BLM Offers Additional Time for Comment on Oil Shale Study --March 20, 2008
The Bureau of Land Management announced today that it will accept public comment on the Oil Shale-Tar Sands Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) for an additional 30 days. The agency received several requests for additional time for public comment on the document, which it began developing more than two years ago to meet requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the Energy Policy Act of 2005. The 90-day public comment period that BLM planning regulations require for environmental impact statements closes today, March 20, 2008. Local governments including the Cities of Rifle, Colo., and Grand Junction, Colo., the Town of Silt, Colo., and Eagle and Pitkin Counties as well as others wrote to request additional time to comment on the proposed allocation of BLM-managed lands for future oil shale or tar sands leasing. Offering an additional 30 days for interested citizens to comment is another in a series of actions we feel are important in working with States and local communities on developing federal oil shale resources while also meeting the direction Congress has provided," said BLM Director James Caswell, "This includes revisions made last August to the PEIS work schedule and the document itself, which we made in response to comments from federal, state and local governments" In the Energy Policy Act of 2005, enacted in August of that year, Congress directed completion of an oil shale-tar sand PEIS "not later than 18 months after enactment." "While recognizing this unusually specific timetable, the Department of the Interior and the BLM also remain committed to working closely with the States and local governments to achieve a proper balance in land use allocation and environmental protection," Caswell said. "The States of Utah, Colorado and Wyoming, along with a number of local governments have been working with us from the beginning as cooperating agencies to draft the PEIS. We look forward to continuing this relationship as we plan for responsible oil shale development and to further input from the public as well." Fourteen federal, state and local government agencies including the States of Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming, and the City of Rifle, Colorado “ have cooperating agency status in preparing the PEIS. Under Department of the Interior regulations, cooperating agencies participate in drafting NEPA documents and developing the alternatives presented for public comment. Prior to publication of the Draft PEIS, the BLM gave cooperating agencies an additional three weeks to review the document and begin preparing comments. Last August, the BLM substantially revised a preliminary draft of the oil shale-tar sands PEIS on the basis of input from cooperating agencies. There is no existing program for leasing federal oil shale resources, which are estimated at more than 50 times the country's proven conventional oil reserves and nearly five times the proven reserves of Saudi Arabia. Once finalized, the PEIS will guide future management of public lands containing oil shale and tar sands resources by identifying the BLM-managed lands for which the agency will consider oil shale lease applications. The PEIS will not authorize any leasing or commercial development of oil shale or tar sands projects. For lands that would be allocated (determined to be suitable) for oil shale development, the PEIS identifies constraints under which leasing would be allowed and that would end up as stipulations to leases. Additional, site-specific NEPA analysis of lease applications and proposed plans of development will be required at the time individual proposals for allocated lands are submitted. These analyses will be completed with full public involvement, Caswell noted.
Draft Programmatic EIS Comments --9700 South Cass Avenue--BLM Oil Shale and Tar Sands Resources--Argonne, IL 60439
Sirs:
The Public Lands Foundation (PLF) has studied the Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) for Oil Shale and Tar Sands Resource Management Plan Amendments in Colorado, Utah and Wyoming, dated December 20, 2007. We have the following comments: PLF is a national non-profit conservation organization founded in 1987. Our membership is primarily retired former employees of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). PLF’s mission is to keep America’s Public Lands in public hands, sustainably managed for the public’s common use and enjoyment through professional, science-based education and advocacy. We support the implementation of Alternative C. We find that this alternative is the more prudent course for BLM to take given some serious issues and unknowns that the draft PEIS discusses with respect to the technologies of Oil Shale and Tar Sand extraction. For example the PEIS states frequently that the amount of water that may be required for future commercial development, and the potential mix between surface water, groundwater, and treated process water is unknown.=A0 We would like to see the Oil Shale Research, Development, and Demonstration work plans of the five tract operators put priority emphasis on these water information gaps. In addition, the PLF recommends that the PEIS contractor define thresholds for Oil Shale and Tar Sand development for water and related environmental effects as a part of the final PEIS revisions. To defer the determination of thresholds will create a patchwork of aanalysis within individual Resource Management Plan Amendments, thus compromising the intent of NEPA for realistic disclosure of cumulative impacts. The preparation of the draft PEIS has been a very complex effort, and the PLF commends the BLM and Argonne National Laboratory for a comprehensive and professional draft.
Sincerely, George Lea, President, PLF
DRAFT OIL SHALE AND TAR SANDS RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENTS TO ADDRESS LAND USE ALLOCATIONS IN COLORADO, UTAH AND WYOMING AND PROGRAMMATIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
COMMENTS OF THE PUBLIC LANDS FOUNDATION--FEB. 29, 2008
Sec. ES-1, first paragraph., principle is misspelled. The Executive Summary should have an explicit discussion of Purpose and Need for the PEIS.
Vol. 1, Ch. 2, Sec. 2.1, Pg. 2-1, para. 2: This paragraph needs to do a better job of explaining how the BLM’s current approach to the oil shale and tar sands industry and their recovery technologies differs from the management approaches proposed in Alternatives B and C of the draft PEIS.
Ch. 2, Sec. 2.2.1, page 2-2: This paragraph on the requirements of E.O. 12088 (Federal Compliance with Pollution Control Standards) should make it clear that 12088 was amended January 23, 1987. It is inaccurate to cite it as only a 1978 E.O. It was amended by E.O. 12580. It was also amended April 22, 2000 by E.O. 13148 to delete Section 4.
Ch. 2, Sec. 2.2.1, Pg. 2-5: This bullet on water quality, while accurate, does not address the full range of water quality standards and regulations with which a potential oil shale or tar sands lease must comply. alinity is but one special case of a water quality constituent, which is managed on a basin scale (seven Basin States) through the federal salinity control program, in which the USDI-BLM participates. This water quality bullet is incomplete unless it further states that the BLM in its proposed leasing of oil shale and tar sands must ensure that all leases, stipulations, and plans of operations comply with federal and state water quality standards and regulation, including tribal standards and regulation, where applicable. This is a requirement of the Clean Water Act.
Ch. 2, Sec. 2.3.1, Pg. 2-16: PLF agrees with the BLM’s cooperating agencies that BLM’s analysis would be too speculative to support a decision to issue any oil shale or tar sands leases on the basis of the 15 Project Scenario. PLF further concurs with the BLM’s decision to not attempt to issues leases for commercial development on the basis of this PEIS.
Ch. 2, Sec. 2.5.7, Pg. 2-53: The White River Resource Management Plan (1997) was considered to be a state-of-the-art planning document at the time it was completed, particularly in its establishment of carrying capacity thresholds (also known as Limits of Acceptable Change ) specific to oil shale development, for air and water quality, big game habitat, and socioeconomic impacts. In terms of the vintage of all 12 RMPs that the BLM proposes to amend, the White River RMP is one of the newer RMPs, with only the Roan Plateau Plan Amendments (2006, 2007) and the Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan (WY) (2006) being more recent. Thus we are disappointed with the position taken in this PEIS that instead of using the White River RMP as the minimum standard for analysis of impacts of oil shale, the approach will be to dumb down the level of impact analysis for the PEIS to accommodate and reward those Field Offices and States who did not face up to development thresholds and hard work of establishing threshold capacities years ago. The PEIS instead, proposes to defer the issue of defining thresholds for oil shale development into the future, as part of site-specific NEPA analyses to be conducted prior to the issuance of commercial leases. Unfortunately, to defer will simply create a piecemeal patchwork of analysis by individual BLM Field Offices, lacking any real cumulative impact analysis, which flies in the face of the spirit and intent of NEPA. If the contactor-preparer of this PEIS were to objectively look at the most compelling resource question in oil shale and tar sand development, that of the large quantities of water required, the water question alone is one that should convince BLM and its contractor to define thresholds for oil shale/tar sand development for water and all related environmental impacts in this PEIS. The Public Lands Foundation is opposed to defining these thresholds as they relate to water at some point in the future as part of site-specific NEPA analyses.
Ch. 3, Sec. 3.2.1.3, Pg. 3-45: Soils of the Piceance Basin are described in two paragraphs, which is an inadequate discussion. What soil surveys are completed that cover this area, and to what mapping order are these surveys; please provide the literature citations to these surveys. The same deficiency occurs in Sec. 3.2.2.3, for Soils of the Uinta Basin, and in Sec. 3.2.3.3 for Soils of the Green River-Washakie Basins. The soils discussion for the 11 Special Tar Sand Areas (Ch. 3, Sec. 3.2.4.3) is also incomplete and inadequate. Soil properties as documented in soil mapping and soil survey publications of the USDA and others will be very important in determining the magnitudes and types of off-site, downstream erosion impacts that can be expected, as well as the reclamation potential for disturbed surfaces.
Ch. 3, Sec. 3.4.2.1, Pg. 3-76: Third to last paragraph of this Section: This paragraph makes the point that groundwater is possibly being mined (over-drawn) in the Piceance Basin, resulting in depletion of the aquifer system. We believe that the word adequate should be changed to inadequate in the last sentence of the last full paragraph. Thus it would read, “Because of inadequate surface water supplies, however, demand is unlikely to change (Hatton, 2000).”
Ch. 3, Sec. 3.5.3, Pg. 3-101: Although elemental mercury is not a National Ambient Air Quality Standard, we believe that the PEIS should address Hg, since Hg is a known toxic released to the atmosphere from coal fired power plants, occurring naturally in coal deposits. It could also be associated with oil shale deposits and overburden. There is a national mercury monitoring network which Mesa Verde National Park participates in on a year round basis, and in northern Colorado there is a seasonal Hg monitoring station. Fish consumption advisories for mercury are known to the Colorado Game and Fish Department for McPhee Reservoir, Vallecito Lake, Sanchez Reservoir, and other mountain locations in Colorado. There also may be mercury in reservoir and lake issues in Utah and Wyoming in oil shale and tar sand areas.
Ch. 3, Section 3.7.2, Pg. 3-121 on Plant Communities and Habitats: There is no mention of wildland fire, lightning caused fires, frequency or severity of burning…..this is an important factor in the plant communities of the Oil Shale and Tar Sand areas that affects the public, erosion, air quality, and water supplies and it needs to be addressed.
Vol. 2, Sec. 4.2.1.1, Pg. 4-17, Other Mineral Development Activities: It is discussed in Section 2.3.3, that 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, according to the draft PEIS. Our question is, what is the rationale of BLM in their decision to not carry forward decisions in the White River RMP to restrict oil shale leasing in the Piceance Creek Dome area?
Vol. 2, Sec. 4.3.1.1, Soil Resources, Pg. 4-23: The PEIS identifies a key concern for impacts on soil as 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. Infiltration of precipitation through stockpiled oil shale or through waste piles of spent material has the potential of impacting surface water quality or shallow aquifers water quality with leached hydrocarbons and salts. We believe that the preparers of this PEIS need to locate and analyze soil and water studies that were performed in the late 1970s to early 1980s in western Colorado in which water was leached through representative spent shale rock in order to get an idea of the water chemistry of this leachate. These data are very pertinent and should be made available and discussed in this PEIS in order to make some qualitative or semi-quantitative estimates of these surface and ground water quality impacts. These data should also be discussed in Vol. 2, pages 5-19 and 5-20 with regards to development of Tar Sands and soil resource impacts, and water quality. We do not believe that the draft document provides enough data on the chemical and physical characteristics of spent shale, which would be important to the resuming of traditional land management activities, such as grazing or wildlife habitat following reclamation.
Vo. 2, Sec. 4.6.1, Pg. 4-46, Common Impacts, Air Quality and Climate: Elemental Mercury should be mentioned as a very likely emission category that is associated with the burning of coal from the up to 2,400 MW of new coal-fired power plant(s) that would be needed to support the electric power needs of In-Situ commercial extraction of oil shale. This Sec. 4.6.1 also fails to address Mercury as a potential released toxic to the atmosphere when extracted shale rock is processed for oil extraction at surface retort facilities. Mercury is a cross-media toxic that has been appearing in water bodies of the intermountain states from air deposition, and then converting to methyl mercury in bottom sediments of these water bodies (e.g. McPhee, Narraguinnep and Vallecito Reservoirs, CO; and Navajo Reservoir, NM). These reservoirs and others in western CO and Utah are then posted with fish consumption advisories which recommend the avoidance or careful limiting of humans eating specific fish species and size classes because of the bioaccumulation of this mercury in fish tissue. This is a major water quality issue in the intermountain west that large scale industrial initiatives such as Oil Shale and Tar Sand development must address.
Another deficiency of this section is there is no mention of the Class I and Class II areas (as protected under the Clean Air Act of 1970, as amended 1977 and 1990) that are included in the 17 Counties and 3 States itemized in Table 4.6.1-1. It is particularly important to know the location of the Class I areas with respect to the potential Oil Shale and Tar Sand development areas, and their vulnerability to the drifting over and deposition of emissions into these areas, which require the highest level of air quality protection that the EPA is required to enforce. Similarly, in Vol. 2, Chapter 5, Pg. 5-39 also needs to be modified to show the Class I and Class II areas that are included in the 10 Utah Counties displayed in this Table 5.6.1-1.
Vol. 2, Sec. 4.6.2, Pg. 4-50, Mitigating Measures: The PLF is pleased to see the statement here that “…..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.” However, the PLF cautions the BLM and the air quality regulatory agencies of the three involved States, that monitoring costs for AQRV’s are almost never included in the budgets of the BLM, or in the very modest air quality monitoring budgets of States such as CO, UT and WY. Therefore PLF recommends that the PEIS be revised to provide here (and on Pg. 5-42 for STSA’s), a strong “heads up” to industry, that industry, (i.e. those who expect to be lease holders on Oil Shale or Tar Sand development) must bear the largest share of such AQRV monitoring costs, as a condition of leasing.
Vol. 2, Sec. 4.8.1.4, Pg. 4-82, Threatened and Endangered Species: This section indicates that with the significant water depletions anticipated from drainages of the Upper Colorado River basin, adverse effects on endangered Colorado River fish species could represent a significant impact. The discussion of mitigating measures in Vol. 2, Section 4.8.2.4 that are supposed to address this impact are too general to be of any value, and need a complete rewrite. A complete rewrite is also needed in the Sec. 5.8.1.4 on Tar Sands and water depletions (Vol. 2, Pg. 5-77) because the mitigating measures there are again, too general to be of any value.
Vol. 2, Section 4.11.1.4, Pg. 4-144, Impacts on Agriculture: This section is not complete because it does not acknowledge the indirect impacts on wildlife caused by the changes in water use from agriculture (primarily ranching) to industrial. The draft PEIS indicates that to facilitate new oil shale and tar sand development, historic water rights will likely be purchased from agricultural landowners, primarily ranchers. This means that usually that irrigated agriculture is no longer possible and it will likely lead to conversion of irrigated agriculture to dry land farming/ranching activities. Many species of terrestrial and aquatic wildlife benefit from irrigated agriculture, and the preparers have not addressed this here; thus this Section needs rewrite. Another deficiency of this section is that it does not address the possibility that some agricultural fee lands, because they will be moving to dry land non-irrigated status, no longer will support their owners, and thus may be sold and developed for second homes, condos, and other real estate types, which will further fragment wildlife habitat, and create another set of impacts to wildlife, and particularly to the behavior of migratory big game species such as elk and mule deer.
Vol. 2, Pg. 4-163, Table 4.14-1 Potential Health Impacts Associated With Oil Shale Development: This table does not display any impacts associated with the construction and operation of up to 2,400 MW of new coal-fired electricity generation to support in-situ oil shale development. There are many health impacts documented in the Four Corners region and elsewhere such as asthma and mercury toxicity in breast milk that you need to disclose here. Similarly, the narrative on Page 4-70, Sec. 4.14.1.4 on health impacts associated with in-situ processing is incomplete because it does not address those health impacts associated with new coal-fired electricity generation.
Vol. 2, Sec. 6.1.2.4, Impacts on Water Resources (under the Proposed Alternative B): The Public Lands Foundation notes the statement seen here and in many other places in the PEIS that the amount of water that may be required for future commercial development and the potential mix between surface water, groundwater, and treated process water is unknown. This then results in 1.) an inability to predict specific locations for potential future commercial development and 2.) the impossibility of predicting the specific impacts on water resources that could occur with commercial development of Oil Shale and Tar Sands. We view this as very serious technology restriction to full public disclosure in the NEPA process of how the development of these energy resources will affect water supplies, uses, and water quality. In the arid states of this PEIS project area, water resources are limited, and are nearly all committed to other important water uses, such as agriculture, municipal, other industrial, and in-stream flow/aquatic habitat purposes. Water in western Colorado, eastern Utah and southwest Wyoming is no less important than is the development of energy resources, and in fact, many would argue that water is more important than the extraction of these energy resources. Industry, academia, and the federal government simply must do better homework so as to be able to better estimate the water needs of commercial development. We suggest that obtaining answers to these questions about water, if not already being pursued through Oil Shale Research, Development, and Demonstration (R, D and D) that these questions be given high priority in the work plans of the five R, D and D Tract Operators. Without more complete information on water requirements, commercial development of Oil Shale and Tar Sands may be premature, and future emphasis should remain in the R, D and D stage until these answers are forthcoming. Finite water resources and our public lands deserve better than trial and error development of Oil Shale and Tar Sands.