming have 
Final OSTS PEIS 970 

alread) unanimously requested for the No-Action alternative in the draft 2012 OSTS PEIS 

become the preferred alternative. 

RESOLUTION

NOW THEREFORE. BE IT RESOLVED BY CARBO~ COUNTY, STATE OF UTAH AS 

FOLLOWS: 

<([#6 [9.2.1] 1. Carbon County. Utah declares the BLM’s continuing to administer and carry out 

the 2012 

OSTS PEIS to be an open contempt and flaunting of the Congressional Spending \1oratorium 

first imposed in the 2011 Continuing Resolution and carried forward in all subsequent 

Congressional spending resolutions up to and including the present; 

2. Carbon Count) calls upon the BLM to cease all further activities with respect to 

administering and carrying out the 20 12 OSTS PETS, because doing so constitutes an open 

contempt and/or enforcing of the Congressional Spending Moratorium against implementing. 

administering and/or enforcing Secretarial Order 3310. Which Spending Moratorium was first 

imposed in the 2011 Continuing Resolution and carried forward in all subsequent Congressional 

spending resolutions up to and including the present: 

3. Carbon County calls upon the BLM to immediately cease and desist all activities related 

to the above-referenced 2012 OSTS PEIS and immediately publish a revised notice in the 

Federal Register signifying its cessation of all work on the Programmatic EIS in obedience to the 

above quoted Spending Moratorium. Otherwise. the BLM would be in contempt of Congress: 

#6])> <([#7 [2.1.1] 4. Should BLM continue to go forward with the 2012 OS1S PEIS regardless 

of these Grievances, the only legally viable alternative would be if the BLM adopted the “NoAction 

Alterative, which is identical to the Alternative chosen in the ROD of the 2008 OSTS PEIS: 

#7])> <([#8 [1.1.1] 5. The BLM should extend the May 4, 2012 deadline for public comment on 

the draft 2012 OSTS PHS at least 30 days after publication of the expected oil shale regulation 

due to be 

published on or around May 15, 2012. 

#8])> <([#9 [1.3] 6. The BLM should honor the input of cooperators. particularly if they are local 

governments. as required by Section 202(c)(9) of FLPMA. in all matters. not just with respect to 

the 2012 OSTS PEIS. #9])>

OSTS2012D50291 

Organization: Laurel Armstrong 

Received: 5/4/2012 12:28:34 PM 

Commenter1: Laurel Armstrong - Laramie, Wyoming 82072 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/14/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50291.htm (OSTS2012D50291-58905.htm Size = 1 KB) 

Submission Text

<([#1 [2.3.1] Regarding the follow up PEIS detailing land use plans and for the future 
Final OSTS PEIS 971 

development of oil shale and tar sands resources in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming, I would 

encourage the adoption of Alternative 3 which releases no land in Wyoming; only 30,000 acres 

in Utah and Colorado for research purposes only . The chronic water shortages that exist in 

Wyoming make it a poor choice for oil shale extraction. #1])> Thanks you. 

OSTS2012D50293 

Organization: richard crowe 

Received: 5/4/2012 12:40:27 PM 

Commenter1: richard crowe - okatie, South Carolina 29909 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/14/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50293.htm (OSTS2012D50293-58907.htm Size = 1 KB) 

Submission Text

<([#1 [11] stop the b.s. and drill baby drill #1])>

OSTS2012D50295 

Organization: HawkWatch International, Kylan Frye 

Received: 5/4/2012 12:49:18 PM 

Commenter1: Kylan Frye - Salt Lake City, Utah 84106 (United States) 

Organization1:HawkWatch International 

Commenter Type: Environmental Organization 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/16/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50295.htm (OSTS2012D50295-59001.htm Size = 1 KB) 

HWI_OSTS_PEIS_OSTS2012D50295.pdf (OSTS2012D50295-59000.pdf Size = 186 KB) 

Submission Text

Please see attached document for our comments. Thank you for the opportunity to submit our 

suggestions. See Attachment. 

HAWKWATCH INTERNATIONAL 

2240 S. 900 E. ? Salt Lake City, UT 84106 ? 801-484-6808 ? 800-726-HAWK ? Fax 801-484-

6810 

PO Box 35706 ? Albuquerque, NM 87176 ? 505-255-7622 

WWW.HAWKWATCH.ORG 

2 May 2012 

To Whom It May Concern: 

Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on the Oil Shale and Tar Sands (OSTS) 
Final OSTS PEIS 972 

Programmatic EIS. We at HawkWatch International, a non-profit conservation science 

organization that specializes in birds of prey and with specific knowledge related to the proposed 

areas for potential OSTS development, wish to offer our input at this juncture in the planning 

process. <([#1 [2.3.1] We recognize that we live in an era of decreasing fossil fuel resources, and 

the need for alternative sources of energy, both renewable and otherwise, is becoming 

increasingly necessary. We also recognize that our dependence on these resources is strong and 

that there exists a need for increased domestic production of fossil fuels. However, due to the 

fact that these resources contribute to climate change and the extraction of such resources has the 

potential to alter landscapes such that they will no longer be able to support the wildlife and 

human communities that depend on them, it is absolutely imperative that novel methods of 

extraction be completely vetted before public resources are allowed to be leased. These 

technologies are as yet unproven at a commercial scale, both financially and environmentally, 

within the United States, and require a large number of already-scarce energy and water 

resources in the process of extraction. As such, we are in support of Alternative 3 – Research 

Lands Focus, and are strongly opposed to any leasing options that do not include a strong 

research and development focus prior to resource extraction. #1])>

<([#2 [3.7.3.6] [3.7.3.9] Wildlife Impacts with regards to raptors: 

We recommend that the PEIS consider the likely cumulative landscape impacts on wildlife and 

habitats of existing and reasonable foreseeable conventional oil and gas development when 

evaluating whether this landscape can support oil shale and tar sands. BLM should encourage the 

least surface disturbing forms of development. We also recommend that surface disturbance 

limits be set for all forms of resource extraction that, when reached, would require reclamation 

before further development could occur (e.g., see the ROD for the Roan Plateau). We suggest 

appropriate spatial and temporal buffers be applied to protect all known raptor nests. For 

example, refer to “Utah Supplemental Planning Guidance: Raptor Best Management Practices” 

published by the Utah State Office of BLM. Additionally, we urge the BLM to recognize the 

potential value of pinyon-juniper habitats in the Piceance Basin as nesting habitat for Accipiters 

(i.e., Northern Goshawks, Cooper’s Hawks, and Sharp-shinned Hawks; refer to BLM Technical 

Note 435: http://www.blm.gov/nstc/library/pdf/TN435.pdf). 

#2])> HAWKWATCH INTERNATIONAL 

2240 S. 900 E. ? Salt Lake City, UT 84106 ? 801-484-6808 ? 800-726-HAWK ? Fax 801-484-

6810 

PO Box 35706 ? Albuquerque, NM 87176 ? 505-255-7622 

WWW.HAWKWATCH.ORG 

<([#3 [3.7.3.1] [3.7.3.5] We do not agree that vegetation loss will only comprise a moderate 

impact to raptors, and instead argue that it presents a potentially large impact. Loss of vegetation, 

especially shrubs and trees, can lead to loss of important habitat for tree nesting and roosting 

birds and the loss of foraging habitat and prey base species in historical raptor territories, 

therefore making it difficult to support a nesting population in the area. Additionally, removal of 

vegetation and increased surface disturbance has the potential to completely eliminate Burrowing 

Owl habitat, a fossorial diurnal owl native to these areas that is listed as a species of concern in 

all three states within the OSTS area. Furthermore, increased fire potential does not present a 

small impact to raptors. More likely, fire has a moderate to large impact on raptors. Research in 

the western part of Utah has shown drastic declines in Golden Eagle nesting success, nest starts 

and productivity following intense fire years and loss of critical shrub cover for prey species, 

such as jackrabbits. 
Final OSTS PEIS 973 

#3])> <([#4 [3.7.3.9] [3.7.4.4] Given the potential raptor foraging habitat destruction associated 

with the proposed activities, we also suggest that the BLM use a larger buffer around nest sites 

and high value raptor areas than the 1-mile buffer BLM currently suggested for Golden Eagles. 

The current BLM spatial buffer was designed to prevent disturbance to birds on nests (e.g., from 

point-source activities, such as oil and gas drilling); they were not intended to protect foraging 

habitat surrounding nests. The Golden Eagle literature suggests that birds breeding in the western 

U.S. exploit home ranges averaging 20–33 km2 in size (equivalent to a 1.6–2.0-mile-radius), 

depending on the study area (reviewed in Kochert et al. [2002]), but they can be as large as 83 

km2 (3.2-mile radius) in southwestern Idaho (Marzluff et al. 1997). Therefore, we suggest a 

minimum 2-mile buffer around Golden Eagle territories. In contrast, Ferruginous Hawks forage 

over average home ranges of 6.0–7.6 km2 in size (equivalent to a 0.8–1.0-mile radius; Smith and 

Murphy 1973, McAnnis 1990), so the existing 1-mile disturbance buffer may also be a sufficient 

buffer for this species. 

#4])> <([#5 [3.7.4.4] State-specific issues: 

Utah and Colorado 

HawkWatch International has done extensive work with the BLM offices in Eastern Utah and 

Western Colorado involving raptor responses to oil and gas development (see BLM Technical 

Notes 432-436; http://www.blm.gov/nstc/library/techno2.htm). From the data compiled under 

these efforts, we are able to compile basic information on the number of historical raptor nests 

within the area that may be affected by OSTS development for all alternatives for both states 

(Table 1 and 2). Please note that these datasets are historic and are not comprehensive for the 

regions of interest and have not been updated since 2006 or 2007. We urge BLM to refer to any 

additional data collected by their representative Field Offices and the various environmental 

consultants contracted by oil and gas companies in the intervening years. 

Table 1. Historical nests potential affected by OSTS development in Eastern Utah. Mexican 

Spotted Owl and Burrowing Owl Nests were not included in this analysis. GOEA – Golden 

Eagle. FEHA – Ferruginous Hawk. 

[SEE TABLE] 

Table 2. Historical nests potentially affected by OSTS development in Western Colorado. 

Mexican Spotted Owl and Burrowing Owl Nests not included in this analysis. NOGO is 

Northern Goshawk, a state species of concern. 

[SEE TABLE] 

Alternatives 1 and 4 have the potential to affect a huge number of raptor nests in both states, 

even when considering the conservation measures set forth in this document. With such high 

numbers of potential disturbance, it is absolutely imperative that mining technology be 

thoroughly researched to avoid unwanted environmental risk. Alternative 3 presents the least 

amount of risk to raptor nests of the four alternatives, and allows for adequate testing of the 

technology prior to commercial #5])>

<([#6 [3.7.3.10] Wyoming 

South-central Wyoming supports a large number of raptors, including one of the largest known 

breeding populations of Ferruginous Hawks (Olendorff 1993), a recognized BLM species of 

concern, and Golden Eagles, a species of increasing conservation concern for the USFWS and 

states within the region. Our communications with Rock Spring BLM FO staff suggests there is 

also substantial raptor data available for this area that should be consulted. #6])>
Final OSTS PEIS 974 

<([#7 [3.7.3.10] [3.7.4.1] Overall KRAs: 

This document makes little mention of a number of “Key Raptor Areas” (KRAs) that have been 

previously identified within the region considered for OSTS development. Through BLM coauthorship and signing of Raptor Research Report #8 (see Olendorff et al. [1989]), BLM 

signaled a commitment to “protect and manage raptor habitats on public lands to the best of its 

ability within the multiple-use mandate provided by the Federal Land Policy and Management 

Act (FLPMA). In preparing the report, individual BLM field offices identified a total of 223 

KRAs with the intention of providing guidance to future planning and management efforts, such 

as this one. KRAs were defined as areas with unusually high raptor nesting, migration, or 

wintering concentrations that deserved special consideration during decision making (Olendorff 

et al. 1989). Table 3 outlines the XX KRAs that occur adjacent or in potential OSTS areas. 

Table 3. Key Raptor Areas within Alternative 1 for OSTS development 

[SEE TABLE] #7])>

<([#8 [3.7.3.9] [3.7.4.4] Proposed conservation measures Bald and Golden Eagles and Mexican 

Spotted Owls 

We fully support all of the proposed conservation measures detailed in Appendix F, and implore 

the BLM to extend conservation measures to other state-listed species of concern that potentially 

occur within the areas of proposed OSTS leasing (See table 4). We suggest also increasing the 

survey radius from 1 mile to 2 miles for nesting and roosting Bald and Golden Eagles, given that 

their home range size can be anywhere from 1.6 to 2.0 miles in radius. Because this home range 

size is one of the largest for raptors, we feel confident that this radius would safely include all 

other species of concern within the OSTS leasing areas. We also support the need for increased 

effort in under-surveyed areas within potential Mexican Spotted Owl habitat in the OSTS leasing 

areas. 

Table 4. State species of concern for OSTS leasing areas. [SEE TABLE] 

The proposed conservation measures mention restoration of activities of wetlands, and we 

further want to stress the need to include restoration measures for habitat structure in areas of 

shrublands and pinyon-juniper woodlands, given their importance to raptor prey base and nesting 

habitat. #8])>

Thank you for your consideration, 

Kylan W. Frye, M.E.M 

Conservation Biologist 

HawkWatch International, Inc. 

kfrye@hawkatch.org 

Steven J. Slater, Ph.D. 

Conservation Director 

HawkWatch International, Inc. 

801-484-6808 Ext 108 

sslater@hawkwatch.org 

LITERATURE CITED 

Kochert, M. N., K. Steenhof, C. L. Mcintyre, and E. H. Craig. 2002. Golden Eagle (Aquila 

chrysaetos). No. 684 in A. Poole and F. Gill (Editors), The Birds of North America. The Birds of 
Final OSTS PEIS 975 

North America, Inc., Philadelphia, PA. 

Marzluff, J. M., S. T. Knick, M. S. Vekasy, L. S. Schueck, and T. J. Zarriello. 1997. Spatial use 

and habitat selection of Golden Eagles in southwestern Idaho. Auk 114:673–687. 

McAnnis, D. M. 1990. Home range, activity budgets, and habitat use of Ferruginous Hawks 

(Buteo regalis) breeding in southwest Idaho. M.S. Thesis, Boise State University, Boise, ID. 

Olendorff, R.R., Bibles, D.D., Dean, M.T., and Haugh, J.R., and Kochert, M.N. 1989. Raptor 

habitat and management under the U.S. BLM multiple-use mandate. Raptor Research Report 

8:1-80. 

Olendorff, R. R. 1993. Status, biology, and management of Ferruginous Hawks: a review. 

Raptor USDI Bureau of Land Management, Research and Technical Assistance Center, Boise, 

Idaho. 

Smith, D. G., and J. R. Murphy. 1973. Breeding ecology of raptors in the eastern Great Basin of 

Utah. Brigham Young University Science Bulletin, Biological Series 18:1–76. 

OSTS2012D50296 

Organization: 678-993-9375, Ted DePooter 

Received: 5/4/2012 12:51:16 PM 

Commenter1: Ted DePooter - Kennesaw, Georgia 30144 (United States) 

Organization1:678-993-9375 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/16/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50296.htm (OSTS2012D50296-58937.htm Size = 1 KB) 

Submission Text

<([#1 [1.1] My first comment is that a telephone number is required, but you do not provide a 

box to enter it,. Is this an oversight, or a means of reducing the protests? (2) The protest shall 

contain: (i) The name, mailing address, telephone number and interest of the person filing the 

protest; #1])> <([#2 [3.10.3] Comment - you must lease in large blocks, for long terms, and in 

locations where there is both access to transportation, and housing for the workers, or you will 

place the program at a significant economic dissadavantage. We need to expand our energy 

resources, and this is one way we can start. The sooner it starts, and the more transparent the 

leasing program, the sooner we will see results. Deciding where to lease now will also help the 

general population decide where they want to live, since they seen to not live near this potential 

energy source. the longer the delay on deciding where these sites are, the more not in my back 

yard people move in. 

#2])>

OSTS2012D50297 

Organization: CryoRain Inc., Denyse DuBrucq 

Received: 5/4/2012 12:57:08 PM 

Commenter1: Denyse DuBrucq - Dayton, Ohio 454041136 (United States) 

Organization1:CryoRain Inc. 

Commenter Type: Private Company 
Final OSTS PEIS 976 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: aziech 5/17/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50297.htm (OSTS2012D50297-59004.htm Size = 1 KB) 

Thermistry_for_the_Oil_and_Gas_industry_OSTS2012D50297.pdf (OSTS2012D50297-

59003.pdf Size = 29 KB) 

Submission Text

<([#1 [6.3.1] CryoRain Inc. offers several environmental fixes to current practices used in oil 

shale fuel extraction: 1. Fracking is done with cold using Liquid Nitrogen sourced Nitrogen gas. 

Rock conductivity allows rapid space cooling. 2. With ground and contained water frozen, the 

10% expansion of water frozen vibrated by dissonant tones will crush the rock sufficiently to 

allow evaporated fuel release. 3. Carrying the fuel from the ground with Nitrogen gas while 

raising the temperature in the center of the frozen zone will force fuel to surface for condensing 

by liquefication temperature. 4. Water components are separated out and fresh water used in 

agriculture. 5. Technique covered in applied US patent 12/217,915. Advantages include - no 

water used, no harsh chemicals added to ground, no moving parts in extraction system which is 

thermally powered. Diagram of system attached. All tar sands and oil shale vehicles should carry 

Liquid Nitrogen fire extinguisher to end a fire flareup, catch and spilled fuel, and stop leaking 

situation. 

Attachment: 

A New Technology Births a New Science - ThermistryThis Presentation is Directed to the Oil 

& Gas Industry 

With seven years experience and now an issued patent, USP 7,631,506, on the 

discovery that Liquid Nitrogen, when rained through a perforated pan or trough 

produces pure, inert, cryogenically cold Nitrogen gas which opens a world of 

capabilities from ending fires and crises to extracting fuel and polluting 

compounds from the earth. It is; Green, mean and clean since Nitrogen is 

already 78% of the atmosphere, it not only is available everywhere and mixes 

back in with no mess, no damage, no change. A fire burning flooded with pure 

Nitrogen just isn’t burning any more. 

The new science, Thermistry, is the study of or related to using temperature 

difference to drive change or motion using an inert material - here Nitrogen, N2, 

molecules – the fourth coldest liquid in the world - creating action without 

chemical reaction. Chemical reaction is prevented both by having reactive 

materials surrounded by inert Nitrogen gas which eliminates the reactive Oxygen 

and even Hydrogen from interacting, and, second, by taking the ambient 

temperature of the materials below their temperature window of reaction. 

Thermical techniques start cryogenically using Liquid Nitrogen rained through a 

spaced-hole sieve descend in drops through warmer air causing the drops to 

evaporate into pure Nitrogen gas. Nitrogen’s wrapped-tight molecule prefers to 

neighbor itself and in the evaporation process will force other air components out 
Final OSTS PEIS 977 

of the cloud of Nitrogen giving pure Nitrogen gas, an inert gas cloud at cryogenic 

temperature. On evaporating the Liquid Nitrogen drops in a calm environment, 

one can see the size of the pure gas cloud because its rim is clouded with 

condensed water vapor. A burning match placed in the clear air stops burning. 

Factors included in Thermistry using Liquid Nitrogen sourced Nitrogen gas: 

1. transferring temperature. It will cool things down rapidly, passing the 

cryogenic Nitrogen gas through pipes, it freeze things. It also will 

solidify spilled liquids for easy pick up and even gaseous toxins keeping 

them in the canister or aerosol they are in preventing their dissemination. 

Used in oil shale extraction, the cold will crack the kerogen that contains 

the fuel components. Working with unexploded ordnance, the freezing 

will prevent able power function and then at lower temperature, prevent 

the chemical reaction that causes the explosion. In controlling coal mine 

fires, it counters the inferno in the surface burns and rapidly reduces the 

underground temperature that would re-ignite methane gas and coal 

burning. To cool the last Chinese coal mine fire, it took three years 

2. enabling Oxygen-free transport of flammable materials as fuels and 

reactive mixtures. Extracting fuel with Nitrogen as the carrier of the fuel 

to the surface, one can reach the needed 375oC. temperature to carry 

all the heating oil and nothing will burn. It is offered to cool down the 

Fukushima Nuclear facility fuel rods to prevent meltdown. They report 

temperatures of 322oC in the reactors and spent fuel rod storage, but 

that is below our heating oil extraction temperature and way above 

water boiling so as to insure a dry environment which brings danger of 

Oxidizing the fuel rod chemicals. 

3. ending fuel fires by bathing the burn in Nitrogen gas evaporated from 

Liquid Nitrogen relates to energy safety from coal mines and petroleum 

facilities to chemical plants and even particle fires as lint, dust in silos 

and shipboard with grain shipments, sugar production and the like. 

4. freezing the containment of fuels as in oil shale and landfill seams where 

stored water freezes expanding its 10% microscopically fracturing the 

material containing the fuel components which allows release of 

contained fuels upon heating later in the process. In the fuel extraction, 

the locked in fuels in sedimentary situations is opened by the expanding 

water in the materials. With oil shale it let heating the rock after Liquid 

Nitrogen / cryogenic Nitrogen treating give off light, sweet fuels and 

water and then, as the heating continued, the gasoline, kerosene and 

heating oil. Without the Nitrogen treatment, it gave off sulfur compounds. 

5. saturating the ground, the Nitrogen eliminates the Oxygen so high 

temperature extraction can be done without ignition of the fuel bringing 

even Methane safely to the surface and capturing it by condensation, 

and providing means to end subterranean coal mine, peat and other 

embedded fires. This again is for fuel extraction and coal mine fire 

control as well as other embedded fires that burn long now since, other 

than this new Nitrogen technology, there is no means to end them. This 

also relates to remediation as fuel leaked from storage tanks which is 
Final OSTS PEIS 978 

extracted from the ground in the same way we pull fuel from oil shale 

reserves and landfill seams. 

6. penetrating the ground with Nitrogen gas in the pure state to control 

embedded fires stop the smoke and toxin releases by cooling the 

ground to below ignition temperature, and as mentioned in #5, 

suffocates the burn. 

7. flooding the fire draft with Nitrogen, a gaseous fire suppressant, see 

NFPA Code 2001, ends the burning and counters infernos which pull the 

Nitrogen cloud into the fire going to whatever level of the structure or of 

forest the most active burn is happening. The fire brings the fire 

suppressant to itself ending the burn. In contrast, water and foams drop 

fall through the fire, and puddle on the ground, and in the case of oil 

fires, it splatters the fire giving new areas of burning. Extending this 

further, when a cloud of Nitrogen is drawn into a fire, it can be pulled into 

and be effective in ending a series of fires because it stays as a gas and 

has no chemical change. If it does mix in the fire it is flooded with 

Carbon dioxide which, as you know, is also a fire extinguishing agent. 

8. using the cryogenic temperature of just evaporated Nitrogen in 

condensing tubes in a coal smoke environment freezes out the water 

on the walls of the tubes causing soot to drop out of the air. Further 

cooling can condense Carbon dioxide (CO2), into dry ice, or like the 

Dutch practice, pass CO2 through greenhouses to enhance plant growth. 

This gas stack scrubber method eliminates the smoke rather than 

disseminating it into the air off the top of a tall chimney and applies the 

smoke components to enhancing plant growth. This scrubbing can be 

done with heavy oil burning furnaces as well. 

9. SAFETY FACTOR - breathing pure Nitrogen or Argon, Neon or Helium 

air by man or beast causes fainting, because the level of CO2 in the 

lungs ends with no Oxygen exchange. The diaphragm action stops and 

the brain sleeps inducing fainting. In this state, fires and their smoke do 

not damage or destroy the lungs of those caught in a fire and, if 

resuscitated within six minutes, they will survive without mental or 

physical damage. Also flooding a Methamphetamine Lab situation both 

controls the occupants and prevents explosions making it safer for first 

responders. First responders with extra SCUBA equipment must be in 

the fire area to quickly restrain suspects and resuscitate anyone caught 

in the fire and walk them out. The non-lethal weapon use also ends 

hostage situations and robbery attempt at banks or convenience stores 

or airliner hijackers. Presently half the fire deaths in the USA have been 

from smoke inhalation only. A fire being fought with Nitrogen will put 

those caught in the crises in Coma saving their lungs. Breathing the 

CO2 of the fire floods the lungs with smoke so N2 atmosphere is 

preferred. First responders with SCUBA gear will have the IPV units in 

the building before the Nitrogen is released for fire fighting so they can 

resuscitate those caught, even handling a crowd of people in time. 

10. realizing this Nitrogen gas is invisible to the eye, unidentifiable to the 
Final OSTS PEIS 979 

nose, not tasted by the tongue and silent to the ear – knowledge of its 

effects and actions to remedy a situation will protect the population in 

the environment of its use. Using this Nitrogen gas sourced from Liquid 

Nitrogen was suggested to the US military as a favored means to do 

urban warfare in Iraq in that both persons and property are protected 

and undamaged, yet the terrorists can be easily separated and 

interrogated. They say money is the issue and then choose the most 

expensive means – drone bombs which are costly as is recovery from 

the explosion to say nothing of unnecessarily loss of lives. 

11. fighting fires with Nitrogen leaves no water damage and no electrical 

arcing making this technology optimal for handling vehicle fires with the 

ever increasing number of electric and hybrid automobiles on the road 

mixing with the fossil fuel powered vehicles. It leaves homes which 

have had fires more quickly recoverable since only what burned away, 

warped, melted, or was scorched needs replacing. It still smells so bring 

on the FabreezeTM. 

12. winter fire fighting using Nitrogen does not cause ice build up as using 

water does, damaging the structure and coating the ground with ice 

endangering those walking, working and driving in the area. 

13. measuring Nitrogen gas volume from one gallon of Liquid Nitrogen, one 

gets 230 gallons super cold (30.7 cubic feet) – the volume of a twin bed 

with matress; at room temperature, 250 gallons (33.4 cubic feet); and at 

inferno temperatures, over 600 gallons (80+ cubic feet). A truckload of 

3,000 gallons of Liquid Nitrogen floods 92,240 cubic feet with super cold 

and 100,260 cubic feet with room temperature Nitrogen. It is not 

consumed in the fire so can end burns over a large tract. When having 

heated in countering inferno temperatures, it will rise in the atmosphere 

flooding 240,000 cubic feet of treetop infernos. With a sheering 5 MPH 

wind, it becomes part of the atmospheric gases being normally 78% 

Nitrogen. Once polluted like this, it mixes easily with the air. 

14. determining Nitrogen molecular reactivity with its diatomic structure, it 

shares three electrons putting its reactivity between Oxygen (O2) and 

diamond structure of Carbon (C4). It takes legumes – peas, peanuts, 

beans of all sorts - to split the Nitrogen atom pairs with their rhizome 

bacteria. These bacteria create nodules on the roots which when left in 

the field will fertilize the ground for several years of growing other crops. 

15. preventing flooding by freezing water and gravel in sandbagging and 

levees and freezing temporary patches in dams and dikes. This was 

offered to protect the just rebuilt New Orleans against Category #5 

hurricane flooding and river flooding using sandbagging for towns 

threatened in general river flooding. The patches were offered to stop 

the flow of radioactive water from the Fukushima Nuclear Facility. Since 

the New Orleans oil storage and refining is now being flooded with the 

Mississippi River bulging its banks and covering lands unbothered in 

recent history, this should be included in handling troubles in oil industry. 

16. reducing pollution, nuclear or toxic, by freezing out the water containing 
Final OSTS PEIS 980 

the irritant and transporting it to a place safe to dispose or degrade it. 

Here again was a solution to a Fukushima difficulty where radioactive 

water was gushing from a reactor flooded to cool it. Also, when crude is 

harvested, a large component of the material shipped to the refinery is 

water. A freezing process can strip the water components in 

condensing sequence and then liquid separation can take out more from 

the light gasoline component of the raw petroleum. 

These sixteen factors alone can influence our decisions on fire and crises 

handling, oil and gas industry needs, remediation of organics from the soil and 

ground to prevent further contamination of aquifers, implement fuel extraction 

from fossil fuel deposits of all but solid carbon materials - diamond, slate, and 

anthracite coal, and freezing levee cores, sandbagging and breach repair to 

prevent flooding. Many problems cannot be handled by current technology 

except for this cryogenic means and others are poorly or expensively handled, 

either economically or environmentally as the dispersing detergent to counter the 

BP Oil Crisis in the Gulf. Using this technology, CryoRain offered to end the flow 

of crude from the wellstem which would have cut the polluting of the Gulf of 

Mexico by two months, but someone put as the first reason to reject a proposal 

that “Freezing is not Feasible.” Our triple pack offer there was to end the flow 

from the well, freeze the crude on the surface of the water and freeze the crude 

on the shores and take collected crude to area refineries to convert to fuel. 

Chefs on television of late have been pouring Liquid Nitrogen into their mix for 

the best ice creams....no after taste in Nitrogen. Having Nitrogen in the kitchen 

can end a kitchen fire is a flash and not destroy the meal(s) in preparation. This 

practice should be part of every oil rig and oil transport vessel galley. 

Enjoy discovery of applications remembering I have a eight year advantage and 

an array of patents pending and proposals implementing those I found useful. If 

the administering scientists in our crises centers would have the courage of great 

chefs, this technology would have been in the field years ago. Let us work 

together to get this logical choice for countering fires and crises into use from fire 

departments to fixed systems like replacing water sprinkler systems to the nondamaging 

Liquid Nitrogen sourced Nitrogen gas which do not expand the 

damage beyond that caused by the fire and ending the fire more quickly even 

reduces the damage the fire might have caused if fought with water, foams or 

chemicals. Communities should convert their crises fighting to our most 

abundant gas and save money, property, and, most importantly, lives. 

Sincerely, 

Denyse DuBrucq EdD, #1])>

OSTS2012D50298 

Organization: Jeff Meyer 

Received: 5/4/2012 12:58:57 PM 

Commenter1: Jeff Meyer - Preston, Washington (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: 
Final OSTS PEIS 981 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/14/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50298.htm (OSTS2012D50298-58939.htm Size = 1 KB) 

Submission Text

<([#1 [3.4.1] Do not dewater or contaminate the naturally occurring water falls, or their 

watershed, flowing into Roan Creek canyon. #1])>

OSTS2012D50299 

Organization: Carole Maclure 

Received: 5/4/2012 1:22:03 PM 

Commenter1: Carole Maclure - Olney, Maryland 20832 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/14/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50299.htm (OSTS2012D50299-58941.htm Size = 1 KB) 

Submission Text

<([#1 [12.3] Do not give over public lands to shale oil production. Unproven technology, no 

markets for shale oil on any levels that would justify destroying our western public lands. The 

BLM shoud protect the land, wildlife, air and water from the by products of this destructive 

process. While this may be good for the short term for oil companies it is a long term loser for 

the American public. JUST SAY NO.... #1])>

OSTS2012D50300 

Organization: Dan and Janet Blair 

Received: 5/4/2012 1:26:05 PM 

Commenter1: Dan and Janet Blair - Joseph, Oregon 978460330 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/16/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50300.htm (OSTS2012D50300-58943.htm Size = 4 KB) 

Submission Text

<([#1 [2.5] We submit this letter regarding the BLM’s “draft programmatic environmental 

impact statement” (Draft PEIS) for oil-shale and tar-sand development in Colorado, Utah and 

Wyoming (our former home state). We are deeply concerned about the potential environmental 
Final OSTS PEIS 982 

effects to water, wildlife, communities and public lands if the BLM initiates a commercial 

leasing program. The two million acres in Utah, Wyoming and Colorado previously allocated for 

commercial leasing is a massive amount of public taxpayer land that would be sacrificed for a 

single use of the landscape. Between global climate change, extinctions occurring at a rapid 

pace, and a quickly-drying Colorado River -- problems that oil-shale and tar-sand development 

would only exacerbate -- it’s hard to imagine a less prudent use of our public lands. We have 

appreciated BLM’s “go slow” approach that is requiring industry to reasonably develop and 

prove the technologies prior to allowing commercial leasing, and Alternative 2 of the Draft PEIS 

is a step in the right direction. However, the Draft PEIS should have included an alternative that 

does not in any way endorse the use of additional public lands with which this unproven industry 

can speculate. #1])> <([#2 [3.10.4] [3.10.5] Oil shale is currently producing no jobs and no 

revenue; the Congressional Budget Office confirmed that it is not expected to produce significant 

revenues through 2022. So we have the luxury of time in which to carefully assess the impacts of 

development on our water, wildlife, and communities. No one knows if oil shale will ever create 

jobs for our communities, since the barrier to oil shale is the rock itself. Leasing our public lands 

and providing our tax dollars for oil industry speculation is simply wrong. And meanwhile, the 

land overlying oil-shale resources in Utah, Colorado and Wyoming is some of the best wildlife 

habitat in the West; outdoor recreation and tourism are huge economic drivers for the region. It is 

imperative that we protect this sustainable economy by making smart decisions based on sound 

information. #2])> <([#3 [3.4.1] Moreover, speaking as former residents of Wyoming, we know 

that state is already facing chronic water shortages in its arid steppes. With no clear answer from 

the oil industry about what potential oil shale development would mean for the water needed by 

Wyoming’s farmers and ranchers, who are already providing real jobs, commercial leasing is a 

gamble the region should not be required to take. The hard-working people of Wyoming deserve 

better than the unavoidable environmental degradation that will result from this speculation. 

Wyoming folks value their open spaces, water, and hard-won agricultural heritage, and deserve 

to retain it rather than being treated as chess pieces in a massive and speculative oil industry 

game. #3])> <([#4 [12] We oppose any action by the BLM to continue or to authorize any new 

oil-shale or tar-sand development on public land, or to create or continue land-use allocations 

that would allow for such uses in the future. Take another long look at oil shale development. 

Evaluate carefully, and disclose fully, the serious impacts of all new energy required for oil-shale 

and tar-sand production, including its potentially devastating impacts to our climate and the 

threat it poses to wildlife, special-status, threatened and endangered species, and to our water, air 

and communities. #4])> Thank you for giving our concerns your most serious and thoughtful 

consideration. 

OSTS2012D50301 

Organization: Foothills Sustainability Institute, Karl Hanzel 

Received: 5/4/2012 1:31:09 PM 

Commenter1: Karl Hanzel - Boulder, Colorado 80302 (United States) 

Organization1:Foothills Sustainability Institute 

Commenter Type: Misc. Organization 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 
Final OSTS PEIS 983 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/14/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50301.htm (OSTS2012D50301-58945.htm Size = 1 KB) 

Submission Text

<([#1 [12] {If i haven’t said so already...} Tar Sands and Oil Shales should be left in the ground. 

The EROEI is too poor, and the planet is already teetering on the brink of global disaster. Leave 

it buried in the ground. Let’s move on to renewables and sustainability with all due haste. #1])>

Sincerely, Karl *-----> 

OSTS2012D50302 

Organization: CryoRain Inc., Denyse DuBrucq 

Received: 5/4/2012 1:37:19 PM 

Commenter1: Denyse DuBrucq - Dayton, Ohio 454041136 (United States) 

Organization1:CryoRain Inc. 

Commenter Type: Private Company 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Attachment 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: aziech 5/17/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50302.htm (OSTS2012D50302-59006.htm Size = 1 KB) 

BLM_RDandD_1-4-10_Lease_application_OSTS2012D50302.pdf (OSTS2012D50302-

59005.pdf Size = 8413 KB) 

Submission Text

<([#1 [6.3.1] Please find our 2009, January 4, application for experimental use of lands in 

Colorado to extract fuel with our patent technique. This should be tested to determine whether 

this is not preferred for its clean, cool method in contrast to current practices of harsh chemical 

fracking and water displacement to bring fuel to the surface. SEE ATTACHMENT for content 

(BLM RDandD 1-4-10 Lease Application) #1])>

OSTS2012D50303 

Organization: Charles Forsberg 

Received: 5/4/2012 1:44:33 PM 

Commenter1: Charles Forsberg - Cambridge, Massachusetts 021394307 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: aziech 5/17/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50303.htm (OSTS2012D50303-59009.htm Size = 1 KB) 

ICAPP12_Nuclear_Shale_Forsberg_Paper_12006_Final_OSTS2012D50303.pdf 

(OSTS2012D50303-59008.pdf Size = 235 KB) 

Submission Text

<([#1 [6.3.1] [11.2] Recent research on hybrid energy systems that combine shale oil, nuclear 
Final OSTS PEIS 984 

energy, and renewables indicate that future shale oil may have the lowest environmental impact 

of any fossil fuel source of gasoline and diesel. The greenhouse gas releases per vehicle mile 

may be half those of vehicles consuming gasoline and diesel from crude oil. The attached paper 

“A Nuclear Wind Oil-Shale System for Variable Electricity and Liquid Fuels Production” by 

Charles Forsberg to be given at ICAPP’12 in Chicago (June 24-28) provides the details. It 

changes shale oil from what was once considered a fossil fuel with one of the larger 

environmental impacts into the fossil fuel with the lowest environmental impact per gallon of 

gasoline or diesel fuel. Because of the shale-oil resource base, it is an option that eliminate U.S. 

dependence on foreign oil. Because of the benefits of reducing greenhouse gas emissions and 

getting off foreign oil, the decisions should be made to allow very wide use of shale oil where it 

can be shown such benefits exist. SEE ATTACHMENT for content (Nuclear Shale Forsberg 

paper) #1])>

OSTS2012D50304 

Organization: Taylor Energy, Donald Taylor 

Received: 5/4/2012 1:50:36 PM 

Commenter1: Donald Taylor - El Dorado Hills, California 95762 (United States) 

Organization1:Taylor Energy 

Commenter Type: Private Company 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/16/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50304.htm (OSTS2012D50304-58947.htm Size = 2 KB) 

Submission Text

<([#1 [6.3] I am an expert in thermal chemical processing of solid feedstocks for the production 

of gases and liquids. Oil shale is fantastic resource that has been held in reserve these many years 

due largely to economic constraints, and in part due to technology limitations. With oil at $100 

per barrel the economics are now attractive. The situation that has changed even more during the 

past decade has been the broad base of technologies that focus on bio-fuels production. So may 

of the thermal processing methods that are being developed for biomass conversion into liquids 

are directly applicable to oil shale. However, this fact is not widely known. There is a technology 

revolution in progress relative to synthetic fuels and biofuels. How many billons are being spent 

on biofuels development, most of which is directly applicable to oil shale. My comment; the 

technology has changed significantly since the last time the major oil companies took a run at oil 

shale. In my opinion, the business is not ideally suited for the oil companies. But it is ideal for all 

the medium size companies that are pursuing biofuels. Make it easy to test now technology; 

provide the up-side incentives for the winners; the private sector will bring products to market, 

without harming the environment, and without using scarce water resources. For example, who 

ever said you need to use water to process shale? That is just not necessarily the case. #1])>

Regards, DGT 

OSTS2012D50305 

Organization: GeoX Consulting Inc, Steven Schamel 

Received: 5/4/2012 2:03:46 PM 
Final OSTS PEIS 985 

Commenter1: Steven Schamel - Salt Lake City, Utah 84105 (United States) 

Organization1:GeoX Consulting Inc 

Commenter Type: Private Company 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/16/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50305.htm (OSTS2012D50305-58949.htm Size = 2 KB) 

Submission Text

<([#1 [2.5] [12.3] As a Utah-based oil and gas consultant who has done client studies in tar sands 

and the Green River Formation I am very strongly opposed to opening large tracks of public 

lands to speculation in tar sand and oil shale leases. The present action being followed by the 

BLM of granting small research and development leaseholds to serious operators is the correct 

one to follow. These are as yet energy resources with no clear development path. Until 

commercially viable and environmentally sustainable methods of exploitation are found, the 

public lands should remain in reserve and off-limits to speculators interesting only in “flipping” 

leases and their unproven development concepts. I have seen in my practice numerious examples 

of serious energy investors being closed out of commercial development by energy lease 

speculators holding out for a still better price. This is not in the public interest and it does not 

promote national energy independence. The “no change” option is not a viable option for the 

long-term rational development of the region’s heavy oil and oil shale resources. The BLM 

should hold back the public lands with these potential resources until such time that proven 

commercial processes are available for thier rational development. Steven Schamel, PhD For 

reference, I am a former Research Professor in Chemical Engineering at the University of Utah, 

former President of the AAPG-Rocky Mountain Section and Past-President of the Utah 

Geological Association. I am currently founding President of GeoX Consulting Inc. #1])>

OSTS2012D50306 

Organization: History Colorado; SHPO, Mark tobias 

Received: 5/4/2012 2:04:43 PM 

Commenter1: Mark tobias - Denver, Colorado 80203 (United States) 

Organization1:History Colorado; SHPO 

Commenter Type: Cultural Resources 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 

Submitted As: Web Form and Mail 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/14/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50306.htm (OSTS2012D50306-59012.htm Size = 1 KB) 

PEIS_Oil_Shale_Colorado_SHPO_Response_OSTS2012D50306.pdf (OSTS2012D50306-

59011.pdf Size = 45 KB) 

Submission Text

See Attachment. 
Final OSTS PEIS 986 

14:~ 

HISTORY~ 

May4, 2012 

BLM Oil Shale and Tar Sands PEIS 

Argonne National Laboratory 

EVS Division 

Building 240 

9700 South Cass Avenue 

Argonne, Illinois 60439 

Re: Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) and Possible Land Use Plan 

Amendments for 

Allocation of Oil Shale and Tar Sands Resources on Lands Administered by the BLM in 

Colorado, Utah, and 

Wyoming (CHS #48519) 

To Whom it May Concern: 

<([#1 [1.4] [3.9.7] Thank you for your correspondence dated January 25, 2012 (received by our 

office on February 6, 2012) and 

for the opportunity to discuss this project with both Dan Haas and Sherri Thompson on April11, 

2012. 

Their formal presentation of possible oil shale development within the Piceance Basin study area 

in Colorado 

certainly helped us understand the nature of this undertaking. 

We recognize that BLM is currently in the initial Oand use planning) stage of what is described 

as a three-step 

process. Currently the commercial viability and development for this new technology is 

unknown, but is 

actively being studied through ongoing research, development, and demonstration (RD&D) lease 

analysis. 

We anticipate that additional Section 106 consultation will occur with our office for each of 

these subsequent 

steps including BLM lease review and the consideration of site-specific development plans. 

Under the process established for the protection of cultural resources as required by Section 106 

of the National 

Historic Preservation Act (Section 106) and implemented through 36 CPR 800, it is the statutory 

requirement 

of the Federal agency to fulfill the procedural obligation of Section 106 and to ensure that an 

agency official 

with jurisdiction over an undertaking takes legal and financial responsibility for Section 106 

compliance (36 CPR 

800.2). The lead agency official remains legally responsible for all required findings and 

determinations if the 

services of a consultant have been utilized for the purpose of obtaining recommendations 

regarding National 

Register-eligibility and project effect (36 CPR 800.2(a)(3)) or if an applicant for Federal 

assistance has been 

authorized by the lead agency to initiate consultation with the State Historic Preservation Officer 
Final OSTS PEIS 987 

(36 CPR 

800.2( c)( 4)). 

The findings from the Section 106 studies can inform the National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) 

studies, such as including mitigation measures identified under Section 106 into the NEPA 

decision 

document. Once we receive the Section 106 studies, we will be able to fully complete our 

reviews under both 

NHPA and NEPA. 

As such, we recommend that a cultural resources survey be completed for the individual sitespecific 

development plans prior to mineral extraction to document all the historic properties within the 

project area and 

to determine the potential effects to these resources as a result of the proposed undertaking. 

#1])> WWW.H I STORYCO LO RADO.ORG 

HISTORY COLORADO CENTER 1200 BROADWAY DENVER COLORADO 80203 

Thank you for the opportunity to comment. If we may be of further assistance please contact 

Mark Tobias, 

Section 106 Compliance Manager, at (303) 866-4674 or at mark.tobias@state.co.us. 

.fl ~;;_Jcfr~ Edward C. Nichols 

State Historic Preservation Officer 

ECN/MAT 

2 

OSTS2012D50307 

Organization: Sarah Jilka 

Received: 5/4/2012 2:15:56 PM 

Commenter1: Sarah Jilka - Glade Park, Colorado 81523 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/14/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50307.htm (OSTS2012D50307-58951.htm Size = 1 KB) 

Submission Text

<([#1 [12] NO on this inefficient, unproven, water-wasting method of extracting oil. #1])>

OSTS2012D50308 

Organization: Center for Regulatory Effectiveness, Jim Tozzi 

Received: 5/4/2012 2:21:40 PM 

Commenter1: Jim Tozzi - Washington, 20009 (United States) 

Organization1:Center for Regulatory Effectiveness 

Commenter Type: Misc. Organization 

Classification: 
Final OSTS PEIS 988 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 

Submitted As: Web Form and Mail 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: klett 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50308.htm (OSTS2012D50308-59015.htm Size = 1 KB) 

CRE__-_Oil_Shale_PEIS_Comments_May_3_OSTS2012D50308.pdf (OSTS2012D50308-

59014.pdf Size = 366 KB) 

Submission Text

These comments are included on an Interactive Public Docket http://www.thecre.com/oil/ The 

Center for Regulatory Effectiveness (CRE) encourages public comments on CRE work products 

See Attachment. 

May 3, 2012 

SUBMITTED ELECTRONICALLY 

Oil Shale and Tar Sands Resources Draft 

Programmatic EIS 

Argonne National Laboratory, EVS/240 

9700 South Cass Avenue 

Argonne, Illinois 60439 

Re: WO–300–1310–PP–OSHL — Notice of Availability of the Draft 

Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for Allocation of Oil Shale and Tar Sands 

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

Wyoming, 77 FR 5833 (February 6, 2012). 

<([#1 [2.1.1] Dear Sir or Madam: 

The Center for Regulatory Effectiveness (CRE) is pleased to submit these comments to the 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM) regarding the 2012 Draft Oil Shale and Tar Sands 

Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (hereinafter “2012 PEIS”),1 that proposes to 

amend land use plans relating to oil shale and has the potential to substantially reduce existing 

allocations of land already available for oil shale and tar sands development. CRE recommends 

that BLM take no action as prescribed by Alternative 1, which would leave the current allocation 

decision from the 2008 Programmatic EIS and Record of Decision (ROD) in place. 

BLM should not amend the eight land use plans—as modified by the 2008 ROD—which 

allocated public lands for leasing and development of oil shale resources. BLM’s decision that it 

is necessary for it to take a “hard look” at whether the lands should be designated for the 

development of oil shale is based on the premature determination that oil shale development is 

“not at present a proven commercially-viable energy source.”2 BLM has not provided 

developers with ample opportunity to develop oil shale commercially. As the Federal Register 

notice states, “The BLM will decide whether any changes should be made to the existing land 

use allocation decisions, in light of the nascent character of technology for developing oil shale 

and tar sands resources.”3 Until the testing and development of oil shale extraction technologies 

have been completed, any modification to the allocated land use for oil shale would be hasty and 

conflict with the intent of Congress that “It is the policy of the United States that— (1) United 

States oil shale, tar sands, and other unconventional fuels are strategically important domestic 

resources that should be developed.”4 
Final OSTS PEIS 989 

1 BLM, Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement and Possible Land Use Plan 

Amendments for Allocation of Oil Shale and Tar Sands Resources on Lands Administered by the 

Bureau of Land Management in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming, (2012) available at 

http://ostseis.anl.gov/documents/peis2012/index.cfmhttp://ostseis.anl.gov/documents/peis2012/in

dex.cfm [hereinafter “2012 PEIS”]. 

2 77 FR 5833, February 6, 2012. 

3 Id. at 5834 

4 Energy Policy Act of 2005, P.L. 109–58, § 369 #1])>

<([#2 [6.1.2] CRE offers the following recommendations to BLM in order for it to fulfill the 

mandates of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 and to remain committed to pursuing the 

development of oil shale. 

I. BLM’s Preferred Alternative is Not a Viable Alternative 

A. The United States Oil Shale Reserves Are Five Times Greater Than Saudi Arabian Oil 

Reserves 

A report by the Government Accountability Office states, “The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 

estimates that the Green River Formation contains about 3 trillion barrels of oil, and about half of 

this may be recoverable, depending on available technology and economic conditions. This is an 

amount about equal to the entire world’s proven oil reserves.”5 According to the Department of 

Energy, the United States could potentially have over 6 trillion barrels of in-place oil shale.6 The 

Department of Energy’s Office of Naval Petroleum and Oil Shale Reserves estimates that the 

United States has 1.38 trillion barrels of oil shale that are recoverable.7 The Rand Corporation 

offers a more conservative estimate of 800 billion barrels of recoverable oil shale.8 

At current US demand for oil, the “800 billion barrels of recoverable resources would last for 

more than 400 years.”9 And this is the most conservative estimate. Furthermore, since BLM has 

published the final Programmatic EIS in 2008, the United States Geological Survey (USGS) has 

upgraded its in-place assessment of oil shale reserves by 50 percent in the Green River 

Formation in the Piceance Basin of Western Colorado.10 

BLM’s own estimates state the US oil shale reserves are nearly five times greater than the known 

oil reserves in Saudi Arabia.11 Given these estimates, BLM needs an extremely compelling 

justification to scrap oil shale development as it seeks to do so under the Preferred Alternative. 

5 Government Accountability Office, ENERGY-WATER NEXUS A Better and Coordinated 

Understanding of Water Resources Could Help Mitigate the Impacts of Potential Oil Shale 

Development, page 1 (October 2010) available at http://www.gao.gov/assets/320/311896.pdf 

(emphasis added). 

6 U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Petroleum Reserves, Fact Sheet: U.S. Oil Shale 

Resources, available at 

http://www.fossil.energy.gov/programs/reserves/npr/Oil_Shale_Resource_Fact_Sheet.pdf 

7 U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Naval Petroleum and Oil Shale, National Strategic 

Unconventional Resource Model: A Decision Support System ̧ April 2006, available at 

http://fossil.energy.gov/programs/reserves/npr/NSURM_Documentation.pdf 

8 James T. Bartis et al., Oil Shale Development in the United States: Prospects and Policy Issues, 
Final OSTS PEIS 990 

Rand Corporation, page IX (2005). 

9 Id. 

10 U.S. Geological Survey, An Assessment of In-Place Oil Shale Resources in the Green River 

Formation, Piceance Basin, Colorado, page 1, August 2010, available at 

http://pubs.usgs.gov/dds/dds-069/dds-069-y/REPORTS/69_Y_CH_1.pdf 

11 BLM, Oil Shale Resources on Public Lands, available at 

http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/energy/oilshale_2/background.html. #2])>

<([#3 [2.2] B. The Preferred Alternative Will Eliminate Oil Shale Development in the United 

States 

In the 2012 PEIS,12 BLM’s preferred alternative for oil shale, Alternative 2b, would reduce the 

amount of land available for oil shale leasing from over 2,017,741 acres to 461,965 acres—

greater than a seventy-five percent (75%) reduction in the land available. Specifically, in 

Colorado, the preferred alternative would reduce available acreage from the current allocation of 

360,000 acres to only 35,000 acres—over a ninety percent (90%) reduction.13 

One of the effects of the reduced acreage for oil shale is that the Preferred Alternative would 

create a patchwork of isolated plots of land. Accordingly, these isolated plots of lands will either 

be too small to commercially develop oil shale or will be inaccessible. Thus, this substantial 

reduction in the amount of land available for commercial oil shale leasing would effectively 

eliminate commercial oil shale development. 

12 BLM, Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement and Possible Land Use Plan 

Amendments for Allocation of Oil Shale and Tar Sands Resources on Lands Administered by the 

Bureau of Land Management in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming, (2012) available at 

http://ostseis.anl.gov/documents/peis2012/index.cfm 

13 BLM, Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement and Possible Land Use Plan 

Amendments for Allocation of Oil Shale and Tar Sands Resources on Lands Administered by the 

Bureau of Land Management in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming, p 2-27 (2012), available at 

http://ostseis.anl.gov/documents/peis2012/index.cfm #3])>

<([#4 [9.8] C. There is No Compelling Basis for the 2012 EIS 

The alternatives under consideration in the 2012 PEIS, specifically the Preferred Alternative and 

the No Action Alterative, have already been fully considered in the 2008 PEIS. For instance, the 

Preferred Alternative in the 2012 PEIS (Alternative 2(b)) was considered as Alternative C in the 

2008 PEIS. Nonetheless, after extensive analysis in the 2008 PEIS, BLM determined that the 

land use plans that are currently in effect were the most appropriate (the No Action Alternative 

for the 2012 PEIS). 

Importantly, BLM conducted a more thorough analysis in the 2008 PEIS than it has in the 2012 

PEIS by working closely with other agencies. For instance, in Section 1.1.1 of the 2008 PEIS, 

BLM states: 

As part of the development of the PEIS, the BLM circulated an internal draft of the PEIS to its 

cooperating agencies for review and comment that included a commercial lease development 

scenario. Most of the cooperating agencies commented that the BLM’s analysis did not contain 

enough information for the specific environmental, cultural, and socioeconomic effects of such 

development, and that it would be too speculative at this point to support a decision to issue any 
Final OSTS PEIS 991 

commercial leases. Therefore, consideration was given whether specific information was lacking 

on the effects of oil shale and tar sands leasing and development relevant to making an allocation 

decision.14 

In addition to circulating internal drafts to cooperating agencies, during the 2008 PEIS “BLM 

held many informal meetings and discussions with the cooperating agencies.” Notably, the 

cooperating agencies played a substantial part in reaching the final determinations made by BLM 

in the 2008 PEIS.15 As provided in the 2008 PEIS, “the BLM worked collaboratively with its 

cooperating agencies throughout the process to create a balanced commercial leasing program, 

consistent with the intent of Congress.”16 

14 BLM, Propose 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” (2008) p 1-3 available at 

http://ostseis.anl.gov/documents/fpeis/volumes/OSTS_FPEIS_Vol_1.pdf [hereinafter “2008 

PEIS]. 

15 Id. at 7-11, Comment by the Department of Agriculture, (“In conclusion, based on the 

programmatic nature of this analysis we believe the documents are thorough and provided 

sufficient information for the decision being made. It will also provide an excellent document to 

tier to or reference during subsequent analyses should lease applications be received.”) 

16 Id at ES-3. #4])>

<([#5 [9.8] BLM justifies its choice to reevaluate the land use plans with the 2012 PEIS by 

stating, “As part of a settlement agreement entered into by the United States to resolve the 

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

prepared, the BLM has decided to take a fresh look at the land allocations analyzed in the 2008 

OSTS PEIS and to consider excluding certain lands from future leasing of oil shale and tar sands 

resources.” As discussed below in Section II, the new information and reasons stated by BLM to 

“Take a Fresh Look” do not justify amending the 2008 land use plans. Moreover, after a 

thorough NEPA analysis in 2008, BLM concluded: 

This PEIS discloses, under the Proposed Plan Amendment (Alternative B) [the current land use 

plans that BLM is seeking to change], that the allocation decisions opening areas to future 

leasing do nothing more than to remove the 

administrative barrier to BLM considering any application to lease. The amendment of the land 

use plans does not authorize any ground-disturbing activities and is not an irreversible or 

irretrievable commitment of resources under NEPA. Therefore, the action alternatives presented 

would not result in any impacts on the environment or socioeconomic setting of the area under 

consideration. These decisions analyzed in the PEIS serve as the first step in the process to 

establish a commercial oil shale and tar sands program that meets the intent of Congress while 

taking advantage of the best available information and practices.17 

As BLM admits, the current land use plans do not pose any threat to the environment or the 

socioeconomic composition of the affected areas, and only removes the “administrative barrier” 

to the development of oil shale. Therefore, amending the land use plans without justification 

would result in the agency action being arbitrary and capricious. 
Final OSTS PEIS 992 

17 2008 PEIS, p ES-6 (emphasis added) #5])>

<([#6 [9.3] D. Oil Shale Development Will Have Minimal Effects and the No Action Alternative 

Will Produce No Negative Impacts 

As BLM concluded in the 2008 PEIS, the current land use plans do nothing more than “remove 

the administrative barrier to BLM considering any application to lease.”18 It is impossible for 

the mere consideration of a lease to have any detrimental impact on the environment. 

Importantly, under the current land use plans, BLM still has further NEPA analysis to undertake 

during the site-specific leasing stage and the approval of the detailed plans of project 

development required before an oil shale project can be approved. Importantly, “it is at this final 

[project development] stage, when the particulars of a project are known, that the BLM requires 

the most detailed analyses and may condition approval on specific requirements to avoid, 

minimize, or mitigate adverse impacts on various resources.”19 

BLM specifically intended to have this phased approach to its NEPA analysis. Recognizing that 

it was working with limited information on oil shale development, BLM decided to defer 

decisions regarding specific leases to later stages of NEPA analysis.20 This provided BLM with 

the opportunity to take a “phased approach—proceeding from this allocation decision [2008 EIS] 

to a leasing decision and then to an operational permit approval. This allocation decision 

essentially removes an administrative barrier preventing the BLM from accepting and 

considering applications to lease oil shale acreage,” while still requiring additional NEPA 

analysis before any actual leasing or development. 

Furthermore, BLM admits that the current land use plans do “not authorize any grounddisturbing activities...[and] would not result in any impacts on the environment or 

socioeconomic setting of the area under consideration.”21 

Thus, whereas BLM has already concluded that the 2008 land use plans do not pose any threat to 

the environment or socioeconomic setting of the affected areas, BLM is not justified to select any 

alternative other than the No Action Alternative. 

18 2008 PEIS, p ES-6 (emphasis added) 

19 BLM, Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement and Possible Land Use Plan 

Amendments for Allocation of Oil Shale and Tar Sands Resources on Lands Administered by the 

Bureau of Land Management in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming, page 1-2 (2012), available at 

http://ostseis.anl.gov/documents/peis2012/index.cfm 

20 Id. #6])>

<([#7 [9.8] E. BLM Is Hindering Oil Shale Development 

Despite BLM’s clear intention in the 2008 PEIS to “remove the administrative barrier to BLM 

considering any application to lease,” BLM’s actions under the 2012 PEIS serve no purpose 

other than to restore that very same “administrative barrier.”22 

BLM’s arbitrary change in oil shale policy as proposed by the Preferred Alternative stands as a 

substantial impediment to the development of oil shale. One of the largest challenges for the 

development of oil shale is volatility in the oil markets.23 While BLM cannot reduce volatility in 

the oil markets, it can reduce volatility in the regulatory landscape. Regulatory certainty is 

necessary to motivate oil shale developers to make the massive investments required to bring 

production of oil shale to commercial levels. BLM has failed to provide oil shale developers with 
Final OSTS PEIS 993 

this certainty. 

Not even four years after publishing the 2008 PEIS, BLM is now seeking to “take a hard look” at 

whether it was appropriate to make the land in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming available for oil 

shale development. BLM has not provided oil shale developers with ample time to demonstrate 

whether oil shale is commercially viable. It is only half way through the term for the 10-year 

leases to conduct research, development, and demonstration; and BLM has precipitously 

declared that oil shale is not commercially viable by removing blocks of prospective acreage 

from consideration for oil shale development. Oil shale may not continue to receive the 

necessary investments unless developers are provided with the regulatory certainty to justify the 

investments. 

21 2008 PEIS, p ES-6 

22 2008 PEIS, p ES-6. 

23 The Congressional Research Service reports, “The recent spike in crude oil price has once 

again stirred interest in oil shale. As in the past, however, the rapid runup in prices (to a high of 

$145/barrel) was soon followed by a rapid precipitous drop in prices [to levels as low as 

$60/barrel]...such volatility discourages the investment in contingent resources such as oil 

shale.” CRS concluded, “While OPEC cuts oil output to prop up prices, the major and super 

major oil companies continue to use an oil price of $32/barrel for their business planning. In this 

climate, the development of oil shale seems difficult indeed.” CRS Report RL 34748, 

Developments in Oil Shale, at 29, November 17, 2008 #7])>

<([#8 [9.2.3] The mandates in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 require BLM to continue to pursue 

and support the development of oil shale. In order to do so, BLM should choose the No Action 

Alternative, Alternative 1. The Preferred Alternative in the EIS will in effect eliminate oil shale 

development. #8])>

<([#9 [9.8] II. The Reasons Stated by BLM to “Take a Fresh Look” Do Not Justify Amending 

the Land Use Plans 

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) states that the “purpose and need for this proposed 

planning action is to reassess the appropriate mix of allowable uses with respect to oil and shale 

and tar sands leasing and potential development.” BLM further justifies “tak[ing] a fresh look” 

for the reasons stated in the April 14, 2011 Notice of intent, 24 further specifying “Chief among 

these was new information available in 2008, including: 

1. A recently completed U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) in-place assessment of oil shale and 

nahcolite resources in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming, 

2. A March 2010 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Notice of Petition Findings, 

Endangered Wildlife and Plants, 12-month Findings to List the Greater Sage-Grouse as 

Threatened or Endangered. 

3. BLM’s updated inventory of lands having wilderness characteristics (LWC) and Areas of 

Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs).” 25 

As described in greater detail below, not one of three justifications by BLM for “taking a hard 

look” at the land use plans finalized in the 2008 EIS, justify amending the land use plans. 

24 The reasons stated in the April 14, 2011 Notice of Intent mirror the reasons outlined above 

(which are contained in the 2012 PEIS). Notably, BLM does not cite water issues as being a 
Final OSTS PEIS 994 

justification for “taking a hard look” or a “fresh look” at the land use plans finalized in the 2008 

PEIS. 

25 2012 PEIS at 1-5. #9])>

<([#10 [6.1.2] A. USGS In-Place Assessment Of Oil Shale Resources In Colorado, Utah, And 

Wyoming 

Although USGS has completed its in-place assessment of oil shale since the 2008 PEIS, the 

findings in the report do not justify amending the 2008 land use plans. In fact, the USGS report 

does just the opposite and actually justifies devoting additional resources to developing oil shale 

resources. Specifically, in the report, USGS concluded that there is 1.525 trillion barrels of oil 

alone in just the Piceance Basin of western Colorado—an upward increase of nearly 50% from 

the 1989 USGS assessment of 1 trillion barrels of oil.26 

26 USGS in place assessment Fact sheet available at 

http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2009/3012/pdf/FS09-3012.pdf #10])>

<([#11 [9.2.4] B. 2010 U.S. Fish and Wildlife and Plants, 12 month Findings to List the GreaterSage Grouse as Threatened or Endangered 

The USFWS did release a finding in 2010 on the Greater-Sage Grouse, but importantly USFWS 

decided not to list the Greater Sage-Grouse as a threatened or endangered species, because there 

were “higher priority listings.”27 Moreover, the 2008 EIS thoroughly analyzed the impact of oil 

shale development on the Greater Sage-Grouse,28 for which the analysis is nearly identical as 

that listed in the 2012 Draft PEIS.29 Thus, absent any new findings or analyses concerning the 

impact of oil shale development on the Greater Sage-Grouse, BLM is not justified in amending 

the 2008 land use plans based on the Greater Sage-Grouse. 

27 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Notice of Petition Findings, Endangered Wildlife 

and Plants, 12-month Findings to List the Greater Sage-Grouse as Threatened or Endangered. 

28 2008 Final Oil Shale and Tar Sands Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, pages 3-

148 – 3-149; 4-78 – 4-80, available at 

http://ostseis.anl.gov/documents/fpeis/volumes/OSTS_FPEIS_Vol_1.pdf 

29 2012 Draft Oil Shale and Tar Sands Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, pages 4-

124 – 4-126; available at http://ostseis.anl.gov/documents/peis2012/vol/OSTS_VOLUME_2.pdf

#11])>

<([#12 [9.2.1] [3.1.3] C. BLM’s updated inventory of lands having wilderness characteristics 

(LWC) and Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs). 

Lands having wilderness characteristics is a designation that takes place during the land use 

planning process, which is required pursuant to a Secretary Order from December 2010.30 

Clearly, BLM does not intend to amend all existing land use plans as a result of Secretary Order 

3310. Nor should Secretary Order 3310 now serve as a basis for amending the land use plans 

established in the 2008 EIS. 

30 Department of the Interior, Secretary Order 3310: Protecting Wilderness Characteristics on 

Lands Managed by the Bureau of Land Management, available at 

http://elips.doi.gov/elips/0/doc/172/Page1.aspx #12])>
Final OSTS PEIS 995 

<([#13 [3.1.5] Likewise, ACECs only account for a small proportion of land coincident with land 

that is designated for oil shale development. Specifically, ACECs comprised only 76,666 acres 

of the 2,017,714 acres of land available for oil shale leasing. The environmental integrity of the 

ACECs can be preserved with the additional required NEPA analysis for the leasing and project 

development phases. #13])>

<([#14 [1.1] [9.2.5] III. BLM Is Defying President Obama’s Open Government Directive; 

Agency Spending Questioned 

Government should be transparent. Transparency promotes accountability and provides 

information for citizens about what their Government is doing. Information maintained by the 

Federal Government is a national asset. My Administration will take appropriate action, 

consistent with law and policy, to disclose information rapidly in forms that the public can 

readily find and use. 

-- President Barak Obama, Memorandum to Heads of Executive 

Departments and Agencies 

On January 18, 2011, the President issued Executive Order 13563, in which he directed 

regulatory agencies to base regulations on an “open exchange of information and perspectives” 

and to promote public participation in Federal rulemaking. The President identified 

Regulations.gov as the centralized portal for timely public access to regulatory content online. 

-- Cass Sunstein, White House Blog, February 21, 2012. 

President Obama has made Open Government a hallmark of his Administration. BLM apparently 

disagrees. 

- BLM has not released the public comments submitted on their 2011 Notice of Intent Notice of 

To Prepare a Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (EIS); and 

- BLM has made no provision for release of comments received in response to their Notice of 

Availability of the Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for oil shale which 

bypasses the Regulations.gov comment portal. 

Public access to public comments on a public proceeding is a basic prerequisite of open 

government. 

For decades, federal agencies have made public comments available to the public, first through 

docket rooms and then, as the internet developed, through online systems developed by each 

agency. Agency-specific solutions to providing public access to public comments were 

superseded by Regulations.gov. President Obama has emphasized the importance of the public 

comment portal and has enhanced its operation. 

Despite the Administration’s emphasis on use of Regulations.gov to promote public participation 

and collaboration in agency proceedings, BLM has chosen to bypass the open process in favor of 

their own comment processing system, a system which excludes the public from reading public 

comments. 

It should be noted that agency-prepared comment summaries are no substitute for the original, 

unabridged documents. Moreover, public access to the full text of the comments submitted is 

essential for assessing agency compliance with the third-party provisions of the Data Quality Act 
Final OSTS PEIS 996 

(DQA). Although DQA issues are discussed in more detail in the DQA section of these 

comments, it is noted here that BLM may not rely on any data submitted to the agency which 

does not comply with the quality requirements established by OMB and BLM. 

The public needs access to the full text of the documents the agency uses and relies on in order to 

exercise their statutory due process rights under the DQA to “seek and obtain” correction of noncompliant information by filing Requests for Correction against third-party data. 

Unless BLM makes public comments public, the agency will not have established an 

administrative record valid for decision-making purposes since the documents in the record 

which inform BLM’s decisions would not be available to the public for inspection and 

correction. 

A. Privacy Concerns Addressed in Federal Register Notice 

It has been suggested that concern over protected personal information (PPI) could justify an 

agency withholding public comments from public inspection. Such an assertion is contrary to: 

1. Federal policy to make public comments public, e.g., Regulations.gov; and 

2. BLM’s own Federal Register notice statement for draft PEIS. Specifically, BLM stated: 

Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying 

information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your 

personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. 77 Fed Reg 

5835, col. 3 

B. FOIA Is Not a Substitute for Making Comments Public: It Creates Privileged 

Access for the 1% 

It has been suggested that anyone who wants to see public comments could obtain them through 

a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request. FOIA requests can take months or years to 

process – preventing the comments from being evaluated by stakeholders contemporaneously 

with the BLM proceedings. 

Moreover, given the large volume of comments that BLM is likely to receive in response to the 

draft PEIS, the expense of a FOIA request may run in the tens of thousands of dollars. Actual 

costs of a given request would vary based on how many comments a person seeks and whether 

individuals seeking public access to the public comments know the subtleties of the FOIA 

process well enough to request what they want and exclude extraneous materials. 

If BLM requires the public to use FOIA to access the PEIS comments, the agency would be 

creating a two-tiered system of public participation in federal proceedings. Unless BLM releases 

the full text of the comments to everyone, the agency would be granting privileged access to the 

full text of public comments to only those persons and organizations who have the resources to 

make effective use of FOIA while everyone else would have access to only BLM summaries of 

the material – a situation that is separate and not equal. 

C. Regulations.gov Is Used for EIS Comments 

Although the PEIS is not in a rulemaking process, the Regulations.gov website is one appropriate 
Final OSTS PEIS 997 

mechanism (among others) for collecting and providing public access to comments on 

Environmental Impact Statements. Federal agencies already use Regulations.gov to process and 

provide public access to comments received on draft Environmental Impact Statements and other 

non-rulemaking proceedings. Examples of agencies using Regulations.gov to solicit – and 

disseminate – public comments on environmental impact statements include: 

- NOAA requesting comments on a notice of Intent to Prepare a Draft Environmental 

Assessment or Environmental Impact Statement, 

http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=NOAA-NOS-2012-0061-0002. 

- The Forest Service requesting comments on a Notice of intent to prepare an environmental 

impact statement, http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FS_FRDOC_0001-1291. 

- The Coast Guard requesting comments on a Notice of Availability of Final Environmental 

Impact Statement, http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=USCG-2009-0097-0087. 

- BLM’s sister agency, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, soliciting comments on a 

Notice of the Availability of an Environmental Assessment, 

http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=BOEM-2012-0011-0001. 

- BLM itself, jointly with a Department of Energy component, requesting comments on a Notice 

of Intent To Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement, 

http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=WAPA_FRDOC_0001-0167. 

D. The White House Example of Open Government 

There are a few informal proceedings in which public comments are not legally required that 

agencies may choose not to use Regulations.gov. Even in these cases, however, agencies use 

online dockets to provide public access to public comments with the White House leading by 

example. 

When the White House sought public comments on President Obama’s National Policy for the 

Stewardship of the Ocean, Our Coasts, and the Great Lakes, they created an online docket to 

speed public access to public comments, 

http://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/eop/oceans/comments. 

E. The Department of Commerce Example of Open Government 

Other agencies have followed the White House’s leadership in providing public access to public 

comments, even in those circumstances when no solicitation of comments is required. For 

example, when a Department of Commerce Internet Policy Task Force prepared a working paper 

on cyber security, the NIST established an online docket to ensure public access to the full text 

of the submitted comments, http://www.nist.gov/itl/greenpapercomments.cfm. #14])>

<([#15 [9.2.5] IV. The Data Quality Lens for Evaluating the Draft Shale PEIS: OMB’s Data 

Quality Guidelines Receive Chevron Deference 

The Data (Information) Quality Act (DQA) 44 U.S.C § 3516, note, sets standards for the quality 

of virtually all information disseminated by federal agencies. Under the law, OMB developed 

binding, government-wide quality standards and processes for ensuring data quality. OMB’s 

DQA guidelines implementing the Act may be found here, Guidelines for Ensuring and 

Maximizing the Quality, Objectivity, Utility, and Integrity of Information Disseminated by 

Federal Agencies.31 
Final OSTS PEIS 998 

In addition to the overall guidelines, OMB has also issued specialized data quality guidance 

implementing the law including the White House’s Final Information Quality Bulletin for Peer 

Review.32 

Based on OMB’s DQA implementation instructions, Departments and agencies developed their 

own organization-specific implementing documents that were consistent with OMB’s directive. 

The Department of Interior’s DQA guidelines may be found here, Interior – Information Quality 

Guidelines Pursuant to Section 515 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act 

for Fiscal Year 2001.33 BLM’s agency-specific guidelines are found here, Guidelines for 

Ensuring and Maximizing the Quality, Objectivity, Utility, and Integrity of Information 

Disseminated by the Bureau of Land Management.34 

Additional background information about the DQA may be found here, A Decade of the Data 

Quality Act35 and here, ‘Data Quality’ Law is Nemesis of Regulation.36 

A. The Request for Corrections Process: Empowering Citizen Watchdogs to “Seek and Obtain” 

Correction of Agency Data 

Unusual among federal statutes, the DQA created an administrative process “allowing affected 

persons to seek and obtain correction of information maintained and disseminated by the agency 

that does not comply with the guidelines.” In short, the DQA empowers citizens and non-citizens 

to “seek and obtain” correction of data used and maintained by the agency which does not 

comply with OMB and agency quality standards. 

CRE notes that BLM’s sister agency, the US Fish and Wildlife Service has experience in 

fulfilling their DQA duties, see, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service Will Correct Panther 

Information In Response to Information Quality Act Challenge.37 

B. The Data Quality Act Applies to Third-Party Data 

The DQA’s quality requirements – and the Request for Correction process – apply to all data 

used and relied on by agencies in their information disseminations, such as Environmental 

Impact Statements, as was discussed in the Bureau of National Affairs/Daily Environment 

article, Advocacy Group Data Submitted to Agencies Must Meet OMB Requirements, Official 

Says.38 

There are two key implications of the third-party DQA requirements: 

1. The various studies BLM used in the drafting of the PEIS need to comply with the DQA, even 

if they were originally published prior to the enactment of the law. 

For example, in Table 4.15-2, “Estimated Health Effects Associated with a Hypothetical 

1,000,000-bbl/day Oil Shale Industry,” the draft PEIS is relying on a 1984 study for some of its 

key health data. This study is subject to the DQA standards and BLM will need to verify that it 

currently complies with DQA standards as part of its pre-dissemination review process. 

Similarly, the 1973 DOE study that is cited as a source for estimates in Table 4.1.2-1 

“Assumptions Associated with an Underground Mine with Surface Retort at Production Levels 

of 25,000–30,000 bbls of Shale Oil per Day” will also need to be vetted to see if it meets DQA 

requirements. 

2. BLM will not be able to rely on the data, models and assumptions provided to the agency in 

any comments on the draft PEIS unless those materials are DQA compliant. 

Since individuals and watchdog organizations have the statutory right to file petitions seeking 
Final OSTS PEIS 999 

correction of the third-party data, BLM has the legal obligation, as was previously explained, to 

release the full text of all public comments received. 

C. DQA Correction of Third-Party Data in Action: The World Health Organization Example 

For an example of the ability of watchdogs to effectively use the DQA’s Request for Corrections 

process with respect to third-party data, please see CRE’s Request for Correction of Information 

Contained in A World Health Organization Report.39 CRE’s action resulted in the Department 

of Health and Human Services informing the Director-General of the World Health Organization 

that a major WHO report could not be used by the US Government because: 

The consultation process of the development of the WHO/FAO Report and the resulting Report 

itself would not meet these current U.S. data quality standards, as the process lacked a high 

degree of transparency, and the data and analytic results contained within the Report were not 

subject to formal, independent, external peer review among other criteria.40 

D. The United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit Determined that OMB’s DQA 

Guidelines are “Binding” 

In Prime Time Int’l Co. v. Vilas. 599 F.3d 678 (D.C. Cir. 2010), the court ruled41 that OMB’s 

DQA guidelines were “binding” because they contained a permissible interpretation of the DQA 

under Chevron and thus, agency compliance with the DQA is a non-discretionary duty.42 In 

itsruling, the Court clearly held that the OMB interpretation was entitled to Chevron-level 

deference (as opposed to a lower level of deference under Skidmore), because the OMB 

guidelines have the force of law having been promulgated under a specific Congressional 

delegation in the DQA. 

Thus, the Court held that the OMB guidelines are legally binding, not just internally binding, as 

might be the case with many Executive orders and agency manuals or handbooks. A detailed 

legal analysis of the court’s opinion may be found here43 while a news account of the case and 

its implications may be found here, Industry Sees Ruling Opening Door To Court Review Of 

Data Quality Suits.44 

It should be noted that the Department of Justice took great exception to CRE’s interpretation of 

the D.C. Circuit’s decision. Justice was sufficiently concerned by CRE’s analysis of the opinion 

that they appealed the ruling. In their appeal, Justice requested that the court “amend its opinion 

to clarify that the Court did not decide whether the Information Quality Act (“IQA”) creates 

judicially enforceable rights.” The Justice Department took the unusual but well-warranted step 

of including a print-out of CRE’s website (found in Exhibit B of DOJ’s appeal45) even though 

CRE was not a party to the case. The court rejected DOJ’s appeal. 

Thus, BLM adherence to the DQA is judicially enforceable. Moreover, OMB and BLM Data 

Quality Act standards apply to: the draft PEIS; the studies BLM relied on in developing the 

PEIS; and comments and supporting material received on the draft PEIS that the agency uses or 

relies on its decision-making process. Accordingly, CRE recommends: (1) BLM should release 

their pre-dissemination review record for the draft PEIS and (2) BLM should release the full text 

of all public comments on the draft PEIS. 

31 Available at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2002-02-22/pdf/R2-59.pdf . 

32 Available at 

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/omb/memoranda/fy2005/m05-03.pdf 

33 Available at http://www.thecre.com/pdf/20021026_doi-final.pdf . 
Final OSTS PEIS 1000 

34 Available at http://www.thecre.com/pdf/20021026_blm-final.pdf . 

35 Available at http://www.thecre.com/pra/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/A-Decade-of-the-DataQuality-Act.pdf . 

36 Available at http://thecre.com/post/ 

37 Available at http://www.fws.gov/informationquality/topics/FY2004/Florida%20Panther/3-21-

2005-news.pdf . 

38 Available at http://www.thecre.com/pdf/bna.pdf . 

39 Available at http://www.thecre.com/pdf/20030908_correction.pdf . 

40 Letter to the Honorable J.W. Lee, M.D., Director-General of the World Health Organization 

from the Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Secretary, January 5, 2004, 

[See, page 2 of HHS’s review available at 

http://www.commercialalert.org/bushadmincomment.pdf . 

41 Available at http://thecre.com/pdf/20100414_DQA_Prime.pdf . 

42 Prime Time Int’l Co. v. Vilsack, 599 F.3d 678, 685 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (holding “because 

Congress delegated to OMB authority to develop binding guidelines implementing the IQA, we 

defer to OMB’s reasonable construction of the statute”) (Citing United States v. Mead, 533 U.S. 

218, 226–27 (2001)). 

43 Available at http://www.thecre.com/tpsac/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/Prime-TimeMaster.pdf . 

44 Available at http://thecre.com/pdf/20100502_DQAJudicialReview.pdf. 

45 Available at http://thecre.com/pdf/20100527_PrimeTime_GovPetfon.pdf #15])>

<([#16 [9.3] V. Water Rights Issues Do Not Provide a Basis for Modifying the Land Use Plans 

Notably, water rights have not changed between the 2008 PEIS and the current 2012 PEIS. 

Water rights were thoroughly considered by BLM in the 2008 PEIS, which contributed to 

BLM’s 2008 land use plan allocations. Furthermore, the land use planning stage is not the 

appropriate point in the environmental planning process to make premature determinations on 

how water rights could potentially be used. This would be more appropriate in the leasing state 

or the project development stage. #16])>

<([#17 [3.4.2] [6.3.2.1] VI. There Are Adequate Water Quantities to Sustain Oil Shale 

Development 

Much of the criticism associated with oil shale focuses on the impacts that oil shale development 

would have on water supplies.46 For example, the 2009 lawsuit brought by environmental 

organizations (that resulted in the settlement requiring BLM to take a fresh look at the EIS) 

argued, “oil shale development could dry up many streams and rivers – including the Colorado 

river.”47 The complaint further contended that “commercial oil shale development will impact 

water supplies, as water dedicated to this use will increase stress on a resource already over taxed 

by other activities....[And] commercial oil shale development will cumulatively impact water 

supplies by contributing to global warming.”48 Likewise, reports issued by Western Resource 

Advocates offer cautionary language about water usage and oil shale development.49 While 

extracting oil from oil shale would require significant amounts of water, there is no evidence that 

the water usage required would be unsustainable or problematic. 

Of great importance, in the 2012 Draft PEIS, BLM has not identified the water usage required 

for the development of oil shale as a justification to revisit the 2008 land use plans.50 
Final OSTS PEIS 1001 

Accordingly, it would be inappropriate for BLM to modify land use plans based on the quantity 

of water that is projected for use for oil shale production. 

Moreover, both the 2008 Final PEIS and the 2012 use the same assumptions and analyses 

regarding water usage for oil shale development. For example, both the 2008 PEIS and 2012 

Draft PEIS assume (based on a 2005 study by the Rand Corporation) that the in-situ process 

would require 1-3 bbl of water per barrel of oil shale produced; and that 2.6-4.0 bbl of water per 

barrel of oil shale produced would be required for a surface mine and surface retort. Likewise, 

both the 2008 PEIS and 2012 Draft PEIS find that production levels of 50,000 bbl of oil per day 

would requires 7,050 acre-ft/year of water. Finally, both the 2008 PEIS and 2012 draft PEIS 

conclude that there will be a water surplus of 340,348 (ac-ft/yr) in 2000 and 268,425 (ac-ft/yr) in 

2030 in Colorado. 

Just as the 2008 PEIS did, the 2012 Draft PEIS supports the conclusion that oil shale 

development will not adversely impact water availability. Without any changes in the data or 

analysis for water use between the 2008 PEIS and 2012 Draft PEIS, water usage for oil shale 

development cannot serve as a purpose to revisit the land use plans. 

Moreover, recent developments in technology suggest that the assumptions used by BLM 

regarding water usage for oil shale development are incorrect. Red Leaf Resources has recently 

stated that the company uses less than half barrel of water to produce a barrel of oil. Red Leaf 

further explains that the amount of water required for oil shale production is unrelated to the 

technology used to produce the oil shale, but is instead required for dust control and to meet onsite worker demand.51 

The CRE endorses BLM’s position that the quantity of water that will be used for oil shale is not 

a problem based on the 2008 land use allocations. Accordingly, it would be arbitrary and 

capricious to amend the 2008 land use plans based on the level of water usage for oil shale 

development. 

46 See, e.g., Western Resource Advocates, Water on the Rocks: Oil Shale Water Rights in 

Colorado, 2009 available at 

http://www.westernresourceadvocates.org/land/wotrreport/wotrreport.pdf. 

47 Legal Complaint, Colorado Environmental Coalition v. Salazar, p 21. 

48 Id. 

49 Western Resource Advocates, Oil Shale 2050: Data, Definitions, and What You Need to 

Know About Oil Shale in the West, p 21, available at 

http://www.westernresourceadvocates.org/oilshale2050/WRA-OilShale2050.pdf. 

50 2012 Draft Oil Shale and Tar Sands Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, pages 1-

5, available at http://ostseis.anl.gov/documents/peis2012/vol/OSTS_VOLUME_2.pdf. The 

reasons stated in the April 14, 2011 Notice of Intent mirror the reasons outlined in the 2012 

PEIS. Notably, BLM does not cite water issues as being a justification for “taking a hard look” 

or a “fresh look” at the land use plans finalized in the 2008 PEIS. 

51 Amy Joi O’Donoghue, Oil Shale Project Approved, KSL, April 1, 2012, available at 

http://www.ksl.com/?nid=960&sid=19773270 #17])>
Final OSTS PEIS 1002 

<([#18 [10.6.3] VII. Conclusion 

In a speech by President Obama on the United States energy security, the President declared, 

“We’ve known about the dangers of our oil dependence for decades. . . We cannot keep going 

from shock when gas prices go up to trance when they go back down -- we go back to doing the 

same things we’ve been doing until the next time there’s a price spike, and then we’re shocked 

again. We can’t rush to propose action when gas prices are high and then hit the snooze button 

when they fall again...our best opportunities to enhance our energy security can be found in our 

own backyard.”52 

Oil shale is the answer to enhance the US energy security and most of the world reserves are 

located in the United States. Nonetheless, oil shale development and investment has suffered 

from the very same boom-bust cycle as described by President Obama. Historically, when oil 

prices are high, oil shale is the solution for the United States energy needs. But once the price of 

oil falls again, oil shale is written off as “not at present a proven commercially-viable source.” 

The United States cannot once again “hit the snooze button” on oil shale. The United States 

needs a sustained commitment to oil shale development—a commitment provided by Congress 

in the Energy Policy Act of 2005— in order for it to become economically viable. 

52 President Barack Obama, Remarks by the President on America’s Energy Security, March 30, 

2011, 

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/03/30/remarks-president-americas-energysecurity #18])>

<([#19 [2.2] As recognized by the BLM,53 technological advances for the extraction of oil shale 

lie just over the horizon. Rand Corporation concluded, “Advances in thermally conductive in-situ 

conversion 

may enable shale-derived oil to be competitive with crude oil prices below $40 per barrel. With a 

firm commitment to oil shale development, oil shale will occupy a central role in the national 

energy agenda. 

However, by proceeding with Preferred Alternative in the 2012 PEIS, BLM will effectively 

eliminate oil shale development in the United States. BLM concluded in the 2008 PEIS that the 

land use plans currently in place “do nothing more than to remove the administrative barrier to 

BLM considering any application to lease....[and] would not result in any impacts on the 

environment or socioeconomic setting of the area under consideration.”54 Nevertheless, BLM 

has decided to, without justification, revisit the land use plans established in 2008 and to restore 

the administrative barriers that stand in the way oil shale development. Moreover, BLM 

concluded that the 2008 PEIS, “create[d] a balanced commercial leasing program, consistent 

with the intent of Congress.” Instead, counter to its own conclusion and Congressional intent 

under the Energy Policy Act of 2005, the Preferred Alternative in the 2012 PEIS will eliminate 

oil shale development in the United States. 

53 76 FR 21003, at 21004, April 14, 2011. #19])>

<([#20 [2.1.1] For the foregoing reasons, CRE recommends that BLM remains firmly committed 

to the development of oil shale by not reducing the land allocated for oil shale and therefore to 

not adopt the Preferred Alternative, and instead select the No Action Alternative. CRE also urges 

BLM to adhere to DQA guidelines in assessing the viability of oil shale development. 

#20])> CRE is a Washington, DC based regulatory watchdog which works to ensure that federal 

agencies comply with the “good government” laws including the Data Quality Act, the 
Final OSTS PEIS 1003 

Paperwork Reduction Act, and the Regulatory Flexibility Act. As previously mentioned, what is 

at stake in the US oil shale program are reserves about equal to the entire world’s proven oil 

reserves. To ensure that federal and state regulatory agencies, the Congress, and stakeholders are 

apprised of the most significant events affecting the development of this critical resource, CRE is 

making available to the aforementioned groups an Interactive Public Docket dedicated to this 

important subject which is titled BLM Oil Shale, and is described herein. The public is invited to 

provide comments on CRE work products. 

Respectfully Submitted, 

Jim Tozzi 

Member, Board of Advisors 

54 2008 PEIS, p ES-6 (emphasis added). 

OSTS2012D50309 

Organization: Defenders of Wildlife campaign 

Received: 5/4/2012 2:41:33 PM 

Commenter1: - Washington, 20036 (United States) 

Organization1:Defenders of Wildlife campaign 

Commenter Type: Environmental Organization 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: klett 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50309.htm (OSTS2012D50309-59018.htm Size = 4 KB) 

050412_oil_shale_comments_OSTS2012D50309.xlsx (OSTS2012D50309-59017.xlsx Size = 

2377 KB) 

Submission Text

To Whom It May Concern: 

Please find attached nearly 40,000 comments from Defenders of Wildlife supporters on the Draft 

Oil Shale and Tar Sands Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement. Many of these 

individuals signed on to a version of the text below, however some chose to personalize their 

comments. 

“<([#1 [2.3.1] As a supporter of Defenders of Wildlife and someone who cares about America’s 

wildlife and wild places, I am writing today to urge the Bureau of Land Management to protect 

millions of acres of public lands from oil shale development by selecting “Alternative 3” in the 

oil shale Draft Environmental Impact Statement, the alternative most protective of our public 

lands. 

I am pleased that BLM is taking clear and measured steps to restore order to the federal oil shale 

and tar sands policy. While the agency’s preferred alternative (2(b)) is a step in the right 

direction, a stronger approach is needed to protect our public lands. 

Alternative 3 in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement would not allow for commercial 

development of oil shale extraction until further research is done for a clearer understanding of 
Final OSTS PEIS 1004 

its impacts on our public lands and the wildlife that live there. 

This alternative places important environmental and ecological areas off-limits to development 

and requires companies to prove their technologies and evaluate their impacts on communities, 

human health and the environment. 

The two million acres of land in Utah, Wyoming and Colorado being considered for oil shale 

development is a massive amount of America’s public land to be sacrificed for the development 

of a destructive and unproven energy source. 

#1])>

<([#2 [3.7.3.1] These vast expanses of public lands are home to the iconic pronghorn, sage 

grouse, prairie dogs, golden eagles and other wildlife. They are also habitat that is key to the 

survival and recovery of the highly endangered black-footed ferret. 

#2])>

<([#3 [6.3] Oil shale production is a dirty business that is not economically viable. The BLM 

itself estimates that its development would consume large amounts of water, cause significant air 

pollution and destroy thousands of acres of wildlife habitat. 

#3])>

<([#5 [3.10.3] Oil shale is currently producing no jobs and no revenue. The Congressional 

Budget Office confirmed that it is not expected to produce significant revenues through 2022. 

#5])> <([#4 [3.10.4] The industry already has access to thousands of acres of public and private 

lands for research and development. We shouldn’t sacrifice even more western public lands for 

such a destructive and unproven energy source. 

These millions of acres of western public lands are vital to economies that rely on tourism and 

wildlife-related recreation. In Colorado alone these activities generate $3 billion in economic 

activity. Protecting jobs and related revenue from these sustainable economies must be 

prioritized over the speculative investment in oil shale production on public lands. 

America’s wildlife and wild places are too valuable to squander on the destructive and unproven 

practice of oil shale development. 

#4])>

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this matter.” 

Please accept these individuals’ comments with regard to Draft Oil Shale and Tar Sands 

Programmatic EIS and our thanks for your agency’s collaboration in ensuring that the voices of 

these concerned citizens are heard. 

Sincerely, 

Addie Haughey 

Federal Lands Associate 

Defenders of Wildlife 

Email: ahaughey@defenders.org See Attachment. 

OSTS2012D50310 

Organization: American Petroleum Institute, Emily Kennedy 

Received: 5/4/2012 2:48:35 PM 
Final OSTS PEIS 1005 

Commenter1: Emily Kennedy - Washington, 20005 (United States) 

Organization1:American Petroleum Institute 

Commenter Type: Oil & Gas Org 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: aziech 5/16/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50310.htm (OSTS2012D50310-59021.htm Size = 1 KB) 

API_Letter_to_BLM_on_OSTS_DPEIS_05_04_12_Final_OSTS2012D50310.pdf 

(OSTS2012D50310-59020.pdf Size = 992 KB) 

Submission Text

To Whom It May Concern: 

The American Petroleum Institute (API) offers the following comments on the Draft 

Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement and Possible Land Use Plan Amendments for 

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

Management in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming published by the Department of Interior (DOI) 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in January 2012. 

The API is a trade association representing over 500 companies involved in all aspects of the oil 

and natural gas industry, including the development of oil shale and oil sands as a future energy 

supply in the United States. The API has formed an Oil Shale Subcommittee with the goal of 

addressing issues associated with oil shale development and educating policy-makers and the 

public at large on this important domestic energy resource. Our members are greatly interested in 

leasing and developing oil shale and oil sands resources found on lands managed by the BLM in 

Colorado, Utah and Wyoming. Oil Shale Subcommittee members, and the oil shale industry as a 

whole, are committed to delivering technologies and best practices that will allow for the 

development of oil shale in an environmentally sustainable manner. 

Intent of the United States Congress in Establishing an Oil Shale Program under EPAct 

2005 

As we have with previous written comments to the Bureau of Land Management on its 

management of the federal oil shale program, API would like to reiterate the intent of the United 

States Congress in establishing a program under the Energy Policy Act of 2005. 

The U.S. Congress recognized the critical and urgent need for development of domestic energy 

resources when it enacted the Oil Shale, Tar Sands and Other Strategic Unconventional Fuels 

Act of 2005, as part of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct 2005): 

“Congress declares that it is the policy of the United States that...oil shale, tar sands, and other 

unconventional fuels are strategically important domestic resources that should be developed to 

reduce the growing dependence of the United States on politically and economically unstable 

sources of foreign oil imports.” (EPAct §369(b); Public Law 109-58) 

EPAct 2005 directed the Department of the Interior to promote commercial development of oil 

shale resources by making land available within each of the States of Colorado, Utah and 

Wyoming for leasing to conduct Research, Development and Demonstration (R, D, and D) of 

technologies to recover liquid fuels from oil shale. The Department of the Interior was charged 

with the creation of an oil shale and oil sands research and development leasing program. The 

Department of Energy, and expressly the Office of Petroleum Reserves, was directed to create 
Final OSTS PEIS 1006 

and implement a “commercial strategic fuels development program”. 

With the passage of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, Section 369, the Congress and the President 

forwarded a clear message to the American people of its intention to evaluate and to develop the 

massive multi-trillion barrel energy source locked in its domestic unconventional hydrocarbon 

resources, such as oil shale, oil sands, and coal. Congress reiterated the extreme importance of 

those resources to the national energy security of the nation, while recognizing that development 

must be accomplished in an “environmentally sound manner and that development should 

emphasize sustainability”. 

The intent of EPAct 2005 was that the Department of Interior shall establish a royalty rate to 

“encourage development of oil shale and tar sand resources,” “make available” public lands to 

“conduct research and development activities with respect to technologies for the recovery of 

liquid fuels from oil shale,” and promulgate regulations establishing “a commercial leasing 

program for oil shale.” 

It is API’s assertion that the lawsuit and settlement agreement with several non-governmental 

organizations is driving current Administration policy toward reconfiguring the federal oil shale 

program under the 2012 PEIS. It is further our assertion that all policy and regulatory decisions 

made by the BLM on development of oil shale on federal lands should be made under the 

context of Section 369 of EPAct 2005. 

<([#1 [1.1.1] Request for Extension of Comment Period 

The comments on the January 2012 OSTS Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement 

(DPEIS) to amend the BLM Resource Management Plans (RMPs) are due May 4, 2012. The 

current public comment period does not provide sufficient time for API to analyze the Draft 

PEIS’ 1900 pages of technical analysis, consult its membership, and address the numerous and 

complex issues which could impact our members. In addition, under the settlement agreement 

with environmental organizations dated February 15, 2011 concerning the 2008 Final Oil Shale 

and Tar Sands (OSTS) Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS), BLM is required 

to issue proposed rules to amend the existing oil shale leasing regulations by May 15, 2012. 

Given the connection between the RMP amendments and the oil shale leasing regulations, API 

recommends that BLM extend the public comment period on the DPEIS so that the public can 

fully understand and comment on these closely-related matters. As such, API recommends that 

BLM extend the DPEIS comment period until July 3, 2012 to allow thoughtful development and 

submission of comments to the docket. 

#1])> Background 

In September 2008, BLM issued a Final Oil Shale and Tar Sands (OSTS) Programmatic 

Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) analyzing the environmental and socioeconomic 

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

lands administered by the BLM as available for commercial leasing for oil shale or oil sands 

development. No actual oil shale or oil sands leasing was approved under the 2008 OSTS PEIS 

as the analysis only identified those BLM lands where oil shale and oil sands lease applications 

would be accepted and resulted in amendments to the corresponding BLM RMPs. Separate 

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) analyses (including compliance with the Section 7 

of the Endangered Species Act) would be required before leasing or site development activities 

could occur. As such, there are multiple future opportunities for site-specific environmental 

analyses and project-specific NEPA reviews. 

The land allocation decisions established by BLM’s 2008 land use plan amendments were 

challenged in a lawsuit brought by several environmental organizations in January 2009. As part 
Final OSTS PEIS 1007 

of a settlement agreement entered into by the United States to resolve the lawsuit, the BLM 

agreed to take another look at the land use allocations resulting from the 2008 OSTS PEIS (now 

covered under 10 land use plans after some consolidation), and to consider excluding certain 

lands from future leasing of oil shale and oil sands resources. The settlement mandated that the 

new NEPA analysis must include a specific alternative that would amend BLM land use plans to 

restrict the lands available for potential applications for oil shale and oil sands leasing (identified 

as Alternatives 2a and 2b for oil shale and Alternative 2 for tar sands in the current DPEIS). As a 

result, BLM is reassessing its 2008 decision that made 1,991,222 acres available for potential 

development of oil shale and approximately 431,224 acres of public land available for potential 

development of tar sands. On February 3, 2012, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

published a Notice of Availability of the BLM OSTS DPEIS regarding possible land use plan 

amendments affecting oil shale and tar sands allocation on BLM administered lands. Comments 

regarding the 2012 OSTS DPEIS are due May 4, 2012. 

The primary differences between the new 2012 OSTS DPEIS and the 2008 OSTS PEIS on this 

same subject, is that the current document contains several alternatives (Alternative 2 - the 

Conservation Focus Alternative, and Alternative 3 - the Research Lands Focus Alternative) that 

would dramatically reduce the acreage of BLM administered land for which applications for oil 

shale and oil sands leases could be submitted. Alternative 4 (the Moderate Development 

Alternative) would be similar to that adopted in the 2008 OSTS PEIS land use allocations except 

that the Adobe Town “Very Rare or Uncommon” area lands (180,910 acres) designated by the 

Wyoming Environmental Quality Council in 2008 and BLM designated Areas of Critical 

Environmental Concern (ACEC) identified in the 2008 OSTS PEIS (76,666 acres - and those 

ACECs recently established by BLM in Wyoming and Utah) would be excluded from oil shale 

and oil sands leasing. Under Alternative 1, the No Action Alternative, no existing land use plans 

would be amended. Alternatives 2b and 4b only apply to oil shale but would first require a 

company to obtain and comply with all of the provisions of a Research Development and 

Demonstration (RD&D) lease before it could be later converted to a commercial lease. 

BLM has chosen Alternative 2(b) as the preferred alternative for oil shale, and Alternative 2 as 

the preferred alternative for oil sands. These alternatives are described more fully below. 

Alternative 2a is also described below because it informs the agency’s preferred alternatives for 

oil shale and oil sands. 

Alternative 2a: Conservation Focus Alternative, Oil Shale. Under this alternative, 10 land use 

plans in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming would be amended to designate less than 830,000 acres 

(acreage opened under Alternative C in the 2008 OSTS PEIS) as available 

for future commercial oil shale leasing. BLM estimates the final area available under Alternative 

2a to be 461,965 acres. This alternative would exclude from commercial oil shale leasing the 

following categories or groups of categories of public lands: 

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

during this planning process, as lands having wilderness characteristics (LWC); 

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

Wyoming Environment Quality Council on April 10, 2008 (180,910 acres total; 167,517 acres of 

public land, of which 10,920 acres are already a BLM Wilderness Study Area [WSA]); 

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

issue; 

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

the 2008 OSTS PEIS (76,666 acres in existing ACECs in the 2008 OSTS PEIS plus additional 
Final OSTS PEIS 1008 

ACEC acreages as a result of Utah and Wyoming planning efforts recently completed); and 

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

C of the September 2008 OSTS PEIS (Alternative C made 830,296 acres available for potential 

commercial oil shale leasing and 229,038 acres available for potential commercial tar sands 

leasing). 

Alternative 2b, RD&D First Requirement, Oil Shale. Under this alternative, the lands open for 

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

RD&D leases. The BLM would issue a commercial lease only when a lessee satisfies the 

conditions of its RD&D lease and the regulations at 43 CFR Subpart 3926 for conversion to a 

commercial lease. The preference right acreage, if any, which would be included in the 

converted lease, would be specified in the RD&D lease. 

Alternative 2, Conservation Focus Alternative, Tar Sands. Under this alternative, six land use 

plans in Utah would be amended to designate less than 229,000 acres (acreage opened under 

Alternative C of the 2008 plan amendment) as available for future commercial tar sands leasing. 

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

of categories of public lands and/or their resource values as listed above under Alternative 2, Oil 

Shale. The final area proposed for potential leasing under BLM’s tar sands Alternative 2 was 

estimated as 91,045 acres. 

<([#2 [2.1.1] API’s Preferred Alternative 

API and its member companies strongly support Alternative 1, the No Action Alternative. There 

is no compelling reason to change BLM’s well researched and thoroughly considered oil shale 

and oil sands leasing decisions made in 2008. 

The analysis in the current 2012 OSTS DPEIS does not support the adoption of alternatives other 

than Alternative 1. API notes that the other alternatives do not fully comply with Congressional 

intent established in Section 369 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 to promote the orderly 

development of oil shale, oil sands, and other unconventional fuels or current U.S. government 

initiatives to expand domestic oil and gas production. API is strongly opposed to Alternatives 2a 

and 2b (for oil shale) 

Alternative 2 (for oil sands), and Alternative 3 (as applied to both oil shale and oil sands) as they 

severely restrict the lands available for potential oil shale and oil sands leasing. While inferior to 

Alternative 1, Alternative 4 (and its various sub-alternatives for oil shale) is acceptable to API as 

substantial acreage remains available for oil shale leasing applications under this alternative. 

#2])> API Opposes BLM’s Preferred Alternatives. 

<([#3 [2.2] API is strongly opposed to BLM’s selection of Alternative 2b for oil shale and 

Alternative 2 for oil sands as the preferred alternatives. If adopted, these alternatives would 

dramatically reduce the amount of land potentially available for oil shale leasing from 2,017,714 

(slightly revised from the 2008 OSTS PEIS) to 461,965 acres (22.89% of the original allocation) 

and the land potentially available for oil sands leasing from 430,686 to 91,045 acres (21.14% of 

the original allocation). 

#3])> <([#4 [2.3] Although not listed as BLM’s preferred alternative, Alternative 3 would also 

severely limit leasing opportunities to only those areas where there is an existing oil shale 

RD&D lease signed at the time of the 2012 OSTS Record of Decision is issued (a maximum of 

32,640 acres including the Preference Right Lease Areas associated with each RD&D lease). For 

oil sands, only the pending Asphalt Ridge lease application south of Vernal, Utah covering 

approximately 2,100 acres is included. If selected, Alternative 3 represents over 98% reduction 

in area available for potential lease applications and development for oil shale and more than 
Final OSTS PEIS 1009 

99.5% reduction in the area now available for potential oil sands lease applications and 

development (as compared to the existing allocations approved under the 2008 OSTS PEIS 

ROD). 

#4])> <([#5 [2.4] Alternative 4a may be acceptable; however, API is opposed to Alternative 4b. 

While the same lands would be available for oil shale leasing under Alternatives 4a and 4b, 

Alternative 4b would require companies to first obtain a Research, Development, and 

Demonstration (RD&D) lease before the lease could be converted to a commercial lease. API 

believes this requirement will be an unnecessary, expensive, and time-consuming step in the 

future as oil shale and oil sands development technology matures. #5])>

<([#6 [2.1] API believes that Alternative 1 (the No Action Alternative) is the right choice for the 

preferred alternative and believes that the majority of the other alternatives do not comply with 

the Congressional mandate to promote the responsible development of this important energy 

resource. The result is greater future dependence on foreign sources of oil and gas and 

corresponding loss of potential new U.S. jobs and economic activity. API believes that BLM’s 

severe restriction of potential oil shale and oil sands leasing opportunities in the 2012 OSTS 

DPEIS alternatives represents an unfortunate lack of planning and poor public policy. 

#6])> API’s Detailed Comments 

Our review of the document identified a number of areas where we believe further attention to 

the statements made is worthwhile on the part of BLM’s authors. We have attached one 

document that contains more detailed comments on the DPEIS. Attachment 1, Comments on the 

DPEIS for Allocation of Resources, is a table that presents comments that generally reference a 

specific section or page within the DPEIS. The comments are designed to assist in refining the 

DPEIS and in several instances describe typographical or other errors noted in the document. 

The paragraphs below also provide additional API comments and recommendations on the 

January 2012 DPEIS. 

General Comments 

<([#7 [9.8] API is disappointed in the tone and abrupt change in direction from that presented in 

the original 2008 OSTS PEIS. The current document does not provide credible factual, legal or 

policy reasons for proposing to amend the ten Resource Management Plans (RMPs) at this time. 

Rather, BLM offers two reasons for the proposed RMP amendments: (1) the agency committed 

to revisit the RMPs as part of the 2011 lawsuit settlement agreement with environmental 

organizations; and (2) new information has come to light that was not available in 2008. A 

review of the “new information” described in Section 1.1.1. at page 1-5 includes a list of routine 

developments that combined do not rise to a level requiring that a new NEPA analysis be 

conducted of the oil shale and oil sands land use plan allocations made in the 2008 OSTS PEIS 

Record of Decision (ROD), including: 

a. A recently completed U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) in-place assessment of oil shale and 

nahcolite resources in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming. 

b. A March 2010 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Notice of Petition Findings, 

Endangered Wildlife and Plants, 12-Month Findings to List the Greater Sage-Grouse as 

Threatened or Endangered (75 FR 13910), concluding that while listing was warranted, it was 

precluded by higher priority listing actions. 

c. BLM recently completed updating its inventory of lands having wilderness characteristics 

(LWC) in each of the three states for the planning area, and the status of several areas originally 

proposed to be Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs) in Utah has changed since the 

preparation of the 2008 OSTS PEIS. 
Final OSTS PEIS 1010 

API believes that the “new information” described above represents routine resource 

management updates and could have been easily accommodated within the context of required 

lease sale or other project-specific NEPA and Endangered Species Act reviews. In fact, BLM 

chose not to use the new USGS in place assessment of oil shale and nahcolite resources in 

Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming to update the boundaries of the 2012 OSTS DPEIS study area 

(see Section 2.5.1 at page 2-77). The routine nature of the “new information” leads API to the 

conclusion that the only reason the 2008 OSTS PEIS is being reconsidered now is to 

accommodate the 2011 settlement with environmental organizations that included the 

reassessment as a component of the settlement. 

API notes that BLM’s publication of the 2012 OSTS DPEIS constitutes an abrupt change in 

direction on the entire federal oil shale and oil sands leasing program in the face of a routine 

legal challenge from special interest groups. This is disappointing because the U.S. oil shale and 

oil sands industry needs consistency in federal policy and regulation to provide the confidence 

needed to make continued investments in technology and demonstration projects. The industry 

was hopeful that Section 369 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 would provide federal agencies 

with the clear intent of Congress to support the responsible development of oil shale and oil sand 

resources and technology. The new 2012 OSTS DPEIS represents a significant step backwards in 

this regard. 

API believes that BLM’s efforts to reexamine the existing RMPs as part of a settlement 

agreement does not provide an independent basis to amend the RMPs absent some other 

reasoned decision making. While BLM has the discretion to reopen both the RMPs and the oil 

shale leasing rules, it should not do so based on arbitrary reasons. Moreover, it cannot violate 

Congressional intent to encourage research and development of oil shale and oil sands resources 

located on public lands. #7])>

The Document Improperly Abandons/Ignores the Convincing Analysis in the 2008 OSTS 

PEIS 

<([#8 [9.8] The 2008 OSTS PEIS and subsequent ROD were well researched and written, and 

compliant with NEPA and other applicable laws and regulations. API believes that the ROD for 

the 2008 OSTS PEIS reached logical and appropriate conclusions regarding land use plan 

amendments for allocation of oil shale and oil sands resources on lands administered by BLM. 

Under the ROD approving the 2008 OSTS PEIS and land use plan amendments, eight land use 

plans were amended to designate 1,991,222 acres as available for application for commercial oil 

shale leasing. Specifically, the lands that were available for application include all lands within 

the most geologically prospective oil shale areas that are BLM-administered public lands. The 

rational for this decision (Alternative B in the 2008 OSTS PEIS) is extremely instructive in the 

current case and API recommends that BLM carefully review their prior conclusions in this 

matter to inform the current analysis. This important discussion in the 2008 OSTS PEIS ROD is 

repeated below for emphasis: 

BLM’s 2008 OSTS PEIS ROD beginning at Page 16. 

“Alternative B for oil shale was selected as the Proposed Plan Amendment based on: 1) its 

consistency with the requirements of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, 2) its balanced use and 

protection of resources, 3) the FPEIS’s analysis of potential environmental impacts, and 4) the 

comments and recommendations from cooperating agencies and the public. 

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

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

available for application for leasing. Alternative B, therefore, identifies and offers the most 
Final OSTS PEIS 1011 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

the oil shale use and protection of resources on the public lands during subsequent sitespecific NEPA analysis (emphasis added). This balanced approach is consistent with FLPMA 

(Federal Land Policy Management Act) principles of “multiple use,” and “sustained yield.” The 

requirement to perform future NEPA analyses and to comply with other environmental laws 

allows the decisionmaker to optimize the recovery of energy resources, to establish appropriate 

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

by choosing not to offer an area for lease at any particular time. Even if some technologies may 

not allow mining of some tracts to proceed without unacceptable impacts to other resource 

values, Alternative B would allow the agency the opportunity to choose to offer leases when a 

technology is proposed that can be used compatibly with the resource values in question. This 

is consistent with the comments that supported a viable and sustainable commercial oil shale 

leasing program, while ensuring that any impacts to 

sensitive resources or resource values are mitigated to any commercial development (emphasis 

added). It is also consistent with the planning decisions for other mineral resources for these 

parcels which authorize leasing subject to restrictive conditions, rather than preclude leasing 

altogether. 

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

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

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

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

BLM used similar language in the 2008 OSTS PEIS ROD at page 31 regarding the selection of 

Alternative B for oil sands development by amending four land use plans to designate a total of 

431,224 acres available for application for commercial oil sands leasing. The key drivers for 

selection that BLM identified were compliance with the Energy Policy Act of 2005, a balanced 

use of natural resources, maintaining decisionmaker discretion, and maintaining the proper role 

of subsequent NEPA analysis in the decisionmaking process. 

It is also instructive to review the logic BLM used in not selecting Alternative C in the 2008 

OSTS PEIS ROD (which would have significantly reduced the lands available for potential 

leasing and development of oil shale and oil sands resources). In describing their logic for not 

selecting Alternative C regarding oil shale, BLM concluded the following: 

BLM’s 2008 OSTS PEIS ROD beginning at Page 22. 

“Alternative C was not selected as the Proposed Plan Amendment because the alternative would 

not make the “most geologically prospective lands in Colorado, Utah and Wyoming” as 

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

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

excluded under Alternative C; in particular areas which are in close proximity to three of the six 

RD&D leases would be excluded. In addition, this unreasonably fragments the area that would 
Final OSTS PEIS 1012 

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

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

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

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

domestic unconventional energy source. Selection of alternative C precipitously limits or 

restricts the decisionmaker’s discretion to balance oil shale use and the protection of resources 

or resource values, in accordance with FLPMA’s principal of “multiple use.” “ 

All of the iterations of Alternatives 2 and 3 of the 2012 OSTS DPEIS make significantly less 

acreage available for potential for oil shale and oil sands leasing than was offered under 

Alternative C of the 2008 OSTS PEIS. API can only assume that BLM’s well considered 

analysis from 2008 would apply equally to current Alternatives 2a and 2b for oil shale and 

Alternatives 2 and 3 for oil sands. API strongly supports the sound logic and balanced approach 

taken by BLM in the Record of Decision on the 2008 OSTS PEIS. In view of the above, API 

strongly encourages BLM to reconsider their “preferred alternatives” of 2b for oil shale and 

Alternative 2 for oil sands. #8])>

The Document Fails to Meet the Intent of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 

<([#9 [9.2.2] In August 2005, the U.S. Congress enacted the Energy Policy Act of 2005, Public 

Law (P.L.) 109-58. In Section 369 of this Act, also known as the “Oil Shale, Tar Sands, and 

Other Strategic Unconventional Fuels Act of 2005,” Congress declared that oil shale and oil 

sands (and other unconventional fuels) are strategically important domestic energy resources that 

should be developed to reduce the Nation’s growing dependence on oil from politically and 

economically unstable foreign sources. To support this declaration of policy, Congress directed 

the Secretary of the Interior (the Secretary) to undertake a series of steps, several of which are 

directly related to the development of a commercial leasing program for oil shale and oil sands. 

Compliance with Section 369 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 is mandatory for Federal 

agencies, including BLM. The preferred alternatives (Alternative 2b for oil shale and Alternative 

2 for oil sands) substantially reduce the acreage of lands potentially available for oil shale and oil 

sands leasing, but BLM does not explain in the 2012 OSTS DPEIS how the RMP amendments 

(particularly Alternatives 2a, 2b, and 3) are consistent with Section 369 of the Energy Policy Act 

of 2005, which encourages commercial leasing of oil shale and oil sands. Moreover, the 

proposed RMP amendments and upcoming revisions to the oil shale leasing regulations have 

effectively eliminated the regulatory certainty Congress intended to establish to encourage oil 

shale and oil sands investment. In the 2012 OSTS DPEIS, BLM and DOI appear to be using 

agency policy decisions to obstruct existing Federal Law. In selecting Alternative 2(b), BLM 

says the only path to potential commercial oil shale production is through the RD&D Program. 

However, the Energy Policy Act of 2005 specifically mandated that BLM establish a competitive 

commercial leasing program that is separate and distinct from the RD&D program. #9])>

The Document Fails to Support Executive Branch Efforts to Expand U.S, Domestic Energy 

Production 

<([#10 [2.1] Speaking at the Cushing Pipe Yard in Cushing Oklahoma on March 22, 2012, 

President Obama clearly articulated the Administration’s position on U.S. energy policy. The 

President described an “all-of-the-above” energy strategy to “keep us on track to further reduce 

our dependence on foreign oil, put more people back to work, and ultimately curb the spike in 

gas prices that we are seeing year after year after year”. President Obama went on to say “so yes 

we’re going to keep on drilling. Yes we’re going to keep on emphasizing production. Yes we’re 

going to make sure we can get the oil to where it is needed.” The President noted that renewable 
Final OSTS PEIS 1013 

energy, new clean energy sources, and improving energy efficiency were also part of the “all-ofthe-above” strategy. The President observed that “We want every source of American made 

energy. I don’t want the energy jobs of tomorrow going to other countries. I want them here in 

the United States of America. And that’s what an all-of-the-above strategy is all about. That’s 

how we break our dependence on foreign oil.” The President’s message was clear. 

Nearly seven years since the passage of the Energy Policy Act, global oil demand has increased, 

markets have become tighter, and instability in the Middle East and Africa have caused prices to 

jump markedly, almost doubling, to close to $110 a barrel, which only underscores our country’s 

alarming dependence on foreign oil supplies. These recent events and continued political 

instability in the Middle East underscore the critical importance of domestic oil shale and oil 

sands resources to our national security and strategic interests. The clear policy direction as 

provided in EPAct 2005 indicates the paramount importance of oil shale development to meet 

urgent national energy needs. 

BLM’s 2012 OSTS DPEIS fails to supports the President’s “all-of-the-above” energy strategy to 

encourage domestic energy production from significant oil shale and oil sands deposits. 

Estimates for the oil shale resource in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming are placed at between 1.2 

and 1.8 trillion barrels of oil 

equivalent of resource in the ground with as much as 500 billion to 1.1 trillion barrels of oil that 

is considered potentially recoverable. It is with a sense of incredulity that with a gallon of 

gasoline surging to above $4 in many parts of the country, we are urging an agency of the 

Obama Administration to keep American energy supplies on the table for development. 

As agencies of the Executive Branch, DOI and BLM are obligated to actively support and assist 

in implementing the President’s energy strategy. Such support is more likely to resemble the 

alternatives selected in the Record of Decision (ROD) for the 2008 OSTS PEIS than BLM’s 

preferred alternatives presented in the 2012 OSTS DPEIS. In fact, supporting the President’s 

policies requires that BLM abandon the agency’s current Preferred Alternatives 2b (for oil shale) 

and 2 (for oil sands) in favor of Alternative 1 (the No Action Alternative). #10])>

<([#11 [9.1] The Purpose and Need of the DPEIS is Defective and Fails to Comply with the 

Intent of NEPA 

The 2012 OSTS DPEIS is biased in that it describes the probable outcome of the NEPA analysis 

within the purpose and need Statement. Page 1-4 of the DPEIS reads as follows: 

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

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

respect to oil shale and tar sands leasing and potential development. Specifically, the BLM will 

consider amending the applicable RMPs to specify whether any areas in Colorado, Utah, and 

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

sands should not be available for such application for leasing and development (emphasis 

added).” 

This purpose and need statement portends the outcome of this supposedly unbiased NEPA 

analysis by stating that the document will only consider removing lands from those areas 

currently approved to receive oil shale and oil sands lease applications. There is no consideration 

of expanding the currently available oil shale and oil sands leasing areas even in the face of 

potential domestic energy shortages or the recent spike in U.S. gasoline prices. The expected 

outcome of the analysis is quickly confirmed in Section 2.4.4 at page 2-76 where BLM identifies 

Alternative 2b (for oil shale) and Alternative 2 (for oil sands) as the agency’s preferred 

alternatives. Both of these alternatives severely contract the public lands available for receiving 
Final OSTS PEIS 1014 

applications for oil shale and oil sands leasing and possible future development. 

In stark contrast to the predetermined outcome identified in the purpose and need of the 2012 

OSTS DPEIS, the 2008 OSTS PEIS identifies the purpose and need of the NEPA document “to 

meet the requirements of the Energy Policy Act of 2005”. This is a vastly superior NEPA 

approach because it does not drive the analysis to a predetermined outcome. The NEPA analysis 

contained in the current document has been structured so that it inappropriately bends to meet the 

requirements of the 2011 settlement agreement rather than representing a fresh look at the issues. 

API recommends that the purpose and need statement be rewritten to be more neutral or should 

adopt the original purpose and need statement from the 2008 OSTS PEIS. #11])>

<([#12 [1.5] [9.3] The 2012 OSTS DPEIS Fails to Follow the Prescribed “Multi-Step” 

NEPA Process 

The 2012 OSTS DPEIS clearly states that the document is the first step in a multi-step NEPA 

process. This first step considers potential impacts associated with amending 10 BLM Resource 

Management Plans 

(RMPs) to identify appropriate lands for receiving applications for oil shale and oil sands leases 

and future development. The 2012 OSTS DPEIS notes in multiple places that subsequent sitespecific NEPA analyses will be required for issuing RD&D leases and for those cases where a 

RD&D lease is converted into a commercial lease (e.g. 2012 OSTS DPEIS at Section 1.1.1 page 

1-6 lines 8-23 and Section 1.4.1 page 1-17 lines 32-38). As such there will be multiple 

opportunities for public review and site-specific analyses of proposed oil shale and oil sands 

leases and development. Alternatives 2a, 2b, and 3 in the 2102 OSTS DPEIS fail to properly 

account for and utilize these subsequent NEPA reviews because they prematurely remove large 

areas of potential oil shale and oil sands leasing without allowing proper site-specific 

environmental reviews. 

#12])> <([#13 [2] [9.3] These alternatives fail to properly acknowledge the multi-step NEPA 

review process that follows inclusion of BLM lands in agency land use plans as available for 

consideration of oil shale and oil sands lease applications. This top-down resource management 

approach relegates the local or regional BLM land manager to that of an observer rather than a 

participant in resource management decisionmaking. This local resource “management from 

Washington DC” approach could have the unintended consequence of restricting important 

domestic energy development opportunities without receiving the input of commercial energy 

interests, workers, local land managers, other government agencies, special interest groups, and 

the affected public. Furthermore, Alternatives 2a, 2b, and 3 in the 2102 OSTS DPEIS do not 

provide for the necessary fine scale (site-specific) environmental reviews that can effectively 

reconcile necessary resource protections with ongoing needs for developing additional domestic 

energy resources. The restrictive “policy level” edicts contained in Alternatives 2 and 3 of the 

2012 OSTS DPEIS are not appropriate for this high-level NEPA screening phase of the process 

because they may inappropriately preclude important energy development by not allowing the 

needed lease specific NEPA review to occur. #13])>

<([#14 [9.3] Alternatives 2 and 3 of the 2012 OSTS DPEIS Inappropriately Restrict the 

Role of Local/Regional BLM Land Managers 

In addition to shortcutting the NEPA process, the 2012 OSTS DPEIS inappropriately restricts the 

authority of the Federal Land Manager by identifying a host of criteria that would automatically 

withdraw BLM administered lands from potential leasing for oil shale and oil sands 

development. In comparison, the 2008 OSTS PEIS ROD describes a process that includes more 

acreage for potential applications for oil shale and oil sands leases and properly engages local 
Final OSTS PEIS 1015 

and regional BLM land managers in the resource allocation and management decisionmaking 

process. Each potential application would be subject to a lease sale NEPA review and a project 

specific NEPA review. This approach provides the decisionmaker with the discretion to balance 

the oil shale and oil sands use and protection of resources on the public lands during subsequent 

site-specific NEPA analysis. These NEPA reviews are the appropriate administrative venue for 

considering site-specific environmental issues such as ACEC designations or the specific 

protections needed for threatened and endangered species (or candidate species such as the 

greater sage-grouse) under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. It is inappropriate to 

remove this site-specific resource management responsibility from BLM land managers. 

In discussing the logic for not selecting Alternative C (which would have significantly limited 

the acreage of lands available for receiving oil shale and oil sands lease applications) contained 

in the 2008 OSTS PEIS, BLM clearly articulated their thoughts on this matter as shown below: 

BLM’s 2008 OSTS PEIS ROD beginning at Page 22. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

through mitigation.” 

API agrees with the resource management approach and convincing logic articulated by BLM on 

the topic of oil shale and oil sands leasing in the 2008 OSTS PEIS ROD. API suggests that the 

authors of the 2012 OSTS DPEIS review the current document and make necessary adjustments 

to restore the proper balance of potential oil shale and oil sands use and the protection of 

resources or resource values. In making these adjustments, API recommends that the proper role 

of site and project-specific environmental reviews and federal land manager discretion be 

emphasized. #14])>

<([#15 [2.2] [1.5] Conservation Focus Alternative 2a and 2b for Oil Shale and Alternative 2 

for Oil Sands are Defective and Do Not Comply with NEPA 

NEPA requires that agency alternatives be well defined so that both agency decisionmakers and 

the general public can understand the reasonably foreseeable impacts associated with each 

alternative. As currently constructed, Alternatives 2a and 2b for oil shale and Alternative 2 for 

oil sands do not meet that requirement. This is particularly true with the component of 

Alternative 2a and 2b (oil shale) and Alternative 2 (oil sands) that states that “core or priority 

sage-grouse habitat, as defined by such guidance as the BLM or the DOI may issue” would be 

excluded from the lands available for potential leasing applications. These alternatives also 

include a similar non-specific statement excluding areas from oil shale and oil sands leasing that 

the BLM has identified or may identify as a result of inventories conducted during this planning 

process, as lands having wilderness characteristics (LWC). The lack of clarity regarding the 

current restrictions posed by Alternatives 2a and 2b for oil shale and Alternative 2 for oil sands, 

combined with the open-ended nature of what constitutes “core or priority sage-grouse habitat” 

and the unknown future requirements of the “guidance as BLM or the DOI may issue”, make it 
Final OSTS PEIS 1016 

virtually impossible for oil shale and oil sands interests to either identify the excluded lands or 

understand any associated restrictions. API contends that this lack of clarity as to the specifics of 

these alternatives makes them defective from a NEPA process perspective and potentially from a 

legal perspective, as well. #15])>

<([#16 [9.2.4] [2.2] The Sage-Grouse Related Restrictions are Premature and there are 

Other, Less-Onerous, Methods of Achieving Sage Grouse Protection 

API believes that withdrawing lands from potential oil shale and oil sands leasing due to sagegrouse habitat protection is premature given that no specific federal regulatory or administrative 

actions have occurred with respect to managing core or priority sage-grouse habitat. As a result, 

these alternatives are vague and poorly defined making it difficult for interested parties to 

accurately identify the lands that are being withdrawn from potential leasing. API strongly 

objects to the provisions of Alternatives 2a and 2b for oil shale and Alternative 2 for oil sands 

that would result in the wholesale exclusion of core or priority sage-grouse habitat from future 

lease sale applications and believes that greater sage-grouse protection and management can be 

effectively achieved without the use of such draconian measures. 

Wholesale removal of hundreds of thousands of acres of potential energy resources from 

possible future leasing based on the limited analysis contained in the OSTS DPEIS is clearly 

inappropriate. 

API believes that the potential leasing acreage being eliminated, at least at the PEIS stage, as a 

result of the greater sage-grouse is unnecessary and is not supported by the analysis contained in 

the DPEIS. The current programmatic document is not the appropriate stage in the NEPA 

process to make these site-specific determinations. API supports further detailed analysis of 

potential greater sage-grouse impacts and site-specific mitigation measures in future lease sale or 

project-specific NEPA documents where the scale of the evaluation is finer and additional (and 

site-specific) greater sage-grouse data is available. In addition, the use of suggested management 

practices may make it possible to site future oil shale and oil sands projects without causing 

unacceptable impacts to the greater sage-grouse. API believes that there are compatible 

opportunities to further develop oil shale and oil sands energy resources while simultaneously 

protecting the greater sage-grouse. As such, API believes that coarse scale greater sage-grouse 

habitat mapping should not be used to automatically eliminate large areas of important energy 

resources from future consideration. 

API points to the large text box at Section 4.8.1 beginning at page 4-124 of the 2012 OSTS 

DPEIS that describes greater sage-grouse habits and habitats and identifies a number of measures 

and suggested management practices that can be used to reduce or eliminate harm to the greater 

sage-grouse. API and our member companies recognize that implementing some of these 

management practices could result in specific areas being excluded from potential oil shale and 

oil sands leasing and development. Nonetheless, we believe that the site-specific approach for 

greater sage-grouse management described in Alternatives 1 and 4 for oil shale and oil sands is 

superior to the inappropriate and restrictive approaches included in the various iterations of 

Alternatives 2 and 3. #16])>

<([#17 [9.7] Alternative 2b and 4b for Oil Shale Could Result in Unnecessary Project 

Delays 

API is opposed to Alternative 2b. While the same lands would be available for oil shale leasing 

under Alternatives 2a and 2b, Alternative 2b would require companies to first obtain a Research, 

Development, and Demonstration (RD&D) lease before the lease could be converted to a 

commercial lease. API believes this requirement will be an unnecessary, expensive, and time-
Final OSTS PEIS 1017 

consuming step in the future as oil shale and oil sands development technology matures. API 

also believes that RD&D leases as the current sole lease interest is contrary to the EPAct 2005 

direction to implement a commercial leasing program. Alternative 2b is predicated on the 

inappropriate conclusion that oil shale energy projects will operate indefinitely in a research and 

development mode. Once technically sound and environmentally acceptable technologies have 

been developed under the current RD&D program, there is no reason to require all future 

commercial oil shale lease applications using the same technology to repeat the cumbersome 

RD&D process. While BLM could amend appropriate RMPs in the future to allow direct 

commercial applications using proven oil shale technology, the amendment process is time 

consuming and will result in significant project delays. The same unnecessary project delays 

described above for oil shale Alternative 2b would also apply to Alternative 4b. #17])>

<([#18 [6.3.2.1] Water Use Estimates in the 2012 OSTS DPEIS do not Reflect Current 

Patterns and Result in Unrealistically High Water Use Estimates 

Although some uncertainty remains regarding the potential water use from various oil shale 

development technologies, API notes that the 2012 OSTS DPEIS has assumed a worst case 

scenario. The analysis does not provide any credit for water recovery from oil shale processing 

or reuse of water from other local mineral extraction industries (water used or recovered for local 

oil and gas operations). The 

analysis also includes significant additional water use associated with coal-fired power 

production that it assumes will be built to support the oil shale industry. Even with these worstcase scenario assumptions, the document concludes that there is sufficient water currently 

available to support a robust oil shale industry and also serve other needs for the foreseeable 

future. 

The 2012 OSTS DPEIS evaluates potential impacts using the assumption that any additional 

power needed to operate RD&D or commercial oil shale projects would be provided by 

expanding or building new coal-fired power plants (Section 4.1.6 at page 4-13). BLM advises 

that they made this assumption to avoid the possibility of underestimating potential impacts. API 

believes that this assumption is inappropriate and does not reflect the ongoing changes to the 

power production marketplace in Colorado, Wyoming, and Utah resulting from the rapid 

expansion of natural gas production in this region. There are multiple examples of power plants 

switching to burning natural gas in this region with resulting decreases in both air emissions and 

water use as compared to coal-fired power plants of equivalent capacity (see for instance the 

April 12, 2012 article in the Wyofile online news service regarding a Wyoming power plant 

making plans to switch from coal to natural gas fired generation at an existing facility at 

http://wyofile.com/2012/04/utility-wants-to-convert-wyoming-coal-unit-to-natural-gas/). API 

urges BLM to review the trends in natural gas power plant construction (and switching) in the 

region and revise the water use section of the 2012 OSTS DPEIS to make a more realistic 

estimate of potential water use in oil shale operations. The current pessimistic water use 

assumptions are not supported by the facts on the ground. While the NEPA process supports an 

impact analysis that is conservative, it does not require one that is unrealistic. 

In any event, API notes that water rights are unique in these western states and that potential oil 

shale projects would have to acquire these rights in the state and local water marketplace like 

other current and future water users. There is every indication that necessary water rights will be 

available to support a robust oil shale industry in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming. The input from

our members strongly suggests that an objective examination of available technologies and costs 

would conclude that responsible, low-impact, and sustainable water usage is both technically and 
Final OSTS PEIS 1018 

economically feasible for an oil shale industry producing one to two million barrels per day. 

The member companies of the API Oil Shale Subcommittee are committing significant capital 

and research toward developing technologies and processes to reduce energy usage in their 

projects while protecting ground and surface water resources. Many of these same firms are 

collaborating under BLM’s RD&D leasing program, under which the developer has to 

successfully verify to the BLM that its technology is viable, environmentally acceptable, and 

sustainable before commercial scale implementation. Regardless of location, each company 

pursuing oil shale operations will have to validate the environmental and economic viability of 

its project. API also notes that water use requirements will be evaluated at a finer scale in 

subsequent NEPA reviews where potential impacts can be assessed on a site and project-specific 

basis. These future detailed reviews will provide project, technology, and site-specific 

information on water use to BLM decisionmakers. #18])>

<([#19 [6.3] Additional Note on the Political Nature of BLM Decision-making and Global 

Commercial Development 

As stated previously, BLM has failed to make a compelling technical or legal case for 

reconfiguring the 2008 OSTS PEIS. As we seek an intellectually honest rationale for the BLM’s 

arbitrary reconfiguration of the 2008 OSTS PEIS, we have examined BLM’s recent statements 

on the economic case for oil shale development. 

BLM has repeatedly pointed to the economic viability of oil shale development (or rather its 

presumed lack of viability) as a factor in its decision making process [ In its February 3, 2012 

announcement of the DPEIS, BLM justified its preferred alternative selection by stating that 

“*t+o date, technological and economic conditions have not combined to support a sustained 

commercial oil shale industry in the United States,...” and in its April 14, 2011 “Notice of Intent 

to Prepare a Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) and Possible Land Use Plan 

Amendments for Allocation of Oil Shale,” BLM stated as its rationale that “*a+s there are not 

economically viable ways yet known to extract and process oil shale for commercial purposes, 

the BLM, through its planning process, intends to take a hard look at whether it is appropriate for 

approximately 2,000,000 acres to remain available for potential development of oil shale, and 

approximately 431,224 acres of public land to remain available for potential development of tar 

sands.”]. 

As we have stated previously, we are hard-pressed to understand the connection between the 

viability of commercial oil shale technologies and whether certain lands should be made 

available for oil shale development in the future and believe they are entirely separate issues. 

This is a technologically intensive industry and as with other high-tech industries, development 

takes time. Progression towards development of U.S. oil shale resources also requires a strong, 

positive, partnership between industry, financial markets and the federal government. Industry 

and capital investment have responded negatively to the uncertain terms, uncertain regulation, 

and policies under this Administration’s stewardship of the federal oil shale program. #19])>

<([#20 [10.3] [6.3.5] However, since BLM has chosen to include it [economic viability of oil 

shale development] as a factor in its decision making process, we would like to provide for BLM 

more insight into commercial oil shale development globally. 

It is a fact that several technologies have been developed around the world and that oil shale has 

been produced on a commercially viable basis for decades outside of the United States. A close 

examination of activities, technologies, and government policies that have been set into motion 

elsewhere in the world indicate that, where government policies promote rather than prohibit 

commercial-scale oil shale development, existing technologies are already in place that can 
Final OSTS PEIS 1019 

successfully process oil shale resources in a manner that complies with strict environmental 

standards. 

From Estonia, where commercial-scale oil shale development has taken place for decades, to 

Jordan, where foreign companies have made recent and significant investments toward the 

eventual development of oil shale, governments have instituted policies that recognize and 

promote the value and significance of this natural resource in terms of its benefits to their 

economic, energy, and national security. More recently, renewed interest in this resource has 

been sparked in Israel, where oil shale deposits could yield billions of barrels of domestic oil. 

The cases provided below demonstrate that the U.S. might well follow examples set by these 

governments in other parts of the world. 

Estonia 

The Estonian government’s National Development Plan for the Utilization of Oil Shale [See 

National Development Plan for the Utilization of Oil Shale 2008-2015, Ministry of the 

Environment of the Republic of Estonia, Tallinn 2008, available at 

http://www.envir.ee/orb.aw/class=file/action=preview/id=1155858/P%F5levkivi_arengukava_+

EN.pdf; and Ministry of the Environment, News, “Riigikogu approves development plan for use 

of oil shale,” available at http://www.envir.ee/1082834.]. 

sets forth the strategy for developing oil shale in the country from 2008-2015. Approved by the 

Estonian parliament in October 2008, the Plan is based on securing a stable supply of oil shale 

energy and energy independence, as well as achieving increased efficiencies in and reduced 

environmental impacts of oil shale mining and use. The plan notes the energy security and 

economic benefits of the country’s oil shale resource, while also seeking to diversify its energy 

portfolio by immediately establishing an annual upper limit of 20 million tons of oil shale mining 

capacity and a 15 million ton upper limit by 2015. To mitigate environmental impacts associated 

with oil shale mining and use, the 

plan calls for the implementation of modern technologies, acceleration of the recycling of 

residues, and instituting new environmental charge rates for the use of oil shale and related 

groundwater needs. 

Today, the Estonian energy company Eesti uses two Enefit-140 units at its Estonian oil plant to 

process oil shale in the country. Enefit-140 uses solid heat carrier technology to produce liquid 

fuel and retort gas. The patented technology relies on a three-part process comprised of the 

following stages: drying, thermal decomposition, and combustion. The plant’s two units can 

process up to 140 tonnes of oil shale per hour and annually produce up to 240,000 tonnes of 

liquid fuel (1.5 million barrels) and 60 million Nm3 of retort gas, which can be used to produce 

hydrogen and power. In recent years, annual production levels have increased to 1 million barrels 

of liquid fuels and 40 millions Nm3 of retort gas. Improvements to the units’ design have 

increased their online time from about forty-five percent to nearly eighty percent, exceeding the 

plant’s planned capacity of seventy-five percent. 

In terms of the impact of this process on the environment, this oil shale production does not 

require the use of water, and only about one percent of the production waste is comprised of total 

organic compounds. In addition, carbon dioxide emissions from liquid fuel production are 

notably less than the emissions emanating from the generation of electricity from oil shale, since 

most of the carbon remains in the liquid fuel. In spite of production volume increases, 

technological advances have enabled Eesti to reduce the amount of pollution discharged from the 

production of liquid fuels. 

These developments are not being conducted without any environmental scrutiny. Oil shale 
Final OSTS PEIS 1020 

activities in Estonia are subject to fifty-five international conventions and agreements that 

contain environmental restrictions. Included among them are the U.N. Convention on Biological 

Diversity and European Commission Directives 79/409/EEC pertaining to the conservation of 

wild birds, 92/43/EEC relating to conservation of natural habitats and wild fauna and flora. 

These provisions require the protection of endangered species and their habitats, with protected 

areas that restrict geological and mining activity. 

Jordan 

The Government of Jordan has estimated that the country is home to between 50 and 70 billion 

metric tonnes of identified oil shale reserves, ranking third in the world. Studies conducted since 

the 1960’s indicate that oil shale deposits are located in more than 60% of the country. 

While it has traditionally relied on imported energy to meet most of its needs, Jordan’s National 

Energy Strategy for 2007-2020 is focused in part on achieving greater energy independence by 

increasing the country’s use of domestic energy resources, including oil shale. In order to raise 

the portion of domestic energy resources from 4% in 2008 to 25% in 2015 and 39% in 2020, the 

country aims to raise oil shale’s contribution to the nation’s energy portfolio to 11% in 2015 and 

14% in 2020. This would require an estimated $1.4 to $3.8 billion in investments in oil shale 

exploration. 

At the same time, the Jordanian government has embarked on a comprehensive mission to craft a 

regulatory environment that ensures responsible development of the country’s oil shale 

resources. Oil shale projects must comply with a variety of rules and standards, including World 

Bank/International Finance Corporation guidelines, Equator Principles, reasonable and prudent 

operator standards, and emission limits, which are included in concession agreements. While 

commercial-scale oil shale production in Jordan has not yet taken place, international companies 

are devoting significant resources toward achieving that reality. 

For example, following a formal agreement reached with the Jordanian government in 2009, the 

Jordan Oil Shale Company (JOSCo), a wholly-owned subsidiary of Royal Dutch Shell (Shell), 

registered as a company in Jordan to explore the potential for commercial development of oil 

shale resources in the country using proprietary In situ Conversion Process (ICP) technology. 

The area to be assessed is located on 22,250 km2 of land on three tracts in the central, southern, 

and northwestern parts of Jordan. 

Shell’s ICP technology, which is currently under development but has been the subject of 

research and testing since the early 1980’s, does not rely on incineration or mining and surface 

retort techniques to produce energy from oil shale. Rather, ICP uses underground heaters to raise 

the temperature of the oil shale in place to remove the kerogen and hydrocarbon gas below 

ground, and then relies on conventional methods of extraction to produce the resources. As a 

result, the waste that is generated during the separation process remains underground. 

Additional benefits of ICP technology include the capacity to access oil shale resources without 

mining, its ability to produce higher quality crude oil and larger quantities of oil and gas more 

efficiently, requiring a smaller surface area than other production techniques. 

Israel 

According to the Israeli government, oil shale deposits are present in 15% of the country [See 

Reuters, “Oil shale may help energy independence,” May 8, 2011, available at 

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4061436,00.html.], 

and one assessment estimates that the total amount of oil shale in place in Israel to be close to 

250 billion barrels. In turn, public policies have sought to promote investment in the 

development of these resources. 
Final OSTS PEIS 1021 

For example, the Ministry of Energy and Water Resources’ Energy Research and Development 

Department has sought to promote technologies that can turn oil shale into an energy resource to 

provide an antidote to “excessive fuel price increase or supply difficulties” [See Ministry of 

Energy and Water Resources, Energy Research and Development Department, available at 

http://energy.gov.il/English/Subjects/RAndDChiefScientist/Pages/GxmsMniEnergyResearchAnd

DevelopmentDepartment.aspx.]. 

In addition, the Ministry’s Earth Science Research Administration seeks in part to maintain the 

scientific infrastructure for oil shale [See Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Ministry of National 

Infrastructures, available at 

http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/MFAArchive/2000_2009/2002/10/Ministry+of+National+Infrastruc

tures.htm#energy.]. 

Israel Energy Initiatives Ltd (IEI), a subsidiary of U.S.-based Genie Energy, has been working to 

develop a means to produce clean transportation fuels from oil shale using In-Situ conversion 

technology [See IEI, About Us, available at http://www.iei-energy.com/aboutus.php.]. 

In 2008, IEI obtained an exclusive exploration and production license from the Israeli 

government in an area covering 70,000 acres with an estimated 40 billion barrels of oil [See IEI, 

About Us, available at http://www.iei-energy.com/aboutus.php; IEI, Home Page, available at 

http://d129998.u26.alsonetworks.com/index.php; and IEI, Oil Shale – Our National Treasure, 

available at http://d129998.u26.alsonetworks.com/shale_oil-natural_treasure.php.]. 

This area is located within Israel’s Shfela basin, which has been estimated to hold approximately 

150 billion barrels of oil [See IEI, What is Oil Shale?, available at 

http://d129998.u26.alsonetworks.com/what_is_oil_share.php.]. 

IEI’s Chief 

Executive Officer has stated that successful production in the license area could yield 50,000 

barrels of oil per day (20% of Israel’s consumption rate) for thirty years. 

In sum, as other countries as well as the United States seek to become more energy selfsufficient and chart courses to greater economic and national security, the game-changing 

impacts associated with commercial development of oil shale resources is spurring governments 

to take actions that will help turn potential benefits into reality. In such cases, businesses are 

responding by making investment decisions and applying proven technologies to oil shale 

development in a manner that could significantly meet the growing energy demands of citizens 

around the globe. 

With the passage of time, oil shale production technologies that have developed and advanced 

over time will continue to evolve and achieve even greater efficiencies and improvements. How 

this vast resource is developed in the United States remains uncertain. U.S. Federal actions that 

create obstacles or uncertainty about the potential for commercial-scale development will surely 

be a limiting factor. 

During this period of unprecedented economic and geopolitical uncertainty, the examples seen in 

Estonia, Jordan, and now Israel should serve as a wake-up call to action for decision-makers in 

the United States and countries around the world who have an interest in achieving greater 

energy independence. #20])>

Conclusion 

<([#21 [2.1.1] For the reasons discussed above and further outlined in Attachment 1, API 

strongly urges BLM to adopt Alternative 1, the No Action Alternative. The 2012 OSTS DPEIS 

provides no convincing logic for changing the thoughtful conclusions BLM reach in the ROD for 

the 2008 OSTS PEIS. Accordingly, API recommends that current (2008) BLM land use plan 
Final OSTS PEIS 1022 

allocations for oil shale and oil sands leasing be retained as written and not amended. #21])>

In closing, the API appreciates the opportunity to comment on the Draft Programmatic 

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

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

Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming and asks the Bureau of Land Management to carefully consider 

our comments and address them as it finalizes the OSTS PEIS document. Should you have any 

further questions, please contact me at 202-682-8260 or kennedye@api.org. 

Comments 

<([#22 [13] 1. General: The large document has incorporated much of the information from the 

2006-2008 EIS effort and does reflect updating data in some sections. This is particularly 

important when discussing important resource issues such as water. Please consider making a 

statement to the effect that this document represents the current state of the information when 

many references are pre-2007. The statement could be included as part of the opening remarks in 

each of the resource descriptions in Section 3. #22])>

<([#23 [13] 2. Executive Summary: The ES addressing only the alternatives and BLM’s 

preferred alternative lacks a summary discussion of the resource findings presented in Sections 

3-6 

#23])> <([#24 [13] 3. Page ES-6, line 28: BLM inserts uncertainty into the available lands 

restriction by adding “may issue” to this limitation. Suggest rewording to ... “or the DOI has 

promulgated through regulation” 

#24])> <([#25 [3.1.7] 4. Page ES-6, line 31: BLM inserts uncertainty into the available lands 

restriction by not defining specifically what Utah & Wyoming have “recently completed”. Please 

direct the reader toward a specific document that identifies the applicable ACECs or where they 

are discussed. 

#25])> <([#26 [9.3] 5. Page 1-17, line 31: Why bother discussing commercial projects in this EIS 

when it is stated that this document’s NEPA scope is limited to something less than the RD&D 

level of projects? The RD&D leases do have a PRLA included but it is stated that further NEPA 

review is required prior to commercial development. 

#26])> <([#27 [9.6] 6. Page 1-21, line 15: How different are the oil and gas lease stipulations 

relative to those seen in the RD&D leases to date? Why not include current RD&D lease 

stipulations in the BLM handbook? It would demonstrate similarities or differences among 

industries to the Resource Manager. 

#27])> <([#28 [6.3] 7. Page 2-1, line 27: A more informed discussion on the methods/process for 

oil shale and oil sands resources recovery could be inserted in this section. Alternatively, 

reference to select subsections of 4.0 and Appendix A could be made to indicate that more 

technology description is included in the document. 

#28])> <([#29 [3.1.8] 8. Table 3.1.1-1, line 2: Suggest deletion of the Utah GSENMM Plan from 

the table to consistently show the 10 RMP that are affected in prominent tables. 

Acknowledgment of the RMP could be inserted in the text following the table similar to the 

presentation on page 1-19 since the existing leased acreage will likely never be developed nor 

acreage be available for leasing in the future. #29])>

<([#30 [13] 9. Table 3.1.2-1: The data presented is that available in 2006 as noted in the 

footnote. Please review and update the table as needed to reflect more recent information 

(References note that this was reviewed in October 2011). This could be done for Section 3 in 

general as much of the document appears based on information gathered for the 2008 EIS. 
Final OSTS PEIS 1023 

#30])> <([#31 [3.12.2] 10. Page 3-276, line 30: The socioeconomic history of oil shale 

development in the area suggests that the maintenance of a current baseline is important in 

keeping the future impacts in perspective. The socioeconomic section does reflect current 

information; however, the tables related to the environmental justice discussion reflect the pre2010 census data. It is suggested the section be reviewed and updated as necessary to reflect 

current data. This comment is applicable to similar discussions in Sections 4 thru 6. 

#31])> <([#32 [6.3.6] 11. Page 4-4, line 2: For completeness, consider giving a short reason that 

surface mining of oil shale in Colorado is not being discussed in the EIS. 

#32])> <([#33 [6.2.1] 12. Page 4-14, line 11: The premise that coal is the energy source for oil 

shale and oil sands development is not reasonable in today’s or predicted future energy markets. 

For comparative purposes consider providing the summary of emissions if natural gas was used 

as the energy source. Such a comparison would allow the reader to infer their own magnitude of 

impacts when reviewing impacts presented in the remainder of the document that are based 

solely upon coal as a fuel versus a project sited gas fired power plant. 

#33])> <([#34 [6.2] 13. Page 4-25, line 19: Assuming Comment 15 was accepted and addressed, 

a sentence could be added that long-term disturbance of electrical transmission lines would be 

reduced if power were generated at the project site. Similar remarks could also be added as 

appropriate in other resource discussions. 

#34])> <([#35 [6.2] 14. Pages 4-36 & 4-37, line 45: BLM discussion on climate change cites 

reports and numbers where they acknowledge the values have a high level of uncertainty. It 

might be better to return to the qualitative discussion consistent with the rest of the section than 

contain numbers with high uncertainty. 

#35])> <([#36 [3.4.4] 15. Page 4-39, lines 9-21: Data are presented from operations monitoring 

in this paragraph; however the information lacks good context such as information on 

background or reference well data to demonstrate the impact of the RD&D activity. 

#36])> <([#37 [3.4.6] 16. Page 4-39, line 24: Consider review and possible revision to the 

remarks regarding Chevron’s project based upon recent announcements regarding their oil shale 

leases. 

#37])> <([#38 [3.4.5] 17. Page 4-40, line 27: Consider adding some context to the change in 

groundwater flow by giving the range of flows in Yellow Creek in the vicinity of the study. 

#38])> <([#39 [13] 18. Page 4-55, line 46: Reference to oil sands could be deleted in this 

sentence as well as others in the section because the focus is oil shale development. 

#39])> <([#40 [3.5.1.8] 19. Page 4-57, line 4: Consider providing an update on the status of the 

proposed rulemaking for the final PEIS. 

#40])> <([#41 [13] 20. Page 4-74, line 1: Table 4.8.1-1 presents the magnitude of unmitigated 

impacts to the aquatic resources. A more reasonable assessment would to present the magnitude 

after application of generally accepted mitigation practices typically required by BLM in 

permitted actions. This comment is also applicable to other resource topics where the magnitude 

of impacts is presented before mitigation. #41])>

<([#42 [13] 21. Page 4-142, lines 15-16: Typo: What is the need for the italic in this paragraph? 

#42])> <([#43 [13] 22. Page 4-148, line 32: Typo: Similar vs. Similarly 

#43])> <([#44 [6.2.1] 23. Page 4-149, line 35: Consistency is suggested when discussing new 

power plants sizes (Pg. 4-13 Line. No. 38). 

#44])> <([#45 [6.2.1] 24. Section 4.9.1.4.2, page 4-152: The discussion on power plants in the 

section on transmission lines and pipelines appears out of place. Would such a discussion be 

better in Section 4.1.6 leaving only the focused remarks on visual resources (i.e. power plant 
Final OSTS PEIS 1024 

have a visual impact). 

#45])> <([#46 [13] 25. Page 4-200, lijne 6: Consider restating the sentence “If exposures....” 

because emissions will be limited by controls and worker safety requirements that are stipulated 

in the permits issued for operations. 

#46])> <([#47 [6.2.1] 26. Page 5-5, lines 20-29: What is the justification for the authors in the oil 

shale and oil sands evaluation of impacts use of different external energy sources, coal fired 

power plants and on site natural gas/propane respectively? A similar change is also noted for 

other parameters defined in the assumptions. Also compare Tables 4.1.1-1 and 5.1.1.-1 for 

impact values. 

#47])> <([#48 [6.3] 27. Chapters 4 and 5: The impact descriptions presented in Sections 4 & 5 

contains information that are duplicative or common to both oil shale and oil sands development. 

Such information could be presented once. This allows the mineral specific information to be 

presented more concisely and with a short reference back to the general information when 

needed. The present approach makes finding unique Area information difficult. Much of Chapter 

5’s 162 pages could be reduced about 90 % by presenting only the unique oil sands impact 

discussion. 

#48])> <([#49 [3.7.4.5] 28. Table 6.1.4-4, page 6-205: The listing of the mammal species needs 

to be reviewed and several bird entries deleted and if not already listed, added under the bird 

section of the table. 

#49])> <([#50 [13] 29. Section 6.1: The treatment of comparing alternatives among the resources 

is inconsistent. For example, land use and water use describe impacts by alternative but wildlife 

is done by state. Consider placing a table at the front of the section providing guidance on what 

level of analysis will be provided for each resource and resource alternative discussed. (The 

comparison of alternatives is more fully presented in Section 6.5.1) 

#50])> <([#51 [13] 30. Sections 6.1 and 6.2: The impact descriptions presented in Sections 6.1 

and 6.2 contains information that are duplicative or common to both oil shale and oil sands 

development. Such information could be presented once. This allows the mineral specific 

information to be presented more concisely and with a short reference back to the general 

information when needed. The present approach makes finding unique Area information 

difficult. Much of Chapter 6.2’s 251 pages could be reduced presenting only the unique oil sands 

impact discussion. 

#51])> <([#52 [8.3] 31. Page 6-4, lines 40-44: The statement that oil shale and oil sands 

development is largely incompatible with oil and gas development is misleading. Use 

Agreements and various drilling technologies are available to resolve conflicts among willing 

parties. Mineral development conflicts would 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 agreements that is compatible 

with development. The Enefit RD&D project is an example where both mining and oil and gas 

development co-exist (see page 6-122). 

#52])> <([#53 [3.10.1] 32. Section 6.1.1.11.2, page 6-63: Table 6.1.1-13 should be updated to 

reflect the more recent community input data 

#53])> <([#54 [3.9.6] 33. Page 6-113, lines 32-33: It seems unreasonable to state the act of 

leasing has the potential to adversely impact cultural resources by lease terms limiting an 

agency’s ability to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects of proposed development. This 

statement should be deleted or expanded upon to describe the lease terms that allow a lessee to 

impact cultural resources. See page 4-158 or 5-118 for a possible expansion of this thought. A 
Final OSTS PEIS 1025 

similar situation is noted in Section 6.1.3.9, pg. 6-162, line 26. 

#54])> <([#55 [2.3] 34. Section 6.1.3.4, page 6-125: The purpose of Alternative 3 needs to be 

more fully explained. Sec 6.1.3 appears to summarize the prior NEPA work. The RD&D projects 

have all the commercial acres identified. It appears that Alternative 3 effectively closes future 

lands to any commercial development (except PRLA) and would only allow RD&D projects. 

#55])> <([#56 [4.2] 35. Page 6-129, lines 4-6: What does this sentence add to defining the GHG 

emission concerns for the project? Consider adding the period at the end of the sentence and 

expanding the discussion to include any data on expected emissions. 

#56])> <([#57 [2.4] 36. Page 6-171, line 19: Alternative 4 proposes to remove lands that are 

“proposed for” future planning restrictions in addition to those lands removed by BLM action 

since the 2008 PEIS. The analogy is similar to Candidate T&E species status to the Listed 

species. The listed has the full support of law where the candidate does not. 

#57])> <([#58 [2] 37. Section 6.1.5, page 6-224: This is most useful section in the EIS for 

assessing comparatives. Information from this section could be put in tabular form to expand the 

Executive Summary. 

#58])> <([#59 [4.3] 38. Table 6.1.6-2, page 6-246: The information on coal mining and 

preparation impact should be reviewed and updated as appropriate. More recent data from the 

three western state agencies regulating mining would be the source for such an update as 

opposed to the central / eastern state mining operations. 

#59])> <([#60 [4.3] 39. Table 6.1.6-3, page 6-249: The information on coal fired power plant 

impact should be reviewed and updated as appropriate. In addition, an analysis of gas fired 

power plant impact should be added to reflect the future trend in electric power generation. 

#60])> <([#61 [4.3] 40. Page 6-304, line 44: The information on socioeconomic impacts should 

be reviewed and updated as appropriate using data from those current RD&D developments and 

projecting forward when appropriate. 

#61])> <([#62 [4.3] 41. Page 6-307, line 30: The discussion of hydraulic fracturing should be 

reviewed and updated based on information that is more recent. 

#62])> <([#63 [4.3] 42. Page 6-311, lines 38-42: A discussion of gas-fired power plant should 

also be provided, as coal may not be the fuel choice for newly constructed power plants. 

#63])>

OSTS2012D50311 

Organization: Elaine Livingston 

Received: 5/4/2012 2:55:16 PM 

Commenter1: Elaine Livingston - Vestal, New York 13850 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/14/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50311.htm (OSTS2012D50311-58953.htm Size = 1 KB) 

Submission Text

<([#1 [12] Stop the tar sands and shale oil development. They are both too destructive to the 

environment, and use too dangerous toxic chemicals that threaten human health as well as 
Final OSTS PEIS 1026 

wildlife. A few greedy corporations should not be allowed to rape OUR land for their profits.

#1])>

OSTS2012D50312 

Organization: Rio Blanco County Board of County Commissioners, Kenneth Parsons 

Received: 5/4/2012 2:56:30 PM 

Commenter1: Kenneth Parsons - Meeker, Colorado 81641 (United States) 

Organization1:Rio Blanco County Board of County Commissioners 

Commenter Type: Local Government 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/14/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50312.htm (OSTS2012D50312-59023.htm Size = 1 KB) 

2012_OSTS_PEIS_COMMENTS_Rio_Blanco_County_CO_OSTS2012D50312.pdf 

(OSTS2012D50312-59022.pdf Size = 201 KB) 

Submission Text

Comments of the County Commissioners of Rio Blanco County, Colorado are in the attached 

file: 2012 OSTS PEIS Comments Rio Blanco County CO.pdf See Attachment. 

BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 

RIO BLANCO COUNTY COURTHOUSE 

POST OFFICE BOX I 

MEEKER, COLORADO 81641 

May 4, 2012 

BLM Oil Shale and Tar Sands Draft Programmatic EIS Argonne National Laboratory 9700 S. 

Cass Ave. Argonne IL 60439 

Ken Salazar, Secretary 

U.S. Department of the Interior 1849 C Street, N.W. Washington DC 20240 

Bob Abbey, Director 

Bureau of Land Management 1849 C Street, N.W., Room 5665 Washington DC 20240 

RE: draft 2012 OSTS PEIS Comments 

Dear Secretary Salazar, Director Abbey, et al: 

Rio Blanco County has offered comments on previous iterations of this OSTS PEIS and 

welcomes the opportunity to do so again. As a county directly in the crosshairs of any potential 

development of oil shale, any such opportunity is of great interest to us. We wish to see no repeat 

of the crisis-oriented, federal push for a commercial oil shale industry such as was played out in 

the late 1970’s and early 1980’s. We must have a thoughtful and rational path allowing for the 

economic development of natural resources while doing so in a way that respects the 

environment, wildlife, and people in the region. It is in the best interests of the nation, the state, 

and Rio Blanco county that a quality OSTS PEIS is the result of this process. 

In the past our comments have focused on two points. The first has been the extraction processes 

being considered and how this would impact the natural environment and wildlife in our county. 

The second has been the potential impacts to our citizens, communities and way of life, 

particularly the importance of mitigating these impacts in a timely and appropriate manner. 
Final OSTS PEIS 1027 

<([#1 [1.3] On this occasion, however, our comments will be more focused on issues which, 

when commented upon in earlier phases of this process, have been viewed by those conducting 

the PEIS as outside of the scope of the study. This unfortunate circumstance echoes what we see 

as the disconnect within the process between the federal government and the local 

governments with the most at stake concerning oil shale. In addition, we will again comment in 

some detail on the socioeconomic aspects of the study. Just one indicator that the focus has 

shifted away from the local connection is seen in where the public hearings were NOT held: in 

the White River district where the richest potential oil shale resource lies, where the large 

majority of RDD leases exist, and where kerogen extraction is likely to be most profitable. 

In general, we continue to be skeptical of the validity and purpose of the 2012 OSTS PEIS. 

#1])> <([#2 [9.8] General concerns with the process and draft 2012 OSTS PEIS: 

Beyond an agreement which settled the lawsuit by “a coalition of environmental organizations” 

it is very difficult to find references to any significant new information which would cast doubt 

on the validity of the 2008 record of decision (ROD), at least in the Piceance Basin of Colorado. 

Climate change and air quality have many post-2008 citations included in the draft but it is noted 

in the summary on page 6-230: 

“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.” 

#2])> <([#3 [3.10.2] On the other hand, a regional socioeconomic study released in 2008 by the 

Associated Governments of Northwest Colorado (AGNC) and the Colorado Department of Local 

Affairs (DOLA), as an example for contrast, is cited nowhere in this ‘revised’ PEIS. In 

particular, very little appears to have been done in reviewing the socioeconomics of our region or 

considering how impacts might be mitigated. 

#3])> <([#4 [9.8] Taken together with the regulations published in 2006 and 2008 for oil shale 

and tar sands resources, the 2008 OSTS PEIS and subsequent land use amendments constituted a 

reasonable and rational establishment of an oil shale and tar sands program as mandated in the 

Energy Policy Act of 2005. The 2008 OSTS PEIS’s chosen alternative is consistent with the 

multiple use requirement of the Federal Land Policy Management Act (FLPMA), and is 

consistent with the Rio Blanco County Master Plan and county policies which call for 

responsible development of available energy resources. 

#4])> <([#5 [2.1.1] [2.4.1] Indeed, it appears that much of the 2012 draft OSTS PEIS is exactly 

the same as the 2008 final OSTS PEIS which makes it very difficult for us to understand the 

rationale for the BLM’s preferred alternative being so restrictive as compared to the one adopted 

in the 2008 ROD. The Rio Blanco County Commissioners can support either the No Action 

alternative or alternative 4 in the 2012 draft OSTS PEIS but reject the Preferred Alternative. 

#5])> <([#6 [1.3] While Rio Blanco County was a cooperating agency in the 2008 PEIS, we did 

not respond to solicitations in time to have that status in the 2012 OSTS PEIS. In retrospect, it 

does not appear that our input as a cooperating agency would have made any difference, seeing 

what has 

transpired to this point. In contrast to the open and complete process seen in 2008, it does not 

appear that the BLM coordinated closely, as required by FLPMA, with the local governments 

where the oil shale resource is located. 

#6])> <([#7 [1.3] The preferred alternative in the draft 2012 OSTS PEIS is at odds with the input 

of the majority of the task force and stakeholders which the BLM was directed to honor and 
Final OSTS PEIS 1028 

follow in the 2005 Energy Policy Act. This would seem to us to violate the memoranda of 

understanding (MOUs) with cooperators which require the BLM to publish the written input of 

cooperators who disagree with the preferred alternative. Rio Blanco County was unable to locate 

an explanation of the points of difference and rationale for the choice being made. #7])>

<([#8 [9.2.2] The preferred alternative in the draft 2012 OSTS PEIS drastically shrinks, 

diminishes and in many areas removes virtually all of the lands made available for Oil Shale and 

Tar Sands development in 2008, and does so using the same data and science. Such a drastic 

reversal in lands available for development between the 2008 PEIS and the 2012 Preferred 

Alternative seems to violate regulatory Task Force requirements of certainty for industry and 

investors. Further, this drastic reversal of lands made available in 2008 for development 

constitutes a piecemeal revision of previous BLM Resource Management Plans, in violation of 

the Section 202 Planning Process under FLPMA. This Preferred Alternative threatens to 

undermine the process and the work of the 2008 OSTS PEIS, and dismantle a reasonable and 

rational oil shale and tar sands program in violation of Section 369 of the 2005 Energy Policy 

Act. #8])>

<([#9 [8] The Preferred Alternative is inconsistent with the BLM’s mandate to manage our 

public lands for multiple uses. Given the size of the resource located in Rio Blanco County it 

seems inappropriate to exclude all but 35,308 acres of the greatest potential for development 

from leasing. These lands outlined in the Piceance basin as Most Geologically Productive are 

currently leased for grazing, nahcolite, oil and natural gas and it makes no rational sense to 

exclude most them from oil shale leasing. There is a reason why all but one of the first round 

RDD leases and all of the second round candidates are in the Piceance basin in Rio Blanco 

County: this is where the potential economic value of the resource is greatest. 

#9])> <([#10 [9.2.1] [3.1.3] On April 14, 2011, the BLM caused to be published in the Federal 

Register, Volume 76, No 72/Thursday, April 14, 2011, pages 21003-21005, a notice of intent to 

prepare the 2012 OSTS PEIS. 

The preliminary purpose and need statement in the notice of intent, states the 2012 OSTS PEIS 

will analyze removing from oil shale and tar sands leasing “All areas that the BLM has identified 

or may identify as a result of inventories conducted during this planning process, as lands 

containing wilderness characteristics[.]” Id., at page 21004; and further: 

“Lands that the BLM identifies as having wilderness characteristics will be considered during 

this planning initiative, as described above, and consistent with Secretarial Order No. 3310, 

dated Dec. 22, 2010, and BLM Manuals 6301 and 6302. Future leasing of lands determined by 

the BLM to have wilderness characteristics, if compatible with the 

allocation decisions stemming from this initiative, will subsequently be assessed in accordance 

with BLM Manual 6303, as appropriate (Le., where the BLM has not determined, consistent with 

BLM Manual 6302, whether the lands with wilderness characteristics at issue should be receive a 

wild lands designation, BLM Manual 6303 will apply)”. 

This language seems de facto evidence of the BLM’s intent to implement, administer and/or 

enforce Secretarial Order 3310 and one or more of the BLM guidance manuals promulgated 

under Order and violates the spending moratorium of Section 1769 of the April 21, 2011 

Congressional Continuing Resolution to Fund Fiscal Year 2011 through September 30, 2011, 

which states: 

“For the fiscal year ending September 30, 2011, none of the funds made available by this 

division or any other Act may be used to implement, administer, or enforce Secretarial Order No. 

3310 issued by the Secretary of the Interior on December 22, 2010” 
Final OSTS PEIS 1029 

This spending moratorium has been carried forward, to the best of our knowledge, in all 

subsequent Congressional spending resolutions up to and including the current one. 

#10])> <([#11 [1.5] Detailed concerns with the draft 2012 OSTS PEIS and the Preferred 

Alternative: 

1. Lack of nexus between LWC, Sage Grouse, any stated concerns and new information and the 

wholesale reduction of acreage from 346,609 to 35,308 available for leasing 

The 2012 OSTS PEIS Preferred Alternative, appears to be the direct result of the lawsuit 

settlement agreement between the BLM and ideological opponents to oil shale development, and 

was entirely pre-determined and pre-decisional, in violation of NEPA. We can find no legitimate 

rationale for revising the acreages approved in 2008, and feel that the BLM has settled on this 

preferred alternative without having first analyzed its impacts. #11])> <([#12 [9.1] Further, we 

see no rational relationship to the stated purpose and need “... to reassess the appropriate mix of 

allowable uses with respect to oil shale and tar sands leasing and potential development.” and the 

acreage proposed for development under the Preferred Alternative. 

#12])> <([#13 [3.1.3] [3.7.5.1] Rio Blanco County has reviewed the Lands Excluded from 

Application for Oil Shale Leasing 

as shown in Figure 2.3.3-1 excluding ACECs, Sage Grouse Habitat, and Lands with Wildness 

Characteristics (LWC). Our review included recent data concerning Greater Sage Grouse 

Preliminary Priority Habitat (PPH) and Preliminary General Habitat (PGH) from March 12, 

2012, which we understand that the BLM is considering for further modification of its 

alternatives. 

As stated elsewhere in our comments, we support the exclusion of ACECs and under our land 

use regulations would not approve development in an ACEC. We oppose excluding LWC and 

oppose the exclusion of all these mapped PPH and PGH areas in Rio Blanco County where 

fluctuations in habitat, predation and bird populations place us at the extreme margins of the 

bird’s historical range. The point is that wholesale exclusion of these areas provides no 

justification of the acreage reduction seen in the Preferred Alternative. 

If one excluded all of these LWC, PPH, PGH, and ACEC areas from the Most Geologically 

Prospective BLM-administered lands in the Piceance basin, one is left with between 232,000 and 

315,000 acres which should still be available for application for leasing. The difference between 

these numbers being the choice of which sage grouse habitat mapping one uses: that in the draft 

2012 OSTS PEIS or the March, 2012, revised mapping. These areas are shown in the following 

maps. 

Figure 1: 315,078 acres Available for Leasing (2012 draft data) 

Figure 2: 232,869 acres Available for Leasing (revised PPH, PGH data) 

Thus Rio Blanco County cannot support the wholesale reduction of lands available for 

application for leasing down to 35,308 acres. 

#13])> <([#14 [9.7] 2. Limiting the only path to gaining a lease to RDD projects. 

The draft 2012 OSTS PEIS Preferred Alternative significantly restricts the acreage allotted in the 

2008 PEIS for research and development leasing and improperly limits technology testing to 

strictly in situ efforts. Therefore, it does not allow for the development of other technologies and 

does not provide leasing opportunities for technologies developed outside of the current 

Research Development and Demonstration (RDD) program. This is an inappropriate limitation 

given that development and production of oil from oil shale has been demonstrated to be 

technologically and economically feasible elsewhere in the world. 

To limit public lands available for commercial leasing to the those lands encompassed by 
Final OSTS PEIS 1030 

existing oil shale RD&D leases and their associated preference right lease acreage, plus the areas 

encompassed by the three RD&D lease applications currently under review is to deny that good 

science and technology development can occur on private lands or elsewhere in the world and 

prevent those in possession of such technology from access to the oil shale resources on public 

lands in the United States. This point, in and of itself, would seem to be adequate grounds for 

disallowing the Preferred Alternative. 

#14])> <([#15 [6.3.2.1] 3. Analysis of water-related issues 

Some technologies, such as those utilized by projects currently under construction in Utah to 

extract oil from the oil shale rock are not only economically feasible, but require little or no 

consumption of water. Such technologies have not received any treatment under this PEIS.

#15])>

<([#16 [6.3] Although parts of the PEIS considered potential conflicts between oil shale 

development and conventional natural gas operations in the Piceance basin, the analysis did not 

look at potential symbiotic relationships. For example, the natural gas industry produces excess 

water which then must be either be treated and discharged ( a difficult and controversial process) 

or removed from the area and evaporated from collection ponds. The potential use of this nontributary water for the needs of a commercial oil shale industry needs to be considered at the 

PEIS level as an option for reducing water consumption by a commercial oil shale industry. 

#16])> <([#17 [6.3.2.1] We also feel that the use of outdated water information in the PEIS for 

its basic analysis is flawed. The Phase 1 Energy Development Water Needs Assessment report 

(Colorado, Yampa, and White River Basin Roundtables Energy Subcommittee 2008), estimated 

water requirements for the extraction and production of natural gas, coal, uranium, and oil shale 

through 2050. Since the release of that report, the Colorado and Yampa-White Basin 

Roundtables have refined water demand estimates for oil shale development through Phase 2 of 

the Energy Study. That report also includes recent work completed to address water requirements 

for oil shale development (Colorado, Yampa, and White River Basin Roundtables Energy 

Subcommittee 2010). 

The water needs for oil shale addressed in these studies have factored in recent information 

developed by the Colorado and Yampa-White Basin Roundtables’ Energy Subcommittee that 

considered the amount of produced water that will be made available during shale processing. In 

addition, work by the subcommittee has shown that electrical energy needed for the development 

of oil shale could be produced by combined cycle gas turbines, not the coal-fired power plants 

cited in the 2012 draft OSTS PEIS. One result of this work by the roundtable is to reduce 

previous estimates of oil shale water demands. Their current estimate is that an oil shale 

commercial operation in Rio Blanco County producing 550,000 barrels of oil per day in 2050 

would require only 37,900 to 42,000 acre-feet of water a year. 

#17])> <([#18 [3.4.1] The Phase 1 Energy Development Water Needs Assessment report also 

noted that compact entitlements in the Colorado River Basins are not fully utilized and that those 

basins (Colorado, Gunnison, Southwest, and Yampa-White) have water supplies that are legally 

and physically available for development given current patterns of water use. 

However, the Yampa-White River Basin population, under medium economic development 

assumptions, is projected to increase by about 2.6 times between 2008 and 2050, from about 

45,000 to about 117,000 residents. Mining jobs in the basin are expected to grow by over 400 

percent between 2007 and 2050. According to the Yampa White needs assessment report, 

without 100% success in constructing storage projects there is a gap of 51,000 acre feet in 2050 

at the 550,000 bopd-level commercial production from oil shale. Their model considers 
Final OSTS PEIS 1031 

consumptive and non-consumptive needs for agriculture, recreation, environment, endangered 

species, mining & industry and energy development. 

The Rio Blanco County Commissioners feel that for a commercial oil shale industry to have an 

opportunity to prove its economics, informed and unbiased water planning is critical. This water 

must remain allocated for industrial use in our basin rather than be seen available for other uses 

in other areas. Since the 2008 OSTS PEIS ROD has been questioned and the process reopened, 

then this information should be used in the revision of the PEIS. 

#18])> <([#19 [3.10.1] 4. Comments specific to socioeconomics 

Consideration of humans as part of the environment 

: the lack of focus on the impact of development on those residents within the Region of Impact 

(ROI), their economies, infrastructure and way of life seems inappropriate. The data used is very 

dated, the modeling is very general and not customized to the ROIs, and the lack of consideration 

of alternatives, in the level of detail seen in other parts of the PEIS, for the mitigation of these 

impacts is truly short-sighted and inappropriate for the scale of potential impacts. 

2012 OSTS PEIS Socioeconomics Chapter 4 #19])>

<([#20 [3.10.1] 4.12 SOCIOECONOMICS 

Many statements here questioning the assumptions of what is local in a ROI. For Colorado, the 

distribution of RDD leases is a strong indicator of where any future commercial development 

will occur: the Piceance Creek area in Rio Blanco County. While social impacts will occur 

throughout the ROI designated in this study the geography and transportation networks insure 

that the direct extraction impacts occur in the immediate area. When impacts are thus “averaged” 

over a large geographical area where the population is concentrated far from the site of the 

extraction the impacts appear to be far less significant than they are in the immediate area where 

the extraction activity is occurring. 

#20])> <([#21 [3.10.2] Also, we repeat our concern over the PEIS analysis’ failure to consider 

the BBC/AGNC/DOLA study on regional impacts in Colorado which was released in April, 

2008. This study is based on considerably more recent data and provides far greater detail, within 

its limited scope, than is available in the draft 2012 OSTS PEIS documents. 

Key assumptions: (expressed in section 4.12) 

#21])> <([#22 [3.10.1] Material and equipment procurement: construction phase, 15% local 

purchase seems high given the recent natural gas boom in Rio Blanco County. While the analysts 

may consider purchases in Grand Junction as local purchases within the ROI, such purchases do 

nothing for the economy of Rio Blanco County. The aforementioned natural gas boom saw prefabricated modular temporary housing purchased from outside the ROI as the dominant 

employer-provided housing and thus 25% locally-purchased materials is far too large an 

estimate. #22])>

<([#23 [3.10.1] Wages and salary spending: In line with the temporary housing mode noted 

above, the estimates of 75% wages spent in ROI and 25% income used on existing expenses 

seems very considerably high. Many of these skilled workers, both in natural gas and oil shale 

RDD, were living in temporary living quarters (TLQ) in Rio Blanco County, leaving their 

families at home in other states, and spending none of their wages locally. #23])>

<([#24 [3.10.2] Worker housing: 

the final paragraph of this section correctly identifies employer-provided TLQs as the most 

effective way to minimize community impacts. However, it misses other key problems in the 

Piceance Creek area. (1) All potable water must be trucked into the area as groundwater, of the 

quality needed for human consumption, is very limited. These water-haulers are making trips in 
Final OSTS PEIS 1032 

excess of 50 miles one-way with quantities likely to be in the tens of thousands of gallons per 

day over a winding & congested road subject to flash flooding in summer and icy conditions in 

winter. (2) There is the associated problem of human waste from these TLQs. Since the BLM has 

chosen not to permit TLQs on public lands they are forced onto the limited private land which 

lies mainly along drainage bottoms and where the soils have limited percolation capacity. Pump 

and haul operations along the same road and conditions described above are an even greater 

concern as this area is in the Source Water Protection area for the Town of Rangely. #24])>

<([#25 [3.10.1] 4.12.1.1 Economic Impacts 

Noting once again the very dated (1984) nature of the underlying numbers used in the IMPLAN 

analysis, it appears that there are only four numbers in Appendix G which represent the 

employment data. Further, given the constraints of geography and roadway adequacy, we would 

question the relevance of a linear distance weighting in the gravity model as opposed to a 

weighted lane-road-mile distance with consideration of congestion factored in. #25])>

<([#26 [3.10.2] The break points between small, moderate, and large impacts being set at 5% and 

10% do not seem consistent with markers used by other demographers. For example, the fastest 

growth in Colorado during the past decade was in Douglas County, averaging 6.24% per year 

and was considered booming metropolitan growth. Noting the impacts seen in the 

BBC/AGNC/DOLA study in Garfield and Mesa counties in Colorado during the recent natural 

gas boom one can contrast that with the 2.88% and 2.62% annual growth seen in those counties 

over that same decade. This actual growth would fall into the middle of small impact growth by 

the measures set forth in this document. One can but wonder if the cooperators from this area 

view this as small impact growth. For perspective, the BBC study anticipated a growth of 500% 

over 30 years for Rio Blanco County from 6,000 to 39,000 residents for a 50,000 bopd 

commercial oil shale industry. #26])>

<([#27 [3.10.2] 4.12.1.2 Social Impacts 

Although it is, to some degree, understandable that the PEIS take a “100,000 ft view” of the 

overall ROI, the coarseness of the data used in the region is once again very misleading as to the 

impacts. For example, on 4-173 a statement that an in situ facility would require between 5 and 

18 local employees during the construction phase with an increase of between 0.2% and 0.5% 

increase in expenditures for local public service provision sounds pretty benign over a 3-state 

ROI. Making the not unreasonable assumption that the in situ operation was in Rio Blanco 

County this would equate to, based on a $30M county budget, an increased expenditure of $60K-

$150K. The experience of the recent natural gas boom would indicate that our county alone 

might need to add 5 employees (building, planning, road & bridge and law enforcement) and the 

associated impacts to infrastructure would make the annual increase in expenditures easily ten 

times the amount predicted herein. These predictions may appear useful at the federal level but at 

the local level they are less than worthless: they are misleading and engender complacency that 

the impact to the public and communities is small and can be ignored. #27])>

<([#28 [3.10.2] 4.12.1.8 Transportation Impacts 

The concern with upgrading and designing of access roads is well founded. Engineering 

estimates for County Road 5, the only paved public access to the heart of the Piceance basin, is 

over $140M. The engineering redesign for this corridor, including stronger, wider bridge 

structures is just now being completed. There are many other major projects which must also be 

designed and constructed to provide safe, reliable, and efficient road access into the Piceance 

Creek area from major highway networks and regional supply and population centers. 

Attempting to construct these upgrades during the rush to build the facilities needed for a 
Final OSTS PEIS 1033 

commercial shale oil facility in this area would create severe traffic flow problems, major delays 

on ingress and egress times, and endanger lives needlessly. #28])>

<([#29 [3.10.2] [5] 4.12.2 Mitigation Measures 

The statement here is correct in that mitigation measures will be required. The list of options 

includes many uses of could and it is possible which, while true, are of little value in actually 

establishing appropriate mitigation measures. Most of the measures listed are already in place as 

well as others, such as springtime load restrictions, which are not included. Others, such as 

operator support for health screenings and libraries are so tangential to the core impacts as to be 

viewed as filler. Project-scale and site-specific analyses will be required of all plans for 

development of commercial leases along with mitigation measures. 

There are a few key areas which are completely missing but sorely needed: 

1. Recommendations, to be included in each of the alternatives, for developing a realistic 

strategy for each ROI based on where the facilities will be developed, the timeline for 

construction, the size and scale of such facilities, and the details of the individual socioeconomic 

sub regions of the ROIs. We are asking for a call for a detailed socioeconomic study in each ROI 

at the time of commercial leasing coupled with a strategy for implementing the mitigation 

measures in a timely fashion. #29])>

<([#30 [10.5] 2. Taking a “100,000 ft view” consistent with the draft, there needs to be a 

recommendation to the U.S. Congress and to the state legislatures of each of the three states for 

providing a distribution of leasing bonus and royalty payments, state severance tax revenues, and 

credits for operator-supplied mitigation which provides for the adequate funding of these 

mitigation measures, both up front of the commercial development and ongoing during the 

extraction and reclamation phases. Such measures would provide for socioeconomic justice to 

the public in the ROI, a system whereby operator participation in mitigation is rewarded and 

encouraged, where then the citizens of the three states and the United States see fair and 

reasonable return on their extracted resources. 

#30])> <([#31 [5] The lack of an explicitly expressed call for regional mitigation planning and 

coordination is a major shortcoming in the draft PEIS. Remember, humans are a a part of the 

environment, too. 

#31])> <([#32 [3.13] 4.14.1 Common Impacts (HAZARDOUS MATERIALS AND WASTE 

MANAGEMENT) 

Page 4-188, lines 33-34. The stated assumption is that wastewaters would be treated on site isn’t 

consistent with BLM policy which has generally forced facilities onto private land and/or made 

pump & haul the only viable disposal methodology. 

#32])> <([#33 [3.13] Page 4-189, lines 27-28. Again, collection of pyrolysis water in lined ponds 

and then released would not seem to be consistent with BLM policy. BLM has not permitted 

lined ponds on public lands to evaporate produced water from natural gas wells and permits for 

releasing treated formation waters are difficult if not impossible to obtain. #33])>

<([#34 [13] 2012 OSTS PEIS Socioeconomics appendix G 

The paucity of actual numerical estimates for any ROI or sub region is concerning. The reader 

has difficulty evaluating the assessments being made when they are couched in the most general, 

qualitative way. To indicate elsewhere in the PEIS that details on methodology, modeling, and 

results are given in Appendix G are, at the best, misleading. #34])>

<([#35 [3.10.1] G.1.1 Direct Employment Data 

The sources are pretty dated (1973, 1977, 1982, 1983). This was an era dominated by room and 

pillar mining with surface retorting. This might be somewhat applicable, though dated, to the 
Final OSTS PEIS 1034 

deposits in UT or WY but it has no relation to the in-situ RDD processes being researched in Rio 

Blanco County, CO. #35])>

<([#36 [6.2.1] G.1.1.3 Power Plants and Coal Mines 

Although this data is far more current than the direct employment data it seems unrelated to the 

current situation in Colorado. The Colorado Legislature and environmental activists make it 

quite unlikely that a new coal-fired power plant would be constructed in this state as was seen in 

the passage of HB11-1365 by the Colorado Legislature. The price and availability of natural gas 

in the ROI, coupled with the work of the Yampa-White Basin roundtable makes combined cycle 

natural gas power plants far more likely. 

#36])> <([#37 [3.10.1] G.1.2 Temporary Housing Construction Data 

The criticism here again is that the data is very dated (1973). Experiences with Temporary living 

quarters during the recent gas boom might provide better insight into how such facilities are 

being constructed, located and serviced. 

#37])> <([#38 [3.10.1] G.1.3 Economic Multipliers 

Although unfamiliar with the internal structure of IMPLAN software, the applicability of its 

balance and weighting of parameters should be reviewed for relevance within the oil shale ROI. 

In this region of abundant federal lands, long distances, few roadways, and widely dispersed 

regional centers it doesn’t seem likely that the balance of parameters would be the same as, for 

example, the Midwest. Our economies are seldom in sync with state and national economies as 

different factors dominate. 

#38])> <([#39 [3.10.1] G.2.1 Population (SOCIAL IMPACTS) 

On page G-7 there is a need to check the veracity of the reference to Section 4.11 on per capita 

expenditures. Section 4.11 in the draft 2012 OSTS PEIS relates to Indian Tribal Concerns. 

#39])> <([#40 [3.10.2] G.2.4 Social Disruption (SOCIAL IMPACTS) 

The statement “Because population increases are likely to be rapid, and in the absence of 

adequate planning measures, local communities may be unable to quickly cope with the large 

number of new residents; social disruption and changes in social organization are likely to 

occur.” highlights one of the great weaknesses of the PEIS: None of the alternatives addresses or 

makes any attempt at addressing one of the truly significant impacts of oil shale development. It 

is deeply ironic that the BLM can offer alternatives to protect environmental assets on our public 

lands but cannot do so to protect the public being directly impacted. 

This section repeatedly expresses the belief that “community planning” can mitigate social 

problems and adjustments necessary during boom and bust parts of the economic cycle. I have 

considerable doubt as to whether the authors of this study have ever been resident in a 

community of two or three thousand when these cycles are being acted out. Planning can 

certainly help but resources, financial and otherwise, are equally important. So is the luxury of 

having time and resources to plan for these cycles comfortably in advance of their onset. It is a 

matter of shame that this process is so strongly geared toward the admittedly important task of 

assessing and mitigating the impacts on the natural environment yet so superficial and cavalier in 

its treatment of the people and communities who are directly impacted. #40])>

<([#41 [3.10.3] Additional note: Table 3.11.2-7 (Pg 253, Volume I) concerning population & 

income in the ROI includes several cities (ie Del Norte, Monte Vista, South Fork) which are not 

in the ROI but several hundred miles away in the San Luis Valley. This casts some doubt as to 

how familiar the authors were with the ROI. 

#41])> <([#42 [1.5] Summary: 

The Rio Blanco County Board of County Commissioners have deep concerns that the 2012 
Final OSTS PEIS 1035 

OSTS PEIS is not following an open and unbiased process as required by FLPMA and NEPA. 

We are concerned that the process is expending taxpayer funds in a manner contrary to the 

direction of the U.S. Congress. #42])> <([#43 [2.1.1] [2.4.1] We are also concerned that the 

Preferred Alternative expressed in the draft 2012 OSTS PEIS was not properly vetted through 

the cooperating agencies. The Commissioners are supportive of the No Action Alternative or, if 

that is not to be chosen, then they would support Alternative 4. #43])> <([#44 [2.2] The 

Preferred Alternative should be rejected. #44])>

Thank you for your consideration and review of these comments. 

Sincerely, 

Rio Blanco County Board of County Commissioners 

OSTS2012D50313 

Organization: Eileen McCabe 

Received: 5/4/2012 3:02:38 PM 

Commenter1: Eileen McCabe - Taylorsville, Utah 841233749 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/16/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50313.htm (OSTS2012D50313-58955.htm Size = 1 KB) 

Submission Text

<([#1 [3] Comments to BLM on Tar Sands This PEIS as well as the BLM notes in the Federal 

Register have noted that the methods for extracting oil shale and tar sands are unproven, cause 

long-term ecological damage and use exorbitant quantities of water. It seems to me that there 

will be great cost for uncertain benefit, and potentially irrevocable harm to the areas in question. 

The Carbon and Uintah county areas are most familiar to me. There is much pristine wilderness 

there, as well as abundant wildlife and recreation areas that could be harmed. There is already 

concern about stretched water resources in this area, particularly in light of the proposed Blue 

Castle nuclear power plant on the Green River. #1])> <([#2 [10.6.1] The Energy Policy Act of 

2005 was and is heavily weighted in favor of fossil fuels. Given more recent information about 

global warming and drought, and the falling price of renewables per kilowatt hours, it would be 

prudent to withdraw tacit support for any oil shale and tar sands development, in favor of 

methods that cause only temporary disruption or actual benefit to the environment and present 

long-term economic development opportunities for the areas in question. #2])> <([#3 [2.5] I 

respectfully request that the areas in the state of Utah be removed for consideration for oil shale 

and tarsands development. #3])>

OSTS2012D50314 

Organization: Colorado Dept of Nat Res and Dept of Public Health and Env, Ginny Brannon 

Received: 5/4/2012 3:08:53 PM 

Commenter1: Ginny Brannon - Denver, Colorado 80203 (United States) 

Organization1:Colorado Dept of Nat Res and Dept of Public Health and Env 

Commenter Type: Coop Agency - State Govt 
Final OSTS PEIS 1036 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/16/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50314.htm (OSTS2012D50314-59026.htm Size = 1 KB) 

Colorado_Public_Comments_on_Oil_Shale_PEIS_OSTS2012D50314.docx 

(OSTS2012D50314-59025.docx Size = 47 KB) 

Submission Text

See Attachment. 

STATE OF COLORADO 

John W. Hickenlooper, Governor 

Mike King, Executive Director 

COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES 

Christopher E. Urbina, MD, MPH, Executive Director and Chief Medical Officer 

COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT 

BLM Oil Shale and Tar Sands Resources Leasing Programmatic EIS 

Argonne National Laboratory 

9700 S. Class Avenue EVS/240 

Argonne, Illinois 60439 

RE: Comments on 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 

The Colorado Department of Natural Resources (DNR) and the Colorado Department of Public 

Health and Environment (CDPHE) respectfully submit the following comments regarding the 

Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM) intent to draft a Programmatic 

Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) 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. 

<([#1 [2.2.1] The prospect of a new PEIS raises important issues for Coloradans, and all 

Americans, with respect to energy supplies, environmental protection, socioeconomic impacts, 

and national security. If BLM were to authorize a commercial oil shale industry in Colorado, 

such a development would likely constitute the largest industrial development in the State’s 
Final OSTS PEIS 1037 

history with enormous implications for all of Northwest Colorado and for the State. 

For Colorado, there is much at stake in the outcome of this program. Colorado recognizes the 

importance of oil shale resources to the country and, in our uncertain world, reliable, sustainable 

domestic oil-based resources are increasingly important. But equally important, from Colorado’s 

perspective, is protection of the State’s exceptional environment including our wildlife and water 

resources. 

The State continues to believe that the research and development program authorized by BLM 

must be developed, tested, and monitored. Colorado is host to seven of the nine federal research 

and development sites and we are confident these programs will yield the necessary information 

upon which rules and regulations and commercial leasing can be based. Because oil shale 

development will likely utilize untested technology with potential long-term impacts to 

Colorado’s communities and the environment, the State has consistently opposed plans to 

commercialize leasing or production of federal oil shale resources prior to a meaningful 

evaluation of the results of the research and development projects. 

For these reasons, DNR and CDPHE support the Preferred Alternative. 

#1])>

<([#2 [3.10.3] Northwest Colorado 

Any future commercial leasing for oil shale would be in Northwest Colorado. Northwest 

Colorado is blessed with a remarkably diversified economy in which agriculture, tourism, 

recreation, hunting & fishing, natural gas & mineral development, retirement communities, and 

their economic drivers co-exist in a relatively balanced and supportive way. Within the Piceance 

Basin, Colorado is the beneficiary of some of the nation’s most important wildlife resources, 

including robust elk populations and the largest migratory mule deer in North America. These 

wildlife treasures, the envy of other states, have gradually evolved and grown over the past 

century to the exceptional levels of today. 

The Piceance Basin is home to the largest migratory mule deer herd in North America, a robust 

migratory elk population, one of only six greater sage-grouse populations in Colorado, 

populations of Colorado River cutthroat trout, and a host of other wildlife species. These wildlife 

resources have been built up over millennia and are of long-term statewide and national 

economic, ecological, and aesthetic importance. Colorado’s future is reliant on these resources 

remaining strong and healthy. 

Northwest Colorado is also the home to world-class hydrocarbon resources, holding trillions of 

cubic feet of clean-burning natural gas, which are currently undergoing an unprecedented gas 

development boom. As a result of its abundance of natural resources, Northwest Colorado is 

experiencing extraordinary growth in population and associated challenges. Housing 

affordability is a significant challenge to these local communities, and the capacity of local 

communities to absorb growth is already largely consumed. Much of the transportation 

infrastructure in these communities is in disrepair and is being severely stressed by growth 

pressures. The costs to repair infrastructure will require up-front financing, before revenues 

become available from traditional sources such as severance taxes, property taxes, sales taxes, 

and federal royalties. 
Final OSTS PEIS 1038 

This region is thus vitally important to Colorado’s future. It is in a precarious balance in the face 

of extraordinary pressures precipitated by possibly the largest industrial development in the 

history of the state. Everything state and federal policy makers do with regard to Northwest 

Colorado must protect the resources, values, and diverse economies and interests found there, 

and we cannot simply think of this region as an area to be sacrificed for any one purpose. Yet 

another boom and bust cycle for energy development will be dire for Northwest Colorado, a 

region that retains considerable skepticism and frustration over the collapse of the oil shale boom 

of the 1970s. Another failed attempt at oil shale development could preclude development of this 

nationally significant resource for decades. 

#2])>

<([#3 [3.7.3.1] [3.7.3.6] [3.7.4.1] Areas of Concern 

Wildlife: 

Given current information regarding extraction methodology, it is difficult to accurately depict 

impacts to wildlife populations in association with oil shale development. 

The Piceance Basin contains unique and, in many cases, irreplaceable habitats for a host of 

wildlife species such as Greater sage-grouse, movement corridors for big game species, winter 

range for North America’s largest migratory mule deer herd, a large and economically important 

elk population, raptors, and waters containing native cutthroat trout and endangered fish. The 

primary concern for wildlife due to oil shale development is the overall loss and fragmentation of 

valuable wildlife habitat, the feasibility of reclamation of disturbed areas, and the damage that 

would accrue to wildlife populations. The PEIS should include baseline wildlife monitoring and 

specific conservation measures for deer, elk, sage- grouse, and Colorado River cutthroat trout. 

The PEIS should allow for an accurate and complete assessment of the direct, indirect, and 

cumulative impacts to wildlife habitats and populations both on-site and off-site that will occur 

from commercial-scale oil shale projects. BLM’s analysis should include the impacts to big 

game in the event they are forced to occupy alternate winter range habitats and the effects of oil 

shale development on water quality and quantity in critical habitat for threatened and endangered 

aquatic species. 

The assessment should not only factor in the direct effects of oil shale development, but also 

consider wildlife impacts from existing and new coal extraction areas and power plants needed to 

supply power to the oil shale operations and associated development, including pipelines, power 

lines, roads, man camps and other infrastructure. 

#3])>

<([#4 [3.10.4] The economic impacts from any anticipated loss of wildlife, hunting and fishing 

opportunity, recreation and tourism on state agencies and local communities should be reviewed 

in depth. All wildlife issues previously identified in the March 20, 2008 State of Colorado 

comment letter submitted for the 2008 Oil Shale and Tar Sands Draft PEIS are still applicable 

and should be included in the updated PEIS. #4])>

<([#5 [3.4.1] Water Supply: 
Final OSTS PEIS 1039 

The State is rapidly approaching full allocation of its Colorado River entitlements. It is not clear 

how much water would be needed for oil shale development, which probably depends on the 

prevailing technology. Nevertheless, if oil shale were to consume vast quantities of water, there 

would be corresponding impacts to the State’s agricultural, recreational, and other energy sectors 

on the West Slope, the Front Range and even along the Eastern Plains. Hence, the State is very 

concerned that the water implications of this industry be understood prior to decisions regarding 

commercialization. 

According to the Colorado Statewide Water Supply Initiative, water demands from industrial, 

municipal uses, even with conservation, are expected to increase 55% to 83% from 2008 levels 

by 2050. This forecast does not include uses for oil shale such that the PEIS should assess water 

needs for oil shale in the context of the state’s increasing water demands. 

#5])>

<([#6 [3.4.1] Water Quality: 

There is tremendous uncertainty regarding the environmental impacts on both surface water and 

ground water quality due to commercial oil shale operations. The PEIS should include baseline 

ground and surface water quality monitoring and address the impacts of additional growth on 

water and wastewater infrastructure in nearby communities. The PEIS should also address 

potential impacts of water withdrawals on flows upstream of wastewater facilities, and the 

concomitant reduction in permit limits that might result for these facilities. 

#6])>

<([#7 [3.5.3] [3.5.8] [3.5.7] [9.3] Air Quality: 

The PEIS should include information about potential levels of Mercury, Ozone precursors, and 

Hazardous Air Pollutants occurring from oil shale development. 

The PEIS should include an assessment of the air quality impacts from energy development for 

electricity generation that is needed for future commercial oil shale development. This 

assessment should include impacts to visibility and public health. 

The PEIS should document the large amount of information about baseline air monitoring being 

conducted in Colorado. The BLM should commit to conducting the monitoring studies needed in 

the future to assess baseline air quality conditions. This would include, for example, monitoring 

in both the Piceance Basin and the Flat Tops Wilderness Area. 

#7])>

<([#8 [3.14] Health: 

The PEIS should present sufficient data to assess potential degradation of the human 

environment and resulting health impacts to the affected public, potentially resulting from direct 

or indirect exposure to contaminated media. 

#8])>

<([#9 [6.2.1] Energy Needs: 

According to BLM’s analysis in the 2008 PEIS, a 100,000 barrel per day oil shale operation 

would require all of the electricity from a 1,200 megawatt power plant. The PEIS should include 
Final OSTS PEIS 1040 

an analysis of options for meeting power demands for oil shale development in a manner 

consistent with Colorado’s renewable energy standard. The PEIS should also provide for 

comprehensive planning of energy development on a basin-wide scale in order to adequately 

assess cumulative impacts. 

#9])>

<([#10 [3.10.2] Infrastructure: 

Because the areas of the Green River Formation are relatively sparsely populated, boom and bust 

cycles associated with oil shale could have disastrous effects on the communities, stressing 

existing infrastructure with increased population and associated needs. The PEIS should assess 

the needs and impacts of an industrial complex significantly greater than the infrastructure that 

exists today. 

The Report by BBC Consulting for the Associated Governments of Northwest Colorado notes 

that baseline population projections already strain most municipalities such that oil shale 

development will cause existing towns to reach capacity and new towns may have to be built. 

The report further concludes that growth related capital costs are forecasted to exceed energy 

revenues by approximately $1.3 billion, some (but not all) of which may be covered by grant 

funds. The PEIS should include an assessment of how capital costs will be covered. It should 

include baseline data for community infrastructure capacity that can be used to assess what 

additional infrastructure will be required to support oil shale development. It should also include 

a thorough housing analysis incorporating local constraints including buildable land and 

infrastructure. #10])>

<([#11 [4.1] Cumulative Impacts: 

The PEIS should include carrying capacity thresholds which have been in place for over two 

decades and impose objective standards to guard valuable and imperiled public resources from 

the cumulative impacts of oil shale development. As examples, the BLM should analyze data on 

the current populations of wintering mule deer and elk and update, if necessary, the number that 

must be supported for the benefit of the species. Likewise, the BLM should assess the likely 

socioeconomic impact of a significant new industry in the oil shale region, in conjunction with 

the current localized natural gas industry. The agency should also reevaluate the carrying 

capacities for air and water quality in order to assess whether they are currently adequate to 

protect these vitally important public resources. 

Further, we reiterate that the State of Colorado is currently experiencing an unprecedented 

energy boom in many portions of our state. In particular, the areas that the BLM proposes to 

make available for application for commercial oil shale leases are experiencing rapid natural gas 

development. In addition, the areas the BLM proposes to make available for application for oil 

shale leasing are seeing increased tourism and recreation opportunities. Any oil shale leasing on 

top of this existing network of energy development and changing land uses must be evaluated in 

a cumulative fashion. 

Thus, it is vitally important to the Departments and to the State of Colorado that the BLM 
Final OSTS PEIS 1041 

proceeds cautiously and moves forward thoughtfully with the development of a commercial oil 

shale leasing program that truly looks at the cumulative impacts in a programmatic way. As the 

epicenter of the developable oil shale resource in the United States, Colorado has much to gain if 

this resource is developed responsibly, and much to lose if the risks are not assessed and 

managed appropriately. 

#11])>

<([#12 [6.1.2] [9.7] Proven RD&D 

Northwest Colorado is home to extraordinary oil shale resources, among the richest in the world, 

yielding 25 gallons of oil or more per ton of rock and estimated to hold nearly 500 billion barrels 

of recoverable oil shale, which is more than double the proven reserves of Saudi Arabia. 

Successful development of this resource could provide a substantial new source of domestic oil 

for the United States, which would have positive implications for our national energy policy and 

national security. 

Given the significant oil shale resource and exigent national energy interests, Colorado is 

committed to seeing ongoing oil shale research and development move forward. Colorado 

officials have assisted BLM in reviewing applications for federal research and development 

leases, and the State currently hosts five of the six “first round” federal research and 

development leases issued in 2006 and two of the three additional “second round” research and 

development leases currently under BLM consideration. If successful, these research and 

development projects could set the foundation for a subsequent commercial oil shale industry. 

Because oil shale development will likely utilize untested technology with potential long-term 

impacts to Colorado’s communities and the environment, the State has consistently opposed 

plans to commercialize leasing or production of federal oil shale resources prior to a meaningful 

evaluation of the results of the research and development projects. 

#12])>

Conclusion 

<([#13 [2.2] Colorado recognizes that oil shale development may offer the potential to 

supplement the nation’s energy supplies. Colorado’s goal is that commercial oil shale 

development be done right – in a manner that avoids unacceptable and irreparable impacts on 

Colorado’s land, air, water, wildlife resources, and communities and that minimizes those 

adverse environmental and socioeconomic impacts that would result from such development 

through front-end planning and financing and long-term monitoring and mitigation. 

As BLM notes in the PEIS, 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 not known. 

Therefore, the State places great importance on a thoughtful, comprehensive PEIS, through 

which federal, state and local decision-makers will have the necessary tools in hand to evaluate 

what type of federal program makes the most sense. DNR and CDPHE remain convinced that 

BLM must gain critical answers to many questions before any commitment to commercial 

leasing occurs. BLM must similarly gain answers to such questions before any rules and 
Final OSTS PEIS 1042 

regulations for commercial oil shale development can or should be finalized. #13])>

OSTS2012D50315 

Organization: Geologists for Compehensive Energy Development, Gerald Park 

Received: 5/4/2012 3:09:06 PM 

Commenter1: Gerald Park - , Utah (United States) 

Organization1:Geologists for Compehensive Energy Development 

Commenter Type: Affiliation Only 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: aziech 5/15/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50315.htm (OSTS2012D50315-58957.htm Size = 1 KB) 

Submission Text

<([#1 [11] Oil Shale extraction methods have advanced well beyond the level upon which your 

plan is predicated. Rewriting the rules is unnecessary and counterproductive to oil shale 

development. The work must move forward not inhibited by more layers of regulation. #1])>

OSTS2012D50316 

Organization: Educator, John Brauner 

Received: 5/4/2012 3:10:48 PM 

Commenter1: John Brauner - Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 (United States) 

Organization1:Educator 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: aziech 5/15/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50316.htm (OSTS2012D50316-58959.htm Size = 1 KB) 

Submission Text

<([#1 [10.6.1] It is imperative that potential environmental problems not be restricted to the 

physical pipeline, but related also to the requisite functioning of that pipeline. Only if tar sands 

and shale oil from Canada was used would the pipeline be needed. That source of oil is in itself 

hazardous to our living because of the great amount of global warming it would create. The 

pipeline should not be built because it would almost guarantee that negative climate change 

would occur as a function of its need to operate. The science of climate change must be the 

major criterion guiding this decision. 

#1])>

OSTS2012D50317 

Organization: Gordon 

Received: 5/4/2012 3:13:55 PM 
Final OSTS PEIS 1043 

Commenter1: Gordon - Fruita, Colorado 81521 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: aziech 5/15/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50317.htm (OSTS2012D50317-58961.htm Size = 1 KB) 

Submission Text

<([#1 [12.3] I am greatly concerned about and opposed to the leasing of additional public lands 

at this time for the development of oil shale and tar sands. It is my understanding that industry 

already has available to it thousands of acres of public land for this purpose (as well as much 

private lands). This country needs to get serious about and invest in cleaner, sustainable energy 

systems, versus fossil fuels!! Thank you 

#1])>

OSTS2012D50318 

Organization: Outdoor Alliance, Jason Keith 

Received: 5/4/2012 3:29:07 PM 

Commenter1: Jason Keith - Moab, Utah 84532 (United States) 

Organization1:Outdoor Alliance 

Commenter Type: Misc. Organization 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 

Submitted As: Web and E-mail 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: aziech 5/15/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50318.htm (OSTS2012D50318-59029.htm Size = 1 KB) 

Outdoor_Alliance_Comments_to_BLM_Oil_Shale_and_Tar_Sands_PEIS_-

_050412c_OSTS2012D50318.pdf (OSTS2012D50318-59028.pdf Size = 2013 KB) 

Outdoor_Alliance_Secretary Salazar letter_5_4_12.pdf (OSTS2012D50318-59119.pdf Size = 95 

KB) 

Submission Text

Dear Secretary Salazar: 

Outdoor Alliance, a coalition of six national, member-based organizations includes Access Fund, 

American Canoe Association, American Hiking Society, American Whitewater, International 

Mountain Bicycling Association, and Winter Wildlands Alliance, represents the interests of the 

millions of Americans who hike, paddle, climb, mountain bike, ski, and snowshoe on our 

nation’s public lands, waters, and snowscapes. The Bureau of Land Management’s Draft 

Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement and Possible Land Use Plan Amendments for 

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

Management in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming (DPEIS) involves geographies and outdoor 

recreational resources that are critically important to our members and the human powered 

outdoor recreation community at large. Enclosed are our comments to BLM that provide 
Final OSTS PEIS 1044 

recommendations as to how BLM can harmonize the important goals of the DPEIS with other 

sustainable uses of our public lands, especially human powered outdoor recreation. 

<([#1 [2.3.1] As you know, BLM is considering the potential for oil shale and tar sands 

development on 

2,431,000 acres of public land in Colorado, Wyoming, and Utah, a region which boasts one of 

the most popular tourist economies in the country thanks to several national parks and iconic 

landscapes such as the San Rafael Swell, Dirty Devil River, and Desolation Canyon. These are 

places that many of our members live and many more visit to recreate. While the Outdoor 

Alliance supports sustainable and responsible energy development on our public lands, the 

region’s longstanding recreational opportunities and associated economic benefits must not be 

harmed by the development of oil shale or tar sands. Indeed this little known, potentially large 

scale, extractive experiment on our public lands could put at risk sensitive and over-used water 

resources and threaten other important values such as clean air, wildlife habitat, cultural 

resources and undermine the vitality and character of rural communities. 

Before the BLM permits any new commercial leases for oil shale or tar sands, research must 

demonstrate that proven technologies can develop oil resources without harming the resources 

that currently support stable, long-term economies and healthy communities. Accordingly, 

Outdoor Alliance supports Alternative 3 as identified in the DPEIS. Alternative 3 appropriately 

recognizes the need for additional research, development, and demonstration, and takes a 

precautionary approach toward the expansion of unproven industrial developments that have the 

potential to seriously undermine popular, world-class outdoor recreation, which is vital to local 

and regional economies and contributes to the region’s quality of life. 

You have been a tireless champion for President Obama’s America’s Great Outdoors Initiative 

(AGO), which seeks to reconnect Americans to their open spaces in meaningful ways and to also 

conserve and steward these places. Because the geographies in play with the DPEIS are highly 

relevant to the goals of AGO we encourage you to take the same into account when refining 

alternatives for a Final Programmatic EIS for oil shale and tar sands in Wyoming, Colorado, and 

Utah. We have confidence that a proper balance will be found between carefully and 

conservatively developing our energy resources on public lands and protecting these landscapes 

for their experiential, habitat and associated economic value. 

#1])>

Thank you for considering our perspectives on this matter. 

Dear Reviewers: 

Outdoor Alliance, a coalition of six national, member-based organizations includes Access Fund, 

American Canoe Association, American Hiking Society, American Whitewater, International 

Mountain Bicycling Association, and Winter Wildlands Alliance, and represents the interests of 

the millions of Americans who hike, paddle, climb, mountain bike, ski, and snowshoe on our 

nation’s public lands, waters, and snowscapes. These lands include those affected by this Draft 

Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement and Possible Land Use Plan Amendments for 

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

Management in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming (DPEIS). Collectively, Outdoor Alliance has 
Final OSTS PEIS 1045 

members in all fifty states and a network of almost 1,400 local clubs and advocacy groups across 

the nation. We prepared these comments to assist the BLM in harmonizing the important goals of 

the DPEIS with other sustainable uses of our public lands, particularly human-powered outdoor 

recreation. 

The Outdoor Alliance has a significant interest in this DPEIS because our members recreate and 

live in close proximity to the areas identified for oil shale and tar sands leasing (see below and 

attached maps).While we certainly support the prudent development of energy resources on our 

public lands, we are concerned that that the longstanding recreational opportunities and 

associated economic benefits1 established in this DPEIS planning area could be irreparably 

harmed by the large-scale development of oil shale or tar sands. This destructive and poorlyunderstood extractive development experiment could also put at risk sensitive and over-used 

water resources and threaten other important values such as clean air, wildlife habitat, cultural 

resources as well as the cultural vitality of rural communities. 

The scope of federal public lands that could eventually be leased for oil shale and tar sands 

development through the Final PEIS (FPEIS) is simply too large. All told, the BLM is 

considering the potential for oil shale and tar sands development on 2,431,000 acres of public 

land in Colorado, Wyoming, and Utah, a region which boasts one of the most popular tourist 

economies in the country thanks to several national parks and iconic landscapes such as the San 

Rafael Swell, Dirty Devil River, and Desolation Canyon. These unique resources must be 2 

conserved for the region to progress towards a diversified and sustainable economy. Before the 

BLM permits any new commercial leases for oil shale or tar sands, critical research must 

demonstrate that proven technologies can develop oil resources without harming the resources 

that currently support stable, long-term economies and healthy communities. 

<([#2 [2.3.1] Because oil shale and tar sands development remains economically speculative 

with many as-yet unknown environmental impacts, Outdoor Alliance supports Alternative 3 

identified in the DPEIS. Alternative 3 appropriately recognizes the need for additional research, 

development, and demonstration (RD&D), and takes a precautionary approach toward the 

expansion of risky and unproven development in an area with existing, world-class outdoor 

recreation. #2])>

COMMENTS 

<([#3 [2.3.1] The Outdoor Alliance supports the focus of this DPEIS on RD&D of the viability 

of oil shale and tar sands technology. The lands affected by this planning area are internationally 

significant recreation areas that sustain robust local economies and promise long-term economic 

benefits2 from activities such as mountain biking, rock climbing, hiking, canyoneering, and 

boating. The DPEIS provides a partial listing of the many recreational areas located within an 

approximately 50-mile radius of the oil shale and tar sands resources to demonstrate the overall 

importance of recreational land use and the large variety of recreation areas in the region. Many 

more important recreation areas are located in the DPEIS planning areas and are noted below. 

Several important questions remain about the economic viability of producing oil from oil shale 
Final OSTS PEIS 1046 

and tar sands, much less whether it can be done without negatively impacting the recreation 

assets and other important values in the planning area. The 2008 BLM PEIS, which this initiative 

will update, noted then that: 

The current experimental state of the oil shale and tar sands industries does not allow this PEIS 

to include sufficient specific information or cumulative impact analyses to support future leasing 

decisions within these allocated lands ... [nor] for land use plan amendments to include 

sufficient site-specific information or cumulative impact analysis to support issuance of a lease. 

Much new information has emerged since the BLM’s 2008 PEIS that underscores the point that 

many known problems and uncertain outcomes remain with experimental oil shale and tar sands 

development. These problems are well-documented in the current DPEIS and other sources and 

include: 

? Production of oil shale and tar sands would necessitate massive mining operations and 

developed infrastructure causing significant impairment to world-class visual resources and 

soundscapes. Significant visual resource degradation will negatively affect the rural character of 

local communities and fundamentally ruin the experience at the many popular recreation areas 

adjacent to potential leases. 

? High energy needs for oil shale and tar sands development requires the consumption of large 

quantities of scarce water resources and will degrade air quality, causing long term negative 

impacts to local communities and recreation viewsheds. 

? No extraction technology has proven commercially successful for Utah’s “oil-wet” tar sands 

resource. 

? Oil shale development creates more than three times the carbon footprint of conventional oil 

production, contributing significantly to climate change. 

? Oil shale development in Colorado, Wyoming, and Utah would require massive water 

consumption, affecting one of the country’s driest regions. This consumption will divert water 

from traditional agricultural uses, undermine the rural character of many local communities in 

the planning area, and threaten the ability of rivers and streams to sustain water-based recreation. 

Outdoor Alliance supports Alternative 3 which outlines the most conservative and responsible 

approach to protecting the famous public landscapes and productive recreation economies of 

Wyoming, Colorado, and Utah. Alternative 3 requires development proponents to demonstrate 

conclusively—through comprehensive RD&D—that oil shale and tar sands development will not 

harm the established economies and unique, sensitive resources in the planning area. 

We support the direction under Alternative 3 (Oil Shale Research Lands Focus for Oil Shale) 

which limits any new lands available for commercial oil shale leasing to existing RD&D leases 

at the time the FPEIS is signed (a total of 32,640 acres available for potential oil shale leasing). 

Furthermore, Alternative 3 would also analyze foregoing the leasing of tar sands entirely except 

for one tar sands lease currently under consideration and covering approximately 2,100 acres. 
Final OSTS PEIS 1047 

Significantly, Alternative 3 requires subsequent NEPA analyses for any pre-existing lease 

proposals and reduces the risk of damage from experimental oil shale and tar sands development 

by over 2.4 million acres. This leaves an appropriate amount of acreage available to research and 

demonstrate whether these technologies are feasible. #3])>

<([#4 [3.1.1] I. RECREATION ASSETS LOCATED IN THE DPEIS PLANNING AREA 

World class recreational opportunities are found throughout DPEIS planning area. These include 

famous paddling opportunities in Desolation and Gray Canyons on the Green River; climbing, 

boating, pack-rafting, and canyoneering in the San Rafael Swell; canyoneering and mountain 

biking in the Tar Sands Triangle; and climbing, mountain biking, and canyoneering in the White 

Canyon area. Intensive extractive development of the region will irrevocably harm the unique 

recreational opportunities found only at these places and severely compromise the robust 

recreation economy that thrives across the PEIS planning area.7 Under any planning alternative, 

all of these valuable recreation areas, and their associated viewsheds and watersheds, should be 

excluded from oil shale and tar sands leasing consideration in order to preserve their recreational 

and scenic qualities and their contributions to local and regional economies. 

Given the extensive and varied recreational activities that take place in the areas covered by this 

DPEIS, and the already extensive amendments being made to ten local Resource Management 

Plans through this PEIS, the BLM should also consider Extensive Recreation Management Area 

4 

(ERMA) designations at the locations discussed herein. Appropriate ERMA designations could 

help to ensure that subsequent NEPA analyses and leasing decisions authorized under this PEIS 

give due consideration to existing recreational uses and visitor health and safety. Additionally, 

BLM should evaluate whether to expand Area of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC) 

designations in the planning area to protect the fragile watersheds and other sensitive resources 

that play a central role in many of the recreational activities that occur throughout this vast area. 

A. Tavaputs Plateau (Roan Cliffs/Book Cliffs) – Potential Oil Shale Development Area 

? Paddling on the Desolation and Gray Canyons of the Green River 

The Green River through Desolation and Gray Canyons is a popular multiday float trip, 

highlighted by gentle whitewater, idyllic beach camping, spectacular scenery, and compelling 

historic landmarks. The Utah Preferred Leasing Footprint for oil shale with impact the famous 

and unique Desolation and Gray Canyons. An enormous area immediately upstream on both the 

Green and White Rivers from this remote, world-famous area could be available for leasing 

under the BLM’s preferred Alternative 2(b) in the DPEIS. Large scale oil shale development in 

this area would cause severe water overconsumption issues and water quality and air quality 

degradation, affecting everything downstream on the Green and Colorado Rivers. Additionally, 

the Wyoming Preferred Leasing Footprint is bisected by the Green River and lies entirely within 

its drainage. Negative impacts to water quality and availability must not be permitted to imperil 

the recreational value of the peerless resources downstream, including the commonly floated 

sections of the Green River between Flaming Gorge and Lodore; the Gates of Lodore section; 
Final OSTS PEIS 1048 

and Desolation and Gray Canyons. The scenic and fragile Desolation and Gray Canyons attract 

large numbers of private boaters and commercial clientele. This highly valued public use and 

commercial activity will be lost if experimental oil shale development impairs water quantity and 

quality in this world-class recreational resource. 

? Paddling on the White River (Colorado and Utah) 

The 100-mile stretch on the White River between Rangely, Colorado and the Green River near 

the head of Desolation Canyon is valued by boaters for its high desert scenery, geology, historic 

resources, wildlife, hiking, and solitude.8 Some have called the White River above Desolation 

Canyon the best canoeing in Utah. Many streams within the DPEIS’s Colorado Preferred 

Leasing Foot print are direct tributaries to the White River. All of the concerns regarding Utah 

Preferred Leasing Footprint apply to concerns with experimental oil shale development in the 

Colorado Preferred Leasing Footprint because impacts will affect much of the same river basin. 

? Paddling on the Yampa River (Colorado and Utah) 

The Yampa is one of the country’s most classic multi-day whitewater float trips and is popular 

with commercial outfitters and private boaters. Most paddlers spend three to five days floating 

the Yampa and Green Rivers through Echo Park and into Dinosaur National Monument. 

Paddlers put in near the east edge of Dinosaur National Park and float more than 70 miles to the 

most common takeout at Split Mountain Campground near Vernal, Utah. Through this section, 5 

paddlers enjoy spectacular scenery and gentle whitewater. The canyon contains pictographs, 

petroglyphs, and cliff ruins from multiple cultures, and the canyon is home to Peregrine Falcons, 

Bald Eagles, Colorado Pikeminnow, and Razorback Sucker. The canyon is believed to be the last 

remaining breeding grounds for the Colorado Squawfish, and the Yampa is the longest freeflowing river remaining in the Colorado Basin. The Wyoming Preferred Leasing Footprint 

encompasses streams that are direct tributaries to the Yampa River. This highly valued public 

use and commercial activity9 will be lost if experimental oil shale development impairs the water 

quantity and quality in the Yampa River basin. 

B. San Rafael Swell Special Tar Sand Areas 

The PEIS states that “in situ” mining methods would be the preferred methods of production for 

the San Rafael Swell Special Tar Sands Area because the overburden is too great for recovery of 

the bitumen by surface mining. We anticipate that visits by climbers, campers, and hikers (and 

their economic contributions to local and regional economies) would plummet if a large-scale tar 

sands leasing area is developed. The FEIS efforts in the region must ensure RD&D proving that 

tar sands development causes no water quality or quantity impacts from “in situ” mining 

methods that could affect the world class boating and canyoneering routes in the San Rafael 

River and Muddy Creek tributaries to the Dirty Devil River. Likewise, the PEIS must ensure 

infrastructure and associated industrial machinery does not degrade the world class scenery in 

this region, which is very popular with climbers and frequented by hikers, river runners, and 

mountain bikers. The following recreation resources are among those found in the larger San 

Rafael Swell area: 
Final OSTS PEIS 1049 

? Climbing: San Rafael Swell North 

The San Rafael Swell is a large anticline that is split in two by Interstate 70. Much of the 

documented climbing north of I-70 is concentrated within a few miles of the BLM campground 

at the junction of Cottonwood Wash Road and the Mexican Mountain Road. Climbing areas in 

the north San Rafael Swell area include Assembly Hall Peak, Bottleneck Peak, Dylan Wall, 

Eagle Canyon, Head of Sinbad North, Lower Buckhorn Wash, Pine Canyon, Tiki Tower, the 

Weasel Formation, and Window Blind Peak, among others.10 The largest concentration of 

routes in this northern section is the Dylan Wall, two miles east of the campground on the north 

side of the river. This popular climbing area, popular partly because of its convenience to Salt 

Lake City, is valued for its challenging climbs, expansive views, and sense of seclusion. 

Climbers at San Rafael Swell North would also look directly into a significant Special Tar Sands 

Area (STSA) Preferred Leasing Footprint where the viewshed, soundscape, and air quality would 

be significantly and possibly permanently degraded. 

? Climbing: San Rafael Swell South 

The San Rafael Swell South area also lies within a STSA Preferred Leasing Footprint. This area 

includes climbing areas such as Back of the Reef, Eastern Reef Slabs and Walls, Factory Butte, 

Head of Sinbad South, Little Spotted Wolf Canyon, San Rafael Knob, Swaseyland, Upper 

Muddy Creek, and Viewfinder Towers.11 The southern San Rafael Swell is a huge area with big 

slabs on the San Rafael Reef, isolated towers and domes, and long, large walls. Currently there 

are well over a hundred routes in this area with potential for many more. 

? Paddling on the Escalante River, Escalante to Lake Powell 

The Escalante River downstream from the town of Escalante to Lake Powell has been described 

as “the most impressive 73 miles of creek in all of Utah.” Often a trip of seven days or more, the 

water quality of this pristine, one-of-a-kind drainage must be protected from impairment by 

mining activity at the Circle Cliffs site, part of the identified Special Tar Sand Areas. 

? Paddling on the San Rafael River, Fuller Bottom to San Rafael Campground (Little Grand 

Canyon) 

The San Rafael Swell STSA Preferred Leasing area is also likely to negatively affect the water 

quantity and quality of the San Rafael River, including the popular pack rafting and kayaking 

adventure known as the Little Grand Canyon. This upper stretch of the San Rafael River is 

attractive to paddlers wanting a relatively easy float through a fantastic canyon offering 

outstanding camping, spectacular side hikes, and fascinating pictographs. Negative impacts to 

the San Rafael River from experimental tar sands development will also affect the popular Dirty 

Devil River downstream. 

? Paddling and Canyoneering on the San Rafael River, Bridge at San Rafael Campground to I-70 

(Black Boxes 1 & 2) 
Final OSTS PEIS 1050 

The Black Boxes section of the San Rafael cuts through an amazing canyon that provides 

excellent exposure to the geology of the San Rafael Swell. Typically run in two days, the Black 

Boxes section of the San Rafael is one of the highlights of whitewater paddling in the Southwest, 

featuring spectacular scenery with challenging, accessible, and intermediate-to-advanced 

whitewater. As with many runs in the Southwest, finding sufficient flow can be a challenge, and 

any chosen alternative with regard to resource development must ensure maintenance of water 

levels necessary for recreational activity in the smaller watersheds throughout the areas covered 

by this PEIS such as the San Rafael River. 

? Boating and Canyoneering Muddy Creek 

Muddy Creek, another important tributary to the Dirty Devil River, has been described as “the 

quintessential beginner slot canyon run” because it provides a rare opportunity where novice 

kayakers and rafters can experience a world class canyoneering float trip of as long as seventytwo miles through a superlative landscape. Most put in off of I-70, traveling to a takeout near the 

town of Hanksville, Utah. Any permitted activity in the San Rafael Swell area should ensure 

continued water quantity and quality for this spectacular river. 

? Hiking and Canyoneering in the San Rafael Swell 

Several hiking and canyoneering areas are popular in the San Rafael Swell, including Devils 

Canyon, Eagle Canyon, Upper San Rafael River Gorge, the Black Boxes, Swazy’s Leap, Black 

Dragon Canyon, Lower San Rafael River, the San Rafael Reef, Eardley Canyon, Straight Wash, 

Crack and Chute Canyons, Bell and Little Wild Horse Canyons.12 

? Mountain Biking in the San Rafael Swell 

Mountain Biking in this area is popular at 5 Miles of Hell, Black Dragon Canyon, Buckhorn 

Wash, Good Water Rim Trail, June’s Bottom Trail, Nefertiti Trail, Bull Bottom Trail, Horseshoe 

Bend, Temple Mountain, Three Fingers Canyon, and The Wikiup.13 These trails are used for 

two annual mountain bike festivals sponsored by the Mecca Mountain Bike Club in Emery 

County. The festivals are also supported by Decker’s Bicycle shop in Price. Both participants in 

the festivals and revenues to the bikes shop have climbed steadily since the inception of the 

festivals. As the areas reputation for backcountry cycling opportunities grows, visitation from 

around the country increases. If the pristine nature of the area is compromised, visitors will 

choose other locations. 

C. Tar Sand Triangle - Special Tar Sand Areas 

The PEIS notes that the “Tar Sand Triangle deposit may be technically suitable for surface 

mining; however, the remoteness of the area and other considerations could limit this potential.” 

It is the remoteness of this area that attracts hikers, mountain bikers, climbers, and paddlers along 

the Dirty Devil River. Surface mining, especially given the uncertainties of this area’s economic 

potential for tar sands, indicates that the BLM should not allow any tar sands leases in this area 

in order to ensure that the remote and unique character is maintained. The following are among 

the recreational attractions located in or potentially affected by tar sands development of the Tar 
Final OSTS PEIS 1051 

Sands Triangle. 

? Paddling on the Dirty Devil River 

The Dirty Devil, from its beginning at the confluence of the Fremont River and Muddy Creek to 

a takeout at Lake Powell, offers a wilderness float trip with fantastic scenery and side hikes. 

Because much of the water from the Fremont River and Muddy Creeks is withdrawn for 

agricultural and domestic use, leaving the Dirty Devil largely dependent on flows from side 

streams along its length, this first-class, seventy-five mile, multi-day float trip is exceedingly 

vulnerable to disturbances in water quantity and quality stemming from mining activity in the 

Tar Sands Triangle area. The FEIS should ensure no water quality or quantity impacts to the 

sensitive region from experimental tar sands development. 

? Hiking and Canyoneering in the Tar Sands Triangle: Happy Canyon and Environs 

Happy Canyon is a spectacular and remote canyon south of Robbers Roost Country. A major 

tributary to the Dirty Devil River, Happy Canyon is a very large drainage basin and offers 

spectacular hiking and technical canyoneering.14 

D. White Canyon - Special Tar Sand Areas 

The DPEIS notes that the lack of site-specific data precludes any consideration of mining 

methods for the White Canyon deposit. The data available on the quality of the deposit suggest 

that it is not of commercial grade because it may be too heavily jointed for in situ methods, and 

the heavy overburden appears to be unfavorable for surface mining.15 Because of this 

uncertainty about the viability of mining tar sands and the following exceptional and popular 

recreation resources in this area, under any planning alternative the BLM should remove the 

White Canyon area from consideration for tar sands leasing 

? Canyoneering at White Canyon: Lower White Canyon (Black Hole) 

White Canyon is a spectacular slot canyoneering adventure with 400-foot Cedar Mesa sandstone 

walls and required bouldering and swimming pools. The Black Hole offers one of the longest 

and coolest swims of the Colorado Plateau and most use a rope and require advanced routefinding skills.16 

? Climbing: Jacob’s Chair 

Jacob’s Chair, also in the White Canyon STSA, is a prominent Wingate Sandstone landmark and 

climbing destination just north of Fry and White Canyons. Jacob’s Chair was first climbed in the 

1970s and climbers still go here and the neighboring “Cheesebox” for a remote wilderness 

climbing experience.17 

#4])>

III. ADDITIONAL ISSUES THAT MUST BE ADDRESSED IN THE FINAL 

PROGRAMMATIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 
Final OSTS PEIS 1052 

<([#5 [1.5] In addition to analyzing socio-economic impacts such as whether the recreation 

resources and the associated economy of the region will be threatened by these developments, 

the BLM should include in the Final PEIS language that addresses the following: 

REQUIRED NEPA PROCESSES SUBSEQUENT TO THE FEIS 

Because the BLM will defer NEPA analyses on individual development proposals until specific 

leases are considered, this FPEIS should define the scope of these NEPA studies, including how 

it will analyze cumulative impacts and define mitigation actions. Affects to the regional 

recreation economy should be addressed in a cumulative fashion. #5])>

<([#6 [3.4.1] In addition to analyzing socio-economic impacts such as whether the recreation 

resources and the associated economy of the region will be threatened by these developments, 

the BLM should include in the Final PEIS language that addresses the following: 

WATER DEMAND AND QUALITY 

We are encouraged that the BLM through this DPEIS seeks to gain a clearer understanding of the 

implications of development of oil shale for water quality and quantity. These impacts are 

particularly significant to those local communities that rely on these water sources and regarding 

those rivers where the public recreates in the PEIS planning area. The State of Utah has noted 

that limited quantities of water are available for new energy development and that much of Utah 

is already closed to new consumptive appropriations. “Given Utah’s population growth and 

projected economic growth over the next decade, the possibility of increased drought, and with 

limited new water resources available, water consumption of energy resources should be given 

careful consideration.”18 Accordingly, this FPEIS should require a rigorous analysis of the 

impacts of utilizing water for oil shale and tar sands on local communities (especially municipal, 

agricultural, and recreational needs), in particular accounting for existing and prospective water 

demands and water rights. The FPEIS should also require adequate research that documents 

impacts to water quality and how any proposed project would avoid degrading water quality. 

Recreational users will not be interested in visiting areas with water quality concerns; private 

boaters, commercial outfitters, and dependent local economies will all suffer from degraded 

water quantity and quality. 

#6])>

<([#7 [3.1.1] In addition to analyzing socio-economic impacts such as whether the recreation 

resources and the associated economy of the region will be threatened by these developments, 

the BLM should include in the Final PEIS language that addresses the following: 

WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS PROTECTION 

The Outdoor Alliance supports management proposals common to all DPEIS alternatives that all 

areas eligible for Wild and Scenic River (WSR) designation be protected from oil shale and tar 

sands development.19 Per the BLM Manual, the Bureau “shall afford protective management to 

all eligible river segments as necessary to ensure that the existing qualities upon which their 

eligibility is based are not degraded.”20 
Final OSTS PEIS 1053 

Given the uncertainty surrounding potential impacts from prospective resource development in 

the planning area, the FPEIS should address protections for eligible river segments in a basinwide fashion. Given the potential impacts of oil shale and tar sands development on water 

quantity and quality, including effects to groundwater resources, protecting only a 1/4 mile 

buffer surrounding eligible WSR segments is simply inadequate to address the nature of potential 

threats. Eligible rivers identified above in the DPEIS planning area include the Dirty Devil River, 

Escalante River, Fremont River, Green River, Muddy Creek, San Rafael River, White Canyon 

Creek, and the White River. At minimum, BLM, through the PEIS process, should demonstrate 

conclusively that any decision regarding buffer protections is adequate to ensure that these 

eligible river segments are not degraded. #7])>

<([#8 [3.5.4] In addition to analyzing socio-economic impacts such as whether the recreation 

resources and the associated economy of the region will be threatened by these developments, 

the BLM should include in the Final PEIS language that addresses the following: 

AIR QUALITY 

The DPEIS fails to adequately analyze air quality impacts. Air quality is already compromised in 

Utah, Colorado, and Wyoming from oil and gas development, and oil shale and tar sands 

development would exacerbate air quality degradation in the region. Because a recreation 

economy cannot thrive or be sustained in an environment where air quality is degraded (not to 

mention threats to the health of local communities), the FPEIS should ensure the completion of 

10 

adequate research documenting any impacts to air quality from of oil shale and tar sands 

development and how lessees will be required to prevent and mitigate impacts from any 

development if leases are considered by the BLM. 

#8])>

<([#9 [3.5.4] In addition to analyzing socio-economic impacts such as whether the recreation 

resources and the associated economy of the region will be threatened by these developments, 

the BLM should include in the Final PEIS language that addresses the following: 

VISUAL RESOURCES 

Oil shale and tar sands development will degrade already-affected Class 1 and Class 2 visual 

resource areas. In Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming, the BLM has concluded that oil and gas 

development would further affect Class 1 air-sheds and that oil shale and tar sands development 

activities will make matters worse at these locations, both in terms of on-the-ground disturbance 

and emissions from new power plants needed to support increased industrial activity. The FPEIS 

should address this problem by requiring research that demonstrates the impact industrial 

development would have on the air quality of the region. 

#9])>

* * * 

Environmental protection and the conservation of key recreation areas serve as an important 
Final OSTS PEIS 1054 

economic driver in Utah, Colorado, and Wyoming. More diversified recreation economies have 

taken the place of areas that were formerly dependent on resource extraction.21 Furthermore the 

America’s Great Outdoors Initiative specifically recognizes the economic value in protecting 

these lands for recreation.22 It is critical that this initiative be mindful of the extremely valuable 

recreation resources found in the PEIS planning area and that the FEIS include restrictions so 

that any future oil shale and tar sands development does not irreparably harm recreation 

resources and their viewsheds. We look forward to being included in this process, and welcome 

additional consultation or opportunities for public comment related to this important issue. 

Best regards, 

OSTS2012D50319 

Organization: Royal Laybourn 

Received: 5/4/2012 3:38:35 PM 

Commenter1: Royal Laybourn - Basalt, Colorado 81621 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/14/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50319.htm (OSTS2012D50319-58963.htm Size = 1 KB) 

Submission Text

<([#1 [12] My family and I recommend that the BLM refuse to leasing of public lands for so 

called “oil Shale “ development. Even for research purposes. There is ample research that this is 

economically and enviromentally unfeasable. It is irresponsible to waste resources both in terms 

of degradation of public lands and goverment services to continue to promote this poor energy 

source. #1])> Thank You Royal Laybourn 

OSTS2012D50320 

Organization: Friends of NW Colorado, Friends of NW Colorado 

Received: 5/4/2012 3:43:43 PM 

Commenter1: Friends of NW Colorado - Craig, Colorado 81625 (United States) 

Organization1:Friends of NW Colorado 

Commenter Type: Misc. Organization 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: aziech 5/15/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50320.htm (OSTS2012D50320-59032.htm Size = 1 KB) 

FoNWCoCommentLetterOilShalePEIS_2012_May_OSTS2012D50320.doc 

(OSTS2012D50320-59031.doc Size = 57 KB) 

Submission Text
Final OSTS PEIS 1055 

Dear Reviewers: 

We the Friends of Northwest Colorado a community group representing citizens concerned about 

the long term economic and environmental sustainability of the communities of Northwest 

Colorado. The mission of the members of the Friends of Northwest Colorado (hereafter known 

as the “organization” or the “membership”) is to protect, preserve and conserve our unique local 

natural resources so that all generations, present and future can experience, enjoy, and be 

nurtured by them. Additionally, our mission is to educate and to be a voice for people who 

believe in the inherent value of wildlife, water, air, wilderness, and the natural landscape. We 

appreciate the opportunity to comment on the Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact 

Statement for Oil Shale and Tar Sands (DPEIS or the plan). 

<([#1 [1.5] It is our collective view that this draft environmental impact statement is woefully 

inadequate. It does not let the reader fully understand what the impacts of oil shale development 

will actually be. As written, we say to the BLM, “go back and do a complete environmental 

assessment of the impacts. Where you don’t have data, tell the reader you do not have data.” 

#1])>

<([#2 [2.5] In light of the lack of detail in the PEIS, we would like to see the BLM add and then 

adopt a NO ACTION Alternative to the Final PEIS. In the following pages we will argue that a 

NO ACTION Alternative 2B best supports 

· the BLM’s multi-use mission, 

· the necessary time for industry to prove technologies that would make extraction of the 

resource commercially viable, 

· allowing communities to adjust to growth already being experienced from oil and natural gas 

development, 

· allowing time for mitigation of socio-economic hardships likely to results from combined 

natural gas and oil shale/tar sands development, 

· reflection of where development fits within the public lands framework 

· by providing the public a better chance of receiving fair compensation for the use of its land 

and purchase of the resource and 

· protections to our biological and cultural resources. 

#2])> <([#3 [8] PEIS does NOT support the BLM Multi-Use Mission

The PEIS on Oil Shale and Tar Sands does not support BLM’s multi-use mission. To quote from 

the plan: 

· Shale development would likely preclude other mineral development activities on leased lands. 

PEIS 

· Temporary or long-term reductions in authorized grazing use may be necessary because of loss 

of a portion of the forage base. PEIS 
Final OSTS PEIS 1056 

· Commercial activities are largely incompatible with recreational land use.... Including hiking, 

biking, fishing, bird watching, OHV use, and camping. PEIS

· Direct & Indirect impacts would include: Industrialization of the landscape; declines in the 

value of private ranches/residences adjacent to oil shale developments or rights of way because 

of perceived noise, human health, and aesthetic concerns; noise and visual impacts; increased 

traffic; increased access to previously remote zones; 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 shale development; loss 

of available lands to new industrial structures. PEIS

Agency regulations and federal law require that the BLM manage its lands for multiple uses, yet 

the agency admits that oil shale development will displace every other public use of public land 

to benefit private companies. A No Action Alternative would is more in keeping with the 

federally mandated mission of the BLM. 

#3])>

<([#4 [9.7] Commercial Viability is NOT Feasible

The PEIS had been developed before viable technology for the commercial development of this 

resource. To quote from industry sources, 

“For decades, energy companies have attempted to unlock the large, domestic oil shale 

resources of northwestern Colorado’s Piceance (pronounced “Pee-ance”) Basin. For more than 

a quarter of a century, Shell has conducted laboratory and field research on its promising, In 

situ (in-ground) Conversion Process to recover oil and gas. Shell’s research, thus far, has shown 

great promise. We are committed to doing oil shale the right way through a responsible and 

thorough research program. This research program will answer some of the few remaining 

questions to determine if oil shale can responsibly increase domestic energy supplies. We hope 

to make a decision on a commercial project early in the next decade” 

(http://www.shell.com/home/Framework?siteId=us-en&FC2=&FC3=/usen/html/iwgen/shell_for_businesses/exploration_production_shared/mahogany_shared/dir_mah

ogany.html, visited March 17, 2008).

Cheveron’s RD&D will not be completed until 2016, according to the Oil Shale Research, 

Development & Demonstration Project Plan of Operations submitted to the BLM in 2/15/2006. 

EGL is between 3-10 years out from production depending upon RD&D 

(http://www.egloilshale.com/). It will be years before companies developing oil shale technology 

will know if it is technologically or economically feasible. 

Since oil shale/tar sands development appears to be many years down the road, and the 

requirements for water and energy appear to make cost-effective development most unfeasible, 

we fail to see why there is such a rush to lease this land. It raises strong suspicions of ulterior 

motives 

We must know more about the technologies that would be used in extracting energy from our 

particular types of Tar Sands. We must ensure that the Oil Shale RD&D process has allowed us 
Final OSTS PEIS 1057 

to assess the impacts of experimental extraction technologies on energy consumption and water 

use before proceeding with a plan for wide-scale commercialization. A NO ACTION alternative 

would provide the necessary time for industry to prove technologies that would make extraction 

of the resource commercially viable. 

#4])>

<([#5 [3.10.3] Human Impacts of Proposed Development

The development envisioned by the study would come at a time when our land is already 

experiencing severe pressure from the current energy boom and significant population growth 

across the West. Oil Shale/Tar Sands development will create additional strain. To quote from 

the plan: 

· “The number of new residents lured by commercial development of oil shale will substantially 

change demographics and social fabric of rural communities. Quality of life will be changed. 

Transition will occur away from traditional agricultural way of life. Small isolated, close-knit, 

homogeneous communities with a strong orientation toward personal and family relationships 

will become more urban, with increasing cultural and ethnic diversity and increasing 

dependence on formal social relationships within the community”. PEIS

· Because of the relative economic importance of oil shale developments in small rural 

economies and the lack of available local labor and economic infrastructure, large-scale oil 

shale developments are likely to cause a large influx of temporary population. PEIS

· Oil Shale development will likely steal jobs from the service industry. PEIS

· Local communities may be unable to absorb new residents. PEIS

· Colorado impacts will include the loss of recreation -- hunting, fishing and tourism income -- 

for example: 10% reduction in recreation employment would be a loss of 1,415 jobs and $18.3 

million lost in income, w/ 20% reduction 2,830 jobs would be lost and $36.5 million lost in 

income. PEIS. 

· Property value impacts could be substantial as a result of deterioration in aesthetic quality, 

increases in noise, real or perceived health effects, congestion, or social disruption. PEIS #5])>

<([#6 [6.2.1] The PEIS also states an additional 2,400 megawatts of electrical energy will be 

needed when commercial levels of development are reached. It states that new, coal fired 

generation plants will be built. While no specifics are given on siting, some general questions 

are: will any new coal-fired plant must utilize the very latest low impact, low carbon footprint, 

technology. Where will the coal come from? A new local mine? New rail line or coal transport? 

Who will build and operate these new facilities? 

#6])>

<([#7 [1.5] The PEIS has the BLM finding itself again in favor of development of the public 

lands, adding to its history of financing development, and promising to make development 

compliant with this country’s environmental protection laws. The BLM will never find a new 

energy development plan in non-compliance. Never. And we the public ask why? We the public 

have known why for some time. Six long standing reasons follow, and all must be investigated 

and brought into the most basic public democratic reasoning of lawfulness and accountability in 

the revised PEIS. 

1. A review, has been over looked, of the Congressional debate and law which established the 
Final OSTS PEIS 1058 

federal public lands system, and so has research been over looked into whether such lands have 

ever yet been truly public and whether the Congress has ever yet investigated the mandate that 

such land be preserved in a condition fit for the time when the public will finally access them for 

sustenance of healthy economic and cultural survival. 

2. The ability of the Federal Government and its land agency the BLM to thus far avoid public 

knowledge and understanding of the full factual picture of how energy development of the public 

lands subsurface fuels and minerals fragments the land’s habitat – from its near paper-thin soil 

crust to its largest ungulates, carnivores, birds of prey – until its natural systems of balance and 

rebalance are instead now excessive, and relenting adaptations and lost ability of adaptations 

resulting in closer and closer conditions of ecosystem collapse. 

3. The ability of the Federal Government, its land management agency the BLM and its 

corporate users of our public lands nearly free resources to bury from public sight or weaken 

with false science or fears of American economic regression the economic facts in an as-yet 

unchallenged history of accessing the public’s resources for private wealth and power. This 

burying from public knowledge of the stages of accessing eventually all known public lands 

profitable resources for private gain includes the following: persistent de-regulation of corporate 

behavior – both physical on-ground and market behavior; subsidies from the public’s taxes to 

underwrite R&D of resource extraction; and an assumption that the public will never grasp the 

economics of the corporate free market system that either doubts itself or privately manipulates 

its own system to guarantee itself greater and greater profits – profits not from its system’s 

adequate rational and success, but from the public’s collective resources. 

4. The ability of the Federal Government and its BLM agency to cover the fact and knowledge 

that the public’s land is being privatized, so that they will less and less have to be made 

accountable for their health and sustainability until the eventual time in our public history when 

they – the public’s land – are handed back over to the public in near useless condition. 

5. The ability of the Federal Government and its land management agency the BLM to inhibit 

thus far the actualization, in dollar figures, for the public of the loss in market value of the public 

land’s sustainable, renewable resources. 

6. The ability now, in the current systemic financial uncertainty, of the Federal Government to 

confer the exploiting and marketing of the public lands remaining resources as collateral to the 

very capitalizing and marketing banking industries that have so thoroughly amassed the public’s 

welfare, labor, taxes, and resources for private gain. 

#7])>

<([#8 [2.5] It is difficult to understand why the BLM is rushing toward a commercial leasing 

program without even knowing if oil shale development is feasible economically. In light of that, 

it’s even more difficult to understand why the BLM seems so anxious to give oil shale 

development priority over other uses on our public lands as shale development would likely 

preclude all other activity, including natural gas development in priority areas. A No Action 

Alternative allows communities to adjust to growth already being experienced from oil and 

natural gas development. A No Action Alternative would allow communities to mitigate socio-
Final OSTS PEIS 1059 

economic hardships likely to results from combined natural gas and oil shale/tar sands 

development. And a No Action Alternative would allow full review and community discussion 

of the place of development on public lands. 

#8])>

<([#14 [4.2] Environmental Impacts of Development

This plan proposes development in some of the best hunting, fishing, and recreation areas in 

Colorado, Wyoming, and Utah. We can and should protect these areas from adjacent impacts 

such as diminished air quality and habitat fragmentation. The cumulative impact of this massive 

development will negatively affect our air, water, wildlife and communities in Colorado, 

Wyoming, and Utah. To quote from the plan: 

· In Colorado, 10,789.7 acres of Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC’s) are 

included in areas designated for commercial oil shale leasing. PEIS

· Direct and indirect impacts of commercial oil shale development will include: wildlife 

displacement and mortality (including threatened and endangered species), industrial noise 

across the landscape, visual transformation of the landscape, increased traffic, new roads, 

increased access to currently remote areas, industrialization of agricultural and undeveloped 

landscapes, sprawl, as agricultural and open lands near existing communities are converted to 

new housing and new development necessary to support increasing populations, loss of available 

land for other new (clean?) industries, loss of threatened/endangered plant species, new rights of 

way stripped of and maintained w/out major vegetation, decreased property values for adjacent 

landowners due to noise human health, and aesthetic concerns, degradation or loss of cultural 

sites. PEIS

· “There is a potential for commercial oil shale development projects to adversely affect most of 

the threatened, endangered, and sensitive species that occur in the counties where development 

could occur.” 

· Additional likely impacts include: 

o Habitat loss, alteration, fragmentation, and resulting changes in habitat use

o Disbursement and displacement – habitat modification, noise, fire, lights, etc.

o Mortality – collisions with structures and vehicles, changes in predator populations, and 

chronic or acute toxicity from herbicides, hydrocarbons, or other contaminants

o Increased accessibility – humans infiltration of previously remote habitat DPEIS 4.66 #14])>

<([#9 [3.4.1] Water 

Water is finite. Almost all of the water in the Colorado River Upper Basin is appropriated 

by the 1922 Interstate Colorado River Compact. In addition, the Navajo Nation is asserting a 

claim for up to 800,000 acre feet. It is our view that they will prevail. In the State of Colorado, 

where will the oil shale developers obtain enough senior water rights to develop oil shale under 

present technology? Ranchers and municipalities own most of the senior rights. The 

municipalities are not going to sell their water rights. If ranchers sell their rights, they are out of 

business. How will the oil shale developers reclaim the water they have used? This must be a 

high priority to render the used, polluted, water potable so that this water can be returned to the 

river from where it came. 

#9])> <([#10 [3.7.4.1] Fish and Wildlife 

Our first concern is five species of fish that are already listed on the Endangered Species list and 
Final OSTS PEIS 1060 

the one species awaiting listing. The species listed as Endangered are the pike minnow, 

razorback sucker, boney tail sucker and the humpback chub. The Colorado River Cutthroat Trout 

(CRCT) has been petitioned for listing. The Endangered Species Act of 1973 states that it is 

unlawful to modify or remove habitat of listed species. Water from warm water streams, such as 

the White River, are within the range of the 4 species listed as Endangered. Streams, such as 

Trapper’s Creek, contain viable populations of CRCT. 

#10])> <([#11 [3.7.5.1] Fish and Wildlife 

Our second concern is disruption, or loss, of sagebrush, Artimisia tridentata, subsp. This loss 

will have adverse effects on greater sage grouse, Centrocercus urophasianus, which is under a 

federal court order for the Fish and Wildlife Service to reevaluate for listing on the ESL. If there 

is substantial removal of sage grouse habitat as would be the case in the current plan then, listing 

of this species would probably be one end result. 

#11])> <([#12 [3.7.3.4] [3.7.3.6] Fish and Wildlife 

Another concern is the impact to our big game populations. Deer and elk were prevalent in the 

Rifle, CO, area prior to oil and gas development. Hunting is now a sport of the past in that area, 

due to, in part, the development. Should development occur, big game loss could occur simply 

by drinking unprotected, polluted water. These impacts upon the land are just unacceptable. We 

urge the BLM to consider these and the likely cumulative effects of this industry on wildlife 

habitat and protected areas across the West. 

#12])>

Conclusion

<([#13 [2.5] After more than $23 billion spent on research, oil shale technology is still 

experimental. Yet the Bush and Obama administration are rushing to create a massive federally 

driven oil shale development program before anyone knows if the technology will work, let 

alone what cost it will exact on our air, water, wildlife and communities. The government should 

force industry to prove they can develop oil shale without wrecking the environment through 

research-scale projects before anyone talks about commercial leasing or production. There are 

just too many unknowns in the PEIS. It is ill-prepared and inconclusive. As presented, we must 

conclude that the No Action alternative be the only alternative that is reasonable and prudent. 

Western Colorado has already suffered through decade-long economic calamity prompted by the 

collapse of the last oil shale scheme on Black Sunday. The administration’s unseemly haste to 

lock in a massive oil shale program before anyone knows if it works shows a negligent disregard 

for western Coloradans and the state’s future. 

#13])>

Sincerely On behalf of Friends of Northwest Colorado and Citizens of the West, 

Jane & Larry Yazzie Genevieve Yazzie 

PO Box 884 PO Box 884 

Craig, CO 81626 Craig, CO 81625 
Final OSTS PEIS 1061 

David Morris Monty Robertson 

1083 Colorado St 350 Clay Ave 

Craig Co 81625 Craig CO 81625 

OSTS2012D50321 

Organization: Elected officials in Tri-state area 

Received: 5/4/2012 3:51:34 PM 

Commenter1: - Grand Junction, Colorado 81501 (United States) 

Organization1:Elected officials in Tri-state area 

Commenter Type: Elected Official 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: aziech 5/15/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50321.htm (OSTS2012D50321-59035.htm Size = 1 KB) 

LEO_oil_shale__tar_sands_letter_OSTS2012D50321.pdf (OSTS2012D50321-59034.pdf Size = 

273 KB) 

Submission Text

Dear Bureau of Land Management, 

<([#1 [2.2.1] 

We are writing to express our support for the approach that is being taken in the Bureau of Land 

Management’s recently released Draft Programmatic EIS (PEIS) for oil shale and tar sands, 

which defines the terms of potential future leasing of oil shale and tar sands deposits on federal 

lands in Colorado, Utah and Wyoming. As elected officials in these states, we believe it is 

essential that the final plan ensures that key questions are answered before opening public land to 

commercial development. Given that a commercial industry does not yet exist, it is smart to 

require that research and development of oil shale and tar sands technologies be completed and 

the impacts analyzed before moving forward with a commercial leasing program. The final plan 

should reflect a common sense approach that puts the prosperity of our region first. 

Our public lands are enormous economic drivers in the Intermountain West. Tourism, recreation, 

hunting and fishing, ranching, and other industries provide billions of dollars of revenue and 

hundreds of thousands jobs throughout the three-state region. Our public lands also contain the 

headwaters to critical western water supplies, the economic backbone of our economies. The 

BLM has acknowledged in the Draft PEIS that the potential impacts of development on 

communities, water and air are largely unknown but potentially significant. We do not know, for 

instance, if either industry would produce significant revenues, but we do know that 

development would divert critical water resources from existing and future uses and require 

trade-offs that may be substantial, but which we cannot yet assess. We thus strongly urge the 

BLM to prioritize research and development in the final PEIS, to ensure that impacts are 

analyzed and we can make smart decisions about commercial leasing. 

These lands are our heritage, and for many, our livelihoods. As representatives of communities 

across the three-state region, we have a responsibility to work to protect those values. It is critical 

that we know more about the impacts of oil shale and tar sands development before putting 
Final OSTS PEIS 1062 

communities, water and air at risk. 

#1])>

OSTS2012D50322 

Organization: David Rodgers 

Received: 5/4/2012 3:56:58 PM 

Commenter1: David Rodgers - Santa Clarita, California 91387 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/16/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50322.htm (OSTS2012D50322-58965.htm Size = 4 KB) 

Submission Text

Dear Bureau of Land Management, <([#1 [2.3.1] I am writing to submit comments on the Oil 

Shale and Tar Sands Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS). I am very 

concerned about the possible impacts of oil shale development on Glen Canyon, Grand Canyon, 

and the Colorado River. I believe that we need more research on the potential impacts of oil 

shale and tar sand development before allowing leasing of our public lands for this use. Such 

development could have serious and irreversible impacts, including on water supplies and 

quality, air quality, native ecosystems and wildlife, and recreational uses. I strongly urge you to 

choose Alternative 3, Research Only, as the BLM’s Preferred Alternative in the Final PEIS. This 

is essential to ensure that we have the best possible information before considering opening our 

natural open spaces and ecosystems to the development of oil shale and tar sand resources. #1])>

<([#2 [3.4.1] Here are some of my specific concerns regarding the Draft PEIS: * The Draft 

Programmatic EIS needs to ensure water quality will not be adversely effected by development 

of oil shale and tar sand resources. The water usage for oil shale production far outstrips the 

amount of oil produced, even prior to the refinement process. Water resources in the West are 

already overused and the effects of climate change and increased population will only add further 

strain to an already depleted system. #2])> <([#3 [3.4.1] * The Draft Programmatic EIS should 

be conducted in such a way to address issues of dust, noise, and pollution in the affected areas. 

Heating oil shale in the ground can contaminate vital groundwater supplies. High salt 

concentrations in groundwater restricts water available to native plants and is harmful to 

agricultural production as well. The Colorado River Basin already spends millions of dollars 

annually on damages caused from high salinity. #3])> <([#4 [3.1.1] * The Draft Programmatic 

EIS should address the potential encroachment on protected areas and National Parks such as 

Glen Canyon Recreation Area and Canyonlands National Park. This includes a thorough analysis 

of the damage to these priceless parks by oil shale and tar sands development. #4])> <([#5

[2.3.1] This EIS should ensure that all alternatives seriously assess the issues outlined above. 

Considering the present lack of adequate information and the tremendous risks of misguided 

development, the only reasonable alternative at this point is Alternative 3, Research Only as 

outlined in the PEIS. #5])> <([#6 [3.10.4] I and my family for years have been visiting and 

hiking in National Parks, wilderness areas, proposed wilderness areas, primitive areas and 

national monuments in southern and eastern Utah. We spend money on these trips and help 
Final OSTS PEIS 1063 

support the economy of Utah. Oil shale and tar sands development in or near these areas will 

destroy the various features which attract us and millions of other tourists per year from all over 

the world. #6])> <([#7 [10.6.1] Further, I and my family own 3 hybrid cars. Our next car will be 

all electric, and we are moving to solar power generation at our home so that our electric car can 

be re-charged by solar energy. We are making all these changes because we support the 

reduction and ultimately the complete cessation of the burning of fossil fuels. Mass extraction of 

oil from shale and tar sands is a move by our nation in the wrong direction entirely. What will all 

do when the world runs out of fossil fuels, which is inevitable, and our climate has been 

irreversibly altered? We must move now to develop clean, renewable sources of energy to meet 

all our energy needs as quickly as possible. #7])> Thank you for the opportunity to comment on 

the Draft Programmatic EIS. Sincerely, David Rodgers Santa Clarita, Calif. 

OSTS2012D50323 

Organization: National Wildlife Federation, Kathleen Zimmerman 

Received: 5/4/2012 4:06:47 PM 

Commenter1: Kathleen Zimmerman - Boulder, Colorado 80303 (United States) 

Organization1:National Wildlife Federation 

Commenter Type: Environmental Organization 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: aziech 5/16/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50323.htm (OSTS2012D50323-59037.htm Size = 1 KB) 

SFRED_OSTS_DPEIS_2012_comments_FINAL_OSTS2012D50323.pdf (OSTS2012D50323-

59036.pdf Size = 422 KB) 

Submission Text

Dear Reviewers: 

The following comments are submitted on behalf of Sportsmen for Responsible Energy 

Development (SFRED) and its founding partners the National Wildlife Federation, the Theodore 

Roosevelt Conservation Partnership, and Trout Unlimited. In addition, the Wyoming Wildlife 

Federation and the Colorado Wildlife Federation, also members of the SFRED coalition, join in 

these comments. 

SFRED is a coalition of more than 500 businesses, organizations and individuals dedicated to 

conserving irreplaceable habitats so future generations can hunt and fish on public lands. The 

coalition is led by the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership, Trout Unlimited and the 

National Wildlife Federation. 

As an organization, the National Wildlife Federation (NWF) represents the power and 

commitment of four million members and supporters joined by affiliated organizations in 48 

states and territories. NWF and its affiliates have a long history of working to conserve the 

wildlife and wild places on federal public lands in the West. Many members of NWF and its 

affiliates use the lands and resources that could be impacted by oil shale and tar sands 

extraction ( In addition to these comments, NWF joins in those filed by Western Resource 

Advocates while supporting Preferred Alternative 2(b)). 

The Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership is a national non-profit conservation 

organization that is dedicated to guaranteeing every American places to hunt or fish. 
Final OSTS PEIS 1064 

Trout Unlimited is a private, non-profit conservation organization that has more than 150,000 

members nationwide dedicated to conserving, protecting, and restoring North America’s trout 

and salmon fisheries and their watersheds. Since 1959, Trout Unlimited (TU) has dedicated staff 

and volunteers toward the protection of sensitive ecological systems necessary to support robust 

native and wild trout and salmon populations in their respective ranges. TU recognizes that the 

value of public lands is unparalleled in providing habitat to coldwater fisheries, drinking water 

and wildlife habitat. TU’s expanding conservation program includes a public lands initiative that 

recognizes the importance of protecting public lands for the survival and restoration of wildlife 

and fisheries. TU’s public lands initiative is not limited to anglers; TU recognizes that many 

people who fish also utilize public lands for hunting or wildlife viewing opportunities. TU 

believes that actions taken on public lands are ultimately reflected in the quality of fish and 

wildlife habitat and populations. 

In the tri-state region where oil shale and tar sands development could occur, TU has over 12,000 

members who actively utilize and enjoy the resources of the Upper Colorado River basin, 

including the White River hydrologic basin in Colorado, the Uinta basin in Utah, and the Green 

River basin in Wyoming. TU believes the impacts from the development and production of oil 

shale and tar sands would adversely affect its members, as well as non-members, who hunt, fish, 

recreate, and do business in and around the Upper Colorado River basin. 

The Colorado Wildlife Federation (CWF) is Colorado’s oldest statewide wildlife conservation 

organization, a 501(c)(3) nonprofit whose members consist of hunters, anglers and other wildlife 

enthusiasts. CWF’s mission is to promote the conservation, sound management, and sustainable 

use and enjoyment of Colorado’s wildlife and habitat through education and advocacy. CWF 

understands that wildlife habitat is critical to conserving Colorado’s unique wildlife, hunting and 

fishing heritage, and wildlife viewing opportunities. These wildlife-related recreation pursuits 

enrich the well-being of residents and visitors and form a substantial segment of Colorado’s 

economy. CWF’s members hunt, fish, and recreate on federal public lands in Colorado and 

elsewhere in the Rocky Mountain region that could be developed for oil shale or tar sands 

production. 

The Wyoming Wildlife Federation (WWF), established in 1937, is celebrating its 75th 

anniversary. With a membership of 5,000, WWF is Wyoming’s oldest and largest statewide 

sportsmen/conservation organization. WWF works for hunters, anglers, and other wildlife 

enthusiasts to protect and enhance habitat, to perpetuate quality hunting and fishing, to protect 

citizens’ right to use public lands and waters, and to promote ethical hunting and fishing. 

Members of WWF use lands and resources that could be adversely impacted by oil shale and tar 

sands development. 

We thank you for the opportunity to review and provide comment on the Draft Programmatic

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

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

Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming (2012DPEIS). 

<([#1 [2.2] Our organizations continue to oppose opening federal public lands for commercial oil 

shale and 

tar sands development. Research must precede any consideration of commercial leasing, and that 

research must demonstrate that extraction technologies exist that will protect clean air and water, 

conserve fish and wildlife, and sustain the western economies that depend on those resources. 

For that reason, we are encouraged to see that under the Preferred Alternative 2(b) identified in 

the 2012DPEIS, operators will only be able to secure commercial development rights after 
Final OSTS PEIS 1065 

fulfilling the terms of a Research, Development and Demonstration (RD&D) lease. By requiring 

companies to first prove their technologies and assess the impacts to communities, human health, 

and fish and wildlife, Alternative 2(b) helps ensure that commercial oil shale and tar sands 

development will only be initiated following a fuller understanding and evaluation of its impacts. 

Preferred Alternative 2(b) also places off-limits areas containing important environmental and 

ecological values, including fish and wildlife habitats. This is an important step forward because, 

while the full impacts of commercial-scale oil shale and tar sands development are not yet 

understood, we do know that such development, using current technology, is incompatible with 

conservation of fish and wildlife habitats. All of the current extraction technologies being tested 

require operators to remove existing vegetation and either mine or re-grade the entire surface of 

the leased site, completely destroying habitat values. We, therefore, support the determination, 

reflected in the Preferred Alternative, to exclude oil shale and tar sands development within vital 

habitats such as crucial winter ranges for big game, breeding habitats for Greater sage-grouse, 

and native trout streams. 

Finally, while Preferred Alternative 2(b) represents a more rational and measured approach to oil 

shale and tar sands development, we continue to believe that no additional public lands should be 

devoted to this use until the RD&D leases already issued have produced tangible results and an 

analysis of their impacts has been conducted. We believe that analysis is critical to the 

development of standard provisions regarding any conversion of RD&D leases to commercial 

leases. Alternative 2(b) rests on the proposition that BLM can define the standards and 

procedures the agency will use in determining whether technologies are appropriate for 

commercial development. We believe that BLM will be in a better position to do so with 

whatever information is produced by the existing RD&D leases. #1])>

<([#2 [1.5] I. THE LEGAL FRAMEWORK

A. The National Environmental Policy Act

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) does not specifically address programmatic 

environmental impact statements (EISs). Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations at 

40 CFR §1502.4(b) refer to EISs for broad actions. However, CEQ regulations and guidance 

discuss this topic only briefly and in very general terms. Courts, therefore, have played a 

significant role in fleshing out these concepts over time. While many major unresolved issues 

remain regarding the precise components of programmatic NEPA documents, there is a legal 

consensus that these EISs perform at least two important functions. First, programmatic EISs, by 

taking a broad view avoid segmenting environmental analyses of common concerns by analyzing 

them in the entire program or suite of related or similar actions. Second, programmatic NEPA 

documents can also be the most effective tool for addressing cumulative environmental impacts. 

Unfortunately, the 2012DPEIS cannot perform either of these programmatic functions, 

particularly with respect to its treatment of the potential fish and wildlife impacts of opening two 

million acres of public land to oil shale and tar sands development. As BLM itself admits, the 

2012DPEIS contains no discussion of the cumulative impacts of the potential loss of these lands 

to fish and wildlife. 

In 2008, when it issued its Final Oil Shale and Tar Sands Programmatic Environmental Impact

Statement (2008FPEIS), BLM understood that due to the experimental state of both oil shale and 

tar sands technologies, the agency lacked the necessary information to meet Congress’s directive 

in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 to develop a programmatic environmental impact statement 

(PEIS) that could support commercial leasing. As the agency acknowledged then: 

The BLM originally intended the PEIS to support the amendment of land use plans to 
Final OSTS PEIS 1066 

allocate areas open to commercial leasing and development of oil shale and tar sands, as

well as to support the issuance of such leases. However, in consultation with the 

cooperating agencies, it was determined that the analysis to support immediate leasing 

decisions would require making speculative assumptions regarding potential, unproven

technologies, and, consequently, the decision to offer specific parcels for lease was 

dropped from consideration in the PEIS (2008FPEIS at ES-3 (emphasis added)). 

Nevertheless, BLM amended 12 land use plans and made available for leasing more than 2 

million acres of public lands. We believe that decision was premature and we applaud BLM’s 

resolution to revisit it. 

Unfortunately, in 2012, BLM faces much the same challenge. The technologies are no more 

advanced than they were in 2008 (2012DPEIS at 1-20). Land use decisions and supporting 

NEPA analyses made 

without the benefit of additional research will continue to suffer from the same fundamental 

flaws BLM encountered when it issued the 2008FPEIS. The agency cannot make an informed 

decision to dedicate public lands to commercial oil shale or tar sands development. As the 

agency admits, it does not yet have sufficient information to conduct a cumulative impacts 

analysis, one of the cornerstones of NEPA ( 42 U.S.C. §§ 4321-4370f): “[t]he current 

experimental state of the oil shale and 

tar sands industries does not allow this PEIS to include sufficient specific information or 

cumulative impact analyses to support future leasing decisions within these allocated lands” 

(2012DPEIS at 1-2). 

We note that, while the 2012DPEIS provides a substantially better selection of alternatives than 

that which was provided in the 2008FPEIS, it still lacks a substantive analysis and 

comprehension of the likely impacts to fish and wildlife resources and of the economic value of 

these resources. However, by requiring companies to complete their research, evaluate the 

impacts of their extraction technologies, and design effective mitigation measures prior to 

obtaining a commercial lease, BLM hopefully will have the opportunity to secure good, current, 

independently-verifiable data to support the agency’s land use decisions before large tracts of 

public land are committed to development. Nevertheless, due to these challenges, the 

2012DPEIS remains deficient as a NEPA document. Because of the incomplete state of the 

technology and the corresponding limitations of this PEIS, subsequent NEPA analyses will be 

required before any commercial leases are issued, including those that arise from an existing 

RD&D project. These analyses should include either another PEIS or require lessees to conduct 

full environmental impact statements (BLM must ensure that any subsequent NEPA documents 

include a robust examination of landscape-level 

cumulative impacts and avoid a piecemeal approach to authorizing this new and potentially 

destructive use of public 

lands). Environmental assessments at the leasing stage would not 

sufficiently address the legal and other deficiencies contained in this 2012DPEIS. 

Given that BLM must delay a full and complete cumulative impacts analysis, the final PEIS 

should focus instead on three important components of its oil shale and tar sands program: 

1. defining the scope of the subsequent NEPA analysis, including the scope of the 

cumulative impacts analysis; 

2. evaluating any available mitigation actions and directing the adoption of effective 

mitigation; and 

3. establishing terms, including stipulations, of RD&D leases and criteria for conversion of 
Final OSTS PEIS 1067 

RD&D projects to commercial development leases. 

#2])> <([#3 [4.1] 1. Defining the scope of subsequent NEPA 

As we noted above, the 2012DPEIS fails to address the cumulative impacts of commercial-scale 

oil shale and tar sands development on fish and wildlife. In order to do so, subsequent NEPA 

documents must articulate a reasonably foreseeable development scenario for oil shale and tar 

sands extraction projects and, at a minimum, address all: 

1. activities leading to soil and vegetation disturbance; 

2. activities leading to changed habitat structure; 

3. activities leading to habitat fragmentation; and 

4. activities leading to loss of water quantity or quality (Subsequent NEPA analyses must fully 

address climate changes, including shifts in the vitality and habitat range of fish and wildlife 

species. See, e.g., Greater sage-grouse discussion infra at 16). 

The final PEIS should clearly state that this analysis must be completed before commercial 

leases will be issued or commercial development permitted. 

In addition to the cumulative impacts of oil shale and tar sands extraction, BLM must also 

address the fact the area identified within the 2012DPEIS as containing oil shale or tar sands also 

includes lands that hold oil, gas, and other minerals. Many of these lands already have producing 

wells. Yet, the 2012DPEIS contains little information on the combined impact of oil shale and 

tar sands extraction and oil and gas drilling on fish and wildlife populations. Subsequent NEPA 

documents must assess the cumulative impacts of all minerals development as well as other 

human activities on both public and private lands within the region that provide habitat for fish 

and wildlife. 

#3])> <([#4 [5] 2. Evaluating available mitigation measures and directing the adoption of

effective mitigation

NEPA is intended to help public officials make decisions that are based on an understanding of 

environmental consequences, and to take actions that protect, restore, and enhance the 

environment (See 40 C.F.R. § 1500.1(b)). 

Federal agencies are required, to the fullest extent possible, to use all practicable 

means consistent with the requirements of NEPA to “restore and enhance the quality of the 

human environment and avoid or minimize any possible adverse effects of their actions upon the 

quality of the human environment” (Id. at 1500.2(f)). A crucial element in meeting this mandate 

is developing and implementing mitigation measures. 

The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations define mitigation as: 

1. avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action; 

2. minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its 

implementation; 

3. rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected environment; 

4. reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations 

during the life of the action; and 

5. compensating for the impact by replacing or providing substitute resources or 

Environments (40 C.F.R. § 1508.20). 

In January 2011, CEQ issued new guidance regarding mitigation (76 Fed. Reg. 3843 (January 

21, 2011)).This guidance provides that mitigation measures must be “explicitly described as 

ongoing commitments and should specify measurable performance standards and adequate 

mechanisms for implementation, monitoring, and reporting” (Id).

Pursuant to CEQ’s rules and guidance, the discussion of wildlife mitigation in the 2012DPEIS is 
Final OSTS PEIS 1068 

wholly inadequate. First, it consists of little more than a list of measures that might be 

employed (See 2012DPEIS at 4-129). 

Second, these measures simply are not up to the task of mitigating the impacts of oil 

shale and tar sands development on fish and wildlife. With respect to the impacts of human 

activities on big game, for example, BLM traditionally has relied on seasonal restrictions such as 

limiting human access to winter ranges from mid-November to the end of April. However, 

limiting the construction activities associated with oil shale and tar sands projects to the summer 

months provides no protection for big game. When the animals return to the winter range in 

November, they will find their habitat has been hauled away, is covered with waste shale, or is 

devoid of vegetation (Timing limitations also are only applied to exploration and development 

activities, as described in most BLM land use planning documents; long-term production 

activities continue to occur during sensitive winter periods). 

Seasonal restrictions have also been used with respect to sage-grouse brooding habitats and 

winter concentration areas ( Id. at F-20). Given the current imperiled status of Greater sagegrouse 

populations, we do not believe such restrictions provide a responsible approach to wildlife 

conservation and BLM’s obligation to manage its lands for multiple uses. Sage-grouse habitats 

must be protected year-round from the destructive impacts of oil shale and tar sands extraction. 

The 2012DPEIS also references the Recommendations for Development of Oil and gas

Resources within Crucial and Important Wildlife Habitats prepared by the Wyoming Fish and 

game Department (Id. at 4-129). 

While we welcome BLM’s recognition of these Recommendations, they are 

directed primarily at limiting the surface disturbance associated with oil and gas development. 

They include such measures as directional drilling and clustering associated infrastructure in 

order to reduce the footprint of oil and gas development on fish and wildlife habitat. Yet, BLM 

assumes that most oil shale and tar sands operations will either drill or mine 100 percent of the 

surface of the leased area. There simply is no “effective” mitigation other than avoidance for the 

habitat losses resulting from oil shale and tar sands development. For example, BLM states in the 

Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 

(JMHCAP FEIS) that it may be impossible to reclaim some sagebrush habitats (footnote: U.S. 

Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 2000. Jack Morrow Hills Coordination 

Activity

Plan for Public Lands Administered by the Bureau of Land Management, Rock Springs Field 

Office, Rock Springs:

Environmental Impact Statement, p. 4-74; see also U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of 

Land Management. 

2008. Proposed Resource Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement for the 

Pinedale Resource

Area, p. 4-297: Although reclamation of some disturbed sites would occur, the level of habitat 

diversity and quality that existed prior to disturbance would likely not be achieved for several 

decades and may never return to predisturbance conditions. This would likely result in 

permanent reductions in wildlife populations and impairment of water quality and vegetation 

communities in some areas). 

Migration corridors for big game have been lost permanently to development. Animals are 

driven off of crucial ranges onto lands that will not sustain them (See Comments submitted by A. 

William Alldredge on 2008FPEIS). 
Final OSTS PEIS 1069 

We therefore support the determination expressed in Preferred Alternative 2(b) to mitigate 

impacts on fish and wildlife by following CEQ’s first rule of mitigation – avoidance – and 

excluding some vital habitats from 

development. 

We do not believe other measures are currently available to mitigate the terrestrial impacts of oil 

shale and tar sands development on vital fish and wildlife habitats. Given the nature of oil shale 

and tar sands extraction and the fragile environments at risk, we doubt mechanisms other than 

avoidance will ever prove effective. 

Mechanisms may arise as extraction technologies are researched to reduce impacts on water 

quality and quantity which are also important to fish and wildlife conservation. Those measures 

must be tied to the specific technologies used and other contemporary water demands. We 

encourage BLM to use existing RD&D opportunities to examine whether water usage and 

pollution can be minimized. 

#4])> <([#5 [9.2.6] 3. Defining stipulations and reporting requirements in RD&D leases

The final PEIS should clarify that, in addition to standard environmental analyses, all future 

RD&D lessees will be required to provide a quantifiable analysis of the water and energy 

demands of their extraction technologies, water quality impacts, air impacts, and other effects on 

fish and wildlife habitats. This is consistent with the terms specified in the second round of oil 

shale RD&D lease terms. For example, following completion of research activities, RD&D 

lessees should be required to specify how much water a commercial-scale operation would 

require and the impacts of that water demand on other uses, including instream flows and peak 

flows. 

Under these terms, approval of any commercial leases would only be granted upon an adequate 

analysis of those impacts, and clear and detailed plans for mitigating such impacts (In Preferred 

Alternative 2(b), portions of three of the five Preference Right Lease Areas for the existing 

Colorado 

RD&D leases are no longer identified as available for application for commercial leasing. These 

lands include vital 

winter ranges for big game. We urge BLM to evaluate whether alternative sites might be more 

appropriate should 

the lease holders complete their projects and apply for approval to expand into commercial 

development). 

BLM can 

also, in appropriate circumstances, rely on the broad discretion it has under FLPMA to deny 

commercial oil shale and tar sands leases without completing the NEPA process (See, e.g., U.S. 

Department of Energy. October 2011. Supplement to the Draft Programmatic Environmental

Impact Statement for Solar Energy Development in Six Southwestern States). 

#5])> <([#6 [9.4] B. The Federal Land Management and Policy Act and Resource 

Management

Planning

According to BLM “a plan-level decision to open the lands to mineral leasing represents 

BLM’s determination, based on the information available at the time, that it is appropriate to 

allow development of the parcel consistent with the terms of the lease, laws, regulations, and 

orders, and subject to reasonable conditions of approval” ( BLM Handbook H-1601-1, Appendix 

C at 24). 

However, the 2012DPEIS contains 
Final OSTS PEIS 1070 

no such determination with respect to oil shale and tar sands. BLM’s current guidance on oil 

shale leasing and land use planning requires its Resource Management Plans (RMPs) specifically 

to identify the following: 

1. Areas open to leasing, subject to existing laws, regulations, and formal orders; and the 

terms and conditions of the standard lease form. 

2. Areas open to leasing, subject to moderate constraints such as seasonal and controlled 

surface use restrictions. (These are areas where it has been determined that moderately 

restrictive lease stipulations may be required to mitigate impacts to other land uses or 

resource values.) 

3. Areas open to leasing, subject to major constraints such as no-surface occupancy 

stipulations on an area more than 40 acres in size or more than 0.25 mile in width. (These 

are areas where it has been determined that highly restrictive lease stipulations are 

required to mitigate impacts to other lands or resource values. This category also includes 

areas where overlapping moderate constraints would severely limit development of fluid 

mineral resources.) 

4. Areas closed to leasing. (These are areas where it has been determined that other land 

uses or resource values cannot be adequately protected with even the most restrictive 

lease stipulations; appropriate protection can be ensured only by closing the lands to 

leasing.) Identify whether such closures are discretionary or nondiscretionary; and if 

discretionary, the rationale. 

5. Resource condition objectives that have been established and specific lease stipulations 

and general/typical conditions of approval and best management practices that will be 

employed to accomplish these objectives in areas open to leasing. 

6. For each lease stipulation, the circumstances for granting an exception, waiver, or 

modification. Identify the general documentation requirements and any public 

notification associated with granting exceptions, waivers, or modifications. 4 

7. Whether the leasing and development decisions also apply to geophysical exploration. 

8. Whether constraints identified in the land use plan for new leases also apply to areas 

currently under lease. 

9. Long-term resource condition objectives for areas currentlyunder development to 

guide reclamation activities prior to abandonment (BLM Handbook H-1601-1, Appendix C at 

23-24). 

The RMP amendments proposed in the 2012DPEIS contain none of this information. In fact, 

there is no description of commercial lease terms at all because those decisions have been 

deferred (2012DPEIS at 1-21). 

Of course, it is understandable that BLM is unable to make these determinations at 

this time since it lacks the relevant information to do so. For example, in 2008, after consulting 

with cooperating agencies, BLM concluded that, because it lacked sufficient information 

regarding the commercial viability of extractive technologies for both oil shale and tar sands, 

trying to anticipate a certain level of development would be too speculative (In 2012, no 

“Reasonably Foreseeable Development Scenario” has been prepared because, unlike oil and gas 

drilling, oil shale and tar sands extraction is not a “mature” technology. 2012DPEIS at 1-14). 

However, a detailed description of Reasonably Foreseeable Development (RFD) is precisely 

what is required by BLM’s own land use planning guidance before RMPs can be adopted that 

open lands to mineral leasing (See, e.g., BLM Handbook H-1601-1, Appendix F-4 at 18 (In the 

chapter on environmental consequences, draft 
Final OSTS PEIS 1071 

and final RMPs/EISs must include “reasonably foreseeable development scenarios” for all 

uses.)). 

Without any information on the level of oil shale or tar sands 

development the opening of these lands will set in motion, it is impossible to determine whether 

the other management goals set forth in these RMPs can be met. Resource Management Plans, 

however, are required to provide adequate information not just on the plan’s objectives but also 

on how those objectives will be reached. BLM’s Land Use Planning Handbook states that 

“[l]and use plan decisions establish goals and objectives for resource management (i.e. desired 

future conditions), the measures needed to achieve those goals and objectives, and the 

parameters for using BLM lands. They identify lands that are open or available for certain uses, 

including any applicable restrictions, and lands that are closed to certain uses” ( BLM Handbook 

H-1601-1 at 11). 

Land use plans 

must also “identify the actions needed to achieve desired outcomes, including actions to 

maintain, restore or protect land health” (Id. at 13). 

The RMPs amended by this document cannot meet 

these requirements. Therefore, no commercial leasing of oil shale and tar sands resources in 

appropriate at this time. 

#6])> II. WHAT IS AT STAKE

<([#7 [3.10.4] While oil shale and tar sands proponents extol the potential economic value 

resulting from largescale 

development, they often downplay or ignore the economic value such development could 

damage. Yet, the quality of the natural environment and fish and wildlife habitats is a critical 

economic asset in this region (See Sportsmen for Responsible Energy Development/Southwick 

Associates. 2012. Conserving Lands andProsperity available at 

www.sportsmen4responsiblenergy.org ). 

A September 2008 report prepared for the Colorado Division of 

Parks and Wildlife concluded that the 2007 direct annual expenditures in Colorado from hunting 

and fishing alone were approximately $1.1 billion (BBC Research & Consulting, The Economic 

Impacts of Hunting, Fishing and Wildlife Watching in Colorado, Final Report, revised 

September 18, 2008, report prepared for Colorado Division of Wildlife, p. 1. Main report web 

page: http://wildlife.state.co.us/About/Reports/EconomicImpacts/; report-specific web page: 

http://wildlife.state.co.us/SiteCollectionDocuments/DOW/AboutDow/Revised2004DOWEcono

micImpactReport.pd 

f.). 

Secondary impacts of the dollars re-spent 

within the economy in 2007 are estimated to be $767 million, for a total economic impact of 

more than $1.8 billion. The same study found wildlife-watching yields an additional total 

economic impact of $1.2 billion annually. Wildlife plays a similarly important role in Utah and 

Wyoming. 

Even under Preferred Alternative 2(b), BLM admits that oil shale, tar sands and ancillary facility 

development “may fragment or destroy wildlife habitat and affect the behavior of migratory big 

game species such as elk and mule deer, which form an important basis for recreational activities 

in many parts of each [Region of Influence]” (2012DPEIS at 4-176). 

The 2012DPEIS identifies “172,339 acres of 

mule deer winter habitat, 11,470 acres of mule deer summer habitat, 159,205 acres of elk winter 
Final OSTS PEIS 1072 

habitat, and 11,465 acres of elk summer habitat overlap lands that would be available for oil 

shale leasing” (2012DPEIS Table 2.6-1 at 2-96). In Utah, for tar sands alone, “57,708 acres of 

mule deer winter habitat, 17,110 

acres of mule deer summer habitat, 52,361 acres of elk winter habitat, and 17,170 acres of elk 

summer habitat overlap lands that would be available for tar sands leasing” (2012DPEIS Table 

2.6-2 at 2-121). 

Oil shale and tar sands development will diminish tourism and recreational opportunities. 

Outdoor recreation, including hunting and fishing, would decline. In Colorado, oil shale would 

result in a loss of up to 2,830 jobs and $36.5 million in income annually in the Regions of 

Influence (ROIs). In Utah, 1,552 jobs and $12.6 million in income would be lost from oil shale 

and tar sands in the ROIs. In Wyoming 2,719 jobs and $14.4 million in income would be lost. 

Additional economic impacts would be felt elsewhere. Impacts from the development scenarios 

considered in Alternatives 1 and 4 would be significantly greater. #7])>

<([#31 [2.2.1] Because resources important to both traditional western values, such as hunting 

and fishing, and 

emerging new economies are at stake, the cautious and measured approach to commercial oil 

shale and tar sands development outlined in Preferred Alternative 2(b) is both appropriate and 

necessary. 

#31])> A. Water Resources

<([#8 [3.4.1] [3.10.2] [6.3.2] Water resources in the West are scarce and are under increasing 

pressure from development. 

Water resources are also extremely important to western economies. In Colorado alone, 

nonconsumptive 

water-related activities contribute between $7 billion and $8 billion to the state’s 

economy and employ 85,000 people (http://cwcb.state.co.us/environment/non-consumptiveneeds/Pages/main.aspx). 

It is therefore imperative that subsequent NEPA analyses 

evaluate the impact diverting water for oil shale and tar sands development would have on these 

industries. 

Since 2008, however, little new and verifiable data on the precise water demands of oil shale and 

tar sands extraction technologies has been generated. For example, the Government Accounting 

Office’s (GAO’s) October 2010 report on oil shale and water, “Energy-Water Nexus: A Better 

and Coordinated Understanding of Water Resources Could Help Mitigate the Impacts of 

Potential Oil Shale Development” (General Accounting Office. October 2012. Energy-Water 

Nexus: A Better and Coordinated Understanding of Water Resources Could Help Mitigate the 

Impacts of Potential Oil Shale Development [hereinafter GAO Report]), 

concluded that oil shale would likely require 4-to-5 barrels 

of water for every barrel of oil produced from shale, higher than BLM’s projections in the 

2012DPEIS (Id. GAO concluded the range of water-to-oil is 1:1 to 20:1. The report further stated 

4-5 barrels of water to oil was a good working figure). 

According to GAO: 

The unproven nature of oil shale technologies and choices in how to generate the power 

necessary to develop this resource cast a shadow of uncertainty over how much water is 

needed to sustain a commercially viable oil shale industry....These nascent efforts do not 

adequately define current baseline conditions for water resources in the Piceance and 

Uintah Basins, nor have they begun to model the important interaction of groundwater 
Final OSTS PEIS 1073 

and surface water in the region (Id. at 44-45). 

**** 

Water is likely to be available for the initial development of an oil shale industry, but the 

size of an industry in Colorado or Utah may eventually be limited by water availability. 

Water limitations may arise from increases in water demand from municipal and 

industrial users, the potential of reduced water supplies from a warming climate (Climate 

changes may increase the challenges states will face. As the 2012DPEIS makes clear, by 2050, 

water in 

the Colorado River Basin could be reduced by 6-20%. 2012DPEIS at 4-36 to 4-37. Such 

reductions would further 

stress existing resources, compounding the problems posed by large development projects such 

as oil shale and tar 

sands extraction), 

fulfilling obligations under interstate water compacts, and the need to provide additional 

water to protect threatened and endangered fishes (GAO Report at 44-45). 

The 2012DPEIS makes clear that water requirements for commercial development could be 

substantial. It also projects how much water might be available for oil shale and tar sands 

development and the impacts of using large quantities of water on existing demand and future 

uses (though the data is often based on dated materials). Based on these projections, the 

2012DPEIS concludes in Tables 3.4.1-2 and 3.4.1-3 and the corresponding text that demand in 

the Upper Basin could exceed what is legally available to these states. 

Moreover, acre-feet of surface water demand is not the only question that must be answered. 

Much if not most of the water required by oil shale and tar sands development would need to be 

stored in reservoirs. Big flows only happen in the spring, yet industry would need water all year 

round. The impacts of storage projects on endangered and native fish species and healthy river 

systems must be evaluated as well. The 2012DPEIS fails to adequately analyze these impacts.

#8])>

<([#9 [3.4.2] There are also significant concerns regarding the major alteration of aquifer 

hydraulic 

characteristics, flow patterns and subsurface water quality over large areas, due to extraction 

mining and/or in-situ processing of oil shale and tar sands resources. Included in these impacts 

are the drilling, de-watering, isolation, reclamation, waste disposal and excavation activities 

associated with resource extraction and processing. In addition, because the processes associated 

with in situ extraction techniques, which will affect geological formations including aquifers, 

may be thermal, chemical and physical, a detailed analysis of these technologies once identified 

is required in order to evaluate “down-hole” impacts and suitable mitigation measures. The 

2008FPEIS failed to provide this analysis and the 2012DPEIS still does not contain sufficient 

information to support credible conclusions or recommendations regarding oil shale and tar 

sands development. 

The impacts of waste discharges from oil shale processing facilities, power generation, and other 

processes associated with the exploitation of the oil shale and tar sands resources remains a high 

concern and the 2012DPEIS lacks an in-depth assessment of such impacts to water resources. 

For example, it does not describe and evaluate the quantity and quality of leachate water and 

runoff from spent tar sands or oil shale spoils and tailings and all areas altered by extraction 

activities so that appropriate mitigation measures can be identified and implemented. This gap 

remains and must be addressed. 
Final OSTS PEIS 1074 

Impacts resulting in increased concentrations and loadings of selenium and salinity in the 

Colorado River and its tributaries are likely to occur, as acknowledged in the 2008FPEIS and the 

2012DPEIS. However, the 2012DPEIS does not address how they may be mitigated or avoided. 

Such impacts are particularly troubling because they have long been identified as special 

concerns under existing conditions and could be greatly exacerbated by oil shale and tar sands 

development. 

#9])> <([#10 [3.4.2] [4.2] The 2012DPEIS does not rigorously address the impacts of alterations 

in river water quality on 

endangered species. This is of particular concern with respect to the Endangered Fish Recovery 

Implementation Program, for which major efforts and expenses have already been incurred in the 

Colorado River Basin. 

The 2012DPEIS also fails to provide adequate data on the significance of groundwater in the 

three affected states (Much of the groundwater data in the 2012DPEIS is extremely dated. For 

example, water use estimates within the 

Green River Basin are from 1990. This data does not take into account existing oil and gas 

drilling operations which 

have expanded over the past 20 years the area, nor does the 2012DPEIS make any attempt to 

consider the 

cumulative impacts posed by proposed but not yet operating oil and gas development projects, 

such as the Hiawatha 

Project located within the Washakie Basin. BLM provided 1984 groundwater data for the tar 

sands analysis section 

in the 2012DPEIS). 

BLM admits that much is unknown regarding groundwater availability 

and significance. Yet, many areas, such as the Green River and Washakie Basins, rely entirely on 

groundwater as the sole source of drinking water. Groundwater recharge also plays a major role 

for important streams and habitat for sensitive fish and wildlife species. Major groundwater 

contamination concerns have been identified, including the burden of spent shale which has 

significantly higher salt levels than raw shale and may yield other toxic substances (Bartis, Jim. 

2005. Oil Shale Development in the United States: Prospects and Policy Issues. RAND 

publication). 

However, very little analysis of the potential impacts on other resources or effective mitigation 

measures (Relying on Best Management Practices (BMPs) through BLM land use plans is not 

sufficient. There are ample examples of poor BMP implementation and lack of effective 

monitoring of energy impacts currently within the three-state region). 

is provided in the 2012DPEIS. It is clear that, prior to any leasing or development of oil shale 

and tar sands resources, much more extensive groundwater analyses must be conducted. #10])>

B. Fish and Wildlife Values

<([#11 [3.7.3.1] [3.7.3.9] [3.7.4.1] According to the 2012DPEIS, most oil shale and tar sands 

projects will disturb 100 percent of 

the leased surface (See 2012DPEIS at 4-3 to 4-11). 

In other words, these projects will completely eliminate the value of those 

lands as wildlife habitat. In the arid environs where oil shale and tar sands development is being 

proposed, “[r]eclamation to functional systems similar to that found pre-disturbance will take in 

excess of 50 years (Baker 2006)” (Comments submitted by A. William Alldredge, Ph.D. on the 

2008FPEIS at 4). 
Final OSTS PEIS 1075 

Therefore, habitats disturbed by oil shale and tar sands 

development would be unavailable for decades even after reclamation has been initiated” (Id). 

Moreover, impacts on most wildlife are not proportional to the amount of habitat lost (Id). 

“Habitat 

is not all created equal, some areas of habitat are simply more valuable that others” (Id). Winter 

range, for example, is considered a limiting factor for big game species. According to the 

2012DPEIS, at least 735,000 acres of mule deer winter habitat, including 78,093 acres of mule 

deer critical winter range; 31,479 acres of mule deer migration corridors; 649,700 acres of elk 

winter habitat; and 190,478 acres of elk production area is at risk (See, e.g., 2012DPEIS at 6-18; 

see also Comments submitted by the Colorado Department of Natural Resources on the 

2008FPEIS). 

Displacement of big game 

from high value and important habitat to other, often lesser quality habitat, places additional 

stressors on these animals (Sawyer, Hall, et al. 2006. Winter Habitat Selection of Mule Deer 

Before and During Development of a Natural Gas Field. Journal of Wildlife Management 

70:396-403; Sawyer, Hall, et al. 2009b. Influence of well pad activity on the winter habitat 

selection patterns of mule deer. Journal of Wildlife Management 73:1052-1061). 

Since big game already is being impacted by the oil and gas 

development activities underway in many critical winter range areas in all three states, losing 

more habitat (and furthering concentrating big game populations into smaller and smaller areas) 

could lead to unacceptable losses. 

Over half a million acres of identified sage-grouse habitat is also at risk. Sage-grouse are on the 

verge of requiring listing under the Endangered Species Act. They have declined precipitously 

range-wide. Declines have been estimated at over 50% in occupied area and up to 80% decline in 

bird abundance, with complete extirpation in several states. A federal court recently concluded 

that energy development in the eastern reaches of sage-grouse range, including Wyoming and 

Colorado, poses a significant threat to sage-grouse (Western Watersheds Project v United States 

Fish and Wildlife Service, No. CV-06-277-E-BLW, slip op. at 13 (D. Id. December 4, 2007)). 

Leks, nesting habitat, and winter 

concentration areas are all vital to the continued viability of sage-grouse. 

Based upon the information that is contained in the 2012DPEIS, oil shale and tar sands 

development poses a huge threat to fish and wildlife, including species that already are on the 

verge of disappearing. Hundreds of thousands of acres of vital wildlife habitats may be 

“occupied” by oil shale and tar sands projects to the exclusion of all other uses, including fish 

and wildlife, perhaps for generations. Reclamation does not address this loss because habitat 

functions will not be restored for decades. Moreover, none of the other mitigation measures 

discussed in the 2012DPEIS will reduce the impact of this loss because none of the measures 

currently in BLM’s toolbox were designed to redress a use that destroys and then occupies such 

vast amounts of land surface. 

#11])> 1. <([#12 [3.7.5.1] Greater sage-grouse (As a keystone species, the health of Greater 

sage-grouse populations is a good indicator of overall ecosystem health for the sagebrush 

ecosystem. Landscape-scale conservation strategies targeting the sage-grouse also benefit dozens 

of additional sagebrush obligate wildlife species, from pronghorn to BLM Sensitive songbirds). 

Since the 2008 FPEIS was issued, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 

determined that listing the Greater sage-grouse as threatened or endangered rangewide is 

“warranted but precluded by higher priority listing actions.” As the agency cautions, “[e]vidence 
Final OSTS PEIS 1076 

suggests that habitat fragmentation and destruction across much of the species’ range has 

contributed to significant population declines over the past century. If current trends persist, 

many local populations may disappear in the next several decades, with the remaining 

fragmented population vulnerable to extinction” ( http://www.fws.gov/mountainprairie/species/birds/sagegrouse/ (last accessed March 29, 2012)). 

The USFWS also found that southwestern and 

central Wyoming and northwestern Colorado are strongholds for sage-grouse, with some of the 

highest estimated densities of males anywhere in the remaining range of the species. The 

USFWS identified this “high-density sagebrush area as one of the highest priorities for 

conservation consideration as it comprises one of two remaining areas of contiguous range 

essential for the long-term persistence of the species” (75 Fed. Reg. 13910, 13950 (March 23, 

2010) (citing Wisdom et al. (in press, p. 23)). 

The sage-grouse “stronghold” identified by USFWS overlaps with areas proposed for oil shale 

and tar sands development. Such development would eliminate all grouse habitat on the lease, 

and likely render adjacent habitat unsuitable as well causing abandonment by near-by sagegrouse 

populations due to industrial activity on the lease. For this reason, we strongly urge BLM 

to place all identified sage-grouse Core Areas within Wyoming and all sage-grouse habitat in 

Colorado and Utah off limits to oil shale and tar sands extraction (BLM currently is in the 

process of amending all applicable land use plans to improve the agency’s sage-grouse 

conservation efforts and identify priority sage-grouse habitats. To ensure consistency with those 

new plans, BLM 

should take no action that might result in the potential loss of sage-grouse habitat. The Preferred 

Alternative 2(b) 

calls for protection of “priority sage-grouse habitats.” However, those habitats have yet to be 

delineated and we 

encourage BLM to err on the side of caution until range-wide conservation measures are in 

place). 

The maintenance of high-quality sagebrush steppe habitats, particularly nesting and wintering 

habitats, is necessary to maintain viable sage-grouse populations (To ensure viable sage-grouse 

populations, it is important to consider nesting, brood-rearing, and winter habitats. Holloran and 

Anderson found that 64% of sage-grouse females nested within 5 km of a lek. Holloran, M.J., 

and S.H. 

Anderson. 2005. Spatial distribution of greater sage-grouse nests in relatively contiguous 

sagebrush habitats.

Condor 107:742-752). 

Large sage-grouse Core 

Areas like South Pass and the Kinney Rim/Vermillion have been proposed for protection from 

future oil and gas leasing under BLM’s Wyoming sage-grouse plan amendment. Populations in 

Colorado and Utah are generally more compromised and at-risk than Wyoming; special care 

must be taken to appropriately scale conservation efforts to states with smaller populations 

(Connelly proposed comprehensive guidelines regarding the management of sage-grouse, 

focused around the 

conservation of breeding/nesting habitat, late summer brood-rearing habitat, and wintering 

habitat. Connelly, J.W., 

M.A. Schroeder, A.R. Sands, and C.E. Braun. 2000. Guidelines to manage sage-grouse 

populations and their
Final OSTS PEIS 1077 

habitats. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 28:967-985). 

Additionally, Colorado, Utah and Wyoming sage-grouse populations are genetically connected. 

Impacts from development to the populations in one state are likely to negatively influence 

populations in the other states. Corridors and genetic connections between different populations 

and across state lines must inform decision-making. Additional habitat fragmentation and 

infrastructure impacts that further isolate populations must be avoided. 

In December 2011, BLM issued A Report on National Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation

Measures. This report by the BLM’s sage-grouse National Technical Team (NTT) establishes 

that BLM’s objective is “to develop new or revised regulatory mechanisms, through Resource 

Management Plans (RMPs), to conserve and restore the greater sage-grouse and its habitat on 

BLM administered lands on a range-wide basis over the long term” ( Department of the Interior, 

Bureau of Land Management. December 2011. A Report on National GreaterSage-Grouse 

Conservation Measures, p. 4). 

With the NTT and the 

sage-grouse plan amendments, BLM is taking steps to achieve its goal to “maintain and/or 

increase sage-grouse abundance and distribution by conserving, enhancing or restoring the 

sagebrush ecosystem upon which populations depend in cooperation with other conservation 

partners” (Id. at 6). 

The NTT further provides that “[u]ntil such time as more specific conservation 

objectives relative to sage-grouse distribution or abundance by sage-grouse management zone, 

state, or population are developed, BLM will strive to maintain or increase current distribution 

and abundance of sage-grouse on BLM administered lands in support of the range-wide goals” 

(Id).

As BLM finalizes a new policy based on the NTT’s recommendations that will ensure the 

longterm 

viability of the species, and the USFWS moves toward reconsideration of its warranted but 

precluded finding, it is important that current sage-grouse habitat be preserved. Additionally, 

BLM needs to address whether adjacent lands may warrant protection because they are likely to 

provide important habitat in the future, as climate change results in shifting habitat types and 

ecosystem conditions. #12])>

2. <([#13 [3.7.3.1] Mule deer

Properly managing mule deer dramatically benefits local rural communities. The Western 

Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies’ Mule Deer Working Group explains why mule deer 

are important to sportsmen and small towns: 

In a 2006 survey of outdoor activities, USFWS reported that nearly 3 million people 

hunted in the 19 western states (USFWS 2007). In 2006 alone, hunters were afield for 

almost 50 million days and spent more than $7 billion in local communities across the 

West on lodging, gas and hunting-related equipment. Although this included hunters that 

pursued other species, mule deer have traditionally been one of the most important game 

animals in the West. According to the same 2006 survey, 25.6 million residents in 19 

western states spent more than $15.5 billion that year “watching wildlife” (Lutz et al. 2010. 

Oil/gas, wind, and solar energy development guidelines for mule deer. Western Association of 

Fish and Wildlife Agencies Mule Deer Working Group). 

Total hunting and fishing sales and revenue for 2010 in project area (USFWS, iFAIMS 

database at www.fws.gov).

Hunting Fishing Total
Final OSTS PEIS 1078 

Licenses/Revenue Licenses/Revenue Licenses/Revenue

Colorado 538,734/$56,200,410 1,039,177/$15,112,929 1,577,911/$71,313,339 

Utah 292,695/$12,005,639 466,098/$10,084,698 758,793/$22,090,337 

Wyoming 278,632/$25,267,335 370,313/$5,366,360 648,945/$30,633,695 

Total Sales/Revenue 2,228,407/$1,240,373,371

Yet, mule deer are struggling across the West. They are declining in population in many areas, 

including Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming (See Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership. 

April 2011. Mule Deer and Energy: Federal Policy andPlanning in the Greater Green River 

Basin available at 

http://www.trcp.org/assets/pdf/TRCP_Mule_Deer_and_Energy_in_the_GRB.pdf ; Ellenberger, 

J., A.G Byrne. 2011. 

Population Status and Trends of Big Game and Greater Sage- Grouse Along the 

Colorado/Wyoming State Line. A 

Report prepared for the National Wildlife Federation available at 

http://www.ourpubliclands.org/sites/default/files/files/Executive_Summary.pdf ). 

Deer face a number of stressors, but most significant 

is that their habitat is changing and disappearing. The causes of these habitat losses include but 

are not limited to suburban and rural sprawl, livestock management, fire suppression, invasive 

species and traditional and renewable energy development. 

During the last decade, as energy production has expanded on western public lands, scientific 

understanding about the impacts of energy production on fish and wildlife populations has 

expanded as well, with much being learned about how mule deer respond. For example, a series 

of studies on the Pinedale Anticline show that drilling and production of natural gas on crucial 

winter range significantly affect mule deer, with dramatic decreases in wintering populations 

within the developed area. In 2007, Sawyer et al. published research that attributed 27 percent of 

the decline in mule deer on the Pinedale Anticline to energy development. In 2010, monitoring 

reports show a 60-percent loss in mule deer since development began in 2001. Many wildlife 

experts are now concerned that the dramatic increase in energy production on public lands 

represents the most significant threat to mule deer populations as a result of both direct loss of 

crucial habitat and disruption. Oil shale and tar sands development further threatens mule deer 

habitat and populations. #13])>

<([#14 [3.7.3.1] [5] [3.7.3.9] BLM’s existing mitigation measures have proved insufficient to 

address big game impacts even 

from more traditional forms of oil and gas development. New data from Sawyer et al (Sawyer, 

Hall, et al. 2006.; Sawyer, Hall, et al. 2009b.) illustrate 

that timing limitations, for example, should no longer be considered as adequate oil and gas 

mitigation lease stipulations. This research, based on extensive study within oil and gas 

development fields in Wyoming, indicates that the standard stipulations BLM routinely and 

traditionally imposes are ineffective as currently implemented. Timing limitations typically 

apply only during the exploration and construction phases of oil and gas extraction; they provide 

no protection during production. Moreover, timing stipulations do not address the loss of habitat 

once an area can be accessed and disturbed when the seasonal restrictions expire. Current science 

supports the use instead of No Surface Occupancy stipulations in vital big game habitats such as 

critical winter range. Critical winter ranges contain the important cover, forage, and security that 

assure the survival of mule deer and elk herds, even in the worst of winters. Any direct habitat 

loss to these important lands compromises the ability of populations to survive when snowpack 
Final OSTS PEIS 1079 

is at a maximum and temperatures are coldest. As mentioned above, Sawyer’s research, among 

others, demonstrates the impacts of oil and gas developments over a 10 year period on mule deer 

in western Wyoming: a 46% decline in use on critical winter range and a 60% decline in 

population abundance are directly attributable to the impacts from energy development and

relaxing the timing restrictions (Sawyer, Hall, R. Nielson. 2010. Mule Deer Monitoring in the 

Pinedale Anticline Project Area: 2010 AnnualReport. Presented to the Pinedale Anticline 

Planning Office, Pinedale, Wyoming). 

Changes in habitat selection and use by mule deer were 

immediate and little to no acclimation to well pads was evidenced after 10 years of monitoring 

(Sawyer, Hall, et al. 2006; Sawyer, Hall, et al. 2009b). 

We urge BLM to include additional review of migration corridor studies that illustrate the 

importance of maintaining big game migration corridors and their proximity to energy 

development facilities. Sustaining migratory populations of mule deer requires the maintenance 

and protection of suitable seasonal ranges and maintaining functional uses of migration routes 

(Sawyer, Hall. 2007. Final Report for the Atlantic Rim Mule Deer Study. Prepared for Anadarko 

Petroleum, BLM, 

and the Wyoming Game and Fish Department. April 2007). 

Distinguishing between high use areas (which may concentrate deer on key forage habitat and 

create slow movement through an area) and lower-use areas (which provide faster corridor 

movement and connectivity between high use areas) can provide mitigation opportunities 

including facility and road development structure, avoiding fragmentation, and ensuring deer 

have safe access between areas (Sawyer, Hall, M. Kauffman. 2008. Identifying Mule Deer 

Migration Routes Along the Pinedale Front. Report prepared for the Wyoming Wildlife and 

Natural Resources Trust. May 2008; Sawyer, Hall et al. 2009. Identifying mule deer migration 

routes to and from the Pinedale Anticline Project Area. Report prepared for University of 

Wyoming School of Energy Resources, Laramie, WY. November 2009). #14])>

<([#15 [3.7.3.12] Finally, the 2012DPEIS fails to mention the recent Western Governors’ 

Association’s 

recommendation and review of wildlife critical habitat and migration corridors, as required under 

BLM IM 2012-039. This IM (“Identification and Uniform Mapping of Wildlife Corridors and

Crucial Habitat Pursuant to a Memorandum of Understanding with the Western Governors’

Association”) was issued December 21, 2011, and provides guidance to all BLM field offices in 

identifying wildlife corridors and crucial habitat using the newly developed Western Wildlife 

Crucial Habitat Assessment Tool (CHAT). This multi-dimensional effort is designed to 

coordinate information about priority habitat areas existing across political jurisdictions in 

specific regions of the West. The timeframe for implementing the use of CHAT is immediate, 

according to the IM. We urge BLM to employ CHAT as another habitat analysis tool under the 

2012DPEIS. #15])>

<([#16 [2.2.1] We support the determination in Preferred Alternative 2(b) to place many vital big 

game habitats 

off limits to oil shale and tar sands development, including crucial winter ranges. However we 

also encourage BLM to continue to assess whether additional habitat protections for big game 

may be necessary. In particular, we urge the agency to collect additional data on migration 

corridors and the importance of transitional ranges to mule deer, elk, and other big game species. 

#16])> 3. Fish

<([#17 [3.7.1.1] [3.7.4.1] The discussion of aquatic resources in the 2012DPEIS is improved 
Final OSTS PEIS 1080 

over that included in the 

2008FPEIS; however, it still does not provide sufficient consideration of potential impacts to 

Colorado River fish species and associated aquatic habitats. Though native trout and native 

fishes are mentioned, there is little recognition of their specific locations and importance within 

the various watersheds that could be impacted by oil shale and tar sands development. This is 

particularly noticeable with respect to Colorado River cutthroat trout (CRCT). 

For example, within the Green River Oil Shale Basin, numerous tributaries to the Green River 

contain CRCT populations. This includes the eastern portion of the Green River Oil Shale Basin 

between Flaming Gorge and Wyoming Highway 191. Here, within what is known as the Greater 

Little Mountain Area, populations of CRCT exist in small, often isolated sagebrush ecosystems. 

Trout Creek, Gooseberry Creek, Sage Creek, and Currant Creek are important waters for CRCT 

populations. Considerable time, effort, and money has been spent restoring riparian habitats, 

improving watershed conditions, and preventing further degradation to these sensitive 

watersheds. Numerous partners have contributed to the restoration efforts over the last 20 years, 

including BLM. #17])>

<([#18 [3.1.2] The 2012DPEIS contains almost no discussion of the importance of the 

watersheds to 

recreational anglers. Though briefly mentioned in a single paragraph describing the affected 

environment in the Piceance Basin, no similar discussion of recreational fisheries is included in 

sections on the Uinta Oil Shale Basin, the Washakie Oil Shale Basin, or the Green River Oil 

Shale Basin. Angling and hunting within these areas are important economic and tourism drivers. 

Within the Green River Oil Shale Basin alone, two major reservoirs (Flaming Gorge Reservoir 

and Fontenelle Reservoir) exist which provide thousands of annual recreational days for boating, 

angling, picnicking, and hunting activities. 

#18])> Finally, <([#19 [3.7.4.3] the Wyoming Game and Fish Department has recently 

completed updates to the state’s 

Strategic Wildlife Action Plans (SWAP) in 2010. This re-evaluation of the Species of Greatest 

Conservation Need from 2005 includes a new evaluation system for conservation prioritization. 

Like Utah, Wyoming applies a tier ranking system. For purposes of the 2012DPEIS, the 

bluehead sucker, flannelmouth sucker, roundtail chub, and the CRCT all are designated as Tier I 

species (having the highest priority ranking). A more detailed assessment of impacts to these 

high priority species must be conducted prior to any oil shale and tar sands leasing or 

development. 

#19])> a. <([#20 [3.7.1.2] [3.7.4.1] Colorado River cutthroat trout.

The potential oil shale and tar sands development area encompasses five native trout 

conservation populations; one is in a tributary to the Green River just above Flaming Gorge 

Reservoir, while the other four are located across the divide in headwater tributaries to the 

Colorado River. Ensuring the future viability of these populations is critical given the extent of 

extirpation that has already occurred and the tenuous nature of the remaining populations. 

BLM, through its Colorado, Wyoming and Utah State Directors, is a participant in the CRCT 

Conservation Team and a signatory to the Team’s Conservation Agreement, which obligates the

BLM to ensure implementation of CRCT conservation actions detailed in the Team’s 

Conservation Strategy. The 2012DPEIS mentions the Conservation Agreement and its 

obligations yet it provides no discussion as to how BLM would protect both current and

potential cutthroat trout habitat. In fact, there is no discussion of the potential CRCT habitat 

which exists in all three states within the oil shale and tar sands development area. 
Final OSTS PEIS 1081 

Strategies for conserving this sensitive species call for securing and enhancing individual 

populations of CRCT. One of the most challenging needs for CRCT is the reestablishment of 

large, interconnected habitat areas where fluvial and adfluvial populations can exist free of 

nonnative 

trout species. Headwater streams typically provide habitat for CRCT populations and 

these stream reaches are typically small with stream widths less than 15 feet and depths less than 

three feet. Due to the small stream reaches, any degradation or catastrophic event will have 

immediate and long-term consequences to the fisheries population, and typically result in total 

fish loss. Such an event was witnessed in a tributary of LaBarge Creek in the 1970’s by the 

Wyoming Game and Fish Department, when an oil spill into the stream killed all CRCT. This 

population never recovered (Binns, Allan. 1977. Wyoming Game and Fish Internal Report). 

CRCT populations are not tolerant of sediment loads which can occur with road traffic, air 

pollution, construction activities, sudden weather events, spills, steep slopes, etc. Such erosion 

events can cover eggs from spawning, literally wiping out the following year’s age class of fish. 

Oil shale and tar sands development, as described in the 2012DPEIS, creates tremendous 

potential for heavy surface impacts which could affect coldwater fisheries. The increase in roads, 

truck traffic, construction activities, toxic spill potential, in-situ and open pit operations, and loss 

of water due to dewatering of streams and groundwater systems all spell potential impacts to 

CRCT. Like oil and gas drilling, the oil shale and tar sands extraction will result in accidental 

spills. Most energy development involves high risk to the environment; each of the three states 

(especially Colorado) has a history of hazardous spills or discharges into coldwater streams in 

accidents ranging from diesel truck turnovers to uncontrolled discharges of hazardous fuels. 

Consideration of these impacts must be included in any NEPA analysis. 

b. Nongame native fish species. 

Since so many nongame native warmwater fishes are concentrated within the potential oil shale 

and tar sands development area, we recommend avoidance of all disturbance to streams and 

riparian zones. Maintaining these species’ habitats in quality condition will prevent the future 

listing of additional nongame native fish and conserve those species already listed as federally 

endangered. 

#20])> 4. <([#21 [3.7.3.1] [3.7.4.9] Alternative C and wildlife

In the 2008FPEIS, Alternative C is presented as BLM’s attempt to identify those lands that 

would be excluded from oil shale or tar sand development on the basis of existing land use plan 

decisions. BLM made the determination that the most effective means of identifying lands that 

should be excluded on this basis was to exclude those lands within each field office where 

stipulations for no surface disturbance or seasonal limitations are in place for oil and gas leasing. 

While we welcome BLM’s incorporation of these exclusions in its Preferred Alternative for the 

2012DPEIS and agree that the lands identified should be off-limits to commercial oil shale and 

tar sands leasing, the list of lands is incomplete. Resource managers and the public have had no 

opportunity to consider whether oil shale or tar sands extraction would be incompatible with 

other land management objectives. With respect to sage-grouse, much of the vital habitat has not 

been identified and mapped by either BLM or state wildlife agencies. With respect to many other 

wildlife species, there is simply no usable data regarding the location and condition of important 

habitats (There are several efforts underway to collect and standardize landscape-level data on 

fish and wildlife habitats and populations. These include the Department of the Interior’s 

Landscape Conservation Cooperatives, BLM’s Rapid Ecological Assessments, BLM’s sagegrouse conservation planning effort, and WGA’s wildlife corridors initiative. We urge BLM to 
Final OSTS PEIS 1082 

await the outcome of these efforts before moving forward with any additional oil shale and tar 

sands leasing or development). 

As for big game, winter range traditionally has been considered the limiting factor, 

however, significant losses of summer and/or transitional ranges as a result of oil shale and tar 

sands projects could also pose threats to the continued vitality of big game populations. Because 

the 2012DPEIS still contains no information regarding the migration and use patterns of big 

game herds, it is impossible to estimate those impacts. See Comments submitted by A. William 

Alldredge. However, conservation of big game populations and distributions may require 

additional ranges be set off-limits. We, therefore, encourage BLM to address these habitats in 

future NEPA documents. 

#21])> C. <([#22 [3.1.1] Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs) and Other 

Special

Designation Lands

1. ACECs

FLPMA defines ACECs as “areas within public lands where special management attention is 

required to protect and prevent irreparable damage to important historic, cultural, or scenic 

values, fish and wildlife resources, or other natural systems or processes, or to protect life or 

safety from natural hazards” (43 U.S.C. § 1702(a)). 

Under FLPMA, BLM is obligated to “give priority to the 

designation and protection of areas of critical environmental concern” (43 U.S.C. § 1712(c)(3)). 

In the 2008FPEIS, BLM 

opened all ACECs to application for commercial leasing, except for lands where mineral 

development is not currently allowed. This commitment to protect only a portion of ACECs was 

insufficient. 

The 2012DPEIS, through Preferred Alternative 2(b), improves upon the 2008 decision by 

excluding from commercial development all ACECs, including those areas under consideration 

for designation under current planning processes (2012DPEIS at E-S 6 and 2-28). 

We support those additional protections and 

urge their inclusion in the final PEIS. As the 2012DPEIS makes clear, BLM would not be able to 

prevent undue degradation to important values for which ACECs were designated should oil 

shale or tar sands development proceed: 

Oil shale and transmission or pipeline development on any ACEC would result in a loss 

of all or a part of the resources or values for which the area was originally designated. Oil 

shale development within the viewshed of these areas may also result in adverse impacts 

on scenic values of these areas (2012DPEIS at 4-21). 

Given the relatively small number of acres of designated ACECs that overlap prospective oil 

shale and tar sands development areas (ACECs that are not closed to mineral leasing include 

approximately 44,000 acres and are shown in Table 6.1.1-1. Should oil shale development occur 

in these areas, the values within these designated ACECs would be lost. 2012DPEIS at 6-5), all 

ACECs should be closed to oil shale and tar sands 

development, even those that currently are open to mineral development. At the time of 

designation, it was assumed that the sensitive resources within these ACECs could withstand 

some level of disturbance from oil and gas drilling or other human activity. Oil shale and tar 

sands development represents quite a different level of surface disturbance, one that is 

irreconcilable with the protection of most other resource values. 

#22])> 2. <([#23 [9.2.1] [3.1.1] Lands with wilderness characteristics
Final OSTS PEIS 1083 

Because roadless and undisturbed lands provide important fish and wildlife habitat and unique 

opportunities for outdoor recreation, including hunting and fishing, we support the determination 

in Preferred Alternative 2(b) to place lands with wilderness characteristics off limits to oil shale 

and tar sands development. The congressional funding limitation for fiscal year 2011 limiting 

implementation of Secretarial Order 3310 regarding “wild lands designations” does not prohibit 

BLM from considering wilderness as part of this PEIS or relieve BLM from its continuing 

statutory obligation to inventory and manage federal lands for wilderness values (FLPMA 

requires BLM to “maintain on a continuing basis an inventory of all public lands and their 

resource and 

other values (including, but not limited to, outdoor recreation and scenic values), giving priority 

to areas of critical 

environmental concern. This inventory shall be kept current so as to reflect changes in conditions 

and to identify 

new and emerging resource and other values.” 43 U.S.C. § 1711(a)). #23])>

<([#24 [3.1.1] 3. Wyoming: other lands to be protected

a. Adobe Town

Adobe Town has been called the crown jewel of the Red Desert, encompassing irreplaceable 

ecological, geological, historical, and recreation values. At 180,910 acres, Adobe Town is 

Wyoming’s largest and most spectacular desert wilderness. Stretching 26 miles north to south 

and 19 miles east to west, this area is one of the last places in Wyoming where visitors can take 

in views of pristine landscape that stretch from horizon to horizon. The landscape ranges from 

banded badlands to mazes of arches, pinnacles, and spires, offering spectacular scenic vistas and 

important wildlife habitat. 

Following the issuance of the 2008FPEIS, the State of Wyoming designated the Adobe Town 

area as Very Rare or Uncommon under the state Environmental Quality Act. We are encouraged 

to see that BLM is proposing to protect the Adobe Town area from development in the Preferred 

Alternative 2(b). We strongly support this decision and urge BLM to include such protections in 

the final decision in order to ensure consistency with “state plans and policies” under FLPMA 

(In the 2008FPEIS, only lands designated as WSA within Adobe Town were protected from 

commercial 

development. All of Adobe Town as a State of Wyoming Very Rare and Uncommon area, not 

just the WSA, should 

be excluded from oil shale development). 

Adobe Town has a host of sensitive wildlife habitats that are crucial or vital to meeting the very 

rare or uncommon designation criteria. These habitats include sage-grouse leks and big game 

crucial winter ranges. The cliffs and pillars found throughout Adobe Town provide ideal nesting 

habitat for raptors. There is a desert elk herd, known to the Wyoming Game and Fish Department 

as the Petition Herd, which is one of the few true desert elk herds in North America, spending the 

entire year in the Red Desert. #24])>

<([#29 [3.1.1] 3. Wyoming: other lands to be protected

b. Little Mountain area, including Greater Red Creek ACEC, Red

Creek WSA, and Sugarloaf Basin SMA

These areas were established under the Green River RMP and constitute an outstanding big game 

hunting resource and CRCT trout habitat. According to the Wyoming Game and Fish 

Department, the elk hunt in this area is the single most sought-after tag in the entire state. Some

of the most important mule deer, elk, pronghorn, and sage-grouse high value habitat exists within 
Final OSTS PEIS 1084 

this ACEC complex. Oil shale activities would effectively remove wildlife species, including elk 

and mule deer, destroying the recreational quality of this area. CRCT populations within this 

ACEC complex exist in drainages with extremely sensitive soils making these isolated 

populations vulnerable to extirpation. Important springs help maintain the high water quality 

necessary for CRCT to exist. #29])>

<([#30 [3.1.1] 3. Wyoming: other lands to be protected

c. Jack Morrow Hills planning area

The “most prospective” oil shale area in Wyoming includes portions of the Jack Morrow Hills 

planning area, a subset of the Rock Springs Field Office set aside from the Green River Resource 

Management Plan in the 1990s for special planning due to its outstanding wildlife and cultural 

resources. The results of that planning effort should not be undermined by opening the area to oil 

shale development. This is an area highly important for both dispersed recreation and elk 

hunting. It also contains the Boars Tusk and White Mountains Petroglyph Site, both of which are 

culturally important to Native American tribes. #30])>

4. <([#25 [3.1.1] Colorado: other lands to be protected 

a. State Wildlife Areas

Colorado State Wildlife Areas (SWAs) should be protected from oil shale development. Six 

SWAs abut BLM lands or overlap with BLM managed subsurface resources opened for oil shale 

development in 2008. These areas include: 

? Shell Oil SWA – hunting lease 

? Yellow Creek Unit 

? Square S Summer Range Unit 

? Square S Ranch Unit 

? Little Hills Unit 

? North Ridge Unit of the Piceance SWA 

These areas all provide important habitat for fish and wildlife, as well as recreational 

opportunities and an economic draw for local communities. These areas must be protected from 

both direct and indirect impacts associated with oil shale development. #25])>

<([#26 [3.1.8] [3.7.1.1] [3.7.4.1] b. ACECs

(1) East Fork Parachute Creek (It appears that BLM will revisit and correct the illegal decision 

made in the 2008FPEIS and corresponding Record of Decision to open Naval Oil Shale Reserves 

(NOSRs) Nos. 1 and 3 to oil shale leasing. That 2008 decision ignored a withdrawal on the 

NOSRs preventing those lands from being leased for oil shale development. See 2012DPEIS at 

3-7. BLM must identify the NOSRs as unavailable for application for commercial oil shale 

leasing in any final PEIS barring issuance of an opening order. Such a decision would eliminate 

the threat of commercial oil shale development in the East Fork of Parachute Creek). 

East Fork Parachute Creek provides year-round habitat for CRCT, the only native trout in the 

Colorado River basin (U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1996. Conservation 

Status of Colorado River Cutthroat Trout, p. 1, available at: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs_rm/rm_gtr282.pdf). 

East Fork Parachute Creek is identified as one of the five areas containing conservation 

populations by the Conservation Agreement and Strategy for Colorado River Cutthroat Trout in

the States of Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming (Available at: http://www.USFWS.gov/mountainprairie/species/fish/crct/CRCT/ ) 

The Conservation Agreement gives highest 

priority for management and protection to streams identified as containing conservation 
Final OSTS PEIS 1085 

populations (These populations also meet the BLM’s own criteria for a conservation population. 

A conservation population is defined as: “[a] reproducing and recruiting population of native 

cutthroat trout that is managed to preserve the historical genome and/or unique genetic, 

ecological, and/or behavioral characteristics within a specific population and within geographic 

units.” See U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 2008. Roan Plateau 

Planning Area Proposed Plan/Final Environmental Impact Statement, pp. 3-114). 

Populations of CRCT in East Fork Parachute Creek are at least 90% genetically pure (U.S. 

Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 2002. Roan Plateau Resource 

Management Plan

Amendment, p. 20). 

The importance of these trout populations is clear. This area must be protected from oil shale 

development in order to ensure the subspecies continues reproducing and recruiting. Oil shale 

development will likely result in increased sedimentation, reductions in water quantity and 

quality, ground water flow alteration, and increased likelihood of water contamination with toxic 

byproducts. These impacts will add stresses to CRCT populations and, in so doing, may 

undermine one of the values this ACEC was designated to protect. 

BLM considers the entire watershed to be important to the long-term functionality of vital 

ecosystem processes that maintain upland and stream habitats important to these fishes (Id).

According to BLM, “these streams are regionally and nationally important producers of native, 

genetically pure and naturally reproducing Colorado River cutthroat trout,” going on to proclaim 

that these streams should be given the “highest priority for management and protection” (Id).

(2) Trapper/Northwater Creek ACEC (Trapper/Northwater ACEC is also almost entirely 

within the NOSR and cannot be available for oil shale development absent issuance of an 

opening order reversing the withdrawal that currently applies to the area. See 2012DPEIS at 3-4). 

Trapper and Northwater Creeks are tributaries to the Colorado River, and the creeks provide 

year-round habitat for CRCT. This ACEC is a critical conservation area for CRCT. Three of the 

five conservation populations of CRCT that exist atop the Roan Plateau are found within this 

ACEC. Included in these are “core conservation populations,” identified by a genetic purity of 

99% or higher (Id. at 3-116). 

We also urge BLM to preclude oil shale development on upper reaches of Trapper and 

Northwater Creeks that are not included in the Trapper/Northwater Creek ACEC. Industrial 

development higher up in these watersheds has the potential to impact downstream values, 

including the values for which the ACEC was designated. At risk, in this case, would be nearly 

all of the Northwater Creek and a significant portion of the Trapper Creek populations of CRCT. 

#26])> 5. <([#27 [3.1.1] [3.7.1.1] Utah: other lands to be protected 

a. White River ACEC

The Vernal RMP included a potential ACEC of 47,130 acres surrounding the deep canyon of the 

White River. This potential ACEC would have protected “unique geologic formations with 

spectacular vistas and the high-value river riparian ecosystem” (U.S. Department of the Interior, 

Bureau of Land Management. 2008. The Vernal Field Office Proposed Resource Management 

Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement, p. 4-433). 

The White River “provides 

critical habitat for the endangered Colorado pikeminnow, as well as habitat for other threatened, 

endangered, and sensitive species, including the razorback sucker, flannel mouth sucker, 

roundtail chub, Yellow-billed Cuckoo, Peregrine Falcon, and Bald Eagle” (Id).

#27])> D. <([#28 [3.1.2] [3.10.4] Economics and Recreational Values
Final OSTS PEIS 1086 

Public lands and their fish and wildlife resources are increasingly important from an economic 

standpoint and continue to be a wise long-term investment (American Landscapes. Newsletter, 

Fall 2009. “Conservation and the Economy: the Economic Benefits of Public Lands.”). 

Recreation has become one of the 

most important uses of our nation’s public lands, providing benefits beyond hunting and 

fishing (Collins, Sally, and H. Brown. Discussion Paper, 2007. The Growing Challenge of 

Managing Outdoor Recreation, Journal of Forestry 105(7)[Oct/Nov] 371-375)). 

Outdoor recreational opportunities sustain an annual $730 billion contribution to the 

U.S. economy (Outdoor Industry Foundation. 2006. The Active Outdoor Recreation Economy 

available at 

http://www.outdoorindustry.org/images/researchfiles/RecEconomypublic.pdf ). 

For lands managed by the Department of the Interior (which include those BLM 

lands within the potential oil shale and tar sands development area) more than 437 million 

recreational visits in 2010 supported more than 388,000 jobs nationwide and contributed over 

$44 billion in economic activity, including 9,000 jobs in Colorado, 15,000jobs in Utah, and 

14,000 jobs in Wyoming (U.S. Department of the Interior. June 2011. The Department of 

Interior’s Economic Contributions). 

In Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming, close to 3 million people participated in fishing activities in 

2006. This amounted to more than $1.3 billion in expenditures to these three states. More than 

523,000 hunters participated in some form of big game hunting in these same three states, 

contributing approximately $900 million in hunting expenditures (USFWS. 2006. National 

Survey of Fishing, Hunting and Wildlife-Associated Recreation: State Overview). 

Ranging from mule deer 

hunting in Utah’s Bookcliffs to elk hunting in Wyoming’s Greater Little Mountain area to 

fishing wild trout streams in Colorado, the fish and wildlife resources at stake should oil shale 

and tar sands development proceed are important to sportsmen and to the businesses and families 

that depend on the renewable economic contribution sportsmen make each year to rural 

communities. Conserving public lands is essential to maintaining hunting, fishing and outdoor 

recreation and the western economies that are sustained by them (SFRED’s own recently 

released study concludes that sustainable industries on public lands such as hunting, fishing, and 

outdoor recreation are important to the continued economic vitality of rural western 

communities. Sportsmen for Responsible Energy Development/Southwick Associates. 

Conserving Lands and Prosperity available at www.sportsmen4responsiblenergy.org ). 

We urge BLM not to overlook these values of the lands it manages in trust for all Americans. 

#28])> III. CONCLUSION

We are not opposed to the development of energy resources on our nation’s public lands. We 

understand that energy is vital to America and that, given the volatility of global markets, it is 

imperative that we reduce our reliance on foreign sources. However, because other important 

values are also at stake, such as fish, wildlife, and water, BLM must ensure that its decisions 

regarding the use of public lands are responsible and undertaken with a level of care 

commensurate with the trust that has been placed in its hands. Decisions to make public lands 

available on a commercial scale for unproven technologies at what could be terrible costs to 

other valued resources would be irresponsible at this juncture. 

Sincerely, 

Sportsmen for Responsible Energy Development, the National Wildlife Federation, the Theodore 
Final OSTS PEIS 1087 

Roosevelt Conservation Partnership, Trout Unlimited, the Colorado Wildlife Federation and the 

Wyoming Wildlife Federation. See Attachment. 

OSTS2012D50324 

Organization: Coalition of Local Governments 

Received: 5/4/2012 4:29:14 PM 

Commenter1: - Kemmerer, Wyoming 83101 (United States) 

Organization1:Coalition of Local Governments 

Commenter Type: Cooperating Agency 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: aziech 5/16/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50324.htm (OSTS2012D50324-59040.htm Size = 1 KB) 

CLG_OS-TS_Comments_PDEIS_FINAL_PDF_OSTS2012D50324.pdf (OSTS2012D50324-

59039.pdf Size = 174 KB) 

Submission Text

The Coalition of Local Governments (CLG) hereby submits its comments on the Oil 

Shale and Tar Sands Programmatic Draft Environmental Impact Statement (OS/TS 

PDEIS). The Coalition is an organization of Wyoming local governments including Little 

Snake River Conservation District, Lincoln County, Lincoln Conservation District, 

Sublette County, Sublette County Conservation District, Sweetwater County, 

Sweetwater County Conservation District, Uinta County and Uinta County Conservation 

District. The Coalition members are cooperating agencies on the PDEIS. 

CLG members established this organization to ensure that federal land decisions were 

consistent with the local governments’ plans and policies and to pool their expertise and 

resources. The Coalition members have more than eight years of experience as 

cooperating agencies and have worked on more than 25 projects and land use plans, 

including numerous energy projects. CLG members are currently working on the sage 

grouse Resource Management Plan (RMP) revisions in Wyoming. 

<([#1 [1.1.1] As an initial matter, the Coalition notes that the due dates for these comments were 

poorly stated. The Notice of Availability for the Oil Shale Tar Sands PDEIS was 

published on February 3, 2012 by the Environmental Protection Agency, 77 Fed. Reg. 

5513 (2012) and by the BLM on February 6, 2012. 77 Fed. Reg. 5833 (2012). The BLM 

notice provided that comments were due within 90 days of the EPA publication, which 

would be May 3, 2012. The EPA notice, however, incorrectly states that the comments 

were due May 2, 2012. To further confuse matters, the BLM web site states that the 

comments are due May 4, 2012. Several local governments formally requested 

additional time but in the absence of a response from BLM, the Coalition is filing these 

comments on May 4, 2012. 

#1])> 1. <([#2 [2.1.1] WYOMING LOCAL GOVERNMENT ALTERNATIVE

The Wyoming local governments support the land allocations in Alternative 1 for the oil 

shale program in Wyoming. Because Wyoming does not have an RD&D lease, it may 

well be appropriate for initial projects to start with and RD&D to determine which of the 

several proprietary techniques will work best. The local governments also assume that 
Final OSTS PEIS 1088 

the lease stipulations that have been applied for oil and agas to protect soils, water, 

vegetation and fish and wildlife will also apply. In addition, the reclamation standards 

should also be similar given the amount of effort that has gone into Wyoming specific 

reclamation. 

Much of the affected land is located within the boundaries of the Rock Springs Field 

Office (RSFO) which is currently revising its RMP. As currently postured, the 

designations identified in the preferred alternative for the OS/TS PDEIS will conflict with 

many pending RMP decisions, such as lands with wilderness character (LWCs), Areas 

of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs) and other special designations. It would 

make more sense to allow the RSFO to handle this issue as an integral part of its energy 

development and land use planning in the ongoing plan revision process. 

The rest of the high potential area in Wyoming is covered by the Kemmerer RMP, which 

was final in 2008. The OS/TS PDEIS does not provide any factual basis to revise the 

RMP decisions as they apply to oil shale development. The Kemmerer RMP adopted 

the Wyoming sage grouse strategy to protect core area habitat. 

CLG members object to the effort to revise these land use plans through the back door 

without the data or information that was used or being used to write the land use plans. 

This is especially confusing for the public lands in the RSFO. The land allocations in 

Alternative 1, even if only for Wyoming, should be retained especially in light of the 

insufficient data found in the OS/TS PDEIS. 

Under the 2008 rules, 43 C.F.R. Parts 3900, 3920, 3930, Research Demonstration and 

Development (RD&D) leases were issued before commercial lease rules were adopted. 

43 U.S.C. §15927(e). The OS/TS PDEIS would expand RD&D without any commercial 

leasing. 

The BLM signed a settlement agreement proposes amendments to the Oil Shale Final 

Rule. The proposed amendments require BLM to expressly state that it has discretion to 

deny an application converting an RD&D lease to a commercial lease based on 

environmental and other resource considerations and that BLM has discretion to reject 

an oil shale commercial lessee’s proposed plan of development based on environmental 

or other resource considerations. This would add additional requirements under 43 

C.F.R. §3926.10. 

The proposed amendments require BLM to only consider issuing a commercial oil shale 

lease upon application for a conversion from an RD&D lease to a commercial lease, or 

after BLM issues a call for expression of leasing interest. The proposed amendments 

also require BLM to not issue any commercial lease unless it is shown that operations 

can be done without unacceptable environmental risk. Finally, the proposed 

amendments require plans of development for oil shale commercial leases to include 

watershed and groundwater protection plans, and environmental protection and 

mitigation plans, including defined standards for each of these requirements. BLM 

acknowledged that approval of any conversion to a commercial lease must be preceded 

by a NEPA analysis. 

These changes, when coupled with the discontinuous parcels made available for RD&D 

leasing in the OS/TS PDEIS alternatives, other than Alternative 1, will not provide the 

necessary assurance to industry that it will realize a return on investment. Any land 

configuration needs to be sufficiently contiguous that a company can recover the multimillion 

dollar investment that even an RD&D project requires. Alternatives 2 - 4 do not 
Final OSTS PEIS 1089 

achieve that objective. #2])>

2. <([#3 [9.2.2] OS/TS PDEIS DOES NOT CONFORM TO SECTION 369 OF THE 2005 

ENERGY POLICY

ACT

In 2005, Congress directed BLM to establish a commercial program for development of 

oil shale and tar sands. Section 369 of the Energy Policy Act (2005 EP Act) adopted on 

August 8, 2005 relates to “Oil Shale, Tar Sands, and Other Strategic Unconventional 

Fuels.” 42 U.S.C. §15927.That title declared it to be the United States’ policy that “oil 

shale, tar sands, and other unconventional fuels are strategically important domestic 

resources that should be developed to reduce the growing dependence of the United 

States on politically and economically unstable sources of foreign oil imports.” 42 U.S.C. 

§ 15927(b)(1). Congress also directed that it be United States policy that commercial 

development of oil shale “be conducted in an environmentally sound manner, using 

practices that minimize impacts.” 42 U.S.C. §15927(b)(2). 

The 2005 EP Act required that the Interior Secretary promptly follow the completion of 

the programmatic EIS with regulations establishing a commercial oil shale and tar sands 

leasing program. 42 U.S.C. §15927(d)(2) (“Not later than 6 months after the completion 

of the [PEIS] under this subsection, the Secretary [of the Interior] shall publish a final 

regulation establishing such [commercial oil shale and tar sands leasing] program.”). 

Section 369 directs the Department of the Interior (DOI) to issue commercial oil shale 

leases 180 days after the final rules are promulgated. Id. Lease sales are to include 

consultation with states, local governments, tribal governments and others to determine 

the level of interest. Id. DOI promulgated the final rules in November 2008. 73 Fed. 

Reg. 69414 (2008). Rather than follow the law, DOI suspended all oil shale leasing in 

2009 and has ignored its Task Force reporting obligations. 42 U.S.C. §15927(h). 

While DOI is required to file reports with Congress each year, none has been prepared 

since 2008. http://www.unconventionalfuels.org/publications.html. The only reports now 

prepared are on “Secure Fuels.” 

The extent of Congress’ commitment to unconventional fuels including oil shale and tar 

sands is also found in the establishment of a Task Force. 42 U.S.C. §15927(h). 

Department of Energy is to create commercial strategic fuel development program and 

to coordinate with state and local governments. DOI was to prepare a new assessment 

of priority areas in the Green River Region, which includes Wyoming, Utah and 

Colorado. Id. at §15927(m)(B). The heavy oil assessment was also to be updated. Id. 

§15927(p). 

BLM proceeded to implement the direction by preparing a programmatic EIS that 

addressed the environmental impacts of oil shale an tar sands development and 

identified the public lands with the best potential. Based on the two considerations, BLM 

identified about two million acres of public land in Wyoming, Utah and Colorado as 

suitable and available for oil shale and tar sands development. ROD, 2008 OS/TS 

PFEIS at 1-4. BLM also promulgated rules to implement the commercial leasing 

program. 43 C.F.R. Parts 3900, 3920, 3930, 3936. 

The OS/TS PDEIS is intended to analyze the impacts of a commercial leasing program, 

not the RD &D program authorized in subsection (c). 42 U.S.C. §15927(c). The 2008 

PFEIS accomplished this mandate but the OS/TS PDEIS does not. Instead, its 

identification of land omits high potential land and limits development to small and 
Final OSTS PEIS 1090 

scattered areas that it makes a commercial program less feasible and is calculated to 

discourage commercial development. The OS/TS PDEIS admits this when it claims the 

changes are needed to conduct additional research. OS/TS PDEIS at 1-5. The law 

authorized RD&D separately and did not give the Secretary the discretion to substitute a 

commercial leasing program with another RD&D leasing program which applies to 25% 

of the land previously classified as suitable and available. #3])>

3. <([#4 [9.5] OS/TS PDEIS FAILS TO CONFORM TO RMP PROCEDURES

a. OS/TS PDEIS Supersedes RMP Decisions Without Adequate

Rationale

The preferred alternative will remove from development lands with alleged wilderness 

character, notwithstanding a congressional prohibition on changing management to 

protect these lands. [Continuing Appropriations Act 2011, Pub. L. 112-10 (2011CR); 

Continuing Appropriations Act 2012, Pub. L. 112-36 (112th Congress) H.R. 2608, 

10/05/11] The OS/TS PDEIS also proposes to exclude ACECs and other areas 

nominated by special interest groups, including groups that sued BLM in 2009, from oil 

shale or tar sands leasing. In many cases, the preferred alternative vetoes recent land 

use planning decisions, such as those for the Kemmerer RMP. In the case of the Rock 

Springs RMP, the OS/TS PDEIS will essentially make decisions that bind the plan 

revision process, without the requisite analysis or data. 

The preferred alternative excludes more than 75% of the lands previously determined to 

be available for oil shale or tar sands leasing. This occurs even though much of the 

same land area is still classified as suitable and available for oil and gas leasing. 

The OS/TS PDEIS purports to override the local land use planning process by 

designating LWCs, proposed ACECs and other protective sites, including the evergrowing 

Adobe Town area. Programmatic decisions cannot override the RMP process 

and as such, BLM is running roughshod over the rules and procedures established for 

land use decisions by implementing the resource allocations well ahead of information 

and analysis. 

The Rock Springs Field Office initiated its plan revision in Spring of 2011. Much of the 

Wyoming high potential area is located in the Rock Springs Field Office but the OS/TS 

PDEIS appears to use proposed LWCs and ACECs that have not yet been fully 

addressed within the cooperating agency process, let alone a DEIS. CLG members 

cannot even comment in this process because it would violate the confidentiality 

agreement that it signed with BLM. This dilemma illustrates the flaws in BLM’s efforts to 

impose top down decisions on LWCs and ACECs as well as the Adobe Town area, 

when those issues are still being addressed among the cooperating agencies. If BLM 

proceeds on this time table, it will eviscerate the land use planning process. This 

situation also suggests that national BLM has chosen to proceed without regard to its 

obligation to coordinate with local governments. For instance, Sweetwater County went 

on record a year ago as only supporting special management for the Adobe Town area 

within its wilderness study boundaries. The OS/TS PDEIS protects a much larger area 

even though the Wyoming Rare and Uncommon Area classification only prohibits noncoal 

surface mining and allows all other forms of mineral development. Wyo. Stat. 35- 

11-112(a)(v); Environmental Quality Commission rules, Chapter VII. 

#4])> b. <([#5 [9.2.4] Sage Grouse Management

The State of Wyoming has been aggressively developing a sage grouse strategy for 
Final OSTS PEIS 1091 

management since 2004. By 2008, the sage grouse core areas had been defined and 

management guidelines developed. Wyoming Gov. E.O. 2008-2, 2010-4; 2011-5. 

Wyoming BLM largely adopted or followed these guidelines in the RMP revisions for the 

Kemmerer, Pinedale and Rawlins Field Office. Thus, the candidate status of the sage 

grouse is not a basis to remove these lands from oil shale and tar sands development, 

especially in light of the significant restrictions already in place. The OS/TS PDEIS 

omits these entirely. 

Wyoming BLM initiated a statewide RMP amendment for the sage grouse to address the 

2008 executive order in fall of 2008. [BLM IM 2010-012 Sage Grouse Habitat 

Management, December 29, 2009; IM 2010-013 Oil and Gas Leasing Screen for 

Greater Sage Grouse, December 29, 2009] CLG members are cooperating agencies 

and this process is well along. #5])>

4. IMPLEMENTATION OF LWC CLASSIFICATIONS IN RMPS IS UNLAWFUL

A significant percent of the excluded acreage in the OS/TS PDEIS is justified on the 

basis that the LWCs must be protected. OS/TS PDEIS at 1-5, 2-12, 2-21, 2-52. 

a. <([#6 [9.2.1] [3.1.3] OS/TS PDEIS violates Congressional Funding Freeze on LWC

Identification and Management

On December 22, 2010, Secretary Salazar announced a new initiative to identify and 

manage public lands with wilderness character. Secretarial Order No. 3310 Protecting 

Wilderness Characteristics on Lands Managed by the Bureau of Land Management 

(Dec. 22, 2010) [The Wild Lands Policy and IM 2011-154 contradict the commitments made to 

the State of Utah, the U.S. Congress and the public when the Secretary stated that he 

would honor the Settlement Agreement between Utah and DOI (Answering Yes to the 

question from Senator Bennett “Do you agree that currently the Department has no 

authority to establish new WSAs (Post-603 WSAs) under any provision of law, such as 

the Wilderness Act of [sic] Section 202 of FLPMA?”) The Secretary also stated BLM 

had no authority to impose nonimpairment management on non-WSA lands]. 

This action was followed with the adoption of manuals to guide BLM 

employees in the implementation of the extra-wilderness designation process. The 

resulting controversy and outcry, not to mention Director Abbey’s admission that no 

specific section of Federal Land Policy Management Act (FLPMA) authorized the 

identification of lands with wilderness character outside of Section 603, led Congress to 

defund the entire initiative. [Continuing Appropriations Act 2011, Pub. L. 112- 10 

(2011CR); Continuing Appropriations Act 2012, Pub. L. 112-36 (112th Congress) H.R. 

2608, 10/05/11] 

BLM has long contended that a mere inventory of wilderness character falls within its 

authority, citing 43 U.S.C. §1711(a). But FLPMA is equally clear that BLM cannot 

change land management based on an inventory unless and until the land use plan is 

amended. Id. The OS/TS PDEIS uses an undisclosed wilderness inventory and then 

proposes to change the management of these areas to protect the alleged wilderness 

character without disclosure of the basis for BLM’s determination. This is exactly what 

S.O. 3310 directed BLM to do. When Congress froze all funding for it, two months after 

the Colorado Environmental Coalition v. Salazar (09-0085, 09-0091) settlement, BLM’s 

hands were tied. The apparent decision to proceed regardless of the funding freeze is in 

contempt of Congress and unlawful. 31 U.S.C. §1341. 

Calling these areas LWCs does not change the result. These areas are allegedly 
Final OSTS PEIS 1092 

wilderness suitable and BLM proposes to manage them in the same manner as it would 

have had Congress not shut down all funding related to S.O. 3310. Changing the name 

from “Wildlands” to “LWCs” does not make the action any more lawful. Apparently, BLM 

acknowledges the difficulty and has assiduously avoided any kind of public rulemaking 

process to implement the switch from S.O. 3310 to IM 2011-154. 

The OS/TS PDEIS contradicts Congress’ clear direction that BLM cease and desist from 

implementing the provisions of S.O. 3310. The fact that BLM put the implementing 

manuals in abeyance but issued Instruction Memorandum (IM) 2011-154 that 

implements the Order does not excuse BLM from the clear violation of Congress’ edict [The 

Antideficiency Act provides that “an officer or employee of the U.S. 

Government may not make or authorize an expenditure or obligation exceeding an 

amount available in an appropriation or fund for the expenditure or obligation; involve 

the government in a contract or obligation for the payment of money before an 

appropriation is made unless authorized by law . . ..” 31 U.S.C. §1341. The act 

imposes criminal penalties for violation, Id. at §1350, and authorizes adverse personnel 

action for employees that violate the law. Id. at §1349]. 

IM 2011-154 suffers from procedural deficiencies as well. It was issued without 

coordinating with local governments, public comment or in accordance with rulemaking 

procedures. Thus, it independently violates Federal Land Policy and Management Act 

(FLPMA) mandate that its provisions be implemented through rulemaking, 43 U.S.C. 

§1740. 

An instruction memorandum issued by BLM in order to evade the funding and 

implementation freeze on S.O. 3310 enjoys little or no presumption of legality. United

States v. Mead Corp., 533 U.S. 318 (2001) (holding that the court owes little deference 

to agency guidelines). By implementing the IM, BLM runs a serious risk that the OS/TS 

PDEIS will be set aside. 

B. NO LEGAL AUTHORITY TO IMPLEMENT SECRETARIAL ORDER 3310 OR 

SIMILAR

DIRECTION

Unlike the definition of multiple use for National Forests, 16 U.S.C. §529, FLPMA does 

not include wilderness as one of the statutory multiple uses. 43 U.S.C. §1702(c). 

Wilderness has its own definition, which is limited to Section 603. (“(i) The term 

‘wilderness’ as used in section 1782 of this title shall have the same meaning as it does 

in section 1131(c) of Title 16.” Id. §1702(i). The term ‘wilderness’ is found only in the 

definition section, 43 U.S.C. §1702(i) and the wilderness review provisions of Section 

603, 43 U.S.C. §1782; 43 C.F.R. §1601.0-5(i). Section 603 is the only provision in 

federal law that authorizes the identification, study and recommendation of public lands 

for wilderness designation by Congress. Thus, BLM is not at liberty to add wilderness to 

other provisions in FLPMA when Congress so clearly chose not to. 

Only Section 603 of FLPMA authorizes BLM to manage lands so as to not impair their 

wilderness character. Tri-County Cattleman’s Association Idaho Cattlemen’s

Association, 60 IBLA 305, 314 (1981). There is no other statutory authority for BLM to 

study and manage public lands as if they were wilderness. Public lands are to be 

managed so as to not unduly and unnecessarily degrade the resources. (43 U.S.C. 

§1732(b) [nondegradation standard], except for WSAs which are managed so as to not 

impair the wilderness character.) Id at 1782(c). 
Final OSTS PEIS 1093 

The Interior Secretary’s authority to identify public lands as wilderness study areas under 

Section 603 has expired. State of Utah v. Babbitt, 137 F.3d 1193, 1206, n.17 (10th Cir. 

1998) (Secretary Babbitt wrote “I also agree with you that FLPMA’s section 603 no 

longer provides authority to inventory BLM land in Utah for wilderness values.”). BLM 

has attempted to claim discretion to manage lands to preserve their wilderness 

character but the planning rules do not so provide. The rules were revised to remove 

wilderness study from the general planning process and have never been amended to 

make wilderness study part of the land use planning process [By comparison, the Forest Service 

revised its planning rules to integrate 

wilderness study and recommendations into each plan revision. 36 C.F.R. §219.27]. 

Section 202 of FLPMA provides for the development and revision of land use plans. 43 

U.S.C. §1712. Land use planning must have coordination with state and local 

governments, public involvement and be consistent with FLPMA. 43 U.S.C. §1712(a). 

The criteria for developing and revising land use plans, includes (1) using and observing 

the principles of multiple use and sustained yield set forth in FLPMA and other 

applicable laws, 43 U.S.C. §1712(c)(1); (2) interdisciplinary approach, §1712(c)(2); (3) 

priority to designate ACECs, §1712(c)(3); and (4) “to the extent consistent with the laws 

governing the administration of the public lands, coordinate the land use inventory, 

planning, and management activities of or for such lands with the land use planning and 

management programs of other Federal departments and agencies and of the States 

and local governments within which the lands are located;”§1712(c)(9). FLPMA further 

states: “Land use plans of the Secretary under this section shall be consistent with State 

and local plans to the maximum extent he finds consistent with Federal law and the 

purposes of this Act.” Id. 

Nothing in Section 202, which governs land use planning, authorizes wilderness study or 

wilderness-type management. The history of the planning rules shows that the word 

“wilderness” was deleted from the draft of the planning rules on purpose. When BLM 

wrote the rules governing land use plans, it originally defined a resource management 

plan as including “the initial determination of whether a wilderness study area shall be 

recommended to the President for recommendation to the Congress as suitable or 

unsuitable as an addition to the National Wilderness Preservation System.” 43 Fed. 

Reg. 58764, 58768-69 (1978) draft 43 C.F.R. §1601.0-5(p)(2). The definition of a 

resource management plan was later revised to delete reference to wilderness study 

area recommendations. 44 Fed. Reg. 46386 (1979). Thus, BLM has no regulations in 

the land use planning chapter authorizing establishment of wilderness type areas or 

authorizing nonimpairment management for such lands other than designated WSAs 

designation pursuant to Section 603, which expired. 

BLM adopted the Wild Lands Policy through three Manuals, based on its claimed 

discretion in FLPMA, Sections 201, 202 and 302 of FLPMA. Those provisions do not 

support BLM’s claimed authority to designate Wild Lands or LWCs or to manage them 

as if they were designated WSAs for nonimpairment of the wilderness character. 

IM 2011-154 was adopted without proper comment procedures and without coordination 

with local governments. Under Section 202(a), BLM has no choice but to coordinate 

with local governments and to resolve conflicts in land use plans. 43 U.S.C. §1712(a). 

So far BLM has failed to do so on this very important issue. No Wyoming local 

government within the affected area supports proposed or identified LWCs. Several of 
Final OSTS PEIS 1094 

the applicable local government plans oppose new wilderness character areas. BLM 

has clearly violated Section 202 by not coordinating both its inventory and LWC 

determination with the local governments. 

The OS/TS PDEIS also fails to identify which, if any, inventory it has used to identify the 

LWCs. For example, in the Rock Springs Field Office, BLM has maps of the alleged 

LWCs which were identified without any coordination with local governments. The single 

map in the OS/TS PDEIS fails to identify these areas or to disclose the factual basis for 

the LWC classification. OS/TS PDEIS Figure 2.3.3-3. Thus, it is impossible to divine 

their location or the resource values that prompted the classification being used in the 

OS/TS PDEIS. If CLG had access to this information it could provide site specific 

documentation of the errors in the premise that these are LWCs. 

These lands are not “wilderness” as that term is used in the Wilderness Act. These 

areas are heavily roaded and include the Wyoming Checkerboard where Anadarko 

owns the alternating sections. There are powerlines, rights-of-way for pipelines, wind 

farms as well as coal mining and oil and gas development. 

It appears that the OS/TS PDEIS adopts this unofficial and inaccurate information and 

excluded significantly high potential public lands from oil shale leasing. CLG requested 

the information regarding these inventories in November and never received it. CLG 

assumes that for Utah the OS/TS PDEIS uses the Utah HR 1925 lands without regard to 

the RMP decisions that evaluated those lands in 2008. 

Figure 2.3.3-3 depicts the Wyoming LWCs without providing any other information or 

even labels. Chapter 6 of the OS/TS PDEIS lists the areas and acreage without 

providing maps or a description. The OS/TS PDEIS uses a limited and incorrect 

definition of wilderness. Footnote to Table 6.2.3 states: “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.” This statement is materially incorrect, because the 

definition of wilderness requires that an area be roadless and that it be greater than 

5,000 acres. 16 U.S.C. §1131(a). The OS/TS PDEIS conveniently drops the first two 

criteria. 

Table 6.1.1-2 purports to list LWCs in Wyoming, when that classification has never been 

adopted or even made public. The Adobe Town WSA consists of 85,710 acres. None 

of the listed areas correspond to WSAs designated in 1980. Since there is no 

information provided, CLG members cannot provide meaningful comments. #6])>

5. <([#7 [1.5] [9.8] OS/TS PDEIS FAILS TO CONFORM TO NEPA RULES

A. PURPOSE AND NEED

“Agency action should be overturned only when the agency has ‘relied on factors which 

Congress has not intended it to consider, entirely failed to consider an important aspect 

of the problem, offered an explanation for its decision that runs counter to the evidence 

before the agency, or is so implausible that it could not be ascribed to a difference in 

view or the product of agency expertise.’” Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n v. State Farm

Mutual Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 43 (1983). The OS/TS PDEIS meets the definition 

of arbitrary and capricious as the explanation for the land use allocations do not have 

sufficient explanation or documentation to support them, and the explanation for revision 

runs counter to the facts. 

i. Real Purpose and Need Unaddressed
Final OSTS PEIS 1095 

The Notice of Intent and the statement of Purpose and Need in the PDEIS omit the real 

basis for the new programmatic EIS. BLM settled two lawsuits, which challenged both 

the 2008 PFEIS Record of Decision Colorado Environmental Coalition (CEC) v. Salazar, 

No. 09-0085; and the regulations promulgated to implement an oil shale and tar sands 

leasing program, Colorado Environmental Coalition (CEC) v. Salazar, 09-0091. The 

conduct of the two cases and, particularly, the CEC’s failure to prosecute the cases 

strongly suggests that this was a friendly litigation with an equally friendly settlement [It is 

ironic that the environmental plaintiffs excoriated BLM for settling the Utah 

wilderness inventory case with the State of Utah and yet clearly filed these two cases 

for the purpose of securing sweetheart terms to eviscerate the oil shale and tar sands 

programs]. 

Plaintiffs filed the two cases in February of 2009, but the government sought numerous 

extensions of time to answer and settled the case shortly before the administrative 

records were to be filed before the court. 

BLM’s reconsideration of the 2008 OS/TS ROD is based entirely on the terms of the 

settlement in which BLM committed to this revision. CEC v. Salazar, #63 ¶1 (“No later 

than 120 days after this Settlement Agreement becomes effective, Defendants will 

publish a notice of intent (“NOI”) to consider amending each of the land use planning 

decisions made by the 2008 OSTS ROD.”) BLM also committed to consider excluding 

from oil shale and tar sands development all “lands with wilderness character” a term 

that did not exist until December 23, 2010. BLM also agreed to exclude existing and 

proposed ACECs and the Adobe Town rare and uncommon area. The state law 

designation of a rare and uncommon area only prohibits noncoal surface mining but 

allows coal mining under certain conditions, as well as oil and gas development. EQC 

Rules Ch. VII. It cannot apply to public land. Calif. Coastal Commn. v. Granite Rock

Co., 480 U.S. 572 (1987) (holding state’s coastal zone management could not regulate 

mining on federal land). 

In the rulemaking case, BLM committed to amending the oil shale and tar sands leasing 

rules within 15 months. BLM has made no move to initiate the changes. The settlement 

terms mandate the content of the final rules to a degree that violates public policy and 

the law, because BLM agrees in advance to what the final rules will provide. BLM also 

agreed to deny applications to convert RD&D leases to commercial leases based on 

environmental and resource considerations, to reject plans of development and to limit 

commercial leases to RD&D lessee after expressions of interest and detailed 

stipulations. CEC v. Salazar, No. 09-0091, Doc. No. 80-1 ¶¶1-6. The settlement 

predetermines the outcome of the rulemaking such that BLM has relinquished its 

authority and discretion. 

The 2008 regulations remain in effect but cannot be implemented under the terms of the 

settlement, which prohibit oil shale leasing. By accepting the plaintiffs’ demands for 

content, BLM has failed to comply with the 2005 EP Act, Section 369 to develop a 

commercial oil shale and tar sands leasing program. 

As is clear in the OS/TS PDEIS, BLM also committed to a predetermined outcome in the 

programmatic EIS to reduce the potential for oil shale and tar sands development by 

removing 75% of the land base and limiting the remnants of the program to research 

and development, rather than the commercial scale mandated by federal law. The fast 

pace of the drafting of the OS/TS PDEIS and the fact that entire chapters are largely the 
Final OSTS PEIS 1096 

same as the 2008 PFEIS. BLM is doing a rush job to issue a final decision without 

regard to the facts or competing legal obligations and constraints. 

ii. Purpose and Need for Revision Unsupported in OS/TS PDEIS

The Notice of Intent to revise the 2008 Oil Shale and Tar Sands FEIS stated: “The BLM 

has decided to take a fresh look at the land use plan allocation decisions made in the 

2008 ROD associated with the Programmatic EIS, in order to consider which lands 

should be open to future leasing of oil shale and tar sands resources.” 76 Fed. Reg. 

21003 (2012). The Notice of Intent went on to state that: 

As there are no economically viable ways yet known to extract and process 

oil shale for commercial purposes, and Utah tar sands deposits are not at 

present a proven commercially-viable energy source, the BLM, through its 

planning process, intends to take a hard look at whether it is appropriate 

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

development of oil shale, and approximately 431,224 acres of public land 

to remain available for potential development of tar sands. 

Id.

The OS/TS PDEIS expresses the purpose and need as necessary to determine which 

lands should be removed from the classification of available for leasing. “The purpose 

and need for this proposed planning action is to reassess the appropriate mix of 

allowable uses with respect to oil shale and tar sands leasing and potential 

development. Specifically, the BLM will consider amending the applicable Resource 

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

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

or tar sands should not be available for such application for leasing and development.” 

PDEIS 1-4. #7])>

<([#8 [9.2.2] The criteria to exclude high potential oil shale and tar sands lands from leasing 

suffers 

several flaws. First, OS/TS PDEIS does not and indeed cannot explain how it conforms 

to Section 369, since BLM previously concluded that similar alternative would not 

conform. 2008 Record of Decision PFEIS (2008 ROD) at 22 (“Much of the most 

geologically prospective acreage would be excluded under Alternative C; in particular 

areas which are in close proximity to three of the six RD&D leases would be excluded. In 

addition, this unreasonably fragments the area that would be available for application, 

resulting in parcels that are unlikely to be explored, leased, or developed.”) #8])>

<([#64 [9.2.1] Second, Congress has prohibited BLM from spending federal funds to classify 

and manage lands 

as LWCs as directed in S.O. 3310. Alternatives 2-4 propose exclusions based on 

LWCs, thus implementing the S.O. 3310 in defiance of the ban on spending federal 

funds to do so [BLM’s actions violate the Anti-Deficiency Act, 31 U.S.C. §1341 and the 

involved officials could face adverse employment actions, Id. at §1350, and criminal 

penalties, §1349]. 

#64])> <([#65 [9] [3.1.5] Third, all of the alternatives exclude from oil shale leasing the Adobe 

Town Rare & Uncommon Area, which is a state law classification that allows leasing but 

prohibits mining. The rare and uncommon designation cannot apply to public land, 

because the 1872 mining laws, as amended, preempt state law. Calif. Coastal Commn.

v. Granite Rock Co., 480 U.S. 572 (1987) (holding state’s coastal zone management 
Final OSTS PEIS 1097 

could not regulate mining on federal land). 

The Coalition has previously explained that the larger Adobe Town area is not supported 

by Sweetwater County and impairs private land uses. Fourth, the OS/TS PDEIS 

provides no information about these areas, although many of the ACECs are merely 

proposed. Hence, there is no ‘fresh look’ nor does the OS/TS PDEIS disclose the new 

information upon which BLM is relying to support the actions proposed in the OS/TS 

PDEIS. The OS/TS PDEIS does not provide any information that would support the 

status of these areas or their exclusion. The apparent rush to complete the OS/TS 

PDEIS resulted in omission of the description of areas to be excluded, and this failure to 

describe or analyze the areas prevents the public and coordinating entities from 

meaningful public comment. #65])>

<([#9 [1.5] [2] b. Detailed Analysis of Alternatives

The OS/TS PDEIS identifies the Preferred Alternative as 2(b). 

The BLM has selected Alternative 2(b) as the Preferred Alternative. The 

Preferred Alternative would make approximately 461,965 acres available 

for future consideration for commercial oil shale leasing and 91,045 acres 

available for application for commercial tar sands leasing, but only for 

research, development, and demonstration (RD&D) leases. The BLM 

would issue a commercial lease only when a lessee satisfies the conditions 

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

conversion to a commercial lease. The preference right acreage, if any, 

which would be included in the converted lease, would be specified in the 

RD&D lease. 

OS/TS PDEIS at i. 

The OS/TS PDEIS, however, does not contain any specific analysis of the expanded 

RD&D program that is being proposed in lieu of the commercial leasing program. The 

OS/TS PDEIS attempts to compensate for this defect by stating: 

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

indistinguishable from those of Alternative 2(a). Only the method of 

obtaining a lease would be different. Accordingly, the analysis in this PEIS 

of Alternative 2 applies fully and equally to both alternatives. To the extent 

there may be differences in environmental consequences between 

Alternative 2(a) and 2(b), these would be related to the timing of the 

commencement of impacts, as well as, possibly, length of disturbance. 

However, these issues are best addressed in the lease and/or 

project-specific analysis. 

OS/TS PDEIS at ES-7, 2-35. The OS/TS PDEIS states that this alternative was not 

developed until quite late in the process. 

As the Draft PEIS was being developed, the idea for this alternative 

emerged. It is presented here in brief. This alternative is not noted 

elsewhere in the document but will be developed further in preparation of 

the Final PEIS. Analytically, this subalternative is indistinguishable from 

Alternative 2(a) in terms of environmental consequences. Therefore further 

environmental analysis in preparation of the Final PEIS is not anticipated, 

although more detailed explanation may be provided, particularly in 

response to comments received. 
Final OSTS PEIS 1098 

OS/TS PDEIS at 2-35. 

The OS/TS PDEIS statement that Alternative 2(b) environmental impacts are basically 

the same as Alternative 2(a) is untrue. Alternative 2(b) changes the timing of oil shale 

leasing to slow it down and this change in timing significantly changes the nature of the 

impacts on water, surface disturbance. NEPA requires agencies to consider direct, 

indirect, and cumulative effects in the context of geography and timing. 40 C.F.R. 

§1508.25. The preferred alternative delays in issuing RD&D leases and not issuing 

commercial leases will change the scope and impact and must be separately analyzed. 

The very limited information about Alternative 2(b) and the omitted discussion of the 

imminent rule changes do not provide the public with sufficient information to determine 

whether, in fact, it is virtually identical to Alternative 2(a). If Alternative 2(b) is essentially 

the same, then BLM should and could have changed Alternative 2(a). BLM has already 

committed to rule changes in the CEC settlement agreement. The OS/TS PDEIS omits 

all discussion, even though the rulemaking is a connected action that falls within the 

scope of this EIS and failure to discuss the connected actions violates NEPA. 40 C.F.R. 

§§1501.7; 1508.25. For instance, the OS/TS PDEIS claims Alternative 2(b) will change 

the lease terms but provides no information on what those changes will be, other than it 

will only authorize RD&D leases. Id. at ES-7, 2-35. 

NEPA requires that each alternative be analyzed in detail. 40 C.F.R. §1502.14(b) 

(substantial treatment must be devoted “to each alternative considered in detail including 

the proposed action so that reviewers may evaluate their comparative merits.”). The 

discussion of alternatives in the EIS must be sufficient to permit a reasoned choice 

among the options.” State of Wyoming v. USDA, 661 F.3d 1209, 1243 (10th Cir. 2011) 

(quoting AWARE v. Colo. Dep’t of Transp., 153 F.3d 1122, 1130 (10th Cir. 1998)). 

BLM’s failure to explain the preferred alternative or its impacts on the respective states 

and communities, requires that BLM withdraw the draft and revise or issue a supplement 

to explain the preferred alternative. 40 C.F.R. 1502.9 (“If a draft statement is so 

inadequate as to preclude meaningful analysis, the agency shall prepare and circulate a 

revised draft of the appropriate portion.”) 

Alternative 2(b) does not conform to Section 369 because it continues the RD&D 

program instead of providing for a commercial leasing program. While an agency can 

consider an alternative that requires additional authority, it must disclose this fact. Forty

Questions on CEQ NEPA Regulations, 46 Fed. Reg. 18026 (1981) as amended 51 Fed. 

Reg. 15618 (1986), Answer to Question 2(b). The OS/TS PDEIS does not propose an 

amendment to the 2005 EP Act to modify the mandate. 

#9])> c. <([#10 [1.5] [6.5] Omission of Significant New Information 

The Purpose and Need for the OS/TS PDEIS is justified as a “fresh look” at oil shale and 

tar sands development. 76 Fed. Reg. 21003 (2011). The OS/TS PDEIS is not in fact a 

“fresh look,” it is merely a retread of an alternative previously rejected by BLM on the 

grounds that it would not conform to Section 369 of the 2005 EPA. [2008 ROD at 22]. 

The purposeful omission of new information is significant and violates NEPA. Since the 

2008 ROD was signed, several companies have been developing oil shale pursuant to 

the RD&D leases. The OS/TS PDEIS omits these results and progress reports. 

Similarly advances in technologies and actual experience with these technologies has 

been omitted. Instead, the OS/TS PDEIS repeats throughout the conclusion that oil 

shale and tar sands are not commercially viable and also repeats old data regarding the 
Final OSTS PEIS 1099 

amount of water, power and surface disturbance. 

The OS/TS PDEIS excludes new information regarding oil shale and tar sands 

technology and makes very limited the use of the 2010 and 2011 USGS assessments 

of potential. OS/TS PDEIS 2-77. Chapter 3 and App. A are very similar, if not identical, 

to the 2008 FEIS and notably do not discuss oil shale extraction technology used by Red 

Leaf or Enefit. 

The OS/TS PDEIS purports to include new information regarding sage grouse, LWCs 

and ACECs but the information is vague and incomplete as to preclude any kind of 

meaningful analysis. The OS/TS PDEIS lacks a discussion disclosing the resource 

values of these areas, the basis for the respective classification, or the other current land 

uses. The OS/TS PDEIS does not discuss the Wyoming sage grouse strategy or how 

BLM adopted the state strategy as an interim protection. 

Many of these areas have oil and gas leases and even production, which would 

contradict the description as LWCs. In Wyoming, the OS/TS PDEIS omits that these 

areas are also located in the Wyoming Checkerboard where the private land is owned 

by Anadarko, a gas development company. The OS/TS PDEIS concludes that private 

land is inconsistent with development when the private lands in Wyoming have been 

developed for decades and generally in conjunction with public lands. 

While BLM could theoretically decide not to issue individual leases, it does not have the 

discretion to simply discard new and relevant information. This information is 

environmentally significant since it shows retort methods using modest amounts of water 

and causing significantly less surface disturbance than assumed in 2008. NEPA 

requires BLM to consider significant new information and this omission results in a 

significant bias of the OS/TS PDEIS against additional oil shale and tar sands 

development notwithstanding the congressional mandate to proceed with this program. 

Similarly, the OS/TS PDEIS omits the statutorily required assessment of oil shale and tar 

sands potential. 42 U.S.C. §15927(m). The USGS Assessment reports completed in 

2010 and 2011 identified additional land as having high potential but the OS/TS PDEIS 

did not use this report in its identification of potential lands. Instead, the OS/TS PDEIS 

simply modified the areas identified in 2008 and made them 75% smaller. 

The omission of new information is further documented in the fact that many of the 

chapters, especially Chapter 3 and the Appendices, are largely unchanged from the 

2008 PFEIS. This only shows that BLM limited its update the OS/TS PDEIS to the 

alleged LWCs and other special designations as a basis to marginalize a 

congressionally mandated program. 

#10])> d. <([#11 [6.3.5] [6.3.2] OS/TS PDEIS Dismissal of Technology Fails to Acknowledge

Significant Scientific Controversies

At a minimum, BLM must acknowledge that there is a scientific controversy regarding its 

key assumptions of environmental impact and support its position. 40 C.F.R. 

§1508.127(b)(4); Middle Rio Grand Conservation Dist. v. Norton, 294 F.3d 1220, 1229 

(10th Cir. 2002) (setting aside critical habitat designation EIS on the basis that “[t]he wide 

disparity in the estimates of water required for the designation, and the associated loss 

of farmland acreage, indicate that a substantial dispute exists as to the effect of the 

designation.”). Like the above decision, there is a wide disparity in estimates of water, 

surface area and electrical power assumed to be necessary for oil shale development. 

BLM, like the USFWS, must address the disparities, especially since the newer data 
Final OSTS PEIS 1100 

reflect new information. 

The OS/TS PDEIS repeats the refrain that oil shale development will require more than 

1 barrel of water for each barrel of oil. OS/TS PDEIS 4-3, 4-9, 4-11, 4-33, 4-47, 4-48, 5- 

32, 5-35, A-85. As described by Red Leaf and Enefit, two companies operating in 

Colorado and Utah under RD&D leases, new technology does not rely on large amounts 

of water in the retort process. The R&D program was intended to provide BLM with this 

type of information, yet it is excluded from the OS/TS PDEIS. By using outdated or 

erroneous assumptions, the OS/TS PDEIS exaggerates the water and power needs as 

well as the surface disturbance. 

The same defects apply to the OS/TS PDEIS assumptions about the size of the surface 

disturbance and the amount of electrical power needed. OS/TS PDEIS at A-46, A-62, 

A-80, A-84, A-85. In part, these errors arise because the BLM never updated Chapter 3 

or the Appendices. These same assumptions are carried through to Chapters 2 and 4- 

6, thus tainting the entire analysis with erroneous assumptions. 

The above assumptions are relevant to the OS/TS PDEIS conclusion that oil shale and 

tar sands have not been shown to be commercially viable. OS/TS PDEIS at 2-57, 2-76, 

3-238. This very curious statement cannot be reconciled with the fact that the province 

of Alberta has been producing oil from tar sands for more than 20 years and even 

transports tar sands oil to Utah for refining. Similarly, Enefit has been producing oil from 

oil shale for more than 30 years. The OS/TS PDEIS does not provide any definition of 

commercial viability but proven business operations should suffice and it is inexplicable 

that the OS/TS PDEIS repeats a conclusion that is contradicted by incontrovertible facts. 

The issue of commercial viability is also the basis for Alternative 2b, which would 

actually limit oil shale development to another RD&D program, without authorizing 

commercial leases. The preferred alternative rests on the highly disputed premise that 

oil shale is not commercially viable. NEPA requires that BLM disclose and discuss 

scientific controversies. The OS/TS PDEIS does not. 

#11])> 6. <([#12 [3.10.3] ONE-SIDED ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL ANALYSIS

The OS/TS PDEIS assumes that oil shale and tar sands development will lead to a 

boom and bust economic cycle. OS/TS PDEIS 2-36, 3-242. Based on that premise, the 

OS/TS PDEIS describes Alternative 1 as harmful and Alternatives 2-4, which feature 

little to no development, as beneficial. OS/TS PDEIS at ES-9, Table 2.3.2-2, Table 

2.4.2-2, Table 2.6-1. 

The OS/TS PDEIS omits the fact that the lands classified as high potential are in the 

regions where there is already a viable energy economy. For example, in southwestern 

Wyoming, there are several major gas fields producing conventional and coalgas, 

including Pinedale Anticline, Jonah, Moxa Arch, Continental Divide and Hiawatha. 

There are numerous other plays for oil and natural gas as well. Coal mining plays 

important role in Sweetwater and Lincoln Counties, with trona also in Sweetwater and 

Uinta Counties. Construction of wind farms and related transmission lines continues at 

a rapid pace as well. Thus, oil shale will add to the economy but is unlikely to be 

significant enough to create an economic boom. 

The OS/TS PDEIS fails to consider the cumulative impacts and connected actions in this 

discussion of the economic and social impacts. It is true that the current energy 

development has generated housing shortages and pressure on existing roads. But 

Wyoming has one of the lowest unemployment records in the country and has 
Final OSTS PEIS 1101 

weathered the severe recession, and in reality a national depression, far better than 

other states such as California, Oregon and Washington. 

Taking the OS/TS PDEIS discussion to its logical conclusion, one would conclude that it 

is BLM’s view that it is better for the residents of rural counties and communities to 

remain poor and isolated. OS/TS PDEIS at ES-9, Table 2.3.2-2, Table 2.4.2-2, Table 

2.6-1. It is correct that the upsurge in energy development has changed western 

Wyoming communities. There is more traffic, more demand for housing and other 

services. There has also been more opportunity for jobs and to lease or sell private land 

related to energy projects, with the injection of cash into the economy. Certainly, the 

State of Wyoming and the trust beneficiaries, the University and Wyoming Game & Fish 

Department, have also seen significant increases in revenues, which allowed Wyoming 

to avoid the job losses, bank failures and bankruptcies that haunt many other states and 

large cities. 

The oil shale program would add to the existing energy industry but would be a relatively 

small portion. Wyoming is already the second largest recipient of federal royalty 

revenues and revenues from oil shale would not significantly change that. It would, 

however, represent continued diversification in energy development. #12])>

7. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The OS/TS PDEIS suffers from a number of fatal flaws. 

. <([#13 [9.2.2] Any alternative needs to conform to Section 369 of the 2005 EPA, retain the land 

allocations adopted in 2008 to avoid discontinuous development, and ensure that 

a commercial leasing program is feasible; 

#13])> . <([#14 [9.2.1] Implementation of LWC management in Alternatives 2, 3 and 4 violate 

the 

congressional limitation on the expenditure of funds to implement S.O. 3310 and 

exceed BLM’s authority; 

#14])> . <([#15 [9.5] All of the alternatives except Alternative 1 violate FLPMA land use 

planning 

processes and rules by superseding the ongoing plan revision for the Rock 

Springs area; 

#15])> . <([#16 [1.5] OS/TS PDEIS violates NEPA 

. by failing to support the purpose and need in the PDEIS; 

. by failing to fully analyze the preferred alternative so that the public can 

meaningfully comment; 

. omitting significant new information regarding oil shale and tar sands 

potential and technological advances; 

. failing to fully disclose the basis for excluding land areas from oil shale and 

tar sands development, when such areas were proposed by special 

interest groups without providing maps, facts, or rationale to support the 

adoption of these proposals; 

. failing to address the scientific controversies regarding the environmental 

impacts and resource needs for oil shale and tar sands development. 

#16])> The Coalition members appreciate the opportunity to comment on this draft, but believe 

that unless BLM issues a new draft or a substantive supplement, the OS/TS PDEIS 

cannot survive judicial scrutiny. 
Final OSTS PEIS 1102 

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS BY COALITION OF LOCAL GOVERNMENTS1 

OSTS November Comments Resubmitted May 4, 2012 Additional Discussion 

<([#17 [13] Chapter 1 

p. 1-1 

Change: 

“designate” to “classify” 

Additional Discussion: 

43 U.S.C. §1712 uses the term classify, not designate. #17])>

<([#18 [9] p. 1-1 

Add to first paragraph: 

“For the public lands to be closed to future oil shale and tar sands leasing, 

DOI will prepare a withdrawal in accordance with FLPMA...” 

Additional Discussion: 

In the event the Secretary adopts the preferred alternative, 

FLPMA requires that the Secretary issue a formal withdrawal. 

43 U.S.C. §§1702(j); 1714(c). The Secretary must also report 

this closure of a major multiple use to the congressional 

committees have jurisdiction over public lands. Id. at §1712(e). #18])>

<([#19 [10.7] p. 1-4 

Add: 

“Utah counties currently use tar sands deposits to pave the local roads...” 

Additional Discussion: 

OS/TS PDEIS repeatedly states that tar sands are not 

commercially feasible to develop. A paving company in Uintah 

County has been using tar sands for several decades as paving 

material. #19])>

<([#20 [9.1] 1.1 Purpose and Need 

Add 

“Development of oil shale and tar sands would produce oil. In addition, tar 

sands provide paving material for local roads without additional processing.” 

Additional Discussion: 

The 2005 EP Act requires that BLM develop a program to use 

oil shale and tar sands to produce oil. Since this is the law, it 

should be part of the purpose and need. #20])>

<([#21 [13] 1.1.1 

Add: “The BLM RMPs are currently being revised in Wyoming...” 
Final OSTS PEIS 1103 

Additional Discussion: 

The Notice of Intent to revise the Green River RMP was 

published Feb. 1, 2011, 76 Fed. Reg. 5607. #21])>

Page 1 of 14 COALITION OF LOCAL GOVERNMENTS COMMENTS ON OS/TS PDEIS 

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS BY COALITION OF LOCAL GOVERNMENTS1 

OSTS November Comments Resubmitted May 4, 2012 Additional Discussion 

<([#22 [6.1.1] 1.2 OS/TS PDEIS 1-10. 

Change: 

“25 gal of shale per ton of rock (gal/ton) or more and are 25 feet thick...” 

to 

“15 gal of shale per ton of rock (gal/ton) or more and are 15 feet thick” 

Additional Discussion: 

The distinction puts Colorado and Utah at a disadvantage. CLG 

recognizes this was a decision made in the 2008 PFEIS but it 

still appears to be arbitrary. #22])>

<([#23 [9.5] 1.2 OS/TS PDEIS 1-11, lines 26-27 

Delete: 

“As discussed in Chapter 2, additional areas are closed and will not be 

available for the future opportunity to lease for oil shale and tar sands on the 

basis of local planning decisions.” 

Additional Discussion: 

The closures based on the criteria used in the OS/TS PDEIS 

are inconsistent with local land use plans and re not supported 

by the record or the facts. As CLG informed BLM as part of its 

cooperating agency comments, Sweetwater County resolution 

on Adobe Town only supports special management within the 

wilderness study area (WSA) boundaries. The Wyoming Rare 

and Uncommon Area designation only limits mining, not oil and 

gas leasing. Thus, it should not be the basis to close this area 

to oil shale development. #23])>

<([#24 [9.5] 1.4.3 OS/TS PDEIS 1-17 Comment: 

“If the lack of information is due to the proprietary nature of the 

data or BLM’s delay in approving operation of RD&D Leases, 

then the PEIS should disclose it.” It is not credible that BLM has 

not received any information, given the number of presentations 

being made by the lessees. #24])>

<([#25 [13] Chapter 2 

2.1 

Change: 
Final OSTS PEIS 1104 

“open” to “revise” #25])>

Page 2 of 14 COALITION OF LOCAL GOVERNMENTS COMMENTS ON OS/TS PDEIS 

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS BY COALITION OF LOCAL GOVERNMENTS1 

OSTS November Comments Resubmitted May 4, 2012 Additional Discussion 

<([#26 [9.1] 2.1 

Add: 

“In a separate settlement of a lawsuit challenging the oil shale regulations...” 

Additional Discussion: 

The OS/TS PDEIS needs to fully disclose the role that the 

settlement of the litigation plays in the Purpose and Need, 

especially since it is a specific term in the settlement agreement. #26])>

<([#27 [9.2] 2.2.1 OS/TS PDEIS 2-3, line 66 

Add to second paragraph: 

“the Taylor Grazing Act...the 1872 Mining Law, the 1920 Mineral Leasing Act, 

and the Mining and Minerals Policy Act as well as” #27])>

<([#28 [9.2] 2.2.1 OS/TS PDEIS 2-3 Comment: 

“The Wilderness Act is limited to public land areas designated 

by Congress and there is no designated wilderness in the 

project area...” #28])>

<([#29 [3.1.7] 2.2.1 OS/TS PDEIS 2-3 

Add to fifth paragraph: 

“None of the public lands within the project area contain designated 

wilderness or wild or scenic river segments. In Wyoming, the project Area 

includes designated segments of the Pony Express trail, Oregon and 

California Trail, Mormon Trail, and the Cherokee Trail.” #29])>

<([#30 [13] 2.2.1 

Add to fifth paragraph: 

“indirectly affect” #30])>

Page 3 of 14 COALITION OF LOCAL GOVERNMENTS COMMENTS ON OS/TS PDEIS 

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS BY COALITION OF LOCAL GOVERNMENTS1 

OSTS November Comments Resubmitted May 4, 2012 Additional Discussion 

<([#31 [3.6] 2.2.1 Applicable laws by category OS/TS PDEIS 2-5 

Noise 

Delete: “The EPA issued guidelines for outdoor noise levels that are 

consistent with the protection of human health...” 

Add: “Noise is subject to state and local government regulation and this may 

affect operations, either from the perspective of work safety or when near 
Final OSTS PEIS 1105 

residential areas...” 

Additional Discussion: 

Comment: “The location of shale and tar sands resources 

makes it unlikely that operations will affect urban or residential 

areas. The EPA standards are set for human exposure, 

particularly at night. As used, this discussion is incomplete.” #31])>

<([#32 [3.7.2] 2.2.1 Applicable laws by category 

Pesticide and noxious weeds 

Delete: “In addition, sites will be subject to federal provisions to control 

noxious weeds and invasive species and may be subject to regulations 

governing state-established control areas.” 

Add: “E.O. 13112 directed all federal agencies to limit infestation and spread 

of invasive non-native species. State and local government agencies also 

exercise authorities to treat areas and regulate invasive species. All oil shale 

and tar sands operations must comply with both federal direction and state 

law.” 

Additional Discussion: 

Federal law does not regulate invasive or noxious weeds; it is 

regulated pursuant to state law. Wyo. Stat. §§11-5-101, et seq. #32])>

<([#33 [3.1.7] 2.2.1 Applicable laws by category 

Add: “Rangeland resources” category #33])>

<([#34 [9.2] 2.2.1 Applicable laws by category 

Add: “Fish and Wildlife Resources” category #34])>

<([#35 [3.7.3.2] 2.2.1 Applicable laws by category 

Add: “Wild Horses and Burros” category 

Additional Discussion: 

Wild horses should have their own category and do not belong 

in ecological resources since there is no risk of decline. #35])>

Page 4 of 14 COALITION OF LOCAL GOVERNMENTS COMMENTS ON OS/TS PDEIS 

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS BY COALITION OF LOCAL GOVERNMENTS1 

OSTS November Comments Resubmitted May 4, 2012 Additional Discussion 

<([#36 [3.7.3.2] 2.2.1 Applicable laws by category 

Ecological Resources 

Delete: “and wild horse and burro herds” #36])>

<([#37 [8] 2.2.3 Management of BLM-Administered Lands OS/TS PDEIS 2-9, line 39 

Add: FLPMA also directs BLM to give priority to principal or major multiples 

uses, which include mineral development, livestock grazing, fish and wildlife, 

rights-of-way, and recreation. 43 U.S.C. §1702(m). 
Final OSTS PEIS 1106 

Additional Discussion: 

The principal multiple uses established in FLPMA differentiate 

public land management from that of the Forest Service which 

uses a similar but different definition of multiple use. Omission 

of the emphasis on public land uses rather than resource 

preservation suggests that the preferred alternative falls short of 

this directive as well. 

#37])>

<([#38 [9.2.1] 2.2.3 Management of BLM-Administered Lands OS/TS PDEIS 2-10 

“FLPMA directs the BLM to give priority to the designation of ACECs. Designated 

ACECs include public lands where special management attention and direction 

are needed to protect and prevent irreparable damage to important historic, 

cultural, and scenic values, fish, or wildlife resources or other natural systems or 

processes.” 

To: 

“FLPMA directs the BLM to give priority to the designation of ACECs in the 

land use planning process. The respective RMPs within the project area 

designated ACECs that BLM determined merited special management to 

protect and prevent irreparable damage to important...” 

Additional Discussion: 

ACEC designation is specifically limited to resources that are in 

fact threatened and to those resources determined to be 

nationally or regionally significant. 

This is an important limitation in light of proposed ACECs that 

the OS/TS PDEIS appears to have incorporated. In the case of 

the Rock Springs Field Office, the determination of significance 

is still pending and would not apply to resources that are 

otherwise ubiquitous. #38])>

2.2.3 Management of BLM-Administered Lands OS/TS PDEIS 2-10 to 2-12 See CLG 

Comments dated May 4, 2012 

Page 5 of 14 COALITION OF LOCAL GOVERNMENTS COMMENTS ON OS/TS PDEIS 

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS BY COALITION OF LOCAL GOVERNMENTS1 

OSTS November Comments Resubmitted May 4, 2012 Additional Discussion 

<([#39 [3.1.7] 2.2.3 Management of BLM-Administered Lands 

Page 2-10 line 35 Add: Any area meeting the definition of having wilderness 

character must first be determined to be roadless and second must be greater 

than 5000 acres. 

Additional Discussion: 

OS/TS PDEIS omits the two initial screens for wilderness 

character: lack of roads and size. 

#39])>
Final OSTS PEIS 1107 

<([#40 [9.2.1] Revise: 2-12 lines 8-9 

Interior Secretary does not have independent authority to designate rivers 

under the Wild & Scenic Rivers Act. #40])>

<([#41 [3.9.1] 2.2.3 Management of BLM-Administered Lands OS/TS PDEIS 2-12 

NHST paragraph 

Add: “The prospective oil shale resources in Wyoming intersect with several 

NHSTA segments, including the Oregon and Mormon Pioneer trails and 

California and Pony Express trails.” #41])>

<([#42 [8.3] 2.2.3 Management of BLM-Administered Lands OS/TS PDEIS 2-12-13 

Change: 

“A significant portion of the public lands within the most geologically prospective 

oil shale area is undergoing development of its oil and gas resources. Conflicts in 

development among resources (e.g., oil shale or tar sands and oil and gas) may 

occur.” 

to 

“A significant portion of the public lands within the most geologically prospective 

oil shale area is undergoing development of its oil and gas resources, as well as 

coal and coal and gas. Conflicts in development among resources (e.g., oil 

shale or tar sands and oil and gas and wind farms and related transmission 

lines) may occur.” 

Additional Discussion: 

Sweetwater County has both coal mining and coalgas 

development. Also wind farm development and related 

transmission lines are also being developed. 

Comment: “PEIS still needs to identify potential conflicts. 

Otherwise PEIS is all about wilderness or ESA and ignores 

grazing, ROW, wind farms and other land uses.” #42])>

Page 6 of 14 COALITION OF LOCAL GOVERNMENTS COMMENTS ON OS/TS PDEIS 

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS BY COALITION OF LOCAL GOVERNMENTS1 

OSTS November Comments Resubmitted May 4, 2012 Additional Discussion 

<([#43 [9.2.3] 2.2.3 Management of BLM-Administered Lands OS/TS PDEIS 2-13 

Last paragraph re: Energy Policy Act of 2005 

Delete: “Land exchanges, however, are not completed on an acre-for-acre basis, 

but instead are completed on an equal-value basis. One of the more challenging 

aspects of the land exchange process is developing an exchange proposal where 

the appraised values of the federal and nonfederal lands are equal. Given the 

complexities of achieving equal-value land exchanges, especially recognizing the 

difficulty in valuing a commodity like oil shale or tar sands, a viable exchange 

proposal may be difficult to achieve. The initial basis for considering land 

exchange opportunities lies within existing land use plans.” 

and 
Final OSTS PEIS 1108 

“on a case-by-case basis when the results will consolidate ownership and 

improve management of natural resources.” 

Add: “exchange is for fair market value and is in the public interest.” 

Additional Discussion: 

Land exchanges are governed by principles of fair market value 

and public interest. OS/TS PDEIS purports to add other criteria 

that might be a factor in determining public interest but are not 

the only factor. #43])>

<([#44 [6.1.1] 2.3 Oil Shale 

Comment: “PEIS should use same standard for each state. This criteria puts 

Utah and Colorado at a disadvantage by excluding additional potential land 

that is included for Wyoming.” 

Additional Discussion: 

CLG realizes that BLM made the same determination in 2008 

but still believes it should be corrected. #44])>

<([#45 [6.3.5] 2.3.1 Potential Commercial Oil Shale Development Technologies OS/TS 

PDEIS 2-15 

“Jordan and Estonia both have extensive oil shale 

developments.” #45])>

Page 7 of 14 COALITION OF LOCAL GOVERNMENTS COMMENTS ON OS/TS PDEIS 

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS BY COALITION OF LOCAL GOVERNMENTS1 

OSTS November Comments Resubmitted May 4, 2012 Additional Discussion 

<([#46 [6.3.5] 2.3.1 Potential Commercial Oil Shale Development Technologies OS/TS 

PDEIS 2-16 

Change: “Because commercial oil shale development technologies are still 

largely in an R&D phase, many details regarding the specific technologies that 

may be used in the future to produce oil from oil shale are unknown. In the 

absence of reasonably complete information about the technologies that may be 

deployed, a number of assumptions have been made. These assumptions are 

discussed in Section 4.1.” 

To: 

“Because commercial oil shale development technologies are still largely in an 

R&D phase, many details regarding the specific technologies that may be used in 

the future to produce oil from oil shale have not been deployed in the United 

States although they have been used extensively overseas. The PEIS 

makes a number of assumptions which are discussed in Section 4.1.” 

Additional Discussion: 

The OS/TS PDEIS limits evaluation of commercial viability to 

published date, thereby excluding the recent information. 

Commercial viability is traditionally determined by whether a 
Final OSTS PEIS 1109 

company will invest its money in the technology and there is 

ample evidence of that. #46])>

<([#47 [9.3] 2.3.1 Potential Commercial Oil Shale Development Technologies OS/TS 

PDEIS 2-20, lines 3238 

Delete: 

“If and when the BLM receives applications to lease oil shale as well as the 

additional information to make such a decision, the BLM will conduct additional 

NEPA and other required analyses, including consideration of direct, indirect, and 

cumulative effects, reasonable alternatives, and possible mitigation measures 

appropriate to the anticipated development. On the basis of that NEPA analysis 

to be conducted at the lease stage, the BLM will consider further amendment of 

one or more plans, if necessary, including, but not limited to, the establishment of 

general lease stipulations and BMPs.” 

Comment: 

“BLM has sufficient information from the RMPs to identify 

general conditions of development and likely lease stipulations. 

Otherwise the PEIS fails to perform an important function.” #47])>

Page 8 of 14 COALITION OF LOCAL GOVERNMENTS COMMENTS ON OS/TS PDEIS 

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS BY COALITION OF LOCAL GOVERNMENTS1 

OSTS November Comments Resubmitted May 4, 2012 Additional Discussion 

<([#48 [9.2.4] 2.3.2 Alternative 1, Oil Shale No Action Alternative, No Change to 2008 Decision 

Third paragraph re: sage grouse 

Comment: “The no action aspect should be put into the 

preferred alternative. There are significant regional differences 

in habitat suitability for sage grouse and Wyoming Governor 

adopted an executive orders in 2008, 2010 and 2011 identifying 

core areas and restrictions. BLM cannot use sage grouse status 

as an issue for the PEIS and not discuss it in depth. Realistically 

the PEIS should be justified solely on the settlement and 

exclude sage grouse status, which is being addressed in other 

initiatives at both the federal and state levels.” #48])>

<([#49 [2] 2.3.3 Commercial Oil Shale Program Land Allocation Alternatives 

“The BLM has also determined that additional areas would be closed and would 

not be available for future opportunity to lease for commercial development of oil 

shale resources under all allocation action alternatives.” 

Additional Discussion: 

CLG objects to the closures as they apply to Wyoming and 

explains the basis in its letter dated May 4, 2012. #49])>

<([#50 [3.1.7] 2.3.3 Commercial Oil Shale Program Land Allocation Alternatives 

Add: 
Final OSTS PEIS 1110 

Segments of rivers that the BLM has determined to be potentially eligible and 

suitable for WSR status by virtue of a WSR inventory. 

BLM WSRA guidelines call for a two step review: eligible and 

suitable. The OS/TS PDEIS appears to treat all studied rivers 

as both eligible and suitable, when that is not the case. In the 

Rock Springs District, the last study was 1992 and it is not clear 

what the OS/TS PDEIS is using. #50])>

<([#51 [3.1.1] [3.9.1] 2.3.3 Commercial Oil Shale Program Land Allocation Alternatives OS/TS 

PDEIS 

2-32, lines 7-10 

Change: 

National Historic and Scenic trails. Historic Designated trails identified by the 

BLM Wyoming State Office and a corridor extending at least 0.25 mi on either 

side of the trail would be excluded from commercial leasing. 

Comment: Many of the historic trail segments are not visible and 

do not meet NPS integrity for eligibility. This is specifically true 

for Sublette Cutoff, Cherokee, and others. #51])>

Page 9 of 14 COALITION OF LOCAL GOVERNMENTS COMMENTS ON OS/TS PDEIS 

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS BY COALITION OF LOCAL GOVERNMENTS1 

OSTS November Comments Resubmitted May 4, 2012 Additional Discussion 

<([#52 [9.8] 2.3.3 Commercial Oil Shale Program Land Allocation Alternatives 

“For information purposes, under the proposed regulations, the BLM would issue 

a call for commercial leases....” 

Comment: 

“There is no indication BLM will issue draft rules before the PEIS. If this is 

incorrect, the cooperators should be informed.” 

Separation of the rulemaking from the leasing PEIS omits 

consideration of the connected actions in violation of how CEQ 

rules require agencies to define the scope of an EIS. 40 C.F.R. 

§§1501.7(a)(2); 1508.25. The rulemaking is clearly a connected 

action that must be discussed. #52])>

<([#53 [9.5] 2.3.3.1 Alternative 2, Oil Shale Conservation Focus (Alternative 2a), with RD&D 

First Requirement (2b) OS/TS PDEIS 2-34 

Change: 

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

conducted during this planning process, as LWC; Legislation would be 

necessary to authorize BLM to designate additional WSAs.” 

Comment: 

“1) this is unlawful as BLM has no legal authority to create new 

WSAs. BLM can consider an unlawful alternative but must identify 
Final OSTS PEIS 1111 

the need for legislation. 2) Conflicts with Sweetwater County 2011 

resolution supporting protection for only the boundaries of the 

WSA. The Wyoming DEQ classification does not bar mineral 

leasing so it should not be excluded on that basis.” #53])>

<([#54 [9.2.4] 2.3.3.1 Alternative 2, Oil Shale Conservation Focus (Alternative 2a), with RD&D 

First Requirement (2b) 

“Core priority sage grouse habitat, as defined by such guidance as the BLM or 

the Department of the Interior may issue” 

Comment: “3) Here again state and local governments have 

taken the initiative to protect sage grouse habitat.” 

BLM does not have jurisdiction to regulate wildlife. #54])>

<([#55 [2.3] 2.3.3.2 Alternative 3, Oil Shale Research Lands Focus (RD&D with PRLA only) 

No other alternative favors scoping comments, even the scoping 

comments from those that favor oil shale and tar sands 

development. It should be revised to be less biased. #55])>

Page 10 of 14 COALITION OF LOCAL GOVERNMENTS COMMENTS ON OS/TS PDEIS 

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS BY COALITION OF LOCAL GOVERNMENTS1 

OSTS November Comments Resubmitted May 4, 2012 Additional Discussion 

<([#56 [9.5] 2.3.3.3 Alternative 4, Oil Shale Moderate Development (2008 OSTS PEIS ROD 

Minus Adobe Town and ACECs) (Alternative 4a), with RD&D First Requirement 

(4b) 

This alternative needs to be revised to be consistent with local 

government plans. Sweetwater County repudiated the Wyoming 

DEQ designation. The resolution was adopted because it only 

limits mining not mineral leasing. Wyoming law cannot apply to 

public land. Calif. Coastal Commn. v. Granite Rock Co., 480 

U.S. 527 (1987). #56])>

<([#57 [3.1.7] [9.2.1] 2.3.3.3 Alternative 4, Oil Shale Moderate Development (2008 OSTS PEIS 

ROD 

Minus Adobe Town and ACECs) (Alternative 4a), with RD&D First Requirement 

(4b) 

Change: 

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

by the Wyoming Environment Quality Council on April 10, 2008 (180,910 acres 

total; 167,517 acres of public land, of which 10,920 acres are already a BLM 

WSA). 

2. All ACECs located within the areas analyzed in the 2008 OSTS PEIS (76,666 

acres in existing ACECs in 2008 OSTS PEIS plus additional ACEC acreages as 

a result of Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming planning efforts recently completed).13” 

To 

“1. All ACECs that are closed to mining and mineral leasing located within 
Final OSTS PEIS 1112 

the areas analyzed in the September 2008 Oil Shale and Tar Sands 

Resources Leasing Final EIS; (76,666 acres in existing ACECs in 2008 PEIS 

plus additional ACEC acreages as a result of Utah planning efforts recently 

completed.” 

Comment: “The Adobe Town area is on the Wyoming 

Checkerboard where BLM lacks legal jurisdiction over half of the 

affected area. There are existing mineral leases as well.” #57])>

Page 11 of 14 COALITION OF LOCAL GOVERNMENTS COMMENTS ON OS/TS PDEIS 

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS BY COALITION OF LOCAL GOVERNMENTS1 

OSTS November Comments Resubmitted May 4, 2012 Additional Discussion 

<([#58 [9.5] 2.3.3.3 Alternative 4, Oil Shale Moderate Development (2008 OSTS PEIS ROD 

Minus Adobe Town and ACECs) (Alternative 4a), with RD&D First Requirement 

(4b) 

Change: 

“Under Alternative, lands that would be available for future consideration for 

leasing would include those BLM-administered lands within the most geologically 

prospective oil shale areas, including split estate lands where the federal 

government owns the mineral rights. The whole of Adobe Town in Wyoming 

WSAs and ACECs which prohibit leasing would be excluded, as would all 

ACECs, as described above. Lands available for application for leasing under 

Alternative 4 are shown in Figures 2.3.3-9, 2.3.3-10, and 2.3.3-11.” 

Additional Discussion: 

Wilderness protection does not belong in this alternative. It 

directly conflicts with public land use plans for CLG members, 

including but not limited to Lincoln County, Sweetwater County, 

and Sweetwater Conservation District. #58])>

<([#59 [2.4] 2.3.3.3 Alternative 4, Oil Shale Moderate Development (2008 OSTS PEIS ROD 

Minus Adobe Town and ACECs) (Alternative 4a), with RD&D First Requirement 

(4b) 

“Similarly, with respect to the management of sage-grouse habitat, under 

Alternative 4, 20 lands would be managed as in Alternative 1.” 

CLG prefers this Alternative to Alternatives 2 and 3. Assuming 

BLM does not select Alternative 1 or the recommended 

Wyoming exception, then this would be better. It shows 

appropriate deference to a state strategy that is the product of a 

long process. 

#59])>

Page 12 of 14 COALITION OF LOCAL GOVERNMENTS COMMENTS ON OS/TS PDEIS 

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS BY COALITION OF LOCAL GOVERNMENTS1 

OSTS November Comments Resubmitted May 4, 2012 Additional Discussion 

<([#60 [9.2.4] 2.3.3.3 Alternative 4, Oil Shale Moderate Development (2008 OSTS PEIS ROD 
Final OSTS PEIS 1113 

Minus Adobe Town and ACECs) (Alternative 4a), with RD&D First Requirement 

(4b) 

Changes: 

“ Depending on what the applicable RMP provides with respect to LWC and core and 

priority sage-grouse habitat, it may be necessary to initiate a plan amendment at the 

leasing and/or development stage to make allocation decisions on an individual RMP 

basis regarding management of these lands with respect to oil shale and tar sands 

resources. The reason for qualifying the amount of acreage available for lease under 

this alternative is that while areas of core and priority sage-grouse and areas of LWC 

are left open for potential future leasing and development of oil shale and tar sands 

resources, the likelihood of all this acreage as being available for further oil shale and 

tar sands resources leasing and development is low. National and state-specific 

guidance related to sage-grouse management and protection of core and priority 

habitat may limit the lands available for leasing will likely result in substantially 

less acreage being available, as will field office management decisions related to the 

protection of LWC. It is difficult to establish disturbance amounts at the programmatic 

level, before more is known regarding the specifics of leasehold location and 

technology to be used.” #60])>

<([#61 [2.5] 2.5.1 Alternatives That Use the New USGS In-Place Oil Assessment Maps as the 

Basis for 16 the Planning Area To Be Analyzed 

“Several comments were received during the public scoping process that 

suggested that 19 the BLM should develop an alternative that examines the oil 

shale resource in the area defined 20 by the recent USGS assessment of inplace 

oil in oil shales of the Green River Formation in the 21 Piceance and Uinta 

Basins of western Colorado and eastern Utah (USGS 2010a,b; 2011).” 

Additional Discussion: 

PEIS should document conclusion that additional areas are not 

commercial now. Pinedale Anticline and Jonah were originally 

dismissed as lacking commercial potential. #61])>

Page 13 of 14 COALITION OF LOCAL GOVERNMENTS COMMENTS ON OS/TS PDEIS 

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS BY COALITION OF LOCAL GOVERNMENTS1 

OSTS November Comments Resubmitted May 4, 2012 Additional Discussion 

<([#62 [2.5] 1. The Coalition of Local Governments (CLG) provided comments on Chapters 1 

and 2 prior to its publication. Notably BLM accepted very few of 

the comments and CLG reiterates these comments. 

2.5.4 Alternatives That Prohibit Leasing in Specific Areas 1 

Add: 

A number of scoping comments requested that the BLM develop alternatives 

prohibiting commercial leasing in specific areas, including all NPS units, the 

GSENM, existing WSAs, and wilderness-quality lands in Utah. Since the scoping 

meetings were conducted, the BLM has determined that the scope of this PEIS 

will be limited to BLM-administered lands only and will not evaluate commercial 

leasing on USFS- and NPS-administered lands nor will it revise the land use 
Final OSTS PEIS 1114 

decisions made in the RMPs. #62])>

<([#63 [2.4] 2.5.9 Opening of All Lands with Wilderness Characteristics to Oil Shale and Tar 

Sands Leasing 

Additional Discussion: 

This should be added to Alternative 4. #63])>

OSTS2012D50325 

Organization: Uintah County 

Received: 5/4/2012 4:32:50 PM 

Commenter1: - Vernal, Utah 84078 (United States) 

Organization1:Uintah County 

Commenter Type: Coop Agency - Local Govt 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Letter & Resolution 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/16/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50325.htm (OSTS2012D50325-59043.htm Size = 1 KB) 

20120504_Uintah_County_Comments_on_draft_BLM_Oil_Shale_and_Tar_Sands_PEIS_OSTS

2012D50325.pdf (OSTS2012D50325-59042.pdf Size = 6275 KB) 

Submission Text

See Attachment. 

UINTAH COUNTY 

May4, 2012 

BLM Oil Shale & Tar Sands PEIS 

Argonne National Laboratory 

EVS Division, Building 240 

9700 South Cass A venue 

Argonne, IL 60439 

Ken Salazar, Secretary 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

1849 C Street, N.W. 

Washington DC 20240 

Bob Abbey, Director 

Bureau of Land Management 

1849 C Street, N.W., Room 5665 

COMMISSIONERS: . 

Darlene R. Bums 

Michael J. McKee 

Mark D. Raymond 

ASSESSOR - Rolene Rasmussen 

ATIORNEY - G. Marl< Thomas 

CLERK-AUDITOR - Michael W. Wilkins 

RECORDER - Randy J. Simmons 
Final OSTS PEIS 1115 

TREASURER - Wendi Long 

SHERIFF - Jeff Merrill 

SURVEYOR - John Slaugh 

RE: Comments on Draft Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Oil Shale & Tar Sands PEIS 

Dear Secretary Salazar, Director Abbey, et all: 

<([#1 [9.8] On its face the BLM’s 2012 Oil Shale and Tar Sands Draft Programmatic 

Environmental Impact 

Statement, BLM Project #W0-300-1310-PP-OSIR for Lands Administered by the BLM in 

Colorado, Utah and Wyoming (Hereafter 2012 OSTS DPEIS) is nothing more than part of a 

negotiated settlement from a friendly lawsuit brought by an environmental coalition.’ During 

this process, which began early 2011, it has been unfortunate that Uintah County must continue 

to educate the federal government on the realities of oil shale and oil sands development. The 

Administration’s death grip on old stereotypes related to oil shale and oil sands development 

does not make them true. 

On May 5, 2011 , Uintah County sent a letter to the Bureau of Land Management respectfully 

requesting the BLM to cease and desist further activity on the Programmatic EIS for Allocation 

of Oil Shale and Tar Sands Resources on Lands Administered by the BLM. See attached letter. 

Apparently, the BLM has decided to ignore the cordial request from a cooperating entity. In 

addition to this request, Uintah County along with many of its neighboring counties has 

requested an extension to the comment period. This request was denied on May 3, 2012. Thus, 

Uintah County is left with no other alternative but to build and preserve the record and wait for 

the inevitable to be decided.2 

So here we go again. 

1 In a letter, stamped May 3, 2012, Director Robert Abbey denied a request to extend the 

comment period by 

Representative Jason Chaffetz, citing the Settlement Agreement as prohibitive in the agreed 

timeline. However, 

Uintah County understands that these new draft regulations are expected to be provided to the 

State of Utah within 

the next 10-15 days. Extending the comment period for a few weeks after publication would not 

disrupt the BLM’s 

sacred timeline. Director Abbey may not want to connect this PEIS to the new draft regulations, 

but they are in fact 

just two sides of the same coin. What good does it do to talk about the size and location of a 

water pipe if the 

reservoir is drained? Director Abbey also pointed to the 90 day review period as providing 

sufficient time to review 

and comment. However, just three months ago the BLM granted requests for additional time to 

provide comments 

related to the sage-grouse EIS for an additional 45 days. 

2 Why “inevitable”? In an email, attached to these comments, Sherri Thompson, Project 

Manager for this PEIS, 

stated: “As there are no economically viable ways yet known to extract and process oil shale for 

commercial 
Final OSTS PEIS 1116 

purposes, and tar sands is not at present a proven commercially-viable energy source, the BLM, 

through its planning 

process, is taking a hard look at whether it is appropriate for approximately 2,000,000 acres to 

remain available for 

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

available for potential 

development of tar sands. This new planning initiative will provide the BLM an opportunity to 

consider the 2008 

allocation decisions in light of the still nascent character of the technology necessary to 

economically develop oil 

shale resources, as well as certain information not available in 2008.” Sadly, the outcome of this 

PEIS process was 

predetermined. #1])>

<([#2 [9.2.2] 2005 Energy Policy Act Mandate (or Oil Shale and Tar Sands Program 

Section 369 of the Energy Policy Act, adopted on August 8, 2005, declared it to be the United 

States’ policy that “oil shale, tar sands, and other unconventional fuels are strategically important 

domestic resources that should be developed to reduce the growing dependence of the United 

States on politically and economically unstable sources of foreign oil imports.” 42 U.S.C. 

§15927(b)(l). This policy statement is an unambiguous mandate from Congress. Further, 

Congress also directed that it be United States’ policy that commercial development of oil shale 

“be conducted in an environmentally sound manner, using practices that minimize impacts.” 42 

U.S.C. §15927(b)(2). Apparently Congressional Policy is not even a blip on the BLM’s screen 

for the the Draft OSTS PEIS states on page 1-13, lines 39-45: 

“Issues determined to fall outside the scope of the PEIS because they were not pertinent 

to the purpose and need for the proposed land use planning decision as described in the 

NO! included issues relating to ... foreign oil as a national security issue.” 

Section 369 further required that the Interior Secretary promptly follow the completion of the 

programmatic EIS with regulations establishing an oil shale leasing program. See 42 U.S.C. 

§15927(d)(2). The BLM simply must not be concerned with Congressional mandates for the 

Preferred Alternative simply emasculates the program by cutting off the most feologically 

prospective public lands that are otherwise suitable and available for mineral leasing.3 

3 The USGS has estimated the total in-place oil shale resources to be: Eocene Green River 

Formation to be 1.44 

trillion barrels; Piceance Basin of Colorado to be 1.52 trillion barrels; and the Uinta Basin to be 

1.32 trillion barrels. #2])>

<([#3 [9.2.1] [3.1.3] Wilderness Characteristics 

Our May 5, 2011 letter stated: 

“According to the preliminary purpose and need statement in the notice of intent, the 

Programmatic EIS will analyze removing from oil shale and tar sands leasing ‘All areas 

that the BLM has identified or may identify as a result of inventories conducted during 

this planning process, as lands containing wilderness characteristics[.]’ Further, the 

notice of intent states: 

Lands that the BLM identifies as having wilderness characteristics will be considered 
Final OSTS PEIS 1117 

during this planning initiative, as described above, and consistent with Secretarial Order 

No. 3310, dated Dec. 22, 2010, and BLM Manuals 6301 and 6302. Future leasing of 

lands determined by the BLM to have wilderness characteristics, if compatible with the 

allocation decisions stemming from this initiative, will subsequently be assessed in 

accordance with BLM Manual 6303, as appropriate (i.e. where the BLM has not 

determined, consistent with BLM Manual 6302, whether the lands with wilderness 

characteristics at issue should be receive a wild lands designation, BLM Manual 6303 

will apply).’ 

This language documents the BLM’s intent to implement, administer and/or enforce 

Secretarial Order 3310 and one or more of the BLM guidance manuals promulgated 

under Order 3310. However, any attempt by the BLM [to do so] is a patent violation of 

Section 1769 of the April 21, 2011 Congressional Continuing Resolution to Fund Fiscal 

Year 2011 through September 30, 2011.” 

Uintah County followed up with a comment letter, dated November 14, 2011 (attached hereto 

and incorporated by reference). BLM knows it was all too happy to resolve a friendly-lawsuit 

and take the opportunity, under the guise of complying with a settlement agreement, to ram 

through the Administration’s environmental agenda. The facts are all too obvious. 

From our November 14, 2011 letter: 

“While Interior Secretary Salazar issued S.O. 3310 on December 23, 2010, Congress 

prohibited the expenditure of any federal funds for FY 2011 as of April 7, 2011. BLM 

Director’s admission in a congressional hearing that the Federal Land Policy and 

Management Act (FLPMA) did not authorize the designation of Wild Lands or “lands 

with wilderness character” no doubt persuaded many members of Congress to halt this 

ill-conceived program.” 

In summary, in late 2010, Secretary Salazar initiated this portion of the Administration’s 

environmental agenda. Then the opportunity came, shortly thereafter, to fmalize a complex and 

nuanced Settlement Agreement, and a Joint Motion to Administratively Close the Case, with a 

coalition of environmental groups. This fa~ade of a legal action gave the administration the 

cover it needed to pursue its wilderness characteristics policy. This chain of events screams of 

collusion! 

Finally as it pertains to lands with wilderness characteristics, BLM lacks authority to manage 

lands as if they were wilderness unless such lands were designated as wilderness study areas 

(WSAs) within the 15-year review and study period, 43 U.S.C. §1782, or such lands have been 

designated by Congress. While BLM can inventory any resource on public lands and this may 

include wilderness character, it cannot use the inventory to change management. To the extent 

that any of the proposed Alternatives propose to manage the lands deemed having wilderness 

character, closing them to oil shale and tar sands development is clearly in violation of the 

Congressional prohibition. #3])>

<([#4 [9.8] Cooperators Unanimous Opposition 

Uintah County greatly appreciates the support from its neighboring counties in providing a 

strong unified opposition to the reckless course the BLM is pursuing. 

On April 9, 2012, the Uintah County Board of County Commissioners passed Resolution #04- 

09-2012, A Resolution Opposing the BLM’s 2012 Oil Shale and Tar Sands Draft Programmatic 

Environmental Impact Statement, BLM Project #W0-300-1310-PP-OSffi... (Hereafter 2012 

OSTS DPEIS) for Lands Administered by the BLM in Colorado, Utah and Wyoming. This 
Final OSTS PEIS 1118 

Resolution outlines direct and pointed comments relating to the 2012 OSTS DPEIS and are 

attached hereto and incorporated by reference. We have also included copies of resolutions 

passed by fellow cooperators voicing similar objections to the 2012 OSTS DPEIS. #4])>

<([#5 [9.5] Local Plan 

In very recognizable fashion FLPMA created a system of public land management honoring the 

American philosophy of “laboratories of democracy.” In 1932, U.S. Supreme Court Justice 

Louis Brandeis stated “It is one of the happy incidents of the federal system that a single 

courageous State may, if its citizens choose, serve as a laboratory; and try novel social and 

economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country.” New State Ice Co. v. Liebmann, 

285 U.S. 262 (1932) (dissenting opinion). Uintah County, a political subdivision of the State of 

Utah, is exercising its duty under our system of Federalism to try sound novel approaches to 

manage public lands within its boundaries. Again, it is incumbent on federal agencies to the 

maximum extent possible be consistent with State and local plans (including the State of Utah 

and Uintah County). Anything short of this constitutes a violation of federal law and is subject 

to judicial review. 

Uintah County has adopted into its general plan, in conjunction with the State of Utah, the 

Uintah Basin Energy Zone and a Plan for Managing and Developing Oil Shale and Oil Sands 

Resources within the Borders of Uintah County. A copy of said general plan provisions and 

relevant Utah Code sections are attached hereto and incorporated by reference. The BLM must 

be consistent with our local plan to the maximum extent possible. #5])>

<([#6 [9.8] General Objection To DPEIS 

In addition to the comments above and those provided in the attached table, Uintah County 

provides a general objection to the 2012 OSTS DPEIS. As clearly stated in the attached 

Resolution, Uintah County has shown that this process is unsupportable, arbitrary and a blatant 

show of conformity to a friendly-lawsuit settlement agreement, which falls out of the public 

process mandated by Congress. Should BLM continue to go forward with the 2012 OSTS 

DPEIS regardless of the grievances outlined in the attached Resolution, the only legally viable 

alternative would be for the BLM to adopt the No-Action Alternative. #6])>

<([#7 [9.8] Comment Fonn 

Uintah County, Utah, a cooperating agency in this environmental review process, has 

summarized other more specific comments in the attached comment form. These comments are 

provided in this format to help the reader follow our comments related to this voluminous 

document. Said comments are provided to log more specific concerns but should not be 

construed as limiting the impact or legal effect of Uintah County’s general objection to the 

entirety of this process.4 Uintah County reserves the right, under this general objection, to 

legally challenge the entire 2012 OSTS DPEIS as soon as BLM completes its charade and 

reaches its apparent inevitable conclusion. 

4 Uintah County chooses to exercise restraint by not just logging a general comment borrowed 

from General 

Anthony Clement McAuliffe: “Nuts!” #7])>

<([#8 [1.3] Section 4(C)(l) of the MOU Between the Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land 
Final OSTS PEIS 1119 

Management and Uintah County, Utah As a Cooperating Agency (hereinafter “MOU”) states: 

‘‘The Parties agree to participate in this planning process in good faith and make all reasonable 

efforts to resolve disagreements.” So far Uintah County has been flat out ignored in this process. 

In addition, Section 5(E) of the MOU states: “Where the BLM and one or more Cooperators 

disagree on substantive elements of the RMP/EIS (such as designation of the Alternatives to be 

analyzed or analysis of effects), and these disagreements cannot be resolved, the BLM will 

include a summary of the Cooperator’s views in the Draft RMPNDraft PEIS and the Proposed 

RMPA/Final PEIS. The BLM will also describe substantial inconsistencies between its proposed 

action(s) and the objectives of state, local, or tribal land use plans and policies.” BLM has failed 

to conform to its own simple obligations with its MOU. #8])>

If you have any questions regarding our comments, please contact Jonathan Stearmer, 

jonathan@uintahcountyattomey.org by email or at 435-781-5432. 

Sincerely, 

UINTAH COUNTY COMMISSION 

Darlene R. Burns, Chair 

Michael J. McKee 

cc: Tom Vilsack, Secretary of Agriculture, 1400 Independence Ave., S.W., 

Washington DC 20250 

Tom Tidwell, Chief US Forest Service, 1400 Independence Ave., S.W., 

Washington DC 20250 

Harv Forsgren, Regional Forester US Forest Service, 324 25th Street, Ogden, Utah 84401 

Juan Palma, BLM State Director, P.O. Box 45155, Salt Lake City, Utah 84145 

Mark Ward, Utah Assoc. of Counties, 5397 So. Vine Street, Salt Lake City, UT 84107 

Kathleen Clarke, PLPCO, 5110 St. Office Bldg, Box 141107, Salt Lake City, UT 84114 

United States Department of the Interior 

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT 

Washington, D.C. 20240 

The Honorable Jason Chaffetz 

House of Representatives 

Washington, DC 20515 

Dear Representative Chaffetz: 

http://www.blm.gov 

MAY 3 2012 

Thank you for your April 18, 2012, letter requesting an extension of the timeframe to submit 

comments on the Draft Oil Shale and Tar Sands Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement 

(PEIS). Comments are currently due May 4, 2012. Your request is to extend the comment 

period for a minimum of 60 days. 

Regrettably, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is unable to grant your request for an 

extension. On January 16, 2009, a lawsuit was filed by several organizations challenging the 

2008 PEIS Record of Decision (ROD). This suit was settled, and as a condition of that 

settlement, the BLM has agreed to engage in a new planning initiative that takes a fresh look at 

the allocation decisions made in the 2008 ROD. Under the February 2011 settlement agreement 

filed with the District Court in Colorado, the BLM agreed to use its best efforts to complete its 

decision-making and approve a ROD for this new planning process by December 31, 2012. 

The BLM anticipates issuing amendments to the existing oil shale regulations by May 15, 2012. 
Final OSTS PEIS 1120 

The changes in the regulations will not have an impact on the allocation decisions made in the 

PEIS. The regulations will guide approval of and apply to leasing and development operations 

once a decision has been made to move forward with a commercial oil shale project. The PEIS 

reassesses the appropriate mix of allowable uses with respect to opening lands for future oil shale 

and tar sands leasing and potential development. 

Our goal is to achieve the terms of the agreement with maxirnwn public participation. We are 

working diligently to comply with the settlement agreement while providing many opportunities 

for public participation. In March 2012, the BLM held four open houses in several cities in 

Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming to encourage public participation in the review process. 

Furthermore, the public is provided 90 days to review and comment on the Draft PEIS, as 

required by the BLM land use planning regulations (43 CFR 1610.2(e)). We believe this 

provides the public with sufficient opportunity to review and provide substantive comments on 

the draft document. 

As this document supports only decision-making regarding land use allocation and not lease 

issuance or approval of development activities, there will be further opportunity to participate in 

future NEP A processes relating to potential oil shale development in Colorado, Utah, and 

Wyoming. I appreciate your interest in this important matter. 

Sincerely, 

be: LLM:W0620:LS:401 

LLM:W0320 

LLM:W0300 

TYPED:LLM: W0600:MIB5070:CRichardson:5/3112:ES0-3 7799:3021 

UINTAH COUNTY 

STATE OF UTAH 

April 26, 20 12 

BLM Oil Shale & Tar Sands PEIS 

Argonne National Laboratory 

EVS Division, Building 240 

9700 South Cass A venue 

Argonne, IL 60439 

Ken Salazar, Secretary 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

1849 C Street, N.W. 

Washington DC 20240 

Bob Abbey, Director 

Bureau of Land Management 

1849 C Street, N.W., Room 5665 

COMMISSIONERS: 

Michaal J. McKee 

Darlene R. Bums 

Mark D. Raymond 

ASSESSOR • RoleMe Rasmuessen 

ATTORNEY - JoAnn B. Stringham 
Final OSTS PEIS 1121 

CLERK-AUDITOR • Michael W. Wilkins 

RECORDER • Randy J. Simmons 

TREASURER • Wend! Long 

SHERIFF • Jeff Merrill 

SURVEYOR - John Slaugtl 

RE: Request for Extension to Comment Period on Draft BLM Oil Shale & Tar Sands PEIS 

Sent via First Class Mail and email: Secretary Ken Salazar exsect{il.ios.doi.uov; 

Robert Abbey Dircctonmblm.gov 

Dear Secretary Salazar, Director Abbey, et all: 

<([#9 [1.1.1] On April 9, 2012, Uintah County, Utah passed a resolution opposing the BLM’s 

2012 Oil Shale 

and Tar Sands Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (attached hereto with other 

resolutions from counties in the Tri-State area). As a cooperating agency in this environmental 

review we respectfully request an extension to the comment period. currently set to expire May 

4, 2012. It is our understanding that this request for an extension has also been made, by 

resolution, by eight other counties, also acting under their cooperator status. Three distinct 

justifications necessitate this extension. 

First, under the friendly~lawsuit settlement agreement the BLM agreed to develop new oil shale 

regulations. We understand the draft regulations are due to be published on or around May 15, 

2012. As a cooperator it is impossible for us to make clear concise comments on the PDEIS 

until we have the opportunity to understand at least in some detail the scope of these new 

regulations. Indeed, cooperators run a substantial risk in proffering inconsistent and confusing 

responses to the DPEIS and any draft regulations; thus, undermining the integrity ofNEPA 

process. Consequently an extension should be granted to at least 30 days after publication of this 

new oil shale regulation. 

Second, the sheer volume of the DPEIS necessitates a time consuming review. As a cooperator, 

Uintah County requests additional time to vet and analyze the DPEIS. This need becomes even 

more prominent based on the anticipation of new draft regulations pending publication, for it is 

extremely difficult to adequately comment on a four volume DPEIS if we do not have all 

relevant information. 

Third, as detailed in the attached Resolution, Uintah County has raised numerous legal 

challenges to the very process of the BLM taking a “fresh look” at lands available for oil shale 

and oil sands. Granting an extension will allow the BLM to thoughtfully consider the 

consequences of continuing down this tenuous political road and give time for the BLM to make 

the correct decision to cease and desist all actions related to the DPEIS. 

We look forward to seeing the requested extension granted. #9])> If you have any questions 

regarding 

our comments, please contact Jonathan Stearmer, jonathan/iflllimahcountvattorne\·.om by email 

or at 435-781-5432. 

UINTAH COUNTY COMMISSION 

cc: Tom Vilsack, Secretary of Agriculture. 1400 Independence Ave., S.W., 

Washington DC 20250 

Tomas Tidwell, ChiefUS Forest Service, 1400 Independence Ave., S.W., 

Washington DC 20250 
Final OSTS PEIS 1122 

Harv Forsgren, Regional Forester US Forest Service, 324 25th Street, Ogden, Utah 84401 

Juan Palma, BLM State Director, P.O. Box 45155, Salt Lake City, Utah 84145 

Mark Ward, Utah Assoc. of Counties, 5397 So. Vine Street, Salt Lake City, UT 84107 

Kathleen Clarke, PLPCO, 5110 St. Office Bldg, Box 141107, Salt Lake City. UT 84114 

Sally Shoemaker 

From: 

Sent: 

To: 

Subject: 

Attachments: 

Thompson, Sherri J [sthompso@blm.gov] 

Monday, October 17, 2011 9:32AM 

Clayton, Creed; Modde, Tim; Carlson, DaveE; John Ha~a; Jonathan Teichert; Kirk Wood; 

Melinda Brimhall; Mike Braaten; Rex Sacco; Tom Jankovsky; Sally Shoemaker 

2012 011 Shale/Tar Sands PEIS Draft Review 

OSTS_Chapter_1 [1 ].docx 

The BLM is in the process of taking a fresh look at the decisions made in the 2008 Oil Shale and 

Tar Sands Programmatic 

Envirorunental Impact Statement (OSTS PEIS). As background, the Notice of Intent (NOI) to 

Prepare a 

Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) and Possible Land Use Plan 

Amendments for Allocation 

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

Management in Colorado, 

Utah. and Wyoming was published on Aprill4, 2011. As there are no economically viable ways 

yet known to 

extract and process oil shale for commercial purposes, and tar sands is not at present a proven 

commerciallyviable 

energy source, the BLM, through its planning process, is taking a hard look at whether it is 

appropriate 

for approximately 2,000,000 acres to remain available for potential development of oil shale, and 

approximately 

431,000 acres of public land to remain available for potential development oftar sands. This new 

planning 

initiative will provide the BLM an opportunity to consider the 2008 allocation decisions in light 

of the still 

nascent character of the technology necessary to economically develop oil shale resources, as 

well as certain 

information not available in 2008. In 2009, a consortium of plaintiffs filed two lawsuits in the 

federal District 

of Colorado, each now captioned CEC v. Salazar, against the BLM and the Department of 

Interior. The second 

suit challenged the ELM’s 2008 resource management plan amendments and record of decision 

(ROD) for Oil 

Shale and Tar Sands Resources. This suit was settled. Under the settlement agreement filed with 

the District 
Final OSTS PEIS 1123 

Court in Colorado, the BLM agreed to use best efforts to complete its decision~making, and 

approve a Record 

of Decision for this new planning process by December 31, 2012. 

As such, we are working with some extremely tight timeframes. The internal Draft ofthe 2012 

OSTS PEIS will 

be available on October 17th for a three week review period, ending November 4, 2011. Argonne 

National 

Laboratory, the contractor for this PEIS, will provide the document to a Sharepoint site, where it 

can be 

downloaded. I am giving your names, phone numbers and email addresses to Argonne National 

Laboratory 

today so that you can access the file transfer site. This will take a day or two, so in the meantime, 

I have 

attached Chapter 1 to this email in case anyone has time to get started today. 

Chapters 1-5 will be available Monday morning, October 17th. Chapter 6 will be available on 

Friday, October 

21st. Comments should be made using Track Changes. Staff can send comments directly to Kurt 

Picel, the 

Argonne National Laboratory Project Manager atkpicel@anl.gov 

I know you and your staffs’ are very busy with other work. We appreciate your help and 

involvement in this 

process. If you have any questions regarding the review, please contact Sherri Thompson, Project 

Manager, at 

303.239.3758. Thank-you! 

UINTAH COUNTY 

BY U.S. MAIL TO: 

Robert Abbey, Director 

STATE OF UTAH 

May 5, 2011 

Bureau of Land Management 1849 C Street NW, Rm. 5665 

Washington DC 20240 

. JuanPalma 

Utah State Director 

Bureau of Land Management 440 West 200 South, Suite 500 

Salt Lake City, Utah 84101 

COMMISSIONERS: 

Mlchalll J. McKee 

Darlene R. Bums 

Mar1c D. Raymond 

ASSESSOR - Rolene Rasmuessen 

ATTORNEY - JoAnn B. Slrlngham 

CLERK-AUDITOR· Michael W. Wilkins 

RECORDER • Randy J. Simmons 

TREASURER - Wend! Long 
Final OSTS PEIS 1124 

SHERIFF • Jeff Merrill 

SURVEYOR • John Slaugh 

BLM Oil Shale and Tar Sands Resources Leasing Programmatic EIS Scoping 

Argonne National Laboratory 

EVS, 240 

9700 S. Cass A venue, 

Argonne, Illinois 60439 

Sherri Thompson, Project Manager 

Bureau of Land Management 

Colorado State Office 

2850 Y oungfield Street 

Lakewood, Colorado 80215 

AND BY ELECTRONIC SUBMISSION AT THE FOLLOWING INTERNET WEBSITE: 

http://blm.gov/st5c 

Subject: 

Dear Sir or Madame: 

Request to Cease and Desist Further Activity on Programmatic EIS for 

Allocation of Oil Shale and Tar Sands Resources on Lands Administered 

by the BLM in Colorado, Utah and Wyoming, W0-300-131 0-PP-OSHL 

On April 14, 2011, the BLM caused to be published in the Federal Register, Volume 76, 

No 72 Thursday, April 14, 2011, pages 21003-21005, a notice of intent to prepare the 

abovereferenced 

Programmatic EIS. According to the notice of intent, the BLM “intends to take a 

hard look at whether it is appropriate for approximately 2,000,000 acres [approved in prior BLM 

RMPs for oil shale leasing and development] to remain available for potential development of oil 

shale, and approximately 431,224 acres of public Jand [approved in prior BLM RMPs for tar 

sands leasing and development]to remain available for potential development of tar sands.” ld, 

at page 21003. The Programmatic EIS will consider amending severa1 RMPs according1y, 

including the Vernal, Price, Richfield and Monticello RMPs in Utah. ld 

According to the preliminary purpose and need statement in the notice of intent, the 

Programmatic EIS will analyze removing from oil shale and tar sands leasing “All areas that the 

BLM has identified or may identify as a result of inventories conducted during this planning 

process, as lands containing wilderness characteristics[.]” ld, at page 21004. Further, the 

notice of intent states: 

Jd 

Lands that the BLM identifies as having wilderness characteristics will be 

considered during this planning initiative, as described above, and consistent with 

Secretarial Order No. 3310, dated Dec. 22,2010, and BLM Manuals 6301 and 

6302. Future leasing of lands determined by the BLM to have wilderness 

characteristics, if compatible with the allocation decisions stemming from this 

initiative, will subsequently be assessed in accordance with BLM Manual6303, 

as appropriate (i.e., where the BLM has not determined, consistent with BLM 

Manual 6302, whether the lands with wilderness characteristics at issue should be 

receive a wild lands designation, BLM Manual 6303 wilJ apply). 

This language documents the BLM’s intent to implement, administer and/or enforce 

Secretarial Order 3310 and one or more of the BLM guidance manuals promulgated under Order 
Final OSTS PEIS 1125 

3310. However, any attempt by the BLM to implement, administer and/or enforce Secretarial 

Order 3310, including any effort by the BLM to proceed further on the above-referenced 

Programmatic EIS, is a patent violation of Section 1769 of the April 21, 2011 Congressional 

Continuing Resolution to Fund Fiscal Year 2011 through September 30,2011, which states: 

For the fiscal year ending September 30, 2011, none of the funds made available 

by this division or any other Act may be used to implement, administer, or 

enforce Secretarial Order No. 3310 issued by the Secretary of the Interior on 

December 22, 2010. 

The BLM should immediately cease and desist all activities related to the abovereferenced 

Programmatic EIS and immediately publish a revised notice in the Federal Register 

signifying its cessation of all work on the Programmatic EIS in compliance with the abovequoted 

provision in the 2011 CR. Otherwise, the BLM would be in contempt of Congress. We 

are prepared to seek a court order to this effect if necessary. 

Please advise what course of action you will take as soon as possible. Thank you. 

UINTAH COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 

Michael J. McKee , 

UINTA COUNTY 

STATE OF UTAH 

November 14, 2011 

BLM Oil Shale and Tar Sands Programmatic EIS 

Argonne National Laboratory 

9700 South Cass A venue 

Argonne,IL.60439 

Sherri Thompson 

Bureau of Land Management 

2850 Y oungfield Street 

Lakewood, CO 80215 

COMMISSIONERS: 

Darlene R. Burns 

Michael J. McKee 

Mark D. Raymond 

ASSESSOR - Rolene Rasmussen 

ATTORNEY - G. Mark Thomas 

CLERK-AUDITOR - Michael W. Wilkins 

RECORDER - Randy J. Simmons 

TREASURER - Wendi Long 

SHERIFF - Jeff Merrill 

SURVEYOR - John Slaugh 

Re: Uintah County, Utah’s Comments on 2011 the Preferred Alternative of the Draft 

Oil Shale and Tar Sands Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) 

To Whom It May Concern: 

Uintah County writes to reiterate its view that Alternative 1, the no-action alternative of the 

above-referenced PEIS, should be chosen by the BLM as the preferred alternative for this PEIS. 

The primary reasons making Alternative 1, the no-action alternative, the preferred alternative 

herein, were already explained at pages 6-8 ofUintah County’s November 7, 2011 written 

comments submitted in this matter. Uintah County incorporates herein by this reference, pages 
Final OSTS PEIS 1126 

6-8 of its November 7, 2011 written comments, as primary reasons why the no-action alternative 

should become the preferred alternative herein. 

Additional reasons for making the no-action alternative the preferred alternative are as follows: 

Alternative 1, the no-action alternative, clearly conforms to the mandate by Congress in the 2005 

Energy Policy Act, (2) conforms to the authority that the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) 

can exercise, (3) also is consistent with the local government plans, programs, and policies; ( 4) 

Choosing an alternative that cuts back on domestic energy production capability is ill advised 

given the dire condition of the world’s present energy-related politics. 

Sherri Thompson 

November 14, 2011 

Page 2 

1. 2005 Energy Policy Act Mandate for Oil Shale and Tar Sands Program 

Section 369 of the Energy Policy Act, adopted on August 8, 2005, declared it to be the United 

States’ policy that “oil shale, tar sands, and other unconventional fuels are strategically important 

domestic resources that should be developed to reduce the growing dependence of the United 

States on politically and economically unstable sources of foreign oil imports.” 42 U.S.C. 

§ 15927(b )(I). Congress also directed that it be United States policy that commercial 

development of oil shale “be conducted in an environmentally sound manner, using practices that 

minimize impacts.” 42 U.S.C. §15927(b)(2). 

Section 369 further required that the Interior Secretary promptly follow the completion ofthe 

programmatic EIS with regulations establishing an oil shale leasing program. See 42 U .S.C. 

§15927(d)(2) (“Not later than 6 months after the completion of the [PEIS] under this subsection, 

the Secretary [ofthe Interior] shall publish a final regulation establishing such [commercial oil 

shale and tar sands leasing] program.”). The Interior Department did not issue final rules until 

November 2008. Thus, any programmatic EIS must commit to a robust program. Alternatives 2 

and 3 do not conform to the Energy Policy Act direction which still limits BLM’s discretion to 

simply emasculate the program by eliminating public lands that are otherwise suitable and 

available for mineral leasing. 

2. Lands With Wilderness Character 

On February 15, 2011 , BLM settled a challenge of the adequacy of the Final PEIS with a 

coalition of environmental groups. BLM agreed to revise the oil shale and tar sands regulations 

and to revise the EIS to consider an alternative that would exclude all lands with wilderness 

character from future oil shale and tar sands leasing. CEC v. Salazar, Civ. Nos. 09-85; 09-90. 

Uintah County, in its November 8, 2011 written comment and elsewhere, has provided BLM 

with detailed comments regarding its lack of authority to manage lands as if they were 

wilderness unless such lands were designated as wilderness study areas (WSAs) within the 15- 

year review and study period, 43 U.S.C. § 1782, or such lands have been designated by 

Congress. 

While Interior Secretary Salazar issued S.O. 3310 on December 23 , 2010, Congress prohibited 

the expenditure of any federal funds for FY 2011 as of April 7, 2011. BLM Director’s admission 

in a congressional hearing that the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) did not 

authorize the designation of Wild Lands or “lands with wilderness character” no doubt persuaded 

many members of Congress to halt this ill-conceived program. 

While an agency can consider an alternative for which it needs statutory authority, it must 

disclose this salient fact. The Alternative 2 of the 2011 PEIS fails to disclose or discuss the need 
Final OSTS PEIS 1127 

for additional legal authority. Moreover, while BLM can inventory any resource on public lands 

and this would consider wilderness character, it cannot use the inventory to change management. 

Sherri Thompson 

November 14, 2011 

Page 3 

43 U.S.C. §1711(a). To the extent that Alternatives 2, 3 and 4 propose to manage the lands with 

wilderness character to close them to oil shale and tar sands, BLM is clearly in violation of that 

prohibition. 

It appears that the BLM has inventoried “lands with wilderness character” in three states in 

preparation of the PEIS yet it did so without consideration of the above and with no analysis or 

disclosure of the need or impacts of such designations. In the Vernal Field Office Resource 

Management Plan, lands with WC were analyzed in detail and those that were determined to 

possess WC were designated as such in the RMP. The attempt to make additional 

WC lands designations is simply another attempt to circumvent the resource planning process, 

plan decisions, analysis, disclosure and public participation. 

3. Only Alternative 1, the No Action Alternative Is Consistent With State and Local 

Government Plans and Policies 

FLPMA requires that any BLM land use plan to conform to state and local government plans to 

the extent it is consistent with federal law. 43 U.S.C. §1712(c)(9) (“Land use plans ofthe 

Secretary under this section shall be consistent with State and local plans to the maximum extent 

he finds consistent with Federal law and the purposes of this Act.”). Alternatives 2, 3 and 4 all 

fail to meet this standard and thus only Alternative 1 conforms to the consistency mandate. 

4. Any Alternative Which Cuts Back on Domestic Energy Production Capability Is Ill 

Advised Given the Current International Energy Related Political Climate. 

The Interior Department’s current policies to delay or shut down energy development is 

incomprehensible when viewed in the context of current world events as well as the economic 

recession that has gripped the country for more than four years. The Department’s continued 

efforts to stymie domestic energy production threaten national security in a profound way. Oil 

and gas imports from the Middle East continue to be vulnerable due to increased Islamic 

militancy in even countries that were previously considered allies. The changes in government 

and leadership leave the U.S. relationship with countries like Egypt, Libya, and Yemen fragile. 

The oil fields in Mexico are declining and Venezuela production was nationalized by its 

charismatic but erratic president, who is not a U.S. ally. The Interior Department’s continued 

efforts to limit domestic energy production cannot be justified in this context. 

Chapters 3-6 

Uintah County chooses not to provide additional comments on Chapters 3-6 of the PEIS. For the 

reasons stated in its November 7, 2011 written comments, Uintah County views this entire 2011 

PEIS effort as an illegal attempt at an end run around the Congressional Moratorium against the 

Order 331 0 Wildlands Policy and all that resembles it. This PEIS effort is plainly an effort to 

push the Order 3310 Wildlands Agenda. For these reasons, Uintah County will not grace or 

Sherri Thompson 

November 14, 2011 

Page 4 

dignify this illegal 2011 PEIS effort with additional comments on Chapters 3-6 at this time. 

The County reserves the right to comment in detail on the public draft with full expectation that 

our comments will be fully considered at that time. We have downloaded three different 
Final OSTS PEIS 1128 

versions of the draft and did not have adequate time to do a comprehensive review. A 

determination was made that it was more cost effective to wait for the final draft when we should 

have a more reviewer friendly text and adequate time to conduct a more comprehensive review. 

This in no way affects our selection of the preferred alternative, which is supported by our 

comments here. 

Sincerely, 

UINTAH COUNTY COMMISSION 

Darlene R. Bums, Chair 

Michael J. Me 

UINTAH COUNTY COMMISSION 

RESOLUTION NO. #04-09-2012 

A RESOLUTION OPPOSING THE BLM’S 2012 OIL SHALE AND TAR SANDS 

DRAFT PROGRAMMATIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT, 

BLM PROJECT #W0-300-1310-PP-OSHL (HEREAFTER 2012 OSTS DPEIS) 

FOR LANDS ADMINISTERED BY THE BLM IN COLORADO, UTAH AND WYOMING 

This Resolution is adopted in open meeting after due opportunity for public comment, by the 

Board of Commissioners ofUintah County, in order to redress the many violations of law, 

regulation, and policy by the BLM with respect to the BLM’s 2012 OSTS DPEIS. 

BACKGROUND 

As background to this Resolution, Uintah County recites the following grievances: 

WHEREAS, On April 14, 2011, the BLM caused to be published in the Federal Register, 

Volume 76, No 72/Thursday, Aprill4, 2011, pages 21003-21005, a notice of intent to prepare 

the 2012 OSTS DPEIS; and 

<([#10 [9.2.1] [3.1.3] WHEREAS, the preliminary purpose and need statement in the notice of 

intent, states the PEIS 

will analyze removing from oil shale and tar sands leasing “All areas that the BLM has identified 

or may identify as a result of inventories conducted during this planning process, as lands 

containing wilderness characteristics[.]” ld., at page 21004; and 

WHEREAS, the notice of intent further states at page 21004: 

Lands that the BLM identifies as having wilderness characteristics will be considered 

during this planning initiative, as described above, and consistent with Secretarial Order 

No. 3310, dated Dec. 22, 20 I 0, and BLM Manuals 630 I and 6302. Future leasing of 

lands determined by the BLM to have wilderness characteristics, if compatible with the 

allocation decisions stemming from this initiative, will subsequently be assessed in 

accordance with BLM Manual6303, as appropriate (i.e., where the BLM has not 

determined, consistent with BLM Manual 6302, whether the lands with wilderness 

characteristics at issue should be receive a wild lands designation, BLM Manual 6303 

will apply); and 

WHEREAS, the Purpose and Need portion of the 2012 OSTS DPEIS states at page 1-5, lines 

14-18: 

“In addition, the BLM has recently completed updating its inventory of lands having 

wilderness characteristics (L WC) in each of the three states for the planning area, and the 

status of several areas originally proposed to be Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 

(ACECs) in Utah has changed since the preparation of the 2008 OSTS PEIS.” 

WHEREAS, this language documents the BLM’s intent to implement, administer and/or enforce 

Secretarial Order 3 31 0 and one or more of the BLM guidance manuals promulgated under 
Final OSTS PEIS 1129 

Order 

3310;and 

WHEREAS, any attempt by the BLM to implement, administer and/or enforce Secretarial Order 

3310, including any effort by the BLM to proceed further on the 2012 OSTS DPEIS, violates the 

spending moratorium of Section 17 69 of the April 21, 2011 Congressional Continuing 

Resolution to Fund Fiscal Year 2011 through September 30, 2011, which states: 

For the fiscal year ending September 30, 2011, none of the funds made available by this 

division or any other Act may be used to implement, administer, or enforce Secretarial 

Order No. 3310 issued by the Secretary of the Interior on December 22, 201 0; and 

WHEREAS, this spending moratorium has been carried forward in all subsequent Congressional 

spending resolutions up to and including the current spending resolution; and 

WHEREAS, the 2012 OSTS DPEIS, is an admitted attempt by the BLM to implement, 

administer and/or enforce Secretarial Order 3310 and its policies and objectives, all in violation 

of the Spending Moratorium of the 2011 Continuing Resolution; and #10])>

<([#11 [9.8] WHEREAS, the 2008 Oil Shale and Tar Sands Programmatic EIS (2008 OSTS 

PEIS) was 

required under Section 369 (d) (1) ofthe Energy Policy Act of2005 and was prepared in 

cooperation with 14 federal, state, and local governmental organizations; and 

WHEREAS, the 2008 OSTS PEIS was 3 years in the making, and it honored the input of a task 

force of Governors and other stakeholders as per requirement of the 2005 Energy Policy Act; 

WHEREAS, the Record of Decision (ROD) for the 2008 OSTS PEIS amended 10 land use 

plans in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming to make approximately 2 million acres of public lands 

available for potential leasing and development of oil shale and approximately 430,000 acres 

available for tar sands leasing. Together with the regulations published in 2006 and 2008 for oil 

shale and tar sands resources, the 2008 OSTS PEIS and subsequent land use amendments 

constituted a reasonable and rational establishment of an oil shale and tar sands program as 

mandated in the Energy Policy Act of 2005; and 

#11])> <([#12 [6.1.2] WHEREAS, the oil shale and tar sands program to which the 2008 OSTS 

PEIS and related 

regulations gave birth, was a reasonable response to the fact that oil shale and tar sands resources 

in the Green River Formation located in northeastern Utah, northwestern Colorado and 

southwestern Wyoming may reach 9 trillion barrels of oil; and 

WHEREAS, the U.S. Geological Survey Oil Shale Assessment Team reports the estimated total 

in-place oil shale resource for the Uinta Basin of Utah to be 1.32 trillion barrels; and 

#12])> <([#13 [9.8] WHEREAS, the preferred alternative in the 2012 OSTS DPEIS drastically 

shrinks, diminishes 

and in many areas outright reverses virtually all of the lands made available for Oil Shale and 

Tar Sands development in 2008, and does so using the same data and science; and 

#13])> <([#14 [2.2] WHEREAS, the 2012 OSTS DPEIS fails to analyze alternative 2b, and the 

BLM admits as 

much on pages 2-35 of the 2012 OSTS DPEIS; and 

#14])> <([#15 [9.2.2] WHEREAS, such a drastic reversal in lands available for Oil Shale and 

Tar Sands development 

between the 2008 PEIS and the 2012 preferred alternative, violates regulatory Task Force 

requirements of certainty for industry and investors; and 

WHEREAS, such a drastic reversal of lands available for Oil Shale and Tar Sands development 
Final OSTS PEIS 1130 

in 2008, constitutes a de facto, piece-meal revision of previous BLM Resource Management 

Plan, in violation of the Section 202 Planning Process under FLPMA; 

WHEREAS, the preferred alternative in the 2012 OSTS DPEIS entirely ignores the input of the 

task force, the cooperating agencies, and the other stakeholders which the 2005 Energy Policy 

Act directed the BLM to honor and follow; and moreover the 2012 OSTS DPEIS may well 

violate various memoranda of understanding (MOUs) with counties, cities and local government 

coalitions which require the BLM to ( 1) publish the written input of cooperators who have 

unresolved disagreements over the substantive elements of the 2012 OSTS DPEIS, and (2) 

describe the objectives of the cooperators’ land use plans and policies; and 

WHEREAS, the 2012 OSTS DPEIS restricts the acreage allotted in the 2008 PWID for research 

and development leasing; 

WHEREAS, the 2012 OSTS DPEIS threatens to arbitrarily undermine the process and the work 

utilized in creation of the 2008 OSTS PEIS, and essentially dismantle a reasonable and rational 

oil shale and tar sands program in violation of Section 369 of the 2005 Energy Policy Act; and

#15])>

<([#16 [1.5] WHEREAS, the 2012 OSTS DPEIS is the creature of a friendly lawsuit settlement 

agreement 

between the BLM and ideological opponents to oil shale development, and is therefore entirely 

pre-determined and pre-decisional in violation ofNEPA, with no apparent rationale for revising 

the acreages approved in 2008; and #16])>

<([#17 [2.2] WHEREAS, the BLM has settled on a preferred alternative in the 2012 OSTS 

DPEIS 

admittedly without having first analyzed its impacts; BLM should be required to withdraw the 

preferred status of the alternative until it has performed this analysis; and 

WHEREAS, the acreage approved for Oil Shale and Tar Sands development in the 2012 OSTS 

DPEIS preferred alternative bears no rational relationship to the stated purpose and need; 

#17])> <([#18 [1.5] WHEREAS, the Department of Energy has basically abdicated the 

responsibility Congress 

placed upon it to defend and uphold a viable oil shale energy program in America, leaving it 

instead to the BLM encumbered by a host of anti-oil shale pre-wilderness groups steering BLM’s 

every move; #18])>

<([#19 [9.5] WHERAS, the alternative adopted in the ROD of the 2008 OSTS PEIS is now the 

No Action 

Alternative of the 2012 OSTS DPEIS; and 

WHEREAS, the 2008 OSTS PEIS chosen alternative is consistent with the multiple use, 

sustained yield mandate of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA); and 

WHEREAS, the 2008 OSTS PEIS chosen alternative is consistent with county general plans and 

policies which call for responsible development of available energy resources, but in stark 

contrast the 2012 OSTS DPEIS is plainly inconsistent with State and Local plans and policies, 

including the Uintah Basin Energy Zone legislation passed in the 2012 Utah Legislature (Senate 

Bill83- SEE UTAH CODE 631-8-102 & 105.5) and passed by the Uintah County Commission 

(amendment 8.16 of the Uintah County General Plan), and should the BLM continue with the 

2012 OSTS DPEIS it will need to adequately explain why consistency is not achievable; and 

WHEREAS, Uintah County has adopted the following into its general plan: 

“Further, additional lands in Uintah County should also be approved for full oil shale 

and/or oil sands leasing and development if they either have a minimwn resource 
Final OSTS PEIS 1131 

thickness of 15 feet, or are estimated to produce a minimwn yield of 15/ gal of oil per ton 

of ore. Lands with these minimum resource thicknesses and gallonage yield estimates 

were approved for oil shale and/or oil sands development in Wyoming within the Green 

River Formation. Similarly situated resources should be subjected to the same approval 

process.” 

Should the BLM continue with the 2012 OSTS DPEIS it will need to be to the maximum extent 

possible consistent with this general plan or adequately explain why consistency is not 

achievable; and #19])>

<([#20 [6.3.4] WHEREAS, even prior to 2008, the development and production of oil from oil 

shale has been 

proven beyond a doubt to be teclmologically and economically feasible; and #20])>

<([#47 [6.3.2.1] WHEREAS, even prior to 2008, this same technology to extract oil from the oil 

shale rock is not 

only economically feasible, but it requires little to no consumption of water, contrary to the 

myths which falsely claim that oil shale extraction requires large consumption of water 

resources; and #47])>

<([#21 [6.2.2] WHEREAS, the energy captured in the extract of oil from shale (natural gas 

capture, etc.,) more 

than makes up for energy consumed in that extraction process, thus dispelling the myth that the 

oil shale extraction process consumes more energy than it produces; #21])>

<([#22 [3.10.3] WHEREAS, the rising price of gasoline, coupled with ever increasing loss of 

good paying jobs 

due to the Administration’s policies against energy development on western public lands, result 

in increasing hardships for families and the local economy, to the point where some fear the 

window of opportunity is about to close for a civil, lawful and orderly response as citizens feel 

more and more pressured and desperate financially; and 

#22])> <([#23 [6.3.3.1] WHEREAS, the 2012 OSTS DPEIS improperly limits technology testing 

to strictly in situ 

efforts and does not allow for development of other technologies; and 

#23])> <([#24 [1.1.1] WHEREAS, the BLM has left insufficient time for the public and 

cooperators to meaningfully 

comment on the public 2012 OSTS DPEIS by the present comment deadline of May 4, 2012, 

because a highly relevant commercial oil shale BLM regulation is not due to be published until 

May 15, 2012 and the public should have the right to view that regulation first and then submit 

comments on the 20I2 OSTS DPEIS in light of the regulation; and 

#24])> <([#25 [2.1.1] WHEREAS, the same problems with lack of consistency with local plans 

and policies and 

failure to honor the input of cooperators and all stakeholders, also besets many public lands EIS 

projects, in addition to the 20 I2 OSTS DPEIS. The cooperators from Utah and Wyoming have 

already unanimously requested for the No-Action alternative in the 2012 OSTS DPEIS become 

the preferred alternative. #25])>

RESOLUTION 

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY UINTAH COUNTY, STATE OF UTAH AS 

FOLLOWS: 

<([#26 [9.2.1] I. Uintah County declares the BLM’s continuing to administer and carry out the 

2012 
Final OSTS PEIS 1132 

OSTS DPEIS, and updating any inventory of lands having wilderness characteristics, to be an 

open contempt and flaunting of the Congressional Spending Moratorium first imposed in the 

20II Continuing Resolution and carried forward in all subsequent Congressional spending 

resolutions up to and including the present; 

2. Uintah County calls upon the BLM to cease all further activities with respect to 

administering and carrying out the 2012 OSTS DPEIS, because doing so constitutes an open 

contempt and violation of the Congressional Spending Moratorium against implementing, 

administering and/or enforcing Secretarial Order 3310, which Spending Moratorium was first 

imposed in the 20 II Continuing Resolution and carried forward in all subsequent Congressional 

spending resolutions up to and including the present; 

3. Uintah County calls upon the BLM to immediately cease and desist all activities related 

to the 2012 OSTS DPEIS and immediately publish a revised notice in the Federal Register 

signifying its cessation of all work on the Programmatic EIS in obedience to the above-quoted 

Spending Moratorium. Otherwise, the BLM would be in contempt of Congress; 

#26])> <([#27 [2.1.1] 4. Should BLM continue to go fo rward with the 20 12 OSTS DPEIS 

regardless of these 

grievances, the only legally, viable alternative would be if the BLM adopted the NO-Action 

Alternative. which is identical to the Alternative chosen in the ROD of the 2008 OSTS PEIS ; 

#27])> <([#28 [9.5] 5. Should BLM decide to flagrantly defy Congress and proceed with the 

2012 OSTS 

DPEIS, it is still obligated under FLPMA to be consistent with State and Local plans to the 

maximum extent possible; 

#28])> <([#29 [9.1] 6. The BLM must cease and desist all activities related to the 20 12 OSTS 

DPEIS because 

even within its own document the Purpose and Need is unsupportable, arbitrary and a blatant 

show of conformity to a friendly-lawsuit settlement agreement, which falls out of the public 

process followed in developing the 2008 OSTS PEIS, and the 2012 OSTS DPEIS omits full and 

proper analysis of economically viable and technologically advanced extraction methods; 

#29])> <([#30 [1.1.1] 7. Should BLM decide to ignore all of the above and proceed, the BLM 

should extend the 

May 4, 2012 deadline for public comment on the 2012 OSTS DPEIS at least 30 days after 

publication of the expected oil shale regulation due to be published on or around May 15, 2012.

#30])>

<([#31 [1.3] 8. The BLM should honor the input of cooperators, particularly if they are local 

governments, as required by Section 202(c)(9) of FLPMA and the relevant terms of the 

ELMCooperator 

MOUs, in all matters, not just with respect to the 2012 OSTS DPEIS. 

#31])> APPROVED AND ADOPTED by a duly constituted quorum of the Board of County 

Commissioners ofUintah County Commissioners of Ui ntah County this 9111 day of April, 

2012. 

BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISS IOl\ERS 

UINTAH COUNTY, UTAH 

ATTEST: 

Michael W. Wilkins, Clerk/Auditor 

8.16 Uintah County hereby creates an Energy Zone with the county for the purpose of 
Final OSTS PEIS 1133 

maximizing efficient and responsible development of energy and mineral 

resources. The land area and boundaries of the Uintah County Energy Zone are 

described as follows: 

Township 28 Range 18E, Township 28 Range 19E, Township 28 Range 20E, 

Township 28 Range 21E, Township 28 Range 22E, Township 28 Range 23E, 

Township 28 Range 24E, Township 2N Range 1 W, Township 2N Range IE, 

Township 2N Range 2E, Township 38 Range 18E, Township 38 Range 19E, 

Township 38 Range 20E, Township 38 Range 21E, Township 38 Range 22E, 

Township 38 Range 23E, Township 38 Range 24E, Township 48 Range 19E, 

Township 48 Range 20E, Township 48 Range 21E, Township 48 Range 22E, 

Township 48 Range 23E, Township 48 Range 24E, Township 48 Range 25E, 

Township 58 Range 19E, Township 58 Range 20E, Township 58 Range 21E, 

Township 58 Range 22E, Township 58 Range 23E, Township 58 Range 24E, 

Township 58 Range 25E, Township 68 Range 19E, Township 68 Range 20E, 

Township 68 Range 21E, Township 68 Range 22E, Township 68 Range 23E, 

Township 68 Range 24E, Township 68 Range 25E, Township 78 Range 19E, 

Township 78 Range 20E, Township 78 Range 21E, Township 78 Range 22E, 

Township 78 Range 23E, Township 78 Range 24E, Township 78 Range 25E, 

Township 88 Range 17E, Township 88 Range 18E, Township 88 Range 19E, 

Township 88 Range 20E, Township 88 Range 21E, Township 88 Range 22E, 

Township 88 Range 23E, Township 88 Range 24E, Township 88 Range 25E, 

Township 98 Range 17E, Township 98 Range 18E, Township 98 Range 19E, 

Township 98 Range 20E, Township 98 Range 21E, Township 98 Range 22E, 

Township 98 Range 23E, Township 98 Range 24E, Township 98 Range 25E, 

Township lOS Range 17E, Township lOS Range 18E, Township lOS Range 19E, 

Township lOS Range 20E, Township lOS Range 21E, Township lOS Range 22E, 

Township lOS Range 23E, Township lOS Range 24E, Township lOS Range 25E, 

Township 118 Range 17E, Township liS Range 18E, Township liS Range 19E, 

Township liS Range 20E, Township liS Range 21E, Township liS Range 22E, 

Township liS Range 23E, Township liS Range 24E, Township liS Range 25E, 

Township 128 Range 20E, Township 128 Range 21E, Township 128 Range 22E, 

Township 12S Range 23E, Township 12S Range 24E, Township 12S Range 25E, 

Township 13S Range 20E, Township 138 Range 21E, Township 13S Range 22E, 

Township 138 Range 23E, Township 138 Range 24E, Township 13S Range 25E, 

Township 13S Range 26 E, Township 14S Range 21E, Township 14S Range 22E, 

Township 148 Range 23E, Township 148 Range 24E, Township 14S Range 25E, 

and Township 14S Range 26 E. 

These lands contain abundant, world-class deposits of energy and mineral 

resources, including oil, natural gas, oil shale, oil sands, gilsonite, coal, 

phosphate, gold, uranium, and copper, as well as areas with high wind and solar 

energy potential; and the highest management priority for all lands within the 

Uintah Basin Energy Zone is responsible management and development of 

existing energy and mineral resources in order to provide long-term domestic 

energy and supplies for Utah and the United States of America. 

8.17 Uintah County’s Plan for Managing and Developing Oil Shale and Oil Sands 

Resources within the Borders of Uintah County: 
Final OSTS PEIS 1134 

1. Representatives from Uintah County have observed economically viable 

technologies for extracting and processing oil shale and oil sands and know 

that they exist and are applied every day. Similar applicable technologies 

should immediately be applied today to oil shale and oil sands resources 

within Uintah County. 

2. All lands approved for oil shale and oil sands leasing and development in the 

2008 BLM Oil Shale and Tar Sands Programmatic Environmental Impact 

Statement (2008 OSTS PEIS) should be fully leased and developed for those 

resources. 

3. Further, additional lands in Uintah County should also be approved for full oil 

shale and/or oil sands leasing and development if they either have a minimum 

resource thickness of 15 feet, or are estimated to produce a minimum yield of 

15/gal of oil per ton of ore. Lands with these minimum resource thicknesses 

and gallonage yield estimates were approved for oil shale and/or oil sands 

development in Wyoming within the Green River Formation. Similarly 

situated resources should be subjected to the same approval process 

4. Uintah County requires all applicable Federal agencies to fully comply with 

The Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, as amended 

(hereinafter “FLPMA”), by being consistent with State and local plans to the 

maximum extent possible in managing public lands within Uintah County. 

Uintah County is committed to insure management of public lands is subject 

to consistent objective policy and not the political vagaries of the day.1 Sound 

1 Secretarial Order 3310, dated Dec. 22, 20 I 0 and the 20 II Oil Shale and Tar Sands 

Programmatic 

Environmental Impact Statement are perfect examples of an attempted end-run by the Executive 

around 

Legislative mandates and a new administration’s attempt to undue years of objective sound 

policy making 

to satisfy campaign promises. However, any attempt by the BLM to implement, administer 

and/or enforce 

Secretarial Order 3310, including any effort by the BLM to proceed further on the 20 II OSTS 

PEIS. is a 

patent violation of the funding moratorium against such activities. as found in Section 1769 of 

the April2\, 

20 II Congressional Resolution to Fund Fiscal year 20 II through September 30. 20 I I, and 

subsequent 

Congressional funding measures which per:petuate this moratorium, which states: 

For the fiscal year ending September 30. 20 II [and subsequent fiscal years as applicable], none 

of the 

funds made available by this division or any other Act may be used to implement. administer. or 

enforce 

Secretarial Order 3310 issued by the Secretary of the Interior on December ?2, 20 I 0. 

The BLM should immediately cease and desist all activities related to the 7011 OSTS PEIS and 

immediately publish a revised notice in the Federal Register signifying its cessation of all work 

on the 

Programmatic ElS or it will continue to be in contempt of Congress. 
Final OSTS PEIS 1135 

consistent management will increase the energy independence of the United 

States of America and provide local economic stability. Any attempts by a 

federal agency to not adhere to the plain language of FLPMA requiring 

consistency with State and local plans will be challenged and if necessary 

legal action will ensue. 

In very recognizable fashion FLPMA created a system of public land 

management honoring the American philosophy of”laboratories of 

democracy.” In 1932, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis stated “It is 

one of the happy incidents of the federal system that a single courageous State 

may, if its citizens choose, serve as a laboratory; and try novel social and 

economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country.” New State Ice 

Co. v. Liebmann, 285 U.S. 262 (1932) (dissenting opinion). Uintah County, a 

political subdivision of the State of Utah, is exercising its duty under our 

system of Federalism to try sound novel approaches to manage public lands 

within its boundaries. Again, it is incumbent on federal agencies to the 

maximum extent possible be consistent with this plan. Anything short of this 

constitutes a violation of federal law and is subject to judicial review. 

5. Consistent with this Chapter, Uintah County will utilize best available 

technology to develop a map showing all lands that should be leased and fully 

developed for oil shale and oil sands in Uintah County. This map will 

supersede the current State of Utah map showing lands estimated to produce a 

minimum yield of 25/gal of oil per ton of ore and a copy thereof shall be 

available for public inspection in the office of the Uintah County Commission. 

Enrolled Copy S.B. 83 

1 UINTAH BASIN ENERGY ZONES 

2 2012 GENERAL SESSION 

3 STATE OF UTAH 

4 Chief Sponsor: Kevin T. Van Tassell 

5 House Sponsor: John G. Mathis 

6 

7 LONG TITLE 

8 General Description: 

9 This bill modifies Title 63J, Chapter 8, State of Utah Resource Management Plan for 

10 Federal Lands, by creating the Uintah Basin Energy Zone. 

11 Highlighted Provisions: 

12 This bill: 

13 < defines the term “Uintah Basin Energy Zone”; 

14 < creates the Uintah Basin Energy Zone; 

15 < adopts an energy exploration, access, and development policy for the Uintah Basin 

16 Energy Zone, including: 

17 C promoting full, responsible development of energy and mineral resources within 

18 the Uintah Basin Energy Zone; and 

19 C achieving and maintaining sustainable levels of energy, hard rock, and natural 

20 resources in the Uintah Basin Energy Zone; 

21 < promotes local, state, and federal collaboration to develop energy and mineral 

22 resources in the Uintah Basin Energy Zone; and 
Final OSTS PEIS 1136 

23 < makes technical changes. 

24 Money Appropriated in this Bill: 

25 None 

26 Other Special Clauses: 

27 This bill provides an immediate effective date. 

28 Utah Code Sections Affected: 

29 AMENDS: 

S.B. 83 Enrolled Copy 

- 2 - 

30 63J-4-401, as last amended by Laws of Utah 2009, Chapter 121 

31 63J-8-102, as enacted by Laws of Utah 2011, Chapter 49 

32 63J-8-105, as enacted by Laws of Utah 2011, Chapter 49 

33 ENACTS: 

34 63J-8-105.5, Utah Code Annotated 1953 

35 

36 Be it enacted by the Legislature of the state of Utah: 

37 Section 1. Section 63J-4-401 is amended to read: 

38 63J-4-401. Planning duties of the planning coordinator and office. 

39 (1) The state planning coordinator shall: 

40 (a) act as the governor’s adviser on state, regional, metropolitan, and local 

41 governmental planning matters relating to public improvements and land use; 

42 (b) counsel with the authorized representatives of the Department of Transportation, 

43 the State Building Board, the Department of Health, the Department of Workforce Services, 

44 the Labor Commission, the Department of Natural Resources, the School and Institutional 

45 Trust Lands Administration, and other proper persons concerning all state planning matters; 

46 (c) when designated to do so by the governor, receive funds made available to Utah by 

47 the federal government; 

48 (d) receive and review plans of the various state agencies and political subdivisions 

49 relating to public improvements and programs; 

50 (e) when conflicts occur between the plans and proposals of state agencies, prepare 

51 specific recommendations for the resolution of the conflicts and submit the recommendations 

52 to the governor for a decision resolving the conflict; 

53 (f) when conflicts occur between the plans and proposals of a state agency and a 

54 political subdivision or between two or more political subdivisions, advise these entities of 

the 

55 conflict and make specific recommendations for the resolution of the conflict; 

56 (g) act as the governor’s planning agent in planning public improvements and land use 

57 and, in this capacity, undertake special studies and investigations; 

Enrolled Copy S.B. 83 

- 3 - 

58 (h) provide information and cooperate with the Legislature or any of its committees in 

59 conducting planning studies; 

60 (i) cooperate and exchange information with federal agencies and local, metropolitan, 

61 or regional agencies as necessary to assist with federal, state, regional, metropolitan, and local 

62 programs; 

63 (j) make recommendations to the governor that the planning coordinator considers 
Final OSTS PEIS 1137 

64 advisable for the proper development and coordination of plans for state government and 

65 political subdivisions; and 

66 (k) oversee and supervise the activities and duties of the public lands policy 

67 coordinator. 

68 (2) The state planning coordinator may: 

69 (a) perform regional and state planning and assist state government planning agencies 

70 in performing state planning; 

71 (b) provide planning assistance to Indian tribes regarding planning for Indian 

72 reservations; and 

73 (c) assist city, county, metropolitan, and regional planning agencies in performing 

74 local, metropolitan, and regional planning, provided that the state planning coordinator and 

the 

75 state planning coordinator’s agents and designees recognize and promote the plans, policies, 

76 programs, processes, and desired outcomes of each planning agency whenever possible. 

77 (3) When preparing or assisting in the preparation of plans, policies, programs, or 

78 processes related to the management or use of federal lands or natural resources on federal 

79 lands in Utah, the state planning coordinator shall: 

80 (a) incorporate the plans, policies, programs, processes, and desired outcomes of the 

81 counties where the federal lands or natural resources are located, to the maximum extent 

82 consistent with state and federal law, provided that this requirement shall not be interpreted to 

83 infringe upon the authority of the governor; 

84 (b) identify inconsistencies or conflicts between the plans, policies, programs, 

85 processes, and desired outcomes prepared under Subsection (3)(a) and the plans, programs, 

S.B. 83 Enrolled Copy 

- 4 - 

86 processes, and desired outcomes of local government as early in the preparation process as 

87 possible, and seek resolution of the inconsistencies through meetings or other conflict 

88 resolution mechanisms involving the necessary and immediate parties to the inconsistency or 

89 conflict; 

90 (c) present to the governor the nature and scope of any inconsistency or other conflict 

91 that is not resolved under the procedures in Subsection (3)(b) for the governor’s decision 

about 

92 the position of the state concerning the inconsistency or conflict; 

93 (d) develop, research, and use factual information, legal analysis, and statements of 

94 desired future condition for the state, or subregion of the state, as necessary to support the 

95 plans, policies, programs, processes, and desired outcomes of the state and the counties where 

96 the federal lands or natural resources are located; 

97 (e) establish and coordinate agreements between the state and federal land management 

98 agencies, federal natural resource management agencies, and federal natural resource 

99 regulatory agencies to facilitate state and local participation in the development, revision, and 

100 implementation of land use plans, guidelines, regulations, other instructional memoranda, or 

101 similar documents proposed or promulgated for lands and natural resources administered by 

102 federal agencies; and 

103 (f) work in conjunction with political subdivisions to establish agreements with federal 

104 land management agencies, federal natural resource management agencies, and federal 

natural 
Final OSTS PEIS 1138 

105 resource regulatory agencies to provide a process for state and local participation in the 

106 preparation of, or coordinated state and local response to, environmental impact analysis 

107 documents and similar documents prepared pursuant to law by state or federal agencies. 

108 (4) The state planning coordinator shall comply with the requirements of Subsection 

109 63C-4-102(8) before submitting any comments on a draft environmental impact statement or 

110 on an environmental assessment for a proposed land management plan, if the governor 

would 

111 be subject to Subsection 63C-4-102(8) if the governor were submitting the material. 

112 (5) The state planning coordinator shall cooperate with and work in conjunction with 

113 appropriate state agencies and political subdivisions to develop policies, plans, programs, 

Enrolled Copy S.B. 83 

- 5 - 

114 processes, and desired outcomes authorized by this section by coordinating the development 

of 

115 positions: 

116 (a) through the Resource Development Coordinating Committee; 

117 (b) in conjunction with local government officials concerning general local government 

118 plans; 

119 (c) by soliciting public comment through the Resource Development Coordinating 

120 Committee; and 

121 (d) by working with the Public Lands Policy Coordinating Office. 

122 (6) The state planning coordinator shall recognize and promote the following principles 

123 when preparing any policies, plans, programs, processes, or desired outcomes relating to 

124 federal lands and natural resources on federal lands pursuant to this section: 

125 (a) (i) the citizens of the state are best served by applying multiple-use and 

126 sustained-yield principles in public land use planning and management; and 

127 (ii) multiple-use and sustained-yield management means that federal agencies should 

128 develop and implement management plans and make other resource-use decisions that: 

129 (A) achieve and maintain in perpetuity a high-level annual or regular periodic output of 

130 mineral and various renewable resources from public lands; 

131 (B) support valid existing transportation, mineral, and grazing privileges at the highest 

132 reasonably sustainable levels; 

133 (C) support the specific plans, programs, processes, and policies of state agencies and 

134 local governments; 

135 (D) are designed to produce and provide the desired vegetation for the watersheds, 

136 timber, food, fiber, livestock forage, and wildlife forage, and minerals that are necessary to 

137 meet present needs and future economic growth and community expansion without 

permanent 

138 impairment of the productivity of the land; 

139 (E) meet the recreational needs and the personal and business-related transportation 

140 needs of the citizens of the state by providing access throughout the state; 

141 (F) meet the recreational needs of the citizens of the state; 

S.B. 83 Enrolled Copy 

- 6 - 

142 (G) meet the needs of wildlife; 

143 (H) provide for the preservation of cultural resources, both historical and 
Final OSTS PEIS 1139 

144 archaeological; 

145 (I) meet the needs of economic development; 

146 (J) meet the needs of community development; and 

147 (K) provide for the protection of water rights; 

148 (b) managing public lands for “wilderness characteristics” circumvents the statutory 

149 wilderness process and is inconsistent with the multiple-use and sustained-yield 

management 

150 standard that applies to all Bureau of Land Management and U.S. Forest Service lands that 

are 

151 not wilderness areas or wilderness study areas; 

152 (c) all waters of the state are: 

153 (i) owned exclusively by the state in trust for its citizens; 

154 (ii) are subject to appropriation for beneficial use; and 

155 (iii) are essential to the future prosperity of the state and the quality of life within the 

156 state; 

157 (d) the state has the right to develop and use its entitlement to interstate rivers; 

158 (e) all water rights desired by the federal government must be obtained through the 

159 state water appropriation system; 

160 (f) land management and resource-use decisions which affect federal lands should give 

161 priority to and support the purposes of the compact between the state and the United States 

162 related to school and institutional trust lands; 

163 (g) development of the solid, fluid, and gaseous mineral resources of the state is an 

164 important part of the economy of the state, and of local regions within the state; 

165 (h) the state should foster and support industries that take advantage of the state’s 

166 outstanding opportunities for outdoor recreation; 

167 (i) wildlife constitutes an important resource and provides recreational and economic 

168 opportunities for the state’s citizens; 

169 (j) proper stewardship of the land and natural resources is necessary to ensure the 

Enrolled Copy S.B. 83 

- 7 - 

170 health of the watersheds, timber, forage, and wildlife resources to provide for a continuous 

171 supply of resources for the people of the state and the people of the local communities who 

172 depend on these resources for a sustainable economy; 

173 (k) forests, rangelands, timber, and other vegetative resources: 

174 (i) provide forage for livestock; 

175 (ii) provide forage and habitat for wildlife; 

176 (iii) provide resources for the state’s timber and logging industries; 

177 (iv) contribute to the state’s economic stability and growth; and 

178 (v) are important for a wide variety of recreational pursuits; 

179 (l) management programs and initiatives that improve watersheds, forests, and increase 

180 forage for the mutual benefit of wildlife species and livestock, logging, and other 

agricultural 

181 industries by utilizing proven techniques and tools are vital to the state’s economy and the 

182 quality of life in Utah; and 

183 (m) (i) land management plans, programs, and initiatives should provide that the 

184 amount of domestic livestock forage, expressed in animal unit months, for permitted, active 
Final OSTS PEIS 1140 

185 use as well as the wildlife forage included in that amount, be no less than the maximum 

186 number of animal unit months sustainable by range conditions in grazing allotments and 

187 districts, based on an on-the-ground and scientific analysis; 

188 (ii) the state opposes the relinquishment or retirement of grazing animal unit months in 

189 favor of conservation, wildlife, and other uses; 

190 (iii) (A) the state favors the best management practices that are jointly sponsored by 

191 cattlemen’s, sportsmen’s, and wildlife management groups such as chaining, logging, 

seeding, 

192 burning, and other direct soil and vegetation prescriptions that are demonstrated to restore 

193 forest and rangeland health, increase forage, and improve watersheds in grazing districts and 

194 allotments for the mutual benefit of domestic livestock and wildlife; 

195 (B) when practices described in Subsection (6)(m)(iii)(A) increase a grazing 

196 allotment’s forage beyond the total permitted forage use that was allocated to that allotment 

in 

197 the last federal land use plan or allotment management plan still in existence as of January 1, 

S.B. 83 Enrolled Copy 

- 8 - 

198 2005, a reasonable and fair portion of the increase in forage beyond the previously allocated 

199 total permitted use should be allocated to wildlife as recommended by a joint, evenly 

balanced 

200 committee of livestock and wildlife representatives that is appointed and constituted by the 

201 governor for that purpose; 

202 (C) the state favors quickly and effectively adjusting wildlife population goals and 

203 population census numbers in response to variations in the amount of available forage 

caused 

204 by drought or other climatic adjustments, and state agencies responsible for managing 

wildlife 

205 population goals and population census numbers will give due regard to both the needs of 

the 

206 livestock industry and the need to prevent the decline of species to a point where listing 

under 

207 the terms of the Endangered Species Act when making such adjustments; 

208 (iv) the state opposes the transfer of grazing animal unit months to wildlife for 

209 supposed reasons of rangeland health; 

210 (v) reductions in domestic livestock animal unit months must be temporary and 

211 scientifically based upon rangeland conditions; 

212 (vi) policies, plans, programs, initiatives, resource management plans, and forest plans 

213 may not allow the placement of grazing animal unit months in a suspended use category 

unless 

214 there is a rational and scientific determination that the condition of the rangeland allotment 

or 

215 district in question will not sustain the animal unit months sought to be placed in suspended 

216 use; 

217 (vii) any grazing animal unit months that are placed in a suspended use category should 

218 be returned to active use when range conditions improve; 

219 (viii) policies, plans, programs, and initiatives related to vegetation management 
Final OSTS PEIS 1141 

220 should recognize and uphold the preference for domestic grazing over alternate forage uses 

in 

221 established grazing districts while upholding management practices that optimize and 

expand 

222 forage for grazing and wildlife in conjunction with state wildlife management plans and 

223 programs in order to provide maximum available forage for all uses; and 

224 (ix) in established grazing districts, animal unit months that have been reduced due to 

225 rangeland health concerns should be restored to livestock when rangeland conditions 

improve, 

Enrolled Copy S.B. 83 

- 9 - 

226 and should not be converted to wildlife use. 

227 (7) The state planning coordinator shall recognize and promote the following findings 

228 in the preparation of any policies, plans, programs, processes, or desired outcomes relating 

to 

229 federal lands and natural resources on federal lands under this section: 

230 (a) as a coholder of R.S. 2477 rights-of-way with the counties, the state supports its 

231 recognition by the federal government and the public use of R.S. 2477 rights-of-way and 

urges 

232 the federal government to fully recognize the rights-of-way and their use by the public as 

233 expeditiously as possible; 

234 (b) it is the policy of the state to use reasonable administrative and legal measures to 

235 protect and preserve valid existing rights-of-way granted by Congress under R.S. 2477, and 

to 

236 support and work in conjunction with counties to redress cases where R.S. 2477 rights-ofway 

237 are not recognized or are impaired; and 

238 (c) transportation and access routes to and across federal lands, including all 

239 rights-of-way vested under R.S. 2477, are vital to the state’s economy and to the quality of 

life 

240 in the state, and must provide, at a minimum, a network of roads throughout the resource 

241 planning area that provides for: 

242 (i) movement of people, goods, and services across public lands; 

243 (ii) reasonable access to a broad range of resources and opportunities throughout the 

244 resource planning area, including: 

245 (A) livestock operations and improvements; 

246 (B) solid, fluid, and gaseous mineral operations; 

247 (C) recreational opportunities and operations, including motorized and nonmotorized 

248 recreation; 

249 (D) search and rescue needs; 

250 (E) public safety needs; and 

251 (F) access for transportation of wood products to market; 

252 (iii) access to federal lands for people with disabilities and the elderly; and 

253 (iv) access to state lands and school and institutional trust lands to accomplish the 

S.B. 83 Enrolled Copy 

- 10 - 
Final OSTS PEIS 1142 

254 purposes of those lands. 

255 (8) The state planning coordinator shall recognize and promote the following findings 

256 in the preparation of any plans, policies, programs, processes, or desired outcomes relating 

to 

257 federal lands and natural resources on federal lands pursuant to this section: 

258 (a) the state’s support for the addition of a river segment to the National Wild and 

259 Scenic Rivers System, 16 U.S.C. Sec. 1271 et seq., will be withheld until: 

260 (i) it is clearly demonstrated that water is present and flowing at all times; 

261 (ii) it is clearly demonstrated that the required water-related value is considered 

262 outstandingly remarkable within a region of comparison consisting of one of the three 

263 physiographic provinces in the state, and that the rationale and justification for the 

conclusions 

264 are disclosed; 

265 (iii) it is clearly demonstrated that the inclusion of each river segment is consistent 

266 with the plans and policies of the state and the county or counties where the river segment is 

267 located as those plans and policies are developed according to Subsection (3); 

268 (iv) the effects of the addition upon the local and state economies, agricultural and 

269 industrial operations and interests, outdoor recreation, water rights, water quality, water 

270 resource planning, and access to and across river corridors in both upstream and downstream 

271 directions from the proposed river segment have been evaluated in detail by the relevant 

federal 

272 agency; 

273 (v) it is clearly demonstrated that the provisions and terms of the process for review of 

274 potential additions have been applied in a consistent manner by all federal agencies; 

275 (vi) the rationale and justification for the proposed addition, including a comparison 

276 with protections offered by other management tools, is clearly analyzed within the multipleuse 

277 mandate, and the results disclosed; 

278 (vii) it is clearly demonstrated that the federal agency with management authority over 

279 the river segment, and which is proposing the segment for inclusion in the National Wild 

and 

280 Scenic River System will not use the actual or proposed designation as a basis to impose 

281 management standards outside of the federal land management plan; 

Enrolled Copy S.B. 83 

- 11 - 

282 (viii) it is clearly demonstrated that the terms and conditions of the federal land and 

283 resource management plan containing a recommendation for inclusion in the National Wild 

284 and Scenic River System: 

285 (A) evaluates all eligible river segments in the resource planning area completely and 

286 fully for suitability for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic River System; 

287 (B) does not suspend or terminate any studies for inclusion in the National Wild and 

288 Scenic River System at the eligibility phase; 

289 (C) fully disclaims any interest in water rights for the recommended segment as a result 

290 of the adoption of the plan; and 

291 (D) fully disclaims the use of the recommendation for inclusion in the National Wild 

292 and Scenic River System as a reason or rationale for an evaluation of impacts by proposals 
Final OSTS PEIS 1143 

for 

293 projects upstream, downstream, or within the recommended segment; 

294 (ix) it is clearly demonstrated that the agency with management authority over the river 

295 segment commits not to use an actual or proposed designation as a basis to impose Visual 

296 Resource Management Class I or II management prescriptions that do not comply with the 

297 provisions of Subsection (8)(t); and 

298 (x) it is clearly demonstrated that including the river segment and the terms and 

299 conditions for managing the river segment as part of the National Wild and Scenic River 

300 System will not prevent, reduce, impair, or otherwise interfere with: 

301 (A) the state and its citizens’ enjoyment of complete and exclusive water rights in and 

302 to the rivers of the state as determined by the laws of the state; or 

303 (B) local, state, regional, or interstate water compacts to which the state or any county 

304 is a party; 

305 (b) the conclusions of all studies related to potential additions to the National Wild and 

306 Scenic River System, 16 U.S.C. Sec. 1271 et seq., are submitted to the state for review and 

307 action by the Legislature and governor, and the results, in support of or in opposition to, are 

308 included in any planning documents or other proposals for addition and are forwarded to the 

309 United States Congress; 

S.B. 83 Enrolled Copy 

- 12 - 

310 (c) the state’s support for designation of an Area of Critical Environmental Concern 

311 (ACEC), as defined in 43 U.S.C. Sec. 1702, within federal land management plans will be 

312 withheld until: 

313 (i) it is clearly demonstrated that the proposed area satisfies all the definitional 

314 requirements of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, 43 U.S.C. Sec. 

315 1702(a); 

316 (ii) it is clearly demonstrated that the area proposed for designation as an ACEC is 

317 limited in geographic size and that the proposed management prescriptions are limited in 

scope 

318 to the minimum necessary to specifically protect and prevent irreparable damage to the 

relevant 

319 and important values identified, or limited in geographic size and management prescriptions 

to 

320 the minimum required to specifically protect human life or safety from natural hazards; 

321 (iii) it is clearly demonstrated that the proposed area is limited only to areas that are 

322 already developed or used or to areas where no development is required; 

323 (iv) it is clearly demonstrated that the proposed area contains relevant and important 

324 historic, cultural or scenic values, fish or wildlife resources, or natural processes which are 

325 unique or substantially significant on a regional basis, or contain natural hazards which 

326 significantly threaten human life or safety; 

327 (v) the federal agency has analyzed regional values, resources, processes, or hazards for 

328 irreparable damage and its potential causes resulting from potential actions which are 

329 consistent with the multiple-use, sustained-yield principles, and the analysis describes the 

330 rationale for any special management attention required to protect, or prevent irreparable 

331 damage to the values, resources, processes, or hazards; 

332 (vi) it is clearly demonstrated that the proposed designation is consistent with the plans 
Final OSTS PEIS 1144 

333 and policies of the state and of the county where the proposed designation is located as those 

334 plans and policies are developed according to Subsection (3); 

335 (vii) it is clearly demonstrated that the proposed ACEC designation will not be applied 

336 redundantly over existing protections provided by other state and federal laws for federal 

lands 

337 or resources on federal lands, and that the federal statutory requirement for special 

management 

Enrolled Copy S.B. 83 

- 13 - 

338 attention for a proposed ACEC will discuss and justify any management requirements 

needed 

339 in addition to those specified by the other state and federal laws; 

340 (viii) the difference between special management attention required for an ACEC and 

341 normal multiple-use management has been identified and justified, and that any 

determination 

342 of irreparable damage has been analyzed and justified for short and long-term horizons; 

343 (ix) it is clearly demonstrated that the proposed designation: 

344 (A) is not a substitute for a wilderness suitability recommendation; 

345 (B) is not a substitute for managing areas inventoried for wilderness characteristics 

346 after 1993 under the BLM interim management plan for valid wilderness study areas; and 

347 (C) it is not an excuse or justification to apply de facto wilderness management 

348 standards; and 

349 (x) the conclusions of all studies are submitted to the state, as a cooperating agency, for 

350 review, and the results, in support of or in opposition to, are included in all planning 

351 documents; 

352 (d) sufficient federal lands are made available for government-to-government 

353 exchanges of school and institutional trust lands and federal lands without regard for a 

354 resource-to-resource correspondence between the surface or mineral characteristics of the 

355 offered trust lands and the offered federal lands; 

356 (e) federal agencies should support government-to-government exchanges of land with 

357 the state based on a fair process of valuation which meets the fiduciary obligations of both 

the 

358 state and federal governments toward trust lands management, and which assures that 

revenue 

359 authorized by federal statute to the state from mineral or timber production, present or 

future, is 

360 not diminished in any manner during valuation, negotiation, or implementation processes; 

361 (f) agricultural and grazing lands should continue to produce the food and fiber needed 

362 by the citizens of the state and the nation, and the rural character and open landscape of rural 

363 Utah should be preserved through a healthy and active agricultural and grazing industry, 

364 consistent with private property rights and state fiduciary duties; 

365 (g) the resources of the forests and rangelands of the state should be integrated as part 

S.B. 83 Enrolled Copy 

- 14 - 

366 of viable, robust, and sustainable state and local economies, and available forage should be 

367 evaluated for the full complement of herbivores the rangelands can support in a sustainable 
Final OSTS PEIS 1145 

368 manner, and forests should contain a diversity of timber species, and disease or insect 

369 infestations in forests should be controlled using logging or other best management 

practices; 

370 (h) the state opposes any additional evaluation of national forest service lands as 

371 “roadless” or “unroaded” beyond the forest service’s second roadless area review evaluation 

and 

372 opposes efforts by agencies to specially manage those areas in a way that: 

373 (i) closes or declassifies existing roads unless multiple side by side roads exist running 

374 to the same destination and state and local governments consent to close or declassify the 

extra 

375 roads; 

376 (ii) permanently bars travel on existing roads; 

377 (iii) excludes or diminishes traditional multiple-use activities, including grazing and 

378 proper forest harvesting; 

379 (iv) interferes with the enjoyment and use of valid, existing rights, including water 

380 rights, local transportation plan rights, R.S. 2477 rights, grazing allotment rights, and 

mineral 

381 leasing rights; or 

382 (v) prohibits development of additional roads reasonably necessary to pursue 

383 traditional multiple-use activities; 

384 (i) the state’s support for any forest plan revision or amendment will be withheld until 

385 the appropriate plan revision or plan amendment clearly demonstrates that: 

386 (i) established roads are not referred to as unclassified roads or a similar classification; 

387 (ii) lands in the vicinity of established roads are managed under the multiple-use, 

388 sustained-yield management standard; and 

389 (iii) no roadless or unroaded evaluations or inventories are recognized or upheld 

390 beyond those that were recognized or upheld in the forest service’s second roadless area 

review 

391 evaluation; 

392 (j) the state’s support for any recommendations made under the statutory requirement to 

393 examine the wilderness option during the revision of land and resource management plans 

by 

Enrolled Copy S.B. 83 

- 15 - 

394 the U.S. Forest Service will be withheld until it is clearly demonstrated that: 

395 (i) the duly adopted transportation plans of the state and county or counties within the 

396 planning area are fully and completely incorporated into the baseline inventory of 

information 

397 from which plan provisions are derived; 

398 (ii) valid state or local roads and rights-of-way are recognized and not impaired in any 

399 way by the recommendations; 

400 (iii) the development of mineral resources by underground mining is not affected by 

401 the recommendations; 

402 (iv) the need for additional administrative or public roads necessary for the full use of 

403 the various multiple-uses, including recreation, mineral exploration and development, forest 

404 health activities, and grazing operations is not unduly affected by the recommendations; 
Final OSTS PEIS 1146 

405 (v) analysis and full disclosure is made concerning the balance of multiple-use 

406 management in the proposed areas, and that the analysis compares the full benefit of 

407 multiple-use management to the recreational, forest health, and economic needs of the state 

and 

408 the counties to the benefits of the requirements of wilderness management; and 

409 (vi) the conclusions of all studies related to the requirement to examine the wilderness 

410 option are submitted to the state for review and action by the Legislature and governor, and 

the 

411 results, in support of or in opposition to, are included in any planning documents or other 

412 proposals that are forwarded to the United States Congress; 

413 (k) the invasion of noxious weeds and undesirable invasive plant species into the state 

414 should be reversed, their presence eliminated, and their return prevented; 

415 (l) management and resource-use decisions by federal land management and regulatory 

416 agencies concerning the vegetative resources within the state should reflect serious 

417 consideration of the proper optimization of the yield of water within the watersheds of the 

418 state; 

419 (m) (i) it is the policy of the state that: 

420 (A) mineral and energy production and environmental protection are not mutually 

421 exclusive; 

S.B. 83 Enrolled Copy 

- 16 - 

422 (B) it is technically feasible to permit appropriate access to mineral and energy 

423 resources while preserving nonmineral and nonenergy resources; 

424 (C) resource management planning should seriously consider all available mineral and 

425 energy resources; 

426 (D) the development of the solid, fluid, and gaseous mineral resources of the state and 

427 the renewable resources of the state should be encouraged; 

428 (E) the waste of fluid and gaseous minerals within developed areas should be 

429 prohibited; and 

430 (F) requirements to mitigate or reclaim mineral development projects should be based 

431 on credible evidence of significant impacts to natural or cultural resources; 

432 (ii) the state’s support for mineral development provisions within federal land 

433 management plans will be withheld until the appropriate land management plan 

environmental 

434 impact statement clearly demonstrates: 

435 (A) that the authorized planning agency has: 

436 (I) considered and evaluated the mineral and energy potential in all areas of the 

437 planning area as if the areas were open to mineral development under standard lease 

438 agreements; and 

439 (II) evaluated any management plan prescription for its impact on the area’s baseline 

440 mineral and energy potential; 

441 (B) that the development provisions do not unduly restrict access to public lands for 

442 energy exploration and development; 

443 (C) that the authorized planning agency has supported any closure of additional areas 

444 to mineral leasing and development or any increase of acres subject to no surface occupancy 

445 restrictions by adhering to: 
Final OSTS PEIS 1147 

446 (I) the relevant provisions of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, 43 

447 U.S.C. Sec. 1701 et seq.; 

448 (II) other controlling mineral development laws; and 

449 (III) the controlling withdrawal and reporting procedures set forth in the Federal Land 

Enrolled Copy S.B. 83 

- 17 - 

450 Policy and Management Act of 1976, 43 U.S.C. Sec. 1701 et seq.; 

451 (D) that the authorized planning agency evaluated whether to repeal any moratorium 

452 that may exist on the issuance of additional mining patents and oil and gas leases; 

453 (E) that the authorized planning agency analyzed all proposed mineral lease 

454 stipulations and considered adopting the least restrictive necessary to protect against damage 

to 

455 other significant resource values; 

456 (F) that the authorized planning agency evaluated mineral lease restrictions to 

457 determine whether to waive, modify, or make exceptions to the restrictions on the basis that 

458 they are no longer necessary or effective; 

459 (G) that the authorized federal agency analyzed all areas proposed for no surface 

460 occupancy restrictions, and that the analysis evaluated: 

461 (I) whether directional drilling is economically feasible and ecologically necessary for 

462 each proposed no surface occupancy area; 

463 (II) whether the directional drilling feasibility analysis, or analysis of other 

464 management prescriptions, demonstrates that the proposed no surface occupancy 

prescription, 

465 in effect, sterilizes the mineral and energy resources beneath the area; and 

466 (III) whether, if the minerals are effectively sterilized, the area must be reported as 

467 withdrawn under the provisions of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act; and 

468 (H) that the authorized planning agency has evaluated all directional drilling 

469 requirements in no surface occupancy areas to determine whether directional drilling is 

feasible 

470 from an economic, ecological, and engineering standpoint; 

471 (n) motorized, human, and animal-powered outdoor recreation should be integrated 

472 into a fair and balanced allocation of resources within the historical and cultural framework 

of 

473 multiple-uses in rural Utah, and outdoor recreation should be supported as part of a balanced 

474 plan of state and local economic support and growth; 

475 (o) off-highway vehicles should be used responsibly, the management of off-highway 

476 vehicles should be uniform across all jurisdictions, and laws related to the use of offhighway 

477 vehicles should be uniformly applied across all jurisdictions; 

S.B. 83 Enrolled Copy 

- 18 - 

478 (p) (i) rights-of-way granted and vested under the provisions of R.S. 2477 should be 

479 preserved and acknowledged; 

480 (ii) land use management plans, programs, and initiatives should be consistent with 

481 both state and county transportation plans developed according to Subsection (3) in order to 

482 provide a network of roads throughout the planning area that provides for: 
Final OSTS PEIS 1148 

483 (A) movement of people, goods, and services across public lands; 

484 (B) reasonable access to a broad range of resources and opportunities throughout the 

485 planning area, including access to livestock, water, and minerals; 

486 (C) economic and business needs; 

487 (D) public safety; 

488 (E) search and rescue; 

489 (F) access for people with disabilities and the elderly; 

490 (G) access to state lands; and 

491 (H) recreational opportunities; 

492 (q) transportation and access provisions for all other existing routes, roads, and trails 

493 across federal, state, and school trust lands within the state should be determined and 

494 identified, and agreements should be executed and implemented, as necessary to fully 

authorize 

495 and determine responsibility for maintenance of all routes, roads, and trails; 

496 (r) the reasonable development of new routes and trails for motorized, human, and 

497 animal-powered recreation should be implemented; 

498 (s) (i) forests, rangelands, and watersheds, in a healthy condition, are necessary and 

499 beneficial for wildlife, livestock grazing, and other multiple-uses; 

500 (ii) management programs and initiatives that are implemented to increase forage for 

501 the mutual benefit of the agricultural industry, livestock operations, and wildlife species 

should 

502 utilize all proven techniques and tools; 

503 (iii) the continued viability of livestock operations and the livestock industry should be 

504 supported on the federal lands within the state by management of the lands and forage 

505 resources, by the proper optimization of animal unit months for livestock, in accordance 

with 

Enrolled Copy S.B. 83 

- 19 - 

506 the multiple-use provisions of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, 43 

507 U.S.C. 1701 et seq., the provisions of the Taylor Grazing Act of 1934, 43 U.S.C. 315 et seq., 

508 and the provisions of the Public Rangelands Improvement Act of 1978, 43 U.S.C. 1901 et 

seq.; 

509 (iv) provisions for predator control initiatives or programs under the direction of state 

510 and local authorities should be implemented; and 

511 (v) resource-use and management decisions by federal land management and 

512 regulatory agencies should support state-sponsored initiatives or programs designed to 

stabilize 

513 wildlife populations that may be experiencing a scientifically demonstrated decline in those 

514 populations; and 

515 (t) management and resource use decisions by federal land management and regulatory 

516 agencies concerning the scenic resources of the state must balance the protection of scenery 

517 with the full management requirements of the other authorized uses of the land under 

518 multiple-use management, and should carefully consider using Visual Resource 

Management 

519 Class I protection only for areas of inventoried Class A scenery or equivalent. 

520 (9) Notwithstanding any provision of Section 63J-8-105.5, the state is committed to 
Final OSTS PEIS 1149 

521 establishing and administering an effective statewide conservation strategy for greater sage 

522 grouse. 

523 [(9)] (10) Nothing contained in this section may be construed to restrict or supersede 

524 the planning powers conferred upon state departments, agencies, instrumentalities, or 

advisory 

525 councils of the state or the planning powers conferred upon political subdivisions by any 

other 

526 existing law. 

527 [(10)] (11) Nothing in this section may be construed to affect any lands withdrawn 

528 from the public domain for military purposes, which are administered by the United States 

529 Army, Air Force, or Navy. 

530 Section 2. Section 63J-8-102 is amended to read: 

531 63J-8-102. Definitions. 

532 As used in this chapter: 

533 (1) “ACEC” means an area of critical environmental concern. 

S.B. 83 Enrolled Copy 

- 20 - 

534 (2) “AUM” means animal unit months, a unit of grazing forage. 

535 (3) “BLM” means the United States Bureau of Land Management. 

536 (4) “FLPMA” means the Federal Land Policy Management Act of 1976, 43 U.S.C. Sec. 

537 1701 et seq. 

538 (5) “Forest service” means the United States Forest Service within the United States 

539 Department of Agriculture. 

540 (6) “Multiple use” means proper stewardship of the subject lands pursuant to Section 

541 1031(C) of FLPMA, 43 U.S.C. Sec. 170(C). 

542 (7) “OHV” means off-highway vehicle as defined in Section 41-22-2. 

543 (8) “Settlement Agreement” means the written agreement between the state and the 

544 Department of the Interior in 2003 (revised in 2005) that resolved the case of State of Utah 

v. 

545 Gale Norton, Secretary of Interior (United States District Court, D. Utah, Case No. 

546 2:96cv0870). 

547 (9) “SITLA” means the School and Institutional Trust Lands Administration as created 

548 in Section 53C-1-201. 

549 (10) (a) “Subject lands” means the following non-WSA BLM lands: 

550 (i) in Beaver County: 

551 (A) Mountain Home Range South, Jackson Wash, The Toad, North Wah Wah 

552 Mountains, Central Wah Wah Mountains, and San Francisco Mountains according to the 

553 region map entitled “Great Basin Central” linked in the webpage entitled “Citizen’s Proposal 

554 for Wilderness in Utah” at http://www.protectwildutah.org/proposal/index.html as the 

webpage 

555 existed on February 17, 2011; and 

556 (B) White Rock Range, South Wah Wah Mountains, and Granite Peak according to the 

557 region map entitled “Great Basin South” linked in the webpage entitled “Citizen’s Proposal 

for 

558 Wilderness in Utah” at http://www.protectwildutah.org/proposal/index.html as the webpage 

559 existed on February 17, 2011; 
Final OSTS PEIS 1150 

560 (ii) in Box Elder County: Little Goose Creek, Grouse Creek Mountains North, Grouse 

561 Creek Mountains South, Bald Eagle Mountain, Central Pilot Range, Pilot Peak, Crater Island 

Enrolled Copy S.B. 83 

- 21 - 

562 West, Crater Island East, Newfoundland Mountains, and Grassy Mountains North according 

to 

563 the region map entitled “Great Basin North” linked in the webpage entitled “Citizen’s 

Proposal 

564 for Wilderness in Utah” at http://www.protectwildutah.org/proposal/index.html as the 

webpage 

565 existed on February 17, 2011; 

566 (iii) in Carbon County: Desbrough Canyon and Turtle Canyon according to the region 

567 map entitled “Book Cliffs” linked in the webpage entitled “Citizen’s Proposal for 

Wilderness in 

568 Utah” at http://www.protectwildutah.org/proposal/index.html as the webpage existed on 

569 February 17, 2011; 

570 (iv) in Daggett County: Goslin Mountain, Home Mountain, Red Creek Badlands, 

571 O-wi-yu-kuts, Lower Flaming Gorge, Crouse Canyon, and Diamond Breaks according to the 

572 region map entitled “Dinosaur” linked in the webpage entitled “Citizen’s Proposal for 

573 Wilderness in Utah” at http://www.protectwildutah.org/proposal/index.html as the webpage 

574 existed on February 17, 2011; 

575 (v) in Duchesne County: Desbrough Canyon according to the region map entitled 

576 “Book Cliffs” linked in the webpage entitled “Citizen’s Proposal for Wilderness in Utah” at 

577 http://www.protectwildutah.org/proposal/index.html as the webpage existed on February 17, 

578 2011; 

579 (vi) in Emery County: 

580 (A) San Rafael River and Sweetwater Reef, according to the region map entitled 

581 “Canyonlands Basin” linked in the webpage entitled “Citizen’s Proposal for Wilderness in 

582 Utah” at http://www.protectwildutah.org/proposal/index.html as the webpage existed on 

583 February 17, 2011; 

584 (B) Flat Tops according to the region map entitled “Glen Canyon,” which is available 

585 by clicking the link entitled “Dirty Devil” at the webpage entitled “Citizen’s Proposal for 

586 Wilderness in Utah” at http://www.protectwildutah.org/proposal/index.html as the webpage 

587 existed on February 17, 2011; and 

588 (C) Price River, Lost Spring Wash, Eagle Canyon, Upper Muddy Creek, Molen Reef, 

589 Rock Canyon, Mussentuchit Badland, and Muddy Creek, according to the region map 

entitled 

S.B. 83 Enrolled Copy 

- 22 - 

590 “San Rafael Swell” linked at the webpage entitled “Citizen’s Proposal for Wilderness in 

Utah” 

591 at http://www.protectwildutah.org/proposal/index.html as the webpage existed on February 

17, 

592 2011; 

593 (vii) in Garfield County: 

594 (A) Pole Canyon, according to the region map entitled “Great Basin South” linked in 
Final OSTS PEIS 1151 

595 the webpage entitled “Citizen’s Proposal for Wilderness in Utah” at 

596 http://www.protectwildutah.org/proposal/index.html as the webpage existed on February 17, 

597 2011; 

598 (B) Dirty Devil, Fiddler Butte, Little Rockies, Cane Spring Desert, and Cane Spring 

599 Desert Adjacents, according to the region map entitled “Glen Canyon,” which is available by 

600 clicking the link entitled “Dirty Devil” at the webpage entitled “Citizen’s Proposal for 

601 Wilderness in Utah” at http://www.protectwildutah.org/proposal/index.html as the webpage 

602 existed on February 17, 2011; 

603 (C) Lampstand, Wide Hollow, Steep Creek, Brinkerhof Flats, Little Valley Canyon, 

604 Death Hollow, Studhorse Peaks, Box Canyon, Heaps Canyon, North Escalante Canyon, Colt 

605 Mesa, East of Bryce, Slopes of Canaan Peak, Horse Spring Canyon, Muley Twist Flank, 

606 Pioneer Mesa, Slopes of Bryce, Blue Hills, Mud Springs Canyon, Carcass Canyon, Willis 

607 Creek North, Kodachrome Basin, and Kodachrome Headlands, according to the region map 

608 entitled “Grand Staircase Escalante” linked at the webpage entitled “Citizen’s Proposal for 

609 Wilderness in Utah” at http://www.protectwildutah.org/proposal/index.html as the webpage 

610 existed on February 17, 2011; and 

611 (D) Notom Bench, Mount Ellen, Bull Mountain, Dogwater Creek, Ragged Mountain, 

612 Mount Pennell, Mount Hillers, Bullfrog Creek, and Long Canyon, according to the region 

map 

613 entitled “Henry Mountains” linked at the webpage entitled “Citizen’s Proposal for 

Wilderness 

614 in Utah” at http://www.protectwildutah.org/proposal/index.html as the webpage existed on 

615 February 17, 2011; 

616 (viii) in Iron County: Needle Mountains, Steamboat Mountain, Broken Ridge, Paradise 

617 Mountains, Crook Canyon, Hamlin, North Peaks, Mount Escalante, and Antelope Ridge, 

Enrolled Copy S.B. 83 

- 23 - 

618 according to the region map entitled “Great Basin South” linked in the webpage entitled 

619 “Citizen’s Proposal for Wilderness in Utah” at 

620 http://www.protectwildutah.org/proposal/index.html as the webpage existed on February 17, 

621 2011; 

622 (ix) in Juab County: Deep Creek Mountains, Essex Canyon, Kern Mountains, Wild 

623 Horse Pass, Disappointment Hills, Granite Mountain, Middle Mountains, Tule Valley, Fish 

624 Springs Ridge, Thomas Range, Drum Mountains, Dugway Mountains, Keg Mountains West, 

625 Keg Mountains East, Lion Peak, and Rockwell Little Sahara, according to the region map 

626 entitled “Great Basin Central” linked in the webpage entitled “Citizen’s Proposal for 

627 Wilderness in Utah” at http://www.protectwildutah.org/proposal/index.html as the webpage 

628 existed on February 17, 2011; 

629 (x) in Kane County: 

630 (A) Willis Creek North, Willis Creek, Kodachrome Badlands, Mud Springs Canyon, 

631 Carcass Canyon, Scorpion, Bryce Boot, Paria-Hackberry Canyons, Fiftymile Canyon, 

632 Hurricane Wash, Upper Kanab Creek, Timber Mountain, Nephi Point, Paradise Canyon, 

633 Wahweap Burning Hills, Fiftymile Bench, Forty Mile Gulch, Sooner Bench 1, 2, & 3, Rock 

634 Cove, Warm Bench, Andalex Not, Vermillion Cliffs, Ladder Canyon, The Cockscomb, 

Nipple 

635 Bench, Moquith Mountain, Bunting Point, Glass Eye Canyon, and Pine Hollow, according 
Final OSTS PEIS 1152 

to 

636 the region map entitled “Grand Staircase Escalante” linked at the webpage entitled 

“Citizen’s 

637 Proposal for Wilderness in Utah” at http://www.protectwildutah.org/proposal/index.html as 

the 

638 webpage existed on February 17, 2011; and 

639 (B) Orderville Canyon, Jolley Gulch, and Parunuweap Canyon, according to the region 

640 map entitled “Zion/Mohave” linked at the webpage entitled “Citizen’s Proposal for 

Wilderness 

641 in Utah” at http://www.protectwildutah.org/proposal/index.html as the webpage existed on 

642 February 17, 2011; 

643 (xi) in Millard County: Kern Mountains, Wild Horse Pass, Disappointment Hills, 

644 Granite Mountain, Middle Mountains, Tule Valley, Swasey Mountain, Little Drum 

Mountains 

645 North, Little Drum Mountains South, Drum Mountains, Snake Valley, Coyote Knoll, 

Howell 

S.B. 83 Enrolled Copy 

- 24 - 

646 Peak, Tule Valley South, Ledger Canyon, Chalk Knolls, Orr Ridge, Notch View, Bullgrass 

647 Knoll, Notch Peak, Barn Hills, Cricket Mountains, Burbank Pass, Middle Burbank Hills, 

King 

648 Top, Barn Hills, Red Tops, Middle Burbank Hills, Juniper, Painted Rock Mountain, Black 

649 Hills, Tunnel Springs, Red Canyon, Sand Ridge, Little Sage Valley, Cat Canyon, Headlight 

650 Mountain, Black Hills, Mountain Range Home North, Tweedy Wash, North Wah Wah 

651 Mountains, Jackson Wash, and San Francisco Mountains, according to the region map 

entitled 

652 “Great Basin Central” linked in the webpage entitled “Citizen’s Proposal for Wilderness in 

653 Utah” at http://www.protectwildutah.org/proposal/index.html as the webpage existed on 

654 February 17, 2011; 

655 (xii) in Piute County: Kingston Ridge, Rocky Ford, and Phonolite Hill, according to 

656 the region map entitled “Great Basin South” linked in the webpage entitled “Citizen’s 

Proposal 

657 for Wilderness in Utah” at http://www.protectwildutah.org/proposal/index.html as the 

webpage 

658 existed on February 17, 2011; 

659 (xiii) in San Juan County: 

660 (A) Horseshoe Point, Deadhorse Cliffs, Gooseneck, Demon’s Playground, Hatch 

661 Canyon, Lockhart Basin, Indian Creek, Hart’s Point, Butler Wash, Bridger Jack Mesa, and 

Shay 

662 Mountain, according to the region map entitled “Canyonlands Basin” linked in the webpage 

663 entitled “Citizen’s Proposal for Wilderness in Utah” at 

664 http://www.protectwildutah.org/proposal/index.html as the webpage existed on February 17, 

665 2011; 

666 (B) Dark Canyon, Copper Point, Fortknocker Canyon, White Canyon, The Needle, Red 

667 Rock Plateau, Upper Red Canyon, and Tuwa Canyon, according to the region map entitled 

668 “Glen Canyon,” which is available by clicking the link entitled “Dirty Devil” at the webpage 
Final OSTS PEIS 1153 

669 entitled “Citizen’s Proposal for Wilderness in Utah” at 

670 http://www.protectwildutah.org/proposal/index.html as the webpage existed on February 17, 

671 2011; 

672 (C) Hunters Canyon, Behind the Rocks, Mill Creek, and Coyote Wash, according to 

673 the region map entitled “Moab/La Sal” linked at the webpage entitled “Citizen’s Proposal 

for 

Enrolled Copy S.B. 83 

- 25 - 

674 Wilderness in Utah” at http://www.protectwildutah.org/proposal/index.html as the webpage 

675 existed on February 17, 2011; and 

676 (D) Hammond Canyon, Allen Canyon, Mancos Jim Butte, Arch Canyon, Monument 

677 Canyon, Tin Cup Mesa, Cross Canyon, Nokai Dome, Grand Gulch, Fish and Owl Creek 

678 Canyons, Comb Ridge, Road Canyon, The Tabernacle, Lime Creek, San Juan River, and 

679 Valley of the Gods, according to the region map entitled “San Juan” linked at the webpage 

680 entitled “Citizen’s Proposal for Wilderness in Utah” at 

681 http://www.protectwildutah.org/proposal/index.html as the webpage existed on February 17, 

682 2011; 

683 (xiv) in Sevier County: Rock Canyon, Mussentuchit Badland, Limestone Cliffs, and 

684 Jones’ Bench, according to the region map entitled “San Rafael Swell” linked at the 

webpage 

685 entitled “Citizen’s Proposal for Wilderness in Utah” at 

686 http://www.protectwildutah.org/proposal/index.html as the webpage existed on February 17, 

687 2011; 

688 (xv) in Tooele County: 

689 (A) Silver Island Mountains, Crater Island East, Grassy Mountains North, Grassy 

690 Mountains South, Stansbury Island, Cedar Mountains North, Cedar Mountains Central, 

Cedar 

691 Mountains South, North Stansbury Mountains, Oquirrh Mountains, and Big Hollow, 

according 

692 to the region map entitled “Great Basin North” linked in the webpage entitled “Citizen’s 

693 Proposal for Wilderness in Utah” at http://www.protectwildutah.org/proposal/index.html as 

the 

694 webpage existed on February 17, 2011, excluding the areas that Congress designated as 

695 wilderness under the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006; and 

696 (B) Ochre Mountain, Deep Creek Mountains, Dugway Mountains, Indian Peaks, and 

697 Lion Peak, according to the region map entitled “Great Basin Central” linked in the webpage 

698 entitled “Citizen’s Proposal for Wilderness in Utah” at 

699 http://www.protectwildutah.org/proposal/index.html as the webpage existed on February 17, 

700 2011; 

701 (xvi) in Uintah County: 

S.B. 83 Enrolled Copy 

- 26 - 

702 (A) White River, Lower Bitter Creek, Sunday School Canyon, Dragon Canyon, Wolf 

703 Point, Winter Ridge, Seep Canyon, Bitter Creek, Hideout Canyon, Sweetwater Canyon, and 

704 Hell’s Hole, according to the region map entitled “Book Cliffs” linked in the webpage 

entitled 
Final OSTS PEIS 1154 

705 “Citizen’s Proposal for Wilderness in Utah” at 

706 http://www.protectwildutah.org/proposal/index.html as the webpage existed on February 17, 

707 2011; and 

708 (B) Lower Flaming Gorge, Crouse Canyon Stone Bridge Draw, Diamond Mountain, 

709 Wild Mountain, Split Mountain Benches, Vivas Cake Hill, Split Mountain Benches South, 

710 Beach Draw, Stuntz Draw, Moonshine Draw, Bourdette Draw, and Bull Canyon, according 

to 

711 the region map entitled “Dinosaur” linked in the webpage entitled “Citizen’s Proposal for 

712 Wilderness in Utah” at http://www.protectwildutah.org/proposal/index.html as the webpage 

713 existed on February 17, 2011; 

714 (xvii) in Washington County: Couger Canyon, Docs Pass, Slaughter Creek, Butcher 

715 Knife Canyon, Square Top, Scarecrow Creek, Beaver Dam Wash, Beaver Dam Mountains 

716 North, Beaver Dam Mountains South, Joshua Tree, Beaver Dam Wilderness Expansion, Red 

717 Mountain, Cottonwood Canyon, Taylor Canyon, LaVerkin Creek, Beartrap Canyon, Deep 

718 Creek, Black Ridge, Red Butte, Kolob Creek, Goose Creek, Dry Creek, Zion National Park 

719 Adjacents, Crater Hill, The Watchman, and Canaan Mountain, according to the region map 

720 entitled “Zion/Mohave” linked at the webpage entitled “Citizen’s Proposal for Wilderness in 

721 Utah” at http://www.protectwildutah.org/proposal/index.html as the webpage existed on 

722 February 17, 2011, excluding the areas that Congress designated as wilderness and 

723 conservation areas under the Omnibus Public Lands Management Act of 2009; and 

724 (xviii) in Wayne County: 

725 (A) Sweetwater Reef, Upper Horseshoe Canyon, and Labyrinth Canyon, according to 

726 the region map entitled “Canyonlands Basin” linked in the webpage entitled “Citizen’s 

Proposal 

727 for Wilderness in Utah” at http://www.protectwildutah.org/proposal/index.html as the 

webpage 

728 existed on February 17, 2011; 

729 (B) Flat Tops and Dirty Devil, according to the region map entitled “Glen Canyon,” 

Enrolled Copy S.B. 83 

- 27 - 

730 which is available by clicking the link entitled “Dirty Devil” at the webpage entitled 

“Citizen’s 

731 Proposal for Wilderness in Utah” at http://www.protectwildutah.org/proposal/index.html as 

the 

732 webpage existed on February 17, 2011; 

733 (C) Fremont Gorge, Pleasant Creek Bench, Notom Bench, Mount Ellen, and Bull 

734 Mountain, according to the region map entitled “Henry Mountains” linked at the webpage 

735 entitled “Citizen’s Proposal for Wilderness in Utah” at 

736 http://www.protectwildutah.org/proposal/index.html as the webpage existed on February 17, 

737 2011; and 

738 (D) Capital Reef Adjacents, Muddy Creek, Wild Horse Mesa, North Blue Flats, Red 

739 Desert, and Factory Butte, according to the region map entitled “San Rafael Swell” linked at 

740 the webpage entitled “Citizen’s Proposal for Wilderness in Utah” at 

741 http://www.protectwildutah.org/proposal/index.html as the webpage existed on February 17, 

742 2011. 

743 (b) “Subject lands” also includes all BLM and Forest Service lands in the state that are 
Final OSTS PEIS 1155 

744 not Wilderness Area or Wilderness Study Areas; 

745 (c) “Subject lands” does not include the following lands that are the subject of 

746 consideration for a possible federal lands bill and should be managed according to the 2008 

747 Price BLM Field Office Resource Management Plan until a federal lands bill provides 

748 otherwise: 

749 (i) Turtle Canyon and Desolation Canyon according to the region map entitled “Book 

750 Cliffs” linked in the webpage entitled “Citizen’s Proposal for Wilderness in Utah” at 

751 http://protectwildutah.org/proposal/index.html as the webpage existed on February 17, 2011; 

752 (ii) Labyrinth Canyon, Duma Point, and Horseshoe Point, according to the region map 

753 entitled “Canyonlands Basin” linked in the webpage entitled “Citizen’s Proposal for 

Wilderness 

754 in Utah” at http://protectwildutah.org/proposal/index.html as the webpage existed on 

February 

755 17, 2011; and 

756 (iii) Devil’s Canyon, Sid’s Mountain, Mexican Mountain, San Rafael Reef, Hondu 

757 Country, Cedar Mountain, and Wild Horse, according to the region map entitled “San Rafael 

S.B. 83 Enrolled Copy 

- 28 - 

758 Swell” linked at the webpage entitled “Citizen’s Proposal for Wilderness in Utah” at 

759 http://protectwildutah.org/proposal/index.html as the webpage existed on February 17, 

2011[;]. 

760 (11) “Uintah Basin Energy Zone” means BLM, Forest Service, and SITLA lands 

761 situated in the following townships in Daggett, Duchesne, and Uintah counties, as more fully 

762 illustrated in the map prepared by the Uintah County GIS Department in February 2012 

entitled 

763 “Uintah Basin Utah Energy Zone”: 

764 (a) in Daggett County, Township 3N Range 17 E, Township 3N Range 18E, Township 

765 3N Range 19E, Township 3N Range 20E, Township 3N Range 22E, Township 3N Range 

23E, 

766 Township 3N Range 24E, Township 3N Range 25E, Township 2N Range 17E, Township 

2N 

767 Range 18E, Township 2N Range 19E, Township 2N Range 20E, Township 2N Range 21E, 

and 

768 Township 2S Range 25E; 

769 (b) in Duchesne County, Township 3N Range 4W, Township 3N Range 3W, Township 

770 3N Range 2W, Township 3N Range 1W, Township 2N Range 6W, Township 2N Range 

5W, 

771 Township 2N Range 4W, Township 2N Range 3W, Township 2N Range 1W, Township 1N 

772 Range 9W, Township 1N Range 8W, Township 1N Range 7W, Township 1N Range 6W, 

773 Township 1S Range 9W, Township 1S Range 8W, Township 4S Range 9W, Township 4S 

774 Range 3W, Township 4S Range 2W, Township 4S Range 1W, Township 8S Range 15E, 

775 Township 8S Range 16E, Township 8S Range 17E, Township 5S Range 9W, Township 5S 

776 Range 3W, Township 9S Range 15E, Township 9S Range 16E, Township 9S Range 17E, 

777 Township 6S Range 9W, Township 6S Range 8W, Township 6S Range 7W, Township 6S 

778 Range 6W, Township 6S Range 5W, Township 6S Range 3W, Township 10S Range 15E, 

779 Township 10S Range 16E, Township 10S Range 17E, Township 7S Range 9W, Township 
Final OSTS PEIS 1156 

7S 

780 Range 8W, Township 7S Range 7W, Township 7S Range 6W, Township 7S Range 5W, 

781 Township 7S Range 4W, Township 10S Range 11E, Township 10S Range 12E, Township 

10S 

782 Range 13E, Township 10S Range 14E, Township 10S Range 15E, Township 10S Range 

16E, 

783 Township 10S Range 17E, Township 11S Range 10E, Township 11S Range 11E, Township 

784 11S Range 12E, Township 11S Range 13E, Township 11S Range 14E, Township 11S 

Range 

785 15E, Township 11S Range 16E, and Township 11S Range 17E; and 

Enrolled Copy S.B. 83 

- 29 - 

786 (c) in Uintah County: Township 2S Range 18E, Township 2S Range 19E, Township 

787 2S Range 20E, Township 2S Range 21E, Township 2S Range 22E, Township 2S Range 

23E, 

788 Township 2S Range 24E, Township 2N Range 1W, Township 2N Range 1E, Township 2N 

789 Range 2E, Township 3S Range 18E, Township 3S Range 19E, Township 3S Range 20E, 

790 Township 3S Range 21E, Township 3S Range 22E, Township 3S Range 23E, Township 3S 

791 Range 24E, Township 4S Range 19E, Township 4S Range 20E, Township 4S Range 21E, 

792 Township 4S Range 22E, Township 4S Range 23E, Township 4S Range 24E, Township 4S 

793 Range 25E, Township 5S Range 19E, Township 5S Range 20E, Township 5S Range 21E, 

794 Township 5S Range 22E, Township 5S Range 23E, Township 5S Range 24E, Township 5S 

795 Range 25E, Township 6S Range 19E, Township 6S Range 20E, Township 6S Range 21E, 

796 Township 6S Range 22E, Township 6S Range 23E, Township 6S Range 24E, Township 6S 

797 Range 25E, Township 7S Range 19E, Township 7S Range 20E, Township 7S Range 21E, 

798 Township 7S Range 22E, Township 7S Range 23E, Township 7S Range 24E, Township 7S 

799 Range 25E, Township 8S Range 17E, Township 8S Range 18E, Township 8S Range 19E, 

800 Township 8S Range 20E, Township 8S Range 21E, Township 8S Range 22E, Township 8S 

801 Range 23E, Township 8S Range 24E, Township 8S Range 25E, Township 9S Range 17E, 

802 Township 9S Range 18E, Township 9S Range 19E, Township 9S Range 20E, Township 9S 

803 Range 21E, Township 9S Range 22E, Township 9S Range 23E, Township 9S Range 24E, 

804 Township 9S Range 25E, Township 10S Range 17E, Township 10S Range 18E, Township 

10S 

805 Range 19E, Township 10S Range 20E, Township 10S Range 21E, Township 10S Range 

22E, 

806 Township 10S Range 23E, Township 10S Range 24E, Township 10S Range 25E, Township 

807 11S Range 17E, Township 11S Range 18E, Township 11S Range 19E, Township 11S 

Range 

808 20E, Township 11S Range 21E, Township 11S Range 22E, Township 11S Range 23E, 

809 Township 11S Range 24E, Township 11S Range 25E, Township 12S Range 20E, Township 

810 12S Range 21E, Township 12S Range 22E, Township 12S Range 23E, Township 12S 

Range 

811 24E, Township 12S Range 25E, Township 13S Range 20E, Township 13S Range 21E, 

812 Township 13S Range 22E, Township 13S Range 23E, Township 13S Range 24E, Township 

813 13S Range 25E, Township 13S Range 26 E, Township 14S Range 21E, Township 14S 

Range 
Final OSTS PEIS 1157 

S.B. 83 Enrolled Copy 

- 30 - 

814 22E, Township 14S Range 23E, Township 14S Range 24E, Township 14S Range 25E, and 

815 Township 14S Range 26E. 

816 [(11)] (12) “Wilderness area” means those BLM and Forest Service lands added to the 

817 National Wilderness Preservation System by an act of Congress. 

818 [(12)] (13) “WSA” and “Wilderness Study Area” mean the BLM lands in Utah that 

819 were identified as having the necessary wilderness character and were classified as 

wilderness 

820 study areas during the BLM wilderness review conducted between 1976 and 1993 by 

authority 

821 of Section 603 of FLPMA and labeled as Wilderness Study Areas within the final report of 

the 

822 President of the United States to the United States Congress in 1993. 

823 Section 3. Section 63J-8-105 is amended to read: 

824 63J-8-105. Maps available for public review. 

825 A printed copy of the maps referenced in [Subsection] Subsections 63J-8-102(10) and 

826 (11) shall be available for inspection by the public at the offices of the Utah Association of 

827 Counties. 

828 Section 4. Section 63J-8-105.5 is enacted to read: 

829 63J-8-105.5. Uintah Basin Energy Zone established -- Findings -- Management 

830 and land use priorities. 

831 (1) There is established the Uintah Basin Energy Zone in Daggett, Uintah, and 

832 Duchesne Counties for the purpose of maximizing efficient and responsible development of 

833 energy and mineral resources. 

834 (2) The land area and boundaries of the Uintah Basin Energy Zone are described in 

835 Subsection 63J-8-102(11) and illustrated on the map described in Section 63J-8-105. 

836 (3) The state finds that: 

837 (a) the lands comprising the Uintah Basin Energy Zone contain abundant, world-class 

838 deposits of energy and mineral resources, including oil, natural gas, oil shale, oil sands, 

839 gilsonite, coal, phosphate, gold, uranium, and copper, as well as areas with high wind and 

solar 

840 energy potential; and 

841 (b) the highest management priority for all lands within the Uintah Basin Energy Zone 

Enrolled Copy S.B. 83 

- 31 - 

842 is responsible management and development of existing energy and mineral resources in 

order 

843 to provide long-term domestic energy and supplies for Utah and the United States. 

844 (4) The state supports: 

845 (a) efficient and responsible full development of all existing energy and mineral 

846 resources located within the Uintah Basin Energy Zone, including oil, oil shale, natural gas, 

oil 

847 sands, gilsonite, phosphate, gold, uranium, copper, solar, and wind resources; and 

848 (b) a cooperative management approach among federal agencies, state, and local 

849 governments to achieve broadly supported management plans for the full development of all 
Final OSTS PEIS 1158 

850 energy and mineral resources within the Uintah Basin Energy Zone. 

851 (5) The state calls upon the federal agencies who administer lands within the Uintah 

852 Basin Energy Zone to: 

853 (a) fully cooperate and coordinate with the state and with Daggett, Uintah, and 

854 Duchesne Counties to develop, amend, and implement land and resource management plans 

855 and to implement management decisions that are consistent with the purposes, goals, and 

856 policies described in this section to the maximum extent allowed under federal law; 

857 (b) expedite the processing, granting, and streamlining of mineral and energy leases 

858 and applications to drill, extract, and otherwise develop all existing energy and mineral 

859 resources located within the Uintah Basin Energy Zone, including oil, natural gas, oil shale, 

oil 

860 sands, gilsonite, phosphate, gold, uranium, copper, solar, and wind resources; 

861 (c) allow continued maintenance and increased development of roads, power lines, 

862 pipeline infrastructure, and other utilities necessary to achieve the goals, purposes, and 

policies 

863 described in this section; 

864 (d) refrain from any planning decisions and management actions that will undermine, 

865 restrict, or diminish the goals, purposes, and policies for the Uintah Basin Energy Zone as 

866 stated in this section; and 

867 (e) refrain from implementing a policy that is contrary to the goals and purposes 

868 described within this section. 

869 (6) The state calls upon Congress to establish an intergovernmental standing 

S.B. 83 Enrolled Copy 

- 32 - 

870 commission among federal, state, and local governments to guide and control planning 

871 decisions and management actions in the Uintah Basin Energy Zone in order to achieve and 

872 maintain the goals, purposes, and policies described in this section. 

873 (7) Notwithstanding the provisions of this section, the state’s grazing and livestock 

874 policies and plans on land within the Uintah Basin Energy Zone shall continue to be 

governed 

875 by Sections 63J-4-401 and 63J-8-104. 

876 Section 5. Effective date. 

877 If approved by two-thirds of all the members elected to each house, this bill takes effect 

878 upon approval by the governor, or the day following the constitutional time limit of Utah 

879 Constitution Article VII, Section 8, without the governor’s signature, or in the case of a veto, 

880 the date of veto override 

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement and Possible Land Use Plan Amendments 

for Allocation of Oil Shale and Tar Sands Resources on Lands Administered by the Bureau of 

Land Management in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming 

Volume 1: Chapters 1, 2, & 3 

Comment Form 

May 4, 2012 

No te F1 ~ ure, T a bl e, an d map ref erence 1n comment co umn. 

Page Line Commenter Comment Response 
Final OSTS PEIS 1159 

<([#32 [9.1] Page: ES-1 (p. 39) Line 34 Commenter: Jon Stearmer, Uintah County 

Comment: The purpose is dear- friendly lawsuit settlement agreement 

with an environmental coalition. A need has not been shown 

as no new information is being analyzed. A careful analysis 

of the previous PEIS and this current draft shows very little 

change. The Preferred Alternative has little to no analysis at 

all. #32])>

<([#33 [6.3.5] Page: ES-5 (p. 43) Line 15 Commenter: Jon Stearmer, Uintah County 

Comment: This is not an experimental stage. It is beyond dispute that 

numerous companies have profitably extracted oil from shale 

for many years. #33])>

<([#34 [2.5] Page: ES-5 (p. 43) Line 28 Commenter: Jon Stearmer, Uintah County 

Comment: If this is indeed a “fresh look”, as stated in the purpose and 

need, then the “fresh look” needs to consider an alternative 

providing more liberal acreage allocation. By designating the 

publicly vetted 2008 RMP as a ceiling the results of this PEIS 

are unjustifiably skewed. 

#34])>

<([#35 [2.1] Page: ES-5 (p. 43) Line 33 Commenter: Jon Stearmer,Uintah County 

Comment: This is the only viable alternative based on comments in 

Uintah County’s Resolution, attached hereto and 

incorporated by reference. All neighboring counties in Utah, 

Colorado and Wyoming have voiced these comments. To 

the extent Uintah County could gather copies of their passed 

resolutions they are attached hereto and incorporated by 

reference. 

#35])>

<([#36 [2.2] Page: ES-6 (p.44) Line 16 Commenter: Jon Stearmer, Uintah County 

Comment: The use of the word “may” is synonymous with speculation 

and conjectures. No new scientific analysis is provided and 

this merely a statement filled with political sway. #36])>

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement and Possible Land Use Plan Amendments 

for Allocation of Oil Shale and Tar Sands Resources on Lands Administered by the Bureau of 

Land Management in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming 

Volume 1: Chapters 1, 2, & 3 

Comment Form 

M ay 4 2012 ‘ 

<([#37 [3.1.7] Page: 1-2 (p.50) Line: Second Paragraph Commenter: Jon Stearmer, Uintah 

County 

Comment: This PEIS was not the first step in which lands within Uintah 

County were to be allocated as open or closed to oil shale/oil 

sands development. This process was completed after 

multiple years of analysis culminating in the 2008 RMP. This 

PEIS is merely a charade of a public process to conform with 

a settlement agreement. 
Final OSTS PEIS 1160 

#37])>

<([#38 [9.1] Page: 1-4 (p.52) Line 9 Commenter: Jon Stearmer, Uintah County 

Comment: Politically motivated through a friendly lawsuit settlement. #38])>

<([#39 [2.5] Page: 1-4 (p.52) Line: 2 Commenter: Jon Stearmer, Uintah County 

Comment: An alternative should be considered providing more available 

land. #39])>

<([#40 [9.8] Page: 1-5 (p. 53) Line 18 Commenter: Jon Stearmer, Uintah County 

Comment: All reasons should be given so the public can weigh the 

strength of the decision to take a “hard look.” A hollow 

statement saying there are other reasons does not allow 

cooperators and the public to carefully analyze the 

motivation and the science behind this PEIS. 

#40])>

<([#41 [6.3.5] Page: 1-6 (p.54) Line 18 Commenter: Jon Stearmer, Uintah County 

Comment: Experimental state is a political statement. Estonia has been 

economically utilizing this resource for almost 100 years. 

Brazilian Petrobras has proven their shale oil technology 

since 1981. #41])>

<([#42 [6.1.1] Page: 1-10 (p. 58) Line 12 Commenter: Jon Stearmer, Uintah County 

Comment: The same thickness and gallonage should be used 

throughout the Green River Formation. Uintah County has, 

through its General Plan, adopted the same criteria as 

Wyoming. The BLM must be consistent to the maximum 

extent possible with Uintah County’s Oil Shale Plan, attached 

hereto an incorporated by reference. 

#42])>

<([#43 [9.1] Page: 1-13 (p. 61) Line 39 Commenter: Jon Stearmer, Uintah County 

Comment: Most of these comments are not outside of the scope for the 

stated purpose and need. All factors must be weighed, 

including by not limited to the full cost of outsourcing our 

energy production to other countries. This merely allows the 

Administration to thump its chest concerning its “green .. 

environmental policies. #43])>

<([#44 [6] Page: 1-14 (p. 62) Line 24 Commenter: Jon Stearmer, Uintah County 

Comment: And this is supported by what data? Refer back to comment 

on Enefit and Petrobras. #44])>

<([#45 [1.3] Page: 1-15 (p.63) Line 41 Commenter: Jon Stearmer, Uintah County 

Comment: These roles have not been followed based on comment 

made in Uintah County’s comment letter. BLM has failed to 

comply with its own cooperator MOU. 

#45])>

<([#46 [9.5] Page: 1-21 Line 39 (p. 69) Commenter: Jon Stearmer, Uintah County 

Comment: It is not “where possible”, but to the .. maximum extent” 

consistent with federal law and the purposes of FLPMA. BLM 

has been provided with a copy of Uintah County’s Energy 
Final OSTS PEIS 1161 

Zone and Oil Shale plans. BLM must be consistent with said 

plans to the maximum extent possible. #46])>

OSTS2012D50326 

Organization: THOMAS MESSENGER 

Received: 5/4/2012 4:44:21 PM 

Commenter1: THOMAS MESSENGER - MOAB, Utah 845322843 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/14/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50326.htm (OSTS2012D50326-58967.htm Size = 1 KB) 

Submission Text

<([#1 [2.3.1] The appropriate alternative is 3-RandD Focus. There is no reason to open further 

areas before feasibility is demonstrated. #1])>

OSTS2012D50327 

Organization: Dylan Gregersen 

Received: 5/4/2012 4:54:49 PM 

Commenter1: Dylan Gregersen - SLC, Utah 84106 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/14/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50327.htm (OSTS2012D50327-58969.htm Size = 1 KB) 

Submission Text

<([#1 [12] The development of Oil Shale and Tar Sands is no appropriate for this state or the 

current world situation. Utah is know for beautiful landscapes. I’ve been to the Desolation 

Canyon Put-in and am disappointed by the miles spotted development already being done. 

Furthermore, Oil Shale and Tar Sands are not effective means of energy. For these we sacrifice 

large amounts of water for little gain. While 75% of Earth is covered with water only the 

smallest fraction is fresh water, which will be being used for this development. Please say no to 

oil shale and tars sands. #1])> Thank you 

OSTS2012D50328 

Organization: Vermillion Ranch Limited Partnership 

Received: 5/4/2012 4:58:25 PM 

Commenter1: - Rock Springs, Wyoming 82901 (United States) 

Organization1:Vermillion Ranch Limited Partnership 
Final OSTS PEIS 1162 

Commenter Type: Private Company 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: aziech 5/15/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50328.htm (OSTS2012D50328-59046.htm Size = 1 KB) 

VRLP_OS-TS_Comments_PDEIS_FINAL_PDF_OSTS2012D50328.pdf (OSTS2012D50328-

59045.pdf Size = 136 KB) 

Submission Text

Dear Sir or Madam: 

Vermillion Ranch Limited Partnership (VRLP or Vermillion) submits its comments on the 

Oil Shale and Tar Sands Programmatic Draft Environmental Impact Statement (OS/TS 

PDEIS). Vermillion is a family-owned ranching partnership that operates in the three 

corners area of Wyoming, Utah and Colorado. Vermillion participated in the Vernal 

Resource Management Plan (RMP) as well as the Little Snake River RMP process and 

has been an active proponent of multiple use on federal land. 

<([#1 [2.1.1] I. LOCAL GOVERNMENT ALTERNATIVE 

The OS/TS PDEIS seeks comments on expanded oil shale leasing program in Utah 

and Wyoming. Vermillion supports either Alternative 1 (no action) or the adoption of an 

alternative that retains the land use allocations made in Alternative 1 with sufficient 

flexibility to allow commercial leasing where determined to be feasible. 

Vermillion objects to the effort to revise these land use plans through the back door 

without the data or information that was used or is being used to write the land use 

plans. This is especially confusing for the public lands in the Rock Springs Field Office. 

Selection of Alternative 1 for Utah and Wyoming would avoid this conflict and the 

insufficient data found in the OS/TS PDEIS. 

Vermillion actively participated in the Vernal RMP adopted in 2008 and the Little Snake 

River RMP adopted in 2009. Those decisions affect much, if not most, of the high 

potential oil shale and tar sands in Utah, and oil shale in Colorado. #1])> <([#2 [3.1.3] 

Vermillion objects 

strongly to the exclusion of all alleged lands with wilderness character (LWCs). BLM 

carefully analyzed the citizen proposed wilderness areas in the Vernal and LSR 

planning process. Using the OS/TS PDEIS to eviscerate those decisions betrays the 

public who participated. Second-guessing those decisions without fully airing the basis 

for such changes is not consistent with the planning procedures. #2])>

<([#3 [8.2] In addition, implementation of the LWC classification will greatly impair other 

multiple 

uses, including livestock grazing which depends on access to the allotments, often 

along public, but unimproved, roads. It will interfere with future and existing range 

projects to develop water, build fences and otherwise change the landscape to improve 

it for livestock and wildlife because a more restrictive visual resource management is 

applied. 

#3])> <([#4 [9.5] Much of the affected land in Wyoming is located within the boundaries of the 

Rock 
Final OSTS PEIS 1163 

Springs Field Office which is currently revising its RMP. As currently postured, the 

OS/TS PDEIS will conflict with many pending RMP decisions, such as alleged LWCs, 

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs) and other special designations. It 

would make more sense to allow the Rock Springs office to handle these issues as an 

integral part of the ongoing plan revision process. 

#4])> <([#5 [3.1.7] Vermillion notes that the map in Chapter 2 identifies Adobe Town as a LWC. 

This area, 

excluding the WSA of about 82,000 acres, does not meet the definition of wilderness. It 

is roaded and is the site of many development activities including oil and gas 

development, rights-of-way for wind energy and pipelines and water reservoirs. As 

shown on the map, it appears that Adobe Town LWC also exceeds the area classified 

by Wyoming Commission on Environmental Quality as rare and uncommon. Figure 

2.3.3-3 (showing LWC going to Colorado-Wyoming border). 

#5])> <([#6 [9.2.4] The rest of the high potential area in Wyoming is covered by the Kemmerer 

RMP which 

was final in 2008. The OS/TS PDEIS does not provide any basis to revise the RMP 

decisions as they apply to oil shale development. The Kemmerer RMP adopted the 

Wyoming sage grouse strategy to protect core area habitat. The OS/TS PDEIS does 

not identify any deficiencies in the Wyoming sage grouse strategy that would support a 

change in position from the 2008 PFEIS. 

#6])> <([#7 [9.7] Under the 2008 rules, 43 C.F.R. Parts 3900, 3920, 3930, Research 

Demonstration and 

Development (RD&D) leases were issued before commercial lease rules were adopted. 

43 U.S.C. §15927(e). The OS/TS PDEIS would expand RD&D without any commercial 

leasing. 

#7])> <([#8 [2.1] The BLM signed a settlement agreement proposes amendments to the Oil 

Shale Final 

Rule. The proposed amendments require BLM to expressly state that it has discretion 

to deny an application converting an RD&D lease to a commercial lease based on 

environmental and other resource considerations and that BLM has discretion to reject 

an oil shale commercial lessee’s proposed plan of development based on 

environmental or other resource considerations. This would add additional requirements 

under 43 C.F.R. §3926.10. 

The proposed amendments require BLM to only consider issuing a commercial oil shale 

lease upon application for a conversion from an RD&D lease to a commercial lease, or 

after BLM issues a call for expression of leasing interest. The proposed amendments 

also require BLM to not issue any commercial lease unless it is shown that operations 

can be done without unacceptable environmental risk. Finally, the proposed 

amendments require plans of development for oil shale commercial leases to include 

watershed and groundwater protection plans, and environmental protection and 

mitigation plans, including defined standards for each of these requirements. BLM 

acknowledged that approval of any conversion to a commercial lease must be preceded 

by a NEPA analysis. 

These changes, when coupled with the discontinuous parcels made available for RD&D 

leasing in the OS/TS PDEIS alternatives, other than Alternative 1, will not provide the 

necessary assurance to industry that it will realize a return on investment. Any land 
Final OSTS PEIS 1164 

configuration needs to be sufficiently contiguous that a company can recover the multimillion 

dollar investment that even an RD&D project requires. Alternatives 2 - 4 do not 

achieve that objective. #8])>

<([#9 [9.2.2] II. OS/TS PDEIS DOES NOT CONFORM TO SECTION 369 OF THE 2005 

ENERGY POLICY 

ACT 

In 2005, Congress directed BLM to establish a commercial program for development of 

oil shale and tar sands. Section 369 of the Energy Policy Act (2005 EP Act) adopted on 

August 8, 2005 relates to “Oil Shale, Tar Sands, and Other Strategic Unconventional 

Fuels.” 42 U.S.C. §15927.That title declared it to be the United States’ policy that “oil 

shale, tar sands, and other unconventional fuels are strategically important domestic 

resources that should be developed to reduce the growing dependence of the United 

States on politically and economically unstable sources of foreign oil imports.” 42 

U.S.C. § 15927(b)(1). Congress also directed that it be United States policy that 

commercial development of oil shale “be conducted in an environmentally sound 

manner, using practices that minimize impacts.” 42 U.S.C. §15927(b)(2). 

The 2005 EP Act required that the Interior Secretary promptly follow the completion of 

the programmatic EIS with regulations establishing a commercial oil shale and tar 

sands leasing program. 42 U.S.C. §15927(d)(2) (“Not later than 6 months after the completion of 

the [PEIS] under this subsection, the Secretary [of the Interior] shall 

publish a final regulation establishing such [commercial oil shale and tar sands leasing] 

program.”). 

Section 369 directs the Department of the Interior (DOI) to issue commercial oil shale 

leases 180 days after the final rules are promulgated. Id. Lease sales are to include 

consultation with states, local governments, tribal governments and others to determine 

the level of interest. Id. DOI promulgated the final rules in November 2008. 73 Fed. 

Reg. 69414 (2008). Rather than follow the law, DOI suspended all oil shale leasing in 

2009 and has ignored its Task Force reporting obligations. 42 U.S.C. §15927(h). 

While DOI is required to file reports with Congress each year, none has been prepared 

since 2008. http://www.unconventionalfuels.org/publications.html. The only reports 

now prepared are on “Secure Fuels.” 

The extent of Congress’ commitment to unconventional fuels including oil shale and tar 

sands is also found in the establishment of a Task Force. 42 U.S.C. §15927(h). 

Department of Energy is to create commercial strategic fuel development program and 

to coordinate with state and local governments. DOI was to prepare a new assessment 

of priority areas in the Green River Region, which includes Wyoming, Utah and 

Colorado. Id. at §15927(m)(B). The heavy oil assessment was also to be updated. Id. 

§15927(p). 

BLM proceeded to implement the direction by preparing a programmatic EIS that 

addressed the environmental impacts of oil shale an tar sands development and 

identified the public lands with the best potential. Based on the two considerations, 

BLM identified about two million acres of public land in Wyoming, Utah, and Colorado 

as suitable and available for oil shale and tar sands development. ROD, 2008 OS/TS 

PFEIS at 1-4. BLM also promulgated rules to implement the commercial leasing 

program. 43 C.F.R. Parts 3900, 3920, 3930, 3936. 

The OS/TS PDEIS is intended to analyze the impacts of a commercial leasing program, 
Final OSTS PEIS 1165 

not the RD&D program authorized in subsection (c). 42 U.S.C. §15927(c). The 2008 

PFEIS accomplished this mandate but the OS/TS PDEIS does not. Instead its 

identification of land omits high potential land and limits development to small and 

scattered areas that it makes a commercial program less feasible and is calculated to 

discourage commercial development. The OS/TS PDEIS admits this when it claims the 

changes are needed to conduct additional research. OS/TS PDEIS at 1-5. The law 

authorized RD&D separately and did not give the Secretary the discretion to substitute 

a commercial leasing program with an extended RD&D program that limits such 

research and development to small and discontinuous tracts of land. Based on the 

terms of the settlement with CEC, RD&D leases would not have an assurance of conversion to a 

commercial lease. These and other conditions make development so 

uncertain that it cannot be described as a commercial program. 

#9])> <([#10 [3.1.3] [9.5] III. OS/TS PDEIS FAILS TO CONFORM TO RMP PROCEDURES 

A. OS/TS PDEIS Supersedes RMP Decisions Without Adequate 

Rationale 

The preferred alternative excludes more than 75% of the lands previously determined 

to be available for oil shale or tar sands leasing. This occurs even though most of the 

same land area is still classified as suitable and available for oil and gas leasing. 

The OS/TS PDEIS purports to override the local land use planning process by 

designating LWCs and implementation of wilderness management, ACECs and other 

protective sites, including the ever-growing Adobe Town area. Programmatic decisions 

cannot override the RMP process and as such, BLM is running roughshod over the 

rules and procedures established for land use decisions by implementing the resource 

allocations well ahead of information and analysis. 

The preferred alternative will remove from development lands alleged to have 

wilderness character, notwithstanding a congressional prohibition on changing 

management to protect these lands. [Continuing Appropriations Act 2011, Pub. L. 112- 

10 (2011CR); Continuing Appropriations Act 2012, Pub. L. 112-36 (112th Congress) 

H.R. 2608, 10/05/11] The OS/TS PDEIS also proposes to exclude ACECs and other 

areas nominated by special interest groups, including groups that sued BLM in 2009, 

from oil shale or tar sands leasing. In many cases, the preferred alternative vetoes 

recent land use planning decisions, such as those for the Kemmerer RMP. In the case 

of the Rock Springs RMP, the OS/TS PDEIS will essentially make decisions that bind 

the plan revision process, without the requisite analysis or data. 

The Utah public lands excluded were carefully reviewed in a separate alternative for the 

Vernal RMP. Virtually all of these areas have public roads and many, such as the 

parcels around the Dinosaur National Monument, do not meet the 5,000 acre minimum 

requirement in order to be considered for wilderness designation. Vermillion livestock 

graze in this region and Vermillion relies on motorized access to manage its livestock 

and to maintain range improvements. A LWC classification will materially impair 

operations. 

The Rock Springs Field Office initiated its plan revision in Spring of 2011. Much of the 

Wyoming high potential area is located in the Rock Springs Field Office but the OS/TS 

PDEIS appears to use proposed LWCs and ACECs that have not yet been fully 

addressed within the cooperating agency process, let alone a DEIS. This dilemma 

illustrates the flaws in BLM’s efforts to impose top down decisions on LWCs and 
Final OSTS PEIS 1166 

ACECs as well as the Adobe Town area, when those issues are still being addressed 

among the cooperating agencies. If BLM proceeds on this time table, it will eviscerate 

the land use planning process. This situation also suggests that BLM has chosen to 

proceed without regard to its obligation to coordinate with local governments. For 

instance, Sweetwater County went on record a year ago as only supporting special 

management for the Adobe Town area within its wilderness study boundaries. The 

DEIS would adopt protection for a much larger area. 

Vermillion has no independent knowledge of proposed ACECs or LWCs. Due to the 

lack of disclosure and discussion in the OS/TS PDEIS, Vermillion cannot comment 

meaningfully. 

#10])> <([#11 [9.2.4] B. Sage Grouse Management 

The State of Wyoming has been aggressively developing a sage grouse strategy for 

management since 2004. By 2008, the sage grouse core areas had been defined and 

management guidelines developed. Wyoming Gov. E.O. 2008-2, 2010-4; 2011-5. 

Wyoming BLM largely adopted or followed these guidelines in the RMP revisions for the 

Kemmerer, Pinedale and Rawlins Field Office. Thus, the candidate status of the sage 

grouse is not a basis to remove these lands from oil shale and tar sands development 

given the management restrictions already in place. 

Wyoming BLM initiated a statewide RMP amendment for the sage grouse to address 

the 2008 executive order in fall of 2009. [BLM IM 2010-012 Sage Grouse Habitat 

Management, December 29, 2009; IM 2010-013 Oil and Gas Leasing Screen for 

Greater Sage Grouse, December 29, 2009] 

#11])> <([#12 [9.2.1] [3.1.3] IV. IMPLEMENTATION OF LWC CLASSIFICATIONS IN 

RMPS IS UNLAWFUL 

A significant percent of the excluded acreage in the OS/TS PDEIS is justified on the 

basis that the LWCs must be protected. OS/TS PDEIS at 1-5, 2-12, 2-21, 2-52. 

A. OS/TS PDEIS violates Congressional Funding Freeze on LWC 

Identification and Management 

On December 22, 2010, Secretary Salazar announced a new initiative to identify and 

manage public lands with wilderness character. Secretarial Order No. 3310 Protecting 

Wilderness Characteristics on Lands Managed by the Bureau of Land Management 

(Dec. 22, 2010). (The Wild Lands Policy and IM 2011-154 contradict the commitments made to 

the State of Utah, the U.S. Congress and the public when the Secretary stated that he 

would honor the Settlement Agreement between Utah and DOI (Answering Yes to the 

question from Senator Bennett “Do you agree that currently the Department has no 

authority to establish new WSAs (Post-603 WSAs) under any provision of law, such as 

the Wilderness Act of [sic] Section 202 of FLPMA?”) The Secretary also stated BLM 

had no authority to impose nonimpairment management on non-WSA lands.) 

This action was followed with the adoption of manuals to guide BLM 

employees in the implementation of the extra-wilderness designation process. The 

resulting controversy, not to mention Director Abbey’s admission that no specific section 

of Federal Land Policy Management Act (FLPMA) authorized the identification of lands 

with wilderness character outside of Section 603, led Congress to defund the entire 

initiative. [Continuing Appropriations Act 2011, Pub. L. 112- 10 (2011CR); Continuing 

Appropriations Act 2012, Pub. L. 112-36 (112th Congress) H.R. 2608, 10/05/11] 

BLM has long contended that a mere inventory of wilderness character falls within its 
Final OSTS PEIS 1167 

authority, citing 43 U.S.C. §1711(a). But FLPMA is equally clear that BLM cannot 

change land management based on an inventory unless and until the land use plan is 

amended. Id. The OS/TS PDEIS uses an undisclosed wilderness inventory and then 

proposes to change the management of these areas to protect the alleged wilderness 

character without disclosure of the basis of BLM’s LWC determination. This is exactly 

what S.O. 3310 directed BLM to do. When Congress froze all funding for it, two months 

after the Colorado Environmental Coalition v. Salazar (09-0085, 09-0091) settlement, 

BLM’s hands were tied. The apparent decision to proceed regardless of the funding 

freeze is in contempt of Congress and unlawful, 31 U.S.C. §1341. (The Antideficiency Act 

provides that “an officer or employee of the U.S. 

Government may not make or authorize an expenditure or obligation exceeding an 

amount available in an appropriation or fund for the expenditure or obligation; involve 

the government in a contract or obligation for the payment of money before an 

appropriation is made unless authorized by law . . ..” 31 U.S.C. §1341. The act 

imposes criminal penalties for violation, Id. at §1350, and authorizes adverse personnel 

action for employees that violate the law. Id. at §1349.) 

Calling these areas LWCs does not change the result. These areas are allegedly 

wilderness suitable and BLM proposes to manage them in the same manner as it would 

have had Congress not shut down all funding related to S.O. 3310. Changing the name 

from “Wildlands” to “LWCs” does not make the action any more lawful. 

The OS/TS PDEIS contradicts Congress’ clear direction that BLM cease and desist 

from implementing the provisions of S.O. 3310. That BLM put the implementing 

manuals in abeyance but issued Instruction Memorandum (IM) 2011-154 that 

implements the Order does not excuse BLM from complying with the defunding. IM 

2011-154 suffers from procedural deficiencies as well. It was issued without 

coordinating with local governments, public comment or in accordance with rulemaking 

procedures. Thus, it independently violates Federal Land Policy and Management Act 

(FLPMA) mandate that its provisions be implemented through rulemaking, 43 U.S.C. 

§1740. 

An instruction memorandum issued by BLM in order to evade the funding and 

implementation freeze on S.O. 3310 enjoys little or no presumption of legality. United 

States v. Mead Corp., 533 U.S. 318 (2001) (holding that the court owes little deference 

to agency guidelines). By implementing the IM, BLM runs a serious risk that the OS/TS 

PDEIS will be set aside. 

#12])> <([#13 [9.2.1] [3.1.3] B. NO LEGAL AUTHORITY TO IMPLEMENT SECRETARIAL 

ORDER 3310 OR SIMILAR 

DIRECTION 

Unlike the definition of multiple use for National Forests, 16 U.S.C. §529, FLPMA does 

not include wilderness as one of the statutory multiple uses. 43 U.S.C. §1702(c). 

Wilderness has its own definition, which is limited to Section 603. (“(i) The term 

‘wilderness’ as used in section 1782 of this title shall have the same meaning as it does 

in section 1131(c) of Title 16.” Id. §1702(i). The term ‘wilderness’ is found only in the 

definition section, 43 U.S.C. §1702(i) and the wilderness review provisions of Section 

603, 43 U.S.C. §1782; 43 C.F.R. §1601.0-5(i). Section 603 is the only provision in 

federal law that authorizes the identification, study and recommendation of public lands 

for wilderness designation by Congress. Thus, BLM is not at liberty to add wilderness 
Final OSTS PEIS 1168 

to other provisions in FLPMA when Congress so clearly chose not to. 

Only Section 603 of FLPMA authorizes BLM to manage lands so as to not impair their 

wilderness character. Tri-County Cattleman’s Association Idaho Cattlemen’s 

Association, 60 IBLA 305, 314 (1981). There is no other statutory authority for BLM to 

study and manage public lands as if they were wilderness. Public lands are to be 

managed so as to not unduly and unnecessarily degrade the resources. (43 U.S.C. 

§1732(b) [nondegradation standard], except for WSAs which are managed so as to not 

impair the wilderness character.) Id at 1782(c). 

The Interior Secretary’s authority to identify public lands as wilderness study areas 

under Section 603 has expired. State of Utah v. Babbitt, 137 F.3d 1193, 1206, n.17 

(10th Cir. 1998) (Secretary Babbitt wrote “I also agree with you that FLPMA’s section 

603 no longer provides authority to inventory BLM land in Utah for wilderness values.”). 

BLM has attempted to claim discretion to manage lands to preserve their wilderness 

character but the planning rules do not so provide. The rules were revised to remove 

wilderness study from the general planning process and have never been amended to 

make wilderness study part of the land use planning process. (By comparison, the Forest Service 

revised its planning rules to integrate wilderness study and recommendations into each plan 

revision. 36 C.F.R. §219.27 (1982).) 

Section 202 of FLPMA provides for the development and revision of land use plans. 43 

U.S.C. §1712. Land use planning must have coordination with state and local 

governments, public involvement and be consistent with FLPMA. 43 U.S.C. §1712(a). 

The criteria for developing and revising land use plans, includes (1) using and 

observing the principles of multiple use and sustained yield set forth in FLPMA and 

other applicable laws, 43 U.S.C. §1712(c)(1); (2) interdisciplinary approach, 

§1712(c)(2); (3) priority to designate ACECs, §1712(c)(3), and (4) “to the extent 

consistent with the laws governing the administration of the public lands, coordinate the 

land use inventory, planning, and management activities of or for such lands with the 

land use planning and management programs of other Federal departments and 

agencies and of the States and local governments within which the lands are 

located;”§1712(c)(9). FLPMA further states: “Land use plans of the Secretary under 

this section shall be consistent with State and local plans to the maximum extent he 

finds consistent with Federal law and the purposes of this Act.” Id. 

Nothing in Section 202, which governs land use planning, authorizes wilderness study 

or wilderness-type management. The history of the planning rules shows that the word 

“wilderness” was deleted from the draft of the planning rules on purpose. When BLM 

wrote the rules governing land use plans, it originally defined a resource management 

plan as including “the initial determination of whether a wilderness study area shall be 

recommended to the President for recommendation to the Congress as suitable or 

unsuitable as an addition to the National Wilderness Preservation System.” 43 Fed. 

Reg. 58764, 58768-69 (1978) draft 43 C.F.R. §1601.0-5(p)(2). The definition of a 

resource management plan was later revised to delete reference to wilderness study 

area recommendations. 44 Fed. Reg. 46386 (1979). Thus, BLM has no regulations in 

the land use planning chapter authorizing establishment of wilderness type areas or 

authorizing nonimpairment management for such lands other than designated WSAs 

designation pursuant to Section 603, which expired. 

BLM adopted the Wild Lands Policy through three Manuals, based on its claimed 
Final OSTS PEIS 1169 

discretion in FLPMA, Sections 201, 202 and 302 of FLPMA. Those provisions do not 

support BLM’s claimed authority to designate Wild Lands or LWCs or to manage them 

as if they were designated WSAs for nonimpairment of the wilderness character. 

IM 2011-154 was adopted without proper comment procedures and without 

coordination with local governments. Under Section 202(a), BLM has no choice but to 

coordinate with local governments and to resolve conflicts in land use plans. 43 U.S.C. 

§1712(a). So far BLM has failed to do so on this very important issue. No Wyoming 

local government within the affected area supports proposed or identified LWCs. 

Several of the applicable local government plans oppose new wilderness character 

areas. BLM has clearly violated Section 202 by not coordinating both its inventory and 

LWC determination with the local governments. #13])>

<([#14 [3.1.3] The OS/TS PDEIS also fails to identify which, if any, inventory it has used to 

identify the 

LWCs. The OS/TS PDEIS fails to disclose these areas. The single map is not labeled 

so as to facilitate identification. Thus, it is impossible to divine the resource values that 

prompted the classification being used in the OS/TS PDEIS. If VRLP had access to 

this information it could provide site specific documentation of the errors in the premise 

that these are LWCs. 

These lands are not “wilderness” as that term is used in the Wilderness Act. These 

areas are heavily roaded, and include the Wyoming Checkerboard where Anadarko 

owns the alternating sections. There are powerlines, rights-of-way for pipelines, wind 

farms as well as coal mining and oil and gas development. 

VRLP assumes that for Utah the OS/TS PDEIS uses the Utah HR 1925 lands without 

regard to the Vernal RMP decisions that evaluated those lands in 2008. 

Figures 2.3.3-2 and 2.3.3-3 depict LWCs but do not provide any additional information. 

Chapter 6 of the OS/TS PDEIS lists the areas and acreage without providing 

descriptions. It also omits the full definition of wilderness. The footnote to Table 6.2.3 

states: “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.” This 

statement is materially incorrect, because the definition of wilderness requires that an 

area be roadless and that it be greater than 5,000 acres. 16 U.S.C. §1131(a). The 

OS/TS PDEIS conveniently drops the first two criteria. 

Table 6.1.1-2 purports to list LWCs in Wyoming, when that classification has never 

been adopted or even made public. The Adobe Town WSA consists of 85,710 acres. 

None of the listed areas correspond to WSAs designated in 1980. Since there is no 

information provided, VRLP cannot provide meaningful comments. #14])>

<([#15 [9.1] V. OS/TS PDEIS FAILS TO CONFORM TO NEPA RULES 

A. PURPOSE AND NEED 

“Agency action should be overturned only when the agency has ‘relied on factors which 

Congress has not intended it to consider, entirely failed to consider an important aspect 

of the problem, offered an explanation for its decision that runs counter to the evidence 

before the agency, or is so implausible that it could not be ascribed to a difference in 

view or the product of agency expertise.’” Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n v. State Farm 

Mutual Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 43 (1983). The OS/TS PDEIS meets the definition 

of arbitrary and capricious as the explanation for the land use allocations do not have 
Final OSTS PEIS 1170 

sufficient explanation and documentation to support them, and the explanation for 

revision runs counter to the facts. 

1. Real Purpose and Need Unaddressed 

The Notice of Intent and the statement of Purpose and Need in the PDEIS omit the real 

basis for the new programmatic EIS. BLM settled two lawsuits, which challenged both 

the 2008 PFEIS Record of Decision Colorado Environmental Coalition, (CEC) v. 

Salazar, No. 09-0085; and the regulations promulgated to implement an oil shale and 

tar sands leasing program, Colorado Environmental Coalition (CEC) v. Salazar, 09- 

0091. The conduct of the two cases and, particularly, the CEC’s failure to prosecute 

the cases strongly suggests that this was a friendly litigation with an equally friendly 

settlement. Plaintiffs filed the two cases in February of 2009, but the government 

sought numerous extensions of time to answer and settled the case shortly before the 

administrative records were to be filed before the court. 

BLM’s reconsideration of the 2008 OS/TS ROD is based entirely on the terms of the 

settlement in which BLM committed to this revision. CEC v. Salazar, #63 ¶1 (“No later 

than 120 days after this Settlement Agreement becomes effective, Defendants will 

publish a notice of intent (“NOI”) to consider amending each of the land use planning 

decisions made by the 2008 OSTS ROD.”) BLM also committed to consider excluding 

from oil shale and tar sands development all “lands with wilderness character” a term 

that did not exist until December 23, 2010. BLM also agreed to exclude existing and 

proposed ACECs and the Adobe Town rare and uncommon area. The designation of 

rare and uncommon is pursuant to Wyoming law that only prohibits non-coal surface 

mining but allows coal and oil and gas development. Wyo. Stat. §35-11-112(a)(v). It 

cannot apply to public land. 

In the rulemaking case, BLM committed to amending the oil shale and tar sands leasing 

rules within 15 months. BLM has made no move to initiate the rule changes. The 

settlement terms mandate the content of the final rules to a degree that violates public 

policy and the law, because BLM agrees in advance to what the final rules will provide. 

BLM also agreed to deny applications to convert RD&D leases to commercial leases 

based on environmental and resource considerations, to reject plans of development 

and to limit commercial leases to RD&D lessee after expressions of interest and 

detailed stipulations. CEC v. Salazar, No. 09-0091, Doc. No. 80-1 ¶¶1-6. The 

settlement predetermines the outcome of the rulemaking such that BLM has 

relinquished its authority and discretion. 

The 2008 regulations remain in effect but cannot be implemented under the terms of 

the settlement, which prohibit oil shale leasing. By accepting the plaintiffs’ demands for 

content, BLM has failed to comply with the 2005 EP Act, Section 369 to develop a 

commercial oil shale and tar sands leasing program. 

As is clear in the OS/TS PDEIS, BLM also committed to a predetermined outcome in 

the programmatic EIS to reduce the potential for oil shale and tar sands development 

by removing 75% of the land base and limiting the remnants of the program to research 

and development, rather than the commercial scale mandated by federal law. The fast 

pace of the drafting of the OS/TS PDEIS and the fact that entire chapters are largely 

the same as in the 2008 PFEIS. BLM is doing a rush job to issue a final decision 

without regard to the facts or competing legal obligations and constraints. 

2. Purpose and Need for Revision Unsupported in OS/TS PDEIS 
Final OSTS PEIS 1171 

The Notice of Intent to revise the 2008 Oil Shale and Tar Sands FEIS stated: “The BLM 

has decided to take a fresh look at the land use plan allocation decisions made in the 

2008 ROD associated with the Programmatic EIS, in order to consider which lands 

should be open to future leasing of oil shale and tar sands resources.” 76 Fed. Reg. 

21003 (2012). The Notice of Intent went on to state that: 

As there are no economically viable ways yet known to extract and 

process oil shale for commercial purposes, and Utah tar sands deposits 

are not at present a proven commercially-viable energy source, the BLM, 

through its planning process, intends to take a hard look at whether it is 

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

potential development of oil shale, and approximately 431,224 acres of 

public land to remain available for potential development of tar sands. 

Id. 

The OS/TS PDEIS expresses the purpose and need as necessary to determine which 

lands should be removed from the classification of available for leasing. “The purpose 

and need for this proposed planning action is to reassess the appropriate mix of 

allowable uses with respect to oil shale and tar sands leasing and potential 

development. Specifically, the BLM will consider amending the applicable Resource 

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

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

or tar sands should not be available for such application for leasing and development.” 

PDEIS 1-4. #15])>

<([#16 [9.2.1] The criteria to exclude high potential oil shale and tar sands lands from leasing 

suffers 

several flaws. First, OS/TS PDEIS does not and indeed cannot explain how it conforms 

to Section 369, since BLM previously concluded that similar alternative would not 

conform. 2008 Record of Decision PFEIS (2008 ROD) at 22 (“Much of the most 

geologically prospective acreage would be excluded under Alternative C; in particular 

areas which are in close proximity to threeof the six RD&D leases would be excluded. 

In addition, this unreasonably fragments the area that would be available for 

application, resulting in parcels that are unlikely to be explored, leased, or developed.”) 

Second, Congress has prohibited BLM from spending federal funds to classify and 

manage lands as LWCs as directed in S.O. 3310. Alternatives 2-4 propose exclusions 

based on LWCs, thus implementing S.O. 3310 in defiance of the ban on spending 

federal funds to do so(31 U.S.C. §1341; §1350 (involved officials could face adverse 

employment actions) and, §1349 (criminal penalties)). 

Third, all of the alternatives exclude from oil shale leasing the 

Adobe Town Rare & Uncommon Area, which is a state law classification that allows 

leasing but prohibits mining. The rare and uncommon designation cannot apply to 

public land, because the 1872 mining laws, as amended, preempt state law. Calif. 

Coastal Commn. v. Granite Rock Co., 480 U.S. 572 (1987) (holding state’s coastal zone 

management could not regulate mining on federal land). Fourth, the OS/TS PDEIS 

provides no information about these areas. Hence, there is no ‘fresh look’ nor does the 

OS/TS PDEIS disclose the new information upon which BLM is relying to support the 

actions proposed in the OS/TS PDEIS. The apparent rush to complete the OS/TS 

PDEIS resulted in omission of the description of areas to be excluded, and this failure 
Final OSTS PEIS 1172 

to describe or analyze the areas prevents the public and coordinating entities from 

meaningful public comment. 

#16])> <([#17 [2.2] [1.5] B. Detailed Analysis of Alternatives 

The OS/TS PDEIS identifies the Preferred Alternative as 2(b). 

The BLM has selected Alternative 2(b) as the Preferred Alternative. The 

Preferred Alternative would make approximately 461,965 acres available 

for future consideration for commercial oil shale leasing and 91,045 acres 

available for application for commercial tar sands leasing, but only for 

research, development, and demonstration (RD&D) leases. The BLM 

would issue a commercial lease only when a lessee satisfies the 

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

for conversion to a commercial lease. The preference right acreage, if 

any, which would be included in the converted lease, would be specified 

in the RD&D lease. 

OS/TS PDEIS at i. 

The OS/TS PDEIS, however, does not contain any specific analysis of the expanded 

RD&D program that is being proposed in lieu of the commercial leasing program. The 

OS/TS PDEIS attempts to compensate for this defect by stating: 

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

indistinguishable from those of Alternative 2(a). Only the method of 

obtaining a lease would be different. Accordingly, the analysis in this PEIS 

of Alternative 2 applies fully and equally to both alternatives. To the extent 

there may be differences in environmental consequences between 

Alternative 2(a) and 2(b), these would be related to the timing of the 

commencement of impacts, as well as, possibly, length of disturbance. 

However, these issues are best addressed in the lease and/or 

project-specific analysis. 

OS/TS PDEIS at ES-7, 2-35. The OS/TS PDEIS states that this alternative was not 

developed until quite late in the process. 

As the Draft PEIS was being developed, the idea for this alternative 

emerged. It is presented here in brief. This alternative is not noted 

elsewhere in the document but will be developed further in preparation of 

the Final PEIS. Analytically, this subalternative is indistinguishable from 

Alternative 2(a) in terms of environmental consequences. Therefore 

further environmental analysis in preparation of the Final PEIS is not 

anticipated, although more detailed explanation may be provided, 

particularly in response to comments received. 

OS/TS PDEIS at 2-35. 

The OS/TS PDEIS statement that Alternative 2(b) environmental impacts are basically 

the same as Alternative 2(a) is untrue. Alternative 2(b) changes the timing of oil shale 

leasing to slow it down and this change in timing significantly changes the nature of the 

impacts on water and surface disturbance. NEPA requires agencies to consider direct, 

indirect, and cumulative effects in the context of geography and timing. 40 C.F.R. 

§1508.25. The preferred alternative delays in issuing RD&D leases and not issuing 

commercial leases will change the scope and impact and must be separately analyzed. 
Final OSTS PEIS 1173 

The scant information about Alternative 2(b) and omitted discussion of the regulatory 

changes do not provide the public with sufficient information to determine whether, in 

fact, it is virtually identical to Alternative 2(a). BLM has already committed to rule 

changes in the CEC settlement agreement. The OS/TS PDEIS omits all discussion, 

even though the rulemaking is a connected action that falls within the scope of this EIS 

and failure to discuss the connected actions violates NEPA. 

If Alternative 2(b) is really identical, then BLM should and could have changed 

Alternative 2(a). For instance, the OS/TS PDEIS claims Alternative 2(b) will change the 

lease terms but provides no information on what those changes will be, other than it will 

only authorize RD&D leases. Id. at ES-7, 2-35. 

NEPA requires that each alternative be analyzed in detail. 40 C.F.R. §1502.14(b) 

(substantial treatment must be devoted “to each alternative considered in detail 

including the proposed action so that reviewers may evaluate their comparative 

merits.”). The discussion of alternatives in the EIS must be sufficient to permit a 

reasoned choice among the options.” State of Wyoming v. USDA, 661 F.3d 1209, 

1243 (10th Cir. 2011) (quoting AWARE v. Colo. Dep’t of Transp., 153 F.3d 1122, 1130 

(10th Cir. 1998)). BLM’s failure to explain the preferred alternative or its impacts on the 

respective states and communities requires that BLM withdraw the draft and revise or 

issue a supplement to explain the preferred alternative. 40 C.F.R. 1502.9 (“If a draft 

statement is so inadequate as to preclude meaningful analysis, the agency shall 

prepare and circulate a revised draft of the appropriate portion.”) 

Alternative 2(b) does not conform to Section 369 because it continues the RD&D 

program instead of providing for a commercial leasing program. While an agency can 

consider an alternative that requires additional authority, it must disclose this fact. 

Forty Questions on CEQ NEPA Regulations, 46 Fed. Reg. 18026 (1981) as amended 

51 Fed. Reg. 15618 (1986), Answer to Question 2(b). The OS/TS PDEIS does not 

propose an amendment to the 2005 EP Act to modify the mandate. #17])>

<([#18 [1.5] C. Omission of Significant New Information 

The Purpose and Need for the OS/TS PDEIS is justified as a “fresh look” at oil shale 

and tar sands development. 76 Fed. Reg. 21003 (2011). The OS/TS PDEIS is not in 

fact a “fresh look,” it is merely a retread of an alternative previously rejected by BLM on 

the grounds that it would not conform to Section 369 of the 2005 EPA. [2008 ROD at 

22]. 

The purposeful omission of new information is significant and violates NEPA. Since the 

2008 ROD was signed, several companies have been developing oil shale pursuant to 

the RD&D leases. The OS/TS PDEIS omits these results and progress reports. 

Similarly advances in technologies and actual experience with these technologies has 

been omitted. Instead, the OS/TS PDEIS repeats the conclusion that oil shale and tar 

sands are not commercially viable and also repeats out-dated data regarding the 

amount of water, power and surface disturbance. 

The OS/TS PDEIS excludes new information regarding oil shale and tar sands 

technology and makes very limited the use of the 2010 and 2011 USGS assessments 

of potential. OS/TS PDEIS 2-77. Chapter 3 and App. A are very similar, if not identical, 

to the 2008 FEIS and notably do not discuss oil shale extraction technology used by 

Red Leaf or Enefit. 

The OS/TS PDEIS purports to include new information regarding sage grouse, LWCs 
Final OSTS PEIS 1174 

and ACECs but the information is vague and incomplete as to preclude any kind of 

meaningful analysis. The OS/TS PDEIS lacks a discussion of the basis for the 

respective classification, or the other current land uses. It also does not discuss the 

Wyoming sage grouse strategy or how BLM Wyoming has adopted restrictions to 

incorporate the strategy and core area protection. This may well be because many of 

these areas have oil and gas leases and even production, which would contradict the 

description as LWCs. In Wyoming, the OS/TS PDEIS omits the fact that these areas 

are also located in the Wyoming Checkerboard where the private land is owned by 

Anadarko, a gas development company. The OS/TS PDEIS concludes that private 

land is inconsistent with development when the private lands in Wyoming have been 

developed for decades and generally in conjunction with public lands. 

While BLM could theoretically decide not to issue individual leases, it does not have the 

discretion to simply discard new and relevant information. This information is 

environmentally significant since it shows retort methods using modest amounts of 

water and causing significantly less surface disturbance than assumed in 2008. NEPA 

requires BLM to consider significant new information and this omission results in a 

significant bias of the OS/TS PDEIS against additional oil shale and tar sands 

development notwithstanding the congressional mandate to proceed with this program. 

Similarly, the OS/TS PDEIS omits the statutorily required assessment of oil shale and 

tar sands potential. 42 U.S.C. §15927(m). The USGS Assessment reports completed 

in 2010 and 2011 identified additional land as having high potential but the OS/TS 

PDEIS did not use this report in its identification of potential lands. Instead, the OS/TS 

PDEIS simply modified the areas identified in 2008 and made them 75% smaller. 

The omission of new information is further documented in the fact that many of the 

chapters, especially Chapter 3 and the Appendices, are largely unchanged from the 

2008 PFEIS. This only shows that BLM updated the OS/TS PDEIS to tack on alleged 

LWCs and other special designations as a basis to marginalize a congressionally 

mandated program. 

#18])> <([#19 [6.3.2] [6.5] D. OS/TS PDEIS Dismissal of Technology Fails to Acknowledge 

Significant Scientific Controversies 

At a minimum, BLM must acknowledge that there is a scientific controversy regarding 

its key assumptions of environmental impact and support its position. 40 C.F.R. 

§1508.127(b)(4); Middle Rio Grand Conservation Dist. v. Norton, 294 F.3d 1220, 1229 

(10th Cir. 2002) (setting aside critical habitat designation EIS on the basis that “[t]he 

wide disparity in the estimates of water required for the designation, and the associated 

loss of farmland acreage, indicate that a substantial dispute exists as to the effect of the 

designation.”). Like the above decision, there is a wide disparity in estimates of water, 

surface area and electrical power assumed to be necessary for oil shale development. 

BLM, like the USFWS, must address the disparities, especially since the newer data 

reflect new information. 

The OS/TS PDEIS repeats the refrain that oil shale development will require more than 

1 barrel of water for each barrel of oil. OS/TS PDEIS 4-3, 4-9, 4-11, 4-33, 4-47, 4-48, 

5-32, 5-35, A-85; Appendix A. As described by Red Leaf and Enefit, two companies 

operating in Colorado and Utah under RD&D leases, new technology does not rely on 

large amounts of water in the retort process. The R&D program was intended to 

provide BLM with this type of information, yet it is excluded from the OS/TS PDEIS. By 
Final OSTS PEIS 1175 

using outdated or erroneous assumptions, the OS/TS PDEIS exaggerates the water 

and power needs as well as the surface disturbance. 

The same defects apply to the OS/TS PDEIS assumptions about the size of the surface 

disturbance and the amount of electrical power needed. OS/TS PDEIS at A-46, A-62, 

A-80, A-84, A-85; App. A. In part, these errors arise because the BLM never updated 

Chapter 3 or the Appendices. These same assumptions are carried through to 

Chapters 2 and 4-6, thus tainting the entire analysis. 

#19])> <([#20 [2.2] [6.3.5] The above assumptions are relevant to the OS/TS PDEIS conclusion 

that oil shale and 

tar sands have not been shown to be commercially viable. OS/TS PDEIS at 2-57, 2-76, 

3-238. This very curious statement cannot be reconciled with the fact that the province 

of Alberta has been producing oil from tar sands for more than 20 years and even 

transports tar sands oil to Utah for refining. Similarly, Enefit has been producing oil 

from oil shale for more than 30 years. The OS/TS PDEIS does not provide any 

definition of commercial viability but proven business operations should suffice and it is 

inexplicable that the OS/TS PDEIS repeats a conclusion that is contradicted by 

incontrovertible facts. 

The issue of commercial viability is also the basis for Alternative 2b, which would 

actually limit oil shale development to another RD&D program, without authorizing 

commercial leases. The preferred alternative rests on the highly disputed premise that 

oil shale is not commercially viable. NEPA requires BLM to disclose and discuss the 

controversies and the OS/TS PDEIS does not. #20])>

<([#21 [3.10.3] VI. ONE-SIDED ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL ANALYSIS 

The OS/TS PDEIS assumes that oil shale and tar sands development will lead to a 

boom and bust economic cycle. OS/TS PDEIS 2-36, 3-242. Based on that premise, 

the OS/TS PDEIS describes Alternative 1 as harmful and Alternatives 2-4, which 

feature little to no development, as beneficial. OS/TS PDEIS at ES-9, Table 2.3.2-2, 

Table 2.4.2-2, Table 2.6-1. 

The OS/TS PDEIS discussion omits the fact that the lands classified as high potential 

are in regions where there is already a viable energy economy. For example, in 

southwestern Wyoming, there are several major gas fields producing conventional and 

coalgas, including Pinedale Anticline, Jonah, MoxaArch, Continental Divide and 

Hiawatha. There are numerous other plays for oil and natural gas as well. Coal mining 

plays important role in Sweetwater and Lincoln Counties, with trona also in Sweetwater 

and Uinta Counties. Construction of wind farms and related transmission lines 

continues at a rapid pace as well. Thus, oil shale will add to the economy but is unlikely 

to be significant enough to create an economic boom. 

Uintah County produces about 50% of the oil and gas recovered in the State of Utah. 

Oil shale and tar sands development will diversify the energy economy but will not set 

off a boom. 

The OS/TS PDEIS fails to consider the cumulative impacts and connected actions in 

this discussion of the economic and social impacts. It is true that the current energy 

development has generated housing shortages and pressure on existing roads, but 

Utah and Wyoming have some of the lowest unemployment records in the country and 

have weathered the severe recession, and in reality a national depression, far better 

than other states such as California, Oregon and Washington. 
Final OSTS PEIS 1176 

Taking the OS/TS PDEIS discussion to its logical conclusion, one would conclude that it 

is BLM’s view that it is better for the residents of rural counties and communities to 

remain poor and isolated. OS/TS PDEIS at ES-9, Table 2.3.2-2, Table 2.4.2-2, Table 

2.6-1. It is correct that the upsurge in energy development has changed western 

Wyoming and eastern Utah communities. There is more traffic, more demand for 

housing and other services. There has also been more opportunity for jobs, to lease or 

sell private land related to energy projects and the injection of cash into the economy. 

Certainly, the State of Wyoming and the trust beneficiaries, the University and Wyoming 

Game & Fish Department have also seen significant increases in revenues, which 

allowed Wyoming to avoid the job losses, bank failures and bankruptcies that haunt 

many other states and large cities. 

The oil shale program would add to the existing energy industry but would be a 

relatively small portion. Wyoming is already the second largest recipient of federal 

royalty revenues and revenues from oil shale would not significantly change that. It 

would, however, represent continued diversification in energy development. 

#21])> VII. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

<([#22 [9.2.2] The OS/TS PDEIS suffers from a number of fatal flaws. 

- All alternatives except Alternative 1 do not conform to Section 369 of the 2005 

EPA; #22])>

<([#25 [9.2.1] - Implementation of LWC management in Alternatives 2, 3 and 4 violates the 

congressional limitation on the expenditure of funds to implement S.O. 3310 and 

exceed BLM’s authority; #25])>

<([#23 [9.5] The OS/TS PDEIS suffers from a number of fatal flaws. 

? All of the alternatives except Alternative 1 violate FLPMA land use planning 

processes and rules by superseding the existing RMPS and the ongoing plan 

revision for the Rock Springs area; 

#23])> ? <([#24 [1.5] The OS/TS PDEIS suffers from a number of fatal flaws. 

OS/TS PDEIS violates NEPA; 

? by failing to support the purpose and need in the PDEIS; 

? by failing to fully analyze the preferred alternative so that the public can 

meaningfully comment; 

? omitting significant new information regarding oil shale and tar sands 

potential and technological advances and omitting the rule changes that 

will significantly affect the timing of development; 

? failing to fully disclose the basis for excluding land areas from oil shale 

and tar sands development, when such areas were proposed by special 

interest groups without providing maps, facts, or rationale to support the 

adoption of these proposals; 

? failing to address the scientific controversies regarding the environmental 

impacts and resource needs for oil shale and tar sands development. 

#24])> Vermillion appreciates the opportunity to comment on this draft, but urges withdrawal 

and supplementation of the PDEIS to address the identified omissions. 

OSTS2012D50329 

Organization: Biodiversity Conservation Alliance, etal, Erik Molvar 

Received: 5/4/2012 5:05:45 PM 

Commenter1: Erik Molvar - Laramie, Wyoming 82073 (United States) 
Final OSTS PEIS 1177 

Organization1:Biodiversity Conservation Alliance, etal 

Commenter Type: Environmental Organization 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 

Submitted As: Web Form and Mail 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: aziech 5/16/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50329.htm (OSTS2012D50329-59049.htm Size = 1 KB) 

OilShale2012DEIScommentsFinal_OSTS2012D50329.doc (OSTS2012D50329-59048.doc Size 

= 443 KB) 

Submission Text

Dear Folks, A hardcopy of our comments has been provided by mail with attachments on an 

accompanying CD-ROM. We had one additional organization (Jackson Hole Conservation 

Alliance), who wished to become signatories to our comments, so we have added them to this 

electronic version and are resubmitting. The attachments accompanying the hardcopy pertain to 

the electronic comments as well. Thank you, Erik Molvar See Attachment. 

NOTE: attachments are in the project file on the P:\drive [OSTS 2012\Public Comments\OSTS 

Comment Attachments on CD\50239]

Dear BLM Officials:

The following are the comments of Biodiversity Conservation Alliance (BCA), Colorado 

Environmental Coalition, Rocky Mountain Wild, Jackson Hole Conservation Alliance, and 

Californians for Western Wilderness on the Oil Shale and Tar Sands Draft PEIS. These 

comments supplement the comments submitted by Western Resource Advocates, to which BCA is 

a signatory, and focus primarily on potential oil shale lands in Wyoming. Please address these 

comments in detail as you move this document through the NEPA process. <([#1 [2.3.1] We 

support Alternative 3, because as dirty and heavy impact a resource as oil shale is, it should be 

proven through the RD&D process on currently existing RD&D leases before additional public 

lands are opened up for leasing of any kind.

Our perception is that oil shale is not ready for prime time. The dirtiest of the fossil fuels, it 

comes with an even bigger carbon footprint than tar sands. Producing it will release toxins into 

the atmosphere and likely pollute groundwater and/or surface waters with hydrocarbons, salts, 

and heavy metals that leach out of retorted shales, either in situ and as tailings. It results in 100 

percent destruction to the lands that are produced, regardless of whether it is strip-mined or 

produced in situ, and it will likely take up to a century for these lands to become productive 

wildlife habitat again. The water demand of oil shale production is itself a major threat, not just 

to other water users along the Colorado River system but also to the four species of Endangered 

fishes inhabiting the Colorado River system. And despite years of trying on RD&D leases, no 

company has shown that oil shale is viable on a commercial scale. 

#1])>

A. <([#2 [3.1.1] Wyoming proposed wilderness areas that should be protected from oil shale 

and tar sands development
Final OSTS PEIS 1178 

The following areas are proposed for wilderness protection in Wyoming. These areas should be 

protected from oil shale and tar sands development: Adobe Town, Kinney Rim North, Kinney 

Rim South, Red Creek Badlands, Devils Playground, Buffalo Hump, and Sand Dunes, including 

citizens’ proposed additions to existing WSAs. These lands are identified on GIS datasets 

included as Attachment 1.

The Adobe Town citizens’ proposed wilderness is discussed at great length below under the 

Adobe Town Very Rare or Uncommon Area, which encompasses the entire citizens’ proposed 

wilderness. It is important to note that lands recognized as possessing wilderness characteristics 

(the “Adobe Town Fringe”) are not shown on Figures 3.1.1-13 and -14; this oversight merits 

correction. We recommend that the entire Adobe Town citizens’ proposed wilderness outside the 

Wilderness Study Area be shown as “Lands to be Managed to Protect Wilderness 

Characteristics.” For the Rawlins Field Office, all of these areas are mapped as “Lands with 

Wilderness Characteristics,” correcting the oversight, but none (including the designated 

Wilderness Study Area) are mapped as Lands with Wilderness Characteristics for the Rock 

Springs Field Office. See Figure 2.3.3-3. This mapping error also is worthy of an update. If the 

Very Rare or Uncommon Area is withdrawn from oil shale leasing, all of these lands with 

wilderness character will be protected, however, so these scriveners’ errors are of limited import 

as long as the Very Rare or Uncommon Area is indeed withdrawn from oil shale development as 

is the apparent intent under the Preferred Alternative. We will discuss other units individually 

below.

The Kinney Rim is a lofty ridge rising like a wave from a sea of sagebrush. The Kinney Rim 

North and South citizens’ proposed wilderness areas are listed as “Lands to be Managed to 

Protect Wilderness Characteristics” on Figure 3.1.1-13 and Figure 3.1.1-14, a designation with 

which we concur. These lands appear to be withdrawn from oil shale leasing under Alternative 

2, a withdrawal which we applaud and support.

The Devils Playground – Twin Buttes citizens’ proposed wilderness is a land of arid, windswept 

badlands immediately to the west of Flaming Gorge National Recreation Area, offering 

outstanding hiking opportunities for visitors to the recreation Area in addition to habitat for the 

rare midget faded rattlesnake. The Devils Playground/Twin Buttes WSA is listed for the Rock 

Springs Field Office, but the corresponding citizens’ proposed wilderness (or CPW) has 

apparently been overlooked. DPEIS at Figure 3.1.1-14. We have attached the original citizens’ 

proposed wilderness documentation from 1992. See Attachment 2. In light of the absence of 

industrial activity within the lands encompassed by the citizens’ proposed wilderness, the 

wilderness characteristics will have improved as human intrusions continue to grow fainter. 

BLM should evaluate the CPW surrounding the existing Wilderness Study Area and protect all 

the lands contained therein from oil shale development. Neither the currently designated 

Wilderness Study Area nor the citizens’ proposed wilderness appear to be mapped as “Lands 

with Wilderness Characteristics” on Figure 2.3.3-3, and portions of this area appear to be made 

available for oil shale leasing under Alternative 2 in Figure 2.3.3-6. This oversight should be 

corrected, and these lands should be withdrawn from oil shale leasing in the final decision.

The Red Creek Badlands citizens’ proposed wilderness encompasses a maze of shallow canyons 

through redbeds studded with junipers and pinyon pines. The “Lands with Wilderness 
Final OSTS PEIS 1179 

Characteristics” mapped for the Red Creek unit do not appear to correspond with either the 

Wilderness Study Area or the citizens’ proposed wilderness. See Figure 2.3.3-3. We have 

attached the citizens’ wilderness overview for this unit for informational purposes. See 

Attachment 10. However, these lands being outside the “Most Geologically Prospective Area” 

do not appear to be offered for lease under any alternative, rendering this oversight of limited 

substantive importance.

#2])>

B. <([#3 [3.1.1] Wyoming ACECs and potential ACECs that should be protected from oil shale 

development

The following ACECs in Wyoming established under the Green River Resource Management 

Plan should be protected from oil shale development: Cedar Canyon ACEC (approximately 

2,550 acres); Greater Red Creek ACEC (approximately 131,890 acres - originally Red Creek 

ACEC, expanded from 55,880 acres to include relevant and important values in the Currant 

Creek and Sage Creek Drainages); Greater Sand Dunes ACEC (approximately 38,650 acres); 

Natural Corrals ACEC (approximately 1,276 acres); Oregon Buttes ACEC (approximately 3,450 

acres); Pine Springs ACEC (approximately 6,030 acres, expanded from 90 acres to include 

adjacent relevant and important values); White Mountain Petroglyphs ACEC (approximately 20 

acres); South Pass ACEC (approximately 53,780 acres); Special Status (Candidate) Plants 

ACEC (approximately 900 acres); and Steamboat Mountain ACEC (approximately 43,270 

acres). 

In addition, the following potential ACECs should also be excluded from oil shale leasing: sagegrouse potential ACECs in the South Pass and Salt Wells areas as originally proposed by the 

Rock Springs BLM identified in the Sage-Grouse Plan Amendment process and others that may 

be identified in the Pinedale Field Office; the Monument Valley Management Area as identified 

in the Green River RMP; the Powder Rim proposed ACEC petitioned under the Rawlins RMP 

EIS, and the migration corridor for the Grand Teton pronghorn herd, extending southward from 

Trapper’s Point to Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge. In addition, Seedskadee NWR itself 

should be excluded from oil shale leasing.

#3])>

1. <([#4 [3.1.1] Adobe Town Very Rare or Uncommon Area – The entire area should be 

excluded from leasing

This PEIS presents an important opportunity to protect the Adobe Town Very Rare or 

Uncommon Area. The State of Wyoming’s 2008 designation of the Adobe Town area as Very 

Rare or Uncommon under the state Environmental Quality Act should provide the BLM with the 

legal basis for protecting this entire area. In the original FPEIS, only lands designated as WSA 

within Adobe Town were protected from commercial development. With Very Rare or 

Uncommon designation being finalized in 2008, the BLM now has a strong basis for protecting 

this area’s environmental and cultural resources. Of note this area is erroneously listed on Figure 

2.3.3-3 as “Adobe Town Rare and Irreplaceable Land,” a typographical consideration that does 

not appear to have substantive import as these lands appear to be withdrawn from oil shale 

leasing under Alternative 2. See Figure 2.3.3-6. 
Final OSTS PEIS 1180 

Notably, in the Environmental Quality Council’s Very Rare or Uncommon designation, the 

Council explicitly stated, “The designation would prevent surface mining for oil shale and 

uranium, as well as gravel pit mining.” See Attachment 3 at 18. Since the EQC holds authority 

over mining permits, and a mining permit would not issue if such mining would impair the Very 

rare or Uncommon features for which the area was designated (geologic, fossil, wildlife, scenic, 

and historical) – a virtual certainty – it makes no sense for BLM to issue leases in this area 

which the lessee would be potentially unable to develop.

Adobe Town has been called the crown jewel of the Red Desert – encompassing irreplaceable 

ecological, geological, historical and recreation values. At 180,910 acres, Adobe Town is 

Wyoming’s largest and most spectacular desert wilderness. Stretching 26 miles north to south 

and 19 miles east to west, this area is one of the last places in Wyoming where visitors can take 

in views of pristine landscape that stretch from horizon to horizon. The landscape ranges from 

banded badlands to mazes of arches, pinnacles, and spires, offering spectacular scenic vistas 

and important wildlife habitat. 

Adobe Town was designated as s Very Rare or Uncommon due to its geological, fossil, scenic, 

wildlife, and cultural/historical values. Non-coal surface mining (which would include oil shale) 

is expressly prohibited in Very Rare or Uncommon areas, except in cases where surface mining 

would not detract from such qualities. Because scenic qualities are part of the designation, there 

is no possibility that an exemption for oil shale mining could be issued. 

In its formal designation of this area, Wyoming’s Environmental Quality Council stated, “The 

designation protects the area from non surface coal mining only. The designation would prevent 

surface mining for oil shale and uranium, as well as gravel pit mining.”[1] While part of the 

Very Rare or Uncommon area is a Wilderness Study Area (WSA), which cannot be made 

available for oil shale leasing under the PEIS, the remainder is outside the WSA. All of Adobe 

Town as a state of Wyoming Very Rare and Uncommon area, not just the WSA, should be 

protected from oil shale development. Further, Adobe Town geological formations, abundant 

fossil resources, historical and prehistoric sites and features, rare and sensitive (including 

crucial) wildlife habitats, and scenic values are comparable to existing national park units, and 

thus are of national value. Left unprotected, these treasures are at risk of elimination.

The Adobe Town area should be managed on a landscape level, through a variety of 

management designations. By managing this area as a whole, the BLM can better protect its 

important and varied values. This concept is supported by the recently released America’s Great 

Outdoors report, which recommends the agency incorporate landscape-scale conservation and 

restoration as a priority in BLM resource management plans and programs.[2]

In the original Draft EIS, the BLM recognized Lands with Wilderness Character in the Rawlins 

Field Office, notably the Adobe Town Fringe, which overlaps with the potential oil shale 

development area. Original DPEIS at 3-38. However, this section makes no mention of the 

Adobe Town Very Rare or Uncommon Area, which encompasses the Adobe Town WSA, Adobe 

Town Fringe area recognized by BLM to contain lands with wilderness character, and also other 

citizens’ proposed wilderness lands not included in the BLM-defined Adobe Town fringe, and 

which overlap with potential oil shale development. 
Final OSTS PEIS 1181 

1. Adobe Town: Historical, prehistorical, and archaeological values

Adobe Town has a number of historical, prehistorical and archaeological values that meet the 

criteria for Very Rare or Uncommon designation. It is mentioned prominently in the journals of 

the Geological Exploration of the 40th Parallel (circa 1869), and was used as a hideout for fresh 

horses by Butch Cassidy and his gang during the Tipton train robbery of 1900. The area has a 

high density of archaeological sites dating back 12,000 years, and is still used as an important 

religious site by Native Americans today.

Adobe Town is mentioned prominently in the Report of the Geological Exploration of the 40th

Parallel, a federal document authored by eminent geologist Clarence King in 1869. This area 

was identified by King as the most superlative geological landscape found along the survey 

route. King described the general landscapes as follows:

From twelve to fourteen miles southwest of the head of Bitter Creek are seen exposures of the 

soft green clays, marls, and whitish-gray ands of which the upper beds of the Bridger group are 

made. Passing eastward of Pine Bluffs [known today as Pine Butte], the country is covered with 

more or less drifting sand, which forms noticeable trains of dunes. The sand suddenly gives way 

to the soft Bridger beds which are intricately eroded into branching ravines [Adobe Town and 

Skull Rims]. This bad-land country extends southeastward to the mouth of a dry valley [Sand 

Creek] north of Cherokee Ridge [Powder Rim/Cherokee Rim], and from that point a chain of 

bluff escarpments extends northeasterly for twelve or fourteen miles.[3]

In addition to the historical noteworthiness of the Geological Exploration, Adobe Town is also 

unusually rich in archaeological sites. According to BLM, 

Significant archaeological resources are found throughout the [Adobe Town] WSA, representing 

continuous occupation from Paleo Indian through late Prehistoric periods, that is, for the past 

12,000 years. The cultural site density of the WSA is estimated to be 30 surface sites per square 

mile, which is unusually high.[4]

2. Adobe Town: Geological values

Adobe Town is a geological masterpiece, dominated by outcroppings of the Washakie formation, 

a deep bed of volcanic ash deposited 50 million years ago during the Yellowstone eruptions as 

airborne ash and fluvial desposits of ash interbedded with reddish sandstone that forms rimrock. 

In 1981, BLM described the geology of the rims as follows:

They are composed of green, gray, and red tuffaceous and arkosic sandstone and minor beds of 

green shale, light-gray and green tuff, gray siltstone and conglomerate. The exposed beds have 

created the colorful landscape the Adobe Town Area is known for.[5]

These are the epitome of fragile lands, with highly erodible soils (both the tuffaceous sandstone 

and the stabilized sand dunes mantled with a fragile veneer of vegetation) and the towers, 

arches, and balanced rocks which would easily be toppled by mechanical disturbance.
Final OSTS PEIS 1182 

Above the rims, unique geological features include desert pavement and stabilized sand dunes. 

The rims have been whittled by erosion into spires and pinnacles, solifluction caves (known 

locally as ‘mud caves’) large enough to walk through, natural arches, lone towers, groups of 

castellated pillars, window rocks, grottoes, buttes, caprocks, mushrooms, hat rocks, and eroded 

badlands banded with pink, red, and purple tones. According to BLM, “Skull Creek Rim, in the 

core of the area recommended for wilderness, contains some of the most unique and extensive 

badlands formations in Wyoming.”[6] BLM described the effect of this surreal landscape as 

follows:

Many of the spires take on strange life-like forms – stone sentinals (sic) frozen in time standing 

guard over their silent desert domain. Walking amidst groups of these strange spires gives one 

the eerie feeling of being watched – by beings who have witnessed the evolution of Adobe Town 

for millennia.[7]

In addition, the paleontological resources of Adobe Town are among the finest deposits of 

Eocene mammals and reptiles in the world. According to BLM, “The Adobe Town area is known 

as one of the three most valuable sites in North America for certain types of mammalian 

fossils.”[8] This important point appears to have been overlooked in the Paleontological 

Resources section of the DEIS. BLM further noted,

The WSA is nationally known for the educational and scientific study of paleontological 

resources. Fossil remains of mammals are numerous and widely distributed throughout the area. 

Two notable mammalian fossils found in the area are the Uintathere and Titanothere. The 

Uintathere was a large mammal about the size and configuration of an African rhinoceros. The 

species of Titanothere found in the WSA was a tapir-like mammal, about 40 inches in height. 

This area has been identified as one of the premiere sites in North America for paleontological 

resources.[9]

3. Adobe Town: Wildlife values

Adobe Town also has a host of sensitive wildlife habitats that are crucial or vital to meeting the 

very rare or uncommon designation criteria. These habitats include nest sites, sage-grouse lek 

sites, prairie dog colonies, and big game crucial winter ranges. The cliffs and pillars found 

throughout Adobe Town provide ideal nesting habitat for raptors, offering numerous nesting 

platforms out of the reach of ground-based nest predators. Raptor nest sites, sage-grouse lek 

sites, and big game crucial winter ranges are exceptionally sensitive to, among other things, 

development, as temporary disturbances can lead to nest failure or displacement of big game 

onto marginal ranges where they may not be able to survive. 

The white-tailed prairie dog is a BLM Sensitive Species and also is recognized as a Sensitive 

Species by the Wyoming Game and Fish Department. There is a small white-tailed prairie dog 

colony observed at T 14N R97W sec. 12, SE 1⁄4, which has been active at least between 2001 and 

2006; white-tailed prairie dogs were also observed in Section 13 NW 1⁄4 of the same township in 

2006. Active white-tailed prairie dog colonies also occur in Horseshoe Bend south of the 

Haystacks.[10]
Final OSTS PEIS 1183 

There are a number of known golden eagle nest sites, including two nest sites along the western 

end of The Haystacks (T16N R97W Sec. 10 NE 1⁄4 and T16N R97W Sec. 15 SW 1/4), one along 

Haystack Wash as it leaves the rimrock area (T16N R96W Sec. 30 NW 1⁄4), and one on the lower 

rim (T15N R96W Sec. 18 NW 1⁄4). In the Rawlins Field Office, two golden eagle nests occur in 

the southern end of the WSA, with additional nests known from the Willow Creek Rim in the 

eastern proposed expansion unit and on outcrops to the west of Sand Creek in the southeastern 

part of the area.

The greater sage-grouse is a BLM Sensitive Species and also is listed as a Sensitive Species by 

the Wyoming Game and Fish Department. (Sage-grouse are discussed in further detail below.) 

There are three known sage-grouse leks – one in the southeastern proposed expansion, another 

north of the WSA and south of The Haystacks, and a third in the northeastern lobe of the WSA. 

Sage-grouse leks are the hub of nesting activity, and typically most of the hens bred at a lek nest 

within 3 miles of the lek site. Thus, the area around each lek also constitutes important nesting 

habitat.

There is a desert elk herd, known to the Wyoming Game and Fish Department as the Petition 

Herd, which is one of the few true desert elk herds in North America, spending the entire year in 

the Red Desert. This elk herd is therefore very rare. Its activities are centered on the Powder 

Rim.

Known prairie falcon nest sites within the proposed Very Rare or Uncommon area include one 

at T16N R95W Sec. 19 NW 1⁄4; two near Manuel Gap (T16N R97W Sec. 27 SW 1⁄4 and T16N 

R97W Sec. 28 SW 1⁄4); and T15N R96W Sec. 19 NE 1⁄4.[11] Prairie falcons with fledgling young 

were observed roosting on a pinnacle just off the Skull Creek Rim at T13N R97W during the 

early summer of both 2005 and 2006. Prairie falcons with fledgling young were also sighted at 

T15N R97W Section 19 SW 1⁄4 on July 9, 2006. A known prairie falcon nest also was recorded by 

BLM on the bluffs above Willow Creek in the eastern proposed expansion.

Several other raptors are on the BLM and Wyoming Game and Fish Department Sensitive 

Species Lists. The burrowing owl, which is a prairie dog obligate species that nests in burrows 

of prairie dog towns, has one known nest location in the southwestern corner of the WSA. The 

ferruginous hawk, the largest hawk in Wyoming, has nest sites confirmed by BLM two miles 

south of Manuel Gap and in the southeastern proposed expansion. 

Due to the rugged and inaccessible nature of much of Adobe Town, no thorough and systematic 

inventory of nesting raptors has ever been performed. For instance, there are several known nest 

sites of ferruginous hawks active in recent years which are not in the BLM’s database, even in 

accessible areas. An occupied and active ferruginous hawk nest was observed by Erik Molvar 

and Joel Sartore on the eroded walls far below East Fork Point at T14N R96W Section 8 SWSE 

on May 4, 2004. In addition, an active and occupied ferruginous hawk nest was documented in 

the Haystacks at T17N R96W Section 33 SWSE by Liz Howell, and separately by Erik Molvar, 

during summer of 2005. The same nest was found to be active again in 2006 by Erik Molvar.

The mountain plover is recognized as a BLM Sensitive Species and as a Sensitive Species by the 
Final OSTS PEIS 1184 

Wyoming Game and Fish Department. Until recently, it was listed as Threatened under the 

Endangered Species Act (ESA). The Horseshoe Bend area south of The Haystacks contains vital 

mountain plover nesting habitat with a number of confirmed plover sightings.[12] Mountain 

plovers have also been sighted atop the Adobe Town Rim at T15N R98W Section 25 NE 1⁄4, and 

at the southern edge of the Adobe Town Rim.

The Great Basin gopher snake is listed as a BLM Sensitive Species. This species has been 

photographed along the Adobe Town Rim at T15N R97W Section 19, NW 1⁄4.

The Haystacks is identified by the Wyoming Game and Fish Department as crucial mule deer 

winter habitat. There is also a substantial amount of pronghorn crucial winter range south of 

Horseshoe Bend along the branches of Haystack Creek. In addition, portions of the area on the 

north slope of the Powder Rim are mule deer crucial winter range.[13]

4. Adobe Town: Scenic values

The scenic values of Adobe Town are the most impressive of any desert landscape in Wyoming. It 

has long attracted the attention of writers and authors. In the 2006-2007 edition of Wilderness 

magazine, writer Allen Best characterizes Adobe Town as “a giant museum of geological 

curiosities.” In 2004, Kerry Brophy wrote of Adobe Town in Wyoming Wildlife magazine as 

“about as lonesome and lovely a place as you’re likely to find”. Adobe Town is also featured in 

the guidebook Wild Wyoming, which characterized the area as “a landscape worthy of National 

Park status.” World-renowned author Annie Proulx described Adobe Town as “The maze of 

badland formations, mesas, and buttes combine with brilliantly colored rock strata to create 

spectacular canyonland scenery.” 

More recently, Adobe Town has become a mecca for photographers, and photographs have been 

included in calendars, coffee table books such as Wind River Wilderness and Red Desert: 

History of a Place. A scenic photograph of Adobe Town appeared in the July 2005 issue of 

National Geographic. Internationally known nature photographer Tom Mangelson noted, 

“Adobe Town is truly one of the crown jewels of the West, one of the signature Red Desert 

landscapes that cannot be allowed to fall under the blade of the bulldozer.”[14] Photographer 

Ron Marquart described Adobe Town as follows: “Its landscape is comparable to Bryce 

Canyon, Canyonlands and Badlands National Parks, and represents the most intricate, 

outstanding badlands topography in the U.S.” Adobe Town was also featured in the new book of 

photography published by Laguna Wilderness Press, Wyoming’s Red Desert: A Photographic 

Journey.

These scenic values are also important economic values. Both must be protected.

5. Adobe Town: Recreation

Currently, the Adobe Town area is used primarily for recreation. Hikers and photographers 

concentrate efforts along the Adobe Town Rim, in The Haystacks, and atop the Skull Creek Rim. 

The unit is an excellent rockhounding area, with moss agates and other semiprecious stones to 

be found, especially atop the Adobe Town Rim. The flats along the eastern end of the unit are a 
Final OSTS PEIS 1185 

well-known trophy antelope hunting area, and The Haystacks, Adobe Town Rim, and Powder 

Rim are also known mule deer hunting areas. Due to the tangled web of gas field roads to the 

east of Adobe Town, most visitors approach from the north and west. #4])>

1. <([#5 [3.1.1] Recreational areas in Wyoming

As the BLM stated, “Commercial oil shale development activities is incompatible with 

recreational use (e.g., hiking, biking, fishing, hunting, bird watching, OHV use, and camping).” 

DEIS at 4-20. We strongly agree with this conclusion. In the PEIS, the BLM must thoroughly 

assess the impacts on the following areas of high recreational value that fall within potentially 

leased oil shale areas in Wyoming. We believe oil shale leasing in these areas should be 

precluded: 

1. Little Mountain area, including Greater Red Creek ACEC, Red Creek WSA, and Sugarloaf 

Basin SMA – These areas were established under the Green River RMP and constitute an 

outstanding big game hunting resource. According to the Wyoming Game and Fish Department, 

the elk hunt in this area is the single most sought-after tag in the entire state. Oil shale activities 

would be certain to drive away elk and destroy the recreational quality of this area.

2. Adobe Town State Very Rare or Uncommon Area – As discussed above, the scenic and 

wilderness qualities in this area and its viewshed need to be protected from oil shale leasing in 

order to maintain the scenic and wilderness qualities in this area. Oil shale leasing should be 

precluded from this area in order to maintain FLPMA-required consistency with the state 

designation preventing non-coal surface mining. Portions of this area also now fall within the 

Adobe Town Dispersed Recreation Use Area designated under the Rawlins RMP.

3. Adobe Town Dispersed Recreation Use Area (DRUA) – The Adobe Town DRUA was 

established under the Rawlins RMP, and includes not only the Very Rare or Uncommon area but 

also portions of the Kinney Rim North and South citizens’ proposed wilderness areas, the 

western Powder Rim, and the Prehistoric Rim area to the east of Adobe Town.[15] The DRUA is 

of high value for dispersed and primitive recreation, including hiking, wildlife viewing, hunting, 

and camping. It should be excluded from oil shale leasing.

4. Kinney Rim North and Kinney Rim South citizens’ proposed wilderness areas – These lands 

provide a roadless, primitive/semi-primitive recreation experience, and represent an 

increasingly rare large tract of public land in the Red Desert that is free of industrial 

development. Parts of these now fall within the Adobe Town Dispersed Recreation Use Area 

designated under the Rawlins RMP.

5. The Flaming Gorge National Recreation Area – This area lays entirely within the area 

proposed for oil shale leasing in Wyoming. In the FPEIS, National Recreation Areas are not 

specifically listed as units of the National Landscape Conservation System that will be excluded 
Final OSTS PEIS 1186 

from oil shale leasing.[16] However, all of this NRA as well as its viewshed should be excluded 

from oil shale leasing consideration in order to preserve the scenic and recreational qualities 

found here. 

6. Jack Morrow Hills planning area – This is an area highly important for both dispersed 

recreation and elk hunting. It contains the Boars Tusk and White Mountains Petroglyph Site, 

both of which are culturally important to Native American tribes. In addition, an archaeological 

site in the northwest corner of this area is an ACEC and its setting needs to be protected as 

well.The “most prospective” oil shale area in Wyoming includes portions of the Jack Morrow 

Hills planning area, a subset of the Rock Springs Field Office set aside from the Green River 

RMP in the 1990s for special planning due to its outstanding wildlife resources and strong 

public interest.

#5])>

<([#6 [3.8.2] Because oil shale development includes 100 percent scarification to the land, and 

represents one of the most major types of visual intrusions possible on BLM lands, leasing 

should not allow any surface disturbance on lands of Visual Resource Management Class I, II, or 

III lands. The objectives for Class I and II lands are to “preserve” and “retain” the “existing 

character of the land, while Class III lands are managed to “partially retain the existing character 

of the land.”[17] Oil shale development cannot possibly meet these objectives. Based on the 

definitions for these lands, only the objectives for VRM Class IV, which “provide for 

management activities which require major modification of the existing character of the 

landscape” and permit a level of change that is “high,” are compatible with oil shale 

development. See id. The BLM has recently completed a Visual Resource Inventory for portions 

of the Rawlins and Rock Springs Field Offices, and we recommend that this VRI be incorporated 

into the EIS process for oil shale as part of its Affected Environment analysis. Notably, the 

Visual Resource analysis in the DPEIS for the Washakie Basin notes that this is “an area of 

active energy development” and that associated visual disturbances are found in the basin. 

DPEIS at 3-207. This section fails to acknowledge that most of the Washakie Basin is in an 

undeveloped state, however, and contains some of the most outstanding scenic resources in 

either the Rawlins or Rock Springs Field Offices, including the Adobe Town Very Rare or 

Uncommon Area, the Kinney Rim citizens’ proposed wilderness areas, the Powder Rim, and the 

Adobe Town Dispersed Recreation Use Area. In order to maintain conformity with local 

Resource Management Plans pursuant to FLPMA, the BLM should therefore allow oil shale 

leasing and development on VRM Class IV lands only.

#6])>

1. <([#7 [3.7.5.1] [3.7.5.2] Greater Sage-Grouse

As oil shale development would be expected to result in a 100% loss in habitat function for sage 

grouse, important sage grouse habitats (both Priority Habitats and General Habitats) should be 

excluded from oil shale leasing. See Mitigation Measures, DPEIS at 4-133. The BLM is currently 

undertaking a Sage Grouse Plan Amendment EIS, and the OSTS EIS should include protections 

at least as stringent as those to be implemented under the Sage Grouse Plan Amendments. The 

BLM has convened a National Technical Team to develop science-based recommendations for 
Final OSTS PEIS 1187 

the management of sage grouse habitats, and we append the Team’s report to these comments as 

Attachment 4 and incorporate the report by reference into these comments. These 

recommendations do not appear to have been considered under the mitigation measures to be 

considered for wildlife. DPEIS at 4-132. BLM should implement the recommendations of the 

National Technical Team in its final decision on oil shale and tar sands leasing; recommended 

maximum levels of 3% surface disturbance by land area per square mile are especially relevant 

to oil shale extraction and processing operations. BLM must also render the oil shale/tar sands 

leasing decision consistent with the agency’s 2004 National Sage-Grouse Habitat Conservation 

Strategy, which remains BLM policy, particularly requirements to consider the best available 

science.[18]

Sage grouse have been declining across their range over the past 50 years. Wyoming sage 

grouse populations are some of the largest left in the nation and have experienced lower levels of 

population loss (showing a 17% decline from 1985-1994); nonetheless, sage grouse populations 

have experienced major declines rangewide in recent decades (Connelly and Braun 1997). 

WGFD (2000) reported that since 1952, there has been a 20% decline in the overall Wyoming 

sage grouse population, with some fragmented populations declining more than 80%; 

Christiansen (2000) reported a 40% statewide decline over the last 20 years of the 20th Century. 

Garton et al. (in press) also reported declining trends for the period of 1965-2007. These 

declines can be attributed to habitat loss (due to agriculture, mining and energy development, 

reservoirs, roads, and buildings), habitat fragmentation (due to fences, powerlines, roads, and 

reservoirs), habitat degradation (due to overgrazing, changes in fire regime, and mechanical 

and chemical sagebrush control efforts), drought, predation (the importance of which is 

controlled by the amount and quality of sage grouse habitat), and hunting (Braun 1998). These 

declines are sufficiently serious that the sage grouse has been listed as a Candidate Species 

under the Endangered Species Act. It is crucially important that the new plan provide for the 

maintenance and recovery of sage grouse populations, because this bird is headed for the 

Endangered Species List if population losses continue.

The sage grouse is a reasonably good ‘umbrella species’ for many types of sagebrush obligate 

wildlife from pronghorns to pygmy rabbits and BLM Sensitive songbirds, although protecting 

sage grouse habitat does relatively little for sensitive reptiles (Rowland et al. 2006). Thus, 

protecting large swaths of sage grouse habitat provides benefits for other types of sensitive 

wildlife. Large sage grouse Core Areas like South Pass and the Kinney Rim/Vermillion core 

have been proposed for protection from future oil and gas leasing under the BLM’s Wyoming 

sage grouse plan amendment process as Sage Grouse ACECs as a means of providing a 

reservoir of healthy populations of sagebrush obligate wildlife; these lands should also be closed 

to oil shale leasing for the same reasons..

Sage Grouse HabitatsSagebrush steppe is the dominant plant community type found on lands 

under consideration for oil shale and tar sands development. In the sagebrush steppe habitat 

type, which encompasses the area proposed for oil shale leasing, some 41% of the historical 

sagebrush habitat has been converted to other vegetation types or human land uses (Miller et al. 

in press). Included within this area is southwestern and south-central Wyoming, one of the last 

bastions of the sagebrush steppe, and although large expanses have been badly fragmented by 

oil and gas projects like the Continental Divide – Wamsutter projects, large expanses of 

essentially untouched sagebrush grassland still remain in the oil shale area. In fact, southcentral and southwestern Wyoming have been projected to be the most likely place in the nation 

to retain the sagebrush ecosystem required by sage grouse (and other sagebrush obligates) in 
Final OSTS PEIS 1188 

the face of changing climate, based on the area of agreement between 9 climate change models 

(Neilson et al. 2005, Attachment 5). Rangewide, climate change is expected to favor the 

expansion of exotic invasive species at the expense of native vegetation species (Miller et al. in 

press). The sagebrush steppe ecosystem is home to many rare or declining wildlife species, 

including the ferruginous hawk, sage grouse, burrowing owl, white-tailed prairie dog, swift fox, 

pygmy rabbit, Wyoming pocket gopher, black-footed ferret, and mountain plover. The fact that 

south-central Wyoming is perhaps the last major stronghold of the sagebrush steppe ecosystem 

and the species that are dependent on it presents a compelling reason that the oil shale/tar sands 

RMP amendments should regulate development and human use in a way that promotes the 

persistence of large blocks of intact sagebrush steppe rather than allowing the continued 

fragmentation of sagebrush habitats until only a few tatters of sagebrush steppe remain. 

The Core Area system as currently envisioned by the Wyoming state government is a 

conceptually useful framework for this, although it incorporates certain political compromises 

that reduce the Core Area system’s effectiveness as a conservation tool, such as excluding some 

of the highest-value sage grouse habitats from Cores based on the desires of industry to develop 

them, and the implementation of biologically inadequate protection measures for grouse both 

inside and outside of Core Areas. BLM has full authority to manage sage grouse habitats on 

BLM lands; these weaknesses in the state’s Core Area strategy can and should be corrected on 

federal lands through BLM management decisions, including the OSTS plan amendments.

To ensure the viability of sage grouse populations, it is important to consider nesting, broodrearing, and winter habitats (Call and Maser 1985). Holloran and Anderson (2005) found that 

64% of sage grouse females nested within 5 km of a lek. Connelly et al. (2000) proposed 

comprehensive guidelines regarding the management of sage grouse, focused around the 

conservation of breeding/nesting habitat, late summer brood-rearing habitat, and wintering 

habitat. We recommend that these guidelines be implemented in the forthcoming RMP 

amendments, with the modification of a 3-mile NSO and no surface disturbance/vegetation 

treatment buffer at minimum (5 miles would be preferable) for sage grouse leks in order to 

protect the leks themselves as well as adjacent nesting habitat. These alternatives should be fully 

explored and considered in the forthcoming DEIS.

Breeding and Nesting HabitatsAutenreith (1985) considered the lek site “the hub from which 

nesting occurs” (p. 52). Grouse exhibit strong fidelity to individual lek sites from year to year 

(Dunn and Braun 1986). During the spring period, male habitat use is concentrated within 2 km 

of lek sites (Benson et al. 1991). Young males may establish new leks in order to take part in 

breeding (Gates 1985). Because leks sites are used traditionally year after year and represent 

selection for optimal breeding and nesting habitat, it is crucially important to protect the area 

surrounding lek sites from impacts.

The maintenance of high-quality sagebrush steppe habitats, particularly nesting and wintering 

habitats, is necessary to maintain sage grouse viability on the landscape scale. Regarding 

energy development, according to Naugle et al. (2010), “Severity of current and projected 

impacts indicates Severity of current and projected impacts indicates the need to shift from local 

to landscape conservation.” Sage grouse are dependent on sagebrush steppe habitats, and sage 

grouse distribution is closely linked with the distribution of big sagebrush (McCall 1974). 

Numerous studies have shown that female sage grouse show strong fidelity to specific nesting 

areas from year to year (Berry and Eng 1985, Fischer et al. 1993, Lyon 2000). Fischer et al. 
Final OSTS PEIS 1189 

(1993) concluded, “Because Sage Grouse hens appear to seek suitable habitat within a relatively 

small area, nest-area fidelity may reduce nesting if large areas of nesting habitat are destroyed” 

(p. 1040). Thus, it is important to foster sagebrush growth at levels useful to sage grouse and to 

avoid activities that destroy suitable sagebrush habitat.

The optimum height and cover of sagebrush for sage grouse nesting habitats varies from region 

to region. In their eastern Oregon study, Call and Maser (1985) reported that sagebrush 

between 30 and 60 cm made the best nesting habitat, while a range of 15-80 cm was suitable for 

nesting. In the foothills of the Sierra Madres, shrub height at nest sites averaged 22 cm (Klott 

and Lindzey 1989). In other studies, nesting habitat is typified by greater shrub height and shrub 

cover (Wallestad and Pyrah 1974, Sveum et al. 1998). Dunn and Braun (1986) found that grouse 

selected areas with taller shrubs and more homogeneous sagebrush densities, and closer 

distance to wooded or meadow edges. But in Idaho, Klebenow (1969) found that sage grouse did 

not nest in areas where sagebrush cover exceeded 35%. Within suitable nesting habitat, nest 

sites tend to be located under taller-than-average shrubs, particularly sagebrush (Hulet et al. 

1986).

Habitat attributes have a direct effect on sage grouse population dynamics. Connelly et al. 

(1991) found that nest success was higher for birds nesting below sagebrush (53%) versus other 

shrubs (22%), and hypothesized that avian predation was the key to nest success. In central 

Washington, Sveum et al. (1998) found that sagebrush cover at successful nest sites averaged 

51%, and height averaged 64 cm, while at depredated nests cover and height averaged 70% and 

90 cm, respectively. Wallestad and Pyrah (1974) found that sagebrush cover exceeded 15% for 

all nest sites, and cover of sagebrush was positively correlated with nest success. Several studies 

have shown that successful nest sites have greater cover of tall grass (Gregg et al. 1994, Sveum 

et al. 1998). With this in mind, Holloran (1999) recommended leaving residual grass heights 

greater than 12 cm following removal of livestock in autumn. Thus, not only sagebrush height 

and density but also understory grass cover are important to maintain in sage grouse nesting 

areas. BLM should incorporate the sagebrush remote-sensing mapping projects occurring in 

Wyoming and elsewhere across the sage grouse’s range into its OSTS DEIS analysis of baseline 

information, as a means for evaluating sage grouse habitat attributes beyond the useful index of 

lek size and location.

Early and Late Brood Rearing Habitats

Sage grouse may move some distance from nesting sites for early and late brood rearing. In 

western Wyoming, Lyon (2000) found that sage grouse moved an average of 1.1 km from the nest 

site for early brood-rearing, and late brood-rearing habitats averaged 4.8 km distant from the 

early brood-rearing areas. In Bates Hole, Holloran (1999) found that early brood rearing 

habitats are typified by decreased sagebrush cover and height and increased forb abundance, 

and movement to riparian sites occurred as uplands became dessicated. This pattern of 

movement and habitat selection is echoed in the findings of Oakleaf (1971). In western Wyoming, 

wet meadows, springs, seeps, and other green areas within sagebrush steppe were important for 

early brood-rearing, while late brood rearing focused on irrigated hay meadows, wet meadows, 

and drainage bottoms which remained green when early brood rearing habitats were withering 

(Lyon 2000). This researcher found that most recruitment loss occurred during the early brood 

rearing stage, and that this may be a limiting factor in sage grouse populations (Ibid.). In 

Nevada, Oakleaf (1971) found that meadows with succulent forbs, while occupying only 2.3% of 

grouse home ranges during the brood rearing period, were disproportionately important as 

brood-rearing habitat. In central Washington, Drut et al. (1994b) found that during late brood-
Final OSTS PEIS 1190 

rearing, habitat use shifted from low sagebrush to big sagebrush sites, with heightened use of 

meadows and lakeshores. Brood-rearing habitats should thus be identified and managed to 

maximize sage grouse recruitment success.

The availability of forage with a high nutritional content is an important factor determining 

brood success. Broods require forbs, insects and cover for growth, concealment and shade 

(Autenreith 1985). The diet of sage grouse chicks is dominated by insects in the first week of life, 

with forbs becoming more important as time progresses (Call and Maser 1985). Oakleaf (1971) 

reported that succulent forbs dominated the diets of brood-rearing hens and juveniles until the 

chicks reached 11-12 weeks of age. Drut et al. (1994a) found that in the area with high sage 

grouse productivity, insects and forbs made up 80% of chicks’ diets, while sagebrush buds made 

up 65% of diets in the area of low sage grouse productivity. These researchers reached the 

following conclusions: 

“Substantially lower consumption of forbs and invertebrates and increased reliance on 

sagebrush may affect chick growth and survival, which would be reflected in long-term 

differences in productivity between areas. Insects are a critical nutrition source for developing 

chicks” (p. 93). 

Dunn and Braun (1986) argued that meadows, as important forb-producing areas, should be 

preserved. Thus, the BLM should manage sage grouse brood-rearing habitat to maximize highquality forage for chicks.

Mesic meadows and surface waters are focal points of sage grouse activity during certain times 

of year. Mesic sites associated with springs, seeps, and streams are critical for sage grouse on a 

yearlong basis, and assumes even greater importance as brood rearing habitat (Autenreith et al. 

1982). Call and Maser (1985) stated, “We believe that free water is an essential component of 

sage grouse habitat”, but noted that “[s]age grouse may do well in the absence of free water 

where they have access to succulent vegetation.” (p. 4). Oakleaf (1971) found that the presence 

of surface water was an important factor that increased the value of meadows as grouse rearing 

habitat. Thus, BLM should map these key early brood rearing habitats as part of NEPA’s 

baseline information gathering in the OSTS DEIS, and management of oil shale leasing and 

development should include special emphasis on avoiding and protecting wet meadows, springs, 

and seeps. 

Wintering Habitats

Non-migratory sage grouse winter on their nesting and brood-rearing habitats, while migratory 

populations may travel some distance to winter on traditional wintering areas. For nonmigratory populations, nesting habitat and wintering habitat are one and the same (e.g., 

Wallestad and Pyrah 1974). In a western Wyoming study, however, sage grouse were migratory 

and traveled at least 35 km to separate wintering grounds (Berry and Eng 1985). In Colorado’s 

North Park, Beck (1977) found that grouse migrated 5-20 km away from breeding areas during 

winter. In a southeastern Idaho study, Connelly et al. (1988) found that some adult sage grouse 

moved more than 60 km to winter range, and some juveniles moved more than 80 km, despite the 

availability of suitable wintering habitat nearby. In some cases, sage grouse may be widely 

dispersed during mild winters but concentrate during severe winters (e.g., Autenreith 1985).

Sage grouse may be keying in on several habitat variables when selecting appropriate wintering 

habitat. In the southern Red Desert, Kerley (1994) found that wintering sage grouse moved to 

tall sagebrush stands on steep south-facing slopes, where the sagebrush were exposed above the 

snow. Conversely, Beck (1977) found that in North Park, Colorado, 66% of sage grouse 

wintered on slopes of less than 5%, while only 13% of sage grouse use occurred on slopes 
Final OSTS PEIS 1191 

greater than 10%. In Montana, Eng and Schladweiler (1972) found that 82% of winter sage 

grouse sightings occurred in canopy cover greater than 20%, and a preference was shown for 

dense stands on lands with little slope. Carpenter et al. (2010) found in Canada, sage grouse 

selected less rugged topography at lower elevations. Dougherty et al. (2010) found that 

wintering grouse selected dense sagebrush for both food and cover. The BLM must identify sage 

grouse wintering habitats within the planning areas and emplace strong measures to protect 

them from oil shale leasing and development, with an appropriate buffer to ensure that oil shale 

and tar sands operations immediately adjacent to important wintering habitats do not cause 

disturbance to birds using those habitats.

Researchers appear to be unanimous in their recommendations that sage grouse winter habitat 

be protected from disturbance. Kerley (1994) recommended, “Because shrub stands used during 

winter (category 3 stands) make up a small proportion of available habitats, these patches on 

south facing slopes, as well as other traditional wintering sites, should not be treated [to remove 

or reduce shrubs]” (p.113). Since oil shale development would remove all shrubs, it certainly 

falls into this category of activities that should be proscribed by BLM. Connelly et al. (2000) 

concurred, recommending against habitat manipulation in sagebrush stands of 10-30% canopy 

cover heights of at least 25 cm to protect winter habitats. According to Beck and Braun (1980), 

“Areas of winter concentrations of sage grouse need to be documented and afforded maximum 

protection” (p. 564). Lyon (2000) recommended that sage grouse wintering habitats be placed 

off-limits to oil and gas development. Thus, in the OSTS planning area, the BLM needs to rapidly 

identify sage grouse winter concentration areas and place the areas off-limits to surface 

disturbance.

Vegetation Treatments

Because the sage grouse is dependent on sagebrush, sagebrush treatments are likely to have 

major impacts on sage grouse population viability. The OSTS DEIS should consider the 

cumulative effects that OSTS development would have combined with past and current 

vegetation treatment programs, and consider the reduction and/or elimination of vegetation 

treatment projects as part of the overall picture of sage grouse habitat management in the 

context of OSTS leasing and potential development. Call and Maser (1985) asserted that the 

spraying of sage grouse nesting habitats is deleterious because it reduces nest cover from avian 

predators and suppresses forbs that are important in the sage grouse diet. According to Kerley 

(1994), “shrub stands of 20-40% cover are needed for successful nesting and this shrub 

coverage should be maintained on identified breeding complexes [within 3.2 km of leks]” (p. 

113). Wamboldt et al. (2002) stated:

“Natural or prescribed burning of sagebrush is seldom good for sage-grouse. This assessment 

recommends that fires within sage-grouse habitat be avoided in most cases, and should be 

allowed only after careful study of each local situation. The evidence also indicates that habitat 

loss due to fire may well be the most serious of all the factors contributing to the decline of sagegrouse” (p.24).

Heath et al. (1997) went even farther: “Based on our results, we recommend no reduction or 

control of sagebrush in areas containing between 18-30% live sagebrush canopy coverage 

within 4.5 km of leks” (p.50). According to Beck and Braun (1980), 

“At present we do not know the relative value of a small versus large strutting ground to the 

population. Therefore we should afford equal merit to all and strive to maintain the adjacent 
Final OSTS PEIS 1192 

habitats, especially areas with sagebrush (Artemesia) suitable for nesting and brood rearing” (p. 

563). 

Call and Maser (1985) stated that spraying should not occur within the breeding complex (which 

they defined as within 2 miles of a lek), and should also be forbidden in known grouse winter 

ranges. Taking into account the negative effects of vegetation treatments on sage grouse nesting 

and lekking areas, and uncertainty in the overall extent of sage grouse nesting habitat 

surrounding lek sites in the Great Divide region, the BLM should prohibit vegetation treatments 

within 3 miles of sage grouse lek sites.

Strip Mining

Strip mining for coal has been shown to impact sage grouse populations through major local 

decreases in recruitment (Braun 1986); local distribution patterns and decreases in lek use are 

the principal effects, with disturbance, rather than habitat loss, being the primary factor 

(Remington and Braun 1991). Because oil shale development either involves strip mining 

directly, or in the case of in situ methods, involves a level of habitat destruction roughly 

equivalent to strip mining, Klott (1987) recommended that areas near sage grouse leks be 

avoided for the purposes of strip mining. We concur, and ask the BLM to withdraw lands within 

5 miles of a sage grouse lek from lands suitable for surface mining or in situ development under 

the OSTS plan amendments.

Road Development

Road development can lead to lek abandonment (e.g., Braun 1986). In western Wyoming, Lyon 

(2000) found that for sage grouse leks within 3 km of oil and gas developments, grouse hens 

successful at raising their broods selected habitats farther from roads than unsuccessful hens. 

This finding indicates that habitats near roads experience reduced brood survivorship. Thus, the 

oil shale RMP amendments should include a moratorium on all road-building within 3 miles of a 

lek site.

Lessons Learned from Oil and Gas Development

Over the past 10 years, oil and gas development has posed perhaps the greatest threat to sage 

grouse viability in the region. There has also been much study concerning the impacts of oil and 

gas development on sage grouse, the findings of which are applicable to oil shale development 

as well. Over 8% of the total range of sage grouse has already been impacted by oil and gas 

development; in addition, the Wyomi9ng Basin and Colorado Plateau ecoregions are among 

thiose areas that have the greatest proportion of land under lease (and therefore at risk for 

future industrialization) (Knick et al., in press). Oil shale development, while having a much 

greater intensity of development (100% landscape destruction rather than the 3-5% of a typical 

oil and gas field) also involves heavy vehicle traffic, human activity at the site of production, and 

networks of roads and potentially pipelines to support it. The BLM must consider the current 

level of energy development impact on sage grouse, which has been sufficient to list the sage 

grouse as “Warranted but Precluded” under the ESA, cumulatively with the impacts of oil shale 

development when performing its impact analysis for the OSTS PEIS. 

In a study near Pinedale, sage grouse from disturbed leks where gas development occurred 
Final OSTS PEIS 1193 

within 3 km of the lek site showed lower nesting rates (and hence lower reproduction), traveled 

farther to nest, and selected greater shrub cover than grouse from undisturbed leks (Lyon 2000). 

According to Lyon (2000), impacts of oil and gas development to sage grouse include (1) direct 

habitat loss from new construction, (2) increased human activity and pumping noise causing 

displacement, (3) increased legal and illegal harvest, (4) direct mortality associated with reserve 

pits, and (5) lowered water tables resulting in herbaceous vegetation loss. Pump noise from oil 

and gas development may reduce the effective range of grouse vocalizations (Klott 1987). Thus, 

lek buffers are needed to ensure that booming sage grouse are audible to conspecifics during the 

breeding season. Connelly et al. (2000) recommended, “Energy-related facilities should be 

located >3.2 km form active leks” (p. 278). But Clait Braun (pers. comm.), the worlds most 

eminent expert on sage grouse, recommended even larger NSO buffers of 3 miles from lek sites, 

based on the uncertainty of protecting sage grouse nesting habitat with smaller buffers. Thus, 

areas within 3 miles of a sage grouse lek should be put under year-round “No Surface 

Occupancy” stipulations.

Oil and gas development poses perhaps the greatest single threat to sage grouse persistence in 

Wyoming. Walker et al. (2007) found that sage grouse habitat within 4 miles of a lek site was 

important to the persistence of the lek. Conversely, Walker et al. (2007) concluded that leks 

heavily impacted by oil and gas development “typically became inactive within 3-4 years.” 

Harju et al. (2008) found a time lag of 2-10 years post-development, at which point negative 

effects became evident. The BLM should be able to predict, on the basis of the location of oil and 

gas projects both major and minor that are currently underway or are presently being approved, 

which sage grouse leks are likely to become inactive over the short term once development 

begins, and this is a key analysis that needs to be performed in order to properly evaluate the 

prognosis of sage grouse populations in Wyoming and other states being adversely impacted by 

energy development. The same is true for winter habitats. Indeed, Naugle et al. (2006) found that 

a model using habitat variables and coalbed methane development provided a near perfect fit for 

grouse distribution data. In the Powder River Basin, CBM well density within a 4 km2

 area 

provided the best fit for modeling sage grouse habitat use (Doherty et al. 2008). 

Walker et al. (2007) found that coalbed methane development within 2 miles of a sage grouse lek 

had negative effects on lek attendance. Holloran (2005) found that active drilling within 3.1 

miles of a lek reduced breeding populations, while wells already constructed and drilled within 

1.9 miles of the lek reduced breeding populations. One would expect oil shale development to 

track within this range; it is important to note that impacts to nesting hens are a second matter, 

and hens typically nest within 5.3 miles of leks. In Canada, Carpenter et al. (2010) found that 

sage grouse strongly avoided oil and gas infrastructure to a distance of 1.9 km, and avoided twotrack vehicle trails more weakly to a distance of 1.5 km; the closest that a grouse was located to 

a coalbed methane well was 1,293m. Harju et al (2008) found that negative impacts of 

development on lek populations extended 4.8 km (3 miles) from the development. Both Holloran 

(2005) and Walker et al. (2007) documented the extirpation of breeding populations at active 

leks as a result of oil and gas development in the Upper Green River Valley and Powder River 

Basin, respectively. Rowland et al. (2006: A4-3 through A4-7) provide a useful literature review 

of the distance that impacts spread beyond the edge of disturbed areas into adjacent habitats. 

Road construction related to energy development is a primary impact on sage grouse habitat 

from habitat fragmentation and direct disturbance perspectives. Rowland et al. (2006) modeled 

sage grouse distribution, and reached the following conclusions:

“The secondary road network is a highly significant factor influencing processes in this 
Final OSTS PEIS 1194 

landscape and is being developed and expanded rapidly across much of the WBEA (Thomson et 

al. 2005). Secondary roads are being built as part of the infrastructure to support non-renewable 

energy extraction (Chapters 2, 4). For example, within the Jonah Field in the Upper Green River 

Valley, >95% of the area had road densities >2 mi/mi2 (Thomson et al. 2005).” p. 5-

10.Furthermore,

“The dominant feature affecting output of the sage-grouse disturbance model was secondary 

roads, which occupy nearly 8% of the study area (Table 5.2) and are presumed to negatively 

influence an even larger extent.” 

Pp. 6-15 through 16. Holloran (2005) found significant impacts of road traffic on sage grouse 

habitat use, concluding that habitat effectiveness declined in areas adjacent to roads with 

increasing vehicle traffic, documenting the secondary effect referenced by Rowland et al.

A number of researchers have noted a time lag between initiation of mineral development and 

sage grouse population declines. Holloran et al. (2010) noted that yearling males avoided 

lekking near oil and gas infrastructure, and that yearling females avoided nesting within 950m of 

oil and gas infrastructure. Thus, the time lag in populations may be driven by the exodus of 

yearlings from affected areas, while older birds hang on until they die. These researchers stated, 

“Our results...suggest to land managers that current stipulations on development may not 

provide management solutions.”

Lek Buffers

Current BLM nest buffers for oil and gas of 1⁄4 mile for no surface occupancy and 2 miles for 

seasonal stipulations traditionally applied, and still applied outside sage grouse Core Areas, are 

grossly inadequate to maintain sage grouse viability in the planning area. The lek buffer must be 

based not only on maintaining the lek but also the nesting habitat that surrounds the lek. In 

addition, seasonal prohibitions that prohibit only construction activities near leks are pointless: 

If roads or wells are built near leks during the off-season, the resulting regular vehicle traffic 

will have major negative impacts when the sage grouse are present, effectively circumventing 

any mitigative value of delaying construction activities.

As a rule, breeding and nesting activity are concentrated in the habitats adjacent to the lek site. 

In a Montana study, Wallestad and Schladweiler (1974) found that no male sage grouse traveled 

farther than 1.8 km from a lek during the breeding season. But following breeding, males may 

make long migrations to distant summer ranges (Connelly et al. 1988). Hulet et al. (1986) found 

that 10 of 13 hens nested within 1.9 miles of the lek site during the first year of their southern 

Idaho study, with an average distance of 1.7 miles from the lek site; 100% of hens nested within 

2 miles of the lek site during the second year of this study, with an average distance from lek of 

0.5 mile. In Montana, Wallestad and Pyrah (1974) found that 73% of nests were built within 2 

miles of the lek, but only one nest occurred within 0.5 mile of the lek site. 

But in Bates Hole, Wyoming, Holloran (1999) found that average nesting distance from lek site 

was 3.25 km for adults and 5.27 km for yearlings. Wakkinen et al. (1992) cautioned that leks 

were poor predictors of sage grouse nest sites; although 92% of sage grouse nested within 3.2 

km of a lek in this study, sage grouse did not necessarily nest near the same lek where breeding 

took place. 

Lyon (2000) pointed out that quarter-mile lek buffers were insufficient to maintain the viability of 

grouse populations. Several years ago, a multi-state group of fish and game biologists evaluated 

the standard BLM mitigation measures for grouse, and found them wholly inadequate. See 
Final OSTS PEIS 1195 

Attachment 6. Naugle et al. (2010) reinforce this assertion with a litany of examples of 

development compatible with BLM’s standard suite of stipulations that exceed sage grouse 

tolerances. Connelly et al. (2000) recommended that sage grouse habitat should be protected 

within 3.2 km of lek sites under ideal habitat conditions, within 5 km when habitat conditions are 

not ideal, and within 18 km where sage grouse populations are migratory. Furthermore, these 

researchers stated that in areas where 40% or more of the original breeding habitat has been 

lost, all remaining habitat should be protected. Holloran (2005) provided a critical test of BLM’s 

lek buffers’ effectiveness in the Jonah and Pinedale Anticline fields, and found that in the face of 

full-field gas development, finding that extirpation was expected for sage grouse in both fields 

within 19 years if conditions remained the same (and, of course, conditions have become much 

worse for grouse under the continued intensification of drilling and road construction in these 

two fields).

But Beck (1977) cautioned that protection of lek sites only is insufficient to maintain sage grouse 

winter habitats. And Connelly et al. (1988) later cautioned, “Protection of sagebrush habitats 

within a 3.2 km radius of leks may not be sufficient to ensure the protection of year-long habitat 

requirements” (p. 116). And Braun recommended even larger buffers of 3 miles from lek sites 

where surface disturbance and vegetation treatments should be prohibited, based on the 

uncertainty of protecting sage grouse nesting habitat with smaller buffers. See Attachment 7. 

BLM commits to “Avoid leasing and/or development in sage grouse habitats.” DEIS at 4-133. 

Thus, areas within 5 miles of a sage grouse lek and identified wintering areas should be put 

under year-round stipulations preventing habitat alterations for the purposes of oil shale leasing 

and development.

Sage Grouse Predators

A number of raptors and medium-sized mammalian carnivores prey on sage grouse. Sage grouse 

nest predators include bobcats, golden eagles, red fox, badgers, common ravens, and coyotes 

(Heath et al. 1997). Coates and Delahanty (2010) found that increases in raven populations 

were correlated with sage grouse declines in Idaho. Hulet et al. (1986) found that the Uinta 

ground squirrel was the most important nest predator in their southern Idaho study area. 

Interestingly, Mezquida et al (2006) postulated that “coyote control is likely detrimental to sage 

grouse conservation” because coyotes may have a negative influence on foxes, badgers, and 

ravens, which are the most important nest predators for sage grouse. The maintenance of 

appropriate habitat and adequate cover, particularly on nesting and brood-rearing habitats, is 

important to ensure that predation rates do not increase to abnormal levels. In addition to 

maintaining cover, it is important to avoid the construction of tall structures that serve as raptor 

perches and concentrate predation pressure, like powerlines and gas condensate tanks, near 

these habitats. BLM should evaluate in its DEIS the cumulative effects that oil shale will have 

with predation on sage grouse, and the possible changes to interactions which oil shale 

development might cause between sage grouse and their predators.

Monitoring 

The number of active sage grouse leks can be a useful index of sage grouse population trends 

(Emmons and Braun 1984). Autenreith et al. (1982) provide a sound monitoring protocol which 

the BLM should adopt to monitor sage grouse trends. Aerial lek surveys should be undertaken 

each spring to determine presence/absence of grouse on known lek sites and to locate new lek 

sites, and a subset of leks should be censused at regular intervals at dawn throughout the 
Final OSTS PEIS 1196 

breeding season to gain an index of population trend. It is important to note that the number of 

grouse at a lek site can vary greatly from day to day (Beck and Braun 1980), so repeat censuses 

will be needed to establish a mean value. Emmons and Braun (1984) pointed out that timing of 

lek counts may affect number of grouse observed, as lek attendance is not constant and males 

commonly move between leks. These researchers recommended that four separate lek counts be 

taken for each lek, about 10 days apart. Brood counts should be undertaken 11-13 weeks after 

the peak of hatch using chick distress calls, and average number of chicks per hen should be 

derived, using both successful and nullparous hens. The OSTS EIS should include a detailed 

monitoring protocol for recording the response of sage grouse to oil shale development on 

neighboring lands.

We strongly support the BLM’s decision to include a more thorough review of the greater sagegrouse in the PEIS. Notably, while the BLM is taking comments on the scope of this review, the 

agency is also taking comments on the proposed TransWest Express Line transmission project. 

That project, like oil shale and tar sands development, will force the agency to ensure its 

decisions and development activities that follow can protect this important species. Should the 

BLM not protect this species and its numbers continue to decline, all energy development in the 

three-state region, including important renewable energy projects, will be seriously 

compromised.

As the BLM is acutely aware, listing under the ESA is not hypothetical. Since the FPEIS was 

issued in 2008, the USFWS ruled the sage-grouse is “warranted but precluded” under the ESA. 

As the agency cautions, “Evidence suggests that habitat fragmentation and destruction across 

much of the species’ range has contributed to significant population declines over the past 

century. If current trends persist, many local populations may disappear in the next several 

decades, with the remaining fragmented population vulnerable to extinction.”[19] The USFWS 

determined that southwestern and central Wyoming and northwestern Colorado are strongholds 

for sage-grouse, with some of the highest estimated densities of males anywhere in the remaining 

range of the species. The USFWS also identified this high-density sagebrush area as one of the 

highest priorities for conservation consideration as it comprises one of two remaining areas of 

contiguous range essential for the long-term persistence of the species.”[20]

The BLM recognizes the challenge. As the BLM correctly stated in the FPEIS, “[G]reater sagegrouse have experienced long-term declines because of degradation and loss of important 

sagebrush steppe and grassland habitat.”[21] In addition, as the BLM clearly states, “the 

decline in greater sage-grouse populations is believed to be the result of a number of factors, 

including oil and gas wells and their associated infrastructure, traffic, power lines, urbanization, 

recreation, predators, and a decline in the quality and quantity of sagebrush habitat.”[22]

That is why the BLM flagged sage-grouse and oil shale in Instruction Memorandum 2010-

071.[23] The precarious nature of the species survival and the nexus to energy development is 

also why former Wyoming Governor Dave Freudenthal proactively designated core protection 

areas. It is also why in 2007, the Center for Native Ecosystems petitioned for ACEC designation 

all known sage-grouse lek sites within the White River Field Office plus four-mile buffers around 

each site. As provided in the IM, and consistent with Wyoming’s strategy and CNE’s petition, 
Final OSTS PEIS 1197 

one way of to achieve these goals is to establish No Surface Occupancy (NSO).

As noted above, oil and gas development has negatively impacted sage-grouse populations. 

Because oil shale and tar sands would be concurrent with oil and gas and other uses, the PEIS 

must consider the cumulative impacts of the proposed action in combination with these uses. 

Additional details about the sage-grouse

The sage-grouse is a reasonably good umbrella species for many types of sagebrush obligate 

wildlife, from pronghorns and pygmy rabbits to BLM Sensitive songbirds.[24] The maintenance 

of high-quality sagebrush steppe habitats, particularly nesting and wintering habitats, is 

necessary to maintain viable sage-grouse populations. That’s why large sage-grouse Core Areas 

like South Pass and the Kinney Rim/Vermillion have been proposed for protection from future oil 

and gas leasing under the BLM’s Wyoming sage-grouse plan amendment.

To ensure viable sage-grouse populations, it is important to consider nesting, brood-rearing, 

and winter habitats. Holloran and Anderson found that 64% of sage-grouse females nested 

within 5 km of a lek.[25] Connelly proposed comprehensive guidelines regarding the 

management of sage-grouse, focused around the conservation of breeding/nesting habitat, late 

summer brood-rearing habitat, and wintering habitat.[26]

In western Wyoming, Lyon found that sage-grouse moved an average of 1.1 km from the nest site 

for early brood-rearing, and late brood-rearing habitats averaged 4.8 km distant from the early 

brood-rearing areas.[27] In Bates Hole, Holloran found that early brood rearing habitats are 

typified by decreased sagebrush cover and height and increased forb abundance, and movement 

to riparian sites occurred as uplands became desiccated.[28] In addition, the availability of 

forage with a high nutritional content is an important factor determining brood success. Broods 

require forbs, insects and cover for growth, concealment and shade (Autenreith 1985). 

Additionally, mesic meadows and surface waters are focal points of sage-grouse activity during 

certain times of year. Mesic sites associated with springs, seeps, and streams are critical for 

sage-grouse on a year-long basis, and assume even greater importance as brood rearing habitat 

(Autenreith et al. 1982).

As for winter habitats, non-migratory sage-grouse winter on their nesting and brood-rearing 

habitats, while migratory populations may travel some distance to winter on traditional 

wintering areas. A western Wyoming study determined sage-grouse traveled at least 35 km to 

separate wintering grounds.[29] In Colorado’s North Park, Beck found that grouse migrated 5-

20 km away from breeding areas during winter.[30]

Additionally, researchers appear to be unanimous in their recommendations that sage-grouse 

winter habitat be protected from disturbance. According to Beck and Braun, “Areas of winter 

concentrations of sage-grouse need to be documented and afforded maximum protection.”[31] 

Lyon recommended that sage-grouse wintering habitats be placed off-limits to oil and gas 

development.[32] Thus, in the oil shale and tar sands planning areas, the BLM needs to rapidly 

identify sage-grouse winter concentration areas and place the areas off-limits to surface 
Final OSTS PEIS 1198 

disturbance. Since oil shale development would remove all shrubs, development clearly falls into 

the category of activities that should be prohibited by the BLM.

Another issue that warrants attention is vegetation treatments. Because the sage-grouse is 

dependent on sagebrush, sagebrush treatments are likely to have major impacts on sage-grouse 

population viability. The PEIS should evaluate the cumulative effects that oil shale and tar sands 

development would have when combined with past and current vegetation treatment programs. 

The PEIS should also consider the reduction and/or elimination of vegetation treatment projects. 

Call and Maser asserted that the spraying of sage-grouse nesting habitats is deleterious because 

it reduces nest cover from avian predators and suppresses forbs that are important in the sagegrouse diet.[33]

In the PEIS the BLM must also evaluate the effects of industrial activities on sage-grouse 

populations. Strip mining for coal has been shown to impact sage-grouse populations through 

major local decreases in recruitment.[34] Because oil shale development either involves strip 

mining directly, or in the case of in situ methods a level of habitat destruction roughly equivalent 

to strip mining, areas near sage-grouse leks should be avoided. Road development can also lead 

to lek abandonment.[35] In western Wyoming, Lyon found that for sage-grouse leks within 3 km 

of oil and gas developments experienced reduced brood survivorship. 

When evaluating these and other impacts, oil and gas development provides a good starting 

point for the BLM’s analysis. As Molvar explains, over the past 10 years, oil and gas 

development has posed perhaps the greatest threat to sage-grouse viability in the region. Over 

8% of the total range of sage-grouse has already been impacted by oil and gas development; in 

addition, the Wyoming Basin and Colorado Plateau ecoregions are among those areas that have 

the greatest proportion of land under lease (and therefore at risk for future industrialization). In 

a study near Pinedale, Wyoming sage-grouse from disturbed leks where gas development 

occurred within 3 km of the lek site showed lower nesting rates (and hence lower reproduction), 

traveled farther to nest, and selected greater shrub cover than grouse from undisturbed leks.[36] 

Oil shale development, while having a much greater intensity of development – 100% landscape 

destruction rather than the 3-5% of a typical oil and gas field – also involves heavy vehicle 

traffic, human activity at the site of production, and networks of roads and potentially pipelines 

to support it.

Current BLM nest buffers for oil and gas of 1⁄4 mile for NSO and 2 miles for seasonal stipulations 

are grossly inadequate to maintain sage-grouse viability in the planning area. The lek buffer 

must be based not only on maintaining the lek but also the nesting habitat that surrounds the lek. 

In addition, seasonal prohibitions that prohibit only construction activities near leks are 

pointless: If roads or wells are built near leks during the off-season, the resulting regular vehicle 

traffic will have major negative impacts when the sage-grouse are present, effectively 

circumventing any mitigative value of delaying construction activities. 

We therefore recommend that the PEIS and RMP amendments include a 3-mile NSO and no 

surface disturbance/vegetation treatment buffer at minimum (5 miles would be preferable) for 

sage-grouse leks, winter habitat, and other vital sage-grouse habitats.

#7])> F. Sensitive fishes and wildlife

<([#8 [3.7.4.1] BLM explains the greater potential for severe impact for Sensitive species due to 

their smaller population sizes. DEIS at 4-97. But while the Sensitive Species’ potential to be 

impacted is listed in Table 4.8.1-5, nowhere in the EIS are estimates of population size and trend 

for each species presented, nor does the EIS disclose how many populations of each species are 

likely to be extirpated under each alternative as a result of the cumulative impacts of oil shale 
Final OSTS PEIS 1199 

development along with existingb types of development (e.g., oil and gas fields) already 

impacting these species. This presents a difficulty from the NEPA “hard look” perspective.

We are concerned about the impacts of oil shale development on the four species of Endangered 

fishes that inhabit the Colorado River system: the Colorado pikeminnow, bonytail, humpback 

chub, and razorback sucker. The negative impacts of oil shale development on these species (see 

DEIS at 4-122) likely preclude large-scale development except in cases where impacts can be 

isolated from waterways. The DEIS states that indirect effects from development in Wyoming are 

unlikely (id.), however this is not the case because contamination entering waterways in 

Wyoming will inexorably make its way downstream to inhabited stream reaches, and water 

depletions in Wyoming will affect downstream river flows in Colorado and Utah. In addition, 

Wyoming has four species of BLM Sensitive fishes that are potentially impacted by oil shale 

development: the Colorado River cutthroat trout, flannelmouth sucker, bluehead sucker, and 

roundtail chub. Oil shale has many potyential impacts on fishes, including increasing stream 

turbidity, contaminants leaching from tailings or from spills, onstructions to fish movement, and 

nutrient loading associated with increasing human population, should commercial leasing bear 

fruit. DEIS at 4-76. The only reproductively isolated population of bluehead sucker in Wyoming 

is in upper Bitter Creek. DEIS at 3-134. This population deserves special protection.

#8])> G. <([#9 [3.7.3.9] [3.7.3.12] Key big game habitats deserve protection for oil shale and 

tar sands development

Big game crucial winter ranges, parturition areas, and migration corridors are critical to the 

survival and health of big game herds, and deserve protection from oil shale and tar sands 

development. The DEIS summarizes potential impacts of oil shale development in such areas. 

DEIS at 4-85, and see 4-87. The “debilitating stress” referenced in the DEIS can lead to 

population-level impacts, such as the 60% drop in mule deer wintering on and near the Pinedale 

Mesa as a result of the Pinedale Anticline gas project. The DEIS states that oil shale operations 

would displace wildlife for “several decades” but that “Reclamation, which would occur in 

parallel with or after extraction activities are completed, would reduce or eliminate ongoing 

impacts to the extent practicable by recreating [sic] habitats and ecological conditions that 

would be suitable to wildlife species.” DEIS at 4-82. We view this statement as an unreasonably 

optimistic one in light of research indicating that Wyoming big sagebrush can take up to a 

century to recover following oil and gas activities. Oil shale and tar sands leasing should not 

occur within 0.5 mile of big game crucial winter ranges, parturition areas, or migration 

corridors.

The Draft PEIS does not include baseline information on population size and trend for any big 

game species. See DEIS at 3-163 through 165. It also does not include any estimates for changes 

to population by alternative. This would seem pose a ‘hard look’ issue under NEPA.

#9])> H. Raptor nest sites should be protected from oil shale development

<([#10 [3.7.3.1] [5] [3.7.3.9] Nesting birds of prey are particularly vulnerable to disturbance by 

industrial activities of all kinds. Yet the OSTS DEIS has scant analysis on the impacts of oil 

shale development on raptors in particular, and does not include sufficiently strong mitigation 

measures. Oil shale development, being particularly noisy and heavy impact by nature, would be 

expected to be on the more sever end of the spectrum. We recommend attaching mitigation 

measures requiring not less than a one-mile no surface disturbance buffer for active raptor nests 

generally and a corresponding two-mile buffer for ferruginous hawks, which are especially 

sensitive to disturbance. #10])>

<([#11 [3.7.3.1] [3.7.3.9] [3.7.4.1] Raptor populations nationwide are on the rebound following 
Final OSTS PEIS 1200 

declines based largely on insecticide spraying, predator poisoning programs, and shooting in the 

1960s and 1970s. Raptors of special concern include the golden eagle, prairie falcon, peregrine 

falcon, ferruginous hawk, merlin, and burrowing owl. Because they require large natural areas 

for survival, raptors may be good umbrella species for the protection of entire ecological 

communities (Burnham and Holroyd 1995). 

Importance of Cliff HabitatsCliffs provide important nesting substrates preferred by a broad 

spectrum of raptors. A study near Medicine Bow, Wyoming found that cliffs provided the single 

most important nesting habitat for raptor species in the region, and 93% of all prairie falcon 

nests were found on cliffs, despite the comparative rarity of this landform in the Medicine Bow 

area (MacLaren et al. 1988). In a Utah study, prairie falcons and golden eagles nested 

exclusively on cliff sites (Smith and Murphy 1982). Thus, in terms of value to nesting raptors, 

areas with cliff topography may be of heightened conservation importance.

Importance of Prairie Dogs to Raptor PopulationsPrairie dogs can be an important mainstay of 

raptor diets. In a study near Medicine Bow, Wyoming, white-tailed prairie dogs made up 38% of 

the biomass in the diets of prairie falcons, 18% for golden eagles and red-tailed hawks, and 22% 

of ferruginous hawk diet biomass (MacLaren et al. 1988). Prairie dog colonies are also 

important to the survival of raptor populations on their wintering areas. Jones (1989) studied 

winter raptor aggregations on the High Plans of Colorado “Aggregations of ferruginous hawks, 

red-tailed hawks, and bald eagles were frequently observed in the vicinity of prairie dog 

colonies.” p. 256. In this study, golden eagles, ferruginous hawks, and red-tailed hawks were 

observed taking prairie dogs, while bald eagles and northern harriers competed for the captured 

prairie dogs. Declines in prairie dog colonies as a result of a plague epidemic resulted in a more 

than 60% decline in wintering bald eagles, ferruginous hawks, and red-tailed hawks (Ibid.). 

Numbers of wintering ferruginous hawks also declined dramatically following a crash in prairie 

dog populations in New Mexico (Cully 1991). Thus, full recovery of prairie dog populations 

would be the optimal outcome for maintaining and recovering raptor populations.

Effects of Management Activities and Development on RaptorsThe primary impact to raptor 

populations is direct disturbance of raptors on the nest, leading to reductions or loss of viability 

for eggs or nestlings. Disturbance of nesting raptors may cause nest abandonment, damage to 

the eggs, subject eggs or nestlings to cooling, overheating, or dehydration leading to mortality, 

prevent young nestlings from receiving sufficient feedings to remain viable, and cause premature 

fledging (Parrish et al. 1994). Thus, the BLM should establish adequate nest buffers (on the 

order of 2 miles in diameter for ferruginous hawks and one mile for other species) around nest 

sites, preventing all construction of developments (such as facilities and roads) that would lead 

to future disturbance of nesting raptors through focusing human activities in these areas. 

Seasonal restrictions are insufficient; a well or road constructed outside the nesting season is 

still likely to lead to nest abandonment or reductions in recruitment due to disturbance from 

vehicle traffic that does occur during the nesting period.

The overall landscape-scale effects of widespread industrialization threaten the viability of 

raptor populations through habitat loss and fragmentation. Nest buffers currently in force as 

standard oil and gas stipulations are unlikely to safeguard the viability of native raptors; a more 

conservative approach is needed in order to safeguard raptor viability in this region. White and 

Thurow (1985) stated: “We would prefer to see ecosystems kept intact (cf. Wagner 1977) rather 

than divided into isolated islands set aside for nesting raptors, because aspects of general land 

use other than restricted areas also affect the health of raptor populations” (p. 21). Thus, not 

only should nest buffers be implemented, but the overall integrity of the landscape should be 
Final OSTS PEIS 1201 

maintained (or improved in areas where it is currently degraded) in order to better provide for 

raptor viability.

Powerline CorridorsPowerline towers are likely to concentrate raptor nesting and perching 

activities, to the potential detriment of prey species. Transmission towers may be particularly 

attractive as nest sites for ravens, and Steenhof et al. (1993) reported that 133 pairs of ravens 

had colonized transmission towers on a single stretch of powerline in Idaho during its first 10 

years of existence. Gilmer and Wiehe (1977) found that nest success for ferruginous hawks was 

slightly lower for transmission towers than other nest sites, and noted that high winds sometimes 

blew tower nests away. Steenhof et al. (1993) also found that transmission tower nests tended to 

be blown down, but found that nest success was not lower on towers for ferruginous hawks and 

was significantly higher on towers for golden eagles. In North Dakota, Gilmer and Stewart 

(1983) found that ferruginous hawk nest success was highest for powerline towers and lowest for 

nests in hardwood trees. Thus, although powerlines can be designed to reduce impacts to 

raptors, these corridors should be sited more than 2 miles away from prairie dog colonies and 

sage grouse leks to prevent major impacts to these sensitive prey species.

Golden Eagles

Golden eagles, their nests and young are strictly protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle 

Protection Act (16 USC 668a-d). This species is very popular with the wildlife viewing public, 

and conversely has historically suffered from shooting as well as poisoning directed at 

terrestrial predators. The maintenance of viable golden eagle populations should be an 

important consideration in the new RMP(s).

Conservation efforts should focus on protecting nest sites and important foraging areas, such as 

prairie dog colonies.Golden eagles are highly territorial. Even when surface-disturbing 

activities such as strip mining are located away from golden eagle nest sites, the destruction of 

important foraging habitats, such as prairie dog colonies, within the territory of nesting pairs 

can be a major problem for the viability of nesting golden eagles (Tyus and Lockhart 1979). In 

New Mexico, plague-related declines in prairie dog abundance from 30 per hectare to less than 

1 per hectare triggered a decline in the nesting population of golden eagles (Cully 1991). Thus, 

golden eagle protection is linked with the maintenance and recovery of prairie dog colonies.

Ferruginous Hawks

The ferruginous hawk has been experiencing declines across the continent for the past 30 years, 

although Wyoming is often viewed as a stronghold for the species. The ferruginous hawk has 

been petitioned for listing under the Endangered Species Act in the past, and has also been 

identified by the Wyoming Game and Fish Department as a Species of Special Concern (Oakleaf 

et al. 1996). 

Prey BaseThe ferruginous hawk has been identified as a species dependent on prairie dogs, and 

ferruginous hawk populations have shown declines in response to prairie dog population 

declines (Kotliar et al. 1999, and see Jones 1989). Olendorff (1993) pointed out that prairie dogs 

and ground squirrels were the most important prey in some areas, while hares and rabbits 

predominated in the ferruginous hawk diet in others. In several studies from central Utah, 

ferruginous hawks were found to be highly dependent on jackrabbits as prey, and hawk 

population fluctuations were closely tied to the rise and fall of jackrabbit populations (Woffinden 
Final OSTS PEIS 1202 

and Murphy 1977, Smith and Murphy1978). The proximate cause of this hawk population 

decline was linked to a decrease in nesting effort and an increase in nomadism in ferruginous 

hawks following the jackrabbit decline (Woffinden and Murphy 1989). In southeastern Idaho, a 

jackrabbit population crash was also implicated in a decline of the ferruginous hawk population 

(Powers 1976). 

In contrast, a study on the Canadian high plains found that ferruginous hawk population density 

and fledging success were consistently correlated with the abundance of Richardson’s ground 

squirrels, and negatively correlated with poisoning efforts (Schmutz and Hungle 1989). On the 

plains of South Dakota, thirteen-lined ground squirrels dominated the ferruginous hawk diet, 

while meadowlarks, pocket gophers, and jackrabbits also played important roles (Blair and 

Schitoskey 1982). In southwestern Idaho, Steenhof and Kochert (1985) found that ferruginous 

hawks were heavily dependent on Townsend’s ground squirrels, and that squirrel declines linked 

to drought resulted in depressed nest success for the local ferruginous hawk population. In 

southern Wyoming, ferruginous hawks have a fairly diverse diet. In a study near Medicine Bow, 

MacLaren et al. (1988) found that jackrabbits contributed 48% to the ferruginous hawk diet 

biomass, white-tailed prairie dogs 22%, and Wyoming ground squirrels 16%.

Secondary prey may attain paramount importance during prey declines, droughts, and other 

stochastic events. Secondary prey species become critical to maintaining hawk population 

numbers when primary prey species crash (Olendorff 1993). Smith and Murphy (1978) found 

that ferruginous hawk diets shifted increasingly to rodents as jackrabbits became scarce. Thus, it 

is important to maintain both primary and secondary prey bases to guarantee ferruginous hawk 

viability over the long term.

Nesting HabitsFerruginous hawks use the same nest from year to year and also build alternate 

nests within the same territory (Smith and Murphy 1978). In the Centennial Valley of Montana, 

where cliffs and suitable ground nesting sites are unavailable, ferruginous hawks commonly nest 

in aspens and willows (Restani 1991). In eastern Washington, ferruginous hawks nested 

primarily on basalt outcrops and in junipers (Bechard et al. 1990). In central Utah, Smith and 

Murphy (1978) noted cliff, rock outcrop, and tree nest sites (particularly juniper). Also in Utah, 

Smith and Murphy (1982) found that ferruginous hawks nested most often in junipers (53% of 

nest sites) but also used rock outcrops (24%) and ground nests (14%). A subsequent study in the 

same region found 66% of nests in juniper trees, 32% on rock outcrops, and 2% on the ground 

(Woffinden and Murphy 1983). In North Dakota, small clumps or rows of hardwood trees were 

the most common ferruginous hawk nest sites, while ground nests atop rugged moraines made up 

22% of the nest sites and powerline towers accounted for 18% of ferruginous hawk nests (Gilmer 

and Stewart 1983). On the plains of South Dakota, Blair and Schitoskey (1982) found that all 

ferruginous hawks built ground nests, most of them in rough terrain. Similarly, in southeastern 

Idaho, all ferruginous hawk nests were ground nests built atop bluffs with the exception of a 

single juniper nest (Powers 1976).

Ferruginous hawks will also nest on man-made structures. Niemuth (1992) documented 

ferruginous hawks nesting on the roof of an abandoned shed as well as on an idle center-pivot 

irrigation apparatus in Wyoming.

Ground-nesting ferruginous hawks can be quite susceptible to predation. Foxes and coyotes 

have been documented as important predators of ferruginous hawk ground nests (Blair and 

Schitoskey 1982). The availability of elevated topographical features may be important to nest 

success for this species.

Effects of DevelopmentFerruginous hawks are among the most sensitive of all raptor species, 
Final OSTS PEIS 1203 

and are prone to nest abandonment if disturbed (Parrish et al. 1994). Nest abandonment, egg 

mortality, parental neglect, and premature fledging are common results of disturbing 

ferruginous hawk nests (White and Thurow 1985). Smith and Murphy (1978) noted that 

increased human access is a primary threat to the viability of ferruginous hawk nest success. For 

their central Utah study, these researchers found that “in all instances of nesting failure where 

the cause could definitely be determined, humans were at fault” (p. 87). White and Thurow 

(1985) found that walking disturbance and vehicle use had the greatest effect on ferruginous 

hawk nest success, while vehicle use had the greatest flushing distance. Instead of becoming 

habituated, most hawks in this study increased their flushing distances with repeated disturbance 

(ibid.). In addition, disturbed nests averaged one less offspring fledged per nest when compared 

to undisturbed control nests. Oakleaf et al. (1996) pointed out that the cumulative effects of oil 

and gas development may impact large areas of ferruginous hawk habitat. 

White and Thurow (1985) recommended quarter-mile nest buffers during years of prey 

abundance, but noted that sensitivity to disturbance increased when prey were scarce, and 

recommended that nest buffers be “considerably larger” during years of prey scarcity.Although 

Olendorff (1993) recommended buffer zones of only 1⁄2 mile for ferruginous hawk nests, he 

recommended much larger buffers during periods of prey scarcity. Because it is impractical to 

move roads away from nest sites when prey bases decline, the appropriate way to ensure the 

persistence of ferruginous hawks at traditional nesting sites is to use large buffers within which 

ground-disturbing activities are prohibited. Cerovski et al. (2001) reviewed the issue of 

appropriate nest buffers and recommended a 1-mile buffer, kept free from human disturbance. 

Thus, under this Alternative, 1-mile buffers prohibiting surface disturbance should apply to 

ferruginous hawk nest sites as well as all other raptor nest sites.

Burrowing Owl

Nationwide, the burrowing owl is a species on the decline. As of 1997, over half of the agencies 

across North America tracking burrowing owl population trends reported declining populations, 

while none reported increasing populations (James and Espie 1997). Burrowing owl populations 

are highly susceptible to stochastic disturbances such as drought, and thus may decline more 

rapidly than would be predicted on the basis of demographic factors alone (Johnson 1997). In 

Wyoming, data suggest an overall population decline, with 17.5% reoccupancy of historic sites, 

but the spotty quality of historical data makes comparisons difficult (Korfanta et al. 2001). The 

burrowing owl has been identified as a species of concern by both the BLM and the Wyoming 

Game and Fish Department.

Dependence on Prairie Dog ColoniesBurrowing owls are in a select group of wildlife most 

closely tied to prairie dog colonies, and prairie dog burrows are preferred nest sites for 

burrowing owls. Thompson (1984) reported that owls preferred abandoned prairie dog burrows 

in the early stages of succession. Green and Anthony (1989) found that nest burrows lined with 

dung were less susceptible to predation, perhaps explaining this unusual behavioral attribute. 

On the Great Plains, Sidle et al. (n.d.) found that burrowing owls actively selected for active 

prairie dog towns, and showed much lower usage of towns that had been decimated by plague, 

shooting, or poisoning. Desmond and Savidge (1999) found that burrowing owl nest success was 

positively correlated with density of active prairie dog burrows, and recommended preserving 

prairie dog colonies to maintain the viability of burrowing owl populations. And in the Columbia 
Final OSTS PEIS 1204 

Basin, where prairie dogs are absent, burrowing owls nested in badger burrows, but as a result 

were subjected to badger predation (Green and Anthony 1989). Thus, the ongoing loss of prairie 

dog colonies has undoubtedly been a prime factor in the decline of the burrowing owl.

In the prosective oil shale area, burrowing owls are closely tied to white-tailed prairie dogs. 

Thompson (1984) found that burrowing owls near Casper were associated with white-tailed 

prairie dogs, while near Torrington they were associated with black-tailed prairie dogs. But in 

eastern Wyoming, fewer than half of the nesting burrowing owls were associated with active 

prairie dog towns (Korfanta et al. 2001).

Hunting Habits

Burrowing owls hunt most actively during the twilight hours (Thompson 1984). In the Columbia 

Basin, pocket mice are the primary mammalian prey (Green and Anthony 1989). In Wyoming, 

insects are the most frequent prey item, but small mammals dominate the dietary biomass 

(Thompson 1984). Due to the importance of insects (particularly grasshoppers) in the diets of 

burrowing owls, the widespread use of pesticides would most likely result in impacts to 

burrowing owl viability #11])> . 

I. <([#12 [3.9.4] Historic Sites and Trails must be protected from oil shale development

Under the national Historic Preservation Act, BLM must protect not only properties eligible for 

listing on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), but also their historic settings. 

Because oil shale development, either in the strip mine and retort form, or the in situ form with 

pads covered densely in wells and pipes, are inconsistent with the historic settings of eligible 

properties, they will have major impacts on the settings of such properties and must be excluded 

from areas within view of eligible properties. Oil shale operations would often “dominate the 

view” from a visual resources perspective. DEIS at 4-138. At minimum, oil shale leasing should 

not be allowed within 5 miles of NRHP-eligible properties. This is the “foregroundmiddleground” area where project impacts can be seen in detail. DEIS at 4-137. Both the visual 

impact and noise associated with oil shale operations has the potential to result in major impacts 

to the settings of historic properties. We would feel more comfortable with BLM’s commitment to 

treat lands within 15 miles of historic trails as VRM Class II for the purposes of oil shale 

development (DEIS at 4-158) if this included assurances that oil shale activities would be 

allowed in this area only if they were invisible from the trail in question, given the large size and 

heavy visual impact of oil shale operations.

In the Rawlins Field Office, the Cherokee Historic Trail is one such eligible property which 

occurs within the Geologically Propsective Area for Oil Shale. DEIS at 3-34, and see Figure 

3.1.1-13. Another property in the Rawlins Field Office which we believe to be eligible is the 

abandoned Cow Creek Ranch (also known as the Jolley Ranch), located at T14N R98W Sec. 27, 

within the Adobe Town Dispersed Recreation Use Area. Finally, there is a historic structure in 

the vicinity of Kinney Spring (T15N R98W Sec. 8) which may also be eligible for the National 

Register. In the Rock Springs Field Office, historic trails passing through the oil shale 

Prospective Area are noted under Visual Resources in the EIS. DEIS at 3-207. In addition, there 

are many archaeological sites that are NRHP-eligible, and their settings warrant protection as 

well. See DEIS at 3-224. BLM must consult with applicable tribes to ensure that Traditional 

Cultural Properties get similar protections for their settings #12])> .
Final OSTS PEIS 1205 

J. <([#13 [3.8.2] Visual Resources

The area proposed for oil shale leasing encompasses some of the most scenic landscapes in 

Wyoming’s fabled Red Desert. Included within this area are the spectacular badlands of Adobe 

Town and The Haystacks, the breathtaking swell of the Kinney Rim, the juniper-clad hills of the 

Powder Rim, the varied badlands and dunes of the Jack Morrow Hills area, and the buttes and 

canyons of the Flaming Gorge area. These ares are described in detail elsewhere in these 

comments. The Rawlins Field Office is currently undergoing a Visual Resources Management 

plan amendment to address the deficiency in its 2009 Resource Management Plan and failure of 

the associated EIS to adequately address visual resources. The Rock Springs Field Office is 

currently undergoing an RMP revision which will address visual resources. For both field 

offices, a Visual Resource Inventory was completed in 2011. In the interim, lands with Scenic 

Quality Ratings of A or B should be granted protection from oil shale leasing.

Given the commitment in the DEIS to site oil shale activities outside the viewsheds of Key 

Obesravtion Points (KOPs) and sensitive areas, where possible (DEIS at 4-156), these features 

should be defined and listed in the decision document. KOPs should include points atop the 

following promontories: Skull Creek Rim, Adobe Town Rim, the Haystacks, Kinney Rim, Powder 

Rim, Steamboat Mountain, Joe Hay Rim, Oregon Buttes, Little Mountain, and Devils 

Playground. Sensitive areas should be defined to include the Killpecker Dune Field, Boar’s 

Tusk, Honeycomb Buttes, Whitehorse Creek badlands, and Red Creek Badlands. #13])>

K. Groundwater

<([#14 [5] In situ oil shale operations can result in groundwater impacts when groundwater 

comes into contact with retorted zones. DEIS at 4-195. What types of mitigation measures will 

be required to prevent the excursion of contaminated groundwater from in situ sites after 

production has ceased? For example, in Shell’s Mahogany Ridge project, the retorted area is 

(theoretically, at least) isolated by a “freeze wall.” However, this freeze wall requires active 

maintenance. What will happen when companies like Shell walk away from projects like these? 

Will isolation barriers be required to be maintained permanently? The Mitigation Measures 

(DEIS at 4-196) are silent on this point, indicating that additional safeguards need to be put in 

place. 

#14])>

L. <([#15 [6.1.1] Wyoming lands should meet the same 25-foot-thickness/25 gallon per ton 

criteria for leasing as in Colorado and Utah

In the original Oil Shale/Tar Sand PEIS, the BLM approved minimum criteria for leasing oil 

shale in Colorado and Utah at 25 feet in thickness and 25 gallons per ton (GPT), in order to 

ensure economic feasibility. However, the agency approved a different standard for Wyoming, 

15 feet of thickness and 15 gallons per ton. DPEIS at 2-13. In its original Final EIS on oil shale, 

BLM stated, “Of course, the most geologically prospective deposits in Wyoming are those 

exceeding 25 gallons per ton and 25 feet in thickness.” Original FPEIS at 4-281. These are by 

definition more geologically prospective than deposits averaging 15 feet thick and 15 gallons per 

ton. It is illogical for the BLM to assign a different standard for Wyoming oil shales as the 

geologic properties do not change when one crosses the state line. Wyoming shows a much 

greater “geologically prospective” oil shale area by square miles than either Utah or Colorado 

precisely because the standards have been lowered for Wyoming. Wyoming has the lowestquality oil shale deposits of all three states. BLM was right in making deposits unavailable for 
Final OSTS PEIS 1206 

leasing in Colorado in Utah that were less than the 25 ft./25 GPT threshold, but wrong to lower 

the standard in Wyoming to 15 ft./15 GPT. By avoiding this mistake in the new OSTS leasing 

decision, the BLM can at the same time provide collateral protections from ill-considered oil 

shale projects for lands with wilderness characteristics, key sage grouse habitats, and big game 

crucial ranges and migration corridors in Wyoming which are underlain by uneconomic oil 

shale deposits.

In the PEIS, the BLM must provide a rational explanation for why the 15 gpt/15-ft threshold was 

used in Wyoming while a different standard was applied in Colorado and Utah. BLM’s response 

to this issue from the original FEIS is as follows:

“In Section 369 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, Congress directed the Secretary of the Interior 

to complete a PEIS for commercial leasing on public lands with an emphasis on the most 

geologically prospective lands in the States of Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming. There are 

differences in the quality of the oil shale resource between the three States, so to meet Congress’ 

direction to look at all three States, a different standard was used for Wyoming.” Original 

FPEIS at 4-480.

BLM’s response implies that the different standard for Wyoming was necessary to permit oil 

shale leasing in Wyoming due to the absence of oil shale deposits of 25 feet in thickness 

averaging 25 gallons per ton. This, however, is not the case, as evidenced by a Wyoming State 

Geological Survey Analysis while delineates oil shale deposits in Wyoming which exceed 25 feet 

in thickness and 25 gallons per ton. See Attachment 8. 

The arbitrary and capricious nature of a lower leasing standard for Wyoming was also raised in 

the comments of Glen Miller, a proponent of oil shale development. This commentor states, 

“The different grade-thickness criteria established for ‘ore’ in Utah, Wyoming and Colorado is 

unusual, and is not logical, unless some undescribed State-specific regulatory or incentive 

features apply. The ‘economics’ of determining ‘ore’ are fairly rigorous; if 15 feet of 15gpt rock 

is not ‘ore’ in Colorado, how can it be ‘ore’ in other states?” 

Original FPEIS at 4-711.

In response to this comment, BLM stated:

“00139-009: The standards developed by the USGS Conservation Division, and subsequently 

adopted by the BLM, use 15 gallons per ton and 15 ft thick as the prospectively valuable 

classification standard for oil shale resources. The USGS further defined oil shale leasing area 

criteria on a regional basis as 25 gallons per ton and 25 feet thick.” Original FEIS at 4-720. 

This response does not explain why a 15-foot thickness/15 gallons per ton threshold was selected 

for leasing in Wyoming rather than the 25-foot thickness/25 gallons per ton applied for Colorado 

and Utah. 

BLM’s analysis was based on Fischer assays of well logs and cuttings perfomed in the 1970s and 

1980s. According to the agency, “In Wyoming, the most geologically prospective oil shale 
Final OSTS PEIS 1207 

resources were defined on the basis of detailed analyses of available oil shale assay data (Wiig 

2006a,b).” DPEIS at 1-2, Footnote 2. Wiig (2006a and b) are listed respectively as personal 

communications from S. Wiig of the Rock Springs BLM Field Office to P. Perlowitz of the 

Wyoming State Office on June 13, 2006; and to K.P. Smith of the Argonne National Laboratory 

on June 27, 2006. We append the email to P. Perlowitz to these comments as Attachment 9. 

In a telephone conversation between Steve Wiig of the Rock Springs Field Office and Erik 

Molvar of Biodiversity Conservation Alliance on January 26, 2009 at 4:40 pm, Mr. Wiig stated 

that he used the same Fischer analyses as were used in the 2008 USGS Open File Report for his 

analysis of oil shale prospectivity in Wyoming, which he then shared with Argonne National 

Laboratory. According to Wiig, “I had every assay that was available for that area.” Wiig 

reported having no record of an email between himself and Kathy Smith of Argonne National 

Lab for June 27th (he stated that “quite a bit of correspondence was going on at that particular 

time” between Wiig and Smith), but was able to locate the referenced email to Phil Perlowitz. 

“We basically used the USGS standard” in recommending oil shale areas, he stated. The memo 

of July 26, 2006 between Wiig and Smith confirms this interpretation.

Wiig (2006a) states in relevant part, 

“According to my conversation with Charlie Beecham and the information that was included in 

the Oil Shale Development RFD writeup, oil shale zones with an average quality less than 20 

gal/ton are not considered likely to be developed. Under this scenario, you can eliminate 

virtually 90% of the known oil shale deposits in Wyoming from further consideration. So the 

question becomes: just how large an area do you want to analyze in the PEIS and under what 

criteria?” 

Emphasis added.

Three observations can be made from this statement: (1) the 15-foot thickness/15 gallon per ton 

threshold for oil shale leasing in Wyoming is insufficiently high to support commercial oil shale 

development, (2) there are in fact oil shale deposits in Wyoming that are above the 20 gpt/20 ft 

threshold that might be commercially viable, and (3) BLM has inflated the acreage available for 

oil shale leasing in Wyoming in the face of commercial infeasibility of developing oil shale 

deposits at the lower end of the spectrum, and instead based the offering on “how much of an 

area [they] want[ed] to analyze.”

In October of 2008, Scott Quillinan of the Wyoming State Geological Survey prepared a spatial 

analysis of oil shale deposits 25 feet thick averaging 25 gallons per ton or more in Wyoming. See 

Attachment 9. This analysis was based on data contained in the USGS Open-File Report 2008-

1152, titled “Fischer assays of oil-shale drill cores and rotary cuttings from the greater Green 

River Basin, Southwestern Wyoming.” FEIS at 7-181 also indicates that BLM used Fischer 

assay data from wellbores in the Green River Basin, indicating that this identical dataset was 

available to them at the time of the FPEIS. The WSGS analysis shows a substantial acreage of 

Wyoming lands which meet the threshold of 25 gallons per ton over 25 feet of thickness, the 

threshold set for oil shale leasing in Utah and Colorado under the OSTS PEIS. Thus, it is 

completely unnecessary to lower the threshold for oil shale leasing in Wyoming below 25 gallons 
Final OSTS PEIS 1208 

per ton over a 25-foot stratigraphic interval. Thus, the BLM needs to apply the same standard 

for Wyoming as in Utah and Colorado and still meet the directives of the Energy Policy Act.

According to Section 369(d)(1) of the Energy Policy Act,

“...the Secretary shall complete a programmatic environmental impact statement for a 

commercial leasing program for oil shale and tar sands resources on public lands, with an 

emphasis on the most geologically prospective lands within each of the States of Colorado, Utah, 

and Wyoming.”

Emphasis added. It is abundantly clear that oil shale deposits of less than 25 feet in thickness 

and 25 gallons per ton are not geologically prospective, regardless of which state they are found 

in.

Having a different set of standards for leasing oil shale deposits across state lines would violate 

the intent of the Energy Policy Act in a manner that is arbitrary and capricious and an abuse of 

discretion. In the review of Federal agency action, courts apply the standard of review set forth 

in the Administrative Procedures Act (“APA”): “The reviewing court shall – (1) compel agency 

action unlawfully withheld or unreasonably delayed; and (2) hold unlawful and set aside agency 

action, findings, or conclusions found to be – (A) arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or 

otherwise not in accordance with law...[or] (D) without observance of procedure required by 

law.” 5 U.S.C. § 706. See also Friends of the Bow v. Thompson, 124 F.3d 1210, 1215 (10th Cir. 

1997) (Court reiterated that under the APA, it must set aside agency action that is “arbitrary, 

capricious, an abuse of discretion, or not otherwise in accordance with the law”). In Friends of 

the Bow, the Tenth Circuit explained what constitutes arbitrary and capricious agency action:

Generally, an agency decision will be considered arbitrary and capricious if “the agency had 

relied on factors which Congress had not intended it to consider, entirely failed to consider an 

important aspect of the problem, offered an explanation for its decision that runs counter to the 

evidence before the agency, or is so implausible that it could not be ascribed to a difference in 

view or the product of agency expertise.”

Friends of the Bow, 124 F.3d at 1215 (internal citations omitted). The NEPA analysis affords 

BLM an informed basis to ensure a rational connection between the facts found and the 

decisions made; a basis that also allows BLM to prevent permanent impairment, prevent 

unnecessary or undue degradation, minimize adverse environmental impacts, and comply with 

the Public Trust Duty. 43 U.S.C. §§ 1702I, 1732(b)), 1732(d)(2)(A). 

An agency action is arbitrary and capricious if the agency has “entirely failed to consider an 

important aspect of the problem, offered an explanation for its decision that runs counter to the 

evidence before the agency, or is so implausible that it could not be ascribed to a difference in 

view or the product of agency expertise.” Motor Vehicle Mfrs Ass’n of U.S. v. State Farm Mut. 

Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 42-43 (1983); The Lands Council v. Powell, 395 F.3d 1019, 1026 
Final OSTS PEIS 1209 

(9th Cir. 2005); DIRECTV, Inc. v. FCC, 110 F.3d 816, 826 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (quoting State 

Farm, 463 U.S. at 43). Although a Court’s review under this standard is deferential, the agency 

must nonetheless “articulate a rational connection between the facts found and the conclusions 

made.” Or. Natural Res. Council v. Lowe, 109 F.3d 521, 526 (9th Cir. 1992). Even when 

heightened deference may be warranted to an agency’s “scientific” or “technical” conclusions, 

the “presumption of agency expertise may be rebutted if the decisions, even though based on 

scientific expertise, are not reasoned.” Oregon Natural Desert Ass’n v. Shuford, 2007 

WL1695162, *3 (D. Or. June 8, 2007) citing Greenpeace v. Nat’l Marine Fisheries Serv., 80 

F.Supp. 2d 1137, 1147 (W.D. Wash. 2000). We urge BLM to avoid an arbitrary and capricious, 

and logically unsupportable, outcome by mandating the 25 GPT/ 25 ft. threshold for all three 

states in the PEIS.

In light of the fact that oil shale deposits exceeding 25 gpt/25 ft exist in Wyoming in appreciable 

areal extent, the 25 gallons per ton/25-foot thickness threshold for oil shale leasing could have 

been applied in Wyoming as it was in Utah and Colorado, and the fact that the BLM has been 

unable to provide scientific or legal justification for the differing thresholds, the BLM must raise 

the standard for lands available for oil shale leasing in Wyoming to 25 feet in thickness and 25 

gallons per ton. We fully expect this outcome to be analyzed in detail in at least one action 

alternative per NEPA’s requirements to analyze a full range of reasonable alternatives, and urge 

the BLM to adopt this approach in its final decision on oil shale leasing. In addition to oil shale 

development, there are important wildlife and recreational resources at stake, and this leveling 

of the playing field among states will also provide a better balance of multiple uses and resource 

values in Wyoming, while at the same time prevent industry from wasting capital and impacts to 

the land on futile prospecting in areas with low-quality oil shale deposits. #15])>

Conclusions

<([#16 [2.3.1] Given the potential for massive impacts on land, wildlife, water, and air resources 

inherent to oil shale development, we recommend the implementation of Alternative 3 as the 

final decision in the OSTS EIS process. We appreciate the opportunity to comment. Please keep 

us informed of all future opportunities to have input into this process. #16])>

[1] Final Order at 18. Available online at 

http://deq.state.wy.us/eqc/orders/Rare%20or%20Uncommon%20Closed%20Cases/07-

1101%20Adobe%20Town/Adobe%20Final.pdf (last accessed April 20, 2011).

[2]http://americasgreatoutdoors.gov/report/

[3]King, Clarence. 1870. Report of the Geological Exploration of the Fortieth Parallel. 

Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.

[4] BLM 1991. Wyoming statewide wilderness study report: Wilderness Study Area specific 

recommendations. Cheyenne: BLM Wyoming State Office.

[5] BLM 1981. Overland Planning Unit, URA Step III (Present Situation), .48 Wilderness 

Resources. Rawlins: BLM.

[6] BLM 1991, at 184.

[7] BLM 1981, at 4.

[8] BLM 1991, at 187.

[9] BLM 1991, at 188.

[10]BLM 2003. Draft Environmental Impact Statement, Desolation Flats Natural Gas Field 
Final OSTS PEIS 1210 

Development Project. Rawlins Field Office, Figure 3-1, at I-7.

[11] BLM 2001. Decision Record/FONSI/Environmental Assessment, Veritas Haystacks 

Geophysical Project. Rock Springs Field Office.

[12] BLM 2003. Draft Environmental Impact Statement, Desolation Flats Natural Gas Field 

Development Project. Rawlins Field Office. Figure 3-2, p. I-10

[13] BLM 2005. Environmental Assessment for the Cherokee West 3D Seismic Project. Rawlins 

Field Office.

[14]Protect Adobe Town, today, Rawlins Daily Times, January 19, 2006, p. 7

[15] Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan for Public Lands 

Administered by the Bureau of Land Management Rawlins Field Office, BLM, 2008, at Appendix 

37, and see Maps 2-17 and 2-58.

[16] FPEIS, at 1-10.

[17] BLM Manual 8431 – Visual Resource Contrast Rating, Appendix 2.

[18] Online at 

http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/wo/Planning_and_Renewable_Resources/fish__wil

dlife_and.Par.9151.File.dat/Sage-Grouse_Strategy.pdf

[19]http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/species/birds/sagegrouse/ (last accessed April 27, 

2011)

[20] 75 Fed. Reg. 13910, 13950 (March 23, 2010).

[21] FPEIS, at 3-148.

[22] FPEIS, at 3-149.

[23] IM 2010-071 provides: Screen new oil shale lease applications to identify whether the 

proposed leasing area includes priority habitat. If so, alert the applicant as early as possible 

that, pending NEPA analysis, the application may be delayed or denied or that lease stipulations 

and project conditions of approval may be imposed that designate avoidance areas or include 

No Surface Occupancy restrictions, for example.

[24] Mezquiza et al

[25] Holloran, M.J., and S.H. Anderson. 2005. Spatial distribution of greater sage-grouse nests 

in relatively contiguous sagebrush habitats. Condor 107:742-752.

[26] Connelly, J.W., M.A. Schroeder, A.R. Sands, and C.E. Braun. 2000. Guidelines to manage 

sage-grouse populations and their habitats. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 28:967-985.

[27] Lyon, A.G. 2000. The potential effects of natural gas development on sage-grouse 

(Centrocercus urophasianus) near Pinedale, Wyoming. M.S. Thesis, Univ. of Wyoming, 121 pp.

[28] Holloran, M.J. 1999. Sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) seasonal habitat use near 

Casper, Wyoming. M.S. Thesis, Univ. of Wyoming, 130 pp.

[29] Berry, J.D., and R.L. Eng. 1985. Interseasonal movements and fidelity to seasonal use areas 

by female sage-grouse. J. Wildl. Manage. 49:237-240.

[30] Beck, T.D.I. 1977. Sage-grouse flock characteristics and habitat selection in winter. J. 

Wildl. Manag. 41:18-26.

[31] Beck, T.D.I., and C.E. Braun. 1980. The strutting ground count: Variation, traditionalism, 

and management needs. Proc. Ann. Conf. West. Assn. Fish and Wildl. Agencies 60:558-566, at 

564.

[32] Lyon, A.G. 2000. The potential effects of natural gas development on sage-grouse 

(Centrocercus urophasianus) near Pinedale, Wyoming. M.S. Thesis, Univ. of Wyoming, 121 pp.

[33] Call, M.W., and C. Maser. 1985. Wildlife habitat in managed rangelands--The Great Basin 

of southeastern Oregon: Sage-grouse. USDA Gen. Tech. Rept. PNW-187, 29 pp.
Final OSTS PEIS 1211 

[34] Braun, C.E. 1986. Changes in sage-grouse lek counts with advent of surface coal mining. 

Proc. Issues and Technology in the Management of Impacted Western Wildlife, Thorne Ecol. 

Inst. 2:227-231.

[35]Id.

[36] Lyon, A.G. 2000. The potential effects of natural gas development on sage-grouse 

(Centrocercus urophasianus) near Pinedale, Wyoming. M.S. Thesis, Univ. of Wyoming, 121 pp.

OSTS2012D50330 

Organization: Natural Soda, Inc, Michael Clark 

Received: 5/4/2012 5:11:39 PM 

Commenter1: Michael Clark - Rifle, Colorado 81650 (United States) 

Organization1:Natural Soda, Inc 

Commenter Type: Private Company 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/16/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50330.htm (OSTS2012D50330-59052.htm Size = 1 KB) 

Natural_Soda_OSTS-PEIC_Public_Comments--MLC-050412_OSTS2012D50330.docx 

(OSTS2012D50330-59051.docx Size = 13 KB) 

Submission Text

See Attachment. 

Michael Clark 

Natural Soda, Inc 

Rifle, CO 81650 

Comments on BLM’s 2012 OSTS-PEIS and BLM’s Preferred Alternative 2b 

<([#1 [2.2] BLM’s preferred alternative 2b offers little or no viable commercial opportunity due 

to severe restrictions of productive areas available, now allowing only 10% of Colorado lands 

opened in 2008. Further, those lands that would be opened by Alternative 2b are non-contiguous 

and widely separated, inhibiting collection and distribution by pipeline. 

BLM’s Preferred Alternative 2b precludes the richest oil-shale areas from development. 

#1])> <([#2 [1.3] Industry faces an uphill battle contesting BLM’s Preferred Option, since the 

BLM has already ignored the preferences of 14 other agencies cooperating in this OSTS-PEIS 

review. Many of those agencies cooperating in the review selected Alternative 1-- allowing 

development on all lands proposed in the 2008 OSTS-PEIS. 

#2])> <([#3 [3.1.5] The BLM has chosen to include as criteria for reducing available acreage all 

“Areas of Critical Environmental Concern” (ACECs) defined in the 2008 OSTS-PEIS as well as 

acreage which had been under consideration for ACECs but which have not heretofore been 

designated as such. This criteria raises concerns that the BLM is choosing to exclude areas from 

commercial development without adequate and fair consideration to new methods, including insitu development, that have minimal impact to important environmental elements. #3])>

<([#4 [6.3.3] Some groups likely to submit public comment are encouraging constituents with 

comments like “Don’t let Big Oil melt public land for private profit” and “When we say they 
Final OSTS PEIS 1212 

want to melt the Rockies, we mean it.” Such comments are obviously extreme and unscientific. 

The BLM should give due consideration to the more advanced and in-situ technologies now 

proposed. #4])>

<([#5 [3.10.3] Some in the local communities raise concerns about another boom-and-bust cycle 

if the BLM were to allow access to the larger areas opened by the 2008 OSTS-PEIS. Those 

concerns should be allayed by the fact that new development is driven predominately by private 

investment, will be restricted by BLM’s permitting process, and must prove economically viable 

on a trial-basis prior to scale-up. This process can only be step-wise and slow to progress, 

providing for measured and sustainable growth. #5])>

<([#6 [2.1.1] We support and encourage the BLM to adopt the 2012 OSTS-PEIS review 

Alternative 1--that no existing land use plans be amended and all acreage opened by the 2008 

OSTS-PEIS remain open. Through its RD&D program and permitting processes, the BLM has 

ample control over progression of development to ensure demonstrable capabilities and 

sustainable long-term development that is in the best interest of good environmental stewardship 

in balance with the production of this potentially important domestic energy source. #6])>

On behalf of Natural Soda, Inc, of Rifle CO, we do appreciate the opportunity to comment on the 

BLMs 2012 OSTS-PEIS. 

Michael Clark 

EHS Manager, 

Natural Soda, Inc. 

OSTS2012D50331 

Organization: Denver Water, Vicki Parks 

Received: 5/4/2012 5:12:41 PM 

Commenter1: Vicki Parks - Denver, Colorado 80204 (United States) 

Organization1:Denver Water 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50331.htm (OSTS2012D50331-59055.htm Size = 1 KB) 

Oil_Shale_andd_Tar_Sands_Public_Comment_Receipt_5-4-12_OSTS2012D50331.pdf 

(OSTS2012D50331-59054.pdf Size = 199 KB) 

Submission Text

Attached are comments for Jim Lochhead and Dave Little on behalf of the Front Range Water 

Council. See Attachment. 

OSTS2012D50333 

Organization: State of Utah, John Harja 

Received: 5/4/2012 5:22:35 PM 

Commenter1: John Harja - Salt Lake City, Utah 84114 (United States) 

Organization1:State of Utah 

Commenter Type: State Government 

Classification: 
Final OSTS PEIS 1213 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: aziech 5/15/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50333.htm (OSTS2012D50333-59061.htm Size = 1 KB) 

Oil_Shale_Response_letter_to_Abbey_050412_OSTS2012D50333.pdf (OSTS2012D50333-

59060.pdf Size = 14196 KB) 

Submission Text

Dear Director Abbey: 

Oil shale and tar sands are vital to the future economic and energy balance for the State 

ofUtah and the nation as a whole. Governor Herbert’s Ten Year Energy Plan outlines strategies 

and objectives to facilitate balanced, responsible development of Utah’s energy resources, 

(including oil shale and tar sands) [ http://www.utah.gov/governor/docs/ J Oyear-stragegicenergy.pdf ] .The United States Geological Survey estimates that oil shale 

lands in Utah contain 1.32 trillion barrels of recoverable oil equivalent [Assessment ofln-Place 

Oil Shale Resources of the Green River Formation, WY, CO and UT, USGS June 2011]. A 

viable, commercial 

scale and privately funded oil shale and tar sands industry is underway in Utah today, so it is 

with extreme disappointment and displeasure that the state sees the BLM in full retreat regarding 

the establishment of a complete commercial leasing program for oil shale and tar sands. This 

retreat is represented by the Preferred Alternative proposed for adoption in the Draft 

Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement. The Preferred Alternative proposes to reduce 

the lands available for leasing and to pull back to a Research Development and Demonstration 

(RD&D) program that does not meet the ultimate requirements of the law. In addition, the 

issuance in May of proposed rules to eliminate the existing royalty rate for the commercial 

leasing of oil shale will further erode implementation of a full leasing program as required under 

the Energy Policy Act of2005 .. These proposed changes to the 2008 allocation decision for the 

availability of land and the commercial leasing program are in direct opposition to the laws, 

plans and policies of state and local governments. The state will vigorously oppose these 

proposed changes to the current oil shale and tar sands program. 

The state participated fully in BLM’s 2008 NEPA analysis regarding the availability of 

lands for the leasing of oil shale and tar sands and the structure of a potcntialleasing program, as 

required by the Energy Policy Act of2005. This process concluded with a Record of Decision in 

2008 allocating certain lands through the BLM’s Resource Management Plans as available for 

leasing The BLM also established the basic framework for a leasing program through adoption 

ofleasing regulations, now found at 43 C.F.R Pru13900. (See 73 FR 69414, November 18, 2008) 

The state concluded its review of this earlier effort with the conclusion that the proposed RMP 

amendments were consistent with state law, policy and programs, as required under provisions of 

the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, and expressed full support for the establishment 

of a commercial leasing program. 

Despite the adequacy and sufficiency ofthe previous Record of Decision and supporting 

documentation prepared under the provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act, the 

BLM has reversed the sound decisions it made in the2008 ROD. The decision to significantly 

reduce lands available for leasing appears to be predicated on the terms of a Settlement 

Agreement (“Agreement”)drafted in response to litigation [Colorado Environmental Coalition, 
Final OSTS PEIS 1214 

et. a/. v. Salazar, Civil Action No. 09-cv-0009 I -JLK, Colorado.]. brought by parties 

antagonistic to the development of adequate and sufficient domestic sources of energy. The BLM 

declares that this 

revisit of its previous decision is based on the need to take a “fresh look” at the land allocations 

made in the 2008 NEPA analysis in light of”new information which has emerged since the 2008 

OSTS PEIS was prepared” [ See Executive Summary page 1-1, 1-4]. 

The Settlement Agreement states that BLM must publish a Notice of 

Intent to consider amending each of the land use planning decisions made by the 2008 OSTS 

ROD, including alternatives that met the plaintiffs goals. These goals, in general, require that 

BLM have the option to reject a commercial lease based upon “environmental or other resource 

considerations,” and have the option to decline to offer a commercial lease unless it can be 

shown that “operations can occur without unacceptable environmental risk” [Defendants’ and 

Plaintiffs’ Joint Motion to Administratively Close the Case, Colo Env. Coalition v. Salazar, page 

3]. 

Nowhere in the terms of the Settlement Agreement is there a requirement that the BLM 

select an alternative that furthers the goals of the plaintiffs. The BLM has misconstrued the intent 

of the Agreement and abrogated its decision- making responsibilities in favor of an alternative 

that it was only required to consider, not select. 

<([#1 [1.1.1] In furtherance of the Settlement Agreement, the BLM proposes to eliminate the 

current 

provisions of the commercial leasing program in favor of a Research and Development program, 

reduce the amount of acreage available for leasing, and, shortly after the current period to 

comment on the DPEIS is closed, offer another rulemaking which will propose to “remove the 

royalty rate for oil shale production” [Jd].The eleven day period between the closing of the 

comment period for the DPEIS and the potential publication of royalty rate provisions affecting 

oil shale and tar sands does not allow cooperating agencies the chance to include royalty rate and 

commercial leasing aspects into their comments, thereby impermissibly segmenting the proposed 

rulemaking as envisioned by Congress. For this reason, the state requested an extension of the 

comment period, and advises the BLM that it expects the comments upon any proposed royalty 

rate adjustment be incorporated into the analysis of the issues within the DPEIS. 

#1])> Summary of the DPEIS Review 

<([#2 [1.5] The state has reviewed the Draft Progran1matic Environmental Impact Statement 

accompanying BLM’s current proposal. The state fmds that the information contained within the 

DPEIS is procedurally deficient and cannot support the proposed Resource Plan Amendments 

Specifically, the state finds that the BLM has not been diligent in locating and considering 

information generated since the 2008 Record of Decision. This is unacceptable, particularly 

given the ease with which this information may be obtained. The State of Utah finds that the 

DPEIS is incomplete, biased and does not meet the required “hard look” purpose of the National 

Environmental Policy Act. Any final EIS based upon the provisions contained in this Draft 

cannot support a decision by the BLM which would alter the provisions in the 2008 ROD 

concerning the availability of lands for oil shale and tar sands leasing. Decisions based on 

analyses in the DPEIS will be arbitrary and capricious as a matter of law, and will not be 

consistent with state law, policy or procedures if the Preferred Alternative, as identified in the 

DPEIS, is chosen as the final decision. 

#2])> As a general point of discussion, documents currently prepared under the provisions of 

the National Environmental Policy Act have evolved in recent years into a format which is 
Final OSTS PEIS 1215 

staggering in its ability to obfuscate information. These documents are so convoluted that the 

reader is unable to discern the validity and adequacy ofthe NEP A analysis on which the agency 

bases its conclusions, especially in the short time frame provided. Nonetheless, the state has 

been able to discern the following salient facts and identify a singular bias by BLM against 

information supporting the viability of the oil shale and tar sands industries, and local and state 

economies, instead favoring a particularly antagonistic position towards oil shale and tar sands 

development. 

<([#3 [9.8] [9.2.4] Focus of the Current Proposal

The Executive Summary for the DPEIS states BLM has decided to take a “fresh look” at 

the land allocations made in the 2008 review based upon the Settlement Agreement and upon 

“new information which has emerged since the 2008 OSTS PEIS was prepared.” (ES-1) BLM 

further refines this fresh look to include a reconsideration of the 2008 allocations and determine 

whether it is “appropriate for approximately 2,000,000 acres to remain available for potential 

development of oil shale,” with an equivalent decision for tar sands [ Executive Summary, p. ES1]. 

The BLM states that the 

reason for this reconsideration is specifically 1) the need to review new inventories for lands 

having wilderness characteristics, 2) the March 2010 decision of the Fish and Wildlife Service 

concerning sage grouse, and 3) the completion of studies related to Areas of Critical 

Environmental Concern (ACECs). 

In a related action required under the Settlement Agreement, the BLM will propose 

amendments to the oil shale final rule to remove the royalty rate codified in BLM regulation (43 

CFR 3903.52) and perhaps propose alternative adjustments to the royalty rate. These proposed 

royalty rate adjustments are not scheduled to be made public until mid-May 2012, after the 

comment period for the DPEIS has concluded. 

As discussed further below, the state finds that there is no new information concerning 

lands with wilderness characteristics in Utah beyond that considered for the 2008 Oil Shale EIS 

or the 2008 Resource Management Plans. Management for Sage grouse and its habitat is being 

addressed through a massive effort by the affected states, the BLM, the Forest Service, and the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, with these efforts determining the needs of the species and the 

means to balance species protections with provisions for human needs. Any proposed discussion 

of sage grouse needs in the current DPEIS is not ripe for analysis, and any proposed restrictions 

due to sage grouse are premature. Any decision to amend currently operative RMPs, based on an 

issue currently undergoing such a massive review, would constitute an arbitrary and capricious 

decision. 

The state finds that the BLM has not only based its decision on new information where 

none exists, but also has, to compound this egregious error, inexplicably ignored new 

information which supported the conclusions of the 2008 decision, and failed to analyze 

significant new information that would satisfy NEPA ‘s required hard look. 

#3])> <([#4 [9.2.2] Congressional Mandate

The Energy Policy Act of2005 (EPACT 2005), Section 369, is the driving force behind 

the BLM’s original Oil Shale and Tar Sands (OSTS) Programmatic Environmental Impact 

Statement and the resource allocation decisions it supported. Section 369 of EPACT 2005 

specifically states “not later than 18 months after the date of enactment of this Act. .. the 

Secretary ( oflnterior) shall complete a programmatic environmental impact statement for a 

commercial leasing program for oil shale and tar sands resources on public lands, with emphasis 
Final OSTS PEIS 1216 

on the most geologically prospective lands within each of the States of Colorado, Utah, and 

Wyoming.’’ 

BLM advanced the purposes ofEPACT 2005 through its conclusions in the 2008 OSTS 

Record of Decision and the accompanying decisions within 2008 Records of Decision for the 

Vernal, Price and Richfield Field Offices, along with adoption of the oil shale leasing regulations 

codified at 43 CFR Patt 3900. These decisions successfully laid out the availability of land 

containing the resources and the framework of the regulatory structure for acquiring leases on 

BLM land for the development of these resources. The state believes that BLM did an adequate 

and thorough job in reaching the decision contained in the 2008 ROD. The state also applauds 

the agency’s efforts in 2008 to conform with state and local laws as well as engage in significant 

cooperative exchanges with countless agencies and stakeholders. 

The current proposal, and the supporting documentation found in the DPEIS, takes a 

huge step in the wrong direction. Congress did not ask BLM to determine if commercial leasing 

was appropriate or not, or to wait on a commercial leasing process in favor of some other 

proposal. As noted on page 1-3, EPACT 2005 requires the BLM to complete a programmatic 

EIS, establish a leasing program, consult with the Governors, conduct lease sales and consider 

land exchanges. The current proposal does not meet those requirements and directly ignores 

both the mandate and timeline given to it by Congress under Section 369 ofEPACT 2005. 

In addition, the Preferred Alternative will push commercial leasing farther into the future 

by requiring more unnecessary planillng and research and development before commercial 

leasing can be established. Therefore, the Preferred Alternative is at direct odds with and 

contravenes the directions given by Congress in the EPACT 2005 to establish an oil shale and tar 

sands commercial leasing program. 

#4])> <([#5 [1.5] Precedcntial Value of the Settlement Agreement 

BLM has clearly stated that this entire effort is the result of the settlement oflitigation 

brought by various environmental groups. Litigation, by its very nature, excludes many 

stakeholders interested in the issue litigated. Because full public involvement is required by 

NEPA and other laws, the Settlement Agreement requires only that the BLM propose various 

adjustments to the existing regulatory and planning provisions. The provisions ofNEPA require 

that other alternatives be considered as well, including the option of doing nothing, which in this 

case would keep the 2008 land allocation decision intact. 

The Settlement Agreement itself is not determinative of the final decisions made in 

response to the current DPEIS. This means that the No Action Alternative is as viable as the 

alternatives identified in the Agreement. Yet the Agreement, which was made without the 

involvement of many of the relevant stakeholders, including the state, is apparently being used to 

drive a hasty decision. The BLM informed the state and other stakeholders that the calendar is 

tight, and there is no room for additional analysis and review. This rush to complete the DPEIS 

by an artificial deadline is arbitrary in light of the vast amount of information the BLM must 

analyze to adequately meet the requirements ofNEPA. 

Request of tlte State

As shown below, this rush to complete has produced numerous major and minor errors 

which combine to produce a flawed product. The state urgently requests the BLM: 

• slow down the analysis; 

• carefully analyze the information offered below concerning the maturity of the oil shale 

and oil sands industry in Utah; 

• recognize the clear delineation of jurisdiction between the states and the BLM; 
Final OSTS PEIS 1217 

• review the impacts to the social and economic structure of the state and local 

governments; 

• examine the needs of the industry within larger venture capital markets; and 

produce a complete analysis of impacts. 

If necessary, the state requests the BLM and its attorneys petition the court for additional 

time, based upon the reality of completing the tasks and further analysis outlined below. #5])>

<([#6 [1.3] Consultation with the Governors 

The provisions ofEPACT 2005 require that the BLM consult with the Governors ofthe 

states involved in the creation of commercial leasing program. Specifically, Section 369 requires 

theBLMto 

Consult with the Governors of States with significant oil shale and tar sands resources on 

public lands, representatives of local governments in such states ... to determine the level 

of support and interest in the States in the development of tar sands and oil shale 

resources. 

During the preparation of the 2008 Record of Decision, the BLM met on several 

occasions with the representatives of the Governors ofthe three states involved, and as a result 

were advised of the necessary “level of interest.” Utah advised the BLM that the level of interest 

in Utah was high, and that if necessary, the BLM should proceed with a commercial leasing 

program in Utah even if the other states were not interested. In stark contrast, no such meetings 

have taken place with the Governor of Utah or his representatives during the current PEIS effort. 

Request of the State:

The State of Utah urgently requests meetings with the BLM which meet the letter and the 

spirit ofthe requirement ofEPACT 2005 to consult with the Governors, and local government, 

to determine the level of support for a commercial program for the leasing of oil shale and tar 

sands. Only then will the BLM be able to fully analyze the social and economic impacts to the 

state as well as work with the state on decisions affecting a critical component of the state’s 

economy. These meetings must include thorough discussion of all information and issues 

pertaining to a commercial leasing program, including royalty rates, the structure of the leasing 

program, and the availability of lands for leasing. #6])>

<([#7 [1.3] [6.3] State Authority 

The DPEIS reflects a lack of respect for state authority and capabilities. The BLM 

repeatedly asserts that it wishes to hold off on implementing a commercial leasing program 

until more information is available on the impacts of oil shale and tar sands operations.”. BLM 

explicitly asserts on many occasions in the DPEIS that oil shale extraction processes are 

unknown and that it must delay allocations of lands for leasing pending further study In 

contrast, the state asserts that oil shale processes are fundamentally composed of discrete 

extractive operations that have existed for decades, all of which are covered by state authority 

and regulatory programs. For example, the BLM states that it requires more information on the 

impacts on water quantity and quality [ ES.7, found on ES-9] from oil shale and tar sands 

operations. Yet information 

concerning a permitted commercial operation pertaining to water quantity and quality are readily 

available on the Division of Oil, Gas and Mining’s website. The BLM, in cooperation with its 

state and local regulatory partners, can readily engage in the discussion of impacts to the natural, 

social and economic environments from these well-understood processes. 

The extraction of kerogen from oil shale, as proposed in Utah, is nothing more than a 

mining operation foUowed by a retort operation. Mining operations have existed in Utah for 
Final OSTS PEIS 1218 

over a hundred years and the state has implemented the necessary regulatory controls to mine in 

an environmentally sensitive manner, using the latest in technology and management practices. 

Retorts have been used since ancient days to reduce ore and produce useful products. Oil shale 

and tar sand operations involve well-defined; basic extraction~ processing, and upgrading 

techniques that have been in use in Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, Estonia, Ireland 

(commercially in Canada and Estonia), and tested for over 50 years in the U.S. Oil shale and tar 

sand development activities have existed on Utah State lands for many years with adequate 

protection of the environment under state regulatory programs sanctioned by the Office of 

Surface Mining and the Environmental Protection Agency. 

Water is owned by the state in trust for its citizens and is subject to the state water 

appropriation system managed by the Utah State Water Engineer. The federal government must 

participate in the state’s allocation system should it desire to quantify any water rights it may 

claim [43 U.S.C .Section 666.]. 

Water rights appropriations are for specific diversion or use proposals. A general water 

right for general use by the public lands is not aUowable under state law. As discussed further 

below, the state believes and asserts that water is available for oil shale and oil sands 

development, both through existing water rights and through the general market system. The 

state’s allocation system examines issues related to availability, prioritization, interference with 

other rights, and related factors. BLM’s decision to defer analysis until it obtains further 

information on water availability imposes BLM vague desires onto the decision-making process 

of the state. The state will make decisions regarding the availability of water, not the BLM. The 

state will, consistent with the authority of the state water engineer, process applications to 

approve or transfer water rights for oil shale or any other use. 

The same is true for air quality and water quality. The state has primacy for enforcement 

of the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts within the state and works closely with the EPA to insure 

the protection of these resources. The Utah Department of Environmental Quality, along with 

federal, state, and industry partners is currently studying issues related to air quality in areas 

containing the most geologically prospective oil shale resources, and will work to jointly find 

solutions to air quality issues in these regions .. An inventory of emission sources is underway in 

conjunction with studies of the factors surrounding the formation of ozone dming the winter 

months in the Uintah Basin. Protection of water quality from underground or surface mining 

operations is well within the regulatory authority and expertise of the state. Although issues 

related to the particular soil chemistry and topography must be addressed, the state is perfectly 

capable of the project specific analysis and decision making necessary to address any 

environmental concerns. See the Addendum below for further information concerning the 

permitting process. 

Request of the State for Further Analysis:

Surface and underground mining as well as retorting generates no major unknowns for 

BLM beyond those presented by other mining and refining operations. The State of Utah 

strongly requests that the BLM make use of the infonnation readily available to it from its 

regulatory partners and conduct the required environmental analysis ofthe impacts of wellknown 

processes rather than continue to insist that the production of a refinable liquid product 

from oil shale is shrouded in mystery. The BLM must defer to the expertise and authority of the 

state in these matters, use available information about standard mining and retort processes for 

its environmental analyses, and stop insisting that it cannot make resource allocations at this time 

based on upon vague, ill-defined assertions that more information is necessary. #7])>
Final OSTS PEIS 1219 

<([#8 [9.2.1] [3.1.3] Lands with Wilderness Characteristics

BLM conducted inventories of lands for the presence of wilderness characteristics prior 

to the Record of Decisions made for the 2008 oil shale allocation decisions and all other 

management issues covered in the final 2008 RMPs. No inventories for wilderness 

characteristics have been conducted since that time. As part of the 2008 RMP decision process, 

the state commented on management prescriptions for the lands identified, in whatever manner, 

as possessing the characteristics of wilderness. At the time, the state informed BLM as follows: 

The State of Utah has reviewed BLM’s inventory of and proposed management for lands 

identified as possessing wilderness characteristics. The state does not believe that BLM has the 

authority to create a category of management based solely on the characteristics ofwilderness. 

The characteristics of wilderness, or their constituent elements, were first recognized by the 

Wilderness Act of 1964 and passed to the BLM within the provisions of Section 603 of the 

Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976. The authority within Section 603 has now 

expired by its own terms. The state recognizes that recent court decisions have affirmed BLM’s 

authority to inventory for wilderness characteristics, and have required the BLM to consider new 

information about these characteristics in its documents prepared under the National 

Environmental Policy Act. These decisions do not, however, consider or affect the BLM’s 

statutory authority for management policies on the BLM lands. The state cautions BLM against 

an overly broad reading of these decisions. Management authority must be derived solely from 

the specific provisions of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, (e.g. Areas of Critical 

Environmental Concern) or other specific federal legislation, and it is incumbent upon the BLM 

to carefully define its detailed legal rationale and reasoning for its proposed management 

policies, provisions and categories. 

The DPEIS does not contain any such analysis of its authority to manage for wilderness 

characteristics. In addition, the DPEIS does not contain any new information on inventories for 

lands contained within inventories for wilderness characteristics. All inventories in the areas of 

concern in the DPEIS were completed prior to 2008. Because the BLM presents no new 

information regarding new inventories that would indicate the reasons for an increase, decrease 

or adjustment, related to the management of lands with wilderness characteristics, the BLM must 

carry forward the decisions made in the 2008 oil shale EIS and the 2008 RMPs for lands 

managed for wilderness characteristics. A decision containing new management prescriptions 

for lands with wilderness characteristics would be contrary to the decisions in the 2008 Records 

of Decision and would therefore be arbitrary and capricious, as it would not be supported by any 

significant new information. #8])>

<([#9 [9.5] Since 2008, the State of Utah has passed several laws which have bearing on this 

decision 

regarding the protection of lands with wilderness characteristics. First, Utah Code Section 63J8-1 03( 4) provides that the public lands should not be “segregated into separate geographical 

areas for management that resembles the management ofwildemess, wilderness study areas, 

wildlands” and the like. Instead, state law indicates the need for BLM to simply adhere to the 

normal standard of preventing unnecessary and undue degradation to the land. 

In addition, Senate Bill 83, passed in the 2012 General Session of the Utah Legislature, 

provides that certain areas of Uintah, Duchesne and Daggett Counties are designated as an 

Energy Zone, and managed for the primary purpose of the production of energy. Senate Bill 83 

provides in part, as follows: 

The landfJ comprising the Uintah Basin Energy Zone contain abundant, world-class
Final OSTS PEIS 1220 

deposits of energy and mineral resources, including oil, natural gas, oil shale, oil sands,

gilsonite, coal, phosphate, gold, uranium, and copper, as well as areas with high wind

and solar energy potential; and the highest management priorityfor all lands within the

Uintah Basin Energy Zone is responsible management and development of existing

energy and mineral resources in order to provide long-term domestic energy and

supplies for Utah and the United States.

The state supports a cooperative management approach among.federal agencies, state,

and local governments to achieve broadly supported management plans for the full

development of all energy and mineral resources within the Uintah Basin Energy Zone.

The state calls upon the federal agencies who administer lands within the Uintah

Basin Energy Zone to fully cooperate and coordinate with the state and with Daggetl,

Uintah, and Duchesne Counties to develop, amend, and implement land and resource

management plans and to implement management decisions that are consistent with the

purposes, goals, and policies described in this section to the maximum extent allowed

underfederallaw, .. .[and to] refi·ain.from any planning decisions and management

actions that will undermine restrict, or diminish the goals, pwposes, and policies for the

Uintah Basin Energy Zone ... and refi-ainfrom implementing a policy that is contrary to

the goals and purposes [of the Energy Zone}.

BLM must give the provisions of this law full consideration based upon respect for the 

authority of the state to provide for the general welfare of the citizens of the state and must 

review and analyze the purpose and effect of the law in the DPEIS. Additionally the law is an 

expression of state planning for the resources of the area, and is entitled to consideration as part 

of the consistency review discussed below. #9])>

<([#10 [9.2.1] [3.1.3] Because the BLM does not possess any new information about lands with 

wilderness 

characteristics from that available in 2008, a change in any type of management for the lands, 

from that finalized in the 2008 RMPs and the 2008 Oil Shale EIS, as is proposed by various 

alternatives within the DPEIS, would constitute an improper use of Secretarial Order 3310, 

issued December 23, 2010. Secretarial Order 3310 was defunded by Congressional action, 

which required that no funds may be used to implement or enforce the Order. In this case, the 

BLM is proposing to restrict the availability of these lands for the commercial leasing of oil shale 

and tar sands based solely upon the existing, older inventory for the presence of wilderness 

characteristics. This clear expression of intent to manage for wilderness is the functional 

equivalent of the creation of wild lands as proposed within the Secretarial Order. Because the 

CongTessional action clearly stated that the BLM may not implement or enforce Secretarial 

Order 3310, the DPEIS must be rewritten to reflect this fact. #10])>

Request of the State for Further Analysis:

<([#11 [9.8] The State of Utah requests the BLM revisit its analysis of the proposed management 

prescriptions concerning the existing inventories of lands with wilderness characteristics, and 

• Recognize that no new information is available since the 2008 Records of Decision; 

• Recognize the soundness of the decisions made in the 2008 for the Resource 

Management Plans Records of Decision and the Oil Shale Record of Decision; 

#11])> <([#12 [9.5] The State of Utah requests the BLM revisit its analysis of the proposed 

management 

prescriptions concerning the existing inventories of lands with wilderness characteristics, and 

• Adopt the intent of state law and policy upon the subject of wilderness and wildernesslike 
Final OSTS PEIS 1221 

management; 

#12])> <([#13 [9.5] The State of Utah requests the BLM revisit its analysis of the proposed 

management 

prescriptions concerning the existing inventories of lands with wilderness characteristics, and 

• Adopt the intent of state law and policy concerning the Energy Zone; and 

#13])> <([#14 [9.2.1] The State of Utah requests the BLM revisit its analysis of the proposed 

management 

prescriptions concerning the existing inventories of lands with wilderness characteristics, and 

• Adhere to the Congressional moratorium requiring BLM not enforce in any manner 

Secretarial Order 3310. #14])>

<([#15 [2.1.1] The state specifically requests that the BLM adhere to the decisions made in the 

2008 

Records of Decision concerning lands with wilderness characteristics, and support BLM’s 

previous sound decisions by adopting the currently proposed No-action alternative. 

#15])> <([#16 [3.7.5.1] [9.2.4] Sage Grouse 

Eleven ofthe western states, including Utah, are engaged in a cooperative effort to 

review the status of the Greater Sage grouse within its existing range, and to determine the 

elements of plans, conditions or stipulations, along with other mechanisms, to preserve the sage 

grouse while allowing economic development and growth to occur. The state of Utah has been 

sponsoring programs to protect the sage grouse for years, but the latest coordinated effort is 

occasioned by the March 2010 decision of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service concerning the 

potential listing of the sage grouse under the provisions of the Endangered Species Act. The 

Fish and Wildlife Service determined that a listing was warranted but precluded by higher 

priorities. This decision is now set for review by the end of2015. 

As a result of the listing decision, BLM and the Forest Service have initiated, through a 

Notice of [ntent to Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement, a massive effort to determine if 

amendments to various Resource Management Plans (BLM) and Land Use Plans (Forest 

Service) are required in order to address the issues raised in the FWS decision. This effort is 

scheduled to be completed in 2014. 

The State of Utah provided comments to the BLM planning process, and stated as 

follows: 

The Notice of Intent states very specifically that the reason for the entire effort is to

respond to the decision by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service that the listing of the

Greater Sage Grouse is “warranted, but precluded” by higher listing priorities, and that

the FWS asserts that BLM and Forest Service lands are the key to sage grouse survival.

To the contrary, the state firmly believes that sage-grouse populations in Utah are in

good condition, are receiving significant management attention and, therefore, do not

warrant listing under the Endangered Species Act. The state will challenge a proposed

listing whenever and wherever necessary. The state requests that the BLM and Forest

Service receive, review and fully analyze all evidence offered by the state and others in

support ofits position that a listing is not warranted as part of the analysis ofthe impacts

of the EIS provisions and alternatives. The state specifically requests that the BLMfitlly

analyze and explain the ability of the BLM and Forest Service to protect the species

without the cooperation of other landowners, as discussedfurther below.

In fact, the state strongly asserts that a decision to list sage-grouse range-wide, but

especially in Utah, would be a major setback to current conservation management
Final OSTS PEIS 1222 

activities. Sage grouse in Utah, while challenged, are biologically stable. Utah

conservation efforts are being conducted at a scale that will likely be hard to match

anywhere else across the species’ range. Finally, organizational and funding

mechanisms unique to Utah have fostered cooperation andfocusfor continued and longterm

conservation into the future. The state is concerned that unnecessary restrictions

imposed by the BLM and Forest Service will upset the successfitl efforts underway in

Utah, to the detriment of the species.

To further the state’s commitment to conservation ofthe sage grouse and economic

health of the state, the Governor recently convened a Sage Grouse Working Group. This

Working Group is comprised of representatives of the Governor’s Office, BLM, Forest

Service, Fish and Wildlife Service, National Resource Conservation Service, Utah’s

Office of Energy Development, School and Institutional Trust Lands Administration,

Department o.f Agriculture and Food, Division c~[Wildl(fe Resources, and representatives

o.fthe oil and gas industry, transmission line industry, oil shale industry, ranching

community, county commissioners, The Nature Conservancy, and Utah State University.

The Governor’s charge directed the group to provide recommendations for the protection

of sage grouse, while continuing to provide for a healthy economy and protecting private

property rights. The Working Group was recently briefed on issues related to the life

cycle of the sage grouse and previous and ongoing efforts to protect the species, and

expects to provide recommendations within a few months. These recommendations are

expected to lead to a state sage grouse plan soon thereafter. The state ·will expect the

BLM and Forest Service to adhere to the provisions of this plan, both as a matter of

respect for state authority, and in compliance with ELM’s Instructional Memorandum

2012-039, which requires the BLM to make use of state data related to wildlife.

The State of Utah, in response to these factors, is currently, through the Working Group, 

engaged in an effort to review habitat needs of the sage grouse and make determinations about 

the relative importance of the habitat against the presence of other human and wildlife needs. 

The state is doing this in addition to weighing other options concerning the need to list the 

species. This process is expected to result in the designation of areas of greater and lesser 

importance. A similar process in the state of Wyoming resulted in the designation of areas as 

“core” and “non-core,” which is a possible outcome of the Utah process as well. The state 

assumes the Wyoming results, approved by the FWS, are the origin of the term core within the 

DPEIS. The BLM also recently issued an Instructional Memorandum concerning management 

of the sage grouse, covering the interim period until the massive planning effort concludes. In it, 

the term priority habitat is employed, along with general habitat, which is presumably the source 

of those terms within the DPEIS. 

The state is very disappointed, therefore, to see “core” or “priority” discussed within the 

DPEIS for the State of Utah, and maps prepared with “core” or “priodty” habitat displayed. The 

state, which is the entity with management authority over the sage grouse, has not yet reached a 

conclusion about any habitat designations, and does not expect to do so until the Working Group 

process is completed. The legend for Figure 2.3.3-2 [See page 2-38, DPETS.], entitled “Lands 

Excluded from Application for Oil Shale Leasing Under Alternative 2 in Utah,” clearly shows 

lands defined as 

Core or Priority. The state has not yet made any such determination, and strongly objects to 

BLM making such a determination. The information contained in the DPEJS about core or 

priority sage grouse habitat in Utah, as evidenced by this map, and any analysis based upon the 
Final OSTS PEIS 1223 

information, is wholly inaccurate, and must be altered to reflect the true situation. 

Request of the State for Further Analysis:

Because the data concerning sage grouse habitat is inaccurate, BLM must remove all 

reference to it in the DPEIS, and replace it with the habitat types which result from the efforts of 

the state’s decision after the Working Group’s work is completed. The BLM and the FWS are 

both represented on the Working Group, and will have every opportunity to influence the final 

product. Proceeding with the current data does not advance a completely and correctly informed 

analysis, but only perpetuates the continued use of erroneous data and misinformed opinion. 

#16])> <([#17 [3.10.3] NEP A Requirements- Social and Economic Studies 

BLM has not presented a serious study of the social and economic impacts of the 

proposal as required by the provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act. The DPEIS 

contains discussion about the generic social effects of a boom and bust economic cycle, but does 

not contain a countervailing discussion of the social effects oflimited and reasonable economic 

growth. The DPEIS discusses the history of oil shale development twenty years ago, but 

includes no discussion concerning current energy needs, the current pricing structure for oil and 

gas, and the corresponding ability of oil shale and tar sand operations to continue to contribute a 

larger share of a healthy economy in the eastern part of Utah, and for the state as a whole. The 

discussions in the DPEIS generically concerning boom and bust economic cycles, without any 

discussion of reasonable economic growth alternatives demonstrates the agency’s bias against 

development of oil shale and tar sands. 

The DPEIS must to include a discussion of the entire market process for creation of a 

viable oil shale and tar sands industry, including its role in the regulatory certainty needed to 

attract venture capital. The State of Utah expects the BLM to be an active partner in the 

marketing of opportunities to diversify the domestic production of the nation’s energy needs, not 

hang its institutional head claiming ignorance of real world market realities. 

BLM needs to revisit the analysis of socioeconomic impacts in the DPEIS and present 

additional analysis of the opportunities to encourage a viable oil shale and tar sands market. 

BLM has the resources and the expertise to evaluate the reasonable effects of simple mining and 

retort operations. BLM should immediately communicate with industry to determine the needs 

for certainty and about reasonable development opportunities. The state knows that if BLM 

delineates reasonable requirements for resource development, industry will participate. There is 

clear evidence that industry is engaging in oil shale and tar sands development in Utah. Based 

on past experience with oil shale and tar sands development on state and private lands in Utah, 

growth will be measured and moderate, which is a viable alternative to the boom and bust 

scenarios presented in the DPEIS. 

The State of Utah understands the value of a balanced economy, and values the 

contributions of tourism to the state’s economy. However, BLM must not assume that tourism is 

the only possible contributor to a stable economy in the Uintah Basin and elsewhere in Utah. 

BLM must recognize and analyze studies which demonstrate the value of oil and gas to the 

Uintah Basin, and examine the benefits the oil shale and tar sands industry could bring to 

providing a stable and robust economy in the area. BLM must examine the contributions of 

tourism, oil and gas, government and other existing industries in the area, then analyze the value 

that a moderate growth oil shale and tar sands industry might add to that by bringing additional 

diversity to the area’s economy. 

BLM must also not falsely assume that a viable tourism industry is put at risk by oil 

shale production in the Uintah Basin. This is not to say that BLM should not discuss tourism 
Final OSTS PEIS 1224 

and outdoor recreation as part of a significant economic evaluation - it should. But BLM must 

also evaluate wages from the tourism industry against those of the energy industry and evaluate 

the prospects for employment, revenue and community stability based on those figures. 

Other Economic Studies - Examples:

The state contracted with Utah State University and the University of Utah to complete a 

number of economic and social-attitude studies regarding the use of and values attributed to 

public land resources by Utah residents. These studies assess: general attitudes of the citizens 

toward the public lands, off-highway vehicle use on public lands, grazing on public lands, and 

economic impacts of oil and gas exploration and production. Below are short summaries of a 

number of these studies, which are available on the state’s website. 

A statewide survey of the residents of Utah, the Utah Public Lands Study, was conducted 

in the summer of2007 by Utah State University. One focus of the survey involved assessing 

various ways in which residents engage in economic activities that are linked to public lands and 

resources. Other major purposes involved assessing attitudes toward public lands as part of the 

residents’ quality of life and sense of community, and assessing attitudes and preferences 

regarding public land management. 

Preliminary results from the Utah Recreational Off-Highway Vehicle Use Study

conducted by Utah State University show OHV use becoming increasingly popular, but the 

number of trips taken per year declining. Recreational activities that OHV users participate in 

are diverse, including both passive (sightseeing and photography) and active (camping and 

hiking). Rider motivation includes stress relief and nature appreciation, along with achievement, 

stimulation, independence and socialization with others. The study also shows economic 

impacts broken out by direct and total impact to Duchesne, Uintah and Daggett counties as well 

as by regional gross output, employment, household income, and value-added income. A 

“Random Utility Model” will be used to measure change in the allocation of trips across 

counties, measure change in the total number of trips taken by Utah OHV users, measure change 

in economic value accruing to OHV users and generate trip-distribution information for use in 

economic impact modeling. Full results will be made available upon completion of the study. 

The Utah State University study, Trend information for the Vernal RMP: Livestock

Indust1y Issues indicates that the trend in livestock grazing preference and authorized use in the 

Vernal Field Office Planning Area is downward. The permitted AUM level proposed in the 

Draft RMP Preferred Alternative is a reduction of 8,323 AUMs, a 5.7 percent reduction in 

preference from the current level. This reflects a reduction of 15,376 AUMs, (1 0 percent) from 

the level 16 years ago. 

The Bureau ofEconomic and Business Research at the University of Utah has completed 

an economic impact study of the oil and gas exploration and production industry in the Uinta 

Basin titled The Structure and Economic Impact of Utah’s Oil and Gas Exploration and

Production Industry: Phase I- the Uinta Basin. The Phase I study shows that rapidly rising 

energy prices and the corresponding rise in oil and gas activity are causing an economic boom in 

the Uinta Basin. During 2006, the oil and gas exploration and production industry was directly 

responsible for 19.9 percent of employment and 34.8 percent of total wages in the Uinta Basin, 

while those figures rose to 49.1 percent of the employment and 60 percent of the wages in the 

Basin when the indirect (multiplier) effects were considered. The industry also has a sizeable 

fiscal impact on local governments in the Uinta Basin. Property taxes paid on producing oil and 

gas wells were $18.2 million in 2006 and accounted for 38.7 percent of all property taxes paid in 

the two counties. 
Final OSTS PEIS 1225 

Required Further Analysis Requested by tlte State:

These studies, and other similar work, should be discussed as part of the examination of 

the social and economic structure of the area influenced by the upcoming oil shale and tar sands 

mining activities. Only after such consideration can the BLM make reasoned analysis of the 

economic impacts of the required leasing program. BLM must not make decisions which may 

influence the structure and robust nature of local and state economies without an examination of 

the ability and desire of the local economy to face the challenges raised by the proposal. The 

DPEIS focuses almost entirely on the perceived perils of a boom and bust cycle. This is 

pejorative and misleading, and does not reflect a serious attempt to analyze the potential 

contributions, both positive and negative, from the proposed leasing program. BLM must step 

back, and redo the social and economic analysis with these factors in mind. Failure to do so 

violates the provisions ofNEPA requiring analysis of the social and economic impacts of a 

proposal to the same degree as the environmental analysis. 

#17])> <([#18 [3.1.3] Support for the Mission of SITLA 

Utah’s School and Institutional Trust Lands Administration (SITLA) is an independent 

state agency responsible by law for management of lands granted to the State of Utah pursuant to 

the Utah Enabling Act, (Act of July 17, 1894, 28 Stat. 1 09), for the financial support of Utah’s 

public schools and other state institutions. The United States Supreme Court has referred to this 

Enabling Act land grant as a “solemn compact” between the United States and the State of Utah 

that obligates the United States to take into consideration the purposes of the grant when 

managing federal lands. 

The State of Utah is obligated by both the Utah Enabling Act and the Utah Constitution 

to act as a trustee in managing school trust lands. Among the fiduciary duties imposed by this 

trust on SITLA is the duty to manage trust lands in the most prudent and profitable manner 

possible, and not for any purpose inconsistent with the best interest of the trust beneficiaries. 

Revenues from school trust lands are deposited in the Permanent School Fund, a permanent 

endowment for public education. Interest and dividends from the Permanent School Fund are 

distributed to individual public schools statewide annually to supplement critical academic 

needs. 

SITLA manages lands within the boundaries of the BLM Field Offices under discussion 

in the DPEIS. Most ofthese state trust lands are comprised of numbered sections 2, 16, 32 and 

36 in each township, representing the grant of in-place school sections made by the Utah 

Enabling Act; however it also includes lands acquired from the federal government in a land 

exchanges. The significance of the checkerboard pattern of land ownership is that because most 

trust lands are surrounded by BLM lands, planning decisions made by BLM with respect to 

rights-of-way, withdrawals from mineral leasing, special designations (e.g. ACECs, management 

for wilderness characteristics, etc.) and other determinations inherently impact the state trust 

lands, making them an island within the surrounding BLM lands. BLM’s decisions on how to 

manage its lands directly affect the ability of the State of Utah to manage state trust lands for the 

purposes for which they were granted by Congress, which was to provide revenue for public 

schools and other beneficiary institutions. BLM management is an issue of significant impact to 

Utah’s school trust. For example, lands within the Vernal Field Office make up approximately 

13 percent ofUtah’s total surface trust land portfolio. 

Conversely, management by SITLA of state trust lands within BLM areas of special 

designations can directly affect the ability of BLM to achieve management objectives. SITLA is 

not obligated by law, for example, to manage its lands within BLM areas managed for 
Final OSTS PEIS 1226 

wilderness characteristics or ACECs for environmental protection. SITLA development of 

inholdings consistent with SITLA’s governing mandate may substantially defeat the purpose of 

the special designation. 

Request of the State for Further Study

BLM has an obligation to include in its planning an effective and timely means of 

addressing the impact of federal land actions on in-held state trust lands. BLM must engage in a 

serious study of its need to support the purposes of the grant of lands to the state for the support 

of the common schools. Specifically, the BLM needs to rework the DPEIS to include effects of 

the Jack of a leasing program upon the ability of the state, through SITLA, to expect a robust 

leasing program for oil shale and tar sands and the related expectation of revenue. 

In addition, the DPEIS addresses the requirements of Section 369(n) of the Energy Policy 

Act of2005(EPACT), Public Law 109-58, only in a cursory manner. Section 369(n) provides in 

relevant part: 

(n) LAND EXCHANGES. 

(1) IN GENERAL. To facilitate the recovery of oil shale and tar sands, especially in areas 

where Federal, State, and private lands are intermingled, the Secretary shall consider the 

use of land exchanges where appropriate and feasible to consolidate land ownership and 

mineral interests into manageable areas. 

(2) IDENTIFICATION AND PRIORTTY OF PUBLIC LANDS. The Secretary shall 

identify public lands containing deposits of oil shale or tar sands within the 

... Uintah ... basin ... , and shall give priority to implementing land exchanges within those 

basins .... . 

At page l-6, lines 32-34, the PEIS states that the decision in the 2008 ROD that “the 

specific decision that the BLM will consider and give priority to the use of land exchanges to 

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

of2005” will be carried forward through this planning process. This statement should be 

clarified to confirm that, pursuant to the EPACT 369(n) directive, BLM lands that are not made 

available for commercial leasing will nonetheless be available for state exchange, subject to 

other applicable laws applicable to federal-state land exchanges. #18])>

<([#19 [9.5] Consistency with State Law, Plans and Policies 

The State of Utah is extremely supportive of the consistency review requirement, as 

provided in federal law (43 U.S.C. § 171 2(c)(9)) and regulation (43 C.F.R. § 1610.3-2). 

Pursuant to this regulation, RMPs shall be 

consistent with officially approved or adopted resource-related plans, and the policies

and procedures contained therein, of ... State and local governments, ... so long as the ... 

[RMPs] are also consistent with the purposes, policies and programs of Federal laws

and regulations applicable to pubUc lands.

BLM correctly notes this requirement, but then qualifies the requirement to be that of 

consistency with state and local plans, where possible [Section 1.4.5, Page I -21.]. 

The DPEIS also discusses the plans of 

the City of Rifle for economic development, and mentions that the final Record of Decision 

should consider consistency with the City’s plans [lei.]. 

The state certainly believes that BLM 

should consider the views of the City of Rifle, but more accurately consider consistency with 

state and local plans, policies and programs as demonstrated to BLM through the Governor’s 

consistency review. 
Final OSTS PEIS 1227 

As an explanation for the idea that BLM need only be consistent with state and local 

laws, plans, policies and f:rograms, the BLM previously provided an interpretation of the 

consistency requirement [See generally the 2008 RMP efforts.]. BLM stated that the “RMP ... 

[must] be ... consistent ... to the 

maximum extent possible by law and [that] inconsistencies between Federal and non-Federal 

Government plans be resolved to the extent practica1” [Vernal RMP EIS, p. 5- 17]. The BLM 

thereafter defined an 

inconsistency as anything that “cannot be resolved or reconciled where state and local plans 

conflict with federal taw.” The state strongly asserts that this interpretation does not fully 

recognize nuances of the consistency requirement, especially involving discretionary planning 

decisions ofthe BLM. 

The state recognizes that federal law requires certain decisions and establishes parameters 

within which those decisions can be made. However, the BLM retains considerable discretion 

within these legal sideboards. State and local governments cannot demand that BLM act outside 

these sideboards, but when state and local governments’ policies pertain to areas within BLM’s 

lawful discretionary decision space, BLM is obligated to make its plans consistent with state and 

local policies to the maximum extent possible. Thus, it is inappropriate to dismiss state 

recommendations that fall within BLM’s legally prescribed discretion simply because BLM 

disagrees with the balance struck by the state. To assume that BLM’s discretionary choices 

constitute federal law has the immediate effect of determining that state plans, programs and 

policies which strike a ditierent balance yet accomplish the same purpose as the BLM’s choice 

are, a priori, in conflict with federal law. Instead, the state asserts that if its recommendations 

strike a slightly different balance between competing resource demands and this balance is 

within BLM’s lawful discretionary decision space, the BLM must endeavor to make its final 

decision consistent with state and local government policies. 

Request of the State:

The State of Utah provided a consistency review just prior to the 2008 oil shale and tar 

sands Record of Decision. The state indicated the decision was generally consistent with state 

law, policy, plans and procedures. Within the decision space laid out by the alternatives within 

the DPEIS, the no-action alternative, i.e. the status quo, would remain consistent with state and 

local plans. Other alternatives may not be. Fundamentally, the decision space allowed BLM in 

this matter is limited. EPACT 2005 requires the creation of a commercial leasing program for 

oil shale and tar sands within 18 months of enactment. The State of Utah supports this, and 

found the efforts of BLM in 2008 to be consistent with its laws, plans, policies and procedures. 

The state is not asking the BLM to step outside the taw in retaining the status quo, and BLM has 

not demonstrated any information which would require a decision different from that made by 

BLM in 2008. Therefore, the BLM can easily accommodate the state’s request that the Record 

of Decision in the current analysis reflect consistency with the state’s position. BLM should 

simply adopt the no action alternative at this time. #19])>

<([#20 [6.5] The BLM Relies on Outdated Information on Oil Shale and Tar Sands 

Resources in Utah

Although the BLM cites the U.S. Geological Survey reassessment of oil shale resources 

in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming as one important reason for reevaluating the allocation 

decisions in the 2008 PEIS, the BLM did not use this new information in its analysis of the most 

geologically prospective resources. The DPEIS simply carries forward the data used for the 2008 

PEIS. The 2012 PEIS would greatly benefit f rom the incorporation of new USGS resource 
Final OSTS PEIS 1228 

assessments and new oil shale data resource data published by the Utah Geological Survey in 

2008. 

This omission of new data is extremely troubling and calls into question both the validity 

ofBLM’s allocation decisions and whether the BLM took the requisite hard look for purposes of 

NEP A. Despite its insistence that updated geological assessments were important for improved 

allocation decisions in the 2012 PEIS, the BLM instead demonstrates an almost total disregard 

for this new information. For example, the BLM relied on digital data provided by the BLM 

Utah State Office rather than data from USGS or UGS [Draft PEIS, Chapter l, 1.2, pg. 1-10, 

footnote 4. 

Oil shale data for the 25 foot thick, 25 

gallon per ton resource standard used in the 2008 PEIS came primarily from older reports 

focusing on the southeastern part ofthe Uinta Basin. Newer USGS and UGS studies include 

complete data sets spanning the entire Uinta Basin [Vanden Berg, 2008; UGS Special Study 1 

28; USGS 20 I Ob, Oil Shale Resources of the Uinta Basin, Utah and Colorado, National Oil 

and Gas Assessment Project, Digital Data Series DDS-69-BB. 

The DPEIS states that “(t)he BLM considered this new (USGS) information and has 

determined that while the new data should inform and update the 2012 PEIS effort, particularly 

with respect to information pertaining to the 2008 study area, the boundaries defining the inplace 

assessment do not represent the most geologically prospective areas of the Green River 

Formation located in the ... Uinta ... Basin ... (T)he PEIS will not employ the USGS boundary to 

define the study area” [Draft PEIS, Chapter 2, 2.5.1 , pg. 2-77]. 

The BLM discusses at some length why it did not consider the increases 

found for estimated total in-place oil in the Piceance Basin USGS Oil Shale assessment [The 

BLM quoted the assessment as saying “much of this previously unassessed resource is of low 

grade and unlikely to be developed.” !d], but fails to justify why similar assessments for the 

Uinta and Green River Basins were not incorporated. 

The BLM does not include reference citations in the text, map, or table identifying the 

geologically most prospective areas in Utah for oil shale [Draft PEIS, Chapter 2, 2.3, pp. 2-13 to 

2-1 6]; 

however, UGS is certain the data 

described comes from preliminary information provided by the agency for the 2008 PEIS and 

does not reflect updated information developed by either UGS or the USGS. The DPEIS 

references Tabet (2007) as the source of oil shale and tar sand resource data for oil shale lands in 

Utah [!d., 2.3. I, pg. 2-20, footnote 4: Appendix A references]. 

These references to information provEded by a UGS senior geologist in 2007 confirms 

that the resource data used for the 2012 DPEIS came from information provided by the agency 

for the 2008 PEIS. This information, as even the BLM acknowledges, is out-of-date and been 

replaced by information from more recent UGS and USGS resource assessments. 

It is disturbing that the BLM employed few people with geological and mining 

engineering backgrounds in the analysis of the most geologically prospective areas for the 2012 

DPEIS?1 21 Draft PEIS, Chapter 8. 

It appears that the BLM chose to update the resource picture without the assistance of 

suitably trained personnel. The only geologist employed in the current effort evaluated 

paleontological resources, not OSTS resources. This demonstrates a biased reevaluation by 

BLM ofthe issues and impacts from OSTS leasing. It also violates the NEPA requirement that 

insures “environmental information is available to public officials and citizens before decisions 
Final OSTS PEIS 1229 

are made and before actions are taken. The information must be of high quality. Accurate 

scientific analysis, expert agency comments, and public scrutiny are essential to implementing 

NEP A” (emphasis added) [ 40 CFR 1500.1]. #20])>

<([#21 [1.5] The Draft PEIS Fails to Adequately Analyze Oil Shale Technologies

The DPEIS relies heavily on outdated information regarding oil shale and tar sands 

development technologies and in doing so, fails to provide the kind of comprehensive 

information required by NEP A for proper decision making. 

CEQ regulations are quite clear about the standards required under NEP A for EISs. 

According to Sec.l500.1 (b) 

“ .. .information must be of high quality. Accurate scientific analysis, expert agency 

comments, and public scrutiny are essential to implementing NEP A.” 

Because an EIS is used to plan actions and make decisions and must be suppmted by 

evidence that the agency has made the necessary environmental analyses [40 CFR § 1502. 1]. 

it must contain the 

most accurate, up-to-date information available. Based on our extensive discussions with oil 

shale and tar sands industries, the DPEIS is cJearly deficient and shows little to no coordination 

with industry. This may be a product of the backgrounds of the DPEIS contributors, where there 

is no evidence of industry or development background. 

The BLM admits that “some of the information on the environmental consequences of oil 

shale development. .. is based on past oil shale developments. For purpose of this analysis, in the 

absence of more specific information of the oil shale technologies to be implemented in the 

future and the environmental consequences of implementing those technologies, information 

derived from other types of development. .. was used “ (emphasis added) [ Draft PEIS, Chapter 

4, pg. 4-1]. 

Consultation and coordination with industry by the BLM is critical to the effective and 

unbiased analysis of the environmental consequences as well the economic benefits of oil shale 

and tar sands development. Based upon the previous decisions of the BLM, companies have 

invested hundreds of millions of private capital in technology, permitting, construction, and 

processing of oil shale and tar sands. The willingness ofthe state and private landowners to 

encourage this development in Utah has produced a highly sophisticated, successful, privately 

funded and well-capitalized oil shale and tar-sands industry in the state. 

The BLM qualifies its analysis of oil shale and tar sands technologies by stating that the 

information on these technologies is presented for the purposes of general understanding and 

doesn’t define the range of possible teclmologies that might emerge in the coming years [ibid].

This reflects a lack of due diligence on the part of the BLM. There is infonnation available on 

newer, 

cutting-edge technologies that have moved from the RD&D phase into commercial scale 

development. BLM’s reliance on outdated or general descriptions of the technology and its 

environmental impacts when there is ample information available on the newest developments in 

the industry contravenes NEPA’s implementation requirements for EISs [40 CFR §1502.2 (g) 

“Environmental Impact Statements shall serve as the means of assessing the environmental 

impact of proposed agency actions, rather thanjust(fying decisions already made”]. Appendix A 

references six oil shale projects in Utah from the late 1960s-the mid 1980s and cites these 

projects as a “wealth of resource, engineering, and baseline environmental data that will be 

useful in future efforts to develop oil shale resources” [DPEfS Appendix A, pg. A-21 ]. 

While past experience may be useful for 
Final OSTS PEIS 1230 

the analysis of the impacts of oil shale technologies, it is also important to include analysis of 

the innovative technologies currently in use tlhat seek to resolve some of the environmental 

concerns raised by these earlier projects. Relying on technological examples in any industry (e.g. 

computing for example) from years back simply does not meet the requirement ofNEPA to 

consider the best information available .. This is true especially in the oil shale and tar sands 

industries present in Utah. 

An examination of Chapters 4 and 5 ofthe PEIS, along with the accompanying 

references, shows that the BLM did little research on newer technologies and did not make 

personal contact or mention any coordination witha single representative from industry. This is 

troubling to the state, since the Preferred Alternative relies on proven success through RD&D 

projects before allocating additional lease lands. A willingness to communicate and work 

effectively with industry will be critical under any of the alternatives, but especially under an 

RD&D driven alternative. 

For example, BLM’s analysis of the EcoShaleTM In-Capsule Technology developed by 

Red LeafResourc.es was based solely on information derived from Red Leafs website [Ibid., 

A.5.3 .7, pg. A-87]. 

Employing a team of researchers devoted to addressing reasons to exclude lands from 

commercial development while limiting technology and industry research to an effective ‘google 

search’ demonstrates BLM’s fundamental incapability to work with industry. 

A second example is the information regarding the development ofEnefit’s RD&D lease 

at the White River Mine. This DPEIS relies heavily on findings from a 2007 EA for OSEC’s 

proposed development activities at the same site. The only update BLM provides for the purpose 

of its analysis is that Enefit will employ its own version of the proposed underground mining and 

aboveground retort technologies based on its Enefit280 plant under construction in Estonia [Ibid, 

A.5.3.34, pg. A-75]. 

BLM provided no comparative analysis between the Enefit280 process and the ATP retort 

process the agency evaluated for the purposes of the 2007 EA. It also fails to mention that the 

Enefit280 plant is possible only due to the commercial success ofEnefit’s parent company 

producing energy from oil shale since before 1950. Framing Enefit’s successes and technology 

as “Enefit280 plant under construction” further shows BLM’s bias and active efforts to portray 

the industry as nascent while in fact it has been functioning successfully and economically 

outside of the country. This demonstrates that the leading reason that oil shale and tar sands have 

not been proven commercially is due to the efforts and bias of BLM; not the lack of technology 

as BLM asserts. 

The Utah Division of Oil, Gas and Mining (DOGM) recently granted Red Leaf a permit 

to begin commercial scale oil shale production in the Uintah Basin. Following a successful pilot 

test of its EcoShale technology, the company will commence oil shale operations on 1,500 acres 

in the Uintah Basin on state owned school trust lands. Enefit American Oil, a subsidiary of an 

Estonian energy company with 50 years of experience commercially producing energy from oil 

shale, acquired the Utah-based Oil Shale Exploration Company (OSEC) in March of2011. Eesti 

Energia, the parent company ofEnefit, recently announced it will conduct a commercial study of 

the application of its Enefit retort process to operations at the White River Min e. 

These companies report that their new technology uses less water and result in fewer 

environmental impacts than the process technologies of the 1980s. For example, the EcoShale 

technology utilizes low temperatures for heating and does not require process water. The 

Enefit140 retort process, currently in use in its Estonian facilities and the predecessor to the 
Final OSTS PEIS 1231 

Enefit280, uses no water, runs on organic waste, and emits significantly lower C02 emissions 

[https://www.energia.ee/en/oi 1/oilandgas/enefit 140] 

While the BLM acknowledges that these two companies are planning commercial production in 

the Uintah Basin in the near future, BLM fails to examine these technologies in any detail or 

evaluate their assertions of reduced environmental impacts. The agency instead relies on 

assumptions based on old data [Ibid, Chapter 4, 4.1, pg. 4-2.]. 

This omission is serious. According to regulations for the implementation of NEP A: 

“If a draft statement is so inadequate as to preclude meaningful analysis, the agency

shall prepare and circulate a revised drqft of the appropriate portion.” [ 40 CFR 1502.9(a).]. 

BLM’s failure to include any kind of meaningful consideration of current oil shale and tar 

sand technologies and their environmental impacts is a serious breach of its responsibility to 

provide thorough, unbiased analyses in its EISs. CEQ regulations are very clear that EISs shall 

serve as the means for assessing the environmental impact of proposed agency actions, rather 

than justifying decisions already made. 

#21])> <([#22 [11] The state strongly supports the development of oil shale and tar sands 

resources and 

recognizes the significant contribution this development will provide Utah’s economy. Utah 

contains some of the richest oil shale reserves in the world. Unconventional fuels such as oil 

shale and tar sands are an important component of Governor Gary Herbert’s 1 0-year Strategic 

Energy Plan for the state [Energy Initiatives and Imperatives: Utah’s I 0-Year Stralgic Energy 

Plan, pg. 14.]. 

Energy development attracts new jobs, capital investment, and economic development 

opportunities for the state. 

Information gathered by the Utah Office of Energy Development (OED) bears this out. 

Enefit has invested over $100 million dollars to bring its commercially proven technology to 

Utah [https://www.energia.ee/-/doc/ l 0 187/pdf/concern/lnterim report 20 II 03 eng. Pdf ] 

and has indicated it will invest more if given the opportunity to develop resources on 

public lands. Questerre Energy Corporation recently signed a letter of intent to invest $40 million 

in Red Leaf and their EcoShale In-Capsule technology, citing the success of the Utah pilot 

project [“Red Leaf Resources Get Green Light for Oil Shale Project in Utah”, April 5, 20 12, 

http://www.centerwest.org/publications/oilshale/7new/?p- 450 ]. 

As recent as April 2012, the major French Oil Company Total entered into a $200 

million Joint Venture with RedLeafto further commercial scale operations 

[http://\vww.marketwatch.com/story/red-leaf-resources-inc-total-ep-usa-oil-shale-llc-announcea-joint-venture-foroilshale-production-project-20 12-04-18, Red Leaf Resources, Inc & Total E&P USA Oil Shale, 

LLC announce a joint venture for oil shale production project, Marketwatch website accessed 5/ 

1/2012.]. 

In March of2012, 

the Uintah Transportation Special Service District awarded a $9 million asphalt paving contract 

to surface the first 17 miles of a road to the Uintah-Grand County line with Plant Mixed Oil Sand 

Asphalt (PMOSA), a heated blend ofUintah county aggregate and tar sands. Additional paving 

contracts using PMOSA demonstrate a growing commercial demand for tar sands. 

OED also performed an informal survey of companies who had either previously invested 

in oil shale and tar sands development or had indicated a strong interest in doing so in the future. 

Survey results showed that 99.7% ofthe investment dollars represented in the survey believed 
Final OSTS PEIS 1232 

that the primary impediment to developing oil shale and tar sands was uncertainty surrounding 

access to BLM lands, ranking overwhelmingly higher than lack of technology, capital, or access 

to state or private lands. With over $190 million of recent ( < 5 year) investment and over 

$930,000,000 of planned (5< year) investment represented in the survey, OED calculates that 

implementing the Preferred Alternative, with its RD&D emphasis and limited acreage available 

for leasing, would prevent approximately $3.26 billion dollars in investment in the state for oil 

shale and tar sands development. #22])>

<([#23 [3.4.4] Availability of Water

Supposition vs. Fact

The characterization of water resource use in the DPEIS study area lacks the clarity 

necessary to satisfy the requirements ofNEPA, which stipulates that “statements shall be 

concise, clear, and to the point” [ 40 CFR § 1502.1]. Broad statements and the confusing 

application of water use terms cloud and complicate the analysis. The state asserts BLM’s data 

Jacks the necessary 

confidence to properly evaluate the impact of oil shale and tar sands on water allocations under 

the Upper Colorado River Basin Compact, given the lack of clarity contained in the agency’s 

descriptions of water availability and usage. 

The BLM describes water use in the Colorado River Basin as “highly developed, 

allocated, and regulated” [Draft PEIS Chapter 3, 3.4, pg. 3-61.]. 

This sentence is misleading. Although the statement is true for the 

lower-basin states, it misrepresents conditions along the main stem of the Green and Colorado 

Rivers in Utah. None of the Upper Basin States have developed all of their Colorado River 

Compact water, with the possible exception of New Mexico. Utah has yet to deplete or consume 

roughly 300,000 acre-feet of its approximately 1.3 7 million acre-feet of water under the 

Colorado River Compact, as evidenced by BLM’s own table included in the DPEIS [ibid. Table 

3.4.1-3, pg. 3-67.]. 

The BLM should make it clear in its discussion of water allocation under the Compact 

that the 6 million acre feet of water available both physically and under the provisions of the 

Compact is the quantity of water the Upper Basin States may deplete or consume [ibid. 3.4.l.l, 

pg. 3-61]. 

While the BLM defines the terms “diversion” and “consumptive use” in the DPEJS, it 

does not define the term “demand.” It appears the BLM uses the term synonymously with 

diversion, which is not correct. Since the BLM does not provide a definition of”demand,” the 

use projections on two of the tables are misleading [ibid., Tables 3.4-1-2 and 3.4.1-3, pp. 3-67-

3.72]. 

and conclusions regarding supply and demand are faulty [Ibid. pp. 3-73, 3-74, 3-75]. 

The Utah Water Demand Table (3.4.1-3) shows the projected 2020 and 2050 demand will 

be greater than the 23% allocation of 6 million acre-feet available for the Upper Colorado River 

Basin under the compact [Footnote j: ibid., pg. 3-70.]. 

Without a definition of supply or demand, this comparison is 

meaningless. The 6 million acre feet of water available for the upper basin states is not a 

limitation on diversion or demand, but rather a limitation on the allowable depletion or 

consumption. Statements regarding water use [Ibid. pg. 3-73.] make it appear that there is no 

water available to develop in the Upper Basin states. Utah has not fully used its allocation of the 

Colorado River Compact and, as the BLM indicates in its 2030 projections, even if consumptive 

uses are on the high end, Utah will still have a 268,425 acre-foot surplus for consumptive use 
Final OSTS PEIS 1233 

[Ibid., Table 3.4.1-2, pg. 3-67]. #23])>

<([#24 [6.3.2] [3.4.3] The BLM Uses Outdated Assumptions Regarding Water Usage for Oil 

Shale and Tar 

Sands Development 

The BLM states that ‘although a certain amount of water is calculated to be available 

in . .. Utah ... , this does not imply that the water is readily or physically available for 

development” [Ibid. , pp. 3-74 and 3-75]. 

Supporting statements include: 

• Oil shale basins and STSAs are situated in areas much smaller than the Upper Colorado 

• Hydrologic basin on which water availability was calculated 

• Storage and capture infrastructure may not be available in oil shale basins and STSAs 

• Developers would have to acquire water rights either through transfer or purchase, 

since most of the water has been claimed 

• Water use would be regulated under a number of state and federal regulations, as well 

as instream flow requirements to protect endangered fish [lbid.,pg. 3-75] 

These broad statements would apply to most water use in the Upper Colorado Basin and 

should not be used as justification for wholesale dismissal of water availability for oil shale and 

tar sands development. 

In its discussion of water use for oil shale development, the BLM bases its assumptions 

on outdated information [Draft PETS, Chapter 4, 4.5.1 .2, pg. 4-33]. 

Its assessment assumes 2.6 to 4.0 bbl ofwater per barrel of oil for 

surface mining with a surface retort and underground mines with surface retorts and 1 to 3 bbl of 

water for in situ projects. Current technology utilizes 1 to 1.5 barrels of water per barrel of oil. 

New technologies do not use water for the actual extraction of the oil from the shale but 

primarily for dust control. 

Recently permitted oil shale operations in Utah use considerably less water than the BLM 

assumes for purposes of the PEIS. According to Red Leafs permit “most water will be 

consumed for construction of the process capsules and for dust control. The EcoShale In Capsule 

process itself is a net producer ofwater” [Utah Division of Oil, Gas, and Mining. Red Leaf Large 

Mining Operation Application, Appendix K. Approved March 14, 2012.]. 

Red Leafs petroleum removal process extracts water 

from the oil shale. Removed as water vapor, condensed, recovered and then put to use in mining 

operations, this process water will supply approximately one third of the total project water 

demand. All water captured, recovered, or withdrawn for use on the project is to be used on 

site [Ibid]. The DPEIS assumption of 1-3bbl water/bbl oil produced for a 30,000-50,000bbVday 

in 

situ plant does not take into account the ditierent water requirements for Red Leafs mining 

technology [Draft DPEIS, Chapter 4, Table 4.5.2-1, pg. 4-43.]. 

Enefifs retorting process itself does not require water, although water is needed for 

cooling, upgrading, power production, and dust control 

[https://www.enefit.com/en/oil/projects/usa]. 

In considering the impacts to water 

resources from Enefit’s White Rjver Mine, the BLM references its 2007 EA for OSEC’s 

proposed mining operations at the mine site [Draft PEIS, Appendix A, A.5 .3.4.3, pg. A-79]. 

Water requirements for the OSEC operations, 

based on the use of an A TP retort, are likely not comparable to those proposed by Enefit and 
Final OSTS PEIS 1234 

again shows that BLM has failed to cooperate and discuss these vital issues with industry. The 

state strongly suggests that BLM cooperates with industry and again asserts that the DPEIS is 

deficient without these efforts. 

The anticipated decline in available Colorado River water is based in part on the 

development of water for oil shale and tar sands development [Draft PEIS, Chapter 4, 4.5.2.2, 

pg. 4-48]. 

This decline appears to be based 

on the water requirements of older technologies and should be revised accordingly. 

The BLM appears to believe that water is only available through retiring agriculture 

water rights [Draft PEIS, Chapter 4, pg 4-34-4.35; Chapter 5, 5.5. 1.2, pg 5-27 ]. In Utah 

currently, there are approved water right applications totaling well in 

excess of 10,000 acre-feet of water for the express purpose of developing oil shale and tar sands. 

The assumptions regarding likely water sources for tar sands development on Asphalt 

Ridge are flawed [Draft PEIS, Chapter 5, 5.5.2.2.1, pg 5-37]. Water in the Green River, which 

flows past the southern tip of Asphalt 

Ridge, is available for use. Until recently, there was an approved application to divert water from 

the Green River for tars sands development at Asphalt Ridge. The application is held by the 

Uintah Water Conservancy District, which plans tar sands development as a future use for the 

application. #24])>

<([#25 [9.2.2] The DPEIS Does Not Fulfill the Requirements of a Commercial Leasing 

Program as

Required by the Energy Policy Act of 2005

Section 369 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPACT) states “not later than 18 months 

after the date of enactment of this Act ... the Secretary (of Interior) shall complete a 

programmatic environmental impact statement for a commercial leasing program for oil shale 

and tar sands resources on public lands, with emphasis on the most geologically prospective 

lands within each ofthe States of Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming” [Public Law 109-58, “Oil 

Shale, Tar Sands, and Other Strategic and Unconventional Fuels Act of2005,” Section 369 (d)]. 

Like the 2008 PEIS before 

it, the 2012 Oil Shale Tar Sands PEIS seeks to simply identify lands “available for application 

for leasing” rather than completing an analysis that would make lands available for commercial 

leasing. The DPEIS, contrary to the intent of Congress in EP ACT, does not actually designate 

lands available for commercial leasing or establish the necessary guidelines or regulations for a 

commercial oil shale and tar sands leasing program by the BLM. The Preferred Alternative, in 

fact, takes a step backwards, constraining commercial leasing by: 

• excluding large swaths of geologically prospective lands from application for leasing; 

• demanding unnecessary, burdensome NEPA analyses that go beyond those required for 

conventional oil and gas and surface mining leasing programs; and 

• predicating commercial leasing on the successful application of oil shale technology 

through an RD&D leasing program. #25])>

<([#26 [9.2] [2.2] Geologically Prospective Lands Excluded From Application For Leasing 

The Preferred Alternative removes geologically prospective lands due to perceived 

conflicts with sage grouse core or priority habitat and lands with wilderness characteristics 

(LWCs). While the Settlement Agreement (“Agreement”) [Civil Action No. 09-cv-00085-JLK, 

February 15,2011.] between the BLM and 

environmental plaintiffs that resulted in the revision of the 2008 PEIS ROD required the BLM to 
Final OSTS PEIS 1235 

analyze the environmental effects of an alternative that excluded these lands from oil shale and 

tar sands leasing, the Agreement did NOT require the BLM to select this alternative. As 

discussed above, BLM’s analysis of these two factors is replete with errors in fact and policy. In 

fact, in light of the requirements ofEPACT, the Preferred Alternative nullifies the intent of 

Congress to establish a commercial leasing program. #26])>

<([#27 [9.6.1] Unnecessary, Burdensome NEPA Analyses That Go Beyond Those Required For 

Conventional Oil And Gas And Surface Mining Leasing Programs 

The BLM treats oil shale and tar sands leasing differently than oil and gas leasing and 

coal leasing by requiring additional levels of analysis before commencing commercial leasing. 

The agency states “it anticipates, to the best of its knowledge, that the surface disturbing 

activities involved with other types of mineral development are comparable to those that may 

result from oil shale and tar sands development” [Draft PETS, Chapter 4, pg. 4-1]. 

It also says that it anticipates that oil shale 

development will proceed in a three-step decision-making process similar to that used for federal 

on shore oil and gas [Draft PETS, Executive Summary, pg. ES-5]. Then it turns around and says 

that due to the experimental nature of oil 

shale and tar sands technologies, the BLM believes the stages ofNEPA compliance will be 

different from oil and gas. It goes on to explain that “(i)f and when applications to lease are 

received and accepted, the BLM will conduct additional required analyses, including 

consideration of direct, indirect, and cumulative effects, reasonable alternatives, and possible 

mitigation measures, as well as assessment of level of development that may be anticipated. 

(Based on this analysis of future lease applications), the BLM will establish general lease 

stipulations and best management practices” for oil shale and tar sands leasing and 

development [Jd.] 

These extra levels of environmental analyses are unnecessary and place an undue burden 

on companies wishing to develop oil shale and tar sands resources. The proposed process is so 

cumbersome and fraught with uncertainty that few companies could afford to secure investment 

and dedicate capital resources to development efforts, especially given the added possibility of 

additional delays due to protests or legal challenges. This lengthy process defeats the intent of 

EPACT to construct a commercial leasing program, a program originally scheduled to be in 

place by 2011. 

There are adequate federal and state regulations to deal with the impacts of oil shale and 

tar sands operation that protect water quality, air quality, and other resource values. Oil shale and 

tar sand developments involve well-defined, basic extraction, processing, and upgrading 

techniques that have been in use in Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, Estonia, and Ireland. Oil 

shale and tar sands enjoy commercial success in Canada and Estonia and have been produced 

there successfully for many years. Similar extraction and production technologies have 

undergone RD&D testing in the United States since the 1960s. The impacts from developing 

these resources should not require further BLM analysis or research to understand the 

enviromnental impacts of oil shale and tar sands before leasing can take place. 

Oil shale and tar sand leasing and associated development activities have occurred on 

Utah state lands for many years. These operations have proceeded in a manner that provides 

adequate protection of the environment under state regulatory programs sanctioned by the Office 

of Surface Mining (OSM) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The BLM gives no 

reason why similar activities, safeguarded by the same level of environmental protection, could 

not be carried out on federal lands absent further NEP A or BLM analysis. The BLM correctly 
Final OSTS PEIS 1236 

states that it would have ample opportunities to assess the impacts of OSTS development plans 

with further “NEPA analysis and other approgriate review” “before approval of a lease and 

subsequent plan of development on a lease” [Draft PEIS, Chapter I, pg. 1-l] . 

More RD&D and NEPA analysis is not needed now or before BLM proceeds to a commercial 

OSTS leasing program. #27])>

<([#28 [9.7] Commercial Leasing Predicated On the Successful Application Of Oil Shale 

Technology

Through An RD&D Leasing Program

The BLM declares in the Preferred Alternative that the agency “would like to maintain 

focus on RD&D projects” [Draft PEIS, Executive Summary, pg. ES-9.]. 

This is not the mandate of EP ACT, which was to proceed to 

commercial leasing. Congress did not ask the BLM to determine whether it wished to have 

commercial leasing or not. As was stated before, a number of companies have initiated pilot 

projects on state and private lands in Utah for years. One company, Red Leaf, is confident that its 

technology will lead to oil shale production on a commercial scale. It requested and received a 

permit from the Utah Division of Oil, Gas, and Mining (UDOGM) to proceed with commercial 

operations. The justification for seeking more RD& D data is not valid in the case of oil shale 

companies who might seek federal leases in Utah. #28])>

<([#29 [9.6] BLM’s RD&D Leasing Program

The BLM declares in the Preferred Alternative that the agency “would like to maintain 

focus on RD&D projects” [Draft PEIS, Executive Summary, pg. ES-9]. 

The state fmds this unacceptable, as the previous RD&D Leasing 

Program was not only excessively burdensome, but not economically attractive and, as a result, 

effectively killed interest in development of oil shale and oil sands on BLM land. As an example, 

the first round ofRD&D leases offered more than 5,000 acres for commercial development if a 

technology was deemed ‘worthy’ by BLM. The second round decreased the amount ‘awarded’ to 

RD&D lease applicants to less than 700 acres, as well as increased the administrative oversight 

and bureaucratic burden. Quite simply, 700 acres is not enough area for a successful conunercial 

project, as evidenced by the examples throughout these comment. In addition, BLM placed 

approximately 50% ofEnefit’s preferential lease area as ‘ off-limits’ to development despite 

having identified this as an area which should be awarded to the RD&D lease holder. 

This is a clear example of the disregard for the realities faced by industry and shows that 

BLM is not truly interested in understanding the requirements of a successful oil shale industry. 

A simple coordination with industry during the DPEIS process would have borne this out, but 

BLM showed no effort in this regard. The result is massive regulatory uncertainty that shadows 

the industry and prevents successful economic development. It is further evidence that the reason 

that there is less commercial success in the United States is not due to lack of technology, as 

asserted in the DPEIS; instead it is due to the regulatory uncertainty created by efforts like this 

DPEIS. #29])>

<([#30 [9.2.3] BLM’s Deal With Plaintiffs In The Settlement Agreement Is At Variance 

With The

Requirements Of EPACT

The BLM in many ways abrogated its responsibilities under EPACT when it signed the 

Settlement Agreement. The Agreement prohibited the BLM from issuing a call for expression of 

leasing interest for oil shale or offer lands for competitive tar sands leasing or expressions of 

interest in tar sands leasing prior to January 15, 2013 [Civil Action No. 09-cv-00085-JLK, 12, 
Final OSTS PEIS 1237 

February 15, 20 II.], well after the December 2012 deadline 

for issuance of an ROD. This defeated the stated purpose behind the original 2008 PEIS for 

establishing a commercial leasing program. The Agreement effectively precluded consideration 

of areas of interest to industry for the purposes of the 2012 PEIS while at the same time giving 

disproportionate weight to “nominations” of areas precluded from oil shale and tar sands leasing 

by environmental interests. This turns the intent of EPACT on its head. 

The labyrinthine process created in this DPEIS makes it nearly impossible for companies 

to develop oil shale resources on public lands. How can interested parties make applications for 

commercial leasing of oil shale in the absence of a commercial leasing program? If BLM delays 

further oil shale leasing analyses until companies nominate lands for leasing and BLM has no 

mechanism to allow companies to nominate lands for leasing, it is difficult to see how there can 

be commercial level oil shale leasing. 

This is troubling for a number of reasons. NEP A requires agencies to assess the direct 

and indirect effects of a proposed action [40 CFR 1508.8.]. It also requires analysis of the 

cumulative impacts of a proposed action [40 CFR 1508.7]. The BLM proposes to complete the 

analyses for areas nominated for 

commercial OSTS leasing after the ROD. Since this information is critical to an informed 

decision on the allocation of lands available for leasing and should be considered in the DPEJS, 

the BLM effectively signed away its statutory responsibility to properly analyze a major federal 

action that required an EIS under NEP A when it entered into the Settlement Agreement [See 40 

CFR 1508.18 (b) (3) as it applies to adoption of a program to implement a specific statutory 

program, specifically EPACT]. 

In contrast, the BLM incorporates information related to lands with wilderness 

characteristics inventoried over five years ago. It proposes to include priority areas for sage 

grouse in its lands for exclusion from leasing with no supporting evidence for the selection of 

these core areas. Yet it fails to consider current evidence of interest in lease areas; in fact, it 

prevents the consideration of this interest. The level of interest in oil shale and tar sands lease 

areas has a direct and indirect effect on oil shale development. Denial of consideration of 

industry interest has cumulative impacts both on the development oil shale and tar sands 

technologies as well as the implementation of a commercial oil shale tar sands leasing program. 

The Agreement did not require the BLM to predicate its leasing program on nominations 

of lands for leasing, nor did it prevent the BLM from establishing a commercial leasing program 

subsequent to the January 2013 date. Its selection of the Preferred Alternative indicates that the 

BLM did not seriously consider other options. 

By entering into an Agreement that effectively foreclosed the opportunity for industry to 

express an interest in prospective areas or nominate appropriate areas for leasing prior to a ROD 

on the FPEIS and creating a situation in which the agency claimed it could not even consider 

such areas for the purposes of analysis in the DPEIS, the BLM : 

• Violates the express provisions ofEPACT to establish a commercial leasing program 

for oil shale and tar sands; and 

• Violates NEP A by segmenting issues to a degree that it is impossible for the agency to 

take the requisite hard look at the environmental impacts of a commercial leasing 

program. #30])>

<([#31 [9.2.3] [10.5] [1.5] Segmentation of Issues Violates NEP A and Contravenes Intent of EP 

ACT 

The BLM cannot properly analyze the impacts from oil shale and tar sands leasing 
Final OSTS PEIS 1238 

because the agency has failed to: 

• consider expressions of interest in oil shale and tar sands areas 

• establish royalties, fees, rentals, bonus, and other payments for leases 

• consider the support and interest in Utah for the development of oil shale and tar sands 

resources 

• establish a program to facilitate land exchanges to consolidate land ownership and 

mineral interests into manageable areas [Public Law I 09-58, “Oil Shale, Tar Sands, and Other 

Strategic and Unconventional Fuels Act of2005,” Section 369 (e), (n), (o).]. 

These actions are not only required by EPACT, they are necessary elements of a 

commercial leasing program. The 2008 PEIS provided the environmental analysis required by 

EP ACT for a commercial leasing program, with the assumption that within a carefully 

prescribed 

time period the other critical components of the program would be in place. Four years later, 

these critical pieces remain in a state of flux. 

Consider expressions of interest in oil shale and tar sands areas

This was discussed at length earlier. 

Establish royalties, fees, rentals, bonus, and other payments for leases

A recent oil shale rulemaking agreement [Civil Action No.-09-cv-00091-JLK] allows the BLM 

to change royalty rates for oil 

shale and tar sands leases, with the notice of proposed rulemaking (NPR) due out after the 

DPEIS comment period closes. The BLM states that “determining commercial royalty rates” 

[Draft PETS, Chapter I, pg. 1-13.] is 

outside the scope of the congressional requirements ofEPACT for the BLM’s programmatic 

analysis for a commercial OSTS leasing program. By removing and replacing the cunent royalty 

rate and creating even greater uncertainty for industry, the BLM, as it did with the Settlement 

Agreement, chose to further erode the formation of a commercial oil shale and gas leasing 

program, 

Consider the support and interest in Utah for the development of oil shale and tar sands

resources

The BLM acknowledges that state interest in leasing is relevant, stating “it has been 

suggested by one of the cooperating agencies, and seconded by others, that BLM develop an 

alternative that would allow for larger scale leasing and development in Utah and Wyoming 

where the majority of the cooperators support a program that makes more federal oil shale and 

tar sands resources available for application for future leasing, while limiting development in 

Colorado, where the majority of cooperators favor a more cautious approach to leasing and 

development” [Dra ft PETS, 2.4.4, pg. 2-76]. 

Governor Herbert has made it quite clear that Utah favors this approach [Utah Energy Initiative: 

A I 0 Year Strategic Energy Plan, Pg. 7]. 

However, The BLM dramatically reduced the acreage of lands allocated as available for leasing 

in Utah in the Preferred Alternative in apparent conflict with the high interest demonstrated by 

the state for increasing oil shale and tar sands development. 

Establish a program to facilitate land exchanges to consolidate land ownership and mineral

interests into manageable areas

The BLM admits it has no plans in place for land exchanges. The DPEIS contains no 

discussion of the ways BLM might facilitate such exchanges, either through requests for 

nominations for lands to exchange, determination of which federal lands are available for 
Final OSTS PEIS 1239 

exchange, extra staff and budgets to identify and expedite proposed exchange opportunities, or 

streamlined NEP A and land resource appraisals to foster quicker exchanges. The DPEIS simply 

avoids the subject by claiming that “the possible locations for such future exchanges are 

unknown at this time” [Draft PEIS, Chapter I, pg. 1-12]. 

Deferring or avoiding the identification oflands available for future 

exchange does nothing to move the BLM forward in facilitating or giving priority to land 

exchanges as required by EPACT. 

The 2012 DPEIS was an ideal opportunity to remedy the lack of coordinated 

consideration of the cumulative impacts of these components on a commercial leasing program. 

Instead, the DPEIS segments these elements, removing them from even initial consideration, and 

cites the agency’s self-imposed inability to weigh these essential factors as justification for 

scaling back the lands available for leasing even further than it did in the 2008 PEIS. By 

excluding these significant aspects of a commercial leasing program from analysis in the DPEIS, 

the BLM fails to properly examine the fuJI range of impacts from oil shale and tar sands leasing 

as required by NEPA, and has improperly segmented the analysis of the proposal. #31])>

<([#32 [8.3] [6.1.1] BLM Overstates the Amount of Land Truly Available for Leasing

BLM overstates the availability oil shale lands by failing to discuss the potential for 

conflicting known uses. Much of the land proposed for availability for oil shale leasing is 

already leased for oil and gas, and projects are planned to develop those resources. It is nearly 

impossible for both developments to occur on the same piece of land. The discussion in the 

DPEIS does not adequately reflect the true status of lands available for oil shale development 

because of existing proposals The BLM uses out-of-date (pre-2005) information and grossly 

underestimates levels of oil and gas drilling in the Book Cliffs area [footnote: Utah Division of 

Oil, Gas, and Mining drilling statistics by county for Duchesne and Uintah Counties for the years 

2008 through 2011 give an average annual rate of264 oil wells in Duchesne County (Diamond 

Mountain area) and 

88 oil wells and 410 gas wells in Uintah County (Book Cliffs area). Using these updated average 

annual drilling rate 

figures for 20 years, rather than the incorrect 15 year p,Janning level presented in Table 6.1.6-5, 

provides estimates of 

5280 oil wells in Duchesne County (versus BLM’s 76 oil wells) and J 760 oil and 8200 gas wells 

in Uintah County 

(versus BLM’s 62 oil and I 43 gas wells) as the expected amount over a 20-year planning 

horizon. Attachment A I, 

Section 6, Current Crude Source, pg A-1 09, needs to be revised to reflect current information on 

oil production 

levels, which have increased significantly in the last few years. For example, Utah is currently 

producing at least 57 

to 58,000 barrels per day compared to the 43,000 barrels per day depicted in Figure 8. The 

discussion ofPADD 4 

does not reflect the new pipeline connecting Salt Lake City, Utah to the Las Vegas, Nevada 

market]. The DPEIS must be rewritten to discuss the conflict with oil and gas operations, discuss 

the minimal amount of lands 

available as a result for oil shale leasing in Utah in the next 20 years. 

The DPEIS also needs to discuss making a suitable amount of lands available for oil 

shale and tar sands leasing in the face of the oil and gas development. As discussed above, the 
Final OSTS PEIS 1240 

oil shale industry is ready to proceed, and the BLM must provide enough resource to allow this 

industry to flourish. Allowing this will reduce our reliance on foreign oil, create jobs and bring 

significant economic development to every state involved. The state suggests modifying the 

definition of the most geologically prospective oil shale lands in Utah to include resources to a 

depth of 3000 feet. #32])>

Conclusion

The State of Utah appreciates the opportunity to work with the BLM on the development 

of active oil shale and tar sands industries in Utah, and stands ready to rework the DPEIS in 

order to do so. Specifically, we request that the BLM prepare the analyses requested by the state 

and local governments in Utah, and issue a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 

which discloses these new analyses to public scrutiny under the provisions ofNEP A. The state 

also urgently requests the BLM to immediately request further time to complete these analyses 

from the Court, for the reason that the tight time frame originally set out has proven too narrow 

to meet the provision of substantive federal law. The state offers to support the BLM in this 

request. 

<([#33 [9.2.3] [1.1.1] The State of Utah also respectfully formally informs BLM, pursuant to the 

terms of 

EPACT 2005, that it will not be bound by the artificial timeline set out in the Settlement 

Agreement providing that the amendments to the existing oil shale regulations will be offered for 

public comment on or about May 15, 2012, after the comment period on the DPEIS has closed. 

The BLM is required by EP ACT 2005 to consider the views of the Governors of the states 

involved, and is required to consider the effects of the land allocation decisions and the 

regulatory structure simultaneously as part of those consultations. The land allocation decisions 

and the leasing and royalty structure are part and parcel of the total leasing program envisioned 

by EPACT 2005. The state will not allow the law which created these consultation requirements 

to be artificially segmented by actions of the BLM and non-governmental parties, no matter the 

forum employed by BLM to create this improper segmentation. The state will be offering the 

BLM substantive comment about the connection between the land allocation information in the 

DPEIS and the soon-to-be-announced new regulatory structure. The state will require the BLM 

to consider any such comments as part of the record in the final decision concerning the Record 

of Decision based upon the current DPEIS. #33])>

<([#34 [2.1.1] The State of Utah strongly supports the work done by the BLM which culminated 

in the 

2008 Records of Decision, and will actively and vigorously oppose any amendments or other 

changes to those decisions. The state specifically requests the BLM to consider the other 

alternatives within the DPEIS in light of the rush to poor analysis occasioned by the illconceived 

timeline set out in the Settlement Agreement, and determine that more time is 

necessary for BLM to obtain sufficient information to make a reasoned decision. In light of the 

need for further information and analysis, and the need for a Supplemental EfS to provide this 

information to the public for review. Fundamentally, the state requests that BLM simply choose 

the No-action alternative, and affirm the earlier work. 

#34])> Thank you for the opportunity to work with you to improve the land in Utah, and to 

provide for a healthy economy. Additional comment is attached as an Addendum and Technical 

Comments. Please feel free to contact myself for any further information that you may need. 

Addendum To State of Utah Comments

Environmental Permit Requirements
Final OSTS PEIS 1241 

<([#35 [3.5.2] [3.5.5] [3.5.6] [9.3] Air Quality

The state is heavily engaged in studies designed to identify potential adverse impacts on 

regional haze and winter ozone levels in the Uintah Basin. The state objects to the conclusory 

statements drawn from generalized information. The DPEIS indicates that PM2.5 and ozone 

could rise above acceptable levels in the Uintah Basin if oil shale and tar sands development 

begins on a commercial scale. 

The DPEIS, however, contains some pro forma references to state and federal regulatory 

means for addressing air quality issues, particularly in the Uintah Basin, that lack the specificity 

required for informed decision-making. Annual emission inventory for criteria pollutants and 

VOCs for counties is ten years old [Draft PEIS, Chapter 3, 3.52, pp. 3-105-107]. 

UDAQ recommends updating the emissions to most 

current available inventory. 

Utah Division of Air Quality urges the BLM to identify best management practices 

(BMPs) for the reduction of PM, NOx, and VOC emissions from oil shale and tar sands 

operations. The Division also requests that BLM consider the cooperative efforts currently 

underway statewide and regionally to tackle the challenges presented by wintertime ozone. The 

results of these studies and cooperative partnerships are important for BLM’s decision-making 

process on the allocation of areas available for oil shale tar sands leasing and should be part of 

the DPEIS analysis. 

Regulatory Mechanisms

A Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) signed by the Department of Agriculture, 

Department of the Interior, and the Environmental Protection Agency on June 23, 2011, 

committed the signatory agencies to a clearly defined, efficient approach to compliance with 

NEPA regarding air quality and air quality values (AQRVs) in connection with oil and gas 

development on federal lands [Memorandum Of Understanding Among The U.S. Department Of 

Agriculture, U.S. Department Of The Interior, And U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Regarding Air Quality Analyses And Mitigation For Federal Oil And Gas Decisions Through 

The National Environmental Policy Act Process.]. 

The MOU established procedures for assessing impacts related 

to NAAQs and AQRVs. The DPEIS referenced the MOU for GHG emissions [ Draft PETS, 

Chapter 4, 4-6.1.1.1, pg. 4-57]. but failed to do the same for other criteria pollutants. 

According to Section V.D. ofthe MOU [Memorandum of Understanding, pg. 9.], 

“ ... the Lead Agency (BLM) will complete and document supporting air quality and

AQRVs analyses prior to (f)ederal oil and gas planning, leasing, or field development

decisions. “ (emphasis added)

These air quality and AQRVs analyses should incorporate the most current data. The 

county annual emissions inventory data cited in the DPEIS is ten years old. The Utah 2008 

Statewide Emission Inventory contains the latest data and is available on the UDAQ web site at: 

http://www.airguality.utah.gov/Planning/Emission-lnventory/2008 State/08 State List.htm. 

The state summary, last updated in November 2010, categorizes emissions for the six 

criteria pollutants by area source, non-road mobile, on-road mobile, point source, biogenics and 

wildfires: 

(http://www.deq.utah.gov/search results.htm?cx=0032154170477771 85873%3Asg4mqgvgkm& 

q=2008+emissions+invcntory+county&cof=FOR1D%3A9. 

The inventory includes detailed annual emissions from point sources in each county 

(http://www.airquality.utah.gov/Planning/Emission- 
Final OSTS PEIS 1242 

Inventory/2008 State/2008 ForrnB CountyDetails112210.pdf) as well as from area sources 

(http://www.airquality.utah.gov/Planning/EmissionInventory/2008 State/2008 Area revised 11301 O.pdD . 

UDAQ has pointed out this omission in previous comments. According to the MOU [Ibid.], 

early in the NEPA process the lead agency will discuss with the agencies: 

• information about the affected environment to include in the baseline assessment; 

• methodology, assumptions, and scale ofthe analyses; and 

• monitoring protocols and mitigation 

The BLM has yet to include this important infom1ation in its air quality impact analysis. 

UDAQ requests the BLM update its data and uti lize the 2008 emission inventory in its analysis 

for the DPEIS. 

Monitored concentrations representative of the study area [Draft PEIS, Chapter 3, Table 3.5.3-2, 

pp. 3- 11 2-113] reference concentration 

levels for PMI 0, PM2.5, and S02 from monitors in surrounding states, specifically the Grand 

Junction CO Powell Station and Rock Springs, WY station. Data from these monitors, located at 

some distance from oil shale/tar sands resources in Utah, do not provide the necessary specificity 

for an accurate accounting of emission levels in the Uintah Basin. UDAQ, through its 2012 

Winter Ozone Study, is collecting air quality data from 20 fixed, distributed monitoring stations 

in the Basin and two air quality “super sites” in Roosevelt and Horsepool. Three permanent 

monitors in Fruitland, Roosevelt, and Vernal supply regional air quality information. Data from 

these sites should be considered in any analysis of air quality in the study area. 

About 75% of all PM2.5 found on UDAQ’s monitoring filters is created by secondary 

particulate formation, which occurs when precursor emissions, usually NOx, SOx, and VOC, 

react in the atmosphere to form PM2.5. Oil and gas operations emit precursor gases that 

contribute to the formation ofPM2.5 and oil shale development would likely do the same. 

UDAQ recommends the BLM utilize the data from the aforementioned monitoring 

stations located in the Basin, incorporate this data into the FPEIS, and consider it in its Record of 

Decision. Any impact assessment for air quality from oil shale and tar sands development should 

contain the available emissions data from the Uintah Basin 2012 Ozone Study (see below). The 

preliminary results from this study, scheduled for release in July, will provide a more 

comprehensive picture of air quality conditions in the Basin. Given the challenges facing the 

Basin with ozone and PM2.5, the BLM should utilize the most up-to-date air quality information 

to make informed decisions on oil shale lease allocation decisions. 

In addition, UDAQ requests the BLM reference the MOU Appendix “Modeling 

Approaches to Evaluate Air Quality for NEPA Decisions Regarding Federal Oil and Gas” in 

support ofthe requirements of Section V.D. The Reusable Modeling Framework (RMF) 

contained in the Appendix recommends that 

“(/)or future emissions, projections should be made.ft-om the base year to 10-15 years

forward to examine the potential for maximum growth in the planning area. “ 

Emissions projections will apprise the DLM of potential air quality issues associated with 

commercial scale oil shale development and should be part of the air quality analyses for lease 

allocation decision-making. 

Best Management Practices

Normally, the state uses the New Source Review (NSR) program to regulate oil and gas 

emissions, with sources subject to Best Available Control Technology (BACT) review, 

modeling, and public comment before receiving a permit. To qualify for NSR, sources must meet 
Final OSTS PEIS 1243 

a minimum threshold of emissions- 5 tons per year of any criteria pollutant, less than 500 

pounds per year of any single hazardous air poll utant, or less than 2,000 pounds per year of 

combined hazardous air pollutants. If the source emits less than the threshold they fall outside of 

NSR regulations (de minimis emissions). 

In the Basin, many of the oil and gas emission sources, including wellheads and tanks, do 

not meet the NSR threshold and are not regulated [UAC R307-413-2.]. RD&D oil shale projects 

will probably also 

not meet this NSR threshold. UDAQ and its partners in the Basin are working with stakeholders 

to determine the feasibility of other regulatory measures for sources that fall outside ofNSR to 

establish better pollution controls for smaller sources. 

Emissions that fall within this de minimis exemption could include fugitive dust from 

mine operations, products of combustion including SOx, NOx, CO, C02, and VOC fTom oil 

processing and handling equipment. 

Proposed National Environmental Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants or NESHAPS 

regulations on oil and gas sources [ 76 FR 52738, Tuesday August 23, 20 I I.] could significantly 

lower emissions, particularly from VOC 

sources. These VOC reduction methods include the use of low bleed pneumatic controllers, wet 

seals on centrifugal compressors, rod packing replacement for reciprocating compressors, and 

the use of vapor recovery units on storage tanks. Use of these controls could prove crucial to 

protecting Basin air quality while allowing for resource development. 

We have included suggested oil shale development BMPs for fugitive dust, VOCs, and 

combustion engines These BMPs include management practices for emissions from current oil 

shale development projects. The BMPs cited do not represent the full complement available for 

emissions reduction. 

Fugitive Dust

Blasting

• Stabilize surface soils where drills, support equipment, and vehicles will operate 

• Pre-water and maintain surface soils in a stabilized condition 

• Apply and maintain a chemical stabilizer on surface soils 

• Stabilize soil during blast preparation activities 

• Limit the blast footprint to no larger than what can be practically stabilized 

immediately following the blast 

• Maintain surface rock and vegetation where possible to reduce exposure of disturbed 

soil to wind 

• Stabilize soil after blasting 

• Water disturbed soils to fonn crust immediately following blast and safety clearance 

Clearing

• Stabilize surface soils where support equipment and vehicles will operate 

• Pre-water and maintain surface soils in a stabilized condition or, 

• Apply and maintain a chemical stabilizer on surface soils 

• Stabilize disturbed soil immediately after clearing and grubbing activities 

• Water disturbed soils to form crust, or 

• Apply and maintain a chemical stabilizer on disturbed soils to form crust. 

• Stabilize slopes at completion of activity 

• Stabilize sloping surfaces using soil binders until vegetation or groundcover can 

effectively stabilize the slope 
Final OSTS PEIS 1244 

• Apply water and maintain sloping surfaces/wind breaks in crusted conditions 

Additional Ongoing Measures

• Water unpaved roads periodically or apply chemical stabilizers 

• Remove dust-forming debris from roads promptly and scrape and compact unpaved 

roads frequently to stabilize the road surface 

• Restrict the speed of vehicles in and around the mining operation 

• Revegetate, mulch, or otherwise stabilize the surface of all areas adjoining roads that 

are a source of fugitive dust 

• Restrict the travel of vehicles on other than established roads 

• Enclose, cover, water, or otherwise treat loaded haul trucks to minimize loss of 

material to wind and spillage 

•Substitute conveyor systems for haul trucks and cover conveyor systems when 

conveyed loads are subject to wind erosion 

• Minimize the area of disturbed land 

• Revegetate lands promptly 

• Plant special windbreak vegetation at critical points in the permit area 

• Control dust using water sprays, hoods, dust collectors or other controls 

• Reduce the period of time between initially disturbing the soil and revegetating or other 

surface stabilization 

• Restrict fugitive dust at spoil transfer and loading points 

• Control dust from shale storage piles through use of enclosures, covers, or stabilization 

Combustion Engines

Require the following emission standards for stationary internal combustion engines: 

•2 g/bhp-hr ofNOx for engines less than 300 horsepower 

• 1 g/bhp-hr ofNOx for engines over 300 horsepower. 

Control emissions from engines utilizing Best Available Control Technology (BACT) 

such as lean-bum technology, catalysts, air/fuel ratio controllers or other technologies 

Schedule proper maintenance and upkeep of vehicles to ensure optimal functioning of 

engines 

Volatile Organic Compounds

• Use vapor control systems on tank breathing vents, with vapors routed to condensers 

and/or combustion for tanks larger than a certain capacity [40 CFR 60 Subpart Kb] is if the 

material has a true vapor pressure greater than 5.2 kPa. This is equal to 5.2 bar, 0.05 

atmospheres, or 0.76 

ps1g. 

• Conduct regular leak detection using a VOC detection device and repair all process 

connections in VOC service 

• Ensure regular maintenance of tanks, roof seals, hatch seals, and tank loading process 

connections 

• Replace safety relief valves less than 48 hours after use 

• Operate thief hatches in the locked position at all times when the tank itself is not being 

actively maintained 

• Discourage the use of surface evaporation impoundments to receive produced 

wastewater 

• Use pneumatic controllers with a no bleed or low bleed design 

Studies and Partnerships
Final OSTS PEIS 1245 

UDAQ is currently involved in several studies to address the problem of wintertime 

ozone in the Uintah Basin. Stakeholders from the oil and gas industry, federal land management 

agencies (including the BLM), several western states, and the EPA have joined forces to identify 

the causes of winter ozone and formulate mitigation strategies. 

In 2009 and 2010, monitors showed that concentrations of both PM2.5 and ozone were at 

or near the current state and national standards. The EPA and the Ute indian Tribe have four 

monitoring stations in the Uintah Basin: Myton, White Rocks, Ouray, and Red Wash. In the 

winter of201 0, ozone levels reached a high 8-hour value of 139 ppm during inversion 

conditions, nearly twice the national health standard. UDAQ wintering monitoring studies for 

2007, 2008, and 2009 have shown that , under inversion conditions, PM2.5 concentrations are at 

or above the standard and can be as high as those seen along the Wasatch Front. Due to low 

snow cover this winter, in 2012 ozone levels did not exceed these standards. However, UDAQ 

anticipates that under normal snow cover conditions in the Basin, ozone levels will rise above 

this standard during wintertime inversions. 

The Uintah Basin 2012 Winter Ozone Study was a comprehensive study of the 

atmospheric chemistry and precursor gases that form wintettime ozone in the Basin. The study 

was by far the largest and most complex air quality study ever conducted in Utah. The nearly $3 

million effort was funded by a number of agencies, including the Uintah Basin Impact Mitigation 

Special Service District, Western Energy Alliance, BLM’s Utah Office, and EPA Region 8. 

Cooperative research work was undertaken by atmospheric research partners from USU, 

NOAA’s Chemical Sciences and Global Monitoring Divisions, University of Colorado’s 

Institute 

of Arctic and Alpine Research, DAQ, EPA, BLM, and local oil and gas producing members of 

the Western Energy Alliance. 

Study components included:

• Basin-wide ozone and precursor measurements to determine spatial extent of the 

problem. 

• Long-term monitoring of ozone and key precursors at two “super sites”- Roosevelt 

and Horse Pool-to provide baseline trend information against which energy production 

increases and mitigation work can be evaluated. 

• Intensive atmospheric chemistry studies to understand the chemical pathways and 

determine limiting formation precursors. 

• Development of a complete, detailed inventory of emissions sources in the Basin, 

including information on location, operation, and pollutants emitted. 

Preliminary results and conclusions are scheduled for release in July 2012. The goal of 

the study is to develop a conceptual model of wintettime ozone formation in the basin and 

identify appropriate and effective air pollution mitigation strategies. While the lack of snow this 

winter hindered efforts to analyze the photochemical reaction of sunlight on snow that seems to 

leads to ozone production, the emissions inventory component of the study was still important. 

The emissions inventory identified source emitters, emission rates, and emissions characteristics. 

Source specific measurements located areas of high concentrations for precursor gases. This data 

will not only aid in identifying the location, level, and spatial representation of ozone and its 

precursors in the Basin, but will also assist in the development of mitigation measures and 

strategies for emissions reductions in areas where high levels of ozone have been detected. 

Utah, Colorado, and Wyoming, the EPA, the BLM, and the U.S. Forest Service are 

participants in a pilot project called the Three-State Study. The project will provide a regional 
Final OSTS PEIS 1246 

assessment of air quality conditions by focusing on the impacts from oil and gas development. 

Leasing allocation decisions in the DPEIS for oil shale and tar sands will be located in these 

three states and the findings from this project on air quality issues in the Uintah Basin will have 

bearing on oil shale development in the area. 

Specifically, the pilot project focuses on the flowing activities:

• Expanding air quality monitoring to establish baseline conditions, track trends, and 

evaluate model performance; 

• Creating a data warehouse to store, manage, and share data among state and federal 

agencies, industry, and their contractors to support modeling of air pollutants; and 

• Performing regional scale air quality modeling of current and projected conditions. 

UDAQ has also established an Oil and Gas Air Quality Partnership to evaluate the 

impacts of oil and gas development on air quality and determine the best approaches for 

managing the Uintah Basin air shed. UDAQ will include oil shale development in this effort. 

Representatives from the following agencies are involved in the partnership: 

Anadarko Petroleum 

Bill Barrett Corporation 

Bureau of Land Management 

Duchesne County Commission 

ECO Resources 

Energy Dynamics Lab 

Environmental Protection Agency 

GASCO 

McVehil Associates 

Newfield Exploration 

QEP 

Questar 

Red Leaf Resources 

Rocky Mountain Power 

SITLA 

Tri-County Health Department 

Uintah County Commission 

Uintah Impact Mitigation SSD 

Utah Cooperatives 

Utah Department of Environmental Quality 

Utah Division of Air Quality 

Utah Governor’s Office 

Utah Petroleum Association 

Ute Energy 

Western Energy Alliance 

These collaborative efforts demonstrate the willingness of parties involved in resource 

development in the Basin to work cooperatively in search of solutions. These partnerships and 

the resulting development of air quality mitigation strategies will have a direct bearing on the 

resource use decisions contained in the DPEIS and should be given thorough consideration.

#35])>

<([#36 [3.4.2] Water Quality

Surface Water Quality
Final OSTS PEIS 1247 

In Utah, oil shale reserves are located primarily in the Green River Formation within the 

Colorado River drainage. Surface waters in the Uintah Basin are known for high salinity. Several 

rivers located in the area are listed on Utah’s 303(d) list of impaired water bodies for high 

salinity (total dissolved solids, or TDS) at levels that do not protect for agricultural uses. 

When pollutants impair the use of water a study is required to determine how to reduce 

them and restore water quality. This study is known as a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL). 

A TMDL establishes the maximum amount of a pollutant allowed in the water while maintaining 

all of its designated beneficial uses. Several water quality studies have been conducted in the 

Colorado drainage that address the reduction of pollutants like salinity and the restoration of 

water quality. A full list of approved TMDL’s for this area of Utah is located online at or by 

request from the Division of Water Quality. 

The development of oil shale and tar sands as described in the DPEIS will have impacts 

on the Bitter Creek and Willow Creek watersheds, which will have to be addressed. Willow 

Creek is on the 2010 Utah 303(d) list oflmpaired Waters for biological degradation based upon 

macro invertebrate data. Bitter Creek frequently exceeds numeric water quality standards for 

both TDS (> 1,200 mg/1) and boron (> 750 ug/1). Currently, the main source of TDS and boron 

in 

the Uintah Basin is from the erosion of weathered rock. The BLM should consider and, wherever 

possible, control for actions that could potentially increase either TDS or boron concentrations in 

the surrounding surface waters. 

Oil shale development can potentially cause impacts to surface water quality through: 

• Erosion; 

• Withdrawal of water for operations; and 

• Discharge of water used in operations 

Ground disturbance activities (erosion) can degrade surface water through drainage from 

prepared sites, which can contribute sediment, salts, and possibly chemicals and oil shale 

products into receiving streams. Typically, DWQ minimizes the degradation to surface water 

from ground disturbance activities through stormwater permits. However, mining activities are 

exempt from this requirement unless the water comes into direct contact with tailings. The BLM 

should evaluate the potential for water-tailings contact. In the event a permit is not required for 

oil shale projects, DWQ recommends the development of a detailed plan that minimizes 

stormwater influence on surface waters and a monitoring program that measures the 

effectiveness of mitigation measures. A voluntary mitigation plan would demonstrate a 

commitment by project developers to sustainable development and would provide necessary data 

for future expansions. 

Withdrawal of groundwater during mining operations can potentially affect surface water 

quality. Significant decreases in groundwater aquifers can result in a corresponding decrease in 

inputs to streams or lakes. Such decreases would likely increase stream temperature and 

Dissolved Oxygen (DO), which could have damaging effects on fish and other wildlife. 

It is frequently difficult or impossible to contain all of the groundwater withdrawn for 

mining operations, which necessitates a Utah Point Source Discharge Elimination System 

(UPDES) permit. #36])>

<([#51 [3.4.2] Groundwater Permits

Groundwater conditions in the southern Uintah Basin are poorly known because the area 

has not been exploited for groundwater historically and the predominance of fine-grained 

sedimentary rocks in the area is not favorable to containing groundwater in aquifers. Aquifers 
Final OSTS PEIS 1248 

controlled by the stratigraphy are present, mainly in the subsmt’ace. The Douglas Creek and 

Bird’ s Nest aquifers are good examples of these types of aquifers. 

These aquifers will become increasingly important as the area is developed for oil shale 

and tar sands operations. Isolated aquifers and zones of saturation such as PR Spring may be 

locally important sources of water. Oil shale and tar sands operators should, as part of their mine 

development activities, prepare an inventory of springs and seeps near their proposed operation 

and note occurrences of groundwater in exploratory drill holes and water wells. Operators should 

take samples from these sources to determine background groundwater quality and class. 

When ongoing monitoring or other reporting is necessary to ensure groundwater 

protection, the permittee and DWQ will develop and mutually agree upon pennit conditions. A 

draft version of the permit will be made available to the public for a 30-day comment period, and 

after resolution of concerns raised during this comment pern1it, a final permit will be issued.

#51])>

<([#52 [3.4.2] Groundwater Discharge Permits

The Utah Ground Water Quality Protection Rules (UAC R317-6) allow DWQ to protect 

Utah’s groundwater resources by issuing ground water discharge permits. The rules require 

facilities that have the potential to cause a discharge of po11utants to groundwater to apply for a 

ground water discharge permit. These facilities include mining and milling operations with waste 

management units such as tailings impoundments and waste storage piles. This requirement 

ensures that oil shale and tar sands facilities that have the potential to impact groundwater 

resources are regulated by the state to minimize or prevent degradation of groundwater quality. 

Groundwater discharge permits require site-specific characterization of the proposed 

facility including depth to ground water, hydraulic gradient, ground water flow direction, and 

pre-operational background ground water quality. 

The two primary components of a groundwater discharge permit are best available 

technology and groundwater monitoring. Best available technology minimizes the discharge of 

contaminants from the waste source by applying control and containment technologies such as 

liners, leak detection systems, leak collection systems, and pump-back systems. Groundwater 

quality monitoring in compliance wells measures the actual effect of the facility operations on 

groundwater quality. The rules utilize federal drinking water maximum contaminant levels as 

groundwater quality standards. Permit-specific protection levels are percentages of the standards 

based on the site- or well-specific Groundwater Class (i.e., the better the ground water quality, 

the more stringent the protection level). If practical, based on depth to groundwater, compliance 

monitoring wells are used to provide an early waming of contamination. This allows time to 

implement corrective actions well before beneficial uses are adversely affected. Permit 

conditions can also address the discharge of subsurface water affected by a permitted facility that 

may become a nonpoint source of pollutants to surface water. 

Jn some cases, after review of the material submitted in a groundwater discharge permit 

application, DWQ may conclude that the project qualifies for permit-by-rule status, if it has de

minimus effect on water quality or if other regulatory programs insure protection of water 

resources. 

#52])> Technical Comments 

<([#37 [13] Preamble, Page xxiii, line 15: 

Insert “SITLA” as an acronym for “School and Institutional Trust Lands Administration 

(Utah)” 

#37])> <([#38 [2.2] ES. 6.3, page ES-6, lines 28-29: 
Final OSTS PEIS 1249 

Core or priority sage grouse habitat, as defined by such guidance as the BLM or DOI 

may issue” has not been determined. DOl and BLM have committed to defer to state-level 

determinations of what constitutes such habitat. These processes are ongoing. As more fully set 

forth in the body of these comments: (1) the State and its constituent agencies cannot adequately 

comment on the proposed alternatives until the extent of such habitat is determined; and (2) the 

PEIS appears to be based on maps of such habitat that have not been themselves released for 

public comment or reviewed under NEP A. #38])>

<([#39 [10.6] Chapter 1, Page 1-13, lines 32-37: 

It is erroneous to exclude oil shale regulations and national policy from the scope of the PEIS. 

BLM is obligated to follow the law in its analysis. EPACT 2005 explicitly makes development 

of oil shale resources a national policy priority. The PEIS needs to include a detailed analysis of 

the relationship between each alternative and national policy as expressed in EP ACT. Similarly, 

determination of commercial royalty rates should not be excluded from the scope of the PEIS. 

Depending on the level at which such rates are set, the range of foreseeable development of oi I 

shale resources will vary greatly. The analysis of each alternative should include analysis of 

development scenarios under various royalty rates, or else be delayed until royalty rates are 

determined, and then analyzed. #39])>

<([#40 [1.5] Chapter 1, page 1-20, II. 20-23:

The PEIS states that BLM has not received any new information since the 2008 OST 

PEIS and ROD concerning the environmental consequences of commercial oil shale 

development. There is a wealth of public information that is available and should be considered. 

These include multiple reports prepared on behalf of the U.S. Department of Energy by the 

University of Utah’s Institute for Clean and Secure Energy on environmental, resource and 

socioeconomic consequences of unconventional fuel development in the subject area, prepared in 

response to Section 369 ofEPACT. Significant information is also available with respect to 

development of oil shale and tar sands on state trust lands in Utah, notably in the form of public 

files for mine permitting on file with the Utah Division of Oil, Gas and Mining and the Utah 

Division of Water Quality. The DPEIS must be revised to take into account each of these 

sources of information. #40])>

<([#41 [9.2.2] Chapter 2, Page 2-13, II. 10-24.:

As noted in the body ofthe state’s letter, the PEIS should confirm that just because BLM 

lands are withheld from competitive leasing does not disqualify the lands from conveyance to the 

State by land exchange in accordance with Section 369(n) ofEPACT, other exchange authority, 

or state indemnity selection. 

This section of the PEIS should also be reworded to discuss how BLM will follow 

Congress’ mandatory directive in Section 369(n) ofEPACT that it will give priority to land 

exchanges. As currently draft, the PEIS notes the directive, and then devotes most discussion to 

why BLM will have problems with doing so. The PEIS should reflect that by law such 

exchanges are to be a priority. The PEIS should also note the environmental benefits of land 

exchanges, including protection of natural values and other resources on state trust lands through 

conveyance to the United States. 

This section of the PEIS also needs to be supplemented to reflect legal alternatives to an 

appraisal process in concluding land exchanges. Existing BLM land exchange regulations state: 

In the absence of current market information reliably supporting value, the

authorized officer may use other acceptable and commonly recognized methods to

determine market value: 43 C.FR. 2201.3-2(c).
Final OSTS PEIS 1250 

This language has been used as the basis for multiple oil shale land exchanges between 

BLM and Utah on the basis of ton-for-ton conveyance of oil shale, adjusted for energy content, 

without necessity of appraisal. Similarly, the Utah Recreation Land Exchange Act of2009, Pub. 

L. 111-53, contains language for transfer of federal oil shale land to the State without appraisal, 

based on BLM reserving an interest in future oil shale production from the lands equal to 50% of 

bonuses and rentals, and BLM’s royalty share, less preexisting mineral revenue sharing 

obligations to the State. See H. Rep. 111-79 at 6-7 (analysis of section 3( f)). Proposed 

legislation now pending in Congress as H.R. 4027 contains similar language with respect to 

mineral valuation. The PEIS should recognize these authorities. #41])>

<([#42 [6.5] Chapter 4: Effects of Oil Shale Technologies 

Table 4.1.1-1 Assumptions Associated with a Surface Mine with Surface Retort, page 4-3. 

This table needs further explanation of the data presented to improve clarity. For 

example, the “(f)ootprint of development area (acres)” for Wyoming and Utah should give a 

number based on a time frame (per/yr) as is done with “water use,” rather than the vague 

footnote explanation that it is the disturbance at any given time. The factor listed for “surface 

disturbance” is a larger number of acres than one could assume is the cumulative life of mine 

disturbance and it would be helpful to have the number in the table labeled as cumulative rather 

than having the reader refer to the footnote for extra clarification. The “wastewater” factor is 

provided on a gal/ton basis, but the table does not contain any data on the annual or cumulative 

number of tons produced. Such data would make this number meaningful in relation to the other 

factors provided. The wastewater factor should be in gallons per year, or ac-ft /yr, or gallons per 

barrel of oil produced in order to be meaningful. The “total employment” factor is not the sum of 

the direct and indirect employment factors and there is no explanation of how the BLM derived 

total employment from direct and indirect sources. #42])>

<([#43 [6.5] Table 4.1.2-1 Assumptions Associated with an Underground Mine with Surface 

Retort, 

page 4-8. 

This table suffers from the same lack of clarity in data presented as mentioned for Table 4 .1.1-1.

#43])>

<([#44 [6.5] Table 4.1.3-1 Assumptions Associated with an In Situ Retort Project, page 4-11 

This table suffers from the same lack of clarity in the data presented as mention for Table 

4.1.1-1. 

#44])> <([#45 [6.5] 4.1.6 Expansion of Electricity-Generating Capacity, page 4-13 

This section mainly refers to the high electricity need for in situ projects proposed for 

Colorado, and does not differentiate that from the lower power need for the mine and retort 

technologies proposed in Utah. Specifically, this section does not reflect that ENEFIT and Red 

Leaf assertion that their operation will supply nearly all their own project energy needs from the 

retorting process. In addition, the first paragraph incorrectly states that definitive information 

about the power requirements of commercial oil shale development is not available. This is not 

the case with the ENEFIT technology. BLM’s analysis is faulty because it does not include 

specific information about ENEFIT and Red Leaf technologies, which are both poised for 

commercial development in Utah. #45])>

<([#46 [3.4.5] 4.2.1.2 Acquisition, Conversion, or Transfer of Water Rights, page 4-19 

This section only discusses water rights in Colorado, not in Utah or Wyoming. The 

ENEFIT project acquisition included water rights. The DPEIS needs a more complete and 

balanced discussion about water rights for all three states. #46])>
Final OSTS PEIS 1251 

<([#47 [3.4.5] [6.3.2] 4.5 Water Resources, starting page 4-31 

The discussion in this section and various subsections tends to use relative terms like 

“large” and “small” without defining what is meant quantitatively by such terms. For example, 

on page 4-33 under Water Use, on line 41, the PEIS states that “A large amount of water is 

required during the operations phase.” Subsequent sentences give actual numerical ranges of 

water use, but nowhere is the term “large” actually defined. Likewise, on page 4-39, the last 

sentence EIS states that “(a) relatively large water-quality impact is expected in areas where 

population growth is large and the receiving water is small.” The PEIS should define such 

relative terms in quantitative terms. #47])>

<([#48 [6.2.1] 4.9.1.4.2 Power Generation Facilities, page 4-152 

This section relies on outdated information that anticipates new power generation coming 

from coal-fired power plants. Pending carbon management legislation and a surge of new 

domestic natural gas supplies means new power plants in Utah would likely be gas-fired. This 

assumption of coal-fired power generation and any associated analysis incorporating this 

assumption is out-of-date for the present market situations. BLM needs to revise the DPEIS to 

reflect the current market situation for new power generation plants. #48])>

<([#49 [3.14] 4.15 Health and Safety, page 4-199, Table 4.15.2 

At the beginning of Chapter 4, the BLM revised the size of mining and surface retort and 

in situ oil shale projects downward, but this table utilizes the 2008 scenario of a 1,000,000 

bbl/day oil shale industry. This table needs to have the size ofthe industry’s health effects 

reduced to match the reduced size of the oil shale operations as provided earlier in Chapter 4. 

This would probably drop the overall industry to 14 facilities, with a production level below 

500,000 bbl/day. The accompanying text and footnote also appear to be inconsistent and provide 

an overestimation of the number of oil shale workers compared to the total employee numbers 

given in Table 4. 1.1-1, 4.1.2-l, and 4.1.3-1 #49])>

<([#50 [4.3] Table 6.1.6-5, Projected Levels of Major Activities for Seven Planning Areas 

This table presents faulty analysis of the level of OSTS developments on nonfederal 

lands in Utah by simply using the phrase “potential unknown” to gloss over known development 

activities, particularly those in the Book Cliffs area that are mentioned in Appendix B of the 

PEIS. 

#50])>

OSTS2012D50334 

Organization: Priscilla Burton 

Received: 5/4/2012 5:27:34 PM 

Commenter1: Priscilla Burton - , Utah 84518 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/14/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50334.htm (OSTS2012D50334-58971.htm Size = 1 KB) 

Submission Text

Dear Ms. Thompson and Mr. Nedd, <([#1 [2.3.1] After reviewing the alternatives, I believe that 
Final OSTS PEIS 1252 

ES. 6.5 Alternative 3 Oil Shale Research Lands Focus and ES.6.6 Alternative 3 Pending 

Commercial Lease Tar Sands provides for multiple use, and habitat protection and is the most 

alternative at this time. Alternative 3 would allow the continued development of 32,640 acres 

under lease, allowing for the extraction technology and reclamation technology to be refined 

prior to leasing of additional acreage. Alternative 3 would not preclude future generations from 

making the choice to lease additional acres, but it would allow the technology to develop. This 

strikes the right balance for this point in time. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. 

#1])>

OSTS2012D50335 

Organization: Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality, Todd Parfitt 

Received: 5/4/2012 5:34:47 PM 

Commenter1: Todd Parfitt - Cheyenne, Wyoming 82002 (United States) 

Organization1:Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality 

Commenter Type: State Government 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/15/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50335.htm (OSTS2012D50335-59063.htm Size = 1 KB) 

2012_BLM_Oil_Shale_Tar_Sands_Draft_PEIS_-_Wyoming_DEQ_OSTS2012D50335.pdf 

(OSTS2012D50335-59062.pdf Size = 3186 KB) 

Submission Text

See attached. Hard Copy to follow. See Attachment. 

Department of Environmental Quality 

Matthew H. Mead, Governor 

May 4, 2012 

To protect, conserve and enhance the quality of Wyoming’s 

environment for the benefit of current and future generations. 

BLM Oil Shale and Tar Sands Resources 

Draft Programmatic EIS 

Argonne National Laboratory 

9700 South Cass A venue - EVS/240 

Argonne, IL 60439 

John Corra, Director 

RE: Comments on the “Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement and 

Possible Land Use Plan Amendments for Allocation of Oil Shale and Tar 

Sands Resources on Lands Administered by the Bureau of Land Management 

in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming” dated January 2012 

Dear Sir/Madam: 

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the January 201 2, Draft Programmatic 

Environmental Impact Statement and Possible Land Use Plan Amendments for 

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

of Land Management in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming. The following is a compilation 
Final OSTS PEIS 1253 

of comments from the Wyoming Depa11ment of Enviromnental Quality organized by our 

agency’s divisions. 

Land Qualitv Division 

Given the voluminous and detailed nature of this document, much of this review was 

broadly focused on the key “big pictme” elements of the draft PEIS. Areas of general 

concern to the LQD include, but are not necessarily limited to, groundwater 

contamination, water consumption for retort processes, wastewater generation and reuse, 

land disturbance rate and acreage, placement of spent shale, and smface leaching of spent 

shale. In addition to general comments, this review contains comments that are specific 

to several sections relative to surface and underground oil shale mining and smface and 

in situ oil shale ret011 projects. 

<([#1 [6.4] 1. Section 4.1.1 Smface Mine and Surface Retort Projects states “Regardless of the 

retort, spent shale volume would increase by 30% over the volume of raw shale 

introduced into the retort.” Does this 30% increase in volume occur as a ‘ bulking 

factor’ when the shale is removed from the ground, or does this 30% increase in 

volume occur between introduction to the retort and when the shale is spent, as 

the statement suggests? #1])>

<([#2 [6.4] 2. Section 4.1.2 Underground Mine and Surface Retort Projects states “It is assumed 

that up to 30% of the processed spent shale could be returned to the mine for 

disposal. If 30% of spent shale is returned to the mine, surface disposal is 

estimated to require approximately 60 acres/yr. with disposal heights and depths 

of 250 ft. “ Later in this section, “No more than 30% of the spent shale would be 

disposed of within the mine; the remainder would be disposed of on the surface. 

This assumption is based on a best estimate of what may be feasible at any given 

site; specific mine development procedures may accommodate di sposal of a 

greater percentage of the spent shale inside the mine.” Comment: Identifying the 

underground mining technique which allows a greater percentage of spent shale to 

be disposed of inside the mine, is optimal. These various underground mining 

alternatives should be thoroughly examined, relative to the site specific geologic 

constraints. #2])>

<([#3 [6.3] 3. Section 4.1.3 In Situ Retmt Projects states that “Groundwater and process water 

would be of variable quality, with the higher-quality water being used for 

industrial processes, dust control, revegetation, and so forth. Water of lower 

quality would be reinjected or otherwise disposed of pursuant to state 

requirements.” Comment: Given the water consumption rates of retort 

operations, it seems that proposing higher quality water be used for dust control 

may be better reused in the retort process, and other non-water consumptive uses 

for dust control be investigated. #3])>

<([#4 [2.2] 4. The draft PEIS does not describe the methodology used to select the preferred 

alternative by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 

• Section 2.4.4 discusses the preferred alternatives and there are comparison 

tables (Example - Table 2.6-1 and Table 2.6-2). However, it is not clear 

how the prefen-ed alternatives are selected by BLM. 

• It is understood that “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, 
Final OSTS PEIS 1254 

the magnitude of the differences among the cumulative effects of the 

alternatives cannot be evaluated (page 6-243)”. However, given these 

uncertainties, it is very useful for decision makers and readers to 

understand the methodology and metrics used by BLM to select the 

prefen-ed alternative. 

#4])> <([#5 [1.5] 5. The draft PEIS lacks adequate details and is limited in applicability to serve 

the 

purpose of the PEIS. #5])>

<([#6 [9.1] 6. The purpose of the PEIS as understood are listed as below: 

• Page 1-4, lines 16 to 20 “The BLM proposes to amend 10 land use plans 

in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming to describe those areas that will be open 

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

exploration, and development of oil shale and tar sands resources. The 

analyses in this PEIS have been developed to evaluate the effects of this 

proposed action and its alternatives.” 

Page 1-5, lines 23 to 27 “The analysis of potential impacts associated 

with oil shale and tar sands development in Chapters 4, 5, and 6 is 

programmatic in character and designed to disclose the potential impacts 

from future leasing and development, in order to provide the decision 

maker the available, essential information for making the allocation 

decision.” 

#6])> <([#7 [9.3] 7. It is acknowledged that “subsequent NEPA and other analyses at the leasing 

stage 

(whether oil shale, tar sands, or RD&D) will be required to determine the extent 

of the effect of oil shale and tar sands development when more specific 

information is known about the specific technologies being proposed and 

associated environmental consequences in the locations being proposed.” 

However, it is unclear how this draft PEIS would support the allocation deci sion 

making. It would be beneficial to include a section or a description how the draft 

PEIS is intended to be used by the decision makers for the allocation decision. 

It is our expectation that project specific NEP A analyses will provide further 

specificity in the available extraction technologies to be applied and magnitude of 

impacts on the site specific enviromnent. 

#7])> <([#8 [6] 8. The Rock Springs oil shale retort si te in Wyoming is not discussed in 

adequate 

detai ls in the PEIS. It would be very useful for the PEIS to describe these site 

operations, environmental impacts and the remediation strategies applied at this 

site. It would also be crucial to draw distinctions to the advances in technologies 

made in the extraction of oil shale in recent years over the technologies applied at 

Rock Springs. 

• In appendix A.2 History of Oil Shale Development there are only 2 

sections - A.2.1 Colorado Activities and A.2.2 Utah Activities. The 

activities in Wyoming are not included in this appendix or not discussed 

elsewhere in the draft PEIS 

• The Rock Springs oil shale retort site was an experimental fac ility 

operated by the U.S. DOE, Laramie Energy Technology Center (LETC) 
Final OSTS PEIS 1255 

and its predecessor, Laramie Energy Research Center (LERC) between 

1965 and 1979. The available documents on this site are maintained with 

the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality, Land Quality 

Division. #8])>

<([#9 [9.7] 9. There is a lack of quantitative data from the existing oil and shale RD&D projects 

and the usage of this data and analysis for the PEIS. 

• The RD&D projects are intended by the BLM to provide more 

information on the technological requirements and the environmental 

implications. However, for example in section 6.1.3 .4 (compilation of 

impacts on water resources from existing RD&D projects) there is no 

discussion or figures showing the impacts of the existing RD&D projects 

on groundwater. Plots and discussions on contaminants of concern from 

these existing RD&D projects would give the reader critical information 

about the magnitude of impacts on groundwater. 

• It is understood that more details on the RD&D projects are in the EAs. 

But, the application of existing data from RD&D projects to supp01t the 

qualitative statements in the PEIS would improve the quantitative 

reliability of the PEIS for the decision makers. #9])>

<([#10 [3.4.2] 10. Chapter 6 (Impact assessment for oil shale and tar sands) discusses the 

impacts 

from different alternatives. There is a very limited discussion on the impacts of 

groundwater resources in this chapter and this discussion is also very broad and 

lacks any specifics or presentation of data from existing RD&D projects. 

• For example, in section 6.1.2.4 discussing the impacts on water resources 

caused by Alternative 2 it refers that the impacts are same as Alternative 1. 

When referring section 6.1.1.4 (for alternative 1) there is just a list of 

possible impacts in very generic terms. #10])>

<([#11 [5] 11. The PEIS lacks any significant discussion on the available teclmologies and their 

effectiveness to remediate and restore the environment from the potential impacts 

caused by the development of oil shale and tar sands. #11])>

<([#12 [3.1.7] 12. The cover letter (41h paragraph, page 1) says “The oil shale planning area 

consists 

of 3,538,038 acres, which includes 2,138,361 acres of public lands and 158,566 

acres of split estate lands”. It is unclear what the other categories of lands are that 

constitute the difference between the total of (2,138,361+158,566) and the 

planning area acreage of 3,538,038. #12])>

<([#13 [9.2] 13. There does not appear to be reference to the requirement for a mine permit in 

Wyoming. Table D-15, Federal and State Leasing and Permitting Requirements, 

lists “NA” for Wyoming. Kerogen is a solid mineral and a mine permit is 

required for its extraction, tlu·ough either conventional or in-situ mining 

technology. #13])>

Solid and Hazardous Waste Divison 

After reviewing Section 4.14 (Hazardous Materials and Waste Management) of 

the draft PEIS, the SHWD has the following general and specific comments. 

General Comments 

<([#14 [3.13] 1. The PEIS notes that wastes may be generated under different circumstances 
Final OSTS PEIS 1256 

dependent on technologies and locations (e.g., tar sand and oil shale facilities; 

support facilities), and describes general expectations for generic and specific 

waste types. Regardless of the patticular circumstances, it is the responsibility of 

the waste generator to be aware and understand the requirements for identifying, 

classifying and managing wastes including, but not limited to whether a waste is a 

solid or hazardous waste, the management requirements once generated (e.g., 

short-term storage) and the permitting requirements. This is particularly true of 

the ‘specialty’ wastes discussed in the PEIS, including asbestos, refrigerants, 

lubricants, process wastes, solvents, protective coatings, etc. #14])>

<([#15 [3.13] 2. The waste generator must verify that wastes managed off-site are managed at 

permitted facilities. The PEIS discusses this, but isn’t consistent in all parts. 

Further, the PEIS should note, in certain circumstances, it may be necessary to 

obtain landfill operator approval before disposing of ce1iain wastes at a permitted 

landfill. #15])>

<([#16 [3.13] 3. The PEIS notes the potential for releases to the environment, but generally 

minimizes this by assuming wastes will be ‘stored, used, and disposed of 

according to all applicable regulations.’ While it is true appropriate management 

can reduce the potential for releases, the PEIS should acknowledge that when 

spills and releases occur there are requirements for reporting and for conducting 

clean-up through approved state programs. #16])>

<([#17 [3.13] 4. In Section 4.14.2 (Mitigation Measures) of the PEIS discusses measures and 

plans 

to mitigate potential impacts from waste management. This is a fairly 

comprehensive list. However, while the list has a pollution prevention bullet 

related to substituting less hazardous alternatives, this section should also 

emphasize the full range of pollution prevention activities, including reducing the 

amount of waste generated, reusing wastes appropriately and recycling waste 

components. #17])>

Specific Comments 

<([#18 [3.13] 1. Page 4-188, line 32 ofthe PEIS specifies that solid wastes are expected to be 

containerized and hauled to a permitted sanitary landfill or ‘ other appropriate 

waste disposal facilities.’ It should be noted in certain cases this may be a solid 

waste transfer facility and not a disposal facility; regardless, the ‘ appropriate’ 

facility must be permitted or approved by state or local government. #18])>

<([#19 [3.13] 2. At page 4-189, line 13, the PEIS refers to ‘established’ off-site sanitary landfills. 

This should be ‘ permitted’ sanitary landfills. #19])>

<([#20 [3.13] 3. At a number oflocations in the PEIS (e.g., page 4-189, line18; page 4-190, line 

18; page 4-1 96, line17), it is noted that temporary on-site storage may occur. 

Waste storage, particularly hazardous waste storage, is subject to specific 

requirements and time fran1es. 

#20])> <([#21 [3.13] 4. At page 4-190, line 4, the PEIS states sludge accumulating in vessels and 

tanks 

should be removed periodically according to cleaning and maintenance schedules. 

At the time those tanks or vessels are cleaned, it will be the responsibility of the 

waste generator to manage the sludges in accordance with applicable federal, state 

and local requirements. #21])>
Final OSTS PEIS 1257 

<([#22 [3.13] 5. At page 4-190, line 28, the PEIS states landscape wastes may be compos ted 

onsite. 

If wastes other than landscape wastes (for example, other construction 

wastes) are proposed for composting, a permit or authorization may be needed for 

an on-site composting facility. #22])>

<([#23 [3.13] 6. At page 4-191 , line 46, the PEIS indicates wastes from upgrading activities may 

need to be characterized as hazardous wastes. It is possible ce11ain wastes may 

meet a hazardous waste ‘ listing’, and it is the generator’s responsibility to be 

aware of applicable hazardous waste listings and manage wastes accordingly. 

#23])> <([#24 [3.13] 7. Page 4-192, line 19, isn’t clear with respect to the types ofwastes and 

types of 

landfill cells (off-site permitted disposal facilities, on-site facilities?) specifically 

created to dispose of ce11ain wastes. This should be clarified with more detai l. #24])>

<([#25 [3.13] 8. On page 4-1 96, line 15, it states owners/operators may elect to treat and di 

spose 

of hazardous waste at the oil shale facility. While the PEIS acknowledges the 

need to obtain state permits for hazardous waste management, it is important to 

note hazardous waste treatment, storage and disposal (particularly) permit 

applications are subject to specific review and public comment and it may take 

some time to obtain a permit. #25])>

<([#26 [3.13] 9. Page 4- 197, line 30. The bullet should also note the reporting requirements for 

releases and spills of hazardous materials and substances. 

#26])> <([#27 [3.4.5] Water Quality Division 

The following should be added to the bullet list of common impacts under Section 4.5.1: 

“Cross flows between aquifers of varying water quality resulting from mining acti vities;” 

Also the bullet on Page 4-32 sta11ing on line 6 should include agriculture wells since most 

well s on BLM have agricultural (livestock) rather than domestic uses. #27])>

<([#28 [6.3] Section 4.1.4 discusses rights of way for Transmission Lines and Crude Oil 

Pipelines, but 

should be expanded to include pipelines to the mine/processing sites for natural gas or 

other fuels which might be necessary for providing heat for retorting. #28])>

<([#29 [3.5.7] Air Quality Division 

The Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality Air Quality Division (WDEQAQD) 

recognizes that the draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) 

for possible Land Use Plan/Resource Management Plan amendments for allocation of Oi l 

Shale and Tar Sands (OSTS) shows that the proposed OSTS study area in the Green 

River Basin includes lands/areas that are located within the currently proposed Ozone 

Non-Attainment Area boundary for the Upper Green River Basin under all four current 

alternatives. Any development that may occur in the Green River Basin portion of the 

planned development area in Wyoming may be located within the proposed ozone 

nonattainment area, and may be subject to more restrictive nonattainment rules and 

regulations. #29])>

<([#30 [3.5.4] [3.5.6] The WDEQ-AQD finds that the PEIS air quality analysis is not specific 

enough in the 

absence of project specific quantitative air quality impact analyses to adequately address 

air quality impacts from oil shale development. Therefore, when specific oil shale 
Final OSTS PEIS 1258 

development is identified within Wyoming at the implementation stage, the WDEQ-AQD 

expects the BLM to conduct quantitative air quality impact (i. e., dispersion modeling) 

analyses that are proportional to the type and intensity of the project based on the 

locations and emission levels of proposed project sources, which must incorporate 

geographical and topographical characteristics, and site-specific meteorology. The 

quantitative air quality impact analyses should be conducted to estimate impacts to air 

quality (e.g., ambient air quality standards) and air quality related values (e.g., visibility, 

atmospheric deposition). If the quantitative air quality impact analyses show that 

significant impacts are predicted, air quality mitigation measures must be considered. If 

such a need becomes evident during the life of the PEIS, the WDEQ-AQD expects the 

BLM to consult with WDEQ-AQD on the development of emission inventories, the 

necessary air quality impact analyses, and mitigation measures. 

#30])> Thank you again for the opportunity to provide comments on the draft PEIS. Please feel 

free to contact me at 307-777-7555 with any questions. 

Sincerely, 

Todd Parfitt 

Deputy Director 

cc: John Corra, Director 

Nancy Nuttbrock, Land Quality Administrator 

Carl Anderson, Solid & Hazardous Waste Administrator 

John Wagner, Water Quality Administrator 

Steve Dietrich, Air Quality Administrator 

Governor’s Policy Office 

7 

OSTS2012D50336 

Organization: Roaring Fork Sierra Club Group, Robert Millette 

Received: 5/4/2012 5:36:07 PM 

Commenter1: Robert Millette - Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 (United States) 

Organization1:Roaring Fork Sierra Club Group 

Commenter Type: Environmental Organization 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: aziech 5/15/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50336.htm (OSTS2012D50336-59066.htm Size = 1 KB) 

Comments_to_BLM_on_Oil_Shale_PEIS_OSTS2012D50336.doc (OSTS2012D50336-

59065.doc Size = 28 KB) 

Submission Text

To the Bureau of Land Management: 

On behalf of the Roaring Fork Sierra Club Group I welcome the opportunity to submit comments 

of the Bureau of Land Management’s Oil Shale and Tar Sands Draft Programmatic 

Environmental Impact Statement. We are pleased that the BLM is taking clear and measured 

steps to establish a rational and balanced approach to the federal oil shale and tar sands program. 
Final OSTS PEIS 1259 

<([#1 [2.2] While the agency’s preferred alternative (2(b)) represents a step in the right direction, 

we feel that a stronger approach is needed to adequately protect our public lands while still 

supporting Research, Development and Demonstration (RD&D) of the oil shale industry. We do 

not understand why it is necessary to open up over 450,000 acres for additional oil shale RD&D 

leasing while 6 RD&D leases are still being explored and 3 additional applications for the second 

round of RD&D leasing are currently being evaluated. As yet, no viable process for extracting 

oil from oil shale has come out of these research and development leases. However, the lease 

held by Shell Oil seems to be the one most actively developed with efforts focused on their Insitu Conversion Process. But, even Shell speculates that it will be another decade before a viable 

oil shale process materializes. 

#1])>

<([#2 [2.3] We would prefer to see an alternative closer to Alternative 3 that would maintain a 

more limited acreage for RD&D and not allow for commercial development of oil shale 

extraction until it is clearly demonstrated that a viable process is available. Moreover, we need a 

better understanding of the impacts that further oil shale development will have on our public 

lands, fish and wildlife. 

#2])>

<([#3 [3.4.1] Before moving ahead with the leasing of greater acreage for oil shale and tar sands 

(the proposed Alternative 2 would allow up to 1 million acres for these purposes), we need to 

seriously consider the effects of a large scale oil shale development on i) our water resources, 

ii) energy requirements and greenhouse gas emissions, and iii) our outdoor recreation and 

tourism industry.

Demands on water resources: Current estimates for water requirements for the new oil shale 

retorting methods are 1 to 3 barrels of water per barrel of oil. Thus, for an oil shale industry 

projected to produce 2.5 million barrels per day, 105 to 315 million gallons of water per day will 

be required and an additional 58 million gallons per day will be needed for projected population 

growth. Where will this water come from? For the Piceance Basin, the major water source will 

be the Colorado River Basin. However, this basin is already in a water crisis due to globalwarming induce drought and increasing population growth. These factors plus the amount 

allocated to Colorado and Utah under the interstate compact, and maintaining minimum flows, 

will place severe restrictions on water available for the oil shale industry. 

#3])>

<([#4 [3.5.1.1] [12] Before moving ahead with the leasing of greater acreage for oil shale 

and tar sands (the proposed Alternative 2 would allow up to 1 million acres for these 

purposes), we need to seriously consider the effects of a large scale oil shale development on 

i) our water resources, ii) energy requirements and greenhouse gas emissions, and iii) our 

outdoor recreation and tourism industry.

Energy requirements and greenhouse gas emissions: The energy needs for oil shale 

development are immense. According to the RAND Corporation, production of 100,000 barrels 

of oil per day using Shell’s in-situ heating method would require 1,200 megawatts (MW) of 

electricity. This is the capacity of the largest power plant currently operating in Colorado (the 

Craig Generating Station). A projected large-scale commercial oil shale industry producing 1 

million barrels of shale oil per day would thus require 10 power plants the size of the Craig plant. 
Final OSTS PEIS 1260 

This seems to us like a huge waste of energy resources. If these new power plants are powered 

by fossil fuels, they will be producing millions of tons of greenhouse gases and other pollutants 

per year. Until more energy efficient and less polluting oil shale methods are developed, we are 

totally against further expansion of the oil shale leases. 

#4])>

<([#5 [3.1.2] [3.10.4] Before moving ahead with the leasing of greater acreage for oil shale 

and tar sands (the proposed Alternative 2 would allow up to 1 million acres for these 

purposes), we need to seriously consider the effects of a large scale oil shale development on 

i) our water resources, ii) energy requirements and greenhouse gas emissions, and iii) our 

outdoor recreation and tourism industry.

Effects on Colorado’s outdoor recreation and tourism industry: The land overlying oil shale 

resources in Colorado, Wyoming and Utah contains some of the best wildlife habitat in the West 

where outdoor recreation and tourism are huge economic drivers of the economy. In Colorado 

alone, hunting, angling, and other wildlife-related activities generate $3 billion annually. The 

projected reductions in river flows as the result of large scale oil shale development will likely 

concentrate dissolved solids, increase salinity, and devastate fisheries. In a 1996 study, the BLM 

found that a large scale oil shale industry “would result in the permanent loss or severe 

degradation of nearly 50% of BLM stream fisheries” and that surface disturbance, base flow 

reductions, and long-term aquifer disruption would result in the loss of 35% of the Colorado 

River cutthroat trout fisheries. This is unacceptable. 

#5])>

<([#6 [2.3.1] Because of these considerations, we recommend that you adopt Alternative 3, or 

something close to it. Moreover, we urge you to restrict future oil shale leasing and development 

to a continued, rational research and development program until a viable, economically and 

environmentally feasible process for extracting oil from oil shale is proven and developed. 

#6])>

OSTS2012D50337 

Organization: Front Range Water Council, etal, Vicki Parks 

Received: 5/4/2012 5:39:16 PM 

Commenter1: Vicki Parks - Denver, Colorado 80204 (United States) 

Organization1:Front Range Water Council, etal 

Commenter Type: Misc. Organization 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/17/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50337.htm (OSTS2012D50337-59069.htm Size = 1 KB) 

BLM_Oil_Shale_and_Tar_Sands_PEIS_5-4-12_OSTS2012D50337.pdf (OSTS2012D50337-

59068.pdf Size = 1923 KB) 

Submission Text

The attached comments are being sent for Jim Lochhead and Dave Little on behalf of the Front 

Range Water Council. See Attachment. 
Final OSTS PEIS 1261 

a fl?®fJD@® WJ@a®lf ©®oo 

May 4, 2012 

BLM Oil Shale and Tar Sands PEIS 

220 Water Avenue 

Berthoud, CO 80513 

Argonne National Laboratory, EVS Division Building 240 

9700 South Cass A venue 

Argonne, Illinois 60439 

Submitted via electronic mail to: http://ostseis.anl.gov/involve/comments/index.cfm 

To Whom It May Concern: 

Re: Comments on Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement and Possible 

Land Use Plan Amendments for Allocation of Oil Shale and Tar Sands Resources on 

Lands Administered by the Bureau of Land Management in Colorado, Utah and Wyoming 

(DPEIS) 

This comment letter is submitted on behalf of the Front Range Water Council (Council), 

which consists of Denver Water, Northern Colorado Conservancy District, Colorado Springs 

Utilities, Aurora Water, Board of Works of Pueblo, Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy 

District, and Twin Lakes Reservoir and Canal Company. The Council members are the largest 

water suppliers of municipal, commercial, industrial, and agricultural water needs in the state of 

Colorado. Collectively, the Council meets the water demands of approximately 80% of 

Colorado’s population. The Council submitted comments to the Bureau of Land Management’s 

(BLM) 2008 Draft Oil Shale and Tar Sands Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement 

(Draft 

PEIS) expressing concern about impacts to the state’s water supplies. <([#1 [9.8] The Council 

appreciates the 

BLM’s approach to take a “fresh look” at new alternatives and the associated impacts of oil shale 

and tar sand development on public lands in Colorado. #1])> The Council resubmits its 

comments from 

the 2008 Draft PEIS (letter attached) for consideration under the BLM’s 20 12 DPEIS, in 

addition 

to the following related comments: 

<([#2 [3.7.4.1] Impacts to Upper Colorado River Threatened and Endangered Species 

The Council commented on the 2008 Draft PEIS that oil shale impacts to the Colorado 

River’s threatened and endangered fish species were not analyzed. The BLM’s response to this 

comment was that such effects would be analyzed in NEPA documents for individual leasing 

authorizations, and until specific development plans are submitted to the BLM, the details 

regarding impacts would be unclear. This approach is inadequate to address the programmatic 

effects on the Colorado River Endangered Fish Species Recovery program. The Council believes 

this DPEIS must consider the potential effects to the recovery program and the species. 

#2])> Members- City of Aurora; Colorado Springs Utilities; Denver Board of Water 

Commissioners; Municipal Subdistrict, 

Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District; Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District; 

Pueblo Board of 

Water Works; Southeast Colorado Water Conservancy District; Twin Lakes Reservoir & Canal 

Company 

BLM Oil Shale and Tar Sands PEIS 
Final OSTS PEIS 1262 

May 4, 2012 

Page 2 

<([#3 [3.4.5] Impacts to Colorado’s Future Water Development 

Similar to its comment on the 2008 Draft PEIS, the Council believes the BLM must 

consider the most recent data available from the state of Colorado regarding the amount of water 

available for use in Colorado under the Colorado River Compact as well as policy statements 

from 

the State of Colorado regarding future water development. 

#3])> <([#4 [3.4.1] [6.3] Impacts on Population and Increased Energy Demands 

Impacts to Colorado from oil shale development include population growth and increased 

energy usc. These impacts directly affect water resources, future water development and water 

supply. The Council continues to be concerned that the DPEIS’ analysis of impacts to water 

supply, water quality, and water development is inadequate, in part because it docs not analyze 

the 

range of impacts associated with various technologies used by oil shale developers. The analysis 

only generally describes impacts to water resources, and there is no quantification of the impacts, 

making it difficult to assess the potential severity of impacts. 

#4])> <([#5 [3.4.1] Water Quality Impacts 

The Council remains concerned about impacts to water quality from oil shale development. 

The DPEIS needs to include technology specific data to adequately analyze potential impacts to 

water quality. 

The DPEIS raises the same concerns about oil shale development that the Council 

expressed in its 2008 comments on the draft PEIS. This DPEIS lacks sufficient data and does not 

analyze the ranges of impacts from the various technologies to determine what the impacts will 

be 

to water resources. The Council would like to see the broad scale impacts of oil shale 

development thoroughly analyzed before the BLM begins to look at individual, project-specific 

approvals. #5])>

Sincerely, 

Ji ater Council 

Attachment: Front Range Water Council’s March 20, 2008 “Comments on Draft Oil Shale & 

Tar Sands Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement” 

DENVffi \!VATER 

l(,oo WL· ~ t 12th ‘‘‘‘cnul’ •Dl•mw ,.Color.ulo 8020·1·34 12 

l’ltonc :IOH .o:.!IHIOOO • fa~ No. :’103·620·6 199 • \\\\W,dcm·t•m•il lcr.oi’S 

March 20, 2008 

BLM Oil Shale & 

Tar Sands Draft Programmatic EIS 

Argpnne National Laboratory 

9700 South Cass A venue 

Argonne, Illinois 60439 

To Whom It May Concern: 

Re: Comments on Draft Oil Shale & Tar Sands Programmatic Environmental ltnJ)act 

Statement 

The Front Rnnge Water Users Council (Council), consisting of Denver Water, Nonhern 

Colorado Water Conservancy District, Colorado Springs Utilities, Au rom Water, Board of 
Final OSTS PEIS 1263 

Water 

Works of Pueblo, Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District, and Twin Lakes Reservoir 

and Cannl Company, submit these comments on the December 2007 Draft Oil Shale and Tar 

Sands Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (Draft PETS). The Council members are 

the largest water suppliers of municipal, commercial, industrial, and agricultural water needs in 

the state of Colorado. About half of the State’s population receives its water supply from 

Council members. The Council became aware of the Bureau of Land Mnnagement’s (BLM) 

Draft PEIS and the schedule for comments in late Pebruary 2008. Therefore, a letter was 

submitted to the BLM on behalf of the Council requesting a 60-day extension to the comment 

period allowing for a more thorough review of the document. ‘f’o date no response to the request 

has been received. 

<([#6 [3.7.4.1] Negative Impact of Large Uses on Endangered Fish Species 

Oil shale development impacts to the Colorado River could negatively impact Threatened and 

Endangered Species. According to a preliminary review, the water requirements for commercial 

leasing could be substantial, especially when considered in the context of other cmrent and 

anticipated projects/activities in the Upper Colorado River Basin. The Council is concerned that 

the substantial water usc could hold negative consequences for the Colorado River Endangered 

Fish Species Recovery Program. In nddi tion, the project ns proposed raises several policy 

questions smrouncl ing the amount of available water from the Upper Colorado River for 

existing 

and futmc development. 

The State of Colorado is currently engaged in an effort to recover four fede rally listed fish 

species (Colorado pikeminnow, Humpback chub, Razorback sucker, and Bonytail) along a 

ISMile 

reach of the Colorado River approximately 50 river miles below the area of development of 

oil shale. The Programmatic Biological Opinion (PBO) for the Upper Colorado River 

Endangered Fish Recovery Program is a multi-agency effort, which requires upstream water 

users to release 10,825 acre-feet of water to the mainstcm of the Colorado River on a demand 

schedule. Future depletions associated from oil shale development need to be analyzed 

concurrent with the releases required to determine if there arc impacts to the cooperative efforts 

on the Upper Colorado River between Front Range Water Users and West Slope water users to 

benefit the Endangered Species. Currently there is a 120,000 acre-feet pool of developable 

Colorado River water under the PJ30. What will be the impact of oil shale development on the 

PBO? Will its uses be beyond the 120,000 acre-feet and will that jeopardize the endangered 

fish? Will its uses place at risk both existing and future East and West Slope diversions? What 

arc the impacts on the 120,000 acre-feet of developable Colorado River water? Is the use of the 

limited water resource for oil shale development in the best economic, social, and environmental 

interest of the region and Colorado? #6])>

<([#7 [3.4.1] Negative Impact on Puture Water Development in Colorado 

Oil shale development impacts to the Colorado River could have negative impacts on reasonably 

foreseeable and future water development needs and projects. According to Table 4.5.2-l 

(Water Budget Data for Oil Shale Development Projects) of the Draft PEIS, the remaining 

available surface water in the year 2000 was 340,000 acre-feet/year and the projected amount for 

2030 ranges between 268,000- 412,000 acre-feet/year. Is this data presented accurate? Does 

this data take into consideration reasonably foreseeable water development projects? The State 

of Colorado is only now attempting a comprehensive analysis of the amount of Colorado River 
Final OSTS PEIS 1264 

water remaining under the Colorado River Compact. 1\.s a minimum, the Draft PEIS must list 

the “ranges” of water available for use in Colorado under the Compact. What <~re the social, 

economic, and environmental impacts to communities OJl the Front Range of Colorado if they 

arc 

unable to develop Colorado River water or they are required to remain dependent on nontributary 

groundwater? What are the Threatened and Endangered Species issues associated with 

this shift in water supply usc? How docs the shift from use of Colorado Ri vcr water to South 

Platte River water affect the Platte River Recovery Program and the four species being protected 

by that program? Considering that there is only a limited amount of water that can be developed 

in the Platte River without impacting the Threatened and Endangered Species in Nebraska, how 

will development of Colorado River water by oil shale impact the social, economic, and 

environmental resomccs on the Front Range of Colorado? #7])>

<([#8 [6.3] [3.4.1] Additional Analysis of Population and Technology Impacts Needed 

Oil shale development impacts to the Colorado River will have impacts on population growth 

and energy use. The Draft PEIS should provide a more detailed analysis and additional 

discussion of the population influx associated with oil shale development, the proposed retorting 

technologies, and the subsequent energy demands. These variables could potentially have a 

greater impact on water resources in the region and is inadequately addressed. The Draft PEIS 

mentions proposed in-situ retorting technology and underground mining techniques with surface 

retorting that are to be implemented as part of the oil shale development and does not specify 

duration or the technology most feasible for the oil shale areas located in Colorado. However, 

variability in amount of water needed and the potential environmental impacts associated with 

these technologies make it difficult to determine the effects on resources on such a large scale, 

especially since the incorrect assumption is made that resources will be available for oil shale 

development under all conditions. Impacts associated with dewatering activities involved with 

the in-situ retorting process could be signi ficant. These impacts could include 

degrading/depleting groundwater rcsomccs, critical habitat areas, aquat ic resources, and surface 

water quality. #8])>

<([#9 [3.4.6] Water Quality Impacts 

Oil shale development impacts to the Colorado River could have negative impacts to water 

quali ty, water treatment facilities, and raw water users. There is also an increased risk of 

significantly reduced quality water resulting from the oil shale sites. Another poten tiCll 

environmental concern is the increase in salinity and other toxic compounds stemming from oil 

shale development thClt could adversely affect the Colorado River Basin ecosystem, endangered 

fish species, Clnd municipal, industrial, agricultural, and recreational users. The Draft PEIS 

provides no discussion about baseline or comprehensive water quality monitoring of the water 

resources in this region. A water quality monitoring program would provide important 

background data on water quality in the developable oil shale areas, especially since it is 

indicated that water generated from oil shale development would be of lower quality than the 

receiving waters. Therefore, the Draft PEIS should provide more technology specific data to 

fmther define the impacts of oil shale development on water resources. Oil shale development 

has not historically been successful in Colorado so the Draft PEIS should also consider the 

corresponding “bust” cycle if oil shale development is not economically feasible and how the 

water resomces could be reallocated to beneficial uses that will support population growth in 

other areas of the state. #9])>

<([#10 [6.2.3] Increased Energy Demands 
Final OSTS PEIS 1265 

Oil shale development impacts to the Colorado River could have negative impacts by increasing 

energy demands in the region. Along with increased oil shale development and production over 

the BLM’s suggested 20 year period of time, there would be an increase in energy needs. These 

increased energy needs could elevate levels of greenhouse gases, which could have potential 

impacts on climate Hnd regional water supplies. The Draft PEIS identifies the need for a 2,400- 

MW coal fired power plant to service the needs of the oil shale industry and the population 

growth (double the size of the Craig power plan t, the largest power plant in Colorado). The · 

Draft PEIS shows inconsistencies between Table 4.1.6-J (Assumptions Associated with a 1,500- 

MW an.d a 2,400-MW Conventional Coal-fired Electric Power Plant) and the text on Page 4-32. 

The table indicates water usc of 13,000 acre-feet/year, yet in the text water usc of approximately 

13,800 acre-feet/per year is suggested. This 800 acre-feet/year di fference corresponds to 

approximately 6%, which represents a signi fica nt amount of water in this tri -state area. The 

Draft PETS should also consider the impacts associated with the amount of water consumed, 

water quality impacts, and increased emissions, such as greenhouse gases from additional 

coalfired 

power plants to meet energy needs for development. If it takes a 2,400-MW coal-fired 

power plant to serve oil shale developmen t, is there a reasonable expectation that there will be 

sufficient oil developed to justify the cost including other resources consumed, i.e. coal and 

water. #10])>

<([#11 [1.5] The Draft PETS has raised substantial concerns that development of oil shale in 

Colorado could 

significantly affect the Council’s abi lity to serve its existing customers and the future growth 

projected for the Front Range of Colorado. The Draft PEIS provides insufficient data and 

analysis and docs not properly identify or address the direct or cumulative impacts caused by oil 

shale development. #11])> <([#12 [1.1.1] Furthermore, the BLM’s present deadline for 

comments does not provide 

the Council with adequate time to prepare specific comments on this potentially enormous new 

water use of an already strained water supply. In short, it is critical that the Council have 

adequate tim~ to develop a comprehensive set of comments on the Draft PEIS. The fact that oil 

shale development in Colorado has been discussed for decades, and with the potential impacts 

that oil shale development could have on the state’s existing imd future citizens, the Council 

believes it should have a meaningful role in the comment process. #12])>

~)p 

Dave Little on behalf of the Front Range Water Users Council 

cc: 

Governor of Colorado Bill Ritter 

Di rector of Colorado DNR Harris Sherman 

Senator Wayne Allard 

Senator Ken Salazar 

OSTS2012D50340 

Organization: William Harding 

Received: 5/4/2012 5:47:34 PM 

Commenter1: William Harding - Silt, Colorado 81652 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: 
Final OSTS PEIS 1266 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/14/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50340.htm (OSTS2012D50340-58973.htm Size = 1 KB) 

Submission Text

<([#1 [2.2] We are in support of the BLM preferred option. Where we live in Garfield County 

for over 100 years industry and politicians have promised a technological breakthrough that 

would produce oil from rock. Garfield County went through two booms on this promise and 

were left in the devastating wake of two busts, the last one ending May 2nd 1982. It’s time we 

learn from this. The emphasis that the 2012 OSTS PEIS promotes of making industry establish 

proven technology prior to leasing of public lands under a more reasoned energy policy only 

makes sense. #1])> Sincerely, Bill and Susan Harding Silt Colorado Cc: Senator Mark Udall 

Senator Michael Bennett 

OSTS2012D50341 

Organization: Center for Biological Diversity, Campaign 

Received: 5/4/2012 6:00:34 PM 

Commenter1: - , (United States) 

Organization1:Center for Biological Diversity, Campaign 

Commenter Type: Environmental Organization 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: klett 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50341.htm (OSTS2012D50341-59071.htm Size = 1 KB) 

Batch_1_Comments_CBD_OSTS2012D50341.pdf (OSTS2012D50341-59070.pdf Size = 14397 

KB) 

Submission Text

The following is the first of four baches of comments submitted on behalf of supporters of the 

Center for Biological Diversity one Friday, May 4, 2012. See Attachment. 

This letter pertains to the BLM’s “draft programmatic environmental impact statement” for 

oil-shale and tar-sand development in Colorado, Utah and Wyoming. 

<([#1 [3] I am deeply concerned about the potential environmental effects if the BLM initiates a 

commercial leasing program for oil-shale and tar-sands development. It would pollute our 

land, air and water and exacerbate climate change. Endemic, threatened and endangered 

species would be lost. 

Between global warming, rampant extinction and a quickly drying Colorado River -- 

problems that oil-shale and tar-sand development would only worsen -- it’s hard to imagine 

a less prudent use of our public lands. 

#1])>
Final OSTS PEIS 1267 

<([#2 [12.3] I therefore oppose any action by the BLM to continue or to authorize any new oilshale or tar-sand development on public land, or create or continue land-use allocations that 

would allow for such uses in the future. #2])> <([#3 [2.5] The draft programmatic environmental 

impact statement should have included an alternative that does not in any way endorse additional 

publicland use for this unproven industry. 

#3])>

<([#4 [3.10.4] Oil shale is currently producing no jobs and no revenue -- the Congressional 

Budget Office confirmed that it is not expected to produce significant revenues through 2022. 

The land overlying oil-shale resources in Utah, Colorado and Wyoming is some of the best 

wildlife habitat in the West, and outdoor recreation and tourism are huge economic drivers 

for the region. We must protect this sustainable economy by making smart decisions 

based on sound information. 

#4])>

<([#5 [3] I ask that you evaluate carefully and disclose fully the serious impacts of all new 

energy 

required for oil-shale and tar-sand production and its potentially devastating impacts to our 

climate, as well as the threat it poses to wildlife, special-status, threatened and 

endangered species, and to our water, air and communities. 

#5])>

OSTS2012D50343 

Organization: West Slope Colorado Oil and Gas Association, David Ludlam 

Received: 5/4/2012 6:02:58 PM 

Commenter1: David Ludlam - Grand Junction, Colorado 81505 (United States) 

Organization1:West Slope Colorado Oil and Gas Association 

Commenter Type: Oil & Gas Org 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: aziech 5/15/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50343.htm (OSTS2012D50343-59077.htm Size = 1 KB) 

PEIS_WSCOGA_comments_OSTS2012D50343.pdf (OSTS2012D50343-59076.pdf Size = 214 

KB) 

Submission Text

To Whom It May Concern: 

As the voice for beneficial, efficient, responsible and environmentally sound development, 

production and use of Western Colorado oil and natural gas, West Slope Colorado Oil & Gas 

Association (WSCOGA) is pleased to provide comments on the revised 2012 Oil Shale and Tar 

Sands Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) for oil shale and tar sand 

development. WSCOGA appreciates the Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM) focus on this 

important resource. Oil shale has the potential to diversify our energy portfolio and provide a 

resounding economic boost to Colorado, Utah and Wyoming. 

The BLM mission states that the agency should manage “BLM-administered lands and resources 

in a manner that best serves the needs of the American people” with decisions being made based 
Final OSTS PEIS 1268 

on the “principles of multiple use and sustained yield.” <([#1 [2.2] Unfortunately, the revised 

PEIS restricts the available amount of land so severely as to make commercial activity or 

viability a near impossibility. The revised preferred alternative in the draft PEIS limits the 

amount of available land in Colorado. Indeed, it limits oil shale leasing opportunities most 

drastically in the areas where the majority of oil shale resources are located. So much so that oil 

shale development, under the preferred alternative, could not be maximized or sustained in the 

Centennial state. 

#1])> <([#2 [9.8] WSCOGA firmly believes that if a “fresh look” is to be taken, it must be done 

in the best interest of the United States and not merely a convenient excuse to change the PEIS 

for political purposes unrelated to any technical basis. WSCOGA is also concerned that the new 

information referenced in pages 1-4 of the document does not actually constitute a viable 

foundation for overhauling the entire PEIS. It would be unfortunate for the American public, in 

terms of the cost of revisiting the document and the potential loss of return to the American tax 

payer, if the revised PEIS is to be finalized in its current form. 

#2])> <([#3 [9.8] WSCOGA strongly urges the BLM to take into consideration the fact that no 

directive from Congress has been issued requesting the change of time period for leasing 

development nor has there been any request of a reexamination of the PEIS via Congress. 

Indeed, quite the opposite: many Western congressional officials have not only supported the 

2008 PEIS but have encouraged its timely implementation. 

#3])> We support sustainable, timely, environmentally-responsible development to help boost 

America’s energy portfolio and energy security. Oil shale is an important resource, and 

development and commercial leasing is critical. At no time should political biases take 

precedence over up-to-date science and thoughtful economic analysis. 

WSCOGA has technical concerns related to the factual accuracy of the document that need to be 

addressed prior to moving forward with a final document and record of decision. The following 

narrative includes many specific areas in which WSCOGA sees as troubling, outdated or 

incorrect information. WSCOGA also requests, in certain areas within the document, specific 

justification and rationale for decisions. 

1. <([#4 [3.4.1] [9.3] On page ES-9, the statement is made that the BLM looks forward to 

gaining a clearer understanding of the implications of develop of oil shale for water quality and 

quantity, for example. Industry has provided much information on water needs for oil shale, and 

that information is used in Section 4. A number of laws at the Federal, State and local levels are 

already in place that protect, regulate and monitor water quality and quantity. Any lessee for oil 

shale – as with any energy lessee – would be required to go through a site-specific NEPA 

process and demonstrate that their proposed activities will not violate existing laws and 

regulations. Further, if there is a compelling public need to limit water consumption by an oil 

shale company or industry to less than the industry currently estimates, no further information is 

needed from the industry—it would simply be required to stay within the aforementioned 

bounds. Industry analyses indicate that enough water rights are in place to support oil shale 

production in excess of 1 million barrels per day. It must be also stated that it is not the 

responsibility of the BLM to interfere or subjugate water rights legally purchased by operators. 

#4])> 2. <([#5 [5] As alluded to previously, it is not within the jurisdiction of the BLM to 

generate regulations or requirements not authorized by Congress. On pages 1-13 and 2-78, the 

BLM is exceeding its bounds within the PEIS by enacting CO2 emission requirements. Further, 

CO2 mitigation is primarily a financial issue, not a technological issue. 

#5])> 3. <([#6 [2.2] The amount of land available for RD&D leases under the preferred 
Final OSTS PEIS 1269 

alternative 2b in Colorado, which has the best resource, is so restrictive that it will be virtually 

impossible to obtain actual operating data on multiple processes to achieve the stated purpose. 

WSCOGA is concerned that alternative 2b could be construed as a thinly veiled excuse to stop 

oil shale development independent of its potential value to the United States. WSCOGA requests 

that the BLM analyze the potential loss of investment from companies due to such severe 

limitations on land use. 

#6])> 4. <([#7 [1.3] On page 1-15, the PEIS lists governmental agencies that cooperated in the 

PEIS. One of the cooperating agencies, Garfield County, Colorado has approved a resolution 

adamantly opposed to the current PEIS. Further, surrounding counties in Colorado that would 

also be affected by the outcome of this PEIS, including Rio Blanco and Mesa counties, have 

signed similar resolutions opposing oil shale development. Since the majority of the oil shale 

resource is located in NW Colorado, the insights and opinions of those counties should be 

heavily weighted. 

#7])> 5. <([#8 [13] On page 1-17, the footnotes say that EGL have been renamed “since the 

preparation of this PEIS”. To what PEIS does “this” refer? EGL was renamed AMSO in early 

2008, and OSEC was renamed Enefit in early 2011, which are well before the issuance of the 

current draft PEIS. 

#8])> 6. <([#9 [6.1.1] [9.6] On page 2-13, on what basis did the BLM decide that commercial 

viability requires 25 ft of oil shale >25 gal/ton in Utah and Colorado but only 15 ft of 15 gal/ton 

in Wyoming? Economic recoverability is a complex matter that depends on both depth and 

technology. It cannot be overstated -- simply opening an area for commercial lease application 

does not mean that any company will actually try to lease it if it does not see commercial 

viability. Concerns about land speculation are more appropriately addressed by performance 

clauses in the lease rather than taking them off the potentially leasable area. 

#9])> 7. <([#10 [6.1] There are technically incorrect statements about oil shale on page 2-15. Not 

all oil shale in the Green River formation is a marlstone. The Garden Gulch member is clay rich 

and does not fall within the marlstone field. The temperature required to generate shale oil varies 

with time. For timescales of human activity, temperature for significant shale oil generation is as 

low as 500 oF, as that temperature for a few years will convert a substantial amount of kerogen. 

The processes being pursued by Shell and by AMSO will generate shale oil at temperatures 

primarily between 600 and 700 oF. While some recent people are misusing the term “shale oil” 

to denote shale-hosted natural crude oil, the term “shale oil” has meant the product formed from 

destructive distillation of oil shale for hundreds of years. 

#10])> 8. <([#11 [9.6] On page 2-30, the statement is made that six existing RD&D leases have 

terms that could allow commercial development up to 5,120 acres each. The most obvious 

interpretation of this statement is that even though the option 2 acreage largely excludes the 

preference right lease area from commercial leasing (see, for example, Table 2.3.2-2), it would 

be 

allowed for commercial leasing to the RD&D lease holder by virtue of an existing contract, and 

this interpretation is supported by words on page 2-54. However, if it is suitable for commercial 

leasing, why is it not included in the area available for commercial leasing independent of the 

RD&D lease fate? Does its exclusion mean that the Department of the Interior has determined 

that the PRLA’s are not actually suitable for commercial leasing and just isn’t going to tell the 

RD&D lease holders that they cannot actually lease the PRLA until they consider the 

commercial lease conversion application? #11])>

9. <([#12 [9.6] On page 2-26, the statement is made that if an RD&D lease holder relinquishes 
Final OSTS PEIS 1270 

its lease, the area may be leased to another operator with the decisions in the RMP at the time of 

application. To which application is the BLM referring? The original RD&D lease application or 

a subsequent application after the original lease is terminated? Does that mean that if Alternative 

2 is adopted, essentially all of that acreage would be removed from commercial leasing? What 

would occur if the lease is transferred to another entity rather than terminated? Would the new 

entity be required to pursue the same process originally proposed, or could the entity modify the 

process consistent with either the old, or a new, environmental assessment? 

#12])> 10. <([#13 [6.3] The statement is made that MMTA would be excluded from oil shale 

leasing until technology or other factors exist to develop oil shale without jeopardizing trona 

mines. Does that mean that if a company demonstrates that it is possible, the land would be 

available for leasing? If so, why is a lease stipulation a more appropriate way to enforce that 

requirement? Multi-mineral extraction requirements are already in force for nahcolite and oil 

shale. 

#13])> 11.<([#14 [2.2] It is stated on page 2-35, in effect, that Alternative 2b was not conceived 

until the PEIS was in draft form and is not even properly discussed in the rest of the document. 

An obvious question, therefore, is what specific technical discoveries of the PEIS process 

motivated the creation of this alternative and its eventual adoption? If no technical discoveries 

were the cause, what specific meetings or actions precipitated the idea after the analysis of 

alternatives had been completed? As such, on what basis does the Department of the Interior 

claim that this alternative and decision are consistent with the spirit of the 2005 Energy Act? 

#14])> 12. <([#15 [2.2] Figure 2.3.3-1 on page 2-37 demonstrates how much of a farce the 

preferred alternative is. Almost the entire Piceance Basin is excluded from commercial leasing 

applications even though it has not been identified as either Sage-Grouse Core or Priority Habitat 

or Lands with Wilderness Characteristics. Part of the land proposed for commercial leasing 

applications is identified as Sage-Grouse critical. Further, most of the land made available is in 

such small isolated parcels that it would not support significant commercial development. It is 

clear from this map that the explicit purpose of Alternative 2b for Colorado is to prevent 

commercial development of oil shale, in direct violation of the 2005 Energy Act. 

#15])> 13. <([#16 [2.4] As much Figure 2.3.3-1 is a farce, Alternative 4 shows a lack of thought 

concerning the definition of “moderate” in moderate development. Land proposed for 

commercial leasing includes Sage-Grouse critical habitat. Even though it is arguable that oil 

shale development could occur without adversely affecting the Sage Grouse and there is a 

paragraph outlining the responsibility of the field office in that regard, the amount of acreage so 

designated is so small that it could easily be eliminated without significant impact on the oil 

shale industry this century. Similarly, there is a portion of the Cathedral Bluffs designated as 

Lands With Wilderness Characteristics that could easily be eliminated from leases without 

adversely affecting the oil shale industry. 

#16])> 14. <([#17 [2.2] In discussing a comment about limiting leases to those in process, the 

PEIS states that it is not consistent with the Secretary’s and Director’s emphasis on develop and 

maintaining a robust RD&D process. The preferred alternative has so little land available in such 

isolated parcels that it is not conducive to either RD&D or commercial activity. The clearest 

evidence for this is that the number of proposals dropped from 20 to 3 when the preference right 

lease area was dropped from 5,120 to 640 acres. While it may be profitable to perform multimineral extraction on a 640 lease tract, it is doubtful for strictly oil production given the 500-ft 

restriction of activity from the border of the lease, which potentially reduces the available 

resource by one third. Further it is clear that a significant portion of the land made available will 
Final OSTS PEIS 1271 

not even support a 640-acre lease. WSCOGA requests that the Department of Interior provide 

specific rational for peppering the available acreage in smaller, incongruous blocks. It is also the 

opinion of WSCOGA that the BLM and DOI must include figures that discuss the loss to the 

American taxpayer by overly restricting development in Colorado. 

#17])> 15. <([#18 [3.10.3] The discussion on pages 3-241 through 244 is incongruous. 

Statements are made about rapid growth and employment due to the oil and gas industry, about 

having to import skilled labor from afar, and about how wages are increasing due to the oil and 

gas industry, as if all these are detrimental. Currently, the unemployment rates are about 10% in 

the regions that would be affected by oil shale development, and foreclosures are at least as 

common as in other parts of the country. 

#18])> 16. <([#19 [3.10.1] [3.10.3] On pages 3.11.2.2.4, the statement is made that rental 

housing in the Rifle area is all taken and there are no hotels available. That may have been true 3 

years ago, but it is not true now. Rental housing is easy to find, and rents are dropping. Hotel 

rooms are plentiful, and construction of one hotel was stopped a few years ago because of the 

drop in demand. In addition, recent analysis from the Colorado River Valley Field Office 

Resource Management Plan states that housing in surrounding counties, like Pitkin County, 

Colorado, will continue to be plentiful. If the PEIS is supposed to give a basis for economic 

status on which to make decisions about oil shale, it must be up to date. Otherwise, it is giving a 

completely mistaken view of why economic development, including oil shale, is needed to 

maintain a healthy economy in the Rifle area in the long run. In other words, if it was worth 

redoing the PEIS, it is worth doing it right and not using data that is 3 years old as if it were 

current. Again, the way to avoid booms and busts is to have steady growth, and waiting to 

develop oil shale during a national crisis is exactly opposite to what the country should do. It 

should have leasing policy that enables enough high-quality resource to be available for leasing 

so that the industry can learn, mature, and grow gradually over the next 20 years. Alternative 2b 

will almost kill oil shale development, except possibly for a few small operations. 

#19])> 17. <([#20 [6.2.1] On page 4-13, the BLM has projected that the new electricity capacity 

needed for in-situ oil shale would be generated by coal. That may be true if the electricity is 

generated in Utah and transmitted to Colorado, and of course, that changes the Colorado impact. 

If the electricity is generated nearer, it will probably be from a combination of co-produced gases 

and natural gas. This is an active choice that could be made to minimize impacts, and the PEIS 

seems to ignore that possibility. 

#20])> 18. <([#21 [6.3.2] Section 4.5.1.2 on water use does not mention the possibility of using 

reverse osmosis or distillation of deep brackish water to supply the water needs for oil shale 

production. The economics appear tolerable, particularly if waste heat is used for a distillation 

method, but this has not been actively studied because of the availability of plentiful water at low 

cost—ironic due to the near hysteria about water availability. The point here is that shale oil 

production is such a high-value operation and its water needs sufficiently modest that it could 

likely get along with no significant draw on fresh-water supplies, if the government insists upon 

confiscating current water rights. 

#21])> 19. <([#22 [6.3.2.1] It is likely that a 100,000 bbl/day oil shale industry would use less 

than 1% of the upper Colorado Basin remaining available surface water. Tables 4.5.2-1 and 

3.4.1-2 indicate a water surplus of about 300,000 ac-ft/yr, and a generous estimate of water 

consumption by an in-situ industry would be only 10,000 ac-ft/yr according to Table 4.5.2-1 if it 

did not use electrical heating. 

#22])> 20. <([#23 [6.3] On page 4-54, the phrases “at best, professional judgment” and “at worst 
Final OSTS PEIS 1272 

would be speculation” are used. The PEIS should not be using speculative numbers from nonexperts in its consideration. There are several accurate, professionally derived numbers in the 

literature that agree reasonably well enough that one does not have to use the derogatory 

qualifier “at best”. The point here is that there will be a range of emission estimates for various 

candidate technologies, and establishment of regulations on CO2 emissions would affect the 

ultimate outcome. 

#23])> 21. <([#24 [3.8.3] Figures 4.9.1-1 and 4.9.1-2 show pictures of a UMATAC industrial 

process. No one in the United States is considering using this ill-fated technology and as such 

pictures of the UMATAC process should be removed. 

#24])> 22. <([#25 [5] Page 4-154 has a discussion on oil shale activities in the 1980s related to 

surface disturbance. Nowhere on this page is it noted that those activities generated substantial 

experience on how to reclaim surface disturbance. It would be prudent for the BLM to include a 

discussion on current Best Management Practices developed for oil shale over the last three 

decades. 

#25])> 23. <([#26 [6.3.2] In the introductory sentence of 4.12.1.4, it is stated that “it is likely that 

oil shale technologies will require large amounts of water.” What is the BLM using as a 

comparison? In the arid west, typically 85-90% of the water is used for agriculture, and an oil 

shale industry will have only a minor effect on that number. So from that perspective, nothing 

except agricultures uses large quantities of water. Now if one uses a metric of economic value 

generated per unit of water consumption, how does oil shale compare to other industries? The 

Department of Interior should not repeat common misstatements about water crippling 

agriculture—it should analyze the true impacts of the oil shale industry, which are that a major 

commercial-scale industry would divert only a small percentage of agricultural water, and that 

could easily be made up by more efficient use of water by agriculture. 

#26])> 24. <([#27 [3.12.3] The implicit attitude of section 4.13.1.3 is misstated and 

inappropriate: Grand Junction and Carbondale are so far away from the oil shale development 

that any direct impact is clearly a stretch. The oil shale industry will provide jobs and economic 

growth for those who want to lift themselves out of poverty. The biggest threat to the health and 

well-being of poor people is an economy that cannot provide decent employment opportunities 

for all, and an oil shale industry can help provide a robust economy for western Colorado. It also 

appears that the author if this section is unaware of the discussion regarding oil shale and 

retorting in the preceding hundreds of pages. WSCOGA requests that the first two sentences be 

stricken as redundant and useless. 

#27])> 25. <([#28 [9.6] The bottom paragraph on page 6-1 states that making land available for 

lease applications has no impact on the environmental or socioeconomic setting. It is the 

subsequent development work on the land that would have an impact, and it must be analyzed by 

the NEPA process. Under this heading, what is the BLM’s justification for removing essentially 

all the land in Colorado from the lease application process? 

#28])> 26. <([#29 [9.8] The information about AMSO LLC in section A.5.3.2 is extremely 

outdated. An Addendum to the original Plan of Operations was submitted in July 2008 and 

approved by the BLM in October 2008, and a Plan of Operations was submitted in May 2009 

and approved by the BLM in September 2009. The stated reason for the update of the PEIS is to 

incorporate more recent information, and here is a case where the BLM has failed to incorporate 

relevant information contained within its own regulatory approval process. 

#29])> We thank you for the opportunity to add our comments to the public record and look 

forward to continuing a dialog on this important resource. 
Final OSTS PEIS 1273 

OSTS2012D50349 

Organization: JWBA, Inc., James Bunger 

Received: 5/4/2012 6:15:37 PM 

Commenter1: James Bunger - Salt Lake City, Utah 84119 (United States) 

Organization1:JWBA, Inc. 

Commenter Type: Private Company 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: aziech 5/15/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50349.htm (OSTS2012D50349-59092.htm Size = 1 KB) 

Bunger_comments_on_OSTS_PEIS_OSTS2012D50349.doc (OSTS2012D50349-59091.doc 

Size = 60 KB) 

Submission Text

<([#1 [2.1] The ‘no action’ Alternative #1 is the only Alternative justified under Section 369 of 

the Energy Policy Act of 2005, and subsequent Record of Decision of the original PEIS in 2008.

#1])>

Since the publishing of the 2008 PEIS and RMP guidelines, there has been nothing new that 

would warrant a revising of these regulations. The ‘fresh’ and ‘hard’ looks stated as the objective 

of this latest PEIS action are policy-motivated objectives not based on any change in underlying 

facts as found in the original PEIS. 

Adoption of any of the other alternatives would eliminate the most prospective of the 

geologically prospective resources, contrary to the mandates of EPAct 2005 and the findings of 

the 2008 PEIS. The most prospective resources include those rich resources near the surface that 

are eliminated in Alternatives other than Alternative 1. 

The argument is made that somehow the original PEIS erred in allowing leasing when 

technologies are not proven. The only way for a resource to be proven is for the availability of a 

lease to justify the investment in technology development. Any thought that technology will be 

developed without a lease is unrealistic. But if it is the policy purpose to impede development, 

that is the argument one would make. 

<([#3 [9.2.2] For more than 80 years, oil shale has not had a federal leasing program. It still does 

not have a federal leasing program. And there will be no development of federal resources until 

there is a leasing program. Lack of leasing is what has led to lack of technology. And lack of 

leasing of the most economical resource locations has deterred investment. 

Section 369 of EPACT 05 was designed to solve these issues and the current effort to roll back 

progress made toward implementing Section 369 is contrary to the intents of the law. Given the 

lead times required for development of technology and projects, once a lease has been secured, 

the effect of any alternative, other than the no-action Alternative 1, will be to delay oil shale 

development until a crisis atmosphere causes a change in policy. #3])>

<([#4 [9.7] The R, D and D efforts under way will not solve the technology issue. These efforts 

are not designed to answer the questions (water, emissions, etc.) that some are saying is required 

before leasing is made available. These efforts are aimed at a limited sample of technologies 

situated in limited geologic settings. Further, the uncertainty in lease conversion terms is 

delaying activity in these projects. Putting the R, D, and D leases on a critical path for 
Final OSTS PEIS 1274 

commercial leasing of oil shale effectively defers development. 

#4])> <([#5 [2.1] When EPACT 2005 was passed the Nation had the time to avoid a crisis in oil 

supply. At that time oil shale and tar sands could have been the difference between crisis and 

hardship. It is not certain that we have enough time now to avoid a crisis. Adding additional 

impediments, by removing the most geologically prospective resources from available leasing, 

adding excessive layers of environmental review, and withholding leasing regulations all serve to 

delay what could be an orderly, well-managed development of these vast, rich resources. 

Impeding development, which Alternatives 2-4 will do, runs the danger of repeating the energy 

crisis atmosphere that existed in the 70s. Unlike the 70s however, the next crisis will not be 

solved with more petroleum, renewable alternatives, or gas. Liquids from unconventional 

sources; oil shale, tar sands, and synthetic liquids will be needed to keep our economy healthy. 

The no-action Alternative 1 gives us the best chance to avoid the negative impacts of fuel 

shortages. The no-action alternative is warranted in that no new, substantive facts have come to 

light, or intervening changes have occurred to justify the other alternatives. 

#5])>

OSTS2012D50351 

Organization: Weber Sustainability Consulting, Ivan Weber 

Received: 5/4/2012 6:42:11 PM 

Commenter1: Ivan Weber - Salt Lake City, Utah 84103 (United States) 

Organization1:Weber Sustainability Consulting 

Commenter Type: Private Company 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: aziech 5/15/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50351.htm (OSTS2012D50351-59098.htm Size = 1 KB) 

Comments_Draft_OSTS_PEIS_OSTS2012D50351.txt (OSTS2012D50351-59097.txt Size = 5 

KB) 

Submission Text

<([#1 [12] Please allow us to register our discomfort with the very best of the Oil Shale/Tar 

Sands Programmatic EIS, 

and our outright objection to all other than the best. At the very time when we should be sinking 

our 

intelligence, entrepreneurship, capital and resources into the demonstrably clean alternatives, in 

order to 

make them even cleaner and more feasible, instead we continue to exhaust these marginal 

collective fiscal 

resources on massive scale greenhouse gases, pollution-producing substances, and pollutants 

outright. It 

makes no sense at all. 

I regret that I’ve not had time to review the details of any of the specific proposals, other than 

that of Red 

Leaf Resources. This is possibly the most nearly sane of the lot --- but only ‘most nearly sane’ 
Final OSTS PEIS 1275 

for its 

restraint of scale of impacts. At face value, Red Leaf has invented a brilliant mechanism for 

building 

insulated cells on a massive scale, heating them to kerogen’s melting point, and siphoning off the 

decant 

‘wax.’ On the bottom line, however, Red Leaf’s proposal is outlandishly crazy, destined to 

irretrievably 

contaminate all the lands it contacts. It is possible that more kerogen will be recovered than by 

other 

methods --- but then what do you have? A massively greenhouse-gas producing substance. True, 

there is 

the possibility of reclamation of the burned-out and exhausted oil shale cells. Energetically, 

however, we 

have no sense at all that we are not disproportionately allowing the conversion of one form of 

energy to 

another, and in the process one form of wealth to another. Natural gas happens to be inexpensive, 

at 

present, therefore we are swapping ‘fracked’ natural gas for kerogen from these cells, with the 

casualty 

occurring in devastated landscapes and a globally altered climate. #1])>

<([#2 [3.4.1] Water resources are the inevitable compound casualty, impacted essentially 

forever. As water becomes 

more valuable than kerogen or its refined products, largely due to the impacts of refined oil on 

global 

climate stability, then our approach to the technology-specific tipping point will be rapid, indeed: 

So rapid 

that we will realize almost immediately that we should not have done it, at all. This genie has 

been kept in 

the bottle for many years out of a skeptical wisdom. This is where it needs to remain. The 

difference may 

be that we should pay the Tribes and the Native American owners of these lands NOT to develop 

their 

energy resources. #2])>

<([#3 [3.4.1] As for the remainder of the oil shale/tar sands technologies, the same is true as is 

the case for the rest of 

the oil infrastructure, as well as the “messier” natural gas world: Stop, now, for the following 

reasons: 

* The impacts of gross devastation will rival that of mountaintop removal has done for coal 

removal. The quantity of underground and surface waters destroyed by mountaintop removal 

will 

forever distinguish this generation of engineers and coal workers as the most knowingly savage 

of 

all. The OS/TS concern for environment is at least this bad. 

#3])> <([#4 [5] As for the remainder of the oil shale/tar sands technologies, the same is true as is 
Final OSTS PEIS 1276 

the case for the rest of 

the oil infrastructure, as well as the “messier” natural gas world: Stop, now, for the following 

reasons:* Reclamation even of the superficially impacted lands will be nearly impossible to 

execute well, 

particularly in these zones of low- and diminishing-precipitation. When there are not nutrients or 

water, there is no way to apply enough energy to the land to generate adequate plant growth to 

secure the surface. 

#4])> <([#5 [3.7.3.11] As for the remainder of the oil shale/tar sands technologies, the same is 

true as is the case for the rest of 

the oil infrastructure, as well as the “messier” natural gas world: Stop, now, for the following 

reasons:* Where chemical analysis of Cretaceous and Jurassic soils find that selenium is high --- 

or arsenic or 

any number of trace elements, but particularly selenium --- the damage assumes legendary 

proportions in the high Colorado Plateau/West Slope rangelands. Give it enough time, which this 

surely will have over 20 to 100 years or more, and the results will be inevitable. This is not true 

just 

for cattle and livestock, but also for native rangeland animals, such as deer, elk, antelope and 

smaller mammals, and most emphatically for fish (the highest level of tissue selenium ever found 

was in catfish at Stewart Lake, in the late 1980s). They simply will cease to proliferate, will 

exhibit 

symptoms of reproductive distress, and (in short) will die out. This isn’t a problem for the people 

developing oil or gas resources, but it’s a gigantic problem for those who want to continue to live 

off of the land: hunters, fishermen, and Native Americans. 

#5])>

We have no desire to belabor this set of points. Either you get it, or you don’t. It’s a monstrous, 

outrageous problem, with readily addressable ramifications. Agencies in general, and BLM in 

particular, 

must cease to give in to these kinds of proposals that are driven by Congressional and State 

Legislative 

pressures. 

OSTS2012D50352 

Organization: Glen Canyon Institute, Michael Kellett 

Received: 5/4/2012 6:51:14 PM 

Commenter1: Michael Kellett - Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 (United States) 

Organization1:Glen Canyon Institute 

Commenter Type: Misc. Organization 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: aziech 5/15/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50352.htm (OSTS2012D50352-58975.htm Size = 3 KB) 

Submission Text

I am writing on behalf of Glen Canyon Institute (GCI), to submit comments on the draft Oil 

Shale and Tar Sands Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (OSTS PEIS) being 
Final OSTS PEIS 1277 

prepared by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). GCI is a nonprofit organization founded in 

1996 and based in Salt Lake City, Utah, with 1,500 members and supporters from the seven 

Colorado Basin states and across the United States. These members and supporters have a 

significant interest in the management, protection, and restoration of Glen Canyon, the Grand 

Canyon ecosystem, the Colorado River, and the entire Colorado Plateau region. <([#1 [2.3.1] We 

support Alternative 3, Oil Shale Research Lands Focus (RDandD with PRLA only), and urge the 

BLM to select this as the preferred alternative and proposed management decision in the Oil 

Shale and Tar Sands Proposed Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement. 

Selecting Alternative 3 would help ensure that we have the best possible information before 

considering opening our natural open spaces and ecosystems to the development of oil shale and 

tar sand resources. GCI is particularly concerned about the potential impacts of such 

development on Glen Canyon, Grand Canyon, the Colorado River, and surrounding lands. This 

development could have serious and irreversible impacts, including on water supplies and 

quality, air quality, native ecosystems and wildlife, and recreational uses. #1])> The following 

are some of our specific concerns regarding the draft OSTS PEIS: <([#2 [3.4.1] * The OSTS 

PEIS needs to ensure water quality will not be adversely affected by development of oil shale 

and tar sand resources. The water usage for oil shale production far outstrips the amount of oil 

produced, even prior to the refinement process. Water resources in the West are already overused 

and the effects of climate change and increased population will only add further strain to an 

already depleted system. #2])> <([#3 [3.4.1] * The OSTS PEIS should be conducted in such a 

way to address issues of dust, noise, and pollution in the affected areas. Heating oil shale in the 

ground can contaminate vital groundwater supplies. High salt concentrations in groundwater 

limit water available to native plants and are harmful to agricultural production. The Colorado 

River Basin already spends millions of dollars annually on damages caused from high salinity. 

#3])> <([#4 [3.1.1] * The OSTS PEIS should address the potential encroachment on protected 

National Park System units, such as Glen Canyon Recreation Area and Canyonlands National 

Park, designated wilderness areas, and inventoried roadless areas. This includes a thorough 

analysis of the possible damage to these priceless protected areas by oil shale and tar sands 

development. #4])> <([#5 [2.3.1] This OSTS PEIS should ensure that all alternatives seriously 

assess the issues outlined above. Considering the present lack of adequate information and the 

tremendous risks of misguided development, we want to reiterate that the only reasonable 

alternative at this point is Alternative 3, Oil Shale Research Lands Focus (RDandD with PRLA 

only), as described in the OSTS PEIS. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the draft 

Oil Shale and Tar Sands Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement. #5])>

OSTS2012D50353 

Organization: Chad Mullins 

Received: 5/4/2012 7:00:06 PM 

Commenter1: Chad Mullins - Holladay, Utah 84124 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: aziech 5/15/2012 12:00:00 AM 
Final OSTS PEIS 1278 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50353.htm (OSTS2012D50353-58977.htm Size = 1 KB) 

Submission Text

<([#1 [12] Most of my 67 years have been spent enjoying the outdoor wonders of Utah enjoying 

the scenery, the habitat and the wildlife. This is a precious resource to be conserved. However, 

our most precious resources for sustaining life are water and air. Water is a scarce resource in our 

desert environment, and water quality is critical to the survival of all species. There should be no 

greater obligation for the BLM than protecting our water resources. Tar sands and oil shale 

mining threaten those resources in a multitude of ways, not the least of which is the release of 

toxic waste/solvents into the environment. Safeguarding the environment and our precious life 

sustaining resources against these hazards should be the first priority in protecting the public 

interest. 

#1])>

OSTS2012D50354 

Organization: George Wear 

Received: 5/4/2012 7:04:23 PM 

Commenter1: George Wear - Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81602 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: aziech 5/15/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50354.htm (OSTS2012D50354-58979.htm Size = 2 KB) 

Submission Text

My great-grandparents homesteaded in northwestern Colorado in the 1890’s. I graduated from 

Glenwood Springs HS in 1975 and currently live in Glenwood. I have worked as an engineer and 

analyst in the energy and water resources arenas for 30 years, working for or consulting for state, 

federal, local government, utilities, and private clients. This has included long-range planning for 

electric and gas utilities, water rights administration for the entire Colorado River basin, and 

renewable energy project development support, for which I currently work for the National 

Renewable Energy Laboratory. <([#1 [2.2.1] I support the Preferred Alternative, because I 

believe that a limited amount of acreage is all that should be set aside for oil shale RandD. The 

technology should have to demonstrate that it is cost-effective and environmentally sound before 

additional leasing should be allowed. Current proposed technologies do not meet these criteria. 

In particular, studies on water demands for oil shale extraction clearly indicate that the industry 

will require more water than is available in this over-appropriated section of the Colorado/Green 

River basins. We will never choose to give up our river ecosystems, our agriculture, our nonindustrial economy, and our lifestyles to support this industry. In addition, the electricity needed 

for extraction technologies such as freeze-wall concepts will be enormous and require new 

power plants to be constructed. Fuel resource, air quality, and global warming limitations will 

limit additions to our power grid in the future and, once again, we will not choose to dedicate this 

limited electricity resource to oil shale development at the expense of our way of life. Finally, I 

am very concerned about the direct environmental degradation that will occur, both on-site and 

off, if this business is subsidized into a large industry, and the affects this degradation will have 
Final OSTS PEIS 1279 

on our economy, lifestyle, and air and water quality. Thank you for consideration of my 

comments. 

#1])>

OSTS2012D50355 

Organization: Earthjustice, Campaign, Alexander Rony 

Received: 5/4/2012 7:16:41 PM 

Commenter1: Alexander Rony - San Francisco, California 94111 (United States) 

Organization1:Earthjustice, Campaign 

Commenter Type: Environmental Organization 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: klett 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50355.htm (OSTS2012D50355-59100.htm Size = 2 KB) 

Comments_Earthjustice1_OSTS2012D50355.pdf (OSTS2012D50355-59099.pdf Size = 13987 

KB) 

Submission Text

Earthjustice collected 33,698 comments regarding the Oil Shale and Tar Sands Programmatic 

EIS. Attached are comments 1-5,000. Here is the sample comment that people could edit: 

<([#1 [3] I am deeply concerned about the potential effects to our water, wildlife, communities 

and public lands if the BLM initiates a commercial oil shale leasing program. The two million 

acres in UT, WY and CO previously allocated for commercial leasing is a massive amount of 

public, taxpayer land that would be sacrificed for a singular use of the landscape. 

#1])>

<([#2 [2.2] [12.3] While the preferred alternative (Alternative 2) is a step in the right direction, 

BLM should consider an alternative that does not endorse giveaways of public lands to this 

unproven industry. 

#2])>

<([#3 [3] Oil shale is currently producing no jobs and no revenue. The Congressional Budget 

Office confirmed that it is not expected to produce significant revenues through 2022. This 

means we have time to thoroughly assess the impacts of development to our water, wildlife and 

communities, and should not rush now to give away public lands. 

#3])>

<([#4 [3.10.4] The land overlying oil shale resources in Utah, Colorado and Wyoming is some of 

the best wildlife habitat in the West. Outdoor recreation and tourism are huge economic drivers 

that depend on this habitat. The farming and ranching sectors require reliable access to water 

resources, which may be depleted by extensive commercial oil shale development. We must 

protect these jobs by making smart decisions about how we allow oil companies to move 

forward with oil shale speculation. #4])>

<([#5 [3] I recommend that you carefully consider the serious impacts of oil shale production to 

our wildlife, water, air, and communities as you take another look at oil shale development. 

#5])>
Final OSTS PEIS 1280 

See attachment 

OSTS2012D50359 

Organization: bruce gabow 

Received: 5/4/2012 7:24:59 PM 

Commenter1: bruce gabow - basalt, Colorado 81621 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/16/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50359.htm (OSTS2012D50359-58981.htm Size = 1 KB) 

Submission Text

<([#1 [12] Please do not let furhter permits or activity towards tar sands development or pursuing 

oil shale research. The resources they will demand (water, etc.) are too scarce among other 

issues. #1])> Bruce Gabow 

OSTS2012D50363 

Organization: Roger Miller 

Received: 5/4/2012 7:51:14 PM 

Commenter1: Roger Miller - Scottsdale, Arizona 85258 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/16/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50363.htm (OSTS2012D50363-58983.htm Size = 1 KB) 

Submission Text

<([#1 [3.13] The main concern is the shale dust after the hydrocarbon is removed. What is to 

become of it? We don’t want it in our atmosphere or fouling western valleys. #1])> <([#2 [3.4.1] 

The other concern is the water used in the processing and rehabilitation. How much water is to 

be used and from where is its source. #2])> <([#3 [9] Whose to gain and who to lose in any oil 

shale development? And isn’t there enough privately held oil shale to get into development 

without futher federal leases? 

#3])>

OSTS2012D50364 

Organization: 

Received: 5/4/2012 7:55:04 PM 

Commenter1: - , (United States) 
Final OSTS PEIS 1281 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/14/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50364.htm (OSTS2012D50364-58985.htm Size = 1 KB) 

Submission Text

<([#1 [10.6.1] Let’s preserve something for the future generations. Let’s focus on renewable 

energy. #1])> <([#2 [12] Don’t open up more land to surface strip mining for tar sands.... 

#2])>

OSTS2012D50365 

Organization: US Oil Sands Inc., Barclay Cuthbert 

Received: 5/4/2012 8:15:41 PM 

Commenter1: Barclay Cuthbert - Calgary, (United States) 

Organization1:US Oil Sands Inc. 

Commenter Type: Affiliation Only 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: aziech 5/17/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50365.htm (OSTS2012D50365-58987.htm Size = 5 KB) 

Submission Text

May 4, 2012 BLM Oil Shale and Tar Sands Draft Programmatic EIS Argonne National 

Laboratory 9700 S. Cass Ave. Argonne IL 60439 Ladies and Gentlemen: Thank you for the 

opportunity to provide comments to the Oil Shale/Oil Sand Programmatic Environmental Impact 

Statement (PEIS). With the passage of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPA), Congress 

recognized the fact that development of these resources is crucial to the future of the United 

States and I whole-heartedly agree. We can develop these resources and achieve environmentally 

sound practices while we grow the economies of rural areas such as Vernal and Uintah County, 

UT and ease our Country’s dependence on foreign oil from unstable and sometimes hostile 

countries and governments. <([#1 [9.3] The PEIS attempts to identify lands that should be open 

to development of unconventional resources based on a generalized environmental assessment of 

those lands. Obviously, when considering lands as massive as those containing these oil shale 

and oil sand resources, it is impossible to generalize environmental conditions in a single 

document. That is why specific environmental review is suggested for each project. However, I 

do take exception to the PEIS’s function to exclude lands from potential development. As noted, 

a specific environmental review will be required for each potential project and that is the proper 

forum to assess impacts on the environment, sensitive and endangered species, and socio 

economic concerns, among others. To exclude large swaths of land based on a programmatic 

document is unjust. #1])> <([#2 [3.10.3] I acknowledge that this document is an environmental 

assessment of impacts of development on the lands in Utah, Colorado, and Wyoming and with 
Final OSTS PEIS 1282 

development there are always trade-offs between preservation of the natural environment and 

development of the American economy. I found that the PEIS dealt only with negative 

consequences of development and there was no balance to reflect the positive aspects of 

unconventional resource development. As an example, Appendix G, the socioeconomic and 

environmental justice impacts of oil shale and oil sand development were considered. The entire 

appendix dealt with negative consequences of development. It is unfathomable that no benefits 

of increased employment opportunities in high paying jobs were mentioned, especially as the 

United States works to recover from one of the most serious economic upheavals in its history.

#2])> <([#3 [6.1] In the case of oil sands development, the PEIS takes the approach that it will 

use similar industries to assess potential impacts, since the resource is different from that present 

in northern Alberta. However, I believe that oil sand operations in Alberta will more closely 

represent operations than assessments of proposed projects that never commenced operation. 

However, when evaluating impacts of proposed development, the PEIS considers “mega 

projects” similar to those in operation in Athabasca, Alberta. Utah’s oil sand resources amount to 

approximately 2% of those found in northern Alberta and theses resources simply will not 

support the scale of development that has occurred around Fort McMurrary. The productive 

capacity from oil sands development in Utah is likely on the order of 25,000 – 50,000 barrels per 

day and to present individual projects sized at 100,000 barrels of bitumen per day is misleading. 

In fact, the PEIS includes several photos from Athabasca operations, even though these projects 

are of a scale beyond that which Utah’s resources could support and though these types of 

projects were excluded from analysis by the report’s authors. #3])> <([#4 [6.3.5] On page 5.45 

the PEIS states that there are, “no commercially proven technologies for extracting liquids from 

oil shale or tar sands.” The Canadian oil sands are the United States’ largest single source of oil 

imports, while commercial oil shale extraction and processing facilities exist in Brazil and 

Estonia, so this statement is obviously misleading and may have imparted bias in the team that 

prepared the PEIS document. Further, when considering bitumen extraction projects, the report’s 

authors seem to have assumed that integrated projects are required; that is, any extraction 

operations would have to be paired with on-site upgrading of the bitumen. Again, this is not 

consistent with the development in Alberta’s oil sands. While the major mining projects have 

associated upgraders, the majority of the in situ producers (principally steam assisted gravity 

drainage, or SAGD) do not upgrade the bitumen and instead dilute the produced bitumen with 

lighter fractions and ship this mixture to the United States for refining. There is no underlying 

necessity for any of the projects to incorporate an upgrader, especially given the level of deep 

conversion capacity at American refineries. #4])> <([#5 [9.3] My overarching conclusion from 

review of the PEIS is that the lands containing unconventional resources of kerogen and bitumen 

should be available for leasing. Each specific project should undergo a thorough review of the 

merits and impacts of the project and should be approved or denied based on that assessment. A 

programmatic document that excludes huge areas of land from development based on 

generalized assessments and theoretical projects does not serve America’s interests. #5])>

OSTS2012D50366 

Organization: Katrina Stansfield 

Received: 5/4/2012 8:53:20 PM 

Commenter1: Katrina Stansfield - Huntington, Utah 84528 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: 
Final OSTS PEIS 1283 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/16/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50366.htm (OSTS2012D50366-58989.htm Size = 2 KB) 

Submission Text

<([#1 [2.2.1] We are writing to share our concerns about the impact of oil shale development in 

Utah, and to weigh in on the current Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). In short, we 

have serious concerns about the impacts of commercial-scale development on our water and way 

of life in eastern Utah, and support the balanced approach represented by Preferred Alternative, 

2(b) as the best option. #1])> <([#2 [3.4.1] As you are well-aware, Utah is second-driest state in 

the country and meeting our water needs is not something we take for granted. Ranchers, farmers 

and rural communities in eastern Utah are sometimes challenged meeting their water demands 

even during a good year. Therefore, putting dramatically increased stresses on our water supply 

will only make things worse. Since commercial-scale oil shale development would require 

anywhere from one to four or more barrels of water for every barrel of oil produced, 

commercial-scale development is guaranteed to have major consequences for our way of life 

here. In a 2010 report by the Government Accountability Office for instance, the agency stated 

that “oil shale development could have “significant impacts on water quantity and quality in 

eastern Utah, with the exact magnitude of those impacts unknown. #2])> <([#3 [2.2.1] We are 

also concerned about the impacts to our public lands that the oil shale industry would have. Our 

public lands are what make Utah such a special place to live, and we count on these places for 

hunting, fishing, recreating and grazing our cattle. For the above reasons and more, we support 

the Preferred Alternative 2(b) in the pending DEIS. This plan would lease more than 500,000 

acres of public lands to energy companies to do their research and development, while allowing 

for the opportunity to further study the impacts of oil shale development to our water and way of 

life. In closing, we thank you for the opportunity to weigh in on this issue, and for the balanced 

approach being taken by the Department of Interior with respect to its oil shale development 

program. Since you come from a ranching and farming family too, we know you understand the 

importance water and shared natural resources to our way of life in the West. 

#3])>

OSTS2012D50367 

Organization: Desert Skies Ranch, Terry Coppin 

Received: 5/4/2012 9:03:37 PM 

Commenter1: Terry Coppin - Cleveland, Utah 84518 (United States) 

Organization1:Desert Skies Ranch 

Commenter Type: Affiliation Only 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/16/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50367.htm (OSTS2012D50367-58991.htm Size = 4 KB) 

Submission Text
Final OSTS PEIS 1284 

<([#1 [2.2.1] I am writing to share my concerns about the impact of oil shale development in 

Utah, and to weigh in on the current Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). In short, I 

have serious concerns about the impacts of commercial-scale development on our water and way 

of life in eastern Utah, and support the balanced approach represented by Preferred Alternative, 

2(b) as the best option. #1])> <([#2 [3.4.1] As you are well-aware, Utah is second-driest state in 

the country and meeting our water needs is not something we take for granted. Ranchers, farmers 

and rural communities in eastern Utah are sometimes challenged meeting their water demands 

even during a good year. Therefore, putting dramatically increased stresses on our water supply 

will only make things worse. Since commercial-scale oil shale development would require 

anywhere from one to four or more barrels of water for every barrel of oil produced, 

commercial-scale development is guaranteed to have major consequences for our way of life 

here. In a 2010 report by the Government Accountability Office for instance, the agency stated 

that “oil shale development could have “significant impacts on water quantity and quality in 

eastern Utah, with the exact magnitude of those impacts unknown. #2])> <([#3 [2.2.1] I am also 

concerned about the impacts to our public lands that the oil shale industry would have. Our 

public lands are what make Utah such a special place to live, and we count on these places for 

hunting, fishing, recreating and grazing our cattle. For the above reasons and more, I support the 

Preferred Alternative 2(b) in the pending DEIS. This plan would lease more than 500,000 acres 

of public lands to energy companies to do their research and development, while allowing for the 

opportunity to further study the impacts of oil shale development to our water and way of life. In 

closing, I thank you for the opportunity to weigh in on this issue, and for the balanced approach 

being taken by the Department of Interior with respect to its oil shale development program. 

Since you come from a ranching and farming family too, I know you understand the importance 

water and shared natural resources to our way of life in the West. #3])> As you are well-aware, 

Utah is second-driest state in the country and meeting our water needs is not something we take 

for granted. Ranchers, farmers and rural communities in eastern Utah are sometimes challenged 

meeting their water demands even during a good year. Therefore, putting dramatically increased 

stresses on our water supply will only make things worse. Since commercial-scale oil shale 

development would require anywhere from one to four or more barrels of water for every barrel 

of oil produced, commercial-scale development is guaranteed to have major consequences for 

our way of life here. In a 2010 report by the Government Accountability Office for instance, the 

agency stated that “oil shale development could have “significant impacts on water quantity and 

quality in eastern Utah, with the exact magnitude of those impacts unknown. I am also concerned 

about the impacts to our public lands that the oil shale industry would have. Our public lands are 

what make Utah such a special place to live, and we count on these places for hunting, fishing, 

recreating and grazing our cattle. For the above reasons and more, I support the Preferred 

Alternative 2(b) in the pending DEIS. This plan would lease more than 500,000 acres of public 

lands to energy companies to do their research and development, while allowing for the 

opportunity to further study the impacts of oil shale development to our water and way of life. In 

closing, I thank you for the opportunity to weigh in on this issue, and for the balanced approach 

being taken by the Department of Interior with respect to its oil shale development program. 

Since you come from a ranching and farming family too, we know you understand the 

importance water and shared natural resources to our way of life in the West. 

OSTS2012D50368 

Organization: Red Rose Ranch, Howard Elms 

Received: 5/4/2012 9:05:21 PM 
Final OSTS PEIS 1285 

Commenter1: Howard Elms - Huntington, Utah 84528 (United States) 

Organization1:Red Rose Ranch 

Commenter Type: Affiliation Only 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/16/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50368.htm (OSTS2012D50368-58993.htm Size = 4 KB) 

Submission Text

<([#1 [2.2.1] I am writing to share my concerns about the impact of oil shale development in 

Utah, and to weigh in on the current Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). In short, I 

have serious concerns about the impacts of commercial-scale development on our water and way 

of life in eastern Utah, and support the balanced approach represented by Preferred Alternative, 

2(b) as the best option. #1])> <([#2 [3.4.1] As you are well-aware, Utah is second-driest state in 

the country and meeting our water needs is not something we take for granted. Ranchers, farmers 

and rural communities in eastern Utah are sometimes challenged meeting their water demands 

even during a good year. Therefore, putting dramatically increased stresses on our water supply 

will only make things worse. Since commercial-scale oil shale development would require 

anywhere from one to four or more barrels of water for every barrel of oil produced, 

commercial-scale development is guaranteed to have major consequences for our way of life 

here. In a 2010 report by the Government Accountability Office for instance, the agency stated 

that “oil shale development could have “significant impacts on water quantity and quality in 

eastern Utah, with the exact magnitude of those impacts unknown. #2])> <([#3 [2.2.1] I am also 

concerned about the impacts to our public lands that the oil shale industry would have. Our 

public lands are what make Utah such a special place to live, and we count on these places for 

hunting, fishing, recreating and grazing our cattle. For the above reasons and more, I support the 

Preferred Alternative 2(b) in the pending DEIS. This plan would lease more than 500,000 acres 

of public lands to energy companies to do their research and development, while allowing for the 

opportunity to further study the impacts of oil shale development to our water and way of life. In 

closing, I thank you for the opportunity to weigh in on this issue, and for the balanced approach 

being taken by the Department of Interior with respect to its oil shale development program. 

Since you come from a ranching and farming family too, I know you understand the importance 

water and shared natural resources to our way of life in the West. #3])> As you are well-aware, 

Utah is second-driest state in the country and meeting our water needs is not something we take 

for granted. Ranchers, farmers and rural communities in eastern Utah are sometimes challenged 

meeting their water demands even during a good year. Therefore, putting dramatically increased 

stresses on our water supply will only make things worse. Since commercial-scale oil shale 

development would require anywhere from one to four or more barrels of water for every barrel 

of oil produced, commercial-scale development is guaranteed to have major consequences for 

our way of life here. In a 2010 report by the Government Accountability Office for instance, the 

agency stated that “oil shale development could have “significant impacts on water quantity and 

quality in eastern Utah, with the exact magnitude of those impacts unknown. I am also concerned 

about the impacts to our public lands that the oil shale industry would have. Our public lands are 

what make Utah such a special place to live, and we count on these places for hunting, fishing, 
Final OSTS PEIS 1286 

recreating and grazing our cattle. For the above reasons and more, I support the Preferred 

Alternative 2(b) in the pending DEIS. This plan would lease more than 500,000 acres of public 

lands to energy companies to do their research and development, while allowing for the 

opportunity to further study the impacts of oil shale development to our water and way of life. In 

closing, I thank you for the opportunity to weigh in on this issue, and for the balanced approach 

being taken by the Department of Interior with respect to its oil shale development program. 

Since you come from a ranching and farming family too, we know you understand the 

importance water and shared natural resources to our way of life in the West. 

OSTS2012D50369 

Organization: Mark Dandeneau 

Received: 5/4/2012 9:05:53 PM 

Commenter1: Mark Dandeneau - Bere, Kentucky 40403 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/14/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50369.htm (OSTS2012D50369-58995.htm Size = 1 KB) 

Submission Text

<([#1 [12.1] I strongly oppose any tar sands developement. #1])>

OSTS2012D50370 

Organization: Barbara Larime 

Received: 5/4/2012 10:07:45 PM 

Commenter1: Barbara Larime - Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/14/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50370.htm (OSTS2012D50370-58997.htm Size = 1 KB) 

Submission Text

<([#1 [2.2.1] I have reviewed the BLM’s alternative to the original 2 million acres allocated for 

tar sands and shale oil R and D. Reducing the area to 325,000 total acres is a more reasonable 

approach for R and D. It preserves lands from being unnecessarily comprimised for development 

that may prove to be impractical, too costly, and too resource intensive to ever be implemented. 

#1])>

OSTS2012D50371 
Final OSTS PEIS 1287 

Organization: Kraig Schweiss 

Received: 5/4/2012 11:55:41 PM 

Commenter1: Kraig Schweiss - Sterling, Illinois 610819517 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/14/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50371.htm (OSTS2012D50371-58931.htm Size = 1 KB) 

Submission Text

<([#1 [10.6.1] [12] Why is this country so hellbent in wringing every drop of oil out of every 

rock at the expense of the air, water, and wildlife that inhabit the areas where there may be such? 

How much greed, arrogance, and stupidity do we have to endure before we say, “Enough is 

enough”? What good will these drops of oil do in the larger scheme of things other than to 

pollute, devastate, and kill what is right and beautiful in this country?! Stop this insanity and 

obsession with a finite resource and turn your attention and efforts to renewable and sustainable 

resources of sun, wind, geothermal, biofuels, etc. It’s way passed time that fossil fuels be left 

where they need to stay and let the earth renew itself and come back from the brink of global 

warming and the resulting disasters and catastrophes that are beginning to take their toll on us 

all. #1])>

OSTS2012D50372 

Organization: mercedes carlin 

Received: 5/5/2012 7:00:35 AM 

Commenter1: mercedes carlin - , New York (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/16/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50372.htm (OSTS2012D50372-58933.htm Size = 1 KB) 

Submission Text

<([#1 [9] What happened with the fracking decision? Why is the industry allowed to not divulge 

what chemicals are being used until AFTER they begin digging? What is theproblem with 

“overlapping” state regulations? How do their lobbyists get to influence our federal government 

and we don’t? I’ve sent e-mail after e-mail and I know others who have done the same. Why do I 

have to comply with state regulations and divulge any possible “toxic” intent and they don’t? It 

has to be money to spend in Washington. Much, of which, I don’t have. I’m more than 

disappointed. I’m damn mad. 

#1])>
Final OSTS PEIS 1288 

OSTS2012D50373 

Organization: Francesca Rogier 

Received: 5/5/2012 10:58:24 PM 

Commenter1: Francesca Rogier - Isle of Palms, South Carolina 29451 (United States) 

Organization1: 

Commenter Type: Member of the Public 

Classification: 

Submission Category: Standard Web Form 

Submitted As: Web Form 

Form Letter Category: 

Form Letter Master: 

Current Task: Issues Entered Assigned/Due: mMcHugh 5/16/2012 12:00:00 AM 

Attachments: OSTS2012D50373.htm (OSTS2012D50373-58999.htm Size = 1 KB) 

Submission Text

<([#1 [12] I strongly oppose the extraction of oil from oil shale and tar sands for a number of 

reasons. Foremost is the environmental damage it causes, which is permanent and irreversible, 

and whose long-term effects cannot be safely predicted. Next to that is the lack of proof that it 

would help the economy or lower the price of gasoline domestically. In fact, reliable studies 

indicate that it will negative affect the economy, as well as increase domestic gas prices. These 

are more important concerns than the price of stock or the increased profits of drilling 

companies, refineries, or fuel corporations. Please do not allow it!!! #1])>