4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

4.0 CUMULATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Cumulative impacts result from the incremental impacts of an action added to 

other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, regardless of who 

is responsible for such actions. Cumulative impacts can result from individually 

minor, but collectively significant, actions occurring over time. 

This section summarizes the cumulative impacts that are occurring as a result 

of existing development in the PRB1 and considers how those impacts would 

change if other projected development in the area occurs and if the West 

Antelope II LBA tract is leased and mined. 

BLM completed three regional EISs evaluating the potential cumulative impacts 

of surface coal development in the 1970s and early 1980s (BLM 1974, 1979, and 

1981). A draft document for a fourth regional EIS was prepared and released in 

1984 (BLM 1984). Since those regional EISs were prepared, BLM has prepared a 

number of NEPA analyses evaluating coal leasing actions and oil and gas 

development in the PRB. Each of these NEPA analyses includes an analysis of 

cumulative impacts in the Wyoming PRB. 

Currently, the BLM is completing a regional technical study, called the PRB Coal 

Review, to help evaluate the cumulative impacts of coal and other mineral 

development in the PRB. The PRB Coal Review consists of three tasks: 

• Task 1 identifies existing resource conditions in the PRB for the baseline 

year (2003) and, for applicable resources, updates the BLM's 1996 status 

check for coal development in the PRB. 

• Task 2 defines the past and present development activities in the PRB and 

their associated development levels as of 2003 and develops a forecast of 

reasonably foreseeable development in the PRB through 2020. The 

reasonably foreseeable activities fall into three broad categories: coal 

development (coal mine and coal-related), oil and gas development 

(conventional oil and gas, CBNG, and major transportation pipelines), and 

other development, which includes development that is not energy-related 

as well as other energy-related development. 

• Task 3 predicts the cumulative impacts that could be expected to occur to 

air, water, socioeconomic, and other resources if the development occurs 

as projected in the forecast developed under Task 2. 

A series of reports have been prepared to present the results of the PRB Coal 

Review task studies. The Task 1, 2, and 3 reports represent components of a 

technical study of cumulative development in the PRB; they do not evaluate 

specific proposed projects, but they provide information that BLM is using to 

evaluate the cumulative impacts that would be expected to occur if specific 

1 Refer to page xv for a list of abbreviations and acronyms used in this document.
 

Draft EIS, West Antelope II Coal Lease Application 4-1 
4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

projects or applications, such as the West Antelope II coal lease application, are 

approved. The Task 1 reports, which include air quality conditions, water 

resources conditions, social/economic conditions, and other resource 

conditions, and the Task 2 Report have been completed. The Task 3 reports for 

air quality conditions, social/economic conditions, and other resource 

conditions have been completed. The Task 3 evaluation of water resource 

conditions is in progress. The information in these reports is summarized later 

in this chapter, and the completed reports are available for viewing at the BLM 

offices in Casper and Cheyenne and on the Wyoming BLM website at 

http://www.blm.gov/wy/st/en/programs/energy/Coal_Resources/PRB_Coal/pr 

bdocs.html. 

The PRB includes portions of northeastern Wyoming and southeastern Montana. 

The Wyoming portion of the PRB is the primary focus of the PRB Coal Review 

reports. The Montana portion of the PRB is included in the Task 2 Report and 

in the Task 1 and 3 air resources studies. For the majority of resources in the 

Task 1 reports and for the Task 2 Report, the Wyoming portion of the PRB Coal 

Review study area encompasses all of Campbell County, all of Sheridan and 

Johnson Counties outside of the Bighorn National Forest, and the northern 

portion of Converse County (Figure 4-1). For some components of the Task 2 

Report and for the Task 1 and 3 air resource studies, the Montana PRB Coal 

Review study area includes portions of Big Horn, Custer, Powder River, Rosebud, 

and Treasure Counties. For several resources, the Task 1 and Task 3 study 

areas include only potentially affected portions of the Wyoming PRB Coal Review 

study area; for other resources, the study area extends outside of Wyoming and 

Montana because the impacts would extend beyond the PRB. For example, the 

groundwater drawdown is evaluated in the area surrounding and extending west 

of the mines, because that is the area where surface coal mining operations 

would impact groundwater resources; but air quality impacts are evaluated over 

a multi-state area because they would be expected to extend beyond the PRB. 

Section 4.1 summarizes the information presented in the PRB Coal Review Task 

1 and Task 2 reports. Section 4.2 summarizes the predicted cumulative impacts 

to air, water, socioeconomic, and other resources presented in the PRB Coal 

Review Task 3 reports. 

4.1 Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Development 

Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable development in the Wyoming PRB are 

considered in the Task 1 and Task 2 reports for the PRB Coal Review. The Task 

1 reports describe the existing situation as of the end of 2003, which reflects the 

past and present levels of development. The Task 2 Report defines the past and 

present development activities in the PRB as of the end of 2003 and projects 

reasonably foreseeable development in the Wyoming PRB through 2020. 

4-2 Draft EIS, West Antelope II Coal Lease Application 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

!(!(!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

#

#

#

)

)

)

B N. S. F. . & U P. . RR 

B.N.S.F. RR 

JOHNSON 

COUNTY 

SHERIDAN 

COUNTY 

CONVERSE 

COUNTY 

CAMPBELL 

COUNTY 

WZ25 

WZ90 

WZ90 

WZ90 

ts14 ts16

ts16 

ts14 

!(59 

!(50 

192 !(

387 !(

!(59 

!(59 

WYODAK 

HARTZOG 

BARBER CK 

DAVE JOHNSTON 

WYGEN 2 

WYGEN 1 

DRY FORK 

ARVADA 

TWO ELK UNIT 1 

NEILSIMPSON 2 

NEILSIMPSON 1 

Gillette 

Sheridan 

Buffalo 

Wright 

Big Horn Mine 

PSO Ash Creek Mine 

Dave Johnston Mine 

3 

1 

2 

Figure 4-1. Wyoming Study Area for PRB Coal Review Studies Evaluating Current and Projected Levels 

of Development. 

0 20 40 

GRAPHIC SCALE - MILES 

£

THE STATE OF WYOMING 

LEGEND 

Coal Mine Lease Boundaries 

Railroads 

!( Existing and Proposed Power Plants 

# Former Surface Coal Mine Sites 

Task 1 and 2 Study Area Boundary 

1 Subregion 1 - Buckskin, Dry Fork, Eagle Butte, 

Rawhide, and Wyodak Mines. 

Subregion 2 - Belle Ayr, Caballo, Coal Creek, and

 Cordero-Rojo Mines. 

Subregion 3 - Antelope, North Rochelle/Black 

Thunder, Jacobs Ranch,

 and North Antelope/Rochelle Mines. 

3 

2 

COAL MINE SUBREGIONS 

Draft EIS, West Antelope II Coal Lease Application 4-3
4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

4.1.1 Coal Development 

4.1.1.1 Coal Mine Development 

The Powder River Federal Coal Region was decertified as a federal coal 

production region by the PRRCT in 1990. Decertification of the region allows 

leasing to take place on an application basis, as discussed in the regulations at 

43 CFR 3425.1-5. Between 1990 and 2007, the BLM’s Wyoming State Office 

held 23 competitive coal lease sales and issued 17 new federal coal leases 

containing almost 5.2 billion tons of coal using the LBA process. The lease sales 

are listed in Table 1-1, and the leased tracts are shown in Figure 1-1. This 

leasing process has undergone the scrutiny of two appeals to the IBLA and one 

audit by the GAO. As can be seen in Figure 4-2, leasing activity has generally 

paralleled production since decertification. This is consistent with the PRRCT’s 

objective at the time of decertification, which was to use the LBA process to lease 

tracts of federal coal to maintain production at existing mines. 

The pending applications in the Wyoming PRB are shown in Table 1-2. 

BLM has also completed three exchanges involving federal coal resources in the 

Wyoming PRB since decertification: 

•	 Belco Exchange – an exchange of lease rights for a portion of the 

former Hay Creek federal coal tract for lease rights to coal near 

Buffalo, Wyoming, which became unmineable when Interstate 90 was 

constructed. This exchange was authorized by Public Law 95-554 and 

completed in 2000. 

•	 Pittsburg and Midway Coal Mining Company (P&M) Exchange – an 

exchange of federal coal in Sheridan County, Wyoming, for land and 

mineral rights in Lincoln, Carbon, and Sheridan Counties, Wyoming, 

completed in 2004. 

•	 Powder River Coal Company AVF Exchange – an exchange of lease 

rights underlying an AVF at the Caballo Mine, which cannot be mined, 

for lease rights of equal value adjacent to existing federal leases at 

Powder River Coal Company’s North Antelope Rochelle Mine, 

completed in 2006. 

Table 4-1 provides information about the status, ownership and production 

levels for the existing surface coal mines in the Wyoming PRB in 2003 and their 

current status. In 2003, which was the baseline year for the PRB Coal Review 

Task 1 and Task 2 studies, there were 12 active surface coal mines and one 

inactive mine. Since 2003, the inactive mine (Coal Creek) has resumed 

operations and the North Rochelle Mine has ceased operation following its 

purchase by the operator of the Black Thunder Mine. The North Rochelle Mine 

leases were divided between Black Thunder and North Antelope Rochelle Mines 

4-4 Draft EIS, West Antelope II Coal Lease Application 
Cumulative Tons Leased 

Cumulative Tons Mined 

Powder River Basin

Campbell and Converse Counties, Wyoming 

6,000,000,000

5,000,000,000

4,000,000,000

3,000,000,000

2,000,000,000

1,000,000,000

0 

T o ns 

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 

Year 

2001 2002 2003 

Figure 4-2. Tons of Federal Coal Leased Versus Tons of Coal Mined Since 1990. 

Draft EIS, West Antelope II Coal Lease Application 4-5 
4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

Table 4-1. Status and Ownership of Wyoming PRB Coal Mines for 2003, the PRB Coal Review Base

Actual Permitted 

Coal Production 

Production Level 

2003 Mine 1994 Mine Owner 2007 Mine Owner (mm Tons)1 (mm Tons)2 Status and A

SUBREGION 1 (North Gillette) 

Kiewit Mining Buckskin SMC (Zeigler) 17.5 27.5 Active Properties
 

Phillips/WFA & Dry Fork WFA 4.4 24.4 Active (includes form

Fort Union Ltd 

Eagle Butte Cyprus-Amax Foundation Coal West 24.5 35.0 Active 

Rawhide Carter (Exxon) Peabody Holding Co. 3.6 24.0 Active 

Wyodak Wyodak Resources Wyodak Resources 4.8 12.0 Active (includes form

Total 54.8 122.9 

SUBREGION 2 (South Gillette) 

Belle Ayr Cyprus-Amax Foundation Coal West 17.9 35.0 Active 

Carter (Exxon) & Active (includes Roc

Caballo Peabody Holding Co. 22.7 40.0 Western Energy Butte leases) 

Kennecott & Rio Tinto Energy Active (consolidation 

Cordero Rojo 36.1 65.0 Drummond America3 Caballo Rojo Mines) 

Coal Creek ARCO Arch Coal Inc. 0 25.0 Inactive in 2003, opTotal	 76.7 165.0 

SUBREGION 3 (Wright) 

Rio Tinto Energy Antelope Kennecott 29.5 32.0 Active America3
 

Black Thunder ARCO Arch Coal Inc. 62.6 90.0 Active 

Rio Tinto Energy Jacobs Ranch Kerr-McGee 36.0 55.0 Active America3 

N. Antelope/ Active (consolidation 

Peabody Peabody Holding Co. 80.1 85.0-105.0 Rochelle	 and Rochelle Mines

Inactive since 2005, 

N. Rochelle SMC (Zeigler) Arch Coal Inc. 23.9 35.0 Thunder and North 

Total 232.1 297.0-317.0 

TOTAL FOR 3 MINE GROUPS	 363.6 584.9-604.9
 

1 Wyoming State Inspector of Mines (Wyoming Department of Employment 2003).
 2 WDEQ permitting levels 3 Kennecott Energy Company changed its name to Rio Tinto Energy America in 2006.
 

4-6 Draft EIS, West Antelope 
 

 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

in 2006. Peabody has deferred startup of their new mine, the School Creek Mine 

which is located between the Black Thunder and North Antelope Rochelle mines, 

until 2009 or later. These mines are all located in Campbell and Converse 

Counties, just west of the outcrop of the Wyodak coal, where the coal is at the 

shallowest depth (Figure 1-1). As indicated in Table 4-1, there have been 

numerous changes in mine ownership since decertification, which have resulted 

in mine consolidations and mine closings within the PRB. 

Two recently active surface coal mines in Sheridan County (the Big Horn Coal 

Mine) and southern Converse County (the Dave Johnston Mine) have ended 

mining operations, relinquished their federal coal leases, and are reclaiming 

areas of disturbance. 

There are existing permits for other surface coal mining-related operations in the 

PRB. These include the Ash Creek and Welch Mine permits in Sheridan County 

and the Izita Mine permit in Campbell County. Operations at these sites are 

completed and the disturbed areas have been reclaimed, but monitoring of the 

reclaimed areas is ongoing. The KFx Mine, located north of Gillette on privately 

owned coal, is mining coal for processing at the KFx coal enhancement plant, 

which is discussed in Section 4.1.1.2.4. 

The active mines in the Wyoming PRB are geographically grouped into three 

subregions (Figure 4-1). For purposes of this cumulative impact discussion, 

these subregions are called the North Gillette, South Gillette, and Wright 

subregions. Table 4-1 lists the mines included in each subregion. 

A fourth subregion includes former and proposed mines in Sheridan County, 

Wyoming, and existing mines just north of Sheridan County, in Montana. There 

are currently no active mines in the Wyoming portion of the fourth subregion. 

However, the PRB Coal Review Task 2 Report projected that a new mine would 

be developed by P&M near Sheridan by 2010. In April, 2007, P&M and CONSOL 

Energy Inc. announced that they have formed a new company, Youngs Creek 

Mining Company, LLC, and entered into a joint agreement to develop a new mine 

in Wyoming north of Sheridan (Reuters 2007). According to the announcement, 

engineering, environmental and permitting work are in progress, but actual 

mine construction will not start until the joint venture has enough coal sales 

under contract to justify the investment. The coal reserves included in this 

project are all privately owned. 

The surface coal mines listed in Table 4-1 currently produce over 96 percent of 

the coal produced in Wyoming each year. Since 1989, coal production in the 

PRB has increased by an average of six percent per year. The increasing 

production is primarily due to increasing sales of low-sulfur, low-cost PRB coal 

to electric utilities who must comply with the Phase I requirements of Title III of 

the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments. Electric utilities account for 97 percent of 

Wyoming’s coal sales. In 2003 (the baseline year for the PRB Coal Review), more 

than 33 percent of the coal mined in the United States came from the Wyoming 

PRB. 

Draft EIS, West Antelope II Coal Lease Application 4-7 
 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

BLM estimates that the surface coal mines listed in Table 4-1 currently have 

about 122,280 acres of federal coal leased in Campbell and Converse Counties. 

This represents approximately 3.97 percent of Campbell County, where the 

majority of the leases are located. 

Task 2 of the PRB Coal Review projected coal development into the future for the 

years 2010, 2015, and 2020. Due to the variables associated with future coal 

production, two projected coal production scenarios (representing an upper and 

a lower production level) were developed to bracket the most likely foreseeable 

regional coal production level. The basis for the projected production levels 

included: 

1) an analysis of historic PRB production levels in comparison to the gross 

domestic product and national coal demand; 

2) an analysis of PRB coal market forecasts that model the impact of gross 

domestic product growth, potential regulatory changes affecting coal-fired 

power plants, and mining and transportation costs on PRB coal demand; 

3) the availability, projected production cost, and quality of future minespecific coal reserves within the PRB region; and 

4) the availability of adequate infrastructure for coal transportation. 

The projected upper and lower production levels subsequently were allocated to 

the Wyoming PRB subregions, discussed above, and to individual mines based 

on past market shares. Individual mine production levels were reviewed relative 

to potential future production constraints (e.g., loadout capacities), permitted 

production levels, mining costs, and coal quality. Then the projected future 

production was aggregated on a subregion basis. The actual 2003 production 

level and the two projected coal production scenarios for 2010, 2015, and 2020 

are shown in Figure 4-3 and Tables 4-2 and 4-3. 

Tables 4-2 and 4-3 also show the cumulative coal mining disturbance as of the 

baseline year and the cumulative coal mine disturbance projected for the future 

years for the upper and lower coal production scenarios. In these tables, the 

baseline year and cumulative projected disturbance areas are broken down into 

three categories: 

•	 areas which are or projected to be permanently reclaimed; 

•	 areas which are or projected to be undergoing active mining or which 

have been mined but are not yet reclaimed; and 

•	 areas which are or projected to be occupied by mine facilities, haul 

roads, stockpiles, and other long-term structures, and which are 

therefore unavailable for reclamation until mining operations are 

completed. 

4-8 Draft EIS, West Antelope II Lease Application 
 

 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

0 

100,000,000 

200,000,000 

300,000,000 

400,000,000 

500,000,000 

600,000,000 

2003 2005 2010 2015 2020 

Low er Production Scenario 

Upper Production Scenario 

Figure 4-3. Projected total coal production from Campbell and Converse Counties under the Lower and Upper 

Coal Production Scenarios 

The two tables also include estimates of baseline year and projected future coal 

mining employment, water consumption, and water production. 

As discussed in Section 1.1, ACC estimates that there were 394.3 million tons of 

recoverable coal reserves on the existing Antelope Mine as of January 2007. In 

2006, the mine produced approximately 33.9 million tons and the currently 

approved (by WDEQ/AQD) air quality permit allows mining of up to 42 million 

tons of coal per year. If the mine continues to produce at a rate of around 34 

mmtpy, the remaining recoverable reserves would be depleted in about 11.6 

years (2018). If the mine increases production to the permitted level, the 

remaining recoverable reserves at the Antelope Mine would be depleted in about 

9.4 years (2016). ACC estimates that the West Antelope II LBA tract includes 

approximately 429.5 million tons of recoverable coal as applied for. Based on 

that estimate, acquisition of the West Antelope II LBA tract would approximately 

double the recoverable reserves at the Antelope Mine. If production levels do not 

increase over the current levels, mine life would be extended by as much as 

twelve years. However, if production levels increase to the currently permitted 

level or if WDEQ/AQD approves a higher annual rate of production, the coal 

would be recovered more quickly. The existing and projected coal development 

levels and associated disturbance shown in Tables 4-2 and 4-3 include 

production at the Antelope Mine during the baseline year (2003) and projected 

production at the mine for 2010, 2015, and 2020. As discussed above, the 

projected development levels shown in Tables 4-2 and 4-3 are based on 

projected demand and coal market forecasts, which are not affected by a 

decision to lease or not to lease the West Antelope II LBA tract. 

Draft EIS, West Antelope II Coal Lease Application 4-9 
4.0 Cumulative Env

Table 4-2. Baseline Year and Projected Wyoming PRB Coal Mine Development, Lower Coal Productio

Cumulative 

Cumulative Area 

Annual 

Cumulative 

Disturbed 

Cumulative 

Permanently 

Reclaimed 

Active Mining 

Area and 

Unreclaimed 

Disturbed and 

Unavailable 

For 

Subregion 

Production 

(million tons) 

Area 

(acres) 

Area 

(acres) 

Mined Area 

(acres) 

Reclamation1 

(acres) 

Total Mine 

Employment 

Baseline year (2003) 

North Gillette Subregion 55 12,047 3,054 3,360 5,633 746 

South Gillette Subregion 77 21,249 6,783 6,107 8,359 1,174 

Wright Subregion 231 35,498 11,401 13,992 10,105 3,090 

Total for 2003 363 68,794 21,238 23,459 24,097 5,010 

Reasonably Foreseeable Development for 2010 

North Gillette Subregion 62 15,231 5,004 3,968 6,260 787 

South Gillette Subregion 95 28,021 12,183 6,830 9,008 1,323 

Wright Subregion 254 55,410 27,751 16,588 11,070 3,153 

Total for 2010 411 98,662 44,938 27,386 26,338 5,263 

Reasonably Foreseeable Development for 2015 

North Gillette Subregion 74 17,457 6,654 4,202 6,601 830 

South Gillette Subregion 112 32,356 15,683 7,314 9,359 1,369 

Wright Subregion 281 67,423 38,851 16,983 11,589 3,186 

Total for 2015 467 117,236 61,188 28,499 27,549 5,405 

Reasonably Foreseeable Development for 2020 

North Gillette Subregion 78 19,729 8,429 4,350 6,950 840 

South Gillette Subregion 126 36,994 19,683 7,589 9,723 1,476 

Wright Subregion 291 80,720 51,351 17,243 12,124 3,215 

Total for 2020 495 137,443 79,463 29,182 28,797 5,531 

1 Area unavailable for reclamation includes disturbed areas occupied by permanent or long-term facilities such as buildings, roads, topsoil stockpiles

Source: PRB Coal Review Task 2 Report (BLM 2005d) 

4-10 Draft EIS, West Ant
4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

Table 4-3. Baseline Year and Projected Wyoming PRB Coal Mine Development, Upper Coal Productio

Cumulative 

Annual 

Cumulative 

Disturbed 

Permanently 

Reclaimed 

Production Area Area 

Subregion (million tons) (acres) (acres) 

Cumulative 

Cumulative Area 

Active Mining 

Area and 

Disturbed and 

Unavailable 

Unreclaimed For Total 

Mined Area 

(acres) 

Reclamation1 

(acres) 

Mine 

Employment 

Baseline Year (2003) 

North Gillette Subregion 55 12,047 3,054 3,360 5,633 746 

South Gillette Subregion 77 21,249 6,783 6,107 8,359 1,174 

Wright Subregion 232 35,498 11,401 13,992 10,105 3,090 Total for 2003 363 68,794 21,238 23,459 24,097 5,010 

Reasonably Foreseeable Development for 2010 

North Gillette Subregion 78 15,911 5,404 4,217 6,290 811 South Gillette Subregion 117 29,279 13,416 7,536 8,328 1,375 

Wright Subregion 284 57,258 27,951 18,236 11,070 3,153 

Total for 2010 479 102,448 46,771 29,989 25,688 5,339 

Reasonably Foreseeable Development for 2015 

North Gillette Subregion 104 18,490 7,329 4,500 6,660 905 South Gillette Subregion 138 35,624 18,616 8,248 8,760 1,431 

Wright Subregion 301 70,431 39,451 19,391 11,589 3,186 

Total for 2015 543 124,545 65,396 32,139 27,009 5,522 

Reasonably Foreseeable Development for 2020 

North Gillette Subregion 121 21,311 9,529 4,766 7,013 1,019 

South Gillette Subregion 148 42,981 25,016 8,758 9,206 1,444 

Wright Subregion 307 84,797 51,651 21,021 12,124 3,215 

Total for 2020 576 149,089 86,196 34,545 28,345 5,678 

1 Area Unavailable for reclamation includes disturbed areas occupied by permanent or long-term facilities such as buildings, roads, topsoil stockpiles, 

Source: PRB Coal Review Task 2 Report (BLM 2005d) 

Draft EIS, West Antelope II Coal Lease Application 
 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

4.1.1.2 Coal-Related Development 

Coal-related development as defined for this analysis includes railroads, coalfired power plants, major (230-kV) transmission lines, and coal technology 

projects. Table 4-4 summarizes the estimated disturbance associated with coalrelated development activities for the baseline year and the projected 

disturbance through 2020. The subsequent paragraphs summarize the existing 

coal-related development in the Wyoming PRB and the reasonably foreseeable 

development considered in the PRB Coal Review. 

Table 4-4. Baseline Year and Projected Wyoming PRB Coal-Related 

 Development Scenario. 

Coal-Related Disturbance (Acres) 

2003 

4,891 

2010 

4,966 

2015 

5,911 

2020 

5,911 

Source: PRB Coal Review Task 2 Report (BLM 2005d) 

4.1.1.2.1 Coal Transportation 

As discussed above, electric utilities account for about 97 percent of Wyoming’s 

coal sales. Most of the coal sold to electric utilities is transported to power 

plants by rail. The coal mines in the Wright and South Gillette subregions are 

served by a joint BNSF & UP rail line. For the baseline year of 2003, the existing 

capacity of the line was estimated at approximately 350 mmtpy. For that same 

year, the existing capacity of the BNSF line, which services the North Gillette 

subregion, was estimated at 250 mmtpy. 

The PRB Coal Review projected that two coal transportation projects would be 

developed prior to 2020 in Wyoming: expansion of the BNSF & UP rail facilities 

south of Gillette and the construction of the DM&E rail line in Wyoming and 

South Dakota. A third project proposed by the Tongue River Rail Company 

would be built between Decker and Miles City Montana. 

UP and BNSF have been implementing plans to improve sections of the existing 

joint BNSF & UP rail line and to increase capacity from 350 mmtpy to more than 

400 mmtpy. These plans include construction of 14 miles of a third main line 

track completed in Spring 2005 and 19 miles of a third main line track 

completed in 2006. An additional 46 miles of third and fourth main line track 

are under construction, with 25 miles of third mainline expected to be completed 

by March 2008 and 21 miles of fourth mainline to be completed by June 2008. 

Another 10 miles of fourth mainline is proposed with work beginning in 2008 

and completion expected during 2009. 

The increased capacity would accommodate the projected upper and lower 

production rates at the southern coal mines, which are projected to reach 400 

mmtpy by 2010 under the upper coal production scenario or by 2016 under the 

lower coal production scenario (UP and BNSF press release 2006). These 

expansion projects are considered highly likely to occur. 

4-12 Draft EIS, West Antelope II Coal Lease Application 
 

 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

The proposed DM&E rail line would include new rail construction in South 

Dakota and Wyoming (approximately 15 and 265 miles, respectively) and 600 

miles of rail line rehabilitation in South Dakota and Minnesota. Approximately 

78 miles of the new rail construction would occur in the PRB study area, where 

the project would provide new rail spur services to the mines in the South 

Gillette and Wright subregions. The STB released a final supplemental EIS for 

this project on December 30, 2005 and granted final approval to construct the 

rail line on February 15, 2006. The supplemental EIS, which addressed issues 

that were successfully appealed after an EIS was completed in 2001, was also 

appealed. The supplemental EIS was upheld by the US Court of Appeals for the 

Eighth Circuit in December 2006. In early September, 2007, Canadian Pacific 

Railway Ltd. announced it is in the process of buying DM&E. 

The STB recently announced approval of the final stretch of the rail line 

proposed by the Tongue River Railroad Company. The company must acquire 

necessary federal and state permits and ROWs through private and public 

property before constructing the line. If it is constructed, it would provide a 

shorter route for some of the mines in the North Gillette subregion, which ship 

coal on the existing BNSF rail line (Billings Gazette 2007). 

For the purposes of the PRB Coal Review, it was projected that the DM&E line 

would be constructed when the total rail haulage requirement from the eastern 

Wyoming PRB reaches 450 to 500 million tons per year and would potentially be 

operational by 2015. The construction of this rail line is considered moderately 

likely to occur. The PRB Coal Review assigned a low likelihood of development 

by 2010 under the upper coal production scenario, and projected the 

construction of the Tongue River Railroad Company line would not occur unless 

the Otter Creek Mine is developed. 

4.1.1.2.2 Electric Power Generation 

Currently, there are four coal-fired power plants in the Wyoming PRB study area 

for Tasks 1 and 2 (Figure 4-1). Black Hills Power Corporation owns and 

operates the Neal Simpson Units 1 and 2 (21.7-MW and 80-MW, respectively), 

Wygen I (80-MW), and Wyodak (330-MW) power plants, all of which are located 

approximately five miles east of Gillette, Wyoming. Pacific Power and Light’s 

Dave Johnston Power Plant is located near Glenrock, Wyoming, outside of but 

adjacent to the study area. 

There are also three separate interconnected gas-fired power plants (Hartzog, 

Arvada, and Barber Creek) located near Gillette, Wyoming. Each contains three 

separate 5-MW-rated turbines that provide electric power to Basin Electric and 

its customers. In winter, the maximum capacity can reach 22.6-MW from each 

site. All units are in operating condition, although they do not operate at 

maximum capacity. 

Several additional power plants are projected to be built prior to 2020. The PRB 

Coal Review assumed that proposed coal-fired power plants that plan to initiate 

Draft EIS, West Antelope II Coal Lease Application 4-13 
 

 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

operation by 2010 would have to have been undergoing air permit review by 

2003 in order to obtain the required construction permits and complete 

construction by 2010. The following three identified projects are considered 

likely for development by 2010: 

•	 Black Hills Power Corporation’s Wygen II coal-fired unit, located east of 

Gillette. It is under construction and, according to the Black Hills Power 

Corporation’s website, is scheduled to be in operation by the beginning of 

2008 (Black Hills Corporation 2007). Wygen II will be a 90-MW plant and 

will utilize about 500,000 tons of coal per year. The facility will cover 60 

acres within the existing 200-acre Black Hills Power and Light power plant 

area. Operation of this facility by 2010 is considered highly likely. 

•	 North American Power Group has permitted a coal-fired power plant (TwoElk Unit 1) at a 40-acre site located approximately 15 miles southeast of 

Wright, Wyoming. As originally permitted, the project also would include 

installation of a gas-fired turbine. The air permit originally was issued in 

August 2002. The unit would be dry-cooled, requiring very little water. 

The state has approved several hundred million dollars in tax-exempt 

bonds for the power plant and North American Power Group is completing 

financing for the remaining cost of the plant. The company recently 

announced that it has signed a transmissions agreement with Pacificorp 

and is planning to have the 320 MW plant in operation by October 2011 

(Gillette News Record 2007a, 2007b). 

• Basin Electric Power Cooperative obtained permits from the Wyoming 

Industrial Siting Council in June, 2006, and WDEQ/AQD in October, 

2007, to construct and operate the Dry Fork Station Power Plant. As 

proposed, the Dry Fork Station would be a coal-based, mine-mouth 385­

MW power plant located near the Dry Fork Mine, north of Gillette, 

Wyoming. Construction on the plant started in October, 2007, after the 

air permit was approved. Basin Electric estimates that the plant will be 

operational by 2011 (WDEQ/ISD 2007). At the time of the PRB Coal 

Review study it was estimated that 1.2 million tons of coal per year would 

be required to fuel the facility. Construction and operation of this facility 

as scheduled is considered moderately likely. 

The PRB Coal Review assumes that, under the upper coal production scenario, a 

maximum of one additional 700-MW coal-fired power plant would be 

constructed by 2020 in the Gillette area or near one or more of the operating 

coal mines. North American Power Group submitted an application in 

September, 2007, for a 750-MW coal-fired power plant, Two Elk 2, to be located 

at the same site as the proposed Two Elk plant, which is discussed above. Black 

Hills Power Corporation has also announced plans to construct the Wygen III 

power plant, which is planned to be similar in design to the Wygen II plant, 

starting in 2008. The study assumes that all existing power plants in the PRB 

region would remain operational through 2020. 

4-14 Draft EIS, West Antelope II Coal Lease Application 
 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

4.1.1.2.3 Transmission Lines 

Major transmission lines in the Wyoming PRB study area that support the 

regional distribution system are associated with the Dave Johnston power plant 

located near Glenrock, Wyoming, and the power plants operated by Black Hills 

Power Corporation, which are located east of Gillette. These 230-kV 

transmission lines have been in place for several years, and their associated 

permanent disturbance is minimal. Distribution power lines associated with 

conventional oil and gas and CBNG development also occur within the study 

area. For the PRB Coal Review, these lines were included by factoring them in 

proportionally on a per well basis. 

The PRB Coal Review estimates that by 2020, one major transmission line would 

be constructed running south to Colorado markets and one would be 

constructed eastward to mid-west markets. Markets would dictate the size and 

location of such facilities, and these are not known as of this time. Because 

transmission lines are a necessary supporting infrastructure for power 

generating facilities to provide connection to the grid, the PRB Coal Review 

assumes they would be required as part of the overall system development for 

the proposed power plants discussed in the previous section. However, no 

specific proposals for these transmission lines had been identified when the PRB 

Coal Review analysis was conducted and, therefore, there was insufficient 

information to analyze or assign likelihood of development by 2020. 

No specific proposals have since been announced, but the governors of 

California, Nevada, Utah, and Wyoming entered into a Memorandum of 

Understanding to encourage development of a high voltage power transmission 

line, the Frontier Line, connecting those states in April, 2005. Since that time, 

no specific plans have been announced as to the location or timing of the 

Frontier Line. 

4.1.1.2.4 Coal Conversion Technology 

With rising energy prices, there has been considerable interest in either 

enhancing the quality of PRB coal and/or converting the coal to other fuels. 

Test facilities were previously constructed by KFx at the Fort Union Mine (now 

part of the Dry Fork Mine), by AMAX (predecessor to Foundation Coal West, Inc.) 

at the Belle Ayr Mine, and by ENCOAL at the Buckskin Mine, but no commercial 

production occurred and these facilities have either been dismantled or are no 

longer in use. Although several coal conversion projects have been proposed, as 

discussed below, only one (the KFx Coal Beneficiation Project) was considered to 

have a high enough likelihood of proceeding to include it in the PRB Coal 

Review, based on its status and available information. 

The KFx coal beneficiation plant, located near the Dry Fork Mine, north of 

Gillette, has been constructed but is not running at full capacity. KFx reported 

making its first production run and shipping coal to two customers for test 

burns in late December, 2005. In August, 2006, KFx reported that a trainload of 

Draft EIS, West Antelope II Coal Lease Application 4-15 
4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

enhanced coal had been loaded and sent to a customer in Ohio. It is expected 

that the plant will eventually produce approximately 750,000 tons of enhanced 

coal per year. This operation has a high likelihood of proceeding with 

production given the technology being used and the forecast market conditions 

in the PRB. If the process and market prove competitive, the company has 

suggested that up to five additional units could be built in the PRB, but the 

likelihood for development of additional units is not known. As a result, the 

potential development of additional units was not analyzed in the PRB Coal 

Review. 

The following coal conversion projects have been proposed, but were not 

included in the PRB Coal Review analysis because the likelihood of their 

occurrence was not known when the coal review analysis was conducted: 

•	 Medicine Bow Fuel and Power, a subsidiary of DKRW Energy LLC, has 

announced that it plans to build a coal-to-liquids plant in northern 

Carbon County, Wyoming. GE Energy and Rentech Clean Energy 

Solutions are also involved in the project, which would obtain coal from 

Arch Coal’s Hanna Mine facility. Both the plant and mine are located 

outside of the PRB. The primary product would be ultra-low-sulfur diesel 

fuel produced from sub-bituminous coal. The company is in the process 

of permitting the plant and expects to begin initial site work in 2008, with 

completion planned for 2011 (Casper Star Tribune 2007a). 

•	 KFx has proposed joint ventures with Arch Coal, Inc. and Kiewit Mining 

Group to develop beneficiation plants at the Coal Creek and Buckskin 

Mines, respectively. The companies are evaluating these projects. 

• Coal gasification development projects are being actively pursued by 

several groups, including the Wyoming Business Council, CCEDC, and 

CANDO. Specifically, CANDO is pursuing the development of hydrogenfueled power generation and coal gasification leading to production of pure 

hydrogen with CO2 as a by-product. While there appears to be substantial 

interest in these opportunities, it is unknown whether large-scale 

operations would be developed within the 2010 to 2020 timeframe, given 

permitting, engineering, and construction time requirements. When the 

PRB Coal Review was prepared, a project proponent with adequate 

financing to pursue a project that would utilize PRB coal had not been 

identified, and one has not been identified since. 

A summary of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable coal mines, coal-related 

facilities, coal production, coal mine employment, and coal and coal-related 

disturbance in the Wyoming PRB is presented in Table 4-5. 

4-16 Draft EIS, West Antelope II Coal Lease Application 
 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

Table 4-5. Past, Present, and Projected Wyoming PRB Coal Mine and CoalRelated Development Scenario. 

Number of Number of Number of 

Coal Active Active Active Coal Direct Coal Total Coal 

Production Coal Power Conversion Mine Disturbance 

Year (mmtpy) Mines1 Plants Facilities2 

Past and Present 

Employment (acres)3 

1990 

1995 

2000 

2003 

163 

247 

323 

363 

18 3 1 2,862 

19 4 1 3,177 

12 4 2 3,335 

12 4 0 5,010 

Projected Development - Lower Coal Production Scenario 

na 

na 

na 

73,685 

2010 

2015 

2020 

411 

467 

495 

131 7 12 5,263 

131 7 12 5,405 

131 7 12 5,531 

103,628 

123,147 

143,354 

Projected Development - Upper Coal Production Scenario 

2010 

2015 

2020 

479 

543 

576 

131 7 12 5,339 

131 7 12 5,522 

131 8 12 5,678 

107,414 

130,456 

155,000 

1 Mines have consolidated and may in the future. Also, new mines may be permitted to better 

access the coal reserves projected for mining by 2020. 

2 Several coal conversion facilities currently are being evaluated; however, there is only one for 

which the likelihood of future development currently can be assessed. 

3 Disturbance area includes coal mine and coal-related disturbance areas. 

Source: Annual Report of the Wyoming State Mine Inspector (Wyoming Department of 

Employment 1990, 1995, 2000, and 2003) and PRB Coal Review Task 2 Report (BLM 

2005d) 

4.1.2 Oil and Gas Development 

The following information on existing conventional and CBNG development is 

summarized from the PRB Coal Review Task 2 Report (BLM 2005d). The 

information reported is for 2003, which was the baseline year for the coal review. 

4.1.2.1 Conventional Oil and Gas 

Conventional oil and gas development includes all non-CBNG development 

activity. Approximately 1,500 conventional oil and gas wells, including 

producing, non-producing and injection wells, were drilled between 1990 and 

2003 (IHS 2004) in the PRB Coal Review Task 2 Study Area. Of those, 60 

percent were development wells, drilled in established producing areas. The 

remaining 40 percent were classified as wildcat wells, which are wells that are 

drilled in non-producing areas or drilled to evaluate untested prospective zones 

in producing areas. Approximately 75 percent of the wildcat wells were plugged 

and abandoned. By 2003, the successful new field wildcat wells had resulted in 

the discovery of 61 new fields that produced 719,000 barrels of oil and 1.45 bcf 

of non-CBNG (WOGCC 2004). 

As of the end of 2003, there were approximately 3,500 producing conventional 

oil and gas wells in the Wyoming PRB study area plus 1,386 seasonally active 

wells (IHS 2004). The WOGCC reported that these wells produced approximately 

Draft EIS, West Antelope II Coal Lease Application 4-17 
 

 

 

 

 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

13 million barrels of oil and 40 bcf of conventional gas in 2003 (WOGCC 2004). 

The USGS (2002) estimated that the mean undiscovered non-coal bed 

hydrocarbon resource in the PRB (including Montana) is 1.8 billion BOE. 

Most of Wyoming’s current oil production is from old oil fields with declining 

production and the level of exploration drilling to discover new fields has been 

low (WSGS 2002). This situation is reflected in the PRB where, over the 10-year 

period from 1992 through 2002, oil production from conventional oil and gas 

wells in Campbell and Converse Counties decreased approximately 60.4 percent 

(from 32.8 million barrels in 1992 to 13.0 million barrels in 2002). Oil prices 

have been increasing, which is reversing projections of a continuing decline in oil 

and gas production; production is now expected to increase in the PRB, with a 

peak around 2010 of approximately 15.7 million barrels (WSO-RMG 2005). Oil 

production in the short term may also be bolstered by some planned CO2 flood 

projects in the PRB (WSGS 2003). This projected temporary upward trend in 

conventional oil and gas development is reflected in the PRB Coal Review 

projections (Table 4-6). 

The active wells identified in Table 4-6 include wells that produce year-round, 

seasonally producing wells, and service wells (mainly injection wells.) It is 

estimated that there are approximately 2,000 idle conventional oil and gas wells 

in the PRB study area (WOGCC 2005); however, the number of idle wells 

gradually would be reduced in the future through plugging programs, and the 

idle well locations (once the wells are abandoned) would be reclaimed and no 

longer represent a disturbance. 

Table 4-6. Baseline Year and Projected Wyoming PRB Conventional Oil and Gas 

Development Scenario. 

Existing Projected for Task 3 Study Area 

2003 2003 

Task 1 Task 3 

Category Study Area Study Area 2010 2015 2020 

Annual Gas 39.9 36.3 33.8 30.9 28.0 Production (bcf)1 

Annual Oil 12.9 11.4 13.8 12.5 11.2 Production (mmbo) 

Active and 

Seasonably Active 5,067 3,890 5,603 5,115 4,625 

Wells 

1 Future gas production per well was estimated based on 2003 production levels per subwatershed. A greater number of 

future well sites were assumed to occur in locations with historically lower production rates, so the projected future 

conventional gas production varies within the cumulative effects study area relative to the number of projected 

producing wells. 

Source: PRB Coal Review Task 2 Report (BLM 2005d) 

4.1.2.2 CBNG Development 

Natural gas production has been increasing in Wyoming. In the PRB, this is due 

to the development of shallow CBNG resources. Commercial development of 

4-18 Draft EIS, West Antelope II Coal Lease Application 
 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

these resources began in limited areas west of and adjacent to the northernmost 

surface coal mines in the late 1980s. Since that time, CBNG development has 

spread south and west into other parts of the PRB Coal Review Task 1 and Task 

2 study area. 

On private and state oil and gas leases, the WOGCC and the Wyoming SEO 

authorize CBNG drilling. On federal oil and gas leases, BLM must analyze the 

individual and cumulative environmental impacts of all drilling (federal, state, 

and private), as required by NEPA, before CBNG drilling can be authorized. BLM 

does not authorize drilling on state or private leases but must consider the 

impacts from those wells in their NEPA analyses. In many areas of the PRB, the 

coal estate is federally owned, but the oil and gas estate is privately owned. A 

June 7, 1999 Supreme Court decision (98-830) assigned the rights to develop 

CBNG on a piece of land to the owner of the oil and gas estate. 

Annual CBNG production increased rapidly in the PRB between 1999 and 2003 

but has leveled off somewhat since then. At the end of 2003, there were 14,758 

producing CBNG wells in the study area (IHS 2004), and total production for 

2003 was 346 bcf, or 88 percent of the total gas production from the basin 

(WOGCC 2004). Total production for 2006 was 377 bcf (WOGCC 2007d). 

Average daily CBNG production was 900 mmcfpd in 2003 (Holcomb 2003) and it 

is estimated that it will average 1,150 mmcfpd (1.15 bcfpd) for 2007 (WOGCC 

2007d). From 1987 to 2003, the total cumulative gas production from PRB 

coals was over 1.2 trillion cubic feet. The total water production for the same 

time period was approximately 2.3 billion barrels (96,600 million gallons). Water 

production in 2003 amounted to more than 500 million barrels (21,000 million 

gallons), or about 1.4 million barrels per day. According to the WOGCC website, 

water production in the PRB associated with CBNG production has varied 

between just over 1.4 million barrels per day and about 2.2 million barrels per 

day since December 2003. 

Since the early 1990s, the Wyoming BLM has completed numerous EAs and two 

EISs analyzing CBNG projects. The most recent of these is the four-volume 

Final EIS and Proposed Plan Amendment for the PRB Oil and Gas Project, which 

was completed in January 2003 (BLM 2003b). The level of CBNG development 

since 2003 appears to be lower than was forecast in that document. New CBNG 

well numbers fell from a high of slightly more than 4,600 in 2001 to 

approximately 2,000 in 2004. The PRB Coal Review Task 2 Report discusses the 

uncertain trends for future CBNG activity in recent years. The methodology 

used to project future activity is detailed in Appendix E of that report. Table 4-7 

shows the 2003 and projected 2010, 2015, and 2020 levels of CBNG 

development levels used to evaluate projected cumulative environmental impacts 

in the PRB Coal Review. 

4.1.2.3 Oil and Gas Related Development 

Oil and gas related development activities considered in the PRB Coal Review 

include major transportation pipelines and refineries. Table 4-8 summarizes the 

Draft EIS, West Antelope II Coal Lease Application 4-19 
 

 

 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

net disturbance, reclamation, and water production associated with oil and gas 

activity (conventional oil and gas, CBNG, and major transportation pipelines) for 

2003 (baseline year) and projects disturbance, reclamation, and water 

production for future years. 

Table 4-7.	 Baseline Year and Projected CBNG Development Scenario for the 

Wyoming PRB. 

Existing Projected to Task 3 Study Area 

2003 2003 

Task 1 Task 3 

Category Study Area Study Area 2010 2015 2020 

Annual Production 

(bcf) 

Active Wells 

338 

14,758 

284 

12,152 

480 

20,899 

500 

21,831 

443 

19,366 

Source: PRB Coal Review Task 2 Report (BLM 2005d) 

Table 4-8. Wyoming PRB Conventional Oil and Gas, CBNG, and Related 

Development Disturbance and Water Production.
 

Existing1	 Projected for Task 3 Study Area1 

2003 2003 

Task 1 Task 3 

Category Study Area Study Area 2010 2015 2020 

Cumulative 

Disturbed Area 187,761 148,602 237,883 304,543 361,331 

(Acres)2 

Cumulative 

Permanently 

Reclaimed Area 115,045 90,548 160,175 225,426 288,536 

(Acres) 

Cumulative 

Unreclaimed Area 72,715 58,053 77,707 79,108 72,794 

(Acres) 

Annual Water 

Production 26,405 21,204 39,108 41,484 37,350 

(mmgpy) 

1 Minor discrepancies in total acreages are the result of number rounding. 2 Inclusive of conventional oil and gas and CBNG activities and major transportation pipelines. 

Disturbance associated with ancillary facilities (including gathering lines and distribution power lines 

has been factored in a per well basis. 

Source: PRB Coal Review Task 2 Report (BLM 2005d) 

4.1.2.3.1 Pipelines 

The availability of pipeline capacity for the transport of oil and gas to outside 

markets is a key factor in the development of CBNG and conventional oil and 

gas resources in the Wyoming PRB. In 2003, the baseline year for the PRB coal 

Review, there were 13 major transportation pipeline systems in the PRB that 

transport gas resources to markets outside of the basin (Flores et al. 2001). The 

2003 capacity of these pipeline systems was 1.9 bcf per day. The combined 

natural gas production (CBNG and conventional gas) in the Wyoming PRB Coal 

Review Task 1 and Task 2 study area was approximately 1.03 bcf per day. 

4-20 Draft EIS, West Antelope II Coal Lease Application 
4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

Major transportation pipelines also provide for transport of CO2 to conventional 

oil fields for EOR. Increased recovery of crude oil also may depend somewhat on 

the availability of CO2 for EOR projects, as well as the availability of pipelines to 

transport oil to refineries for processing. 

Gathering lines and power lines associated with conventional oil and gas and 

CBNG development also occur within the study area; disturbance from these 

ancillary facilities were factored into the PRB Coal Review analysis on a per well 

basis. 

A 315-mile-long pipeline project, the Bison Pipeline Project, was proposed in 

2004 to move natural gas northward, directly out of the PRB and into the 

Northern Border Pipeline system (FERC 2004). Approximately 53 miles of the 

proposed route is within the Wyoming PRB Coal Review study area. If it is 

constructed, it would have a 240 mmcfpd capacity as proposed. FERC had 

expected the Bison project proposal to be filed in December 2003, but no filing 

has been made with FERC (FERC 2004) and the project is not included as an 

active project in Wyoming on the FERC website. As a result, the Bison Pipeline 

project was assumed to have a low likelihood rating for the purposes of the PRB 

Coal Review. 

The following two proposed pipeline projects in the PRB were listed on the 

Wyoming Pipeline Authority webpage (http://www.wyopipeline.com) as of 

October 2007: MDU Resources Group, Inc. Williston Basin Interstate Pipeline 

‘Grasslands Pipeline’ Expansion and ONEOK Cantera Gas Holdings Fort Union 

Gas Gathering Expansion. These are both expansion projects which involve 

adding capacity to an existing pipeline. Information on pipeline projects 

proposed in Wyoming can also be found in the “For Citizens” section of the 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission website at http://www.ferc.gov. 

The amount of available pipeline capacity could limit the amount of future 

CBNG development. In 2003, it was estimated that growth of Wyoming PRB 

CBNG production could rise from the 2003 level of 900 mmcfpd up to 3 to 4 bcf 

per day around 2007 and remain at or above those levels until 2015 (Holcomb 

2003). If CBNG production levels reach 3 to 4 bcf per day, it is reasonable to 

assume that several pipeline projects with up to 1.0 bcf per day capacity each 

could be built in the PRB. However, as discussed previously, the actual average 

production for 2007 is currently projected to be 1.15 bcfpd and, based on the 

assumptions in Appendix E of the PRB Coal Review Task 2 Report, the basinwide CBNG production is projected to reach approximately 1.7 bcf per day in 

2020. New pipeline construction projects were not considered in the PRB Coal 

Review analysis because the likelihood for additional new pipeline construction 

was unknown when the PRB Coal Review was prepared. 

The CO2 pipeline from Bairoil, Wyoming, to Salt Creek, Wyoming, may be 

extended into the PRB Coal Review study area to the Sussex Field to support 

additional EOR activity. Although it took many years for a CO2 source to reach 

the Wyoming PRB, it is very likely that several pipelines could be built in the 

Draft EIS, West Antelope II Coal Lease Application 4-21 
 

 

 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

study area in the near future to provide additional gas for EOR projects. 

However, no pipeline projects were identified that would transport CO2 beyond 

Salt Creek and the likelihood for construction of additional CO2 pipelines was 

unknown when the PRB Coal Review analysis was prepared, and they were not 

considered. 

4.1.2.3.2 Refineries 

There are no existing petroleum refineries in the Wyoming PRB study area, and 

no plans for the construction and operation of any petroleum refineries in the 

Wyoming portion of the PRB have been identified. 

4.1.3 Other Development Activity 

4.1.3.1 Other Mining 

Uranium, sand, gravel, bentonite, and clinker (or scoria) have been and are 

being mined in the Wyoming PRB study area. 

There are three defined uranium districts in the PRB: Pumpkin Buttes, 

Southern Powder River, and Kaycee (BLM 2003b). Numerous mined out or 

uneconomic uranium mining sites are present in these districts. Uranium is 

currently produced in the Southern Powder River District using the in-situ leach 

method. There is one operating in-situ uranium recovery site in the PRB, the 

Smith Ranch-Highland Mine in Converse County, but the recent increase in 

interest in uranium for power plants here and abroad is generating interest in 

new development in the PRB. According to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission website (http://www.nrc.gov), interest has been expressed in 

restarting in-situ operations at the Christianson Ranch Site in Johnson County, 

Wyoming, and an application has been received from Energy Metals Corporation 

to construct and operate an in-situ uranium recovery facility at Moore Ranch in 

Campbell County, Wyoming. Based on commodity forecasts and uranium 

activity as of June 2004, the likelihood and potential timing of new uranium 

mining operations in the PRB was not known, and additional development was 

not projected in the PRB Coal Review analysis. 

Bentonite is weathered volcanic ash that is used in a variety of products, 

including drilling mud and kitty litter, because of its absorbent properties. 

There are three major bentonite producing districts in and around the PRB: the 

Colony District in the Northern Black Hills, the Clay Spur District in the 

Southern Black Hills, and the Kaycee District west of Kaycee, Wyoming. Within 

the PRB Coal Review study area, bentonite is mined at Kaycee (WMA 2006). The 

PRB Coal Review assumed that bentonite mining would continue throughout the 

study period and that production would continue at existing active mines, with 

no new mines developed through 2020. 

Aggregate, which is sand, gravel, and stone, is used for construction purposes. 

In the PRB, the more important aggregate mining localities are in Johnson and 

4-22 Draft EIS, West Antelope II Coal Lease Application 
4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

Sheridan Counties (WSGS 2004). The largest identified aggregate operation is 

located in northern Converse County. It has an associated total disturbance 

area of approximately 67 acres, of which four acres have been reclaimed. 

Scoria or clinker (which is formed when coal beds burn and the adjacent rocks 

become baked) is used as aggregate where alluvial terrace gravel or in-place 

granite/igneous rock is not available. Scoria generally is mined in the Converse 

and Campbell Counties portion of the Wyoming PRB study area. 

Increased sand, gravel, and scoria production and associated surface 

disturbance are anticipated in the Wyoming PRB study area in the future 

because aggregate would be required for road maintenance and new 

construction activities as other primary resources, such as coal and oil and gas, 

continue to be developed. New operations and increased production from 

existing operations can be expected. These operations would vary in size based 

on the immediate need from the primary industries, but there is no specific 

information about these projected operations. As a result, new sand, gravel, or 

scoria operations were not analyzed in detail in the PRB Coal Review. 

4.1.3.2 Industrial Manufacturing 

There are a number of existing industrial manufacturing establishments located 

in the Wyoming PRB Coal Review study area. Most are relatively small with 

fewer than 25 employees; they predominately serve regional and local markets, 

and most are directly or indirectly related to energy resource development and 

production. Over the years, some of these firms have expanded such that they 

now support activities and serve markets outside of the region, but those 

operations remain dependent upon the local and regional markets to sustain 

their existing operations. 

The PRB Coal Review anticipates that increased coal production would result in 

an increased demand for fuels and explosives. This increased demand could 

result in the need for the development of new off-site chemical feedstock plants 

in the study area. Project-specific information is not available, however, and the 

potential development of new chemical feedstock plants was not considered in 

the PRB Coal Review. 

Local economic development organizations, including CCEDC and CANDO, are 

continually engaged in efforts to recruit or assist new business formation in the 

PRB study area. For example, CANDO has pursued development of long-term 

potential projects; however, the outcomes of those projects are uncertain and 

little information and detail are available. As a result, they were not considered 

in the PRB Coal Review. 

4.1.3.3 Reservoirs 

Currently, there are five key water storage reservoirs in the Wyoming PRB Coal 

Review study area (Healy, Lake DeSmet, Muddy Guard No. 2, Gillette, and Betty 

Draft EIS, West Antelope II Coal Lease Application 4-23 
4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

No. 1) (HKM Engineering et al. 2002a and 2002b). The total disturbance 

associated with these five key water storage areas is 3,263 acres. 

Based on the applicable water plans prepared for the Wyoming Water 

Development Commission for its Basin Planning Program (HKM Engineering et 

al. 2002a and 2002b), there are long range projections for development of 

additional reservoirs in the Wyoming PRB study area. However, none of these 

reservoirs have reached the planning stage; therefore, there was not enough 

information to analyze them in the PRB Coal Review. 

4.1.3.4 Other Non-Energy Development 

In addition to the specific projects and developments described above, a network 

of public and private physical infrastructure, private enterprises, and public 

activities has been developed in the PRB over time. Examples of infrastructure 

include the highway and road networks, airports, government offices, hospitals, 

public schools, municipal water systems, and extensive residential and 

commercial real estate development. Private enterprises include local retail and 

service establishments, newspaper publishing, and transportation and 

distribution firms. 

The construction, maintenance, and continuing operations associated with this 

network of development represent an extensive series of public and private 

investments, as well as changes in land use, surface disturbances, water 

consumption, and the factors that characterize local air quality. Those 

investments and changes have occurred over a period of time and in response to 

many different influences. 

Some of the identified and anticipated plans or proposals for future investment 

in public, private, and commercial infrastructure in the PRB are summarized 

below. 

• The WYDOT State Transportation Improvement Program for 2004 includes 

anticipated 2005 through 2009 construction costs of approximately 

$215.4 million for highway and airport maintenance, reconstruction, and 

improvement projects in the PRB Coal Review Study area. No 

construction of new highways is scheduled and no new airports are 

proposed between now and 2009. 

• A $10.7 million expansion and renovation of the Campbell County 

courthouse was completed in late 2005. 

• Expansion of the CAM-PLEX conference and multi-event center facility in 

Gillette was approved in a special election in May 2005. 

• The 2005 approved master plans for Wyoming public school facilities 

spending included a total of $72.3 million in new capital construction for 

the seven school districts that are completely or partially in the Wyoming 

PRB study area (WSFC 2005). 

4-24 Draft EIS, West Antelope II Coal Lease Application 
4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

• Construction and maintenance projects for the City of Gillette include a 

recently completed project to renovate and expand the waste water 

treatment plant. 

• Commercial development includes recently completed construction of a 

Home Depot store and expansion of the Wal-Mart store in Gillette. 

A capital facilities tax ballot question in Campbell County in the 2004 election 

asking voters to approve the imposition of a $0.01 sales and use tax (to be used 

for updated and expanded diesel mechanic and welding programs at the Gillette 

Campus of the Northern Wyoming Community College (now Gillette College) and 

for two community development projects in Wright) and an increase in the 

lodging tax were defeated in 2004. A renewed attempt to get the lodging tax on 

the ballot for the 2006 primary election failed to gain the approval of the 

Campbell County Board of Commissioners. In their 2007 session, the Wyoming 

Legislature committed to pay half of the cost of a technical education center at 

Gillette College that will house diesel technology, welding and industrial 

electrician programs. The Campbell County Board of Commissioners has 

approved a tax increase to pay for the other half of the cost of the project. 

Given the timing, scale, year-to-year variability, relatively short construction 

timetables associated with such investments, the existence of a relatively large 

and diversified construction industry in the region and nearby areas, and the 

limited potential for these projects to alter long-term conditions in the PRB, they 

are not included in the PRB Coal Review analysis. However, one or more of 

these and similar projects could warrant consideration in a cumulative analysis 

for a site-specific project due to proximity or coincidental project schedules and 

timetables. 

4.2 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

Section 4.1 of this chapter discusses existing and projected levels of 

development in the Wyoming PRB, and includes summaries of the results of PRB 

Coal Review Task 2 studies. This section summarizes the existing conditions 

resulting from baseline year (2003) development and the cumulative 

environmental consequences of the projected development for 2010, 2015, and 

2020 based on the results of the analyses conducted for PRB Coal Review Task 1 

and 3 reports, respectively. 

As discussed in Section 4.1, the Wyoming portion of the PRB is the primary 

focus of the PRB Coal Review analyses. For the majority of resources in the 

Task 1 analysis, the Wyoming PRB Coal Review study area encompasses all of 

Campbell County, all of Sheridan and Johnson Counties outside of the Bighorn 

National Forest, and the northern portion of Converse County (Figure 4-1). The 

study areas for the Task 3 analyses are different. For the majority of the 

resources considered in the PRB Coal Review, the Task 3 study area is based on 

watershed boundaries in the PRB and includes the portions of the Upper Powder 

River, Little Powder River, Upper Belle Fourche River, Upper Cheyenne River, 

Draft EIS, West Antelope II Coal Lease Application 4-25 
 

 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

Antelope Creek, and Dry Fork Cheyenne River subwatersheds that lie within 

Sheridan, Johnson, Campbell and northern Converse Counties (Figure 4-4). 

This study area includes over 4 million acres. Table 4-9 summarizes the total 

disturbance and reclamation acreages for the baseline year of 2003 and the total 

projected disturbance and reclamation acreages for 2010, 2015, and 2020 

within the Task 3 study area described above. 

Table 4-9. Baseline Year and Projected Wyoming PRB Total Development 

Scenario – Task 3 Study Area. 

Acres Acres 

Year 

Total Acres 

Disturbed1 

Acres 

Reclaimed1 

Acres 

Unreclaimed1 

Unavailable for 

Reclamation2 

Affected by 

Coal Mining 

Baseline Year 

2003 220,688 111,786 108,901 27,073 68,794 

Projected Development - Lower Coal Production Scenario 

2010 339,912 205,113 134,799 29,389 98,662 

2015 426,084 286,614 139,472 31,546 117,236 

2020 503,085 367,999 135,085 32,794 137,443 

Projected Development - Upper Coal Production Scenario 

2010 343,698 206,946 136,752 28,739 102,448 

2015 433,392 290,822 142,570 31,006 124,545 

2020 514,732 374,732 139,998 32,342 149,089 1 Minor discrepancies in total acreages are the result of number rounding. 2 Includes coal mine and coal-related disturbance.
 

Source: PRB Coal Review Task 2 Report (BLM 2005d)
 

A total of approximately 220,688 acres of this land area had been disturbed by 

development activities as of 2003, which represents about 5.6 percent of the 

Task 3 study area. This is projected to increase to as much as 514,732 acres in 

2020 under the upper coal production scenario which would represent 

approximately 13.1 percent of the Task 3 study area. This projected disturbance 

includes coal mining, coal-related development, and oil and gas and related 

development disturbance in the Task 3 study area. Areas reclaimed during each 

future time period shown in Table 4-9 reflect how much of the disturbed acreage 

is projected to be permanently reclaimed by that point in time. The acres of 

unreclaimed disturbance would be reclaimed incrementally or following a 

project’s completion, depending on the type of development activity and permit 

requirements. The acres currently not available for reclamation are occupied by 

long-term facilities that are needed to conduct mining operations or coal-related 

activities. These areas would be reclaimed near the end of each mine or facility’s 

life. 

Adjustments were made to the study area described above and shown in Figure 

4-4 for several resources as described below: 

•	 The potential air quality impacts were evaluated over a multi-state 

area (including most of Wyoming, southeastern Montana, 

southwestern North Dakota, western South Dakota, and northwestern 

Nebraska) because they would be expected to extend beyond the 

4-26 Draft EIS, West Antelope II Coal Lease Application 
 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

Wyoming and Montana PRB study area that was used to identify 

emissions sources for the air quality analysis. 

•	 The groundwater drawdown was evaluated in the area surrounding 

and extending west of the surface coal mines, shown in Figure 4-4, 

because that is the area where groundwater drawdown related to 

surface coal mining operations and CBNG production operations 

would overlap. 

•	 The socioeconomic impact analysis focused on Campbell County, but 

also considered Converse, Crook, Johnson, Sheridan, and Weston 

Counties as directly affected and Niobrara and Natrona Counties as 

indirectly affected. 

4.2.1 Topography and Physiography 

The PRB is located within the Upper Missouri Basin Broken Lands 

physiographic subprovince that includes northeastern Wyoming and eastern 

Montana to the Canadian border. The topography generally is of low to 

moderate relief with occasional buttes and mesas. The general topographic 

gradient slopes down gently from southwest to northeast with elevations ranging 

from 5,000 to 6,000 ft above sea level on the southern and western portions of 

the basin to less than 4,000 ft above sea level on the north and northeast along 

the Montana state line. The major drainages in the basin are the Tongue, 

Powder, Belle Fourche, and Cheyenne rivers. Most of the drainages in the area 

are intermittent and have flows during high precipitation events or during 

periods of snowmelt. The drainages are part of the upper Missouri River Valley 

drainage basin. 

The disturbance associated with the majority of the past, present, and projected 

activities have resulted in or would result in the alteration of the surface 

topography. Surface coal mining, which is projected to continue in the area of 

the existing coal mines shown in Figure 4-4, permanently alters the topography 

by removing the overburden and coal and then replacing the overburden. 

Recontouring during reclamation to match approximate original contours, as 

required by regulation, reduces the long-term impact to topography. After 

mined-out areas are reclaimed, the restored land surfaces are typically gentler, 

with more uniform slopes and restored basic drainage networks. Oil and gas 

exploration and development has occurred and is projected to continue 

throughout most of the Task 3 study area. It also results in the alteration of 

topography to accommodate facilities (e.g., well pads, power plants, etc.) and 

roads, but the disturbance tends to occur in smaller, more discrete areas than 

coal mining and the development is spread out over a larger area. 

The disturbance and reclamation acreages associated with all existing and 

projected development in the Task 3 study area for the years 2003, 2010, 2015, 

and 2020 are given in Table 4-9. 

Draft EIS, West Antelope II Coal Lease Application 4-27 
! !

! ! ! ! !

!

!

!

!

! !

! ! ! !

Belle Fourche River 

Cottonwod Creek 

Litt el Powd er River 

Crazy Woman Creek 

Fork Cra z y Wom a Creek 

Crazy Woman Cre ek 

Buffalo 

Creek 

Prairie D g Creek 

South Fo rk Powder Ri ver 

Cre ek 

Salt Creek 

Middle Fork Powder River 

Red Fork Powder River 

North Fork Powder River 

Little Thunder eek 

Nort Piney Creek 

Powder R vi er 

Fourmile Creek 

B.N.S.F. & U.P. RR B.N.S.F.

RR 

B.N.S.F. RR 

Ante pe Creek 

Dry Creek 

Cab lo Creek 

Dry Fork Cheyenne River 

Porcupine Creek 

Bacon Creek 

Black Thunder Creek 

Timber Creek 

Bear Creek 

Dry Creek

Powder River 

Little Powder River 

Wild Horse Creek 

Tongue River 

Bitter Creek 

P iney Creek 

Rock Creek 

Wildcat Cre e k 

Dry Fork Powder Rive

B

r 

eave Creek 

Spotted Horse Creek 

Little Goose Creek 

Big Go ose Creek 

Pumpkin Creek 

Trabing Dry 

Middle Prong Wild Horse Creek 

North 

South

THE STATE OF WYOMING 

Clear Creek 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

WZ PSO ASH 90 CREEK MINE ! BIG HORN 

SHERIDAN MINE 

!

COUNTY

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !

GILLETTE

! !

)3 

h

o

Upper
 

Powder
 

River

n

Fork

a

River 

r !

!(387

lo

Subregion 3 - Antelope, North Rochelle/Black GRAPHIC SCALE - MILES
 

 Thunder, Jacobs Ranch,

 and North Antelope/Rochelle Mines.
 

3 

Figure 4-4. Wyoming Task 3 Study Area for PRB Coal Review Studies Evaluating Projected

 Environmental Consequences. 

Little 

Powder
 

River
 

SHERIDAN

CAMPBELL

ts14 ts16 COUNTY ts14

!(59 ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! !

!

!

ts16

)1 BUFFALO

ZW90 ZW90

l

Upper )2 

Belle
 

Fourche
 !(59 £
 !(50

JOHNSON
 

COUNTY
 

Upper 

WRIGHT

!(192 Cr

Cheyenne 

River 

ZW25 Antelope
 

Creek
 

LEGEND 

Coal Mine Lease Boundaries 

Subwatershed Boundaries in the 

Environmental Consequence Study Area 

! ! !

Groundwater Model Domain !(59

Railroads Dry Fork 

Cheyenne River 

! Former Surface Coal Mine Sites !

CONVERSE COAL MINE SUBREGIONS DAVE 

JOHNSTON 

MINE COUNTY

1 Subregion 1 - Buckskin, Dry Fork, Eagle Butte, 

 Rawhide, and Wyodak Mines. 

0 20 

Subregion 2 - Belle Ayr, Caballo, Coal Creek, and

 Cordero-Rojo Mines. 

2 

F u H o o s C r r r e eek 40 

4-28 Draft EIS, West Antelope II Coal Lease Application 
 

 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

4.2.2 Geology, Mineral Resources, and Paleontology 

The cumulative effects study area for geology, mineral resources, and 

paleontology is the PRB Coal Review Task 3 study area (Figure 4-4). 

The PRB is one of a number of structural basins in Wyoming and the Rocky 

Mountain area that were formed during the Laramide Orogeny. The basin is 

asymmetric with a structural axis that generally trends northwest to southeast 

along the western side of the basin (Flores et al. 1999). Earthquakes, landsides, 

and subsidence do not present a hazard in the PRB based on the lack of active 

faults in the study area (USGS 2004); the low risk of ground shaking in the 

region if a maximum credible earthquake were to occur (Frankel et al. 1997); 

and the absence of evidence of subsidence, landslides, or other geologic hazards 

in association with CBNG production. 

4.2.2.1 Coal 

Most of the coal resources of the basin are found in the Fort Union and Wasatch 

Formations. Although coals are present in the Wasatch, they are thinner and 

less continuous than the coals in the Fort Union and, therefore, they are not as 

economically important as the coals in the Fort Union for either coal mining or 

CBNG development. Projected levels of coal production and disturbance under 

the lower and upper coal production scenarios are shown in Tables 4-2 and 4-3. 

In the coal mine areas, the overburden and coal would be removed and the 

overburden replaced, resulting in a permanent change in the geology of the area 

and a permanent reduction of coal resources. 

4.2.2.2 Oil and Gas 

Drilling for conventional oil and gas in the Wyoming PRB has declined 

considerably in the last 15 years. However, as discussed above, increasing 

prices have led to increased interest in drilling and there remains potential for 

finding and developing these resources in the deeper formations of the basin. 

Conversely, CBNG production increased rapidly from 1999 through 2002 but 

began to level off in 2003. Projected production rates for conventional oil and 

gas and CBNG in 2010, 2015, and 2020 are shown in Tables 4-6 and 4-7. 

Oil and gas and related development accounts for most of the projected mineral 

disturbance outside of the coal mining areas. It generally would result in only 

shallow, discrete areas of surface disturbance, as discussed above. The 

acreages over which these impacts were occurring (as of 2003) and are projected 

to occur in the years 2010, 2015, and 2020 are shown in Table 4-9. 

4.2.2.3 Other Mineral Resources 

As discussed in Section 4.1.3.1, other mineral resources that are being mined in 

the Wyoming PRB include uranium, bentonite, clinker, and aggregate. 

Draft EIS, West Antelope II Coal Lease Application 4-29 
 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

Production of uranium and bentonite is not likely to be affected by development 

of coal or CBNG in the PRB. Aggregate and clinker production levels are more 

likely to be affected by other mineral development levels because these resources 

would be used in construction projects related to other mineral development. 

4.2.2.4 Paleontology 

Scientifically significant paleontological resources, including vertebrate, 

invertebrate, plant, and trace fossils, are known to occur in many of the geologic 

formations within the Wyoming PRB. These fossils are documented in the 

scientific literature, in museum records, and are known by paleontologists and 

land managers familiar with the area. 

The Wasatch Formation is the most geographically widespread unit exposed on 

the surface over most of the Task 3 study area. It is underlain by the Fort Union 

Formation. The fossiliferous Morrison and Lance Formations crop out in the 

western portion of the basin but occur at depth in the vicinity of the coal mines 

and CBNG activity in the eastern portion of the basin. Within the Task 3 study 

area, the highly fossiliferous White River Formation occurs only on Pumpkin 

Buttes in southwestern Campbell County. 

As of 2003, no significant or unique paleontological localities had been recorded 

on federal lands in the PRB. However, the lack of localities in the PRB does not 

mean that scientifically significant fossils are not present, as much of the area 

within and surrounding the PRB has not been adequately explored for 

paleontological resources. As a result, development activities in the Task 3 

study area have the potential to adversely affect scientifically significant fossils, 

if they are present in or adjacent to disturbance areas. 

The potential for impacts to scientifically significant fossils would be greatest in 

areas where Class 4 or 5 formations are present (see Section 3.3.3.1). The 

Wasatch Formation is classified as a Class 5 formation. The Fort Union 

Formation is classified as a Class 3 formation, which means that fossil content 

varies in significance, abundance, and predictable occurrence. The greatest 

potential impact to surface and subsurface fossils would result from disturbance 

of surface sediments and shallow bedrock during construction and/or 

operations, depending on the type of project. Potential subsurface disturbance 

of paleontological resources (e.g., during drilling operations) would not be visible 

or verifiable. The areas over which these impacts occurred as of 2003 and are 

projected to occur as a result of all projected development in the years 2010, 

2015, and 2020 are shown in Table 4-9. As only portions of the Task 3 study 

area have been evaluated for the occurrence of paleontological resources, and 

discrete locations for development activities cannot be determined at this time, 

no accurate estimate can be made as to the number of paleontological sites that 

may be affected by cumulative development activities. 

Development activities which involve federally owned surface and/or minerals 

are subject to federal guidelines and regulations protecting paleontological 

4-30 Draft EIS, West Antelope II Coal Lease Application 
 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

resources. Protection measures, permit conditions of approval, and/or 

mitigation measures would be determined on a project-specific basis at the time 

of permitting to minimize potential impacts to paleontological resources as a 

result of these activities. 

4.2.3 Air Quality 

The Task 1A Report for the PRB Coal Review (BLM 2005a) documents the 

modeled air quality impacts of operations during a baseline year, 2002, using 

actual emissions and operations for that year. Emissions from permitted minor 

sources were estimated, due to unavailability of actual emissions data. The 

baseline year analysis evaluated impacts both within the PRB itself and at 

selected sensitive areas surrounding the region. The analysis specifically looked 

at impacts of coal mines, power plants, CBNG development, and other 

development activities. Results were provided for both Wyoming and Montana at 

the individual receptor areas. The Task 2 Report for the PRB Coal Review (BLM 

2005d) identifies reasonably foreseeable development activities for the years 

2010, 2015, and 2020. 

The Task 3A Report for the PRB Coal Review (BLM 2006a) evaluates the impacts 

on air quality and air quality-related values for the year 2010 using the 

development levels projected for 2010 and the same model and meteorological 

data that were used for the baseline year study in the Task 1A Report. Impacts 

for 2015 and 2020 were projected qualitatively based on evaluation of 

anticipated changes in emissions and on modeled impacts for the 2010 lower 

and upper coal production scenarios. BLM is now planning to update the model 

and conduct an impact analysis for the year 2015. As currently proposed, a 

revised baseline year emissions inventory would be developed using 2004 actual 

emissions data or emissions estimates and incorporating recent analyses of 

emissions in Wyoming and Montana, which were not available when the 2010 

modeling study was done. 

Existing and projected emissions sources for the baseline year (2002) and 2010 

analyses were identified within a study area comprised of the following counties 

in the PRB in Wyoming and Montana: 

• Campbell County, all of Sheridan and Johnson Counties except the 

Bighorn National Forest lands to the west of the PRB, and the northern 

portion of Converse County, Wyoming. 

• Rosebud, Custer, Powder River, Big Horn, and Treasure Counties, 

Montana. 

A state-of-the-art, guideline dispersion model was used to evaluate impacts of 

the existing and projected source emissions on several source groups, as follows: 

• Near-field receptors in Wyoming and Montana covering the PRB Coal 

Review Task 1A and 3A study area in each state. Overall, the near-field 

Draft EIS, West Antelope II Coal Lease Application 4-31 
4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

receptor grid points were spaced at one kilometer intervals over the study 

area; 

• Receptors in nearby federally designated pristine or “Class I” areas; and 

• Receptors at other sensitive areas (Class II sensitive areas). 

The EPA guideline CALPUFF model system (Scire et al. 1999a) and the same 

meteorological data set were used for the Task 1A and Task 3A studies. The 

impacts for the baseline year (2002) and for 2010 lower and upper coal 

production scenarios were directly modeled. As discussed above, the modeling 

domain extends over most of Wyoming, southeastern Montana, southwestern 

North Dakota, western South Dakota, and western Nebraska. An interagency 

group participated in developing the modeling protocol and related domain that 

were used for this analysis. 

The modeling approach for the Task 3A Report used actual emissions from 

existing sources representative of 2002 operations and adjusted those emissions 

for the expected level of development in 2010. No specific emissions data were 

available for the projected levels of development. The baseline year emissions 

data were gathered from a variety of sources, but mainly relied on data collected 

by the WDEQ/AQD and the MDEQ. Only actual emission sources inside the 

study area described above were included in the modeling. Key major sources 

were included, such as the coal-fired power plants, gas-fired power plants, and 

sources that were included in the Title V (operating permit) program. The Dave 

Johnston power plant, which is located outside of but adjacent to the study area 

in Converse County, was included in the baseline year study and in the 

projected emissions. Some operational adjustments were made to accommodate 

small sources with air permits that were presumed to be operating at less than 

full capacity. Emissions from other sources, including estimated constructionrelated fugitive dust emissions, were computed based on EPA emission factors 

and on input data from WDEQ/AQD. 

Meteorological data were developed for 1996 for the modeling domain, using the 

guideline Version V of the CALMET (Scire et al. 1999b) diagnostic model, 

identical to that used in the PRB Oil and Gas EIS Project (BLM 2003b) and in 

the Task 1A Report. These data provide a four-dimensional depiction that 

represents actual meteorological conditions for that year. The data baseline was 

enhanced by using data for specific surface stations and precipitation data. 

Terrain and land use data from the USGS also were used. Modeling data 

settings generally were set to default values. Baseline year ozone concentrations 

also were incorporated into the model using measured concentrations 

representative of the study area, and were not changed for this study. 

The existing regional air quality conditions generally are very good in the PRB 

Coal Review Task 1A and Task 3A study area. There are limited air pollution 

emissions sources (few industrial facilities, including the surface coal mines, and 

few residential emissions in relatively small communities and isolated ranches) 

4-32 Draft EIS, West Antelope II Coal Lease Application 
 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

and good atmospheric dispersion conditions. The available data show that the 

region is in compliance with the ambient air quality standards for NO2 and SO2. 

There have been no monitored exceedances of the annual PM10 standard in the 

Wyoming PRB. However, as discussed in Chapter 3 (Section 3.4.2.1), monitoring 

sites at some of the surface coal mines have shown some exceedances of the 24­

hour PM10 standard since 2000. Exceedances of the 24-hour PM10 standard for 

Antelope Mine are discussed in Chapter 3 Section 3.4.2.1. 

Air quality modeling indicates the projected mine activities at the Antelope Mine 

will be in compliance with the PM10 ambient air standards for the life of the mine 

at the permitted mining rate of 42 mmtpy. The applicant has indicated that they 

propose to mine the West Antelope II tract between 36 and 42 mmtpy. Visibility 

data collected around the region indicate that, although there are some days 

with notable impacts at Class I areas, the general trend in the region shows little 

change in visibility impacts at Badlands National Park and at the Jim Bridger 

Wilderness area over the period from 1989 to 2003 (Figure 3-10). 

Predicted impacts from baseline year (2002) and projected 2010 emissions were 

modeled for three air quality criteria pollutants (NO2, SO2, and PM10), along with 

changes in air quality-related values at Class I areas and at identified sensitive 

areas. For regulatory purposes, the Class I PSD evaluations are not directly 

comparable to the air quality permitting requirements, because the modeling 

effort does not identify or separately evaluate increment consuming sources that 

would need to be evaluated under the PSD program. The cumulative impact 

analysis focuses on changes in cumulative impacts, but not on a comparison to 

PSD-related evaluations, which would apply to specific sources. 

Table 4-10 presents the modeled impacts on ambient air quality at the near-field 

receptors in Montana and Wyoming. Results indicate the maximum impacts at 

any point in each receptor group, and data are provided for the baseline year 

(2002) analysis and for both coal production scenarios for 2010. 

Based on the modeling results, the baseline year (2002) maximum impacts on 

ambient air quality were well below the ambient air quality standards for NO2, 

SO2, and Annual PM10 in both Montana and Wyoming. The 2002 maximum 

modeled 24-hour PM10 are greater than the 150 μg/m3 ambient air standard for 

some near-field receptors near PRB sources in both Montana and Wyoming. The 

modeling also indicated that visibility impacts in the surrounding Class I areas 

in 2002 were above the detectable levels at many receptor areas. 

For the Montana near-field receptors, the modeling for the 24-hour PM10 levels 

projects a maximum impact above the NAAQS for both coal production scenarios 

for 2010. The upper coal production scenario shows an increase in the impact 

of more than 40 percent above the baseline year for this parameter. Projected 

impacts for NO2, SO2, and Annual PM10 show compliance with the NAAQS and 

the Montana AAQS. Large percentage increases in annual SO2 impacts are 

projected, but the impacts themselves are well below the NAAQS. 

Draft EIS, West Antelope II Coal Lease Application 4-33 
4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences

Table 4-10. Projected Maximum Potential Near-field Impacts (μg/m3). 

Pollutant 

NO2

Averaging 

Time 

Annual 

Base 

Year 

(2002) 

Impacts 

37.3 

2010 Lower 

Coal 

Production 

Scenario 

Impacts 

2010 Upper 

Coal 

Production 

Scenario 

Impacts 

Wyoming Near-field 

42.4 49.0 

NAAQS 

100 

Wyoming 

AAQS 

100 

M

SO2 Annual 

24-hour 

3.9 

14.5 

4.8 5.6 

33.5 34.8 

80 

365 

60 

260 

3-hour 

37.9 148.0 154.2 1,300 1300 

PM10 Annual 

24-hour 

42.7 

335.5 

49.0 56.6 

378.8 439.9 

--2

150 

50 

150 

NO2 Annual 

1-hour 

8.85 

365.8 

Montana Near-field 

11.3 11.8 

415.9 519.5 

100 

--

--1 

--1 

SO2 Annual 

24-hour 3-hour 1-hour 

1.3 

18.9 74.7 

240.7 

2.3 

19.5 76.4 

246.4 

2.7 

20.4 79.8 

257.3 

80 

365 

1,300 

--

--1 

--1 

--1 

--1 

PM10 Annual 

24-hour 

19.6 

175.8 

22.5 

200.0 

27.7 

247.7 

--2

150 

--

1 

--1 

1	 No standard or increment. 2	 On September 21, 2006, the EPA announced final revisions to the NAAQS for particulate matter, which were published in 

October 17, 2006 and took effect December 18, 2006. The revision not only strengthened the 24-hour PM2.5 standard fro

revoked the annual PM10 standard of 50 μg/m3. Wyoming will enter into rulemaking to revise the Wyoming Ambient Air Qthat time, however, Wyoming will retain the 50 ug/m3 annual PM10 standard. See additional discussion in Chapter 3, Se

Bold values indicate projected exceedances of AAQS. Source: PRB Coal Review Task 3A Report (BLM 2006a) 

 Draft EIS, West Antelope II Coal Lease Application 
 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

For the Wyoming near-field receptors, the modeling projects maximum 24-hour 

PM10 levels greater than the 150 μg/m3 ambient air standard for the 2010 lower 

and upper coal production scenarios at some receptors. For the 2010 upper 

development scenario, the modeled levels are above 150 μg/m3 at seven of the 

near-field receptors in Wyoming; those receptors are confined in an area of 

intensive coal development. As shown in Table 4-10, the maximum modeled 

PM10 impacts from all sources are nearly three times the 24-hour standard for 

the 2010 upper coal production scenario. As discussed in Section 3.4.2.2.1, 

modeling tends to over-predict the 24-hour impacts of surface coal mining and, 

as a result, WDEQ/AQD does not consider short-term PM10 modeling to be an 

accurate representation of short-term impacts. In view of this, a Memorandum of 

Agreement between WDEQ/AQD and EPA Region VIII, dated January 24, 1994, 

allows WDEQ/AQD to conduct monitoring in lieu of short-term modeling for 

assessing coal mining-related impacts in the PRB. This agreement also requires 

Wyoming to implement “Best Available Work Practice” mitigation measures at 

any mine where an exceedance of the PM10 NAAQS has occurred. The monitored 

exceedances at surface coal mines in the Wyoming PRB and the measures that 

WDEQ/AQD has implemented or is proposing to implement to prevent future 

exceedances of the PM10 NAAQS are discussed in Chapter 3, Sections 3.4.2.1 and 

3.4.2.3. 

The maximum modeled impacts on the annual PM10 levels are also projected to 

be above the standard (50 μg/m3) at one near-field receptor in Wyoming for the 

2010 upper coal production scenario. Impacts of NO2 and SO2 emissions are 

predicted to be below the NAAQS and Wyoming AAQS at all Wyoming near-field 

receptors. A large portion of the impacts for all scenarios would be associated 

with coal-related sources, although non-coal sources would contribute a notable 

portion of the impact. 

Table 4-11 lists the three Class I areas and two Class II areas where the modeled 

impacts are the greatest. Table 4-11 includes a comparison to ambient air 

quality standards and PSD increments; however, it must be noted that this 

modeling analysis did not separate PSD increment-consuming sources from 

those that do not consume increment. The PSD-increment comparison is 

provided for informational purposes only and cannot be directly related to a 

regulatory interpretation of PSD increment consumption. For the Class I 

Northern Cheyenne Indian Reservation, modeled impacts for the baseline year 

(2002) and the two coal production scenarios for 2010 are less than the annual 

SO2 PSD Class I increment; slightly above the PSD Class I increment levels for 

annual PM10, 24-hour SO2, and 3-hour SO2; and well above the Class

increments for 24-hour PM10. For annual NO2, the modeled impacts for the 

Northern Cheyenne Reservations are less than the annual increment for the 

baseline year and lower coal production scenario and slightly above the annual 

increment for the upper coal production scenario. In the other two Class I areas, 

only the 24-hour PM10 impacts are higher than the comparison to the PSD 

increment levels for the baseline year and both coal production scenarios. In the 

sensitive Class II areas, all modeled impacts are well below the Class II PSD 

increment for the upper coal production scenario. In the other two Class I 

Draft EIS, West Antelope II Coal Lease Application 4-35 

 I 
4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

Table 4-11. Maximum Predicted PSD Class I and Sensitive Class II Area Impacts (μg/m3)1. 

2010 Lower Coal 

2010 Upp

Coal 

Location Pollutant 

Averaging

Period 

Base Year (2002) 

Impacts 

Production 

Scenario 

Productio

Scenario 

Class I Areas 

NO2 Annual 2.0 2.3 2.7 

Northern Cheyenne 

Indian Reservation 

SO2 

Annual 

24-hour 

3-hour 

0.6 

6.1 

26.8 

0.8 

6.5 

27.9 

0.9 

6.9 

29.3 

PM10 Annual 24-hour 5.0 42.0 5.8 47.8 7.0 59.4 

NO2 Annual 0.1 0.1 0.1 

Annual 0.0 0.1 0.1 

Washakie Wilderness SO2 24-hour 1.0 3.0 3.3 

Area 3-hour 2.0 5.1 5.6 

Annual 0.3 0.4 0.4 

PM10 24-hour 14.5 16.5 16.9 

NO2 Annual 1.2 1.5 1.7 

Annual 0.2 0.4 0.5 

Wind Cave National SO2 24-hour 1.2 3.5 3.8 

Park 3-hour 3.5 9.9 10.3 

PM10 Annual 24-hour 1.3 10.7 1.7 14.0 1.9 15.7 

Sensitive Class II Areas 

NO2 Annual 5.7 6.2 6.7 

Annual 0.8 0.9 0.9 

Crow Indian SO2 24-hour 4.7 5.1 5.3 

Reservation 3-hour 14.7 15.1 15.7 

Annual 3.0 3.7 4.0 

PM10 24-hour 30.5 35.1 36.7 

NO2 Annual 0.5 0.7 0.7 

Annual 0.1 0.2 0.3 

Cloud Peak SO2 24-hour 1.4 3.3 3.7 

Wilderness Area 3-hour 3.6 6.5 7.9 

Annual 0.8 1.1 1.2 

PM10 24-hour 13.3 17.1 17.9 

The PSD demonstrations serve information purposes only and do not constitute a regulatory PSD increments consumption analysis. 

Bold values indicate exceedance of PSD Class I or II standards. Source: PRB Coal Review Task 3A Report (BLM 2006a) 

4-36 Draft EIS, West Antelope II C

1 
 

 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

areas, only the 24-hour PM10 impacts are higher than the comparison to the 

PSD increment levels for the baseline year and both coal production scenarios. 

In the sensitive Class II areas, all modeled impacts are well below the Class II 

PSD increments, with the exception that the 24-hour PM10 impacts are greater 

than the Class II 24-hour PM10 increments at the Crow Indian Reservation for 

the baseline year and both coal production scenarios. 

The projected modeled visibility impacts for the baseline year (2002) and for the 

lower and upper coal production scenarios for 2010 for all analyzed Class I and 

sensitive Class II areas are listed in Table 4-12. For the baseline year, the 

maximum visibility impacts at Class I areas were determined to be at the 

Northern Cheyenne Indian Reservation in Montana and at Wind Cave and 

Badlands National Parks in South Dakota. For these locations, modeling 

showed more than 200 days of impacts with a change of 10 percent or more in 

extinction. A 10 percent change in extinction corresponds to 1.0 dv. 

To provide a basis for discussing the modeled visibility impacts resulting from 

the projected increased production under the lower and upper coal production 

scenarios for 2010, the modeled visibility impacts for 2002 were subtracted from 

the model results for 2010. Table 4-12 shows the number of additional days 

that the projected impacts were greater than 1.0 dv (10 percent in extinction) for 

each site for the upper and lower coal production scenarios. Using Badlands 

Park as an example, the modeling analysis projected 238 days with impacts 

greater than 1.0 dv in 2002. Under the 2010 lower coal production scenario, the 

modeling analysis projects an additional 19 days with impacts greater than 1.0 

dv, or a total of 257 days with impacts greater than 1.0 dv. 

For acid deposition, all predicted impacts are below the deposition threshold 

values for both nitrogen and sulfur compounds. There are substantial 

percentage increases in deposition under the lower and upper coal production 

scenarios for 2010; however, impacts remain well below the threshold values. 

The acid neutralizing capacity of sensitive lakes also was analyzed, and results 

are summarized in Table 4-13. No significant impacts were projected at any of 

the lakes for the baseline year study; however, the lower and upper coal 

production scenarios for 2010 show an increased impact at Florence Lake, 

leading to an impact that is above the 10 percent ANC. Impacts also are 

predicted to be above the 1 μeq/L threshold for Upper Frozen Lake. 

The study also modeled impacts of selected hazardous air pollutant emissions 

(benzene, ethyl benzene, formaldehyde, n-hexane, toluene, and xylene) on the 

near-field receptors in Montana and Wyoming. Model results for the 2010 upper 

coal production scenario show that impacts were predicted to be above the acute 

Reference Exposure Level for formaldehyde (94 μg/m3) at two receptors in 

Wyoming but are below all Reference Exposure and Reference Concentrations for 

Chronic Inhalation levels in Montana and for other compounds in Wyoming. 

Essentially, the modeled impacts for 2010 showed a continuation of the patterns 

exhibited for the baseline year analysis. 

Draft EIS, West Antelope II Coal Lease Application 4-37 
 

 

 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

Table 4-12. Modeled Change in Visibility Impacts at Class I and Sensitive 

Class II Areas. 

2010 Lower Coal 2010 Upper Coal 

Production Production 

2002 Scenario Scenario 

No. of Change in Change in 

Days No. of Days No. of Days 

Location >10% > 10% > 10% 

Federally and Tribally Designated Class I Areas 

Badlands National Park 1 238 19 26 

Bob Marshall WA 12 2 4 

Bridger WA 47 4 7 

Fitzpatrick WA 42 3 5 

Fort Peck Indian Reservation 69 8 9 

Gates of the Mountain WA 14 6 7 

Grand Teton National Park 26 2 5 

North Absaorka WA 47 6 6 

North Cheyenne Indian Reservation 305 5 10 

Red Rock Lakes 16 3 5 

Scapegoat WA 14 4 4 

Teton WA 40 4 5 

Theodore Roosevelt National Park 98 15 22 

UL Bend WA 49 4 5 

Washakie WA 53 2 3 

Wind Cave National Park 261 11 15 

Yellowstone National Park 42 7 8 

Sensitive Class II Areas 

Absaorka Beartooth WA 53 3 5 

Agate Fossil Beds National Monument 199 26 30 

Big Horn Canyon National Rec. Area 108 7 8 

Black Elk WA 263 16 22 

Cloud Peak WA 137 8 8 

Crow Indian Reservation 284 10 15 

Devils Tower National Monument 279 15 21 

Fort Belknap Indian Reservation 46 3 4 

Fort Laramie National Historic Site 153 27 30 

Jedediah Smith WA 23 1 2 

Jewel Cave National Monument 267 14 18 

Lee Metcalf WA 25 2 4 

Mount Naomi WA 8 6 8 

Mount Rushmore National Monument 248 19 25 

Popo Agie WA 47 7 8 

Soldier Creek WA 223 23 29 

Wellsville Mountain WA 6 5 7 

Wind River Indian Reservation 66 12 15 1 The U.S. Congress designated the Wilderness Area portion of Badlands National Park as a mandatory Federal PSD 

Class I area. The remainder of Badlands National Park is a PSD Class II area. 

Source: PRB Coal Review Task 3A Report (BLM 2006a) 

4-38 Draft EIS, West Antelope II Coal Lease Application 
1 

4.0 Cumulative Env

Table 4-13. Predicted Total Cumulative Change in Acid Neutralizing Capacity of Sensitive Lakes. 

Location Lake 

Background

ANC 

(μeq/L) 

Area 

(hectares) 

Base Year 

2002 Change

(percent) 

2010 Lower Coal 

Production Scenario 

Change (percent) 

2010 Uppe

Production S

Change (pe

Black Joe 67.0 890 1.3 1.88 1.97 

Deep 60.0 205 1.4 2.08 2.18 Hobbs 70.0 293 0.9 1.37 1.43 

Bridger Wilderness Area 

Upper Frozen 5.0 65 0.71 0.991 1.041

Emerald 55.3 293 5.3 6.59 6.89 

Cloud Peak 

Florence 32.7 417 8.9 11.52 12.03 

Fitzpatrick 53.5 4,455 0.9 1.37 1.43 

Wilderness Area Ross Popo Agie Lower 55.5 155 1.9 2.58 2.70 Wilderness Area Saddlebag 

Data for Upper Frozen Lake presented in changes in μeq/L rather than percent change. (For lakes with less than 25 μeq/L backg

Source: PRB Coal Review Task 3A Report (BLM 2006a) 

Draft EIS, West Antelope II Coal Lease Application 
4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

For 2015 and 2020, the PRB Coal Review Task 3A Report includes a qualitative 

analysis of potential air quality impacts and the impacts from individual source 

groups, based on the projected changes from 2002 to 2010 for the respective 

coal production scenarios. The production from conventional oil and gas and 

CBNG activities is projected to peak at 2010, with slight declines predicted over 

the following decade. Therefore, from these sources, expected impacts would 

decrease slightly from 2010 to 2015 and 2020. The coal mining sources would 

be the major contributors to PM10 impacts in the near-field, and these impacts 

would result from the proximity of the receptors to the coal mining operations. If 

coal mines expand or relocate, those impacts likely would follow that 

development; however, the specific impacts would need to be addressed with a 

more refined modeling effort, specifically including accurate source parameters. 

Power plants currently are the major contributors to all SO2 impacts in the nearfield in both states. However, the projected impacts are well below any ambient 

standard or PSD increment. According to the PRB Coal Review Air Quality 

modeling analysis, predicted future expansion modeled to the year 2020 should 

not jeopardize the attainment of those standards. Impacts on NO2 

concentrations are the result of emissions from all the source groups. No one 

source group dominates the NO2 impacts in the near-field. 

A pattern that is similar to the near-field receptors holds true for the Class I and 

sensitive Class II receptor groups. Essentially, the mine operations would 

continue to dominate the PM10 impacts, the power plants would continue to 

dominate the SO2 impacts (although they would continue to be below the 

standards), and the overall source groups would continue to contribute to NO2 

impacts, but impacts should remain below the NO2 standard for 2015 and 2020. 

Based on modeling results, none of the acid deposition thresholds were exceeded 

at Class I areas for either the baseline year or for the lower or upper coal 

production scenarios for 2010. In general, the projected increases in coal 

development (and power plants) are not expected to raise the deposition levels 

above the threshold, extended into 2020. The only concern relates to the acid 

deposition into sensitive lakes. The model results showed that the increased 

deposition, largely from SO2 emissions from power plants, exceeded the 

thresholds of significance for the ANC at two sensitive (high alpine) lakes. The 

results indicate that with increased growth in power plant operations, the 

reduced ANC of the sensitive lakes would become significant and would need to 

be addressed carefully for each proposed major development project. 

WDEQ/AQD and WDEQ/LQD mitigation and monitoring requirements for coal 

mine emissions are discussed in Sections 3.4.2.3 and 3.4.3.3. The discussion in 

these sections includes the operational control measures that are currently in 

place and would be required for mining operations on LBAs that are issued in 

the future, as well as measures that may be required to avoid future 

exceedances of the WAAQS and NAAQS and/or future mine-related impacts to 

the public. 

4-40 Draft EIS, West Antelope II Coal Lease Application 
4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

4.2.4 Water Resources 

Surface and groundwater are used extensively throughout the PRB for 

agricultural water supply, municipal water supply, and both domestic and 

industrial water supply. Surface water use is limited to major perennial 

drainages and agricultural areas within the basin are found mainly along these 

drainages. Municipal water supply comes from a combination of surface and 

groundwater. Domestic and industrial water supply primarily is from 

groundwater. 

The PRB Coal Review Task 1B Report (BLM 2006c) describes the existing water 

resource conditions in the PRB Task 1 study area (Figure 4-1). The Task 3B 

Report provides an assessment of the cumulative impact to surface and ground 

water resources associated with future projected levels of coal mining, coal mine 

dewatering, CBNG groundwater withdrawal and surface disposal, and coal mine 

and conventional oil and gas surface disposal of groundwater in the Task 3 

study area (Figure 4-4). The groundwater portion of the impact analysis has not 

yet been completed. The surface water analysis addresses the cumulative 

impacts to surface water quality and channel stability as a result of surface 

discharge of groundwater by CBNG development and coal mine dewatering. The 

surface water quality portion of this analysis has been completed, but the 

channel stability portion is not yet complete. The following discussion includes 

a summary the results of the Task 1B Report and the Task 3B surface water 

quality impact analysis. The Task 3B channel stability and groundwater impact 

analyses will be incorporated into future EIS analyses when they are completed. 

4.2.4.1 Groundwater 

There are five main aquifers in the PRB Coal Review Task 1 study area (Figure 4­

1) that can be used for water supply: 

• Madison Aquifer System; 

• Dakota Aquifer System; 

• Fox Hills/Lance Aquifer System; 

• Fort Union/Wasatch Aquifer System; and 

• Quaternary Alluvial Aquifer System. 

The Fort Union/Wasatch Aquifer System includes the coal and overburden 

aquifers that are directly affected by surface coal mining and CBNG 

development. It is also a major source of local water supply for domestic and 

stock water use. Table 4-14 shows the recoverable groundwater in the 

components of the Fort Union/Wasatch Aquifer System. The volumes of 

recoverable groundwater from the sandstones within the Wasatch/Tongue River 

Aquifer, the Lebo Confining Layer, and the Tullock Aquifer were determined from 

the volume of sandstone in each of these units multiplied by the 13 percent 

specific yield value for sandstone. Similarly, the volume of recoverable 

groundwater from the coals within the Wasatch/Tongue River was calculated 

from the volume of coal multiplied by the 0.4 percent specific yield value for coal. 

Draft EIS, West Antelope II Coal Lease Application 4-41 
4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

As a result of statutory requirements and concerns, several studies and a 

number of modeling analyses have been conducted to help predict the impacts 

of surface coal mining on groundwater resources in the Wyoming portion of the 

PRB. Some of these studies and modeling analyses are discussed below. 

Table 4-14.	 Recoverable Groundwater in the Fort Union/Wasatch Aquifer 

System. 

Hydrogeologic 

Unit 

Surface Area(acres)AverageFormationThickness (ft)Percentage ofSand/CoalAverageSand/CoalThickness (ft)Specific Yield (percent)Recoverable Groundwater(acre-feet)1 

Wasatch-Tongue 

River Aquifer 

Sandstones 

5,615,609 2,035 50.0 1,018 13.0 743,169,695 

Wasatch-Tongue 

River Aquifer Coals 4,988,873 2,035 6.2 126 0.4 2,514,392 

Lebo Confining 

Layer Sandstones 6,992,929 1,009 33.0 250 13.0 227,270,193 

Tullock Aquifer 

Sandstones 7,999,682 1,110 52.0 430 13.0 447,182,224 

1 Calculated by multiplying Surface Area × Average Sand/Coal Thickness × Specific Yield. These 

numbers vary slightly from the numbers presented in Table 3-5 of the Final Environmental Impact 

Statement and Proposed Plan Amendment for the PRB Oil and Gas Project (BLM 2003b). 

Source: BLM 2003b 

In 1987, the USGS, in cooperation with the WDEQ and OSM, conducted a study 

of the hydrology of the eastern PRB. The resulting description of the cumulative 

hydrologic effects of all current and anticipated surface coal mining (as of 1987) 

was published in 1988 in the USGS Water-Resources Investigation Report 

entitled “Cumulative Potential Hydrologic Impacts of Surface Coal Mining in the 

Eastern Powder River Structural Basin, Northeastern Wyoming”, also known as 

the “USGS CHIA” (Martin et al. 1988). This report evaluates the potential 

cumulative groundwater impacts of surface coal mining in the area and is 

incorporated by reference into this EIS. The USGS CHIA analysis considered the 

proposed mining at the Antelope Mine. It did not evaluate potential groundwater 

impacts related to additional coal leasing in this area and it did not consider the 

potential for overlapping groundwater impacts from coal mining and CBNG 

development. 

Each mine must assess the probable hydrologic consequences of mining as part 

of the mine permitting process. The WDEQ/LQD must evaluate the cumulative 

hydrologic impacts associated with each proposed mining operation before 

approving the mining and reclamation plan for each mine, and they must find 

that the cumulative hydrologic impacts of all anticipated mining would not 

cause material damage to the hydrologic balance outside of the permit area for 

each mine. As a result of these requirements, each existing approved mining 

permit includes an analysis of the hydrologic impacts of the surface coal mining 

proposed at that mine. If revisions to mining and reclamation permits are 

4-42 Draft EIS, West Antelope II Coal Lease Application 
 

 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

proposed, then the potential cumulative impacts of the revisions must also be 

evaluated. If the West Antelope II LBA tract is leased to the applicant, the 

existing mining and reclamation permit for the Antelope Mine must be revised 

and approved to include the new lease before it can be mined. 

The PRB Oil and Gas Project FEIS (BLM 2003b) includes a modeling analysis of 

the groundwater impacts if an additional 39,000 new CBNG wells are drilled in 

the PRB by the end of 2011. The project area for this EIS, which covers all of 

Campbell, Sheridan, and Johnson Counties, as well as the northern portion of 

Converse County, is similar to the study area for the PRB Coal Review Task 1 

and Task 2 study area (Figure 4-1). 

Another source of data on the impacts of surface coal mining on groundwater is 

the monitoring that is required by WDEQ/LQD and administered by the mining 

operators. Each mine is required to monitor groundwater levels and quality in 

the coal and in the shallower aquifers in the area surrounding their operations. 

Monitoring wells are also required to record water levels and water quality in 

reclaimed areas. 

The coal mine groundwater monitoring data are published each year by GAGMO, 

a voluntary group formed in 1980. Members of GAGMO include most of the 

companies with operating or proposed mines in the Wyoming PRB, WDEQ, the 

Wyoming SEO, BLM, USGS, and OSM. GAGMO contracts with an independent 

firm each year to publish the annual monitoring results. GAGMO also 

periodically publishes reports summarizing the water monitoring data collected 

since 1980 in the Wyoming PRB (e.g., Hydro-Engineering 1991, 1996, and 

2001a). 

The major groundwater issues related to surface coal mining that have been 

identified are: 

•	 the effect of the removal of the coal aquifer and any overburden 

aquifers within the mine area and replacement of these aquifers with 

backfill material; 

•	 the extent of the temporary lowering of static water levels in the 

aquifers around the mine due to dewatering associated with removal 

of these aquifers within the mine boundaries; 

•	 the effects of the use of water from the subcoal Fort Union Formation 

by the mines; 

•	 changes in water quality as a result of mining; and 

•	 potential overlapping drawdown due to proximity of coal mining and 

CBNG development. 

Draft EIS, West Antelope II Coal Lease Application 4-43 
4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

The impacts of large scale surface coal mining on a cumulative basis for each of 

these issues are discussed in the following paragraphs. 

The effect of replacing the coal and overburden with backfill is the first major 

groundwater concern. The following discussion of recharge, movement, and 

discharge of water in the backfill aquifer is excerpted from the USGS CHIA 

(Martin et al. 1988): 

Postmining recharge, movement, and discharge of groundwater in the 

Wasatch aquifer and Wyodak coal aquifer will probably not be 

substantially different from premining conditions. Recharge rates and 

mechanisms will not change substantially. Hydraulic conductivity of the 

spoil aquifer will be approximately the same as in the Wyodak coal 

aquifer allowing groundwater to move from recharge areas where clinker 

is present east of mine areas through the spoil aquifer to the undisturbed 

Wasatch aquifer and Wyodak coal aquifer to the west. 

Monitoring data verify that recharge has occurred and is continuing in the 

backfill (Hydro-Engineering 1991, 1996, 2001a, and 2005). The water 

monitoring summary reports prepared each year by GAGMO list current water 

levels in the monitoring wells completed in the backfill and compare them with 

the 1980 water levels, as estimated from the 1980 coal water-level contour 

maps. In the 1991 GAGMO 10-year report, some recharge had occurred in 88 

percent of the 51 backfill wells reported at that time (Hydro-Engineering 1991). 

In the GAGMO 20-year report, 79 percent of the 82 backfill wells measured 

contained water (Hydro-Engineering 2001a). 

Coal companies are required by state and federal law to mitigate any water 

rights that are interrupted, discontinued, or diminished by mining. 

The cumulative size of the backfill area in the PRB and the duration of mining 

activity would be increased by mining the currently pending LBA tracts, 

including the West Antelope II LBA tract. Because the mined-out areas are 

being backfilled and the monitoring data demonstrate that recharge of the 

backfill is occurring, substantial additional impacts are not anticipated as a 

result of the pending leasing actions. 

Clinker or scoria, the baked and fused rock formed by prehistoric burning of the 

Wyodak-Anderson coal seam, occurs all along the coal outcrop area (Figure 3­

12) and is believed to be the major recharge source for the backfill aquifer, just 

as it is for the coal. However, not all clinker is saturated. Some clinker is mined 

for road-surfacing material, but saturated clinker is not generally mined since 

abundant clinker exists above the water table and does not present the mining 

problems that would result from mining saturated clinker. Therefore, the major 

recharge source for the backfill aquifer is not being disturbed by current mining. 

Although clinker is present in the West Antelope II LBA tract general analysis 

area, the tract has no appreciable amounts of clinker. 

4-44 Draft EIS, West Antelope II Coal Lease Application 
 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

The second major groundwater issue is the extent of water level drawdown in the 

coal and shallower aquifers in the area surrounding the mines. In general, the 

saturated sand aquifers in the Wasatch Formation overburden have limited 

extent and, as a result, the drawdowns in the Wasatch Formation are much 

smaller and cover much less area than the coal drawdowns. In this EIS, 

assessment of cumulative impacts to groundwater related to surface coal mining 

is based on impact predictions made by the Antelope Mine and the other 

adjacent mines (North Antelope Rochelle, Black Thunder, and Jacobs Ranch 

Mines). Those drawdowns are extrapolated to evaluate the potential impacts of 

mining of the West Antelope II LBA tract. Figure 4-5 depicts the extrapolated 

extent of the five-ft cumulative drawdown contour within the Wyodak coal 

aquifer resulting from the four mines in the South Gillette subregion. The extent 

of the five-ft drawdown contour is used by WDEQ/LQD to assess the cumulative 

extent of the impact to the groundwater system caused by mining operations. 

The GAGMO 20-year report provides actual groundwater drawdown information 

after 20 years of mining (Hydro-Engineering 2001a). Most of the monitoring 

wells included in the GAGMO 20-year report (488 wells out of 570) are 

completed in the coal beds, in the overlying sediments, or in sand channels or 

interburden between the coal beds at 16 active and proposed mine sites. Since 

1996, some BLM monitor wells have been included in the GAGMO reports. 

The USGS CHIA predicted the approximate area of five feet or more water level 

decline in the Wyodak coal aquifer which would result from “all anticipated coal 

mining”. “All anticipated coal mining” included 16 surface coal mines operating 

at the time the report was prepared and six additional mines proposed at that 

time. All of the currently producing mines, including the Antelope Mine, were 

considered in the USGS CHIA analysis (Martin et al. 1988). The study predicted 

that water supply wells completed in the coal may be affected as far away as 

eight miles from mine pits, although the effects at that distance were predicted 

to be minimal. 

As drawdown propagates to the west, available drawdown in the coal aquifer 

increases. Available drawdown is defined as the elevation difference between the 

potentiometric surface (elevation to which water will rise in a well bore) and the 

bottom of the aquifer. Proceeding west, the coal depth increases faster than the 

potentiometric surface declines, so available drawdown in the coal increases. 

Since the depth to coal increases, most stock and domestic wells are completed 

in units above the coal. Consequently, with the exception of CBNG wells, few 

wells are completed in the coal in the areas west of the mines. Those wells 

completed in the coal have considerable available drawdown, so it is unlikely 

that surface coal mining would cause adverse impacts to wells outside the 

immediate mine area. 

Wells in the Wasatch Formation were predicted to be impacted by drawdown 

only if they were within 2,000 ft of a mine pit (Martin et al. 1988). Drawdown 

occurs farther from the mine pits in the coal than in the shallower aquifers 

because the coal is a confined aquifer that is areally extensive. The area in 

Draft EIS, West Antelope II Coal Lease Application 4-45 
5'

 

 

 

 

 

5' 

5' 

5' 

No Coal Line ( A pproximate) 

No Coal Lin e (Approximate) 

5' 

44 44 

50 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

R.074W. R.73W. R.72W. R.71W. R.70W. R.69W. 

T. T. 

45 

N. CBNG Production Has 45 

N. 

Significantly Affected the 

Extent of Drawdown in this Area. 

5' 

!(59 

T. 

N. 

T. 

N. Reno 

Junction 

!( Jacobs Ranch Mine 

T. T. 

43 Black Thunder Mine 43 

N. N. 

5' 

5' T. 

T. 42

42 N.

N. 

North Antelope / 

Rochelle 

Complex 

5' 

T. 

41 

N. 

T. 

41 

N. 

Campbell County 

5' Converse County 

Antelope Mine 

T. T. 

40 

N. 5' !(59 

40 

N. 

T. T. 

39 

N. 39 

N. 

R.074W. R.73W. R.72W. R.71W. R.70W. R.69W. 

LEGEND

West Antelope II LBA Tract As Applied For Existing Black Thunder Mine Federal Coal Leases 

Area Added under Alternative 1 

North Tract (Alternative 2) 

South Tract (Alternative 2) 

Existing Antelope Mine Federal Coal Leases 

Extent of Jacobs Ranch Mine Drawdown 

Extent of Black Thunder Mine Drawdown 

Extent of North Antelope / Rochelle Complex Drawdown 

Existing Jacobs Ranch Mine Federal Coal Leases 

Existing North Antelope / Rochelle Mine Complex Federal Coal Leases 

Source: USGS CHIA Study (Martin et al. 1988). 

Mine, Black Thunder Mine, North Antelope/Rochelle 

Mine, and Antelope Mine (Including the West Antelope II 

LBA Tract). 

Area of Greater Than Five Feet Measured Drawdown 

Extent of Drawdown Due to All Anticipated Mining. 

Cumulative Worst-Case Drawdown for Jacobs Ranch 

Drawdown in 20 years of Mining (1980-2000) 

(Hydro-Engineering 2001a) £ Extent of Antelope Mine Drawdown 

(Including the West Antelope II LBA Tract) 0 30,000 60,000 

GRAPHIC SCALE (FEET) 

Figure 4-5. Extrapolated Extent of Cumulative Drawdown Within the Wyodak Coal Aquifer in the

 South Gillette Subregion. 

4-46 Draft EIS, West Antelope II Coal Lease Application 
 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

which the shallower aquifers (Wasatch Formation, alluvium, and clinker) 

experience a five-ft drawdown would be much smaller than the area of 

drawdown in the coal because the shallower aquifers are generally 

discontinuous, of limited areal extent, and often unconfined. 

When the USGS CHIA was prepared, there were about 1,200 water supply wells 

within the maximum impact area defined in that study. Of those wells, about 

580 were completed in Wasatch aquifers, about 100 in the Wyodak coal aquifer, 

and about 280 in strata below the coal. There were no completion data available 

for the remainder of the wells (about 240) at the time the USGS CHIA was 

prepared. 

If the West Antelope II LBA tract is leased and mined, the groundwater 

drawdown would be extended into the area surrounding the proposed new lease. 

When a lease is issued to an existing mine for a maintenance tract, the mine 

must revise its existing mining permit to include the new tract in its mine and 

reclamation plans. In order to do that, the lessee would be required to conduct 

a detailed groundwater analysis to predict the extent of drawdown in the coal 

and overburden aquifers caused by mining the new lease. WDEQ/LQD would 

use the revised drawdown predictions to update their cumulative hydrologic 

impact analysis (WDEQ CHIA) for this portion of the PRB. The applicant has 

installed monitoring wells that would be used to confirm or refute drawdown 

predicted by analysis. This analysis would be required as part of the WDEQ 

mine permitting procedure discussed in Sections 1.2 and 1.3. 

Potential water-level decline in the subcoal Fort Union Formation is the third 

major groundwater issue. Water level declines in the Tullock Aquifer have been 

documented in the Gillette area. According to Crist (1991), these declines are 

most likely attributable to pumpage for municipal use by Gillette and for use at 

subdivisions and trailer parks in and near the city of Gillette. Most of the waterlevel declines in the subcoal Fort Union wells occur within one mile of the 

pumped wells (Crist 1991, Martin et al. 1988). Many of the mines have water 

supply wells completed in zones below the coal, but the mine facilities in the 

PRB are separated by a distance of one mile or more, so little interference 

between mine supply wells would be expected. 

In response to concerns voiced by regulatory personnel, several mines have 

conducted impact studies of the subcoal Fort Union Formation. The OSM also 

commissioned a cumulative impact study of the subcoal Fort Union Formation 

to address the effects of mine facility wells on this aquifer (OSM 1984). 

Conclusions from these studies are similar and may be summarized as follows: 

•	 Because of the discontinuous nature of the sands in this formation 

and because most large-yield wells are completed in several different 

sands, it is difficult to correlate completion intervals between wells. 

•	 In the Gillette area, water levels in this aquifer have probably 

declined because the city of Gillette and several subdivisions have 

Draft EIS, West Antelope II Coal Lease Application 4-47 
4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

utilized water from the formation (Crist 1991). (Note: Gillette is 

mixing Fort Union Formation water with water from wells completed 

in the Madison Formation. Also, because drawdown has occurred, 

some operators are able to dispose of CBNG water by injecting it into 

the subcoal Fort Union Formation near the city of Gillette.) 

•	 Because large saturated thicknesses are available (locally) in this 

aquifer unit, generally 500 ft or more, a drawdown of 100 to 200 ft in 

the vicinity of a pumped well would not dewater the aquifer. 

Most of the existing coal mines have permits from the Wyoming SEO for subcoal 

Fort Union Formation water supply wells. The Antelope Mine uses two wells 

completed in the sub-coal Fort Union Formation (WS-1 and WS-2) to supply 

water for human consumption and mining operations (Figure 3-11). Extending 

the life of the Antelope Mine by issuing a new lease would result in additional 

water being withdrawn from the subcoal Fort Union Formation, but no new subcoal water supply wells would be required. The additional water withdrawal 

would not be expected to extend the area of water level drawdown over a 

substantially larger area due to the discontinuous nature of the sands in the 

Tullock Member and the fact that drawdown and yield reach equilibrium in a 

well due to recharge effects. Due to the distances separating subcoal Fort Union 

Formation wells used for mine water supply, these wells have not experienced 

interference and are not likely to in the future. 

Water requirements and sources for proposed power plants are not currently 

known, however, there are no proposed power plants in the immediate vicinity of 

the Antelope Mine. The Wyoming SEO is discouraging further development of 

the lower Fort Union Formation aquifers, so the most likely groundwater source 

for future power plants the Lance-Fox Hills Aquifer System. This would reduce 

the chances that the power plants would add to cumulative hydrologic impacts 

of mining and CBNG production. 

The fourth issue of concern with respect to groundwater is the effect of mining 

on water quality. Specifically, what effect does mining have on the water quality 

in the surrounding area, and what are the potential water quality problems in 

the backfill aquifer following mining? 

In a regional study of the cumulative impacts of coal mining, the median 

concentrations of dissolved solids and sulfates were found to be higher in water 

from backfill aquifers than in water from either the Wasatch Formation 

overburden or the Wyodak coal aquifer (Martin et al. 1988). This is expected 

because blasting and movement of the overburden materials exposes more 

surface area to water, increasing dissolution of soluble materials, particularly 

from the overburden materials that were situated above the saturated zone in 

the premining environment. 

One pore volume of water is the volume of water that would be required to 

saturate the backfill following reclamation. The time required for one pore 

4-48 Draft EIS, West Antelope II Coal Lease Application 
 

 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

volume of water to pass through the backfill aquifer is greater than the time 

required for the postmining groundwater system to reestablish equilibrium. 

According to the USGS CHIA, estimates of the time required to reestablish 

equilibrium range from tens to hundreds of years (Martin et al. 1988). 

The major current use of water from the aquifers being replaced by the backfill 

(the Wasatch Formation overburden and Wyodak coal aquifers) is for livestock 

because these aquifers are typically too high in dissolved solids for domestic use 

and well yields are typically too low for irrigation (Martin et al. 1988). Chemical 

analyses of 336 samples collected between 1981 and 1986 from 45 wells 

completed in backfill aquifers at 10 mines indicated that the quality of water in 

the backfill will, in general, meet the state standard for livestock use of 5,000 

mg/L for TDS when recharge occurs (Martin et al. 1988). 

The 2000 annual GAGMO report (Hydro-Engineering 2001b) evaluated samples 

from 48 backfill wells in 1999 and found that the TDS in 75 percent were less 

than 5,000 mg/L, TDS in 23 percent were between 5,000 and 10,000 mg/L, and 

TDS in one well was above 10,000 mg/L. An analysis of about 2,000 samples 

collected from 95 backfill monitoring wells between 1986 and 2002 found that 

the water quality in 75 percent of the wells were within the acceptable range for 

the Wyoming livestock standard, with 25 percent exceeding that standard (Ogle 

2004). 

Water quality data for the backfill aquifer for the southern group of coal mines 

(Antelope, North Antelope Rochelle, Black Thunder and Jacobs Ranch) for the 

period from 1981 to 2005 was compiled by WDEQ/LQD and presented in the 

most recently prepared WDEQ CHIA for that mine group (Ogle et al. 2006). The 

median TDS concentration of groundwater from the backfill aquifer in that group 

of mines was 3,670 mg/L, based on 869 samples. The report concluded that the 

water quality in the backfill aquifer in the southern group of mines meets the 

requirements for livestock use, although the data show that the concentration of 

major ions measured in water samples taken from the backfill aquifer is 

consistently higher that the concentrations measured in the premining aquifers. 

The 2005 Annual GAGMO report (Hydro-Engineering 2006) indicates that TDS 

concentrations in 2005 ranged from 802 mg/L at BTB-24 (Black Thunder Mine) 

to 12,409 mg/L at SP-4-NA (North Antelope Rochelle Mine). The TDS 

concentrations at Antelope Mine in 2005 ranged from 2,360 mg/L at OWS-10 to 

5,800 mg/L at OWS-12. These values are consistent with the findings of the 

WDEQ CHIA. The incremental effect on groundwater quality due to leasing and 

mining the West Antelope II LBA tract would be to increase the total volume of 

backfill and, thus, the time for equilibrium to reestablish. 

The fifth area of concern is the potential for cumulative impacts to groundwater 

resources due to the proximity of coal mining and CBNG development. The 

Wyodak coal is being developed by mining and CBNG production in the same 

general area. Dewatering activities associated with CBNG development have 

overlapped with and expanded the area of groundwater drawdown in the coal 

Draft EIS, West Antelope II Coal Lease Application 4-49 
 

 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

aquifer in the PRB over what would occur due to coal mining development alone, 

and this would be expected to continue. 

Numerical groundwater flow modeling was used to predict the impacts of the 

cumulative stresses imposed by mining and CBNG development on the Fort 

Union Formation coal aquifer in the PRB Oil and Gas Project EIS (BLM 2003b). 

Modeling was necessary because of the large areal extent, variability, and 

cumulative stresses imposed by mining and CBNG development on the Fort 

Union coal aquifers. Information from earlier studies was incorporated into the 

modeling effort for this analysis. 

As expected, the modeling indicated that the groundwater impacts from CBNG 

development and surface coal mining would be additive in nature and that the 

addition of CBNG development would extend the area experiencing a loss in 

hydraulic head to the west of the mining area. The 20-year GAGMO report 

stated that drawdowns in all areas have greatly increased due to the water 

production from the Wyodak coal aquifer by CBNG producers (HydroEngineering 2001a). 

Drawdowns in the coal caused by CBNG development would be expected to 

reduce the need for dewatering in advance of mining, which would be beneficial 

for mining operations. Wells completed in the coal may also experience 

increased methane emissions in areas of significant aquifer depressurization. 

There is a potential for conflicts to occur over who (coal mining or CBNG 

operators) is responsible for replacing or repairing private wells that are 

adversely affected by the drawdowns; however, the number of potentially 

affected wells completed in the coal is not large. 

As discussed previously, coal companies are required by state and federal law to 

mitigate any water rights that are interrupted, discontinued, or diminished by 

coal mining. In response to concerns about the potential impacts of CBNG 

development on water rights, a group of CBNG operators and local landowners 

developed a standard water well monitoring and mitigation agreement that can 

be used on a case-by-case basis as development proceeds. All CBNG operators 

on federal oil and gas leases are required to offer this water well agreement to 

the surface landowners (BLM 2003b). 

After CBNG development and coal mining projects are completed, it will take 

longer for groundwater levels to recover due to the overlapping drawdown 

impacts caused by the dewatering and depressuring of the coal aquifer by both 

operations. 

4.2.4.2 Surface Water 

For the PRB Coal Review Task 1B Report, which describes the baseline year 

(2003) water resource conditions including surface water use and surface water 

availability, the Wyoming PRB is divided into two major water planning areas: 

the Powder/Tongue River Basin and the Northeast Wyoming River Basins. 

4-50 Draft EIS, West Antelope II Coal Lease Application 
 

 

 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

The main rivers in the Powder/Tongue River Basin are the Tongue River and the 

Powder River. The Powder/Tongue River Basin receives substantial surface 

water runoff from the Big Horn Mountains, leading to major agricultural 

development along drainages in the Tongue River and Powder River basins. 

Reservoirs are used throughout the basin for agricultural water supply and for 

municipal water supply in the Powder/Tongue River Basin. Water use in the 

Powder/Tongue River Basin as of 2002 is summarized in Table 4-15. 

Table 4-15. Water Use as of 2002 in the Powder/Tongue River Basin. 

Dry Year Normal Year Wet Year 

(acre-feet per year) 

Water Use Surface Ground- Surface Ground- Surface GroundCategories Water water Water water Water water 

Agricultural 178,000 200 184,000 200 194,000 300 

Municipal 2,700 500 2,700 500 2,700 500 

Domestic --- 4,400 --- 4,400 --- 4,400 

Industrial1 --- 68,000 --- 68,000 --- 68,000 

Recreation Non-consumptive 

Environmental Non-consumptive 

Evaporation 

Total 

11,300 

192,000 

--

73,100 

11,300 

198,000 

--

73,100 

11,300 

208,000 

--

73,200 

1 Includes conventional oil and gas production water and CBNG production water. Source: HKM Engineering et al. 2002a 

The Little Bighorn River, Tongue River, Powder River, Crazy Woman Creek, and 

Piney Creek carry the largest natural flows in the Powder/Tongue River Basin. 

Many of the other major drainages are affected by irrigation practices to the 

extent that their flows are not natural (HKM Engineering et al. 2002a). Water 

availability in the major sub-basins of the Powder/Tongue River Basin is 

summarized in Table 4-16. This table presents the amount of surface water in 

acre-feet that is physically available above and beyond allocated surface water in 

these drainages. As a result of the Yellowstone River Compact, Wyoming must 

share some of the physically available surface water in the Powder/Tongue River 

Basin with Montana. 

Table 4-16. Surface Water Availability in the Powder/Tongue River Basin. 

Surface Water Availability 

(acre-feet per year) 

Sub-basin Wet Years Normal Years Dry Years 

Little Bighorn River 152,000 113,000 81,000 

Tongue River 473,000 326,000 218,000 

Clear Creek 213,000 124,000 80,000 

Crazy Woman Creek 69,000 32,000 16,000 

Powder River 547,000 324,000 16,000 

Little Powder River 48,000 12,000 3,000 

Total 1,502,000 931,000 414,000 

Source: HKM Engineering et al. 2002a 

The main rivers in the Northeast Wyoming River Basins are the Belle Fourche in 

Campbell and Crook Counties and the Cheyenne River in Converse, Weston, and 

Niobrara Counties. Water in these rivers and their tributaries comes from 

Draft EIS, West Antelope II Coal Lease Application 4-51 
4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

groundwater baseline flow and from precipitation, especially from heavy storms 

during the summer months. Water use in the Northeast Wyoming River Basins 

as of 2002 is summarized in Table 4-17. 

Stream flow in the major drainages of the Northeast Wyoming River Basins is 

much less than in the Powder/Tongue River Basin, due to the absence of a 

major mountain range to provide snow melt runoff. Water availability in the 

major sub-basins of the Northeast Wyoming Rivers Basin is summarized in 

Table 4-18. 

Table 4-17. Water Use as of 2002 in the Northeast Wyoming River Basins. 

Dry Year Normal Year Wet Year 

(acre-feet per year) 

Water Use Surface Ground- Surface Ground- Surface GroundCategories Water water Water water Water water 

Agricultural 65,000 11,000 69,000 17,000 71,000 17,000 

Municipal --- 9,100 --- 9,100 --- 9,100 

Domestic --- 3,600 --- 3,600 --- 3,600 

Industrial --- 46,000 --- 46,000 --- 46,000 

(Oil and Gas)1 

Industrial (Other) 2 --- 4,700 --- 4,700 --- 4,700 

Recreation Non-consumptive 

Environmental Non-consumptive 

Evaporation 14,000 --- 14,000 --- 14,000 ---

(Key Reservoirs) 

Evaporation 6,300 --- 6,300 --- 6,300 ---

(Stock Ponds) 

Total 85,300 74,400 89,300 80,400 91,300 80,400 1 Includes conventional oil and gas production water and CBNG production water.
 2 Includes electricity generation, coal mining, and oil refining.
 

Source: HKM Engineering et al. 2002b
 

Table 4-18. Surface Water Availability in the Northeast Wyoming River 

Basins. 

Sub-basin Wet Years 

Surface Water Availability 

(acre-feet per year) 

Normal Years Dry Years 

Redwater Creek 34,000 26,000 17,000 

Beaver Creek 30,000 20,000 14,000 

Cheyenne River 103,000 31,000 5,000 

Belle Fourche River 151,000 71,000 13,000 

Total 318,000 148,000 49,000 

Source: HKM Engineering et al. 2002b 

The portions of the PRB Coal Review Task 3B Report that have been completed 

evaluate cumulative impacts to surface water quality as a result of CBNG, 

conventional oil and gas, and surface coal mining development in 2003, and 

projected development in 2010, 2015, and 2020 in the PRB Coal Review Task 3 

4-52 Draft EIS, West Antelope II Coal Lease Application 
4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

study area (Figure 4-4). The surface water resources in the PRB Coal Review 

Task 3 study area consist primarily of intermittent and ephemeral streams and 

scattered ponds and reservoirs. A major impact of the projected development 

activities would be direct surface disturbance of these surface water features. 

Table 4-9 summarizes the cumulative baseline (2003) and projected (in 2010, 

2015, and 2020) acres of surface disturbance and reclamation. The projected 

activities would result in surface disturbance in each of the six Task 3 study 

area subwatersheds (Figure 4-4). Discrete locations for development 

disturbance and reclamation areas cannot be determined based on existing 

information. However, the projected disturbance would primarily involve the 

construction of additional linear facilities, product gathering lines, and road 

systems associated with conventional oil and gas and CBNG activities, plus 

additional disturbance associated with extending coal mining operations onto 

lands adjacent to the existing mines. 

Surface disturbing activities can result in sediment input to water bodies, which 

affects water quality parameters such as turbidity and bottom substrate 

composition. Contaminants also can be introduced into water bodies through 

chemical characteristics of the sediment. Studies have shown that TDS levels in 

streams near reclaimed coal mine areas have increased from one percent to 

seven percent (Martin et al. 1988). Typically, sedimentation effects are shortterm in duration and localized in terms of the affected area. Suspended 

sediment concentrations would stabilize and return to typical background 

concentrations after construction or development activities have been completed. 

It is anticipated that sediment input associated with development disturbance 

areas would be minimized by implementation of appropriate erosion control 

measures, as would be determined during future permitting. 

Future coal mining could remove intermittent or ephemeral streams and stock 

ponds in the Little Powder River, Upper Belle Fourche River, Upper Cheyenne 

River, and Antelope Creek subwatersheds. As discussed in Section 3.5.2, the 

Antelope Mine is in the Antelope Creek subwatershed. Coal mine permits 

provide for removal of first- through fourth-order drainages. During 

reclamation, third- and fourth-order drainages must be restored; first- and 

second-order drainages often are not replaced (Martin et al. 1988). 

Coal mining-related surface water would be discharged into intermittent and 

ephemeral streams in four subwatersheds (Antelope Creek, Little Powder River, 

Upper Belle Fourche River, and Upper Cheyenne River). Based on current 

trends, it is assumed that most, if not all, of the coal mine-produced water 

would be consumed during operation. As discussed in Section 3.5.2.2, changes 

in surface runoff would occur as a result of the destruction and reconstruction 

of drainage channels as mining progresses. Sediment control structures would 

be used to manage discharges of surface water from the mine permit areas. 

State and federal regulations require treatment of surface runoff from mined 

lands to meet effluent standards. 

Draft EIS, West Antelope II Coal Lease Application 4-53 
 

 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

The PRB Coal Review assumes that future permitting would allow a portion of 

CBNG-produced water to be discharged to intermittent and ephemeral drainages 

as is currently allowed in the six subwatersheds in the PRB Coal Review Task 3 

study area (Figure 4-4). It is estimated that up to 39,108, 41,899, and 37,390 

mmgpy of water would be produced in 2010, 2015, and 2020, respectively. 

The PRB Coal Review Task 3B surface water quality impact analysis utilizes the 

surface water model described in the Surface Water Quality Analysis Technical 

Report (Greystone 2003), which was prepared in support of the PRB Oil and Gas 

Project EIS (BLM 2003b), to evaluate the cumulative impacts to surface water 

resources from surface discharge of CBNG development. Based on past 

monitoring in receiving streams, most CBNG discharge water either infiltrates or 

evaporates within a few miles of the discharge points and generally is not 

recorded at USGS Stream gauging stations. Impacts to surface water flow and 

quality are therefore generally limited to within a few miles of the discharge 

point. In view of this, the PRB Coal Review Task 3B water quality impact 

analysis assumes a conveyance loss of 70 percent for the water quality 

assessment and modeling analysis. 

Key water quality parameters for predicting the potential effects of CBNG 

development in the surface water quality impact analysis focused on the 

suitability of surface water for irrigated agriculture. Sodium adsorption ratio, or 

SAR, and salinity, measured by electrical conductivity or EC, were utilized for 

this prediction. Most restrictive (MRPL) and least restrictive (LRPL) regulatory 

standards for EC and SAR applicable to the subwatersheds were developed and 

used in the analysis. The limits presented in Table 4-19 were used during the 

comparison of EC and SAR valued for resulting mixtures of existing streamflows 

and discharges from CBNG wells under various flow conditions and the CBNG 

water discharge projections for 2010, 2015, and 2020. 

Table 4-19. Summary of Proposed Limits for SAR and EC 

Subwatershed Most Restrictive Proposed Limit 

(MRPL) 

Least Restrictive Proposed Limit 

(LRPL) 

SAR EC (μS/cm) SAR EC (μS/cm) 

Little Powder 5 2,000 9.75 2,500 

Powder 2 2,000 9.75 2,500 

Belle Fourche 6 2,000 10 2,500 

Cheyenne, 

Antelope Creek 10 2,000 10 2,500 

Source: Wyoming DEQ, Montana DEQ, and South Dakota Legislative Council 

The impacts to water quality on the receiving drainages assumed two hydrologic 

conditions: dry year conditions and normal year conditions. The impact 

analysis, conducted using monthly flows, comparatively evaluated the water 

quality parameters (SAR and EC) of the receiving drainage before and after 

mixing with discharge water generated by the CBNG wells within that drainage. 

In general, the water discharged from the CBNG wells reflected increased levels 

of SAR and reduced levels of EC compared to the water quality of the receiving 

drainages. Impacts to water quality are likely to be maximized during the low 

4-54 Draft EIS, West Antelope II Coal Lease Application 
4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

flow months; consequently, the comparative evaluation of water quality also 

focused on the minimum monthly flow associated with the dry year and normal 

year conditions. 

The water quality impact analysis made several observations regarding the 

overall effects of mixing CBNG well production water with surface water in the 

PRB Coal Review Task 3 study area. These general observations are 

summarized below. 

Before mixing, the surface water in the Upper Powder River exceeds the MRPL 

for both EC and SAR throughout the majority of the year. Levels of SAR are less 

than the LRPL while EC values generally exceed the LRPL from July through 

December. After mixing, a minimal reduction in EC and a minor increase in 

SAR are projected, which reflects the relatively small contribution of CBNG well 

production water to the much larger flows in the Upper Powder River. Projected 

SAR values exceed the MRPL through out the year while meeting the LRPL. 

Projected EC values exceed the MRPL throughout the majority of the year and 

the LRPL from July though December. 

For Antelope Creek and the Dry Fork Cheyenne River under the before mixing 

scenario, the SAR values are relatively low and do not exceed the MRPL. The EC 

values exceed the MRPL during the low-flow months, but are typically less than 

the LRPL all year. After mixing, SAR levels increase but are projected to 

continue to meet the MRPL and a reduction in EC is projected that meets the 

MRPL throughout the year. This is a reflection of the lack of surface water in 

these streams combined with the relatively low values for EC and SAR in the 

CBNG well production water. 

Before mixing, the surface water in the Little Powder River exceeds the MRPL for 

EC and SAR throughout the majority of the year. SAR levels remain below the 

LRPL throughout the year, but EC levels exceed the LRPL during the low flow 

months. After mixing, the projected SAR values exceed the MRPL throughout 

the year and exceed the LRPL from one month (in 2003) to five months (in 2010 

and 2015) of the year. The projected EC exceeds the MRPL for four months of 

the year but meets the LRPL throughout the year. 

For the Upper Cheyenne River before mixing, the SAR levels do not exceed the 

MRPL and the EC levels exceed the MRPL for eleven months of the year and the 

LRPL for nine months of the year. After mixing, the projected SAR levels 

continue to meet the MRPL throughout the year and the projected EC levels 

exceed the MRPL for 10 or more months of the year and the LRPL for six or more 

months of the year. 

Before mixing, the surface water in the Upper Belle Fourche River exceeds the 

MRPL for SAR from November though January while meeting the LRPL 

throughout the year. The EC levels exceed the MRPL from September through 

January and exceed the LRPL from November through January. After mixing, 

the projected SAR values exceed the MRPL six or more months of the year while 

Draft EIS, West Antelope II Coal Lease Application 4-55 
 

 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

continuing to meet the LRPL throughout the year. The projected EC values meet 

the MRPL throughout the year. 

The suitability of the mixed water for irrigation purposed is related to EC and 

SAR. In general, the water most suitable for irrigation has a relatively low SAR 

and a relatively high EC. Elevated SAR values may reduce permeability in clayey 

soils, which reduces the rate of water infiltration. As discussed above, the water 

discharged from the CBNG wells is generally characterized by higher levels of 

SAR and reduced levels of EC compared to the water quality of the receiving 

drainages. In those cases where mixing results in a significant increase in SAR 

and the EC is moderately low, the water was considered unsuitable. For 

Antelope Creek, the Dry Fork Cheyenne River, the Little Powder River and the 

Upper Belle Fourche River, the projected water quality after mixing 

demonstrated adequate suitability for irrigation during normal year conditions 

and unsuitability for irrigation during some to all of the irrigation season during 

dry year conditions. In general, for periods where CBNG well production water 

represents the majority of the flow available for irrigation purposes, there is a 

reduction in the suitability of the water for irrigation purposes. 

4.2.5 Alluvial Valley Floors 

The identified AVFs for all coal mines in the PRB Coal Review study area are 

described in the PRB Coal Review Task 1D Report (BLM 2005c), based on 

individual mine State Decision Documents. Regulatory determinations of AVF 

occurrence and location are completed as part of the permitting process for coal 

mining operations, because their presence can restrict mining activities under 

SMCRA and Wyoming laws. The WDEQ/LQD administers the AVF regulations 

for coal mining activities in Wyoming. Coal mine-related impacts to designated 

AVFs generally are not permitted if the AVF is determined to be significant to 

agriculture. If an AVF is determined not to be significant to agriculture or if the 

permit to affect the AVF was approved prior to the effective date of SMCRA, the 

AVF can be disturbed during mining but must be restored to essential 

hydrologic function during reclamation. 

The formal AVF designation and related regulatory programs described above 

are specific to coal mining operations; however, other development-related 

activities in the study area would potentially impact AVF resources. The 

portions of the PRB Coal Review Task 3 study area that lie outside of the mine 

permit areas have generally not been surveyed for the presence of AVFs; 

therefore, the locations and extent of the AVFs outside of the mine permit areas 

have not been determined. 

4.2.6 Soils 

The PRB Coal Review Task 3D Report (BLM 2005f) discusses potential 

cumulative impacts to soils as a result of projected development activities in the 

PRB Coal Review Task 3 study area. The area of surface coal mining 

disturbance and reclamation for the baseline year (2003) and the projected 

4-56 Draft EIS, West Antelope II Coal Lease Application 
4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

cumulative areas of disturbance and reclamation for 2010, 2015, and 2020 are 

shown in Tables 4-2 and 4-3. The area of disturbance and reclamation for all 

development for the baseline year and the projected cumulative total areas of 

disturbance and reclamation for 2010, 2015, and 2020 are shown in Table 4-9. 

Development activities such as increased vehicle traffic, vegetation removal, soil 

salvage and redistribution, discharge of CBNG produced groundwater, and 

construction and maintenance of project-specific components (e.g., roads, 

ROWs, well pads, industrial sites, and associated ancillary facilities) would 

result in cumulative impacts to soils in the study area. In general, soil 

disturbance and handling from these activities would generate both long-term 

and short-term impacts to soil resources through accelerated wind or water 

erosion, declining soil quality factors, compaction, and the essentially 

permanent removal of soil resources at industrial sites. 

Of the types of development projects in the study area, coal mining activities 

would create the most concentrated cumulative impacts to soils. This is due to 

the large acreages involved and the tendency of mining operations to occur in 

contiguous blocks. These factors would encourage widespread accelerated wind 

and water erosion. Extensive soil handling would cause compaction and a 

corresponding loss of permeability to water and air; a decline in microbial 

populations, fertility, and organic matter; and potential mixing of saline and/or 

alkaline soil zones into seedbeds, which would reduce soil quality. There would 

be a limited availability of suitable soil resources for reclamation uses in some 

areas. 

However, for surface coal mining operations, there are measures that are either 

routinely required or can be specifically required as necessary to reduce impacts 

to soil resources and to identify overburden material that may be unsuitable for 

use in reestablishing vegetation, as discussed in Sections 3.3.1.3, 3.4.2.3, and 

3.8.3. 

As described in Appendix E of the PRB Coal Review Task 2 Report (BLM 2005d), 

a variety of CBNG water disposal methods may be employed in the Task 3 study 

area. The potential impacts to soils would depend on the water treatment 

method, if any, and the nature of the disposal method. As discussed in the PRB 

Coal Review Task 3D Report (BLM 2005f), due to elevated SAR levels in water 

produced from the Wyodak-Anderson coal zone in the Upper Powder River and 

Little Powder River subwatersheds, land applications of CBNG-produced water 

in those areas could increase soil alkalinity. As discussed above in Section 

4.2.4.2, the SAR values are relatively low for Antelope Creek and are not 

projected to exceed the MRPL after mixing with discharged CBNG water and 

land application of CBNG-produced water is not anticipated. The specific 

approaches to CBNG water discharges, the resource conditions and locations in 

which they occur, the timing of discharges, and the discharge permit 

stipulations from regulatory and land management agencies would determine 

the extent and degree of potential impacts to soils. 

Draft EIS, West Antelope II Coal Lease Application 4-57 
4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

4.2.7 Vegetation, Wetlands and Riparian Areas 

The PRB Coal Review Task 3D Report (BLM 2005f) discusses potential 

cumulative impacts to vegetation, wetlands, and riparian areas as a result of 

projected development activities in the PRB Coal Review Task 3 study area. The 

area of surface coal mining disturbance and reclamation for the baseline year 

(2003) and the projected cumulative areas of disturbance and reclamation for 

2010, 2015, and 2020 related to surface coal mining are shown in Tables 4-2 

and 4-3. For all projected development, the baseline year area of disturbance 

and reclamation and the projected cumulative total areas of disturbance and 

reclamation for 2010, 2015, and 2020 are shown in Table 4-9. 

4.2.7.1 Vegetation 

The PRB is characterized as a mosaic of general vegetation types, which include 

prairie grasslands, shrublands, forested areas, and riparian areas. These broad 

categories often represent several vegetation types that are similar in terms of 

dominant species and ecological importance. Fourteen vegetation types were 

identified within the PRB Coal Review Task 1 study area, of which 10 primarily 

consist of native vegetation and are collectively classified as rangeland. These 

vegetation types include short-grass prairie, mixed-grass prairie, sagebrush 

shrubland, other shrubland, coniferous forest, aspen, forested riparian, shrubby 

riparian, herbaceous riparian, and wet meadow. The remaining vegetation types 

support limited or non-native vegetation and include cropland, urban/disturbed, 

barren, and open water. The vegetation types are described in more detail in the 

Task 1D Report for the PRB Coal Review (BLM 2005c). 

Impacts to vegetation can be classified as short-term and long-term. Potential 

short-term impacts arise from the removal and disturbance of herbaceous 

species during a project’s development and operation (e.g., coal mining, CBNG 

drilling and production, etc.), which would cease upon project completion and 

successful reclamation in a given area. Reclaimed mine land is defined by 

WDEQ/LQD as affected land that has been backfilled, graded, topsoiled, and 

permanently seeded in accordance with the approved practices specified in the 

reclamation plan (Christensen 2002). Species composition on the reclaimed 

lands may be different than on the surrounding undisturbed lands. The 

removal of woody species would be considered a long-term impact since these 

species take approximately 25 years or longer to attain a size comparable to 

woody species present within proposed disturbance areas. Potential long-term 

impacts would also include permanent loss of vegetation and vegetative 

productivity in areas that would not be reclaimed in the near term (e.g., power 

plant sites, etc.). 

4.2.7.2 Special Status Plant Species 

Special status plant species are those species for which state or federal agencies 

afford an additional level of protection by law, regulation, or policy. Included in 

this category are federally listed and federally proposed species (species that are 

4-58 Draft EIS, West Antelope II Coal Lease Application 
4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

protected under the ESA), BLM Sensitive Species, USDA-FS Sensitive Species, 

and WGFD Species of Special Concern in Wyoming. Further discussions of 

species that are protected under the ESA, BLM Sensitive Species, and USDA-FS 

Sensitive Species are included in Appendices H and I of this EIS. One federally 

listed species (Ute ladies’-tresses orchid) and three USDA-FS sensitive species 

(Barr’s milkvetch, Rosy palafox, and Lemonscent) are known to occur in the PRB 

Coal Review Task 3 study area. Three BLM sensitive species [Nelson’s milkvetch 

and Laramie columbine (Casper Field Office) and William’s wafer-parsnip 

(Buffalo Field Office) may occur in the PRB Coal Review Task 3 study area. 

Potential direct impacts to special status plant species in the study area could 

include the incremental loss or alteration of potential or known habitat, 

associated with past and projected activities. Direct impacts also could include 

the direct loss of individual plants within the PRB Coal Review Task 3 study 

area, depending on their location in relation to development activities. Indirect 

impacts could occur due to increased dispersal and establishment of noxious 

weeds, which may result in the displacement of special status plant species in 

the long term. 

4.2.7.3 Noxious and Invasive Weed Species 

Once established, invasive and non-native plant species can out-compete and 

eventually replace native species, thereby reducing forage productivity and the 

overall vigor and diversity of existing native plant communities. The State of 

Wyoming has currently designated the following 25 plant species as noxious 

weeds: 

•	 Field bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis L.) 

•	 Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense L.) 

•	 Leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula L.) 

•	 Perennial sowthistle (Sonchus arvensis L.) 

•	 Quackgrass (Agropyron repens (L.) Beauv.) 

•	 Hoary cress (whitetop) (Cardaria draba and Cardaria pubescens (L.) 

Desv.) 

•	 Perennial pepperweed (giant whitetop) (Lepidium latifolium L.) 

•	 Ox-eye daisy (Chrysanthemum leucanthemum L.) 

•	 Skeletonleaf bursage (Franseria discolor Nutt.) 

•	 Russian knapweed (Centaurea repens L.) 

•	 Yellow toadflax (Linaria vulgaris L.) 

•	 Dalmatian toadflax (Linaria dalmatica (L.) Mill.) 

•	 Scotch thistle (Onopordum acanthium L.) 

•	 Musk thistle (Carduus nutans L.) 

•	 Common burdock (Arctium minus (Hill) Bernh.) 

•	 Plumeless thistle (Carduus acanthoides L.) 

Draft EIS, West Antelope II Coal Lease Application 4-59 
 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

• Dyers woad (Isatis tinctoria L.) 

• Houndstongue (Cynoglossum officinale L.) 

• Spotted knapweed (Centaurea maculosa Lam.) 

• Diffuse knapweed (Centaurea diffusa Lam.) 

• Purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria L.) 

• Saltcedar (Tamarix spp.) 

• Common St. Johnswort (Hypericum perforatum) 

• Common Tansy (Tanacetum vulgare) 

• Russian olive (Elaeagnus angustifolia L.) 

Campbell County does not currently have a declared county weed list. 

The 2007 Converse County Declared List of Weeds is below. 

• Black henbane (Hyocyamus niger) 

• Bull thistle (Cirsium vulgare (Savi) Tenore) 

• Chicory (Cichorium intybus L.) 

• Common crupina (Crupina vulgaris) 

• Common mullein (Verbascum thapsus) 

• Dames Rocket (Hesperis matronalis) 

• Goatsrue (Galega officinalis) 

• Gorse (Ulex europaes) 

• Halogeton (Halogeton glomeratus) 

• Iberian starthistle (Centaurea iberica) 

• Italian thistle (Carduus pycnocephalus) 

• Jointed goatgrass (Aegilops cylindrica Host.) 

• Meadow knapweed (Centaurea pratensis) 

• Medusahead (Taeniatherum caput-medusae (L.) Nevski) 

• Orange hawkweed (Hieracium aurantiacum) 

• Purple starthistle (Centaurea calcitrapa) 

• Rush skeleton weed (Chondrilla juncea) 

• Sandbur (Cenchrus incertus M.A. Curtis) 

• Scentless chamomile (Matricaria perforate) 

• Scotch broom (Cytisus scoparius) 

• Squarrose knapweed (Centaurea virgata var. squarrosa) 

• Sulfur cinquefoil (Potentilla recta) 

• Syrian beancaper (Zygophyllum fabago) 

• Tansy Ragwort (Senecia jacobea) 

• Teasel (Dipsacus fullonum) 

• Wild licorice (Glycyrrhiaz lepidota) 

• Yellow hawkweed (Hieracium pratense) 

• Absinth Wormwood (Artemisia absinthium L.) 

• Babybreath (Gypsophila paniculata L.) 

• Blue Mustard (Chorispora tenella (Pall.) DC.) 

4-60 Draft EIS, West Antelope II Coal Lease Application 
 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

• Buffalobur (Solanum rostratum Dun.) 

• Bur Buttercup (Ranunculus testiculatus Crantz) 

• Common Cocklebur (Xanthium strumarium L.) 

• Common Sunflower (Helianthus annus L.) 

• Curly Dock (Rumex crispus L.) 

• Curlycup gumweed (Grindelia squarrosa (Pursh) Dunal) 

• Downy Brome (Bromus tectorum L.) 

• Poison Hemlock (Conium maculatum L.) 

• Puncturevine (Tribulus terrestris L.) 

• Redstem Filaree (Erodium cicutarium (L.) L’Her.ex Ait) 

• Showy Milkweed (Asclepias speciosa Torr.) 

• Wavyleaf Thistle (Cirsium undulatum (Nutt.) Spreng.) 

• Western Sticktight (Lappula occidentalis (S. Wats.) Greene) 

Development-related construction and operation activities would potentially 

result in the dispersal of noxious and invasive weed species within and beyond 

the surface disturbance boundaries, which would result in the displacement of 

native species and changes in species composition in the long term. The 

potential for these impacts would be higher in relation to the development of 

linear facilities (e.g., pipeline ROWs, oil- and gas-related road systems, etc.) than 

for site facilities (e.g., mines, power plants, etc.) due to the potential for dispersal 

of noxious weeds over a larger area. 

Chapter 4, Section 2(d)(xiv) of the WDEQ/LQD rules and regulations requires 

that surface coal mines address weed control on reclaimed areas as follows: 

The operator must control and minimize the introduction of noxious 

weeds in accordance with Federal and State requirements until bond 

release. 

Accordingly, the reclamation plans for the existing Antelope Mine and for all 

other surface coal mines in the Wyoming PRB include steps to control invasion 

by weedy (invasive nonnative) plant species. As discussed in Chapter 3, Section 

3.9.4, Antelope Mine works with both the Converse County and Campbell 

County Weed and Pest Departments and conducts an active noxious weed 

control program on their existing coal leases. Similar measures to identify and 

control noxious weeds are used at all of the surface coal mines in the Wyoming 

PRB as a result of the WDEQ/LQD regulatory requirements. 

Mitigation to control invasion by noxious weeds for CBNG developers is 

determined on a site-specific basis and may include spraying herbicides before 

entering areas and washing vehicles before leaving infested areas. BLM reviews 

weed educational material during preconstruction on-site meetings with CBNG 

operators, subcontractors, and landowners. BLM also attaches this educational 

information to approved APDs or PODs (BLM 2003b). BLM also participates in a 

collaborative effort with the South Goshen Cooperative Extension Conservation 

District, the USDA-Natural Resources Conservation Service, private surface 

Draft EIS, West Antelope II Coal Lease Application 4-61 
4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

owners, WGFD, and the Weed and Pest District in a prevention program that 

includes a long-term integrated weed management plan, public awareness and 

prevention programs, and a common inventory (BLM 2003b). 

4.2.7.4 Wetland and Riparian Species 

Operations associated with development activities in the study area would result 

in the use of groundwater. Annually, during 2010-2020, from 30,000-35,000 

mmgpy of CBNG-produced water would be discharged to impoundments or 

intermittent and ephemeral streams or reinjected. The discharge of produced 

water could result in the creation of wetlands in containment ponds, landscape 

depressions, and riparian areas along segments of drainages that previously 

supported upland vegetation. In addition, existing wetlands and riparian areas 

that would receive additional water would become more extensive and potentially 

support a greater diversity of wetland species in the long term. Alternately, the 

discharge of abnormally high flows or water with SARs of 13 or more could 

impact existing vegetation as discussed in the Task 1D Report for the PRB Coal 

Review (BLM 2005c). For agricultural uses, the current Wyoming water quality 

standard for SAR is 8.0 (WDEQ/WQD 2005). SARs of 5 to 10 have been 

observed in discharge waters in the study area (BLM 2003b). Once water 

discharges have peaked and subsequently decrease in the long term, the extent 

of wetlands and riparian areas and species diversity would decrease accordingly. 

After the complete cessation of water discharges, artificially-created wetland and 

riparian areas once again would support upland species and previously existing 

wetland and riparian areas would decrease in areal extent. 

4.2.8 Wildlife and Fisheries 

The PRB Coal Review Task 3D Report (BLM 2005f) discusses potential 

cumulative impacts to wildlife as a result of projected development activities in 

the PRB Coal Review Task 3 study area. The area of habitat disturbance and 

reclamation related to surface coal mining for the baseline year (2003) and the 

projected cumulative areas of habitat disturbance and reclamation for 2010, 

2015, and 2020 are shown in Tables 4-2 and 4-3. The baseline year area of total 

habitat disturbance and reclamation and the projected cumulative total areas of 

habitat disturbance and reclamation for 2010, 2015, and 2020 are shown in 

Table 4-9. 

Impacts to wildlife can be classified as short-term and long-term. Potential 

short-term impacts arise from habitat disturbance associated with a project’s 

development and operation (e.g., coal mines, CBNG wells, etc.) and would cease 

upon project completion and successful reclamation in a given area. Potential 

long-term impacts consist of long-term or permanent changes to habitats and 

the wildlife populations that depend on those habitats, irrespective of 

reclamation success, and habitat disturbance related to longer term projects 

(e.g., power plant facilities, rail lines, etc.). Direct impacts to wildlife populations 

as a result of development activities in the study area could include direct 

mortalities, habitat loss or alteration, habitat fragmentation, or animal 

4-62 Draft EIS, West Antelope II Coal Lease Application 
4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

displacement. Indirect impacts could include increased noise, additional human 

presence, and the potential for increased vehicle-related mortalities. 

Habitat fragmentation from activities such as roads, well pads, mines, pipelines, 

and electrical power lines also can result in the direct loss of potential wildlife 

habitat. Other habitat fragmentation effects such as increased noise, elevated 

human presence, dispersal of noxious and invasive weed species, and dust 

deposition from unpaved road traffic can extend beyond the surface disturbance 

boundaries. These effects result in overall changes in habitat quality, habitat 

loss, increased animal displacement, reductions in local wildlife populations, 

and changes in species composition. However, the severity of these effects on 

terrestrial wildlife would depend on factors such as sensitivity of the species, 

seasonal use, type and timing of project activities, and physical parameters (e.g., 

topography, cover, forage, and climate). 

4.2.8.1 Game Species 

Big game species that are present within the Task 3 study area include 

pronghorn, white-tailed deer, mule deer, and elk. Potential direct impacts to 

these species would include the incremental loss or alteration of potential forage 

and ground cover associated with construction and operation of the past, 

present and reasonably foreseeable future development discussed in Section 4.1. 

Development associated with coal mining, drilling for CBNG, ancillary facilities, 

agricultural operations, urban areas, and transportation and utility corridors 

result in vegetation removal. Assuming that adjacent habitats would be at or 

near carrying capacity and considering the variabilities associated with drought 

conditions and human activities in the study area, the PRB Coal Review Task 3D 

study concluded that displacement of wildlife species (e.g., big game) as a result 

of development activities would create some unquantifiable reduction in wildlife 

populations. 

There are a number of big game habitat ranges within the PRB Coal Review Task 

3 study area. In Wyoming, the WGFD and the BLM have established habitat 

classifications based on seasonal use. Classification types include crucial 

winter, severe winter, winter yearlong, and yearlong. Crucial winter range areas 

are considered essential in determining a game population’s ability to maintain 

itself at a certain level over the long term. As discussed in the PRB Coal Review 

Task 2 Report, discrete locations for most of the disturbance related to the 

projected development could not be determined based on the available 

information. However, identified future coal reserves were used for the Task 3D 

Report to provide some level of quantification of potential future impacts to big 

game ranges. Tables 4-20 through 4-23 summarize the effects on pronghorn, 

deer, and elk game ranges as a result of the predicted lower and upper levels of 

coal production through 2020. 

Direct and indirect effects to small game species (i.e., upland game birds, 

waterfowl, small game mammals) within the Task 3 study area as a result of 

development activities would be the same as discussed above for big game 

Draft EIS, West Antelope II Coal Lease Application 4-63 
 

 

 

 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

species. Impacts would result from the incremental surface disturbance of 

potential wildlife habitat, increased noise levels and human presence, dispersal 

of noxious and invasive weed species, and dust effects from unpaved road traffic. 

Table 4-20. Potential Cumulative Disturbance to Pronghorn Ranges from 

Development Activities—Lower and Upper Coal Production 

Scenarios (acres/percent affected). 

 Pronghorn Ranges1
 

Time Severe Winter Crucial Winter Yearlong Period/Scenario Winter Yearlong 

2010/Lower N/A 1,472 / 3% 33,196 / 2% 32,099 / 1% 

2010/Upper N/A 1,472 / 3% 34,760 / 2% 33,172 / 1% 

2015/Lower N/A 1,460 / 3% 32,649 / 2% 34,828 / 1% 

2015 Upper N/A 1,460 / 3% 34,177 / 2% 36,999 / 1% 

2020/Lower N/A 1,422 / 3% 33,637 / 2% 35,714 / 1% 

2020/Upper N/A 1,422 / 3% 33,580 / 2% 37,437 / 2% 

1 Potential coal mine related impacts to big game ranges were determined based on GIS 

information as follows: the total acres of a big game range (e.g., crucial winter, severe winter, 

winter yearlong, and yearlong) within the PRB Coal Review Task 3 study area was divided by the 

sum of the potential disturbance acreage for the time period (based on GIS mapping of coal 

reserves for the lower coal production scenario) and existing (2003) disturbance from coal mine 

development. 

Source: PRB Coal Review Task 3D Report (BLM 2005f) 

Table 4-21. Potential Cumulative Disturbance to White-tailed Deer 

Ranges from Development Activities—Lower and Upper Coal 

Production Scenarios (acres/percent affected). 

White-tailed Deer Ranges1
 

Time Severe Winter Crucial Winter Yearlong Period/Scenario Winter Yearlong 

2010/Lower N/A N/A N/A 1,411 / 0.6% 

2010/Upper N/A N/A N/A 1,411 / 0.6% 

2015/Lower N/A N/A N/A 1,497 / 0.7% 

2015 Upper N/A N/A N/A 1,495 / 0.7% 

2020/Lower N/A N/A N/A 1,704 / 0.7% 

2020/Upper N/A N/A N/A 1,707 / 0.8% 

1 Potential coal mine-related impacts to big game ranges were determined based on GIS 

information as follows: the total acres of a big game range (e.g., crucial winter, severe winter, 

winter yearlong, and yearlong) within the PRB Coal Review Task 3 study area was divided by the 

sum of the potential disturbance acreage for the time period (based on GIS mapping of coal 

reserves for the lower coal production scenario) and existing (2003) disturbance from coal mine 

development. 

Source: PRB Coal Review Task 3D Report (BLM 2005f) 

Operations associated with development activities in the Task 3 study area 

would result in the use of groundwater. The PRB Coal Review assumes that 

most, if not all, of the coal mine-produced water would be consumed during 

operation and projects that up to approximately 39,108, 41,484, and 37,350 

mmgpy of water would be produced in association with oil and gas production in 

2010, 2015, and 2020, respectively. The portion of the water that is produced in 

association with the CBNG and discharged to impoundments or intermittent and 

ephemeral streams would be available for area wildlife (e.g., waterfowl). 

Although much of the water would evaporate or infiltrate into the ground, it is 

anticipated that substantial quantities of water would remain on the surface and 

4-64 Draft EIS, West Antelope II Coal Lease Application 
 

 

 

 

 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

would result in the expansion of wetlands, stock ponds, and reservoirs, 

potentially increasing waterfowl breeding and foraging habitats. The median 

sodium concentration of CBNG-produced water from the Fort Union Formation 

is 270 mg/L. If sodium concentrations are maintained below 17,000 mg/L in 

the evaporation ponds, the potential adverse effects to waterfowl would be 

minimal. 

Table 4-22. Potential Cumulative Disturbance to Mule Deer Ranges from 

Development Activities—Lower and Upper Coal Production 

Scenarios (acres/percent affected). 

 Mule Deer Ranges1
 

Time Severe Winter Crucial Winter Yearlong Period/Scenario Winter Yearlong 

2010/Lower N/A N/A 6,808 / 0.4% 25,390 / 1% 

2010/Upper N/A N/A 6,924 / 0.4% 26,641 / 1% 

2015/Lower N/A N/A 6,956 / 0.4% 26,420 / 1% 

2015 Upper N/A N/A 7,285 / 0.5% 27,205 / 1% 

2020/Lower N/A N/A 6,958 / 0.4% 27,004 / 1% 

2020/Upper N/A N/A 7,413 / 0.5% 27,990 / 1% 

1 Potential coal mine-related impacts to big game ranges were determined based on GIS 

information as follows: the total acres of a big game range (e.g., crucial winter, severe winter, 

winter yearlong, and yearlong) within the PRB Coal Review Task 3 study area was divided by the 

sum of the potential disturbance acreage for the time period (based on GIS mapping of coal 

reserves for the lower coal production scenario) and existing (2003) disturbance from coal mine 

development. 

Source: PRB Coal Review Task 3D Report (BLM 2005f) 

Table 4-23. Potential Cumulative Disturbance to Elk Ranges from 

Development Activities—Lower and Upper Coal Production 

Scenarios (acres/percent affected). 

 Elk Ranges1
 

Time Severe Winter Crucial Winter Yearlong Period/Scenario Winter Yearlong 

2010/Lower 24 / 0.4% N/A 375 / 1% 1,444 / 0.9% 

2010/Upper 24 / 0.4% N/A 375 / 1% 1,444 / 0.9% 

2015/Lower 24 / 0.4% N/A 351 / 1% 1,161 / 0.7% 

2015 Upper 24 / 0.4% N/A 351 / 1% 1,162 / 0.7% 

2020/Lower 24 / 0.4% N/A 351 / 1% 1,121 / 0.7% 

2020/Upper 24 / 0.4% N/A 351 / 1% 1,168 / 0.7% 

1 Potential coal mine-related impacts to big game ranges were determined based on GIS 

information as follows: the total acres of a big game range (e.g., crucial winter, severe winter, 

winter yearlong, and yearlong) within the PRB Coal Review Task 3 study area was divided by the 

sum of the potential disturbance acreage for the time period (based on GIS mapping of coal 

reserves for the lower coal production scenario) and existing (2003) disturbance from coal mine 

development. 

Source: PRB Coal Review Task 3D Report (BLM 2005f) 

4.2.8.2 Non-game Species 

Potential direct impacts to non-game species (e.g., small mammals, raptors, 

passerines, amphibians, and reptiles) would include the incremental loss or 

alteration of existing or potential foraging and breeding habitats from 

construction and operation of past, present and reasonably foreseeable future 

development activities (e.g., vegetation removal for coal mines and CBNG wells, 

Draft EIS, West Antelope II Coal Lease Application 4-65 
 

 

 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

ancillary facilities, and transportation and utility corridors). Impacts also could 

result in mortalities of less mobile species (e.g., small mammals, reptiles, 

amphibians, and invertebrates), nest or burrow abandonment, and loss of eggs 

or young in the path of vehicles and heavy equipment. Indirect impacts would 

include increased noise levels and human presence, dispersal and invasion of 

noxious weeds, and dust effects from unpaved road traffic. Assuming that 

adjacent habitats would be at or near carrying capacity, and considering 

variable factors such as drought conditions and human activities in the study 

area, the PRB Coal Review concluded that displacement of wildlife species from 

the Task 3 study area would result in an unquantifiable reduction in wildlife 

populations. 

Numerous migratory bird species have been documented within the PRB over 

the last two to three decades of wildlife monitoring. Development activities that 

occur during the migratory bird breeding season (April 1 through July 31) could 

cause the abandonment of a nest site or territory or the loss of eggs or young, 

resulting in the loss of productivity for the breeding season. Loss of an active 

nest site, incubating adults, eggs, or young would not comply with the intent of 

the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and could potentially affect populations of 

important migratory bird species that may occur in the PRB. 

Breeding raptor species that occur within the Task 3 study area include the bald 

eagle, golden eagle, ferruginous hawk, red-tailed hawk, rough-legged hawk, 

Swainson’s hawk, American kestrel, prairie falcon, northern harrier, great 

horned owl, short-eared owl, burrowing owl, and long-eared owl (Asio otus). 

Bald eagles and long-eared owls are rare nesters in the area. 

One potential direct impact to raptors is habitat (nesting and foraging) loss due 

to additional surface disturbance within the Task 3 study area. In the event that 

development activities were to occur during the breeding season (February 1 

through July 31), these activities could result in nest or territory abandonment, 

or loss of eggs or young. Such losses would reduce productivity for the affected 

species during that breeding season. As discussed above, loss of an active nest 

site, incubating adults, eggs, or young would not comply with the intent of 

several laws, including the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the Bald and Golden 

Eagle Protection Act. 

Additional direct impacts could result from construction of new overhead power 

lines in the region. New power line segments in the study area would 

incrementally increase the collision and/or electrocution potential for migrating 

and foraging bird species (e.g., raptors and waterfowl) (APLIC 1994). However, 

the potential for avian collisions with overhead power lines is typically dependent 

on variables such as the location of the structures relative to high-use areas 

(e.g., nesting, foraging, staging, and roosting habitats), the orientation of the 

power line to flight patterns and movement corridors, species composition, line 

visibility, and structure design. 

4-66 Draft EIS, West Antelope II Coal Lease Application 
 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

In addition, new power lines could pose an electrocution hazard for raptor 

species attempting to perch on the structure. Configurations less than 1 kV or 

greater than 69 kV typically do not present an electrocution potential, based on 

conductor placement and orientation (APLIC 1996). It is assumed that future 

permitting for power lines would require the use of appropriate raptor-deterring 

designs, thereby minimizing potential impacts. For example, SMCRA requires 

that surface coal mine operators use the best technology available to ensure that 

electric power lines are designed and constructed to minimize electrocution 

hazards to raptors. Power line impacts to raptors can be reduced with the 

increased use of underground power lines wherever possible. Many of the power 

lines for CBNG development currently are being constructed underground. 

4.2.8.3 Fisheries 

Potential cumulative effects on fisheries as a result of development activities in 

the Task 3 study area would be closely related to impacts on ground and surface 

water resources. In general, development activities could affect fish species in 

the following ways: 1) alteration or loss of habitat as a result of surface 

disturbance; 2) changes in water quality as a result of surface disturbance or 

introduction of contaminants into drainages; and 3) changes in available habitat 

as a result of water withdrawals or discharge. The potential effects of 

development activities on aquatic communities are discussed below for each of 

these impact topics. 

The predominant aquatic habitat type in the Task 3 study area consists of 

intermittent and ephemeral streams and scattered ponds and reservoirs. In 

general, perennial streams within the study area are limited to the Little Powder 

River and Belle Fourche River. Warm water game fish and non-game species are 

present in some perennial stream segments and numerous scattered reservoirs 

and ponds. However, the latter features are typically stocked artificially either 

following construction or annually, depending on the depth of the water body. 

Due to the lack of constant water in most of the potentially affected streams and 

static water bodies, existing aquatic communities are mainly limited to 

invertebrates and algae that can persist in these types of habitats. The removal 

of stock ponds would eliminate habitat for invertebrates and possibly fish 

species. This loss would be temporary if the stock ponds are replaced during 

reclamation. 

Development activities could result in the loss of aquatic habitat as a result of 

direct surface disturbance. Table 4-9 summarizes the cumulative acres of 

surface disturbance and reclamation as of 2003 and projects cumulative acres of 

surface disturbance and reclamation in 2010, 2015, and 2020. Discrete 

locations for development disturbance and reclamation areas cannot be 

determined based on existing information. However, projected development that 

could result in the loss of aquatic habitat would involve the construction of 

additional linear facilities, product gathering lines and road systems associated 

with conventional oil and gas and CBNG activities, as well as any additional 

disturbance that would be associated with extending coal mine operations onto 

Draft EIS, West Antelope II Coal Lease Application 4-67 
4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

lands adjacent to the existing mines. The removal of aquatic habitat eliminates 

existing and potential habitat for invertebrates and some fish species. This loss 

would be temporary if such ponds are reconstructed and recharged as part of 

the reclamation process. 

Projected activities would result in surface disturbance in each of the six Task 3 

study area sub-watersheds. Information relative to the stream crossing 

locations for the majority of the linear facilities is not available at this time. The 

proposed Bison Pipeline project is not currently active. If the project is 

constructed, it would cross Cottonwood Creek, a tributary of the Little Powder 

River. Typically, the associated disturbance corridor would consist of a 100­

foot-wide construction ROW; however, site-specific stream crossing methods and 

reclamation would be determined at the time of project permitting. 

Future coal mining also could remove intermittent or ephemeral streams and 

stock ponds in the Antelope Creek, Upper Cheyenne River, Upper Belle Fourche 

River, and Little Powder River sub-watersheds. Coal mine permits provide for 

removal of first- through fourth-order drainages. During reclamation, third- and 

fourth-order drainages must be restored; first- and second-order drainages often 

are not replaced (Martin et al. 1988). As discussed in Section 3.5.2, Antelope 

Creek and its tributaries drain the existing Antelope Mine permit area and the 

West Antelope II LBA tract. All streams within and adjacent to the tract are 

typical for the region, in that flow events are ephemeral. Under natural 

conditions, aquatic habitat is limited by the ephemeral nature of surface waters 

in the general analysis area. The results of fish surveys conducted in Antelope 

Creek and Horse Creek during baseline studies for the Antelope Mine in the late 

1970s and in 1998 were discussed in Section 3.10.7.1; no uncommon species 

were documented during those efforts. 

The PRB Coal Review assumes that surface disturbing activities would not be 

allowed in perennial stream segments or reservoirs on public lands that contain 

game fish species. It also assumes that other types of development operations 

would not occur within stream channels nor would they remove ponds or 

reservoirs as part of construction or operation and, therefore, would not result in 

the direct loss of habitat for these species. 

Water quality parameters such as turbidity and bottom substrate composition 

can be impacted by surface disturbing activities through erosion of sediment 

into water bodies. Contaminants can also be introduced into those systems 

through the chemical characteristics of the eroded sediment. Potential related 

effects on aquatic biota could include physiological stress, movement to avoid 

affected areas, or alterations of spawning or rearing areas (Waters 1995). 

Studies have shown that TDS levels in streams near reclaimed coal lands have 

increased from one percent to seven percent (Martin et al. 1988). Typically, 

sedimentation effects are short-term in duration and localized in terms of the 

affected area. TDS concentrations would stabilize and return to more typical 

concentrations after construction or development activities have been completed. 

The PRB Coal Review anticipated that the use of appropriate erosion and spill 

4-68 Draft EIS, West Antelope II Coal Lease Application 
 

 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

control measures during both development and reclamation activities, as 

determined during the permitting process, would minimize the introduction of 

additional sediments into the sub-watershed. 

The removal of streamside vegetation would impact both riparian vegetation and 

stream parameters in those locations. Loss of vegetation along stream channels 

would reduce the shade and increase bank erosion, both of which would degrade 

aquatic habitats. Effects on aquatic habitats from linear projects, such as 

ROWs, would be limited to a relatively small portion of the stream (generally no 

more than 100 feet in width), whereas mine-related disturbance could affect 

considerably larger stretches. Because perennial streams are protected from 

development by a buffer zone on either side of center, these types of impacts 

would presumably be limited to intermittent and ephemeral creeks. It is 

anticipated that reclamation practices to restore riparian vegetation would be 

required during future project permitting, thereby minimizing such impacts. 

CBNG and coal mining are the primary types of development activities that use 

or manage water as part of their operations. Based on current trends, the PRB 

Coal Review assumes that most, if not all, of the water produced during coal 

mining would be consumed during operation. As discussed in Section 3.5.2.2, 

changes in surface runoff characteristics and sediment discharges would occur 

during surface coal mining as a result of the destruction and reconstruction of 

drainage channels as mining progresses, and the use of sediment control 

structures to manage discharges of surface water from the mine permit area. 

State and federal regulations require treatment of surface runoff from mined 

lands to meet effluent standards. After treatment, coal mine-related surface 

water in the region would ultimately be discharged into intermittent and 

ephemeral streams in four sub-watersheds (Antelope Creek, Upper Cheyenne 

River, Belle Fourche River, and Little Powder River). The PRB Coal Review 

projects that up to approximately 39,108, 41,484, and 37,350 mmgpy of water 

would be produced in association with oil and gas production in 2010, 2015, 

and 2020, respectively, and assumes that a portion of the water that is produced 

in association with the CBNG would be discharged to intermittent and 

ephemeral drainages in the general analysis area, much as is currently allowed 

in the six sub-watersheds in the study area. Based on past monitoring in 

receiving streams, no change in surface flows would be expected beyond 

approximately two miles from the discharge points (BLM 2003b). Water 

discharged from CBNG wells has supplied some drainages and water bodies in 

the PRB nearly continuously for several years. Within the general analysis area, 

Spring Creek has experienced an influx of CBNG water in recent years, but has 

not become perennial. The same is true for other streams elsewhere in the PRB 

that receive CBNG discharge water. 

4.2.8.4 Special Status Species 

Special status species are those species for which state or federal agencies afford 

an additional level of protection by law, regulation, or policy. Included in this 

category are federally listed and federally proposed species (species that are 

Draft EIS, West Antelope II Coal Lease Application 4-69 
 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

protected under the ESA), BLM Sensitive Species, USDA-FS Sensitive Species, 

and WGFD Species of Special Concern in Wyoming. Further discussions of 

species that are protected under the ESA, as well as BLM and USDA-FS 

Sensitive Species, are included in Appendices H and I of this EIS document. The 

USFWS also has a list of Migratory Bird Species of Management Concern in 

Wyoming, which is discussed in Section 3.10.6. Special status species 

potentially occurring in the Task 1 study area are identified in Section 2.4.3.5 of 

the PRB Coal Review Task 1D Report (BLM 2005c). Additional information 

about the occurrence of these species in the general analysis area can be found 

in the Annual Wildlife Reports for the Antelope Mine, on file with the Cheyenne, 

Wyoming office of the WDEQ/LQD. 

Potential impacts to special status terrestrial species would be similar to those 

discussed above for non-game wildlife (e.g., small mammals, birds, amphibians, 

and reptiles). Potential direct impacts would include the incremental loss or 

alteration of potential habitat (native vegetation and previously disturbed 

vegetation) from construction and operation of development activities (e.g., 

vegetation removal for coal mines and CBNG wells, ancillary facilities, and 

transportation and utility corridors). Impacts could also result in mortalities of 

less mobile species (e.g., small mammals, reptiles, and amphibians), nest or 

burrow abandonment, and loss of eggs or young in the path of vehicles and 

heavy equipment. Indirect impacts would include increased noise levels and 

human presence, introduction and dispersal of noxious weeds, and dust effects 

from unpaved road traffic. 

In general, direct and indirect impacts to special status species would result in a 

reduction in habitat suitability and overall carrying capacity for species currently 

inhabiting the PRB Coal Review Task 3 study area. Development within 

potential habitat for special status species likely would decrease its overall 

suitability, and potentially would reduce or preclude use by some species due to 

increased activity and noise. Future use by a special status species of habitats 

subject to development would be strongly influenced by the quality and 

composition of remaining habitat, with the degree of impact dependent on 

variables such as breeding phenology, nest and den site preferences, the species’ 

relative sensitivity to disturbance, and possibly the presence of visual barriers 

(e.g., topographic shielding) between nesting efforts and disturbance activities. 

Bird species that have been identified as occurring within the PRB and are on 

two or more of the special status species lists include common loon, American 

bittern, white-faced ibis, trumpeter swan, greater sandhill crane, mountain 

plover, upland sandpiper, long-billed curlew, black tern, yellow-billed cuckoo, 

Lewis’ woodpecker, pygmy nuthatch, sage thrasher, loggerhead shrike, Baird’s 

sparrow, sage sparrow, Brewers sparrow, and greater sage-grouse. Any 

development activities (oil and gas, coal mining, other operations and associated 

infrastructure) that occur during the breeding season (April 1 through July 31) 

could result in the abandonment of a nest site or territory, or the loss of eggs or 

young. As discussed previously, loss of an active nest site, incubating adults, 

eggs, or young as a result of any of these development activities would not 

4-70 Draft EIS, West Antelope II Coal Lease Application 
 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

comply with the intent of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and could potentially 

impact populations of important migratory bird species that are known to or 

may occur in the PRB. 

A number of raptor species have been documented in the PRB and are on two of 

more of the special status species lists including bald eagle, ferruginous hawk, 

northern goshawk, merlin, peregrine falcon, western burrowing owl, and shorteared owl. Those species that have been documented in the West Antelope II 

LBA general analysis area are discussed at length in Appendices H and I of this 

EIS. Potential direct impacts to raptors would result from the surface 

disturbance of nesting and foraging habitat, as well as injury or mortalities due 

to collisions with vehicles and equipment. Breeding raptors in or adjacent to 

development activities could abandon their nest sites or territories, or lose eggs 

or young. As previously described, such losses would constitute noncompliance with the intent of several laws including the Migratory Bird Treaty 

Act, and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, and could potentially affect 

populations of important migratory bird species that are known to or may occur 

within the region. Incremental construction of new overhead power lines in the 

area to support energy industries would increase risks of electrocution and 

collision for perching, migrating, and foraging bird species such as the larger 

raptors. Use of current APLIC guidelines for construction designs and 

retrofitting measures for new and existing utility structures would help mitigate 

these impacts. 

A total of 239 greater sage-grouse strutting grounds (leks) were identified in the 

six sub-watersheds in the PRB Coal Review Task 3 study area as of 2003, 

though that study did not evaluate the status (i.e., active or inactive) of those 

leks. As discussed in Section 3.10.5 and in the PRB Coal Review Task 1D 

Report, the trend in the sage-grouse population for the Sheridan Region 

suggests about a 10-year cycle with periodic highs and lows. More recent 

population peaks have been lower than previous highs, suggesting a steadily 

declining sage-grouse population with the Sheridan Region (Oedekoven 2001). 

Direct and indirect impacts to sage-grouse as a result of development activities 

would result from the incremental surface disturbance of existing and potential 

habitat, increased levels of noise and human presence, introduction or dispersal 

of noxious and invasive weed species, and effects of dust from increased traffic 

on unpaved roads. In addition to disturbance-related impacts, sage-grouse are 

susceptible to infection with West Nile Virus, and the incidence of infection is 

much higher in northeastern Wyoming than the rest of the state. 

No sage-grouse leks occur within five miles of the West Antelope II LBA tract; 

both suitable habitat and sightings for that species are quite limited or rare, 

respectively, for that area. Direct and indirect effects to greater sage-grouse 

within the West Antelope II general analysis area as a result of development 

activities are outlined in Appendix H of this EIS. 

Based on existing information, the spatial relationship between projected future 

disturbance and reclamation areas for the coal production scenarios and the 

Draft EIS, West Antelope II Coal Lease Application 4-71 
 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

resource-specific information in the GIS layers could not be determined for the 

PRB Coal Review. However, the analysis did use GIS layers for future coal 

reserves to provide some quantification of potential future coal mining-related 

impacts to greater sage-grouse. The results of this analysis are summarized in 

Table 4-24. The difference in the number of lek sites that would occur within 

two miles of coal mining activities under the lower coal production scenario 

versus the upper coal production scenario is due to slight variations in the 

projected disturbance areas. An unquantifiable number of lek sites initially 

could be impacted by CBNG activity, which would occur in advance of coal mine 

development. Potential direct impacts to sage-grouse, if present, could include 

loss of foraging areas, abandonment of a lek site, or loss of eggs or young as a 

result of development activities. 

Table 4-24. Potential Cumulative Impacts to Greater Sage-grouse Leks from 

Coal Mine Development - Upper and Lower Coal Production 

Scenarios. 

2010/ 2010/ 2015/ 2015/ 2020/ 2020/ Lek Categories Lower Upper Lower Upper Lower Upper 

Number of Directly 10 10 15 15 15 15 Affected Leks 

Number of Leks 

within Two Miles of 47 47 47 49 50 49 

Coal Mining Activity 

Source: PRB Coal Review Task 3D Report (BLM 2005f) 

Seven special status fish species potentially occur in the PRB Coal Review Task 

3 study area sub-watersheds: the flathead chub (Platygobio gracilis) (Antelope 

Creek, Upper Cheyenne River, and Little Powder River sub-watersheds), plains 

topminnow (Fundulus sciadicus) (Upper Cheyenne River), goldeye (Hiodon 

alosoides) (Little Powder River), lake chub (Couesius plumbeus) (Little Powder 

River), mountain sucker (Catostomus platyrhynchus) (Little Powder River), silvery 

minnow (Hybognathus argyritis) (Little Powder River), and plains minnow (Upper 

Cheyenne River, Upper Belle Fourche River, and Little Powder River). Potential 

impacts to special status fish species as a result of development activities would 

be similar to effects discussed above for fisheries. Surface disturbance in three 

sub-watersheds (Upper Cheyenne River, Upper Belle Fourche River, Little 

Powder River) could alter habitat or affect water quality conditions for special 

status fish species. Erosion control measures, as required by existing (2003) 

and future permits, and NPDES permit requirements would be implemented for 

each project. These efforts would help decrease disturbance-related sediment 

input into stream segments that may contain one or more of the special status 

fish species. Therefore, it is anticipated that impacts to special status fish 

species would be low. 

4.2.9 Land Use and Recreation 

The PRB Coal Review Task 3D Report (BLM 2005f) discusses potential 

cumulative impacts to land use and recreation as a result of projected 

development activities in the PRB Coal Review Task 3 study area (Figure 4-4). 

4-72 Draft EIS, West Antelope II Coal Lease Application 
 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

The baseline year (2003) area of disturbance and reclamation related to surface 

coal mining and the projected cumulative areas of disturbance and reclamation 

for 2010, 2015, and 2020 are shown in Tables 4-2 and 4-3. Table 4-9 shows the 

total area of disturbance and reclamation for the baseline year and the projected 

cumulative total areas of disturbance and reclamation for 2010, 2015, and 

2020. 

The PRB is a predominantly rural, wide open landscape. With little rainfall and 

limited alternative sources of water, the primary land use is grazing. 

Nevertheless, there is a range of other land uses. The major categories include 

agriculture, forested, mixed rangeland, urban, water, wetlands, coal mines, and 

barren land. The relative amounts of these lands in the PRB Coal Review Task 1 

and Task 2 study area (Figure 4-1) is tabulated in Table 4-25. 

Table 4-25. Land Use by Surface Ownership. 

Surface Ownership 

Use Category BLM USDA-FS State Private 

Total 

Acres Percent 

Agriculture 2,627 14,197 13,770 472,811 503,405 6.3 

Barren 165 205 187 9,396 9,953 0.1 

Forested 137,555 14,604 48,645 332,062 532,866 6.7 

Mixed Rangeland 732,014 218,156 561,363 5,271,644 6,783,177 86.0 

Urban 893 17 1,039 25,469 27,418 0.3 

Water 35 73 334 4,773 5,215 <0.1 

Wetlands 0 104 559 1,566 2,229 <0.1 

Coal Mines 149 7,236 2,805 40,917 51,107 0.6 

Total 873,438 254,592 628,702 6,158,638 7,915,370 100.0 

Source: PRB Coal Review Task 1D Report (BLM 2005c) 

A large part of the PRB consists of split estate lands (privately owned surface 

lands underlain by federally owned minerals). This results in conflicts between 

surface users, which are mainly ranching interests, and mineral developers. 

There also may be conflicts with some dispersed rural residences, although 

specific locations cannot be identified until development is proposed. 

Much of the study area is also used for dispersed recreational activities such as 

hunting. The study area includes surface lands that are federally, state, and 

privately owned. With nearly 80 percent of the area privately owned, public 

lands provide important open space and recreation resources including both 

developed recreation facilities and areas to pursue dispersed recreation 

activities. The private sector contributes the elements of commercial recreation 

opportunities and tourism services such as motels and restaurants. Some 

private land owners also allow hunting with specific permission, sometimes for a 

fee. 

4.2.9.1 Grazing and Agriculture 

Potential impacts to grazing in the Task 3 study area as a result of development 

activities can be classified as short-term and long- term. Potential short-term 

impacts arise from: 

Draft EIS, West Antelope II Coal Lease Application 4-73 
 

 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

•	 the temporary loss of forage as a result of vegetation removal/ 

disturbance; 

•	 temporary loss of AUMs; 

•	 temporary loss of water-related range improvements, such as improved 

springs, water pipelines, and stock ponds; 

•	 temporary loss of other range improvements, such as fences and cattle 

guards; and 

•	 restricted movement of livestock within an allotment due to the 

development and operation of projects like surface coal mines, which 

would cease after successful reclamation had been achieved and 

replacement of water-related and other range improvements had been 

completed. 

The discharge of produced water could increase the availability of water to 

livestock, which may offset the temporary loss of water-related range 

improvements. Potential long-term impacts consist of permanent loss of forage 

and forage productivity in areas, such as power plants, that would not be 

reclaimed in the near term. Indirect impacts may include dispersal of noxious 

and invasive weed species within and beyond the surface disturbance 

boundaries, which decreases the amount of desirable forage available for 

livestock grazing in the long term. 

Development activities could result in short- and long-term impacts to 

agricultural land, depending on their spatial relationship. Short-term impacts 

would include the loss of crop production during development and operational 

phases of the projects. Long-term impacts would result from the permanent loss 

of agricultural land due the development of permanent facilities such as power 

plants and railroads. 

Table 4-26 contains an estimate of the number of AUMs unavailable on lands 

disturbed and not yet reclaimed through 2020 for the high and low levels of 

predicted development activity, along with the acreage of cropland estimated to 

be affected. 

Table 4-26. AUMs and Acres of Cropland Estimated Unavailable on Lands 

Disturbed and Not Yet Reclaimed as a Result of Development 

Activities. 

2003/ 2010/ 2010/ 2015/ 2015/ 2020/ 2020/ Category Baseline Lower Upper Lower Upper Lower Upper 

Unavailable 

AUMs1 18,150 22,467 22,792 23,245 23,761 22,514 23,333 

Unavailable Crop 

Land (acres) 48 59 60 134 139 206 289 1 Based on an average stocking rate of six acres per AUM. 

Source: PRB Coal Review Task 3D Report (BLM 2005f) 

4-74 Draft EIS, West Antelope II Coal Lease Application 
 

 

 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

4.2.9.2 Urban Use 

It is expected that there would be additional expansion of urban residential and 

commercial development as a result of the projected 48 percent growth in 

population (between 2003 and 2020) in Campbell County. Section 4.2.12 and 

the Task 3C Report of the PRB Coal Review (BLM 2005e) contain additional 

information on employment and population issues in the study area. A majority 

of the new urban development would be expected to occur adjacent to existing 

communities, primarily Gillette, which accounts for approximately 60 percent of 

the Campbell County population and, to a lesser extent, Wright and other small 

communities. Most of this development would occur on land that is currently in 

use for grazing or agriculture. 

4.2.9.3 Recreation 

Accessible public lands provide diverse opportunities for recreation, including 

hunting, fishing, ORV use, sightseeing, and wildlife observation. Public lands 

generally provide dispersed recreational uses in the study area. Some developed 

recreational facilities occur in special management areas, including recreation 

areas. While opportunities are available on public lands throughout the PRB, 

the majority of dispersed recreational uses occur in the western part of the PRB 

Coal Review Task 1 and Task 2 study area, including the South Big Horn 

Mountains area and along the Powder River. Public lands elsewhere consist 

mainly of isolated tracts of land that are too small to provide a quality 

recreational experience. Larger parcels of public lands occur in the southwest 

part of Johnson County and along the Powder River (administered by BLM) and 

in the Thunder Basin National Grassland (administered by the USDA-FS). 

Public lands are accessible via public roads or across private land with the 

landowner’s permission. 

Hunting is a major recreation use of state and federal lands in the study area. 

Various big game and upland game bird species are hunted in the region. 

Fishing is a popular year-round activity for residents of the study area. 

Mule deer and pronghorn hunting are by far the most popular hunting activities 

in the Task 1 study area, accounting for 35,529 and 21,304 hunter days, 

respectively, in 2003 (Stratham 2005). The next highest were cottontail rabbit 

(2,348 hunter days) and elk (2,055 hunter days), followed by wild turkey (1,019), 

sharp-tailed grouse (508), and sage-grouse (38). Consistent trends in hunter 

activity over the past decade are not discernible from the WGFD data considered 

in the PRB Coal Review. All of the most prominent species hunted in the study 

area have had high years and low years. Pronghorn hunting, for example, was 

greatest from 1993 to 1996, while elk hunting was at its peak in 2001 and 2002. 

Mule deer hunting has been the most consistent, ranging from a low of 28,311 

hunter days in 1996 to a high of 37,307 hunter days in 2002. 

ORV use in the Task 1 study area is available on most BLM-managed lands. 

Most of the public land in Johnson, Sheridan, and Campbell Counties has been 

Draft EIS, West Antelope II Coal Lease Application 4-75 
4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

inventoried and designated as open, limited, or closed to ORV use. For the 

baseline year, approximately 20,386 acres were open to unlimited vehicle travel 

on and off roads. There were 4,680 acres in the area that were closed to all ORV 

use and approximately 867,534 acres were available for limited use. Limited use 

typically means ORVs are restricted to existing roads and vehicle routes. 

Recreational use of public lands in the Task 1 study area has increased 

substantially over the past two decades, and is expected to continue to increase 

by about five percent every five years for most recreational activities (BLM 

2003b). Total visitor use by residents and nonresident visitors in Campbell and 

Converse Counties in 1980 was projected at 1,276,000 visitor days (BLM 1979). 

The total visitor days of 1,881,763 estimated for 1990 was approximately 47 

percent higher than the 1980 visitor days (BLM 2001b). Fewer than three 

percent of visitor days were estimated to occur on public lands. 

Few, if any, of the developed recreation sites in the PRB Coal Review Task 3 

study area would be affected by development related disturbance. As most of 

the projected disturbance area would occur on privately owned surface land, the 

extent of effects on dispersed recreation activities largely would depend on 

whether the disturbance areas had been open to public or private lease hunting. 

It is projected that cumulative development activities, especially the dispersed 

development of CBNG and, to a lesser extent, conventional oil and gas, would 

tend to exacerbate the trend toward a reduction in private land available for 

public hunting, which has been observed by WGFD in recent years (Shorma 

2005). A reduction in available private land for dispersed recreation would 

contrast with the anticipated increase in demand for recreational opportunities 

and would tend to push more recreationists toward public lands where the BLM 

has projected a five percent increase in use every five years (BLM 2001a). After 

coal- and oil and gas-related development activities have been completed and the 

disturbed areas have been reclaimed, many of the adverse effects on dispersed 

recreation activities would be reduced. 

It is expected that the development activities also would tend to expand and 

exacerbate the qualitative degradation of the dispersed recreation experience, in 

general, and of the hunting experience, in particular, as reported by the WGFD 

(Jahnke 2005). As noted in the Task 1D Report of the PRB Coal Review (BLM 

2005c), reductions in land available for hunting also make herd management 

more difficult for the WGFD and reduce its hunting-derived revenues (Shorma 

2005). 

No direct effects on wilderness or roadless areas would be expected from the 

projected development activities. There are no designated wilderness areas in 

the study area, and mineral development would not be permitted in the 

Fortification Creek Wilderness Study Area until and unless Congress acts to 

remove it from Wilderness consideration. 

4-76 Draft EIS, West Antelope II Coal Lease Application 
4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

There would be no effects on Wild and Scenic Rivers as the only river segment 

identified as both “eligible” and “suitable” in the Task 1D Report of the PRB Coal 

Review is not in the PRB Coal Review Task 3 study area. 

4.2.10 Cultural Resources and Native American Concerns 

The PRB Coal Review Task 3D Report (BLM 2005f) discusses potential 

cumulative impacts to cultural resources as a result of projected development 

activities in the PRB Coal Review Task 3 study area. The baseline year (2003) 

area of disturbance and reclamation related to surface coal mining and the 

projected cumulative areas of disturbance and reclamation for 2010, 2015, and 

2020 are shown in Tables 4-2 and 4-3. Table 4-9 shows the total area of 

disturbance and reclamation for the baseline year and the projected cumulative 

total areas of disturbance and reclamation for 2010, 2015, and 2020. 

Cultural sites occur throughout the study area. Surface disturbing activities 

can result in the loss or destruction of these sites. Table 4-27 contains an 

estimate of the amount of projected disturbance through 2020 for the projected 

lower and upper levels of coal development activity, along with the number of 

cultural sites estimated to be affected. The sites fall into two categories; 

prehistoric sites and historic sites, as described below. Also below are a 

description of Native American traditional cultural places and a summary of the 

program to protect sites in any of these categories. 

4.2.10.1 Prehistoric Sites 

All recognized prehistoric cultural periods, from Clovis through Protohistoric 

(about 11,500 to 200 years ago), are represented in the PRB Coal Review study 

area (see Section 3.12 for additional discussion about the prehistoric cultural 

periods.) The earliest prehistoric cultural periods, Paleoindian through Early 

Plains Archaic, are represented by only a small number of sites. Archaic and 

later prehistoric period sites (Archaic to Protohistoric) are represented in 

increasing numbers as a result of higher populations through time and better 

preservation of more recent sites. Important prehistoric site types in the region 

include artifact scatters, campsites, stone circles, faunal kill and processing 

sites, rock alignments and cairns, and stone material procurement areas. 

Artifact scatters dominate prehistoric sites in the study area. When there is 

adequate information to evaluate these types of sites, most are not eligible to the 

NRHP. However, complex sites and sites with buried and dateable material can 

yield important information and are often field evaluated as eligible. The 

proportion of unevaluated sites is lower in the subwatersheds in which more 

studies and more follow-up studies have been conducted, such as Antelope 

Creek, Upper Cheyenne River, and Upper Belle Fourche River. Some portions of 

some of the subwatersheds which have more varied habitats or conditions more 

conducive to preservation are very rich in significant prehistoric sites. Within 

the PRB Coal Review Task 3 study area, these areas include the lower Antelope 

Creek drainage and eastern portions of the Upper Belle Fourche River. Within 

Draft EIS, West Antelope II Coal Lease Application 4-77 
4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

Table 4-27. Square Miles of Projected Cumulative Disturbance and Number of Potentially Affected C

in the PRB Coal Review Task 3 Study Area – Lower and Upper Coal Production Scenario

Lower Coal Production Scenario Upper Coal Pr

Average Year 2010 Year 2015 Year 2020 Year 2010 Yea

Number of 

Sites per Square Square Square Square Squar

Sub-watershed Square Mile1 Miles2 Sites3 Miles2 Sites3 Miles2 Sites3 Miles2 Sites3 Miles

Antelope Creek 4.7 74 346 97 484 122 608 75 376 99 Dry Fork Cheyenne 8.9 8.3 74 12 109 17 151 8.3 74 12 River Little Powder River 4.6 90 415 108 495 123 567 91 419 109 Upper Belle 4.3 164 704 186 801 209 899 166 713 192 Fourche River Upper Cheyenne 5.2 60 314 72 375 83 433 62 321 74 

River Upper Powder River 5.0 135 674 190 953 232 1,159 135 674 191 Total 531 2,527 665 3,217 786 3,817 537 2,577 677 

1	 Average number of sites per square mile based on previous surveys in the study area. 2	 Calculated, based on database disturbance acreages prepared for the Task 2 Report for the PRB Coal Review, Past and Present a

Development Activities (Appendices A and D) (BLM 2005d). 

3 The number of sites was calculated by multiplying the average density of known cultural sites per square mile (based on previou

square miles of projected cumulative disturbance. 

Source: Task 3D Report for the PRB Coal Review Cumulative Environmental Effects (BLM 2005f) 

4-78 Draft EIS, West Antelope 
4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

the West Antelope II general analysis area, these areas include the developed 

terraces of Antelope Creek, Spring Creek and Horse Creek as well as some 

unnamed spring fed drainages. More detailed information on the known 

cultural sites that are present in the PRB based on the existing surveys is 

included in the Task 1D Report for the PRB Coal Review (BLM 2005c). 

4.2.10.2 Historic Sites 

In the PRB region, sites are documented within the broad contexts of Rural 

Settlement, Urban Settlement, Mining, Transportation, Military, Exploration, 

and Communication. Each of these site categories and the types of sites they 

include are detailed in the Task 1D Report for the PRB Coal Review (BLM 2005c). 

Evaluation of the importance of historic sites, districts, and landscapes must 

consider aspects of both theme and period in assessing the historic character 

and contributing attributes of the resources. 

4.2.10.3 Native American Traditional Cultural Places 

General ethnographies of the tribes that may have had traditional ties to this 

region do not provide information on specific resources in the study area that 

are likely to be traditional cultural concerns because these resources are 

considered confidential by the tribes. Within this region, there are prominent 

and identifiable places such as the Medicine Wheel to the west in the Big Horn 

Mountains and Devils Tower to the east in the Black Hills area. These known 

sites offer some indication of the types of places valued by the Plains horse 

cultures in the historic period. Any identification of sacred or traditional 

localities must be verified in consultation with authorized tribal representatives. 

4.2.10.4 Site Protection 

At the time an individual project is permitted, the development activities 

considered in this study would be subject to the following regulations relative to 

cultural resources. Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 

as amended, its implementing regulations (including but not limited to 36 CFR 

800, 36 CFR 61, and Executive Order 11593), and NEPA and its implementing 

regulations, including 40 CFR 1500 - 1508, provide the legal environment for 

documentation, evaluation, and protection of historic properties (i.e., cultural 

resources eligible for inclusion on the NRHP) that may be affected by 

development activities. In cases of split estate (where surface ownership and 

mineral ownership differ), surface resources, such as cultural sites, belong to 

the surface owner. The surface owner must be consulted about investigation, 

mitigation, or monitoring. 

4.2.11 Transportation and Utilities 

The PRB Coal Review Task 3D Report (BLM 2005f) discusses potential 

cumulative impacts to transportation and utilities systems as a result of 

projected development activities in the PRB Coal Review Task 3 study area. The 

Draft EIS, Antelope Coal Company Lease Application 4-79 
4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

baseline year (2003) area of disturbance and reclamation related to surface coal 

mining and the projected cumulative areas of disturbance and reclamation for 

2010, 2015, and 2020 are shown in Tables 4-2 and 4-3. The total area of 

disturbance and reclamation for the baseline year and the projected cumulative 

total areas of disturbance and reclamation for 2010, 2015, and 2020 are shown 

in Table 4-9. 

Generally, transportation systems in the study area would not be directly 

affected by the disturbance associated with projected development. Site-specific 

instances of disturbance may require that segments of highways, pipelines, 

transmission lines, or railroads be moved to accommodate expansion of certain 

coal mines. In such cases, the agencies authorized to regulate such actions 

would have to approve any proposal to move any segments of any transportation 

systems and construction of alternative routing would be required prior to 

closing existing links so that any disruptive effects on transportation systems 

would be minimized. 

The coal mines in the North Gillette subregion currently ship most of their coal 

via the east-west BNSF rail line through Gillette. That subregion produced 55 

mmtpy in the baseline year (2003), which was just 22 percent of the estimated 

250 mmtpy capacity of the BNSF rail line (BLM 2005f). The coal mines in the 

South Gillette and Wright subregions produced approximately 308 mmtpy in 

2003, which was 88 percent of the estimated 350 mmtpy capacity of the joint 

BNSF & UP line serving those areas in the baseline year. 

Potential effects of development activities on transportation and utilities may be 

either short- or long-term in nature, varying with the type of development. A 

power plant or an urban community development would be considered longterm, and the demand for transmission line capacity would be virtually 

permanent, lasting for the economic life of the activity. The effects of coal 

production and the related demand for rail capacity would vary with market 

changes. In recent years, coal production has been increasing and the PRB Coal 

Review projects that the trend would continue, as shown in Tables 4-2 and 4-3. 

Similarly, the demand for pipeline capacity would vary with market conditions 

as well as with the rate of depletion of the oil or gas resource. 

Potential direct effects of projected development on roads and highways would 

include increased vehicular traffic and risk of traffic accidents on existing 

roadways in the PRB Coal Review Task 3 study area from daily travel by workers 

and their families. Indirect effects would include increased wear and tear on 

existing roads, additional air emissions from vehicles, additional fugitive dust 

from roads, noise, increased potential access to remote areas, and an increased 

risk of vehicle collisions with livestock and wildlife. Direct effects on railroads, 

pipelines, and transmission lines primarily would include increased demand for 

capacity to move coal, oil and gas, and electricity from production locations in 

the study area to markets outside the area. 

4-80 Draft EIS, Antelope Coal Company Lease Application 
 

 

 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

The socioeconomic analysis conducted as a part of Task 3C of the PRB Coal 

Review projects a population increase of approximately 48 percent between 2003 

and 2020 in Campbell County under the upper coal production scenario (BLM 

2005e). Campbell County accounts for most of the population in the PRB Coal 

Review Task 3 study area. Based on traffic studies conducted independently of 

the PRB Coal Review, vehicle miles traveled tend to increase at or above the rate 

of population growth. Consequently, highway traffic would be expected to 

increase by at least 48 percent by 2020. Approximately 60 percent of the 

population growth would occur in or near Gillette, which would indicate that the 

same proportion of traffic would originate in the Gillette area. The remainder of 

the traffic growth would be dispersed throughout the study area. Under this 

scenario, the greatest impact on traffic would occur in the Gillette area, where 

existing traffic volume to capacity ratios are highest. The increased traffic would 

be expected to cause delays in the Gillette area and might require widening of 

some streets and roads or other measures to increase traffic capacity. It is 

anticipated that there would be an increase in the risk of traffic accidents 

approximately proportional to the increase in traffic. Highway capacity on major 

routes away from Gillette would be expected to be sufficient to accommodate the 

growth without substantial constraints. 

Existing rail lines, together with proposed upgrades on the joint BNSF & UP line, 

would be expected to accommodate the projected coal transportation traffic 

through 2015 (Table 4-28). The PRB Coal Review Task 2 Report (BLM 2005d) 

projects that the proposed DM&E line would be built and operational by 2015 

(pending completion of additional environmental analysis), which would add 100 

mmtpy in additional shipping capacity for the South Gillette and Wright 

subregions. 

Table 4-28. PRB Rail Lines Coal Hauling Capacity and Projected Use. 

2010 Projected 2015 Projected 2020 Projected 

2010 Rail Use 2015 Rail Use 2020 Rail Use 

Rail Capacity Increase1 Capacity Increase1 Capacity Increase1 

Line mmtpy mmtpy % mmtpy mmtpy % mmtpy mmtpy % 

North 

BNSF 250 62-78 25-31 250 74-104 30-42 250 78-121 31-48 

South 

BNSF & 

UP 

400 349-

401 

87-

100 500 393-4392 79-882 500 417-

4552 83-912 

DM&E 0 0 0 - 2 - 3 - 3 - 2 - 3 - 3 

1 The range of increase in use shown for each year reflects the increases that are projected for the Lower and Upper Coal 

Production Scenarios, respectively. 2 The DM&E is assumed to be built and operational by 2015, adding 100 mmtpy of capacity for the mines served by the 

BNSF & UP South line. 3 The BNSF & UP South figures represent the projected combined traffic and percent capacity on the BNSF & UP South 

line and the projected DM&E line. 

Source: PRB Coal Review Task 3D Report (BLM 2005f) 

The Task 2 Report for the PRB Coal Review projected that basin-wide production 

of CBNG could potentially double by 2020, which would suggest that additional 

pipelines could be built. One potential additional pipeline (Bison Project) was 

Draft EIS, Antelope Coal Company Lease Application 4-81 
 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

identified for completion by 2010 when the PRB Coal Review was prepared, but 

no filing for this project has been made with FERC. Other potential projects are 

discussed in Section 4.1.2.3.1. 

An estimated 1,700 MW of new power production capacity is anticipated in the 

cumulative effects area by 2020. This level of production would require 

construction of additional transmission line capacity. It is assumed that new 

transmission lines would be constructed to connect new power plants to the 

grid. However, no specific projects have been identified so the location(s), 

capacities, and effects on the existing system cannot be determined at this time. 

4.2.12 Socioeconomics 

The cumulative socioeconomic impact analysis focuses on Campbell County, but 

also considers Converse, Crook, Johnson, Sheridan, and Weston Counties as 

directly affected and Niobrara and Natrona Counties as indirectly affected. 

Recent and projected socioeconomic conditions are described in more detail in 

the Task 1C and 3C reports for the PRB Coal Review (BLM 2005b and 2005e). 

REMI Policy Insight (REMI), a professionally recognized regional economic model, 

was used to develop the cumulative employment and population projections 

presented below. The version of the REMI model for the Coal Review was 

comprised of two economic regions: one being Campbell County alone, the 

second composed of those Wyoming counties bordering Campbell County and 

linked to its economy by established industrial and consumer trade linkages and 

by work force commuting patterns. Results for the second region were analyzed 

to focus on the five counties, Converse, Crook, Johnson, Sheridan, and Weston, 

that are the most directly linked. Collectively, these five counties are referred to 

in the PRB Coal Review Task 3C Report (BLM 2005e) as the surrounding 

counties. Additional analysis was undertaken to translate the population and 

employment forecasts for each of the surrounding counties into housing needs 

and to project future school enrollment. 

During the 1970s and early 1980s, the PRB emerged as a major coal producing 

region. Federal coal leasing has been a high profile activity because over 90 

percent of the coal resources in the PRB are federally owned. The surface coal 

mines that developed during the 1970s and early 1980s are now mature 

operations, providing a stable economic and social foundation for the region. 

While energy development has produced periodic surges in population, followed 

occasionally by population declines in some communities, the growth in 

domestic energy consumption, coupled with the PRB’s vast energy resource 

base, has resulted in a 50-year growth trend in the region without the severe 

economic dislocations that have characterized other western U.S. resource 

booms. 

This period of extended energy development has been accompanied by 

substantial economic changes and benefits, including economic growth, 

employment opportunity, tax revenue growth, and infrastructure development 

4-82 Draft EIS, Antelope Coal Company Lease Application 
4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

for local governments, both locally and across Wyoming, funded by tax 

revenues generated by production of coal and other energy resources. At the 

same time, periods of rapid growth have stressed communities and their social 

structures, housing resources, and public infrastructure and service systems. 

The emergence of the coal and other energy resource development industries in 

the PRB has had long-term cumulative affects on regional social and economic 

conditions. In general, Campbell County and the entire PRB region have 

developed an enhanced capacity to respond to and accommodate growth. The 

regional coal industry also provides a measure of insulation from dramatic 

economic and social dislocations. Key cumulative social and economic 

conditions identified in the PRB Coal Review are described below. 

4.2.12.1 Employment and the Economic Base 

Energy resource development since 1970 has resulted in substantial economic 

expansion across the PRB. Total employment expanded by 163 percent as 

40,674 net new jobs were added between 1970 and 2004. The most rapid 

expansion occurred between 1975 and 1980. After modest growth and slight 

decline in the 1980s and early 1990s, employment growth resumed in the late 

1990s, led by increases in coal mine employment, including subcontractors, 

and CBNG development. Across the six-county area, total employment was 

65,597 in 2004. Nearly half of the net job gain occurred in Campbell County, 

where total employment increased from 6,026 jobs in 1970 to 25,921 jobs in 

2004. Strong gains also were posted in Sheridan County (9,821 jobs) and 

Converse County (4,421 jobs). 

The economic stimuli associated with the gains in mining and CBNG 

employment and the long-term population growth triggered secondary job gains 

in construction, trade, services, and government. In 2004, business and 

consumer services accounted for 51 percent of all jobs in the region, while 

mining and government accounted for 14 percent and 16 percent of all jobs, 

respectively. Farm employment in the region, as a share of total employment, 

declined from 14 percent in 1970 to 5.0 percent in 2004. However, that shift is 

primarily due to growth in non-farm employment rather than declines in 

farming, as total farm employment in the PRB recorded a net decline of only 

375 jobs, from 3,571 to 3,196 (U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis 2006). 

The largest impetus to future growth over the PRB Coal Review study period 

(2003 to 2020) is expected to occur by 2010. Under the lower production 

scenario, employment in 2010 related to coal mining, oil and gas production, 

and oil field services is projected to increase by one-third, or more than 2,300 

jobs, as compared to 2003 levels. Many of the jobs gained would be the result of 

increased oil and gas development. While the number of coal mining jobs would 

increase, the projected coal mine-related productivity gains would limit increases 

in the number of mine employees required for operations. 

Draft EIS, Antelope Coal Company Lease Application 4-83 
 

 

 

 

 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

Beyond 2010, total mining industry employment would decline as major 

infrastructure development (e.g., additional CBNG compression capacity) is 

completed and the pace of conventional oil and gas drilling decreases. Increases 

in CBNG production and coal mining employment would occur thereafter, such 

that total mining employment would approach pre-2010 levels by the end of the 

forecast period (2020). Under the development scenarios, construction of three 

new power plants, having a combined capacity of 1,000 MW and a peak work 

force of approximately 1,550 in 2007-2008, is assumed to occur concurrently 

with the increases in mining employment. Under the upper production 

scenario, a second temporary construction work force impact would occur 

between 2016 and 2020 in conjunction with the construction of an additional 

700-MW power plant. 

The net effects of these activities, including secondary effects on suppliers, 

merchants, service firms, state agencies and local government in the region, 

would be the creation of more than 8,700 new jobs in the region between 2003 

and 2010. Of those, more than 5,600 jobs (a 22 percent increase over 2003) 

would be based in Campbell County. The pace of economic expansion, at least 

in terms of jobs, would moderate after 2010. Total employment growth of 2,017 

additional jobs is projected in Campbell County between 2010 and 2020, with 

1,741 additional jobs projected in the surrounding counties. 

However, to achieve the projected levels of energy and mineral development 

activity through 2010 assumes that industry has access to the necessary 

equipment, materials, labor, and other vital inputs. Current oil and gas 

exploration and development across the Rocky Mountain region has absorbed 

the available inventory of drilling rigs and crews. A lack of access to resources 

could delay or limit the job gains below the levels projected, even though 

prospects for such growth remain. Furthermore, competition for equipment, 

combined with tight labor markets, could negate the productivity gains that 

underlie the projections, such that the employment and associated impacts do 

materialize, but are associated with lower levels of activity (e.g., a lengthier 

construction period for a power plant or fewer new wells drilled each year). 

Employment effects associated with the upper coal production scenario, 

assuming productivity gains in coal mining equivalent to those in the lower coal 

production scenario, would result in total employment gains of 11,563 jobs by 

2010 in the six-county study area, with an additional 3,667 jobs by 20201. As 

compared to the employment projections under the lower coal production 

1 The number of jobs in the coal mining industry under the upper production scenario was 

estimated assuming future productivity gains comparable to those used for the lower production 

scenario. This approach differs from that described for the upper production scenario in the 

Task 2 report of the coal study, whereby a 16 percent higher production would be achieved with 

a 2.5 percent increase in workforce. Although that assumption reflects a continuation of historic 

productivity gains, it may underestimate population and employment growth and related 

socioeconomic effects if the production levels are achieved but productivity lags. Using the 

productivity gains from the lower production scenario provides a more conservative perspective 

on potential long-term population growth for purposes of the cumulative analysis. 

4-84 Draft EIS, West Antelope II Coal Lease Application 
4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

scenario, those gains include 2,821 additional jobs in 2010 and 3,214 additional 

jobs in 2020. Most of the incremental gains would be in Campbell County, 

further stressing labor markets, housing, and other community resources. Such 

pressures could delay or affect the development plans of individual firms and 

operators, such that the projected employment levels would not be realized in 

the time frames shown. Nonetheless, substantial growth in employment is 

expected to occur, and even if the projected total employment levels are not 

realized, substantial social and economic impacts still would be anticipated. 

The economic stimuli associated with the projected development also would 

stimulate increases in employment in other nearby counties beyond the five 

surrounding counties identified above. However, the potential effects in these 

areas are not addressed in the PRB Coal Review Task 3C Report because most of 

the effects would comprise indirect or induced growth that would be limited in 

scale relative to the size of the respective economies. Furthermore, the economic 

outlook for those areas is influenced by factors that are beyond the scope of this 

study, such as the role of the oil and gas support services industry based in 

Natrona County in supporting energy development in the south-central and 

southwestern portions of Wyoming. 

4.2.12.2 Labor Market Conditions 

Labor market conditions in the PRB reflect a generally healthy economy, with 

average annual county unemployment rates between 2.1 percent (Campbell) and 

3.5 percent (Weston) in 2006. Statewide and national unemployment rates for 

the period were 3.2 percent and 4.6 percent, respectively (U.S. Bureau of Labor 

Statistics 2007). 

Over time, local unemployment levels and rates have reflected the influences of 

the large, relatively stable employment baseline associated with the region’s coal 

mining industry and the more transitory and variable influences of natural gas 

development. Prior to the onset of CBNG development in 1989, unemployment 

in Campbell County fluctuated between 4.8 and 5.3 percent, slightly above the 

corresponding statewide averages. Labor demand associated with CBNG 

development contributed to a decline in unemployment to below 3.0 percent in 

the 2001. As the pace of CBNG development stabilized, labor demand eased and 

unemployment rates climbed to 3.7 percent in 2003, before again falling to 

current record lows. 

The employment effects identified above indicate substantial pressures on local 

labor markets. Strong demand for labor would maintain low unemployment, 

creating upward pressure on wages and salaries. Those influences would 

stimulate substantial economic migration into Campbell County, causing 

impacts to population, housing demand, and other economic and social 

conditions. Similar influences would occur in surrounding counties, although 

the implications are less severe because the scale of effects would be smaller and 

would be distributed over multiple communities and service providers. 

Draft EIS, Antelope Coal Company Lease Application 4-85 
4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

4.2.12.3 Personal Income 

A benefit associated with energy resource development, whether it is mineral 

mining or oil and gas development, is local wages and salaries that are among 

the highest in the state. Personal income registered strong gains across the 

region, but especially in Campbell County, during the late 1970s and early 

1980s. In 1981, per capita personal income in Campbell County was $17,520, 

compared to the national average of $11,280 and the statewide average of 

$12,879. Personal income growth was tempered by several years of economic 

stagnation during the late 1980s. Renewed economic vitality since then 

resulted in per capita personal income in Campbell County reaching $33,388 

in 2004. Those gains notwithstanding, per capita income among Campbell 

County’s residents was below statewide and national norms, as well as that for 

Sheridan ($35,716) County. When measured on a median household or family 

income basis in the 2000 census, Campbell County led statewide, national, 

and other counties in the PRB by considerable margins. That pattern has been 

maintained due to the strong economic growth in the region; in 2006 the 

median household income in Campbell County was $60,800 compared to a 

statewide median of $43,785 and national median of $44,374. Median 

household incomes for the other five PRB counties ranged from $40,195 to 

$46,883 (U.S. Census Bureau 2006b). 

In terms of total personal income, Campbell County led the six-county region 

with $1.22 billion in 2004. Sheridan County residents recorded aggregate 

personal income of $972 million in 2004. Total personal income in the other 

counties was substantially lower, ranging from $193 million in Crook County 

to $389 million in Converse County. 

Personal incomes in the region would increase over the time period 2007-2020, 

both in aggregate and on a per capita basis, in conjunction with the economic 

outlooks foreshadowed by the projected development scenarios. In 2004, total 

personal income in the six-county area was $3.24 billion. Under the lower 

production scenario, total personal income would more than double to $7.57 

billion in 2020 (in nominal dollars). The upper production scenario would 

generate an additional $266 million per year in Campbell County and an 

additional $35 to $40 million per year in the surrounding counties by 2020. 

Annual per capita incomes are projected to increase by approximately 27 

percent (in real terms) across the region between 2003 and 2020. Households 

with one or more workers employed directly in the energy industry, associated 

service firms, and the construction industry likely would realize larger shares 

of the gains (BLM 2005e). 

4.2.12.4 Population and Demographics 

Population change over time is perhaps the single best indicator of cumulative 

social and economic change in the PRB. Campbell County was not among the 

original 13 counties when Wyoming was admitted to statehood, but was carved 

from Weston and Crook Counties in 1911. Campbell County’s 1920 population 

4-86 Draft EIS, West Antelope II Coal Lease Application 
 

 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

of 5,233 ranked it seventeenth among Wyoming’s counties. Forty years later 

and prior to the onset of coal development in the region, Campbell County 

ranked eighteenth among Wyoming’s counties in terms of population, with a 

5,861 residents. Neighboring Converse, Sheridan, and Weston Counties all 

had larger populations. 

By 1980, Campbell County’s population had increased by more than 300 

percent, to 24,367, seventh among Wyoming’s counties. Energy development 

contributed to population growth in Sheridan, Converse, Johnson, and Crook 

Counties during that period. Weston County recorded a population decline 

during the period; however, the combined population of the PRB climbed from 

49,311 in 1960 to 82,598 in 1980. 

Annual coal production in the PRB has increased by nearly 560 percent since 

1980, accompanied by expanded mine service and rail transportation capacity, 

stimulating further growth. The impetus for growth in local employment was 

tempered by substantial productivity increases in the mining industry, coupled 

with declining production of other energy resources. Consequently, the region’s 

population gained a relatively modest 11 percent, 9,318 residents, between 

1980 and 2000, reaching 91,916. Campbell County registered a net gain of 

9,331 residents during that period, raising its total population to 33,698 in 

2000, fourth highest in the state. Across the PRB, the loss of about 2,000 

residents in Converse County was offset by modest gains in the other four 

counties (U.S. Census Bureau 2001). 

More recently, the PRB has seen renewed population growth, primarily linked to 

CBNG development. Population estimates for 2006 indicate a total regional 

population of 100,504, a 9.3 percent increase over the 2000 census population. 

Gains were reported for all six counties, ranging from 118 persons in Weston 

County to 5,236 persons in Campbell County (Table 4-29). 

Table 4-29. Recent and Projected PRB Population. 

Six 

Year 

Campbell 

County 

Converse 

County 

Crook 

County 

Johnson 

County 

Sheridan 

County 

Weston 

County 

County 

PRB 

Total 

Census 

2000 33,698 12,104 5,895 7,108 26,606 6,642 92,053 

2003 36,381 12,326 5,971 7,530 27,116 6,665 95,989 

2006 38,934 12,866 6,255 8,014 27,673 6,762 100,504 

Lower Coal Production Scenario 

2010 45,925 13,103 6,542 8,389 28,459 7,108 109,526 

2015 48,905 13,671 6,759 8,867 30,016 7,174 115,392 

2020 50,995 14,193 6,989 9,326 31,467 7,208 120,178 

Upper Coal Production Scenario 

2010 47,662 13,160 6,570 8,424 28,579 7,137 111,532 

2015 51,558 13,763 6,802 8,924 30,214 7,219 118,480 

2020 54,943 14,313 7,045 9,403 31,733 7,266 124,703 

Source: U.S. Census Bureau (2006b - historical data) and PRB Coal Review Task 3C Report (BLM 2005e) 

Draft EIS, Antelope Coal Company Lease Application 4-87 
 

 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

The magnitude and timing of projected employment changes from 2003-2020 

under either coal production scenario would trigger corresponding effects to 

population across the PRB, particularly in Campbell County (Figure 4-6). 

0 

10,000 

20,000 

30,000 

40,000 

50,000 

60,000 

2003 2007 2011 2015 2019 

Population - Upper Production 

Employment - Upper Production 

Population - Lower Production 

Employment - Lower Production 

Source: PRB Coal Review Task 3C Report (BLM 2005f) 

Figure 4-6. Projected Campbell County Population and Employment to 2020. 

Under the lower coal production scenario, Campbell County’s population is 

projected to increase by more than 14,550 residents between 2003 and 2020, 

nearly 9,500 of which are anticipated by 2010. Growth over the next three years 

will maintain pressures on housing and other community resources. The 

projected energy and mineral development in the lower coal production scenario 

would also result in substantial population growth elsewhere in the PRB, with 

Sheridan, Johnson, and Converse Counties all projected to gain substantial 

population. Population growth, like employment growth, would moderate after 

2010. 

Projected population growth between 2003 and 2020 ranges from 0.5 percent 

CAGR in Weston County to 2.0 percent CAGR in Campbell County. In absolute 

terms, the net change ranges from 537 additional residents in Weston County to 

a gain of 14,557 residents in Campbell County. The total population of the sixcounty study area is projected to climb to 120,178 in 2020, a 1.3 percent CAGR. 

As with employment, changing development conditions could result in actual 

population growth varying from projected growth. If project schedules or levels 

of development vary from the projected levels, corresponding effects on 

population growth could result (e.g., lower growth). Population demographics 

could also change due to migration and commuting, with more immigrating 

construction workers being single-status, rather than accompanied by families. 

Another possibility is that the spatial distribution of population growth could 

4-88 Draft EIS, West Antelope II Coal Lease Application 
 4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

shift as a result of housing or labor constraints, such that less growth would 

occur in Gillette and Campbell County, and more growth would occur elsewhere. 

Projected population growth through 2020 under the upper coal production 

scenario is approximately 19 percent higher than under the lower coal 

production scenario (28,625 compared to 24,100, with the six-county population 

reaching 124,703 by 2020). Much of the incremental population growth would 

occur by 2010 in Campbell County, and in particular in and near Gillette. 

Community population growth under the upper coal production scenario 

generally would mirror growth under the lower coal production scenario but with 

higher growth in Wright, Douglas, and Newcastle due to the effects of higher coal 

production, coal transportation, and power generation concentrated in the 

southern portion of Campbell County. 

4.2.12.5 Housing 

While the population grew by 55 percent in the 1970s, the housing stock in the 

study area grew by almost 78 percent. Housing growth was especially rapid 

during the 1970s in Campbell County, where population grew by 88 percent and 

the housing stock grew by 140 percent. The expansion in housing supply, 

combined with the slowdown in the rate of population growth, produced doubledigit vacancy rates for rental housing in the late 1980s and early 1990s. After 

growth resumed in the mid-1990s, most county-level vacancy rates for 

ownership units were at or below the state levels in 2000. Vacancy rates for 

rental units declined even more sharply. Vacancy rates have fallen even more as 

a result of recent growth, with current rates below 1.5 percent in five of the sixcounties, and that in Johnson County at only 2.8 percent (Table 4-30). 

Table 4-30. Rental Housing Vacancy Rates, 2004 4Q and 2006 4Q. 

YEAR Campbell 

County 

Converse 

County 

Crook 

County 

Johnson 

County 

Sheridan 

County 

Weston 

County Wyoming 

2004 4Q 2.8% 8.3% 10.4% 2.1% 4.5% 5.0% 4.8% 

2006 4Q 0.4% 1.4% 1.0% 2.8% 0.5% 0.0% 2.4% 

Source: Wyoming Housing Database Partnership (2007) 

In 2000, the housing inventory in the six-county study area was 41,203 units 

(Table 4-31). Total housing inventory had expanded to 43,363 units in 2005, a 

net addition of 2,160 since 2000. However, new construction hasn’t kept pace 

with population growth, resulting in tighter market conditions in terms of 

availability, and higher prices. 

Table 4-31. Total Housing Stock in 2000 and 2005. 

YEAR Campbell 

County 

Converse 

County 

Crook 

County 

Johnson 

County 

Sheridan 

County 

Weston 

County 

Six-county 

PRB Region 

2000 13,288 5,669 2,935 3,503 12,577 3,231 41,203 

2005 14,085 5,852 3,132 3,694 13,283 3,317 43,363 

Change 797 183 197 191 706 86 2,160 

Source: U.S. Census Bureau (2006a) 

Draft EIS, Antelope Coal Company Lease Application 4-89 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

In 2005, the average sales price of homes in the study area varied from $80,303 

in Weston County to $186,095 in Sheridan County. The average home price 

statewide in 2006 was $178,183 (Wyoming Housing Database Partnership 

2007). In addition to Sheridan County, Campbell ($185,874) and Johnson 

($180,209) Counties also had average home sale prices above the statewide 

average in 2006. The average sales price in Converse County was $149,096, 17 

percent below the statewide average. 

Monthly costs for rental housing in the PRB, measured in the fourth quarter of 

2006, were highest in Campbell County (Table 4-32). 

Table 4-32. Monthly Housing Rents in 20061 in the PRB Study Area and 

Percent Change from 2004. 

County Apartments 

Mobile Home 

Lots Houses 

Mobile Homes on 

a Lot 

 Rent Change Rent Change Rent Change Rent Change 

Campbell 

Converse 

Crook 

Johnson 

Sheridan 

Weston 

Wyoming 

$697 25.8% 

$515 31.4% 

$391 17.4% 

$477 -5.4% 

$571 14.0% 

$459 47.1% 

$567 14.1% 

$283 22.0% 

$152 1.3% 

$125 5.9% 

$170 16.4% 

$285 4.4% 

$119 17.8% 

$225 15.4% 

$975 23.0% 

$545 2.8% 

NA NA 

$700 15.3% 

$857 27.9% 

$567 36.3% 

$782 13.0% 

$758 20.5% 

$452 22.5% 

NA NA 

$518 5.5% 

$650 26.7% 

$505 27.5% 

$561 15.2% 

1 Data are for the fourth quarter of 2006. Change is the percent change since fourth quarter of 

2004. 

NA = information not available due to insufficient sample size. 

Source: Wyoming Department of Administration and Information, Division of Economic Analysis (2006 

and 2007) 

Temporary housing resources are available in the PRB in the form of hotelmotel rooms, private and public campgrounds, and vacant spaces in mobile 

home parks. In all, there are more than 70 lodging establishments with a total 

of more than 2,500 rooms. These temporary housing resources, supplemented 

by whatever apartments, townhouses, and mobile home spaces are available in 

Gillette, Wright and Douglas, have accommodated temporary housing needs 

associated with natural resource and energy projects in the past. 

Both projected coal production scenarios indicate a strong demand for housing 

across the six-county study area through 2020. Net housing requirements under 

the lower coal production scenario are for approximately 9,110 units through 

2020, a 21 percent increase above the 2006 existing inventory (Figure 4-7). New 

housing requirements under the upper coal production scenario are estimated at 

10,900 units, a 25 percent increase compared to the 2006 inventory and 1,790 

units more than for the lower coal production scenario. Approximately 60 

percent of the overall demand for new housing through 2010 would be in 

Campbell County. 

4-90 Draft EIS, Antelope Coal Company Lease Application 
 

 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

0 

500 

1,000 

1,500 

2,000 

2,500 

3,000 

3,500 

4,000 

4,500 

5,000 

Campbell 

Converse 

Crook 

Johnson 

Sheridan 

Weston 

2003-2010	 2011-2015 2016-2020 

Source: PRB Coal Review Task 3C Report (BLM 2005f) 

Figure 4-7.	 Projected Housing Demand in the PRB Study Area Under the Lower Coal 

Production Scenario. 

A substantial portion of the near-term housing demand in Campbell County 

would be associated with the assumed concurrent construction of three power 

plants. If that occurs, one or more project sponsors may be required by the 

Wyoming Industrial Siting Administration to pro-actively provide housing (e.g., a 

construction camp for single-status workers). Such actions could temper the 

needs for more housing; however, the remaining needs would nonetheless be 

substantial, straining public and private sector residential development capacity. 

Although smaller in scale than those in Campbell County, housing demands in 

the surrounding counties may also strain the capabilities of the residential 

construction sector to respond. Furthermore, residential contractors would be 

competing for available labor, contributing to the population growth and housing 

demand, and fueling increases in construction costs and housing prices. 

The relative scale of the housing needs can be evaluated in comparison to past 

growth in the study area. One benchmark for comparison is the rapid growth 

that occurred in the PRB in the 1970s. During that decade, the number of 

housing units in the six-county study area rose by approximately 14,900 units, 

approximately 1,500 units per year on average compared to the 850 to 975 new 

units per year projected under the upper and lower coal production scenarios 

through 2010. The rapid pace of development in the 1970s coincided with a 

period of economic expansion and strained the region’s construction trade and 

building supply industries. Although the underlying economies of the region are 

now larger, the projected needs would tax the ability of communities to respond. 

Signs of strain are apparent in Gillette and could surface elsewhere as greater 

housing needs arise in the remaining counties of the six-county study area 

under the low coal production scenario. 

Projected housing demands under either coal production scenario, although 

lower than what Campbell County and the region experienced in the “boom” 

Draft EIS, Antelope Coal Company Lease Application 4-91 
4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

years of the 1970s, would exert substantial pressure on housing markets, 

prices, and the real estate development and construction industries, all at a time 

when demand for labor and other resources would be high overall. 

4.2.12.6 Public Education 

There are 10 school districts in the six-county PRB study area, ranging in size 

from CCSD #1 with 7,337 students in the 2005 school year to Sheridan County 

School District # 3 (based in Clearmont, Wyoming) with fewer than 100 

students. CCSD #1, based in Gillette, and Converse #1 in Douglas, serve the 

primary energy and resource development region. 

Public school enrollment trends generally mirrored population trends during 

the period of rapid population growth. District-wide enrollment in Campbell 

County grew by more than 4,600 students (131 percent) between 1975 and 

1985. Enrollment increased in all districts in Converse and Sheridan Counties 

as well. Enrollment in CCSD #1 subsequently peaked, but remained near 

record high levels for nearly a decade. Elsewhere in the region enrollments 

generally declined with a combined enrollment of 9,525 in the other study area 

districts in 2005, the lowest since 1975 (Wyoming Department of Education 

2006). Recent natural gas and mining development has tempered, but not 

reversed, the trend of declining school enrollments across the region. 

Communities across the PRB study area would see population growth due to 

economic migration from 2003 to 2020; however, the effects of such migration 

on public school enrollments would vary. As the demographics of the population 

change, school districts in the PRB would be affected by new trends. In some 

counties, the size of the school-age population (generally aged five to 17 years) 

may even trend in the opposite direction of total population in the short-term 

due to underlying demographics of the established resident population. 

The demographic projections for the two coal production scenarios forecast 

growth in elementary school enrollments in Campbell County through 2010 and 

after 2010 for most PRB school districts. Projected enrollments in CCSD #1 

would be approximately 10 percent higher by 2020 under the upper coal 

production scenario, with those in the surrounding districts about one percent 

higher. However, several districts still may experience enrollment levels in 2020 

below current levels, as growth from 2010 to 2020 would not offset recent 

declines or those projected to occur before 2010. 

Under the lower coal production scenario, Campbell County would experience an 

increase of 1,587 students, or 22 percent above recent levels, in school 

enrollment through 2020. However, the net impact on CCSD #1 would be 

composed of two trends; a substantial increase in grades K-8 but only small 

increases in grades 9-12 (Figure 4-8). School districts in the surrounding 

counties are projected to experience declining elementary and middle school 

enrollments through 2010 and declining high school enrollments through 2015. 

Thereafter, growth and the associated influences on demographics would 

4-92 Draft EIS, Antelope Coal Company Lease Application 
 

 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

generate renewed enrollment growth, particularly in the elementary grades in 

Johnson, Sheridan, and Converse Counties. 

0 

1,000 

2,000 

3,000 

4,000 

5,000 

6,000 

7,000 

8,000 

9,000 

1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 

CCSD#1, Grades K-8 CCSD#1, Grades 9-12 

Other Districts, K-8 Other Districts, 9-12 

Figure 4-8.Projected School Enrollment to 2020 Under the Lower Coal Production Scenario. 

Source: PRB Coal Review Task 3C Report (BLM 2005f) 

Under either scenario, projected enrollments may cause short-term school 

capacity shortages, depending on the specific grade levels and residential 

locations of the additional students. Under the Wyoming School Facilities 

Commission planning guidelines, impacted school districts generally need to 

accommodate minor capacity shortages through the use of temporary facilities, 

such as portable classrooms. For larger and more long-term increases, the 

Commission’s policy is to fund capital expansion where warranted by 

projections developed during updates of school districts’ five-year plans. The 

approved five-year plan for CCSD #1 has a $57.4 million budget covering 

construction of several new schools and numerous major maintenance and 

facility upgrade projects. The approved five-year plans for the other school 

districts have combined cost of $163 million. Capital investment in public 

education facilities has been a statewide priority in Wyoming for the past 

decade, with taxes and royalties on mineral and energy resources the primary 

source of program funding (Wyoming School Facilities Commission 2007 and 

Wyoming CREG 2007). 

4.2.12.7 Facilities and Services 

The types and levels of facilities and services provided by local governments 

reflect service demand, revenue availability, and community values regarding 

appropriate services and service standards. As with most socioeconomic 

characteristics, the level and availability of local government facilities and 

Draft EIS, Antelope Coal Company Lease Application 4-93 
 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

services varies by county and community across the PRB. There are literally 

several hundred separate service providers in the region. Although virtually all 

local government facilities and services are affected by energy development and 

the demand related thereto, the critical facilities and services include municipal 

water and sewer systems, law enforcement at the county level, and hospitals. A 

comprehensive assessment of facilities and services is beyond the scope of the 

PRB Coal Review. However, an initial screening revealed no critical needs or 

shortfalls and indicated that most providers are engaged in an ongoing longterm process to maintain and improve facilities and services to meet community 

needs and to comply with various regulations and standards. 

The PRB Coal Review socioeconomic analysis focuses on water supply and 

wastewater systems (two essential services that are costly and have the longest 

lead times to develop) and law enforcement, emergency response, and road 

maintenance (three services that typically are most affected by energy 

development). 

Water supply and wastewater systems in most communities have the capacity to 

accommodate the cumulative population growth associated with either projected 

coal production scenario through 2020, assuming ongoing or planned 

improvements are completed. In Gillette, there may be a timing issue with 

planned water supply system expansions, as completion of planned 

improvements would occur when substantial growth is anticipated under both 

projected coal production scenarios. Consequently, Gillette may experience 

water shortages in the summer months for several years, particularly if growth 

follows that under the upper coal production scenario. Douglas is looking to 

add water treatment capacity to provide additional capacity and management 

flexibility to address needs during times of drought. 

The ability to provide desired levels of services to the projected energy-related 

population and development is less clear in Campbell County, Gillette, Wright, 

and outlying rural communities. Campbell County and its communities would 

experience a 25 percent increase in population between 2003 and 2010 under 

the lower coal production scenario and 30 percent under the upper coal 

production scenario. 

Growth rates and the resultant facility and service demand in other counties 

within the study area would be substantially less during the 2003 to 2010 

period under either scenario; all communities other than Johnson County and 

Buffalo would grow substantially less than 10 percent during the period. The 

populations of Johnson County and Buffalo would increase 10 percent by 2010, 

driven primarily by CBNG development. 

Growth rates and resultant increases in service demands would slow 

substantially during both the 2011 to 2015 and 2016 to 2020 periods under 

either projected coal production scenario. In most communities except Sheridan 

County and the city of Sheridan, there would be little difference in population 

growth and service demand between the two scenarios. 

4-94 Draft EIS, Antelope Coal Company Lease Application 
 4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

4.2.12.8 Fiscal Conditions 

Federal mineral royalties and state and local taxes levied on coal and other 

mineral production are vitally important sources of public revenue in Wyoming. 

Taxes, fees, and charges levied on real estate improvements, retail trade, and 

other economic activity supported by energy development provide additional 

revenues to support public facilities and services. These revenues benefit not 

only those jurisdictions within which the production or activity occurs, but also 

the federal treasury, state coffers, school districts, and local governments across 

the state through revenue-sharing and intergovernmental transfer mechanisms. 

Coal and other minerals produced in Wyoming, regardless of ownership, are 

subject to ad valorem taxation by local taxing entities and a statewide levy to 

support public education. Statewide ad valorem taxable valuation on coal 

production in 2005 was $2,280.1 million. Of that total, 88 percent was based 

on production in the PRB. 

The total assessed valuation of Campbell County, boosted by recent increases 

in CBNG production, was $4,264 million in 2006. Valuations on aggregate 

mineral production accounted for 87 percent of that total. Because Campbell 

County has been the primary beneficiary of mineral production gains over the 

past three decades and the recent gains tied to CBNG, the county’s assessed 

valuation in 2006 was nearly 38 times that of Weston County ($112.5 million) 

and 31 times that of Crook County ($137.2 million). The 2006 valuation of 

2005 coal production in Campbell County was $1,995.3 million (Wyoming 

Department of Revenue 2006). 

Wyoming levies a severance tax on coal and many other minerals produced in 

the state. The severance tax rate, levied on the value of production, has varied 

from 1.0 percent to 10.5 percent over time. The current rate of 7.0 percent was 

established in 1992. Cumulative statewide severance tax proceeds on coal 

production since 1970 exceed $2.8 billion. Cumulative severance tax revenues 

on coal produced in Campbell County total $1.89 billion. Cumulative 

severance tax revenues for the corresponding period total $96.5 million from 

Converse County, $60.5 million from Sheridan County, and $758.0 million 

from the remainder of the state (Wyoming CREG 2007 and Wyoming 

Department of Revenue 2006). 

Producers pay a 12.5 percent royalty to the federal treasury on the value of all 

surface coal production from federal leases. Total federal mineral royalties of 

nearly $3.3 billion have been paid on coal produced in Wyoming since 1970, 

approximately half of which is returned to the state. Estimated 2005 mineral 

royalties of about $377 million were paid on federal coal produced in the PRB 

(Minerals Management Service 2006). 

At the foundation of the mineral development revenue projections for the period 

2003 to 2020 are projected levels of future energy and mineral resource 

production. The projected total value of annual mineral production under the 

Draft EIS, Antelope Coal Company Lease Application 4-95 
4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

lower coal production scenario will climb by $3.49 billion (2004 dollars) over 

2003 levels, reaching $8.54 billion by 2020, a 69 percent increase over the 2003 

value. The aggregate value of energy and mineral resource production under the 

upper coal production scenario would increase to $9.21 billion in 2020. The 

incremental difference, compared to the value under the lower coal production 

scenario, would be $670 million per year, all of which represents the value of 

higher annual coal output. 

The overwhelming majority of future mineral production value is anticipated to 

be in Campbell County. Over time, the future value of production in Sheridan 

and Johnson Counties would climb. Total annual mineral production value by 

2020 is projected to reach $6.37 billion in Campbell County and $2.17 billion in 

the surrounding counties. Between 2005 and 2020, total royalty and tax 

receipts derived from the key selected sources range between $21.1 and $22.6 

billion for the lower and upper coal production scenarios, respectively. Receipts 

derived from coal production would account for the majority of the totals under 

either scenario, with federal mineral royalties on coal at $4.9 to $5.7 billion 

being the single largest source. Severance taxes, ranging from $6.3 to $6.7 

billion, also would accrue to the state (Tables 4-33 and 4-34). 

Table 4-33. Summary of Mineral Development Tax Revenues Associated with 

Energy Resource Production Under the Lower Coal Production 

Scenario (million $). 

Industry and Taxes 2005-2010 2011-2015 2016-2020 Total 

Coal1 $3,164.8 $3,178.9 $3,756.3 $10,100.0 

CBNG $2,915.2 $3,076.4 $3,288.7 $9,280.3 

Conventional Oil and Gas $568.5 $576.4 $614.0 $1,759.0 

Totals $6,648.5 $6,831.7 $7,659.0 $21,139.3 

Severance Tax $1,995.9 $2,012.4 $2,249.3 $6,257.6 

Federal Mineral Royalties $2,754.1 $2,839.4 $3,166.3 $8,759.8 

State Mineral Royalties $233.5 $225.8 $251.4 $710.7 

Ad Valorem Tax (Counties) $417.6 $443.0 $502.8 $1,363.3 

Ad Valorem Tax (Schools) $1,247.5 $1,311.1 $1,489.3 $4,047.9 

Totals $6,648.6 $6,831.7 $7,659.1 $21,139.3 1 Does not include coal lease bonus bids due to the uncertainty regarding timing. 

Source: PRB Coal Review Task 3C Report (BLM 2005e) 

The federal and state governments also benefit from coal lease bonus bids 

derived from future coal leasing. Bonus bids have risen over time, with 

successful bids for recent sales ranging from 30 cents per ton to 97 cents per 

ton. There is no guarantee of that trend continuing. Considerable uncertainty 

also exists with respect to the timing and scale of future leases, although BLM 

currently has pending applications for more than four billion tons of federal coal, 

including this application. The state receives 50 percent of the bonus bid 

revenue. 

4-96 Draft EIS, Antelope Coal Company Lease Application 
 

 

 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

Table 4-34. Summary of Mineral Development Tax Revenues Associated with 

Energy Resource Production Under the Upper Coal Production 

Scenario (million $). 

Industry and Taxes 

Coal1 

CBNG 

Conventional Oil and Gas 

Totals 

2005-2010 

$3,538.0 

$2,915.2 

$568.5 

$7,021.7 

2011-2015 

$3,703.0 

$3,076.4 

$576.4 

$7,355.8 

2016-2020 

$4,350.0 

$3,288.7 

$614.0 

$8,252.7 

Total1 

$11,591.0 

$9,280.3 

$1,759.0 

$22,630.3 

Severance Tax 

Federal Mineral Royalties 

State Mineral Royalties 

Ad Valorem Tax (Counties) 

Ad Valorem Tax (Schools) 

Totals 

$2,104.1 

$2,946.3 

$233.5 

$435.8 

$1,302.3 

$7,022.0 

$2,159.0 

$3,099.9 

$225.8 

$472.0 

$1,398.9 

$7,355.6 

$2,415.4 

$3,461.4 

$251.4 

$535.0 

$1,589.8 

$8,253.0 

$6,678.5 

$9,507.6 

$710.7 

$1,442.8 

$4,291.0 

$22,630.6 1 Does not include coal lease bonus bids due to the uncertainty regarding timing. 

Source: PRB Coal Review Task 3C Report (BLM 2005e) 

Taxes and mineral royalties levied on energy and mineral resource production 

accruing to the state are disbursed to the Permanent Water Development Trust 

Fund, Wyoming School Foundation and Capital Facilities funds, capital 

construction fund for state and local government facilities, and other programs 

according to a legislatively-approved formula. Through these funds, the 

revenues derived from resource development benefit the entire state, not just 

agencies, businesses, and residents of the PRB. 

County governments and school districts would realize benefits from future 

energy and mineral resource development in the form of ad valorem taxes. Such 

taxes, estimated on the basis of future coal, oil, and natural gas production, are 

estimated to range between $5.4 billion and $5.7 billion through 2020. Those 

sums do not include future property taxes levied on the new power plants, 

expanded rail facilities, or new residential and commercial development 

associated with future growth, or sales and use taxes levied on consumer and 

some industrial purchases. These latter revenues are not estimated in this 

study, but would be substantially lower than those on resource production. 

Local governments would benefit from property taxes on new development, as 

well as from sales and use taxes on taxable sales within their boundaries. Such 

revenues are not estimated for this study due to the large number of 

jurisdictions and other analytical considerations. 

4.2.12.9 Social Setting 

The past 30 years have seen sweeping social change in the U.S. and 

throughout much of the world. But in addition to the broad forces that have 

driven social change in the U.S. as a whole, social conditions in some PRB 

communities have been substantially influenced by energy development. 

Factors that have affected social conditions in the PRB include industrial and 

natural resource development, economic and demographic change, housing 

and public infrastructure development, and institutional change at the local 

and state government levels. 

Draft EIS, Antelope Coal Company Lease Application 4-97 
4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

One of the key drivers of social change in the PRB has been energy-related 

population growth. When the first oil boom occurred in the late 1950s, 

Campbell County was a relatively stable, sparsely-populated rural county. Like 

many places in Wyoming and throughout the rural west, Campbell County was 

a small, relatively homogeneous ranching community (ROMCOE 1982). The oil 

booms of the 1950s and 1960s brought an influx of new people. Development 

of coal mines, continued oil and gas drilling, and power plant construction 

precipitated another round of growth. In all, Campbell County population grew 

by almost 600 percent between 1950 and 2000. 

On the one hand, this population growth, combined with a robust economy, 

generated a variety of positive social effects. Financial and technical resources 

poured into the community as it mobilized to accommodate the new 

population. Job opportunities were created in the construction industry, as 

the community responded to demands for housing, public facilities, and retail 

goods and services. The large and rapid influx of new residents, eager to take 

advantage of the employment opportunities, created energy, vitality, and a 

sense of economic optimism about the community. Where economic 

advancement had been limited before the boom, there was now opportunity 

(Gardiner 1985). 

On the other hand, it is likely that many residents had mixed feelings about 

these changes (Heinecke 1985). New residents brought new ideas, new ways of 

doing things, new preferences for goods and services, and new demands for 

government services. Some long-time residents, particularly those who were 

not directly participating in the economic benefits of energy development, 

viewed these changes as negative. 

Today, almost any organization, committee, or government body is made up of 

a cross-section of energy employees, ranchers, and other community members 

whose tenure in the community may be long or short (Bigelow 2004, Spencer 

2004). Moreover, because of the turnover in the energy companies, the 

community has become accustomed to newcomers. 

Cumulative energy development in the PRB through the year 2020 has the 

potential to generate both beneficial and adverse effects on community social 

conditions. Social effects of development activities in the PRB would vary from 

county to county and community to community under the coal production 

scenarios developed for this study, based on the existing social setting and the 

type of development that would occur. 

Beneficial social effects would be associated with an expanding economy and 

employment opportunities associated with energy development and resulting 

improvements in living standards for those employed in energy-related 

industries. Adverse social effects could occur as a result of conflicts over land 

use and environmental values. Negative social effects also could occur if the 

pace of growth exceeds the abilities of affected communities to accommodate 

4-98 Draft EIS, Antelope Coal Company Lease Application 
 

 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

energy-related employees and their families with housing and community 

services. 

In the PRB, social conditions in Campbell County, the city of Gillette, and the 

town of Wright are most likely to be affected because the county would host 

much of the cumulative energy development workforce, and the county and its 

municipalities would receive the largest increments in population growth. 

Campbell County and its municipalities have a long history of energy 

development, and they have developed infrastructure and management 

systems to plan for and manage growth; consequently, major adverse social 

effects would not be anticipated. However, under either scenario, the county 

and the two municipalities may face challenges in providing adequate housing 

and expanding community services in anticipation of population growth 

through 2010, particularly if several power plant and coal mine construction 

projects occur simultaneously. As municipalities receive only sales and use tax 

revenues directly from development and purchases made within their 

boundaries, Gillette and Wright could face challenges in securing the necessary 

funding to improve municipal facilities and services. Housing shortages and 

limitations in public services could contribute to adverse community social 

effects in these communities. 

Many of the people who would immigrate to Campbell County for energy-related 

jobs are likely to share characteristics with much of the current population; 

therefore, few barriers to social integration are anticipated. 

Social effects on other communities in the PRB are likely to be minimal to 

moderate. Energy-related population growth is anticipated to be moderate in 

other communities. Sheridan County, also familiar with coal mining, is the only 

other county anticipated to host a major construction project under the 

development assumptions used for either projected coal production scenario. 

Converse, Weston, and Crook Counties could experience spillover growth from 

projects in Campbell County. 

Johnson, Sheridan, and Campbell Counties could experience continued conflict 

over split estate and water issues associated with CBNG development, and the 

pace and scale of energy development across the PRB is likely to continue to 

generate social and political conflict over environmental issues under either coal 

production scenario. 

Draft EIS, Antelope Coal Company Lease Application 4-99 
 

5.0 Consultation and Coordination 

5.0 CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION 

In addition to this EIS1, other factors and consultations are considered and play a 

major role in determining the decision on this proposed lease application. These 

include the following. 

Regional Coal Team Consultation 

The West Antelope II coal lease application was reviewed and discussed at the 

April 27, 2005 PRRCT public meeting in Gillette, Wyoming. ACC presented 

information about the existing Antelope Mine and the pending lease application to 

the PRRCT at that meeting. Voting and nonvoting members of the PRRCT include 

the governors of Wyoming and Montana, the Northern Cheyenne Tribe, the Crow 

Tribal Council, the USDA-FS, OSM, USFWS, NPS, and USGS. The PRRCT 

determined that the lands in the application met the qualifications for processing 

as a production maintenance tract and recommended that the BLM continue to 

process the West Antelope II lease application. 

Governor's Consultation 

On April 13, 2005, the BLM Wyoming State Director notified the Governor of 

Wyoming that ACC had filed a coal lease application with BLM for the West 

Antelope II LBA tract. 

Public Notice 

BLM published a Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement 

and Notice of Public Meeting in the Federal Register on October 17, 2006. The 

publication served as public notice that the West Antelope II coal lease application 

had been received, initiated the public scoping process, announced the time and 

location of a public scoping meeting, and requested public comment on the lease 

application. 

Parties on the distribution list were sent letters announcing the time and location 

of a public scoping meeting. The public scoping meeting was held on November 1, 

2006 in Douglas, Wyoming. At the public meeting, the applicant orally presented 

information about their mine and their need for the coal. The presentation was 

followed by a question and answer period. The scoping period extended from 

October 17 through December 1, 2006. 

The EPA will publish a Notice of Availability in the Federal Register for the DEIS. 

The BLM will publish a Notice of Availability and Notice of Public Hearing in the 

Federal Register for the DEIS. There will be a 60-day comment period on the 

DEIS. A formal public hearing will be held during the 60-day comment period to 

1 Refer to page xv for a list of abbreviations and acronyms used in this document. 

Draft EIS, West Antelope II Coal Lease Application 5-1 
5.0 Consultation and Coordination 

solicit public comments on the DEIS and on the fair market value, the maximum 

economic recovery, and the proposed competitive sale of coal from the West 

Antelope II LBA tract. Following the comment period on the DEIS, the FEIS will be 

prepared. Comments received from the public, state, and federal review agencies 

on the DEIS will be included in the FEIS. Parties on the distribution list will be 

sent copies of the FEIS when it is completed, and the EPA and BLM will each 

publish a Notice of Availability for the FEIS. After a 30-day availability period, 

BLM will make a decision to hold or not to hold a competitive lease sale for the 

federal coal in this LBA tract and a ROD will be signed. Copies of the ROD will be 

mailed to parties on the mailing list and others who commented on this LBA 

during the NEPA process. After the ROD is signed, there will be a 30-day appeal 

period before the ROD is implemented. If lands administered by USDA-Forest 

Service are included in the tract that is offered for lease, the USDA-FS will prepare 

and sign a separate ROD and the applicable Forest Service regulations for appeal 

will be followed. 

Department of Justice Consultation 

After a competitive coal lease sale, but prior to issuance of a lease, BLM will solicit 

the opinion of the Department of Justice on whether the planned lease issuance 

creates a situation inconsistent with federal anti-trust laws. The Department of 

Justice is allowed 30 days to make this determination. If the Department of 

Justice has not responded in writing within the 30 days, BLM can proceed with 

issuance of the lease. 

Other Consultations 

Other federal, state, local, and Native American governmental agencies that have 

been or will be consulted prior to making a decision to hold or not to hold a federal 

coal lease sale are listed in the following tables. 

Contributors, Reviewers, and Preparers 

This EIS was prepared by EDE Consultants, a third-party contractor, under the 

direction of the BLM. Representatives from cooperating agencies reviewed and 

contributed to the EIS. Tables 5-1 and 5-2 provide listings of the BLM, 

cooperating agency, and third-party consultant personnel who prepared and 

reviewed this EIS. 

Distribution List 

This EIS was distributed to Congressional offices, federal agencies, state 

governments, local governments, industry representatives, interest groups, and 

individuals for their review and comment (Table 5-3). 

5-2 Draft EIS, West Antelope II Coal Lease Application 
5.0 Consultation and Coordination 

Table 5-1. List of Contributors and Reviewers. 

Name Project Responsibility 

BLM Casper Field Office 

Mike Karbs Project Supervisor 

Sarah Bucklin EIS Project Leader, Environmental Specialist, Wildlife 

Nancy Doelger EIS Project Advisor, Environmental Specialist 

Chris Arthur Paleontology, Cultural Resources, Recreation, Visual 

Resources 

Jim Wright Wildlife 

Mike Brogan Water Resources 

Shane Evans Water Resources 

Bob Specht Mining Claims 

BLM Wyoming State Office 

Bob Janssen Coal Program Coordination 

Janet Kurman NEPA Coordination 

Mavis Love Land Adjudication 

Larry Jensen Socioeconomics 

Susan Caplan Air Quality and Climate 

John Zachariassen Air Quality and Climate 

Rick Schuler Water Resources 

BLM Wyoming Reservoir Management Group 

Dwain McGarry CBNG Geology 

Lee Almasy CBNG Reservoir Engineering 

BLM Buffalo Field Office 

B.J. Earle Cultural Resources 

Leigh Grench Cultural Resources 

Larry Gerard Wildlife 

Jerry Queen Mining Claims 

BLM National Science and Technology Center 

(Powder River Basin Coal Review) 

Craig Nicholls Air Quality and Climate 

Paul Summers Water Resources 

Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement

Western Regional Coordinating Center 

Heather Erickson EIS Project Coordinator 

USDA-Forest Service 

Misty Hays EIS Cooperating Agency Representative 

Dave Tubb Vegetation 

Cristi Lockman Wildlife 

Richard Stem Vegetation 

Kathy Roche Vegetation 

Tim Byer Wildlife 

Draft EIS, West Antelope II Coal Lease Application 5-3 
 

 

 

 

5.0 Consultation and Coordination 

Table 5-1. List of Contributors and Reviewers (Continued). 

Name Project Responsibility 

Wyoming State Planning Office 

Steve Furtney Coal Issues Coordination/Cooperating Agency 

Representative 

Board of Converse County Commissioners 

James H. Willox - Chairman EIS Cooperating Agency Representative 

Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality 

Land Quality Division 

Kathy Muller Ogle CHIA Program Supervisor 

Lowell Spackman District One Supervisor/EIS Cooperating Agency Division 

Representative 

Doug Emme Blasting Program Principal 

Mark Rogaczewski District Three Supervisor 

Air Quality Division 

Kelly Bott Engineer/EIS Cooperating Agency Division Representative 

Water Quality Division 

John Wagner Water Resources 

University of Wyoming 

Bonnie Heidel Wyoming Natural Diversity Database Botanist 

Ron Hartman Rocky Mountain Herbarium Curator 

B. Ernie Nelson Rocky Mountain Herbarium Manager 

ENSR International 

(Powder River Basin Coal Review) 

Valerie Randall Project Manager 

Dolora Koontz Assistant Project Manager and Task 2 Manager 

(Existing Development and Reasonably Foreseeable 

Development) 

Eldon Strid, Matt Reilly Existing and Projected Coal Development and Coal 

Transportation Scenarios 

Doree Dufresne Database Development 

Bruce MacDonald, PhD Air Quality 

Robert Berry, PhD Water Resources 

James Rumbaugh Ground Water Modeling 

Brad Anderson Surface Water 

Ron Dutton, George Blankenship Socioeconomics 

Bernhard Strom Land Use, Transportation, and Utilities 

William Berg Topography, Geology, and Minerals 

James Burrell, James Nyenhuis Soils and Alluvial Valley Floors 

Jon Alstad Vegetation, Wetlands, and Grazing 

Charles Johnson Wildlife 

Rollin Daggett Fisheries 

Kim Munson Native American Concerns, and Paleontological Resources 

5-4 Draft EIS, West Antelope II Coal Lease Application 
5.0 Consultation and Coordination 

Table 5-2. List of Preparers. 

Name Education/Experience 

BLM Casper Field Office 

Sarah Bucklin M.S. Candidate Zoology, B.S. Biology, 

Registered Associate Wildlife Biologist, 

9 years professional experience 

Nancy Doelger M.S., B.S. Geology, 

30 years professional experience 

EDE Consultants 

Third-Party Contractor 

Bruce Nelson B.S. Fish and Wildlife Management, M.S. Civil 

Engineering, 28 years professional experience, Registered 

Professional Engineer 

Kevin Lyon B.S. Environmental Biology/Landscape Ecology, 4 years 

professional experience 

Cheryl Naus B.S. Geology, M.S. Geology and Geological Engineering, 

12 years professional experience, Licensed Professional 

Geologist 

Sara Nelson B.S. Mechanical Engineering, 28 years professional 

experience, registered EIT 

GCM Services 

Subcontractor for AM 

Dave Ferguson M.A. Anthropology, 19 years professional experience 

Intermountain Resources 

Subcontractor for WWC 

Jim Orpet 	 M.S. Range Management, B.S. Wildlife Management, 28 

years professional experience 

Russell Tait 	 B.S. Wildlife Management, 

15 years professional experience 

James Nyenhuis 

Subcontractor for Intermountain Resources 

James M.A., Certified Professional Soil Scientist, 

Nyenhuis 29 years professional experience 

McVehil-Monnett Associates 

Subcontractor for AM 

Bill Monnett B.S. Atmospheric Science 

31 years professional experience 

Jim Easton B.S. Forensic Science, MPA Environmental Management 

29 years professional experience 

John Gilpin B.S. Atmospheric Science 

19 years professional experience 

Responsibility 

EIS Project Leader 

EIS Project Advisor 

Project Management 

Report Preparation 

Project Management 

Report Preparation 

CAD and GIS Map 

Production 

Cultural Resources, 

Paleontological 

Resources 

Wetlands and Vegetation 

Wetlands and Vegetation 

Soils 

Air Quality, Noise 

Air Quality 

Air Quality 

Draft EIS, West Antelope II Coal Lease Application 5-5 
 

5.0 Consultation and Coordination 

Table 5-2. List of Preparers (Continued). 

Name Education/Experience Responsibility 

Sammons/Dutton LLC 

Subcontractor for EDE 

Ron Dutton 	 B.S., M.S. Economics, 29 years professional experience Socio-economics 

Blankenship Consulting LLC
 

Subcontractor for Sammons/Dutton LLC
 

George B.A. Anthropology, B.A. Social Work, M.S. Urban and Socio-economics 

Blankenship Regional Planning, 28 years professional experience 

Thunderbird - Jones & Stokes 
 

Subcontractor for AM
 

Gwyn McKee	 M.S., B.S. Wildlife Ecology/Management, Wildlife Resources 

19 years professional experience 

Jennifer B.S. Zoology, 11 years professional experience Wildlife Resources 

Ottinger 

Rose Difley M.S., B.S. Geology, 4 years professional experience Paleontology 

WWC Engineering 
 

Subcontractor for AM
 

Michael Evers 	 B.S., M.S. Geology, 22 years professional experience, Water Resources and 

Licensed Professional Geologist Geology 

Dale Brown 	 B.S., M.S. Agricultural Engineering, 15 years professional Water Resources and 

experience, Licensed Professional Engineer Geology 

Nic Bateson 	 B.S. Civil/Environmental Engineering, 7 years Water Resources 

professional experience, Licensed Professional Engineer 

5-6 Draft EIS, West Antelope II Coal Lease Application 
 

 

5.0 Consultation and Coordination 

Table 5-3. BLM Distribution List for Coal Leasing. 

Federal and State Officials 

Governor of Montana Brian Schweitzer 

Governor of Wyoming Dave Fruedenthal 

US Representative Barbara Cubin 

US Senator John Barrasso 

US Senator Mike Enzi 

Wyoming Representative Timothy Hallinan 

Wyoming Representative Erin Mercer 

Wyoming Representative Jeff Sue Wallis 

Wyoming Representative Thomas Lubnau 

Wyoming Representative Dave Edwards 

Wyoming Senator Jim Anderson 

Wyoming Senator John Hines 

Wyoming Senator Michael Von Flatern 

Federal Agencies 

BLM Library, Washington DC 

BLM, Billings MT 

BLM, Buffalo WY 

BLM, Casper WY 

BLM, Cheyenne WY 

BLM, Miles City MT 

BLM, Washington DC 

Bureau of Indian Affairs, Billings MT 

Bureau of Indian Affairs, Washington DC 

Bureau of Reclamation, Denver CO 

Department of Energy, Casper WY 

Department of Energy, Washington DC 

Department of Interior, Denver CO 

Dept of Interior Natural Resources Library 

Devils Tower National Monument 

EPA Region VIII, Denver CO 

MMS, Denver CO 

MMS, Herndon VA 

NPS, Denver CO 

NPS, Washington DC 

NRCS, Douglas, WY 

OSM Library, Denver CO 

OSM, Casper WY 

OSM, Denver CO 

OSM, Washington DC 

Rocky Mountain Regional Solicitor 

US Air Force Environmental Division 

US Army Corps of Engineers, Cheyenne WY 

US Fish & Wildlife Service, Arlington VA 

US Fish & Wildlife Service, Cheyenne WY 

US Geological Survey, Cheyenne WY 

US Geological Survey, Denver CO 

US Geological Survey, Reston VA 

US GPO Library 

USDA-FS Douglas Ranger District 

USDA-FS Medicine Bow Forest, Laramie WY 

USDA-FS Rocky Mtn Region, Denver CO 

State Agencies 

Montana Mineral Mgmt Bureau 

Montana Office of the Governor 

WDEQ Air Quality Division 

WDEQ Land Quality Division, Cheyenne WY 

WDEQ Land Quality Division, Sheridan WY 

WDEQ Water Quality Division 

WY Business Council/NE Region 

WY Department of Education 

WY Dept of Agriculture 

WY Dept of Employment Research & Planning 

WY Dept of Environmental Quality, Director 

WY Dept of Transportation 

WY Economic Analysis Division 

WY Game & Fish Dept, Cheyenne WY 

WY Game & Fish Dept, Lander WY 

WY Game & Fish Dept, Sheridan WY 

WY Industrial Siting Division 

WY O&G Conservation Commission 

WY Office of State Lands & Investments 

WY Office of the State Treasurer 

WY Parks & Cultural Resources Dept 

WY State Engineer's Office 

WY State Geological Survey 

WY State Historic Preservation Office 

WY State Inspector of Mines 

WY State Planning Office 

WY Water Dev Commission 

Local Government and Agencies 

Big Horn County Commission, MT 

Campbell County Commission, WY 

Campbell County Conservation District, WY 

Campbell County School District, WY 

City of Douglas, WY 

City of Gillette, WY 

Converse County Commission, WY 

Converse County School District, WY 

Converse County Special Projects, WY 

Gillette Dept of Community Dev, WY 

Powder River County, MT 

Rosebud County Commission, MT 

Town of Wright, WY 

Weston County Commission, WY 

Tribal Organizations and Individuals 

Apache Tribe of Oklahoma 

Arapahoe Business Council 

Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe 

Comanche Business Committee 

Crow Creek Sioux Tribe 

Crow Tribal Council 

Flandreau Santee Sioux Tribe 

Kiowa Business Committee 

Draft EIS, West Antelope II Coal Lease Application 5-7 
 

5.0 Consultation and Coordination 

Table 5-3. BLM Distribution List for Coal Leasing (Continued). 

Tribal Organizations and Individuals 

(Continued) 

Lower Brule Sioux Tribal Council 

Northern Cheyenne Tribal Council 

Oglala Sioux Tribal Council 

Rosebud Sioux Tribal Council 

Cheyenne-Arapaho Tribe of Oklahoma 

Santee Sioux Tribal Council 

Shoshone Business Council 

Standing Rock Sioux Tribal Council 

Organizations 

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 

Biodiversity Conservation Alliance 

Campbell County Economic Dev 

CANDO 

Fdn for North American Wild Sheep 

Izaak Walton League of America 

National Mining Association 

National Wildlife Federation 

Natural Resources Defense Council 

Petroleum Association of Wyoming 

Powder River Basin Resource Council 

Sierra Club 

Thunder Basin Coalition 

WY Assoc of Professional Archeologists 

Wyoming Bankers Association 

Wyoming Business Alliance 

Wyoming Mining Association 

Wyoming Outdoor Council 

Wyoming Stock Growers Association 

Wyoming Wildlife Federation 

Wyoming Wool Growers Association 

Companies/Businesses 

All American Equipment 

American Colloid Co 

Antelope Coal Company 

Ark Land Company 

Arnjac 

Bjork Lindley Little PC 

BKS Environmental 

BNSF Railway Company 

Bridgeview Coal Co 

Buckskin Mine 

Burns & McDonnell 

CE&MT Inc 

CH Snyder Company 

CONSOL Inc Expl & Land 

Cordero Rojo Mine 

Decker Coal Co 

Dry Fork Coal Company 

Ducker Montgomery et al 

Environmental Solutions Inc 

EOG Resources 

Foster-Wheeler Environmental 

Foundation Coal West Inc 

Great Points Energy 

Hardin & Associates 

Intermountain Resources 

Interwest Mining 

Jacobs Ranch Coal Company 

JIREH Exploration & Consulting 

Kenneth R Paulsen Consultants 

Kiewit Mining Company 

Kiewit Mining Group Inc 

Kiewit Mining Properties Inc 

KN Energy 

LE Peabody & Associates 

M&K Oil Company Inc 

Marston & Marston 

McGraw-Hill 

McVehil-Monnett Assoc Inc 

Meineadair Consultants 

Mine Engineers Inc 

Mining Associates of Wyoming 

Nerco Coal Company 

Norwest Mine Services 

P&M Coal Mining Co 

Peabody Energy 

Powder River Coal Co 

Powder River Energy Corp 

Rio Tinto Energy America 

Riverside Technology Inc 

Royal Gold Inc 

San Juan Coal Company 

Thunder Basin Coal Co 

Thunderbird-Jones & Stokes 

TRC Environmental 

Union Pacific Railroad 

URS Greiner Woodward 

US West Communications 

Western Energy Company 

Western Fuels Association 

WWC Engineering 

Press 

Associated Press 

Casper Star Tribune 

Douglas Budget 

Gillette News-Record 

Rocky Mountain Oil Journal 

Western Coal Newsletter 

Wyoming Tribune-Eagle 

Educational Institutions 

CSU Libraries 

NWU Policy Research Institute 

UW Libraries 

5-8 Draft EIS, West Antelope II Coal Lease Application 
 

 

 

 

 

5.0 Consultation and Coordination 

Table 5-3. BLM Distribution List for Coal Leasing (Continued). 

Individuals 

Addison, Myra M 

Barbero, Ralph 

Benson, Scott 

Bierman, Sheldon 

Bishop, Valeri J & Hugh 

Burch, Trey 

Cain, Tessa C M 

Crary, Calvert D 

Cundy, Cecil 

Daub, Jerry 

Dilts, Fred W 

Dilts, Jerry J 

Dilts, Steve 

Earnest, Terry L 

Foster, Roxanne L 

Funk, Wendell 

Glustrom, Leslie 

Isenberger, Matthew L & Peggy 

Jacobs, Donald B & Rosemae 

Jacobs, Donald F 

Kane, Frank W 

Klurfeld, Gregor 

Litton, Patricia L Isenberger 

McBride, Dorothy L 

McCurley, Te' Atta D 

Nimmo, Jolynn J & Terry 

Nyenhuis, Jim 

Papp, Alex 

Petty, Tachana LM 

Provine, Charles H & Evelyn J 

Putnam, Teckla N 

Reno, Floyd C & Sons 

Reynolds, Kathleen A Kane 

Robertson, Elizabeth G 

Saulcy, Bill 

Shainholtz, James D & Barbara H 

Shillington, Barbara S 

Snow, Billie R 

Thompson, Rose L 

Voiles, Joy Lynn Kane 

Williams, John 

Winland, Mark 

Businesses/Organizations/Trusts 

AE Investments Inc 

B&J Resources LLC 

Big West Oil & Gas Inc 

Bill Barrett Production Co 

BNSF Railroad 

Bowers Oil & Gas Inc 

Bridle Bit Ranch Co 

David E & Audrey Markle Trust 

Deena L Wangler Trust 

Dyno Nobel Inc 

FDM Property Trust 

 JA & Deloris A Markle Trust 

JRJ Ranches Inc 

Lance O&G Co Inc 

Liberty Petroleum 

LL Jorgenson Family Trust 

Middle Prong Land & Livestock 

Nance Petroleum Corp 

Panhandle Eastern Pipeline Co. 

 Pathfinder Energy 

Petro Atlas Corporation 

Phillips Petroleum Co 

Rocky Mtn Power 

Spring Creek Ranch 

Standard Labs Inc 

Teton Capital Mgmt Inc 

Thunder Basin Grazing Association 

Vejay Energy & Land Inc 

 Wellstar Corp 

WesTTex 66 Pipeline 

Draft EIS, West Antelope II Coal Lease Application 5-9 
6.0 References Cited 

6.0 REFERENCES CITED 

Antelope Coal Company (ACC), 1982-2006, Antelope Mine Annual Reports, 

Submitted to Wyoming Department of Land Quality/Land Quality Division by 

Antelope Mine. 

, 2001a, Antelope Mine State Decision Document for the Horse Creek 

Amendment, Permit No. 525-T6-A1, Change No. 18, December 4, 2001. On file 

with WDEQ/LQD, Cheyenne, Wyoming. 

, 2005a, Permit 525-T7, Permit Application Package filed with 

WDEQ/LQD. 

, 2006a, Antelope Mine Permit, WDEQ/LQD Surface Mine Permit No. 

511-T7, approved June 2006. On file with WDEQ/LQD, Cheyenne, Wyoming. 

Argonne, 2002, Technical Support Document - Air Quality Impact Assessment 

for the Montana Statewide Oil and Gas Final Environmental Impact Statement 

and Amendment of the Powder River and Billings Resource Management Plans 

and the Wyoming Final Environmental Impact Statement and Proposed Plan 

Amendment for the Powder River Basin Oil and Gas Project. Prepared for the 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Montana and 

Wyoming State Offices, by the Environmental Assessment Division, Argonne 

National Laboratory. Argonne, Illinois. 

Associated Press, 2007, Market Spotlight: Coal Producers, by Samantha 

Bomkamp. December 5, 2007, Available from website on the Internet: 

<http://www.forbes.com>. 

Avian Power Line Interaction Committee (APLIC), 1994, Mitigating Bird 

Collisions with Power Lines: The State of the Art in 1994, Edison Electric 

Institute, Washington, DC, 78 pp. 

, 1996, Suggested Practices for Raptor Protection on Power Lines: The 

State of the Art in 1996, Edison Electric Institute/Raptor Research Foundation, 

Washington, DC, 125 pp. 

Bernstein, L., P. Bosch, O. Canziani, Z.Chen, R. Christ, O. Davidson, W. Hare, 

S. Huq, D. Karoly, V. Kattsov, Z. Kundzewicz, J. Liu, U. Lohmann, M. Manning, 

T. Matsuno, B. Menne, B. Metz, M. Mirza, N. Nicholls, L. Nurse, R. Pachauri, J. 

Palutikof, M. Parry, D. Qin, N. Ravindranath, A. Reisinger, J. Ren, K. Riahi, C. 

Rosenzweig, M. Rusticucci, S. Schneider, Y. Sokona, S. Solomon, P. Stott, R. 

Stouffer, T. Sugiyama, R. Swart, D. Tirpak, C. Vogel, and G. Yohe, 2007, 

Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report, Summary for Policymakers. 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fourth Assessment Report 

November 17, 2007. 

Draft EIS, West Antelope II Coal Lease Application 6-1 
6.0 References Cited 

Biello, 2007, “New Power Plant Aims to Help Coal Clean Up.” Scientific 

American, December 17, 2007, Available from website on the Internet: 

<http://www.sciam.com>. 

Bigelow, S., 2004, Personal communication between S. Bigelow, Executive 

Director, Campbell County Economic Development Corporation, and G. 

Blankenship, Blankenship Consulting, LLC, July 9, 2004. 

Billings Gazette, 2007, “Federal board OKs final segment of Tongue River 

Railroad”, by Matthew Brown, Associated Press, October 10, Available from 

website on the Internet: 

<http://www.billingsgazette.net/articles/2007/10/10/news/state/17-

rail.txt>. 

Black Hills Corporation, 2007, August 2007 Investor Presentation. Available 

from website on the Internet: <http://www. wygen.com/ir/presentation.htm>, 

accessed October 2007. 

Borden, G.W., R.R. Fletcher, and D.T. Taylor, 1994, Economic Impact of Coal 

on Wyoming’s Economy, Cooperative Extension Service Department of 

Agricultural Economics, College of Agriculture, University of Wyoming, B-987. 

Bott, 2006, Personal communication (email) from Kelly Bott, WDEQ/AQD, 

Cheyenne to Nancy Doelger, BLM, Casper, on 11/28/2006. 

Braun, C.E., 1998, Sage-Grouse declines in western North America: What are 

the problems? Proceedings of the Western Associated of Fish and Wildlife 

Agencies 78:139-156. 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM), 1974, Final Environmental Impact 

Statement, Eastern Powder River Basin of Wyoming. U.S. Department of the 

Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Cheyenne, Wyoming. 

, 1979, Final Environmental Impact Statement, Proposed Development of 

Coal Resources in the Eastern Powder River Wyoming. U.S. Department of the 

Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Washington, D.C. 

, 1981, Final Powder River Regional Coal Environmental Impact 

Statement. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, 

Cheyenne, Wyoming. 

, 1983, Final Environmental Impact Statement on the Riley Ridge Natural 

Gas Project, Sublette, Lincoln, and Sweetwater Counties, Wyoming. BLM-YAEA-84-002-1327. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land 

Management, Cheyenne, Wyoming. 

6-2 Draft EIS, West Antelope II Coal Lease Application 
6.0 References Cited 

, 1984, Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Round II Coal Lease 

Sale in the Powder River Region. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of 

Land Management, Cheyenne, Wyoming. 

, 1985a, Buffalo Resource Area Resource Management Plan 

Environmental Impact Statement. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of 

Land Management, Buffalo Resource Area, Casper, Wyoming. 

, 1985b, Platte River Resource Area Resource Management Plan 

Environmental Impact Statement. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of 

Land Management, Casper, Wyoming. 

, 1987, Data Adequacy Standards for the Powder River Coal Region, U.S. 

Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, November. 

, 1988, NEPA Handbook H-1790-1. U.S. Department of the Interior, 

Bureau of Land Management, Washington, D.C. 

, 1989, Manual 3420, Competitive Coal Leasing. U.S. Department of the 

Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Washington, D.C. 

, 1991, Powder River Regional Coal Team Operational Guidelines for Coal 

Lease-By-Applications. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land 

Management, Cheyenne, Wyoming. 

, 2001a, Approved Resource Management Plan for Public Lands 

Administered by the Bureau of Land Management Buffalo Field Office. U.S. 

Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Buffalo Field Office, 

Buffalo, Wyoming. Available from website on the Internet as of March 2005: 

<http://www.wy.blm.gov>. 

, 2001b, Reasonably Foreseeable Development Scenario for Oil and Gas 

Development in the Buffalo Field Office Area, Campbell, Johnson and Sheridan 

Counties, Wyoming. 

, 2003a, Final South Powder River Basin Coal Environmental Impact 

Statement. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, 

Buffalo Field Office, Buffalo, Wyoming, December 2003. 

, 2003b, Final Environmental Impact Statement and Proposed Plan 

Amendment for the Powder River Basin Oil and Gas Project. U.S. Department 

of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Buffalo Field Office, Buffalo, 

Wyoming, January 2003. 

, 2005a, Task 1A Report for the Powder River Basin Coal Review – 

Current Air Quality Conditions. Prepared for the BLM Wyoming State Office, 

BLM Wyoming Casper Field Office, and BLM Montana Miles City Field Office by 

ENSR Corporation, Fort Collins, Colorado, September 2005. 

Draft EIS, West Antelope II Coal Lease Application 6-3 
6.0 References Cited 

, 2005b, Task 1C Report for the Powder River Basin Coal Review – 

Current Social and Economic Conditions. Prepared for the BLM Wyoming 

State Office, BLM Wyoming Casper Field Office, and BLM Montana Miles City 

Field Office by ENSR Corporation, Fort Collins, Colorado, March 2005. 

, 2005c, Task 1D Report for the Powder River Basin Coal Review – 

Current Environmental Conditions. Prepared for the BLM Wyoming State 

Office, BLM Wyoming Casper Field Office, and BLM Montana Miles City Field 

Office by ENSR Corporation, Fort Collins, Colorado, June 2005. 

, 2005d, Task 2 Report for the Powder River Basin Coal Review – Past 

and Present and Reasonably Foreseeable Development Activities. Prepared for 

the BLM Wyoming State Office, BLM Wyoming Casper Field Office, and BLM 

Montana Miles City Field Office by ENSR Corporation, Fort Collins, Colorado, 

December 2005. 

, 2005e, Task 3C Report for the Powder River Basin Coal Review – 

Cumulative Social and Economic Effects. Prepared for the BLM Wyoming State 

Office, BLM Wyoming Casper Field Office, and BLM Montana Miles City Field 

Office by ENSR Corporation, Fort Collins, Colorado, December 2005. 

, 2005f, Task 3D Report for the Powder River Basin Coal Review – 

Cumulative Environmental Effects. Prepared for the BLM Wyoming State 

Office, BLM Wyoming Casper Field Office, and BLM Montana Miles City Field 

Office by ENSR Corporation, Fort Collins, Colorado, December 2005. 

, 2006a, Task 3A Report for the Powder River Basin Coal Review – 

Cumulative Air Quality Effects. Prepared for the BLM Wyoming State Office, 

BLM Wyoming Casper Field Office, and BLM Montana Miles City Field Office by 

ENSR Corporation, Fort Collins, Colorado, February 2006. 

, 2006b, Powder River Basin Coal Leases by Application Data Sheets. 

Available from website on the Internet as of January 2006: 

<http://www.wy.blm.gov/minerals/coal/prb/LBA_title.htm>. 

, 2006c, Task 1B Report for the Powder River Basin Coal Review – 

Current Water Resource Conditions. Prepared for the BLM Wyoming State 

Office, BLM Wyoming Casper Field Office, and BLM Montana Miles City Field 

Office by ENSR Corporation, Fort Collins, Colorado. 

, 2006d, Instruction Memorandum No. 2006-153. Policy and Guidance 

on Conflicts between Coalbed Natural Gas and Surface Coal Development in 

the Powder River Basin. Reissued May 11, 2006. 

, 2007, Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan. 

U.S Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Casper Field 

Office, Casper, Wyoming, December 2007. 

6-4 Draft EIS, West Antelope II Coal Lease Application 
 

6.0 References Cited 

, In Preparation, Task 3B Report for the Powder River Basin Coal Review 

– Cumulative Water Effects. Prepared for the BLM Wyoming State Office, BLM 

Wyoming Casper Field Office, and BLM Montana Miles City Field Office by 

ENSR Corporation. 

Byer, Tim, USDA Forest Service Wildlife Biologist, Douglas Ranger District, 

Douglas, Wyoming, personal communication September 11 and 29, 2003. 

Campbell County, 2005, Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan for Campbell County, 

Town of Wright and City of Gillette. Prepared by Beck Consulting. Draft – 

November 2005. Available from website on the Internet as of December 2005: 

<http://ccg.co.campbell.wy. us/>. 

Casper Star Tribune, 2007a, “Plant Promises Regional Impact”, by Richard 

Hodges, September 13. 

Casper Star Tribune, 2007b, “Clean-Coal Investors Plead for Regulations”, by 

Dusting Bleizeffer, October 11. 

Casper Star Tribune, 2007c, “Utility Snuffs Coal Projects”, by Dustin Bleizeffer, 

December 11. 

Cerovski, A., M. Gorges, T. Byer, K. Duffy, and D. Felley, editors. 2001. 

Wyoming Bird Conservation Plan, Version 1.0. Wyoming Partners in Flight. 

Wyoming Game and Fish Department, Lander, Wyoming. 

Cerovski, A.O., M. Grenier, B. Oakleaf, L.Van Fleet, and S. Patla. 2004. Atlas 

of Birds, Mammals, Amphibians, and Reptiles in Wyoming,. Wyoming Game 

and Fish Department Nongame Program, Lander, Wyoming. 

Chancellor, Rick, 2003, WDEQ, personal communication, June 16. 

Christensen, R., 2002, Personal communication between R. Christensen, 

WDEQ/LQD, Cheyenne, Wyoming and C. Florian, Greystone Environmental 

Consultants, regarding summary report of coal permit totals to date: Active 

Coal Mine Permits, Powder River Basin, 1999-2001, July 31, 2002. 

Christiansen, Tom, 2004, Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Population Trend 

Relative to the 2005 Hunting Season – A Summary Report and 

Recommendation. Available from website on the Internet as of March 

2005: <http://gf.state.wy.us/wildlife/wildlife_management/sagegrouse/ 

index.asp>. (See 2005 Hunting Summary and Recommendations). 

City of Gillette, 1978, City of Gillette/Campbell County Comprehensive 

Planning Program. June 1978. Updated March 1994. Gillette, Wyoming. 

Draft EIS, West Antelope II Coal Lease Application 6-5 
6.0 References Cited 

, 2007, Department of Community Development. Wyoming – 2006 

Housing and Demographic Survey, January – December 2006. Available from 

website on the Internet: 

<http://www.ci.gillette.wy.us/about/demographics.html>. 

Clark, D.W., 1995, Geotechnical processes in ground water resulting from 

surface mining of coal at the Big Sky and West Decker Mine area, southeastern 

Montana: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 95-

4097, 80 p. 

Clark, T. W. and M. R. Stromberg. 1987. Mammals in Wyoming. University of 

Kansas, Museum of Natural History. Lawrence, Kansas. 

Commonwealth Associates, Inc. 1980. Appendix D7, Soils, Environmental 

Baseline Study, Antelope Coal Field, Converse County, Wyoming. 

Commonwealth Associates, Jackson, Michigan. Prepared for NERCO, Inc. 

Portland, Oregon. August 7, 1980. 

Connelly, J.W., S.T. Knick, M.A. Schroedoer, and S.J. Stiver, 2004, 

Conservation Assessment of Greater Sage-grouse and Sagebrush Habitats. 

Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, unpublished report, 

Cheyenne, Wyoming. 

Converse County, 1978, Converse County Land Use Plan. Converse County, 

Douglas, Wyoming. 

Converse County School District #1, 2007, RFQ for Architectural and 

Engineering Services. October 2007. 

Crist, M.A., 1991, Evaluation of groundwater-level changes near Gillette, 

northeastern Wyoming. U.S. Geological Survey, Water Resources 

Investigations Report 88-4196. 

Crockett, Frederick J., 1999, Summary of Federal Oil And Gas Leasing in the 

Powder River Basin, Wyoming, 1990-1999. Pages 73-82 in: Coalbed Methane 

and Tertiary Geology of the Powder River Basin of Wyoming and Montana. 

Wyoming Geological Association 50th Field Conference Guidebook. 

Curtis, J., 2004, Wyoming Climate Atlas. Wyoming Water Development 

Commission. Cheyenne, WY. 328p. 

Delson, E., 1971, Fossil Mammals of the Early Eocene Wasatchian Powder 

River Local Fauna, Eocene of Northeast Wyoming. American Museum of 

Natural History Bulletin, Vol. 146, pp. 305-364. 

Erathem-Vanir Geological PPLLC (EVG), 2001, Paleontological Inventory and 

Evaluation 2001 Baseline Survey, Cordero Mining Company, Campbell County, 

Wyoming. Prepared for TRC-Mariah & Associates, Inc. (Laramie, WY), 8 p. 

6-6 Draft EIS, West Antelope II Coal Lease Application 
6.0 References Cited 

Emme, Doug, 2003, WDEQ/LQD Blasting Program Principal, personal 

communication, May 7. 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) , 2004, “Major Pipeline Projects 

on the Horizon as of February 2004”. Available from website on the Internet as 

of February 2004: 

<http://www.ferc.gov/forcitizens/projectsearch/SearchProjects aspx>. 

Ferguson, David, 1998, A Class III Cultural Resource Inventory of the Horse 

Creek Study Area. Report prepared for Antelope Coal Company, Wright, 

Wyoming by GCM Services, Inc., Butte, MT. 

, 2000, A Class III Inventory of Antelope Coal Company's Antelope Creek 

Study Area, Converse and Campbell Counties. Report prepared for 

Antelope Coal Company, Wright, Wyoming by GCM Services, Inc., Butte, MT. 

, 2001, A Class III Inventory of Antelope Coal Company's West Antelope 

LBA Study Area, Converse and Campbell Counties, Wyoming. Report prepared 

for Antelope Coal Company, Wright, Wyoming by GCM Services, Inc., Butte, 

MT. 

, 2003, A Class III Inventory of Antelope Coal adjacent West Antelope 

Drilling Additions, Converse and Campbell Counties. Report prepared for 

Antelope Coal Company, Wright, Wyoming by GCM Services, Inc., Butte, MT. 

Fitzgerald, J.P., C.A. Meaney, and D.M. Armstrong, 1994, Mammals of 

Colorado. Denver Museum of Natural History, Denver, Colorado. 

Fitzhugh, Bobbe. City Administrator, City of Douglas. As quoted in “City 

institutes water limits.” Douglas Budget. April 18, 2007. 

Flores, R.M., A.M. Ochs, L.R. Bader, R.C. Johnson, and D. Vogler, 1999, 

Framework Geology of the Fort Union Coal in the Powder River Basin, Wyoming 

and Montana. Chapter PF, pages 1-40, in Fort Union Coal Assessment Team. 

1999 Resource Assessment of Selected Tertiary Coal Beds and Zones in the 

Northern Rocky Mountains and Great Plains Region. U.S. Geological Survey 

Professional Paper 1625-A, Chapter PF. 

Flores, R.M., G.D. Stricker, J.F. Meyer, T.E. Doll, P.H. Norton, Jr., R.J. 

Livingston, and M.C. Jennings, 2001, A Field Conference on Impacts of 

Coalbed Methane Development in the Powder River Basin. U.S. Geological 

Survey Open-File Report 01-126. 

Frankel, A.C., C. Mueller, T. Barnhand, D. Perkins, E.V. Leyendecker, N. 

Dickman, S. Hanson, and M. Hopper, 1997, Seismic-hazard Maps for the 

Coterminous United States, Map F - Horizontal Spectral Response Acceleration 

for 0.2 Second Period (5% of critical damping) with 10 % Probability of 

Exceedance in 50 Years. U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 97-131-F. 

Draft EIS, West Antelope II Coal Lease Application 6-7 
6.0 References Cited 

Frison, George, 1978, Prehistoric Hunters of the High Plains. Academic Press: 

New York, New York. 

______, 1991, Prehistoric Hunters of the High Plains. Academic Press: New 

York, New York. 

, 2001, Hunting and Gathering Tradition: Northwestern and Central 

Plains, in Plains, edited by Raymond J. DeMaille, pp. 131-145. Handbook of 

the North American Indians, Vol. 13, Part I, William C. Sturtevant, general 

editor. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. 

Gardiner, S., 1985, editor, Rumblings from the Razor City: The Oral History of 

Gillette, Wyoming, an Energy Boomtown. 

Gillette Convention and Visitor’s Bureau, 2004, “Gillette, Wyoming – Take 

Another Look!” (Brochure). Gillette, Wyoming. 

Gillette News-Record, 2007a, “Two Elk Plant Inks Transmission Deal”, by the 

Associated Press, October 5. 

Gillette News-Record, 2007b, “Will Wright Boom?”, by Peter Gartrell, October 

19. 

Greystone Environmental Consultants, Inc., 2003, Surface Water Quality 

Analysis Technical Report. Surface Water Modeling of Water Quality Impacts 

Associated with Coal Bed Methane Development in the Powder River Basin, 

January 2003. 

Harrison, C. 1984. A Field Guide To The Nests, Eggs, And Nestlings Of North 

American Birds. The Stephen Greene Press. Brattleboro, Vermont and 

Lexington, Massachusetts. 

Heinecke, B., 1985, Director Mental Health Service, Northeast Wyoming Mental 

Health Center, Oral History in Rumblings from Razor City: The Oral History of 

Gillette, Wyoming, an Energy Boomtown. Edited by S. Gardiner. 

HKM Engineering, Inc., Lord Consulting, and Watts and Associates, 2002a, 

Powder/Tongue River Basin Plan. Prepared for Wyoming Water Development 

Commission Basin Planning Program, February 2002. 

, 2002b, Northeast Wyoming River Basin Plan. Prepared for Wyoming 

Water Development Commission Basin Planning Program, February 2002. 

Hodson, W.G., R.H. Pearl, and S.A. Druse, 1973, Water Resources of the 

Powder River Basin and Adjacent Areas, Northeastern Wyoming. U.S. 

Geological Survey Hydrologic Investigations Atlas HA-465. 

6-8 Draft EIS, West Antelope II Coal Lease Application 
6.0 References Cited 

Holcomb, J., 2003, Rocky Mountain Pipeline Assessment, prepared for PACE 

Global Energy Services and presented at the Rocky Mountain Association of 

Geologists and Petroleum Technology Transfer Council CBM Symposium, 

Denver, Colorado, June 10, 2003. 

Humphrey, Brad and Kingham, Jill, 1993, Intensive Cultural Resource 

Inventory of the Antelope Creek Land Exchange. Report prepared by the USDA 

Forest Service Douglas Ranger District, Region 2, Douglas, Wyoming. 

Hydro-Engineering, 1991, GAGMO 10-Year Report. Prepared for Gillette Area 

Groundwater Monitoring Organization by Hydro-Engineering, LLC, Casper, 

Wyoming. 

, 1996, GAGMO 15-Year Report. Prepared for Gillette Area Groundwater 

Monitoring Organization by Hydro-Engineering, LLC, Casper, Wyoming. 

, 2001a, GAGMO 20-Year Report. Prepared for Gillette Area 

Groundwater Monitoring Organization by Hydro-Engineering, LLC, Casper, 

Wyoming. 

, 2001b, 2000 GAGMO Annual Report. Prepared for Gillette Area 

Groundwater Monitoring Organization by Hydro-Engineering, LLC, Casper, 

Wyoming. 

, 2005, 2004 GAGMO Annual Report. Prepared for Gillette Area 

Groundwater Monitoring Organization by Hydro-Engineering, LLC, Casper, 

Wyoming. 

, 2006, 2005 GAGMO Annual Report. Prepared for Gillette Area 

Groundwater Monitoring Organization by Hydro-Engineering, LLC, Casper, 

Wyoming. 

IHS Energy Services (IHS), 2004, Oil and Gas Production and Well History 

Database. 

IMPROVE, 2005, IMPROVE Summary Data – Summary data through 2003 

(Updated February 2005). Available from website on the Internet as of as of 

April 2005: <http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/improveData/IMPROVE/summary 

_data.htm>. 

Intermountain Resources, 2006, unpublished data. 

, 2007, unpublished data. 

Jahnke, L., 2005, Personal communication between L. Jahnke, Wildlife 

Management Coordinator, Wyoming Game and Fish Department, Sheridan, 

Wyoming and B. Strom, ENSR, May 20, 2005. 

Draft EIS, West Antelope II Coal Lease Application 6-9 
6.0 References Cited 

Langston, Tom, 2005, Director, Gillette Department of Community 

Development. Personal communication with R. Dutton. 2005. 

Law, B.E., 1976, Large-scale compaction structures in the coal/bearing Fort 

Union and Wasatch Formations, northeast Powder River Basin, Wyoming: in 

Wyoming Geological Association: Guidebook on geology and energy resources 

of the Powder River Basin, pp. 221-229. 

LeCompte, J., and Anderson, J.L., 1982, History of Northern Campbell County 

and the Rawhide Mine Permit Area, Wyoming. Pioneer Archaeological 

Consultants, Longmont, Colorado. Report on file at the Department of 

Environmental Quality, Land Quality Division, Cheyenne, Wyoming. 

Leon, Chuck. 2007. Memorial Hospital of Converse County Ambulance Service. 

Personal communication with R. Dutton, Sammons/Dutton LLC, April 21, 

2007. 

Lewis, B.D. and W.R. Hotchkiss, 1981, Thickness, percent sand, and 

configuration of shallow hydrogeological units in the Powder River Basin, 

Montana and Wyoming. U.S. Geological Survey, Misc. Investigations Series 

Map I-1317. 

Martin, L.J., D.L. Naftz, H.W. Lowham, and J.G. Rankl, 1988, Cumulative 

potential hydrologic impacts of surface coal mining in the eastern Powder River 

Structural Basin, northeastern Wyoming (CHIA). U.S. Geological Survey, Water 

Resources Investigations Report 88-4046. Prepared in cooperation with WDEQ 

and OSM, Cheyenne, Wyoming. 

Martin, W., 1999, Archaeological Investigations Along the Wyoming Segment of 

the Express Pipeline, in Contributions to Archaeology, Volume 5. Project 

Synthesis, pp. 4-1, 4-22. William Martin and Craig S. Smith, series editors. 

TRC Mariah Associates Inc., Laramie, Wyoming. 

McVehil-Monnett Associates (MMA), 1997, NO2 Concentrations in Northeastern 

Wyoming: Historical Data and Projections. Report prepared and submitted to 

WDEQ/AQD July 1997. 

, 2005, Antelope Mine - West Antelope North (WAN) Pit Noise Modeling 

Scenario, (1856-04), Englewood, Colorado. 

, 2007, Draft Air Quality Technical Support Document (AQTSD) for the 

West Antelope II LBA, Englewood, Colorado, March 2007. 

Minerals Management Service 2006, Mineral Revenue Management, Federal 

Mineral Royalty Revenue Reported and Disbursed, By State and Commodity. 

Available from website on the Internet: 

<http://ww.mrm.mms.gov/MRMwebStats>. 

6-10 Draft EIS, West Antelope II Coal Lease Application 
 

6.0 References Cited 

Munson, Gene and Ferguson, David, 1996, Class III Cultural Resource 

Inventory of the LLCLE (Fiddleback) Land Exchange, Converse and Campbell 

Counties, Wyoming. Forest Service CRM Number MB-09-96-02. Prepared for 

Medicine Bow National Forest, Thunder Basin National Grassland, Douglas 

Ranger District, Region 2, USDA Forest Service by GCM Services, Inc., Butte, 

MT. 

National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners, 2007, Committee on 

Energy Resources and the Environment, Resolution on State Regulatory 

Policies Toward Climate Change, adopted 11/14/2007. Available from website 

on the Internet: <http://www.naruc.org> accessed on 12/21/2007. 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 1969, 

Climatography of the United States: Asheville, North Carolina, National 

Climatic Center, Climatological Summaries, No. 20-48. 

Naugle, D.E., C.L. Aldridge, B.L. Walker, T.E. Cornish, B.J. Moynihan, M.J. 

Holloran, K. Brown, G.D. Johnson, E.T. Schimidtman, R.T. Mayer, C.Y. Kato, 

M.R. Matchett, T.J. Christiansen, W.E. Cook, T. Creekmore, R.D. Falise, E.T. 

Rinkes, and M.S. Boyce, 2004, West Nile Virus: a pending crisis for greater 

sage-grouse. Ecology Letters, Vol. 7, p. 704-713. 

Naugle, D.E., K.E. Doherty, and B.L. Walker, 2006, Sage-grouse Winter Habitat 

Selection and Energy Development in the Powder River Basin: Completion 

Report. Available from website on the Internet as of August 2006: 

<http://www.voiceofthewild.org/sagegrousestudies>. 

Niering, W.A., 1985, Wetlands. Chanticlear Press, Inc., New York, New York. 

638 pages. 

Oedekoven, O.O., 2001, Sage Grouse Job Completion Report, Sheridan Region, 

Wyoming Game and Fish Department. 

Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM), 1984, 

Correlation and effect of mine facility wells on the Tullock Aquifer in the 

Gillette, Wyoming, vicinity. Prepared by G.E. McIntosh, C.A. Harrison and J.V. 

Wilcox. 

Ogle, K. M., 2004, Spatial Examination of Backfill Aquifer Water Quality, 

Powder River Basin, Wyoming Using GIS. Paper presented at the 2004 

Advanced Integration of Geospatial Technologies in Mining and Reclamation, 

December 7-9, 2004, Atlanta GA. 

Ogle, K.M., M. Calle, and D.N. Dornak, 2006, Cumulative Hydrological Impact 

Assessment (CHIA) of Coal Mining in the Southern Powder River Basin, 

Wyoming. Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality, Land Quality 

Division, WDEQ-CHIA-18. 

Draft EIS, West Antelope II Coal Lease Application 6-11 
6.0 References Cited 

Pitchford, M.L. and W.C. Malm, 1994, Development and Applications of a 

Standard Visual Index, in Atmospheric Environment, 28(5): 1,049-54. 

Peterson, R. T. 1990. A Field Guide to Western Birds. Houghton Mifflin Co., 

Boston. 

Petersen, Steve. City of Gillette Engineering Department. Personal 

communication with G. Blankenship, Blankenship Consulting LLC. April 20, 

2007. 

Powder River Eagle Studies (PRES), 1999, Baseline Report for Antelope Coal 

Mine’s Horse Creek Extension. Submitted to Wyoming Department of Land 

Quality/Land Quality Division by Antelope Coal Company. 

Rahn, P.H., 1976, Potential for Coal Strip-Mine Spoils as Aquifers in the 

Powder River Basin: Project Completion Report Prepared for Old West Regional 

Committee, Project No. 10470025. 

Reckner, Ronald L. 1986. Soil Survey of Converse County, Wyoming, Northern 

Part. USDA-SCS. 

Rehm, B.W., G.H. Groenewold, and K.A. Morin, 1980, Hydraulic properties of 

coal and related materials. Northern Great Plains: Groundwater, v. 18, no. 6, 

pp 551-561. 

Reuters, 2007, "CONSOL Energy, Pittsburg and Midway Coal Announce 

Venture to Develop New Powder River Basin Coal Mine", April 24. 

Rising, J.D. 1997. A Guide to the Identification and Natural History of the 

Sparrows of the United States and Canada. Academic Press, San Diego, 

California. 

ROMCOE, 1982, Center for Environmental Problem Solving, Rapid Growth 

Communities Project, Community Profiles. Boulder Colorado, July 1982. 

Schneider, E.A., J. Johnston, and J. Lowe, 2000, Appendices D-2 and D-3A for 

the Buckskin Mine Expansion Permit. Report prepared for Triton Coal 

Company’s Buckskin Mine by TRC Mariah Associates, Inc., Laramie, Wyoming. 

Scire, J.S., D.S. Strimitis, and R.J. Yamartino, 1999a, A User’s Guide for the 

CALPUFF Dispersion Model (Version 5.0). Earth Tech, Inc., Concord, 

Massachusetts. October 1999. 

Scire, J.S., F.R. Robe, M.E. Fernau, and R.J. Yamartino, 1999b, A User’s Guide 

for the CALMET Meteorological Model (Version 5.0). Earth Tech, Inc., Concord, 

Massachusetts. September 1999. 

6-12 Draft EIS, West Antelope II Coal Lease Application 
6.0 References Cited 

Shelley, Kevin, 1992, Habitat Reclamation for Birds and Small Mammals on 

Surface Mined Lands in the Powder River Basin, Wyoming. M.S. Thesis 

Department of Zoology and Physiology, University of Wyoming, Laramie, 

Wyoming. 

Sheridan Press, 2006, “Rails try to keep up with Wyoming coal production”, 

UP, January 9. 

Shorma, G., 2005, Personal communication between G. Shorma, Regional 

Supervisor, Wyoming Game and Fish Department, Sheridan, Wyoming, and B. 

Strom, ENSR, May 20, 2005. 

Spencer, D.R., 2004, Personal communication between D.R. Spencer, 

Northeast Region Director, Wyoming Business Council and G. Blankenship, 

Blankenship Consulting, LLC, April and July, 2004. 

Stratham, A., 2005, Personal communication between A. Stratham, Wyoming 

Game and Fish Department and B. Strom, ENSR, May 12, 2005. 

Sugnet and Associates. 1999. Appendix D7, Soils, Environmental Baseline 

Study, Horse Creek Permit Area, Converse and Campbell Counties, Wyoming. 

Prepared for Kennecott Energy, Gillette, Wyoming. April 1999. 

Sundstrom, C., W. G. Hepworth, and K. L. Diem. 1973. Abundance, 

distribution, and food habits of pronghorn. Wyoming Game and Fish 

Commission, Bulletin Number. 12. 

Sweeney, B. 2004. Director of Public Works, City of Douglas, Wyoming. 

Personal communication with G. Blankenship, Blankenship Consulting, LLC. 

June 7, 2004. 

The Wildlife Society (TWS) Wyoming Chapter, 1990, Report on Standardized 

Definitions for Seasonal Wildlife Ranges. July 1990. 

Thunder Basin Coal Company (TBCC), 2002, Black Thunder Mine Report for 

Development of Safe Setback Distances for Blasting Activities at the Black 

Thunder Mine, dated July 2002. 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE), 1987, Corps of Engineers Wetlands 

Delineation Manual, by the Environmental Laboratory, Department of the 

Army, Waterways Experiment Station. 

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2007, Local Area Unemployment Statistics – 

1997 to 2006, Not Seasonally Adjusted. Available from website on the Internet: 

<http://data.bls.gov/>. 

U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, 2006, Regional Economic Information 

System – Full-time and Part-time Employment by NAICS, 1969 – 2004 and 

Draft EIS, West Antelope II Coal Lease Application 6-13 
6.0 References Cited 

Personal Income and Earnings NAICS, 1969 – 2004, Available from website on 

the Internet: <http://www.bea.gov/regional/index.htm#state>. 

U.S. Census Bureau, 2000, Housing-Physical Characteristics data from 2000 

census. Campbell County and Gillette, Wyoming. Available from website on 

the Internet as of December 2005: <http://factfinder.census.gov/>. 

, 2001, 2000 Census of Population and Housing – Wyoming. Available 

from website on the Internet: <http://www.census.gov>. 

, 2006a, Annual Estimates of Housing Unit Counts in Wyoming: April 1, 

2000 to July 1, 2005 (HU-EST2005-04-56), August 21, 2006, Available from 

website on the Internet: <http://www.census.gov/popest/housing/HUEST2005-4.html>. 

, 2006b, Annual Estimates of Population for Counties of Wyoming: April 

1, 2000 to July 1, 2006 (CO-EST2006-01-56), August 21, 2006, Available from 

website on the Internet: <http://www.census.gov/popest/counties/COEST2006-01.html>. 

, 2007, Annual Estimates of the Population for Counties of Wyoming: 

April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2006 (CO-EST2006-01-06). Available from website on 

the Internet: <http://www.census.gov/popest/cities/CO-EST2006-01.html>. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture-Forest Service (USDA-FS), n.d., Land Use 

Summary Report for Project LA-WY-1, Land Acquisitions File, USDA-FS 

Permanent Records, Douglas District Office, Resettlement Program, homestead 

files. 

, 2001, Land and Resource Management Plan for the Thunder Basin 

National Grassland, Medicine Bow-Routt National Forest, Rocky Mountain 

Region. 

U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration, 2006, Annual
 


Coal Report - 2005, DOE/EIA 0584 (2005), October. Available from website on 
 

the Internet: 
 

<http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/coal/page/acr/acr_sum.html>. 
 

, 2007a, 2006 Annual Coal Report, DOE/EIA-0584 (2006), November 

, 2007b, Emissions of Greenhouse Gases in the United States 2006, 

DOE/EIA-0573 (2006), November 2007 

, 2007c, Annual Energy Review 2006, Chapter 7, Coal. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 2001a, Region 8 comment letter 

to Nancy Doelger, BLM, on the North Jacobs Ranch Coal Lease Application 

6-14 Draft EIS, West Antelope II Coal Lease Application 

2007 
 

6.0 References Cited 

DEIS, dated March 1. Reference to WMA Report “PRB Short-Term Exposure 

NO2 Study”, April 2000. 

, 2001b, Visibility in Mandatory Federal Class I Areas (1994-1998): A 

Report to Congress, Executive Summary, November 2001. 

, 2003, Region 8 comment letter to Nancy Doelger, BLM, on the South 

Powder River Basin Coal DEIS dated April 16. Reference to air quality, 

nitrogen dioxide. 

, 2005a, AirData Monitor Values Report – Criteria Air Pollutants (PM10) 

and Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) for Campbell and Converse Counties, Wyoming. 

Available from website on the Internet as of April 2005: 

<http://oaspub.epa.gov/pls/airsdata/adaqs.monvals>. 

, 2005b, Effects of Acid Rain: Lakes and Streams. Available from website 

on the Internet as of April 2005 : <http:// www.epa.gov /airmarkets/ acidrain 

/effects/surfacewater.html>. 

, 2007a, Particle Pollution, Health and Environment. Available from 

website on the Internet as of April 2007: 

<http://www.epa.gov/airparticlepollution/health.html>. 

, 2007b, “NOx: What is it? Where does it come from?” Available from 

website on the Internet as of April 2007 : 

<http://www.epa.gov/air/urbanair/nox/what.html>. 

, 2007c NOx information. Available from website on the Internet as of 

April 2007: 

<http://www.epa.gov/air/urbanair/nox/chf.html>. 

, 2007d, EPA Fact sheets. Available from website on the Internet as of 

April 2007: <http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/naaqsfin>. 

, 2007e, Clean Air Mercury Rule, Available from website on the Internet: 

< http://www.epa.gov/air/mercury rule>. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 2000a, 12-month administrative 

finding for a petition to list the black-tailed prairie dog from the National 

Wildlife Federation, dated July 30, 1998. Available from website on the Internet 

as of August 2000: <http://www.r6.fws.gov/btprairiedog>. 

, 2000b, 12-month finding for a petition to list the black-tailed prairie 

dog as threatened. Federal Register 65(24): 5476 – 5488. 

, 2001, Annual notice of findings on recycled petitions. Federal Register 

66(5):1295 – 1300. 

Draft EIS, West Antelope II Coal Lease Application 6-15 
 

6.0 References Cited 

, 2002a, Memorandum from Mike Long, Field Supervisor, USFWS 

Wyoming Field Office, Cheyenne, Wyoming to BLM Casper Field Office 

Manager, Casper, Wyoming, dated June 7, 2002. 

, 2002b, Coal Mine List of Migratory Bird Species of Management 

Concern in Wyoming, based on Wyoming Bird Conservation Plan, Version 1.0, 

report available from Wyoming Field Office, Cheyenne, Wyoming. 

, 2003, Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; withdrawal of the 

proposed rule to list the mountain plover as threatened. Federal Register 

68(174): 53083 – 53101. 

, 2004a. Letter to Interested Parties Regarding Black-footed Ferret 

Surveys in Wyoming. File ES-61411/BFF/WY7746, dated February 4, 2004. 

, 2004b. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Finding for the 

Resubmitted Petition To List the Black-Tailed Prairie Dog as Threatened. 

Federal Register 69 (159): 51217. 

, 2005, Memorandum from Brian Kelly, Field Supervisor, USFWS 

Wyoming Field Office, Cheyenne, Wyoming, to James Murkin, BLM Field Office 

Manager, Casper Field Office, Casper, Wyoming, dated February 15, 2005. 

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), 2002, Assessment of Undiscovered Oil and Gas 

Resources of the Powder River Basin Province of Wyoming and Montana, 2002. 

U.S. Geological Survey National Oil and Gas Assessment Fact Sheet FS 146-02. 

, 2004, Quaternary Fault and Fold Database for the United States. 

Available from website on the Internet as of December 2004: 

<http://earthquake.usgs.gov/regional/states.php>. 

, 2006, “Assessment of Undiscovered Oil and Gas Resources of the 

Powder River Basin Province of Wyoming and Montana – 2006 Update”. Fact 

Sheet 2006-3135 

Van Voast, W.A., R.B. Hedges, and J.J. McDermott, 1978, Hydrologic 

Characteristics in Coal Mine Spoils, Southeastern Montana, Montana Bureau 

of Mines and Geology, Bull. 102, 43p. 

Van Voast, W.A., and J.C. Reiten, 1988, Hydrogeologic responses: Twenty years 

of surface coal mining in southeastern Montana: Montana Bureau of Mines 

and Geology Memoir 62. 30 p., 2 sheet(s) 

Vickery, P. D. 1996. Grasshopper sparrow (Ammodramus savannarum). In A. 

Poole and F. Gill, editors. The Birds of North America, Number 239. The 

Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and The American 

Ornithologists’ Union, Washington, D.C. 

6-16 Draft EIS, West Antelope II Coal Lease Application 
6.0 References Cited 

Vonsik, Brenda, 2005, Campbell County Fire Department. Gillette, Wyoming. 

Personal communication with B. Strom, Planers, Inc. January 14, 2005. 

Waters, T.F., 1995, Sediment in Streams, Sources, Biological Effects and 

Control. American Fisheries Society Monograph 7, 251 pp. 

Westerman, J.W. and C. Prink, 2004, Soils Survey of Campbell County, 

Wyoming, Southern Part. USDA-Natural Resources Conservation Service, in 

cooperation with USDI-Bureau of Land Management, USDA-Forest Service, and 

Wyoming Agricultural Experiment Station. 

Western Regional Climate Center (WRCC), 2007, Historical climatological data 

for the Wright Station. Available from website on the Internet as of February 

2007:<www.wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/>. 

Western Water Consultants. 2004. Appendix D7, Soils, Environmental Baseline 

Study, Western Antelope Permit Area. James Nyenhuis, Certified Professional 

Soil Scientist. October 2004. 

Winterfeld, G.F., 1978, Unpublished field notes, surveys of coal mines in 

Powder River Basin, Wyoming. 

Wisdom, M.J., B.C. Wales, M.M. Rowland, M.G. Faphael, R.S. Holthausen, T.D. 

Rich, and V.A. Saab, 2002, Performance of Greater Sage-Grouse Models for 

Conservation Assessment in Interior Columbia Basin, USA Conservation 

Biology, 16: 1232-1242. 

Wyoming Consensus Revenue Estimating Group (CREG), 2006, Wyoming State 

Government Revenue Forecast, Fiscal Year 2007 – Fiscal Year 2012, October 

2006. Available from website on the Internet: 

<http://eadiv.state.wy.us/creg/GreenCREG_Oct06.pdf>. 

, 2007, Wyoming State Government Revenue Forecast, Fiscal Year 2007 – 

Fiscal Year 2012, January 2007. Available from website on the Internet: 

<http://eadiv.state.wy.us/creg/GreenCREG_Jan07.pdf>. 

Wyoming Department of Administration and Information, 2006, Economic 

Analysis Division, Wyoming Cost of Living for the Fourth Quarter 2005. 

Available from website on the Internet: 

<http://eadiv.state.wy.us/housing/housing.html>. 

, 2007, Economic Analysis Division, Wyoming Cost of Living for the 

Fourth Quarter 2006. Available from website on the Internet: 

<http://eadiv.state.wy.us/wcli/wcli.html>. 

Wyoming Department of Education, 2006, Statistical Report Series, Report No. 

1, 2 and 3. Available from website on the Internet: 

<http://www.k12.wy.us/statistics/index.html>. 

Draft EIS, West Antelope II Coal Lease Application 6-17 
6.0 References Cited 

, 2007, Statistical Report Series No. 2 – 2005 Wyoming School Districts’ 

Fall Report of Staff and Enrollment. Available from website on the Internet: 

<http://www.k12.wy.us/statistics/stat2.aspx. 

Wyoming Department of Employment, 1990, Office of the State Inspector of 

Mines, Annual Report for the Year Ending December 31, 1990. 

, 1995, Office of the State Inspector of Mines, Annual Report for the Year 

Ending December 31, 1995. 

, 1997, Office of the State Inspector of Mines, Annual Report for the Year 

Ending December 31, 1997. 

, 1998, Office of the State Inspector of Mines, Annual Report for the Year 

Ending December 31, 1998. 

, 1999, Office of the State Inspector of Mines, Annual Report for the Year 

Ending December 31, 1999. 

, 2000, Office of the State Inspector of Mines, Annual Report for the Year 

Ending December 31, 2000. 

, 2001, Office of the State Inspector of Mines, Annual Report for the Year 

Ending December 31, 2001. 

, 2002, Office of the State Inspector of Mines, Annual Report for the Year 

Ending December 31, 2002. 

, 2003, Office of the State Inspector of Mines, Annual Report for the Year 

Ending December 31, 2003. 

, 2004, Office of the State Inspector of Mines, Annual Report for the Year 

Ending December 31, 2004. 

, 2007a, Office of the State Inspector of Mines, Annual Report for the 

Year Ending December 31, 2006. 

, 2007b, Labor Market Information – Quarterly Census of Employment 

and Earnings, 2003 through 2006. Available from website on the Internet: 

<http://doe.state.wy.us/lmi>. 

Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality/Air Quality Division 

(WDEQ/AQD), 2005a, Wyoming Visibility Monitoring Network. Available from 

website on the Internet as of February 2005: 

<http://www.wyvisnet.com/all.html>. 

, 2005b, TSP data available from website on the Internet as of December, 

2005: <http://deq.state.wy.us/aqd/downloads/AirMonitor>. 

6-18 Draft EIS, West Antelope II Coal Lease Application 
 

6.0 References Cited 

, 2005c, Powder River Basin coal mines, coal and overburden production, 

provided by Judy Shamley, Senior Engineering Analyst, Sheridan District 

Office, April 3, 2005. 

, 2005d, Wyoming’s Long Term Strategy for Visibility Protection, Final 

2003 Review Report, May 29, 2003. Available from website on the Internet as 

of April 2005: <http://deq.state.wy.us/aqd/prop/2003%20LTSReview.pdf>. 

, 2006a, Natural Events Action Plan for the Coal Mines of the Powder 

River Basin of Campbell and Converse Counties, Wyoming, October 2006: 

Available from website on the Internet as of 8/2007 at: 

<http://deq.state.wy.us/aqd/NEAP.asp>. 

, 2006b, PRB Coal Mine Permitting Guidance Memorandum. Available 

from website on the Internet as of February 24, 2007: 

<http://deq.state.wy.us/aqd/sec21/PRB%20Permit%20Guidance_4.pdf> 

Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality/Land Quality Division 

(WDEQ/LQD), 1996, Guideline No.1, Soils and Overburden. November 1984, 

Rules Update August 1994, Selenium Update November 1996. 

Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality/Industrial Siting Division 

(WDEQ/ISD), 2007, Industrial Siting News: Basin Electric Awarded Permit. 

Available from website on the Internet as of March 2007: 

<http://deq.state.wy.us/isd/isdnews.htm>. 

Wyoming Department of Revenue, 2006, Annual Report 2006. Available from 

website on the Internet: 

<http://revenue.state.wy.us/PortalVBVS/DesktopDefault.aspx?tabindex=3&ta 

bid=10>. 

Wyoming Game and Fish Department (WGFD), 2004, Thunder Basin Herd 

Mule Deer Job Completion Report. 

, 2003, Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation Plan, June 24, 

2003. Available from website on the Internet: 

<http://gf.state.wy.us/wildlife/wildlife_management/sage grouse.asp>. 

, 2006, Big Game Job Completion Reports. Available from website on the 

Internet as of November 2007: 

<http://gf.state.wy.us/wildlife/JobCompletionReports/index.asp>. 

Wyoming Housing Database Partnership, 2007, The 2007 Wyoming Housing 

Needs Forecast – Final Report. Available from website on the Internet: 

<http://www.wyomingcda.com/Homebuyer/Home_Demographics.html>. 

Wyoming Mining Association (WMA), 2006, Wyoming Bentonite Page from 

website on the Internet: <http://www.wma-minelife.com/bent/bentmine.htm>. 

Draft EIS, West Antelope II Coal Lease Application 6-19 
6.0 References Cited 

Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (WOGCC), 2004, Wyoming 

Statistics. Available from website on the Internet: 

<http://WOGCC.state.wy.us/cfdocs/2002stats.html>. 

, 2005, Personal communication with W Berg, ENSR, regarding 

Application for Permit to Drill (APD) approvals, April 14, 2005. 

, 2007a, Oil and gas well information from website on the Internet as of 

December 2007: <http://wogc.state.wy.us>. 

, 2007b, Oil and gas well information downloaded from website on the 

Internet as of August 2007: <http://wogcc.state.wy.us>. 

, 2007c, Oil and gas well information downloaded from website on the 

Internet as of April 2007: <http://wogcc.state.wy.us>. 

, 2007d, Presentation by Don Likwartz, Oil and Gas Supervisor, Wyoming 

Natural Gas Fair, September 20, 2007, Available from website on the 

Internet:<http://wogcc.state.wy.us/2007Gasfair/Presentations.htm>. 

Wyoming School Facilities Commission (WSFC), 2005, Five Year Plan 

Information. Available from website on the Internet:<http://sfc.state.wy.us/ 

DMPInfo.aspx>. 

, 2007, 2007-2008 Biennium Budget Request and Approved Five Year 

Plans. Available from website on the Internet: 

<http://sfc.state.wy.us/DMPInfo.aspx>. 

Wyoming State Board of Equalization, 2007, Wyoming Abstract & Mill Levy 

Report, 2006. Available from website on the Internet: 

<http://taxappeals.state.wy.us/s26abs1valueonly.htm> 

Wyoming State Geological Survey (WSGS), 2002, Wyoming Geo-notes, No. 73, 

April 2002, 44 pp. 

, 2003, Wyoming Geo-Notes No. 78, November 2003, 47 pp. 

, 2004, Digital Industrial Minerals and Construction Materials Map of 

Wyoming, by R.E. Harris. WSGS Map Series MS-47. 

, 2006, Wyoming State Geological Survey, January-June 2006, “Wyoming 

Mineral Update: Uranium,” Available from website on the Internet: 

<http://www.wsgs.uwyo.edu/djvufirsthalf2006/Uranium%20first%20half%20 

2006.pdf>. 

Wyoming BLM State Office-Reservoir Management Group (WSO-RMG), 2005, 

Personal communication with W. Berg and D. Dufresne, ENSR, March and 

April 2005. 

6-20 Draft EIS, West Antelope II Coal Lease Application 
6.0 References Cited 

, 2006, Review of Coalbed Natural Gas Resources, Production, and 

Economics, Powder River Basin, Wyoming. 

Wyoming Travel and Tourism Division 2007, Wyoming Official Travel Website – 

Places to Stay, by Town. Available from website on the Internet: 

<http://www.wyomingtourism.org>. 

Draft EIS, West Antelope II Coal Lease Application 6-21 
7.0 Glossary 

7.0 GLOSSARY 

aboriginal - Related to early or primitive cultures in a region. 

ad valorem tax - A tax paid as a percentage of the assessed value of property. 

adverse impact - An apparent direct or indirect detrimental effect. 

aliquot - An exact portion. 

alkalinity - The degree to which the pH of a substance is greater than 7. 

alluvial deposit - Deposits of clay, silt, sand, gravel, and/or other materials 

carried by moving surface water, such as streams, and deposited at points of 

weak water flow; alluvium. 

alluvial valley floor (AVF) - An area of unconsolidated stream-laid deposits 

holding streams with water availability sufficient for subirrigation or flood 

irrigation agricultural activities (see 30 CFR 701.5). 

alluvium - Sorted or semi-sorted sediment consisting of clay, silt, sand, gravel, 

or other unconsolidated rock material deposited in comparatively recent 

geologic time by a stream or other body of running water in the bed of that 

stream or on its flood plain or delta. 

alternative - In terms of the National Environmental Policy Act, one of several 

substitute or alternate proposals that a federal agency is considering in an 

environmental analysis. 

ambient - Surrounding conditions (or environment) in a given place and time. 

annual precipitation - The quantity of water that falls yearly in the form of 

rain, hail, sleet, and snow. 

approximate original contour - Post-mining surface configuration achieved 

by backfilling and grading of mined-out areas so that the reclaimed land 

surface resembles the general surface configuration of the land prior to mining 

(see 30 CFR 701.5). 

aquatic - Living or growing in or on the water. 

aquifer - A layer of permeable rock, sand, or gravel that stores and transmits 

water in sufficient quantities for a specific use. 

aquitard - A confining bed that retards but does not totally prevent the flow of 

water to or from an adjacent aquifer; a leaky confining bed. 

Draft EIS, West Antelope II Coal Lease Application 7-1 
7.0 Glossary 

area source – A plant site that does not emit any single HAP at a rate of 10 

tons or greater per year, or any combination of HAPs at a rate of 25 tons or 

greater per year. 

arithmetic mean - The sum of the values of n numbers divided by n. It is 

usually referred to as simply the “mean” or “average”. 

ash - The residual non-combustible matter in coal that comes from included 

silt, clay, silica, or other substances. The lower the ash content, the better the 

quality of the coal. 

avian - Of, relating to, or derived from birds. 

backfill - The operation of refilling an excavation. Also, the material placed in 

an excavation when it is refilled. 

baseline - Conditions, including trends, existing in the human environment 

before a proposed action is begun; a benchmark state from which the 

environmental consequences of an action are forecast; the no-action 

alternative. 

beneficial impact - An apparent direct or indirect advantageous effect. 

bentonite - A clay formed by the decomposition of volcanic ash which has the 

ability to absorb large amounts of water and to expand to several times its 

normal volume; used in adhesives, cements and ceramic fillers. 

bonus - That value in excess of the rentals and royalties that is paid to the 

United States as part of the consideration for receiving a lease for publicly 

owned minerals [see 43 CFR 3400.0-5(c)]. 

braided stream - A stream flowing in several dividing and reuniting channels 

resembling the strands of a braid. 

buffer zone - An area between two different land uses that is intended to 

resist, absorb, or otherwise preclude development or intrusion between the two 

use areas. 

bypass coal - An isolated part of a coal deposit that is not leased and that can 

only be economically mined in an environmentally sound manner as a part of 

continued mining by an existing adjacent operation [see 43 CFR 3400.0.5(d)]. 

clinker (scoria) - Baked and fused rock resulting from in-place burning of coal 

deposits. 

coal bed natural gas (CBNG) - Natural gas (methane) that is generated during 

the coal-forming process. 

7-2 Draft EIS, West Antelope II Coal Lease Application 
7.0 Glossary 

colluvium - Rock fragments, sand, or soil material that accumulates at the 

base of slopes; slope wash. 

confluence - The point at which two or more streams meet. 

conglomerate - A rock that contains rounded rock fragments or pebbles 

cemented together by another mineral substance. 

contiguous - Lands or legal subdivisions having a common boundary, lands 

having only a common corner are not contiguous. 

cooperating agency - An agency which has jurisdiction by law in an action 

being analyzed in an environmental document and who is requested to 

participate in the NEPA process by the agency that is responsible for preparing 

the environmental document [see 40 CFR 1501.6 and 1508.5]. 

crucial wildlife habitat - Parts of the habitat necessary to sustain a wildlife 

population during periods of their life cycle. It may be a limiting factor on the 

population, such as nesting habitat or winter habitat. 

cultural resources - The remains of human activity, occupation, or endeavor 

reflected in districts, sites, structures, buildings, objects, artifacts, ruins, 

works of art, architecture, and natural features that reveal the nature of 

historic and prehistoric human events. These resources consist of (1) physical 

remains, (2) areas where significant human events occurred, and (3) the 

environment immediately surrounding the resource. 

cumulative impact - The impact on the environment which results from the 

incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (federal or nonfederal) or person undertakes such other actions. Cumulative impacts can 

result from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place 

over a period of time (40 CFR 1508.7). 

decibel - A unit of sound measurement. In general, a sound doubles in 

loudness for every increase of 10 decibels. 

deciview (dv) - A general measure of view impairment (13 deciview equals a 

view of approximately 60 miles) caused by pollution. A 10 percent change in 

extinction corresponds to 1.0 dv. 

dip - The angle at which a rock layer is inclined from the horizontal. 

direct (or primary) impact - An impact caused by an action that occurs at the 

same time and place as the action (see 40 CFR 1508.8). 

discharge - Any of the ways that ground water comes out of the surface, 

including through springs, creeks, or being pumped from a well. 

Draft EIS, West Antelope II Coal Lease Application 7-3 
7.0 Glossary 

dissected upland - An upland or high area in which a large part of the original 

surface has been deeply cut into by streams. 

dragline - A type of excavating crane that casts a rope- or cable-hung bucket a 

considerable distance, collects the dug material by pulling the bucket toward 

itself on the ground with a second rope or cable, elevates the bucket, and 

dumps the material on a backfill bank or pile. 

eolian deposit - Sediment carried, formed, or deposited by the wind, as sand 

dunes. 

ephemeral stream - A stream that flows occasionally because of surface 

runoff, and is not influenced by permanent ground water. 

erosion - The wearing away of the land surface by running water, wind, ice or 

other geologic agents. 

evapotranspiration - The sum total of water lost from the land by evaporation 

and plant transpiration. 

excavation (archeological) - The scientifically controlled recovery of 

subsurface materials and information from a cultural site. Recovery 

techniques are relevant to research problems and are designed to produce 

maximum knowledge about the site's use, its relation to other sites and the 

natural environment, and its significance in the maintenance of the cultural 

system. 

fair market value - The amount in cash, or in terms reasonably equivalent to 

cash, for which in all probability a coal deposit would be sold or leased by a 

knowledgeable owner willing but not obligated to sell or lease to a 

knowledgeable purchaser who desires but is not obligated to buy or lease. 

fixed carbon - In coal, the solid combustible material remaining after removal 

of moisture, ash, and volatile matter. It is expressed as a percentage. 

floodplain - The relatively flat area or lowland adjoining a body of flowing 

water, such as a river or stream, that is covered with water when the river or 

stream overflows its banks. 

forage - Vegetation used for food by wildlife, particularly big game wildlife, and 

domestic livestock. 

formation (geologic) - A rock body distinguishable from other rock bodies and 

useful for mapping or description. Formations may be combined into groups or 

subdivided into members. 

7-4 Draft EIS, West Antelope II Coal Lease Application 
7.0 Glossary 

fossil - The remains or traces of an organism or assemblage of organisms that 

have been preserved by natural processes in the earth's crust. Many minerals 

that may be of biologic origin are not considered to be fossils (e.g. oil, gas, 

asphalt, limestone). 

geometric mean - The nth root of the product of the values of n positive 

numbers. 

ground water - Subsurface water that fills available openings in rock or soil 

materials to the extent that they are considered water saturated. 

habitat - A place where a plant or animal naturally or normally lives and 

grows. 

habituation - The process of becoming accustomed to, or used to, something; 

acclimation. 

hazardous materials - Substance which, because of its potential for 

corrosivity, toxicity, ignitability, chemical reactivity, or explosiveness, may 

cause injury to persons or damage to property. 

hazardous waste - Those materials defined in Section 101 (14) of the 

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 

1980, and listed in 40 CFR § 261. 

heterogenous - Made up of dissimilar constituents. 

human environment - The natural and physical environment and the 

relationship of people with that environment (see 30 CFR 1508.14). 

hydraulic conductivity - The capacity of a medium to transmit water; 

permeability coefficient. Expressed as the volume of water at the prevailing 

temperature that will move in unit time under a unit hydraulic gradient 

through a unit area. Units include gallons per day per square foot, centimeters 

per second. 

hydraulic - Pertaining to fluid in motion, or to movement or action caused by 

water. 

hydric soil - A soil that is saturated, flooded, or ponded long enough during 

the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions that favor the growth and 

regeneration of hydrophytic (water-loving) vegetation. Hydric soils that occur in 

areas having positive indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland 

hydrology are wetland soils. 

hydrocarbon - Any organic compound, gaseous, liquid, or solid, consisting 

solely of carbon and hydrogen. 

Draft EIS, West Antelope II Coal Lease Application 7-5 
7.0 Glossary 

hydrogeology - The science that deals with subsurface waters and with related 

geologic aspects of surface waters. 

hydrology - The science dealing with the behavior of water as it occurs in the 

atmosphere, on the surface of the ground, and underground. 

hydrophytic vegetation - The plant life growing in water or on a substrate 

that is at least periodically deficient in oxygen as a result of excessive water 

content. When hydrophytic vegetation comprises a community where 

indicators of hydric soils and wetland hydrology also occur, the area has 

wetland vegetation. 

impermeable - Not capable of transmitting fluids or gasses in appreciable 

quantities. 

incised - Having a margin that is deeply and sharply notched. 

indirect (or secondary) impact - A reasonably foreseeable impact resulting 

from an action but occurring later in time than or removed in distance from 

that action (see 40 CFR 1508.8). 

in-place coal reserves - The estimated volume of all of the coal reserves in a 

lease without considering economic or technological factors that might restrict 

mining. 

in-situ leach mining - Removal of the valuable components of a mineral 

deposit through chemical leaching without physical extraction of the rock. 

interbedded - Layers of one type of rock, typically thin, that are laid between 

or that alternate with layers of another type of rock. 

interburden - A layer of sedimentary rock that separates two mineable coal 

beds. 

interdisciplinary - Characterized by participation or cooperation among two or 

more disciplines or fields of study. 

intermittent stream - A stream that does not flow year-round but has some 

association with ground water for surface or subsurface flow. 

laminated - Consolidated or unconsolidated sediment that is characterized by 

thin (less than 1 cm thick) layers. 

land and resource management plan (LRMP) - A land use plan that directs 

the use and allocation of U.S. Forest Service lands and resources. 

lead agency - The agency or agencies preparing or having taken primary 

responsibility for preparing an environmental document (see 40 CFR 1508.16). 

7-6 Draft EIS, West Antelope II Coal Lease Application 
7.0 Glossary 

lease (mineral) - A legal document executed between a mineral owner or lessor 

and another party or lessee which grants the lessee the right to extract 

minerals from the tract of land for which the lease has been obtained [see 43 

CFR 3400.0-5(r)]. 

lek - A traditional breeding area for grouse species where territorial males 

display and establish dominance. 

lenticular - Term describing a body of rock or earth that thins out in all 

directions from the center like a double convex optical lens. 

limb (geologic) - One side of a fold (syncline or anticline). 

limestone - A sedimentary rock consisting chiefly of calcium carbonate. 

lineament - A linear topographic feature of regional extent that is believed to 

reflect crustal structure. 

loadout facilities - The mine facilities used to load the mined coal for 

transport out of the mine. 

loam - A rich, permeable soil composed of a mixture of clay, silt, sand, and 

organic matter. 

maintenance tract - A federal coal tract that would continue or extend the life 

of an existing coal mine. 

major federal action - An action with effects that may be major and which is 

potentially subject to federal control and responsibility (see 40 CFR 1508.18). 

major sources – Those sources that emit more than 10 tons per year of any 

single hazardous air pollutant, or 25 tons of all hazardous air pollutants 

combined. The determination of major is based on all sources of hazardous air 

pollutants at the site, and not just the equipment affected by the MACT 

standard. 

maximum economic recovery (MER) - The requirement that, based on 

standard industry operating practices, all profitable portions of a leased federal 

coal deposit must be mined. MER determinations will consider existing proven 

technology; commercially available and economically feasible equipment; coal 

quality, quantity, and marketability; safety, exploration, operating, processing, 

and transportation costs; and compliance with applicable laws and regulations 

[see 43 CFR 3480.0-5(a)(24)]. 

meteorological - Related to the science dealing with the atmosphere and its 

phenomena, especially as relating to weather. 

Draft EIS, West Antelope II Coal Lease Application 7-7 
7.0 Glossary 

methane - A colorless, odorless, and inflammable gas; the simplest 

hydrocarbon; chemical formula = CH4. It is the principal constituent of natural 

gas and is also found associated with crude oil and coal. 

mineable coal - Coal that can be economically mined using present day 

mining technology. 

mineral rights - The rights of one who owns the mineral estate (subsurface). 

mining permit - A permit to conduct surface coal mining and reclamation 

operations issued by the state regulatory authority pursuant to a state program 

or by the Secretary pursuant to a federal program (see 30 CFR 701.5). 

mitigation - An action to avoid, minimize, reduce, eliminate, replace, or rectify 

the impact of a management practice. 

mudstone - A hardened sedimentary rock consisting of clay. It is similar to 

shale but lacks distinct layers. 

National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) - A list of districts, sites, 

buildings, structures and objects significant in American history, architecture, 

archeology and culture maintained by the Secretary of the Interior. Expanded 

as authorized by Section 2(b) of the Historic Sites Act of 1935 (16 U.S.C. 462) 

and Section 101(a)(1) (A) of the National Historic Preservation Act. 

natural gas - Combustible gases (such as hydrocarbons) or mixtures of 

combustible gases and non-combustible gases (such as helium) that are in a 

gaseous phase at atmospheric conditions of temperature and pressure. 

NEPA process - All measures necessary for compliance with the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (see 40 CFR 1508.21). 

No Action Alternative - An alternative where no activity would occur. The 

development of a no action alternative is required by regulations implementing 

the National Environmental Policy Act (40 CFR 1502.14). The No Action 

Alternative provides a baseline for estimating the effects of other alternatives. 

outcrop - A rock formation that appears at or near the surface; the intersection 

of a rock formation with the surface. 

overburden - Material of any nature, consolidated or unconsolidated, that 

overlies a coal or other useful mineral deposit, excluding topsoil. 

paleontological resource - A site containing evidence of plant or non-human 

animal life of past geological periods, usually in the form of fossil remains. 

7-8 Draft EIS, West Antelope II Coal Lease Application 
7.0 Glossary 

peak discharge or flow - The highest discharge of water recorded over a 

specified period of time at a given stream location; also called maximum flow. 

Often thought of in terms of spring snowmelt, summer, fall or winter rainy 

season flows. 

perennial species (vegetation) - Vegetation that lives over from season to 

season. 

perennial stream - A stream or part of a stream that flows continuously 

during the calendar year as a result of groundwater discharge or surface 

runoff. 

permeability - The ability of rock or soil to transmit a fluid. 

permit application package - A proposal to conduct surface coal mining and 

reclamation operations on federal lands, including an application for a permit, 

permit revision, or permit renewal and all the information required by SMCRA, 

the applicable state program, any applicable cooperative agreement, and all 

other applicable laws and regulations including, with respect to federal leased 

coal, the Mineral Leasing Act and its implementing regulations. 

permit area - The area of land, indicated on the approved map submitted by 

the operator with his or her application, required to be covered by the 

operator’s performance bond under the regulations at 30 CFR Part 800 and 

which shall include the area of land upon which the operator proposes to 

conduct surface coal mining and reclamation operations under the permit, 

including all disturbed areas (see 30 CFR 701.5). 

physiography - Physical geography. 

piezometer - A well, generally of small diameter, that is used to measure the 

elevation of the water table. 

playa - The sandy, salty, or mud-caked flat floor of a basin with interior 

drainage, usually occupied by a shallow ephemeral lake during or after rain or 

snow storms. 

point source (pollution) - A point at which pollution is added to a system, 

either instantaneously or continuously. An example is a smokestack. 

pore volume - The amount of fluid necessary to fill the void space in an 

unsaturated porus medium (i.e., mine backfill). 

porosity - The percentage of the bulk volume of rock, sediment or soil that is 

not occupied by sediment or soil particles; the void space in rock or sediment. 

It may be isolated or connected. 

Draft EIS, West Antelope II Coal Lease Application 7-9 
7.0 Glossary 

postmining topography - The relief and contour of the land that remains after 

mining has been completed. 

potentiometric surface - The surface that coincides with the static level of 

water in an aquifer. The surface is represented by the levels to which water 

from a given aquifer will rise under its full hydraulic head. 

predator - An animal that obtains food by killing and consuming other 

animals. 

prime or unique farmland - Those lands which are defined by the Secretary of 

Agriculture in 7 CFR part 657 (Federal Register Vol. 4 No. 21) and which have 

historically been used for cropland (see 30 CFR 701.5). 

proposed action - In terms of National Environmental Policy Act, the project, 

activity, or action that a federal agency proposes to implement or undertake 

and which is the subject of an environmental analysis. 

qualified surface owner - The natural person or persons (or corporation, the 

majority stock of which is held by a person or persons otherwise meeting the 

requirements of this section) who: 

(1) Hold legal or equitable title to the surface of split estate lands; 

(2) Have their principal place of residence on the land, or personally 

conduct farming or ranching operations upon a farm or ranch unit to 

be affected by surface mining operations; or received directly a 

significant portion of their income, if any, from such farming and 

ranching operations; and 

(3) have met the conditions of (1) and (2) above for a period of at least 

three years, except for persons who gave written consent less than 

three years after they met the requirements of both (1) and (2) above 

[see 43 CFR 3400.0-5(gg)]. 

raptor - Bird of prey, such as an eagle, falcon, hawk, owl, or vulture. 

recharge - The processes by which groundwater is absorbed into a zone of 

saturation. 

reclamation - Rehabilitation of a disturbed area to make it acceptable for 

designated uses. This normally involves regrading, replacement of topsoil, 

revegetation and other work necessary to restore the disturbed area for postmining use. 

record of decision (ROD) - A document separate from, but associated with, an 

environmental impact statement that publicly and officially discloses the 

responsible official's decision on the proposed action (see 40 CFR 1505.2). 

recoverable coal - The amount of coal that can actually be recovered for sale 

from the demonstrated coal reserve base. 

7-10 Draft EIS, West Antelope II Coal Lease Application 
7.0 Glossary 

rental payment - Annual payment from a lessee to a lessor to maintain the 

lessee’s mineral lease rights. 

resource management plan (RMP) - A land use plan, as prescribed by FLPMA, 

that directs the use and allocation of public lands and resources managed by 

BLM. Prior to selection of the RMP, different alternative management plans are 

compared and evaluated in an environmental impact statement (EIS) to 

determine which plan will best direct the management of the public lands and 

resources. 

revegetation - The reestablishment and development of self-sustaining plant 

cover following land disturbance. This may occur through natural processes, 

or the natural processes may be enhanced by human assistance through 

seedbed preparation, reseeding, and mulching. 

right of way (ROW) - The right to pass over property owned by another. The 

strip of land over which facilities such as roadways, railroads, or power lines 

are built. 

riparian - The area adjacent to rivers and streams that lies between the stream 

channel and upland terrain and that supports specific vegetation influenced by 

perennial and/or intermittent water. 

royalty (mineral) - A share of production that is free of the expense of 

production. It is generally paid by a lessee to a lessor of a mineral lease as part 

of the terms of the lease. 

runoff - That portion of rainfall that is not absorbed; it may be used by 

vegetation, lost by evaporation, or it may find its way into streams as surface 

flow. 

salinity - Refers to the solids, such as sodium chloride (table salt) and alkali 

metals, that are dissolved in water. Often in non-saltwater areas, total 

dissolved solids is used as an equivalent term. 

sandstone - A common sedimentary rock primarily composed of sand grains, 

mainly quartz, that are cemented together by other mineral material. 

scoping - A public informational process required by the National 

Environmental Policy Act to determine private and public concerns, scope of 

issues, and/or questions regarding a proposed action to be evaluated in an 

environmental impact analysis. 

scoria (clinker) - Baked and fused rock resulting from in-place burning of coal 

deposits. 

Draft EIS, West Antelope II Coal Lease Application 7-11 
7.0 Glossary 

sedimentation pond - An impoundment used to remove solids from water in 

order to meet water quality standards or effluent limitations before the water 

leaves the permit area (see 30 CFR 701.5). 

semi-arid - A climate or region characterized by little yearly rainfall and by the 

growth of a number of short grasses and shrubs. 

severance tax - A tax on the removal of minerals from the ground. 

shale - A very fine-grained clastic rock or sediment consisting predominately of 

clay-sized particles that is laminated; lithified, layered mud. 

significant impact - A qualitative term used to describe the anticipated 

importance of impacts to the human environment as a result of an action. 

siltstone - A fine-grained clastic rock consisting predominately of silt-sized 

particles. 

socioeconomics - The social and economic situation that might be affected by 

a proposed action. 

soil survey - The systematic examination, description, classification, and 

mapping of soils in an area, usually a county. Soil surveys are classified 

according to the level of detail of field examination. Order I is the most detailed 

and Order V is the least detailed. 

spontaneous combustion - The heating and slow combustion of coal and 

coaly material initiated by the absorption of oxygen. 

stipulations - Requirements that are part of the terms of a mineral lease. 

Some stipulations are standard on all Federal leases. Other stipulations may 

be applied to specific leases at the discretion of the surface management 

agency to protect valuable surface resources or uses existing on those leases. 

storage coefficient - The volume of water that can be released from storage 

per unit surface area of a saturated confined aquifer, per unit decline in the 

component of hydraulic head normal to the surface. It is calculated by taking 

the product of the specific storage and the aquifer thickness. 

stratigraphic - Of, relating to, or determined by stratigraphy, which is the 

branch of geology dealing with the study of the nature, distribution, and 

relations of layered rocks in the earth’s crust. 

stripping ratio - The unit amount of overburden that must be removed to gain 

access to a similar unit amount of coal. 

7-12 Draft EIS, West Antelope II Coal Lease Application 
7.0 Glossary 

subirrigation - In alluvial valley floors, the supplying of water to plants from 

underneath, or from a semi-saturated or saturated subsurface zone where 

water is available for use by vegetation (see 30 CFR 701.5). 

subbituminous - A lower rank of coal (35-45 percent carbon) with a heating 

value between that of bituminous and lignite, usually 8,300-11,500 Btu per 

pound. Subbituminous coal contains a high percentage of volatile matter and 

moisture. 

surface disturbance - Any disturbance by mechanical actions that alters the 

soil surface. 

surface rights - Rights to the surface of the land, does not include rights to oil, 

gas, or other subsurface minerals or subsurface rights. 

suspended solids - The very fine soil particles that remain in suspension in 

water for a considerable period of time without contact with the stream or river 

channel bottom. 

tectonic fracture - Fractures caused by deformation of the earth’s crust. 

threatened and endangered (T&E) species - These species of plants or 

animals classified as threatened or endangered pursuant to Section 4 of the 

Endangered Species Act. Any species which is in danger of extinction, or is 

likely to become so within the foreseeable future. 

Category 1 - Substantial biological information on file to support the 

appropriateness of proposing to list as endangered or threatened. 

Category 2 - Current information indicates that proposing to list as 

endangered or threatened is possibly appropriate, but substantial 

biological information is not on file to support an immediate ruling (U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service). 

topography - Physical shape of the ground surface; the configuration of land 

surface including its relief, elevation, and the position of its natural and 

manmade features. 

topsoil - The surface layer of a soil. 

total dissolved solids (TDS) - The total quantity in milligrams per liter of 

dissolved materials in water. 

transmissivity - The rate at which water is transmitted through a unit width 

of an aquifer under a unit hydraulic gradient. Equals the hydraulic 

conductivity multiplied by the aquifer thickness. Values are given in units of 

gallons per day per foot. 

transpiration - The discharge of water vapor by plants. 

Draft EIS, West Antelope II Coal Lease Application 7-13 
7.0 Glossary 

truck & shovel - A mining method used to remove overburden and coal in a 

strip mining operation. Truck and shovel operations use large bucketequipped digging and loading machines (shovels) and large dump trucks to 

remove overburden instead of using a dragline for overburden removal. 

typic - Typical. 

unconfined aquifer - An aquifer where the water table is exposed to the 

atmosphere through openings in the overlying materials. 

unsuitability criteria - The 20 criteria described in 43 CFR 3461, the 

application of which results in an assessment of federal coal lands as suitable 

or unsuitable for surface coal mining. 

uranium - A very hard, heavy, metallic element that is crucial to development 

of atomic energy. 

vegetation type - A kind of existing plant community with distinguishable 

characteristics described in terms of the present vegetation that dominates an 

area. 

vertebrate fossils - The remains of animals that possessed a backbone; 

examples are fish, amphibians, reptiles, dinosaurs, birds, and mammals. 

vesicular - Rock containing many small cavities that were formed by the 

expansion of a bubble of gas or steam during the solidification of the rock. 

visual resources - The physical features of a landscape that can be seen (e.g., 

land, water, vegetation, structures, and other features). 

Visual Resource Management (VRM) - The systematic means to identify 

visual values, establish objectives which provide the standards for managing 

those values, and evaluate the visual impacts of proposed projects to ensure 

that objectives are met. 

volatile matter - In coal, those substances, other than moisture, that are 

given off as gas or vapor during combustion. 

waterfowl - A bird that frequents water, especially a swimming bird. 

wetlands - Those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground 

water at a frequency and duration sufficient, under normal circumstances, to 

support a prevalence of vegetative or aquatic life that requires saturated or 

seasonally saturated soil conditions for growth and reproduction. Wetlands 

include marshes, bogs, sloughs, potholes, river overflows, mud flats, wet 

meadows, seeps, and springs [see 33 CFR 328.3(a)(7)(b)]. 

7-14 Draft EIS, West Antelope II Coal Lease Application 
7.0 Glossary 

wild and scenic river - Rivers or sections of rivers designated by 

Congressional actions under the 1968 Wild and Scenic Rivers Act as wild, 

scenic, or recreational by an act of the Legislature of the state or states through 

which they flow. Wild and scenic rivers may be classified and administered 

under one or more of the following categories: 

wild river areas - Rivers or sections of rivers that are free of 

impoundments and generally inaccessible except by trail, with 

watersheds or shorelines essentially primitive and waters unpolluted. 

These represent vestiges of primitive America. 

scenic river areas - Rivers or sections of rivers that are free of 

impoundments, with watersheds still largely primitive and shorelines 

largely undeveloped, but accessible in places by roads. 

recreational river areas - Rivers or sections of rivers that are readily 

accessible by road or railroad, that may have some development along 

their shorelines, and that may have undergone some impoundment or 

diversion in the past. 

wilderness - An area of undeveloped Federal land designated wilderness by 

Congress, retaining its primeval character and influence, without permanent 

improvements or human habitation, protected and managed to preserve its 

natural conditions and that (1) generally appears to have been affected 

primarily by the forces of nature with the imprint of man's work substantially 

unnoticeable, (2) has outstanding opportunities for solitude or primitive and 

unconfined recreation, (3) has at least 5,000 acres or is of sufficient size to 

make practical its preservation and use in an unimpaired condition, and (4) 

also may contain features that are of ecological, geological, scientific, 

educational, scenic, or historical value. These characteristics were identified 

by Congress in the Wilderness Act of 1964. 

Draft EIS, West Antelope II Coal Lease Application 7-15 
8.0 Index 

8.0 INDEX 

agriculture .........................................	 	ES-13, 2-10, 2-30, 2-36, 3-71, 3-72, 
 

3-73, 3-74, 3-125, 3-132, 4-54, 4-56, 

4-73, 4-75, B-3, H-46, I-19 

alluvial valley floor or AVF..................	 	1-5, 2-10, 3-71, 3-72, 3-73, 3-74, 3-

115, 4-4, 4-56, B-3 

Belle Fourche River ............................	 	3-6, 4-25, 4-52, 4-53, 4-55, 4-56, 4-

67, 4-68, 4-69, 4-72, 4-77, 4-78 

blasting.............................................. ES-9, 1-17, 2-7, 2-10, 3-23, 3-32, 3-

36, 3-37, 3-38, 3-39, 3-40, 3-41, 3-42, 

3-43, 3-47, 3-51, 3-144, 4-48, F-6, F12, F-13 

ES-6, ES-7, ES-16, 1-3, 1-9, 2-23, 2- bonus payment or bonus 

bid payment.......................................
 26, 2-27, 3-128, 3-152, 3-153, 3-154,
 

4-96, 4-97 

coal bed natural gas or CBNG ............	 	ES-5, ES-9, ES-15, ES-18, 1-15, 1-17, 

2-4, 2-23, 2-24, 2-25, 2-28, 2-36, 2-

37, 3-14, 3-15, 3-16, 3-17, 3-18, 3-19, 

3-14, 3-15, 3-16, 3-17, 3-18, 3-19, 3-

23, 3-37, 3-57, 3-59, 3-60, 3-63, 3-66, 

3-68, 3-69, 3-75, 3-85, 3-91, 3-92, 3-

93, 3-113, 3-114, 3-115, 3-122, 3-

124, 3-127, 3-128, 3-135, 3-139, 3-

142, 3-169, 3-170, 3-173, 4-1, 4-15, 

4-17, 4-18, 4-19, 4-20, 4-21, 4-27, 4-

29, 4-30, 4-31, 4-40, 4-41, 4-42, 4-43, 

4-45, 4-48, 4-49, 4-50, 4-51, 4-52, 4-

54, 4-55, 4-56, 4-57, 4-58, 4-61, 4-62, 

4-63, 4-64, 4-65, 4-67, 4-69, 4-70, 4-

72, 4-76, 4-81, 4-83, 4-84, 4-85, 4-87, 

4-94, 4-95, 4-96, 4-97, 4-99, 5-3, F-9, 

H-30, H-32, H-37, H-49, H-53, H-56, 

H-61, H-62, I-12, I-14, I-15, I-19, I-20 

fair market value................................	 	ES-1, ES-4, 1-1, 1-3, 1-17, 2-6, 2-18, 

2-20, 2-23, 2-24, 3-129, 5-2 

fugitive dust.......................................	 	3-23, 3-32, 3-35, 4-32, 4-80, F-5, F11 

Draft EIS, West Antelope II Coal Lease Application 8-1 
8.0 Index 

grazing...............................................	 	ES-15, 1-8, 2-11, 2-12, 2-31, 2-32, 3-

83, 3-84, 3-86, 3-89, 3-91, 3-120, 3-

128, 3-129, 3-130, 3-132, 3-133, 3-

172, 4-73, 4-74, 4-75, H-38, H-46, H49, H-53, H-62, I-11, I-13, I-17 

hunting..............................................	 	ES-15, 3-105, 3-126, 3-127, 3-130, 3-

173, 4-73, 4-75, 4-76, H-34, H-49, H53, H-58, H-62 

migratory birds ..................................	 	3-109, 3-113, 3-115, 3-117, 3-118, 3-

119, 4-66, 4-71, B-3, H-27 

mitigation........................................... ES-17, 1-11, 1-17, 2-8, 2-9, 2-10, 2-

11, 2-12, 2-13, 2-14, 2-15, 2-18, 3-1, 

3-21, 3-29, 3-35, 3-37, 3-47, 3-70, 3-

78, 3-89, 3-101, 3-102, 3-111, 3-112, 

3-114, 3-117, 3-130, 3-134, 3-137, 3-

142, 3-166, 4-31, 4-35, 4-40, 4-50, 4-

79, D-1, D-2, F-5, F-6, H-30, H-41, H42, H-43, H-53, H-56, H-57, H-66, I10, I-15, I-19, I-21, I-22, I-23 

MLA mining plan................................	 	1-3, 1-10, 1-11, 2-24, 3-19, I-18 
 

monitoring plan..................................	 	2-8, 2-9, 2-10, 2-11, 2-12, 2-13, 3-14 
 

nitrogen oxide or NO2 .........................	 	ES-9, ES-19, 1-17, 2-10, 2-35, 3-23, 

3-25, 3-37, 3-38, 3-39, 3-41, 3-42, 3-

43, 3-44, 3-49, 3-51, 4-33, 4-34, 4-35, 

4-36, 4-40, F-2, F-3, F-6, F-9, F-12, 

F-13 

PM10...................................................	 	ES-9, ES-19, 2-9, 2-22, 2-34, 2-35, 3-

23, 3-24, 3-25, 3-27, 3-28, 3-29, 3-32, 

3-37, 3-38, 3-40, 4-33, 4-34, 4-35, 4-

36, 4-37, 4-40, F-2, F-3, F-4, F-5, F-6, 

F-7, F-8, F-9, F-10, F-11 

power plant(s) ....................................	 	1-9, 1-17, 2-24, 3-25, 3-165, 3-167, 

3-169, 3-170, 3-171 , 4-8, 4-12, 4-13, 

4-14, 4-15, 4-22, 4-27, 4-31, 4-32, 4-

40, 4-48, 4-58, 4-61, 4-62, 4-74, 4-80, 

4-82, 4-84, 4-91, 4-97, 4-98, 4-99, F5, H-62, I-19, I-21 

reclamation bond ...............................	 	ES-14, 2-11, 2-40, 3-4, 3-87, 3-88, 3-

89, 3-129, 3-130 

8-2 Draft EIS, West Antelope II Coal Lease Application 
8.0 Index 

recreation...........................................	 	ES-8, ES-16, 2-32, 2-38, 3-3, 3-120, 
 

3-125, 3-130, 3-172, 4-72, 4-73, 4-

75, 4-76, H-49 

royalty................................................	 	ES-6, ES-7, 1-3, 1-9, 2-12, 2-23, 2-

24, 2-26, 2-27, 3-18, 3-152, 3-153, 3-

154, 3-165, 4-95, 4-96, D-4 

sage-grouse........................................	 	ES-15, 2-31, 3-87, 3-103, 3-104, 3-

105, 3-106, 3-107, 3-108, 3-109, 3-

110, 3-113, 3-114, 3-117, 3-172, 4-

70, 4-71, 4-72, 4-75, B-3, H-3, H-10, 

H-14, H-47, H-48, H-49, H-50, H-60, 

H-61, H-64, H-67, H-68, H-69, I-23, I24 

T&E species .......................................	 	ES-5, ES-16, 3-3, 3-118, I-1, I-5, I-12, 

I-17, I-22, I-23 

total dissolved solids or TDS...............	 	ES-9, 2-29, 3-54, 3-55, 3-56, 3-57, 3-

58, 3-62, 3-64, 3-66, 4-49, 4-53, 4-68 

total suspended solids or TSS.............	 	3-66 

ES-1, ES-18, ES-19, 1-17, 1-18, 2-9, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 3-23, 3-24, 3-25, 3-27, 3-28, 3-29, 3- or EPA................................................
 
35, 3-37, 3-38, 3-39, 3-40, 3-44, 3-45, 

3-47, 3-50, 3-170, 3-171, 4-32, 4-34, 

4-35, 5-1, 5-7, F-1, F-2, F-3, F-6, F10, F-12 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or 2-32, 3-75, 3-77, 3-90, 3-92, 3-96, 3-

USFWS .............................................. 97, 3-100, 3-102, 3-104, 3-105, 3-

109, 3-111, 3-117, 3-119, 4-70, 5-1, 

B-2, B-3, H-17, H-31, H-32, H-34, H39, H-41, H-43, H-50, H-51, H-53, H57, H-61, H-66, H-70, I-9, I-10, I-11, 

I-12, I-13, I-15, I-16, I-17, I-19, I-23, 

I-26 

Draft EIS, West Antelope II Coal Lease Application 8-3 
8.0 Index 

U.S. Forest Service or USDA-FS .........	 ES-4, ES-5, ES-15, 1-3, 1-12, 1-18, 1-

19, 2-16, 2-18, 3-50, 3-78, 3-90, 3-96, 

3-97, 3-100, 3-105, 3-109, 3-111, 3-

116, 3-117, 3-120, 3-126, 3-129, 3-

133, 3-140, 4-59, 4-70, 4-73, 4-75, 5-

1, 5-2, 5-7, B-3, H-1, H-2, H-6, H-7, 

H-8, H-9, H-10, H-11, H-12, H-13, H14, H-15, H-16, H-17, H-18, H-19, H20, H-21, H-22, H-23, H-24, H-25, H26, H-27, H-29, H-30, H-31, H-32, H33, H-34, H-35, H-36, H-37, H-38, H39, H-40, H-41, H-42, H-43, H-44, H45, H-46, H-48, H-49, H-50, H-51, H54, H-55, H-56, H-57, H-58, H-59, H60, H-61, H-62, H-63, H-64, H-65, H66, H-67, H-68, H-70, I-9, I-10, I-16, 

I-17, I-26 

wetland(s) ..........................................	 	1-17, 2-10, 2-30, 3-74, 3-75, 3-77, 3-

78, 3-83, 3-85, 3-89, 4-58, 4-62, 4-73, 

5-4, 5-5, A-1, H-5, H-18, H-19, H-23, 

H-30, H-37, H-65, I-11, I-12, I-13, I14, I-15, I-23 

Wyoming Department of ES-4, ES-9, ES-13, ES-14, ES-21, 1-

Environmental Quality or 3, 1-8, 1-10, 1-11, 2-6, 2-9, 2-10, 2-

WDEQ................................................ 14, 2-15, 2-22, 2-24, 2-30, 3-3, 3-4, 

3-7, 3-9, 3-19, 3-23, 3-24, 3-25, 3-28, 

3-29, 3-32, 3-34, 3-35, 3-36, 3-37, 3-

38, 3-39, 3-40, 3-42, 3-43, 3-44, 3-45, 

3-47, 3-49, 3-50, 3-52, 3-55, 3-56, 3-

57, 3-60, 3-62, 3-63, 3-64, 3-68, 3-69, 

3-70, 3-71, 3-72, 3-73, 3-74, 3-78, 3-

79, 3-83, 3-86, 3-87, 3-88, 3-89, 3-90, 

3-92, 3-96, 3-97, 3-102, 3-109, 3-114, 

3-116, 3-129, 3-149, 4-6, 4-9, 4-14, 

4-32, 4-35, 4-40, 4-42, 4-43, 4-45, 4-

47, 4-49, 4-56, 4-58, 4-61, 4-62, 4-70, 

5-4, 5-7, A-1, B-3, F-1, F-2, F-5, F-6, 

F-7, F-9, F-10, F-12, H-15, H-26, H27, H-35, H-37, H-42, H-51, I-10, I11, I-15, I-18, I-19, I-21, I-23 

8-4 Draft EIS, West Antelope II Coal Lease Application 
APPENDIX A 

FEDERAL AND STATE PERMITTING 
 

REQUIREMENTS AND AGENCIES
 

Appendix A 

APPENDIX A: 

FEDERAL AND STATE AGENCIES & PERMITTING REQUIREMENTS 

Agency Lease/Permit/Action 

FEDERAL 

Bureau of Land Management Coal Lease 

Resource Recovery & Protection Plan 

Scoria Sales Contract 

Exploration Drilling Permit 

Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and 

Enforcement 

Preparation of MLA Mining Plan Approval Document 

SMCRA Oversight 

Office of the Secretary of the Interior Approval of MLA Mining Plan 

Mine Safety and Health Administration Safety Permit and Legal ID 

Ground Control Plan 

Major Impoundments 

Explosives Use and Storage Permit 

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms Explosive’s Manufacturer’s License 

Explosives Use and Storage Permit 

Federal Communication Commission Radio Permit: Ambulance 

Mobile Relay System Radio License 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission Radioactive By-Products Material License 

Army Corps of Engineers Authorization of Impacts to Wetlands and Other Waters 

of the U.S. 

Department of Transportation Hazardous Waste Shipment Notification 

Federal Aviation Administration Radio Tower Permits 

STATE 

State Land Commission Coal Lease 

Scoria Lease 

Department of Environmental Quality-Land 

Quality Division 

Permit and License to Mine 

Department of Environmental Quality-Air 

Quality Division 

Air Quality Permit to Operate 

Air Quality Permit to Construct 

Air Quality Permit to Modify 

Department of Environmental Quality-Water 

Quality Division 

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Water 

Discharge Permit 

Permit to Construct Sedimentation Pond 

Authorization to Construct Septic Tank & Leach Field 

Authorization to Construct and Install a Public Water 

Supply and Sewage Treatment System 

Department of Environmental Quality-Solid 

Waste Management Program 

Solid Waste Disposal Permit-Permanent and 

Construction 

State Engineer’s Office Appropriation of Surface Water Permits 

Appropriation of Ground Water Permits 

Industrial Siting Council Industrial Siting Certificate of Non-Jurisdiction 

Department of Health Radioactive Material Certificate of Registration 

Draft EIS, West Antelope II Coal Lease Application A-1 
APPENDIX B 

UNSUITABILITY CRITERIA 
 

FOR THE WEST ANTELOPE II LBA TRACT 
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix B 

APPENDIX B. UNSUITABILITY CRITERIA FOR THE WEST ANTELOPE II 

LBA TRACT 

UNSUITABILITY CRITERIA GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS FOR 

BUFFALO RESOURCE AREA (BLM 

1985a, 2001a) 

FINDINGS FOR WEST ANTELOPE II LBA 

TRACT 

1. Federal Land Systems. All federal 

lands included in the following 

systems are unsuitable for mining: 

National Parks, National Wildlife 

Refuges, National System of Trails, 

National Wilderness Preservation 

System, National Wild and Scenic 

Rivers, National Recreation Areas, 

Lands acquired through the Land 

and Water Conservation Fund, 

National Forests and Federal lands 

in incorporated cities, towns and 

villages. 

There are Federal lands located around 

Gillette, Sheridan, and Wright which were 

determined to be unsuitable under this 

criterion. TBNG is not a National Forest. 

None of the federal lands determined to be 

unsuitable under Criterion 1 are present 

on the West Antelope II LBA tract, and 

therefore there are no unsuitable findings. 

2. Rights-Of-Way and Easements. 

Federal lands that are within 

ROWs or easements or within 

surface leases for residential, 

commercial, industrial or other 

public purposes, on federally 

owned surface, are unsuitable for 

mining. 

Portions of the BNSF & UP railroad 

ROWs, the Tri-County 230-Kv 

transmission line ROW, the Wyoming 

State Highway 450 ROW, and the I-90 

ROW on federal surface were found to be 

unsuitable under this criterion within the 

general review area. 

The portions of the Tri-County 230-Kv 

transmission line ROW, the Wyoming 

State Highway 450 ROW, and the I-90 

ROW that were determined to be 

unsuitable are not located on the West 

Antelope II LBA tract. The West Antelope 

II LBA tract includes a portion of the 

BNSF & UP railroad ROW. This ROW was 

designated unsuitable for mining and the 

lease will be stipulated to exclude mining 

within the ROW. 

3. Buffer Zones for Rights-Of-Way, 

Communities, and Buildings. 

Federal lands within 100 ft of a 

ROW of a public road or a 

cemetery; or within 300 ft of any 

public building, school, church, 

community or institutional 

building or public park; or within 

300 ft of an occupied dwelling are 

unsuitable for mining. 

Portions of Wyoming State Highway 450, 

Interstate Highway I-90, and one 

cemetery were found to be unsuitable 

under this criterion. Decisions were 

deferred on other highways/roads, 

occupied dwellings, and one school. 

The unsuitable portions of the Wyoming 

State Highway 450 ROW and the I-90 

ROW, and the cemetery are not located on 

the West Antelope II LBA tract. A portion 

of Wyoming State. Highway 59, a public 

road, is located on the BLM Study Area 

for the West Antelope II LBA tract. 

Therefore, the portion of the West 

Antelope II LBA tract within the highway 

ROW and the associated 100-ft buffer 

zone are designated unsuitable for mining 

and the lease will be stipulated to exclude 

mining within these areas unless a permit 

to move the highway is approved by 

WYDOT. No occupied dwellings or 

schools are located on the tract. 

4. Wilderness Study Areas. Federal 

lands designated as wilderness 

study areas are unsuitable for 

mining while under review for 

possible wilderness designation. 

No lands in the general review area are 

within a wilderness study area. 

There are no unsuitable findings under 

Criterion 4 for the West Antelope II LBA 

tract. 

5. Scenic Areas. Scenic federal 

lands designated by visual 

resource management analysis as 

Class I (outstanding visual quality 

or high visual sensitivity) but not 

currently on National Register of 

Natural Landmarks are unsuitable. 

No lands in the general review area meet 

the scenic criteria as outlined. 

There are no unsuitable findings under 

Criterion 5 for the West Antelope II LBA 

tract. 

6. Land Used for Scientific Study. 

Federal lands under permit by the 

surface management agency and 

being used for scientific studies 

involving food or fiber production, 

natural resources, or technology 

demonstrations and experiments 

are unsuitable for the duration of 

the study except where mining 

would not jeopardize the purpose 

of the study. 

Two vegetation monitoring study sites on 

the TBNG (NE1⁄4 of Sec. 1, T.41N., R.71W. 

and NW1⁄4 NW1⁄4 of Sec. 30, T.41N., 

R.69W.), and the Hoe Creek Site (Sec. 7, 

T.47N., R.72W.) were found to be 

unsuitable under this criterion. 

The vegetation monitoring sites and the 

Hoe Creek site are not located on the West 

Antelope II LBA tract. There are no 

unsuitable findings under Criterion 6 for 

the West Antelope II LBA tract. 

Draft EIS, West Antelope II Coal Lease Application B-1 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix B 

UNSUITABILITY CRITERIA GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS FOR 

BUFFALO RESOURCE AREA (BLM 

1985a, 2001a) 

FINDINGS FOR WEST ANTELOPE II LBA 

TRACT 

7. Cultural Resources. All publicly 

or privately owned places which 

are included in or are eligible for 

inclusion in the NRHP and an 

appropriate buffer zone are 

unsuitable. 

On the basis of the consultation with 

SHPO, there are no sites within the 

general review area that are listed on the 

NRHP. Continue using the standard 

“Archeological Stipulation” on all new 

coal leases. 

There are no unsuitable findings under 

Criterion 7 for the West Antelope II LBA 

tract. The standard “Archeological 

Stipulation” should be applied if this tract 

is leased. 

8. Natural Areas. Federal lands 

designated as natural areas or 

National Natural Landmarks are 

unsuitable. 

No lands in the general review area are 

designated as natural areas or as 

National Natural Landmarks. 

There are no unsuitable findings under 

Criterion 8 for the West Antelope II LBA 

tract. 

9. Critical Habitat for Threatened 

or Endangered Plant and Animal 

Species. Federally designated 

critical habitat and habitat 

proposed to be designated as 

critical for listed threatened or 

endangered plant and animal 

species, and essential habitat 

where threatened or endangered 

species have been scientifically 

documented are unsuitable. 

There is no federally designated critical 

habitat for threatened or endangered 

plant or animal species within the 

general review area. 

There are no unsuitable findings under 

Criterion 9 for the West Antelope II LBA 

tract. 

10. State Listed Threatened or 

Endangered Species. Federal 

lands containing habitat 

determined to be critical or 

essential for plant or animal 

species listed by a state 

pursuant to state law as 

threatened or endangered shall 

be considered unsuitable. 

Wyoming does not maintain a state list of 

threatened or endangered species of 

plants or animals. Therefore, this 

criterion does not apply. 

There are no unsuitable findings under 

Criterion 10 for the West Antelope II LBA 

tract. 

11. Bald or Golden Eagle Nests. An 

active bald or golden eagle nest 

and appropriate buffer zone are 

unsuitable unless the lease can 

be conditioned so that eagles 

will not be disturbed during 

breeding season or unless golden 

eagle nests will be moved. 

Defer suitability decisions and evaluate 

bald and golden eagle nests on a case by 

case basis at the time of leasing. 

Establish buffer zones around nests 

during mining and reclamation planning 

after consultation with USFWS. 

There are currently no bald eagle nests on 

the West Antelope II LBA tract. Two 

golden eagle nests are located on or near 

the tract. Evaluate suitability prior to 

lease issuance during consultation with 

USFWS. 

12. Bald and Golden Eagle Roost and 

Concentration Areas. Bald and 

golden eagle roost and 

concentration areas on federal 

lands used during migration and 

wintering are unsuitable unless 

mining can be conducted in such 

a way and during such periods of 

time as to ensure that eagles 

shall not be adversely disturbed. 

Defer suitability decisions and evaluate 

bald and golden eagle roost areas on a 

case by case basis prior to lease 

issuance. Establish buffer zones after 

consultation with USFWS. 

There are no identified roost sites on the 

West Antelope II LBA tract. Evaluate 

suitability prior to lease issuance during 

consultation with USFWS. 

13. Falcon Nesting Sites and Buffer 

Zones. Federal lands containing 

active falcon (excluding kestrel) 

cliff nesting sites and a suitable 

buffer zone shall be considered 

unsuitable unless mining can be 

conducted in such a way as to 

ensure the falcons will not be 

adversely affected during the 

period when the habitat is used 

by the falcons. 

Defer suitability decisions on falcon 

nesting sites and evaluate on a case by 

case basis prior to lease issuance. 

Establish buffer zones around nesting 

sites after consultation with USFWS. 

No falcon nesting sites (with the exception 

of kestrels) have been identified on the 

West Antelope II LBA tract. There are no 

unsuitable findings under Criterion 13 for 

the West Antelope II LBA tract. 

B-2 Draft EIS, West Antelope II Coal Lease Application 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix B 

UNSUITABILITY CRITERIA GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS FOR 

BUFFALO RESOURCE AREA (BLM 

1985a, 2001a) 

FINDINGS FOR WEST ANTELOPE II LBA 

TRACT 

14. Habitat for Migratory Bird 

Species. Federal lands which are 

high priority habitat for 

migratory bird species of 

management concern in 

Wyoming shall be considered 

unsuitable unless mining can be 

conducted in such a way as to 

ensure that migratory bird 

habitat will not be adversely 

affected during the period it is 

in use. 

Defer suitability decisions on high 

priority habitat for migratory bird species 

of management concern in Wyoming and 

evaluate on a case by case basis prior to 

lease issuance. Establish buffer zones 

for nesting areas during mining and 

reclamation planning after consultation 

with USFWS. 

Nineteen of 40 species on the list entitled 

Coal Mine List of 40 Migratory Bird 

Species of Management Concern in 

Wyoming have historically been observed 

in the general analysis area at least once. 

Evaluate suitability during consultation 

with USFWS. 

15. Fish and Wildlife Habitat for 

Resident Species. Federal lands 

which the surface management 

agency and state jointly agree are 

for resident species of fish, wildlife 

and plants of high interest to the 

state and which are essential for 

maintaining these priority wildlife 

species shall be considered 

unsuitable unless all or stipulated 

methods of coal mining can be 

conducted in such a way as to 

ensure no long-term impact on the 

species being protected will occur. 

Defer suitability decisions on grouse leks 

and evaluate on a case by case basis 

prior to lease issuance. Establish buffer 

zones after consultation with WGFD. 

There are no active or inactive sage grouse 

leks on the West Antelope II LBA tract. 

The nearest sage grouse lek is more than 

5 miles northeast of the West Antelope II 

LBA tract. Therefore, there are no 

unsuitable findings under Criterion 15 for 

the West Antelope II LBA tract. 

16. Floodplains. Federal lands in 

riverine, coastal, and special 

floodplains shall be considered 

unsuitable where it is determined 

that mining could not be 

undertaken without substantial 

threat of loss of life or property. 

The BLM and USDA-FS have determined 

that the identified floodplains in the 

general review area could potentially be 

mined. Therefore, all lands within the 

general review area are considered 

suitable. 

Site-specific stipulations and resource 

protection safeguards will be applied if 

necessary during mining and reclamation 

planning. There are no unsuitable 

findings under Criterion 16 for the West 

Antelope II LBA tract. 

17. Municipal Watersheds. Federal 

lands which have been committed 

by the surface management agency 

to use as municipal watersheds 

shall be considered unsuitable. 

There are no designated municipal 

watersheds in the general review area. 

There are no unsuitable findings under 

Criterion 17 for the West Antelope II LBA 

tract. 

18. National Resource Waters. 

Federal lands with national 

resource waters, as identified by 

states in their water quality 

management plans, and 1/4-mile 

buffer zones shall be unsuitable. 

There are no designated national 

resource waters within the general 

review area. 

There are no unsuitable findings under 

Criterion 18 for the West Antelope II LBA 

tract. 

19. Alluvial Valley Floors. Federal 

lands identified by the surface 

management agency, in 

consultation with the state, as 

AVFs where mining would 

interrupt, discontinue or preclude 

farming, are unsuitable. 

Additionally, when mining federal 

lands outside an AVF would 

materially damage the quality or 

quantity of water in surface or 

underground water systems that 

would supply AVFs, the land shall 

be considered unsuitable. 

Consider areas determined to contain 

AVFs significant to farming as 

unsuitable. Defer decisions on other 

AVFs and analyze on a case-by-case 

basis prior to lease issuance. 

The West Antelope II LBA tract has not yet 

been formally evaluated for the presence 

of AVFs. A site-specific study will be part 

of the mine permitting process if a lease 

sale is held and the LBA tract is proposed 

for mining. Declarations of the presence 

or absence of AVFs, their significance to 

agriculture, and the appropriate 

perimeters will then be made by the 

WDEQ/LQD. Evaluate suitability during 

consultation with WDEQ/LQD. 

20. State or Indian Tribe Criteria. 

Federal lands to which is 

applicable a criterion proposed by 

the state or Indian tribe located in 

the planning area and adopted by 

rulemaking by the Secretary are 

unsuitable. 

There are no criterion proposed by state 

or Indian tribes that have been approved 

by the Secretary of the Interior. No tribal 

lands are located in or near the general 

review area. 

There are no unsuitability findings for this 

criterion on the West Antelope II LBA 

tract. 

Draft EIS, West Antelope II Coal Lease Application B-3 
 

 

APPENDIX C 

COAL LEASE-BY-APPLICATION FLOW CHART 
 

Appendix C 

COAL LEASE-BY-APPLICATION
 


State Director (SD) notifies 

Governor and Regional Coal Team 

of application 

Field Office Manager (FM) ensures 

that application is in conformance 

with Land Use Plan (LUP) 

Minerals Staff receives application 

and prepares report on maximum 

economic recovery 

BLM STATE OFFICE 

RECEIVES APPLICATION 

Conformance with LUP: 

FM prepares site-specific 

Environmental 

Analysis 

Non-Conformance with LUP: 

FM recommends amendment 

of LUP and/or modification of 

application area 

FM prepares Environmental 

Analysis of LUP amendment 

and application 

Adjudicator evaluates 

applicant’s qualifications 

FM HOLDS PUBLIC 

HEARING 

Applicant submits/ 

Adjudicator reviews surface owner 

consent agreement(s) (if necessary) 

SD 

DECISION 

HOLD 

SALE 

REJECT 

APPLICATION 

SD consults with 

Surface Management Agency, Governor, 

Attorney General, and Indian Tribes 

Draft EIS, West Antelope II Coal Lease Application C-1 
APPENDIX D 

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT 

SPECIAL COAL LEASE STIPULATIONS 

AND FORM 3400-12 COAL LEASE 
Appendix D 

BLM will attach the following special stipulations to the West Antelope II LBA tract if it 

is leased: 

SPECIAL STIPULATIONS 

In addition to observing the general obligations and standards of performance set 

out in the current regulations, the lessee shall comply with and be bound by the 

following special stipulations. 

These stipulations are also imposed upon the lessee's agents and employees. The 

failure or refusal of any of these persons to comply with these stipulations shall be 

deemed a failure of the lessee to comply with the terms of the lease. The lessee 

shall require his agents, contractors and subcontractors involved in activities 

concerning this lease to include these stipulations in the contracts between and 

among them. These stipulations may be revised or amended, in writing, by the 

mutual consent of the lessor and the lessee at any time to adjust to changed 

conditions or to correct an oversight. 

(a) CULTURAL RESOURCES 

(1) Before undertaking any activities that may disturb the surface of the leased 

lands, the lessee shall conduct a cultural resource intensive field inventory in a 

manner specified by the Authorized Officer of the BLM or of the surface 

managing agency, if different, on portions of the mine plan area and adjacent 

areas, or exploration plan area, that may be adversely affected by lease-related 

activities and which were not previously inventoried at such a level of intensity. 

The inventory shall be conducted by a qualified professional cultural resource 

specialist (i.e., archeologist, historian, historical architect, as appropriate), 

approved by the Authorized Officer of the surface managing agency (BLM, if the 

surface is privately owned), and a report of the inventory and recommendations 

for protecting any cultural resources identified shall be submitted to the 

Regional Director of the Western Region of the Office of Surface Mining (the 

Western Regional Director), the Authorized Officer of the BLM, if activities are 

associated with coal exploration outside an approved mining permit area 

(hereinafter called Authorized Officer), and the Authorized Officer of the surface 

managing agency, if different. The lessee shall undertake measures, in 

accordance with instructions from the Western Regional Director, or 

Authorized Officer, to protect cultural resources on the leased lands. The 

lessee shall not commence the surface disturbing activities until permission to 

proceed is given by the Western Regional Director or Authorized Officer. 

(2) The lessee shall protect all cultural resource properties that have been 

determined eligible to the National Register of Historic Places within the lease 

area from lease-related activities until the cultural resource mitigation 

measures can be implemented as part of an approved mining and reclamation 

Draft EIS, West Antelope II Coal Lease Application D-1 
Appendix D 

or exploration plan unless modified by mutual agreement in consultation with 

the State Historic Preservation Officer. 

(3) The cost of conducting the inventory, preparing reports, and carrying out 

mitigation measures shall be borne by the lessee. 

(4) If cultural resources are discovered during operations under this lease, the 

lessee shall immediately bring them to the attention of the Western Regional 

Director or Authorized Officer, or the Authorized Officer of the surface 

managing agency, if the Western Regional Director is not available. The lessee 

shall not disturb such resources except as may be subsequently authorized by 

the Western Regional Director or Authorized Officer. 

Within two (2) working days of notification, the Western Regional Director or 

Authorized Officer will evaluate or have evaluated any cultural resources 

discovered and will determine if any action may be required to protect or 

preserve such discoveries. The cost of data recovery for cultural resources 

discovered during lease operations shall be borne by the lessee unless 

otherwise specified by the Authorized Officer of the BLM or of the surface 

managing agency, if different. 

(5) All cultural resources shall remain under the jurisdiction of the United 

States until ownership is determined under applicable law. 

(b) PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES 

If paleontological resources, either large and conspicuous, and/or of significant 

scientific value are discovered during mining operations, the find will be reported 

to the Authorized Officer immediately. Mining operations will be suspended within 

250 feet of said find. An evaluation of the paleontological discovery will be made 

by a BLM-approved professional paleontologist within five (5) working days, 

weather permitting, to determine the appropriate action(s) to prevent the potential 

loss of any significant paleontological value. Operations within 250 feet of such 

discovery will not be resumed until written authorization to proceed is issued by 

the Authorized Officer. The lessee will bear the cost of any required 

paleontological appraisals, surface collection of fossils, or salvage of any large 

conspicuous fossils of significant scientific interest discovered during the 

operations. 

(c) THREATENED, ENDANGERED, CANDIDATE, or OTHER SPECIAL 

STATUS PLANT and ANIMAL SPECIES 

The lease area may now or hereafter contain plants, animals, or their habitats 

determined to be threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act of 

1973, as amended, 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq., or that have other special status. The 

Authorized Officer may recommend modifications to exploration and development 

proposals to further conservation and management objectives or to avoid activity 

D-2 Draft EIS, West Antelope II Coal Lease Application 
Appendix D 

that will contribute to a need to list such species or their habitat or to comply with 

any biological opinion issued by the Fish and Wildlife Service for the Proposed 

Action. The Authorized Officer will not approve any ground-disturbing activity 

that may affect any such species or critical habitat until it completes its 

obligations under applicable requirements of the Endangered Species Act. The 

Authorized Officer may require modifications to, or disapprove a proposed activity 

that is likely to result in jeopardy to the continued existence of a proposed or 

listed threatened or endangered species, or result in the destruction or adverse 

modification of designated or proposed critical habitat. 

The lessee shall comply with instructions from the Authorized Officer of the 

surface managing agency (BLM, if the surface is private) for ground disturbing 

activities associated with coal exploration on federal coal leases prior to approval 

of a mining and reclamation permit or outside an approved mining and 

reclamation permit area. The lessee shall comply with instructions from the 

Authorized Officer of the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, 

or his designated representative, for all ground disturbing activities taking place 

within an approved mining and reclamation permit area or associated with such a 

permit. 

(d) MULTIPLE MINERAL DEVELOPMENT 

Operations will not be approved which, in the opinion of the Authorized Officer, 

would unreasonably interfere with the orderly development and/or production 

from a valid existing mineral lease issued prior to this one for the same lands. 

(e) OIL AND GAS/COAL RESOURCES 

The BLM realizes that coal mining operations conducted on Federal coal leases 

issued within producing oil and gas fields may interfere with the economic 

recovery of oil and gas; just as Federal oil and gas leases issued in a Federal coal 

lease area may inhibit coal recovery. BLM retains the authority to alter and/or 

modify the resource recovery and protection plans for coal operations and/or oil 

and gas operations on those lands covered by Federal mineral leases so as to 

obtain maximum resource recovery. 

(f) RESOURCE RECOVERY AND PROTECTION 

Notwithstanding the approval of a resource recovery and protection plan (R2P2) by 

the BLM, lessor reserves the right to seek damages against the operator/lessee in 

the event (i) the operator/lessee fails to achieve maximum economic recovery 

(MER) (as defined at 43 CFR 3480.0-5(21)) of the recoverable coal reserves or (ii) 

the operator/lessee is determined to have caused a wasting of recoverable coal 

reserves. Damages shall be measured on the basis of the royalty that would have 

been payable on the wasted or unrecovered coal. 

Draft EIS, West Antelope II Coal Lease Application D-3 
Appendix D 

The parties recognize that under an approved R2P2, conditions may require a 

modification by the operator/lessee of that plan. In the event a coal bed or portion 

thereof is not to be mined or is rendered unmineable by the operation, the 

operator/lessee shall submit appropriate justification to obtain approval by the 

Authorized Officer to leave such reserves unmined. Upon approval by the 

Authorized Officer, such coal beds or portions thereof shall not be subject to 

damages as described above. Further, nothing in this section shall prevent the 

operator/lessee from exercising its right to relinquish all or portion of the lease as 

authorized by statute and regulation. 

In the event the Authorized Officer determines that the R2P2, as approved, will not 

attain MER as the result of changed conditions, the Authorized Officer will give 

proper notice to the operator/lessee as required under applicable regulations. The 

Authorized Officer will order a modification if necessary, identifying additional 

reserves to be mined in order to attain MER. Upon a final administrative or 

judicial ruling upholding such an ordered modification, any reserves left unmined 

(wasted) under that plan will be subject to damages as described in the first 

paragraph under this section. 

Subject to the right to appeal hereinafter set forth, payment of the value of the 

royalty on such unmined recoverable coal reserves shall become due and payable 

upon determination by the Authorized Officer that the coal reserves have been 

rendered unmineable or at such time that the operator/lessee has demonstrated 

an unwillingness to extract the coal. 

The BLM may enforce this provision either by issuing a written decision requiring 

payment of the Mineral Management Service demand for such royalties, or by 

issuing a notice of non-compliance. A decision or notice of non-compliance issued 

by the lessor that payment is due under this stipulation is appealable as allowed 

by law. 

(g) PUBLIC LAND SURVEY PROTECTION 

The lessee will protect all survey monuments, witness corners, reference 

monuments, and bearing trees against destruction, obliteration, or damage during 

operations on the lease areas. If any monuments, corners or accessories are 

destroyed, obliterated, or damaged by this operation, the lessee will hire an 

appropriate county surveyor or registered land surveyor to reestablish or restore 

the monuments, corners, or accessories at the same location, using surveying 

procedures in accordance with the "Manual of Surveying Instructions for the 

Survey of the Public Lands of the United States." The survey will be recorded in 

the appropriate county records, with a copy sent to the Authorized Officer. 

(h) RAILROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY 

No mining activity of any kind may be conducted within the Burlington 

Northern/Santa Fe and Union Pacific railroad right-of-way. The lessee shall 

D-4 Draft EIS, West Antelope II Coal Lease Application 
Appendix D 

recover all legally and economically recoverable coal from all leased lands not 

within the foregoing right-of-way. Lessee shall pay all royalties on any legally and 

economically recoverable coal which it fails to mine without the written permission 

of the Authorized Officer. 

(i) BUFFER ZONES FOR RIGHTS-OF-WAY OF PUBLIC ROADS 

No mining activity of any kind may be conducted within the Wyoming State 

Highway 59 right-of-way or the Converse County Road 37 right-of way and their 

associated 100-feet buffer zones while those public roads remain in their current 

(2008) locations. The lessee shall recover all legally and economically recoverable 

coal from all leased lands not within the foregoing rights-of-way and associated 

buffer zones. Provided a permit to move one or both public roads is approved by 

the appropriate authority, the lessee shall recover all legally and economically 

recoverable coal from all leased lands within the foregoing rights-of-way and 

associated buffer zones. The lessee shall pay all royalties on any legally and 

economically recoverable coal which it fails to mine without the written permission 

of the Authorized Officer. 

Draft EIS, West Antelope II Coal Lease Application D-5 



APPENDIX E 

CBNG WELLS CAPABLE OF PRODUCTION 
 

ON OR IN SECTIONS ADJACENT TO THE 
 

WEST ANTELOPE II LBA TRACT
 

Coal Bed Natural Gas Wells Capable of Productio

Antelope Mine 

West Antelope II Coal Lease By Application Area (T.40N. R.71W., T.41N

API Company Well Number TWP RNG 

536267 LANCE OIL & GAS COMPANY INC No. 31-7-4171 41N 71W 

536268 LANCE OIL & GAS COMPANY INC No. 23-6-4171 41N 71W 

536269 LANCE OIL & GAS COMPANY INC No. 21-6-4171 41N 71W 

536271 LANCE OIL & GAS COMPANY INC No. 14-6-4171 41N 71W 

536272 LANCE OIL & GAS COMPANY INC No. 12-6-4171 41N 71W 

537933 LANCE OIL & GAS COMPANY INC No. 23-15-4171 41N 71W 541468 BILL BARRETT CORPORATION No. 43-2-4171 41N 71W 

541470 BILL BARRETT CORPORATION No. 32-2-4171 41N 71W 

541471 BILL BARRETT CORPORATION No. 34-2-4171 41N 71W 

541473 BILL BARRETT CORPORATION No. 41-11-4171 41N 71W 

541474 BILL BARRETT CORPORATION No. 32-11-4171 41N 71W 

541475 BILL BARRETT CORPORATION No. 12-11-4171 41N 71W 

542928 COLEMAN OIL & GAS INC No. 21-19 41N 71W 

545382 COLEMAN OIL & GAS INC No. 5-19 LW 41N 71W 

545385 COLEMAN OIL & GAS INC No. 23-19 41N 71W 

545387 COLEMAN OIL & GAS INC No. 12-30 41N 71W 

545389 COLEMAN OIL & GAS INC No. 21-30 41N 71W 

545391 COLEMAN OIL & GAS INC No. 32-30 41N 71W 

549076 COLEMAN OIL & GAS INC No. 43-19 41N 71W 

549078 COLEMAN OIL & GAS INC No. 41-19 41N 71W 

549080 COLEMAN OIL & GAS INC No. 34-19 41N 71W 

549091 COLEMAN OIL & GAS INC No. 12-7 41N 71W 

Well Data Obtained from WOGCC, April 2007. Status Codes: AP = Active Permit; FL = Flowing; PG = Producing Gas; PS = Pumping Submersible; SI = Shut-in; SP Waiting on Approval. 

Draft EIS, West Antelope II Coal Lease Application 
Appendix E 

Coal Bed Natural Gas Wells (Continued) 

API Company Well Name TWP RNG 

549092 COLEMAN OIL & GAS INC No. 14-7 41N 71W 

549094 COLEMAN OIL & GAS INC No. 23-7 41N 71W 

549095 COLEMAN OIL & GAS INC No. 32-18 41N 71W 

549096 COLEMAN OIL & GAS INC No. 34-18 41N 71W 

549097 COLEMAN OIL & GAS INC No. 41-18 41N 71W 

549098 COLEMAN OIL & GAS INC No. 43-18 41N 71W 

549099 COLEMAN OIL & GAS INC No. 32-19 41N 71W 

549250 COLEMAN OIL & GAS INC No. 21-5 41N 71W 

549251 COLEMAN OIL & GAS INC No. 12-5 41N 71W 

549252 COLEMAN OIL & GAS INC No. 41-17 41N 71W 

549253 COLEMAN OIL & GAS INC No. 32-17 41N 71W 

549254 COLEMAN OIL & GAS INC No. 41-8 41N 71W 

549255 COLEMAN OIL & GAS INC No. 32-8 41N 71W 

549256 COLEMAN OIL & GAS INC No. 23-8 41N 71W 

549257 COLEMAN OIL & GAS INC No. 21-8 41N 71W 

549258 COLEMAN OIL & GAS INC No. 14-8 41N 71W 

549259 COLEMAN OIL & GAS INC No. 12-8 41N 71W 549260 COLEMAN OIL & GAS INC No. 23-5 41N 71W 

549261 COLEMAN OIL & GAS INC No. 14-5 41N 71W 

549275 REDSTONE RESOURCES INC No. 14LW-511 41N 71W 

549600 COLEMAN OIL & GAS INC No. 3-19P 41N 71W 

549740 LANCE OIL & GAS COMPANY INC No. 12-15-4171 41N 71W 549741 LANCE OIL & GAS COMPANY INC No. 14-15-4171 41N 71W 549742 LANCE OIL & GAS COMPANY INC No. 34-15-4171 41N 71W 549743 LANCE OIL & GAS COMPANY INC No. 32-22-4171 41N 71W 549744 LANCE OIL & GAS COMPANY INC No. 41-22-4171 41N 71W 550552 LANCE OIL & GAS COMPANY INC No. 12-14-4171 41N 71W 550708 LANCE OIL & GAS COMPANY INC No. 43-16-4171 41N 71W 550709 LANCE OIL & GAS COMPANY INC No. 14-16-4171 41N 71W 550710 LANCE OIL & GAS COMPANY INC No. 12-16-4171 41N 71W 

E-2 Draft EIS, West Antelope II C
Coal Bed Natural Gas Wells (Continued) 

API Company Well Name TWP RNG 

550711 LANCE OIL & GAS COMPANY INC No. 23-16-4171 41N 71W 550712 LANCE OIL & GAS COMPANY INC No. 32-16-4171 41N 71W 550714 LANCE OIL & GAS COMPANY INC No. 34-16-4171 41N 71W 550716 LANCE OIL & GAS COMPANY INC No. 41-16-4171 41N 71W 550781 LANCE OIL & GAS COMPANY INC No. 21-16-4171 41N 71W 550926 LANCE OIL & GAS COMPANY INC No. 14-4-4171 41N 71W 

550927 LANCE OIL & GAS COMPANY INC No. 23-4-4171 41N 71W 

550928 LANCE OIL & GAS COMPANY INC No. 34-4-4171 41N 71W 

550929 LANCE OIL & GAS COMPANY INC No. 43-4-4171 41N 71W 

550930 LANCE OIL & GAS COMPANY INC No. 32-5-4171 41N 71W 550931 LANCE OIL & GAS COMPANY INC No. 34-5-4171 41N 71W 

550932 LANCE OIL & GAS COMPANY INC No. 41-5-4171 41N 71W 

550933 LANCE OIL & GAS COMPANY INC No. 43-5-4171 41N 71W 

550934 LANCE OIL & GAS COMPANY INC No. 12-9-4171 41N 71W 

550935 LANCE OIL & GAS COMPANY INC No. 43-9-4171 41N 71W 

550936 LANCE OIL & GAS COMPANY INC No. 12-10-4171 41N 71W 550943 LANCE OIL & GAS COMPANY INC No. 21-15-4171 41N 71W 550944 LANCE OIL & GAS COMPANY INC No. 32-15-4171 41N 71W 

550945 LANCE OIL & GAS COMPANY INC No. 41-15-4171 41N 71W 550946 LANCE OIL & GAS COMPANY INC No. 12-22-4171 41N 71W 

550947 LANCE OIL & GAS COMPANY INC No. 21-22-4171 41N 71W 

550948 LANCE OIL & GAS COMPANY INC No. 23-22-4171 41N 71W 550949 LANCE OIL & GAS COMPANY INC No. 43-22-4171 41N 71W 

550976 BOWERS OIL & GAS INC No. 3-29 41N 71W 

550996 LANCE OIL & GAS COMPANY INC No. 21-9-4171 41N 71W 551073 BILL BARRETT CORPORATION No. 12-4-4171 41N 71W 

551074 BILL BARRETT CORPORATION No. 21-4-4171 41N 71W 

551075 BILL BARRETT CORPORATION No. 32-4-4171 41N 71W 

551076 BILL BARRETT CORPORATION No. 41-4-4171 41N 71W 

551169 PEABODY NATURAL GAS LLC No. 41-2-4171 41N 71W 

Draft EIS, West Antelope II Coal Lease Application 
Appendix E 

Coal Bed Natural Gas Wells (Continued) 

API Company Well Name TWP RNG 

551170 BILL BARRETT CORPORATION No. 21-11-4171 41N 71W 

551244 BILL BARRETT CORPORATION No. 12-2-41-71 41N 71W 

551245 BILL BARRETT CORPORATION No. 14-2-41-71 41N 71W 

551246 PEABODY NATURAL GAS LLC No. 21-2-41-71 41N 71W 

551247 BILL BARRETT CORPORATION No. 23-2-41-71 41N 71W 

551248 BILL BARRETT CORPORATION No. 34-11-41-71 41N 71W 

551249 BILL BARRETT CORPORATION No. 43-11-41-71 41N 71W 

551452 BOWERS OIL & GAS INC No. 4-28 41N 71W 

551453 BOWERS OIL & GAS INC No. 3-28 41N 71W 

551652 LANCE OIL & GAS COMPANY INC No. 21-21-4171CA 41N 71W 

551654 LANCE OIL & GAS COMPANY INC No. 41-30-4171CA 41N 71W 

552008 BILL BARRETT CORPORATION No. 12-3-41-71 41N 71W 

552009 BILL BARRETT CORPORATION No. 14-3-41-71 41N 71W 

552010 BILL BARRETT CORPORATION No. 21-3-41-71 41N 71W 

552011 BILL BARRETT CORPORATION No. 23-3-41-71 41N 71W 552012 BILL BARRETT CORPORATION No. 32-3-41-71 41N 71W 552013 BILL BARRETT CORPORATION No. 34-3-41-71 41N 71W 552014 BILL BARRETT CORPORATION No. 41-3-41-71 41N 71W 

552015 BILL BARRETT CORPORATION No. 43-3-41-71 41N 71W 553254 COLEMAN OIL & GAS INC No. 21-7 41N 71W 553440 COLEMAN OIL & GAS INC No. 14-19 41N 71W 553817 BILL BARRETT CORPORATION No. 12-12-4171 41N 71W 553818 BILL BARRETT CORPORATION No. 14-12-4171 41N 71W 553819 BILL BARRETT CORPORATION No. 23-12-4171 41N 71W 553934 COLEMAN OIL & GAS INC No. 43-8 41N 71W 554210 YATES PETROLEUM CORPORATION No. 1 41N 71W 

554211 YATES PETROLEUM CORPORATION No. 3 41N 71W 

554212 YATES PETROLEUM CORPORATION No. 2 41N 71W 

554213 YATES PETROLEUM CORPORATION No. 1 41N 71W 

554214 YATES PETROLEUM CORPORATION No. 12 41N 71W 

E-4 Draft EIS, West Antelope II C
Coal Bed Natural Gas Wells (Continued) 

API Company Well Name TWP RNG 

554215 YATES PETROLEUM CORPORATION No. 11 41N 71W 

554216 YATES PETROLEUM CORPORATION No. 7 41N 71W 

554217 YATES PETROLEUM CORPORATION No. 5 41N 71W 

554218 YATES PETROLEUM CORPORATION No. 4 41N 71W 

554219 YATES PETROLEUM CORPORATION No. 3 41N 71W 

554220 YATES PETROLEUM CORPORATION No. 2 41N 71W 

554221 YATES PETROLEUM CORPORATION No. 1 41N 71W 

554222 YATES PETROLEUM CORPORATION No. 1 41N 71W 

554223 YATES PETROLEUM CORPORATION No. 3 41N 71W 

554224 YATES PETROLEUM CORPORATION No. 2 41N 71W 

554225 YATES PETROLEUM CORPORATION No. 9 41N 71W 

554226 YATES PETROLEUM CORPORATION No. 8 41N 71W 

554227 YATES PETROLEUM CORPORATION No. 7 41N 71W 

554228 YATES PETROLEUM CORPORATION No. 6 41N 71W 

554229 YATES PETROLEUM CORPORATION No. 5 41N 71W 

554230 YATES PETROLEUM CORPORATION No. 4 41N 71W 

554231 YATES PETROLEUM CORPORATION No. 3 41N 71W 

554232 YATES PETROLEUM CORPORATION No. 2 41N 71W 

554233 YATES PETROLEUM CORPORATION No. 1 41N 71W 

554237 YATES PETROLEUM CORPORATION No. 4 41N 71W 

554238 YATES PETROLEUM CORPORATION No. 3 41N 71W 

554239 YATES PETROLEUM CORPORATION No. 2 41N 71W 

554285 YATES PETROLEUM CORPORATION No. 6 41N 71W 

554286 YATES PETROLEUM CORPORATION No. 8 41N 71W 

554287 YATES PETROLEUM CORPORATION No. 9 41N 71W 

554303 PEABODY NATURAL GAS LLC No. 23-1-41-71 41N 71W 

554305 PEABODY NATURAL GAS LLC No. 14-1-41-71 41N 71W 554306 PEABODY NATURAL GAS LLC No. 12-1-41-71 41N 71W 554552 LANCE OIL & GAS COMPANY INC No. 12-20-4171CA 41N 71W 554553 LANCE OIL & GAS COMPANY INC No. 34-14-4171CA 41N 71W 

Draft EIS, West Antelope II Coal Lease Application 
Appendix E 

Coal Bed Natural Gas Wells (Continued) 

API Company Well Name TWP RNG 

554554 LANCE OIL & GAS COMPANY INC No. 43-7-4171WY 41N 71W 

554555 LANCE OIL & GAS COMPANY INC No. 34-7-4171CA 41N 71W 

554566 LANCE OIL & GAS COMPANY INC No. 14-20-4171CA 41N 71W 554567 LANCE OIL & GAS COMPANY INC No. 21-20-4171CA 41N 71W 554568 LANCE OIL & GAS COMPANY INC No. 23-20-4171CA 41N 71W 554569 LANCE OIL & GAS COMPANY INC No. 32-20-4171CA 41N 71W 554570 LANCE OIL & GAS COMPANY INC No. 34-20-4171CA 41N 71W 554571 LANCE OIL & GAS COMPANY INC No. 41-20-4171CA 41N 71W 554572 LANCE OIL & GAS COMPANY INC No. 43-20-4171CA 41N 71W 554574 LANCE OIL & GAS COMPANY INC No. 14-21-4171CA 41N 71W 554575 LANCE OIL & GAS COMPANY INC No. 23-21-4171CA 41N 71W 554576 LANCE OIL & GAS COMPANY INC No. 34-22-4171CA 41N 71W 554577 LANCE OIL & GAS COMPANY INC No. 14-22-4171CA 41N 71W 554578 LANCE OIL & GAS COMPANY INC No. 21-29-4171CA 41N 71W 554579 LANCE OIL & GAS COMPANY INC No. 32-29-4171CA 41N 71W 554580 LANCE OIL & GAS COMPANY INC No. 41-29-4171CA 41N 71W 554755 LANCE OIL & GAS COMPANY INC No. 12-18-4171 41N 71W 

555297 YATES PETROLEUM CORPORATION No. 10NEW 41N 71W 

556665 LANCE OIL & GAS COMPANY INC No. 14-18-4171 41N 71W 

556666 LANCE OIL & GAS COMPANY INC No. 21-18-4171 41N 71W 

556667 LANCE OIL & GAS COMPANY INC No. 23-18-4171 41N 71W 927865 BOWERS OIL & GAS INC No. 1-33 41N 71W 

927888 COLEMAN OIL & GAS INC No. 43-30 41N 71W 927889 COLEMAN OIL & GAS INC No. 23-31 41N 71W 927891 COLEMAN OIL & GAS INC No. 14-31 41N 71W 927894 COLEMAN OIL & GAS INC No. 12-31 41N 71W 927912 BOWERS OIL & GAS INC No. 2-29 41N 71W 927913 BOWERS OIL & GAS INC No. 1-29 41N 71W 927944 BOWERS OIL & GAS INC No. 2-28 41N 71W 927945 BOWERS OIL & GAS INC No. 1-28 41N 71W 

E-6 Draft EIS, West Antelope II C
Coal Bed Natural Gas Wells (Continued) 

API Company Well Name TWP RNG 

927947 BOWERS OIL & GAS INC No. 5-29 41N 71W 928002 COLEMAN OIL & GAS INC No. 21-31 41N 71W 

928049 YATES PETROLEUM CORPORATION No. 3 41N 71W 

928050 YATES PETROLEUM CORPORATION No. 2 41N 71W 

928051 YATES PETROLEUM CORPORATION No. 1 41N 71W 

928063 YATES PETROLEUM CORPORATION No. 4 41N 71W 

928083 COLEMAN OIL & GAS INC No. 23-30 41N 71W 

928084 COLEMAN OIL & GAS INC No. 14-30 41N 71W 

Draft EIS, West Antelope II Coal Lease Application 
APPENDIX F 

SUPPLEMENTAL AIR QUALITY INFORMATION 
 

 

Appendix F 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

F-1.0 INTRODUCTION.............................................................................F-1 

F-2.0 REGULATORY BACKGROUND .......................................................F-1 

F-2.1 National Ambient Air Quality Standards ......................................F-2 

F-2.2 Attainment/Non-Attainment Area Designations ...........................F-2 

F-2.3 Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD)................................F-3 

F-2.4 Best Available Control Technology (BACT)....................................F-4 

F-2.5 New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) .................................F-4 

F-2.6 Federal Operating Permit Program ...............................................F-4 

F-2.7 Summary of Pre-Construction Permitting Procedures...................F-5 

F-3.0 EXISTING AIR QUALITY.................................................................F-7 

F-3.1 Particulates .................................................................................F-9 

F-3.1.1 Regional Particulate Emissions ...........................................F-9 

F-3.2 Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) ...............................................................F-12 

F-3.2.1 Regional NO2 Concentrations............................................F-12 

LIST OF TABLES 

Table F-1. Summary of Air Quality Monitoring in Wyoming’s Powder River 

Basin, 1980-2004....................................................................F-10
 

LIST OF FIGURES 

Figure F-1. Active PM10 Monitoring Stations in Northeastern Wyoming.......F-8 

Draft EIS, West Antelope II Coal Lease Application F-i 
 

 

 

 

Appendix F 

F-1.0 INTRODUCTION 

The information in this air quality appendix is taken from the Air Quality 

Technical Support Document prepared by McVehil-Monnett Associates, Inc. for 

ACC for use in the West Antelope II Coal Lease Application EIS1. The Air 

Quality Technical Support Document (MMA 2007) is a stand-alone document 

which is available for review. The purpose of this appendix is to provide 

background information on air quality issues, including the regulatory 

framework, regional air quality conditions, dispersion model methodologies, 

and the BACT process. 

The air quality discussion in Chapter 3 of this EIS focuses on potential air 

quality impacts specific to the Antelope Mine and the West Antelope II LBA 

tract. Cumulative air quality-related impacts associated with coal leasing in 

the PRB of Wyoming are addressed in Section 4.2.3 of this EIS, which 

summarizes the results the Task 1A (Current Air Quality Conditions) and Task 

3-A (Cumulative Air Quality Effects) Reports of the Powder River Basin Coal 

Review, prepared by the ENSR Corporation for the BLM Wyoming State Office, 

BLM Wyoming Casper Field Office, and BLM Montana Miles City Field Office, 

September 2005. 

Analysis methods utilized in preparing the Air Quality Technical Support 

Document meet or exceed the BLM’s “Data Adequacy Standards for the Powder 

River Coal Region” (1987) and include use of recent and extensive air quality 

modeling analyses conducted at the Antelope Mine by McVehil-Monnett 

Associates, Inc. for recent permitting actions. 

F-2.0 REGULATORY BACKGROUND 

Ambient air quality and air pollution emissions are regulated under federal and 

state laws and regulations. In Wyoming, the WDEQ/AQD is responsible for 

managing air quality through state regulations promulgated in the WAQSR and 

through the Wyoming SIP. WDEQ/AQD has also been delegated authority by 

the EPA to implement federal programs of the CAAA of 1990. 

The WDEQ/AQD implements WAQSR and CAAA requirements through various 

air permitting programs. A proponent initiating a project must undergo new 

source review and obtain a pre-construction permit or a permit waiver 

authorizing construction of the project. This process ensures that the project 

will comply with the air quality requirements at the time of construction. To 

ensure on-going compliance, WDEQ/AQD also implements an operating permit 

program that can require on-going monitoring of emissions sources and/or 

source control systems. 

Refer to page xv of the EIS for a list of abbreviations and acronyms used in this document. 

Draft EIS, West Antelope II Coal Lease Application F-1 

1 
 

 

Appendix F 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

F-1.0 INTRODUCTION.............................................................................F-1 

F-2.0 REGULATORY BACKGROUND .......................................................F-1 

F-2.1 National Ambient Air Quality Standards ......................................F-2 

F-2.2 Attainment/Non-Attainment Area Designations ...........................F-2 

F-2.3 Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD)................................F-3 

F-2.4 Best Available Control Technology (BACT)....................................F-4 

F-2.5 New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) .................................F-4 

F-2.6 Federal Operating Permit Program ...............................................F-4 

F-2.7 Summary of Pre-Construction Permitting Procedures...................F-5 

F-3.0 EXISTING AIR QUALITY.................................................................F-7 

F-3.1 Particulates .................................................................................F-9 

F-3.1.1 Regional Particulate Emissions ...........................................F-9 

F-3.2 Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) ...............................................................F-12 

F-3.2.1 Regional NO2 Concentrations............................................F-12 

LIST OF TABLES 

Table F-1. Summary of Air Quality Monitoring in Wyoming’s Powder River 

Basin, 1980-2004....................................................................F-10
 

LIST OF FIGURES 

Figure F-1. Active PM10 Monitoring Stations in Northeastern Wyoming.......F-8 

Draft EIS, West Antelope II Coal Lease Application F-i 
 

 

Appendix F 

PM10 due to localized sources and activity within the town. There are no other 

non-attainment areas within 150 miles of the project area. 

F-2.3 Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) 

Under requirements of the CAA, the EPA has established PSD rules, intended 

to prevent deterioration of air quality in attainment (and unclassifiable) areas. 

Increases in ambient concentrations of NO2, SO2, and PM10 are limited to 

modest increments above the existing or “baseline” air quality in most 

attainment areas of the country (Class II areas discussed below), and to very 

small incremental increases in pristine attainment areas (Class I areas 

discussed below). 

For the purposes of PSD, the EPA has categorized each attainment area within 

the United States into one of three PSD area classifications. PSD Class I is the 

most restrictive air quality category, and was created by Congress to prevent 

further deterioration of air quality in national and international parks, national 

memorial parks and national wilderness areas of a given size threshold which 

were in existence prior to 1977, or those additional areas which have since 

been designated Class I under federal regulations (40 CFR 52.21). All 

remaining areas outside of the designated Class I boundaries were designated 

Class II areas, which allow a relatively greater deterioration of air quality over 

that in existence in 1977, although still within the NAAQS. No Class III areas, 

which would allow further degradation, have been designated. 

The federal land managers have also identified certain federal assets with Class 

II status as “sensitive” Class II areas for which air quality and/or visibility are 

valued resources. 

The closest Class I area to the West Antelope II LBA tract is Wind Cave National 

Park in South Dakota, located about 94 miles east of the site. The next closest 

Class I area is the North Absaroka Wilderness, located about 256 miles to the 

west-northwest. The closest sensitive Class II areas are the Devils Tower 

National Monument, the Cloud Peak Wilderness Area and the Northern 

Cheyenne Indian Reservation (in Montana), which are approximately 86, 108 

and 155 miles from the Antelope Mine, respectively. See EIS Table 3-8 for a list 

of Class I and sensitive Class II areas in the vicinity of the PRB and their 

distance from the Antelope Mine. 

PSD regulations limit the maximum allowable increase (increment) in ambient 

PM10 in a Class I airshed resulting from major stationary sources or major 

modifications to 4 μg/m3 (annual geometric mean) and 8 μg/m3 (24-hour 

average). Increases in other criteria pollutants are similarly limited. Specific 

types of facilities listed in the PSD rules which emit, or have the PTE, 100 tons 

per year or more of PM10 or other criteria air pollutants, or any other facility 

which emits, or has the PTE, 250 tons per year or more of PM10 or other 

Draft EIS, West Antelope II Coal Lease Application F-3 
 

 

 

Appendix F 

criteria air pollutants, are considered major stationary sources and must 

therefore demonstrate compliance with those incremental standards during the 

new source permitting process. However, fugitive emissions are not counted 

against the PSD major source applicability threshold unless the source is so 

designated by federal rule (40 CFR 52.21). As a result, the surface coal mines 

in the PRB have not been subject to permitting under the PSD regulations 

because the mine emissions that are subject to PSD applicability levels fall 

below these thresholds. 

F-2.4 Best Available Control Technology (BACT) 

All sources being permitted within Wyoming must meet state-specific BACT 

requirements, regardless of whether the source is subject to state/federal PSD 

review. During new source review, a BACT analysis is developed for the 

proposed project. The BACT analysis must evaluate all control options on the 

basis of technical, economic and environmental feasibility. BACT for mining 

operations in the PRB is largely dictated by categorical control requirements 

defined in the WAQSR. BACT decisions are mandated through the new source 

review pre-construction permit. 

F-2.5 New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) 

The NSPS are a program of “end-of-stack” technology-based controls/ 

approaches required by the CAA and adopted by reference into the WAQSR. 

These standards, which apply to specific types of new, modified or reconstructed stationary sources, require the sources to achieve some base level 

of emissions control. For surface coal mining in the PRB, this includes certain 

activities at coal preparation plants. Specifically, the applicable requirements 

can be found at 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart Y (Standards of Performance for Coal 

Preparation Plants), and in the WAQSR. However, in Wyoming these standards 

are typically less stringent than state-level BACT limits. 

F-2.6 Federal Operating Permit Program 

The CAAA of 1990 required the establishment of a facility-wide permitting 

program for larger sources of pollution. This program, known as the Federal 

Operating Permit Program, or “Title V” (codified at Title V of the 1990 CAAA), 

requires that “major sources” of air pollutants obtain a federal operating 

permit. Under this program, a “major source” is a facility that has the PTE 

more than 100 tpy of any regulated pollutant, 10 tpy of any single HAP, or 25 

tpy or more of any combination of HAPs, from applicable sources. The 

operating permit is a compilation of all applicable air quality requirements for a 

facility and requires an ongoing demonstration of compliance through testing, 

monitoring, reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Under its proposed 

permit application, the Antelope Mine’s PTE for PM10 would be 12.1 tons per 

year, well below the 100 tpy applicability threshold. 

F-4 Draft EIS, West Antelope II Coal Lease Application 
 

 

Appendix F 

F-2.7 Summary of Pre-Construction Permitting Procedures 

The WDEQ/AQD administers a permitting program to assist the agency in 

managing the state’s air resources. Under this program, anyone planning to 

construct, modify, or use a facility capable of emitting designated pollutants 

into the atmosphere must obtain an air quality permit to construct. Coal 

mines fall into this category. A new coal mine, or a modification to an existing 

mine, must be permitted by WDEQ/AQD, pursuant to the provisions of 

WAQSR Chapter 6, Section 2. Under these provisions, a successful permittee 

must demonstrate that it will comply with all applicable aspects of the WAQSR 

including state and federal ambient air standards. 

When a permittee decides to construct a new surface coal mine or modify 

operations at an existing surface coal mine that will cause an increase in 

pollutant emissions, they must submit an application, which is reviewed by 

WDEQ/AQD new source review staff and the applicable WDEQ/AQD field 

office. Typically, a company will meet with the WDEQ/AQD prior to submitting 

an application to determine issues and details that need to be included in the 

application. A surface coal mining application will include the standard 

application, BACT measures that will be implemented, an inventory of point 

and fugitive sources for the mine in question as well as neighboring mines and 

other sources, and air quality modeling analyses addressing cumulative 

impacts in the mining region. 

BACT must be employed at all sources permitted/exempted in Wyoming. Per 

WAQSR Chapter 6, Section 2, BACT at large mining operations typically 

include but may not be limited to: paving of access roads, treating of haul 

routes with chemical dust suppressant (and water) and storage of large 

amounts of materials/coal awaiting shipment in enclosures such as silos, 

troughs or barns. These (and other) mitigation measures are considered in the 

development of emission inventories used for modeling/permitting. 

For the modeling analyses, an applicant must compile an emission inventory of 

PM10 from their mining operation, neighboring mines and other surrounding 

sources. For PM10 from the applicant mine, both point source and fugitive dust 

emissions are quantified. The emissions are based on the facility’s potential to 

emit in each year of the LOM. The applicant also examines the surrounding 

coal mining operations and their previous air quality permits to determine their 

emissions throughout the LOM. Two or more worst-case years (generally with 

the highest potential emissions) are then modeled in detail. Other surrounding 

emission sources, such as power plants, compressor stations, paved highways, 

long-haul railroad lines and municipalities are also considered in the modeling 

analysis. 

Coal mines in the PRB are also required to quantify NOx emissions from their 

operations. Dispersion modeling is required to demonstrate compliance with 

Draft EIS, West Antelope II Coal Lease Application F-5 
 

Appendix F 

the ambient NO2 standard. Potential emissions from diesel powered mining 

equipment, blasting and locomotive emissions (on mine property) are 

considered in the modeling analyses. In a fashion similar to the PM10 analysis, 

neighboring mining operations and other surrounding sources are also 

included in the NOx /NO2 analysis. 

Long-term PM10 modeling is conducted for the permit application to 

demonstrate compliance with the annual PM10 standard. For both point and 

area sources, the Industrial Source Complex Long Term model, version 3 

(ISCLT3) is typically used. 

The AQD has recently required all mines in the PRB to “submit and justify a 

background PM10 concentration with each permit application” (WDEQ-AQD, 

2006b). A site specific PM10 background concentration of 12 μg/m3 was 

developed in the modeling analysis and submitted to the AQD in May, 2006, in 

the Application to Modify the Antelope Mine. The WDEQ approved the permit 

on April 23, 2007. The modeling results are added to the background and 

compared to the annual standard. Likewise, compliance with the annual NO2 

standard is verified using ISCLT3 and an NO2 background concentration of 20 

μg/m3. 

Short-term PM10 modeling is not required by WDEQ-AQD, nor does WDEQAQD consider it to be an accurate representation of short-term impacts. 

Section 234 of the 1990 CAAA mandates the administrator of the EPA to 

analyze the accuracy of short-term modeling of fugitive particulate emissions 

from surface coal mines. A June 26, 1996 letter from EPA Region VIII to 

Wyoming state representative, Ms. Barbara Cubin, details the results of an EPA 

study wherein the short-term model failed to meet evaluation criteria and 

tended to significantly overpredict 24-hour impacts of surface coal mines. The 

memorandum of agreement of January 24, 1994 between EPA Region VIII and 

the state of Wyoming allows WDEQ-AQD to conduct monitoring in lieu of shortterm modeling for assessing coal mining-related impacts in the PRB. This 

agreement remains in effect and ambient particulate monitoring is required of 

each coal mine through conditions of their respective permits. The 1994 

Memorandum of Agreement also requires WDEQ/AQD to implement “Best 

Available Work Practice” mitigation measures at any mine where an exceedance 

of the PM10 air quality standard has occurred. 

The permit application is reviewed by WDEQ/AQD to determine compliance 

with all applicable air quality standards and regulations. This includes review 

of compliance with emission limitations established by NSPS, review of 

compliance with ambient standards through modeling analyses, and 

establishment of control measures to meet BACT requirements. The 

WDEQ/AQD proposed permit conditions are sent to public notice for a 30-day 

review period after which a final decision on the permit is made (or a public 

hearing is held prior to a final permit decision). 

F-6 Draft EIS, West Antelope II Coal Lease Application 
 

 

Appendix F 

The Antelope Mine has prepared permit applications and conducted air quality 

modeling analyses when mine plan changes have dictated and as required by 

WDEQ/AQD. These applications and analyses demonstrate that mining 

operations have complied, and will continue to comply, with all applicable 

aspects of the WAQSR and the federal CAAA. 

In conducting an analysis of air quality impacts in the PRB for the Wyoming 

and Montana BLM, the Task 1a Report for the Powder River Basin Coal Review 

reports a background concentration of 5 μg/m3 for NOx for the entire PRB. The 

air permit action for the Antelope Mine used a background concentration of 12 

μg/m3 for PM10 (See EIS Table 3-3). These concentrations are based on 

recently monitored values in Gillette, Wyoming and at the Antelope Mine 

respectively, and include all sources operating at the time the value was 

measured, including existing coal mine operations located around Gillette. 

In 2006, the Antelope Mine submitted detailed modeling analyses to the 

WDEQ-AQD in support of a request for a permit modification, which addressed 

the impacts associated with a proposed production increase. These analyses 

considered all emissions sources and included the neighboring Jacobs Ranch, 

Black Thunder, and North Antelope Rochelle mines, as well as the former 

North Rochelle Mine. The WDEQ approved the mine modification in Permit 

MD-1543 on April 23, 2007. 

F-3.0 EXISTING AIR QUALITY 

WDEQ monitors air quality through an extensive network of air quality 

monitors throughout the state. Particulate matter is generally measured as 

particulate matter with mean aerodynamic diameters smaller than 10 microns 

(PM10). The eastern portion of the PRB has an extensive network of PM10 

monitors operated by the mining industry due to the density of coal mines in 

the region (Figure F-1). There are also monitors in Sheridan, Gillette, Arvada 

and Wright, Wyoming. 

This network is sited to measure ambient air quality and to infer impacts from 

specific sources. Source-specific monitors may also be used for developing 

trends in PM10 concentrations. WDEQ uses data from this monitoring network 

to identify potential air quality problems and to anticipate issues related to air 

quality. With this information, the WDEQ can stop or reverse trends that 

negatively affect the ambient air. Part of that effort has resulted in the 

formation of a coalition involving the counties, coal companies and coal bed 

methane operators to focus on minimizing dust from roads. 

The WDEQ may also take enforcement action to remedy a situation where 

monitoring shows a violation of any standard. If a monitored standard is 

Draft EIS, West Antelope II Coal Lease Application F-7 
!

Appendix F 

MONTANA
 

Buffalo

Sheridan

ts14 

Sheridan 

County 

WZ90

ts16 

ts14 

Gillette

Campbell 

County 

ts16 

!(59 

WZ90

Crook 

County 

Johnson 

County 

Wright

!(59 

Weston 

County 

WZ25

Natrona 

County 

Converse 

County 

!(59 

Niobrara 

County 

Casper

Douglas

SOUTH DAKOTA
 

£ LEGEND

PM 10 Monitoring Station ( Active in 2006 

Source: EPA Airdata 

Existing Federal Coal Leases 

0 25 50 Cities in Northeastern Wyoming 

GRAPHIC SCALE - MILES 

Figure F-1. Active PM10 Monitoring Stations in Northeastern Wyoming. 

F-8 Draft EIS, West Antelope II Coal Lease Application 
 

 

Appendix F 

exceeded at a specific source, the state agency may initiate enforcement 

against that source. In those instances, the state agency may use a negotiated 

settlement agreement to seek corrective action. 

WDEQ operates two visibility monitoring stations in the PRB, both of which are 

IMPROVE sites. One of these sites is located north of Gillette. This site 

includes a nephelometer, a transmissometer, an aerosol monitor (IMPROVE 

protocol), and meteorological instruments to measure wind speed, direction, 

temperature, and relative humidity. The site is also equipped with a digital 

camera and analyzers for ozone and nitrogen oxides (NO, NO2, NOx). The 

second visibility monitoring station is located west of Buffalo and includes a 

nephelometer, a transmissometer, an aerosol monitor (IMPROVE), 

meteorological instruments to measure wind speed, direction, temperature, 

and relative humidity, plus a digital camera. 

Air quality monitoring equipment for NO2 within the PRB includes a WARMS 

operated by the BLM to detect sulfur and nitrogen concentrations near Buffalo, 

Sheridan, and Newcastle and a NADP monitoring system for precipitation 

chemistry in Newcastle. 

F-3.1 Particulates 

The federal and state standards for particulate matter pollutant are discussed 

in Chapter 3, Section 3.4.2.1 of the EIS. 

F-3.1.1 Regional Particulate Emissions 

WDEQ/AQD requires monitoring data to document the air quality at all of the 

PRB mines. Each mine monitored PM10 for a 24-hour period every six days at 

multiple monitoring sites through the end of 2001. This frequency was 

increased by the WDEQ/AQD to one in every three days beginning in 2002. 

Available monitoring data for TSP began in 1980 and data for PM10 began in 

1989. As a result, over 57,000 TSP and 27,000 PM10 samples have been 

collected through 2004 making the eastern PRB one of the most densely 

monitored areas in the country (See Figure F-1). Table F-1 uses the annual 

arithmetic average of all sites to summarize these data. 

As indicated in Table F-1, the long-term trend in particulate emissions was 

relatively flat through 1998. TSP concentration from 1980 through 2003 

averaged 37.7 μg/m3, ranging between 27.8 μg/m3 and 57.5 μg/m3. There 

were increases in 1988 and 1996, which may have been the result of fires in 

the region during those years. Increases from 1999 to 2003 may be related to 

drought conditions as well as increases in coal and overburden production and 

increases in other natural resource development activities, including CBNG, 

during that period. PM10 concentrations from 1989 through 2004 averaged 

20.0 μg/m3, ranging between 12.9 and 27.2 μg/m3. 

Draft EIS, West Antelope II Coal Lease Application F-9 
 

Appendix F 

Table F-1. Summary of Air Quality Monitoring in Wyoming’s Powder River 

Basin, 1980-2004 

Year Coal Yards Number of Mines Number of TSP PM10 

Produced Moved Operating/Monitoring Sites Average Average 

(mmtpy) (mmbcy) TSP/Monitoring PM10 TSP/PM10 (μg/m3) (μg/m3) 

1980 58.7 105.3 10/14/0 34/0 35.3 

1981 71.0 133.4 11/13/0 35/0 39.4 

1982 76.1 141.1 11/14/0 40/0 31.2 

1983 84.9 150.9 13/14/1 41/1 32.6 11.2 

1984 105.3 169.5 14/16/1 42/1 33.9 11.1 

1985 113.0 203.4 16/17/0 49/0 32.3 

1986 111.2 165.7 16/17/0 45/0 29.3 

1987 120.7 174.6 16/17/0 43/0 31.7 

1988 138.8 209.7 16/17/0 43/0 37.7 

1989 147.5 215.6 15/17/3 40/3 32.1 15.9 

1990 160.7 223.5 17/17/5 47/5 34.3 14.8 

1991 171.4 245.9 17/17/5 46/6 32.7 16.5 

1992 166.1 296.0 17/17/7 41/7 31.7 15.9 

1993 188.8 389.5 17/17/8 40/11 27.8 14.5 

1994 213.6 483.9 17/18/8 44/11 31.7 15.5 

1995 242.6 512.7 16/18/8 41/12 29.6 12.9 

1996 257.0 605.4 17/18/8 41/12 35.4 16.0 

1997 259.7 622.0 16/17/10 39/15 33.3 15.9 

1998 308.6 710.7 16/17/12 36/17 33.9 15.9 

1999 317.1 758.0 15/17/12 36/18 55.3 21.6 

2000 322.5 845.3 15/15/12 31/17 56.1 23.4 

2001 354.1 927.1 12/11/12 29/29 57.5 27.2 

2002 359.7 1032.1 13/11/13 23/38 56.0 23.3 

2003 363.7 1043.6 13/10/11 15/30 53.0 22.7 

2004 381.6 1184.4 13/5/13 6/36 --* 20.0 

Sources: 

1980-1996 emissions and production data: April 1997 WMA report for WDEQ/AQD. 

1997-2004 emissions: EPA AirData/ WDEQ/AQD databases (EPA 2005a, WDEQ/AQD 2005b). 

1997-2004 data: WDEQ/AQD and Wyoming State Inspector of Mines (WDEQ/AQD 2005c and Wyoming 

Department of Employment 1997-2004). 

*Data no longer pertinent due to paucity of monitoring sites 

F-10 Draft EIS, West Antelope II Coal Lease Application 
 Appendix F 

Significant surface coal mining growth occurred in the PRB during the period 

1980-2004. Coal production increased from about 59 mmtpy to over 380 

mmtpy (an increase of over 331 mmtpy), and associated overburden production 

increased from 105 mmbcy to over 1184 mmbcy. From 1980 through 2005, 

the annual coal production increased six-fold, while annual overburden 

production increased ten-fold over the same period. The proportionately larger 

annual increase in overburden production is probably because mines are 

gradually moving into areas of higher stripping ratios. 

The relatively flat trend in particulate emissions from 1980 through 1998 is 

due in large part to the BACT requirements of the Wyoming air quality 

program. These control measures include watering and chemical treatment of 

roads, limiting the amount of area disturbed, temporary revegetation of 

disturbed areas to reduce wind erosion, and expedited final reclamation. 

The average annual TSP concentration increased from 33.9 g/m3 in 1998 to 

55.3 g/m3 in 1999 and 57.5 μg/m3 in 2001. The 2003 average annual TSP 

concentration was 53.0 μg/m3. 

The average annual PM10 concentration increased from 15.9 μg/m3 in 1998 to 

21.6 μg/m3 in 1999 and reached 27.2 μg/m3 in 2001; one of the largest 

increases in PM10 since it has been monitored in the PRB. The monitored 

concentrations have decreased since 2001. In 2004, the average annual 

concentration dropped to 20.0 μg/m3. 

Emissions control measures that are used to control particulate emissions at 

the PRB mines, including the Antelope Mine, are discussed in Chapter 3, 

Section 3.4.2.3 of the EIS. 

County roads are also responsible for some portion of the fugitive dust related 

to transportation. To help address this problem, the Campbell County 

Commissioners, coal bed methane and oil production companies and coal mine 

operators have formed a coalition to implement the most effective dust control 

measures on a number of county roads. Measures taken have ranged from the 

implementation of speed limits to paving of heavily traveled roads. The 

coalition has utilized chemical treatments to control dust as well as closing 

roads where appropriate or necessary and rebuilding existing roads to higher 

specifications. The coalition requested money from the Wyoming State 

Legislature to fund acquisition of Rotomill (ground up asphalt) to be mixed with 

gravel for use in treating some of the roads in the PRB. The Rotomill/gravel 

mixture has been demonstrated to be effective in reducing dust; the life of the 

mixture on treated roads is estimated to be from five to six years (Bott, 2006). 

Draft EIS, West Antelope II Coal Lease Application F-11 
Appendix F 

F-3.2 Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) 

The federal and state standards for NO2 are discussed in Chapter 3, Section 

3.4.3.1 of the EIS. 

F-3.2.1 Regional NO2 Concentrations 

As discussed in Section 3.4.3.3 of the EIS, annual mean NO2 concentrations 

have been periodically measured in the PRB since 1975. The annual mean 

NO2 concentrations recorded by those monitoring efforts have all been well 

below the 100 μg/m3 standard. The highest annual mean concentration 

recorded to date was 22 μg/m3 at two separate sites between March 1996 and 

April 1997. 

NO2 is a product of incomplete combustion at sources such as gasoline- and 

diesel-burning engines or from mine blasting activities. Incomplete combustion 

during blasting may be caused by wet conditions, incompetent or fractured 

geological formations, deformation of bore holes, and other factors. Generally, 

blasting-related NOx emissions are more prevalent at operations that use the 

blasting technique referred to as cast blasting (Chancellor 2003). Cast blasting 

refers to a type of direct blasting in which the blast is designed to cast the 

overburden from on top of the coal into the previously mined area. 

In the mid-to late-1990s, OSM received complaints from several citizens about 

blasting clouds from several mines in the PRB. EPA expressed concerns that 

NO2 levels in some of those blasting clouds may have been sufficiently high at 

times to cause human health effects. In response to those concerns, several 

studies have been conducted, the mines have modified their blasting 

techniques, and the WDEQ has imposed additional blasting restrictions at a 

limited number of mines. More information about these studies and 

restrictions is presented in the following discussion. 

On the order of the Director of the WDEQ, members of the mining industry in 

the PRB conducted a comprehensive, multi-year monitoring and modeling 

study of NO2 exposures from blast clouds. Results of the study (TBCC 2002), 

conducted pursuant to protocols reviewed and approved by the WDEQ, were 

provided to the WDEQ and the public in July 2002. 

Using a combination of NO2 measurements collected near 91 blast sites (78 

valid runs) and a conservative modeling/extrapolation approach, the authors 

developed a series of “safe” setback curves for coal, overburden and cast shots 

for various wind speed classes. The curves were derived from the sampled 

data, conservative projections of concentrations at greater/lesser distances 

than measured and an assumed safe level (based on a comprehensive review of 

available health effects data) of 5.0 ppm for 10 minutes. 

F-12 Draft EIS, West Antelope II Coal Lease Application 
 Appendix F 

Subsequently, the data in the 2002 report (collected at the Black Thunder 

Mine) were augmented with monitored data/analyses from an additional 45 

validated blast events at the Eagle Butte, North Antelope Rochelle, Buckskin 

and Cordero-Rojo mines. New curves, based on the entire basin-wide data set 

encompassing 123 valid tests, were developed but differed only slightly from 

the original Black Thunder curves. 

Measures that are used by the mines to control NO2 emissions related to 

blasting by the PRB mines are discussed in Chapter 3, Section 3.4.3.3 of the 

EIS. 

Draft EIS, West Antelope II Coal Lease Application F-13 
 

APPENDIX G 

NON-MINE GROUNDWATER AND 

SURFACE WATER RIGHTS WITHIN AND 

ADJACENT TO THE WEST ANTELOPE II 

LBA TRACT
 
NON-MINING GROUND WATER RIGHTS WITHIN THREE MILES OF THE WEST ANTELOPE II LBA TRACT Permit Priority T R S QQ Applicant Facility Name Statu

35/5/530W 11/13/2003 41 71 22 NENE WILLIAMS PRODUCTION RMT COMPANY 

BRIDLE BIT RANCH 41-22-4171 GSI 

35/6/530W 11/13/2003 41 71 15 SWSE WILLIAMS PRODUCTION RMT COMPANY 

BRIDLE BIT RANCH 34-15-4171 GSI 

39/10/554W 2/23/2007 41 71 4 SWSW COLEMAN OIL & GAS, INC. JAROSH FEDERAL #14-4 UNA 

39/7/554W 2/23/2007 41 71 4 NESE COLEMAN OIL & GAS, INC. JAROSH FEDERAL #43-8 UNA 

39/8/554W 2/23/2007 41 71 4 NENE COLEMAN OIL & GAS, INC. JAROSH FEDERAL #41-8 UNA 

39/9/308W 9/25/2006 42 71 27 SESE West Roundup Resources, Inc. SCT-5 UNA 39/9/554W 2/23/2007 41 71 4 SESW COLEMAN OIL & GAS, INC. JAROSH FEDERAL #24-4 UNA 

P108190W 12/4/1997 41 71 8 SWNE JERRY DILTS** KEY PRODUCTION CO. INC. SAPELO #1 UNA 

P108419W 12/16/1997 41 71 1 NWSW REDSTONE RESOURCES, INC FEDERAL 13AC-111 UNA 

P109370W 3/25/1998 41 71 17 NESW 

WYO BOARD OF LAND COMMISSIONERS** YATES PETROLEUM CORP. SAPELO FEDERAL #1 A&C 

P109953W 5/1/1998 41 71 19 NWNE PARTICIA L. ISENBERGER LITTON ENL LY #2 A&C P111000W 7/13/1998 42 72 36 SESE 

WY STATE BOARD OF LAND COMMISSIONERS** BOWERS OIL/GAS, INC. BOG-State #3-36 GST 

P11652W 8/1/1954 41 71 35 SENE ROBERT E. ISENBERGER COAL MINE #1 GST P11718W 12/24/1971 41 71 31 SESE ROBERT E. ISENBERGER ARTESIAN #2 GST 

P122938W 1/19/2000 41 71 18 NWSW WILLIAMS PRODUCTION RMT, COMPANY KILMER 13-18-4171 CAN 

P12477P 12/31/1930 40 72 13 SESW DUANE & CHLOE HAEFELE HAEFELE #1 1930 GST 

P12478P 12/31/1933 40 72 14 NESE DUANE & CHLOE HAEFELE HAEFELE #2 1933 GST 

P12479P 12/31/1952 40 72 23 NESW DUANE & CHLOE HAEFELE HAEFELE #3 1952 GST 

P125697W 5/16/2000 41 71 18 SENE Coleman Oil & Gas, Inc. FEDERAL #42-18 GST P12753P 12/30/1963 40 71 17 NESE USDA FOREST SERVICE JACOBS #TB 92 GST 

P12754P 12/30/1951 41 71 3 NESW USDA FOREST SERVICE MATHESON #TB 42 GST 

P12756P 12/30/1966 42 71 35 SWSE USDA FOREST SERVICE WILKINSON #TB 129 GST 

P12758P 12/30/1963 42 71 33 SENE USDA FOREST SERVICE MATHESON #TB 72 GST 

P12906W 9/21/2004 41 71 20 NENW LANCE OIL AND GAS COMPANY 

P LITTON FEDERAL 21-20-4171 CA GST 

P131960W 1/5/2001 41 71 19 NENW Coleman Oil & Gas, Inc. ISSENBERGER #21-19 GST 

P136801W 7/9/2001 41 71 27 SWNE CONOCO PHILLIPS COMPANY 

ANTELOPE CREEK #32-27-41-71 GST 

P137066W 7/17/2001 41 72 1 SWSW COLEMAN OIL & GAS, INC. SIOUX RANCH # 14-1 GST 

P137310W 7/23/2001 41 72 12 SWNW 

COLEMAN OIL & GAS, INC.** SIOUX RANCH, INC/RENO SIOUX RANCH # 12-12 GST 

P137311W 7/23/2001 41 72 12 SWSW 

COLEMAN OIL & GAS, INC.** SIOUX RANCH, INC/RENO SIOUX RANCH # 14-12 GST 

P138505W 8/20/2001 41 71 30 NESE COLEMAN OIL & GAS, INC. ISENBERGER # 9-30LW GSI 

P138508W 8/20/2001 41 71 30 SWNE NORTH FINN, LLC ISENBERGER # 7-30UW GSI 

P138520W 8/20/2001 41 71 31 SWNW NORTH FINN, LLC ISENBERGER # 5-31UW GSI 

P138522W 8/20/2001 41 71 31 NESW NORTH FINN, LLC ISENBERGER # 11-31UW GSI 

P138524W 8/20/2001 41 71 31 SWSW NORTH FINN, LLC ISENBERGER # 13-31UW GSI 

Draft EIS, West Antelope II Coal Lease Application 
Appendix G 

NON-MINING GROUND WATER RIGHTS WITHIN THREE MILES OF THE WEST ANTELOPE II LBA TRACT Permit Priority T R S QQ Applicant Facility Name Statu

P138526W 8/20/2001 41 72 13 NENW Coleman Oil & Gas, Inc. ISENBERGER # 3-13UW GST 

P138528W 8/20/2001 41 72 13 SWNW Coleman Oil & Gas, Inc. ISENBERGER 12-13 GST 

P138530W 8/20/2001 41 72 13 NESW Coleman Oil & Gas, Inc. ISENBERGER # 23-13 GST 

P138532W 8/20/2001 41 72 13 SWSW Coleman Oil & Gas, Inc. ISENBERGER #14-13 GST 

P138538W 8/20/2001 41 72 24 NENW NORTH FINN, LLC ISENBERGER # 3-24UW GSI P138540W 8/20/2001 41 72 24 NENE NORTH FINN, LLC ISENBERGER # 1-24UW GSI P139742W 10/1/2001 41 71 33 NESW YATES PETROLEUM CORP. 

ROCHELLE HILLS CS FEDERAL #1 GSE 

P143882W 3/28/2002 41 71 7 SWNW REDSTONE RESOURCES INC. FEDERAL 12LW-711 GSI P143883W 3/28/2002 41 71 8 SWNW REDSTONE RESOURCES INC. FEDERAL 12LW-811 GSI P143884W 3/28/2002 41 71 7 SWNW REDSTONE RESOURCES INC. FEDERAL 12UW-711 GSI P143885W 3/28/2002 41 71 8 SWNW REDSTONE RESOURCES INC. FEDERAL 12UW-811 GSI P143886W 3/28/2002 41 71 5 SWNW REDSTONE RESOURCES INC. FEDERAL 12W-511 GSI 

P143887W 3/28/2002 41 71 5 SWSW REDSTONE RESOURCES INC. FEDERAL 14LW-511 GSI 

P143888W 3/28/2002 41 71 7 SWSW REDSTONE RESOURCES INC. FEDERAL 14LW-711 GSI 

P143889W 3/28/2002 41 71 8 SWSW REDSTONE RESOURCES INC. FEDERAL 14LW-811 GSI 

P143890W 3/28/2002 41 71 5 SWSW REDSTONE RESOURCES INC. FEDERAL 14UW-511 GSI 

P143891W 3/28/2002 41 71 7 SWSW REDSTONE RESOURCES INC. FEDERAL 14UW-711 GSI 

P143892W 3/28/2002 41 71 8 SWSW REDSTONE RESOURCES INC. FEDERAL 14UW-811 GSI 

P143893W 3/28/2002 41 71 7 NENW REDSTONE RESOURCES INC. FEDERAL 21UW-711 GSI P143894W 3/28/2002 41 71 8 NENW REDSTONE RESOURCES INC. FEDERAL 21UW-811 GSI P143895W 3/28/2002 41 71 5 NENW REDSTONE RESOURCES INC. FEDERAL 21W-511 GSI 

P143896W 3/28/2002 41 71 7 NENW REDSTONE RESOURCES INC. FEDERAL 21W-711 GSI 

P143897W 3/28/2002 41 71 8 NENW REDSTONE RESOURCES INC. FEDERAL 21W-811 GSI 

P143898W 3/28/2002 41 71 5 NESW REDSTONE RESOURCES INC. FEDERAL 23LW-511 GSI P143899W 3/28/2002 41 71 7 NESW REDSTONE RESOURCES INC. FEDERAL 23LW-711 GSI 

P143900W 3/28/2002 41 71 8 NESW REDSTONE RESOURCES INC. FEDERAL 23LW-811 GSI P143901W 3/28/2002 41 71 5 NESW REDSTONE RESOURCES INC. FEDERAL 23UW-511 GSI P143902W 3/28/2002 41 71 7 NESW REDSTONE RESOURCES INC. FEDERAL 23UW-711 GSI P143903W 3/28/2002 41 71 8 NESW REDSTONE RESOURCES INC. FEDERAL 23UW-811 GSI P143904W 3/28/2002 41 71 17 SWNE 

REDSTONE RESOURCES INC.** WY STATE BOARD OF LAND COMMISSIONERS FEDERAL 32LW-1711 GSI 

P143905W 3/28/2002 41 71 18 SWNE REDSTONE RESOURCES INC. FEDERAL 32LW-1811 GSI 

P143906W 3/28/2002 41 71 19 SWNE REDSTONE RESOURCES INC. FEDERAL 32LW-1911 GSI 

P143907W 3/28/2002 41 71 8 SWNE REDSTONE RESOURCES INC. FEDERAL 32LW-811 GSI P143908W 3/28/2002 41 71 17 SWNE 

REDSTONE RESOURCES INC.** WY STATE BOARD OF LAND COMMISSIONERS FEDERAL 32UW-1711 GSI 

P143909W 3/28/2002 41 71 18 SWNE REDSTONE RESOURCES INC. FEDERAL 32UW-1811 GSI 

P143910W 3/28/2002 41 71 19 SWNE REDSTONE RESOURCES INC. FEDERAL 32UW-1911 GSI 

P143911W 3/28/2002 41 71 8 SWNE REDSTONE RESOURCES INC. FEDERAL 32UW-811 GSI P143912W 3/28/2002 41 71 18 SWSE REDSTONE RESOURCES INC. FEDERAL 34LW-1811 GSI 

P143913W 3/28/2002 41 71 19 SWSE REDSTONE RESOURCES INC. FEDERAL 34LW-1911 GSI 

G-2 Draft EIS, West Antelope 
NON-MINING GROUND WATER RIGHTS WITHIN THREE MILES OF THE WEST ANTELOPE II LBA TRACT Permit Priority T R S QQ Applicant Facility Name Statu

P143914W 3/28/2002 41 71 18 SWSE REDSTONE RESOURCES INC. FEDERAL 34UW-1811 GSI P143915W 3/28/2002 41 71 19 SWSE REDSTONE RESOURCES INC. FEDERAL 34UW-1911 GSI P143916W 3/28/2002 41 71 17 NENE REDSTONE RESOURCES INC. FEDERAL 41LW-1711 GSI 

P143917W 3/28/2002 41 71 18 NENE REDSTONE RESOURCES INC. FEDERAL 41LW-1811 GSI 

P143918W 3/28/2002 41 71 19 NENE REDSTONE RESOURCES INC. FEDERAL 41LW-1911 GSI 

P143919W 3/28/2002 41 71 8 NENE REDSTONE RESOURCES INC. FEDERAL 41LW-811 GSI 

P143920W 3/28/2002 41 71 17 NENE REDSTONE RESOURCES INC. FEDERAL 41UW-1711 GSI 

P143921W 3/28/2002 41 71 18 NENE REDSTONE RESOURCES INC. FEDERAL 41UW-1811 GSI 

P143922W 3/28/2002 41 71 19 NENE REDSTONE RESOURCES INC. FEDERAL 41UW-1911 GSI 

P143923W 3/28/2002 41 71 8 NENE REDSTONE RESOURCES INC. FEDERAL 41UW-811 GSI 

P143924W 3/28/2002 41 71 18 NESE REDSTONE RESOURCES INC. FEDERAL 43LW-1811 GSI P143925W 3/28/2002 41 71 19 NESE REDSTONE RESOURCES INC. FEDERAL 43LW-1911 GSI 

P143926W 3/28/2002 41 71 18 NESE REDSTONE RESOURCES INC. FEDERAL 43UW-1811 GSI 

P143927W 3/28/2002 41 71 19 NESE REDSTONE RESOURCES INC. FEDERAL 43UW-1911 GSI 

P143928W 3/28/2002 41 71 19 NESW REDSTONE RESOURCES INC. ISENBERGER #11-19LW GSI 

P143929W 3/28/2002 41 71 19 NESW REDSTONE RESOURCES INC. ISENBERGER #11-19UW GSI 

P143930W 3/28/2002 41 71 19 SWSW REDSTONE RESOURCES INC. ISENBERGER #13-19LW GSI 

P143931W 3/28/2002 41 71 19 SWSW Coleman Oil & Gas, Inc. ISENBERGER #13-19UW GST 

P143932W 3/28/2002 41 71 19 NENW REDSTONE RESOURCES INC. ISENBERGER #3-19LW GSI 

P143933W 3/28/2002 41 71 19 NENW COLEMAN OIL & GAS, INC. ISENBERGER #3-19P GSE P143934W 3/28/2002 41 71 19 NENW REDSTONE RESOURCES INC. ISENBERGER #3-19UW GSI 

P143935W 3/28/2002 41 71 19 SWNW COLEMAN OIL & GAS, INC. ISENBERGER #5-19 LW GST 

P143936W 3/28/2002 41 71 19 SWNW REDSTONE RESOURCES INC. ISENBERGER #5-19 UW GSI 

P143937W 3/28/2002 41 71 30 SWNW REDSTONE RESOURCES INC. ISENBERGER 12LW-3011 GSI 

P143938W 3/28/2002 41 71 30 SWNW REDSTONE RESOURCES INC. ISENBERGER 12UW-3011 GSI 

P143939W 3/28/2002 41 71 30 NENW REDSTONE RESOURCES INC. ISENBERGER 21LW-3011 GSI 

P143940W 3/28/2002 41 71 30 NENW REDSTONE RESOURCES INC. ISENBERGER 21UW-3011 GSI 

P144971W 5/14/2002 42 72 25 NENE PRIMA OIL AND GAS COMPANY LITTON FED 4272-25-11UW GST P144972W 5/14/2002 42 72 25 SWNE PRIMA OIL AND GAS COMPANY LITTON FED 4272-25-13UW GST 

P144973W 5/14/2002 42 72 25 NENW PRIMA OIL AND GAS COMPANY LITTON FED 4272-25-21UW GST 

P144975W 5/14/2002 42 71 20 SWSE PRIMA OIL AND GAS COMPANY PORCUPINE TUIT 20-43 UW GST 

P144977W 5/14/2002 42 72 23 NENE PRIMA OIL AND GAS COMPANY 

PORCUPINE TUIT S. FED #23-11 UW GSI 

P144978W 5/14/2002 42 72 23 SWNE PRIMA OIL AND GAS COMPANY 

PORCUPINE TUIT S. FED #23-13 UW GST 

P144979W 5/14/2002 42 72 23 NESE PRIMA OIL AND GAS COMPANY 

PORCUPINE TUIT S. FED #23-41UW GST 

P144980W 5/14/2002 42 72 23 SWSE PRIMA OIL AND GAS COMPANY 

PORCUPINE TUIT S. FED #23-43 UW GST 

P144981W 5/14/2002 42 72 24 NENE PRIMA OIL AND GAS COMPANY 

PORCUPINE TUIT S. FED 24-11 UW GST 

P144982W 5/14/2002 42 72 24 SWNE PETRO-CANADA RESOURCES (INC) 

PORCUPINE TUIT S. FED 24-13 UW GSE 

Draft EIS, West Antelope II Coal Lease Application 
Appendix G 

NON-MINING GROUND WATER RIGHTS WITHIN THREE MILES OF THE WEST ANTELOPE II LBA TRACT Permit Priority T R S QQ Applicant Facility Name Statu

P144983W 5/14/2002 42 72 24 NENW PRIMA OIL AND GAS COMPANY 

PORCUPINE TUIT S. FED #24-21UW GST 

P144984W 5/14/2002 42 72 24 SWNW PRIMA OIL AND GAS COMPANY 

PORCUPINE TUIT S. FED #24-23UW GST 

P144985W 5/14/2002 42 72 24 NESW PRIMA OIL AND GAS COMPANY 

PORCUPINE TUIT S. FED #24-31UW GST 

P144986W 5/14/2002 42 72 24 SWSW PRIMA OIL AND GAS COMPANY 

PORCUPINE TUIT S. FED #24-33UW GST 

P144987W 5/14/2002 42 72 24 NESE PETRO-CANADA RESOURCES (INC) 

PORCUPINE TUIT S. FED 24-41 UW GSE 

P144988W 5/14/2002 42 72 24 SWSE PRIMA OIL AND GAS COMPANY 

PORCUPINE TUIT S. FED 24-43 UW GST 

P144989W 5/14/2002 42 71 29 NENW PRIMA OIL AND GAS COMPANY DILTS FED 4271-29-21 UW GST 

P144990W 5/14/2002 42 71 29 SWNW PRIMA OIL AND GAS COMPANY DILTS FED 4271-29-23 UW GST 

P144991W 5/14/2002 42 71 30 NENE PRIMA OIL AND GAS COMPANY DILTS FED 4271-30-11 UW GST 

P144992W 5/14/2002 42 71 30 SWNE PRIMA OIL AND GAS COMPANY DILTS FED 4271-30-13 UW GST 

P144993W 5/14/2002 42 71 30 NENW PRIMA OIL AND GAS COMPANY DILTS FED 4271-30-21 UW GST 

P144994W 5/14/2002 42 71 30 SWNW PRIMA OIL AND GAS COMPANY DILTS FED 4271-30-23 UW GSI 

P144995W 5/14/2002 42 71 30 NESW PRIMA OIL AND GAS COMPANY DILTS FED 4271-30-31 UW GST 

P144996W 5/14/2002 42 71 30 SWSW PRIMA OIL AND GAS COMPANY DILTS FED 4271-30-33 UW GST 

P145115W 5/20/2002 42 71 4 SWSW MERIT ENERGY COMPANY 

PORCUPINE FEDERAL #14-4-4271 GSI 

P145116W 5/20/2002 42 71 4 NENW MERIT ENERGY COMPANY 

PORCUPINE FEDERAL #21-4-4271 GSI 

P145117W 5/20/2002 42 71 4 NESW MERIT ENERGY COMPANY 

PORCUPINE FEDERAL #23-4-4271 GSI 

P145118W 5/20/2002 42 71 4 SWNE MERIT ENERGY COMPANY 

PORCUPINE FEDERAL #32-4-4271 GSI 

P145119W 5/20/2002 42 71 4 SWSE MERIT ENERGY COMPANY 

PORCUPINE FEDERAL #34-4-4271 GSI 

P145120W 5/20/2002 42 71 4 NENE MERIT ENERGY COMPANY 

PORCUPINE FEDERAL #41-4-4271 GSI 

P145121W 5/20/2002 42 71 4 NESE MERIT ENERGY COMPANY 

PORCUPINE FEDERAL #43-4-4271 GSI 

P145123W 5/20/2002 42 71 5 NESE MERIT ENERGY COMPANY 

PORCUPINE FEDERAL #43-5-4271 GSI 

P145144W 5/20/2002 42 71 4 SWNW MERIT ENERGY COMPANY 

PORCUPINE FEDERAL #12-4-4271 GSI 

P146184W 7/19/2002 42 71 26 SENW CONTINENTAL INDUSTRIES, L.C. PORK 22-26 GSI 

P146185W 7/19/2002 42 71 26 SESW CONTINENTAL INDUSTRIES, L.C. PORK 24-26 GSI 

P146186W 7/19/2002 42 71 26 NESW CONTINENTAL INDUSTRIES, L.C. PORK 23-26 GST 

P146187W 7/19/2002 42 71 26 NWSW CONTINENTAL INDUSTRIES, L.C. PORK 13-26 GSI 

P146188W 7/19/2002 42 71 26 SWNW CONTINENTAL INDUSTRIES, L.C. PORK 12-26 GST 

P146189W 7/19/2002 42 71 26 SWSW CONTINENTAL INDUSTRIES, L.C. PORK 14-26 GST 

P146190W 7/19/2002 42 71 26 NWSE CONTINENTAL INDUSTRIES, L.C. PORK 33-26 GST 

G-4 Draft EIS, West Antelope 
NON-MINING GROUND WATER RIGHTS WITHIN THREE MILES OF THE WEST ANTELOPE II LBA TRACT Permit Priority T R S QQ Applicant Facility Name Statu

P146191W 7/19/2002 42 71 26 NESE CONTINENTAL INDUSTRIES, L.C. PORK 43-26 GST 

P146192W 7/19/2002 42 71 26 SESE CONTINENTAL INDUSTRIES, L.C. PORK 44-26 GSI 

P146193W 7/19/2002 42 71 26 SWSE CONTINENTAL INDUSTRIES, L.C. PORK 34-26 GSI 

P147635W 10/4/2002 41 71 15 SWNW LANCE OIL AND GAS COMPANY 

BRIDLE BIT RANCH 12-15-4171 GST 

P147636W 10/4/2002 41 71 15 SWSW WILLIAMS PRODUCTION RMT COMPANY 

BRIDLE BIT RANCH 14-15-4171 GSI 

P147637W 10/4/2002 41 71 15 SWSE LANCE OIL & GAS COMPANY, INC. 

BRIDLE BIT RANCH 34-15-4171 GST 

P147638W 10/4/2002 41 71 22 SWNE WILLIAMS PRODUCTION RMT COMPANY 

BRIDLE BIT RANCH 32-22-4171 GSI 

P147639W 10/4/2002 41 71 22 NENE LANCE OIL & GAS COMPANY, INC. 

BRIDLE BIT RANCH 41-22-4171 GST 

P148097W 10/28/2002 42 71 19 NENE PRIMA OIL AND GAS COMPANY ENL DILTS FED 4271-19-11UW GSI 

P148098W 10/28/2002 42 71 19 SWNE PRIMA OIL AND GAS COMPANY ENL DILTS FED 4271-19-13UW GSI 

P148099W 10/28/2002 42 71 19 NENW PRIMA OIL AND GAS COMPANY ENL DILTS FED 4271-19-21UW GSI 

P148100W 10/28/2002 42 71 19 SWNW PRIMA OIL AND GAS COMPANY ENL DILTS FED 4271-19-23UW GSI 

P148101W 10/28/2002 42 71 19 NESE PRIMA OIL AND GAS COMPANY ENL DILTS FED 4271-19-41UW GSI 

P148102W 10/28/2002 42 71 19 SWSE PRIMA OIL AND GAS COMPANY ENL DILTS FED 4271-19-43UW GSI 

P148103W 10/28/2002 42 71 20 NENW PRIMA OIL AND GAS COMPANY ENL DILTS FED 4271-20-21UW GSI 

P148104W 10/28/2002 42 71 20 SWNW PRIMA OIL AND GAS COMPANY ENL DILTS FED 4271-20-23UW GSI 

P148105W 10/28/2002 42 71 20 NESW PRIMA OIL AND GAS COMPANY ENL DILTS FED 4271-20-31UW GSI 

P148106W 10/28/2002 42 71 20 SWSW PRIMA OIL AND GAS COMPANY ENL DILTS FED 4271-20-33UW GSI 

P148107W 10/28/2002 42 71 21 SWNW PRIMA OIL AND GAS COMPANY 

ENL CAMPBELL FED 4271-21-23UW GSI 

P148108W 10/28/2002 42 71 21 NESW PRIMA OIL AND GAS COMPANY 

ENL CAMPBELL FED 4271-21-31UW GSI 

P148109W 10/28/2002 42 72 25 NENE PRIMA OIL AND GAS COMPANY 

ENL LITTON FED 4272-25-11UW GSI 

P148110W 10/28/2002 42 72 25 SWNE PRIMA OIL AND GAS COMPANY 

ENL LITTON FED 4272-25-13UW GSI 

P148111W 10/28/2002 42 72 25 NENW PRIMA OIL AND GAS COMPANY 

ENL LITTON FED 4272-25-

21UW GSI 

P148112W 10/28/2002 42 71 29 NENW PRIMA OIL AND GAS COMPANY ENL DILTS FED 4271-29-21UW GSI 

P148113W 10/28/2002 42 71 29 SWNW PRIMA OIL AND GAS COMPANY ENL DILTS FED 4271-29-23UW GSI 

P148114W 10/28/2002 42 71 30 NENE PRIMA OIL AND GAS COMPANY ENL DILTS FED 4271-30-11UW GSI 

P148115W 10/28/2002 42 71 30 SWNE PRIMA OIL AND GAS COMPANY ENL DILTS FED 4271-30-13UW GSI 

P148116W 10/28/2002 42 71 30 NENW PRIMA OIL AND GAS COMPANY ENL DILTS FED 4271-30-21UW GSI 

P148117W 10/28/2002 42 71 30 SWNW PRIMA OIL AND GAS COMPANY ENL DILTS FED 4271-30-23UW GSI 

P148118W 10/28/2002 42 71 30 NESW PRIMA OIL AND GAS COMPANY ENL DILTS FED 4271-30-31UW GSI 

P148440W 12/4/2002 42 71 30 SWSW PRIMA OIL AND GAS COMPANY 

ENL. DILTS FED 4271-30-33UW GSI 

P149569W 2/4/2003 41 71 14 SWNW LANCE OIL & GAS COMPANY, INC 

BRIDLE BIT RANCH 12-14-4171 GSE 

P149687W 2/19/2003 41 72 12 NENE LANCE OIL & GAS COMPANY, INC LITTON FED 41-12-4172 GST 

Draft EIS, West Antelope II Coal Lease Application 
Appendix G 

NON-MINING GROUND WATER RIGHTS WITHIN THREE MILES OF THE WEST ANTELOPE II LBA TRACT Permit Priority T R S QQ Applicant Facility Name Statu

P149737W 2/19/2003 41 72 12 SWNE LANCE OIL & GAS COMPANY, INC LITTON FED 32-12-4172 GST 

P149738W 2/19/2003 41 71 6 NESW LANCE OIL & GAS COMPANY, INC LITTON FED 23-6-4171 GST 

P149739W 2/19/2003 41 71 6 SWNW LANCE OIL & GAS COMPANY, INC LITTON FED 12-6-4171 GSI 

P149740W 2/19/2003 41 71 6 NENW LANCE OIL & GAS COMPANY, INC LITTON FED 12-6-4171 GST 

P149741W 2/19/2003 41 71 7 NWNE LANCE OIL & GAS COMPANY, INC LITTON FED 31-7-4171 GST 

P149742W 2/19/2003 41 71 6 SWSW LANCE OIL & GAS COMPANY, INC LITTON FED 14-6-4171 GSI 

P149743W 2/19/2003 41 72 1 NESE LANCE OIL & GAS COMPANY, INC LITTON FED 43-1-4172 GSI 

P149895W 2/21/2003 41 72 1 NESW 

COLEMAN OIL & GAS, INC.**PATRICIA L LITTON LITTON #23-1 GST 

P149896W 2/21/2003 41 72 1 SWSE 

COLEMAN OIL & GAS, INC.**PATRICIA L LITTON LITTON #34-1 GST 

P149897W 2/21/2003 41 72 12 NENW 

COLEMAN OIL & GAS, INC.**PATRICIA L LITTON LITTON #21-12 GST 

P149898W 2/21/2003 41 72 12 NESW 

COLEMAN OIL & GAS, INC.**PATRICIA L LITTON LITTON #23-12 GST 

P149899W 2/21/2003 42 71 28 SWNW 

COLEMAN OIL & GAS, INC.**JERRY J/BARBARA H DILTS & BRIDLE BIT RANCH BRIDLE BIT RANCH #12-28 GST 

P149901W 2/21/2003 42 71 28 SWSW 

COLEMAN OIL & GAS, INC.**JERRY J/BARBARA H DILTS & BRIDLE BIT RANCH COMPANY BRIDLE BIT RANCH #14-28 GST 

P149902W 2/21/2003 42 71 28 NESW 

COLEMAN OIL & GAS, INC.**JERRY J/BARBARA H DILTS & BRIDLE BIT RANCH COMPANY BRIDLE BIT RANCH #23-28 GST 

P149903W 2/21/2003 42 71 29 SWNE 

COLEMAN OIL & GAS, INC.**JERRY J/BARBARA H DILTS & BRIDLE BIT RANCH COMPANY BRIDLE BIT RANCH #32-29 GST 

P149904W 2/21/2003 42 71 29 SWSE 

COLEMAN OIL & GAS, INC.**JERRY J/BARBARA H DILTS & BRIDLE BIT RANCH COMPANY BRIDLE BIT RANCH #34-29 GST 

P149905W 2/21/2003 42 71 29 NESE 

COLEMAN OIL & GAS, INC.**JERRY J/BARBARA H DILTS & BRIDLE BIT RANCH COMPANY BRIDLE BIT RANCH #43-29 GST 

P150116W 3/14/2003 41 71 16 SWNW 

WY STATE BOARD OF LAND COMMISSIONERS** LANCE OIL & GAS COMPANY, INC STATE 12-16-4171 GST 

P150117W 3/14/2003 41 71 16 SWSW 

WY STATE BOARD OF LAND COMMISSIONERS** LANCE OIL & GAS COMPANY, INC STATE 14-16-4171 GST 

P150118W 3/14/2003 41 71 16 NENW 

WY STATE BOARD OF LAND COMMISSIONERS** LANCE OIL & GAS COMPANY, INC STATE 21-16-4171 GSI 

P150119W 3/14/2003 41 71 16 NESW 

WY STATE BOARD OF LAND COMMISSIONERS** LANCE OIL & GAS COMPANY, INC STATE 23-16-4171 GST 

P150120W 3/14/2003 41 71 16 SWNE 

WY STATE BOARD OF LAND COMMISSIONERS** LANCE OIL & GAS COMPANY, INC STATE 32-16-4171 GST 

G-6 Draft EIS, West Antelope 
NON-MINING GROUND WATER RIGHTS WITHIN THREE MILES OF THE WEST ANTELOPE II LBA TRACT Permit Priority T R S QQ Applicant Facility Name Statu

P150121W 3/14/2003 41 71 16 SWSE 

WY STATE BOARD OF LAND COMMISSIONERS** LANCE OIL & GAS COMPANY, INC STATE 34-16-4171 GST 

P150122W 3/14/2003 41 71 16 NENE 

WY STATE BOARD OF LAND COMMISSIONERS** LANCE OIL & GAS COMPANY, INC STATE 41-16-4171 GST 

P150123W 3/14/2003 41 71 16 NESE LANCE OIL & GAS COMPANY, INC STATE 43-16-4171 GST 

P150124W 3/14/2003 42 71 31 NESW LANCE OIL & GAS COMPANY, INC 

BRIDLE BIT RANCH 23-31-4271 GSI 

P150125W 3/14/2003 42 71 31 NENW LANCE OIL & GAS COMPANY, INC 

BRIDLE BIT RANCH 21-31-4271 GSI 

P150126W 3/14/2003 42 71 31 SWSW LANCE OIL AND GAS COMPANY 

BRIDLE BIT RANCH 14-31-4271 GST 

P150127W 3/14/2003 42 71 31 SWNW LANCE OIL & GAS COMPANY, INC 

BRIDLE BIT RANCH 12-31-4271 GSI 

P151083W 4/28/2003 42 71 31 SWNE LANCE OIL & GAS COMPANY, INC 

BRIDLE BIT FEDERAL 32-31-4271 GST 

P151084W 4/28/2003 42 71 31 SWSE LANCE OIL & GAS COMPANY, INC 

BRIDLE BIT FEDERAL 34-31-4271 GST 

P151085W 4/28/2003 42 71 31 NENE LANCE OIL & GAS COMPANY, INC 

BRIDLE BIT FEDERAL 41-31-4271 GST 

P151086W 4/28/2003 42 71 31 NESE LANCE OIL & GAS COMPANY, INC 

BRIDLE BIT FEDERAL 43-31-4271 GST 

P151087W 4/28/2003 41 71 4 SWSW 

WILLIAMS PRODUCTION RMT** WY STATE BOARD OF LAND COMMISSIONERS STATE FEDERAL 14-4-4171 GST 

P151088W 4/28/2003 41 71 4 NESW 

WILLIAMS PRODUCTION RMT** WY STATE BOARD OF LAND COMMISSIONERS STATE FEDERAL 23-4-4171 GST 

P151089W 4/28/2003 41 71 4 SWSE 

WY STATE BOARD OF LAND COMMISSIONERS** LANCE OIL & GAS COMPANY, INC STATE FEDERAL 34-4-4171 GST 

P151090W 4/28/2003 41 71 4 NESE 

WY STATE BOARD OF LAND COMMISSIONERS** LANCE OIL & GAS COMPANY, INC STATE FEDERAL 43-4-4171 GST 

P151091W 4/28/2003 41 71 5 SWNE Lance Oil & Gas 

BRIDLE BIT FEDERAL 32-5-4171 GST 

P151092W 4/28/2003 41 71 5 SWSE Lance Oil & Gas 

BRIDLE BIT FEDERAL 34-5-4171 GST 

P151093W 4/28/2003 41 71 5 NENE LANCE OIL & GAS COMPANY, INC 

BRIDLE BIT FEDERAL 41-5-4171 GST 

P151094W 4/28/2003 41 71 5 NESE LANCE OIL & GAS COMPANY, INC 

BRIDLE BIT FEDERAL 43-5-4171 GST 

P151095W 4/28/2003 41 71 9 SWNW LANCE OIL & GAS COMPANY, INC 

BRIDLE BIT FEDERAL 12-9-

4171 GST 

P151096W 4/28/2003 41 71 9 NENW Lance Oil & Gas 

BRIDLE BIT FEDERAL 21-9-4171 GST 

P151097W 4/28/2003 41 71 9 NESE LANCE OIL & GAS COMPANY, INC 

BRIDLE BIT FEDERAL 43-9-4171 GST 

P151098W 4/28/2003 41 71 10 SWNW LANCE OIL & GAS COMPANY, INC BRIDLE BIT FEDERAL 12-10- GST 

Draft EIS, West Antelope II Coal Lease Application 
Appendix G 

NON-MINING GROUND WATER RIGHTS WITHIN THREE MILES OF THE WEST ANTELOPE II LBA TRACT Permit Priority T R S QQ Applicant Facility Name Statu

4171 

P151099W 4/28/2003 42 71 32 SWNW LANCE OIL & GAS COMPANY, INC 

BRIDLE BIT FEDERAL 12-32-4271 GST 

P151100W 4/28/2003 42 71 32 SWSW LANCE OIL & GAS COMPANY, INC 

BRIDLE BIT FEDERAL 14-32-4271 GST 

P151101W 4/28/2003 42 71 32 NENW LANCE OIL & GAS COMPANY, INC 

BRIDLE BIT FEDERAL 21-32-4271 GST 

P151102W 4/28/2003 42 71 32 NESW LANCE OIL & GAS COMPANY, INC 

BRIDLE BIT FEDERAL 23-32-4271 GST 

P151103W 4/28/2003 42 71 32 SWSE LANCE OIL & GAS COMPANY, INC 

BRIDLE BIT FEDERAL 34-32-4271 GST 

P151104W 4/28/2003 42 71 32 NESE LANCE OIL & GAS COMPANY, INC 

BRIDLE BIT FEDERAL 43-32-4271 GST 

P151106W 4/28/2003 41 71 15 NENW LANCE OIL & GAS COMPANY, INC 

BRIDLE BIT FEDERAL 21-15-4171 GST 

P151107W 4/28/2003 41 71 15 SWNE LANCE OIL & GAS COMPANY, INC 

ANTELOPE COAL FEDERAL 32-15-4171 GST 

P151108W 4/28/2003 41 71 15 NENE LANCE OIL & GAS COMPANY, INC. 

BRIDLE BIT FEDERAL 41-15-

4171 GST 

P151109W 4/28/2003 41 71 22 SWNW LANCE OIL & GAS COMPANY, INC 

BRIDLE BIT FEDERAL 12-22-4171 GSI 

P151110W 4/28/2003 41 71 22 NENW LANCE OIL & GAS COMPANY, INC 

BRIDLE BIT FEDERAL 21-22-4171 GSI 

P151111W 4/28/2003 41 71 22 NESW LANCE OIL & GAS COMPANY, INC 

ANTELOPE COAL FEDERAL 23-22-4171 GSI 

P151112W 4/28/2003 41 71 22 SWNE LANCE OIL & GAS COMPANY, INC 

BRIDLE BIT FEDERAL 32-22-4171 GST 

P151113W 4/28/2003 41 71 22 NESE LANCE OIL & GAS COMPANY, INC 

ANTELOPE COAL FEDERAL 43-22-4171 GST 

P151358W 5/14/2003 41 71 32 NENE BOWERS OIL/GAS, INC. BOG-FEE #1-32 GSI 

P151359W 5/14/2003 41 71 29 SWSE BOWERS OIL/GAS, INC. BOG-FEE #1-29 GST P151360W 5/14/2003 41 71 29 NESW BOWERS OIL/GAS, INC. BOG-FEE #2-29 GST 

P151361W 5/14/2003 41 71 29 SWNW BOWERS OIL/GAS, INC. BOG-FEE #3-29 GST 

P151400W 5/19/2003 42 71 30 NESE PETRO-CANADA RESOURCES (INC) DILTS FED 4271-30-41UW GSE 

P151401W 5/19/2003 42 71 30 SWSE PETRO-CANADA RESOURCES (INC) DILTS FED 4271-30-43UW GSE 

P151418W 5/19/2003 42 72 25 NESW PETRO-CANADA RESOURCES (INC) LITTON FED 4272-25-31UW GSE 

P151419W 5/19/2003 42 72 25 SWSW PETRO-CANADA RESOURCES (INC) LITTON FED 4272-25-33UW GSE 

P151420W 5/19/2003 42 72 25 NESE PETRO-CANADA RESOURCES (INC) LITTON FED 4272-25-41UW GSE P151421W 5/19/2003 42 72 25 SWSE PETRO-CANADA RESOURCES (INC) LITTON FED 4272-25-43UW GSE P151422W 5/19/2003 42 72 26 NENE PETRO-CANADA RESOURCES (INC) LITTON FED 4272-26-11UW GSE P151423W 5/19/2003 42 72 26 SWNE PETRO-CANADA RESOURCES (INC) LITTON FED 4272-26-13UW GSE 

P151424W 5/19/2003 42 72 26 NENW PETRO-CANADA RESOURCES (INC) LITTON FED 4272-26-21UW GSE 

P151425W 5/19/2003 42 72 26 SWNW PETRO-CANADA RESOURCES (INC) LITTON FED 4272-26-23UW GSE P151426W 5/19/2003 42 72 26 NESW PETRO-CANADA RESOURCES (INC) LITTON FED 4272-26-31UW GSE 

P151427W 5/19/2003 42 72 26 SWSW PETRO-CANADA RESOURCES (INC) LITTON FED 4272-26-33UW GSE 

G-8 Draft EIS, West Antelope 
NON-MINING GROUND WATER RIGHTS WITHIN THREE MILES OF THE WEST ANTELOPE II LBA TRACT Permit Priority T R S QQ Applicant Facility Name Statu

P151428W 5/19/2003 42 72 26 NESE PETRO-CANADA RESOURCES (INC) LITTON FED 4272-26-41UW GSE P151429W 5/19/2003 42 72 26 SWSE PETRO-CANADA RESOURCES (INC) LITTON FED 4272-26-43UW GSE P152258W 6/2/2003 41 71 4 SWNE 

BILL BARRETT CORPORATION** WY STATE BOARD OF LAND COMMISSIONERS STATE 32-4-4171 GST 

P152259W 6/2/2003 41 71 4 NENW 

BILL BARRETT CORPORATION** WY STATE BOARD OF LAND COMMISSIONERS STATE 21-4-4171 GST 

P152260W 6/2/2003 41 71 4 SWNW 

BILL BARRETT CORPORATION** WY STATE BOARD OF LAND COMMISSIONERS STATE 12-4-4171 GST 

P152261W 6/2/2003 41 71 4 NENE 

BILL BARRETT CORPORATION** WY STATE BOARD OF LAND COMMISSIONERS STATE 41-4-4171 GST 

P152660W 6/23/2003 42 71 28 SWNE BILL BARRETT CORPORATION J DILTS 32-28-4271 GST 

P152661W 6/23/2003 42 71 28 SWSE BILL BARRETT CORPORATION J DILTS 34-28-4271 GST 

P152662W 6/23/2003 42 71 28 NENE BILL BARRETT CORPORATION J DILTS 41-28-4271 GST 

P152663W 6/23/2003 42 71 28 NESE BILL BARRETT CORPORATION J DILTS 43-28-4271 GST 

P152730W 7/2/2003 41 71 2 SWNE BILL BARRETT CORPORATION H. Putnam 32-2-4171 GST 

P152731W 7/2/2003 41 71 2 SWSE BILL BARRETT CORPORATION H. Putnam 34-2-4171 GST 

P152733W 7/2/2003 41 71 2 NESE BILL BARRETT CORPORATION H. Putnam 43-2-4171 GST 

P152734W 7/2/2003 41 71 11 SWNW BILL BARRETT CORPORATION H. Putnam 12-11-4171 GST 

P152735W 7/2/2003 41 71 11 NENW BILL BARRETT CORPORATION H. Putnam 21-11-4171 GST 

P152736W 7/2/2003 41 71 11 SWNE BILL BARRETT CORPORATION H. Putnam 32-11-4171 GST 

P152737W 7/2/2003 41 71 11 NENE BILL BARRETT CORPORATION H. Putnam 41-11-4171 A&C 

P152880W 7/25/2003 41 71 22 NWNE WILLIAMS PRODUCTION RMT COMPANY ANTELOPE COAL 31-22-4171 GSI 

P152881W 7/25/2003 41 71 15 NWSW WILLIAMS PRODUCTION RMT COMPANY ANTELOPE COAL 13-15-4171 GSI 

P153116W 7/28/2003 42 71 33 SWNW BILL BARRETT CORPORATION J DILTS 12-33-42-71 GST 

P153117W 7/28/2003 42 71 33 SWSW BILL BARRETT CORPORATION J DILTS 14-33-42-71 GST 

P153118W 7/28/2003 42 71 33 NENW BILL BARRETT CORPORATION J DILTS 21-33-42-71 GST 

P153119W 7/28/2003 42 71 33 NESW BILL BARRETT CORPORATION J DILTS 23-33-42-71 GST 

P153120W 7/28/2003 41 71 2 SWNW BILL BARRETT CORPORATION FEDERAL 12-2-41-71 GST 

P153123W 7/28/2003 41 71 2 NESW BILL BARRETT CORPORATION FEDERAL 23-2-41-71 GST 

P153124W 7/28/2003 41 71 11 SWSE BILL BARRETT CORPORATION PORK S FED 34-11-41-71 GST 

P153125W 7/28/2003 41 71 11 NESE BILL BARRETT CORPORATION PORK S FED 43-11-41-71 GST 

P153136W 7/28/2003 42 71 27 SWNW BILL BARRETT CORPORATION PORK NW FED 12-27-42-71 GST 

P153137W 7/28/2003 42 71 27 SWSW BILL BARRETT CORPORATION PORK NW FED 14-27-42-71 GST P153138W 7/28/2003 42 71 27 NENW BILL BARRETT CORPORATION PORK NW FED 21-27-42-71 GST 

P153139W 7/28/2003 42 71 27 NESW BILL BARRETT CORPORATION PORK NW FED 23-27-42-71 GST P153140W 7/28/2003 42 71 28 NENW BILL BARRETT CORPORATION FEDERAL 21-28-4271 GST 

P153141W 7/28/2003 42 71 29 SWSW BILL BARRETT CORPORATION FEDERAL 14-29-4271 GST 

P153142W 7/28/2003 42 71 29 NESW BILL BARRETT CORPORATION FEDERAL 23-29-4271 GST P153143W 7/28/2003 42 71 32 SWNE BILL BARRETT CORPORATION PORK NW FED 32-32-42-71 GST 

P153144W 7/28/2003 42 71 32 NENE BILL BARRETT CORPORATION PORK NW FED 41-32-42-71 GST P153145W 7/28/2003 42 71 33 SWNE BILL BARRETT CORPORATION 

JWS FED-DL COOK 32-33-42-71 GST 

P153146W 7/28/2003 42 71 33 SWSE BILL BARRETT CORPORATION JWS FED-DL COOK 34-33-42- GST 

Draft EIS, West Antelope II Coal Lease Application 
Appendix G 

NON-MINING GROUND WATER RIGHTS WITHIN THREE MILES OF THE WEST ANTELOPE II LBA TRACT Permit Priority T R S QQ Applicant Facility Name Statu

71 

P153147W 7/28/2003 42 71 33 NENE BILL BARRETT CORPORATION 

JWS FED-DL COOK 41-33-42-71 GST 

P153148W 7/28/2003 42 71 33 NESE BILL BARRETT CORPORATION 

JWS FED-DL COOK 43-33-42-71 GST 

P153764W 8/18/2003 42 72 23 NWNE PETRO-CANADA RESOURCES (USA) INC USFS 4272-23-2UW GST 

P153936W 9/4/2003 41 71 29 SWSW BOWERS OIL/GAS, INC. BOG-FED #4-29 GST 

P153937W 9/4/2003 41 71 29 NESE BOWERS OIL/GAS, INC. BOG-FED #5-29 GST 

P153938W 9/4/2003 41 71 28 SWSW BOWERS OIL/GAS, INC. BOG-FED #1-28 GST 

P153939W 9/4/2003 41 71 28 NESW BOWERS OIL/GAS, INC. BOG-FED #2-28 GST P153940W 9/4/2003 41 71 28 SWNW BOWERS OIL/GAS, INC. BOG-FED #3-28 GST 

P153941W 9/4/2003 41 71 28 NENW BOWERS OIL/GAS, INC. BOG-FED #4-28 GST 

P156293W 11/28/2003 42 71 34 SWNE BILL BARRETT CORPORATION 

JWS FED 32-34-42-71 DL COOK GST 

P156294W 11/28/2003 42 71 34 NENW BILL BARRETT CORPORATION 

JWS FED 21-34-42-71 DL COOK GST 

P156295W 11/28/2003 42 71 34 SWNW BILL BARRETT CORPORATION 

JWS FED 12-34-42-71 DL COOK GST 

P156296W 11/28/2003 42 71 34 NENE BILL BARRETT CORPORATION 

JWS FED 41-34-42-71 DL COOK GST 

P156299W 11/28/2003 41 71 3 NESE BILL BARRETT CORPORATION PORK S FED 43-3-41-71 GST P156300W 11/28/2003 41 71 3 NENE BILL BARRETT CORPORATION PORK S FED 41-3-41-71 GST P156301W 11/28/2003 41 71 3 SWSE BILL BARRETT CORPORATION PORK S FED 34-3-41-71 GST 

P156302W 11/28/2003 41 71 3 SWNE BILL BARRETT CORPORATION PORK S FED 32-3-41-71 GST 

P156303W 11/28/2003 41 71 3 NESW BILL BARRETT CORPORATION PORK S FED 23-3-41-71 GST 

P156304W 11/28/2003 41 71 3 NENW BILL BARRETT CORPORATION PORK S FED 21-3-41-71 GST 

P156305W 11/28/2003 41 71 3 SWSW BILL BARRETT CORPORATION PORK S FED 14-3-41-71 GST 

P156306W 11/28/2003 41 71 3 SWNW BILL BARRETT CORPORATION PORK S FED 12-3-41-71 GST 

P156944W 3/8/2004 41 71 15 NESW LANCE OIL & GAS COMPANY, INC. MATHESON 23-15-4171 GSI 

P156975W 12/8/2003 42 71 29 NENE COLEMAN OIL & GAS, INC. DILTS #41-29 GST 

P159417W 5/12/2004 41 71 5 SWNW COLEMAN OIL & GAS, INC. BRIDLE BIT FEDERAL #12-5 GST 

P159418W 5/12/2004 41 71 5 SWSW COLEMAN OIL & GAS, INC. BRIDLE BIT FEDERAL #14-5 GST 

P159419W 5/12/2004 41 71 5 NENW COLEMAN OIL & GAS, INC. BRIDLE BIT FEDERAL #21-5 GST 

P159420W 5/12/2004 41 71 5 NESW COLEMAN OIL & GAS, INC. BRIDLE BIT FEDERAL #23-5 GST 

P159421W 5/12/2004 41 71 7 SWNW Coleman Oil & Gas, Inc.**PATRICIA LITTON ISENBERGER FEDERAL #12-7 GST 

P159422W 5/12/2004 41 71 7 SWSW Coleman Oil & Gas, Inc.**PATRICIA LITTON ISENBERGER FEDERAL #14-7 GST 

P159423W 5/12/2004 41 71 7 NENW Coleman Oil & Gas, Inc.**PATRICIA LITTON ISENBERGER FEDERAL #21-7 GST 

P159424W 5/12/2004 41 71 7 NESW Coleman Oil & Gas, Inc.**PATRICIA LITTON ISENBERGER FEDERAL #23-7 GST 

P159425W 5/12/2004 41 71 8 SWNW COLEMAN OIL & GAS, INC. BRIDLE BIT FEDERAL #12-8 GST 

P159426W 5/12/2004 41 71 8 SWSW COLEMAN OIL & GAS, INC. BRIDLE BIT FEDERAL #14-8 GST 

P159427W 5/12/2004 41 71 8 NENW COLEMAN OIL & GAS, INC. BRIDLE BIT FEDERAL #21-8 GST 

P159428W 5/12/2004 41 71 8 NESW 

Coleman Oil & Gas, Inc.**JERRY J. AND THE BRIDLE BIT RANCH COMPANY DILTS BRIDLE BIT FEDERAL #23-8 GST 

G-10 Draft EIS, West Antelope 
NON-MINING GROUND WATER RIGHTS WITHIN THREE MILES OF THE WEST ANTELOPE II LBA TRACT Permit Priority T R S QQ Applicant Facility Name Statu

P159429W 5/12/2004 41 71 8 SWNE 

Coleman Oil & Gas, Inc.**JERRY J. AND THE BRIDLE BIT RANCH COMPANY DILTS BRIDLE BIT FEDERAL #32-8 GST 

P159430W 5/12/2004 41 71 8 NENE 

Coleman Oil & Gas, Inc.**JERRY J. AND THE BRIDLE BIT RANCH COMPANY DILTS BRIDLE BIT FEDERAL #41-8 GST 

P159431W 5/12/2004 41 71 17 SWNE 

Coleman Oil & Gas, Inc.**JERRY J. AND THE BRIDLE BIT RANCH COMPANY DILTS BRIDLE BIT FEDERAL #32-17 GST 

P159432W 5/12/2004 41 71 17 NENE 

Coleman Oil & Gas, Inc.**JERRY J. AND THE BRIDLE BIT RANCH COMPANY DILTS BRIDLE BIT FEDERAL #41-17 GST 

P159433W 5/12/2004 41 71 18 SWNE Coleman Oil & Gas, Inc.**PATRICIA LITTON 

ISENBERGER FEDERAL #32-

18 GST 

P159434W 5/12/2004 41 71 18 SWSE Coleman Oil & Gas, Inc.**PATRICIA LITTON 

ISENBERGER FEDERAL #34-

18 GST 

P159435W 5/12/2004 41 71 18 NENE COLEMAN OIL & GAS, INC. 

ISENBERGER FEDERAL #41-

18 GST 

P159436W 5/12/2004 41 71 18 NESE COLEMAN OIL & GAS, INC. 

ISENBERGER FEDERAL #43-

18 GSI 

P159437W 5/12/2004 41 71 19 SWNE COLEMAN OIL & GAS, INC. 

ISENBERGER FEDERAL #32-

19 GSI 

P159438W 5/12/2004 41 71 19 SWSE COLEMAN OIL & GAS, INC. 

ISENBERGER FEDERAL #34-19 GSI 

P159439W 5/12/2004 41 71 19 NENE COLEMAN OIL & GAS, INC. 

ISENBERGER FEDERAL #41-19 GSI 

P159440W 5/12/2004 41 71 19 NESE COLEMAN OIL & GAS, INC. 

ISENBERGER FEDERAL #43-19 GSI 

P159589W 5/28/2004 41 72 24 NENE COLEMAN OIL & GAS, INC. ISENBERGER #41-24 GSI 

P159590W 5/28/2004 41 71 19 NESW COLEMAN OIL & GAS, INC. ISENBERGER #23-19 GST 

P159591W 5/28/2004 41 71 31 NESW COLEMAN OIL & GAS, INC. ISENBERGER #23-31 GSI 

P159592W 5/28/2004 41 71 31 SWSW COLEMAN OIL & GAS, INC. ISENBERGER #14-31 GSI 

P159593W 5/28/2004 41 71 31 SWNW COLEMAN OIL & GAS, INC. ISENBERGER #12-31 GSI 

P159594W 5/28/2004 41 71 30 NENW COLEMAN OIL & GAS, INC. ISENBERGER #21-30 GST 

P159595W 5/28/2004 41 71 30 SWNW COLEMAN OIL & GAS, INC. ISENBERGER #12-30 GST P159596W 5/28/2004 41 71 26 NENE COLEMAN OIL & GAS, INC. ISENBERGER #41-26 GST 

P159597W 5/28/2004 41 72 26 NENW COLEMAN OIL & GAS, INC. ISENBERGER #21-26 GST 

P159598W 5/28/2004 41 72 26 SWNE COLEMAN OIL & GAS, INC. ISENBERGER #32-26 GST 

P159599W 5/28/2004 41 72 26 SWNW COLEMAN OIL & GAS, INC. ISENBERGER #12-26 GST P159600W 5/28/2004 41 72 25 SWNE COLEMAN OIL & GAS, INC. ISENBERGER #32-25 GST P159601W 5/28/2004 41 72 25 SWNW COLEMAN OIL & GAS, INC. ISENBERGER #12-25 GST P159602W 5/28/2004 41 72 25 NENW COLEMAN OIL & GAS, INC. ISENBERGER #21-25 GST 

P159603W 5/28/2004 41 71 24 SWSE COLEMAN OIL & GAS, INC. ISENBERGER #34-24 GSI 

P159604W 5/28/2004 41 71 30 SWNE COLEMAN OIL & GAS, INC. ISENBERGER #32-30 GST P159605W 5/28/2004 41 71 30 NESE COLEMAN OIL & GAS, INC. ISENBERGER #43-30 GST P160414W 7/2/2004 41 71 12 SWNW BILL BARRETT CORPORATION PORK S FED 12-12-4171 GST 

P160416W 7/2/2004 41 71 12 NESW BILL BARRETT CORPORATION PORK S FED 23-12-4171 GST 

P160439W 7/2/2004 42 71 14 SWSW BILL BARRETT CORPORATION 

PORK NW FEDERAL 14-14-4271 GST 

Draft EIS, West Antelope II Coal Lease Application 
Appendix G 

NON-MINING GROUND WATER RIGHTS WITHIN THREE MILES OF THE WEST ANTELOPE II LBA TRACT Permit Priority T R S QQ Applicant Facility Name Statu

P160440W 7/2/2004 42 71 14 NESW 

BILL BARRETT CORPORATION** WY STATE BOARD OF LAND COMMISSIONERS 

PORK NW FEDERAL 23-14-4271 GST 

P160441W 7/2/2004 42 71 14 SWSE 

BILL BARRETT CORPORATION** WY STATE BOARD OF LAND COMMISSIONERS 

PORK NW FEDERAL 34-14-4271 GST 

P160442W 7/2/2004 42 71 14 NESE BILL BARRETT CORPORATION 

PORK NW FEDERAL 43-14-4271 GST 

P160444W 7/2/2004 42 71 23 SWSW BILL BARRETT CORPORATION 

PORK NW FEDERAL 14-23-4271 GST 

P160445W 7/2/2004 42 71 23 NENW BILL BARRETT CORPORATION 

PORK NW FEDERAL 21-23-4271 GST 

P160446W 7/2/2004 42 71 23 NESW BILL BARRETT CORPORATION 

PORK NW FEDERAL 23-23-4271 GST 

P160448W 7/2/2004 42 71 23 NENE BILL BARRETT CORPORATION 

PORK NW FEDERAL 41-23-4271 GST 

P160449W 7/2/2004 42 71 23 NESE 

BILL BARRETT CORPORATION** WY STATE BOARD OF LAND COMMISSIONERS 

PORK NW FEDERAL 43-23-4271 GST 

P161325W 8/3/2004 41 71 8 NESE COLEMAN OIL & GAS, INC.**Jerry Dilts 

BRIDLE BIT RANCH STATE #43-8 GSI 

P161756W 8/23/2004 41 71 1 SWNW CONTINENTAL INDUSTRIES LC PORK S FED 12-1-41-71 GSI 

P161757W 8/23/2004 41 71 1 SWSW CONTINENTAL INDUSTRIES LC PORK S FED 14-1-41-71 GSI 

P161758W 8/23/2004 41 71 1 NENW CONTINENTAL INDUSTRIES LC PORK S FED 21-1-41-71 GSI P161759W 8/23/2004 41 71 1 NESW CONTINENTAL INDUSTRIES LC PORK S FED 23-1-41-71 GSI 

P161761W 8/23/2004 42 71 26 NENW CONTINENTAL INDUSTRIES LC PORK NW FED 21-26-42-71 GSI 

P161762W 8/23/2004 42 71 26 SWNE CONTINENTAL INDUSTRIES LC PORK NW FED 32-26-42-71 GSI 

P161763W 8/23/2004 42 71 26 NENE CONTINENTAL INDUSTRIES LC PORK NW FED 41-26-42-71 GSI 

P161764W 8/23/2004 42 71 35 SWNW CONTINENTAL INDUSTRIES LC PORK NW FED 12-35-42-71 GSI 

P161765W 8/23/2004 42 71 35 NENW CONTINENTAL INDUSTRIES LC PORK NW FED 21-35-42-71 GSI 

P161766W 8/23/2004 42 71 35 SWNE CONTINENTAL INDUSTRIES LC PORK NW FED 32-35-42-71 GSI 

P161767W 8/23/2004 42 71 35 NENE CONTINENTAL INDUSTRIES LC PORK NW FED 41-35-42-71 GSI 

P161768W 8/23/2004 42 71 35 SWSW CONTINENTAL INDUSTRIES LC JWS FED 14-35-42-71 GSI 

P161769W 8/23/2004 42 71 35 NESW CONTINENTAL INDUSTRIES LC JWS FED 23-35-42-71 GSI 

P161770W 8/23/2004 42 71 35 SWSE CONTINENTAL INDUSTRIES LC JWS FED 34-35-42-71 GSI 

P161771W 8/23/2004 42 71 35 NESE CONTINENTAL INDUSTRIES LC JWS FED 43-35-42-71 GSI 

P161949W 7/22/2004 42 71 32 NESW LANCE OIL & GAS COMPANY, INC BRITTLE BIT FED 23-32-4271 GSI 

P161950W 7/22/2004 42 71 31 NENE LANCE OIL & GAS COMPANY, INC BRITTLE BIT FED41-31-4271 GSI P161952W 7/22/2004 42 71 32 SWNW LANCE OIL & GAS COMPANY, INC BRITTLE BIT FED 12-32-4271 GSI 

P162903W 9/21/2004 41 71 20 SWSE LANCE OIL & GAS COMPANY 

P LITTON FEDERAL 34-20-4171 CA GSI 

P162905W 9/21/2004 41 71 20 NESW Lance Oil & Gas 

P LITTON FEDERAL 23-20-4171 CA GST 

P162907W 9/21/2004 41 71 20 SWSW LANCE OIL AND GAS COMPANY 

P LITTON FEDERAL 14-20-4171 CA GST 

P162908W 9/21/2004 41 71 20 SWNW Lance Oil & Gas 

P LITTON FEDERAL 12-20-4171 CA GST 

P162909W 9/21/2004 41 71 14 SWSE LANCE OIL AND GAS COMPANY ANTELOPE COAL FEDERAL GSI 

G-12 Draft EIS, West Antelope 
NON-MINING GROUND WATER RIGHTS WITHIN THREE MILES OF THE WEST ANTELOPE II LBA TRACT Permit Priority T R S QQ Applicant Facility Name Statu

34-14-4171 WY 

P162910W 9/21/2004 41 71 7 NESE LANCE OIL AND GAS COMPANY 

P LITTON FEDERAL 43-7-4171 WY GSE 

P162911W 9/21/2004 41 71 29 NESE LANCE OIL AND GAS COMPANY 

P LITTON FEDERAL 43-29-

4171 CA GSI 

P162913W 9/21/2004 41 71 29 SWNE Lance Oil & Gas 

ANTELOPE COAL FEDERAL 32-29-4171 CA GST 

P162914W 9/21/2004 41 71 29 NENW Lance Oil & Gas 

P LITTON FEDERAL 21-29-

4171 CA GSI 

P162915W 9/21/2004 41 71 22 SWSE LANCE OIL AND GAS COMPANY 

ANTELOPE COAL FEDERAL 34-22-4171CA GST 

P162916W 9/21/2004 41 71 22 SWSW LANCE OIL AND GAS COMPANY 

ANTELOPE COAL FEDERAL 14-22-4171 CA GST 

P162917W 9/21/2004 41 71 21 NESW LANCE OIL AND GAS COMPANY 

P LITTON FEDERAL 23-21-

4171 CA GST 

P162918W 9/21/2004 41 71 21 NENW LANCE OIL AND GAS COMPANY 

BRIDLE BIT FEDERAL 21-21-4171 CA GSE 

P162919W 9/21/2004 41 71 21 SWSW LANCE OIL AND GAS COMPANY 

P LITTON FEDERAL 14-21-

4171 CA GST 

P162920W 9/21/2004 41 71 21 SWNW LANCE OIL AND GAS COMPANY 

BRIDLE BIT FEDERAL 12-21-4171 CA GSI 

P162923W 9/21/2004 41 71 11 NENW LANCE OIL AND GAS COMPANY 

SIOUX RANCH FEDERAL 21-11-4172 CA GSE 

P162930W 9/21/2004 41 71 30 NENE LANCE OIL AND GAS COMPANY 

P LITTON FEDERAL 41-30-417CA GSE 

P162931W 9/21/2004 41 72 24 NESE LANCE OIL & GAS COMPANY 

P LITTON FEDERAL 43-24-4172CA GSI 

P162932W 9/21/2004 41 72 24 SWNE LANCE OIL AND GAS COMPANY 

P LITTON FEDERAL 32-24-4172CA GSE 

P162934W 9/21/2004 41 72 24 SWSW LANCE OIL AND GAS COMPANY 

P LITTON FEDERAL 14-24-4172CA GSE 

P162936W 9/21/2004 41 72 23 NENW LANCE OIL AND GAS COMPANY 

SIOUX RANCH FEDERAL 21-23-4172 CA GSE 

P162937W 9/21/2004 41 72 23 SWNW LANCE OIL AND GAS COMPANY 

SIOUX RANCH FEDERAL 12-23-4172 CA GSE 

P163378W 10/18/2004 41 71 33 SWNW BOWERS OIL AND GAS, INC. BOG- FEE #1-33 GST 

P163491W 10/29/2004 41 71 18 SWNW LANCE OIL & GAS COMPANY, INC LITTON 12-18-4171 GSI 

P164138W 11/29/2004 41 71 31 NENW 

COLEMAN OIL & GAS, INC.**PATRICIA L. ISENBERGER LITTON ISENBERGER #21-31 GST 

P165891W 2/23/2005 41 71 30 NESW 

COLEMAN OIL & GAS, INC.**PATRICIA L. ISENBERGER 

ISENBERGER FEDERAL #23-30 GST 

P165892W 2/23/2005 41 71 30 SWSW 

COLEMAN OIL & GAS, INC.**PATRICIA L. ISENBERGER 

ISENBERGER FEDERAL #14-30 GST 

P16602W 9/1/1972 41 71 35 SWNW 

WYOMING BOARD OF LAND COMM.**H. R. MATHESON STATE-MATHESON #1 

P168479W 6/13/2005 41 71 22 NESW LANCE OIL & GAS COMPANY, INC 

ANTELOPE COAL FED 23-22-4171 GSI 

P171405W 11/4/2005 41 71 18 SWSW LANCE OIL & GAS COMPANY, INC. LITTON 14-18-4171 GSI 

Draft EIS, West Antelope II Coal Lease Application 
Appendix G 

NON-MINING GROUND WATER RIGHTS WITHIN THREE MILES OF THE WEST ANTELOPE II LBA TRACT Permit Priority T R S QQ Applicant Facility Name Statu

P171406W 11/4/2005 41 71 18 NENW LANCE OIL & GAS COMPANY, INC. LITTON 21-18-4171 GSI 

P171407W 11/4/2005 41 71 18 NESW LANCE OIL & GAS COMPANY, INC. LITTON 23-18-4171 GSI 

P171804W 8/18/2005 41 71 6 NENE YATES PETROLEUM CORP. BEARCAT CS FEDERAL #1 GST 

P171805W 8/18/2005 41 71 6 SWNE YATES PETROLEUM CORP. BEARCAT CS FEDERAL #2 GSI 

P171806W 8/18/2005 41 71 6 NESE YATES PETROLEUM CORP. BEARCAT CS FEDERAL #3 GSI 

P171807W 8/18/2005 41 71 6 SWSE YATES PETROLEUM CORP. BEARCAT CS FEDERAL #4 GSI 

P171808W 8/18/2005 41 71 7 NENE YATES PETROLEUM CORP. BEARCAT CS FEDERAL #5 GSI 

P171809W 8/18/2005 41 71 8 SWSE YATES PETROLEUM CORP. BEARCAT CS FEDERAL #6 GSI 

P171810W 8/18/2005 41 71 17 NENW YATES PETROLEUM CORP. BEARCAT CS FEDERAL #7 GSI 

P171811W 8/18/2005 41 71 17 SWNW YATES PETROLEUM CORP. BEARCAT CS FEDERAL #8 GSI 

P171812W 8/18/2005 41 71 17 NESE YATES PETROLEUM CORP. BEARCAT CS FEDERAL #9 GSI 

P171813W 8/18/2005 41 71 10 SWSE YATES PETROLEUM CORP. BLENHEIM CS FEDERAL #1 GSI 

P171814W 8/18/2005 41 71 11 NESW YATES PETROLEUM CORP. BLENHEIM CS FEDERAL #2 GSI 

P171815W 8/18/2005 41 71 11 SWSW YATES PETROLEUM CORP. BLENHEIM CS FEDERAL #3 GSI P171816W 8/18/2005 42 72 34 NENW YATES PETROLEUM CORP. GAUNTLET CS FEDERAL #1 GSI 

P171817W 8/18/2005 42 72 34 SWNW YATES PETROLEUM CORP. GAUNTLET CS FEDERAL #2 GSI 

P171818W 8/18/2005 42 72 34 NESW YATES PETROLEUM CORP. GAUNTLET CS FEDERAL #3 GSI 

P171819W 8/18/2005 42 72 34 SWSW YATES PETROLEUM CORP. GAUNTLET CS FEDERAL #4 GSI 

P171822W 8/18/2005 41 71 9 NENE YATES PETROLEUM CORP. GLOSTER CS FEDERAL #1 GSI 

P171823W 8/18/2005 41 71 9 SWNE YATES PETROLEUM CORP. GLOSTER CS FEDERAL #2 GSI 

P171824W 8/18/2005 41 71 9 SWNE YATES PETROLEUM CORP. GLOSTER CS FEDERAL #4 GSI 

P171824W 8/18/2005 41 71 9 SWSW YATES PETROLEUM CORP. GLOSTER CS FEDERAL #4 GSI 

P171825W 8/18/2005 41 71 9 SWSE YATES PETROLEUM CORP. GLOSTER CS FEDERAL #5 GSI 

P171826W 8/18/2005 41 71 10 NENE YATES PETROLEUM CORP. GLOSTER CS FEDERAL #6 GSI 

P171835W 8/18/2005 41 71 10 SWSW YATES PETROLEUM CORP. HAWKER CS FEDERAL #3 GSI P171836W 8/18/2005 41 71 10 NESW YATES PETROLEUM CORP. HAWKER CS FEDERAL #2 GSI 

P171837W 8/18/2005 41 71 10 NESE YATES PETROLEUM CORP. GLOSTER CS FEDERAL #8 GSI 

P171838W 8/18/2005 41 71 10 SWNE YATES PETROLEUM CORP. GLOSTER CS FEDERAL #7 GSI 

P171839W 9/7/2005 41 71 14 NESW YATES PETROLEUM CORP GEEBEE CS FEDERAL #2 GSI P171840W 9/7/2005 41 71 14 SWSW YATES PETROLEUM CORP GEEBEE CS FEDERAL #3 GSI 

P171842W 9/7/2005 41 71 15 NESE YATES PETROLEUM CORP. GLOSTER CS FEDERAL #9 GSI 

P171843W 9/7/2005 41 71 21 NENE YATES PETROLEUM CORP. LYSANDER CS FEDERAL #1 GSI 

P171845W 9/7/2005 41 71 17 SWSW 

Yates Petroleum** WY STATE BOARD OF LAND COMMISSIONERS BEARCAT CS FEDERAL #11 GSI 

P171846W 9/7/2005 41 71 17 SWSE 

Yates Petroleum** WY STATE BOARD OF LAND COMMISSIONERS BEARCAT CS FEDERAL #12 GSI 

P171847W 9/7/2005 41 72 1 NENE YATES PETROLEUM CORP. BOLT CS FEDERAL #1 GSI 

P171848W 9/7/2005 41 72 1 NENW YATES PETROLEUM CORP BOLT CS FEDERAL #2 GSI 

P171849W 9/7/2005 41 72 1 SWNW YATES PETROLEUM CORP. BOLT CS FEDERAL #3 GSI 

P171850W 9/7/2005 41 72 1 SWNE YATES PETROLEUM CORP. BOLT CS FEDERAL #4 GSI 

P171851W 9/7/2005 41 72 23 SWSW YATES PETROLEUM CORP 

MESSERSCHMITT CS FEDERAL #1 GSI 

G-14 Draft EIS, West Antelope 
NON-MINING GROUND WATER RIGHTS WITHIN THREE MILES OF THE WEST ANTELOPE II LBA TRACT Permit Priority T R S QQ Applicant Facility Name Statu

P171852W 9/7/2005 41 72 23 SWNE YATES PETROLEUM CORP 

MESSERSCHMITT CS FEDERAL #2 GSI 

P171854W 9/7/2005 41 72 23 NESW YATES PETROLEUM CORP 

MESSERSCHMITT CS FEDERAL #4 GSI 

P171856W 9/7/2005 41 72 23 SWSE YATES PETROLEUM CORP 

MESSERSCHMITT CS FEDERAL #6 GSI 

P171857W 9/7/2005 41 71 31 NENE YATES PETROLEUM CORP MOSQUITO CS FEDERAL #1 GSI 

P171858W 9/7/2005 41 71 31 SWNE YATES PETROLEUM CORP MOSQUITO CS FEDERAL #2 GSI 

P171859W 9/7/2005 41 71 31 NESE YATES PETROLEUM CORP MOSQUITO CS FEDERAL #3 GSI 

P171860W 9/7/2005 41 71 31 SWSE YATES PETROLEUM CORP MOSQUITO CS FEDERAL #4 GSI P171861W 9/7/2005 41 72 25 NESW YATES PETROLEUM CORP DOOLITTLE CS FEDERAL #1 GSI 

P171862W 9/7/2005 41 72 25 SWSW YATES PETROLEUM CORP DOOLITTLE CS FEDERAL #2 GSI 

P171864W 9/7/2005 41 72 12 SWSE YATES PETROLEUM CORP GRUMMAN CS FEDERAL #2 GSI P171866W 9/30/2005 42 72 33 SWSE YATES PETROLEUM CORP UPSPRING CS FEDERAL #18 GSI P171867W 10/4/2005 41 71 24 NESW YATES PETROLEUM CORP GEEBEE CS FEDERAL #5 GSI 

P171868W 11/10/2005 41 71 13 SWSW YATES PETROLEUM CORP GEEBEE CS FEDERAL #1 GSI 

P172120W 12/16/2005 41 72 3 SWNW YATES PETROLEUM CORP CARBINE CS FEDERAL #1 GSI 

P18839P 5/31/1951 40 72 11 NWNW INC. FLOYD C. RENO & SON'S STEVICK WELL #3 GST 

P23594W 7/25/1973 41 71 34 SWNE PATRICIA L. ISENBERGER ARTESION #3 GST 

P23595P 7/25/1973 41 72 24 SWSE PATRICIA L. ISENBERGER ARTESIAN #1 ABA P23596P 7/25/1973 41 71 35 NENE PATRICIA L. ISENBERGER ARTESIAN #4 GST P23597P 7/25/1973 41 71 35 SWSE PATRICIA L. ISENBERGER SCHOOL HOUSE #1 GST 

P23598W 7/25/1973 41 71 7 NWSE PATRICIA L. ISENBERGER LY #3 GST 

P23599P 7/25/1973 41 72 13 NENW PATRICIA L. ISENBERGER LY #4 GST 

P23600P 7/25/1973 41 72 13 SWSE PATRICIA L. ISENBERGER LY #5 GST P23601P 7/25/1973 41 71 29 SWNW PATRICIA L. ISENBERGER LY #6 GST 

P23602P 7/25/1973 41 71 33 NWNW PATRICIA L. ISENBERGER LY #7 GST 

P23603P 7/25/1973 41 71 7 NWSW PATRICIA L. ISENBERGER SPRING #8 GST 

P23604P 7/25/1973 41 71 21 SESW PATRICIA L. ISENBERGER SPRING #9 GST P23605P 7/25/1973 41 71 27 SWSW PATRICIA L. ISENBERGER SPRING #10 GST 

P23606P 7/25/1973 41 71 31 SWSW PATRICIA L. ISENBERGER SPRING #11 GST 

P25606P 1/14/1974 42 71 26 NESE PAUL & EDITH RUTH WILKINSON WILKINSON #2 GST 

P25608P 1/14/1974 42 71 26 SWNW PAUL & EDITH RUTH WILKINSON WILKINSON #4 GST 

P27065W 6/21/1974 40 71 23 SWNW W. A. STODDARD WEBB STODDARD #1 ABA 

P27066W 6/21/1974 40 71 22 SWSW W. A. STODDARD WEBB STODDARD #2 ABA 

P27067W 6/21/1974 40 71 25 SWSW W. A. STODDARD WEBB STODDARD #3 ABA 

P27131W 6/27/1974 40 71 19 NWSW USDA FOREST SERVICE HAEFELE #T.B. 178 CAN 

P27921W 9/13/1974 41 72 24 SESW PATRICIA L. ISENBERGER ARTESIAN #1 CAN 

P29746W 5/7/1975 42 71 27 NENW USDA FOREST SERVICE WRIGHT #T B 195 GST 

P29747W 5/7/1975 42 71 30 NENW USDA FOREST SERVICE PEABODY #T B 196 GST 

P33290W 5/17/1976 41 70 18 SENW USDA FOREST SERVICE BELL #T B 199 (DEEPENED) GST 

P37364W 4/19/1977 40 71 3 NESW USA USDA FOREST SERVICE ISENBERGER # TB 206 GST 

Draft EIS, West Antelope II Coal Lease Application 
Appendix G 

NON-MINING GROUND WATER RIGHTS WITHIN THREE MILES OF THE WEST ANTELOPE II LBA TRACT Permit Priority T R S QQ Applicant Facility Name Statu

P44329W 7/20/1978 42 71 34 NWSE USDA FOREST SERVICE MARG #4 GST P44330W 7/20/1978 41 71 3 NWSE USDA FOREST SERVICE MARG #5 GST P44331W 7/20/1978 41 71 14 SESE USDA FOREST SERVICE MARG #6 GST P44332W 7/20/1978 40 70 6 NWSE USDA FOREST SERVICE MARG #7 GST P44333W 7/20/1978 40 71 13 NESE USDA FOREST SERVICE MARG #8 GST P44334W 7/20/1978 40 71 22 SWNE USDA FOREST SERVICE MARG #9 CAN P44496W 8/8/1978 41 70 31 NESE 

INC. INDUSTRIAL PIPELINES SOUTH CENTRAL BN #2 CAN 

P44497W 8/8/1978 41 70 31 NESE 

INC. INDUSTRIAL PIPELINES SOUTH CENTRAL BN #3 CAN 

P44498W 8/8/1978 41 70 31 NESE 

INC. INDUSTRIAL PIPELINES SOUTH CENTRAL BN #4 CAN 

P4524P 12/31/1959 40 71 19 NWNE USDA FOREST SERVICE HAEFELE #T B 47 GST P46168W 12/14/1978 41 71 36 NESW 

WY BOARD OF LAND COMMISSIONERS**PATRICIA EISENBERGER EISENBERGER-STATE #1 GST 

P47044W 3/20/1979 40 71 22 SENW W. A. STODDARD WIB #1 CAN 

P4762W 6/12/1969 41 71 35 SENE WAYNE P. BRANNAN** KANE RANCHES BRANNAN #1 CAN P4763W 6/12/1969 41 71 35 SWNW STATE OF WYOMING**WAYNE P. BRANNAN BRANNAN #2 CAN 

P50638W 11/13/1979 41 72 23 SWNE PATRICIA L. ISENBERGER L Y #8 GST 

P50639W 11/13/1979 41 72 13 NWNE PATRICIA L. ISENBERGER L Y #9 

P52637W 6/17/1980 41 72 13 NENW PATRICIA L. ISENBERGER LITTON LY #10 GST 

P53195W 8/4/1981 42 71 32 NWNW DILTS BROS. DILTS BROS. #1 GST 

P5611P 5/2/1960 41 71 6 SWNW ROBERT E. ISENBERGER LY #1 GST 

P5612P 2/9/1969 41 71 19 NWNE PARTICIA L. ISENBERGER LITTON LY #2 (DEEPENED) GST 

P57757W 7/30/1981 41 71 2 SENE HARRY G. PUTNAM JINX #1 CAN 

P57759W 7/7/1981 41 71 2 NENE INC. VALENTINE CONSTRUCTION THUNDER CREEK #1 CAN P58121W 5/18/1981 41 71 11 NENE BIG HORN FRACTIONATION B H FRAC #1 

P5848W 6/16/1970 42 71 26 SWNW PAUL WILKINSON MIDDLE PASTURE #1 GST P5851W 6/16/1970 40 71 7 NENE BASS JACOBS & SON JACOBS #1 CAN 

P59882W 3/22/1982 40 72 12 NWNE DONALD B. JACOBS ILES #1 GST 

P59883W 3/22/1982 40 71 7 NENW DONALD B. JACOBS HOUSE #2 GST 

P60832W 5/13/1982 40 70 6 NENW DAVIS OIL COMPANY DAVIS HERON #1 CAN 

P62923W 12/28/1982 40 71 15 NWSW USGS WATER RESOURCES DIVISION USGS BR-10 GST 

P62924W 12/28/1982 40 71 17 NENE USGS WATER RESOURCES DIVISION USGS BR-11 GST 

P63112W 2/11/1983 41 71 24 SWNE BRIDLE BIT RANCH BRIDLE BIT RANCH #1 GST 

P67807W 6/27/1984 41 71 13 NWNW USA USDA FOREST SERVICE WILKINSON SPRING #T B 39 GST 

P67899W 7/10/1984 41 71 27 NESW USA USDA FOREST SERVICE ISENBERGER SPRING #T B 63 GST 

P68682W 10/9/1984 41 71 32 NENE PATRICIA L. ISENBERGER LITTON ARTESIAN #4 CAN 

P69060W 4/17/1984 41 72 24 SWSE PATRICIA L. ISENBERGER LITTON ARTESIAN #1 CAN 

P69891W 4/8/1985 41 72 24 SWSE 

WY BOARD OF LAND COMMISSIONERS**PARTICIA L. ISENBERGER LITTON ARTESIAN #1 ADJ 

G-16 Draft EIS, West Antelope 
NON-MINING GROUND WATER RIGHTS WITHIN THREE MILES OF THE WEST ANTELOPE II LBA TRACT Permit Priority T R S QQ Applicant Facility Name Statu

P70729W 7/23/1985 41 71 10 SESW JERRY DILTS BRIDLE BIT RANCH #3 ABA P71738W 1/14/1986 41 71 1 SWNW USA USDA FOREST SERVICE WILKINSON SPRING TB #55 UNA 

P71835W 2/4/1986 41 72 12 NENW WYOMING STATE HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT ROBINSON #2 ABA 

P71836W 2/4/1986 41 72 12 SESW WYOMING STATE HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT ROBINSON #1 ABA 

P73266W 9/18/1986 41 72 24 NESE WYOMING STATE HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT ROBINSON #3 CAN 

P75173W 7/8/1987 41 72 24 NESE WYOMING STATE HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT ROBINSON #3 CAN 

P75174W 7/8/1987 41 72 24 NESE WYOMING STATE HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT ROBINSON #4 CAN 

P75175W 7/8/1987 41 72 24 NESE WYOMING STATE HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT ROBINSON #5 CAN 

P75176W 7/8/1987 41 72 24 NESE WYOMING STATE HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT ROBINSON #6 CAN 

P76178W 12/7/1987 41 72 24 NESE WYOMING STATE HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT ROBINSON #7 GST P76179W 12/7/1987 41 72 24 NESE WYOMING STATE HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT ROBINSON #9 GST 

P76180W 12/7/1987 41 72 24 SESE WYOMING STATE HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT ROBINSON #10 GST P76181W 12/7/1987 41 72 24 SESE WYOMING STATE HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT ROBINSON #11 GST P76370W 3/1/1988 41 72 24 NESE WYO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ROBINSON #12 ABA 

P86409W 10/16/1991 40 71 29 NENE WY STATE DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION ANTELOPE #1 ABA 

P86410W 10/16/1991 40 71 7 NESW WY STATE DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION ANTELOPE #2 ABA 

P8967P 5/1/1965 40 71 1 SESE USDA FOREST SERVICE MORTON #T B 93 GST 

P94280W 1/18/1994 40 72 26 SWNW HAEFELE & HAEFELE CREEK WELL #1 GST 

P95332W 2/12/1986 41 71 2 NENE FRANCES PUTNAM JINX #3 GST 

P95333W 7/30/1981 41 71 2 NENE FRANCES PUTNAM JINX #2 GST 

P9571W 6/30/1971 41 71 33 SWSE USDA FOREST SERVICE JACOBS #T.B. 161 GST 

P96882W 8/24/1994 41 71 24 NENW WESCO, INC WESCO #1 UNA 

Draft EIS, West Antelope II Coal Lease Application 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix G 

Table Notes for Non-Mining Ground Water Rights within Three Miles of the West Antelope 

II LBA Tract 

Search Conducted April 24, 2007 

Ground Water Right Search Area for the West Antelope II LBA Tract 

Township Range Sections

 40N 70W 6-7 

 40N 71W 1-30 

40N 72W 1, 11-14, 23, 26 

41N 70W 7, 17-19, 30-31

 41N 71W 1-36 

41N 72W 1, 12-13, 23-26, 36 

 42N 71W 26-36 

Water rights were searched to the nearest quarter-quarter of each section listed above. 

Any part of a quarter-quarter that lies within three miles of the LBA tract is included. 

Permit number suffixes are denoted as follows: 

"A" Adjudicated (finalized) rights; unless the right is a territorial appropriation, there will be 

a match in the reference column from one of the following permit types for the 

unadjudicated portion: 

"P" Stock and domestic use wells completed prior to May 24, 1969 and registered with the 

State Engineer's Office prior to December 31, 1972 

'"W" Permits are for wells with a priority date for the date of filing with the State Engineer 

Status Codes 

A&C Abandoned and Cancelled 

ABA Abandoned 

ADJ Adjudicated 

CAN Cancelled 

GSE Good standing, permitted time limits have been extended 

GSI Good standing incomplete; required notices not received; not yet expired 

GST Good standing 

UNA Unadjudicated 

Use Codes 

CBM Coal Bed Methane 

DEW Dewatering 

DOM Domestic 

DRI Drilling 

IND Industrial 

IRR Irrigation 

MIS Miscellaneous 

MON Monitoring 

RES Reservoir Supply 

STO Stock 

G-18 Draft EIS, West Antelope II Coal Lease Application 
NON-MINING SURFACE WATER RIGHTS WITHIN 1⁄2 MILE OF THE WEST ANTELOPE II LBA TRACT AND 3 MILEPERMIT PRIORITY T R S QQ APPLICANT FACILITY NAME STATUS US

31/4/114S 6/20/2002 41 71 8 NESW 

COLEMAN OIL & GAS, INC.**JERRY DILTS 

Thunder Basin #45 Stock Reservoir REJ ST

32/4/144S 6/14/2004 41 71 11 SWSW Harry Putnam, et al Locomotive Stock Reservoir REJ ST

32/5/144S 6/14/2004 41 71 11 Harry Putnam, et al Sandy Swale Stock Reservoir REJ ST

32/6/153S 6/18/2004 41 71 11 NWSE Harry Putnam, et al Choo Choo Stock Reservoir REJ ST

P10357S 2/29/1988 41 71 30 SENW 

PATRICIA L. ISENBERGER LITTON Spring Creek #12 Stock Reservoir GST ST

P1380S 2/6/1956 40 71 28 SWNW ARTHUR R. JOHNSON Rancobore #1 Stock Reservoir UNA ST

P1384S 2/6/1956 40 71 10 SENW BASS JACOBS Donner #1 Stock Reservoir PUO ST

P1384S 2/6/1956 40 71 10 NESW BASS JACOBS Donner #1 Stock Reservoir PUO ST

P15209S 8/25/2003 41 71 20 Lance Oil & Gas Co., Inc. Dilts #14 Stock Reservoir UNA ST

P15210S 10/1/2003 41 71 22 NESW 

Thunder Basin National Grassland** Lance Oil & Gas Co., Inc. Dilts #8 Stock Reservoir UNA ST

P15211S 10/2/2003 41 71 15 Lance Oil & Gas Co., Inc. Dilts #9 Stock Reservoir UNA STP15227S 8/25/2003 41 71 22 SESW 

Thunder Basin National Grassland** Lance Oil & Gas Co., Inc. Dilts #7 Stock Reservoir UNA ST

P15228S 8/25/2003 41 71 9 

Thunder Basin National Grassland** Lance Oil & Gas Co., Inc. Dilts #11 Stock Reservoir UNA ST

P15229S 8/25/2003 41 71 21 SWNW Lance Oil & Gas Co., Inc. Dilts #15 Stock Reservoir UNA STP15317S 10/1/2003 41 71 9 Lance Oil & Gas Co., Inc. Dilts #10 Stock Reservoir UNA ST

P15515S 3/20/2002 41 71 18 SWNE 

Coleman Oil & Gas, Inc.**Gene and Patricia Litton Oxyoke Stock Reservoir UNA ST

P15516S 6/20/2002 41 71 5 SESE 

Coleman Oil & Gas, Inc.**Jerry Dilts 

Upper Horse Creek Stock Reservoir UNA ST

P15934S 6/14/2004 41 71 8 

Jerry J. Dilts Ltd. Partnership Horse Spring Stock Reservoir UNA ST

P15935S 6/14/2004 41 71 17 

Jerry J. Dilts Ltd. Partnership Little Bear Stock Reservoir UNA ST

P15936S 6/14/2004 41 71 14 Jerry Dilts Washed Out Stock Reservoir CAN ST

P15941S 6/14/2004 41 71 10 

Jerry J. Dilts Family Ltd. Partnership & Bridle Bit Ranch Co. Long Pull Stock Reservoir UNA ST

P15942S 6/14/2004 41 71 10 

Jerry J. Dilts Family Ltd. Partnership and Bridle Bit Ranch Company Live Wire Stock Reservoir UNA ST

P15943S 6/14/2004 41 71 10 

Jerry J. Dilts Family Ltd. Partnership and Bridle Bit Ranch Company Iron Horse Stock Reservoir UNA ST

Draft EIS, West Antelope II Coal Lease Application 
Appendix G 

NON-MINING SURFACE WATER RIGHTS WITHIN 1⁄2 MILE OF THE WEST ANTELOPE II LBA TRACT AND 3 MILEPERMIT PRIORITY T R S QQ APPLICANT FACILITY NAME STATUS US

P15944S 10/25/2004 41 71 11 Sioux Ranch, Inc. Choo Choo Stock Reservoir UNA ST

P15945S 10/25/2004 41 71 11 Sioux Ranch, Inc. Locomotive Stock Reservoir UNA ST

P15946S 10/25/2004 41 71 11 Sioux Ranch, Inc. Sandy Swale Stock Reservoir UNA ST

P15960S 6/14/2004 41 71 6 Patricia L. Isenburger-Litton 

Enlargement of Mike #1 (P2210S) Stock Reservoir UNA ST

P15961S 6/14/2004 41 71 6 Patricia L. Isenburger-Litton Sand Trap Stock Reservoir UNA ST

P15962S 6/14/2004 41 71 6 

PARTICIA L. ISENBERGER LITTON Fairway Stock Reservoir UNA ST

P15963S 6/14/2004 41 71 6 Patricia L. Isenburger-Litton Isenburger Stock Reservoir UNA STP15964S 6/14/2004 41 71 9 

Jerry J. Dilts Family Ltd. Partnership and Bridle Bit Ranch Company 

Enlargement of Dilts #10 (P15317SR) Stock Reservoir UNA ST

P15965S 6/14/2004 41 71 24 

Jerry J. Dilts Family Ltd. Partnership and Bridle Bit Ranch Company South Antelope Stock Reservoir UNA ST

P15966S 6/14/2004 41 71 13 

Jerry J. Dilts Family Ltd. Partnership and Bridle Bit Ranch Company Walkabout Stock Reservoir UNA ST

P15967S 6/14/2004 41 71 9 

Jerry J. Dilts Family Ltd. Partnership and Bridle Bit Ranch Company Sand Rock Stock Reservoir UNA ST

P15968S 6/14/2004 41 71 17 Jerry J. Dilts Two Puddles Stock Reservoir UNA ST

P15969S 6/14/2004 41 71 22 Jerry J. Dilts Calm Stock Reservoir UNA ST

P15970S 6/14/2004 41 71 14 Jerry J.Dilts Nice End Stock Reservoir UNA STP15971S 6/14/2004 41 71 23 Jerry J.Dilts Nifty Stock Reservoir UNA ST

P15972S 6/14/2004 41 71 14 Jerry J. Dilts Parallel Stock Reservoir UNA ST

P15973S 6/14/2004 41 71 14 Jerry J. Dilts Shoe Horn Stock Reservoir UNA STP16259S 8/20/2004 41 71 29 

Patricia Litton** Lance Oil & Gas Co., Inc. Peace Pipe Stock Reservoir CAN ST

P16260S 8/20/2004 41 71 21 

Lance Oil & Gas Co., Inc.**Patricia Litton Medicine Wheel Stock Reservoir CAN ST

P16261S 8/20/2004 41 71 20 

Lance Oil & Gas Co., Inc.**Patricia Litton Sun Dog Stock Reservoir UNA ST

P16262S 8/20/2004 41 71 19 NENE 

Lance Oil & Gas Co., Inc.**Patricia Litton Wapiti Stock Reservoir CAN ST

P17600S 7/8/2002 41 71 30 

Coleman Oil & Gas, Inc.**Patricia Litton LY02 Stock Reservoir UNA ST

P17602S 7/8/2002 41 71 7 NESE 

Coleman Oil & Gas, Inc.**Patricia Litton Tomahawk Stock Reservoir UNA ST

P17603S 7/8/2002 41 71 19 NENW 

Coleman Oil & Gas, Inc.**Patricia Litton Travis Stock Reservoir UNA ST

G-20 Draft EIS, West Antelope 
NON-MINING SURFACE WATER RIGHTS WITHIN 1⁄2 MILE OF THE WEST ANTELOPE II LBA TRACT AND 3 MILEPERMIT PRIORITY T R S QQ APPLICANT FACILITY NAME STATUS US

P17604S 7/8/2002 41 71 19 SWSW 

Coleman Oil & Gas, Inc.**Patricia Litton Tub-L Stock Reservoir UNA ST

P17731S 10/1/2003 41 71 4 NWSW 

Williams Production RMT Co.** Wyo State Office of Lands & Investments Dilts #12 Stock Reservoir UNA ST

P21482D 9/7/1954 40 71 23 NWSE WILLIAM H. ROBERTSON Lazy Y No. 1 Ditch PUD IRR 

P21483D 9/7/1954 40 71 23 NWSE WILLIAM H. ROBERTSON Lazy Y No. 2 Ditch PUD IRR 

P2208S 1/30/1958 40 71 3 NWNW U.S.D.A. Tom #1 Stock Reservoir PUO STP2210S 1/30/1958 41 71 6 NESE INC. KANE'S RANCH Mike #1 Stock Reservoir PUO ST

P25857D 8/8/1978 41 70 31 NESE 

INDUSTRIAL PIPELINES SOUTH-CENTRAL, INC. 

Industrial Pipelines No. 1 Water Haul CAN 

TED 

P27430D 12/15/1981 40 71 7 SWNW DAVIS OIL COMPANY 

Cormorant Pelican - Water Haul #1 CAN 

OILM,RI 

P3349S 7/13/1960 40 71 5 SWNW J. R. LLOYD Mary #1 Stock Reservoir PUO ST

P3350S 7/13/1960 40 71 6 SWSW J. R. LLOYD Sally #1 Stock Reservoir PUO ST

P33515D 5/15/2006 41 71 33 NESE Kyle Wendtland 

Spring Creek PS-01-06 Water Haul UNA 

INDM 

P3396S 9/2/1960 40 71 30 SWSE ARTHUR R. JOHNSON Singleton Dam Stock Reservoir UNA ST

P3838S 3/18/1963 40 71 17 SWNE FOREST SERVICE U.S.D.A. Jacobs #9-213-8 Stock Reservoir PUO ST

P3839S 3/18/1963 40 71 17 NWNW FOREST SERVICE U.S.D.A. Jacobs #9-213-9 Stock Reservoir PUO ST

P3864S 8/8/1962 40 71 18 SESW USDA FOREST SERVICE Haefele #209-1 Stock Reservoir PUO ST

P4184S 1/31/1964 40 71 15 NESE USDA FOREST SERVICE 

Jacobs #F. S. 9-213-7 Stock Reservoir ADJ ST

P4199S 1/31/1964 41 71 13 NENE USDA FOREST SERVICE 

Wilkinson # F. S. 9-264-5 Stock Reservoir PUO ST

P4237S 1/31/1964 40 71 1 SESE U.S.D.A. FOREST SERVICE 

Morton #F .S. 9-231-9 Stock Reservoir PUO ST

P4995R 2/17/1939 40 70 19 SENE 

USDA FARM SECURITY ADMINISTRATION Thunder Basin Reservoir No. 37 PUO ST

P5051R 2/17/1939 40 71 13 SWNW 

USDA FARM SECURITY ADMINISTRATION Thunder Basin Reservoir No. 11 PUO ST

P5059R 2/17/1939 41 71 8 NESW U.S.D.A. Thunder Basin Reservoir No. 45 PUO STP5520S 8/26/1960 40 71 8 NESW BASS JACOBS & SON Marker #1 Stock Reservoir PUO ST

P6165R 9/7/1954 40 71 23 NWSE WILLIAM H. ROBERTSON Lazy Y No. 1 Reservoir UNA ST

P6207S 3/25/1968 41 71 14 NESE USDA FOREST SERVICE 

Matheson #F.S.9-228-10 Stock Reservoir PUO ST

P6890S 2/2/1971 41 70 7 SWSW USDA FOREST SERVICE 

Wilkinson #F.S. 9-264-8 Stock Reservoir PUO ST

Draft EIS, West Antelope II Coal Lease Application 
Appendix G 

NON-MINING SURFACE WATER RIGHTS WITHIN 1⁄2 MILE OF THE WEST ANTELOPE II LBA TRACT AND 3 MILEPERMIT PRIORITY T R S QQ APPLICANT FACILITY NAME STATUS US

P7329S 7/27/1972 40 71 13 SWNW USDA FOREST SERVICE 

Morton #F.S. 9-231-40 Stock Reservoir ADJ ST

P8262S 11/3/1977 40 71 15 SESW USDA FOREST SERVICE 

Jacobs #9-213-17 Stock Reservoir PUO ST

P860S 8/4/1954 40 71 28 NWNW ARTHUR R. JOHNSON Johnson #1 Stock Reservoir UNA ST

P861S 8/4/1954 40 71 28 SWNW ARTHUR R. JOHNSON Johnson #2 Stock Reservoir UNA STP8833S 4/15/1981 40 71 21 NESW DONALD B. JACOBS Coal Mine Road Stock Reservoir GST ST

G-22 Draft EIS, West Antelope 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix G 

Table Notes for Non-Mining Surface Water Rights within 1⁄2 Mile of the West Antelope II 

LBA Tract and 3 Miles Downstream 

Search Conducted April 24, 2007 

Surface Water Right Search Area for the West Antelope II LBA Tract 

Township Range Sections

 40N 70W 19 

40N 71W 1-18, 21-23, 27-30, 34 

 40N 72W 1, 24 

41N 70W 7, 18-19, 30-31

 41N 71W 1-36 

Water rights were searched to the nearest quarter-quarter of each section listed above. 

Any part of a quarter-quarter that lies within 1/2 mile of the LBA tract or three miles 

downstream from the tract is included. 

Record suffixes are denoted as follows: 

"A" Adjudicated (finalized) rights; unless the right is a territorial appropriation, there will be 

a match in the reference column from one of the following permit types for the 

unadjudicated portion: 

"D" Ditch or pipeline permit 

"R" Reservoir permit 

"S" Stock reservoir permit 

Status Codes 

ADJ Adjudicated 

CAN Cancelled 

GST Good standing 

PUD Point of diversion (not actual status) 

PUO Point of reservoir outlet (not actual status) 

REG Rejected 

UNA Unadjudicated 

Use Codes 

DRI Drilling 

IND Industrial 

IRR Irrigation 

MIS Miscellaneous 

OIL Oil refining/production 

STO Stock 

TEM Temporary use 

Draft EIS, West Antelope II Coal Lease Application G-23 
APPENDIX H 

USDA-FS REGION 2 SENSITIVE SPECIES AND 

MANAGEMENT INDICATOR SPECIES 

AND 

BLM SENSITIVE SPECIES EVALUATION FOR THE 

WEST ANTELOPE II COAL LEASE APPLICATION EIS
 
 

 

Appendix H 

BLM SENSITIVE SPECIES EVALUATION 

INTRODUCTION 

BLM1 Wyoming has prepared a list of sensitive species to focus species 

management efforts towards maintaining habitats under a multiple use 

mandate. The authority for this policy and guidance comes from the 

Endangered Species Act (ESA), as amended; Title II of the Sikes Act, as 

amended; the Federal Land Policy Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA) (43 U.S.C. 

1716); Department Manual 235.1.1A; and BLM Manual 6840.06 E. Sensitive 

Species. 

The goals of the sensitive species policy are to: 

• Maintain vulnerable species and habitat components in functional BLM 

ecosystems. 

• Ensure sensitive species are considered in land management decisions. 

• Prevent a need for species listing under the ESA. 

• Prioritize needed conservation work with an emphasis on habitat. 

PROJECT DESCRIPTION 

Under the Proposed Action, BLM would hold a competitive lease sale and issue 

a lease for the federal coal lands included in the West Antelope II LBA tract as 

applied for or under other Alternatives (see Figure 2-1 and land descriptions in 

Section 2.1 of this EIS). It is assumed that the applicant for the tract, Antelope 

Coal Company, would be the successful bidder and that the tract would be 

mined as a maintenance lease for the existing Antelope Mine. The surface 

estate on the West Antelope II LBA tract as applied for is composed of privately 

owned lands. Under Alternatives 1 and 2, additional lands, including federal 

lands managed by USDA-FS, were added by BLM to be analyzed for possible 

inclusion in that tract. Hereafter, the BLM study area for the West Antelope II 

LBA tract is defined as the original tract, as applied for, plus all lands added by 

the BLM. The general analysis area for the West Antelope II LBA tract is 

defined as the BLM study area plus surrounding lands within a one-quarter 

miles perimeter that could be disturbed by mining the coal within the BLM 

study area. The general analysis area for the West Antelope II LBA tract does 

not include land within the mine’s current permit area. 

SPECIES OCCURRENCE AND HABITAT DESCRIPTIONS 

Sensitive species were listed for their ranges within the BLM Buffalo and 

Casper Field Offices. Some sensitive species could or do occur within the West 

Refer to page xv of the EIS for a list of abbreviations and acronyms used in this document. 

H-2 Draft EIS, West Antelope II Coal Lease Application 

1 
Table H-1. BLM Sensitive Species for the Buffalo and Casper Field Offices and Habitat Requirem

on West Antelope II General Analysis Area. 

Common Name (scientific name) Habitat Observed on West AnteAmphibians Northern leopard frog (Rana pipiens) Beaver ponds, permanent water in plains and foothills Yes, Incidental Sighting Spotted frog (Ranus pretiosa) Ponds, sloughs, small streams ----1 Birds Baird’s sparrow (Ammodramus bairdii) Grasslands, weedy fields No 

Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) Riparian areas, rangelands Migrant, Winter Residen

Brewer’s sparrow (Spizella breweri) Basin-prairie shrub Limited Breeder1 

Burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia) Grasslands, basin-prairie shrub Periodic Breeder Ferruginous hawk (Buteo regalis) Basin-prairie shrub, grasslands, rock outcrops Common Breeder Greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) Basin-prairie shrub, mountain-foothill shrub Rare1 Loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus) Basin-prairie shrub, mountain-foothill shrub Infrequent Breeder Long-billed curlew (Numenius americanus) Grasslands, plains, foothills, wet meadows Uncommon Potential BrMountain Plover (Charadrius montanus) Shortgrass/midgrass grasslands, basin-prairie shrubs Common Breeder Northern goshawk (Accipiter gentilis) Conifer and deciduous forests ----1 Peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus) Cliffs along waterways No 

Sage sparrow (Amphispiza billneata) Basin-prairie shrub, mountain-foothill shrub No Sage thrasher (Oreoscoptes montanus) Basin-prairie shrub, mountain-foothill shrub No1 

Trumpeter swan (Cygnus buccinator) Lakes, ponds, rivers ----1 White-faced ibis (Plegadis chihi) Marshes, wet meadows ----1 Yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus) Open woodlands, streamside willow and alder groves No1 

Draft EIS, West Antelope II Coal Lease Application 
Appendix H 

Table H-1. BLM Sensitive Species for the BLM Buffalo and Casper Field Offices and Habi

Observations on West Antelope II General Analysis Area (Continued). 

Common Name (scientific name) Habitat Observed on West Ante

Fish Yellowstone cutthroat trout (Oncoryhynchus clarki) Cold water streams and lakes ----1 

Mammals Fringed myotis (Myotis thysanodes) Conifer forests, woodland chaparral, caves and mines ----1 Long-eared myotis (Myotis evotis) Conifer and deciduous forest, caves and mines ----1 Spotted bat (Euderma maculatum) Cliffs over perennial water, basin-prairie shrub ----1 Swift fox (Vulpes velox) Grasslands Yes, Recent Incidenta

Surveys 

Townsend’s big-eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii) Forests, basin-prairie shrub, caves and mines ----1 

White-tailed prairie dog (Cynomys leucurus) Basin-prairie shrub, grasslands No Plants Laramie Columbine (Aquilegia laramiensis) 

Crevices of granite boulders & cliffs; 6,400-8,000 ft. elev. 

----1 

Northern Arnica (Arnica lonchophylla) 

Open woods and slopes on sandy-gravel or limestone and shady, moist north-facing birch-hazelnut forests; 6500-8000 ft. elev. 

----1 

Porter’s sagebrush (Artemisia porteri) 

Sparsely vegetated badlands of ashy or tufaceous mudstone and clay slopes; 5,300 to 6,500 ft. elev. 

----1 

Soft Aster (Aster mollis) 

Sagebrush grasslands and mountain meadows on deep, calcareous soils at the edge of aspen or pine woodlands; 6400-8500 ft. elev. 

----1 

Nelson’s Milkvetch (Astragalus nelsonianus -or- Astragalus pectinatus var. platyphyllus) 

Alkaline clay flats, shale bluffs and gullies, pebbly slopes, and volcanic cinders in sparsely vegetated sagebrush, juniper, & cushion plant communities; 5200-7600 ft. elev. 

----1 

Many-stemmed Spider-flower (Cleome multicaulis) 

Semi-moist, open saline banks of shallow ponds & lakes with baltic rush & bulrush; 5,900 ft. elev. 

----1 

H-4 Draft EIS, West Antelope I
Table H-1. BLM Sensitive Species for the Buffalo and Casper Field Offices and Habitat Requirem

on West Antelope II General Analysis Area (Continued). 

Common Name (scientific name) Habitat Observed on West AntePlants (Continued) William’s wafer parsnip (Cymopterus williamsii) 

Open ridgetops and upper slopes with exposed limestone outcrops or rockslides; 6,000 to 8,300 ft. elev. 

----1 

Mountain Lady's Slipper (Cypripedium montanum ) 

Shady moist forests and riparian shrublands; 5400­5500 ft. elev. 

----1 

Rabbit Buckwheat (Eriogonum brevicaule var. canum [E. Lagopus]) 

Barren sandy or clay soils and rock outcrops in juniper woodlands and sagebrush steppe communities; 3800-5500 ft. elev. 

----1 

Hall's Fescue (Festuca hallii) 

Meadows, slopes, and open woods; 7400-10,500 ft. elev. 

----1 

Contracted Indian Ricegrass (Oryzopsis contracta [O. hymenoides var. c.]) 

Basin and foothill areas on dry, sandy soils; 4800­7500 ft. elev. No 

Alpine Feverfew (Parthenium alpinum [Bolophyta alpina]) 

Rocky ridges and hills, flat areas with rocky pavement, gravelly loam and sandy slopes on plains, often in association with limestone ----1 

Cary's Beardtongue (Penstemon caryi) 

Calcareous rock outcrops and rocky soil within sagebrush, juniper, Douglas fir, and limber pine communities; 5200-8500 ft. elev. 

----1 

Devil's Gate Twinpod (Physaria eburniflora) Rocky hills and slopes, usually limestone ----1 Northern Blackberry (Rubus arcticus ssp. acaulis [R. acaulis]) Boggy woods and marshes; 7000-9000 ft. elev. ----1 Ute Ladies’ Tresses (Spiranthes diluvialis) 

Moist, subirrigated or seasonally flooded soils bordering wetland meadows, springs, lakes, or perennial streams; 4,200-7,000 ft. elev. 

No 

Laramie False Sagebrush (Sphaeromeria simplex) 

Cushion plant communities on rocky limestone ridges & gentle slopes; 7,500-8,600 ft. elev. 

----1 

Hapeman's Sullivan (Sullivantia hapemanii var. hapemanii) 

Moist calcareous outcrops and boulders in shady canyons and streams; 4600-8200 ft. elev. 

----1 

1 Habitat generally lacking or very limited 

Draft EIS, West Antelope II Coal Lease Application 
 

 

Appendix H 

Antelope II LBA tract. Specialized habitat requirements (i.e., caves, cliffs, 

calcareous rock outcrops) make occupation for other sensitive species unlikely. 

Table H-1 lists BLM sensitive species, summarizes their habitat requirements, 

and indicates if they have been observed on or around the tract. Additional 

information on occurrences of these species on the tract can be found in 

Section 3.10 of the West Antelope II Coal Lease Application EIS. 

USDA-FS REGION 2 SENSITIVE AND MANAGEMENT INDICATOR SPECIES 

Species that have been identified by the Regional Forester as sensitive species 

and Management Indicator Species (MIS) must be considered for the West 

Antelope II Coal Lease Application. Alternatives 1 and 2 include additional 

federal lands administered by the USDA–Forest Service. The purpose of this 

Appendix is to provide information about the potential environmental effects 

that leasing these tracts would have on USDA-FS Region 2 Sensitive wildlife 

and vegetative species (terrestrial and aquatic) and on USDA-FS Thunder Basin 

National Grassland Forest Plan MIS. 

USDA-FS REGION 2 SENSITIVE SPECIES 

The USDA-FS classifies species as “Sensitive” when they meet one or more of 

the following three criteria: 1) the species is declining in numbers or 

occurrences, and evidence indicates it could be proposed for federal listing as 

threatened or endangered if action is not taken to reverse or stop the 

downward trend; 2) the species’ habitat is declining and continued loss could 

result in population declines that lead to federal listing as threatened or 

endangered if action is not taken to reverse or stop the decline; and 3) the 

species’ population or habitat is stable but limited. In addition to these 

criteria, a ranking system is used to identify species for Sensitive status, which 

is outlined in USDA-FS Manual 2670-2671. Table H-2 lists species that have 

been identified as “Sensitive” for USDA-FS Region 2 (USDA-FS 2007). 

The USDA-FS Douglas Ranger District has reviewed the entire list of animal 

and plant sensitive species for USDA-FS Region 2 and eliminated those species 

that occur on the TBNG but are outside of any effects of the proposal 

(geographically or biologically) from further review. The species listed in Table 

H-3 will be evaluated for potential effects from the Proposed Action and 

Alternatives. These species have been identified as definitely or potentially 

inhabiting the project planning area or may be potentially affected by the 

Proposed Action or Alternatives. 

H-6 Draft EIS, West Antelope II Coal Lease Application 
 

 Appendix H 

Table H-2. USDA-FS Region 2 Sensitive Species and Management Indicator 

Species Evaluation for the West Antelope II Coal Lease Application 

EIS (USDA-FS 2007). 

Scientific Name Common Name Status 

on 

TBNG 

Plants: Ferns and Allies 

Botrychium ascendens Trianglelobe moonwort U 

Botrychium campestre Prairie moonwort S 

Botrychium furcatum Forkleaved moonwort U 

Botrychium lineare Narrow-leaved moonwort S 

Botrychium paradoxum Peculiar moonwort U 

Lycopodium complanatum Crowfoot clubmoss U 

Selaginella selaginoides Northern spike-moss U 

Plant : Monocots 

Amerorchis rotundifolia Round leaved orchid U 

Calochortus flexuosus Weakstem mariposalily U 

Carex alopecoidea Foxtail sedge S 

Carex diandra Lesserpanicled sedge U 

Carex livida Livid sedge U 

Cypripedium montanum Mountain lady’s slipper U 

Cypripedium parvijlorum Smallyellow ladyslipper U 

Eleocharis elliptica Elliptic spikerush S 

Epipactis gigantea Giant helle borine U 

Eriophorum altaicum var. neogaeum Altai cottongrass U 

Eriophorum chamissonis Chamisso cottonsedge U 

Eriophorum gracile Slender cottonsedge U 

Festuca hallii Hall’s Fescue S 

Kobresia simpliciuscula Simple Kobresia U 

Liparis loeselii Loesel’s twayblade U 

Malaxis brachypoda Adder’s-mouth U 

Platanthera orbiculata Large roundleafed orchid U 

Ptilagrostis porteri Colorado Falseneedlegrass U 

Schoenoplectus hallii Hall’s bulrush U 

Triteleia grandiflora Largeflower triteleia S 

Plant: Dicots 

Aquilegia chrysantha var. rydbergii Golden Columbine U 

Aquilegia laramiensis Laramie Columbine U 

Armeria maritima var. siberica Sea pink U 

Asclepias uncialis Dwarf milkweed U 

Astragalus barrii Barr’s milkvetch K 

Astragalus leptaleus Park milkvetch U 

Draft EIS, West Antelope II Coal Lease Application H-7 
 

Appendix H 

Table H-2. USDA-FS Region 2 Sensitive Species and Management Indicator 

Species Evaluation for the West Antelope II Coal Lease Application 

EIS (USDA-FS 2007) (Continued). 

Scientific Name Common Name Status 

on 

TBNG 

Plants (Continued) 

Plant: Dicots 

Astragalus missouriensis var. 

humistratus 

Missouri milkvetch U 

Astragalus proximus Aztec milkvetch U 

Astragalus ripleyi Ripleys milkvetch U 

Astragalus wetherillii Wetherill milkvetch U 

Braya glabella Smooth rockcress U 

Chenopodium cycloides Sandhill goosefoot U 

Cirsium perplexans Rocky Mountain thistle U 

Descurainia torulosa Wind River tansymustard U 

Draba exunguiculata Grays Peak whitlowgrass U 

Draba grayana Hitchcock Gray's Peak 

whitlowgrass 

U 

Draba smithii Smiths whitlowgrass U 

Drosera anglica English sundew U 

Drosera rotundifolia Roundleaf sundew U 

Eriogonum brandegeei Brandegee wildbuckwheat U 

Eriogonum exilifolium Drop-leaf wild buckwheat S 

Eriogonum visheri Dakota wild buckwheat S 

Gilia sedifolia Purple false gily-flower U 

Ipomopsis aggregata ssp. weberi Weber’s scarlet gilia U 

Ipomopsis globularis Globe gilia U 

Ipomopsis polyantha Pagosa skyrocket U 

Lesquerella fremontii Fremont’s bladderpod U 

Lesquerella pruinosa Pagosa Springs bladderpod U 

Machaeranthera coloradoensis Colorado tansymustard U 

Mimulus gemmiparus Weber’s monkeyflower U 

Neoparrya lithophila Rock-loving aletes U 

Oenothera harringtonii Harrington’s oenothera U 

Oreoxis humilis Pikes Peak spring parsley U 

Parnassia kotzebuei Kotzebue’s grass-of-Parnassus U 

Penstemon absarokensis Absaroka penstemon U 

Penstemon caryi Cary beardtongue U 

Penstemon degeneri Degener’s penstemon U 

Penstemon harringtonii Harrington’s beardtongue S 

Phacelia scopulina var. submutica Debeque scorpionweed U 

H-8 Draft EIS, West Antelope II Coal Lease Application 
 Appendix H 

Table H-2. USDA-FS Region 2 Sensitive Species and Management Indicator 

Species Evaluation for the West Antelope II Coal Lease Application 

EIS (USDA-FS 2007) (Continued). 

Scientific Name Common Name Status 

on 

TBNG 

Plants (Continued) 

Plant: Dicots 

Physaria didymocarpa var. lanata Woolly twinpod S 

Physaria pulvinata Cushion bladderpod U 

Potentilla rupincola Front Range cinquefoil U 

Primula egaliksensis Greenland primrose U 

Pyrrocoma carthamoides var. 

subsquarrosa 

Absoroka goldenweed U 

Pyrrocoma clementis var. villosa Tranquil goldenweed U 

Pyrrocoma integrifolia Many-stemmed goldenweed U 

Ranunculus karelinii Frosty buttercup U 

Rubus arcticus ssp. acaulis Arctic bramble U 

Salix arizonica Arizona willow U 

Salix barrattiana Barrat willow U 

Salix candida Sage willow U 

Salix myrtillifolia Myrtleleaf willow U 

Salix serissima Autumn willow U 

Sanguinaria canadensis Bloodroot U 

Shoshonea pulvinata Shoshonia U 

Thalictrum heliophilum Sun-loving meadowrue U 

Townsendia condensata var. 

anomala 

Cushion townsenddaisy U 

Utricularia minor Lesser bladderpod U 

Viburnum opulus var. americanum American viburnum S 

Viola selkirkii Great-spurred violet U 

Fish* 

Nocomis biguttatus Hornyhead chub U 

Couesius plumbeus Lake chub U 

Gila pandora Rio Grande chub U 

Gila robusta Roundtail chub U 

Macrhybopsis gelida Sturgeon chub U 

Phoxinus neogaeus Finescale dace K 

Margariscus margarita Pearl dace U 

Phoxinus eos Northern redbelly dace U 

Hybognathus placitus Plains minnow K 

Catostomus discobulus Bluehead sucker U 

Catostomus latipinnis Flannelmouth sucker U 

Draft EIS, West Antelope II Coal Lease Application H-9 
 

 

Appendix H 

Table H-2. USDA-FS Region 2 Sensitive Species and Management Indicator 

Species Evaluation for the West Antelope II Coal Lease Application 

EIS (USDA-FS 2007) (Continued). 

Scientific Name Common Name Status 

on TBNG 

Fish (Continued)* 

Catostomus platyrynchus Mountain sucker U 

Catostomus plebeius Rio Grande sucker U 

Invertebrates 

Somatochlora hudsonica Hudsonian emerald butterfly U 

Speyeria nokomis nokomis Great Basin silverspot 

butterfly 

U 

Hesperia ottoe Ottoe skipper butterfly U 

Speyeria idalia Regal fritillary S 

Reptiles and Amphibians 

Rana pipiens Northern leopard frog K 

Storeria occipitomaculata pahasapae Black Hills redbelly snake S 

Mammals

 Euderma maculatum Spotted bat K 

 Corynorhinus townsendii Townsend’s big-eared bat K 

 Myotis thysanodes Fringed myotis K 

 Cynomys ludovicianus Black-tailed prairie dog K 

 Vulpes velox Swift fox K 

Birds

 Cygnus buccinator Trumpeter swan U 

 Botaurus lentiginosus American bittern U 

 Coccyzus americanus Yellow-billed cuckoo K 

 Numenius americanus Long-billed curlew K 

 Buteo regalis Ferruginous hawk K 

 Accipiter gentilis Northern goshawk K 

 Circus cyaneus Northern harrier K 

 Athene cunicularia Burrowing owl K 

 Asio flammeus Short-eared owl K 

 Calcarius ornatus Chestnut-collared longspur K 

 Calcarius mccownii McCown’s longspur K 

 Centrocercus urophasianus Greater sage-grouse K 

Haliaeetus leucocephalus Bald eagle K 

 Charadrius montanus Mountain plover K 

 Lanius ludovicianus Loggerhead shrike K 

Spizella breweri Brewer’s sparrow K 

H-10 Draft EIS, West Antelope II Coal Lease Application 
 

 Appendix H 

Table H-2. USDA-FS Region 2 Sensitive Species and Management Indicator 

Species Evaluation for the West Antelope II Coal Lease Application 

EIS (USDA-FS 2007) (Continued). 

Scientific Name Common Name Status 

on 

TBNG 

Birds (Continued) 

Ammodramus savannarum Grasshopper sparrow K 

 Amphispiza billneata Sage sparrow U 

Chlidonias niger Black tern K 

Melanerpes lewis Lewis’ Woodpecker K 

Status Code: 

K = Known occurrence in vicinity. Date of last observation indicates that 

species still occur in area. 

N = No recent observations; surveys recently completed; may be historic 

records; potential habitat possible. 

S = Suspected occurrence. May be historic records but no recent 

observations. Suitable habitat likely. 

U = Unknown occurrence, more surveys may be needed, may be historic 

records, potential habitat possible. 

* No perennial streams or permanent natural water sources are present in the West Antelope II 

general analysis area. 

Draft EIS, West Antelope II Coal Lease Application H-11 
 

 

 

 

Appendix H 

Table H-3. USDA-FS Region 2 or TBNG Listed Sensitive Species That May 

Occur in the TBNG or May Be Impacted by Leasing Lands Evaluated 

in the West Antelope II Coal Lease Application EIS (provided by 

USDA-FS Douglas Ranger District, July 2007). 

Common (Scientific) 

Name 

Status on TBNG/EIS 

USDA-FS Lands1 

Suitable Habitat on 

EIS USDA-FS Lands1 

Plants: Ferns and Allies 

Prairie moonwort 

(Botrychium campestre) 

Undocumented/Undocumented Very Poor to 

Unsuitable Habitat 

Narrowleaf moonwort 

(Botrychium lineare) 

Undocumented/Undocumented Unsuitable Habitat 

Leathery grapefern 

(Botrychium multifidum 

var. coulteri) 

Undocumented/Undocumented Unsuitable Habitat 

Plants : Monocots 

Ute Ladies’-tresses 

(Spiranthes diluvialis) 

Undocumented/Undocumented Unsuitable Habitat 

Foxtail sedge 

(Carex alopecoidea) 

Undocumented/Undocumented Unsuitable Habitat 

Elliptic spikerush 

(Eleocharis elliptica) 

Undocumented/Undocumented Unsuitable Habitat 

Hall’s Fescue 

(Festuca hallii) 

Undocumented/Undocumented Unsuitable Habitat 

Wood (wild) lily 

(Lilium philadelphicum) 

Undocumented/Undocumented Unsuitable Habitat 

Largeflower triteleia 

(Triteleia grandiflora) 

Undocumented/Undocumented Unsuitable Habitat 

Plant : Dicots 

Barr’s milkvetch 

(Astragalus barrii) 

Documented/Undocumented Suitable Habitat 

Smooth goosefoot 

(Chenopodium 

subglabrum) 

Undocumented/Undocumented Unsuitable Habitat 

Flat-top (fragrant) 

goldentop (goldenrod) 

(Euthamia graminifolia) 

Undocumented/Undocumented Unsuitable Habitat 

Rosy palafox 

(Palafoxia rosea var. 

macrolepis) 

Documented/Undocumented Suitable Habitat 

H-12 Draft EIS, West Antelope II Coal Lease Application 
 

 

 

 

 Appendix H 

Table H-3. USDA-FS Region 2 or TBNG Listed Sensitive Species That May 

Occur in the TBNG or May Be Impacted by Leasing Lands Evaluated 

in the West Antelope II Coal Lease Application EIS (provided by 

USDA-FS Douglas Ranger District, July 2007) (Continued). 

Common (Scientific) 

Name 

Status on TBNG/EIS 

USDA-FS Lands1 

Suitable Habitat on 

EIS USDA-FS Lands1 

Plant : Dicots (Continued) 

Lemonscent (crownseed fetid-marigold) 

(Pectis angustifolia) 

Documented/Undocumented Suitable Habitat 

Nelson larchleaf 

penstemon 

(Penstemon laricifolius 

ssp. exifolius) 

Undocumented/Undocumented Marginal Habitat 

Woolly twinpod 

(Physaria didymocarpa 

var. lanata) 

Undocumented/Undocumented Marginal Habitat 

Amphibians

 Northern leopard frog 

(Rana pipiens) 

Documented/No Recent 

Observations 

Very Poor to 

Unsuitable Habitat 

Fish 

No Fish Species are Listed for this Area* 

Mammals

 Black-tailed prairie 

dog 

(Cynomys ludovicianus) 

Documented/Documented Suitable Habitat 

Swift fox (Vulpes velox) Documented/No Recent 

Observations Potential Habitat 

Birds

 Long-billed curlew 

(Numenius americanus) 

Documented/No Recent 

Observations Potential Habitat 

Ferruginous hawk 

(Buteo regalis) Documented/Documented Suitable Habitat 

Burrowing owl 

(Athene cunicularia) Documented/Documented Suitable Habitat 

Chestnut-collared 

longspur 

(Calcarius ornatus) 

Documented/Documented Suitable Habitat 

Draft EIS, West Antelope II Coal Lease Application H-13 
 

 

 

Appendix H 

Table H-3. USDA-FS Region 2 or TBNG Listed Sensitive Species That May 

Occur in the TBNG or May Be Impacted by Leasing Lands Evaluated 

in the West Antelope II Coal Lease Application EIS (provided by 

USDA-FS Douglas Ranger District, July 2007) (Continued). 

Common (Scientific) 

Name 

Status on TBNG/EIS 

USDA-FS Lands1 

Suitable Habitat on 

EIS USDA-FS Lands1 

Birds (Continued)

 McCown’s longspur 

(Calcarius mccownii) Documented/Documented Suitable Habitat 

Greater sage-grouse 

(Centrocercus 

urophasianus) 

Documented/No -

Observations Marginal Habitat 

Bald eagle 

(Haliaeetus 

leucocephalus) 

Documented/ No Recent 

Observations 

Suitable Rangeland 

Foraging Habitat 

Mountain Plover 

(Charadrius montanus) Documented/Documented Suitable Habitat 

Loggerhead shrike 

(Lanius ludovicianus) 

Documented/No Recent 

Observations Marginal Habitat 

Brewer’s sparrow 

(Spizella breweri) 

Documented/No Recent 

Observations Marginal habitat 

1 EIS USDA-FS Lands are USDA-FS administered lands and corresponding adjacent lands 

within the West Antelope II LBA tract general analysis area. 

* The USDA-FS lands included in this tract are not known nor expected to contain or provide 

habitat for these species. 

H-14 Draft EIS, West Antelope II Coal Lease Application 
 Appendix H 

USDA-FS SENSITIVE SPECIES HABITAT AND OCCURRENCES ON USDA-FS 

LANDS WITHIN THE WEST ANTELOPE II GENERAL ANALYSIS AREA 

Site-specific data on the occurrence of USDA-FS Sensitive Species on USDA-FS 

Lands within the West Antelope II general analysis area were obtained from the 

Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality/Land Quality Division 

(WDEQ/LQD) permit applications, annual and baseline reports for the Antelope 

Mine, the Rocky Mountain Herbarium, the Wyoming Natural Diversity 

Database, and the USDA-FS. Annual wildlife surveys have been conducted for 

the adjacent Antelope Mine since 1982. Those surveys included the mine 

permit area and a one- or two-mile surrounding perimeter (depending on the 

purpose of the surveys). Those extended survey perimeters for the annual 

wildlife monitoring program coincidentally encompassed all USDA-FS 

administered lands and adjacent lands within the LBA tract general analysis 

area. More details describing that overlap are provided in the Wildlife section, 

below. Several intensive vegetation baseline inventories have also been 

completed on each mine’s current permit area as well as the West Antelope II 

general analysis area. 

DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS OF SENSITIVE SPECIES 

The following discussion is an evaluation of the potential direct and indirect 

environmental effects on USDA-FS Region 2 Sensitive Species identified as 

potentially inhabiting USDA-FS lands within the West Antelope II general 

analysis area. 

PLANTS 

Seasonal plant species surveys have been conducted on portions of the West 

Antelope II general analysis area during the various previous vegetation 

baseline inventories completed for the Antelope Coal Mine and North 

Antelope/Rochelle mine as well as for prior EIS documents. Additional 

seasonal plant species surveys were completed on the general analysis area 

during baseline inventories completed for the Antelope Mine in 2007. 

There is no suitable habitat on USDA-FS lands within the general analysis area 

for 10 of the 16 plant species listed in Table H-3. All of the 16 plant species 

will be discussed here because potential habitat may be present on other 

portions of the general analysis area even if suitable habitat is not present on 

the USDA-FS lands. 

1. Prairie Moonwort (Botrychium campestre) 

The prairie moonwort has not been documented on USDA-FS lands within the 

general analysis area or within the TBNG. This plant species is suspected of 

occurring on TBNG lands where suitable habitat is present. This species was 

only recorded in Wyoming in a semi-shady mixed deciduous and ponderosa 

pine forest on sandy soils in the Black Hills. Prairie moonworts are known to 

Draft EIS, West Antelope II Coal Lease Application H-15 
 

 

Appendix H 

exist in a variety of other habitats such as those underlain by Pierre shale, the 

Laramie Formation, calcareous sedimentary rocks, calcareous soils underlain 

by limestone, sandy soils and loess prairie. These habitats are generally 

limited on the West Antelope II general analysis area, with only some areas 

dominated by sandy soils present. 

Existing Conditions 

Prime habitats for the prairie moonwort are not present on the FS lands within 

the general analysis area. Sites with sandy soils are present on USDA-FS 

lands and other portions of the general analysis area but these areas are rather 

sparsely vegetated and do not provide habitat preferred by this plant species. 

Prairie moonworts have not been recorded on the general analysis area or 

adjacent areas. 

Indirect and Direct Impacts 

If present on areas to be disturbed by mining, individuals of this species would 

be lost when topsoil is removed or during disturbances caused by other mining 

activities. However, due to lack of prime habitat the possibility this plant 

species is present and individuals will be lost is low. 

Determination of Effect and Rationale 

Implementation of the Proposed Action or Alternatives may adversely impact 

individuals, but is not likely to result in a loss of viability in the general 

analysis area, nor cause a trend toward federal listing for the prairie 

moonwort. As indicated, the general analysis area does not provide prime 

habitat for this plant species so the potential loss of individuals or preferred 

habitats is low. 

2. Narrowleaf Moonwort (Botrychium lineare) 

The narrowleaf moonwort has not been documented on USDA-FS lands within 

the general analysis area or within the TBNG. This plant species is suspected 

of occurring on TBNG lands where suitable habitat is present. This species has 

an affinity for riparian areas and is associated with spruce/fir forests, 

lodgepole pine forests and forest meadows. 

Existing Conditions 

Habitats for the narrowleaf moonwort are not present on the USDA-FS lands 

within the general analysis area. Suitable riparian habitats or forest habitats 

are not present on these USDA-FS lands within the general analysis area. 

Riparian sites associated with Antelope Creek, Spring Creek and Horse Creek 

are present on other portions of the general analysis area but these sites do not 

appear to provide optimum habitat for this species. The narrowleaf moonwort 

has not been recorded on the general analysis area or adjacent areas. 

Indirect and Direct Impacts 

If present on areas to be disturbed by mining, individuals of this species would 

be lost when topsoil is removed or during disturbances caused by other mining 

H-16 Draft EIS, West Antelope II Coal Lease Application 
 

 Appendix H 

activities. However, due to lack of prime habitat the possibility this plant 

species is present and individuals will be lost is low. 

Determination of Effect and Rationale 

Implementation of the Proposed Action or Alternatives may adversely impact 

individuals, but is not likely to result in a loss of viability in the general 

analysis area, nor cause a trend toward federal listing for the narrowleaf 

moonwort. As indicated, the general analysis area does not provide prime 

habitat for this plant species so the potential loss of individuals or preferred 

habitats is low. 

3. Leathery Grapefern (Botrychium multifidum var. coulteri) 

The leathery grapefern has not been documented on USDA-FS lands within the 

general analysis area or within the TBNG. This plant species is suspected of 

occurring on TBNG lands where suitable habitat is present. This species 

generally has an affinity for meadows, wetlands, floodplains and other wet 

areas in open to forested habitats within forests. 

Existing Conditions 

Habitats for the leathery grapefern are not present on the USDA-FS lands 

within the general analysis area. Suitable riparian habitats or forest habitats 

are not present on these USDA-FS lands within the general analysis area. 

Riparian sites associated with Antelope Creek, Spring Creek and Horse Creek 

are present on other portions of the general analysis area but these sites do not 

appear to provide optimum habitat for this species. The leathery grapefern has 

not been recorded on the general analysis area or adjacent areas. 

Indirect and Direct Impacts 

If present on areas to be disturbed by mining, individuals of this species would 

be lost when topsoil is removed or during disturbances caused by other mining 

activities. However, due to lack of habitat the possibility this plant species is 

present and individuals will be lost is not expected. 

Determination of Effect and Rationale 

Implementation of the Proposed Action or Alternatives will have no impact on 

the leathery grapefern. As indicated, the general analysis area does not provide 

optimal habitat for this plant species so the potential loss of individuals or 

preferred habitats is not expected. 

4. Ute ladies’-tresses (Spiranthes diluvialis) 

The Ute ladies’-tresses is a perennial forb plant species and is also listed as 

threatened by the USFWS. This plant is discussed in more detail in Appendix I 

of this EIS. This species has not been documented on USDA-FS lands within 

the general analysis area or within the TBNG. This plant species is suspected 

of occurring on TBNG lands where suitable habitat is present. The Ute ladies’­

tresses has an affinity for open meadows, wetlands, floodplains and other wet 

areas that are subirrigated well into July and August. The Ute ladies’-tresses 

Draft EIS, West Antelope II Coal Lease Application H-17 
 

Appendix H 

has been recorded at several locations about 25 miles west of the general 

analysis area on Sand Creek, Antelope Creek and tributaries. 

Existing Conditions 

Habitats for the Ute ladies’-tresses are not present on the USDA-FS lands 

within the general analysis area. Suitable wetland habitats are not present on 

these USDA-FS lands within the general analysis area. Riparian sites 

associated with Antelope Creek, Spring Creek and Horse Creek are present on 

other portions of the general analysis area and portions of these sites do 

provide habitat for this species. These suitable habitats were specifically 

surveyed in 2006 and 2007 for the Ute ladies’-tresses as discussed in Appendix 

I. Additional surveys were also conducted previously on portions of the general 

analysis area. No plants of this species were found during those surveys and 

none have been previously recorded on the general analysis area or adjacent 

areas. 

Indirect and Direct Impacts 

If present on areas to be disturbed by mining, individuals of this species would 

be lost when topsoil is removed or during disturbances caused by other mining 

activities. However, due to the fact the Ute ladies’-tresses has not been 

recorded on the general analysis area during the several surveys conducted the 

possibility this plant species is present and individuals will be lost is not 

expected. 

Determination of Effect and Rationale 

Implementation of the Proposed Action or Alternatives should result in “may 

affect, but not likely to adversely affect individuals or populations” of the 

Ute ladies’-tresses. As noted, the general analysis area was intensively 

surveyed for this plant species in 2006 and 2007, and none were found, so the 

potential loss of individuals is low. 

5. Foxtail Sedge (Carex alopecoidea) 

The foxtail sedge is a perennial plant species and has not been documented on 

USDA-FS lands within the general analysis area or within the TBNG. This 

plant species is suspected of occurring on TBNG lands where suitable habitat 

is present. The foxtail sedge generally has an affinity for wet meadows and 

willow-sedge communities along wet, shady creek bottoms and springs. 

Existing Conditions 

Habitats for the foxtail sedge are not present on the USDA-FS lands within the 

general analysis area. Suitable wet meadows or willow-sedge communities are 

not present on these USDA-FS lands. Riparian sites associated with Antelope 

Creek, Spring Creek and Horse Creek are present on other portions of the 

general analysis area but these sites do not appear to provide optimum habitat 

for this species. The foxtail sedge has not been recorded on the general 

analysis area or adjacent areas. 

H-18 Draft EIS, West Antelope II Coal Lease Application 
 Appendix H 

Indirect and Direct Impacts 

If present on areas to be disturbed by mining, individuals of this species would 

be lost when topsoil is removed or during disturbances caused by other mining 

activities. However, due to lack of characteristic habitat the possibility this 

plant species is present and individuals will be lost is not expected. 

Determination of Effect and Rationale 

Implementation of the Proposed Action or Alternatives should have no impact 

on the foxtail sedge. As indicated, the general analysis area does not provide 

optimal habitat for this plant species so the potential loss of individuals or 

preferred habitats is not expected. 

6. Elliptic Spikerush (Eleocharis elliptica) 

The elliptic spikerush is a perennial and has not been documented on USDAFS lands within the general analysis area or within the TBNG. This plant 

species is suspected of occurring on TBNG lands where suitable habitat is 

present. The foxtail sedge generally has an affinity for wetland areas created by 

seeps or springs but may also be found in temporarily flooded areas. 

Existing Conditions 

Habitats for the elliptic spikerush are not present on the USDA-FS lands within 

the general analysis area. Suitable wetland habitats are not present on these 

USDA-FS lands. Wetland sites associated with Antelope Creek, Spring Creek 

and Horse Creek are present on other portions of the general analysis area and 

these sites may provide marginal habitat for this species. The elliptic 

spikerush has not been recorded on the general analysis area or adjacent 

areas. 

Indirect and Direct Impacts 

If present on areas to be disturbed by mining, individuals of this species would 

be lost when topsoil is removed or during disturbances caused by other mining 

activities. However, due to lack of abundant suitable habitat the impacts to 

this species overall would be minimal. 

Determination of Effect and Rationale 

Implementation of the Proposed Action or Alternatives may adversely impact 

individuals, but is not likely to result in a loss of viability in the general 

analysis area, nor cause a trend toward federal listing for the elliptic 

spikerush. As indicated, the general analysis area does not provide abundant 

habitat for this plant species so the potential loss of individuals or preferred 

habitats is low. 

7. Hall’s Fescue (Festuca hallii) 

The Hall’s fescue is a tufted perennial grass and has not been documented on 

USDA-FS lands within the general analysis area or within the TBNG. This 

plant species is suspected of occurring on TBNG lands where suitable habitat 

is present. This species generally has an affinity for montane meadows, slopes 

Draft EIS, West Antelope II Coal Lease Application H-19 
 

Appendix H 

and edges of open coniferous woods and meadows above 6000 feet in Wyoming. 

Existing Conditions 

Habitats for the Hall’s fescue are not present on the USDA-FS lands within the 

general analysis area. Suitable montane habitats above 6000 feet are not 

present on these USDA-FS lands within the general analysis area or within the 

rest of the general analysis area. The Hall’s fescue has not been recorded on 

the general analysis area or adjacent areas. 

Indirect and Direct Impacts 

If present on areas to be disturbed by mining, individuals of this species would 

be lost when topsoil is removed or during disturbances caused by other mining 

activities. However, due to lack of habitat the possibility this plant species is 

present and individuals will be lost is not expected. 

Determination of Effect and Rationale 

Implementation of the Proposed Action or Alternatives should have no impact 

on the Hall’s fescue. As indicated, the general analysis area does not provide 

optimal habitat for this plant species so the potential loss of individuals or 

preferred habitats is not expected. 

8. Wood Lily (Lilium philadelphicum) 

The wood lily is a perennial herb and has not been documented on USDA-FS 

lands within the general analysis area or within the TBNG. This plant species 

is suspected of occurring on TBNG lands where suitable habitat is present. 

This species generally has an affinity for woodland meadows and woodland 

grasslands. 

Existing Conditions 

Habitats for the wood lily are not present on the USDA-FS lands within the 

general analysis area. Suitable woodland meadow or grassland habitats are 

not present on these USDA-FS lands within the general analysis area or within 

the rest of the general analysis area. The wood lily has not been recorded on 

the general analysis area or adjacent areas. 

Indirect and Direct Impacts 

If present on areas to be disturbed by mining, individuals of this species would 

be lost when topsoil is removed or during disturbances caused by other mining 

activities. However, due to lack of habitat the possibility this plant species is 

present and individuals will be lost is not expected. 

Determination of Effect and Rationale 

Implementation of the Proposed Action or Alternatives should have no impact 

on the wood lily. As indicated, the general analysis area does not provide 

optimal habitat for this plant species so the potential loss of individuals or 

preferred habitats is not expected. 

H-20 Draft EIS, West Antelope II Coal Lease Application 
 

 Appendix H 

9. Largeflower Triteleia (Triteleia grandiflora) 

The largeflower triteleia is a perennial herb and has not been documented on 

USDA-FS lands within the general analysis area or within the TBNG. This 

plant species is suspected of occurring on TBNG lands where suitable habitat 

is present. This species generally has an affinity for grassy areas in sagebrush 

at the edge of aspen and lodgepole pine forests and in pinon-juniper woodlands 

to pine forests and hills. 

Existing Conditions 

Habitats for the largeflower triteleia are not present on the USDA-FS lands 

within the general analysis area. Suitable grassy areas in sagebrush at the 

edge of aspen and lodgepole pine forests and pinon-juniper woodlands or pine 

forests and hills are not present on these USDA-FS lands within the general 

analysis area or within the rest of the general analysis area. The largeflower 

triteleia has not been recorded on the general analysis area or adjacent areas. 

Indirect and Direct Impacts 

If present on areas to be disturbed by mining, individuals of this species would 

be lost when topsoil is removed or during disturbances caused by other mining 

activities. However, due to lack of habitat the possibility this plant species is 

present and individuals will be lost is not expected. 

Determination of Effect and Rationale 

Implementation of the Proposed Action or Alternatives should have no impact 

on the largeflower triteleia. As indicated, the general analysis area does not 

provide optimal habitat for this plant species so the potential loss of individuals 

or preferred habitats is not expected. 

10. Barr’s Milkvetch (Astragalus barrii) 

The Barr’s milkvetch is a matt-forming perennial forb and has not been 

documented on USDA-FS lands within the general analysis area but has been 

documented on other USDA-FS lands within the TBNG. This plant species is 

suspected of occurring on other TBNG lands where suitable habitat is present. 

The Barr’s milkvetch is found primarily on dry, sparsely-vegetated rocky prairie 

breaks, knolls, hillsides and ridges. Parent material is calcareous soft shale, 

siltstone or silty sandstone. 

Existing Conditions 

Habitats for the Barr’s milkvetch are present on the USDA-FS lands within the 

general analysis area as well as other lands within the general analysis area. 

Surveys in 2007 tentatively identified the Barr’s milkvetch on these and/or 

adjacent lands within the general analysis area, however positive identification 

could not be made due to the lack of flowers at the time of the surveys. The 

Barr’s milkvetch has been collected and positively identified approximately 0.75 

miles south of the general analysis area in the SWSWSW1/4 of Section 21 T. 

40 N., R. 71 W. based on specimens on file with the Rocky Mountain 

Herbarium in Laramie, Wyoming. 

Draft EIS, West Antelope II Coal Lease Application H-21 
 

 

Appendix H 

Indirect and Direct Impacts 

If present on areas to be disturbed by mining, individuals of this species would 

be lost when topsoil is removed or during disturbances caused by other mining 

activities. These losses would most likely be permanent unless disturbed lands 

are reclaimed to habitats that would support this plant species. However, 

Rocky Mountain Herbarium records reveal this plant species is widespread in 

at lease seven northeastern Wyoming counties so the loss of individuals or 

populations from mining activities related to the West Antelope II LBA tract will 

not result in the extirpation of this species. 

Determination of Effect and Rationale 

Implementation of the Proposed Action or Alternatives may adversely impact 

individuals, but is not likely to result in a loss of viability in the general 

analysis area, nor cause a trend toward federal listing for the Barr’s 

milkvetch. As indicated, the Barr’s milkvetch is present on adjacent lands that 

will not be affected by this activity and this plant species is widespread in 

northeastern Wyoming. 

11. Smooth Goosefoot (Chenopodium subglabrum) 

The smooth goosefoot is an annual forb and has not been documented on 

USDA-FS lands within the general analysis area or within the TBNG. This 

plant species is suspected of occurring on TBNG lands where suitable habitat 

is present. This species generally has an affinity for sand bars and sandy 

blowouts in riparian areas. 

Existing Conditions 

Habitats for the smooth goosefoot are not present on the USDA-FS lands within 

the general analysis area. Riparian areas are not present on the USDA-FS 

lands within the general analysis area. Riparian areas are present within 

portions of the rest of the general analysis area in association with Antelope 

Creek, Spring Creek and Horse Creek but these areas do not contain the 

required sand bar or sandy blowout habitats required for this plant species. 

The smooth goosefoot has not been recorded on the general analysis area or 

adjacent areas. 

Indirect and Direct Impacts 

If present on areas to be disturbed by mining, individuals of this species would 

be lost when topsoil is removed or during disturbances caused by other mining 

activities. However, due to lack of habitat the possibility this plant species is 

present and individuals will be lost is not expected. 

Determination of Effect and Rationale 

Implementation of the Proposed Action or Alternatives should have no impact 

on the smooth goosefoot. As indicated, the general analysis area does not 

provide optimal habitat for this plant species so the potential loss of individuals 

or preferred habitats is not expected. 

H-22 Draft EIS, West Antelope II Coal Lease Application 
 Appendix H 

12. Flat-top Goldentop (Euthamia graminifolia) 

The flat-top goldentop is a rhizomatous perennial forb and has not been 

documented on USDA-FS lands within the general analysis area or within the 

TBNG. This plant species is suspected of occurring on TBNG lands where 

suitable habitat is present. In Wyoming this species generally has an affinity 

for stony sandbars and streambanks but may also be found on moist or drying 

sites along open streambanks or roadside ditches. 

Existing Conditions 

Habitats for the flat-top goldentop are not present on the USDA-FS lands 

within the general analysis area. Wetland or streambank areas are not present 

on the USDA-FS lands within the general analysis area. Streambanks and 

wetland areas are present within portions of the rest of the general analysis 

area in association with Antelope Creek, Spring Creek and Horse Creek. These 

areas generally do not contain the typical habitats required for this plant 

species but marginal habitats are present. The flat-top goldentop has not been 

recorded on the general analysis area or adjacent areas. 

Indirect and Direct Impacts 

If present on areas to be disturbed by mining, individuals of this species would 

be lost when topsoil is removed or during disturbances caused by other mining 

activities. However, due to lack of abundant suitable habitat the impacts to 

this species overall would be minimal. 

Determination of Effect and Rationale 

Implementation of the Proposed Action or Alternatives may adversely impact 

individuals, but is not likely to result in a loss of viability in the general 

analysis area, nor cause a trend toward federal listing for the flat-top 

goldentop. As indicated, the general analysis area does not provide typical 

habitat for this plant species so the potential loss of individuals or preferred 

habitats is low. 

13. Rosy Palafox (Palafoxia rosea var. macrolepis) 

The rosy palafox is an annual forb plant species and has not been documented 

on USDA-FS lands within the general analysis area but has been recorded on 

other lands within the TBNG. This plant species is suspected of occurring on 

other TBNG lands where suitable habitat is present. In Wyoming this species 

generally has an affinity for sagebrush and mixed-grass prairie habitats on 

sandy soils. 

Existing Conditions 

Habitats utilized by the rosy palafox are present on the USDA-FS lands within 

the general analysis area and on other lands within the remainder of the 

general analysis area. Sagebrush and mixed-grass prairie plant communities 

are present on sandy soils in the study area. However, the rosy palafox has not 

been recorded on these lands but is potentially present. This plant species has 

been documented southeast of the general analysis area. 

Draft EIS, West Antelope II Coal Lease Application H-23 
 

 

Appendix H 

Indirect and Direct Impacts 

If present on areas to be disturbed by mining, individuals of this species would 

be lost when topsoil is removed or during disturbances caused by other mining 

activities. However, due to the presence of abundant habitat outside of the 

general analysis area and the fact this plant is abundant in other areas, the 

impacts to this species overall would be minimal. 

Determination of Effect and Rationale 

Implementation of the Proposed Action or Alternatives may adversely impact 

individuals, but is not likely to result in a loss of viability in the general 

analysis area, nor cause a trend toward federal listing for the rosy palafox. 

As indicated, the general analysis area contains typical habitat for this plant 

species but the rosy palafox has not been documented on the site. This species 

has been documented southeast of the general analysis area and abundant 

habitat is present on other sites outside of the general analysis area that will 

not be affected. 

14. Lemonscent (Pectis angustifolia) 

The lemonscent is an annual forb plant species and has not been documented 

on USDA-FS lands within the general analysis area but has been recorded on 

other lands within the TBNG. This plant species is suspected of occurring on 

other TBNG lands where suitable habitat is present. In Wyoming this species 

generally has an affinity for gravel hills and scoria slopes. Lemonscent is also 

known to occur in low areas in sandy ravines and on sandbars. 

Existing Conditions 

Habitats utilized by lemonscent are present on the USDA-FS lands within the 

general analysis area and on other lands within the remainder of the general 

analysis area. Gravel hills, slopes and sandy ravines are present in the study 

area. However, lemonscent has not been recorded on these lands but is 

potentially present. This plant species has been documented south of the 

general analysis area. 

Indirect and Direct Impacts 

If present on areas to be disturbed by mining, individuals of this species would 

be lost when topsoil is removed or during disturbances caused by other mining 

activities. However, due to the presence of abundant habitat outside of the 

general analysis area and the fact this plant is abundant in other areas, the 

impacts to this species overall would be minimal. 

Determination of Effect and Rationale 

Implementation of the Proposed Action or Alternatives may adversely impact 

individuals, but is not likely to result in a loss of viability in the general 

analysis area, nor cause a trend toward federal listing for the lemonscent. 

As indicated, the general analysis area contains typical habitat for this plant 

species but lemonscent palafox has not been documented on the site. This 

species has been documented south and east of the general analysis area and 

H-24 Draft EIS, West Antelope II Coal Lease Application 
 

 Appendix H 

abundant habitat is present on other sites outside of the general analysis area 

that will not be affected. 

15. Nelson Larchleaf Penstemon (Penstemon laricifolius spp. exifolius) 

The larchleaf penstemon is a perennial forb plant species and has not been 

documented on USDA-FS lands within the general analysis area or on other 

lands within the TBNG. This plant species is suspected of occurring on other 

TBNG lands where suitable habitat is present. In Wyoming this species 

generally has an affinity for dry, rocky, gravelly or sandy slopes, ridgetops and 

upland flats with shallow soils. Most populations in Wyoming are found at 

elevations above 6000 feet, but this species has been documented at lower 

elevations in the state. 

Existing Conditions 

Habitats utilized by larchleaf penstemon are present on the USDA-FS lands 

within the general analysis area and on other lands within the remainder of the 

general analysis area. Gravel hills, rocky slopes and rough breaks are present 

in the study area. The larchleaf penstemon has not been recorded on these 

lands but has potential habitat. This plant species has not been documented 

near the general analysis area. 

Indirect and Direct Impacts 

If present on areas to be disturbed by mining, individuals of this species would 

be lost when topsoil is removed or during disturbances caused by other mining 

activities. However, due to the presence of abundant habitat outside of the 

general analysis area and the fact this plant is abundant in other areas, the 

impacts to this species overall would be minimal. 

Determination of Effect and Rationale 

Implementation of the Proposed Action or Alternatives may adversely impact 

individuals, but is not likely to result in a loss of viability of this species, 

nor cause a trend toward federal listing for the larchleaf penstemon. As 

indicated, the general analysis area contains typical habitat for this plant 

species but the larchleaf penstemon has not been documented on the site. 

This species has been documented and is common in southern Wyoming and 

abundant habitat is present on other sites outside of the general analysis area 

that will not be affected. 

16. Common Twinpod (Physaria didymocarpa var. lanata) 

The common twinpod is a perennial forb plant species and has not been 

documented on USDA-FS lands within the general analysis area or on other 

lands within the TBNG. This plant species is suspected of occurring on other 

TBNG lands where suitable habitat is present. In Wyoming this species 

generally has an affinity for dry redbed clay-shale slopes, limey-sandstone 

outcrops, roadcuts and other exposed rock-cliff substrates. Most populations 

in Wyoming have been documented in the foothills of the Big Horn Mountains. 

Draft EIS, West Antelope II Coal Lease Application H-25 
 

Appendix H 

Existing Conditions 

Habitats utilized by the common twinpod are present on the USDA-FS lands 

within the general analysis area and on other lands within the remainder of the 

general analysis area. Gravel hills, rocky slopes and rough breaks are present 

in the study area. The common twinpod has not been recorded on these lands 

but is potentially present. This plant species has not been documented near 

the general analysis area. 

Indirect and Direct Impacts 

If present on areas to be disturbed by mining, individuals of this species would 

be lost when topsoil is removed or during disturbances caused by other mining 

activities. However, due to the presence of abundant habitat outside of the 

general analysis area and the fact this plant is abundant in other areas, the 

impacts to this species overall would be minimal. 

Determination of Effect and Rationale 

Implementation of the Proposed Action or Alternatives may adversely impact 

individuals, but is not likely to result in a loss of viability of this species, 

nor cause a trend toward federal listing for the common twinpod. As 

indicated, the general analysis area contains typical habitat for this plant 

species but the common twinpod has not been documented on the site. This 

species has been documented and is common in north-central Wyoming and 

abundant habitat is present on other sites outside of the general analysis area 

that will not be affected. 

WILDLIFE 

WDEQ/LQD guidelines and regulations specify different wildlife survey areas 

for different species and for different survey purposes (baseline studies or 

annual monitoring). In the wildlife discussions for the USDA-FS section of this 

document, the terms “one- and two-mile perimeter wildlife survey area” refer to 

perimeters surrounding the existing Antelope Mine permit area. Surveys 

conducted during annual monitoring (for existing permitted areas) include the 

permit area and a one-mile perimeter around the permit area, whereas the twomile perimeter is used for big game and wildlife baseline studies. The annual 

wildlife survey area perimeters coincidentally also encompassed all USDA-FS 

lands in the BLM study area for the West Antelope II LBA tract (the tract as 

applied for and lands that BLM is considering adding to the tract) plus the 

West Antelope II LBA tract general analysis area (BLM study area plus a 

surrounding one-quarter-mile perimeter). 

USDA-FS typically assesses impacts to resources on its managed lands and, 

when applicable, adjacent lands that could also be impacted by the proposed 

action. For wildlife, the USDA-FS is interested in knowing what resources and 

potential impacts occur within a one- or two-mile perimeter surrounding their 

lands, depending on the species. As illustrated in Figure H-1, the one-mile 

H-26 Draft EIS, West Antelope II Coal Lease Application 
 Appendix H 

annual monitoring perimeter for the Antelope Mine overlapped all USDA-FS 

lands under analysis, all but the southwestern-most 0.5 mi2 of the one-mile 

perimeter around those federal lands, and all except the western- and 

southern-most 7.5 mi2 of the two-mile perimeter around the USDA-FS lands. 

Baseline wildlife inventories in a two-mile perimeter survey area were 

conducted for the overall West Antelope II LBA tract beginning in 2006. Due to 

the proximity of USDA-FS lands to the LBA tract, that two-mile wildlife baseline 

perimeter also covered all perimeters around USDA-FS lands. 

To summarize, all USDA-FS lands associated with this EIS analysis have been 

included in wildlife monitoring surveys for the adjacent Antelope Mine annually 

since 1982. Those surveys also included substantial portions of the one- and 

two-mile perimeters around those USDA-FS lands. 

Regular surveys conducted in and near USDA-FS lands over the years included 

raptors, mountain plovers (Charadrius montanus), upland game birds, 

migratory bird species of management concern, lagomorphs, and big game. 

Supplemental specific surveys for bald eagles (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), 

herptiles, waterfowl, and other species were conducted periodically during 

baseline studies for the Antelope Mine. Efforts included a variety of approved 

survey methods, such as fixed-wing aerial, remote observation via spotting 

scopes and binoculars, pedestrian, nocturnal spotlighting, belt transects, point 

counts, and trapping. All incidental sightings of those species were also 

recorded during each site visit, including notes on species, number of 

individuals, sex/age (when possible), habitat, and location. Specific details 

regarding survey methods and results from annual monitoring and baseline 

inventories for the Antelope Mine, dating back to 1978, are provided in reports 

on file with the WDEQ-LQD and/or USDA-FS, and thus are not provided in 

this document. 

The entire list of Region 2 Sensitive Species was reviewed and every vertebrate 

species was considered for full evaluation. However, only those species that 

might potentially be affected directly or indirectly by implementation of the 

Proposed Action or Alternatives on USDA-FS lands were selected for evaluation 

(Table H-3). For example, if a vertebrate species was known to occur on or 

near USDA-FS lands, or suitable but unoccupied habitat was present in that 

area and would be disturbed, then potential effects were evaluated. If suitable 

habitat was not present in the area, no further analysis was conducted. 

Thirteen vertebrate species were identified that could potentially be affected by 

implementation of the Proposed Action or Alternatives. Many other sensitive 

vertebrates and one invertebrate that had been documented elsewhere on the 

TBNG were not evaluated further because of a lack of suitable habitat on or 

near USDA-FS lands, or because no such habitat would be physically 

disturbed or otherwise affected by implementation of the Proposed Action or 

Alternatives. 

Draft EIS, West Antelope II Coal Lease Application H-27 
 

 

!

#

Appendix H 

#* #*

!( !

!

! !

!

! !

!(

!

!(

!

!

!( !

!(

!

!

!(

#*

!(

!(

"

"

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

"

!(

!( "

!(!(

!

!( #

!(

!(

!(

#

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!(

!

!

!

!(

!

County Rd. 37 

Antelope Cr. 

T. 

40 

N. 

T. 

41 

N. 

R. 71 W. R. 70 W. 

B1 

BO5 

BO7 

GE3f 

GE3e 

FH13b 

GE5a 

GE5b 

BO2c BO2b 

GE2g 

BO2d 

FH5f 

FH3c 

FH1l 

FH5e 

FH4b 

FH5d 

FH1k 

GE1c 

GE1b 

GE1d 

GE1e 

BO3 

BO4 

FH1c 

FH1d 

FH1b 

BO10 

BO11 

BO6 

FH1h 

FH1i 

FH1f 

GE3a 

FH3a 

GE3b 

FH5b GE3d 

FH5c 

FH5a 

FH4a 

FH1g

FH1j 

RTH18 

RTH1c 

GHO9 

GHO3a 

RTH1b 

GHO3b 

GHO2b 

GHO3c 

RTH1a 

GHO11b/RTH13d 

RTH13a 

RTH13c 

RTH8 

RTH6 GE3c/GHO2c 

RTH13b/GHO11d 

GE2b/GE5c/GHO11c 

FH1a/RTH2a/GHO1a 

GHO2a 

BO2a 

!(4 !(5 

!(6 

!(18 

!(14 

!(8 

!(1 

!(3 

!(2 

!(7 

9 7 8 

4 3 2 1 5 6 

11 

30 

15 

24 

14 13 

25 

22 23

12 

16 

26 28 

27 

18 

10 

21 19 

17 

34 

20 

29 

33 31 35 32 36

8 

5 

32 

35 36 31

29 

17 

34 

20 

32 33 32 

!(59 £

0 5,000 10,000 

GRAPHIC SCALE (FEET) 

Figure H-1. 2007 Biological Assessment / Biological Evaluation for USDA-FS Administered Lands 

within the West Antelope II Study Area. 

B.N.S.F. & U.P. RR 

SPECIES CODES 

B Unknown Buteo Species 

BO Burrowing Owl 

FH Ferruginous Hawk 

GE Golden Eagle 

GHO Great Horned Owl 

RTH Red-Tailed Hawk 

SH Swainson's Hawk 

NEST TYPES 

! Existing Raptor Nest 

# Existing Platform Nest 

" Nest Box 

( Former Raptor Nest Site 

* Former Platform Nest Site 

LEGEND 

USDA-FS 240 acre Boundary 

County Boundary 

USDA-FS 240 acre Wildlife Two-Mile Survey Perimeter 

Antelope Wildlife One-Mile Survey Perimeter (Through 2006) 

Historical Mountain Plover Use Area (MPA): 

Inactive for 1 - 12 years during current monitoring program (1994-2007). As mapped in 1989 using 1982-1988 

data. [Included infrequently used, unoccupied suitable, and unsuitable habitat when originally mapped.] 

Recent Mountain Plover Use Area: (MPA): 

Active at least one year during current monitoring program (1994-2007). As mapped in 1989 using 1982-1988 

data. [Included infrequently used, unoccupied suitable, and unsuitable habitat when originally apped.] 

Area where Mountain Plovers were actually seen during current monitoring period (1994-2007). 

[Included infrequently used areas.] 

Current acreage of prairie dog colonies in vicinity of Antelope Mine. 

Prairie dog colonies created in 2002 and 2003 to mitigate loss of Mountain Plover habitat to mining. 

H-28
 Draft EIS, West Antelope II Coal Lease Application 
 Appendix H 

Brief discussions of the status, distribution, and local occurrence of each 

evaluated species and the potential direct and indirect impacts are presented in 

each of the following subsections. Cumulative impacts are discussed for all 

evaluated Region 2 Sensitive Species at the end of this section. Determinations 

of impact are included within each species’ subsection. 

1. Northern Leopard Frog (Rana pipiens) 

Northern leopard frogs range from the Great Slave Lake and Hudson Bay, 

south to Kentucky and New Mexico (NatureServe 2007). This species is 

considered relatively common within Wyoming (Baxter and Stone 1980, 

Cerovski et al. 2004). Northern leopard frogs require shallow, permanent, or 

semi-permanent standing water with at least some emergent vegetation for 

breeding (Wagner 1997). Conversely, they use deeper lakes or ponds with welloxygenated water that does not freeze to the bottom as overwintering habitat 

(Wagner 1997). Leopard frogs must have good quality water to successfully 

reproduce, as degraded or turbid water has the potential to negatively affect 

development of eggs and tadpoles. Overcrowding and changes in water 

temperature and pH (5.5 or lower) can increase the incidence of disease and 

mortality (NatureServe 2007) in this species. Adult frogs feed upon a variety of 

insects and other invertebrates, tadpoles, snakes, and fish (Cerovski et al. 

2004), while tadpoles feed primarily upon small invertebrates, plant tissue, and 

organic debris. Adults also forage within aquatic and upland habitats, whereas 

tadpoles are restricted to aquatic habitats. Although their overall range 

remains essentially undiminished in size, many populations are declining. 

Major factors affecting leopard frog populations are habitat loss in some 

portions of their range, habitat degradation, overexploitation, interactions with 

non-native species, climate change, disease, and other unknown causes 

(Wagner 1997). 

Existing Conditions 

The northern leopard frog has been observed in northern Converse County, but 

has not officially been recognized as breeding there (Cerovski et al. 2004). 

Potential habitat for this species on USDA-FS lands and the surrounding area 

is restricted to shallow tributary drainages for Logan Draw, which flow west to 

east across the those areas (S 1⁄2 Section 15, S 1⁄4 Section 14, N 1⁄4 Section 22, 

and NW NW Section 23, T. 40 N., R. 71 W.). All drainages across USDA-FS 

lands are ephemeral in nature and only carry water during high intensity 

precipitation events. This provides low quality habitat for this frog species. 

Northern leopard frogs have historically been documented within the Antelope 

Mine annual wildlife monitoring area, but not with any regularity. Most 

encounters consisted of hearing frogs call from pools within Antelope Creek 

while conducting pedestrian surveys along the banks during spring. The creek 

is approximately 2.5 miles north of the USDA-FS lands analyzed for this EIS. 

Formal anuran surveys were rarely, if ever, conducted at the adjacent Antelope 

Mine, but biologists listened and watched for leopard frogs and other herptiles 

while conducting all other surveys throughout the area, including surveys that 

Draft EIS, West Antelope II Coal Lease Application H-29 
 

Appendix H 

encompassed USDA-FS lands within the West Antelope II LBA tract. No 

leopard frogs or anuran egg masses were documented within those lands or the 

surrounding area during 2006 or any previous year. 

Indirect and Direct Impacts 

Appropriate wetland habitat for northern leopard frogs is extremely limited 

within USDA-FS lands. Furthermore, no sightings have been recorded during 

annual monitoring or baseline surveys completed between 1982 and 2006 in 

that area. Nevertheless, marginal potential terrestrial and aquatic habitat for 

this species could be potentially impacted. Direct loss of, or injury to, 

dispersing and foraging adults could result from encounters with mine vehicles 

or heavy equipment. 

Appropriate aquatic habitats for northern leopard frogs are not currently 

present with any regularity on USDA-FS lands in the West Antelope II tract. 

However, future channel diversions could result in improved conditions for this 

species. Within such improved aquatic habitats, adults, tadpoles, and egg 

masses could be injured or killed during activities associated with additional 

construction of diversion dikes or associated channels, or the dewatering of 

potential habitats downstream of a dike. Changes in water quality and/or 

quantity due to natural (drought, floods) or man-made (coal bed natural gas 

[CBNG] discharge influxes) factors could also affect frogs throughout their life 

cycle. 

Indirect effects may include loss of foraging habitat, increased predation, and 

changes in water quality and quantity. Linear disturbances across drainages 

such as roads, underground power lines, and pipelines could fragment 

potential habitats and create new travel corridors for mammalian predators, 

thus increasing the predation risk to the northern leopard frog. However, those 

disturbances would occur within narrow corridors over relatively short 

distances. Protective buffers along creek channels would not be applicable in 

areas where creek diversions are necessary to advance operations. Standard 

mining procedures such as the use of silt barriers across affected stream 

channels and other similar efforts will minimize any negative impacts that 

might result from mine-related operations. 

The type, timing, location, and extent of habitat disturbance will vary 

throughout the USDA-FS lands as operations progress. Over the life of the 

mine, all disturbed habitats will be reclaimed or mitigated. It is possible that 

reservoirs or ponds created for flood control, sedimentation, water storage 

purposes, or wetland mitigation measures could provide suitable foraging, 

breeding, and wintering habitat for northern leopard frogs if they can support 

adequate water levels and appropriate amounts of emergent vegetation. 

Under the Proposed Action and Alternatives, adherence to the Thunder Basin 

National Grassland Plan (USDA-FS 2002) Standards and Guidelines pertaining 

to water and wetlands should ensure that leopard frogs and other aquatic 

H-30 Draft EIS, West Antelope II Coal Lease Application 
 

 

 

 Appendix H 

organisms will not be negatively affected by increased sedimentation, degraded 

water chemistry, or otherwise damaged aquatic habitats. 

Determination of Effect and Rationale 

Implementation of the Proposed Action or Alternatives may adversely impact 

individuals, but is not likely to result in a loss of viability in the general 

analysis area, nor cause a trend toward federal listing for the northern 

leopard frog. As indicated, USDA-FS lands within the West Antelope II LBA 

tract general analysis area contain only minimal and marginal habitat for this 

species. Water in the drainages in that area is typically too temporary and/or 

shallow to support tadpoles until metamorphosis, or allow frogs to successfully 

overwinter, respectively. If present, individual adult leopard frogs may be 

incidentally killed by vehicles or equipment. Suitable habitats will be 

degraded, disturbed, destroyed or fragmented, and new habitats may be 

created. As northern leopard frogs occur at low densities within that area, 

these effects are expected to be negligible. 

2. Black-tailed Prairie Dog (Cynomys ludovicianus) 

The black-tailed prairie dog was removed from USFWS federal listing in 2004. 

The agency ruled that listing this species may be warranted, but was precluded 

by higher priority considerations. 

Black-tailed prairie dogs historically ranged throughout the Great Plains in 

short-grass and mixed-grass prairies. This species is also a common resident 

in the short- and mid-grass habitats of eastern Wyoming (Cerovski et al. 2004). 

The TBNG, which includes approximately 240 acres in the extreme 

southeastern portion of the West Antelope II general analysis area, harbors one 

of the seven major colony complexes remaining in North America. Black-tailed 

prairie dogs are highly social, diurnal burrowing rodents that typically feed on 

grasses and forbs. Prairie dogs form colonies that are the main unit of a prairie 

dog population. This species has the ability to rapidly expand its distribution 

and population if not limited by pest control practices or disease, and will 

readily spread into recently disturbed areas. Many species such as the blackfooted ferret (Mustela nigripes), mountain plover, burrowing owl (Athene 

cunicularia), and swift fox (Vulpes velox) are dependent on prairie dogs during a 

portion of their life cycle. The Black-tailed prairie dog occupied range and 

abundance has declined dramatically, and continues to exhibit a slow decline 

(NatureServe 2007). Major factors contributing to the decline include disease 

(sylvatic plague), urbanization, habitat conversion, and control efforts. 

Existing Conditions 

Sixteen prairie dog colonies (total of approximately 729 acres) are within the 

overall two-mile perimeter wildlife survey area for West Antelope II (Figure 3­

16). Seven colonies were occupied during 2006, eight were unoccupied, and 

occupancy in one colony was unknown. 

Draft EIS, West Antelope II Coal Lease Application H-31 
 

 

 

 

 

Appendix H 

One of the 16 colonies straddles USDA-FS lands in T. 40 N., R. 71 W., Section 

15 (Figure H-1), in the southeastern corner of the BLM study area. The 

occupied colony has expanded in recent years, encompassing approximately 93 

acres (13% of total) in 2006. The eastern-most 41 acres (44%) of that colony 

occurs directly on USDA-FS lands. The Section 15 colony currently meets the 

80-ac minimum for black-footed ferret habitat (USFWS 1989). However, the 

entire coal mine region of the Powder River Basin of northeast Wyoming, 

including all USDA-FS and surrounding lands within the West Antelope II LBA 

general analysis area, is beyond the focus area for ferret reintroduction efforts 

on the TBNG and in the general region (refer to Management Area 3.63-USDAFS 2002, Grenier 2003). Additionally, some prairie dog colonies in that region 

are currently experiencing development associated with conventional oil and 

gas, CBNG, and coal (including open pits) resources. Year-round human 

activity and disturbance are already present in a few locations. 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

The current mine plan for the Antelope Mine does not project any new surface 

disturbance in the Section 15 prairie dog colony through at least 2016. 

Nevertheless, because the entire colony (93 acres) falls within the USDA-FS 

general analysis area, that area may be affected by the proposed activities at 

some point in time. Such impacts could have immediate direct effects on 

prairie dogs if the occupied colony is buried beneath overburden piles, or 

subjected to scraping, flooding, or is otherwise impacted in a short timeframe 

that precludes dispersal prior to disturbance. As those activities are expected 

to occur incrementally across various portions of the general analysis area, 

individuals would be able to disperse and would likely inhabit undisturbed 

portions of the affected colony, or initiate one or more new colonies within the 

area. Dispersing individuals may be killed or injured by vehicles and heavy 

equipment during ongoing or future mine operations. 

Portions of the Section 15 prairie dog colony and surrounding foraging habitat 

could be fragmented by small-scale linear disturbances associated with mining 

activities such as roads, power lines, fences, and pipelines. These 

disturbances will, however, occur within narrow corridors over relatively short 

distances, and would be completed within shorter timeframes. New linear 

disturbances might also create travel corridors that would facilitate movements 

of mammalian predators, possibly increasing predation risk to prairie dogs. 

Existing and new above-ground power lines located within or near the colony 

would provide perch sites for predatory birds. Applying perch deterrents to 

those poles would minimize such impacts. Adjacent habitats into which the 

existing colony could potentially spread may be destroyed by the installation of 

roads, pipelines, and topsoil stripping prior to mining. However, minor surface 

disturbance in proximity to the colony would also provide recently upturned 

soils that could facilitate the expansion of the existing colony or the 

establishment of new ones, as prairie dogs will readily move into recently 

disturbed areas. 

H-32 Draft EIS, West Antelope II Coal Lease Application 
 

 

 

 Appendix H 

Post-mining reclamation could have similar potential benefits; prairie dogs 

have already demonstrated their ability to inhabit reclaimed lands at the 

Antelope Mine. Given the relative abundance of prairie dogs in the overall 

region and their tendency to disperse and expand their boundaries, the 

potential incremental loss of prairie dog acreage (13% of total) on and near 

USDA-FS lands will not likely have adverse consequences for the viability of the 

regional population. Disturbance and reclamation efforts will occur 

incrementally in varying locations throughout the permit area as mining 

progresses through the approved lease. 

All USDA-FS Standards and Guidelines applicable to black-tailed prairie dogs 

outlined in the TBNG Plan (USDA-FS 2002, page 1-20) would be implemented. 

To reduce risks and habitat loss for prairie dogs and other wildlife species 

closely associated with prairie dog colonies, new roads will be aligned outside 

colony boundaries where possible. If it is necessary to place a new road within 

a prairie dog colony, the amount of road in the colony will be minimized to the 

extent that soil, drainage, topographical and other physical factors will allow. 

Determination of Effect and Rationale 

Implementation of the Proposed Action or Alternatives may adversely impact 

individuals, but is not likely to result in a loss of viability in the general 

analysis area, nor cause a trend toward federal listing for the black-tailed 

prairie dog. A portion (41 acres) of one black-tailed prairie dog colony (93 total 

acres) could be physically disturbed by the proposed activities on and 

immediately adjacent to USDA-FS lands. That colony represents 13% of the 

total acreage present in the entire West Antelope II LBA general analysis area. 

Direct injury or mortality may occur to individuals resulting from activities 

under the Proposed Action or Alternatives. Conversely, some surface 

disturbances associated with the proposed activities may create habitats 

favorable for colony expansion or initiation. 

3. Swift Fox (Vulpes velox) 

The swift fox is considered to be common within the eastern Great Plains 

grasslands of Wyoming (Cerovski et al. 2004), though the species typically 

occurs at very low densities. The exact status of the population is unknown 

but believed to be increasing, especially in the Northern Plains. Swift foxes are 

largely nocturnal and typically prefer flat to gently rolling, short- or mixedgrass prairies, generally lacking in shrubs or woody vegetation (Cotterill 1997). 

This species uses multiple den sites year-round for shelter, protection from 

predators, and rearing young. Burrows of other mammals such as badgers 

(Taxidea taxus), red foxes (Vulpes vulpes), and prairie dogs are often used or 

modified for those purposes. Small to mid-sized mammals constitute the bulk 

of their diet. Swift foxes have little fear of humans and may den in proximity to 

human disturbances (residences and busy roadways). This tolerance also 

makes them susceptible to trapping, vehicle collisions, and attacks by dogs. 

Major threats faced by the swift fox include habitat loss and degradation, 

interspecific competition with red fox and coyote (Canis latrans), and vehicle 

Draft EIS, West Antelope II Coal Lease Application H-33 
 

 

Appendix H 

collisions. 

Existing Conditions 

The swift fox was removed from the USFWS federal listing process in 1995, 

after extensive field surveys demonstrated that the population was greater than 

expected. This species has been documented within the TBNG, and has been 

infrequently encountered in northern Converse County. The relatively large 

blocks of grasslands interspersed with sparse sagebrush-grasslands on and 

near USDA-FS lands represent good quality swift fox habitat, especially where 

associated with more gentle topography. Burrows within the existing blacktailed prairie dog colony, and scattered badger or red fox burrows, could be 

used by swift foxes as den or shelter sites. Potential denning, shelter, and 

foraging habitats may be physically disturbed by the proposed activities. 

No specific surveys for swift fox were conducted for this analysis. However, 

such efforts were completed for other projects in 2002, approximately 7.0 miles 

to the north of the USDA-FS . Annual nocturnal surveys for other species have 

also been conducted on and near USDA-FS lands, ea and elsewhere within the 

one-mile perimeter wildlife survey area for the adjacent Antelope Mine, since at 

least 1994, with additional wildlife monitoring surveys occurring at neighboring 

mines in that region annually since the early 1980s. Despite those combined 

efforts, no swift fox have been recorded on or near USDA-FS lands analyzed in 

this the West Antelope II LBA tract EIS. No swift foxes had been recorded in 

the overall Antelope Mine monitoring area, including portions of the overall 

West Antelope II LBA tract general analysis area, prior to 2005. On 3 October 

that year, biologists with Jones & Stokes (formerly Thunderbird Wildlife 

Consulting) saw two separate individuals (adult and juvenile) walking and 

hunting on a grassy hill within and near the northern extent of the overall West 

Antelope II general analysis area in T. 41 N., R. 71 W., NW1⁄4 SW1⁄4 Section 22 

and NE1⁄4 SW1⁄4 Section 22, respectively. Swift foxes were again observed 

within the West Antelope II LBA tract general analysis area in SW1⁄4 NE1⁄4 

Section 21, T. 41 N., R. 71 W. on three nights in 2006. A single adult fox was 

seen traveling through sagebrush-grassland habitat on 20 September that 

year. Three swift fox were observed moving through sagebrush-grassland 

habitat in the same vicinity on 27 September. Age composition was not 

recorded for that sighting. The following evening, two adult swift foxes were 

observed hunting in NE1⁄4 SE1⁄4 Section 21 during spotlight surveys for 

lagomorphs. It is likely that one or more of those sightings represented the 

same individuals. All of those observations were at least 4.0 miles north of the 

USDA-FS lands associated with the West Antelope II LBA tract. 

Few other swift fox sightings have been recorded elsewhere within the 

surrounding region during specific surveys or incidental to other searches at 

local mines over the last 26 years. Those efforts were conducted as part of 

annual wildlife monitoring by contract and USDA-FS biologists on private and 

federal lands in the area. Swift foxes were documented approximately 16.0 

miles north-northwest of the West Antelope II EIS USDA-FS lands between 

H-34 Draft EIS, West Antelope II Coal Lease Application 
 

 Appendix H 

1995 and 1997. One sighting each was made in T. 43 N., R. 72 W., SE1⁄4 

Section 20 and T. 43 N. R. 71 W., SE1⁄4 Section 23 and SW1⁄4 Section 14 (USDAFS 2003) during that period. In March 2002, a single swift fox was observed in 

T. 42 N. R. 70.W., SE1⁄4 Section 15 during spotlight trapping efforts at the 

North Antelope Rochelle Mine, approximately 11.0 miles northeast of the 

USDA-FS lands boundary. Reports from all of those studies are already on file 

with the Douglas Office of the USDA-FS, and with WDEQ-LQD. 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Potential swift fox habitat is present on and near USDA-FS lands considered in 

this analysis. Although this species has been documented in the region in 

recent years, no swift fox have been recorded on those lands, themselves. 

Direct loss of or injury to individuals foraging or denning within, or passing 

through that general analysis area could result from vehicle collisions or 

encounters with equipment associated with ongoing or future mining related 

activities, should this species occur in the area. Swift fox are relatively tolerant 

of human activities, but may avoid areas directly affected by mine operations 

as human presence and noise escalate with active mining. As the population 

size and residency status of the individuals in the area are largely unknown, 

some swift fox may remain within undisturbed habitats in the vicinity of 

mining encroachment. 

The Proposed Action or Alternatives could disturb approximately 93 acres of 

prairie dog colony overlapping USDA-FS lands in the West Antelope II LBA tract 

general analysis area, and therefore potential swift fox denning or shelter 

habitat. Those acres, and other additional foraging habitat, may be removed, 

altered, or fragmented to varying degrees by one or more mine- or non-minerelated activities within the general analysis area. Foraging and denning 

habitats may also be fragmented or altered by linear disturbances such as 

roads, fences, power lines, and pipelines. However, those disturbances will 

occur within narrow corridors over relatively short distances, and will typically 

be completed within a few days. Linear disturbances and habitat alterations 

could provide convenient travel corridors and habitat for larger mammalian 

predators that could compete with swift foxes for prey species. The type, 

timing, location, and extent of habitat disturbance will vary throughout the 

general analysis area as mining operations progress. Reclamation of disturbed 

areas will occur incrementally as mining is completed in a given portion of the 

area, and will eventually provide additional foraging and potential denning 

habitat. Surface disturbing activities may result in a short-term, localized 

decrease in prey base (small rodents and voles), but due to their high 

reproductive potential and tendencies to re-establish and adapt to disturbed 

and reclaimed areas, prey numbers should increase quickly after the 

disturbance. 

As sightings have been infrequent in the region over time, and no swift fox or 

their dens have been documented on or near USDA-FS lands, or in the 

surrounding West Antelope II LBA tract general analysis area, species-specific 

Draft EIS, West Antelope II Coal Lease Application H-35 
 

Appendix H 

Standards and Guidelines outlined in the TBNG Plan (USDA-FS 2002, page 1­

20) would not apply. 

Determination of Effect and Rationale 

Implementation of the Proposed Action or Alternatives may adversely impact 

individuals, but is not likely to result in a loss of viability in the general 

analysis area, nor cause a trend toward federal listing for the swift fox. 

Although suitable habitat for the swift fox is present in the vicinity of USDA-FS 

lands analyzed in this EIS, no observations have occurred there during specific 

and incidental surveys conducted over at least the last 26 years (1980-2006). 

Only five sightings have been recorded in the general region during that period, 

and all were at least 4.0 miles north of the USDA-FS lands. Destruction and 

fragmentation of foraging habitat, potential den sites, short-term harassment, 

and reduction in prey populations may occur. However, sufficient habitat is 

present within the vicinity that could sustain swift foxes as project activities 

cause surface disturbance in the general analysis area. Existing and future 

reclaimed grasslands will also help mitigate the loss of native grasslands 

disturbed by mining. Although negligible, a few individuals may be killed or 

injured by mine equipment and vehicles. As this species is relatively tolerant of 

human activities, project disturbances would not likely limit the movement of 

individuals or preclude their use of the surrounding area. 

4. Long-billed Curlew (Numenius americanus) 

Long-billed curlews breed from interior British Columbia and southern Alberta 

through southern Manitoba, south to central California, and east to western 

North Dakota, central South Dakota, central Nebraska, western Kansas, 

northeastern New Mexico, and northern Texas (Dechant et al. 2003a). The 

long-billed curlew is a relatively uncommon summer resident of grasslands and 

sagebrush-grasslands in Wyoming (Cerovski et al. 2004). Curlews are ground 

nesters, and require large open expanses of grassland, with relatively low 

vegetation and few shrubs in which to nest (Hill 1998). The nest is typically a 

shallow scrape or depression, thinly lined with grass, weeds or cow dung, 

typically near water or moist areas. 

Curlews use historically occupied sites each year, and some individual birds 

may reuse the same territories from year to year (Dechant et al. 2003a). 

Curlews primarily feed upon insects but also eat other invertebrates, small 

crustaceans, toads, and eggs and nestlings of other birds. This species forages 

in grasslands, wet meadows, prairie dog colonies, and occasionally along the 

margins of wetlands. Lakeshores and river valleys are often used during fall as 

migration staging areas (Hill 1998). Although some populations may be 

declining, overall population trends suggest long-billed curlew numbers are 

stable or increasing slightly. The major factor affecting curlew populations is 

habitat destruction and fragmentation. 

H-36 Draft EIS, West Antelope II Coal Lease Application 
 Appendix H 

Existing Conditions 

Long-billed curlews are uncommon summer residents within the TBNG. The 

area evaluated for this analysis, which includes 240 acres of USDA-FS lands 

and a surrounding 1⁄4-mile perimeter, is dominated by potential habitat 

(expansive, open, level to gently rolling grasslands with short vegetation) for 

this species. However, few individuals have been observed in the region during 

annual wildlife monitoring in that area over the last two decades (Jones & 

Stokes data, currently on file with the USDA-FS and WDEQ-LQD). Most of 

those sightings occurred during spring months north of the USDA-FS lands, 

and were likely individual migrants or non-breeding adults. No significant 

wetlands (i.e. large lakes) or other conditions that might attract large numbers 

of curlews during migration exist within the area evaluated for this analysis. 

No nesting occurrences have been documented in northern Converse County 

(Cerovski et al. 2004), including the USDA-FS general analysis area and 

adjacent lands. Potential nesting habitat is poor to marginal throughout the 

general analysis area, including on USDA-FS lands themselves. Foraging 

habitat is present within the existing prairie dog colony and areas of heavily 

grazed grasslands and sagebrush-grasslands on USDA-FS lands and elsewhere 

within the West Antelope II LBA tract general analysis area. CBNG 

development and conventional oil and gas production are increasing 

throughout the region, with active mining (including open pits) also occurring 

in the immediate vicinity. Potential, low quality long-billed curlew nesting and 

foraging habitats will be disturbed by the Proposed Action and Alternatives 1 

and 2. 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Given the lack of sightings of, and limited potential for, long-billed curlews on 

and near USDA-FS lands over the last 13 years (1994-2006), the Proposed 

Action and Alternatives are unlikely to cause any direct injury or mortality to 

this species. If present, individuals or nests could be injured or destroyed by 

vehicles and equipment associated with ongoing and future mining activities. 

Individuals may also be displaced by human activities and noise associated 

with mining. Linear habitat disturbances (i.e., roads or fence lines) can provide 

convenient travel corridors for mammalian predators, thus increasing the 

predation risk to nests, nestlings, or adults that are present. Potential foraging 

and nesting habitats may be disturbed, removed, or fragmented by mining 

activities. The type, timing, location, and extent of habitat disturbance will 

vary throughout the general analysis area as operations progress. Reclamation 

of disturbed areas will occur incrementally as mining is completed in a given 

portion of the mine, and will eventually mitigate impacts to some degree. 

Antelope Mine’s reclamation plan would incorporate the replacement of 

jurisdictional wetland acreages existing prior to mining with at least equal 

types and numbers of wetland acreages. The creation of wetland habitats, 

especially where adjacent to grassland habitats, could provide additional 

(although limited) foraging areas for curlews. 

Draft EIS, West Antelope II Coal Lease Application H-37 
 

Appendix H 

As sightings have been infrequent over time, and long-billed curlew nests have 

not been documented within USDA-FS lands or other lands within or near the 

West Antelope II LBA tract general analysis area, species-specific Standards 

and Guidelines outlined in the Grassland Plan (USDA-FS 2002) would not 

apply. 

Determination of Effect and Rationale 

Implementation of the Proposed Action or Alternatives may adversely impact 

individuals, but is not likely to result in a loss of viability in the general 

analysis area, nor cause a trend toward federal listing for the long-billed 

curlew. As this species appears to be an infrequent visitor to the general 

analysis area, and good quality foraging and nesting habitat is not present 

within the area, impacts to this species are likely to be minimal. Loss, 

degradation, or fragmentation of potential foraging habitat and potential 

collisions with vehicles may occur. Reclamation of wetlands and grasslands 

may create limited foraging or nesting habitat. 

5. Ferruginous Hawk (Buteo regalis) 

Ferruginous hawks breed throughout much of the western United States and 

portions of three Canadian provinces (Johnsgard 1990). This species nests 

throughout Wyoming (Cerovski et al. 2004) and occupies portions of the state 

during winter. Large expanses of grassland and shrubland, where livestock 

grazing (vs. cultivation) is the predominant land use, provide the most suitable 

habitat (Schmutz 1989, Johnsgard 1990). Most ferruginous hawks in the 

Powder River Basin nest on the ground (usually elevated sites, though some 

pairs nest in small trees). Typical nest sites include hilltops, rock outcrops, 

eroded creek banks, small trees, and even relatively level ground. The 

ferruginous hawk relies primarily on two mammalian families for the majority 

of its prey: Leporidae (rabbits and hares) and Sciuridae (ground squirrels and 

prairie dogs). Numerous nests can occur within the territory of a single pair, 

and ferruginous hawks often reuse nests for many years. 

This species may be sensitive to human disturbance, especially during the 

nesting period (White and Thurow 1985). This sensitivity can be heightened in 

years of low prey abundance. Accurate information regarding the trend for the 

ferruginous hawk is limited and mixed. Although some populations may be 

declining (Bechard and Schmutz 1995), overall population trends suggest 

numbers are stable or increasing (NatureServe 2007). Major factors affecting 

ferruginous hawk populations include habitat destruction and fragmentation, 

and human disturbance. 

Existing Conditions 

Ferruginous hawks have nested in the vicinity of the Antelope Mine during 23 

of the last 25 years, and fledged young in 18 of those years. In the last five 

years, four to eight pairs nested within the two-mile perimeter wildlife survey 

area (which includes USDA-FS lands). A total of 64 ferruginous hawk nest 

sites in at least 18 different territories have been documented within that twoH-38 Draft EIS, West Antelope II Coal Lease Application 
 Appendix H 

mile survey area over the last 25 years. Thirty-four nests in at least 10 

territories were physically intact within the Antelope Mine two-mile perimeter 

wildlife survey area in 2006; 10 territories were active that year, with a total of 

eight young fledged. Nesting activity in 2005 and 2006 was greater than 

during the previous three years, likely in response to remarkably high 

lagomorph populations in both years. 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

No ferruginous hawk nests are present on USDA-FS lands within the BLM 

study area. Five of the 64 total ferruginous hawk nest sites documented for 

the Antelope Mine through 2006 fall within one-quarter mile of USDA-FS lands 

(Figure H-1); these nest sites are either within the general analysis area 

(maximum potential for surface disturbance) for the West Antelope II LBA tract 

or within currently permitted areas. Four nests fall within one territory (FH5), 

with the remaining nest in a different territory (FH1). 

Four of the five sites nearest the USDA-FS lands had nest material present 

during 2006. However, all five meet USDA-FS criteria as “active” (occupied 

during at least one of the last seven years [2000-2006]). One of those five nest 

sites was used during 2006; birds incubated eggs but did not hatch young. All 

five locations could be physically destroyed by mining under the Proposed 

Action or Alternatives, though such disturbances are not projected to occur on 

or within on-quarter mile of the USDA-FS lands through at least 2016. 

Both territories include alternate nest sites beyond USDA-FS lands that have 

been actively used in recent years. One territory (FH5) includes alternate nests 

that will not be disturbed physically or visually by future mining within the 

West Antelope II LBA tract. However, all alternate nest sites within the other 

territory would be impacted by future mine-related activities. Such 

disturbances could negatively impact the reproductive success of ferruginous 

hawks nesting in the area. 

Over time, the Antelope Mine has avoided, where possible, or mitigated mining 

impacts on raptor nests through a variety of means. The mine has monitored 

nesting raptor populations, maintained and implemented current USFWS 

approved Raptor Mitigation Plans, adjusted operations to provide temporal and 

spatial buffers around raptor nests, and ensured that new power lines at the 

mine conform to current Avian Power Line Interaction Commission (APLIC) 

guidelines. Provided those practices are continued, direct impacts on both 

ferruginous hawks and active nest sites will be minimized. The most probable 

source of potential impact to ferruginous hawks would be an increase in 

injuries and fatalities of individuals foraging within the general analysis area 

due to vehicle collisions associated with ongoing or future mining and nonmining activities. The use of existing roads in the area, when possible, would 

help to minimize this risk. 

The West Antelope II lease area would expand Antelope Mine and could 

Draft EIS, West Antelope II Coal Lease Application H-39 
 

Appendix H 

potentially impact up to 6,309.18 total new acres during the life of the mine; 

approximately 240 acres (4%) are managed by the USDA-FS. Habitat loss, 

degradation, and fragmentation would result from a variety of large- and smallscale mining operations (e.g., topsoil stripping, drilling, reservoir construction, 

etc.). Potential nesting and foraging habitat might also be fragmented by linear 

disturbances such as the construction, maintenance, and removal of roads, 

fences, power lines, and pipelines. Those disturbances could also create new 

travel corridors to mammalian predators that reside in or pass through the 

area. However, such disturbances would occur within narrow corridors over 

relatively short distances, typically over a period of days. Additionally, those 

structures are often constructed immediately prior to the removal of similar 

features elsewhere in the area, often resulting in minimal or no net gain of new 

linear disturbances. All mine-related habitat disturbances would shift 

throughout the expanded permit area as operations progress. Reclamation of 

disturbed areas would occur incrementally as resource recovery is completed in 

a given portion of the mine, and would mitigate impacts to some degree. 

Surface disturbing activities could also result in a short-term, localized 

decrease in the prey base (lagomorphs and rodents) for ferruginous hawks. 

However, due to their high reproductive potential and tendencies to re-populate 

and adapt to disturbed and reclaimed areas, prey numbers should increase 

quickly after the disturbance. 

USDA-FS Standards and Guidelines would be implemented and offer additional 

protections for active nests. These factors should help ensure that the 

Proposed Action and Alternatives do not significantly degrade the quality of 

existing ferruginous hawk territories and nest sites. Standards and Guidelines 

specific to ferruginous hawks outlined in the TBNG Plan (USDA-FS 2002, page 

1-20-21) are as follows: 

73. To help prevent abandonment, reproductive failure or nest 

destruction, prohibit development of new facilities within 0.25 mile (or 

line of sight) of active ferruginous hawk nests. For the ferruginous 

hawk, a nest is no longer considered active if it is known to have been 

unoccupied for the last seven years. This does not apply to pipelines, 

fences and underground utilities. 

74. To help reduce disturbances to nesting ferruginous hawks, 

prohibit the following activities within 0.5 mile (or line of sight) of 

active ferruginous hawk nests from 1 March through 31 July: 

construction (e.g., roads, water impoundments, oil and gas facilities), 

reclamation, gravel mining operations, drilling of water wells, and oil 

and gas drilling. 

75. To help reduce disturbances to nesting ferruginous hawks, do not 

authorize the following activities within 0.5 mile (line of sight) of active 

ferruginous hawk nests from 1 March through 31 July: construction 

H-40 Draft EIS, West Antelope II Coal Lease Application 
 

 

 Appendix H 

(e.g., pipelines, utilities, fencing), seismic exploration, and workover 

operations for maintenance of oil and gas wells. 

Determination of Effect and Rationale 

Implementation of the Proposed Action or Alternatives may adversely impact 

individuals, but is not likely to result in a loss of viability in the general 

analysis area, nor cause a trend toward federal listing for the ferruginous 

hawk. Mine-related activities will not physically disturb any ferruginous hawk 

nest sites on USDA-FS lands themselves. However, such activities could 

impact up to five nests within the West Antelope II LBA tact general analysis 

area that abuts USDA-FS lands. Some individuals or pairs may experience 

disturbance, destruction, or fragmentation of nesting and foraging habitat. 

Increased disturbance to individuals due to human activity may also occur. 

However, several factors should minimize the potential mining-related impacts 

on this species, including the availability of alternate nest sites located further 

away from pending disturbance in each affected territory, implementation of 

USFWS and USDA-FS approved mitigation measures, reclaiming habitats as 

soon as feasible, encouraging nesting within mine reclamation lands, and 

continued monitoring of this species to ensure that mitigation methods are 

applied when necessary. 

6. Burrowing Owl (Athene cunicularia) 

Burrowing owls breed from southern Alberta to southwestern Saskatchewan, 

south through east-central Washington, central Oregon, and southern 

California, and east to eastern North Dakota, west-central Kansas, and Texas 

(Klute, et al. 2003, pg 7). The burrowing owl is a summer resident of open 

rangeland habitats throughout Wyoming (Cerovski et al. 2004). This species 

requires burrows of fossorial mammals, primarily badgers and prairie dogs, for 

nesting and roosting (Klute, et al. 2003, pg 12). 

Most burrowing owl nests within the TBNG are located within prairie dog 

colonies (USDA-FS 2003). Burrowing owls typically reuse traditional nesting 

areas. Burrow mounds, shrubs, fence posts or boulders may be used as 

observation perches. This species is usually tolerant of human activity but is 

vulnerable to predation by pets (cats, dogs). Burrowing owls forage within a 

variety of habitats, including cropland, pasture, prairie dog colonies, fallow 

fields, and sparsely vegetated areas. This species is often active during 

daylight hours. Insects and small mammals (mice and voles) are the owls’ 

primary prey items. Burrowing owl populations have been declining 

throughout its range, primarily due to habitat loss. 

Existing Conditions 

Burrowing owls are common summer residents within the TBNG (Cerovski et 

al. 2004). This species was first recorded nesting in the Antelope Mine twomile perimeter wildlife survey area in 1991, and owls have nested in that 

general vicinity during 14 of the last 16 years. All known burrowing owl nest 

sites throughout the entire West Antelope II LBA tract were in prairie dog 

Draft EIS, West Antelope II Coal Lease Application H-41 
 

Appendix H 

burrows, and are therefore considered intact. Four additional artificial nest 

boxes have been constructed in the two-mile perimeter wildlife survey area for 

mitigation purposes since 1994, but no owls have ever been observed at or 

near them. 

One burrowing owl site (BO5) has been documented in the prairie dog colony 

on USDA-FS lands in T. 40 N., R. 71 W., Section 15 (Figure H-1). That site was 

discovered in 1996, and six young fledged that year. At least one adult was 

observed in the same colony in 1997 and again in 2006, but no active nests 

have been documented there since 1996. As the nest area has not been used 

for the last ten consecutive years, it is considered “inactive” by the USDA-FS 

definition for this species (unoccupied during the current or most recent 

nesting season). One of the four artificial nest sites (BO11) is located in 

reclaimed lands within one-quarter mile of the USDA-FS. No owls have ever 

used that nest box. Full details of all burrowing owl nest sites have been 

provided in the Annual Wildlife Report for the Antelope Mine each year, and are 

on file with both the USDA-FS Douglas, Wyoming Ranger District and WDEQLQD in Cheyenne, Wyoming. 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

One natural burrowing owl nest site is present on USDA-FS lands and thus 

could be impacted by the leasing of the West Antelope II LBA tract. That nest 

site has not been active since 1996. Both USDA-FS Standards and Guidelines 

(USDS-FS 2002) and the Antelope Mine state mining permit stipulate that 

clearance surveys will be conducted and approved by the appropriate agencies 

before any colony is disturbed during the breeding season. That process will 

preclude most direct impacts to nesting burrowing owls in that area. 

Because burrowing owls are active during daylight hours, the most probable 

source of direct impacts would be the death of, or injury to, individuals fleeing 

heavy equipment, or being killed or injured by equipment while feeding or 

moving through the mine area. Burrowing owls are generally tolerant of 

human activities, but increased presence and noise, especially during the nest 

initiation period, may displace individuals or inhibit nesting proximate to mine 

operations. Foraging could also be hindered within these areas, especially 

where mining activities occur near prairie dog colonies. 

Mining could eventually disturb or eliminate all 93 acres of potential alternate 

nesting habitat (prairie dog colony) on USDA-FS lands or in the overlapping 

West Antelope II LBA tract general analysis area. However, that colony 

represents only 13% of the total acreage within the two-mile perimeter wildlife 

survey area for the Antelope Mine. Additionally, the tendency of prairie dogs to 

quickly colonize nearby areas when their colonies are disturbed would create 

new nesting habitat for burrowing owls. Overall, nesting and foraging habitats 

will be incrementally affected by a variety of large-and small-scale operations. 

The type, timing, location, and extent of habitat disturbance will vary 

throughout the general analysis area as mining operations progress, thus 

H-42 Draft EIS, West Antelope II Coal Lease Application 
 Appendix H 

providing opportunities for burrowing owls to relocate to other suitable habitat 

within the immediate area. 

Reclamation will proceed incrementally as areas are mined and activities move 

to new locations within the mine area. Both activities will create loose soil that 

should be attractive to dispersing prairie dogs (potential habitat source), at 

least in the short term. Reclamation of disturbed areas will occur 

incrementally as resources are extracted in a given portion of the mine, and 

will eventually mitigate habitat impacts to some degree. However, to date, 

burrowing owls have rarely been documented nesting within reclaimed habitats 

at surface mines in northeast Wyoming. 

Linear disturbances such as the construction, maintenance, and removal of 

roads, fences, power lines, and pipelines could temporarily disturb nesting or 

foraging individuals. Such disturbances however, would occur within narrow 

corridors over relatively short distances, typically over a period of days. 

Surface disturbing activities could also result in a short-term, localized 

decrease in the prey base (lagomorphs and rodents) for burrowing owls. 

However, due to their high reproductive potential and tendencies to re-populate 

and adapt to disturbed and reclaimed areas, prey numbers should increase 

quickly after the disturbance. 

If nesting burrowing owls are documented on or near USDA-FS lands, USDAFS Standards and Guidelines applicable to this species would be implemented 

to offer additional protections beyond those outlined in the USFWS approved 

Raptor Mitigation Plan for the Antelope Mine. Annual monitoring of known 

burrowing owl nest sites within the one-mile perimeter wildlife survey area for 

the mine, including USDA-FS and adjacent lands, and other nearby colonies 

will continue through the life of the mine to document their histories of 

occupancy and production. 

Determination of Effect and Rationale 

Implementation of the Proposed Action or Alternatives may adversely impact 

individuals, but is not likely to result in a loss of viability in the general 

analysis area, nor cause a trend toward federal listing for the burrowing 

owl. Disturbance, fragmentation, and alteration of foraging and potential 

nesting habitats will occur. One inactive natural nest site within 93 acres of 

known and potential nesting habitat (prairie dog colony) could be disturbed 

under the Proposed Action or Alternatives. However, most (87%) prairie dog 

acreage is located outside of the USDA-FS lands. 

The Antelope Mine has avoided, where possible, and mitigated such impacts in 

the past through intensive monitoring of both populations and specific nest 

sites, implementation of USFWS approved mitigation measures, and adjusting 

operations to provide temporal and spatial buffers around raptor nests 

(including burrowing owl nests). Mining activities and noise may disturb 

individuals inhabiting the lease area, thus inhibiting potential nesting or 

Draft EIS, West Antelope II Coal Lease Application H-43 
 

 

Appendix H 

foraging in proximity to lands with ongoing development. Potential collisions 

with vehicles might also occur, though none have been recorded in the area to 

date. 

7. Chestnut-collared Longspur (Calcarius ornatus) 

The breeding range of the chestnut-collared longspur extends from southern 

Alberta to southern Manitoba, south to west-central Colorado, and east 

through North Dakota and South Dakota to western Minnesota (Dechant et al. 

2003b). The chestnut-collared longspur is a common summer resident of the 

eastern plains of Wyoming (Cerovski et al. 2004). This species prefers native 

grasslands as breeding sites, inhabiting open prairie and avoiding excessively 

shrubby areas. Grasslands with dense litter accumulations are avoided 

(Dechant et al. 2003b). Scattered shrubs are often used as singing perches. 

Nests are typically placed in areas of sparse vegetation (less than 20-30 cm), 

but usually with a taller grass component than sites preferred by McCown’s 

longspurs. Nests are on the ground in depressions, often placed beside cattle 

dung pat, small shrub, or under a clump of grass (Hill and Gould 1997). Male 

fidelity to breeding areas has been observed. Chestnut-collared longspurs feed 

primarily on seeds (especially grasses), insects, and spiders. This species is 

generally tolerant of short-term intrusion at the nest site but may desert if 

disturbed during nest building or egg-laying (Hill and Gould 1997). High rates 

of predation on eggs and nestlings have been reported and pesticides have been 

shown to reduce hatching success. The chestnut-collared longspur breeding 

range has contracted and long-term data suggests population declines (Hill and 

Gould 1997). These declines have been attributed to loss of native prairie 

habitat, and conversion to cropland and urban development. 

Existing Conditions 

Chestnut-collared longspurs are common summer residents within the TBNG. 

This species has often been documented on and near USDA-FS lands in the 

southeastern corner of the West Antelope II LBA BLM study area during annual 

monitoring surveys since at least 1994. Although the prairie dog colonies and 

grasslands in that area do not represent prime nesting habitat, these longspurs 

likely do breed and forage in the area. The height and composition of 

grasslands throughout much of the remainder of the USDA-FS lands and twomile perimeter wildlife survey area for the Antelope Mine could also provide 

suitable habitat for this species, though few observations have been made in 

those areas over time. 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Fatalities or injury to individuals may occur due to collisions with vehicles or 

equipment associated with ongoing and future mining activities. If nests are 

present, nests and eggs may be crushed or destroyed, and young killed or 

injured by equipment operations in nesting areas during the breeding season. 

Increased human activity and noise could inhibit foraging or nesting within 

portions of USDA-FS lands, and will likely displace individuals during periods 

of intense activities. Over the life of the mine, potential nesting and foraging 

H-44 Draft EIS, West Antelope II Coal Lease Application 
 

 Appendix H 

habitats in the general analysis area (including up to 93 acres of existing 

black-tailed prairie dog colony overlapping the USDA-FS lands) could be 

disturbed, destroyed, altered, or fragmented. Specifically, these habitats will 

be incrementally affected by a variety of large-and small-scale operations (e.g. 

topsoil stripping, drilling, reservoir or diversion channel construction, or the 

construction of facilities). 

The type, timing, location, and extent of habitat disturbance will vary 

throughout the USDA-FS general analysis area as mining operations progress. 

Reclamation of disturbed areas will occur incrementally as resources are 

extracted in a given portion of the mine. Within one to two years, newly 

reclaimed areas may create good quality, short-duration nesting habitat for 

chestnut-collared longspurs. However, as these sites mature, they would 

become less suitable as nesting habitat for this species. Linear disturbances 

such as the construction, maintenance, and removal of roads, fences, power 

lines, pipelines, and diversion channels could provide convenient travel 

corridors for mammalian predators, thus increasing the predation risk to 

nesting adults, eggs, and nestlings. Most linear disturbances would occur 

within narrow corridors over relatively short distances, typically over a period 

of days. 

Determination of Effect and Rationale 

Implementation of the Proposed Action or Alternatives may adversely impact 

individuals, but is not likely to result in a loss of viability in the general 

analysis area, nor cause a trend toward federal listing for the chestnutcollared longspur. Some individuals or pairs may be displaced from portions of 

USDA-FS or adjacent lands and may experience disturbance, destruction, or 

fragmentation of nesting, foraging, or brood rearing habitat. The creation of 

linear corridors through nesting habitat may increase nest predation. Injury or 

mortality may occur to eggs, young, or adults resulting from mining operations 

and/or vehicle collisions within nesting habitat during the breeding season. 

However, mining disturbances would not likely limit the movement of 

individuals within the vicinity. This species has been documented regularly in 

the area despite ongoing mining activities nearby. 

8. McCown’s Longspur (Calcarius mccownii) 

McCown’s longspurs breed from southern Alberta and southern Saskatchewan, 

south through Montana, eastern and central Wyoming, and north-central 

Colorado, and east to western Nebraska, north-central South Dakota, and 

southwestern North Dakota (Dechant et al. 2003c). This species is a common 

summer resident of the eastern plains and great basin-foothills grasslands, 

basin-prairie shrublands, and agricultural areas throughout most of Wyoming 

(Cerovski et al. 2004). Specifically, this species requires open habitats such as 

sparsely vegetated, low structured grasslands, and heavily grazed pastures 

containing a moderate bare ground component for nesting and foraging. Nest 

sites are typically a natural or shallow scraped depression on the ground 

placed in the open or beside vegetation such as bunch grasses, cacti, or 

Draft EIS, West Antelope II Coal Lease Application H-45 
 

 

Appendix H 

shrubs. McCown’s longspurs feed on seeds of grasses and forbs, insects, and 

other arthropods. No strong data suggests breeding site fidelity although some 

individuals may return to the general nesting area in subsequent years. 

Individuals vary in response to human intrusion at nest sites, but appear to be 

relatively more tolerant than most grassland songbird species. High rates of 

predation on eggs and nestlings occur especially where nests are associated 

with vegetative structure. Nestlings may also be directly poisoned where 

insecticides are sprayed in nest areas (With 1994). Populations are declining, 

especially within the northern portion of the range. Factors directly affecting 

the McCown’s longspur include the reduction of breeding habitat due to 

overgrazing, control of prairie fires, plowing, development, and excessive use of 

pesticides. Conversion of short-grass prairie to agriculture and urban 

development is the most important factor (With 1994). 

Existing Conditions 

McCown’s longspurs are also common summer residents within the TBNG. 

This species has frequently been documented at Antelope and other nearby 

surface coal mines over the years, and is commonly seen during spring and 

summer in the prairie dog colony that straddles USDA-FS lands in the 

southeastern corner of the West Antelope II LBA tract (T. 40 N., R. 71 W., 

Section 15). Although no McCown’s longspur nests have been found in that 

area, it is highly likely that this species nests and forages on or immediately 

adjacent to USDA-FS lands. Singing and foraging males were regularly heard 

and observed within grassland habitats during annual wildlife monitoring 

surveys conducted since at least 1994. Short-grass prairie, prairie dog 

colonies, and very sparse sagebrush habitats within the area represent suitable 

nesting and foraging habitat for this species. These areas would be especially 

attractive to longspurs during periods of heavy grazing and drought, when 

grass height would be suppressed. The height and composition of vegetation 

throughout the remainder of the area is generally too tall and dense to provide 

suitable habitat for McCown’s longspurs. 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

The direct and indirect effects to McCown’s longspurs would be the same as 

those described above for the chestnut-collared longspur. 

Determination of Effect and Rationale 

Implementation of the Proposed Action or Alternatives may adversely impact 

individuals, but is not likely to result in a loss of viability in the general 

analysis area, nor cause a trend toward federal listing for the McCown’s 

longspur. Some individuals or pairs may be displaced from USDA-FS or 

adjacent lands and may experience disturbance, destruction, or fragmentation 

of nesting, foraging, or brood rearing habitat. The creation of linear corridors 

through nesting habitat may increase nest predation. Injury or mortality may 

occur to eggs, young, or adults resulting from mining operations and/or vehicle 

collisions within nesting habitat during the breeding season. However, mining 

H-46 Draft EIS, West Antelope II Coal Lease Application 
 

 Appendix H 

disturbances would not likely limit the movement of individuals within the 

vicinity. This species has been documented regularly in the area despite 

ongoing mining activities nearby. 

9. Greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) 

The greater sage-grouse occurs year-round throughout non-forested regions of 

Wyoming (Cerovski et al. 2004). Sage-grouse rely on a variety of habitats 

within sagebrush dominated landscapes to reproduce and survive throughout 

the year. Early in the spring, grouse gather at breeding display sites called 

leks. Leks are usually in open areas (playas, ridge tops, sparse sagebrush, or 

burned areas) that are surrounded by dense sagebrush and escape cover. The 

surrounding area also typically represents nesting, loafing, and foraging 

habitat. 

After being bred, hens typically scratch out a nest under sagebrush (Connelly 

et al. 1991) within three kilometers of the lek (Schroeder et al. 1999). Nests in 

some portions of sage-grouse range are typically placed under sagebrush with 

average height of 36-79 cm (Schroeder et al. 1999). However, research 

conducted within the Southern Powder River Basin (Brown and Clayton 2004) 

indicated that, although shorter sagebrush was present at nest sites, grouse 

selected shrubs ranging from 55-61 cm in height under which to place nests. 

Re-nesting may occur if the nest is destroyed early during the laying or 

incubation period. Nest success is enhanced where both sagebrush and 

residual grass cover are taller and denser (Gregg et al. 1994). Sage-grouse 

exhibit high fidelity to seasonal ranges, and may return to the same area to 

nest in subsequent years. 

For the first month after hatching, the young depend on relatively open 

sagebrush stands with an abundance of forbs and insects, especially ants and 

beetles (Drut et al. 1994, Schroeder et al. 1999). Late-season brood rearing 

habitats, such as wet meadows and bottomlands, are more mesic and support 

greater forb cover (Drut et al. 1994). Sage-grouse use a variety of habitats 

during fall, and the incidence of sagebrush in their diet increases as forbs 

become less available. During winter, grouse feed upon sagebrush leaves 

almost exclusively. Winter range is characterized by large expanses of dense, 

exposed sagebrush. Where snow accumulations are significant, gentle southand west-facing slopes or windblown ridges are preferred. 

Breeding populations of this species have declined by at least 17-47% 

throughout much of its range (Connelly et al. 2004). Within Wyoming, sagegrouse populations have generally declined over the past four decades. 

However, sage-grouse population estimates specifically pertaining to the TBNG 

suggest an overall increase in individuals since 1995. This same general trend 

was observed both statewide and within the Northeast Wyoming Sage-Grouse 

Local Working Group area. 

The Northeast Wyoming Sage-grouse Local Working Group identified habitat 

Draft EIS, West Antelope II Coal Lease Application H-47 
 

 

Appendix H 

fragmentation and degradation, disturbance and direct mortality as major 

influences affecting sage-grouse (NWSGWG 2006). The group identified oil and 

gas development, vegetation management, invasive plants, and weather as 

those factors with the most influence on the northeast Wyoming sage-grouse 

populations and those that may most effectively be addressed to provide the 

greatest benefit for sage-grouse conservation in northeast Wyoming (NWSGWG 

2006). 

Existing Conditions 

The greater sage-grouse is a common year-round resident within much of the 

TBNG, but is rare in the vicinity of the West Antelope II LBA tract and the 

adjacent Antelope Mine. Potential sage-grouse habitat is limited throughout 

the entire West Antelope II LBA tract general analysis area. Grasslands are the 

dominant vegetation community within the entire two-mile perimeter wildlife 

survey area for the Antelope Mine (including USDA-FS lands), occupying 85% 

of that area. No large expanses of contiguous sagebrush are present within 

several miles of LBA tract. Sagebrush habitats that do occur are quite limited 

and of poor quality. Those shrublands are primarily limited to relatively small 

and somewhat sparse patches scattered across the northern half of the West 

Antelope II LBA tract, and some sparse shrubs sprinkled throughout the shortgrass prairie and prairie dog colonies in the southeastern portion of the area 

(the vicinity of USDA-FS lands). Additional small, fragmented stands of sparse 

sagebrush are present elsewhere in the two-mile perimeter wildlife survey area 

for the Antelope Mine, but most are overshadowed by short- and mid-grass 

communities, and are isolated from the larger contiguous sagebrush 

grasslands regularly inhabited by sage-grouse. Although some sagebrush 

habitat is present within the West Antelope II LBA tract general analysis area, 

little, if any, potential sage-grouse habitat would be disturbed by the Proposed 

Action and Alternatives. 

Potential sage-grouse habitat is also limited within the USDA-FS lands and 

their two-mile perimeter of interest for that species. Grasslands are the 

dominant vegetation community in the region, with no large expanses of 

contiguous sagebrush occurring within several miles of that area. Sage stands 

that are present on or near USDA-FS lands are relatively short and sparse, 

with only marginal understory composition for adequate nesting habitat. 

Shrubs are not tall or dense enough to provide quality winter habitat in deep 

snows, and the lack of surface water in the ephemeral drainages in that area 

provides minimal suitable brood-rearing habitat. Overall, little, if any, 

potential sage-grouse habitat would be disturbed by the Proposed Action and 

Alternatives on or near USDA-FS lands. 

Baseline (1978-1979, 1998, 2003) and annual monitoring studies (1982-2006) 

have repeatedly demonstrated that sage-grouse observations are rare within 

the Antelope Mine one- and two-mile perimeter wildlife survey areas. As 

described previously, annual monitoring surveys for sage-grouse leks 

conducted for the adjacent Antelope Mine encompassed the entire USDA-FS 

H-48 Draft EIS, West Antelope II Coal Lease Application 
 Appendix H 

parcel and much of its surrounding perimeter every year since 1982. No leks 

were observed in that region during any survey year. Additionally, WGFD 

records (obtained from D. Thiele, Regional Biologist, WGFD, Buffalo, WY) and 

USDA-FS records have not documented any sage-grouse leks within the 

approximately 80.5 mi2 area that encompasses the two-mile perimeter wildlife 

survey area for the Antelope Mine. The closest known lek (East Steckley Road) 

to USDA-FS lands within the West Antelope II LBA BLM study area is located 

more than 5.0 miles to the southeast in T. 40 N., R. 70 W., NW1⁄4 Section 27. 

Telemetry data collected on radio-collared grouse at the nearby North Antelope 

Rochelle Mine throughout the last six years (2001-2006) shows no sage-grouse 

locations within several miles of the West Antelope II LBA tract during that 

period (Brown and Clayton 2004, McKee 2006). 

Isolated and sporadic observations of sage-grouse, both with and without 

broods, were made in the north-central portion of the West Antelope II LBA 

tract general analysis area in T. 41 N., R. 71 W., SE1⁄4 Section 21 in the early 

1980s. One grouse sighting occurred in a draw in T. 40 N., R. 71 W., SW1⁄4 

Section 21, approximately 1.5 miles southwest of the USDA-FS lands, in the 

early 1990s. In early July 2006, grouse droppings and feathers were seen in a 

sage draw approximately 1.75 miles southeast of the USDA-FS lands, in T. 40 

N., R. 71 W., NW1⁄4 Section 25. The prevalence of sign in that area indicated 

that multiple grouse had recently foraged in that drainage. Despite these 

regional records of sage-grouse, no grouse or their sign (droppings, feathers, 

etc.) were ever documented on USDA-FS lands themselves or the associated 

general analysis area for the West Antelope LBA tract, or within 1.5 miles of 

USDA-FS lands. 

In addition to active mining, existing corridors associated with oil and gas 

(CBNG and conventional) developments, low use two track roads, all weather 

roads, fence lines, and overhead H-frame transmission and distribution power 

lines currently fragment portions of the two-mile perimeter wildlife survey area 

surrounding both USDA-FS lands and the adjacent Antelope Mine (Figure 3­

16). Other land uses in the general vicinity include livestock grazing (both 

cattle and sheep), outfitted hunting and trapping, and limited recreation in the 

extreme southern portion of that two-mile perimeter. Oil and gas development 

is most prevalent in the northern portion of the two-mile perimeter wildlife 

survey area for the mine, while livestock grazing and prairie dog shooting are 

the primary disturbances occurring in the south. Active mining dominates the 

landscape to the northeast of the USDA-FS lands, while reclaimed lands occur 

to the east. 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

More than 25 years of annual monitoring have fully documented that sagegrouse do not inhabit the USDA-FS lands in the southeastern portion of the 

West Antelope II LBA BLM study area or general analysis area. Given the 

absence of leks within 5.0 miles of that area, the paucity of grouse sightings in 

the general region over nearly three decades of monitoring, the lack of evidence 

Draft EIS, West Antelope II Coal Lease Application H-49 
 

Appendix H 

(sign) of grouse use of USDA-FS lands and elsewhere in the BLM study area, as 

well as the minimal quantity and marginal quality of potential sage-grouse 

habitat present in the area, the direct and indirect effects of the Proposed 

Action and Alternatives are similar to those for the No Action Alternative. 

Likewise, as no sage-grouse have ever been documented on or within 1.5 miles 

of USDA-FS lands analyzed in this EIS, all corresponding stipulations outlined 

in the TBNG Plan (USDA-FS 2002) would be waived. Should sage-grouse move 

into USDA-FS lands analyzed in this EIS in the future, agency Standards and 

Guidelines would offer appropriate protections for the species and its important 

habitat. However, under the current conditions and documented absence of 

this species, mining USDA-FS lands within the West Antelope II LBA tract 

would not adversely impact sage-grouse populations in the region, nor would it 

conflict with the current TBNG Plan or any future objectives to manage the 

area for this species. 

Determination of Effect and Rationale 

Implementation of the Proposed Action or Alternatives may impact individuals, 

but will not adversely impact the viability of greater sage-grouse populations. 

Nearly three decades of annual monitoring have documented that sage-grouse 

do not inhabit the USDA-FS lands analyzed for this EIS, or other lands within 

the West Antelope II LBA BLM study area and general analysis area. The 

nearest documented lek is more than 5.0 miles to the southeast of those 

USDS-FS lands. The nearest known evidence of sage-grouse presence in the 

last 15 years was approximately 1.5 miles southwest of those USDA-FS lands. 

Consequently, anticipated mining-related disturbances will not affect any sagegrouse leks nor any identified and actively used seasonal sage-grouse habitats 

on or near USDA-FS lands analyzed for this EIS. 

10. Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) 

Bald eagles occur throughout North America, from Alaska and Canada south to 

Florida, the Gulf Coast, and northern Mexico. The northwest coast of North 

America serves as the stronghold for this species, with approximately one-half 

of the population inhabiting Alaska. 

The USFWS officially listed the bald eagle as an endangered species in 43 of the 

lower 48 states on July 4, 1976. The listing was due to a combination of 

several factors, including widespread habitat loss, negative effects of pesticide 

use on reproductive success, indiscriminant shooting, and others. The status 

of the bald eagle was downgraded to threatened throughout the lower 48 states 

in 1995. Bald eagle population trends began increasing throughout most of 

the species’ range in the early 1990’s, and it was proposed for de-listing in 

1999. 

On July 9, 2007, the Service published a Federal Register notice (72 FR 37346) 

announcing that the bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) would be removed 

H-50 Draft EIS, West Antelope II Coal Lease Application 
 Appendix H 

from the list of threatened and endangered species under the Endangered 

Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C 1531 et seq.) on August 8, 2007. 

However, the protections provided to the bald eagle under the Bald and Golden 

Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA), 16 U.S.C. 668, and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act 

(MBTA), 16 U.S.C. 703, will remain in place. The bald eagle is now recognized 

as a BLM and USDA-FS Sensitive Species. 

Bald eagles typically nest in large trees within a stand of mature, similarly 

sized trees either along or in proximity (within 0.7 mile) to rivers, lakes, or 

reservoirs that harbor adequate fish populations. Those areas tend to be 

remote and experience little disturbance (Johnsgard 1990). Typically, the nest 

is placed in the crown of a large cottonwood or pine, but if the topography 

allows, eagles will nest on cliff edges or escarpments. Open-canopied trees and 

snags provide required perches in nesting and foraging areas. 

All verified bald eagle nests in northeastern Wyoming (BLM Buffalo Field Office 

GIS database) are situated in significant, mature cottonwood stands along 

larger creeks or rivers (i.e., Tongue River, Powder River, Clear Creek, and Little 

Thunder Creek). Nesting attempts are rare on the Thunder Basin National 

Grassland (Beske 1994, USDA-FS). Fish and waterfowl are the primary source 

of food for nesting bald eagles. Where available, large to mid-size carrion and 

large rodents (e.g., prairie dogs [Cynomys spp.]) can also be an important 

dietary component. 

Bald eagles nest and winter throughout Wyoming, though typically are not 

locally abundant in the northeastern portion of the state. The species regularly 

migrates through and winters in Campbell County (Cerovski et al. 2004), and 

has often been documented during winter and early spring at nearby coal 

mines (Thunderbird-Jones and Stokes data, currently on file with the USFWS 

and WDEQ/LQD). Most eagles that migrate through or winter in Campbell 

County roost communally in stands of large ponderosa pine, along wooded 

cottonwood-riparian corridors, or in isolated stands of large trees. As water is 

scarce in that region, especially during winter, those birds likely forage widely 

for lagomorphs or carrion. 

Existing Conditions 

Bald eagles are relatively common winter residents and migrants in the Powder 

River Basin, but only rarely nest in that region. The study area (including the 

one mile perimeter) includes only limited potential habitat for nesting or 

roosting activities in the form of a sparse riparian corridor along Antelope 

Creek and isolated trees or small (five trees or less) stands of cottonwoods 

along Antelope or Spring Creeks or their primary tributary draws. Those areas 

are already within the current approved permit area for the adjacent Antelope 

Mine, or are farther upstream and on the far side of a busy state highway from 

the study area. The corridor along Antelope Creek is within the buffer zone of 

non-disturbance, thus the trees along that drainage will not be physically 

disturbed. 

Draft EIS, West Antelope II Coal Lease Application H-51 
 

 

 

Appendix H 

In general, the study does not contain unique or sizeable, concentrated prey 

sources (e.g., fisheries, waterfowl wintering areas) that would be expected to 

attract bald eagles. Four black-tailed prairie dog (Cynomys ludovicianus) 

colonies lie within the LBA study area boundary: three occupied and one 

unoccupied colony which total 188 acres. Twelve additional colonies are 

present within two miles of the study area: 4 occupied, 7 unoccupied, and one 

unknown which total 541 acres. Sheep and lambs are present in the spring, 

when bald eagles have typically left the region, with winter flocks pastured 

there infrequently. The area does not support a large big game herd, though 

some groups do winter in the area. 

Fixed-wing surveys for bald eagle winter roost sites were most recently 

completed in the study area during winter 2005-2006, with additional aerial 

and ground surveys in 2003. The latter surveys were conducted as part of the 

West Antelope baseline studies. The western portion of the LBA study area 

(including portions of both main creeks) was also included incidentally in 

surveys for another project during 2004, 2005, and winter 2006-2007. 

Potential winter roost surveys have encompassed all or most potential habitat 

within the LBA study area annually from 2003 through early 2007. All winter 

roost surveys were conducted between one-half hour before and one hour after 

sunrise or between one hour before and one-half hour after sunset, per current 

BLM guidelines for survey timing and frequency. Biologists also watched for 

nesting bald eagles within the survey area while conducting surveys for other 

nesting raptors. No bald eagles, nests, roosts, or any other sign were observed 

during the 2006 survey flights. Survey flights previously completed in the 

study area also never recorded bald eagle roosts, nests, or potentially prime 

habitat. The only regular occurrence of bald eagles in the area was observed 

during early 2007, when a single adult was recorded perched in a lone 

cottonwood in a dry gulch north of Spring Creek and on the west (far) side of 

Wyoming Highway 59, approximately 1.5 miles west of the LBA study area 

boundary. 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Direct effects include the potential for injury or mortality to individual bald 

eagles foraging in the mine area. The increased human presence and noise 

associated with construction activities, if conducted while eagles are wintering 

within the area, could harass or displace individual eagles during that period. 

As large groups of eagles have not been documented in the general analysis 

area, impacts of the Proposed Action and Alternatives 1 and 2 would be limited 

to occasional foraging individuals rather than a large segment of the 

population. If necessary, the majority of direct effects could be mitigated if 

construction activities were conducted outside the winter and early spring 

months. 

Indirect effects include additional disturbance and fragmentation of already 

limited winter foraging habitat within the geographic area. Indirect impacts 

H-52 Draft EIS, West Antelope II Coal Lease Application 
 Appendix H 

could result from a variety of mining related operations including, but not 

limited to, topsoil stripping, overburden and coal removal, reclamation 

activities, reservoir and access road construction, increased noise and human 

presence, etc. Potential winter foraging habitat could be further fragmented by 

linear disturbances such as power lines (above ground and buried), fences, and 

pipelines. The latter disturbances would occur within narrow corridors over 

relatively short distances. The locations of operations would shift throughout 

the expanded permit area as mining occurred, with habitats disturbed and 

reclaimed incrementally. Conversely, the addition of fences and raptor-safe 

power poles could possibly benefit foraging bald eagles by providing additional 

perch sites. Due to the lack of potential nesting or roosting sites, and lack of 

concentrated sources of prey, both the direct and indirect effects of the 

Proposed Action and Alternatives 1 and 2 to bald eagles are expected to be 

minimal. 

Cumulative short- and long-term habitat disturbance arises from multiple 

sources. These include direct and indirect impacts of mining within the permit 

expansion (with an anticipated life of 10-20 years), extraction of conventional 

oil and gas and coal bed natural gas (CBNG) reserves, grazing (livestock and 

wildlife), drought, and limited hunting. These activities have occurred in the 

past and most are expected to continue into the future at similar levels. Coal 

mining and CBNG development are expected to occur at an increased rate in 

the future due to the increasing energy needs of the country. However, given 

the documented lack of bald eagle use of, and habitats within, the LBA general 

analysis area and surrounding one-mile perimeter, mining the West Antelope II 

general analysis area is not expected to contribute measureably to cumulative 

effects. 

Determination of Effect and Rationale 

Implementation of the Proposed Action or Alternatives may adversely impact 

individuals, but is not likely to result in a loss of viability in the general 

analysis area, nor cause a trend toward federal listing for the bald eagle. 

With bald eagle nests and winter roost sites absent in the study area, potential 

hazards for this species would be limited to foraging individuals during winter. 

Disturbance, fragmentation, and alteration of potential foraging habitat will 

occur. Increased disturbance to individuals due to human activity may also 

occur. 

The Antelope Mine has avoided, where possible, and mitigated raptor impacts 

in the past through intensive raptor monitoring, implementation of USFWS 

approved mitigation measures, and adjusting operations to provide temporal 

and spatial buffers around raptor nests. Mining activities and noise may 

disturb individuals inhabiting the lease area, thus inhibiting potential nesting 

or foraging in proximity to lands with ongoing development. Potential collisions 

with vehicles might also occur, though none have been recorded in the area to 

date. 

Draft EIS, West Antelope II Coal Lease Application H-53 
 

 

Appendix H 

11. Mountain Plover (Charadrius montanus) 

The mountain plover breeds from southeastern Alberta and southwestern 

Saskatchewan through central Montana, south to south-central Wyoming, 

east-central Colorado and northeastern New Mexico, and east to northern 

Texas and western Kansas. In Wyoming, this species is a common summer 

resident (Cerovski et al. 2004). Mountain plovers require flat grasslands with 

short and sparse vegetation, and a large bare ground component (Knopf 1996) 

for nesting, foraging, or staging. Within the Powder River Basin, heavily grazed 

prairie dog colonies generally provide the most suitable mountain plover 

habitat. 

Mountain plovers are monogamous and possibly polyandrous ground nesters, 

and typically produce at least two clutches. The nest is a shallow depression 

occasionally thinly lined with grass. Plovers may utilize the same nesting area 

in subsequent years (Dechant et al. 2003d). Adults and fledged chicks leave 

the breeding grounds by early August, and may stage within appropriate 

habitats before migrating. Plovers feed primarily upon insects. Beetles, 

grasshoppers, crickets, and ants are the most important prey items (Knopf 

1996). This species is highly approachable and does not flee far. Mountain 

plover populations have historically declined and recent data suggests that this 

species is continuing to decline in numbers. Causes of population declines 

have been primarily attributed to regional changes in agricultural practices 

(Knopf 1996). 

Existing Conditions 

Mountain plovers are summer residents within portions of the TBNG. Most 

observations of mountain plovers in northeast Wyoming have been associated 

with prairie dog colonies. Approximately 86% of recently (since 1993) occupied 

mountain plover habitat in that region occurred within prairie dog colonies 

(Byer 2001). 

The history of this species at the Antelope Mine and surrounding area is well 

documented. Mountain plovers were first documented in the vicinity of the 

Antelope Mine and general analysis area during baseline studies in 1978 and 

1979. Annual monitoring for this species began in 1982 and continued 

through 2006. Those surveys included much of the overall West Antelope II 

general analysis area, and the entire USDA-FS block and adjacent lands. 

Survey results have demonstrated that mountain plovers are regular spring 

migrants and/or summer residents in both areas. 

Mountain plovers have undergone two intensive studies, as well as more than 

two decades of annual monitoring. Generally, two to five pairs of mountain 

plovers nest in the vicinity of the Antelope Mine each year. Over time, the 

number of observed broods in that area has fluctuated considerably, but young 

have fledged in 24 of the last 25 years. Generally more than 75 percent of 

mountain plover sightings recorded in the Antelope Mine monitoring area each 

year between 1994 and 2006 occurred within or adjacent to occupied blackH-54 Draft EIS, West Antelope II Coal Lease Application 
 Appendix H 

tailed prairie dog colonies. The most regular sightings of mountain plovers in 

that region over the last 13 years have occurred in two occupied prairie dog 

colonies within the West Antelope II LBA tract general analysis area (T. 40 N., 

R. 71 W., Sections 8/9 and 15) and one remnant occupied colony in the 

Antelope permit area in T. 40 N., R. 71 W., Section 3 (Figure H-1). Since 1994, 

most of the documented nesting activity in the area has also occurred among 

those three prairie dog colonies. Further details regarding mountain plovers 

beyond the USDA-FS lands are provided in Chapter 3. 

As previously described in the prairie dog subsection above, the eastern half of 

the Section 15 prairie dog colony encompasses approximately 41 acres of 

USDA-FS lands, while the entire colony (93 acres) is within the West Antelope 

II general analysis area. That prairie dog colony is associated with Mountain 

Plover Use Area (MPA) Numbers 3 (211 acres) and 4 (202 acres). The MPA 

designation describes areas that were originally mapped as known or potential 

habitat in 1989, but that may or may not have been used by mountain plovers 

during previous or subsequent years. In addition to the prairie dog colony 

itself, USDA-FS lands overlap the northern portion of MPA Number 2 (225 

acres). 

Mountain plover use of USDA-FS lands within the West Antelope II general 

analysis area has also been well documented over the last 25 years. This 

species was observed in one or more of the three MPAs that overlap the USDAFS or adjacent lands. As for the TBNG in general, most plovers were 

documented in the Section 15 black-tailed prairie dog colony that overlaps 

USDA-FS lands. Nesting efforts during that period were confirmed in ten 

years, with most broods also observed in that colony. Natural factors such as 

weather conditions appear to be the primary influences affecting annual brood 

production in the area. Unfavorable weather conditions such as drought, 

temperature extremes, and excessive precipitation that occur in the spring or 

summer months can result in declines in nesting attempts and the number of 

young observed. 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

The Proposed Action and Alternatives could potentially eliminate approximately 

331 acres of habitat currently known or mapped as mountain plover use areas 

on or within one-quarter mile of USDA-FS lands within the West Antelope II 

LBA tract: 93 acres (28%) in the Section 15 prairie dog colony and 238 acres 

(72%) spread across portions of MPA Numbers 2-4 (Figure H-1). However, the 

greatest potential impact would occur in the prairie dog colony, as most 

observations and known mountain plover nesting have occurred in that portion 

of the area over time. Even sightings within that colony have been 

concentrated in its western half over time, beyond the USDA-FS lands 

themselves. Nevertheless, nests, adults, or young chicks present in those 

areas could be injured or killed if mining operations encroach during the 

nesting or early brood-rearing periods. Both USDA-FS Standards and 

Guidelines and the Antelope state mining permit stipulate that clearance 

Draft EIS, West Antelope II Coal Lease Application H-55 
 

Appendix H 

surveys will be conducted and approved by the appropriate agencies before any 

colony is disturbed during the breeding season. That process will preclude 

most direct impacts to nesting mountain plovers on or immediately adjacent to 

USDA-FS lands within the BLM study area and West Antelope II general 

analysis area. The most probable source of potential effects would be an 

increase in the mortality of, or injury to, individuals foraging within or passing 

through the mine area due to collisions with mine-related equipment and 

vehicles. The use of existing roads in the area, when possible, would help 

minimize this risk. Increased activity and noise, especially during the nest 

initiation period, could inhibit nesting within proximity to mining activities. 

Once active mining begins, a number of prairie dogs may escape their burrows 

prior to the advance of encroaching machinery, and may even create new 

burrows in freshly turned soils associated with disturbance and reclamation 

activities. Approximately 73% of MPA Number 2 falls outside of the general 

analysis area for the West Antelope II LBA tract itself, and thus represents 

suitable habitat not slated for physical disturbance during any phase of this 

potential leasing action. The extreme southwestern extent of MPA Number 3 

also will not be disturbed by activities associated with that leasing action. In 

addition to these areas immediately adjacent to federal USDA-FS lands, ample 

suitable nesting and foraging habitat for mountain plovers has been 

documented throughout the general area to the north, west, and south. 

However, the effects of increased CBNG activity to the northwest on mountain 

plover presence and use in that area are not yet known. 

Given the species’ willingness to return to areas disturbed by mining (as well as 

CBNG operation areas to the northwest), the long-term stability of the number 

of breeding pairs in the overall area, and the quantity of suitable but 

unoccupied habitat in the area, operations associated with the Antelope Mine 

have not adversely impacted mountain plovers. It appears that natural events 

and other unknown factors, particularly on wintering grounds, may be the 

primary forces affecting mountain plover numbers and use at and near the 

mine. 

USDA-FS Standards and Guidelines for mountain plovers outlined in the TBNG 

Plan (USDA-FS 2002) would be implemented to minimize mine-related impacts 

to this species. To help maintain suitable nesting habitat for mountain plover, 

development of new facilities would be prohibited within 0.25 mile of known 

mountain plover nests or nesting areas. This would not apply to pipelines, 

fences and underground utilities. To reduce the risk of disturbances to nesting 

mountain plovers, surface use (e.g., drilling, testing, new construction, and 

workovers) would be prohibited from 15 March through 31 July within 0.25 

mile of active nests. To help reduce risks to mountain plovers from traffic, 

vehicle speeds would be limited in occupied mountain plover habitat to 25 mph 

on resource roads and 35 mph on local roads. The USDA-FS may impose 

mitigation measures beyond the TBNG Plan Standards and Guidelines for 

mountain plovers on a project-by-project basis. These mitigation measures 

H-56 Draft EIS, West Antelope II Coal Lease Application 
 

 Appendix H 

include intensive nest monitoring in areas of ongoing and continuous activities 

and contact with the appropriate agencies. 

In addition to these efforts, the Antelope Mine has worked cooperatively with 

the USFWS Ecological Services Office in Cheyenne to incorporate speciesspecific protective measures into its state mining permit, and to develop a 

USFWS approved species-specific monitoring and mitigation plan for mountain 

plovers. Those efforts include annual surveys, halting or delaying operations to 

accommodate nesting birds, planting of appropriate seed mixes in reclamation 

to restore habitats lost to mining, and re-creation of prairie dog colonies, the 

most commonly used habitat in the area. Through a successful translocation 

program implemented in 2002 and 2003, the mine has established a small, but 

growing, prairie dog colony in reclamation in an area historically used by 

mountain plovers. That colony is approximately 1.0 mile northeast of the 

USDA-FS general analysis area and 1.1 miles northeast of the Section 15 

prairie dog colony, where plovers are known to periodically nest. The 

reclamation colony is monitored annually to determine habitat conditions and 

to watch for mountain plover use. 

Determination of Effect and Rationale 

Implementation of the Proposed Action or Alternatives may adversely impact 

individuals, but is not likely to result in a loss of viability in the general 

analysis area, nor cause a trend toward federal listing for the mountain 

plover. Degradation, destruction, and/or fragmentation of known and potential 

nesting, staging, and foraging habitat and potential collisions with vehicles and 

mining equipment may occur. Approximately 70% of this species’ most 

commonly used habitat (prairie dog colonies) within the two-mile perimeter 

wildlife survey area for the Antelope Mine, as well as many square miles of 

additional known and potential habitat, lie beyond the general analysis area 

boundary for the West Antelope II LBA tract, including USDA-FS lands. 

Approximately 215 acres (30% of total) of prairie dog colonies are within the 

general analysis area for the West Antelope II LBA tract, and are thus likely to 

be disturbed at some point in time, should this leasing action move forward; 

about 41 acres (6%) within one colony occur on USDA-FS lands, with the entire 

colony (93 acres, 13%) falling within the general analysis area. Although the 

areas that lie beyond the West Antelope II LBA tract general analysis area 

boundaries are, or may be, impacted by non-mine related operations, 

expanding surveys have demonstrated more mountain plovers in the general 

area than were previously known. 

12. Loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus) 

Loggerhead shrikes breed from Washington, northern Alberta, central 

Saskatchewan, and southern Manitoba, south to California and Florida, and 

east to southwestern Minnesota, southern Wisconsin, southern Michigan, and 

Maryland. This species is a common summer resident throughout Wyoming 

(Cerovski et al. 2004). Shrikes prefer relatively open, heterogeneous habitats 

characterized by grasses and forbs of low stature interspersed with bare 

Draft EIS, West Antelope II Coal Lease Application H-57 
 

Appendix H 

ground and shrubs or low trees with perches for hunting. This species will use 

a wide variety of trees and shrubs, particularly thick or thorny species, as 

nesting substrates and hunting perches (Prescott and Bjorge 1999). 

Although some shrike nests are used in subsequent years, fidelity to a nest site 

is limited. This species forages over relatively open habitats, feeding primarily 

upon arthropods, amphibians, small to medium-sized reptiles, small mammals, 

and birds (Yosef 1996). Shrikes may also feed upon road kill and carrion. This 

species is generally tolerant of human activity near a nest, although they will 

abandon if disturbed during egg-laying or early in incubation. The loggerhead 

shrike is declining in both number and overall range. Declines have been 

attributed to habitat loss and conversion, urbanization, pesticide 

contamination, and loss of insect prey as a result of pesticide use (Yosef 1996). 

Existing Conditions 

Loggerhead shrikes are common summer residents within the TBNG, though 

they are not often observed on or adjacent to USDA-FS lands. Shrikes have 

occasionally been seen in the one-mile perimeter wildlife survey area for the 

adjacent Antelope Mine (which includes all USDA-FS lands) over time. No 

actual shrike nests have been documented in that area, but the presence of 

recently fledged young in some years indicates that this species does nest in 

the general vicinity. Over time, most sightings occurred in the cottonwoodriparian corridor along Antelope Creek in T. 40 N., R. 71 W., W1⁄2 Section 5, 

approximately 2.5 miles north of the USDA-FS general analysis area. Shrikes 

have also been infrequently recorded perched on various fences or on overhead 

power lines in SE1⁄4 SE1⁄4 Section 16, just beyond the USDA-FS area. Shrike 

foraging habitat is present throughout the general analysis area, including 

USDA-FS lands. As indicated, existing utility and fence lines currently provide 

good quality hunting perches. 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Implementation of the Proposed Action or Alternatives could result in direct 

and indirect impacts to loggerhead shrikes, though such impacts would likely 

be uncommon. No known nest sites have been documented on or adjacent to 

USDA-FS lands or elsewhere in the annual monitoring survey area for the 

adjacent Antelope Mine. The riparian corridor within the 100-foot buffer on 

either side of Antelope Creek (potential nesting habitat) will be protected from 

physical disturbance, as required by the Antelope Mine state mining permit. 

The most probable direct impact would be the mortality of, or injury to, 

individuals foraging within or passing through the USDA-FS lands due to 

collisions with mine-related vehicles, or dispersal of foraging individuals due to 

active mining. 

The relatively slow movement of mining equipment and the noise associated 

with the activity would decrease direct impacts associated with vehicle 

collisions. As loggerhead shrikes are not especially common in the West 

Antelope II general analysis area, indirect impacts would be limited despite the 

H-58 Draft EIS, West Antelope II Coal Lease Application 
 Appendix H 

fragmentation, degradation, or loss of habitat in the short and mid-term, and 

the notable reductions in prey populations that would accompany active 

mining. 

Any birds that would be displaced would be forced to travel to other locations 

with acceptable habitat. This could result in stress to individual birds, as well 

as potential decreased nesting effort and success. Prey numbers reduced by 

mining would be expected to rebound following reclamation due to generally 

high reproductive potential and prey tendencies to re-establish and adapt to 

disturbed and reclaimed areas. 

The locations of mine-related habitat disturbances and reclamation efforts 

would proceed incrementally throughout the expanded mining area as 

operations progressed. Additionally, this mining activity would not conflict 

with the current TBNG Plan, or any future objectives to manage the TBNG for 

this species. USDA-FS Standards and Guidelines would offer additional 

protections for any active nest sites that may be present in the area. 

Determination of Effect and Rationale 

Implementation of the Proposed Action or Alternatives may adversely impact 

individuals, but is not likely to result in a loss of viability in the general 

analysis area, nor cause a trend toward federal listing for the loggerhead 

shrike. 

Such impacts would be minimized by the low frequency of regular sightings 

and known nesting attempts, as well as the relative paucity of suitable nesting 

habitat on or adjacent to the USDA-FS lands analyzed in this EIS and their 

surrounding region. Degradation, fragmentation, or loss of potential foraging 

habitat, reduction in prey populations, and potential collisions with vehicles 

may occur. Given the low number of birds recorded in the area, and the 

composition of the shrike’s prey base (insects, small mammals, etc.), impacts to 

shrikes would be minimal. USDA-FS Standards and Guidelines would apply 

for active nests during the breeding season. Additionally, mining the USDA-FS 

lands would not conflict with the current TBNG Plan, or any future objectives 

to manage the TBNG for loggerhead shrikes. 

13. Brewer’s Sparrow (Spizella breweri) 

The breeding range of the Brewer’s sparrow extends from southwestern Yukon, 

southern Alberta, southwestern Saskatchewan, south (east of the Cascades 

and Sierras) to southern California, central Arizona, and northern New Mexico 

(Rotenberry et al. 1999). The Brewer’s sparrow is a common summer resident 

of the basin-prairie and mountain-foothills throughout Wyoming (Cerovski et 

al. 2004). Brewer’s sparrow is a sagebrush obligate species and where present 

is the most abundant species (Rotenberry et al. 1999). 

This species is an uncommon cowbird (Molothrus ater) host and typically builds 

a small cup nest low in sagebrush shrubs. Brewer’s sparrows prefer to nest in 

Draft EIS, West Antelope II Coal Lease Application H-59 
 

Appendix H 

medium-sized (19-35 in) live sagebrush within relatively dense (26-42% canopy 

cover) stands (Walker 2004). Grass height and density are important factors 

for nest concealment. Although tolerant of human visitation, this species may 

abandon a nest if disturbed during the construction process. 

Brewer’s sparrows feed primarily on small insects and, to a lesser extent, seeds 

from grasses and forbs. Throughout areas where they have been surveyed, the 

species appears to have undergone and continues to undergo statistically 

significant declines (Rotenberry et al. 1999). Major threats to Brewer's sparrow 

populations are similar to those faced by other declining sagebrush-obligate 

species and include habitat conversion and fragmentation, invasion by nonnative plants, altered fire regimes, livestock overgrazing, conifer encroachment, 

energy development, and conversion to urban or residential housing (Walker 

2004). 

Existing Conditions 

Brewer’s sparrows are common summer residents within the TBNG and 

northern Converse County (Cerovski et al. 2004). Breeding bird survey data 

from annual monitoring and baseline studies conducted for the Antelope Mine, 

and incidental observations over time, have shown that the Brewer’s sparrow is 

a common but limited breeder in the area. This species has been recorded in 

the vicinity of the mine during each of the last 13 years (1994-2006). However, 

Brewer’s sparrows were most often seen in a relatively small stand of big 

sagebrush, their preferred habitat (Rotenberry et al. 1999), in the southeastern 

corner of the northern half of the West Antelope II LBA general analysis area 

just north of the county line in T. 41 N., R. 71 W., NW1⁄4 Section 27 and NE1⁄4 

Section 28. Although nests have rarely been encountered, the presence and 

behavior (singing) of birds throughout spring and summer suggest that 

Brewer’s sparrows regularly nest in that area. Brewer’s sparrows were not 

documented during breeding bird surveys (which included USDA-FS lands) in 

2006 due to elimination of the sagebrush stand described above as a result of 

landowner access restrictions. 

The known Brewer’s sparrow habitat in Sections 27 and 28 is approximately 

3.75 miles northwest of the USDA-FS lands. No Brewer’s sparrows have been 

recorded in that area over the last 25 years of annual monitoring, including 

breeding bird point counts conducted on those USDA-FS lands in 2006. As 

described for sage-grouse, above, the lack of a continuous stand of quality 

sagebrush in that area is a limiting factor for sage-obligates such as Brewer’s 

sparrows. 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Nesting and foraging habitat for Brewer’s sparrow is present in limited stands 

of sagebrush on and near USDA-FS lands within the BLM study area. The 

shrubs in that area are relatively short and somewhat sparse, and represent 

only marginal habitat for sage obligates such as this sparrow. Potential direct 

impacts to this species include the destruction of active nests during topsoil 

H-60 Draft EIS, West Antelope II Coal Lease Application 
 

 Appendix H 

removal or other operations, mortalities resulting from collision with large 

equipment and other vehicles, natural predators, and displacement of 

individuals from their core home range. As for other species, such impacts 

could be minimized by incremental disturbance and reclamation of disturbed 

areas. 

The use of existing roads, when possible, could minimize additional impacts 

related to traffic hazards and use of new travel corridors by mammalian 

predators. Increased activity and noise, especially during the nest initiation 

period, could inhibit nesting proximate to mining activities. Foraging could 

also be hindered within these areas, especially where active mining occurs. 

Additional infrastructure and activity associated with the expansion of the 

mine, in combination with other ongoing disturbances (e.g., CBNG operations), 

could displace Brewer’s sparrows from any historical use areas that might 

occur in the area. Those birds could potentially move into other sagebrush 

stands in the general area, assuming they are not already occupied. 

Limited habitat loss, degradation, and fragmentation will result from a variety 

of large- and small-scale mining operations (e.g., topsoil stripping, drilling, 

reservoir construction, etc.) on USDA-FS lands. In addition to their effects on 

the landscape, linear habitat disturbances (i.e., roads and power lines) can also 

provide convenient travel corridors for mammalian predators, thus increasing 

the predation risk to individuals in proximity to these structures. 

Given that Brewer’s sparrows have not been documented on or near the USDSFS lands analyzed in this EIS, and the marginal quality of the sage stands 

present in that area, potential impacts to this species would be minimal. 

Reclamation of disturbed areas will occur incrementally as mining is completed 

in a given portion of the mine and will eventually mitigate impacts to some 

degree, though such efforts could take decades to benefit sagebrush obligates 

such as the Brewer’s sparrow. Impacts to sagebrush habitat on USDA-FS 

lands could be further mitigated off-site by efforts to preserve and enhance 

such habitat on adjacent and nearby private lands. Landowners in the region 

have formed an ecosystem-based land management group (Thunder Basin 

Grasslands Prairie Ecosystem Association) that has been working cooperatively 

with the USDA-FS Douglas Ranger District and USFWS to implement a 

research and management plan for sage-grouse on their private lands that 

could also address the needs of other sagebrush obligates, including the 

Brewer’s sparrow, within the TBNG. Standards and Guidelines for sagebrush 

habitats outlined in the TBNG Plan (USDA-FS 2002, pages 1-18; Appendix D) 

would be implemented as necessary, and could serve to sustain regional 

populations of this sparrow. 

Determination of Effect and Rationale 

Implementation of the Proposed Action or Alternatives may adversely impact 

individuals, but is not likely to result in a loss of viability in the general 

Draft EIS, West Antelope II Coal Lease Application H-61 
 

Appendix H 

analysis area, nor cause a trend toward federal listing for the Brewer’s 

sparrow. 

Given the limited presence and marginal quality of sagebrush within the 

USDA-FS general analysis area, and the likelihood that Brewer’s sparrows 

would remain viable elsewhere within the TBNG for at least the short-term, the 

Proposed Action or Alternatives would not conflict with the current TBNG Plan 

(USDA-FS 2002) or future objectives to manage the area for this species. 

Application of appropriate USDA-FS Standards and Guidelines, successful 

reclamation efforts, and proper land management on adjoining lands could 

mitigate potential impacts, to some degree. 

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS REGARDING SENSITIVE SPECIES 

Cumulative effects are defined under the NEPA process as the incremental 

impacts of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions conducted 

by any entity (federal, state, private, and others). 

Cumulative short- and long-term disturbances to the species considered in this 

analysis arise from multiple sources that occur on federal and non-federal 

lands within the general analysis area for the West Antelope II LBA tract, 

including USDA-FS lands within that area and neighboring lands. Those 

sources include direct and indirect impacts of mining (with an anticipated life 

of at least 20 more years), extraction of conventional oil and gas and CBNG 

reserves, road development and relocation, construction and removal of power 

lines and pipelines, grazing (livestock and wildlife), drought, occupied 

residences, and hunting and trapping. Those activities have occurred in the 

vicinity of the USDA-FS general analysis area in the past and most are 

expected to continue at similar levels, at least for the near future. 

Coal mining and CBNG development are expected to occur at an increased rate 

in the future. Other reasonable and foreseeable developments within the area 

could potentially include the construction of a coal-fired power plant and new 

rail lines for transporting coal. Both mining and oil and gas development 

activities have requirements for reclamation of disturbed areas as resources are 

depleted. However, those standards are dramatically different in both 

implementation and monitoring. As new areas of disturbance related to energy 

extraction activities are added, areas that have been mined out will be restored 

and reclaimed. Similarly, oil and gas well sites will be reclaimed once they are 

depleted and abandoned. 

No critical habitat for any USDA-FS Sensitive Species has been delineated in 

the West Antelope II LBA tract general analysis area (including the USDA-FS 

lands). Any habitat losses that do occur will eventually be mitigated for most 

species by reclamation with native seed mixes which may improve habitat 

quality by reducing the presence of non-native plants (e.g., crested wheatgrass) 

within the area. Leasing lands within the West Antelope II general analysis 

H-62 Draft EIS, West Antelope II Coal Lease Application 
 

 

 Appendix H 

area will not conflict with the current TBNG Plan, or any future objectives to 

manage USDA-FS lands and provide habitat for Sensitive Species. Because 

effects of disturbance on sensitive species inhabiting the same habitat types 

would be the same, cumulative impacts are analyzed according to species’ 

main habitat associations. 

Species Associated Primarily With Short Grasses or Prairie Dog Colonies 

Five evaluated species are strongly associated with prairie dog colonies or other 

areas with short, sparse vegetation: the black-tailed prairie dog, mountain 

plover, burrowing owl, chestnut-collared longspur, and McCown’s longspur. 

Cumulative impacts to these habitats and associated species will largely result 

from activities that would decrease occupied black tailed prairie dog colonies 

within the area. As the prairie dog is the most common sensitive species in the 

area, it has the most potential to be affected by cumulative impacts from the 

Proposed Action and Alternatives. Specifically, individuals could be killed or 

injured by activities in or near prairie dog colonies, and habitat will be lost 

until reclamation takes place. Incremental habitat disturbance and freshly 

turned soil in stripped and reclaimed areas would allow escaping or dispersing 

animals to create new burrows, and thus maintain a presence in the area. 

Burrowing owls and mountain plovers rely heavily on prairie dogs to provide 

and maintain suitable nesting habitat. Longspurs are also often found in 

prairie dog colonies in the overall general analysis area. Therefore, any 

activities that jeopardize prairie dogs will also affect those species to some 

degree. Although impacts would occur on approximately 215 acres of prairie 

dog colonies within or overlapping the boundaries of the West Antelope II LBA 

general analysis area (93 acres of which occur on or within one-quarter-mile of 

USDA-FS lands), the presence of approximately 514 acres of colonies beyond 

the overall general analysis area would minimize negative impacts to those 

three species. Despite their strong association with prairie dogs, species such 

as burrowing owls, mountain plovers, and longspurs can all utilize short-grass 

habitats other than prairie dog colonies. However, all of those avian species 

would benefit from the presence of undisturbed prairie dog colonies 

surrounding the West Antelope II LBA tract general analysis area, including 

USDA-FS lands, as well as other short-form vegetative communities. 

Despite the presence of additional habitat outside the area, cumulative effects 

expected for these five species would include habitat destruction, alteration, 

and fragmentation. As indicated, some individuals may be killed or injured by 

vehicles or equipment, collisions with fences, and poisoning or shooting. 

Predation rates on some species may increase due to the creation of favorable 

habitats, perches, or travel corridors for avian or mammalian predators. Nests 

of avian species will likely be destroyed or compromised by human 

disturbances or activities, and individuals (especially avian species) will likely 

be displaced from existing territories. Such occurrences would increase 

competition for available adjacent territories. If those areas have already 

Draft EIS, West Antelope II Coal Lease Application H-63 
 

 

Appendix H 

reached carrying capacity, the result would be intra-specific competition 

followed by nutritional stress, decreased fecundity, and/or mortality. 

Mixed Sagebrush and/or Mid-grass Species 

Mid-grass parcels interspersed with sagebrush occur, but are not especially 

common in the West Antelope II LBA tract general analysis study area, 

including USDA-FS lands. Mining the area will impact the habitats that are 

present. Evaluated species for mixed grassland habitats included the swift fox, 

long-billed curlew, and ferruginous hawk. Cumulative impacts to those species 

would be the similar to those described above. However, as all of these species 

have the capacity of utilizing a variety of habitats, including prairie dog 

colonies and short-grass areas, beyond the overall general analysis, the 

cumulative effects would be somewhat lessened. 

Regarding the swift fox and ferruginous hawk, the fragmentation, alteration, or 

destruction of suitable habitats would also destroy denning and shelter sites or 

nest sites, respectively, and would potentially facilitate inter-specific 

competition for available prey bases. Both the swift fox and hawks using these 

habitats would also be negatively affected by activities that reduce prey 

availability. The impacts would be partially mitigated by the existing presence 

of alternate denning and nesting sites in the area that would not be disturbed 

by the Proposed Action or Alternatives. The greatest threat to mixed, mid-grass 

species would arise from the creation of habitat patches that are too small to 

attract individuals or sustain viable breeding pairs or populations. 

Sagebrush Obligates 

Species associated with sagebrush habitats that could occur in or near the 

West Antelope II LBA tract general analysis area and USDA-FS lands include 

the greater sage-grouse and Brewer’s sparrow. However, more than 25 years of 

annual monitoring have demonstrated that the sagebrush stands within those 

areas and surrounding lands are insufficient in size and structure to support 

sage-grouse. Therefore, sage-grouse would not experience cumulative impacts 

due to mining within either the overall or USDA-FS general analysis area. 

Similarly, the relatively small and somewhat sparse shrub stands within the 

northern portion of the West Antelope II LBA tract general analysis area provide 

limited, marginal habitat for Brewer’s sparrows, and observations have been 

sparse in the area over time. No Brewer’s sparrows have been recorded on or 

near the USDA-FS lands during more than two decades of frequent spring and 

summer surveys. 

Given the restricted occurrence of sagebrush habitat within the overall general 

analysis area (including USDA-FS lands) and immediate vicinity, cumulative 

impacts to sagebrush habitats and their associated species would be minimal. 

Impacts that do occur would likely be limited to the direct injury or mortality of 

individual Brewer’s sparrows, or their nests or young. Indirect impacts to 

H-64 Draft EIS, West Antelope II Coal Lease Application 
 Appendix H 

Brewer’s sparrows could entail changes in their presence or distribution as the 

quantity and quality of existing sagebrush stands in the area are diminished 

due to habitat fragmentation, alteration, degradation, and conversion of 

shrubland communities during ongoing and new mining operations. 

Any displaced individuals would have to compete for the limited availability of 

adjacent territories, and if those areas have reached carrying capacity, intraspecific competition may result in nutritional stress, decrease in fecundity, or 

mortality to affected individuals. Sagebrush habitats lost to mining would be 

mitigated, as required. However, those efforts would not likely be able to keep 

pace with, or compensate for, the on-going loss or alteration of sagebrush 

habitat within the area, as sagebrush stands can take two or three decades to 

re-establish. 

Tree or Wetland/Aquatic Species 

Only one small (less than five) stand of trees and no wetland/aquatic habitats 

occur on and near USDA-FS lands, and such habitats are limited elsewhere in 

the overall West Antelope II LBA tract general analysis area. Species associated 

with treed or aquatic habitats that could occur in or near those areas include 

the loggerhead shrike and northern leopard frog, though the latter is less likely 

to be present. Cumulative effects to shrikes would be similar, but slightly 

greater than, those for non-raptor avian species within mixed mid-grass and 

shrub habitats. The increased intensity of effects would be due to the overall 

lack of trees (potential nest sites) within either general analysis area, and thus 

the limited alternate habitats as trees are lost to mining. Mitigating that 

impact is the fact that most trees in the general analysis area are within the 

100-foot buffer zone along Antelope Creek, and thus will not be physically 

disturbed by future mining. However, that location is approximately 2.75 miles 

north of the USDA-FS lands. High intensity activity and noise along that 

corridor when mining is most proximate could deter shrikes from nesting in the 

area, at least until they acclimated to the disturbance. All trees destroyed by 

mining will be replaced during reclamation, but it will take decades for them to 

mature to their current stature. 

Northern leopard frogs are not prevalent within either the West Antelope II LBA 

tract general analysis area or USDA-FS lands, and therefore have little 

potential to be affected by cumulative impacts from the Proposed Action and 

Alternatives. Individuals could be killed or injured by activities in proximity to 

aquatic habitats. Dewatering or degradation of breeding habitats could kill 

eggs, tadpoles, or over-wintering adults, as well as increase predation rates on 

adults and eggs. Conversely, the creation and augmentation of aquatic 

habitats for sedimentation ponds and other purposes could maintain and 

possibly increase local northern leopard frog populations. 

Overall, despite the death, injury, and displacement of some animals, the 

cumulative impacts associated with the Proposed Action and Alternatives are 

Draft EIS, West Antelope II Coal Lease Application H-65 
 

Appendix H 

not expected to significantly reduce the size or viability of populations of any of 

the USDA-FS Region 2 Sensitive Species. Many of these species have not been 

documented within either the West Antelope II LBA or USDA-FS general 

analysis area over the last 25 years, have already been displaced from those 

areas, or have remained present despite the ongoing mine and non-mine 

activities in and near those areas. 

TBNG PLAN COMPLIANCE 

The Proposed Action and Alternatives are considered to be in compliance with 

Grassland-wide, Geographic Area, and Management Area Standards and 

Guidelines for wildlife (including regionally sensitive species, and Management 

Indicator Species) detailed in the Grassland Plan (USDA-FS 2002). 

REQUIRED MITIGATION AND RECOMMENDED MONITORING 

To help protect R2 Sensitive Species, the operator will notify the USDA-FS 

District Ranger, Douglas, Wyoming, if sensitive species nests or dens in 

addition to those identified in the Biological Evaluation are located during 

construction or operation of the project. Future surveys for any R2 Sensitive 

Species could be conducted in response to requests from the USDA-FS Douglas 

District Ranger. This would allow assessments of how, and if, implementation 

of the TBNG Plan is benefiting these species. 

Mitigation measures designed to reduce impacts to wildlife that are required by 

the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act and state law include: 

•	 Using raptor-safe power lines; 

•	 Designing fences to permit wildlife passage; 

•	 Creating artificial raptor nest sites; 

•	 Relocating raptor nests and taking other action to maintain active 

nesting pairs; 

•	 Restoring pre-mining topography to the maximum extent possible; 

•	 Planting a diverse mixture of grasses, forbs, and shrubs in configurations 

beneficial to wildlife; and 

•	 Building and maintaining sediment control ponds or other sediment 

control devices during mining. 

To further minimize negative impacts to faunal species of concern, the USFWS 

requires additional species-specific protective measures, as well as targeted 

monitoring and mitigation plans for certain Region 2 Sensitive Species. 

H-66 Draft EIS, West Antelope II Coal Lease Application 
 

 Appendix H 

MANAGEMENT INDICATOR SPECIES 

SPECIES EVALUATED AND RATIONALE 

A Management Indicator Species (MIS) is defined as a “plant or animal species 

or habitat components selected in a planning process used to monitor the 

effects of planned management activities on populations of wildlife and fish, 

including those that are socially or economically important” (USDA-FS 2002). 

MIS are selected to serve as barometers for species diversity and viability. 

These species are monitored over time to assess the effects of management 

activities on their populations and habitat, and the populations of other species 

with similar habitat needs. MIS for the TBNG are identified by Geographic 

Area. In accordance with the TBNG Plan (USDA-FS 2002), the greater sagegrouse was selected as the management indicator species to be evaluated for 

this project (as defined for the Hilight Bill Geographic area). 

The sage-grouse is selected as a Management Indicator Species for sagebrush 

habitats that have tall, dense, and diverse herbaceous understories (USDA-FS 

2002). However, as discussed above, the habitat characteristics within USDAFS lands and throughout the entire West Antelope II LBA general analysis area 

for this EIS do not support sage-grouse. To satisfy USDA-FS permitting 

requirements, a full Biological Assessment and Biological Evaluation (BABE) 

document is being prepared for review by Douglas Ranger District biologists. 

In addition to the information provided in this EIS analysis, that document will 

include a complete evaluation of the greater sage-grouse as a MIS, including 

relevant discussions regarding local and regional population trends. The 

approved BABE will be available for public review at the Douglas Ranger 

District. Given the absence of grouse, and the limited quantity and marginal 

quality of potential grouse habitat in the area, USDA-FS Management Direction 

guidelines for MIS do not apply to this project. 

REFERENCES AND LITERATURE CITED 

Baxter, G.T. and M.D. Stone. 1980. Amphibians and reptiles of Wyoming. 

Wyoming Game and Fish Department, Lander, WY. 

Bechard, M.J. and J.K. Schmutz. 1995. Ferruginous hawk (Buteo regalis). In 

The Birds of North America, No. 172 (A. Poole and F. Gill, Eds.) The Academy of 

Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, PA, and The American Ornithologists’ Union, 

Washington, D.C. 

Brown, K.G. and K.M. Clayton. 2004. Ecology of the greater sage-grouse 

(Centrocercus urophasianus) in the coal mining landscape of Wyoming’s Powder 

River Basin. Final Technical Report prepared by Thunderbird Wildlife 

Consulting, Gillette, Wyoming. 

Draft EIS, West Antelope II Coal Lease Application H-67 
 

 

 

Appendix H 

Byer, T. 2001. Biological assessment and biological evaluation report for 

Devon Energy Production Company. USDA-FS, Douglas Ranger District. 

Cerovski, A.O., M. Grenier, B. Oakleaf, L. Van Fleet, and S. Patla. 2004. Atlas 

of Birds, Mammals, Amphibians, and Reptiles in Wyoming. Wyoming Game 

and Fish Department Nongame Program, Lander. 

Connelly, J.W., W.L. Wakkinen, A.D. Apa, and K.P. Reese. 1991. Sage grouse 

use of nest sites in southeastern Idaho. J. Wildl. Manage. 55:521-524. 

Connelly, J.W., S.T. Knick, M.A. Schroeder, and S.J. Stiver. 2004. 

Conservation Assessment of Greater Sage-grouse and Sagebrush Habitats. 

Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. Unpublished Report, 

Cheyenne, Wyoming. 

Cotterill, S.E. 1997. Status of the swift fox (Vulpes velox) in Alberta. Alberta 

Environmental Protection, Wildlife Status Report No. 7, Edmonton, AB. 

Dechant, J. A., M. L. Sondreal, D. H. Johnson, L. D. Igl, C. M. Goldade, P. A. 

Rabie, and B. R. Euliss. 2003a. Effects of management practices on grassland 

birds: Long-billed Curlew (Version 12DEC2003). Northern Prairie Wildlife 

Research Center, Jamestown, ND. Available from website on the Internet: 

<http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/literatr/grasbird/lbcu/lbcu.htm>. 

Dechant, J. A., M. L. Sondreal, D. H. Johnson, L. D. Igl, C. M. Goldade, M. P. 

Nenneman, and B. R. Euliss. 2003b. Effects of management practices on 

grassland birds: Chestnut-collared Longspur (Version 28 MAY2004). Northern 

Prairie Wildlife Research Center, Jamestown, ND. Available from website on 

the Internet: 

<http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/literatr/grasbird/cclo/cclo.htm >. 

Dechant, J. A., M. L. Sondreal, D. H. Johnson, L. D. Igl, C. M. Goldade, P. A. 

Rabie, and B. R. Euliss. 2003c. Effects of management practices on grassland 

birds: McCown's Longspur (Version 12 AUG2004). Northern Prairie Wildlife 

Research Center, Jamestown, ND. Available from website on the Internet: 

<http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/literatr/grasbird/mclo/mclo.htm>. 

Dechant, J. A., M. L. Sondreal, D. H. Johnson, L. D. Igl, C. M. Goldade, M. P. 

Nenneman, and B. R. Euliss. 2003d. Effects of management practices on 

grassland birds: Mountain Plover (Version 12DEC2003). Northern Prairie 

Wildlife Research Center, Jamestown, ND. Available from website on the 

Internet: 

<http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/literatr/grasbird/mopl/mopl.htm>. 

Drut, M.S., J.A. Crawford, and M.A. Gregg. 1994. Brood habitat use by sage 

grouse in Oregon. Great Basin Naturalist 54:170-176. 

H-68 Draft EIS, West Antelope II Coal Lease Application 
 

 

 Appendix H 

Gregg, M.A., J.A. Crawford, M.S. Drut, and A.K. DeLong. 1994. Vegetational 

cover and predation of sage grouse nests in Oregon. J. Wildl. Manage. 58:162­

166. 

Grenier, Martin. 2003. An Evaluation of Black-footed Ferret Block Clearances 

in Wyoming: Completion Report. Wyoming Game and Fish Department. 

Lander, WY. 16pp. 

Hill, D.P. 1998. Status of the long-billed curlew (Numenius americanus) in 

Alberta. Alberta Environmental Protection, Wildlife Status Report No. 16, 

Edmonton, AB. 

Hill, D.P. and L.K. Gould. 1997. Chestnut-collared longspur (Calcarius 

ornatus). In The Birds of North America, No. 288 (A. Poole and F. Gill, Eds.) The 

Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, PA, and The American 

Ornithologists’ Union, Washington, D.C. 

Johnsgard, P.A. 1990. Hawks, eagles, and falcons of North America. 

Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C. 

Klute, D.S., L.W. Ayers, M.T. Green, W.H. Howe, S.L. Jones, J.A. Schaffer, S.R. 

Sheffield, and T.S. Zimmerman. 2003. Status Assessment and Conservation 

Plan for the Western Burrowing Owl in the United States. U.S. Department of 

Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Biological Technical Publication FWS/BTPR6001-2003, Washington. 

Knopf, F.L. 1996. Mountain plover (Charadrius montanus). In The Birds of 

North America, No. 211 (A. Poole and F. Gill, Eds.) The Academy of Natural 

Sciences, Philadelphia, PA, and The American Ornithologists’ Union, 

Washington, D.C. 

McKee, G. 2006. Nest Success and Survival of the Greater Sage-grouse 

(Centrocercus urophasianus) at the North Antelope Rochelle Surface Coal Mine 

in 2006. 2006 Summary Report. 

NatureServe. 2007. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web 

application]. Version 4.0. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available from 

website on the Internet as of January 8, 2007: 

<http://www.natureserve.org/explorer>. 

Northeast Wyoming Sage-grouse Working Group (NWSGWC), 2006, Northeast 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Conservation Plan. August 15. Available from website 

on the Internet as of 12/17/07: 

<http://gf.state.wy.us/wildlife/wildlife_management/sagegrouse/Northeast/N 

EConsvPlan.pdf>. 

Draft EIS, West Antelope II Coal Lease Application H-69 
 

 

 

Appendix H 

Prescott, D.R.C, and R.R. Bjorge. 1999. Status of the loggerhead shrike 

(Lanius ludovicianus) in Alberta. Alberta Environment, Wildlife Status Report 

No. 24, Edmonton, AB. 

Rotenberry, J.T., M.A. Patten, and K.L. Preston. 1999. Brewer’s sparrow 

(Spizella breweri). In The Birds of North America, No. 390 (A. Poole and F. Gill, 

Eds.) The Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, PA, and The American 

Ornithologists’ Union, Washington, D.C. 

Schmutz, J.K. 1989. Hawk occupancy of disturbed grasslands in relation to 

models of habitat selection. Condor 91:362-371. 

Schroeder, M.A, J.R. Young, and C.E. Braun. 1999. Sage grouse (Centrocercus 

urophasianus). In The Birds of North America, No. 425 (A. Poole and F. Gill, 

Eds.) The Birds of North America, Inc., Philadelphia, PA. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service (USDA-FS). 2002. Updated 

Land and Resource Management Plan for the Thunder Basin National 

Grassland, Medicine Bow-Routt National Forest, Rocky Mountain Region. 

USDA Forest Service, Medicine Bow-Routt national Forest, Rocky Mountain 

Regional Office, Denver, Colorado. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service. 2003. Thunder Basin National 

Grassland Wildlife GIS Data and Map. Unpubl. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service. 2007. Species Conservation 

Project: Region 2 Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species – Rocky Mountain 

Region. Available from website on the Internet as of June 2007: 

<http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/sensitivespecies/index.shtml> 

U.S. Department of Interior Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1989. Blackfooted ferret survey guidelines for compliance with the endangered species act. 

USFWS, Denver, Colorado, and Albuquerque, New Mexico. April 1989. 

Wagner, G. 1997. Status of the northern leopard frog (Rana pipiens) in Alberta. 

Alberta Environmental Protection, Wildlife Status Report No. 9, Edmonton, AB. 

Walker, B. 2004. Effects of management practices on grassland birds: 

Brewer's Sparrow. Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center, Jamestown, ND. 

Jamestown, ND: Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center Online. Available 

from website on the Internet: 

<http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/literatr/grasbird/brsp/brsp.htm 

(Version 12AUG2004)>. 

White, C.M. and T.L. Thurow. 1985. Reproduction of ferruginous hawks 

exposed to controlled disturbance. The Condor 87:14-22. 

H-70 Draft EIS, West Antelope II Coal Lease Application 
 

 Appendix H 

With, K.A. 1994. McCown’s longspur (Calcarius mccownii). In The Birds of 

North America, No. 96 (A. Poole and F. Gill, Eds.) The Academy of Natural 

Sciences, Philadelphia, PA, and The American Ornithologists’ Union, 

Washington, D.C. 

Yosef, R. 1996. Loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus). In The Birds of North 

America, No. 231 (A. Poole and F. Gill, Eds.) The Academy of Natural Sciences, 

Philadelphia, PA, and The American Ornithologists’ Union, Washington, D.C. 

Draft EIS, West Antelope II Coal Lease Application H-71 
APPENDIX I
 

BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT 

FOR THE WEST ANTELOPE II 

COAL LEASE APPLICATION EIS 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Appendix I
 

Page 

I-1.0 INTRODUCTION...............................................................................I-1
 

I-2.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES...I-4
 

I-2.1 The Proposed Action ...................................................................................I-4
 

I-2.2 Alternatives to the Proposed Action..........................................................I-6
 

I-2.2.1 Alternative 1 ..........................................................................................I-6
 

I-2.2.2 Alternative 2 ..........................................................................................I-7
 

I-2.2.3 Alternative 3 ..........................................................................................I-9
 

I-3.0 CONSULTATION TO DATE ...............................................................I-9
 

I-4.0 SPECIES HABITAT AND OCCURRENCE AND EFFECTS OF THE 

PROPOSED PROJECT....................................................................I-10
 

I-4.1 Threatened Species ...................................................................................I-12
 

I-4.1.1 Ute ladies’-tresses orchid (Spiranthes diluvialis) ............................I-12
 

I-4.2 Endangered Species..................................................................................I-15
 

I-4.2.1 Black-footed ferret (Mustela nigripes)...............................................I-15
 

I-5.0 SUMMARY OF DETERMINATIONS .................................................I-17
 

I-6.0 REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS AND MITIGATION........................I-18
 

I-7.0 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS.................................................................I-19
 

I-8.0 CREDENTIALS OF SURVEY PERSONNEL ......................................I-23
 

I-9.0 REFERENCES AND LITERATURE CITED .......................................I-25
 

LIST OF TABLES 

Table I-1.	 Effects Determination of Federal T&E Species in the West 

Antelope II General Analysis Area.............................................I-18
 

LIST OF FIGURES 

Figure I-1.	 General Location Map with Federal Coal Leases and LBA 

Tracts ........................................................................................I-2
 

Figure I-2.	 West Antelope II LBA Alternative Tract Configurations................I-3
 

Draft EIS, West Antelope II Coal Lease Application I-i 
 

Appendix I 

I-1.0 INTRODUCTION 

On April 6, 2005, Antelope Coal Company (ACC1

) filed an application with the 

BLM to lease the federal coal reserves included in a maintenance coal tract 

under the regulations at 43 CFR 3425: Leasing on Application. Antelope Coal 

Company, a directly held subsidiary of Rio Tinto Energy America, operates the 

Antelope Mine in Campbell and Converse Counties, Wyoming. The 

environmental impacts of leasing the maintenance coal tract are being 

evaluated in the West Antelope II Coal Lease Application EIS. The tract, 

referred to as the West Antelope II LBA tract, and applicant mine are shown in 

Figures I-1 and I-2. 

The purpose of this Biological Assessment is to provide information about the 

potential effects that leasing lands in the West Antelope II general analysis area 

would have on federally listed threatened or endangered species. T&E species 

are managed under the authority of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (PL 

93-205, as amended). The ESA requires federal agencies to ensure that all 

actions which they authorize, fund, or carry out are not likely to jeopardize the 

continued existence of any federally listed species or result in the destruction 

or adverse modification of their critical habitat. BLM does not authorize 

mining by issuing a lease for federal coal, but the impacts of mining the coal 

are considered at the leasing stage because it is a logical consequence of 

issuing a lease. 

This Biological Assessment was prepared to disclose the possible effects to T&E 

species (plant and animal) that are known to be present or that may be present 

within the area influenced by the Proposed Action and the alternatives to the 

Proposed Action being evaluated by the BLM. It was prepared in accordance 

with Section 7 of the ESA. 

Biological Assessment objectives are: 

1. To comply with the requirements of the ESA that actions of federal 

agencies not jeopardize or adversely modify critical habitat of federally 

listed species. 

2. To provide a process and standard by which to ensure that threatened or 

endangered species receive full consideration in the decision making 

process. 

Refer to page xv of the West Antelope II LBA EIS for a list of abbreviations and acronyms

used in this document. 

Draft EIS, West Antelope II Coal Lease Application I-1 

1 
 

E

E

E

Appendix I 

ST59 LEGEND

¥¦

West Hay Creek Existing Coal Leases (Prior to Decertification) 

tu

90 

16 

tu

tu

16 

14 

LBA's Issued
 

Hay Creek II
 Belco I90 LBA's Pending Exchange Lease LBA Tract As Applied For (This EIS) Buckskin Mine 

Urban Area 

County Boundary Rawhide Mine 

Eagle Butte Mine 

Eagle Butte West Dry Fork Mine 

Eagle Butte 

Wyodak Mine 

¥¦Rozet

90

GILLETTE

To Buffalo38 Miles 

Campbell County
 

Crook County
 

Moorcroft

¥¦90

West Rocky Butte 

Caballo West 

Belle Ayr North Caballo Mine 

Belle Ayr Mine 

Johnson County 

Campbell County 

Cordero-Rojo Mine 

ST50 Maysdorf 

Maysdorf II 

West Coal Creek 

Coal Creek Mine 

ST59

Weston County 

West Jacobs Ranch 

Hilight Field 

Thundercloud Little Thunder 

ST116

North Jacobs Ranch RENO Jacobs JUNCTION Ranch 

Jacobs Ranch Mine 

WRIGHT West Black Thunder West Hilight 

Black Thunder Mine 

ST387 West Roundup ST450 North Rochelle 

School Creek Mine 

To Newcastle 

29 Miles 

NARO North 

Powder River Porcupine North Antelope/ Rochelle 

0 £ Campbell County 

Converse County 

10 

Horse Creek 

West Antelope 

West Antelope II 

20 ST59

Weston County 

Niobrara County 

NARO South 

North Antelope / Rochelle Mine 

Antelope Mine 

To Douglas 

GRAPHIC SCALE - MILES 46 Miles

Figure I-1. General Location Map with Federal Coal Leases and LBA Tracts. 

I-2 Draft EIS, West Antelope II Coal Lease Application 
Appendix I
 

Campbell County 

Converse County 

B.N.S.F. & U.P RR 

North Antelope / Rochelle 

Rail Line 

Antelope Road 

County Road 37 

T. 

40 

N. 

R. 72 W. R. 70 W. 

T. 

41 

N. 

T. 

41 

N. 

R. 71 W. 

T. 

40 

N. 

R. 71 W. 

R. 72 W. R. 71 W. R. 71 W. R. 70 W. 

7 8 9

8 9 8

7 8 

7 7

9 

1 

5 4 3 2 1 5

9 

6 6

1 6 4 3 2 1 6 5

4 

5 

11 

12 

22 

11 

27 

13 

24 

15 

24 

10 

4 

20 

26 

18 

19 

17 

30 

20 21 

29 

23 

15 

14 

29 28 

24 

14 13 

16 

12 

23 22 

30 

12 

13 17

16 

20 

25 

19 

17 18 

32 

17 

34 

10 

21 

18 

19 

13 

31 32 31

12 

33 35 

18 

36 

19 20

25 

24 

36 

28 

33 

21 

16 

21 

16 

25 30 29 28 27 26 25 30 29 28 

2 

11 

14 

23 

26 

!(59 

£ 0 8,000 16,000 

GRAPHIC SCALE (FEET) 

LEGEND 

Antelope Mine Permit Boundary 

Existing AntelopeMine Federal Coal Leases 

State Coal Lease 

West Antelope II LBA Tract As Applied For 

Area Added under Alternative 1 

North Tract (Alternative 2) 

South Tract (Alternative 2) 

Figure I-2. West Antelope II LBA Alternative Tract Configurations. 

Draft EIS, West Antelope II Coal Lease Application I-3
 

Appendix I 

I-2.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES 

I-2.1 The Proposed Action 

The West Antelope II LBA tract is located west of and immediately adjacent to 

the Antelope Mine. Under the Proposed Action, the tract would be offered for 

lease as applied for at a sealed-bid, competitive lease sale. The boundaries of 

the tract would be consistent with the tract configuration proposed by the 

applicant (Figure I-2). As applied for, the West Antelope II LBA tract consists of 

two non-contiguous blocks of federal coal. The Proposed Action assumes that 

AM would be the successful bidder on the tract, and that the tract would be 

mined as a maintenance lease for an existing mine. 

The legal description of the proposed West Antelope II LBA tract coal lease 

lands as applied for by ACC under the Proposed Action is as follows: 

T.41N., R.71W., 6th P.M., Campbell County, Wyoming 

Section 9: Lots 9 through 16: 330.68 acres 

Section 10: Lots 11 through 15: 203.00 acres 

Section 14: Lots 3 and 4: 82.64 acres 

Section 15: Lots 1 through 5, 12, and 13: 289.35 acres 

Section 20: Lots 14 through 16: 122.89 acres 

Section 21: Lots 1 through 16: 651.74 acres 

Section 22: Lots 2, 7, 8, and 14 through 16: 252.93 acres 

Section 27: Lots 6 through 11: 250.51 acres 

Section 28: Lots 1 through 8: 322.50 acres 

Section 29: Lots 1 through 3 and 6 through 8: 247.76 acres 

T.40N., R.71W., 6th P.M., Converse County, Wyoming 

Section 5: Lot 18: 

Section 8: Lots 1 through 3, 6 through 11, and 14 through 16: 478.14 acres 

Section 9: Lots 2 through 16: 597.22 acres 

Section 10: Lots 5, 6, and 11 through 14: 238.99 acres 

Total: 4,108.60 acres 

The coal estate underlying this tract is owned by the federal government and 

administered by the BLM. The surface estate on this tract is privately owned. 

The tract as applied for includes approximately 4,108.60 mineable acres. It is 

assumed that an area larger than the tract would have to be disturbed in order 

to recover all of the coal in the tract. The disturbances outside of the tract 

would be due to activities like overstripping, matching undisturbed topography, 

and construction of flood control and sediment control structures. 

Under the Proposed Action for the West Antelope II LBA tract, if a decision is 

made to hold a competitive lease sale and if there is a successful bidder at that 

I-4 Draft EIS, West Antelope II Coal Lease Application 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix I 

sale, a lease would be issued for the federal coal tract as applied for. The tract 

offered for lease would be subject to standard and special lease stipulations 

developed for the Wyoming PRB. The stipulations that would be attached to a 

lease for the West Antelope II LBA tract are listed in Appendix D of the West 

Antelope II Coal Lease Application EIS. The following stipulation relating to 

T&E species is one of the special stipulations developed for the Wyoming PRB: 

THREATENED, ENDANGERED, CANDIDATE, or OTHER SPECIAL STATUS 

PLANT and ANIMAL SPECIES – The lease area may now or hereafter 

contain plants, animals, or their habitats determined to be threatened or 

endangered under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, 16 

U.S.C. 1531 et seq., or that have other special status. The Authorized Officer 

may recommend modifications to exploration and development proposals to 

further conservation and management objectives or to avoid activity that will 

contribute to a need to list such species or their habitat or to comply with any 

biological opinion issued by the Fish and Wildlife Service for the Proposed 

Action. The Authorized Officer will not approve any ground-disturbing activity 

that may affect any such species or critical habitat until it completes its 

obligations under applicable requirements of the Endangered Species Act. The 

Authorized Officer may require modifications to, or disapprove a proposed 

activity that is likely to result in jeopardy to the continued existence of a 

proposed or listed threatened or endangered species, or result in the 

destruction or adverse modification of designated or proposed critical habitat. 

The lessee shall comply with instructions from the Authorized Officer of the 

surface managing agency (BLM, if the surface is private) for ground disturbing 

activities associated with coal exploration on federal coal leases prior to 

approval of a mining and reclamation permit or outside an approved mining 

and reclamation permit area. The lessee shall comply with instructions from 

the Authorized Officer of the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and 

Enforcement, or his designated representative, for all ground disturbing 

activities taking place within an approved mining and reclamation permit area 

or associated with such a permit. 

The coal mining unsuitability criteria listed in the federal coal management 

regulations (43 CFR 3461) have been applied to high to moderate coal 

development potential lands in the Wyoming PRB (see Section I-3.0 for further 

discussion). As indicated in Chapter 1, Section 1.5 and Appendix B of the West 

Antelope II Coal Lease Application EIS, some of the above described lands in 

the West Antelope II LBA tract are unsuitable for mining due to the presence of 

the BNSF & UP railroad ROW and ROWs for State and County roads. Although 

the coal would not be recovered from these lands, they are included in the tract 

to allow maximum recovery of all the mineable coal outside of the ROWs and 

associated buffer zones and to comply with the coal leasing regulations, which 

do not allow leasing of less than 10-acre aliquot parts. A stipulation stating 

that no mining activity may be conducted in the portion of the lease within the 

ROWs will be attached if a lease is issued for this tract. 

Draft EIS, West Antelope II Coal Lease Application I-5 
Appendix I 

Under the Proposed Action, it is assumed that the LBA tract would be 

developed as a maintenance lease to extend the life of the adjacent existing 

Antelope Mine. As a result, under the Proposed Action, the coal included in the 

tract would be mined by existing employees, using existing facilities and roads. 

I-2.2 Alternatives to the Proposed Action 

I-2.2.1 Alternative 1 

Under Alternative 1 for the West Antelope II LBA tract, BLM would reconfigure 

the tract and hold one competitive coal sale for the lands included in the 

reconfigured tract and issue a lease to the successful bidder. The modified tract 

would be subject to standard and special lease stipulations developed for the 

PRB and for this tract if it is offered for sale. Alternative 1 for the West 

Antelope II LBA tract assumes that AM would be the successful bidder on the 

tract if a lease sale is held and that the federal coal would be mined as a 

maintenance lease for the existing Antelope Mine. Other assumptions are the 

same as for the Proposed Action. 

As applied for, the West Antelope II LBA tract consists of two non-contiguous 

blocks of federal coal. In evaluating the West Antelope II coal lease application, 

BLM identified a study area which includes unleased federal coal adjacent to 

the northeastern, western, and southern edges of the tract as applied for. BLM 

is evaluating the potential that some or all of these lands could be added to the 

area to be offered for lease to provide for more efficient recovery of the federal 

coal, increase competitive interest in the West Antelope II LBA tract, and/or 

reduce the potential that some potentially mineable federal coal in this area 

would be bypassed if it is not included in the West Antelope II LBA tract. 

Under Alternative 1, the BLM could add all or part of the following lands to the 

West Antelope II LBA tract as applied for: 

T.41N., R.71W., 6th P.M., Campbell County, Wyoming 

Section 10: Lots 9, 10, and 16: 123.42 acres 

Section 11: Lots 13 and14: 85.03 acres 

Section 20: Lots 9 through 13: 204.29 acres 

Section 29: Lots 4 and 5: 81.71 acres 

T.41N., R.71W., 6th P.M., Converse County, Wyoming 

Section 29: Lots 12 and 13: 81.09 acres 

Section 32: Lots 4, 5, 12, and 13: 162.36 acres 

T.40N., R.71W., 6th P.M., Converse County, Wyoming 

Section 5: Lots 8, 9, 16, and 17: 119.54 acres 

Section 8: Lots 4, 5, 12, and13: 159.52 acres 

Section 14: Lot 13: 39.99 acres 

Section 15: Lots 2 through 7, and 10 through 16: 514.01 acres 

I-6 Draft EIS, West Antelope II Coal Lease Application 
 

 

Appendix I 

Section 17: Lots 1 through 16: 629.62 acres 

Total: 2,200.58 acres 

The legal description of the Alternative 1 reconfiguration of the West Antelope II 

LBA tract is as follows: 

T.41N., R.71W., 6th P.M., Campbell County, Wyoming 

Section 9: Lots 9 through 16: 330.68 acres 

Section 10: Lots 9 through 16: 326.42 acres 

Section 11: Lots 13 and14: 85.03 acres 

Section 14: Lots 3 and 4: 82.64 acres 

Section 15: Lots 1 through 5, 12, and 13: 289.35 acres 

Section 20: Lots 9 through 16: 327.18 acres 

Section 21: Lots 1 through 16: 651.74 acres 

Section 22: Lots 2, 7, 8, and 14 through 16: 252.93 acres 

Section 27: Lots 6 through 11: 250.51 acres 

Section 28: Lots 1 through 8: 322.50 acres 

Section 29: Lots 1 through 8: 329.47 acres 

T.41N., R.71W., 6th P.M., Converse County, Wyoming 

Section 29: Lots 12 and 13: 81.09 acres 

Section 32: Lots 4, 5, 12, and 13: 162.36 acres 

T.40N., R.71W., 6th P.M., Converse County, Wyoming 

Section 5: Lots 8, 9, and 16 through 18: 159.79 acres 

Section 8: Lots 1 through 16: 637.66 acres 

Section 9: Lots 2 through 16: 597.22 acres 

Section 10: Lots 5, 6, and 11 through 14: 238.99 acres 

Section 14: Lot 13: 39.99 acres 

Section 15: Lots 2 through 7, and 10 through 16: 514.01 acres 

Section 17: Lots 1 through 16: 629.62 acres 

Total: 6,309.18 acres 

I-2.2.2 Alternative 2 

Under Alternative 2 for the West Antelope II LBA tract, BLM is considering 

dividing the tract as applied for into two tracts and offering one or both of those 

tracts for sale. A separate, competitive sealed bid sale would be held for each 

tract that is offered for sale, and each tract would be subject to standard and 

special lease stipulations developed for the PRB and for that tract. If one or 

both of the tracts are offered for lease, Alternative 2 for the West Antelope II 

LBA tract assumes that AM would be the successful bidder and that the federal 

coal would be mined to extend the life of the existing Antelope Mine. Other 

Draft EIS, West Antelope II Coal Lease Application I-7 
Appendix I 

assumptions would be the same as for the West Antelope II LBA tract Proposed 

Action. 

As discussed under Alternative 1, the West Antelope II LBA tract consists of 

two non-contiguous blocks of federal coal. Under Alternative 2, the West 

Antelope II North LBA Tract would consist of the northernmost block of coal 

and the West Antelope II South LBA Tract would consist of the southern block 

of coal. BLM is considering dividing the tract because the northern tract would 

potentially be of competitive interest to more than one mine. 

As discussed under Alternative 1, BLM has identified a study area which 

includes unleased federal coal adjacent to the northeastern, western, and 

southern edges of the tract as applied for. BLM is evaluating the potential that 

adding some or all of these lands to the area offered for lease would provide for 

more efficient recovery of the federal coal, increase competitive interest in the 

West Antelope II LBA tract, and/or reduce the potential that some of the 

remaining unleased federal coal in this area would be bypassed in the future. 

Under Alternative 2, the BLM could add all, part, or none of the study area to 

the West Antelope II LBA tract application area. 

The lands that BLM is considering including in the north tract are: 

T.41N., R.71W., 6th P.M., Campbell County, Wyoming 

Section 9: Lots 9 through 16: 330.68 acres 

Section 10: Lots 9 through 16: 326.42 acres 

Section 11: Lots 13 and14: 85.03 acres 

Section 14: Lots 3 and 4: 82.64 acres 

Section 15: Lots 1 through 5, 12, and 13: 289.35 acres 

Section 20: Lots 9 through 16: 327.18 acres 

Section 21: Lots 1 through 16: 651.74 acres 

Section 22: Lots 2, 7, 8, and 14 through 16: 252.93 acres 

Section 27: Lots 6 through 11: 250.51 acres 

Section 28: Lots 1 through 8: 322.50 acres 

Section 29: Lots 1 through 8: 329.47 acres 

Total: 3,248.45 acres 

The lands that BLM is considering including in the south tract are: 

T.41N., R.71W., 6th P.M., Converse County, Wyoming 

Section 29: Lots 12 and 13: 81.09 acres 

Section 32: Lots 4, 5, 12, and 13: 162.36 acres 

T.40N., R.71W., 6th P.M., Converse County, Wyoming 

Section 5: Lots 8, 9, and 16 through 18: 159.79 acres 

Section 8: Lots 1 through 16: 637.66 acres 

Section 9: Lots 2 through 16: 597.22 acres 

I-8 Draft EIS, West Antelope II Coal Lease Application 
 

Appendix I 

Section 10: Lots 5, 6, and 11 through 14: 238.99 acres 

Section 14: Lot 13: 39.99 acres 

Section 15: Lots 2 through 7, and 10 through 16: 514.01 acres 

Section 17: Lots 1 through 16: 629.62 acres 

Total: 3,060.73 acres 

The south tract includes approximately 240 acres of Thunder Basin National 

Grassland (TBNG) administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture–Forest 

Service (USDA-FS). TBNG lands include Section 14, Lot 13 and Section 15, 

Lots 2, 7, 10, 15, and 16. 

I-2.2.3 Alternative 3 

Under the West Antelope II LBA tract Alternative 3, the No Action Alternative, 

ACC’s application to lease the coal included in the West Antelope II LBA tract 

would be rejected, the tract would not be offered for competitive sale at this 

time, and the coal included in the tract would not be mined. This would not 

affect permitted mining activities and employment on the existing leases at 

Antelope Mine and would not preclude an application to lease the federal coal 

included in the West Antelope II LBA tract in the future. Portions of the 

surface of the West Antelope II LBA tract would be disturbed due to 

overstripping to allow coal to be removed from the adjacent existing leases. 

I-3.0 CONSULTATION TO DATE 

The locations of the existing Antelope Mine coal leases, the existing approved 

mine permit area, and the West Antelope II LBA tract are shown in Figure I-2. 

The Antelope Mine and West Antelope II LBA tract are included in the area 

determined to be “acceptable for further consideration for leasing” as part of 

the coal screening process. The coal screening process is a four part process 

that includes application of the coal unsuitability criteria, which are defined in 

43 CFR 3461.5. BLM has applied these coal screens to federal coal lands in 

Campbell County several times, starting in the early 1980s. Most recently, in 

1993, BLM began the process of reapplying these screens to federal coal lands 

in Campbell, Converse, and Sheridan Counties. The results of this analysis 

were included as Appendix D of the 2001 Approved Resource Management Plan 

for Public Lands Administered by the BLM Buffalo Field Office (BLM 2001a), 

which can be viewed on the Wyoming BLM website at http://www.wy.blm.gov 

in the NEPA documents section. Consultation with the USFWS occurred in 

conjunction with the unsuitability findings under Criterion 9 (Critical Habitat 

for Threatened or Endangered Plant and Animal Species), Criterion 11 (Bald or 

Golden Eagle Nests), Criterion 12 (Bald and Golden Eagle Roost and 

Concentration Areas), Criterion 13 (Falcon Nesting Site(s) and Buffer Zone(s)), 

and Criterion 14 (Habitat for Migratory Bird Species). 

Draft EIS, West Antelope II Coal Lease Application I-9 
 

Appendix I 

Appendix B of the West Antelope II Coal Lease Application EIS summarizes the 

unsuitability criteria, describes the general findings for the screening analyses 

discussed above, and presents a validation of these findings for the West 

Antelope II LBA general analysis area based on the current information. 

I-4.0 SPECIES HABITAT AND OCCURRENCE AND EFFECTS OF THE 

PROPOSED PROJECT 

The Antelope Mine initiated baseline investigations in 2006 expressly for the 

West Antelope II LBA tract. Due to its proximity to existing mines, the 

proposed lease area has also received extensive coverage during baseline and 

annual wildlife monitoring surveys for nearly 30 years. Both types of wildlife 

surveys encompass a large perimeter around mine permit areas. 

Consequently, all but the northern third of the West Antelope II LBA tract has 

been included in multiple baseline studies and annual wildlife monitoring 

efforts associated with the Antelope Mine since the early 1980s. The wildlife 

monitoring was designed to meet the WDEQ/LQD, WGFD, and federal 

requirements for annual monitoring and reporting of wildlife activity on coal 

mining areas. Detailed procedures and site-specific requirements have been 

carried out as approved by WGFD and USFWS. The monitoring programs were 

conducted in accordance with Appendix B of WDEQ/LQD Coal Rules and 

Regulations. 

The approved Antelope Mine Permit 525 Term T7 includes monitoring and 

mitigation measures for the Antelope Mine that are required by SMCRA and 

Wyoming State Law. If the West Antelope II LBA tract is acquired by AM, these 

monitoring and mitigation measures would be extended to cover operations on 

the LBA tract when the Antelope Mine’s mining permit is amended to include 

the tract. This amended permit would have to be approved before mining 

operations could take place on the tract. These monitoring and mitigation 

measures are considered to be part of the Proposed Action and the Alternatives 

1 and 2 during the leasing process because they are regulatory requirements. 

Background information on wildlife in the vicinity of the West Antelope II 

general analysis area was obtained from several sources, including the South 

Powder River Basin Coal FEIS (BLM 2003), records from the WGFD, BLM, 

USFWS, and USDA-FS, and personal contact with biologists from those four 

agencies. Site-specific data for the West Antelope II LBA general analysis area 

were obtained from several sources, including WDEQ/LQD mine permit 

applications and annual wildlife monitoring reports for the applicant and the 

neighboring North Antelope Rochelle coal mine, the FEIS for the West Antelope 

Coal Lease Application (BLM 2001b), the FEIS for the Horse Creek Coal Lease 

Application (BLM 2000), and the FEA for the Antelope Coal Lease Application 

(BLM 1995). 

The West Antelope II LBA is dominated by rolling topography, with a few small 

areas of steeper and more heavily dissected terrain. The general analysis area 

I-10 Draft EIS, West Antelope II Coal Lease Application 
Appendix I 

is also characterized primarily by broken rolling hills and uplands, along with 

some prominent ridgelines and more level terrain along the terraces of Antelope 

and Spring Creeks. Surface mine lands, both active and reclaimed, dominate 

the landscape east and northeast of the southern portion of the tract. 

Elevations range from approximately 4,500 to 5,100 feet above sea level. 

Predominant wildlife habitat types classified on the general analysis area 

correspond with the major plant communities defined during the vegetation 

baseline survey, and consist primarily (approximately 67 percent) of various 

upland grasslands. Included within those grasslands are black-tailed prairie 

dog (Cynomys ludovicianus) colonies, roughlands and coulees, and treated 

grazing lands (“treated grazing land” is defined in WDEQ/LQD Rules, Chapter 

1, section 2 (xi)). Smaller proportions (less than 1 to approximately 17 percent) 

of other habitat types are also present, including big sagebrush, birdsfoot 

sagebrush, grassy bottomland, disturbed land, water, silver sagebrush 

lowland, and greasewood lowland. Mesic habitats include limited treed 

riparian corridors, and are restricted to narrow bands along primary drainages 

of Antelope Creek, Spring Creek, and Horse Creek as they pass through or 

adjacent to the general analysis area. Cheatgrass and crested wheatgrass have 

invaded some areas, and a growing network of road and well-pad disturbance 

areas occur in grasslands and sagebrush grasslands, especially in the north. A 

few oil tank batteries and increasing numbers of natural gas pipelines and 

facilities are also present, with pipeline disturbance corridors in varying 

degrees of activity and recovering vegetative cover. No designated critical, 

crucial, or unique habitats are present. 

Antelope Creek and Spring Creek (a primary tributary of Antelope Creek) flow 

generally west to east across the narrow band of the West Antelope II LBA tract 

that connects the north and south blocks under the Action Alternatives. Horse 

Creek, another primary tributary of Antelope Creek, flows north to south 

through the northern-most extent of the LBA tract. All three drainages are 

classified as ephemeral streams in this area. Numerous named and unnamed 

ephemeral tributaries of these creeks also drain portions of the LBA tract. 

Several stock reservoirs are scattered throughout those drainages, and all are 

constructed with earthen berms or dams. Those water bodies provide shortterm habitat of variable quality for migrating waterfowl, shorebirds, and other 

aquatic species (birds, fish, herptiles) during spring but are less reliable, and 

often dry, during other seasons. Antelope’s approved WDEQ/LQD mine permit 

allows disturbance of Spring Creek and Horse Creek, but requires a buffer of 

100 feet on either side of Antelope Creek. The channels of the two tributary 

creeks have been, or will likely be disturbed, whereas Antelope Creek will not. 

Wetland inventories were based on USFWS NWI mapping, 2006-2007 

vegetation mapping in the field, and wetland inventories completed for mine 

permit areas within or adjacent to the general analysis area. The wetland 

analysis area includes the West Antelope II tract as applied for, the lands 

Draft EIS, West Antelope II Coal Lease Application I-11 
Appendix I 

added under Alternatives, and a 1⁄4-mile disturbance buffer for lands not 

located within a currently approved mine permit area. Some wetland areas 

previously mapped by the USFWS NWI project have been recently altered 

somewhat due to CBNG-related water production within and upstream of the 

general analysis area. Within the entire wetland analysis area (9,520.8 total 

acres, of which 2,115.5 acres are within the current Antelope Mine permit 

area), a total of approximately 42.9 acres of wetlands and Other Waters of the 

U.S. have been identified. Of this 42.9 acres identified, approximately 31.7 

acres are vegetated wetlands and the remaining 11.2 acres are pond or channel 

Other Waters of the U.S. The majority of the wetlands are associated with 

Antelope Creek, Horse Creek, and Spring Creek stream channels. The majority 

of the channel Other Waters of the U.S. are associated with the ephemeral 

stream channels present on the area. Non-jurisdictional wetlands or other 

waters of the U.S. were included in the above acreages and were not identified 

separately in the study area because only the COE has the authorization to 

make such determinations. 

A formal wetland delineation has been confirmed by the COE for the wetlands 

and other waters in the 2,116 acres of the wetland analysis area that lie within 

Antelope Coal Mine’s current permit area. Wetland inventories covering the 

remainder of the wetland analysis area have been conducted but have not yet 

been submitted to the COE for verification. This wetland inventory would be 

submitted to the COE for verification as part of the process of obtaining a 

surface coal mining permit. In Wyoming, once the delineation has been 

verified, it is made a part of the mine permit document. The reclamation plan 

is then revised to incorporate the replacement of at least equal types and 

numbers of jurisdictional wetland acreages. 

Within the proposed lease area and adjacent study area, no designated critical, 

crucial, or unique habitats designated by USFWS for T&E species are present. 

The following discussion describes species’ habitat requirements and their 

occurrence in the area of the West Antelope II LBA tract and evaluates the 

potential environmental effects of the Proposed Action and Alternatives 1 and 2 

on federally listed species. 

I-4.1 Threatened Species 

I-4.1.1 Ute ladies’-tresses orchid (Spiranthes diluvialis) 

Ute ladies’-tresses, a member of the orchid family, was listed as threatened on 

January 17, 1992 due to a variety of factors, including habitat loss and 

modification, hydrological modifications of existing and potential habitat areas, 

and invasion of exotic plant species. At the time of listing, Ute ladies’-tresses 

was only known from Colorado, Utah, and extreme eastern Nevada. Ute 

ladies’-tresses orchids were discovered in Wyoming in 1993. It is currently 

known from western Nebraska, eastern Wyoming, north-central Colorado, 

I-12 Draft EIS, West Antelope II Coal Lease Application 
 

Appendix I 

northeastern and southern Utah, east-central and southeastern Idaho, 

southwestern Montana, and central Washington. 

Biology and Habitat Requirements: Ute ladies’-tresses is a perennial, 

terrestrial orchid with erect, glandular-pubescent stems 8 to 20 inches tall 

arising from tuberous-thickened roots. This species typically flowers from late 

July through August. The flowers are white or ivory and clustered into a spike 

at the top of the stem; however, depending on location and climatic conditions, 

it may bloom in early July or still be in flower as late as early October (USFWS 

2005). Plants probably do not flower every year and may remain dormant 

below ground during drought years. The total known number of individuals of 

this species is currently estimated to be 83,000 individuals (Fertig et. al. 2005). 

Occurrences range in size from one plant to a few hundred individuals. 

Ute ladies’-tresses occurs primarily on moist, subirrigated or seasonally flooded 

soils bordering wetland meadows, springs, lakes, or perennial streams. The 

elevation range of known occurrences is 4,200 to 7,000 feet in alluvial 

substrates along riparian edges, gravel bars, old oxbows, and moist to wet 

meadows. Soils where the orchid has been found typically range from fine 

silt/sand to gravels and cobbles, as well as to highly organic and peaty soil 

types. The Ute ladies’-tresses orchid is not found in heavy or tight clay soils or 

in extremely saline or alkaline soils. The orchid seems intolerant of shade and 

small scattered groups are found primarily in areas where vegetation is 

relatively open (USFWS 2005). Ute ladies’-tresses orchid is commonly 

associated with horsetail, milkweed, verbena, blue-eyed grass, reedgrass, 

goldenrod, bentgrass, and arrowgrass. 

Populations are often dynamic and “move” within a watershed as disturbances 

create new habitat or succession eliminates old habitat (Fertig and Beauvais 

1999). The orchid is well adapted to disturbances from stream movement and 

is tolerant of other disturbances, such as grazing, that are common to 

grassland riparian habitats (USFWS 1995). Ute ladies’-tresses colonize early 

successional riparian habitats such as point bars, sand bars, and low-lying 

gravelly, sandy, or cobbley edges, persisting in those areas where the hydrology 

provides continual dampness in the root zone through the growing season. 

The orchid establishes in heavily disturbed sites, such as revegetated gravel 

pits, heavily grazed riparian edges, and along well-traveled foot trails on old 

berms (USFWS 1995). 

Prior to 2005, four orchid populations had been documented within Wyoming, 

all discovered between 1993 and 1997 (Fertig and Beauvais 1999). Four 

additional sites were located in 2005 and one additional site was found in 2006 

(Heidel, 2007). The new locations were in the same drainages or tributaries as 

the original four populations. Drainages with documented orchid populations 

include Antelope Creek and tributaries in northern Converse County, Bear 

Creek in northern Laramie and southern Goshen Counties, Horse Creek in 

Laramie County, and Niobrara River in Niobrara County. No occurrences have 

Draft EIS, West Antelope II Coal Lease Application I-13 
 

Appendix I 

been recorded in Campbell County or in the West Antelope II general analysis 

area in Converse County. 

Existing Environment: Areas of suitable habitat within the West Antelope II 

LBA tract and adjacent study area were surveyed by Intermountain Resources 

on August 16-17 of 2006 and July 25-27, August 3-5, and August 16-19 of 

2007. Surveys were also conducted on portions of these areas in 1997, 1998 

and 2004. The Ute ladies’-tresses orchid was not found during any of these 

surveys. 

Topographical and wetland delineation maps for the study area were reviewed 

to identify all potential drainages that may contain the orchid. Suitable habitat 

factors included less steep stream banks, light soil texture and well drained 

soils, close lateral or vertical distance to perennial water source during the 

flowering period, lack of plant competition, lack of general soil alkalinity/ 

salinity, and current or historical management practices that did not promote 

overgrazing and extensive use of riparian areas. Suitable habitat was traversed 

on foot during the time of actual flowering of the known population, and 

involved walking entire lengths of the drainages documenting locations of 

potential habitat and searching for this species. 

Most of the suitable habitat within the West Antelope II LBA tract and adjacent 

study area is found along Antelope Creek, Horse Creek, and Spring Creek. 

These drainages, which flow generally from west to east through portions of the 

West Antelope II LBA tract, are classified as ephemeral streams in this area. 

Limited portions of these drainages may receive recharge from bank storage 

making them locally intermittent. In response to surface discharge of 

groundwater associated with CBNG development on or upstream of the West 

Antelope II LBA tract, which is a relatively recent phenomenon, streamflow 

occurrence is now more persistent and some drainage channels are seldom 

completely dry. Several unnamed and named ephemeral tributaries of these 

creeks also drain portions of the West Antelope II LBA tract. There are also 

several stock reservoirs on the tract. The stock reservoirs are present on these 

ephemeral drainages and all are constructed earthen berms or dams. These 

ponds generally contain water only in early spring, then dry up in summer. 

There is a total of approximately 42.9 acres of wetlands and Other Waters of 

the U.S., including approximately 31.7 acres of vegetated wetlands and 11.2 

acres of pond or channel Other Waters of the U.S. within the West Antelope II 

general analysis area. 

No Ute ladies’-tresses orchids were located during the 1997, 1998, 2004, 2006, 

or 2007 surveys conducted in potential habitats on the West Antelope II 

general analysis area (Intermountain Resources 2007). 

Effects of the Proposed Project: Mining the federal coal included in the West 

Antelope II general analysis area, if the tract is leased under the Proposed 

I-14 Draft EIS, West Antelope II Coal Lease Application 
Appendix I 

Action or Alternatives, may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect Ute 

ladies’-tresses. Potential suitable habitat for this species is present on the 

tract along Antelope Creek, Horse Creek, and Spring Creek. Outside of these 

drainages, potential suitable habitat is rare in the study area. Surveys of the 

existing suitable habitat at the Antelope Mine and other mines in this area 

have not found any Ute ladies’-tresses. Because of the ability of this species to 

persist below ground or above ground without flowering, single season surveys 

that meet the current USFWS survey guidelines may not detect populations. If 

undetected populations are present, they would be lost due to surface 

disturbing activities. 

Jurisdictional wetlands located in the West Antelope II LBA tract that are 

destroyed by mining operations would be replaced in accordance with the 

requirements of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, as determined by the U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers. The replaced wetlands may not duplicate the exact 

function and landscape features of the pre-mine wetlands. COE considers the 

type and function of each jurisdictional wetland that will be impacted and may 

require restoration of additional acres if the type and function of the restored 

wetlands will not completely replace the type and function of the original 

wetland. Replacement of non-jurisdictional and functional wetlands may be 

required by the surface land owner and/or WDEQ/LQD. WDEQ/LQD allows 

and sometimes requires mitigation of non-jurisdictional wetlands affected by 

mining, depending on the values associated with the wetland features. 

WDEQ/LQD also requires replacement of playas with hydrologic significance. 

Cumulative Effects: Alterations of stream morphology and hydrology are 

believed to have extirpated Ute ladies’-tresses from most of its historical range 

(USFWS 2002). Disturbance and reclamation of streams by surface coal 

mining may alter stream morphology and hydrology. The large quantities of 

water produced with CBNG development and discharged on the surface may 

also alter stream morphology and hydrology. 

I-4.2 Endangered Species 

I-4.2.1 Black-footed ferret (Mustela nigripes) 

The black-footed ferret is a nocturnal mammal and an obligate associate of 

prairie dogs (Cynomys spp.). Ferrets were listed as endangered in March, 

1967. This species is thought to have historically inhabited prairie dog 

colonies in the short-grass prairies of the eastern and southern Rockies, and 

across the Great Plains of North America. However, since the early 1900s, 

numerous factors have led to a decrease in potential habitat to less than 2 

percent of its former acreage. 

Conversion of grasslands to agricultural landscapes, eradication of prairie 

dogs, and diseases such as the plague and canine distemper have resulted in 

severe reductions in prairie dog colonies across the west, colonies which 

Draft EIS, West Antelope II Coal Lease Application I-15 
 

Appendix I 

provided food, shelter, and habitat for black-footed ferrets. This species of 

ferret is currently one of the most endangered mammals in North America and 

was thought to be extinct until a small population was discovered in Meeteetse, 

Wyoming in September, 1981. Since then, successful captive breeding and 

reintroduction programs have released black-footed ferrets back into the wild 

in several western and Great Plains states including Wyoming, Montana, South 

Dakota, Colorado, Utah, and Arizona. 

Biology and Habitat Requirements: Ferrets rely on prairie dogs to provide both 

shelter and food (Hillman and Clark 1980). Ferrets produce one litter per year, 

typically giving birth to four or five kits. The decline in ferret populations has 

been largely attributed to the reduction in the vast prairie dog colonies that 

historically existed in the western United States. Despite extensive ferret 

surveys over the past 20 plus years throughout Wyoming, the last known wild 

black-footed ferret population was discovered near Meeteetse in 1981 (Miller et 

al. 1996). Those surveys included numerous USFWS-approved clearances for 

coal mining and other development in the Powder River Basin of Wyoming, as 

well as USDA-FS surveys for ferrets on the TBNG. Reintroduction efforts 

involving captive bred individuals have successfully established one blackfooted ferret population in the Shirley Basin area in south-central Wyoming. 

Currently, this is the only known black-footed ferret population within the 

state, though other populations are present elsewhere in the United States and 

Mexico. 

Existing Environment: Few ferrets have historically been recorded in locations 

away from prairie dog colonies. The Antelope Mine and West Antelope II 

general analysis area are beyond the focus area for ferret reintroduction efforts 

on the nearby TBNG and elsewhere in the general region (USDA-FS 2002, 

Grenier 2003). While the EIS study area and its perimeter harbor some small 

prairie dog colonies, black-footed ferrets have never been documented at the 

mine, nor the surrounding region, during surveys conducted over the last 20 

plus years by a variety of private, state, and federal entities. No black-footed 

ferret observations or scat have been documented in the general analysis area. 

On February 2, 2004, the USFWS declared that surveys for black-footed ferrets 

were no longer required in black-tailed prairie dog colonies throughout 

Wyoming (USFWS, 2004). 

Currently, four black-tailed prairie dog colonies encompassing a total of 

approximately 188 acres overlap or are located within the West Antelope II 

general analysis area. Twelve additional colonies exist within 2.0 miles of the 

general analysis area. Seventy-five percent of the 16 colonies average 10 acres 

in size; four colonies exceed 25 acres. Three of the four colonies that intersect 

all or some portion of the general analysis area were occupied during 2006. 

Two of those four colonies meet the 80-acre minimum requirement for blackfooted ferret habitat (USFWS 1989), but none of the colonies meet the 120-acre 

minimum threshold for supporting a breeding female ferret and her litter 

(Forrest et al. 1985). 

I-16 Draft EIS, West Antelope II Coal Lease Application 
Appendix I 

Effects of the Proposed Project: Mining the federal coal included in the West 

Antelope II LBA general analysis area, if the tract is leased under the 

Proposed Action or Alternatives, is not likely to affect black-footed 

ferrets. Given the documented absence of black-footed ferrets in the region, 

including the general analysis area during specific surveys for this species, the 

small size of most colonies within the LBA and surrounding area, the block 

clearance issued by USFWS for black-tailed prairie dog colonies throughout the 

entire state, and the distance of the LBA area from future reintroduction sites, 

mining the generally analysis area will not result in any direct or indirect 

effects on black-footed ferrets. 

Mine activities include, but are not limited to, large-scale topsoil stripping, the 

intense presence of heavy machinery, extended human presence, loud noise 

and various linear disturbances such as roads, power lines and fences. 

Additionally, ongoing disturbance (grazing, oil and gas production, etc.) from 

sources unrelated to mining would likely continue, with some activities 

occurring within prairie dog colonies in the area. These activities would result 

in less habitat disturbance than surface mining, but physical disturbance 

would occur. 

Based on more than 20 years of historic and recent survey efforts and other 

general analysis area data and information, it is unlikely that ferrets exist in 

the West Antelope II general analysis area. 

Cumulative Effects: 

As indicated, coal mining and natural gas development have occurred in the 

general analysis area for more than 20 years, with activities expected to 

increase in the immediate future. Leasing and mining lands in the West 

Antelope II general analysis area would not contribute to cumulative adverse 

effects to black-footed ferrets within either the general analysis area or the 

region. No black-footed ferret populations exist within northeastern Wyoming 

or the TBNG. The USFWS issued a block clearance for this species in blacktailed prairie dog colonies throughout Wyoming. The general analysis area and 

surrounding perimeter are beyond the focus area for future ferret 

reintroduction efforts on the TBNG and in the general region (USDA-FS 2002, 

Grenier 2003). Furthermore, the proposed Action and Alternatives 1 and 2 

would not conflict with any future objectives to manage the area for, or 

reintroduce black-footed ferrets into, the TBNG. 

I-5.0 SUMMARY OF DETERMINATIONS 

Table I-1 summarizes the determinations for federally listed T&E species in the 

West Antelope II general analysis area that may result from implementing the 

Proposed Action or Alternatives 1 and 2. 

Draft EIS, West Antelope II Coal Lease Application I-17 
1 

Appendix I 

Table I-1.	 Effects Determination of Federal T&E Species in the West Antelope 

II General Analysis Area. 

Status Species Common Name Potential Effects 

Threatened: 

Ute ladies’-tresses May affect1 

Endangered: Black-footed ferret No effect 

Not likely to adversely affect individuals or populations. 

I-6.0 REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS AND MITIGATION 

The issuance of a federal coal lease grants the lessee the exclusive rights to 

mine the coal, subject to the terms and conditions of the lease. Lease 

ownership is necessary for mining federal coal, but lease ownership does not 

authorize mining operations. Surface coal mining operations are regulated in 

accordance with the requirements of the Surface Mining Control and 

Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA) and Wyoming State regulations. SMCRA 

gives the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM) primary 

responsibility to administer programs that regulate surface coal mining 

operations and the surface effects of underground coal mining operations. 

Pursuant to Section 503 of SMCRA, the WDEQ developed, and in November, 

1980 the Secretary of the Interior approved, a permanent program authorizing 

WDEQ to regulate surface coal mining operations and surface effects of 

underground mining on non-federal lands within the State of Wyoming. In 

January, 1987, pursuant to Section 523(c) of SMCRA, WDEQ entered into a 

cooperative agreement with the Secretary of the Interior authorizing WDEQ to 

regulate surface coal mining operations and surface effects of underground 

mining on federal lands within the state. In order to get approval of this 

cooperative agreement, the state had to demonstrate that state laws and 

regulations are no less stringent than, meet the minimum requirements of, and 

include all applicable provisions of SMCRA. 

If lands within the West Antelope II general analysis area are leased, it would 

be a maintenance lease for the existing Antelope Mine, which currently has 

both an approved Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (MLA) mining plan and an 

approved State mining and reclamation permit. In the case of maintenance 

leases, such as the West Antelope II LBA tract, the existing MLA mining plan 

and State mining and reclamation plan must be amended to include the newly 

leased areas before they can be mined. 

In order to amend the existing MLA mining plan and State mining and 

reclamation permit, the company would be required to submit a detailed permit 

application package to WDEQ before starting surface coal mining operations on 

the newly acquired leases. WDEQ/LQD would review the permit application 

I-18 Draft EIS, West Antelope II Coal Lease Application 
Appendix I 

package to insure the permit application complies with the permitting 

requirements and that the coal mining operation will meet the performance 

standards of the approved Wyoming program. If the permit application 

package does comply, WDEQ would issue the applicant an amended permit 

which would allow the permittee to extend coal mining operations onto the 

newly acquired leases. 

Protection of fish, wildlife, and related environmental values is required under 

SMCRA regulations at 30 CFR 816.97, which state: 

“No surface mining activity shall be conducted which is likely to jeopardize 

the continued existence of endangered or threatened species listed by the 

Secretary of which is likely to result in the destruction or adverse 

modification of designated critical habitats of such species in violation of the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended.” 

In addition to requiring the operator to minimize disturbances and adverse 

impacts on fish, wildlife, and related environmental values, the regulations at 

30 CFR 816.97 disallow any surface mining activity which is likely to 

jeopardize the continued existence of endangered or threatened species and 

require that the operator use the best technology currently available to: 1) 

minimize electrocution hazards to raptors; 2) locate and operate haul and 

access roads to avoid or minimize impacts on important fish and wildlife 

species; and 3) design fences, conveyors, and other potential barriers to permit 

passage of large mammals. 

USFWS Section 7 consultation would be required prior to approval of the 

mining and reclamation plan modification. Additional measures to ensure 

compliance with the ESA and SMCRA can be developed when the detailed 

mining plan, which identifies the actual location of the disturbance areas, how 

and when they would be disturbed, and how they would be reclaimed, is 

developed and reviewed for approval. At the leasing stage, a detailed mining 

and reclamation plan is not available for evaluation or development of 

appropriate mitigation measures specific to an actual proposal to mine. 

The following is a partial list of measures related to federally protected species 

that are required as part of the mining and reclamation permits: 

• avoiding bald eagle disturbance; 

• restoring bald eagle foraging areas disturbed by mining; 

• using raptor safe power lines; and 

• surveying for Ute ladies’-tresses if habitat is present. 

I-7.0 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS 

Existing habitat-disturbing activities in the PRB include surface coal mining; 

conventional oil, gas, and CBNG development; uranium mining; sand, gravel, 

and scoria mining; ranching; agriculture; road, railroad, and power plant 

Draft EIS, West Antelope II Coal Lease Application I-19 
Appendix I 

construction and operation; recreational activities; and rural and urban 

housing development. Mining, construction, agricultural activities, and urban 

development tend to have more intense impacts on fairly localized areas, while 

ranching, recreational activities, and oil and gas development can be less 

intensive locally but tend to spread over larger areas. Oil and gas development 

and mining activities have requirements for reclamation of disturbed areas as 

resources are depleted. The net area of energy disturbance in the Wyoming 

PRB has been increasing. In the short term, this means a reduction in the 

available habitat for T&E plant and animal species. In the long term, habitat is 

being and will continue to be restored as reclamation proceeds. 

BLM has recently completed a regional technical study of current and proposed 

or potential development activity in the PRB to help the agency evaluate the 

impacts of coal development in the PRB. The Powder River Basin Coal Review 

consisted of three tasks: Task 1 updated the BLM’s 1996 status check for coal 

development in the PRB, Task 2 developed a forecast of reasonably foreseeable 

development in the PRB through the year 2020, and Task 3 predicted 

cumulative impacts that would be expected to occur as a result of the projected 

development. The information about existing development in the following 

paragraphs is taken from the Powder River Basin Coal Review Task 2 report 

(BLM 2005) and BLM lease records. The project area for the coal review 

encompassed over eight million acres and included all of Campbell, Sheridan, 

and Johnson Counties and the northern portion of Converse County in 

northeastern Wyoming. 

Oil and gas exploration and production have been ongoing in the PRB for more 

than 100 years. Conventional (non-CBNG) oil and gas fields are, for the most 

part, concentrated in the central and southern parts of the structural basin. 

Development of the CBNG resources from the coal beds is a more recent 

occurrence, with CBNG production in the Wyoming PRB starting in the late 

1980s. As of 2003, an estimated 187,761 acres had been disturbed in the coal 

review project area as a result of oil and gas development activities, but 

approximately 115,045 acres of that disturbance has been reclaimed. This 

includes conventional oil and gas and CBNG wells and associated facilities and 

major transportation pipelines. 

BLM estimates that the existing federal coal leases in the Wyoming PRB 

include approximately 121,185 acres. The currently pending federal coal LBA 

tracts (including the West Antelope II LBA tract) include approximately 39,223 

additional acres. The majority of the coal in the areas permitted for surface 

coal mining is federal, but some state and private leases are included within 

some of the existing mine permit areas. All of the current and proposed federal 

coal leases are concentrated near the outcrop of the Wyodak coal bed, which is 

located in eastern Campbell County and the extreme northeastern edge of 

Converse County. 

I-20 Draft EIS, West Antelope II Coal Lease Application 
Appendix I 

As of 2003, the surface coal mining operations along the Wyodak outcrop had 

disturbed approximately 68,794 acres. Approximately 24,097 of those 

disturbed acres were occupied by “permanent” mine facilities, such as roads, 

buildings, coal handling facilities, etc., which are not available for reclamation 

until after coal mining operations end. Of the remaining 44,697 acres of 

disturbance available for reclamation, approximately 21,238 acres had been 

reclaimed. 

The Powder River Basin Coal Review identified an estimated 4,891 additional 

acres of coal-related development disturbance (i.e., coal-fired power plants, 

railroads, and coal technology projects) as of 2003. 

The estimated total development-related disturbance in the Wyoming PRB in 

2003 was 264,704 acres. In addition to the coal and oil and gas development 

discussed above, this total includes other types of development disturbance, 

such as reservoirs and industrial fabrication firms, as well as public and 

private infrastructure, such as highways and roads, government buildings, and 

residential and commercial real estate development. It should be noted that 

some of these disturbances overlap one another. In such cases, the 

disturbance acreage is counted separately under each category, but is not 

counted twice in determining the total area of disturbance. 

Cumulative effects would also occur to T&E plant and animal resources as a 

result of indirect impacts. One factor is the potential import and spread of 

noxious weeds around roads and facilities. Noxious weeds have the ability to 

displace native vegetation and hinder reclamation efforts. Control of noxious 

weeds is addressed in surface coal mining and reclamation plans. If weed 

mitigation and preventative procedures are applied to all construction and 

reclamation practices, the impact of noxious weeds on T&E plants and animals 

would be minimized. 

In reclaimed areas, vegetation cover often differs from undisturbed areas. In 

the case of surface coal mines, re-established vegetation would be dominated 

by species mandated in the reclamation seed mixtures (to be approved by 

WDEQ). The majority of the species in the approved reclamation seed mixtures 

are native to the area; however, reclaimed areas may not serve ecosystem 

functions presently served by undisturbed vegetation communities and 

habitats. In the short-term in particular, species composition, shrub cover, 

and other environmental factors are likely to differ from pre-disturbance 

vegetation communities and habitats. Establishment of noxious weeds and 

alteration of vegetation in reclaimed areas has the potential to alter T&E plant 

and animal habitat composition and distribution. 

Potential adverse effects to federally protected species that have occurred and 

would continue to occur as a result of existing and potential future activities in 

the PRB would include direct loss of habitat, indirect loss of habitat due to 

human and equipment disturbance, habitat fragmentation, displacement of 

Draft EIS, West Antelope II Coal Lease Application I-21 
Appendix I 

bald eagle prey species and the resultant change in bald eagle foraging, and 

mortality caused by equipment activities, motor vehicle collisions, power line 

collisions, and power line electrocution. 

The existing mines have developed mitigation procedures, as required by 

SMCRA (at 30 CFR 816.97) and Wyoming State regulations, to protect T&E 

species. These procedural requirements would be extended to include mining 

operations on the West Antelope II LBA tract, if it is leased as proposed, and 

after required detailed plans to mine the coal and reclaim the mined-out areas 

are developed and approved. 

I-22 Draft EIS, West Antelope II Coal Lease Application 
Appendix I 

I-8.0 CREDENTIALS OF SURVEY PERSONNEL 

Intermountain Resources of Laramie, Wyoming 

Jim Orpet 

Mr. Orpet obtained a Bachelors of Science degree in Wildlife Management and a 

Master of Science degree in Range Management from the University of 

Wyoming and has accumulated over 28 years of field experience in wildlife 

surveys. This experience includes surveys for T&E species, surveys for species 

of high state or federal interest and preparation of wildlife reports for over 100 

projects throughout Wyoming. Mr. Orpet was qualified in 1987 by the 

WDEQ/LQD to conduct T&E and other plant and animal surveys on 

Abandoned Mine Lands (AML) projects within the state. Qualification at that 

time was based on review and approval of Mr. Orpet’s credentials by the WGFD 

and the USFWS. Mr. Orpet has also completed numerous wetland surveys that 

have been approved by the COE. 

Russel Tait 

Mr. Tait obtained a Bachelor of Science degree in Wildlife Management from the 

University of Wyoming and has accumulated 15 years of field experience in 

wildlife surveys in Wyoming. Mr. Tait has assisted Mr. Orpet in completion of 

wildlife inventories for over eight years on coal mines and other resource 

development projects in Wyoming, including black-footed ferret surveys, bald 

eagle surveys, sage-grouse lek surveys and surveys for other species of high 

federal or state interest. 

Thunderbird Wildlife Consulting of Gillette, Wyoming 

Gwyn McKee 

Ms. McKee obtained a Master of Science degree in Wildlife Ecology from the 

University of Missouri-Columbia. She has accumulated more than 19 years of 

professional experience, with the last twelve in Wyoming. Ms. McKee has skills 

that include planning and conducting surveys for a variety of terrestrial and 

aquatic species, summarizing data, and preparing technical reports for private, 

state, and federal agencies. Ms. McKee is considered qualified by all state and 

federal agencies to conduct T&E and other wildlife surveys within the region. 

Those qualifications include surveys for mountain plovers and their habitat, 

and certification by the USFWS to conduct black-footed ferret surveys. 

Kort M. Clayton 

Mr. Clayton earned a Master of Science degree in Biology from the University of 

Saskatchewan. He has been professionally involved with wildlife issues in the 

Northern Great Plains for over 12 years. Since 1998, Mr. Clayton has focused 

on wildlife inventories, clearances, impact analysis, mitigation, and applied 

I-23 Draft EIS, West Antelope II Coal Lease Application 
 

Appendix I 

research related to energy developments in the PRB of Wyoming and Montana. 

Those experiences include surveys for most vertebrate taxa in the region, sagegrouse research, raptor mitigation projects, and clearance surveys for several 

federally listed species. 

I-24 Draft EIS, West Antelope II Coal Lease Application 
Appendix I 

I-9.0 REFERENCES AND LITERATURE CITED 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM), 1995, Final Environmental Assessment for 

the Antelope Coal Lease Application, U.S. Department of the Interior, 

Bureau of Land Management, Casper District Office, Casper, Wyoming. 

, 2000, Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Horse Creek Coal 

Lease Application (WYW141435), U.S. Department of the Interior, 

Bureau of Land Management, Casper District Office, Casper, Wyoming. 

, 2001a, Approved Resource Management Plan (RMP) for Public Lands 

Administered by the Bureau of Land Management, Buffalo Field Office, 

Buffalo, Wyoming. 

, 2001b, Final Environmental Impact Statement for the West Antelope 

Coal Lease Application (WYW151643), U.S. Department of the Interior, 

Bureau of Land Management, Casper District Office, Casper, Wyoming. 

, 2003, Final South Powder River Basin Coal Environmental Impact 

Statement, December 2003, Casper Field Office, Casper, Wyoming. 

, 2005, Task 2 Report for the Powder River Basin Coal Review, Past, 

Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Development Activities. Prepared 

for BLM Casper Field Office, Casper, Wyoming, by ENSR Corporation, 

Fort Collins, Colorado, October 2005. 

Fertig, W., and G. Beauvais, 1999, Wyoming Plant and Animal Species of 

Special Concern. Unpublished report. Wyoming Natural Diversity 

Database, Laramie, Wyoming. 

Fertig, W., P. Black, and P. Wolken, 2005, Rangewide Status Review of Ute 

Ladies’-tresses (Spiranthes diluvialis). Prepared for U.S. Fish and 

Wildllife Service and Central Utah Water Conservation District, 93 pp. 

Forrest, S. C., T. W. Clark, L. Richardson, and T. M. Campbell III, 1985, Blackfooted Ferret Habitat: Some Management and Reintroduction 

Considerations, Wyoming BLM Wildlife Technical Bulletin #2, U.S. BLM, 

Cheyenne, Wyoming, 49 pp. 

Grenier, Martin, 2003, An Evaluation of Black-footed Ferret Block Clearances 

in Wyoming: Completion Report, Wyoming Game and Fish Department, 

Lander, WY, 16pp. 

Heidel, B. 2007, Personal Communication between Jim Orpet of Intermountain 

Resources, Laramie, Wyoming and Bonnie Heidel, botanist, Wyoming 

Natural Diversity Database, University of Wyoming, Laramie, Wyoming. 

Draft EIS, West Antelope II Coal Lease Application I-25 
Appendix I 

Hillman, C.N. and T.W. Clark, 1980, Mustela nigripes, Mammalian Species No. 

126. 

Intermountain Resources (IR), 2007, Personal communication with Jim Orpet, 

January 2007, on year 2006 and other Ute ladies’-tresses orchid surveys 

conducted within analysis area. 

Miller, B., R.P. Reading, and S. Forrest, 1996, Prairie night: Black-footed 

ferrets and the recovery of endangered species, Smithsonian Institution 

Press, Washington, D.C. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture-Forest Service (USDA-FS), 2002, Supplemental 

Information Report disclosing changes to black-tailed prairie dog habitat 

within proposed management area 3.63 of the Thunder Basin National 

Grassland Plan resulting from the 2001 Sylvatic plague outbreak. 

January 14, 2002. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 1989, Black Footed Ferret Survey 

Guidelines for Compliance with the Endangered Species Act, U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, Denver, Colorado and Albuquerque, New Mexico. 

, 1995, Ute ladies’-tresses draft recovery plan, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Denver, Colorado, 46 pp. 

, 2002, Biological and Conference Opinion for the Powder River Basin Oil 

and Gas Project, Campbell, Converse, Johnson, and Sheridan Counties, 

Wyoming, Cheyenne, Wyoming, 51 pp. 

, 2004, File letter ES-1411/BFF/WY7746 issuing block clearance for 

black-footed ferrets in all black-tailed prairie dog colonies throughout 

Wyoming, and select white-tailed prairie dog colonies, Wyoming Field 

Office of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Cheyenne. 

, 2005, Memorandum from Brian Kelly, Field Supervisor, USFWS 

Wyoming Field Office, Cheyenne, Wyoming, to James Murkin, BLM, Field 

Office Manager, Casper Field Office, Casper, Wyoming, dated February 

15, 2005. 

I-26 Draft EIS, West Antelope II Coal Lease Application