Table Of Content88067791
Approved Resource Management Plan
Amendments/Record of Decision (ROD)
for Oil Shale and Tar Sands Resources to
Address Land Use Allocations in Colorado,
Utah, and Wyoming and Final Programmatic
Environmental Impact Statement
November 2008
195
04
L352
&mjy¥h%%°\
MISSION STATEMENT
It is the mission ofthe Bureau of Land Management (BLM), an agency ofthe
Department ofthe Interior, to manage BLM-administered lands and resources in a
manner that best serves the needs ofthe American people. Management is based
upon the principles ofmultiple use and sustained yield taking into account the
long-term needs offuture generations for renewable and nonrenewable resources.
BLM-WO-GI-09-001-3900
Thispage intentionally left blank
CONTENTS
RECORD OF DECISION
1
INTRODUCTION
1
—
OVERVIEW OF THE ALTERNATIVES OIL SHALE 2
—
Alternative A No Action Alternative, Continuation ofCurrent Management....5
Commercial Oil Shale Program Alternatives 8
—
Alternative B Oil Shale Proposed Amendments 13
Alternative C 17
OVERVIEW OF THE ALTERNATIVES TAR SANDS 23
—
Alternative A No Action Alternative, Continuation ofCurrent Management..27
Commercial Tar Sands Program Alternatives 27
—
Alternative B Commercial Tar Sands Program, Proposed Plan Amendments.29
Alternative C 31
COMMENTS ON THE PRMP AND FEIS 36
THE DECISION 36
What the Decision and RMP Provides 38
Oil Shale Decisions 38
Tar Sands Decisions 39
What the Decision and RMP Do Not Provide 39
NOTICE OF MODIFICATIONS AND CLARIFICATIONS MADE TO THE
APPROVED PLAN 40
Modifications 40
Clarifications 40
MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS IN SELECTING THE APPROVED PLAN
Amendments 42
Energy Policy Act of2005 42
Comments and Recommendations 42
Balanced Use and Environmental Protection 43
i
CONSISTENCY AND CONSULTATION REVIEW
44
Governor’s Consistency Review 44
Cooperating Agencies 45
Tribal Governments 46
—
NHPA
Section 106 Consultation 49
—
ESA Section 7 Compliance 50
MITIGATION MEASURES
53
PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT 54
Scoping 54
Public Comments on the Draft EIS 54
RELEASE ofthe RMPA and FPEIS 55
AVAILABILITY OF THE PLAN 55
BLM DIRECTOR RECOMMENDATION 56
ASSISTANT SECRETARY APPROVAL 56
APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENTS
57
INTRODUCTION 57
CONSIDERATION OF OTHER BLM PLANS AND POLICIES 58
PLAN IMPLEMENTATION 59
General Implementation Schedule 59
Maintaining the Plan 59
Changing the Plan 60
LIST OF PREPARERS 60
REFERENCES CITED 61
LIST OF ACRONYMS 63
LIST OF TABLES 64
LIST OF FIGURES 64
APPENDIX A: A-l
APPENDIX B: B-l
ii
RECORD OF DECISION
1
INTRODUCTION
This Record of Decision (ROD) describes the Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM’s) proposal
to amend 10 Resource Management Plans (RMP) to identify the most geologically prospective
public lands in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming for oil shale and tar sands resources, and to
-y
designate certain ofthese lands as available for application for commercial leasing" and future
exploration and development ofthese resources. These 10 RMPs still provide decisions for the
management ofthe public lands for other resource uses and values.
RMP
The amendments were described as the Proposed Plan in the September 2008 Proposed Oil
Shale and Tar Sands Resource Management Plan (PRMP) Amendments to Address Land Use
Allocations in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming and Final Programmatic Environmental Impact
Statement (FPEIS)(USDI-BLM-2008), and received preliminary approval by the Assistant
Secretary, Land and Minerals Management. The RMP amendments, approved in this ROD,
serve as the first step in the process to establish a commercial oil shale and tar sands program
that meets the intent ofCongress while taking advantage ofthe best available information and
practices to minimize impacts and ensure that states, local communities, and the public have the
opportunity to be involved.
ROD
This provides the background on development ofthe plan and rationale for approving the
proposed decisions contained in the Proposed Plan. The attached Resource Management Plan
(RMP) Amendments to Address Land Use Allocations in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming
1 The ROD for the Price Field Office RMP/EIS, the Richfield Field Office RMP/EIS, and the Vernal Field Office
RMP/EIS were signed in October 2008 and the Monticello RMP/EIS was signed in November 2008. These decision
documents supersede the decision contained in the prior RMPs [Book Cliffs RMP (BLM 1985); Diamond Mountain
RMP (BLM 1994); Price River Resource Area MFP, as amended (BLM 1989); Henry Mountain MFP (BLM 1982);
San Rafael Resource Area RMP (BLM 1991); and San Juan Resource Area RMP (BLM 1991 for the planning
)]
areas but did not make decisions for oil shale and tar sands resources. Those decisions for oil shale and tar sands
resources are contained in this ROD.
Ten land use plans are being amended, six land use plans cover areas containing only oil shale resources, 2 land use
plans cover areas containing only tar sands resources and 2 land use plans cover areas containing both oil shale and
tar sands resources.
2 While the term “commercial lease” was used throughout the PRMP/FPEIS, the use ofthe term there, as here,
represents that BLM may consider issuing commercial leases or research, development, and demonstration leases, or
both in the areas designated as available for application.
The phrase “available for application for leasing” is used above, and throughout the document, rather than “available
for leasing” to highlight that, unlike BLM’s practice with respect to oil and gas leasing, additional National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) analysis will be required prior to the issuance ofany lease ofoil shale or tar
sands resources.
(Attachment -Appendix A) (also referred to as the Approved Plan Amendments) describes the
decisions.
The purpose and need for the Approved Plan Amendments is to meet the requirements
established by Congress in Section 369 ofthe Energy Policy Act of2005. In August 2005, the
U.S. Congress enacted the Energy Policy Act of2005, Public Law (P.L.) 109-58. In Section 369
ofthis Act, also known as the “Oil Shale, Tar Sands, and Other Strategic Unconventional Fuels
Act of2005,” Congress declared that oil shale and tar sands (and other unconventional fuels) are
strategically important domestic energy resources that should be developed to reduce the
Nation’s growing dependence on oil from politically and economically unstable foreign sources.
To support this declaration ofpolicy, Congress directed the Secretary ofthe Interior (the
Secretary) to undertake a series ofsteps, several ofwhich are directly related to the development
ofa commercial leasing program for oil shale and tar sands.
A
principle provision required the Secretary to “...complete a programmatic environmental
impact statement for a commercial leasing program for oil shale and tar sands resources on
public lands, with an emphasis on the most geologically prospective lands in Colorado, Utah,
and Wyoming.” The decisions analyzed in the Oil Shale and Tar Sands Programmatic
Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) satisfy this statutory requirement.
—
OVERVIEW OF THE ALTERNATIVES OIL SHALE
The PRMP/PEIS study area for the oil shale resources includes the most geologically prospective
resources ofthe Green River Formation located in the Green River, Piceance, Uinta, and
Washakie Basins and encompasses approximately 3,540,000 acres.
BLM
The identified the most geologically prospective areas for oil shale development based on
the grade and thickness ofthe oil shale deposits. The most geologically prospective oil shale
resources in Colorado and Utah are those deposits that yield 25 gallons ofshale oil per ton of
rock (gal/ton) or more and are 25 feet thick or greater. In Wyoming, where the oil shale resource
is not as high ofa quality resource as it is in Colorado and Utah, the most geologically
prospective oil shale resources are those deposits that yield 15 gal/ton or more ofshale oil and
are 5 feet thick or greater.
1
Figure 1 shows the four oil shale basins that were mapped based on the extent ofthe Green River
Formation and the most geologically prospective oil shale resources within those basins.
I
^hosbone
NationalForest
BfKlger-Ttton LiXDER
NationalForest
KEM\tERER
Logan
Greer
r
^BrighamCache River
City National Basin Green'River
Forest |
Evanston
Washakie
Basin
Layton
Farmingtol Cotewado
Medicine
Coalville Bow-
Routt
VaWlelsety' 1stJordart AshleyNationalForest DNiantoisonaaulr NF
City Monument
frUinta ,Vernal
National,,
OremaProvo Forestj
Duchesna. WHITERIVER
Meeker
Uinta
Basin Piceance River
iBasin **f
|
andUOiunrtaa^9 N /<£EXWOOD
mrUFtELl) 'Reservation JlgXj(uTxIdOX dS smixiv*s
,>Manti I J6'-vj I G_randMesa.»
89" Manti-Lajsal Basing
T" NationalFprest GreenRiver Cokjiado '^ranclJuncJtor1”" GiandMi-
MoNantuimoneanlt J^—-q-c) £Jdh/msoUnnNcaolmipcaniavltjFroreesatnsd.
'‘Richfie.ld FNiasthitoankael^*» fA\NAamrtcihoneasl ,\oBlNlatathciekoGnCaualnnnPyitsowoknn
fores! •
i J FieldOfficeBoundary NPS-administeredLand
I \ MostGeologicallyProspectiveOHShaleResource USFS-admtmsteredLand
ExtentofGreenRiverFormation TribalLands
j_
Figure 1: Most Geologically Prospective Oil Shale Resources within the Green River formation
Basins in Colorado, Utah and Wyoming
The oil shale resources within the defined study areas are located within thejurisdiction ofeight
BLM
separate administrative units. These units include the Glenwood Springs, Grand Junction,
and White River Field Offices in Colorado; the Price, and Vernal Field Offices in Utah; and the
Kemmerer, Rawlins, and Rock Springs Field Offices in Wyoming. Table presents the total
1
acreage ofthe most geologically prospective oil shale areas.
3
Table 1: Total Size in Acres ofthe Green River Formation Basins, Most geologically
prospective Oil Shale Areas, and Acres of BLM-Administered and Split
Estate Lands within the Most Prospective Areas in each State a, b
Most Geologically Prospective Area
State Total Size of Most Total BLM- Total Split
Basin Geologically Administered Estate Lands
Prospective Lands (Federal
Area Minerals)
Colorado
1,185,700 503,342 319,710 41,940
Piceance Basin
Utah
2,977,900 840,213 560,972 77,220
Uinta Basin c
Wyoming
4,506,200 2,194,483 1,257,680 39,406
Green River and
Washakie Basins
Total
8,669,800 3,538,038 2,138,361 158,566
aTotals may notbe exactbecause ofrounding. These estimates were derived from geographic information
system (GIS) data compiled forthe PEIS analyses. The GIS data may contain errors; therefore, these estimates
should be considered to be only representative ofthe size ofthe oil shale resources and the distribution of
BLM-administered and split estate lands.
b Split estate lands include areaswhere the Federal government owns, and the BLM administers, the subsurface
mineral rights, but the surface estate is ownedby tribes, states, orprivate parties.
Three alternatives, including a no action alternative, were analyzed. All management under any
ofthe alternatives would comply with Federal laws, rules, regulations, and policies. Alternative
A (the no action alternative) would not amend the plans. Management prescriptions in existing
plans are not modified under this alternative. Alternatives B and C described different
management approaches to amending RMPs to designate certain lands as being available for
application for future commercial leasing and development. The approach taken in both
Alternatives B and C is designed to ensure that future oil shale leasing and development is
possible when economic and environmentally acceptable.
4
