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 2 CONTENTS 

NOTATION .............................................................................................................................. xiii

ENGLISH/METRIC AND METRIC/ENGLISH EQUIVALENTS ........................................ xx

4 EFFECTS OF OIL SHALE TECHNOLOGIES .............................................................. 4-1

 4.1 Assumptions and Impact-Producing Factors for Individual Facilities by 

 Commercial Oil Shale Technology ......................................................................... 4-2

 4.1.1 Surface Mine and Surface Retort Projects .................................................. 4-2

 4.1.2 Underground Mine and Surface Retort Projects ......................................... 4-7

 4.1.3 In Situ Retort Projects ................................................................................. 4-10

 4.1.4 Transmission Line and Crude Oil Pipeline ROWs ..................................... 4-12

 4.1.5 Workforce Operational Details and Employer-Provided Housing ............. 4-13

 4.1.6 Expansion of Electricity-Generating Capacity ........................................... 4-13

 4.1.7 Refining Needs for Oil Shale Development Projects ................................. 4-16

 4.1.8 Additional Considerations and Time Lines ................................................ 4-16

 4.2 Land Use ................................................................................................................. 4-17

 4.2.1 Common Impacts ........................................................................................ 4-17

 4.2.1.1 Other Mineral Development Activities ........................................ 4-18

 4.2.1.2 Acquisition, Conversion, or Transfer of Water Rights ................ 4-20

 4.2.1.3 Grazing Activities ........................................................................ 4-20

 4.2.1.4 Recreational Use .......................................................................... 4-21

 4.2.1.5 Specially Designated Areas and Lands with Wilderness 

 Characteristics .............................................................................. 4-22

 4.2.1.6 Wild Horse and Burro Herd Management Areas ......................... 4-22

 4.2.1.7 Different Oil Shale Development Technologies .......................... 4-23

 4.2.2 Mitigation Measures ................................................................................... 4-23

 4.3 Soil and Geologic Resources .................................................................................. 4-25

 4.3.1 Common Impacts ........................................................................................ 4-25

 4.3.1.1 Soil Resources.............................................................................. 4-25

 4.3.1.2 Geologic Resources ..................................................................... 4-27

 4.3.2 Mitigation Measures ................................................................................... 4-28

 4.4 Paleontological Resources ...................................................................................... 4-29

 4.4.1 Common Impacts ........................................................................................ 4-29

 4.4.2 Mitigation Measures ................................................................................... 4-30

 4.5 Water Resources ..................................................................................................... 4-31

 4.5.1 Common Impacts ........................................................................................ 4-31

 4.5.1.1 Ground Surface Disturbance ........................................................ 4-33

 4.5.1.2 Water Use .................................................................................... 4-34

 4.5.1.3 Discharge, Waste Handling, and Contaminant Sources .............. 4-38

 4.5.1.4 Alteration of Hydrologic Flow Systems ...................................... 4-41

 4.5.2 Water Budget for Individual Oil Shale Projects ......................................... 4-43

 4.5.2.1 Colorado....................................................................................... 4-43
Final OSTS PEIS

iv

CONTENTS (Cont.)

4.5.2.2 Utah.............................................................................................. 4-49

4.5.2.3 Wyoming ..................................................................................... 4-50

4.5.3 Mitigation Measures ................................................................................... 4-50

4.6 Air Quality and Climate.......................................................................................... 4-53

4.6.1 Common Impacts........................................................................................ 4-53

4.6.1.1 Climate Change............................................................................ 4-55

4.6.1.2 Impacts from Emissions Sources for Oil Shale Facilities............ 4-61

4.6.2 Mitigation Measures ................................................................................... 4-63

4.7 Noise ....................................................................................................................... 4-63

4.7.1 Common Impacts........................................................................................ 4-65

4.7.1.1 Construction................................................................................. 4-65

4.7.1.2 Vehicular Traffic.......................................................................... 4-66

4.7.1.3 Surface Mining with Surface Retort ............................................ 4-67

4.7.1.4 Underground Mining with Surface Retort................................... 4-67

4.7.1.5 In Situ Processing ........................................................................ 4-68

4.7.1.6 On-Site Upgrading Operations.................................................... 4-70

4.7.1.7 Reclamation ................................................................................. 4-70

4.7.1.8 Transmission Lines...................................................................... 4-71

4.7.1.9 Pipeline ........................................................................................ 4-71

4.7.2 Mitigation Measures ................................................................................... 4-72

4.7.2.1 Preconstruction Planning ............................................................. 4-72

4.7.2.2 Construction and Reclamation..................................................... 4-72

4.7.2.3 Operation ..................................................................................... 4-73

4.8 Ecological Resources.............................................................................................. 4-74

4.8.1 Common Impacts........................................................................................ 4-74

4.8.1.1 Aquatic Resources....................................................................... 4-74

4.8.1.2 Plant Communities and Habitats.................................................. 4-80

4.8.1.3 Wildlife ........................................................................................ 4-84

4.8.1.4 Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Species.......................... 4-99

4.8.2 Mitigation Measures ...................................................................................4-130

4.8.2.1 Aquatic Resources.......................................................................4-131

4.8.2.2 Plant Communities and Habitats..................................................4-132

4.8.2.3 Wildlife ........................................................................................4-133

4.8.2.4 Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Species..........................4-135

4.9 Visual Resources.....................................................................................................4-137

4.9.1 Common Impacts........................................................................................4-143

4.9.1.1 Surface Mining with Surface Retorting.......................................4-143

4.9.1.2 Underground Mining with Surface Retorting..............................4-151

4.9.1.3 In Situ Processing ........................................................................4-152

4.9.1.4 Other Associated Oil Shale Project Facilities..............................4-154

4.9.2 Mitigation Measures ...................................................................................4-158

4.10 Cultural Resources..................................................................................................4-162

4.10.1 Common Impacts........................................................................................4-162
Final OSTS PEIS

v

CONTENTS (Cont.)

4.10.2 Mitigation Measures ...................................................................................4-163

4.11 Indian Tribal Concerns ...........................................................................................4-164

4.11.1 Common Impacts........................................................................................4-165

4.11.2 Mitigation Measures ...................................................................................4-166

4.12 Socioeconomics ......................................................................................................4-168

4.12.1 Common Impacts........................................................................................4-172

4.12.1.1 Economic Impacts........................................................................4-172

4.12.1.2 Social Impacts..............................................................................4-175

4.12.1.3 Social Disruption Impacts............................................................4-179

4.12.1.4 Agricultural Impacts....................................................................4-179

4.12.1.5 Recreation Impacts ......................................................................4-180

4.12.1.6 Property Value Impacts ...............................................................4-181

4.12.1.7 Environmental Amenities and Economic Development

Impacts.........................................................................................4-183

4.12.1.8 Transportation Impacts................................................................4-183

4.12.2 Mitigation Measures ...................................................................................4-184

4.13 Environmental Justice.............................................................................................4-186

4.13.1 Common Impacts........................................................................................4-187

4.13.1.1 Impact-Producing Factors............................................................4-187

4.13.1.2 General Population ......................................................................4-188

4.13.1.3 Environmental Justice Populations..............................................4-190

4.13.2 Mitigation Measures ...................................................................................4-190

4.14 Hazardous Materials and Waste Management........................................................4-191

4.14.1 Common Impacts........................................................................................4-191

4.14.1.1 Surface Mining ............................................................................4-193

4.14.1.2 Surface Retorting and Subsequent Upgrading.............................4-195

4.14.1.3 Underground Mining with Surface Retorting..............................4-197

4.14.1.4 In Situ Processing ........................................................................4-198

4.14.2 Mitigation Measures ...................................................................................4-200

4.15 Health and Safety....................................................................................................4-201

4.15.1 Common Impacts........................................................................................4-204

4.15.1.1 Surface Mining ............................................................................4-204

4.15.1.2 Surface Retorting .........................................................................4-206

4.15.1.3 Underground Mining ...................................................................4-208

4.15.1.4 In Situ Processing ........................................................................4-209

4.15.2 Mitigation Measures ...................................................................................4-210

4.16 References...............................................................................................................4-211

5 EFFECTS OF TAR SANDS TECHNOLOGIES ............................................................ 5-1

5.1 Assumptions and Impact-Producing Factors for Individual Facilities for 

Commercial Tar Sands Technology........................................................................ 5-1

5.1.1 Surface Mine with Surface Retort or Solvent Extraction Projects ............. 5-2
Final OSTS PEIS

vi

CONTENTS (Cont.)

5.1.2 In Situ Facilities with Steam Injection or Combustion............................... 5-7

5.1.3 Transmission Line and Crude Oil Pipeline ROWs..................................... 5-9

5.1.4 Workforce Operational Details and Employer-Provided Housing ............. 5-9

5.1.5 Expansion of Electricity-Generating Capacity ........................................... 5-10

5.1.6 Refining Needs for Tar Sands Development Projects ................................ 5-10

5.1.7 Additional Considerations and Time Lines ................................................ 5-11

5.2 Land Use ................................................................................................................. 5-12

5.2.1 Common Impacts........................................................................................ 5-12

5.2.1.1 Other Mineral Development Activities........................................ 5-13

5.2.1.2 Acquisition, Conversion, or Transfer of Water Rights................ 5-14

5.2.1.3 Grazing Activities........................................................................ 5-14

5.2.1.4 Recreational Use .......................................................................... 5-14

5.2.1.5 Specially Designated Areas, Potential ACECs, and Areas

with Wilderness Characteristics................................................... 5-15

5.2.1.6 Wild Horse and Burro Herd Management Areas......................... 5-16

5.2.1.7 Different Tar Sands Development Technologies......................... 5-16

5.2.2 Mitigation Measures ................................................................................... 5-17

5.3 Soil and Geologic Resources.................................................................................. 5-18

5.3.1 Common Impacts........................................................................................ 5-18

5.3.1.1 Soil Resources.............................................................................. 5-18

5.3.1.2 Geologic Resources ..................................................................... 5-20

5.3.2 Mitigation Measures ................................................................................... 5-21

5.4 Paleontological Resources...................................................................................... 5-22

5.4.1 Common Impacts........................................................................................ 5-22

5.4.2 Mitigation Measures ................................................................................... 5-23

5.5 Water Resources ..................................................................................................... 5-24

5.5.1 Common Impacts........................................................................................ 5-24

5.5.1.1 Ground Surface Disturbance........................................................ 5-26

5.5.1.2 Water Use .................................................................................... 5-27

5.5.1.3 Discharge, Waste Handling, and Contaminant Sources.............. 5-30

5.5.1.4 Alteration of Hydrologic Flow Systems...................................... 5-33

5.5.2 Water Budget for Individual Tar Sands Projects........................................ 5-34

5.5.2.1 Overall Water Budget.................................................................. 5-34

5.5.2.2 Water Availability for Individual Tar Sands Projects 

in STSAs...................................................................................... 5-35

5.5.3 Mitigation Measures ................................................................................... 5-39

5.6 Air Quality and Climate.......................................................................................... 5-42

5.6.1 Common Impacts........................................................................................ 5-42

5.6.1.1 Climate Change............................................................................ 5-44

5.6.1.2 Impacts from Emissions Sources for Tar Sands Facilities .......... 5-50

5.6.2 Mitigation Measures ................................................................................... 5-52

5.7 Noise ....................................................................................................................... 5-52

5.7.1 Common Impacts........................................................................................ 5-54
Final OSTS PEIS

vii

CONTENTS (Cont.)

5.7.1.1 Construction................................................................................. 5-54

5.7.1.2 Vehicular Traffic.......................................................................... 5-55

5.7.1.3 Surface Mining with Surface Retort ............................................ 5-56

5.7.1.4 Surface Mining with Solvent Extraction ..................................... 5-56

5.7.1.5 In Situ Steam Injection ................................................................ 5-56

5.7.1.6 In Situ Combustion ...................................................................... 5-57

5.7.1.7 Reclamation ................................................................................. 5-57

5.7.1.8 Transmission Lines...................................................................... 5-58

5.7.1.9 Pipeline ........................................................................................ 5-58

5.7.2 Mitigation Measures ................................................................................... 5-58

5.7.2.1 Preconstruction Planning ............................................................. 5-59

5.7.2.2 Construction and Reclamation..................................................... 5-59

5.7.2.3 Operation ..................................................................................... 5-60

5.8 Ecological Resources.............................................................................................. 5-61

5.8.1 Common Impacts........................................................................................ 5-61

5.8.1.1 Aquatic Resources....................................................................... 5-61

5.8.1.2 Plant Communities and Habitats.................................................. 5-66

5.8.1.3 Wildlife ........................................................................................ 5-70

5.8.1.4 Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Species.......................... 5-85

5.8.2 Mitigation Measures ...................................................................................5-101

5.8.2.1 Aquatic Resources.......................................................................5-102

5.8.2.2 Plant Communities and Habitats..................................................5-103

5.8.2.3 Wildlife ........................................................................................5-104

5.8.2.4 Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Species..........................5-106

5.9 Visual Resources.....................................................................................................5-108

5.9.1 Common Impacts........................................................................................5-108

5.9.1.1 Surface Mining with Surface Retorting.......................................5-108

5.9.1.2 Surface Mining with Solvent Extraction .....................................5-110

5.9.1.3 In Situ Steam Injection ................................................................5-110

5.9.1.4 In Situ Combustion ......................................................................5-112

5.9.1.5 Other Associated Tar Sands Project Facilities.............................5-114

5.9.2 Mitigation Measures ...................................................................................5-114

5.10 Cultural Resources..................................................................................................5-119

5.10.1 Common Impacts........................................................................................5-119

5.10.2 Mitigation Measures ...................................................................................5-120

5.11 Indian Tribal Concerns ...........................................................................................5-121

5.11.1 Common Impacts........................................................................................5-122

5.11.2 Mitigation Measures ...................................................................................5-123

5.12 Socioeconomics ......................................................................................................5-125

5.12.1 Common Impacts........................................................................................5-126

5.12.1.1 Economic Impacts........................................................................5-126

5.12.1.2 Social Impacts..............................................................................5-126

5.12.1.3 Agricultural Impacts....................................................................5-128
Final OSTS PEIS

viii

CONTENTS (Cont.)

5.12.1.4 Recreation Impacts ......................................................................5-129

5.12.1.5 Property Value Impacts ...............................................................5-130

5.12.1.6 Transportation Impacts................................................................5-131

5.12.2 Mitigation Measures ...................................................................................5-131

5.13 Environmental Justice.............................................................................................5-133

5.13.1 Common Impacts........................................................................................5-134

5.13.1.1 Impact-Producing Factors............................................................5-134

5.13.1.2 General Population ......................................................................5-135

5.13.1.3 Environmental Justice Populations..............................................5-136

5.13.2 Mitigation Measures ...................................................................................5-137

5.14 Hazardous Materials and Waste Management........................................................5-138

5.14.1 Common Impacts........................................................................................5-138

5.14.1.1 Surface Mining with Surface Retort ............................................5-149

5.14.1.2 Surface Mining with Solvent Extraction .....................................5-140

5.14.1.3 In Situ Steam Injection ................................................................5-141

5.14.1.4 In Situ Combustion ......................................................................5-142

5.14.2 Mitigation Measures ...................................................................................5-142

5.15 Health and Safety....................................................................................................5-144

5.15.1 Common Impacts........................................................................................5-146

5.15.1.1 Surface Mining ............................................................................5-146

5.15.1.2 Surface Retorting and Solvent Extraction ...................................5-147

5.15.1.3 In Situ Steam Injection and Combustion .....................................5-148

5.15.2 Mitigation Measures ...................................................................................5-149

5.16 References...............................................................................................................5-150

FIGURES

4.9.1-1 ATP Processor Retort Technology at Stuart Oil Shale Facility, Queensland, 

Australia..................................................................................................................4-147

4.9.1-2 Stuart Oil Shale Facility, Queensland, Australia ....................................................4-148

5.9.1-1 Large-Scale Commercial Oil Sands Surface Mining, North of 

Fort McMurray, Alberta, Canada............................................................................5-109

5.9.1-2 Large-Scale Commercial Oil Sands Surface Mining Activity North 

of Fort McMurray, Alberta, Canada .......................................................................5-110

5.9.1-3 Portion of a Large-Scale Commercial Oil Sands Processing Plant 

near Fort McMurray, Alberta, Canada....................................................................5-111
Final OSTS PEIS

ix

FIGURES (Cont.)

5.9.1-4 Close-up View of a Large-Scale Commercial Oil Sands Processing Plant

near Fort McMurray, Alberta, Canada....................................................................5-111

5.9.1-5 Photo Mosaic of Existing Pilot-Scale Tar Sands Processing Facility 

Utilizing Surface Mining and Solvent Extraction on Asphalt Ridge near 

Vernal, Utah............................................................................................................5-112

5.9.1-6 In Situ Steam-Assisted Gravity Drainage Facility near Fort McMurray,

Alberta, Canada.......................................................................................................5-113

TABLES

4.1.1-1 Assumptions Associated with a Surface Mine with Surface Retort at 

Production Levels of 25,000 to 30,000 bbl of Shale Oil per Day........................... 4-3

4.1.2-1 Assumptions Associated with an Underground Mine with Surface Retort 

at Production Levels of 25,000 to 30,000 bbl of Shale Oil per Day....................... 4-8

4.1.3-1 Assumptions Associated with an In Situ Retort Project at Production 

Levels of 30,000 to 50,000 bbl of Shale Oil per Day ............................................. 4-11

4.1.5-1 Estimated Housing Distribution of Incoming People and Acres Affected 

by Employer-Provided Housing for the Construction and Operations 

Phases of Commercial Oil Shale Development...................................................... 4-14

4.1.6-1 Assumptions Associated with a 1,500-MW and a 600-MW Conventional 

Coal-Fired and a 505-MW Natural Gas-Fired Electric Power Plant ...................... 4-15

4.5.2-1 Water Budget for Oil Shale Development Projects................................................ 4-44

4.6.1-1 Area and Population for Counties in Which Oil Shale Emissions Could 

Occur....................................................................................................................... 4-54

4.6.1-2 Greenhouse Gas Emission Comparisons................................................................ 4-60

4.7.1-1 Noise Levels at Various Distances from Typical Construction Equipment ........... 4-66

4.7.1-2 Noise Levels at Various Distances from Heavy Truck Traffic............................... 4-67

4.7.1-3 Maximum Achievable Noise Reductions for Design Features............................... 4-70
Final OSTS PEIS

x

TABLES (Cont.)

4.8.1-1 Potential Impacts on Aquatic Resources Resulting from Commercial Oil

Shale Development ................................................................................................. 4-75

4.8.1-2 Potential Impacts on Plant Communities Resulting from Commercial Oil 

Shale Development ................................................................................................. 4-81

4.8.1-3 Potential Impacts on Wildlife Species Resulting from Commercial Oil 

Shale Development ................................................................................................. 4-85

4.8.1-4 Potential Impacts of Commercial Oil Shale Development on Threatened,

Endangered, and Sensitive Species.........................................................................4-100

4.8.1-5 Potential Impacts of Commercial Oil Shale Development on 

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

State Species of Special Concern............................................................................4-102

4.8.1-6 Potential Effects of Commercial Tar Sands Development on Federally 

Listed Threatened, Endangered, and Proposed Species..........................................4-123

4.12-1 Temporary Housing Assumptions ..........................................................................4-170

4.12.1-1 ROI Economic Impacts of Oil Shale Development................................................4-174

4.12.1-2 ROI Economic Impacts of Power Plant and Coal Mine Development...................4-175

4.12.1-3 ROI Demographic and Housing Impacts of Oil Shale Development.....................4-176

4.12.1-4 ROI Demographic and Housing Impacts of Power Plant and Coal Mine 

Development...........................................................................................................4-177

4.12.1-5 ROI Community Impacts of Oil Shale Development.............................................4-178

4.12.1-6 ROI Community Impacts of Power Plant and Coal Mine Development................4-178

4.12.1-7 Total ROI Impacts of Reductions in Recreation Sector Employment 

Resulting from Oil Shale Development..................................................................4-181

4.15-1 Potential Health Impacts Associated with Oil Shale Development........................4-202

4.15-2 Estimated Health Effects Associated with a Hypothetical 

1,000,000-bbl/day Oil Shale Industry.....................................................................4-203
Final OSTS PEIS

xi

TABLES (Cont.)

5.1.1-1 Assumptions Associated with a Surface Mine with Surface Retort or 

with Solvent Extraction for Production Levels of 20,000 bbl/day of 

Syncrude ................................................................................................................. 5-3

5.1.2-1 Assumptions Associated with In Situ Facilities with Steam Injection or

Combustion for Production Levels of 20,000 bbl/day of Syncrude ....................... 5-8

5.1.4-1 Estimated Housing Distribution of Incoming People and Acres Impacted

by Employer-Provided Housing for the Construction and Operations 

Phases of Commercial Tar Sands Development..................................................... 5-11

5.5.2-1 Estimated Water Consumption for Tar Sands Development.................................. 5-36

5.6.1-1 Area and Population for Counties in Which Tar Sands Emissions Could 

Occur....................................................................................................................... 5-43

5.6.1-2 Greenhouse Gas Emission Comparisons................................................................ 5-49

5.7.1-1 Noise Levels at Various Distances from Typical Construction Equipment ........... 5-54

5.7.1-2 Noise Levels at Various Distances from Heavy Truck Traffica............................. 5-55

5.7.1-3 Noise Levels from a Surface Mine with Surface Retort Site and a Surface

Mine with Solvent Extraction Site.......................................................................... 5-56

5.7.1-4 Noise Levels from an In Situ Steam Injection Site................................................. 5-56

5.8.1-1 Potential Impacts on Aquatic Resources Resulting from Commercial Tar 

Sands Development ................................................................................................ 5-62

5.8.1-2 Potential Impacts on Plant Communities Resulting from Commercial Tar 

Sands Development ................................................................................................ 5-67

5.8.1-3 Potential Impacts on Wildlife Species Resulting from Commercial Tar 

Sands Development ................................................................................................ 5-72

5.8.1-4 Potential Impacts of Commercial Tar Sands Development on Threatened, 

Endangered, and Sensitive Species......................................................................... 5-87

5.8.1-5 Potential Effects of Commercial Tar Sands Development on 

BLM-Designated Sensitive Species, Federal Candidates for Listing, 

State-Listed Species, and State Species of Concern ............................................... 5-89
Final OSTS PEIS

xii

TABLES (Cont.)

5.8.1-6 Potential Effects of Commercial Tar Sands Development on Federally 

Listed Threatened, Endangered, and Proposed Species.......................................... 5-97

5.12.1-1 ROI Economic Impacts of Tar Sands Development...............................................5-127

5.12.1-2 ROI Demographic and Housing Impacts of Tar Sands Development....................5-128

5.12.1-3 ROI Community Impacts of Tar Sands Development............................................5-128

5.12.1-4 Total ROI Impacts of Reductions in Recreation Sector Employment 

Resulting from Tar Sands Development.................................................................5-130

5.15-1 Potential Health Impacts Associated with Tar Sands Development.......................5-145
Final OSTS PEIS

xiii

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

xiv

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

xv

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

xvi

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

xvii

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

xviii

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

xix

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

xx

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 4-1 

4 EFFECTS OF OIL SHALE TECHNOLOGIES 

 This chapter of the PEIS contains a summary of information on current and emerging oil 

shale technologies and their potential environmental and socioeconomic impacts. Some of the 

information on the environmental consequences of oil shale development in this chapter is 

based on past oil shale development efforts. For this analysis, in the absence of more specific 

information on the oil shale technologies to be implemented in the future and the environmental 

consequences of implementing those technologies, information derived from other types of 

mineral development (oil and gas, underground and surface mining of coal) was used in 

preparing this chapter. The BLM has taken this approach because it anticipates, to the best of its 

knowledge, that the surface-disturbing activities involved with these other types of mineral 

development are comparable to those that may result from oil shale and tar sands development. 

 Also included in this chapter is a brief description of mitigation measures that the BLM 

may consider for use if warranted by the results of NEPA analysis undertaken prior to issuance 

of site-specific oil shale commercial leases and/or approval of detailed plans of development. 

Use of the mitigation measures will be evaluated at that time. 

 Some sections of this chapter are organized on the basis of potential impacts of specific 

technologies or practices involved in oil shale development, while other sections focus on the 

particular resource(s) impacted. For example, Sections 4.7 Noise Resources, 4.14 Hazardous 

Materials and Waste Management, and 4.15 Health and Safety are organized by technology or 

project activity, because impacts within these disciplines are distinguished on the basis of these 

project-specific elements. Alternately, Sections 4.4 Paleontological Resources, 4.5 Water 

Resources, 4.8 Ecological Resources, and 4.10 Cultural Resources are organized by type of 

impact on the particular resource, such as land disturbance, water use, or soil contamination, 

because focus on impacts on the particular resource provides more information in these 

instances, than emphasis on specific technologies or practices (i.e., the types of impacts by 

technology are consistent, and the magnitude of impacts would vary on the basis of site-specific 

considerations). 

 It is important to understand that information on the technologies presented here is 

provided for the purpose of general understanding and does not necessarily define the range of 

possible technologies and issues that may develop in the coming years. Prior to approval of 

future commercial leases, additional NEPA analysis would be completed that would consider 

site- and project-specific factors for proposed development activities. The magnitude of impacts 

and the applicability and effectiveness of the mitigation measures would need to be evaluated on 

a project-by-project basis in consideration of site-specific factors (e.g., existing land use, 

presence of paleontological and cultural resources and their proximity to surface water, 

groundwater conditions, existing ecological resources, and proximity to visual resources) and 

project-specific factors (e.g., which technologies would be used, magnitude of operations, water 

consumption and wastewater generation, air emissions, number of employees, and development 

time lines). 
Final OSTS PEIS 4-2 

4.1 ASSUMPTIONS AND IMPACT-PRODUCING FACTORS FOR INDIVIDUAL 

 FACILITIES BY COMMERCIAL OIL SHALE TECHNOLOGY 

 This section summarizes some of the assumptions and potential impact-producing factors 

related to the different commercial oil shale technologies being considered, as well as the 

potential impacts associated with establishing transmission line and crude oil pipeline ROWs, 

building employer-provided housing, and expanding the existing electricity supply. Impactproducing factors are defined as activities or processes that affect the environmental or 

socioeconomic setting, such as surface disturbance, water use, numbers of employees hired, and 

generation of solid and liquid waste. Specifically, this section identifies the data used and 

assumptions made to define potential impact-producing factors for hypothetical future oil shale 

development facilities. Future production levels from development projects are unknown at this 

time; for this analysis, it has been assumed that surface or underground mining based operations 

would produce at a level of 25,000 to 30,000 bbl/day and in situ facilities would produce at 

30,000 to 50,000 bbl/day.1 The information provided in Sections 4.1.1, 4.1.2, and 4.1.3 is 

based on this assumption. Subsequent NEPA analysis will occur prior to leasing when more 

information on specific technologies and production levels is available. The information 

presented here is summarized, in part, from more detailed discussions contained in Appendix A 

(the oil shale development background and technology overview), as well as previous 

environmental documents. In those instances where specific data are not available to define a 

potential impact-producing factor, best professional judgments have been made to establish 

reasonable assumptions. Discussions relating to air emissions are presented in Section 4.6. 

 All applicable federal, state, and local regulatory requirements will be met 

(see Section 2.2 and Appendix D), and the effects of these requirements are included in the 

analysis of impacts. Within the following text, specific assumptions that have been made for 

each technology or major activity that could occur during commercial operations have been 

identified. In most instances, these assumptions represent good engineering practice or reflect the 

BLM’s understanding of design or performance limitations of various oil shale development 

activities. In those instances in which various options have equal standing as practicable within 

the industry, the option offering the greatest potential environmental impacts was selected so as 

not to inadvertently understate these impacts. 

4.1.1 Surface Mine and Surface Retort Projects 

The information presented in Table 4.1.1-1 identifies the key assumptions associated 

with surface mining and surface retorting of oil shale for a facility whose size would support 

production of 25,000 to 30,000 bbl/day of oil. As discussed in Section 2.3.1 and Appendix A 

 

1 These estimates represent a reduction from those in the 2008 OSTS PEIS I which the corresponding estimates 

were 50,000 bbl/day for surface or underground mining operations and 200,000 bbl/day for in situ operations. 

These reduced estimates are based on discussions with industry representatives involved in the ongoing RD&D 

oil shale projects, the current timetables for those projects, and revised projections for the rate of industry 

development given in the report Energy Development Water Needs Assessment, Phase II, Appendix A 

(AMEC 2011). 
Final OSTS PEIS 4-3 

TABLE 4.1.1-1 Assumptions Associated with a 

Surface Mine with Surface Retort at Production Levels 

of 25,000 to 30,000 bbl of Shale Oil per Daya

Impact-Producing Factor 

Value Used in 

Impact Analyses 

 

Footprint of development area (acres)b 

Utah 300–700 

Wyoming 500–1,200 

Surface disturbance (acres)c 5,760 

Water use (ac-ft/yr)d 3,050–5,640 

Wastewater (gal/ton of shale)e 2–10 

Direct employment for surface mining 

Construction 455–550 

Operations 650–780 

Direct employment for surface retort 

Construction 265–320 

Operations 310–370 

Total employmentf

 

Construction 1,100–1,320 

Operations 1,4501,800 

a bbl = barrel; 1 bbl shale oil = 42 gal. 

b These acreages represent the estimated range of surface 

disturbance that could occur at any given time during the 

life of the project once a surface mine with surface retort 

project reaches commercial levels of production. 

Development is expected to occur with a rolling footprint 

so that, ultimately, the entire lease area would be 

developed and then restored. Because the shales are not as 

rich in Wyoming as they are in Utah, a larger area is 

necessary to get the same oil equivalent. 

c It is assumed that the entire lease area will be disturbed 

during the 20-year time frame analyzed in this PEIS. The 

assumed lease area of 5,760 acres is based on provisions 

of the MLA as revised by Section 369(j) of the Energy 

Policy Act of 2005. 

d These estimates were calculated on the basis of estimates 

that surface mine with surface retort projects would 

require 2.6 to 4 bbl of water per barrel of shale oil 

produced. 1 bbl = 0.0470 ac-ft/yr. 

e Source: DOI (1973a). 

f

 Total employment numbers include both direct and 

indirect jobs for mining and retorting. The range 

represents the difference in indirect employment between 

states for a project of the same size and includes the range 

of production. The methodology is discussed in 

Section 4.12 and Appendix G. 
Final OSTS PEIS 4-4 

(Section A.3.1.1), the scope of this PEIS does not include surface mining for commercial 

development of oil shale in Colorado; therefore, values presented in Table 4.1.1-1 are for surface 

mining with surface retort projects in Utah and Wyoming only. In addition, in both Utah and 

Wyoming, surface mining is restricted to those areas where the overburden is 0 to 500 ft thick. 

As shown in Table 4.1.1-1, for surface mining facilities, development is assumed to 

occur with a rolling footprint so that, at any given time, portions of the lease area would be 

(1) undergoing active development; (2) being prepared for a future development phase; 

(3) undergoing restoration after development; and (4) occupied by long-term surface facilities, 

such as office buildings, laboratories, retorts, and parking lots. Permanent surface facilities 

would be expected to occupy about 100 acres (DOI 1973a). The mine area and spent shale 

disposal areas would be reclaimed on an ongoing basis. Spent shale may be disposed of by being 

returned to the mine as operations would permit; there also would be some spent shale disposal 

on other parts of the lease area. The amount of land used for spent shale disposal would vary 

from project to project but is expected to be encompassed within the estimated development area 

identified in Table 4.1.1-1. 

 With the possible range of technology components, it is assumed that 2.6 to 4 bbl of 

water would be required for production of 1 bbl of shale oil using surface mining with surface 

retort. Other estimates include a range of 1.45 to 4.33 bbl of water per 1 bbl of shale oil 

(AMEC 2011) and 2 to 4 bbl of water per 1 bbl of shale oil with an average of about 3 bbl of 

water per 1 bbl of shale oil (GAO 2011). Water sources would be varied but may include a 

combination of groundwater, surface water, and treated process water. Groundwater pumped 

from the mine or from dewatering wells would be of variable quality; the higher quality water 

would most likely be used for industrial processes, dust control, and revegetation. Water of lower 

quality would be reinjected or otherwise disposed of pursuant to state requirements. Retorts 

produce 2 to 10 gal of wastewater per ton of processed shale that contains various organic and 

inorganic components that may need treatment depending on final use (DOI 1973a). 

 Assumptions regarding surface mining, surface retorts, spent shale from surface retorting, 

and upgrading activities associated with surface retorting include the following. 

Surface Mining 

• Only areas with overburden thicknesses of 500 ft or less would be developed 

by using surface mining techniques. This limit is based on factors such as 

surface area needed to dispose of the waste material, projected economics, and 

material rehandle and equipment capabilities. 

• Topsoil and subsoil removed as overburden would be separately stockpiled 

and vegetated to mitigate or eliminate erosion. 

• Where mine site dewatering is necessary, recovered water would be used for 

fugitive dust control, moisturizing of spent shale, and other consumptive uses, 

to the extent allowable given water quality considerations. 
Final OSTS PEIS 4-5 

• Explosives would be used in the mining process to remove overburden and 

fracture the oil shale. 

• Raw shale would be loaded by shovel into trucks for delivery to the crusher, 

which would be adjacent to the retort and would feed the retort by conveyor 

belt. 

• Strip mine development would provide for disposal of spent shale in areas 

already mined, to the extent it can be accommodated by available capacity. 

• Reclamation would be conducted contemporaneously with mining activities. 

Surface Retorts 

• Surface retorts would be patterned after the Paraho Direct Burn Retort, the 

TOSCO II Indirect Mode Retort, the ATP, or the Red Leaf Resources 

EcoShale In-Capsule Technology (see Appendix A of the PEIS). 

• Surface retorts are considered to be the primary rate-limiting step in any oil 

shale development process of which they are a part; consequently, because 

they operate at elevated temperatures (650°F or higher), they would be 

operated continuously for maximum energy efficiency. Mining and raw shale 

crushing operations that support the retorts would be of a size to provide a 

relatively constant supply of properly sized shale to allow the retort to operate 

continuously at its rated capacity; multiple, simultaneous mining and crushing 

operations may, therefore, be required. 

• Retorts would be positioned at or near the mine entrance, and raw shale would 

be delivered by truck to the crushing operation, which would be adjacent to 

the retort and feed the retort by conveyor. 

• Primary and secondary crushing would take place adjacent to the retort. 

• Flammable gases from retorting would be captured, filtered to remove 

suspended solids, dewatered, and consumed on-site as supplemental fuel in 

external combustion devices. 

• Condensable liquids would be filtered, dewatered, and delivered to the 

adjacent upgrading facility. 

• Indirect heat sources for surface retort would be provided by external 

combustion sources fueled by natural gas delivered to the site by pipeline, 

propane stored in pressure tanks on-site, or diesel fuel provided by 

commercial suppliers and stored in on-site aboveground tanks. Each 

commercial fuel source would be supplemented by combustible gases 
Final OSTS PEIS 4-6 

recovered from the retort. (The Red Leaf Resources EcoShale In-Capsule 

Technology results in synthetic natural gas production, which allows for 

energy self-sufficiency, according to their Web site and pilot tests.) 

• Fuel for direct-burn surface retorts would be provided by natural gas, propane, 

or diesel fuel, each of which would be delivered to the site and stored as noted 

above and supplemented by combustible gases recovered from the retort. 

Spent Shale from Surface Retorting Activities 

• Regardless of the retort, spent shale volume would increase by 30% over the 

volume of raw shale in the ground prior to mining; underground mining 

techniques selected can affect future spent shale disposal inside the mine. 

• All spent shale would be disposed of within the leased parcel. 

Upgrading Activities Associated with Surface Retorting 

• All crude shale oil recovered from surface retorting would require some 

degree of upgrading. 

• Shale oil upgrading requirements would be based on factors such as initial 

composition of crude shale oil recovered from surface retorts or in situ retorts 

and desired endpoints. 

• At a minimum, upgrading of crude shale oil would consist of: 

 Dewatering; 

 Filtering of suspended solids; 

 Conversion of sulfur-bearing compounds to H2S; 

 Removal of H2S and conversion to elemental sulfur by using a 

conventional Claus process or equivalent;2

 Conversion of nitrogen-bearing compounds to ammonia, recovery of 

ammonia gas, and temporary storage and sale of ammonia gas as fertilizer 

feedstock; and 

 

 

2 The Claus process is one of many processes used by petroleum refiners to control H2S, a common by-product of 

crude oil refining, in accordance with air emission regulations and permits. The H2S is removed from the 

production gas stream by direct separation and/or by amine extraction. It then is converted into elemental sulfur 

by a combination of thermal oxidation and catalytic conversion. 
Final OSTS PEIS 4-7 

 Hydrogenation or hydrocracking of organic liquids only to the extent 

necessary to sufficiently change physical properties (American Petroleum 

Institute [API] gravity, pour point3) of the resulting syncrude to allow for 

conveyance from the mine site by conventional means (tanker truck and/or 

pipeline). 

• Hydrogen used in upgrading would be supplied by a commercial vendor and 

stored temporarily in transport trailers (high-pressure tube trailers) before use 

in upgrading reactions; no long-term storage of hydrogen would take place 

on-site; no steam reforming of CH4 to produce hydrogen would be conducted 

on-site. 

• Fuel for upgrading activities would be commercial natural gas, propane, or 

diesel, augmented to the greatest extent practical by combustible gases 

recovered from upgrading activities. 

• Water for upgrading would be recovered from surface water bodies (including 

on-site stormwater retention ponds), mine dewatering operations, or on-site 

groundwater wells.4 

• Treatment of wastewaters from upgrading activities would occur on-site; 

water recycling would be practiced to the greatest extent practical. 

4.1.2 Underground Mine and Surface Retort Projects 

 The information presented in Table 4.1.2-1 identifies the key assumptions associated 

with underground mining and surface retorting of oil shale for a facility of a size to support 

production of 25,000 to 30,000 bbl of shale oil per day. 

 As shown in Table 4.1.2-1, permanent surface facilities supporting underground mining 

operations would be expected to occupy about 150 acres (DOI 1973a). 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. To develop a conservative estimate of land surface 

disturbance for underground mining operations, if it is assumed that all spent shale is disposed of 

on the land surface, 75 acres/yr would be required for disposal (DOI 1973a). This would result in 

1,500 acres disturbed over the 20-year study period (in addition to the 150 acres disturbed for 

surface facilities). The amount of land used for spent shale disposal would vary from project to 

 

3 The pour point is the temperature at which the petroleum liquid’s viscosity is sufficiently low to allow pumping 

and transfer operations with conventional liquid handling equipment. API gravity is an arbitrary scale for 

expressing the specific gravity or density of liquid petroleum products. Heavier viscous petroleum liquids have 

lower API values. 

4 Water recovered from on-site treatment of sanitary wastewaters or from operation of an on-site drinking water 

treatment system (e.g., reverse osmosis back flushes) could also be used to support upgrading. 
Final OSTS PEIS 4-8 

TABLE 4.1.2-1 Assumptions Associated with an 

Underground Mine with Surface Retort at Production 

Levels of 25,000 to 30,000 bbl of Shale Oil per Daya

Impact-Producing Factor 

Value Used in 

Impact Analysesb

 

Footprint of development area (acres) 150 

Surface disturbance (acres)c 1,050

Water use (ac-ft/yr)d 3,050–5,640 

Wastewater (gal/ton of shale)e 2–10 

Direct employment for underground mining 

Construction 470-560 

Operations 650780 

Direct employment for surface retort 

Construction 265320 

Operations 310370 

Total employmentf

 

Construction 1,1001,560 

Operations 1,4501,980 

a bbl = barrel; 1 bbl shale oil = 42 gal. 

b The values apply to activities within all three states. 

c For underground mines, it is assumed that 1,650 acres of the 

lease area would be disturbed (150 acres required for surface 

facilities; up to 900 acres used for spent shale disposal over a 

20-year project lifetime). An assumed lease area of 

5,760 acres is based on provisions of the MLA as revised by 

Section 369(j) of the Energy Policy Act of 2005. The 

PRLA associated with the OSEC RD&D project is 

5,120 acres as defined by the terms of the RD&D program 

(see Section 1.4.1). 

d Calculated on the basis of estimates that underground mine 

with surface retort projects would require 2.6 to 4 bbl of 

water per barrel of shale oil produced. 1 bbl = 0.0470 ac-ft/yr. 

e Source: DOI (1973a). 

f

 Total employment numbers include both direct and indirect 

jobs for mining and retorting. The range represents the 

difference in indirect employment between states for a 

project of the same size and includes the range of production. 

The methodology is discussed in Section 4.12 and 

Appendix G. 

 
Final OSTS PEIS 4-9 

project but is expected to be encompassed within the estimated development area identified in 

Table 4.1.2-1. 

 With the possible range of technology components, it is assumed that 2.6 to 4 bbl of 

water would be required for production of 1 bbl of shale oil. Other estimates include a range of 

1.45 to 4.33 bbl of water per 1 bbl of shale oil (AMEC 2011) and 2 to 4 bbl of water per 1 bbl 

of shale oil, with an average of about 3 bbl of water per 1 bbl of shale oil (GAO 2011). Water 

sources would be varied but may include a combination of groundwater, surface water, and 

treated process water. Groundwater pumped from the mine or from dewatering wells would be of 

variable quality; the higher quality water would most likely be used for industrial processes, dust 

control, and revegetation. Water of lower quality would be reinjected or otherwise disposed of 

pursuant to state requirements. Retorts produce 2 to 10 gal of wastewater per ton of processed 

shale, which contains various organic and inorganic components that may need treatment 

depending on final use (DOI 1973a). 

Assumptions regarding surface retorts and upgrading activities associated with surface 

retorting are discussed in Section 4.1.1. Additional assumptions regarding underground mining 

include the following. 

Underground Mining 

• Some mines would be “gassy”; methane (CH4) would be present, placing 

additional demands on the ventilation system for worker safety and 

introducing additional controls for the use of explosives. 

• Explosives would be used in the mining process. 

• Primary crushing would occur at the surface and not within the mine.5 

• Conventional room-and-pillar techniques would be used. 

• At least two levels of room-and-pillar development would occur. 

• Mine dewatering would occur continuously throughout the life of the mine. 

Recovered water would be used for fugitive dust control, moisturizing of 

spent shale, and other consumptive uses, to the extent allowable, given water 

quality considerations.6 All recovered water would be contained on-site. 

• 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 

 

5 Although some primary crushing typically takes place within the mine, to assess maximum potential impacts 

conservatively, it is assumed that all crushing and sizing of raw shale would take place on the surface. 

6 Water from an on-site treatment of sanitary wastewater or from the operation of on-site drinking water systems 

(e.g., reverse osmosis back flushes) could also be used for such activities. 
Final OSTS PEIS 4-10 

on a best estimate of what may be feasible at any given site; specific mine 

development procedures may accommodate disposal of a greater percentage 

of the spent shale inside the mine. 

• Resource extraction would depend on local structural features, but at no 

location would extraction go beyond 60% (by volume) of the mining horizon. 

4.1.3 In Situ Retort Projects 

 The information presented in Table 4.1.3-1 identifies the key assumptions associated with 

in situ retort projects whose size would support production of 30,000 to 50,000 bbl of shale oil 

per day. Development is assumed to occur with a rolling footprint so that, at any given time, 

portions of the lease area would be (1) undergoing active development; (2) being prepared for a 

future development phase; (3) undergoing restoration after development; and (4) occupied by 

long-term surface facilities, such as office buildings, laboratories, retorts, and parking lots. 

Permanent surface facilities would be expected to occupy about 200 acres (BLM 2006c). 

 It is assumed that 1 to 3 bbl of water would be required for production of 1 bbl of shale 

oil (Bartis et al. 2005) using in situ technologies.7 Other estimates for various methods include a 

range of −0.22 (negative due to water of combustion) to 1.61 bbl of water per 1 bbl of shale oil 

(AMEC 2011) and 1 to 12 bbl of water per 1 bbl of shale oil, with an average of about 5 bbl of 

water per 1 bbl of shale oil (GAO 2011). Water would come from wells, surface sources, and 

treated process water. 

 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. 

 Additional assumptions regarding in situ retorting include the following: 

In Situ Retorting 

• Some degree of upgrading of initial kerogen pyrolysis products can be 

expected to occur within the formation, before product recovery occurs. 

• Minimal upgrading of recovered products would be required and is likely to 

include: 

 Dewatering; 

 Gas/liquid separations; 

 Filtering of suspended solids from both gaseous and liquid fractions; 

 

7 The uncertainty in this number is based on variation in the quality of initially recovered shale oil and the extent 

of mine-site upgrading that would subsequently be required to produce a syncrude product that would be 

accepted as a crude feedstock at a refinery. 
Final OSTS PEIS 4-11 

TABLE 4.1.3-1 Assumptions Associated with an In Situ 

Retort Project at Production Levels of 30,000 to 

50,000 bbl of Shale Oil per Daya

Impact-Producing Factor 

Value Used in 

Impact Analyses 

 

Footprint of development area (acres)b 

Colorado and Utah 22–150 

Wyoming 150–500 

Surface disturbance (acres)c 5,760 (5,120) 

Water use (acre-ft/yr)d 1,410–7,050 

Direct employment for in situ projects 

Construction 225–375 

Operations 75–125 

Total employmente 

Construction 345–725 

Operations 120–340 

a bbl = barrel; 1 bbl shale oil = 42 gal. 

b The acreages represent the estimated range of surface 

disturbance that could occur at any given time during the life 

of the project once an in situ project reaches commercial 

levels of production. Development is expected to occur with 

a rolling footprint so that, ultimately, the entire lease area 

would be developed and then restored. Because the shales are 

not as rich in Wyoming as they are in Colorado and Utah, a 

larger area is necessary to obtain the same oil equivalent. 

c It is assumed that the entire lease area will be disturbed 

during the 20-year time frame analyzed in this PEIS. The 

assumed lease area of 5,760 acres is based on provisions of 

the MLA as revised by Section 369(j) of the Energy Policy 

Act of 2005. The PRLA associated with the five ongoing 

RD&D projects in Colorado is 5,120 acres as defined by the 

terms of the RD&D program (see Section 1.4.1). 

d Calculated on the basis of estimates that in situ projects 

would require 1 to 3 bbl of water per barrel of shale oil 

produced (Bartis et al. 2005). 1 bbl equals 0.0470 ac-ft/yr. 

e Total employment numbers include both direct and indirect 

jobs for in situ projects. The range represents the difference 

in indirect employment between states for a project of the 

same size and includes the range of production. The 

methodology is discussed in Section 4.12 and Appendix G. 

 Removal of H2S gas, conversion to elemental sulfur, temporary on-site 

storage, and sale; 

 Removal of ammonia gas, temporary on-site storage, and sale as fertilizer 

feedstock; 
Final OSTS PEIS 4-12 

 Hydrogenation/hydrotreating/hydrocracking performed on condensable 

liquids only if necessary to adjust API gravity; and 

 Viscosity adjustments to allow for transport by conventional means 

(tanker truck and/or pipeline) to a conventional petroleum refinery. 

• Recovered and/or upgraded liquid products would be stored temporarily 

on-site in aboveground tanks before delivery to market or conventional 

petroleum refineries by tanker truck, rail tank car, or pipeline. 

• 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. However, it is possible that some flaring 

of gases would occur, particularly in pilot-scale operations. 

4.1.4 Transmission Line and Crude Oil Pipeline ROWs 

 Oil shale projects would need to connect to the existing transmission grid (or to new 

regional transmission lines) to obtain electricity. The maximum distance from an existing 

500-kV transmission line to any of the oil shale resources is approximately 150 mi. The 

maximum distance from an existing 230-kV transmission line to any of the oil shale resources is 

approximately 45 mi. The greater distance of 150 mi has been assumed for all oil shale projects, 

although some projects could be located closer to existing transmission lines. Project economics 

would likely select for sites closest to existing infrastructure. 

 For this analysis, it is assumed that one connecting transmission line and ROW would 

serve each project, would be 150 mi long and 100 ft wide, and would have construction impacts 

extending up to 150 ft in width (equivalent to a disturbed area of 1,800 acres during operations 

and 2,700 acres during construction). The 150-mi distance and 100-ft ROW size assumptions 

represent probable maximum sizes. 

 It also has been assumed that all processing required to upgrade the oil shale product to 

render it suitable for pipeline transport and acceptance at refineries would be conducted on-site. 

Oil shale projects would need to connect to existing regional crude pipelines (or to new regional 

pipelines) through the installation of new feeder pipelines. It is assumed that one pipeline and 

ROW would serve each project. It is assumed that the pipeline ROW would be 55 mi long and 

50 ft wide, with construction affecting an area as wide as 100 ft (equivalent to a disturbed area of 

330 acres during operations and 670 acres during construction). The 55-mi distance and 50-ft 

ROW size assumptions represent probable maximum sizes. 

 Although new transmission lines and pipelines could very likely be utilized by more than 

one oil shale production facility, the resulting reduction in overall land disturbance is not 

considered, and as a result, this analysis could overestimate impacts from such infrastructure. 
Final OSTS PEIS 4-13 

4.1.5 Workforce Operational Details and Employer-Provided Housing 

 A number of assumptions have been made regarding the workforce, operations schedule, 

and housing for workers who move into the three-state study area to support future commercial 

oil shale development. It is assumed that at commercial scale, all projects would operate 

24 hours a day, 7 days a week. It is further assumed that about 30% of the construction and 

operations workers, including those hired directly to work on oil shale projects as well as those 

hired for jobs indirectly related to the development, would bring families with them, with an 

average family size of 2.6 (see Section 4.12). Some portion of these incoming people would live 

in housing provided by the operators. The locations of the employer-provided housing are 

unknown at this time; however, housing is not expected to be located on public lands. 

Employer-provided housing would be constructed as needed to house the workforce and also to 

provide facilities and infrastructure (e.g., groceries, basic medical care, schools, and recreation). 

A density of 35 people per acre is assumed for this employer-provided housing. 

 The BLM has made state-specific assumptions regarding what percentage of the workers 

and their families would be housed in employer-provided housing, rather than those who would 

move into existing communities. Section 4.12 provides a more detailed discussion of these and 

related assumptions. Table 4.1.5-1 provides estimates of the number of people who would be 

housed in local communities versus employer-provided housing, and the number of acres that 

would be required to support the employer-provided housing by technology. 

4.1.6 Expansion of Electricity-Generating Capacity 

 Additional power generation capacity would need to be developed in the region to 

support commercial oil shale development; however, at this time, definitive information about 

the power requirements of commercial oil shale development is not available. Nonetheless, some 

general observations can be made: power needs would vary by phase of development (pilot-scale 

versus commercial-scale); power needs would vary by technology, even among the different 

in situ technologies being evaluated; and the in situ processes that use nonelectric heating 

technologies, such as those provided by combustion of co-generated gases or natural gas, would 

use less power than those that rely on electricity for heating the shale. To meet these additional 

power needs, it is assumed that existing capacity would be expanded through a combination of 

construction of new power plants and expansion of existing power plants. Emissions from 

production of this additional power could have long-term impacts on human health, air quality, 

and AQRVs For the analysis in this PEIS, the BLM has assumed that future in situ projects 

would require 600 MW of additional electricity generation capacity when commercial 

production levels are reached. This estimate is based in part on published information indicating 

that the Shell in situ technologies being evaluated as part of the oil shale RD&D program require 

about 1,200 MW of power for every 100,000 bbl of shale oil produced (Bartis et al. 2005) and 

assuming the upper end of the projected production level of 50,000 bbl/day. (See footnote in 

Section 4.1 that discusses the reduction in this estimate from the 200,000 bbl/day used in the 

2008 PEIS.) The BLM has projected that this new electricity capacity would be provided by 

conventional coal-fired plants. As noted above, in situ processes that use nonelectric heating 

technologies would use less power. For surface and underground mining projects, the BLM has 
Final OSTS PEIS 4-14 

TABLE 4.1.5-1 Estimated Housing Distribution of Incoming People and Acres Affected by 

Employer-Provided Housing for the Construction and Operations Phases of Commercial Oil 

Shale Development 

Construction Operations 

 

Surface Mine with Surface Retort (25,000 to 30,000 bbl/day) 

Total population (including families)a 

Employer-provided housing 9001,300 5501,100 

Local communities 600900 1,3002,000 

Maximum size of employer-provided housing (acres)b 2536 1530 

 

Underground Mine with Surface Retort (25,000 to 30,000 bbl/day) 

Total population (including families)a 

Employer-provided housing 7501,300 4501,100 

Local communities 6001,400 1,3002,500 

Maximum size of employer-provided housing (acres)b 2236 1325 

 

In Situ Projects (30,000 to 50,000 bbl/day) 

Total population (including families)a 

Employer-provided housing 7501,300 125280 

Local communities 6501,700 350700 

Maximum size of employer-provided housing (acres)b 2238 47 

a The total population, including families, was calculated on the basis of the total number of new direct 

and indirect workers that would move into the three-state study area, assuming that 30% of them bring 

families with an average family size of 2.6 people. The ranges for employment numbers take into 

consideration state-specific conditions; the methodology is discussed in Section 4.12 and Appendix G. 

b These estimates are based on an assumed density of 35 people per acre for employer-provided 

housing. This acreage is not expected to be on public lands. 

assumed that power needs would be met through the expansion of existing power plants. Other 

types of electrical generation might be used, including natural gas, synthetic natural gas, nuclear, 

and renewable energy, but for this PEIS, coal is assumed to be the fuel to avoid underestimating 

the impacts. 

 Information on assumptions and impact-producing factors for a 1,500-MW coal-fired 

power plant is available (BLM 2007a; Thompson 2006c). Table 4.1.6-1 summarizes these 

assumptions and provides scaled values for a 600-MW power plant. This table also provides 

impacting factors for land and water use for a 505-MW natural gas-fired power plant, which, 

given recent trends, is the most likely type of new power plant that would be built to meet the 

needs of a future oil shale industry. Large oil shale facilities may use self-supplied co-generated 

gas or natural gas in an on-site power plant, which would reduce demand on the off-site power 

grid. It is also possible that future power would be provided by renewable energy sources, 

particularly wind, which would reduce air emissions and water use for power production. 
TABLE 4.1.6-1 Assumptions Associated with a 1,500-MW and a 600-MW Conventional Coal-Fired and a 505-MW Fired Electric Power Plant Impact-Producing Factor Value Used in Impact Analysis for a 1,500-MW Coal-Fired Planta Value Used in Impact Analysis for a 600-MW Coal-Fired Plantb Value Used in 

505-MW 

Land use (acres) 3,000 total (includes construction acreage) 1,200 130 acresc Water use (ac-ft/yr) 8,000 ac-ft/yr 3,200 2,360-2,930 ac-ft/

110-120 ac-ft/yr (

Employment (direct full-time equivalents) Construction: 1,200

1,500; 

Operations: 150 

Construction: 480

600; Operations: 60 NAe

a BLM (2007a). b Values for 600-MW power plant scaled from values for 1,500-MW plant. c NETL (2002). d Maulbetsch and DiFilippo (2006). e NA = information not available. 
Final OSTS PEIS 4-16 

4.1.7 Refining Needs for Oil Shale Development Projects 

 Factors that would likely affect the incorporation of oil shale into the refinery market are 

discussed in Attachment A1 to Appendix A of this PEIS. This attachment specifically examines 

the anticipated refinery market response to potential oil shale production over the 20-year time 

frame assessed in this PEIS. It provides a brief overview of the U.S. petroleum refinery market 

and identifies some of the major factors that would influence decisions regarding construction or 

expansion of refineries and displacement of comparable volumes of crude. 

 During the initial period of oil shale development, when only pilot-scale production is 

anticipated, all product generated by oil shale projects would be transported to existing refineries 

located outside the study area via pipeline, tanker truck, or rail tank car. 

 Refinery market development for the oil shale product is likely to occur in three phases: 

Phase 1, early adoption and local market penetration within the Rocky Mountain Region; 

Phase 2, market expansion outside of the Rocky Mountain Region (Petroleum Administration 

for Defense District [PADD]) with increased logistical capability; and Phase 3, high-volume 

production and multimarket penetration of a mature shale oil industry. Phase 1 may be projected 

to occur during the first 5 years of commercial development of a facility. If approximately 

1,000,000 bbl/day of oil shale were produced in Colorado during this time, that shale oil supply 

would be placed into a refinery market that already is experiencing excess domestic production. 

Transportation capacity would be the limiting factor during this phase. It is likely that the crude 

shale oil would only replace existing sources of crude of comparable quality and that there would 

be construction of new crude pipelines in the Rocky Mountain refining region. 

 Phase 2, market expansion, is likely to involve an expansion of the crude oil 

transportation network to allow distribution of the crude shale oil outside the Rocky Mountain 

refining region. The most likely markets are the Midwest and the Gulf Coast refining markets. 

New market penetration would require displacement of alternative sources of crude. There could 

be some expansion at existing refineries. It is unlikely that new refineries would be constructed. 

 During Phase 3, assuming large volumes of crude shale oil would be produced 

(approximately 2 million bbl/day), the shale oil would break into every U.S. refining market. By 

this time, it is reasonable to expect that West Coast refineries that have been utilizing Alaskan 

North Slope crude would be searching for alternative sources of supply, which could bring these 

refineries into the shale oil market equation. These West Coast refineries, and also Midwest 

refineries, would likely accept shale oil at that time, so there would not be a need for additional 

refinery capacity. Therefore, development of additional refinery capacity is not considered to be 

necessary as a result of oil shale development and is not considered further in this PEIS. 

4.1.8 Additional Considerations and Time Lines 

 The above assumptions broadly describe the impact-producing factors for commercial oil 

shale development. Within these general facility descriptions, many permutations are possible. 

For example, various surface retort designs exist, each with its own unique set of environmental 
Final OSTS PEIS 4-17 

impacts and resource demands. In addition, indirect impacts may occur. For example, there may 

be a need for major upgrades to existing road systems; the magnitude of this impact, however, 

would depend upon project site locations. A detailed definition of each possible permutation and 

a subsequent analysis of its impacts would be impractical and speculative, because there is no 

way to identify the precise development schemes that may be proposed by future developers. 

Furthermore, while it is likely that commercial development would be accompanied by the 

centralization or consolidation of some services (e.g., product storage, waste management, and 

equipment maintenance), it is not possible at this time to predict how this would evolve. This 

PEIS, therefore, provides an analysis of the range of impacts from each of the major technologies 

that might be deployed in the future, along with an analysis of the supporting services that would 

be required by each technology, but it does not analyze specific facility configurations or 

technology combinations. Efficiencies and economies that would be realized from integrated 

systems or centralized services are not considered. As a result, outcomes from this analysis could 

inadvertently overstate some impacts, especially if the resulting impacts are added together to 

accommodate multiple projects. 

 Although there are many unknowns with respect to time lines for construction and 

operations of commercial-scale shale oil production facilities, in general, it can be assumed that 

projects using in situ technologies would require about 3 years of construction and permitting 

before pilot testing; that pilot testing would last 6 years; and that additional construction to scale 

up to commercial levels would take 2 more years. It can be assumed that the permitting and 

construction phases for both surface and underground mines would take longer than such phases 

for in situ projects, such that construction and permitting before pilot testing would take about 

7 years, that pilot testing would last 6 years, and that permitting and construction to scale up to 

commercial levels would take 5 more years. For all commercial oil shale projects, regardless of 

the technologies used, it can be assumed that maximum production levels would be reached after 

3 to 5 years of commercial operations. 

4.2 LAND USE 

4.2.1 Common Impacts 

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

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

recreation, mining, hunting, oil and gas production, livestock grazing, wild horse and burro herd 

management, communication sites, and ROW corridors (e.g., roads, pipelines, and transmission 

lines). Commercial oil shale development activities could have a direct effect on these uses, 

displacing them from areas being developed to process oil shale. Likewise, currently established 

uses may also prevent or modify oil shale development. Valid existing rights represented by 

existing permits or leases may convey superior rights to the use of public lands, depending upon 

the terms of the permits or leases. 

 Indirect impacts of oil shale development would be associated with changing existing 

off-lease land uses, including conversion of land in and around local communities from existing 
Final OSTS PEIS 4-18 

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

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

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

currently undeveloped areas would continue changing the overall character of the landscape, 

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

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

reduced because of perceived noise, human health, sale of water rights, or aesthetic concerns, or 

may be increased by additional demand. 

 FLPMA directs the BLM to manage public lands for multiple use, and as a multiple-use 

agency, the BLM is required to implement laws, regulations, and policies for many different 

and often competing land uses and to resolve conflicts and prescribe land uses through its land 

use plans. FLPMA makes it clear that the term “multiple use” means that not every use is 

appropriate for every acre of public land and that the Secretary can “...make the most judicious 

use of the land for some or all of these resources or related services over areas large enough to 

provide sufficient latitude for periodic adjustments in use. . . .” [FLPMA, Section 103(c) 

(43 USC 1702(c)]. Like hunting, grazing, oil and gas development, and recreation, commercial 

oil shale operations are statutorily authorized uses of BLM lands. The BLM is aware that not all 

authorized uses can occur on the same lands at the same time; conflicts among resource uses are 

not new, and this PEIS is not intended to solve all potential conflicts involving oil shale leasing. 

The intent of FLPMA is for the Secretary of the Interior to use land use planning as a mechanism 

for allocating resource use, including energy and mineral development, as well as conserving and 

protecting other resource values for current and future generations. Future decisions regarding oil 

shale leasing and approval of operating permits will be informed by NEPA analysis of the 

conflicting or alternative land uses of individual areas. 

 Although transmission and pipeline ROWs associated with commercial oil shale 

development would not necessarily preclude other land uses, they would result in both direct 

and indirect impacts. Direct impacts (e.g., the loss of available lands to physical structures, 

maintenance of ROWs free of major vegetation, maintenance of service roads, and noise and 

visual impacts on recreational users along the ROW) would last as long as the transmission lines 

and pipelines were in place. Indirect impacts, such as (1) the introduction of or increase in 

recreational use in new areas due to improved access, or alternatively, (2) avoidance of existing 

recreation use areas near transmission corridors for aesthetic reasons, and (3) increased traffic, 

could occur and be long term. 

 The specific impacts on land use, and their magnitude, would depend on project location; 

project size and scale of operations; proximity to roads, transmission lines, and pipelines; and 

development technology. The following sections discuss the common impacts on different types 

of land uses and potential mitigation measures that may be applicable on a site-by-site basis. 

4.2.1.1 Other Mineral Development Activities 

 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 
Final OSTS PEIS 4-19 

resources. Commercial oil shale development, using any technology under consideration in this 

PEIS, is largely incompatible with other mineral development activities and would likely 

preclude these other activities while oil shale development and production are ongoing. Areas 

with oil shale resources where there are existing oil and gas or other mineral leases may be 

precluded from development, since currently, with some exceptions, the leases that are first in 

time have priority. 

 An exception to this is oil and gas leases issued in the oil shale areas of Colorado, Utah, 

and Wyoming between 1968 and 1989. Four stipulations are attached to these leases, they state 

that (1) no wells will be drilled for oil or gas except upon the approval of the authorized officer, 

it being understood that drilling will be permitted only in the event that it is established to the 

satisfaction of the authorized officer that such drilling will not interfere with the mining and 

recovery of oil shale deposits or the extraction of oil shale by in situ methods or that the interest 

of the United States would be best served by; (2) no wells will be drilled for oil or gas at a 

location, which in the opinion of the authorized officer, would result in undue waste of oil shale 

deposits or constitute a hazard to or unduly interfere with mining or other operations being 

conducted for the mining and recovery of oil shale deposits or the extraction of oil shale by 

in situ methods; (3) when it is determined by the authorized officer that unitization is necessary 

for orderly oil and gas development and proper protection of oil shale deposits, no well shall 

be drilled for oil or gas except pursuant to an approved unit plan; and (4) the drilling or 

abandonment of any well on this lease shall be conducted in accordance with applicable oil and 

gas operating regulations, including such requirements as the authorized officer may prescribe 

as necessary to prevent the infiltration of oil, gas, or water into formations containing oil shale 

deposits or into mines or workings being utilized in the extraction of such deposits. For purposes 

of this directive, the oil shale areas of Colorado, Wyoming, and Utah are defined as those lands 

that were previously withdrawn by E.O. 5327 of April 15, 1930 (U.S. President 1930). Where 

these oil shale stipulations do not exist in oil and gas leases, without some accommodation being 

made between oil shale developers and prior leases holders, oil shale development may not be 

able to proceed. 

 It is the BLM’s policy to optimize the recovery of both resources to secure the maximum 

return to the public in revenue and energy production; prevent avoidable waste of the public’s 

resources utilizing authority under existing statutes, regulations, and lease terms; honor the rights 

of each lessee, subject to the terms of the lease and sound principles of resource conservation; 

and protect public health and safety and mitigate environmental impacts. Conflicts among 

competing mineral resource uses would be resolved in the future at the leasing or plan of 

development stages. 

 Although it is possible that undeveloped portions of an oil shale lease area could be 

available for other mineral development, such development would be unlikely to occur on a 

widespread basis, except possibly in areas where a single company was developing multiple 

resources. Similarly, it is possible that oil shale extraction technologies could evolve to a point 

where other mineral development activities could be conducted simultaneously; however, 

predicting how that would translate into land use impacts is not possible at this time. 
Final OSTS PEIS 4-20 

As discussed in Section 2.3.3, the BLM has determined that it will carry forward 

decisions in the White River RMP (BLM 1997) establishing the Multimineral Zone within 

which mineral development would be allowed, only if recovery technologies are implemented 

to ensure that the development of one mineral does not prevent recovery of other minerals 

(see Section 3.1.1.3 and Figure 3.1.1-3). As a result, impacts on nahcolite and dawsonite 

development are expected to be negligible within the Multimineral Zone. The BLM also has 

determined that it will not carry forward decisions in the White River RMP to restrict oil shale 

leasing from the Piceance Creek Dome area. By making lands within the Piceance Creek Dome 

area available for application for commercial leasing, potential conflict between oil shale and oil 

and gas development could occur.

 The authorization of ROWs for connecting transmission lines and oil pipelines would 

result in fewer impacts on other mineral development activities than would commercial oil shale 

development projects. It is assumed that ROWs serving oil shale development could be located 

in a manner that would largely avoid impacts on other mineral development activities by 

avoiding areas of mineral development or by being co-located in a manner that is consistent with 

planned resource development. 

4.2.1.2 Acquisition, Conversion, or Transfer of Water Rights 

 Demand for reliable, long-term water supplies to support oil shale development could 

lead to the acquisition of unallocated water supplies (depending on availability) or to conversion 

of existing water rights from current uses. Water would be needed to support direct oil shale 

operations, additional population, and electric power plant operation. Some agricultural water 

rights have already been acquired by oil shale development companies. While it is not currently 

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. 

4.2.1.3 Grazing Activities 

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

portions of the lease area that were (1) undergoing active development; (2) being prepared for 

a future development phase; (3) undergoing restoration after development; or (4) occupied by 

long-term surface facilities, such as office buildings, laboratories, retorts, and parking lots. 

Grazing might be possible in the remaining undeveloped portions of the lease area or on 

portions that were successfully restored after development. On the basis of assumptions 

discussed above regarding the amount of land that would be disturbed at any given time for 

different technologies, it is possible that 3,120 to 4,970 acres within a 5,760-acre lease area 

would remain available for grazing. Depending on conditions unique to the individual grazing 

allotment, temporary or long-term reductions in authorized grazing use may be necessary 

because of loss of a portion of the forage base. 
Final OSTS PEIS 4-21 

 Once established, transmission line and pipeline ROWs would not prevent use of the land 

for grazing other than the areas physically occupied by aboveground facilities. The establishment 

of employer-provided housing would likely preclude grazing activities, depending upon how the 

housing is developed and the location, although this development is not expected to occur on 

public lands. Construction of new power plants or expansion of existing ones would likely 

preclude grazing on lands within the 4,800-acre development footprint, although this 

development is also not expected to occur on public lands. 

4.2.1.4 Recreational Use 

 Commercial oil shale development is incompatible with recreational use (e.g., hiking, 

biking, fishing, hunting, bird watching, OHV use, and camping). Recreational use likely would 

be excluded from areas leased for oil shale production once development activities begin. 

Recreational use may be reestablished once oil shale operations have ceased and restoration 

has been completed. The change in the overall character of undeveloped BLM-administered 

lands to a more industrialized, developed area would displace people seeking more primitive 

surroundings in which to hunt, camp, ride OHVs, and so forth. Many BLM field offices have 

designated lands as open, closed, or available for limited OHV use. Areas that would be open to 

application for commercial oil shale development may be currently available for some level of 

OHV use, and commercial oil shale development in these areas would displace this use. Even if 

access could be granted to portions of oil shale leases for recreational use, visitors might find the 

recreational experience to be compromised by the nearby development activities. Such impacts 

could also be incurred by recreational users of adjacent, off-lease lands. Impacts on vegetation, 

development of roads, and displacement of big game would degrade the recreational experiences 

and hunting opportunities near commercial oil shale projects. To the extent that commercial 

developments might be clustered together (e.g., possibly in the Piceance Basin), the effect on 

recreational uses would be magnified by changing the overall character of a larger area and by 

oil shale development dominating a larger portion of the landscape. 

 Once established, transmission line and pipeline ROWs would have less impact on 

recreational users than the actual commercial development projects. Access to the land in the 

ROWs would not be precluded; however, depending on the type of recreation, the overall 

recreational experience could be adversely affected by the visual disturbance to the landscape 

and potential noise impacts associated with transmission lines. The establishment of employerprovided housing, although not likely to be located on public lands, would preclude recreational 

use on those lands and might cause indirect impacts through increases in recreational use on 

adjacent and nearby public lands. Although construction of new power plants, or expansion of 

existing plants, also is not likely to occur on public lands, this development would displace any 

recreational use on the lands that are developed and may displace recreational uses on lands 

adjacent to the development. 
Final OSTS PEIS 4-22 

4.2.1.5 Specially Designated Areas and Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

 As discussed in Section 1.2, the BLM has determined that certain designated areas are 

excluded from commercial oil shale leasing. These areas include all designated wilderness 

areas, WSAs, other areas that are part of the NLCS (e.g., National Monuments, NCAs, WSRs, 

and National Historic and Scenic Trails), and existing ACECs that are closed to mineral 

development. Because of these exclusions, these designated areas would not incur direct impacts 

associated with commercial oil shale development. However, these areas and areas managed by 

other federal or state agencies (e.g., units of the National Park System, State Parks) within the 

viewshed of commercial oil shale development and associated transmission and pipeline ROWs, 

may be adversely affected (e.g., degraded viewsheds, reduction in recreational use, and impaired 

night sky viewing opportunities) by development on nearby public lands. Section 4.9 discusses 

impacts on visual resources in greater detail. 

 Existing ACECs that are not closed to mineral development may be available for 

application for commercial oil shale leasing under Alternative 1 only. 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. 

 Another category of lands that may be available for application for commercial leasing 

are those that the BLM has identified as possessing wilderness characteristics. 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. 

 All specially designated areas and lands with wilderness characteristics located in or 

near the most geologically prospective oil shale areas evaluated in this PEIS are identified in 

Section 3.1. 

4.2.1.6 Wild Horse and Burro Herd Management Areas 

 As discussed in Sections 3.1.1 and 3.1.3, the most geologically prospective oil shale 

resources evaluated in this PEIS coincide with a number of designated Wild Horse HMAs; they 

do not coincide with any Wild Burro HMAs. Specifically, the following HMAs overlie the oil 

shale resources: the Piceance–East Douglas HMA in the White River Field Office, Colorado; the 

Hill Creek HMA in the Vernal Field Office, Utah; and the Adobe Town, Little Colorado, Salt 

Wells Creek, and White Mountain HMAs in the Rawlins and Rock Springs Field Offices, 

Wyoming. At least some portion of each of these HMAs coincides with lands proposed to be 

available for application for leasing under the oil shale alternatives. 

 As discussed in Section 4.2.1.3 regarding grazing activities, the management of wild 

horse (Equus caballus) and burro (E. asinus) herds is not compatible within those portions of 
Final OSTS PEIS 4-23 

commercial oil shale lease areas that are (1) undergoing active development; (2) being prepared 

for a future development phase; (3) undergoing restoration after development; or (4) occupied by 

long-term surface facilities, such as office buildings, laboratories, retorts, and parking lots. Wild 

horses and burros could also be affected by increased encounters with vehicles. Noise and the 

presence of humans and vehicles could force herds to move to other areas. They would be most 

susceptible during spring foaling. Animals would likely be displaced from the areas of 

commercial development, and depending upon the conditions in the individual HMA, it might be 

necessary to reduce herd numbers to match forage availability on the undisturbed portion(s) of 

the HMA. If horses emigrate out of HMA boundaries because of the disturbance within the 

HMA, they could be removed via the capture and adoption program. Transmission line and 

pipeline facilities would not prevent use of the land by horses or burros other than in the areas 

physically occupied by aboveground facilities, although they could be subject to disturbance or 

harassment from people using the ROWs for access. 

4.2.1.7 Different Oil Shale Development Technologies 

 For the most part, impacts on land use would be the same regardless of the development 

technology used. There are a few exceptions, as follows: 

• In situ technologies would not generate spent shale and other waste rock 

(e.g., overburden) for disposal. Spent shale would be generated by retorting of 

mined oil shale. The volume of spent shale could be very significant. Spent 

shale would be disposed of on the lease area as approved by the BLM. 

Additional lands beyond the mine footprint could be disturbed for spent shale 

disposal. Following successful reclamation, these additional lands could be 

largely available for other land uses again. 

• Underground mines would require fewer acres of surface disturbance than 

surface mines. To some degree, they might also affect fewer surface acres 

than in situ projects. The amount of surface disturbance will depend on the 

technology employed, the characteristics of the project site, and the approved 

plan of development. 

4.2.2 Mitigation Measures 

 The direct and indirect impacts on land use described above could be mitigated to some 

extent by a number of actions, including in some instances application of specific engineering 

practices. The effectiveness of these potential mitigation measures and the extent to which they 

are applicable would vary from project to project and need to be examined in detail in future 

NEPA reviews of leasing and project plans of development. Potential mitigation measures 

include the following: 

• Consulting with federal and state agencies, property owners, and other 

stakeholders as early as possible in the planning process to identify potentially 
Final OSTS PEIS 4-24 

significant land uses and issues, rules that govern commercial oil shale 

development locally, and land use concepts specific to the region; 

• During the project design and planning phase, incorporating considerations 

regarding the use of lands in undeveloped or restored portions of the lease 

area to maximize their potential for other uses (e.g., grazing, recreational use, 

or wild horse herd management); 

• During the project design and planning phase, incorporating considerations 

regarding the use of adjacent lands to minimize direct and indirect off-lease 

land use impacts; 

• During the project design and planning phase, providing for consolidation of 

infrastructure wherever possible to maximize efficient use of the land; 

• During the siting, design, and planning phase for employer-provided housing, 

incorporating considerations regarding the use of adjacent lands to minimize 

direct and indirect off-lease land use impacts; 

• During the siting, design, and planning phase for the construction of 

additional electricity power generation, providing for consolidation of 

infrastructure wherever possible and incorporating considerations regarding 

the use of adjacent lands to minimize direct and indirect off-lease land use 

impacts; and 

• Developing and implementing effective land restoration plans to mitigate 

long-term land use impacts. 

 To address more specific impacts on land use, such as impacts on grazing, recreational 

use, and wild horse herd management, potential mitigation measures also could include the 

following: 

• Coordinating the activities of commercial operators with livestock owners to 

ensure that impacts on livestock grazing on a portion of a lease area were 

minimized. Issues that would need to be addressed could include installation 

of fencing and access control, delineation of open range, traffic management 

(e.g., vehicle speeds), and location of livestock water sources. 

• Coordinating the activities of the commercial operators with the BLM and 

local authorities to ensure that adequate safety measures (e.g., access control 

and traffic management) were established for recreational visitors. 

• Coordinating the activities of the commercial operators with the BLM to 

ensure that impacts on the wild horse herds and their management areas were 

minimized. Issues that would need to be addressed could include installation 
Final OSTS PEIS 4-25 

of fencing and access control, delineation of open range, traffic management 

(e.g., vehicle speeds), and access to water sources. 

4.3 SOIL AND GEOLOGIC RESOURCES 

4.3.1 Common Impacts 

 The potential impacts on soil and geologic resources vary somewhat according to the 

three different technologies under consideration. There are also some basin-specific impacts. 

However, many of the impacts are common to each technology and among project phases 

(construction, operations, and reclamation). Thus, this section discusses the common impacts 

on soil and geologic resources, including phase-specific impacts within each subsection. 

4.3.1.1 Soil Resources 

 Oil shale operations pose an impact on soil resources. A significant concern is increased 

soil erosion resulting from ground disturbance. This problem pertains to each technology 

considered in this PEIS. 

 Soil erosion by water and wind is common across the four basins. In the Piceance Basin, 

upland soil is thin and the slopes are high. The soils of relatively flat areas in valleys are also 

subject to localized erosion. Critically high erosion is prevalent in the Uinta Basin. Cryptobiotic 

soils are present in desert regions of Utah and Colorado and may be present in the study area 

(see Belnap [2011] on cryptobiotic soils of the Colorado Plateau). These biological soil crusts 

serve to reduce wind and water erosion of these soils when intact. The Green River and 

Washakie Basins have moderate to high erosion, with wind erosion playing a larger role than 

water erosion because of the arid conditions. 

 Soil erosion can be increased in areas disturbed through construction activities. The 

maximum land area that is assumed to be disturbed for oil shale facilities is the entire leased area 

for surface mines and in situ facilities (up to 5,760 acres), or about 1,650 acres for underground 

mine facilities. The degree of the impact depends on factors such as soil properties, slope, 

vegetation, weather, and distance to surface water. Specific activities that could create soil 

erosion (and possibly increase turbidity in surface water) include removal and stockpiling of 

overburden for surface mining (and to a lesser extent for subsurface mining); traffic on unpaved 

roads; vegetation clearing, grading, and contouring that can affect the vegetation, soil structure, 

and biological crust; and erosional gullies formed on land regraded for in situ work areas, 

support facilities, roads, and so forth. The drainage along roads may contribute to additional soil 

erosion as surface runoff is channeled into the drainages. Compaction by vehicles or heavy 

equipment may reduce infiltration, promote surface runoff, and decrease soil productivity. Wind 

erosion is enhanced through ground disturbance. 
Final OSTS PEIS 4-26 

 In addition to buildings, construction or installation of other facilities and utilities would 

require disturbance of soil. These activities would include, but not be limited to, utility tower 

installation, telephone pole installation, parking area construction, buried utility installation 

(e.g., water mains, wastewater lines, and electrical or communication cables), drilling for 

installation of electrical subsurface heating and freeze-wall equipment (for in situ processing), 

drilling for resource evaluation, and drilling for groundwater monitoring well installation. Some 

of these activities, such as exploratory drilling and road grading, may also take place during 

preliminary site assessment. 

 It is assumed that ROWs for transmission lines would be built to connect new project 

sites with regional utilities (up to 1,800 acres of long-term disturbance and 2,700 acres of 

disturbance during construction; see Section 4.1.4). A pipeline ROW is also assumed to be 

constructed for each project site (up to 330 acres of long-term disturbance and 670 acres 

disturbed during construction). Likewise, newly constructed employer-provided housing would 

likely be built, with limited long-term disturbance (see Table 4.1.5-1). The locations of 

employer-provided housing are unknown at this time; however, housing is not expected to be 

located on public lands. 

 Erosion rates are expected to be higher along ROWs and at construction sites, access 

roads, surface mines, and river banks. Site grading and drainage design would change the local 

hydrology and may result in increased runoff focused at certain discharge locations. This activity 

may cause increased erosion in creeks and drainages and on hill slopes, with subsequent 

increases in downstream sediment loads. Following site construction, soil conditions may 

stabilize, resulting in reduced erosion and sediment input to surface water. Localized erosion 

may continue to take place, requiring maintenance and remedial measures. 

 The pipelines associated with oil shale development include those conveying 

hydrocarbons extracted from in situ retorting or from surface retorts or upgrading facilities, as 

well as possible pipelines for water or sanitary waste. Pipeline leakage or breakage would have 

the potential to cause contamination of soil. 

 Soil and geology impacts would differ during oil shale operations depending on the 

technological approach. All techniques would involve ongoing issues with soil erosion and 

runoff management in disturbed soil areas (water and wind erosion, rutting, potential salinity 

impacts, etc.) as described above. The use of pesticides and herbicides and accidental spills or 

leaks of product, fuels, or chemicals could result in soil contamination. The potential soil 

contamination would be localized in extent and could be addressed with appropriate remediation 

measures. 

 The surface mining approach requires removing and stockpiling the overburden, source 

rock, and waste rock, thereby creating a potentially large source of sediment and salinity in site 

runoff. The various stockpiles are also susceptible to wind erosion. No surface mining is 

anticipated for Colorado. In Utah, 300 to 700 acres would be disturbed at any one time during 

commercial operations producing 25,000 to 30,000 bbl/day, with a total of 5,760 acres 

potentially disturbed (Table 4.1.1-1). In Wyoming, 500 to 1,200 acres would be disturbed at any 

one time, also with a total of 5,760 acres potentially disturbed. Some of the spent shale could be 
Final OSTS PEIS 4-27 

returned to the mine, but there would be overflow in disposal areas outside of the excavation. 

Ongoing stabilization of the waste piles would likely be required. 

 In underground mining, the disturbed soil footprint would be smaller than that for surface 

mining; source rock stockpiles and spent oil shale piles, however, would occupy a large amount 

of space and would be sources of sediment and salinity in runoff (total area assumed to be 

disturbed is 1,650 acres over 20 years; Table 4.1.2-1). Current assumptions regarding spent shale 

are that from 0 to 30% of the spent material could be returned to the mine for disposal and that 

the remainder would be disposed of at the surface. Ongoing stabilization of the waste piles would 

likely be required. 

 In situ techniques would result in rolling operations and would result in continuous 

ground disturbance areas and reclamation areas. In Colorado or Utah, approximately 22 to 

150 acres would be disturbed at any one time at a 30,000- to 50,000-bbl/day facility, while in 

Wyoming, the figure would be approximately 150 to 500 acres (Table 4.1.3-1). A total of 

5,760 acres (5,120 acres for any RD&D projects that go to commercial production) would 

potentially be disturbed and subject to erosion and sediment runoff, although various approaches 

and technologies could result in a smaller disturbed area. 

 During reclamation, potential geologic and soil impacts would be similar to those of the 

construction phase. The replacement of stockpiled topsoil on former work or support areas, 

roads, or in reclaimed surface mines would require time to reestablish with stabilizing vegetation 

and may be a source of erodible material, depending on factors such as slope and weather 

conditions. Monitoring of soil reclamation areas for erosion and ecological recovery are also part 

of a reclamation phase (DOI and USDA 2007). 

 A key concern for impacts on soil is the associated impact on water quality. As discussed 

in Section 4.5, soil erosion increases both the sediment load to streams and the salinity of runoff 

reaching these streams. The sensitivity of the surface water throughout the PEIS study area 

makes soil management a key factor in environmentally acceptable energy development. 

Infiltration of precipitation through stockpiled oil shale or through waste piles of spent material 

has the potential of affecting surface water or shallow aquifers with leached hydrocarbons and 

salts. 

4.3.1.2 Geologic Resources 

 Oil shale development could affect other geologic resources, including the loss of these 

resources. Various geologic resources are present in the four oil shale basins. 

 Sand and gravel and crushed stone supplies are widespread throughout the study areas. 

Their use at project sites (for construction, fill, etc.) would not be expected to affect their 

availability. 

 Halite, dawsonite, and nahcolite are distributed within the Piceance Basin. They are 

associated with the Green River Formation and occur at thicknesses and proportions that vary 
Final OSTS PEIS 4-28 

depending on location and depth. The central Piceance Basin contains an area known as the 

Multimineral Zone, within which oil shale, nahcolite, and dawsonite cannot be developed 

without the loss of one of the others. A designated KSLA surrounds the Multimineral Zone. Oil, 

natural gas, and coal are also present. In the Uinta Basin, the oil shale extends into two STSAs. 

Gilsonite, oil, and gas are also present. The Green River Basin contains trona and halite, and the 

MMTA is off-limits to oil shale development. Oil, gas, and coal are also present. Little or no 

economic geologic resources other than oil shale are available in the Washakie Basin. 

4.3.2 Mitigation Measures 

 Various mitigation measures may be taken to reduce the impact of oil shale activities on 

soil and geologic resources during construction, operations, and reclamation and could include 

the following. The subsequent effects on water quality may therefore be reduced 

(see Section 4.5). 

• Guidance, recommendations, and requirements related to management 

practices are described in detail in the BLM Solid Minerals Reclamation 

Handbook (BLM 1992), the BLM Gold Book (DOI and USDA 2007), BLM 

pipeline crossing guidance (Fogg and Hadley 2007), and in BLM field office 

RMPs. These actions include, but are not limited to, minimizing the amount of 

disturbed land; stockpiling topsoil prior to construction or regrading; 

mulching and seeding in disturbed areas; covering loose materials with 

geotextiles; using silt fences to reduce sediment loading to surface water; 

using check dams to minimize the erosive power of drainages or creeks; and 

installing proper culvert outlets to minimize erosion in creeks. 

• Surface pipeline crossings must be constructed above the highest anticipated 

flood stage, and subsurface crossings must be installed below the scouring 

depth. The BLM (Fogg and Hadley 2007) provides guidance on hydraulic 

analysis necessary for proper design of pipeline crossings. 

• Mapping of highly erosive soils and soils of high salt content should be 

performed in proposed project areas and their connecting roads, so that 

site-specific information can be used to guide project planning. A proper road 

grading analysis should be performed to reduce the potential for problems 

such as erosion or cut slope failure (DOI and USDA 2007). 

• The revegetation and restoration potential of soil, as with many other soil 

factors described previously, is site-specific and would be addressed in a 

project-level NEPA analysis. Mitigation measures involving soil erosion 

control, stabilization, and reseeding would limit the impact of soil erosion. 

• Stockpiling of topsoil prior to the construction of roads, parking areas, 

buildings, work areas, or surface mining is a practice that should aid 

reclamation efforts following the completion of work activities in a certain 
Final OSTS PEIS 4-29 

area. During restoration, replacement of the stockpiled topsoil would aid in a 

return to somewhat natural conditions for local vegetation. 

• Detailed geotechnical analyses would be required to address the stability of 

quarry walls, underground mines, and the stability of slopes, including 

assessment of slope cuts and the creation of roads or work areas. 

• Literature and field studies focused on the basin’s surrounding region should 

be undertaken to assess faulting and earthquake potential. 

4.4 PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES 

4.4.1 Common Impacts 

 Significant paleontological resources could be affected by commercial oil shale 

development. The potential for impacts on paleontological resources from commercial oil shale 

development, including ancillary facilities such as access roads, transmission lines, pipelines, 

and employer-provided housing, and from construction of possible new power plants, is directly 

related to the location of the project and the amount of land disturbance in areas where 

paleontological resources are present. Indirect effects, such as impacts resulting from the erosion 

of disturbed land surfaces and from increased accessibility to possible site locations, are also 

considered. 

 Impacts on paleontological resources could result in several ways as described below. 

• Complete destruction of the resource and loss of valuable scientific 

information could result from the clearing, grading, and excavation of the 

individual project area; construction of facilities and associated infrastructure; 

and extraction of the oil shale resource, if paleontological resources are 

located within the development area. 

• Degradation and/or destruction of near-surface paleontological resources and 

their stratigraphic context could result from the alteration of topography; 

alteration of hydrologic patterns; removal of soils; erosion of soils; runoff into 

and sedimentation of adjacent areas; and spills of oil or other contaminants if 

near-surface paleontological resources are located on or near the project area. 

Such degradation could occur both within the project footprint and in areas 

downslope or downstream. Although the erosion of soils could negatively 

affect near-surface paleontological localities downstream of the project area 

by eroding away materials and portions of sites, the accumulation of sediment 

could serve to remove from scientific access, but otherwise protect, some 

localities by increasing the amount of protective cover. Agents of erosion and 

sedimentation include wind, water, ice, downslope movements, and both 

human and wildlife activities. 
Final OSTS PEIS 4-30 

• Increases in human access and related disturbance (e.g., looting and 

vandalism) of exposed paleontological resources could result from the 

establishment of corridors or facilities in otherwise intact and inaccessible 

areas. Increased human access (including OHV use) increases the probability 

of impact from a variety of stressors. 

 Paleontological resources are nonrenewable, and once damaged or destroyed, they cannot 

be recovered. Therefore, if a paleontological resource (specimen, assemblage, locality, or site) is 

damaged or destroyed during oil shale development, this scientific resource would become 

irretrievable. Data recovery and resource removal are ways in which at least some information 

can be salvaged should a paleontological site be affected, but certain contextual data would be 

invariably lost. The discovery of otherwise unknown fossils would be beneficial to science and 

the public good, but only as long as sufficient data are recorded. 

4.4.2 Mitigation Measures 

 For all potential impacts, the application of mitigation measures developed in 

consultation with the BLM could reduce or eliminate (if avoidance of the resource is chosen) 

the potential for adverse impacts on significant paleontological resources. Coordination between 

the project developer and the BLM would be required for all projects before lease areas are 

developed. The use of BMPs, such as training and educational programs to reduce the amount of 

inadvertent destruction to paleontological sites, could also reduce the occurrences of humanrelated disturbances to nearby sites. The specifics of these BMPs would be established in projectspecific consultations between the project developer and the BLM. 

 A paleontological overview was completed for the study area (Murphey and 

Daitch 2007). The overview synthesized existing information and generated maps showing oil 

shale areas in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming with the PFYC designation and paleontological 

sensitivity of formations that could be affected by oil shale development. This analysis did not 

identify geographical areas to be precluded from leasing. However, during the leasing phase, the 

overview will be used to aid developers and the BLM in determining areas of sensitivity and 

appropriate survey and mitigation needs. 

 Mitigation measures to reduce impacts on paleontological resources will be required 

based on the environmental analysis conducted prior to leasing and/or development and could 

include the following: 

• Project developers should determine whether paleontological resources exist 

in an individual project area on the basis of the sedimentary context of the 

area and its potential to contain significant paleontological resources. A 

records search of published and unpublished literature may be required for 

past paleontological finds in the area. Paleontological researchers working 

locally in potentially affected geographic areas and strata may be consulted. A 

paleontologist may be required to observe active excavation at project sites. 

Depending on the extent of paleontological information, the BLM may require 
Final OSTS PEIS 4-31 

a paleontological survey. If paleontological resources are present at the site or 

if areas with a high fossil yield potential are identified, the development of a 

paleontological resources management plan may be required to define 

required mitigation measures (i.e., avoidance, removal, and monitoring) and 

the curation of any collected fossils. 

• If an area has a high fossil yield potential, monitoring by a qualified 

paleontologist may be required during all excavation and earthmoving in the 

area (even if no fossils were observed during the survey). Monitoring of highpotential areas during earthmoving activities would be conducted by a 

professional paleontologist, when required by the BLM. Development of a 

monitoring plan is recommended. An exception may be authorized by the 

BLM. 

• If fossils are discovered during construction, the BLM should be notified 

immediately. Work should be halted at the fossil site and continued elsewhere 

until a qualified paleontologist can visit the site and make site-specific 

recommendations for collection or (other) resource protection measures. 

 If these types of mitigation measures are implemented during the initial project design 

and planning phases and are adhered to throughout the course of development, the potential 

impacts on paleontological resources discussed under the common impacts section would be 

mitigated to the fullest extent possible. Adopting this approach does not mean that there would 

be no impacts on paleontological resources. The exact nature and magnitude of the impacts 

would vary from project to project and would need to be examined in detail in future NEPA 

reviews of lease areas and project plans of development. 

4.5 WATER RESOURCES 

4.5.1 Common Impacts 

 In general, the impacts on water resources from oil shale development can be attributed 

to the interdependent factors of ground surface disturbance, water withdrawal and use, 

wastewater disposal, alteration of hydrologic flow systems for both surface water and 

groundwater, and the interaction between groundwater and surface water. In addition, the 

locations where oil shale development may occur may not match the locations where water 

supplies are available. This last issue might require development of new infrastructure for water 

transport and water storage, which would cause additional adverse environmental impacts on 

water resources. 

 Common impacts could include the following: 

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

contaminated runoff from project sites; 
Final OSTS PEIS 4-32 

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

concentrating natural runoff; 

• Surface disturbance that becomes a 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, potentially affecting downstream NPDES permitting; 

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

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

springs or seeps that are hydrologically connected to the groundwater; 

• 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 agricultural (livestock) or domestic water wells 

from dewatering operations or from production of water for industrial uses; 

• Cross-connection between aquifers of varying water quality resulting from 

various mining and drilling activities; 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. 

 The following sections place these common impacts in the context of specific operating 

parameters and also show that many of the impacts are interconnected to the multiple activities 
Final OSTS PEIS 4-33 

that could occur in a single operation. Indeed, it is necessary to understand the context of each of 

the above summary findings to clearly understand the impact dynamics and the rationale behind 

the potential mitigative measures that follow the impact analysis. 

4.5.1.1 Ground Surface Disturbance 

 It is assumed that surface mines with surface retort facilities and in situ facilities could 

have ground disturbance over their entire lease areas (up to 5,760 acres). Underground mines 

with surface retort facilities are assumed to involve somewhat less ground disturbance (up to 

about 1,650 acres). Any of the technologies would have associated additional off-lease 

disturbance for transmission lines, pipelines, employer-provided housing, and possibly new 

power plants (see Section 4.1 for details on ground-disturbance assumptions). 

 Ground surface disturbance would tend to degrade surface water quality and increase 

streamflow in areas downstream of development sites. Disturbance caused by a wide array of 

activities (e.g., access roads, building construction, spoil disposal piles, mining or other recovery 

operations, power line construction) would expose fresh soil to intensified surface runoff caused 

by precipitation as well as to wind erosion leading to increases in sediment and salt contributions 

to streams. The flow of streams downstream of disturbed areas would increase before the areas 

are stabilized. 

 Surface mines associated with production of oil shale would have the potential to alter 

natural drainages by both diverting and concentrating natural runoff. Downstream areas would 

be altered as a result of these actions. Depending on the construction of the mine and the ability 

to return spent shale from retort operations back into the excavation, additional surface 

disturbance associated with spent shale disposal would also occur and have the potential for 

downstream impacts. 

 Although underground mines have a much smaller amount of surface disturbance 

associated with actual mining operations, they would have a relatively larger amount of surface 

disturbance associated with the disposal of spent shale. Until successfully revegetated, these 

spent shale areas could contribute to increased runoff; could be a source of contamination for 

salts, metals, and hydrocarbons; and would be exposed to wind erosion. Depending on the 

placement of the disposal areas, disruption of natural drainage patterns through diversion and 

concentration of flow may also occur. Such alteration and diversion could change the streamflow 

downstream of a project site. 

 Because of the uncertainty of the size of the blocks of land that would be disturbed at any 

one time to support in situ production, and the unknown length of time between disturbance and 

reclamation of production areas, the effect of this technology on surface drainage is not yet 

known. Of the various types of in situ technologies, it is not yet known whether there will be any 

difference in surface disturbance or effects on surface drainage between the various in situ 

technologies. 
Final OSTS PEIS 4-34 

 Disturbed areas can become sources of sediment and dissolved salt to surface water 

bodies. Airborne dust is expected to increase as a result of surface disturbance, processing and 

mining operations, and vehicle traffic. Because high salt content in soils is common in arid and 

semiarid environments, salt could be transported by wind and surface runoff from disturbed 

areas, even with the use of mitigation during site preparation. The impact would be larger during 

the construction and reclamation phases than during the operational phase of projects, when 

some sort of process to stabilize sites can be expected to be employed. The level of impact would 

decrease with time as the disturbed areas are reclaimed and stabilized with protective vegetation 

or other measures. The intensity of the impact would decrease with increasing distance between 

the disturbed areas and surface water bodies. 

4.5.1.2 Water Use 

 Water uses in both surface mine with surface retort and underground mine with surface 

retort projects could include water for mining and drilling operations; cooling of equipment; 

transport of ore and processed shale; dust control for mines, crushers, overburden and source 

rock storage piles, and retort ash piles; cooling of spent shale exiting the retort; wetting of spent 

shale prior to disposal; fire control for the mine and industrial area; irrigation for revegetation; 

and sanitary and potable uses. Additional water uses required for in situ projects include water 

for hydrofracturing, steam generation, water flooding, quenching of kerogen products at 

producer holes, cooling of productive zones in the subsurface, cooling of equipment, and rinsing 

of oil shale after the extraction cycle. Depending on the quality of the shale oil produced directly 

from in situ processes, water may be required for additional processing of the product at the 

surface. 

 Water is required during the operations phase. Because of the uncertainty in process 

water requirements, this assessment assumes that 2.6 to 4.0 bbl of water could be required for 

each barrel of shale oil produced for a surface mine with surface retort and an underground mine 

with surface retort projects, and that 1 to 3 bbl of water could be required for each barrel 

produced for in situ projects (see Section 4.1). A surface mine or underground mine with surface 

retort plants with capacities of 9 to 11 million bbl/yr (or 25,000 to 30,000 bbl/day) could 

consume 3,050 to 5,640 ac-ft of water per year. Depending on availability and quality, water 

may be obtained from major streams, groundwater, or reservoirs. A major portion of the water 

may be lost in cooling towers and evaporation and must be replaced on an ongoing basis. 

 At power plants that may be constructed to meet the energy demands of oil shale 

facilities, water is required for steam generation, scrubber operation, cooling, and dust control. 

In a refinery, water is primarily used for steam, cooling of the scrubber, and other refinery 

processes. Water is lost through various processes and needs to be replenished. Water is also 

needed for sanitary and potable uses. A 600-MW coal-fired power plant could require 

approximately 3,300 ac-ft of water per year. The impacts on water resources depend on the 

locations of the refinery or power plants. If they are assumed to be within 150 mi of an oil shale 

project site, they are likely to be located within the four oil shale basins and will create additional 

demands on water supplies in the basins. 
Final OSTS PEIS 4-35 

 The potential impact of transferring agricultural water rights for oil shale development 

can be attributed to the potential change of delivery systems and return flows from agricultural 

lands. Oil shale project sites need not be in the same general locations as the irrigated lands 

where the original water applies, which implies that new delivery systems would be built or 

some existing systems would be modified. The use of old systems may be reduced or abandoned. 

The construction of the new systems would cause new ground disturbance. Sediment and 

dissolved solids from the disturbed area would be carried by surface runoff and transported to 

downgradient water bodies. If the new system is constructed with pipes rather than ditches or 

canals, water loss during the delivery through evaporation or percolation would be reduced. 

Because water rights are based on consumptive uses, water loss due to evaporation, percolation, 

and surface runoff during water delivery is not counted as part of the water rights. Using a pipe 

delivery system would reduce the amount of water diverted from a water body to meet the same 

water rights. The impacts on the water resource by using a pipe delivery system relative to those 

of an open channel include the following: 

• Increased streamflow because of the reduction of the amount of water diverted 

to meet the same water rights, 

• Improved water quality of the stream because of streamflow increase, 

• Improved water quality because the returned flow from percolated water 

(which generally contains higher dissolved solids) during the delivery is 

reduced, 

• Reduced groundwater recharge from infiltrated water because of the reduction 

of percolation, and 

• Reduced evaporation from open ditches or canals. 

 As agricultural water rights are transferred, the acreage of agricultural lands is expected 

to decline. Irrigation is reduced as well as the base flow of the irrigated water to surface water 

bodies. The impacts on the water resources include the following: 

• Improved water quality of the streams receiving the base flows from farms as 

leaching by base flows is reduced; 

• Reduced groundwater recharges from the percolation of base flows; and 

• Reduced yield of groundwater wells that relied on base flow recharge. 

Additional impacts would be caused by the use or recycling of wastewater at project sites; such 

impacts are described in Section 4.5.1. 

 Water may be drawn from surface water bodies or underground aquifers, depending on 

project locations, water availability, and water quality. Withdrawal from a surface water body 

would reduce its flow and cause sediment deposition in the stream channel. In the case of 
Final OSTS PEIS 4-36 

streams receiving groundwater discharge (which generally has a higher dissolved salt content), 

the withdrawal can degrade the water quality of the stream downgradient from the point of 

withdrawal because the relative proportion of groundwater remaining in the stream would 

increase. Because of the generally poor groundwater quality, the receiving stream may incur 

increases of dissolved salt, selenium, and other metals. 

 Withdrawal of water from local streams can inadvertently affect water temperature. With 

reduced flow, water depths in depleted streams would decrease and be more susceptible to 

warming due to solar radiation in summer time, while cooling of shallower stream water would 

be more rapid in cold weather. Diversions from small streams would have significantly greater 

overall impacts than diversions from larger rivers. 

 Groundwater withdrawals from a shallow aquifer would produce a cone of depression 

and reduce groundwater discharge to surface water bodies or to the springs or seeps that are 

hydrologically connected to the groundwater. The withdrawal could reduce streamflows, and the 

effects would increase with the amount of water withdrawn. 

 In oil- and gas-producing areas, it might be possible to use produced water from those 

industries to support the needs of oil shale development, if it is of suitable quality or can be 

economically treated. Such water might otherwise be reinjected into deep aquifers as a means of 

disposal. 

 Groundwater may be extracted from aquifers for use as a resource or for dewatering to 

control groundwater inflow into a mine. Mine dewatering would be necessary where saturated 

conditions, including perched aquifers, are present. Dewatering would lower the potentiometric 

surfaces and/or water table of the aquifers that are intercepted by the surface mine. Because 

some deeper groundwater is the source for springs and seeps in the region, the lowering of 

the potentiometric surface could have a similar effect as withdrawals from shallow, surficial 

aquifers—reducing or eliminating the flow of the connected springs and seeps. Existing 

groundwater supply wells within the cones of depression also would have reduced yields or 

could be dewatered. Permanent changes to the groundwater flow regime due to mining and 

drilling could affect water rights to specific aquifers. The growth of a cone of depression may 

be time-delayed and affect water rights in the future. 

 If surface water is used to supply oil shale operations, it may be necessary to construct 

storage reservoirs to accumulate enough water to provide the necessary supply. If reservoirs are 

required, they have their own set of impacts that would need to be addressed. Effects frequently 

associated with reservoirs include alteration of natural streamflow patterns, impacts on local 

fisheries, temporary increases in salt loading, changes in downstream channel profiles, loss of 

natural sediment transport mechanisms, increase in evapotranspiration losses, and loss of 

existing land uses in the reservoir area. 

 The water quality of surface water bodies and shallow alluvial aquifers generally is 

higher than that of deeper aquifers. Therefore, surface water or shallow groundwater is generally 

preferred as a source of supply if it is available. Withdrawal of surface water would reduce 

streamflow downstream from the point of diversion. Because of the reduced flow, the stream’s 
Final OSTS PEIS 4-37 

capacity for carrying sediment would also be reduced, and in-channel sediment deposition would 

be increased. The morphology of the stream channel would also adjust to the reduced flows. For 

stream segments where natural groundwater discharge into the stream occurs, the water 

withdrawal could increase the relative proportion of the groundwater contribution to the stream, 

thereby lowering the overall quality of the stream. 

 For in situ processes, the impact of in situ processing on groundwater during the 

operations phase is twofold. First, the permeabilities of the aquifers and perhaps the aquitards 

between the aquifers in the retort areas would likely be permanently increased because of rock 

fracturing and removal of hydrocarbons. Second, the residual hydrocarbons, salts, and trace 

metals in rock and the reagents or chemicals used in flooding treated areas that are not removed 

would be exposed for later groundwater leaching as a result of the increase of the permeabilities. 

It appears that there would be some risk in allowing vertical flow of groundwater between 

previously isolated aquifers through fractures created by thermal expansion and contraction. The 

extent to which there would be the possibility of introducing lower quality water into higher 

quality aquifers previously isolated from one another is not yet known. In addition, water rights 

to specific aquifers could be affected by a change in the groundwater flow regime. 

 Regardless of the location or technology for potential oil shale operations, water 

availability issues may be exacerbated by the effects of climate change. The U.S. Bureau of 

Reclamation (BOR 2007) investigated climate change related to the Colorado River Basin. In its 

report, the Bureau reviewed various climate change models and the associated predictions. Its 

findings include generally decreased runoff in the basin due to higher temperatures and constant 

or slightly decreased precipitation. Although the confidence level regarding higher temperatures 

is fairly high, a lower confidence is associated with precipitation changes due at least in part to 

difficulty in addressing such changes in mountainous terrain. The BOR (2011) also analyzed the 

possible hydrologic changes from more than 100 climate change projections. Findings for the 

Colorado River Basin included an increasing trend in temperature; decreasing trends in April 1 

snow water equivalent and in spring-summer runoff; and a slight decrease in precipitation in the 

overall basin to the year 2099. The BOR also noted a lack of calibration in the models and a need 

to refine them. 

 Similarly, a report on the effects of climate change in Colorado prepared by the Western 

Water Assessment (WWA 2008) suggests a reduction in total water supply in Colorado by midcentury. Hydrologic assessments in the report likewise point to a reduction in runoff, with the 

average of multiple models predicting decreases from 6% to 20% by 2050. 

 A climate change summary produced by USGCRP (2009) provides some details on the 

oil shale regions. In the Colorado and Utah study areas, the projected spring precipitation in 2080 

to 2099 is predicted to range from a 0 to 5% increase under a low-emissions scenario to a 

5 to 10% decrease under a high-emissions scenario. The study notes that water is already 

becoming limited in the region and that recent and projected conditions include rising 

temperatures and reduced river flows. In the Wyoming study area, the report predicts heat waves, 

high evaporation, drought, and heavy rainfall events. The summer temperatures are projected to 

increase 7 to 10 oF by 2080 to 2099 under the low- and high-emissions scenarios, respectively. 
Final OSTS PEIS 4-38 

The projected spring precipitation in 2080 to 2099 is predicted to range from a 0 to 5% increase 

under a low-emissions scenario to a 0 to 10% decrease under a high-emissions scenario. 

 Recently the Colorado Water Conservation Board (CWCB 2012) issued a report on water 

availability in the Colorado River system in the state of Colorado. With consideration of future 

development and climate change scenarios, the report evaluated the limits of water availability. 

The estimated future Colorado River water availability based on various climate change 

scenarios shows a general trend of increased availability in spring and decreased availability in 

summer and fall (CWCB 2012). 

 Although there is uncertainty about the potential future effect of climate change on water 

availability, it is an important factor for consideration, as water rights and water usage may be 

influenced by an overall decrease in water availability in the region. 

4.5.1.3 Discharge, Waste Handling, and Contaminant Sources 

 Controlled discharge of water from a project site to a surface water body constitutes a 

point-source discharge. The discharged water may be from process wastewater, cooling, 

collected leachate from overburden rocks or spent shale, sewage, tailing ponds, utilities, and 

dewatering wells. Discharged waters generally have lower water quality than the water in the 

receiving water body and could potentially degrade the surface water quality. Discharged cooling 

water from coal-fired power plants commonly is warmer than local stream water, resulting in 

potential thermal contamination and its associated effects. In addition, contaminants released by 

nonpoint sources associated with the project (access roads, air emissions, and groundwater 

discharge) could further degrade the surface water quality. 

 Discharge of surface runoff at a mining site is exempted from NPDES permits provided 

that the runoff is not contaminated by contact with any overburden, raw materials, intermediate 

product, finished product, by-product, or waste product located on the site of the operation. 

Surface runoff not intercepted at these sites could create a nonpoint source of contaminants and 

degrade the water quality of downgradient surface water bodies. It should be noted that the states 

of Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming administer their own NPDES programs. The states’ NPDES 

programs must be at least as stringent as the federal program. 

 For in situ processes, groundwater extracted to dewater the oil shale zone is likely to be 

used on-site for general purposes with or without treatment, such as for dust control or as process 

water, or it may be discharged to surface streams. The degree of water treatment required before 

discharge or reuse of the water would need to be determined on a site-specific basis to protect the 

receiving streams. The discharged water from an oil shale project site would generally have a 

lower water quality than the intake water. 

 Underground injection, as a means to dispose of low-quality water, could affect 

groundwater quality. Commonly, the water quality of the receiving aquifer is lower than that of 

the injected water. The impact on the aquifer being injected also may be positive. Permitting is 

governed by the EPA’s Underground Injection Control (UIC) program in Colorado. Utah and 
Final OSTS PEIS 4-39 

Wyoming administer their own programs, except on tribal land, which is managed by the EPA. 

Tribes may complete a process to gain eligibility to self-enforce UIC. The potential for induced 

seismicity would require evaluation for proposed injection wells. 

 Another source of potential water contaminants is the air, such as air emissions from 

retort facilities and power plants, and dust from access roads, overburden, and spent shale piles. 

Winds common in semiarid and arid environments could allow particulates to be dispersed and 

deposited on surface water bodies. In general, the dust from spent shale piles and other 

disturbances is reduced after areas are reclaimed and stabilized or as a consequence of specific 

dust abatement practices. 

 If not properly designed, retention ponds for process water, leachate from spent shale, 

and fly ash could be sources of contamination for shallow groundwater. Overburden rock 

commonly is disposed of near a project site without underlying liners. Because the overburden 

rock generally has a high content of soluble salts, leachate from the rock piles may contain high 

salt content and become a contaminant source for groundwater as well as for surface water. 

 Spills of chemicals and oil shale products on-site are possible. They are also potential 

sources of contaminants for nearby surface water bodies and shallow aquifers. Another potential 

source of water contamination is from pesticides and herbicides, which are commonly used to 

control vegetation growth along pipelines and transmission lines. These chemicals may adhere 

to soil particles and be carried by wind and surface runoff into nearby surface water bodies, 

creating nonpoint sources of contaminants for those waters. Vehicle traffic would also raise 

airborne dust levels along access roads and increase the sediment and salt loadings of nearby 

streams. 

 At river crossings, pipelines may be placed under streambeds or foundations may be built 

for elevated pipelines. A temporary increase of sediment input at the crossings would likely 

occur during their construction. Regular disturbance of river banks through maintenance 

activities or vehicular traffic can also increase the sediment loading of the river. In the case of 

natural drainage channels that are rerouted, modified, or diverted, the surface runoff could be 

altered accordingly, affecting downstream flow. Flood events have the potential to cause pipeline 

breakage and subsequent contamination of surface water. 

 There are also technology-specific impacts. At both surface and underground mining 

sites, the spent shale piles and mine tailings could be sources of contamination for salts, metals, 

and hydrocarbons. If surface retorting is used to upgrade oil shale, fly ash and boiler bottom ash 

would also be produced by the retorts as wastes. Leachates containing associated contaminants 

may enter nearby surface water bodies or groundwater and continue to degrade the water quality 

well after site reclamation, if the wastes are not properly managed. 

 In situ retorting could produce water as a by-product. One in situ retorting experiment 

produced organic groundwater contaminants, including aromatic hydrocarbons, phenols, 

azaarenes, and aliphatic ketones (Lindner-Lunsford et al. 1990). Inorganic leachate constituents 

from in situ retorted oil shale were studied in a laboratory setting by Bethea et al. (1983). 

Investigators reported that the amount of material leached depended on a variety of factors. The 
Final OSTS PEIS 4-40 

retort temperature had the greatest effect on leachate composition. The use of CO2 during 

retorting reduced the formation of base-forming (alkaline) materials. Higher groundwater purity 

used in the leaching tests produced an increase in the amount of leaching. The researchers also 

concluded that the leaching of retorted oil shale is complex and difficult to study in a laboratory. 

 Limited information is available on groundwater monitoring studies at RD&D sites. The 

Colorado Division of Reclamation, Mining & Safety (DRMS) maintains an online database of 

site documents, some of which relate to the RD&D sites and their hydrogeology. Information 

provided to the State from Shell (Monson 2011) includes groundwater monitoring data for its 

Mahogany Research Project (MRP) site on Shell fee property a few miles west of its RD&D 

projects on public land in the Piceance Basin. The arsenic, benzene, and total benzene, toluene, 

ethylbenzene, and total xylenes (BTEX) data for 2002 to 2011 are provided in individual graphs 

for 19 monitoring wells. No well location map, information on well depths, or stratigraphic 

details are included in the report. Inspection of the data indicates variability among different 

wells, with some having levels exceeding the drinking water standard for arsenic (0.01 ppm) and 

benzene (5 ppb). Shell generally attributes high levels (ranging up to 0.27 ppm for arsenic and 

more than 3,000 ppb for benzene) to the proximity of the well to prior formation heating tests. 

Further groundwater monitoring results at the Shell Mahogany Isolation Test project were 

presented at the 31st Oil Shale Symposium (Shell 2011). This project tested Shell’s in situ 

conversion process (ICP) and freeze wall groundwater protection technology, which ceased 

active production of its ICP process and began freeze wall melt in October 2004. Results of 

groundwater monitoring of ICP residuals in the tested formation conducted since that time show 

that ICP pyrolysis of oil shale did not result in an increase in arsenic levels above background 

levels measured in advance. BTEX compounds were the only pyrolysis-generated organic 

compounds detected in groundwater. Groundwater reclamation involving steam flushing and 

water recirculation conducted over 10 months reduced benzene and other residual concentrations 

sharply within a few months, sufficient to allow melting of the freeze wall. Continuous 

monitoring conducted since that time has shown that benzene concentrations in exterior 

monitoring wells fall below 5 μg/L within 250 ft in down-gradient water bearing zones. 

 The DRMS database also includes annual groundwater monitoring reports for 2007 

through 2010 for the Exxon Colony site. The 2010 Exxon report (Tavano 2011) provides data for 

nine sampled wells. Arsenic is high relative to drinking water standards at two of the wells (up to 

0.021 ppm in 2010, up to 0.46 ppm for the average from 1984 to 2009). No BTEX data, well 

location map, or stratigraphic information was included. Chevron (Justus 2011) is proposing 

hydraulic testing and a tracer study focused on the A-groove of the Parachute Creek Member at 

its RD&D site. The purpose of the tests is to determine parameter values for use in groundwater 

flow and contaminant transport models in support of in situ oil shale operations. The report 

mentions that the site has 15 monitoring wells that were installed in 2008. No monitoring data 

were available for the RD&D site on the online database. 

 As groundwater levels rebound and approach their original condition after in situ 

operations cease, residual hydrocarbons and inorganics in rocks and the chemicals used in the 

subsurface to enhance shale oil recovery may be leached by the groundwater. Such leaching 

could create a potential contaminant source in the subsurface. The source may contaminate 
Final OSTS PEIS 4-41 

groundwater and hydrologically connected seeps, springs, and surface water bodies, depending 

on the local interaction between groundwater and surface water. 

 Oil shale development eventually results in population growth in local communities near 

project sites and on-site (see Section 4.12.1). With population growth, the loading in local 

wastewater treatment plants or on-site treatment plants would increase. The effluent from the 

plants is likely to be an additional source of nutrients, such as phosphorus and nitrogencontaining compounds, and other potential pollutants to nearby waters. Such impacts are closely 

related to where people would settle and the streamflow of the receiving water. Such water 

quality impacts would be expected in areas with increased population growth and relatively low 

streamflow in the receiving water. 

4.5.1.4 Alteration of Hydrologic Flow Systems 

 Because a large volume of rock is disturbed in surface mining operations, the 

permeability of the geologic material in the mine and in overburden disposal areas is 

permanently increased. The porosity and permeability of spent shale backfill are also relatively 

high. Precipitation could infiltrate these materials and produce leachate with relatively high 

dissolved solids and organics, potentially causing long-term contaminant sources for 

groundwater. The discharge of this groundwater through springs or seeps feeding water bodies 

located downgradient of the mine could negatively affect surface water quality. In addition, the 

filled mine could become a vertical conduit for groundwater, resulting in a discharge area for the 

shallow aquifer and a recharge area for the deeper aquifer. Alternatively, in the case of an 

upward vertical gradient, flow from the deeper aquifer could travel up a conduit and into a 

shallow aquifer. 

 The dewatering operations of a mine or dewatering through wells that penetrate multiple 

aquifers can reduce groundwater discharge to seeps, springs, or surface water bodies if the 

surface water and the groundwater are connected. The consequence could be diminished flows 

of seeps, springs, or water courses even at areas remote from the mine. Depending on pumping 

rates and site-specific hydrogeological factors, significant groundwater withdrawals for 

dewatering the overburden, or for meeting operational needs, may reduce surface water base 

flow, spring discharges, and water levels in nearby wells. 

 In one of its RD&D sites, Shell conducted a preliminary regional groundwater flow 

model to evaluate the impact of the drawdown in the upper aquifer from dewatering on potential 

stream depletions. The preliminary model results indicate that 1 ft of drawdown could extend up 

to 2 mi from the dewatering well location and cause a reduction of groundwater discharge to 

Yellow Creek on the order of 0.04 cfs as a result of the groundwater extraction (BLM 2006c). 

The average flow at the mouth of Yellow Creek from 1973 to 2011 is 2.66 cfs (USGS 2012); the 

average flow near an upstream RD&D site is an unknown, lesser rate. 

 Streamflow could be affected by both water withdrawal and wastewater discharge (after 

water treatment). The streamflow would be reduced in areas downstream of water intakes and 
Final OSTS PEIS 4-42 

increased in areas downstream from discharge outfalls. The change of the streamflow can trigger 

the deposition or erosion of sediments along a stream channel. 

 Because of the large openings created in underground mining operations, the hydrologic 

properties of the geologic material in the mine are permanently altered. Abandoned mine shafts, 

as well as partially refilled (by spent shale) mines, will enhance vertical and lateral groundwater 

movement in the mined area after dewatering ceases. Groundwater levels and the groundwater 

flow field may not return to baseline conditions, and, therefore, water rights may be affected well 

into the future. Enhanced leaching of formation rocks fractured during mining operations and 

spent shale backfill could result in poor-quality groundwater. The discharge of this groundwater 

through springs or seeps feeding water bodies located downgradient of the mine could negatively 

impact surface water quality. 

 At sites with a dewatered surface mine or in situ operations, groundwater levels would 

begin to recover after dewatering activities cease. As groundwater regains its original water 

level, surface water previously depleted by the dewatering would be replenished by seeps and 

springs, and the streamflow would eventually return to predevelopment patterns. 

 For in situ processes, after kerogen, as well as some soluble minerals, is removed from 

the source rock, rock porosity and permeability increase, and subsidence may occur. The thermal 

fractures and fractures created by steam, water, CO2, or subsidence in the source rock could 

potentially enhance the groundwater flow within aquifers and potentially increase the vertical 

hydraulic conductivities of aquitards after the retorted areas are refilled by groundwater. In other 

words, the flow system in the subsurface may be modified, as would the groundwater discharge 

to surface water bodies. This may increase the salinity of nearby streams, depending on sitespecific factors. 

 In the case of natural drainage channels that are rerouted or modified for the construction 

of roads or facilities, the surface runoff would be altered, affecting existing downstream flow. 

Erosion of streambeds may occur in this case and affect downstream water quality. Access roads 

are likely to be added or modified with oil shale development. The construction activities on 

access roads involve clearing vegetation, grading, and building drainages. These activities would 

increase salt loading of streams near the roads. Sediment load could also be increased by the 

fallout of airborne dust and surface runoff, although these could be reduced or minimized by 

BMPs. Whether the water for operations is derived from a surface water body with or without 

the use of a reservoir, the downstream flow would be reduced, which could cause deposition of 

steam sediment and change the morphology of the stream. If a reservoir is built for regulating 

water supply, sediment would be trapped upstream of the dam. The flow pattern of the stream 

could change depending on the discharge of the reservoir. The degradation (erosion of 

streambed) and deposition along the stream channel would adjust to the new streamflows. Losses 

due to evaporation and seepage in the reservoir would affect the amount of water available 

(Keefer and McQuivey 1979). 

 The improvement of the drainage tends to increase surface runoff drainage efficiency 

and, thus, the erosion power of the runoff. The receiving stream downgradient would be affected 

by additional loading of dissolved salt and sediments. 
Final OSTS PEIS 4-43 

4.5.2 Water Budget for Individual Oil Shale Projects 

 Table 4.5.2-1 provides a possible scenario of water demand and consumptive use for 

individual oil shale development projects, and the estimated amounts are compared with the 

remaining available amounts of Upper Colorado River water, both from 2000 and projected to 

2030 for Colorado and Wyoming and to 2050 for Utah.8 These are estimated potentially 

available volumes from the Colorado River for use in oil shale development and other uses in 

the three states. Although a certain amount of water is calculated to be available on the basis 

of current and projected consumptive use and Upper Colorado River Compact allocations 

(see Section 3.4.1.4), this calculation does not imply that the water is readily or physically 

available for oil shale development. Whether enough water is available for the development 

depends on the results of negotiations among various parties, including water rights owners, state 

and federal agencies, and municipal water providers, as well as developers. Recurrence of severe 

drought conditions and higher temperatures is likely to occur in the Colorado Basin (National 

Research Council 2007). The latter would increase evaporation and, therefore, reduce runoff and 

streamflows (National Research Council 2007), which would reduce the water availability shown 

in Table 4.5.2-1. In addition, the recovery program for endangered Colorado River fishes has 

identified flow recommendations for major rivers in the Colorado River Basin, and these 

recommended flows could reduce the availability of water for oil shale as well as for other 

development projects. 

 The sustainable groundwater usage in the oil shale basins was estimated on the basis of 

groundwater recharge rate or practical yield. Withdrawal of the groundwater for oil shale 

development could reduce groundwater discharge to downgradient seeps, springs, or surface 

water bodies that are hydrologically connected to the groundwater. Finally, the estimated amount 

of groundwater in storage and the streamflows of major rivers in the area are also presented for 

reference purposes. Table 4.5.2-1 gives a summary of the above estimates. 

 This assessment assumes that additional power plants may be constructed to support 

in situ facilities (especially those using electric heating of the oil shale formation). It is assumed 

that an underground mine with a surface retort project and a surface mine with surface retort 

facilities could obtain adequate power from existing facilities. 

4.5.2.1 Colorado 

 For the in situ processing sites, the amount of water required is estimated to be 1 to 3 bbl 

of water per barrel of shale oil produced (Wilson et al. 2006). On the basis of the assumption that 

water conservation measures are practiced, the consumption of water for a 30,000- to 

50,000-bbl/day project would be about 2,800 to 8,700 ac-ft/yr (this estimate includes an assumed 

new power plant, which would be required to provide adequate power). Water consumption for a 

projected 25,000- to 30,000- bbl/day underground mine with a surface retort project would be 

about 2,450 to 4,440 ac-ft water/yr, which assumes that 2.6 to 4 bbl of water is needed for each 

 

8 See Section 3.4.1.4 for details on the amount of water projected to be available. In this section, the water 

availability is projected to different years on the basis of the availability of projection data from the three states. 
TABLE 4.5.2-1 Water Budget for Oil Shale Development Projectsa Technology and Water Resources Supporting Information and Assumptions Estimated Budge

Colorado Technology Assumption Demand (1,000 ac-ft/yr) Consu

In situ project at 30,000–50,000 bbl/day 1–3 bbl of water/bbl oil produced per 30,000–50,000-bbl/day plantc 1.1

7.1 0.8–5.4

Sanitary and potable use for in situ projects 4,440 in-migrants at 135 gal/day/person 0.67 0.23e

Underground mine/surface retort (UM/SR) project at 25,000–30,000 bbl/day 

2.6–4 bbl of water/bbl oil produced per 25,000–30,000-bbl/day plant 

3.1–5.6 2.3–4.

Sanitary and potable use for UM/SR project 6,512 in-migrants at 135 gal/day/person 0.98 0.34 Coal-fired power plantf associated with 

Shell in situ conversion process-type project 

13,000 ac-ft/yr 13 (for Total consumption for each in situ project (includes power production) 

 14.0–1

Total consumption for each UM/SR project 2.6–4.

 State Water Allocation Location Allo

Projected remaining available surface waterg

Upper Colorado Basin projected from 2000 to 2030 for Colorado state (see Table 3.4.1-2) 

 340 in 

Water Resources Location 

Fl

Major streamflow White River (where the targeted oil shale 

basin is located) average flow at Meeker (58-yr record) (see Section 3.4.2.2) 

 460
TABLE 4.5.2-1 (Cont.) Technology and Water Resources Supporting Information and Assumptions Estimated Budge

Colorado (Cont.) Water Resources Location Flo

Estimated natural groundwater recharge Piceance Basinh 35 Groundwater storage Location St

Groundwater in storage (excluding alluvial aquifers) Northern province of Piceance Basinj 2,500 t

Utah Technology Assumption Demand (1,000 ac-ft/yr) Consu

In situ project at 30,000–50,000 bbl/day 1–3 bbl of water/bbl oil produced for a 30,000–50,000-bbl/day plant 1.1–7.1 0.8–5.4

 Sanitary and potable use for in situ projects 4,736 in-migrants at 135 gal/day/ person 0.72 0.38k

UM/SR or surface mine/surface retort (SM/SR) project at 25,000–30,000 bbl/day 

2.6–4 bbl of water/bbl oil produced for a 25,000–30,000-bbl/day plant 

3.1–5.6 2.3–4.3 

Sanitary and potable use for UM/SR projects 

5,328 in-migrants at 135 gal/day/ person 0.81 0.43 

Sanitary and potable use for SM/SR projects 

6,808 in-migrants at 135 gal/day/ person 1.03 0.55 

Coal-fired power plant 13,000 ac-ft/yr 13 (for  Total consumption for each in situ project 

(includes power production) 

 14.2–1

 Total consumption for each UM/SR project 2.7–4.7  Total consumption for each SM/SR project 2.9–4.9 
TABLE 4.5.2-1 (Cont.) Technology and Water Resources Supporting Information and Assumptions Estimated Budge

Utah (Cont.) State Water Allocation Location Alloc

Projected remaining available surface water Upper Colorado Basin projected from 2000 to 2050 for Utah state (see Table 3.4.1-3) 396 in 

Water Resources Locations Flow 

Major streamflow Average flow of Green River at Ouray (combined flow of the White, Duchesne, and Green Rivers), based on 1965–1979 records (see Section 3.4.3.2) 4,270 Average flow of Duchesne River near Randlett, based on 50-yr records (see Section 3.4.3.2) 460 Estimated practical limit of groundwater 

withdrawal 

Alluvium along Parachute Creek and Douglas Creek in southeastern Uinta Basinl

 20 

Wyoming Technology Assumption 

Demand 

(1,000 ac-ft/yr) Consu

 In situ project at 30,000–50,000 bbl/day 1–3 bbl of water/bbl oil produced for a 

30,000–50,000-bbl/day plant 

1.1–7.1 0.8–5.4 

 Sanitary and potable for in situ projects 3,848 people at 135 gal/day/person 0.58 0.31k

 UM/SR or SM/SR project at 

25,000–30,000 bbl/day 

2.6–4 bbl of water/bbl oil produced for a 25,000–30,000-bbl/day plant 

3.1–5.6 2.3–4.3 

 Sanitary and potable for UM/SR projects 4,440 people at 135 gal/day/person 0.67 0.36  Sanitary and potable for SM/SR projects 4,292 people at 135 gal/day/person 0.65 0.34  Coal-fired power plant 13,000 ac-ft/yr 13 (for 
TABLE 4.5.2-1 (Cont.) Technology and Water Resources Supporting Information and Assumptions Estimated Budge

Wyoming (Cont.) Technology Assumption Demand (1,000 ac-ft/yr) Consu

Total consumption for each in situ project (includes power production) 14.1–1Total consumption for each UM/SR project 2.7–4.7 Total consumption for each SM/SR project 2.7–4.7 State Water Allocation Location Alloc

 Projected remaining available surface water Upper Colorado Basin projected from 2000 to 2030 for Wyoming state (see Table 3.4.1-4) 226 in 

Water Resources Locations 

Fl

 Major streamflow Green River below the Fontenelle Reservoir 

(see Section 3.4.4.2) 

 1,290 

 Groundwater yield (estimate for Tertiaryage aquifer); no information available on 

groundwater storage 

Green River and Washakie Basins where the targeted oil shale deposits are locatedm

 50–100

a The water uses of refineries are not included because the refineries’ needs are not known. b Demand indicates total surface water and/or groundwater extraction; consumption indicates the net water use, assuming water trea

original source. 

c bbl = barrel; 1 barrel = 42 gal. d To convert the demand to consumption for oil shale water use, a factor of 0.76 (based on self-supplied industries in northwestern C

Footnotes continued on next page. 
TABLE 4.5.2-1 (Cont.) e To convert the demand to consumption for sanitary and potable water use in Colorado, a conversion factor of 0.35 was used. f New power plants are only assumed to be needed to support in situ oil shale facilities (see Section 4.1). For these plants, a hybrid 

assumed; therefore, the water use is assumed to be consumptive. g Based on Colorado’s Statewide Water Supply Initiative 2004 (CWCB 2004); Utah State Water PlanSoutheast Colorado River B

Utah State Water PlanUinta Basin (UDNR 1999); Utah State Water PlanWestern Colorado River Basin (UDNR 2000b); Uta

Planning for the Future for Utah (UNDR 2001); Green River Basin Water Plan, Basin Water Use ProfileAgricultural (SWWRC 

River Basin, Water Planning Process for Wyoming (SWWRC 2001b). Water rights may already have been allocated and may reqshale development. h Source: Taylor (1982). i The estimates of groundwater in storage represent volumes. They do not indicate sustainable aquifer yield. j Source: Czyzewski (2000). k To convert the demand to consumption for sanitary and potable water use in Utah and Wyoming, a conversion factor of 0.53 was 

for Uinta Basin). l Source: Lindskov and Kimball (1984). 

m Source: SWWRC (2001b). n The yield was estimated from an area about five times the size of the basins studied in this PEIS. 
Final OSTS PEIS 4-49 

barrel of oil produced but does not assume any new power plants (see Section 4.1 for details on 

these assumptions). 

 The remaining available water from the Colorado River in Colorado is projected to be 

340,000 ac-ft/yr in 2000 and in the range of 268,000 to 412,000 ac-ft/yr in 2030.9 With a range 

of 2,450 to 8,650 ac-ft/yr required for individual oil shale development projects, the possible 

water requirements per project represent 0.7 to 2.6% of the currently available water and would 

be 0.6 to 3.2% of the water available in 2030 (assuming the lower end of the projected range is 

available). This projection also assumes that the available water is stored and/or transported to 

the oil shale areas from various other water basins, although the environmental impacts of 

reservoir construction or pipeline construction would be significant, especially for projects of 

larger magnitude. In addition, there could be an additional 35,000 ac-ft/yr from natural 

groundwater recharge in the Piceance Basin (Table 4.5.2-1), while the total groundwater storage 

in the northern province of the Piceance Basin is estimated to be 2.5 million ac-ft. Because this 

recharge is distributed over a large geographical area, only a limited portion of this groundwater 

would be available in the vicinity of an individual project site. It is expected that both the surface 

water and groundwater could be needed for oil shale development. 

 Wilson et al. (2006) analyzed surface water availability of the White River (where the 

principal Colorado oil shale basin is located) with consideration of climate variability, minimum 

streamflow, and existing uses. They estimated that the river should be able to support a new 

water demand of 100 cfs (or 72,000 ac-ft/yr), if an additional 16,000 ac-ft of reservoir capacity 

is built. The White River drains to the Green River, a tributary of the Colorado River, in Utah. 

Withdrawal of water from the White River would reduce the flow in the Green River in Utah as 

well as the Colorado River downstream. 

 Within the White River hydrologic basin, Piceance Creek is a major regional 

groundwater discharge stream in the Piceance Basin (BLM 2006c). A groundwater discharge 

stream obtains a percentage of its surface flow from groundwater contributions that enter the 

stream channel. Yellow Creek is also a groundwater discharge stream, but to a lesser degree. 

Both of these streams are located in close proximity to the Colorado RD&D project sites. 

Dewatering operations in the vicinity of these streams could lower the local groundwater 

potentiometric surface to a depth of as much as 1,600 ft (see Appendix A) and thus reduce 

groundwater discharge to local springs or streams that are hydraulically connected to the 

groundwater. However, Shell’s in situ conversion process (ICP) technology involving a freeze 

wall could contain the extent of the groundwater cone of depression to within the freeze wall, 

resulting in less impact on connected systems. 

4.5.2.2 Utah 

 For a 30,000- to 50,000-bbl/day in situ project in Utah, the amount of water consumption 

is estimated to be 2,800 to 8,700 ac-ft/yr (Table 4.5.2-1). A 25,000- to 30,000-bbl/day 

underground mine with a surface retort project or a surface mine with a surface retort project is 

 

9 The upper end of the range assumes that water will be released from agricultural use in the future. 
Final OSTS PEIS 4-50 

estimated to have a water consumption rate of 2,500 to 4,620 ac-ft/yr, assuming 2.6 to 4 bbl of 

water is needed for each barrel of oil produced. 

 The remaining available water from the Colorado River in Utah is expected to decline 

from 396,000 ac-ft/yr in 2000 to 193,000 ac-ft/yr in 2050 (Table 4.5.2-1). With a range of 2,500 

to 8,700 ac-ft/yr required for individual oil shale development projects, the water requirements 

per project represent 0.7 to 2.2% of the currently available water and would be 1.3 to 4.5% of 

the water available in 2050. 

4.5.2.3 Wyoming 

 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 (Table 4.5.2-1). An underground 

mine with a surface retort project or a surface mine with surface retort projects at 25,000 to 

30,000 bbl/day is estimated to consume 2,450 to 4,500 ac-ft/yr of water (Table 4.5.2-1). 

 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. 

4.5.3 Mitigation Measures 

 The potential impacts on water resources are closely related to the technologies used to 

mine, extract, process, and upgrade the shale oil from the source rocks. Local hydrologic 

conditions, including those of surface water and groundwater and the interactive relationship 

between them, should be characterized and considered in selecting areas for developmental sites, 

access roads, pipelines, transmission lines, and/or reservoirs. Sensitive areas should be avoided 

or receive special attention in oil shale development activities. Important factors include but are 

not limited to the following: 

• Highly erodible geologic material, 

• Steep terrain prone to soil erosion, 

• Highly saline soils, and 

• Groundwater discharge and recharge areas. 

 In selecting the technologies to develop oil shale, the technologies that would minimize 

potential contaminant sources should be considered. Several important factors to reduce impacts 

on water resources include technologies that: 
Final OSTS PEIS 4-51 

• Result in minimum footprint of disturbed areas; 

• Minimize total water consumption; 

• Can use wastewater or brackish water in processing source rocks; 

• Minimize disturbance between groundwater flow regimes to avoid cross flows 

between aquifers; and 

• Have the highest recovery of shale oil or bitumen, leaving spent material with 

the least amount of contaminants to be leached. 

 Mitigation measures that the BLM might consider requiring, if warranted by the result of 

the lease-stage or plan of development–stage NEPA analyses, are related to engineering 

practices. They are as follows: 

• Water should be treated and recycled as much as practical. 

• Diversions from small streams should be avoided or limited as appropriate, 

especially during relatively dry base flow periods. 

• The size of cleared and disturbed lands should be minimized as much as 

possible, and disturbed areas should be reclaimed as quickly as possible. 

• Erosion controls that comply with county, state, and federal standards and 

BLM guidelines (Fogg and Hadley 2007; USFS Region 2 2000) should be 

applied. 

• Existing roads and borrow pits should be used as much as possible. 

• Earth material would not be excavated from, nor would excavated material be 

stored in, any stream, swale, lake, or wetland. 

• Vegetated buffers would be maintained near streams and wetlands. Silt fences 

could be used along edges of streams and wetlands to prevent erosion and 

transport of disturbed soil, including spoil piles. 

• Earth dikes, swales, and lined ditches could be used to divert work-site runoff 

that would otherwise enter streams. 

• Topsoil removed during construction should be stockpiled and reapplied 

during reclamation. Practices such as installing jute netting, silt fences, and 

check dams should be applied near disturbed areas. 

• Operators should identify unstable slopes and local factors that can induce 

slope instability (such as groundwater conditions, precipitation, earthquake 
Final OSTS PEIS 4-52 

potential, slope angles, and dip angles of geologic strata). Operators also 

should avoid creating excessive slopes during excavation and blasting 

operations. Special construction techniques should be used, where applicable, 

in areas of steep slopes, erodible soil, and stream channel or wash crossings. 

• Existing drainage systems should not be altered, especially in sensitive areas 

such as erodible soils or steep slopes. Culverts of adequate size should be in 

compliance with applicable state and federal requirements and take the flow 

regime into consideration for temporary and permanent roads. Potential soil 

erosion should be controlled at culvert outlets with appropriate structures. 

Catch basins, roadway ditches, and culverts should be cleaned and maintained 

regularly. 

• Runoff controls should be applied to disconnect new pollutant sources from 

surface water and groundwater. 

• Foundations and trenches should be backfilled with originally excavated 

material as much as possible. Excess excavated material should be disposed of 

only in approved areas. 

• Pesticides and herbicides should be used with the goal of minimizing 

unintended impacts on soil and surface water bodies. Common practices 

include but would not be limited to (1) minimizing the use of pesticides and 

herbicides in areas with sandy soils near sensitive areas; (2) minimizing their 

use in areas with high soil mobility; (3) maintaining the buffer between 

herbicide and pesticide treatment areas and water bodies; (4) considering the 

climate, soil type, slope, and vegetation type in determining the risk of 

herbicide and pesticide contamination; and (5) evaluating soil characteristics 

prior to pesticide and herbicide application, to assess the likelihood of their 

transport in soil. 

• Pesticide use should be limited to nonpersistent, immobile pesticides and 

should be applied only in accordance with label and application permit 

directions and stipulations for terrestrial and aquatic applications. 

• An erosion and sedimentation control plan, as well as a Stormwater Pollution 

Prevention Plan (SWPPP), should be prepared in accordance with federal and 

state regulations. 

 Adopting mitigation measures such as these does not mean that there would be no 

impacts on water resources. The exact nature and magnitude of the impacts would vary from 

project to project and would need to be examined in detail in future NEPA reviews of lease areas 

and project plans of development. 
Final OSTS PEIS 4-53 

4.6 AIR QUALITY AND CLIMATE 

4.6.1 Common Impacts 

 The potential for air quality impacts from commercial oil shale development, including 

ancillary facilities such as access roads, upgraded facilities, gas pipelines, and compressors, is 

directly related to the amount of land disturbance, drilling and mining operations, processing 

methods, and the quantity of oil and gas equivalent produced. Indirect effects, such as impacts 

resulting from the need for additional electrical generation and increased secondary population 

growth, are also considered. 

 Impacts on air quality from oil shale development would occur in several ways, as 

described below: 

• Temporary, localized impacts (primarily PM and NOx, with some CO, 

VOC, and SO2 emissions) would result from the clearing of the project 

area; grading, excavation, and construction of facilities and associated 

infrastructure; and mining (extraction) or drilling of the oil shale resource. 

• Long-term, regional impacts (primarily NOx and CO, with lesser amounts of 

PM, VOCs, and SO2) would result from oil shale processing, upgrading, and 

transport (pipelines). Depending on site-specific locations, meteorology, and 

topography, NOx and SO2 emissions could cause regional visibility impacts 

(through the formation of secondary aerosols) and contribute to regional 

nitrogen and sulfur deposition. In turn, atmospheric deposition could cause 

changes in sensitive (especially alpine) lake chemistry. In addition, depending 

on the amounts and locations of NOx and VOC emissions, photochemical 

production of O3 (a very reactive oxidant) is possible, with potential impacts 

on human health and vegetation. Similar impacts could also occur from the 

additional coal-fired power plants that would be needed to supply electricity 

for in situ oil shale extraction. Localized impacts due to emissions of 

hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) (particularly BTEX and formaldehyde) and 

diesel PM could also present health risks to workers and nearby residences. 

• Dust from oil shale and tar sands development could deposit on snow and 

increase snowmelt, thereby decreasing the duration of snow cover and 

contributing to earlier spring snowmelt. This could affect water resources and 

recreation-based tourism. 

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

amounts of CH4 and N2O from combustion sources could contribute to 

climate change. Depending on the situation, dust emissions could exert either 

a cooling or a warming effect. 
Final OSTS PEIS 4-54 

 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. 

 Although oil shale is found in the states of Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming, two high-yield 

areas of the Piceance Basin in western Colorado have the greatest potential for development. 

Table 4.6.1-1 identifies those counties where direct and indirect air pollutant emissions could 

result from oil shale leasing. 

 Impacts on air quality would be limited by applicable local, state, tribal, and federal 

regulations, standards, and implementation plans established under the CAA and administered 

by state and local air quality regulatory agencies. These agencies include, but are not limited to, 

the Colorado Department of Public Health and EnvironmentAir Pollution Control Division 

(CDPHE-APCD), the Utah Department of Environmental QualityDivision of Air Quality 

(UTDEQ-DAQ), and the Wyoming Department of Environmental QualityDivision of Air 

TABLE 4.6.1-1 Area and Population for Counties in Which 

Oil Shale Emissions Could Occur

State County 

Land Area 

(mi2) 

Population 

2000 2010 

 

Colorado Garfield 2,947 43,791 56,389 

 Rio Blanco 3,221 5,986 6,666 

Subtotal 6,168 49,777 63,055 

 

Utah Carbon 1,478 20,425 21,403 

 Duchesne 3,238 14,371 18,607 

 Uintah 4,477 25,224 32,588 

Subtotal 9,193 60,020 72,598 

 

Wyoming Lincoln 4,069 14,573 18,106 

 Sublette 4,883 5,920 10,247 

 Sweetwater 10,425 37,613 43,806 

 Uinta 2,082 19,742 21,118 

Subtotal 21,459 77,848 93,277 

 

Regional Total 36,820 187,645 228,930 

Source: U.S. Census Bureau (2011). 
Final OSTS PEIS 4-55 

Quality (WYDEQ-DAQ). Air quality regulations require that proposed new or modified existing 

air pollutant emission sources undergo a permitting review before their construction can begin. 

Therefore, these state agencies have the primary authority and responsibility to review permit 

applications and to require emission permits, fees, and control devices prior to construction 

and/or operation. The U.S. Congress (through CAA Section 116) authorized local, state, and 

tribal air quality regulatory agencies to establish air pollution control requirements more (but not 

less) stringent than federal requirements. In addition, in areas designated as nonattainment and 

maintenance for criteria pollutants, the BLM would need to conduct an applicability analysis for 

General Conformity. If the emissions associated with the action exceeded specified thresholds, 

the agency would need to prepare an applicability determination (see Section 3.5.3). 

 All leases and approvals of plans of development will require lessees to comply with all 

applicable local, state, tribal, and federal air regulations within the leased area. 

 Before oil shale development could occur, additional project-specific NEPA analyses 

would be performed, subject to public and agency review and comment. The applicable air 

quality regulatory agencies (including the states and the EPA) would also review site-specific 

preconstruction permit applications to examine potential project-wide air quality impacts. As part 

of these reviews, the air quality regulatory agencies could require additional air quality impact 

analyses or mitigation measures. Those reviews would take into consideration the specific 

project features being proposed (e.g., specific air pollutant emissions and control technologies) 

and the locations of project facilities (including terrain, meteorology, and spatial relationships to 

sensitive receptors). Project-specific NEPA assessments would predict site-specific impacts, and 

these detailed assessments (along with BLM consultations) would result in required actions by 

the applicant to avoid or mitigate significant impacts. Under no circumstances can the BLM 

conduct or authorize activities that would not comply with all applicable local, state, tribal, or 

federal air quality laws, regulations, standards, or implementation plans. 

4.6.1.1 Climate Change 

 Analyzing the potential effects associated with an activity’s potential contribution to 

climate change includes consideration of several factors, including GHG emissions (including 

CO2, CH4, and N2O), land use management practices, and surface albedo (a measure of how 

strongly a surface reflects light from light sources such as the sun). Decreased albedo (e.g., due 

to melting snow and ice) means that more light (and heat) is absorbed by the earth’s surface. 

 For many activities with mature technologies, it is possible to make reasonable, 

quantitative predictions of the GHG emissions or the amount of carbon that would likely be 

sequestered from proposed activities. 

 For example, calculating oil and gas production GHG emissions is relatively 

straightforward due to the long history of this type of activity. When adequate data are available 

to prepare an emissions inventory of a proposed project or activity, the BLM can account for and 

disclose factors that may contribute to global climate change. Once quantified, GHG emissions 
Final OSTS PEIS 4-56 

can be compared across appropriate sectors (where information is available), and then put into 

context for the public and the decision maker. 

 Even for such activities with known technologies, however, there is no scientifically 

accepted method to quantify the incremental climatic impacts of those activities, either to the 

global climate, or to the climate of any area or region. 

 Compounding the problem for the present analysis is the fact that there is no 

commercially proven technology for extracting liquid fuels from oil shale or tar sands. Thus, any 

quantitative prediction of the GHG emissions from commercial operations for oil shale or tar 

sands would be a professional judgment based on technologies under research and development 

or deployed in non-commercial contexts, and at worst would be speculation. 

 The decisions to be made on the basis of this PEIS are land allocation decisions, which 

do not themselves result in emission of any GHGs. However, if and when oil shale and tar sands 

development activities are authorized, those activities are likely to result in GHG emissions. As 

a programmatic analysis appropriate to support allocation decisions, this PEIS analyzes the 

potential environmental impacts of oil shale and tar sands activities in general. Further, because 

the particular technology and methodology with which the shale oil and/or tar sands will be 

extracted is currently in the R&D phase, specific information regarding activity data related to 

equipment usage cannot be known at this time. Because adequate equipment and activity 

assumptions are unavailable at this time, preparing an emissions inventory for this PEIS is not a 

scientifically defensible effort. When project applications are submitted to the BLM and more 

specific information is known, including what types of mining technology (surface mining or 

underground mining) are planned to be utilized for resource development, an appropriate air 

resource analysis would be conducted and could include an emission inventory. Therefore, this 

section describes the potential GHG emissions of oil shale and tar sands development in a 

qualitative manner. Existing climatic conditions and an assessment of future potential climatic 

changes for the region are described in Section 3.5. 

 The following assumptions are central to this analysis. 

• The assessment of climate-changing pollutant emissions and climate change is 

in its formative phase, so it is not yet possible to know with confidence the net 

impact on resources from GHG emissions. 

• The lack of scientific tools to predict climate change due to localized changes 

in GHG emissions limits the ability to quantify potential future impacts for 

each alternative. 

• Climate change is a global phenomenon in which larger changes in global 

GHG emissions are almost certain to have greater impacts on resources in the 

study area than are GHG emissions from commercial oil shale and tar sands 

industries in the study area. 
Final OSTS PEIS 4-57 

• Future EPA regulatory actions to reduce GHG emissions are not considered in 

this analysis. 

• In the future, should tools improve for predicting climate changes due to 

resource management actions, the BLM may be able to reevaluate decisions 

made as part of this planning process and to adjust management accordingly. 

 GHG emissions and changes in biological carbon sequestration would occur as a result of 

authorizing shale oil and tar sands activities. These emissions would occur during the 

construction, operation, and maintenance phases of potential future projects. Sources of 

emissions could include some of the following activities, depending on the types of extraction 

and processing technologies to be included in a potential future project: 

• Construction of buildings and processing facilities; 

• Construction of roads and other infrastructure (e.g., pipelines, electricity 

transmission, railroads); 

• Electricity generation; 

• Oil shale surface or underground mining; 

• Tar sands surface or underground mining; 

• Well drilling activities; 

• In situ processes to recover bitumen from tar sands or oil shale kerogen 

pyrolysis products; 

• Solid material crushing, sizing, and sorting; 

• Retorting; 

• On-site solid and liquid material conveyance, loading, and unloading; 

• Stationary diesel- or gas-fired engines; 

• Liquid product storage; 

• Waste or overburden disposal; 

• Vehicle exhaust associated with heavy equipment; 

 
Final OSTS PEIS 4-58 

• Vehicle exhaust associated with construction, delivery, product transport, and 

commuting activities; and 

• Site reclamation. 

 4.6.1.1.1 GHG Emissions Regulations and Trends. The EPA is in the early stages of 

regulating GHGs as air pollutants under the CAA. In its Endangerment and Cause or Contribute 

Findings for Greenhouse Gases under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act, the EPA determined 

that GHGs are air pollutants subject to regulation under the CAA. The EPA is regulating CO2, 

CH4, N2O, SF6, HFCs, and PFCs. In addition, aggregate GHG emissions are regulated in terms 

of CO2e emissions. 

 The first EPA regulation to limit emissions of GHGs imposed CO2 emission standards 

on light-duty vehicles, including passenger cars and light trucks (40 CFR Part 98). As of 

August 2011, the EPA had not promulgated GHG emission limits for stationary sources, such as 

compressor stations. However, the EPA is gathering detailed GHG emission data from thousands 

of facilities throughout the United States and will use the data to develop an improved national 

GHG inventory and to inform future GHG emission control regulations. Beginning in 2010, 

many facilities across the United States estimated GHG emissions in accordance with the EPA’s 

“Greenhouse Gas Mandatory Reporting Rule” and began reporting annual GHG emissions on 

March 31, 2011. Many oil and gas facilities will begin estimating GHG emissions in 2011 and 

will submit their first annual GHG emission reports on March 31, 2012, in accordance with 

Subpart W of 40 CFR, Part 98. Under 40 CFR Part 98, underground coal mines that are subject 

to quarterly or more frequent sampling of ventilation systems by the MSHA are required to 

report their GHG emissions, such that the annual GHG report must cover stationary fuel 

combustion sources, miscellaneous use of carbonates, and all applicable source categories listed 

under 40 CFR Part 98 Subpart A. Greenhouse gases are not required to be controlled, however. 

 The EPA published a notice of the final oil and natural gas system emission control 

regulations on April 17, 2012 (EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0505; RIN 2060-AP76). These regulations 

are expected to decrease CH4 emissions by 1.0 to and 1.7 million tons (19 to 33 million metric 

tons CO2e) annually (EPA 2012). 

4.6.1.1.2 Environmental Consequences. The EPA estimates that national GHG 

emissions in 2009 were 6,633,200,000 metric tons CO2e (EPA 2011), which represented a 

7.3% increase from estimated 1990 national GHG emissions (6,181,800,000 metric tons CO2e). 

The EPA categorized the major economic sectors contributing to U.S. emissions of GHG 

compounds as: 

• Electric power industry (33.1%), 

• Transportation (27.3%), 

• Industry (19.9%), 
Final OSTS PEIS 4-59 

• Agriculture (7.4%), 

• Commercial (6.2%), 

• Residential (5.4%), and 

• U.S. Territories (0.7%). 

 The three most commonly emitted GHGs likely from development and production of oil 

shale and tar sands sources are CO2, CH4, and N2O. Other GHGs, including SF6, HFCs, and 

PFCs, are not emitted by these activities or are emitted in trace quantities. Emissions of black 

carbon or soot formed through incomplete combustion of fossil fuel and biomass burning also 

play a significant role in climate change by strongly absorbing incoming solar radiation and 

trapping heat in the atmosphere. 

 Changes in biological carbon sinks may result from surface-disturbance activities 

associated with oil shale and tar sands development. Numerous methodologies are available for 

calculating biological carbon sequestration, and depending on the methodology used, estimates 

of biologically stored or removed carbon can vary greatly. Because there is not yet a single 

generally accepted standard for estimating biological carbon sinks and removals and insufficient 

activity data are available, a discussion of potential biological carbon changes due to oil shale 

and tar sands activities is beyond the scope of this analysis. 

Impacts from Air Quality Management. Air quality management actions require 

compliance with federal and state air quality regulations; therefore, future applicable GHG 

reduction requirements imposed by the EPA or state governments would apply to any future 

authorized activities and could potentially reduce GHG emissions and climate change impacts. In 

addition, many emission limits and standards that apply to criteria emissions have co-benefits of 

reducing CO2, CH4, or N2O emissions. Therefore, any future emission restrictions on non-GHG 

pollutants may also effectively reduce GHG emissions. 

 For example, air quality management could include the following provisions that would 

decrease GHG emissions, compared to uncontrolled emissions: 

• Capture and destruction or beneficial use of methane from mines; 

• Carbon dioxide sequestration in geologic formations; 

• Use of natural gas fuel rather than diesel fuel for stationary source engines; 

• Emission capture and destruction of vapors from hydrocarbon storage tanks; 

• Piping of products to destinations rather than trucking them; 

• Use of vehicles with low GHG emissions; 
Final OSTS PEIS 4-60 

• Use of renewable energy for electricity generation; and 

• Decreases in vehicle idling times. 

 When future air resource analyses are performed during the consideration of 

authorization of proposed activities, project-specific GHG emissions would then be compared to 

relevant and available information, such as those emissions described in Table 4.6.1-2 below. 

 4.6.1.1.3 Cumulative Climate Change Impacts. GHG emissions generally increase 

with population growth, industrial activity, transportation use, energy production, and fossil fuel 

energy use. As discussed in Chapter 3, GHG emission increases contribute to climate change. Oil 

shale and tar sands activities’ emissions may or may not increase state, national, or global GHG 

emissions due to regulatory and market forces. Possible cumulative impacts that may be 

associated with oil shale and tar sands development are summarized below. 

• Cumulative GHG emissions may increase if project GHG emissions add to 

global GHG emissions. 

TABLE 4.6.1-2 Greenhouse Gas Emission Comparisons 

Inventory Description 

CO2e Emissions 

(106 metric tons/yr) 

 

State Inventories, Consumption-Based (2010)a 

Colorado 129.3 (+2.9)b

Utah 75.6 (–8.4) 

Wyoming 60.3 (–30.4) 

 

U.S. Inventories (2009)c

Total U.S. GHGs 6,633.2 

U.S. natural gas systemsd 253.4 

U.S. coal mininge 76.5 

U.S. landfills 117.5 

U.S. fossil fuel combustion 5,209.0 

a Sources: Bailie et al. (2007); Roe et al. (2007); Strait et al. (2007). 

b The value in the parenthesis denotes emissions related to net 

imported/exported electricity, for which negative values represent 

exports. Thus, production-based emission is about 50% higher 

than consumption-based emission in Wyoming. 

c Source: EPA (2011). 

d Natural gas systems include natural gas production (e.g., wells), 

processing, transmission, and distribution. 

e Including abandoned underground coal mines. 
Final OSTS PEIS 4-61 

• Cumulative GHG emissions may not increase or may increase by a smaller 

quantity if some or all project emissions are offset due to decreased energy 

production from other sources (e.g., oil and gas production in other oil and gas 

basins with greater GHG emissions on a unit-production basis). 

• GHG emissions from oil shale and tar sands may be offset, in part, by reduced 

transportation emissions from the site of production to the site of use. For 

example, transportation emissions from U.S. oil shale and tar sands 

production may be less than transportation emissions for oil that is transported 

from foreign countries. 

 Quantification of cumulative climate change impacts, such as changes in temperature, 

precipitation, and surface albedo, is beyond the scope of this analysis. The maximum potential 

increase in cumulative GHG emissions from all potential oil shale and tar sands activities cannot 

be predicted with accuracy. Furthermore, such 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. 

4.6.1.2 Impacts from Emissions Sources for Oil Shale Facilities 

 To estimate total potential air pollutant emissions, emission factors for a specific activity 

must be identified and then multiplied by activity levels and engineering control efficiencies. The 

emission factors from proposed project activities would be estimated in future NEPA analyses by 

using appropriate equipment manufacturer’s specifications, testing information, EPA AP-42 

emission factor references (EPA 1995), and other relevant references. Anticipated levels of 

operational activities (e.g., load factors, hours of operation per year, and vehicle miles traveled) 

would be computed. Emission inventories would be developed for selected years during the 

assumed plant life (including construction, operation, maintenance, and reclamation). 

4.6.1.2.1 Construction. Mining and surface process technologies may include 

construction of a surface or underground mine and mine bench, with primary crushing facilities, 

processing and upgrading facilities, spent material disposal areas, and reservoirs for flood control 

and a catchment dam below the disposal pile. For thermally conductive ICPs, considerable 

construction and preproduction development work includes extensive drilling, placement of 

heating elements, construction of upgrading/refining facilities, power plants, and possibly 

cryogenic (freeze wall) plants. 

 Additional construction activities include access roads, power supply and distribution 

systems, pipelines, water storage and supply facilities, construction staging areas, hazardous 

materials handling facilities, housing, and auxiliary buildings. 
Final OSTS PEIS 4-62 

 Impacts on air quality associated with these construction activities include fugitive dust 

emissions and engine exhaust emissions of heavy equipment, as well as commuting and delivery 

vehicles on paved and/or unpaved roads. Another emission source affecting air quality is wind 

erosion of soil disturbed by construction activities or from soil and materials stockpiles. 

4.6.1.2.2 Production. Emissions affecting air quality could result from surface 

operations, such as mining and crushing, processing (such as pyrolysis of the base material at 

high temperatures), upgrading of the hydrocarbon products, operation of support utilities, and 

disposing of waste products. Fugitive emissions of CH4, VOCs, and HAPs from infrastructure 

such as pipelines, compressor stations, wells, storage tanks, and transport trucks would also 

affect air quality and climate change. Major processing steps for in situ processes would include 

heating the base material in place, extracting the liquid from the ground, and transporting it to an 

upgrading/refining facility. Because in situ processing does not involve mining and has limited 

waste material disposal, it does not permanently modify land surface topography and therefore 

produces fewer particulate emissions. 

4.6.1.2.3 Maintenance. In addition to maintenance at the primary operations facility, 

maintenance activities primarily include access road maintenance and periodic visits to facilities 

and structures away from the main facilities. The primary emissions that could affect air quality 

would be fugitive dust and engine exhaust emissions. 

4.6.1.2.4 Reclamation. During reclamation activities, which proceed continuously 

throughout the life of the project, waste material disposal piles would be smoothed and 

contoured by bulldozers. Topsoil would be placed on the graded spoils, and the land would be 

prepared for revegetation by furrowing, mulching, and the like. From the time an area is 

disturbed until the new vegetation emerges, all disturbed areas are subject to wind erosion. 

Fugitive dust and engine exhaust emissions from reclamation activities are similar to those from 

construction activities, although with a lower level of activity. 

4.6.1.2.5 Population Growth. Population growth and related emission increases 

associated with potential development would include direct employment; other industry workers 

(such as those associated with additional power plants); workers from suppliers (e.g., related to 

equipment, materials, supplies, and services); consumer effects (e.g., related to additional retail 

stores); additional employment in federal, state, and local governments; and families. 

4.6.1.2.6 Mobile (Onroad and Nonroad). Additional air pollutant emissions that could 

affect air quality would be associated with onroad mobile sources (e.g., cars, trucks, and buses) 

and nonroad mobile sources (e.g., graders and backhoes used in construction). 
Final OSTS PEIS 4-63 

4.6.2 Mitigation Measures 

 Because all activities either conducted or approved through use authorizations by the 

BLM must comply with all applicable local, state, tribal, and federal air quality laws, statutes, 

regulations, standards, and implementation plans, it is unlikely that future oil shale development 

would cause significant adverse air quality impacts. 

 However, on a case-by-case basis, future individual leases and use authorizations could 

include specific measures to reduce potential air quality impacts. These mitigation measures 

could include but are not limited to (1) treating access roads with water or dust suppressants to 

reduce fugitive dust from traffic; (2) reducing vehicle speeds on dirt roads to reduce fugitive dust 

from traffic; (3) specifying emission control devices on production equipment to reduce potential 

NOx, CO, PM2.5, PM10, VOC, and GHG emissions; (4) specifying low-sulfur-content fuels to 

reduce potential SO2 emissions; and/or (5) regulating the timing of emissions to reduce the 

formation of O3 in the atmosphere from NOx and VOC emissions. 

 In addition, to ensure that BLM-authorized activities comply with applicable ambient 

air quality standards, as well as potential impacts on AQRVs (such as visibility, atmospheric 

deposition, noise, etc.), specific monitoring programs may be established. 

 GHG emissions that may be related to climate change impacts may be reduced, 

regardless of their source (e.g., oil shale or conventionally derived carbon-based energy sources) 

through the use of emission controls or by sequestering GHGs. 

4.7 NOISE 

 Generic noise impacts of construction, operation, and reclamation of oil shale 

development facilities have been estimated; however, detailed information on equipment types, 

schedules, layouts, and locations is not available at the programmatic level. When available, 

published estimates of noise impacts from technology assessments and EAs for facilities 

expected to be similar to those considered here were used as the basis for this assessment. Use of 

these existing studies requires making reasonable assumptions and extrapolations. In addition, 

this lack of detailed information also precludes making quantitative estimates of the impacts of 

noise mitigation measures that might be applied, if warranted by the results of the lease stage 

and/or plan-of-development stage NEPA analyses. 

 The characteristics of the area around a noise source influence the impacts caused by 

that source. However, sources produce the same amount of noise independent of their location, 

and, to a first approximation, noise propagates identically everywhere. At the programmatic 

level, information that could help differentiate among noise impacts in different locations is 

unavailable, as are estimates of the noise levels associated with some of the technologies. 

 The approach taken here assumes noise levels are independent of location. Thus, 

differences in impacts due solely to restrictions in areas available for leasing are not considered. 

When published estimates for facilities were unavailable, simple noise modeling was used to 
Final OSTS PEIS 4-64 

Noise Modeling Parameters

All calculations: 

 Ground type Soft 

For calculating Ldn: 

 Daytime background noise level 40 dBA (typical of rural areas) 

 Nighttime background noise level 30 dBA (typical of rural areas) 

 Daytime hours 15 hours from 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. 

 Nighttime hours 9 hours from 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. 

estimate noise impacts (Hanson et al. 2006). To predict an impact, the model requires that the 

noise level associated with the technology be assessed. Noise levels were not available for some 

technologies. In those cases, noise levels associated with similar technologies were used. 

 Published information was generally for a single-capacity facility. To use these data, their 

noise impacts were extrapolated by using a conservative approach equivalent to the 3-dBA rule 

of thumb.10 For example, if noise levels were available for a reference facility of 20,000 bbl/day, 

the noise impact of a 40,000-bbl/day facility was assumed to be 3 dBA higher, an assumption 

equivalent to locating two 20,000-bbl/day facilities at the same point. 

 As is generally the practice, this PEIS uses the EPA guideline of 55 dBA (Ldn), deemed 

adequate to protect human health and welfare, as a significance criterion for assessing noise 

impacts (EPA 1974). However, oil shale development would occur mostly in remote rural 

locations. In these areas, background (already existing) noise levels are low (40 dBA during the 

day and 30 dBA during the night are representative levels), and an increase in noise levels to 

55 dBA would be noticeable and annoying to people (Harris 1991). This guideline may not be 

appropriate for people seeking solitude or a natural, wilderness experience. Depending on 

ambient conditions, the activities being pursued by the receptors, and the nature of the sound, 

wildlife and human activities can be affected at levels below 55 dBA, but quantitative guidelines 

are unavailable. In addition, the NPS has determined that Ldn and equivalent sound pressure 

level (Leq) alone are not appropriate for determining impacts within National Parks and typically 

uses audibility metrics to characterize impacts on humans and wildlife. Site-specific impacts on 

resources administered by the NPS would be assessed using audibility-based metrics and other 

appropriate data and methodologies. See Sections 4.8 and 4.9 for impacts on wildlife and human 

aesthetic experiences, respectively, that could occur as a result of increased levels of noise. 

 The Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (COGCC) noise regulation 

specifies maximum noise levels of 55 and 50 dBA for daytime and nighttime hours in 

residential/agricultural/rural areas and allows excursions of up to 10 dBA for up to 15 minutes 

 

10 A 3-dB change in sound level is considered barely noticeable based on individuals’ responses to changes in 

sound levels (NWCC 2002; MPCA 1979). 
Final OSTS PEIS 4-65 

in any hour between 7 a.m. and 7 p.m. (COGCC 2009).11 These levels cannot be directly 

compared to the EPA guideline of 55 dBA Ldn. Where appropriate, the COGCC limits are used 

as another significance criterion. The use of the EPA guideline level and the COGCC levels in 

residential/agricultural/rural areas provides a conservative approach for a programmatic level of 

analysis. At specific sites, less stringent levels, such as the levels for light industrial zones in the 

COGCC regulation, may be appropriate. When site-specific noise analyses are conducted in 

conjunction with leasing and preparation of a plan of development, the appropriate noise levels 

will be used. 

4.7.1 Common Impacts 

 Noise impacts from construction and reclamation of oil shale facilities would be largely 

independent of the type of facility being constructed and are discussed below. Noise impacts 

from associated onroad vehicular traffic would also be largely independent of the facility type. 

Deviations from these general discussions are noted in the discussions of specific technologies. 

The noise from electric transmission lines and the product pipelines associated with these 

facilities is also discussed. 

4.7.1.1 Construction 

 Construction would include a variety of activities, including building of access roads, 

grading, drilling, pouring concrete, trenching, laying pipe, cleanup, revegetation, and, perhaps, 

blasting. With the exception of blasting, construction equipment constitutes the largest noise 

source at construction sites. Table 4.7.1-1 presents noise levels for typical construction 

equipment. For a programmatic assessment of construction impacts, it can be assumed that the 

two noisiest pieces (derrick crane and truck) would operate simultaneously and in close 

proximity to each other (Hanson et al. 2006). Together these would produce a noise level of 

91 dBA at a distance of 50 ft. Based on a 10-hour workday, noise levels would exceed the EPA 

guideline of 55 dBA (Ldn) up to about 850 ft from the location where the equipment was 

operating. (Background levels are included in the calculation of Ldn but do not affect the noise 

levels much at the aforementioned distance.) The COGCC daytime maximum level of 55 dBA in 

residential/agricultural/rural areas would be exceeded up to about 1,200 ft from the construction 

site. Construction impacts could last up to 2 years and could recur during the operational phase if 

additional processing facilities needed to be constructed. 

 If used, blasting would create a compressional wave with an audible noise portion. 

Potential impacts on the closest sensitive receptors could be determined; however, most sensitive 

receptors, at least human sensitive receptors, would probably be located at a considerable 

distance from the construction sites. 

 

11 In addition, Rio Blanco County has a regulation specifying a maximum of 65 dBA at the boundary. 
Final OSTS PEIS 4-66 

TABLE 4.7.1-1 Noise Levels at Various Distances from Typical 

Construction Equipment 

Construction 

Equipment 

Noise Level Leq(1-h)a at Distances (dBA) 

50 ft 250 ft 500 ft 1,000 ft 2,500 ft 5,000 ft 

 

Bulldozer 85 67 59 51 40 32 

Concrete mixer 85 67 59 51 40 32 

Concrete pump 82 64 56 48 37 29 

Crane, derrick 88 70 62 54 43 35 

Crane, mobile 83 65 57 49 38 30 

Front-end loader 85 67 59 51 40 32 

Generator 81 63 55 47 36 28 

Grader 85 67 59 51 40 32 

Shovel 82 64 56 48 37 29 

Truck 88 70 62 54 43 35 

a Leq(1-h) is the equivalent steady-state sound level that contains the same 

varying sound level during a 1-hour period. 

Source: Hanson et al. (2006). 

4.7.1.2 Vehicular Traffic 

 Heavy-duty trucks produce most of the noise associated with vehicular traffic during 

construction.12 Vehicular traffic includes hauling of materials, transport of equipment, delivery 

of water for fugitive dust control, and worker personal vehicles. Light-duty trucks, such as 

pickups and personal vehicles, produce less noise than heavy-duty trucks (10 passenger cars 

make about the same noise as a single heavy-duty truck on an Leq basis). Except for short time 

periods when workers are arriving and leaving the construction site, heavy truck traffic would 

dominate the vehicular traffic. Table 4.7.1-2 presents the noise impacts from heavy trucks 

estimated at various distances from a road for different hourly levels of truck traffic. In making 

these estimates, a peak pass-by noise level from a heavy-duty truck operating at 35 mph was 

based on Menge et al. (1998) and a 10-hour working day. Except for locations very close to the 

road and/or at high traffic levels, noise levels would exceed neither the EPA guideline level of 

55 dBA Ldn nor the COGCC daytime maximum level of 55 dBA in residential/agricultural/rural 

areas. At night, the COGCC nighttime maximum level (50 dBA) might be exceeded by medium 

to high levels of truck traffic and up to 500 ft. 

 

12 The average noise of a passing car is about 15 dBA less than that from a passing truck (BLM 2006a). 
Final OSTS PEIS 4-67 

TABLE 4.7.1-2 Noise Levels at Various Distances from 

Heavy Truck Traffica

Hourly Number 

of Trucks 

Distances from a Road 

50 ft 75 ft 100 ft 125 ft 250 ft 500 ft 

 

Noise Level Leq(1-h) (dBA) 

1 48 45 43 42 37 32 

10 58 55 53 52 47 42 

50 65 62 60 59 54 49 

100 68 65 63 62 57 52 

 

Noise Level Ldn (dBA)b

1 46 44 43 42 41 40 

10 54 52 50 48 45 42 

50 61 58 56 55 50 46 

100 64 61 59 58 53 49 

a Estimated assuming a 10-hour daytime shift and heavy trucks 

operating at 35 mph. 

b Daytime and nighttime background noise levels of 40 and 

30 dBA, respectively, are included. 

Source: Menge et al. (1998). 

4.7.1.3 Surface Mining with Surface Retort 

 This assessment relies on data on noise from a mine supporting a 20,000-bbl/day surface 

retort (Section 5.7), which would be equivalent to 61 dBA at 500 ft. This is almost identical to 

the noise level from the crusher, and, thus, even if the mine and crusher were co-located, noise 

levels with the surface mine would only be about 3 dBA higher than those with an underground 

mine. However, the surface mine must be considered separately during the site-specific NEPA 

analyses that should consider all major noise sources, including the surface mine, crushers, 

conveyors, on-site or nearby upgrading facilities, and pumps, and should consider the operating 

schedules detailed in operations plans. If high noise impacts are projected, noise reduction 

equipment such as mufflers, blowdown mutes, pipe wrap, barriers, application of soundabsorbing material, and enclosures may be required (Daniels et al. 1981; Teplitzky et al. 1981). 

Planning for space buffers between the mine, crushers and conveyors, and sensitive receptors 

and the site boundary may be a feasible method of mitigating noise impacts from these sources. 

4.7.1.4 Underground Mining with Surface Retort 

 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). For the OSEC underground 

mining and surface retort process, the design-basis capacity for the commercial facilities would 
Final OSTS PEIS 4-68 

be about 6 to 500 times larger than that of the RD&D facility. No information specific to noise 

from construction of the OSEC ATP was available. General construction noise is discussed in 

Section 4.7.1.1. However, for a large commercial facility, site-specific construction noise would 

need to be addressed during the NEPA analyses. These analyses should consider the detailed 

construction schedule, including the likely repetition of construction activities as different 

portions of the lease site are developed, and the proximity of these activities to off-site receptors. 

 Noise levels from the OSEC RD&D operation might exceed the EPA guideline up to 

1,500 ft from the crusher and conveyor operations for a 24 hour-per-day operation. Accordingly, 

there could be off-site noise issues related to a commercial-scale facility if sensitive receptors are 

located nearby. The number of crushing and conveyor operations is unknown but is likely to be 

small. During the NEPA analyses that would be conducted for approval of individual projects, 

operational noise levels must be analyzed in detail. These analyses should include the effects of 

all major noise sources, including crushers, conveyors, on-site or nearby upgrading facilities, and 

pumps, and should consider the operating schedules detailed in operations plans. If high noise 

impacts are projected, noise reduction equipment may be required (Daniels et al. 1981; 

Teplitzky et al. 1981). Planning for space buffers between crushers and conveyors and sensitive 

receptors and the site boundary may be a feasible method of mitigating noise impacts from these 

sources. 

4.7.1.5 In Situ Processing 

 In situ processes are assumed to be commercial implementations of the Chevron, Shell, 

and AMSO RD&D technologies (see Appendix A, Section A.5.3). For the Chevron in situ 

process, the projected capacity of commercial facilities (i.e., 30,000 to 50,000 bbl/day) would 

be 450 to 2,500 times larger than that of the RD&D facility. Construction noise associated 

with the Chevron RD&D facility might exceed the COGCC daytime regulation of 55 dBA in 

residential/agricultural/rural areas out to about 1,500 ft and the EPA guideline of 55 dBA Ldn

out to about 1,100 ft, based on 10 working hours per day. Construction of a larger commercial 

facility would be noisier. The overall impact, however, would depend on the details of the 

construction schedule, including the likely repetition of the construction activities as different 

portions of the lease site are developed, and on the proximity of construction activities to off-site 

receptors. These considerations are site-specific and should be addressed during the site-specific 

NEPA analyses. 

 It appears that pumps would be major contributors to overall noise levels and the number, 

size, and placement of pumps in relation to each other and to nearby receptors must be 

considered in assessing the overall noise impact. During the NEPA analyses that would be 

conducted for approval of individual projects, both construction and operational noise levels 

for the proposed project must be analyzed in detail. These analyses should include all major 

noise sources, including those associated with any on-site or nearby upgrading facility, and 

should consider the operating schedules detailed in the operations plans. If high noise 

impacts are projected, noise reduction equipment may be required (Daniels et al. 1981; 

Teplitzky et al. 1981). 
Final OSTS PEIS 4-69 

 The projected capacity of commercial facilities would be 100 to 400 times larger than 

that of the Shell in situ RD&D facility. Construction of commercial-scale projects would require 

drilling hundreds of holes (e.g., 190 for the RD&D project). Noise associated with the Shell 

RD&D facility might exceed the COGCC daytime regulation of 55 dBA in residential/ 

agricultural/rural areas out to about 1,300 ft and the EPA guideline of 55 dBA Ldn out to about 

950 ft, based on 10 working hours per day. Drilling additional holes for a commercial-scale 

facility would probably cause higher noise levels. The overall impact would depend on the 

number of drill rigs operating simultaneously, the spacing between the rigs, their overall 

configuration, and the schedule for drilling, including the likely repetition of drilling activities 

as different portions of the lease site are developed, as well as the rigs’ proximity to off-site 

receptors. These considerations are site-specific and should be addressed during the site-specific 

NEPA analyses. 

 During operation, the Shell RD&D facilities would employ pumps in the producer holes 

that would muffle noise. Aboveground pumps would be a major noise source. If commercialscale facilities are designed to employ aboveground pumps, the noise impacts would need to be 

addressed in the site-specific NEPA analyses. The number, size, and placement of the pumps in 

relation to each other and nearby receptors and their interactions with on-site upgrading facilities 

would be key factors in these analyses. If high noise impacts are projected, noise reduction 

equipment may be required (Daniels et al. 1981; Teplitzky et al. 1981). 

 In addition, the site-specific analyses would need to address transformer noise. The Shell 

ICPs use electricity and would require the use of transformers, which could be a noise source. 

Their impact would depend upon their sizes, numbers, and locations in relation to the other large 

noise sources, and their relative importance would increase if underground pumps were retained 

in the commercial facilities. A transformer produces a constant low-frequency hum. The average 

A-weighted sound level at about 490 ft for a transformer of about 500 MW is about 49 dBA 

(Wood 1992). The number and size of the transformers are currently unknown, but a single 

transformer could exceed the EPA guideline at 500 ft. Transformer noise and mitigating 

measures must be addressed in the site-specific NEPA analyses, especially if underground 

pumps are used or the transformers are far removed from the locations of aboveground pumps. 

 Commercial-scale in situ technologies could require up to 600 MW in new coal-fired 

generating capacity (Section 4.1). Currently, a typical large power plant might be about 

1,000 MW. The noisiest continuous sources at power plants are the steam boilers and turbine 

generators: about 89 dBA and 80 dBA at 50 ft, respectively, for a 500-MW boiler 

(Teplitzky et al. 1981). These sources would be enclosed in a building, and noise suppression 

could be included in the plant design. In addition, there are intermittent noise sources associated 

with coal car shaking, car dumping, coal crushing, conveyors, and transfer towers. Noise levels 

from dumping can exceed 90 dBA. The pollution control equipment associated with power 

plants also causes noise, and installation of this equipment has given rise to complaints from 

nearby residents. Mechanical draft cooling towers may also be a continuous source of noise at 

power plants that employ them. The noise levels associated with the generation of the electric 

power that may be needed by commercial-scale in situ technologies should be considered when 

the facilities are constructed. Table 4.7.1-3 presents approximate noise reductions achievable by 

noise reduction techniques on the basis of experience at power plants (Teplitzky et al. 1981).
Final OSTS PEIS 4-70 

 The projected capacity for commercial 

facilities would be about 30 to 200 times larger 

than that of the AMSO RD&D facility. Drill rigs 

would constitute a major source of construction 

noise associated with the AMSO RD&D facility. 

Drilling additional holes for a commercial-scale 

facility would probably cause higher noise levels. 

The overall impact would depend on the number 

of drill rigs operating simultaneously, the spacing 

between the rigs, their overall configuration, and 

the schedule for drilling, including the likely 

repetition of drilling activities as different 

portions of the lease site are developed, as well as 

the rigs’ proximity to off-site receptors. These 

considerations are site-specific and should be 

addressed during the site-specific NEPA analyses. 

 Boilers may be a major noise-producing source. The number and size of the boilers 

associated with a commercial facility are unknown, as is the potential number of pumps. If large 

pumps are used, they would constitute a major noise source. Although individual large boilers 

may be noisier than pumps, they would be located in a boiler house that would provide some 

noise reduction (Teplitzky et al. 1981). During the NEPA analyses that would be conducted for 

approval of individual projects, the number, size, and placement of the pumps and boilers in 

relation to each other and nearby receptors and their interactions with on-site upgrading facilities 

would be key factors in assessing noise levels. If high noise impacts are projected, noise 

reduction equipment may be required (Daniels et al. 1981; Teplitzky et al. 1981). 

4.7.1.6 On-Site Upgrading Operations 

 Noise levels from on-site upgrading operations could be substantial and should be 

accounted for in the site-specific NEPA analyses. No information specific to the noise associated 

with upgrading facilities was available. However, many of the operations employed in an 

upgrading facility would be the same as those in oil refineries. The EPA (1971) presents results 

of noise field measurements taken around an oil refinery of unspecified capacity. The major 

sources are furnaces and their associated heat exchangers and compressor systems. The highest 

noise levels at the plant boundary (at unknown distances from the noise sources) range from 

67 to 71 dBA depending on the time of day and day of the week. These levels would correspond 

to levels in excess of the EPA guideline level of 55 dBA (Ldn) and indicate that the on-site 

upgrading facility should be included in the site-specific noise analyses. 

4.7.1.7 Reclamation 

 In general, noise impacts from reclamation activities would be similar to but less than 

those associated with construction activities because the activity type and level would be similar 

TABLE 4.7.1-3 Maximum Achievable 

Noise Reductions for Design Features 

Feature 

Achievable Noise 

Reduction (dBA) 

 

Barrier Up to 15 

Partial enclosure Up to 10 

Complete enclosure Up to 30 

Sound absorption material Up to 10 

Mufflers Up to 30 

Lagging Up to 15 

Vibration damping Up to 10 

Vibration isolation Up to 10 

Source: Teplitzky et al. (1981). 
Final OSTS PEIS 4-71 

but shorter in duration. Most reclamation would also occur during the day when noise is better 

tolerated by people, and noise levels would return to background levels during the night and 

would be intermittent. Reclamation activities would last for a short period compared with the 

period of construction operations. 

4.7.1.8 Transmission Lines 

 General construction impacts are discussed in Section 4.7.1.1. During operation, the 

main sources of noise from the transmission line would be substation noise and corona 

discharge. Substation noise comes primarily from transformers and switchgear. A transformer 

produces a constant low-frequency hum. The average A-weighted sound level at about 490 ft 

for a transformer of about 500 MW is about 49 dBA (Wood 1992). The number and size of 

transformers are currently unknown, but a single transformer could exceed the EPA guideline at 

500 ft. Transformer noise and mitigating measures must be addressed if substations are required 

along the transmission lines. Switchgear noise is generated when a breaker opens, producing an 

impulsive sound, which is loud but of short duration. This occurs infrequently, and the industry 

trend is toward breakers that generate significantly less noise. The potential impacts of 

switchgear noise would be temporary, infrequent, and minor. 

 Transmission lines generate corona discharge, which produces a noise having a hissing or 

crackling character. During dry weather, transmission line noise is generally indistinguishable 

from background noise at the edge of typical ROWs. During rainfall, the level would be less than 

47 dBA at a distance of 100 ft from the center of a 500-kV transmission line (Lee et al. 1996). 

This noise level is the level typical of a library (MPCA 1979). Even if several transmission lines 

of this capacity were required, the overall corona noise would be lost even in rural background 

noise within several hundred feet. 

4.7.1.9 Pipeline 

 General construction impacts are discussed in Section 4.7.1.1. Depending on the 

topography, a pipeline 55 mi long could require several pump stations. Pumps will generally be 

the noisiest equipment associated with a pump station. Large pumps would be needed to handle 

the assumed output of 30,000 to 50,000 bbl/day for in situ facilities. Contra Costa County (2003) 

specifies a noise level of 94 dBA at 3 ft from a 400-hp pump but not the throughput. Based on 

the assumption of three pumps, the EPA guideline would be exceeded out to about 240 ft from 

the pumps. Pumps are almost always located in structures for protection from the weather and for 

security. The enclosure would reduce noise levels. Because the pumps needed to move the 

assumed output may be larger and noisier than those assumed here, noise impacts would need to 

be assessed during planning for the actual pump stations. 
Final OSTS PEIS 4-72 

4.7.2 Mitigation Measures 

 Regulatory requirements regarding noise already largely address the mitigation of 

impacts. To reinforce those regulatory requirements, mitigation measures will be required based 

on analysis prepared prior to leasing and/or development and could include the following: 

4.7.2.1 Preconstruction Planning 

• Developers should conduct a preconstruction noise survey to identify nearby 

sensitive receptors (e.g., residences, schools, child care facilities, hospitals, 

livestock, ecological receptors of critical concern, and areas valued for 

solitude and quiet) and establish baseline noise levels along the site boundary 

and at the identified sensitive receptors. 

• On the basis of site-specific considerations identified through the 

preconstruction noise survey, proponents should develop a noise management 

plan to mitigate noise impacts on the sensitive receptors. The plan would 

cover construction, operations, reclamation, and site restoration. The plan 

should ensure that the standards to be implemented reflect conditions specific 

to the lease site. 

• This plan could provide for periodic noise monitoring at the facility boundary 

and at nearby sensitive receptors on a monthly or more frequent basis at a time 

when the facility is operating at normal or above-normal levels. Monitoring 

results could be used to identify the need for corrective actions in existing 

mitigation measures or the need for additional noise mitigation. 

4.7.2.2 Construction and Reclamation 

 Wherever there are sensitive receptors, as identified in the preconstruction survey, 

construction noise should be managed to the extent necessary to mitigate adverse impacts on the 

sensitive receptors. Efforts to mitigate these impacts could include the following measures: 

• A noise complaint manager could be designated to receive any noise 

complaints from the public. This employee could have the responsibility and 

authority to convene a committee to investigate noise complaints, determine 

the causes of the noise leading to the complaints, and recommend mitigation 

measures. 

• General construction activities could be limited to daytime hours between 

7 a.m. and 7 p.m. On the basis of the results of the baseline noise survey, these 

hours could be extended to between 7 a.m. and 10 p.m. in areas remote from 

sensitive receptors. 
Final OSTS PEIS 4-73 

• Particularly noisy activities, such as pile driving, blasting, and hauling by 

heavy trucks, could be limited to daytime hours between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. on 

weekdays and prohibited on weekends and state and federal holidays. The 

noise management plan could identify alternative methods for conducting 

noisy activities and available mitigation methods. The least noisy of these 

could be chosen for use during construction unless its use is precluded by 

site-specific characteristics. 

• When feasible, different particularly noisy activities could be scheduled to 

occur at the same time, because additional sources of noise generally do not 

add significantly to the perceived noise level. That is, less frequent noisy 

activities may be less annoying than frequent less noisy activities. 

• If blasting or other impulsive noisy activities are required, nearby sensitive 

human receptors could be notified in advance. 

• All construction equipment should have sound control devices no less 

effective than those provided on the original equipment. Construction 

equipment and the equipment’s sound control devices could be required to be 

well tuned, in good working order, and maintained in accordance with the 

manufacturer’s specifications. Appropriate recordkeeping of these 

maintenance activities could be required. 

• Where possible, construction traffic could be routed to minimize disruption to 

sensitive receptors. 

• Temporary barriers could be erected around areas where construction noise 

could disturb sensitive receptors. 

• To the extent possible, stationary noisy equipment (such as compressors, 

pumps, and generators) could be located as far as practicable from sensitive 

receptors. 

4.7.2.3 Operation 

 Wherever there are sensitive receptors, as identified in the preconstruction survey, noise 

from operations should be managed to the extent necessary to mitigate adverse impacts on 

sensitive receptors. Efforts to mitigate these impacts could include the following measures: 

• A noise complaint manager could be designated to handle noise complaints 

from the public. This employee could have the responsibility and authority to 

convene a committee to investigate noise complaints, determine the causes of 

the noise leading to the complaints, and recommend mitigation measures. 
Final OSTS PEIS 4-74 

• Noisy equipment (such as compressors, pumps, and generators) could be 

required to incorporate noise reduction features such as acoustic enclosures, 

mufflers, silencers, and intake noise suppression. 

• Facilities could be required to demonstrate compliance with the EPA’s 

55-dBA guideline at the nearest human sensitive receptor. Sensitive ecological 

receptors and appropriate associated lower noise levels could also be 

considered. In special areas where quiet and solitude have been identified as a 

value of concern, a demonstration that a lower noise level would be attained 

might be required. Such demonstrations might require the use of additional or 

different criteria such as audibility. 

• Based on the specific site, maintenance of off-site noise at suitable levels 

might require establishment of an activity-free buffer inside the fence line. 

• Facility design could include all feasible noise reduction methods, including, 

but not limited to, the mounting of equipment on shock absorbers; use of 

mufflers or silencers on air intakes, exhausts, blowdowns, and vents; noise 

barriers; noise-reducing enclosures; use of noise-reducing doors and windows; 

sound-reducing pipe lagging; and low-noise ventilation systems. 

• Where feasible, facility design could be required to incorporate low-noise 

systems such as ventilation systems, pumps, generators, compressors, and 

fans. 

4.8 ECOLOGICAL RESOURCES 

4.8.1 Common Impacts 

4.8.1.1 Aquatic Resources 

 Impacts on aquatic resources from the operation of oil shale projects could occur because 

of (1) direct disturbance of aquatic habitats within the footprint of construction or operation 

activities; (2) construction-associated sedimentation in nearby aquatic habitats as a consequence 

of settled dust and soil erosion from operational areas; and/or (3) changes in water quantity or 

water quality as a result of construction (e.g., grading that affects surface water runoff, water 

levels, or hydrologic connectivity), operations (e.g., surface or groundwater withdrawals or 

discharges of water into nearby aquatic habitats), or releases of chemical contaminants into 

nearby aquatic systems (e.g., accidental spills, controlled discharges, and contaminated 

groundwater discharge into surface water). These impacts could occur to some degree during the 

construction period and throughout the operational life of the projects. In addition, some impacts 

could continue to occur beyond the operational life of the project. Potential impacts on aquatic 

resources from various factors associated with oil shale development are discussed below and are 
Final OSTS PEIS 4-75 

summarized in Table 4.8.1-1. The potential magnitudes of the impacts that could result from oil 

shale development are presented separately for aquatic invertebrates and for fish. Potential 

impacts on federally listed, state-listed, and BLM-designated sensitive aquatic species are 

presented in Section 4.8.1.4, and potential impacts on other types of organisms that could occur 

in aquatic habitats (e.g., amphibians and waterfowl) are presented in Section 4.8.1.3. 

 Depending on the characteristics of specific development projects, new aquatic habitats 

could be formed after site development. For example, over time, drainage patterns associated 

with sediment control ponds that caught runoff from disturbed surfaces could create habitats that 

would support aquatic plants and invertebrates as well as fish. If surface water is used to supply 

oil shale operations, it may be necessary to construct storage reservoirs. Effects on aquatic 

habitat frequently associated with reservoirs include alteration of natural streamflow, streamflow 

patterns, and sediment transport. Although the development of reservoir or sediment control 

ponds could be beneficial in some instances, their ecological value would depend on the amount 

of habitat created and the types and numbers of species supported. In general, it is anticipated 

that the ecological value of these created habitats would be limited or potentially even harmful in 

the case of reservoirs. For example, these habitats could have negative ecological impacts on 

TABLE 4.8.1-1 Potential Impacts on Aquatic Resources Resulting from Commercial 

Oil Shale Development 

Potential Magnitude of Impacts 

According to Organism Groupa

Impact Category 

Aquatic 

Invertebrates Fish 

 

Sedimentation from runoff Large Large 

Water depletions Large Large 

Changes in drainage patterns Small Small 

Disruption of groundwater flow, discharge, and recharge Moderate Moderate 

Temperature increases in water bodies Moderate Moderate 

Increases in salinity Small Small 

Introduction of nutrients, inorganic and organic contaminants Small Small 

Oil and contaminant spills Moderate Large 

Movement/dispersal blockage Small Small 

Increased human access Small Small 

a Potential impact magnitude (without mitigation) that might be expected from individual 

development projects is presented as none, small, moderate, or large. A small impact is one 

that is limited to the immediate project area, affects a relatively small proportion of the local 

population (less than 10%), and does not result in a measurable change in carrying capacity 

or population size in the affected area. A moderate impact could extend beyond the 

immediate project area, affect an intermediate proportion of the local population, and result in 

a measurable but moderate change (less than 30%) in carrying capacity or population size in 

the affected area. A large impact would extend beyond the immediate project area, could 

affect more than 30% of a local population, and result in a large measurable change in 

carrying capacity or population size in the affected area. 
Final OSTS PEIS 4-76 

existing aquatic communities, including protected fish species, if they were to promote the 

survival and expansion of non-native aquatic species that compete with or prey upon native 

species. 

 Turbidity and sedimentation from erosion and settled dust are part of the natural cycle of 

physical processes in water bodies, and most populations of aquatic organisms have adapted to 

short-term changes in these parameters. However, if sediment loads are unusually high or last 

longer than they would under natural conditions, adverse impacts could occur (Waters 1995). 

Increased sediment loads could suffocate aquatic vegetation, invertebrates, and fish; decrease the 

rate of photosynthesis in plants and phytoplankton; decrease fish feeding efficiency; decrease the 

levels of invertebrate prey; reduce fish spawning success; and adversely affect the survival of 

incubating fish eggs, larvae, and fry (Waters 1995). The addition of fine sediment to aquatic 

systems is considered a major factor in the degradation of stream fisheries (Waters 1995). Thus, 

although the organisms in many aquatic systems are capable of coping with smaller, short-term 

increases in sediment loads, exceeding (largely unmeasured) threshold levels or durations would 

be expected to be detrimental to the affected aquatic ecosystems. 

 The potential for soil erosion and sediment loading of nearby aquatic habitats is 

proportional to the amount of surface disturbance, the condition of disturbed areas at any given 

time, and the proximity to aquatic habitats. The presence of riparian vegetation buffers along 

waterways helps control sedimentation in waterways, because it reduces erosion by binding soil, 

due to the presence of root systems, and by dissipating the water energy of surface runoff during 

high flow events. Vegetation also helps to trap sediment contained in surface runoff. 

Consequently, oil shale development activities that affect the presence or abundance of riparian 

vegetation would be expected to increase the potential for sediment to enter adjacent streams, 

ponds, and reservoirs. Because fine sediments may not quickly settle out of solution, impacts of 

sediment introduction to stream systems could extend downstream for considerable distances. 

 It is anticipated that areas being actively disturbed during construction or operations 

would have a higher erosion potential than areas that are undergoing reclamation activities, and 

that reclamation areas would become less prone to erosion over time because of completion of 

site grading and reestablishment of vegetated cover. Based on the assumption that reclamation 

activities are successful, restored areas should eventually become similar to natural areas in 

terms of erosion potential. In addition to areas directly affected by construction and operations, 

surface disturbance could occur as a result of the development of access roads, utility corridors, 

and employer-provided housing. Implementation of measures to control erosion and runoff into 

aquatic habitats (e.g., silt fences, retention ponds, runoff-control structures, and earthen berms) 

would reduce the potential for impacts from increased sedimentation. 

 Changes in flow patterns of streams and depletion of surface water within oil shale 

development areas could affect the quality of associated aquatic habitats and the survival of 

populations of aquatic organisms within affected bodies of water. Most obviously, perhaps, 

complete dewatering of streams or stream segments would preclude the continued presence of 

aquatic communities within the affected areas. However, changes in flows and flow patterns 

could affect the nature of the aquatic communities that are supported even if there is not 

complete dewatering. Reductions in flow levels can result in depth changes and reductions in 
Final OSTS PEIS 4-77 

water quality (e.g., water temperatures and dissolved oxygen levels) that some species of fish 

and invertebrates may be unable to tolerate. In addition, by reducing the water available for 

dilution, water depletions would increase concentrations of existing contaminants and 

contaminants introduced by future oil shale activities. Mercury from power plant emissions, 

selenium loading from groundwater irrigation return, hydrocarbons running off of oil and gas 

development sites, and pesticides runoff from agricultural areas are of particular concern because 

of their effects on native fishes in general and protected species in particular. Such contaminants 

could result in lethal or sublethal effects on behavior, physiology, development, reproduction, 

and food acquisition. Such impacts could inhibit the recovery of endangered species such as 

Colorado pikeminnow and razorback sucker that are currently targeted by existing recovery 

plans. 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). Reduced 

depths resulting from water depletion can also affect the susceptibility of some fish species to 

predation from avian and terrestrial predators and increase the susceptibility of fish to disease. 

 Depending upon the magnitude of the water depletion in a particular waterway, aquatic 

habitat in all downstream portions of a watershed could be affected. Changes in seasonal water 

flow that reduces flooding may favor non-native species over native ones, many of which are 

protected. Water depletions in the Colorado River Basin are of particular concern to native fish 

in the basin, including the four endangered Colorado River Basin fish species (humpback chub, 

razorback sucker, Colorado pikeminnow, and bonytail). As identified in Section 4.8.1.4, any 

water depletions from the upper Colorado River Basin are considered an adverse effect on 

endangered Colorado River fishes. For waterbodies that support protected species, minimum 

flow recommendations could reduce the potential of water withdrawals to harm aquatic species. 

However, minimum base flow recommendations are not always met, which could put protected 

species at risk. 

 Aquatic organisms have specific temperature ranges within which survival is possible, 

and exceeding those temperatures, even for short periods, can result in mortality. In addition, 

aquatic organisms such as fish and macroinvertebrates use oxygen dissolved in the water to 

breathe, and if dissolved oxygen levels fall below the tolerances of those organisms, they will 

be unable to survive unless there are areas with suitable conditions nearby that can serve as 

temporary refuge. The level of dissolved oxygen in water is highly dependent on temperature, 

and the amount of oxygen that can dissolve in a given volume of water (i.e., the saturation point) 

is inversely proportional to the temperature of water. Thus, with other chemical and physical 

conditions being equal, the warmer the water, the less dissolved oxygen it can hold. In the arid 

regions where the oil shale deposits described in this PEIS are found, surface water temperatures 

during hot summer months can approach lethal limits, and the resulting depressed dissolved 

oxygen levels are often already near the lower limits for many of the aquatic species that are 

present, especially in some of the smaller streams. Consequently, increasing water temperatures 

even slightly may, in some cases, adversely affect survival of aquatic organisms such as fish and 

mussel species in the affected waterways. 

 Oil shale development activities could affect water temperatures through removal of 

surface vegetation, especially riparian vegetation, and through reduction of streamflows or inputs 

of cooler groundwater into nearby waterways due to water depletions. Removing vegetation 
Final OSTS PEIS 4-78 

alters the amount of shading of the earth’s surface and increases the temperature of overlying 

waters or surface water runoff. Fish typically avoid elevated temperatures by moving to areas of 

groundwater inflow, to deeper holes, or to shaded areas where water temperatures are lower. If 

temperatures exceed thermal tolerances for extended periods and no refuge is available, fish kills 

may result. The level of thermal impact associated with clearing of riparian vegetation would be 

expected to increase as the amount of affected shoreline increases. The potential for water 

depletions to affect surface water temperatures by depressing groundwater flows is not easily 

predicted, although as the proportion of groundwater discharge decreases, surface water 

temperatures during critical summer months would be expected to increase. 

 As identified in Section 4.5.1.1, surface disturbance in the oil shale areas could also 

negatively affect water quality by increasing the salinity of surface waters in downstream areas. 

Depending upon the existing salinity levels and the types of aquatic organisms present in 

receiving waters, such increases could stress existing biota or alter species composition in 

affected areas. The potential for surface disturbance to increase salinity levels in surface 

waters would decrease as the distance between disturbed areas and waterways increases 

(Section 4.5.1.1). Once salts have entered waterways, they are not generally removed from 

solution. Consequently, salinity tends to increase with increasing downstream distance in a 

watershed, representing the accumulation of salt from many different sources. Section 4.5.3 

identifies a number of potential mitigation measures that could be implemented to reduce the 

potential for negative effects on water quality from salinity arising from oil shale development. 

 Nutrients (especially dissolved nitrogen and phosphorus) are required in small quantities 

for the growth and survival of aquatic plants. When the levels of nutrients become excessive, 

plant growth and decay are promoted. This, in turn, may favor the survival of certain weedy 

species over others and may result in severe reductions in water quality aspects such as oxygen 

levels. As discussed in Section 4.12, oil shale development would be expected to result in 

increases in human populations within the immediate area of specific developments and within 

the region as a whole. If these population increases resulted in increased nutrient loading of 

streams due to additional inputs from sewage treatment facilities, survival of some aquatic 

species could be affected and changes in biodiversity could result. Depending upon the 

magnitude of nutrient inputs, aquatic habitat in extended downstream portions of a watershed 

could be affected. The loss of native freshwater mussel species in some aquatic systems has been 

partially attributed to increases in nutrient levels (Natural Resources Conservation Service and 

Wildlife Habitat Council 2007). Because the water quality of effluents from such facilities is 

typically regulated under permits issued by state agencies, negative impacts on aquatic systems 

from increases in nutrient levels are expected to be small. 

 Contaminants could enter aquatic habitats as a result of recharge of contaminated ground 

water; leachate runoff from exposed oil shale; controlled point source discharges; the accidental 

release of fuels, lubricants, or pesticides; or spills from pipelines. Contamination of surface water 

by groundwater recharge could occur if contaminants were to leach into the groundwater as 

groundwater levels increased after in situ operations ceased. Potential contaminants include 

residual hydrocarbons and inorganics as well as chemicals used in the subsurface to enhance 

shale oil recovery. 
Final OSTS PEIS 4-79 

 Spent shale remaining on the surface could become a chronic source of contaminated 

runoff unless adequate containment measures are implemented or unless it is transported off-site 

for disposal. Oil shale development would be subject to stormwater management permits and 

the application of BMPs that would control the quality and quantity of runoff. Chronic exposure 

to the leachate from spent oil shale has been shown to reduce the survival of some fish and 

invertebrate species if the concentrations are high enough (Woodward et al. 1997). Because the 

resulting concentrations in aquatic habitats would depend largely on the dilution capability, and, 

therefore, the flow of the receiving waters, impacts would be more likely if runoff entered small 

perennial streams than if it entered larger streams. 

 Toxic materials (e.g., fuel, lubricants, and herbicides) could also be accidentally 

introduced into waterways during construction and maintenance activities or as a result of leaks 

from pipelines. The level of impacts from releases of toxicants would depend on the type and 

volume of chemicals entering the waterway, the location of the release, the nature of the water 

body (e.g., size, volume, and flow rates), and the types and life stages of organisms present in the 

waterway. In general, lubricants and fuel would not be expected to enter waterways as long as 

heavy machinery is not used in or near waterways, fueling locations for construction and 

maintenance equipment are situated away from the waterway, and measures are taken to control 

potential spills. Because tanker trucks are often used to transport petroleum production from 

collection sites, there is a potential for roadway accidents to release toxicants into adjacent 

streams. Such releases could result in substantial mortality of fish and other aquatic biota. 

 In areas where access roads, pipelines, or utility corridors cross streams, obstructions to 

fish movement could occur if culverts, low-water crossings, or buried pipelines are not properly 

installed, sized, or maintained. During periods of low water, vehicular traffic can result in rutting 

and accumulation of cobbles in some crossings that can interfere with fish movements. In 

streams with low flows, flow could become discontinuous if disturbance of the streambed during 

construction activities results in increased porosity or if alteration of the channel spreads flows 

across a wider area. Restrictions on fish movement would likely be most severe if they occur in 

streams that support species that need to move to specific areas in order to reproduce. 

 In addition to the potential for the direct impacts identified above, indirect impacts on 

fisheries could occur as a result of increased public access to remote areas via newly constructed 

access roads and utility corridors. Fisheries could be affected by increased fishing pressure, and 

other human activities (e.g., OHV use) could disturb riparian vegetation and soils, resulting in 

erosion, sedimentation, and potential impacts on water quality, as discussed above. Such impacts 

would be smaller in locations where existing access roads or utility corridors that already provide 

access to waterways would be utilized. Oil shale development also has the potential to affect 

fishing pressure in locations outside the immediately affected watershed if the development 

results in a loss of current fishing opportunities, either because developed locations become 

unavailable or because development results in decreases in catchable fish within adjacent or 

downstream areas. In such cases, displaced anglers could utilize nearby reservoirs or other 

streams or rivers, resulting in greater exploitation of fishery resources in those waterways. If 

water depletions associated with oil shale development affect water storage within reservoirs in 

nearby areas, fishing opportunities in those reservoirs could be affected. Mitigation measures for 

aquatic resources are presented in Section 4.8.2.1. 
Final OSTS PEIS 4-80 

4.8.1.2 Plant Communities and Habitats 

Potential impacts on terrestrial and wetland plant communities and habitats from 

activities associated with oil shale development would include direct and indirect impacts. 

Impacts would be incurred during initial site preparation and continue throughout the life of the 

project, extending over a period of several decades. Some impacts may also continue beyond the 

termination of shale oil production. The potential magnitude of the impacts that could result from 

oil shale development is presented for different habitat types in Table 4.8.1-2. 

 Direct impacts would include the destruction of habitat during initial land clearing on the 

lease site, as well as habitat losses resulting from the construction of ancillary facilities such as 

access roads, pipelines, transmission lines, and employer-provided housing, as well as the 

construction of new power plants for in situ facilities. Land clearing on the site would be 

required for construction of processing facilities, storage areas for soil and spent shale, and 

excavation areas. Land clearing would also occur incrementally throughout the life of the 

project, resulting in continued losses of habitat. Native vegetation communities present in project 

areas would be destroyed and may include rare communities and remnant vegetation 

associations. Storage of woody vegetation cleared from project areas would affect additional 

areas of vegetation. Impacts on jurisdictional wetlands (those under the regulatory jurisdiction of 

the CWA, Section 404, and the USACE) on or near the project site or locations of ancillary 

facilities would be avoided or minimized and mitigated. Preconstruction surveys would identify 

wetland locations and boundaries, and the permitting process would be initiated with the USACE 

for unavoidable impacts. E.O. 11990, “Protection of Wetlands,” requires all federal agencies to 

minimize the destruction, loss, or degradation of wetlands and to preserve and enhance the 

natural and beneficial values of wetlands, regardless of the jurisdictional status of the wetlands 

(U.S. President 1977). Therefore, impacts on all wetlands, jurisdictional and nonjurisdictional, 

would be avoided; unavoidable impacts would be minimized and mitigated. 

 Reclamation of affected areas would include reestablishment of vegetation on restored 

soils. Although revegetation of disturbed soils may successfully establish a productive vegetation 

cover, with biomass and species richness similar to local native communities, the resulting plant 

community may be quite different from native communities in terms of species composition and 

the representation of particular vegetation types, such as shrubs (Newman and Redente 2001). 

Revegetation of spent shale covered with a topsoil layer may also potentially result in a 

productive species-rich native plant community (Sydnor and Redente 2000). Community 

composition of revegetated areas would likely be greatly influenced by the species that are 

initially seeded, particularly perennial grasses, and colonization by species from nearby native 

communities may be slow (Paschke et al. 2005; Newman and Redente 2001; Sydnor and 

Redente 2000). The establishment of mature native plant communities may require decades. 

Successful restoration of some vegetation types, such as shrubland communities or stabilized 

sand dunes, may be difficult and would require considerable periods of time, likely more than 

20 years (BLM 2004a). Restoration of plant communities in areas with arid climates (generally 

averaging less than 9 in. of annual precipitation), such as the Uinta Basin Floor ecoregion in 

Utah and portions of the Rolling Sagebrush Steppe and Salt Desert Shrub Basins ecoregions in 

Wyoming, would be especially difficult (Monsen et al. 2004) and may be unsuccessful. The loss 
Final OSTS PEIS 4-81 

TABLE 4.8.1-2 Potential Impacts on Plant Communities Resulting 

from Commercial Oil Shale Development 

Potential Magnitude of Impacts 

According to Habitat Typea

Impact Category Upland Plants 

Wetland and 

Riparian Plants 

 

Vegetation clearing Large Large 

Habitat fragmentation Large Moderate 

Dispersal blockage Moderate Moderate 

Alteration of topography Moderate Large 

Changes in drainage patterns Moderate Large 

Erosion Large Large 

Sedimentation from runoff Large Large 

Oil and contaminant spills Moderate Large 

Fugitive dust Moderate Moderate 

Injury or mortality of individuals Large Large 

Human collection Moderate Moderate 

Increased human access Moderate Moderate 

Fire Large Large 

Spread of invasive plant species Large Large 

Air pollution Moderate Moderate 

Water depletions Small Large 

Disruption of groundwater flow patterns Small Moderate 

Temperature increases in water bodies None Moderate 

a Potential impact magnitude (without mitigation) that might be expected 

from individual development projects is presented as none, small, 

moderate, or large. A small impact is one that is limited to the immediate 

project area, affects a relatively small proportion of a plant community or 

local species population (less than 10%), and does not result in a 

measurable change in community characteristics or population size in the 

affected area. A moderate impact could extend beyond the immediate 

project area, affect an intermediate proportion of a plant community or 

local species population (10 to 30%), and result in a measurable but 

moderate (not destabilizing) change in community characteristics or 

population size in the affected area. A large impact would extend beyond 

the immediate project area, could affect more than 30% of a plant 

community or local species population, and result in a large, measurable, 

and destabilizing change in community characteristics or population size 

in the affected area. 

of intact native plant communities could result in increased habitat fragmentation, even with the 

reclamation of affected areas. 

 Disturbed soils may provide an opportunity for the introduction and establishment of 

non-native invasive species. Seeds or other propagules of invasive species may be inadvertently 

brought to a project site from infested areas by heavy equipment or other vehicles used at the 
Final OSTS PEIS 4-82 

site. Invasive species may also colonize disturbed soils from established populations in nearby 

areas. Important invasive species on disturbed lands include Russian thistle (Salsola kali), 

Russian knapweed (Centaurea repens), cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum), halogeton (Halogeton

glomeratus), and Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense). The establishment of invasive species may 

greatly reduce the success of establishment of native plant communities during reclamation of 

project areas and create a source of future colonization and subsequent degradation of adjacent 

undisturbed areas. In addition, the planting of non-native species in reclamation areas may result 

in the introduction of those species into nearby natural areas. The establishment of invasive 

species may alter fire regimes, including an increase in the frequency and intensity of wildfires, 

particularly from the establishment of annual grasses such as cheatgrass. Native species, 

particularly shrubs, that are not adapted to frequent or intense fires may be adversely affected 

and their populations may be reduced. 

 Indirect impacts on terrestrial and wetland habitats on or off the project site could result 

from land clearing and exposed soil; soil compaction; and changes in topography, surface 

drainage, and infiltration characteristics. Impacts on surface water and groundwater systems, 

which subsequently affect terrestrial plant communities, wetlands, and riparian areas, are 

described in Section 4.5. Deposition of fugitive dust, including associated salts, generated during 

clearing and grading, construction, and use of access roads, or resulting from wind erosion of 

exposed soils, could reduce photosynthesis and productivity in plants near project areas, and 

could result in foliar damage. Plant community composition could subsequently be altered, 

resulting in habitat degradation. In addition, pollinator species could be affected by fugitive dust 

(Section 4.8.1.3), potentially reducing pollinator populations in the vicinity of an oil shale 

project. Temporary, localized effects on plant populations and communities could occur if seed 

production in some plant species is reduced. Soil compaction could reduce the infiltration of 

precipitation or snowmelt and, along with reduced vegetation cover, result in increased runoff 

and subsequent erosion and sedimentation. Reduced infiltration and altered surface runoff and 

drainage characteristics could result in changes in soil moisture characteristics, reduced recharge 

of shallow groundwater systems, and changes in the hydrologic regimes of downgradient streams 

and associated wetlands and riparian areas. Soils on steep slopes could be particularly susceptible 

to increased erosion resulting from changes in stormwater flow patterns. 

 Erosion and reductions in soil moisture could alter affected terrestrial plant communities 

adjacent to project activities, resulting in reduced growth and reproduction. Altered hydrologic 

regimesparticularly reductions in the duration, frequency, or extent of inundation or soil 

saturation, potentially resulting from elimination of ephemeral or intermittent streamscould 

result in species or structural changes in wetland or riparian communities, changes in 

distribution, or reduction in community extent. Increased volume or velocities of flows could 

impact wetland and riparian habitats, removing fine soil components, organic materials, and 

shallow rooted plants. Large-scale surface disturbance that reduces infiltration may increase flow 

fluctuations, reduce base flows, and increase flood flows, resulting in impacts on wetland and 

riparian community composition and extent. Sedimentation, and associated increases in 

dissolved salts, could degrade wetland and riparian plant communities. Effects may include 

reduced growth or mortality of plants, altered species composition, reduced biodiversity, or, 

in areas of heavy sediment accumulation, a reduction in the extent of wetland or riparian 

communities. Disturbance-tolerant species may become dominant in communities affected 
Final OSTS PEIS 4-83 

by these changes in hydrology and water quality. Increased sedimentation, turbidity, or other 

changes in water quality may provide conditions conducive to the establishment of invasive 

species. 

 Alterations of groundwater flow or quality in project areas, such as during shale 

extraction, may affect wetlands and riparian areas that directly receive groundwater discharge, 

such as at springs or seeps, or occur in streams with flows maintained by groundwater. Wetlands 

and riparian communities miles downgradient from shale extraction or retorting activities may be 

affected by reduced flows or reduced water quality. Flow reductions in alluvial aquifers from 

shale extraction, water withdrawals, or pipeline installation may also result in reductions in 

wetland or riparian communities associated with streams receiving alluvial aquifer discharge or 

in changes in community composition. Water withdrawals from surface water features, such as 

rivers and streams, may reduce flows and water quality downstream. Reduced flows and water 

quality may reduce the extent or distribution of wetlands and riparian areas along these water 

bodies or degrade these plant communities. The construction of reservoirs may also affect 

downstream wetlands and riparian areas by reducing flows and sediment transport and increasing 

salt loading. 

 Plant communities and habitats could be adversely affected by impacts on water quality, 

resulting in plant mortality or reduced growth, with subsequent changes in community 

composition and structure and declines in habitat quality. Leachate from spent shale or 

overburdened stockpiles may adversely affect terrestrial, riparian, or wetland plant communities 

as a result of impacts on surface water or groundwater quality. Produced water from shale 

retorting or saline water pumped from lower aquifers, if discharged on the land surface, may 

result in impacts on terrestrial, riparian, or wetland communities because of reduced water 

quality. Herbicides used in ROW maintenance could be carried to wetland and riparian areas by 

surface runoff or to nearby terrestrial communities by air currents. Impacts on surface water 

quality from deposition of atmospheric dust or pollutants from equipment exhaust or power plant 

operation could degrade terrestrial, wetland, and riparian habitats. Accidental spills of chemicals, 

fuels, or oil would adversely affect plant communities. Direct contact with contaminants could 

result in mortality of plants or degradation of habitats. Spills could have an impact on shallow 

groundwater quality and indirectly affect terrestrial plants contacting shallow groundwater. 

 Oil shale endemic species would be potentially subject to the direct and indirect impacts 

described above. Habitats occupied by these species could be degraded or lost, and individuals 

could be destroyed. Local populations could be reduced or lost as a result of oil shale 

development activities. Following habitat fragmentation, the probability of natural recolonization by Graham’s beardtongue is considered low (USFWS 2006). Transplants of 

parachute beardtongue to reestablish a lost population failed to survive (USFWS 2011). 

Therefore, establishment and long-term survival of these species on reclaimed land may be 

difficult. The potential introduction and spread of noxious weed species from project areas into 

the habitat of oil shale endemics could threaten local populations. In addition, the increased 

accessibility resulting from new roads could result in increased impacts from human disturbance 

or collection. Because of the generally small, scattered populations of oil shale endemics, there 

could be greater consequences for these species than for commonly occurring species. However, 

many oil shale endemics are federally listed, state-listed, or BLM-designated sensitive species 
Final OSTS PEIS 4-84 

and are protected by applicable federal or state regulations and agency policies. Those endemics 

that occur within ACECs would likely have some protection by RMP stipulations to avoid or 

minimize impacts on sensitive species and their habitats. Mitigation measures for plant 

communities and habitats are presented in Section 4.8.2.2. 

4.8.1.3 Wildlife 

 All oil shale leasing projects that would be constructed and operated have the potential to 

affect wildlife over a period of several decades. Reclamation, which would occur in parallel with 

or after extraction activities are completed, would reduce or eliminate ongoing impacts to the 

extent practicable by re-creating habitats and ecological conditions that could be suitable to 

wildlife species. The effectiveness of any reclamation activities would depend on the specific 

actions taken; the best results, however, would occur where original site topography, hydrology, 

soils, and vegetation patterns could be reestablished. However, as discussed in Section 4.8.1.2, 

this may not be possible under all situations. 

 The following discussion provides an overview of the potential impacts on wildlife that 

could occur from the construction and operation of an oil shale project. The use of mitigation 

measures and standard operating procedures (e.g., predisturbance surveys, erosion and dust 

suppression control practices, establishment of buffer areas, reclamation of disturbed areas using 

native species, and netting of on-site ponds) would minimize impacts on wildlife species and 

their habitats. The specifics of these practices would be established through consultations with 

federal and state agencies and other stakeholders. 

 Impacts on wildlife from oil shale projects could occur in a number of ways and are 

related to (1) habitat loss, alteration, or fragmentation; (2) disturbance and displacement; 

(3) mortality; and (4) increase in human access. These impacts can result in changes in habitat 

use; changes in behavior; collisions with structures or vehicles; changes in predator populations; 

and chronic or acute toxicity from hydrocarbons, herbicides, or other contaminants. 

 Wildlife may also be affected by human activities that are not directly associated with the 

oil shale project or its workforce, but that are instead associated with the potentially increased 

access to BLM-administered lands that had previously received little use. The construction of 

new access roads or improvements to old access roads may lead to increased human access into 

the area. Potential impacts associated with increased access include (1) the disturbance of 

wildlife from human activities, including an increase in legal and illegal take and an increase of 

invasive vegetation, (2) an increase in the incidence of fires, and (3) increased runoff that could 

adversely affect riparian or other wetland areas that are important to wildlife. 

 Wildlife impacts from the impacting factors discussed below are summarized in 

Table 4.8.1-3. The potential magnitude of the impacts that could result from oil shale 

development is presented for representative wildlife species types. Impacts are designated as 

small, moderate, or large (see Table 4.8.1-3, footnote a, for the definition of small, moderate, 

and large impacts). 
TABLE 4.8.1-3 Potential Impacts on Wildlife Species Resulting from Commercial Oil Shale Develop

Potential Magnitude of Impacts According to Species Typea Impact Category Amphibians and Reptiles Shorebirds and Waterfowl Landbirds Raptors Small Game and Nongame Mammals Big 

Ma

Vegetation clearing Large Small Large Moderate Large LarHabitat fragmentation Large Small Moderate Moderate Large LarMovement/dispersal blockage Large Small Small Small Moderate MoAlteration of topography Small Small Small Small Small Sm

Water depletions Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Mo

Erosion and sedimentation Moderate Small Small Small Small SmContaminant spills Small Small Small Small Small SmFugitive dust Small Small Small Small Small SmInjury or mortality Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate MoCollection Small Small Small Small Small SmHuman disturbance/harassment Small Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate MoIncreases in predation rates Small Small Small Small Small SmNoise Small Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Mo

Spread of invasive plant species Small Small Moderate Moderate Moderate SmAir pollution Small Small Small Small Small SmFire Small Small Moderate Moderate Moderate Sm

a Potential impact magnitude is presented as small, moderate, or large. A small impact is one for which most impa

the affected resource could be avoided with proper mitigation; and, if impacts occur, the affected resource will r

completely without mitigation once the impacting stressor is eliminated. A moderate impact is one for which imon the affected resource are unavoidable. The viability of the affected resource is not threatened, although some impacts may be irreversible; or the affected resource would not recover completely if proper mitigation is applieduring the life of the project or proper remedial action is taken once the impacting stressor is eliminated. A large impact is one for which impacts on the affected resource are unavoidable. The viability of the affected resource mthreatened; and the affected resource would not fully recover even if proper mitigation is applied during the life project or remedial action is implemented once the impacting stressor is eliminated. No population-level effects 

expected from small and moderate impacts, while population-level impacts are expected from major impacts. 
Final OSTS PEIS 4-86 

 4.8.1.3.1 Habitat Disturbance. The reduction, alteration, or fragmentation of habitat 

would result in a major impact on wildlife. Habitats within the construction footprint of the 

projects, utility ROWs, access roads, and other infrastructure would be destroyed or disturbed. 

The amount of habitat affected would be a function of the current degree of disturbance 

already present in the project site area. With certain exceptions, areas lacking vegetation 

(e.g., operational areas, access roads, and active portions of oil shale mining) provide minimal 

habitat. The construction of the projects would not only result in the direct reduction or alteration 

of wildlife habitat within the project footprint but could also affect the diversity and abundance 

of area wildlife through habitat fragmentation. Habitat fragmentation causes both a loss of 

habitat and habitat isolation. 

 A decline in wildlife use near roads or other facilities would be considered an indirect 

habitat loss. Avoidance of habitat associated with roads has been reported to be 2.5 to 3.5 times 

as great as the actual habitat loss associated with the road’s footprint (Reed et al. 1996). Mule 

deer (Odocoileus hemionus) and elk (Cervus canadensis) may avoid areas up to 0.25 mi from 

a project area (BLM 2006b). Similarly, bird nesting may be disrupted within 0.25 mi of 

construction activities during the nesting and brooding periods (e.g., February 1 to August 25) 

(BLM 2006e). Road avoidance by wildlife could be greater in open landscapes compared with 

forested landscapes (Thomson et al. 2005). Mule deer use declined within 2.7 to 3.7 km of 

gas well pads, suggesting that indirect habitat loss can be larger than direct habitat loss 

(Sawyer et al. 2006). Density of sagebrush obligates, particularly Brewer’s sparrow (Spizella

breweri) and sage sparrow (Amphispiza belli), was reduced 39 to 60% within a 100-m buffer 

around dirt roads with low traffic volumes. The declines may have been due to a combination 

of traffic, edge effects, habitat fragmentation, and increases in other passerine species along 

road corridors. Thus, declines may persist until roads are fully reclaimed (Ingelfinger and 

Anderson 2004). Those individuals who make use of areas within or adjacent to project areas 

could be subjected to increased physiological stress. This combination of avoidance and stress 

reduces the capability of wildlife to use habitat effectively (WGFD 2010). As noise and human 

presence are reduced (e.g., as may occur from the switch from construction to operation), 

wildlife may increase their use of otherwise suitable habitats, although probably not at the same 

levels as before disturbance initially began (BLM 2006c). 

 Some species such as the common raven (Corvus corax) are more abundant along roads 

because of automobile-generated carrion. Common ravens and raptors are more common along 

transmission lines because of the presence of perch and nest sites (Knight and Kawashima 1993). 

 Displaced animals would likely have lower reproductive success because nearby areas 

are typically already occupied by other individuals of the species that would be displaced 

(Riffell et al. 1996). Increasing the concentration of wildlife in an area may result in a number of 

adverse effects, including potential mortality of the displaced animals from depletion of food 

sources, increased vulnerability to predators, increased potential for the propagation of diseases 

and parasites, increased intra- and interspecies competition, and increased potential for poaching. 

 Long-term displacement of elk, mule deer, pronghorn (Antilocapra americana), or other 

species from crucial habitat because of habitat disturbance would be considered significant 

(BLM 2004a). For example, activities around parturition areas have the potential to decrease the 
Final OSTS PEIS 4-87 

usability of these areas for calving and fawning. An oil shale project located within a crucial 

winter area could directly reduce the amount of habitat available to the local population. This 

placement could force the individuals to use suboptimal habitat, which could lead to debilitating 

stress. Habitat loss and associated decrease in raptor prey base could increase the foraging area 

necessary to support an individual and/or decrease the number of foraging raptors an area could 

support (BLM 2006c). With decreasing availability of forbs and grasses, greater sage-grouse 

(Centrocercus urophasianus) broods could move longer distances and expend more energy to 

find forage. Increased movement, in addition to decreased vegetative cover, could expose chicks 

to greater risk of predation (BLM 2006c). More detailed information about how greater sagegrouse may be affected by oil shale development, including information about possible measures 

to mitigate impacts, is provided in Section 4.8.1.4. 

 Water needs for construction and operation could lead to localized to regional water 

depletions depending on local conditions, process methods, and number of leases developed. 

Water depletions can be expressed in a number of ways, ranging from decreases in soil moisture, 

reduced flow of springs and seeps, loss of wetlands, and drawdowns of larger rivers and streams. 

A number of direct and indirect impacts on wildlife can result from water depletions, including 

reduction and degradation of habitat; reduction in vegetative cover, forage, and drinking water; 

attraction to human habitations for alternative food sources; increase in stress, disease, insect 

infestations, and predation; alterations in migrations and concentrations of wildlife; loss of 

diversity; reduced reproductive success and declining populations; increased competition with 

livestock; and increased potential for fires (IUCNNR 1998; UDNR 2006). 

 Potential impacts on waterfowl and shorebirds could primarily occur from impacts on 

habitat or changes in habitat. Construction could cause short-term changes in water quality 

resulting from increases in siltation and sedimentation related to ground disturbance. Long-term 

impacts could result from habitat alterations (i.e., changing forested wetlands to scrub-shrub and 

emergent wetlands within the ROWs). This alteration could have a slight beneficial impact on 

most waterfowl and shorebird species. 

 The presence of an oil shale project and associated facilities could disrupt movements of 

wildlife, particularly during migration. Migrating birds would be expected to simply fly over the 

project and continue their migratory movement. However, herd animals, such as elk, deer, and 

pronghorn, could potentially be affected if the corridor segments transect migration paths 

between winter and summer ranges or in calving areas. The utility corridor segments would be 

maintained as areas of low vegetation that may hinder or prevent movements of some wildlife 

species. It is foreseeable that utility corridor segments may be used for travel routes by big game 

if they lead in the direction of their normal migrations. 

 Migration corridors are vulnerable, particularly at pinch points where physiographic 

constrictions force herds through relatively narrow corridors (Berger 2004). Loss of habitat 

continuity along migration routes would severely restrict the seasonal movements necessary to 

maintain healthy big game populations (Sawyer and Lindsay 2001; Thomson et al. 2005). Any 

activity or landscape modification that prevents the use of migration corridor constrictions 

(migration bottlenecks or pinch points) could effectively reduce the use of habitats either above 

or below the constriction (BLM 2004b). As summarized by Strittholt et al. (2000), roads have 
Final OSTS PEIS 4-88 

been shown to impede the movements of invertebrates, reptiles, and small and large mammals. 

For large mammals, blockages of a route between foraging or bedding areas and watering areas 

could cause the animals to abandon a larger habitat area altogether (BLM 2004b). High snow 

embankments as a result of plowing can greatly influence the mobility of wildlife such as moose 

(Alces alces) (WGFD 2010). Barriers to movement that prevent snakes from accessing wintering 

dens or that isolate amphibian breeding pools from feeding areas could affect or even eliminate a 

population (BLM 2004b). 

 Larger and/or more mobile wildlife, such as medium-sized or large mammals and birds, 

would be most likely to leave an area that experiences habitat disturbance. Development of the 

site would represent a loss of habitat for these species, resulting in a long-term reduction in 

wildlife abundance and richness within the project area. A species affected by habitat 

disturbance may be able to shift its habitat use for a short period. For example, the density of 

several forest-dwelling bird species has been found to increase within a forest stand soon after 

the onset of fragmentation as a result of displaced individuals moving into remaining habitat 

(Hagan et al. 1996). However, it is generally presumed that the habitat into which displaced 

individuals move would be unable to sustain the same level of use over the long term 

(BLM 2004b). The subsequent competition for resources in adjacent habitats would likely 

preclude the incorporation of the displaced individual into the resident populations. If it is 

assumed that areas used by wildlife before development were preferred habitat, then an observed 

shift in distribution because of development would be toward less preferred and presumably less 

suitable habitats (Sawyer et al. 2006). Overcrowding of species such as mule deer in winter 

ranges can cause density-dependent effects such as increased fawn mortality 

(Sawyer et al. 2006). 

 Rather than being displaced, smaller animals such as small mammals, reptiles, and 

amphibians may be killed during clearing and construction activities. If land clearing and 

construction activities occurred during the spring and summer, bird nests and eggs or nestlings 

could be destroyed. Fossorial species could be crushed or buried by construction equipment. 

 The creation of edge habitat along the boundary between two habitats can (1) increase 

predation and parasitism of vulnerable forest or sagebrush interior animals in the vicinity of 

edges; (2) have negative consequences for wildlife by modifying their distribution and dispersal 

patterns; or (3) be detrimental to species requiring large undisturbed areas, because increases in 

edge are generally associated with concomitant reductions in habitat size and possible isolation 

of habitat patches and corridors (habitat fragmentation). Species that could benefit from the 

proposed utility or access road ROWs include those that prefer or require some open areas, edge 

habitat, and/or shrubs and small trees. Access roads through forested areas have been found to be 

positively correlated with bat activity since these areas can provide productive foraging areas 

and/or travel corridors (Zimmerman and Glanz 2000). 

 The utility and access road ROWs may hinder or prevent movements of some small 

mammals. In particular, species preferring heavy cover in forested areas may be adversely 

affected (Oxley et al. 1974; Forman and Alexander 1998). The degree to which roads serve as 

barriers to wildlife movement depends on traffic volume and speed, roadside vegetation, 
Final OSTS PEIS 4-89 

traditional movement patterns, and environmental factors motivating animal movement 

(e.g., predator avoidance). 

 Periodic removal of woody vegetation to maintain the ROW, particularly in forested 

areas, would maintain those sections of the ROW in an early stage of plant community 

succession that could benefit small mammals that use such habitats (e.g., hares) and their 

predators (e.g., bobcat [Lynx rufus]). Temporary growth of willows and other trees following 

brush cutting could benefit moose and other ungulates that use browse. Conversely, habitat 

maintenance would have localized adverse effects on species such as the red squirrel 

(Tamiasciurus hudsonicus), southern red-backed vole (Myodes gapperi), and American marten 

(Martes americana), which prefer late-successional or forested habitats (BLM 2002). ROW 

corridors, especially those with access roads, can promote vehicle access to previously 

undisturbed areas. This can potentially disturb wildlife. Except where annual vegetation 

maintenance may be required over the pipelines to facilitate periodic corrosion and leak surveys, 

routine vegetation maintenance within a ROW segment conducted once every few years would 

lessen impacts on migratory bird species and other wildlife species that may make permanent use 

of the ROW segments. As ROWs become more densely vegetated toward the end of each 

maintenance cycle, bird species diversity would probably increase. 

 Overall, impacts on most wildlife species would be proportional to the amount of their 

specific habitats that are directly and indirectly lost and the duration of the loss (BLM 2006c). 

For example, impacts on mule deer would proportionally increase with the amount of crucial 

winter habitat that is disturbed. Project development within oil shale project areas could affect 

crucial winter and summer ranges for mule deer and elk; crucial lambing and rutting grounds 

and water sources for bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis); substantial value habitat for pronghorn, 

American black bear (Ursus americanus), and cougar (Puma concolor); portions of several wild 

horse and burro herds; yearlong nesting or strutting grounds for greater sage-grouse; and 

foraging habitat for raptors (BLM 1984a). Impacts on neotropical migrants that do not breed 

within the project area would be minor. Nonbreeders generally use riparian areas for feeding, 

and these areas would be minimally affected by project construction and operation. 

 4.8.1.3.2 Wildlife Disturbance. Activities associated with construction and operation 

of an oil shale project may cause wildlife disturbance, including interference with behavioral 

activities. The response of wildlife to disturbance is highly variable and species specific. 

Intraspecific responses can also be affected by the physiological or reproductive condition of 

individuals; distance from disturbance; and the type, intensity, and duration of disturbance. 

Wildlife can respond to disturbance in various ways, including attraction, habituation, and 

avoidance (Knight and Cole 1991). All three behaviors are considered adverse. For example, 

wildlife may cease foraging, mating, or nesting or vacate active nest sites in areas where 

construction is occurring; some species may permanently abandon the disturbed areas and 

adjacent habitats. In contrast, wildlife such as bears, foxes, and squirrels readily habituate and 

may even be attracted to human activities, primarily when a food source is accidentally or 

deliberately made available. Human food wastes and other attractants in developed areas can 

increase the population of foxes, gulls, common ravens, and bears, which in turn prey on 

waterfowl and other birds. 
Final OSTS PEIS 4-90 

 Disturbance can reduce the relative habitat value for wildlife such as mule deer, 

especially during periods of heavy snow and cold temperatures. When wildlife are experiencing 

physiological stress, which requires higher levels of energy for survival and reproductive 

success, increased human presence can further increase energy expenditures, leading to reduced 

survival or reproductive outcome. Furthermore, disturbance could prevent access to sufficient 

amounts of forage necessary to sustain individuals (BLM 2006d). Hobbs (1989) determined that 

mule deer doe mortality during a severe winter period could double if they were disturbed twice 

a day and caused to move a minimum of 1,500 ft per disturbance. 

 The average mean flush distance for several raptor species in winter was 118 m due to 

walk disturbance and 75 m due to vehicle disturbance (Holmes et al. 1993). Bighorn sheep have 

been reported to respond at a distance of 1,640 ft from roads with more than one vehicle per day, 

while deer and elk response occurs at a distance of 3,280 ft or more (Gaines et al. 2003). 

Snowmobile traffic was found to affect the behavior of moose located within 984 ft of a trail 

and displace them to less favorable habitats (Colescott and Gillingham 1998). 

 Mule deer will habituate to and ignore motorized traffic provided that they are not 

pursued (Yarmoloy et al. 1988). Harassment, an extreme type of disturbance caused by 

intentional actions to chase or frighten wildlife, generally causes the magnitude and duration of 

displacement to be greater. As a result, there is an increased potential for physical injury from 

fleeing and higher metabolic rates due to stress (BLM 2004b). Bears can be habituated to human 

activities, particularly moving vehicles, and these animals are more vulnerable to legal and 

illegal harvest (McLellan and Shackleton 1989). 

 Disturbed wildlife can incur a physiological cost either through excitement 

(i.e., preparation for exertion) or locomotion. A fleeing or displaced animal incurs additional 

costs through loss of food intake and potential displacement to lower quality habitat. If the 

disturbance becomes chronic or continuous, these costs can result in both reduced animal fitness 

and reproductive potential (BLM 2004b). Disturbance associated with a project would likely 

result in fewer nest initiations, increased nest abandonment and/or reproductive failure, and 

decreased productivity of successful nests (BLM 2006c). Factors that influence displacement 

distance include the following: 

• Inherent species-specific characteristics, 

• Seasonally changing threshold of sensitivity as a result of reproductive and 

nutritional status, 

• Type of habitat (e.g., longer disturbance distances in open habitats), 

• Specific experience of the individual or group, 

• Weather (e.g., adverse weather such as wind or fog may decrease the 

disturbance), 
Final OSTS PEIS 4-91 

• Time of day (e.g., animals are generally more tolerant during dawn and dusk), 

and 

• Social structure of the animals (e.g., groups are generally more tolerant than 

solitary individuals) (BLM 2004b). 

 Regular or periodic disturbance could cause adjacent areas to be less attractive to wildlife 

and result in long-term reduction of wildlife use in areas exposed to a repeated variety of 

disturbances such as noise. Principal sources of noise would include vehicle traffic, operation of 

machinery, and blasting. The response of wildlife to noise would vary by species; physiological 

or reproductive condition; distance; and type, intensity, and duration of disturbance (BLM 2002). 

Wildlife response to noise can include avoidance, habituation, or attraction. Responses of birds 

to disturbance often involve activities that are energetically costly (e.g., flying) or affect their 

behavior in a way that might reduce food intake (e.g., shift away from a preferred feeding site) 

(Hockin et al. 1992). On the basis of a review of the literature by Hockin et al. (1992), the effects 

of disturbance on bird breeding and breeding success include reduced nest attendance, nest 

failures, reduced nest building, increased predation on eggs and nestlings, nest abandonment, 

inhibition of laying, increased absence from nest, reduced feeding and brooding, exposure of 

eggs and nestlings to heat or cold, retarded chick development, and lengthening of the incubation 

period. The most adverse impacts associated with noise could occur if critical life-cycle activities 

were disrupted (e.g., mating and nesting). For instance, disturbance of birds during the nesting 

season can result in nest or brood abandonment. The eggs and young of displaced birds would be 

more susceptible to cold or predators. 

 4.8.1.3.3 Noise. Much of the research on wildlife-related noise effects has focused on 

birds. This research has shown that noise may affect territory selection, territorial defense, 

dispersal, foraging success, fledging success, and song learning (e.g., Reijnen and Foppen 1994; 

Foppen and Reijnen 1994; Larkin 1996). Several studies have examined the effects of continuous 

noise on bird populations, including the effects of traffic noise, coronal discharge along electric 

transmission lines, and gas compressors. Some studies (e.g., Reijnen and Foppen 1994, 1995; 

Foppen and Reijnen 1994; Reijnen et al. 1995, 1996, 1997) have shown reduced densities of a 

number of species in forest (26 of 43 species) and grassland (7 of 12 species) habitats adjacent to 

roads, with effects detectable from 66 to 11,581 ft from the roads. On the basis of these studies, 

Reijnen et al. (1996) identified a threshold effect sound level of 47 dBA for all species combined 

and 42 dBA for the most sensitive species; the observed reductions in population density were 

attributed to a reduction in habitat quality caused by elevated noise levels. This threshold sound 

level of 42 to 47 dBA (which is somewhat below the EPA-recommended limit for residential 

areas) is at or below the sound levels generated by truck traffic that would likely occur at 

distances of 250 ft or more from the construction area or access roads, or the levels generated by 

typical construction equipment at distances of 2,500 ft or more from the construction site. 

 Blast noise has been found to elicit a variety of effects on wildlife (Manci et al. 1988; 

Larkin 1996). Brattstrom and Bondello (1983) reported that peak sound pressure levels reaching 

95 dB resulted in a temporary shift in hearing sensitivity in kangaroo rats, and that they required 

at least 3 weeks for the hearing thresholds to recover. The authors postulated that such hearing 
Final OSTS PEIS 4-92 

shifts could affect the ability of the kangaroo rat to avoid approaching predators. A variety of 

adverse effects of noise on raptors have been demonstrated, but in many cases, the effects were 

temporary, and the raptors became habituated to the noise (Andersen et al. 1989; 

Brown et al. 1999; Delaney et al. 1999). 

 4.8.1.3.4 Mortality or Injury. Construction, operation, maintenance, and reclamation 

activities would result in mortality of wildlife that are not mobile enough to avoid these activities 

(e.g., reptiles and amphibians, small mammals, and the young of other wildlife), that utilize 

burrows (e.g., ground squirrels and burrowing owls [Athene cunicularia]), or that are defending 

nest sites (such as ground-nesting birds). More mobile species of wildlife, such as deer and adult 

birds, may avoid direct impacts by moving into habitats in adjacent areas. However, it can be 

conservatively assumed that adjacent habitats are at carrying capacity for the species that live 

there and could not support additional biota from affected areas. The subsequent competition for 

resources in adjacent habitats would likely preclude the incorporation of the displaced individual 

into the resident populations. 

 The presence of the oil shale and ancillary facilities (e.g., buildings, transmission lines, 

elevated portions of the pipelines, and other ancillary facilities) would create a physical hazard 

to some wildlife. In particular, birds may collide with transmission lines and buildings, while 

mammals may collide with fences. However, collisions with oil shale facilities would probably 

be infrequent, because human activity and project-related noise would discourage wildlife 

presence in the immediate project area. An open pipeline trench can trap small animals and 

injure larger wildlife trying to cross it, particularly at night. Artificial lighting can potentially 

affect birds by providing more feeding time (i.e., by allowing nocturnal feeding) and by causing 

direct mortality or disorientation (Hockin et al. 1992). Areas of standing water (e.g., stormwater 

and liquid industrial waste ponds) could potentially provide habitat for mosquitoes that are 

vectors of West Nile virus, which is a significant stressor on sage-grouse and probably other atrisk bird species (Naugle et al. 2004). 

 Direct mortality from vehicle collisions would be expected to occur along new access 

roads, while increases in collisions would occur along existing roads because of increased traffic 

volumes (e.g., associated with increased numbers of construction and operational personnel). 

Collision with vehicles can be a source of wildlife mortality, especially in wildlife concentration 

areas or travel corridors. When major roads cut across migration corridors, the effects can be 

dangerous for animals and humans. Between Kemmerer and Cokeville, Wyoming, hundreds 

of mule deer are killed during spring and fall migrations when they attempt to cross 

U.S. Highway 30 (Feeney et al. 2004). In unusual cases, mass casualties of wildlife occur from 

vehicular collision incidents, particularly in winter when animals may congregate near snow-free 

roads. In Wyoming, there have been several vehicular incidents where 7 to 21 pronghorn have 

been killed or injured per incident, and there was also an incident where 41 pronghorn were 

killed by a train (Maffly 2007). 

 Being somewhat small and inconspicuous, amphibians are vulnerable to road mortality 

when they migrate between wetland and upland habitats, while reptiles are vulnerable because 

they make use of roads for thermal cooling and heating. Greater sage-grouse are susceptible to 
Final OSTS PEIS 4-93 

road mortality in spring because they often fly to and from leks near ground level. They are also 

susceptible to vehicular collision along dirt roads because they are sometimes attracted to them 

to take dust baths (Strittholt et al. 2000). Utility ROWs and access roads increase use by 

recreationists and other public land users, which can increase the amount of human presence and 

the potential for harassment and legal or illegal harvesting of wildlife. This activity may include 

the collection of live animals, particularly reptiles and amphibians, for pets. Direct mortality 

from snowmobiles may occur because of crushing or suffocation of small mammals occupying 

subnivean spaces and from increased access to predators over compacted vehicular trails 

(Gaines et al. 2003). 

 Most raptor (or other bird) electrocutions occur on low-voltage distribution lines of less 

than 69 kV (Lehman 2001; Lehman et al. 2007). Few electrocutions occur on high-voltage 

transmission lines because the spacing between conductors, between a conductor and ground 

wire, or between a conductor and other grounding structures normally exceeds the wing span of 

the largest raptors in the study area (i.e., bald and golden eagles [Haliaeetus leucocephalus and 

Aquila chrysaetos]) (Hunting 2002); a 60-in. spacing allows for adequate wrist-to-wrist distance 

to prevent eagles from being electrocuted under dry conditions (APLIC 2006). Although a rare 

event, flocks of small birds can be electrocuted if they cross a line or take off simultaneously 

because of current arcing. Such events are most likely to occur during humid conditions 

(Bevanger 1998; BirdLife International 2003). Arcing can also occur by the excrement jet of 

large birds roosting on the crossarms above the insulators (BirdLife International 2003). Weather 

can increase electrocution risk in several ways (e.g., wind decreases raptor flight navigation and 

landing precision, storm events promote prey searching while perched on poles rather than while 

flying, and precipitation wets feathers, which increases their conductivity) (Hunting 2002). Dry 

feathers can withstand voltages up to 70 kV, whereas wet feathers arc and burn at 5 kV (Harness 

2000). For most raptor species, no scientific documentation has concluded that electrocution 

contributes to raptor population declines (Lehman et al. 2007). 

 Electromagnetic field exposure can potentially alter the behavior, physiology, endocrine 

system, and the immune function of birds, which, in theory, could result in negative 

repercussions on their reproduction or development. However, the reproductive success of some 

wild bird species, such as ospreys (Pandion haliaetus), does not appear to be compromised by 

electromagnetic field conditions (Fernie and Reynolds 2005). 

 Any species of bird capable of flight can collide with power lines. Birds that migrate at 

night, fly in flocks, and/or are large and heavy with limited maneuverability are at particular 

risk (BirdLife International 2003). The potential for bird collisions with a transmission line 

depends on variables such as habitat, relation of the line to migratory flyways and feeding 

flight patterns, migratory and resident bird species, and structural characteristics of the line 

(Beaulaurier et al. 1984). Near wetlands, waterfowl, wading birds, shorebirds, and passerines 

are most vulnerable to colliding with transmission lines; while in habitats away from wetlands, 

raptors and passerines are most susceptible (Faanes 1987). The highest concern for bird 

collisions is where lines span flight paths, including river valleys, wetland areas, and lakes; areas 

between waterfowl feeding and roosting areas; and narrow corridors (e.g., passes that connect 

two valleys). A disturbance that leads to a panic flight can increase the risk of collision with 

transmission lines (BirdLife International 2003). 
Final OSTS PEIS 4-94 

 The shield wire is often the cause of bird losses involving higher voltage lines because 

birds fly over the more visible conductor bundles only to collide with the relatively invisible, thin 

shield wire (Faanes 1987; Thompson 1978). Young inexperienced birds, as well as migrants in 

unfamiliar terrain, appear to be more vulnerable to wire strikes than resident breeders. Also, 

many species appear to be most highly susceptible to collisions when alarmed, pursued, 

searching for food while flying, engaged in courtship, taking off, landing, when otherwise 

preoccupied and not paying attention to where they are going, and during night and inclement 

weather (Thompson 1978). Sage-grouse and other upland game birds are vulnerable to colliding 

with transmission lines because they lack good acuity and because they are generally poor flyers 

(Bevanger 1995). 

 Meyer and Lee (1981) concluded that while waterfowl (in Oregon and Washington) are 

especially susceptible to colliding with transmission lines, no adverse population or ecological 

results occurred because all species affected were common and because collisions occurred in 

less than 1% of all flight observations. A similar conclusion was reached by Stout and Cornwell 

(1976), who suggested that less than 0.1% of all nonhunting waterfowl mortality nationwide 

result from collisions with transmission lines. The potential for waterfowl and wading birds to 

collide with the transmission lines could be assumed to be related to the extent of preferred 

habitats crossed by the lines and the extent of other waterfowl and wading bird habitats within 

the immediate area. 

 Raptors have several attributes that decrease their susceptibility to collisions with 

transmission lines: (1) they have keen eyesight; (2) they soar or use relatively slow flapping 

flight; (3) they are generally maneuverable while in flight; (4) they learn to use utility poles and 

structures as hunting perches or nests and become conditioned to the presence of lines; and 

(5) they do not fly in groups (like waterfowl), so their position and altitude are not determined by 

other birds. Therefore, raptors are not as likely to collide with transmission lines unless they are 

distracted (e.g., while pursuing prey) or other environmental factors (e.g., weather) contribute to 

increased susceptibility (Olendorff and Lehman 1986). 

 Some mortality resulting from bird collisions with transmission lines is considered 

unavoidable. However, anticipated mortality levels are not expected to result in long-term loss 

of population viability in any individual species or lead to a trend toward listing as a rare or 

endangered species, because mortality levels are anticipated to be low and spread over the life of 

the transmission lines. A variety of mitigation measures, such as those outlined in Avian 

Protection Plan (APP) Guidelines (APLIC and USFWS 2005) and Utah Field Office Guidelines 

for Raptor Protection from Human and Land Use Disturbances (Romin and Muck 2002) would 

minimize impacts on birds. 

 4.8.1.3.5 Exposure to Contaminants. Wildlife may be exposed to accidental spills or 

releases of product, fuel, herbicides, or other hazardous materials. Exposure to these materials 

could affect reproduction, growth, development, or survival. Potential impacts on wildlife would 

vary according to the type of material spilled, the volume of the spill, the media within which the 

spill occurs, the species exposed to the spilled material, and home range and density of the 

wildlife species. For example, as the size of a species’ home range increases, the effects of a 
Final OSTS PEIS 4-95 

spill would generally decrease (Irons et al. 2000). In general, small mammal species that have 

small home ranges and/or high densities per acre would be most affected by a land-based spill. 

A population-level adverse impact would be expected only if the spill was very large or 

contaminated a crucial habitat area where a large number of individual animals were 

concentrated. The potential for either event would be unlikely. Because the amounts of most 

fuels and other hazardous materials are expected to be small, an uncontained spill would affect 

only a limited area. In addition, wildlife use of the project area where contaminant spills may 

occur would be limited, thus greatly reducing the potential for exposure. 

 The potential effects on wildlife from a spill could occur from direct contamination of 

individual animals, contamination of habitats, and contamination of food resources. Acute 

(short-term) effects generally occur from direct contamination of animals; chronic (long-term) 

effects usually occur from such factors as accumulation of contaminants from food items and 

environmental media (Irons et al. 2000). Moderate to heavy contact with a contaminant is most 

often fatal to wildlife. In aquatic habitats, death occurs from hypothermia, shock, or drowning. In 

birds, chronic oil exposure can reduce reproduction, result in pathological conditions, reduce 

chick growth, and reduce hatching success (BLM 2002). Contaminated water could reduce 

emergent vegetation and invertebrate biomass, which provide a food resource for wildlife such as 

waterfowl, amphibians, and bats. The reduction or contamination of food resources from a spill 

could also reduce survival and reproductive rates. Contaminant ingestion during preening or 

feeding may impair endocrine and liver functions, reduce breeding success, and reduce growth of 

offspring (BLM 2002). 

 A land-based spill would contaminate a limited area. Therefore, a spill would affect 

relatively few individual animals and a relatively limited portion of the habitat or food resources 

for large-ranging species (e.g., moose, mule deer, pronghorn, elk, and black bear). It would be 

unlikely that a land-based spill would cause major impacts on movement (e.g., block migration) 

or foraging activities at the population (herd) level, largely because of the vast amount of 

surrounding habitat that would remain unaffected (BLM 2002). 

 Human presence and activities associated with response to spills would also disturb 

wildlife in the vicinity of the spill site and spill-response staging areas. In addition to displacing 

wildlife from areas undergoing contaminant cleanup activities, habitat damage could also occur 

from cleanup activities (BLM 2002). Avoidance of contaminated areas by wildlife during 

cleanup because of disturbance would minimize the potential for wildlife to be exposed to 

contaminants before site cleanup is completed. 

 Most herbicides used on BLM-administered lands pose little or no risk to wildlife or wild 

horses and burros unless they are exposed to accidental spills, direct spray, or herbicide drift, or 

they consume herbicide-treated vegetation (BLM 2007b). The licensed use of herbicides would 

not be expected to adversely affect local wildlife populations. Applications of these materials 

would be conducted by following label directions and in accordance with applicable permits and 

licenses. Thus, any adverse toxicological threat from herbicides to wildlife is unlikely. The 

response of wildlife to herbicide use is attributable to habitat changes resulting from treatment 

rather than direct toxic effects of the applied herbicide on wildlife. However, accidental spills or 

releases of these materials could affect exposed wildlife. Effects could include death, organ 
Final OSTS PEIS 4-96 

damage, growth decrease, and decrease in reproductive output and condition of offspring 

(BLM 2007b). 

 Herbicide treatment reduced structural and floral complexity of vegetation on clear-cuts 

in Maine, resulting in lower overall abundance of birds and small mammals because of a 

decrease in invertebrate and plant foods and cover associated with decreased habitat complexity 

(Santillo et al. 1989a,b). However, some researchers have found increases in small mammal 

numbers because of increases in species that use grassy habitats (particularly microtine rodents). 

Nevertheless, small mammal communities rapidly returned to pretreatment numbers (e.g., within 

a 2-year period) because of regrowth of vegetation damaged by herbicides (Anthony and 

Morrison 1985). Moose tended to avoid herbicide-treated areas of clear-cuts as browse was less 

available for 2 years post-treatment. When they did feed in treated clear-cuts, they fed heavily 

in areas that were inadvertently skipped by spraying (Santillo 1994; Eschholtz et al. 1996). 

Selective herbicide use (e.g., cut-stump treatments) encourages the development of shrub habitat 

without negatively affecting birds nesting in such habitats (Marshall and Vandruff 2002). 

 Wildlife can be exposed to herbicides by being directly sprayed, inhaling spray mist or 

vapors, drinking contaminated water, feeding on or otherwise coming in contact with treated 

vegetation or animals that have been contaminated, and directly consuming the chemical if it is 

applied in granular form (DOE 2000). Raptors, small herbivorous mammals, medium-sized 

omnivorous mammals, and birds that feed on insects are more susceptible to herbicide exposure 

because they either feed directly on vegetation that might have been treated or feed on animals 

that feed on the vegetation. The potential for toxic effects would depend on the toxicity of the 

herbicide and the amount of exposure to the chemical. In general, smaller animals are more at 

risk as it takes less substance for them to be affected (DOE 2000). 

 Indirect adverse effects on wildlife from herbicides would include a reduction in 

availability of preferred forage, habitat, and breeding areas because of a decrease in plant 

diversity; decrease in wildlife population densities as a result of limited vegetation regeneration; 

habitat and range disruption because wildlife may avoid sprayed areas following treatment; and 

increase in predation of small mammals because of the loss of ground cover (BLM 2007b). 

However, population-level impacts on unlisted wildlife species are unlikely because of the 

limited size and distribution of treated areas relative to those of the wildlife populations and the 

foraging area, and the behavior of individual animals (BLM 2007b). 

 Wildlife species that consume grass (e.g., deer, elk, rabbits and hares, quail, and geese) 

are at potentially higher risk from herbicides than species that eat other vegetation and seeds, 

because herbicide residue tends to be higher on grass. However, harmful effects are not likely 

unless the animal forages exclusively within the treated area shortly after application. Similarly, 

bats, shrews, and numerous bird species that feed on herbicide-contaminated insects could be at 

risk (BLM 2005). 

Wildlife species may suffer from chronic or acute exposure to contaminants such as 

selenium, various metals, oil and grease, and PAHs that occur in wastewater impoundments and 

evaporation ponds (Ramirez 1997, 1999, 2000, 2008). The potential also exists for wildlife to 

drown if trapped in these water bodies. Even wildlife that escape the ponds may ingest toxic 
Final OSTS PEIS 4-97 

levels of contaminants as they try to clean themselves or may die from cold stress if 

contaminants such as oil damage insulation properties of fur or feathers (Ramirez 1999, 2000). 

Up to 1 million birds die annually in the United States in oilfield wastewater disposal facilities 

(USFWS 2009); while thousands of birds are estimated to die annually in bitumen tailings ponds 

in the tar sands region of Alberta, Canada (Timoney and Ronconi 2010). Big game would be 

excluded from these ponds (e.g., by fencing the pond and/or development site); however, 

contaminant exposure could occur to small mammals (including bats) that gain access to such 

water bodies. 

 4.8.1.3.6 Erosion and Runoff. As described in Section 4.8.1.1, it is assumed that the 

potential for soil erosion and the resulting sediment loading of nearby aquatic or wetland habitats 

would be proportional to the amount of surface disturbance, the condition of disturbed lands at 

any given time, and the proximity to aquatic habitats. It is also assumed that areas being actively 

disturbed during mining or construction activities would have higher erosion potential than areas 

that are undergoing reclamation activities, and that areas being restored become progressively 

less prone to erosion over time because of the completion of site grading and the reestablishment 

of vegetated cover. Erosion and runoff from freshly cleared and graded sites could reduce water 

quality in aquatic and wetland habitats that are used by amphibians, potentially affecting their 

reproduction, growth, and survival. Any impacts on amphibian populations would be localized to 

the surface waters receiving site runoff. Although the potential for runoff would be temporary, 

pending completion of construction activities and stabilization of disturbed areas with vegetative 

cover, erosion could result in significant impacts on local amphibian populations if an entire 

recruitment class is eliminated (e.g., complete recruitment failure for a given year because of 

siltation of eggs or mortality of aquatic larvae). Implementation of measures to control erosion 

and runoff into aquatic and wetland habitats would reduce the potential for impacts from 

increased turbidity and sedimentation. Assuming that reclamation activities are successful, 

restored areas should eventually become similar to natural areas in terms of erosion potential. 

 4.8.1.3.7 Fugitive Dust. Little information is available regarding the effects of fugitive 

dust on wildlife; however, if exposure is of sufficient magnitude and duration, the effects may 

be similar to the respiratory effects identified for humans (e.g., breathing and respiratory 

symptoms). A more probable effect would be from the dusting of plants that could make forage 

less palatable. Fugitive dust that settles on forage may render it unpalatable for wildlife and wild 

horses, which could increase competition for remaining forage. The highest dust deposition 

would generally occur within the area where wildlife and wild horses would be disturbed by 

human activities (BLM 2004b). Fugitive dust generation during construction activities is 

expected to be short term and localized to the immediate construction area and is not expected 

to result in any long-term individual or population-level effects. Dusting impacts would be 

potentially more pervasive along unpaved access roads. 

 4.8.1.3.8 Invasive Vegetation. Utility corridors and access roads can facilitate the 

dispersal of invasive species by altering existing habitat conditions, stressing or removing native 

species, and allowing easier movement by wild or human vectors (Trombulak and Frissell 2000). 
Final OSTS PEIS 4-98 

Wildlife habitat could be affected if invasive vegetation becomes established in the constructiondisturbed areas and adjacent off-site habitats. The establishment of invasive vegetation could 

reduce habitat quality for wildlife and affect wildlife occurrence and abundance locally. The 

introduction or spread of non-native plants would be detrimental to wildlife such as neotropical 

migrants and sage-grouse by reducing or fragmenting habitat, increasing soil erosion, or reducing 

forage (BLM 2006a). 

 4.8.1.3.9 Fires. Increased human activity can increase the potential for fires. In general, 

short-term and long-term effects of fire on wildlife are related to fire impacts on vegetation, 

which in turn affect habitat quality and quantity, including the availability of forage shelter 

(Groves and Steenhof 1988; Sharpe and Van Horne 1998; Lyon et al. 2000b; USDA 2008a–c; 

Hedlund and Rickard 1981; Knick and Dyer 1996; Watts and Knick 1996; Schooley et al. 1996). 

 While individuals caught in a fire could incur increased mortality, depending on how 

quickly the fire spreads, most wildlife would be expected to escape by either outrunning the 

fire or seeking underground or aboveground refuge within the fire (Ford et al. 1999; 

Lyon et al. 2000a). However, some mortality of burrowing mammals from asphyxiation in 

their burrows during fire has been reported (Erwin and Stasiak 1979). 

 In the absence of long-term vegetation changes, rodents in grasslands usually show a 

decrease in density after a fire; they often recover, however, to achieve densities similar to or 

greater than those of preburn levels (Beck and Vogel 1972; Lyon et al. 2000b; USDA 2008d). 

Long-term changes in vegetation from a fire (such as loss of sagebrush or the invasion or 

increase of non-native annual grasses) may affect food availability and quality and habitat 

availability for wildlife; the changes could also increase the risk from predation for some species 

(Hedlund and Rickard 1981; Groves and Steenhof 1988; Knick and Dyer 1997; Watts and 

Knick 1996; Schooley et al. 1996; Lyon et al. 2000b; USDA 2008b,c). 

 In the short term, fires may benefit raptors by reducing cover and exposing prey; 

raptors may also benefit if prey species increase in response to post-fire increases in forage 

(Lyon et al. 2000b; USDA 2008d). Direct mortality of raptors from fire is rare (Lehman and 

Allendorf 1989), although fire-related mortality of burrowing owls has been documented 

(USDA 2008d). Most adult birds can be expected to escape fire, while fire during nesting (prior 

to fledging) may kill young birds, especially of ground-nesting species (USDA 2008d). Fires in 

wooded areas, such as pinyon-juniper woodlands, could decrease population of raptors that nest 

in these habitats. Potential loss of nesting, perching, and roosting trees (or low woody or 

herbaceous vegetation nesting habitat for species such as the northern harrier), but enhancement 

of prey base from fires, is generally noted for raptor species that occur in the study area (Snyder 

1993, Sullivan 1994; Tesky 1994a–e). For raptor species such as the prairie falcon that nest on 

cliffs, a fire (associated with project construction or operation) would not be expected to destroy 

their nesting habitat (Tesky 1994f). A fire could cause a loss of preferred nesting and foraging 

habitat for the great horned owl if forested areas burn (Sullivan 1995). Nesting habitat for the 

short-eared owl (open areas with dense, tall herbaceous plants) could be affected by a fire 

(Howard 1994), Burrowing owls would mostly be unharmed by a fire if in their underground 
Final OSTS PEIS 4-99 

burrows, although asphyxiation might occur (Howard 1996). Mitigation measures for wildlife 

are presented in Section 4.8.2.3. 

4.8.1.4 Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Species 

 The evaluation in this PEIS presents the potential for oil shale development impacts on 

federally and state-listed threatened and endangered species, BLM-designated sensitive species, 

and species that are proposed or candidates for listing. The discussion of impacts in this section 

presents the types of impacts that could occur if mitigation measures are not developed to protect 

listed and sensitive species. Project-specific NEPA assessments, ESA consultations, and 

coordination with state natural resource agencies will address project-specific impacts more 

thoroughly. These assessments and consultations will result in required actions to avoid or 

mitigate impacts on protected species. 

 The potential for impacts on threatened, endangered, and sensitive species of commercial 

oil shale development, including ancillary facilities, such as access roads, power plants, and 

transmission systems, is directly related to the amount of land disturbance, the duration and 

timing of construction and operation periods, and the habitats affected by development. Indirect 

effects, such as impacts resulting from the erosion of disturbed land surfaces and disturbance and 

harassment of animal species, are also considered, but their magnitude also is expected to be 

proportional to the amount of land disturbance. 

 Impacts on threatened, endangered, and sensitive species are similar to or the same as 

those described for impacts on aquatic resources; plant communities and habitats; and wildlife in 

Sections 4.8.1.1, 4.8.1.2, and 4.8.1.3, respectively, but the potential consequence of the impacts 

may be greater. Because of small population sizes, threatened, endangered, and sensitive species 

are far more vulnerable to impacts than more common and widespread species. Small population 

size makes these species more vulnerable than common species to the effects of habitat 

fragmentation, habitat alteration, habitat degradation, human disturbance and harassment, 

mortality of individuals, and the loss of genetic diversity. Specific impacts associated with 

development would depend on the locations of projects relative to species populations and the 

specific characteristics of project development. 

 The potential magnitude of the impacts that could result from oil shale development is 

presented for different species types in Table 4.8.1-4. Unlike some projects where there are 

discrete construction and operation phases with different associated impacts, oil shale 

development projects include facility construction and extraction activities that would have 

similar types of impacts throughout the life of the project. Project construction and extraction 

activities would occur over a period of several decades. Land reclamation activities that would 

occur after extraction activities are complete would serve to reduce or eliminate ongoing impacts 

by restoring habitats and ecological conditions that could be suitable for threatened, endangered, 

and sensitive species. The effectiveness of any reclamation activities would depend on the 

specific actions taken, but the best results would occur if site topography, hydrology, soils, and 

vegetation patterns were reestablished. 
TABLE 4.8.1-4 Potential Impacts of Commercial Oil Shale Development on Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Species Impact Category Potential Magnitude of Impacts According to Species Typ

Upland Plants Wetland and Riparian Plants Aquatic and Wetland Animalsb Terrestrial Amphibians and Reptiles Terrestria

Birds 

Vegetation clearing Large Large Large Large Large Habitat fragmentation Moderate Moderate Moderate Large Large Blockage of movement and dispersal Moderate Moderate Large Moderate Small 

Water depletions Small Large Large Small Moderate Stream impoundment and changes in flow pattern Large Large Large Large Large Alteration of topography and drainage patterns Moderate Large Large Small Small Erosion Large Large Large Small Small Sedimentation from runoff Large Large Large Small Small Oil and contaminant spills Moderate Large Large Large Small Fugitive dust Moderate Moderate Small Small Small Injury or mortality of individuals Large Large Large Large Large Human collection Large Moderate Small Moderate Small Human disturbance/harassment None None Large Moderate Large Increased human access Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Large 

Increased predation rates None None Moderate Moderate Moderate Noise None None None Small Large 

Spread of invasive plant species Large Large Moderate Moderate Moderate Air pollution Moderate Moderate Small Small Small Disruption of groundwater flow patterns Small Moderate Moderate Small Small Temperature increases in water bodies None Moderate Moderate None None a Potential impact magnitude (without mitigation) that might be expected from individual development projects is present

small, moderate, or large. A small impact is one that is limited to the immediate project area, affects a relatively small p

the local population (less than 10%), and does not result in a measurable change in carrying capacity or population size area. A moderate impact could extend beyond the immediate project area, affect an intermediate proportion of the local to 30%, and result in a measurable but moderate (not destabilizing) change in carrying capacity or population size in the 

A large impact would extend beyond the immediate project area, could affect more than 30% of a local population, and large, measurable, and destabilizing change in carrying capacity or population size in the affected area. 

b Aquatic and wetland animals include invertebrates (mollusks and arthropods), fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mam
Final OSTS PEIS 4-101 

 Post-lease land clearing and construction activities could remove potentially suitable 

habitat for threatened, endangered, and sensitive plant and animal species. Any plants present 

within the project areas would be destroyed, and plants adjacent to project areas could be 

affected by runoff from the site either through erosion or sedimentation and burial of individual 

plants or habitats. In addition, fugitive dust from site activities could accumulate in adjacent 

areas occupied by listed plants. Dust that accumulates on leaf surfaces can reduce photosynthesis 

and subsequently affect plant vigor. Disturbed areas could be colonized by non-native invasive 

plant species. 

 Larger, more mobile animals, such as birds, and medium-sized or large mammals would 

be most likely to leave the project area during site preparation, construction, and other project 

activities. Development of the site would represent a loss of habitat for these species and 

potentially a reduction in carrying capacity in the area. Smaller animals, such as small mammals, 

lizards, snakes, and amphibians, are more likely to be killed during clearing and construction 

activities. If land clearing and construction activities occurred during the spring and summer, 

bird nests and nestlings in the project area could be destroyed. 

 Operations could affect protected plants and animals as well. Animals in and adjacent to 

project areas would be disturbed by human activities and would tend to avoid the area while 

activities were occurring. Site lighting and operational noise from equipment would affect 

animals on and off the site, resulting in avoidance or reduction in use of an area larger than 

the project footprint. Runoff from the site during site operations could result in erosion and 

sedimentation of adjacent habitats. Fugitive dust during operations could affect adjacent plant 

populations. 

 For all potential impacts, the use of mitigation measures, possibly including 

predisturbance surveys to locate protected plant and animal populations in the area, erosioncontrol practices, dust suppression techniques, establishment of buffer areas around protected 

populations, and reclamation of disturbed areas using native species upon project completion, 

would greatly reduce or eliminate the potential for effects on protected species. The specifics 

of these practices should be established in project-specific consultations with the appropriate 

federal and state agencies. ESA Section 7 consultations between the BLM and the USFWS 

would be required for all projects that have the potential to affect listed species before leased 

areas could be developed. Those consultations would identify conservation measures, allowable 

levels of incidental take, and other requirements to protect listed species. Potential conservation 

measures for oil shale development have been developed jointly by the BLM and USFWS to 

avoid and minimize impacts of commercial oil shale development on federally listed threatened 

and endangered species (Appendix F) and could be applied, if deemed appropriate, and in 

consultation with the USFWS, at the lease or development stage of potential future projects. 

 Tables 4.8.1-5 and 4.8.1-6 identify the federally and state-listed threatened, endangered, 

and sensitive species that could be affected by commercial oil shale development in Colorado, 

Utah, and Wyoming counties. The two tables consider separately the impacts on state-listed 

threatened and endangered species and species of special concern, federal candidates for listing, 

and BLM-designated sensitive species (Table 4.8.1-5), and on federally listed threatened, 

endangered, and proposed species (Table 4.8.1-6). In both tables, a determination is made 
TABLE 4.8.1-5 Potential Impacts of Commercial Oil Shale Development on BLM-Designated Sensitive Species, Fed

Listing, and State Species of Special Concern Scientific Name Common Name Statusa States and Counties in Which Species May Occur Potentia

Plants Abies concolor White fir WY-SC WY-Sweetwater Potential for negative im

occur in the study area. Achnatherum swallenii Swallen mountain-ricegrass WY-SC WY-Lincoln, Sublette Potential for negative im

occur in the study area. Amsonia jonesii Jones blue star BLM-S UT-Duchesne, Emery, Garfield, Grand, San Juan, Uintah, Wayne Potential for negative im

occur in the study area. Androstephium breviflorum Purple funnel-lily WY-SC WY-Sweetwater Potential for negative im

occur in the study area. Antennaria arcuata Meadow pussytoes BLM-S; WY-SC WY-Sublette No impact. Suitable hab

study area. 

Aquilegia scopulorum var. goodrichii

Utah columbine BLM-S UT-Carbon, Duchesne, Emery, 

Grand, Uintah 

Potential for negative imoccur in the study area.

Arabis vivariensis Park rockcress BLM-S UT-Uintah Potential for negative im

occur in the study area.

Artemisia biennis var.diffusa 

Mystery wormwood BLM-S; WY-SC WY-Sweetwater Potential for negative im

occur in the study area. 

Astragalus bisulcatus var. haydenianus 

Hayden’s milkvetch WY-SC WY-Sweetwater, Uinta Potential for negative im

occur in the study area. 

Astragalus calycosus var. calycosus 

King’s milkvetch WY-SC WY-Sweetwater, Uinta Potential for negative im

occur in the study area. 

Astragalus coltonii var.moabensis 

Moab milkvetch WY-SC WY-Sweetwater, Uinta Potential for negative im

occur in the study area. 
TABLE 4.8.1-5 (Cont.) Scientific Name Common Name Statusa States and Counties in Which Species May Occur Potentia

Plants (Cont.) Astragalus debequaeus Debeque milkvetch BLM-S CO-Garfield Potential for negative im

occur in the study area. Astragalus detritalis Debris milkvetch BLM-S CO-Rio Blanco; UT-Duchesne, Uintah Potential for negative im

occur in the study area. Astragalus duchesnensis Duchesne milkvetch BLM-S CO-Rio Blanco; UT-Duchesne, Uintah Potential for negative im

occur in the study area. Astragalus equisolensis Horseshoe milkvetch BLM-S UT-Uintah Potential for negative im

occur in the study area. Astragalus hamiltonii Hamilton’s milkvetch BLM-S UT-Uintah Potential for negative im

in upland habitats of Uta

Astragalus lentiginosus var. salinus 

Sodaville milkvetch WY-SC WY-Lincoln, Uinta Potential for negative im

occur in the study area. 

Astragalus musiniensis Ferron milkvetch BLM-S CO-Garfield; UT-Emery, Garfield, 

Grand, Wayne 

Potential for negative imoccur in the study area. 

Astragalus naturitensis Naturita milkvetch BLM-S CO-Garfield; UT-San Juan Potential for negative im

occur in the study area. 

Astragalus paysonii Payson’s milkvetch WY-SC WY-Lincoln, Sublette Potential for negative im

occur in the study area. 

Astragalus proimanthus Precocious milkvetch BLM-S; WY-SC WY-Sweetwater Potential for negative im

occur in the study area. 

Astragalus racemosus var. treleasei 

Trelease’s racemose milkvetch 

BLM-S; WY-SC WY-Sublette, Uinta Potential for negative im

occur in the study area. 
TABLE 4.8.1-5 (Cont.) Scientific Name Common Name Statusa States and Counties in Which Species May Occur Potentia

Plants (Cont.) Atriplex falcata Sickle saltbush WY-SC WY-Sublette, Sweetwater, Uinta Potential for negative im

occur in the study area. Atriplex wolfii Wolf’s orache WY-SC WY-Sweetwater Potential for negative im

occur in the study area. Boechera crandallii Crandall’s rockcress WY-SC WY-Sweetwater Potential for negative im

occur in the study area. Boechera selbyi Selby’s rockcress WY-SC WY-Sweetwater Potential for negative im

occur in the study area. Bolophyta ligulata Ligulate feverfew BLM-S CO-Rio Blanco Potential for negative im

occur in the study area. 

Brickellia microphylla var. scabra 

Little-leaved brickell-bush WY-SC WY-Sweetwater Potential for negative im

occur in the study area. 

Ceanothus martinii Utah mountain lilac WY-SC WY-Lincoln, Sweetwater No impact. Suitable hab

study area. 

Cercocarpus ledifolius var. intricatus 

Dwarf mountain mahogany WY-SC WY-Sweetwater Potential for negative im

occur in the study area. 

Chamaechaen-actis scaposa 

Fullstem WY-SC WY-Sweetwater Potential for negative im

occur in the study area. 

Chrysothamnus greenei Greene rabbitbrush WY-SC WY-Sweetwater Potential for negative im

occur in the study area. 

Cirsium aridum Cedar Rim thistle BLM-S; WY-SC WY-Sublette, Sweetwater Potential for negative im

occur in the study area. 
TABLE 4.8.1-5 (Cont.) Scientific Name Common Name Statusa States and Counties in Which Species May Occur Potentia

Plants (Cont.) Cirsium ownbeyi Ownbey’s thistle BLM-S; WY-SC UT-Uintah; WY Sweetwater Potential for negative im

occur in the study area. Cirsium perplexans Adobe thistle BLM-S CO-Garfield Potential for negative im

occur in the study area. Cleomella palmeriana var. goodrichii Goodrich cleomella BLM-S UT-Uintah Potential for negative im

occur in the study area. Collomia grandiflora Large-flower collomia WY-SC WY-Lincoln Potential for negative imoccur in the study area. Cryptantha barnebyi Barneby’s cat’s-eye BLM-S UT-Uintah Potential for negative im

occur in the study area.

Cryptantha caespitosa Caespitose cat’s-eye BLM-S CO-Rio Blanco; UT-Carbon, 

Duchesne, Uintah 

Potential for negative imoccur in the study area. 

Cryptantha gracilis Slender cryptantha WY-SC WY-Sweetwater Potential for negative im

occur in the study area. 

Cryptantha grahamii Graham’s cat’s-eye BLM-S UT-Uintah Potential for negative im

occur in the study area.

Cryptantha rollinsii Rollins’ cat’s eye BLM-S; WY-SC CO-Rio Blanco; UT-Duchesne, 

San Raphael, Uintah, Wayne; WY-Sweetwater 

Potential for negative imoccur in the study area. 

Cymopterus duchesnensis 

Uinta Basin spring-parsley BLM-S CO-Rio Blanco; UT-Duchesne, 

Uintah 

Potential for negative imoccur in the study area. 

Descurainia pinnata var. paysonii 

Payson’s tansy mustard WY-SC WY-Sweetwater Potential for negative im

occur in the study area. 
TABLE 4.8.1-5 (Cont.) Scientific Name Common Name Statusa States and Counties in Which Species May Occur Potentia

Plants (Cont.) Descurainia torulosa Wyoming tansymustard BLM-S; WY-SC WY-Sweetwater Potential for negative im

occur in the study area. Downingia laeta Great Basin downingia WY-SC WY-Uinta Potential for negative im

occur in the study area. Draba juniperina Uinta draba WY-SC WY-Sweetwater, Uinta Potential for negative im

occur in the study area. Elymus simplex var. luxurians Long-awned alkali wild-rye WY-SC WY-Sweetwater Potential for negative im

occur in the study area. Ephedra viridis var. viridis Green Mormon tea WY-SC WY-Sweetwater Potential for negative im

occur in the study area. 

Eriastrum wilcoxii Wilcox eriastrum WY-SC WY-Sweetwater Potential for negative im

occur in the study area. 

Erigeron compactus var. consimilis 

San Rafael daisy WY-SC WY-Sweetwater Potential for negative im

occur in the study area. 

Eriogonum contortum Grand buckwheat BLM-S CO-Garfield; UT-Grand Potential for negative im

occur in the study area. 

Eriogonum corymbosum var.corymbosum 

Crisp-leaf wild buckwheat WY-SC WY-Sweetwater Potential for negative im

occur in the study area. 

Eriogonum divaricatum Divergent wild buckwheat WY-SC WY-Lincoln, Sublette, Sweetwater, 

Uinta 

Potential for negative im

occur in the study area. 

Eriogonum ephedroides Ephedra buckwheat BLM-S CO-Rio Blanco; UT Uintah Potential for negative im

occur in the study area. 
TABLE 4.8.1-5 (Cont.) Scientific Name Common Name Statusa States and Counties in Which Species May Occur Potentia

Plants (Cont.) Eriogonum hookeri Hooker wild buckwheat WY-SC WY-Sweetwater Potential for negative im

occur in the study area. Frasera ackermanae Ackerman frasera BLM-S UT-Uintah Potential for negative imoccur in the study area. Galium coloradoense Colorado bedstraw WY-SC WY-Sweetwater Potential for negative imoccur in the study area. Gentianella tortuosa Utah gentian BLM-S CO-Rio Blanco; UT-Duchesne, Emery, Garfield, Uintah Potential for negative im

occur in the study area. Gilia stenothyrsa Narrow-stem gilia BLM-S CO-Rio Blanco; UT Carbon, Duchesne, Emery, Uintah Potential for negative im

occur in the study area. 

Glossopetalon spinescens var.meionandrum 

Utah greasebush WY-SC WY-Sweetwater Potential for negative im

occur in the study area. 

Hymenoxys lapidicola Rock hymenoxyz BLM-S UT-Uintah Potential for negative im

occur in the study area.

Lathyrus lanszwertii var. lanszwertii 

Nevada sweetpea WY-SC WY-Uinta Potential for negative im

occur in the study area. 

Lepidium huberi Huber’s pepperplant BLM-S UT-Uintah Potential for negative im

occur in the study area.

Lepidium integrifolium var. integrifolium 

Entire-leaved peppergrass BLM-S; WY-SC WY-Lincoln, Uinta Potential for negative im

occur in the study area. 

Lesquerella macrocarpa 

Large-fruited bladderpod BLM-S; WY-SC WY-Lincoln, Sublette, Sweetwater Potential for negative im

occur in the study area. 
TABLE 4.8.1-5 (Cont.) Scientific Name Common Name Statusa States and Counties in Which Species May Occur Potentia

Plants (Cont.) Lesquerella multiceps Western bladderpod BLM-S; WY-SC WY-Lincoln Potential for negative im

occur in the study area. Lesquerella parviflora Piceance bladderpod BLM-S CO-Garfield, Rio Blanco Potential for negative im

occur in the study area. Lesquerella parvula Narrow-leaved bladderpod WY-SC WY-Sweetwater, Uinta Potential for negative im

occur in the study area. Lesquerella prostrata Prostrate bladderpod WY-SC WY-Lincoln, Uinta Potential for negative im

occur in the study area. Listera borealis Northern twayblade BLM-S CO-Garfield; UT- Duchesne, San Juan; WY Sublette Potential for negative im

occur in the study area. 

Lomatium triternatum var. anomalum 

Ternate desert-parsley WY-SC WY-Lincoln Potential for negative im

occur in the study area. 

Mentzelia goodrichii Goodrich’s blazingstar BLM-S UT-Duchesne, Uintah Potential for negative im

occur in the study area.

Mentzelia rhizomata Roan Cliffs blazingstar BLM-S CO-Garfield Potential for negative im

occur in the study area. 

Minuartia nuttallii Nuttall sandwort BLM-S UT Duchesne; WY Lincoln, Sublette, 

Sweetwater, Uinta 

Potential for negative imoccur in the study area. 

Monolepis pusilla Red poverty-weed WY-SC WY-Sweetwater Potential for negative im

occur in the study area. 

Opuntia polyacantha var. juniperina 

Juniper prickly-pear WY-SC WY-Sublette, Sweetwater Potential for negative im

occur in the study area. 
TABLE 4.8.1-5 (Cont.) Scientific Name Common Name Statusa States and Counties in Which Species May Occur Potentia

Plants (Cont.) Opuntia polyacantha var. rufispina Rufous-spine prickly-pear WY-SC WY-Lincoln, Sweetwater Potential for negative im

occur in the study area. Oxytheca dendroidea Tree-like oxytheca WY-SC WY-Sweetwater Potential for negative im

occur in the study area. Oxytropis besseyi var. obnapiformis Maybell locoweed WY-SC WY-Sweetwater, Uinta No impact. Suitable hab

study area. Packera crocata Saffron groundsel WY-SC WY-Sweetwater Potential for negative im

occur in the study area. Parthenium ligulatum Ligulate feverfew BLM-S CO-Rio Blanco; UT-Wayne Potential for negative im

occur in the study area. 

Penstemon acaulis var.acaulis 

Stemless beardtongue BLM-S; WY-SC WY-Sweetwater Potential for negative im

occur in the study area. 

Penstemon gibbensii Gibbens’ beardtongue BLM-S; WY-SC WY-Sweetwater Potential for negative im

occur in the study area. 

Penstemon harringtonii Harrington beardtongue BLM-S CO-Garfield Potential for negative im

occur in the study area. 

Penstemon laricifolius ssp. exilifolius 

White beardtongue WY-SC WY-Sublette Potential for negative im

occur in the study area. 

Penstemon scariosus var. albifluvis 

White River beardtongue ESA-C; CO-Rio Blanco; UT-Uintah Potential for negative im

occur in the study area. 

Penstemon scariosus var. garrettii 

Garrett’s beardtongue WY-SC WY-Sweetwater, Uinta Potential for negative im

occur in the study area. 
TABLE 4.8.1-5 (Cont.) Scientific Name Common Name Statusa States and Counties in Which Species May Occur Potentia

Plants (Cont.) Phacelia argylensis Argyle Canyon phacelia BLM-S UT-Uintah Potential for negative im

occur in the study area. Phacelia demissa Intermountain phacelia WY-SC WY-Sweetwater Potential for negative imoccur in the study area. Phacelia glandulosa var. deserta Desert glandular phacelia WY-SC WY-Lincoln, Sublette, Sweetwater Potential for negative im

occur in the study area. Phacelia incana Western phacelia WY-SC WY-Sweetwater Potential for negative im

occur in the study area. Phacelia salina Nelson phacelia WY-SC WY-Lincoln, Sublette, Sweetwater, Uinta Potential for negative im

occur in the study area. 

Phacelia tetramera Tiny phacelia WY-SC WY-Sweetwater Potential for negative im

occur in the study area. 

Philadelphus microphyllus var.occidentalis 

Little-leaf mock-orange WY-SC WY-Sweetwater Potential for negative im

occur in the study area. 

Phlox albomarginata White-margined phlox WY-SC WY-Lincoln Potential for negative im

occur in the study area. 

Phlox pungens Beaver Rim phlox BLM-S; WY-SC WY-Lincoln, Sublette Potential for negative im

occur in the study area. 

Physaria condensata Tufted twinpod BLM-S; WY-SC WY-Lincoln, Sublette, Uinta Potential for negative im

occur in the study area. 

Physaria dornii Dorn’s twinpod BLM-S; WY-SC WY-Lincoln, Uinta Potential for negative im

occur in the study area. 
TABLE 4.8.1-5 (Cont.) Scientific Name Common Name Statusa States and Counties in Which Species May Occur Potentia

Plants (Cont.) Physocarpus alternans Dwarf ninebark WY-SC WY-Sweetwater Potential for negative im

occur in the study area. Populus deltoides var. wislizeni Fremont cottonwood WY-SC WY-Sweetwater Potential for negative im

occur in the study area. Potentilla multisecta Deep Creek cinquefoil WY-SC WY-Sweetwater, Uinta Potential for negative im

occur in the study area. Psilocarphus brevissimus Dwarf woolly-heads WY-SC WY-Sublette Potential for negative im

occur in the study area. Ranunculus flabellaris Yellow water-crowfoot WY-SC WY-Uinta Potential for negative im

occur in the study area. 

Rorippa calycina Persistent sepal yellowcress BLM-S; WY-SC WY-Sweetwater Potential for negative im

occur in the study area. 

Sambucus cerulea Blue elderberry WY-SC WY-Sweetwater Potential for negative im

occur in the study area. 

Senecio spartioides var.multicapitatus 

Many-headed broom groundsel 

WY-SC WY-Sweetwater Potential for negative im

occur in the study area. 

Silene douglasii Douglas’ campion WY-SC WY-Lincoln Potential for negative im

occur in the study area. 

Thelesperma caespitosum 

Green River greenthread BLM-S; WY-SC WY-Sweetwater; UT-Duchesne Potential for negative im

occur in the study area. 

Thelesperma pubescens Uinta greenthread BLM-S; WY-SC WY-Sweetwater, Uinta; 

UT-Duchesne 

Potential for negative imoccur in the study area. 
TABLE 4.8.1-5 (Cont.) Scientific Name Common Name Statusa States and Counties in Which Species May Occur Potentia

Plants (Cont.) Townsendia microcephala Cedar Mountain Easter- daisy BLM-S; WY-SC WY-Sweetwater, Uinta Potential for negative im

occur in the study area. Townsendia strigosa Strigose Easter-daisy BLM-S UT-Duchesne, Uintah Potential for negative im

occur in the study area. Yucca sterilis Spanish bayonet BLM-S UT-Uintah Potential for negative im

occur in the study area. Invertebrates Speyeria nokomis nokomis Great Basin silverspot butterfly BLM-S UT-Duchesne, Uintah Potential for negative im

occur in the study area. Fish Catostomus discobolus Bluehead sucker BLM-S; WY-SC CO-Garfield, Rio Blanco; UTCarbon, Duchesne, Emery, Garfield, 

Grand, San Juan, Uintah; WY-Lincoln, Sublette, Sweetwater, Uinta 

Potential for negative imoccur in the study area. 

Catostomus latipinnis Flannelmouth sucker BLM-S; WY-SC CO-Garfield, Rio Blanco; UTCarbon, Duchesne, Emery, Garfield, 

Grand, San Juan, Uintah; Wayne; WY-Lincoln, Sublette, Sweetwater, Uinta 

Potential for negative imoccur in the study area. 

Castostomus platyrhynchus 

Mountain sucker BLM-S; CO-SC CO-Garfield, Rio Blanco; UTCarbon, Duchesne, Emery, Grand, 

Uintah; WY-Sweetwater, Uinta 

Potential for negative imoccur in the study area. 

Gila copei Leatherside chub BLM-S; UT-SC; 

WY-SC 

UT-Duchesne, Emery, Garfield, Wayne; WY Lincoln, Uinta 

No impact. Suitable habstudy area. 
TABLE 4.8.1-5 (Cont.) Scientific Name Common Name Statusa States and Counties in Which Species May Occur Potentia

Fish (Cont.) Gila robusta Roundtail chub BLM-S; CO-SC; WY-SC CO-Garfield, Rio Blanco; UT Carbon, Duchesne, Emery, Garfield, Grand, San Juan, Uintah, Wayne; WY-Lincoln, Sublette, Sweetwater, Uinta Potential for negative im

occur in the study area. Oncorhynchus clarkii pleuriticus Colorado River cutthroat trout BLM-S; CO-SC; WY-SC CO-Garfield, Rio Blanco; UT- Duchesne, Garfield, Uintah, Wayne; WY Lincoln, Sublette, Sweetwater, Uinta Potential for negative im

occur in the study area. Oncorhynchus clarkii utah Bonneville cutthroat trout BLM-S; WY-SC WY-Lincoln, Uinta Potential for negative im

occur in the study area. Amphibians 

Bufo boreas Boreal toad BLM-S; CO-E; 

UT-SC; WY-SC 

CO-Garfield, Rio Blanco; UT -Carbon, Duchesne, Emery, Garfield, Uintah, Wayne; WY-Lincoln, Sublette, Uinta 

Potential for negative imoccur in the study area. 

Rana luteiventris Columbia spotted frog BLM-S; WY-SC UT-Utah, Wasatch; WY-Lincoln, 

Sublette 

Potential for negative imoccur in the study area. 

Rana pipiens Northern leopard frog BLM-S; CO-SC; 

WY-SC 

CO-Garfield, Rio Blanco; UT Carbon, Duchesne, Emery, Garfield, Grand, San Juan, Uintah, Wayne; WY Lincoln, Sublette, Sweetwater, Uinta 

Potential for negative imoccur in the study area. 

Spea intermontana Great basin spadefoot BLM-S; WY-SC CO-Garfield, Rio Blanco; UT 

Carbon, Duchesne, Emery, Garfield, Grand, San Juan, Uintah, Wayne; WY Lincoln, Sweetwater, Uinta 

Potential for negative imoccur in the study area. 
TABLE 4.8.1-5 (Cont.) Scientific Name Common Name Statusa States and Counties in Which Species May Occur Potentia

Reptiles Charina bottae Northern rubber boa WY-SC WY-Lincoln, Uinta Potential for negative im

occur in the study area. Crotalus oreganus concolor Midget faded rattlesnake BLM-S; CO-SC CO-Garfield, Rio Blanco; WY-Sweetwater Potential for negative im

occur in the study area. Gambelia wislizenii Longnose leopard lizard BLM-S; CO-SC CO-Garfield Potential for negative im

occur in the study area. Liochlorophis vernalis Smooth greensnake BLM-S; UT-SC UT-Carbon, Duchesne, Grand, San Juan, Uintah Potential for negative im

occur in the study area. Pituophis catenifer deserticola Great Basin gophersnake WY-SC WY-Lincoln, Sweetwater, Uinta Potential for negative im

occur in the study area.

Urosaurus ornatus wright

Northern tree lizard WY-SC WY-Sweetwater, Uinta Potential for negative im

occur in the study area.

Birds 

Accipiter gentilis Northern goshawk BLM-S; WY-SC CO-Garfield, Rio Blanco; UT 

Carbon, Duchesne, Emery, Garfield, Grand, San Juan, Uintah, Wayne; WY-Lincoln, Sublette, Sweetwater, Uinta 

Potential for negative imoccur in the study area. 

Aechmophorus clarkii Clark’s grebe WY-SC WY-Lincoln Potential for negative im

occur in the study area. 

Aegolius funereus Boreal owl WY-SC WY Lincoln, Uinta No impact. Suitable hab

occur in the study area. 

Ammodramus bairdii Baird’s sparrow BLM-S; WY-SC WY-Uinta Potential for negative im

occur in the study area. 
TABLE 4.8.1-5 (Cont.) Scientific Name Common Name Statusa States and Counties in Which Species May Occur Potentia

Birds (Cont.) Ammodramus savannarum Grasshopper sparrow UT-SC; WY-SC UT-Duchesne, Uintah, Utah, Wasatch; WY-Lincoln, Sweetwater, Uinta Potential for negative im

occur in the study area. Amphispiza belli Sage sparrow BLM-S WY-Lincoln, Sublette, Sweetwater, Uinta Potential for negative im

occur in the study area. Aphelocoma californica Western scrub-jay WY-SC WY-Sweetwater Potential for negative im

occur in the study area. Asio flammeus Short-eared owl BLM-S; UT-SC; WY-SC UT-Carbon, Duchesne, Emery, Grand, Garfield, San Juan, Uintah, Wayne; WY-Lincoln, Sweetwater, Uinta Potential for negative im

occur in the study area. 

Athene cunicularia Burrowing owl BLM-S; CO-T; 

UT-SC; WY-SC 

CO Garfield, Rio Blanco; UTCarbon, Duchesne, Emery, Garfield, Grand, San Juan, Uintah, Wayne; WY-Lincoln, Sublette, Sweetwater, Uinta 

Potential for negative imoccur in the study area. 

Baeolophus ridgwayi Juniper titmouse WY-SC WY-Sweetwater Potential for negative im

occur in the study area. 

Botaurus lentiginosus American bittern WY-SC WY-Lincoln, Sweetwater, Uinta Potential for negative im

occur in the study area. 

Bucephala islandica Barrow’s goldeneye BLM-S CO-Garfield, Rio Blanco Potential for negative im

occur in the study area. 
TABLE 4.8.1-5 (Cont.) Scientific Name Common Name Statusa States and Counties in Which Species May Occur Potentia

Birds (Cont.) Buteo regalis Ferruginous hawk BLM-S; CO-SC; UT-SC; WY-SC CO-Garfield, Rio Blanco; UT Carbon, Duchesne, Emery, Garfield, Grand, San Juan, Uintah, Wayne; WY-Lincoln, Sublette, Sweetwater, Uinta Potential for negative im

occur in the study area. Calcarius mccownii McCown’s longspur WY-SC WY-Sweetwater No impact. Suitable hab

occur in the study area. Centrocercus urophasianus Greater sage-grouse ESA-C; BLM-S; CO-SC; UT-SC; WY-SC CO-Garfield, Rio Blanco; UT Carbon, Duchesne, Emery, Garfield, Grand, San Juan, Uintah, Wayne; WY-Lincoln, Sublette, Sweetwater, Uinta Potential for negative im

occur in the study area. 

Charadrius montanus Mountain plover BLM-S; CO-SC; 

UT-SC; WY-SC 

CO-Rio Blanco; WY-Lincoln, Sublette, Sweetwater 

Potential for negative imoccur in the study area. 

Chlidonias niger Black tern WY-SC WY-Lincoln, Sweetwater, Uinta Potential for negative im

occur in the study area.

Coccyzus americanus occidentalis 

Western yellow-billed cuckoo 

ESA-C; BLM-S; WY-SC 

UT-Duchesne, Garfield, Grand, San Juan, Uintah, Wayne 

Potential for negative imoccur in the study area. 

Cygnus buccinator Trumpeter swan WY-SC WY-Lincoln, Sublette, Sweetwater Potential for negative im

occur in the study area. 

Cypseloides niger Black swift BLM-S; CO-SC; 

UT-SC 

CO-Garfield, Rio Blanco; UT-Duchesne, Uintah 

Potential for negative imoccur in the study area. 

Dolichonyx oryzivorus Bobolink BLM-S; UT-SC UT-Carbon, Duchesne, Emery, 

Garfield, Grand, San Juan, Uintah, Wayne 

Potential for negative imoccur in the study area. 
TABLE 4.8.1-5 (Cont.) Scientific Name Common Name Statusa States and Counties in Which Species May Occur Potentia

Birds (Cont.) Egretta thula Snowy egret WY-SC WY-Lincoln, Sublette, Sweetwater, Uinta Potential for negative im

occur in the study area. Falco peregrinus anatum American peregrine falcon BLM-S; CO-SC CO-Garfield, Rio Blanco; WY-Sublette, Sweetwater Potential for negative imoccur in the study area. Gavia immer Common loon WY-SC WY-Lincoln, Sublette, Sweetwater, Uinta Potential for negative im

occur in the study area. Glaucidium gnoma Northern pygmy-owl WY-SC WY-Lincoln, Uinta Potential for negative imoccur in the study area. Grus canadensis tabida Greater sandhill crane CO-SC; WY-SC CO-Garfield, Rio Blanco; WY- Lincoln, Sweetwater, Uinta Potential for negative im

occur in the study area. 

Haliaeetus leucocephalus 

Bald eagle BLM-S; CO-T; 

WY-SC 

CO-Garfield, Rio Blanco; UT Carbon, Duchesne, Emery, Garfield, Grand, San Juan, Uintah, Wayne; WY-Lincoln, Sublette, Sweetwater, Uinta 

Potential for negative imoccur in the study area. 

Icterus parisorum Scott’s oriole WY-SC WY-Sweetwater Potential for negative im

occur in the study area. 

Lanius ludovicianus Loggerhead shrike WY-SC WY-Lincoln, Sublette, Sweetwater, 

Uinta 

Potential for negative imoccur in the study area. 

Leucosticte atrata Black rosy-finch WY-SC WY-Sweetwater, Lincoln Potential for negative im

occur in the study area.

Melanerpes lewis Lewis’s woodpecker BLM-S; UT-SC; 

WY-SC 

UT-Carbon, Duchesne, Emery, Garfield, Grand, San Juan, Uintah, Wayne; WY-Uinta 

Potential for negative imoccur in the study area. 
TABLE 4.8.1-5 (Cont.) Scientific Name Common Name Statusa States and Counties in Which Species May Occur Potentia

Birds (Cont.) Myiarchus cinerascens Ash-throated flycatcher WY-SC WY-Lincoln, Sweetwater, Uinta Potential for negative im

occur in the study area. Numenius americanus Long-billed curlew BLM-S; CO-SC; UT-SC; WY-SC CO-Garfield, Rio Blanco; UT-Carbon, Duchesne, Emery, Garfield, Grand, San Juan, Uintah, Wayne; WY-Lincoln, Sublette, Sweetwater, Uinta Potential for negative imoccur in the study area. Nycticorax nycticorax Black-crowned night-heron WY-SC WY-Lincoln, Sweetwater, Uinta Potential for negative imoccur in the study area. Oreoscoptes montanus Sage thrasher BLM-S; WY-SC WY-Lincoln, Sublette, Sweetwater, Uinta Potential for negative im

occur in the study area. 

Pelecanus erythrorhynchos 

American white pelican BLM-S; UT-SC CO-Garfield, UT-Carbon, Duchesne, 

Emery, Garfield, Grand, San Juan, Uintah, Wayne 

Potential for negative imoccur in the study area. 

Picoides arcticus Black-backed woodpecker WY-SC WY-Lincoln No impact. Suitable hab

occur in the study area. 

Picoides tridactylus Three-toed woodpecker BLM-S; UT-SC UT-Carbon, Duchesne, Emery, 

Garfield, Grand, San Juan, Uintah, Wayne 

No impact. Suitable haboccur in the study area. 

Plegadis chihi White-faced ibis BLM-S; WY-SC CO-Garfield, Rio Blanco; 

WY-Lincoln, Sublette, Sweetwater, Uinta 

Potential for negative im

occur in the study area. 

Psaltriparus minimus Bushtit WY-SC WY-Sweetwater, Uinta Potential for negative im

occur in the study area. 
TABLE 4.8.1-5 (Cont.) Scientific Name Common Name Statusa States and Counties in Which Species May Occur Potentia

Birds (Cont.) Rallus limicola Virginia rail WY-SC WY-Lincoln, Sublette, Sweetwater, Uinta Potential for negative im

occur in the study area. Sitta pygmaea Pygmy nuthatch WY-SC WY-Lincoln, Sublette Potential for negative imoccur in the study area. Sphyrapicus thyroideus Williamson’s sapsucker WY-SC WY-Lincoln, Sublette, Sweetwater, Uinta Potential for negative im

occur in the study area. Spizella breweri Brewer’s sparrow BLM-S; WY-SC WY-Lincoln, Sublette, Sweetwater, Uinta Potential for negative im

occur in the study area. Sterna caspia Caspian tern WY-SC WY-Lincoln Potential for negative im

occur in the study area. 

Sterna forsteri Forster’s tern WY-SC WY-Lincoln Potential for negative im

occur in the study area. 

Tympanuchus phasianellus columbianus 

Columbian sharp-tailed grouse 

BLM-S; CO-SC CO-Garfield, Rio Blanco Potential for negative im

occur in the study area. 

Mammals 

Antrozous pallidus Pallid bat WY-SC WY-Sweetwater Potential for negative im

occur in the study area. 

Brachylagus idahoensis Pygmy rabbit BLM-S; UT-SC; 

WY-SC 

UT-Garfield, Wayne; WY Lincoln, Sublette, Sweetwater, Uinta 

Potential for negative imoccur in the study area. 

Corynorhinus townsendii pallescens 

Townsend’s big-eared bat BLM-S; CO-SC; 

UT-SC; WY-SC 

CO-Garfield, Rio Blanco; UT-Carbon, Duchesne, Emery, Garfield, Grand, San Juan, Uintah, Wayne; WY-Sweetwater 

Potential for negative imoccur in the study area. 
TABLE 4.8.1-5 (Cont.) Scientific Name Common Name Statusa States and Counties in Which Species May Occur Potentia

Mammals (Cont.) Cynomys leucurus White-tailed prairie dog BLM-S; UT-SC; WY-SC UT-Carbon, Duchesne, Emery, Grand, Uintah; WY Lincoln, Sublette, Sweetwater, Uinta Potential for negative im

occur in the study area. Euderma maculatum Spotted bat BLM-S; UT-SC; WY-SC CO-Garfield, Rio Blanco; UT-Duchesne, Garfield, Grand, San Juan, Uintah, Wayne; WY Sweetwater Potential for negative im

occur in the study area. Glaucomys sabrinus Northern flying squirrel WY-SC WY-Lincoln, Sublette, Sweetwater, Uinta Potential for negative im

occur in the study area. Gulo gulo Wolverine CO-E; WY-SC CO-Garfield, Rio Blanco; WY-Lincoln, Sublette Potential for negative imoccur in the study area. 

Lasiurus blossevillii Western red bat BLM-S; UT-SC UT-Carbon, Emery, Grand, Garfield, 

San Juan, Wayne 

Potential for negative im

occur in the study area. 

Lontra Canadensis River otter WY-SC WY-Lincoln, Sublette, Sweetwater, 

Uinta 

Potential for negative imoccur in the study area.

Martes Americana American marten WY-SC WY-Lincoln, Sublette, Sweetwater, 

Uinta 

Potential for negative im

occur in the study area.

Microtus richardsoni Water vole WY-SC WY-Lincoln, Sublette, Uinta Potential for negative im

occur in the study area. 

Myotis ciliolabrum Western small-footed bat WY-SC WY-Lincoln, Sublette, Sweetwater, 

Uinta 

Potential for negative im

occur in the study area.

Myotis evotis Long-eared myotis BLM-S WY-Lincoln, Sublette, Sweetwater, 

Uinta 

Potential for negative imoccur in the study area. 
TABLE 4.8.1-5 (Cont.) Scientific Name Common Name Statusa States and Counties in Which Species May Occur Potentia

Mammals (Cont.) Myotis thysanodes Fringed myotis BLM-S; UT-SC; WY-SC CO-Garfield, Rio Blanco; UT-Duchesne, Garfield, Grand, San Juan, Uintah, Wayne; WY Sublette Potential for negative im

occur in the study area. Nyctinomops macrotis Big free-tailed bat BLM-S; UT-SC CO-Garfield; UT-Carbon, Duchesne, Emery, Garfield, Grand, San Juan, Uintah, Wayne Potential for negative im

occur in the study area. Ovis canadensis Bighorn sheep WY-SC WY-Lincoln, Sublette, Sweetwater Potential for negative im

occur in the study area. Peromyscus crinitus Canyon mouse WY-SC WY-Sweetwater Potential for negative im

occur in the study area. 

Peromyscus truei Pinon mouse WY-SC WY-Sweetwater Potential for negative im

occur in the study area. 

Sorex nanus Dwarf shrew WY-SC WY-Lincoln, Sublette, Sweetwater, 

Uinta 

Potential for negative imoccur in the study area.

Sorex preblei Preble’s shrew WY-SC WY-Lincoln, Uinta No impact. Suitable hab

occur in the study area. 

Tamias dorsalis utahensis 

Cliff chipmunk WY-SC WY-Sweetwater No impact. Suitable hab

occur in the study area. 

Thomomys clusius Wyoming pocket gopher BLM-S; WY-SC WY-Sweetwater Potential for negative im

occur in the study area. 

Thomomys idahoensis Idaho pocket gopher BLM-S; WY-SC WY-Lincoln, Sublette, Uinta Potential for negative im

occur in the study area. 
TABLE 4.8.1-5 (Cont.) Scientific Name Common Name Statusa States and Counties in Which Species May Occur Potentia

Mammals (Cont.) Vulpes macrotis Kit fox BLM-S; CO-E; UT-SC CO-Garfield, Rio Blanco; UT Carbon, Duchesne, Emery, Garfield, Grand, San Juan, Uintah, Wayne Potential for negative im

occur in the study area. Vulpes velox Swift fox BLM-S; WY-SC WY-Sweetwater Potential for negative im

occur in the study area. a Status categories: BLM-S = listed by the BLM as sensitive; CO-E = listed as endangered by the state of Colorado; CO-SC = species of special co

Colorado; CO-T = listed as threatened by the state of Colorado; ESA-C = candidate for listing under the ESA; UT-SC = species of special conce

WY-SC = species of special concern in the state of Wyoming. b Potential impacts based on general habitat preference and presence of habitat in the study area. Specific habitat preferences are presented in App
TABLE 4.8.1-6 Potential Effects of Commercial Tar Sands Development on Federally Listed Threatened, EndangeSpecies Scientific Name Common Name Statusa States and Counties in Which Species May Occur Potentia

Plants Carex specuicola Navajo sedge ESA-T UT-San Juan No impact. Suitable hab

study area. Known distribpotential lease areas. Lepidium barnebyanum Barneby ridge-cress ESA-E UT-Duchesne No impact. Suitable hab

study area. Known distribpotential lease areas. Lesquerella congesta Dudley Bluffs bladderpod ESA-T CO-Rio Blanco Potential for negative im

occur in the study area. Penstemon debilis Parachute beardtongue ESA-T CO-Garfield Potential for negative im

occur in the study area. 

Penstemon grahamii Graham’s beardtongue ESA-PT; BLM CO-Rio Blanco; UT-Duchesne, 

Uintah 

Potential for negative imoccur in the study area. 

Phacelia argillacea Clay phacelia ESA-E UT-Utah, Wasatch Potential for negative im

occur in the study area. 

Phacelia scopulina var.

submutica 

Debeque phacelia ESA-T CO-Garfield Potential for negative im

occur in the study area. 

Physaria obcordata Dudley Bluffs twinpod ESA-T CO-Rio Blanco Potential for negative im

occur in the study area. 

Schoenocrambe argillacea 

Clay reed-mustard ESA-T UT-Uintah Potential for negative im

occur in the study area. 

Schoenocrambe suffrutescens 

Shrubby reed-mustard ESA-E UT-Duchesne, Uintah Potential for negative im

occur in the study area. 
TABLE 4.8.1-6 (Cont.) Scientific Name Common Name Statusa States and Counties in Which Species May Occur Potentia

Plants (Cont.) Sclerocactus brevispinus Pariette cactus ESA-T UT-Duchesne, Uintah Potential for negative im

occur in the study area. Sclerocactus glaucus Colorado hookless cactus ESA-T CO-Garfield Potential for negative im

occur in the study area. Sclerocactus wetlandicus Uinta Basin hookless cactus ESA-T UT-Carbon, Duchesne, Uintah Potential for negative im

occur in the study area. Spiranthes diluvialis Ute ladies’-tresses ESA-T UT-Duchesne, Garfield, Uintah, Wayne Potential for negative im

occur in the study area. Fish Gila cypha Humpback chub ESA-E; CO-T UT-Carbon, Emery, Garfield, Grand, San Juan, Uintah, Wayne Potential for negative im

occur in the study area. Dmay occur within 5 mi doareas. 

Gila elegans Bonytail ESA-E UT-Carbon, Duchesne, Emery, 

Garfield, Grand, San Juan, Uintah, Wayne 

Potential for negative imoccur in the study area. Dmay occur within 5 mi doareas. 

Ptychocheilus lucius Colorado pikeminnow ESA-E; CO-T CO-Rio Blanco; UT Carbon, 

Duchesne, Emery, Garfield, Grand, San Juan, Uintah, Wayne 

Potential for negative imoccur in the study area. Dmay occur within 5 mi doareas. 

Xyrauchen texanus Razorback sucker ESA-E; CO-E CO-Garfield, Rio Blanco; 

UT-Carbon, Emery Garfield, Grand, San Juan, Uintah, Wayne 

Potential for negative imoccur in the study area. Dmay occur within 5 mi doareas. 
TABLE 4.8.1-6 (Cont.) Scientific Name Common Name Statusa States and Counties in Which Species May Occur Potentia

Birds Empidonax traillii extimus Southwestern willow flycatcher ESA-E UT Carbon, Emery, Garfield, Grand, San Juan, Uintah, Wayne Potential for negative im

occur in the study area. Grus americana Whooping crane ESA-XN; CO-E CO-Garfield, Rio Blanco No impact. Suitable hab

occur in the study area. Tas a rare migrant in the st

Strix occidentalis lucida Mexican spotted owl ESA-T UT-Emery, Garfield, Grand, San Juan, Uintah, Wayne Potential for negative im

occur in the study area. Mammals Lynx canadensis Canada lynx ESA-T; CO-E; WY-SC CO-Garfield, Rio Blanco; UT-Emery, Uintah; WY Lincoln, Sublette, Uinta Potential for negative im

occur in the study area. Mustela nigripes Black-footed ferret ESA-XN; CO-E CO-Rio Blanco; UT Carbon, 

Duchesne, Emery, Grand, San Juan, Uintah; WY-Sublette, Sweetwater 

Potential for negative imoccur in the study area. 

a Status categories: BLM-S = listed by the BLM as sensitive; CO-E = listed as endangered by the state of Colorado; CO-T = listed as threatened b

ESA-E = listed as endangered under the ESA; ESA-PT = proposed for listing as a threatened species under the ESA; ESA-T = listed as threatene

ESA-XN = experimental, nonessential population; WY-SC = species of special concern in the state of Wyoming. 

b Potential impacts based on general habitat preference and presence of habitat in the study area. Specific habitat preferences are presented in App
Final OSTS PEIS 4-126 

regarding the “potential for negative impact.” Potential for impact or effect was determined on 

the basis of conservative estimates of species distributions. It is possible that impacts on some 

species would not occur because suitable habitat may not be present in individual project areas or 

impacts on those habitats could be avoided. 

 See Appendix E for the distribution and habitats of endangered, threatened, and sensitive 

species that may occur in the oil shale basins. Impacts of commercial oil shale development on 

these species under each of the alternatives analyzed in this PEIS are presented in 

Sections 6.1.1.7.4, 6.1.2.7.4, 6.1.3.7.4, and 6.1.4.7.4. 

 Federally listed plant plants may be affected by a variety of factors related to oil shale 

development, including vegetation clearing, habitat fragmentation, dispersal blockage, alteration 

of topography, changes in drainage patterns, erosion, sedimentation from runoff, oil and 

contaminant spills, fugitive dust, injury or mortality of individuals, human collection, increased 

human access, spread of invasive plant species, and air pollution (Table 4.8.1-4). Clay-reed 

mustard, Dudley Bluffs bladderpod, Dudley Bluffs twinpod, and shrubby reed-mustard are all 

found on shale-derived soils and are therefore more likely to occur in potential development 

areas. In addition to these listed plant species, the Graham’s beardtongue—a species proposed 

for listing under the ESA—could occur in shale environments and may be affected by oil shale 

and tar sands activities. 

 The Ute ladies’-tresses could occur in Utah study areas in wetland habitats and along the 

Green River or White River. This species is dependent on a high water table and, in addition to 

the factors affecting upland plants, could be adversely affected by any water depletions from the 

Green River or White River basins associated with oil shale development in Utah. 

 Oil shale development in any of the oil shale basins could affect federally listed 

endangered Colorado River fishes (bonytail, Colorado pikeminnow, humpback chub, and 

razorback sucker) either directly, if projects are adjacent to occupied habitats, or indirectly if 

project activities are located within occupied watersheds (e.g., Green River and White River). 

Direct and indirect effects could result from vegetation clearing, alteration of topography and 

drainage patterns, erosion, sedimentation from runoff, oil and contaminant spills, water 

depletions, stream impoundment and changes in streamflow, and disruption of groundwater flow 

patterns. Any activities within watersheds that affect water quality (e.g., land disturbance or 

water volume changes that affect sediment load, contaminant concentrations, total dissolved 

solids, and temperature of streams) or quantity (e.g., stream impoundments or withdrawals that 

affect base flow, peak flow magnitude, and seasonal flow pattern) could have effects in occupied 

areas far downstream. 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. 

 On the basis of proximity of populations and critical habitat to potential lease areas, the 

greatest potential for direct impacts on endangered fishes is related to development in Utah, 

where the Green River and White River flow through oil shale areas. If these areas are available 
Final OSTS PEIS 4-127 

for leasing, there is a relatively high probability that these species would be directly or indirectly 

affected by oil shale development. In Colorado, the White River is outside potential lease areas 

(the closest distance is about 3 mi); however, tributaries to the White River (e.g., Yellow Creek 

and Piceance Creek) flow through potential lease areas, and downstream indirect effects are 

possible. Indirect impacts on critical habitat downstream from oil shale development in 

Wyoming is considered unlikely because the nearest critical habitat is located on the Green River 

about 60 mi downstream of oil shale areas and below Flaming Gorge Reservoir. Flaming Gorge 

Reservoir would likely ameliorate any water quality or temperature effects in areas downstream 

of the reservoir. 

 Listed bird species that could be affected by commercial oil shale development include 

the Mexican spotted owl and southwestern willow flycatcher (Table 4.8.1-6). The Mexican 

spotted owl could occur year-round in steep forested canyons in Utah and could be affected if 

these types of habitats are disturbed during oil shale development. Impacts on individual owls 

could result from injury or mortality (e.g., collisions with transmission lines), human disturbance 

or harassment, increased human access to occupied areas, increases in predation rates, and noise 

from facilities. 

 The southwestern willow flycatcher is most commonly found in riparian areas, especially 

along large rivers (e.g., Green River). These riparian habitats could be affected directly by 

surface disturbance or indirectly by activities in their watersheds that resulted in alteration of 

topography, changes in drainage patterns, erosion, sedimentation from runoff, and oil and 

contaminant spills. In addition, impacts on riparian habitats that support these species could 

result if the habitats were crossed by project transmission lines or roads. Impacts on individual 

birds could result from injury or mortality (e.g., collisions with transmission lines), human 

disturbance or harassment, increased human access to occupied areas, increases in predation 

rates, and noise from facilities. 

 In addition to listed bird species mentioned above, the federal candidate greater sagegrouse is a bird species that has the potential to be affected by commercial oil shale 

development. With the loss of sagebrush and grassland habitats resulting from project 

developments, greater sage-grouse broods could move longer distances and expend more energy 

to find forage. Increased movement, in addition to decreased vegetative cover, could expose 

chicks to greater risk of predation (BLM 2006c). More detailed information about how greater 

sage-grouse may be impacted by oil shale development, including information about possible 

measures to mitigate impacts, is provided in the following text box. 

 Listed mammals that could be affected by oil shale development include the black-footed 

ferret and Canada lynx (Table 4.8.1-6). The black-footed ferret occurs in grassland and 

shrublands that support active prairie dog towns and potentially occurs in the Utah study area. 

The Canada lynx occurs in coniferous forests and potentially occurs in the study area in all three 

states. Impacts on these species could result from impacts on habitat (including vegetation 

clearing, habitat fragmentation, and movement-dispersal blockage) and individuals (injury or 

mortality [e.g., collisions with vehicles], human disturbance or harassment, increased human 

access to occupied areas, increases in predation rates, and noise from facilities). 
Final OSTS PEIS 4-128 

Oil Shale Leasing and the Greater Sage-Grouse 

Most concerns about the effects of oil shale development on greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) 

have focused on potential impacts associated with the reduction, fragmentation, and modification of grassland 

and shrubland habitats. 

Populations of greater sage-grouse can vary from nonmigratory to migratory (having either one-stage or 

two-stage migrations) and can occupy an area that exceeds 1,040 mi2 on an annual basis. The distance between 

leks (strutting grounds) and nesting sites can exceed 12 mi (Connelly et al. 2000; Bird and Schenk 2005). 

Nonmigratory populations can move 5 to 6 mi between seasonal habitats and have home ranges of up to 40 mi2. 

The distance between summer and winter ranges for one-stage migrants can be 9 to 30 mi apart. Two-stage 

migrant populations make movements among breeding habitat, summer range, and winter range. Their annual 

movements can exceed 60 mi. The migratory populations can have home ranges that exceed 580 mi2

(Bird and Schenk 2005). However, the greater sage-grouse has a high fidelity to a seasonal range. They also 

return to the same nesting areas annually (Connelly et al. 2000, 2004). 

The greater sage-grouse needs contiguous, undisturbed areas of high-quality habitat during its four distinct 

seasonal periods: (1) breeding, (2) summer-late brooding and rearing, (3) fall, and (4) winter 

(Connelly et al. 2000). The greater sage-grouse occurs at elevations ranging from 4,000 to 9,000 ft. It is 

omnivorous and consumes primarily sagebrush and insects. More than 99% of its diet in winter consists of 

sagebrush leaves and buds. Sagebrush is also important as roosting cover, and the greater sage-grouse cannot 

survive where sagebrush does not exist (USFWS 2004). 

Leks are generally areas supported by low, sparse vegetation or open areas surrounded by sagebrush that provide 

escape, feeding, and cover. They can range in size from small areas of 0.1 to 10 acres to areas of 100 acres or 

more (Connelly et al. 2000). The lek/breeding period occurs March through May, with peak breeding occurring 

from early to mid-April. Nesting generally occurs 1 to 4 mi from lek sites, although it may range up to 11 mi 

(BLM 2004a). The nesting/early brood-rearing period occurs from March through July. Sagebrush at 

nesting/early brood-rearing habitat is 12 to 32 in. above ground, with 15 to 25% canopy cover. Tall, dense grass 

combined with tall shrubs at nest sites decreases the likelihood of nest depredation. Hens have a strong 

year-to-year fidelity to nesting areas (BLM 2004a). The late brood-rearing period occurs from July through 

October. Sagebrush at late brood-rearing habitat is 12 to 32 in. tall, with a canopy cover of 10 to 25% 

(BLM 2004a). The greater sage-grouse occupies winter habitat from November through March. Suitable winter 

habitat requires sagebrush 10 to 14 in. above snow level with a canopy cover ranging from 10 to 30%. Wintering 

grounds are potentially the most limiting seasonal habitat for greater sage-grouse (BLM 2004a). 

While no single or combination of factors has been proven to have caused the decline in greater sage-grouse 

numbers over the past half-century, the decline in greater sage-grouse populations is thought to be caused by a 

number of factors, including drought, oil and gas wells and their associated infrastructure, power lines, predators, 

and a decline in the quality and quantity of sagebrush habitat (due to livestock grazing, range management 

treatments, and development activities) (Connelly et al. 2000; Crawford et al. 2004). West Nile virus is also a 

significant stressor of the greater sage-grouse (Naugle et al. 2004). 

Loud, unusual sounds and noise from construction and human activities disturb greater sage-grouse, cause birds 

to avoid traditional use areas, and reduce their use of leks (Young 2003). Disturbance at leks appears to limit 

reproductive opportunities and may result in regional population declines. Most observed nest abandonment is 

related to human activity (NatureServe 2011). Thus, site construction, operation, and site-maintenance activities 

could be a source of auditory and visual disturbance to the greater sage-grouse. 

Oil shale lease area facilities, transmission lines, pipelines, access roads, and employer-provided housing may 

adversely affect important greater sage-grouse habitats by causing fragmentation, reducing habitat value, or 

reducing the amount of habitat available (Braun 1998). Transmission lines, aboveground portions of pipelines, 

Continued on next page. 
Final OSTS PEIS 4-129 

and other structures can also provide perches and nesting areas for raptors and ravens that may prey upon the 

greater sage-grouse. 

Measures that have been suggested for management of greater sage-grouse and their habitats 

(e.g., Paige and Ritter 1999; Connelly et al. 2000; WGFD 2003) that have pertinence to oil shale projects and 

associated facilities include the following: 

• Identify and avoid both local (daily) and seasonal migration routes. 

• Consider greater sage-grouse and sagebrush habitats when designing, constructing, and utilizing 

project access roads and trails. 

• Avoid, when possible, siting energy developments in breeding habitats. 

• Adjust the timing of activities to minimize disturbance to greater sage-grouse during critical 

periods. 

• When possible, locate energy-related facilities away from active leks or near other greater sagegrouse habitat. 

• When possible, restrict noise levels to 10 dB above background noise levels at lek sites. 

• Minimize nearby human activities when birds are near or on leks. 

• As practicable, do not conduct surface-use activities within crucial greater sage-grouse wintering 

areas from December 1 through March 15. 

• Maintain sagebrush communities on a landscape scale. 

• Provide compensatory habitat restoration for impacted sagebrush habitat. 

• Avoid the use of pesticides at greater sage-grouse breeding habitat during the brood-rearing 

season. 

• Develop and implement appropriate measures to prevent the introduction or dispersal of noxious 

weeds. 

• Avoid creating attractions for raptors and mammalian predators in greater sage-grouse habitat. 

• Consider measures to mitigate impacts at off-site locations to offset unavoidable greater sagegrouse habitat alteration and reduction at the project site. 

• When possible, avoid establishing artificial water bodies (e.g., stormwater and liquid industrial 

wastewater ponds) that could serve as breeding habitat for mosquitoes. 

The BLM manages more habitats for greater sage-grouse than any other entity; therefore, it has developed a 

National Sage-Grouse Habitat Conservation Strategy for BLM-administered public lands to manage public lands 

in a manner that will maintain, enhance, and restore greater sage-grouse habitat while providing for multiple uses 

of BLM-administered public lands (BLM 2004c). The strategy is consistent with the individual state greater 

sage-grouse conservation planning efforts. The purpose of this strategy is to set goals and objectives, assemble 

guidance and resource materials, and provide more uniform management directions for the BLM’s contributions 

to the multistate greater sage-grouse conservation effort being led by state wildlife agencies (BLM 2004c). The 

BLM strategy includes guidance for (1) addressing sagebrush habitat conservation in BLM land use plans, and 

(2) managing sagebrush plant communities for greater sage-grouse conservation. This guidance is designed to 

support and promote the rangewide conservation of sagebrush habitats for greater sage-grouse and other 

sagebrush-obligate wildlife species on public lands administered by the BLM and presents a number of 

suggested management practices (SMPs). These SMPs include management or reclamation activities, 

restrictions, or treatments that are designed to enhance or restore sagebrush habitats. The SMPs are divided into 

two categories: (1) those that will help maintain sagebrush habitats (e.g., practices or treatments to minimize 

Continued on next page. 
Final OSTS PEIS 4-130 

unwanted disturbances while maintaining the integrity of the sagebrush communities), and (2) those that will 

enhance sagebrush habitat components that have been reduced or altered (BLM 2004c). 

SMPs that are or may be pertinent to energy transmission facilities include the following: 

• Development of monitoring programs and adaptive management strategies. 

• Control of invasive species. 

• Prohibition or restriction of OHV activity. 

• Consideration of greater sage-grouse habitat needs when developing reclamation plans. 

• Avoidance of placing facilities in or next to sensitive habitats such as leks and wintering habitat. 

• Location or construction of facilities so that facility noise does not disturb greater sage-grouse 

activities or leks. 

• Consolidation of facilities as much as possible. 

• Initiation of reclamation practices as quickly as possible following land disturbance. 

• Installation of antiperching devices on existing or new power lines in occupied greater sagegrouse habitat. 

• Design of facilities to reduce habitat fragmentations and mortality to greater sage-grouse. 

In addition to the BLM’s national greater sage-grouse habitat conservation strategy, the Western Association of 

Fish and Wildlife Agencies has produced two documents that together comprise a Conservation Assessment for 

Greater Sage-Grouse. The first is the Conservation Assessment of Greater Sage-Grouse and Sagebrush Habitats

(Connelly et al. 2004). The second document is the Greater Sage-Grouse Comprehensive Conservation Strategy

(Stiver et al. 2006). In addition, state agencies have proposed statewide and, in some cases, regional greater sagegrouse conservation or management plans that include mitigation measures to minimize impacts on the species 

(e.g., Bohne et al. 2007; Colorado Greater Sage-Grouse Steering Committee 2008; The Southwest Wyoming 

Local Sage-Grouse Working Group 2007; Uinta Basin Adaptive Resource Management Local Working Group 

2006; UDNR 2002; WGFD 2003). The State of Wyoming has also issued a Greater Sage-Grouse Core Area 

Protection strategy, which has been recognized by the USFWS as an adequate regulatory mechanism for the 

conservation of greater sage-grouse (WY E.O. 2011-5; Appendix K). The BLM is in the process of updating its 

guidance regarding protection of sage-grouse habitat. It is anticipated that BLM protection measures will be 

consistent with the management plans and policies described above. As discussed in Sections 2.3.3.1 and 

3.7.4.3.1, the State of Utah currently has not identified core or priority greater sage-grouse habitat. The BLM is 

working with the state natural resource agencies to refine the delineation of core or priority greater sage-grouse 

habitats and has updated its guidance regarding the protection of these habitats (e.g., WO IM 2012-043, WO IM 

2012-044, WY IM 2012-019). Core and priority habitats are discussed in more detail in Section 3.7.4.3.1; 

updated policy information is provided in Appendix K. 

4.8.2 Mitigation Measures 

 Various mitigation measures would be required to reduce the impact of oil shale 

development on ecological resources during construction, operations, and reclamation. Existing 

guidance, recommendations, and requirements related to management practices are described in 

detail in the BLM Gold Book (DOI and USDA 2007), and BLM field office RMPs. The BLM 

has also developed a guidance document, Hydraulic Considerations for Pipeline Crossing 

Stream Channels, for construction of pipeline crossings of perennial, intermittent, and ephemeral 

stream channels (Fogg and Hadley 2007). BLM Manual 6840, Special Status Species 
Final OSTS PEIS 4-131 

Management, describes BLM policy to protect species identified by the BLM as sensitive 

(BLM 2008).

 In addition to the actions described in these guidance documents, the mitigation actions 

below could be used to reduce the potential for impacts on various ecological resources. Other 

mitigation measures may be identified by the BLM or USFWS prior to project development. 

Developing effective mitigation measures that avoid, reduce, or eliminate the impacts of oil shale 

development on ecological resources will represent a significant challenge because of the 

potentially large-scale, long operational time period, and reclamation difficulties that will be 

characteristic of many oil shale projects. 

4.8.2.1 Aquatic Resources 

• Protect wetlands, springs, seeps, ephemeral streams, and riparian areas on or 

adjacent to development areas through mitigation. This objective would be 

accomplished by conducting predisturbance surveys in all areas proposed for 

development following accepted protocols established by the USACE, the 

BLM, or state regulatory agencies, as appropriate. If any wetlands, springs, 

seeps, or riparian areas are found, plans to mitigate impacts would be 

developed in consultation with those agencies and the local BLM field office 

prior to the initiation of ground disturbance. Examples of potential protective 

measures include (1) establishing buffer zones adjacent to these habitats in 

which development activities would be excluded or modified, (2) using 

erosion-control techniques to prevent sediment runoff into these habitats, 

(3) using runoff control devices to prevent surface water runoff into these 

areas, and (4) identifying and implementing spill prevention technologies that 

would prevent or reduce the potential for oil or other contaminants from 

entering these habitats. 

• Minimize and mitigate changes in the function of the 100-year floodplain or 

flood storage capacity in accordance with applicable requirements. To achieve 

this, either no activities or limited activities within floodplains would be 

allowed, and floodplain contours could be restored to predisturbance 

conditions following short-term disturbances. The effectiveness of mitigation 

measures would be evaluated and modified, if necessary. 

• Minimize or mitigate water quality degradation (e.g., chemical contamination, 

increased salinity, increased temperature, decreased dissolved oxygen, and 

increased sediment loads) that could result from construction and operation. 

Water quality in areas adjacent to or downstream of development areas would 

be monitored during the life of the project to ensure water quality in aquatic 

habitats is protected. 

• Minimize or mitigate the impacts on aquatic habitats (including springs, seeps, 

and ephemeral streams), wetlands, and riparian areas that could result from 
Final OSTS PEIS 4-132 

changes to surface or groundwater flows. Hydrologically connected areas 

would be monitored for changes in flow that are development related. 

• Decontaminate all equipment before arrival at the project site and before 

leaving the project site, for work occurring near water, to reduce the potential 

for the transport of aquatic invasive species. Decontamination may consist of 

draining all water from equipment and compartments, cleaning equipment of 

all mud, plants, debris, or animals, and then drying the equipment. Another 

potential decontamination method could be a high-pressure, hot water wash of 

all equipment and all compartments that may hold water. 

• Maintain historic flow regimes in these systems, or in systems that contribute 

to the support of native fisheries. 

4.8.2.2 Plant Communities and Habitats 

• Mitigate impacts on rare natural communities and remnant vegetation 

associations. Predisturbance surveys would be used to identify these 

communities in and adjacent to development areas. Examples of potential 

protective measures include (1) establishing buffer zones adjacent to these 

habitats and excluding or modifying development activities within those areas, 

(2) using erosion-control techniques to prevent sediment runoff into these 

habitats, (3) using runoff control devices to prevent surface water runoff into 

these areas, and (4) identifying and implementing spill prevention 

technologies that would prevent or reduce the potential for oil or other 

contaminants from entering these habitats. Mitigation could also include 

reclamation or establishment of similar habitats elsewhere as compensation. 

• Avoid areas of high habitat value such as the “priority (crucial habitat) areas” 

and “enhancement areas” identified in the Wyoming Game and Fish 

Department Strategic Habitat Plan (WGFD 2009), as well as Wyoming 

pinyon-juniper woodlands, sagebrush steppe, Gardner’s saltbush and barren 

areas. 

• Reclaim excavated areas and disturbed areas following backfilling operations. 

Spent shale returned to mined areas would be covered with subsoil and then 

topsoil. Exposed soils would be seeded and revegetated as directed under 

applicable BLM requirements. Only locally native plant species would be 

used for the reclamation of disturbed areas to reestablish native plant 

communities. 

• Prevent the establishment and spread of invasive species and noxious weeds, 

thus protecting developing plant communities on the project site from 

colonization by these species and increasing the potential for the successful 

development of diverse, mature native habitats in disturbed areas. Degradation 
Final OSTS PEIS 4-133 

of nearby habitats by invasive species colonization from project areas would 

also be avoided. 

• Protect plant communities and habitats near all project areas from the effects 

of fugitive dust. This objective could be achieved by implementing dust 

abatement practices (e.g., mulching, water application, paving roads, and 

plantings) that would be applied to all areas of regular traffic or areas of 

exposed erodible soils. 

4.8.2.3 Wildlife 

• Identify important, unique, or high-value wildlife habitats in the vicinity of the 

project, and design the project to mitigate impacts on these habitats. For 

example, project facilities, access roads, and other ancillary facilities could be 

located in the least environmentally sensitive areas (i.e., away from riparian 

habitats, streams, wetlands, drainages, and crucial wildlife habitats). The 

lessee would consult with the BLM and state agencies to discuss important 

wildlife use areas in order to assist in the determination of facility design and 

location that would avoid or minimize impacts on wildlife species and their 

habitats to the fullest extent practicable. The lessee would, at a minimum, 

follow the Recommendations for Development of Oil and Gas Resources 

within Crucial and Important Wildlife Habitats (WGFD 2010). 

• Habitat enhancement or in-kind compensatory habitat are options available 

when a wildlife management plan for a project is being developed. 

• Evaluate the project site for avian use (particularly by raptors, greater sagegrouse, neotropical migrants, and birds of conservation concern) and design 

the project to mitigate the potential for adverse impacts on birds and their 

habitat. Conduct predisturbance surveys for raptor nesting in all areas 

proposed for development following accepted protocols and in consultation 

with the USFWS and state natural resource agencies. If raptor nests are found, 

an appropriate course of action would be formulated to mitigate impacts, as 

appropriate. For example, impacts could be reduced if project design avoided 

locating transmission lines in landscape features known to attract raptors. The 

lessee would also, at a minimum, follow guidance provided in the APP 

Guidelines prepared by the APLIC and USFWS (APLIC and USFWS 2005). 

• Design facilities to discourage their use as perching or nesting sites by birds 

and minimize avian electrocutions. 

• Any surface water body created for a project may be utilized to the benefit of 

wildlife when practicable; however, netting and fencing or floating ball covers 

may be required when water chemistry demonstrates a need to prevent use by 

wildlife. 
Final OSTS PEIS 4-134 

• Mitigate wildlife mortality from vehicle collisions. To achieve this objective, 

important wildlife habitats could be mapped and activities within them 

avoided (if possible) or mitigated. Education programs could be implemented 

to ensure that employees are aware of wildlife impacts associated with 

vehicular use. These would include the need to obey state- and county-posted 

speed limits. Carpooling, busing, or other means to limit traffic (and vehicle 

collisions with wildlife) would be emphasized. 

• Develop a habitat restoration plan for disturbed project areas that includes the 

establishment of native vegetation communities consisting of locally native 

plant species. The plan would identify revegetation, soil stabilization, and 

erosion-reduction measures that would be implemented to ensure that all 

disturbed areas are restored. Restoration would be implemented as soon as 

possible after completion of activities to reduce the amount of habitat 

converted at any one time and to hasten the recovery to natural habitats. 

• Minimize habitat loss and fragmentation due to project development. For 

example, habitat fragmentation could be reduced by consolidating facilities 

(e.g., access roads and utilities would share common ROWs, where feasible), 

reducing access roads to the minimum number required, and, where possible, 

locating facilities in areas where habitat disturbance has already occurred. 

Transportation management planning can be used as an effective tool to 

minimize habitat fragmentation to meet this performance goal. 

• Protect wildlife from the negative effects of fugitive dust. Dust abatement 

practices include measures such as mulching, water application, road paving, 

and plantings. 

• Avoid (to the extent practicable) human interactions with wildlife. To achieve 

this objective, the following measures could be implemented: (1) instruct all 

personnel to avoid harassment and disturbance of wildlife, especially during 

reproductive (e.g., courtship and nesting) seasons; (2) make personnel aware 

of the potential for wildlife interactions around facility structures; (3) ensure 

that food refuse and other garbage are not available to scavengers (e.g., by use 

of covered dumpsters); and (4) restrict pets from project sites. 

• Mitigate noise impacts on wildlife during construction and operation. This 

objective could be accomplished by limiting the use of explosives to specific 

times and at specified distances from sensitive wildlife areas, as established by 

the BLM or other federal and state agencies. Operators would ensure that all 

construction equipment was adequately muffled and maintained to minimize 

disturbance to wildlife. 

• Protect wildlife from chronic and acute pesticide exposure. This objective 

could be accomplished by measures such as using pesticides of low toxicity, 

minimizing application areas where possible, and by using timing and/or 
Final OSTS PEIS 4-135 

spatial restrictions (e.g., do not use pesticide treatments in critical staging 

areas). All pesticides would be applied consistent with their label 

requirements and in accordance with guidance provided in the Final

Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides on Bureau of Land Management 

Lands in 17 Western States Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

(BLM 2007b). 

• Construct wildlife-friendly cattleguards for all new roads or improve existing 

ways and trails that require passing through existing fences, fence line gates, 

or new gates, in addition to standard wire gates alongside them. 

• Construct fencing (as practicable) to exclude livestock, wild horses, or 

wildlife from all project facilities, including all water sites built for the 

development of facilities and roadways. 

• Mitigate existing water sources used by wildlife in the vicinity of the project if 

adversely impacted during project construction or operation. 

• Protect or avoid important big game habitat (e.g., crucial winter habitat and 

birthing areas) to the extent practicable. 

4.8.2.4 Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Species 

 The BLM has determined that the proposed action (amendment of land use plans setting 

out allocation of areas that will be available for application for leases) would result in no effect 

on listed species. As a result, the BLM anticipates making a “no effect” determination for listed 

species in this PEIS. However, there may be impacts from development activities associated with 

individual leases. For this reason, compliance with Section 7 of the ESA will be conducted at the 

lease-specific level through consultation with the USFWS. Section 6.3 of this PEIS further 

discusses compliance with the ESA. Any 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. These conservation 

measures are described in brief here, however, and more fully in Appendix F, in order to provide 

some general understanding of the kinds of measures that might be applicable to commercial oil 

shale developments. 

 For this PEIS, these conservation measures are assumed to be generally consistent with 

existing conservation agreements, recovery plans, and completed consultations. It is the intent 

of the BLM and USFWS to ensure that the conservation measures are consistent with those 

currently applied to other land management actions where associated impacts are similar. 

However, it is presumed that potential impacts from development described in the PEIS are 

likely to vary in scale and intensity when compared with land management actions previously 

considered (e.g., oil and gas exploration and production, surface mining, and underground 

mining). Thus, final conservation measures would be developed for individual projects prior to 

leasing and ground-disturbing activities and will be consistent with agency policies. Current 
Final OSTS PEIS 4-136 

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. Mitigation measures, 

generally applicable to all listed species, are presented below. Species-specific measures are 

listed in Appendix F. 

• Protect federally listed and state-listed threatened and endangered species and 

BLM-designated sensitive species through siting and development decisions 

to avoid impacts. Conduct predisturbance surveys in all areas proposed for 

development following accepted protocols and in consultation with the 

USFWS and/or state agencies. If any federally listed species are found and it 

is determined that the proposed development “may affect” the listed species or 

their critical habitat, the USFWS will be consulted as required by Section 7 of 

the ESA, and an appropriate course of action will be developed to mitigate 

impacts and address any potential incidental take from the activity. If any 

state-listed or BLM-designated sensitive species are found, plans to mitigate 

impacts will be developed prior to construction consistent with guidance 

provided in BLM Manual 6840 (BLM 2008). 

• Mitigate harassment or disturbance of federally listed threatened and 

endangered animals, BLM-designated sensitive animal species, and statelisted threatened and endangered animals and their habitats in or adjacent to 

individual project areas. This objective can be accomplished by identifying 

sensitive areas and implementing necessary protection measures based upon 

consultation with the USFWS (Section 7 of the ESA). Education programs 

could be developed to ensure that employees are aware of protected species 

and requirements to protect them. Prohibition of nonpermitted access and 

gating could be used to restrict access to sensitive areas. 

• Mitigate impacts on federally listed and state-listed threatened and endangered 

species and BLM-designated sensitive species and their habitats during 

construction and operations. If deemed appropriate by the USFWS, activities 

and their effects on these species will be monitored throughout the duration of 

the project. To ensure that impacts are avoided, the effectiveness of mitigation 

measures will be evaluated and, if necessary, Section 7 consultation will be 

reinitiated. 

• Protect federally listed and state-listed threatened and endangered species and 

BLM-designated sensitive species (especially plants) and their habitats from 

the adverse effects of fugitive dust. This objective could be achieved by 

implementing dust abatement practices near threatened and endangered 

species’ habitats or other special habitats of importance (to be determined at 

the local field office level). Dust abatement practices (e.g., mulching, water 

application, paving roads, and plantings) could be applied to all areas of 

regular traffic or areas of exposed erodible soils, especially in areas near 

occupied habitats. 
Final OSTS PEIS 4-137 

• Avoid the release of oil to aquatic habitats in quantities that could result in 

subsequent adverse impacts on federally listed and state-listed threatened and 

endangered species and BLM-designated sensitive species. This objective 

could be accomplished by applying spill prevention technology to all oil 

pipelines that cross or are in proximity to rivers or streams with threatened or 

endangered aquatic species. For example, pipelines crossing rivers with listed 

aquatic species could have remotely actuated block or check valves on both 

sides of the river; pipelines could be double-walled pipe at river crossings; and 

pipelines could have a spill/leak contingency plan that includes timely 

notification of the USFWS and/or state agencies. 

• Avoid leasing and/or development in sage-grouse habitats. 

4.9 VISUAL RESOURCES 

 Because of the subjective and experiential nature of visual resources, the human response 

to visual changes in the landscape cannot be quantified, even though the visual changes 

associated with a proposed development can be described (Hankinson 1999). There is, however, 

some commonality in individuals’ experiences of visual resources, and while it may not be 

possible to quantify subjective experience and values, it is possible to systematically examine 

and characterize commonly held visual values and to reach consensus about visual impacts and 

their trade-offs. 

 The BLM is responsible for ensuring that the scenic values of BLM-administered public 

lands are considered before allowing uses that may have negative visual impacts. The BLM 

accomplishes this through its VRM system. The VRM system includes systematic processes 

for inventorying scenic values on BLM-administered lands, establishing visual resource 

management objectives for those values through the RMP process, and evaluating proposed 

activities to determine whether they conform with the management objectives. The primary 

components of BLM’s VRM system include VRI, VRM class designation, and visual contrast 

rating. 

• VRI. The BLM VRI process provides BLM managers with a means for 

determining visual values for a tract of land. The inventory includes three 

components: scenic quality evaluation, sensitivity level analysis, and 

delineation of distance zones. These inventory components provide systematic 

processes for rating the visual appeal of a tract of land, measuring public 

concern for scenic quality, and determining whether the tract of land is visible 

from travel routes or observation points. On the basis of the results, BLMadministered lands are placed into one of four VRI classes. These inventory 

classes represent the relative value of the visual resources. Class I and II are 

the most valued; Class III represents a moderate value; and Class IV 

represents the least relative value. Class I is reserved for specially designated 

areas, such as national wildernesses and other congressionally and 

administratively designated areas where decisions have been made to preserve 
Final OSTS PEIS 4-138 

a natural landscape. Class II is the highest rating for lands without special 

designation. The VRI class values may be affected by visual impacts 

associated with land management activities, such as utility-scale solar energy 

development. More information about VRI methodology is available in 

Section 5.7 and in Visual Resource Inventory, BLM Manual 

Handbook 8410-1 (BLM 1986a).

• VRM class designation. The results of the VRI become an important 

component of the BLM RMP for the area. The RMP establishes how the 

public lands will be used and allocated for different purposes, and the VRI 

classes provide the basis for considering visual values in the RMP land use 

allocation process. When a land use allocation is made, the area’s visual 

resources are then assigned to VRM classes with established management 

objectives, including the degree of contrast resulting from a project or 

management activity permissible for that VRM classification. BLM activities 

must conform to the VRM objectives that apply to the individual project area 

as established in the RMP process. The management objectives for the VRM 

classes are as follows: 

 Class I objective is to preserve the existing character of the landscape. The 

level of change to the characteristic landscape should be very low and 

must not attract attention. 

 Class II objective is to retain the existing character of the landscape. The 

level of change to the characteristic landscape should be low. Management 

activities may be seen but must not attract the attention of the casual 

observer. Any changes must repeat the basic elements of form, line, color, 

and texture found in the predominant natural landscape features. 

 Class III objective is to partially retain the existing character of the 

landscape. The level of change to the characteristic landscape should be 

moderate. Management activities may attract attention but should not 

dominate the view of the casual observer. Changes should repeat the basic 

elements of form, line, color, and texture found in the predominant natural 

landscape features. 

 Class IV objective is to provide for management activities that require 

major modification of the existing character of the landscape. The level of 

change to the characteristic landscape can be high. 

More information about the BLM VRM program is available in Section 5.7 

and in Visual Resource Management, BLM Manual Handbook 8400 

(BLM 1984b). 

• Visual contrast rating. The BLM VRM system defines visual impact as 

the contrast observers perceive between existing landscapes and proposed 

projects and activities. (See text box for factors that influence an individual’s 

perception of visual impacts and that are considered within the BLM VRM 

system.) The BLM contrast rating system (BLM 1986b) specifies a systematic 

process for determining the nature and extent of visual contrasts that may 
Final OSTS PEIS 4-139 

Factors That Influence an Individual’s Perception of Visual Impacts 

 Visibility Factors: Circumstances or activities that eliminate views of the impact area or impacting feature will 

reduce the level of perceived visual impact. Intervening topography, vegetation, or structures that effectively 

screen views can greatly reduce impacts of even large visual changes. Conversely, projects placed at higher 

elevations relative to viewers, particularly along ridgelines, may be conspicuously visible over larger areas, and 

thus have greater visual impact. Viewer elevation and aspect can also affect impact visibility by increasing or 

decreasing the viewable area and reducing or increasing screening effectiveness. 

 View Duration: Impacts that are viewed for a long period of time are generally judged to be more severe than 

those viewed briefly. For example, a transmission line that closely parallels a hiking trail may be in continuous 

view of hikers for several hours and would have a greater perceived visual impact than the same transmission 

line crossed by a perpendicular highway, which would be viewed relatively briefly by drivers and would have a 

smaller perceived visual impact. 

 Viewer Distance and Angle: Viewer distance from the impacted area is a key factor in determining the level of 

impact. The BLM’s VRM system defines distance zonesforeground-middleground (less than 35 mi), 

background (515 mi), and seldom seen (beyond 15 mi)with perceived impact diminishing as distance 

between the viewer and the impact increases (BLM 1986a). Viewer angle relative to the impact may also affect 

perceived visual impact; when people view landscapes from angles approaching 90 (e.g., views of canyon walls 

or steep mountain slopes), the landscapes may be scrutinized more closely than those viewed from low angles 

(e.g., views of plains and other low-relief areas). 

 Landscape Setting: Landscape setting provides the context for judging the degree of contrast in form, line, 

color, and texture between the proposed project and the existing landscape, as well as the appropriateness of the 

project to the landscape. Because of their physical properties, some landscapes are perceived by most viewers to 

have intrinsically higher scenic value than other landscapes, and physical landscape properties also determine the 

visual absorption capacity of the landscape (i.e., the degree to which the landscape can absorb visual impacts 

without serious degradation in perceived scenic quality). Scenic integrity describes the degree of “intactness” of 

a landscape, which is related to the existing amount of visual disturbance present. Landscapes with higher scenic 

integrity are generally regarded as more sensitive to visual disturbances. A development project in a pristine, 

high-value scenic landscape with low visual absorption capacity will typically be more conspicuous and 

perceived as having greater visual impact than if that same project were present in an industrialized landscape of 

low scenic value where similar projects were already visible. Special landscapes (also called special areas) have 

special meanings to some viewers because of unique scenic, cultural, or ecological values, and are, therefore, 

perceived as being more sensitive to visual disturbances. Other landscapes are regarded as more sensitive to 

visual disturbances because they are near or adjacent to high-value landscapes, such as national parks or historic 

trails. Rarity of the landscape setting may also affect visual impact assessment; impacts on landscape settings 

that are relatively rare within a given region may be of greater concern than impacts on a landscape setting that is 

regionally very common. 

Seasonal and Lighting Conditions: Seasonal and lighting conditions that affect contrast may affect perceived 

visual impact. The presence of snow cover, fall-winter coloration of foliage, and leaf drop may drastically alter 

color and texture properties of vegetation and soil, thereby altering visual contrasts between a proposed project 

and the landscape. Sun angle that changes by season and time of day affects shadow casting and color saturation, 

which, in turn, affect both perceived scenic beauty and contrast. 

Continued on next page. 
Final OSTS PEIS 4-140 

Factors That Influence an Individual’s Perception of Visual Impacts (Cont.) 

Number of Viewers: The BLM’s VRM system considers impacts to be generally more acceptable in areas that 

are seldom seen, and conversely, less acceptable in areas that are heavily used and/or viewed. 

Viewer Activity, Sensitivity, and Cultural Factors: The type of activity a viewer is engaged in when viewing a 

visual impact may affect his or her perception of impact level. Recreationists, particularly hikers and others who 

may visit an area with the specific goal of scenic appreciation, are generally more sensitive to visual impacts than 

workers (e.g., oil and gas workers). Some individuals and groups are also inherently more sensitive to visual 

impacts than others as a result of educational and social background, life experiences, and other cultural factors. 

Sources: BLM (1984b, 1986a,b); USFS (1995). 

result from a proposed land use activity and for determining whether those 

levels of contrast are consistent with the VRM class destination for the area. 

Contrasts between an existing landscape and a proposed project or activity are 

expressed in terms of the landscape elements of form, line, color, and texture. 

These basic design elements are routinely used by landscape designers to 

describe and evaluate landscape aesthetics. They have been incorporated into 

the BLM VRM system to lend objectivity, integrity, and consistency to the 

process of assessing visual impacts of proposed projects and activities on 

BLM-administered lands. 

 Visual impacts can be either positive or negative, depending on the type and degree of 

visual contrasts introduced into an existing landscape. Where modifications repeat the general 

forms, lines, colors, and textures of the existing landscape, the degree of visual contrast is lower, 

and the impacts are generally perceived less negatively. Where modification introduces 

pronounced changes in form, line, color, and texture, the degree of contrast is greater, and 

impacts may be perceived more negatively. 

 Visual changes associated with oil shale development can be produced through a range of 

direct and indirect actions or activities, including: 

• Vegetation and landform alterations; 

• Additions of structures; 

• Additions or upgrades to roads; 

• Additions or upgrades to utilities and/or ROWs, for example, expansion of 

ROW width, addition of electric transmission lines or pipelines, or upgrading 

of transmission voltage or pipeline size; 

• Vehicular and worker activity; 
Final OSTS PEIS 4-141 

• Dust and other visible emissions; and 

• Light pollution. 

 Site-specific impact assessment is needed to systematically and thoroughly assess visual 

impact levels for a particular project. Without precise information about the location of a project, 

a relatively complete and accurate description of its major components and their layout, and 

information about the number and types of viewers, it is not possible to assess the visual impacts 

associated with the facility precisely. However, if the general nature of the facility is known, as 

well as the general possible location of facilities, a more generalized but still useful assessment 

of the possible visual impacts can be made by describing the range of expected visual changes 

and discussing contrasts typically associated with these changes. In addition, a general analysis 

can be used to identify sensitive resources that may be at risk if a future project is sited in a 

particular area. 

 The impact analysis for this PEIS makes use of distance zones specified by the BLM 

VRM system to identify potentially sensitive visual resources that might be impacted if they are 

within view of an oil shale project. The distance between the viewer and the project elements 

that are the source of visual contrast is a critical element in determining the level of perceived 

impact. The BLM VRM system specifies three distance zones in its visual resource inventory 

process: 

• Foreground-middleground (05 mi). This zone includes areas where 

management activities can be seen in detail. This zone has the highest 

visibility; visual changes are more noticeable than at farther distances and 

are more likely to trigger public concern. 

• Background (515 mi). This zone includes the area beyond the 

foreground/middleground up to 15 mi and includes the area where some 

detail beyond the form or outline of the project is visible. 

• Seldom Seen (beyond 15 mi). This zone includes areas beyond 15 mi or where 

only the form or outline of the project can be seen or the project cannot be 

seen at all (BLM 1986a). 

 The GIS-based impact analysis used for this PEIS identifies potentially sensitive visual 

resource areas for which some portions are within the potential leasing area under an alternative 

examined in the PEIS, within the 5-mi foreground-middleground distance from the potential 

leasing area, or within the 15-mi background distance from the leasing area. With an 

unobstructed view of the project, viewers in these areas would be likely to perceive some level 

of visual impact from the project, with impacts expected to be greater for resources within the 

foreground-middleground distance and lesser for those areas within the background distance. 

Beyond the background distance, the project might be visible but would likely occupy a very 

small visual angle and create low levels of visual contrast such that impacts would be expected 

to be minor to negligible. 
Final OSTS PEIS 4-142 

 The impact analysis did not account for topography; in many cases, intervening terrain 

might obstruct all or part of the view of a project from a given location, for example, a canyon or 

river bottom. The analysis shows areas that might be affected, but the actual number of affected 

areas is likely less than that indicated by the analysis. A more precise visibility analysis could be 

conducted when a site-specific environmental analysis is performed for a particular project, at 

which point more precise spatial data would be available. This analysis is limited to data that 

were available in GIS format at the time of analysis; it is recognized that additional scenic 

resources exist at the national, state, and local levels. Although the GIS is capable of extremely 

high spatial accuracy, it is limited by the accuracy of the data used in the analysis, which were 

obtained from many sources and subject to error. 

 Because of a lack of data in a usable GIS format, the analysis did not include examination 

of BLM VRM classes for all lands potentially affected by the oil shale projects analyzed in the 

PEIS; however, general statements about the compatibility of visual impacts associated with oil 

shale facilities with BLM VRM classes can be made. These statements would apply to locations 

where projects and their associated facilities are located and, in some cases, to adjacent lands 

from which the project would be visible. 

 Regardless of the technologies employed for oil shale extraction and processing, 

commercial production of oil shale at the scales projected for analysis in the PEIS would entail 

industrial processes eventually requiring more than 5,000 acres of land disturbance and the 

presence and operation of large-scale industrial facilities, and equipment that would introduce 

major visual changes into nonindustrialized landscapes and would create strong visual contrasts 

in line, form, color, and texture. These processes also would involve constant, noticeable human 

and vehicle activity during operation and particularly during construction. Where visible to 

observers within the foreground-middleground distance, facilities would normally be expected 

to attract attention and, in many cases, would be expected to dominate the view. Large visual 

impacts would be expected at night because of facility, vehicular, and activity lighting. Although 

mitigation measures, such as painting the facilities in earth tones and using nonreflective 

surfaces, might reduce color contrasts, the strong, complex, regular geometry of the structures, 

combined with the large sizes of the facilities, would preclude repeating of the basic elements 

of form, line, color, and texture found in the predominant natural landscape features found in a 

nonindustrialized landscape. While some of the lesser elements of an oil shale project might be 

compatible with VRM Class III or Class II objectives, the siting of the major facility elements 

would be expected to be compatible with Class IV objectives only, as determined by visual 

contrast rating from nearby observation points with unobstructed views of the facility. VRM 

Class II or Class III areas in proximity to the major facilities where open lines of sight existed 

between the Class II or Class III lands and the major facilities could in some cases also be 

subjected to strong visual contrasts, particularly if the distance was within the foregroundmiddleground range, but possibly farther in some cases. 

 The following impact analysis provides a general description of the visual changes that 

are likely to occur as a result of the construction, operation, and reclamation of oil shale projects 

(and associated facilities). 
Final OSTS PEIS 4-143 

 While visual impacts associated with the construction, operation, and reclamation of oil 

shale projects considered in the PEIS differ in some important aspects on the basis of the oil 

shale extraction and processing technologies employed, many impacts are common to the 

development approaches. Direct visual impacts associated with construction, operation, and 

reclamation of commercial oil shale projects can be divided into generally temporary impacts 

associated with activities that occur during the construction and reclamation phases of the 

projects, and longer term impacts that result from the presence of and operation of the facilities 

themselves. Impacts are presented below by oil shale extraction and processing technology 

approach. 

 Although mitigation measures (see Section 4.9.2) might lessen some visual impacts 

associated with these projects, in large part, the visual impacts associated with commercial oil 

shale projects could not be effectively mitigated. 

4.9.1 Common Impacts 

4.9.1.1 Surface Mining with Surface Retorting 

4.9.1.1.1 Construction and Reclamation. Major construction activities associated with 

the development of an oil shale project utilizing surface mining and surface retorting would 

include vegetation clearing, recontouring of landforms, road building and/or upgrading, and pad 

and utility ROW construction. Buildings and structures associated with mining and processing 

(e.g., ore-crushing facilities) and upgrading would be constructed (e.g., multiple liquid storage 

tanks). Other construction activities would include digging of drilling reserve pits and possibly 

retention ponds, construction of berms around some tanks, and the addition of fencing around 

some or all of the lease site. Employer-provided housing would also be constructed off-lease to 

house workers and their families during the construction phase. (See Section 4.9.1.4 for 

discussion of impacts associated with electric transmission lines, pipelines, and employerprovided housing.) 

 The various construction activities described above would require work crews, vehicles, 

and equipment that would add to visual impacts during construction. Small-vehicle traffic for 

worker access and large-equipment (trucks, graders, excavators, and cranes) traffic for road 

construction, site preparation, and tower-pipeline installation would be expected. Both would 

produce visible activity and dust from disturbance of dry soils. Suspension and visibility of dust 

would be influenced by vehicle speeds, road surface materials, and weather conditions. 

Temporary parking for vehicles would be needed at or near work locations. Unplanned and 

unmonitored parking could likely expand these areas, producing visual contrast by suspended 

dust and loss of vegetation. Piles of building materials would be visible at times, as well as brush 

piles and soil piles. Construction equipment might produce emissions and visible exhaust 

plumes. 
Final OSTS PEIS 4-144 

 Construction would introduce contrasts in form, line, color, and texture, as well as a 

relatively high degree of human activity, into what are generally natural-appearing existing 

landscapes with generally low levels of human activity. In general, visual impacts associated 

directly with construction activities would be temporary in nature, but because of the “rolling 

footprint” approach to mining, recovery, and upgrading during the operations phase of the 

project, some construction activities would occur several times during the course of the project, 

giving rise to brief periods of intense construction activity (and associated visual impacts) 

followed by periods of inactivity. 

 During reclamation, visual impacts would be similar to those encountered during 

construction but likely of shorter duration. These impacts probably would include road 

redevelopment, removal of aboveground structures and equipment, and the presence of idle or 

dismantled equipment, if allowed to remain on-site. Reclamation activities would involve heavy 

equipment, support facilities, and lighting. The associated visual impacts would be substantially 

the same as those in the construction phase. Reclamation likely would be an intermittent or 

phased activity persisting over extended periods of time and would include the presence of 

workers, vehicles, and temporary fencing at the work site. 

 Restoring a site to preproject conditions would also entail recontouring, grading, 

scarifying, seeding, and planting, and perhaps stabilizing disturbed surfaces, although obtaining 

the preproject state might not be possible in all cases (i.e., the contours of restored areas might 

not always be identical to preproject conditions). Newly disturbed soils might create visual 

contrasts that could persist for several seasons before revegetation would begin to disguise past 

activity. Invasive species might colonize reclaimed areas, likely producing contrasts of color and 

texture. 

4.9.1.1.2 Operation. Oil shale projects utilizing surface mining and surface retorting 

technologies could utilize pit or strip mines, depending on site characteristics and applicable 

BLM policies. A pit mining approach would likely involve one or more mine pits, while a strip 

mining approach would involve rolling footprint activities whereby small sections of the site 

would be worked in succession, with equipment, crews, and some structures moving from 

section to section throughout the life of the project. Under the rolling footprint scenario, some 

buildings and structures and activities would be centrally located and thus have a permanent 

presence and associated visual impact, while others would “follow” the rolling footprint, and 

thus the associated visual impacts might change on the basis of viewing conditions. 

 Some amount of restoration and remediation of the site would commence soon after a 

given section was worked. This pattern of activities would create the appearance of construction, 

operation, and reclamation activities occurring simultaneously on some portion or portions of the 

site throughout the operational life of the project. 

 Visual impacts from the operation of a commercial oil shale project employing surface 

mining and retorting would be generated by vegetation clearing, the presence of the mine pit or 

strip; mining, retorting, upgrading, and support facilities; utilities and other infrastructure; and 

the presence and activities of workers, vehicles, and equipment. These impacts would occur in 
Final OSTS PEIS 4-145 

some degree throughout the operational life of the projects, and some impacts might occur 

beyond the operational life of the project. 

 Visible project components and activities that would likely result in visual impacts 

include: 

• Vegetation clearing (eventually involving approximately 5,760 acres per site) 

with associated debris. For a pit mine, much of the site might be cleared at the 

beginning of the project. If a rolling footprint approach is utilized, clearing 

would not take place all at once; rather, it would be progressive and would 

likely involve repeated clearing of sections of several hundred acres. 

Vegetation clearing could result in strong visual contrasts in color, line, and 

texture between cleared and uncleared areas, depending on viewing 

conditions. Invasive species might colonize cleared areas if revegetation and 

other control activities are not completely successful. These species might be 

introduced naturally or in seeds, plants, or soils introduced for intermediate 

restoration, or by vehicles. 

• The mine pit or strip. For a pit mining project, the mine pit would have the 

appearance of a large depression, possibly several hundred to one thousand 

acres in size at a given time, and possibly up to 500 ft deep, depending on site 

characteristics and applicable regulations. The pit would be permanent over 

the life of the project and might change in size and depth over time; some 

spent shale would likely be returned to the pit as the project progresses. For a 

strip mining project, the depression would likely be smaller in area (at a given 

time) and would move across the site over time. It is projected that surface 

mining projects in Utah would have 600 to 1,200 acres of surface disturbance 

at any one time, while surface mines in Wyoming could have 1,000 to 

2,000 acres of surface disturbance at any one time. It is projected that the total 

lease area would be affected over a 20-year project life, but that mine areas 

and spent shale disposal areas would be reclaimed on an ongoing basis much 

like many surface coal mines currently are. In both cases, the mine pit or strip 

would introduce strong visual contrasts in form, line, color, and texture (where 

visible) to the existing landscape, and because of the large size of the pit or 

strip, these strong visual contrasts could be conspicuous to viewers within 

several miles of the project, depending on visibility and viewing conditions. 

• Recontouring of landforms. The creation of the mine pit or strip, retention 

ponds, soil and shale piles, roads and pads for facilities, and restoration 

activities would require extensive recontouring of land throughout the lifetime 

of the project. Soil scars, exposed slope faces, eroded areas, and areas of 

compacted soil that could result from recontouring could introduce noticeable 

color contrasts, depending on soil type, as well as contrasts in form, line, and 

texture. Color and texture contrasts might be mitigated by revegetation 

activities over time. 
Final OSTS PEIS 4-146 

• New or upgraded roads. Both new road construction and upgrading of 

existing roads would be required for site access, materials hauling, and 

general transport within the site. The presence of new roads could introduce 

contrasts in line, color, and texture into existing landscapes, while the 

upgrading of existing roads could increase contrasts in color and texture, 

depending on treatment, and may increase the visible area if the road is 

widened. The process of road building and upgrading would likely continue 

to some degree throughout the life of the project as new sections are worked, 

particularly for strip mining projects. 

• Pads for structures and/or equipment. A variety of paved or gravel pads 

would be required for building and equipment sites, wells, and other activities 

such as vehicle parking. The presence of pads would introduce contrasts in 

line, color, and texture into existing landscapes and could introduce contrasts 

in form if substantial recontouring is required. 

• Buildings, retorts, ore crushing and processing buildings and structures, and 

other buildings and structures. The mining, ore handling, retorting, and 

upgrading processes all require a variety of buildings and built structures, for 

example, storage tanks, pipelines, flare and smoke stacks, and wells. In 

addition, a variety of support buildings and structures would be constructed, 

such as administration buildings, work trailers, guardhouses, storage 

structures, and fences. In general, these buildings and structures would 

contrast strongly in form, line, color, and texture with existing, generally 

natural-appearing landscapes because of the built structures’ rectilinear 

geometry, symmetry, and surface characteristics. In particular, those buildings 

and structures associated with oil shale extraction, ore processing, retorting, 

upgrading, storage, and transport would have a “heavy industry” look, similar 

in appearance to that of an oil refinery. For the larger operations, buildings 

and structures would likely cover 100 acres. Although color contrasts might 

be partially mitigated by painting buildings and structures in earth tones and 

using nonreflective coatings, in general, the buildings and structures would be 

visually prominent for any nearby viewers. To varying degrees (depending on 

the mining technology and other project-specific factors), the buildings and 

structures would be found in multiple locations and might be moved 

periodically to follow the mining activities across the site. Flare and smoke 

stacks could be as tall as 300 ft and could be visible for several miles in 

daylight, and farther at night. 

• Utilities. Electric transmission lines, pipelines, and communication data lines 

and towers (with associated ROWs and structures) would be required. New 

utilities could be located within and/or outside the lease boundaries. Where 

visible, these generally linear features would introduce contrasts in line to 

existing landscapes, while cleared ROWs and structures associated with 

utilities could introduce contrasts in form, line, color, and texture 

(Figures 4.9.1-1 and 4.9.1-2). 
FIGURE 4.9.1-1 ATP Processor Retort Technology at Stuart Oil Shale Facility, Queensland, Australia (Thidemonstration-scale [4,800-bbl/day] oil shale facility. A portion of the oil shale mining area is visible in the bPhoto courtesy of Queensland Energy Resources Limited, Queensland, Australia, and UMATAC Industrial Calgary, Alberta, Canada. Reprinted with permission.) 
FIGURE 4.9.1-2 Stuart Oil Shale Facility, Queensland, Australia (This is a demonstration-scale [4,800 bbl/daboveground oil shale retorting and processing facility. Photo courtesy of Queensland Energy Resources LimQueensland, Australia, and UMATAC Industrial Processes, Calgary, Alberta, Canada. Reprinted with perm
Final OSTS PEIS 4-149 

• Retention ponds, runoff-control structures, and earthen berms. Retention 

ponds would likely be required to control runoff on the project site and to 

store various liquids used for oil shale processing or reclamation; other runoff 

control structures such as earthen berms might also be constructed. Earthen 

berms would likely also be constructed around many of the storage tanks that 

would be present on the project site. Retention ponds and berms would 

introduce contrasts in form, line, and texture into existing natural-appearing 

landscapes. Depending on their size and on visibility and viewing conditions, 

retention ponds in particular might be visible at long distances. 

• Mounds of stored soil and raw and spent shale. Depending on the amount of 

overburden present at the project site, millions of tons of soil could be 

removed from on top of the oil shale deposits. This soil would be stored in 

mounds on-site for use in reclamation. If the project involved strip mining, the 

soil would be used in reclamation immediately after a section was worked, 

and the total amount visible in storage mounds would be significantly smaller 

than if the project involved pit mining. In either case, the soil mounds would 

be vegetated to reduce visual impacts and erosion, but revegetation would 

require a number of years before texture and color contrasts would be 

reduced. The mounds would likely be visible for several miles where clear 

lines of sight existed and could introduce strong contrasts in form to existing 

landscapes. Invasive species might colonize disturbed and stockpiled soils and 

compacted areas. In addition to soil, an estimated 17 to 23 million tons of 

spent shale would be produced each year for each retort (multiple retorts 

would be utilized for a given project) and would be stored on-site in large 

mounds, although a significant amount of the spent shale would eventually be 

returned to the mine cavity. Because of the expansion of oil shale during 

heating, much of the spent shale would remain on the surface and constitute a 

permanent visual impact unless it was transported off-site. Smaller, but still 

substantial, mounds of raw shale could be present while awaiting crushing and 

retorting. 

• Vehicular equipment and worker presence and activity. The large size of the 

project, the number of operations being conducted simultaneously 

(e.g., mining, ore processing, retorting, and upgrading), and the operating 

schedule of 24 hours per day, 7 days per week, would require that a 

substantial amount of equipment and a significant number of workers and 

vehicles be active on the site at most times throughout the life of the project. 

Small-vehicle traffic for worker access and nearly constant large-equipment 

traffic for raw and spent shale hauling and other activities would be expected. 

Both would produce visible activity and dust in dry soils, and some of the 

large-vehicle traffic would likely generate visible exhaust plumes. Suspension 

and visibility of dust would be influenced by vehicle speeds, road surface 

materials, and weather conditions, but might be at least partially controlled by 

dust-suppression measures. The presence of workers could also result in litter 
Final OSTS PEIS 4-150 

and debris that could create negative visual impacts within and around the 

project site. 

• Dust and emissions. Large equipment used to mine and crush oil shale would 

likely create large amounts of dust, which, if uncontrolled, could produce 

visible dust plumes, particularly for projects located on ridges or other 

exposed locations. Equipment and vehicles would also produce dust and 

emissions, as would explosives used in the mining process. Retort 

smokestacks, up to 300 ft or more in height would likely generate visible 

plumes under certain atmospheric conditions that could be visible for great 

distances (Commission on Geosciences, Environment and Resources 1993). 

Smaller stacks associated with other activities might also create visible 

emission plumes. In addition to their direct visibility, dust and emissions 

could also contribute to atmospheric haze in the region that could decrease 

landscape visibility, especially for long-distance views. 

• Light pollution. Because the projects would operate “around the clock,” they 

would generate light pollution from a variety of sources such as flare stacks, 

navigation warning lights on smokestacks, operations and security lighting, 

and vehicles. Lighting needs for operations would be substantial. 

Oil shale facilities would include exterior lighting around buildings, parking 

areas, and other work areas. Security and other lighting around and on support 

structures (e.g., the control building) could contribute to light pollution. 

Operations and maintenance activities conducted at night might require 

vehicle-mounted lights and other activity lighting, which could also contribute 

to light pollution. Light pollution impacts associated with utility-scale solar 

facilities include skyglow, light trespass, and glare. 

 Skyglow is a brightening of the night sky caused by both natural and man-made factors. 

Skyglow decreases a person’s ability to see dark night skies and stars, which is an important 

recreational activity in many parts of the western United States, including BLM- and non-BLM 

lands within or near the study area. Skyglow effects can be visible for long distances. Outdoor 

artificial lighting can contribute to skyglow by directing light directly upwards into the night sky 

and also through the reflection of light from the ground and other illuminated surfaces. 

 Light trespass is the casting of light into areas where it is unneeded or unwanted, such as 

when light designed to illuminate an industrial facility falls into nearby residential areas. Poorly 

placed and aimed lighting can result in spill light that falls outside the area needing illumination. 

 Glare is the visual sensation caused by excessive and uncontrolled brightness and, in the 

context of outdoor lighting, is generally associated with direct views of a strong light source. 

Poorly placed and aimed lighting can cause glare, as can the use of excessively bright lighting. 

 These light pollution impacts from oil shale facilities could be reduced somewhat by 

shielding and/or other mitigation measures; however, any degree of lighting would produce some 
Final OSTS PEIS 4-151 

off-site light pollution, which might be particularly noticeable in dark nighttime sky conditions 

typical of the rural/natural settings within the study area. 

 For facilities with tall structures (including electric transmission towers associated with 

oil shale facilities), Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) guidelines for marking and lighting 

facilities could require aircraft warning lights that flash white during the day and at twilight and 

red at night (FAA 2007) or, alternatively, red or white strobe lights flashing during the day 

and/or at night. Daylight lighting might be avoided in some cases by painting the tower orange 

and white according to FAA guidelines, but this practice could result in large increases in visual 

contrast for the tower during the day. Terrain, weather, and other location factors allow for 

adjustments to the manner in which FAA requirements are applied. FAA-compliant aircraft 

warning lights would be required for power tower receivers (or other structures) higher than 

200 ft and might be required in some circumstances for lower height structures. 

 The presence of aircraft warning lights could greatly increase visibility of the facilities 

and associated transmission lines at night in some locations, because the flashing red warning 

lights or strobes could be visible for long distances. In the dark nighttime sky conditions typical 

of the predominantly rural/natural settings within the three-state study area, the warning lights 

could potentially cause large visual impacts, especially if few similar light sources were present 

in the area. Because of intermittent operation, however, marker beacons would not likely 

contribute significantly to skyglow. White lights in daylight conditions would likely be less 

obtrusive. 

4.9.1.2 Underground Mining with Surface Retorting 

 While still introducing major visual changes to natural-appearing existing landscapes and 

creating strong visual contrasts in line, form, color, and texture that in large part could not be 

mitigated, commercial production of oil shale involving underground mining and surface 

retorting would involve fewer and less severe visual impacts compared with oil shale projects 

utilizing surface mines (see Section 4.9.1.1), primarily because of reduced surface disturbance 

from mining and related activities. Visual impacts associated with reclamation would also likely 

be less than for projects utilizing surface mines, because of the greatly reduced level of ground 

disturbance. 

4.9.1.2.1 Construction and Reclamation. Construction and reclamation of commercial 

oil shale projects utilizing underground mining and surface retorting would generate visual 

impacts similar in nature to those generated by projects utilizing surface mines. A rolling 

footprint development approach would not be utilized; however, a large mine pit would not be 

developed during operation either, so that, ultimately, far less surface would need reclamation 

after operations, and, therefore, reclamation activities would be less extensive, take less time, and 

thus would generate fewer visual impacts than reclamation activities for surface mines. A larger 

pile of spent shale would remain on the surface after operations; this material could require 

increased duration and intensity of reclamation activities for the affected portion of the site, 

which could increase associated visual impacts. 
Final OSTS PEIS 4-152 

 It is assumed that there would be one connecting transmission line and ROW and 

one pipeline and ROW serving each project site. Employer-provided housing also would be 

constructed off-lease to house workers and their families during the construction phase 

(see Section 4.9.1.4 for discussion of impacts associated with electric transmission lines, 

pipelines, and housing construction). 

4.9.1.2.2 Operation. Visual impacts associated with commercial oil shale production 

using underground mines are generally similar in nature to impacts associated with projects 

using surface mines; however, some major visual impacts associated with surface mining are 

absent or greatly diminished. Although mine adits and some ancillary facilities would be present, 

the associated visual impacts would be small, relative to either a pit or strip mine. In addition, 

because the adits would be created at permanent locations and the rolling footprint development 

approach would not be utilized, far less vegetation clearing, recontouring, and road building 

would be required, thereby greatly reducing the visual impacts relative to projects involving 

surface mines. It is expected that an area of approximately 150 acres would have a highly 

industrialized appearance with a core area of buildings, ore-processing facilities, tank farms, up 

to eight retorts, and other ancillary structures and equipment. Because of the reduced level of 

land disturbance, there would likely be less need for retention ponds and other erosion water 

control structures relative to surface mining operations. Because much of the activity associated 

with mining would take place underground, there likely would also be fewer and less severe 

visual impacts associated with worker and equipment presence and activity, and likely reduced 

dust and emissions as well. 

 Impacts associated with surface retorting, upgrading, and materials storage and 

transport would likely be similar to those described for projects utilizing surface mines 

(see Section 4.9.1.1). There would likely be slightly less light pollution because mining activity 

would be moved underground. Because most of the mined shale could not be disposed of in the 

mine, much larger amounts of spent shale would be present on the surface, and visual impacts 

associated with spent shale piles would be proportionally larger. Depending on the disposal areas 

chosen within the lease area, spent shale disposal areas may eventually cover approximately 

1,500 acres at a depth of material up to 250 ft. Disposal areas would be revegetated as an 

ongoing part of the operation. The increased impact from spent shale piles would be partially 

offset by the absence of soil mounds associated with overburden removal. 

4.9.1.3 In Situ Processing 

 As in projects utilizing surface or underground mining, commercial oil shale projects 

utilizing in situ processing are large-scale industrial concerns that would introduce major visual 

changes to natural-appearing existing landscapes. During the life of the project, in large part, 

these visual impacts could not be effectively mitigated; however, in situ processing would likely 

generate the lowest total visual impacts of the three technical approaches, primarily because it 

does not require mining, ore processing, or retorting, and there would be no spent shale pile. 

After successful remediation, many visual impacts associated with in situ oil shale development 

could likely be eliminated or substantially attenuated. 
Final OSTS PEIS 4-153 

4.9.1.3.1 Construction and Reclamation. In general, construction and reclamation 

of commercial oil shale projects utilizing in situ processing would utilize a rolling footprint 

development approach, with the appearance of continual construction and reclamation 

throughout the life of the project. Construction and reclamation impacts for in situ projects 

would likely be lower than for oil shale projects utilizing mines and surface retorting because 

of the relatively low level of recontouring and the absence of spent shale and soil mounds. 

 It is assumed that there would be one connecting transmission line and ROW and 

one pipeline and ROW serving each project site. Employer-provided housing also would be 

constructed off-lease to house workers and their families during the construction phase 

(see Section 4.9.1.4 for discussion of impacts associated with electric transmission lines, 

pipelines, and housing construction). 

4.9.1.3.2 Operation. Many visual impacts associated with commercial production of oil 

shale using in situ processing are generally similar in nature to impacts associated with projects 

using mining and surface retorting. The major visual impacts associated with mining and 

retorting are absent, however, and the overall visual impact would likely be substantially lower 

because of the absence of mines, ore-processing facilities, retorts and ancillary facilities, spentraw shale piles, and retention ponds and water erosion control structures. Relatively little 

recontouring would be required. There likely would also be, on average, less activity visible on 

the site because there would be no mining or shale-hauling activities. There would likely be a 

lower level of visual impacts from dust and emissions because there would be no ore crushing, 

and there would be less traffic and equipment activity on the site. There would, however, be 

extensive clearing of vegetation in each section and large numbers of wells and well pads in 

areas where shale oil was being extracted as it was worked, in accordance with the rolling 

footprint development process that would be employed. For projects in Colorado and Utah, 150 

to 600 acres are likely to be disturbed at a given time, and for projects in Wyoming, 1,000 to 

2,000 acres would likely be disturbed at a given time. It is projected that the total lease area of up 

to 5,760 acres would be affected over a 20-year project life. Buildings and structures would be 

associated with pumping shale oil and coolant for freeze wall maintenance, as well as facilities 

for upgrading, storage, and transport of shale oil. Because of the large demand for power to heat 

and cool underground formations, more structures associated with power generation, 

transmission, and distribution would likely be required, which would increase visual impacts. 

These permanent facilities are estimated to occupy approximately 200 acres. Other visual 

impacts (for infrastructure, employee-provided housing, and roads) would likely be similar to 

those described for oil shale projects utilizing surface mines. 

 Oil shale projects utilizing in situ processes are expected to have electric power 

requirements that would necessitate construction of new power plants to supply the required 

electricity. It is expected that the new power plants would be conventional 1,500-MW coal-fired 

plants. Visual impacts associated with the construction and operation of the new power plants are 

discussed in Section 4.9.1.4.2. 
Final OSTS PEIS 4-154 

4.9.1.4 Other Associated Oil Shale Project Facilities 

 Although many visual impacts expected from commercial oil shale development projects 

under consideration in the PEIS are site- or technology-specific, the oil shale projects have some 

common elements that would be expected to create similar visual impacts, regardless of location 

or the oil shale extraction and processing technologies employed. These elements include 

transmission lines and pipelines (required for all commercial oil shale projects), employerprovided housing (required for all commercial oil shale projects), and new power generation 

facilities (required for commercial oil shale projects utilizing in situ processing). The elements 

and related visual impacts are discussed here separately from impacts associated with specific 

oil shale extraction and processing technologies. 

4.9.1.4.1 Electric Transmission Lines and Pipelines. Construction and operation 

of electric transmission lines and oil pipelines could be required for commercial oil shale 

development. However, the projected linear extent of the facilities varies by project type and 

technology employed. Visual impacts associated with construction, operation, and reclamation 

of the electric transmission and pipeline facilities include temporary impacts associated with 

activities that occur during the construction and reclamation phases of the projects, and longer 

term impacts that result from construction and operation of the facilities themselves. For a given 

oil shale project, up to 150 mi of transmission line ROW might be required, and up to 55 mi of 

pipeline ROW might be required. 

 Potential visual impacts that could result from construction activities include ROW 

clearing with associated debris; trenching (for pipelines); road building and upgrading; 

construction and use of staging areas and laydown areas; mainline and support facility 

construction; blasting of rock faces and other cavities; vehicular, equipment, and worker 

presence and activity; and associated vegetation and ground disturbances, dust, and emissions. 

Pipeline construction may also involve pipeline bridge construction for crossings of rivers and 

canyons. During reclamation, visual impacts would be similar to those encountered during 

construction, but likely of shorter duration and generally occurring in reverse order from 

construction impacts. 

 Construction of a ROW requires clearing of vegetation, large rocks, and other objects. 

Vegetation clearing and topographic grading would be required for construction of access roads, 

maintenance roads, and roads to support facilities (e.g., electric substations or pump stations). 

Vegetation clearing activities can cause visual impacts by creating contrasts in form, line, color, 

and texture with existing natural landscapes, depending on site-specific factors, such as existing 

vegetation. Road development may introduce strong visual contrasts in the landscape depending 

on the route relative to surface contours and on the width, length, and surface treatment of the 

roads. Construction access roads would be reclaimed after construction ended, but some visual 

impacts (e.g., vegetation disturbance) associated with them might be evident for some years 

afterwards, gradually diminishing over time. Staging areas and laydown areas would be required 

for stockpiling and storage of equipment and materials needed during construction. These areas 

may require vegetation clearing, may cover 2 to 30 acres, and may be placed at intervals of 

several miles along a ROW. 
Final OSTS PEIS 4-155 

 Transmission line construction activities include clearing, leveling, and excavation at 

tower sites, as well as assembly and erection of towers followed by cable pulling. Pipeline 

mainline construction activities include clearing, leveling, trenching, and laying of pipe. Both 

electric and pipeline mainline construction activities would potentially have substantial but 

temporary visual impacts. Because both types of facilities are linear, construction activities 

would generally proceed as a “rolling assembly line,” with a work crew gradually moving 

through an area at varying rates depending on circumstances. 

 The operation and maintenance of electric transmission lines or pipelines and their 

associated facilities, roads, and ROWs would potentially have substantial long-term visual 

effects. Some impacts are common to both types of structures; however, the mainline structures 

are fundamentally different in terms of visual impacts. Electric transmission lines generally 

involve stronger visual contrasts than pipelines. In the following discussion, impacts similar for 

both types of projects are discussed, while impacts that are significantly different are discussed 

separately. 

 The width of cleared area for the permanent ROW for a given project would be 

determined at a project-specific level, but in general would be expected to be substantially wider 

for electric transmission line projects than for pipelines. Cleared ROWs might open up landscape 

views, especially down the length of the ROW, and introduce potentially significant changes in 

form, line, color, and texture. While the opening of views for viewers close to a cleared ROW 

might in some circumstances be a positive visual impact, the introduction of strong linear and 

color contrasts from clearing of ROWs in mid-ground and background views could create 

negative visual impacts, particularly in forested areas where either the viewer or the ROW is 

elevated such that long stretches of the ROW are visible. Viewing angle could also be an 

important factor in determining the perceived visual impact in these settings. In some situations, 

the impacts could be visible for many miles. 

 Where visible, electric transmission and distribution towers could create strong visual 

contrasts. The tower structures, conductors, insulators, aeronautical safety markings, and lights 

would all create visual impacts. Electric transmission towers would create vertical lines in the 

landscape, and the conductors would create horizontal lines that would be visible depending on 

viewing distance and lighting conditions. In the open landscapes present in much of the West and 

under favorable viewing conditions, the towers and conductors might be easily visible for several 

miles, especially if skylined, that is, placed along ridgelines. A variety of mitigation measures 

could be used to reduce impacts from these structures, but because of their size, in many 

circumstances it is difficult to avoid some level of visual impact except at very long distances. 

A transmission line’s visual presence would last from construction throughout the life of the 

project. 

 Oil pipelines in the United States are generally buried several feet below the surface, 

except at valves, compressor stations, pigging stations, city gate stations, metering facilities, 

some river crossings, or where very steep topography, bedrock, or other subsurface conditions 

preclude burial. Visual impacts are therefore typically less for buried portions of a pipeline than 

for aboveground portions and are limited primarily to those impacts associated with ROW 

clearing. Aboveground pipeline would generally introduce a strong, generally horizontal line into 
Final OSTS PEIS 4-156 

natural landscapes and might introduce significant color contrast as well, depending on surface 

treatment. Pipeline bridges might be conspicuously visible at some river or canyon crossings. 

 Both electric transmission projects and pipelines have associated ancillary structures that 

would contribute to perceived visual impacts. Electrical substations are located at the start and 

end points of transmission lines and may be required at locations where line voltage is changed. 

Substations may be several acres in size and include a variety of visually complex structures, 

conductors, fencing, lighting, and other features that result in an “industrial” appearance. The 

industrial look of a typical substation, together with the substantial height of its structures (up to 

40 ft or more) and its large areal extent, may result in negatively perceived visual impacts for 

nearby viewers. 

 Pipeline systems include aboveground structures—valves, compressor and pump stations, 

metering stations, and pig launch and recovery facilities. Valves may occupy a few hundred 

square feet, while pump stations may exceed 25 acres in size and include several buildings and 

sections of aboveground pipeline. All these facilities are industrial in appearance, with visually 

complex and generally rectilinear geometry, and the facilities typically introduce strong visual 

contrasts in line, form, texture, and color where they are located in nonindustrial surroundings, 

particularly for nearby viewers. 

4.9.1.4.2 Power Generation Facilities. New conventional coal-fired power plants 

or expansion of existing plants are projected to be required to supply electricity for certain 

commercial oil shale projects utilizing in situ processing. The power plants would be major 

industrial facilities occupying a total of approximately 4,800 acres during construction and 

operations. The location of new plants is not likely to occur on public lands. Direct visual 

impacts associated with construction, operation, and reclamation of the required power plants 

can be divided into generally temporary impacts associated with activities that occur during the 

construction and reclamation phases of the projects, and longer term impacts that result from 

construction and operation of the facilities themselves. 

 Major construction activities associated with the new power plants would include 

vegetation clearing; recontouring of landforms; road building and/or upgrading; and pad, parking 

lot, and building construction, as well as construction of other structures such as smokestacks or 

cooling towers. Other construction activities could include laying of railroad track; construction 

of berms, ditches, and/or ponds; and the addition of fencing around some or all of the facility 

site. Transmission towers and lines would be constructed to transmit the generated electricity 

off-site (impacts associated with electric transmission ROW construction and operation are 

discussed separately above). 

 These construction activities would require work crews, vehicles, and equipment that 

would add to visual impacts during construction. During reclamation, visual impacts would be 

similar to those encountered during construction, but they would likely be of shorter duration and 

generally occur in reverse order from construction impacts. 
Final OSTS PEIS 4-157 

 Visual impacts from the operation of the power plants would be caused primarily by 

visual contrasts associated with vegetation removal and the presence of buildings and other 

structures with strong geometric lines, spatial symmetry, and flat, monochromatic surfaces. 

These man-made industrial facilities would draw visual attention because of their size, color, and 

shape. The presence and activities of workers, vehicles, and equipment also would cause visual 

impacts. In addition, emission plumes would be expected to be visible in some atmospheric 

conditions, and the plumes could be visible for long distances. The emissions from the plants 

could contribute to atmospheric haze that would reduce visibility over long distances, thereby 

affecting scenic quality. The facilities also would be expected to contribute to local light 

pollution at night. These impacts would occur throughout the operational life of the power plants, 

and some impacts might occur beyond the operational life of the project. 

 Expected impacts associated with the construction and operation of a conventional coalfired power plant would differ to some degree depending on the specific site location, the 

technologies employed, and the configuration of the facility. Regardless of these factors, the 

presence and operation of industrial-appearing power plant facilities and equipment would 

introduce major visual changes to natural-appearing existing landscapes by creating strong visual 

contrasts in line, form, color, and texture. Although mitigation measures might lessen some 

visual impacts associated with the power plants, in large part, the visual impacts associated with 

the power plants could not be effectively mitigated. If the new power plants were sited adjacent 

to existing power plants or similar industrial facilities, the impacts could be significantly smaller, 

because the addition of an industrial facility to an already industrial-appearing landscape would 

involve a lower degree of visual contrast between the new plant and its surroundings. 

4.9.1.4.3 Employer-Provided Housing. Employer-provided housing would be 

constructed for each project; the locations are unknown, but not likely on public lands. 

Employer-provided housing would likely consist of clusters of prefabricated buildings or trailer 

homes for worker housing and some common buildings (e.g., recreation centers, stores, schools, 

and medical facilities). The size of the housing development would vary depending on the type 

of project and project phase (see Section 4.1), ranging from 7 to 63 acres. Employer-provided 

housing developments might be fenced around the perimeter, and street and/or security lighting 

would likely be provided. Paved or gravel pads might be constructed under the buildings/trailer 

homes. Visual impacts associated with the employer-provided housing would include contrasts 

in form, line, color, and texture caused by the introduction of buildings, fences, and pads; 

possible land forming to level the area; vegetation clearing; the addition of utilities such as 

electric transmission and distribution lines and telephone lines; the addition of roads both within 

and outside of the development; and the presence of workers, their families, their vehicles, and 

litter and other debris associated with the presence of humans. Light pollution would be 

generated at night from buildings, vehicles, and outdoor lighting. The extent and exact nature of 

the visual contrasts created would depend on site-specific factors but might be very noticeable 

for nearby viewers with unobstructed views of the housing area. 

Visual impacts associated with employer-provided housing would first occur during 

construction of the housing and would normally continue throughout the life of the oil shale 

project. However, employer-provided housing needs are predicted to be smaller during facility 
Final OSTS PEIS 4-158 

operation than during facility construction, and the unneeded housing would be removed after 

facility construction is completed. When the oil shale project is decommissioned, the remaining 

employer-provided housing and associated structures and facilities would likely be removed, and 

the area remediated to preconstruction conditions. Primarily because of the length of time 

required for vegetation restoration, some visual impacts associated with employer-provided 

housing might last for many years after removal of the housing. 

4.9.2 Mitigation Measures 

 Development activities will implement visual impact mitigation measures to the extent 

applicable and practicable. Potential mitigation measures that may be applied to siting, 

development, and operation of oil shale leases, as warranted by the result of the lease-stage or 

plan of development–stage NEPA analyses include the following. However, note that although 

mitigation measures might lessen some visual impacts associated with oil shale development, in 

large part, the visual impacts associated with commercial oil shale projects could not be 

mitigated. 

• Siting projects outside of the viewsheds of key observation points (KOPs) or, 

if this cannot be avoided, as far away as possible. 

• Siting projects to take advantage of both topography and vegetation as 

screening devices to restrict views of projects from visually sensitive areas. 

• Siting facilities away from and not adjacent to prominent landscape features 

(e.g., knobs and waterfalls). 

• Avoiding placement of facilities on ridgelines, summits, or other locations 

such that they will be silhouetted against the sky from important viewing 

locations. 

• Co-locating facilities to the extent possible to utilize existing and shared 

ROWs, existing and shared access and maintenance roads, and other 

infrastructure in order to reduce visual impacts associated with new 

construction. 

• Siting linear facilities so that generally they do not bisect ridge tops or run 

down the center of valley bottoms. 

• Siting linear features (aboveground pipelines, ROWs, and roads) to follow 

natural land contours rather than straight lines (particularly up slopes) when 

possible. Fall-line cuts should be avoided. 

• Siting facilities, especially linear facilities, to take advantage of natural 

topographic breaks (i.e., pronounced changes in slope) to avoid siting 

facilities on steep side slopes. 
Final OSTS PEIS 4-159 

• Where possible, siting linear features such as ROWs and roads to follow the 

edges of clearings (where they will be less conspicuous) rather than passing 

through the centers of clearings. 

• Siting facilities to take advantage of existing clearings to reduce vegetation 

clearing and ground disturbance, where possible. 

• Choosing locations for ROWs and other linear feature crossings of roads, and 

streams, and other linear features to avoid KOP viewsheds and other visually 

sensitive areas, and to minimize disturbance to vegetation and landform. 

• Siting linear features (e.g., trails, roads, and rivers) to cross other linear 

features at right angles where possible to minimize viewing area and duration. 

• Minimizing the number of structures required. 

• Constructing low-profile structures where possible to reduce structure 

visibility. 

• Siting and designing structures and roads to minimize and balance cuts and 

fills and to preserve existing rocks, vegetation, and drainage patterns to the 

maximum extent possible. 

• Selecting and designing materials and surface treatments in order to repeat 

and/or blend with existing form, line, color, and texture of the landscape. 

• Using appropriately colored materials for structures, or appropriate 

stains/coatings, to blend with the project’s backdrop. 

• Using nonreflective or low-reflectivity materials, coatings, or paints where 

possible. 

• Painting grouped structures the same color to reduce visual complexity and 

color contrast. 

• Preparing a lighting plan that documents how lighting will be designed and 

installed to minimize night-sky impacts during facility construction and 

operations phases. Lighting for facilities should not exceed the minimum 

number of lights and brightness required for safety and security and should 

not cause excessive reflected glare. Low-pressure sodium light sources should 

be utilized where feasible to reduce light pollution. Full cut-off luminaires 

should be utilized to minimize uplighting. Lights should be directed 

downward or toward the area to be illuminated. Light fixtures should not spill 

light beyond the project boundary. Lights in high-illumination areas not 

occupied on a continuous basis should have switches, timer switches, or 

motion detectors so that the lights operate only when the area is occupied. 
Final OSTS PEIS 4-160 

Where feasible, vehicle-mounted lights should be used for night maintenance 

activities. Wherever feasible, consistent with safety and security, lighting 

should be kept off when not in use. 

• Siting construction staging areas and laydown areas outside of the viewsheds 

of KOPs and visually sensitive areas, where possible, including siting in 

swales, around bends, and behind ridges and vegetative screens. 

• Developing a site reclamation plan and implementing it as soon as possible 

after construction begins. 

• Discussing visual impact mitigation objectives and activities with equipment 

operators prior to commencement of construction activities. 

• No wind rows or large piles should be created. There should be only a 20% 

ground cover from slash, and the minimum amount needed for reclamation 

should be staged; all other should be removed or spread to 20% ground cover. 

Staging should be done out of sight of sensitive viewing areas. 

• Avoiding installation of gravel and pavement where possible to reduce color 

and texture contrasts with existing landscape. 

• Using excess fill to fill uphill-side swales resulting from road construction in 

order to reduce unnatural-appearing slope interruption and to reduce fill piles. 

• Avoiding downslope wasting of excess fill material. 

• Rounding road-cut slopes, varying cut-and-fill pitch to reduce contrasts in 

form and line, and varying slope to preserve specimen trees and nonhazardous 

rock outcroppings. 

• Leaving planting pockets on slopes where feasible. 

• Providing benches in rock cuts to accent natural strata. 

• Using split-face rock blasting to minimize unnatural form and texture 

resulting from blasting. 

• Segregating topsoil from cut-and-fill activities and spreading it on freshly 

disturbed areas to reduce color contrast and aid rapid revegetation. 

• If topsoil piles are necessary, staging them out of sight of sensitive viewing 

areas. 

• Where feasible, removing excess cut-and-fill from the site to minimize ground 

disturbance and impacts from fill piles. 
Final OSTS PEIS 4-161 

• Burying utility cables where feasible. 

• Minimizing signage and painting or coating reverse sides of signs and mounts 

to reduce color contrast with existing landscape. 

• Prohibiting trash burning during construction, operation, and reclamation; 

storing trash in containers to be hauled off-site for disposal. 

• Controlling litter and noxious weeds and removing them regularly during 

construction, operation, and reclamation. 

• Implementing dust abatement measures to minimize the impacts of vehicular 

and pedestrian traffic, construction, and wind on exposed surface soils during 

construction, operation, and reclamation. 

• Undertaking interim restoration during the operating life of the project as soon 

as possible after disturbances. 

• During road maintenance activities, avoiding the blading of existing forbs and 

grasses in ditches and along roads. 

• Recontouring soil borrow areas, cut-and-fill slopes, berms, waterbars, and 

other disturbed areas to approximate naturally occurring slopes during 

reclamation. 

• Randomly scarifying cut slopes to reduce texture contrast with existing 

landscape and to aid in revegetation. 

• Covering disturbed areas with stockpiled topsoil or mulch, and revegetating 

with a mix of native species selected for visual compatibility with existing 

vegetation. 

• Removing or burying gravel and other surface treatments. 

• Restoring rocks, brush, and forest debris where possible to approximate 

preexisting visual conditions. 

 To mitigate visual impacts on high-value scenic resources in lands outside of, but 

adjacent to or near, oil shale leasing areas, the following mitigation measures should be applied 

to siting, development, and operation of oil shale leases, as warranted by the result of the leasestage or plan of development–stage NEPA analyses. 

• Oil shale-related development and operation activities within 5 mi of National 

Scenic Highways, All-American Roads, state-designated scenic highways, 

WSRs, and river segments designated as eligible for wild and scenic river 

status should conform to VRM Class II management objectives, with respect 
Final OSTS PEIS 4-162 

to impacts visible from the roadway/river. Beyond 5 mi but less than 15 mi 

from the roadway/river, development activities should conform to 

VRM Class III objectives. 

• Development activities within 15 mi of high-potential sites and segments of 

National Trails, National Historic Trails, and National Scenic Trails should 

conform to VRM Class II management objectives, with respect to impacts 

visible from the adjacent trail high-potential sites and segments. Beyond 

15 mi, development activities should conform to VRM Class III objectives. 

• Development activities on BLM-managed public lands within 15 mi of KOPs 

(e.g., scenic overlooks, rest stops, and scenic highway segments) in National 

Parks, National Monuments, NRAs, and ACECs with outstandingly 

remarkable values for scenery should conform to VRM Class II management 

objectives, with respect to impacts visible from the KOPs. Beyond 15 mi, 

development activities will conform to VRM Class III objectives. KOPs for 

non-BLM-managed lands should be determined in consultation with the 

managing federal agency. 

4.10 CULTURAL RESOURCES 

4.10.1 Common Impacts 

 Cultural resources, listed or eligible for listing on the NRHP, could be affected by future 

commercial oil shale leasing and development. The potential for impacts on cultural resources 

from commercial oil shale development, including ancillary facilities such as access roads, 

transmission lines, pipelines, employer-provided housing, and construction of possible new 

power plants, is directly related to the amount of land disturbance and the location of the project. 

Indirect effects, such as impacts on the cultural landscape resulting from the erosion of disturbed 

land surfaces and from increased accessibility to possible site locations, are also considered. 

Leasing itself has the potential to affect cultural resources to the extent that the terms of the lease 

limit an agency’s ability to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects of proposed development 

on cultural properties. However, compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA, as well as all other 

pertinent laws, regulations, and policies, will likely result in the addition of stipulations to leases 

to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse impacts on historic properties present within a lease area 

or, when warranted, in denial of the lease. 

 Impacts on cultural resources could result in several ways, as described below. 

• Complete site destruction could result from the clearing of the project area and 

grading, excavation, and construction of facilities and associated infrastructure 

if sites are located within the footprint of the project. 
Final OSTS PEIS 4-163 

• Site degradation and/or destruction could result from the alteration of 

topography, alteration of hydrologic patterns, removal of soils, erosion of 

soils, runoff into and sedimentation of adjacent areas, and oil or other 

contaminant spills if sites are located on or near the project area. Such 

degradation could occur both within the project footprint and in areas 

downslope or downstream. While the erosion of soils could negatively affect 

sites downstream of the project area by potentially eroding away materials and 

portions of sites, the accumulation of sediment could serve to protect some 

sites by increasing the amount of protective cover. Contaminants could affect 

the ability to conduct analysis of material present at the site and thus the 

ability to interpret site components. 

• Increases in human access and subsequent disturbance (e.g., looting, 

vandalism, and trampling) of cultural resources could result from the 

establishment of corridors or facilities in otherwise intact and inaccessible 

areas. Increased human access (including OHV use) exposes archaeological 

sites and historic structures and features to greater probability of impact from 

a variety of stressors. 

• Visual degradation of setting associated with significant cultural resources 

could result from the presence of commercial oil shale development and 

associated land disturbances and ancillary facilities. This could affect 

significant cultural resources for which visual integrity is a component of the 

sites’ significance, such as sacred sites and landscapes, historic trails, and 

historic landscapes. 

 Cultural resources are nonrenewable and, once damaged or destroyed, are not 

recoverable. Therefore, if a cultural resource is damaged or destroyed during oil shale 

development, it would constitute an irretrievable commitment of this particular cultural location 

or object. For cultural resources that are significant for their scientific value, data recovery is one 

way in which some information may be salvaged should a cultural resource site be adversely 

affected by development activity. Certain contextual data are invariably lost, but new cultural 

resources information is made available to the scientific community. Loss of value for education, 

heritage tourism, or traditional uses is less easily mitigated. 

4.10.2 Mitigation Measures 

 For all potential impacts, the application of mitigation measures developed in 

consultation under Section 106 of the NHPA will avoid, reduce, or mitigate the potential for 

adverse impacts on significant cultural resources. Section 106 consultations between the BLM 

and the SHPOs, appropriate tribes, and other consulting parties would be required at the lease 

stage and at the plan of development stage. The use of BMPs, such as training/education 

programs, could reduce occurrences of human-related disturbances to nearby cultural sites. The 

specifics of these BMPs would be established during the leasing and plan of development stages 

in consultations between the applicant, the BLM, the SHPO, and tribes, as appropriate. The 
Final OSTS PEIS 4-164 

addition of special stipulations to specific leases would ensure that resulting decisions from 

project-specific consultations are applied to the resources present in the lease areas. 

 An ethnohistory (Bengston 2007) and a cultural resources (O’Rourke et al. 2012) 

overview were completed for the study area. The overviews synthesized existing information on 

cultural resources that had been previously identified. Also, tribal consultation was initiated to 

further identify significant cultural resources. This analysis did not identify geographical areas 

that will preclude moving areas forward for leasing. Prior to any lease issuance, or development 

project approval, the overviews and ongoing tribal consultation will be reviewed for any 

pertinent information to determine areas of sensitivity and appropriate survey and mitigation 

needs. 

 The BLM has initiated the Section 106 process pursuant to Subpart B of the Advisory 

Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) regulations at 36 CFR Part 800 and is reviewing 

existing information regarding historic properties in the area of potential effects for this proposed 

amendment of land use plans. The BLM is engaging in consultation with the SHPOs, tribes, and 

other consulting parties. As appropriate to the level of analysis necessary for this PEIS, the 

BLM identified historic properties and evaluated potential impacts under Section 106 of the 

NHPA for this proposed undertaking, in part through consultation with the consulting parties 

(See Section 7.7 for the results of the Section 106 process for this undertaking.) 

 As discussed in Section 1.1.1, potential oil shale development would require a three-stage 

decision-making process including this proposed amendment of land use plans. Oil shale leasing 

may require additional consultation and information gathering (e.g., cultural resource 

inventories) prior to the lease sale. In addition, the lessee must submit a plan of development for 

any site-specific project that would require BLM approval. Additional site-specific NEPA 

analyses and a Section 106 review will be conducted on these individual project plans of 

development. The BLM will complete comprehensive identification (e.g., field inventory), 

evaluation, protection, and mitigation following the pertinent laws, regulations, and policies. In 

addition, the BLM will continue to implement government-to-government consultation with 

tribes and with other consulting parties on a case-by-case basis for plans of development. 

 The BLM does not approve any ground-disturbing activities that may affect any historic 

properties, sacred landscapes, and/or resources protected under the NHPA, American Indian 

Religious Freedom Act, Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 

E.O. 13007 (U.S. President 1996), or other statutes and E.O.s until it completes its obligations 

under applicable requirements of the NHPA and other authorities. The BLM may require 

modification to exploration or development proposals to protect such properties or disapprove 

any activity that is likely to result in adverse effects that cannot be successfully avoided, 

minimized, or mitigated. The BLM attaches this language to all lease parcels. 

4.11 INDIAN TRIBAL CONCERNS 

 Resources important to Native Americans could be affected by commercial oil shale 

leasing and development in and around the areas where development takes place. 
Final OSTS PEIS 4-165 

4.11.1 Common Impacts 

 Native American concerns include traditional cultural properties, burial remains, sacred 

sites or landscapes, culturally important wild plants and animals, ecological balance and 

environmental protection, water quality and use, human health and safety, economic 

development and employment, and access to energy resources. Other Native American concerns 

could include the potential effects on Indian trust assets, to the extent such assets are present. 

Native Americans may view these resources as interconnected, such that effects on one resource 

affect all. The potential for impacts on resources of significance to Native Americans from oil 

shale leasing and development, including ancillary facilities such as access roads and 

transmission lines, is directly related to the amount of land disturbance and the location of the 

project. Indirect effects—for example, impacts on water quality and use, the ecosystem in 

general, and the cultural landscape resulting from the erosion of disturbed land surfaces—are 

also possible. 

 Impacts on Native American resources could result in several ways, as described below. 

• Complete destruction of an important location or resource could result from 

the clearing, grading, and excavation of the project area and from construction 

of facilities and associated infrastructure if archaeological sites, sacred sites, 

burials, traditional cultural properties, specific habitat for culturally important 

plants and wildlife species, and the like are located within the footprint of the 

project. 

• Degradation and/or destruction of an important resource could result from 

the alteration of topography, alteration of hydrologic patterns, removal of 

soils, erosion of soils, runoff into and sedimentation of adjacent areas, and oil 

or other contaminant spills if important sites or habitats are located on or near 

the project area. Such degradation could occur both within the lease parcel 

and in areas downslope or downstream. Although the erosion of soils could 

negatively affect areas downstream of the project area by potentially eroding 

materials and portions of archaeological sites, the accumulation of sediment 

could serve to protect some archaeological sites by increasing the amount of 

protective cover. 

• Increases in human access and subsequent disturbance (e.g., looting, 

vandalism, and trampling) of resources significant to Native Americans could 

result from the establishment of roads or facilities in otherwise intact and 

inaccessible areas. Increased human access (including OHV use) exposes 

plants, animals, archaeological sites, historic structures and features, and other 

culturally significant natural features to greater probability of impact from a 

variety of stressors. 

• Visual degradation of settings associated with significant cultural resources 

and sacred landscapes could result from the presence of a commercial oil 

shale facility and associated land disturbances and ancillary facilities. This 
Final OSTS PEIS 4-166 

could affect important resources for which visual integrity is a component of 

the sites’ significance to the tribes, such as sacred sites, landscapes, and trails. 

• Noise degradation of settings associated with significant cultural resources 

and sacred landscapes also could result from the presence of oil shale 

extraction and processing facilities. This could affect the pristine nature and 

peacefulness of a culturally significant location. 

 The difference in surface disturbance is one technology-specific factor that could have a 

possible impact on resources of concern to Native Americans. However, because all potential 

impacts on tribally sensitive resources would be determined by site-specific conditions, 

differences in surface disturbance would not necessarily directly correspond to differences in 

impacts on these resources at the programmatic level. The magnitude or level of impact would 

depend on whether the specific location of a proposed oil shale facility contains significant 

resources or degrades an important viewshed regardless of the overall size of the facility. 

Differences in water requirements of various technologies also could be a factor because water 

use, quality, and availability are important issues of Native American concern. 

4.11.2 Mitigation Measures 

 Government-to-government consultations between the BLM and the directly and 

substantially affected tribes is required under E.O. 13175 (U.S. President 2000). In addition, 

Section 106 of the NHPA requires federal agencies to consult with Indian tribes for undertakings 

on tribal lands and for historic properties of significance to the tribes that may be affected by an 

undertaking (CFR 36 800.2 (c)(2)). BLM Manual 8120 provides guidance for government-togovernment consultations. For impacts on resources of interest to Indian tribes and their 

members, such as traditional cultural properties, that constitute historic properties under the 

NHPA, the application of mitigation measures developed in consultation under Section 106 of 

the NHPA would avoid, reduce, or mitigate the potential for adverse impacts. The use of 

management practices such as training/education programs for workers and the public could 

reduce occurrences of human-related disturbances to resources important to tribes. The details 

of these management practices should be established in project-specific consultations among the 

applicant and the BLM, tribes, and SHPOs, as appropriate. The addition of special stipulations 

to specific leases would ensure that resulting decisions from project-specific consultations are 

applied to the resources present in the lease areas. 

 For those resources not considered historic properties under the NHPA, ongoing 

government-to-government consultation would help determine other issues of concern, including 

but not limited to access rights, disruption of cultural practices, impacts on visual resources 

important to the tribes, and impacts on subsistence resources. Ecological issues and potential 

mitigation measures are discussed in Section 4.8. Impacts on water use and quality and potential 

mitigation measures are discussed in Section 4.5. Note that even when consultation and an 

extensive inventory or data collection occur, not all impacts on tribally sensitive resources can be 

fully mitigated. 
Final OSTS PEIS 4-167 

 Some specific mitigation measures are listed below (all mitigation measures listed in 

Section 4.11.2 for cultural resources would also apply to historic properties of concern to Indian 

tribes and their members): 

• The BLM will consult with Indian tribal governments early in the planning 

process to identify issues and areas of concern for any proposed oil shale 

project. Such consultation is required by the NHPA and other authorities and 

is necessary to determine whether construction and operation of the project 

are likely to disturb tribally sensitive resources, impede access to culturally 

important locations, disrupt traditional cultural practices, affect movements of 

animals important to tribes, or visually affect culturally important landscapes. 

It may be possible to negotiate a mutually acceptable means of minimizing 

adverse effects on resources important to tribes. 

• Visual intrusion on sacred areas should be avoided to the extent practical

through the selection of location and technology. When avoidance is not 

possible, timely and meaningful consultation with the affected tribe(s) should 

be conducted to formulate a mutually acceptable plan to mitigate or reduce the 

adverse effect. 

• Rock art (panels of petroglyphs and/or pictographs) should be avoided 

whenever possible. These panels may be just one component of a larger sacred 

landscape, in which avoidance of all impacts may not be possible. Mitigation 

plans for eliminating or reducing (minimizing) potential impacts on rock art 

should be formulated in consultation with the appropriate tribal cultural 

authorities. 

• Tribal burial sites should be avoided. A contingency plan for encountering 

unanticipated burials and funerary goods during construction, maintenance, 

or operation of an oil shale facility should be developed as part of a 

formalized agreement to address management and mitigation options for 

significant cultural resources in consultation with the appropriate tribal 

governments and cultural authorities well in advance of any ground 

disturbances. The contingency plan should include consultation with the lineal 

descendants or tribal affiliates of the deceased, and human remains and 

objects of cultural patrimony should be protected and repatriated according to 

the statutory procedures and regulations of NAGPRA. 

• Springs and other water sources that are or may be sacred or culturally 

important should be avoided whenever possible. If construction, maintenance, 

or operational activities must occur in proximity to springs or other water 

sources, appropriate measures, such as the use of geotextiles or silt fencing, 

should be taken to prevent silt from degrading water sources. The 

effectiveness of these mitigating barriers should be monitored. Measures for 

preventing water depletion impacts on spring flows should also be employed. 
Final OSTS PEIS 4-168 

Particular mitigations should be determined in consultation with the 

appropriate Indian tribe(s). 

• Culturally important plant species should be avoided when possible. Facilities 

should be designed to minimize impacts on game trails, migration routes, and 

nesting and breeding areas of tribally important species. Mitigation and 

monitoring procedures should be developed in consultation with the affected 

tribe(s).When it is not possible to avoid these plant resources, consultations 

should be undertaken with the affected tribe(s). If the species is available 

elsewhere on BLM-managed lands, guaranteeing access may suffice. For rare 

or less common species, establishing (transplanting) an equal amount of the 

plant resource elsewhere on BLM-managed land accessible to the affected 

tribe may be acceptable. 

 Government-to-government consultation has been initiated to identify further significant 

cultural resources. This phase of analysis is ongoing but has yet to identify geographical areas 

that will preclude allocating these lands as available for lease application. During the leasing 

phase, tribal consultation will be continued to help determine areas of tribal concern and 

appropriate means to avoid, minimize, or mitigate impacts on areas of tribal concern, and may 

attach stipulations to any lease to ensure these measures. Oil shale leasing may require additional 

consultation and information gathering (e.g., cultural resource inventories) prior to the lease sale. 

The BLM will continue to implement government-to-government consultation with tribes and 

with other consulting parties on a case-by-case basis for plans of development. 

 The BLM does not approve any ground-disturbing activities that may affect any historic 

properties, sacred landscapes, and/or resources protected under the NHPA, American Indian 

Religious Freedom Act, NAGPRA, E.O. 13007 (U.S. President 1996), or other statutes and E.O.s 

until it completes its obligations under applicable requirements of the NHPA and other 

authorities. The BLM may require modification to exploration or development proposals to 

protect such properties or disapprove any activity that is likely to result in adverse effects that 

cannot be successfully avoided, minimized, or mitigated. 

4.12 SOCIOECONOMICS 

 The analysis of the socioeconomic impacts of oil shale developments in Colorado, Utah, 

and Wyoming consists of two interdependent parts. The analysis of economic impacts estimates 

the impacts of oil shale facilities and associated facilities (e.g., power plants and coal mines)13

on employment and personal income in an ROI in which oil shale resources are located in each 

state. 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 

 

13 The impact of coal mining to support coal-fired power plants that are projected to be required for in situ projects 

is addressed only for socioeconomics and environmental justice in this PEIS. Although impacts from coal 

mining may be important factors for the socioeconomic analysis, the need for additional coal mining is 

speculative. Future site-specific NEPA analyses would be needed to address the full range of socioeconomic 

concerns for a development project. 
Final OSTS PEIS 4-169 

developments are likely to cause a large influx of temporary population. As population increases 

are likely to be rapid, local communities may be unable to quickly absorb new residents, 

resulting in impacts on local finances and public service infrastructure. Social and psychological 

disruption may also occur, together with the undermining of established community social 

structures. Given these considerations, the analysis of social impacts assesses the potential 

impacts of oil shale developments on population, housing, public service employment, and 

community public finances in the ROI in each of the three states. The analysis also assesses the 

potential impact of oil shale projects on social disruption that may be associated with rapid 

population growth in small rural communities hosting large resource development projects. 

 The assessment of the socioeconomic impacts of oil shale developments was based on a 

number of key assumptions: 

• Material and equipment procurement. 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. Specifically, for each ROI it was 

assumed that 15% of materials and equipment during the construction phase 

were purchased in each local economy, with 20% purchased locally during the 

operations phase. Given the more likely local availability of materials and 

services for housing construction, it was assumed that 25% of materials 

required for the construction of temporary employer-provided housing and 

housing provided in local communities would come from each ROI. 

• Wages and salary spending. Since oil shale, power plant, and coal mine 

construction workers would reside in the ROI in each state for extended 

periods of time, it was assumed that 75% of wages and salaries paid to these 

workers would be spent in the ROI in each state, with 25% of income used to 

cover existing expenses, such as housing payments, in locations outside each 

ROI. Because it was assumed that all oil shale, power plant, and coal mine 

operations workers would move permanently into the ROI in each state, 100% 

of wages and salary spending by these workers was assumed to occur within 

the ROI in each state. It was assumed that 50% of housing construction 

workers would reside in the ROI in each state and would spend their wages 

and salaries locally and that housing construction workers not residing in the 

ROI would commute from elsewhere, with no wage-spending impacts 

associated with commuting workers. 

• Worker in-migration. Because of the relatively small local labor force and 

fairly low unemployment rates in each ROI (see Section 3.10.1), it was 

assumed that the entire construction and operations labor force for oil shale 

facilities and the associated power plants and coal mines would come from 

outside the ROI in each state. It was also assumed that 33% of oil shale 
Final OSTS PEIS 4-170 

facility, power plant, and coal mine workers (direct and indirect) during 

construction and operations would be accompanied by their families and 

would be accommodated in temporary employer-provided housing or in 

housing provided by local communities. The national average household size 

of 2.59 (U.S. Census Bureau 2007) was used to calculate the number of 

additional family members per worker. It was assumed that, given the 

presence of workers in the relevant occupations in each ROI, 50% of the 

workers required for temporary housing construction would already reside in 

local ROI communities. The remainder would commute from outside the ROI 

on a daily basis or use temporary accommodations (e.g., rental housing, 

hotels, and campsites). 

• Worker housing. Given 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 all 

temporary housing required would be 

new construction. 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, the 

location of which is unknown at this 

time, but which is not expected to be on 

public lands (Table 4.12-1). The 

remainder would be accommodated in 

temporary housing of similar quality 

built in local communities in each ROI. 

Although temporary housing built for 

oil and gas and other energy project 

construction workers has typically been 

in trailer homes, and often in employerprovided housing, housing provided for 

oil shale and ancillary facility workers 

may be of more substantial construction 

and may include a wider range of health 

and recreation services than previously 

provided. Housing provided in local 

communities, especially that provided 

for operations workers, may be similar 

TABLE 4.12-1 Temporary Housing 

Assumptions 

Workers 

EmployerProvided 

Housing 

(%) 

Provided 

in Local 

Communities

(%) 

 

Colorado 

Construction 

Direct workers 60 40 

Indirect workers 10 90 

 

Operations 

Direct workers 25 75 

Indirect workers 10 90 

 

Utah 

Construction 

Direct workers 80 20 

Indirect workers 35 65 

 

Operations 

Direct workers 50 50 

Indirect workers 25 75 

 

Wyoming 

Construction 

Direct workers 70 30 

Indirect workers 30 70 

 

Operations 

Direct workers 30 70 

Indirect workers 15 85 

Source: Thompson (2006a). 
Final OSTS PEIS 4-171 

to that built for the residential market and may be located in existing 

residential areas. A small number (15%) would be accommodated in rental 

housing and motels in the ROI. Indirect workers producing goods and services 

needed as a result of increased local demand associated with oil shale, power 

plant, and coal mine worker wage and salary spending would also be partially 

accommodated in employer-provided housing (Table 4.12-1). It was assumed 

that temporary housing built for direct and indirect workers and family 

members during project construction would be occupied by direct and indirect 

workers during operations, meaning that no new worker housing would be 

required during facility operating phases. 

Planned temporary housing developments of employer-provided housing 

for oil shale workers could be the most effective means of minimizing the 

impacts of rapid population growth on local housing, local community fiscal 

resources, and local public services funded locally. Since these temporary 

housing developments could have adequate food service, security, health, 

and recreational facilities, these facilities might also help avoid social and 

psychological disruption that might occur as a result of conflicts between the 

permanent and temporary populations and the potential consequent impact on 

established community social structures. 

• Power plants and coal mines. As presented in Table 4.1.6-1, employment in a 

600-MW power plant would range from 480 to 600 during construction, with 

60 employees during operations. If needed, coal production to support power 

plants was assumed to come from an underground mine in both Colorado and 

Utah; each mine would employ 188 workers during construction and between 

132 and 159 workers during operations. If a power plant were needed in 

Wyoming, it was assumed to be fueled by coal from a surface mine in 

Wyoming, which would employ 34 workers during both construction and 

operation (Hill and Associates, Inc. 2007). An additional coal-fired power 

plant is projected to be needed only for certain in situ projects, depending on 

technologies used and production levels. 

• Peak construction year and first year of operations. Although the exact 

schedule that would be used for construction and operation of oil shale 

facilities is not known, in order to assess the magnitude of the impacts of 

facilities on the economic and social baseline in each ROI, specific years were 

used for each project phase for each facility. As the peak construction year, 

2022 was assumed for an in situ facility and 2027 for a surface and 

underground mine. The first year of operation of an in situ facility was 

assumed to occur in 2027, while operations of a surface and underground 

mine were assumed to occur beyond the end of the planning period 2008 to 

2027. Peak construction of a power plant and coal mine was assumed to occur 

in 2013, with operation of both facilities beginning in 2017. The peak year of 

construction for housing required for oil shale, power plant, and coal mine 
Final OSTS PEIS 4-172 

construction workers was assumed to occur in the year immediately preceding 

the peak construction year for each facility.

4.12.1 Common Impacts 

4.12.1.1 Economic Impacts 

 Methods. The economic impacts of each facility on ROI employment and personal 

income are presented. To estimate economic impacts, the assessment used representative data 

from a number of NEPA assessments covering the potential impacts of large energy resource 

development projects (DOI 1973b; BLM 1980, 1983a,b, 1984a; DOE 1982a). These data 

included direct workforce projections for project construction and operation for various oil shale 

technologies, different sizes of operations, and temporary housing requirements. Employment 

data for proposed oil shale developments and for the associated power plants and coal mines 

were provided by the BLM (Thompson 2006b–d), the DOE (EIA 2007a–c), and industry sources 

(Hill and Associates, Inc. 2007). IMPLAN economic data were then used to calculate the 

indirect impacts associated with oil shale project wage and salary spending, material 

procurement spending, and the construction of temporary employer-provided housing and 

housing provided by local communities in each ROI (MIG, Inc. 2012). Details of this 

methodology are presented in Appendix G. Underlying employment numbers are also presented 

in Appendix G. 

 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 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. 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 

officers, 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. 

 In the following sections, impacts are presented for a variety of facilities relevant to the 

development of oil shale resources in each state ROI. Impacts associated with construction of 

adequate temporary employer-provided housing and housing provided by the local community 

for each oil shale facility for each ROI are also discussed, together with an assessment of the 

impact of power plant and coal mine construction and operation and the associated employerprovided housing and housing provided in local communities. 
Final OSTS PEIS 4-173 

 Although a wide range of restrictions govern the potential location of oil shale 

developments and associated facilities on public lands, these restrictions are not reflected in the 

analysis of socioeconomic impacts. Direct and indirect employment associated with oil shale 

developments would lead to population in-migration into each ROI and increases in housing, 

public service employment, and expenditures and may lead to changes in quality of life and 

social change in local communities, regardless of the proposed locations of each facility within 

each ROI. 

 To assess the magnitude of the impacts resulting from project construction on the 

baseline in each ROI, the percentage change in a number of key economic (peak construction 

employment) and social (population, vacant housing, and local government expenditures) 

variables in specific years was used. For any variable, impacts would be small if the percentage 

change compared with the baseline is less than 5%, moderate if the percentage change is between 

5 and 10%, and large if the percentage change compared with the baseline is more than 10%. 

 Impacts. Construction and operation of oil shale facilities and the associated temporary 

employer-provided housing and housing constructed in local communities in the ROI for oil 

shale facility, power plant, and coal mine workers and family members would affect the 

economy of each ROI. Oil shale technologies and the associated energy production facilities and 

housing would create significant new sources of employment and income at each facility. Wages 

and salaries spent by facility workers and by housing construction workers would create demand 

for a range of durable and nondurable goods and services sold by ROI retailers, which, together 

with the purchase of equipment, materials, and supplies required during energy project and 

housing construction and project operation in each ROI, would provide significant new sources 

of indirect employment and income to ROI residents. 

 Surface mining with surface retorting would produce between 1,134 and 1,153 total 

(direct plus indirect) jobs in the three ROIs in the peak year of construction and between 

$68 million and $81 million in income (Table 4.12.1-1). Project operations would produce 

between 1.477 and 1,502 jobs and between $89 million and $106 million in income. 

Underground mining would create between 1,155 and 1,188 jobs and between $66 million and 

$82 million in personal income, with between 1,467 and 1,684 jobs created during the operating 

period. Construction of an in situ processing facility would create between 347 and 365 jobs and 

between $20 million and $25 million in personal income, producing between 117 and 126 jobs 

and between $7 million and $19 million in income during the operating period. Construction 

employment for each facility would represent an increase of between 0.2% and 2.0% over the 

projected employment baseline in the three ROIs in the peak construction year. Enefit Energy 

alone is projecting about 2,000 direct employees for its 50,000-bbl/day plant at full production, 

by about 2024 (Enefit American Oil 2011). 

 Construction of power plants in association with in situ facilities would produce between 

694 and 804 total jobs and between $39 million and $55 million in income in the three ROIs 

during the peak construction year (Table 4.12.1-2). During plant operations, between 75 and 

86 employees would be required in the ROIs, producing between $5 million and $6 million in 

income. Construction employment for the power plants would represent an increase of between 
Final OSTS PEIS 4-174 

TABLE 4.12.1-1 ROI Economic Impacts of Oil Shale Developmenta

 Oil Shale Development 

Housing Construction Construction Operation 

 Employment 

Income 

(2010 

$ million) Employment

Income 

(2010 

$ million) Employment 

Income 

(2010 

$ million) 

 

Surface mining with 

surface retorting 

 

Direct 239–256 5.3–5.5 722 57.8–68/3 962 77.0–91.0 

Indirect 52–57 1.4–1.6 412–431 10.0-12.6 516–541 12.2–14.8 

Total 291–313 6.7–7.1 1,134–1,153 67.7–80.9 1,477–1,502 89.1–105.8

 

Underground mining 

with surface retorting 

 

Direct 210–261 4.7–5.7 735 53.2–69.6 955 69.2–90.4 

Indirect 53–61 1.5–2.0 420–453 10.2–13.1 512–729 12.1–19.3 

Total 271–319 6.6–7.3 1,155–1,188 66.3–82.4 1,467–1,684 85.2–109.7

 

In situ processing 

Direct 64–73 1.4–1.7 225 16.3–21.3 75 5.4–7.1 

Indirect 16–18 0.5–0.6 122–140 3.3–3.9 42–51 1.1–1.4 

Total 82–100 2.0–2.2 347–365 20.2–24.9 117–126 6.6–8.5 

a The direct employment data presented in this table for the construction and operation of commercial surface 

and underground mining projects are based on data provided in DOI (1973b). Some of these data were 

extrapolated from data presented for construction and operation of an underground mine with a capacity of 

50,000 bbl/day and 100,000 bbl/day to 25,000 to 30,000 bbl/day, and from a surface mine with a capacity of 

100,000 bbl/day to 25,000 to 30,000 bbl/day. In situ facility data are from Thompson (2006b), with data for 

Colorado multiplicative of a single facility with a capacity of 30,000 to 50,000 bbl/day. Direct employment 

numbers and multiplier data from the IMPLAN model (MIG, Inc. 2012) were used to calculate indirect 

employment and income numbers for housing and each technology. 

b Direct and indirect employment and income numbers in each range do not necessarily add to the corresponding 

totals. Across the ROIs, for housing construction and any given technology, power plant, and coal mine, 

variations in the size of indirect impacts do not necessarily correspond to variations in the size of direct 

impacts. 

0.5 and 1.3% over the projected employment baseline in the three ROIs in the peak year. Coal 

mine development in each ROI would produce between 54 and 304 jobs in the ROI during 

construction and between $3 million and $21 million in income in the ROIs (Table 4.12.1-2). 

Plant operations would require between 52 and 239 employees in the ROIs, producing between 

$4 million and $15 million in income. Construction employment for the coal mines would 

represent an increase of between 0.1% and 0.5% over the projected peak year employment 

baseline in the three ROIs. 
Final OSTS PEIS 4-175 

TABLE 4.12.1-2 ROI Economic Impacts of Power Plant and Coal Mine Developmenta

 

Housing Construction Construction Operation 

Employment 

Income 

(2010 

$ million) Employment

Income 

(2010 

$ million) Employment 

Income 

(2010 

$ million) 

 

Power plant 

Direct 147–168 3.2–3.5 538 38.9–50.9 60 4.4–5.7 

Indirect 33–42 0.9–1.4 156–266 3.9–8.4 15–26 0.4–0.7 

Total 189–205b 4.4–4.6 694–804 46.9–55.1 7586 5.1–6.1 

 

Coal mine 

Direct 11–67 0.3–1.4 34–188 3.2–15.1 34–159 3.2–12.7 

Indirect 3–16 0.1–0.5 20–116 0.6–3.4 19–85 0.5–2.2 

Total 14–82 0.3–1.8 54327 3.8–17.7 53–244 3.7–14.7 

a The direct employment data presented in this table are based on data provided in Thompson (2006c,d). 

Direct employment numbers and multiplier data from the IMPLAN model (MIG, Inc. 2012) were used to 

calculate indirect employment and income numbers for housing and each technology. 

b Direct and indirect employment and income numbers in each range do not necessarily add to the 

corresponding totals. Across the ROIs, for housing construction and any given technology, power plant, and 

coal mine, variations in the size of indirect impacts do not necessarily correspond to variations in the size of 

direct impacts. 

 In addition to oil shale, power, and coal production facilities, employer-provided 

temporary housing and housing constructed in local communities would also produce 

employment and income in each ROI. Housing provided for surface mine workers and their 

families would create between 291 and 313 jobs and approximately $7 million in income in the 

ROIs (Table 4.12.1-1). Construction of housing for underground mine workers and families 

would produce between 271 and 319 jobs and between $6 million and $7 million in income in 

the ROIs. Construction of housing for in situ project workers and their families would produce 

employment of between 82 and 100 jobs and $2 million in income in the ROIs. Construction 

of temporary housing for power plant workers and families in the ROI would create between 

189 and 205 jobs, while housing for mine workers would produce between 14 and 82 jobs. 

Four million dollars in income would be produced during construction of housing for power 

plant workers and between $0.3 million and $2 million during construction of coal mine worker 

housing (Table 4.12.1-2). 

4.12.1.2 Social Impacts 

 Worker in-migration to local communities in each ROI during construction and operation 

of oil shale facilities and the associated power plants and coal mines would affect population in 

each ROI. In the absence of temporary accommodations in local communities for oil shale 

workers during project construction and operation, the influx of oil shale workers and family 
Final OSTS PEIS 4-176 

members would have a relatively large impact on the housing market in each ROI. The new 

residential population associated with the project construction and operation would also require 

the hiring of additional local public service employees (police officers, fire personnel, local 

government employees, and teachers) in each ROI. Increases in ROI public service employment 

would also require increases in local revenues and expenditures to meet the necessary additional 

local public service provision. 

 During the peak year of construction of a surface mine facility, between 579 and 901 new 

residents are expected in the ROIs, with between 1,291 and 2,038 relocating to the ROIs during 

operations (Table 4.12.1-3). Construction of an underground mine would mean between 590 and 

1,430 new residents in the ROI during the peak construction year, with between 1,282 and 

2,456 expected during operations. Construction of an in situ facility would mean between 190 

and 695 new residents during the peak construction year, with between 104 and 297 workers and 

their families required during facility operations. Population increases associated with the 

construction of an underground mine project would represent an increase of between 0.3% and 

0.8% over the baseline population in the three ROIs during construction and between 0.5% and 

1.9% during operations, with similar increases expected for a surface mine. 

 Construction of a power plant would bring between 321 and 647 new residents to 

the ROIs during the peak construction year, with between 63 and 100 workers and their families 

required during facility operations (Table 4.12.1-4). Coal mine construction would mean 

between 35 and 305 new residents during construction and between 60 and 283 in-migrants 

during operations. Population increases associated with the construction of power plants would 

represent increases of between 0.2% and 0.4% in the population baseline in the three ROIs 

during construction and between 0.02% and 0.08% during operations. Coal mine construction 

would increase baseline populations in the three ROIs by between 0.02% and 0.1%, with 

operations adding between 0.05% and 0.08% to the baseline populations in the three ROIs. 

 Population increases associated with construction of a surface mine project would require 

between 167 and 266 housing units in the ROIs, absorbing between 1.5% and 3.2% of vacant 

housing units (Table 4.12.1-3). For an underground mine, between 170 and 412 housing units, or 

TABLE 4.12.1-3 ROI Demographic and Housing Impacts of Oil Shale Development 

In-Migration to Local 

Housing Demand in 

Local Communities 

 Communities 

Type of Development Construction Operation 

Number 

of Units 

Percentage 

Vacant 

 

Surface mining with surface retorting 579–901 1,291–2,038 167–260 1.5–3.2 

 

Underground mining with surface retorting 590–1,430 1,282–2,456 170–412 1.5–3.2 

 

In situ processing 190–695 104–297 55–201 0.5–1.5 
Final OSTS PEIS 4-177 

TABLE 4.12.1-4 ROI Demographic and Housing Impacts of Power 

Plant and Coal Mine Development 

In-Migration to Local 

Housing Demand in 

Local Communities 

 Communities 

Type of 

Development Construction Operation 

Number 

of Units 

Percentage 

Vacant 

 

Power plant 320–647 63–100 93–187 1.0–1.6 

 

Coal mine 35–305 60–283 10–88 0.1–0.7 

between 1.5% and 3.2% of the vacant housing stock in the three ROIs, would be required. For an 

in situ facility, population increases associated with project construction would require between 

55 and 200 housing units, or between 0.5% and 1.5% of the vacant housing stock in the three 

ROIs. For a power plant, population increases associated with project construction would require 

between 92 and 186 housing units, or between 1.0% and 1.6% of the vacant housing stock in the 

three ROIs, while coal mine development would require between 10 and 88 housing units, or 

between 0.1% and 0.7% of vacant units in the ROIs (Table 4.12.1-4). 

 Construction of a surface mine facility would require between 14 and 29 new local 

government employees in the three ROIs during construction and between 31 and 65 employees 

during operations (Table 4.12.1-5). The additional local public service provision during the peak 

construction year would require an increase of between 0.5% and 1.0% in local expenditures in 

the three ROIs, with increases of between 1.2% and 2.3% during operations. Construction of an 

underground mine would require between 14 and 36 local government employees during 

construction, and between 31 and 66 during operations. The increase in local public service 

provision would represent an increase of between 0.5% and 1.0% in expenditures in the three 

ROIs during construction and between 0.9% and 2.3% during operations. Construction of an 

in situ facility would require between 5 and 18 local government employees during construction 

and between 3 and 8 during operations, with the increase in local public service provision of 

between 0.2% and 0.5% in expenditures during construction and between 0.1% and 0.3% during 

operations. Construction of a power plant would require between 6 and 18 local government 

employees in the three ROIs during construction and between 1 and 3 during operations, with the 

increase in local public service provision of between 0.3% and 0.5% in expenditures in the three 

ROIs during construction and between 0.05% and 0.1% during operations (Table 4.12.1-6). Coal 

mine development would require between 1 and 8 local government employees in the three ROIs 

during construction, requiring an increase of between 0.05% and 0.15% in local government 

expenditures in the three ROIs, and between 1 and 8 during operations, which would necessitate 

an increase in local government expenditures of between 0.08% and 0.13%. 

 Higher local government expenditures would mean the potential for better quality local 

public services and infrastructure in some communities. In addition to providing employment 

and higher wages for some occupational groups, oil shale companies may also provide funds to 
Final OSTS PEIS 4-178 

TABLE 4.12.1-5 ROI Community Impacts of Oil Shale Development 

 Government Employees 

Change in Local Government 

Expenditures (%) 

 

Mining Process Construction Operation Construction Operation 

 

Surface mining with surface retorting 

(one 25,000–30,000-bbl/day project) 

14–29 32–65 0.6–1.0 1.3–2.3 

 

Underground mining with surface retorting 

(one 25,000–30,000-bbl/day project) 

15–36 32–66 0.5–1.0 0.9–2.3 

In situ processing (one 30,000–

50,000-bbl/day project) 

5–18 3–8 0.2–0.5 0.1–0.3 

TABLE 4.12.1-6 ROI Community Impacts of Power Plant and Coal 

Mine Development 

 Government Employees 

Change in Local Government 

Expenditures (%) 

Type of 

Development Construction Operation Construction Operation 

 

Power plant 6–18 1–3 0.3–0.5 0.05–0.1 

 

Coal mine 1–8 1–8 0.05–0.15 0.08–0.13 

upgrade portions of the road system in each ROI and fund school scholarships and vocational 

training in some communities. Financing needed to support increases in local public 

expenditures that would be required to facilitate expansion in local public services, education, 

and local infrastructure affected by oil shale and associated facilities might come from a number 

of sources. In communities affected by the oil and gas industry, increases in property tax 

revenues resulting from increases in assessed valuations with increased demand for employee 

housing have often provided local communities with funds to support local finances in each ROI 

and have often occurred without the need to increase property tax rates (see Section 3.11.2). In 

addition, revenues from oil and gas severance taxes are currently distributed by state authorities 

to local communities to support local public service and infrastructure development by using a 

range of different mechanisms, while payments in lieu of taxes are made by federal agencies as 

required by law and may be used to support local community responses to energy developments 

on public land. Royalty bonus payments have also been provided to local communities with the 

leasing of public lands for energy development. Some communities might also receive increased 

sales tax revenues resulting from local energy development and consequent increases in 

economic activity that could be used to support local government expenditures. 

 
Final OSTS PEIS 4-179 

4.12.1.3 Social Disruption Impacts 

 Although it is likely that social and psychological disruption would occur during the 

boom phase of the development of oil shale facilities in small rural communities, the precise 

relationship between development projects and particular forms of social disruption and social 

change are difficult to predict. It has been suggested, for example, that social disruption is likely 

to occur once an arbitrary population growth rate associated with oil shale development has been 

reached, with an annual rate of between 5% and 10% growth in population assumed to result in a 

breakdown in social structures, with a consequent increase in alcoholism, depression, suicide, 

social conflict, divorce, delinquency, and deterioration in levels of community satisfaction 

(BLM 1980, 1983a,b). 

 The review of the literature assessing the relationship between social disruption and the 

rapid development of various energy projects in small rural communities suggests that there is 

insufficient evidence to predict the extent to which specific communities are likely to experience 

social disruption, which population groups within each community are likely to be most affected, 

and the extent to which social disruption is likely to persist beyond the end of the boom period. 

However, the number of new residents from outside the producing regions and the pace of 

population growth associated with the commercial development of oil shale resources, which 

would include large-scale production facilities and ancillary power plants, coal mines, and 

housing developments, are likely to lead to substantial demographic and social change in small 

rural communities. Communities hosting these developments are likely to be required to adapt to 

a different quality of life, with a transition away from a more traditional lifestyle involving 

ranching and taking place in small, isolated, close-knit, homogenous communities with a strong 

orientation toward personal and family relationships, toward a more urban lifestyle, with 

increasing cultural and ethnic diversity and increasing dependence on formal social relationships 

within the community. 

 While much of the literature on social disruption assesses the impact of energy and other 

large-scale developments on small, stable, isolated rural communities, many communities in 

the three ROIs have experienced extensive growth and development during the recent past 

associated with oil and gas development, tourism and recreation, and retirement and second 

home development. Given the scale of these developments, it is likely that some degree of 

social disruption may have already occurred in a number of communities, particularly in the 

Colorado ROI. 

4.12.1.4 Agricultural Impacts 

 Because it is likely that oil shale technologies will require substantial quantities of water, 

water transfers from other industries may be required in each ROI. In the oil and gas industry, to 

facilitate new oil and gas development, water rights have often been purchased from agricultural 

landowners, primarily ranchers (see Section 3.11.2.2). Although the transfer of water rights to 

energy companies has not always meant that agricultural land is lost, the loss of water rights has 

often meant that irrigated agriculture is no longer possible and has led to the conversion of land 

to dryland farming and ranching activities. At higher levels of oil shale development, it is 
Final OSTS PEIS 4-180 

possible that water may be transferred into each ROI from other areas, which may limit the 

impact of reduced access by agriculture to water resources in some areas of each ROI. With 

restrictions on water use for irrigation, some agricultural land may consequently be sold and 

developed for second homes, condos, and other real estate types, which may create quality of life 

impacts in some farming communities (see Section 3.11.2.2.1). Water availability on agricultural 

land and land sales might also fragment 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 ROI. 

 The impacts of substantial conversion of agricultural water rights could have 

large impacts on the economy of each ROI, the extent of which would depend on the 

amount of agricultural production lost, the extent of local employment in agriculture 

(see Section 3.11.2.1.2), the reliance of other industries in each ROI on agricultural production, 

the extent of local procurement of equipment and supplies by agriculture in the economy of each 

ROI, and the local impact of spending of wages and salaries by farmers, ranchers, and 

farmworkers. In addition to income from agricultural activities, agricultural income comes from 

“agri-tourism,” including hunting and fishing; hiking and other farm- and ranch-related 

experiences may also be affected by losses of agricultural land or changes in agricultural land 

use. Oil shale 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 ROI. Loss of revenues from 

recreation activities may also affect wildlife and habitat agency management practices. The 

impact of losses in employment and income from a reduction in agriculture likely would be more 

than offset in some parts of each ROI by increases in revenues coming from oil shale 

development. Changes in economic activity would also likely produce social impacts associated 

with the loss of traditional quality of life and the adoption of a more urban lifestyle. 

4.12.1.5 Recreation Impacts 

 Estimating the impact of oil shale development and the associated power plant and coal 

mine facilities on recreation is problematic, because it is not clear how activities under each 

alternative in each ROI would affect recreational visitation. While it is clear that some federal 

land in each state ROI would no longer be accessible for recreation, the majority of popular 

wilderness locations would be precluded from oil shale development. It is also possible that oil 

shale developments and associated transmission lines and transportation infrastructure elsewhere 

in each ROI would be visible from popular recreation locations (see Section 4.9), thereby 

reducing visitation and consequently impacting the economy of each ROI. 

 Because the impact of each oil shale technology and alternative on visitation is not 

known, this section presents two simple scenarios to indicate the magnitude of the economic 

impact of oil shale development on recreation: the impact of a 10% and a 20% reduction in 

ROI recreation employment in each state ROI. Impacts include the direct loss of recreation 

employment in the recreation sectors in each ROI, and the indirect effects, which represent 

the impact on the remainder of the economy in each ROI as a result of declining recreation 

employee wage and salary spending and declining expenditures by the recreation sector on 
Final OSTS PEIS 4-181 

materials, equipment, and services. Impacts were estimated by using IMPLAN data for each ROI 

(MIG, Inc. 2012). IMPLAN is an input-output modeling framework designed to capture 

spending flows among all economic sectors and households in each ROI economy. 

 In the Colorado ROI, the total (direct plus indirect) impacts of oil shale development 

on recreation would be the loss of 1,388 jobs with a 10% reduction in recreation employment, 

and 2,776 jobs if recreation employment were to decline 20% (Table 4.12.1-7). Income lost as 

a result of the 10% decrease in recreational employment would be $18 million, with $35 million 

lost for the 20% loss in employment. In the Utah ROI, 409 jobs and $3 million in income would 

be lost in the ROI as a whole as a result of a 10% reduction in recreation employment, and 

818 jobs and $7 million in income would be lost with the 20% reduction. In the Wyoming ROI, 

1,261 jobs and $7.6 million in income would be lost under the 10% scenario, with 2,522 jobs and 

$13 million in income lost if 20% of recreation-related employment were lost in the ROI. 

4.12.1.6 Property Value Impacts 

 There is concern that oil shale developments and their associated power plants, 

transmission lines, and coal mines might affect property values in ROI communities located 

nearby. Property values might decline in some locations as a result of the deterioration in 

aesthetic quality, increases in noise, real or perceived health effects, congestion, or social 

disruption. In other locations, property values might increase because of access to employment 

opportunities associated with oil shale developments. 

TABLE 4.12.1-7 Total ROIa Impacts of Reductions in Recreation 

Sectorb Employment Resulting from Oil Shale Development 

 10% Reduction 20% Reduction 

ROI Employment 

Income 

($ million) Employment 

Income 

($ million) 

 

Colorado 1,388 17.7 2,776 35.4 

Utah 409 3.3 818 6.6 

Wyoming 1,261 6.4 2,522 12.8 

a The Colorado ROI includes Delta, Garfield, Mesa, Moffat, and 

Rio Blanco Counties; the Utah ROI includes Carbon, Duchesne, 

Emery, Garfield, Grand, San Juan, Uintah, and Wayne Counties; the 

Wyoming ROI includes Carbon, Lincoln, Sweetwater, and Uinta 

Counties. 

b The recreation sector includes amusement and recreation services, 

automotive rental, eating and drinking establishments, hotels and 

lodging facilities, museums and historic sites, RV parks and campsites, 

scenic tours, and sporting goods retailers. 
Final OSTS PEIS 4-182 

 In general, potentially hazardous facilities can directly affect property values in two ways 

(Clark et al. 1997; Clark and Allison 1999). First, negative imagery associated with these 

facilities could reduce property values if potential buyers believed that any given facility might 

produce an adverse environmental impact. Negative imagery could be based on individual 

perceptions of risk associated with proximity to these facilities or on perceptions at the 

community level that the presence of such a facility might adversely affect local economic 

development prospects. Even though a potential buyer might not personally fear a potentially 

hazardous facility, the buyer might still offer less for a property in the vicinity of a facility if 

there was fear that the facility would reduce the rate of appreciation of housing in the area. 

Second, there could be a positive influence on property values associated with accessibility to the 

workplace for workers at the facility, with workers offering more for property close to the 

facility to minimize commuting times. Workers directly associated with the facility would 

probably also have much less fear of the technology and operations at the facility than would the 

population as a whole. The importance of this influence on property values would likely vary 

with the size of the workforce involved. 

 Although there is no evidence of the impact of oil shale facilities on local property 

values, there is limited evidence of the impact of gas drilling on property values in western 

Colorado. In communities adjacent to drilling activities, property values declined with the 

announcement of drilling, and during the first stages of extraction, the values rebounded, at least 

partly, once production was fully under way (BBC Research and Consulting 2006). Other studies 

have assessed the impact of other potentially hazardous facilitiessuch as nuclear power plants 

and waste facilities (Clark and Nieves 1994; Clark et al. 1997; Clark and Allison 1999) and 

hazardous material and municipal waste incinerators and landfills (Kohlhase 1991; Kiel and 

McClain 1995)on, for example, local property markets. Many of these studies used a hedonic 

modeling approach to take into account the wide range of spatial influencesincluding noxious 

facilities, crime (Thaler 1978), fiscal factors (Stull and Stull 1991), and noise and air quality 

(Nelson 1979)on property values. 

 The general conclusion from these studies is that while there may be a small negative 

effect on property values in the immediate vicinity of noxious facilities (i.e., less than 1 mi), this 

effect is often temporary and often associated with announcements related to specific project 

phases, such as site selection, the start of construction, or the start of operations. At larger 

distances, over longer project durations, no significant, enduring, negative property value effects 

have been found. Depending on the importance of the employment effect associated with the 

development of the various activities analyzed in these studies, a positive impact on property 

values was found to be associated with increases in demand for local housing. 

 Under conditions of moderate population growth and housing demand, it appears that 

property values could increase with the expansion in local employment opportunities resulting 

from oil shale development. However, with multiple oil shale technologies under construction in 

each ROI (particularly toward the end of the planning period), increases in population and the 

associated congestionin the absence of adequate private sector real estate investment and 

appropriate local community planningmight have adverse impacts on property values. It has 

also been suggested that once the annual growth in population is between 5% and 15% in smaller 

rural communities, a breakdown in social structures would occur, with a consequent increase in 
Final OSTS PEIS 4-183 

alcoholism, depression, suicide, social conflict, divorce, and delinquency and a deterioration in 

levels of community satisfaction (BLM 1980, 1983b, 1996), with the resulting deterioration in 

local quality of life adversely affecting property values. 

 Energy transmission lines could also affect property values in communities located on 

land adjacent to oil shale developments, primarily as a result of the visibility of electricity 

transmission structures; health and safety issues (in particular, electric and magnetic field 

[EMF]), noise, and traffic congestion associated with transmission lines would likely be less 

important. Although various studies have attempted to measure the impact of transmission lines 

on property values, significant data and methodological problems are associated with many of 

the studies, and the results are often inconclusive (Kroll and Priestley 1992; Grover, Elliot and 

Company 2005). 

4.12.1.7 Environmental Amenities and Economic Development Impacts 

 Over recent decades, many areas of the western United States have been able to 

diversify their economies away from largely extractive industries toward knowledge-based 

industries, the professional and service sector, and retirement, recreation, and tourism (Bennett 

and McBeth 1998). It is apparent that growth in these parts of the economy has become highly 

sensitive to changes in environmental amenities; that is, environmental quality and access to 

environmental amenities may have become important factors in the economic development of 

the rural West. Although not all sectors of the economy are highly responsive to changes in 

environmental quality, with various other factors, including quality and availability of regional 

human resources, energy availability and reliability of energy supply, and the prevailing relative 

cost of doing business, there is extensive literature that indicates that perceived deterioration of 

the natural environment and the natural amenities offered in specific locations, particularly those 

available on public lands, may have an important impact on the ability of communities in 

adjacent regions to foster sustainable economic growth (Rudzitis and Johansen 1989; Johnson 

and Rasker 1995; Rasker 1994; Power 1996; Rudzitis 1999; Rasker 2004; Chipeniuk 2004; 

Holmes and Hecox 2005; Reeder and Brown 2005). 

 Since the 1980s, western Colorado and eastern Utah have diversified their economies 

toward tourism and recreation, much of which is based on natural amenities, notably hunting, 

fishing, bird watching, and skiing. To the extent that existing and potential new economic 

activities sensitive to changes in environmental quality and the amenity-based activities they 

support are in each ROI, oil shale and tar sands and associated power plant and coal mining 

developments may create conflicts with the ability of each ROI to attract future growth in 

economic activities that are sensitive to environmental amenities. 

4.12.1.8 Transportation Impacts 

 Project development that could occur in any of the three states would lead to increases in 

traffic on any roads needed for access to project sites. In areas undergoing simultaneous oil and 

gas or other development, oil shale–related development would add to traffic volumes and 
Final OSTS PEIS 4-184 

maintenance needs. The amount of additional heavy vehicles associated with oil shale 

development is not large compared with the number of light vehicles transporting employees; 

however, they would add to the congestion and may require special consideration when 

designing or upgrading access roads and highways. 

 Providing adequate access roads to oil shale development sites may involve upgrading 

existing roads and road facilities or constructing completely new roads and bridges. 

Specifications for the access roads would be dictated by the expected volume and type of traffic. 

Significant increases in traffic loads would cause increased costs for maintenance and repair of 

roads and bridge structures. 

 Because some of the construction and processing equipment components are large, 

ROW clearances and minimum turning radii become critical parameters for road design. 

Typically, access roads would be a minimum of 10 ft wide, but they may need to be as much as 

30 ft wide or more to accommodate continuous access needs. Depending on design requirements 

and local geology/soil characteristics, surface soils may need to be excavated, and road material 

may need to be imported to establish an adequate road base. 

 The majority of transportation-related environmental impacts would occur while access 

to development sites is being created from existing public roads, but existing public or private 

roadways may also need to be altered to accommodate heavy and/or oversized transport vehicles 

or additional traffic volumes. It is reasonable to expect that special road transportation permits 

would be required for some vehicles. Excessive load weight may require fortification of existing 

bridges. Large loads may require the temporary removal of height or turning radius obstacles. 

4.12.2 Mitigation Measures 

 Mitigation measures to reduce socioeconomic impacts will be required and could include 

the BLM working with state and local agencies to identify potential socioeconomic impacts and 

to develop mitigation measures. In doing so, a suite of potential measures could be implemented, 

including, but not limited to, the following actions: 

• Operators could be required to provide housing and basic services for all 

direct project hires and their families in order to minimize potential (1) social 

disruption associated with large numbers of in-migrants locating in small rural 

communities, (2) short-term adverse impacts on regional housing markets and 

overnight accommodation facilities, (3) adverse impacts on regional consumer 

products’ availability and price, and (4) adverse impacts on public services 

provided by local communities in the surrounding region. 

• Operators could work with state and local agencies to develop community 

monitoring programs that will be sufficient to identify and evaluate 

socioeconomic impacts resulting from commercial development. Monitoring 

programs should collect data reflecting economic, fiscal, and social impacts of 

the development at both the state and local level. Parameters to be evaluated 
Final OSTS PEIS 4-185 

could include impacts on local labor and housing markets, local consumer 

product prices and availability, local public services (police, fire, and public 

health), and educational services. Programs also could monitor indicators of 

social disruption (e.g., crime, alcoholism, drug use, and mental health) and the 

effectiveness of community welfare programs in addressing these problems. 

 It is possible that some community development programs, with participation from 

energy resource developers and local, state, and federal governments, will be implemented 

proactively in each ROI to avoid, manage, or mitigate negative social, economic, and fiscal 

consequences of oil shale development, prior to oil shale development. 

 Operators could work with state and local agencies to develop community outreach 

programs that would help communities adjust to changes triggered by commercial development. 

Such programs could include any of the following activities: 

• Establishing vocational training programs for the local workforce to promote 

development of skills required by the commercial development industries. 

• Developing instructional materials for use in area schools to educate the local 

communities on the commercial development industries. 

• Supporting community health screenings, especially those addressing 

potential health impacts related to commercial development activities. 

• Providing financial support to local libraries for development of information 

repositories on commercial development and processing, including materials 

on the hazards and benefits of commercial development. Electronic 

repositories established by the operators could also be of great value. 

 Additional impact mitigation strategies could be designed and implemented at the local 

and state level, notably market-based mitigation strategies to coordinate ecosystem management 

practices and rotational schedules for direct workers, once the location, timing, and magnitude of 

impacts of specific projects are known. The role of tax revenues in attempts to diversify local 

economies and reduce dependency on natural resource extraction industries, thereby reducing the 

susceptibility of local communities to the boom-and-bust economic cycle associated with energy 

development in rural areas, could also be considered. The BLM cannot direct that government 

funds be paid to state and local governments to mitigate impacts from oil shale development. The 

BLM can only show those impacts in NEPA documents and address how impacts were mitigated 

in the past by direction from Congress to use the bonus bids from the federal leases. 

 Mitigation measures that could be implemented include the following: 

• Maintain and/or upgrade existing roads utilized for the proposed project, as 

necessary, to conditions equal to, or better, than those that existed prior to 

project-related use. 
Final OSTS PEIS 4-186 

• Develop and maintain close working relationships with state and county 

highway departments during all phases of project construction and 

maintenance. 

• Encourage employees and contractors to carpool to and from the site. 

• Emphasize to contractors and employees the need to comply with all posted 

speed limits to prevent accidents as well as to minimize fugitive dust. 

• Comply with county and state weight restrictions and limitations and 

overweight/size permitting requirements. 

• Control dust along unsurfaced access roads and minimize the tracking of mud 

onto roads. 

• Restore unsurfaced roads to equal or better condition than preconstruction 

levels after construction is completed. 

• Develop measures to control unauthorized OHV use in cooperation with the 

BLM and interested landowners. 

• Require all projects to develop transportation management plans; new road 

construction or road upgrades on BLM-administered public lands would be 

expected to follow minimum guidelines as provided in the BLM Gold Book 

(DOI and USDA 2007), including road maintenance requirements. 

4.13 ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE 

 Construction and operation of oil shale developments and associated power plants and 

housing could affect environmental justice if any adverse health and environmental impacts 

resulting from either phase of development are significantly high and if these impacts would 

disproportionately affect minority and low-income populations. If health and environmental 

impacts are not significant, there can be no disproportionate impacts on minority and lowincome populations. If the impacts are significant, disproportionality is determined by comparing 

the proximity of high and adverse impacts with the location of low-income and minority 

populations. Details of the methodology for assessing environmental justice issues are presented 

in Appendix G. For each of the alternatives, the following sections describe impacts on various 

resources located in the oil shale resource areas within the three-state study area that would be 

affected by oil shale development. Local demographic and social disruption impacts, property 

value impacts, land use, air and water quality and use, and visual impacts are described. This 

discussion is followed by a determination of the extent to which impacts of oil shale 

development would have a disproportionate effect on low-income and minority groups on the 

basis of the location of low-income and minority populations. 
Final OSTS PEIS 4-187 

4.13.1 Common Impacts 

4.13.1.1 Impact-Producing Factors 

 Rapid population growth in small rural communities hosting large oil shale development 

projects may produce social and psychological disruption, together with the undermining of 

established community social structures. Various studies have suggested that social disruption 

may occur in small rural communities when annual population increases are between 5% and 

15% (see Section 4.12.1.3). 

 Property value impacts on private land in the vicinity of oil shale development projects 

and associated transmission lines may affect minority and low-income populations. These 

impacts would depend on the range of alternate uses of specific land parcels to landowners, 

current property values, and the perceived value of costs (e.g., visual impacts, traffic congestion, 

noise and dust pollution, air quality impacts, and EMF effects) and benefits (e.g., infrastructure 

upgrades, employment opportunities, and local tax revenues) from proximity to oil shale–related 

facilities to potential real estate purchasers of property owned by minority and low-income 

individuals in local communities. 

 Construction activities would produce fugitive dust emissions and engine exhaust 

emissions from heavy equipment, as well as from commuting and delivery vehicles on paved 

and/or unpaved roads, and wind erosion of soil disturbed by construction activities or from soil 

stockpiles. Emissions associated with these activities would consist primarily of particulate 

matter (PM2.5 and PM10), and criteria pollutants, VOCs, CO2, and certain HAPs released from 

heavy construction equipment and vehicle exhaust. Emissions during oil shale facility operations 

would consist of CO, NO2, PM2.5, PM10, and SO2. Construction of transmission lines and access 

roads required for the delivery of equipment and materials to project sites would produce fugitive 

dust impacts, the magnitude of which would depend, in part, on the terrain and road length, and 

the length of time that they would be used for construction traffic. 

 Water consumption and quality impacts on land in the vicinity of oil shale development 

projects and associated transmission lines might affect minority and low-income populations, 

both in terms of water used for domestic consumption and water that may be used to support 

wildlife populations used for subsistence agriculture and for cultural and religious purposes. The 

impact on water resources during construction would consist primarily of increases in surface 

runoff, and, consequently, in dissolved solids and in the volumetric flow of nearby streams near 

the project sites. The amount of water used during the operation of oil shale development 

projects is expected to be large at higher levels of facility production and could potentially 

impact minority and low-income populations if there are shortages of drinking water or water 

that might be used for agriculture. 

 Construction and operation of oil shale and supporting facilities, power plants, housing, 

and transmission lines would produce noise impacts, and operation of transmission lines may 

lead to EMF effects. 
Final OSTS PEIS 4-188 

 Oil shale facilities and associated transmission towers may potentially alter the scenic 

quality in areas of traditional or cultural significance to minority and low-income populations, 

depending on the facility’s size and location. Construction would introduce contrasts in form, 

line, color, and texture, as well as a relatively high degree of human activity into existing 

landscapes with generally low levels of human activity. 

 Land used for oil shale facilities might impact certain animals or vegetation types that 

may be of cultural or religious significance to certain population groups or that form the basis for 

subsistence agriculture. Similarly, land used for facilities that has additional economic uses 

might affect access to resources by low-income and minority population groups. 

4.13.1.2 General Population 

 Population in-migration would occur in each year of oil shale resource development. 

Workers would be required to move into each state during construction and operation of oil shale 

and power plant facilities and to facilitate the demand for goods and services resulting from the 

spending of oil shale, power plant, and housing construction worker wages and salaries. 

In-migration in the peak year of construction of a power plant would increase population in the 

three-state study area by up to 1.7%. During the period in which an underground mine would 

be operated in the study area, and also the period during which power plants and coal mines 

would be operating, population in the three-state study area is projected to increase by 3.2%. 

In-migration associated with oil shale development would also require additional housing to be 

constructed in the three-state study area, with up to 6.4% of vacant housing units required during 

the peak year for power plant construction, and up to 6.2% of vacant units required during the 

peak year of coal mine construction. 

 Because oil shale development projects and the associated power plant and housing 

developments would lead to rapid population growth in many of the communities in each 

ROI, particularly in situ projects in Colorado, and given evidence presented in the literature 

(see Section 3.11.2.2), it is highly possible that some degree of social disruption would 

accompany these developments. In the absence of appropriate levels of local and regional 

planning, rapid demographic change may lead to the undermining of local community social 

structures with contrasting beliefs and value systems among the local population and 

in-migrants, and consequently, to a range of changes in social and community life, including 

increases in crime, alcoholism, and drug use. Higher local government expenditures would 

partially offset some of these developments, with the potential for better quality local public 

services and infrastructure in some communities. In addition to providing employment and 

higher wages for some occupational groups, oil companies may also provide funds to upgrade 

portions of the road system in each ROI and fund school scholarships and vocational training in 

some communities. 

 The precise nature of the impact of oil shale facility construction and operation on 

property values was not evaluated for this PEIS. The impact would depend on the range of 

alternate uses of specific land parcels by landowners, current property values, and the perceived 

value of costs (visual impacts, traffic congestion, noise and dust pollution, air quality impacts, 
Final OSTS PEIS 4-189 

and EMF effects) and benefits (infrastructure upgrades, employment opportunities, and local tax 

revenues) from proximity to oil shale-related facilities to potential real estate purchasers of 

property owned by minority and low-income individuals in local communities. 

 Emissions associated with construction activities would consist primarily of particulate 

matter (PM2.5 and PM10), criteria pollutants, VOCs, CO2, and certain HAPs released from heavy 

construction equipment and vehicle exhaust. Since all activities either conducted or approved by 

the BLM through use authorizations must comply with all applicable local, state, tribal, and 

federal air quality laws, statutes, regulations, standards, and implementation plans, it is unlikely 

that future oil shale development would cause significant adverse air quality impacts. 

 Because of the limited surface water and groundwater, the amount of water needed in 

Colorado for the project sites, power plant, coal mine, and associated population growth would 

mean that additional water resources would be needed. In Utah, water from the Colorado River 

plus the estimated sustainable groundwater yield is likely to be sufficient to support the amount 

of water needed for oil shale and tar sands developments, ancillary power and coal facilities, and 

associated population growth. It should be noted that prolonged drought conditions may occur 

and constrain water availability in Utah. Similarly in Wyoming, water from the Colorado River 

in Utah plus the estimated sustainable groundwater yield would be sufficient to support 

development of oil shale in Wyoming. Although discharges could have significant impacts on 

water quality if not properly controlled, water quality impacts of oil shale development are 

expected to be temporary and local, provided that mitigation measures are implemented, in part 

because of the dry climate where the sites are located. However, steep slopes in some areas may 

channel surface runoff and result in localized soil erosion. 

 Oil shale facilities might impact certain animals or vegetation types that may be of 

cultural or religious significance to certain population groups, or that form the basis for 

subsistence agriculture. Similarly, land used for these facilities that has additional economic 

uses might affect access to resources by low-income and minority population groups. 

 Surface mine and surface retorting would involve the most surface disturbance, and 

visible activity (including dust and emissions) would be expected to generate the largest visual 

impacts relative to the other projects of similar size but utilizing underground mining or in situ 

processes. Underground mining and surface retorting projects would involve fewer and less 

severe visual impacts compared with oil shale projects utilizing surface mines, primarily because 

of reduced surface disturbance from mining and related activities. Visual impacts associated with 

reclamation also would likely be less than for projects utilizing surface mines because of the 

greatly reduced level of ground disturbance. Projects utilizing in situ technologies would likely 

generate the smallest levels of visual impacts because of the absence of spent shale piles, shalecrushing facilities, and other mining-related facilities and activities. These projects also would 

likely have the smallest reclamation impacts because of reduced surface disturbance and the 

absence of spent shale piles. 
Final OSTS PEIS 4-190 

4.13.1.3 Environmental Justice Populations 

 Construction and operation of oil shale developments could impact environmental justice 

if the adverse health and environmental impacts resulting from either phase of development 

identified in the previous sections are significantly high, and if these impacts would 

disproportionately affect minority and low-income populations. Where impacts are significant, 

disproportionality is determined by comparing the proximity of high and adverse impacts with 

the location of low-income and minority populations. 

 A number of census block groups have low-income and minority populations, where the 

minority population exceeds 50% of the total population in each block group. There are four 

block groups where the minority share of total block group population exceeds the state average 

by more than 20 percentage points in each of the three states potentially hosting oil shale 

development (see Section 3.11). Within 50 mi of the oil shale area in Colorado, there is one 

census block group with a low-income population; it is located to the east of the oil shale area in 

Carbondale; two census block groups are located in Grand Junction. In Utah, the minority 

population is located in the northeastern part of the state in the immediate vicinity of the oil shale 

resource area itself, in the southeastern portion of the Uintah and Ouray Indian Reservation, and 

in the north-central part of the state, to the east of Springville. The low-income population is 

centered in roughly the same area as the minority population, with five block groups in the 

southeastern portion of the Uintah and Ouray Indian Reservation and one located in the vicinity 

of Price. In Wyoming, the minority population is located in the Wind River Indian Reservation, 

also the location of the low-income population. 

 Given the location of environmental justice populations in each state, construction and 

operation of oil shale facilities, power plants, and employee housing required for the operation of 

oil shale development projects may produce impacts that may be experienced disproportionately 

by minority and low-income populations in a number of locations in each ROI. Of particular 

importance would be social disruption impacts of large increases in population in small rural 

communities, the undermining of local community social structures, and the resulting 

deterioration in quality of life. The impacts of facility operations on air and water quality and on 

the demand for water in the region would also be important. Depending on their locations, 

impacts on low-income and minority populations may also occur with the development of 

transmission lines associated with power development and the supply of power to oil shale 

facilities in each state. Land use and visual impacts might be significant depending on the 

location of land parcels impacted by oil shale projects and the associated power plant and 

housing facilities, their importance for subsistence, their cultural and religious significance, and 

alternate economic uses. 

4.13.2 Mitigation Measures 

 Various procedures might be used to protect low-income and minority groups from high 

and adverse impacts of oil shale development and associated facilities. Most important of these 

would be to develop and implement focused public information campaigns to provide technical 

and environmental health information directly to low-income and minority groups or to local 
Final OSTS PEIS 4-191 

agencies and representative groups. Included in these campaigns would be descriptions of 

existing air and groundwater monitoring programs; the nature, extent, and likelihood of existing 

and future airborne or groundwater releases from oil shale facilities; and the likely characteristics 

of environmental and health impacts. Key information would include the extent of any likely 

impact on air quality, drinking water supplies, subsistence resources, and the relevant 

preventative measures that may be taken. 

 Rapid population growth following the in-migration of the construction and operations 

workers associated with oil shale development and ancillary facilities into communities with 

low-income and minority populations could lead to the undermining of local community social 

structures as beliefs and value systems among the local population and in-migrants contrast and, 

consequently, could lead to a range of changes in social and community life, including increases 

in crime, alcoholism, and drug use. In anticipation of these impacts, key information on the scale 

and time line of oil shale developments, and on the experience of other communities that have 

followed the same energy development path, could be made available to low-income and 

minority populations, together with information on planning activities that may be initiated to 

provide local infrastructure, public services, education, and housing. 

4.14 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS AND WASTE MANAGEMENT 

4.14.1 Common Impacts 

 Impacts related to hazardous materials and wastes are generally independent of location. 

Such impacts would be derivatives of the technologies employed for resource recovery and for 

the subsequent processing of recovered products rather than of the locations at which these 

activities occur. 

 Hazardous materials and wastes are unique to the technology combinations used for oil 

shale development. However, hazardous materials and waste impacts are common for some of 

the ancillary support activities that would be required for development of any oil shale facility 

regardless of the technology used. These activities include the development or expansion of 

support facilities, such as employer-provided housing and power plants. 

 Hazardous materials impacts associated with construction or expansion of off-site support 

facilities would be minimal and limited only to the hazardous materials typically utilized in 

construction of such facilities, including hazardous materials required to support construction 

equipment and vehicles (fuels, other vehicle and equipment fluids such as lubricating oils, 

hydraulic fluids, and glycol-based coolants) and miscellaneous hazardous materials typically 

associated with construction such as solvents, adhesives, and corrosion control coatings. 

Construction-related wastes would include landscape wastes from clearing and grading of the 

construction sites and other wastes typically associated with construction, none of which are 

expected to be hazardous and all of which, except for landscape wastes, are expected to be 

disposed of in permitted sanitary landfills. Landscape wastes are expected either to be burned 

on-site or delivered to permitted off-site facilities for disposal or composting. 
Final OSTS PEIS 4-192 

 Once these support facilities become functional, different hazardous materials and waste 

impacts would result. It is expected that virtually no hazardous materials would be associated 

with employer-provided housing. However, wastes would include nonhazardous solid wastes and 

sanitary wastewaters. Solid wastes are expected to be containerized and hauled to permitted 

sanitary landfills, solid waste transfer facilities, or other appropriate waste disposal facilities 

permitted and approved by state or local government. As conditions permit, sanitary wastewaters 

are expected to be treated on-site through such technologies as septic systems or active biological 

treatment; all such activities would be controlled by permits issued to state or local authorities. 

Depending on the location of the employer-provided housing and other circumstantial factors, it 

is also possible that sanitary wastewaters would be delivered by truck or sewer to existing or 

expanded municipal treatment works for treatment. 

 Hazardous materials associated with power plant operation would include that 

complement of hazardous materials typically used to support the maintenance and repair of 

mechanical equipment. The most notable waste stream associated with power plant operation 

would be coal combustion waste (CCW), primarily a mixture of fly ash and bottom ash. CCW is 

expected to be disposed of at the power plant site under state or local permits, or alternatively, 

delivered back to the mine site to support reclamation. 

 Commercial oil shale development activities may include surface mining and/or 

underground mining with surface retort or in situ technologies. As production rates and resulting 

associated waste volumes increase, different waste management schemes are likely to be 

implemented, potentially including more on-site treatment, storage, and disposal. For example, 

larger volumes of wastewaters from industrial activities and contaminated pyrolysis water are 

likely to dictate on-site treatment (under the auspices of permits issued by state or local 

regulatory authorities) because containerization and transport to off-site treatment facilities could 

become prohibitively expensive. Similarly, at commercial production levels, the expansion in the 

workforce would likely result in the installation of on-site treatment facilities for sanitary 

wastewaters. Except for spent shale, nonhazardous solid wastes, whether from industrial 

activities or from support of the workforce (e.g., kitchen wastes), would increase in proportion to 

production and workforce levels but are expected still to be managed by collection and delivery 

to permitted off-site sanitary landfills, regardless of the volume increases that result. For those 

projects involving surface retorting, spent shale would be the largest volume solid waste stream 

and is likely to be disposed of on-site (under a permit issued by state or local authorities). 

Likewise, industrial hazardous wastes would increase proportionally to production and 

upgrading activities (where they occur), but, in all instances, are expected to be managed by 

containerization, brief periods of on-site storage (subject to specific requirements and 

timeframes), and ultimate delivery to permitted hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal 

facilities (TSDFs). No treatment of hazardous waste is expected to occur on-site, except as may 

be necessary to stabilize extremely unstable waste for transport or to neutralize free acidity, both 

actions that can occur without benefit of a permit. 

 One of the by-products of surface retorting is water (sometimes referred to as pyrolysis 

water). Pyrolysis water is also created in all in situ retorting technologies and recovered from 

production wells, together with hydrocarbon pyrolysis products. This water will often contain 

hydrocarbon pyrolysis products that have enough polar character to be water soluble; however, 
Final OSTS PEIS 4-193 

the quality of pyrolysis water will vary. The water would likely be collected in lined ponds and 

treated before release. Pyrolysis water with little to no contamination (e.g., hydrocarbon, heavy 

metals) can be put to beneficial uses on the site, such as for fugitive dust control on on-site roads 

or as a wetting agent for the spent shale to promote adequate compaction). It can also be 

reinjected downgradient of the retort zone to help the groundwater contours reequilibrate. 

Contaminated pyrolysis water would require treatment before discharge, either to surface water 

or to groundwater downgradient of the retort zone. 

 Some amount of upgrading of the shale oil product may be necessary before it would be 

attractive to refineries as a replacement for conventional crude oil feedstocks, especially for shale 

oil produced from mining and surface retorting. Upgrading would dramatically increase the 

amount and type of hazardous materials present, such as additional commercial fuels to provide 

the necessary energy and hydrogen for hydrocracking and hydrotreating reactions. In all 

likelihood, the hydrogen would be produced on-site through steam reforming of commercially 

available natural gas. It is also likely that the hydrogen would generally be produced as needed 

and that no large amounts of hydrogen would be kept in storage. The products of such upgrading, 

synthetic crudes, would themselves exhibit some hazardous properties (e.g., flammability). 

Prudent engineering design suggests that on-site storage capacity for synthetic crudes would 

represent at least 2 to 3 days of production capacity. By-products of synthetic crude production 

would include some additional light-weight fuel gases (C-1 through C-4) that are likely to be 

used on-site to augment commercial fuels in external combustion sources such as boilers and 

steam generators, and ammonia (NH3) and H2S, both of which are expected to be treated or 

incinerated as they are produced. Other wastes associated with upgrading would be spent 

catalysts, some of which might require management as hazardous waste, and sludge 

accumulating in reaction vessels and storage tanks that would be removed periodically according 

to cleaning and maintenance schedules, at which time it would be the responsibility of the waste 

generator to manage the sludges in accordance with applicable federal, state, and local 

requirements. 

 By whatever process solid and hazardous wastes are generated, it would be the generating 

party’s responsibility under prevailing waste regulations to identify, classify, permit, and manage 

wastes. In particular, the waste generator must verify that wastes managed off-site are managed 

at permitted facilities and that landfill operators approve wastes for disposal. If a release occurs, 

responsible parties must meet requirements for reporting and cleanup through state-approved 

programs. 

4.14.1.1 Surface Mining 

 Hazardous materials needed to support surface mining activities primarily include diesel 

fuel, lubricating oils, hydraulic fluids, coolants, and other chemicals associated with the fueling, 

operation, maintenance, and repair of mining-related vehicles and equipment. Because of their 

large size, maintenance and repair activities for these machines would likely occur on-site. Other 

hazardous materials potentially include cleaning solvents, welding gases, corrosion control 

coatings, and herbicides (for vegetation clearing and control). The amount of hazardous waste 
Final OSTS PEIS 4-194 

generated from these activities is expected to be small and would likely be containerized for 

temporary on-site storage and then shipped by licensed haulers to permitted off-site facilities. 

 Some locations may use explosives (typically, ammonium nitrate and fuel oil [ANFO] 

mixtures) to facilitate oil shale extraction. Explosives management plans are expected to be 

implemented at these sites. 

 The amount of solid waste resulting from surface mining activities is expected to be 

minimal. Sources include removed vegetation (e.g., tree stumps), items associated with the 

maintenance and repair of mining vehicles and equipment, putrescible solid wastes from kitchen 

activities, solid wastes associated with administrative activities, and shale fines too small for 

retorting. Landscape waste may be used to create wildlife shelters sold for commercial purposes 

or composted on-site. If other wastes, for example, construction wastes, are proposed for 

composting, a permit or authorization may be needed for an on-site composting facility. Other 

solid waste would be containerized on-site and shipped to appropriate permitted off-site disposal 

facilities. The shale fines are likely to be returned to the mine site or disposed of with spent shale 

from the surface retort. 

 Disturbance of the ground surface that occurs with surface mining can potentially 

contaminate surface water runoff, resulting primarily in increased levels of suspended 

particulates. However, Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plans (SWPPPs) are expected to 

mitigate such surface water contamination. Any contaminated surface water runoff is likely to be 

diverted to holding ponds until it can be treated and released. Stormwater runoff from stockpiled 

overburden is a wastewater unique to surface mining operations. Such runoff may need to be 

captured and treated (e.g., filtered to remove suspended solids) before being released to surface 

waters. 

 As is the case for underground mining, surface mining would require a larger workforce 

than in situ operations. Consequently, nonhazardous solid wastes and wastewaters related to 

workforce support activities would be greater in volume. Regardless of the volumes produced, 

solid wastes are expected to be containerized and hauled to off-site permitted sanitary landfills 

for disposal. Sanitary wastewaters would likely undergo treatment on-site through septic systems 

(when conditions allow) or active biological treatment under the auspices of appropriate permits 

issued by state or local authorities. Depending on the locations of the developments, some 

sanitary wastes might be delivered to nearby municipal treatment facilities (either by truck or by 

sewer). Sanitary wastewater is likely to be treated and disposed of on-site according to permits 

issued by state or local regulatory authorities. 

 Pyrolysis water would result from retorting. Depending on the degree of contamination of 

this water (by polar hydrocarbons and/or heavy metals), this water could be used for beneficial 

purposes (fugitive dust control or wetting of spent shale prior to disposal) or would require 

treatment before release to surface or groundwater systems. Such treatment, when necessary, 

would likely occur in on-site facilities. The only other wastewater that would result from surface 

mining operations would be the glycol-based coolants that would be periodically removed from 

mining equipment and vehicles during maintenance. 
Final OSTS PEIS 4-195 

 Potential adverse health and environmental impacts associated with the improper 

management of hazardous materials and waste streams associated with surface mining activities 

could be significant. However, if hazardous materials are stored, used, and disposed of according 

to all applicable regulations, impacts are expected to be minimal to nonexistent. Similarly, if 

solid waste and wastewater are handled appropriately, no adverse impacts are expected. 

4.14.1.2 Surface Retorting and Subsequent Upgrading 

 During the 1970s and 1980s, when extensive R&D of oil shale retorting processes were 

undertaken, a number of agencies prepared environmental impact analyses of commercial-scale 

operations (BLM 1973, 1977; DOE 1982b, 1983, 1988; EPA 1977, 1979; OTA 1980a,b; 

Stevens et al. 1984). Engineering projections were made for a number of surface retorts, 

including the Paraho Direct-Burn Retort, TOSCO II Indirect Burn Retort, and ATP. Each of 

these technologies is discussed in Appendix A. For the purposes of this impact analysis, it is 

assumed that the commercial-scale surface retort technologies would be equivalent to these 

three types of surface retorts with respect to associated hazardous materials and waste streams. 

Because some amount of upgrading is likely to be required for products recovered from surface 

retorts, this discussion also addresses typical upgrading activities. In addition, because upgrading 

is always conducted in conjunction with aboveground retorting, the impacts of such upgrading 

on hazardous materials and wastes are also addressed. 

 Hazardous materials associated with surface retorting and upgrading include the 

flammable fuel gases that are produced during retorting (typically, molecules in the C-1 through 

C-4 size range), as well as the crude shale oil and its subsequent upgraded products. Some of the 

fuel gas is expected to be used on-site to augment commercial fuels. The remainder would be 

stored on-site pending transport to off-site refining facilities. Upgrading would include the use 

of flammable hydrogen gas, which could be produced on-site or purchased from commercial 

sources. Upgrading would also likely result in the production of elemental sulfur and anhydrous 

ammonia, both of which would likely undergo minimal purification and be stored on-site until 

they are transported to respective markets. Solid wastes from upgrading activities may have to 

be characterized as hazardous wastes primarily because of the presence of certain catalysts, as 

well as toxic heavy metals (e.g., arsenic and selenium) that could accumulate in reaction vessel 

sludge or residues. It is the generator’s responsibility to be aware of applicable hazardous waste 

listings by waste type and to manage wastes accordingly. Sludge from the treatment of process 

water may also exhibit hazardous characteristics because of the presence of heavy metals. 

Hazardous wastes would be containerized and shipped to a permitted disposal facility following 

applicable regulations. 

 The operation of surface retorts results in the largest volumes of solid wastes of any oil 

shale development step. These include spent shale, raw shale fines created during the shale 

crushing operations but unsuitable for retorting, spent shale fines recovered from crude shale 

oils, and shale wastes unsuitable for retorting. The specific retorting technology will influence 

both the volume and character of the spent shale wastes (see Appendix A for more details.) 
Final OSTS PEIS 4-196 

 Other sources of solid wastes result from the subsequent crude shale oil upgrading 

activities (spent catalysts, and tank and reaction vessel residues and sediments) and associated 

water treatment activities (boiler blowdown, water softening salts, and sludges from treatment 

of industrial or sanitary wastewaters or domestic sewage). Relatively small amounts of 

nonindustrial solids wastes are anticipated. These include landscape waste and domestic solid 

wastes such as food, kitchen scraps, and office waste. 

 Nonhazardous solid wastes can be disposed of in landfill cells specifically created for that 

purpose or disposed of in the mined out portions of strip mines or subsurface mines. For the 

purposes of analysis, this assessment assumes that no more than 30% of the entire volume of 

spent shale produced could be disposed of within former mine footprints. Consequently, a 

substantial volume of spent shale (roughly equal to the volume of oil shale mined) would need to 

be disposed of in surface areas within the oil shale facility’s boundary. 

 Disposal techniques might also include permanent storage in a nearby canyon or valley 

or temporary surface storage until final placement within the mine footprint is possible 

(DOE 1988). Landfill disposal outside the mine footprint would require permits for construction, 

operation, and closure in most jurisdictions. Disposal of spent shale within the mine footprint 

would also need disposal permits and would have to be compatible with closure and reclamation 

plans established for the mine. 

 Disposal of spent shale back into a subsurface mine presents various logistical issues 

that may prevent or limit such disposal. For example, mine development design may prevent 

convenient access to retired portions of the mine. Also, leaching as a result of the interaction 

of groundwater must be anticipated. Nevertheless, disposal in retired subsurface mines can 

effectively diminish the potential for future surface settling (which can affect, for example, 

surface drainage patterns) and incurs no additional labor-intensive surface reclamation 

requirements. 

 Water intrusion controls and waste pile cover designs can limit the potential for leaching 

or erosion of the spent shale to create contaminated surface water effluents. Such controls are 

expected to be developed within the context of a SWPPP. However, the principal method for 

erosion control (establishing a vegetative cover) may be difficult in relatively arid regions. 

 Regardless of the disposal option selected, a number of issues would need to be 

addressed, including the character of the leachates from spent shale, the structural integrity of the 

emplaced spent shale, and the increase in volume (decrease in density) of spent shale over the 

raw shale as a result of retorting (see Appendix A for details). 

 Impacts on the quality of surface waters can occur from the generation, management, 

and release of water produced during retorting (pyrolysis water) and upgrading, industrial 

wastewaters from ancillary activities (e.g., well drilling fluids, steam condensates, and boiler 

blowdown water), and sanitary and domestic wastewaters resulting from activities related to 

supporting the on-site workforce. Because of the presence of various contaminants, wastewater 

effluents would require treatment before use, discharge, or recycling (see Appendix A for 

details). Some pyrolysis water free of hydrocarbon or heavy metal contamination can be put to 
Final OSTS PEIS 4-197 

beneficial use, such as for control of fugitive dust on on-site roads or for wetting spent shale to 

ensure proper compaction. 

 Surface retorting and upgrading activities could cause potentially significant 

environmental and health impacts if appropriate safety measures are not used in the handling and 

storage of hazardous materials and in the management of hazardous, solid, and wastewater waste 

streams. However, if applicable regulations governing the use, storage, and disposal of hazardous 

materials and of wastes are followed, the impacts are expected to be minimal. Likewise, 

appropriate engineering features and operational controls for spent shale disposal sites can 

successfully preempt or mitigate anticipated adverse environmental impacts. 

4.14.1.3 Underground Mining with Surface Retorting 

 The complement of hazardous materials required to support underground mining would 

be virtually the same as that used in surface mining and would primarily involve equipment and 

vehicle fuels and fluids, and, on some occasions, explosives (that are likely only to be brought to 

the site on the occasions of their use rather than being stored on-site in any significant quantity). 

Cleaning solvents, welding gases, and corrosion control coatings would also be used, all in 

limited volumes. 

 Surface and underground mining projects are projected to produce similar wastes, both 

resulting in solid industrial wastes associated with the maintenance and repair of vehicles and 

mining equipment, the majority of which would not be capable of traveling public roads to 

off-site maintenance and repair facilities. Wastes associated with equipment support would 

include primarily waste engine fluids (lubricating oils, hydraulic fluids, and glycol-based 

coolants) but may also result in small amounts of asbestos-containing wastes from gasket and 

brake component replacements and small amounts of refrigerants from air-conditioning system 

maintenance. 

 Some degree of surface disturbance would occur with underground mining; the amount 

of contaminated surface water effluents, however, would be minimized by properly designed and 

implemented SWPPPs. Mine dewatering is expected to occur for the duration of the subsurface 

mining operation. Recovered groundwater is expected to be free of contamination and eligible 

for reinjection into a near-surface aquifer in downgradient locations. It is also expected to be 

used for fugitive dust control and to moisten spent shale from the surface retorts to facilitate its 

handling and disposal. Mine dewatering waters are known to have elevated levels of chlorine, 

sodium, fluorine, sulfur, and boron (DOE 1988). 

 Section 4.14.1.2 provided details on the hazardous materials and wastes associated with 

surface retorting and subsequent upgrading. Regardless of whether underground or surface 

mining techniques are employed to recover the resource, the hazardous materials and waste 

impacts from the subsequent surface retorting and upgrading activities are virtually identical. 
Final OSTS PEIS 4-198 

4.14.1.4 In Situ Processing 

 Proponents of in situ technologies believe that products recovered will be able to be 

forwarded directly to off-site refining facilities. Consequently, the hazardous materials that 

would be present on-site to support surface upgrading reactions would not be needed. The 

retorting products themselves would, however, be hazardous. These would include the primary 

products (flammable gases, volatile and flammable organic liquids, and heavier molecular 

weight organic compounds) as well as by-products such as NH3 and H2S (in some cases, further 

converted to elemental sulfur). It is reasonable to expect that facilities operating at commercial 

scale would arrange for transport of primary products to refineries for further processing and 

by-products to permitted off-site facilities for treatment or disposal. It is also reasonable to 

expect that prudent facility engineering designs would include provisions for temporary storage 

of substantial volumes of products between production and transport off-site. Storage of 

flammable gases is not expected because such materials would be introduced into interstate 

pipelines, diverted for immediate use in external combustion sources on-site, or destroyed by 

incineration stacks. Hazardous materials needed to support ancillary functions as well as on-site 

vehicles and equipment would also be present. 

 Some technologies may require subsurface refrigeration to retard or preempt the flow of 

groundwater into the zone undergoing retorting. Such refrigeration is likely to be provided by 

commercial-scale systems using refrigerants such as anhydrous or aqueous ammonia. The system 

formerly proposed by EGL (now AMSO) anticipated using a critical fluid to sweep the formation 

to enhance recovery of petroleum products. One of the fluids cited was CO2. In the concentrated 

form in which it would be used as a flushing agent, the CO2 is both an asphyxiant and toxic. 

 In situ and aboveground retorting scenarios have dramatically different solid waste 

profiles. Most significantly, the largest solid waste stream from aboveground retorting (spent 

shale) is virtually eliminated in true in situ retorting. If future technology enhancements reduce 

or eliminate the need for additional upgrading at the surface, substantial or even total elimination 

of solid wastes associated with typical upgrading activities can be expected. In addition, such 

in situ upgrading can be expected to result in reductions in solid wastes associated with sanitary 

and domestic wastewater treatment or workforce support activities, since the number of workers 

for such a facility may be dramatically reduced. 

 The quality and sources of water effluents are dramatically different for in situ and 

aboveground retorting scenarios. Surface runoff effluents associated with aboveground retorting 

are effectively eliminated or greatly reduced by in situ processes. In their place are waters from 

dewatering operations (formation water), waters created during kerogen pyrolysis (retort water), 

and waters formed during subsequent in situ upgrading reactions. Also, groundwater’s 

subsequent interactions with retorted zones may result in additional effluents after resource 

extraction has ended. However, additional wastewaters would be produced from surface support 
Final OSTS PEIS 4-199 

facilities such as boilers and steam generators. Both would produce blowdown wastewaters and 

sludge from treatment of condensates that would necessarily be part of water recycling.14

 Some of the in situ technologies in the RD&D phase propose using some form of 

formation fracturing, as described in Appendix A. The means of fracturing would include 

thermal and hydraulic fracturing, as well as dissolution and recovery of embedded sodium 

minerals, to open pathways for the recovery of converted kerogen. It is not clear at the current 

stage of development that chemical additives that would pose groundwater contamination 

concerns will be used in fracturing process in future commercial operations, but such use is 

possible. The oil and gas industry has historically used a large number of different chemical 

additives to enhance the fracturing process, as discussed in Section 6.1.6.3.12. The use of what 

are often proprietary chemicals for fracturing in the oil and gas industry has been the focus of 

some public concern in recent years. The EPA is currently considering regulations for chemicals 

used in fracturing in the oil and gas industry. Thus, it is possible that some future commercial in 

situ oil shale technologies could use chemical additives in fracturing processes, but it is not 

known at this time whether oil shale will be subject to regulations formulated for oil and gas 

fracturing. 

 Field data on observed impacts of in situ retorting on groundwater quality are limited, 

and most involve modified in situ rather than true in situ technologies. Information regarding 

studies that looked at the impacts on groundwater from in situ technologies can be found in 

Appendix A. 

 Potential adverse health and environmental impacts associated with the improper 

management of hazardous materials and waste streams associated with in situ processes could be 

significant. However, if regulations regarding handling of hazardous materials and management 

of various waste streams are followed, no adverse impacts are expected. In comparison with 

surface retorting processes, in situ retorting nearly eliminates the generation of spent shale. 

 It is possible for some waste streams to be eliminated or reduced in volume or hazardous 

character as a result of efforts to substitute nonhazardous materials into the waste-producing 

process, or as a result of the identification and installation of waste recycling management 

strategies. However, given the relative newness of oil shale development technologies, 

identification of such waste elimination and waste recycling opportunities may not result until 

substantial volumes of field experiences are assembled. Finally, it is also possible that as the 

refinery industry continues to make adjustments to refining processes to accommodate the 

heavier crude oil feedstocks that are becoming more prevalent in the market, such modifications 

may relax the quality factors for feedstocks such as synthetic crude oils, thus reducing the degree 

of mine site upgrading that may be required. If that were to occur, reductions in the amounts and 

types of hazardous materials and waste streams associated with mine site upgrading may occur, 

and upgrading-related wastes would become less voluminous and less hazardous in character. 

 

14 Hazardous materials in the form of water treatment chemicals would also be introduced at those projects where 

steam or hot water is used in industrial applications. 
Final OSTS PEIS 4-200 

4.14.2 Mitigation Measures 

 Hazardous wastes will be present at an oil shale facility throughout construction, 

operation, and reclamation. During construction, hazardous wastes will be limited in both variety 

and volume, consisting mostly of wastes from the maintenance of construction equipment and 

the field applications of protective coatings. During operation, a greater variety of hazardous 

wastes can be expected, with volumes generally proportional to the scale of the operation. 

Although facility owners/operators may elect to treat and even dispose of their hazardous wastes 

at the oil shale facility (with appropriate state-issued permits in place), it is reasonable to expect 

that most would adopt a strategy that minimizes the times and volumes of on-site storage of 

hazardous wastes, with expeditious transport to off-site, properly permitted TSDFs. Elementary 

neutralizations of strongly corrosive wastes, as well as preliminary treatment of wastes to 

stabilize them for storage and transport, might occur on-site but only to the extent that is 

minimally necessary. Hazardous waste treatment, storage, and particularly disposal permit 

applications are subject to specific review and public comment, and it may take some 

considerable time to obtain a permit. 

 Regulatory requirements to address hazardous materials and waste management already 

largely address the mitigation of impacts. To reinforce the regulatory requirements, additional 

mitigation measures and management plans could include the following: 

• An individual, written management strategy for each hazardous waste 

anticipated; 

• Written procedures for waste evaluations, containerization, on-site storage, 

and off-site disposal; 

• Inspection procedures for hazardous material transportation vehicles and 

storage areas; 

• Storage requirements for each hazardous material, including container type, 

required design elements and engineering controls for storage and handling 

areas (e.g., secondary containment for liquids, fire protection for areas where 

flammables are used), and chemical incompatibilities; 

• Dedicated, restricted access areas for hazardous waste storage, including 

adequate separations of chemically incompatible wastes; 

• Formal, routine, inspections of hazardous waste storage and handling areas; 

• In addition to hazardous communication (HAZCOM) training required for 

workers who handle hazardous materials, awareness training for all facility 

personnel, including an identification of explicit roles and responsibilities for 

each individual; 
Final OSTS PEIS 4-201 

• Limiting access to hazardous material storage and use areas to authorized 

personnel; 

• A comprehensive inventory of all hazardous materials at the facility, including 

notations of incompatibilities; 

• Formal, written standard operating procedures addressing “cradle-to-grave” 

management, including receipt, containerization, storage, use, emergency 

response, and management and disposal of spent materials for each hazardous 

material at the facility; 

• “Just-in-time” purchasing strategies to limit the amounts of hazardous 

materials present at the facility to just those quantities immediately needed to 

continue operations; 

• Preventive maintenance on all equipment and storage vessels containing 

hazardous materials; 

• Aggressive pollution prevention programs to identify less hazardous 

alternatives and other waste minimization opportunities, including reducing 

generation and reusing and recycling wastes as appropriate; 

• Establishment of comprehensive in-house emergency response capabilities to 

ensure expeditious response to accidental releases; and 

• Documentation of all accidental releases of hazardous materials and corrective 

actions taken; appropriate reporting of releases and spills; conduct of root 

cause analyses; determination of the adequacy of response actions (making 

changes to response capabilities as necessary); assessment of long- and shortterm impacts on the environment and public health; initiation of necessary 

remedial actions; and identification of policy or procedural changes that will 

prevent reoccurrence. 

4.15 HEALTH AND SAFETY 

 Potential health and safety impacts from recovering oil from oil shale can be associated 

with the following activities: (1) mining of the oil shale (if processing is not in situ); (2) the 

obtaining and upgrading of the crude oil, either through surface retorting or in situ processing; 

(3) transport of construction and raw materials to the upgrading facility and transport of product 

from the facility; and (4) exposure to water and air contamination associated with oil shale 

development. Hazards from oil shale development are summarized in Table 4.15-1. 

 For mining and upgrading activities, the primary health and safety impacts are on facility 

workers. These worker impacts include physical hazards from accidents (including asphyxiation, 

heat stress or stroke, explosion, or injuries related to working with large, moving equipment); 
Final OSTS PEIS 4-202 

TABLE 4.15-1 Potential Health Impacts Associated with Oil Shale Developmenta

Process or Product Possible Hazard 

 

Mining Pneumoconiosis and/or increased cancer risk from inhalation of rock dust, shale particles, 

and/or diesel exhaust; physical hazards, including explosions; heat stress; and noise. 

 

Retorting Inhalation of or dermal exposure to fumes or particles; noise; inhalation or dermal 

exposure to contaminants in wastewater (e.g., hydrocarbons, phenols, trace elements, 

salts, suspended solids, oil, sulfides, ammonia, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons 

[PAHs], and radionuclides). 

 

In situ processing Physical hazards associated with well drilling, use of explosives, noise, and use of steam 

at high temperature and pressure; inhalation of or dermal contact with fumes or particles 

in product, recovered process water, or process chemicals. 

 

Raw and spent shale 

storage 

Exposure to contaminants in drinking water; concentrations of contaminants in edible 

aquatic organisms; inhalation of airborne particulates. 

 

Shale oil products Potential cancers from dermal contact with or inhalation of volatile products. 

 

Combustion 

products 

Inhalation of HAPs from emissions of chemicals (e.g., criteria pollutants, trace elements, 

sulfur and nitrogen compounds, PAHs, and radionuclides). 

 

All Increased physical hazards and exposure risks from transportation of raw materials and 

products to and from the facility. 

a Adapted from DOE (1988) and Brown (1979). 

health risks from chemical exposures (usually inhalation or dermal) to hazardous substances 

present in oil shale, the oil product, other process chemicals, and wastes; and loss of hearing 

because of potentially high on-the-job noise levels. This section primarily addresses worker 

physical hazards and worker chemical exposure risks. Noise risks are discussed in Section 4.7. 

Potential water and air contamination, which could lead to exposures of the general public, are 

discussed in Sections 4.5 and 4.6, respectively. Since, in general, water and air standards are set 

to be protective of public health, the discussion in those sections addresses potential health 

impacts on the public. 

 A potential safety impact on the local off-site population that must be considered is risk 

that arises from an increased volume of vehicular traffic. The presence of construction and 

product transport trucks on narrow, two-lane roads could create unique hazards for children 

waiting at the roadside for their school buses. Such hazards would extend, for example, to 

exposure to particulate dusts created by the large trucks, as well as the increased potential for 

accidents. Transport of shale oil and other by-products is expected to occur by tractor trailer or 
Final OSTS PEIS 4-203 

by pipeline. Traffic accidents involving those movements or accidents involving the pipelines 

could also impact public safety.15 

 Several types of potential worker health and safety issues associated with oil shale 

development were assessed in the early 1980s. One study looked at the potential health 

effects associated with a 1-million bbl/day oil shale industry employing 41,000 workers 

(IWG Corp. 1984; Gratt et al. 1984). The health impacts estimated for workers and the general 

public in that study are summarized in Table 4.15-2 and include uncertainty ranges. The highest 

number of potential worker deaths is predicted to occur as a result of lung disease caused by 

inhalation exposures to dusts, although the uncertainty ranges for these estimates are quite large. 

It was found that the highest number of deaths would occur in the mining population of workers, 

TABLE 4.15-2 Estimated Health Effects Associated with a Hypothetical 1,000,000-bbl/day 

Oil Shale Industrya

Health Effect Exposureb

Risk per Year (Uncertainty Range) 

Cases Deaths 

 

Workers 

Injuries Accident with days lost 2,400 (1,7003,700) 13 (922) 

Injury Accident without days lost 1,500 (1,2002,200) NAc

Cancers Hydrocarbons, radiation, As 26 (0300) 4 (049) 

Silicosis Dust 232 (01,070) 76 (0387) 

Pneumoconiosis Dust 100 (33310) 17 (998) 

Chronic bronchitis Dust 41 (13130) 17 (998) 

Airway obstruction Dust 10 (336) 5 (117) 

High-frequency hearing loss Noise 3 (08) NA 

 

Public 

Premature death Particulate air pollution NA 6 (047) 

Internal cancers As, Cd, Cr, Ni, radiation, PAHs NA 6 (047) 

a The type of production assumed was 13 facilities using underground mining with aboveground 

retorting and one facility using a modified in situ technology. The total number of workers assumed 

was 41,000 (14,200 mining, 6,200 crushing, 9,400 retorting/upgrading, 3,300 construction, 

5,600 refining, and 2,200 transportation). 

b As = arsenic; Cd = cadmium; Cr = chromium, Ni = nickel; PAH = polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon. 

c NA = data not available. 

Source: IWG Corp. (1984). 

 

15 Spent shale would be generated in large quantities in any surface processing technology. However, it is expected 

that disposal of these tailings would occur on the leased site. Consequently, little if any spent shale would be 

transported to disposal areas over public roadways. However, other chemical wastes associated with the 

operation may not be acceptable for on-site disposal and would, therefore, be transported by truck to permitted 

treatment or disposal facilities. 
Final OSTS PEIS 4-204 

which represented 50% of the assumed workforce but accounted for 70% of the expected 

fatalities (Gratt et al. 1984). 

 A small number of premature deaths and cancer deaths were also predicted to occur in 

the general public population, again subject to considerable uncertainty. The uncertainties are in 

large measure due to the inability to accurately predict actual exposures that would occur. If 

exposures were limited through emission controls and worker safety precautions, the actual 

number of deaths from dust inhalation would decrease substantially. 

 Rom et al. (1981) summarized health studies conducted for Scottish and Estonian oil 

shale workers; both countries have had commercial oil shale industries for lengthy time periods 

(e.g., Scotland from the mid-1800s until the 1960s; Estonia from the mid-1950s to the present). 

The carcinogenicity of oil shales was first noted in the Scottish workers at the end of the 

nineteenth century; oil shales produced at higher temperature were found to produce more 

polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), and hydrotreating the shale oil was shown to reduce 

its carcinogenicity (Twort and Twort 1930). In the Estonian workers, it was also found that the 

carcinogenicity was highest for the oil shale fractions retorted at the highest temperatures, and 

that there was no general pattern between the irritant and general toxic and carcinogenic effects 

of shale oils (Bogovski 1962). A significant excess of skin cancer has also been observed in 

long-term oil shale workers in comparison with an urban control group (Purde and Etlin 1980). 

In the United States, several underground oil shale mines and one aboveground retort existed 

near Rifle, Colorado, from 1946 to 1978. However, studies of these workers have been 

inconclusive with respect to health impacts. 

4.15.1 Common Impacts 

4.15.1.1 Surface Mining 

 The hazards associated with surface mining would be similar to those associated with 

surface mining of other materials. These include the following (Bhatt and Mark 2000; 

Daniels et al. 1981): 

• Injuries from highwall-spoilbank failures; 

• Hazards associated with the storage, handling, and detonation of explosives; 

• Accidents and injuries from working in close proximity to large equipment 

(such as shovels, trucks, and loaders) and equipment with moving parts; 

• Injury hazards from lifting, stooping, and shoveling; exposure to climate 

extremes and sun while working outside; 

 
Final OSTS PEIS 4-205 

• Inhalation of dust and particulates, possibly containing oil shale; inhalation of 

exhaust fumes from mining equipment; and 

• Elevated noise levels (discussed in Section 4.7). 

 Highwall failures are very dangerous, often resulting in fatalities when the falling 

material hits workers. MSHA statistics show that there were 428 accidents caused by highwall 

instability in active coal and nonmetal surface mines from 1988 to 1997; 28 fatalities were 

recorded (Bhatt and Mark 2000). About one-half of the injuries occurred when the workers were 

hit directly with the failed highwall material; the other injuries involved the material hitting 

heavy or miscellaneous equipment. More than one-half of the accidents resulted in lost 

workdays. 

 Deaths and injuries from accidental ignition of explosives used to blast the formations 

and allow removal of the oil shale are a serious hazard of mining operations. Injuries and 

fatalities may also occur because of the high physical demands of surface mining. Although in 

some cases large machinery (e.g., draglines and loading machines) could be used to remove the 

oil shale, a truck-and-shovel approach might also be used. This approach can be more efficient, 

but it also requires a larger number of employees to conduct the work. It is most likely that 

excavated oil shale would be trucked to the retorting facility. The degree of mechanization in the 

surface mining processes used would greatly influence the number of worker injuries. In general, 

more mechanization would be expected to result in a lower number of worker injuries, because 

fewer workers would be needed to conduct the mining (although the number of machineryrelated injuries would increase). 

 Injury and fatality incidence from oil shale surface mining is likely to be lower than that 

from the mining industry generally, since the latter also includes the more hazardous 

underground mining accidents. However, as an indicator, the recent statistics for the mining 

industry as a whole are provided here. Statistics for work-related injuries and deaths show that 

mining is one of the most hazardous occupations, with approximately 28.3 deaths per 

100,000 mine workers in the United States in 2004 (NSC 2006). Because of improved safety 

practices and the use of more advanced machinery, mining deaths have decreased since the 

1970s. For example, the death rate in 1970 was 200 per 100,000 workers; the rate has decreased 

to about 30 deaths per 100,000 in recent years (DOL 2006). The number of work-related injuries 

for miners was 3.8 nonfatal injuries per 100 mine workers annually in 2004 (NSC 2006). 

 Inhalation of dusts generated during the mining process can cause disease. If these are oil 

shale dusts, they will likely contain PAHs,16 a carcinogenic component of the shale (further 

discussed in Section 4.15.1.2 below). 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. Although concentrations of these dusts are lower for surface mining in 

 

16 Also known as polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons or polynuclear aromatic compounds. 
Final OSTS PEIS 4-206 

comparison with underground mining, additive exposures may nonetheless result in these 

diseases. 

4.15.1.2 Surface Retorting 

 Oil shales are fine-grained sedimentary rocks containing relatively large amounts of 

organic matter (kerogen) that can yield petroleum when the shale is heated. Oil shales have a 

wide range of organic and mineral composition. Retorting technologies can potentially allow 

exposures to gaseous and liquid organic compounds from the crude shale oil formed during 

kerogen pyrolysis, volatile and gaseous end products (e.g., low molecular weight organic 

compounds such as CH4, ethane, or propane; or by-products such as H2S and NH3), as well as 

exposures to dusts and fumes from material handling operations. Also of concern is the potential 

for exposure to char, the organic residue remaining on the spent shale. 

 Retorting conditions determine the precise composition of the organic compounds that 

are produced as gases, which are present in the crude shale oil liquid or present in the solid char 

residues. It can generally be expected that many of the compounds in the char will be members 

of the chemical family known as PAHs, exposures to which may result in various health impacts, 

including carcinogenic effects (ATSDR 1995; EPA 2006; IARC 1983). 

 The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has published a monograph on 

PAHs (IARC 1983), a monograph on shale oils (IARC 1985), and a supplement to that 

monograph (IARC 1987). Concerns were expressed in the 1985 IARC Monograph about the 

potential for workers at oil shale development facilities to be exposed to crystalline silica, 

inorganic gases and vapors (including CO and H2S), and gases and vapors of organic 

compounds, including low levels of PAHs. 

 Studies on which the 1985 IARC Monograph were based included testing the 

carcinogenicity of crude shale oils and other by-products and wastes resulting from retorting of 

oil shales from various parts of the world, including the Green River Formation. The majority of 

the tests supporting the 1985 IARC Monograph were conducted on laboratory animals. However, 

human exposure data also were reviewed. While there were subtle differences between oil shale 

samples, the general conclusions of the report applied to all of the samples investigated. Salient 

results of the studies reported on in the 1985 IARC Monograph include the following: 

• Dermal exposures of laboratory rats to crude shale oils resulting from 

retorting of Green River Formation oil shale resulted in the induction of 

benign and malignant skin tumors. 

• Lung tumors in mice were also caused by exposures to crude shale oil from 

the Green River Formation. 

• Spent oil shale samples also were investigated. Dusts from a retorted Green 

River Formation spent oil shale sample caused lung tumors in rats that 

experienced inhalation exposures. 
Final OSTS PEIS 4-207 

• Samples analogous to wastes, by-products, and intermediates of crude shale 

oil upgrading also were investigated. A “pot residue” from distillation of 

Green River Formation crude oil shale was carcinogenic to mouse skin after 

dermal exposures. This pot residue was presumed to be equivalent to the shale 

oil coke residues that would be produced on-site during crude shale oil 

upgrading. 

• Water recovered from retorts (pyrolysis waters) was found to elicit DNA 

damage and mutations in bacteria and in cultured mammalian cells following 

metabolic or photo-induced activations. 

 Primarily on the basis of the above results and positive results in some mutation assays, 

the IARC concluded that “there is sufficient evidence for the carcinogenicity in experimental 

animals of high-temperature crude shale-oils, low-temperature crude shale-oils, fractions of 

high-temperature shale-oil, crude shale-oil distillation fractions, shale-oil bitumens, and 

commercial blends of shale-oils” (IARC 1985). The monograph went on to conclude that there 

was insufficient evidence for similar carcinogenic effects from raw oil shale, spent oil shale, and 

a residue of shale-oil distillation, and that “there is sufficient evidence that shale-oils are 

carcinogenic in humans.” The 1987 IARC Supplement reaffirmed the conclusions regarding 

carcinogenic properties of raw oil shale, crude shale oil, and derivatives obtained through 

upgrading activities that were contained in the original 1985 IARC Monograph. The Supplement 

also indicated that no data were available on the genetic and related effects of shale oils in 

humans (IARC 1987). 

 Retorting technologies that use open-flame impingement on oil shale (in either 

aboveground or in situ retorting circumstances) can be expected to result in the evolution of 

gases of nitrogen, sulfur, and carbon oxides, all of which produce health effects from inhalation 

exposure). Exposure to PAHs may be further increased for those retorting technologies that 

purposefully combust the char to recover latent heat energy. 

 Crude shale oil contains higher concentrations of nitrogen-bearing compounds than 

conventional crude oils. Not only does the presence of these compounds introduce complexity 

into the upgrading or refining of the crude shale oil, they also represent additional exposure 

hazards to retort and upgrade workers since many of the chemicals exhibit toxic properties. 

Routson et al. (1979) has summarized the individual nitrogen-bearing compounds that have been 

identified as being present in typical condensable liquids from kerogen pyrolysis. Researchers 

have found that the nitrogen content of whole shale oils (i.e., before any upgrading) ranges from 

1 to 20% by weight, depending on the source and retorting process used, with the majority of 

these compounds being in the pyridine family. 

 Many oil shales contain significant amounts of arsenic. The fate of this arsenic as a result 

of typical surface retorting often involves the formation of organo-arsenical compounds in crude 

shale oil. Upgrading activities will commonly include the removal of arsenic compounds through 

the use of a caustic wash or by adsorption on suitable materials. Both actions result in a solid 

waste stream or sludge with predictably high concentrations of arsenic. Exposure to these 
Final OSTS PEIS 4-208 

arsenic-bearing wastes can cause toxicity in upgrade facility workers through multiple exposure 

pathways. 

 Finally, it is important to note that other technology permutations may introduce 

additional chemical exposure potentials. For example, chemically assisted techniques for 

enhanced oil recovery may be used. Substantial quantities of chemicals may be brought to a 

facility to implement these chemically assisted techniques. Also, in addition to the array of 

organic chemicals that would be produced during shale oil recovery and processing, other 

chemicals, including caustic agents, would be present for treatment of steam condensates and 

raw water to allow for recycling of steam that would most likely be necessary to control costs. 

Evaluation of the hazards posed by storage and use of these chemicals would be included in 

required site-specific documentation for facilities using these techniques. 

 Physical hazards to facility workers during retorting can be associated with equipment 

and systems. These hazards include potential contact with hot pipes, fluids, and vapors; exposure 

to ruptured pipes and their contents; accidents from maintenance operations; and physical contact 

with chemical agents. Comprehensive facility safety plans and worker safety training can 

minimize these hazards. 

4.15.1.3 Underground Mining 

 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 diesel-powered equipment, including diesel fuel 

vapors and criteria pollutants. Mine safety standards issued by the MSHA, if followed, would 

limit exposures to these hazards to acceptable levels. 

 In conventional methods to date, deep oil shale deposits have generally been extracted 

by drilling and blasting (room-and-pillar mining). Experimental mine and laboratory tests 

have shown that oil shale and sulfide ore dust can be ignited given the proper predispersed 

concentrations, particle size, and kerogen or sulfur content, (DOI 1995). When fine particles of 

a combustible dust (oil shale, sulfide oil, and the like) 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. 

 Physical hazards associated with oil shale mining are similar to those from coal mining 

and include possible injuries or deaths from cave-ins, asphyxiation, or machinery malfunctions; 

hearing loss; and heat stress. As stated in Section 4.15.1.1, mining in general (both surface and 

underground) is one of the most hazardous occupations; there were approximately 28.3 deaths 
Final OSTS PEIS 4-209 

per 100,000 mine workers and 3.8 nonfatal injuries per 100 mine workers in the United States in 

2004 (NSC 2006). 

4.15.1.4 In Situ Processing 

 The hazards for steam injection in situ processes are similar to those for thermal retorting, 

although there is much less potential for exposure to the spent shale, since the shale would 

remain underground. Steam injection can occur without prior modification to the formation or 

could be preceded by explosive or hydraulic fracturing of the formation to enhance shale oil 

recovery. Occupational hazards particularly associated with in situ steam injection processes 

include the following: 

• Physical hazards associated with the high-pressure steam boilers and pumps 

and compressors used for injection; 

• Hazards associated with the storage, handling, and detonation of explosives 

for modified in situ processes employing explosives to cause or enhance 

reservoir fracturing; 

• Physical hazards associated with well drilling; and 

• Exposures to hazardous substances in the recovered shale oil, in recovered 

process water, and in chemicals used to treat and recycle recovered water. 

 The hazards associated with the use of explosives are discussed in Section 4.15.1.1. A 

hazard associated with in situ processes that is not applicable to mined oil shale is well drilling, 

in order to pump the mobilized shale oil to the surface. The phases of drilling wells include site 

preparation, drilling, well completion, servicing, and abandonment; each is associated with 

unique physical hazards (e.g., falling from heights, being struck by swinging equipment or 

falling tools, and burns from cutting and welding equipment or steam). 

 In comparison with aboveground retorting, many exposure pathways are more limited for 

in situ retorting technologies although not completely eliminated. Exposures to char are expected 

to be greatly minimized if not eliminated, except when purposeful burning of the char for 

additional heat recovery is practiced. Formation waters and pyrolysis waters recovered from 

in situ retorting are likely to contain contaminants such as chlorine, carbonates, sulfates, 

mercury, selenium, arsenic, and various organic compounds such as phenols and carboxylic 

acids (Walsh et al. 1981). Gaseous and liquid retort products produced in situ will ultimately be 

recovered to the surface or may dissolve in formation and/or pyrolysis waters that also would be 

recovered to the surface and handled, treated, or disposed of. Worker dermal and ingestion 

exposures to pyrolysis waters would be limited through facility safety procedures; however, 

workers could inhale substances volatilizing from these wastewaters. 
Final OSTS PEIS 4-210 

4.15.2 Mitigation Measures 

 Regulatory requirements to address occupational health and safety issues already largely 

address the mitigation of impacts. For example, Occupational Safety and Health Administration 

(OSHA) standards under 29 CFR Parts 1910 and 1926 (1910.109 is specific for explosives) 

and MSHA standards under 30 CFR Parts 199. Also, electrical systems must be designed to 

meet applicable safety standards (e.g., National Electric Code [NEC] and International 

Electrochemical Commission [IEC]). To reinforce the regulatory requirements, additional 

mitigation measures could include the following: 

• To address traffic safety, installation of appropriate highway signage and 

warnings to alert the populace of increased traffic and to alert vehicle 

operators to road hazards and pedestrian traffic. Construction of safe bus stops 

for children waiting for school buses; these stops should be located well away 

from the roadway. 

• Recommended mitigation measures to avoid highwall-spoilbank failure 

include benching, using blasting patterns specifically designed for each mine 

site, adequate compacting of spoilbanks, and adequate miner training allowing 

for recognition and remediation of hazardous conditions (Bhatt and 

Mark 2000). 

• The use of appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE) can minimize 

some safety and exposure hazards. 

• Safety assessments for oil shale facilities should be conducted to describe 

potential safety issues and the means that could be taken to mitigate them. 

• A comprehensive facility health and safety program for all project phases 

should be developed. The program should identify all applicable federal and 

state occupational safety standards, establish safe work practices for each task, 

establish fire safety evacuation procedures, and define safety performance 

standards. 

• A comprehensive training program and HAZCOM program should be 

developed for workers, including documentation of training and a mechanism 

for reporting serious accidents or injuries to appropriate agencies. 

• Secure facility access control should be established and maintained for all oil 

shale project facilities. Site boundaries should be defined with physical 

barriers and site access restricted to only qualified personnel. 

• Low-incendive explosives, coupled with good blasting procedures, should be 

used in underground mining as a means of greatly reducing the occurrences of 

dust and/or gas ignitions following blasting operations. Also, general safety 
Final OSTS PEIS 4-211 

measures (e.g., good housekeeping for explosives storage areas; requiring 

safety training for all workers using explosives) should be followed. 

• Hazards from well drilling may be mitigated through the use of measures 

recommended by OSHA (2007). 

4.16 REFERENCES 

Note to Reader: This list of references identifies Web pages and associated URLs where 

reference data were obtained. It is likely that at the time of publication of this PEIS, some of 

these Web pages may no longer be available or their URL addresses may have changed. 

AMEC (AMEC Earth and Environmental), 2011, Energy Development Water Needs Assessment 

Phase II, Final Report, prepared for Colorado River Basin Roundtable and Yampa/White River 

Basin Roundtable, Feb. Available at http://www.crwcd.org/media/uploads/Energy_ 

Development_Water_Needs_Assessment_Phase_II_Final_Report.pdf. Accessed Sept., 2011. 

Andersen, D.E., et al., 1989, “Response of Nesting Red-Tailed Hawks to Helicopter 

Overflights,” The Condor 91:296299. 

Anthony, R.G., and M.L. Morrison, 1985, “Influence of Glyphosate Herbicide on SmallMammal Populations in Western Oregon,” Northwest Science 59(3):159168. 

APLIC (Avian Power Line Interaction Committee), 2006, Suggested Practices for Avian 

Protection on Power Lines: The State of the Art in 2006, Edison Electric Institute, APLIC, and 

the California Energy Commission, Washington, D.C. and Sacramento, California. Available at 

http://www.dodpif.org/downloads/APLIC_2006_SuggestedPractices.pdf. Accessed June 20, 

2012. 

APLIC and USFWS (Avian Power Line Interaction Committee and U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service), 2005, Avian Protection Plan (APP) Guidelines, April. Available at 

http://migratorybirds.fws.gov/issues/APP/AVIAN%20PROTECTION%20PLAN%20 

FINAL%204%2019%2005.pdf. Accessed May 25, 2005. 

ATSDR (Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry), 1995, “Public Health Statement 

for Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs),” Aug. Available at http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/ 

phs/phs.asp?id=120&tid=25. Accessed Aug. 14, 2012. 

Bailie, A., R. Strait, S. Roe, A. Jamison, and H. Lindquist, 2007, Wyoming Greenhouse Gas 

Inventory and Reference Case Projections 1990–2020, Center for Climate Strategies, Spring. 

Available at http://www.climatestrategies.us/library/library/download/411. Accessed Aug. 23, 

2011. 

Bartis, J.T., et al., 2005, Oil Shale Development in the United States, Prospects and Policy 

Issues, The Rand Corporation, Santa Monica, Calif. 
Final OSTS PEIS 4-212 

BBC Research and Consulting, 2006, Garfield County Land Values and Solutions Study: Final 

Report, Denver, Colo., June. 

Beaulaurier, D.L., et al., 1984, “Mitigating the Incidence of Bird Collisions with Transmission 

Lines,” pp. 539550 in Proceedings of the Third International Symposium on Environmental 

Concerns in Rights-of-Way Management, A.F. Crabtree (editor), Mississippi State University, 

Mississippi State, Miss. 

Beck, A.M., and R.J. Vogel, 1972, “The Effects of Spring Burning on Rodent Populations in a 

Brush Prairie Savanna,” Journal of Mammalogy 53:336346. 

Belnap, J., 2011, Cryptobiotic Soils: Holding the Place in Place, U.S. Geological Survey. 

Available at http://geochange.er.usgs.gov/SW/impacts/biology/crypto. Accessed Nov. 21. 

Bengston, G., 2007, Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, Ill., unpublished information. 

Bennett, K., and M.K. McBeth, 1998, “Contemporary Western Rural USA Economic 

Composition: Potential Implications for Environmental Policy and Research,” Environmental 

Management 22: 371381. 

Berger, J., 2004, “The Last Mile: How to Sustain Long-Distance Migration in Mammals,” 

Conservation Biology 18(2):320331. 

Bethea, R.M., et al., 1983, “Effect of Groundwater and pH Modification on Quality of Leachate 

from Simulated In-Situ Retorted Utah Oil Shale,” Society of Petroleum Engineers Journal

23(5):809−819. 

Bevanger, K., 1995, “Tetraonid Mortality Caused by Collisions with Power Lines in Boreal 

Forest Habitats in Central Norway,” Fauna norv. Ser. C, Cinclus 18:41–51. 

Bevanger, K., 1998, “Biological and Conservation Aspects of Bird Mortality Caused by 

Electricity Power Lines: A Review,” Biological Conservation 86:67–76. 

Bhatt, S.K., and C. Mark, 2000, “Analysis of Safety Aspects and Mining Practices for Effective 

Ground Control in Surface Mining,” pp. 395404 in Proceedings of the 19th International 

Conference on Ground Control in Mining, S.S. Peng and C. Mark (editors), Morgantown, W.V., 

Aug. 

Bird, B., and M. Schenk, 2005, Sage-Grouse (Centrocercus spp.), Fish and Wildlife Habitat 

Management Leaflet 26, May. Available at http://www.whmi.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/

leaflet.htm. Accessed June 30, 2006. 
Final OSTS PEIS 4-213 

BirdLife International, 2003, Protecting Birds from Powerlines: A Practical Guide on the Risks 

to Birds from Electricity Transmission Facilities and How to Minimize Any Such Adverse Effects, 

T-PVS/Inf (2003) 15, Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural 

Habitats, Standing Committee, 23rd Meeting, Strasbourg, 1–4 December 2003. Available at 

http://www.coe.int/T/E/Cultural_Co-operation/Environment/Nature_and_biological_diversity/ 

Nature_protection/sc23_inf15e.pdf?L=E. Accessed Oct. 23, 2006. 

BLM (U.S. Bureau of Land Management), 1973, Final Environmental Statement for the 

Prototype Oil Shale Leasing Program, Volumes I through VI, U.S. Department of the Interior, 

Washington, D.C. 

BLM, 1977, Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Proposed Development of Oil Shale 

Resources by the Colony Development Operation in Colorado, Vol. 1, U.S. Department of the 

Interior, Washington, D.C. 

BLM, 1980, Green RiverHams Fork Draft Environmental Impact Statement: Coal, Denver, 

Colo. 

BLM, 1983a, Final Environmental Impact Statement: Uintah Basin Synfuels Development, 

Vol. 1, U.S. Department of the Interior, Feb. 

BLM, 1983b, Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the Prototype Oil Shale 

Leasing Program, Colorado State Office, Denver, Colo., Jan. 

BLM, 1984a, Utah Combined Hydrocarbon Leasing Regional Final EIS, Volume 1: Regional 

Analyses, Utah State Office, Salt Lake City, Utah, June. 

BLM, 1984b, Visual Resource Management, BLM Manual Handbook 8400, Release 8-24, 

U.S. Department of the Interior, April. 

BLM, 1986a, Visual Resource Inventory, BLM Manual Handbook 8410-1, Release 8-28, 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Jan. 17. 

BLM, 1986b, Visual Resource Contrast Rating, BLM Manual Handbook 8431-1, Release 8-30, 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Jan. 17. 

BLM, 1992, Solid Minerals Reclamation Handbook, BLM Manual Handbook H-3042-1, 

U.S. Department of the Interior, April. 8. 

BLM, 1996, White River Resource Area: Proposed Resource Management Plan and Final 

Environmental Impact Statement, White River Resource Area, Craig, Colo. 

BLM, 1997, White River Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan, White 

River Resource Area, Colo., Craig District, Meeker, Colo., July. 
Final OSTS PEIS 4-214 

BLM, 2002, Final Environmental Impact Statement Renewal of the Federal Grant for the TransAlaska Pipeline System Right-of-Way, BLM/AK/PT-03/005+2880+990, U.S. Department of the 

Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska, Nov. 

BLM, 2004a, Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated 

Activity Plan, Proposed Green River Resource Management Plan Amendment, Rock Springs 

Field Office, Wyo., July. 

BLM, 2004b, Roan Plateau Resource Management Plan Amendment and Environmental Impact 

Statement, Draft: DE504-4, Glenwood Springs Field Office, Colo., Nov. 

BLM, 2004c, National Sage-Grouse Habitat Conservation Strategy, U.S. Department of the 

Interior, Washington, D.C., Nov. Available at http://www.blm.gov/nhp/spotlight/sage_grouse/ 

docs/Sage-Grouse_Strategy.pdf. Accessed April 17, 2006. 

BLM, 2005, Draft Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides on Bureau of Land Management 

Lands in 17 Western States Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, DES 05-56, Reno, 

Nev., Nov. 

BLM, 2006a, Draft Environmental Impact Statement, EOG Resources Inc., Chapita WellsStagecoach Area Natural Gas Development, EIS No. UTU-080-2005-0010, Vernal, Utah, Jan. 

BLM, 2006b, Environmental Assessment, Chevron Oil Shale Research, Development & 

Demonstration, CO-110-2006-120-EA, White River Field Office, Meeker, Colo., Nov. 

BLM, 2006c, Environmental Assessment, Shell Oil Shale Research, Development and 

Demonstration Projects, Rio Blanco County, Colorado, CO-110-2006-117-EA, White River 

Field Office, Meeker, Colo., Nov. 

BLM, 2006d, Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project Sublette 

County, Wyoming, BLM/WY/PL-06/006-1310, Pinedale and Rock Springs Field Offices, Wyo., 

Jan. 

BLM, 2006e, Resource Development Group Uinta Basin Natural Gas Project Final 

Environmental Impact Statement, UT-080-2003-0300V, Vernal Field Office, Vernal, Utah, May. 

Available at http://www.blm.gov/utah/vernal/rdgfinal.htm. Accessed July 3, 2006. 

BLM, 2007a, Ely Energy Center Environment Impact Statement Project Description, Ely Field 

Office, Ely Nevada. Available at http://www.blm.gov/style/medialib/blm/nv/field_offices/ 

ely_field_office/eec_information.Par.73740.File.dat/EEC%20EIS%20Project%20Description 

%20Handout_v10%20FINAL.pdf. Accessed April 24, 2007. 

BLM, 2007b, Final Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides on Bureau of Land Management 

Lands in 17 Western States Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, FES 07-21, Reno, 

Nev., June. 
Final OSTS PEIS 4-215 

BLM, 2008, BLM Manual 6840—Special Status Species Management, Release 6-125, 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Dec. 12. 

Bogovski, P., 1962, “Carcinogenic Effect of Some 3,4-Benzopyrere-free and 3,4 BenzopyreneContaining Fractions of Estonian Shale Oil,” Acta Unio Interm Contra Cancrum 18:37 (as cited 

in Rom et al. 1981). 

Bohne, J., et al., 2007, Sage-Grouse Habitat Management Guidelines for Wyoming, Wyoming 

Game and Fish Department, Cheyenne, Wyo., July 24. Available at http://gf.state.wy.us/wildlife/ 

wildlife_management/sagegrouse/FinalHabitatMgmtGuideline-07-24-07.pdf. Accessed 

March 21, 2008. 

BOR (U.S. Bureau of Reclamation), 2007, “Review of Science and Methods for Incorporating 

Climate Change Information into Reclamation’s Colorado River Basin Planning Studies, Final 

Report: Climate Technical Work Group,” Aug. 21, Appendix U of Colorado River Interim 

Guidelines for Lower Basin Shortages and Coordinated Operations for Lake Powell and Lake 

Mead Final Environmental Impact Statement, Oct. 2007. Available at http://www.usbr.gov/ 

lc/region/programs/strategies/FEIS/AppU.pdf. Accessed Aug. 30, 2011. 

BOR, 2011, West-Wide Climate Risk Assessments: Bias-Corrected and Spatially Downscaled 

Surface Water Projections, Technical Memorandum No. 86-68210-2011-01, prepared by Water 

and Environmental Resources Division, March. 

Brattstrom, B.H., and M.C. Bondello, 1983, “Effects of Off-Road Vehicle Noise on Desert 

Vertebrates, pp. 167206 in Environmental Effects of Off-Road Vehicles, Impacts and 

Management in Arid Region, R.H. Webb and H.G. Wilshire (editors), Springer-Verlag, 

New York, N.Y. (as cited in Larkin 1996). 

Braun, C.E., 1998, “Sage-Grouse Declines in Western North America: What Are the Problems?” 

Proceedings of the Western Association of State Fish and Wildlife Agencies 67:134144. 

Brown, B.T., et al., 1999, “The Influence of Weapons-Testing Noise on Bald Eagle Behavior,” 

Journal of Raptor Research 33:227232. 

Brown, R.D. (editor), 1979, Health and Environmental Effects of Oil Shale Technology: A 

Workshop Summary and Panel Reports for the Federal Interagency Committee on the Health 

and Environmental Effects of Energy Technologies, DOE/HEW/EPA-02, MTR-79W00136, 

Mitre Corp. McLean, Va. 

Chipeniuk, R., 2004, “Planning for Amenity Migration in Canada: Current Capacities of Interior 

British Columbian Mountain Communities,” Mountain Research and Development 24:327335. 

Clark, D.E., and T. Allison, 1999, “Spent Nuclear Fuel and Residential Property Values: 

The Influence of Proximity, Visual Cues and Public Information,” Papers in Regional 

Science 78:403421. 
Final OSTS PEIS 4-216 

Clark, D., and L. Nieves, 1994, “An Interregional Hedonic Analysis of Noxious Facility 

Impacts on Local Wages and Property Values,” Journal of Environmental Economics and 

Management 27:235253. 

Clark, D., et al., 1997, “Nuclear Power Plants and Residential Housing Prices,” Growth and 

Change 28:496519. 

COGCC (Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission), 2009, “802. Noise Abatement,” 

Aesthetic and Noise Control Regulations, Amended Rules, April 1. Available at http://cogcc. 

state.co.us/rr_docs_new/FinalRulesTBLNew2.cfm. Accessed Sept. 26, 2011. 

Colescott, J.H., and M.P. Gillingham, 1998, “Reactions of Moose (Alces alces) to Snowmobile 

Traffic in the Greys River Valley, Wyoming,” Alces 34(2):329338. 

Colorado Greater Sage-Grouse Steering Committee, 2008, Colorado Greater Sage-Grouse 

Conservation Plan, Colorado Division of Wildlife, Denver, Colo. 

Commission on Geosciences, Environment and Resources, 1993, Protecting Visibility in 

National Parks and Wilderness Areas, The National Academies Press, Washington, D.C. 

Connelly, J.W., et al., 2000, “Guidelines to Manage Sage Grouse Populations and Their 

Habitats,” Wildlife Society Bulletin 28(4):967985. 

Connelly, J.W., et al., 2004, Conservation Assessment of Greater Sage-Grouse and Sagebrush 

Habitats, Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, Cheyenne, Wyo. Available at 

http://gf.state.wy.us/downloads/pdf/GreaterSGConservationAssessment.pdf. Accessed 

Dec. 13, 2011. 

Contra Costa County, 2003, Draft ConocoPhillips Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel/Strategic 

Modernization Project, Chapter 4, Community Development Department Environmental Impact 

Report SCH# 2002122017, May. Available at http://www.co.contra-costa.ca.us/cd/current/ 

ConocoPhillipsDEIR/web_deir.pdf. Accessed Feb. 19, 2007. 

Crawford, J.A., et al., 2004, “Ecology and Management of Sage-Grouse and Sage-Grouse 

Habitat,” Rangeland Ecology and Management 57(1):2–19. 

CWCB (Colorado Water Conservation Board), 2004, Statewide Water Supply Initiative, 

Colorado Department of Natural Resources, Denver, Colo., Nov. 

CWCB, 2012, Colorado River Water Availability Study, Phase I Report, March. 

Czyzewski, G., 2000, “The Piceance Creek Basin,” pp. 63–66 in Colorado Ground-Water Atlas: 

Colorado Ground-Water Association, A. Aikin et al. (editors), Lakewood, Colo. 
Final OSTS PEIS 4-217 

Daniels, J.J., et al., 1981, Technology Assessment: Environmental, Health, and Safety Impacts 

Associated with Oil Recovery from U.S. Tar-Sand Deposits, Report No. UCRL-53210, Lawrence 

Livermore National Laboratory, University of California, Livermore, Calif., Oct. 13. 

Delaney, D.K., et al., 1999, “Effects of Helicopter Noise on Mexican Spotted Owls,” Journal of 

Wildlife Management 63(1):6076. 

DOE (U.S. Department of Energy), 1982a, Final Programmatic Environmental Impact 

Statement on Development Policy Options for the Naval Oil Shale Reserves in Colorado, 

Environmental Protection Assistant Secretary, Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Office of 

Naval Petroleum and Oil Shale Reserves. 

DOE, 1982b, Western Oil-Shale Development: A Technology Assessment, Volume 2, Technology 

Characterization and Production Scenarios, PNL-3830, prepared by Pacific Northwest 

Laboratory, Richland, Wash. 

DOE, 1983, Energy Technology Characterizations Handbook, Environmental Pollution and 

Control Factors, 3rd ed., Assistant Secretary for Environmental Protection, Safety, and Energy 

Preparedness, Office of Environmental Analysis, Washington, D.C., March. 

DOE, 1988, Energy Technologies & the Environment, Environmental Information Handbook, 

Assistant Secretary for Environment, Safety and Health, Office of Environmental Analysis, 

Washington, D.C., Oct. 

DOE, 2000, Bonneville Power Administration Transmission System Vegetation Management 

Program Final Environmental Impact Statement, DOE/EIS-0285, Bonneville Power 

Administration, Portland, Ore., May. 

DOI (U.S. Department of the Interior), 1973a, Environmental Statement for the Oil Shale 

Prototype Leasing Program, Volume III, Description of Selected Tracts and Potential 

Environmental Impacts, Washington, D.C. 

DOI, 1973b, Final Environmental Statement for the Prototype Oil Shale Leasing Program, 

Volume IV of VI, Consultation and Coordination with Others, Washington, D.C. 

DOI, 1995, Secondary Explosion Hazard during Blasting in Oil Shale and Sulfide Ore Mines, 

Report of Investigations, RI 9632. 

DOI and USDA (U.S. Department of the Interior and U.S. Department of Agriculture), 2007, 

Surface Operating Standards and Guidelines for Oil and Gas Exploration and Development, the

Gold Book, 4th ed., BLM/WO/ST-06/021+30721, Bureau of Land Management, Denver, Colo. 

Available at http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/energy/oil_and_gas/best_management_practices/ 

gold_book.html. Accessed July 29, 2011. 
Final OSTS PEIS 4-218 

DOL (U.S. Department of Labor), 2006, Injury Trends in Mining, Mine Safety and Health 

Administration. Available at http://www.msha.gov/MSHAINFO/FactSheets/MSHAFCT2.HTM. 

Accessed Nov. 21, 2006. 

EIA (Energy Information Administration), 2007a, Coal Production and Number of Mines by 

State and Mine Type. Available at http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/coal/page/acr/table1.html. 

Accessed Oct. 5, 2007. 

EIA, 2007b, Average Number of Employees by State and Mine Type. Available at 

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/coal/page/acr/table18.html. Accessed Oct. 5, 2007. 

EIA, 2007c, Electric Power Annual 2005State Data Tables. Available at http://www.eia.doe. 

gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/epa_sprdshts.html. Accessed Oct. 5, 2007. 

Enefit American Oil, 2011, Enefit American Oil, brochure distributed at the 31st Oil Symposium, 

Oct. 17–19, Colorado School of Mines, Golden, Colo. 

EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency), 1971, Noise from Industrial Plants, NTID300.2, 

Office of Noise Abatement and Control, Washington, D.C., Dec. 31. 

EPA, 1974, Information on Levels of Environmental Noise Requisite to Protect Public Health 

and Welfare with an Adequate Margin of Safety, 550/9-74-004, Office of Noise Abatement and 

Control, Washington, D.C., March. Available at http://www.nonoise.org/library/levels74/ 

levels74.htm. Accessed Sep. 26, 2011. 

EPA, 1977, A Preliminary Assessment of the Environmental Impacts from Oil Shale 

Developments, EPA-600/7-77-069, Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory, Office of 

Research and Development, Cincinnati, Ohio, July. 

EPA, 1979, Technological Overview Reports for Eight Shale Oil Recovery Processes, 

EPA-600/7-79-075, Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory, Office of Research and 

Development, Cincinnati, Ohio, March. 

EPA, 1995, Compilation of Air Pollution Emission Factors, AP-42, 5th ed., Supplements and 

Updates. Available at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42. Accessed Aug. 14, 2012. 

EPA, 2006, Integrated Risk Information System. Available at http://www.epa.gov/iriswebp/ 

iris/index.html. Accessed Nov. 16, 2006. 

EPA, 2011, Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990–2009, EPA 430-R-11-

005, April 15. Available at http://epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/usinventoryreport.html. 

Accessed July 14, 2011. 

EPA 2012, Overview of Final Amendments to Air Regulations for the Oil and Natiral Gas 

Industry, Fact Sheet. Available at http://www.epa.gov/airquality/oilandgas/pdfs/20120417fs.pdf. 

Accessed June 10, 2012. 
Final OSTS PEIS 4-219 

Erwin, W.J., and R.H. Stasiak, 1979, “Vertebrate Mortality during Burning of a Reestablished 

Prairie in Nebraska,” American Midland Naturalist 101:247249. 

Eschholtz, W.E., et al., 1996, “Winter Use of Glyphosate-Treated Clearcuts by Moose in 

Maine,” Journal of Wildlife Management 60(4):764769. 

FAA (Federal Aviation Administration), 2007, Advisory Circular AC 70/7460-1K: Obstruction 

Marking and Lighting. Available at http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/ 

rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf/0/b993dcdfc37fcdc486257251005c4e21/$FILE/AC70_7460_1K.pdf. 

Accessed Nov. 3, 2011. 

Faanes, C.A., 1987, Bird Behavior and Mortality in Relation to Power Lines in Prairie Habitats, 

Fish and Wildlife Technical Report 7, U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Washington, D.C. 

Feeney, D., et al., 2004, Big Game Migration Corridors in Wyoming, Wyoming Open Spaces, 

April, University of Wyoming, Laramie, Wyo. Available at http://www.uwyo.edu/openspaces/ 

docs/MigrationCorridors.pdf. Accessed Sept. 26, 2006. 

Fernie, K.J., and S.J. Reynolds, 2005, “The Effects of Electromagnetic Fields from Power Lines 

on Avian Reproductive Biology and Physiology: A Review,” Journal of Toxicology and 

Environmental Health, Part B 8:127140. 

Fogg, J., and H. Hadley, 2007, Hydraulic Considerations for Pipelines Crossing Stream 

Channels, Technical Note 423, U.S. Bureau of Land Management, National Science and 

Technology Center, Denver, Colo., April. 

Foppen, R., and R. Reijnen, 1994, “The Effects of Car Traffic on Breeding Bird Populations in 

Woodland. II. Breeding Dispersal of Male Willow Warblers (Phylloscopus trochilus) in Relation 

to the Proximity of a Highway,” Journal of Applied Ecology 32:95101. 

Ford, W.M., et al., 1999, “Effects of a Community Restoration Fire on Small Mammals and 

Herpetofauna in the Southern Appalachians,” Forest Ecology and Management 114:233243. 

Forman, R.T.T., and L.E. Alexander, 1998, “Roads and Their Major Ecological Effects,” Annual 

Review of Ecology and Systematics 29:207231. 

Gaines, W.L., et al., 2003, Assessing the Cumulative Effects of Linear Recreation Routes on 

Wildlife Habitats on the Okanogan and Wenatchee National Forests, General Technical Report 

PNW-GTR-586, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research 

Station, Portland, Ore. 

GAO (U.S. Government Accountability Office), 2011, Energy Development and Water Use: 

Impacts of Potential Oil Shale Development on Water Resources, GAO-11-929T, Aug. 24. 
Final OSTS PEIS 4-220 

Gratt, L.B., et al., 1984, High Risk Groups in Oil Shale Workforce, UCRL-15610, DE84 013225, 

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, University of California, Livermore, Calif., April. 

Grover, Elliot & Company, 2005, A Report of the Effect of the Vancouver Island Transmission 

Line, BCTC Project No. 3698395, on the Value of Real Property Adjacent to, and Containing, 

the Right-of-Way Situated between Arnott Substation in Delta to Vancouver Island Terminal in 

North Cowichan, all in British Columbia. 

Groves, C.R., and K. Steenhof, 1988, “Responses of Small Mammals and Vegetation to 

Wildfires in Shadscale Communities of Southwestern Idaho,” Northwest Science 62:205210. 

Hagan, J.M., et al., 1996, “The Early Development of Forest Fragmentation Effects on Birds,” 

Conservation Biology 10(1):188202. 

Hankinson, M., 1999, “Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment,” in Handbook of 

Environmental Assessment, Volume I: Environmental Impact Assessment Process, Methods, 

and Potential, J. Petts (editor), Blackwell Scientific, Ltd., Oxford, United Kingdom. 

Hanson, C.E., et al., 2006, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, FTA-VA-90-1003-

06, prepared by Harris Miller Miller & Hanson, Inc., Burlington, Mass., for U.S. Department 

of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, Washington, D.C., May. Available at 

http://www.hmmh.com/rail_manuals01fta.html. Accessed July 2011. 

Harness, R.E., 2000, “Steel Distribution Poles and Their Environmental Implications,” IEEE 

Industry Applications Magazine May/June:53–56. 

Harris, C.M. (editor), 1991, Handbook of Acoustical Measurements and Noise Control, 3rd ed., 

McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York, N.Y. 

Hedlund, J.D., and W.H. Rickard, 1981, “Wildfire and the Short-Term Response of Small 

Mammals Inhabiting a Sagebrush-Bunchgrass Community,” Murrelet 62:1014. 

Hill and Associates, Inc., 2007, Economic Benefits of a Coal-Fueled Power Plant Compared to 

Natural Gas, prepared for Peabody Energy. Available at http://coalcandothat.com/pdfs/ 

EconBeneCoalFuel.pdf. Accessed Oct. 8, 2007. 

Hobbs, N.T., 1989, “Linking Energy Balance to Survival in Mule Deer: Development and Test 

of a Simulation Model,” Wildlife Monographs 101:139. 

Hockin, D., et al., 1992, “Examination of the Effects of Disturbance on Birds with Reference to 

Its Importance in Ecological Assessments,” Journal of Environmental Management 36:253286. 

Holmes, F.P., and W.E. Hecox, 2005, “Does Wilderness Impoverish Rural Regions?” 

International Journal of Wilderness 10:3439. 
Final OSTS PEIS 4-221 

Holmes, T.L., et al., 1993, “Responses of Wintering Grassland Raptors to Human Disturbance,” 

Wildlife Society Bulletin 21:461468. 

Howard, J.L., 1994, Asio flammeus, In: Fire Effects Information System, [Online], 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forestry Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire 

Sciences Laboratory (Producer). Available at http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/animals/bird/ 

asfl/all.html. Accessed June 20, 2012. 

Howard, J.L., 1996, Athene cunicularia, In: Fire Effects Information System, [Online], 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forestry Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire 

Sciences Laboratory (Producer). Available at http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/animals/bird/ 

atcu/all.html. Accessed June 20, 2012. 

Hunting, K., 2002, A Roadmap for PIER Research on Avian Power Line Electrocution in 

California, Commission Staff Report P500-02-072F, California Energy Commission, Energy 

Related Environmental Research, Dec. Available at http://www.energy.ca.gov/ 

reports/2002-12-24_500-02-072F.pdf. Accessed June 21, 2012. 

IARC (International Agency for Research on Cancer), 1983, Volume 32 Polynuclear Aromatic 

Compounds, Part 1, Chemical, Environmental and Experimental Data, IARC Monographs on 

the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans, World Health Organization, last updated 

April 17, 1998. Available at http://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Monographs/vol32/volume32.pdf. 

Accessed Aug. 14, 2012. 

IARC, 1985, Volume 35 Polynuclear Aromatic Compounds, Part 4, Bitumens, Coal-Tars and 

Derived Products, Shale-Oils and Soots, Summary of Data Reported and Evaluation, IARC 

Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans, World Health Organization, 

last updated April 20, 1998. Available at http://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Monographs/vol35/ 

volume35.pdf. Accessed Aug. 14, 2012. 

IARC, 1987, Overall Evaluations of Carcinogenicity: An Updating of IARC Monographs 

Volumes 1 to 42, Supplement 7, World Health Organization. Available at http://monographs. 

iarc.fr/ENG/Monographs/suppl7/suppl7.pdf. Accessed Aug. 14, 2012. 

Ingelfinger, F., and S. Anderson, 2004, “Passerine Response to Roads Associated with 

Natural Gas Extraction in a Sagebrush Steppe Habitat,” Western North American 

Naturalist 64(3):385395. 

Irons, D.B., et al., 2000, “Nine Years after the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill: Effects on Marine Bird 

Populations in Prince Sound, Alaska,” The Condor 102:723737. 

IUCNNR (International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources), 1998, 

Impacts of Drought, Karachi, Pakistan. Available at http://drought.iucnp.org/ 

droughtimpact.htm. Accessed May 9, 2008. 
Final OSTS PEIS 4-222 

IWG Corp., 1984, Health and Environmental Effects Document for Oil Shale1984, prepared 

for Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy 

Research, San Diego, Calif. 

Johnson, J.D., and R. Rasker, 1995, “The Role of Economic and Quality of Life Values in Rural 

Business Location,” Journal of Rural Studies 11:405416. 

Justus, J., 2011, letter from Justus (Chevron, MidContinent/Alaska Exploration & Production) 

to T. Marshall (Colorado Division of Reclamation, Mining & Safety), “Chevron Oil Shale 

Research, Development and Demonstration Pilot, Notice of Intent (NOI) P-2007-001, Notice of 

Deficiency for Modification No. 3, MD-03,” Aug. 22. Available at http://drmsweblink.state. 

co.us/drmsweblink/DocView.aspx?id=937360&page=1&dbid=0. Accessed Sept. 8, 2011. 

Keefer, T.N., and R.S. McQuivey, 1979, Water Availability for Development of Major Tar Sands 

Areas in Utah, prepared by Sutron Corporation, Arlington, Va., for In Situ Tar Sand Recovery 

Project, Laramie Energy Technology Center, U.S. Department of Energy, Laramie, Wyo. 

Kiel, K., and K. McClain, 1995, “House Prices during Siting Decision Stages: The Case of an 

Incinerator from Rumor through Operation,” Journal of Environmental Economics and 

Management 28:241255. 

Knick, S.T., and D.L. Dyer, 1996, “Distribution of Black-Tailed Jackrabbit Habitat Determined 

by Geographical Information System in Southwestern Idaho,” Chapter 3R in Vol. 2 of 

BLM/IDARNG Research Project Final Report, U.S. Geological Survey, Forest and Rangeland 

Ecosystem Science Center, Snake River Field Station, Boise, Id. 

Knick, S.T., and D.L. Dyer, 1997, “Distribution of Black-Tailed Jackrabbit Habitat Determined 

by GIS in Southwestern Idaho,” Journal of Wildlife Management 61:7585. 

Knight, R.L., and D.N. Cole, 1991, “Effects of Recreational Activity on Wildlife in Wildlands,” 

pp. 238247 in Transactions of the Fifty-sixth North American Wildlife and Natural Resources 

Conference, R.E. McCabe (editor), March 1722, Wildlife Management Institute, Washington, 

D.C. 

Knight, R.L., and J.Y. Kawashima, 1993, “Responses of Raven and Red-Tailed Hawk 

Populations to Linear Right-of-Ways,” Journal of Wildlife Management 57(2):266271. 

Kohlhase, J., 1991, “The Impact of Toxic Waste Sites on Housing Values,” Journal of Urban 

Economics 30:126. 

Kroll, C., and T. Priestley, 1992, The Effects of Overhead Transmission Lines on Property 

Values: A Review and Analysis of the Literature, Edison Electric Institute, Siting and 

Environmental Analysis Planning Task Force, Washington, D.C. Available at http://staff.haas. 

berkeley.edu/kroll/pubs/tranline.pdf. Accessed March 2007. 
Final OSTS PEIS 4-223 

Larkin, R.P., 1996, Effects of Military Noise on Wildlife: A Literature Review, Technical Report 

96/21, U.S. Army Construction Engineering Research Laboratory, Champaign, Ill. 

Lee, J.M. Jr., et al., 1996, Electrical and Biological Effects of Transmission Lines: A Review, 

Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, Ore., Dec. 

Lehman, R.N., 2001, “Raptor Electrocution on Power Lines: Current Issues and Outlook,”

Wildlife Society Bulletin 29(3):804–813. 

Lehman, R.N., and J.W. Allendorf, 1989, “The Effects of Fire, Fire Exclusion, and Fire 

Management on Raptor Habitats in the Western United States,” in Proceedings of the Western 

Raptor Management Symposium and Workshop, 1987, October 2628, Boise, Idaho, Scientific 

and Technical Series No. 12, National Wildlife Federation, Washington, D.C. 

Lehman, R.N., P.L. Kennedy, and J.A. Savidge, 2007, “The State of the Art in Raptor 

Electrocution Research: A Global Review,” Biological Conservation 136:159–174. 

Lindner-Lunsford, J.B., et al., 1990, Effects of In-Situ Oil-Shale Retorting on Water Quality 

near Rock Springs, Wyoming, Volume I: Final Report, prepared by U.S. Geological Survey, 

Cheyenne, Wyo., for U.S. Department of Energy, Dec. 

Lindskov, K.L., and B.A. Kimball, 1984, Water Resources and Potential Hydrologic Effects 

of Oil-Shale Development in the Southeastern Uinta Basin, Utah and Colorado, Professional 

Paper 1307, U.S. Geological Survey. 

Lyon, L.J., et al., 2000a, “Direct Effects of Fire and Animal Responses,” in Wildland Fire in 

Ecosystems: Effects of Fire on Fauna, J.K. Smith (editor), General Technical Report 

RMRS-GTR-42-Vol. 1, U.S. Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Ogden, Utah. 

Lyon, L.J., et al., 2000b, “Fire Effects on Animal Populations,” in Wildland Fire in Ecosystems: 

Effects of Fire on Fauna, J.K. Smith (editor), General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-42-Vol. 1, 

U.S. Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Ogden, Utah. 

Maffly, B., 2007, “Carnage Abounds on Western Wyoming Roads,” New West, Feb. 21. 

Available at http://www.newwest.net/index.php/city/article/carnage_abounds_on_western_ 

wyoming_roads/C101/L101. Accessed March 12, 2007. 

Manci, K.M., et al., 1988, Effects of Aircraft Noise and Sonic Booms on Domestic Animals and 

Wildlife: A Literature Synthesis, NERC-88/29, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Ecology 

Research Center, Ft. Collins, Colo. 

Marshall, J.S., and L.W. Vandruff, 2002, “Impact of Selective Herbicide Right-of-Way 

Vegetation Treatment on Birds,” Environmental Management 30(6):801806. 
Final OSTS PEIS 4-224 

Maulbetsch, J.S., and M.N. DiFilippo, 2006, Cost and Value of Water Use at Combined-Cycle 

Power Plants, CEC-500-2006-034, California Energy Commission, PIER Energy-Related 

Environmental Research. 

McLellan, B.N., and D.M. Shackleton, 1989, “Immediate Reactions of Grizzly Bears to Human 

Activities,” Wildlife Society Bulletin 17:269274. 

Menge, C.W., et al., 1998, FHWA Traffic Noise Model® Technical Manual, FHWA-PD-96-010 

and DOT-VNTSC-FHWA-98-2, prepared by U.S. Department of Transportation, John A. Volpe 

National Transportation Systems Center, Cambridge, Mass., for U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, D.C., Feb. 

Meyer, J.R., and J.M. Lee, Jr., 1981, “Effects of Transmission Lines on Flight Behavior of 

Waterfowl and Other Birds,” pp. 62.1–62.15 in Proceedings of the Second Symposium on 

Environmental Concerns in Rights-of-Way Management, R.E. Tillman (editor), Mississippi 

State University, Mississippi State, Miss. 

MIG, Inc. (Minnesota IMPLAN Group, Inc.), 2012, IMPLAN Data Files, Stillwater, Minn. 

Monsen, S.B., et al., 2004, Restoring Western Ranges and Wildlands, General Technical Report 

RMRS-GTR-136, Vols. 1–3, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain 

Research Station, Fort Collins, Colo. 

Monson, G.S., 2011, letter from Monson (Shell Frontier Oil & Gas Inc.) to T. Marshall 

(Colorado Division of Reclamation, Mining & Safety), “Annual Ground Water Monitoring 

Report - 2010, Mahogany Research Project (MRP), NOI No. P-2003-022, Rio Blanco County, 

Colorado,” Jan. 27. Available at http://drmsweblink.state.co.us/drmsweblink/0/doc/924930/ 

Page1.aspx?searchid=2a0d9ff4-7043-4253-a2f1-5cc4fb353387. Accessed Sept. 8, 2011. 

MPCA (Minnesota Pollution Control Agency), 1979, A Guide to Noise Control in Minnesota, 

St. Paul, Minn., revised March 1999. Available at http://www.pca.state.mn.us/programs/pubs/ 

noise.pdf. Accessed June 15, 2006. 

Murphey, P.C., and D. Daitch, 2007, Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, Ill., unpublished 

information. 

National Research Council, 2007, Colorado River Basin Management: Evaluating and Adjusting 

to Hydroclimatic Variability (prepublication copy), The National Academies Press, 

Washington, D.C. Available at http://www.nap.edu/catalog/11857.html. Accessed Feb. 22, 2007. 

Natural Resources Conservation Service and Wildlife Habitat Council, 2007, Native Freshwater 

Mussels, Fish and Wildlife Habitat Management Leaflet No. 46 (January). Available at ftp://ftpfc.sc.egov.usda.gov/WHMI/WEB/pdf/TechnicalLeaflets/NativeFreshwater_%20MusselsJan16. 

pdf. Accessed May 20, 2008. 
Final OSTS PEIS 4-225 

NatureServe, 2011, NatureServe Explorer: An Online Encyclopedia of Life (Web Application), 

Version 6.0, Arlington, Va. Available at http://www.natureserve.org/explorer. Accessed 

Nov. 2, 2011. 

Naugle, D.E., et al., 2004, “West Nile Virus: Pending Crisis for Greater Sage-Grouse,” Ecology 

Letters 7:704713. 

Nelson, J., 1979, “Airport Noise, Location Rent and the Market for Residential Amenities,” 

Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 6:357369. 

NETL (National Energy Technology Laboratory), 2002, Advanced Fossil Power Systems 

Comparison Study, unnumbered report, Dec. Available at http://www.netl.doe.gov/ 

publications/others/techrpts/AdvFossilPowerSysCompStudy.pdf. Accessed June 19, 2012. 

Newman, G.J., and E.F. Redente, 2001, “Long-Term Plant Community Development as 

Influenced by Revegetation Techniques,” Journal of Range Management 54(6):717724. 

NSC (National Safety Council), 2006, Injury Facts, 20052006 ed., Itasca, Ill. 

NWCC (National Wind Coordinating Committee), 2002, Permitting of Wind Energy Facilities: 

A Handbook, prepared by the NWCC Siting Subcommittee, Aug. Available at 

http://www.nationalwind.org/assets/publications/permitting2002.pdf. Accessed Sept. 26, 2011. 

Olendorff, R.R., and R.N. Lehman, 1986, Raptor Collisions with Utility Lines: An Analysis 

Using Subjective Field Observations, submitted by U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of 

Land Management, Sacramento, Calif., to Pacific Gas and Electric Company, San Ramon, Calif., 

Feb. 

O’Rourke, D., et al., 2012, Class I Cultural Resource Overview for Oil Shale and Tar Sands 

Areas in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming, prepared by Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, 

Ill., for U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Sept. 

OSHA (Occupational Safety and Health Administration), 2007, Oil and Gas Well Drilling and 

Servicing eTool, U.S. Department of Labor. Available at http://www.osha.gov/SLTC/etools/ 

oilandgas/index.html. 

OTA (U.S. Office of Technology Assessment), 1980a, An Assessment of Oil Shale Technologies, 

Volume II: A History of the Federal Prototype Oil Shale Leasing Program, Energy Materials and 

International Security Division, July. 

OTA, 1980b, An Assessment of Oil Shale Technologies, Energy Materials and International 

Security Division, June. 

Oxley, D.J., et al., 1974, “The Effects of Roads on Populations of Small Mammals,” The Journal 

of Applied Ecology 11(1):5159. 
Final OSTS PEIS 4-226 

Paige, C., and S.A. Ritter, 1999, Birds in a Sagebrush Sea: Managing Sagebrush Habitats for 

Bird Communities, Partners in Flight, Western Working Group, Boise, Id. 

Paschke, M.W., et al., 2005, “Long-Term Effects of Biosolids on Revegetation of Disturbed 

Sagebrush Steppe in Northwestern Colorado,” Restoration Ecology 13(3):545551. 

Power, T.M., 1996, Lost Landscapes and Failed Economies, Island Press Covello, Calif. 

Purde, M., and S. Etlin, 1980, “Cancer Cases among Workers in the Estonian Oil Shale 

Processing Industry,” pp. 527528 in Health Implications of New Energy Technologies, 

W.N. Rom and V.E. Archer (editors), Ann Arbor Science, Ann Arbor, Mich. (as cited in 

Rom et al. 1981). 

Ramirez, P., Jr., 1997, Environmental Contaminants in the Aquatic Bird Food Chain of an 

Oil Refinery Wastewater Pond, Contaminant Report Number R6/712C/97, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Wyoming Filed Offi ce, Cheyenne, Wyoming, March. Available at 

http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1211&context=usfwspubs. 

Accessed June 18, 2012. 

Ramirez, P., Jr., 1999, “Fatal Attraction: Oil Field Waste Pits,” Endangered Species Bulletin

24(1):10-11. Available at http://www.fws.gov/contaminants/OtherDocuments/SpeciesBulletin/ 

10-11.pdf. Accessed June 14, 2012. 

Ramirez, P., Jr., 2000, Wildlife Mortality Risk in Oil Field Waste Pits, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service Region 6 Contaminants Information Bulletin, December 2000. Available at 

http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/contaminants/papers/pitrisk.pdf. Accessed June 12, 2012. 

Ramirez, P., Jr., 2008, Trace Elements and Petroleum Hydrocarbons in the Aquatic Food Chain 

of Process Water Evaporation Ponds at the Little America Refinery, Casper, Wyoming, 

Contaminant Report Number R6/724C/08, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 6, Feb. 

Available at http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1217&context= 

usfwspubs. Accessed June 19, 2012. 

Rasker R., 1994, “A New Look on Old Vistas: The Economic Role of Environmental Quality in 

Western Public Lands,” University of Colorado Law Review 65:369399. 

Rasker, R., 2004, Public Lands Conservation and Economic Well-Being, Sonoran Institute, 

Bozeman, Mont. 

Reed, R.A., et al., 1996, “Contribution of Roads to Forest Fragmentation in the Rocky 

Mountains,” Conservation Biology 10(4):10981106. 

Reeder, R., and D.M. Brown, 2005, Recreation, Tourism, and Rural Well-Being, 

U.S. Department Agriculture, Economic Research Report ERR-7, Aug. 
Final OSTS PEIS 4-227 

Reijnen, R., and R. Foppen, 1994, “The Effects of Car Traffic on Breeding Bird Populations in 

Woodland. I. Evidence of Reduced Habitat Quality for Willow Warblers (Phylloscopus 

trochilus) Breeding Close to a Highway,” Journal of Applied Ecology 32:8594. 

Reijnen, R., and R. Foppen, 1995, “The Effects of Car Traffic on Breeding Bird Populations in 

Woodland. IV. Influence of Population Size on the Reduction of Density Close to a Highway,” 

Journal of Applied Ecology 32:481491. 

Reijnen, R., et al., 1995, “The Effects of Car Traffic on Breeding Bird Populations in Woodland. 

III. Reduction of Density in Relation to the Proximity of Main Roads,” Journal of Applied 

Ecology 32:187202. 

Reijnen, R., et al., 1996, “The Effects of Traffic on the Density of Breeding Birds in Dutch 

Agricultural Grasslands,” Biological Conservation 75:255260. 

Reijnen, R., et al., 1997, “Disturbance by Traffic of Breeding Birds: Evaluation of the 

Effects and Considerations in Planning and Managing Road Corridors,” Biodiversity and 

Conservation 6:567581. 

Riffell, S.K., et al., 1996, “Does Repeated Human Intrusion Cause Cumulative Declines in Avian 

Richness and Abundance?” Ecological Applications 6(2):492505. 

Roe, S., R. Strait, A. Bailie, H. Lindquist, and A. Jamison, 2007, Final Utah Greenhouse Gas 

Inventory and Reference Case Projections, 1990–2020, Center for Climate Strategies, July. 

Available at http://www.deq.utah.gov/BRAC_Climate/docs/Final_Report/Sec-B-GHG_ 

INVENTORY.pdf. Accessed Aug. 23, 2011. 

Rom, W.N., et al., 1981, “Occupational and Environmental Health Problems of the Developing 

Oil Shale Industry: A Review,” Am J. Ind. Med 2:247260. 

Romin, L.A., and J.A. Muck, 2002, Utah Field Office Guidelines for Raptor Protection 

from Human and Land Use Disturbances, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Utah Field 

Office, Salt Lake City, Utah, Jan. Available at http://www.oilandgasbmps.org/docs/ 

UT35-RAPTORGUIDE.pdf. Accessed July 29, 2011. 

Routson, R.C., et al., 1979, “A Review of the Environmental Impact of Ground Disposal of Oil 

Shale Wastes,” Journal of Environmental Quality 8(1):1419. 

Rudzitis, G., 1999, “Amenities Increasingly Draw People to the Rural West,” Rural 

Development Perspectives 14:913. 

Rudzitis, G., and H.E. Johansen, 1989, Amenities, Migration and Non-Metropolitan Regional 

Development, report to the National Science Foundation, University of Idaho, Moscow, Id. 

Santillo, D.J., 1994, “Observations on Moose, Alces alces, Habitat and Use on Herbicide Treated 

Clearcuts in Maine,” Canadian Field Naturalist 108(1):2225. 
Final OSTS PEIS 4-228 

Santillo, D.J., et al., 1989a, “Response of Songbirds to Glyphosate-Induced Habitat Changes on 

Clearcuts,” Journal of Wildlife Management 53(1):6471. 

Santillo, D.J., et al., 1989b, “Responses of Small Mammals and Habitat to Glyphosate 

Application on Clearcuts,” Journal of Wildlife Management 53(1):164172. 

Santillo, D.J., 1994, “Observations on Moose, Alces alces, Habitat and Use on Herbicide Treated 

Clearcuts in Maine,” Canadian Field Naturalist 108(1):22−25. 

Sawyer, H., and F. Lindsay, 2001, Sublette Mule Deer Study, final report, Wyoming Cooperative 

Fish & Wildlife Research Unit, Laramie, Wyo. March. Available at http://www.uppergreen.org/ 

library/docs/Muledeerstudy1.pdf. Accessed June 8, 2006. 

Sawyer, H., et al., 2006, “Winter Habitat Selection of Mule Deer before and during Development 

of a Natural Gas Field,” The Journal of Wildlife Management 70(2):396403. 

Schooley, R.L., et al., 1996, “Can Shrub Cover Increase Predation Risk for a Desert Rodent?” 

Canadian Journal of Zoology 74:157163. 

Sharpe, P.B., and B. Van Horne, 1998, “Influence of Habitat on Behavior of Townsend’s Ground 

Squirrel (Spermophilus townsendii),” Journal of Mammalogy 79:906918. 

Shell, 2011, Subsurface Reclamation for an ICP Oil shale Project, E. Hansen, M. Day, 

J. Hardaway (presenter), and G. Monson, presented at the 31st Oil Shale Symposium, 

October 1719, 2011, Colorado School of Mines. 

Snyder, S.A., 1993, Circus cyaneus, In: Fire Effects Information System, [Online], 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forestry Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire 

Sciences Laboratory (Producer). Available at http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/animals/bird/ 

cicy/all.html. Accessed June 20, 2012. 

Stevens, A.J., et al., 1984, Occidental Vertical Modified In situ Process for the Recovery of Oil 

from Oil Shale, Phase II, Final Report, August 1981–December 1982, Volume I: Construction, 

Operation, Testing, and Environmental Impact, DOE/LC/10036-2009-Vol. 1, DE86 006610, 

prepared for U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Fossil Energy, Morgantown Energy 

Technology Center, Laramie Projects Office, Laramie, Wyo., Jan. 

Stiver, S.J., et al., 2006, Greater Sage-Grouse Comprehensive Conservation Strategy, Western 

Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, Cheyenne, Wyo. Available at http://www.wafwa.org/ 

documents/pdf/GreaterSage-grouseConservationStrategy2006.pdf. Accessed Dec. 13, 2011. 

Stout, I.J., and G.W. Cornwell, 1976, “Nonhunting Mortality of Fledged North American 

Waterfowl,” Journal of Wildlife Management 40:681693. 

 
Final OSTS PEIS 4-229 

Strait, R., S. Roe, A. Bailie, H. Lindquist, A. Jamison, E. Hausman, and A. Napoleon, 2007,

Final Colorado Greenhouse Gas Inventory and Reference Case Projections 1990–2020, Center 

for Climate Strategies, Oct. Available at http://www.coloradoclimate.org/ewebeditpro/items/ 

O14F13894.pdf. Accessed Aug. 23, 2011. 

Strittholt, J.R., et al., 2000, Importance of Bureau of Land Management Roadless Areas in the 

Western U.S.A., prepared by the Conservation Biology Institute, Corvallis, Ore., for the National 

BLM Wilderness Campaign. Available at http://www.consbio.org/cbi/professional_services/ 

blm/blm_pdf.htm. Accessed Jan. 28, 2005. 

Stull, W., and J. Stull, 1991, “Capitalization of Local Income Taxes,” Journal of Urban 

Economics 29:182190. 

Sullivan, J., 1994, Accipiter striatus, In: Fire Effects Information System, [Online], 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forestry Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire 

Sciences Laboratory (Producer). Available at http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/animals/bird/ 

acst/all.html. Accessed June 20, 2012. 

Sullivan, J., 1995, Bubo virginianus, in: Fire Effects Information System, [Online], 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forestry Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire 

Sciences Laboratory (Producer). Available at http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/animals/bird/ 

buvi/all.html. Accessed June 20, 2012. 

SWWRC (States West Water Resources Corporation), 2001a, Green River Basin Water Plan, 

Technical Memoranda, Chapter II, Basin Water Use Profile — Agricultural. Available at 

http://waterplan.state.wy.us/ plan/green/techmemos/techmemos.html. Accessed May 25, 2006. 

SWWRC, 2001b, Green River Basin, Water Planning Process, Feb. 

Sydnor, R.S., and E.F. Redente, 2000, “Long-Term Plant Community Development on 

Topsoil Treatments Overlying a Phytotoxic Growth Medium,” Journal of Environmental 

Quality 29:17781786. 

Tavano, A.J., 2011, letter from Tavano (ExxonMobil Global Services Company) to T. Marshall, 

(Colorado Division of Reclamation, Mining & Safety), “Mined Land Reclamation Board Permit 

No. M-1980-047, Colony Shale Oil Project,” Feb. 8. Available at http://drmsweblink.state.co.us/ 

drmsweblink/0/doc/926111/Page1.aspx?searchid=d36e1e9f-042f-4a26-a0f5-b00a159ecc7a. 

Accessed Sep. 8, 2011. 

Taylor, O.J., 1982, Three-Dimensional Mathematical Model for Simulating the Hydrologic 

System in the Piceance Basin, Colorado, Water-Resources Investigations Open-File 

Report 82-637, U.S. Geological Survey. 

Teplitzky, A.M., et al., 1981, “Electric Power Plant Environmental Noise Guide,” Noise Control 

Engineering, pp. 138144, May–June. 
Final OSTS PEIS 4-230 

Tesky, J.L., 1994a, Aquila chrysaetos, In: Fire Effects Information System, [Online], 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forestry Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire 

Sciences Laboratory (Producer). Available at http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/animals/bird/ 

aqch/all.html. Accessed June 20, 2012. 

Tesky, J.L., 1994b, Buteo jamaicensis, In: Fire Effects Information System, [Online], 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forestry Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire 

Sciences Laboratory (Producer). Available at http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/animals/bird/ 

buja/all.html. Accessed June 20, 2012. 

Tesky, J.L., 1994c, Buteo regalis, In: Fire Effects Information System, [Online], 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forestry Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire 

Sciences Laboratory (Producer). Available at http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/animals/bird/ 

bure/all.html. Accessed June 20, 2012. 

Tesky, J.L., 1994d, Buteo swainsoni, In: Fire Effects Information System, [Online], 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forestry Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire 

Sciences Laboratory (Producer). Available at http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/animals/bird/ 

busw/all.html. Accessed June 20, 2012. 

Tesky, J.L., 1994e, Falco sparverius, In: Fire Effects Information System, [Online], 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forestry Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire 

Sciences Laboratory (Producer). Available at http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/animals/bird/ 

fasp/all.html. Accessed June 20, 2012. 

Tesky, J.L., 1994f, Falco mexicanus, In: Fire Effects Information System, [Online], 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forestry Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire 

Sciences Laboratory (Producer). Available at http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/animals/bird/ 

fame/all.html. Accessed June 20, 2012. 

Thaler, R., 1978, “A Note on the Value of Crime Control: Evidence from the Property Market,” 

Journal of Urban Economics 5:137145. 

The Southwest Wyoming Local Sage-Grouse Working Group, 2007, Southwest Wyoming 

Sage-Grouse Conservation Assessment and Plan, Wyoming Game and Fish Department, July 17. 

Available at http://gf.state.wy.us/wildlife/wildlife_management/sagegrouse/Southwest/ 

Southwest%20Conservation%20Assessment%20and%20Plan%207-17-2007-final.pdf. Accessed 

May 14, 2008. 

Thompson, L.S., 1978, “Transmission Line Wire Strikes: Mitigation through Engineering Design 

and Habitat Modification,” Impacts of Transmission Lines on Birds in Flight, Proceedings of a 

Conference, January 31February 2, 1978, ORAU-142, pp. 5192, Oak Ridge Associated 

Universities, Oak Ridge, Tenn. 
Final OSTS PEIS 4-231 

Thompson, S., 2006a, personal communication from Thompson (U.S. Bureau of Land 

Management, Washington, D.C., Office) to K. Smith (Argonne National Laboratory, Lakewood, 

Colo.), Dec. 14. 

Thompson, S., 2006b, personal communication from Thompson (U.S. Bureau of Land 

Management, Washington, D.C., Office) to K. Smith (Argonne National Laboratory, Lakewood, 

Colo.), Nov. 30. 

Thompson, S., 2006c, personal communication from Thompson (U.S. Bureau of Land 

Management, Washington, D.C., Office) to K. Smith (Argonne National Laboratory, Lakewood, 

Colo.), Dec. 6. 

Thompson, S., 2006d, personal communication from Thompson (U.S. Bureau of Land 

Management, Washington, D.C., Office) to K. Smith (Argonne National Laboratory, Lakewood, 

Colo.), Dec. 13. 

Thomson, J.L., et al., 2005, Wildlife at a Crossroads: Energy Development in Western 

Wyoming—Effects of Roads on Habitat in the Upper Green River Valley, The Wilderness 

Society, Washington, D.C. Available at http://www.uppergreen.org/library/docs/ 

WildlifeAtCrossroads_report.pdf. Accessed June 8, 2006. 

Timoney, K.P., and R.A. Ronconi, 2010, “Annual Bird Mortality in the Bitumen Tailings Ponds 

in Northeastern Alberta, Canada,” The Wilson Journal of Ornithology 122(3):569-576. 

Trombulak, S.C., and C.A. Frissell, 2000, “Review of Ecological Effects of Roads on Terrestrial 

and Aquatic Communities,” Conservation Biology 14(1):1830. 

Twort, C.C., and J.M. Twort, 1930, “The Relative Potency of Carcinogenic Tars and Oils,” 

J Hyg 29:373379 (as cited in Rom et al. 1981). 

UDNR (Utah Department of Natural Resources), 1999, Utah State Water Plan—Uinta Basin, 

Division of Water Resources. 

UDNR, 2000a, Utah State Water Plan—Southeast Colorado River Basin, Division of Water 

Resources. 

UDNR, 2000b, Utah State Water Plan—West Colorado River Basin, Division of Water 

Resources. 

UDNR, 2001, Utah’s Water Resources, Planning for the Future, Division of Water Resources. 

UDNR, 2002, Strategic Management Plan for Sage-Grouse 2002, Publication 02-20, Division of 

Wildlife Resources, Salt Lake City, Utah, June 11. Available at http://www.wildlife.utah.gov/ 

uplandgame/pdf/2002manplan.pdf. Accessed April 10, 2008. 
Final OSTS PEIS 4-232 

UDNR, 2006, Utah Division of Wildlife Resources Drought Response Plan for Wildlife, Utah 

Division of Wildlife Resources, Salt Lake City, Utah. Available at http://wildlife.utah.gov/ 

news/02-07/drought.php. Accessed May 15, 2008. 

Uinta Basin Adaptive Resource Management Local Working Group, 2006, Uinta Basin Greater 

Sage-Grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) Local Conservation Plan, Utah State University 

Extension, Jack H. Berryman Institute, and Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, Salt Lake City, 

Utah. Available at http://utahcbcp.org/files/uploads/uintah/ubarmsagrplan.pdf. Accessed 

Dec. 13, 2011. 

U.S. Census Bureau, 2007, American FactFinder. Available at http://factfinder.census.gov. 

Accessed July 2006. 

U.S. Census Bureau, 2011, State & County QuickFacts. Available at http://quickfacts. 

census.gov/qfd/index.html. Accessed Sept. 21, 2011. 

USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture), 2008a, Fire Effects Information System, U.S. Forest 

Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory. Available at 

http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/index.html. Accessed Aug. 14, 2012. 

USDA, 2008b, “Wildlife Species: Spermophilus townsendii,” Fire Effects Information System, 

U.S. Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory. Available at 

http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/animals/mammal/spto/all.html. Aug. 14, 2012. 

USDA, 2008c, “Wildlife Species: Lepus californicus,” Fire Effects Information System, 

U.S. Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory. Available at 

http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/animals/mammal/leca/all.html. Accessed Aug. 14, 2012. 

USDA, 2008d, “Wildlife Species: Bird Index,” Fire Effects Information System, U.S. Forest 

Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory. Available at 

http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/animals/bird. Aug. 14, 2012. 

USFS (U.S. Forest Service), 1995, Landscape Aesthetics: A Handbook for Scenery Management, 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agriculture Handbook 701. 

USFS Region 2 (U.S. Forest Service, Region 2), 2000, Watershed Conservation Practices 

Handbook, Forest Service Handbook 2509.25-99-1. Available at http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/psicc/ 

publications/environmental_impact_statements/eis_uspwp/WCPAppendixA.htm. Accessed 

March 13, 2007. 

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service), 2004, Sage Grouse Fact Sheet, Mountain Prairies 

Region, Region 6, Lakewood, Colo. Available at http://mountain-prairie.fws.gov/species/birds/ 

sagegrousefactsheet.pdf. Accessed April. 24, 2006. 
Final OSTS PEIS 4-233 

USFWS, 2006, “Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Proposed Threatened Status 

for Penstemon grahamii (Graham’s beardtongue) with Critical Habitat; Proposed Rule,” 50 CFR 

Part 17, Federal Register 71(12):3158–3196, Jan. 19, 2006. 

USFWS, 2009, Migratory Bird Mortality in Oilfield Wastewater Disposal Facilities, U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, Wyoming Ecological Services Field Office, Cheyenne, Wyoming, May. 

Available at http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/contaminants/documents/ 

COWDFBirdMortality.pdf. Accessed June 12, 2012. 

USFWS, 2011, “Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Determination of Endangered 

Status for Ipomopsis polyantha (Pagosa Skyrocket) and Threatened Status for Penstemon debilis 

(Parachute Beardtongue) and Phacelia submutica (DeBeque Phacelia),” 50 CFR Part 17, Federal 

Register 76(144):45054–45075, July 27, 2011. 

USGCRP (U.S. Global Change Research Program), 2009, Global Climate Change Impacts in 

the United States, T.R. Karl et al. (editors), Cambridge University Press, N.Y. Available at 

http://downloads.globalchange.gov/usimpacts/pdfs/climate-impacts-report.pdf. Accessed 

Aug. 30, 2011. 

USGS, 2012, USGS 09306255 Yellow Creek near White River, CO. Available at 

http://waterdata.usgs.gov/usa/nwis/uv?site_no=09306255. Accessed June 6, 2012. 

U.S. President, 1930, “Withdrawal of Public Oil Shale Deposits and Lands Containing Same for 

Classification,” Executive Order 5327, April 15. 

U.S. President, 1977, “Protection of Wetlands,” Executive Order 11990, Federal 

Register 42:26961, May 24. 

U.S. President, 1996, “Locating Federal Facilities on Historic Properties in Our Nation’s Central 

Cities,” Executive Order 13006, Federal Register 61:26071, May 24. 

U.S. President, 2000, “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments,” 

Executive Order 13175, Federal Register 65:67249, Nov. 9. 

Walsh, P.J., et al., 1981, “Health and Safety Implications of Alternative Energy Technologies. 

III. Fossil Energy,” Environmental Management 5(6):483494. 

Waters, T.F., 1995, Sediment in Streams: Sources, Biological Effects, and Control, 

Monograph 7, American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Md. 

Watts, S.T., and S.T. Knick, 1996, “The Influence of Vegetation, Soils, and Disturbance on 

Townsend’s Ground Squirrel Abundance,” in BLM/IDARNG Research Project Final Report,

Vol. 2, U.S. Geological Survey, Forest and Rangeland Ecosystem Science Center, Snake River 

Field Station, Boise, Id. 
Final OSTS PEIS 4-234 

WGFD (Wyoming Game and Fish Department), 2003, Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse 

Conservation Plan, Cheyenne, Wyo., June 24. Available at http://gf.state.wy.us/wildlife_ 

management/sagegrouse.asp. Accessed April 17, 2006. 

WGFD, 2009, Strategic Habitat Plan, Jan. 

WGFD, 2010, Recommendations for Development of Oil and Gas Resources within Important 

Wildlife Habitats, Cheyenne, Wyo., March. Available at http://gf.state.wy.us/downloads/ 

pdf/og.pdf. Accessed July 27, 2011. 

Wilson, C., et al., 2006, Assessment of Climate Variability on Water Resource Availability for 

Oil Shale Development, AGU Abstracts, H13B-1407, American Geophysical Union Fall 

Meeting, Dec. 

Wood, E.W., 1992, “Prediction of Machinery Noise,” in Noise and Vibration Control 

Engineering: Principles and Applications, L.L. Beranek and I.L. Vér (editors), John Wiley & 

Sons, Inc., New York, N.Y. 

Woodward, D.F., R.G. Rileya, M.G. Henrya, J.S. Meyera, and T. R. Garlanda, 1985, “Leaching 

of Retorted Oil Shale: Assessing the Toxicity to Colorado Squawfish, Fathead Minnows, and 

Two Food-Chain Organisms,” Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 114(6):887–894. 

 

Woodward, D.F., et al., 1997, “Toxicity of Five Shale Oils to Fish and Aquatic Invertebrates,” 

Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 16:239246. 

WWA, 2008, Climate Change in Colorado, A Synthesis to Support Water Resources 

Management and Adaptation, report by the Western Water Assessment for the Colorado 

Water Conservation Board. 

Yarmoloy, C., et al., 1988, “Behavior Responses and Reproduction of Mule Deer, Odocoileus

hemionus, Does Following Experimental Harassment with an All-Terrain Vehicle,” The 

Canadian Field-Naturalist 102:425429. 

Young, J.R., 2003, The Gunnison Sage-Grouse (Centrocercus minimus), Western State College 

of Colorado, Gunnison, Colo. Available at http://www.western.edu/bio/young/gunnsg/ 

gunnsg.htm. Accessed April 9, 2004. 

Zimmerman, G.S., and W.E. Glanz, 2000, “Habitat Use by Bats in Eastern Maine,” Journal of 

Wildlife Management 64(4):10321040. 
Final OSTS PEIS 5-1 

5 EFFECTS OF TAR SANDS TECHNOLOGIES 

 This chapter of the PEIS contains summary information on current and emerging tar 

sands technologies and their potential environmental and socioeconomic impacts. Some of the 

information on the environmental consequences of tar sands development in this chapter was 

based on past tar sands development efforts. For the purposes of analysis, in the absence of more 

specific information on the tar sands technologies to be implemented in the future and the 

environmental consequences of implementing those technologies, information derived from 

other types of mineral development (oil and gas, and underground and surface mining of coal) 

were used in preparing this chapter. The BLM has taken this approach because it anticipates, to 

the best of its knowledge, that the surface-disturbing activities involved with these other types of 

mineral development are comparable to those that may result from oil shale and tar sands 

development. 

 This chapter also includes a brief description of mitigation measures the BLM may 

consider using if warranted by the results of NEPA analysis undertaken prior to issuance of sitespecific tar sands commercial leases and/or approval of detailed plans of development. Use of 

the mitigation measures will be evaluated at that time. 

 It is important to understand that information on the technologies presented here is 

provided for the purpose of general understanding and does not necessarily define the range of 

possible technologies and issues that may develop in the coming years. Prior to approval of 

future commercial leases, additional NEPA analyses would be completed that would consider 

site- and project-specific factors for proposed development activities. The magnitude of impacts 

and the applicability and effectiveness of the mitigation measures would need to be evaluated on 

a project-by-project basis in consideration of site-specific factors (e.g., existing land use, 

presence of paleontological and cultural resources, proximity to surface water, groundwater 

conditions, existing ecological resources, and proximity to visual resources) and project-specific 

factors (e.g., which technologies would be used, magnitude of operations, water consumption 

and wastewater generation, air emissions, number of employees, and development time lines). 

5.1 ASSUMPTIONS AND IMPACT-PRODUCING FACTORS FOR INDIVIDUAL 

 FACILITIES FOR COMMERCIAL TAR SANDS TECHNOLOGY 

 Although no tar sands development is currently taking place on public lands in Utah, for 

the purposes of analysis in this PEIS, it is assumed that development is possible in any of the 

11 STSAs listed in Table 2.3-1. This section summarizes some of the assumptions and potential 

impact-producing factors related to the different commercial tar sands technologies being 

considered, as well as the potential impacts associated with establishing transmission line and 

crude oil pipeline ROWs and building employer-provided housing. Impact-producing factors are 

defined as activities or processes that cause impacts on the environmental or socioeconomic 

setting, such as surface disturbance, water use, numbers of employees hired, and generation of 

solid and liquid waste. Specifically, this section identifies the data used and assumptions made to 

define potential impact-producing factors for hypothetical tar sands development facilities. The 
Final OSTS PEIS 5-2 

information presented here is summarized, in part, from more detailed discussions contained in 

Appendix B (the tar sands development background and technology overview), as well as 

previous environmental documents. In those instances where specific data are not available to 

define a potential impact-producing factor, best professional judgments have been made to 

establish reasonable assumptions. Discussions relating to air emissions are presented in 

Section 5.6. 

 The technologies considered in this PEIS for tar sands development include surface 

mines with surface retorts or solvent extraction, and in situ facilities using steam injection or 

combustion. The application of underground mining technologies for commercial tar sands 

development was not considered because, at this time, they do not appear to be commercially 

viable. Available information on impact-producing factors that would be applicable to Utah tar 

sands development is very limited. Many of the assumptions used to estimate tar sands 

development impacts in this PEIS are based on published information for a proposed 

20,000-bbl/day-capacity plant designed for recovery of oil from a diatomaceous earth tar sands 

deposit in California (Daniels et al. 1981), or on the Utah Combined Hydrocarbon Leasing 

Regional Final EIS (BLM 1984).1 In general, the information provided in Sections 5.1 and 5.2 is 

based on an assumed production rate of 20,000 bbl/day. However, values for some variables 

(e.g., acres disturbed, water use, and employment levels) were not considered to have a direct 

linear relationship to production levels. Alternate assumptions for these variables are discussed, 

where applicable, in Sections 5.1.1 and 5.1.2. In addition, for purposes of analysis, this 

assessment looks at the potential impacts from a single facility, although the actual level of 

development that could occur in the future is not known. Subsequent NEPA analysis will occur 

prior to both leasing and approval of plans of development when more information on specific 

technologies and production levels is available. 

 All applicable federal, state, and local regulatory requirements will be met 

(see Section 2.2 and Appendix D of the PEIS), and the effects of these requirements are included 

in the analysis of impacts. Within the following text, specific assumptions that have been made 

for each technology or major activity that could occur during commercial operations have been 

identified. In most instances, these assumptions represent good engineering practice or reflect the 

BLM’s understanding of design or performance limitations of various tar sands development 

activities. In those instances where various options have equal standing as practicable within the 

industry, the option offering the greatest potential environmental impacts was selected so as not 

to inadvertently understate these impacts. 

5.1.1 Surface Mine with Surface Retort or Solvent Extraction Projects 

 The information presented in Table 5.1.1-1 identifies the key assumptions associated with 

surface mining with surface retorting or solvent extraction of tar sands for a facility sized to 

support production levels of 20,000 bbl/day of oil. These data may be used to extrapolate 

 

1 Although more recent data exist from tar sands development ongoing in Canada, those data are not applicable to 

Utah tar sands because of the different chemical characteristics of the tar sands (i.e., the Canadian tar sands have 

an aqueous layer between the sand and the bitumen, making separation easier). 
Final OSTS PEIS 5-3 

TABLE 5.1.1-1 Assumptions Associated with a Surface Mine with Surface Retort 

or with Solvent Extraction for Production Levels of 20,000 bbl/day of Syncrudea,b

Impact-Producing Factor 

Value Used in 

Impact Analyses 

 

Footprint of development area (acres)c 2,950 

Surface disturbance (acres)c 5,760 

Water use for mining (bbl/day)d 25,000 

Water use for retort (bbl/day)d 12,000 

Water use for solvent extraction (bbl/day)d 107,000 

Water use for upgrading (bbl/day)d 386,000 

Noise at mine site (dBA at 500 ft) 61e

Noise at retort, solvent extraction, or upgrading sites (dBA at 500 ft) 73–88 

Spent (processed) sand (tons/day) 52,000 

Direct employment for surface mining 

Construction 1,200 

Operations 480 

Total employmentf

 

Mine and retort/extraction facility construction 1,800 

Mine and retort/extraction facility operations 750 

a Values based on a 20,000-bbl/day facility using a diatomaceous earth deposit 

(see Appendix B; Daniels et al. 1981), unless otherwise noted. 

b bbl = barrel; 1 bbl syncrude = 42 gal, 1 bbl water = 55 gal. 

c These acreages represent the assumed area of surface disturbance that could occur at any 

given time during the life of the project once commercial production levels are reached. 

Development is expected to occur with a rolling footprint so that, ultimately, the entire 

lease area would be developed and then restored. The assumed lease area of 5,760 acres 

is based on provisions of the MLA as revised by Section 369(j) of the Energy Policy Act 

of 2005. 

d See Appendix B for sources for water use values. Approximately 3.5% of the process 

water used for mining, 100% of that used for a retort, and 22% of that used for solvent 

extraction would need to be fresh water (Daniels et al. 1981). 

e Noise level for a 20,000-bbl/day facility is from Daniels et al. (1981). 

f The total employment values include both direct and indirect jobs. The values are based on 

average data for both a surface mine and an in situ facility (BLM 1984). The methodology 

is discussed in Appendix G. 

assumptions for facilities with higher production levels (see Appendix B). Development is 

assumed to occur with a rolling footprint so that, at any given time, portions of the lease area 

would be (1) undergoing active development; (2) in preparation for a future development phase; 

(3) undergoing restoration after development; and (4) occupied by long-term surface facilities, 

such as office buildings, laboratories, retorts, and parking lots. The mine area and spent tar sands 

disposal areas would be reclaimed on an ongoing basis. Spent tar sands may be disposed of by 

being returned to the mine as operations would permit; there also would be some spent tar sands 

disposal on other parts of the lease area. The amount of land used for spent tar sands disposal 
Final OSTS PEIS 5-4 

would vary from project to project but is expected to be encompassed within the estimated 

development area identified in Table 5.1.1-1. 

 Water sources for tar sands surface mine facilities would be varied but may include a 

combination of groundwater, surface water, and treated process water. Groundwater pumped 

from the mine or from dewatering wells would be of variable quality; the higher quality water 

would most likely be used for industrial processes, dust control, and revegetation. Water of lower 

quality would be reinjected or otherwise disposed of pursuant to state requirements. 

 Assumptions regarding surface mining, surface retorts, spent tar sands from surface 

retorting, and upgrading activities associated with surface retorting include the following. 

Surface Mining 

• Surface mining would occur only in areas where the overburden thickness is 

equal to or less than the thickness of the mined tar sands. 

• Topsoil and subsoil removed as overburden would be separately stockpiled 

and vegetated to mitigate or eliminate erosion. 

• When mine site dewatering is necessary, recovered water would be used for 

fugitive dust control, moisturizing spent tar sands, and other consumptive 

uses, to the extent allowable given water quality considerations. 

• Explosives would be used in the mining process to remove overburden and 

fracture the tar sands. 

• Raw tar sands would be loaded by shovel into trucks for delivery to the 

crusher that would be adjacent to the retort and would feed the retort by 

conveyor belt. 

• Strip mine development would provide for disposal of spent tar sands in 

previously mined areas of the mine, to the extent that the disposal can be 

accommodated by available capacity. 

• Reclamation would be conducted contemporaneously with mining activities. 

Surface Retorts 

• In the absence of additional data, it is assumed the emissions from the surface 

retorts would be consistent with those from the Lurgi-Ruhrgas retort 

(see Appendix B). 
Final OSTS PEIS 5-5 

• Surface retorts would be operated continuously for maximum energy 

efficiency, and mining and other processing activities that support the retorts 

would be scaled to provide a relatively constant supply of material to allow 

the retort to operate continuously at its rated capacity; multiple, simultaneous 

mining and crushing operations may therefore be required. 

• Retorts would be positioned at or near the mine entrance, and tar sands would 

be delivered by truck to the crushing operation that would be adjacent to the 

retort and feed the retort by conveyor. 

• Primary and secondary crushing would take place adjacent to the retort. 

• Flammable gases from retorting would be captured, filtered to remove 

suspended solids, dewatered, and consumed on-site as supplemental fuel in 

external combustion devices. 

• Condensable liquids would be filtered, dewatered, and delivered to the 

adjacent upgrading facility. 

• Indirect heat sources for surface retort would be provided by external 

combustion sources fueled by natural gas delivered to the site by pipeline, 

propane stored in pressure tanks on-site, or diesel fuel provided by 

commercial suppliers and stored in on-site aboveground tanks. Each 

commercial fuel source would be supplemented by combustible gases 

recovered from the retort. 

• Fuel for direct-burn surface retorts would be provided by natural gas, propane, 

or diesel fuel, each of which would be delivered to the site and stored as noted 

above and supplemented by combustible gases recovered from the retort. 

Upgrading Activities Associated with Surface Retorting 

• All bitumen recovered from the tar sands facilities would require some degree 

of upgrading. 

• At a minimum, upgrading would consist of: 

 Dewatering; 

 Filtering of suspended solids; 

 Conversion of sulfur-bearing molecules to H2S; 

 Removal of H2S and conversion to elemental sulfur by the use of a 

conventional Claus process or equivalent; 

 Conversion of nitrogen-bearing compounds to ammonia, recovery of 

ammonia gas, and temporary storage and sale of ammonia gas as fertilizer 

feedstock; and 
Final OSTS PEIS 5-6 

 Hydrogenation or hydrocracking of organic liquids only to the extent 

necessary to sufficiently change physical properties (API gravity, pour 

point) of the resulting syncrude to allow for conveyance from the mine site 

by conventional means (tanker truck and/or pipeline). 

• Hydrogen used in upgrading would be supplied by a commercial vendor and 

stored temporarily in transport trailers (high-pressure tube trailers) before use 

in upgrading reactions; no long-term storage of hydrogen would take place 

on-site; no steam reforming of methane to produce hydrogen would be 

conducted on-site. 

• Fuel for upgrading activities would be commercial natural gas, propane, or 

diesel, augmented to the greatest extent practical by flammable gases 

recovered from upgrading activities. 

• Water for upgrading would be recovered from surface water bodies (including 

on-site stormwater retention ponds), mine dewatering operations, or on-site 

groundwater wells. 

• Treatment of wastewaters from upgrading activities would occur on-site; 

water recycling would be practiced to the greatest extent practical. 

Solvent Extraction 

• Solvent extraction would occur after tar sands were recovered from a surface 

mine. 

• Solvent extraction facilities would be located near the upgrading operations 

and could be at some distance from the surface mine. 

• Preparation of mined sand, such as crushing or screening, would occur 

adjacent to the solvent extraction facility. 

• Since the temperatures involved are not high (212oF or less), solvent 

extraction units would not need to operate continuously but could do so to 

support upgrading operations. 

• Solvent would be recycled after separation from the bitumen. 

• Although other processes could be used, solvent recovery would be 

accomplished by steam stripping and evaporation followed by decanting to 

separate solvent from water. 

• Solvent would be stored on-site in aboveground storage tanks. 
Final OSTS PEIS 5-7 

• Makeup solvent would be delivered to the site by commercial suppliers in 

tanker trucks. 

• In addition to recovery of the dissolved bitumen, recycling would require, at a 

minimum: 

 Dewatering, particularly if hot or cold water solvent extraction were used 

(however, in some processes, some of the solvent/water mixture can be 

recycled without complete dewatering); 

 Removal of spent sand and suspended solids; and 

 Removal of any dissolved gases. 

• Process heat and steam would be provided by external combustion sources 

fueled by natural gas delivered by pipeline, propane stored in pressurized 

tanks on-site, and/or diesel fuel stored on-site in aboveground tanks and 

delivered by commercial suppliers. 

• Upgrading of the recovered bitumen would be required. 

5.1.2 In Situ Facilities with Steam Injection or Combustion 

 The information presented in Table 5.1.2-1 identifies the key assumptions associated 

with in situ steam injection or combustion projects sized to support production levels of 

20,000 bbl/day. These data may be used to extrapolate impacting factors for facilities with higher 

production levels (see Appendix B). Development is assumed to occur with a rolling footprint so 

that, at any given time, portions of the lease area would be (1) undergoing active development; 

(2) in preparation for a future development phase; (3) undergoing reclamation after development; 

and (4) occupied by long-term surface facilities, such as office buildings, laboratories, retorts, 

and parking lots. 

 Water for tar sands facilities using in situ production would come from wells, surface 

sources, and treated process water. Groundwater and process water would be of variable quality, 

with the higher-quality water being used for industrial processes, dust control, and revegetation. 

Water of lower quality would be reinjected or otherwise disposed of pursuant to state 

requirements. 

 Additional assumptions regarding in situ combustion or steam injection include the 

following: 

• Some degree of upgrading of the bitumen can be expected to occur within the 

formation, before product recovery occurs. 
Final OSTS PEIS 5-8 

TABLE 5.1.2-1 Assumptions Associated with In Situ Facilities 

with Steam Injection or Combustion for Production Levels 

of 20,000 bbl/day of Syncrudea

Impact-Producing Factor 

Value Used in 

Impact Analyses 

Footprint of development area (acres)b 80–200 

Surface disturbance (acres)b 5,760 

Water use for steam injection (bbl/day)c 100,000 

Water generated through combustion (bbl/day)c 40,000 

Water use for upgrading (bbl/day)c 386,000 

Noise at upgrading site (dBA at 500 ft)d 73–88 

Direct employment for in situ 

Construction 1,200 

Operations 480 

Total employmente 

Steam injection or combustion facility construction 1,830 

Steam injection or combustion facility operations 750 

a bbl = barrel; 1 bbl syncrude = 42 gal, 1 bbl water = 55 gal. 

b These acreages represent the assumed area of surface disturbance that could 

occur at any given time during the life of the project once commercial 

production levels are reached. Development is expected to occur with a 

rolling footprint so that, ultimately, the entire lease area would be developed 

and then restored. Assumed lease area of 5,760 acres is based on provisions 

of the MLA as revised by Section 369(j) of the Energy Policy Act of 2005. 

c See Appendix B for sources for water use values. For steam injection, they 

are based on an estimated 5 bbl of water use per bbl of syncrude produced; 

for combustion, the basis is 1 to 2 bbl of wastewater produced per bbl of 

syncrude. For upgrading, the water use represents evaporative losses from the 

coker unit. 

d Noise level for a 20,000-bbl/day facility is from Daniels et al. (1981).

e The total employment values include both direct and indirect jobs. The 

values are based on average data for both a surface mine and an in situ 

facility (BLM 1984). The methodology is discussed in Appendix G. 

• Upgrading of recovered products would be required and is likely to include 

the following: 

 Dewatering; 

 Gas/liquid separations; 

 Filtering of suspended solids from both gaseous and liquid fractions; 

 Removal of H2S gas, treatment to elemental sulfur, temporary on-site 

storage, and sale; 

 Removal of ammonia gas, temporary on-site storage, and sale as fertilizer 

feedstock; 
Final OSTS PEIS 5-9 

 Hydrogenation/hydrotreating/hydrocracking performed on condensable 

liquids only if necessary to adjust API gravity and viscosity to allow for 

transport by conventional means (tanker truck transport and/or pipeline) to 

a conventional petroleum refinery; 

 Temporary storage of recovered and/or upgraded liquid products on-site in 

aboveground tanks before delivery to market or conventional petroleum 

refineries by tanker truck or pipeline; and 

 Dewatering of 100% of flammable gases recovered from the formation, 

then filtering of suspended solids, and consumption on-site as 

supplemental fuel in external combustion sources. 

5.1.3 Transmission Line and Crude Oil Pipeline ROWs 

 Tar sands projects (except those at the Tar Sand Triangle STSA) would need to connect 

to the existing transmission grid (or to new regional transmission lines) to obtain electricity. 

The maximum distance from an existing 500-kV transmission line to any of the STSAs is 

approximately 140 mi. The maximum distance from an existing 230-kV transmission line to any 

of the STSAs is approximately 80 mi. The greater distance of 140 mi has been assumed for all 

hypothetical tar sands projects, although some projects would be located at shorter distances 

from existing transmission lines. Project economics would likely select for sites closest to 

existing infrastructure. 

 For the purposes of analyses, it is assumed that one connecting transmission line and 

ROW would serve any tar sands project and would be 140 mi long and 100 ft wide, with 

construction impacts up to 150 ft wide (equivalent to a disturbed area of 1,700 acres during 

operations and 2,500 acres during construction). The 140-mi distance assumption and 100-ft 

ROW size represent probable maximum sizes. Power needs at the Tar Sand Triangle STSA 

would be expected to be met by on-site power generation because the remote location of this 

STSA would likely preclude extensive transmission line construction. 

 In addition, it is assumed that tar sands projects would need to connect to existing 

regional crude pipelines (or to new regional pipelines) through the installation of new feeder 

pipelines. It is assumed that one pipeline and ROW would serve each project. The maximum 

length from an existing pipeline to any tar sands resource is approximately 95 mi. For purposes 

of analysis, it is assumed that these pipeline ROWs would be 95 mi long and 50 ft wide, with 

construction impacting an area as wide as 100 ft (equivalent to a disturbed area of 570 acres 

during operations and 1,200 acres during construction). The 95-mi distance assumption and 

100-ft ROW size represent probable maximum sizes. 

5.1.4 Workforce Operational Details and Employer-Provided Housing 

 A number of assumptions have been made regarding the operations schedule and housing 

for workers who move into the study area to support future commercial tar sands development. 

It is assumed that at commercial scale, all projects would operate 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. 
Final OSTS PEIS 5-10 

It is further assumed that about 30% of the construction and operations workers, including 

those hired directly to work on tar sands projects as well as those hired for jobs indirectly 

related to the development, would bring families with them, with an average family size of 2.6 

(see Section 5.12). Some portion of these incoming people would live in housing provided by the 

operators. The locations of the employer-provided housing are unknown at this time; however, 

housing is not expected to be located on public lands. Employer-provided housing would be 

constructed as needed to house the workforce and provide facilities and infrastructure 

(e.g., groceries, basic medical care, schools, and recreation). A density of 35 people per acre is 

assumed for this employer-provided housing. 

 The BLM has made assumptions regarding what percentage of workers and their families 

would be housed in employer-provided housing, as opposed to those that would move into 

existing communities. Section 5.12 provides a more detailed discussion of these and related 

assumptions. Table 5.1.4-1 provides estimates of the number of people that would be housed in 

local communities versus employer-provided housing, and the number of acres that would be 

required to support the employer-provided housing by technology. 

5.1.5 Expansion of Electricity-Generating Capacity 

 Given the limited amount of electrical power needed, power needs for commercial 

development projects at the STSAs would be met by anticipated expansion of existing coal-fired 

plants in Utah. Power needs for any projects at the Tar Sand Triangle STSA are expected to be 

met by on-site power generation because of the remote location of this STSA. 

5.1.6 Refining Needs for Tar Sands Development Projects 

 Factors that would likely impact the incorporation of tar sands-derived crude into the 

refinery market are discussed in Attachment B1 to Appendix B. This attachment specifically 

examines the anticipated refinery market response to potential tar sands production over the 

20-year time frame assessed in this PEIS. It provides a brief overview of the U.S. petroleum 

refinery market and identifies some of the major factors that would influence decisions regarding 

construction or expansion of refineries and displacement of comparable volumes of crude. On 

the basis of the discussion in Attachment B1, it is concluded Utah tar sands-derived crude oil 

and/or asphalt that might be produced during the 20-year time frame evaluated in this PEIS 

(up to approximately 300,000 bbl/day) would not trigger significant expansions in either longrange crude transportation pipelines or refineries, either within the region or beyond. Therefore, 

additional refinery capacity is not considered to be necessary as a result of tar sands development 

and is not further considered in this PEIS. It is assumed that all processing required to upgrade 

the product(s) to render them suitable for pipeline transport and acceptance at refineries would be 

conducted on-site. 
Final OSTS PEIS 5-11 

TABLE 5.1.4-1 Estimated Housing Distribution of Incoming People and 

Acres Impacted by Employer-Provided Housing for the Construction and 

Operations Phases of Commercial Tar Sands Development 

Parameter Construction Operations 

 

Total population (including families)a 

Employer-provided housing 1,700 450 

Local communities 930 640 

 

Maximum size of employer-provided housing (acres)b 49 13 

a The total population, including families, was calculated on the basis of the total 

number of new direct and indirect workers that would move into the area, assuming 

that 30% of them would bring families with an average family size of 2.6 people. 

b These estimates are based on an assumed density of 35 people per acre for 

employer-provided housing. This acreage is not expected to be on public lands. 

5.1.7 Additional Considerations and Time Lines 

 The above assumptions broadly describe the impact-producing factors for commercial tar 

sands development. Within these general facility descriptions, many permutations are possible. 

For example, various surface retort designs exist, and each has a unique set of environmental 

impacts and resource demands. In addition, indirect impacts may occur. For example, there may 

be a need for major upgrades to existing road systems; the magnitude of this impact, however, 

would depend on project site locations. A detailed definition of each possible permutation and 

a subsequent analysis of its impacts would be impractical and speculative, because there is no 

means of identifying the precise development schemes that may be proposed by future 

developers. Furthermore, while it is likely that commercial development would be accompanied 

by the centralization or consolidation of some services (e.g., product storage, waste management, 

and equipment maintenance), it is not possible at this time to predict how this would evolve. This 

PEIS, therefore, provides an analysis of the range of impacts from each of the major technologies 

that might be deployed in the future, along with an analysis of the supporting services that would 

be required by each technology, but it does not analyze specific facility configurations or 

technology combinations. Efficiencies and economies that would be realized from integrated 

systems or centralized services are not considered. As a result, outcomes from this analysis could 

inadvertently overstate some impacts, especially if the resulting impacts are added together to 

accommodate multiple projects. 

 Although there are many unknowns with respect to time lines for construction and 

operations of commercial-scale tar sands production facilities, in general, it can be assumed that 

projects using in situ technologies would require about 3 years of construction and permitting 

before pilot testing, that pilot testing would last 6 years, and that additional construction to scale 

up to commercial levels would take 2 more years. It can be assumed that the permitting and 

construction phases for surface mines would take longer than such phases for in situ projects, 

such that construction and permitting before pilot testing would take about 7 years, pilot testing 
Final OSTS PEIS 5-12 

would last 6 years, and permitting and construction to scale up to commercial levels would take 

5 more years. For all commercial tar sands projects, regardless of the technologies used, it can be 

assumed that maximum production levels would be reached after 3 to 5 years of commercial 

operations. 

5.2 LAND USE 

5.2.1 Common Impacts 

 As discussed in Section 3.1, lands within Utah where commercial tar sands development 

might occur are currently used for a wide variety of activities, including recreation, mining, 

hunting, oil and gas production, livestock grazing, wild horse and burro herd management, 

communication sites, and ROW corridors (e.g., roads, pipelines, and transmission lines). 

Commercial tar sands development activities could have a direct effect on these uses, displacing 

them from areas being developed to process tar sands. Likewise, currently established uses may 

also prevent or modify tar sands development. Valid existing rights represented by existing 

permits or leases may convey superior rights to the use of public lands, depending upon the 

terms of the permits or leases. 

 Indirect impacts of tar sands development would be associated with changes in existing 

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

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

and families who move to the region in support of commercial tar sands development. Increases 

in traffic, increased access to previously remote areas, and development of tar sands facilities in 

currently undeveloped areas would continue changing the overall character of the landscape that 

had already begun as a result of oil and gas development. The value of private ranches/residences 

in the area affected by tar sands developments or associated ROWs either may be reduced 

because of perceived noise, human health, sale of water rights, or aesthetic concerns, or may be 

increased by additional demand. 

 FLPMA directs the BLM to manage public lands for multiple use, and as a multiple-use 

agency, the BLM is required to implement laws, regulations, and policies for many different and 

often competing land uses and to resolve conflicts and prescribe land uses through its land use 

plans. FLPMA makes it clear that the term “multiple use” means that not every use is appropriate 

for every acre of public land and that the Secretary can “make the most judicious use of the land 

for some or all of these resources or related services over areas large enough to provide sufficient 

latitude for periodic adjustments in use” [FLPMA, Section 103(c) (43 USC 1702(c))]. Like 

hunting, grazing, oil and gas development, and recreation, commercial tar sands operations are 

statutorily authorized uses of BLM lands. The BLM is aware that not all authorized uses can 

occur on the same lands at the same time; conflicts among resource uses are not new, and this 

PEIS is not intended to solve all potential conflicts involving oil shale and tar sands leasing. The 

intent of FLPMA is for the Secretary of the Interior to use land use planning as a mechanism for 

allocating resource use, including energy and mineral development, as well as conserving and 

protecting other resource values for current and future generations. Future decisions regarding tar 
Final OSTS PEIS 5-13 

sands leasing and approval of operating permits will be informed by NEPA analysis of the 

conflicting or alternative land uses of individual areas. 

 Although transmission and pipeline ROWs associated with commercial tar sands 

development would not necessarily preclude other land uses, they would result in both direct and 

indirect impacts. Direct impacts (e.g., the loss of available lands to physical structures, 

maintenance of ROWs free of major vegetation, maintenance of service roads, and noise and 

visual impacts on recreational users along the ROW) would last as long as the transmission lines 

and pipelines were in place. Indirect impacts, such as the introduction of or increase in 

recreational use to new areas due to improved access, or alternatively, avoidance of existing 

recreation use areas near transmission corridors for aesthetic reasons and because of increased 

traffic, could occur and be long-term. 

 The specific impacts on land use and their magnitude would depend on project location; 

project size and scale of operations; proximity to roads, transmission lines, and pipelines; and 

development technology. The following sections discuss the common impacts on different types 

of land uses and potential mitigation measures that may be applicable on a site-by-site basis. 

5.2.1.1 Other Mineral Development Activities 

 As discussed in Section 1.4.2, in May 2006, in response to Section 350 of the Energy 

Policy Act of 2005, the BLM issued a final rule on leasing in STSAs (71 FR 28779). The final 

rule replaced the CHL Program that was established in 43 CFR Part 3140 in 1983. Under the 

new rule, within the designated STSAs, the BLM is authorized to issue separate leases for tar 

sands development, leases for oil and gas development, and CHLs in any areas that contain tar 

sands and oil or gas resources. This rule paves the way for tar sands development to coincide 

with oil and gas development in the future, as deemed appropriate at the time of leasing. 

 It is the BLM’s policy to optimize recovery of natural resources to secure the maximum 

return to the public in revenue and energy production; prevent avoidable waste of the public’s 

resources utilizing authority under existing statutes, regulations, and lease terms; honor the rights 

of lessees, subject to the terms of existing leases and sound principles of resource conservation; 

protect public health and safety; and mitigate environmental impacts. Conflicts among 

competing resource uses are generally considered and resolved when processing potential leasing 

actions or evaluating requests for approvals of plans of development on existing leases. 

 The authorization of ROWs for connecting transmission lines and oil pipelines 

supporting commercial tar sands projects would result in fewer impacts on other mineral 

development activities than would the commercial tar sands development projects. It is assumed 

that ROWs serving tar sands development could be located in a manner that would largely avoid 

impacts on other mineral development activities by avoiding areas of mineral development or by 

being co-located in a manner that is consistent with planned resource development. 
Final OSTS PEIS 5-14 

5.2.1.2 Acquisition, Conversion, or Transfer of Water Rights 

 Demand for reliable, long-term water supplies to support commercial tar sands 

development could lead to acquisition of unallocated water supplies (depending on availability) 

or to the conversion of existing water rights from current uses. Water would be needed to support 

direct tar sands operations, additional population, and electric power plant operation. While it 

is not currently known how much surface water may be needed to support future development 

of a tar sands industry or the role that groundwater or reclaimed water would play in future 

development, it is likely that in some areas agricultural water rights could be acquired to provide 

water supplies. Depending on the locations and magnitude of such acquisitions, there could be 

reductions in local agricultural production and land use when the water is converted to 

supporting tar sands development. 

5.2.1.3 Grazing Activities 

 Grazing activities would be precluded by commercial tar sands development in those 

portions of the lease area that were (1) undergoing active development; (2) in preparation for a 

future development phase; (3) undergoing restoration after development; or (4) occupied by 

long-term surface facilities, such as office buildings, laboratories, retorts, and parking lots. 

Grazing might be possible in the remaining undeveloped portions of the lease area or on 

portions that were successfully restored after development. On the basis of assumptions 

discussed above regarding the amount of land that would be disturbed at any given time for 

different technologies, it is possible that 2,810 to 5,680 acres within a 5,760-acre lease area 

would remain available for grazing. Depending on conditions unique to the individual grazing 

allotment, temporary or long-term reductions in authorized grazing use may be necessary 

because of loss of a portion of the forage base. 

 Once established, transmission line and pipeline ROWs would not prevent the use of 

any land for grazing other than the areas physically occupied by aboveground facilities. The 

establishment of employer-provided housing might preclude grazing activities, depending on 

how the housing is developed and the location, although this development is not expected to 

occur on public lands. 

5.2.1.4 Recreational Use 

 Commercial tar sands development is incompatible with recreational use (e.g., hiking, 

biking, fishing, hunting, bird-watching, OHV use, and camping). Recreational land use likely 

would be excluded from areas leased for tar sands production once development activity begins. 

Recreational use may be reestablished once tar sands operations have ceased and restoration 

has been completed. The change in the overall character of undeveloped BLM-administered 

lands to a more industrialized, developed area would displace people seeking more primitive 

surroundings in which to hunt, camp, and ride OHVs, for example. Many BLM field offices have 

designated lands as open, closed, or available for limited OHV use. Areas that would be open to 

application for commercial tar sands development may be currently available for some level of 
Final OSTS PEIS 5-15 

OHV use, and commercial tar sands development in these areas would displace this use. Even if 

access could be granted to portions of tar sands lease areas for recreational use, visitors might 

find the recreational experience to be compromised by the nearby development activities. Such 

impacts could also occur on recreational users of adjacent, off-lease lands. Impacts on 

vegetation, development of roads, and displacement of big game would degrade the recreational 

experiences and hunting opportunities near commercial tar sands projects. To the extent that 

commercial developments might be clustered together, the effect on recreational uses would be 

magnified by changing the overall character of a larger area and by tar sands development 

dominating a larger portion of the landscape. 

 Once established, transmission line and pipeline ROWs would have fewer impacts on 

recreational users than would the actual commercial development projects. Access to the land in 

the ROWs would not be precluded; however, depending on the type of recreation, the overall 

recreational experience could be adversely affected by the visual disturbance to the landscape 

and potential noise impacts associated with overhead transmission lines. The establishment of 

employer-provided housing, although not likely to be located on public lands, would preclude 

recreational land use of the occupied land and might cause indirect impacts on recreational land 

use on adjacent and nearby public lands depending on where the housing is developed. 

5.2.1.5 Specially Designated Areas, Potential ACECs, and Areas with Wilderness 

Characteristics 

 As discussed in Section 1.2, the BLM has determined that certain designated areas are 

excluded from commercial tar sands leasing. These areas include all designated wilderness 

areas, WSAs, other areas that are part of the NLCS (e.g., National Monuments, NCAs, WSRs, 

and National Historic and Scenic Trails), and existing ACECs that are closed to mineral 

development. Because of these exclusions, these designated areas would not incur direct impacts 

associated with commercial tar sands development. However, these areas and those managed by 

other federal or state agencies (e.g., units of the National Park System, state parks) within the 

viewshed of commercial tar sands development and associated transmission line and pipeline 

ROWs may be adversely affected (e.g., degraded viewsheds, reduction in night sky viewing 

opportunities) by development on nearby public lands. Section 5.9 discusses impacts on visual 

resources in greater detail. 

 Existing ACECs that are not closed to mineral development may be available for 

application for commercial tar sands leasing. Tar sands and transmission or pipeline 

development of any ACEC would result in a loss of all or a part of the resources or values for 

which the area was originally designated. Tar sands development within the viewshed of these 

areas may also result in adverse impacts on scenic values of these areas. 

 Another category of lands that may be available for application for commercial leasing 

are those that have been recognized by the BLM as having wilderness characteristics. Lands 

currently identified as possessing wilderness characteristics are discussed in Section 3.1. 

Commercial tar sands development and the development of transmission line and pipeline ROWs 

within areas with wilderness characteristics would cause a loss of those characteristics in and 
Final OSTS PEIS 5-16 

around the disturbed areas. Commercial development of tar sands on nearby lands within the 

viewshed of an area with wilderness characteristics could result in adverse impacts on the 

wilderness characteristics. 

 All specially designated areas, potential ACECs, and areas with wilderness characteristics 

that are located in the vicinity of the STSAs are identified in Section 3.1. 

5.2.1.6 Wild Horse and Burro Herd Management Areas 

 As discussed in Sections 3.1.1 and 3.1.3, the STSAs coincide with a number of 

designated Wild Horse and Wild Burro HMAs. Specifically, the following HMAs overlie the 

STSAs: the Muddy Creek, Sinbad, and Range Creek Wild Horse HMAs and the Sinbad Wild 

Burro HMA in the Price Field Office; the Canyon Lands Wild Burro HMA in the Richfield Field 

Office; and the Hill Creek Wild Horse HMA in the Vernal Field Office. At least some portion of 

each of these HMAs coincides with lands proposed to be available for application for leasing 

under the tar sands alternatives. 

 As discussed in Section 5.2.1.2 regarding grazing activities, the management of wild 

horse (Equus caballus) and burro (E. asinus) herds is not compatible within those portions of 

commercial tar sands lease areas that are (1) undergoing active development; (2) in preparation 

for a future development phase; (3) undergoing reclamation after development; or (4) occupied 

by long-term surface facilities, such as office buildings, laboratories, retorts, and parking lots. 

Wild horses and burros could also be affected by increased encounters with vehicles. Noise and 

the presence of humans and vehicles could force herds to move to other areas. They would be 

most susceptible during spring foaling. Animals would likely be displaced from the areas of 

commercial development, and, depending on the conditions in the individual HMA, it might be 

necessary to reduce herd numbers to match forage availability on the undisturbed portion(s) of 

the HMA. If horses emigrate out of HMA boundaries because of the disturbance within the 

HMA, they could be removed via the capture and adoption program. Transmission line and 

pipeline facilities would not prevent use of the land by horses or burros other than in the areas 

physically occupied by aboveground facilities, although they could be subject to disturbance or 

harassment from people using the ROWs for access. 

5.2.1.7 Different Tar Sands Development Technologies 

 For the most part, impacts on land use would be the same regardless of the development 

technology used. However, the amount of potential land disturbance would vary by technology. 

Assuming a rolling footprint of development for in situ projects involving either steam injection 

or combustion, the acreage disturbed at any given time is expected to range from 80 to 200 acres. 

For surface mining projects coupled with either surface retorting or solvent extraction, the 

estimated area of disturbance at any given time is 2,950 acres. 
Final OSTS PEIS 5-17 

5.2.2 Mitigation Measures 

 The direct and indirect impacts on land use described above could be mitigated to some 

extent by a number of actions, including, in some instances, application of specific engineering 

practices. The effectiveness of these potential mitigation measures and the extent to which they 

are applicable would vary from project to project and would need to be examined in detail in 

future NEPA reviews of project plans of development. Potential mitigation measures include 

these: 

• Consulting with federal and state agencies, property owners, and other 

stakeholders as early as possible in the planning process to identify potentially 

significant land uses and issues, rules that govern commercial tar sands 

development locally, and land use concepts specific to the region; 

• During the project design and planning phase, incorporating considerations 

regarding the use of lands in undeveloped or restored portions of the lease 

area to maximize their potential for other uses (e.g., grazing, recreational use, 

or wild horse or burro herd management); 

• During the project design and planning phase, incorporating considerations 

regarding the use of adjacent lands to minimize direct and indirect off-lease 

land use impacts; 

• During the project design and planning phase, providing for consolidation of 

infrastructure wherever possible to maximize efficient use of the land; 

• During the design, siting, and planning phase for employer-provided housing, 

incorporating considerations regarding the use of adjacent lands to minimize 

direct and indirect off-lease land use impacts; and 

• Developing and implementing effective land restoration plans to mitigate 

long-term land use impacts. 

 To address more specific impacts on land use, such as impacts on grazing, recreational 

use, and wild horse herd management, potential mitigation measures could also include the 

following: 

• Coordinating the activities of commercial operators with livestock owners to 

ensure that impacts on livestock grazing on a portion of a lease area were 

minimized. Issues that would need to be addressed could include installation 

of fencing and access control, delineation of open range, traffic management 

(e.g., vehicle speeds), and location of livestock water sources. 

• Coordinating the activities of the commercial operators with the BLM and 

local authorities to ensure that adequate safety measures (e.g., access control 

and traffic management) were established for recreational visitors. 
Final OSTS PEIS 5-18 

• Coordinating the activities of the commercial operators with the BLM to 

ensure that impacts on the wild horse herds and their management areas were 

minimized. Issues that would need to be addressed could include installation 

of fencing and access control, delineation of open range, traffic management 

(e.g., vehicle speeds), and access to water sources. 

5.3 SOIL AND GEOLOGIC RESOURCES 

5.3.1 Common Impacts 

 The potential impacts on soil and geologic resources would vary somewhat according to 

the two different technologies under consideration. There would also be some STSA-specific 

impacts. However, many of the impacts would be common to each technology and common to 

project phases. This section discusses the common impacts on soil and geologic resources, 

including phase-specific impacts. 

5.3.1.1 Soil Resources 

 Tar sands operations could have an impact on soil resources. A significant concern is 

increased soil erosion because of ground disturbance. This problem pertains to each technology 

considered in this PEIS. 

 Soil erosion varies with location within and among the STSAs, generally ranging from 

moderate to high, depending on local conditions of soil properties and slope. Individual project 

sites would need to be assessed to determine their erosion potential. The San Rafael STSA is 

the only STSA with a very high level of erosion over a significant portion of its land area. 

Cryptobiotic soils are present in some portions of Utah and may be present in the study area. 

These biological crusts, when intact, serve to reduce wind and water erosion of these soils. 

 Soil erosion can be increased in areas disturbed through construction activities. The 

maximum land area that is assumed to be disturbed for tar sands facilities is the entire leased area 

for surface mines and in situ facilities (up to 5,760 acres). The degree of the impact depends on 

factors such as soil properties, slope, vegetation, weather, and distance to surface water. Specific 

activities that could create soil erosion (and possibly increase turbidity in surface water) include 

removal and stockpiling of overburden for surface mining (and, to a lesser extent, for subsurface 

mining); traffic on unpaved roads; and erosional gullies formed on land regraded for in situ work 

areas, support facilities, and roads, for example. Surface disturbance may include vegetation 

clearing, grading, and contouring that can affect the vegetation, soil structure, and biological 

crust, thereby increasing erosion potential. The drainage along roads may contribute additional 

soil erosion as surface runoff is channeled into the drainages. Compaction by vehicles or heavy 

equipment may reduce infiltration and promote surface runoff. Wind erosion would be enhanced 

though ground disturbance. 
Final OSTS PEIS 5-19 

 The construction or installation of other facilities in addition to buildings and of utilities 

would require disturbance of soil. These activities would include, but not be limited to, utility 

tower installation, telephone pole installation, parking area construction, buried utility 

installation (e.g., water mains, wastewater lines, and electrical or communication cables), drilling 

to prepare for in situ operations, drilling for resource evaluation, and drilling for groundwater 

monitoring well installation. Some of these activities, such as exploratory drilling and road 

grading, may also take place during preliminary site assessment. 

 ROWs for transmission lines would be built to connect all project sites with regional 

utilities except those located at the Tar Sand Triangle STSA, where power needs are expected 

to be met by on-site generation. These ROWs would cause up to 1,700 acres of longer-term 

disturbance and 2,500 acres of disturbance during construction (see Section 5.1.3). A pipeline 

ROW is also assumed to be constructed for each project site (up to 570 acres of longer-term 

disturbance and 1,200 acres disturbed during construction). Likewise, employer-provided 

housing would likely be built, which would have a limited longer-term disturbance (e.g., housing 

would occupy approximately 49 acres during construction of a commercial tar sands facility). 

The locations of employer-provided housing are unknown at this time; however, housing is not 

expected to be located on public lands. 

 Erosion rates are expected to be higher along ROWs and at construction sites, access 

roads, surface mines, and river banks. Site grading and drainage design would cause changes in 

the local hydrology and may result in increased runoff focused at certain discharge locations. 

This situation may cause increased erosion in creeks and drainages and on hill slopes, with 

subsequent increases in downstream sediment loads. Following site construction, soil conditions 

may stabilize, resulting in reduced erosion and sediment input to surface water. Localized 

erosion may continue to take place, requiring maintenance and remedial measures. 

 The pipelines associated with tar sands development would include those conveying 

hydrocarbons extracted from in situ retorting or from surface retorts or upgrading facilities, as 

well as possible pipelines for water or sanitary waste. Flood events have the potential to cause 

pipeline breakage and subsequent contamination of surface water. 

 Soil and geology impacts would differ during tar sands operations depending on the 

technological approach. All techniques would affect ongoing situations with soil erosion and 

runoff management in areas of disturbed soil (water and wind erosion, rutting, potential salinity 

impacts, etc.) as described above. Both technologies would result in widespread ground 

disturbance and associated problems related to erosion and increased sediment and salinity input 

to streams. The use of pesticides and herbicides and accidental spills or leaks of product, fuels, or 

chemicals could result in soil contamination. The potential soil contamination would be localized 

in extent and could be addressed with appropriate remediation measures. 

 The surface mining approach requires removing and stockpiling the overburden, source 

rock, and waste rock, thereby creating a potentially large source of sediment and salinity in site 

runoff. Up to 2,950 acres would be disturbed at any one time during commercial operations, with 

a total of 5,760 acres potentially disturbed. The various stockpiles are also susceptible to wind 

erosion. Much of the spent sands could be returned to the mine, but some overflow would be 
Final OSTS PEIS 5-20 

placed in disposal areas outside the excavation. Ongoing stabilization of the waste piles would 

likely be required. 

 In situ techniques would result in rolling operations areas, with continuous ground 

disturbance areas and reclamation areas. In situ techniques are estimated to result in smaller 

disturbed land areas than surface mining techniques, with 80 to 200 acres disturbed at any 

one time. A total of 5,760 acres would potentially be disturbed and subject to erosion and 

sediment runoff. 

 During reclamation, potential geologic and soil impacts would be similar to those during 

the construction phase. The replacement of stockpiled topsoil on former work or support areas, 

roads, or in reclaimed surface mines would require time for reestablishment with stabilizing 

vegetation, and these areas may be a source of erodible material depending on factors such as 

slope and weather conditions. Monitoring of soil reclamation areas for erosion and ecological 

recovery are also part of a reclamation phase (DOI and USDA 2007). 

 Tar sands development may have a significant associated impact on surface water quality 

in the greater Colorado River Basin because of ground disturbance. As discussed in Section 5.5, 

soil erosion increases both the sediment load to streams and the salinity of runoff reaching these 

streams. Increases in surface water salinity due to project site runoff could be high. The 

sensitivity of the surface water throughout the PEIS study area makes soil management a key 

factor in environmentally acceptable energy development. The infiltration of precipitation 

through stockpiled tar sands or through waste piles of spent material has the potential to impact 

surface water or shallow aquifers with leached hydrocarbons and salts. 

5.3.1.2 Geologic Resources 

 A variety of other geologic resources are present in the STSAs. Tar sands development 

could impact these resources, including contributing to the loss of resources. 

 Sand and gravel and crushed stone supplies are widespread throughout the study areas. 

Their use at project sites (for construction, fill, etc.) would not be expected to impact their 

availability. 

 Oil and gas occur at the P.R. Spring and Pariette STSAs, are likely at the Hill Creek 

and Raven Ridge STSAs, and are possible at other STSAs. Significant oil shale is present 

stratigraphically above the tar sands along the northern edge of the P.R. Spring, Hill Creek, 

Pariette, and Raven Ridge STSAs. Coal occurs at the Sunnyside STSA at a depth that would 

require underground mining. Coal is also possible at the Hill Creek, P.R. Spring, and Asphalt 

Ridge STSAs. Uranium may occur in localized areas at the Circle Cliffs, Tar Sand Triangle, 

White Canyon, and San Rafael STSAs. Localized copper deposits are present at the San Rafael 

STSA. 
Final OSTS PEIS 5-21 

5.3.2 Mitigation Measures 

 Various mitigation measures may be taken to reduce the impact of tar sands activities 

on soil and geologic resources during construction, operations, and reclamation and could 

include the following. The subsequent effects on water quality may therefore be reduced 

(see Section 5.5). 

• Guidance, recommendations, and requirements related to management 

practices are described in detail in the BLM Solid Minerals Reclamation 

Handbook (BLM 1992), the BLM Gold Book (DOI and USDA 2007), BLM 

pipeline crossing guidance (Fogg and Hadley 2007), and in BLM field office 

RMPs. These actions include, but are not limited to, minimizing the amount of 

disturbed land; stockpiling topsoil prior to construction or regrading; 

mulching and seeding in disturbed areas; covering loose materials with 

geotextiles; using silt fences to reduce sediment loading to surface water; 

using check dams to minimize the erosive power of drainages or creeks; and 

installing proper culvert outlets to minimize erosion in creeks. 

• Surface pipeline crossings must be constructed above the highest anticipated 

flood stage, and subsurface crossings must be installed below the scouring 

depth. The BLM (Fogg and Hadley 2007) provides guidance on hydraulic 

analysis necessary for proper design of pipeline crossings. 

• Mapping of highly erosive soils and soils with a high salt content should be 

performed in proposed project areas and on their connecting roads, so that 

site-specific information could be used to guide project planning. A proper 

road grading analysis should be performed to reduce the potential for 

problems such as erosion or cut slope failure (DOI and USDA 2007). 

• The revegetation and restoration potential of soil, as was the case for many 

other soil factors described above, is site-specific and would be addressed in 

a project-level NEPA analysis. Mitigations involving soil erosion control, 

stabilization, and reseeding would limit the impact of soil erosion. 

• Stockpiling of topsoil prior to the construction of roads, parking areas, 

buildings, work areas, or surface mining is a practice that should aid 

reclamation efforts following the completion of work activities in a certain 

area. During reclamation, replacement of the stockpiled topsoil would aid in 

a return to somewhat natural conditions for local vegetation. 

• Detailed geotechnical analyses would be required to address the stability of 

quarry walls and slopes; these analyses would include an assessment of slope 

cuts for the creation of roads or work areas. 

• Site-specific soil mapping would be necessary in assessing the condition of 

any proposed project site. Geologic resources may vary at the STSAs, and 
Final OSTS PEIS 5-22 

current information on exploration would be required to understand the 

potential for conflict between tar sands development and other energy or 

mineral development. Geologic hazards are expected to be similar among the 

STSAs, with varying potential for landslides. 

• Literature and field studies focused on the region surrounding STSAs should 

be undertaken to assess faulting and earthquake potential. 

5.4 PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES 

5.4.1 Common Impacts 

 Significant paleontological resources could be affected by commercial tar sands 

development. The potential for impacts on paleontological resources from commercial tar sands 

development, including ancillary facilities such as access roads, transmission lines, pipelines, 

and employer-provided housing, is directly related to the location of the project and the amount 

of land disturbance in areas where paleontological resources are present. Indirect effects, such as 

impacts resulting from the erosion of disturbed land surfaces and from increased accessibility to 

possible site locations, are also considered. 

 Impacts on paleontological resources could result in several ways, as described below. 

• Complete destruction of the resource and loss of valuable scientific 

information could result from the clearing, grading, and excavation of the 

project area; construction of facilities and associated infrastructure; and 

extraction of the tar sands resource, if paleontological resources are located 

within the development area. 

• Degradation and/or destruction of near-surface paleontological resources and 

their stratigraphic context could result from the alteration of topography; 

alteration of hydrologic patterns; removal of soils; erosion of soils; runoff into 

and sedimentation of adjacent areas; and spills of oil or other contaminants if 

near-surface paleontological resources are located near the project area. Such 

degradation could occur both within the project footprint and in areas 

downslope or downstream. While the erosion of soils could negatively impact 

near-surface paleontological localities downstream of the project area by 

eroding away materials and portions of sites, the accumulation of sediment 

could serve to remove from scientific access, but otherwise protect, some 

localities by increasing the amount of protective cover. Agents of erosion and 

sedimentation include wind, water, ice, downslope movements, and both 

human and wildlife activities. 

• Increases in human access and related disturbance (e.g., looting and 

vandalism) of exposed paleontological resources would result from the 
Final OSTS PEIS 5-23 

establishment of corridors or facilities in otherwise intact and inaccessible 

areas. Increased human access (including OHV use) increases the probability 

of impact from a variety of stressors. 

 Paleontological resources are nonrenewable; once they are damaged or destroyed, they 

cannot be recovered. Therefore, if a paleontological resource (specimen, assemblage, or site) is 

damaged or destroyed during tar sands development, this scientific resource would become 

irretrievable. Data recovery and resource removal are ways in which at least some information 

can be salvaged should a paleontological site be developed, but certain contextual data are 

invariably lost. The discovery of otherwise unknown fossils would be beneficial to science and 

the public good, but only if sufficient data are recorded. 

5.4.2 Mitigation Measures 

 For all potential impacts, the application of mitigation measures developed in 

consultation with the BLM could reduce or eliminate (if avoidance of the resource is chosen) 

the potential for adverse impacts on significant paleontological resources. Coordination between 

the project developer and the BLM would be required for all projects before lease areas are 

developed. The use of BMPs, such as training and education programs to reduce the amount of 

inadvertent destruction to paleontological sites, could also reduce the occurrences of humanrelated disturbances to nearby sites. The specifics of these BMPs would be established in projectspecific consultations between the project developer and the BLM. 

 A paleontological overview was completed for the study area (Murphey and 

Daitch 2007). The overview synthesized existing information and generated maps showing tar 

sands areas in Utah with the PFYC designation and paleontological sensitivity of formations that 

could be affected by tar sands development. This analysis did not identify geographical areas to 

be precluded from leasing. However, during the leasing phase, the overview will be used to aid 

developers and the BLM in determining areas of sensitivity and appropriate survey and 

mitigation needs. 

 Mitigation measures to reduce impacts on paleontological resources would be required 

based on the environmental analysis conducted prior to leasing and/or development and could 

include the following: 

• Project developers should determine whether paleontological resources exist 

in a project area on the basis of the sedimentary context of the area and its 

potential to contain significant paleontological resources. A records search of 

published and unpublished literature may be required for past paleontological 

finds in the area. Paleontological researchers working locally in potentially 

affected geographic areas and strata may be consulted. A paleontologist may 

be required to observe during active excavation at project sites. Depending 

on the extent of paleontological information, the BLM may require a 

paleontological survey. If paleontological resources are present at the site, or 

if areas with a high fossil yield potential are identified, the development of a 
Final OSTS PEIS 5-24 

paleontological resources management plan may be required to define 

required mitigation measures (i.e., avoidance, removal, and monitoring) and 

the curation of any collected fossils. 

• If an area has a high fossil yield potential, monitoring by a qualified 

paleontologist may be required during all excavation and earthmoving in 

the area (even if no fossils were observed during the survey). Monitoring of 

high-potential areas during earthmoving activities would be conducted by a 

professional paleontologist, when required by the BLM. Development of a 

monitoring plan is recommended. An exception may be authorized by the 

BLM. 

• If fossils are discovered during construction, the BLM should be notified 

immediately. Work should be halted at the fossil site and continued elsewhere 

until a qualified paleontologist could visit the site and make site-specific 

recommendations for collection or (other) resource protection measures. 

 If these types of mitigation measures are implemented during the initial project design 

and planning phases and adhered to throughout the course of development, the potential impacts 

on paleontological resources discussed under the common impacts section would be mitigated to 

the fullest extent possible. Implementation of mitigation measures does not mean that there 

would be no impacts on paleontological resources. The exact nature and magnitude of the 

impacts would vary from project to project and would need to be examined in detail in future 

NEPA reviews of lease areas and project plans of development. 

5.5 WATER RESOURCES 

5.5.1 Common Impacts 

 Similar to oil shale development, tar sands development would impact water resources as 

a result of ground surface disturbance, water withdrawal and use, disposal of wastewater and 

potential contaminant sources, alteration of hydrologic flow systems for both surface water and 

groundwater, and the interaction between groundwater and surface water. These factors are 

interdependent and depend on the technologies used for tar sands development. In this section, 

the range of potential impacts of tar sands development on water resources is discussed. Because 

STSAs are located in areas where surface water resources are limited, water storage facilities and 

delivery systems are likely to be needed for water use at development sites. The construction or 

modification of storage facilities and new delivery systems may cause additional environmental 

impacts on water resources and additional competition among various water use sectors. The 

consequences could affect water quality and quantity in both groundwater and surface water 

on- and off-site. 

 
Final OSTS PEIS 5-25 

 Common impacts could include the following: 

• 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 point source of sediment and dissolved 

salt to surface water bodies; 

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

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

withdrawal, potentially affecting downstream NPDES permitting; 

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

depression and reduce groundwater discharge to surface water bodies or to 

the springs or seeps that are hydrologically connected to the groundwater; 

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

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

profiles downstream, reduce natural sediment transport mechanisms, and 

increase evapotranspiration losses; 

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

than the intake water that is brought to a site; 

• Spent tar sands 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 tar sands; 

• Reduction or loss of flow in agricultural (livestock) or domestic water wells 

from dewatering operations or from production of water for industrial uses; 

• Cross-connection between aquifers of varying water quality resulting from 

various mining and drilling activities; 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. 
Final OSTS PEIS 5-26 

 The following sections place these common impacts in the context of specific operating 

parameters and show that many of the impacts are interconnected with the multiple activities that 

could occur in a single operation. Indeed, it is necessary to understand the context of each of the 

above summary findings to clearly understand the impact dynamics and the rationale behind the 

mitigative measures that follow the impact analysis. 

5.5.1.1 Ground Surface Disturbance 

 Ground surface disturbance is unavoidable in tar sands development. The disturbance 

comes from mining, site development, material (including waste) handling, access road 

construction, supportive infrastructure construction (e.g., reservoir, pipelines for water and 

products, and transmission lines), reclamation activities, and onroad and offroad traffic. Specific 

actions may include the following: 

• Clearing of vegetation and stripping of overburden; 

• Stockpiling of topsoil and overburden; 

• Drilling and blasting; 

• Backfilling, grading, and contouring; 

• Onroad and offroad traffic; 

• Mining operations; 

• Material handling of mined tar sands and disposal of tailings; 

• Developing facilities to support mining operations, including pipelines, sewers 

and drainage facilities, water treatment plants, gas cleaning facilities, control 

facilities, offices, housing, warehouses, evaporation and cooling ponds, boiler 

houses, electric generation facilities, electricity substations, pump houses, and 

storage tanks for fuels, chemicals, and products; 

• Drainage construction; and 

• Land reclamation of access roads, mines, spent tar sands storage areas, and 

facility sites. 

 These activities can affect surface water flows and surface water and groundwater quality 

in various ways. Disturbed lands are generally susceptible to soil erosion and affect surface water 

quality with increased salt, metals, and sediment loads until the disturbed areas are reclaimed and 

stabilized. Silt and potential contaminants from tar sands may be transported into surface water 

bodies by runoff. Leaching of stockpiles and overburden piles can also enhance the transport of 

organics, salts, and trace metals into the water courses and into shallow groundwater. Fallout of 
Final OSTS PEIS 5-27 

dust from access roads, mines, and material handling may affect surface waters. Diverted surface 

runoff from the disturbed areas can also adversely impact nearby water bodies. 

5.5.1.2 Water Use 

 The water use in tar sands development is closely related to the technologies used to 

extract the bitumen from the source rock and the conservation measures adopted in a site. 

Various water uses also depend on water quality. For example, the highest quality of fresh water 

is needed for human consumption. Poor-quality water, such as brackish groundwater, may be 

used for dust suppression or hydrotransport (transporting mined tar sands as a water slurry). A 

list of water uses for tar sands development follows: 

• Consumptive use of surface water and/or groundwater for dust suppression 

(including the use of poor-quality water) in mines, access roads, stockpiles of 

source rock and spent tar sands, well drilling, equipment maintenance, and 

solid waste compaction; 

• Consumptive use of surface water and/or groundwater in processes, boilers, 

coolers, and ancillary operations; 

• Consumptive use of domestic water, including potable and nonpotable water; 

• Optional consumptive use for hydrotransport; 

• If in situ steam injection technology is used to extract bitumen, a large amount 

of good-quality water is needed to make steam; the steam mixed with bitumen 

and formation water can be recovered at a rate of 90 to 95% and recycled for 

further use; and 

• If in situ combustion technology is used to extract bitumen, water from 

combustion and source rock formation could be collected; surplus water may 

be possible. 

 The potential impact of transferring agricultural water rights for tar sands development 

can be attributed to the potential change of delivery systems and return flows from agricultural 

lands. Tar sands project sites need not be in the same general locations as the irrigated lands 

where the original water applies, which implies that new delivery systems would be built or 

some existing systems would be modified. The use of old systems may be reduced or abandoned. 

The construction of the new systems would cause new ground disturbance. Sediment and 

dissolved solids from the disturbed area would be carried by surface runoff and transported to 

downgradient water bodies. If the new system is constructed with pipes rather than ditches or 

canals, water loss during the delivery through evaporation or percolation would be reduced. 

Because water rights are based on consumptive uses, water loss due to evaporation, percolation, 

and surface runoff during water delivery is not counted as part of the water rights. Using a pipe 

delivery system would reduce the amount of water diverted from a water body to meet the same 
Final OSTS PEIS 5-28 

water rights. The impacts on the water resource by using a pipe delivery system relative to those 

of an open channel include the following: 

• Increased streamflow because of the reduction of the amount of water diverted 

to meet the same water rights, 

• Improved water quality of the stream because of streamflow increase, 

• Improved water quality because the returned flow from percolated water 

(which generally contains higher dissolved solids) during the delivery is 

reduced, 

• Reduced groundwater recharge from infiltrated water because of the reduction 

of percolation, and 

• Reduced evaporation from open ditches or canals. 

 As agricultural water rights are transferred, the acreage of agricultural lands is expected 

to decline. Irrigation is reduced as well as the base flow of the irrigated water to surface water 

bodies. The impacts on the water resources include the following: 

• Improved water quality of the streams receiving the base flows from farms as 

leaching by base flows is reduced, 

• Reduced groundwater recharges from the percolation of base flows, and 

• Reduced yield of groundwater wells that relied on base flow recharge. 

 Additional impacts would be caused by the use or recycling of wastewater at project 

sites; such impacts are described in Section 4.5.1. 

 Water may be drawn from surface water bodies or underground aquifers, depending on 

project locations, water availability, and water quality. Withdrawal from a surface water body 

would reduce its flow and cause sediment deposition in the stream channel. In the case of 

streams receiving groundwater discharge (which generally has a higher dissolved salt content), 

the withdrawal can degrade the water quality of the stream downgradient from the point of 

withdrawal because the relative proportion of groundwater remaining in the stream would 

increase. Because of the generally poor groundwater quality, the receiving stream may result in 

increases of dissolved salt, selenium, and other metals. 

 Withdrawal of water from local streams can inadvertently affect water temperature. With 

reduced flow, water depths in depleted streams would decrease and be more susceptible to 

warming due to solar radiation during the summer. In contrast, cooling of shallower stream water 

is more rapid in cold weather. 
Final OSTS PEIS 5-29 

 Groundwater withdrawals from a shallow aquifer would produce a cone of depression 

and reduce groundwater discharge to surface water bodies or to the springs or seeps that are 

hydrologically connected to the groundwater. The withdrawal could reduce streamflows, and the 

effects would increase with the amount of water withdrawn. 

 Groundwater may be extracted from aquifers for use as a resource or for dewatering to 

control groundwater inflow into a mine. Mine dewatering would be necessary where saturated 

conditions, including perched aquifers, are present. Dewatering would lower the potentiometric 

surfaces and/or water table of the aquifers that are intercepted by the surface mine. Because some 

deeper groundwater is the source for springs and seeps in the region, the lowering of the 

potentiometric surface could have an effect similar to withdrawals from shallow, surficial 

aquifers—reducing or eliminating flow of the connected springs and seeps. Existing groundwater 

supply wells within the cones of depression also would have reduced yields or could be 

dewatered. Permanent changes to the groundwater flow regime due to mining and drilling could 

affect water rights to specific aquifers. The growth of a cone of depression may be time-delayed 

and affect water rights in the future. 

 If surface water is used to supply tar sands operations, it may be necessary to construct 

storage reservoirs to accumulate enough water to provide the necessary supply. If reservoirs are 

required, they have their own set of impacts that would need to be addressed. Effects frequently 

associated with reservoirs include alteration of natural streamflow patterns, impacts on local 

fisheries, temporary increases in salt loading, changes in downstream channel profiles, loss of 

natural sediment transport mechanisms, increase in evapotranspiration losses, and loss of 

existing land uses in the reservoir area. 

 The water quality of surface water bodies and shallow alluvial aquifers generally is 

higher than that of deeper aquifers. Therefore, surface water or shallow groundwater is generally 

preferred as a source of supply if it is available. Withdrawal of surface water would reduce 

streamflow downstream from the point of diversion. Because of the reduced flow, the stream’s 

capacity for carrying sediment would also be reduced, and in-channel sediment deposition would 

be increased. The morphology of the stream channel would also adjust to the reduced flows. For 

stream segments where natural groundwater discharge into the stream occurs, the water 

withdrawal could increase the relative proportion of the groundwater contribution to the stream, 

thereby lowering the overall quality of the stream. 

 For in situ processes, the impact of in situ processing on groundwater during the 

operations phase is twofold. First, the permeability of the aquifers and perhaps the aquitards 

between the aquifers in the retort areas would likely be permanently increased because of rock 

fracturing and removal of hydrocarbons. Second, the residual hydrocarbons, salts, and trace 

metals in rock and the reagents or chemicals used in flooding treated areas that are not removed 

would be exposed for later groundwater leaching as a result of increased permeability. It appears 

that there would be some risk in allowing vertical flow of groundwater between previously 

isolated aquifers through fractures created by thermal expansion and contraction. The extent to 

which there would be the possibility of introducing lower-quality water into higher-quality 

aquifers previously isolated from one another is not yet known. In addition, water rights to 

specific aquifers could be affected by a change in the groundwater flow regime. 
Final OSTS PEIS 5-30 

 Regardless of the location or technology for potential tar sands operations, the water 

availability may be exacerbated by the effects of climate change. The U.S. Bureau of 

Reclamation (BOR 2007) investigated climate change related to the Colorado River Basin. In its 

report, the Bureau reviewed various climate change models and the associated predictions. Its 

findings include generally decreased runoff in the basin due to higher temperatures and constant 

or slightly decreased precipitation. Although the confidence level regarding higher temperatures 

is fairly high, a lower confidence is associated with precipitation changes due at least in part to 

the difficulty in addressing such changes in mountainous terrain. BOR (2011) also analyzed the 

possible hydrologic changes from more than 100 climate change projections. Findings for the 

Colorado River Basin included an increasing trend in temperature, decreasing trends in April 1 

snow water equivalent and in spring-summer runoff, and a slight decrease in precipitation in the 

overall basin to the year 2099. BOR also noted a lack of calibration in the models and a need to 

refine them. 

 A climate change summary produced by the USGCRP (2009) provides some details on 

the tar sands region. In the northeast portion of Utah, the projected spring precipitation in 2080 to 

2099 is predicted to range from a 0 to 5% increase under a low emissions scenario, to a 5 to 10% 

decrease under a high emissions scenario. The study notes that water is already becoming limited 

in the region and that recent and projected conditions include rising temperatures and reduced 

river flows. 

 While there is uncertainty about the potential future effect of climate change on water 

availability, it is an important factor for consideration, as water rights and water usage may be 

influenced by an overall decrease in water availability in the region. 

5.5.1.3 Discharge, Waste Handling, and Contaminant Sources 

 The discharge of mine water (from dewatering operations), wastewater (after treatment), 

cooling water (for cooling equipment such as crushers, bearings, pumps, and compressors), and 

diverted surface runoff from a tar sands site can adversely impact nearby water bodies. The 

impacts are attributed to potential contaminants in the water and potential change of streamflow. 

In addition, contaminants released by sources associated with the project (through access roads, 

air emissions, and groundwater discharge) could further degrade the surface water quality. 

 The water and potential contaminants associated with surface mining include the 

following: 

• Dewatering operations and possible underground reinjection or discharge to 

surface water; 

• Discharge of the surface runoff from project sites; 

• Spills of fuels, chemicals, and products; 

• Discharge of treated sanitary and domestic wastewaters; and 
Final OSTS PEIS 5-31 

• Discharge of effluents from the treatment of process waters, such as sour 

water, hydrocarbon storage tanks condensate, boiler condensate, boiler water 

blowdown, and pump and compressor cooling water blowdown. 

 The water and potential contaminants associated with leachate include the following: 

• Stockpiled mined or spent tar sands, and other stored materials; 

• Drilling wastes; 

• Sludges recovered from water treatment, wastewater treatment, blowdown 

from boilers, and solvent extraction; 

• Fly ash and boiler bottom ash; and 

• Tailings ponds, backfilled mined areas, or backfilled valleys or gullies. 

 Management of mine water, wastewater, and surface runoff could involve various forms 

of reuse or disposal. Deep groundwater or mine water in the region generally has high dissolved 

solids content. This water, as well as treated or untreated wastewater, could be used to support 

facility operations, including dust suppression along access roads, at the project site, in the mine, 

or on stockpiles of source rocks or tailings. 

 Underground injection, as a means to dispose of low-quality water, especially brine water 

from a water treatment plant, could affect groundwater quality. The injection could take place at 

locations hydraulically downgradient of the mine. Injection would be governed by the state UIC 

program, except on tribal land, which is managed by the EPA. Tribes may complete a process to 

gain eligibility to self-enforce UIC. The permitted injection into deep, confined aquifers would 

be presumed to avoid water quality problems with potable aquifers and eventual discharge of the 

injectate into surface water or springs. The potential for induced seismicity would require 

evaluation if underground injection is used for the disposal of the produced water. 

 Surface discharge of treated or nontreated surface runoff, wastewater, or mine water to a 

stream from the project site could potentially change the streamflow as well as the stream’s 

water quality, especially during the low-flow season. The water to be discharged may come from 

domestic wastewater, industrial wastewater, tailing pond drainage, overland flow, and treated 

water from a leachate collection system. If discharge to a surface water body is selected, the 

water generally requires treatment and an NPDES permit. The permit specifies the quality and 

flow of the discharged water, thus limiting the impact on surface water quality. The discharges 

from a plant generally would have poorer water quality than the natural water of the surface 

water body. The discharge would increase streamflow at outfalls. 

 At mining sites after reclamation, the spent tar sands piles and mine tailings could be 

potential sources of contamination with salts, metals, and hydrocarbons. Leachate containing 

these contaminants may enter nearby surface water bodies or shallow aquifers and continue to 

degrade the surface water quality well after the reclamation phase. 
Final OSTS PEIS 5-32 

 For surface mining with surface retort technologies, if the direct coking process is used to 

upgrade bitumen, then fly ash and boiler bottom ash would be produced as wastes. Leaching of 

the wastes might produce an additional potential source of contamination for surface water or 

groundwater. If hot water extraction or cold water extraction technology is used, the amounts of 

processed water and wastewater generated would be substantial. The impacts attributed to the 

disposal of wastewater are greater for hot water or cold water extraction technologies if the 

wastewater is not treated and reused. 

 Spills of chemicals and tar sands products on-site are possible. They are also potential 

sources of contaminants for nearby surface water bodies and shallow aquifers. Another potential 

source of water contamination is from pesticides and herbicides, which are commonly used to 

control vegetation growth along pipelines and transmission lines. These chemicals may adhere to 

soil particles and be carried by wind and surface runoff into nearby surface water bodies, 

creating nonpoint sources of contaminants for those waters. Vehicle traffic would also raise 

airborne dust levels along access roads and increase the sediment and salt loadings of nearby 

streams. 

 At river crossings, pipelines may be placed under streambeds or foundations may be built 

for elevated pipelines. A temporary increase of sediment input at the crossings would likely 

occur during their construction. Regular disturbance of river banks through maintenance 

activities or vehicular traffic can also increase the sediment loading of the river. In the case of 

natural drainage channels that are rerouted, modified, or diverted, the surface runoff could be 

altered accordingly, affecting downstream flow. 

 If a solvent (e.g., heptane, cyclohexane, or ethanol) extraction technology is used to 

extract the bitumen from the source rock, the spent tar sands (tailings) are expected to contain 

residual solvents after most are recovered for recycling. The waste could be subjected to leaching 

processes when it is disposed of in open areas. The leachate could potentially enter into surface 

water bodies or into shallow groundwater and pollute the resource unless sufficient controls, 

including leachate collection and treatment, are implemented. Solvent spills or leaks are other 

potential sources of impacts on surface water or shallow groundwater. 

 In situ combustion could produce large volumes of water from the underground burning 

and thermal cracking of bitumen, estimated to be 1 to 2 bbl of water for each barrel of oil 

produced. The produced water from in situ combustion may contain increased levels of potential 

contaminants such as TDS, chloride, hydrocarbons, and heavy metals. 

 Residual organic compounds are expected to be present in a formation following in situ 

processing. In a laboratory study, Raphaelian et al. (1981) analyzed water samples obtained from 

two in situ tar sands experiments. Water from the combustion experiment was found to contain 

cyclic cyclohexonyl compounds, acetophenones of ketones, alcohols, quinolines, pyridines, 

phenyl piperidines, pyrazoles, phenols, carboxylic acids, and lactones. The sample from the 

steam injection experiment contained alkenes, cyclohexanes, cyclic ketones, toluenes, 

quinolines, acridines, pyrazoles, pyridines, phenyl piperidines, piperidines, and phenols. 

Steam from injection can also dissolve organics and metals from source rocks, potentially 

contaminating groundwater. All of these potential contaminants could migrate with the 
Final OSTS PEIS 5-33 

groundwater to reach wells or discharge locations (i.e., springs, seeps, or surface water). The 

quality of the surface water could consequently be impacted. 

 Several of the STSAs are drained in part by state-classified Category 1 streams. These 

include the Sunnyside, Argyle Creek, and Asphalt Ridge STSAs. According to the state, such 

streams are of “exceptional recreational or ecological significance or have been determined to 

be a State or National resource requiring protection, [and] shall be maintained at existing high 

quality through designation, by the Board after public hearing, as High Quality Waters – 

Category 1. New point source discharges of waste water, treated or otherwise, are prohibited in 

such segments” (BLM 2007a). Point source or nonpoint-source releases from these STSAs to 

these Category 1 streams may therefore not be allowed. 

 Tar sands development eventually would result in population growth in local 

communities near project sites and on-site (see Section 5.12.1). With population growth, the 

loading in local wastewater treatment plants or on-site treatment plants would increase. The 

effluent from the plants is likely to be an additional source of nutrients, such as phosphorus and 

nitrogen-containing compounds, and other potential pollutants to nearby waters. Such impacts 

are closely related to where people would settle and the streamflow of the receiving water. A 

relatively large water quality impact would be expected in areas with increased population 

growth and relatively low streamflow in the receiving water. 

5.5.1.4 Alteration of Hydrologic Flow Systems 

 Surface water usage would reduce the downstream flow and potentially cause deposition 

of stream sediment and change the morphology of the stream. If a reservoir is built for regulating 

the water supply, sediment would be trapped upstream of the dam. The flow pattern of the stream 

could change depending on the discharge of the reservoir. The degradation (erosion of the 

streambed) and deposition along the stream channel would respond to the streamflows. Losses 

due to evaporation and seepage in the reservoir would affect the amount of water available 

(Keefer and McQuivey 1979). 

 The dewatering operations of a mine or dewatering through wells that may penetrate 

multiple aquifers can reduce groundwater discharge to seeps, springs, or surface water bodies if 

the surface water and the groundwater are connected. The consequence could be diminished 

flows of seeps, springs, or water courses even at areas remote from the mine. Depending on 

pumping rates and site-specific hydrogeological factors, significant groundwater withdrawals for 

dewatering the overburden and/or the tar sands, or for meeting operational needs, may reduce 

surface water base flow, spring discharges, and water levels in nearby wells. 

 Streamflow could be affected by both water withdrawal and wastewater discharge (after 

water treatment). The streamflow would be reduced in areas downstream of water intakes and 

increased in areas downstream from discharge outfalls. The change of the streamflow could 

trigger the deposition or erosion of sediments along a stream channel. 
Final OSTS PEIS 5-34 

 By extracting the bitumen, in situ processes could affect the permeability of the treated 

formation. The change in permeability for in situ-treated formations would be increased further 

by dissolving soluble minerals and hydrofracturing the rock formation. Subsidence may also 

occur. Changes to the site groundwater flow field could occur. This could continue after 

reclamation of the project site. 

 At sites with a dewatered surface mine or in situ operations, groundwater levels would 

begin to recover after dewatering activities ceased. As groundwater regained its original water 

level, surface water previously depleted by the dewatering would be replenished by seeps and 

springs, and the streamflow would eventually return to predevelopment patterns. 

 In the case of natural drainage channels that are rerouted or modified for the construction 

of roads or facilities, the surface runoff would be altered, affecting existing downstream flow. 

Erosion of streambeds may occur in this case and affect downstream water quality. Access roads 

are likely to be added or modified with tar sands development. The construction activities on 

access roads involve clearing vegetation, grading, and building drainages. These activities would 

increase salt loading of streams near the roads. Sediment load could also be increased by the 

fallout of airborne dust and surface runoff, although these could be reduced or minimized by 

BMPs. Whether the water for operations is derived from a surface water body with or without 

the use of a reservoir, the downstream flow would be reduced, which could cause deposition of 

steam sediment and change the morphology of the stream. If a reservoir is built for regulating 

water supply, sediment would be trapped upstream of the dam. The flow pattern of the stream 

could change depending on the discharge of the reservoir. The degradation (erosion of 

streambed) and deposition along the stream channel would adjust to the new streamflows. Losses 

due to evaporation and seepage in the reservoir would affect the amount of water available 

(Keefer and McQuivey 1979). 

 The improvement of the drainage tends to increase surface runoff drainage efficiency, 

and, thus, the erosion power of the runoff. The receiving stream downgradient would be 

impacted by additional loading of dissolved salt and sediments. 

5.5.2 Water Budget for Individual Tar Sands Projects 

5.5.2.1 Overall Water Budget 

 Table 5.5.2-1 summarizes the water consumption for tar sands development sites using 

different technologies, each with a 20,000-bbl/day capacity. The estimated water consumption 

does not include water use on access roads and other supportive facilities. In general, traditional 

surface mining operations consume large amounts of water for dust suppression at the mine site, 

access roads, source rock crushing locations, and source rock stockpiles. However, new 

hydrotransport technologies mix water with tar sands and transport the slurry through a pipeline 

to the processing facility. This process is able to reduce water consumption by reducing water 

use for dust suppression on access roads. Water used in hydrotransport becomes part of the 

process water and can later be recycled, resulting in great savings in water use. An oil sands 
Final OSTS PEIS 5-35 

company using surface mining and surface upgrading in Canada (Syncrude Canada, Ltd.) claims 

that its water consumption is 2.3 m3 for each cubic meter of synthetic crude oil produced 

(Table 5.5.2-1). However, it is expected that the water use for tar sands development in Utah 

using the same technologies and water conservation could be higher because the deposits are oilwet tar sands. 

 Less water consumption for extracting bitumen from tar sands is expected from the use of 

solvent extraction technology (mixing 10 to 15% of solvent with water and source rock) than 

from the use of hot water extraction technology. However, the efficiency of recovering the 

relatively expensive solvent and the potential contaminant from spent tar sands poses a challenge 

in the solvent extraction technology. 

 In situ combustion technology uses a portion of the tar sands as fuel to raise the 

temperature of source rock and mobilize bitumen. Because of the combustion, water is formed. 

The partially upgraded bitumen, gas, and water (including water originally in the source rock) 

are collected by vertical or horizontal wells. It is possible that the process water collected from 

the subsurface may exceed the water need in the tar sands plant. However, the captured water 

would need treatment before it could be reused. 

 In the toe to heel air injection (THAI) technology (one of the in situ combustion 

technologies; see Appendix B), steam injection is used in start-up to extract bitumen (leaving 

residual bitumen behind) before in situ combustion is conducted. Water is required to make up 

the steam. The majority of the steam is recaptured in production wells. 

 The in situ combustion variation known as wet combustion would require water. In this 

approach, water and air are both injected into the heated formation. Another technology option 

among in situ combustion techniques that require water is a combination of water flooding with 

combustion. The water needs associated with these technologies would need to be addressed at 

individual project sites. 

 Estimated domestic water needs are estimated for the workforce and family population 

required for a single 20,000-bbl/day tar sands facility. The construction workforce and families 

could number about 2,600 people, and the operations workforce and families would number 

about 1,100 people. Assuming an overall requirement of 135 gal/day/person, the fresh water 

need is 8,360 and 3,540 bbl/day, respectively (1 bbl of water = 42 gal). Using a consumptive rate 

of 0.35, the water consumption during the construction phase and operation phase would be 

about 2,900 and 1,240 bbl/day (140 and 58 ac-ft/yr), respectively. 

5.5.2.2 Water Availability for Individual Tar Sands Projects in STSAs 

 To develop tar sands, there must be enough water available, both physically and legally. 

This section describes the availability of water for potential tar sands development. Legal 

availability is discussed in terms of the allocation of the Upper Colorado River water in Utah, 

based on the Upper Colorado River Basin Compact of 1948. The discussion of physical 

availability focuses on the water resources near the STSAs. 
TABLE 5.5.2-1 Estimated Water Consumption for Tar Sands Development Production (bbl/day) Technology Water for Mining (bbl/day) Process Water (bbl/day) Produced Wastewater from Formation (bbl/day)a Potable Water (operation phase) (bbl/day) Net W

Requir

(bbl/

20,000 In situ steam injection 0 10,000b–80,000 0a 950c 11,000–

20,000 In situ combustion 0 0 –40,000d e 

20,000 Surface mine with surface retort 0–25,000f 46,000g–90,000 0 0h 46,000–1

20,000 Surface mine with solvent extraction 0–25,000f 21,800j 0 950 22,800–

a Water from source rock formation mixed with steam and bitumen is collected (E&P 2007) as produced water. b The lower number is for SAGD (steam-assisted gravity drainage) technology, and the higher number is for CSS (cyclic steam stim

technology. Start-up water used for steam injection in the first phase in SAGD is 100,000 bbl/day; thereafter, 90% of steam/water recovered from steam and formation water (E&P 2007; Alberta Chamber of Resources 2004). Assumes 42 gal/bbl of water. c A demand of 135 gal/person/day, a consumptive rate of 35%, and a population of 1,100 are assumed. The consumptive rate is bas

consumptive rate (CWCB 2004). 

d Water from source rock formation and from combustion, assumed to be 2 bbl for each bbl of oil produced. The water could be use

water quality and possible treatment. About 100,000 bbl of start-up water is required to make steam for the first phase of bitumen heel air injection (THAI) technology. No process water is needed thereafter (The Oil Drum 2007). Upgrading may need additional 

e For potable water. f The lower number is for hydrotransport; mined tar sands are mixed with water/solvent to make slurry, which is then transported th

the mine to the process plant. The water/solvent is counted as processed water use. The larger water use number is for mined tar satruck. Water is used for haul-road spraying (brackish water), irrigation, and dust containment (fresh water) (Daniels et al. 1981). 

g The low number is from Syncrude Canada Ltd., which uses 2.3 bbl of water per barrel of crude oil produced, half of the industry a

2006; Syncrude Canada, Ltd. 2006; Alberta-Canada 2007). Note that Canadian oil sands are water-wet tar sands, while the deposit (also see Appendix B). The number includes upgrading water use. Water demand is 14.2 bbl per barrel of crude oil produced; mos

h Potable water is included in the reporting process water. i Water use for upgrading is included; final product is syncrude. j For the solvent extraction process, about 109,000 bbl/day of water is required. If 80% of the water is recycled, consumption would 

Water use for upgrading is not included (Daniels et al. 1981). 

k Water use for upgrading is not included.
Final OSTS PEIS 5-37 

 In Chapter 3, Table 3.4.1-3 provides the projected consumptive use of water in the years 

2020 and 2050. Without counting the potential water use for tar sands development, the 

projected consumptive uses as percentages of the Utah allocated water are 79.4 and 85.9% for 

the 2 years. That implies about 281,000 and 193,000 ac-ft/yr are available for 2020 and 2050, 

respectively. 

 Water physically available may be limited in a dry environment such as that of the 

STSAs. Keefer and McQuivey (1979) analyzed surface water and groundwater resources 

associated with specific STSAs and related the water availability to the water requirements 

estimated for in situ steam injection, which uses the highest amount of water among various 

in situ technologies (Table 5.5.2-1). In the following subsections, the physical availability of 

water in various STSAs is provided. The availability can be compared with the estimated water 

consumption used in different tar sands technologies as shown in Table 5.5.2-1. 

 Although water may be legally and physically available, that does not imply that it is 

readily available for tar sands development. Hydrologic basins enriched with surplus water 

resources are not necessarily coincident with the STSAs. Storage infrastructures and delivery 

systems have to be built to capture water for various uses. In addition, water rights and water 

storage rights (for reservoirs) have to be transferred or purchased before the water can be used 

for development, because most water rights and storage rights have been claimed in the Upper 

Colorado River Basin. Finally, the water uses for the development have to meet different state 

and federal regulations. All in all, whether enough water is available for tar sands development 

depends on the results of intensive negotiations among various parties, including water right 

owners, state and federal agencies, municipal water providers, and the tar sands developers. As 

discussed in Section 5.5.1.2, climate change is a concern in terms of its possible effect on water 

availability (BOR 2011; USGRCP 2009) and could affect decisions related to STSAs both 

individually and collectively. 

 5.5.2.2.1 Asphalt Ridge. Keefer and McQuivey (1979) describe shallow groundwater in 

the Ashley Creek alluvial aquifer as the best source of water for pilot facilities in the vicinity of 

Asphalt Ridge and Whiterocks. This water is fresh to slightly saline. They also note that Ashley 

Creek, with a flow of 82,000 ac-ft/yr near Vernal, could supply a production facility with water, 

assuming appropriate treatment of its high-salinity water. 

 Bedrock aquifers northeast of Asphalt Ridge are also a possible source of water to 

support production. These aquifers are at depths of 4,000 to 6,000 ft and have fresh water. Other 

surface water sources in the vicinity include perennial streams with flow rates that, like that of 

Ashley Creek, vary in response to weather and location along the watercourse, as diversions may 

result in lower flow rates at downstream locations. These streams and flow rates are Dry Fork 

(15,000 to 26,000 ac-ft/yr), Mosby/Deep Creek (no data available), and Whiterocks River 

(71,000 to 88,000 ac-ft/yr) (UDWR 1999). Any water obtained from surface water or 

groundwater sources would not only have to be transported (by pipeline or truck) some distance 

to a particular project site but might also have to ascend a significant vertical elevation. Overall, 

it appears that water might be available to support the 20,000-bbl/day plant using in situ 

technologies, although water rights might need to be purchased, suitable water quality would 
Final OSTS PEIS 5-38 

have to be confirmed, and the economics of transporting the water to the project area would need 

to be assessed. A 20,000-bbl/day plant using surface mining and surface processing technologies 

would use more than 6% of the annual average of Ashley Creek, a significant amount when other 

water users may rely on the same water source. 

 5.5.2.2.2 P.R. Spring and Hill Creek. Willow Creek has an average flow of 

13,000 ac-ft/yr, although its flow is intermittent. Other streams in the vicinity of the STSA 

include perennial stream Sweetwater Canyon, Bitter Creek, and Center Ford, and intermittent 

Evacuation Creek. No flow data are available for these creeks from the Utah Division of Water 

Resources (UDWR 1999). No reliable groundwater sources were noted for P.R. Spring by 

Keefer and McQuivey (1979). However, springs are quite common in the P.R. Spring STSA, 

especially east of Willow Creek. 

 Water resource support for any of the proposed project sites at P.R. Spring may require 

the purchase of water rights to the distant White River, a regional resource. Willow Creek, even 

if 10% of its water was dedicated to the tar sands operations, would not support a 20,000-bbl/day 

operation using surface mining and processing technologies. If in situ combustion technology is 

selected, it will consume about 3.5% of the annual average streamflow of Willow Creek. 

Whether water from the other, ungauged streams in the vicinity could be combined to support 

one or more tar sands operations is uncertain, because of unknown flow rates and availability of 

water rights. Reservoir construction may be necessary on one or more of the rivers and creeks 

selected for tar sands operations. Willow Creek is classified as Category 5A impaired waters 

(UDEQ 2006). Discharge of any low-quality water from a project site, such as untreated 

wastewater or surface runoff, may further adversely affect the water quality in the lower reaches. 

 For P.R. Spring, Keefer and McQuivey (1979) recommend a White River reservoir as the 

best water source, despite its distance from the STSA. This river has a flow on the order of 

480,000 ac-ft/yr (Keefer and McQuivey 1979). Withdrawing water from Green River is another 

possible option. 

 5.5.2.2.3 Sunnyside. Minnie Maude Creek and Price River are two streams in the 

vicinity of the Sunnyside STSA. Keefer and McQuivey (1979) recommend constructing a 

reservoir on intermittent Minnie Maude Creek (estimated at 12,000 ac-ft/yr) or obtaining water 

from Price River (75,000 ac-ft/yr). However, Minnie Maude Creek falls far short of being able to 

support production at the proposed level, even with a reservoir. Minnie Maude Creek flows into 

the perennial Nine Mile Creek, which has a flow of 38,000 ac-ft/yr near its junction with the 

Green River (UDWR 1999) and 12,000 ac-ft/yr at an unspecified upstream point (Keefer and 

McQuivey 1979). Minnie Maude Creek was a designated TMDL impaired stream in 2006, and 

the water of the Price River may be of low quality (Keefer and McQuivey 1979). Both locations 

would require the transport of water over long distances and elevation increases to the STSA. 

Other creeks in the vicinity of the STSA include perennial creeks Dry Creek and Cottonwood 

Canyon. The UDWR (1999) does not provide flow data for these creeks. The intermittent 

headwaters of Range Creek are nearby, but flow is only 5,000 ac-ft/yr (UDWR 1999), and it is 

a state-classified Category 1 stream. The upper reaches of Nine Mile Creek, Dry Creek, and 
Final OSTS PEIS 5-39 

Cottonwood Creek drain the tar sands area and are classified as Category 5A impaired waters 

(UDEQ 2006). Groundwater in the area has high TDS. 

 Overall water resources in the Sunnyside vicinity are limited, as compared with the 

operational water consumption using surface mining and process technologies. The in situ 

combustion process uses much less water (about 4% of the average annual flow of Minnie 

Maude Creek) for potable use. Development of the tar sands in this area would likely degrade 

the surface water further and diminish the flow of the streams and their tributaries. 

 5.5.2.2.4 Tar Sand Triangle. The Dirty Devil River flows in the vicinity of the STSA. 

Mean flow for the Dirty Devil is about 74,000 ac-ft/yr, although it is dry each summer for 1 to 

2 months. Other creeks in the vicinity of the Tar Sand Triangle are the intermittent Horse 

Canyon and the perennial Big Water Canyon/Happy Canyon. No flow data are available on those 

(UDWR 2000). The STSA is situated in the eastern part of Lower Dirty Devil River groundwater 

basin. The Navajo Sandstone of Mesozoic age is a major aquifer in the basin (UDWR 2000). The 

extent and yield of the aquifer near the STSA are unclear. However, spring sites are found in the 

STSA area (UDWR 2000). 

 In situ combustion and steam injection technologies with conservation practices are likely 

capable of supporting a 20,000-bbl/day tar sands development site in the Tar Sand Triangle by 

using Dirty Devil River water. Other technologies could consume more than 5% of the Dirty 

Devil River mean flow. Other water sources may include the Colorado or Green Rivers. 

 5.5.2.2.5 Other STSAs. Other STSAs are expected to have water availability problems 

similar to those described above. The UDWR (1999, 2000) provides average annual flows for 

creeks and rivers in the STSA study areas. The available water rights to these flow systems have 

not been determined, and the given average flows are likely representative of downstream values 

rather than values in upland areas adjacent to (both areally and vertically) the STSAs. 

 For any reservoir project, Keefer and McQuivey (1979) note that losses due to 

evaporation and seepage would affect the amount of water available. In addition, the use of 

reservoirs would change the flow of natural water bodies downstream of the reservoir and 

modify the erosional and depositional features of the river channels. Sedimentation would be 

enhanced along the stream channels upstream of the reservoirs. Discharge of treated or 

nontreated wastewater to a stream from the project site could potentially change the streamflow 

as well as the stream’s water quality, especially during the low-flow season. Water rights would 

be a key issue for any intended use of groundwater or surface water. 

5.5.3 Mitigation Measures 

 The potential impacts on water resources are closely related to the technologies used to 

mine, extract, process, and upgrade the bitumen from the tar sands. At the programmatic level, 

the impacts can be tremendously reduced starting from the planning stage. Local hydrologic 
Final OSTS PEIS 5-40 

conditions, including surface water and groundwater and the interactive relationship between 

them, must be characterized and considered in selecting areas for developmental sites, access 

roads, pipelines, transmission lines, and/or reservoirs. Sensitive areas should be avoided or 

receive special attention in tar sands development. Important factors include but are not limited 

to the following: 

• Highly erodible geologic material; 

• Steep terrain prone to soil erosion; 

• Groundwater discharge and recharge areas; and 

• River/stream segments sensitive to human impacts (such as streamflow, water 

quality, and channel modification) that can affect ecosystems. 

 In selecting the technologies to develop tar sands, the technologies that would minimize 

potential contaminant sources should be considered. Several important factors to reduce impacts 

on water resources include the following: 

• Technologies that result in minimum footprint of disturbed areas; 

• Technologies that have minimum total water consumption; 

• Technologies that can use wastewater or brackish water in processing source 

rocks; 

• Technologies that result in minimum disturbance between groundwater flow 

regimes to avoid cross flows between aquifers; and 

• Technologies that have the highest recovery of tar sands, leaving spent 

material with the least amount of contaminants to be leached. 

 Other mitigation measures that the BLM might consider requiring, if warranted by the 

results of the lease-stage or plan of developmentstage NEPA analyses, are related to 

engineering practices. They are as follows: 

• Water should be treated and recycled as much as practical. 

• The size of cleared and disturbed lands should be minimized as much as 

possible, and disturbed areas should be reclaimed as quickly as possible. 

• Erosion controls that comply with county, state, and federal standards and 

BLM guidelines (Fogg and Hadley 2007; USFS Region 2 2000) should be 

applied. 

• Existing roads and borrow pits should be used as much as possible. 
Final OSTS PEIS 5-41 

• Earth material would not be excavated from, and excavated material would 

not be stored in, any stream, swale, lake, or wetland. 

• Vegetated buffers would be maintained near streams and wetlands. Silt fences 

could be used along edges of streams and wetlands to prevent erosion and 

transport of disturbed soil, including spoil piles. 

• Earth dikes, swales, and lined ditches could be used to divert work-site runoff 

that would otherwise enter streams. 

• Topsoil removed during construction should be stockpiled and reapplied 

during reclamation. Stockpiled topsoil should be seeded with appropriate 

species to reduce erosion until the time soil is re-applied. Practices such as 

using jute netting, silt fences, and check dams should be applied near 

disturbed areas. 

• Operators should identify unstable slopes and local factors that could induce 

slope instability (such as groundwater conditions, precipitation, earthquake 

potential, slope angles, and dip angles of geologic strata). Operators also 

should avoid creating excessive slopes during excavation and blasting 

operations. Special construction techniques should be used where applicable 

in areas of steep slopes, erodible soil, and stream channel or wash crossings. 

• Existing drainage systems should not be altered, especially in sensitive areas 

such as erodible soils or steep slopes. Culverts of adequate size should be in 

compliance with applicable state and federal requirements and take the flow 

regime into consideration for temporary and permanent roads. Potential soil 

erosion should be controlled at culvert outlets with appropriate structures. 

Catch basins, roadway ditches, and culverts should be cleaned and maintained 

regularly. 

• Runoff controls would be applied to disconnect new pollutant sources from 

surface water and groundwater. 

• Foundations and trenches should be backfilled with originally excavated 

material as much as possible. Excess excavated material should be disposed of 

only in approved areas. 

• When pesticides and herbicides are used, the goal would be to minimize 

unintended impacts on soil and surface water bodies. Common practices 

include but are not limited to (1) minimizing the use of pesticides and 

herbicides in areas with sandy soils near sensitive areas; (2) minimizing their 

use in areas with high soil mobility; (3) maintaining the buffer between 

herbicide and pesticide treatment areas and water bodies; (4) considering the 

climate, soil type, slope, and vegetation type in determining the risk of 

herbicide and pesticide contamination; and (5) evaluating soil characteristics 
Final OSTS PEIS 5-42 

prior to pesticide and herbicide application, to assess the likelihood of their 

transport in soil. 

• Pesticides used should be limited to nonpersistent, immobile ones, and should 

only be applied in accordance with label and application permit directions and 

stipulations for terrestrial and aquatic applications. 

• An erosion and sedimentation control plan, as well as a stormwater pollution 

protection plan, should be prepared in accordance with federal and state 

regulations. 

 Adopting mitigation measures such as these does not mean that there would be no 

impacts on water resources. The exact nature and magnitude of the impacts would vary from 

project to project and would need to be examined in detail in future NEPA reviews of lease areas 

and project plans of development. 

5.6 AIR QUALITY AND CLIMATE 

5.6.1 Common Impacts 

 The potential for air quality impacts from commercial tar sands development, including 

ancillary facilities such as access roads, upgrading facilities, and pipelines, is directly related to 

the amount of land disturbance, drilling/mining operations, processing methods, and the quantity 

of oil and gas equivalent produced. Indirect effects, such as impacts resulting from secondary 

population growth, are also considered. 

 Impacts on air quality would occur in several ways, as described below. 

• Temporary, localized impacts (primarily PM and NOx, with some CO, 

VOC, and SO2 emissions) would result from the clearing of the project 

area; grading, excavation, and construction of facilities and associated 

infrastructure; and mining (extraction) or drilling of the tar sands resource. 

• Long-term, regional impacts (primarily NOx and CO, with lesser amounts 

of PM, VOC, and SO2 emissions) would result from tar sands processing, 

upgrading, and transport (pipelines). Depending on location, meteorology, and 

topography, NOx and SO2 emissions could cause regional visibility impacts 

(through the formation of secondary aerosols) and contribute to regional 

nitrogen and sulfur deposition. In turn, atmospheric deposition could cause 

changes in sensitive (especially alpine) lake chemistry. In addition, depending 

on the amounts and locations of NOx and VOC emissions, photochemical 

production of ozone (a very reactive oxidant) is possible, with potential 

impacts on human health and vegetation. Localized impacts due to emissions 

of HAPs (particularly benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, xylene, and 
Final OSTS PEIS 5-43 

formaldehyde) and diesel PM could also present health risks to workers and 

nearby residents. 

• Dust from OSTS development could deposit on snow and increase snowmelt, 

thereby decreasing the duration of snow cover and contributing to earlier 

spring snowmelt. This could affect water resources and recreation-based 

tourism. 

• During all phases of tar sands development, GHG emissions of CO2 and lesser 

amounts of CH4 and N2O from combustion sources could contribute to 

climate change. Depending on the situation, dust emissions could exert either 

a cooling or a warming effect. 

 It is not possible to predict site-specific air quality impacts until actual tar sands 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 sitespecific 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. 

 The tar sands deposits that are in the study area for this PEIS are found only in the state 

of Utah. There are two tar sandsrich areas: one is in the Uinta Basin near Vernal, Utah, and the 

other is near Canyonlands and Capitol Reef National Parks in east central Utah. Table 5.6.1-1 

TABLE 5.6.1-1 Area and Population for Counties in 

Which Tar Sands Emissions Could Occur 

 Population 

State County 

Land Area 

(mi2) 2000 2010 

 

Utah Carbon 1,478 20,425 21,403 

 Duchesne 3,238 14,371 18,607 

 Emery 4,452 10,962 10,976 

 Garfield 5,174 4,735 5,172 

 Grand 3,682 8,380 9,225 

 San Juan 7,820 14,413 14,746 

 Uintah 4,477 25,224 32,588 

 Utah 1,998 368,540 516,564 

 Wasatch 1,177 15,215 23,530 

 Wayne 2,460 2,509 2,778 

 

Regional Total 35,956 484,774 655,589 

Source: U.S. Census Bureau (2011). 
Final OSTS PEIS 5-44 

identifies those counties where direct and indirect air pollutant emissions could result from tar 

sands development. 

 Impacts on air quality would be limited by applicable local, state, tribal, and federal 

regulations, standards, and implementation plans established under the CAA and administered 

by the Utah Department of Environmental Quality-Division of Air Quality (UTDEQ-DAQ), 

with EPA and nearby state agency review. Air quality regulations require that proposed new 

or modified existing air pollutant emission sources undergo a permitting review before 

their construction can begin. Therefore, the state agencies have the primary authority and 

responsibility to review permit applications and to require emission permits, fees, and control 

devices prior to construction and/or operation. The U.S. Congress (through CAA Section 116) 

authorized local, state, and tribal air quality regulatory agencies to establish air pollution control 

requirements that are more (but not less) stringent than federal requirements. In addition, in areas 

designated as nonattainment and maintenance for criteria pollutants, the BLM would need to 

conduct an applicability analysis for General Conformity. If the emissions associated with the 

action exceeded specified thresholds, the agency would need to prepare an applicability 

determination (see Section 3.5.3). 

 All leases and approvals of plans of development will require lessees to comply with all 

applicable local, state, tribal, and federal air regulations within the leased area. 

 Before tar sands development could occur, additional project-specific NEPA analyses 

would be performed, subject to public and agency review and comment. The applicable air 

quality regulatory agencies (including the states and EPA) would also review site-specific 

preconstruction permit applications to examine potential air quality impacts. As part of these 

reviews, the air quality regulatory agencies could require additional air quality impact analyses 

or mitigation measures. Those reviews would take into consideration the specific project features 

being proposed (e.g., specific air pollutant emissions and control technologies) and the locations 

of project facilities (including terrain, meteorology, and spatial relationships to sensitive 

receptors). Project-specific NEPA assessments would predict site-specific impacts, and these 

detailed assessments (along with BLM consultations) would result in required actions by the 

applicant to avoid or mitigate significant impacts. Under no circumstances can the BLM conduct 

or authorize activities that would not comply with all applicable local, state, tribal, or federal air 

quality laws, regulations, standards, or implementation plans. 

5.6.1.1 Climate Change 

 Analyzing the potential effects of an activity’s potential contribution to climate change 

includes consideration of several factors: GHG emissions (including carbon dioxide, methane, 

and nitrous oxide) and concentrations, land use management practices, and surface albedo 

(a measure of how strongly a surface reflects light from light sources such as the sun). Decreased 

albedo (e.g., due to melting snow and ice) means that more light (and heat) is absorbed by the 

earth’s surface. 
Final OSTS PEIS 5-45 

 For many activities with mature technologies, it is possible to make reasonable, 

quantitative predictions of the GHG emissions or the amount of carbon that would likely be 

sequestered from proposed activities. 

 For example, calculating GHG oil and gas production emissions is relatively 

straightforward, due to the long history of this type of activity. When adequate data are available 

to prepare an emissions inventory of a proposed project or activity, the BLM can account for and 

disclose factors that may contribute to global climate change. Once quantified, GHG emissions 

can be compared across appropriate sectors (where information is available), and then put into 

context for the public and the decision maker. 

 Even for such activities with known technologies, however, there is no scientifically 

accepted method to quantify the incremental climatic impacts of those activities, either to the 

global climate, or to the climate of any area or region. 

 Compounding that problem for the present analysis is the fact that there is no 

commercially proven technology for extracting liquid fuels from oil shale or tar sands. Thus, any 

quantitative prediction of the GHG emissions from commercial operations for oil shale or tar 

sands would be a professional judgment based on technologies under research and development 

or deployed in non-commercial contexts, and at worst would be speculation. 

 The decisions to be made on the basis of this PEIS are land allocation decisions, which 

do not themselves result in emission of any GHGs. However, if and when oil shale and tar sands 

development activities are authorized, those activities are likely to result in the emissions of 

GHGs. As a programmatic analysis appropriate to support allocation decisions, this PEIS 

analyzes the potential environmental impacts of oil shale and tar sands activities in general. 

Further, since the particular technology and methodology with which the oil shale and/or tar 

sands will be extracted is currently in the R&D phase, specific information related to energy 

demands and equipment usage cannot be known at this time. Because adequate equipment and 

activity assumptions are unavailable at this time, preparing an emissions inventory for this PEIS 

is not a scientifically defensible effort. When project applications are submitted to the BLM and 

more specific information is known, including what types of mining technology (surface mining 

or underground mining) are planned for resource development, an appropriate air resource 

analysis would be conducted and could include a GHG emission inventory. Therefore, this 

section describes the potential GHG emissions of oil shale and tar sands development in a 

qualitative manner. Existing climatic conditions and an assessment of future potential climatic 

changes for the region are described in Section 3.5. 

 The following assumptions are central to this analysis: 

• The assessment of climate-changing pollutant emissions and climate change is 

in its formative phase, so it is not yet possible to know with confidence the net 

impact on resources from GHG emissions. 
Final OSTS PEIS 5-46 

• The lack of scientific tools to predict climate change due to localized changes 

in GHG emissions limits the ability to quantify potential future impacts for 

each alternative. 

• Climate change is a global phenomenon in which larger changes in global 

GHG emissions are almost certain to have greater impacts on resources in the 

study area than are GHG emissions from commercial oil shale and tar sands 

industries in the study area. 

• Future EPA regulatory actions to reduce GHG emissions are not considered in 

this analysis. 

• In the future, should tools improve for predicting climate changes due to 

resource management actions, the BLM may be able to reevaluate decisions 

made as part of this planning process and to adjust management accordingly. 

 GHG emissions and changes in biological carbon sequestration would occur as a result 

of authorizing oil shale and tar sands activities. These emissions would occur during the 

construction, operation, and maintenance phases of potential future projects. Sources of 

emissions could include some of the following activities, depending on the types of extraction 

and processing technologies to be included in a potential future project: 

• Construction of buildings and processing facilities; 

• Construction of roads and other infrastructure (e.g., pipelines, electricity 

transmission, railroads); 

• Electricity generation; 

• Oil shale surface or underground mining; 

• Tar sands surface or underground mining; 

• Well drilling activities; 

• In situ processes to recover bitumen from tar sands or oil shale kerogen 

pyrolysis products; 

• Solid material crushing, sizing, and sorting; 

• Retorting; 

• On-site solid and liquid material conveyance, loading, and unloading; 

• Stationary diesel- or gas-fired engines; 
Final OSTS PEIS 5-47 

• Liquid product storage; 

• Waste or overburden disposal; 

• Vehicle exhaust associated with heavy equipment; 

• Vehicle exhaust associated with construction, delivery, product transport, and 

commuting activities; and 

• Site reclamation. 

 5.6.1.1.1 GHG Emissions Regulations and Trends. The EPA is in the early stages of 

regulating GHGs as air pollutants under the Clean Air Act (CAA). In its Endangerment and 

Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act, 

the EPA determined that GHGs are air pollutants subject to regulation under the CAA. The EPA 

regulates carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, sulfur hexafluoride, hydrofluorocarbons, and 

perfluorocarbons. In addition, aggregate GHG emissions are regulated in terms of CO2e 

emissions. 

 The first EPA regulation to limit emissions of GHGs imposed carbon dioxide emission 

standards on light-duty vehicles, including passenger cars and light trucks (40 CFR Part 98). As 

of August 2011, the EPA had not promulgated GHG emission limits for stationary sources, such 

as compressor stations. However, the EPA is gathering detailed GHG emission data from 

thousands of facilities throughout the United States and will use the data to develop an improved 

national GHG inventory and to inform future GHG emission control regulations. Beginning in 

2010, many facilities across the United States estimated GHG emissions in accordance with the 

EPA’s “Greenhouse Gas Mandatory Reporting Rule” and began reporting annual GHG 

emissions on March 31, 2011. Many oil and gas facilities will begin estimating GHG emissions 

in 2011 and will submit their first annual GHG emission reports on March 31, 2012, in 

accordance with Subpart W of 40 CFR Part 98. Under 40 CFR Part 98, underground coal mines 

that are subject to quarterly or more frequent sampling of ventilation systems by the Mine Safety 

and Health Administration (MSHA) are required to report their GHG emissions, such that the 

annual GHG report must cover stationary fuel combustion sources, miscellaneous use of 

carbonates, and all applicable source categories listed under 40 CFR Part 98 Subpart A. Control 

of GHGs is not required, however. 

 The EPA published a notice of the final oil and natural gas system emission control 

regulations on April 17, 2012 (EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0505; RIN 2060-AP76). These regulations 

are expected to decrease CH4 emissions between 1.0 and 1.7 million tons (19–33 million metric 

tons CO2e) annually (EPA 2012). 

 5.6.1.1.2 Environmental Consequences. The EPA estimates that national GHG 

emissions in 2009 were 6,633,200,000 metric tons CO2e in 2006 (EPA 2011). National GHG 

emissions in 2009 represented a 7.3% increase from estimated 1990 national GHG emissions 
Final OSTS PEIS 5-48 

(6,181,800,000 metric tons CO2e). The EPA categorized the major economic sectors 

contributing to U.S. emissions of GHG compounds as follows: 

• Electric power industry (33.1%), 

• Transportation (27.3%), 

• Industry (19.9%), 

• Agriculture (7.4%), 

• Commercial (6.2%), 

• Residential (5.4%), and 

• U.S. Territories (0.7%). 

 The three most commonly emitted GHGs likely from development and production of 

oil shale and tar sands sources are carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide. Other GHGs, 

including sulfur hexafluoride, hydrofluorocarbons, and perfluorocarbons, are not emitted by 

these activities or are emitted in trace quantities. Emissions of black carbon or soot formed 

through incomplete combustion of fossil fuel and biomass burning also play a significant role 

in climate change by strongly absorbing incoming solar radiation and trapping heat in the 

atmosphere. 

 Changes in biological carbon sinks may result from surface disturbance activities 

associated with oil shale and tar sands development. There are numerous methodologies for 

calculating biological carbon sequestration and, depending on methodology, estimates of 

biologically stored or removed carbon can vary greatly. Because there is not yet a single 

generally accepted standard for estimating biological carbon sinks and removals and insufficient 

activity data are available, a discussion of potential biological carbon changes due to oil shale 

and tar sands activities is beyond the scope of this analysis. 

Impacts from Air Quality Management. Air quality management actions require 

compliance with federal and state air quality regulations; therefore, future applicable GHG 

reduction requirements imposed by the EPA or state governments would apply to any future 

authorized activities and could potentially reduce GHG emissions and climate change impacts. In 

addition, many emission limits and standards that apply to criteria emissions have co-benefits of 

reducing carbon dioxide, methane, or nitrous oxide emissions. Therefore, any future emission 

restrictions on non-GHG pollutants may also effectively reduce GHG emissions. 

 For example, air quality management could include the following provisions that would 

decrease GHG emissions, compared to uncontrolled emissions: 

• Capture and destruction or beneficial use of methane from mines; 
Final OSTS PEIS 5-49 

• Carbon dioxide sequestration in geologic formations; 

• Use of natural gas fuel rather than diesel fuel for stationary source engines; 

• Emission capture and destruction of vapors from hydrocarbon storage tanks; 

• Piping products to destinations rather than trucking products; 

• Use of vehicles with low GHG emissions; 

• Use of renewable energy for electricity generation; and 

• Decreasing vehicle idling times. 

 When future air resource analyses are performed during the consideration of 

authorization of proposed activities, project-specific GHG emissions would be estimated and 

compared to relevant and available information, such as those emissions described in 

Table 5.6.1-2. 

TABLE 5.6.1-2 Greenhouse Gas Emission Comparisons 

Inventory Description 

CO2e Emissions 

(106 metric tons/yr) 

 

State Inventories, Consumption-Based (2010)a

 Colorado 129.3 (+2.9)b

 Utah 75.6 (–8.4) 

 Wyoming 60.3 (–30.4) 

 

U.S. Inventories (2009)c

 Total U.S. greenhouse gases 6,633.2 

 U.S. natural gas systemsd 253.4 

 U.S. coal mininge 76.5 

 U.S. landfills 117.5 

 U.S. fossil fuel combustion 5,209.0 

a Sources: Bailie et al. (2007); Roe et al. (2007); Strait et al. (2007). 

b The value in parentheses denotes emissions related to net 

imported/exported electricity, for which negative values represent 

exports. Thus, production-based emissions are about 50% higher 

than consumption-based emissions in Wyoming. 

c Source: EPA (2011). 

d Natural gas systems include natural gas production (e.g., wells), 

processing, transmission, and distribution. 

e Including abandoned underground coal mines. 
Final OSTS PEIS 5-50 

 5.6.1.1.3 Cumulative Climate Change Impacts. GHG emissions generally increase 

with population growth, industrial activity, transportation use, energy production, and fossil fuel 

energy use. As discussed in Chapter 3, GHG emission increases contribute to climate change. Oil 

shale and tar sands activities’ emissions may or may not increase state, national, or global GHG 

emissions due to regulatory and market forces. Possible impacts that may be associated with oil 

shale and tar sands development are summarized below: 

• Cumulative GHG emissions may increase if project GHG emissions add to 

global GHG emissions. 

• Cumulative GHG emissions may not increase or may increase by a smaller 

quantity if some or all project emissions are offset due to decreased energy 

production from other sources (e.g., oil and gas production in other oil and gas 

basins with greater GHG emissions on a unit-production basis). 

• GHG emissions from oil shale and tar sands may be offset, in part, by reduced 

transportation emissions from the site of production to the site of use. For 

example, transportation emissions from U.S. oil shale and tar sands 

production may be less than transportation emissions for oil that is transported 

from foreign countries. 

 Quantification of cumulative climate change impacts, such as changes in temperature, 

precipitation, and surface albedo is beyond the scope of this analysis. The maximum potential 

increase in cumulative GHG emissions from all potential oil shale and tar sands activities cannot 

be predicted with accuracy. Furthermore, such 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. 

5.6.1.2 Impacts from Emissions Sources for Tar Sands Facilities 

 To estimate total potential air pollutant emissions, emission factors for a specific activity 

must be identified and then multiplied by activity levels and engineering control efficiencies. The 

emission factors from proposed project activities would be estimated in future NEPA analyses by 

using appropriate equipment manufacturer’s specifications, testing information, EPA AP-42 

emission factor references (EPA 1995), and other relevant references. Anticipated levels of 

operational activities (e.g., load factors, hours of operation per year, and vehicle miles traveled) 

would be computed. Emission inventories would be developed for selected years during the 

assumed plant life (including construction, operation, maintenance, and reclamation). 

5.6.1.2.1 Construction. Mining and surface process technologies may include 

construction of a surface mine and mine bench, with primary crushing facilities, processing and 

upgrading facilities, spent material disposal areas, reservoirs for flood control, and a catchment 
Final OSTS PEIS 5-51 

dam below the disposal pile. For ICPs, considerable construction and preproduction development 

work includes extensive drilling and construction of upgrading/refining facilities. 

 Additional construction activities include access roads, power supply and distribution 

systems, pipelines, water storage and supply facilities, construction staging areas, hazardous 

materials handling facilities, housing, and auxiliary buildings. 

 Impacts on air quality associated with these construction activities include fugitive dust 

emissions and engine exhaust emissions from heavy equipment and commuting/delivery vehicles 

on paved and/or unpaved roads. Another emission source affecting air quality is wind erosion of 

soil disturbed by construction activities or from soil and materials stockpiles. 

5.6.1.2.2 Production. Emissions impacting air quality could result from surface 

operations, such as mining and crushing, processing (such as pyrolysis of the base material at 

high temperatures), upgrading of the hydrocarbon products, support utilities, and the disposing of 

waste products. Fugitive emissions of methane, VOCs, and HAPs from infrastructure such as 

pipelines, compressor stations, wells, storage tanks, and transport trucks would also impact air 

quality and climate change. Major processing steps for in situ processes would include heating 

the base material in place, extracting the liquid from the ground, and transporting the liquid to an 

upgrading/refining facility. Because in situ processing does not involve mining, it does not 

modify land surface topography and produces fewer particulate emissions. 

5.6.1.2.3 Maintenance. In addition to maintenance at the primary operations facility, 

maintenance activities include access road maintenance and periodic visits to facilities and 

structures away from the main facilities. The primary emissions that could affect air quality 

would be fugitive dust and engine exhaust emissions. 

5.6.1.2.4 Reclamation. During reclamation activities, which proceed continuously 

throughout the life of the project, waste material disposal piles would be smoothed and 

contoured by bulldozers. Topsoil would be placed on the graded spoils, and the land would be 

prepared for revegetation by furrowing, mulching, and other activities. From the time an area is 

disturbed until the new vegetation emerges, all disturbed areas are subject to wind erosion. 

Fugitive dust and engine exhaust emissions from reclamation activities are similar to those from 

construction activities, but have a lower level of activity. 

5.6.1.2.5 Population Growth. Population growth and related emission increases 

associated with potential development would include those resulting from direct employment; 

employees of suppliers (e.g., equipment, materials, supplies, and services); consumers 

(e.g., additional retail stores); additional employees in federal, state, and local governments; and 

families. 
Final OSTS PEIS 5-52 

5.6.1.2.6 Mobile (Onroad and Nonroad). Additional air pollutant emissions that could 

affect air quality would be associated with onroad mobile sources (e.g., cars, trucks, and buses) 

and nonroad mobile sources (e.g., graders and backhoes used in construction). 

5.6.2 Mitigation Measures 

 Since all activities conducted or approved through use authorizations by the BLM must 

comply with all applicable local, state, tribal, and federal air quality laws, statutes, regulations, 

standards, and implementation plans, it is unlikely that future tar sands leasing and development 

would cause significant adverse air quality impacts. 

 However, on a case-by-case basis, future individual leases and use authorizations could 

include specific measures to reduce potential air quality impacts. These mitigation measures 

could include, but are not limited to (1) treating access roads with water or dust suppressants to 

reduce fugitive dust from traffic; (2) reducing vehicle speeds on dirt roads to reduce fugitive dust 

from traffic; (3) specifying emission control devices on production equipment to reduce potential 

NOx, CO, PM2.5, PM10, VOC, and GHG emissions; (4) specifying low-sulfur-content fuels to 

reduce potential SO2 emissions; and/or (5) regulating the timing of emissions to reduce the 

formation of O3 in the atmosphere from NOx and VOC emissions. 

 In addition, to ensure that BLM-authorized activities comply with applicable ambient air 

quality standards as well as those applying to potential impacts on AQRVs (e.g., visibility, 

atmospheric deposition, and noise), specific monitoring programs may be established. 

 GHG emissions that may be related to climate change impacts may be reduced, 

regardless of their source (e.g., tar sands or conventionally-derived carbon-based energy sources) 

through the use of emission controls or by sequestering GHGs. 

5.7 NOISE 

 Generic noise impacts from construction, operation, and reclamation of tar sands 

extraction facilities were estimated; however, detailed information on equipment types, 

schedules, layouts, and locations was not available at the programmatic level. When available, 

published estimates of noise impacts from technology assessments and EAs for facilities 

expected to be similar to those considered here were used as the basis for this assessment. Use of 

these existing studies required making reasonable assumptions and extrapolations. In addition, 

the lack of detailed information also precluded making quantitative estimates of the impacts from 

noise mitigation measures that might be applied, if warranted by the results of lease-stage and/or 

plan of development-stage NEPA analyses. 

 The characteristics of the area around a noise source influence the impacts caused by that 

source. However, sources produce the same amount of noise independent of their location; in 

addition, to a first approximation, noise propagates identically everywhere. At the programmatic 

level, information that could help differentiate between noise impacts in different locations is 
Final OSTS PEIS 5-53 

Noise Modeling Parameters 

All calculations: 

 Ground type Soft 

For calculating Ldn: 

 Daytime background noise level 40 dBA (typical of rural areas) 

 Nighttime background noise level 30 dBA (typical of rural areas) 

 Daytime hours 15 hours from 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. 

 Nighttime hours 9 hours from 10 p.m. to 7 a.m.

unavailable, as are estimates of the noise levels associated with some of the technologies. The 

approach taken here assumes noise levels to be independent of location. Thus, differences in 

impacts due solely to restrictions in areas available for leasing are not considered. 

 When published estimates for facilities were unavailable, simple noise modeling was 

used to estimate noise impacts (Hanson et al. 2006). To predict an impact, the model requires 

that the noise level associated with the technology be assessed. Noise levels were not available 

for some technologies. In these cases, noise levels associated with similar technologies were 

used. 

 Published information was generally for a single-capacity facility. Noise impacts were 

extrapolated by using a conservative approach equivalent to the 3-dBA rule of thumb.2 For 

example, if noise levels were available for a reference facility producing 20,000 bbl/day, the 

noise impact of a 40,000-bbl/day facility was assumed to be 3 dBA higher, an assumption 

equivalent to locating two 20,000-bbl/day facilities at the same point. 

 As is generally the practice, this PEIS uses the EPA guideline of 55 dBA (Ldn), deemed 

adequate to protect human health and welfare, as a significance criterion for assessing noise 

impacts (EPA 1974). However, tar sands development would occur mostly in remote rural 

locations. In these areas, background (already existing) noise levels are low (40 dBA during the 

day and 30 dBA during the night are representative levels), and an increase in noise levels to 

55 dBA would be noticeable and annoying to people (Harris 1991). This guideline may not be 

appropriate for people seeking solitude or a natural, wilderness experience. Depending on 

ambient conditions, the activities being pursued by the receptors, and the nature of the sound, 

wildlife and human activities can be affected at levels below 55 dBA, but quantitative guidelines 

are unavailable. In addition, the NPS has determined that Ldn and Leq alone are not appropriate 

for determining impacts in National Parks and typically uses audibility metrics to characterize 

impacts on humans and wildlife. Site-specific impacts on resources administered by the NPS 

would be assessed by using audibility-based metrics and other appropriate data and 

methodologies. See Sections 5.8 and 5.9 for impacts on wildlife and human aesthetic 

experiences, respectively, that could result from increased levels of noise. 

 

2 A 3-dB change in sound level is considered barely noticeable on the basis of individuals’ responses to changes in 

sound levels (NWCC 2002). 
Final OSTS PEIS 5-54 

5.7.1 Common Impacts 

 Noise impacts from the construction and reclamation of tar sands facilities would be 

largely independent of the type of facility being constructed and are discussed below. Noise 

impacts from associated onroad vehicular traffic would also be largely independent of the 

facility type. Deviations from these general discussions are noted in the discussions of specific 

technologies. The noise from electric transmission lines and the product pipeline associated 

with these facilities is also discussed. 

5.7.1.1 Construction 

 Construction would include a variety of activities, including building of access roads, 

grading, drilling, pouring concrete, trenching, laying pipe, cleaning up, revegetating, and perhaps 

blasting. With the exception of blasting, construction equipment constitutes the largest noise 

source at construction sites. Table 5.7.1-1 presents noise levels for typical construction 

equipment. For a programmatic assessment of construction impacts, it can be assumed that the 

two noisiest pieces (derrick crane and truck) would operate simultaneously and in close 

proximity to each other (Hanson et al. 2006). Together these would produce a noise level of 

91 dBA at a distance of 50 ft. Assuming a 10-hour workday, noise levels would exceed the EPA 

guideline of 55 dBA (Ldn) up to about 850 ft from the location where the equipment was 

operating. (Background levels are included in the calculation of Ldn but do not affect the noise 

levels much at the aforementioned distance.) Construction impacts could last up to 2 years and 

could recur during the operational phase if additional processing facilities needed to be 

constructed. 

TABLE 5.7.1-1 Noise Levels at Various Distances from Typical 

Construction Equipment 

Noise Level Leq(1-h)a at Distances (dBA) 

Construction Equipment 50 ft 250 ft 500 ft 1,000 ft 2,500 ft 5,000 ft 

 

Bulldozer 85 67 59 51 40 32 

Concrete mixer 85 67 59 51 40 32 

Concrete pump 82 64 56 48 37 29 

Crane, derrick 88 70 62 54 43 35 

Crane, mobile 83 65 57 49 38 30 

Front-end loader 85 67 59 51 40 32 

Generator 81 63 55 47 36 28 

Grader 85 67 59 51 40 32 

Shovel 82 64 56 48 37 29 

Truck 88 70 62 54 43 35 

a Leq(1-h) is the equivalent steady-state sound level that contains the same varying 

sound level during a 1-hour period. 

Source: Hanson et al. (2006). 
Final OSTS PEIS 5-55 

 If used, blasting would create a compressional wave with an audible noise portion. 

Potential impacts on the closest sensitive receptors could be determined, but most sensitive 

receptors, at least human sensitive receptors, would probably be located at a considerable 

distance from the construction sites. 

5.7.1.2 Vehicular Traffic 

 Heavy-duty trucks produce most of the noise associated with vehicular traffic during 

construction.3 Vehicular traffic includes hauling of materials, transport of equipment, delivery of 

water for fugitive dust control, and worker personal vehicles. Light-duty trucks, such as pickups 

and personal vehicles, produce less noise than heavy-duty trucks (10 passenger cars make about 

the same noise as a single heavy-duty truck on an Leq basis). Except for short periods when 

workers are arriving at and leaving the construction site, heavy-truck traffic would dominate the 

vehicular traffic. Table 5.7.1-2 presents the noise impacts from heavy trucks estimated at various 

distances from a road for different hourly levels of truck traffic. For these estimates, a peak passby noise level from a heavy-duty truck operating at 35 mph was based on Menge et al. (1998) 

and a 10-hour working day. Except for locations very close to the road or with high traffic levels, 

noise levels would not exceed the EPA guideline level of 55 dBA Ldn. 

TABLE 5.7.1-2 Noise Levels at Various Distances from 

Heavy Truck Traffica

Distances from a Road 

Hourly No. 

of Trucks 50 ft 75 ft 100 ft 125 ft 250 ft 500 ft 

 

 Noise Level Leq(1-h) (dBA) 

1 48 45 43 42 37 32 

10 58 55 53 52 47 42 

50 65 62 60 58 54 49 

100 68 65 63 62 57 52 

 

 Noise Level Ldn (dBA)b

1 48 45 43 42 37 32 

10 58 55 53 52 47 42 

50 65 62 60 58 54 49 

100 68 65 63 62 57 52 

a Estimated assuming a 10-hour daytime shift and heavy 

trucks operating at 35 mph. 

b Daytime and nighttime background noise levels of 40 and 

30 dBA, respectively, are included. 

Source: Menge et al. (1998). 

 

3 The average noise from a passing car is about 15 dBA less than that from a passing truck (BLM 2006a). 
Final OSTS PEIS 5-56 

5.7.1.3 Surface Mining with Surface Retort 

 No well drilling would be required for surface mining 

with surface retort (see Section 5.7.1.1 for general construction 

impacts). This assessment relies on data on noise from a mine 

supporting a 20,000-bbl/day surface retort and its associated 

surface mine (Appendix B). Noise from the retort is expected to 

be 73 to 88 dBA at 50 ft, while noise from the mine is expected 

to be about 61 dBA at 500 ft.4 Both the retort and the mine 

would operate continuously. To be conservative, the higher 

noise level was used for the retort, and both sources were 

modeled at the same point. Table 5.7.1-3 presents the results. 

Given the distances at which the EPA guideline level might be 

exceeded, these results indicate that the potential noise impacts 

from surface mines and retorts should be evaluated thoroughly. 

If high noise impacts are projected, noise-reduction equipment 

such as mufflers, blowdown mutes, and pipe wrap and enclosures may be required 

(Daniels et al. 1981). 

5.7.1.4 Surface Mining with Solvent 

Extraction 

 No well drilling would be required for this 

technology (see Section 5.7.1.1 for general 

construction impacts). The noise levels for 

operation of this technology described in 

Appendix B are identical to those for surface 

mining with surface retorting. Noise impacts would 

be identical to those noted in Section 5.7.1.3. 

5.7.1.5 In Situ Steam Injection 

 The BLM provides noise impact estimates 

for construction of a 30,000-bbl/day in situ steam 

injection tar sands processing facility (BLM 1984). 

At 250 ft, typical maximum construction noise was estimated to be 67 dBA. This estimate was 

revised to include the ground effects and to estimate Ldn, assuming 10 hours per day of 

construction time. The distance to where the Ldn noise level reached the EPA guideline level 

was modeled. Table 5.7.1-4 gives this distance for an in situ steam plant with a capacity of 

20,000 bbl/day. 

 

4 Considering the geometric spreading and ground effects only, this level is equivalent to a level of 88 dBA at a 

reference distance of 50 ft. 

TABLE 5.7.1-3 Noise Levels 

from a Surface Mine with 

Surface Retort Site and a 

Surface Mine with Solvent 

Extraction Site 

Plant Capacity 

(103 bbl/day) 

Distance to Ldn of 

55 dBA (ft)a

 

20 1,950 

a Assuming 24 hours per day for 

continuous operation, the 

estimated noise level at a given 

distance is about 48.5 dBA Leq. 

TABLE 5.7.1-4 Noise Levels from an 

In Situ Steam Injection Site 

Distance to Ldn

of 55 dBA (ft) 

Plant Capacity 

(103 bbl/day) Constructiona

 

Operationb

 

20 440 2,750 

a Assuming 10 hours per day for daytime 

construction, the estimated noise level at a 

given distance is about 58.7 dBA Leq. 

b Assuming 24 hours per day for continuous 

operation, the estimated noise level at a given 

distance is about 48.5 dBA Leq. 
Final OSTS PEIS 5-57 

 During operation, the BLM (1984) estimated a maximum noise level of 78 dBA at 250 ft. 

This estimate was also revised by assuming 24 hours per day of operational time; the results are 

presented in Table 5.7.1-4. The reference noise levels were estimated by using a simple 

aggregation technique and ignoring the spatial separation of the sources. This practice will 

generally lead to overestimates of noise levels. In view of the potential for overestimation of 

these noise estimates, the potential noise impacts of in situ steam injection plants should be 

evaluated thoroughly. 

5.7.1.6 In Situ Combustion 

 On the basis of estimates in Daniels et al. (1981), a 20,000-bbl/day in situ combustion 

operation might have about 80 wells covering 160 acres operating at any time. The wells would 

be spaced about 330 ft apart. Daniels et al. (1981) did not specify the number of drilling rigs used 

during construction. For estimation purposes, it was assumed that 9 to 10 drilling rigs would be 

operating 10 hours per day. This situation was modeled as a square array of nine sources, each 

separated by 800 ft. This arrangement would allow all 81 wells to be drilled while about the 

same separation between rigs would be maintained as they moved to new locations. The results 

indicate that the 55 dBA Ldn noise level would be reached at just under 500 ft, with a 

corresponding noise level of almost 59 dBA Leq. (For additional construction impacts, see 

Section 5.7.1.1.) 

 To estimate noise levels during operations, a square array of 81 pumps (one for each 

well) was modeled, and operation of 24 hours per day was assumed. The noise level for each 

pump was taken as 82 dBA at 50 ft (BLM 2000). The results indicated that the EPA Ldn

guideline level might be exceeded to about 3,600 ft, with a corresponding noise level of 48 dBA. 

Given the distances at which the EPA guideline level might be exceeded, these results indicate 

that the potential noise impacts of in situ combustion should be evaluated thoroughly. If high 

noise impacts are projected, noise-reduction equipment such as mufflers, blowdown mutes, and 

pipe wrap and enclosures may be required (Daniels et al. 1981). 

 As indicated in Appendix B, in situ combustion is the only technology for possible 

deployment in the Tar Sand Triangle STSA. Much of the leasable land in this STSA is located 

within 3,000 to 6,000 ft of special designated areas such as potential ACECs and WSAs 

(see Figure 3.1.1-9). In addition, some part of the leasable lands lies within the Glen Canyon 

NRA and abuts with other lands in the NRA that are zoned for natural use. In all these areas, the 

intrusion of noise into the natural environment may be a particular concern with regard to the 

development of in situ combustion projects. 

5.7.1.7 Reclamation 

 In general, noise impacts from reclamation activities would be similar to but less than 

those associated with construction activities because the activity type and level would be similar 

but shorter in duration. Most reclamation would also occur during the day when noise is better 

tolerated by people, and noise levels would return to background levels at night and would be 
Final OSTS PEIS 5-58 

intermittent in nature. Reclamation activities would last for a short period compared with the 

period of construction operations. 

5.7.1.8 Transmission Lines 

 General construction impacts are discussed in Section 5.7.1.1. During operation, the main 

sources of noise from the transmission line would be substation noise and corona discharge. 

Substation noise comes primarily from transformers and switchgear. A transformer produces a 

constant low-frequency hum. The average A-weighted sound level at about 490 ft for a 

transformer of about 500 MW is about 49 dBA (Wood 1992). The number and size of 

transformers are currently unknown, but a single transformer could exceed the EPA guideline at 

500 ft. Transformer noise and mitigating measures must be addressed if substations are required 

along the transmission lines. Switchgear noise is generated when a breaker opens, producing an 

impulsive sound that is loud but of short duration. These sounds occur infrequently, and the 

industry trend is toward breakers that generate significantly less noise. The potential impacts of 

switchgear noise would be temporary, infrequent, and minor. 

 Transmission lines generate corona discharge, which produces a noise having a hissing or 

crackling character. During dry weather, transmission line noise is generally indistinguishable 

from background noise at the edge of typical ROWs. During rainfall, the level would be less than 

47 dBA at 100 ft from the center of a 500-kV transmission line (Lee et al. 1996). This is the 

noise level typical of a library (MPCA 1999). Even if several transmission lines of this capacity 

were required, the overall corona noise would be lost even in rural background noise within 

several hundred feet. 

5.7.1.9 Pipeline 

 General construction impacts are discussed in Section 5.7.1.1. Depending on the 

topography, a pipeline 95 mi long could require several pump stations. Pumps will generally be 

the noisiest equipment associated with a pump station. Contra Costa County (2003) gives a noise 

level of 94 dBA at 3 ft from a 400-hp pump but does not specify the throughput. Assuming that 

three pumps would be needed, the EPA guideline would be exceeded to a distance of about 

240 ft from the pumps. Pumps are almost always located in structures for protection from the 

weather and for security. The enclosure would reduce noise levels. Because the pumps that 

would be needed to move the assumed output may be larger and noisier than those assumed here, 

noise impacts would need to be assessed during planning for the actual pump stations. 

5.7.2 Mitigation Measures 

 Regulatory requirements regarding noise already largely address the mitigation of 

impacts. To reinforce those regulatory requirements, mitigation measures will be required and 

could include those that follow. 

 
Final OSTS PEIS 5-59 

5.7.2.1 Preconstruction Planning 

• Developers should conduct a preconstruction noise survey to identify nearby 

sensitive receptors (e.g., residences, schools, child-care facilities, hospitals, 

livestock, ecological receptors of critical concern, and areas valued for 

solitude and quiet) and establish baseline noise levels along the site boundary 

and at the identified sensitive receptors. 

• On the basis of site-specific considerations identified through the 

preconstruction noise survey, proponents should develop a noise management 

plan to mitigate noise impacts on the sensitive receptors. The plan would 

cover construction, operations, and reclamation. The plan should ensure that 

the standards to be implemented reflect conditions specific to the lease site. 

This plan could provide for periodic noise monitoring at the facility boundary 

and at nearby sensitive receptors on a monthly or more frequent basis at a time 

when the facility is operating at normal or above-normal levels. Monitoring 

results could be used to identify the need for corrective actions in existing 

mitigation measures or the need for additional noise mitigation. 

5.7.2.2 Construction and Reclamation 

 Wherever there are sensitive receptors, as identified in the preconstruction survey, 

construction noise should be managed to the extent necessary to mitigate adverse impacts on the 

sensitive receptors. Efforts to mitigate these impacts could include the following measures: 

• A noise complaint manager could be designated to receive any noise 

complaints from the public. This employee could have the responsibility and 

authority to convene a committee to investigate noise complaints, determine 

the causes of the noise leading to the complaints, and recommend mitigation 

measures. 

• General construction activities could be limited to daytime hours between 

7 a.m. and 7 p.m. On the basis of the results of the baseline noise survey, these 

hours could be extended to between 7 a.m. and 10 p.m. in areas remote from 

sensitive receptors. 

• Particularly noisy activities, such as pile driving, blasting, and hauling by 

heavy trucks, could be limited to daytime hours between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. on 

weekdays and prohibited on weekends and state and federal holidays. The 

noise management plan could identify alternate methods for conducting noisy 

activities and available mitigation methods. The least noisy of these could be 

chosen for use during construction unless its use was precluded by 

site-specific characteristics. 
Final OSTS PEIS 5-60 

• When feasible, different particularly noisy activities could be scheduled to 

occur at the same time, since additional sources of noise generally do not add 

significantly to the perceived noise level. That is, less-frequent noisy activities 

may be less annoying than frequent less-noisy activities. 

• If blasting or other impulsive-noise activities are required, nearby sensitive 

human receptors could be notified in advance. 

• All construction equipment should have sound control devices that are no less 

effective than those provided on the original equipment. Construction 

equipment and the equipment’s sound control devices could be required to be 

well tuned, in good working order, and maintained in accordance with the 

manufacturer’s specifications. Appropriate record keeping of these 

maintenance activities could be required. 

• Where possible, construction traffic could be routed to minimize disruption to 

sensitive receptors. 

• Temporary barriers could be erected around areas where construction noise 

could disturb sensitive receptors. 

• To the extent possible, stationary noisy equipment (such as compressors, 

pumps, and generators) could be located as far as practicable from sensitive 

receptors. 

5.7.2.3 Operation 

 Wherever there are sensitive receptors, as identified in the preconstruction survey, noise 

from operations should be managed to the extent necessary to mitigate adverse impacts on the 

sensitive receptors. Efforts to mitigate these impacts could include the following measures: 

• A noise complaint manager could be designated to handle noise complaints 

from the public. This employee could have the responsibility and authority to 

convene a committee to investigate noise complaints, determine the causes of 

the noise leading to the complaints, and recommend mitigation measures. 

• Noisy equipment (such as compressors, pumps, and generators) could be 

required to incorporate noise-reduction features such as acoustic enclosures, 

mufflers, silencers, and intake noise suppression. 

• Facilities could be required to demonstrate compliance with the EPA’s 

55-dBA guideline at the nearest human sensitive receptor. Sensitive ecological 

receptors and appropriate associated lower noise levels could also be 

considered. In special areas where quiet and solitude have been identified as a 

value of concern, a demonstration that a lower noise level would be attained 
Final OSTS PEIS 5-61 

might be required. Such demonstrations might require use of additional or 

different criteria such as audibility. 

• Depending on the specific site, maintenance of off-site noise at suitable levels 

might require the establishment of an activity-free buffer inside the fence line. 

• Facility design could include all feasible noise-reduction methods, including, 

but not limited to, mounting equipment on shock absorbers; mufflers or 

silencers on air intakes, exhausts, blowdowns, and vents; noise barriers; 

noise-reducing enclosures; noise-reducing doors and windows; 

sound-reducing pipe lagging; and low-noise ventilation systems. 

• Where feasible, facility design could be required to incorporate low-noise 

systems such as ventilation systems, pumps, generators, compressors, and 

fans. 

5.8 ECOLOGICAL RESOURCES 

5.8.1 Common Impacts 

5.8.1.1 Aquatic Resources 

 Impacts on aquatic resources from the tar sands development projects and associated 

facilities could occur because of (1) direct disturbance of aquatic habitats within the footprint 

of construction or operation activities; (2) sedimentation in nearby aquatic habitats as a 

consequence of settled dust and soil erosion from operational areas; (3) changes in water 

quantity or water quality as a result of construction (e.g., grading that affects surface water 

runoff, water levels, or hydrologic connectivity) and operations (e.g., surface or groundwater 

withdrawals or increases in discharges of water into nearby aquatic habitats), or releases of 

chemical contaminants into nearby aquatic systems (e.g., accidental spills, controlled discharges, 

and the discharge of contaminated ground water into surface water); or (4) development of 

infrastructure such as roads and ROWs that increase public access to fishery resources. These 

impacts could occur to some degree during the construction period and throughout the 

operational life of the projects. In addition, some impacts could continue to occur beyond the 

operational life of the project. Potential impacts on aquatic resources from various impacting 

factors associated with tar sands development are discussed below and are summarized in 

Table 5.8.1-1. The potential magnitudes of the impacts that could result from tar sands 

development are presented separately for aquatic invertebrates and for fish. Potential impacts 

on federally listed, state-listed, and BLM-designated sensitive aquatic species are presented in 

Section 5.8.1.4, and potential impacts on other types of organisms that could occur in aquatic 

habitats (e.g., amphibians and waterfowl) are presented in Section 5.8.1.3. 
Final OSTS PEIS 5-62 

TABLE 5.8.1-1 Potential Impacts on Aquatic Resources Resulting from 

Commercial Tar Sands Development 

 

Potential Magnitude of 

Impacts According to 

Organism Groupa

Impact Category 

Aquatic 

Invertebrates Fish 

 

Sedimentation from runoff Large Large 

Water depletions Large Large 

Changes in drainage patterns, discharge, and recharge rates Small Small 

Disruption of groundwater flow patterns Moderate Moderate 

Temperature increases in water bodies Moderate Moderate 

Increases in salinity Small Small 

Introduction of nutrients, inorganic, and organic contaminants Small Small 

Oil and contaminant spills Moderate Large 

Movement/dispersal blockage Small Small 

Increased human access Small Small 

a Potential impact magnitude (without mitigation) that might be expected from individual 

development projects is presented as none, small, moderate, or large. A small impact is 

one that is limited to the immediate project area, affects a relatively small proportion of 

the local population (less than 10%), and does not result in a measurable change in 

carrying capacity or population size in the affected area. A moderate impact could 

extend beyond the immediate project area, affect an intermediate proportion of the local 

population, and result in a measurable but moderate change (less than 30%) in carrying 

capacity or population size in the affected area. A large impact would extend beyond 

the immediate project area, could affect more than 30% of a local population, and result 

in a large measurable change in carrying capacity or population size in the affected 

area. 

 Depending on the characteristics of specific development projects, new aquatic habitats 

could be formed after site development. For example, over time, drainage patterns associated 

with sediment control ponds that caught runoff from disturbed surfaces could create habitats that 

would support aquatic plants and invertebrates as well as fish. Although the development of such 

habitats could be beneficial in some instances, their ecological value would depend on the 

amount of habitat created and the types and numbers of species supported. In general, it is 

anticipated that the ecological value of these created habitats would be limited. Habitats that 

promoted the survival and expansion of non-native aquatic species that competed with or preyed 

upon native species could have negative ecological impacts on existing aquatic habitats. 

 Turbidity and sedimentation from erosion and settled dust are part of the natural cycle of 

physical processes in water bodies, and most populations of aquatic organisms have adapted to 

short-term changes in these parameters. However, if sediment loads are unusually high or last 

longer than they would under natural conditions, adverse impacts could occur (Waters 1995). 

Increased sediment loads could suffocate aquatic vegetation, invertebrates, and fish; decrease the 
Final OSTS PEIS 5-63 

rate of photosynthesis in plants and phytoplankton; decrease fish feeding efficiency; decrease the 

levels of invertebrate prey; reduce fish spawning success; and adversely affect the survival of 

incubating fish eggs, larvae, and fry (Waters 1995). The addition of fine sediment to aquatic 

systems is considered a major factor in the degradation of stream fisheries (Waters 1995). Thus, 

although the organisms in many aquatic systems are capable of coping with smaller, short-term 

increases in sediment loads, exceeding (largely unmeasured) threshold levels or durations would 

be expected to have detrimental effects on the affected aquatic ecosystems. 

 The potential for soil erosion and sediment loading of nearby aquatic habitats is 

proportional to the amount of surface disturbance, the condition of disturbed areas at any given 

time, and the proximity to aquatic habitats. The presence of riparian vegetation buffers along 

waterways helps control sedimentation in waterways because it reduces erosion by binding soil, 

due to the presence of root systems, and by dissipating water energy of surface runoff during 

high flow events. Vegetation also helps to trap sediment contained in surface runoff. 

Consequently, tar sands development activities that affect the presence or abundance of riparian 

vegetation would be expected to increase the potential for sediment to enter adjacent streams, 

ponds, and reservoirs. Because fine sediments may not quickly settle out of solution, impacts of 

sediment introduction to stream systems could extend downstream for considerable distances. 

 It is anticipated that areas being actively disturbed during construction or operations 

would have a higher erosion potential than areas that are undergoing reclamation activities, and 

that reclamation areas would become less prone to erosion over time because of completion of 

site grading and reestablishment of vegetated cover. Assuming that reclamation activities are 

successful, restored areas should eventually become similar to natural areas in terms of erosion 

potential. In addition to areas directly affected by construction and operations, surface 

disturbance could occur as a result of the development of access roads, utility corridors, and 

employer-provided housing. Implementation of measures to control erosion and runoff into 

aquatic habitats (e.g., silt fences, retention ponds, runoff-control structures, and earthen berms) 

would reduce the potential for impacts from increased sedimentation. 

 Changes in flow patterns of streams and depletion of surface water within tar sands 

development areas could affect the quality of associated aquatic habitats and the survival of 

populations of aquatic organisms within affected bodies of water. Most obviously, perhaps, 

complete dewatering of streams or stream segments would preclude the continued presence of 

aquatic communities within the affected areas. However, changes in flows and flow patterns 

could affect the nature of the aquatic communities that are supported, even if there is not 

complete dewatering. Reductions in flow levels can result in depth changes and reductions in 

water quality (e.g., water temperatures and dissolved oxygen levels) that some species of fish 

and invertebrates may be unable to tolerate. Reduced depths can also affect the susceptibility of 

some fish species to predation from avian and terrestrial predators. Depending on the magnitude 

of the water depletion in a particular waterway, aquatic habitat in all downstream portions of a 

watershed could be affected. 

 Aquatic organisms have specific temperature ranges within which survival is possible, 

and exceeding those temperatures, even for short periods, can result in mortality. In addition, 

aquatic organisms such as fish and macroinvertebrates use oxygen dissolved in the water to 
Final OSTS PEIS 5-64 

breathe, and if dissolved oxygen levels fall below the tolerances of those organisms they will 

be unable to survive unless there are areas with suitable conditions nearby that can serve as 

temporary refuge. The level of dissolved oxygen in water is highly dependent on temperature, 

and the amount of oxygen that can dissolve in a given volume of water (i.e., the saturation point) 

is inversely proportional to the temperature of water. Thus, with other chemical and physical 

conditions being equal, the warmer the water, the less dissolved oxygen it can hold. In the arid 

regions where the tar sands deposits described in this PEIS are found, surface water temperatures 

during hot summer months can approach lethal limits and the resulting depressed dissolved 

oxygen levels are often already near the lower limits for many of the aquatic species that are 

present, especially in some of the smaller streams. Consequently, increasing water temperatures 

even slightly may, in some cases, adversely affect survival of aquatic organisms such as fish and 

mussel species in the affected waterways. 

 Tar sands development activities could affect water temperatures through removal of 

surface vegetation, especially riparian vegetation, and by reducing streamflows or inputs of 

cooler groundwater into nearby waterways due to water depletions. Removing vegetation alters 

the amount of shading of the earth’s surface and increases the temperature of overlying waters 

or surface water runoff. Fish typically avoid elevated temperatures by moving to areas of 

groundwater inflow, to deeper holes, or to shaded areas where water temperatures are lower. If 

temperatures exceed thermal tolerances for extended periods and no refuge is available, fish kills 

may result. The level of thermal impact associated with clearing of riparian vegetation would be 

expected to increase as the amount of affected shoreline increases. The potential for water 

depletions to affect surface water temperatures by depressing groundwater flows is not easily 

predicted, although as the proportion of groundwater discharge decreases, surface water 

temperatures during critical summer months would be expected to increase. Water depletions in 

the Colorado River Basin are of particular concern to native fish in the basin, including the four 

endangered Colorado River Basin fish species (humpback chub, razorback sucker, Colorado 

pikeminnow, and bonytail). As identified in Section 5.8.1.4, any water depletions from the upper 

Colorado River Basin are considered an adverse effect on endangered Colorado River fishes. 

 As identified in Section 5.5.1.1, surface disturbance in the tar sands areas could also 

negatively affect water quality by increasing the salinity of surface waters in downstream areas. 

Depending on the existing salinity levels and the types of aquatic organisms present in receiving 

waters, such increases could stress existing biota or alter species composition in affected areas. 

The potential for surface disturbance to increase salinity levels in surface waters would decrease 

as the distance between disturbed areas and waterways increases (Section 5.5.1.1). Once salts 

have entered waterways, they are not generally removed from solution. Consequently, salinity 

tends to increase with increasing downstream distance in a watershed, representing the 

accumulation of salt from many different sources. Section 5.5.3 identifies a number of potential 

mitigation measures that could be implemented to reduce the potential for negative effects on 

water quality from salinity due to tar sands development. 

 Nutrients (especially dissolved nitrogen and phosphorus) are required in small quantities 

for the growth and survival of aquatic plants. When the levels of nutrients become excessive, 

plant growth and decay are promoted. This, in turn, may favor the survival of certain weedy 

species over others and may result in severe reductions in water quality aspects such as oxygen 
Final OSTS PEIS 5-65 

levels. As discussed in Section 5.12, tar sands development could result in increases in human 

populations within the immediate area of specific developments and within the region as a 

whole. If these population increases resulted in increased nutrient loading of streams due to 

additional inputs from sewage treatment facilities, survival of some aquatic species could be 

affected and changes in biodiversity could result. Depending upon the magnitude of nutrient 

inputs, aquatic habitat in extended downstream portions of a watershed could be affected. The 

loss of native freshwater mussel species in some aquatic systems has been partially attributed to 

increases in nutrient levels (Natural Resources Conservation Service and Wildlife Habitat 

Council 2007). Because the water quality of effluents from such facilities is typically regulated 

under permits issued by state agencies, negative impacts on aquatic systems from increases in 

nutrient levels are expected to be small. 

 Contaminants could enter aquatic habitats as a result of recharge of contaminated ground 

water; leachate runoff from exposed tar sands deposits, including spent tar sands; controlled 

point source discharges; the accidental release of fuels, lubricants, or pesticides; or spills from 

pipelines used to transport petroleum products from the site. Contamination of surface waters by 

groundwater recharge could occur if the groundwater is contaminated by in situ processing. The 

produced water from in situ processing may contain elevated levels of contaminants such as 

TDS, chloride, hydrocarbons, and heavy metals. 

 Both raw and spent tar sands remaining on the surface could become a chronic source of 

contaminated runoff unless adequate containment measures are implemented or unless they are 

transported off-site for disposal. Tar sands development sites would be subject to stormwater 

management permits and the application of BMPs that would control the quality and quantity of 

runoff entering nearby aquatic habitats. Exposure to the leachate from tar sands and spent tar 

sands tailings has been shown to reduce the survival of some fish and aquatic invertebrate 

species if the concentrations are high enough (Siwik et al. 2000; Sik-Cheung et al. 2001; 

Colavecchia et al. 2004). Thus, spent tar sands returned to surface mine pits following processing 

could affect aquatic resources if they result in contaminants entering surface waters via surface 

runoff or groundwater. Spent tar sands remaining underground following in situ combustion or 

steam injection could similarly contaminate aquatic habitats if groundwater passes through these 

spent sands deposits and later enters surface waters. Because the resulting concentrations in 

aquatic habitats would depend largely on the dilution capability, and, therefore, the flow of the 

receiving waters, impacts would be more likely if runoff from spent tar sands deposits entered 

small perennial streams than if it entered larger streams. 

 Toxic materials (e.g., fuels, lubricants, and herbicides) could also be accidentally 

introduced into waterways during construction and maintenance activities or as a result of leaks 

from pipelines used to transport petroleum products from the project site to collection areas. 

The level of impacts from releases of toxic materials would depend on the type and volume 

of chemicals entering the waterway, the location of the release, the nature of the water body 

(e.g., size, volume, and flow rate), and the types and life stages of organisms present in the 

waterway. In general, lubricants and fuel would not be expected to enter waterways in 

detrimental quantities as long as (1) heavy machinery is not used in or near waterways, 

(2) fueling locations for construction and maintenance equipment are situated away from 

waterways, and (3) measures are taken to control spills that occur. Because tanker trucks are 
Final OSTS PEIS 5-66 

often used to transport petroleum products from collection sites, there is a potential for roadway 

accidents to release toxicants into adjacent waterways. Such releases could result in substantial 

mortality of fish and of the aquatic biota. 

 In areas where access roads, pipelines, or utility corridors cross streams, obstructions to 

fish movement could occur if culverts, low-water crossings, or buried pipelines are not properly 

installed, sized, or maintained. During periods of low water, vehicular traffic can result in rutting 

and accumulation of cobbles in some crossings that can interfere with fish movements. In 

streams with low flows, flow could become discontinuous if disturbance of the streambed during 

construction activities results in increased porosity or if the altered channel spreads across a 

wider area. Restrictions on fish movement would likely be most significant if they occurred in 

streams that support species that need to move to specific areas in order to reproduce. 

 In addition to the potential for the direct impacts identified above, indirect impacts on 

fisheries could occur as a result of increased public access to remote areas via newly constructed 

access roads and utility corridors. Fisheries could be impacted by increased fishing pressure, and 

other human activities (e.g., OHV use) could disturb riparian vegetation and soils, resulting in 

erosion, sedimentation, and potential impacts on water quality, as discussed above. Such impacts 

would be smaller in locations where existing access roads or utility corridors that already provide 

access to waterways would be utilized. Because all of the proposed projects would require 

similar levels of infrastructure that could result in increased public access, the level of impact 

would be similar regardless of the technology used. Overall, it is anticipated that impacts on 

fishery resources from increased access would be minor. Tar sands development also has the 

potential to affect fishing pressure in locations outside the immediately affected watershed if the 

development results in a loss of current fishing opportunities, either because developed locations 

become unavailable or because development results in decreases in catchable fish within 

adjacent or downstream areas. In such cases, displaced anglers could utilize nearby reservoirs or 

other streams or rivers, resulting in greater exploitation of fishery resources in those waterways. 

If water depletions associated with tar sands development affect water storage within reservoirs 

in nearby areas, fishing opportunities in those reservoirs could be affected. Mitigation measures 

for aquatic resources are presented in Section 5.8.2.1. 

5.8.1.2 Plant Communities and Habitats 

 Potential impacts on terrestrial, riparian, and wetland plant communities and habitats 

from activities associated with tar sands development would include direct impacts from habitat 

removal, as well as a wide variety of indirect impacts. Impacts would be incurred during initial 

site preparation and continue throughout the life of the project, extending over a period of several 

decades. Some impacts may also continue beyond the termination of asphalt or syncrude 

production. The potential magnitude of the impacts that could result from tar sands development 

is presented for different habitat types in Table 5.8.1-2. 

 Direct impacts would include the destruction of habitat during initial land clearing on the 

lease site, as well as habitat losses resulting from the construction of ancillary facilities such as 

access roads, pipelines, transmission lines, and employer-provided housing. Land clearing on the 
Final OSTS PEIS 5-67 

TABLE 5.8.1-2 Potential Impacts on Plant Communities Resulting 

from Commercial Tar Sands Development 

Potential Magnitude of Impacts 

According to Habitat Typea

Impact Category Upland Plants 

Wetland and 

Riparian Plants 

 

Vegetation clearing Large Large 

Habitat fragmentation Moderate Moderate 

Dispersal blockage Moderate Moderate 

Alteration of topography Moderate Large 

Changes in drainage patterns Moderate Large 

Erosion Large Large 

Sedimentation from runoff Large Large 

Oil and contaminant spills Moderate Large 

Fugitive dust Moderate Moderate 

Injury or mortality of individuals Large Large 

Human collection Moderate Moderate 

Increased human access Moderate Moderate 

Fire Large Large 

Spread of invasive plant species Large Large 

Air pollution Moderate Moderate 

Water depletions Small Large 

Disruption of groundwater flow patterns Small Moderate 

Temperature increases in water bodies None Moderate 

a Potential impact magnitude (without mitigation) that might be expected 

from individual development projects is presented as none, small, 

moderate, or large. A small impact is one that is limited to the 

immediate project area, affects a relatively small proportion of a plant 

community or local species population (less than 10%), and does not 

result in a measurable change in community characteristics or 

population size in the affected area. A moderate impact could extend 

beyond the immediate project area, affect an intermediate proportion of 

a plant community or local species population (10 to 30%), and result in 

a measurable but moderate (not destabilizing) change in community 

characteristics or population size in the affected area. A large impact 

would extend beyond the immediate project area, could affect more than 

30% of a plant community or local species population, and result in a 

large, measurable, and destabilizing change in community 

characteristics or population size in the affected area. 

site would be required for the construction of processing facilities, storage areas for soil and 

spent tar sands, and excavation areas. Land clearing would also occur incrementally throughout 

the life of the project, resulting in continued losses of habitat. Storage of woody vegetation 

cleared from project areas would impact additional areas of vegetation. Native vegetation 

communities present in project areas would be destroyed. Riparian habitats or wetlands may 

be affected by ROWs that cross streams or other water bodies. E.O. 11990, “Protection of 
Final OSTS PEIS 5-68 

Wetlands,” requires all federal agencies to minimize the destruction, loss, or degradation of 

wetlands and to preserve and enhance the natural and beneficial values of wetlands 

(U.S. President 1977). Impacts on jurisdictional wetlands (those under the regulatory jurisdiction 

of the CWA, Section 404, and the USACE) on or near the project site or locations of ancillary 

facilities would be avoided or mitigated. Preconstruction surveys would identify wetland 

locations and boundaries, and the permitting process would be initiated with the USACE for 

unavoidable impacts. 

 Reclamation of impacted areas would include reestablishment of vegetation on restored 

soils. Although revegetation of disturbed soils in many locations may successfully establish a 

productive vegetation cover, with biomass and species richness similar to those of local native 

communities, the resulting plant community may be quite different from native communities in 

species composition and the representation of particular vegetation types, such as shrubs 

(Newman and Redente 2001). Community composition of revegetated areas would likely be 

greatly influenced by the species that are initially seeded, particularly perennial grasses, and 

colonization by species from nearby native communities may be slow (Newman and 

Redente 2001; Paschke et al. 2005; Belnap and Herrick 2006). The establishment of mature 

native plant communities may require decades. Successful restoration of some vegetation types, 

such as shrubland communities, may be difficult and would require considerable periods of time, 

likely more than 20 years. Restoration of plant communities in STSAs with arid climates 

(generally averaging less than 9 in. of annual precipitation), such as shadscale-saltbush 

communities, may be very difficult (Monsen et al. 2004). Although vegetation within ROWs 

would become reestablished, ROW management programs may prevent the establishment of 

mature native communities. Areas along ROWs that would be impacted by ROW construction 

would be restored in the same manner as other disturbed project areas. The loss of intact native 

plant communities could result in increased habitat fragmentation, even with the reclamation of 

impacted areas. 

 Disturbed soils may provide an opportunity for the introduction and establishment of 

non-native invasive species. Seeds or other propagules of invasive species may be inadvertently 

brought to a project site from infested areas by heavy equipment or other vehicles used at the 

site. Invasive species may also colonize disturbed soils from established populations in nearby 

areas. The establishment of invasive species may greatly reduce the success of the establishment 

of native plant communities during reclamation of project areas and create a source of future 

colonization and subsequent degradation of adjacent undisturbed areas. In addition, the planting 

of non-native species in reclaimed areas may result in the introduction of those species into 

nearby natural areas. The establishment of invasive species may alter fire regimes, including an 

increase in the frequency and intensity of wildfires, particularly following the establishment of 

annual grasses such as cheatgrass. Native species, particularly shrubs, that are not adapted to 

frequent or intense fires, may be adversely affected and their populations may be reduced. 

 Indirect impacts on terrestrial and wetland habitats on or off the project site could result 

from land clearing and exposed soil; soil compaction; and changes in topography, surface 

drainage, and infiltration characteristics. Impacts on surface water and groundwater systems, 

which subsequently affect terrestrial plant communities, wetlands, and riparian areas, are 

described in Section 5.5. Deposition of fugitive dust, including associated salts, generated during 
Final OSTS PEIS 5-69 

clearing and grading, construction, and use of access roads or resulting from wind erosion of 

exposed soils, could reduce photosynthesis and productivity in plants near project areas and 

could result in foliar damage. Plant community composition could be subsequently altered, 

resulting in habitat degradation. In addition, pollinator species could be affected by fugitive dust, 

potentially reducing pollinator populations in the vicinity of a tar sands project. Temporary, 

localized effects on plant populations and communities could occur if seed production in some 

plant species is reduced. Soil compaction could reduce the infiltration of precipitation or 

snowmelt and, along with reduced vegetation cover, result in increased runoff and subsequent 

erosion and sedimentation. Reduced infiltration and altered surface runoff and drainage 

characteristics could result in changes in soil moisture characteristics, reduced recharge of 

shallow groundwater systems, and changes in the hydrologic regimes of downgradient streams 

and associated wetlands and riparian areas. Soils on steep slopes, such as those that occur in 

many STSAs, could be particularly susceptible to increased erosion resulting from changes in 

stormwater flow patterns. 

 Erosion and reductions in soil moisture could alter affected terrestrial plant communities 

adjacent to project activities, resulting in reduced growth and reproduction. Altered hydrologic 

regimes, particularly reductions in the duration, frequency, or extent of inundation or soil 

saturation (potentially resulting from elimination of ephemeral or intermittent streams), could 

result in species or structural changes in wetland or riparian communities, changes in 

distribution, or reduction in community extent. Increased volumes or velocities of flows could 

affect wetland and riparian habitats, thereby removing fine soil components, organic materials, 

and shallow-rooted plants. Large-scale surface disturbance that reduces infiltration may increase 

flow fluctuations, reduce base flows, and increase flood flows, resulting in impacts on wetland 

and riparian community composition and extent. Sedimentation, and associated increases in 

dissolved salts, could degrade wetland and riparian plant communities. Effects may include 

reduced growth or mortality of plants, altered species composition, reduced biodiversity, or, in 

areas of heavy sediment accumulation, reduction in the extent of wetland or riparian 

communities. Disturbance-tolerant species may become dominant in communities affected by 

these changes in hydrology and water quality. Increased sedimentation, turbidity, salt loading, or 

other changes in water quality may provide conditions conducive to the establishment of 

invasive species. 

 Alterations of groundwater flow or quality in project areas, such as during tar sands 

extraction or in situ processing, may affect wetlands and riparian areas that directly receive 

groundwater discharge, such as at springs or seeps, or that are present in streams with flows 

maintained by groundwater. Wetland and riparian communities far downgradient from tar sands 

extraction or retorting activities may be affected by reduced flows or reduced water quality. Flow 

reductions in alluvial aquifers from tar sands extraction, water withdrawals, or pipeline 

installation may also result in reductions, or changes in community composition, in wetland or 

riparian communities associated with streams receiving alluvial aquifer discharge. Water 

withdrawals from surface water features, such as rivers and streams, may reduce flows and water 

quality downstream, which may in turn reduce the extent or distribution of wetlands and riparian 

areas along these water bodies or degrade these plant communities. The construction of 

reservoirs would also affect downstream wetlands and riparian areas by reducing flows and 
Final OSTS PEIS 5-70 

sediment transport and increasing salt loading. Wetlands and riparian areas within the area of the 

reservoir and dam would be lost. 

 Plant communities and habitats could be adversely affected by impacts on water quality, 

resulting in plant mortality or reduced growth, with subsequent changes in community 

composition and structure and declines in habitat quality. Leachate from stockpiles of spent tar 

sands or overburden may adversely affect terrestrial (such as phreatophytic), riparian, or wetland 

plant communities as a result of impacts on surface water or groundwater quality. Produced 

water from tar sands retorting or saline water pumped from lower aquifers, if discharged on the 

land surface, may result in impacts on terrestrial, riparian, or wetland communities because of 

reduced water quality. Herbicides used in ROW maintenance could be carried to wetland and 

riparian areas by surface runoff or may be carried to nearby terrestrial communities by air 

currents. Impacts on surface water quality from deposition of atmospheric dust or pollutants from 

equipment exhaust could degrade terrestrial, wetland, and riparian habitats. Accidental spills of 

chemicals, fuels, or oil would adversely affect plant communities. Direct contact with 

contaminants could result in mortality of plants or degradation of habitats. Spills could impact 

the quality of shallow groundwater and indirectly affect terrestrial plants. 

 Oil shale endemic species that occur in STSAs would be potentially subject to the direct 

and indirect impacts described above. Habitats occupied by these species could be degraded or 

lost, and individuals could be destroyed. Local populations could be reduced or lost as a result of 

tar sands development activities. Establishment and long-term survival of these species on 

reclaimed land may be difficult. The potential introduction and spread of noxious weed species 

from project areas into the habitat of oil shale endemics could threaten local populations. In 

addition, the increased accessibility resulting from new roads could result in increased impacts 

from human disturbance or collection. Because of the generally small, scattered populations of 

oil shale endemics, impacts could result in greater consequences for these species than for 

commonly occurring species. However, many oil shale endemics are federally listed, state-listed, 

or BLM-designated sensitive species, and are protected by applicable federal or state 

requirements and agency policies. Mitigation measures for plant communities and habitats are 

presented in Section 5.8.2.2. 

5.8.1.3 Wildlife 

 All tar sands leasing projects that would be constructed and operated have the potential to 

affect wildlife over a period of several decades. 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 habitats and ecological conditions that could be suitable to 

wildlife species. The effectiveness of any reclamation activities would depend on the specific 

actions taken; the best results, however, would occur where original site topography, hydrology, 

soils, and vegetation patterns could be reestablished. However, as discussed in Section 5.8.1.2, 

this reestablishment may not be possible in all situations. 

 The following discussion provides an overview of the potential effects on wildlife that 

could occur from the construction and operation of a tar sands project. The use of mitigation 
Final OSTS PEIS 5-71 

measures and standard operating procedures (e.g., predisturbance surveys, erosion and dust 

suppression control practices, establishment of buffer areas, reclamation of disturbed areas using 

native species, and netting of on-site ponds) would reduce impacts on wildlife species and their 

habitats. The specifics of these practices would be established through consultations with federal 

and state agencies and other stakeholders. 

 Impacts on wildlife from tar sands projects could occur in a number of ways and are 

related to (1) habitat loss, alteration, or fragmentation; (2) disturbance and displacement; 

(3) mortality; and (4) increase in human access. These can result in changes in habitat use; 

changes in behavior; collisions with structures or vehicles; changes in predator populations; and 

chronic or acute toxicity from hydrocarbons, herbicides, or other contaminants. 

 Wildlife may also be affected by human activities that are not directly associated with the 

tar sands project or its workforce but that are instead associated with the potentially increased 

access to BLM-administered lands that had previously received little use. The construction of 

new access roads or improvements to old access roads may lead to increased human access into 

the area. Potential impacts associated with increased access include (1) the disturbance of 

wildlife from human activities, including an increase in legal and illegal harvest and an increase 

of invasive vegetation, and (2) an increase in the incidence of fires. 

 Wildlife impacts from the impacting factors discussed below are summarized in 

Table 5.8.1-3. The potential magnitude of the impacts that could result from tar sands 

development is presented for representative wildlife species types. Impacts are designated as 

small, moderate, or large. A small impact is one for which most impacts on the affected resource 

could be avoided with proper mitigation; and, if impacts occur, the affected resource will recover 

completely without mitigation once the impacting stressor is eliminated. A moderate impact is 

one for which impacts on the affected resource are unavoidable. The viability of the affected 

resource is not threatened, although some impacts may be irreversible; or the affected resource 

would not recover completely if proper mitigation is applied during the life of the project or 

proper remedial action is taken once the impacting stressor is eliminated. A large impact is one 

for which impacts on the affected resource are unavoidable. The viability of the affected resource 

may be threatened; and the affected resource would not fully recover even if proper mitigation is 

applied during the life of the project or remedial action is implemented once the impacting 

stressor is eliminated. No population-level effects are expected from small and moderate 

impacts, while population-level impacts are expected from major impacts. 

5.8.1.3.1 Habitat Disturbance. The reduction, alteration, or fragmentation of habitat 

would result in a major impact on wildlife. Habitats within the construction footprint of the 

projects, utility ROWs, access roads, and other infrastructure would be destroyed or disturbed. 

The amount of habitat impacted would be a function of the degree of disturbance already present 

in the project site area. With certain exceptions, areas lacking vegetation (e.g., operational areas, 

access roads, and active portions of tar sands mining) provide minimal habitat. The construction 

activities associated with the projects would not only result in the direct reduction or alteration of 

wildlife habitat within the project footprint but could also affect the diversity and abundance of 
TABLE 5.8.1-3 Potential Impacts on Wildlife Species Resulting from Commercial Tar Sands Development Potential Magnitude of Impacts According to Species Typ

Impact Category Amphibians and Reptiles Shorebirds and Waterfowl Landbirds Raptors Small Gam

and Nongam

Mammal

Vegetation clearing Large Small Large Moderate Large Habitat fragmentation Large Small Moderate Moderate Large Blockage of movement and dispersal Large Small Small Small Moderate Alteration of topography and drainage patterns Small Small Small Small Small Water depletions Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate 

Stream impoundment and changes in flow pattern Large Large Large Large Large Erosion and sedimentation Small Small Small Small Small 

Contaminant spills Small Small Small Small Small Fugitive dust Small Small Small Small Small Injury or mortality Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Collection Small Small Small Small Small Human disturbance/harassment Small Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Increased predation rates Small Small Small Small Small 

Noise Small Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate 

Spread of invasive plant species Small Small Moderate Moderate Moderate Air pollution Small Small Small Small Small 

Fire Small Small Moderate Moderate Moderate 

a Potential impact magnitude is presented as small, moderate, or large. A small impact is one for which most impacts on the 

resource could be avoided with proper mitigation; and if impacts occur, the affected resource will recover completely with

once the impacting stressor is eliminated. A moderate impact is one for which impacts on the affected resource are unavoiviability of the affected resource is not threatened, although some impacts may be irreversible; or the affected resource wocompletely if proper mitigation is applied during the life of the project or proper remedial action is taken once the impactin

eliminated. A large impact is one for which impacts on the affected resource are unavoidable. The viability of the affected threatened; and the affected resource would not fully recover even if proper mitigation is applied during the life of the projaction is implemented once the impacting stressor is eliminated. No population-level effects are expected from small and m

impacts, while population-level impacts are expected from major impacts. 
Final OSTS PEIS 5-73 

area wildlife through habitat fragmentation. Habitat fragmentation causes both a loss of habitat 

and habitat isolation. 

 A decline in wildlife use near roads or other facilities would be considered an indirect 

habitat loss. Avoidance of habitat associated with roads has been reported to be 2.5 to 3.5 times 

as great as the actual habitat loss associated with the road’s footprint (Reed et al. 1996). Mule 

deer (Odocoileus hemionus) and elk (Cervus canadensis) may avoid areas up to 0.25 mi from a 

project area (BLM 2006c). Similarly, bird nesting may be disrupted within 0.25 mi of 

construction activities during the nesting and brooding periods (e.g., February 1 to August 25) 

(BLM 2006a). Road avoidance by wildlife could be greater in open landscapes compared with 

forested landscapes (Thomson et al. 2005). Mule deer use declined within 1.7 to 2.3 mi of gas 

well pads, suggesting that indirect habitat loss can be larger than direct habitat loss 

(Sawyer et al. 2006). Density of sagebrush obligates, particularly Brewer’s sparrow (Spizella

breweri) and sage sparrow (Amphispiza belli), was reduced by 39 to 60% within a 328-ft buffer 

around dirt roads with low traffic volumes. The declines may have been due to a combination 

of traffic, edge effects, habitat fragmentation, and increases in other passerine species along 

road corridors. Thus, declines may persist until roads are fully reclaimed (Ingelfinger and 

Anderson 2004). Those individual animals that make use of areas within or adjacent to project 

areas could be subjected to increased physiological stress. This combination of avoidance and 

stress reduces the capability of wildlife to use habitat effectively (WGFD 2010). As noise and 

human presence are reduced (e.g., as may occur following the switch from construction to 

operation), wildlife may increase their use of otherwise suitable habitats, although probably not 

at the same levels as before disturbance began (BLM 2006d). 

 Some species, such as the common raven (Corvus corax), are more abundant along roads 

because of automobile-generated carrion, whereas ravens and other raptors are more common 

along transmission lines because of the presence of perch and nest sites (Knight and 

Kawashima 1993). 

 Displaced animals would likely have lower reproductive success because nearby areas 

are typically already occupied by other individuals of the species that would be displaced 

(Riffell et al. 1996). Increasing the concentration of wildlife in an area may result in a number of 

adverse effects, including potential mortality of the displaced animals from depletion of food 

sources, increased vulnerability to predators, increased potential for the propagation of diseases 

and parasites, increased intra- and interspecies competition, and increased potential for poaching. 

 Long-term displacement of elk, mule deer, pronghorn (Antilocapra americana), or other 

species from crucial habitat because of habitat disturbance would be considered significant 

(BLM 2004a). For example, activities around parturition areas have the potential to decrease the 

usability of these areas for calving and fawning. A tar sands development project located within 

a crucial winter area could directly reduce the amount of habitat available to the local population. 

This could force the individuals to use suboptimal habitat, which could lead to debilitating stress. 

Habitat loss and an associated decrease in the raptor prey base could increase the foraging area 

necessary to support an individual and/or decrease the number of foraging raptors an area could 

support (BLM 2006d). With decreasing availability of forbs and grasses, greater sage-grouse 

(Centrocercus urophasianus) broods could move longer distances and expend more energy to 
Final OSTS PEIS 5-74 

find forage. Increased movement, in addition to decreased vegetative cover, could expose chicks 

to greater risk of predation (see BLM 2006d). Section 5.8.1.4 provides more detailed information 

about how greater sage-grouse may be impacted by tar sands development, including 

information about possible measures to mitigate impacts. 

 Potential impacts on waterfowl and shorebirds could primarily occur from impacts on 

habitat or changes in habitat. Construction could cause short-term changes in water quality from 

increases in siltation and sedimentation related to ground disturbance. Long-term impacts could 

result from habitat alterations (i.e., changing forested wetlands to scrub-shrub and emergent 

wetlands within the ROWs). This could have a slight beneficial impact on most waterfowl and 

shorebird species. 

 Water needs for construction and operation could lead to localized to regional water 

depletions depending on local conditions, process methods, and number of leases developed. 

Water depletions can be expressed in a number of ways ranging from decreases in soil moisture, 

reduced flow of springs and seeps, loss of wetlands, and drawdowns of larger rivers and streams. 

A number of direct and indirect impacts on wildlife can result from water depletions. These 

include reduction and degradation of habitat; reduction in vegetative cover, forage, and drinking 

water; attraction to human habitations for alternative food sources; increased stress, disease, 

insect infestations, and predation; alterations in migrations and concentrations of wildlife; loss of 

diversity; reduced reproductive success and declining populations; increased competition with 

livestock; and increased potential for fires (IUCNNR 1998; UDWR 2006). 

 The presence of tar sands development projects and associated facilities could disrupt 

movements of wildlife, particularly during migration. Migrating birds would be expected to 

simply fly over the project and continue their migratory movement. However, herd animals, such 

as elk, deer, and pronghorn, could potentially be affected if the corridor segments transect 

migration paths between winter and summer ranges or in calving areas. The utility corridor 

segments would be maintained as areas of low vegetation that may hinder or prevent movements 

of some wildlife species. It is foreseeable that utility corridor segments may be used for travel 

routes by big game if they lead in the direction of normal migrations. 

 Migration corridors are vulnerable, particularly at pinch points where physiographic 

constrictions force herds through relatively narrow corridors (Berger 2004). Loss of habitat 

continuity along migration routes would severely restrict the seasonal movements necessary to 

maintain healthy big game populations (Sawyer and Lindsay 2001; Thomson et al. 2005). Any 

activity or landscape modification that prevents the use of migration corridor constrictions 

(migration bottlenecks or pinch points) could effectively reduce the use of habitats either above 

or below the constriction (BLM 2004b). As summarized by Strittholt et al. (2000), roads have 

been shown to impede the movements of invertebrates, reptiles, and small and large mammals. 

For large mammals, blockages of a route between foraging or bedding areas and watering areas 

could cause the animals to abandon a larger habitat area altogether (BLM 2004b). High snow 

embankments as a result of plowing can greatly influence the mobility of wildlife such as moose 

(Alces alces) (WGFD 2010). Barriers to movement that prevent snakes from accessing wintering 

dens or that isolate amphibian breeding pools from feeding areas could affect or even eliminate a 

population (BLM 2004b). 
Final OSTS PEIS 5-75 

 Larger and/or more mobile wildlife, such as medium-sized or large mammals and birds, 

would be most likely to leave an area that experiences habitat disturbance. Development of the 

site would represent a loss of habitat for these species, resulting in a long-term reduction in 

wildlife abundance and richness within the project area. A species affected by habitat disturbance 

may be able to shift its habitat use for a short period. For example, the density of several 

forest-dwelling bird species has been found to increase within a forest stand soon after the 

onset of fragmentation as a result of displaced individuals moving into remaining habitat 

(Hagan et al. 1996). However, it is generally presumed that the habitat into which displaced 

individuals move would be unable to sustain the same level of use over the long term 

(BLM 2004b). The subsequent competition for resources in adjacent habitats would likely 

preclude the incorporation of the displaced individual into the resident populations. If it is 

assumed that areas used by wildlife before development were preferred habitat, then an observed 

shift in distribution because of development would be toward less preferred and presumably less 

suitable habitats (Sawyer et al. 2006). Overcrowding of species such as mule deer in winter 

ranges can cause density-dependent effects such as increased fawn mortality 

(Sawyer et al. 2006). 

 Rather than being displaced, smaller animals such as small mammals, reptiles, and 

amphibians may be killed during clearing and construction activities. If land clearing and 

construction activities occurred during the spring and summer, bird nests and eggs or nestlings 

could be destroyed. Fossorial species could be crushed or buried by construction equipment. 

 The creation of edge habitat along the boundary between two habitats can (1) increase 

predation and parasitism of vulnerable forest or sagebrush interior animals in the vicinity of 

edges; (2) have negative consequences for wildlife by modifying their distribution and dispersal 

patterns; or (3) be detrimental to species requiring large undisturbed areas, because increases in 

edge are generally associated with concomitant reductions in habitat size and possible isolation 

of habitat patches and corridors (habitat fragmentation). Species that could benefit from the 

proposed utility or access road ROWs include those that prefer or require some open areas, edge 

habitat, and/or shrubs and small trees. Access roads through forested areas have been found to be 

positively correlated with bat activity because these areas can provide productive foraging areas 

and/or travel corridors (Zimmerman and Glanz 2000). 

 The utility and access road ROWs may hinder or prevent movements of some small 

mammals. In particular, species preferring heavy cover in forested areas may be adversely 

affected (Oxley et al. 1974; Forman and Alexander 1998). The degree to which roads serve as 

barriers to wildlife movement depends on traffic volume and speed, roadside vegetation, 

traditional movement patterns, and environmental factors motivating animal movement 

(e.g., predator avoidance). 

 Periodic removal of woody vegetation to maintain the ROW, particularly in forested 

areas, would maintain those sections of the ROW in an early stage of plant community 

succession that could benefit small mammals that use such habitats (e.g., hares) and their 

predators (e.g., bobcat [Lynx rufus]). Temporary growth of willows and other trees following 

brush cutting could benefit moose and other ungulates that use browse. Conversely, habitat 

maintenance would have localized adverse effects on species such as the red squirrel 
Final OSTS PEIS 5-76 

(Tamiasciurus hudsonicus), southern red-backed vole (Myodes gapperi), and American marten 

(Martes americana), which prefer late-successional or forested habitats (BLM 2002). Except 

where annual vegetation maintenance may be required over the pipelines to facilitate periodic 

corrosion and leak surveys, routine vegetation maintenance within a ROW segment conducted 

once every few years would lessen impacts on migratory bird species and other wildlife species 

that may make permanent use of the ROW segments. As ROWs become more densely vegetated 

toward the end of each maintenance cycle, bird species diversity would probably increase. 

 Overall, impacts on most wildlife species would be proportional to the amount of their 

specific habitat that was directly and indirectly lost and to the duration of the loss (BLM 2006d). 

For example, impacts on mule deer would proportionately increase with the amount of crucial 

winter habitat that was disturbed. Project development within the tar sands study area could 

impact crucial winter and summer ranges for mule deer and elk; crucial lambing and rutting 

grounds and water sources for bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis); substantial-value habitat for 

pronghorn, American black bear (Ursus americanus), and cougar (Puma concolor); portions of 

several wild horse and burro herds; year-long, nesting, or strutting grounds for greater sagegrouse; and foraging habitat for raptors (BLM 1984). Impacts on neotropical migrants that do not 

breed within the project area would be minor. Nonbreeders generally use riparian areas for 

feeding, and these areas would be minimally impacted by project construction and operation. 

 5.8.1.3.2 Wildlife Disturbance. Activities associated with construction and operation 

of a tar sands project may cause wildlife disturbance, including interference with behavioral 

activities. The response of wildlife to disturbance is highly variable and species specific. 

Intraspecific responses can also be affected by the physiological or reproductive condition of 

individuals; the distance from disturbance; and the type, intensity, and duration of disturbance. 

Wildlife can respond to disturbance in various ways, including attraction, habituation, and 

avoidance (Knight and Cole 1991). All three behaviors are considered adverse. For example, 

wildlife may cease foraging, mating, or nesting, or vacate active nest sites in areas where 

construction is occurring; some species may permanently abandon the disturbed areas and 

adjacent habitats. In contrast, wildlife such as bears, foxes, and squirrels readily habituate and 

may even be attracted to human activities, primarily when a food source is accidentally or 

deliberately made available. Human food wastes and other attractants in developed areas can 

increase the population of foxes, gulls, common ravens, and bears, which in turn prey on 

waterfowl and other birds. 

Disturbance can reduce the relative habitat value for wildlife such as mule deer, 

especially during periods of heavy snow and cold temperatures. When wildlife are experiencing 

physiological stress, which requires higher levels of energy for survival and reproductive 

success, increased human presence can further increase energy expenditures that can lead to 

reduced survival or reproductive outcomes. Furthermore, disturbance could prevent access to 

sufficient amounts of forage necessary to sustain individuals (BLM 2006e). Hobbs (1989) 

determined that mule deer doe mortality during a severe winter period could double if they were 

disturbed twice a day and caused to move a minimum of 1,500 ft per disturbance. 
Final OSTS PEIS 5-77 

 The average mean flush distance for several raptor species in winter was 387 ft due to 

walk disturbance and 246 ft due to vehicle disturbance (Holmes et al. 1993). Bighorn sheep have 

been reported to respond at a distance of 1,640 ft from roads with more than one vehicle per day, 

while deer and elk response occurs at a distance of 3,280 ft or more (Gaines et al. 2003). 

Snowmobile traffic was found to affect the behavior of moose located within 984 ft of a trail, 

and displaced them to less favorable habitats (Colescott and Gillingham 1998). 

 Mule deer will habituate to and ignore motorized traffic provided that they are not 

pursued (Yarmoloy et al. 1988). Harassment, an extreme type of disturbance caused by 

intentional actions to chase or frighten wildlife, generally causes the magnitude and duration of 

displacement to be greater. As a result, there is an increased potential for physical injury from 

fleeing and higher metabolic rates because of stress (BLM 2004b). Bears can be habituated to 

human activities, particularly moving vehicles, and these animals are more vulnerable to legal 

and illegal harvest (McLellan and Shackleton 1989). 

 Disturbed wildlife can incur a physiological cost either through excitement 

(i.e., preparation for exertion) or locomotion. A fleeing or displaced animal incurs additional 

costs through loss of food intake and potential displacement to lower-quality habitat. If the 

disturbance becomes chronic or continuous, these costs can result in both reduced animal fitness 

and reproductive potential (BLM 2004b). Disturbance associated with a project would likely 

result in fewer nest initiations, increased nest abandonment and/or reproductive failure, and 

decreased productivity of successful nests (BLM 2006d). Factors that influence displacement 

distance include the following: 

• Inherent species-specific characteristics, 

• Seasonally changing threshold of sensitivity as a result of reproductive and 

nutritional status, 

• Type of habitat (e.g., longer disturbance distances in open habitats), 

• Specific experience of the individual or group, 

• Weather (e.g., adverse weather such as wind or fog may decrease the 

disturbance), 

• Time of day (e.g., animals are generally more tolerant during dawn and dusk), 

and 

• Social structure of the animals (e.g., groups are generally more tolerant than 

solitary individuals) (BLM 2004b). 

 Regular or periodic disturbance could cause adjacent areas to be less attractive to wildlife 

and result in long-term reduction of wildlife use in areas exposed to a repeated variety of 

disturbances such as noise. Principal sources of noise would include vehicle traffic, operation of 

machinery, and blasting. The response of wildlife to noise would vary by species; physiological 
Final OSTS PEIS 5-78 

or reproductive condition; distance; and type, intensity, and duration of disturbance (BLM 2002). 

Wildlife response to noise can include avoidance, habituation, or attraction. Responses of birds 

to disturbance often involve activities that are energetically costly (e.g., flying) or affect their 

behavior in a way that might reduce food intake (e.g., shift away from a preferred feeding site) 

(Hockin et al. 1992). On the basis of a literature review by Hockin et al. (1992), the effects of 

disturbance on bird breeding and breeding success include reduced nest attendance, nest failures, 

reduced nest building, increased predation on eggs and nestlings, nest abandonment, inhibition of 

laying, increased absence from the nest, reduced feeding and brooding, exposure of eggs and 

nestlings to heat or cold, retarded chick development, and lengthening of the incubation period. 

The most adverse impacts associated with noise could occur if critical life-cycle activities were 

disrupted (e.g., mating and nesting). For instance, disturbance of birds during the nesting season 

can result in nest or brood abandonment. The eggs and young of displaced birds would be more 

susceptible to cold or predators. 

5.8.1.3.3 Noise. Much of the research on wildlife-related noise effects has focused on 

birds. This research has shown that noise may affect territory selection, territorial defense, 

dispersal, foraging success, fledging success, and song learning (e.g., Reijnen and Foppen 1994; 

Foppen and Reijnen 1994; Larkin 1996). Several studies have examined the effects of continuous 

noise on bird populations, including the effects of traffic noise, coronal discharge along electric 

transmission lines, and gas compressors. Some studies (e.g., Reijnen and Foppen 1994, 1995; 

Foppen and Reijnen 1994; Reijnen et al. 1995, 1996, 1997) have shown reduced densities of a 

number of species in forest (26 of 43 species) and grassland (7 of 12 species) habitats adjacent to 

roads, with effects detectable from 66 to 11,581 ft from the roads. On the basis of these studies, 

Reijnen et al. (1996) identified a threshold effect sound level of 47 dBA for all species combined 

and 42 dBA for the most sensitive species; the observed reductions in population density were 

attributed to a reduction in habitat quality caused by elevated noise levels. This threshold sound 

level of 42 to 47 dBA (which is somewhat below the EPA-recommended limit for residential 

areas) is at or below the sound levels generated by truck traffic that would likely occur at 

distances of 250 ft or more from the construction area or access roads, or the levels generated by 

typical construction equipment at distances of 2,500 ft or more from the construction site. 

 Blast noise has been found to elicit a variety of effects on wildlife (Manci et al. 1988; 

Larkin 1996). Brattstrom and Bondello (1983) reported that peak sound pressure levels reaching 

95 dB resulted in a temporary shift in hearing sensitivity in kangaroo rats, and that they required 

at least 3 weeks for the hearing thresholds to recover. The authors postulated that such hearing 

shifts could affect the ability of the kangaroo rat to avoid approaching predators. A variety of 

adverse effects of noise on raptors have been demonstrated, but in many cases, the effects were 

temporary, and the raptors became habituated to the noise (Andersen et al. 1989; 

Brown et al. 1999; Delaney et al. 1999). 

 5.8.1.3.4 Mortality or Injury. Construction, operation, maintenance, and reclamation 

activities would result in mortality of wildlife that are not mobile enough to avoid these activities 

(e.g., reptiles and amphibians, small mammals, and the young of other wildlife), that utilize 

burrows (e.g., ground squirrels and burrowing owls [Athene cunicularia]), or that are defending 
Final OSTS PEIS 5-79 

nest sites (e.g., ground-nesting birds). More mobile species of wildlife, such as deer and adult 

birds, may avoid direct impacts by moving into habitats in adjacent areas. However, it can be 

conservatively assumed that adjacent habitats are at carrying capacity for the species that live 

there and could not support additional biota from impacted areas. The subsequent competition 

for resources in adjacent habitats would likely preclude the incorporation of the displaced 

individuals into the resident populations. 

 The presence of tar sands development projects and ancillary facilities (e.g., buildings, 

transmission lines, elevated portions of the pipelines, and other ancillary facilities) would create 

a physical hazard to some wildlife. In particular, birds may collide with transmission lines and 

buildings, while mammals may collide with fences. However, collisions with tar sands facilities 

would probably be infrequent, because human activity and project-related noise would 

discourage wildlife presence in the immediate project area. An open pipeline trench can trap 

small animals and injure larger wildlife trying to cross it, particularly at night. Artificial lighting 

can potentially affect birds by providing more feeding time (i.e., allowing nocturnal feeding) 

and by causing direct mortality or disorientation (Hockin et al. 1992). Areas of standing water 

(e.g., stormwater and liquid industrial waste ponds) could potentially provide habitat for 

mosquitoes that are vectors of West Nile virus, which is a significant stressor on sage-grouse 

and probably other at-risk bird species (Naugle et al. 2004). 

 Direct mortality from vehicle collisions would be expected to occur along new access 

roads, while increases in collisions would occur along existing roads because of increased traffic 

volumes (e.g., associated with increased numbers of construction and operational personnel). 

Collision with vehicles can be a source of wildlife mortality, especially in wildlife concentration 

areas or travel corridors. When major roads cut across migration corridors, the effects can be 

dangerous for animals and humans. Between Kemmerer and Cokeville, Wyoming, hundreds 

of mule deer are killed during spring and fall migrations when they attempt to cross 

U.S. Highway 30 (Feeney et al. 2004). In unusual cases, mass casualties of wildlife occur from 

vehicular collision incidents, particularly in winter when animals may congregate near snow-free 

roads. In Wyoming, there have been several vehicular incidents in which 7 to 21 pronghorn were 

killed or injured per incident, and there was also an incident in which 41 pronghorn were killed 

by a train (Maffly 2007). 

 Being somewhat small and inconspicuous, amphibians are vulnerable to road mortality 

when they migrate between wetland and upland habitats, while reptiles are vulnerable because 

they will make use of roads for thermal cooling and heating. Greater sage-grouse are susceptible 

to road mortality in spring because they often fly to and from leks near ground level. They are 

also susceptible to vehicular collision along dirt roads because they are sometimes attracted to 

them to take dust baths (Strittholt et al. 2000). Utility ROWs and access roads increase use by 

recreationists and other public land users, which can increase the amount of human presence and 

the potential for harassment and legal or illegal harvesting of wildlife. This activity may include 

the collection of live animals, particularly reptiles and amphibians, for pets. Direct mortality 

from snowmobiles may occur because of crushing or suffocation of small mammals occupying 

subnivean spaces and from increased access to predators over compacted vehicular trails 

(Gaines et al. 2003). 
Final OSTS PEIS 5-80 

 Most raptor (or other bird) electrocutions occur on low-voltage (<69 kV) distribution 

lines (Lehman 2001; Lehman et al. 2007). Few electrocutions occur on high-voltage transmission 

lines because the spacing between conductors, between a conductor and ground wire, or between 

a conductor and other grounding structures normally exceeds the wing span of the largest raptors 

in the study area (i.e., bald and golden eagles [Haliaeetus leucocephalus and Aquila chrysaetos]) 

(Hunting 2002); a 60-in. spacing allows for adequate wrist-to-wrist distance to prevent eagles 

from being electrocuted under dry conditions (APLIC 2006). Although a rare event, flocks of 

small birds can be electrocuted if they cross a line or take off simultaneously because of current 

arcing. Such events are most likely to occur during humid conditions (Bevanger 1998; BirdLife 

International 2003). Arcing can also occur by the excrement jet of large birds roosting on the 

crossarms above the insulators (BirdLife International 2003). Weather can increase electrocution 

risk in several ways (e.g., wind decreases raptor flight navigation and landing precision, storm 

events promote prey searching while perched on poles rather than while flying, and precipitation 

wets feathers which increases their conductivity) (Hunting 2002). Dry feathers can withstand 

voltages up to 70 kV, whereas wet feathers arc and burn at 5 kV (Harness 2000). For most raptor 

species, no scientific documentation has concluded that electrocution contributes to raptor 

population declines (Lehman et al. 2007). 

 Electromagnetic field exposure can potentially alter the behavior, physiology, endocrine 

system, and the immune function of birds, which, in theory, could result in negative 

repercussions on their reproduction or development. However, the reproductive success of some 

wild bird species, such as ospreys (Pandion haliaetus), does not appear to be compromised by 

electromagnetic field conditions (Fernie and Reynolds 2005). 

 Any species of bird capable of flight can collide with power lines. Birds that migrate 

at night, fly in flocks, and/or are large and heavy with limited maneuverability are at particular 

risk (BirdLife International 2003). The potential for bird collisions with a transmission line 

depends on variables such as habitat, relation of the line to migratory flyways and feeding 

flight patterns, migratory and resident bird species, and structural characteristics of the line 

(Beaulaurier et al. 1984). Near wetlands, waterfowl, wading birds, shorebirds, and passerines are 

most vulnerable to colliding with transmission lines; in habitats away from wetlands, raptors and 

passerines are most susceptible (Faanes 1987). The highest concern for bird collisions is where 

lines span flight paths, including river valleys, wetland areas, lakes, areas between waterfowl 

feeding and roosting areas, and narrow corridors (e.g., passes that connect two valleys). A 

disturbance that leads to a panic flight can increase the risk of collision with transmission lines 

(BirdLife International 2003). 

 The shield wire is often the cause of bird losses involving higher voltage lines because 

birds fly over the more visible conductor bundles only to collide with the relatively invisible, thin 

shield wire (Thompson 1978; Faanes 1987). Young inexperienced birds, as well as migrants in 

unfamiliar terrain, appear to be more vulnerable to wire strikes than resident breeders. In 

addition, many species appear to be most highly susceptible to collisions when alarmed, pursued, 

searching for food while flying, engaged in courtship, taking off, landing, when otherwise 

preoccupied and not paying attention to where they are going, and during night and inclement 

weather (Thompson 1978). Sage-grouse and other upland game birds are vulnerable to colliding 
Final OSTS PEIS 5-81 

with transmission lines because they lack good acuity and because they are generally poor flyers 

(Bevanger 1995). 

 Meyer and Lee (1981) concluded that, while waterfowl (in Oregon and Washington) 

were especially susceptible to colliding with transmission lines, no adverse population or 

ecological results occurred because all species affected were common and because collisions 

occurred in fewer than 1% of all flight observations. Stout and Cornwell (1976) reached a 

similar conclusion and suggested that fewer than 0.1% of all nonhunting waterfowl mortalities 

nationwide were caused by collisions with transmission lines. The potential for waterfowl and 

wading birds to collide with the transmission lines could be assumed to be related to the extent of 

preferred habitats crossed by the lines and the extent of other waterfowl and wading bird habitats 

within the immediate area. 

 Raptors have several attributes that decrease their susceptibility to collisions with 

transmission lines: (1) they have keen eyesight; (2) they soar or use relatively slow-flapping 

flight; (3) they are generally maneuverable while in flight; (4) they learn to use utility poles and 

structures as hunting perches or nests and become conditioned to the presence of lines; and 

(5) they do not fly in groups (like waterfowl), so their position and altitude are not determined by 

other birds. Therefore, raptors are not as likely to collide with transmission lines unless distracted 

(e.g., while pursuing prey) or when other environmental factors (e.g., weather) contribute to 

increased susceptibility (Olendorff and Lehman 1986). 

 Some mortality resulting from bird collisions with transmission lines is considered 

unavoidable. However, anticipated mortality levels are not expected to result in long-term loss of 

population viability in any individual species or lead to a trend toward listing as a rare or 

endangered species, because mortality levels are anticipated to be low and spread over the life of 

the transmission lines. A variety of mitigation measures, such as those outlined in Avian 

Protection Plan (APP) Guidelines (APLIC and USFWS 2005) and Utah Field Office Guidelines 

for Raptor Protection from Human and Land Use Disturbances (Romin and Muck 2002), would 

minimize impacts on birds. 

 5.8.1.3.5 Exposure to Contaminants. Wildlife may be exposed to accidental spills or 

releases of product, fuel, herbicides, or other hazardous materials. Exposure to these materials 

could affect reproduction, growth, development, or survival. Potential impacts on wildlife would 

vary according to the type of material spilled, the volume of the spill, the media within which the 

spill occurs, the species exposed to the spilled material, and the home range and density of the 

wildlife species. For example, as the size of a species’ home range increases, the effects of a spill 

would generally decrease (Irons et al. 2000). Generally, small mammal species that have small 

home ranges and/or high densities per acre would be most affected by a land-based spill. A 

population-level adverse impact would only be expected if the spill was very large or 

contaminated a crucial habitat area where a large number of individual animals were 

concentrated. The potential for either event would be unlikely. Because the amounts of most 

fuels and other hazardous materials are expected to be small, an uncontained spill would affect 

only a limited area. In addition, wildlife use of the project area where contaminant spills may 

occur would be limited, thus greatly reducing the potential for exposure. 
Final OSTS PEIS 5-82 

 The potential effects on wildlife from a spill could occur from direct contamination of 

individual animals, contamination of habitats, and contamination of food resources. Acute 

(short-term) effects generally occur from direct contamination of animals; chronic (long-term) 

effects usually occur from such factors as accumulation of contaminants from food items and 

environmental media (Irons et al. 2000). Moderate to heavy contact with a contaminant is most 

often fatal to wildlife. In aquatic habitats, death occurs from hypothermia, shock, or drowning. 

In birds, chronic oil exposure can reduce reproduction, result in pathological conditions, reduce 

chick growth, and reduce hatching success (BLM 2002). Contaminated water could reduce 

emergent vegetation and invertebrate biomass that provide a food resource for wildlife such as 

waterfowl, amphibians, and bats. The reduction or contamination of food resources from a spill 

could also reduce survival and reproductive rates. Contaminant ingestion during preening or 

feeding may impair endocrine and liver functions, reduce breeding success, and reduce growth 

of offspring (BLM 2002). 

 A land-based spill would contaminate a limited area. Therefore, a spill would affect 

relatively few individual animals and a relatively limited portion of the habitat or food resources 

for large-ranging species (e.g., moose, mule deer, pronghorn, elk, and black bear). It would be 

unlikely that a land-based spill would cause significant impacts on movement (e.g., block 

migration) or foraging activities at the population (herd) level, largely because of the vast 

amount of surrounding habitat that would remain unaffected (BLM 2002). 

 Human presence and activities associated with response to spills would also disturb 

wildlife in the vicinity of the spill site and spill-response staging areas. In addition to displacing 

wildlife from areas undergoing contaminant cleanup activities, habitat damage could also occur 

from cleanup activities (BLM 2002). Avoidance of contaminated areas by wildlife during 

cleanup because of disturbance would minimize the potential for wildlife to be exposed to 

contaminants before site cleanup is completed. 

 Most herbicides used on BLM-administered lands pose little or no risk to wildlife or wild 

horses and burros unless they are exposed to accidental spills, direct spray, herbicide drift, or by 

consuming herbicide-treated vegetation. The licensed use of herbicides would not be expected to 

adversely affect local wildlife populations. Applications of these materials would be conducted 

following label directions and in accordance with applicable permits and licenses. Thus, any 

adverse toxicological threat from herbicides to wildlife is unlikely. The response of wildlife to 

herbicide use is attributable to habitat changes resulting from treatment rather than direct toxic 

effects of the applied herbicide on wildlife. However, accidental spills or releases of these 

materials could affect exposed wildlife. Effects could include death, organ damage, growth 

decrease, and decrease in reproductive output and condition of offspring (BLM 2005). 

 Herbicide treatment reduced structural and floral complexity of vegetation on clear-cuts 

in Maine, resulting in lower overall abundance of birds and small mammals because of a 

decrease in invertebrate and plant foods and cover associated with decreased habitat complexity 

(Santillo et al. 1989a,b). However, some researchers have found increases in small mammal 

numbers because of increases in species that use grassy habitats (particularly microtine rodents). 

Nevertheless, small mammal communities rapidly returned to pretreatment numbers (e.g., within 

a 2-year period) because of regrowth of vegetation damaged by herbicides (Anthony and 
Final OSTS PEIS 5-83 

Morrison 1985). Moose tended to avoid herbicide-treated areas of clear-cuts because browse 

was less available for 2 years post-treatment. When they did feed in treated clear-cuts, they 

fed heavily in areas that were inadvertently skipped by spraying (Santillo 1994; 

Eschholtz et al. 1996). Selective herbicide use (e.g., cut-stump treatments) encourages the 

development of shrub habitat without negatively impacting birds nesting in such habitats 

(Marshall and Vandruff 2002). 

 Wildlife can be exposed to herbicides by being directly sprayed, inhaling spray mist or 

vapors, drinking contaminated water, feeding on or otherwise coming in contact with treated 

vegetation or animals that have been contaminated, and directly consuming the chemical if it is 

applied in granular form (DOE 2000). Raptors, small herbivorous mammals, medium-sized 

omnivorous mammals, and birds that feed on insects are more susceptible to herbicide exposure 

because they either feed directly on vegetation that might have been treated or feed on animals 

that feed on the vegetation. The potential for toxic effects would depend on the toxicity of the 

herbicide and the amount of exposure to the chemical. Generally, smaller animals are more at 

risk because it takes less substance for them to be affected (DOE 2000). 

 Indirect adverse effects on wildlife from herbicides would include a reduction in the 

availability of preferred forage, habitat, and breeding areas because of a decrease in plant 

diversity; a decrease in wildlife population densities as a result of limited vegetation 

regeneration; habitat and range disruption because wildlife may avoid sprayed areas following 

treatment; and an increase in predation of small mammals because of loss of ground cover 

(BLM 2005). However, population-level impacts on unlisted wildlife species are unlikely 

because of the limited size and distribution of treated areas relative to those of the wildlife 

populations and the foraging area and behavior of individual animals (BLM 2005). 

 Wildlife species that consume grass (e.g., deer, elk, rabbits and hares, quail, and geese) 

are at potentially higher risk from herbicides than species that eat other vegetation and seeds 

because herbicide residue concentrations tend to be higher on grass. However, harmful effects 

are not likely unless the animal forages exclusively within the treated area shortly after 

application. Similarly, bats, shrews, and numerous bird species that feed on herbicidecontaminated insects could be at risk (BLM 2005). 

Wildlife species may suffer from chronic or acute exposure to such as selenium, various 

metals, oil and grease, and PAHs that occur in wastewater impoundments and evaporation ponds 

(Ramirez 1997, 1999, 2000, 2008). The potential also exists for wildlife to drown if trapped in 

these water bodies. Even wildlife that escape the ponds may ingest toxic levels of contaminants 

as they try to clean themselves or may die from cold stress if contaminants such as oil damages 

insulation properties of fur or feathers (Ramirez 1999, 2000). Up to 1 million birds die annually 

in the United States in oilfield wastewater disposal facilities (USFWS 2009); while thousands of 

birds are estimated to die annually in bitumen tailings ponds in the tar sands region of Alberta, 

Canada (Timoney and Ronconi 2010). Big game would be excluded from these ponds (e.g., by 

fencing the pond and/or development site); however, contaminant exposure could occur to small 

mammals (including bats) that gain access to such water bodies. 
Final OSTS PEIS 5-84 

 5.8.1.3.6 Erosion and Runoff. As described in Section 5.8.1.1, it is assumed that the 

potential for soil erosion and the resulting sediment loading of nearby aquatic or wetland habitats 

would be proportional to the amount of surface disturbance, the condition of disturbed lands at 

any given time, and the proximity to aquatic habitats. It is also assumed that areas being actively 

disturbed during mining or construction activities would have higher erosion potential than 

areas that are undergoing reclamation activities, and that areas being restored would become 

progressively less prone to erosion over time because of completion of site grading and the 

reestablishment of vegetated cover. Erosion and runoff from freshly cleared and graded sites 

could reduce water quality in aquatic and wetland habitats that are used by amphibians, thus 

potentially affecting their reproduction, growth, and survival. Any impacts on amphibian 

populations would be localized to the surface waters receiving site runoff. Although the potential 

for runoff would be temporary, pending completion of construction activities and stabilization of 

disturbed areas with vegetative cover, erosion could result in significant impacts on local 

amphibian populations if an entire recruitment class is eliminated (e.g., complete recruitment 

failure for a given year because of siltation of eggs or mortality of aquatic larvae). 

Implementation of measures to control erosion and runoff into aquatic and wetland habitats 

would reduce the potential for impacts from increased turbidity and sedimentation. Assuming 

that reclamation activities are successful, restored areas should eventually become similar to 

natural areas in terms of erosion potential. 

 5.8.1.3.7 Fugitive Dust. Little information is available regarding the effects of fugitive 

dust on wildlife; however, if exposure is of sufficient magnitude and duration, the effects may 

be similar to the respiratory effects identified for humans (e.g., breathing and respiratory 

symptoms). A more probable effect would be from the dusting of plants that could make forage 

less palatable. Fugitive dust that settles on forage may render it unpalatable for wildlife and wild 

horses and burros, which could increase competition for remaining forage. The highest dust 

deposition would generally occur within the area where wildlife and wild horses and burros 

would be disturbed by human activities (BLM 2004b). Fugitive dust generation during 

construction activities is expected to be short term and localized to the immediate construction 

area and is not expected to result in any long-term individual or population-level effects. Dusting 

impacts would be potentially more pervasive along unpaved access roads. 

5.8.1.3.8 Invasive Vegetation. Utility corridors and access roads can facilitate the 

dispersal of invasive species by altering existing habitat conditions, stressing or removing native 

species, and allowing easier movement by wild or human vectors (Trombulak and Frissell 2000). 

Wildlife habitat could be impacted if invasive vegetation becomes established in the 

construction-disturbed areas and adjacent off-site habitats. The establishment of invasive 

vegetation could reduce habitat quality for wildlife and locally affect wildlife occurrence and 

abundance. The introduction or spread of non-native plants would be detrimental to wildlife such 

as neotropical migrants and sage-grouse by reducing or fragmenting habitat, increasing soil 

erosion, or reducing forage (BLM 2006b). 
Final OSTS PEIS 5-85 

5.8.1.3.9 Fires. Increased human activity can increase the potential for fires. In general, 

the short-term and long-term effects of fire on wildlife are related to fire impacts on vegetation, 

which, in turn affect habitat quality and quantity, including the availability of forage shelter 

(Hedlund and Rickard 1981; Groves and Steenhof 1988; Knick and Dyer 1996; Schooley 

et al. 1996; Watts and Knick 1996; Sharpe and Van Horne 1998; Lyon et al. 2000b; 

USDA 2008a; Howard 1995, 1996b). 

 While individuals caught in a fire could incur increased mortality, depending on 

how quickly the fire spreads, most wildlife would be expected to escape by either outrunning 

the fire or seeking underground or aboveground refuge within the fire (Ford et al. 1999; 

Lyon et al. 2000a). However, some mortality of burrowing mammals from asphyxiation in their 

burrows during fire has been reported (Erwin and Stasiak 1979). 

 In the absence of long-term vegetation changes, rodents in grasslands usually show a 

decrease in density after a fire; they often recover, however, to achieve densities similar to or 

greater than preburn levels (Beck and Vogel 1972; Lyon et al. 2000b; USDA 2008b). Long-term 

changes in vegetation from a fire (such as loss of sagebrush or the invasion or increase of 

non-native annual grasses) may affect food availability and quality and habitat availability for 

wildlife; the changes could also increase the risk from predation for some species 

(Hedlund and Rickard 1981; Groves and Steenhof 1988; Schooley et al. 1996; 

Watts and Knick 1996; Knick and Dyer 1997; Lyon et al. 2000b; Howard 1995, 1996b). 

 In the short term, fires may benefit raptors by reducing cover and exposing prey; 

raptors may also benefit if prey species increase in response to post-fire increases in 

forage (Lyon et al. 2000b; USDA 2008b). Direct mortality of raptors from fire is rare 

(Lehman and Allendorf 1989), although fire-related mortality of burrowing owls has been 

documented (USDA 2008b). Most adult birds can be expected to escape fire, while fire during 

nesting (prior to fledging) may kill young birds, especially of ground-nesting species 

(USDA 2008b). Fires in wooded areas, such as pinyon-juniper woodlands, could decrease 

populations of raptors and other birds that nest in those habitats. Potential loss of nesting, 

perching, and roosting trees (or low woody or herbaceous vegetation nesting habitat for species 

such as the northern harrier), but enhancement of prey base from fires is generally noted for 

raptor species that occur in the study area (Snyder 1993; Sullivan 1994; Tesky 1994a–e). For 

raptor species such as the prairie falcon that nest on cliffs, a fire (associated with project 

construction of operation) would not be expected to destroy their nesting habitat (Tesky 1994f). 

A fire could cause a loss of preferred nesting and foraging habitat for the great horned owl if 

forested areas burn (Sullivan 1995). Nesting habitat for the short-eared owl (open areas with 

dense, tall herbaceous plants) could be impacted by a fire (Howard 1994). Burrowing owls 

would mostly be unharmed by a fire if in their underground burrows, although asphyxiation 

might occur (Howard 1996a). Mitigation measures for wildlife are presented in Section 5.8.2.3. 

5.8.1.4 Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Species 

 The evaluation in this PEIS presents the potential for tar sands development impacts on 

federally and state-listed threatened and endangered species, BLM-designated sensitive species, 
Final OSTS PEIS 5-86 

or species that are proposed or candidates for listing. The discussion of impacts in this section 

presents the types of impacts that could occur if mitigation measures are not developed to protect 

listed and sensitive species. Project-specific NEPA assessments, ESA consultations, and 

coordination with state natural resource agencies would be conducted prior to leasing or 

development and would address project-specific impacts more thoroughly. These assessments 

and consultations would result in required actions to avoid or mitigate impacts on protected 

species. 

 The potential for impacts on threatened, endangered, and sensitive species by commercial 

tar sands development, including construction of ancillary facilities such as access roads and 

transmission systems, is directly related to the amount of land disturbance, the duration and 

timing of construction and operation periods, and the habitats affected by development. Indirect 

effects such as those resulting from the erosion of disturbed land surfaces and disturbance and 

harassment of animal species are also considered, but their magnitude is considered proportional 

to the amount of land disturbance. 

 Impacts on threatened, endangered, and sensitive species are similar to those 

described for impacts on aquatic resources, plant communities and habitats, and wildlife in 

Sections 5.8.1.1, 5.8.1.2, and 5.8.1.3, respectively, but the potential consequences may be 

greater. Because of their small population sizes, threatened, endangered, and sensitive species 

are far more vulnerable to impacts than more common and widespread species. Small 

population size makes these species more vulnerable than common species to the effects of 

habitat fragmentation, habitat alteration, habitat degradation, human disturbance and harassment, 

mortality of individuals, and the loss of genetic diversity. Specific impacts associated with 

development would depend on the locations of projects relative to species populations and the 

specific characteristics of project development. 

 The potential magnitude of the impacts that could result from tar sands development is 

presented for different species types in Table 5.8.1-4. Unlike some projects where there are 

discrete construction and operation phases with different associated impacts, tar sands 

development projects include facility construction and extraction activities that would have 

similar types of impacts throughout the life of the project. Project construction and extraction 

activities would occur over a period of several decades. Land reclamation activities that would 

occur after extraction activities are complete would serve to reduce or eliminate ongoing impacts 

by restoring habitats and ecological conditions that could be suitable for threatened, endangered, 

and sensitive species. The effectiveness of any reclamation activities would depend on the 

specific actions taken, but the best results would occur if site topography, hydrology, soils, and 

vegetation patterns were reestablished. 

 Post-lease land clearing and construction activities could remove potentially suitable 

habitat for threatened, endangered, and sensitive plant and animal species. Any plants present 

within the project areas would be destroyed, and plants adjacent to project areas could be 

affected by runoff from the site either through erosion or sedimentation and burial of individual 

plants or habitats. In addition, fugitive dust from site activities could accumulate in adjacent 

areas occupied by listed plants. Dust that accumulates on leaf surfaces can reduce photosynthesis 
TABLE 5.8.1-4 Potential Impacts of Commercial Tar Sands Development on Threatened, Endangered, anSpecies Potential Magnitude of Impacts According to Species Typ

Impact Category Upland Plants Wetland and Riparian Plants Aquatic and Wetland Animalsb Terrestrial Amphibians and Reptiles Terrestria

Birds 

Vegetation clearing Large Large Large Large Large Habitat fragmentation Moderate Moderate Moderate Large Large Blockage of movement and dispersal Moderate Moderate Large Moderate Small Water depletions Small Large Large Small Moderate Stream impoundment and changes in flow pattern Large Large Large Large Large Alteration of topography and drainage patterns Moderate Large Large Small Small Erosion Large Large Large Small Small 

Sedimentation from runoff Large Large Large Small Small 

Oil and contaminant spills Moderate Large Large Large Small Fugitive dust Moderate Moderate Small Small Small Injury or mortality of individuals Large Large Large Large Large Human collection Large Large Small Moderate Small Human disturbance/harassment None None Large Moderate Large 

Increased human access Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Large Increased predation rates None None Moderate Moderate Moderate Noise None None None Small Large 

Spread of invasive plant species Large Large Moderate Moderate Moderate Air pollution Moderate Moderate Small Small Small Disruption of groundwater flow patterns Small Moderate Moderate Small Small Temperature increases in water bodies None Moderate Moderate None None a Potential impact magnitude (without mitigation) that might be expected from individual development projects is presen

small, moderate, or large. A small impact is one that is limited to the immediate project area, affects a relatively small p

of the local population (less than 10%), and does not result in a measurable change in carrying capacity or population siaffected area. A moderate impact could extend beyond the immediate project area, affect an intermediate proportion of 

population (10 to 30%), and result in a measurable but moderate (not destabilizing) change in carrying capacity or poputhe affected area. A large impact would extend beyond the immediate project area, could affect more than 30% of a locaand result in a large, measurable, and destabilizing change in carrying capacity or population size in the affected area. 

b Aquatic and wetland animals include invertebrates (mollusks and arthropods), fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mam
Final OSTS PEIS 5-88 

and subsequently affect plant vigor. Disturbed areas could be colonized by non-native invasive 

plant species. 

 Larger, more mobile animals such as birds and medium-sized or large mammals would 

be most likely to leave the project area during site preparation, construction, and other project 

activities. Development of the site would represent a loss of habitat for these species and 

potentially a reduction in carrying capacity in the area. Smaller animals, such as small mammals, 

lizards, snakes, and amphibians, are more likely to be killed during clearing and construction 

activities. If land clearing and construction activities occurred during the spring and summer, 

bird nests and nestlings in the project area could be destroyed. 

 Operations could affect protected plants and animals as well. Animals in and adjacent to 

project areas would be disturbed by human activities and would tend to avoid the area while 

activities were occurring. Site lighting and operational noise from equipment would affect 

animals on and off the site, resulting in avoidance or reduction in use of an area larger than the 

project footprint. Runoff from the site during site operations could result in erosion and 

sedimentation of adjacent habitats. Fugitive dust during operations could affect adjacent plant 

populations. 

 For all potential impacts, the use of mitigation measures, possibly including 

predisturbance surveys to locate protected plant and animal populations in the area, erosioncontrol practices, dust suppression techniques, establishment of buffer areas around protected 

populations, and reclamation of disturbed areas using native species upon project completion, 

would greatly reduce or eliminate the potential for effects on protected species. The specifics of 

these practices should be established in project-specific consultations with the appropriate 

federal and state agencies. ESA Section 7 consultations between the BLM and the USFWS 

would be required for all projects prior to leasing and before leased areas could be developed, if 

ESA-listed species were present and would be affected by the lease. 

 Those consultations would identify conservation measures, allowable levels of incidental 

take, and other requirements to protect listed species. Conservation measures for oil shale and tar 

sands development have been recommended by the USFWS to avoid and minimize impacts of 

commercial oil shale and tar sands development on federally listed threatened and endangered 

species (Appendix F). 

 Tables 5.8.1-5 and 5.8.1-6 identify the federally and state-listed threatened, endangered, 

and sensitive species that could be affected by commercial tar sands development. The two 

tables consider separately the impacts on state-listed threatened and endangered species and 

species of special concern, federal candidates for listing, and BLM-designated sensitive species 

(Table 5.8.1-5), and on federally listed threatened, endangered, and proposed species 

(Table 5.8.1-6). In both tables, a determination is made regarding the “potential for negative 

impact.” Potential for impact was determined on the basis of conservative estimates of species 

distributions. It is possible that impacts on some species would not occur because suitable habitat 

may not be present in project areas or impacts on those habitats could be avoided. 
TABLE 5.8.1-5 Potential Effects of Commercial Tar Sands Development on BLM-Designated Sensitive Species, Fe

Listing, State-Listed Species, and State Species of Concern Scientific Name Common Name Statusa Counties within Study Areas in Which Species May Occur Potentia

Plants Amsonia jonesii Jones blue star BLM-S UT-Duchesne, Emery, Garfield, Grand, San Juan, Uintah, Wayne Potential for negative im

occur in the study area. Aquilegia scopulorum var. goodrichii Utah columbine BLM-S UT-Carbon, Duchesne, Emery, Grand, Uintah Potential for negative im

occur in the study area. Arabis vivariensis Park rockcress BLM-S UT-Uintah Potential for negative im

occur in the study area. Astragalus detritalis Debris milkvetch BLM-S UT-Duchesne, Uintah Potential for negative im

occur in the study area. Astragalus duchesnensis Duchesne milkvetch BLM-S UT-Duchesne, Uintah Potential for negative imoccur in the study area. 

Astragalus equisolensis Horseshoe milkvetch BLM-S UT-Uintah Potential for negative im

occur in the study area. 

Astragalus hamiltonii Hamilton’s milkvetch BLM-S UT-Uintah Potential for negative im

upland habitats of Utah s

Astragalus musiniensis Ferron milkvetch BLM-S UT-Emery, Garfield, Grand, Wayne Potential for negative im

occur in the study area. 

Astragalus naturitensis Naturita milkvetch BLM-S UT-San Juan Potential for negative im

occur in the study area. 

Astragalus piscator Fisher Towers milkvetch BLM-S UT-Garfield, Grand, San Juan, 

Wayne 

Potential for negative imoccur in the study area. 

Astragalus rafaelensis San Rafael milkvetch BLM-S UT-Emery, Grand Potential for negative im

occur in the study area. 
TABLE 5.8.1-5 (Cont.) Scientific Name Common Name Statusa Counties within Study Areas in Which Species May Occur Potentia

Plants (Cont.) Cirsium ownbeyi Ownbey’s thistle BLM-S; WY-SC UT-Uintah Potential for negative im

occur in the study area. Cleomella palmeriana var. goodrichii Goodrich cleomella BLM-S UT-Uintah Potential for negative im

occur in the study area. Cryptantha barnebyi Barneby’s cat’s-eye BLM-S UT-Uintah Potential for negative imoccur in the study area. Cryptantha caespitosa Caespitose cat’s-eye BLM-S UT-Carbon, Duchesne, Uintah Potential for negative im

occur in the study area. Cryptantha grahamii Graham’s cat’s-eye BLM-S UT-Uintah Potential for negative im

occur in the study area. 

Cryptantha osterhoutii Osterhout cat’s eye BLM-S UT-Emery, Garfield, Grand, San 

Juan, Wayne 

Potential for negative imoccur in the study area. 

Cryptantha rollinsii Rollins’ cat’s eye BLM-S; WY-SC UT-Duchesne, San Raphael, Uintah, 

Wayne 

Potential for negative imoccur in the study area. 

Cymopterus duchesnensis 

Uinta Basin spring-parsley BLM-S UT-Duchesne, Uintah Potential for negative im

occur in the study area. 

Eriogonum contortum Grand buckwheat BLM-S UT-Grand Potential for negative im

occur in the study area. 

Eriogonum ephedroides Ephedra buckwheat BLM-S UT-Uintah Potential for negative im

occur in the study area. 

Frasera ackermanae Ackerman frasera BLM-S UT-Uintah Potential for negative im

occur in the study area. 
TABLE 5.8.1-5 (Cont.) Scientific Name Common Name Statusa Counties within Study Areas in Which Species May Occur Potentia

Plants (Cont.) Gentianella tortuosa Utah gentian BLM-S UT-Duchesne, Emery, Garfield, Uintah Potential for negative im

occur in the study area. Gilia stenothyrsa Narrow-stem gilia BLM-S UT-Carbon, Duchesne, Emery, Uintah Potential for negative imoccur in the study area. Habenaria zothecina Alcove bog-orchid BLM-S UT-Emery, Garfield, San Juan, Uintah Potential for negative imoccur in the study area. Hymenoxys lapidicola Rock hymenoxyz BLM-S UT-Uintah Potential for negative im

occur in the study area. Lepidium huberi Huber’s pepperplant BLM-S UT-Uintah Potential for negative im

occur in the study area. 

Listera borealis Northern twayblade BLM-S UT Duchesne, San Juan No impact. Suitable habi

the study area. 

Lygodesmia doloresensis 

Dolores River skeletonplant BLM-S UT-Grand Potential for negative im

occur in the study area. 

Mentzelia goodrichii Goodrich’s blazingstar BLM-S UT-Duchesne, Uintah Potential for negative im

occur in the study area. 

Mimulus eastwoodiae Eastwood monkey-flower BLM-S UT-Garfield, Grand, San Juan Potential for negative im

occur in the study area. 

Minuartia nuttallii Nuttall sandwort BLM-S UT-Duchesne Potential for negative im

occur in the study area. 

Parthenium ligulatum Ligulate feverfew BLM-S UT-Wayne Potential for negative im

occur in the study area. 
TABLE 5.8.1-5 (Cont.) Scientific Name Common Name Statusa Counties within Study Areas in Which Species May Occur Potentia

Plants (Cont.) Pediomelum aromaticum Paradox breadroot BLM-S UT-Grand, San Juan Potential for negative im

occur in the study area. Penstemon scariosus var. albifluvis White River beardtongue ESA-C UT-Uintah Potential for negative imoccur in the study area. Perityle specuicola Alcove rock-daisy BLM-S UT-Grand, San Juan Potential for negative imoccur in the study area. Phacelia argylensis Argyle Canyon phacelia BLM-S UT-Uintah Potential for negative imoccur in the study area. Thelesperma pubescens Uinta greenthread BLM-S; WY-SC UT-Duchesne Potential for negative imoccur in the study area. Townsendia strigosa Strigose Easter-daisy BLM-S UT-Duchesne, Uintah Potential for negative imoccur in the study area.

Yucca sterilis Spanish bayonet BLM-S UT-Uintah Potential for negative im

occur in the study area.

Invertebrates 

Speyeria nokomis nokomis 

Great Basin silverspot butterfly 

BLM-S UT-Duchesne, Uintah Potential for negative im

occur in the study area. 

Fish 

Catostomus discobolus Bluehead sucker BLM-S; WY-SC UT-Carbon, Duchesne, Emery, 

Garfield, Grand, San Juan, Uintah 

Potential for negative imoccur in the study area. 

Catostomus latipinnis Flannelmouth sucker BLM-S; WY-SC UT-Carbon, Duchesne, Emery, 

Garfield, Grand, San Juan, Uintah, Wayne

Potential for negative imoccur in the study area. 

Catostomus platyrhynchus 

Mountain sucker BLM-S; CO-SC CO-Garfield Rio Blanco; UT-Carbon, 

Duchesne, Emery, Grand, Uintah; WY-Sweetwater, Uinta 

Potential for negative imoccur in the study area. 
TABLE 5.8.1-5 (Cont.) Scientific Name Common Name Statusa Counties within Study Areas in Which Species May Occur Potentia

Fish (Cont.) Gila robusta Roundtail chub BLM-S; CO-SC; WY-SC UT-Carbon, Duchesne, Emery, Garfield, Grand, San Juan, Uintah, Wayne Potential for negative im

occur in or near the study 

Oncorhynchus clarkii pleuriticus Colorado River cutthroat trout BLM-S; CO-SC; WY-SC UT-Duchesne, Garfield, Uintah, Wayne Potential for negative im

occur in or near the study 

Amphibians Bufo boreas Boreal toad BLM-S; CO-E; UT-SC; WY-SC UT-Carbon, Duchesne, Emery, Garfield, Uintah, Wayne Potential for negative im

occur in the study area. Hyla arenicolor Canyon treefrog BLM-S UT-Garfield, Grand, Wayne, San Juan Potential for negative im

occur in the study area. Rana luteiventris Columbia spotted frog BLM-S; WY-SC UT-Utah, Wasatch No impact. Suitable habi

occur in the study area. 

Rana pipiens Northern leopard frog BLM-S; CO-SC; 

WY-SC 

UT-Carbon, Duchesne, Emery, Garfield, Grand, San Juan, Uintah, Wayne 

Potential for negative imoccur in the study area. 

Spea intermontana Great basin spadefoot BLM-S; WY-SC UT-Carbon, Duchesne, Emery, 

Garfield, Grand, San Juan, Uintah, Wayne 

Potential for negative imoccur in the study area. 

Reptiles 

Elaphe guttata Corn snake BLM-S; UT-SC UT-Grand, San Juan Potential for negative im

occur in the study area. 

Liochlorophis vernalis Smooth greensnake BLM-S; UT-SC UT-Carbon, Duchesne, Grand, 

San Juan, Uintah 

Potential for negative imoccur in the study area. 

Xantusia vigilis Desert night lizard BLM-S; UT-SC UT-Garfield, San Juan Potential for negative im

occur in the study area. 
TABLE 5.8.1-5 (Cont.) Scientific Name Common Name Statusa Counties within Study Areas in Which Species May Occur Potentia

Birds Accipiter gentilis Northern goshawk BLM-S; WY-SC UT-Carbon, Duchesne, Emery, Garfield, Grand, San Juan, Uintah, Wayne Potential for negative im

occur in the study area. Ammodramus savannarum Grasshopper sparrow UT-SC UT-Duchesne, Uintah, Utah, Wasatch No impact. Suitable habioccur in the study area. Asio flammeus Short-eared owl BLM-S; UT-SC UT-Carbon, Duchesne, Emery, Grand, Garfield, San Juan, Uintah, Wayne Potential for negative im

occur in the study area. Athene cunicularia Burrowing owl BLM-S; CO-T; UT-SC; WY-SC UT-Carbon, Duchesne, Emery, Garfield, Grand, San Juan, Uintah, Wayne Potential for negative im

occur in the study area. 

Buteo regalis Ferruginous hawk BLM-S; CO-SC; 

UT-SC; WY-SC 

UT-Carbon, Duchesne, Emery, Garfield, Grand, San Juan, Uintah, Wayne 

Potential for negative imoccur in the study area. 

Centrocercus minimus Gunnison sage-grouse ESA-C; UT-SC UT-Grand, San Juan Potential for negative im

occur in the study area. 

Centrocercus urophasianus 

Greater sage-grouse ESA-C; BLM-S; 

CO-SC; UT-SC; WY-SC 

UT-Carbon, Duchesne, Emery, Garfield, Grand, San Juan, Uintah, Wayne 

Potential for negative imoccur in the study area. 

Charadrius montanus Mountain plover BLM-S; CO-SC; 

UT-SC; WY-SC 

UT-Duchesne, Uintah Potential for negative im

occur in the study area. 

Coccyzus americanus occidentalis 

Western yellow-billed cuckoo 

ESA-C; BLM-S; WY-SC 

UT-Duchesne, Garfield, Grand, San Juan, Uintah, Wayne 

Potential for negative imoccur in the study area. 

Cypseloides niger Black swift BLM-S; CO-SC; 

UT-SC 

UT-Duchesne, Uintah Potential for negative im

occur in the study area. 
TABLE 5.8.1-5 (Cont.) Scientific Name Common Name Statusa Counties within Study Areas in Which Species May Occur Potentia

Birds (Cont.) Dolichonyx oryzivorus Bobolink BLM-S; UT-SC UT-Carbon, Duchesne, Emery, Garfield, Grand, San Juan, Uintah, Wayne Potential for negative im

occur in the study area. Haliaeetus leucocephalus Bald eagle BLM-S; CO-T; WY-SC UT-Carbon, Duchesne, Emery, Garfield, Grand, San Juan, Uintah, Wayne Potential for negative imoccur in the study area. Melanerpes lewis Lewis’s woodpecker BLM-S; UT-SC; WY-SC UT-Carbon, Duchesne, Emery, Garfield, Grand, San Juan, Uintah, Wayne Potential for negative im

occur in the study area. Numenius americanus Long-billed curlew BLM-S; CO-SC; UT-SC; WY-SC UT-Carbon, Duchesne, Emery, Garfield, Grand, San Juan, Uintah, Wayne Potential for negative im

occur in the study area. 

Pelecanus erythrorhynchos 

American white pelican BLM-S; UT-SC UT-Carbon, Duchesne, Emery, 

Garfield, Grand, San Juan, Uintah, Wayne 

Potential for negative imoccur in the study area. 

Picoides tridactylus Three-toed woodpecker BLM-S; UT-SC UT-Carbon, Duchesne, Emery, 

Garfield, Grand, San Juan, Uintah, Wayne 

Potential for negative imoccur in the study area. 

Mammals

Brachylagus idahoensis Pygmy rabbit BLM-S; UT-SC; 

WY-SC 

UT-Garfield, Wayne No impact. Suitable habi

occur in the study area. 

Corynorhinus townsendii pallescens 

Townsend’s big-eared bat BLM-S; CO-SC; 

UT-SC; WY-SC 

UT-Carbon, Duchesne, Emery, Garfield, Grand, San Juan, Uintah, Wayne 

Potential for negative imoccur in the study area. 

Cynomys gunnisoni Gunnison’s prairie dog ESA-C; BLM-S; 

UT-SC 

UT-Grand, San Juan No impact. Suitable habi

occur in the study area. 
TABLE 5.8.1-5 (Cont.) Scientific Name Common Name Statusa Counties within Study Areas in Which Species May Occur Potentia

Mammals (Cont.) Cynomys leucurus White-tailed prairie dog BLM-S; UT-SC; WY-SC UT-Carbon, Duchesne, Emery, Grand, Uintah Potential for negative im

occur in the study area. Euderma maculatum Spotted bat BLM-S; UT-SC; WY-SC UT-Duchesne, Garfield, Grand, San Juan, Uintah, Wayne Potential for negative imoccur in the study area. Idionycteris phyllotis Allen’s big-eared bat BLM-S; UT-SC UT-Garfield, Grand, San Juan, Wayne Potential for negative im

occur in the study area. Lasiurus blossevillii Western red bat BLM-S; UT-SC UT-Carbon, Emery, Grand, Garfield, San Juan, Wayne Potential for negative imoccur in the study area. Myotis thysanodes Fringed myotis BLM-S; UT-SC; WY-SC UT-Duchesne, Garfield, Grand, San Juan, Uintah, Wayne Potential for negative im

occur in the study area. 

Nyctinomops macrotis Big free-tailed bat BLM-S; UT-SC UT-Carbon, Duchesne, Emery, 

Garfield, Grand, San Juan, Uintah, Wayne 

Potential for negative imoccur in the study area. 

Vulpes macrotis Kit fox BLM-S; CO-E; 

UT-SC 

UT-Carbon, Duchesne, Emery, Garfield, Grand, San Juan, Uintah, Wayne 

Potential for negative imoccur in the study area. 

a Status categories: BLM-S = listed by the BLM as sensitive; CO-E = listed as endangered by the state of Colorado; CO-SC = species of special co

Colorado; CO-T = listed as threatened by the state of Colorado; ESA-C = candidate for listing under the ESA; UT-SC = species of special conce

WY-SC = species of special concern in the state of Wyoming. 

b Potential impacts based on general habitat preference and presence of habitat in the study area. Specific habitat preferences are presented in App
TABLE 5.8.1-6 Potential Effects of Commercial Tar Sands Development on Federally Listed Threatened, EndangeSpecies Scientific Name Common Name Statusa Counties within Study Areas in Which Species May Occur Potentia

Plants Carex specuicola Navajo sedge ESA-T UT-San Juan No impact. Suitable habi

study area. Known distribpotential lease areas. Cycladenia humilis var. jonesii Jones cycladenia ESA-T UT-Emery, Garfield, Grand, Uintah Potential for negative im

occur in the study area. Erigeron maguirei Maguire daisy ESA-T UT-Emery, Garfield, Wayne Potential for negative imoccur in the study area. Lepidium barnebyanum Barneby ridge-cress ESA-E UT-Duchesne No impact. Suitable habi

study area. Known distribpotential lease areas. 

Pediocactus despainii San Rafael cactus ESA-E UT-Emery, Wayne Potential for negative im

occur in the study area. 

Pediocactus winkleri Winkler cactus ESA-T UT-Emery, Wayne Potential for negative im

occur in the study area. 

Penstemon grahamii Graham’s beardtongue ESA-PT; BLM-S UT-Duchesne, Uintah Potential for negative im

occur in the study area. 

Phacelia argillacea Clay phacelia ESA-E UT-Utah, Wasatch Potential for negative im

occur in the study area. 

Schoenocrambe argillacea 

Clay reed-mustard ESA-T UT-Uintah Potential for negative im

occur in the study area. 

Schoenocrambe barnebyi 

Barneby reed-mustard ESA-E UT-Emery, Wayne Potential for negative im

occur in the study area. 

Schoenocrambe suffrutescens 

Shrubby reed-mustard ESA-E UT-Duchesne, Uintah Potential for negative im

occur in the study area. 
TABLE 5.8.1-6 (Cont.) Scientific Name Common Name Statusa Counties within Study Areas in Which Species May Occur Potentia

Plants (Cont.) Sclerocactus brevispinus Pariette cactus ESA-T UT-Duchesne, Uintah Potential for negative im

occur in the study area. Sclerocactus wrightiae Wright fishhook cactus ESA-E UT-Emery, Wayne Potential for negative im

occur in the study area. Sclerocactus wetlandicus Uinta Basin hookless cactus ESA-T UT-Carbon, Duchesne, Uintah Potential for negative im

occur in the study area. Spiranthes diluvialis Ute ladies’-tresses ESA-T UT-Duchesne, Garfield, Uintah, Wayne Potential for negative im

occur in the study area. Townsendia aprica Last chance townsendia ESA-T UT-Emery, Wayne Potential for negative im

occur in the study area. 

Fish 

Gila cypha Humpback chub ESA-E; CO-T UT-Carbon, Emery, Garfield, Grand, 

San Juan, Uintah, Wayne 

Potential for negative imoccur in or near the study habitat occurs downstreathe study area. 

Gila elegans Bonytail ESA-E UT-Carbon, Duchesne, Emery, 

Garfield, Grand, San Juan, Uintah, Wayne 

Potential for negative imoccur in or near the study habitat occurs downstreathe study area. 

Ptychocheilus lucius Colorado pikeminnow ESA-E; CO-T UT-Carbon, Duchesne, Emery, 

Garfield, Grand, San Juan, Uintah, Wayne 

Potential for negative imoccur in or near the study habitat occurs downstreathe study area. 
TABLE 5.8.1-6 (Cont.) Scientific Name Common Name Statusa Counties within Study Areas in Which Species May Occur Potentia

Fish (Cont.) Xyrauchen texanus Razorback sucker ESA-E; CO-E UT-Carbon, Emery Garfield, Grand, San Juan, Uintah, Wayne Potential for negative im

occur in or near the study habitat occurs downstreathe study area. Birds Empidonax traillii extimus Southwestern willow flycatcher ESA-E UT-Carbon, Emery, Garfield, Grand, San Juan, Uintah, Wayne Potential for negative imoccur in the study area. Gymnogyps californianus California condor ESA-E UT-Grand Potential for negative im

occur in the study area. Strix occidentalis lucida Mexican spotted owl ESA-T UT-Emery, Garfield, Grand, San Juan, Uintah, Wayne Potential for negative im

occur in the study area. Dmay occur in the study ar

Mammals 

Cynomys parvidens Utah prairie dog ESA-T UT-Garfield, Wayne No impact. Suitable habi

study area. Known distribpotential lease areas. 

Lynx canadensis Canada lynx ESA-T; CO-E; 

WY-SC 

UT-Emery, Uintah No impact. Suitable habi

occur in the study area. 

Mustela nigripes Black-footed ferret ESA-XN; CO-E UT-Carbon, Duchesne, Emery, 

Grand, San Juan, Uintah 

Potential for negative imoccur in the study area. 

a Status categories: BLM-S = listed by the BLM as sensitive; CO-E = listed as endangered by the state of Colorado; CO-T = listed as threatened b

ESA-E = listed as endangered under the ESA; ESA-PT = proposed for listing as a threatened species under the ESA; ESA-T = listed as threatene

ESA-XN = experimental, nonessential population; WY-SC = species of special concern in the state of Wyoming. 

b Potential impacts based on general habitat preference and presence of habitat in the study area. Specific habitat preferences are presented in App
Final OSTS PEIS 5-100 

 Federally listed species in study area counties that are not expected to be affected by 

development include the autumn buttercup, Barneby ridge-cress, Navajo sedge, and Utah prairie 

dog (Table 5.8.1-6). These species are not likely to be affected because known population 

distributions are clearly outside of the potential lease areas. 

 Listed plant species (including species that are being proposed for listing) that could 

occur in project areas and that could be affected by project activities include the Barneby reedmustard, clay reed-mustard, Jones cycladenia, last chance townsendia, Maguire daisy, San Rafael 

cactus, shrubby reed-mustard, Uinta Basin hookless cactus, Ute ladies’-tresses, Winkler cactus, 

and Wright fishhook cactus. In addition to these listed plant species, the Graham’s 

beardtongue—a species proposed for listing under the ESA—could be affected by project 

activities. All but the Ute ladies’-tresses are upland species that could be affected by a variety of 

impacting factors, including vegetation clearing, habitat fragmentation, dispersal blockage, 

alteration of topography, changes in drainage patterns, erosion, sedimentation from runoff, oil 

and contaminant spills, fugitive dust, injury or mortality of individual plants, human collection, 

increased human access, spread of invasive plant species, and air pollution (Table 5.8.1-4). 

 The Ute ladies’-tresses could occur in wetland habitats and along the Green River or 

White River. This species is dependent on a high water table and, in addition to the factors 

affecting upland plants, could be adversely affected by any water depletions from the Green 

River or White River basins associated with tar sands development. 

 Tar sands development in any of the STSAs could affect federally listed endangered 

Colorado River fishes (bonytail, Colorado pikeminnow, humpback chub, and razorback sucker) 

either directly, if projects are adjacent to occupied habitats, or indirectly, if project activities are 

located within occupied watersheds (e.g., Green River and White River). Direct and indirect 

effects could result from vegetation clearing, alteration of topography and drainage patterns, 

erosion, sedimentation from runoff, oil and contaminant spills, water depletions, stream 

impoundment and changes in streamflow, and disruption of groundwater flow patterns. Any 

activities within watersheds that affect water quality (e.g., land disturbance or water volume 

changes that affect sediment load, contaminant concentrations, TDS concentrations, and 

temperature of streams) or quantity (e.g., stream impoundments or withdrawals that affect base 

flow, peak flow magnitude, and seasonal flow pattern) could have effects in occupied areas far 

downstream. 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 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. 

 On the basis of proximity of populations and critical habitat to potential lease areas, the 

greatest potential for direct impacts on endangered fishes is related to development in Utah, 

where the Green River and White River flow through tar sands areas. If these areas are available 

for leasing, there is a relatively high probability that these species would be directly or indirectly 

affected by tar sands development. 
Final OSTS PEIS 5-101 

 Federally listed bird species that could be affected by commercial tar sands development 

include the California condor, Mexican spotted owl, and southwestern willow flycatcher. The 

California condor occurs in mountainous areas at low to moderate elevations, especially rocky 

and brushy areas near cliffs, while the Mexican spotted owl could occur year-round in steep 

forested canyons in Utah. The two species could be affected if these types of habitats are 

disturbed during tar sands development. Impacts on individual condors and owls could result 

from injury or mortality (e.g., collisions with transmission lines), human disturbance or 

harassment, increased human access to occupied areas, increases in predation rates, and noise 

from facilities. 

 The southwestern willow flycatcher is most commonly found in riparian areas, especially 

along large rivers (e.g., Green River). These riparian habitats could be affected directly by 

surface disturbance or indirectly by activities in their watersheds that resulted in alteration of 

topography, changes in drainage patterns, erosion, sedimentation from runoff, and oil and 

contaminant spills. In addition, impacts on riparian habitats that support these species could 

result if the habitats were crossed by project transmission lines or roads. Impacts on individual 

birds could result from injury or mortality (e.g., collisions with transmission lines), human 

disturbance or harassment, increased human access to occupied areas, increases in predation 

rates, and noise from facilities. 

 In addition to the listed bird species mentioned above, the federal candidate greater sagegrouse is a bird species that has the potential to be affected by commercial tar sands 

development. With loss of sagebrush and grassland habitats resulting from project developments, 

greater sage-grouse broods could move longer distances and expend more energy to find forage. 

Increased movement, in addition to decreased vegetative cover, could expose chicks to greater 

risk of predation (BLM 2006c). More detailed information about how greater sage-grouse may 

be impacted by tar sands development, including information about possible measures to 

mitigate impacts, is provided in a text box in Section 4.8.1.4. 

 Federally listed mammals that could be affected by tar sands development include the 

black-footed ferret and Canada lynx. The black-footed ferret occurs in grasslands and shrublands 

that support active prairie dog towns and may potentially occur near many of the tar sands 

project areas. The Canada lynx occurs in coniferous forests and potentially occurs near the 

Asphalt Ridge STSA. Impacts on these species could result from impacts on habitat (including 

vegetation clearing, habitat fragmentation, and movement/dispersal blockage) and individuals 

(injury or mortality [e.g., collisions with vehicles]), human disturbance or harassment, increased 

human access to occupied areas, increases in predation rates, and noise from facilities. 

5.8.2 Mitigation Measures 

 Various mitigation measures would be required to reduce the impact of tar sands 

development on ecological resources during construction, operations, and reclamation. Existing 

guidance, recommendations, and requirements related to management practices are described in 

detail in the BLM Gold Book (DOI and USDA 2007), and BLM field office RMPs. The BLM 

has also developed a guidance document, Hydraulic Considerations for Pipeline Crossing 
Final OSTS PEIS 5-102 

Stream Channels, for construction of pipeline crossings of perennial, intermittent, and ephemeral 

stream channels. This guidance can be found at http://www.blm.gov/nstc/library/techno2.htm. 

BLM Manual 6840, Special Status Species Management, describes BLM policy to protect 

species identified by the BLM as sensitive (BLM 2008). In addition, the BLM has developed a 

set of conservation measures in consultation with the USFWS intended to minimize impacts of 

tar sands development on threatened and endangered species (see Appendix F). 

 In addition to the actions described in these guidance documents, the mitigation actions 

below could be used to reduce the potential for impacts on various ecological resources. Other 

mitigation measures may be identified by the BLM or USFWS prior to project development. 

Developing effective mitigation measures that avoid, reduce, or eliminate the impacts of tar 

sands development on ecological resources will represent a significant challenge because of the 

potentially large-scale, long operational time period, and reclamation difficulties that will be 

characteristic of many tar sands projects. 

5.8.2.1 Aquatic Resources 

• Protect wetlands, springs, seeps, ephemeral streams, and riparian areas on or 

adjacent to development areas through mitigation. This objective would be 

accomplished by conducting predisturbance surveys in all areas proposed for 

development following accepted protocols established by the USACE, BLM, 

or state regulatory agencies, as appropriate. If any wetlands, springs, seeps, or 

riparian areas are found, plans to mitigate impacts would be developed in 

consultation with those agencies and the local BLM field office prior to the 

initiation of ground disturbance. Examples of potential protective measures 

include (1) establishing buffer zones adjacent to these habitats in which 

development activities would be excluded or modified, (2) using erosioncontrol techniques to prevent sediment runoff into these habitats, (3) using 

runoff control devices to prevent surface water runoff into these areas, and 

(4) identifying and implementing spill prevention technologies that would 

prevent or reduce the potential for oil or other contaminants from entering 

these habitats. 

• Minimize and mitigate changes in the function of the 100-year floodplain or 

flood storage capacity in accordance with applicable requirements. To achieve 

this, either no activities or limited activities within floodplains would be 

allowed, and floodplain contours could be restored to predisturbance 

conditions following short-term disturbances. The effectiveness of mitigation 

measures would be evaluated and modified, if necessary. 

• Minimize and mitigate water quality degradation (e.g., chemical 

contamination, increased salinity, increased temperature, decreased dissolved 

oxygen, and increased sediment loads) that could result from construction and 

operation. Water quality in areas adjacent to or downstream of development 
Final OSTS PEIS 5-103 

areas would be monitored during the life of the project to ensure that water 

quality in aquatic habitats is protected. 

• Minimize and mitigate the impacts on aquatic habitats (including springs, 

seeps, and ephemeral streams), wetlands, and riparian areas that could result 

from changes to surface or groundwater flows. Hydrologically connected 

areas would be monitored for changes in flow that are development related. 

• Decontaminate all equipment before arrival at the project site and before 

leaving the project site, for work occurring near water, to reduce the potential 

for the transport of aquatic invasive species. Decontamination may consist of 

draining all water from equipment and compartments, cleaning equipment of 

all mud, plants, debris, or animals, and then drying the equipment. Another 

potential decontamination method could be a high-pressure, hot water wash of 

all equipment and all compartments that may hold water. 

• Maintain historic flow regimes in these systems, or in systems that contribute 

to the support of native fisheries. 

5.8.2.2 Plant Communities and Habitats 

• Mitigate impacts on rare natural communities and remnant vegetation 

associations. Predisturbance surveys would be used to identify these 

communities in and adjacent to development areas. Examples of potential 

protective measures include (1) establishing buffer zones adjacent to these 

habitats and excluding or modifying development activities within those areas, 

(2) using erosion-control techniques to prevent sediment runoff into these 

habitats, (3) using runoff control devices to prevent surface water runoff into 

these areas, and (4) identifying and implementing spill prevention 

technologies that would prevent or reduce the potential for oil or other 

contaminants to enter these habitats. Mitigation could also include reclamation 

or establishment of similar habitats elsewhere as compensation. 

• Reclaim excavated areas and disturbed areas following backfilling operations. 

Spent tar sands returned to mined areas would be covered with subsoil and 

then topsoil. Exposed soils would be seeded and revegetated as directed under 

applicable BLM requirements. Only locally native plant species would be 

used for the reclamation of disturbed areas to reestablish native plant 

communities. 

• Prevent the establishment and spread of invasive species and noxious weeds, 

thus protecting developing plant communities on the project site from 

colonization by these species and increasing the potential for the successful 

development of diverse, mature native habitats in disturbed areas. Degradation 
Final OSTS PEIS 5-104 

of nearby habitats by invasive species colonization from project areas would 

also be avoided. 

• Protect plant communities and habitats near all project areas from the effects 

of fugitive dust. This objective could be achieved by implementing dust 

abatement practices (e.g., mulching, water application, paving roads, and 

plantings) that would be applied to all areas of regular traffic or areas of 

exposed erodible soils. 

5.8.2.3 Wildlife 

• Identify important, unique, or high-value wildlife habitats in the vicinity of 

the project and design the project to mitigate impacts on these habitats. For 

example, project facilities, access roads, and other ancillary facilities could be 

located in the least environmentally sensitive areas (i.e., away from riparian 

habitats, streams, wetlands, drainages, and crucial wildlife habitats). The 

lessee would consult with the BLM and state agencies to discuss important 

wildlife use areas in order to assist in the determination of facility design and 

location that would avoid or minimize impacts on wildlife species and their 

habitats to the fullest extent practicable. The lessee would, at a minimum, 

follow the Recommendations for Development of Oil and Gas Resources 

within Crucial and Important Wildlife Habitats (WGFD 2010). 

• Habitat enhancement or in-kind compensatory habitat are options available 

when developing a wildlife management plan for a project. 

• Evaluate the project site for avian use (particularly by raptors, greater sagegrouse, neotropical migrants, and birds of conservation concern), and design 

the project to mitigate the potential for adverse impacts on birds and their 

habitat. Conduct predisturbance surveys for raptor nesting in all areas 

proposed for development following accepted protocols and in consultation 

with the USFWS and state natural resource agencies. If raptor nests are found, 

an appropriate course of action would be formulated to mitigate impacts, as 

appropriate. For example, impacts could be reduced if project design avoided 

locating transmission lines in landscape features known to attract raptors. The 

lessee would also, at a minimum, follow guidance provided in the APP 

Guidelines prepared by the APLIC and USFWS (APLIC and USFWS 2005). 

• Design facilities to discourage their use as perching or nesting sites by birds 

and minimize avian electrocutions. 

• Any surface water body created for a project may be utilized to the benefit of 

wildlife when practicable; however, netting and fencing or floating ball covers 

may be required when water chemistry demonstrates a need to prevent use by 

wildlife. 
Final OSTS PEIS 5-105 

• Mitigate wildlife mortality from vehicle collisions. To achieve this objective, 

important wildlife habitats could be mapped and activities within them 

avoided (if possible) or mitigated. Education programs could be implemented 

to ensure that employees are aware of wildlife impacts associated with 

vehicular use. These would include the need to obey state- and county-posted 

speed limits. Carpooling, busing, or other means to limit traffic (and vehicle 

collisions with wildlife) would be emphasized. 

• Develop a habitat restoration plan for disturbed project areas that includes the 

establishment of native vegetation communities consisting of locally native 

plant species. The plan would identify revegetation, soil stabilization, and 

erosion-reduction measures that would be implemented to ensure that all 

disturbed areas are restored. Restoration would be implemented as soon as 

possible after completion of activities to reduce the amount of habitat 

converted at any one time and to hasten the recovery to natural habitats. 

• Minimize habitat loss and fragmentation due to project development. For 

example, habitat fragmentation could be reduced by consolidating facilities 

(e.g., access roads and utilities would share common ROWs, where feasible), 

reducing access roads to the minimum number required, and, where possible, 

locating facilities in areas where habitat disturbance has already occurred. 

Transportation management planning can be used as an effective tool to 

minimize habitat fragmentation to meet this performance goal. 

• Protect wildlife from the negative effects of fugitive dust. Dust abatement 

practices include measures such as mulching, water application, road paving, 

and plantings. 

• Avoid (to the extent practicable) human interactions with wildlife. To achieve 

this objective, the following measures could be implemented: (1) instruct all 

personnel to avoid harassment and disturbance of wildlife, especially during 

reproductive (e.g., courtship and nesting) seasons; (2) make personnel aware 

of the potential for wildlife interactions around facility structures; (3) ensure 

that food refuse and other garbage are not available to scavengers (e.g., by use 

of covered dumpsters); and (4) restrict pets from project sites. 

• Mitigate noise impacts on wildlife during construction and operation. This 

objective could be accomplished by limiting the use of explosives to specific 

times and at specified distances from sensitive wildlife areas, as established by 

the BLM or other federal and state agencies. Operators would ensure that all 

construction equipment was adequately muffled and maintained to minimize 

disturbance to wildlife. 

• Protect wildlife from chronic and acute pesticide exposure. This objective 

could be accomplished by measures such as using pesticides of low toxicity, 

minimizing application areas where possible, and by using timing and/or 
Final OSTS PEIS 5-106 

spatial restrictions (e.g., do not use pesticide treatments in critical staging 

areas). All pesticides would be applied consistent with their label 

requirements and in accordance with guidance provided in the Final 

Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides on Bureau of Land Management 

Lands in 17 Western States Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

(BLM 2007b). 

• Construct wildlife-friendly cattleguards for all new roads or the improvement 

of existing ways and trails that require passing through existing fences, fenceline gates, or new gates, in addition to standard wire gates alongside of them. 

• Construct fencing (as practicable) to exclude livestock, wild horses, or 

wildlife from all project facilities, including all water sites built for the 

development of facilities and roadways. 

• Mitigate existing water sources used by wildlife in the vicinity of the project if 

adversely impacted during project construction or operation. 

• Protect or avoid important big game habitat (e.g., crucial winter habitat and 

birthing areas) to the extent practicable. 

5.8.2.4 Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Species 

 The BLM, in consultation with the USFWS, developed a set of conservation measures to 

support the conservation of species listed under the ESA. These are provided in Appendix F. For 

purposes of the PEIS, these conservation measures are assumed to be generally consistent with 

existing conservation agreements, recovery plans, and completed consultations. It is the intent 

of the BLM and USFWS to ensure that the conservation measures are consistent with those 

currently applied to other land management actions where associated impacts are similar. 

However, it is presumed that potential impacts from development described in the PEIS are 

likely to vary in scale and intensity when compared with land management actions previously 

considered (e.g., oil and gas exploration and production, surface mining, and underground 

mining). Thus, final conservation measures would be developed for individual projects prior to 

leasing or ground-disturbing activities and would be consistent with agency policies. Current 

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. Mitigation measures, 

generally applicable to all listed species, are presented below. Species-specific measures are 

listed in Appendix F. 

• Protect federally listed and state-listed threatened and endangered species and 

BLM-designated sensitive species through siting and development decisions 

to avoid impacts. Conduct predisturbance surveys in all areas proposed for 

development following accepted protocols and in consultation with the 

USFWS and/or state agencies. If any federally listed species are found, and it 
Final OSTS PEIS 5-107 

is determined that the proposed development “may affect” the listed species or 

their critical habitat, the USFWS will be consulted as required by Section 7 of 

the ESA and an appropriate course of action developed to mitigate impacts 

and address any potential incidental take from the activity. If any state-listed 

or BLM-designated sensitive species are found, plans to mitigate impacts will 

be developed prior to construction consistent with guidance provided in BLM 

Manual 6840 (BLM 2008). 

• Mitigate harassment or disturbance of federally listed threatened and 

endangered animals, BLM-designated sensitive animal species, and statelisted threatened and endangered animals and their habitats in or adjacent to 

project areas. This objective can be accomplished by identifying sensitive 

areas and implementing necessary protection measures based on Section 7 

consultation with the USFWS. Education programs could be developed to 

ensure that employees are aware of protected species and requirements to 

protect them. Prohibition of nonpermitted access and gating could be used to 

restrict access to sensitive areas. 

• Mitigate impacts on federally listed and state-listed threatened and endangered 

species and BLM-designated sensitive species and their habitats during 

construction and operations. If deemed appropriate by the USFWS, activities 

and their effects on these species will be monitored throughout the duration of 

the project. To ensure that impacts are avoided, the effectiveness of mitigation 

measures will be evaluated and, if necessary, Section 7 consultation will be 

reinitiated. 

• Protect federally listed and state-listed threatened and endangered species and 

BLM-designated sensitive species (especially plants) and their habitats from 

the adverse effects of fugitive dust. This objective could be achieved by 

implementing dust abatement practices near threatened and endangered 

species habitats or other special habitats of importance (to be determined at 

the local field office level). Dust abatement practices (e.g., mulching, water 

application, paving roads, and plantings) could be applied to all areas of 

regular traffic or areas of exposed erodible soils, especially in areas near 

occupied habitats. 

• Avoid the release of oil to aquatic habitats in quantities that could result in 

subsequent adverse impacts on federally listed and state-listed threatened and 

endangered species and BLM-designated sensitive species. This objective 

could be accomplished by applying spill prevention technology to all oil 

pipelines that cross or are in close proximity to rivers or streams with 

threatened or endangered aquatic species. For example, pipelines crossing 

rivers with listed aquatic species could have remotely actuated block or check 

valves on both sides of the river; pipelines could be double-walled pipe at 

river crossings; and pipelines could have a spill/leak contingency plan that 

includes timely notification of the USFWS and/or state agencies. 
Final OSTS PEIS 5-108 

5.9 VISUAL RESOURCES 

5.9.1 Common Impacts 

 While visual impacts associated with the construction, operation, and reclamation of tar 

sands projects considered in the PEIS differ in some important aspects on the basis of the tar 

sands extraction and processing technologies employed, there are many impacts that are common 

to the development approaches. Direct visual impacts associated with construction, operation, 

and reclamation of commercial tar sands development can be divided into generally temporary 

impacts associated with activities that occur during the construction and reclamation phases of 

the projects, and long-term impacts that result from construction and operation of the facilities 

themselves. Impacts are presented below by tar sands extraction and processing technology 

approach. In some cases, visual impacts would be very similar to those expected for commercial 

oil shale development (Section 4.9), and in the following discussion, the reader is referred to the 

PEIS sections discussing oil shale development impacts as appropriate. 

 As is the case for commercial oil shale production, regardless of the technologies 

employed for tar sands extraction and processing, commercial production of tar sands would 

entail industrial processes eventually requiring more than 5,000 acres of land disturbance and the 

presence and operation of major industrial facilities and equipment. These activities would 

introduce major visual changes to natural-appearing landscapes and create strong visual contrasts 

in line, form, color, and texture. Large visual impacts would be expected at night because of 

facility, vehicular, and activity lighting. While mitigation measures might lessen some visual 

impacts associated with these projects (Section 5.9.2), in large part the visual impacts associated 

with the commercial tar sands projects analyzed in the PEIS could not be effectively mitigated. 

 While some of the lesser elements of a tar sands project might be compatible with VRM 

Class III or Class II objectives (see Section 4.9), the siting of the major facility elements would 

be expected to be compatible with Class IV objectives only, as determined by visual contrast 

rating from nearby observation points with unobstructed views of the facility. VRM Class II or 

Class III areas near major facilities where open lines of sight existed between the Class II or 

Class III lands and the major facilities could in some cases also be subjected to strong visual 

contrasts, particularly if the distance was within the foreground-middleground range, but 

possibly farther in some cases. 

5.9.1.1 Surface Mining with Surface Retorting 

 5.9.1.1.1 Construction and Reclamation. Potential visual impacts associated with 

construction and reclamation of commercial tar sands projects utilizing surface mining and 

retorting would be very similar to those anticipated for commercial oil shale production utilizing 

surface mines and surface retorts. These impacts are described in Section 4.9.1.1. 
Final OSTS PEIS 5-109 

 It is assumed that there would be one connecting transmission line and ROW serving 

each site that could be up to 140 mi long and 100 ft wide, with construction impacts up to 

150 ft wide. It is assumed that there would be one pipeline and ROW serving each project 

site, up to 95 mi long and 50 ft wide, with construction impacting an area as wide as 100 ft 

(see Section 5.9.1.5 for a discussion of impacts associated with electric transmission line and 

pipeline construction). 

 5.9.1.1.2 Operation. Potential visual impacts associated with operation of commercial 

tar sands projects utilizing surface mining and retorting would be similar to those expected for 

commercial oil shale production utilizing surface mining and retorting (see Section 4.9.1.1). 

There would be some differences in the types of structures, buildings, and equipment used to 

extract and process the different materials; however, the general nature and extent of visual 

impacts would likely be similar. Rather than spent shale piles, tar sands projects would involve 

spent tar sands piles, which might be disposed of in pits and/or mounds. If stored in mounds, the 

form and line would likely be similar to spent shale piles, but the texture and color would likely 

be different, with spent tar sands being finer textured material and darker in color than spent 

shale. It is expected that up to 2,950 acres of land would be disturbed at a given time. 

 Figures 5.9.1-1 and 5.9.1-2 depict commercial surface mining activities for oil sands in 

Alberta, Canada. An oil sands processing facility is visible in the background in both figures. 

Figures 5.9.1-3 and 5.9.1-4 show closer views of an oil sands processing facility. 

FIGURE 5.9.1-1 Large-Scale Commercial Oil Sands Surface Mining, 

North of Fort McMurray, Alberta, Canada (An oil sands processing 

plant is visible in the distant background.) (Image courtesy of Suncor 

Energy, Inc.) 
Final OSTS PEIS 5-110 

5.9.1.2 Surface Mining with Solvent Extraction 

 5.9.1.2.1 Construction and Reclamation. Potential 

visual impacts associated with construction and reclamation 

of commercial tar sands projects utilizing surface mining and 

solvent extraction would be very similar to those anticipated 

for commercial oil shale production utilizing surface mines 

and surface retorts. These impacts are described in 

Section 4.9.1.1. 

 It is assumed that there would be one connecting 

transmission line and ROW serving each site that could be up 

to 140 mi long and 100 ft wide, with construction impacts up 

to 150 ft wide. It is assumed that there would be one pipeline 

and ROW serving each project site, up to 95 mi long and 

50 ft wide, with construction impacting an area as wide as 

100 ft (see Section 5.9.1.5 for a discussion of impacts 

associated with electric transmission line and pipeline 

construction). 

 5.9.1.2.2 Operation. Potential visual impacts 

associated with construction and reclamation of commercial 

tar sands projects utilizing surface mining and solvent 

extraction would be similar to those expected for commercial oil shale production utilizing 

surface mining and retorting (see Section 4.9.1.1); however, there would be some differences in 

the types of structures, buildings, and equipment used to extract and process the different 

materials. Rather than retorts, buildings and structures for solvent extraction and related 

processes would be required. Spent tar sands, rather than spent oil shale, would be disposed of on 

the surface or in pits. It is expected that up to 2,950 acres of land would be disturbed at a given 

time. Figure 5.9.1-5 depicts an existing pilot-scale tar sands processing facility utilizing surface 

mining and solvent extraction on Asphalt Ridge near Vernal, Utah. The photo conveys a general 

sense of the appearance of the structures and layout for a tar sands processing facility. A 

commercial-scale facility, however, such as that analyzed in the PEIS, would be many times 

larger. 

5.9.1.3 In Situ Steam Injection 

 5.9.1.3.1 Construction and Reclamation. Potential visual impacts associated with 

construction and reclamation of commercial tar sands projects utilizing in situ steam injection 

would be very similar to those anticipated for commercial oil shale production utilizing in situ 

methods. These impacts are described in Section 4.9.1.3. 

FIGURE 5.9.1-2 Large-Scale 

Commercial Oil Sands Surface 

Mining Activity North of Fort 

McMurray, Alberta, Canada 

(The shovel bucket holds 

approximately 100 tons of oil 

sands ore. An oil sands 

processing plant is visible in the 

background.) (Image courtesy of 

Suncor Energy, Inc.) 
Final OSTS PEIS 5-111 

FIGURE 5.9.1-3 Portion of a Large-Scale Commercial Oil Sands 

Processing Plant near Fort McMurray, Alberta, Canada (Image 

courtesy of Suncor Energy, Inc.) 

FIGURE 5.9.1-4 Close-up View of a Large-Scale Commercial Oil Sands 

Processing Plant near Fort McMurray, Alberta, Canada (Image courtesy of 

Suncor Energy, Inc.) 

 
Final OSTS PEIS 5-112 

FIGURE 5.9.1-5 Photo Mosaic of Existing Pilot-Scale Tar Sands Processing Facility Utilizing 

Surface Mining and Solvent Extraction on Asphalt Ridge near Vernal, Utah 

 It is assumed that there would be one connecting transmission line and ROW serving 

each site that could be up to 140 mi long and 100 ft wide, with construction impacts up to 150 ft 

wide. It is assumed that there would be one pipeline and ROW serving each project site, up to 

95 mi long and 50 ft wide, with construction impacting an area as wide as 100 ft 

(see Section 5.9.1.5 for a discussion of impacts associated with electric transmission line and 

pipeline construction). 

 5.9.1.3.2 Operation. Potential visual impacts associated with operation of commercial 

tar sands projects utilizing in situ steam injection would be similar to those expected for 

commercial oil shale production utilizing in situ methods (see Section 4.9.1.3); however, there 

would be some differences in the types of structures, buildings, and equipment used to extract 

and process the different materials. Rather than retorts, steam-assisted gravity drainage of tar 

sands would be used. This technology requires large pieces of equipment to create steam and to 

recover, treat, and recycle condensate (cooling towers, holding ponds, treatment tanks, etc.). 

Buildings and structures associated with power generation and the transport of heat and cooling 

fluids, as well as numerous wells, well pads, and associated structures and equipment, would be 

present. The overall visual impacts, however, would be lower than those for projects utilizing 

mining and aboveground processing of tar sands. It is expected that 80 to 200 acres of land 

would be disturbed at a given time. Development would proceed utilizing a “rolling footprint” 

approach. 

 Figure 5.9.1-6 shows an in situ steam injection facility for oil sands extraction in Alberta, 

Canada. 

5.9.1.4 In Situ Combustion 

 5.9.1.4.1 Construction and Reclamation. Potential visual impacts associated with 

construction and reclamation of commercial tar sands projects utilizing in situ combustion would 

be very similar to those anticipated for commercial oil shale production utilizing in situ methods 
Final OSTS PEIS 5-113 

FIGURE 5.9.1-6 In Situ Steam-Assisted Gravity Drainage (SAGD) Facility near Fort McMurray, 

Alberta, Canada (SAGD technology uses underground wells to inject steam into the oil sands 

deposits and collect the bitumen released by the heat.) (Image courtesy of Suncor Energy, Inc.) 

(see Section 4.9.1.3). However, because there is no need for coolant and associated power 

generation and transport, there would be fewer aboveground structures, and, therefore, less 

construction and reclamation activity and associated visual impacts. 

 It is assumed that there would be one connecting transmission line and ROW serving 

each site that could be up to 140 mi long and 100 ft wide, with construction impacts up to 

150 ft wide. It is assumed that there would be one pipeline and ROW serving each project 

site, up to 95 mi long and 50 ft wide, with construction impacting an area as wide as 100 ft 

(see Section 5.9.1.5 for a discussion of impacts associated with electric transmission line and 

pipeline construction). 

 5.9.1.4.2 Operation. Potential visual impacts associated with construction and 

reclamation of commercial tar sands projects utilizing in situ combustion would be 

similar to those expected for commercial oil shale production utilizing in situ methods 

(see Section 4.9.1.3); however, there would be some differences in the types of structures, 

buildings, and equipment used to extract and process the different materials. Rather than retorts, 

combustion of tar sands would require equipment to inject oxygen, but there would likely be 
Final OSTS PEIS 5-114 

fewer aboveground structures than would be required for in situ steam injection. While wells, 

well pads, and associated structures and equipment would be present, the overall visual impacts 

would likely be much lower than those for projects utilizing mining and aboveground processing 

of tar sands, and would likely be slightly lower than those for tar sands projects utilizing in situ 

steam injection. It is expected that 80 to 200 acres of land would be disturbed at a given time. 

Development would proceed utilizing a rolling footprint approach. 

5.9.1.5 Other Associated Tar Sands Project Facilities 

 While many visual impacts expected from commercial tar sands development projects 

under consideration in the PEIS would be site- or technology-specific, the tar sands projects have 

some common elements that would be expected to create similar visual impacts regardless of 

location or the tar sands extraction or processing technologies employed. These elements include 

transmission lines and pipelines and employer-provided housing. The elements and related visual 

impacts are discussed here separately from impacts associated with specific tar sands extraction 

and processing technologies. 

 5.9.1.5.1 Electric Transmission Lines and Pipelines. Construction and operation of 

electric transmission lines and oil pipelines could be required for tar sands commercial 

development; the projected linear extent of the facilities, however, varies by project type and 

technology employed. Visual impacts associated with construction, operation, and reclamation of 

the electric transmission lines and pipeline facilities would be the same as those described for oil 

shale development projects discussed in Section 4.9.1.4. For a given tar sands project, up to 

140 mi of transmission line and ROW might be required, and up to 95 mi of pipeline and ROW 

might be required. 

 5.9.1.5.2 Employer-Provided Housing. Employer-provided housing would be 

constructed for use by employees during the construction phase for tar sands projects. The 

locations of housing are unknown, but are not likely to be on public lands. Visual impacts 

associated with construction, operation, and reclamation of employer-provided housing are 

discussed in Section 4.9.1.4; however, for tar sands projects, an estimated 49 acres of land 

would be required for employer-provided housing during the construction phase for each project, 

and an estimated 13 acres of land would be required for employer-provided housing during the 

operations phase for each project. 

5.9.2 Mitigation Measures 

 Development activities would implement visual impact mitigation measures to the extent 

applicable and practicable. However, it should be noted that while mitigation measures might 

lessen some visual impacts associated with tar sands development, in large part the visual 

impacts associated with commercial tar sands projects could not be mitigated. Potential 

mitigation measures that may be applied to siting, development, and operation of tar sands 
Final OSTS PEIS 5-115 

leases, as warranted by the result of the lease-stage or plan of development–stage NEPA 

analyses, include the following: 

• Siting projects outside of the viewsheds of KOPs, or if this cannot be avoided, 

as far away as possible. 

• Siting projects to take advantage of both topography and vegetation as 

screening devices to restrict views of projects from visually sensitive areas. 

• Siting facilities away from and not adjacent to prominent landscape features 

(e.g., knobs and waterfalls). 

• Avoiding placement of facilities on ridgelines, summits, or other locations 

such that they will be silhouetted against the sky from important viewing 

locations. 

• Co-locating facilities to the extent possible, to utilize existing and shared 

ROWs, existing and shared access and maintenance roads, and other 

infrastructure, in order to reduce visual impacts associated with new 

construction. 

• Siting linear facilities so that generally they do not bisect ridge tops or run 

down the center of valley bottoms. 

• Siting linear features (aboveground pipelines, ROWs, and roads) to follow 

natural land contours rather than straight lines (particularly up slopes) when 

possible. Fall-line cuts should be avoided. 

• Siting facilities, especially linear facilities, to take advantage of natural 

topographic breaks (i.e., pronounced changes in slope) to avoid siting 

facilities on steep side slopes. 

• Where possible, siting linear features such as ROWs and roads to follow the 

edges of clearings (where they will be less conspicuous) rather than passing 

through the centers of clearings. 

• Siting facilities to take advantage of existing clearings to reduce vegetation 

clearing and ground disturbance, where possible. 

• Choosing locations for ROWs and other linear feature crossings of roads, 

streams, and other linear features to avoid KOP viewsheds and other visually 

sensitive areas and to minimize disturbance to vegetation and landforms. 

• Siting linear features (e.g., trails, roads, and rivers) to cross other linear 

features at right angles whenever possible to minimize viewing area and 

duration. 
Final OSTS PEIS 5-116 

• Minimizing the number of structures required. 

• Constructing low-profile structures whenever possible to reduce structure 

visibility. 

• Siting and designing structures and roads to minimize and balance cuts and 

fills and to preserve existing rocks, vegetation, and drainage patterns to the 

maximum extent possible. 

• Selecting and designing materials and surface treatments in order to repeat 

and/or blend with existing form, line, color, and texture of the landscape. 

• Using appropriately colored materials for structures, or appropriate 

stains/coatings, to blend with the project’s backdrop. 

• Using nonreflective or low-reflectivity materials, coatings, or paints whenever 

possible. 

• Painting grouped structures the same color to reduce visual complexity and 

color contrast. 

• Preparing a lighting plan that documents how lighting will be designed and 

installed to minimize night-sky impacts during facility construction and 

operations phases. Lighting for facilities should not exceed the minimum 

number of lights and brightness required for safety and security, and should 

not cause excessive reflected glare. Low-pressure sodium light sources should 

be utilized where feasible to reduce light pollution. Full cut-off luminaires 

should be utilized to minimize uplighting. Lights should be directed 

downward or toward the area to be illuminated. Light fixtures should not spill 

light beyond the project boundary. Lights in high illumination areas not 

occupied on a continuous basis should have switches, timer switches, or 

motion detectors so that the lights operate only when the area is occupied. 

Where feasible, vehicle-mounted lights should be used for night maintenance 

activities. Wherever feasible, consistent with safety and security, lighting 

should be kept off when not in use. 

• Siting construction staging areas and laydown areas outside of the viewsheds 

of KOPs and visually sensitive areas, where possible, including siting in 

swales, around bends, and behind ridges and vegetative screens. 

• Developing a site reclamation plan and implementing it as soon as possible 

after construction begins. 

• Discussing visual impact mitigation objectives and activities with equipment 

operators prior to commencement of construction activities. 
Final OSTS PEIS 5-117 

• Mulching slash from vegetation removal and spreading it to cover fresh soil 

disturbances or, if not possible, burying slash. 

• If slash piles are necessary, staging them out of sight of sensitive viewing 

areas. 

• Avoiding installation of gravel and pavement where possible to reduce color 

and texture contrasts with existing landscape. 

• Using excess fill to fill uphill-side swales resulting from road construction in 

order to reduce unnatural-appearing slope interruption and to reduce fill piles. 

• Avoiding downslope wasting of excess fill material. 

• Rounding road-cut slopes, varying cut and fill pitch to reduce contrasts in 

form and line, and varying slope to preserve specimen trees and nonhazardous 

rock outcroppings. 

• Leaving planting pockets on slopes where feasible. 

• Providing benches in rock cuts to accent natural strata. 

• Using split-face rock blasting to minimize unnatural form and texture 

resulting from blasting. 

• Segregating topsoil from cut and fill activities and spreading it on freshly 

disturbed areas to reduce color contrast and aid rapid revegetation. 

• If topsoil piles are necessary, staging them out of sight of sensitive viewing 

areas. 

• Where feasible, removing excess cut and fill from the site to minimize ground 

disturbance and impacts from fill piles. 

• Burying utility cables where feasible. 

• Minimizing signage and painting or coating reverse sides of signs and mounts 

to reduce color contrast with existing landscape. 

• Prohibiting trash burning during construction, operation, and reclamation; 

storing trash in containers to be hauled off-site for disposal. 

• Controlling litter and noxious weeds and removing them regularly during 

construction, operation, and reclamation. 
Final OSTS PEIS 5-118 

• Implementing dust abatement measures to minimize the impacts of vehicular 

and pedestrian traffic, construction, and wind on exposed surface soils during 

construction, operation, and reclamation. 

• Undertaking interim restoration during the operating life of the project as soon 

as possible after disturbances. 

• During road maintenance activities, avoiding blading existing forbs and 

grasses in ditches and along roads. 

• Recontouring soil borrow areas, cut and fill slopes, berms, waterbars, and 

other disturbed areas to approximate naturally occurring slopes during 

reclamation. 

• Randomly scarifying cut slopes to reduce texture contrast with existing 

landscape and to aid in revegetation. 

• Covering disturbed areas with stockpiled topsoil or mulch, and revegetating 

with a mix of native species selected for visual compatibility with existing 

vegetation. 

• Removing or burying gravel and other surface treatments. 

• Restoring rocks, brush, and forest debris whenever possible to approximate 

preexisting visual conditions. 

 To mitigate visual impacts on high-value scenic resources in lands outside of, but 

adjacent to or near, tar sands leasing areas, the following mitigation measures should be 

applied to siting, development, and operation of tar sands projects, as warranted by the result 

of lease-stage or plan of development-stage NEPA analyses: 

• Tar sands-related development and operation activities within 5 mi of 

National Scenic Highways, All-American Roads, state-designated scenic 

highways, Wild and Scenic Rivers, and river segments designated as eligible 

for wild and scenic river status should conform to VRM Class II management 

objectives, with respect to impacts visible from the roadway/river. Beyond 

5 mi but less than 15 mi from the roadway/river, development activities 

should conform to VRM Class III objectives. 

• Development activities within 15 mi of high-potential sites and segments of 

National Trails, National Historic Trails, and National Scenic Trails should 

conform to VRM Class II management objectives, with respect to impacts 

visible from the adjacent trail high-potential sites and segments. Beyond 

15 mi, development activities should conform to VRM Class III objectives. 
Final OSTS PEIS 5-119 

• Development activities on BLM-managed public lands within 15 mi of KOPs 

(e.g., scenic overlooks, rest stops, and scenic highway segments) in National 

Parks, National Monuments, NRAs, and ACECs with outstandingly 

remarkable values for scenery should conform to VRM Class II management 

objectives, with respect to impacts visible from the KOPs. Beyond 15 mi, 

development activities will conform to VRM Class III objectives. KOPs for 

non-BLM-managed lands should be determined in consultation with the 

managing federal agency. 

5.10 CULTURAL RESOURCES 

5.10.1 Common Impacts 

 Cultural resources, listed or eligible for listing on the NRHP, could be affected by future 

commercial tar sands leasing and development. The potential for impacts on cultural resources 

from commercial tar sands development, including ancillary facilities such as access roads, 

transmission lines, pipelines, and employer-provided housing, is directly related to the amount of 

land disturbance and the location of the project. Indirect effects, such as impacts resulting from 

the erosion of disturbed land surfaces and from increased accessibility to possible site locations, 

are also considered. Leasing itself has the potential to impact cultural resources to the extent that 

the terms of the lease limit an agency’s ability to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects of 

proposed development on cultural properties. However, compliance with Section 106 of the 

NHPA and with all other pertinent laws, regulations, and policies will likely result in the addition 

of stipulations to leases to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse impacts on historic properties 

present within a lease area or, when warranted, denial of the lease. 

 Several impacts on cultural resources could occur, as described below: 

• Complete site destruction could result from the clearing of the project area, 

grading, excavation, and construction of facilities and associated infrastructure 

if sites are located within the footprint of the project. 

• Site degradation and/or destruction could result from the alteration of 

topography; alteration of hydrologic patterns; removal of soils; erosion of 

soils; runoff into and sedimentation of adjacent areas; and oil or other 

contaminant spills if sites are located near the project area. Such degradation 

could occur both within the project footprint and in areas downslope or 

downstream. While the erosion of soils could negatively impact sites 

downstream of the project area by potentially eroding materials and portions 

of sites, the accumulation of sediment could serve to protect some sites by 

increasing the amount of protective cover. Contaminants could affect the 

ability to conduct analyses of the material present at the site and thus the 

ability to interpret site components. 
Final OSTS PEIS 5-120 

• Increases in human access and subsequent disturbance (e.g., looting, 

vandalism, and trampling) of cultural resources could result from the 

establishment of corridors or facilities in otherwise intact and inaccessible 

areas. Increased human access (including OHV use) exposes archaeological 

sites and historic structures and features to a greater probability of impact 

from a variety of stressors. 

• Visual degradation of setting associated with significant cultural resources 

could result from the presence of commercial tar sands development and 

associated land disturbances and ancillary facilities. This degradation could 

affect significant cultural resources for which visual integrity is a component 

of the sites’ significance, such as sacred sites and landscapes, historic trails, 

and historic landscapes. 

 Cultural resources are nonrenewable; once they are damaged or destroyed, they are not 

recoverable. Therefore, if a cultural resource is damaged or destroyed during oil shale 

development, it would constitute an irretrievable commitment of this particular cultural location 

or object. For cultural resources that are significant for their scientific value, data recovery is one 

way in which some information may be salvaged should a cultural resource site be adversely 

impacted by development activity. Certain contextual data are invariably lost, but new cultural 

resources information is made available to the scientific community. Loss of value for education, 

heritage tourism, or traditional uses is less easily mitigated. 

5.10.2 Mitigation Measures 

 For all potential impacts, the application of mitigation measures developed in 

consultation under Section 106 of the NHPA will avoid, reduce, or mitigate the potential for 

adverse impacts on significant cultural resources. Section 106 consultations between the BLM 

and the SHPOs, appropriate tribes, and other consulting parties would be required at the lease 

stage and at the plan of development stage. The use of BMPs, such as training and education 

programs, could reduce occurrences of human-related disturbances to nearby cultural sites. The 

specifics of these BMPs would be established during the leasing and project development stages 

in consultations between the applicant, the BLM, the SHPO, and tribes, as appropriate. The 

addition of stipulations to specific leases would ensure that resulting decisions from projectspecific consultations are applied to the resources present in the lease areas. 

 An ethnohistory and cultural resources overview were completed for the study area 

(Bengston 2007 and O’Rourke et al. 2012, respectively). The overviews synthesized existing 

information on cultural resources that had been previously identified. In addition, tribal 

consultation was initiated to further identify significant cultural resources. This analysis did not 

identify geographical areas that would preclude moving areas forward for leasing. Prior to any 

lease issuance, or development project approval, the overviews and ongoing tribal consultation 

will be reviewed for any pertinent information to determine areas of sensitivity and appropriate 

survey and mitigation needs. 
Final OSTS PEIS 5-121 

 The BLM has initiated the Section 106 process pursuant to Subpart B of the Advisory 

Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) regulations at 36 CFR Part 800, and is reviewing 

existing information regarding historic properties in the area of potential effects for this proposed 

amendment of land use plans. The BLM is engaging in consultation with the SHPOs, tribes, and 

other consulting parties. As appropriate to the level of analysis necessary for this PEIS, the 

BLM identified historic properties and evaluated potential impacts under Section 106 of the 

NHPA for this proposed undertaking, in part through consultation with the consulting parties. 

(See Section 7.7 for the results of the Section 106 process for this undertaking.) 

 As discussed in Section 1.1.1, potential oil shale development would require a three-stage 

decision-making process including this proposed amendment of land use plans. Tar sands 

leasing may require additional consultation and information gathering (e.g., cultural resource 

inventories) prior to the lease sale. In addition, the lessee must submit a plan of development 

for any site-specific project that would require BLM approval. Additional site-specific NEPA 

analyses and Section 106 review will be conducted on these individual project plans of 

development. The BLM will complete comprehensive identification (e.g., field inventory), 

evaluation, protection, and mitigation following the pertinent laws, regulations, and policies. In 

addition, the BLM will continue to implement government-to-government consultation with 

tribes and with other consulting parties on a case-by-case basis for plans of development. 

 The BLM does not approve any ground-disturbing activities that may affect any historic 

properties, sacred landscapes, and/or resources protected under the NHPA, American Indian 

Religious Freedom Act, NAGPRA, E.O. 13007 (U.S. President 1996), or other statutes and 

E.O.s until it completes its obligations under applicable requirements of the NHPA and other 

authorities. The BLM may require modification to exploration or development proposals to 

protect such properties or disapprove any activity that is likely to result in adverse effects that 

cannot be successfully avoided, minimized, or mitigated. The BLM attaches this language to all 

lease parcels. 

 In some instances, additional special stipulations to the leases may be required for 

protection of specific cultural resources based on the Section 106 and other related reviews and 

consultations conducted during the leasing phase, in order to avoid, minimize, or mitigate 

adverse impacts on such resources. 

 The BLM develops specific mitigation measures to implement the lease stipulations on a 

project-by-project basis. Mitigation for adverse effects on the most common resource type, 

archaeological sites significant for their scientific value, is data recovery. To protect portions of 

historic trails that are potentially eligible for listing on the NRHP from visual intrusion and to 

maintain the integrity of the historic cultural setting, the BLM would require that surface 

disturbance be restricted or prohibited within the viewshed of the trail along those portions of the 

trail for which eligibility is based on the viewshed. 

5.11 INDIAN TRIBAL CONCERNS 

 Resources important to Native Americans could be affected by commercial tar sands 

leasing and development in and around the areas where development takes place. 
Final OSTS PEIS 5-122 

5.11.1 Common Impacts 

 Native American concerns include traditional cultural properties, burial remains, sacred 

sites or landscapes, culturally important wild plants and animals, ecological balance and 

environmental protection, water quality and use, human health and safety, economic 

development and employment, and access to energy resources. Other Native American concerns 

could include the potential effect on Indian trust assets to the extent such assets are present. 

Native Americans may view these resources as interconnected, such that effects on one resource 

affect all. The potential for impacts on resources of significance to Native Americans from tar 

sands leasing and development, including ancillary facilities such as access roads and 

transmission lines, is directly related to the amount of land disturbance and the location of the 

project. Indirect effects—for example, impacts on water quality and use, the ecosystem in 

general, and the cultural landscape resulting from the erosion of disturbed land surfaces—are 

also possible. 

 Impacts on Native American resources could result in several ways, as described below: 

• Complete destruction of an important location or resource could result from 

the clearing, grading, and excavation of the project area and from construction 

of facilities and associated infrastructure if archaeological sites, sacred sites, 

burials, traditional cultural properties, specific habitat for culturally important 

plants and wildlife species, or the like are located within the construction 

footprint of the project. 

• Degradation and/or destruction of an important resource could result from 

the alteration of topography, alteration of hydrologic patterns, removal of 

soils, erosion of soils, runoff into and sedimentation of adjacent areas, and oil 

or other contaminant spills, if important sites or habitats are located in or near 

the project area. Such degradation could occur both within the lease parcel 

and in areas downslope or downstream. While the erosion of soils could 

negatively affect areas downstream of the project area by potentially eroding 

materials and portions of sites, the accumulation of sediment could serve to 

protect some archaeological sites by increasing the amount of protective 

cover. 

• Increases in human access and subsequent disturbance (e.g., looting, 

vandalism, and trampling) of resources of significance to Native Americans 

could result from the establishment of roads or facilities in otherwise 

undisturbed and inaccessible areas. Increased human access (including OHV 

use) exposes plants, animals, archaeological sites, historic features, and other 

culturally significant natural features to greater probability of impact from a 

variety of stressors. 

• Visual degradation of settings associated with significant cultural resources 

and sacred landscapes could result from the presence of a commercial tar 

sands development and associated land disturbances. This could affect 
Final OSTS PEIS 5-123 

important resources for which visual integrity is a component of the sites’ 

significance to the tribes, such as sacred sites, landscapes, and trails. 

• Noise degradation of settings associated with significant cultural resources 

and sacred landscapes could also result from the presence of tar sands 

extraction and processing facilities. This could affect the pristine nature and 

peacefulness of a culturally significant location. 

 The difference in surface disturbance is one technology-specific factor that could have a 

possible impact on resources of concern to Native Americans. However, because all potential 

impacts on tribally sensitive resources would be determined by site-specific conditions, 

differences in surface disturbance would not necessarily directly correspond to differences in 

impacts on these resources at the programmatic level. The magnitude or level of impact would 

depend on whether the specific location of a proposed tar sands facility contains significant 

resources, or degrades an important viewshed regardless of the overall size of the facility. 

Differences in water requirements of various technologies also could be a factor because water 

use, quality, and availability are important issues of Native American concern. 

5.11.2 Mitigation Measures 

 Government-to-government consultation between the BLM and the directly and 

substantially affected tribes is required under E.O. 13175 (U.S. President 2000). In addition, 

Section 106 of the NHPA requires federal agencies to consult with Indian tribes for undertakings 

on tribal lands and for historic properties of significance to the tribes that may be affected by an 

undertaking (CFR 36 800.2 (c)(2)). BLM Manual H-8160-1 provides guidance for governmentto-government consultations (BLM 1994). For impacts on resources of interest to Indian tribes 

and their members, such as traditional cultural properties, that constitute historic properties under 

the NHPA, the application of mitigation measures developed in consultation under Section 106 

of the NHPA would avoid, reduce, or mitigate the potential for adverse effects. The use of 

management practices, such as training/education programs for workers and the public, could 

reduce occurrences of human-related disturbances to nearby resources of importance to tribes. 

The details of these management practices would be established in project-specific consultations 

among the applicant and the BLM, tribes, and SHPOs, as appropriate. The addition of special 

stipulations to specific leases would ensure that resulting decisions from project-specific 

consultations are applied to the resources present in the lease areas. 

 For those resources not considered historic properties under the NHPA, ongoing 

government-to-government consultation would help determine other issues of concern, including 

but not limited to access rights, disruption of cultural practices, impacts on visual resources 

important to the tribes, and impacts on subsistence resources. Ecological issues and potential 

mitigation measures are discussed in Section 5.8. Impacts on water use and quality and potential 

mitigation measures are discussed in Section 5.5. It should be noted that even when consultation 

and an extensive inventory or data collection occur, not all impacts on tribally sensitive resources 

can be fully mitigated. 
Final OSTS PEIS 5-124 

 Some specific mitigation measures are listed below (all mitigation measures listed in 

Section 5.10.2 for cultural resources would also apply to historic properties of concern to Indian 

tribes and their members): 

• The BLM will consult with Indian tribal governments early in the planning 

process to identify issues and areas of concern for any proposed tar sands 

project. Such consultation is required by the NHPA and other authorities and 

is necessary to determine whether construction and operation of the project 

are likely to disturb tribally sensitive resources, impede access to culturally 

important locations, disrupt traditional cultural practices, affect movements of 

animals important to tribes, or visually affect culturally important landscapes. 

It may be possible to agree upon a mutually acceptable means of minimizing 

adverse effects on resources important to tribes. 

• Visual intrusion on sacred areas should be avoided to the extent practical

through the selection of location and extraction technology. When avoidance 

is not possible, timely and meaningful consultation with the affected tribe(s) 

should be conducted to formulate a mutually acceptable plan to mitigate or 

reduce the adverse effect. 

• Rock art (panels of petroglyphs and/or pictographs) should be avoided 

whenever possible. These panels may be just one component of a larger sacred 

landscape, in which avoidance of all impacts may not be possible. Mitigation 

plans for eliminating or reducing (minimizing) potential impacts on rock art 

should be formulated in consultation with the appropriate tribal cultural 

authorities and the SHPO.

• Tribal burial sites should be avoided. A contingency plan to follow when 

encountering unanticipated burials and funerary goods during construction, 

maintenance, or operation of a tar sands facility should be developed in 

consultation with the appropriate tribal governments and cultural authorities 

well in advance of any ground-disturbing activities. The contingency plan 

should include consultation with the lineal descendants or tribal affiliates of 

the deceased. Human remains and objects of cultural patrimony should be 

protected and repatriated according to NAGPRA statutory procedures and 

regulations. 

• Springs and other water sources that are or may be sacred or culturally 

important should be avoided whenever possible. If construction, maintenance, 

or operational activities must occur in proximity to springs or other water 

sources, appropriate measures, such as the use of geotextiles or silt fencing, 

should be taken to prevent silt from degrading water sources. The 

effectiveness of these mitigating barriers should be monitored. Measures for 

preventing water depletion impacts on spring flows should also be employed. 

Particular mitigations should be determined in consultation with the 

appropriate Indian tribe(s). 
Final OSTS PEIS 5-125 

• Culturally important plant and animal species should be avoided when 

possible. Facilities should be designed to minimize impacts on game trails, 

migration routes, and nesting and breeding areas of tribally important species. 

Mitigation and monitoring procedures should be developed in consultation 

with the affected tribe(s). When it is not possible to avoid important plant 

resources, consultations should be undertaken with the affected tribe(s). If the 

species is available elsewhere on BLM-managed lands, guaranteeing access 

may be acceptable to the tribes. For rare or less common species, establishing 

(transplanting) an equal amount of the plant resource elsewhere on BLMmanaged land accessible to the affected tribe may be acceptable. 

 Government-to-government consultation has been initiated to identify further significant 

resources. This phase of analysis is ongoing but has yet to identify geographical areas that would 

preclude allocating these lands as available for lease application. During the leasing phase, tribal 

consultation will be continued to help determine areas of tribal concern and appropriate means to 

avoid, minimize, or mitigate impacts on areas of tribal concern and may attach stipulations to 

any lease to ensure these measures. Tar sands leasing may require additional consultation and 

information gathering (e.g., cultural resource inventories or site visits by tribal cultural 

authorities) prior to the lease sale. The BLM will continue to implement government-togovernment consultation with tribes and with other consulting parties on a case-by-case basis for 

plans of development. 

 The BLM does not approve any ground-disturbing activities that may affect any historic 

properties, sacred landscapes, and/or resources protected under the NHPA, American Indian 

Religious Freedom Act, NAGPRA, E.O. 13007 (U.S. President 1996), or other statutes and 

E.O.s until it completes its obligations under applicable requirements of the NHPA and other 

authorities. The BLM may require modification to exploration or development proposals to 

protect such properties, or disapprove any activity that is likely to result in adverse effects that 

cannot be successfully avoided, minimized, or mitigated. 

5.12 SOCIOECONOMICS 

 The analysis of the socioeconomic impacts of tar sands development in Utah consists of 

two interdependent parts. The analysis of economic impacts estimates the impacts of tar sands 

facilities and associated housing on employment and personal income in an ROI in which tar 

sands resources are located. Because of the relative economic importance of tar sands 

developments in small rural economies and the consequent lack of local economic and 

community infrastructure, large-scale tar sands developments are likely to mean a large influx 

of temporary population. Because population increases are likely to be rapid, local communities 

may be unable to quickly absorb new residents, resulting in impacts on local finances and public 

service infrastructure. Social and psychological disruption may also occur, together with the 

undermining of established community social structures. Given these considerations, the analysis 

of social impacts assesses the potential impacts of tar sands developments on housing, local 

government, finances, and employment in the ROI in each of the three states. The analysis also 
Final OSTS PEIS 5-126 

assesses the potential for social disruption that may be associated with rapid population growth 

in small rural communities hosting large resource development projects. 

 The assessment of the socioeconomic impact of tar sands development was undertaken 

on the basis of a number of key assumptions relating to tar sands local procurement, worker 

in-migration, housing requirements and housing construction, and annual impacts. These 

assumptions are the same as those used in the analysis of the impact of oil shale development 

and are outlined in Section 4.11. Methods used in the analysis of the economic and social 

impacts of tar sands developments are briefly described in the introduction to Section 4.11. 

Details of this methodology are presented in Appendix G. Underlying employment numbers are 

also presented in Appendix G. 

5.12.1 Common Impacts 

5.12.1.1 Economic Impacts 

 Construction and operation of tar sands facilities and the associated temporary employerprovided housing and housing provided by local communities in Utah for tar sands workers and 

family members would have relatively large impacts on the economy of the ROI. 

 A single tar sands facility would produce 1,925 jobs in the ROI (1,187 direct jobs at tar 

sands facilities and 738 indirect jobs in the remainder of the local economy) during the peak 

construction year, and $113 million in income in the ROI (Table 5.12.1-1). During commercial 

production, 763 employees (482 direct and 281 indirect) would be required in the ROI, 

producing $45 million in income. Construction employment for a tar sands development facility 

would represent an increase of 3.1% over the projected ROI employment baseline. 

 Temporary housing built for tar sands workers and families would create 576 jobs 

(444 direct and 123 indirect in the remainder of the local economy) and $12 million in income 

in the ROI (Table 5.12.1-1). 

 It is assumed that no new power plants or coal mines would be needed to facilitate 

development of tar sands resources in Utah. 

5.12.1.2 Social Impacts 

 Construction and operation of tar sands facilities would have a large impact on 

population in the Utah ROI. The influx of tar sands workers and family members into local 

communities would have a relatively large impact on the housing market. The new residential 

population associated with the construction and operation of tar sands facilities would also 

require the hiring of additional local public service employees (police officers, fire personnel, 

local government employees, and teachers) in each ROI. Increases in ROI public service 
Final OSTS PEIS 5-127 

TABLE 5.12.1-1 ROI Economic Impacts of Tar Sands Developmenta

 Tar Sands Development 

 

 Housing Construction Construction Operation 

 

 Employment Income Employment Income Employment Income 

 

Utah 

No specified technology 

Direct 444 9.1 1,187 95.0 482 38.6 

Indirect 123 3.1 738 18.3 281 6.7 

Total 567 12.2 1,925 113.3 763 45.3 

a The direct employment data presented in this table are based on data provided in BLM (1984) and are 

extrapolated from data presented for construction and operation of a surface mine with a capacity of 

190,000 bbl/day, and an in situ facility with a capacity of 175,000 bbl/day. Direct employment numbers and 

multiplier data from the IMPLAN model (Minnesota IMPLAN Group, Inc. 2007) were used to calculate total 

employment numbers; indirect employment numbers were then derived. 

employment would also require increases in local revenues and expenditures to provide the 

necessary additional local public service provision. 

 In the peak year of construction of tar sands developments, 1,000 new residents are 

expected in ROI communities (Table 5.12.1-2). With commercial operation of tar sands 

development, 671 workers and family members would move into the local communities in the 

ROI. Population in-migration associated with tar sands construction would represent an increase 

of 1.0% over the projected ROI population baseline. During the peak year of construction, 

289 housing units, or 3.2% of the projected vacant housing stock in the ROI, would be required 

(Table 5.12.1-2). 

 Construction of tar sands developments would require 25 new local government 

employees, with 17 required during operations (Table 5.12.1-3). The additional local public 

service provision would require an increase in 1.0% in local expenditures during the peak 

construction year, and 0.7% during operations. 

 Higher local government expenditures would mean the potential for better quality local 

public services and infrastructure in some communities. In addition to providing employment 

and higher wages for some occupational groups, oil companies may also provide funds to 

upgrade portions of the road system in each ROI, and fund school scholarships and vocational 

training in some communities. Financing needed to support increases in local public 

expenditures that would be required to facilitate expansion in local public services, education, 

and local infrastructure impacted by tar sands and associated facilities might come from a 

number of sources. In communities impacted by the oil and gas industry, increases in property 

tax revenues resulting from increases in assessed valuations with increased demand for employee 

housing have often provided local communities with funds to support local finances in each ROI, 
Final OSTS PEIS 5-128 

TABLE 5.12.1-2 ROI Demographic and Housing Impacts of Tar Sands 

Development 

Tar Sands Development 

In-Migration in Local 

Communities 

Housing Demand 

in Local Communities 

Construction Operation 

Number of 

Units 

Vacant 

(%) 

 

Utah 

No specified technology 1,000 671 289 3.2 

TABLE 5.12.1-3 ROI Community Impacts of Tar Sands Development 

 Government Employees 

Change in Local Government 

Expenditures (%) 

 

 Construction Operation Construction Operation 

 

Utah 

No specified technology 25 17 1.0 0.7 

and have often occurred without the need to increases property tax rates (see Section 3.10.2). In 

addition, revenues from oil and gas severance taxes are currently distributed by state authorities 

to local communities to support local public service and infrastructure development using a 

range of different mechanisms, while payments in lieu of taxes are often made by federal 

agencies to support local community responses to energy developments on public land. Royalty 

bonus payments have also been provided to local communities with the leasing of public lands 

for energy development. Some communities might also receive increased sales tax revenues 

resulting from local energy development and consequent increases in economic activity that 

could be used to support local government expenditures. 

 With a relatively large in-migrant population expected in the Utah ROI during the 

construction and operation of tar sands facilities and the associated temporary housing, there is 

the potential for social disruption in communities in the ROI. The type and scope of impacts on 

social disruption are expected to be similar to those for oil shale development. Section 4.11.1.3 

examines the experience of small rural communities in the Western states that would have rapid 

boomtown development associated with energy projects. 

5.12.1.3 Agricultural Impacts 

 Since it is possible that tar sands technologies will require large quantities of water, 

water transfers from other industries may be required in each ROI. To facilitate new oil and gas 
Final OSTS PEIS 5-129 

development, historic water rights have often been purchased from agricultural landowners, 

primarily ranchers (see Section 3.10.2.2). Although the transfer of water rights to energy 

companies has not always meant that agricultural land is lost, the loss of water rights has often 

meant usually that irrigated agriculture is no longer possible and has led to the conversion of land 

to dryland farming and ranching activities. At higher levels of tar sands development, it is 

possible that water may be transferred into the ROI from other areas, which may limit the impact 

of reduced access by agriculture to water resources in some areas of the ROI. With restrictions 

on water use for irrigation, some agricultural land may consequently be sold and developed for 

second homes, condominiums, and other real estate types, which may create quality of life 

impacts in some farming communities (see Section 3.10.2.2.1). Water availability on agricultural 

land and land sales might also fragment 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 ROI. 

 The impacts of substantial conversion of agricultural water rights could have 

large impacts on the economy of the ROI, the extent to which would depend on the 

amount of agricultural production lost, the extent of local employment in agriculture 

(see Section 3.10.2.1.2), the reliance of other industries in the ROI on agricultural production, 

the extent of local procurement of equipment and supplies by agriculture, and the local impact 

of spending of wages and salaries by farmers, ranchers, and farmworkers. In addition to income 

from agricultural activities, agricultural income comes from “agri-tourism,” including hunting 

and fishing; hiking and other farm and ranch-related experiences may also be affected by losses 

of agricultural land or changes in agricultural land use. 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 ROI. Loss of revenues from recreation activities may also affect 

wildlife and habitat agency management practices. The impact of losses in employment and 

income from a reduction in agriculture in the economy of the ROI likely would be more than 

offset in some parts of each ROI by increases in revenues coming from tar sands development; 

however, the impact would likely change the character of community life in the ROI. Changes in 

economic activity such as these would also likely produce social impacts associated with the loss 

of traditional quality of life and the adoption of a more urban lifestyle. 

5.12.1.4 Recreation Impacts 

 Estimating the impact of tar sands development on recreation is problematic, since it is 

not clear how activities in the ROI would affect recreational visitation (use values) and passive 

use values (the value of recreational resources for potential or future visits). While it is clear that 

some federal land in the ROI would no longer be accessible for recreation, the majority of 

popular wilderness locations would be precluded from tar sands development. It is also possible 

that tar sands developments and associated transmission lines and transportation infrastructure 

elsewhere in the ROI would be visible from popular recreation locations (see Section 5.9), 

thereby reducing visitation and consequently impacting the economy of the ROI. 
Final OSTS PEIS 5-130 

 Because the impact of tar sands development on visitation is not known, this section 

presents two simple scenarios to indicate the magnitude of the economic impact of tar sands 

development on recreation: the impact of a 10% and a 20% reduction in ROI recreation 

employment in the state ROI. Impacts include the direct loss of recreation employment in the 

recreation sectors in the ROI, and the indirect effects, which represent the impact on the 

remainder of the economy in the ROI as a result of a declining recreation employee wage and 

salary spending, and expenditures by the recreation sector on materials, equipment, and services. 

Impacts were estimated by using IMPLAN data for the ROI (Minnesota IMPLAN 

Group, Inc. 2007). IMPLAN is an input-output modeling framework designed to capture 

spending flows among all economic sectors and households in the ROI economy. 

 In the Utah ROI, total (direct plus indirect) impacts of tar sands development on 

recreation would be the loss of 409 jobs and $3 million in income in the ROI as a whole as a 

result of a 10% reduction in recreation employment, and 818 jobs lost and $7 million in income 

lost with the 20% reduction (Table 5.12.1-4). 

5.12.1.5 Property Value Impacts 

 There is concern that tar sands developments and their associated transmission lines and 

coal mines might affect property values in ROI communities located nearby. Property values 

might decline in some locations as a result of the deterioration in aesthetic quality, increases in 

noise, real or perceived health effects, congestion, or social disruption. In other locations, 

property values might increase because of access to employment opportunities associated with 

tar sands developments. The potential impacts of energy developments on property values are 

discussed in Section 4.11.1.6. 

TABLE 5.12.1-4 Total ROIa Impacts of Reductions in Recreation 

Sectorb Employment Resulting from Tar Sands Development 

(Actual reduction is unknown) 

 10% Reduction 20% Reduction 

ROI Employment 

Income 

($ million) Employment 

Income 

($ million) 

 

Utah 409 3 818 6.6 

a The Utah ROI includes Carbon, Duchesne, Emery, Garfield, Grand, 

San Juan, Uintah, and Wayne Counties. 

b The recreation sector includes amusement and recreation services, 

automotive rental, eating and drinking places, hotels and lodging 

places, museums and historic sites, RV parks and campsites, scenic 

tours, and sporting goods retailers. 
Final OSTS PEIS 5-131 

5.12.1.6 Transportation Impacts 

 Tar sands project development that could occur would lead to increases in traffic on any 

roads needed for access to project sites. In areas undergoing simultaneous oil and gas or other 

development at the same time, tar sands-related development would add to traffic volumes and 

maintenance needs. The amount of additional heavy vehicles associated with tar sands 

development is not large compared with the number of light vehicles transporting employees; 

however, such vehicles would add to the congestion and may require special consideration when 

designing or upgrading access roads and highways. 

 Providing adequate access roads to development sites may involve upgrading existing 

roads and road facilities or constructing completely new roads and facilities. Specifications for 

the access roads would be dictated by the expected volume and type of traffic. Significant 

increases in traffic loads would cause increased costs for maintenance and repair of roads and 

bridge structures. 

 Because some of the construction and processing equipment components are large, ROW 

clearances and minimum turning radii become critical parameters for road design. Typically, 

access roads would be a minimum of 10 ft wide, but they may need to be as much as 30 ft wide 

or more to accommodate continuous access needs. Depending on design requirements and local 

geology and soil characteristics, surface soils may need to be excavated, and road material may 

need to be imported to establish an adequate road base. 

 The majority of transportation-related environmental impacts would occur while creating 

access to development sites from existing public roads; existing public or private roadways may 

also need to be altered, however, to accommodate heavy and/or oversized transport vehicles or 

additional traffic volumes. It is reasonable to expect that special road transportation permits 

would be required for some vehicles. Excessive load weight may require fortification of existing 

bridges, and large loads may require the temporary removal of height or turning radius obstacles. 

5.12.2 Mitigation Measures 

 Mitigation measures to reduce socioeconomic impacts will be required and could include 

the BLM working with state and local agencies to identify potential socioeconomic impacts and 

develop mitigations. In doing so, a suite of potential measures could be implemented, including 

but not limited to the following actions: 

• Operators could be required to provide housing and basic services for all 

direct project hires and their families in order to minimize potential (1) social 

disruption associated with large numbers of in-migrants locating in small rural 

communities, (2) short-term adverse impacts on regional housing markets and 

overnight accommodation facilities, (3) adverse impacts on regional consumer 

products’ availability and price, and (4) adverse impacts on public services 

provided by local communities in the surrounding region. 
Final OSTS PEIS 5-132 

• Operators could work with state and local agencies to develop community 

monitoring programs that would be sufficient to identify and evaluate 

socioeconomic impacts resulting from commercial development. Monitoring 

programs should collect data reflecting economic, fiscal, and social impacts of 

the development at both the state and local level. Parameters to be evaluated 

could include impacts on local labor and housing markets, local consumer 

product prices and availability, local public services (police, fire, and public 

health), and educational services. Programs also could monitor indicators of 

social disruption (e.g., crime, alcoholism, drug use, and mental health) and the 

effectiveness of community welfare programs in addressing these problems. 

 It is possible that some community development programs, with participation from 

energy resource developers, and local, state, and federal governments, will be implemented 

proactively in each ROI to avoid, manage, or mitigate negative social, economic, and fiscal 

consequences of oil shale development, prior to development of oil shale. 

 Operators could work with state and local agencies to develop community outreach 

programs that would help communities adjust to changes triggered by commercial development. 

Such programs could include any of the following activities: 

• Establishing vocational training programs for the local workforce to promote 

the development of skills required by the commercial development industries. 

• Developing instructional materials for use in area schools to educate the local 

communities on the commercial development industries. 

• Supporting community health screenings, especially those addressing 

potential health impacts related to commercial development activities. 

• Providing financial support to local libraries for the development of 

information repositories on commercial development and processing, 

including materials on the hazards and benefits of commercial development. 

Electronic repositories established by the operators could also be of great 

value. 

 Additional impact mitigation strategies could be designed and implemented at the local 

and state level, notably market-based mitigation strategies to coordinate ecosystem management 

practices, and rotational schedules for direct workers once the location, timing, and magnitude of 

impacts of specific projects are known. The role of tax revenues in attempts to diversify local 

economies and reduce dependency on natural resource extraction industries, thereby reducing the 

susceptibility of local communities to the boom-and-bust economic cycle associated with energy 

development in rural areas, could also be considered. The BLM cannot direct that government 

funds be paid to state and local governments to mitigate impacts from oil shale development. The 

BLM can only show those impacts in NEPA documents and address how impacts were mitigated 

in the past by direction from Congress to use the bonus bids from the federal leases. 
Final OSTS PEIS 5-133 

 Mitigation measures that could be implemented to reduce transportation impacts include 

the following: 

• Maintain and/or upgrade existing roads utilized for the proposed project, as 

necessary, to conditions equal to, or better than, those that existed prior to 

project-related use. 

• Develop and maintain close working relationships with state and county 

highway departments during all phases of project construction and 

maintenance. 

• Encourage employees and contractors to carpool to and from the site. 

• Emphasize to contractors and employees the need to comply with all posted 

speed limits to prevent accidents as well as to minimize fugitive dust. 

• Comply with county and state weight restrictions and limitations and 

overweight/size permitting requirements. 

• Control dust along unsurfaced access roads and minimize the tracking of mud 

onto roads. 

• Restore unsurfaced roads to conditions equal to or better than preconstruction 

levels after construction is completed. 

• Develop measures to control unauthorized OHV use in cooperation with the 

BLM and interested landowners. 

• Require all projects to develop transportation management plans; new road 

construction or road upgrades on BLM-administered public lands would be 

expected to follow minimum guidelines as provided in the BLM Gold Book 

(DOI and USDA 2007), including road maintenance requirements. 

5.13 ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE 

 The construction and operation of tar sands developments and associated housing could 

impact environmental justice if any adverse health and environmental impacts resulting from 

either phase of development were significantly high and if these impacts disproportionately 

affected minority and low-income populations. If health and environmental impacts are not 

significant, there can be no disproportionate impacts on minority and low-income populations. If 

the impacts are significant, disproportionality is determined by comparing the proximity of high 

and adverse impacts with the location of low-income and minority populations. Details of the 

methodology for assessing environmental justice issues are presented in Appendix G. The 

following sections describe impacts on various resources located in the tar sands resource areas 

within the ROI that would be impacted by tar sands development. Local demographic and social 
Final OSTS PEIS 5-134 

disruption impacts, property value impacts, land use, air and water quality and use, and visual 

impacts are described. This discussion is followed by a determination of the extent to which 

impacts of tar sands development would have a disproportionate effect on low-income and 

minority groups on the basis of the location of low-income and minority populations. 

5.13.1 Common Impacts 

5.13.1.1 Impact-Producing Factors 

 Rapid population growth in small rural communities hosting large tar sands development 

projects may produce social and psychological disruption, together with the undermining of 

established community social structures. Various studies have suggested that social disruption 

may occur in small rural communities when annual population increases are between 5 and 15% 

(see Section 4.11.1.3). 

 Property value impacts on private land in the vicinity of tar sands development projects 

and associated transmission lines may affect minority and low-income populations. These 

impacts would depend on the range of alternate uses of specific land parcels by landowners, 

current property values, and the perceived value of costs (e.g., visual impacts, traffic congestion, 

noise and dust pollution, air quality impacts, and EMF effects) and benefits (e.g., infrastructure 

upgrades, employment opportunities, and local tax revenues) from proximity to tar sands-related 

facilities to potential purchasers of property owned by minority and low-income individuals in 

local communities. 

 Construction activities would produce fugitive dust emissions and engine exhaust 

emissions from heavy equipment and commuting and delivery vehicles on paved and/or unpaved 

roads, and wind erosion from soil disturbed by construction activities or from soil stockpiles. 

Emissions associated with these activities would consist primarily of particulate matter (PM2.5

and PM10), criteria pollutants, VOCs, CO2, and certain HAPs released from heavy construction 

equipment and vehicle exhaust. Emissions during tar sands facility operations would consist of 

CO, NO2, PM2.5, PM10, and SO2. Construction of transmission lines and access roads required 

for the delivery of equipment and materials to project sites would produce fugitive dust impacts, 

the magnitude of which would depend, in part, on the terrain, road length, and the length of time 

they would be used for construction traffic. 

 Water consumption and quality impacts on land in the vicinity of tar sands development 

projects and associated transmission lines might affect minority and low-income populations, 

both in terms of water used for domestic consumption and water that may be used to support 

wildlife populations used for subsistence agriculture and for cultural and religious purposes. The 

impact on water resources during construction would consist primarily of increases in surface 

runoff and, consequently, in dissolved solids and in the volumetric flow of nearby streams near 

the project sites. The amount of water used during the operation of tar sands development 

projects is expected to be large at higher levels of facility production and could potentially 
Final OSTS PEIS 5-135 

impact minority and low-income populations if there were shortages of drinking water or water 

that might be used for agriculture. 

 Construction and operation of tar sands and supporting facilities, housing, and 

transmission lines would produce noise impacts, and the operation of transmission lines could 

lead to EMF effects. 

 Tar sands facilities and associated transmission towers may potentially alter the scenic 

quality in areas of traditional or cultural significance to minority and low-income populations, 

depending on the facility’s size and location. Construction would introduce contrasts in form, 

line, color, and texture, as well as a relatively high degree of human activity into existing 

landscapes with generally low levels of human activity. 

 Land used for tar sands facilities might affect certain types of animals or vegetation that 

were of cultural or religious significance to certain population groups or that formed the basis for 

subsistence agriculture. Similarly, land that was used for facilities but that also has additional 

economic uses might affect access to resources by low-income and minority population groups. 

5.13.1.2 General Population 

 Population in-migration would occur in each year of tar sands resource development. 

Workers would be required to move into the state for the construction and operation of tar sands 

facilities and to address the demand for goods and services resulting from the spending of tar 

sands and housing construction worker wages and salaries. It is projected that during the period 

in which a tar sands facility would be constructed in the ROI, population in the ROI would 

increase by 1.0%. In-migration associated with tar sands development would also require 

additional housing to be constructed in the ROI, with up to 3.2% of vacant housing units required 

during the peak year of construction. 

 Since tar sands development projects and the associated housing developments would 

lead to rapid population growth in many of the communities in each ROI, and given evidence 

presented in the literature (see Section 3.10.2.2), it is highly possible that some degree of social 

disruption would accompany these developments. In the absence of appropriate levels of local 

and regional planning, rapid demographic change may lead to the undermining of local 

community social structures by those among the local population and in-migrants with 

contrasting beliefs and value systems and, consequently, to a range of changes in social and 

community life, including increases in crime, alcoholism, and drug use. Partially offsetting some 

of these developments would be higher local government expenditures, with the potential for 

better quality local public services and infrastructure in some communities. In addition to 

providing employment and higher wages for some occupational groups, oil companies may also 

provide funds to upgrade portions of the road system in each ROI, and fund school scholarships 

and vocational training in some communities. 

 The precise nature of the impact of tar sands facility construction and operation on 

property values was not evaluated for this PEIS. The impact would depend on the range of 
Final OSTS PEIS 5-136 

alternate uses of specific land parcels by landowners, current property values, and the perceived 

value of costs (visual impacts, traffic congestion, noise and dust pollution, air quality impacts, 

and EMF effects) and benefits (infrastructure upgrades, employment opportunities, and local tax 

revenues) from proximity to tar sandsrelated facilities to potential purchasers of property owned 

by minority and low-income individuals in local communities. 

 Emissions associated with construction activities would consist primarily of particulate 

matter (PM2.5 and PM10), criteria pollutants, VOCs, CO2, and certain HAPs released from heavy 

construction equipment and vehicle exhaust. Because all activities either conducted or approved 

by the BLM through use authorizations must comply with all applicable local, state, tribal, and 

federal air quality laws, statutes, regulations, standards, and implementation plans, it is unlikely 

that future tar sands development would cause significant adverse air quality impacts. 

 Water from the Colorado River in Utah, combined with the estimated sustainable 

groundwater yield, would likely be sufficient to provide the amount of water needed for tar sands 

development, ancillary power and coal facilities, and associated population growth. It should be 

noted that prolonged drought conditions may occur and constrain water availability in Utah. 

Although discharges could have significant impacts on water quality if not properly controlled, 

water quality impacts of tar sands development are expected to be temporary and local, provided 

that mitigation measures are implemented, in part because of the dry climate where the sites are 

located. However, steep slopes in some areas may channel surface runoff and result in localized 

soil erosion. 

 Tar sands facilities might affect certain types of animals or vegetation that are of cultural 

or religious significance to certain population groups or form the basis for subsistence 

agriculture. Similarly, land that is used for these facilities that also has additional economic uses 

might affect access to resources by low-income and minority population groups. 

 Surface mine and surface retorting would involve the most surface disturbance and 

visible activity (including dust and emissions) and would be expected to generate the largest 

visual impacts relative to the other projects of similar size but using in situ processes. Visual 

impacts associated with reclamation also would likely be less than those for projects using 

surface mines because of the greatly reduced level of ground disturbance. Projects using in situ 

technologies would likely have the smallest level of visual impacts because of the absence of 

spent tar sands piles and other mining-related facilities and activities. These projects also would 

likely have the smallest reclamation impacts because of reduced surface disturbance and the 

absence of spent tar sands piles. 

5.13.1.3 Environmental Justice Populations 

 The construction and operation of tar sands developments could impact environmental 

justice if the adverse health and environmental impacts resulting from either phase of 

development identified in the previous sections were significantly high and if these impacts 

disproportionately affected minority and low-income populations. Where impacts are significant, 
Final OSTS PEIS 5-137 

disproportionality is determined by comparing the proximity of high and adverse impacts with 

the location of low-income and minority populations. 

 A number of census block groups in the area potentially hosting tar sands development 

have low-income and minority populations in which the minority population exceeds 50% of 

the total population in each block group, and there are a number of block groups in which the 

minority share of total block group population exceeds the state average by more than 

20 percentage points (see Section 3.11). Within 50 mi of the tar sands area, the minority 

population is located in the northeastern part of the state in the immediate vicinity of the tar 

sands resource area itself, in the southeastern portion of the Uintah and Ouray Indian 

Reservation, and in the north-central part of the state, to the east of Springville. The low-income 

population is centered in roughly the same area as the minority population, with five block 

groups in the southeastern portion of the Uintah and Ouray Indian Reservation, and one located 

in the vicinity of Price. 

 Given the location of environmental justice populations in each state, the construction 

and operation of tar sands facilities and employee housing required for the operation of tar sands 

development projects would produce impacts that may be experienced disproportionately by 

minority and low-income populations in a number of locations in each ROI. Of particular 

importance would be the social disruption impacts from large increases in population in small 

rural communities, the undermining of local community social structures, and the resulting 

deterioration in quality of life. The impacts of facility operations on air and water quality and on 

the demand for water in the region would also be important. Depending on their locations, 

impacts on low-income and minority populations may also occur with the development of 

transmission lines associated with power development and the supply of power to tar sands 

facilities in each state. Land use and visual impacts might be significant, depending on the 

location of land parcels impacted by tar sands projects and the associated housing facilities, their 

importance for subsistence, their cultural and religious significance, and alternate economic uses. 

5.13.2 Mitigation Measures 

 Various procedures might be used to protect low-income and minority groups from high 

and adverse impacts of tar sands and associated facilities. Most important of these would be to 

develop and implement focused public information campaigns to provide technical and 

environmental health information directly to low-income and minority groups or to local 

agencies and representative groups. Included in these campaigns would be descriptions of 

existing air and groundwater monitoring programs; the nature, extent, and likelihood of existing 

and future airborne or groundwater releases from tar sands facilities; and the likely 

characteristics of environmental and health impacts. Key information would include the extent of 

any likely impact on air quality, drinking water supplies, and subsistence resources and the 

relevant preventative measures that could be taken. 

 Rapid population growth following the in-migration of construction and operation 

workers associated with tar sands and ancillary facilities into communities with low-income and 

minority populations could lead to the undermining of local community social structures where 
Final OSTS PEIS 5-138 

the in-migrants have beliefs and value systems that contrast with those of the local population. 

Consequently, a range of changes in social and community life, including increases in crime, 

alcoholism, and drug use, could result. In anticipation of these impacts, key information on the 

scale and time line of tar sands developments, and on the experience of other communities that 

have followed the same energy development path, together with information on planning 

activities that may be initiated to provide local infrastructure, public services, education, and 

housing, could be made available to low-income and minority populations. 

5.14 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS AND WASTE MANAGEMENT 

5.14.1 Common Impacts 

 Impacts related to hazardous materials and wastes are generally independent of location. 

Such impacts would be derivatives of the technologies employed for resource recovery and for 

the subsequent processing of recovered products rather than of the locations at which these 

activities occur. 

 Hazardous materials and wastes are unique to the technology combinations used for tar 

sands development. However, hazardous materials and waste impacts are common for some of 

the ancillary support activities that would be required for development of any tar sands facility 

regardless of the technology used. These include the impacts from development or expansions of 

support facilities such as employer-provided housing. 

 Hazardous materials impacts associated with construction or expansions of off-site 

support facilities would be minimal and limited only to the hazardous materials typically 

utilized in construction of such facilities. These would include the hazardous materials 

required to support construction equipment and vehicles (fuels, other vehicle and equipment 

fluids such as lubricating oils, hydraulic fluids, and glycol-based coolants) and miscellaneous 

hazardous materials typically associated with construction such as solvents, adhesives, and 

corrosion-control coatings. Construction-related wastes would include landscape wastes from 

clearing and grading of the construction sites and other wastes typically associated with 

construction, none of which are expected to be hazardous and all of which, except for landscape 

wastes, are expected to be disposed of in permitted sanitary landfills. Landscape wastes are 

expected to either be burned on-site or delivered to permitted off-site facilities for disposal or 

composting. 

 Once these support facilities become functional, different hazardous materials and waste 

impacts would result. It is expected that virtually no hazardous materials would be associated 

with employer-provided housing. However, wastes would include nonhazardous solid wastes and 

sanitary wastewaters. Solid wastes are expected to be containerized and hauled to permitted 

sanitary landfills or other appropriate waste disposal facilities. As conditions permit, sanitary 

wastewaters are expected to be treated on-site through such technologies as septic systems or 

active biological treatment; all such activities would be controlled by permits issued to state or 

local authorities. Depending on the location of the employer-provided housing and other 
Final OSTS PEIS 5-139 

circumstantial factors, it is also possible that sanitary wastewaters would be delivered by truck or 

sewer to existing or expanded municipal treatment works for treatment. 

5.14.1.1 Surface Mining with Surface Retort 

 Hazardous materials associated with mining would primarily be used to support vehicles 

and equipment, most of which could not be easily transported to off-site maintenance and repair 

facilities. Hazardous materials would include fuels (primarily diesel fuel) and other engine and 

equipment fluids, such as lubricating oils, hydraulic fluids, glycol-based coolants, and battery 

electrolyte. Other miscellaneous hazardous materials used in the repair of mechanical equipment 

(cleaning solvents, welding gases, corrosion-control paints and coatings) would also likely be 

present in limited quantities. Explosives might also be used to support the mining activities; 

however, explosives are expected to be brought to the site on an as-needed basis rather than 

stored at the site. Limited amounts of herbicides would also be used on-site to manage vegetation 

in industrial areas for fire prevention and control. However, herbicides, like explosives, are not 

expected to be stored on-site but instead would be brought to the site on an as-needed basis. 

 Waste associated with surface mining operations also would be primarily associated with 

vehicle and equipment maintenance and would involve the spent hazardous materials described 

above. In addition, solid wastes (e.g., kitchen wastes, administrative wastes) and sanitary 

wastewater would result from the support of the workforce. Solid wastes would likely be 

containerized and hauled to an off-site permitted disposal facility. Sanitary wastes might be 

treated on-site by using septic systems or biological treatment as conditions dictate and operating 

permits allow, or alternatively, they might be delivered by truck or sewer to municipal treatment 

works. At the initial development of any given area, some landscape wastes could also result as 

the land surface was cleared and overburden removed. Landscape wastes would likely be burned 

on-site (under the authority of a state or local permit) or delivered to an off-site facility for 

disposal or composting. Stormwater runoff from stockpiled overburden could contain elevated 

amounts of suspended solids. Stormwater management is expected to be addressed by a sitewide 

SWPPP that is expected to be required by the site’s stormwater management permit. 

 Other than the commercial fuel consumed as a source of heat, no hazardous materials 

would be required to support operation of the surface retort.5 The inorganic phase remaining 

after bitumen removal is composed primarily of sand and silt. At some Canadian oil sands 

developments, the sand that is recovered is a type (crystalline form) that makes it valuable for 

use in formation fracturing as part of enhanced recovery techniques for conventional crude oil. 

While there is evidence to suggest that sands recovered from retorting of U.S. tar sands would 

have commercial value (Temple Mountain Energy 2011), for the purpose of this analysis, the 

sand and silt that remain after bitumen removal are considered to be a solid waste. The most 

likely management strategies for this material involve either its use in reclamation of the mine 

 

5 For the purpose of this impact analysis, “retorting” means those actions conducted to separate the organic 

fraction, bitumen, from the inorganic materials contained in tar sands (primarily sand and silt). As it is used here, 

retorting implies only a separation of organic and inorganic fractions of tar sands and does not involve the 

chemical transformation of bitumen into other organic materials. As defined in Appendix B, a retort patterned 

after the Lurgi-Ruhrgas direct burn retort is considered to be representative of surface retorting. 
Final OSTS PEIS 5-140 

site (to establish original contours prior to replacement of stockpiled overburden) or disposal in 

an on-site facility operating under a permit issued by state or local authorities. Residual sand and 

silt from retorting are not expected to exhibit any hazardous characteristics (although some 

residual bitumen may remain adsorbed to sand grains); nevertheless, they represent the potential 

for contaminating surface water runoff with high concentrations of suspended particulates, 

organic contaminants, and perhaps some dissolved minerals present in the tar sands formation. 

Proper design of waste sand disposal cells, appropriate vegetative covers, and other controls 

established under a solid waste disposal permit and/or a sitewide SWPPP should adequately 

address and mitigate this potential. Free water present in the formation is expected to be released 

during the retorting step. However, it is not expected to contain significant amounts of 

contamination and is likely to be of sufficient quality for beneficial use on-site for fugitive dust 

control. 

 Subsequent upgrading of recovered bitumen would be only that necessary to produce an 

upgraded product that could be accepted at refineries for additional processing. Hydrogen would 

be introduced to the site to support this upgrading (provided by commercial supplier on an 

as-needed basis and not generated on-site by steam reforming of natural gas). Periodic 

maintenance and repair of upgrading systems would result in spent catalysts (some of which 

might require management as hazardous waste) and sludge from the cleaning of storage tanks 

and reaction vessels, all of which would require characterization before waste management 

strategies could be determined. However, regardless of their character, the wastes resulting from 

upgrading operations are likely to be containerized and delivered to properly permitted off-site 

treatment or disposal facilities. 

5.14.1.2 Surface Mining with Solvent Extraction 

 Hazardous materials and waste impacts from surface mining discussed above would 

apply without change to this alternative. However, for the retorting step, a solvent in which the 

bitumen is soluble would be added as a means of bitumen separation rather than relying on heat, 

mechanical agitation, or phase separation to separate the bitumen from the inorganic fractions of 

tar sands. In this technique, additional hazardous materials would be introduced. A variety of 

solvents could be used. Those that have been used successfully for solvent extraction of oil sands 

in Canadian developments have included raw naphtha and raw gas oil (both condensate fractions 

from the distillation of conventional crude oil), hexane and cyclohexane (both chemicals 

produced in refineries or derived in petrochemical plants from secondary feedstocks), and 

ethanol. All of these materials have relatively high vapor pressures and low specific gravities, 

and all are extremely flammable.6 When practiced correctly, solvent extraction will recover the 

majority of solvents for reuse, although some minor evaporative losses are expected. Some 

aromatic solvents (naphthenic derivatives) that could be used have moderately high water 

solubility. If used as extraction solvents, they can be expected to partition to some extent into the 

free formation water that would also be present during the extraction process. While this aqueous 

 

6 Many of the chemical constituents typically found in refinery fractionator condensates, such as raw naphtha and 

raw gas oil, have been identified as known or possible carcinogens. See the discussions of potential health 

impacts in Section 5.14. 
Final OSTS PEIS 5-141 

fraction is easily separated from the organic phase (the bitumen), it will likely need treatment to 

remove the polar organic contaminants before it can be released back to the environment or used 

for beneficial purposes on-site, such as fugitive dust control. 

 Obviously, the accidental release of any of the extraction solvents would represent a 

hazardous fire situation and a potential adverse impact on the environment. Prudent management 

procedures would prevent such accidental releases. For cost control, facilities are likely to be 

established for recovery and recycling of the extraction solvents. Alternatively, this mixture of 

extraction solvent and bitumen could also be sent directly to a refinery, eliminating on-site 

upgrading activities.7

 Subsequent upgrading of recovered bitumen would be only that necessary to produce an 

upgraded product that could be accepted at refineries for additional processing. Hydrogen would 

be introduced to the site to support this upgrading (provided by commercial supplier on an 

as-needed basis and not generated on-site by steam reforming of natural gas). Periodic 

maintenance and repair of upgrading systems would result in spent catalysts (some of which 

might require management as hazardous waste) and sludge from the cleaning of storage tanks 

and reaction vessels, all of which would require characterization before waste management 

strategies could be determined. However, regardless of their character, the wastes resulting from 

upgrading operations are likely to be containerized and delivered to properly permitted off-site 

treatment or disposal facilities. 

5.14.1.3 In Situ Steam Injection 

 For this technology, only bitumen is recovered from the formation, and spent sand is not 

generated. Steam is used to heat the bitumen, reducing its viscosity so that it can move through 

the formation and be recovered by a conventional production well. At the same time, steam 

condensates, as well as free formation water, are also recovered in the production well. Expected 

contaminants include suspended solids, dissolved minerals, and small amounts of polar organic 

constituents extracted from the bitumen. Typically, and especially in arid areas, these waters will 

be separated from the bitumen and recycled. Water sources for steam need to be of relatively 

high quality. Consequently, condensates require treatment to remove dissolved and suspended 

contaminants before being recycled. Such treatment is likely to produce sludge, which represents 

one of the primary wastes associated with this technology. Contaminants expected to be present 

in steam condensates include heavy metals and minerals dissolved from the formation, as well as 

small amounts of polar organic constituents extracted from the bitumen and partitioned into the 

aqueous phase. In addition to the primary steam cycle, secondary noncontact cooling systems 

may also be in operation. Water treatment chemicals are expected to be introduced into waters 

for primary steam loops as well as secondary cooling systems to control scale, corrosion, and 

 

7 It is common practice among some Canadian oil sands developers to mix bitumen with diluents (many of which 

are the same materials that would be used as extraction solvents) to create a less viscous mixture (known in the 

industry as “dil-bit”) that is delivered by conventional pipeline to refineries for processing, thereby eliminating 

mine site upgrading. 
Final OSTS PEIS 5-142 

bacteria, so blowdown water from both systems may also require treatment before release or 

beneficial use. 

 Bitumen recovered from steam injection is expected to undergo some upgrading on-site. 

To support such upgrading, hydrogen would be present on-site (delivered by a commercial 

vendor on an as-needed basis and not generated on-site through steam reforming of commercial 

natural gas). Periodic maintenance and repair of upgrading systems would result in spent 

catalysts (some of which might require management as hazardous waste) and sludge from the 

cleaning of storage tanks and reaction vessels, all of which would require characterization before 

waste management strategies could be determined. However, regardless of their character, the 

wastes resulting from upgrading operations are likely to be containerized and delivered to 

properly permitted off-site treatment or disposal facilities. 

5.14.1.4 In Situ Combustion 

 Hazardous materials required to support in situ combustion would be limited to the 

conventional fuels (natural gas or propane) that would be introduced to initiate combustion. No 

solid wastes would result from in situ combustion. However, free formation water, as well as 

waters of combustion, would be recovered from the production wells used to extract the bitumen. 

This aqueous fraction is expected to contain some inorganic species (H2S, NH3), as well as 

organic species (e.g., carbonyl sulfide as well as polar organic constituents that formed from 

partial thermal destruction of bitumen and partitioned into the aqueous phase because of their 

moderate water solubility). Consequently, this wastewater would require some treatment on-site 

before being released to the environment or beneficially used on-site (e.g., for fugitive dust 

control). 

 The organic fraction recovered from in situ combustion (largely bitumen with lesser 

amounts of products of incomplete thermal destruction of bitumen) is expected to undergo some 

upgrading on-site. To support such upgrading, hydrogen would be present on-site (delivered by 

commercial vendor on an as-needed basis and not generated on-site through steam reforming of 

commercial natural gas). Periodic maintenance and repair of upgrading systems would result in 

spent catalysts (some of which might require management as hazardous waste) and sludge from 

the cleaning of storage tanks and reaction vessels, all of which would require characterization 

before waste management strategies could be determined. However, regardless of their character, 

the wastes resulting from upgrading operations are likely to be containerized and delivered to 

properly permitted off-site treatment or disposal facilities. Virtually all upgrading reactions occur 

at elevated temperatures and pressures. Therefore, additional fuels would likely be brought to the 

site to support upgrading heat and pressure requirements. Where steam would be generated to 

provide the needed heat, treatment of steam condensates to facilitate their recycling would result 

in sludge that would require characterization before disposal. 

5.14.2 Mitigation Measures 

 Hazardous wastes will be present at a tar sands facility throughout construction, 

operation, and reclamation. During construction, hazardous wastes will be limited in both variety 
Final OSTS PEIS 5-143 

and volume, consisting mostly of wastes from the maintenance of construction equipment and 

the field applications of protective coatings. During operation, a greater variety of hazardous 

wastes can be expected with volumes generally proportional to the scale of the operation. 

Although facility owners/operators may elect to treat and even dispose of their hazardous wastes 

at the tar sands facility (with appropriate state-issued permits in place), it is reasonable to expect 

that most would adopt a strategy that minimizes the times and volumes of on-site storage of 

hazardous wastes, with expeditious transport to off-site, properly permitted TSDFs. Elementary 

neutralizations of strongly corrosive wastes, as well as preliminary treatment of wastes to 

stabilize them for storage and transport, might occur on-site but only to the extent that is 

minimally necessary. 

 Regulatory requirements to address hazardous materials and waste management already 

largely address the mitigation of impacts. To reinforce the regulatory requirements, additional 

mitigation measures and management plans could include the following: 

• An individual, written management strategy for each hazardous waste 

anticipated; 

• Written procedures for waste evaluations, containerization, on-site storage, 

and off-site disposal; 

• Inspection procedures for hazardous material transportation vehicles and 

storage areas; 

• Storage requirements for each hazardous material, including container type, 

required design elements and engineering controls for storage and handling 

areas (e.g., secondary containment for liquids, fire protection for areas where 

flammables are used), and chemical incompatibilities; 

• Dedicated, restricted access areas for hazardous waste storage, including 

adequate separations of chemically incompatible wastes; 

• Formal, routine inspections of hazardous waste storage and handling areas; 

• In addition to HAZCOM training required for workers who handle hazardous 

materials, awareness training for all facility personnel, including an 

identification of explicit roles and responsibilities for each individual; 

• Limitations on access to hazardous material storage and use areas to 

authorized personnel; 

• A comprehensive inventory of all hazardous materials at the facility, including 

notations of incompatibilities; 

• Formal, written standard operating procedures addressing “cradle-to-grave” 

management, including receipt, containerization, storage, use, emergency 
Final OSTS PEIS 5-144 

response, and management and disposal of spent materials for each hazardous 

material at the facility; 

• “Just-in-time” purchasing strategies to limit the amounts of hazardous 

materials present at the facility to just those quantities immediately needed to 

continue operations; 

• Preventive maintenance on all equipment and storage vessels containing 

hazardous materials; 

• Aggressive pollution prevention programs to identify less hazardous 

alternatives and other waste minimization opportunities; 

• Establishment of comprehensive in-house emergency response capabilities to 

ensure expeditious response to accidental releases; and 

• Documentation of all accidental releases of hazardous materials and corrective 

actions taken; conduct of root cause analyses; determination of the adequacy 

of response actions (making changes to response capabilities as necessary); 

assessment of long- and short-term impacts on the environment and public 

health; initiation of necessary remedial actions; and identification of policy or 

procedural changes that will prevent reoccurrence. 

5.15 HEALTH AND SAFETY 

Potential health and safety impacts from recovering oil from tar sands deposits can be 

associated with the following activities: (1) surface mining of the tar sands (underground mining 

is not considered at this time for tar sands deposits because of possible collapse of the sand 

deposits); (2) obtaining and upgrading of the product (primarily syncrude oil and some asphalt) 

through surface retorting, solvent extraction, in situ steam injection, or in situ combustion; 

(3) transport of construction and raw materials to the facility and transport of product from the 

facility; and (4) exposure to water and air contamination associated with tar sands development. 

Hazards from tar sands development are similar to hazards from oil shale development and are 

summarized in Table 5.15-1. 

 For mining and upgrading activities, the primary health and safety impacts are to facility 

workers. These worker impacts include physical hazards from accidents (including heat stress or 

stroke, explosion, or injuries related to working around large, moving equipment); health risks 

from chemical exposures (usually inhalation or dermal) to hazardous substances present in tar 

sands, the products, other process chemicals, and wastes; and loss of hearing because of 

potentially high on-the-job noise levels. This section will mainly address worker physical 

hazards and worker chemical exposure risks. Noise risks are discussed in Section 5.7. Potential 

water and air contamination, which could lead to exposures for the general public, are discussed 

in Sections 5.5 and 5.6, respectively. Since, in general, water and air standards are set to be 
Final OSTS PEIS 5-145 

TABLE 5.15-1 Potential Health Impacts Associated with Tar Sands Developmenta

Process or Product Possible Hazard 

 

Surface mining Pneumoconiosis and/or increased cancer risk from inhalation of dust particles, 

tar sands particles, and/or diesel exhaust; physical hazards, including highwall 

collapse and explosions, heat stress, and noise. 

 

Surface retorting, solvent 

extraction, and upgrading 

Inhalation of or dermal contact with fumes or particles; noise; inhalation or 

dermal contact with contaminants in wastewater (e.g., hydrocarbons, phenols, 

trace elements, salts, suspended solids, oil, sulfides, ammonia, PAHs, and 

radionuclides). 

 

In situ steam injection and 

in situ combustion 

Physical hazards associated with well drilling, use of explosives, noise, and use 

of steam at high temperature and pressure; inhalation of or dermal contact with 

fumes or particles in product, recovered process water, or process chemicals. 

 

Raw and spent tar sands 

storage 

Exposure to contaminants in drinking water; concentrations of contaminants in 

edible aquatic organisms; inhalation of airborne particulates. 

 

Products (syncrude, asphalt) Potential cancers from dermal contact with or inhalation of volatile products. 

 

Combustion products Inhalation of HAPs from emissions of chemicals (e.g., criteria pollutants, trace 

elements, sulfur and nitrogen compounds, PAHs, and radionuclides). 

 

All Increased physical hazards and exposure risks from transportation of raw 

materials and products to and from the facility. 

a Adapted from DOE (1988) and Brown (1979).

protective of public health, the discussion in those sections addresses potential impacts on the 

public. 

 A potential safety impact on the local off-site population that must be considered is risk 

due to an increased volume of vehicular traffic. The presence of construction and product 

transport trucks on narrow, two-lane roads could create unique hazards for children waiting at 

the roadside for their school bus. Additional transportation hazards would include exposure to 

particulate dusts created by the large trucks, as well as the increased potential for accidents. 

Transport of bitumen and other by-products is expected to occur by tractor trailer or by pipeline. 

Traffic accidents involving truck movements or accidents involving the pipelines could also 

impact public safety.8

 

 

8 Waste tar sands (tar sand tailings) would be generated in large quantities in any surface processing technology. 

However, it is expected that disposal of these tailings would occur on the leased site. Consequently, little if any 

tar sand tailings would be transported to disposal areas over public roadways. However, other chemical wastes 

associated with the operation may not be acceptable for on-site disposal and would, therefore, be transported by 

truck to permitted treatment or disposal facilities. 
Final OSTS PEIS 5-146 

5.15.1 Common Impacts 

5.15.1.1 Surface Mining 

 Tar sands mining is generally surface mining, because the instability of tar sands does not 

allow underground mining. The hazards associated with surface mining tar sands would be 

similar to those associated with surface mining other materials. These include the following 

(Bhatt and Mark 2000; Speight 1990; Daniels et al. 1981):

• Injuries from highwall-spoilbank failures; 

• Hazards associated with storage, handling, and detonation of explosives; 

• Inhalation of dust and particulates, possibly containing bitumen or VOCs; 

inhalation of exhaust fumes from mining equipment; 

• Accidents and injuries from working in close proximity to large equipment 

(e.g., shovels, trucks, and loaders) and equipment with moving parts; 

• Injury hazards from lifting, stooping, and shoveling; exposure to climate 

extremes and sun while working outside; and 

• Elevated noise levels (discussed in Section 5.7). 

 Highwall failures are very dangerous, often resulting in fatalities when the falling 

material hits workers. MSHA statistics show that there were 428 accidents caused by highwall 

instability in active coal and nonmetal surface mines from 1988 to 1997; 28 fatalities were 

recorded (Bhatt and Mark 2000). About one-half of the injuries occurred when the workers were 

hit directly with the failed highwall material; the other injuries involved the material hitting 

heavy or miscellaneous equipment. More than one-half of the accidents resulted in lost 

workdays. 

 Deaths and injuries from accidental ignition of explosives used to blast the formations 

and allow removal of the tar sands are a serious hazard in mining operations. Injuries and 

fatalities may also result from the high physical demands of surface mining. Large machinery 

could be used to remove the tar sands; a truck-and-shovel approach might also be used. This 

approach can be more efficient, but it also requires a larger number of employees to conduct the 

work. In Utah, where the water supplies are limited, making hydrotransport from the excavation 

site unattractive, it is most likely that excavated tar sands would either be trucked to the retorting 

or extraction facility or moved by conveyor. The degree of mechanization in the surface mining 

processes used would greatly influence the number of worker injuries. In general, more 

mechanization would be expected to result in a lower number of worker injuries, because fewer 

workers would be needed to conduct the mining (although the number of machinery-related 

injuries would increase). 
Final OSTS PEIS 5-147 

 Injury and fatality incidence from tar sands surface mining is likely to be lower than that 

from the mining industry as a whole, since the latter also includes the more hazardous 

underground mining accidents. However, as an indicator, the recent statistics for the mining 

industry as a whole are provided here. Statistics for work-related injuries and deaths show that 

mining is one of the most hazardous occupations, with approximately 28.3 deaths per 

100,000 mine workers in the United States in 2004 (NSC 2006). Because of improved safety 

practices and the use of more advanced machinery, mining deaths have decreased since the 

1970s. For example, the death rate in 1970 was 200 per 100,000 workers; the rate has decreased 

to about 30 deaths per 100,000 in recent years (DOL 2006). The number of work-related injuries 

for miners was 3.8 nonfatal injuries per 100 mine workers annually in 2004 (NSC 2006). 

 Inhalation of dusts generated during the mining process can cause disease. If these are tar 

sands dusts, they will likely contain PAHs, a carcinogenic component of the sands (further 

discussed in Section 5.14.1.2). 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. Although concentrations of these dusts are lower for surface mining in comparison with 

underground mining, additive exposures may nonetheless result in these diseases. 

5.15.1.2 Surface Retorting and Solvent Extraction 

 The composition and toxicity of tar sands, produced oils, the residual char or coke, and 

process chemicals partially determine the potential hazards of processing the materials. Tar sands 

are deposits of consolidated or unconsolidated sediments that have pore spaces saturated with 

heavy, viscous petroleum known as bitumen. In contrast to heavy oils, the bitumen in tar sands is 

semisolid and cannot be pumped and collected at a well bore (Daniels et al. 1981). 

 Bitumen is composed of a mix of hydrocarbons with a high carbon-to-hydrogen ratio, and 

it may contain elevated concentrations of sulfur, nitrogen, oxygen, and heavy metals. Fumes 

from heated bitumens contain PAHs, many of which have been classified as probable human 

carcinogens in the EPA’s Integrated Risk Information System (EPA 2006). According to the 

IARC, there is inadequate evidence to classify bitumens alone as human carcinogens 

(IARC 1985). Several studies have shown an increased risk of several types of cancer in workers 

exposed to bitumens. However, these workers were also exposed to other carcinogenic materials 

such as coal tars. The refined bitumens have not been classified for human carcinogenicity. 

 For animals, there is sufficient evidence for the carcinogenicity of extracts of steam- and 

air-refined bitumens, limited evidence for the carcinogenicity of undiluted steam-refined bitumen 

and cracking-residue bitumen (char), and inadequate evidence for the carcinogenicity of 

air-refined bitumens. The possible increased cancer risk from inhalation of or dermal exposure to 

crude and processed bitumens is a primary chemical health concern for tar sands workers. 

 In addition to the array of organic chemicals that would be produced during bitumen 

recovery and processing, additional chemicals, including caustic agents, would be present during 
Final OSTS PEIS 5-148 

the treatment of steam condensates and raw water to allow for the recycling of steam, which 

would most likely be necessary to control costs. 

 The potential for hazardous exposures differs among the various retorting and separation 

processes (i.e., hot and cold water processes and thermal processes). The cold water process has 

a lower potential for exposure to volatile compounds. Potential chemical exposure pathways for 

workers include inhalation (especially for processes that take place at elevated temperatures) and 

dermal contact. At all facilities, worker exposures would be monitored and limited to stay within 

OSHA standard levels, by using engineered controls as well as PPE if necessary. 

 Physical hazards to facility workers during retorting can be associated with equipment 

and systems. These include potential contact with hot pipes, fluids, and vapors; exposure to 

ruptured pipes and their contents; accidents from maintenance operations; and physical contact 

with chemical agents. Comprehensive facility safety plans and worker safety training can 

minimize these hazards. 

 Recovery of bitumen from mined tar sands through solvent extraction rather than through 

more conventional retorting presents many of the same hazards as discussed above for retorting, 

as well as additional hazards associated with exposure to the extraction solvent. Such solvents 

are typically naphthenic hydrocarbons (e.g., cyclohexane, raw naphtha) that pose both chemical 

and physical hazards. Many chemicals could be used successfully for solvent extraction. Since 

bitumen is soluble in a wide variety of organic solvents, the selection is based primarily on cost 

and availability rather than specific chemical or physical properties. Solvents could exhibit toxic 

properties through dermal, inhalation, or ingestion pathways (or through multiple pathways), as 

well as physical hazards such as volatility and flammability. Potential exposure pathways for 

workers include inhalation (especially for extractions that take place at elevated temperatures) 

and dermal contact. 

5.15.1.3 In Situ Steam Injection and Combustion 

 The hazards for steam injection processes are similar to those for thermal retorting, 

although there is much less potential for exposure to the char or coke, since they will remain 

underground. Steam injection can occur without prior modification to the formation, or it may be 

preceded by explosive or hydraulic fracturing of the formation to enhance bitumen recovery. 

Hazards particularly associated with in situ steam injection processes include the following: 

• Physical hazards associated with the high-pressure steam boilers and pumps 

and compressors used for injection; 

• Hazards associated with the storage, handling, and detonation of explosives 

for modified in situ processes employing explosives to cause or enhance 

reservoir fracturing; 

• Physical hazards associated with well drilling; and 
Final OSTS PEIS 5-149 

• Exposures to hazardous substances in the recovered tar sands, in recovered 

process water, and in chemicals used to treat and recycle recovered water. 

 The hazards associated with explosives are the same as those discussed in 

Section 5.14.1.1 (surface mining). An additional hazard associated with in situ processes that is 

not applicable to mined tar sands is well drilling, in order to pump the mobilized bitumen to the 

surface. The phases of drilling wells include site preparation, drilling, well completion, servicing, 

and abandonment; each is associated with unique physical hazards (e.g., falling from heights, 

being struck by swinging equipment or falling tools, and burns from cutting and welding 

equipment or steam). 

 Health and safety procedures implemented at an in situ steam injection research facility 

(TS-1) near Vernal, Utah (Daniels et al. 1981) required that the workers (1) handle produced oil 

and recovered process water as toxic substances; (2) handle de-emulsifiers, water-treatment 

chemicals, oxygen scavengers, organic sequestering agents, and corrosion-control substances so 

as to prevent exposure; and (3) wear protective clothing and receive safety training. 

 Hazards associated with in situ combustion processes are similar to those associated with 

in situ steam injection processes; however, the hazards associated with high-temperature and 

high-pressure steam are eliminated and replaced with hazards associated with the storage and use 

of fuels used to initiate combustion and the hazards of potential exposures to combustion 

by-products (primarily CO as well as a wide variety of partial decomposition products of 

complex organic molecules). For most in situ combustion technologies, high-pressure sweeping 

gases may also be used to control the direction of the combustion front and to aid in product 

recovery. Sweeping gases such as CO2 would introduce asphyxiant and toxic gas hazards. 

5.15.2 Mitigation Measures 

 Regulatory requirements to address occupational health and safety issues already largely 

address the mitigation of impacts (e.g., OSHA standards under 29 CFR 1910 and 1926 [1910.109 

is specific for explosives] and MSHA standards under 30 CFR Parts 199). In addition, electrical 

systems must be designed to meet applicable safety standards (e.g., NEC and IEC). 

 To reinforce the regulatory requirements, additional mitigation measures could include 

the following: 

• Traffic safety should be addressed through installation of appropriate highway 

signage and warnings, which should be carried out to alert the populace of 

increased traffic and to alert vehicle operators to road hazards and pedestrian 

traffic, and construction of safe bus stops for children waiting for school 

buses; these stops should be located well away from the roadway. 

• Highwall-spoilbank failure should be avoided through the use of benching, 

blasting patterns specifically designed for each mine site, adequate 
Final OSTS PEIS 5-150 

compacting of spoilbanks, and adequate miner training to allow for 

recognition and remediation of hazardous conditions (Bhatt and Mark 2000). 

• Appropriate PPE should be used to minimize some safety and exposure 

hazards. 

• The risks from accidental explosions risk can be lowered by implementing 

applicable occupational standards and following general safety measures 

(e.g., good housekeeping for explosives storage areas; requiring safety 

training for all workers using explosives). 

• Safety assessments for tar sands facilities should be conducted to describe 

potential safety issues and the means that could be taken to mitigate them. 

• A comprehensive facility health and safety program should be developed to 

protect workers during all phases of a tar sands project. The program should 

identify all applicable federal and state occupational safety standards, 

establish safe work practices for each task, establish fire safety evacuation 

procedures, and define safety performance standards. 

• A comprehensive training program and hazards communications program 

should be developed for workers, including documentation of training and a 

mechanism for reporting serious accidents or injuries to appropriate agencies. 

• Secure facility access control should be established and maintained for all tar 

sands project facilities. Site boundaries should be defined with physical 

barriers, and site access should be restricted to only qualified personnel. 

• Hazards from well drilling may be mitigated through the use of measures 

recommended by OSHA (2007).

5.16 REFERENCES 

Note to Reader: This list of references identifies Web pages and associated URLs where 

reference data were obtained. It is likely that at the time of publication of this PEIS, some of 

these Web pages may no longer be available or their URL addresses may have changed. 

Alberta-Canada, 2007, Water Use in Alberta Oil Sands, presented at Water Innovation in the Oil 

Patch Forum, sponsored by Petroleum Technology Alliance Canada, May 29, 2007. Available at 

http://www.albertacanada.com/documents/AIS/ENVIRO_oilsands07.pdf. 

Alberta Chamber of Resources, 2004, Oil Sand Technology Roadmap. Available at http://www. 

acr-alberta.com/ostr/OSTR_report.pdf. Accessed Oct. 1, 2007. 
Final OSTS PEIS 5-151 

Andersen, D.E., et al., 1989, “Response of Nesting Red-Tailed Hawks to Helicopter 

Overflights,” The Condor 91:296299. 

Anthony, R.G., and M.L. Morrison, 1985, “Influence of Glyphosate Herbicide on SmallMammal Populations in Western Oregon,” Northwest Science 59(3):159168. 

APLIC (Avian Power Line Interaction Committee), 2006, Suggested Practices for Avian 

Protection on Power Lines: The State of the Art in 2006, Edison Electric Institute, APLIC, 

and the California Energy Commission, Washington, D.C., and Sacramento, Calif. Available 

at http://www.dodpif.org/downloads/APLIC_2006_SuggestedPractices.pdf. Accessed 

June 20, 2012. 

APLIC and USFWS (Avian Power Line Interaction Committee and U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service), 2005, Avian Protection Plan (APP) Guidelines, April. Available at 

http://migratorybirds.fws.gov/issues/APP/AVIAN%20PROTECTION%20PLAN%20FINAL 

%204%2019%2005.pdf. Accessed May 25, 2005. 

Bailie, A., et al., 2007, Wyoming Greenhouse Gas Inventory and Reference Case Projections 

1990–2020, Center for Climate Strategies, spring. Available at http://www.climatestrategies.us/ 

library/library/download/411. Accessed Aug. 23, 2011. 

Beaulaurier, D.L., et al., 1984, “Mitigating the Incidence of Bird Collisions with Transmission 

Lines,” pp. 539550 in Proceedings of the Third International Symposium on Environmental 

Concerns in Rights-of-Way Management, A.F. Crabtree (editor), Mississippi State University, 

Mississippi State, Miss. 

Beck, A.M., and R.J. Vogel, 1972, “The Effects of Spring Burning on Rodent Populations in a 

Brush Prairie Savanna,” Journal of Mammalogy 53:336346. 

Belnap, J., and J. Herrick, 2006, Recovery Time of Soil and Vegetation from Historical 

Geophysical Exploration in Southeastern Utah, prepared for the U.S. Department of Energy and 

Bureau of Land Management. 

Bengston, G., 2007, unpublished information, Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, Ill. 

Berger, J., 2004, “The Last Mile: How to Sustain Long-Distance Migration in Mammals,” 

Conservation Biology 18(2):320331. 

Bevanger, K., 1995, “Tetraonid Mortality Caused by Collisions with Power Lines in Boreal 

Forest Habitats in Central Norway,” Fauna norv. Ser. C, Cinclus 18:41–51. 

Bevanger, K., 1998, “Biological and Conservation Aspects of Bird Mortality Caused by 

Electricity Power Lines: A Review,” Biological Conservation 86:67–76. 

 
Final OSTS PEIS 5-152 

Bhatt, S.K., and C. Mark, 2000, “Analysis of Safety Aspects and Mining Practices for Effective 

Ground Control in Surface Mining,” pp. 395–404 in Proceedings of the 19th International 

Conference on Ground Control in Mining, S.S. Peng and C. Mark (editors), Morgantown, W.V., 

Aug. 

BirdLife International, 2003, Protecting Birds from Powerlines: A Practical Guide on the Risks 

to Birds from Electricity Transmission Facilities and How to Minimize Any Such Adverse Effects, 

T-PVS/Inf (2003) 15, Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural 

Habitats, Standing Committee, 23rd Meeting, Strasbourg, Dec. 1–4. Available at http://www.coe. 

int/T/E/Cultural_Co-operation/Environment/Nature_and_biological_diversity/Nature_protection/ 

sc23_inf15e.pdf?L=E. Accessed Oct. 23, 2006. 

BLM (Bureau of Land Management), 1984, Utah Combined Hydrocarbon Leasing Regional 

Final EIS, Volume 1: Regional Analyses, Utah State Office, Salt Lake City, Utah, June. 

BLM, 1992, Solid Minerals Reclamation Handbook, BLM Manual Handbook H-3042-1, 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C., April 8. 

BLM, 1994, BLM Manual H-8160-1—General Procedural Guidance for Native American 

Consultation, Rel. 8-65, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C., Nov. 3. 

BLM, 2000, Draft Resource Management Plan Amendment/Environmental Impact Statement for 

Federal Fluid Minerals Leasing and Development in Sierra and Otero Counties, Las Cruces, 

N.M., Nov. 9. Available at http://www.nm.blm.gov/lcfo/white_sands_rmpa_eis/docs/draft_docs/ 

ws_rmpa_eis_all_notmaps.pdf. Accessed Aug. 10, 2006. 

BLM, 2002, Final Environmental Impact Statement Renewal of the Federal Grant for the TransAlaska Pipeline System Right-of-Way, BLM/AK/PT-03/005+2880+990, U.S. Department of the 

Interior, Anchorage, Alaska, Nov. 

BLM, 2004a, Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated 

Activity Plan, Proposed Green River Resource Management Plan Amendment, Rock Springs 

Field Office, Wyo., July. 

BLM, 2004b, Roan Plateau Resource Management Plan Amendment and Environmental Impact 

Statement, Draft: DE504-4, Glenwood Springs Field Office, Colo., Nov. 

BLM, 2005, Draft Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides on Bureau of Land Management 

Lands in 17 Western States Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, DES 05-56, Reno, 

Nev., Nov. 

BLM, 2006a, Environmental Assessment, Chevron Oil Shale Research, Development & 

Demonstration, CO-110-2006-120-EA, White River Field Office, Meeker, Colo., Nov. 
Final OSTS PEIS 5-153 

BLM, 2006b, Environmental Assessment, EGL Resources, Inc., Oil Shale Research, 

Development & Demonstration Tract, CO-110-2006-118-EA, White River Field Office, Meeker, 

Colo., Oct. 

BLM, 2006c, Environmental Assessment, Shell Oil Shale Research, Development & 

Demonstration, CO-110-2006-117-EA, White River Field Office, Meeker, Colo., Oct. 

BLM, 2006d, Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project Sublette 

County, Wyoming, BLM/WY/PL-06/006-1310, Pinedale and Rock Springs Field Offices, Wyo., 

Jan. 

BLM, 2006e, Resource Development Group Uinta Basin Natural Gas Project Final 

Environmental Impact Statement, UT-080-2003-0300V, Vernal Field Office, Vernal, Utah, May. 

Available at http://www.blm.gov/utah/vernal/rdgfinal.htm. Accessed July 3, 2006. 

BLM, 2007a, Water Quality Law Summary: Utah. Available at http://www.blm.gov/nstc/ 

WaterLaws/utah2.html. Accessed Feb. 20, 2007. 

BLM, 2007b, Final Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides on Bureau of Land Management 

Lands in 17 Western States Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, FES 07-21, Reno, 

Nev., June. 

BLM, 2008, BLM Manual 6840—Special Status Species Management, Release 6-125, 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Dec. 12. 

BOR (U.S. Bureau of Reclamation), 2007, “Review of Science and Methods for Incorporating 

Climate Change Information into Reclamation’s Colorado River Basin Planning Studies, Final 

Report, Climate Technical Work Group,” Appendix U of Colorado River Interim Guidelines for 

Lower Basin Shortages and Coordinated Operations for Lake Powell and Lake Mead Final 

Environmental Impact Statement, Oct. Available at http://www.usbr.gov/lc/region/programs/ 

strategies/FEIS/AppU.pdf. Accessed Aug, 30, 2011. 

BOR, 2011, West-Wide Climate Risk Assessments: Bias-Corrected and Spatially Downscaled 

Surface Water Projections, Technical Memorandum No. 86-68210–2011-01, prepared by Water 

and Environmental Resources Division, March. 

Brattstrom, B.H., and M.C. Bondello, 1983, “Effects of Off-Road Vehicle Noise on Desert 

Vertebrates,” pp. 167206 in Environmental Effects of Off-Road Vehicles, Impacts and 

Management in Arid Region, R.H. Webb and H.G. Wilshire (editors), Springer-Verlag, 

New York, N.Y. (as cited in Larkin 1996). 

Brown, B.T., et al., 1999, “The Influence of Weapons-Testing Noise on Bald Eagle Behavior,” 

Journal of Raptor Research 33:227232. 

 
Final OSTS PEIS 5-154 

Brown, R.D. (editor), 1979, Health and Environmental Effects of Oil Shale Technology: A 

Workshop Summary and Panel Reports for the Federal Interagency Committee on the Health 

and Environmental Effects of Energy Technologies, DOE/HEW/EPA-02, MTR-79W00136, 

Mitre Corp. McLean, Va. 

Colavecchia, M.V., et al., 2004, “Toxicity of Oil Sands to Early Life Stages of Fathead Minnows 

(Pimephales promelas),” Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 23:17091718. 

Colescott, J.H., and M.P. Gillingham, 1998, “Reactions of Moose (Alces alces) to Snowmobile 

Traffic in the Greys River Valley, Wyoming,” Alces 34(2):329338. 

Contra Costa County, 2003, Draft ConocoPhillips Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel/Strategic 

Modernization Project, Chapter 4, Community Development Department Environmental Impact 

Report SCH# 2002122017, May. Available at http://www.co.contra-costa.ca.us/cd/current/ 

ConocoPhillipsDEIR/web_deir.pdf. Accessed Feb. 19, 2007. 

CWCB (Colorado Water Conservation Board), 2004, Statewide Water Supply Initiative, 

Colorado Department of Natural Resources, Denver, Colo., Nov. 

Daniels, J.J., et al., 1981, Technology Assessment: Environmental, Health, and Safety Impacts 

Associated with Oil Recovery from U.S. Tar-Sand Deposits, UCRL-53210, Lawrence Livermore 

Laboratory, University of California, Livermore, Calif., Oct. 13. 

Delaney, D.K., et al., 1999, “Effects of Helicopter Noise on Mexican Spotted Owls,” Journal of 

Wildlife Management 63(1):6076. 

DOE (U.S. Department of Energy), 1988, “Oil Shale,” Chapter 7 in Energy Technologies & the 

Environment, Environmental Information Handbook, Assistant Secretary for Environment, 

Safety and Health, Office of Environmental Analysis, Washington, D.C., Oct. 

DOE, 2000, Bonneville Power Administration Transmission System Vegetation Management 

Program Final Environmental Impact Statement, DOE/EIS-0285, Bonneville Power 

Administration, Portland, Ore., May. 

DOI and USDA (U.S. Department of the Interior and U.S. Department of Agriculture), 2007, 

Surface Operating Standards and Guidelines for Oil and Gas Exploration and Development, the

Gold Book, 4th ed., BLM/WO/ST-06/021+30721, Bureau of Land Management, Denver, Colo. 

Available at http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/energy/oil_and_gas/best_management_practices/ 

gold_book.html. Accessed July 29, 2011. 

DOL (U.S. Department of Labor), 2006, Injury Trends in Mining, Mine Safety and Health 

Administration. Available at http://www.msha.gov/MSHAINFO/FactSheets/MSHAFCT2.HTM. 

Accessed Nov. 21, 2006. 

E&P, 2007, Technology Improves In-situ Recovery Efficiency. Available at http://www. 

heavyoilinfo.com/feature_items/technology_improves_in-situ.pdf/view. Accessed Oct. 1, 2007.
Final OSTS PEIS 5-155 

EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency), 1974, Information on Levels of Environmental 

Noise Requisite to Protect Public Health and Welfare with an Adequate Margin of Safety, 

EPA 550/9-74-004, Office of Noise Abatement and Control, Washington, D.C., March. 

Available at http://www.nonoise.org/library/levels74/levels74.htm. Accessed Sept. 26, 2011. 

EPA, 1995, Compilation of Air Pollution Emission Factors, AP-42, 5th ed., supplements and 

updates. Available at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42. Accessed Oct. 7, 2011. 

EPA, 2006, Integrated Risk Information System. Available at http://www.epa.gov/iriswebp/ 

iris/index.html. Accessed Nov. 16, 2006. 

EPA, 2011, Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990–2009, 

EPA 430-R-11-005, April 15. Available at http://epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/ 

usinventoryreport.html. Accessed July 14, 2011. 

EPA, 2012, Overview of Final Amendments to Air Regulations for the Oil and Natiral Gas 

Industry, fact sheet. Available at http://www.epa.gov/airquality/oilandgas/pdfs/20120417fs.pdf. 

Accessed June 10, 2012. 

Erwin, W.J., and R.H. Stasiak, 1979, “Vertebrate Mortality during Burning of a Reestablished 

Prairie in Nebraska,” American Midland Naturalist 101:247249. 

Eschholtz, W.E., et al., 1996, “Winter Use of Glyphosate-Treated Clearcuts by Moose in 

Maine,” Journal of Wildlife Management 60(4):764769. 

Faanes, C.A., 1987, Bird Behavior and Mortality in Relation to Power Lines in Prairie Habitats, 

Fish and Wildlife Technical Report 7, U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Washington, D.C. 

Feeney, D., et al., 2004, Big Game Migration Corridors in Wyoming, Wyoming Open Spaces, 

April, University of Wyoming, Laramie, Wyo. Available at http://www.uwyo.edu/openspaces/ 

docs/MigrationCorridors.pdf. Accessed September 26, 2006. 

Fernie, K.J., and S.J. Reynolds, 2005, “The Effects of Electromagnetic Fields from Power Lines 

on Avian Reproductive Biology and Physiology: A Review,” Journal of Toxicology and 

Environmental Health, Part B 8:127140. 

Fogg, J., and H. Hadley, 2007, Hydraulic Considerations for Pipelines Crossing Stream 

Channels, Technical Note 423, Bureau of Land Management, National Science and Technology 

Center, Denver, Colo., April. 

Foppen, R., and R. Reijnen, 1994, “The Effects of Car Traffic on Breeding Bird Populations in 

Woodland. II. Breeding Dispersal of Male Willow Warblers (Phylloscopus trochilus) in Relation 

to the Proximity of a Highway,” Journal of Applied Ecology 32:95101. 
Final OSTS PEIS 5-156 

Ford, W.M., et al., 1999, “Effects of a Community Restoration Fire on Small Mammals and 

Herpetofauna in the Southern Appalachians,” Forest Ecology and Management 114:233243. 

Forman, R.T.T., and L.E. Alexander, 1998, “Roads and their Major Ecological Effects,” Annual 

Review of Ecology and Systematics 29:207231. 

Gaines, W.L., et al., 2003, Assessing the Cumulative Effects of Linear Recreation Routes on 

Wildlife Habitats on the Okanogan and Wenatchee National Forests, General Technical Report 

PNW-GTR-586, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research 

Station, Portland, Ore. 

Groves, C.R., and K. Steenhof, 1988, “Responses of Small Mammals and Vegetation to 

Wildfires in Shadscale Communities of Southwestern Idaho,” Northwest Science 62:205210. 

Hagan, J.M., et al., 1996, “The Early Development of Forest Fragmentation Effects on Birds,” 

Conservation Biology 10(1):188202. 

Hanson, C.E., et al., 2006, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, 

FTA-VA-90-1003-06, prepared by Harris Miller Miller & Hanson Inc., Burlington, Mass., 

for U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, Washington, D.C., 

May. Available at http://www.hmmh.com/rail_manuals01fta.html. Accessed July 2011. 

Harness, R.E., 2000, “Steel Distribution Poles and Their Environmental Implications,” IEEE 

Industry Applications Magazine, May/June:53–56. 

Harris, C.M. (editor), 1991, Handbook of Acoustical Measurements and Noise Control, 3rd ed., 

McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York, N.Y. 

Hedlund, J.D., and W.H. Rickard, 1981, “Wildfire and the Short-Term Response of Small 

Mammals Inhabiting a Sagebrush-Bunchgrass Community,” Murrelet 62:1014. 

Hobbs, N.T., 1989, “Linking Energy Balance to Survival in Mule Deer: Development and Test 

of a Simulation Model,” Wildlife Monographs 101:139. 

Hockin, D., et al., 1992, “Examination of the Effects of Disturbance on Birds with Reference to 

Its Importance in Ecological Assessments,” Journal of Environmental Management 36:253286. 

Holmes, T.L., et al., 1993, “Responses of Wintering Grassland Raptors to Human Disturbance,” 

Wildlife Society Bulletin 21:461468. 

Howard, J.L., 1994, “Asio flammeus,” Fire Effects Information System, U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory. 

Available at http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/animals/bird/asfl/all.html. Accessed 

June 20, 2012. 
Final OSTS PEIS 5-157 

Howard, J.L., 1995, “Lepus californicus,” Fire Effects Information System, U.S. Forest Service, 

Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory. Available at http://www.fs.fed.us/ 

database/feis/animals/mammal/leca/all.html. Accessed May 9, 2007. 

Howard, J.L., 1996a, “Athene cunicularia,” Fire Effects Information System, U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences 

Laboratory. Available at http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/animals/bird/atcu/all.html. Accessed 

June 20, 2012. 

Howard, J.L., 1996b, “Spermophilus townsendii,” Fire Effects Information System, U.S. Forest 

Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory. Available at 

http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/animals/mammal/spto/all.html. Accessed May 9, 2007. 

Hunting, K., 2002, A Roadmap for PIER Research on Avian Power Line Electrocution in 

California, Commission Staff Report P500-02-072F, California Energy Commission, Energy 

Related Environmental Research, Dec. Available at http://www.energy.ca.gov/reports/2002-12-

24_500-02-072F.pdf. Accessed June 21, 2012. 

IARC (International Agency for Research on Cancer), 1985, Volume 35, Polynuclear 

Aromatic Compounds, Part 4, Bitumens, Coal-Tars and Derived Products, Shale-Oils and 

Soots; Summary of Data Reported and Evaluation, IARC Monographs on the Evaluation of 

Carcinogenic Risks to Humans, World Health Organization, updated April 20, 1988. Available at 

http://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Monographs/vol35/volume35.pdf. 

Ingelfinger, F., and S. Anderson, 2004, “Passerine Response to Roads Associated with 

Natural Gas Extraction in a Sagebrush Steppe Habitat,” Western North American 

Naturalist 64(3):385395. 

Irons, D.B., et al., 2000, “Nine Years after the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill: Effects on Marine Bird 

Populations in Prince Sound, Alaska,” The Condor 102:723737. 

IUCNNR (International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources), 1998, 

Impacts of Drought, Karachi, Pakistan. Available at http://drought.iucnp.org/droughtimpact.htm. 

Accessed May 9, 2008. 

Keefer, T.N., and R.S. McQuivey, 1979, Water Availability for Development of Major Tar Sands 

Areas in Utah, prepared by Sutron Corporation, Arlington, Va., for In Situ Tar Sands Recovery 

Project, Laramie Energy Technology Center, U.S. Department of Energy, Laramie, Wyo. 

Knick, S.T., and D.L. Dyer, 1996, “Distribution of Black-Tailed Jackrabbit Habitat Determined 

by Geographical Information System in Southwestern Idaho,” Chapter 3R in BLM/IDARNG 

Research Project Final Report, Vol. 2, U.S. Geological Survey, Forest and Rangeland 

Ecosystem Science Center, Snake River Field Station, Boise, Idaho. 

Knick, S.T., and D.L. Dyer, 1997, “Distribution of Black-Tailed Jackrabbit Habitat Determined 

by GIS in Southwestern Idaho,” Journal of Wildlife Management 61:7585. 
Final OSTS PEIS 5-158 

Knight, R.L., and D.N. Cole, 1991, “Effects of Recreational Activity on Wildlife in Wildlands,” 

pp. 238247 in Transactions of the Fifty-Sixth North American Wildlife and Natural Resources 

Conference, R.E. McCabe (editor), Wildlife Management Institute, Washington, D.C., 

March 1722. 

Knight, R.L., and J.Y. Kawashima, 1993, “Responses of Raven and Red-Tailed Hawk 

Populations to Linear Right-of-Ways,” Journal of Wildlife Management 57(2):266271. 

Larkin, R.P., 1996, Effects of Military Noise on Wildlife: A Literature Review, Technical 

Report 96/21, U.S. Army Construction Engineering Research Laboratory, Champaign, Ill. 

Lee, J.M. Jr., et al., 1996, Electrical and Biological Effects of Transmission Lines: A Review, 

Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, Ore., Dec. 

Lehman, R.N., 2001, “Raptor Electrocution on Power Lines: Current Issues and Outlook,” 

Wildlife Society Bulletin 29(3):804–813. 

Lehman, R.N., and J.W. Allendorf, 1989, “The Effects of Fire, Fire Exclusion, and Fire 

Management on Raptor Habitats in the Western United States,” in Proceedings of the Western 

Raptor Management Symposium and Workshop, 1987, October 2628, Boise, Idaho, Scientific 

and Technical Series No. 12, National Wildlife Federation, Washington, D.C. 

Lehman, R.N., et al., 2007, “The State of the Art in Raptor Electrocution Research: A Global 

Review,” Biological Conservation 136:159–174. 

Lyon, L.J., et al., 2000a, “Direct Effects of Fire and Animal Responses,” in Wildland Fire in 

Ecosystems: Effects of Fire on Fauna, J.K. Smith (editor), General Technical Report 

RMRS-GTR-42-Vol. 1, U.S. Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Ogden, Utah. 

Lyon, L.J., et al., 2000b, “Fire Effects on Animal Populations,” in Wildland Fire in Ecosystems: 

Effects of Fire on Fauna, J.K. Smith (editor), General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-42-Vol. 1, 

U.S. Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Ogden, Utah. 

Maffly, B., 2007, “Carnage Abounds on Western Wyoming Roads,” New West, Feb. 21. 

Available at http://www.newwest.net/index.php/city/article/carnage_abounds_on_western_ 

wyoming_roads/C101/L101. Accessed March 12, 2007. 

Manci, K.M., et al., 1988, Effects of Aircraft Noise and Sonic Booms on Domestic Animals and 

Wildlife: A Literature Synthesis, NERC-88/29, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Ecology 

Research Center, Ft. Collins, Colo. 

Marshall, J.S., and L.W. Vandruff, 2002, “Impact of Selective Herbicide Right-of-Way 

Vegetation Treatment on Birds,” Environmental Management 30(6):801806. 

McLellan, B.N., and D.M. Shackleton, 1989, “Immediate Reactions of Grizzly Bears to Human 

Activities,” Wildlife Society Bulletin 17:269274. 
Final OSTS PEIS 5-159 

Menge, C.W., et al., 1998, FHWA Traffic Noise Model® Technical Manual, FHWA-PD-96-010 

and DOT-VNTSC-FHWA-98-2, prepared by U.S. Department of Transportation, John A. Volpe 

National Transportation Systems Center, Cambridge, Mass., for U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, D.C., Feb. 

Meyer, J.R., and J.M. Lee, Jr., 1981, “Effects of Transmission Lines on Flight Behavior of 

Waterfowl and Other Birds,” pp. 62.1–62.15 in Proceedings of the Second Symposium on 

Environmental Concerns in Rights-of-Way Management, R.E. Tillman (editor), Mississippi 

State University, Mississippi State, Miss. 

Minnesota IMPLAN Group, Inc., 2007, IMPLAN Data Files, Stillwater, Minn. 

Monsen, S.B., et al., 2004, Restoring Western Ranges and Wildlands, General Technical 

Report RMRS-GTR-136, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Forest Service, Fort Collins, Colo., 

Sept. 

MPCA (Minnesota Pollution Control Agency), 1999, A Guide to Noise Control in Minnesota: 

Acoustical Properties, St. Paul, Minn. Available at http://www.pca.state.mn.us/programs/pubs/ 

noise.pdf. Accessed June 15, 2006. 

Murphey, P.C., and D. Daitch, 2007, unpublished information, Argonne National Laboratory, 

Argonne, Ill. 

Natural Resources Conservation Service and Wildlife Habitat Council, 2007, Native Freshwater 

Mussels, Fish and Wildlife Habitat Management Leaflet No. 46, Jan. Available at ftp://ftpfc.sc.egov.usda.gov/WHMI/WEB/pdf/TechnicalLeaflets/NativeFreshwater_%20MusselsJan16. 

pdf. Accessed May 20, 2008. 

Naugle, D.E., et al., 2004, “West Nile Virus: Pending Crisis for Greater Sage-Grouse,” Ecology 

Letters 7:704713. 

Newman, G.J., and E.F. Redente, 2001, “Long-Term Plant Community Development as 

Influenced by Revegetation Techniques,” Journal of Range Management 54(6):717724. 

NSC (National Safety Council), 2006, Injury Facts, 2005–2006 ed., Itasca, Ill. 

NWCC (National Wind Coordinating Committee), 2002, Permitting of Wind Energy Facilities: 

A Handbook, prepared by the NWCC Siting Subcommittee, Aug. Available at 

http://www.nationalwind.org/assets/publications/permitting2002.pdf. Accessed Sept. 26, 2011. 

Olendorff, R.R., and R.N. Lehman, 1986, Raptor Collisions with Utility Lines: An Analysis 

Using Subjective Field Observations, submitted to Pacific Gas and Electric Company, 

San Ramon, Calif., by U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, 

Sacramento, Calif., Feb. 
Final OSTS PEIS 5-160 

O’Rourke, D., et al., 2012, Class I Cultural Resource Overview for Oil Shale and Tar Sands 

Areas in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming, prepared for U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of 

Land Management, by Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, Ill., Sept. 

OSHA (Occupational Safety and Health Administration), 2007, Oil and Gas Well Drilling and 

Servicing eTool, U.S. Department of Labor. Available at http://www.osha.gov/SLTC/etools/ 

oilandgas/index.html. 

Oxley, D.J., et al., 1974, “The Effects of Roads on Populations of Small Mammals,” The Journal 

of Applied Ecology 11(1):5159. 

Paschke, M.W., et al., 2005, “Long-Term Effects of Biosolids on Revegetation of Disturbed 

Sagebrush Steppe in Northwestern Colorado,” Restoration Ecology 13(3):545551. 

Ramirez, P., Jr., 1997, Environmental Contaminants in the Aquatic Bird Food Chain of an Oil 

Refinery Wastewater Pond, Contaminant Report Number R6/712C/97, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Wyoming Field Office, Cheyenne, Wyo, March. Available at http://digitalcommons. 

unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1211&context=usfwspubs. Accessed June 18, 2012. 

Ramirez, P., Jr., 1999, “Fatal Attraction: Oil Field Waste Pits,” Endangered Species Bulletin

24(1):10–11. Available at http://www.fws.gov/contaminants/OtherDocuments/SpeciesBulletin/ 

10-11.pdf. Accessed June 14, 2012. 

Ramirez, P., Jr., 2008, Trace Elements and Petroleum Hydrocarbons in the Aquatic Food Chain 

of Process Water Evaporation Ponds at the Little America Refinery, Casper, Wyoming, 

Contaminant Report Number R6/724C/08, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 6, Feb. 

Available at http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1217&context= 

usfwspubs. Accessed June 19, 2012. 

Raphaelian, L.A., et al., 1981, Organic Constituents in Process Water from Tar-Sand Oil 

Recovery, ANL/PAG-6, Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, Ill., Aug. 

Reed, R.A., et al., 1996, “Contribution of Roads to Forest Fragmentation in the Rocky 

Mountains,” Conservation Biology 10(4):10981106. 

Reijnen, R., and R. Foppen, 1994, “The Effects of Car Traffic on Breeding Bird Populations in 

Woodland. I. Evidence of Reduced Habitat Quality for Willow Warblers (Phylloscopus 

trochilus) Breeding Close to a Highway,” Journal of Applied Ecology 32:8594. 

Reijnen, R., and R. Foppen, 1995, “The Effects of Car Traffic on Breeding Bird Populations in 

Woodland. IV. Influence of Population Size on the Reduction of Density Close to a Highway,” 

Journal of Applied Ecology 32:481491. 

Reijnen, R., et al., 1995, “The Effects of Car Traffic on Breeding Bird Populations in Woodland. 

III. Reduction of Density in Relation to the Proximity of Main Roads,” Journal of Applied 

Ecology 32:187202. 
Final OSTS PEIS 5-161 

Reijnen, R., et al., 1996, “The Effects of Traffic on the Density of Breeding Birds in Dutch 

Agricultural Grasslands,” Biological Conservation 75:255260. 

Reijnen, R., et al., 1997, “Disturbance by Traffic of Breeding Birds: Evaluation of the Effects 

and Considerations in Planning and Managing Road Corridors,” Biodiversity and Conservation

6:567581. 

Riffell, S.K., et al., 1996, “Does Repeated Human Intrusion Cause Cumulative Declines in Avian 

Richness and Abundance?” Ecological Applications 6(2):492505. 

Roe, S., et al., 2007, Final Utah Greenhouse Gas Inventory and Reference Case Projections, 

1990–2020, Center for Climate Strategies, July. Available at http://www.deq.utah.gov/BRAC_ 

Climate/docs/Final_Report/Sec-B-GHG_INVENTORY.pdf. Accessed Aug. 23, 2011. 

Romin, L.A., and J.A. Muck, 2002, Utah Field Office Guidelines for Raptor Protection from 

Human and Land Use Disturbances, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Utah Field Office, Salt 

Lake City, Utah, Jan. Available at http://www.oilandgasbmps.org/docs/UT35-

RAPTORGUIDE.pdf. Accessed July 29, 2011. 

Santillo, D.J., 1994, “Observations on Moose, Alces alces, Habitat and Use on Herbicide Treated 

Clearcuts in Maine,” Canadian Field Naturalist 108(1):2225. 

Santillo, D.J., et al., 1989a, “Response of Songbirds to Glyphosate-Induced Habitat Changes on 

Clearcuts,” Journal of Wildlife Management 53(1):6471. 

Santillo, D.J., et al., 1989b, “Responses of Small Mammals and Habitat to Glyphosate 

Application on Clearcuts,” Journal of Wildlife Management 53(1):164172. 

Sawyer, H., and F. Lindsay, 2001, Sublette Mule Deer Study, final report, Wyoming Cooperative 

Fish & Wildlife Research Unit, Laramie, Wyo., March. Available at http://www.uppergreen.org/ 

library/docs/Muledeerstudy1.pdf. Accessed June 8, 2006. 

Sawyer, H., et al., 2006, “Winter Habitat Selection of Mule Deer before and during Development 

of a Natural Gas Field,” Journal of Wildlife Management 70(2):396403. 

Schooley, R.L., et al., 1996, “Can Shrub Cover Increase Predation Risk for a Desert Rodent?” 

Canadian Journal of Zoology 74:157163. 

Sharpe, P.B., and B. Van Horne, 1998, “Influence of Habitat on Behavior of Townsend’s Ground 

Squirrel (Spermophilus townsendii),” Journal of Mammalogy 79:906918. 

Sik-Cheung, L.S., et al., 2001, “Aquatic Reclamation in the Athabasca, Canada, Oil Sands: 

Naphthenate and Salt Effects on Phytoplankton Communities,” Environmental Toxicology and 

Chemistry 20:15321543. 
Final OSTS PEIS 5-162 

Siwik, P.L., et al., 2000, “Growth of Fathead Minnows in Oilsand-Processed Wastewater in 

Laboratory and Field,” Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 19:18371845. 

Snyder, S.A., 1993, “Circus cyaneus,” Fire Effects Information System, produced by 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire 

Sciences Laboratory. Available at http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/animals/bird/cicy/all.html. 

Accessed June 20, 2012. 

Speight, J.G., 1990, “Tar Sand,” in Fuel Science and Technology Handbook, J.G. Speight 

(editor), Marcel Dekker, Inc., New York, N.Y. 

Stout, I.J., and G.W. Cornwell, 1976, “Nonhunting Mortality of Fledged North American 

Waterfowl,” Journal of Wildlife Management 40:681193. 

Strait, R., et al., 2007, Final Colorado Greenhouse Gas Inventory and Reference 

Case Projections 1990–2020, Center for Climate Strategies, Oct. Available at 

http://www.coloradoclimate.org/ewebeditpro/items/O14F13894.pdf. Accessed 

Aug. 23, 2011. 

Strittholt, J.R., et al., 2000, Importance of Bureau of Land Management Roadless Areas in the 

Western U.S.A., prepared for the National BLM Wilderness Campaign by the Conservation 

Biology Institute, Corvallis, Ore. Available at http://www.consbio.org/cbi/professional_services/ 

blm/blm_pdf.htm. Accessed Jan. 28, 2005. 

Sullivan, J., 1994, “Accipiter striatus,” Fire Effects Information System, U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory. 

Available at http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/animals/bird/acst/all.html. Accessed June 20, 

2012. 

Sullivan, J., 1995, “Bubo virginianus,” Fire Effects Information System, U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory. 

Available at http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/animals/bird/buvi/all.html. Accessed 

June 20, 2012. 

Syncrude Canada, Ltd., 2006, 2006 Sustainability Report. Available at http://sustainability. 

syncrude.ca/sustainability2006. Accessed July 30, 2012. 

Temple Mountain Energy, 2011, Temple Mountain Energy website. Available at 

http://templemountainenergy.com/index.html. Accessed July 11, 2012.Tesky, J.L., 1994a, 

“Aquila chrysaetos,” Fire Effects Information System, U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. 

Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory. Available at 

http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/animals/bird/aqch/all.html. Accessed June 20, 2012. 

Tesky, J.L., 1994b, “Buteo jamaicensis,” Fire Effects Information System, U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory. 
Final OSTS PEIS 5-163 

Available at http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/animals/bird/buja/all.html. Accessed 

June 20, 2012. 

Tesky, J.L., 1994c, “Buteo regalis,” Fire Effects Information System, U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory. 

Available at http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/animals/bird/bure/all.html. Accessed 

June 20, 2012. 

Tesky, J.L., 1994d, “Buteo swainsoni,” Fire Effects Information System, U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory. 

Available at http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/animals/bird/busw/all.html. Accessed 

June 20, 2012. 

Tesky, J.L., 1994e, “Falco sparverius,” Fire Effects Information System, U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory. 

Available at http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/animals/bird/fasp/all.html. Accessed 

June 20, 2012. 

Tesky, J.L., 1994f, “Falco mexicanus,” Fire Effects Information System, U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory. 

Available at http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/animals/bird/fame/all.html. Accessed 

June 20, 2012. 

The Oil Drum, 2007, “A New Method of Extracting Heavy Oil: Toe to Heel Air Injection 

(THAI).” Available at http://canada.theoildrum.com/node/2907?nocomments. Accessed 

Oct. 1, 2007. 

Thompson, D., 2006, Water Balance in the Oil Sands, presented at Globe Conference, 

Vancouver, Canada, March 29. Available at http://www.syncrude.ca/users/folder.asp? 

FolderID=5985. 

Thompson, L.S., 1978, “Transmission Line Wire Strikes: Mitigation through Engineering Design 

and Habitat Modification,” pp. 5192 in Impacts of Transmission Lines on Birds in Flight, 

Proceedings of a Conference, January 31February 2, 1978, ORAU-142, Oak Ridge Associated 

Universities, Oak Ridge, Tenn. 

Thomson, J.L., et al., 2005, Wildlife at a Crossroads: Energy Development in Western 

Wyoming—Effects of Roads on Habitat in the Upper Green River Valley, The Wilderness 

Society, Washington, D.C. Available at http://www.uppergreen.org/library/docs/ 

WildlifeAtCrossroads_report.pdf. Accessed June 8, 2006. 

Timoney, K.P., and R.A. Ronconi, 2010, “Annual Bird Mortality in the Bitumen Tailings Ponds 

in Northeastern Alberta, Canada,” The Wilson Journal of Ornithology 122(3):569–576. 

Trombulak, S.C., and C.A. Frissell, 2000, “Review of Ecological Effects of Roads on Terrestrial 

and Aquatic Communities,” Conservation Biology 14(1):1830. 
Final OSTS PEIS 5-164 

UDEQ (Utah Department of Environmental Quality), 2006, Utah’s 2006 Integrated Report, 

Volume II – 303(d) List of Impaired Waters, Division of Water Quality, Salt Lake City, Utah, 

April. 

UDWR (Utah Division of Water Resources), 1999, Utah State Water Plan: Uintah Basin, 

Department of Natural Resources, Salt Lake City, Utah, Dec. 

UDWR, 2000, Utah State Water Plan: West Colorado River Basin, Salt Lake City, Utah, Aug. 

UDWR, 2006, Utah Division of Wildlife Resources Drought Response Plan for Wildlife, 

Salt Lake City, Utah. Available at http://wildlife.utah.gov/news/02-07/drought.php. Accessed 

May 15, 2008. 

U.S. Census Bureau, 2011, “State & County QuickFacts.” Available at http://quickfacts. 

census.gov/qfd/index.html. Accessed Sept. 21, 2011. 

USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture), 2008a, Fire Effects Information System, U.S. Forest 

Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory. Available at 

http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/index.html. Accessed May 9, 2007. 

USDA, 2008b, “Bird Index,” Fire Effects Information System, U.S. Forest Service, Rocky 

Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory. Available at http://www.fs.fed.us/ 

database/feis/animals/bird. Accessed May 9, 2007. 

USFS Region 2 (U.S. Forest Service, Region 2), 2000, Watershed Conservation Practices 

Handbook, Forest Service Handbook 2509.25-99-1. Available at http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/psicc/ 

publications/environmental_impact_statements/eis_uspwp/WCPAppendixA.htm, Accessed 

March 13, 2007. 

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service), 2009, Migratory Bird Mortality in Oilfield Wastewater 

Disposal Facilities, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Wyoming Ecological Services Field Office, 

Cheyenne, Wyo., May. Available at http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/contaminants/ 

documents/COWDFBirdMortality.pdf. Accessed June 12, 2012. 

USGCRP (U.S. Global Change Research Program), 2009, Global Climate Change Impacts in the 

United States, T.R. Karl, et al. (editors), Cambridge University Press, N.Y. Available at 

http://downloads.globalchange.gov/usimpacts/pdfs/climate-impacts-report.pdf. Accessed 

Aug. 30, 2011. 

U.S. President, 1977, “Protection of Wetlands,” Executive Order 11990, Federal 

Register 42:26961, May 24. 

U.S. President, 1996, “Locating Federal Facilities on Historic Properties in Our Nation’s Central 

Cities,” Executive Order 13006, Federal Register 61:26071, May 24. 
Final OSTS PEIS 5-165 

U.S. President, 2000, “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments,” 

Executive Order 13175, Federal Register 65:67249, Nov. 9. 

Waters, T.F., 1995, Sediment in Streams: Sources, Biological Effects, and Control, 

Monograph 7, American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Md. 

Watts, S.T., and S.T. Knick, 1996, “The Influence of Vegetation, Soils, and Disturbance on 

Townsend’s Ground Squirrel Abundance,” in BLM/IDARNG Research Project Final Report, 

Vol. 2, U.S. Geological Survey, Forest and Rangeland Ecosystem Science Center, Snake River 

Field Station, Boise, Idaho. 

WGFD (Wyoming Game and Fish Department), 2010, Recommendations for Development of Oil 

and Gas Resources within Important Wildlife Habitats, Wyoming Game and Fish Department, 

Cheyenne, Wyo., March. Available at http://gf.state.wy.us/downloads/pdf/og.pdf. Accessed 

July 27, 2011. 

Wood, E.W., 1992, “Prediction of Machinery Noise,” in Noise and Vibration Control 

Engineering: Principles and Applications, L.L. Beranek, and I.L. Vér (editors), John Wiley & 

Sons, Inc., New York, N.Y. 

Yarmoloy, C., et al., 1988, “Behavior Responses and Reproduction of Mule Deer, Odocoileus

hemionus, Does Following Experimental Harassment with an All-Terrain Vehicle,” The 

Canadian Field-Naturalist 102:425429. 

Zimmerman, G.S., and W.E. Glanz, 2000, “Habitat Use by Bats in Eastern Maine,” Journal of 

Wildlife Management 64(4):10321040. 

 
Final OSTS PEIS 5-166 

This page intentionally left blank.