BLM

Wyoming State Office  High Plains District

 

 

FINAL 

Environmental Impact Statement for the

South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 

WYW172585, WYW173360, WYW172657, WYW161248 

Volume 1 of 2
	

Chapters 1 – 8
	

Mule Deer on Reclaimed Rangeland Reclaimed Belle Fourche River 

Coal Creek Mine, Wyoming Cordero Rojo Mine, Wyoming 

Reclaimed Tisdale Creek American Avocet in a Reclaimed Wetland 

Caballo Mine, Wyoming Belle Ayr Mine, Wyoming 

August 2009
	
MISSION STATEMENT
 

It is the mission of the Bureau of Land Managment to sustain the health, diversity, 

and productivity of the public lands for the use and enjoyment of present and 

future generations. 

BLM/WY/PL-09/029+1320 



FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

SOUTH GILLETTE AREA COAL LBA TRACTS 

CAMPBELL COUNTY, WYOMING

Lead Agency: USDI, Bureau of Land Management, Casper Field 

Office, Casper, WY

Cooperating Agencies: USDI, Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and 

Enforcement Western Region, Denver, CO

Wyoming Department of Transportation, Cheyenne, 

WY

Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality, 

Cheyenne, WY

Wyoming State Planning Office, Cheyenne, WY

Abstract: This Final Environment Impact Statement (FEIS) assesses the 

environmental consequences of decisions to hold competitive, sealed-bid sales and 

issue leases for several tracts of federal coal located adjacent to existing surface coal 

mines in Campbell County, Wyoming, subject to standard and special lease stipulations. 

The South Gillette Area Coal Lease by Application (LBA) Tracts, as applied for by 

Foundation Coal West, Ark Land Company, Caballo Coal Company, and Cordero 

Mining Company, include approximately 8,161.025 acres containing approximately 827

million tons of in-place Federal coal. The four coal companies, operators of the 

adjacent Belle Ayr Mine, the adjacent Coal Creek Mine, the adjacent Caballo Mine, and 

the adjacent Cordero-Rojo Mine respectively, propose to mine the tracts as 

maintenance leases for the existing mines, if lease sales are held and they acquire the 

leases. 

This final EIS describes the physical, biological, cultural, historic, and socioeconomic 

resources in and around the existing mines and the LBA tracts. The alternatives in the 

final EIS consider the impacts of leasing the tracts as they were applied for; leasing 

reconfigured tracts in order to avoid bypassing Federal coal or to increase competitive 

interest in a tract, and not leasing the tracts. The focus for the impact analysis was 

based upon resource issues and concerns identified during previous coal leasing 

analyses and public scoping conducted for these lease applications. Concerns related 

to leasing coal and its subsequent development include impacts to groundwater, air 

quality, wildlife, global climate change, impacts to human health, conflicts with oil and 

gas development, impacts to cultural and paleontological resources, impacts to wetland 

resources, nitrogen oxide emissions resulting from blasting of coal and overburden,

access to county roads, and impacts from coal transport. Cumulative impacts related to 

ongoing surface coal mining and other proposed development in the Powder River 
Basin of Wyoming, and coal combustion residues and other by-products from coal-fired 

power plants, are also of concern.

 

This final EIS, in compliance with Section 7(c) of the Endangered Species Act (as 

amended), identifies any endangered or threatened species which are likely to be 

affected by the Proposed Action.

 

The final EIS is open for a 30-day review period beginning on the date that the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency publishes the Notice of Availability in the Federal 

Register. Comments that are postmarked or received on or before the end of the 30-day 

review period will be considered in the preparation of the ROD. 

Teresa Johnson

For Further Information Contact: 

Bureau of Land Management

Casper Field Office

2987 Prospector Drive

Casper, WY 82604 

(307) 261-7627

Email: casper_wymail@blm.gov (Teresa Johnson in the subject line) 

 
SOUTH GILLETTE AREA COAL LEASE APPLICATIONS 

FINAL ENVIROMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
 

Prepared by 

WWC Engineering 

Sheridan, Wyoming
 

Under the Direction of 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

Bureau of Land Management 

High Plains District Office 

Casper, Wyoming
 

and 

Cooperating Agencies 

U.S. Department of Interior 

Office of Surface Mining 

Reclamation and Enforcement 

Denver, Colorado
 

and 

Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality 

Cheyenne, Wyoming
 

and 

Wyoming Department of Transportation 

Sheridan, and Cheyenne, Wyoming
 

August 2009 
 

Executive Summary 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

This environmental impact statement (EIS)1 analyzes the environmental 

impacts of leasing four tracts of federal coal reserves adjacent to the Belle Ayr, 

Coal Creek, Caballo, and Cordero Rojo mines. All are operating surface coal 

mines in the east-central Powder River Basin (PRB) of Wyoming. The operators 

of the Belle Ayr, Coal Creek, Caballo, and Cordero Rojo mines filed four 

applications to lease the four tracts of federal coal included in maintenance 

coal tracts (federal coal tracts that would continue or extend the life of an 

existing coal mine) under the regulations at 43 CFR 3425, Leasing On 

Application. Figure ES-1 shows the four LBA tracts, other currently pending 

LBA tracts, and the existing federal leases, including previously leased LBA 

tracts, in the Wyoming PRB. 

On July 6, 2004, RAG Coal West, Inc. (RAG) filed an application with the 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to lease federal coal reserves in a tract 

north of and immediately adjacent to the Belle Ayr Mine in Campbell County, 

Wyoming, approximately 10 miles south-southeast of Gillette (figures ES-1 and 

ES-2). The tract, which was originally referred to as the Belle Ayr Mine North 

Extension lease by application (LBA) Tract, was assigned case file number 

WYW161248. The federal coal reserves were applied for as a maintenance tract 

for the Belle Ayr Mine. BLM subsequently renamed the tract the Belle Ayr 

North LBA tract. In August 2004, RAG finalized the sale of the Belle Ayr Mine 

to Foundation Coal West (FCW), a directly held subsidiary of Foundation Coal 

Holdings, Inc. In this EIS, the applicant for the Belle Ayr North LBA tract will 

be referred to as FCW. 

On February 10, 2006, Ark Land Company (ALC) filed an application with BLM 

to lease the federal coal reserves in a tract west of and immediately adjacent to 

the Coal Creek Mine in Campbell County, Wyoming, approximately 25 miles 

south-southeast of Gillette (figures ES-1 and ES-3). The tract, which is 

referred to as the West Coal Creek LBA tract, was assigned case number 

WYW172585. The federal coal reserves were applied for as a maintenance tract 

for the Coal Creek Mine. ALC is a wholly owned subsidiary of Arch Coal, Inc. 

Thunder Basin Coal Company (TBCC), a subsidiary of Arch Western Resources, 

LLC, operates the Coal Creek Mine. In this EIS, ALC is referred to as the 

applicant, and TBCC is referred to in discussions of mine operations. 

On March 15, 2006, Caballo Coal Company (CCC) filed an application with 

BLM to lease the federal coal included in a tract located west of and 

immediately adjacent to the Caballo Mine in Campbell County, Wyoming, 

approximately 8 miles south-southeast of Gillette (figures ES-1 and ES-4). The 

tract, which is referred to as the Caballo West LBA tract, was assigned case 

number WYW172657. The federal coal reserves were applied for as a 

maintenance tract for the Caballo Mine. CCC is a directly held subsidiary of 

Peabody Holding Company, Inc., which in turn is a directly held subsidiary of 

Peabody Energy Corporation. 

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

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications ES-1 

1 
Converse County Niobrara County 

Weston County 

387 

Executive Summary 

14 59 

16 LEGEND 

Rawhide Mine 

Buckskin Mine 

Hay Creek II 

LBA's Pending 

LBA's Issued 

Existing Leases (Prior to Decertification) 

Eagle Butte Mine Coal-Fired Power Plant 

(Existing, Proposed, 

LBA Tracts As Applied For (This EIS) 

To Buffalo 38 Miles Johnson County 

Campbell County 

Dry Fork Mine or Under Construction) 

Wyodak Mine 14 

90 

ROZET 90 

GILLETTE 

59 50 90 

Campbell County

Weston County Crook County

MOORCROFT 

Caballo Mine 

CABALLO WEST 

BELLE AYR NORTH 

Belle Ayr Mine 

Cordero Rojo Mine 

MAYSDORF II 

WEST COAL CREEK 

Coal Creek Mine 

116 

North Hilight Field 

West Jacobs Ranch 

RENO JUNCTION 

WRIGHT Jacobs Ranch Mine 

50 West 

Hilight Field 450 

387 

South 

Hilight Field Black Thunder Mine 

North Rochelle Mine 

North Porcupine School Creek Mine 

South Porcupine (Proposed) 

To Newcastle 29 Miles 

North Antelope Rochelle Mine 

Campbell County 

Converse County West Antelope II 

Antelope Mine 

SCALE: 1"= 10 MILES 59 

To Douglas 46 Miles

Figure ES-1. General Location Map with Federal Coal Leases and LBA Tracts. 

ES-2 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 

16 
21 

48 

Bishop

T-7 Road 

T-7 Road 

BNSF RR 

Road 

BNSF & UP RR 

BNSF & UP RR 

Fairview

Road 

Corners 

Road 

State

 59 

Highway 

Creek 

Bishop 

Road 

Haight Road 

R. 71 W. R. 70 W. 29 28 27 26

Hilight Road

35 36 31 32 34 35 49 33 34 33

State Highway 59

Executive Summary 

R. 72 W. R. 71 W. 28 27 26 Four 

T. T. 32 36 31 49

N. N. 

T. T. 5 5 4 3 2 1 6 48 4 3 2 1 6 

N. N. 

8 7 8 9 10 11 12 9 10 11 12 7 

18 16 15 14 13 18 17 16 15 14 13 17 

20 

19 21 22 23 24 22 23 24 19 20 

29 28 27 30 26 25 28 27 26 25 30 

T. T. 

48 33 34 35 36 32 31 

N. 

34 36 31 32 33 35 48

N. 

T. T. 

3 2 1 6 5 47 47 4 3 2 1 6 5 4 N. N. Hoe 

Road 

12 7 8 12 7 8 9 10 11 9 10 11 

13 18 17 16 15 14 16 15 14 13 18 17 

24 19 20 21 23 21 22 23 24 19 20 22 

25 26 30 29 29 28 27 28 27 26 25 30 

33 34 35 32 33 34 35 R. 72 W. R. 71 W. R. 71 W. R. 70 W. 

LEGEND 

Belle Ayr Mine Permit Boundary 

Existing Belle Ayr Mine Federal Coal Leases 

Belle Ayr North LBA Tract as Applied for 

BLM's Study Area 

Alternative 2, 5000 10000 20000 BLM's Preferred Alternative 

GRAPHIC SCALE (FEET) 

Figure ES-2. Belle Ayr North LBA Tract Alternatives. 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications ES-3

29 

32 

0 
47 

Mills Road 

T-7 Road 

BNSF & UP RR 

BNSF & UP RR 

Haight Road

Hilight Road

Executive Summary 

23 21 22 23 R. 71 W. R. 70 W. 20 21 22 R. 70 W. R. 69 W. 20

Hilight Road

UP RR

H

BNSF &

ey adl R o oad 25 27 26 25 30 29 30 29 28 28 27 26 

T. T. 32 33 34 35 36 31 32 33 34 35 36 31 47 

N. N. 

T. T. 4 3 2 1 6 5 46 46 4 3 2 1 6 5 

N. N. 

8 9 10 11 12 7 8 12 7 9 10 11 

18 17 16 15 14 13 18 17 16 15 14 13 

Hoadley Road 

23 24 19 20 19 20 21 22 21 22 23 24 

26 25 30 29 28 27 26 25 30 29 28 27

T. Wagensen Road

46 33 

T. 34 35 36 31 32 33 34 35 36 31 32 46 

N. N. 

T. T.
 

45 4 3 2 1 6 5 4 

45 3 2 1 6 5 

N. N. Lawver Road 

11 12 7 8 9 10 11 12 7 8 9 10 

14 13 18 18 17 16 15 16 15 14 13 

24 19 20 21 22 23 24 19 20 21 22 23 

Breen Road Lawver Road Lawver Road

25 30 

28 27 26 29 R. 71 W. R. 70 W. 

5000 10000 20000 

GRAPHIC SCALE (FEET) 

25 30 

28 27 26 29 R. 70 W. R. 69 W. 

LEGEND 

Coal Creek Mine Permit Boundary 

Existing Coal Creek Mine Federal Coal Lease 

West Coal Creek LBA Tract as Applied for 

BLM's Study Area 

Alternative 2, 

BLM's Preferred Alternative 

Figure ES-3. West Coal Creek LBA Tract Alternatives. 

ES-4 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 

17 

0 
13 18

26 

14 

State 

Fairview 

Union Chappel Road 

Road

 59 Highway 

BNSF RR 

Road 

Corners 

Bishop Road 

Hoe 

Road 

Creek 

BNSF RR 

BNSF & UP RR 

Bishop Road 

State

 59 Highway 

Executive Summary 

11 R. 72 W. R. 71 W. 8 9 10 11 R. 71 W. R. 70 W. 8 9 10 

15 14 13 18 17 16 15 13 18 17 16 

19 20 21 22 

23 24 19 20 21 22 23 24 

29 26 25 30 29 28 27 25 30 28 27 Four 

T. T. 34 36 31

35 36 31 32 33 35 32 33 34 49 49 N. N. 

T. T. 5 4 3 48 5 4 3 2 1 6 48 2 1 6

N. N. 

9 10 8 7 9 10 11 12 11 12 7 8 

18 

16 15 

17 16 15 14 13 17 14 13 18

21 22 20 19 20 21 22 23 24 23 24 19 

25 30 29 28 27 

29 26 26 25 30 28 27 

T. T. 31 32 33 34 48 32 33 34 35 36 48 35 

N. 

36 31 N. 

T. 

T. 3 47 1 6 5 4 47 2 3 2 1 6 5 4 N. 

N. 

11 12 7 8 9 10 11 12 7 8 9 10 

14 R. 72 W. R. 71 W. 17 16 15 14 R. 71 W. R. 70 W. 17 16 15 

0 5000 10000 20000 

LEGEND 

Caballo West LBA Tract as Applied for 

Existing Caballo Mine Federal Coal Leases 

Caballo Mine Permit Boundary 

BLM's Study Area (Alternative 2), 

BLM's Preferred Alternative 

GRAPHIC SCALE (FEET) 

Figure ES-4. Caballo West LBA Tract Alternatives. 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications ES-5
 

 

Executive Summary 

On September 1, 2006, Cordero Mining Company (CMC) filed an application 

with BLM to lease the federal coal included in a tract west and south of and 

immediately adjacent to the Cordero Rojo Mine in Campbell County, Wyoming, 

approximately 15 miles south-southeast of Gillette (figures ES-1 and ES-5). 

The tract, which is referred to as the Maysdorf II LBA tract, was assigned case 

number WYW173360. The federal coal reserves were applied for as a 

maintenance tract for the Cordero Rojo Mine, which is operated by CMC, a 

directly held subsidiary of Rio Tinto Energy America (formerly Kennecott 

Energy and Coal Company). 

These lease applications were reviewed by BLM, Wyoming State Office, Division 

of Mineral and Lands Authorization, who determined that the applications and 

the lands involved met the requirements of the regulations governing coal 

leasing on application at 43 CFR 3425.1. The Powder River Regional Coal 

Team (PRRCT) reviewed the Belle Ayr North LBA tract at a public meeting held 

on April 24, 2005, in Gillette, Wyoming; the West Coal Creek and Caballo West 

LBA tracts were reviewed at a public meeting held on April 19, 2006, in Casper, 

Wyoming; and the Maysdorf II LBA tract was reviewed at a public meeting held 

on January 18, 2007, in Casper, Wyoming. The PRRCT recommended that 

BLM continue to process the Belle Ayr North, the West Coal Creek, the Caballo 

West, and the Maysdorf II coal lease applications at these respective meetings. 

EVALUATION PROCESS 

In order to process an LBA, BLM must evaluate the quantity, quality, 

maximum economic recovery, and fair market value of the federal coal and 

fulfill the requirements of the NEPA by evaluating the environmental 

consequences of leasing the federal coal. 

To evaluate the environmental impacts of leasing the coal, BLM must prepare 

an environmental assessment (EA) or an EIS to evaluate the site-specific and 

cumulative environmental and socioeconomic impacts of leasing and 

developing the federal coal in an application area. Due to the proximity of the 

Belle Ayr North, West Coal Creek, Caballo West, and Maysdorf II LBA tracts, 

BLM made a decision to prepare a single EIS to evaluate the environmental 

impacts of coal mining that would result from the issuance of these four leases. 

BLM does not authorize mining by issuing a lease for federal coal, but the 

impacts of mining the coal are considered in this EIS because it is a logical 

consequence of issuing a maintenance lease to an existing mine. 

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published a notice announcing the 

availability of the draft EIS in the Federal Register on October 24, 2008. BLM 

published a Notice of Availability/Notice of Public Hearing in the Federal 

Register on October 17, 2008. The 60-day comment period on the draft EIS 

ended on December 24, 2008. A public hearing was held on November 19, in 

Gillette, Wyoming. One individual presented statements on the draft EIS during 

the hearing and written comments were received from 18 individuals, agencies, 

or organizations during the comment period. A summary of the statements 

ES-6 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
24

22 

3 

22 

State 

T-7 Road 

BNSF & UP RR 

 59 Highway 

State 59 Highway 

Hilight Road

Bishop 

Road 

Haight Road 

Hoe 

Road 

Creek 

Executive Summary 

23
 R. 72 W. R. 71 W. 20 21
 22 23
 R. 71 W. R. 70 W. 

30
 

20
 21

29
 28 28 27 26 25 27 26 25 30 29
 

T. T. 2 1 1 6 5 4 47 47 3 2
 RR

H

BNSF & UP

ey adl R o oad 

T. T. 36 31 32 33 48 34 32 33 34 35 48 35 
 36 31
 

N. N. 

6
 5 4 N. N. 

12 7
 8 9 8 9 10 11 10 11
 12
 7
 

13 18 17 16 16 15 14 15 14
 17 13 18
 

19 20 21
 20 21 23 22 23 24 19 24 22
 

28 27 30 29 27 26 25 30
 29
 26 25

T. T. 32 47 47 34 35 36 31 32 33 34 35 36 31
 

N. N. 

T. T. 

46 3 2 1 6 5 4 46 3 2 1 6 5
 4

N. N. 

10 11 12 7 8 9 10 11 12 7 8 9
 

13 18 17 16 15 14 13 18 17 16 15 14
 

Hoadley Road 

22
 21
 24 19 20 21 23
 24
 19
 20 23

25 30
 25 30 29 28 27 26
 29 28 27 26
 R. 72 W. R. 71 W. R. 71 W. R. 70 W. 

LEGEND 

Cordero Rojo Mine Permit Boundary 

Existing Cordero Rojo Mine Federal Coal Leases 

Maysdorf II LBA Tract as Applied for 

BLM's Study Area (Alternative 2) 

North Tract Under Alternative 3, 

BLM's Preferred Alternative 5000 10000 20000
 

South Tract Under Alternative 3, 

BLM's Preferred Alternative 

GRAPHIC SCALE (FEET) 

Figure ES-5. Maysdorf II LBA Tract Alternatives. 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications ES-7
 

33 

28 

0 
Executive Summary 

that were presented at the formal public hearing and the written comments, 

with agency responses, are included as appendix I of this FEIS. 

BLM will use the analysis in this EIS to decide whether or not to hold a coal 

lease sale for each of the federal coal tracts and issue federal coal leases. The 

LBA sale process is, by law and regulation, an open, public, competitive sealedbid process. Bidding at a lease sale would be open to any qualified bidder. If a 

lease sale is held for the Belle Ayr North, West Coal Creek, Caballo West, and 

the Maysdorf II LBA tracts, the applicants (FCW, ALC, CCC, and CMC, 

respectively) may not be the successful high bidders. If a lease sale is held, a 

federal sale panel selects the highest bidder at the sale. In order to be awarded 

a federal coal lease, the highest bid must meet or exceed the fair market value 

of the coal. The fair market value is determined by an economic evaluation 

done by the BLM. Additionally, the high bidder cannot have any antitrust 

violations. These are determined by the U.S. Department of Justice. 

Cooperating agencies in the preparation of this EIS include Office of Surface 

Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM), the Wyoming Department of 

Environmental Quality (WDEQ), and the Wyoming Department of 

Transportation (WYDOT)). Other agencies, including OSM, will also use this 

analysis to make decisions related to leasing and mining the federal coal in this 

tract. 

A decision to lease the federal coal lands in this application would be in 

conformance with the BLM resource management plan for the Buffalo and 

Casper field offices. The Belle Ayr North, West Coal Creek, Caballo West, and 

the Maysdorf II LBA tracts are contiguous with the applicant mines (FCW, ALC, 

CCC, and CMC, respectively). The analysis in this EIS assumes that FCW 

would be the successful bidder on the Belle Ayr North LBA tract; ALC would be 

the successful bidder on the West Coal Creek LBA tract; CCC would be the 

successful bidder on the Caballo West LBA tract; and, CMC would be the 

successful bidder on the Maysdorf II LBA tract. The analysis also assumes 

that the sales would be held, and that each lease would be mined as 

maintenance tracts for the respective applicant mines. 

Not all of the coal included in the Belle Ayr North LBA tract as applied for is 

considered mineable at this time. Bishop Road, a county road, overlies some of 

the coal included in the tract. The Surface Mining Control and Reclamation 

Act of 1977 (SMCRA) prohibits mining within 100 feet on either side of the 

right-of-way of any public road. However, the appropriate public road 

authority can allow the road to be relocated or closed after public notice, an 

opportunity for a public hearing, and a finding that the interests of the affected 

public and landowners will be protected [30 CFR 761.11(d)]. The coal 

underlying the portions of Bishop Road, its right-of-way, and the 100-foot 

buffer zone within the Belle Ayr North LBA tract is included for consideration 

for leasing because that coal could be mined if the Campbell County Board of 

Commissioners, the authorized agency, determines that the road can be moved 

[43 CFR 3461.5(c)(2)(iii)]. If the road is not moved, including the coal 

ES-8 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
Executive Summary 

underlying the road in the lease would allow maximum recovery of all the 

mineable coal adjacent to the 100-foot buffer zone on either side of the road 

right-of-way. 

Not all of the coal included in the Maysdorf II LBA tract as applied for is 

considered by CMC to be mineable at this time. Coal included in the tract is 

located within the BNSF & UP railroad right-of-way (ROW). CMC does not 

consider the coal underlying the ROW to be recoverable at this time because 

the cost that would be associated with moving the railroad would make it 

economically unfeasible to recover the underlying coal. 

A portion of Wyoming 59 and portions of the Haight Road (Campbell County 

Road 44) and the Hilight Road (Campbell County Road 52) overlie portions of 

the coal included in the Maysdorf II LBA tract. SMCRA prohibits mining within 

100 feet on either side of the ROW of any public road. However, the 

appropriate public road authority can allow the road to be relocated or closed 

after public notice, an opportunity for a public hearing, and a finding that the 

interests of the affected public and landowners will be protected [30 CFR 

761.11(d)]. The coal underlying the portion of Wyoming 59, Hilight Road, and 

Haight Road, their rights-of-way, and the 100-foot buffer zones within the 

Maysdorf II LBA tract are included for consideration for leasing. That coal 

could be mined if WYDOT or the Campbell County Board of Commissioners 

(authorized agencies), determine that the roads can be moved [43 CFR 

3461.5(c)(2)(iii)]. Including the coal underlying the highway and Haight and 

Hilight roads in the lease would allow maximum recovery of all the mineable 

coal adjacent to the 100-foot buffer zones on either side of the highway and 

road ROWs if the highway and Haight and Hilight roads are not moved. CMC 

is evaluating the feasibility of relocating the county roads. 

The Maysdorf Point Cemetery was a small rural cemetery owned by the 

Campbell County Cemetery District that overlaid some of the coal included in 

the Maysdorf II LBA tract. Cemetery remains were relocated during the 

summer of 2008 to the Mt. Pisgah Cemetery in Gillette, Wyoming. Mitigation is 

complete, and Cordero Mining Company is the surface owner. 

ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION 

The proposed actions and alternatives to those actions are analyzed in detail in 

this FEIS. 

•	 Proposed Action - The Proposed Action for each LBA tract is to hold a 

competitive coal lease sale and issue a maintenance lease to the 

successful bidder for the Belle Ayr North, the West Coal Creek, the 

Caballo West, and the Maysdorf II LBA tracts as applied for (figures ES2, ES-3, ES-4, and ES-5, respectively). The proposed actions are 

described in tables ES-1 through ES-7. 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications	 ES-9 
Executive Summary 

Table ES-1. Summary Comparison of Coal Production, Surface Disturbance, Mine Life, and Reven

LBA tract and Belle Ayr Mine if the Bishop Road (Campbell County Road 12) is MovCoal is Recovered. 

No Action Alternative Added by 

Item (Existing Belle Ayr Mine) Proposed Action 

In-Place Coal (as of 6/30/08) 250.9 mmt 208.1 mmt 

Mineable Coal (as of 6/30/08) 250.9 mmt 204.2 mmt Recoverable Coal (as of 6/30/08)1 235.8 mmt 191.9 mmt 

Coal Mined (as of 6/30/08) 544.5 mmt  

Lease Area2 4,945.5 ac 1,578.7 ac 

Total Area To Be Disturbed2 11,621 ac 1,936.6 ac 

Permit Area2 11,935 ac 1,727 ac 

Current Air Quality Permitted Production 45.0 mmt 0 mmt 

Average Annual Post-2007 Coal Production 30.0 mmt 0 mmt 

Remaining Life of Mine (post-2007) 8.3 yrs 6.4 yr Average Number of Employees 358 8 

Total Projected State Revenues (post-2007)3 $382.9 million $342.2 – $410.7 million 

Total Projected Federal Revenues (post-2007)4 $283.6 million $261.5 – $329.9 million 

1	 Assumes 94 percent recovery of mineable coal. 2 	 The lease area includes federal coal leases only and does not include state and private coal within the permit boundary. The distur

(total federal, state and private) because of the need for highwall reduction, topsoil removal, and other mine support activities outside area is larger than the leased or disturbed area to assure that all disturbed lands are within the permit boundary and to allow an easi

3	 Revenues to the state of Wyoming include severance taxes, property and production (ad valorum) taxes, sales and use taxes, and W

payments, AML fees, and bonus bids. State revenues are based on $0.4312 per ton estimate for severance taxes  amount of recoestimate for ad valorum taxes  amount of recoverable coal, plus $0.0569 per ton estimate for sales and use taxes  amount of rec(projected for 8,400-Btu coal) price  amount of recoverable coal  federal royalty of 12.5 percent minus federal’s 50 percent share, 

amount of recoverable coal minus federal’s 50 percent share, plus bonus payment on LBA leased coal of $0.30 to $0.97 per ton (base

made for the last 9 LBAs sold in 2004, 2005, 2008, and 2009)  amount of mineable coal minus federal’s 50 percent share. These foutcome of recent legislation that changed the percent of distribution to states. 

4	 Federal revenues include black lung taxes and the federal government’s share of federal royalty payments, AML fees, and bonus bid

$9.98 per ton (projected for 8,400-Btu coal) price  amount of recoverable coal  black lung tax of 4.40 percent, plus $9.98 per ton (fof recoverable coal  federal royalty of 12.5 percent minus state’s 50 percent share, plus $0.28 per ton for AML fees  amount of percent share, plus bonus payment on LBA leased coal of $0.30 to $0.97 per ton (based on the range of bonus payments made for th2008, and 2009)  amount of mineable coal minus state’s 50 percent share. These figures could change based on the outcome of rpercent of distribution to the federal government. 

ES-10 Final EIS, South Gillette Are
Table ES-2. Summary Comparison of Coal Production, Surface Disturbance, Mine Life, and Reven

LBA tract and Belle Ayr Mine if the Bishop Road (Campbell County Road 12) Underlying Coal is Not Recovered. 

No Action Alternative Added by 

Item (Existing Belle Ayr Mine) Proposed Action 

In-Place Coal (as of 6/30/08) 250.9 mmt 208.1 mmt 

Mineable Coal (as of 6/30/08) 250.9 mmt 164.7 mmt Recoverable Coal (as of 6/30/08)1 235.8 mmt 154.8 mmt 

Coal Mined (as of 6/30/08) 544.5 mmt  Lease Area2 4,945.5 ac 1,578.7 ac 

Total Area To Be Disturbed2 11,621 ac 1,274.9 ac 

Permit Area2 11,935 ac 1,727 ac 

Current Air Quality Permitted Production 45.0 mmt 0 mmt 

Average Annual Post-2007 Coal Production 30.0 mmt 0 mmt 

Remaining Life of Mine (post-2007) 8.3 yrs 5.2 yr Average Number of Employees 358 8 

Total Projected State Revenues (post-2007)3	 $382.9 million $276.1 – $331.3 million 

Total Projected Federal Revenues (post-2007)4 $283.6 million 	 $210.9 – $266.1 million 

1	 Assumes 94 percent recovery of mineable coal. This table excludes all coal that would not be mined beneath the Bishop County Roa2 	 The lease area includes federal coal leases only and does not include state and private coal within the permit boundary. The distur

(total federal, state and private) because of the need for highwall reduction, topsoil removal, and other mine support activities oupermit area is larger than the leased or disturbed area to assure that all disturbed lands are within the permit boundary and to adescription. 

3	 Revenues to the state of Wyoming include severance taxes, property and production (ad valorum) taxes, sales and use taxes, and W

payments, AML fees, and bonus bids. State revenues are based on $0.4312 per ton estimate for severance taxes  amount of recovestimate for ad valorum taxes  amount of recoverable coal, plus $0.0569 per ton estimate for sales and use taxes  amount of rec(projected for 8,400-Btu coal) price  amount of recoverable coal  federal royalty of 12.5 percent minus federal’s 50 percent share, p

amount of recoverable coal minus federal’s 50 percent share, plus bonus payment on LBA leased coal of $0.30 to $0.97 per to

payments made for the last 9 LBAs sold in 2004, 2005, 2008, and 2009)  amount of mineable coal minus federal’s 50 percent shbased on the outcome of recent legislation that changed the percent of distribution to states. 

4	 Federal revenues include black lung taxes and the federal government’s share of federal royalty payments, AML fees, and bonus bids. 

$9.98 per ton (projected for 8,400-Btu coal) price  amount of recoverable coal  black lung tax of 4.40 percent, plus $9.98 per ton (fo

of recoverable coal  federal royalty of 12.5 percent minus state’s 50 percent share, plus $0.28 per ton for AML fees  amount of recovpercent share, plus bonus payment on LBA leased coal of $0.30 to $0.97 per ton (based on the range of bonus payments made for the 

2008, and 2009)  amount of mineable coal minus state’s 50 percent share. These figures could change based on the outcome of rec

percent of distribution to the federal government. 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications ES-11 
Executive Summary 

Table ES-3. Summary Comparison of Coal Production, Surface Disturbance, Mine Life, and R

Creek LBA tract and Coal Creek Mine. 

No Action Alternative Added by 

Item (Existing Coal Creek Mine) Proposed Action 

In-Place Coal (as of 6/30/08) 241.7 mmt 63.3 mmt 

Mineable Coal (as of 6/30/08) 241.7 mmt 63.3 mmt 

Recoverable Coal (as of 6/30/08)1 217.5 mmt 57.0 mmt 

Coal Mined (as of 6/30/08) 68.9 mmt  

Lease Area2 5,918.0 ac 1,151.3 ac 

Total Area To Be Disturbed2 8,354.9 ac 1,925.4 ac 

Permit Area2 9,722.7 ac 3,162 ac 

Current Air Quality Permitted Production 25.0 mmt 0 mmt 

Average Annual Post-2007 Coal Production 13.4 mmt 0 mmt Remaining Life of Mine (post-2007) 16.2 yrs 4.3 yr 

Average Number of Employees 125 0 

Total Projected State Revenues (post-2007)3 $353.2 million $102.1 – $123.3 million 

Total Projected Federal Revenues (post-2007)4 $261.6 million $78.1 - $99.3 million 

1	 Assumes 90 percent recovery of mineable coal. 2 	 The lease area includes federal coal leases only and does not include state and private coal within the permit boundary. The distur

(total federal, state and private) because of the need for highwall reduction, topsoil removal, and other mine support activities oupermit area is larger than the leased or disturbed area to assure that all disturbed lands are within the permit boundary and to adescription. 

3	 Revenues to the state of Wyoming include severance taxes, property and production (ad valorum) taxes, sales and use taxes, and W

payments, AML fees, and bonus bids. State revenues are based on $0.4312 per ton estimate for severance taxes  amount of recoestimate for ad valorum taxes  amount of recoverable coal, plus $0.0569 per ton estimate for sales and use taxes  amount of rec(projected for 8,400-Btu coal) price  amount of recoverable coal  federal royalty of 12.5 percent minus federal’s 50 percent share, p

amount of recoverable coal minus federal’s 50 percent share, plus bonus payment on LBA leased coal of $0.30 to $0.97 per to

payments made for the last 9 LBAs sold in 2004, 2005, 2008, and 2009)  amount of mineable coal minus federal’s 50 percent shbased on the outcome of recent legislation that changed the percent of distribution of mineral royalties to states. 

4	 Federal revenues include black lung taxes and the federal government’s share of federal royalty payments, AML fees, and bonus bids

$9.98 per ton (projected for 8,400-Btu coal) price  amount of recoverable coal  black lung tax of 4.40 percent, plus $9.98 per 

amount of recoverable coal  federal royalty of 12.5 percent minus state’s 50 percent share, plus $0.28 per ton for AML fees  am

state’s 50 percent share, plus bonus payment on LBA leased coal of $0.30 to $0.97 per ton (based on the range of bonus payments 2004, 2005, 2008, and 2009)  amount of mineable coal minus state’s 50 percent share. These figures could change based on the ochanged the percent of distribution of mineral royalties to the federal government. 

ES-12 Final EIS, South Gillette Area 
Table ES-4. Summary Comparison of Coal Production, Surface Disturbance, Mine Life, and Rev

LBA tract and Caballo Mine if the Bishop Road (Campbell County Road 12) is Moved ais Recovered. 

No Action Alternative Added by 

Item (Existing Caballo Mine) Proposed Action (

In-Place Coal (as of 6/30/08) 893.7 mmt 98.2 mmt 

Mineable Coal (as of 6/30/08) 687.8 mmt 87.5 mmt 

Recoverable Coal (as of 6/30/08)1 584.8 mmt 81.8 mmt 

Coal Mined (as of 6/30/08) 510.4 mmt  Lease Area2 11,704.5 ac 777.5 ac 

Total Area To Be Disturbed2 16,898.0 ac 1,349.9 ac 

Permit Area2 19,974.7 ac 1,294.1 ac 

Current Air Quality Permitted Production 50.0 mmt 0 mmt 

Average Annual Post-2007 Coal Production 37.8 mmt 0 mmt Remaining Life of Mine (post-2007) 15.4 yrs 2.2 yr 

Average Number of Employees 549 0 

Total Projected State Revenues (post-2007)3 $949.6 million $146.0 – $175.3 million $

Total Projected Federal Revenues (post-2007)4 $703.4 million $111.5 - $140.8 million $

1	 Assumes 93.5 percent recovery of mineable coal. 2 	 The lease area includes federal coal leases only and does not include state and private coal within the permit boundary. The dist

area (total federal, state and private) because of the need for highwall reduction, topsoil removal, and other mine support activities The permit area is larger than the leased or disturbed area to assure that all disturbed lands are within the permit boundary and land description. 

3	 Revenues to the state of Wyoming include severance taxes, property and production (ad valorum) taxes, sales and use taxes, an

royalty payments, AML fees, and bonus bids. State revenues are based on $0.4312 per ton estimate for severance taxes  amount oper ton estimate for ad valorum taxes  amount of recoverable coal, plus $0.0569 per ton estimate for sales and use taxes  amount per ton (projected for 8,400-Btu coal) price  amount of recoverable coal  federal royalty of 12.5 percent minus federal’s 50 percenAML fees  amount of recoverable coal minus federal’s 50 percent share, plus bonus payment on LBA leased coal of $0.30 to $0.97 bonus payments made for the last 9 LBAs sold in 2004, 2005, 2008, and 2009)  amount of mineable coal minus federal’s 50 percechange based on the outcome of recent legislation that changed the percent of distribution of mineral royalties to states. 

4	 Federal revenues include black lung taxes and the federal government’s share of federal royalty payments, AML fees, and bonus bids

on $9.98 per ton (projected for 8,400-Btu coal) price  amount of recoverable coal  black lung tax of 4.40 percent, plus $9.98 per ton amount of recoverable coal  federal royalty of 12.5 percent minus state’s 50 percent share, plus $0.28 per ton for AML fees  amounstate’s 50 percent share, plus bonus payment on LBA leased coal of $0.30 to $0.97 per ton (based on the range of bonus payments m

in 2004, 2005, 2008, and 2009)  amount of mineable coal minus state’s 50 percent share. These figures could change based on the 

that changed the percent of distribution of mineral royalties to the federal government. 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications ES-13 
Executive Summary 

Table ES-5. Summary Comparison of Coal Production, Surface Disturbance, Mine Life, and Rev

LBA tract and Caballo Mine if the Bishop Road (Campbell County Road 12) is Not MoCoal is Not Recovered. 

No Action Alternative Added by 

Item (Existing Caballo Mine) Proposed Action (

In-Place Coal (as of 6/30/08) 893.7 mmt 98.2 mmt 

Mineable Coal (as of 6/30/08) 687.8 mmt 87.5 mmt 

Recoverable Coal (as of 6/30/08)1 584.8 mmt 81.8 mmt 

Coal Mined (as of 6/30/08) 510.4 mmt  

Lease Area2 11,704.5 ac 777.5 ac Total Area To Be Disturbed2 16,898.0 ac 1,213.0 ac 

Permit Area2 19,974.7 ac 1,294.1 ac 

Current Air Quality Permitted Production 50.0 mmt 0 mmt 

Average Annual Post-2007 Coal Production 37.8 mmt 0 mmt 

Remaining Life of Mine (post-2007) 15.4 yrs 2.2 yr Average Number of Employees 549 0 

Total Projected State Revenues (post-2007)3 $949.6 million $146.0 – $175.3 million $

Total Projected Federal Revenues (post-2007)4 $703.4 million $111.5 - $140.8 million $

1	 Assumes 93.5 percent recovery of mineable coal. This table excludes all coal that would not be mined beneath the Bishop County Ro2 	 The lease area includes federal coal leases only and does not include state and private coal within the permit boundary. The disturbe

(total federal, state and private) because of the need for highwall reduction, topsoil removal, and other mine support activities outspermit area is larger than the leased or disturbed area to assure that all disturbed lands are within the permit boundary and to alldescription. 

3	 Revenues to the state of Wyoming include severance taxes, property and production (ad valorum) taxes, sales and use taxes, and Wyo

payments, AML fees, and bonus bids. State revenues are based on $0.4312 per ton estimate for severance taxes  amount of recoveestimate for ad valorum taxes  amount of recoverable coal, plus $0.0569 per ton estimate for sales and use taxes  amount of recov(projected for 8,400-Btu coal) price  amount of recoverable coal  federal royalty of 12.5 percent minus federal’s 50 percent share, p amount of recoverable coal minus federal’s 50 percent share, plus bonus payment on LBA leased coal of $0.30 to $0.97 per ton payments made for the last 9 LBAs sold in 2004, 2005, 2008, and 2009)  amount of mineable coal minus federal’s 50 percent sharbased on the outcome of recent legislation that changed the percent of distribution of mineral royalties to states. 

4	 Federal revenues include black lung taxes and the federal government’s share of federal royalty payments, AML fees, and bonus bids. 

on $9.98 per ton (projected for 8,400-Btu coal) price  amount of recoverable coal  black lung tax of 4.40 percent, plus $9.98 per ton amount of recoverable coal  federal royalty of 12.5 percent minus state’s 50 percent share, plus $0.28 per ton for AML fees  amount state’s 50 percent share, plus bonus payment on LBA leased coal of $0.30 to $0.97 per ton (based on the range of bonus payments m

2004, 2005, 2008, and 2009)  amount of mineable coal minus state’s 50 percent share. These figures could change based on the outchanged the percent of distribution of mineral royalties to the federal government. 

ES-14 Final EIS, South Gillette Area 
Table ES-6. Summary Comparison of Coal Production, Surface Disturbance, Mine Life, and Re

LBA tract, Assuming Wyoming Highway 59 and the BNSF & UP Railroad are Not MovCoal is Not Recovered and if the Haight and Hilight Roads are Moved and the Underly

Add

No Action Alternative Added by Added by (Pr

Item (Existing Cordero Rojo Mine) Proposed Action Alternative 2 (North Tr

In-Place Coal (as of 6/30/08) 572.9 mmt 504.2 mmt 533.2 mmt 326.4 mMineable Coal (as of 6/30/08) 571.5 mmt 499.7 mmt 527.5 mmt 322.5 mRecoverable Coal (as of 6/30/08)1 525.9 mmt 449.8 mmt 474.7 mmt 290.2 m

Coal Mined (as of 6/30/08) 769.3 mmt    

Lease Area2 13,529.31 ac 4,653.8 ac 4,895.6 ac 2,825.4 

Total Area To Be Disturbed2 14,694.0 ac 6,675.0 ac 6,917.3 ac 3,429.6 

Permit Area2 16,910.6 ac 16,832.4 ac 16,832.4 ac 6,850.3 

Current Air Quality Permitted Production 65.0 mmt 0 mmt 0 mmt 0 mmt 

Average Annual Post-2007 Coal 46.3 mmt 0 mmt 0 mmt 0 mmt 

Production Remaining Life of 11.4 yrs 9.7 yr 10.3 yr 6.3 yr 

Mine (post-2007) Average Number of Employees 510 60 63 8 

Total Projected State Revenues (post- $854.0 million $805.4 – $972.7 $850.1 - $1026.9 $519.6 - $6

2007)3 million million million 

Total Projected Federal Revenues (post- $632.6 million $616.0 - $783.4 $650.2 - $827.0 $397.4 - $52007)4 million million million 

1	 Assumes 90 percent recovery of mineable coal. This table excludes all coal that would not be mined beneath the Wyoming Highway 59 

railroad right-of-way. 

2 	 The lease area includes federal coal leases only and does not include state and private coal within the permit boundary. The disturbed a

federal, state and private) because of the need for highwall reduction, topsoil removal, and other mine support activities outside the leaslarger than the leased or disturbed area to assure that all disturbed lands are within the permit boundary and to allow an easily defined lega

3	 Revenues to the state of Wyoming include severance taxes, property and production (ad valorum) taxes, sales and use taxes, and Wyoming’s 

AML fees, and bonus bids. State revenues are based on $0.4312 per ton estimate for severance taxes  amount of recoverable coal, pluvalorum taxes  amount of recoverable coal, plus $0.0569 per ton estimate for sales and use taxes  amount of recoverable coal, plus $9.9coal) price  amount of recoverable coal  federal royalty of 12.5 percent minus federal’s 50 percent share, plus $0.28 per ton for AML fees  federal’s 50 percent share, plus bonus payment on LBA leased coal of $0.30 to $0.97 per ton (based on the range of bonus payments mad2005, 2008, and 2009)  amount of mineable coal minus federal’s 50 percent share. These figures could change based on the outcome of rpercent of distribution of mineral royalties to states. 

4	 Federal revenues include black lung taxes and the federal government’s share of federal royalty payments, AML fees, and bonus bids. Federa

ton (projected for 8,400-Btu coal) price  amount of recoverable coal  black lung tax of 4.40 percent, plus $9.98 per ton (for 8,400-Btu coal)  federal royalty of 12.5 percent minus state’s 50 percent share, plus $0.28 per ton for AML fees  amount of recoverable coal minus stapayment on LBA leased coal of $0.30 to $0.97 per ton (based on the range of bonus payments made for the last 9 LBAs sold in 2004, 20mineable coal minus state’s 50 percent share. These figures could change based on the outcome of recent legislation that changed the royalties to the federal government. 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications ES-15 
Executive Summary 

Table ES-7.	 Summary Comparison of Coal Production, Surface Disturbance, Mine Life, and Re

LBA tract, Assuming Wyoming Highway 59, the Haight and Hilight Roads, and the are Not Moved and the Underlying Coal is Not Recovered. 

Add

No Action Alternative Added by Added by (Pre

Item (Existing Cordero Rojo Mine) Proposed Action Alternative 2 (North Tra

In-Place Coal (as of 6/30/08) 572.9 mmt 504.2 mmt 533.2 mmt 326.4 mMineable Coal (as of 6/30/08) 571.5 mmt 482.7 mmt 510.5 mmt 322.5 mRecoverable Coal (as of 6/30/08)1 525.9 mmt 434.5 mmt 459.5 mmt 290.2 m

Coal Mined (as of 6/30/08) 769.3 mmt    

Lease Area2 13,529.31 ac 4,653.8 ac 4,895.6 ac 2,825.4 

Total Area To Be Disturbed2 14,694.0 ac 6,200.8 ac 6,422.5 ac 3,353.9 

Permit Area2 16,910.6 ac 16,832.4 ac 16,832.4 ac 6,850.3 

Current Air Quality Permitted Production 65.0 mmt 0 mmt 0 mmt 0 mmt 

Average Annual Post-2007 Coal 46.3 mmt 0 mmt 0 mmt 0 mmt 

Production Remaining Life of 11.4 yrs 9.4 yr 9.9 yr 6.3 yr 

Mine (post-2007) Average Number of Employees 510 60 63 8 

Total Projected State Revenues (post- $854.0 million $778.0 – $939.7 $822.8 - $993.7 $519.6 - $6

2007)3 million million million 

Total Projected Federal Revenues (post- $632.6 million $595.1 - $756.7 $629.3 - $800.3 $397.4 - $5

2007)4 million million million 

1	 Assumes 90 percent recovery of mineable coal. This table excludes all coal that would not be mined beneath the Wyoming Highw

railroad right-of-way, and the Haight and Hilight Roads rights-of-way. 

2 	 The lease area includes federal coal leases only and does not include state and private coal within the permit boundary. The disturb

(total federal, state and private) because of the need for highwall reduction, topsoil removal, and other mine support activities outpermit area is larger than the leased or disturbed area to assure that all disturbed lands are within the permit boundary and to a

description. 

3	 Revenues to the state of Wyoming include severance taxes, property and production (ad valorum) taxes, sales and use taxes, and W

payments, AML fees, and bonus bids. State revenues are based on $0.4312 per ton estimate for severance taxes  amount of recovestimate for ad valorum taxes  amount of recoverable coal, plus $0.0569 per ton estimate for sales and use taxes  amount of reco(projected for 8,400-Btu coal) price  amount of recoverable coal  federal royalty of 12.5 percent minus federal’s 50 percent share, p

amount of recoverable coal minus federal’s 50 percent share, plus bonus payment on LBA leased coal of $0.30 to $0.97 per ton 

payments made for the last 9 LBAs sold in 2004, 2005, 2008, and 2009)  amount of mineable coal minus federal’s 50 percent shabased on the outcome of recent legislation that changed the percent of distribution of mineral royalties to states. 

4	 Federal revenues include black lung taxes and the federal government’s share of federal royalty payments, AML fees, and bonus bids

$9.98 per ton (projected for 8,400-Btu coal) price  amount of recoverable coal  black lung tax of 4.40 percent, plus $9.98 per ton (foof recoverable coal  federal royalty of 12.5 percent minus state’s 50 percent share, plus $0.28 per ton for AML fees  amount of repercent share, plus bonus payment on LBA leased coal of $0.30 to $0.97 per ton (based on the range of bonus payments made for the 2008, and 2009)  amount of mineable coal minus state’s 50 percent share. These figures could change based on the outcome of recpercent of distribution of mineral royalties to the federal government. 

ES-16 Final EIS, South Gillette Area 
 Executive Summary 

•	 Alternative 1 - Under Alternative 1, the No Action alternative for each 

tract, the LBA tracts would not be leased, but the existing leases at the 

adjacent Belle Ayr, Coal Creek, Caballo, and Cordero Rojo mines would 

be developed according to the existing approved mining plans. The No 

Action alternatives are described in tables ES-1 through ES-7. Rejection 

of the lease applications would not preclude an application to lease the 

tracts in the future. 

•	 Alternative 2 - Under Alternative 2 for each tract, BLM would 

reconfigure the tract to include some or the entire LBA tract as applied 

for and may increase the size of the tract. BLM would hold a competitive 

lease sale and issue a maintenance lease for a tract that is larger than 

the applied-for tract. Alternative 2 is the Preferred Alternative for the 

Belle North, West Coal Creek, and Caballo West LBA tracts. Alternative 

2 for each LBA tract is shown on figures ES-2 through ES-5 and 

described in tables ES-1 through ES-7. 

•	 Alternative 3 - Under Alternative 3 (for the Maysdorf II LBA tract only), 

BLM would divide the tract into two tracts and offer 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. Alternative 3 is the Preferred 

Alternative for the Maysdorf II LBA tract. Alternative 3 is shown on 

figures ES-4 and ES-5 and described in tables ES-6 and ES-7. 

BLM identified a study area for each LBA tract in order to evaluate the 

potential that an alternate configuration of the tract would provide more 

efficient recovery of the federal coal, increase competitive interest in the tract, 

and/or reduce the potential that some of the remaining unleased federal coal in 

this area would be bypassed in the future. The BLM study area includes the 

tract as applied for plus adjacent unleased federal coal, which is depicted as 

the additional area evaluated under Alternatives 2 and 3 in figures ES-2 

through ES-7. 

One alternative that was considered but not analyzed in detail included holding 

competitive coal lease sales and issuing leases for one or more of the tracts to 

the successful bidder (not the applicants) for the purpose of developing new 

stand-alone mines. Another alternative called for delaying the sale of one or 

more of the tracts as applied for to increase the benefit to the public afforded 

by higher coal prices or to allow more complete recovery of the potential coal 

bed natural gas (CBNG) resources in the tracts prior to mining. 

Tables ES-2, ES-5, and ES-7 summarize estimated coal production, surface 

disturbance, and mine life for the Belle Ayr, Caballo, and Cordero Rojo mines if 

the public highway/county roads are not moved. The environmental impacts 

of mining the LBA tracts would be similar under the Proposed Action and 

action alternatives. The following discussion assumes that the county roads 

are not moved. 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications	 ES-17 
 

Executive Summary 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS 

Critical elements of the human environment that could be affected by the 

proposed project include air quality, cultural resources, Native American 

religious concerns, threatened and endangered (T&E) plant and animal species, 

migratory birds, hazardous or solid waste, water quality, wetlands/riparian 

zones, floodplains, environmental justice, and invasive nonnative species (BLM 

1988). Four other critical elements (areas of critical environmental concern, 

prime and unique farmland, wild and scenic rivers, and wilderness) are not 

present in the project areas and are not addressed further. In addition to the 

critical elements that are potentially present in the project areas, the EIS 

discusses the status and potential effects of the project on topography and 

physiography, geology, mineral resources, soils, water availability and quality, 

alluvial valley floors (AVFs), vegetation, wildlife, land use and recreation, 

paleontological resources, visual resources, noise, transportation resources, 

and socioeconomics. 

Topography 

The general South Gillette analysis area (the general area around all four LBA 

tracts) is located in the PRB, a part of the Northern Great Plains that includes 

most of northeastern Wyoming. The Belle Ayr North, West Coal Creek, Caballo 

West, and Maysdorf II LBA tracts are located in the eastern part of the PRB, in 

an area consisting primarily of a dissected rolling upland plain with low relief, 

broken by low red-capped buttes, mesas, hills, and ridges. Playas are common 

in the basin, as are buttes and plateaus capped by clinker or sandstone. 

Elevations in the general South Gillette analysis area range from about 4,515 

feet to 4,885 feet above sea level and slopes range from flat to around 57 

percent. In the individual tracts, the average slopes range from 4 to 5 percent. 

The existing topography on each LBA tract that is leased would be 

substantially changed during mining. A highwall with a vertical height equal to 

overburden plus coal thickness would exist in the active pits. Following 

reclamation, the average surface elevation would be lower due to removal of the 

coal. The reclaimed land surface would approximate premining contours, and 

the basic drainage network would be retained; however, the reclaimed surface 

would typically contain fewer and gentler topographic features. This could 

contribute to reduced habitat diversity and wildlife carrying capacity on the 

LBA tracts. These topographic changes would not conflict with regional land 

use, and the postmining topography would adequately support anticipated 

postmining land use for each tract. 

Geology and Coal Resources 

The mineable coal seams in the PRB are part of the Tongue River Member of 

the Fort Union. These are referred to as the Anderson and Canyon, WyodakAnderson, and Wyodak coal beds by mines in the eastern PRB. There is one 

mineable coal zone within the general South Gillette analysis area. Locally, 

ES-18 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
 

 

 Executive Summary 

this coal zone is referred to as either the Wyodak or the Wyodak-Anderson. 

The average thickness of the Wyodak coal seam ranges between 36 feet within 

the West Coal Creek LBA tract to 74 feet within the Caballo West LBA. Up to 

five noncoal splits or partings occur within the seam, but they are typically 

local, discontinuous lenses of carbonaceous clay or shale that are less than 1 

foot thick. 

The geology from the base of the coal to the land surface would be subject to 

considerable permanent change on each LBA tract under all alternatives. The 

coal would be permanently removed. The replaced overburden would be a 

relatively homogeneous mixture compared to the premining layered 

overburden. 

Other Minerals 

Development of other minerals potentially present on the tracts could not occur 

during mining but could occur after mining. According to the January 2008 

reserve estimate of conventional oil and gas resources that was prepared by 

Allen & Crouch Petroleum Engineers, Inc. of Casper, Wyoming, there are 

currently 18 wells capable of producing oil or conventional gas located on the 

four LBA tract study areas. Of the 18 wells, 13 are considered to have 

recoverable reserves, using in-place oil and gas recovery methods. Estimated 

remaining recoverable reserves from these 13 wells are just over 273,700 

barrels of oil and 12 million cubic feet (mmcf) of gas. Any oil and conventional 

wells on the tracts would have to be plugged and abandoned during mining but 

could be recompleted after mining if the remaining reserves justify the expense 

of the recompletion. 

Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (WOGCC) records show that 

as of December 13, 2007, 445 wells had been drilled for CBNG production in 

the 57-section area encompassing or immediately adjacent to the general 

South Gillette analysis area and 288 were capable of producing (WOGCC 

2007). There are 153 CBNG wells within the four LBA tracts. CBNG is also 

being produced locally from other deeper seams in the PRB. Fifteen wells have 

been completed in the deeper Pawnee coal seam on and west of the Maysdorf II 

LBA tract. All of these Pawnee wells are either shut in or are producing water 

(WOGCC 2007). CBNG resources that are not recovered prior to mining would 

be vented to the atmosphere and irretrievably lost when the coal is removed. 

BLM’s policy is to optimize recovery of both resources, ensure the public 

receives a reasonable return, and encourage agreements between lessees or 

use BLM authority to minimize loss of publicly owned resources. 

Paleontology Resources 

Significant or unique paleontological resources have not been reported by the 

SGAC mines, although additional surveys for paleontological resources may be 

required. 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications ES-19 
Executive Summary 

Air Quality 

Surface coal mining activities generate fugitive dust and particulate and 

gaseous tailpipe emissions from large mining equipment. Specifically, activities 

such as blasting, excavating, loading and hauling of overburden and coal, and 

wind erosion of disturbed and unreclaimed mining areas produce fugitive dust. 

Coal crushing, storage, and handling facilities are the most common stationary 

or point sources associated with surface coal mining and preparation. 

Particulate matter is the pollutant emitted from coal mine point sources. Since 

1989, the regulated particulate pollutant in Wyoming has been PM10 

(particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter of 10 microns or less). 

Wyoming also adopted a fine particulate, PM2.5 (particulate matter with a mean 

aerodynamic diameter of 2.5 microns or less), standard in March 2000. EPA 

has revoked the annual PM10 standard of 50 μg/m3 but retained the 24-hour 

PM10 standard of 150 μg/m3. Until the state of Wyoming enters into 

rulemaking to revise the WAAQS, the annual PM10 standard of 50 μg/m3 is still 

effective. 

Blasting is also responsible for another type of emission from surface coal 

mining. Overburden and coal blasting sometimes produces gaseous, orangecolored clouds that contain nitrous dioxide (NO2). Exposure to NO2 may have 

adverse health effects. NO2 is one of several products resulting from the 

incomplete combustion of explosives used in the blasting process. 

Other existing air pollutant emission sources within the region include: 

	 CO and nitrogen oxides (NOx) from internal combustion engines used at 

natural gas and CBNG pipeline compressor stations; 

	 CO, NOx, particulates (PM10 and PM2.5), sulfur dioxide (SO2), and volatile 

organic compounds (VOCs) from gasoline and diesel vehicle tailpipe 

emissions; 

	 Particulate matter (dust) generated by vehicle travel on unpaved graded 

roads, agricultural activities such as plowing, and paved road sanding 

during the winter months, as well as windblown dust from neighboring 

areas; 

	 NO2 and PM10 emissions from railroad locomotives used to haul coal; 

	 SO2 and NOx from power plants. The closest coal-fired power plants are 

the Dave Johnston plant, located about 40-60 miles south-southwest of 

these six LBA tracts, and the Wyodak, Wygen, and Neil Simpson plants, 

located about 35-55 miles north of these four LBA tracts; and 

	 Air pollutants transported from emission sources located outside the 

PRB. 

Moderately adverse short-term impacts to air quality would be extended onto 

the Belle Ayr North LBA tract. Long-term modeling predicted no exceedances 

of the annual PM10 National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) at the 

permitted 45-mmtpy production rate. There have been no exceedances of the 

24-hour and annual PM10 NAAQS at the Belle Ayr Mine. The dispersion model 

ES-20 	 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
 Executive Summary 

showed a maximum PM10 concentration on the boundary of the Belle Ayr lands 

necessary to conduct mining (LNCM) of 42.02 micrograms per cubic meter 

(μg/m3) in 2013 (figure ES-6). 

Moderately adverse short-term impacts to air quality would be extended onto 

the West Coal Creek LBA tract. Long-term modeling predicted no exceedances 

of the annual PM10 NAAQS at the permitted 50-mmtpy production rate. There 

have been no exceedances of the 24-hour and annual PM10 NAAQS at the Coal 

Creek Mine. The dispersion model showed a maximum PM10 concentration on 

the Coal Creek LNCM boundary of 38.88 μg/m3 in 2016 (figure ES-7). 

Moderately adverse short-term impacts to air quality would be extended onto 

the Caballo West LBA tract. Long-term modeling predicted no exceedances of 

the annual PM10 NAAQS at the permitted 50-mmtpy production rate and there 

have been no exceedances of the 24-hour and annual PM10 NAAQS. The 

dispersion model showed a maximum PM10 concentration on the Caballo LNCM 

boundary of 46.98 μg/m3 in 2014 (figure ES-8). 

Moderately adverse short-term impacts to air quality would be extended onto 

the Maysdorf II LBA tract. Long-term modeling predicted no exceedances of the 

annual PM10 NAAQS at the permitted 65-mmtpy production rate. There have 

been no exceedances of the 24-hour and annual PM10 NAAQS. The dispersion 

model showed a maximum PM10 concentration on the Cordero Rojo LNCM 

boundary of 45.6 μg/m3 in 2007 (figure ES-9). 

There would be an increase in stripping ratio in each of the LBA tracts 

compared to the applicant mines’ current leases. That could result in an 

increase in fugitive emissions per ton of coal mined from current levels due to 

the increased volume of overburden that would have to be removed to recover 

the coal. The increase in fugitive dust emissions could potentially be 

moderated somewhat if removal of the larger volume of overburden material 

results in a slower rate of mining advancement through the LBA tracts. This 

would potentially decrease the number of acres disturbed annually and cause 

haul distances to increase more slowly. Particulate emissions are expected to 

remain within daily and annual limits. 

Low-lying, gaseous orange clouds containing nitrogen oxides (NOX) that can be 

transported by wind can sometimes form from overburden blasting prior to coal 

removal. EPA has expressed concerns that NOX levels in some blasting clouds 

may be sufficiently high at times to cause human health effects. Because of 

these incidents, Wyoming Department of Environment Quality/Land Quality 

Division (WDEQ/LQD) has directed some mines to take steps designed to 

mitigate the effects of NO2 emissions occurring from overburden blasting. To 

date, there have been no reported events of public exposure to NO2 from 

blasting activities at the Belle Ayr, Coal Creek, Caballo, and Cordero Rojo 

mines. There were two reports of off-site NOX clouds related to cast blasts at 

the Caballo Mine prior to September 2007 but no actual exposure complaints 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications ES-21 
48 

Bishop

T-7 Road 

T-7 Road 

BNSF RR 

Road 

BNSF & UP RR 

BNSF & UP RR 

Fairview

Road 

Corners 

Road 

State

 59 

Highway 

Creek 

Bishop 

Road 

Haight Road 

36 31 32 34 35 33 35 49 34 33

State Highway 59

Hilight Road

Executive Summary 

28 27 26 R. 72 W. R. 71 W. 28 27 26 R. 71 W. R. 70 W. 29 Four 

T. 

36 31 32 49 

N. 

T. 

N. 

T. T. 5 5 4 3 2 1 6 48 4 3 2 1 6 

N. N. 

8 7 8 9 10 11 12 9 10 11 12 7 

18 17 16 15 14 13 18 17 16 15 14 13 

20 

21 24 19 21 22 22 23 23 24 19 20 

29 28 27 26 30 25 28 27 26 25 30 

T. T. 

48 33 34 35 36 31 32 

N. 

34 36 31 32 33 35 48

N. 

T. T. 

2 1 6 6 5 47 47 4 3 2 1 5 3 4 N. N. Hoe 

Road NOx=37.97 μg/m3 

12 7 8 12 7 8 9 10 11 9 10 11 

PM10=42.02 μg/m3 

13 18 17 16 15 14 16 15 14 13 18 17 

24 19 20 21 23 21 22 23 24 19 20 22 

25 26 30 29 29 28 27 28 27 26 25 30 

32 33 33 34 35 R. 72 W. R. 71 W. 34 35 R. 71 W. R. 70 W. 

LEGEND 

Ambient Air Boundary Belle Ayr Mine Permit Boundary 

Existing Belle Ayr Mine Federal Coal Leases 

Area Source 

Haul Roads 

Belle Ayr North LBA Tract as Applied for 

Receptor Location BLM's Study Area 

Alternative 2, 5000 10000 20000 BLM's Preferred Alternative 

GRAPHIC SCALE (FEET) 

Figure ES-6. Maximum Modeled PM 10 and NOX Concentrations at the Belle Ayr Mine Ambient Air Boundary 

for the Year 2013. 

ES-22 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 

29 

32 

0 
47 

Mills Road 

T-7 Road 

BNSF & UP RR 

BNSF & UP RR 

Haight Road

Hilight Road

Executive Summary 

21 22 23 R. 71 W. R. 70 W. 20 21 22 23 R. 70 W. R. 69 W. 20

Hilight Road

RR B

H

NSF & UP

ey adl R o oad 25 30 29 28 27 26 25 30 29 28 27 26 

T. T. 32 33 34 35 36 31 32 33 34 35 36 31 47 

N. N. 

T. T. 4 3 2 1 6 5 46 46 4 3 2 1 6 5 

N. N. NOx=47.81 μg/m3 

8 

8 9 10 11 12 7 8 12 7 9 10 11 

18 17 16 15 14 13 18 17 16 15 14 13 

Hoadley Road 

20 21 22 23 24 19 20 21 22 23 24 19

29 26 25 30 29 28 27 28 27 26 25 30 

T. Wagensen Road

46 33 

T. 32 

34 35 36 31 33 34 35 36 31 32 46

N. N. 

T. T. 5 4 45 3 2 1 6 5 45 4 3 2 1 6 

N. N. Lawver Road 

PM10=38.88 μg/m3 

11 12 7 8 9 10 11 12 7 8 9 10 

14 13 18 18 17 16 15 16 15 14 13 

24 19 20 21 22 23 24 19 20 21 22 23 

Breen Road Lawver Road Lawver Road

25 30 

28 27 26 29 25 30 28 27 26 29 R. 71 W. R. 70 W. R. 70 W. R. 69 W. 

LEGEND 

Ambient Air Boundary Coal Creek Mine Permit Boundary 

Haul Roads Existing Coal Creek Mine Federal Coal Lease 

Area Source West Coal Creek LBA Tract as Applied for 

Receptor Location BLM's Study Area 

Alternative 2,
 BLM's Preferred Alternative
 0 5000 10000 20000 

GRAPHIC SCALE (FEET) 

Figure ES-7. Maximum Modeled PM 10 and NOX Concentrations at the Coal Creek Mine Ambient Air 

Boundary for the Year 2016. 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications ES-23

17 
14 

26 

14 

State 

Fairview 

Union Chappel Road 

Road

 59 Highway 

BNSF RR 

Road 

Corners 

Bishop Road 

Hoe 

Road 

Creek 

BNSF RR 

BNSF & UP RR 

Bishop Road 

State

 59 Highway 

Executive Summary 

11 R. 72 W. R. 71 W. 8 9 10 11 R. 71 W. R. 70 W. 8 9 10 

15 14 13 18 17 16 15 13 18 17 16 

19 20 21 22 

23 24 19 20 21 22 23 24 

29 30 26 25 30 29 28 27 25 28 27 Four 

NOx=59.80 μg/m3 

T. T. 31 

35 36 31 32 33 34 35 32 33 34 49 49 36 N. N. 

T. T. 5 5 4 3 48 4 3 2 1 6 48 2 1 6

N. N. 

9 10 8 7 9 10 11 12 11 12 7 

8 

16 15 

17 16 15 14 13 18 17 13 18 

PM10=46.98 μg/m3 

21 22 

20 21 22 23 24 19 23 24 19 20 

25 28 27 29 30 29 26 26 25 30 28 27 

36 

T. 

31 32 33 34 48 

N. 

T. 

48 35 

N. 

36 31 32 33 34 35 

T. 

T. 47 2 1 6 5 4 3 47 3 2 1 6 5 4 N. 

N. 

11 12 7 8 9 10 11 12 7 8 9 10 

14 13 18 

R. 72 W. R. 71 W. 17 16 15 14 13 18 R. 71 W. R. 70 W. 17 16 15 

LEGEND 

0 5000 10000 20000 

Receptor Location 

Area Source 

Ambient Air Boundary 

Haul Roads 

Caballo West LBA Tract as Applied for 

Existing Caballo Mine Federal Coal Leases 

Caballo Mine Permit Boundary 

BLM's Study Area (Alternative 2), 

BLM's Preferred Alternative 

GRAPHIC SCALE (FEET) 

Figure ES-8. Maximum Modeled PM10 and NOx Concentrations at the Caballo Mine Ambient Air Boundary 

for the Year 2014. 

ES-24 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
24

22 

3 

22 

47 

State 

T-7 Road 

BNSF & UP RR 

 59 Highway 

State 59 Highway

Hilight Road

Bishop 

Road 

Haight Road 

Hoe 

Road 

Creek 

Executive Summary 

23
 R. 72 W. R. 71 W. 20
 21 22 23
 R. 71 W. R. 70 W. 

30
 

20
 21

29
 28 28 27 26 25 27 26 25 30 29
 

34 32
 33 35 31 33 48
 

NOx=49.6 μg/m3 36 

N.

RR

H

BNSF & UP

ey adl R o oad 

PM10=45.6 μg/m3 T. T. 

48 34
 35
 36 31
 32

N. 

T. T. 2 1 4 47 1 6 5 4 3 2 6 5
 N. N. 

12 7 8 9 10 11 10 11 12 7 8 9
 

13 18 17 16 14 15 14 17 13 18 16 15
 

19 20 21 22 23 24 19 20
 21 24 22 23
 

25
 28 27 30
 29 28 26 27 26 25 30
 29
 

T. T. 36 31 32 47 47 34 35 36 31 32 33 34 35
 

N. N. 

T. T. 6 5 4 46 46 3 2 1 3 2 1 6 5 4
 

N. N. 

10 11
 12 7 8 9 10 11 12 7 8 9
 

13 18 17 16 15 14 13 18 17 16 15 14
 

Hoadley Road 

21
 22
 24 19 20 21 23 24
 19
 20
 23

28 27 26 29 28 27 26 29 R. 72 W. R. 71 W. R. 71 W. R. 70 W. 

LEGEND 

Ambient Air Boundary Cordero Rojo Mine Permit Boundary 

Existing Cordero Rojo Mine Federal 

Coal Leases 

Area Source 

Haul Roads 

Maysdorf II LBA Tract as Applied for 

Receptor Location BLM's Study Area (Alternative 2) 

Dust Suppression Loadout 

North Tract Under Alternative 3, 

BLM's Preferred Alternative 

South Tract Under Alternative 3, 

BLM's Preferred Alternative 

0 5000 10000 20000
 

GRAPHIC SCALE (FEET) 

Figure ES-9. Maximum Modeled PM 10 and NOx Concentrations at the Cordero Rojo Mine Ambient Air 

Boundary for the Year 2007. 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications ES-25
 

33 
Executive Summary 

were reported. The WDEQ has not required the mines to implement any 

specific measures to control or limit public exposure to NO2 from blasting. 

Public exposure to emissions caused by surface mining operations is most 

likely to affect occupants of dwellings or businesses near the area of mining 

operations. Travelers on publicly accessible roads and highways that pass 

through and near the area of the mining operations could also be affected. 

There are occupied dwellings located approximately 0.75 mile north of the Belle 

Ayr North LBA tract, and three school bus stops are located on Bishop Road, 

one within the LBA tract (figure ES-10). There are occupied dwellings located 

approximately 0.2 mile and 1 mile west of the West Coal Creek LBA tract, and 

two school bus stops are located on Hoadley Road, approximately 1 mile west 

of the LBA tract (figure ES-11). There are occupied dwellings located 0.6 mile 

west of the Caballo West LBA tract, and three school bus stops are located 

along Bishop Road, adjacent to the LBA tract (figure ES-12). There are 

occupied dwellings located approximately 0.4 mile south of the northern 

portion of the Maysdorf II LBA tract and over 0.5 mile east of the LBA tract, 

and a school bus stop is located along Hoadley Road, approximately 1.25 miles 

south of the LBA tract (figure ES-13). 

Ozone (O3) has been included in discussions on emissions of NOX since NOX is 

one of the main ingredients involved in the formation of ground level O3. Motor 

vehicle exhaust and industrial emissions, gasoline vapors, and chemical 

solvents as well as natural sources emit NOX and volatile organic compounds 

that help form O3. Ozone monitoring is not required by WDEQ at the SGAC 

mines but levels have been monitored at WDEQ/AQD operated and maintained 

ambient air quality monitor sites in the PRB since 2001. No exceedances of the 

O3 standard have occurred at either of the two monitoring sites if evaluated 

under the standard in place at the time the values were recorded. If the 

strengthened 2008 standard was applied retroactively, one exceedance would 

have occurred in 2003 at the South Campbell County site. 

Water Resources 

Mining would disturb the coal aquifer and the aquifers in the overburden above 

the coal within the Belle Ayr North, West Coal Creek, Caballo West, and 

Maysdorf II LBA tracts. The coal aquifer and any water-bearing strata in the 

overburden would be removed and replaced with unconsolidated backfill. A 

continuous cone of depression currently exists around the Belle Ayr, Coal 

Creek, Caballo, and Cordero Rojo mines due to their closeness to each other 

and the cumulative drawdown effects from pit dewatering and nearby CBNG 

discharges. The extent of drawdown west of the mines that is specifically 

attributable to mine dewatering can no longer be defined due to much greater 

and areally extensive drawdown caused by CBNG development. Roughly 30 

years of surface mining and the more recent CBNG development have resulted 

in complete dewatering of the coal aquifer in localized areas, particularly near 

the mines’ pits and where the coal seams are structurally highest. Figure ES14 shows the extrapolated extent of life-of-mine cumulative drawdown within 

ES-26 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
28 

21 

28 

48 

Bishop

T-7 Road 

T-7 Road 

BNSF RR 

Road 

BNSF & UP RR 

BNSF & UP RR 

Fairview

Road 

Corners 

Road 

State

 59 Highway 

Creek 

Bishop 

Road 

Haight Road 

32 33 34 35

Hilight Road

Executive Summary 

R. 72 W. R. 71 W. 26 R. 71 W. R. 70 W. 29 27 26 28 27 Four 

T. 

36 31 32 49 

N. 

T. 33 34 35 36 31 49 

4 3 2 1

State Highway 59

N. 

T. 

N. 

T. 

T. 

5 4 3 2 1 6 5 48 6 

N. 

8 11 12 7 9 10 11 12 7 8 9 10 

B 

CABALLO MINE OFFICE 

B 13 18 17 16 15 17 16 15 14 14 13 18 

B 

19 22 21 22 23 23 24 24 20 19 20 

29 28 27 30 26 25 27 26 25 30 

B 

T. 34 31 32 33 35 36 48 48 33 34 35 36 31 32 N. N. 

T. T. 

3 2 1 6 5 47 47 4 3 2 1 6 5 4 N. N. Hoe 

Road 

12 12 7 8 10 11 9 10 11 7 8 9 

BELLE AYR MINE OFFICE 

13 18 16 15 14 16 15 14 13 18 17

24 19 20 21 23 21 22 23 24 19 20 22 

25 26 30 29 29 28 27 28 27 26 25 30 

35 32 33 34 35 R. 72 W. R. 71 W. R. 71 W. R. 70 W. 33 34 

5000 10000 

GRAPHIC SCALE (FEET) 

LEGEND 

B School Bus Stop 

Single Occupied Residence 

Multiple Occupied Residences
 Exist Within this Area
 (Boundaries are Approximate)
 

20000 

36 31

Belle Ayr Mine Permit Boundary 

Existing Belle Ayr Mine Federal Coal Leases 

Belle Ayr North LBA Tract as Applied for 

BLM's Study Area 

Alternative 2, 

BLM's Preferred Alternative 

3-Mile Radius 

Figure ES-10. Residences, School Bus Stops, Public Roads, and Other Publicly Accessible Facilities Within 

3 Miles of the Belle Ayr North LBA Study Area. 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications ES-27

29 

32 

17 

0 
25

29 

20 

17 

46 

Mills Road 

BNSF & UP RR 

Haight Road 

Hilight Road

Wagensen Road 

T-7 Road 

BNSF & UP RR 

Executive Summary 

20 21 22 23 R. 71 W. R. 70 W. 20 21 22 23 R. 70 W. R. 69 W.

Hilight Road

RR B

H

NSF & UP

ey adl R o oad

30 29 28 27 26 25 30 28 27 26 25 

T. T. 33 34 35 36 31 32 33 34 35 36 31 47 47 32 

N. 

T. 

N. 

T. 4 3 2 1 6 46 1 6 5 5 4 3 2 

COAL CREEK N. N. MINE OFFICE 

8 9 10 11 12 7 8 9 10 11 12 7 

14 13 18 18 17 16 15 17 16 15 14 13 

BLASTING Hoadley Road 

COMPANY 

OFFICE 

B 19 20 21 22 23 24 19 20 21 22 23 24 

B 

30 29 28 27 26 25 30 29 28 27 26 25 

T. T. 34 35 36 31 32 33 34 35 36 31 46 46 32 33 N. N. 

T. T. 5 4 3	 2 1 6 45 45	 3 2 1 6 5 4 N. N. Lawver Road B 

11 B	 10 11 12 7 9 10	 12 7 8 9 8 

14 13 18 18 17 16 15 16 15 14 13 

22 23 24 19 21 22 24 19 20 21 23 

Breen Road Lawver Road	 Lawver Road

29 28 27 26	 29 28 27 26 R. 71 W. R. 70 W. R. 70 W. R. 69 W. 

LEGEND 

Coal Creek Mine Permit Boundary 

Existing Coal Creek Mine Federal Coal Lease 

West Coal Creek LBA Tract as Applied for 

BLM's Study Area 

Alternative 2, 

BLM's Preferred Alternative 

3-Mile Radius 

B School Bus Stop 

GRAPHIC SCALE (FEET) 

0 5000	 10000 20000 

Single Occupied Residence 

Figure ES-11.	 Residences, School Bus Stops, Public Roads, and Other Publicly Accessible Facilities Within 

3 Miles of the West Coal Creek LBA Study Area. 

ES-28	 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
13 18

8 

State 

Fairview 

Union Chappel Road 

Road

 59 

Highway 

BNSF RR 

Corners 

Bishop 

Road 

Hoe 

Road 

Creek 

BNSF RR 

BNSF & UP RR 

Bishop Road 

State

 59 Highway 

Executive Summary 

R. 72 W. R. 71 W. 9 10 11 R. 71 W. R. 70 W. 9 10 11	 8 

14 13 18 17 16 15 14 13 18 17 16 15

T. T. 

49 33 34 35 36 31 32 33 34 35 31 32 49 36 

N. N. 

T. T. 

48 4 3 6 2 1 6 5 4 3 2 1	 5 48 

N. N. 

Road

8 7 9 10 9 10 11 12 11 12 7 

B 8 

13 17 18 16 15 14 13 B 17 16 15 14 18 

CABALLO MINE OFFICE 

B 

19 20 23 24 21 23 24 19 20 21 22 22 

30 29 26 25	 29 28 27 26 25 28 27	 30 Four 

20 19 21 22 21 22 23 23 24 19 20 24 

25 30 29 26 28 27 26 25 30 28 27 

B 

T. T. 32 36 31 48 33 34 32 33 34 35 48 35 31 36 N. N. BELLE AYR MINE OFFICE 

T. 

T. 5 47 1 6 47 4 3 2 5 4 3 2 1 6 N. 

N. 

9 10 11 12 7 8 9 10 11 12 7 8 

16 15 14 R. 72 W. R. 71 W. 17 16 15 14 R. 71 W. R. 70 W. 17 

LEGEND 

0 5000 10000 

B 

20000 

Single Occupied Residence 

School Bus Stop 

Multiple Occupied Residences 

Exist Within this Area 

(Boundaries are Approximate) 

Caballo West LBA Tract as Applied for 

Existing Caballo Mine Federal Coal Leases 

Caballo Mine Permit Boundary 

BLM's Study Area (Alternative 2), 

BLM's Preferred Alternative 

3-Mile Radius 

GRAPHIC SCALE (FEET) 

Figure ES-12.	 Residences, School Bus Stops, Public Roads, and Other Publicly Accessible Facilities Within 

3 Miles of the Caballo West LBA Study Area. 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications	 ES-29

29 
28 

29 

21 

48 

47 

State 

T-7 Road 

BNSF & UP RR 

 59 Highway 

State 59 Highway 

Hilight Road

Bishop 

Road 

Haight Road 

Wagensen Road 

Hoe 

Road 

Creek 

Executive Summary 

R. 72 W. R. 71 W.	 R. 71 W. R. 70 W. 20 21 22 23 20 21 22 23 24 19 24 19 

30 29 28 27 26 25 27 26 25 30 

T. T. 32 32 33 35 36 31 48 33 34 35 36 31 34

N. 

9 12 7 8 10 10 11 11 12 7 8 9

13 18 17 16 15 14 

13 18 16 15 14 17

CORDERO ROJO 

MINE OFFICE 

19 20 21	 23 21 22 23 24 MAYSDORF 19 20 24 22 

POINT
 CEMETARY
 

RR

H

BNSF & UP

ey o

R

adl

oad 

N. 

T. T. 

3 2	 2 1 1 6 5 47 4 3 6 5 4

N. 

T. 

N. 

T. 

30 29 29 28 27 28 27 25 30	 26 25 26 

33 34 36 31 32 33 34 35 36 31 32 47 47	 35 N. N. 

T. T. 

46 3 2 1 6 5 46 4 3 2 1 6 5 4 

N. N. 

10 11	 8 12 7 9 10 11 12 7 8 9 

18 17 16 15 14 13 18 17 16 15 14 13 

BLASTING Hoadley Road 

COMPANY 

OFFICE 

B 21 24 19 20 22 23 24 19 20 22 23

B 

28 27 26 25 29 28 27 26 25 30 30 

R. 72 W. R. 71 W. 33 34 35 R. 71 W. R. 70 W. 33 32 34 35 

Cordero Rojo Mine Permit Boundary LEGEND Existing Cordero Rojo Mine Federal 

Coal Leases B School Bus Stop 

Maysdorf II LBA Tract as Applied for Single Occupied Residence
 

Multiple Occupied Residences
 BLM's Study Area (Alternative 2) Exist Within this Area
 

(Boundaries are Approximate)
 North Tract Under Alternative 3, 

BLM's Preferred Alternative 

South Tract Under Alternative 3, 

BLM's Preferred Alternative 

GRAPHIC SCALE (FEET) 

0 5000	 10000 20000 

3-Mile Radius 

Figure ES-13.	 Residences, School Bus Stops, Public Roads, and Other Publicly Accessible Facilities Within 

3 Miles of the Maysdorf II LBA Study Area. 

ES-30	 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 

32 

29 
BNSF & UP RR 

BNSF RR 

5 

5 

5 

5 

5 

5 

Executive Summary 

 R. 73 W. R. 72 W. R. 71 W. R. 70 W. R. 69 W. 

59 

T. T. 

49 49 

N. N. 

50 

T. 

48 

N. 

T. 

47 

T. 

48 

N. 

T. 

47 

N. N. 

T. 

46 

N. 

T. 

46 

N. 

T. T. 

45 

N.

45 

N. 

SCALE:1"=24,000'	 59 

 R. 73 W. R. 72 W. R. 71 W. R. 70 W. R. 69 W.

LEGEND 

Extent of WDEQ's Cumulative and 

Extrapolated Life of Mine Drawdown (5 feet) 

with South Gillette Area Coal LBA Tracts 

Approximate Wyodak Coal Outcrop 

Caballo West LBA 

Tract as Applied for 

Belle Ayr North LBA 

Tract as Applied for 

Existing Caballo Mine 

Federal Coal Leases 

Existing Belle Ayr Mine 

Federal Coal Leases 

Clinker Maysdorf II LBA Existing Cordero Rojo 

Groundwater cumulative impact area information taken Tract as Applied for Mine Federal Coal Leases 

from Plate 1 in WDEQ-CHIA-14 (Ogle et al. 2005). West Coal Creek LBA Existing Coal Creek Mine 

Clinker and coal outcrop information modified from Tract as Applied for Federal Coal Lease 

Plate 1 in Heffern and Coates (2000). 

Figure ES-14.	 Extrapolated Extent of Life of Mine Cumulative Drawdown Within the Wyodak Coal Aquifer 

With the Addition of the South Gillette Area Coal LBA Tracts. 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications	 ES-31
Executive Summary 

the Wyodak coal aquifer with the addition of the four LBA tracts discussed in 

this EIS, which are defined as the South Gillette Area Coal (SGAC) LBA tracts. 

The area of drawdown in the discontinuous overburden aquifers would be 

smaller. The data available indicate that, after reclamation, the hydraulic 

properties of the backfill would be comparable to the properties of the 

premining overburden and coal aquifers. Total dissolved solids (TDS) levels in 

groundwater from the backfill could initially be expected to be higher than in 

the premining overburden and coal aquifers, but would be expected to meet 

Wyoming Class III standards for use as livestock water. 

Mining does not directly disturb the hydrogeologic units below the mineable 

coal, but many PRB mines use them for industrial water supply wells. In a few 

cases there have been drawdowns in the subcoal aquifer due to leakage into 

mine pits, dewatering, and CBNG development (BLM 2001). All four of the 

applicant mines located within the general South Gillette analysis area utilize 

water supply wells completed in aquifers stratigraphically below the Wyodak 

coal. If these four LBA tracts are leased and mined by the applicants, water 

would be produced from these wells for a longer period of time, but none of the 

mines would require additional sub-coal wells to continue mining and 

reclaiming operations. 

The Belle Fourche River and its tributaries drain the general South Gillette 

analysis area. The Belle Fourche River has been diverted around active pits 

and mine facilities within the existing Cordero Rojo Mine permit area. The river 

would also be diverted during mining of the Maysdorf II LBA tract, but would 

be restored during reclamation. After mining and reclamation are complete, 

surface water flow, quality, and sediment discharge would approximate 

premining conditions. 

Surface water quality varies with flow and/or season. Changes in runoff 

characteristics and sediment discharges would occur during mining of the LBA 

tracts, and erosion rates could reach high values on the disturbed areas as a 

result of vegetation removal. However, state and federal regulations require 

that surface runoff from mined lands be treated to meet effluent standards, so 

sediment would be deposited in ponds or other sediment-control devices. 

AVF investigations conducted within the general South Gillette analysis area 

have identified an AVF that occurs along Duck Nest Creek on the Belle Ayr 

North LBA tract. AVFs have also been identified along Tisdale and Caballo 

Creeks; however, those lands are located at considerable distances downstream 

of any of the LBA tracts. Approximately 14.9 acres of declared AVF on Duck 

Nest Creek are located within the Belle Ayr North general analysis area, but the 

WDEQ/LQD has declared them not to be significant to farming (WDEQ 1988). 

No other AVFs have been identified within the LBA tracts. 

A preliminary wetlands inventory, based on U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

(USFWS) National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) mapping and vegetation mapping 

in the field, was conducted for the wetland analysis area for each tract. A total 

ES-32 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
 

 Executive Summary 

of approximately 193.9 acres of “waters of the U.S.”, including a total of 14.4 

acres of jurisdictional waters of the U.S., occur within the wetlands analysis 

area for the Belle Ayr North LBA tract. Approximately 11.9 of those acres are 

jurisdictional wetlands that occur along the watercourse of Duck Nest Creek. 

The 2.5 acres of jurisdictional other waters of the U.S. that did not qualify as 

jurisdictional wetlands consist primarily of open water that is held within the 

in-channel impoundments and intermittent pools along Duck Nest Creek. The 

non-jurisdictional waters of the U.S. contained in the wetlands analysis area 

consists of the internally drained playas and total approximately 179.5 acres in 

area. As a result of recent court directives, playas are no longer identified as 

jurisdictional waters of the U.S. under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act 

(CWA). These non-jurisdictional wetland features can, however, have 

significant biological and hydrological importance. 

A total of approximately 16.9 acres of wetlands and other waters of the U.S. 

occur within the West Coal Creek wetlands analysis area. Non-jurisdictional 

wetlands and other waters of the U.S. were included in the above acreages and 

were not identified separately because only the Corp of Engineers (COE) has 

the authorization to make such determinations. Non-jurisdictional wetlands 

are generally associated with internally drained depressions/playas that are 

isolated, and non-jurisdictional other waters of the U.S. generally occur where 

areas of open water are ponded in a depression/playa area. No internally 

drained playas have been identified within the West Coal Creek general 

analysis area. 

A total of approximately 15.0 acres of waters of the U.S., including a total of 8.6 

acres of jurisdictional waters of the U.S., occur within the entire Caballo West 

wetlands analysis area. Approximately 6.5 of those acres are jurisdictional 

wetlands that occur along the water courses of Tisdale Creek. A playa, located 

adjacent to the LBA tract as applied for and within the wetlands analysis area, 

was delineated in 1996 as a jurisdictional wetland, but was later declared nonjurisdictional by the COE. Approximately 6.4 acres of non-jurisdictional 

wetlands are included in this playa. 

A total of approximately 140.1 acres of wetlands and other waters of the U.S. 

occur within the Maysdorf II wetlands analysis area. Of this 140.1 acres 

identified, approximately 133.5 acres are vegetated wetlands and the remaining 

6.6 acres are other waters of the U.S. Non-jurisdictional wetlands and other 

waters of the U.S. were included in the above acreages and were not identified 

separately because only the COE has the authorization to make such 

determinations. Non-jurisdictional wetlands are generally associated with 

internally drained depressions/playas that are isolated, and non-jurisdictional 

other waters of the U.S. generally occur where areas of open water are ponded 

in a depression/playa area. Approximately 49.9 acres of playas occur in the 

area, and those internally drained areas would probably be considered nonjurisdictional by the COE. 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications ES-33 
 

Executive Summary 

Existing wetlands located in the LBA tracts would be destroyed by mining 

operations. Jurisdictional wetlands that are disturbed by mining must be 

replaced during the reclamation process. 

Soils and Vegetation Resources 

Consequences to soil resources from mining the LBA tracts would include 

changes in the physical, biological, and chemical properties. Following 

reclamation, the soils would be unlike premining soils in texture, structure, 

color, accumulation of clays, organic matter, microbial populations, and 

chemical composition. The replaced topsoil would be more uniform in type, 

thickness, and texture. It would be adequate in quantity and quality to 

support planned postmining land uses (i.e., wildlife habitat and rangeland). 

The predominant vegetation types, in terms of total acres of occurrence in the 

combined vegetation general analysis areas, are the sagebrush/grassland (38.1 

percent) and sandy grassland (18.4 percent). Common plant species on these 

types include crested wheatgrass, smooth brome, needleandthread, threadleaf 

sedge, western wheatgrass, blue grama, and cheatgrass brome. Dominant 

shrubs/subshrubs in these vegetation communities include Wyoming big 

sagebrush and fringed sage. Lichens and manyspine plains pricklypear cactus 

are frequently large components of the vegetation cover. Mining would 

progressively remove this native vegetation. Reclamation and revegetation of 

mined areas would occur contemporaneously with mining on adjacent lands. 

Reestablished vegetation would be dominated by species mandated in the 

reclamation seed mixtures, which are approved by the WDEQ/LQD. The 

majority of these species would be native to the LBA tracts. Initially, the 

reclaimed land would be dominated by grassland vegetation, which would be 

less diverse than the premining vegetation. Estimates for the time it would 

take to restore sagebrush to premining density levels range from 20 to 100 

years. An indirect long-term impact associated with this vegetative change 

would potentially be a decrease in available habitat for shrub-dependent 

species. However, a diverse, productive, and permanent vegetative cover would 

be established on the LBA tracts within about 10 years following reclamation, 

prior to release of the final reclamation bond. The decrease in plant diversity 

would not seriously affect the potential productivity of the reclaimed areas, and 

the proposed postmining land uses (wildlife habitat and rangeland) should be 

achieved even with the changes in vegetation composition and diversity. The 

reclamation plans for the LBA tracts would also include steps to control 

invasion by weedy (invasive, nonnative) plant species. 

Wildlife Resources 

Direct impacts of surface coal mining on wildlife occur during mining and are 

short term. They include road kills by mine-related traffic, direct losses of less 

mobile wildlife species, restrictions on wildlife movement created by fences, 

spoil piles and pits, displacement of wildlife from existing habitat in areas of 

active mining (including abandonment of nests or nesting and breeding habitat 

ES-34 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
 Executive Summary 

for birds), increased competition between animals in areas adjacent to mining 

operations, and increased noise, dust, and human presence. Habitat for 

aquatic species would also be lost during mining operations. Indirect impacts 

are longer term and include alterations in topography and vegetative cover 

following reclamation, which may decrease wildlife carrying capacity and 

habitat diversity. The Belle Ayr North, West Coal Creek, Caballo West, and 

Maysdorf II LBA tracts do not include any unique or crucial big game habitat, 

and habitat disturbance would be incremental, with reclamation progressing as 

new disturbance occurs. The West Coal Creek LBA tract is adjacent to a sagegrouse “core population area”, as defined by the Sage-Grouse Implementation 

Team (Sage-Grouse Implementation Team 2008). A total of 14 sage-grouse leks 

have been documented on and within 2 miles of the general analysis areas for 

these four LBA tracts. Six of the leks have been active during recent survey 

years and are classified as occupied; three leks have not been attended by 

displaying grouse for at least the last 10 years and are classified as 

unoccupied/abandoned; and five leks have been removed by mining activities 

and are classified as unoccupied/destroyed. In the long term, following 

reclamation, wildlife carrying capacity and habitat diversity may be reduced 

due to gentler topography, less diverse vegetative cover, and reduction in 

sagebrush density. Mining companies have initiated efforts in recent years to 

increase the diversity of post-mine topography and to increase the amount of 

sagebrush in the reclamation. 

Threatened and Endangered Species 

T&E plant and animal species that could be present on the tracts include the 

Ute ladies’-tresses orchid, blowout penstemon, and black-footed ferret. Areas 

of suitable habitat for the Ute ladies’-tresses orchid within the Belle Ayr North, 

West Coal Creek, Caballo West, and Maysdorf II LBA tracts and adjacent study 

areas were surveyed in August 2006 and 2007, July 2007, August 2007, and 

in August 2005 and 2006, respectively, and no individuals were located. The 

LBA tracts are not within the documented historical range of the blowout 

penstemon. No suitable sand dunes (whether stable or blown out) are 

currently present on tract general analysis areas. The black-footed ferret is a 

nocturnally active mammal that depends almost entirely upon the prairie dog 

for its survival. No black-tailed prairie dog colonies are currently present on 

the LBA tracts as proposed and the area added by action alternatives. One 

small colony (approximately 40 acres) is within the Maysdorf II wildlife general 

analysis area and one small colony (approximately 56 acres) is located just over 

1 mile southwest of the Maysdorf II wildlife general analysis area. One small 

colony (approximately 34 acres in size) is located approximately 1 mile south of 

the West Coal Creek LBA tract study area. 

Land Use and Recreation 

Approximately 97 percent of the surface estate of the SGAC LBA tracts is 

owned by private individuals/companies. Most of the subsurface minerals (all 

of the coal and approximately 90 percent of the oil and gas estate) are federally 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications ES-35 
 

 

Executive Summary 

owned, which results in split estate situations. The BLM’s split estate policy 

only applies to situations where the surface rights are in private ownership and 

the rights to development of the mineral resources are publicly held and 

managed by the federal government. 

Active mining within the LBA tracts would preclude other land uses. 

Recreational and grazing uses of the tracts would be severely limited during 

mining. Oil and gas development would be curtailed, and coal within the 

targeted seams containing any unrecovered CBNG would be removed. Within 

10 years after initiation of each reclamation phase, rangeland and wildlife use 

would return to near premining levels. 

Cultural Resources 

The Belle Ayr North, West Coal Creek, Caballo West, and Maysdorf II LBA 

tracts have been surveyed for cultural resources at the Class I level. A majority 

of the tracts have been surveyed to a Class III level. A total of 73 cultural sites 

and 67 isolated finds were documented in the survey areas. Of the 73 cultural 

sites, 44 are prehistoric, 20 are historic, and nine are multi-component. Eight 

of the sites are recommended as eligible to the National Register of Historic 

Places (NRHP) and 11 are unevaluated. Until consultation with State Historic 

Preservation Office (SHPO) has occurred and agreement regarding NRHP 

eligibility has been reached, all sites would be protected from disturbance. Any 

area within the LBA tracts not yet surveyed to a Class III level would require a 

Class III survey prior to disturbance. 

No sites of Native American religious or cultural importance have been 

identified on the Belle Ayr North, West Coal Creek, Caballo West, and Maysdorf 

II LBA tracts. Appropriate action must be taken to address concerns related to 

those sites if such sites or localities are identified at a later date. 

Visual Resources 

Some mining activities on the Belle Ayr North, West Coal Creek, Caballo West, 

and Maysdorf II LBA tracts would be visible from Wyoming 59 and several 

county roads in the vicinity of the tracts. Mining would affect landscapes 

classified by BLM as visual resource management (VRM) Class V. The 

landscape character would not be significantly changed following reclamation. 

No unique visual resources have been identified on or near the LBA tracts. 

Noise 

There are occupied dwellings and businesses located in the vicinity of the Belle 

Ayr North, West Coal Creek, Caballo West, and Maysdorf II LBA tracts (figures 

ES-11, ES-12, ES-13, and ES-14, respectively). These facilities would 

experience an adverse noise impact if mining activities (particularly blasting) 

occur within 2,500 feet (0.47 mile) of them under either the proposed actions or 

action alternatives. At distances of approximately 2,500 feet or greater, the 

ES-36 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
 Executive Summary 

noise intensity of mining activities would be reduced to 55 dBA (no adverse 

impact level). 

Transportation 

Leasing the Belle Ayr North, West Coal Creek, Caballo West, and Maysdorf II 

LBA tracts would extend the length of time that coal is shipped from the 

permitted Belle Ayr, Coal Creek, Caballo, and Cordero Rojo mines, respectively, 

which would extend the length of time that coal transportation facilities would 

be required. Vehicular traffic to and from the mines would continue for over 10 

additional years, depending on the LBA tracts involved and which alternatives 

are selected. Lands within 100 feet of the outside line of the ROW of a public 

road are considered unsuitable for leasing; however, they could be included in 

a tract to allow recovery of economically mineable coal outside of the ROW and 

buffer zone. Active pipelines and utility/power transmission lines would have 

to be relocated in accordance with previous agreements, or agreements would 

have to be negotiated for their removal or relocation. 

Socioeconomics 

Royalty and bonus payments for the coal in the LBA tract would be collected by 

the federal government and split with the state. Assuming an average coal 

price of $9.98 per ton recovered and a potential range of bonus payments of 30 

to 97 cents per ton, the potential additional federal revenues from the four LBA 

tracts would range from approximately $1.1 to $1.4 billion, depending on the 

alternative selected and the bonus price at the time the coal is leased. The 

potential additional revenue to the state of Wyoming from the four LBA tracts 

would range from $1.4 to $1.8 billion, depending on the alternative selected, 

the bonus price at the time the coal is leased, and the selling price of the coal. 

Mine life and employment (at or slightly above current levels) would be 

extended for over 10 additional years, depending on the LBA tracts involved 

and which alternatives are selected. 

Greenhouse Gas Emissions 

Equivalent carbon dioxide (CO2e) emissions are projected to increase at the 

Belle Ayr, Coal Creek, Caballo, and Cordero Rojo mines if the Belle Ayr North, 

West Coal Creek, Caballo West, and Maysdorf II LBA tracts are added to the 

mining operations. The increase in CO2e emissions would result from the 

additional fuels (especially diesel) that would be used in consideration of the 

increased coal and overburden haul distances, as well as increased use of 

electricity and explosives related to increasing overburden thicknesses. With 

the addition of the Belle Ayr North, West Coal Creek, Caballo West, and 

Maysdorf II LBA tracts, the estimated total CO2e emissions at the four 

applicant mines would represent 1.7 percent of the projected 2020 statewide 

CO2e emissions. 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications ES-37 
Executive Summary 

Environmental Justice 

Potentially adverse impacts do not disproportionately affect minorities, lowincome groups or Native American tribes or groups. No tribal lands or Native 

American communities are included in this area, and no Native American 

treaty rights or Native American trust resources are known to exist for this 

area. 

No Action Alternatives (Alternative 1) 

Under the No Action alternatives for each tract, the coal lease applications 

would be rejected and the areas contained in the applications would not be 

offered for lease at this time. The tracts could be nominated for lease again in 

the future. Also under the No Action alternative, the impacts described in the 

preceding paragraphs to topography and physiology, geology and minerals, 

soils, air quality, water resources, AVFs, wetlands, vegetation, wildlife, T&E 

species, land use and recreation, cultural resources, Native American 

concerns, paleontological resources, visual resources, noise, transportation, 

and socioeconomics would occur due to mining the existing Belle Ayr, Coal 

Creek, Caballo, and Cordero Rojo Mine coal leases, but these impacts would 

not be extended by mining onto the Belle Ayr North, West Coal Creek, Caballo 

West, and Maysdorf II LBA tracts, respectively. 

Mitigation 

The Belle Ayr, Coal Creek, Caballo, and Cordero Rojo mines currently approved 

mining permits include extensive baseline information, ongoing monitoring 

information and commitments, and mitigation measures that are required by 

SMCRA and Wyoming State Law. Compliance, mitigation, and monitoring 

measures that are required by regulation are considered to be part of the 

proposed actions and alternatives considered in this EIS. These regulatory 

requirements, mitigation measures and monitoring commitments are in place 

for the No Action alternative as part of the currently approved mining and 

reclamation plans for the four applicant mines and would be included in the 

permitting processes that would be required to mine the four South Gillette 

area LBA tracts. 

If impacts are identified during the leasing process that are not mitigated by 

existing required mitigation measures, BLM can include additional mitigation 

measures, in the form of stipulations on a new lease, within the limits of its 

regulatory authority. Any special stipulations identified by BLM where 

additional or increased monitoring measures are recommended to be added to 

the BLM leases are included in appendix D of this EIS. 

Cumulative Impacts 

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

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

ES-38 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
 

 

 Executive Summary 

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

individually minor, but collectively significant, actions occurring over time. 

Since decertification of the Powder River federal coal region in 1990, 20 coal 

leases containing more than 5.8 billion tons of federal coal have been issued 

following competitive sealed-bid sales. Three exchanges of federal coal in the 

Wyoming portion of the Powder River Federal Coal Region have also been 

completed. Twelve additional coal lease applications, including the Belle Ayr 

North, West Coal Creek, Caballo West, and Maysdorf II LBA tract applications, 

are pending. The pending LBA applications contain over 3.8 billion tons of 

coal. 

Currently, 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 study evaluates conditions as of a baseline year 

(2002 or 2003) and projects development levels and potential associated 

cumulative impacts related to coal and coal-related development, oil and gas 

and related development, and other development through 2020. Due to 

variables associated with future coal production, two projected coal production 

scenarios (representing an upper and a lower production level) were developed. 

The projected development levels are based on projected demand and coal 

market forecasts and include production at the Belle Ayr, Coal Creek, Caballo, 

and Cordero Rojo mines during the baseline year and projected production for 

2010, 2015, and 2020. 

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

but the Montana portion of the PRB is included in some studies. A series of 

reports have been prepared or are being prepared to present the result of the 

PRB Coal Review studies. The results of the PRB Coal Review studies that have 

been completed are summarized in section 4.0 of this EIS. 

Cumulative impacts vary by resource, with potential impacts to air quality, 

groundwater quantity, wildlife habitat, and socioeconomics generally being the 

greatest concerns. 

The original PRB Coal Review air quality study documented the modeled air 

quality impact of existing operations during a baseline year, 2002, and of 

projected development activities in 2010. BLM updated the model in 2008 and 

conducted the cumulative air quality impact analysis using a revised baseline 

year of 2004 with development levels projected for year 2015. The model was 

used to evaluate impacts of baseline and projected source emissions on several 

source groups, including near-field receptors in Wyoming and Montana, 

receptors in nearby federally designated “Class I” areas, and receptors at “Class 

II” sensitive areas. The EPA guideline CALPUFF model system was used for the 

modeling analysis. 

The existing regional air quality conditions are generally very good, but the 

modeling showed substantial impacts at some receptors for 2004 and 2015. 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications ES-39 
 

Executive Summary 

The model results should not be construed as predicting an actual exceedance 

of any standard, but are at best forecasts that indicate potential impacts (BLM 

2008e). Table ES-8 presents the maximum modeled impacts on ambient air 

quality at the near-field receptors in Wyoming and Montana for 2004 and for 

the 2015 upper and lower coal development scenarios. Table ES-9 lists the 

projected modeled visibility impacts for 2004 for all analyzed Class I and 

sensitive Class II areas. For the upper and lower coal production scenarios, it 

shows the number of additional days that the impacts were projected to be 

greater than 1.0 dv (10 percent in extinction) for each site in 2015. 

The PRB Coal Review provides an assessment of the cumulative impact to 

surface and groundwater 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. 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 because 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 has not. A number of modeling analyses have previously been 

conducted to help predict the impacts of surface coal mining on groundwater 

resources in the PRB. In addition, each mine must monitor groundwater levels 

in the coal and underlying and overlying aquifers and assess the probable 

hydrologic consequences of mining as part of the mine permitting process. The 

monitoring programs track the extent of groundwater drawdown propagation to 

the west and the extent of recharge and quality of the water in the backfill 

areas of the mines. The monitoring data indicate that recharge is occurring in 

the backfill, and that water from the backfill will generally be acceptable for 

premining uses (primarily livestock watering). Modeling and monitoring 

indicate that the groundwater drawdown impacts of coal mining and CBNG 

development are overlapping. 

The PRB Coal Review studies include an evaluation of the impacts to wildlife 

and aquatic species as of 2003 and an evaluation of the projected levels of 

disturbance in the PRB in 2010, 2015, and 2020, based on the projected 

development levels in those years. As discussed above, impacts to wildlife and 

fisheries can be classified as short-term and long-term. Short-term impacts 

are related to habitat disturbance during project development and operation. 

Long-term impacts result from changes in habitat after reclamation is 

completed. Habitat fragmentation can result from activities such as roads, well 

pads, mines, pipelines, and electrical power lines, as well as increased noise, 

elevated human presence, dispersal of noxious and invasive weed species, and 

dust from unpaved road traffic. 

The cumulative impacts of energy development (coal mining, oil and gas) in the 

PRB are and will continue to contribute to a reduction in hunting opportunities 

for some animals (pronghorn, mule deer, and sage grouse). 

ES-40 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
Table ES-8. Projected Maximum Potential Near-field Impacts (μg/m3). 

Base 

2015 Lower 

Coal 

2015 Upper 

Coal 

Pollutant 

NO2

Averaging 

Time 

Annual 

Year 

(2004) 

Impacts 

31.3 

Development 

Scenario 

Impacts 

Wyoming Near-field 

46.7 

Development 

Scenario 

Impacts 

47.4 

NAAQS 

100 

Wyoming 

AAQS 

100 

M

SO2 Annual 15.3 16.2 16.2 80 60 

24-hour 

112.3 119.6 119.6 365 260 

3-hour 

462.0 814.1 814.1 1,300 1,300 

PM10 Annual 38.4 53.5 61.0 --- 50 

24-hour 

250.4 512.8 512.9 150 150 

Montana Near-field 

NO2 Annual 3.3 6.5 6.5 100 --­ 

1-hour 

409.0 826.3 826.4 --- --­ 

SO2 Annual 1.6 1.7 1.7 80 --­ 

24-hour 

16.1 16.5 16.6 365 --­ 

3-hour 

65.0 66.5 66.5 1,300 --­ 

1-hour 

162.9 166.6 166.6 --- --­ 

PM10 Annual 2.8 5.2 5.3 --- --­ 

24-hour 

29.1 44.0 58.5 150 --­ 

1 No standard or increment. 

Bold values indicate exceedance of ambient air quality standards (AAQS). Source: PRB Coal Review Task 3A Report (BLM 2008h) 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications ES-41 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Executive Summary 

Table ES-9. Modeled Change in Visibility Impacts at Class I and Sensitive 

Class II Areas. 

 2004 

2015 Lower 

Development 

Scenario 

2015 Upper 

Development 

Scenario 

Location 

No. of 

Days 

>10% 

Change in 

No. of Days 

> 10% 

Change in 

No. of Days 

> 10% 

Federally and Tribally Designated Class I Areas 

Badlands National Park 218 26 26 

Bob Marshall Wilderness Area 8 0 0 

Bridger Wilderness Area 144 2 2 

Fitzpatrick Wilderness Area 91 2 2 

Fort Peck Indian Reservation 105 10 10 

Gates of the Mountain Wilderness Area 55 0 0 

Grand Teton National Park 70 2 2 

North Absaroka Wilderness Area 61 3 3 

North Cheyenne Indian Reservation 243 32 47 

Red Rock Lakes 42 2 2 

Scapegoat Wilderness Area 27 1 1 

Teton Wilderness Area 57 4 4 

Theodore Roosevelt National Park 178 5 9 

UL Bend Wilderness Area 77 8 10 

Washakie Wilderness Area 83 5 5 

Wind Cave National Park 262 18 19 

Yellowstone National Park 84 2 2 

Sensitive Class II Areas 

Absaroka Beartooth Wilderness Area 101 2 3 

Agate Fossil Beds National Monument 251 20 20 

Big Horn Canyon NRA 331 1 3 

Black Elk Wilderness Area 236 34 36 

Cloud Peak Wilderness Area 126 18 18 

Crow Indian Reservation 360 4 4 

Devils Tower National Monument 274 25 26 

Fort Belknap Indian Reservation 66 6 7 

Fort Laramie National Historic Site 260 10 10 

Jedediah Smith Wilderness Area 79 1 1 

Jewel Cave National Monument 261 19 21 

Lee Metcalf Wilderness Area 97 2 2 

Mount Naomi Wilderness Area 51 1 1 

Mount Rushmore National Monument 222 36 36 

Popo Agie Wilderness Area 139 4 4 

Soldier Creek Wilderness Area 268 18 18 

Wellsville Mountain Wilderness Area 130 10 10 

Wind River Indian Reservation 217 2 5 

Source: PRB Coal Review Task 3A Report (BLM 2008h) 

ES-42 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
 

 Executive Summary 

The PRB Coal Review used the Regional Economic Models Inc’s. (REMI) Policy 

Insight regional economic model to project cumulative employment and 

population levels and associated impacts in the PRB for the upper and lower 

coal production scenarios in 2010, 2015, and 2020. Table ES-10 presents the 

recent and projected population levels for the counties included in the PRB 

Coal Review socioeconomic analysis. 

Table ES-10. Recent and Projected PRB Population. 

Total 

Campbell Converse Crook Johnson Sheridan Weston Study 

Year County County County County County County Area 

Census 

2000 33,698 12,104 5,895 7,108 26,606 6,642 92,053 

2003 36,438 12,314 5,986 7,554 27,115 6,671 96,078 

2007 40,433 12,868 6,284 8,142 27,998 6,854 102,579 

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 (2007 - historical data) and PRB Coal Review Task 3C Report (BLM 2005e) 

This FEIS presents BLM’s analysis of environmental impacts under authority of 

the NEPA and associated rules and guidelines. BLM will use this analysis to 

make a leasing decision. The decision to lease these lands is a necessary 

requisite for mining, but it is not in itself the enabling action that will allow 

mining. The most detailed analysis prior to mine development would occur 

after the lease is issued, when the lessee files an application for a surface 

mining permit and mining plan approval, supported by extensive mining and 

reclamation plans, to the WDEQ/LQD. 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications ES-43 
Table of Contents 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 


VOLUME 1 


EXECUTIVE SUMARY ................................................................................ES-1 


1.0 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................1-1 


1.1 	Background...............................................................................1-1 


1.1.1 Belle Ayr North LBA Tract................................................1-5 


1.1.2 West Coal Creek LBA Tract............................................1-11 


1.1.3 Caballo West LBA Tract .................................................1-13 


1.1.4 Maysdorf II LBA Tract....................................................1-15 


1.2 	 Purpose and Need for Action....................................................1-18 


1.3 	 Regulatory Authority and Responsibility ..................................1-20 


1.4 	 Relationship to BLM Policies, Plans, and Programs ..................1-22 


1.5 	 Conformance with Existing Land Use Plans .............................1-22 


1.6 	 Consultation and Coordination................................................1-26 


2.0 PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES..........................................2-1 


2.1 	 Alternatives for the Belle Ayr North LBA Tract ...........................2-7 


2.1.1 Belle Ayr North LBA Tract Proposed Action ......................2-7 


2.1.2 Belle Ayr North LBA Tract Alternative 1..........................2-12 


2.1.3 Belle Ayr North LBA Tract Alternative 2..........................2-13 


2.2 	 Alternatives for the West Coal Creek LBA Tract........................2-16 


2.2.1 West Coal Creek LBA Tract Proposed Action...................2-16 


2.2.2 West Coal Creek LBA Tract Alternative 1........................2-20 


2.2.3 West Coal Creek LBA Tract Alternative 2........................2-20 


2.3 	 Alternatives for the Caballo West LBA Tract.............................2-22 


2.3.1 Caballo West LBA Tract Proposed Action........................2-22 


2.3.2 Caballo West LBA Tract Alternative 1 .............................2-26 


2.3.3 Caballo West LBA Tract Alternative 2 .............................2-27 


2.4 	 Alternatives for the Maysdorf II LBA Tract................................2-30 


2.4.1 Maysdorf II LBA Tract Proposed Action...........................2-30 


2.4.2 Maysdorf II LBA Tract Alternative 1................................2-36 


2.4.3 Maysdorf II LBA Tract Alternative 2................................2-36 


2.4.4 Maysdorf II LBA Tract Alternative 3................................2-39 


2.5 	 Alternatives Considered but Not Analyzed in Detail..................2-43 


2.5.1 New Mine Start ..............................................................2-43 


2.5.2 Delaying the Sale ...........................................................2-45 


2.6 	 Regulatory Compliance, Mitigation, and Monitoring .................2-47 


2.7 	 Hazardous and Solid Waste .....................................................2-53 


2.8 	 Summary of Alternatives and Environmental Consequences ....2-54 


2.8.1 Background ...................................................................2-54 


2.8.2 Summary of Alternatives................................................2-55 


3.0 	 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL 


 CONSEQUENCES...............................................................................3-1 


3.1 	General Setting .........................................................................3-7 


Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications i 
Table of Contents 

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) 

3.1.1 Climate and Meteorology..................................................3-7 


3.2 Topography and Physiography...................................................3-8 


3.2.1 Affected Environment.......................................................3-8 


3.2.2 Environmental Consequences ..........................................3-9 


3.2.2.1 	 Proposed Action and Alternatives 2 and 3......3-9 


3.2.2.2 	 No Action Alternative...................................3-10 


3.2.3 Regulatory Compliance, Mitigation and Monitoring ........3-12 


3.2.4 Residual Impacts ...........................................................3-12 


3.3 Geology, Mineral Resources, and Paleontology .........................3-12 


3.3.1 General Geology and Coal Resources..........................3-12 


3.3.1.1 	Affected Environment ..................................3-12 


3.3.1.2 	Environmental Consequences......................3-15 


3.3.1.2.1 Proposed Action and 


Alternatives 2 and 3.....................3-15 


3.3.1.2.1.1 	 Belle Ayr North LBA 


 Tract........................3-15 

3.3.1.2.1.2 	 West Coal Creek LBA 


Tract........................3-15 


3.3.1.2.1.3 	 Caballo West LBA 


 Tract........................3-16 

3.3.1.2.1.4 	 Maysdorf II LBA 


 Tract........................3-16 

3.3.1.2.2 	No Action Alternative ...................3-17 


3.3.1.3 	 Regulatory Compliance, Mitigation and 


Monitoring...................................................3-17 


3.3.1.4 Residual Impacts...........................................3-18 


3.3.2 Other Mineral Resources................................................3-18 


3.3.2.1 Affected Environment ....................................3-18 


3.3.2.1.1 Conventional Oil and Gas ............3-18 


3.3.2.1.2 Coal Bed Natural Gas ..................3-20 


3.3.2.1.3 Other Minerals.............................3-21 


3.3.2.2 	Environmental Consequences......................3-22 


3.3.2.2.1 Proposed Action and 


Alternatives 2 and 3.....................3-22 


3.3.2.2.2 No Action Alternative ...................3-23 


3.3.2.3 	 Regulatory Compliance, Mitigation and 


Monitoring...................................................3-24 


3.3.2.4 	Residual Impacts.........................................3-25 


3.3.3 Paleontology...................................................................3-25 


3.3.3.1 	Affected Environment ..................................3-25 


3.3.3.2 	Environmental Consequences......................3-27 


3.3.3.2.1 Proposed Action and 


Alternatives 2 and 3 ....................................3-27 


3.3.3.2.2 No Action Alternative ...................3-27 


3.3.3.3 	 Regulatory Compliance, Mitigation and 


Monitoring...................................................3-27 


ii Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
Table of Contents 

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) 

3.3.3.4 	Residual Impacts.........................................3-27 


3.4 Air Quality...............................................................................3-27 


3.4.1 Background ...............................................................3-28 


3.4.1.1 	Emission Sources........................................3-28 


3.4.2 Particulate Emissions.................................................3-31 


3.4.2.1 	 Affected Environment for Particulate 


Emissions ...................................................3-31 


3.4.2.2 	 Environmental Consequences Related to 


Particulate Emissions..................................3-32 


3.4.2.2.1 Proposed Action and 


Alternatives 2 and 3.....................3-32 


3.4.2.2.1.1 Belle Ayr North LBA 


 Tract .........................3-39 


3.4.2.2.1.2 West Coal Creek LBA 


Tract .........................3-43 


3.4.2.2.1.3 Caballo West LBA 


 Tract .........................3-45 


3.4.2.2.1.4 Maysdorf II LBA 


 Tract .........................3-52 


3.4.2.2.2 No Action Alternative .................3-54 


3.4.2.3 	 Regulatory Compliance, Mitigation, and 


Monitoring for Particulate Emissions ...........3-58 


3.4.3 Emissions of Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) and Ozone (O3).....3-60 


3.4.3.1 	 Affected Environment for NOx and O3


 Emissions ...................................................3-60 


3.4.3.1.1 Site Specific NOx and O3


 Emissions....................................3-63 


3.4.3.1.1.1 Belle Ayr North LBA 


 Tract .........................3-63 


3.4.3.1.1.2 West Coal Creek LBA 


Tract .........................3-64 


3.4.3.1.1.3 Caballo West LBA 


 Tract .........................3-65 


3.4.3.1.1.4 Maysdorf II LBA 


 Tract .........................3-66 


3.4.3.2 	 Environmental Consequences Related to Short-


Term NOx Emissions....................................3-66 


3.4.3.2.1 Proposed Action and 


Alternatives 2 and 3.....................3-68 


3.4.3.2.1.1 Belle Ayr North LBA 


 Tract .........................3-69 


3.4.3.2.1.2 West Coal Creek LBA 


Tract .........................3-70 


3.4.3.2.1.3 Caballo West LBA 


 Tract .........................3-70 


Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications iii 
Table of Contents 

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) 

3.4.3.2.1.4 Maysdorf II LBA 


 Tract .........................3-70 


3.4.3.2.2 No Action Alternative ...................3-70 


3.4.3.3 	 Regulatory Compliance, Mitigation, and 


Monitoring for NOx Emissions......................3-71 


3.4.4 Air Quality Related Values (AQRVs) ............................3-72 


3.4.4.1 	Visibility......................................................3-73 


3.4.4.1.1 Affected Environment for 


Visibility ......................................3-73 


3.4.4.1.2 Environmental Consequences for 


Visibility ......................................3-75 


3.4.4.1.2.1 Proposed Action and 


Alternatives 2 and 3 ..3-75 


3.4.4.1.2.2 No Action Alternative.3-77 

3.4.4.1.3 Regulatory Compliance, Mitigation, 


and Monitoring for Visibility 


 Impacts .......................................3-77 


3.4.4.2 	 Acidification of Lakes...................................3-78 


3.4.4.2.1 Affected Environment..................3-78 


3.4.4.2.2 Environmental Consequences .....3-79 


3.4.4.2.2.1 Proposed Action and 


Alternatives 2 and 3 ..3-79 


3.4.4.2.2.2 No Action Alternative.3-80 

3.4.4.2.3 	 Regulatory Compliance, Mitigation, 


 and Monitoring ...........................3-80 


3.4.5 Residual Impacts to Air Quality ..................................3-80 


3.5 Water Resources......................................................................3-80 


3.5.1 Groundwater..............................................................3-80 


3.5.1.1 	Affected Environment ..................................3-80 


3.5.1.1.1 Recent Alluvium ..........................3-81 


3.5.1.1.2 Wasatch Formation......................3-83 


3.5.1.1.3 Wyodak/Anderson Coal ...............3-85 


3.5.1.1.4 Subcoal Fort Union Formation.....3-87 


3.5.1.1.5 Lance Formation-Fox Hills 


Sandstone ...................................3-88 


3.5.1.2 	Environmental Consequences......................3-88 


3.5.1.2.1 	 Proposed Action and 


Alternatives 2 and 3...................3-88 


3.5.1.2.1.1 Belle Ayr North LBA 


 Tract .........................3-93 


3.5.1.2.1.2 West Coal Creek LBA 


Tract .........................3-97 


3.5.1.2.1.3 Caballo West LBA 


 Tract ....................... 3-101 


3.5.1.2.1.4 Maysdorf II LBA 


 Tract ....................... 3-106 


iv Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
Table of Contents 

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) 

3.5.1.2.2 	 No Action Alternative ............... 3-110 


3.5.1.3 	 Regulatory Compliance, Mitigation and 


Monitoring................................................. 3-110 


3.5.2 Surface Water .......................................................... 3-111 


3.5.2.1 	Affected Environment ................................ 3-111 


3.5.2.2 	Environmental Consequences.................... 3-115 


3.5.2.2.1 Proposed Action and 


Alternatives 2 and 3................... 3-115 


3.5.2.2.1.1 Belle Ayr North LBA 


 Tract ....................... 3-117 


3.5.2.2.1.2 West Coal Creek LBA 


Tract ....................... 3-117 


3.5.2.2.1.3 Caballo West LBA 


 Tract ....................... 3-117 


3.5.2.2.1.4 Maysdorf II LBA 


 Tract ....................... 3-118 


3.5.2.2.2 No Action Alternative ................. 3-118 


3.5.2.3 	 Regulatory Compliance, Mitigation and 


Monitoring................................................. 3-118 


3.5.3 Water Rights ............................................................ 3-119 


3.5.3.1 	Affected Environment ................................ 3-119 


3.5.3.2 	Environmental Consequences.................... 3-122 


3.5.3.2.1 	 Proposed Action and 


Alternatives 2 and 3................. 3-122 


3.5.3.2.1.1 Belle Ayr North LBA 


 Tract ....................... 3-123 


3.5.3.2.1.2 West Coal Creek LBA 


Tract ....................... 3-123 


3.5.3.2.1.3 Caballo West LBA 


 Tract ....................... 3-124 


3.5.3.2.1.4 Maysdorf II LBA 


 Tract ....................... 3-124 


3.5.3.2.2 	 No Action Alternative ............... 3-125 


3.5.3.3 	 Regulatory Compliance, Mitigation and 


Monitoring................................................. 3-125 


3.5.4 Residual Impacts...................................................... 3-125 


3.6 Alluvial Valley Floors ............................................................. 3-126 


3.6.1 Affected Environment............................................... 3-126 


3.6.1.1 	 Belle Ayr North LBA Tract.......................... 3-127 


3.6.1.2 	 West Coal Creek LBA Tract........................ 3-127 


3.6.1.3 	 Caballo West LBA Tract............................. 3-128 


3.6.1.4 	 Maysdorf II LBA Tract................................ 3-129 


3.6.2 Environmental Consequences .................................. 3-130 


3.6.2.1 	 Proposed Action and Alternatives 2 and 3.. 3-130 


3.6.2.2 	 No Action Alternative................................. 3-132 


3.6.3 Regulatory Compliance, Mitigation and Monitoring... 3-132 


Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications v 
Table of Contents 

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) 

3.6.4 	Residual Impacts...................................................... 3-132 


3.7 Wetlands ............................................................................... 3-133 


3.7.1 	Affected Environment............................................... 3-133 


3.7.1.1 Belle Ayr North LBA Tract.......................... 3-135 


3.7.1.2 West Coal Creek LBA Tract........................ 3-136 


3.7.1.3 Caballo West LBA Tract............................. 3-137 


3.6.1.4 Maysdorf II LBA Tract................................ 3-138 


3.7.2 	Environmental Consequences .................................. 3-140 


3.7.2.1 Proposed Action and Alternatives 2 and 3.. 3-140 


3.7.2.2 No Action Alternative................................. 3-140 


3.7.3 	 Regulatory Compliance, Mitigation and Monitoring... 3-141 


3.7.4 	Residual Impacts...................................................... 3-142 


3.8 Soils...................................................................................... 3-142 


3.8.1 	Affected Environment............................................... 3-142 


3.8.1.1 Belle Ayr North LBA Tract.......................... 3-143 


3.8.1.2 West Coal Creek LBA Tract........................ 3-143 


3.8.1.3 Caballo West LBA Tract............................. 3-143 


3.8.1.4 Maysdorf II LBA Tract................................ 3-143 


3.8.2 	Environmental Consequences ................................... 3-144 


3.8.2.1 Proposed Action and Alternatives 2 and 3.. 3-144 


3.8.2.1.1 Belle Ayr North LBA Tract .......... 3-145 


3.8.2.1.2 West Coal Creek LBA Tract ........ 3-145 


3.8.2.1.3 Caballo West LBA Tract ............. 3-145 


3.8.2.1.4 Maysdorf II LBA Tract ................ 3-146 


3.8.2.2 No Action Alternative................................. 3-146 


3.8.3 	 Regulatory Compliance, Mitigation and Monitoring... 3-146 


3.8.4 	Residual Impacts...................................................... 3-147 


3.9 Vegetation ............................................................................. 3-147 


3.9.1 	Affected Environment............................................... 3-147 


3.9.2 	Environmental Consequences .................................. 3-150 


3.9.2.1 Proposed Action and Alternatives 2 and 3.. 3-150 


3.9.2.2 No Action Alternative................................. 3-152 


3.9.3 	 Threatened, Endangered, Proposed, and Candidate 


Plant Species, and BLM Sensitive Species................. 3-153 


3.9.4 	 Regulatory Compliance, Mitigation and Monitoring... 3-153 


3.9.5 	Residual Impacts...................................................... 3-154 


3.10 Wildlife.................................................................................. 3-154 


3.10.1 	General Setting ........................................................ 3-154 


3.10.1.1 Affected Environment ................................ 3-154 


3.10.1.2 Environmental Consequences.................... 3-156 


3.10.1.2.1 	Proposed Action and 


Alternatives 2 and 3................. 3-156 


3.10.1.2.2 	No Action Alternative ............... 3-156 


3.10.2 	Big Game ................................................................. 3-157 


3.10.2.1 Affected Environment ................................ 3-157 


3.10.2.2 Environmental Consequences.................... 3-159 


vi Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table of Contents 

3.10.3 

3.10.4 

3.10.5 

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) 

3.10.2.2.1 	Proposed Action and 


Alternatives 2 and 3................. 3-159 


3.10.2.2.2 No Action Alternative ............... 3-159 


Other Mammals ....................................................... 3-160 


3.10.3.1 Affected Environment ................................ 3-160 


3.10.3.2 Environmental Consequences.................... 3-166 


3.10.3.2.1 	Proposed Action and 


Alternatives 2 and 3................. 3-166 


3.10.3.2.2 No Action Alternative ............... 3-166 


Raptors .................................................................... 3-166 


3.10.4.1 Affected Environment ................................ 3-166 


3.10.4.1.1 	Belle Ayr North LBA Tract........ 3-167 


3.10.4.1.2 	West Coal Creek LBA Tract...... 3-168 


3.10.4.1.3 	Caballo West LBA Tract ........... 3-168 


3.10.4.1.4 	Maysdorf II LBA Tract.............. 3-169 


3.10.4.2 Environmental Consequences.................... 3-169 


3.10.4.2.1 	Proposed Action and 


Alternatives 2 and 3................. 3-169 


3.10.4.2.1.1 	Belle Ayr North 


 LBA Tract ........... 3-169 

3.10.4.2.1.2 	West Coal Creek 


 LBA Tract ........... 3-169 

3.10.4.2.1.3 	Caballo West LBA 


 Tract................... 3-170 

3.10.4.2.1.4 	Maysdorf II LBA 


 Tract................... 3-170 

3.10.4.2.2 No Action Alternative ............... 3-171 


Upland Game Birds.................................................. 3-171 


3.10.5.1 Affected Environment ................................ 3-171 


3.10.5.1.1 	Sage-Grouse Leks Associated 


With the Belle Ayr North LBA 


Tract ....................................... 3-178 


3.10.5.1.2 	Sage-Grouse Leks Associated 


With the West Coal Creek LBA 


Tract ....................................... 3-178 


3.10.5.1.3 	Sage-Grouse Leks Associated 


With the Caballo West LBA 


Tract ....................................... 3-179 


3.10.5.1.4 	Sage-Grouse Leks Associated 


With the Maysdorf II LBA 


Tract ....................................... 3-179 


3.10.5.2 Environmental Consequences.................... 3-180 


3.10.5.2.1 	Proposed Action and 


Alternatives 2 and 3................. 3-180 


3.10.5.3 No Action Alternative................................. 3-184 


3.10.6 
Other Birds .............................................................. 3-184


Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications vii 
Table of Contents 

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) 

3.10.6.1 Affected Environment ................................ 3-184 


3.10.6.2 Environmental Consequences.................... 3-187 


3.10.6.2.1 	Proposed Action and 


Alternatives 2 and 3................. 3-187 


3.10.6.2.2 	No Action Alternative ............... 3-188 


3.10.7 	 Amphibians, Reptiles, and Aquatic Species............... 3-189 


3.10.7.1 Affected Environment ................................ 3-189 


3.10.7.1.1 	Belle Ayr North LBA Tract........ 3-189 


3.10.7.1.2 	West Coal Creek LBA Tract...... 3-190 


3.10.7.1.3 	Caballo West LBA Tract ........... 3-190 


3.10.7.1.4 	Maysdorf II LBA Tract.............. 3-190 


3.10.7.2 Environmental Consequences.................... 3-191 


3.10.7.2.1 	Proposed Action and 


Alternatives 2 and 3................. 3-191 


3.10.7.2.2 	No Action Alternative ............... 3-192 


3.10.8 	 Threatened, Endangered, Proposed, and Candidate 


Animal Species, and BLM Sensitive Species.............. 3-192 


3.10.9 	 Regulatory Compliance, Mitigation and Monitoring... 3-192 


3.10.10 Residual Impacts...................................................... 3-195 


3.11 Land Use and Recreation....................................................... 3-195 


3.11.1 	Affected Environment............................................... 3-195 


3.11.2 	Environmental Consequences .................................. 3-211 


3.11.2.1 Proposed Action and Alternatives 2 and 3.. 3-211 


3.11.2.2 No Action Alternative................................. 3-212 


3.11.3 	 Regulatory Compliance, Mitigation and Monitoring .. 3-213 


3.11.4 	Residual Impacts ..................................................... 3-213 


3.12 Cultural Resources................................................................ 3-213 


3.12.1 	Affected Environment............................................... 3-213 


3.12.1.1 Belle Ayr North LBA Tract......................... 3-218 


3.12.1.2 West Coal Creek LBA Tract ....................... 3-219 


3.12.1.3 Caballo West LBA Tract ............................ 3-220 


3.12.1.4 Maysdorf II LBA Tract............................... 3-220 


3.12.2 	Environmental Consequences .................................. 3-221 


3.12.2.1 Proposed Action and Alternatives 2 and 3 . 3-221 


3.12.2.2 No Action Alternative ................................ 3-222 


3.12.3 	 Native American Consultation ................................. 3-222 


3.12.4 	 Regulatory Compliance, Mitigation and Monitoring .. 3-223 


3.12.5 	Residual Impacts..................................................... 3-223 


3.13 Visual Resources................................................................... 3-224 


3.13.1 	Affected Environment .............................................. 3-224 


3.13.2 	Environmental Consequences.................................. 3-225 


3.13.2.1 Proposed Action and Alternatives 2 and 3.. 3-225 


3.13.2.2 No Action Alternative................................. 3-226 


3.13.3 	 Regulatory Compliance, Mitigation and Monitoring .. 3-226 


3.13.4 	Residual Impacts..................................................... 3-226 


3.14 Noise..................................................................................... 3-226 


viii Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
Table of Contents 

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) 

3.14.1 Affected Environment .............................................. 3-226 


3.14.2 Environmental Consequences.................................. 3-229 


3.14.2.1 Proposed Action and Alternatives 2 and 3.. 3-229 


3.14.2.2 No Action Alternative................................. 3-229 


3.14.3 Regulatory Compliance, Mitigation and Monitoring .. 3-230 


3.14.4 Residual Impacts..................................................... 3-230 


3.15 Transportation ...................................................................... 3-230 


3.15.1 Affected Environment .............................................. 3-230 


3.15.2 Environmental Consequences.................................. 3-239 


3.15.2.1 Proposed Action and Alternatives 2 and 3.. 3-239 


3.15.2.2 No Action Alternative................................. 3-241 


3.15.3 Regulatory Compliance, Mitigation and Monitoring .. 3-241 


3.15.4 Residual Impacts..................................................... 3-241 


3.15.4.1 Coal Loss During Transport...................... 3-241 


3.16 Hazardous and Solid Waste ................................................... 3-244 


3.16.1 Affected Environment .............................................. 3-244 


3.16.2 Environmental Consequences.................................. 3-244 


3.16.2.1 Proposed Action and Alternatives 2 and 3.. 3-244 


3.16.2.2 No Action Alternative................................. 3-244 


3.16.3 Regulatory Compliance, Mitigation and Monitoring .. 3-245 


3.16.4 Residual Impacts..................................................... 3-245 


3.17 Socioeconomics ..................................................................... 3-245 


3.17.1 Local Economy ........................................................ 3-245 


3.17.1.1 Affected Environment ................................ 3-245 


3.17.1.2 Environmental Consequences.................... 3-247 


3.17.1.2.1 	Proposed Action and 


Alternatives 2 and 3................. 3-247 


3.17.1.2.1.1 	 Belle Ayr North 


 LBA Tract.......... 3-250 

3.17.1.2.1.2 	 West Coal Creek 


 LBA Tract.......... 3-250 

3.17.1.2.1.3 	Caballo West 


 LBA Tract.......... 3-250 

3.17.1.2.1.4 	 Maysdorf II LBA 


 Tract ................. 3-251 

3.17.1.2.2 	No Action Alternative ............... 3-251 


3.17.2 Population............................................................... 3-251 


3.17.2.1 Affected Environment ................................ 3-251 


3.17.2.2 Environmental Consequences.................... 3-252 


3.17.2.2.1 	Proposed Action and 


Alternatives 2 and 3................. 3-252 


3.17.2.2.2 	No Action Alternative ............... 3-252 


3.17.3 Employment............................................................ 3-252 


3.17.3.1 Affected Environment ................................ 3-252 


3.17.3.2 Environmental Consequences.................... 3-253 


Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications ix 
 

 

 

 

Table of Contents 

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) 

3.17.3.2.1 	Proposed Action and 


Alternatives 2 and 3................. 3-253 


3.17.3.2.1.1 	 Belle Ayr North 


LBA Tract.......... 3-253 


3.17.3.2.1.2 	 West Coal Creek 


LBA Tract.......... 3-254 


3.17.3.2.1.3 	 Caballo West LBA 


Tract ................. 3-254 


3.17.3.2.1.4 	 Maysdorf II LBA 


Tract ................. 3-254 


3.17.3.2.2 	No Action Alternative ............... 3-254 


3.17.4 Housing................................................................... 3-255 


3.17.4.1 Affected Environment ................................ 3-255 


3.17.4.2 Environmental Consequences.................... 3-257 


3.17.4.2.1 	Proposed Action and 


Alternatives 2 and 3................. 3-257 


3.17.4.2.2 	No Action Alternative ............... 3-257 


3.17.5 Local Government Facilities and Services................. 3-257 


3.17.5.1 Affected Environment ................................ 3-257 


3.17.5.2 Environmental Consequences.................... 3-259 


3.17.5.2.1 	Proposed Action and 


Alternatives 2 and 3................. 3-259 


3.17.5.2.2 	No Action Alternative ............... 3-259 


3.17.6 Social Setting .......................................................... 3-260 


3.17.6.1 Affected Environment ............................... 3-260 


3.17.6.2 Environmental Consequences................... 3-260 


3.17.6.2.1 	 Proposed Action and 


Alternatives 2 and 3................ 3-260 


3.17.6.2.2 	 No Action Alternative .............. 3-260 


3.17.7 Environmental Justice............................................. 3-260 


3.17.7.1 Affected Environment ................................ 3-260 


3.17.7.2 Environmental Consequences.................... 3-261 


3.17.7.2.1 	Proposed Action and 


Alternatives 2 and 3................. 3-261 


3.17.7.2.2 	No Action Alternative ............... 3-261 


3.17.8 Regulatory Compliance, Mitigation and Monitoring .. 3-262 


3.17.9 Residual Effects....................................................... 3-262 


3.18 	The Relationship Between Local Short-Term Uses of Man’s 


Environment and the Maintenance and Enhancement of Long-


Term Productivity.................................................................. 3-262 


3.18.1 Local Area............................................................... 3-262 


3.18.1.1 Human Health Impact Assessment ........... 3-264 


3.18.2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions .................................... 3-266 


3.18.2.1 Regulatory Compliance, Mitigation and 


Monitoring................................................ 3-269 


3.19 	Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources....... 3-270 


x Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
Table of Contents 

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) 

4.0 CUMULATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ...........................4-1 


4.1 Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Development...........4-2 


4.1.1 Coal Development........................................................4-4 


4.1.1.1 Coal Mine Development.................................4-4 


4.1.1.2 Coal-Related Development...........................4-14 


4.1.1.2.1 Coal Transportation...................4-14 


4.1.1.2.2 Electric Power Generation..........4-16 


4.1.1.2.3 Transmission Lines....................4-17 


4.1.1.2.4 Coal Conversion Technology ......4-18 


4.1.2 Oil and Gas Development ..........................................4-19 


4.1.2.1 Conventional Oil and Gas............................4-19 


4.1.2.2 CBNG Development.....................................4-21 


4.1.2.3 Oil and Gas Related Development................4-22 


4.1.2.3.1 Pipelines....................................4-22 


4.1.2.3.2 Refineries ..................................4-24 


4.1.3 Other Development Activity .......................................4-25 


4.1.3.1 Other Mining...............................................4-25 


4.1.3.2 Industrial Manufacturing ............................4-26 


4.1.3.3 Wind Power .................................................4-28 


4.1.3.4 Solar Power .................................................4-29 


4.1.3.5 Reservoirs ...................................................4-30 


4.1.3.6 Other Non-Energy Development...................4-30 


4.2 Cumulative Environmental Consequences ...............................4-32 


4.2.1 Topography and Physiography...................................4-35 


4.2.2 Geology, Mineral Resources, and Paleontology ...........4-36 


4.2.2.1 Coal ............................................................4-36 


4.2.2.2 Oil and Gas .................................................4-36 


4.2.2.3 Other Mineral Resources .............................4-37 


4.2.2.4 Paleontology ................................................4-37 


4.2.3 Air Quality.................................................................4-38 


4.2.4 Water Resources........................................................4-48 


4.2.4.1 Groundwater ..............................................4-49 


4.2.4.2 Surface Water.............................................4-59 


4.2.5 Channel Stability.......................................................4-64 


4.2.6 Alluvial Valley Floors .................................................4-65 


4.2.7 Soils..........................................................................4-66 


4.2.8 Vegetation, Wetlands and Riparian Areas ..................4-67 


4.2.8.1 Vegetation ..................................................4-67 


4.2.8.2 Special Status Plant Species .......................4-68 


4.2.8.3 Noxious and Invasive Weed Species ............4-68 


4.2.8.4 Wetland and Riparian Species ....................4-70 


4.2.9 Wildlife and Fisheries ................................................4-70 


4.2.9.1 Game Species .............................................4-71 


4.2.9.2 Non-game Species.......................................4-73 


4.2.9.3 Fisheries.....................................................4-75 


4.2.9.4 Special Status Species ................................4-77 


Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications xi 
 

 

 

Table of Contents 

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) 

4.2.10 	 Land Use and Recreation...........................................4-81 


4.2.10.1 	Grazing and Agriculture..............................4-82 


4.2.10.2 Urban Use ..................................................4-83 


4.2.10.3 Recreation ..................................................4-83 


4.2.11 	 Cultural Resources and Native American Concerns....4-85 


4.2.11.1 Prehistoric Sites..........................................4-85 


4.2.11.2 Historic Sites ..............................................4-87 


4.2.11.3 	Native American Traditional Cultural 


Places.........................................................4-87 


4.2.11.4 Site Protection ............................................4-88 


4.2.12 	Transportation and Utilities.......................................4-88 


4.2.13 	Socioeconomics .........................................................4-90 


4.2.13.1 	Employment and the Economic Base ..........4-91 


4.2.13.2 	Labor Market Conditions ............................4-93 


4.2.13.3 Personal Income .........................................4-94 


4.2.13.4 	Population and Demographics ....................4-95 


4.2.13.5 Housing......................................................4-97 


4.2.13.6 Public Education ...................................... 4-100 


4.2.13.7 	Facilities and Services .............................. 4-102 


4.2.13.8 Fiscal Conditions...................................... 4-103 


4.2.13.9 Social Setting............................................ 4-106 


4.2.14 	 Coal Mining and Coal-Fired Power Plant Related 


Emissions and By-Products..................................... 4-108 


4.2.14.1	 Global Climate Change and Greenhouse 


 Gas Emissions.......................................... 4-109 


4.2.14.2	 Mercury, Coal Combustion Residues, and 


 Other By-Products.................................... 4-122 


5.0 CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION...............................................5-1 


6.0 REFERENCES CITED .........................................................................6-1 


7.0 GLOSSARY .........................................................................................7-1 


8.0 INDEX ................................................................................................8-1 


LIST OF TABLES 

Table ES-1.	 Summary Comparison of Coal Production, Surface 


Disturbance, Mine Life, and Revenues for Belle Ayr North 


LBA Tract and Belle Ayr Mine if the Bishop Road (County 


Road 12) is Moved and the Underlying Coal is Recovered.....ES-10 


xii Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table of Contents 

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) 

Table ES-2. Summary Comparison of Coal Production, Surface 

Disturbance, Mine Life, and Revenues for Belle Ayr North 

LBA Tract and Belle Ayr Mine if the Bishop Road (County 

Road 12) is Not Moved and the Underlying Coal is Not 

Recovered............................................................................ES-11 

Table ES-3. Summary Comparison of Coal Production, Surface 

Disturbance, Mine Life, and Revenues for West Coal Creek 

LBA Tract and Coal Creek Mine...........................................ES-12 

Table ES-4. Summary Comparison of Coal Production, Surface 

Disturbance, Mine Life, and Revenues for Caballo West 

LBA Tract and Caballo Mine if the Bishop Road (County 

Road 12) is Moved and the Underlying Coal is Recovered.....ES-13 

Table ES-5. Summary Comparison of Coal Production, Surface 

Disturbance, Mine Life, and Revenues for Caballo West 

LBA Tract and Caballo Mine if the Bishop Road (County 

Road 12) is Not Moved and the Underlying Coal is Not 

Recovered............................................................................ES-14 

Table ES-6. Summary Comparison of Coal Production, Surface 

Disturbance, Mine Life, and Revenues for Maysdorf II LBA 

Tract, Assuming Wyoming Highway 59 and the BNSF & UP 

Railroad are Not Moved and the Underlying Coal is Not 

Recovered and if the Haight and Hilight Roads and the 

Maysdorf Point Cemetery are Moved and the Underlying 

Coal is Recovered ................................................................ES-15 

Table ES-7. Summary Comparison of Coal Production, Surface 

Disturbance, Mine Life, and Revenues for Maysdorf II LBA 

Tract, Assuming Wyoming Highway 59, the Haight and 

Hilight Roads, the Maysdorf Point Cemetery, and the BNSF 

& UP Railroad are Not Moved and the Underlying Coal is 

Not Recovered .....................................................................ES-16 

Table ES-8. Projected Maximum Potential Near-field Impacts .................ES-41 

Table ES-9. Modeled Change in Visibility Impacts at Class I and 

Sensitive Class II Areas .......................................................ES-42 


Table ES-10. Recent and Projected PRB Population..................................ES-43 


Table 1-1. 

Table 1-2. 

Leases Issued and Exchanges Completed Since 

Decertification, Powder River Basin, Wyoming .........................1-6 

Pending LBAs and Exchanges, Powder River Basin, 

Wyoming .................................................................................1-8 

Table 2-1. Regulatory Compliance, Mitigation and Monitoring 

Measures for Surface Coal Mining Operations Required by 

SMCRA and State Law for all Alternatives..............................2-48 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications xiii 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table of Contents 

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) 

Table 2-2. Summary Comparison of Coal Production, Surface 

Disturbance, Mine Life, and Revenues for Belle Ayr North 

LBA Tract and Belle Ayr Mine if the Bishop Road (County 

Road 12) is Moved and the Underlying Coal is Recovered.......2-56 

Table 2-3. Summary Comparison of Coal Production, Surface 

Disturbance, Mine Life, and Revenues for Belle Ayr North 

LBA Tract and Belle Ayr Mine if the Bishop Road (County 

Road 12) is Not Moved and Underlying Coal is Not 

Recovered..............................................................................2-57 

Table 2-4. Summary Comparison of Coal Production, Surface 

Disturbance, Mine Life, and Revenues for West Coal Creek 

LBA Tract and Coal Creek Mine.............................................2-58 

Table 2-5. Summary Comparison of Coal Production, Surface 

Disturbance, Mine Life, and Revenues for Caballo West LBA 

Tract and Caballo Mine if the Bishop Road (County Road 12) 

is Moved and the Underlying Coal is Recovered .....................2-59 

Table 2-6. Summary Comparison of Coal Production, Surface 

Disturbance, Mine Life, and Revenues for Caballo West LBA 

Tract and Caballo Mine if the Bishop Road (County Road 12) 

is Not Moved and the Underlying Coal is Not Recovered.........2-60 

Table 2-7. Summary Comparison of Coal Production, Surface 

Disturbance, Mine Life, and Revenues for Maysdorf II LBA 

Tract, Assuming Wyoming Highway 59 and the BNSF & 

UP Railroad are Not Moved and the Underlying Coal is Not 

Recovered and if the Haight and Hilight Roads and the 

Maysdorf Point Cemetery are Moved and the Underlying 

Coal is Recovered ..................................................................2-61 

Table 2-8. Summary Comparison of Coal Production, Surface 

Disturbance, Mine Life, and Revenues for Maysdorf II LBA 

Tract, Assuming Wyoming 59, the Haight and Hilight Roads 

and the BNSF & UP Railroad are Not Moved and the 

Underlying Coal is Not Recovered ..........................................2-62 

Table 2-9. Summary Comparison of Magnitude and Duration of 

Direct and Indirect Impacts for the Proposed Action and 

Alternatives 2 and 3 and the No Action Alternative for the 

Belle Ayr North, West Coal Creek, Caballo West, and 

Maysdorf II LBA Tracts ..........................................................2-63 

Table 2-10. Summary Comparison of Magnitude and Duration of 

Cumulative Impacts ..............................................................2-70 


Table 3-1. Comparison of Existing and Proposed Belle Ayr Mine 

Disturbance Area and Mine Operations ...................................3-4 

Table 3-2. Comparison of Existing and Proposed Coal Creek Mine 

Disturbance Area and Mine Operations ...................................3-4 

Table 3-3. Comparison of Existing and Proposed Caballo Mine 

Disturbance Area and Mine Operations ...................................3-5 


xiv Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
 

 

Table of Contents 

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) 

Table 3-4. Comparison of Existing and Proposed Cordero Rojo Mine 

Disturbance Area and Mine Operations ...................................3-5 


Table 3-5. Average Overburden, Interburden, and Coal Thicknesses 


and Approximate Postmining Surface Elevation Changes of 

the Four LBA Tracts ..............................................................3-11 


Table 3-6. Assumed Background Air Pollutant Concentrations, 


Applicable AAQS, and PSD Increment Values ........................3-30 


Table 3-7. Annual Ambient NO2 Concentration Data ..............................3-61 


Table 3-8. 2002 Through 2008 Mean Annual NO2 Concentration 


Data......................................................................................3-62 

Table 3-9. 2001 Through 2008 Annual 4th Max, 8-Hour Average O3


 Values...................................................................................3-63 

Table 3-10. Approximate Distances and Directions from the General 


South Gillette Analysis Area to PSD Class I and Class II
 

Sensitive Receptor Areas .......................................................3-74 


Table 3-11. Existing Acid Neutralizing Capacity in Sensitive Lakes...........3-79 


Table 3-12. Vegetation Types Identified and Mapped Within the 


Combined LBA Vegetation General Analysis Areas............... 3-149 


Table 3-13. Distribution of Surface Ownership Within Each LBA 


Tract Study Area ................................................................. 3-196 


Table 3-14. Belle Ayr North LBA Tract Federal Oil and Gas Lessees of 


Record................................................................................. 3-205 

Table 3-15. West Coal Creek LBA Tract Federal Oil and Gas Lessees of 


Record................................................................................. 3-205 

Table 3-16. Caballo West LBA Tract Federal Oil and Gas Lessees of 


Record................................................................................. 3-205 

Table 3-17. Maysdorf II LBA Tract Federal Oil and Gas Lessees of 


Record................................................................................. 3-206 

Table 3-18. Noise Related Impacts for the SGAC LBA Tracts .................. 3-229 


Table 3-19. Projected Socioeconomic Impacts from Leasing the South 


Gillette Analysis Area LBA Tracts Under the Proposed 

Action and Alternatives 2 and 3........................................... 3-249 


Table 3-20. Estimated Annual Equivalent CO2 Emissions at the SGAC 


Mines .................................................................................. 3-269 

Table 4-1. Status and Ownership of Wyoming PRB Coal Mines for 

2003, the PRB Coal Review Baseline Year, and for 2007 ..........4-6 


Table 4-2. Baseline Year and Projected Wyoming PRB Coal Mine 


Development, Lower Coal Production Scenario ......................4-10 


Table 4-3. Baseline Year and Projected Wyoming PRB Coal Mine 


Development, Upper Coal Production Scenario ......................4-11 


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


 Development Scenario ...........................................................4-14 

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


Coal-Related Development Scenario.......................................4-20 


Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications xv 
 

 

 

 

Table of Contents 

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) 

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

Oil and Gas Development Scenario........................................4-21 


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


for the Wyoming PRB.............................................................4-22 


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


Related Development Disturbance and Water Production.......4-23 


Table 4-9. U.S. Nuclear Resources Commission Applications for 


In-Situ Recovery Uranium Projects in the Wyoming PRB 

 Study Area ............................................................................4-27 

Table 4-10. Baseline Year and Projected Wyoming PRB Total 


Development Scenario – Task 3 Study Area ...........................4-35 


Table 4-11. Projected Maximum Potential Near-field Impacts ...................4-41 


Table 4-12. Maximum Predicted PSD Class I and Sensitive Class II


 Area Impacts .........................................................................4-44 

Table 4-13. Modeled Change in Visibility Impacts at Class I and 


Sensitive Class II Areas .........................................................4-45 


Table 4-14. Predicted Total Cumulative Change in Acid Neutralizing 


Capacity of Sensitive Lakes ...................................................4-47 


Table 4-15. Recoverable Groundwater in the Fort Union/Wasatch 


Aquifer System......................................................................4-50 


Table 4-16. Water Use as of 2002 in the Powder/Tongue River Basin.......4-59 


Table 4-17. Surface Water Availability in the Powder/Tongue River 


Basin ....................................................................................4-60 


Table 4-18. Water Use as of 2002 in the Northeast Wyoming River 


Basins...................................................................................4-60 

Table 4-19. Surface Water Availability in the Northeast Wyoming River 


Basins...................................................................................4-61 

Table 4-20. Summary of Proposed Limits for SAR and EC ........................4-63 


Table 4-21. Impact of CBNG Production Water on Perennial Streams.......4-65 


Table 4-22. Potential Cumulative Disturbance to Pronghorn Ranges 


from Development Activities—Lower and Upper Coal 

Production Scenarios.............................................................4-72 


Table 4-23. Potential Cumulative Disturbance to White-tailed Deer 


Ranges from Development Activities—Lower and Upper Coal 

 Production Scenarios.............................................................4-72 

Table 4-24. Potential Cumulative Disturbance to Mule Deer Ranges 


from Development Activities—Lower and Upper Coal 

 Production Scenarios.............................................................4-72 

Table 4-25. Potential Cumulative Disturbance to Elk Ranges from 


Development Activities—Lower and Upper Coal Production 

Scenarios ..............................................................................4-73 

Table 4-26. Potential Cumulative Impacts to Greater Sage-grouse Leks 


from Coal Mine Development - Upper and Lower Coal 

 Production Scenarios.............................................................4-80 

Table 4-27. PRB Land Use by Surface Ownership ....................................4-81 


xvi Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table of Contents 

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) 

Table 4-28. AUMs and Acres of Cropland Estimated Unavailable on 

Lands Disturbed and Not Yet Reclaimed as a Result of 

Development Activities ..........................................................4-83 

Table 4-29. Square Miles of Projected Cumulative Disturbance and 

Number of Potentially Affected Cultural Resource Sites in 

the PRB Coal Review Task 3 Study Area – Lower and Upper 

Coal Production Scenarios.....................................................4-86 


Table 4-30. PRB Rail Lines Coal Hauling Capacity and Projected Use.......4-90 


Table 4-31. Recent and Projected PRB Population....................................4-96 


Table 4-32. Rental Housing Vacancy Rates, 2004 4Q and 2006 4Q..........4-98 


Table 4-33. Total Housing Stock in 2000 and 2005..................................4-98 


Table 4-34. Monthly Housing Rents in 20061 in the PRB Study Area 


And Percent Change from 2004 .............................................4-98 

Table 4-35. Summary of Mineral Development Tax Revenues Associated 

with Energy Resource Production Under the Lower Coal 

 Production Scenario ............................................................ 4-105 

Table 4-36. Summary of Mineral Development Tax Revenues Associated 

with Energy Resource Production Under the Upper Coal 

 Production Scenario ............................................................ 4-105 

Table 4-37. Estimated Annual Equivalent CO2 Emissions from Coal 

Production at Mines With Pending LBAs.............................. 4-118 

Table 4-38. Projected Percent of CO2 Emissions by Source (2007 and 

2030) .................................................................................. 4-119 

Table 4-39. Projected Percent of CO2 Emissions by Source (2007 and 

2030) Under a Reduced CO2 Emissions Scenario................. 4-119 

Table 4-40. 2004 Percent Contribution to Worldwide Anthropogenic 

 Mercury Emissions.............................................................. 4-124 

Table 5-1. List of Contributors and Reviewers ............................................5-4 


Table 5-2. List of Preparers ........................................................................5-6 


Table 5-3. BLM Distribution List for the South Gillette Area Final EIS........5-8 


LIST OF FIGURES 

Figure ES-1. General Location Map with Federal Coal Leases and LBA 

Tracts.................................................................................ES-2 

Figure ES-2. Belle Ayr North LBA Tract Alternatives ...............................ES-3 

Figure ES-3. West Coal Creek LBA Tract Alternatives..............................ES-4 

Figure ES-4. Caballo West LBA Tract Alternatives...................................ES-5 

Figure ES-5. Maysdorf II LBA Tract Alternatives......................................ES-7 

Figure ES-6. Maximum Modeled PM10 and NOx Concentrations at the 

Belle Ayr Mine Ambient Air Boundary for the Year 2013 ...ES-22 

Figure ES-7. Maximum Modeled PM10 and NOx Concentrations at the 

Coal Creek Mine Ambient Air Boundary for the Year 

2016 ................................................................................ES-23 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications xvii 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table of Contents 

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) 

Figure ES-8. Maximum Modeled PM10 and NOx Concentrations at the 

Caballo Mine Ambient Air Boundary for the Year 2014 .....ES-24 

Figure ES-9. Maximum Modeled PM10 and NOx Concentrations at the 

Cordero Rojo Mine Ambient Air Boundary for the Year 

2007 ................................................................................ES-25 

Figure ES-10. Residences, School Bus Stops, Public Roads, and Other 

Publicly Accessible Facilities Within 3 Miles of the Belle 

Ayr North LBA Study Area ................................................ES-27 

Figure ES-11. Residences, School Bus Stops, Public Roads, and Other 

Publicly Accessible Facilities Within 3 Miles of the West Coal 

Creek LBA Study Area ......................................................ES-28 

Figure ES-12. Residences, School Bus Stops, Public Roads, and Other 

Publicly Accessible Facilities Within 3 Miles of the Caballo 

West LBA Study Area .......................................................ES-29 

Figure ES-13. Residences, School Bus Stops, Public Roads, and Other 

Publicly Accessible Facilities Within 3 Miles of the 

Maysdorf II LBA Study Area..............................................ES-30 

Figure ES-14. Extrapolated Extent of Life of Mine Cumulative Drawdown 

Within the Wyodak Coal Aquifer With the Addition of the 

South Gillette Area Coal LBA Tracts .................................ES-31 


Figure 1-1. General Location Map with Federal Coal Leases and LBA 

Tract .......................................................................................1-2 

Figure 1-2. Belle Ayr Mine’s Federal Coal Leases and Belle Ayr North LBA 

Tract as Applied for .................................................................1-9 

Figure 1-3. Coal Creek Mine’s Federal Coal Leases and West Coal Creek 

LBA Tract as Applied for........................................................1-12 

Figure 1-4. Caballo Mine’s Federal Coal Leases and Caballo West LBA 

Tract as Applied for ...............................................................1-14 

Figure 1-5. Cordero Rojo Mine’s Federal Coal Leases and Maysdorf II LBA 

Tract as Applied for ...............................................................1-16 


Figure 2-1. Belle Ayr North LBA Tract Alternatives ....................................2-2 


Figure 2-2. West Coal Creek LBA Tract Alternatives...................................2-3 


Figure 2-3. Caballo West LBA Tract Alternatives........................................2-4 


Figure 2-4. Maysdorf II LBA Tract Alternatives...........................................2-5 


Figure 3-1. General South Gillette Analysis Area .......................................3-3 


Figure 3-2. Stratigraphic Relationship and Hydrologic Characteristics of 

Upper Cretaceous, Lower Tertiary, and Recent Geologic Units, 

PRB, Wyoming.......................................................................3-13 

Figure 3-3. Wind Rose, Air Quality and Meteorological Stations at the 

Belle Ayr Mine.......................................................................3-33 

Figure 3-4. Wind Rose, Air Quality and Meteorological Stations at the 

Coal Creek Mine....................................................................3-34 


xviii Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table of Contents 

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) 

Figure 3-5. Wind Rose, Air Quality and Meteorological Stations at the 

Caballo Mine .........................................................................3-35 


Figure 3-6. Wind Rose, Air Quality and Meteorological Stations at the 


Cordero Rojo Mine.................................................................3-36 


Figure 3-7. Annual Coal Production and Overburden Removal vs. 


Ambient Particulates for the General South Gillette Analysis 

Area (1997 through 2007)......................................................3-37 


Figure 3-8. Maximum Modeled PM10 and NOx Concentrations at the 


Belle Ayr Mine Ambient Air Boundary for the Year 2008 ........3-41 


Figure 3-9. Maximum Modeled PM10 and NOx Concentrations at the 


Belle Ayr Mine Ambient Air Boundary for the Year 2013 ........3-42 


Figure 3-10. Residences, School Bus Stops, Public Roads, and Other 


Publicly Accessible Facilities Within 3 Miles of the Belle Ayr 

North LBA Study Area ...........................................................3-44 


Figure 3-11. Maximum Modeled PM10 and NOx Concentrations at the 


Coal Creek Mine Ambient Air Boundary for the Year 2009 .....3-46 


Figure 3-12. Maximum Modeled PM10 and NOx Concentrations at the 


Coal Creek Mine Ambient Air Boundary for the Year 2016 .....3-47 


Figure 3-13. Residences, School Bus Stops, Public Roads, and Other 


Publicly Accessible Facilities Within 3 Miles of the West 

Coal Creek LBA Study Area ...................................................3-48 


Figure 3-14. Maximum Modeled PM10 and NOx Concentrations at the 


Caballo Mine Ambient Air Boundary for the Year 2008 ..........3-50 


Figure 3-15. Maximum Modeled PM10 and NOx Concentrations at the 


Caballo Mine Ambient Air Boundary for the Year 2014 ..........3-51 


Figure 3-16. Residences, School Bus Stops, Public Roads, and Other 


Publicly Accessible Facilities Within 3 Miles of the West 

Caballo West LBA Study Area................................................3-53 


Figure 3-17. Maximum Modeled PM10 and NOx Concentrations at the 


Cordero Rojo Mine Ambient Air Boundary for the Year 2005..3-55 


Figure 3-18. Maximum Modeled PM10 and NOx Concentrations at the 


Cordero Rojo Mine Ambient Air Boundary for the Year 2007..3-56 


Figure 3-19. Residences, School Bus Stops, Public Roads, and Other 


Publicly Accessible Facilities Within 3 Miles of the 

Maysdorf II LBA Study Area...................................................3-57 


Figure 3-20. Visibility in the Badlands and Bridger Wilderness Area..........3-76 


Figure 3-21. Belle Ayr Mine Life of Mine Drawdown Map, Resulting from 


Currently Approved Mining with the Addition of the Belle Ayr 

North LBA Tract ....................................................................3-95 


Figure 3-22. Coal Creek Mine Life of Mine Drawdown Map, Resulting from 


Currently Approved Mining with the Addition of the West Coal 

Creek LBA Tract....................................................................3-99 


Figure 3-23. Caballo Mine Life of Mine Drawdown Map, Resulting from 


Currently Approved Mining with the Addition of the Caballo 

West LBA Tract ................................................................... 3-104 


Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications xix 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table of Contents 

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) 

Figure 3-24. Surface Drainage in the General South Gillette Analysis 

Area .................................................................................... 3-112 


Figure 3-25. Raptor Nest Sites and Sage-Grouse Leks Within and Adjacent 


to the Belle Ayr North LBA Tract.......................................... 3-162 


Figure 3-26. Raptor Nest Sites, Sage-Grouse Leks, and Prairie Dog Colonies 


Within and Adjacent to the West Coal Creek LBA Tract........ 3-163 


Figure 3-27. Raptor Nest Sites and Sage-Grouse Leks Within and Adjacent 


to the Caballo West LBA Tract ............................................. 3-164 


Figure 3-28. Raptor Nest Sites, Sage-Grouse Leks, and Prairie Dog Colonies 


Within and Adjacent to the Maysdorf II LBA Tract................ 3-165 


Figure 3-29. General South Gillette Analysis Area and Associated BLM 


Sage-Grouse Focus Areas .................................................... 3-174 


Figure 3-30. Average Male Sage-Grouse Lek Attendance Within the 


Northeast Wyoming Local Working Group Area 

(1968-2006) ........................................................................ 3-181 

Figure 3-31. Average Male Sage-Grouse Lek Attendance Statewide and 


Within the Northeast Wyoming Local Sage-grouse Working 

Group Area and the Thunder Basin National Grasslands 

(1995-2008) ........................................................................ 3-182 

Figure 3-32. Surface Ownership Within the Belle Ayr North LBA Tract 


Alternatives ......................................................................... 3-197 


Figure 3-33. Surface Ownership Within the West Coal Creek LBA Tract 


Alternatives ......................................................................... 3-198 


Figure 3-34. Surface Ownership Within the Caballo West LBA Tract 


Alternatives ......................................................................... 3-199 


Figure 3-35. Surface Ownership Within the Maysdorf II LBA Tract 


Alternatives ......................................................................... 3-200 


Figure 3-36. Oil and Gas Wells and Oil and Gas Ownership Within the 


Belle Ayr North LBA Tract Alternatives ................................ 3-201 


Figure 3-37. Oil and Gas Wells and Oil and Gas Ownership Within the 


West Coal Creek LBA Tract Alternatives............................... 3-202 


Figure 3-38. Oil and Gas Wells and Oil and Gas Ownership Within the 


Caballo West LBA Tract Alternatives.................................... 3-203 


Figure 3-39. Oil and Gas Wells and Oil and Gas Ownership Within the 


Maysdorf II LBA Tract Alternatives....................................... 3-204 


Figure 3-40. Relationship Between A-Scale Decibel Readings and Sounds 


of Daily Life ......................................................................... 3-228 


Figure 3-41. Transportation Facilities Within and Adjacent to the Belle 


Ayr North LBA Tract ............................................................ 3-231 


Figure 3-42. Transportation Facilities Within and Adjacent to the West 


Coal Creek LBA Tract .......................................................... 3-232 


Figure 3-43. Transportation Facilities Within and Adjacent to the 


Caballo West LBA Tract....................................................... 3-233 


Figure 3-44. Transportation Facilities Within and Adjacent to the 


Maysdorf II LBA Tract.......................................................... 3-234 


xx Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Table of Contents 

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) 

Figure 3-45. Oil and Gas Pipelines Within and Adjacent to the Belle Ayr 


North LBA Tract .................................................................. 3-235 


Figure 3-46. Oil and Gas Pipelines Within and Adjacent to the West Coal 


Figure 3-47. Oil and Gas Pipelines Within and Adjacent to the Caballo 


Figure 3-48. Oil and Gas Pipelines Within and Adjacent to the Maysdorf 


Figure 3-49. Estimated Wyoming and Federal Revenues from 2006 Coal 


Creek LBA Tract .................................................................. 3-236 


West LBA Tract ................................................................... 3-237 


II LBA Tract......................................................................... 3-238 


Production in Campbell County........................................... 3-248 


Figure 4-1. Wyoming Study Area for PRB Coal Review Studies Evaluating 


Current and Projected Levels of Development ..........................4-3 


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


Figure 4-3. Projected Total Coal Production from Campbell and Converse 


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


1990 .......................................................................................4-5 


Counties Under the Lower and Upper Production Scenarios ....4-9 


Evaluating Projected Environmental Consequences ...............4-34 


Figure 4-5. 	 Extrapolated Extent of Life of Mine Cumulative Drawdown 


Within the Wyodak Coal Aquifer With the Addition of the 


South Gillette Area Coal LBA Tracts ......................................4-53 


Figure 4-6. Projected Campbell County Population and Employment to 


2020 .....................................................................................4-96 

Figure 4-7. Projected Housing Demand in the PRB Study Area Under 


Figure 4-8. Projected School Enrollment to 2020 Under the Lower Coal 


the Lower Coal Production Scenario ......................................4-99 


 Production Scenario ............................................................ 4-101 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications xxi 
Table of Contents 

VOLUME 2 

LIST OF APPENDICES 

Appendix A. Federal and State Agencies and Permitting Requirements 

Appendix B. Unsuitability Criteria for the Belle Ayr North, West Coal Creek, 

Caballo West, and Maysdorf II LBA Tracts 

Appendix C. Coal Lease-By-Application Flow Chart 

Appendix D. Bureau of Land Management Special Coal Lease Stipulations 

and Form 3400-12 Coal Lease 

Appendix E. Biological Assessment for the Belle Ayr North LBA Tract, South 

Gillette Area Coal EIS 

Appendix F. Biological Assessment for the West Coal Creek LBA Tract, South 

Gillette Area Coal EIS 

Appendix G. Biological Assessment for the Caballo West LBA Tract, South 

Gillette Area Coal EIS 

Appendix H. Biological Assessment for the Maysdorf II LBA Tract, South 

Gillette Area Coal EIS 

Appendix I. BLM Sensitive Species Evaluation for the South Gillette Area 

Coal EIS 

Appendix J. CBNG and Conventional Oil and Gas Wells Capable Of 

Production on Sections In or Adjacent to the Belle Ayr North, 

West Coal Creek, Caballo West, and Maysdorf II LBA Tracts 

Appendix K. Supplemental Air Quality Information for the Belle Ayr North, 

West Coal Creek, Caballo West, and Maysdorf II LBA Tracts 

xxii Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
 

Abbreviations and Acronyms 

Abbreviations and Acronyms Used in this Report 

AAQS 

Ac 

ACC 

ac-ft 

ac-ft/yr 

AIRS 

ALC 

AML 

ANC 

ANFO 

APLIC 

AQD 

AQIA 

AQRV 

ARCO 

ARS 

AUM 

AVF 

BACT 

bcf 

bcy 

BLM 

BNSF 

BNSF-UP, BNSF&UP 

BN-UP, BN&UP 

BOE 

B.P. 

Btu

Btu/lb 

CAA 

CAAA 

CAGR 

CANDO 

CBNG 

CCBC 

CCC 

CCEDC 

CCSD 

CERCLA 

CFR 

cfs 

CHIA 

CMC 

CO

CO2

CO2e 

COE 

CREG 

CRI 

CWA 

Ambient Air Quality Standards 

acre(s) 

Antelope Coal Company 

acre-foot, acre-feet 

acre-foot per year, acre-feet per year 

Aerometric Information and Retrieval System 

Ark Land Company 

Abandoned Mine Land 

acidification neutralization capacity 

ammonium nitrate fuel oil 

Avian Power Line Interaction Committee 

Air Quality Division 

air quality impact analysis 

air quality related values 

Atlantic Richfield Company 

Air Resource Specialists, Inc. 

animal unit month 

alluvial valley floor 

best available control technology 

billion cubic feet 

bank cubic yards 

Bureau of Land Management 

Burlington Northern Santa Fe 

Burlington Northern Santa Fe and Union Pacific 

Burlington Northern-Union Pacific 

barrels of oil equivalent 

before present 

 British thermal units 

British thermal units per pound 

Clean Air Act 

Clean Air Act Amendment 

compounded annual growth rate 

Converse Area New Development Organization 

coal bed natural gas 

Campbell County Board of Commissioners 

Caballo Coal Company 

Campbell County Economic Development Corporation 

Campbell County School District 

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and 

Liability Act of 1980 

Code of Federal Regulations 

cubic feet per second 

Cumulative Hydrologic Impact Assessment 

Cordero Mining Company 

 carbon monoxide 

 carbon dioxide 

equivalent carbon dioxide 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

Consensus Revenue Estimating Group 

Caballo Rojo, Inc. 

Clean Water Act 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications xxiii 
 

 

 

Abbreviations and Acronyms 

Abbreviations and Acronyms Used in this Report 

cy cubic yards 

dBA A-weighted decibels 

DEIS Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

DM&E Dakota, Minnesota & Eastern Railroad Corporation 

DNRC Department of Natural Resources and Conservation 

DOI Department of the Interior 

dv deciview, a measure of view impairment 

EA Environmental Assessment 

EC elemental carbon particles (re: air quality) 

EIS Environmental Impact Statement 

ENCOAL Encoal Corporation 

EOR enhanced oil recovery 

EPA Environmental Protection Agency 

EQC Environmental Quality Council 

ESA Endangered Species Act 

EUR estimated ultimate recovery 

EVG Erathem-Vanir Geological, PLLC 

F Fahrenheit 

FAA Federal Aviation Administration 

FCLAA Federal Coal Leasing Act Amendments of 1976 

FCW Foundation Coal West, Inc. 

FDM Fugitive Dust Model 

FEA Final Environmental Assessment 

FEIS Final Environmental Impact Statement 

FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

FLM Federal Land Management 

FLPMA Federal Land Policy Management Act of 1976 

FR Federal Register 

FRA Federal Railroad Administration 

ft feet, foot 

ft/day feet per day 

ft/mile feet per mile 

ft3 cubic feet 

FY fiscal year 

g Gram 

GAO General Accounting Office 

GAGMO Gillette Area Ground Water Monitoring Organization 

gpm gallons per minute 

GSP Gross State Product 

HAP Hazardous Air Pollutant 

HIA health impact assessment 

hp horsepower 

hr hour 

IBLA Interior Board of Land Appeals 

ISCLT3 Industrial Source Complex Model, Long Term Version 3 

IMPROVE Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments 

km kilometers 

kV kilovolts 

LAC limits of acceptable change (re: air quality) 

LBA lease by application 

lbs/mmBtu pounds per million British thermal units 

xxiv Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
 

 

 

Abbreviations and Acronyms 

Abbreviations and Acronyms Used in this Report 

LFC liquids from coal 

LNCM Lands Necessary to Conduct Mining 

LOP life of project 

LRMP Land and Resource Management Plan 

LRPL most restrictive proposed limits 

LW Lower Wyodak coal seam 

MACT Maximum Achievable Control Technology 

MBHFI migratory birds of high federal interest 

μmhos/cm micromhos per centimeter 

mcf thousand cubic feet 

MDEQ Montana Department of Environmental Quality 

MDEQ/AWM Montana Department of Environmental Quality/Air and Waste 

Management Bureau 

MEI maximally exposed individual 

μeq/L microequivalents per liter 

μg/m3 micrograms per cubic meter 

mg/L milligrams per liter 

MLA Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 

MLE most likely exposure 

mm million 

mmbcy million bank cubic yards 

mmbo million barrels of oil 

mmcf million cubic feet 

mmcfpd million cubic feet of gas per day 

mmgpy million gallons per year 

mmt million tons 

mmtpy million tons per year 

mph miles per hour 

MRPL most restrictive proposed limits 

MSA Metropolitan Statistical Area 

MSHA Mine Safety & Health Administration 

MW Megawatts 

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

NADP National Atmospheric Deposition Program 

NAPG North American Power Group 

NCTA National Coal Transportation Association 

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

NERC North American Electric Reliability Corporation 

NIOSH National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health 

NO nitrogen oxide 

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

NO2 nitrogen dioxide 

NOx nitrogen oxides 

NPDES National Pollution Discharge Elimination System 

NPS National Park Service 

NRCS National Resource Conservation Service 

NRHP National Register of Historic Places 

NSPS National Source Performance Standards 

NWI National Wetlands Inventory 

NWLWG Northeast Wyoming Local Sage-Grouse Working Group 

O3 photochemical oxidants 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications xxv 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Abbreviations and Acronyms 

Abbreviations and Acronyms Used in this Report 

OC organic carbon particles 

ORV off road vehicle 

OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration 

OSM Office of Surface Mining Reclamation & Enforcement 

OWUS other waters of the U.S. 

PECs passive enclosure control systems 

PFYC Probable Fossil Yield Classification 

P.M. Prime Meridian 

PM2.5 particulates finer than 2.5 microns in effective diameter 

PM10 particulates finer than 10 microns in effective diameter 

PMT postmining topography 

ppm parts per million 

PRB Powder River Basin 

PRBRC Powder River Basin Resource Council 

PRCC Powder River Coal Company 

PRRCT Powder River Regional Coal Team 

PSD Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

R2P2 Resource Recovery and Protection Plan 

RAG RAG Coal West, Inc. 

RH relative humidity 

RMP Resource Management Plan 

ROD Record of Decision 

ROW Right-of-Way 

RV recreational vehicle 

SAR sodium adsorption ratio 

SARA Superfund Amendment & Reauthorization Act of 1986 

scf/ton standard cubic feet per ton 

SCSD Sheridan County School District 

SEIS Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 

SEO State Engineer’s Office 

SHPO State Historic Preservation Office 

SIP State Implementation Plan 

SMCRA Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 

SO2 sulfur dioxide 

SOx sulfur oxides 

SPL Sound pressure level 

SPRB South Powder River Basin 

STB Surface Transportation Board 

T&E threatened and endangered 

TBCC Thunder Basin Coal Company, LLC 

TBNG Thunder Basin National Grassland 

TCO temporary cessation of operations 

TDS total dissolved solids 

TJS Thunderbird, Jones & Stokes 

TPY tons per year 

TSP total suspended particulates 

TSS total suspended solids 

UP Union Pacific 

U.S. United States 

USC, U.S.C. United States Code 

USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture 

xxvi Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
 

 

 

Abbreviations and Acronyms 

Abbreviations and Acronyms Used in this Report 

USDI U.S. Department of the Interior 

USGS U.S. Geological Survey 

USFS U.S. Department of Agriculture - Forest Service 

USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

UW University of Wyoming 

VMT vehicle miles traveled 

VOCs volatile organic compounds 

VRM visual resource management 

WA Wilderness Area 

WAAQS Wyoming Ambient Air Quality Standards 

WAQSR Wyoming Air Quality Standards and Regulations 

WARMS Wyoming Air Resources Monitoring System 

WCIC Wyoming Coal Information Committee 

WDEQ Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality 

WDEQ/AQD Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality/Air Quality 

Division 

WDEQ/LQD Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality/Land Quality 

Division 

WFA Western Fuels Association 

WGFD Wyoming Game and Fish Department 

WMA Wyoming Mining Association 

WOC Wyoming Outdoor Council 

WOGCC Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission 

WoUS Waters of the U.S. 

WRCC Western Regional Climate Center 

WRRI Water Resources Research Institute 

WSBLC Wyoming State Board of Land Commissioners 

WSFC Wyoming School Facilities Commission 

WSGS Wyoming State Geological Survey 

WSO-RMG Wyoming State Office Reservoir Management Group (BLM) 

WYDOT Wyoming Department of Transportation 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications xxvii 
 

1.0 Introduction 

1.0 INTRODUCTION 

This environmental impact statement (EIS)1 analyzes the environmental impacts of 

leasing four tracts of federal coal reserves adjacent to the Belle Ayr, Coal Creek, 

Caballo, and Cordero Rojo mines. All are operating surface coal mines in the eastcentral Powder River Basin (PRB) of Wyoming. The operators of the Belle Ayr, Coal 

Creek, Caballo, and Cordero Rojo mines filed four applications to lease the four 

tracts of federal coal included in maintenance coal tracts (federal coal tracts that 

would continue or extend the life of an existing coal mine) under the regulations at 

43 CFR 3425, Leasing On Application. The Division of Minerals and Lands at the 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Wyoming State Office reviewed all four 

applications and determined that the lease applications met the regulatory 

requirements for lease by applications (LBAs). The tracts are referred to as the 

Belle Ayr North LBA tract, the West Coal Creek LBA tract, the Caballo West LBA 

tract, and the Maysdorf II LBA tract. Figure 1-1 shows the four LBA tracts, other 

currently pending LBA tracts, and the existing federal leases, including previously 

leased LBA tracts, in the Wyoming PRB. 

A separate document, entitled Supplementary Information on the Affected 

Environment in the Combined Evaluation Area for the South Gillette Area Coal Lease 

Applications EIS, has been prepared to provide detailed information on the affected 

environment in the general South Gillette analysis area. Copies of the 

supplementary information document are available on request and can be viewed 

at the BLM offices in Casper and Cheyenne. 

1.1 Background 

On July 6, 2004, RAG Coal West, Inc. (RAG) filed an application with BLM to lease 

federal coal reserves in a tract north of and immediately adjacent to the Belle Ayr 

Mine in Campbell County, Wyoming, approximately 10 miles south-southeast of 

Gillette, Wyoming (figure 1-1). The tract, originally referred to as the Belle Ayr 

Mine North Extension LBA tract, was assigned case file number WYW161248. The 

federal coal reserves were applied for as a maintenance tract for the Belle Ayr 

Mine. BLM subsequently renamed the tract the Belle Ayr North LBA tract. 

In August 2004, RAG finalized the sale of the Belle Ayr Mine to Foundation Coal 

West (FCW), a directly held subsidiary of Foundation Coal Holdings, Inc. In this 

EIS, the applicant for the Belle Ayr North LBA tract will be referred to as FCW. 

On February 10, 2006, Ark Land Company (ALC) filed an application with BLM to 

lease the federal coal reserves in a tract west of and immediately adjacent to the 

Coal Creek Mine in Campbell County, Wyoming, approximately 25 miles southsoutheast of Gillette, Wyoming (figure 1-1). The tract, which is referred to as the 

West Coal Creek LBA tract, was assigned case number WYW172585. The federal 

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

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 1-1 

1 
Converse County Niobrara County 

Weston County 

387 

1.0 Introduction 

14 59 

16 LEGEND 

Rawhide Mine 

Buckskin Mine 

Hay Creek II 

LBA's Pending 

LBA's Issued 

Existing Leases (Prior to Decertification) 

Eagle Butte Mine Coal-Fired Power Plant 

(Existing, Proposed, 

LBA Tracts As Applied For (This EIS) 

To Buffalo 38 Miles Johnson County 

Campbell County 

Dry Fork Mine or Under Construction) 

Wyodak Mine 14 

90 

ROZET 90 

GILLETTE 

59 50 90 

Campbell County

Weston County Crook County

MOORCROFT 

Caballo Mine 

CABALLO WEST 

BELLE AYR NORTH 

Belle Ayr Mine 

Cordero Rojo Mine 

MAYSDORF II 

WEST COAL CREEK 

Coal Creek Mine 

116 

North Hilight Field 

West Jacobs Ranch 

RENO JUNCTION 

WRIGHT Jacobs Ranch Mine 

50 West 

Hilight Field 450 

387 

South 

Hilight Field Black Thunder Mine 

North Rochelle Mine 

North Porcupine School Creek Mine 

South Porcupine (Proposed) 

To Newcastle 29 Miles 

North Antelope Rochelle Mine 

Campbell County 

Converse County West Antelope II 

Antelope Mine 

SCALE: 1"= 10 MILES 59 

To Douglas 46 Miles

Figure 1-1. General Location Map with Federal Coal Leases and LBA Tracts. 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 

16 

1-2
 

1.0 Introduction 

coal reserves were applied for as a maintenance tract for the Coal Creek Mine. 

ALC is a wholly owned subsidiary of Arch Coal, Inc. Thunder Basin Coal 

Company (TBCC), a subsidiary of Arch Western Resources, LLC, operates the Coal 

Creek Mine. In this EIS, ALC is referred to as the applicant and TBCC is referred 

to in discussions of mine operations. 

On March 15, 2006, Caballo Coal Company (CCC) filed an application with BLM to 

lease the federal coal included in a tract located west of and immediately adjacent 

to the Caballo Mine in Campbell County, Wyoming, approximately 8 miles southsoutheast of Gillette, Wyoming (figure 1-1). The tract, which is referred to as the 

Caballo West LBA tract, was assigned case number WYW172657. The federal coal 

reserves were applied for as a maintenance tract for the Caballo Mine. CCC is a 

directly held subsidiary of Peabody Holding Company, Inc., which in turn is a 

directly held subsidiary of Peabody Energy Corporation. 

On September 1, 2006, Cordero Mining Company (CMC) filed an application with 

BLM to lease the federal coal included in a tract west and south of and 

immediately adjacent to the Cordero Rojo Mine in Campbell County, Wyoming, 

approximately 15 miles south-southeast of Gillette, Wyoming (figure 1-1). The 

tract, which is referred to as the Maysdorf II LBA tract, was assigned case number 

WYW173360. The federal coal reserves were applied for as a maintenance tract 

for the Cordero Rojo Mine, which is operated by CMC, a directly held subsidiary of 

Rio Tinto Energy America (formerly Kennecott Energy and Coal Company). 

These federal coal lands are located within the decertified Powder River federal 

coal region. The Powder River Regional Coal Team (PRRCT), a federal/state 

advisory board established to review coal lease applications in the Powder River 

federal coal region and to develop recommendations concerning management of 

federal coal in the Powder River Basin, reviewed the Belle Ayr North LBA tract at a 

public meeting held on April 24, 2005, in Gillette, Wyoming; the West Coal Creek 

and Caballo West LBA tracts were reviewed at a public meeting held on April 19, 

2006, in Casper, Wyoming; and the Maysdorf II LBA tract was reviewed at a public 

meeting held on January 18, 2007, in Casper, Wyoming. The PRRCT 

recommended that BLM continue to process the Belle Ayr North, West Coal Creek, 

Caballo West, and Maysdorf II coal lease applications at these respective meetings. 

In order to process an LBA, BLM must evaluate the quantity, quality, maximum 

economic recovery, and fair market value of the federal coal and fulfill the 

requirements of National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) by evaluating 

the environmental impacts of leasing the federal coal. BLM does not authorize 

mining operations by issuing a lease, but the impacts of mining the coal are 

considered in this EIS because it is a logical consequence of issuing a 

maintenance lease to an existing mine. BLM determined that one EIS would be 

prepared to evaluate the environmental impacts that would be expected to occur if 

leases are issued for the Belle Ayr North, West Coal Creek, Caballo West, and 

Maysdorf II LBA tracts. This EIS has been prepared to evaluate the site-specific 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 1-3 
1.0 Introduction 

and cumulative environmental impacts of leasing and developing the federal coal 

included in the four application areas. BLM will use the analysis in this EIS to 

decide whether to hold a competitive, sealed-bid lease sale for each tract as 

applied for, hold a competitive sealed-bid lease sale for a modified tract, or reject 

the current lease application and not offer the tract for sale at this time. A 

separate record of decision (ROD) will be issued for each LBA tract and, if the 

decision is to offer the tract for lease, a separate sale will be held for each tract. 

For each lease sale that is held, the bidding at the sale will be open to any 

qualified bidder; it will not be limited to the applicant. 

For each lease sale that is held, a lease will be issued to the highest bidder if a 

federal panel determines that the high bid meets or exceeds the fair market value 

of the coal as determined by BLM’s economic evaluation and if the United States 

(U.S.) Department of Justice determines that there will be no antitrust violations if 

a lease is issued to the high bidder. 

Leasing of federal coal only grants the lessee the right to mine and sell the coal, 

with conditions for protection of the nonmineral interests associated with the 

federal coal. After a lease has been issued but prior to mine development, the 

lessee must file a permit application package with the Wyoming Department of 

Environmental Quality (WDEQ/LQD) and Office of Surface Mining Reclamation 

and Enforcement (OSM) for a surface mining permit and approval of the Mineral 

Leasing Act of 1920 (MLA) mining plan. 

In return for receiving a lease, a lessee must pay the federal government a bonus 

equal to the amount it bids at the time the lease sale is held (the bonus can be 

paid in 5 yearly installments), make annual rental payments to the federal 

government, and make royalty payments to the federal government when the coal 

is mined. Prior to 2008, federal bonus, rental, and royalty payments were equally 

divided with the state in which the lease was located. However, for fiscal years 

2008 and 2009, Congress decreased the state’s royalty share to 48 percent, and 

increased the federal government’s share to 52 percent. The percentage of federal 

bonus, rental, and royalty payments distribution will revert back to 50 percent/50 

percent at the end of the 2009 fiscal year unless legislation is passed in the future 

to maintain or further modify the current percentage of distribution of royalties. 

Other agencies may use this analysis to make decisions related to leasing and 

mining the federal coal in this tract. Federal, state, and local agencies may qualify 

as cooperating agencies because of “jurisdiction by law or special expertise” (40 

CFR 1501.6, 1508.5). BLM invited potentially qualified agencies to participate as 

cooperating agencies in the preparation of the South Gillette Area Coal Lease 

Applications EIS. In response, OSM, WDEQ, and the Wyoming Department of 

Transportation (WYDOT)) are cooperating agencies on this EIS. OSM has primary 

responsibility to administer federal programs that regulate surface coal mining 

operations and will use this EIS to make decisions related to the approval of the 

MLA mining plan if the tract is leased. WDEQ has entered into a cooperative 

1-4 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
1.0 Introduction 

agreement with the Secretary of the Interior to regulate surface coal mining 

operations on federal and nonfederal lands within the state of Wyoming. WYDOT's 

responsibilities include planning and supervising road improvement work, 

maintaining roads, and supporting airports and aviation in the state. 

Since decertification of the Powder River Federal Coal Region in 1990, 20 federal 

coal leases have been sold at competitive sealed-bid sales and three exchanges of 

federal coal in the Wyoming portion of the Powder River federal coal region have 

been completed (table 1-1). This is the first application for a maintenance coal 

tract submitted by the Coal Creek and Caballo mines since decertification (table 1­

1 and figure 1-1). The West Rocky Butte LBA, which is currently leased to the 

Caballo Mine, was originally leased to Northwestern Resources Co. The Belle Ayr 

Mine previously applied for the Belle Ayr LBA in 1997. The application was split 

into the Belle Ayr 1997 and Belle Ayr 2000 LBA tracts at the applicant’s request. 

The Belle Ayr 2000 LBA tract was processed and offered for lease in 2001, but the 

bid was rejected as insufficient to meet fair market value. The applicant did not 

request that the Belle Ayr 2000 LBA tract be re-offered for sale but instead 

requested that the Belle Ayr 2000 LBA tract be recombined with the Belle Ayr 

1997 LBA tract. BLM requested that the applicant update and resubmit the 

application for the Belle Ayr 1997 LBA tract and subsequently rejected the 

application when that did not occur. The Cordero Rojo Mine recently acquired the 

North and South Maysdorf LBA tracts. The Cordero Rojo Mine previously applied 

for the Maysdorf LBA in 2001 and subsequently amended the application in 2004. 

The application was split into the North and South Maysdorf LBA tracts during 

the NEPA process. These LBA tracts were processed and offered for lease in 2007, 

but the bids were rejected as insufficient to meet fair market value. Both tracts 

were re-offered for sale in 2008, with the bid for the South Maysdorf tract being 

accepted while the bid for the North Maysdorf tract was rejected for the second 

time. The North Maysdorf tract was offered for sale a third time in 2009 and the 

bid was accepted. 

Table 1-2 summarizes the 12 lease applications that are currently pending. 

1.1.1 Belle Ayr North LBA tract 

The Belle Ayr North LBA tract as applied for and the existing federal coal leases 

associated with the adjacent Belle Ayr Mine are shown in figure 1-2. As applied 

for, this tract consists of a single block of federal coal and includes approximately 

1,578.7 acres. FCW estimates that the Belle Ayr North LBA tract contains 208.0 

million tons of in-place coal reserves. Not all of the coal included in the Belle Ayr 

North LBA tract is considered to be mineable at this time. The Bishop Road, a 

county road, overlies some of the coal included in the tract. The Surface Mining 

Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA) prohibits mining within 100 feet on 

either side of the right-of-way of any public road unless the appropriate public 

road authority allows the road to be relocated or closed after public notice, an 

opportunity for a public hearing, and a finding that the interests of the affected 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 1-5 
1.0 Introduction 

Table 1-1. Leases Issued and Exchanges Completed Since Decertification, 

Powder River Basin, Wyoming. 

Leases Issued 

LBA Name (Lease Number) 

Applicant Mine 

Current Lessee Acres Mineable Tons Successful 

Effective Date Leased1 of Coal1 Bid 

Jacobs Ranch (WYW117924) 1,708.620 147,423,560 $20,114,930.00 

Jacobs Ranch Mine 

Jacobs Ranch Coal Co. 

10/1/1992 

West Black Thunder (WYW118907) 3,492.495 429,048,216 $71,909,282.69 

Black Thunder Mine 

Thunder Basin Coal Co. 

10/1/1992 

North Antelope/Rochelle (WYW119554) 3,064.040 403,500,000 $86,987,765.00 

North Antelope & Rochelle Mines 

Powder River Coal Co. 

10/1/1992 

West Rocky Butte (WYW122586) 463.205 56,700,000 $16,500,000.00 

No Existing Mine2 

Caballo Coal Co. 

1/1/1993 

Eagle Butte (WYW124783) 1,059.180 166,400,000 $18,470,400.00 

Eagle Butte Mine 

Foundation Wyoming Land Co. 

8/1/1995 

Antelope (WYW128322) 617.200 60,364,000 $9,054,600.00 

Antelope Mine 

Antelope Coal Co. 

2/1/1997 

North Rochelle (WYW127221) 1,481.930 157,610,000 $30,576,340.00 

North Rochelle Mine 

Ark Land Co. 

1/1/1998 

Powder River (WYW136142) 4,224.225 532,000,000 $109,596,500.00 

North Antelope Rochelle Mine 

Powder River Coal Co. 

9/1/1998 

Thundercloud (WYW136458) 3,545.503 412,000,000 $158,000,008.50 

Jacobs Ranch Mine 

Thunder Basin Coal Co., LLC 

1/1/1999 

Horse Creek (WYW141435) 2,818.695 275,577,000 $91,220,120.70 

Antelope Mine 

Antelope Coal Co. 

12/1/2000 

North Jacobs Ranch (WYW146744) 4,982.240 537,542,000 $379,504,652.00 

Jacobs Ranch Mine 

Jacobs Ranch Coal Co. 

5/1/2002 

NARO South (WYW154001) 2,956.725 297,469,000 $274,117,684.00 

North Antelope Rochelle Mine 

BTU Western Resources, Inc. 

9/1/2004 

West Hay Creek (WYW151634) 921.158 142,698,000 $42,809,400.00 

Buckskin Mine 

Kiewit Mining Properties, Inc. 

1/1/2005 

1-6 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
1.0 Introduction 

Table 1-1. Leases Issued and Exchanges Completed Since Decertification, 

Powder River Basin, Wyoming (Continued). 

Leases Issued 

LBA Name (Lease Number) 

Applicant Mine 

Current Lessee Acres Mineable Tons Successful 

Effective Date Leased1 of Coal1 Bid 

Little Thunder (WYW150318) 5,083.500 718,719,000 $610,999,949.80 

Black Thunder Mine 

Ark Land LT Co. 

3/1/2005 

West Antelope (WYW151643) 2,809.130 194,961,000 $146,311,000.00 

Antelope Mine 

Antelope Coal Co. 

3/1/2005 

NARO North (WYW150210) 2,369.380 324,627,000 $299,143,785.00 

North Antelope Rochelle Mine 

BTU Western Resources, Inc. 

3/1/2005 

West Roundup (WYW151134) 2,812.510 327,186,000 $317,697,610.00 

North Rochelle Mine 

West Roundup Resources, Inc 

5/1/2005 

Eagle Butte West (WYW155132) 1,427.770 255,000,000 $180,540,000.00 

Eagle Butte Mine 

Foundation Wyoming Land Co. 

5/1/2008 

South Maysdorf (WYW174407) 2,900.240 288,081,000 $250,800,000.00 

Cordero Rojo Mine 

Cordero Mining Co. 

8/1/2008 

North Maysdorf (WYW154432) 445.890 54,657,000 $48,098,424.00 

Cordero Rojo Mine 

Cordero Mining Co. 

1/29/2009 

TOTALS 49,183.640 5,781,562,776 $3,162,452,451.69 

Exchanges Completed 

Exchange Name 

Case File Number 

Exchange Proponent 

Exchange Type Acres Mineable Tons of Federal Coal 

Effective Date Exchanged Coal Exchanged for: 

EOG (Belco) I-90 Lease Exchange WYW150152 599.170 106,000,000 Lease Rights to Belco 

EOG Resources (formerly Belco)3 I-90 Lease 

I-90 Lease Exchanged for New Lease (WYW0322794). 

4/1/2000 

Pittsburg & Midway Coal Exchange 2,045.530 84,200,000 6,065.77 acres of land 

WYW148816 and some minerals in 

Pittsburg and Midway Coal Mining Co. Lincoln, Carbon, and 

Private Land Exchanged for Federal Coal Sheridan Counties, 

1/27/2005 Wyoming. 

Gold Mine Draw Lease Exchange 623.000 47,700,000 Lease rights to 921.60 

WYW0321779, WYW154001 acres of leased federal 

Powder River Coal Co. coal underlying an 

AVF Lease Exchanged for New Lease AVF. 

6/25/2006 

TOTALS 3,267.700 237,900,000 

1 Information from sale notice. 
 2 The West Rocky Butte LBA was originally leased to Northwestern Resources Co. 
 3 The EOG Resources Belco Exchange lease is now owned by the Buckskin Mine. 


Source: BLM Lease by Application Data Sheets (BLM 2009a).
 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 1-7 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1.0 Introduction 

Table 1-2. Pending LBAs and Exchanges, Powder River Basin, Wyoming. 

Pending LBAs 

Estimated as 

LBA Name Applied for 

Lease Number Application Acres as Coal 

Applicant Mine Date Applied for (mmt) Status 

Belle Ayr North 7/6/2004 1,578.74 191.90 3 DEIS available 

WYW161248 10/24/2008 

Belle Ayr Mine Hearing 11/19/2008 

FEIS in preparation 

West Antelope II 4/6/2005 4,108.60 429.70 1 FEIS available 

WYW163340 12/19/2008 

Antelope Mine ROD in preparation 

North Hilight Field 10/7/2005 2,613.50 263.40 3 DEIS available 

WYW164812 June/2009 

Black Thunder Mine Hearing 7/29/2009 

FEIS in preparation 

South Hilight Field 10/7/2005 1,976.69 213.60 3 DEIS available 

WYW174596 June/2009 

Black Thunder Mine Hearing 7/29/2009 

FEIS in preparation 

West Hilight Field 1/17/2006 2,370.52 377.90 3 DEIS available 

WYW172388 

Black Thunder Mine 

June/2009 

Hearing 7/29/2009 

FEIS in preparation 

West Coal Creek 2/10/2006 1,151.26 57.00 3 DEIS available 

WYW172585 10/24/2008 

Coal Creek Mine Hearing 11/19/2008 

FEIS in preparation 

Caballo West 3/15/2006 777.49 81.80 3 DEIS available 

WYW172657 10/24/2008 

Caballo Mine Hearing 11/19/2008 

FEIS in preparation 

West Jacobs Ranch 3/24/2006 5,944.37 669.60 3 DEIS available 

WYW172685 June/2009 

Jacobs Ranch Mine Hearing 7/29/2009 

FEIS in preparation 

Hay Creek II 3/24/2006 419.04 77.20 1 DEIS in preparation 

WYW172684 Modified Hearing 11/19/2008 

Buckskin Mine 5/19/2008 

Modified 

11/28/2008 

Maysdorf II 9/1/2006 4,653.84 474.50 3 DEIS available 

WYW173360 10/24/2008 

Cordero Rojo Mine Hearing 11/19/2008 

FEIS in preparation 

North Porcupine 9/29/2006 5,795.78 601.20 3 DEIS available 

WYW173408 Modified June/2009 

North Antelope Rochelle Mine 10/12/2007 Hearing 7/29/2009 

FEIS in preparation 

South Porcupine 9/29/2006 3,185.96 309.70 3 DEIS available 

WYW176095 Modified June/2009 

North Antelope Rochelle Mine 10/12/2007 Hearing 7/29/2009 

FEIS in preparation 

TOTALS 35,245.48 3,810.30 

1 Estimated tons of in-place coal as reported in the lease application. 2 Estimated tons of mineable coal as reported in the lease application. 3 Estimated tons of recoverable coal as reported by the applicant. 

Source: BLM Lease by Application Data Sheets (BLM 2009a). 

1-8 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
49 

Bishop 

T-7 Road 

T-7 Road 

BNSF RR 

Road 

BNSF & UP RR 

BNSF & UP RR 

Fairview

Road 

Corners 

Road 

Bishop 

Road 

State

 59 

Highway 

Creek 

Haight Road 

28 27 26 R. 71 W. R. 70 W. 29

Hilight Road

36 31 32 34 35 33 35 49 34 33

State Highway 59

1.0 Introduction 

R. 72 W. R. 71 W. 28 27 26 Four 

T. 

N. 

T. 31 32 36 

N. 

T. T. 5 5 4 3 2 1 6 48 48 4 3 2 1 6 

N. N. 

9 10 11 12 7 8 9 10 11 12 7 8 

18 17 16 15 14 13 17 16 15 14 13 18 

20 19 21 21 22 23 24 22 23 24 19 20 

30 25 29 28 27 26 28 27 26 25 30 

T. T. 34 36 31 32 33 35 48 48 33 34 35 36 31 32 N. N. 

T. T. 1 6 5 47 47 4 3 3 2 2 1 6 5 4 N. N. Hoe 

Road 

12 7 9 10 11 9 10 11 12 7 8

13 18 17 16 15 14 16 15 14 13 18 17 

24 19 20 21 23 21 22 23 24 19 20 22 

25 30 29 28 27 26 29 28 27 26 25 30 

31 36 31 36 32 33 34 35 33 34 35 R. 72 W. R. 71 W. R. 71 W. R. 70 W. 

5000 10000 20000 

GRAPHIC SCALE (FEET) 

LEGEND 

Belle Ayr Mine Permit Boundary 

Caballo Mine Permit Boundary 

Cordero Rojo Mine Permit Boundary 

Belle Ayr North LBA Tract as Applied for (WYW-161248) 

Belle Ayr Mine Federal Coal Lease WYW-78629 

Belle Ayr Mine Federal Coal Lease WYW-80954 

Belle Ayr Mine Federal Coal Lease WYW-0317682 

Figure 1-2. Belle Ayr Mine's Federal Coal Leases and Belle Ayr North LBA Tract as Applied for. 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 

29 

32 

8 

0 

1-9
1.0 Introduction 

public and landowners will be protected [30 CFR 761.11(d)]. The coal underlying 

the portions of the Bishop Road, its right-of-way, and the 100-foot buffer zone 

within the Belle Ayr North LBA tract is included for consideration for leasing 

because that coal could be mined if the Campbell County Board of 

Commissioners, the authorized agency, determines that the road can be moved 

[43 CFR 3461.5(c)(2)(iii)]. If the road is not moved, including the coal underlying 

the road in the lease would allow maximum recovery of all the mineable coal 

adjacent to the 100-foot buffer zone on either side of the road right-of-way. 

Excluding the federal coal reserves within the Bishop Road right-of-way and buffer 

zone and any isolated coal, FCW estimates that the Belle Ayr North LBA tract 

contains approximately 164.7 million tons of mineable coal reserves and that 

approximately 154.8 million tons would be recovered from the tract. 

The Belle Ayr Mine, as currently permitted, includes 11,935 acres and originally 

contained approximately 830.1 million tons of mineable coal reserves. The mine 

produced approximately 26.6 million tons of coal in 2007. As of July 1, 2008, an 

estimated 250.9 million tons of in-place coal reserves remained at the Belle Ayr 

Mine. FCW estimates that approximately 235.8 million tons of those remaining 

reserves would be recoverable, and that those recoverable reserves will be depleted 

in approximately 8.3 years, based on the assumption that the production rate 

averages approximately 30 million tons per year (mmtpy). Belle Ayr Mine’s 

currently approved (by Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality/Air 

Quality Division [WDEQ/AQD] on November 7, 2006) air quality permit (MD-1476) 

allows up to 45 million tons of coal per year to be mined. If the average rate of 

production increases to the permitted level of 45 mmtpy, the remaining 

recoverable reserves would be depleted in about 5.2 years. 

The Belle Ayr North LBA tract is contiguous with both the Belle Ayr Mine and the 

Caballo Mine, owned by CCC (figure 1-1). Portions of the tract lie within the 

current mining permit boundaries of both mines. The area applied for is 

substantially similar to the adjacent mines, for which detailed site-specific 

environmental data have been collected and for which environmental analyses 

have previously been prepared to secure the existing leases and necessary mining 

permits. 

The FCW owns the surface of the Belle Ayr North LBA tract. Current land uses of 

the tract include grazing by domestic animals and wildlife, hayland production, 

communication and power lines, oil and gas production, and transportation 

(Bishop Road). 

The mining method would be truck and shovel, which is the mining method 

currently in use at the Belle Ayr Mine. The coal would be used primarily for 

electric power generation. 

After mining, the land would be reclaimed to a rangeland function suitable for use 

by livestock and wildlife, as is the current practice at the Belle Ayr Mine. 

1-10 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
1.0 Introduction 

Industrial postmining land uses, which include, but are not limited to oil and gas 

wells, pipelines, roads, and utility easements, will also be reestablished as 

required. 

1.1.2 West Coal Creek LBA tract 

The West Coal Creek LBA tract as applied for and the existing federal coal leases 

associated with the adjacent Coal Creek Mine are shown in figure 1-3. As applied 

for, this tract consists of a single block of federal coal and includes approximately 

1,151.3 acres. ALC estimates that the West Coal Creek LBA tract as applied for 

contains approximately 63.3 million tons of in-place and mineable coal reserves; 

and that approximately 57.0 million tons of that coal are recoverable. 

The Coal Creek Mine, as currently permitted, includes 9,722.7 acres and originally 

contained approximately 318.2 million tons of mineable coal reserves. The mine 

produced approximately 10.2 million tons of coal in 2007. As of July 1, 2008, an 

estimated 241.7 million tons of in-place coal reserves remained at the Coal Creek 

Mine. ALC estimates that approximately 217.5 million tons of those remaining 

reserves would be recoverable and that those recoverable reserves will be depleted 

in approximately 16.2 years, based on the assumption that the production rate 

averages approximately 13.4 mmtpy. Coal Creek Mine’s currently approved (by 

WDEQ/AQD on September 2, 2008) air quality permit (MD-5393) allows up to 50 

million tons of coal per year to be mined. If the average rate of production 

increases to the permitted level of 50 mmtpy, the remaining recoverable reserves 

would be depleted in 4.8 years. 

The West Coal Creek LBA tract is contiguous with Coal Creek Mine (figure 1-3). 

Portions of the tract lie within the current mining permit boundary of the Coal 

Creek Mine. The area applied for is substantially similar to the adjacent mine, for 

which detailed site-specific environmental data have been collected and for which 

environmental analyses have previously been prepared to secure the existing 

leases and necessary mining permits. As shown in figure 1-1, the West Coal 

Creek LBA tract is not contiguous with any of the other existing mines in this 

area. 

The surface of the West Coal Creek LBA tract is owned by Dennis Edwards and 

Thunder Basin Coal Co., LLC. Current land uses of the tract include grazing by 

domestic animals and wildlife, oil and gas production, and recreation. 

The mining method would be a combination of truck/shovel and dragline, which 

are the mining methods currently in use at the Coal Creek Mine. The coal would 

be used primarily for electric power generation. 

After mining, the land would be reclaimed to a rangeland function suitable for use 

by livestock and wildlife, as is the current practice at the Coal Creek Mine. 

Industrial postmining land uses, which include, but are not limited to oil and 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 1-11 
1.0 Introduction 

33 

28 

21 

34 

27 

22 

35 

26 

23 

36 

25 

31 

30 

32 

29 

20 

33 

28 

21 

34 

27 

22 

35 

26 

23 

36 

25 

31 

30 

32 

29 

20 

31 

30 

19 

18 

7 

6 

32 

29 

20 

17 

8 

5 

31 

30 

19 

18 

7 

6 

32 

29 

20 

17 

8 

5 

33 

28 

21 

16 

9 

4 

34 

27 

22 

15 

10 

3 

35 

26 

23 

14 

11 

2 

36 

25 

24 

13 

12 

1 

33 

28 

21 

16 

9 

4 

34 

27 

22 

15 

10 

3 

35 

26 

23 

14 

11 

2 

36 

25 

24 

13 

12 

1 

28 

21 

16 

9 

4 

27 

22 

15 

10 

3 

26 

23 

14 

11 

2 

25 

24 

13 

12 

1 

30 

19 

18 

7 

6 

29 

20 

17 

8 

5 

28 

21 

16 

9 

4 

27 

22 

15 

10 

3 

26 

23 

14 

11 

2 

25 

24 

13 

12 

1 

30 

19 

18 

7 

6 

29 

20 

17 

8 

5 

T. 

47 

N. 

T. 

46 

N. 

T. 

46 

N. 

T. 

45 

N. 

R. 71 W. R. 70 W. R. 70 W. R. 69 W.

R. 71 W. R. 70 W. R. 70 W. R. 69 W.

T. 

47 

N. 

T. 

46 

N. 

T. 

46 

N. 

T. 

45 

N. 

Mills Road 

Breen 

Lawver 

Wagensen 

Hilight

T-7 Road 

BNSF & UP RR

BNSF & UP RR

BNSF & UP RR 

Haight Road 

Road

Hilight Road 

Road 

Hoadley Road

Road 

Road Lawver Road Lawver Road

Hoadley Road 

0 5000 10000 20000

GRAPHIC SCALE (FEET) 

LEGEND 

West Coal Creek LBA Tract as Applied for (WYW-172585) 

Coal Creek Mine Federal Coal Lease WYW-3446 

Cordero Rojo Mine Permit Boundary 

Coal Creek Mine Permit Boundary 

Figure 1-3. Coal Creek Mine's Federal Coal Leases and West Coal Creek LBA Tract as Applied for. 

1-12 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
1.0 Introduction 

gas wells, pipelines, roads, and utility easements, will also be reestablished as 

required. 

1.1.3 Caballo West LBA tract 

The Caballo West LBA tract as applied for and the existing federal coal leases 

associated with the adjacent Caballo Mine are shown in figure 1-4. As applied for, 

this tract consists of a single block of federal coal and includes approximately 

777.5 acres. CCC estimates that the Caballo West LBA tract as applied for 

contains approximately 98.2 million tons of in-place coal reserves, of which about 

87.5 million tons of coal reserves are mineable and approximately 81.8 million 

tons of coal reserves are recoverable. 

The Caballo Mine, as currently permitted, includes 19,974.7 acres and originally 

contained approximately 1,286.6 million tons of mineable coal reserves. The 

Caballo Mine produced approximately 31.2 million tons of coal in 2007. As of 

July 1, 2008, an estimated 893.7 million tons of in-place coal reserves remained 

at the Caballo Mine. CCC estimates that approximately 584.8 million tons of 

those remaining reserves are recoverable and that those recoverable reserves will 

be depleted in approximately 15.4 years, based on the assumption that the 

production rate averages approximately 37.8 mmtpy. Caballo Mine’s currently 

approved (by WDEQ/AQD on November 7, 2006) air quality permit (MD1477) 

allows up to 50 million tons of coal per year to be mined. If the average rate of 

production increases to the permitted level of 50 mmtpy, the remaining 

recoverable reserves would be depleted in about 11.7 years. 

The Caballo West LBA tract is contiguous with both the Caballo Mine and the 

Belle Ayr Mine, owned by FCW (figure 1-1). Portions of the tract lie within the 

current mining permit boundary of the Caballo Mine. The area applied for is 

substantially similar to the adjacent mines, for which detailed site-specific 

environmental data have been collected and for which environmental analyses 

have previously been prepared to secure the existing leases and necessary mining 

permits. 

The surface of the Caballo West LBA tract is owned by the Paul D. Rourke Trust; 

James F. Rourke, et al.; and FCW. Current land uses of the tract include grazing 

by domestic animals and wildlife, recreation, agricultural activities, transportation 

(Bishop Road), and oil and gas production. 

The mining method would be a combination of truck/shovel and dragline. This 

would be an operational change since a dragline is not currently in use at the 

Caballo mine. The coal would be used primarily for electric power generation. 

After mining, the land would be reclaimed to a rangeland function suitable for use 

by livestock and wildlife, as is the current practice at the Caballo Mine. Industrial 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 1-13 
13 18

26 

26 

14 

State 

Bishop 

BNSF RR 

Four 

Fairview 

Union 

Road 

BNSF & UP RR 

Chappel Road 

Road 

Corners 

Road 

Bishop Road

 59 Highway 

State

 59 Highway 

Hoe 

Road 

Creek 

BNSF RR 

1.0 Introduction 

11 R. 72 W. R. 71 W. 8 9 10 11 R. 71 W. R. 70 W. 8 9 10 

14 13 18 17 16 15 13 18 17 16 15

19 20 21 22 

23 24 19 20 21 22 23 24 

27 29 26 25 30 29 28 25 30 28 27 

T. T. 31 32 33 34 34 36 

35 36 31 32 33 35 49 49 N. N. 

T. T. 5 4 3 48 5 4 3 2 1 6 48 2 1 6

N. N. 

9 10 8 7 11 12 7 9 10 11 12 8 

18 

16 15 

17 16 15 14 13 17 14 13 18

21 22 20 19 22 23 24 23 24 20 21 19 

26 25 30 29 28 27 

25 30 29 28 27 

T. T. 36 31 32 33 48 32 33 34 35 48 35 36 31 N. N. 

T. 

T. 1 6 4 3 47 5 4 47 2 5 3 2 1 6 N. 

N. 

11 12 7 8 9 10 11 12 7 8 9 10 

14 R. 72 W. R. 71 W. 17 16 15 14 R. 71 W. R. 70 W. 17 16 15 

LEGEND 

Caballo West LBA Tract as Applied for (WYW-172657) 

Caballo Mine Permit Boundary 

Belle Ayr Mine Permit Boundary 

Caballo Mine Federal Coal Lease WYW-3397 

Caballo Mine Federal Coal Lease WYW-78633 

0 5000 10000 

GRAPHIC SCALE (FEET) 

20000 

Caballo Mine Federal Coal Lease WYW-83394 

Caballo Mine Federal Coal Lease WYW-122586 

Figure 1-4. Caballo Mine's Federal Coal Leases and Caballo West LBA Tract as Applied for. 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 

34 

1-14
1.0 Introduction 

postmining land uses, which include but are not limited to oil and gas wells, 

pipelines, roads, and utility easements, will also be reestablished as required. 

1.1.4 Maysdorf II LBA tract 

The Maysdorf II LBA tract as applied for and the existing federal coal leases 

associated with the adjacent Cordero Rojo Mine are shown in figure 1-5. As 

applied for, this tract consists of two separate blocks of federal coal and includes 

approximately 4,653.8 acres. CMC estimates that the tract contains 

approximately 504 million tons of in-place coal reserves. Not all of the coal 

included in the Maysdorf II LBA tract is considered by CMC to be mineable at this 

time. Approximately 1.6 million tons of the coal included in the tract are located 

within the BNSF & UP railroad right-of-way (ROW). CMC does not consider the 

coal underlying the ROW to be recoverable at this time because the cost that 

would be associated with moving the railroad would make it economically 

unfeasible to recover the underlying coal. 

A portion of Wyoming 59 and portions of the Haight Road (Campbell County Road 

44) and the Hilight Road (Campbell County Road 52) overlie portions of the coal 

included in the tract. Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 

(SMCRA) prohibits mining within 100 feet on either side of the ROW of any public 

road unless the appropriate public road authority allows the road to be relocated 

or closed after public notice, an opportunity for a public hearing, and a finding 

that the interests of the affected public and landowners will be protected [30 CFR 

761.11(d)]. The coal underlying the portion of Wyoming 59, Hilight Road, and 

Haight Road, their rights-of-way, and the 100-foot buffer zones within the 

Maysdorf II LBA tract are included for consideration for leasing because that coal 

could be mined if WYDOT and/or the Campbell County Board of Commissioners, 

the authorized agencies, determine that the roads can be moved [43 CFR 

3461.5(c)(2)(iii)]. If the highway and Haight and Hilight roads are not moved, 

including the coal underlying the highway and these roads in the lease would 

allow maximum recovery of all the mineable coal adjacent to the 100-foot buffer 

zones on either side of the highway and road ROWs. CMC estimates that 

approximately 3.0 million tons of mineable coal are included within the right-ofway of Wyoming 59 and associated 100-foot buffer zone that is within the LBA 

tract. There are currently no proposals by either the applicant or WYDOT to move 

the road. CMC estimates that approximately 17 million tons of mineable coal are 

included within the rights-of-way of the Haight and Hilight roads and associated 

100-foot buffer zones that are within the LBA tract. CMC is evaluating the 

feasibility of relocating the county roads. 

A small portion of the Maysdorf II tract is located within a “no-coal” zone, where 

coal-forming sediments were either not deposited or were eroded away after 

deposition. 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 1-15 
24

21 

3 

22 

47 

State 

T-7 Road 

BNSF & UP RR 

 59 Highway 

State 59 Highway

Hilight Road

Bishop 

Road 

Haight Road 

Hoe 

Road 

Creek 

1.0 Introduction 

R. 72 W. R. 71 W. R. 71 W. R. 70 W. 20 22 20 21 22 23 23 

30 29 28

30 29 28 27 26 25 27 26 25 

T. T. 6 5 4 47 RR B

H

NSF & UP

ey R o oad adl

T. T. 36 31 32 33 48 34 32 33 34 35 48 35 36 31

N. N. 

1 3 2 2 1 6 5 N. 4 

N. 

12 7 8 9 12 9 10 11 10 11 7 8 

13 18 17 16 16 15 14 15 14 17 13 18 

19 20 21 20 21 23 24 22 23 24 19 22 

29 30 29 28 28 27 27 26 26 25

25 30 

T. T. 32 47 47 34 35 36 31 32 33 34 35 36 31 

N. N. 

T. T.
 

46 3 2 1 6 5 4
 4 46 3 2 1 6 5 

N. N. 

8 9 10 11 12 7 9 10 11 12 7 8 

18 17 16 15 14 13 18 17 16 15 14 13 

Hoadley Road 

21 22 24 19 20 21 23 24 19 20 23

25 30 25 30
 

27 26 29 28 27 26
 29 28 R. 72 W. R. 71 W. R. 71 W. R. 70 W. 

LEGEND 

Cordero Rojo Mine Permit Boundary 

Belle Ayr Mine Permit Boundary 

Coal Creek Mine Permit Boundary 

Maysdorf II LBA Tract as Applied for (WYW-173360) 

Cordero Rojo Mine Federal Coal Lease WYW-8385 

Cordero Rojo Mine Federal Coal Lease WYW-23929 

Cordero Rojo Mine Federal Coal Lease WYW-174407 

Cordero Rojo Mine Federal Coal Lease WYW-154432 

0 5000 10000 20000 

GRAPHIC SCALE (FEET) 

Figure 1-5. Cordero Rojo Mine's Federal Coal Leases and Maysdorf II LBA Tract as Applied for. 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 

33 

1-16
1.0 Introduction 

Excluding the federal coal reserves within the railroad right-of-way and the 

highway and county road rights-of-way and buffer zones, and taking into account 

the no-coal zone, CMC estimates that the Maysdorf II LBA tract as applied for 

contains approximately 482.5 million tons of mineable coal reserves and 

approximately 434.3 million tons of recoverable coal reserves. 

The Cordero Rojo Mine is comprised of the former Cordero Mine and the 

contiguous former Caballo Rojo Mine. Rio Tinto Energy America, the parent 

company of CMC (the operator of the former Cordero Mine), purchased 100 

percent of the stock of Caballo Rojo Inc. (CRI) (the operator of the former Caballo 

Rojo Mine) on February 19, 1997. The Cordero Mine originally included 8,517 

acres and contained approximately 593 million tons of mineable coal reserves. 

The Caballo Rojo Mine originally included 7,664 acres containing approximately 

493 million tons of mineable coal reserves. Cordero Rojo Mine personnel recently 

worked with the WDEQ/LQD to consolidate the CMC and CRI mining permits into 

a single mining permit (237-T8) for the Cordero Rojo Mine, which includes 

approximately 16,910.6 acres. The Cordero Rojo Mine produced approximately 

40.5 million tons of coal in 2007. As of July 1, 2008, an estimated 572.9 million 

tons of in-place coal reserves remained at the Cordero Rojo Mine. CMC estimates 

that approximately 525.9 million tons of the mine’s remaining reserves would be 

recoverable, and that those recoverable reserves will be depleted in nearly 11.4 

years, based on the assumption that the production rate averages approximately 

46.3 mmtpy. Cordero Rojo Mine’s currently approved (by WDEQ/AQD on 

September 17, 2004) air quality permit (MD-1058) allows up to 65 million tons of 

coal per year to be mined. If the average rate of production increases to the 

permitted level of 65 mmtpy, the remaining recoverable reserves would be depleted 

in about 8.1 years. 

As discussed above, the Maysdorf II LBA tract as applied for consists of two 

separate blocks. The northern block is contiguous with both the Cordero Rojo 

Mine and the Belle Ayr Mine, owned by FCW (figure 1-1). Portions of the northern 

block lie within the current mining permit boundaries of both mines. The 

southern block is contiguous with both the Cordero Rojo Mine and the Coal Creek 

Mine, owned by ALC (figure 1-1). Portions of the southern block lie within the 

current mining permit boundary of the Cordero Rojo Mine. The area applied for is 

substantially similar to the adjacent mine, for which detailed site-specific 

environmental data have been collected and for which environmental analyses 

have previously been prepared to secure the existing leases and necessary mining 

permits. 

The surface of the Maysdorf II LBA tract is owned by the United States of America; 

CMC; CRI; the Norma Duvall Trust; Earl Thrush, et al.; Western Railroad 

Properties, Inc.; Tony Hayden; Keidel Family LP; and Foundation Wyoming Land 

Company. The federally owned surface is administered by BLM. Current land 

uses of the tract include grazing by domestic animals and wildlife, agricultural 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 1-17 
1.0 Introduction 

activities, transportation (Hilight and Haight roads and the BNSF & UP tracks), 

and oil and gas production. See section 3.11 for additional land use discussion. 

The mining method would be a combination of truck/shovel and dragline, which 

are the mining methods currently in use at the Cordero Rojo mine. The coal 

would be used primarily for electric power generation. 

After mining, the land would be reclaimed to a rangeland function suitable for use 

by livestock and wildlife, as is the current practice at the Cordero Rojo Mine. 

Industrial postmining land uses, which include, but are not limited to oil and gas 

wells, pipelines, roads, and utility easements, will also be reestablished as 

required. 

1.2 Purpose and Need for Action 

BLM administers the federal coal leasing program under the Mineral Leasing Act 

of 1920. A federal coal lease grants the lessee the exclusive right to obtain a 

mining permit, which would allow coal mining on the leased tract, subject to the 

terms of the lease, the mining permit, and applicable state and federal laws. 

Before a new lease can be mined, the lessee must obtain approval of a detailed 

permit to conduct mining operations. 

This EIS is being prepared in response to applications BLM received from the 

operators of the Belle Ayr, Coal Creek, Caballo, and Cordero Rojo mines, four 

existing mines, to lease four tracts of federal coal in the Wyoming PRB. In 

response to each application, BLM must decide whether to hold a competitive, 

sealed-bid lease sale for a tract as applied for, hold a competitive sealed-bid lease 

sale for a modified tract, or reject a current lease application and not offer the 

tract for sale at this time. 

FCW has applied for the coal reserves in the Belle Ayr North LBA tract in order to 

extend the life of the Belle Ayr Mine. Mining operations at the Belle Ayr Mine 

would be extended for about 6.4 additional years if FCW acquires a lease for the 

Belle Ayr North LBA tract and the average production rate at the Belle Ayr Mine is 

30 mmtpy. At the permitted production level of 45 mmtpy, mining operations 

would be extended by about 3.5 years if FCW acquires a lease for the North Belle 

Ayr North LBA tract. There would be additional production extension if the 

Bishop Road is moved and the underlying and isolated coal is mined. 

ALC has applied for the coal reserves in the West Coal Creek LBA tract in order to 

extend the life of the Coal Creek Mine. Mining operations at the West Coal Creek 

Mine would be extended for about 4.3 additional years if ALC acquires a lease for 

the West Coal Creek LBA tract and the average production rate at the Coal Creek 

Mine is 13.4 mmtpy. At the permitted production level of 50 mmtpy, mining 

operations would be extended by about 1.1 years if ALC acquires a lease for the 

West Coal Creek LBA tract. 

1-18 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
1.0 Introduction 

CCC has applied for the coal reserves in the Caballo West LBA tract in order to 

extend the life of the Caballo Mine. Mining operations at the Caballo Mine would 

be extended for about 2.2 additional years if CCC acquires a lease for the Caballo 

West LBA tract and the average production rate at the Caballo Mine is 37.8 

mmtpy. At the permitted production level of 50 mmtpy, mining operations would 

be extended by about 1.6 years if CCC acquires a lease for the Caballo West LBA 

tract. 

CMC has applied for the coal reserves in the Maysdorf II LBA tract in order to 

extend the life of the Cordero Rojo Mine. Mining operations at the Cordero Rojo 

Mine would be extended for about 9.4 additional years if CMC acquires a lease for 

the Maysdorf II LBA tract, the coal underlying Wyoming 59 and the Haight and 

Hilight county roads is not mined, and the average production rate at the Cordero 

Rojo Mine is 46.3 mmtpy. At the permitted production level of 65 mmtpy, mining 

operations would be extended by about 6.7 years if CMC acquires a lease for the 

Maysdorf II LBA tract. There would be a slight additional production extension if 

the Haight and Hilight county roads are moved and the underlying coal is mined. 

CMC applied for additional federal coal reserves (the North and South Maysdorf 

LBA tracts) in 2001 (table 1-1). BLM estimates that the North Maysdorf LBA tract 

includes approximately 54.7 million tons of mineable coal and that the South 

Maysdorf LBA tract includes approximately 288 million tons of mineable coal. 

If an LBA tract is leased to the applicant as a maintenance tract, the permit to 

conduct mining operations for the adjacent mine would have to be amended to 

include the new lease area before it could be disturbed. This process takes several 

years to complete. FCW, ALC, CCC, and CMC are applying for federal coal 

reserves now so that they can complete the permitting process in time to mine the 

new federal reserves in a logical progression as existing reserves are depleted. 

As discussed above, the purpose of the four applications is to allow the applicant 

mines access to a continuing supply of low sulfur compliance coal which would be 

mined and sold to power plants for the purpose of electric power generation. 

According to the U.S. Department of Energy, coal demand is driven by the electric 

power sector, which accounts for about 92 percent of consumption. 

Approximately 50 percent of the electric power in the U.S. was provided by coal in 

2005 and 2006 (USDOE 2007a). Continued leasing of PRB coal enables coal-fired 

power plants to meet the Clean Air Act (CAA) requirements without constructing 

new plants, revamping existing plants, or switching to existing alternative fuels. 

This helps provide a stable supply of power to meet increasing demand without a 

potentially significant increase in power costs for individuals and businesses. 

A primary goal of the National Energy Policy is to add energy supplies from diverse 

sources, including domestic oil, gas, and coal, as well as hydropower and nuclear 

power. BLM recognizes that the continued extraction of coal is essential to meet 

the nation’s future energy needs. As a result, private development of federal coal 

reserves is integral to the BLM coal leasing program under the authority of the 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 1-19 
1.0 Introduction 

Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (MLA), as well as Federal Land Policy Management 

Act of 1976 (FLPMA) and Federal Coal Leasing Act Amendments of 1976 (FCLAA). 

The coal leasing program, managed by BLM, encourages the development of 

domestic coal reserves and reduction of the U.S. dependence on foreign sources of 

energy. As a result of the leasing and subsequent mining and sale of federal coal 

resources in the PRB, the public receives lease bonus, rental, and royalty 

payments, and a reliable supply of low sulfur coal for power generation. 

This EIS analyzes the environmental impacts of issuing federal coal leases and 

mining the federal coal in the Belle Ayr North, West Coal Creek, Caballo West, and 

Maysdorf II maintenance coal lease application tracts as required by NEPA and 

associated rules and guidelines. A decision to hold a competitive sale and issue a 

lease for the lands in any of these applications is a prerequisite for mining but it is 

not the enabling action that would allow mining to begin. BLM does not authorize 

mining operations by issuing a lease. After a lease has been issued but prior to 

mine development, the lessee must file a permit application package with the 

WDEQ/LQD and OSM for a surface mining permit and approval of the MLA 

mining plan. An analysis of a detailed site-specific mining and reclamation plan 

occurs at that time. Authorities and responsibilities of BLM and other concerned 

regulatory agencies are described in the following sections. 

1.3 Regulatory Authority and Responsibility 

The Belle Ayr North, West Coal Creek, Caballo West, and Maysdorf II maintenance 

coal lease applications were submitted and will be processed and evaluated under 

the following federal authorities: 

• Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, as amended; 

• Multiple-Use Sustained Yield Act of 1960; 

• National Environmental Policy Act of 1969; 

• Federal Coal Leasing Act Amendments of 1976; 

• Federal Land Policy Management Act of 1976; and 

• Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977. 

BLM is the lead agency responsible for leasing federal coal lands under the 

Mineral Leasing Act as amended by Federal Coal Leasing Act Amendments and is 

also responsible for preparation of this EIS to evaluate the potential environmental 

impacts of issuing each coal lease. 

OSM is a cooperating agency on this EIS. After a federal coal lease is issued, 

SMCRA gives OSM primary responsibility to administer programs that regulate 

surface coal mining operations and the surface effects of underground coal mining 

operations. WDEQ is also a cooperating agency on this EIS. 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 

1-20 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
1.0 Introduction 

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. 

Pursuant to the cooperative agreement, a federal coal lease holder in Wyoming 

must submit a permit application package to OSM and WDEQ/LQD for any 

proposed coal mining and reclamation operations on federal lands in the state. 

WDEQ/LQD reviews the permit application package to insure the permit 

application complies with the permitting requirements and the coal mining 

operation will meet the performance standards of the approved Wyoming program. 

OSM, BLM, and other federal agencies review the permit application package to 

insure it complies with the terms of the coal lease, the MLA, NEPA, and other 

federal laws and their attendant regulations. If the permit application package 

does comply, WDEQ issues the applicant a permit to conduct coal mining 

operations. OSM recommends approval, approval with conditions, or disapproval 

of the MLA mining plan to the Assistant Secretary of the Interior, Land and 

Minerals Management. Before the MLA mining plan can be approved, BLM must 

concur with this recommendation. 

If a proposed LBA tract is leased to an existing mine, the lessee is required to 

revise its coal mining permit prior to mining the newly-leased coal, following the 

processes outlined above. As a part of that process, a detailed new plan would be 

developed showing how the newly-leased lands would be mined and reclaimed. 

The area of mining disturbance would be larger than the newly leased area to 

allow for activities such as overstripping, matching reclaimed topography to 

undisturbed topography, constructing flood control and sediment control facilities, 

and related activities. Specific impacts that would occur during the mining and 

reclamation of the LBA tract would be addressed in the mining and reclamation 

plan, and specific mitigation measures for anticipated impacts would be described 

in detail at that time. 

WDEQ enforces the performance standards and permit requirements for 

reclamation during a mine’s operation and has primary authority in 

environmental emergencies. OSM retains oversight responsibility for this 

enforcement. Where federal surface or coal resources are involved, BLM has 

authority in emergency situations if WDEQ or OSM cannot act before 

environmental harm and damage occurs. In preparing this EIS, BLM also has a 

responsibility to consult with and obtain the comments and assistance of other 

state and federal agencies that have jurisdiction by law or special expertise with 

respect to potential environmental impacts. 

Appendix A presents other federal and state permitting requirements that must be 

satisfied to mine these LBA tracts. 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 1-21 
1.0 Introduction 

1.4 Relationship to BLM Policies, Plans, and Programs 

In addition to the federal acts listed under section 1.3, guidance and regulations 

for managing and administering public lands, including the federal coal lands 

included in the FCW, ALC, CCC, and CMC applications, are set forth in 40 CFR 

1500 (Protection of Environment), 43 CFR 1601 (Planning, Programming, 

Budgeting), and 43 CFR 3400 (Coal Management). 

Specific guidance for processing applications is provided by BLM Manual 3420, 

Competitive Coal Leasing (BLM 1989) and the 1991 Powder River Regional Coal 

Team Operational Guidelines For Coal Lease-By-Applications (BLM 1991). The 

National Environmental Policy Act Handbook (BLM 2008a) has been followed in 

developing this EIS. 

1.5 Conformance with Existing Land Use Plans 

Federal Coal Leasing Act Amendments requires that lands considered for leasing 

be included in a comprehensive land use plan and that leasing decisions be 

compatible with that plan. The BLM Approved Resource Management Plan for 

Public Lands Administered by the Bureau of Land Management Buffalo Field Office 

(BLM 2001a), an update of the Buffalo Resource Area Resource Management Plan 

(BLM 1985), governs and addresses the leasing of federal coal in Campbell 

County. 

The major land use planning decision that BLM must make concerning the federal 

coal resources is a determination of which federal coal lands are acceptable for 

further consideration for leasing. BLM uses four screening procedures to identify 

these coal lands. These screening procedures require BLM to: 

 estimate development potential of the coal lands; 

 apply the Unsuitability Criteria listed in the regulations at 43 CFR 3461; 

 make multiple land use decisions that eliminate federal coal deposits from 

consideration for leasing to protect other resource values; and 

 consult with surface owners who meet the criteria defined in the regulations 

at 43 CFR 3400.0-5(gg)(1) and (2). 

Only those federal coal lands that pass these screens are considered for leasing. 

BLM has applied these coal screens to federal coal lands in the Wyoming PRB 

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. This analysis was adopted in the 2001 BLM Buffalo Field 

Office RMP update (BLM 2001a) and the results were included as appendix D of 

the update, which can be viewed in the 2001 NEPA documents section on the 

Wyoming BLM website at 

http://www.wy.blm.gov/wy/st/en/info/nepa/documents.html. 

1-22 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
1.0 Introduction 

Under the first coal screening procedure, a coal tract must be located within an 

area that has been determined to have coal development potential in order to be 

acceptable for further consideration for leasing [43 CFR 3420.1-4(e)(1)]. The Belle 

Ayr North, West Coal Creek, Caballo West, and Maysdorf II coal lease applications 

are within the area identified by the BLM as having coal development potential in 

the coal screening analyses published in the 2001 BLM Buffalo Field Office RMP 

update. 

The second coal screening procedure requires the application of the coal mining 

unsuitability criteria listed in the federal coal management regulations at 43 CFR 

3461. The coal mining unsuitability criteria were applied to high to moderate coal 

development potential lands in the Wyoming PRB, including the four LBA tracts 

and surrounding lands during the coal screening conducted for the Buffalo RMP 

update. No lands included in the Belle Ayr North, West Coal Creek, Caballo West, 

and Maysdorf II LBA tracts were determined to be unsuitable for mining during 

the application of the unsuitability criteria for the 2001 RMP update; however, 

site-specific unsuitability determinations for some criteria were deferred until an 

application to lease was filed. 

Appendix B of this EIS summarizes the unsuitability criteria, describes the 

general findings for the Buffalo RMP update, and presents a validation of these 

findings for the Belle Ayr North, West Coal Creek, Caballo West, and Maysdorf II 

LBA tracts. 

Unsuitability Criterion 3 states that lands within 100 feet of the outside line of the 

ROW of a public road shall be considered unsuitable for surface coal mining, with 

certain exceptions. One of the exceptions to this criterion allows surface coal 

mining in the ROW and buffer zone for a public road if the regulatory authority (or 

the appropriate public road authority designated by the regulatory authority) 

allows the public road to be relocated or closed after providing public notice and 

opportunity for a public hearing, and finding in writing that the interests of the 

affected public and landowners will be protected [30 CFR 761.11(d) and 43 CFR 

3461.5(c)(2)(iii)]. 

As discussed in section 1.1 and shown in figure 1-2, a portion of the Bishop Road 

crosses the northern edge of the Belle Ayr North LBA tract. The 2001 Buffalo RMP 

update deferred a decision on the unsuitability of public roads, such as the 

Bishop Road and the associated buffer zones, until a leasing action occurred, with 

the assumption that the exception discussed above would be applicable. BLM has 

determined that the portions of the Belle Ayr North LBA tract that includes the 

Bishop Road, its ROW, and a 100-foot buffer zone must be considered unsuitable 

for mining under Unsuitability Criterion 3 at this time. 

Although land within the Bishop Road ROW is now determined to be unsuitable 

for mining, it is included in the Belle Ayr North LBA tract. FCW is currently 

evaluating the feasibility of relocating the Bishop Road if they lease the Belle Ayr 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 1-23 
1.0 Introduction 

North LBA tract. No plan has been formulated, and the Campbell County Board of 

Commissioner has not approved road relocation; therefore the unsuitability 

designation related to the Bishop Road ROW remains in place. However, including 

this land in the Belle Ayr North LBA tract would allow recovery of all the mineable 

coal adjacent to and outside of the road buffer zone and would comply with the 

coal leasing regulations, which do not allow leasing in less than 10-acre aliquot 

parts. Stipulations stating that no mining activity may be conducted within 100 

feet of the Bishop Road ROW until a permit to move the road is approved will be 

attached if a lease is issued for the Belle Ayr North LBA tract. The exclusion of the 

coal underlying the road ROW and associated buffer zone from mining activity by 

lease stipulation honors the finding of unsuitability for mining under Unsuitability 

Criterion Number 3 for the Bishop Road. 

As discussed in section 1.1 and shown in figure 1-5, a portion of Wyoming 59 

crosses the western edge of the northern block of the Maysdorf II LBA tract and 

the Haight and Hilight county roads cross portions of the southern block. The 

2001 Buffalo RMP update deferred a decision on the unsuitability of public roads 

until a leasing action occurred, with the assumption that the exception discussed 

above would be applicable. At this time, CMC does not have plans to relocate the 

highway and the exception does not apply. CMC is evaluating the feasibility of 

relocating the county roads but no plans have been formulated and the Campbell 

County Board of Commissioner has not approved the road relocations. As a 

result, BLM has determined that the portions of the Maysdorf II LBA tract that 

includes Wyoming 59, its ROW, and a 100-foot buffer zone on the east side of the 

ROW and the Haight and Hilight county roads, their rights-of-way, and 100-foot 

buffers must be considered unsuitable for mining under Unsuitability Criterion 3 

at this time. 

Although lands within the Wyoming 59, the Haight Road, and Hilight Road rightsof-way and their associated buffer zones are now determined to be unsuitable for 

mining, they are included in the Maysdorf II LBA tract. CMC is evaluating the 

feasibility of relocating the county roads but no plans have been formulated and 

the Campbell County Board of Commissioner has not approved the relocation of 

the roads. CMC does not currently have plans to relocate the highway if it leases 

the Maysdorf II LBA tract; therefore the unsuitability designations related to the 

highway and county road rights-of-way remain in place. However, including these 

lands in the Maysdorf II LBA tract would allow recovery of all the mineable coal 

adjacent to and outside of the zones and would comply with the coal leasing 

regulations, which do not allow leasing in less than 10-acre aliquot parts. If 

permits to relocate the county roads are approved, including the lands in the tract 

would allow recovery of the coal underlying the roads and associated buffer zones. 

Stipulations stating that no mining activity may be conducted within 100 feet of 

the road rights-of-way until permits to move the roads are approved will be 

attached if a lease is issued for the Maysdorf II Tract. The exclusion of the coal 

underlying the road rights-of-way and associated buffer zones from mining activity 

1-24 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
1.0 Introduction 

by lease stipulation honors the finding of unsuitability for mining under 

Unsuitability Criterion 3 for Wyoming 59 and the Haight and the Hilight roads. 

The third coal screening procedure, a multiple land use conflict analysis, must be 

completed to identify and “eliminate additional coal deposits from further 

consideration for leasing to protect resource values of a locally important or 

unique nature not included in the unsuitability criteria,” in accordance with 43 

CFR 3420.1-4(e)(3). The 2001 Buffalo RMP update addresses two types of 

multiple land use conflicts: municipal/residential conflicts and multiple mineral 

development (coal versus oil and gas) conflicts. 

The municipal/residential multiple land use conflict was addressed in the 1985 

Buffalo RMP by applying buffers around the municipal planning boundaries for 

the major municipalities within the BLM Buffalo Field Office area, including 

Gillette. The Belle Ayr North, West Coal Creek, Caballo West, and Maysdorf II LBA 

tracts do not lie within or near an identified buffer zone surrounding an existing 

community. Therefore, no federal coal lands within the four LBA tracts have been 

eliminated from further consideration for leasing due to municipal/residential 

conflicts. 

The 2001 Buffalo RMP includes two decisions related to multiple mineral 

development conflicts in Campbell, Converse, and Sheridan counties. With 

respect to oil and gas leasing in coal mining areas, the RMP update determines 

that oil and gas tracts that would interfere with coal mining operations would not 

be offered for lease but that, where possible, oil and gas leases will be issued with 

specific conditions to prevent a development conflict with coal mining operations. 

With respect to coal leasing in oil and gas fields, the 2001 Buffalo RMP update 

states that coal leasing in producing oil and gas fields would be deferred unless or 

until coal development would not interfere with the economic recovery of the oil 

and gas resources, as determined on a case-by-case basis. 

Both conventional and coal bed natural gas (CBNG) wells presently exist inside 

and around the Belle Ayr North, West Coal Creek, Caballo West, and Maysdorf II 

LBA tracts. BLM’s evaluation of the potential for conflict with the development of 

oil and gas resources within the four LBA tracts is included in the “Other Mineral 

Resources” discussion in section 3.3 and in the “Land Use and Recreation” 

discussion in section 3.11 of this EIS. BLM’s policy and guidance on conflicts 

between surface coal mines and conventional oil and gas and CBNG development 

is to optimize the recovery of these resources and ensure that the public receives a 

reasonable return, as explained in BLM Instruction Memorandum No. 2006-153 

(BLM 2006a). 

The fourth coal screening procedure requires consultation with surface owners 

who meet the criteria defined in the regulations at 43 CFR 3400.0-5(gg)(1) and (2). 

Chapter 7 includes a definition of the term “qualified surface owner”, based on 

these regulations. Surface owner consultation was conducted as part of the coal 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 1-25 
 

1.0 Introduction 

screening analysis published in the 2001 Buffalo RMP update. Private surface 

owners in the Gillette coal development potential area were provided the 

opportunity to express their preference for or against surface mining of federal 

coal under their private surface estate during that screening. At that time, no 

attempt was made to distinguish qualified surface owners and appendix D of the 

2001 Buffalo RMP update states that “no area should be dropped from further 

consideration for leasing as a result of responses received from surface owners”. 

Therefore, no federal coal lands within the tracts were eliminated from further 

consideration for leasing due to qualified surface owner conflicts at this time. The 

current surface ownership of the tracts is discussed in section 1.1 of this chapter 

and in section 3.11. Private surface owners who are found to be qualified must 

consent to leasing before BLM can offer the underlying federal coal for lease. BLM 

will review current surface ownership in the tracts that will be considered for 

leasing prior to holding a lease sale for each tract. Surface owner consultation 

must be completed with any private surface owners who are determined to be 

qualified, prior to holding a lease sale for a tract. 

In summary, the lands in the FCW, ALC, CCC, and CMC coal lease applications 

have been subjected to the four coal planning screens and determined acceptable 

for further consideration for leasing. Thus, a decision to lease the federal coal 

lands in these applications would be in conformance with the current BLM Buffalo 

RMP. 

1.6 Consultation and Coordination 

Initial Involvement 

BLM received the Belle Ayr North coal lease application on July 6, 2004; the West 

Coal Creek coal lease application on February 10, 2006; the Caballo West coal 

lease application on March 15, 2006; and the Maysdorf II coal lease application on 

September 1, 2006. The BLM Wyoming State Office-Division of Mineral and Lands 

initially reviewed the applications. BLM ruled that these applications and the 

lands involved met the requirements of regulations governing coal leasing on 

application (43 CFR 3425). 

The BLM State Director notified the Governor of Wyoming on March 14, 2007 that 

FCW had filed a lease application with BLM for the Belle Ayr North LBA tract. The 

Governor was notified on September 18, 2006 that ALC had filed a lease 

application for the West Coal Creek LBA tract and that CMC had filed a lease 

application for the Maysdorf II LBA tract. The Governor was notified that CCC 

had filed a lease application for the Caballo West LBA tract on April 27, 2006. 

A notice announcing the receipt of the Belle Ayr North coal lease application 

published in the Federal Register on March 8, 2005, a BLM news release 

announcing the receipt of the Caballo West and West Coal Creek coal lease 

applications issued on March 27, 2006, and a notice announcing the receipt of the 

1-26 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
1.0 Introduction 

Maysdorf II coal lease application published in the Federal Register on December 

12, 2006 served as public notice that these coal lease applications had been 

received. Copies of the notices were sent to voting and nonvoting members of the 

PRRCT, including the governors of Wyoming and Montana, the Northern Cheyenne 

Tribe, the Crow Tribal Council, OSM, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 

National Park Service, and U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 

The PRRCT reviewed the Belle Ayr North Tract at a public meeting held on April 

24, 2005, in Gillette, Wyoming, the West Coal Creek and Caballo West Tracts at a 

public meeting held on April 19, 2006, in Casper, Wyoming, and the Maysdorf II 

Tract at a public meeting held on January 18, 2007, in Casper, Wyoming. Each of 

the applicants presented information about their existing mine and the pending 

lease application to the PRRCT at those meetings. The PRRCT recommended that 

BLM continue to process these applications. The major steps in processing an 

LBA are shown in appendix C. 

BLM published a Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement 

and Notice of Public Meeting in the Federal Register on March 29, 2007 and in the 

Gillette News-Record on April 4, 2007. The publications announced the time and 

location of a public scoping meeting and requested public comment on all four of 

the applications. Letters requesting public comment and announcing the time 

and location of the public scoping meeting were also mailed to all parties on the 

distribution list on March 26, 2007. 

A public scoping meeting was held on April 11, 2007 in Gillette, Wyoming. At the 

public meeting, the applicants orally presented information about their mines and 

their need for the coal. The presentations were followed by a question and answer 

period, during which no oral comments were made. The scoping period extended 

from March 29 through June 10, 2007, during which time BLM received written, 

e-mailed, and telephoned comments from six entities. 

Chapter 5 provides a list of other federal, state, and local governmental agencies 

that were consulted in preparation of this EIS and the distribution list for this 

EIS. 

Issues and Concerns 

Issues and concerns that have been expressed by the public and government 

agencies relating to the potential impacts of leasing the Belle Ayr North, West Coal 

Creek, Caballo West, and Maysdorf II LBA tracts, specifically, and to previous coal 

lease applications in general include: 

 potential conflicts between coal mining and existing and proposed 

conventional oil and gas and CBNG development; 

 potential cumulative impacts of coal leasing decisions combined with other 

existing and proposed development in the Wyoming PRB; 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 1-27 
1.0 Introduction 

 potential impacts to transportation routes; 

 potential impacts to people living in the area; 

 socioeconomic concerns; 

 potential impacts to ranching operations associated with the loss of grazing 

leases and permits; 

 noxious weed concerns; 

 potential impacts to visual resources; 

 potential impacts to cultural and paleontological resources; 

 potential impacts to greater sage-grouse and other wildlife; 

 potential impacts to threatened and endangered species and other species 

of concern; 

 potential impacts to wetland resources; 

 potential impacts related to coal loss during rail transport; 

 potential air quality impacts and cumulative impacts to visibility; 

 potential surface and groundwater quality and quantity impacts; 

 potential impacts associated with nitrogen oxide emissions resulting from 

the blasting of coal and overburden; 

 human health impacts; 

 the need to address reasonably foreseeable actions, including the 

construction and operation of the DM&E railroad and power plants, in the 

cumulative analysis; 

 the need to address mercury, coal combustion residues, and other byproducts from coal-fired power plants; 

 the need to address increasing PRB coal production in the cumulative 

analysis; 

 the need to address site-specific greenhouse gas emissions; 

 ozone; and 

 climate change. 

Draft EIS 

Parties on the distribution list were sent copies of the Draft EIS, and copies were 

made available for review at the BLM offices in Casper and Cheyenne, Wyoming. 

The document was also available for review on the BLM Wyoming website at 

http:// www.blm.gov/wy/st/en/info/NEPA/cfodocs/south_gillette.html. 

EPA published a notice announcing the availability of the draft EIS in the Federal 

Register on October 24, 2008. A 60-day comment period on the draft EIS 

commenced with publication of that notice and ended on December 24, 2008. 

BLM published a Notice of Availability/Notice of Public Hearing in the Federal 

Register on October 17, 2008. The BLM’s Federal Register notice announced the 

date and time of a public hearing, which was held on November 19, 2008 at 7:00 

pm at the Campbell County George Amos Memorial Building. The purpose of the 

public hearing was to solicit public comments on the draft EIS and on the fair 

market value, the maximum economic recovery, and the proposed competitive sale 

of federal coal from the LBA tracts. BLM also published a notice of public hearing 

1-28 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
 

1.0 Introduction 

in the Gillette News-Record on October 26, 2008. A transcript of the public 

hearing is available for review in appendix I of this document. 

Final EIS and Future Involvement 

BLM received 18 written comments on the draft EIS. These comments are 

included, with agency responses, as appendix I in this final EIS. Availability of the 

final EIS will be published in the Federal Register by BLM and EPA. After a 30­

day availability period, BLM will make separate decisions to hold or not to hold a 

competitive lease sale for the federal coal in each of the four tracts. 

A ROD for each of the tracts will be mailed to parties on the mailing list and others 

who commented on this EIS during the NEPA process. The public or the applicant 

can appeal the BLM decision to hold or not to hold a competitive sale and issue a 

lease for any of the four tracts. The BLM decision must be appealed within 30 

days from the date the notice of availability for the ROD is published in the 

Federal Register. The decision can be implemented at that time if no appeal is 

received. If competitive lease sales are held, the lease sales will follow the 

procedures set forth in 43 CFR 3422, 43 CFR 3425, and BLM Handbook H-3420-1 

(Competitive Coal Leasing). 

Department of Justice Consultation 

After each competitive coal lease sale, but prior to issuance of the lease, BLM 

must solicit the opinion of the Department of Justice on whether the planned 

lease issuance creates a situation inconsistent with federal antitrust laws. The 

Department of Justice is allowed 30 days to make this determination. BLM can 

proceed with issuance of the lease if the Department of Justice has not responded 

in writing within the 30 days. 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 1-29 
 

2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives 

2.0 PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES 

This chapter describes the Proposed Action and alternatives for each of the four 

lease by application (LBA)1 tracts being evaluated by this environmental impact 

statement (EIS). The four tracts are the Belle Ayr North LBA tract as applied for by 

Foundation Coal West (FCW), the West Coal Creek LBA tract as applied for by Ark 

Land Company (ALC), the Caballo West LBA tract as applied for by Caballo Coal 

Company (CCC), and the Maysdorf II LBA tract as applied for by Cordero Mining 

Company (CMC). 

For each tract, the Proposed Action is to hold a competitive lease sale and issue a 

lease for the federal coal lands included in the tract as applied for by the 

applicant. Under each Proposed Action, the tract as applied for would be offered 

for lease at one competitive sealed bid lease sale, subject to standard and special 

lease stipulations developed for the Powder River Basin (PRB) and that tract. The 

boundaries of each tract would be consistent with the tract configuration proposed 

by each applicant. Figures 2-1 through 2-4 show the Belle Ayr North, West Coal 

Creek, Caballo West, and Maysdorf II LBA tracts, respectively, under each 

Proposed Action. In each case, the Proposed Action assumes that the applicant 

would be the successful bidder on each tract, and that the tract would be mined 

as a maintenance lease for an existing mine. 

The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) requires the consideration 

and evaluation of other reasonable ways to meet proposal objectives while 

minimizing or avoiding environmental impacts. Thus, NEPA requires the 

evaluation of a No Action alternative and a practical range of other “reasonable” 

alternatives that may avoid or minimize project impacts. Reasonable alternatives 

are defined by NEPA as those that are technically, economically, and 

environmentally practical and feasible. Reasonable alternatives are formulated to 

address issues and concerns raised by the public and agencies during scoping. 

These other alternatives should represent other means of satisfying the stated 

purpose and need for the federal action. 

The No Action alternative (Alternative 1) for each tract considered in this EIS is to 

reject the lease application. Under the No Action alternative, a tract would not be 

offered for competitive sale, and the coal contained within the tract would not be 

mined as proposed. Rejection of an application would not affect currently 

permitted mining activities on existing leases at any of the applicant mines and 

selection of the No Action alternative would not preclude an application to lease 

any rejected tract in the future. Portions of the surface of each LBA tract would 

probably be disturbed due to overstripping to allow coal to be removed from the 

adjacent existing leases. 

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

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 2-1 

1 
21 

29 

48 

Bishop

T-7 Road 

T-7 Road 

BNSF RR 

Road 

BNSF & UP RR 

BNSF & UP RR 

Fairview

Road 

Corners 

Road 

State

 59 

Highway 

Creek 

Bishop 

Road 

Haight Road 

R. 71 W. R. 70 W. 28 27 26

Hilight Road

2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives 

State Highway 59

R. 72 W. R. 71 W. 28 27 26 Four 

T. T. 32 36 31 49 49 33 34 35 36 31 32 33 34 35 

N. N. 

T. T. 5 5 4 3 2 1 6 48 4 3 2 1 6 

N. N. 

8 7 8 9 10 11 12 9 10 11 12 7 

18 16 15 14 13 18 17 16 15 14 13 17 

20 

19 21 22 23 24 22 23 24 19 20 

29 28 27 30 26 25 28 27 26 25 30 

T. T. 

48 33 34 35 36 32 31 

N. 

34 36 31 32 33 35 48

N. 

T. T. 

3 2 1 6 5 47 47 4 3 2 1 6 5 4 N. N. Hoe 

Road 

12 7 8 12 7 8 9 10 11 9 10 11 

13 18 17 16 15 14 16 15 14 13 18 17 

24 19 20 21 23 21 22 23 24 19 20 22 

25 26 30 29 29 28 27 28 27 26 25 30 

33 34 35 32 33 34 35 R. 72 W. R. 71 W. R. 71 W. R. 70 W. 

LEGEND 

Belle Ayr Mine Permit Boundary 

Existing Belle Ayr Mine Federal Coal Leases 

Belle Ayr North LBA Tract as Applied for 

BLM's Study Area 

Alternative 2, 5000 10000 20000 BLM's Preferred Alternative 

GRAPHIC SCALE (FEET) 

Figure 2-1. Belle Ayr North LBA Tract Alternatives. 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 

29 

32 

0 

2-2
47 

Mills Road 

T-7 Road 

BNSF & UP RR 

BNSF & UP RR 

Haight Road

Hilight Road

2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives 

23 21 22 23 R. 71 W. R. 70 W. 20 21 22 R. 70 W. R. 69 W. 20

Hilight Road

UP RR

H

BNSF &

ey adl R o oad 25 27 26 25 30 29 30 29 28 28 27 26 

T. T. 32 33 34 35 36 31 32 33 34 35 36 31 47 

N. N. 

T. T. 4 3 2 1 6 5 46 46 4 3 2 1 6 5 

N. N. 

8 9 10 11 12 7 8 12 7 9 10 11 

18 17 16 15 14 13 18 17 16 15 14 13 

Hoadley Road 

23 24 19 20 19 20 21 22 21 22 23 24 

26 25 30 29 28 27 26 25 30 29 28 27

T. Wagensen Road

46 33 

T. 34 35 36 31 32 33 34 35 36 31 32 46 

N. N. 

T. T.
 

45 4 3 2 1 6 5 4 

45 3 2 1 6 5 

N. N. Lawver Road 

11 12 7 8 9 10 11 12 7 8 9 10 

14 13 18 18 17 16 15 16 15 14 13 

24 19 20 21 22 23 24 19 20 21 22 23 

Breen Road Lawver Road Lawver Road

25 30 

28 27 26 29 R. 71 W. R. 70 W. 

5000 10000 20000 

GRAPHIC SCALE (FEET) 

25 30 

28 27 26 29 R. 70 W. R. 69 W. 

LEGEND 

Coal Creek Mine Permit Boundary 

Existing Coal Creek Mine Federal Coal Lease 

West Coal Creek LBA Tract as Applied for 

BLM's Study Area 

Alternative 2, 

BLM's Preferred Alternative 

Figure 2-2. West Coal Creek LBA Tract Alternatives. 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 

17 

0 

2-3
13 18

26 

14 

State 

Fairview 

Union Chappel Road 

Road

 59 Highway 

BNSF RR 

Road 

Corners 

Bishop Road 

Hoe 

Road 

Creek 

BNSF RR 

BNSF & UP RR 

Bishop Road 

State

 59 Highway 

2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives 

11 R. 72 W. R. 71 W. 8 9 10 11 R. 71 W. R. 70 W. 8 9 10 

15 14 13 18 17 16 15 13 18 17 16 

19 20 21 22 

23 24 19 20 21 22 23 24 

29 26 25 30 29 28 27 25 30 28 27 Four 

T. T. 34 36 31

35 36 31 32 33 35 32 33 34 49 49 N. N. 

T. T. 5 4 3 48 5 4 3 2 1 6 48 2 1 6

N. N. 

9 10 8 7 9 10 11 12 11 12 7 8 

18 

16 15 

17 16 15 14 13 17 14 13 18

21 22 20 19 20 21 22 23 24 23 24 19 

25 30 29 28 27 

29 26 26 25 30 28 27 

T. T. 31 32 33 34 48 32 33 34 35 36 48 35 

N. 

36 31 N. 

T. 

T. 3 47 1 6 5 4 47 2 3 2 1 6 5 4 N. 

N. 

11 12 7 8 9 10 11 12 7 8 9 10 

14 R. 72 W. R. 71 W. 17 16 15 14 R. 71 W. R. 70 W. 17 16 15 

0 5000 10000 20000 

LEGEND 

Caballo West LBA Tract as Applied for 

Existing Caballo Mine Federal Coal Leases 

Caballo Mine Permit Boundary 

BLM's Study Area (Alternative 2), 

BLM's Preferred Alternative 

GRAPHIC SCALE (FEET) 

Figure 2-3. Caballo West LBA Tract Alternatives. 

2-4 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
24

22 

3 

22 

State 

T-7 Road 

BNSF & UP RR 

 59 Highway 

State 59 Highway 

Hilight Road

Bishop 

Road 

Haight Road 

Hoe 

Road 

Creek 

2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives 

23
 R. 72 W. R. 71 W. 20 21
 R. 71 W. R. 70 W. 

30
 

20
 21

29
 28

22 23
 

28 27 26 25 27 26 25 30 29
 

T. T. 2 1 1 6 5 4 47 47 3 2
 RR

H

BNSF & UP

ey adl R o oad 

T. T. 36 31 32 33 48 34 32 33 34 35 48 35 
 36 31
 

N. N. 

6
 5 4 N. N. 

12 7
 8 9 8 9 10 11 10 11
 12
 7
 

13 18 17 16 16 15 14 15 14
 17 13 18
 

19 20 21
 20 21 23 22 23 24 19 24 22
 

28 27 30 29 27 26 25 30
 29
 26 25

T. T. 32 47 47 34 35 36 31 32 33 34 35 36 31
 

N. N. 

T. T. 

46 3 2 1 6 5 4 46 3 2 1 6 5
 4

N. N. 

10 11 12 7 8 9 10 11 12 7 8 9
 

13 18 17 16 15 14 13 18 17 16 15 14
 

Hoadley Road 

22
 21
 24 19 20 21 23
 24
 19
 20 23

25 30
 25 30 29 28 27 26
 29 28 27 26
 R. 72 W. R. 71 W. R. 71 W. R. 70 W. 

LEGEND 

Cordero Rojo Mine Permit Boundary 

Existing Cordero Rojo Mine Federal Coal Leases 

Maysdorf II LBA Tract as Applied for 

BLM's Study Area (Alternative 2) 

North Tract Under Alternative 3, 

BLM's Preferred Alternative 5000 10000 20000
 

South Tract Under Alternative 3, 

BLM's Preferred Alternative 

GRAPHIC SCALE (FEET) 

Figure 2-4. Maysdorf II LBA Tract Alternatives. 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 

33 

28 

0 

2-5
2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives 

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Manual 3420-1(Competitive Coal Leasing) 

requires BLM to evaluate modifying the configuration of federal coal tracts based 

on providing for maximum economic recovery of the coal resource, maintaining or 

increasing the potential for competition, and avoiding future bypass or captive 

tract situations. For NEPA purposes, BLM identifies alternate tract configurations 

and evaluates them as alternatives to the Proposed Action. BLM has identified a 

study area for each LBA tract that includes each tract as applied for and adjacent 

unleased federal coal. Figures 2-1 through 2-4 show these study areas for the 

Belle Ayr North, West Coal Creek, Caballo West, and Maysdorf II LBA tracts, 

respectively. BLM is evaluating these study areas to identify potential alternate 

tract configurations to the Proposed Action that would be technically, 

economically, or environmentally preferable to the Proposed Action. 

The Leasing on Application regulations at 43 CFR 3425.1-9 state that: “The 

authorized officer may add or delete lands from an area covered by an application 

for any reason he/she determines to be in the public interest.” Accordingly, in 

evaluating alternate tract configurations, BLM could either increase or decrease 

the size of each tract as applied for. 

The potential tract configurations and the potential number of alternatives 

evaluated for NEPA purposes can vary for each tract. In this EIS, Alternative 2 is 

evaluated in addition to the Proposed Action and Alternative 1 (the No Action 

alternative) for all of the tracts considered in this EIS. Under Alternative 2 for each 

tract, BLM is evaluating adding all or part of the BLM study area to the tract as 

applied for and/or reducing the size of the tract as applied for. One competitive 

sealed bid sale would be held for each tract as modified by BLM. For the Maysdorf 

II LBA tract, one additional alternative, Alternative 3, is evaluated. Under 

Alternative 3 for this tract, BLM is considering adding all or part of the BLM study 

area to the tract as applied for and splitting the revised tract into two tracts (North 

Maysdorf II and South Maysdorf II) and is evaluating adding all or part of the BLM 

study area to each split. The lands included in the two tracts would be the lands 

included in the tract as modified by BLM. Two separate competitive sealed bid 

lease sales would be held. 

Two other alternatives were considered but not analyzed in detail. They are: 

•	 holding a competitive lease sale and issuing a lease for federal coal lands 

included in one or more of the LBA tracts (as applied for or as modified by 

BLM), with the assumption that one or more of the tracts would be 

developed as a new mine (see section 2.7.1), and 

•	 delaying the sale of one or more of the LBA tracts as applied for in order to 

take advantage of higher coal prices and to allow recovery of the potential 

coal bed natural gas (CBNG) resources in the tract prior to mining. Under 

this alternative, it is assumed that one or more of the tracts could be 

2-6 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
 

2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives 

developed later as a maintenance tract or a new mine start, depending on 

how long the sale was delayed (see section 2.5.2). 

LBA tracts are nominated for leasing by companies with an interest in acquiring 

them but, as discussed in chapter 1, the LBA process is, by law and regulation, an 

open, public, competitive sealed-bid process. If a tract is offered for lease, the 

applicant for that tract may or may not be the high bidder when the lease sale is 

held. For each tract considered in this EIS, the Proposed Action and Alternative 2 

(and Alternative 3 for the Maysdorf II Tract) assume that the applicant that 

applied for the tract would be the successful bidder if the federal coal included in 

the tract is offered for lease, and that each tract would be mined as a maintenance 

tract for an existing permitted mine. 

If a decision is made to hold a competitive lease sale for a tract of federal coal and 

a lease is issued, a permit to conduct coal mining operations before mining can 

begin on the tract. As discussed in section 1.3, this permit application would 

undergo a thorough review by state and federal agencies as part of the approval 

process. The detailed permit application for each tract could differ from the more 

general mining plan used in this EIS to analyze the impacts of the Proposed 

Action, Alternative 2 of each tract, and Alternative 3 for the Maysdorf II LBA tract, 

but the differences would not be expected to substantially change the impacts 

described here. These differences would typically be related to the details of 

mining and reclaiming the tract but major factors like the approximate number of 

tons of coal to be mined and yards of overburden to be removed, the acres 

disturbed, etc., would not be substantially different from the plans used in this 

analysis. 

If any of the tracts are leased under the Proposed Action or the alternatives for 

each tract, 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 

the coal removal area would be due to activities such as overstripping, matching 

undisturbed topography, and construction of flood control and sediment control 

structures. This is referred to as the general analysis area for that tract. 

2.1 Alternatives for the Belle Ayr North LBA Tract 

2.1.1 Belle Ayr North LBA Tract Proposed Action 

Under the Proposed Action, the Belle Ayr North LBA tract, as applied for by FCW, 

would be offered for lease at a sealed-bid, competitive lease sale, subject to 

standard and special lease stipulations developed for the PRB (appendix D). The 

boundaries of the tract would be consistent with the tract configuration proposed 

in the Belle Ayr North lease application (figure 2-1). The Proposed Action assumes 

that FCW would be the successful bidder on this tract if it is offered for sale. 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 2-7 
 

2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives 

The legal description of the proposed coal lease lands as applied for by FCW under 

the Proposed Action is as follows: 

T. 48 N., R. 71 W., 6th P.M., Campbell County, Wyoming 

Section 18: Lots 17, 18, 19(W1⁄2, SE1⁄4); 113.48 acres 

Section 19: Lots 5 through 19; 606.93 acres 

Section 20: Lots 3 (SW1⁄4), 4 (W1⁄2, SE1⁄4), 5, 6, 

7 (S1⁄2), 9 (S1⁄2), 10 through 16; 450.43 acres 

Section 21: Lots 13, 14; 81.52 acres 

Section 28: Lots 3 through 6; 161.98 acres 

Section 29: Lots 1, 6; 81.63 acres 

T. 48 N., R.72 W., 6th P.M., Campbell County, Wyoming 

Section 24: Lots 1, 8. 82.77 acres 

Total: 1,578.74 acres 

The land description and acreage are based on the BLM Status of Public Domain 

Land and Mineral Titles approved Master Title Plat as of April 10, 2006 and Coal 

Plat as of March 8, 2006. The coal estate included in the tract described above is 

federally owned and the surface is owned by FCW. Ownership of the oil and gas 

estate is discussed in section 3.11. 

Under the Proposed Action, some of the coal in the tract is considered to be 

unmineable because a portion of the Bishop Road (Campbell County Road 12) 

overlies the coal. As discussed in section 1.1, the Surface Mining Control and 

Reclamation Act prohibits mining within 100 feet on either side of the right-of-way 

(ROW) of any public road (43 CFR 3461). There would also be some coal east of 

the Bishop Road that would be isolated from the mining operations if the coal 

under the road was not mined. The coal underlying the portion of the road, its 

ROW, and the 100 foot buffer zone within the tract could be mined if the Campbell 

County Board of Commissioners (authorized agency) determines that the road can 

be moved [30 CFR 761.11(d)]. FCW is currently evaluating the feasibility of 

relocating the road. They estimate that approximately 27.2 million tons of 

mineable coal are included within the ROW and associated 100 foot buffer zone 

that is within the LBA tract. If the county road is not moved approximately 12.7 

million tons of mineable coal would be isolated east of the Bishop Road. 

The federal coal lands underlying the county road ROW and the adjacent buffer 

zone are included in the tract because that would allow maximum recovery of the 

mineable coal adjacent to but outside of those areas if the road is not moved. It 

would also allow recovery of the coal under the road if it is moved. If a lease is 

issued for this tract, a stipulation will be attached stating that no mining activity 

2-8 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
 

2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives 

may be conducted within 100 feet of the road ROW until permit to move the 

county road is approved. 

FCW estimates that the Belle Ayr North LBA tract as applied for includes 

approximately 208.1 million tons of in-place and mineable coal. If the Bishop 

Road is moved, FCW assumes that about 94 percent of that coal, or about 191.9 

million tons, could be recovered from the tract, based on historical recovery 

practices. FCW estimates that at the projected average annual coal production 

rate of 30 million tons per year (mmtpy), the mine life would be extended by about 

6.4 years. As a basis for estimating impacts, annual production is assumed to 

increase to 30 mmtpy by 2015 and hold at that rate through 2020 and to the end 

of mine life. Future production rates are difficult to estimate since mines must 

increase or reduce rates in line with annual demand and competition for coal 

sales. BLM estimated future rates for the purpose of estimating impact using the 

Task 2 Report for the Powder River Basin Coal Review – Past and Present and 

Reasonably Foreseeable Development Activities (BLM 2005a). This results in an 

average production rate from mid 2008 to the end of mine life of 30 mmtpy. 

If the Bishop Road is not moved, FCW estimates that the tract contains 

approximately 164.7 million tons of mineable coal reserves. The federal coal 

reserves within the road ROW and buffer zone and the isolated coal would be 

excluded. Using FCW’s projected recovery factor of 94 percent of the mineable 

coal reserves included in tract as applied for, the tract would contain about 154.8 

million tons of recoverable coal. At the average annual coal production rate of 30 

mmtpy, mining this coal would extend mine life by about 5.2 years. 

BLM independently evaluates the volume and average quality of the coal resources 

included in the tract offered for sale as part of the fair market value determination 

process. That estimate may not be in agreement with the applicant’s estimates. 

BLM’s estimate will be published in the sale notice for the tract, if it is offered for 

sale. 

The Belle Ayr North LBA tract would be mined as an integral part of the Belle Ayr 

Mine under the Proposed Action. Since the Belle Ayr North LBA tract would be an 

extension of the existing Belle Ayr Mine, the facilities and infrastructure would be 

the same as those identified in the Wyoming Department of Environmental 

Quality/Land Quality Division (WDEQ/LQD) Mine Permit 214 Term T6, approved 

November 25, 2003 and the BLM Resource Recovery and Protection Plan (R2P2), 

which was approved March 8, 2007. 

FCW’s currently approved air quality permit from the Wyoming Department of 

Environmental Quality/Air Quality Division (WDEQ/AQD) for the Belle Ayr Mine 

allows up to 45 million tons of coal per year to be mined. The Belle Ayr Mine 

produced: 

• 11.8 million tons of coal in 2001, 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 2-9 
2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives 

• 17.5 million tons of coal in 2002, 

• 17.9 million tons of coal in 2003, 

• 18.7 million tons of coal in 2004, 

• 19.5 million tons of coal in 2005, 

• 24.6 million tons of coal in 2006, and 

• 26.6 million tons of coal in 2007 


(Wyoming Department of Employment 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 


and 2007a). 


Under the currently approved mining plan (the No Action alternative), the Belle 

Ayr Mine would mine its remaining 235.8 million tons of recoverable coal reserves 

on the existing leases in nearly 8 years at an average production rate of 

approximately 30 mmtpy. Under the Proposed Action and if the Bishop Road is 

moved, FCW estimates that annual coal production would average approximately 

30 million tons, mine life would be extended by more than 6 additional years, and 

coal production at the mine would continue for just over 14 years beyond mid 

2008. If the road is not moved, FCW estimates that annual coal production would 

average approximately 30 million tons, mine life would be extended by more than 

5 additional years, and coal production at the mine would continue for nearly 14 

years beyond mid 2008. 

If FCW acquires the Belle Ayr North LBA tract as applied for and Bishop Road is 

moved, they estimate that a total of 427.7 million tons of coal would be recovered 

after July 1, 2008, with an estimated 191.9 million tons coming from the LBA 

tract. As of June 30, 2008, approximately 544.5 million tons of coal had been 

mined from within the current permit area of the Belle Ayr Mine. 

If FCW acquires the tract as applied for and Bishop Road is not moved, they 

estimate that a total of 390.6 million tons of coal would be recovered after July 1, 

2008, with an estimated 154.8 million tons coming from the LBA tract. 

Prior to disturbance and in advance of mining, mine support structures such as 

roads, power lines, substations, and flood and sediment control measures would 

be built as needed. Two telephone lines, one high-pressure gas pipeline, and a 

portion of the Bishop Road would require relocation before mining commences. 

Topsoil removal with suitable heavy equipment, such as rubber-tired scrapers, 

would proceed ahead of overburden removal. Whenever possible, direct haulage to 

a reclamation area would be done, but due to scheduling, some topsoil would be 

temporarily stockpiled. As required by the reclamation plan, heavy equipment 

would be used to haul and distribute the stockpiled topsoil. 

The Belle Ayr Mine is one of several mines currently operating in the PRB where 

the coal seams are notably thick and the overburden is relatively thin. Mining 

would be conducted as an extension of the one pit located within the current 

permit area. Overburden removal has been and would continue to be conducted 

2-10 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives 

using trucks and shovels. Other equipment used during overburden removal and 

backfilling would include dozers, scrapers, excavators, front-end loaders, graders, 

and water trucks. Most overburden and all coal have been and would continue to 

be drilled and blasted to facilitate efficient excavation. The design of the Belle Ayr 

Mine seeks to confine disturbance to the active mine blocks. As overburden is 

removed, most would be directly placed into areas where coal has already been 

removed. 

Chapter 4, Section 2(b)(i) of the WDEQ/LQD Coal Rules requires that rough 

backfilling and grading follow coal removal as closely as possible based on the 

mining conditions (WDEQ/LQD 2005a). According to a recent Office of Surface 

Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM) evaluation of the Wyoming coal 

mining industry, the 2007 reclamation to disturbance ratio was approximately 80 

percent (12,258 acres reclaimed vs. 15,321 acres disturbed) (OSM 2008). 

Replaced (backfilled) overburden is graded to approximate original land surface 

contour, as required by WDEQ and OSM rules. Elevations consistent with an 

approved post-mining topography (PMT) plan would be established as quickly as 

possible to construct a stable landscape and restore drainage. Backfilled and 

recontoured overburden is sampled and analyzed to verify suitability as subsoil. 

Material that is found to be unsuitable for reclamation (i.e., material that is not 

suitable for use in reestablishing vegetation or that may affect groundwater quality 

due to high concentrations of certain constituents, such as selenium or adverse 

pH levels) would either be removed and treated, or adequately covered with 

suitable overburden material prior to topsoiling. Under certain conditions, the 

PMT may not be immediately achievable. This occurs when excess material may 

require temporary stockpiling, when there is insufficient material available from 

current overburden removal operations, or when future mining could redisturb an 

area already mined area. 

Once a seedbed has been prepared, vegetation that is consistent with the postmining land use would be reestablished. The reseeded area would be monitored 

to evaluate the success of revegetation growth and the variety of established plant 

species for a minimum of 10 years, before to final reclamation bond release. 

WDEQ/LQD requires that mining companies post a bond that would cover the 

cost of completing reclamation on all mining disturbed acres within their permit 

boundary. In order to meet the conditions for final bond release, the reclaimed 

area must have vegetative cover and production and plant species diversity equal 

to a predetermined native comparison (reference) area. The reclaimed area must 

have a shrub density of one per square meter over 20 percent of the area. It must 

also support the post-mining land use (grazing and wildlife), as determined by 

grazing trials and by monitoring of wildlife use on the reclaimed. This lengthy 

period required for final bond release means that the total acres listed as 

reclaimed likely includes areas completely reclaimed and areas in various stages 

of being reclaimed. 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 2-11 
2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives 

Coal would be produced from one coal seam referred to as the Wyodak-Anderson. 

The seam averages 72 feet in thickness and ranges from between 66 to 76 feet 

thick inside the Belle Ayr North LBA tract. Coal would be mined at several 

working faces to enable blending of the coal to meet customer quality 

requirements, to comply with BLM lease requirements for maximum economic 

recovery of the coal resource, and to optimize coal removal efficiency with available 

equipment. Coal would be loaded with electric-powered shovels into off-highway 

haul trucks for transport to crushing facilities. Coal haul roads would be 

temporary structures built within the mine areas. The Belle Ayr Mine uses two 

existing coal crushing facilities located within the FCW mine permit area, which 

provide the capacity to produce the permitted production tonnage. All coal 

crushing operations and conveying, transferring, and storage facilities are 

equipped with baghouses, atomizer/fogger systems, and passive enclosure control 

(PEC) systems for dust control. A system of crushers, feeders, and transfer 

conveyors move the prepared coal to interim storage in four concrete silos located 

adjacent to the unit train loadout facility. While sufficient storage capacity exists, 

facilities may be constructed in the future to improve operating efficiency and air 

quality protection. For example, a stilling shed may be built and a covered 

overland conveyor and near-pit crusher system may be constructed and moved as 

the mining operation progresses. 

Full-time employment at the Belle Ayr Mine is currently 358 personnel. If FCW 

acquires the Belle Ayr North LBA tract under the Proposed Action, they anticipate 

that employment levels would increase to 366 for the additional 5 to 7 years that it 

would take to mine the coal included in the tract. This assumes that the annual 

coal production rate would average approximately 30 mmtpy. 

FCW applied for the tract, but the tract is also adjacent to the Caballo Mine, 

operated by CCC (see figure 1-2). As a result, CCC is potentially in a position to 

mine the Belle Ayr North LBA tract. If a company other than FCW were to acquire 

the tract, the rate of coal production, mining sequence, equipment, and facilities 

would be different than if FCW acquired the tract as a maintenance lease, as 

described above. However, the area of disturbance and the impacts of removing 

the coal would not be substantially different from the area of disturbance and the 

impacts if FCW acquires the tract. 

2.1.2 Belle Ayr North LBA Tract Alternative 1 

Under Alternative 1 (No Action alternative) for the Belle North LBA tract, FCW’s 

application to lease the coal included in the Belle Ayr North 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. Under this alternative, the Belle 

Ayr Mine would mine its remaining 235.8 million tons of recoverable coal reserves 

on the existing Belle Ayr leases in nearly 8 years at an average production rate of 

approximately 30 mmtpy. 

2-12 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives 

Rejection of the application would not affect permitted mining activities or 

employment the Belle Ayr Mine. The mine currently owns or leases approximately 

4,946 acres of federal coal, 760 acres of private coal, and 640 acres of state coal, 

all of which are within the existing mine permit boundaries. A total of 

approximately 11,621 acres will eventually be affected in mining the current 

leases. If the Belle Ayr North LBA tract is not leased, FCW estimates that the 

annual production at the Belle Ayr Mine would average 30 million tons, and the 

average full-time employment level would be 358 persons. 

In order to compare the economic and environmental consequences of mining 

these lands versus not mining them, this EIS was prepared under the assumption 

that the Belle Ayr North LBA tract would not be mined in the foreseeable future if 

the No Action alternative is selected. However, selection of the No Action 

alternative would not preclude leasing and mining of this tract in the future. If 

the decision is made to reject FCW’s application at this time, the tract could be 

leased as a maintenance tract in the future while the adjacent mine is in 

operation. If it is not leased while the existing adjacent mine is in operation, it 

may or may not be leased in the future. This tract does not include enough coal 

reserves to economically justify mining by a new operation; however, the coal 

reserves included in the tract could be combined with unleased federal coal to the 

west to create a larger tract, which could be mined by a new operation in the 

future. 

2.1.3 Belle Ayr North LBA Tract Alternative 2 

Under Alternative 2, BLM would reconfigure the tract, 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 

(appendix D). Alternative 2, holding a competitive coal sale for a modified tract, is 

BLM’s Preferred Alternative. 

This alternative assumes that FCW 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 Belle Ayr Mine. Assumptions concerning mining methods, 

facilities, hazardous materials, mitigation and monitoring requirements, etc. are 

the same as described for the Proposed Action. 

As applied for, the Belle Ayr North LBA tract consists of a single block of federal 

coal (figure 1-2). BLM identified a study area to evaluate the potential that an 

alternate configuration of the tract would provide more efficient recovery of the 

federal coal, increase competitive interest in the tract, and reduce the potential 

that some of the remaining unleased federal coal in this area would be bypassed 

in the future. The BLM study area includes the tract as applied for and unleased 

federal coal adjacent to the northern edge of the tract as applied for (figure 2-1). 

Under this alternative, BLM could add all or part of the adjacent lands to the 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 2-13 
 

2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives 

tract, or BLM could reduce the size of the tract, as discussed in section 2.0. The 

original BLM study area was redelineated on June 20, 2007 to describe the tract 

based on 10-acre aliquot parts rather than physical boundaries (Bishop Road). 

FCW was aware of and agreed to the change. 

Under this alternative, the BLM evaluated the following lands to add to the tract 

as applied for: 

T. 48 N., R. 71 W., 6th P.M., Campbell County, Wyoming 

Section 17: Lots 13, 14; 

Section 18: Lots 19 (NE1⁄4); 

Section 20: Lots 3 (E1⁄2, NW1⁄4), 4 (NE1⁄4), 

7 (N1⁄2), and 9 (N1⁄2); 

82.53 acres 

10.34 acres 

82.19 acres 

Total Added: 175.06 acres 

BLM would remove the following as applied for lands from leasing consideration if 

this alternative is selected: 

T. 48 N., R.72 W., 6th P.M., Campbell County, Wyoming 

Section 24: Lots 1, 8. -82.77 acres 

Total (Net Change): 92.29 acres 

The legal description of BLM’s preferred configuration of the Belle Ayr North LBA 

tract under Alternative 2 is as follows: 

T. 48 N., R. 71 W., 6th P.M., Campbell County, Wyoming 

Section 17: Lots 13, 14; 82.53 acres 

Section 18: Lots 17, 18, 19; 123.82 acres 

Section 19: Lots 5 through 19; 606.93 acres 

Section 20: Lots 3 through 7, 9 through 16; 532.62 acres 

Section 21: Lots 13, 14; 81.52 acres 

Section 28: Lots 3 through 6; 161.98 acres 

Section 29: Lots 1, 6. 81.63 acres 

Total: 1,671.03 acres 

The land description and acreage are based on the BLM Status of Public Domain 

Land and Mineral Titles approved Master Title Plat as of April 10, 2006 and Coal 

Plat as of March 8, 2006. The coal in the tract described above is federally owned 

and the surface is owned by FCW. Ownership of the oil and gas estate is discussed 

in section 3.11. 

2-14 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives 

Under this alternative, some of the coal in this tract is considered unmineable 

because of the presence of the Bishop Road (Campbell County Road 12). A 

portion Bishop Road overlies some of the coal included in the tract. As discussed 

in section 1.1, the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act prohibits mining 

within 100 feet on either side of the ROW of any public road (43 CFR 3461). There 

would also be a quantity of coal east of Bishop Road that would be isolated from 

mining if the coal under the road was not mined. The coal underlying the portion 

of the Bishop Road, its ROW, and the 100 foot buffer zone within the Belle Ayr 

North LBA tract could be mined if the Campbell County Board of Commissioners 

(authorized agency) determines that the road can be moved [30 CFR 761.11(d)]. 

FCW is currently evaluating the feasibility of relocating the road. They estimate 

that approximately 45 million tons of mineable coal are included within the ROW 

and associated 100 foot buffer zone that is within the LBA tract under Alternative 

2 and that if the county road is not moved approximately 13 million tons of 

mineable coal would be isolated east of the Bishop Road. 

The federal coal lands underlying the county road ROW and the adjacent buffer 

zone and the isolated coal are included in the tract because that would allow 

maximum recovery of the mineable coal adjacent to but outside of the county road 

and buffer zone if the road is not moved. It would also allow recovery of the coal 

under the road if it is moved. If a lease is issued for this tract, a stipulation will be 

attached stating that no mining activity may be conducted within 100 feet of the 

road ROW until permit to move the county road is approved. 

If the Bishop Road is moved, FCW estimates that under Alternative 2 the tract 

includes approximately 221.1 million tons of in-place coal and 217.6 million tons 

of mineable coal. FCW assumes that about 94 percent of that coal (204.6 million 

tons of coal) could be recovered, based on historical recovery practices. FCW 

estimates that at the projected average annual coal production rate of 30 mmtpy, 

mining this coal would extend this mine life by just under 7 years. 

If the Bishop Road is not moved, FCW estimates that as applied for the tract 

contains approximately 221.1 million tons of in-place coal reserves. Excluding the 

federal coal reserves within the Bishop Road ROW and buffer zone and the 

isolated coal, FCW estimates that the tract contains approximately 159.6 million 

tons of mineable coal reserves. Using FCW’s projected recovery factor of 94 

percent of the mineable coal reserves included in tract as applied for, the tract 

would contain about 150.1 million tons of recoverable coal. Under Alternative 2, 

FCW estimates that at the average annual coal production rate of 30 mmtpy, 

mining this coal would extend the mine life by approximately 5 years. 

BLM independently evaluates the volume and average quality of the coal resources 

included in the tract offered for sale as part of the fair market value determination 

process. This estimate may not be in agreement with the estimate provided by the 

applicant. Under the Preferred Alternative (Alternative 2) BLM’s estimate will be 

published in the sale notice for the tract, if it is offered for sale. 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 2-15 
2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives 

2.2 Alternatives for the West Coal Creek LBA Tract 

2.2.1 West Coal Creek LBA Tract Proposed Action 

Under the Proposed Action, the West Coal Creek LBA tract, as applied for by ALC, 

would be offered for lease at a sealed-bid, competitive lease sale, subject to 

standard and special lease stipulations developed for the PRB (appendix D). The 

boundaries of the tract would be consistent with the tract configuration proposed 

in the West Coal Creek lease application (figure 2-2). The Proposed Action 

assumes that ALC would be the successful bidder on the tract if it is offered for 

sale. 

The legal description of the proposed coal lease lands as applied for by ALC under 

the Proposed Action is as follows: 

T. 46 N., R. 70 W., 6th P.M., Campbell County, Wyoming 

Section 18: Lots 14 through 17; 

Section 19: Lots 7 through 10, 15 through 18; 

Section 30: Lots 5 through 20. 

161.95 acres 

323.60 acres 

665.71 acres 

Total: 1,151.26 acres 

The land description and acreage are based on the BLM Status of Public Domain 

Land and Mineral Titles approved Coal Plat as of August 10, 2006. The ownership 

of the coal estate in the tract described above is federal. The surface estate is 

owned by Dennis Edwards and Thunder Basin Coal Company, LLC. Ownership of 

the oil and gas estate is discussed in section 3.11. 

ALC estimates that the West Coal Creek LBA tract includes approximately 63.3 

million tons of in-place and mineable coal. Using ALC’s projected recovery factor 

of 90 percent of the mineable coal reserves, the LBA tract as applied for would 

contain about 57.0 million tons of recoverable coal. At an average annual coal 

production rate of 13.4 mmtpy, mining would extend the mine life by just over 4 

years. As a basis for estimating impacts, annual production is assumed to 

increase to 14 mmtpy by 2015 and hold at that rate through 2020 to the end of 

mine life. Future production rates are difficult to estimate since mines must 

increase or reduce rates in line with annual demand and competition for coal 

sales. BLM estimated future impact using the Task 2 Report for the Powder River 

Basin Coal Review – Past and Present and Reasonably Foreseeable Development 

Activities (BLM 2005a). This results in an average production rate from 2008 to 

the end of mine life of 13.4 mmtpy. 

BLM independently evaluates the volume and average quality of the coal resources 

included in the tract offered for sale as part of the fair market value determination 

process. This estimate may not be in agreement with the estimate provided by the 

2-16 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives 

applicant. BLM’s estimate will be published in the sale notice for the tract, if it is 

offered for sale. 

The West Coal Creek LBA tract would be mined as an integral part of the Coal 

Creek Mine under the Proposed Action. Since this tract would be an extension of 

the existing mine, the facilities and infrastructure would be the same as those 

identified in the WDEQ/LQD Mine Permit 483 Term T5, approved September 7, 

2005 and the BLM R2P2, which was approved April 15, 2004. 

ALC’s currently approved air quality permit from the WDEQ/AQD for the Coal 

Creek Mine allows up to 50 million tons of coal per year to be mined. The Coal 

Creek Mine produced: 

• no coal in 2001, 

• no coal in 2002, 

• no coal in 2003, 

• no coal in 2004, 

• no coal in 2005, 

• 3.1 million tons of coal in 2006, and 

• 10.2 million tons of coal in 2007 

(Wyoming Department of Employment 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, and 

2006 and TBCC 2007). 

Under the currently approved mining plan (No Action alternative), the Coal Creek 

Mine would mine its remaining 217.5 million tons of recoverable coal reserves on 

the existing Coal Creek leases in just over 16 years at an average production rate 

of approximately 13.4 mmtpy. Under the Proposed Action, ALC estimates that 

annual coal production would average approximately 13.4 million tons, mine life 

would be extended by just over 4 additional years, and coal production at the 

mine would continue for just over 20 years beyond mid 2008. 

If ALC acquires the West Coal Creek LBA tract as applied for, they estimate that a 

total of 274.5 million tons of coal would be recovered after July 1, 2008, with an 

estimated 57.0 million tons coming from the LBA tract. As of June 30, 2008, 

approximately 68.9 million tons of coal had been mined from within the current 

permit area of the Coal Creek Mine. 

Prior to disturbance and in advance of mining, mine support structures such as 

roads, power lines, substations, and flood and sediment control measures would 

be built as needed. Three overhead powerlines, one buried telephone line, and 

three buried pipelines would require relocation before mining can begin. 

Topsoil removal with suitable heavy equipment, such as rubber-tired scrapers, 

would proceed ahead of overburden removal. Whenever possible, direct haulage to 

a reclamation area would be done but, due to scheduling, some topsoil would be 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 2-17 
 

2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives 

temporarily stockpiled. As outlined in the reclamation plan, heavy equipment 

would be used to haul and distribute the stockpiled topsoil. 

The Coal Creek Mine is one of several mines operating in the PRB where the coal 

seams are notably thick and the overburden is relatively thin. Mining would be 

conducted in four separate, semi-independent pits; three located within the 

current permit area and one located within the proposed lease area. The multi-pit 

concept has been and would be used to reduce operating costs by blending 

production from areas having different stripping ratios and coal quality, and also 

to help stabilize manpower requirements. Overburden removal has been and 

would continue to be conducted using trucks and shovels or loaders, draglines, 

and direct cast blasting. Other equipment used during overburden removal and 

backfilling would include dozers, scrapers, excavators, front-end loaders, graders, 

and water trucks. Most overburden and all coal have been and would continue to 

be drilled and blasted to facilitate efficient excavation. The design of the Coal 

Creek Mine seeks to confine disturbance to the active mine blocks. As overburden 

is removed, most would be directly placed into areas where coal has already been 

removed. 

Chapter 4, Section 2(b)(i) of the WDEQ/LQD Coal Rules requires that rough 

backfilling and grading follow coal removal as closely as possible based on the 

mining conditions (WDEQ/LQD 2005a). According to a recent OSM evaluation of 

the Wyoming coal mining industry, the 2007 reclamation to disturbance ratio was 

approximately 80 percent (12,258 acres reclaimed vs. 15,321 acres disturbed) 

(OSM 2008). Replaced (backfilled) overburden is graded to approximate original 

land surface contour, as required by WDEQ and OSM rules. Elevations consistent 

with an approved PMT plan would be established as quickly as possible to 

construct a stable landscape and restore drainage. Backfilled and recontoured 

overburden is sampled and analyzed to verify suitability as subsoil. Material that 

is found to be unsuitable for reclamation (i.e., material that is not suitable for use 

in reestablishing vegetation or that may affect groundwater quality due to high 

concentrations of certain constituents, such as selenium or adverse pH levels) 

would either be removed and treated, or adequately covered with suitable 

overburden material prior to topsoiling. Under certain conditions, the PMT may 

not be immediately achievable. This occurs when excess material may require 

temporary stockpiling, when there is insufficient material available from 

overburden removal operations, or when future mining could redisturb an already 

mined area. 

Once a seedbed has been prepared, vegetation that is consistent with the postmining land use would be reestablished. The reseeded area would then be 

monitored to evaluate the success of revegetation growth and the variety of 

established plant species for a minimum of 10 years before final reclamation bond 

release. WDEQ/LQD requires that mining companies post a bond that would 

cover the cost of completing reclamation on all mining disturbed acres within their 

permit boundary. In order to meet the conditions for final bond release, the 

2-18 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives 

reclaimed area must have vegetative cover and production and plant species 

diversity equal to a predetermined native comparison (reference) area. The 

reclaimed area must have a shrub density of one per square meter over 20 percent 

of the area. It must also support the post-mining land use (grazing and wildlife), 

as determined by grazing trials and by monitoring of wildlife use on the reclaimed 

area. This lengthy period required for final bond release means that the total 

acres listed as reclaimed likely includes areas completely reclaimed and areas in 

various stages of being reclaimed. 

Coal would be produced from one coal zone that Thunder Basin Coal Company 

(TBCC) refers to as the Wyodak-Anderson. The seam averages 36 feet thick inside 

the West Coal Creek LBA tract. The Wyodak-Anderson zone is split into two 

mineable coal seams: locally referred to as R1 and R3. Coal would be mined at 

several working faces to enable blending of the coal to meet customer quality 

requirements, to comply with BLM lease requirements for maximum economic 

recovery of the coal resource, and to optimize coal removal efficiency with available 

equipment. Coal would be loaded with shovels, loaders, or backhoes into offhighway haul trucks for transport to crushing facilities. Coal haul roads would be 

temporary structures built within the mine areas. The Coal Creek Mine uses two 

existing coal crushing facilities located within the mine’s permit area, which 

provides the capacity to produce at the permitted level. All coal crushing 

operations and conveying, transferring, and storage facilities are equipped with 

baghouses or passive control equipment for dust control. There are two existing 

coal storage silos. A covered overland conveyor and near-pit crusher system have 

been constructed and will be moved as the mining operation progresses. While 

sufficient storage capacity exists, future changes in facilities may be constructed 

to improve operating efficiency and air quality protection. For example, a covered 

slot storage barn, covered dome, or other appropriate storage structure may be 

built. 

Full-time employment at the Coal Creek Mine is currently 150 persons. If ALC 

acquires the West Coal Creek LBA tract under the Proposed Action, they 

anticipate that employment levels would increase to 160 for the additional 4 years 

that it would take to mine the coal included in the tract. This assumes that the 

annual coal production rate would average approximately 13.4 mmtpy. 

As discussed in chapter 1, the tract is adjacent to existing leases at the Coal Creek 

Mine, but is not adjacent to leases at any of the other existing mines in this area 

(see figure 1-3). If a company other than ALC were to acquire the tract, the rate of 

coal production, mining sequence, equipment, and facilities would be different 

than if ALC acquired the tract as a maintenance lease. However, the area of 

disturbance and the impacts of removing the coal would not be substantially 

different from the area of disturbance and the impacts of TBCC mining the tract. 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 2-19 
2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives 

2.2.2 West Coal Creek LBA Tract Alternative 1 

Under the No Action alternative, ALC’s application to lease the coal included in the 

West Coal Creek 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. Under this alternative, the Coal Creek Mine would mine its remaining 

217.5 million tons of recoverable coal reserves on the existing Coal Creek leases in 

just over 16 years at an average production rate of approximately 13.4 mmtpy. 

Rejection of the application would not affect permitted mining activity and 

employment on the existing leases at the Coal Creek Mine. The mine currently 

owns or leases approximately 5,918.0 acres of federal coal, 120.1 acres of private 

coal, and 805.7 acres of state coal; all of which are within the mine’s existing 

permit boundary. A total of approximately 8,355 acres will eventually be affected 

in mining the current leases. If the tract is not leased, ALC estimates that the 

annual production at the mine would average 13.4 million tons, and the average 

full-time employment level is expected to remain at 150 persons. 

In order to compare the economic and environmental consequences of mining 

these lands versus not mining them, this EIS was prepared under the assumption 

that the West Coal Creek LBA tract would not be mined in the foreseeable future if 

the No Action alternative is selected. However, selection of the No Action 

alternative would not preclude leasing and mining of this tract in the future. If 

the decision is made to reject the West Coal Creek lease application, the tract 

could be leased as a maintenance tract in the future while the adjacent mine is in 

operation. If it is not leased while the existing adjacent mine is in operation, it 

may or may not be leased in the future. This tract does not include enough coal 

reserves to economically justify mining by a new operation. However, the coal 

reserves included in the tract could be combined with unleased federal coal to the 

west and south to create a larger tract, which could be mined by a new operation 

in the future. 

2.2.3 West Coal Creek LBA Tract Alternative 2 

Under Alternative 2 for the West Coal Creek LBA tract, BLM would reconfigure the 

tract, 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 this 

tract if it is offered for sale (appendix D). Alternative 2, holding a competitive coal 

sale for a modified tract, is BLM’s Preferred Alternative. 

Alternative 2 assumes that ALC 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 Coal Creek Mine. Assumptions concerning mining methods, 

facilities, hazardous materials, mitigation and monitoring requirements, etc. are 

the same as described for the Proposed Action. 

2-20 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives 

As applied for, the LBA tract consists of a single block of federal coal (figure 1-3). 

BLM identified a study area to evaluate the potential that an alternate 

configuration of the tract would provide for more efficient recovery of the federal 

coal, increase competitive interest in the tract, and reduce the potential that some 

of the remaining unleased federal coal in this area would be bypassed in the 

future. The BLM study area includes the tract as applied for and unleased federal 

coal adjacent to the northern edge of the tract as applied for (figure 2-2). Under 

this alternative, BLM could add some or all of the adjacent lands to the tract or 

BLM could reduce the size of the tract, as discussed in section 2.0. 

The area BLM is evaluating in addition to the tract as applied for includes the 

following lands: 

T.46N., R.70W., 6th P.M., Campbell County, Wyoming 

Section 18: Lots 7 through 10; 162.00 acres 

The land description and acreage are based on the BLM Status of Public Domain 

Land and Mineral Titles approved Coal Plat as of August 8, 2006. 

In identifying a study area, BLM included additional federal coal resources north 

of the current application area, as shown in figure 2-2. BLM evaluated that 

federal coal in order to determine if it would be possible to economically recover 

additional coal in this area. After evaluating the tract configuration, BLM 

concluded that economic considerations preclude extending the West Coal Creek 

LBA tract in a north direction to the full extent of the study area due to the 

presence of the Coal Creek Mine railroad spur. BLM did not reduce the size of the 

tract because the modified tract was configured to allow recovery of the federal 

coal while maintaining the setback distances necessary to avoid the railroad spur. 

BLM is considering the addition of approximately 81 acres to the northern portion 

of the tract. Although most of the coal included in this addition to the tract would 

not be recoverable due to the required setback distances, including this coal in the 

tract would allow more efficient recovery of the coal up to the required setback 

distance. 

BLM’s preferred tract configuration is to add approximately 81 acres to the 

northern edge of the tract as applied for (figure 2-2). Under Alternative 2, BLM 

would add the following lands to the West Coal Creek LBA tract as applied for: 

T.46N., R.70W., 6th P.M., Campbell County, Wyoming 

Section 18: Lots 9 and 10; 80.91 acres 

The legal description of BLM’s preferred configuration of the tract under 

Alternative 2 is as follows: 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 2-21 
2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives 

T.46N., R.70W., 6th P.M., Campbell County, Wyoming 

Section 18: Lots 9 and 10, 14 through 17; 242.86 acres 

Section 19: Lots 7 through 10, 15 through 18; 323.60 acres 

Section 30: Lots 5 through 20. 665.71 acres 

Total: 1,232.17 acres 

The land description and acreage are based on the BLM Status of Public Domain 

Land and Mineral Titles approved Coal Plat as of August 8, 2006. The coal estate 

in the tract described above is federal and the surface estate is owned by Dennis 

Edwards and TBCC. Ownership of the oil and gas estate is discussed in section 

3.11. 

As mentioned previously, the coal in tract that was added under this alternative is 

not currently considered to be recoverable by ALC because of the presence of the 

Coal Creek Mine railroad spur ROW. The coal adjacent to and underlying the 

ROW is not considered to be recoverable at this time because the cost associated 

with moving the railroad spur would make it economically unfeasible to recover 

the underlying coal. There would also be a quantity of coal north of the railroad 

spur that would be isolated from the mining operations if the coal under the 

railroad was not mined. Although these lands would likely not be mined, they are 

included in the BLM study area to allow maximum recovery of all the mineable 

coal that is adjacent to but outside of the railroad spur ROW. 

ALC estimates that under Alternative 2, the tract contains approximately 63.3 

million tons of mineable coal reserves. Using ALC’s projected recovery factor of 90 

percent of the mineable coal reserves included in BLM’s tract reconfiguration, the 

tract would contain about 57.0 million tons of recoverable coal. ALC estimates 

that at the projected average annual coal production rate of 13.4 mmtpy, mining 

this coal would extend this mine life by just over 4 years. As a basis for 

estimating impacts, annual production is assumed to increase to 14 mmtpy by 

2015 and hold at that rate through 2020 and to the end of mine life. 

BLM independently evaluates the volume and average quality of the coal resources 

included in the tract offered for sale as part of the fair market value determination 

process. That estimate may not agree with the estimates provided by the 

applicant. Under the Preferred Alternative (Alternative 2), BLM’s estimate will be 

published in the sale notice for the tract, if it is offered for sale. 

2.3 Alternatives for the Caballo West LBA Tract 

2.3.1 Caballo West LBA Tract Proposed Action 

Under the Proposed Action, the Caballo West LBA tract as applied for by CCC 

would be offered for lease at a sealed-bid, competitive lease sale, subject to 

2-22 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives 

standard and special lease stipulations developed for the PRB (appendix D). The 

boundaries of the tract would be consistent with the tract configuration proposed 

in the Caballo West lease application (figure 2-3). The Proposed Action assumes 

that CCC would be the successful bidder on the tract if it is offered for sale. 

The legal description of the proposed coal lease lands as applied for by CCC under 

the Proposed Action is as follows: 

T. 48 N., R. 71 W., 6th P.M., Campbell County, Wyoming 

Section 7: Lots 12, 19; 81.88 acres 

Section 8: Lot 10; 39.67 acres 

Section 17: Lots 1 through 10, 11 (N1⁄2, SE1⁄4), 

12 (NE1⁄4), 15 (N1⁄2, SE1⁄4), 16; 521.76 acres 

Section 18: Lot 5, 12 (NE1⁄4); 52.32 acres 

Section 20: Lots 1, 2 (NE1⁄4), 8 (N1⁄2, SE1⁄4). 81.86 acres 

Total: 777.49 acres 

The land description and acreage are based on the BLM Status of Public Domain 

Land and Mineral Titles approved Coal Plat as of March 8, 2006. The ownership 

of the coal estate in the tract described above is federal and the surface estate is 

owned by the Paul D. Rourke Trust; James F. Rourke, et al.; and FCW. 

Ownership of the oil and gas estate is discussed in section 3.11. 

CCC estimates that the Caballo West LBA tract includes approximately 98.2 

million tons of in-place coal and that approximately 87.5 million tons of those inplace coal reserves are mineable. Using CCC’s projected recovery factor of 93.5 

percent of the mineable coal reserves, the tract as applied for would contain about 

81.8 million tons of recoverable coal. At the estimated annual average coal 

production rate of 37.8 mmtpy, mining this coal would extend this mine life by 

just over 2 years. As a basis for estimating impacts, annual production is 

assumed to reach 39 mmtpy by 2015 and hold at that rate through 2020 to end of 

mine life. Future production rates are difficult to estimate since mines must 

increase or reduce rates in line with annual demand and competition for coal 

sales. BLM estimated future rates for the purpose of estimating impact using the 

Task 2 report for the Powder River Basin Coal Review – Past and Present and 

Reasonably Foreseeable Development Activities (BLM 2005a). This results in an 

average production rate from 2008 to the end of mine life of 37.8 mmtpy. 

BLM independently evaluates the volume and average quality of the coal resources 

included in the tract offered for sale as part of the fair market value determination 

process. That estimate may not agree with the estimates provided by the 

applicant. BLM’s estimate will be published in the sale notice for the tract if it is 

offered for sale. 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 2-23 
2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives 

The Caballo West LBA tract would be mined as an integral part of the Caballo 

Mine under the Proposed Action. Since this tract would be an extension of the 

existing mine, the facilities and infrastructure would be the same as those 

identified in the WDEQ/LQD Mine Permit 433 Term T5, approved July 23, 2003 

and the BLM R2P2, which was approved May 26, 2006. 

CCC’s currently approved air quality permit from the WDEQ/AQD for the Caballo 

Mine allows up to 50 million tons of coal per year to be mined. The Caballo Mine 

produced: 

• 27.1 million tons of coal in 2001, 

• 26.0 million tons of coal in 2002, 

• 22.7 million tons of coal in 2003, 

• 26.5 million tons of coal in 2004, 

• 30.5 million tons of coal in 2005, 

• 32.7 million tons of coal in 2006, and 

• 31.2 million tons of coal in 2007, 


(Wyoming Department of Employment 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, and 


2006, CCC 2007). 


Under the currently approved mining plan (No Action alternative), the remaining 

584.8 million tons of recoverable coal reserves on the existing leases would be 

mined in approximately 15.4 years at an average production rate of approximately 

37.8 mmtpy. CCC estimates that annual coal production would average 

approximately 37.8 million tons, mine life would be extended by about 2.2 

additional years, and coal production at the Caballo Mine would continue for 

nearly 18 years beyond mid 2008. 

If CCC acquires the Caballo West LBA tract as applied for, they estimate that a 

total of 666.6 million tons of coal would be recovered after July 1, 2008, with an 

estimated 81.8 million tons coming from the LBA tract. As of June 30, 2008, 

approximately 510.4 million tons of coal had been mined from within the current 

permit area of the Caballo Mine. 

Prior to disturbance and in advance of mining, mine support structures such as 

roads, power lines, substations, and flood and sediment control measures would 

be built as needed. An estimated four overhead powerlines, one buried telephone 

line, and eight buried pipelines would require relocation prior to mining. 

Topsoil removal with suitable heavy equipment, such as rubber-tired scrapers, 

would proceed ahead of overburden removal. Whenever possible, direct haulage to 

a reclamation area would be done but, due to scheduling, some topsoil would be 

temporarily stockpiled. As outlined in the reclamation plan, heavy equipment 

would be used to haul and distribute the stockpiled topsoil. 

2-24 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives 

The Caballo Mine is one of several mines currently operating in the PRB where the 

coal seams are notably thick and the overburden is relatively thin. Mining would 

be conducted in two separate, semi-independent pits; one located primarily within 

the current permit area and one located primarily within the proposed lease area. 

The multi-pit concept has been and would be used to reduce operating costs by 

blending production from areas having different stripping ratios and coal quality, 

and also to help stabilize manpower requirements. Overburden removal has been 

and would continue to be conducted using trucks and shovels, draglines, and 

direct cast blasting. Other equipment used during overburden removal and 

backfilling would include dozers, scrapers, excavators, front-end loaders, graders, 

and water trucks. Most overburden and all coal have been and would continue to 

be drilled and blasted to facilitate efficient excavation. The design of the Caballo 

Mine seeks to confine disturbance to the active mine blocks. As overburden is 

removed, most would be placed into areas where coal has already been removed. 

Chapter 4, Section 2(b)(i) of the WDEQ/LQD Coal Rules requires that rough 

backfilling and grading follow coal removal as closely as possible based on the 

mining conditions (WDEQ/LQD 2005a). According to a recent OSM evaluation of 

the Wyoming coal mining industry, the 2007 reclamation to disturbance ratio was 

approximately 80 percent (12,258 acres reclaimed vs. 15,321 acres disturbed) 

(OSM 2008). Replaced (backfilled) overburden is graded to approximate original 

land surface contour, as required by WDEQ and OSM rules. Elevations consistent 

with an approved PMT plan would be established as quickly as possible to 

construct a stable landscape and restore drainage. Backfilled and recontoured 

overburden is sampled and analyzed to verify suitability as subsoil. Material that 

is found to be unsuitable for reclamation (i.e., material that is not suitable for use 

in reestablishing vegetation or that may affect groundwater quality due to high 

concentrations of certain constituents, such as selenium or adverse pH levels) 

would either be removed and treated, or adequately covered with suitable 

overburden material prior to topsoiling. Under certain conditions, the PMT may 

not be immediately achievable. This occurs when excess material may require 

temporary stockpiling, when there is insufficient material available from current 

overburden removal operations, or when future mining could redisturb an already 

mined area. 

Once a seedbed has been prepared, vegetation that is consistent with the postmining land use would be reestablished. The reseeded area would be monitored 

to evaluate the success of revegetation growth and the variety of plant species for 

a minimum of 10 years before final reclamation bond release. WDEQ/LQD 

requires that mining companies post a bond on all mining disturbed acres within 

their permit boundary that would cover the cost of completing reclamation. In 

order to meet the conditions for final bond release, the reclamation must have 

vegetative cover, production and plant species diversity equal to a predetermined 

native comparison (reference) area. The reclaimed area must have a shrub density 

of one per square meter over 20 percent of the area. It must also support the 

post-mining land use (grazing and wildlife), as determined by grazing trials and by 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 2-25 
 

2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives 

monitoring of wildlife use on the reclamation. This lengthy period required for 

final bond release means that the total acres listed as reclaimed likely includes 

areas completely reclaimed and areas in various stages of being reclaimed. 

Coal would be produced from one coal seam that CCC refers to as the Wyodak 

inside the mine permit area. The seam averages 62 feet thick inside the Caballo 

West LBA tract. Coal would be mined at several working faces to enable blending 

of the coal to meet customer quality requirements, to comply with BLM lease 

requirements for maximum economic recovery of the coal resource, and to 

optimize coal removal efficiency with available equipment. Coal would be loaded 

with electric-powered shovels into off-highway haul trucks for transport to 

crushing facilities. Coal haul roads would be temporary structures built within 

the mine areas. The Caballo Mine uses one existing coal crushing facility located 

within the mine permit area, which provides the capacity to produce at the 

permitted level. The truck dump is covered by a stilling shed for control of fugitive 

emissions. All coal crushing operations and conveying, transferring, and storage 

facilities are equipped with atomizer/fogger systems or baghouses for dust control. 

A system of transfer conveyors moves the prepared coal to interim storage in four 

concrete silos located adjacent to the unit train loadout facility. While sufficient 

storage capacity exists, future changes in facilities may be constructed to improve 

operating efficiency and air quality protection. For example, a covered slot storage 

barn, covered dome, or other appropriate storage structure may be built. A 

covered overland conveyor and near-pit crusher system may be constructed and 

moved as the mining operation progresses. 

Full-time employment at the Caballo Mine is currently 549 persons. If CCC 

acquires the Caballo West LBA tract under the Proposed Action, employment 

levels would remain the same for the additional 2 years that it would take to mine 

the coal included in the tract. This assumes that the annual coal production rate 

would average approximately 37.8 mmtpy. 

CCC applied for the tract, but the tract is also adjacent to the Belle Ayr Mine, 

operated by FCW (figure 1-4). As a result, FCW is in a position to mine the 

Caballo West LBA tract. If a company other than CCC were to acquire the tract, 

the rate of coal production, mining sequence, equipment, and facilities would be 

different than if CCC acquired the tract as a maintenance lease. However, the 

area of disturbance and the impacts of removing the coal would not be 

substantially different from the area of disturbance and the impacts of CCC 

mining the tract. 

2.3.2 Caballo West LBA Tract Alternative 1 

Under Alternative 1, the No Action alternative, CCC’s application to lease the coal 

included in the 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. Under this alternative, the Caballo Mine would mine its remaining 584.8 

2-26 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives 

million tons of recoverable coal reserves on the existing Caballo leases in 

approximately 15.4 years at an average production rate of approximately 37.8 

mmtpy. 

Rejection of the application would not affect permitted mining activity and 

employment at the Caballo Mine. The mine currently owns or leases 

approximately 11,704.5 acres of federal coal, 1,308.0 acres of private coal, and 

160.1 acres of state coal; all of which are within the existing CCC mine permit 

boundary. A total of approximately 16,898.0 acres will eventually be affected in 

mining the current leases. If the Caballo West LBA tract is not leased, CCC 

estimates that the annual production at the Caballo Mine after July 1, 2008 will 

average 37.8 million tons, and the average full-time employment level is expected 

to remain near 549 persons. 

In order to compare the economic and environmental consequences of mining 

these lands versus not mining them, this EIS was prepared under the assumption 

that the tract would not be mined in the foreseeable future if the No Action 

alternative is selected. However, selection of the No Action alternative would not 

preclude leasing and mining this tract in the future. If the decision is made to 

reject the Caballo West lease application at this time, the tract could be leased as 

a maintenance tract in the future while the adjacent mine is in operation. If it is 

not leased while the existing adjacent mine is in operation, it may or may not be 

leased in the future. This tract does not include enough coal reserves to 

economically justify mining by a new operation. However, the coal reserves 

included in the tract could be combined with unleased federal coal to the west to 

create a larger tract, which could be mined by a new operation in the future. 

2.3.3 Caballo West LBA Tract Alternative 2 

Under Alternative 2 for the Caballo West LBA tract, BLM would reconfigure the 

tract, 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 this 

tract if it is offered for sale (appendix D). Alternative 2, holding a competitive coal 

sale for a modified tract, is BLM’s Preferred Alternative. 

Alternative 2 assumes that CCC would be the successful bidder on the tract if a 

lease sale is held and that the tract would be mined as a maintenance lease for 

the Caballo Mine. Assumptions concerning mining methods, facilities, hazardous 

materials, mitigation and monitoring requirements, etc. are the same as described 

for the Proposed Action. 

As applied for, the LBA tract consists of a single block of federal coal (figure 1-4). 

BLM identified a study area to evaluate the potential that an alternate 

configuration of the tract would provide for more efficient recovery of the federal 

coal, increase competitive interest in the Caballo West LBA tract, and reduce the 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 2-27 
 

2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives 

potential that some of the remaining unleased federal coal in this area would be 

bypassed in the future. The BLM study area includes the tract as applied for and 

unleased federal coal adjacent to the southwestern edge of the tract as applied for 

(figure 2-3). Under this alternative, BLM could add some or all of the adjacent 

lands to the tract or BLM could reduce the size of the tract, as discussed in 

section 2.0. The original BLM study area was redelineated on June 20, 2007 to 

describe the tract based on 10-acre aliquot parts rather than physical boundaries 

(Bishop Road). CCC was aware of and agreed to the change. 

The area BLM is evaluating in addition to the tract as applied for includes the 

following lands: 

T. 48 N., R. 71 W., 6th P.M., Campbell County, Wyoming 

Section 17: Lots 11 (SW1⁄4), 12 (NW1⁄4, S1⁄2), 15 (SW1⁄4); 51.42 acres 

Section 18: Lot 12 (NW1⁄4, S1⁄2), 13; 72.82 acres 

Section 20: Lots 2 (NW1⁄4, S1⁄2), 8 (SW1⁄4); 41.02 acres 

Section 21: Lots 11, 12. 81.25 acres 

Total: 246.51 acres 

The legal description of BLM’s preferred configuration of the Caballo West LBA 

tract under Alternative 2 is as follows: 

T. 48 N., R. 71 W., 6th P.M., Campbell County, Wyoming 

Section 7: Lots 12, 19; 81.88 acres 

Section 8: Lot 10; 39.67 acres 

Section 17: Lots 1 through 12, 15, 16; 573.18 acres 

Section 18: Lot 5, 12, 13; 125.14 acres 

Section 20: Lots 1, 2, 8; 122.87 acres 

Section 21: Lots 11, 12. 81.25 acres 

Total: 1,023.99 acres 

The land description and acreage are based on the BLM Status of Public Domain 

Land and Mineral Titles approved Coal Plat as of March 8, 2006. The coal estate 

in the tract described above is federal and the surface estate is owned by the Paul 

D. Rourke Trust; James F. Rourke, et al.; and FCW. Ownership of the oil and gas 

estate is discussed in section 3.11. 

Some of the coal in the Caballo West LBA tract under this alternative is not 

currently considered to be mineable due to the presence of the Bishop Road 

(Campbell County Road 12). A portion of the road overlies some of the coal 

included in the tract under Alternative 2. As discussed in section 1.1, the Surface 

Mining Control and Reclamation Act prohibits mining within 100 feet on either 

2-28 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives 

side of the right-of-way of any public road (43 CFR 3461). There would also be a 

quantity of coal south of Bishop Road that would be isolated from the mining 

operations if the coal under the road was not mined. The coal underlying the 

portion of Bishop Road, its ROW, and the estimated layback needed on both sides 

of the county road to safely recover the coal (including the 100-foot buffer zone) 

within the tract under Alternative 2 could be mined if the Campbell County Board 

of Commissioners (authorized agency) determines that the road can be moved [30 

CFR 761.11(d)]. CCC is currently evaluating the feasibility of relocating the road. 

CCC estimates that approximately 33.3 million tons of in-place coal is included 

within and south of the ROW and associated layback on both sides of the county 

road that is within the LBA tract under Alternative 2. 

The federal coal lands underlying the county road ROW and the adjacent buffer 

zone are included in the tract because that would allow maximum recovery of the 

mineable coal adjacent to but outside of the road rights-of-way and adjacent 

buffer zones if the road is not moved. It would also allow recovery of the coal 

under the road if it is moved. If a lease is issued for this tract, stipulations will be 

attached stating that no mining activity may be conducted within 100 feet of the 

road ROW until a permit to move the road is approved. 

CCC estimates that the Caballo West LBA tract under Alternative 2 includes 

approximately 131.4 million tons of in-place coal. If the Bishop Road is moved, 

CCC estimates that the tract contains approximately 105.5 million tons of 

mineable coal reserves. CCC assumes that about 93.5 percent of that coal (about 

98.6 million tons of coal) could be recovered from the tract, based on historical 

recovery practices. As a basis for estimating impacts, annual production is 

assumed to reach 39 mmtpy by 2015 and hold at that rate through 2020 to end of 

mine life. This results in an average production rate from 2008 to the end of mine 

life of 37.8 mmtpy. 

CCC estimates that the Caballo West LBA tract under Alternative 2 includes 

approximately 98.1 million tons of mineable coal reserves, if the Bishop Road is 

not moved. Excluding the federal coal reserves within and south of the Bishop 

Road ROW and buffer zone and the coal within the layback area, CCC estimates 

that the Caballo West LBA tract under Alternative 2 contains. Using CCC’s 

projected recovery factor of 93.5 percent of the mineable coal reserves included in 

BLM’s tract reconfiguration, the tract would contain about 91.7 million tons of 

recoverable coal. CCC estimates that under Alternative 2 at the estimated average 

annual coal production rate of 37.8 mmtpy, mining this coal would extend this 

mine life by just over 2 years. 

BLM independently evaluates the volume and average quality of the coal resources 

included in the tract offered for sale as part of the fair market value determination 

process. That estimate may not agree with the estimates provided by the 

applicant. BLM’s estimate of the mineable federal coal reserves and average 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 2-29 
2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives 

quality of coal included in the tract under Alternative 2 will be published in the 

sale notice for the tract if it is offered for sale. 

2.4 Alternatives for the Maysdorf II LBA Tract 

2.4.1 Maysdorf II LBA Tract Proposed Action 

Under the Proposed Action, the Maysdorf II LBA tract as applied for by CMC would 

be offered for lease at a sealed-bid, competitive lease sale, subject to standard and 

special lease stipulations developed for the PRB (appendix D). The boundaries of 

the tract would be consistent with the tract configuration proposed in the 

Maysdorf II lease application (figure 2-4). The Proposed Action assumes that CMC 

would be the successful bidder on the tract if it is offered for sale. 

The tract is divided into two discrete parcels hereafter referred to as the northern 

and southern blocks. The legal description of the proposed Maysdorf II LBA tract 

coal lease lands as applied for by CMC under the Proposed Action is as follows: 

T. 46 N., R. 71 W., 6th P.M., Campbell County, Wyoming 

Section 4: Lots 8, 9, 16, 17; 163.79 acres 

Section 5: Lots 5, 12, 13, 20; 165.03 acres 

Section 9: Lots 6 through 8; 122.86 acres 

Section 10: Lots 7 through 10; 162.62 acres 

Section 11: Lots 13 through 16; 161.87 acres 

Section 14: Lots 1 through 4; 161.69 acres 

Section 15: Lots 1 through 4; 162.59 acres 

T. 47 N., R. 71 W., 6th P.M., Campbell County, Wyoming 

Section 7: Lots 6 through 11, 14 through 19; 490.18 acres 

Section 17: Lots 1 through 15, and SW1⁄4NW1⁄4; 639.73 acres 

Section 18: Lots 5 through 14, 19, 20; 481.50 acres 

Section 20: Lots 1, 8, 9, 16; 154.31 acres 

Section 21: Lots 4, 5, 12, 13; 157.66 acres 

Section 28: Lots 4, 5, 12, 13; 165.80 acres 

Section 29: Lots 1, 8, 9, 16; 164.45 acres 

Section 32: Lots 1, 8, 9, 16; 162.94 acres 

Section 33: Lots 4, 5, 12, 13; 164.64 acres 

T. 47 N., R. 72 W., 6th P.M., Campbell County, Wyoming 

Section 12: Lots 1 through 16; 647.10 acres 

Section 13: Lots 1 through 8. 325.04 acres 

Total: 4,653.80 acres 

2-30 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives 

The land description and acreage are based on the BLM Status of Public Domain 

Land and Mineral Titles approved Coal Plats as of June 9, 2005, August 18, 2005, 

and April 10, 2006. The coal estate in the tract described above is federally owned 

and the surface estate is owned by the United States of America (administered by 

BLM); CMC; Cordero Rojo, Inc. (CRI); the Norma Duvall Trust; Earl Thrush, et al.; 

Western Railroad Properties, Inc.; Tony Hayden; Keidel Family LP; and Foundation 

Wyoming Land Company. Ownership of the oil and gas estate is discussed in 

section 3.11. 

Some of the coal in the Maysdorf II LBA tract as applied for is not currently 

considered to be mineable for various reasons. CMC estimates that approximately 

1.6 million tons of in-place coal reserves included in the tract are located under 

the Burlington Northern Santa Fe and Union Pacific (BNSF & UP) railroad ROW 

and an appropriate mining related offset. The coal underlying the ROW and offset 

is not considered to be mineable because the cost associated with moving the 

railroad would make it economically unfeasible to recover the underlying coal. 

A portion of Wyoming State Highway 59 and portions of the Haight Road 

(Campbell County Road 44) and the Hilight Road (Campbell County Road 52) 

overlie portions of the coal included in the tract. As discussed in section 1.1, the 

Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act prohibits mining within 100 feet on 

either side of the ROW of any public road (43 CFR 3461). The coal underlying 

these areas, associated ROWs, and the 100-foot buffer zones within the tract 

could be mined if Wyoming Department of Transportation (WYDOT) and the 

Campbell County Board of Commissioners, the authorized agencies, determine 

that the road can be moved [30 CFR 761.11(d)]. CMC does not have plans to 

relocate the highway at this time, but they are evaluating the feasibility of 

relocating the county roads. CMC estimates that approximately 3.0 million tons of 

mineable coal are included within the Wyoming 59 ROW and associated 100-foot 

buffer zone that is within the LBA tract. Approximately 17 million tons of 

mineable coal are included within the ROWs of the two county roads and 

associated 100-foot buffer zones within the LBA tract according to CMC. This 

amount also includes coal that would be isolated from mining if the county roads 

are not moved. 

The federal coal lands underlying the railroad ROW, Wyoming 59, the two county 

roads, their ROWS and the adjacent buffer zones are included in the tract because 

that would allow maximum recovery of the mineable coal adjacent to but outside 

of the railroad and road ROWs and adjacent buffer zones if they are not moved; 

and it would also allow recovery of the coal under these areas if they are moved. If 

a lease is issued for this tract, stipulations will be attached stating that no mining 

activity may be conducted within 100 feet of the road rights-of-way until permits 

to move the roads are approved. 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 2-31 
2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives 

In addition, a small portion of the Maysdorf II tract is located within a “no-coal” 

zone, where coal-forming sediments were either not deposited or were eroded away 

after deposition. 

If the county roads are moved, CMC estimates that the Maysdorf II LBA tract as 

applied for includes approximately 504.2 million tons of in-place coal and 

approximately 499.7 million tons of mineable coal reserves. CMC assumes that 

about 90 percent of that coal (about 449.8 million tons) could be recovered from 

the tract based on historical recovery practices. As a basis for estimating impacts, 

annual production is assumed to reach 48 mmtpy by 2015 and hold at that rate 

through 2020 to end of mine life. Future production rates are difficult to estimate 

since mines must increase or reduce rates in line with annual demand and 

competition for coal sales. BLM estimated future rates for the purpose of 

estimating impact using the Task 2 report for the Powder River Basin Coal Review 

Task 2 Report – Past and Present and Reasonably Foreseeable Development 

Activities (BLM 2005a). This results in an average production rate from 2008 to 

the end of mine life of 46.3 mmtpy. 

If the county roads are not moved, CMC estimates that the tract as applied for 

contains approximately 482.7 million tons of mineable coal reserves. About 90 

percent of that coal (about 434.5 million tons) of coal could be recovered according 

to CMC. CMC estimates that at the projected average annual coal production rate 

of 46.3 mmtpy, mining this coal would extend this mine life by just over 9 years. 

BLM independently evaluates the volume and average quality of the coal resources 

included in the tract offered for sale as part of the fair market value determination 

process. BLM’s estimate of the mineable federal coal reserves and average quality 

of the coal included in the tract may not agree with the mineable coal reserve and 

coal quality estimates provided by the applicant. BLM’s estimate of the mineable 

federal coal reserves and average quality of coal included in the tract will be 

published in the sale notice for the tract, if it is offered for sale. 

Cordero Rojo Mine is comprised of the former Cordero Mine and the contiguous 

former Caballo Rojo Mine. CMC worked with WDEQ/LQD to consolidate the 

Cordero and Caballo Rojo mining permits into a single mining permit for the 

Cordero Rojo Mine. WDEQ/LQD approved the permit consolidation (Permit 237­

T8) on March 26, 2007. 

The Maysdorf II LBA tract would be mined as an integral part of the Cordero Rojo 

Mine under the Proposed Action. Since the tract would be an extension of the 

existing Cordero Rojo Mine, the facilities and infrastructure would be the same as 

those identified in the WDEQ/LQD Mine Permit 237-T8 and the BLM R2P2, which 

was approved April 24, 2003. 

2-32 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
 

2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives 

CMC’s currently approved air quality permit from the WDEQ/AQD for the Cordero 

Rojo Mine allows up to 65 million tons of coal per year to be mined. The Cordero 

Rojo Complex (Cordero and Caballo Rojo combined) produced: 

• 43.5 million tons of coal in 2001, 

• 38.2 million tons of coal in 2002, 

• 36.1 million tons of coal in 2003, 

• 38.7 million tons of coal in 2004, 

• 37.8 million tons of coal in 2005, 

• 39.7 million tons of coal in 2006, and 

• 40.5 million tons of coal in 2007 

(Wyoming Department of Employment 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, and 

2006, CMC 2008). 

Under the currently approved mining plan (No Action alternative), the Cordero 

Rojo Mine would mine its remaining 525.9 million tons of recoverable coal 

reserves on the existing leases in just over 11 years at an average production rate 

of approximately 46.3 mmtpy. Under the Proposed Action and if the roads are 

moved, CMC estimates that annual coal production would average approximately 

46.3 million tons, mine life would be extended by nearly 10 additional years, and 

coal production at the mine would continue for over 21 years beyond mid 2008. If 

the road is not moved, CMC estimates that annual coal production would average 

approximately 46.3 million tons, mine life would be extended by just over 9 

additional years, and coal production at the Cordero Rojo Mine would continue for 

nearly 21 years beyond mid 2008. 

If CMC acquires the Maysdorf II LBA tract as applied for and if the roads are 

moved, they estimate that a total of 975.7 million tons of coal would be recovered 

after July 1, 2008, with an estimated 449.8 million tons coming from the LBA 

tract. As of June 30, 2008, approximately 769.3 million tons of coal had been 

mined from within the current permit area of the Cordero Rojo Mine. 

If CMC acquires the tract as applied for and if the roads are not moved, they 

estimate that a total of 960.4 million tons of coal would be recovered after July 1, 

2008, with an estimated 434.5 million tons coming from the LBA tract. 

Prior to disturbance and in advance of mining, mine support structures such as 

roads, power lines, substations, and flood and sediment control measures would 

be built as needed. The Belle Fourche River runs south to north through the 

existing Cordero Rojo Mine and through a small portion of the southern block of 

the LBA tract. Approximately 6 miles of the natural channel have been diverted to 

date within the mine’s current permit area. CMC would propose another diversion 

of the Belle Fourche River if they acquire a lease for the Maysdorf II LBA tract. It 

is assumed that overhead powerlines, buried telephone lines and buried pipelines 

will require relocation prior to mining. Site inventories are being performed to 

identify the significance of these structures. 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 2-33 
2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives 

Topsoil removal with suitable heavy equipment, such as rubber-tired scrapers, 

would proceed ahead of overburden removal. Whenever possible, direct haulage to 

a reclamation area would be done but, due to scheduling, some topsoil would be 

temporarily stockpiled. As outlined in the reclamation plan, heavy equipment 

again would be used to haul and distribute the stockpiled topsoil. 

The Cordero Rojo Mine is one of several mines currently operating in the PRB 

where the coal seams are notably thick and the overburden is relatively thin. 

Mining would be conducted in three separate, semi-independent pits; all three are 

currently located within the current permit boundary and would progress into the 

proposed lease area. The multi-pit concept has been and would be used to reduce 

operating costs by blending production from areas having different stripping ratios 

and coal quality, and also to help stabilize manpower requirements. Overburden 

removal has been and would continue to be conducted using trucks and shovels, 

draglines, and/or direct cast blasting. Other equipment used during overburden 

removal and backfilling would include dozers, scrapers, excavators, front-end 

loaders, graders, and water trucks. Most overburden and all coal have been and 

would continue to be drilled and blasted to facilitate efficient excavation. The 

design of the Cordero Rojo Mine seeks to confine disturbance to the active mine 

blocks. As overburden is removed, most would be directly placed into areas where 

coal has already been removed. 

Chapter 4, Section 2(b)(i) of the WDEQ/LQD Coal Rules requires that rough 

backfilling and grading follow coal removal as closely as possible based on the 

mining conditions (WDEQ/LQD 2005a). According to a recent OSM evaluation of 

the Wyoming coal mining industry, the 2007 reclamation to disturbance ratio was 

approximately 80 percent (12,258 acres reclaimed vs. 15,321 acres disturbed) 

(OSM 2008). Replaced (backfilled) overburden is graded to approximate original 

land surface contour, as required by WDEQ and OSM rules. Elevations consistent 

with an approved PMT plan would be established as quickly as possible to 

construct a stable landscape and restore drainage. Backfilled and recontoured 

overburden is sampled and analyzed to verify suitability as subsoil. Material that 

is found to be unsuitable for reclamation (i.e., material that is not suitable for use 

in reestablishing vegetation or that may affect groundwater quality due to high 

concentrations of certain constituents, such as selenium or adverse pH levels) 

would either be removed and treated, or adequately covered with suitable 

overburden material prior to topsoiling. Under certain conditions, the PMT may 

not be immediately achievable. This occurs when there is an excess of material 

that may require temporary stockpiling, when there is insufficient material 

available from current overburden removal operations, or when future mining 

could redisturb an area already mined. 

Once a seedbed has been prepared, vegetation that is consistent with the postmining land use would be reestablished. The reseeded area would be monitored 

to evaluate the success of revegetation growth and the establishment of a variety 

of plant species for a minimum of 10 years before final reclamation bond release. 

2-34 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives 

WDEQ/LQD requires that mining companies post a bond on all mining 

disturbance acres within their permit boundary that would cover the cost of 

completing reclamation. In order to meet the conditions for final bond release, the 

reclamation must have vegetative cover and production and plant species diversity 

equal to a predetermined native comparison (reference) area. The reclaimed area 

must have a shrub density of one per square meter over 20 percent of the area. It 

must also support the post-mining land use (grazing and wildlife), as determined 

by grazing trials and by monitoring wildlife use on the reclamation. This lengthy 

period required for final bond release means that the total acres listed as 

reclaimed likely includes areas completely reclaimed and areas in various stages 

of being reclaimed. 

Coal would be produced from one coal seam that CMC refers to as the Wyodak or 

the Wyodak-Anderson inside the mine permit area. Up to five noncoal splits or 

partings occur within the seam and they are typically local, discontinuous lenses 

of carbonaceous clay or shale that are less than 1 foot thick. The northern block of 

the Maysdorf II tract has a coal thickness of approximately 65 feet. The coal in 

the southern block is divided by a 2 foot parting with approximately 10 feet of coal 

above and 40 feet of coal below the parting. 

Coal would be mined at several working faces to enable blending of the coal to 

meet customer quality requirements, to comply with BLM lease requirements for 

maximum economic recovery of the coal resource, and to optimize coal removal 

efficiency with available equipment. Coal would be loaded with electric-powered 

shovels into off-highway haul trucks for transport to crushing facilities. Coal haul 

roads would be temporary structures built within the mine areas. The Cordero 

Rojo Mine uses two existing coal crushing facilities located within the mine permit 

area: north pit facility and the south plant facility. Both are located within the old 

CMC mine permit area, which provides the capacity to produce at the permitted 

level. A haulroad was permitted and constructed in 1997 to provide a direct route 

between the two coal processing plant facilities. All coal crushing operations and 

conveying, transferring, and storage facilities are equipped with atomizer/fogger 

systems for dust control. There are six existing coal storage silos (two at the north 

facility and four at the south facility) and a covered storage slot. While sufficient 

storage capacity exists, future changes in facilities may be constructed to improve 

operating efficiency and air quality protection. For example, a covered slot storage 

barn, covered dome, or other appropriate storage structures may be built. In 

addition, a covered overland conveyor and near-pit crusher system may be 

constructed and moved as the mining operation progresses. 

Full-time employment at the Cordero Rojo Mine is currently 510 persons. If CMC 

acquires the Maysdorf II LBA tract under the Proposed Action, they anticipate that 

employment levels would increase to 573 over the 10 additional years that it 

would take to mine the coal included in the tract. This assumes that the annual 

coal production rate would average approximately 46.3 mmtpy. 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 2-35 
 

2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives 

CMC applied for the tract, but the tract is also adjacent to the Belle Ayr Mine, 

operated by FCW (figure 1-5). As a result, FCW is in a position to mine a portion 

of the tract. If a company other than CMC was to acquire the tract, the rate of 

coal production, mining sequence, equipment, and facilities would be different 

than if CMC acquired the tract as a maintenance lease. However, the area of 

disturbance and the impacts of removing the coal would not be substantially 

different from the area of disturbance and the impacts of FCW mining the tract. 

2.4.2 Maysdorf II LBA Tract Alternative 1 

Under the No Action alternative, CMC’s application to lease the coal included in 

the Maysdorf 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. Under this alternative, the Cordero Rojo Mine would mine its remaining 

525.9 million tons of recoverable coal reserves on the existing Cordero Rojo leases 

in just over 11 years at an average production rate of approximately 46.3 mmtpy. 

Rejection of the application would not affect permitted mining activity and 

employment at the Cordero Rojo Mine. The mine currently leases approximately 

10,629 acres of federal coal, 2,000 acres of private coal, and 640 acres of state 

coal; all of which are within the existing mine permit boundaries. Approximately 

14,694 acres will eventually be affected in mining the current leases. If the 

Maysdorf II LBA tract is not leased, CMC estimates that the annual production at 

the mine after January 1, 2008 will average 46.3 million tons, and the average 

full-time employment level is expected to remain near 510 persons. 

In order to compare the economic and environmental consequences of mining 

these lands versus not mining them, this EIS assumes that the Maysdorf II LBA 

tract would not be mined in the foreseeable future under this alternative. 

However, selection of the No Action alternative would not preclude leasing and 

mining of this tract in the future. If the decision is made to reject the Maysdorf II 

lease application at this time, the tract could be leased as a maintenance lease in 

the future while the adjacent mine is in operation. If it is not leased while the 

existing adjacent mine is in operation, it may or may not be leased in the future. 

This tract is at the lower limits of having enough coal reserves to economically 

justify mining by a new operation; however, the coal reserves included in the tract 

could be combined with unleased federal coal to the west and south to create a 

larger tract, which could be mined by a new operation in the future. 

2.4.3 Maysdorf II LBA Tract Alternative 2 

Under Alternative 2 for the Maysdorf II LBA tract, BLM would reconfigure the 

tract, 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 this 

tract if it is offered for sale (appendix D). 

2-36 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives 

Alternative 2 assumes that CMC would be the successful bidder on the tract if a 

lease sale is held and that the tract would be mined as a maintenance lease for 

the Cordero Rojo Mine. Assumptions concerning mining methods, facilities, 

hazardous materials, mitigation and monitoring requirements, etc. are the same 

as described for the Proposed Action. 

As applied for, the tract consists of a two non-contiguous blocks of federal coal 

(figure 1-5). In order to evaluate the potential that an alternate configuration of 

the tract would provide for more efficient recovery of the federal coal, increase 

competitive interest in the Maysdorf II LBA tract, and reduce the potential that 

some of the remaining unleased federal coal in this area would be bypassed in the 

future, BLM identified a study area. The BLM study area includes the tract as 

applied for and unleased federal coal adjacent to the northern edge of the tract as 

applied for (figure 2-4). Under this alternative, BLM could add some or all of the 

adjacent land to the tract or BLM could reduce the size of the tract, as discussed 

in section 2.0. 

The area BLM is evaluating in addition to the tract as applied for includes the 

following lands: 

T.47N., R.72W., 6th P.M., Campbell County, Wyoming 

Section 1: Lots 9 through 13, and NW1⁄4SE1⁄4; 241.80 acres 

The legal description of BLM’s reconfiguration of the tract under Alternative 2 is as 

follows: 

T. 46 N., R. 71 W., 6th P.M., Campbell County, Wyoming 

Section 4: Lots 8, 9, 16, 17; 163.79 acres 

Section 5: Lots 5, 12, 13, 20; 165.03 acres 

Section 9: Lots 6 through 8; 122.86 acres 

Section 10: Lots 7 through 10; 162.62 acres 

Section 11: Lots 13 through 16; 161.87 acres 

Section 14: Lots 1 through 4; 161.69 acres 

Section 15: Lots 1 through 4; 162.59 acres 

T. 47 N., R. 71 W., 6th P.M., Campbell County, Wyoming 

Section 7: Lots 6 through 11, 14 through 19; 490.18 acres 

Section 17: Lots 1 through 15, and SW1⁄4NW1⁄4; 639.73 acres 

Section 18: Lots 5 through 14, 19, 20; 481.50 acres 

Section 20: Lots 1, 8, 9, 16; 154.31 acres 

Section 21: Lots 4, 5, 12, 13; 157.66 acres 

Section 28: Lots 4, 5, 12, 13; 165.80 acres 

Section 29: Lots 1, 8, 9, 16; 164.45 acres 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 2-37 
2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives 

Section 32: Lots 1, 8, 9, 16; 162.94 acres 

Section 33: Lots 4, 5, 12, 13; 164.64 acres 

T. 47 N., R. 72 W., 6th P.M., Campbell County, Wyoming 

Section 1: Lots 9 through 13, and NW1⁄4SE1⁄4; 241.80 acres 

Section 12: Lots 1 through 16; 647.10 acres 

Section 13: Lots 1 through 8. 325.04 acres 

Total: 4,895.60 acres 

The land description and acreage are based on the BLM Status of Public Domain 

Land and Mineral Titles approved Coal Plats as of June 9, 2005, August 18, 2005, 

and April 10, 2006. The coal estate in the tract described above is federal and the 

surface estate is owned by the United States of America (administered by BLM); 

CMC; CRI; the Norma Duvall Trust; Earl Thrush, et al.; Western Railroad 

Properties, Inc.; Tony Hayden; Keidel Family LP; and Foundation Wyoming Land 

Company. Ownership of the oil and gas estate is discussed in section 3.11. 

Some of the coal in the tract under this alternative is not currently considered to 

be mineable for various reasons. CMC estimates that approximately 1.6 million 

tons of in-place coal reserves included in the Maysdorf II LBA tract are located 

under the BNSF & UP railroad ROW and an appropriate safety offset. The coal 

underlying the ROW and offset is not considered to be mineable at this time 

because the cost associated with moving the railroad would make it economically 

unfeasible to recover the underlying coal. 

A portion of Wyoming 59 and portions of the Haight Road (Campbell County Road 

44) and the Hilight Road (Campbell County Road 52) overlie some of the coal 

included in the tract. As discussed in section 1.1, the Surface Mining Control and 

Reclamation Act prohibits mining within 100 feet on either side of the ROW of any 

public road (43 CFR 3461). The coal underlying the portions of the highway and 

county roads, their ROWs, and the 100-foot buffer zones within the Maysdorf II 

LBA tract could be mined if WYDOT and the Campbell County Board of 

Commissioners (authorized agencies) determine that the road can be moved [30 

CFR 761.11(d)]. CMC does not have plans to relocate the highway at this time but 

they are evaluating the feasibility of relocating the county roads. CMC estimates 

that approximately 3.9 million tons of mineable coal are included within the 

highway ROW and associated 100 foot buffer zone within the LBA tract. 

Approximately 17 million tons of mineable coal are included within the ROWs of 

the two county roads and associated 100-foot buffer zones that are within the LBA 

tract according to CMC estimates. 

The federal coal lands underlying the railroad, highway, county roads, and their 

rights-of-way and the adjacent buffer zones are included in the tract because that 

would allow maximum recovery of the mineable coal adjacent to but outside of 

2-38 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives 

those areas whether or not the railroad and roads are moved. If a lease is issued 

for this tract, stipulations will be attached stating that no mining activity may be 

conducted within 100 feet of road ROWs until permits to move the roads are 

approved. 

In addition, a small portion of the Maysdorf II tract is located within a “no-coal” 

zone, where coal-forming sediments were either not deposited or were eroded away 

after deposition. 

If the county roads are moved, CMC estimates that under Alternative 2 the 

Maysdorf II LBA tract includes approximately 533.2 million tons of in-place coal 

and approximately 527.5 million tons of mineable coal reserves. About 90 percent 

of that coal (about 474.7 million tons) could be recovered based on historical 

recovery practices. As a basis for estimating impacts, annual production is 

assumed to reach 48 mmtpy by 2015 and hold at that rate through 2020 to end of 

mine life. This results in an average production rate from 2008 to the end of mine 

life of 46.3 mmtpy. 

Under this alternative, if the county roads are not moved, CMC estimates that the 

tract includes approximately 533.2 million tons of in-place coal and approximately 

510.5 million tons of mineable coal reserves. About 90 percent of that coal (about 

459.5 million tons) could be recovered based on historical recovery practices. 

CMC estimates that at the projected average annual coal production rate of 46.3 

mmtpy, mining this coal would extend this mine life by nearly 10 years. 

BLM independently evaluates the volume and average quality of the coal resources 

included in the tract offered for sale as part of the fair market value determination 

process. BLM’s estimate of the mineable federal coal reserves and average quality 

of the coal may not agree with the mineable coal reserve and coal quality 

estimates provided by the applicant. BLM’s estimate of the mineable federal coal 

reserves and average quality of coal included in the tract will be published in the 

sale notice for the tract if it is offered for sale. 

In addition to those described in the Proposed Action, sediment control measures 

needed under Alternative 2 would include measures for Caballo Creek. While 

Caballo Creek is outside of the BLM study area, it would likely be disturbed due to 

overstripping to allow coal to be removed from the north block. Approximately 3.6 

miles of the natural channel have been diverted to date by FCW within the Belle 

Ayr Mine’s current permit area. CMC would propose another diversion of Caballo 

Creek if they acquire a lease for the Maysdorf II LBA tract. 

2.4.4 Maysdorf II LBA Tract Alternative 3 

Under Alternative 3 for the Maysdorf II LBA tract, BLM is considering adding all or 

part of the BLM study area to the tract as applied for and dividing the revised tract 

into two tracts and offering one or both of those tracts for sale. Under this 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 2-39 
2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives 

alternative, BLM could add all, part, or none of the adjacent lands to the tract or 

reduce the size of the tract, as discussed in section 2.0. A separate, competitive 

sealed bid sale would be held for each tract that is offered for sale. Each tract 

would be subject to standard and special lease stipulations developed for the PRB 

and for that tract (appendix D). Alternative 3, as described above, is BLM’s 

Preferred Alternative. 

If one or both of the tracts are offered for lease, this alternative assumes that CMC 

would be the successful bidder and that the federal coal would be mined to extend 

the life of the existing Cordero Rojo Mine. Assumptions concerning mining 

methods, facilities, hazardous materials, mitigation and monitoring requirements, 

etc. would be the same as described for the Proposed Action. 

As discussed under the Proposed Action and Alternative 2, the tract consists of 

two non-contiguous blocks of federal coal. Under Alternative 3, the North 

Maysdorf II LBA tract would consist of the northernmost one-half of the northern 

block of coal and the South Maysdorf II LBA tract would consist of the southern 

one-half of the northern block plus the southern block of coal (figure 2-4). 

As previously discussed, BLM has identified a study area which includes the tract 

as applied for and unleased federal coal adjacent to the northern edge of the tract 

as applied for (figure 2-4). 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 Maysdorf II LBA tract, and 

reduce the potential that some of the remaining unleased federal coal in this area 

would be bypassed in the future. Under this alternative, BLM could add all, part, 

or none of the adjacent lands to the tract or reduce the size of the tract, as 

discussed in section 2.0. The final delineation of the North Maysdorf II LBA tract 

will be made based on the outcome of any prior South Gillette Area tract sales that 

influence the competitive nature of the North Maysdorf II LBA. The lands that 

would be included in the north tract under Alternative 3 are: 

T. 47 N., R. 71 W., 6th P.M., Campbell County, Wyoming 

Section 7: Lots 6 through 11, 14 through 19; 490.18 acres 

Section 17: Lots 1 through 15, and SW1⁄4NW1⁄4; 639.73 acres 

Section 18: Lots 5 through 14, 19, 20; 481.50 acres 

T. 47 N., R. 72 W., 6th P.M., Campbell County, Wyoming 

Section 1: Lots 9 through 13, and NW1⁄4SE1⁄4; 241.80 acres 

Section 12: Lots 1 through 16; 647.10 acres 

Section 13: Lots 1 through 8; 325.04 acres 

Total: 2,825.35 acres 

2-40 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives 

The lands that would be included in the south tract under Alternative 3 are: 

T. 47 N., R. 71 W., 6th P.M., Campbell County, Wyoming 

Section 20: Lots 1, 8, 9, 16; 154.31 acres 

Section 21: Lots 4, 5, 12, 13; 157.69 acres 

Section 28: Lots 4, 5, 12, 13; 165.80 acres 

Section 29: Lots 1, 8, 9, 16; 164.45 acres 

Section 32: Lots 1, 8, 9, 16; 162.94 acres 

Section 33: Lots 4, 5, 12, 13; 164.64 acres 

T. 46 N., R. 71 W., 6th P.M., Campbell County, Wyoming 

Section 4: Lots 8, 9, 16, 17; 163.79 acres 

Section 5: Lots 5, 12, 13, 20; 165.03 acres 

Section 9: Lots 6 through 8; 122.86 acres 

Section 10: Lots 7 through 10; 162.62 acres 

Section 11: Lots 13 through 16; 161.87 acres 

Section 14: Lots 1 through 4; 161.69 acres 

Section 15: Lots 1 through 4. 162.59 acres 

Total: 2,070.28 acres 

The land description and acreage are based on the BLM Status of Public Domain 

Land and Mineral Titles approved Coal Plats as of June 9, 2005, August 18, 2005, 

and April 10, 2006. The coal estate in the tracts described above is federally 

owned and the surface estate is owned by the United States of America 

(administered by BLM); CMC; CRI; the Norma Duvall Trust; Earl Thrush, et al.; 

Western Railroad Properties, Inc.; Tony Hayden; Keidel Family LP; and Foundation 

Wyoming Land Company. Section 3.11 contains a discussion of ownership on the 

oil and gas estates. 

Some of the coal in the North Maysdorf II LBA tract under this alternative is not 

currently considered to be mineable for various reasons. A portion of Wyoming 

State Highway 59 overlies some of the coal included in the north tract. As 

discussed in section 1.1, Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act prohibits 

mining within 100 feet on either side of the ROW of any public road (43 CFR 

3461). The coal underlying the portion of the highway, its ROW, and the 100-foot 

buffer zone within the tract study area could be mined if WYDOT (authorized 

agency) determines that the road can be moved [30 CFR 761.11(d)]. CMC does not 

have plans to relocate the highway. CMC estimates that within the ROW and 

associated 100-foot buffer zone, the North Maysdorf II LBA tract contains 

approximately 3.9 million tons of mineable coal. 

Although these lands would not be mined, the federal coal lands underlying 

Wyoming 59, its ROW, and the adjacent buffer zone are included in the tract 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 2-41 
2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives 

because that would allow maximum recovery of the mineable coal adjacent to but 

outside of these areas whether or not the highway is moved. If a lease is issued 

for this tract, a stipulation stating that no mining activity may be conducted 

within 100 feet of the Wyoming 59 ROW until a permit to move the highway is 

approved will be attached. 

Under Alternative 3, CMC estimates that the North Maysdorf II LBA tract contains 

approximately 326.4 million tons of in-place coal and that approximately 322.5 

million tons of those in-place coal reserves are mineable. Using CMC’s projected 

recovery factor of 90 percent of the mineable coal reserves, the BLM study area 

would contain about 290.2 million tons of recoverable coal. CMC estimates that 

at the projected average annual coal production rate of 46.3 mmtpy, mining this 

coal would extend this mine life by just over 6 years. 

Some of the coal in South Maysdorf II LBA tract under this alternative is not 

currently considered to be mineable at this time. Under Alternative 3, CMC 

estimates that within the BNSF & UP railroad ROW, the South Maysdorf II LBA 

tract contains approximately 1.6 million tons of the mineable coal reserves. The 

coal underlying the ROW is not considered to be recoverable at this time because 

the cost that would be associated with moving the railroad would make it 

economically unfeasible to recover the underlying coal. 

Portions of the two county roads (Haight and Hilight) overlie some of the coal 

included in the South Maysdorf II LBA tract. As discussed in chapter 1, section 

1.1, the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act prohibits mining within 100 

feet on either side of the ROW of any public road (43 CFR 3461). The coal 

underlying portions of the Haight and Hilight roads, their rights-of-way, and the 

100-foot buffer zones could be mined if the Campbell County Board of 

Commissioners (authorized agency) determine that the road can be moved [30 

CFR 761.11(d)]. CMC is evaluating the feasibility of relocating the county roads. 

They estimate that approximately 17 million tons of mineable coal are included 

within the county road ROWs and associated 100-foot buffer zones that are within 

the South Maysdorf II LBA tract. 

The federal coal lands underlying the railroad, the Haight and Hilight roads, their 

ROWs and the adjacent buffer zones are included in the tract because that would 

allow maximum recovery of the mineable coal adjacent to but outside of those 

areas whether or not the railroad and roads are moved. If a lease is issued for this 

tract, stipulations will be attached stating that no mining activity may be 

conducted within 100 feet of road rights-of-way until permits to move the roads 

are approved. 

In addition, a small portion of the South Maysdorf II study area under Alternative 

3 is located within a “no-coal” zone, where coal-forming sediments were either not 

deposited or were eroded away after deposition. 

2-42 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives 

If the county roads are moved, CMC estimates that the tract includes 

approximately 206.8 million tons of in-place coal and approximately 205.0 million 

tons of mineable coal reserves. About 90 percent (184.5 million tons) of coal could 

be recovered from the South Maysdorf II LBA tract, based on historical recovery 

practices. CMC estimates that at the projected average annual coal production 

rate of 46.3 mmtpy, mining this coal would extend this mine life by 4 years. 

If the county roads are not moved, CMC estimates that under the South Maysdorf 

II LBA tract Alternative 3, the tract includes approximately 206.8 million tons of 

in-place coal and approximately 188.0 million tons of mineable coal reserves. 

About 90 percent of that coal (169.3 million tons) could be recovered from the 

South Maysdorf II LBA tract, based on historical recovery practices. CMC 

estimates that at the projected average annual coal production rate of 46.3 

mmtpy, mining this coal would extend this mine life by nearly 4 years. 

Under Alternative 3, CMC estimates that the annual coal production would 

average approximately 46.3 million tons, regardless of whether they acquire the 

Maysdorf II North Tract, the Maysdorf II South Tract, or both as maintenance 

leases for the Cordero Rojo Mine. The life of the mine would be extended by 

approximately 6 years, and the average number of employees would be 

approximately 518 persons if CMC acquires only the north tract. If CMC acquires 

only the Maysdorf II South tract as a maintenance lease, the life of the mine would 

be extended by approximately 4 years, and the average number of employees 

would be approximately 512 persons. 

BLM independently evaluates the volume and average quality of the coal resources 

included in the tracts offered for sale as part of the fair market value 

determination process. BLM’s estimate of the mineable federal coal reserves and 

average quality of the coal included in the tracts may not agree with the mineable 

coal reserve and coal quality estimates provided by the applicant. BLM’s estimate 

will be published in the sale notice for the tracts if they are offered for sale. 

Mine support structures needed under Alternative 3 would be similar to those 

needed under Alternative 2. 

2.5 Alternatives Considered but Not Analyzed in Detail 

2.5.1 New Mine Start 

Under this alternative, as under the Proposed Actions and Alternatives 2 and 3, 

BLM would hold a separate, competitive, sealed-bid sale for the lands included in 

each LBA tract. This alternative assumed that the successful qualified bidder for 

a tract would be someone other than the applicant and that this bidder would 

plan to open a new mine to develop the coal resources in one or more of the LBA 

tracts (Belle Ayr North, West Coal Creek, Caballo West, and Maysdorf II). 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 2-43 
 

2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives 

A company or companies acquiring this coal for one or more new stand-alone 

mines would require considerable initial capital expenses to construct new surface 

facilities (offices, shops, warehouses, coal processing facilities, coal loadout 

facilities, and rail spurs), extensive baseline data collection, and development of 

new mining and reclamation plans. In addition, a company or companies 

acquiring this coal for one or more new start mines would have to compete for 

customers with established mines in a competitive market. 

BLM currently estimates that a tract would need to include as much as 500 to 

600 million tons of coal in order to attract a buyer interested in opening a new 

mine in the Wyoming PRB. This is based on several assumptions. First, it is 

assumed that an operator would need to construct facilities capable of producing 

30 mmtpy in order to take advantage of the economies of scale offered by the coal 

deposits in the PRB. Secondly, it is assumed that 20 to 30 years of coal reserves 

would be needed to justify the expense of building the facilities described above. 

Given these assumptions, the Belle Ayr North, West Coal Creek, and Caballo West 

LBA tracts do not include sufficient coal resources to consider opening a new 

mine. It is unlikely that a company or companies would lease these LBA tracts in 

order to open a new mine. Even though the Maysdorf II LBA tract contains more 

than the estimated tons of coal to attract an interested buyer, it is unlikely that a 

company would undertake the expense of opening a new mine in the area. 

The potential difficulty in obtaining an air quality permit is another issue that 

could discourage new mine starts in the PRB. A new mine would create a new 

source of air quality impacts. As discussed in chapter 3, 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. 

In order to obtain a construction permit, an operator may be required to 

demonstrate that the proposed activities will not increase air pollutant levels 

above annual standards established by the Wyoming Air Quality Standards and 

Regulations, which can be found on the internet at 

http://deq.state.wy.us/aqd/standards.asp. From 2001 through 2006, there were 

29 monitored exceedances of the 24-hour PM10 standard at seven operating mines 

in the Wyoming PRB. Nineteen of these exceedances occurred in 2001 and 2002, 

while two, three, five, and zero exceedances occurred in 2003, 2004, 2005, and 

2006, respectively. In 2007, there were six exceedances at three operating PRB 

surface coal mines. None of the exceedances to date have occurred at the Belle 

Ayr, Coal Creek, Caballo, or Cordero Rojo mines. Although many of these 

exceedances have been attributed to high winds, concerns about future potential 

exceedances of the Nation Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) may make it 

more difficult for an operator planning on opening a new mine to demonstrate that 

new operations would not result in air pollution levels that are above annual 

Wyoming standards. 

2-44 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
 

2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives 

In view of the issues discussed above, development of new mines on one or more 

of the LBA tracts included in this EIS is considered unlikely and this alternative is 

not analyzed in detail in this EIS. 

The environmental impacts of developing one or more new mines to recover the 

coal resources in one or more of these LBA tracts would be greater than under the 

Proposed Action, the No Action alternative, or Alternatives 2 or 3 because of the 

need for new facilities, new rail lines, new employment, and the creation of 

additional sources of particulates (dust). In the event that one or more lease sales 

are held and the applicants are not the successful bidder(s), the successful 

bidder(s) would be required to submit detailed mining and reclamation plans for 

approval before any of the tract(s) could be mined. This NEPA analysis would be 

reviewed and supplemented as necessary prior to approval of those mining and 

reclamation plans. 

2.5.2 Delaying the Sale 

Under this alternative, BLM would delay the sale of an LBA tract as applied for. 

The prices received for coal from the PRB have generally been increasing in recent 

years. If that trend continues, the bonus and royalty payments to the government 

might be higher if the tract is offered for sale later. Also, delaying the sale of one 

or more of the tracts would allow CBNG resources to be more completely recovered 

prior to mining. Under this alternative, it is assumed that a tract could be 

developed later as either a maintenance tract or a new start mine, depending on 

how long the sale was delayed. 

There is no assurance at this time that delaying the sale would result in a higher 

coal price or a higher bonus bid. Coal shipments in Wyoming and other states 

were limited during much of 2005 because of damage to railroad tracks. These 

shipping constraints combined with increasing world energy demands and natural 

disasters in other parts of the country led to large increases in coal prices in 2005. 

Rail capacity increased in 2006 and prices have moderated in 2006 and 2007. 

There are two major sources of revenue to state and federal governments from 

leasing and mining federal coal: 1) the competitive bonus bid paid at the time the 

coal is leased, and 2) federal and state royalties and taxes collected when the coal 

is sold. 

If coal prices do increase, the fair market value of the coal resources in the LBA 

tracts could increase, which could result in an increased bonus bid if the coal is 

leased later. However, postponing a lease sale would not necessarily lead to 

higher royalty or tax income to the state and federal governments. Royalty and 

tax payments are the larger of the two revenue sources and they increase 

automatically when coal prices increase because they are collected at the time the 

coal is sold. They cannot be collected until the coal is leased and permitted, which 

takes several years. If leasing is delayed, by the time the coal is mined, the higher 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 2-45 
2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives 

coal prices may or may not persist. If the higher coal prices do persist, they may 

enable the coal lessee to negotiate longer term contracts at higher prices, which 

would result in longer term, higher royalty, and tax revenues. On the other hand, 

if an existing mine runs out of coal reserves before prices rise, it would have to 

shut down before additional coal could be leased and permitted for mining. Under 

this scenario, the fair market value of the coal could actually decrease because the 

added expense of reopening a mine or starting a new mine would have to be 

factored into the fair market value. 

Other considerations include the value of leaving the mineable coal for future 

development versus the value of making low-sulfur coal available now, in 

anticipation of cleaner fuel sources being developed in the future. Continued 

leasing of PRB coal enables coal-fired power plants to meet CAA requirements 

without constructing new plants, revamping existing plants, or switching to 

existing alternative fuels, which may significantly increase power costs for 

individuals and businesses. If cleaner fuel sources are developed in the future, 

they could be phased in with less economic impact to the public. 

A range of the potential future economic benefits of delaying leasing until coal 

prices rise could be quantified in an economic analysis, but the benefits would 

have to be discounted to the present, which would make them similar to the 

Proposed Action and Alternatives 2 and 3. 

CBNG resources are currently being recovered from oil and gas leases on all four 

LBA tracts. There are several mechanisms in place that can be used to allow 

continuing recovery of the CBNG resources prior to mining if the federal coal in 

the tracts is leased now. These include: 

•	 BLM can attach a Multiple Mineral Development stipulation to each lease. 

This gives BLM the authority to withhold approval of coal mining operations 

that would interfere with the development of mineral leases issued prior to 

the coal lease. 

•	 Mining of each LBA tract cannot occur until the coal lessee has a permit to 

mine the tract approved by the WDEQ/LQD and a Mineral Leasing Act of 

1920 (MLA) mining plan approved by the Secretary of the Interior. Before 

the MLA mining plan can be approved, BLM must approve the R2P2 for 

mining the tract. Prior to approving the R2P2, BLM can review the status of 

CBNG development on the tract and the mining sequence proposed by the 

coal lessee. The permit approval process generally takes the coal lessee 

several years. This would allow time for a large portion of the CBNG 

resources to be recovered from each tract. 

•	 BLM has a policy in place on CBNG-coal conflicts (BLM Instruction 

Memorandum No. 2006-153) that directs BLM decision makers to optimize 

2-46 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives 

the recovery of both resources and ensure that the public receives a 

reasonable return (BLM 2006a). 

This alternative was not analyzed in detail because it would not produce 

substantially different impacts from other alternatives analyzed in detail. Rental 

and royalty provisions in each proposed lease provide for the U.S. to benefit if coal 

prices increase by the time of mining. Moreover, recovery of a large portion of the 

economically-recoverable CBNG resources on the tracts would be anticipated after 

lease issuance because of the mechanisms discussed above. The environmental 

impacts of mining the coal later as part of an existing mine would be expected to 

be similar and about equal to the Proposed Action and Alternatives 2 and 3 for 

each LBA tract. If a new mine is required to mine the coal, the environmental 

impacts would be expected to be greater than if each tract were mined as an 

extension of an existing mine. 

2.6 Regulatory Compliance, Mitigation, and Monitoring 

SMCRA and Wyoming State law require surface coal mines to collect extensive 

baseline information and implement extensive monitoring programs and 

mitigation measures. The currently approved permits to conduct mining 

operations for the Belle Ayr, Coal Creek, Caballo, and Cordero Rojo mines include 

these requirements. Monitoring programs and mitigation measures that are 

required by regulation are considered part of the Proposed Action and the action 

alternatives considered in this EIS for the tracts. These data collection 

requirements, mitigation plans, and monitoring plans are in place for the No 

Action alternative as part of the current approved mining permit for the existing 

Belle Ayr, Coal Creek, Caballo, and Cordero Rojo mines. These requirements 

would be extended to include mining operations on the Belle Ayr North, West Coal 

Creek, Caballo West, and Maysdorf II LBA tracts if they are leased and permitted 

for mining. A mining and reclamation plan would have to be approved for each 

tract before mining would be permitted regardless of who acquires the tract. The 

major mitigation and monitoring measures that are required by state or federal 

regulation are summarized in table 2-1. More specific information about some of 

these mitigation and monitoring measures and their results at each mine are 

described in chapter 3. 

If impacts are identified during the leasing process that are not mitigated by 

existing required mitigation measures, BLM can require additional mitigation 

measures in the form of stipulations on the new lease, within the limits of its 

regulatory authority. In general, the levels of mitigation and monitoring required 

for surface coal mining by SMCRA and Wyoming State law are more extensive 

than those required for other surface disturbing activities; however, concerns are 

periodically identified that are not monitored or mitigated under existing 

procedures. 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 2-47 
2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives 

Table 2-1. Regulatory Compliance, Mitigation and Monitoring Measures for Surface Coal Mining 

SMCRA and State Law for all Alternatives. 

Regulatory Compliance or Mitigation Required by 

Resource Stipulations, State or Federal Law1 

Topography & Physiography 

Restoring to approximate original contour or other approved topographic configuration. 

Geology & Minerals Identifying & selectively placing or mixing chemically or physically unsuitable overburden 

materials to minimize adverse effects to vegetation or groundwater. 

Soils Salvaging soil suitable to support plant growth for use in reclamation; 

Protecting soil stockpiles from disturbance and erosional influences; Selectively placing at least four feet of suitable overburden on the graded backfill surface below replaced topsoil to meet guidelines for vegetation root zones. 

Air Quality Dispersion modeling of mining plans for annual average particulate pollution impacts on 

ambient air; Using particulate pollution control technologies; Using work practices designed to minimize fugitive particulate emissions; 

Using EPA- or state-mandated BACT, including: 

Fabric filtration or wet scrubbing of coal storage silo and conveyor vents, 

Watering or using chemical dust suppression on haul roads and exposed soils, 

Containment of truck dumps and primary crushers, Covering of conveyors, Prompt revegetation of exposed soils, 

High efficiency baghouse dust collection systems or PECs, or atomizers/foggers on the crusher, conveyor transfer, storage bin and train loadout, meeting a standard of 0.01 grains per dry standard cubic foot (dscf) of exit volume, 

Watering of active work areas, Reclamation plan to minimize surface disturbances subject to wind erosion, 

Paving of access roads, 

Haul truck speed limits, Limited material drop heights for shovels and draglines. 

WDEQ/Lapprovereport.
 WDEQ/Ladvance overburdMonitorireclaimesoil ameSamplincomplianOn-site 

and/or TOff-site 

and/or TOn-site 

These requirements, mitigation plans, and monitoring plans are in place for the existing Belle Ayr, Coal Creek, Caballo, and Cordero Rojo mines in reclamation plans (the No Action alternatives). If the tracts were leased, these requirements, mitigation plans, and monitoring plans would be part tracts that must be approved before mining can occur on the tracts under the Proposed Action and Alternatives. 

2-48 Final EIS, South Gillette Area 

1 
2.0 Propose

Table 2-1. Regulatory Compliance, Mitigation and Monitoring Measures for Surface Coal Mining 

SMCRA and State Law for all Alternatives (Continued). 

Regulatory Compliance or Mitigation Required by 

Resource Stipulations, State or Federal Law1 

Air Quality (continued) Following voluntary and required measures to avoid exposing the public to NO2 from 

blasting clouds, including: 

Phone notification of neighbors and workers prior to blasting, Monitoring weather and atmospheric conditions prior to decisions to blast, 

Timing blasts to avoid temperature inversions and to minimize inconvenience to neighbors, 

Closing public roads when appropriate to protect the public, Minimizing blast sizes, Posting signs on major public roads. 

Surface Water Building and maintaining sediment control ponds or other devices during mining; 

Restoring approximate original drainage patterns during reclamation; Restoring stock ponds and playas during reclamation. 

MonitorsedimenMonitorMonitorquality. 

Groundwater Quantity Evaluating cumulative impacts to water quantity associated with proposed mining; 

Replacing existing water rights that are interrupted, discontinued, or diminished by mining with water of equivalent quantity. 

Monitoroverburunderbu

Groundwater Quality 

Evaluating cumulative impacts to water quality associated with proposed mining; Replacing existing water rights that are interrupted, discontinued, or diminished by mining with water of equivalent quality. 

Monitoroverburunderbu

Alluvial Valley Floors 

Identifying all AVFs that would be affected by mining; Determining significance to agriculture of all identified AVFs affected by mining (WDEQ); Protecting downstream AVFs during mining; Restoring essential hydrologic function of all AVFs affected by mining. 

Monitoressentiadeclared 

Wetlands Identifying all wetlands that would be affected by mining; 

Identifying jurisdictional wetlands (COE); Replacing all jurisdictional wetlands that would be disturbed by mining; Replacing functional wetlands as required by surface managing agency, surface landowner, or WDEQ/LQD. 

Monitorusing saidentify wetland

These requirements, mitigation plans, and monitoring plans are in place for the existing Belle Ayr, Coal Creek, Caballo, and Cordero Rojo mines in reclamation plans (the No Action alternatives). If the tracts were leased, these requirements, mitigation plans, and monitoring plans would be part tracts that must be approved before mining can occur on the tracts under the Proposed Action and Alternatives. 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 2-49 

1 
2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives 

Table 2-1. Regulatory Compliance, Mitigation and Monitoring Measures for Surface Coal Mining 

SMCRA and State Law for all Alternatives (Continued). 

Regulatory Compliance or Mitigation Required by 

Resource Stipulations, State or Federal Law1 

Vegetation Permanently revegetating reclaimed areas according to a comprehensive revegetation plan 

using approved permanent reclamation seed mixtures consisting predominantly of 

species native to the area; Reclaiming 20 percent of reclaimed area with native shrubs at a density of one per square meter; Controlling erosion on reclaimed lands prior to seeding with final seed mixture using mulching, cover crops, or other approved measures; Chemically and mechanically controlling weed infestation; Direct hauling of topsoil; Selectively planting shrubs in riparian areas; Planting sagebrush; Creating depressions and rock piles; Using special planting procedures around rock piles; Posting reclamation bond covering the cost of reclamation. 

Monitordiversity reclamayears); Monitorneed for establisUse of crevegetasuitabil

Wildlife and Sensitive Species 

Restoring pre-mining topography to the maximum extent possible; Planting a diverse mixture of grasses, forbs, and shrubs in configurations beneficial to wildlife; Designing fences to permit wildlife passage; Raptor-proofing power transmission poles; Using raptor-safe power lines Creating artificial raptor nest sites; Increasing habitat diversity by creating rock clusters and shallow depressions on reclaimed land; 

BaselinmonitorMonitorof Mana

Cottonwood plantings along reclaimed drainages; Replacing drainages, wetlands, and AVFs disturbed by mining; Reducing vehicle speed limits to minimize mortality; Instructing employees not to harass or disturb wildlife; Following approved raptor mitigation plans. Avoiding bald eagle disturbance; Restoring bald eagle foraging areas disturbed by mining; Restoring mountain plover habitat disturbed by mining; Surveying for mountain plover; Surveying for black-tailed prairie dog. 

These requirements, mitigation plans, and monitoring plans are in place for the existing Belle Ayr, Coal Creek, Caballo, and Cordero Rojo mines in reclamation plans (the No Action alternatives). If the tracts were leased, these requirements, mitigation plans, and monitoring plans would be part tracts that must be approved before mining can occur on the tracts under the Proposed Action and Alternatives. 

2-50 Final EIS, South Gillette Area 

1 
2.0 Propose

Table 2-1. Regulatory Compliance, Mitigation and Monitoring Measures for Surface Coal Mining 

SMCRA and State Law for all Alternatives (Continued). 

Regulatory Compliance or Mitigation Required by 

Resource Stipulations, State or Federal Law1 

Threatened, Endangered, Surveying for Ute ladies'-tresses; Baselin

Proposed, Searching for black-footed ferrets if prairie dog colonies are on or move onto tract; monitorand Candidate Same as Wildlife Resource and Sensitive Species above. Species Land Use Suitably restoring reclaimed area for historic uses (grazing and wildlife); Monitor

to bond 

Cultural Conducting Class I & III surveys to identify cultural properties on all state and federal MonitorResources lands and on private lands affected by federal undertakings; topsoil 

Consulting with the Wyoming State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) to evaluate activitie

eligibility of cultural properties for the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP); authori

Avoiding or recovering data from significant cultural properties identified by surveys, encounaccording to an approved plan; Notifying appropriate federal personnel if historic or prehistoric materials are uncovered during mining operations; Instructing employees of the importance of and regulatory obligations to protect cultural 

resources. 

Native Notifying Native American tribes with known interest in this area of leasing action and No spec

American requesting help in identifying potentially significant religious or cultural sites. Concerns Paleontological Notifying appropriate federal personnel if potentially significant paleontological sites are No specResources discovered during mining. Visual Restoring landscape character during reclamation through return to approximate No specResources original contour and revegetation with native species. Noise Protecting employees from hearing loss. MSHA iTransportation Facilities Relocating existing pipelines, if necessary, in accordance with specific agreement No spec

between pipeline owner and coal lessee. 

Socioeconomics Paying royalty and taxes as required by federal, state, and local regulations. Surveyi

No mitigation measures are proposed. volume 

These requirements, mitigation plans, and monitoring plans are in place for the existing Belle Ayr, Coal Creek, Caballo, and Cordero Rojo mines in reclamation plans (the No Action alternatives). If the tracts were leased, these requirements, mitigation plans, and monitoring plans would be part tracts that must be approved before mining can occur on the tracts under the Proposed Action and Alternatives. 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 2-51 

1 
1 

2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives 

Table 2-1. Regulatory Compliance, Mitigation and Monitoring Measures for Surface Coal Mining 

SMCRA and State Law for all Alternatives (Continued). 

Regulatory Compliance or Mitigation Required by 

Resource Stipulations, State or Federal Law1 

Hazardous & Solid Waste Disposing of solid waste and sewage within permit boundaries according to approved No specia

plans; required Storing and recycling waste oil; response Maintaining of files containing Material Safety Data Sheets for all chemicals, compounds, and/or substances used during course of mining; Ensuring that all production, use, storage, transport, and disposal of hazardous 

materials is in accordance with applicable existing or hereafter promulgated federal, 

state, and government requirements; Complying with emergency reporting requirements for releases of hazardous materials as established in CERCLA, as amended; Preparing and implementing spill prevention control and countermeasure plans, spill 

response plans, inventories of hazardous chemical categories pursuant to Section 312 of SARA, as amended; Preparing emergency response plans. 

These requirements, mitigation plans, and monitoring plans are in place for the existing Belle Ayr, Coal Creek, Caballo, and Cordero Rojo mines in reclamation plans (the No Action alternatives). If the tracts were leased, these requirements, mitigation plans, and monitoring plans would be part tracts that must be approved before mining can occur on the tracts under the Proposed Action and Alternatives. 

2-52 Final EIS, South Gillette Area 
2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives 

2.7 Hazardous and Solid Waste 

Under the Proposed Action and action alternatives for each LBA tract, the 

procedures and requirements for handling hazardous and solid wastes would be 

the same as the procedures and requirements for the existing mining operations. 

Solid waste that is produced at the existing Belle Ayr, Coal Creek, Caballo, and 

Cordero Rojo mines consists of floor sweepings, shop rags, empty lubricant 

containers, welding rod ends, metal shavings, worn tires, packing material, used 

filters, and office and food wastes. A portion of the solid wastes produced at the 

mines is disposed of within the mines’ permit boundaries in accordance with 

WDEQ-approved solid waste disposal plans. Solid waste from the Belle Ayr, 

Caballo, and Cordero Rojo mines is also disposed of at the Campbell County 

landfill. Sewage is handled by WDEQ-permitted sewage systems present at the 

existing mine facilities. Maintenance and lubrication of most of the equipment 

takes place at shop facilities at the mines. Major lubrication, oil changes, etc. of 

most equipment are performed inside the service building lubrication bays at the 

four mines, where used oil and grease are contained and deposited in storage 

tanks. All of the collected used oils and grease are then recycled off site or used 

for energy recovery, including, at some of the mines, blending with diesel fuel oil 

for use as equipment fuel. These practices would not change if the applicants 

acquire the LBA tracts. 

FCW, TBCC, CCC and CMC have reviewed the EPA’s Consolidated List of 

Chemicals Subject to Reporting Under Title III of the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) of 1986 (as amended) and EPA’s List of Extremely 

Hazardous Substances as defined in 40 CFR 355 (as amended) for hazardous 

substances used at their mining operations. 

FCW, TBCC, CCC, and CMC maintain files containing Material Safety Data Sheets 

for all chemicals, compounds, and substances that are or would be used during 

mining. FCW, TBCC, CCC, and CMC are responsible for ensuring that all 

production, use, storage, transport, and disposal of hazardous and extremely 

hazardous materials because of mining are in accordance with all applicable 

existing or hereafter promulgated federal, state, and local government rules, 

regulations, and guidelines. All mining activities involving the production, use, 

and disposal of hazardous or extremely hazardous materials are and would 

continue to be conducted so as to minimize potential environmental impacts. 

FCW, TBCC, CCC, and CMC must comply with emergency reporting requirements 

for release of hazardous materials. Any release of hazardous or extremely 

hazardous substances in excess of the reportable quantity (40 CFR 117), is 

reported as required by Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, 

and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA), as amended. The materials for which such 

notification must be given are the extremely hazardous substances listed in 

Section 302 of the Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act and 

the hazardous substances designated under Section 102 of CERCLA, as amended. 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 2-53 
2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives 

If a reportable quantity of a hazardous or extremely hazardous substance is 

released, immediate notice must be given to the WDEQ Emergency Response 

Coordinator. 

Each mining company is expected to prepare and implement several plans and/or 

policies to ensure environmental protection from hazardous and extremely 

hazardous materials. These plans/policies include: 

•	 Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure plans; 

•	 Spill Response plans; 

•	 Stormwater Pollution Prevention plans; 

•	 Inventories of Hazardous Chemical Categories Pursuant to Section 313 of 

the Superfund Amendments and Re-authorization Act (SARA) of 1986, as 

Amended; and 

•	 Emergency Response plans. 

All mining operations are also required to be in compliance with regulations 

promulgated under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, Federal Water 

Pollution Control Act (Clean Water Act), Safe Drinking Water Act, Toxic 

Substances Control Act, Mine Safety and Health Act, Department of 

Transportation, and the Federal Clean Air Act. In addition, mining operations 

must comply with all attendant state rules and regulations relating to hazardous 

material reporting, transportation, management, and disposal. 

Compliance with these rules is the current practice at the Belle Ayr, Coal Creek, 

Caballo, and Cordero Rojo mines. Acquisition of the LBA tracts by the applicants 

would not change these current practices nor the type and quantity of any wastes 

generated and disposed of by the mines. 

2.8 Summary of Alternatives and Environmental Consequences 

2.8.1 Background 

The decision-making process for public lands in Wyoming is conducted in 

compliance with NEPA, which requires all federal agencies to involve interested 

publics in their decision-making, consider reasonable alternatives to the proposed 

actions, develop measures to mitigate environmental impacts, and prepare 

environmental documents that disclose the impacts of proposed actions and 

alternatives. 

This EIS analyzes in detail different alternatives for the Belle Ayr North, West Coal 

Creek, Caballo West, and Maysdorf II LBA tracts described in the discussion 

above. 

2-54 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives 

2.8.2 	Summary of Alternatives 

The Belle Ayr North, West Coal Creek, Caballo West, and Maysdorf II LBA tracts 

under the Action alternatives are shown on figures 2-1 through 2-4, respectively. 

A summary comparison of projected coal production, surface disturbance, mine 

life, and federal and state revenues for the alternatives for the tracts are presented 

in tables 2-2 through 2-8, respectively. 

Table 2-9 presents a comparative summary of the direct and indirect 

environmental impacts of implementing each alternative as compared to the No 

Action alternative for all four LBA tracts. Each No Action alternative assumes 

completion of currently permitted mining at the applicant mine compared to 

anticipated mining if the associated LBA tract is leased. Table 2-10 compares the 

cumulative environmental impacts of implementing each alternative for the four 

LBA tracts. The environmental consequences of the Proposed Action and 

Alternatives 2 and 3 are analyzed in chapters 3 and 4. These summary impact 

tables are derived from the following explanation of impacts and magnitude. 

NEPA requires all agencies of the federal government to include, in every 

recommendation or report on proposals for legislation and other major federal 

actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment, a detailed 

statement by the responsible official on: 

(i) 	 the environmental impact of the Proposed Action, 

(ii) 	 any adverse environmental effects which cannot be avoided should the 

proposal be implemented, 

(iii) alternatives to the Proposed Action, 

(iv)	 the relationship between local short-term uses of man’s environment and 

the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity, and 

(v)	 any irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources which would 

be involved in the Proposed Action should it be implemented (42 USC '

4332[C]). 

Impacts can be beneficial or adverse, and they can be a primary result of an 

action (direct) or a secondary result (indirect). They can be permanent, long-term 

(persisting beyond the end of mine life and reclamation) or short-term (persisting 

during mining and reclamation and through the time the reclamation bond is 

released). Impacts also vary in terms of significance. The basis for conclusions 

regarding significance are the criteria set forth by the Council on Environmental 

Quality (40 CFR 508.27) and the professional judgment of the specialists doing the 

analyses. Impact significance may range from negligible to substantial; impacts 

can be significant during mining but reduced to insignificant following completion 

of reclamation. 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 2-55 
2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives 

Table 2-2. 	 Summary Comparison of Coal Production, Surface Disturbance, Mine Life, and Reven

LBA Tract and Belle Ayr Mine if the Bishop Road (Campbell County Road 12) is Moved ais Recovered. 

No Action Alternative Added by 

Item (Existing Belle Ayr Mine) Proposed Action In-Place Coal (as of 6/30/08) 250.9 mmt 208.1 mmt 

Mineable Coal (as of 6/30/08) 250.9 mmt 204.2 mmt 

Recoverable Coal (as of 6/30/08)1 235.8 mmt 191.9 mmt 

Coal Mined (as of 6/30/08) 544.5 mmt  Lease Area2 4,945.5 ac 1,578.7 ac 

Total Area To Be Disturbed2 11,621 ac 1,936.6 ac 

Permit Area2 11,935 ac 1,727 ac 

Current Air Quality Permitted Production 45.0 mmt 0 mmt 

Average Annual Post-2007 Coal Production 30.0 mmt 0 mmt 

Remaining Life of Mine (post-2007) 8.3 yrs 6.4 yr 

Average Number of Employees 358 8 

Total Projected State Revenues (post-2007)3 $382.9 million $342.2 – $410.7 million 

Total Projected Federal Revenues (post-2007)4 $283.6 million $261.5 – $329.9 million 

1	 Assumes 94 percent recovery of mineable coal. 2 	 The lease area includes federal coal leases only and does not include state and private coal within the permit boundary. The disturbed a

federal, state and private) because of the need for highwall reduction, topsoil removal, and other mine support activities outside the leaslarger than the leased or disturbed area to assure that all disturbed lands are within the permit boundary and to allow an easily defin

3	 Revenues to the state of Wyoming include severance taxes, property and production (Ad Valorum) taxes, sales and use taxes, and W

payments, AML fees, and bonus bids. State revenues are based on $0.4312 per ton estimate for severance taxes  amount of recoverable for Ad Valorum taxes  amount of recoverable coal, plus $0.0569 per ton estimate for sales and use taxes  amount of recoverable coal8,400-Btu coal) price  amount of recoverable coal  federal royalty of 12.5 percent minus federal’s 50 percent share, plus $0.28 per ton focoal minus federal’s 50 percent share, plus bonus payment on LBA leased coal of $0.30 to $0.97 per ton (based on the range of bonus psold in 2004, 2005, 2008, and 2009)  amount of mineable coal minus federal’s 50 percent share. These figures could change based on thchanged the percent of distribution to states. 

4	 Federal revenues include black lung taxes and the federal government’s share of federal royalty payments, AML fees, and bonus bids. Fed

per ton (projected for 8,400-Btu coal) price  amount of recoverable coal  black lung tax of 4.40 percent, plus $9.98 per ton (for 8,400-Btu coal  federal royalty of 12.5 percent minus state’s 50 percent share, plus $0.28 per ton for AML fees  amount of recoverable coal minus stpayment on LBA leased coal of $0.30 to $0.97 per ton (based on the range of bonus payments made for the last 9 LBAs sold in 2004, 20mineable coal minus state’s 50 percent share. These figures could change based on the outcome of recent legislation that changed the pegovernment. 

2-56 Final EIS, South Gillette Area 
2.0 Propose

Table 2-3. 	 Summary Comparison of Coal Production, Surface Disturbance, Mine Life, and Reven

LBA Tract and Belle Ayr Mine if the Bishop Road (Campbell County Road 12) is Not MoCoal is Not Recovered. 

No Action Alternative Added by 

Item (Existing Belle Ayr Mine) Proposed Action In-Place Coal (as of 6/30/08) 250.9 mmt 208.1 mmt 

Mineable Coal (as of 6/30/08) 250.9 mmt 164.7 mmt 

Recoverable Coal (as of 6/30/08)1 235.8 mmt 154.8 mmt 

Coal Mined (as of 6/30/08) 544.5 mmt  Lease Area2 4,945.5 ac 1,578.7 ac 

Total Area To Be Disturbed2 11,621 ac 1,274.9 ac 

Permit Area2 11,935 ac 1,727 ac 

Current Air Quality Permitted Production 45.0 mmt 0 mmt 

Average Annual Post-2007 Coal Production 30.0 mmt 0 mmt 

Remaining Life of Mine (post-2007) 8.3 yrs 5.2 yr 

Average Number of Employees 358 8 

Total Projected State Revenues (post-2007)3 $382.9 million $276.1 – $331.3 million 

Total Projected Federal Revenues (post-2007)4 $283.6 million $210.9 – $266.1 million 

1	 Assumes 94 percent recovery of mineable coal. This table excludes all coal that is beneath the Bishop County Road ROW. 2 	 The lease area includes federal coal leases only and does not include state and private coal within the permit boundary. The disturbed a

federal, state and private) because of the need for highwall reduction, topsoil removal, and other mine support activities outside the leaslarger than the leased or disturbed area to assure that all disturbed lands are within the permit boundary and to allow an easily defin

3	 Revenues to the state of Wyoming include severance taxes, property and production (Ad Valorum) taxes, sales and use taxes, and W

payments, AML fees, and bonus bids. State revenues are based on $0.4312 per ton estimate for severance taxes  amount of recoverable for Ad Valorum taxes  amount of recoverable coal, plus $0.0569 per ton estimate for sales and use taxes  amount of recoverable coal8,400-Btu coal) price  amount of recoverable coal  federal royalty of 12.5 percent minus federal’s 50 percent share, plus $0.28 per ton focoal minus federal’s 50 percent share, plus bonus payment on LBA leased coal of $0.30 to $0.97 per ton (based on the range of bonus psold in 2004, 2005, 2008, and 2009)  amount of mineable coal minus federal’s 50 percent share. These figures could change based on thchanged the percent of distribution to states. 

4	 Federal revenues include black lung taxes and the federal government’s share of federal royalty payments, AML fees, and bonus bids. Fed

per ton (projected for 8,400-Btu coal) price  amount of recoverable coal  black lung tax of 4.40 percent, plus $9.98 per ton (for 8,400-Btu coal  federal royalty of 12.5 percent minus state’s 50 percent share, plus $0.28 per ton for AML fees  amount of recoverable coal minus stpayment on LBA leased coal of $0.30 to $0.97 per ton (based on the range of bonus payments made for the last 9 LBAs sold in 2004, 20mineable coal minus state’s 50 percent share. These figures could change based on the outcome of recent legislation that changed the pegovernment. 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 2-57 
2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives 

Table 2-4. Summary Comparison of Coal Production, Surface Disturbance, Mine Life, and Reven

Creek LBA Tract and Coal Creek Mine. 

No Action Alternative Added by 

Item (Existing Coal Creek Mine) Proposed Action In-Place Coal (as of 6/30/08) 241.7 mmt 63.3 mmt 

Mineable Coal (as of 6/30/08) 241.7 mmt 63.3 mmt 

Recoverable Coal (as of 6/30/08)1 217.5 mmt 57.0 mmt 

Coal Mined (as of 6/30/08) 68.9 mmt  

Lease Area2 5,918.0 ac 1,151.3 ac 

Total Area To Be Disturbed2 8,354.9 ac 1,925.4 ac 

Permit Area2 9,722.7 ac 3,162 ac 

Current Air Quality Permitted Production 25.0 mmt 0 mmt 

Average Annual Post-2007 Coal Production 13.4 mmt 0 mmt 

Remaining Life of Mine (post-2007) 16.2 yrs 4.3 yr 

Average Number of Employees 150 10 

Total Projected State Revenues (post-2007)3 $353.2 million $102.1 – $123.3 million 

Total Projected Federal Revenues (post-2007)4 $261.6 million $78.1 - $99.3 million 

1	 Assumes 90 percent recovery of mineable coal. 2 	 The lease area includes federal coal leases only and does not include state and private coal within the permit boundary. The disturbed a

federal, state and private) because of the need for highwall reduction, topsoil removal, and other mine support activities outside the leaslarger than the leased or disturbed area to assure that all disturbed lands are within the permit boundary and to allow an easily defin

3	 Revenues to the state of Wyoming include severance taxes, property and production (Ad Valorum) taxes, sales and use taxes, and W

payments, AML fees, and bonus bids. State revenues are based on $0.4312 per ton estimate for severance taxes  amount of recoverable for Ad Valorum taxes  amount of recoverable coal, plus $0.0569 per ton estimate for sales and use taxes  amount of recoverable coal8,400-Btu coal) price  amount of recoverable coal  federal royalty of 12.5 percent minus federal’s 50 percent share, plus $0.28 per ton focoal minus federal’s 50 percent share, plus bonus payment on LBA leased coal of $0.30 to $0.97 per ton (based on the range of bonus psold in 2004, 2005, 2008, and 2009)  amount of mineable coal minus federal’s 50 percent share. These figures could change based on thchanged the percent of distribution of mineral royalties to states. 

4	 Federal revenues include black lung taxes and the federal government’s share of federal royalty payments, AML fees, and bonus bids. Fed

per ton (projected for 8,400-Btu coal) price  amount of recoverable coal  black lung tax of 4.40 percent, plus $9.98 per ton (for 8,400-Btu coal  federal royalty of 12.5 percent minus state’s 50 percent share, plus $0.28 per ton for AML fees  amount of recoverable coal minus stpayment on LBA leased coal of $0.30 to $0.97 per ton (based on the range of bonus payments made for the last 9 LBAs sold in 2004, 20mineable coal minus state’s 50 percent share. These figures could change based on the outcome of recent legislation that changed the royalties to the federal government. 

2-58 Final EIS, South Gillette Area 
2.0 Propose

Table 2-5. 	 Summary Comparison of Coal Production, Surface Disturbance, Mine Life, and Reven

Tract and Caballo Mine if the Bishop Road (Campbell County Road 12) is Moved and Recovered. 

No Action Alternative Added by 

Item (Existing Caballo Mine) Proposed Action In-Place Coal (as of 6/30/08) 893.7 mmt 98.2 mmt Mineable Coal (as of 6/30/08) 687.8 mmt 87.5 mmt 

Recoverable Coal (as of 6/30/08)1 584.8 mmt 81.8 mmt 

Coal Mined (as of 6/30/08) 510.4 mmt  

Lease Area2 11,704.5 ac 777.5 ac 

Total Area To Be Disturbed2 16,898.0 ac 1,349.9 ac 

Permit Area2 19,974.7 ac 1,294.1 ac Current Air Quality Permitted Production 50.0 mmt 0 mmt 

Average Annual Post-2007 Coal Production 37.8 mmt 0 mmt 

Remaining Life of Mine (post-2007) 15.4 yrs 2.2 yr 

Average Number of Employees 549 0 

Total Projected State Revenues (post-2007)3 $949.6 million $146.0 – $175.3 million 

Total Projected Federal Revenues (post-2007)4 $703.4 million $111.5 - $140.8 million 

1	 Assumes 93.5 percent recovery of mineable coal. 2 	 The lease area includes federal coal leases only and does not include state and private coal within the permit boundary. The disturbed a

federal, state and private) because of the need for highwall reduction, topsoil removal, and other mine support activities outside the leaslarger than the leased or disturbed area to assure that all disturbed lands are within the permit boundary and to allow an easily defin

3	 Revenues to the state of Wyoming include severance taxes, property and production (Ad Valorum) taxes, sales and use taxes, and W

payments, AML fees, and bonus bids. State revenues are based on $0.4312 per ton estimate for severance taxes  amount of recoverable for Ad Valorum taxes  amount of recoverable coal, plus $0.0569 per ton estimate for sales and use taxes  amount of recoverable coal8,400-Btu coal) price  amount of recoverable coal  federal royalty of 12.5 percent minus federal’s 50 percent share, plus $0.28per ton focoal minus federal’s 50 percent share, plus bonus payment on LBA leased coal of $0.30 to $0.97 per ton (based on the range of bonus psold in 2004, 2005, 2008, and 2009)  amount of mineable coal minus federal’s 50 percent share. These figures could change based on thchanged the percent of distribution of mineral royalties to states. 

4	 Federal revenues include black lung taxes and the federal government’s share of federal royalty payments, AML fees, and bonus bids. Fed

per ton (projected for 8,400-Btu coal) price  amount of recoverable coal  black lung tax of 4.40 percent, plus $9.98 per ton (for 8,400-Btu coal  federal royalty of 12.5 percent minus state’s 50 percent share, plus $0.28 per ton for AML fees  amount of recoverable coal minus stpayment on LBA leased coal of $0.30 to $0.97 per ton (based on the range of bonus payments made for the last 9 LBAs sold in 2004, 20mineable coal minus state’s 50 percent share. These figures could change based on the outcome of recent legislation that changed the royalties to the federal government. 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 2-59 
2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives 

Table 2-6. 	 Summary Comparison of Coal Production, Surface Disturbance, Mine Life, and Reven

Tract and Caballo Mine if the Bishop Road (Campbell County Road 12) is Not Moved anNot Recovered. 

No Action Alternative Added by 

Item (Existing Caballo Mine) Proposed Action In-Place Coal (as of 6/30/08) 893.7 mmt 98.2 mmt Mineable Coal (as of 6/30/08) 687.8 mmt 87.5 mmt Recoverable Coal (as of 6/30/08)1 584.8 mmt 81.8 mmt 

Coal Mined (as of 6/30/08) 510.4 mmt  

Lease Area2 11,704.5 ac 777.5 ac 

Total Area To Be Disturbed2 16,898.0 ac 1,213.0 ac 

Permit Area2 19,974.7 ac 1,294.1 ac Current Air Quality Permitted Production 50.0 mmt 0 mmt 

Average Annual Post-2007 Coal Production 37.8 mmt 0 mmt 

Remaining Life of Mine (post-2007) 15.4 yrs 2.2 yr 

Average Number of Employees 549 0 

Total Projected State Revenues (post-2007)3 $949.6 million $146.0 – $175.3 million 

Total Projected Federal Revenues (post-2007)4 $703.4 million $111.5 - $140.8 million 

1	 Assumes 93.5 percent recovery of mineable coal. This table excludes all coal beneath the Bishop County Road ROW. 2 	 The lease area includes federal coal leases only and does not include state and private coal within the permit boundary. The disturbed a

federal, state and private) because of the need for highwall reduction, topsoil removal, and other mine support activities outside the leaslarger than the leased or disturbed area to assure that all disturbed lands are within the permit boundary and to allow an easily defin

3	 Revenues to the state of Wyoming include severance taxes, property and production (Ad Valorum) taxes, sales and use taxes, and W

payments, AML fees, and bonus bids. State revenues are based on $0.4312 per ton estimate for severance taxes  amount of recoverable for Ad Valorum taxes  amount of recoverable coal, plus $0.0569 per ton estimate for sales and use taxes  amount of recoverable coal8,400-Btu coal) price  amount of recoverable coal  federal royalty of 12.5 percent minus federal’s 50 percent share, plus $0.28 per ton focoal minus federal’s 50 percent share, plus bonus payment on LBA leased coal of $0.30 to $0.97 per ton (based on the range of bonus psold in 2004, 2005, 2008, and 2009)  amount of mineable coal minus federal’s 50 percent share. These figures could change based on thchanged the percent of distribution of mineral royalties to states. 

4	 Federal revenues include black lung taxes and the federal government’s share of federal royalty payments, AML fees, and bonus bids. Fed

per ton (projected for 8,400-Btu coal) price  amount of recoverable coal  black lung tax of 4.40 percent, plus $9.98 per ton (for 8,400-Btu coal  federal royalty of 12.5 percent minus state’s 50 percent share, plus $0.28 per ton for AML fees  amount of recoverable coal minus stpayment on LBA leased coal of $0.30 to $0.97 per ton (based on the range of bonus payments made for the last 9 LBAs sold in 2004, 20mineable coal minus state’s 50 percent share. These figures could change based on the outcome of recent legislation that changed the royalties to the federal government. 

2-60 Final EIS, South Gillette Area 
2.0 Propose

Table 2-7. 	 Summary Comparison of Coal Production, Surface Disturbance, Mine Life, and Reve

Tract, Assuming Wyoming 59 and the BNSF & UP Railroad are Not Moved and the Recovered and if the Haight and Hilight Roads are Moved and the Underlying Coal is R

. 

A

No Action Alternative Added by Added by (P

Item (Existing Cordero Rojo Mine) Proposed Action Alternative 2 (North T

In-Place Coal (as of 6/30/08) 572.9 mmt 504.2 mmt 533.2 mmt 326.4 m

Mineable Coal (as of 6/30/08) 571.5 mmt 499.7 mmt 527.5 mmt 322.5 m

Recoverable Coal (as of 6/30/08)1 525.9 mmt 449.8 mmt 474.7 mmt 290.2 m

Coal Mined (as of 6/30/08) 769.3 mmt    

Lease Area2 10,629.1 ac 4,653.8 ac 4,895.6 ac 2,825.

Total Area To Be Disturbed2 14,694.0 ac 6,675.0 ac 6,917.3 ac 3,429.

Permit Area2 16,910.6 ac 16,832.4 ac 16,832.4 ac 6,850.

Current Air Quality Permitted Production 65.0 mmt 0 mmt 0 mmt 0 mm

Average Annual Post-2007 Coal Production 46.3 mmt 0 mmt 0 mmt 0 mm

Remaining Life of Mine 11.4 yrs 9.7 yr 10.3 yr 6.3 y

(post-2007)
 Average Number of Employees 510 63 63 8 

Total Projected State Revenues (post-2007)3 $854.0 million $805.4 – $972.7 $850.1 - $1026.9 $519.6 - 

million million millio

Total Projected Federal Revenues (post- $632.6 million $616.0 - $783.4 $650.2 - $827.0 $397.4 - 

2007)4 million million millio

1	 Assumes 90 percent recovery of mineable coal. This table excludes all coal that would not be mined beneath the Wyoming 59 ROW and 2 	 The lease area includes federal coal leases only and does not include state and private coal within the permit boundary. The disturbed 

federal, state and private) because of the need for highwall reduction, topsoil removal, and other mine support activities outside the lease bthan the leased or disturbed area to assure that all disturbed lands are within the permit boundary and to allow an easily defined legal 

3	 Revenues to the state of Wyoming include severance taxes, property and production (Ad Valorum) taxes, sales and use taxes, and Wyoming

AML fees, and bonus bids. State revenues are based on $0.4312 per ton estimate for severance taxes  amount of recoverable coal, plus $0.taxes  amount of recoverable coal, plus $0.0569 per ton estimate for sales and use taxes  amount of recoverable coal, plus $9.98 per ton (

amount of recoverable coal  federal royalty of 12.5 percent minus federal’s 50 percent share, plus $0.28 per ton for AML fees  amount of 

percent share, plus bonus payment on LBA leased coal of $0.30 to $0.97 per ton (based on the range of bonus payments made for the last 9 2009)  amount of mineable coal minus federal’s 50 percent share. These figures could change based on the outcome of recent legisdistribution of mineral royalties to states. 

4	 Federal revenues include black lung taxes and the federal government’s share of federal royalty payments, AML fees, and bonus bids. Fede

ton (projected for 8,400-Btu coal) price  amount of recoverable coal  black lung tax of 4.40 percent, plus $9.98 per ton (for 8,400-Btu coal) federal royalty of 12.5 percent minus state’s 50 percent share, plus $0.28 per ton for AML fees  amount of recoverable coal minus state’s 50 on LBA leased coal of $0.30 to $0.97 per ton (based on the range of bonus payments made for the last 9 LBAs sold in 2004, 2005, 2008, anminus state’s 50 percent share. These figures could change based on the outcome of recent legislation that changed the percent of distributgovernment. 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 2-61 
2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives 

Table 2-8. 	 Summary Comparison of Coal Production, Surface Disturbance, Mine Life, and Reven

Tract, Assuming Wyoming 59, the Haight and Hilight Roads, and the BNSF & UP Railrthe Underlying Coal is Not Recovered. 

A

No Action Alternative Added by Added by (P

Item (Existing Cordero Rojo Mine) Proposed Action Alternative 2 (North T

In-Place Coal (as of 6/30/08) 572.9 mmt 504.2 mmt 533.2 mmt 326.4 m

Mineable Coal (as of 6/30/08) 571.5 mmt 482.7 mmt 510.5 mmt 322.5 m

Recoverable Coal (as of 6/30/08)1 525.9 mmt 434.5 mmt 459.5 mmt 290.2 m

Coal Mined (as of 6/30/08) 769.3 mmt    

Lease Area2 10,629.1 ac 4,653.8 ac 4,895.6 ac 2,825.

Total Area To Be Disturbed2 14,694.0 ac 6,200.8 ac 6,422.5 ac 3,353.

Permit Area2 16,910.6 ac 16,832.4 ac 16,832.4 ac 6,850.

Current Air Quality Permitted Production 65.0 mmt 0 mmt 0 mmt 0 mm

Average Annual Post-2007 Coal Production 46.3 mmt 0 mmt 0 mmt 0 mm

Remaining Life of Mine 11.4 yrs 9.4 yr 9.9 yr 6.3 y

(post-2007)
 Average Number of Employees 510 60 63 8 

Total Projected State Revenues (post-2007)3 $854.0 million $778.0 – $939.7 $822.8 - $993.7 $519.6 - 

million million millio

Total Projected Federal Revenues (post- $632.6 million $595.1 - $756.7 $629.3 - $800.3 $397.4 - 

2007)4 million million millio

1	 Assumes 90 percent recovery of mineable coal. This table excludes all coal that would not be mined beneath the Wyoming 59 ROW, BNSF 

and Hilight Roads rights-of-way. 

2 	 The lease area includes federal coal leases only and does not include state and private coal within the permit boundary. The disturbed 

federal, state and private) because of the need for highwall reduction, topsoil removal, and other mine support activities outside the lease bthan the leased or disturbed area to assure that all disturbed lands are within the permit boundary and to allow an easily defined legal 

3	 Revenues to the state of Wyoming include severance taxes, property and production (Ad Valorum) taxes, sales and use taxes, and Wyoming

AML fees, and bonus bids. State revenues are based on $0.4312 per ton estimate for severance taxes  amount of recoverable coal, plus $0.taxes  amount of recoverable coal, plus $0.0569 per ton estimate for sales and use taxes  amount of recoverable coal, plus $9.98 per ton (

amount of recoverable coal  federal royalty of 12.5 percent minus federal’s 50 percent share, plus $0.28 per ton for AML fees  amount of 

percent share, plus bonus payment on LBA leased coal of $0.30 to $0.97 per ton (based on the range of bonus payments made for the last 9 2009)  amount of mineable coal minus federal’s 50 percent share. These figures could change based on the outcome of recent legisdistribution of mineral royalties to states. 

4	 Federal revenues include black lung taxes and the federal government’s share of federal royalty payments, AML fees, and bonus bids. Fede

ton (projected for 8,400-Btu coal) price  amount of recoverable coal  black lung tax of 4.40 percent, plus $9.98 per ton (for 8,400-Btu coal) federal royalty of 12.5 percent minus state’s 50 percent share, plus $0.28 per ton for AML fees  amount of recoverable coal minus state’s 50 on LBA leased coal of $0.30 to $0.97 per ton (based on the range of bonus payments made for the last 9 LBAs sold in 2004, 2005, 2008, anminus state’s 50 percent share. These figures could change based on the outcome of recent legislation that changed the percent of distributgovernment. 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area 
2.0 Propose

Table 2-9. 	 Summary Comparison of Magnitude1 and Duration of Direct and Indirect Impacts for t

Alternatives 2 and 3 and the No Action Alternative for the Belle Ayr North, West Coal CrMaysdorf II LBA Tracts2. 

DESCRIPTION OF POTENTIAL IMPACT BY RESOURCE 	 MAGNITUDE AND DURATION OF IMPA

PRO

RESOURCE NAME NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE AL

TOPOGRAPHY & PHYSIOGRAPHY (Applicable for all four tracts) Lower surface elevation Moderate, permanent on existing mine areas Same as No 

Permanent topographic moderation, which could result in:  Microhabitat reduction Moderate, long term on existing mine areas Same as No 

Habitat diversity reduction Moderate, long term on existing mine areas Same as No 

Big game carrying capacity reduction Moderate, long term on existing mine areas Same as No 

Reduction in water runoff and peak flows Moderate, beneficial, long term on existing mine areas Same as No 

Increased precipitation infiltration Moderate, beneficial, long term on existing mine areas Same as No 

Reduction in erosion Moderate, beneficial, long term on existing mine areas Same as No 

Potential enhanced vegetative productivity Moderate, beneficial, long term on existing mine areas Same as No 

Potential acceleration of groundwater recharge Moderate, beneficial, long term on existing mine areas Same as No 

Diversion of the Belle Fourche River and Caballo Creek during Moderate, beneficial, long term on existing mine areas Same as No 

mining GEOLOGY AND MINERALS (Applicable for all four tracts) Removal of coal Moderate, permanent on existing mine areas Same as No 

Removal and replacement of topsoil and overburden Moderate, permanent on existing mine areas Same as No 

Physical characteristic alterations in replaced overburden Moderate, permanent on existing mine areas Same as No 

Loss of unrecovered CBNG though venting and/or depletion of Minor to moderate, permanent on existing mine areas Same as No hydrostatic pressure Loss of access for development of sub-coal oil and gas resources Moderate, short term on existing mine areas Same as No 

and other minerals Destruction of paleontological resources that are not exposed on Moderate, permanent on the existing mine areas Same as No 

the surface AIR QUALITY (Applicable for all four tracts) Particulate Emissions: 

Elevated concentrations associated with projected average Moderate, short term for existing approved mining Same as No 

production of 13 to 46 mmtpy in compliance with ambient operations years 

standard 

Potential for public exposure to particulate emissions along Minor to moderate, short term for existing approved Same as No 

Wyo 59 and in occupied dwellings and businesses in area mining operations years 

Potential for human health impacts as a result of exposure to 

particulate emissions Minor to moderate, short term for existing approved Same as No 

mining operations years 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 2-63 
2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives 

Table 2-9. 	 Summary Comparison of Magnitude1 and Duration of Direct and Indirect Impacts for t

Alternatives 2 and 3 and the No Action Alternative for the Belle Ayr North, West Coal CrMaysdorf II LBA Tracts2 (Continued). 

DESCRIPTION OF POTENTIAL IMPACT BY RESOURCE 	 MAGNITUDE AND DURATION OF IMPA

PRO

RESOURCE NAME NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE AL

AIR QUALITY (Continued) NOx Emissions from Machinery: 

Elevated concentrations associated with average production 

of 13 to 46 mmtpy in compliance with ambient standard 

Potential for public exposure to NOx emissions from 

machinery along Wyo 59, various county roads, and for occupied dwellings and businesses located in area 

Potential for human health impacts as a result of exposure to 

NOx emissions 

NOx Emissions from Blasting in Compliance with Belle Ayr, Coal 

Creek , Caballo, and Cordero Rojo Mine Permit Blasting Conditions: 

Potential for public exposure 

Potential for human health impacts as a result of exposure to NOx emissions 

Visibility: 

Elevated concentrations of fine particulate matter associated with average production of 13 to 46 mmtpy 

Acidification of Lakes: 

SO2 emissions derived from burning Belle Ayr, Caballo, Coal 

Creek, and Cordero Rojo coal to produce power 

WATER RESOURCES (Applicable for all four tracts) Groundwater 

Removal of coal and overburden aquifers Replacement of existing coal and overburden with unconsolidated backfill material Depressed water levels in overburden and coal aquifers adjacent to mine Change in hydraulic properties in backfilled areas Increase in TDS concentrations in backfilled areas Use of subcoal aquifers for water supply 

Moderate, short term for existing approved mining operations Moderate, short term for existing approved mining operations a Moderate, short term for existing approved mining operations No projected events No projected events Moderate, short term for existing approved mining operations Moderate, short term in vicinity of power plants Moderate, short term on existing mine areas Moderate, permanent on existing mine areas Moderate, short to long term on existing mine and surrounding area Negligible, long term on existing mine areas Moderate, long term on existing mine areas Negligible, short term on existing mine and surrounding area 

Same as No years Same as No years Same as No years Same as No years Same as No years Same as No years Same as No from 2 to 10 Same as No Same as No Same as No surrounding Same as No Same as No Same as No years 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area 
2.0 Propose

Table 2-9. 	 Summary Comparison of Magnitude1 and Duration of Direct and Indirect Impacts fo

and Alternatives 2 and 3 and the No Action Alternative for the Belle Ayr North, West West, and Maysdorf II LBA Tracts2 (Continued). 

DESCRIPTION OF POTENTIAL IMPACT BY RESOURCE 	 MAGNITUDE AND DURATION OF IMPA

PRO

RESOURCE NAME NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE AL

WATER RESOURCES (Continued) Surface Water 

Diversion and disruption of surface drainage systems, particularly to a portion of the Belle Fourche River Reconstruction of surface drainage systems Increased runoff and erosion rates on disturbed lands due to vegetation removal Increased infiltration on reclaimed lands due to topographic moderation Increased runoff on reclaimed lands due to loss of soil structure Potential for adverse downstream effects as a result of sediment produced by large storms 

Water Rights 

Disruption of water supply for water-rights holders with wells 

completed in the coal or overburden aquifer within the fivefoot drawdown area or with surface water rights within the disturbance area 

ALLUVIAL VALLEY FLOORS (Applicable for all four tracts) While final determinations have not been made by WDEQ/LQD, it is believed that there are no AVFs significant to agriculture on the 

proposed lease tracts Removal and restoration of AVFs determined not to be significant to agriculture Disruptions to streamflows supplying downstream AVFs WETLANDS
 (Applicable for all four tracts) 
Removal of jurisdictional wetlands and loss of wetland function until reclamation occurs Removal of non-jurisdictional wetlands and loss of wetland function until reclamation occurs 

Moderate, short term on existing mine areas Permanent on existing mine areas Moderate, short term on existing mine areas Moderate, beneficial, long term on existing mine areas Moderate, long term on existing mine areas Moderate, long term for existing approved mining operations Minor to moderate, long term on existing mine and surrounding area Moderate, short term on existing leases Negligible, short term on existing leases Moderate, short term on existing leases; jurisdictional wetlands would be replaced as required under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act Moderate, short term to long term on existing leases; non-jurisdictional wetlands would be replaced as required by the surface land owner or WDEQ/LQD 

Same as No Same as No Same as No Same as No Same as No Same as No operations Same as No surrounding Same as No Same as No Same as No Same as No 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 2-65 
2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives 

Table 2-9. 	 Summary Comparison of Magnitude1 and Duration of Direct and Indirect Impacts fo

and Alternatives 2 and 3 and the No Action Alternative for the Belle Ayr North, West West, and Maysdorf II LBA Tracts2 (Continued). 

DESCRIPTION OF POTENTIAL IMPACT BY RESOURCE 	 MAGNITUDE AND DURATION OF IMPA

PRO

RESOURCE NAME NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE AL

SOILS (Applicable for all four tracts) Changes in physical properties after reclamation: 

Increased near-surface bulk density and decreased soil Moderate, long term on existing mine areas Same as No 

infiltration rate resulting in increased potential for soil erosion More uniformity in soil type, thickness, and texture Moderate, beneficial, long term on existing mine areas Same as No Decreased runoff due to topographic modification Moderate, beneficial, long term on existing mine areas Same as No 

Changes in biological properties in soils that are stockpiled before reclamation: 

Reduction in organic matter Moderate, long term on existing mine areas Same as No 

Reduction in microorganism population Moderate, long term on existing mine areas Same as No 

Reduction in seeds, bulbs, rhizomes, and live plant parts Moderate, long term on existing mine areas Same as No 

Changes in chemical properties: 

More uniform soil nutrient distribution Moderate, beneficial, long term on existingmine areas Same as No 

VEGETATION (Applicable for all four tracts) During mining: 

Progressive removal of existing vegetation Moderate, short term on existing mine areas Same as No 

Increased erosion Moderate, short term on existing mine areas Same as No 

Wildlife habitat and livestock grazing loss Moderate, short term on existing mine areas Same as No 

After revegetation: 

Changes in vegetation patterns Negligible, long term on existing mine areas Same as No 

Reduction in vegetation diversity Negligible, long term on existing mine areas Same as No 

Reduction in shrub density Moderate, long term on existing mine areas Same as No 

Decreased big game habitat carrying capacity Moderate, long term on existing mine areas Same as No 

Decreased habitat for shrub dependent species Moderate, long term on existing mine areas Same as No 

Potential invasion of non-native plant species Moderate, short term on existing mine areas Same as No 

WILDLIFE (Applicable for all four tracts) Displacement of all wildlife from active mining areas Moderate, short term on existing mine areas Same as No 

Increased competition on adjacent undisturbed or reclaimed Moderate, short term on adjacent areas Same as No 

lands, especially big game Restriction of wildlife movement, especially big game Moderate, short term on existing mine areas Same as No 

Increased mortality of small mammals Moderate, short term on existing mine areas Same as No 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area 
2.0 Propose

Table 2-9. 	 Summary Comparison of Magnitude1 and Duration of Direct and Indirect Impacts fo

and Alternatives 2 and 3 and the No Action Alternative for the Belle Ayr North, West West, and Maysdorf II LBA Tracts2 (Continued). 

DESCRIPTION OF POTENTIAL IMPACT BY RESOURCE RESOURCE NAME 

WILDLIFE (Continued) (Applicable for all four tracts) Surface and noise disturbance of active sage-grouse leks Disturbance of sage-grouse nesting and wintering habitat during mining Loss of sage-grouse nesting habitat after reclamation Alteration of plant and animal communities after reclamation Abandonment of raptor nests Loss of foraging habitat for raptors Loss of nesting and foraging habitat for Migratory Birds of Management Concern Reduction in waterfowl resting and feeding habitat Loss of habitat for aquatic species, amphibians, and reptiles during mining Road kills by mine-related traffic Reduction in habitat carrying capacity and habitat diversity on reclaimed lands Potential reduction in microhabitats on reclaimed lands Localized avoidance of foraging areas by big game THREATENED, ENDANGERED, PROPOSED, AND CANDIDATE SPECIES Belle Ayr North-(See Appendix E) Black-footed ferrets Blowout Penstemon Ute ladies’-tresses West Coal Creek-(See Appendix E) Black-footed ferrets Blowout Penstemon Ute ladies’-tresses Caballo West-(See Appendix E) Black-footed ferrets Blowout Penstemon Ute ladies’-tresses Maysdorf II-(See Appendix E) Black-footed ferrets Blowout Penstemon Ute ladies’-tresses 

MAGNITUDE AND DURATION OF IMPA

PRO

NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE AL

Moderate, short to long term on existing mine areas Same as No Moderate, short term on existing mine areas Same as No Moderate, long term on existing mine areas Same as No Negligible, short term on existing mine areas Same as No Negligible, short term on existing mine areas Same as No Negligible, short to long term on existing mine areas Same as No Negligible, short to long term on existing mine areas Same as No Negligible, short term on existing mine areas Same as No Negligible, short term on existing mine areas Same as No Moderate, long term on existing mine areas Same as No Moderate, long term on existing mine areas Same as No Moderate, long term on existing mine areas Same as No Moderate, short term on existing mine areas Same as No As determined by previous consultation with USFWS No effect for all species No effect 

May affect, n

As determined by previous consultation with USFWS No effect for all species No effect 

May affect, n

As determined by previous consultation with USFWS No effect for all species No effect 

May affect, n

As determined by previous consultation with USFWS No effect for all species No effect 

May affect, n

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 2-67 
2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives 

Table 2-9. 	 Summary Comparison of Magnitude1 and Duration of Direct and Indirect Impacts fo

and Alternatives 2 and 3 and the No Action Alternative for the Belle Ayr North, West West, and Maysdorf II LBA Tracts2 (Continued). 

DESCRIPTION OF POTENTIAL IMPACT BY RESOURCE RESOURCE NAME 

LAND USE AND RECREATION (Applicable for all four tracts) Reduction of livestock grazing Loss of wildlife habitat Loss of access for sub-coal oil and gas development Removal of oil and gas production facilities Loss of access to public land available for recreation and grazing (Maysdorf II Tract only) CULTURAL RESOURCES (Applicable for all four tracts) Sites that are not eligible for NRHP Sites that are eligible for NRHP Sites that are unevaluated for eligibility NATIVE AMERICAN CONCERNS (Applicable for all four tracts) VISUAL RESOURCES (Applicable for all four tracts) During mining: 

Alteration of landscape by mining facilities and operations Visibility of mining operations from highway? Following reclamation: Smoother sloped terrain Reduction in sagebrush density 

NOISE 
(Applicable for all four tracts) 
Increased noise levels 

MAGNITUDE AND DURATION OF IMPA

PRO

NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE AL

Moderate, long term on existing mine areas Same as No Moderate, long term on existing mine areas Same as No Moderate, short term on existing mine areas Same as No Moderate, short term on existing mine areas Same as No Moderate, short term on existing Cordero Rojo mine Same as No area mine area 

Ineligible sites may be destroyed without further work Same as No on expanded mine areas Impacts to sites that are eligible for the NHRP are not Same as No permitted; eligible sites would be avoided or mitigated through data recovery prior to mining on expanded mine areas Impacts to unevaluated sites are not permitted; Same as No unevaluated sites would be evaluated prior to mining on expanded mine areas No impact identified on existing mine areas Same as No 

Moderate, short term on existing mine areas Same as No  Moderate, short term on existing mine areas Same as No Negligible, long term on existing mine areas Same as No Moderate, short to long term on existing mine areas Same as No Moderate to substantial, short term on existing mines, Same as No surrounding areas, and occupied dwellings within 2,500 feet of mining activities 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area 
2.0 Propose

Table 2-9. 	 Summary Comparison of Magnitude1 and Duration of Direct and Indirect Impacts fo

and Alternatives 2 and 3 and the No Action Alternative for the Belle Ayr North, West West, and Maysdorf II LBA Tracts2 (Continued). 

DESCRIPTION OF POTENTIAL IMPACT BY RESOURCE 	 MAGNITUDE AND DURATION OF IMP

PR

RESOURCE NAME NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE AL

TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES (Applicable for all four tracts) Use of railroads and existing Belle Ayr, Coal Creek, Caballo, and Moderate, for duration of existing approved mining Same as No 

Cordero Rojo mine rail infrastructure to ship coal operations years Employee and service contractor use of highways to and from mine Moderate, for duration of existing approved mining Same as No sites operations years Relocation of pipelines Negligible, short to long term on existing mine areas Same as No Relocation of utility lines Negligible, short to long term on existing mine areas Same as No Relocation of county roads to recover coal under lease Moderate, long term to permanent on existing mine Same as No 

areas 

HAZARDOUS AND SOLID WASTE (Applicable for all four tracts) Waste generated by mining operations Negligible for duration of existing approved mining Same as No 

operations years 

SOCIOECONOMICS (Applicable for all four tracts) Employment Moderate, beneficial short term for existing approved Same as No 

mining operations years 

Revenues from royalties and taxes to the state government Moderate, beneficial short term for existing approved Same as No 

mining operations years 

Revenues from royalties and taxes to the federal government Moderate, beneficial short term for existing approved Same as No 

mining operations years 

Revenues from taxes to local economy Moderate, beneficial short term for existing approved Same as No 

mining operations years 

Additional housing and infrastructure needs No new impact related to existing mine areas Same as No 

years 

1 Refer to chapter 3 for a discussion on magnitude of impacts. 2 All impacts are assumed adverse unless noted otherwise. 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 2-69 
2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives 

Table 2-10. Summary Comparison of Magnitude and Duration of Cumulative Impacts1, 2 

DESCRIPTION OF POTENTIAL IMPACT BY RESOURCE MAGNITUDE, TYPE, AND DURATION OF I

PRO

RESOURCE NAME NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE AL

TOPOGRAPHY & PHYSIOGRAPHY 

Alteration of topography following reclamation of coal disturbance Permanent topographic moderation following reclamation Same as No A

areas Long term to permanent limited changes in discrete, Alteration of topography to accommodate coal-related, oil and gas, scattered areas Same as No Aand oil- and gas-related facilities GEOLOGY AND MINERALS Recovery of coal resulting in reduction in coal resources and Moderate, long term to permanent Same as No Adisturbance and replacement of overburden and topsoil Surficial disturbance and reclamation on oil and gas well sites and Moderate, long term to permanent Same as No Aassociated facilities 

PALEONTOLOGY Coal, coal-related, oil and gas, and oil- and gas-related development Permanent potential adverse effects to scientifically Same as No A

disturbance of PFYC Class 5 Wasatch and Class 3 Fort Union significant fossils that are present but not visible prior to Formations disturbance 

AIR QUALITY Impacts to Montana near-field receptors 

- 24-hour PM10 A maximum modeled impact in one area above NAAQS Same as No A

for the baseline year and both coal production scenarios for 2010 

- All other parameters Modeled impacts in compliance with NAAQS and Same as No A

Montana AAQS 

Impacts to Wyoming near-field receptors 

- 24-hour PM10 Modeled impact above NAAQS at some receptors for both Same as No A

coal production scenarios for 2010 

- Annual PM10 

Maximum modeled impact above NAAQS at one receptor Same as No Afor the upper production scenario for 2010 

- All other parameters Modeled impacts in compliance with NAAQS and 

Wyoming AAQS Same as No A

Non-regulatory PSD Impacts at Class I and Sensitive Class II Areas 

- Class I Northern Cheyenne Indian Reservation Modeled impacts above Class I increment levels for 24­ Same as No A

hour PM10, annual PM10, 24-hour SO2, 3-hour SO2 for 

baseline year and both coal production scenarios for 2010; above Class I increment for annual NO2 for upper 

coal production scenario for 2010 

- Class I Washakie Wilderness Area and Wind Cave National Modeled impacts above Class I increment levels for 24­ Same as No A

Park and Class II Crow Indian Reservation hour PM10 for baseline year and both coal production 

scenarios for 2010 

- All other Class I and Sensitive Class II modeled receptors Modeled impacts within Class I increment levels for Same as No A

baseline year and both coal production scenarios for 2010 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area 
2.0 Propose

Table 2-10. Summary Comparison of Magnitude and Duration of Cumulative Impacts1, 2 (Continu

DESCRIPTION OF POTENTIAL IMPACT BY RESOURCE MAGNITUDE, TYPE, AND DURATION OF IM

PROP

RESOURCE NAME NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE ALT

Visibility Impacts 199 or more days with a change of 1.0 dv or greater at Same as No Action 

three Class I areas and seven sensitive Class II areas for the baseline year and both coal productions scenarios 

Acid deposition Impacts All modeled impacts below the depositions threshold Same as No Action 

values for nitrogen and sulfur compounds 

- Florence Lake Modeled impact above 10 percent ANC Same as No Action 

- Upper Frozen Lake Modeled impact above 1 μeq/L Same as No Action - All other modeled sensitive lakes Modeled impact below threshold values Same as No Action 

GROUNDWATER RESOURCES Removal of coal aquifer and replacement with backfill material Moderate, permanent for mining areas Same as No Action Lowering of water levels in aquifers around the mines Moderate, long term in area immediately west of mines Same as No Action Water level decline in sub-coal aquifers as a result of all No cumulative impacts anticipated Same as No Action development Change in groundwater quality as a result of all development No cumulative impacts anticipated Same as No Action Overlapping drawdown in the coal aquifer caused by surface Additive, long term in area immediately west of surface Same as No Action mining and CBNG development coal mines SURFACE WATER RESOURCES Surface disturbance of intermittent and ephemeral streams and Moderate, short term Same as No Action scattered ponds and reservoirs as a result of coal mining, coalrelated, oil and gas, and oil- and gas-related development Discharge of coal mining and CBNG produced waters into Moderate, short term Same as No Action intermittent and ephemeral streams Sediment input into intermittent and ephemeral streams and Moderate, short term Same as No Action scattered ponds and reservoirs as a result of coal mining, coalrelated, oil and gas, and oil- and gas-related development ALLUVIAL VALLEY FLOORS Coal mining disturbance of AVFs determined to be significant to Not permitted by regulation Same as No Action agriculture Coal mining disturbance of AVFs determined not to be significant AVFs disturbed by mining must be restored to essential Same as No Action to mining hydrologic function. No cumulative impacts 

anticipated 

SOILS Coal mining, coal-related, oil and gas, and oil- and gas-related Moderate, short term and long term impacts through Same as No Action disturbance and replacement of soil resources accelerated wind or water erosion, declining soil quality 

factors through compaction, reduced microbial populations and organic matter, and potential mixing of soil zones 

CBNG water disposal impacts to soil resources Potential increase in soil alkalinity depending on SAR Same as No Action 

levels in water and method of water disposal 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 2-71 
2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives 

Table 2-10. Summary Comparison of Magnitude and Duration of Cumulative Impacts1, 2 (Continu

DESCRIPTION OF POTENTIAL IMPACT BY RESOURCE MAGNITUDE, TYPE, AND DURATION OF IM

PROP

RESOURCE NAME NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE ALT

VEGETATION Coal mining, coal-related, oil and gas, and oil- and gas-related Moderate, short to long term impacts due to potential Same as No Action 

removal and replacement of native vegetation differences in species composition and presence and 

size of woody species on reclaimed lands 

Coal mining, coal-related, oil and gas, and oil- and gas-related Potential incremental loss of alteration of potential of Same as No Action 

impacts to Special Status Plant Species known habitat Coal mining, coal related, oil and gas, and oil- and gas-related Potential displacement of native species and changes in Same as No Action 

dispersal of noxious and invasive species species composition WETLAND AND RIPARIAN VEGETATION CBNG-related discharge of produced water Moderate, short to long term creation of wetlands in Same as No Action 

areas that previously supported upland vegetation 

WILDLIFE Direct and indirect coal mining, coal-related, oil and gas, and oil- Moderate, short term Same as No Action and gas-related development impacts to game and non-game species, including direct mortality, habitat fragmentation, animal displacement, noise, and increased human presence Coal mining, coal-related, oil and gas, and oil- and gas-related Moderate, short term loss of all types of habitat present Same as No Action disturbance of game and nongame species habitat during project in disturbed areas development and operation Coal mining, coal related, oil and gas, and oil- and gas-related Moderate, long term change in habitat with potential Same as No Action habitat changes after reclamation changes in associated wildlife populations FISHERIES Alteration or loss of habitat due to coal mining, coal-related, oil Moderate, short to long term Same as No Action and gas, and oil- and gas-related development Changes in water quality as a result of surface disturbance or Moderate, short to long term Same as No Action introduction of contaminants into drainages caused by coal mining, coal-related, oil and gas, and oil- and gas-related development Changes in available habitat as a result of water withdrawals or Moderate, short term Same as No Action discharges related to coal mining, coal-related, oil and gas, and oil- and gas-related development SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES Direct and indirect coal mining, coal-related, oil and gas, and oil- Moderate, short term Same as No Action and gas-related development impacts, including direct mortality, breeding area, nest, or burrow abandonment, noise and increased human presence Coal mining, coal-related, oil and gas, and oil- and gas-related Moderate, short term loss of all types of special status Same as No Action disturbance of habitat during project development and operation species habitat present in disturbed areas Coal mining, coal related, oil and gas, and oil- and gas-related Moderate, long term change in habitat with potential Same as No Action habitat changes after reclamation changes in associated populations of special status 

species 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area 
2.0 Propose

Table 2-10. Summary Comparison of Magnitude and Duration of Cumulative Impacts1, 2 (Contin

DESCRIPTION OF POTENTIAL IMPACT BY RESOURCE MAGNITUDE, TYPE, AND DURATION OF IM

PROP

RESOURCE NAME NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE ALTE

LAND USE AND RECREATION Loss of forage and range improvements and restriction of Moderate, short term Same as No Action livestock movement due to coal mining, coal-related, oil and gas, and oil- and gas-related development Disturbance of developed recreation sites by coal mining, coal- Negligible, short term Same as No Action related, oil and gas, and oil- and gas-related development Reduction or degradation of opportunities for dispersed Moderate, short term on existing mine areas Same as No Action recreation activities related to coal mining, coal-related, oil and gas, and oil- and gas-related development CULTURAL RESOURCES Disturbance of cultural resource sites Moderate, permanent Same as No Action TRANSPORTATION AND UTILITIES Movement of segments of existing highways, pipelines, Moderate, long term to permanent, disruptive effects Same as No Action transmission lines, or railroads to accommodate coal mining would be minimized development TRANSPORTATION AND UTILITIES Increased vehicular traffic on roads and highways due to coal Moderate, short term Same as No Action mining, coal-related, oil and gas, and oil- and gas-related development, and associated impacts including traffic accidents, road wear, air emissions, dust, noise, and vehicle collisions with wildlife and livestock Construction and operation of additional railroad and pipeline Moderate, short to long term Same as No Action facilities and transmission lines to transport coal, oil and gas, and electricity 

SOCIOECONOMICS Increases in employment related to coal mining, coal-related, oil Significant, short to long term Same as No Action 

and gas, and oil- and gas-related development Increases in personal income due to employment, increases Significant, beneficial, short to long term Same as No Action 

related to coal mining, coal-related, oil and gas, and oil- and gasrelated development 

Increase in population due to employment increases related to Significant, short to long term Same as No Action 

coal mining, coal-related, oil and gas, and oil- and gas-related development Expansion of housing supply due to employment increases Significant, short to long term Same as No Action 

related to coal mining, coal-related, oil and gas, and oil- and gasrelated development Increases in school enrollment due to employment, increases Moderate, short term Same as No Action 

related to coal mining, coal-related, oil and gas, and oil- and gasrelated development 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 2-73 
2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives 

Table 2-10. Summary Comparison of Magnitude and Duration of Cumulative Impacts1, 2 (Continu

DESCRIPTION OF POTENTIAL IMPACT BY RESOURCE MAGNITUDE, TYPE, AND DURATION OF I

PROPO

RESOURCE NAME NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE ALTE

SOCIOECONOMICS (Continued) Need for additional local government facilities and services due to Moderate, short to long term Same as No Action 

employment increases related to coal mining, coal-related, oil and gas, and oil- and gas-related development Increased federal, state, and local revenues related to coal mining, Significant, beneficial, short to long term Same as No Action coal-related, oil and gas, and oil- and gas-related development 

1 Cumulative impact discussion in this table and in chapter 4 is based on the PRB Coal Review analyses (BLM 2005b-f, 2006b). 2 All impacts are assumed to be adverse unless noted otherwise. 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area 
 

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

This chapter describes the existing conditions of the physical, biological, cultural, 

and socioeconomic resources in the general South Gillette analysis area for all 

four of the lease by application (LBA1) tracts (the affected environment) and 

analyzes the direct and indirect impacts to those resources that would be 

associated with mining the tracts (the environmental consequences) if they are 

leased under the Proposed Action or Alternative 2 or 3 for each tract. The potential 

environmental consequences of the No Action alternative for each tract (Alternative 

1, rejecting the application) with respect to each of the environmental resources 

are also considered in this analysis. 

Additional information about the affected environment in the general South 

Gillette analysis area is contained in a separate document entitled 

Supplementary Information on the Affected Environment in the General South 

Gillette Analysis Area for the Belle Ayr North, West Coal Creek, Caballo West, 

and Maysdorf II Coal Lease Applications EIS, which is available on request and 

can be viewed at the BLM offices in Casper and Cheyenne. 

In addition, this chapter considers regulatory compliance, mitigation, monitoring, 

residual impacts, the relationship between local short-term uses of man’s 

environment and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity, 

and the irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources that would occur 

with implementation of the Proposed Action or Alternative 2 or 3 for each tract. As 

discussed in chapter 2, regulatory compliance and mitigation and monitoring 

measures that are required by federal and/or state law are considered to be part 

of the action alternatives for each tract. 

Under the Proposed Action for each tract, the tract as applied for would be offered 

for lease at one sale. As discussed in chapter 2, the Bureau of Land Management 

(BLM) has identified a study area for each LBA tract that consists of the tract as 

applied for and adjacent lands that BLM is considering adding to the tract. BLM 

is evaluating these study areas to identify potential alternate tract configurations 

to the Proposed Action that would be technically, economically, or environmentally 

preferable to the Proposed Action. Alternative 2 for each tract evaluates holding 

one sale for a tract modified by adding some or all of BLM’s study area to the 

tract. One additional alternative (Alternative 3) for the Maysdorf II tract evaluates 

dividing the tract into two tracts and offering one or both of those tracts for sale. 

The Proposed Action and Alternative 2 or Alternative 3 for each LBA tract will be 

referred to collectively as the action alternatives. 

If any of the tracts are leased, 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 the coal removal area would be from activities like 

overstripping, highwall backsloping (including catch benches), highwall reduction 

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

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 3-1 

1 
 

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

after mining to match undisturbed topography, and construction of flood control 

and sediment control structures. For analysis purposes, this disturbance buffer is 

assumed to extend 1⁄4 mile outside the BLM study area boundary, where future 

mining disturbance can occur. In this environmental impact statement (EIS), the 

general analysis area for each tract is defined as the BLM study area (the LBA 

tract as applied for and the additional area evaluated under Alternative 2) plus the 

1⁄4-mile disturbance buffer. 

Figure 3-1 shows the general South Gillette analysis area for resource 

discussions. The analysis area does not have a defined boundary but includes a 

general area around the combined BLM study areas for the Belle Ayr North, West 

Coal Creek, Caballo West, and Maysdorf II LBA tracts. 

The resources that are addressed in this EIS were identified during the scoping 

process or interdisciplinary team review as having the potential to be affected. 

The elements of the human environment (BLM 2008a) that could potentially be 

affected by the action alternatives for each tract include air quality, cultural 

resources, Native American religious concerns, threatened and endangered (T&E) 

species, migratory birds, hazardous or solid wastes, water quality, 

wetlands/riparian zones, floodplains, invasive non-native species, and 

environmental justice. Four other elements (areas of critical environmental 

concern, prime or unique farmlands, wild and scenic rivers, and wilderness) are 

not present in the analysis area and are not addressed further. In addition to the 

elements that are potentially present in the general South Gillette analysis area, 

this EIS discusses the status and potential effects of mining each LBA tract on 

topography and physiography, geology and mineral resources, soils, water 

quantity, alluvial valley floors, vegetation, wildlife, land use and recreation, 

paleontological resources, visual resources, noise, transportation resources, 

climate change, and socioeconomics. 

Tables 3-1 through 3-4 shows the total leased and total disturbance areas for the 

existing Belle Ayr, Coal Creek, Caballo, and Cordero Rojo mines (No Action 

alternative), and how the leased areas and estimated disturbance areas would 

change under the action alternatives. 

As indicated in table 3-1, Belle Ayr’s current federal, state, and private coal leases 

include approximately 6,345 acres. Under the currently approved mining and 

reclamation plan, the mine would disturb a total of approximately 11,621 acres in 

order to recover that coal. According to Belle Ayr Mine’s 2007 Annual Report 

submitted to Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality (WDEQ)/Land 

Quality Division (LQD), the mine had disturbed a total of about 5,477 acres as of 

January 7, 2007 (FCW 2007). Of that area of disturbance, approximately 2,174 

acres were occupied by permanent or temporary facilities (stockpiles, hydrologic 

control structures, mine buildings and coal loading facilities, railroad loop, 

environmental monitoring areas, etc.), 1,006 acres were being actively mined, and 

3-2 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
49 

Mills Road 

T-7 Road 

T-7 Road 

BNSF RR 

Fairview 

BNSF & UP RR 

BNSF & UP RR 

Road 

State

 59 Highway

Hilight Road

BNSF RR 

Haight Road 

Wagensen Road 

Four Corners Road 

State

 59 Highway 

Hoe

Road

Creek 

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

R. 72 W. R. 71 W.	 R. 70 W.

Road Hilight

ey R o oad H adl

T. 

N. 

T. 

49 

CABALLO N. 
 WEST LBA
 TRACT
 LEGEND 

Existing Lease Boundaries 

BELLE AYR 

NORTH LBA Caballo

Mine Caballo West LBA 

Tract as Applied for 

TRACT 

BLM's Caballo West LBA 

Study Area (Alternative 2), T.	 T. 

48	 48 BLM's Preferred Alternative 

N. N. 

Belle Ayr North LBA 

Tract as Applied for Bishop Road 

BLM's Belle Ayr North LBA Belle Ayr Study Area Mine BLM's Belle Ayr North LBA 

Alternative 2, 

BLM's Preferred Alternative 

T. T. 

Cordero-Rojo 47 47 Mine N. N. Maysdorf II LBA Tract

as Applied for 

BLM's Maysdorf II LBA 

Study Area (Alternative 2) 

North Tract Under Alternative 3, 

BLM's Preferred Alternative 

South Tract Under Alternative 3, 

BLM's Preferred Alternative 

MAYSDORF II 

LBA TRACTS 

T.	 Hoadley T. Road West Coal Creek LBA 46	 46 Tract as Applied for N.	 N. 

Coal Creek BLM's West Coal Creek LBA 

Mine Study Area 

West Coal Creek LBA 

Alternative 2, 

BLM's Preferred Alternative 

Lawver Road 

WEST COAL 

CREEK LBA T. T. 

45 TRACT
 

N. N. 

Lawver Road

SCALE: 1"=3 MILES 

R. 72 W. R. 71 W.	 R. 70 W. 

Figure 3-1. General South Gillette Analysis Area. 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 

45 

3-3
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Table 3-1. Comparison of Existing and Proposed Belle Ayr Mine Disturbance 

Area and Mining Operations. 

No Action Alternative Proposed 

(Existing Permit Area) Action Alternative 2 

Additional Lease Area (Acres)	 --- 1,578.7 1,671.0 

Total Lease Area (Acres)1	 6,345.3 7,924.0 8,016.3 

Increase in Lease Area (Percent) ---	 24.9 26.3 

Estimated Additional Mine 

Disturbance Area (Acres)2 --- 1,274.9 1,658.4 

Estimated Total Mine Disturbance 

Area (Acres) 11,621.0 12,895.9 13,279.4 

Increase in Estimated Disturbance 

Area (Percent) --- 11.0 14.3 

Estimated Additional Recoverable 

Coal (Million Tons)3 --- 158.4 150.1 

Estimated Recoverable Coal for 

Mine as of 6/08 (Million Tons) 235.8 394.2 385.9 

Increase in Estimated Recoverable 

Coal as of 6/08 (Percent) --- 67.2 63.7 

1	 Includes federal, state, and private coal. 

2	 Total Disturbance Area = area to be mined + area disturbed for mine facilities, access roads, 

haul roads, highwall reduction, railroad facilities, stockpiles, etc. 

3	 Estimated Recoverable Coal Resources = tons of mineable coal  recovery factor (94 percent). 

Table 3-2. Comparison of Existing and Proposed Coal Creek Mine Disturbance 

Area and Mining Operations. 

No Action Alternative Proposed 

(Existing Permit Area) Action Alternative 2 

Additional Lease Area (Acres) --- 1,151.3 1,232.2 

Total Lease Area (Acres)1 6,854.4 8,005.7 8,086.6 

Increase in Lease Area (Percent) --- 16.8 18.0 

Estimated Additional Mine 

Disturbance Area (Acres)2	 --- 1,925.4 2,210.1 

Estimated Total Mine Disturbance 

Area (Acres) 8,354.9 10,280.3 10,565.0 

Increase in Estimated Disturbance 

Area (Percent)	 --- 23.0 26.5 

Estimated Additional Recoverable 

Coal (Million Tons)3 --- 57.0 57.0 

Estimated Recoverable Coal for 

Mine as of 6/08 (Million Tons) 217.5 274.5 274.5 

Increase in Estimated Recoverable 

Coal as of 6/08 (Percent) --- 26.2 26.2 

1	 Includes federal, state, and private coal. 

2	 Total Disturbance Area = area to be mined + area disturbed for mine facilities, access roads, 

haul roads, highwall reduction, railroad facilities, stockpiles, etc. 

3	 Estimated Recoverable Coal Resources = tons of mineable coal  recovery factor (90 percent). 

3-4 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Table 3-3. Comparison of Existing and Proposed Caballo Mine Disturbance 

Area and Mining Operations. 

No Action Alternative Proposed 

(Existing Permit Area) Action Alternative 2 

Additional Lease Area (Acres)	 --- 777.5 1,024.0 

Total Lease Area (Acres)1	 11,704.5 12,482.0 12,728.5 

Increase in Lease Area (Percent) ---	 6.6 8.7 

Estimated Additional Mine 

Disturbance Area (Acres)2 --- 1,213.0 1,253.6 

Estimated Total Mine Disturbance 

Area (Acres) 16,898.0 18,111.0 18,151.6 

Increase in Estimated Disturbance 

Area (Percent) --- 7.2 7.4 

Estimated Additional Recoverable 

Coal (Million Tons)3 --- 81.8 91.7 

Estimated Recoverable Coal for 

Mine as of 6/08 (Million Tons) 584.8 666.6 676.5 

Increase in Estimated Recoverable 

Coal as of 6/08 (Percent) --- 14.0 15.7 

1 Includes federal, state, and private coal. 

2 Total Disturbance Area = area to be mined + area disturbed for mine facilities, access roads, 

haul roads, highwall reduction, railroad facilities, stockpiles, etc. 

3 Estimated Recoverable Coal Resources = tons of mineable coal  recovery factor (93.5 

percent). 

Table 3-4. Comparison of Existing and Proposed Cordero Rojo Mine 

Disturbance Area and Mining Operations. 

No Action Alternative Proposed Alternatives 2 

(Existing Permit Area) Action and 3 

Additional Lease Area (Acres) --- 4,653.8 4,895.6 

Total Lease Area (Acres)1 14,442.4 19,096.2 19,338.0 

Increase in Lease Area (Percent) --- 32.2 33.9 

Estimated Additional Mine 

Disturbance Area (Acres)2 --- 6,200.8 6,422.5 

Estimated Total Mine Disturbance 

Area (Acres) 14,694.0 20,894.8 21,116.5 

Increase in Estimated Disturbance 

Area (Percent) --- 42.2 43.7 

Estimated Additional Recoverable 

Coal (Million Tons)3 --- 434.5 459.5 

Estimated Recoverable Coal for 

Mine as of 6/08 (Million Tons) 525.9 960.4 985.4 

Increase in Estimated Recoverable 

Coal as of 6/08 (Percent) --- 82.6 87.4 

Includes federal, state, and private coal. 

2	 Total Disturbance Area = area to be mined + area disturbed for mine facilities, access roads, 

haul roads, highwall reduction, railroad facilities, stockpiles, etc. 

3	 Estimated Recoverable Coal Resources = tons of mineable coal  recovery factor (90 percent). 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 3-5 

1 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

2,297 acres had been mined and reclaimed or were in the process of being 

reclaimed (FCW 2007). 

Coal Creek’s current federal, state, and private coal leases include approximately 

6,854 acres. Under the currently approved mining and reclamation plan, the 

mine would disturb a total of approximately 8,355 acres in order to recover that 

coal (table 3-2). According to Coal Creek Mine’s 2006-2007 Annual Report 

submitted to WDEQ/LQD, the mine had disturbed a total of about 1,975 acres as 

of December 31, 2006 (TBCC 2007). Of that area of disturbance, approximately 

874 acres were occupied by permanent or temporary facilities (stockpiles, 

hydrologic control structures, mine buildings and coal loading facilities, railroad 

loop, environmental monitoring areas, etc.), 530 acres were being actively mined, 

and 571 acres had been mined and reclaimed or were in the process of being 

reclaimed (TBCC 2007). 

As indicated in table 3-3, Caballo’s current federal, state, and private coal leases 

include approximately 11,705 acres and, under the currently approved mining 

and reclamation plan, the mine would disturb a total of approximately 16,898 

acres in order to recover that coal. According to Caballo Mine’s 2006 Annual 

Report submitted to WDEQ/LQD, the mine had disturbed a total of about 6,571 

acres as of October 7, 2006 (CCC 2006). Of that area of disturbance, 

approximately 1,544 acres were occupied by permanent or temporary facilities 

1,338 acres were being actively mined, and 3,689 acres had been mined and 

reclaimed or were in the process of being reclaimed (CCC 2006). 

Cordero Rojo’s current federal, state, and private coal leases include 

approximately 14,442 acres. Under the currently approved mining and 

reclamation plan, the mine would disturb a total of approximately 14,694 acres in 

order to recover that coal (table 3-4). According to Cordero Rojo’s 2006-2007 

Annual Report submitted to WDEQ/LQD, the mine had disturbed a total of about 

11,354 acres as of June 30, 2007 (CMC 2007a). Of that area of disturbance, 

approximately 2,969 acres were occupied by permanent or temporary facilities, 

4,615 acres were being actively mined, and 3,770 acres had been mined and 

reclaimed or were in the process of being reclaimed (CMC 2007a). 

If the tracts are leased to the applicants as maintenance tracts under the 

Proposed Action or other action alternatives, the permit area for the adjacent mine 

would have to be amended to include the new lease area before it could be 

disturbed by mining activities. Tables 3-1 through 3-4 also show how the leased 

areas and disturbance areas would change for the tracts as applied for and action 

alternatives for the Belle Ayr North, West Coal Creek, Caballo West, and Maysdorf 

II LBA tracts, respectively. The estimates of recoverable coal, associated 

disturbance, and mine lives shown in tables 3-1 through 3-4 and elsewhere in this 

chapter assume that coal currently unsuitable for mining is not mined. If the 

issues involved in the unsuitability designations are resolved, the estimated tons 

of recoverable coal, associated disturbance, and mine life would increase for each 

3-6 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

tract, as discussed in section 2.4. Portions of the LBA tracts are inside current 

mine permit areas (figure 1-5). If the tracts are leased, the area that would be 

added to an existing mine permit area would be that portion of the LBA tract that 

lies outside the existing permit boundary plus an adjacent strip of land that would 

be used for highwall reduction after mining and other mine-related activities. 

Some portions of the tracts have been disturbed by the current mining operations 

in order to recover the coal in the existing coal leases (figure 3-1). The 

environmental consequences of leasing the LBA tracts under the Proposed Action 

or Alternative 2 or 3 would be similar in nature, but selection of a Proposed Action 

would disturb a slightly smaller area of land surface. 

Surface mining and reclamation have been ongoing in the eastern PRB for about 3 

decades. During this time, effective mining and reclamation technologies have 

been developed and continue to be refined. Mining and reclamation operations 

are regulated under SMCRA and Wyoming statutes. WDEQ technically reviews all 

mine permit application packages to ensure that the mining and reclamation 

plans comply with all state permitting requirements and that the proposed coal 

mining operations comply with the performance standards of the DOI-approved 

Wyoming program. BLM attaches special stipulations to all coal leases (appendix 

D), and there are a number of federal and state permit approvals that are required 

in order to conduct surface mining operations (appendix A). The regulations are 

designed to ensure that surface coal mining impacts are mitigated. 

Impacts can range from beneficial to adverse and they can be a primary result of 

an action (direct) or a secondary result (indirect). They can be permanent, longterm (persisting beyond the end of mine life and reclamation), or short-term 

(persisting during mining and reclamation and until the time the reclamation 

bond is released). Impacts also vary in terms of significance. The basis for 

conclusions regarding significance are the criteria set forth by the Council on 

Environmental Quality (40 CFR 1508.27) and the professional judgment of the 

specialists doing the analyses. Impact significance may range from negligible to 

substantial; impacts can be significant during mining but be reduced to 

insignificant following completion of reclamation. 

3.1 General Setting 

The general South Gillette analysis area is located in the PRB, a part of the 

Northern Great Plains that includes most of northeastern Wyoming. Vegetation is 

primarily sagebrush and mixed grass prairie. 

3.1.1 Climate and Meteorology 

The climate in the general South Gillette analysis area is typical of a semi-arid, 

high plains environment with relatively large seasonal and diurnal variations in 

temperature and seasonal variation in precipitation. The average annual 

precipitation at a NOAA meteorological station (Gillette 9ESE), located about 18 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 3-7 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

miles northwest of the general South Gillette analysis area, is 15.60 inches (WRCC 

2007). June (2.69 inches) and May (2.60 inches) are the wettest months, and 

January (0.57 inch) and February (0.55 inch) are the driest. Snowfall averages 

56.5 inches per year, with most occurring in March (10.4 inches) and April (8.5 

inches). Potential evapotranspiration, at approximately 31 inches (NOAA 1969), 

exceeds annual precipitation. Summers are relatively short and warm, while 

winters are longer and cold. The average daily mean temperature is 45.2 degrees 

F. The highest recorded temperature was 107 degrees F and the lowest was 

minus 40 degrees F. July is the warmest month, with a mean daily temperature 

of 71.0 degrees F, and January is the coldest month, with a mean daily 

temperature of 21.7 degrees F. The frost-free period is 100-130 days. 

In the general South Gillette analysis area, surface wind speeds range from more 

than 30 mph during the winter and spring to 10 to 12 mph during the summer. 

The area also experiences extreme wind gusts, especially during thunderstorm 

activity that occurs in June, July, and August. Distinct diurnal changes occur, 

with average wind velocities increasing during the day and decreasing during the 

night. Local variations in wind speed and direction are primarily due to differences 

in topography. Wind speeds are highest in the winter and spring (October through 

April) and are predominantly from the western and northern sectors. During the 

warmer months (May through September), wind directions are more random, 

although winds from the northern or southeastern sectors are slightly more 

predominant. 

During periods of strong wind, dust may impact air quality across the region. An 

average of 15 air-stagnation events occurs annually in the PRB with an average 

duration of 2 days each (BLM 1974). 

3.2 Topography and Physiography 

3.2.1 Affected Environment 

The general South Gillette analysis area is a high plains area within the 

unglaciated Missouri Plateau subregion of the Great Plains Province, near the 

eastern portion of the Powder River Basin (PRB) in the state of Wyoming. The PRB 

is both a topographic drainage and geologic structural basin. The structural basin 

is an elongated, asymmetrical syncline approximately 120 miles east to west and 

200 miles north to south, which is bounded in Wyoming by the Black Hills on the 

east; the Big Horn Mountains on the west; and the Hartville Uplift, Casper Arch, 

and Laramie Mountains on the south. The northern extent of the structural basin 

is the Miles City Arch and the Yellowstone River in Montana. The axis of the 

structural basin trends from the southeast to the northwest near the western 

margin of the syncline, and the general South Gillette analysis area is located on 

the gently dipping eastern limb of the structural basin. In general, geologic strata 

along the eastern limb of the structural PRB dip to the west at 1 to 2 degrees 

toward the axis of the basin. 

3-8 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

The Powder River Basin is so named because it is drained by the Powder River, 

although it is also drained in part by other major rivers, including the Big Horn, 

Tongue, Little Missouri, Belle Fourche, and Cheyenne rivers. The general South 

Gillette analysis area is within the Cheyenne River drainage basin. Caballo Creek 

and Belle Fourche River (tributaries of the Cheyenne River) are the most 

prominent natural topographic features. 

Broad plains, rolling hills, and tablelands dominate the PRB landscape. 

Internally-drained playas are common in the basin, as are buttes and plateaus 

capped by sandstone or clinker. Elevations throughout the PRB range from less 

than 2,500 feet to more than 6,000 feet above sea level. The major river valleys 

have wide, flat floors and broad floodplains. The drainages dissecting the basin 

are incised, typically are ephemeral or intermittent, and do not provide year-round 

water sources. 

The general South Gillette analysis area is drained by the Caballo Creek and Belle 

Fourche River. The topography is comprised of intermittent and ephemeral 

drainage bottomlands, rough breaks, and gently rolling uplands. Unmined lands 

surrounding the area are characterized by low rolling hills. Surface mine lands, 

both active and reclaimed, dominate the landscape in the vicinity of the analysis 

area and east of Wyoming 59. Elevations range from about 4,515 feet to 4,885 

feet above sea level and slopes range from flat to around 57 percent. In the 

individual tracts, the average slopes range from 4 to 5 percent. 

Habitat types include sagebrush-grassland, upland-grassland, seeded 

pastures/cropland, and areas of previous disturbance. Nearly 43 percent of the 

combined vegetation analysis areas are sagebrush-sagebrush/grassland. Other 

habitats present in limited extent include bottomland or riparian areas and some 

open water along the Belle Fourche River and Caballo Creek. Rough breaks and 

bottomland or riparian areas occur along the ephemeral drainages. Caballo Creek 

passes from west to east through the north central part of the general South 

Gillette analysis area and the Belle Fourche River passes through the southern 

part of the area from southwest to northeast. Overall, the LBA tracts are similar 

in topography. 

3.2.2 Environmental Consequences 

3.2.2.1 Proposed Action and Alternatives 2 and 3 

Surface coal mining would permanently alter the topography of each LBA tract 

that is leased and mined. Topsoil would be removed from the land and stockpiled 

or placed directly on recontoured areas. Overburden would be blasted and 

stockpiled or directly placed into already mined pits, and coal would be removed. 

Highwalls with vertical heights equal to overburden/interburden plus coal 

thickness would exist in the active pits. If necessary, streams would be diverted 

into temporary channels to prevent pits from being flooded. 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 3-9 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Typically, a direct permanent impact of coal mining and reclamation is 

topographic moderation. After reclamation, the restored land surfaces are 

generally gentler, with more uniform slopes and restored basic drainage networks. 

The original topography in Belle Ayr North, West Coal Creek, Caballo West, and 

Maysdorf II LBA tracts range from relatively flat to gently rolling hills. Slopes 

range from flat to around 57 percent and the average slopes range from 4 to 5 

percent. The expected postmining topography would be similar to the premining 

topography, but somewhat gentler and more uniform. Following reclamation, the 

average surface elevation on each LBA tract would be lower due to coal removal. 

Coal removal would be partially offset by the swelling that occurs when the 

overburden (and interburden, if present) is blasted, removed, and replaced. Table 

3-5 presents the approximate postmining surface elevation change for each LBA 

tract as applied for under the action alternatives. After the coal is removed, the 

land surface would be restored to approximate original contour or to a 

configuration approved by WDEQ/LQD when the mining and reclamation permit 

for the existing mine is amended to include coal removal from the LBA tract. 

Direct adverse impacts resulting from topographic moderation include a reduction 

in microhabitats (e.g., cutbank slopes) for some wildlife species and a reduction in 

habitat diversity, particularly in slope-dependent shrub communities and 

associated habitat. These impacts, which would be greater in those areas 

characterized as rough breaks, may result in a long-term reduction in the carrying 

capacity for some species. A direct beneficial impact of the lower and flatter 

terrain would be reduced water runoff, which would allow increased infiltration 

and a minor reduction in peak flows. This may help counteract the potential for 

increased erosion that could occur because of higher near-surface bulk density of 

the reclaimed soils (section 3.8.2.1). It may also increase vegetative productivity 

and potentially accelerate recharge of groundwater. 

The approximate original drainage pattern for each LBA tract, including the 

diverted portions of Caballo Creek and the Belle Fourche River, would be restored. 

Stockponds and playas would be replaced to provide livestock and wildlife 

watering sources. These topographic changes would not conflict with regional 

land use, and the postmining topography would be designed to adequately 

support anticipated land use. 

These impacts are occurring on the existing Caballo, Belle Ayr, Cordero Rojo, and 

Coal Creek Mine coal leases as coal is mined and mined-out areas are reclaimed. 

Under the Proposed Action or Alternative 2 or 3, the areas that would be 

permanently topographically changed would increase as shown in tables 3-1 

through 3-4. 

3.2.2.2 No Action Alternative 

Under the No Action alternatives, the Belle Ayr North, West Coal Creek, Caballo 

West, and Maysdorf II coal lease applications would be rejected and coal removal 

3-10 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
3.0 Affected Environment and Enviro

Table 3-5. Average Overburden, Interburden, and Coal Thicknesses and Approximate Postmin

Changes of the Four LBA Tracts. 

Overburden Interburden Coal Swell Coal Reco

Thickness Thickness Thickness Factor Facto

LBA Tract and Configuration (ft) (ft) (ft) (percent) (percen

Belle Ayr North 

Proposed Action 295 -- 72 13 94 

Alternative 2 295 -- 72 13 94 

Existing Belle Ayr Mine Leases 

No Action Alternative for Belle Ayr 213 -- 75 13 94 

North Tract 

West Coal Creek 

Proposed Action 81 1-6 36 19 88 

Alternative 2 81 1-6 36 19 88 

Existing Coal Creek Mine Leases 

No Action Alternative for West Coal 84 1-6 36 19 88 

Creek Tract 

Caballo West 

Proposed Action 270 -- 74 19 94 

Alternative 2 286 -- 74 19 94 

Existing Caballo Mine Leases 

No Action Alternative for Caballo 161 34 66 19 94 

West Tract 

Maysdorf II 

Proposed Action 303 0.3 63 16 93 

Alternative 2 303 0.3 62 16 93 Alternative 3 North 322 -- 65 16 93 Alternative 3 South 207 2 50 16 93 

Existing Cordero Rojo Mine Leases 

No Action Alternative for Maysdorf II 215 0.6 62 16 93 

Tract 

Reclaimed (postmining) surface elevation change calculated as: ((overburden thickness + interburden thickness) × swell factor) factor). 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 3-11 

1 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

would not occur on the LBA tracts. Mining operations and the associated impacts 

to topography and physiography would continue as permitted on the existing 

Caballo, Belle Ayr, Cordero Rojo, and Coal Creek Mine leases. Table 3-5 present 

the approximate postmining surface elevation change for the existing Caballo, 

Belle Ayr, Cordero Rojo, and Coal Creek mines. Portions of the Belle Ayr North, 

West Coal Creek, Caballo West, and Maysdorf II LBA tracts that are contiguous to 

operating mines would be disturbed to recover the coal in the existing leases. 

As discussed in chapter 2, a decision to reject the Belle Ayr North, West Coal 

Creek, Caballo West, and Maysdorf II lease applications would not preclude an 

application to lease the tracts in the future. 

3.2.3 Regulatory Compliance, Mitigation and Monitoring 

The mined-out areas must be restored to approximate original contour or other 

topographic configuration approved by WDEQ/LQD. Topographic configurations 

would be developed and approved as part of the required mining and reclamation 

plans for the Belle Ayr, Coal Creek, Caballo, and Cordero Rojo mines. 

WDEQ/LQD monitors topographic restoration by checking the as-built topography 

in the annual reports filed by the mines to see if it conforms to the approved 

topography. 

3.2.4 Residual Impacts 

Topographic moderation is a permanent consequence of mining. The indirect 

impacts of topographic moderation on wildlife habitat diversity would be 

permanent. 

3.3 Geology, Mineral Resources, and Paleontology 

3.3.1 General Geology and Coal Resources 

3.3.1.1 Affected Environment 

Stratigraphic units in the general South Gillette analysis area that would be 

impacted if the tracts under consideration for leasing are mined include, in 

descending order, recent (Holocene age) alluvial and eolian deposits; the Eocene 

age Wasatch Formation (the overburden), and the Paleocene age Fort Union 

Formation (which contains the target coal seams). Figure 3-2 is a chart showing 

the stratigraphic relationships of the surface and subsurface geologic units in the 

analysis area. Additional information about these units is included in the 

“Groundwater” section of this document (section 3.5). 

Surficial deposits include alluvial and eolian deposits and weathered Wasatch 

Formation. Alluvial deposits occupy the Caballo Creek and Belle Fourche River 

3-12 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
 

W

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

UPPER 

CRETACE

OUS 

 

 

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

RECENT ALLUVIUM 

HOLOCENE 

This unit is comprised predominantly of marine shales with only occasional local 

thin sandstone lenses. Maximum yields are minor and overall the unit is not water 

bearing. Water obtained from this unit is poor with high concentrations of sodium 

and sulfate as the predominant ions in solution. 

Geologic Unit Hydrologic Characteristics 

Typically fine grained and poorly sorted sands interbedded with silts and clays in 

ephemeral drainages. Occasional very thin, clean interbedded sand lenses. More 

laterally extensive, thicker, and coarse-grained along the larger stream courses. 

Excessive dissolved solids generally make this aquifer unsuitable for domestic and 

agricultural use and marginal for livestock (Class III) use standards. Low 

infiltration capacity in ephemeral draws unless covered by sandy eolian blanket. 

Low to moderate infiltration along Little Rawhide Creek. 

CLINKER 

HOLOCENE TO 

PLEISTOCENE 

Baked and fused bedrock resulting from burning coal seams which ignite on the 

outcrop from lightning, manmade fires or spontaneous combustion. The reddish 

clinker (locally called scoria, red dog, etc.) formed by melting and partial fusing of 

overburden above the burning coal. The baked rock varies greatly in the degree of 

alteration; some is dense and glassy while some is vesicular and porous. It is 

commonly used as a road construction material and is an aquifer wherever 

saturated. Considered to be part of the Wasatch Formation. 

WASATCH FORMATION 

EOCENE 

Lenticular fine sands interbedded in predominantly very fine grained siltstone and 

claystone may yield low to moderate quantities of poor to good quality water. The 

discontinuous nature and irregular geometry of these sand bodies result in low 

overall permeabilities and very slow groundwater movement in the overburden on a 

regional scale. Water quality in the Wasatch Formation generally does not meet 

Wyoming Class I (drinking water) standards due to the dissolved mineral content. 

Some wells do, however, produce water of considerably better quality that does 

meet the Class I standard. 

FORT UNION FORMATION

PALEOCENE 

TONGUE

RIVER 

MEMBER 

LEBO 

MEMBER 

TULLOCK 

MEMBER 

The coal serves as a regional groundwater aquifer and exhibits highly variable 

aquifer properties. Permeability and porosity associated with the coal arise almost 

entirely from fractures. Coal water typically does not meet Class I or Class II 

(irrigation) use standards. In most cases, water from coal wells is suitable for 

livestock use. The coal water is used throughout the region as a source of stock 

water and occasionally for domestic use. 

W = Wyodak Coal; R = Roland; S = Smith. 

The Lebo member, also referred to as the “Lebo Confining Layer” or “Lebo Shale”. 

Has a mean thickness of 711 ft in the PRB and a thickness of about 400 ft in the 

vicinity of Gillette. The Lebo typically yields small quantities of poor quality 

groundwater. Where sand content is locally large, caused by channel or deltaic 

deposits, the Lebo may yield as much as 10 gpm. 

The Tullock member has a mean thickness of 785 ft in the PRB and a mean sand 

content of 53 percent which indicates that the unit generally functions well as a 

regional aquifer. Yields of 15 gpm are common but vary locally and may be as 

much as 40 gpm. Records from the SEO indicate that maximum yields of 

approximately 300 gpm have been achieved from this aquifer. Water quality in the 

Tullock Member often meets Class I standards. The extensive sandstone units in 

the Tullock Member are commonly developed regionally for domestic and industrial 

uses. The City of Gillette is currently using eight wells completed in this zone to 

meet part of its municipal water requirements. 

R 

S 

W 

LANCE FM/ 

HELL CREEK FM 

FOX HILLS 

SANDSTONE 

PIERRE SHALE 

Marine sandstones and sandy shales. Has a mean thickness of 666 ft and a mean 

sand content over 50 percent in the PRB. Yields up to 200 gpm are common; 

however, yields can be significantly less. Water quality is good, with TDS 

concentrations commonly less than 1,000 mg/L. The City of Gillette is currently 

using five wells completed in this aquifer to meet municipal water requirements. 

This unit is comprised predominantly of marine shales with only occasional local 

thin sandstone lenses. Maximum yields are minor and overall the unit is not water 

bearing. Water obtained from this unit is poor with high concentrations of sodium 

and sulfate as the predominant ions in solution. 

UPPER

CRETACEOUS 

Stratigraphy from Stratigraphic Nomenclature Committee, Wyoming Geological Association, 1969. 

Figure 3-2. Stratigraphic Relationship and Hydrologic Characteristics of Upper 

Cretaceous, Lower Tertiary, and Recent Geologic Units, PRB, 

Wyoming. 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 3-13 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

valleys and the lower portions of tributary draws where they join the stream 

channels. 

The Eocene Wasatch Formation forms most of the overburden in the area. The 

boundary between the Wasatch Formation and the underlying Paleocene Fort 

Union Formation is not distinct. From a practical standpoint, the top of the 

mineable coal zone is considered as the contact between the two formations. 

Table 3-5 indicates the overburden thicknesses in the Belle Ayr North, West Coal 

Creek, Caballo West, and Maysdorf II LBA tracts as applied for and under other 

action alternatives. As discussed previously, the regional dip in this area is to the 

west; as a result, the overburden thickness is generally thinner to the east and 

increases to the west. 

The Fort Union Formation consists primarily of siltstones, mudstones, claystones, 

shales, lenticular sands/sandstones, and coal seams. As shown in figure 3-2, this 

formation is divided into three members: the Tongue River, the Lebo, and the 

Tullock, in descending order. The Tongue River Member consists of interbedded 

siltstone, claystone, silty shale, carbonaceous shale, and coal, with lesser 

amounts of fine-grained sands and sandstones. 

The U.S. Geological Survey (Flores et al. 1999) refers to the thick mineable coals in 

the Gillette coal field as the Wyodak-Anderson coal zone of the Tongue River 

Member of the Fort Union Formation. The nomenclature of the mineable coal 

seams in the Tongue River Member varies from mine operator to mine operator in 

the eastern PRB and are locally referred to as the Anderson and Canyon, Roland 

and Smith, Wyodak-Anderson, and Wyodak. There is one mineable coal seam 

(referred to as the Wyodak or Wyodak-Anderson) in the Belle Ayr North and 

Caballo West tracts as applied for and under Alternative 2. There are two coal 

seams (referred to as R1 and R3 seams of the Wyodak-Anderson) in the West Coal 

Creek LBA tract as applied for and under Alternative 2. There is one coal seam 

(referred to as Wyodak or Wyodak-Anderson) in the Caballo West LBA tract as 

applied for and as configured under Alternative 2. Up to five noncoal splits or 

partings occur within the seam, but they are typically local, discontinuous lenses 

of carbonaceous clay or shale that are less than 1 foot thick. There is one 

mineable seam (referred to as the Wyodak or Wyodak-Anderson) in the Maysdorf II 

LBA tract as applied for and as configured under Alternatives 2 and 3. Up to five 

noncoal splits or partings occur within the seam, but they are typically local, 

discontinuous lenses of carbonaceous clay or shale that are less than 1 foot thick. 

The combined average thicknesses of the mineable coal seams within each LBA 

tract as applied for and the additional area evaluated under Alternative 2 (and 

Alternative 3 for the Maysdorf II tract) are shown in table 3-5. The combined 

average thicknesses of interburden between coal seams, if present, are also given 

in table 3-5. 

As discussed in chapter 2, a “no-coal” zone is present within the Maysdorf II tract. 

It trends east-west throughout the central portion of sections 4 and 5, T.46N., 

3-14 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

R.71W. It is postulated that an ancient drainage channel (or paleochannel) eroded 

and removed the coal in this area and replaced it with unconsolidated fine sand, 

occasional gravel, and silty clays (CMC 2007b). 

The Fort Union coal seams are subbituminous and are generally low-sulfur, lowash coals. Typically, the coal being mined in the PRB has a higher heating value 

and lower sulfur content south of Gillette than north of Gillette. In the four tracts 

under consideration for leasing, the heating value of the coal seams is expected to 

average approximately 8,481 Btu/lb, with an average of about 0.30 percent sulfur, 

4.76 percent ash, and 30.07 percent moisture. 

3.3.1.2 Environmental Consequences 

3.3.1.2.1 Proposed Action and Alternatives 2 and 3 

The stratigraphic units from the base of the lowest coal seam mined to the land 

surface would be subject to permanent change after the coal is removed under the 

Proposed Action or Alternative 2 or 3. Mining would radically change the 

subsurface characteristics of these lands. The replaced overburden and 

interburden (backfill) would be a mixture of the geologically distinct layers of 

sandstone, siltstone, claystone, and shale that currently exist. As a result, the 

physical characteristics of the backfill would be different from the physical 

characteristics of the existing layered overburden stratigraphy. 

3.3.1.2.1.1 Belle Ayr North LBA Tract 

Mining would remove an average of 295 feet of overburden and 72 feet of coal on 

about 1,579 acres under the Proposed Action and an average of 295 feet of 

overburden and 72 feet of coal on about 1,669 acres under Alternative 2. These 

acreage figures represent the estimated area of actual coal removal under the 

Proposed Action and Alternative 2. Table 3-5 presents the average overburden 

and coal thicknesses for the Belle Ayr North LBA tract as applied for and for 

BLM’s preferred alternative. 

The replaced overburden and interburden would be a relatively homogeneous 

(compared to the premining layered overburden and interburden) and partly 

recompacted mixture averaging about 338 feet thick under the Proposed Action 

and Alternative 2. Approximately 195.5 million additional tons of coal would be 

recovered under the Proposed Action, compared to an estimated 207.2 million 

tons under BLM’s preferred alternative (Alternative 2). 

3.3.1.2.1.2 West Coal Creek LBA Tract 

For the West Coal Creek LBA tract, it is estimated that mining would remove an 

average of 81 feet of overburden and 36 feet of coal on about 1,151 acres under 

the Proposed Action. Mining would remove an average of 81 feet of overburden 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 3-15 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

and 36 feet of coal on about 1,232 acres under BLM’s alternative. These acreage 

figures represent the estimated area of actual coal removal under the Proposed 

Action and Alternative 2. Table 3-5 presents the average overburden and coal 

thicknesses for BLM’s preferred tract configuration under Alternative 2. 

The replaced overburden and interburden would be a relatively homogeneous 

(compared to the premining layered overburden and interburden) and partly 

recompacted mixture averaging about 105 feet thick under the Proposed Action 

and Alternative 2. Approximately 57 million additional tons of coal would be 

recovered under the Proposed Action and BLM’s preferred alternative (Alternative 

2). 

3.3.1.2.1.3 Caballo West LBA Tract 

An estimated 270 feet of overburden and 74 feet of coal on about 778 acres under 

the Proposed Action would be removed. Under BLM’s preferred alternative 

(Alternative 2), mining would remove an average of 286 feet of overburden and 74 

feet of coal on about 1,024 acres. These acreage figures represent the estimated 

area of actual coal removal under the Proposed Action and Alternative 2. Table 3­

5 presents the average overburden and coal thicknesses for the Caballo West LBA 

tract as applied for and for BLM’s preferred alternative. 

The replaced overburden and interburden would be a relatively homogeneous 

(compared to the premining layered overburden and interburden) and partly 

recompacted mixture averaging about 326 feet thick under the Proposed Action 

and about 345 feet thick under Alternative 2. Approximately 81.8 million 

additional tons of coal would be recovered under the Proposed Action, compared 

to an estimated 91.7 million tons under Alternative 2 (BLM’s preferred alternative). 

3.3.1.2.1.4 Maysdorf II LBA Tract 

As shown in table 3-5, mining would remove an average of 303 feet of overburden 

and 63 feet of coal on about 4,654 acres under the Proposed Action. Under BLM’s 

preferred alternative (Alternative 3), mining would remove an average of 303 feet of 

overburden and 62 feet of coal on about 4,895 acres. Under that same 

alternative, mining would remove an average of 322 feet of overburden and 65 feet 

of coal on about 2,825 acres and an average of 207 feet of overburden and 50 feet 

of coal on about 2,070 acres under BLM’s tract configuration for the south block. 

These acreage figures are estimates of actual coal removal under the Proposed 

Action and Alternatives 2 and 3. Table 3-5 presents the average overburden and 

coal thicknesses for the Maysdorf II LBA tract as applied for, the average 

overburden and coal thicknesses for Alternative 2, and for Alternative 3 (BLM’s 

preferred tract configuration). 

The replaced overburden and interburden would be a relatively homogeneous 

(compared to the premining layered overburden and interburden) and partly 

3-16 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

recompacted mixture averaging about 356 feet thick under the Proposed Action 

and under Alternative 2, and about 378 and 244 feet thick over the north and 

south blocks, respectively, under Alternative 3 (BLM’s preferred tract 

configuration). Approximately 434.5 million additional tons of coal would be 

recovered under the Proposed Action, compared to an estimated 459.5 million 

tons under Alternative 2 and Alternative 3 (BLM’s preferred tract configuration). 

3.3.1.2.2 No Action Alternative 

Under the No Action alternative for the Belle Ayr North, West Coal Creek, Caballo 

West, and Maysdorf II the coal lease applications would be rejected. Coal removal 

and associated disturbance and impacts would not occur on the LBA tracts. 

Mining operations and associated impacts would continue as permitted on the 

existing adjacent mine coal leases. Table 3-5 presents the average overburden 

and coal thicknesses for the existing Caballo, Belle Ayr, Cordero Rojo, and Coal 

Creek Mine permit areas. There would be impacts to the overburden on portions 

of the LBA tracts adjacent to the existing mines as a result of recovery of the 

remaining coal in the existing leases. 

As discussed in chapter 2, a decision to reject the Belle Ayr North, West Coal 

Creek, Caballo West, and Maysdorf II lease applications would not preclude an 

application to lease the tracts in the future. 

3.3.1.3 Regulatory Compliance, Mitigation and Monitoring 

State and federal regulations require that drilling and sampling programs be 

conducted on existing leases by all mine operators to identify overburden material 

that may be unsuitable for reclamation (i.e., material that is not suitable for use in 

reestablishing vegetation or that may affect groundwater quality due to high 

concentrations of certain constituents, such as selenium, or adverse pH levels). 

As part of the mine permitting process, each mine operator develops a 

management plan to ensure that this unsuitable material is not placed in areas 

where it may affect groundwater quality or revegetation success. Each mine 

operator also develops backfill monitoring plans as part of the mine permitting 

process to evaluate the quality of the replaced overburden. These plans are in 

place for the existing Belle Ayr, Coal Creek, Caballo, and Cordero Rojo mines and 

would be developed for the Belle Ayr North, West Coal Creek, Caballo West, and 

Maysdorf II LBA tracts if they are leased. 

Portions of the Wyodak coal seams that may not be recovered due to quality issues 

are similar with respect to low sulfur content. Therefore, the potential for acid 

formation is minimal, and any acid formed would be neutralized by the alkaline 

overburden. The waste coal from any unmined coal remains in the pit to be mixed 

with and covered by backfilled overburden and interburden materials. Any 

unsuitable materials in the backfill would be buried under adequate fill so as to be 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 3-17 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

below the replaced soil to meet regulatory guidelines for vegetation root zones. 

Regraded overburden would be sampled to verify suitability as subsoil. 

3.3.1.4 Residual Impacts 

Geology from the base of the coal to the surface would be subject to significant, 

permanent change. 

3.3.2 Other Mineral Resources 

3.3.2.1 Affected Environment 

3.3.2.1.1 Conventional Oil and Gas 

The following discussion is based on information in the Task 2 Report for the 

Powder River Basin Coal Review – Past and Present and Reasonably Foreseeable 

Development Activities (BLM 2005a), on a December 2007 review of Wyoming Oil 

and Gas Conservation Commission (WOGCC) database, and on a 2008 reserve 

estimate prepared by Allen & Crouch Petroleum Engineers, Inc. (A&C) of 

conventional oil and gas resources in the general South Gillette analysis area 

(A&C 2008). 

The U.S. Geological Survey’s (USGS) estimation of undiscovered oil and non-coal 

bed natural gas resources in the PRB, as of December 2006, are 639 million 

barrels of oil, 1.16 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, and 131 million barrels of 

natural gas liquids as of 2006 (USGS 2006). Depths to conventional gas and oilbearing strata generally range from 4,000 to 13,500 feet. 

The Powder River structural basin is one of the richest petroleum provinces in the 

Rocky Mountain area. Hydrocarbons occur in reservoirs ranging from 

Mississippian to early Tertiary, in both structural and stratigraphic traps. As 

discussed in the PRB Coal Review Task 2 Report, oil was first produced from the 

PRB in 1887 from the Lower Cretaceous Newcastle Sandstone on the east flank of 

the basin near Moorcroft, Wyoming. In the 1960s and 1970s, drilling moved into 

deeper parts of the basin that resulted in the discovery of prolific oil fields in 

stratigraphic traps in Upper and Lower Cretaceous rocks. The discovery of oil 

from the Lower Cretaceous Muddy Sandstone on the Montana side of the basin set 

off a flurry of exploration that resulted in a number of discoveries in Wyoming in 

the Muddy Sandstone. Portions of the Hilight Field and other smaller fields in the 

vicinity of the analysis area are produced in the Muddy Sandstone. Drilling 

continued for deeper targets and resulted in the recovery of oil and gas in deeper 

reserves in the Hilight Field and other fields in the Permian-Pennsylvanian 

Minnelusa Formation. Through 2005, there had been a 15-year period of very 

little conventional oil and gas development activity in the PRB (BLM 2005a). 

3-18 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Several conventional oil and gas fields produce in the vicinity of the general South 

Gillette analysis area, including the Hilight, Maysdorf, and Breen oil and gas 

fields. Portions of the Maysdorf II (south tract) and West Coal Creek tracts overlay 

the Hilight field. The Maysdorf and Breen fields are overlain by portions of the 

Maysdorf II (north tract) tract (De Bruin 2002). 

WOGCC data indicate that the Mowry Shale, Muddy Sandstone, and Minnelusa 

Formation have produced both oil and conventional gas to date in the general 

analysis area. Approximately 77 percent of the wells have been completed in the 

Minnelusa Formation, which produce from discontinuous, marginal marine, eolian 

sandstone deposits. As a result, Minnelusa Formation reservoirs tend to be small 

and irregularly distributed. Depths to productive traps range from 5,000 feet to 

15,000 feet, with most in the 8,000 to 14,000 feet range. The Upper Minnelusa 

Sandstone play is well established, and most of the Minnelusa wells in the general 

South Gillette area were drilled in the early 1980s. Field development generally 

occurred on a 40-acre well spacing. Conventional oil and/or gas wells have been 

drilled on all four LBA tracts (WOGCC 2007a). 

A total of 223 conventional oil and gas wells have been drilled in a 57-section area 

within or immediately adjacent to the four LBA tract study areas, including a total 

of 60 within the four LBA tract study areas. As of December 2007 only two oil 

wells have been drilled within the LBA tracts since 2000, with the most recent well 

completed in 2006 (WOGCC 2007a). 

According to A&C’s 2008 evaluation reserve estimate of conventional oil and gas 

resources, there are currently 18 wells capable of producing oil or conventional 

gas located on the four LBA tract study areas. Of the 18 wells, 13 are considered 

to have recoverable reserves using in-place oil and gas recovery methods. 

Estimated remaining recoverable reserves from these 13 wells are approximately 

273,700 barrels of oil and 12 million cubic feet (mmcf) of gas (A&C 2008). 

Higher oil prices experienced through late 2008 have helped prevent the 

abandonment of low-producing wells and could potentially increase conventional 

oil and gas exploration in the PRB. Enhanced oil recovery using carbon dioxide 

(CO2) flooding could increase conventional oil recovery in the south Gillette 

analysis area but the infrastructure (e.g., CO2 pipelines, etc.) is not currently in 

place (BLM 2005a). 

Section 3.11 includes a discussion of the ownership of the oil and gas resources in 

the four LBA tract study areas. Conventional oil and gas wells located in the 

individual LBA tracts oil and gas general analysis areas that are capable of 

production are listed in appendix G. 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 3-19 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3.3.2.1.2 Coal Bed Natural Gas 

Coal Bed Natural Gas (CBNG) has been commercially produced in the PRB since 

1989 when production began at the Rawhide Butte Field northwest of Gillette (De 

Bruin and Lyman 1999). CBNG development has occurred on lands in the vicinity 

of the Belle Ayr North, West Coal Creek, Caballo West, and Maysdorf II LBA tracts. 

The predominant CBNG production to date in this area has occurred from the 

Wyodak-Anderson coal zone, which are the same coal beds (or equivalent to the 

coal beds) being mined by the surface coal mines. The Wyodak-Anderson zone 

appears to be gas-bearing throughout the PRB and the methane in the coal beds 

has been determined to be biogenic in origin. CBNG is also being produced from 

other, deeper coal seams locally throughout the PRB. 

In order for CBNG to be produced, the hydrostatic pressure in the coal must be 

reduced to a level that can vary from coal to coal, which allows the gas to desorb 

from the coal. This is accomplished by removing water from the coal bed. CBNG 

reservoirs can be affected by any nearby activities, including coal mining, that 

reduce the hydrostatic pressure in the coal bed. 

The Wyoming BLM State Office-Reservoir Management Group (WSO-RMG) has 

recently prepared a variety of detailed analyses of CBNG resources in the lands 

near the existing surface coal mines in the Wyoming PRB for coal leasing and 

other actions. This group completed a report in 2006 that describes the 

existing/affected environment of the coal mining areas and adjacent lands, with 

respect to CBNG resources, and documents the observed and inferred resource 

depletion that has and will continue to occur (WSO-RMG 2006). 

WSO-RMG and the USGS have collected coal gas content data from coal cores 

near the mines and in other areas of the PRB. Measured gas content was minimal 

in all of the Wyodak-Anderson coal cores collected in 2000 at locations near the 

surface coal mines, indicating that the coal seams were already substantially 

depleted of CBNG. Average total gas content from the core desorption analyses 

was approximately 6.8 standard cubic feet per ton (scf/ton) near the coal mines in 

2000, compared with an average measured gas content of 37.6 scf/ton from coal 

cores taken outside the mining areas. Analyses by WSO-RMG, USGS, CBNG 

operators, and others have shown that dewatering of the coal beds, by both CBNG 

production and mine dewatering, reduces the hydrostatic pressure in the coals 

and allows the CBNG to desorb and escape from the coal. These effects have been 

ongoing and it is likely that desorption has continued since 2000; as a result, coal 

gas content and the gas-in-place adjacent to the existing mines would currently be 

expected to be less than in 2000. 

The WOGCC well data from the mining townships generally shows that operator 

interest in the eastern PRB mining areas peaked prior to 2000 and declined 

rapidly following 2001. Activity had declined to almost negligible levels during 

2005 (WSO-RMG 2006). 

3-20 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

CBNG wells were initially drilled on 40-acre spacing in the Wyoming PRB. 

Production/reservoir analyses submitted to the WOGCC in various public 

hearings indicated that CBNG wells will produce reserves from areas larger than 

40 acres. As a result, the WOGCC established an 80-acre spacing pattern as the 

default spacing for CBNG wells completed within the Fort Union and Wasatch 

formations. Most CBNG wells on and near the Belle Ayr North, West Coal Creek, 

Caballo West, and Maysdorf II LBA tracts were drilled on a 40-acre pattern, either 

because the wells were drilled before the spacing was changed to 80 acres or 

under the authorization of spacing exceptions granted by WOGCC. Certain 

townships in the PRB are exempt from the 80-acre spacing pattern rule, including 

Ts.46 through 48N., R.71W. (WOGCC 2005a). Although CBNG has been produced 

in this area for almost 10 years, there are still undrilled 40-acre spacing units in 

and around the general South Gillette analysis area and there has been little 

recent interest in drilling additional wells in this area 

CBNG is also being produced locally from other deeper seams in the PRB. Fifteen 

wells have been completed in the deeper Pawnee coal seam on and west of the 

Maysdorf II LBA tract. All of these Pawnee wells are either shut-in or are 

producing water (WOGCC 2007a). 

WOGCC records show that as of December 13, 2007, 445 wells had been drilled 

for CBNG production in 57-section area encompassing or immediately adjacent to 

the general South Gillette analysis area and 288 were capable of producing 

(WOGCC 2007a). There are 153 CBNG wells within the four LBA tracts. 

The ownership of oil and gas resources (including CBNG) in the tracts is discussed 

in section 3.11. CBNG wells capable of production on or in sections adjacent to 

the LBA tracts are listed in appendix G. 

3.3.2.1.3 Other Minerals 

Bentonite, uranium, and scoria are commercially produced in the PRB in addition 

to conventional oil and gas and CBNG (WSGS 2004 and 2005). 

Layers of bentonite (decomposed volcanic ash) of varying thickness are present 

throughout the PRB. Some of the thicker layers are mined around the edges of 

the PRB. Bentonite has a large capacity to absorb water, and because of this 

characteristic it is used in a number of ways, including drilling mud and cat litter. 

No mineable bentonite reserves have been identified on the LBA tracts under the 

action alternatives. 

There are substantial uranium resources in Johnson, Campbell, and Converse 

counties. One active uranium mining operation, the Smith Ranch-Highland insitu recovery operation, is located in west-central Converse County (WSGS 2008). 

No known uranium reserves exist within the general South Gillette analysis area. 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 3-21 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Scoria, also called clinker or burn has been and is a major source of aggregate for 

road construction in the area due to the shortage of more competent materials. 

Scoria consists of sediments that were baked, fused, or melted in place when the 

underlying coal burned spontaneously. Scoria is present within the general 

analysis area, predominantly east of the coal limit. Scoria occurs only in limited 

amounts on the LBA tracts or within the additional areas evaluated under the 

alternatives. Section 3.5.1.1.2 contains additional information on scoria. 

No active mining claims are located on the LBA tracts as applied for or within the 

additional areas evaluated according to a search of the BLM Land and Mineral Use 

Records (BLM 2007a). 

3.3.2.2 Environmental Consequences 

3.3.2.2.1 Proposed Action and Alternatives 2 and 3 

Other minerals present on the LBA tracts could not be developed until after coal 

mining and reclamation are completed. 

The oil and gas reservoirs below the Wyodak-Anderson coal beds would not be 

directly disturbed by coal removal. The existing oil and gas wells on the tracts 

would have to be plugged and abandoned, and all production equipment would 

have to be removed before mining operations could begin. Following mining and 

reclamation, the oil and gas lessees could drill new wells to recover oil and gas 

resources from any productive subcoal oil and gas reservoirs. This would only 

occur if they believe that the value of the reserves would justify the expense of 

drilling the wells and rebuilding the production infrastructure. As discussed 

above, conventional oil and gas resources in the general South Gillette analysis 

area have been extensively developed. WOGCC records show that 18 conventional 

oil and gas wells located on the tracts’ study areas are capable of producing. 

These 18 wells include 16 active wells, one temporarily abandoned well, and one 

shut-in well. Seven injector wells located on the LBA tract study areas are not 

capable of producing, but they are important to continued field production. 

According to A&C’s 2008 evaluation, actively producing wells within the LBA 

tracts have exhausted most of their recoverable reserves, with approximately 8 

percent of the recoverable oil and 2 percent of the recoverable gas remaining in 

these wells. Only two wells have been drilled in this area since 2000, so the area 

generally appears to be unfavorable for additional production from known 

reservoirs or new discoveries, given the current economic conditions and drilling 

technology. 

Before mining operations could begin, all active CBNG wells would have to be 

plugged and abandoned, and all gas production equipment would have to be 

removed. CBNG resources that have not been recovered from the WyodakAnderson zone prior to mining would be lost when the coal is removed. 

3-22 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

CBNG production requires withdrawing water from the coal seams to reduce 

hydrostatic pressure enabling methane desorption from the coals. WSO-RMG’s 

analyses indicate that depletion of the hydrostatic pressures and methane 

resources starts to occur adjacent to mining areas a short time after mining 

begins. CBNG depletion had already occurred near the mining areas in the 

Wyodak-Anderson zone by the time that CBNG development began to accelerate in 

the late 1990s (WSO-RMG 2006). Groundwater level data compiled by the Gillette 

Area Groundwater Monitoring Organization (GAGMO) in 2000 and earlier 

indicated that widespread hydrostatic pressure depletion in the affected coal seam 

aquifers had occurred since mining began in the late 1970s and early1980s. 

Hydrostatic pressures had declined by as much as 60 percent in the southern 

group of mines, and coal gas in place can be inferred to have been depleted by 

similar proportions. The ongoing reduction of hydrostatic pressure in the coal 

beds due to mining has been accelerated by extensive CBNG production from 

surrounding lands. 

WSO-RMG’s analyses of the production and reservoirs indicate that the CBNG 

resource within the Wyodak-Anderson seam has been substantially depleted, 

either by mining or by recovery from producing wells. It seems likely that the 

wells presently capable of production that are located within the BLM study areas 

for the four LBA tracts included in this EIS (appendix G) will have exhausted their 

economic reserves prior to initiation of mining in the LBA tracts. It is also likely 

that any undrilled spacing units in the BLM study areas will have been drained by 

production from the existing wells and nearby mining activity before mining 

begins in the LBA tracts. Mining operations within the LBA tracts could not begin 

until permitting is completed, which generally requires several years after a lease 

is acquired. By that time, it is likely that most of the economically recoverable 

CBNG resource would have been produced. CBNG production from the coal zones 

underlying the Wyodak-Anderson coal zone would not be directly disturbed by 

surface mining operations and could be delayed as the parcel is mined. If 

production from these lower seams is established on the LBA tracts in the future, 

additional measures would be required to accommodate both mining and CBNG 

production (section 3.3.2.3). 

Section 3.11.1 includes a discussion on the ownership of the oil and gas resources 

on the LBA tracts and the oil and gas facilities in the area of the tracts. 

3.3.2.2.2 No Action Alternative 

Under the No Action alternatives, the Belle Ayr North, West Coal Creek, Caballo 

West, and Maysdorf II coal lease applications would be rejected and coal removal 

would not occur. Mining operations would continue to limit the development of 

other mineral resources described above on the existing adjacent Belle Ayr, Coal 

Creek, Caballo, and Cordero Rojo mine coal leases. Mineral development 

limitations related to mining operations at the mines would not be extended onto 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 3-23 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

portions of the LBA tracts that will not be affected under the current mining and 

reclamation plan. 

As discussed in chapter 2, a decision to reject the Belle Ayr North, West Coal 

Creek, Caballo West, and Maysdorf II lease applications at this time would not 

preclude an application to lease the tracts in the future. 

3.3.2.3 Regulatory Compliance, Mitigation and Monitoring 

The reservoir analyses conducted by the A&C indicate that most of the recoverable 

conventional oil and gas and CBNG resources on the LBA tracts have been 

extracted by the existing wells. Reservoir analyses conducted by the BLM WSORMG indicate that most of the recoverable CBNG resources in the WyodakAnderson coal zone on these tracts have probably been produced by the existing 

wells. Potential does exist for conflicts between coal operations and CBNG and 

conventional oil and gas wells completed in formations and coal zones below the 

Wyodak-Anderson seam. 

If the federal coal in the tract is leased and conflicts do develop between the 

operators of the oil and gas wells and the surface coal mine operator, several 

mechanisms exist that can be used to facilitate recovery of the conventional oil 

and gas and CBNG resources prior to mining. These include: 

•	 BLM will attach a multiple mineral development stipulation to the federal 

coal lease stating that BLM has the authority to withhold approval of coal 

mining operations that would interfere with the development of mineral 

leases issued prior to the coal lease (appendix D). 

•	 Conventional oil and gas wells must be plugged and abandoned while 

mining and reclamation operations are in progress. These wells could be 

recompleted or redrilled following mining if the value of the remaining 

reserves would justify the expense of reestablishing production. 

•	 BLM has a policy in place on CBNG-coal conflicts (BLM Instruction 

Memorandum No. 2006-153), which directs BLM decision-makers to 

optimize the recovery of both resources and ensure that the public receives 

a reasonable return (BLM 2006a). This memorandum offers royalty 

incentives to CBNG operators to accelerate production to recover the 

natural gas while simultaneously allowing uninterrupted coal mining 

operations. In addition, this memorandum also states that it is the policy of 

the BLM to encourage oil and gas and coal companies to resolve conflicts 

between themselves; when requested, the BLM will assist in facilitating 

agreements between the companies. 

•	 Mining the LBA tracts cannot occur until the coal lessees have a permit to 

mine the tract approved by the WDEQ/LQD and a MLA mining plan 

3-24 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

approved by the Secretary of the Interior. Before the MLA mining plans can 

be approved, BLM must approve each R2P2 for mining the tracts. Prior to 

approving the each R2P2, BLM can review the status of CBNG and 

conventional oil and gas development on the tract and the mining sequence 

proposed by the coal lessee. The permit approval process generally takes 

the coal lessee several years, during which time CBNG resources can be 

recovered. 

•	 Before mining commences the coal lessee can negotiate an agreement with 

owners and operators of existing oil and gas facilities (pipelines) on the tract 

regarding removal and relocation of those facilities. 

3.3.2.4 Residual Impacts 

CBNG resources that have not been recovered from the Wyodak-Anderson zone 

prior to mining would be lost when the coal is removed. 

3.3.3 Paleontology 

3.3.3.1 Affected Environment 

The formation exposed on the surface of the tracts is the sedimentary Eocene 

Wasatch Formation, which is known to produce fossil vertebrates of scientific 

significance throughout Wyoming, including the PRB (Delson 1971, Winterfeld 

1978, EVG 2001). 

BLM ranks areas according to their potential to contain vertebrate fossils or 

noteworthy occurrences of invertebrate or plant fossils. The Wasatch Formation is 

ranked as fulfilling BLM Paleontology Condition No. 1, which the Paleontological 

Resource Management Handbook 8270-I describes as “areas that are known to 

contain vertebrate fossils or noteworthy occurrences of invertebrate or plant 

fossils.” According to the handbook, “consideration of paleontological resources 

will be necessary if the Field Office review of available information indicates that 

such fossils are present in the area”. 

The BLM in Wyoming uses an additional planning tool, called the Possible Fossil 

Yield Classification (PFYC), to classify geological units, usually at the formation or 

member level, according to the probability that they will yield paleontological 

resources that are of concern to land managers. This classification system is 

based largely on how likely a geologic unit is to produce scientifically significant 

fossils. BLM considers the Wasatch Formation to fulfill either the PFYC Class 4 or 

Class 5, depending on the nature of bedrock exposures present. PFYC classes 4 

and 5 are described as follows: 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 3-25 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Class 4 - These geologic units are Class 5 units (see below) that have lowered 

risks of human-caused adverse impacts and/or lowered risk of natural 

degradation. 

Class 5 - Fossilferous geologic units that regularly and predictably produce 

vertebrate fossils and/or scientifically significant non-vertebrate (plant and 

invertebrate) fossils, and that are at risk of natural degradation and/or 

human-caused adverse impacts. 

Although the Wasatch Formation is known to produce fossil vertebrates of 

scientific significance in Wyoming, outcrops of the Wasatch Formation in the PRB 

are generally not well-exposed and the conditions of deposition of the formation 

have contributed to a low preservation potential for fossils. Vertebrate fossils that 

have been described from this formation include mammals such as early horses, 

tapiroids, condylarths, primates, insectivores, marsupials, creodonts, carnivores, 

and multituberculates; reptiles such as crocodilians, alligators, lizards, and 

turtles; birds; eggs; amphibians; and fish. Non-marine invertebrates such as 

mollusks and ostrocods have also been described from the Wasatch. 

Fossil plant material is common in the Wasatch Formation, particularly leaves 

and fossilized wood. The leaves usually occur as lignitic impressions in sandstone 

and siltstone and as compact masses in shale. Leaves are the most abundant 

fossils found during paleontological surveys and are frequently encountered 

during mining operations. Fossilized wood often occurs near the top of a coal 

seam, in carbonaceous shale or within channel sandstone. Exposures of fossil 

logs are common, but usually very fragmentary. Like fossil leaves, fossil logs can 

be readily collected in the PRB. 

Paleontological surveys were conducted in conjunction with the Class III cultural 

resource inventories of the current Belle Ayr, Coal Creek, Caballo, and Cordero 

Rojo Mine permit areas and the BLM study areas for the Belle Ayr North, West 

Coal Creek, Caballo West, and Maysdorf II LBA tracts (the tracts as applied for 

and the additional area evaluated under other action alternatives). Pedestrian 

examinations for fossil indications were conducted along rock outcrops. One of 

the primary goals of the paleontological surveys was to locate unique pockets of 

fossilized bone such as those reported elsewhere in the Wasatch Formation in the 

PRB. Such concentrations of fossilized bone were not found, nor were any fossil 

vertebrates. Several fossil localities occur in exposures of the Wasatch Formation 

south of the Belle Fourche River in sections 9, 10, and 14, T.46N., R.71W. None 

of the fossil material found at these localities or at other localities within the 

general South Gillette analysis area is considered to have much scientific 

significance; as a result no specimens were collected. Vertebrate fossils appear to 

be very scarce. Fossilized (a.k.a. petrified or silicified) wood is much more 

common and observed at many unrecorded locations, particularly associated with 

coal. Because of the ubiquitous nature of fossilized plants and invertebrates, 

reporting is typically confined to vertebrate specimens or unique finds. 

3-26 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

No significant or unique paleontological resource localities have been recorded on 

federal lands in the general South Gillette analysis area and no specific mitigation 

has been recommended for paleontology. 

3.3.3.2 Environmental Consequences 

3.3.3.2.1 Proposed Action and Alternatives 2 and 3 

The rock outcrops present on the tracts were examined for the presence of fossils 

and no scientifically significant fossils were located. Fossils with scientific 

significance could be present on the tract but not exposed at the surface. If the 

tracts are leased under the Proposed Action or Alternatives 2 or 3, buried 

paleontological resources would be destroyed when the overburden is removed. 

3.3.3.2.2 No Action Alternative 

Under the No Action alternative, the Belle Ayr North, West Coal Creek, Caballo 

West, and Maysdorf II coal lease applications would be rejected and coal removal 

would not occur. Mining operations would continue at the existing adjacent mines 

and on portions of the LBA tracts adjacent to the applicant mines, which would 

destroy potentially significant paleontological resources. 

As discussed in chapter 2, a decision to reject the lease applications at this time 

would not preclude an application to lease the tracts in the future. 

3.3.3.3 Regulatory Compliance, Mitigation and Monitoring 

If the tracts are leased, BLM will attach a stipulation to each lease requiring the 

operator to report significant paleontological finds to the authorized federal agency 

and suspend production in the vicinity of the find until an approved paleontologist 

can evaluate the paleontological resource (appendix D). 

3.3.3.4 Residual Impacts 

Paleontological resources that are not identified and removed prior to or during 

mining operations would be lost. 

3.4 Air Quality 

There is substantial scientific evidence that increased atmospheric concentrations 

of greenhouse gases (GHG) and land use changes are contributing to an increase 

in average global temperature. However since these gases are not regulated 

pollutants, discussions of this subject are included in sections 3.18.2 and 4.2.14. 

The information in this section and in the supplemental air quality Information 

appendix (appendix H) is based on the air quality information provided by the 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 3-27 
 

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Belle Ayr, Coal Creek, Caballo, and Cordero Rojo mines and from various state 

and federal sources. This section summarizes the affected environment in the 

general South Gillette analysis area and the potential air quality impacts if the 

Belle Ayr North, West Coal Creek, Caballo West, and Maysdorf II LBA tracts are 

leased and mined. Appendix H provides background information on the air 

quality regulatory framework, regional conditions, dispersion model methodology, 

the BACT process, etc. Existing and projected cumulative air quality impacts are 

discussed in section 4.2.3. 

3.4.1 Background 

The air quality of any region is controlled primarily by the magnitude and 

distribution of pollutant emissions and the regional climate. The transport of 

pollutants from specific source areas is strongly affected by local topography. In 

the mountainous western United States, topography is particularly important in 

channeling pollutants along valleys, creating upslope and downslope circulations 

that may entrain airborne pollutants, and blocking the flow of pollutants toward 

certain areas. In general, local effects are superimposed on the general weather 

regime and are most important when the large-scale wind flow is weak. 

The general South Gillette analysis area, shown in figure 3-1, is located in the 

east-central portion of the PRB, a part of the Northern Great Plains that includes 

most of northeastern Wyoming. As discussed in section 3.2.1, the topography is 

primarily rolling plains and tablelands of moderate relief (with occasional valleys 

and buttes). Elevations range from about 4,520 ft to 4,885 ft above sea level. The 

climate in the general South Gillette analysis area is semiarid with relatively short 

warm summers and longer cold winters. Evaporation exceeds annual 

precipitation. section 3.1.1 includes additional information about the climate in 

the general South Gillette analysis area. 

Air Quality regulations applicable to surface coal mining may include the National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards/Wyoming Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS/WAAQS), Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD), National Source 

Performance Standards (NSPS), and the Federal Operating Permit Program (Title 

V). These regulatory programs are described in appendix H. Air pollution impacts 

are limited by local, state, tribal, and federal air quality regulations and 

standards, and state implementation plans, or SIPs, established under the federal 

CAA and the CAAA of 1990. In Wyoming, air pollution impacts are managed by 

WDEQ/AQD under the WAQSR and the EPA-approved SIP. 

3.4.1.1 Emission Sources 

Air quality conditions in rural areas are likely to be very good, as they are 

characterized by limited air pollution emission sources (few industrial facilities 

and residential emissions in the relatively small communities and isolated 

ranches) and good atmospheric dispersion conditions, resulting in relatively low 

3-28 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

air pollutant concentrations. However, the potential exists for localized pockets of 

high concentrations of PM10, sulfur dioxide (SO2), and nitrogen dioxide (NO2), due 

to the large number of minor sources in the area (BLM 2005b). Occasional high 

concentrations of CO and particulate matter may also occur in more urbanized 

areas (e.g., cities of Gillette, Sheridan, and Buffalo) and around industrial 

facilities, especially under stable atmospheric conditions that occur during winter. 

Surface coal mining activities generate fugitive dust and particulate and gaseous 

tailpipe emissions from large mining equipment. Specifically, activities such as 

blasting, excavating, loading and hauling of overburden and coal, and wind 

erosion of disturbed and unreclaimed mining areas produce fugitive dust. Coal 

crushing, storage, and handling facilities are the most common stationary or point 

sources associated with surface coal mining and preparation. Particulate matter 

is the pollutant emitted from coal mine point sources, although small amounts of 

gaseous pollutants are emitted from small boilers and off-road diesel engines. 

Wyoming’s ambient air standards for particulates are shown in table 3-6. 

Blasting is also responsible for another type of emission from surface coal mining. 

Overburden and coal blasting sometimes produces gaseous, orange-colored clouds 

that contain NO2. Exposure to NO2 may have adverse health effects, as discussed 

in section 3.4.3. NO2 is one of several products resulting from the incomplete 

combustion of explosives used in the blasting process. Wyoming’s ambient air 

standards for NO2 are shown in table 3-6. 

Other existing air pollutant emission sources within the region include: 

 CO and nitrogen oxides (NOX) from internal combustion engines used at 

natural gas and CBNG pipeline compressor stations; 

	 CO, NOX, particulates (PM10 and PM2.5), sulfur dioxide (SO2), and volatile 

organic compounds (VOCs) from gasoline and diesel vehicle tailpipe 

emissions; 

 Particulate matter (dust) generated by vehicle travel on unpaved graded 

roads, agricultural activities such as plowing, and paved road sanding 

during the winter months, as well as windblown dust from neighboring 

areas; 

	 NO2 and PM10 emissions from railroad locomotives used to haul coal; 

 SO2 and NOX from power plants. The closest coal-fired power plants are the 

Dave Johnston plant, located about 40-60 miles south-southwest of these 

six LBA tracts, and the Wyodak, Wygen, and Neil Simpson plants, located 

about 35-55 miles north of these six LBA tracts; 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 3-29 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Table 3-6. Assumed Background Air Pollutant Concentrations, Applicable AAQS, and PSD Increm

Criteria Averaging Background Primary Secondary PSD C

Pollutant Time1 Concentration NAAQS2 NAAQS2 WAAQS Increm

Carbon 1-hour 3,3364 40,000 40,000 40,000 --

monoxide 8-hour 1,381 10,000 10,000 10,000 --

Nitrogen Annual 75 100 100 100 2

dioxide Ozone 8-hour 1326 147 147 157 --

Sulfur dioxide 3-hour 1417 --- 1,300 1,300 25 

24-hour 717 365 --- 260 5 

Annual 117 80 --- 60 2 

PM108 24-hour 709 150 150 150 8 

Annual 169 -- -- 50 4 

PM 8 1510 2.5 24-hour 35 35 65 --

Annual 610 15 15 15 --

1 Annual standards are not to be exceeded; short-term standards are not to be exceeded more than once per year. 

2 Primary standards are designed to protect public health; secondary standards are designed to protect public welfa

3 All NEPA analysis comparisons to the PSD increments are intended to evaluate a threshold of concern and do not 

Increment Consumption Analysis. 

4 Data collected by Amoco at Ryckman Creek for an eight-month period during 1978-1979, summarized in Riley Rid

5 Data collected at site located 15 SSW of Gillette, Campbell County, Wyoming, 2005-2008. 

6 Data collected at Wyodak Site 4, Campbell County, Wyoming, 2005-2008 (8-hour 4th high). 7 Data collected at Wyodak Site 4, Campbell County, Wyoming, 2005-2008. 8 On October 17, 2006, EPA published final revisions to the NAAQS for particulate matter that took effect on Decem

revision strengthens the 24-hour PM2.5 standard from 65 to 35 μg/m3 and revokes the annual PM10 standard of 50 

Wyoming will enter into rulemaking to revise the WAAQS. 

9 Data collected at the Belle Ayr Mine, Campbell County, Wyoming, 2005-2008. 10 Data collected at the Belle Ayr Mine (Site Ba-4, 5n, 5s), Campbell County, Wyoming, 2005-2008. 

Source: (BLM 2005b and WDEQ/AQD) 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

 Air pollutants transported from emission sources located outside the PRB; 

and 

 Ground level ozone (O3) is not emitted directly into the air, but is created by 

chemical reactions between NOX and VOCs in the presence of sunlight. 

3.4.2 Particulate Emissions 

3.4.2.1 Affected Environment for Particulate Emissions 

The federal standard for particulate matter pollutant was specified as total 

suspended particulates (TSP) until 1987. This measurement included all 

particulates generally less than 100 microns in diameter. In 1987, the form of the 

standard was changed from TSP to PM10 to better reflect human health effects. 

PM10 represents particulate matter with a mean aerodynamic diameter of 10 

microns or less that can potentially penetrate into the lungs and cause health 

problems. In 1997, EPA set separate standards for fine particles (particulate 

matter with a mean aerodynamic diameter of 2.5 microns or less, or PM2.5), based 

on their link to serious health problems. In 2006, EPA revised the air quality 

standards for particulate matter by tightening the 24-hour fine particle standard 

from the previous level of 65 micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m3) to 35 μg/m3 and 

revoking the annual PM10 standard of 50 μg/m3. EPA retained the existing annual 

PM2.5 standard of 15 μg/m3 and the 24-hour PM10 standard of 150 μg/m3. These 

revisions took effect on December 18, 2006. The current federal ambient air 

standards are shown in 3-6. 

While retaining the TSP standard until March 2000, Wyoming added the PM10 

standard in 1989. Wyoming also adopted a PM2.5 standard in March 2000. In 

view of the December 2006 revisions to the NAAQS for particulate matter, the 

state of Wyoming will enter into rulemaking to revise the WAAQS for particulate 

matter so that they remain as stringent as or more stringent than the NAAQS. 

Even with the evolution of state or federal small size particulate standards, TSP is 

still monitored in some PRB locations as a surrogate for PM10 and as an indication 

of overall atmospheric levels of particulate matter. 

WDEQ/AQD requires monitoring data to document the air quality at all of the 

PRB mines. According to EPA AirData, in 2007 there were six TSP monitors, five 

PM2.5 monitors and 36 PM10 monitors in the Wyoming portion of the PRB. Data for 

TSP date back to 1980 and data for PM10 date back to 1989. Through 2004, 

approximately 57,000 TSP samples had been collected and approximately 47,550 

PM10 samples had been collected through 2007. Information about the regulatory 

framework, the monitoring network, and PM10 concentration trends since 

monitoring began are included in appendix H. Existing site specific air quality 

information is included in the SGAC EIS Supplementary Information document, 

which is available on request. 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 3-31 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Historical particulate matter ambient air quality data for the general South Gillette 

analysis area air quality monitoring sites generally show the same results as 

described above for the PRB as a whole. The locations of PM10, PM2.5, and TSP (if 

monitored) particulate emission monitoring samplers at the Belle Ayr, Coal Creek, 

Caballo, and Cordero Rojo mines are shown on figures 3-3 through 3-6, 

respectively. The progression of mining operations requires that the location and 

number of particulate monitors be adjusted in order to provide the best 

documentation of the ambient air quality. Figure 3-7 presents the average annual 

emission measured by general South Gillette analysis area particulate monitors 

from 1997 through 2007 for PM10 emissions. Annual PM10 emissions for the 

SGAC area were calculated by averaging the available annual PM10 values 

(obtained from the EPA AirData website) from air quality monitoring sites for the 

four SGAC mines. Annual coal and overburden production for the general South 

Gillette analysis area mines for these years are also shown on figure 3-7. 

According to EPA AirData information, no exceedances of the 24-hour or annual 

PM10 particulate standards had been documented by the Belle Ayr, Coal Creek, 

Caballo, or Cordero Rojo mines through 2007. 

The annual PM2.5 standard is attained when the 3 year average is less than or 

equal to 15 μg/m3. Compliance with the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS is met when the 3­

year average of the 98th percentile concentration is less than or equal to 35 μg/m3 

(WDEQ/AQD 2008a). According to EPA AirData, all PM2.5 monitors in the PRB 

were in compliance through 2007(EPA 2009a). 

3.4.2.2 Environmental Consequences Related to Particulate Emissions 

Particulates include solid particles and liquid droplets that can be suspended in 

air. Particulates, especially fine particles, have been linked to numerous 

respiratory-related illnesses and can adversely affect individuals with pre-existing 

heart or lung diseases (EPA 2007a). They are also a major cause of visibility 

impairment in many parts of the United States. While individual particles cannot 

be seen with the naked eye, collectively they can appear as black soot, dust 

clouds, or gray hazes. 

3.4.2.2.1 Proposed Action and Alternatives 2 and 3 

Potential particulate emissions related to mining operations at the existing mines 

are described below. Because of the similarities in mining rates and mining 

operations, the potential impacts of mining the LBA tracts have been inferred from 

the projected impacts of mining the existing coal leases as currently permitted. 

Long-term (annual) PM10 modeling was conducted for the Belle Ayr, Coal Creek, 

Caballo, and Cordero Rojo mines’ most recent WDEQ/AQD air quality permit 

applications to demonstrate compliance with the annual WAAQS for PM10. All 

four mines utilized the Industrial Source Complex Model, Long Term Version 3 

3-32 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
21 

5 

Bishop

T-7 Road 

BNSF RR 

Four 

BNSF & UP RR 

BNSF & 

Corners 

Road 

State

 59 

Highway 

Creek 

Bishop 

Road 

Haight Road 

UP RR 

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

R. 72 W. R. 71 W. R. 71 W. R. 70 W. 

2

Hilight

Road

4 3 2 1 6 5 4 3

State Highway 59

1 6 

8 9 10 11 

Road 

8 12 7 9 10 11 12 7 

18 17 17 16 15 14 13 16 15 14 13 18 

BA-1 19 21 22 23 24 22 23 24 19 20 20 

30 29 28 27 26 25 28 27 26 25 30 

BA-4 & T. T. BA-4S Belle Ayr Mine 32 Plant Facilities 35 36 31 48 33 34 35 36 31 32 48 33 34 N. N. 

T. T. 4 1 6 5 47 47 4 3 3 2 2 1 6 5 N. N. Hoe 

Road BA-3 

12 7 8 8 9 10 11 9 10 11 12 7 

13 18 17 16 15 14 16 15 14 13 18 17 

21 21 22 23 24 19 20 22 23 24 19 20 

25 30 27 26 25 30 29 29 28 28 27 26 R. 72 W. R. 71 W. R. 71 W. R. 70 W. 

N 

LEGEND 

Belle Ayr Mine Permit Boundary 

Belle Ayr North LBA Tract as Applied for 

BLM's Study Area 

Alternative 2, W 0% E 

BLM's Preferred Alternative 

TSP, PM2.5, and PM10 Air Quality 

Sampling Locations as of 2007 

Meteorological Station 

KEY 5000 10000 20000 

Windrose 0 3 6 10 16 21 >21 Period: 1995-2000 GRAPHIC SCALE (FEET) KNOTS S 

Figure 3-3. Wind Rose, Air Quality and Meteorological Stations at the Belle Ayr Mine. 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 

29 

0 

3-33
33 

16 

9 

Mills Road 

T-7 Road 

Hilight Road 

BNSF & UP RR 

Road 

BNSF & UP RR 

Wagensen 

Lawver 

Road 

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

R. 71 W. R. 70 W. R. 70 W. R. 69 W. 

29 28 27 26 25 30 29 28 27 26 25 30

Hilight Road

ey H adl R o oad

T. T. 33 34 35 47 

N. 

T. 

34 35 36 31 32 36 31 32 33 47 

N. 

T. 

4 3 2 1 6 5 46 46 4 3 2 1 6 5 

N. N. 

7-1 

8
 

9 10
 9 10 11 12 7 8 11 12 7 

18 17 16 15 14 13 18 17 16 15 14 13 

Hoadley Road 

Coal Creek Mine 

Plant Facilities 23 24 19 20 19 20 21 22 21 22 23 24 

26-1A 26-1B

26 25 30 29 28 27 29 28 27 26 25 30 26-2 

T. 

34 35 36 31 32 33 34 35 36 31 32 46 

N. 

T. 

46 

N. 

T. T. 5 4 45 45 3 2 1 6 5 4 3 2 1 6 

N. N. Lawver Road 

12 11 12 7 8 10 7 8 9 10 11 

13 18 13 18 14 17 16 15 15 14 R. 71 W. R. 70 W. R. 70 W. R. 69 W. 

N 

LEGEND 

Coal Creek Mine Permit Boundary 

West Coal Creek LBA Tract as Applied for 

BLM's Study Area W 0% E 

Alternative 2, 

BLM's Preferred Alternative 

TSP and PM10 Air Quality
 Sampling Locations as of 2007
 

Meteorological Station 

KEY 5000 10000 20000 

Windrose 0 3 6 10 15 21 >21 Period: 1995-2000 GRAPHIC SCALE (FEET) KNOTS S 

Figure 3-4. Wind Rose, Air Quality and Meteorological Stations at the Coal Creek Mine. 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 

17 

0 

3-34
14 

27 

26 

State 

BNSF RR 

Fairview 

BNSF & UP RR 

Road

 59 Highway 

State

 59 

Highway 

BNSF RR 

Road 

Corners 

Bishop Road 

Hoe 

Road 

Creek 

Bishop Road 

BNSF & UP RR 

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

R. 72 W. R. 71 W. R. 71 W. R. 70 W. 19 20 21 22 23 23 24 19 20 21 22 24 

30 29 

28 27 26 25 29 28 25 30 Four 

T. T. 36 31 32 33 34

35 36 31 32 33 34 35 49 49 N. N. 

T. T. 1 6 5 4 3 48 48 2 1 6 5 4 3 2

N. N. 

11 12 7 C-9 9 10 8 7 8 9 10 11 12 

18 

16 15 

17 16 15 14 13 18 17 13 

C-1 

20 21 19 20 21 22 23 24 23 24 19 

Caballo Mine
 Plant Facilities
 

25 C-8 30 29 28

29 28 27 26 26 25 30 

T. 

T. 31 32 33 34 48 32 33 34 35 36 48 35 

N. 

36 31 N. 

T. 

1 

T. 3 47 6 5 4 

N. 2 47 3 2 1 6 5 4 

N. 

11 12 7 8 9 10 11 12 7 8 9 10 

R. 72 W. R. 71 W. R. 71 W. R. 70 W. 

N 

LEGEND 

Caballo Mine Permit Boundary 

West Caballo LBA Tract as Applied for 

BLM's Study Area (Alternative 2), 

BLM's Preferred Alternative W 0% E 

PM10 Air Quality Sampling 

Locations as of 2007 

Meteorological Station 

0 5000 10000 20000 KEY 

Windrose 

GRAPHIC SCALE (FEET) 0 3 6 10 

KNOTS 

16 21 >21 S Period: 1995-2000 

Figure 3-5. Wind Rose, Air Quality and Meteorological Stations at the Caballo Mine. 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 

27 

22 

3-35
33 

3 

22 

3 

48 

T-7 Road 

T-7 Road 

State

 59 Highway 

Hilight Road 

Haight Road 

Road 

BNSF & UP RR 

Bishop Road 

Hoe 

Creek 

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

R. T. T. 72 W. R. 71 W. R. 71 W. R. 70 W. 32

Highway State 59

Hilight Road

32 33 34 34 35 48 35 36 31 31 36 Cordero Rojo Mine N. N. North Plant Facilities 

T. T. 6 5 4 47 47 1 3 2 1 2 6 5 4 N. N. 

8 9 9 10 11 12 7 10 11 12 7 8 CRC-W 

15 14 13 18 17 16 15 14 17 16 Cordero Rojo Mine 

South Plant Facilities 

13 18 

23 24 19 20 21 22 23 24 19 20 21 22 CRC-E 

29 28 26 30 29 28 27 27 26 25 30 25

T. 

36 

T. 

47 34 35 36 31 32 33 34 35 

N. 

31 32 33 47 

N. 

T. T. 5 4 46 46 3 2 1 6 2 1 6 5 4

N. N. 

CRC-S 

12 7 8 9 10 11 12 7 8 9 10 11 

13 18 17 15 14 13 18 17 16 15 14

Hoadley Road 

24 19 24 19 21 20 21 23 20 22 23

R. 72 W. R. 71 W. R. 71 W. R. 70 W. 

N 

LEGEND 

Cordero Rojo Mine Permit Boundary
 

Maysdorf II LBA Tract as Applied for
 

BLM's Study Area (Alternative 2) 

North Tract Under Alternative 3, 

BLM's Preferred Alternative 

W 0% E South Tract Under Alternative 3, 

BLM's Preferred Alternative
 

PM10 Air Quality Sampling
 Locations as of 2007
 

Meteorological Station
 

Precipitation Gage
 

KEY 5000 10000 20000 

Windrose 0 3 6 10 16 21 >21 Period: 1995-2000 GRAPHIC SCALE (FEET) KNOTS S 

Figure 3-6. Wind Rose, Air Quality and Meteorological Stations at the Cordero Rojo Mine. 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 

16 

0 

3-36
ANNUAL AVERAGE PM10

360300240180120

60

0 

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

 vs. PRODUCTION 

302520151050 

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 


 Coal Production (million tons) and


 Overburden Removal (million cubic yards)


 Annual Average

 Concentration (μg/m 10 PM 3 
 )

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Figure 3-7. Annual Coal Production and Overburden Removal vs. Ambient Particulates for the General 

South Gillette Analysis Area (1997 through 2007). 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 

Production Year 

SGAC Coal Production SGAC Mines

Average Annual SGAC Overburden Removal PM10 Concentration 

3-37
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

(ISCLT3) model to simulate dispersion of air pollutants emitted by the proposed 

project for a near-field air quality impact analysis (AQIA). For modeling purposes, 

receptor locations were placed at approximately 500-meter intervals along the 

ambient air quality Lands Necessary to Conduct Mining (LNCM) boundaries. 

As discussed in appendix H, based on monitoring from 2001 through 2004 at the 

Belle Ayr Mine, a PM10 concentration of 15 μg/m3 was added to most modeled 

emissions to account for background fugitive dust. The Caballo Mine used a 14.4 

μg/m3 concentration value for PM10 modeling. Impacts on ambient air from the 

Belle Ayr, Coal Creek, Caballo, and Cordero Rojo mines and other regional mines 

vary by year due to annual changes in emission strength, emission density, pit 

proximity to defined ambient air boundaries, and pit configuration. Emissions for 

each year are ranked and candidate worst-case years (discussed below for each 

mine) are further evaluated regarding proximity to neighboring mining operations 

and emissions. The total PM10 concentration at each receptor was determined by 

summing the PM10 concentration due to each active mine in the general area and 

adding the appropriate background concentration. The resulting particulate levels 

were then compared to the average annual PM10 standard of 50 μg/m3 to 

determine compliance with the annual WAAQS. 

As discussed in appendix H, surface coal mines in the Wyoming PRB have not 

been subject to PSD requirements. Only some fraction of the mine emissions 

included in the WDEQ/AQD air quality permit analyses consumes increment 

based on permits in place in the baseline year of 1997. As a result, the 

concentrations predicted by the WDEQ/AQD air quality permit analyses should 

not be compared to PSD increments. 

The Belle Ayr, Coal Creek, Caballo, and Cordero Rojo mines point source 

emissions inventories include all coal preparation and processing facilities (i.e., 

crushers, material transfer points, silos, and loadouts). All point source 

parameters (point source inputs, such as stack temperature, diameter, exit 

velocity, height, and emission rate, used in the model) for the regional mining 

operations, which were obtained from WDEQ/AQD files, were also considered in 

the modeling analysis. As discussed in appendix H, a proposed new point source 

that has the potential to emit more than 250 tpy of any criteria pollutant (the 

primary pollutant being particulate matter) must undergo a regulatory PSD 

increment consumption analysis as well as a BACT review. 

In Wyoming, monitoring results have been used in lieu of short-term (24-hour) 

modeling for assessing short-term coal mining-related impacts in the PRB. WDEQ 

has chosen this procedure in accordance with an agreement between EPA and the 

state of Wyoming. That agreement recognizes that appropriate models do not exist 

to accurately predict 24-hour impacts. Twenty-four-hour impacts have been 

estimated from recent monitoring and emission control activities. There have been 

no violations for exceeding the 24-hour or annual ambient air standards at the 

3-38 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Belle Ayr, Coal Creek, Caballo, and Cordero Rojo mines through August 2007 and 

none are expected from mining the LBA tracts. 

The estimated average overburden thickness is generally greater in each of the 

LBA tracts than within the current leases, but the thickness of the coal in the LBA 

tracts is about the same as in the existing mine areas (see table 3-5). The 

acquisition and mining of the LBA tracts by the applicant mines could result in an 

increase in particulate matter emissions per ton of coal mined above current levels 

due to the increased volume of overburden that would have to be removed to 

recover the coal. The increase in fugitive dust emissions could potentially be 

moderated somewhat if removal of the larger volume of overburden material 

results in a slower rate of mining advancement through the LBA tracts. This 

would potentially decrease the number of acres disturbed annually and cause 

haul distances to increase more slowly. 

Current mining techniques (i.e., haulage, blasting, etc.) would be expected to 

continue for a longer period of time than is shown in the currently approved air 

quality permits. Material movement of overburden and coal would continue to 

utilize shovels and trucks in overburden and shovels and trucks in coal. Facilities 

shown in the current air quality permits would not change as a result of proposed 

mining of the LBA tracts. There are no plans to change blasting procedures or 

blast sizes associated with the mining of the LBA tracts. In addition, current 

BACT measures for particulates would continue to be employed. If the Belle Ayr, 

Coal Creek, Caballo, and Cordero Rojo mines acquire the LBA tracts, they will 

have to amend their current air quality permits to include the new leases before 

mining activities can proceed into the new lease areas. New air quality modeling 

would need to be conducted in support of that permit application demonstrating 

on-going compliance with all applicable ambient standards. 

3.4.2.2.1.1 Belle Ayr North LBA Tract 

FCW projects that the annual coal production is expected to average 30 million 

tons, with or without the Belle Ayr North LBA tract. Belle Ayr Mine’s currently 

approved air quality permit from the WDEQ/AQD limits annual coal production to 

45 million tons of coal. According to FCW, if they acquire the additional coal in 

the LBA tract, production would continue at an average rate of 30 mmtpy for 

approximately 5.2 years under the Proposed Action, or for about 5.0 years under 

Alternative 2, BLM’s preferred configuration. As discussed in section 3.0, the 

estimate of recoverable coal, associated disturbance, and mine life shown in table 

3-1 assume that the Bishop Road is not moved. As indicated in tables 2-2 and 2­

3, approximately 54.5 million additional tons of coal could be recovered if this 

public road is moved, which would extend operations at the mine for a total of 

about 1.8 additional years under Alternative 2. 

WDEQ/AQD issued air quality permit MD-1271 for the Belle Ayr Mine on 

November 18, 2005. This air quality permit was issued based on an analysis 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 3-39 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

using emission factors, estimation methods, and model selection consistent with 

WDEQ/AQD policy. WDEQ/AQD issued air quality permit MD-1476 on 

September 7, 2006 to modify operations at the Belle Ayr Mine and to increase 

permitted annual production to 45 mmtpy (FCW 2007). 

Particulate emission inventories for the mining activities at Belle Ayr Mine were 

prepared for all years in the currently anticipated life of the mine. Two years were 

then selected for worst-case dispersion modeling of PM10 based on mine plan 

parameters and emission inventories. Fugitive emission sources and point 

sources were modeled using the ISCLT3 Model to estimate average annual PM10 

concentrations. 

McVehil-Monnett Associates, Inc. reviewed regulatory modeling techniques to 

select the most appropriate air quality dispersion model to simulate dispersion of 

air pollutants emitted by the proposed project for a near-field AQIA. Following 

WDEQ guidance, the ISCLT3 was used in all modeling analyses. Long-term 

modeling indicates the currently projected mine activities will be in compliance 

with the annual PM10 ambient air standard for the life of the Belle Ayr Mine. 

Based on mine plan parameters and highest emissions inventories, the years 2008 

and 2013 were selected as the worst-case years. The dispersion model showed a 

maximum concentration on the Belle Ayr LNCM boundary of 39.79 μg/m3 in 2008 

and 42.02 μg/m3 in 2013. Coal production in both years was modeled at the 

maximum permitted production level of 45 million tons (FCW 2006). The locations 

of the maximum-modeled PM10 concentrations for 2008 and 2013 are shown on 

figures 3-8 and 3-9, respectively. 

An inventory of all point sources, controls, and emissions for the MD-1476 air 

quality permit showed a maximum potential to emit 61.5 tpy; therefore, a PSD 

increment consumption analysis was not necessary. Because this value is below 

the 100 tpy major source threshold limit specified in Chapter 6, Section 3 of the 

WAQSR, Belle Ayr Mine will not be subject to the Title V Operating Permit program 

(FCW 2006). 

ISCLT3 modeling conducted for the current Belle Ayr Mine permit predicted no 

exceedances of the annual PM10 NAAQS at a 45-mmtpy production rate and there 

have been no exceedances of the 24-hour and annual PM10 NAAQS. FCW 

estimates that the mine would produce at an average annual rate of 30 mmtpy if it 

acquires and mines the Belle Ayr North LBA tract. At that average rate of 

production, there would be an extension of over 5 years in the time the mine 

would produce and there would be an increase in overburden thickness, but 

fugitive dust emissions are projected remain within daily and annual AAQS limits. 

Public exposure to particulate emissions from surface mining operations is most 

likely to occur along publicly accessible roads and highways that pass through the 

area of the mining operations. Occupants of dwellings in the area could also be 

affected. There are occupied dwellings and school bus stops located in the vicinity 

3-40 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
21 

48 

Bishop

T-7 Road 

T-7 Road 

BNSF RR 

Road 

BNSF & UP RR 

BNSF & UP RR 

Fairview

Road 

Corners 

Road 

State

 59 

Highway 

Creek 

Bishop 

Road 

Haight Road 

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Hilight Road

36 31 32 34 35 33 35 49	 34 33

State Highway 59

28 27 26 R. 72 W. R. 71 W. 28 27 26 R. 71 W. R. 70 W. 29 Four 

T. T. 36 31 32 49 

N. N. 

T. T. 5 5 4 3 2 1 6 48 4 3 2 1 6 

N. N. 

8 7 8 9 10 11 12 9 10 11 12 7 

18 17 16 15 14 13 18 17 16 15 14 13 

20 

21 19 22 23 24 22 23 24 19 20

29 28 27 26 30 25 28 27 26 25 30 

T. T. 

48 33 34 35 36 31 32

N. 

34 36 31 32 33 35 48

N. 

T. T. 

2 1 6 5 47 47 4 3 2 1 6 5 3 4 N. N. Hoe 

Road NOx=38.52 μg/m3 

12 7 8 12 7 8 9 10 11 9 10 11 

PM10=39.79 μg/m3 

13 18 17 16 15 14 16 15 14 13 18 17 

24 19 20 21 23 21 22 23 24 19 20 22 

25 26 30 29 29 28 27 28 27 26 25 30 

33 34 35	 32 33 34 35 R. 72 W. R. 71 W. R. 71 W. R. 70 W. 

36 31

LEGEND 

Ambient Air Boundary Belle Ayr Mine Permit Boundary 

Existing Belle Ayr Mine Federal Coal Leases 

Area Source 

Haul Roads 

Belle Ayr North LBA Tract as Applied for 

Receptor Location BLM's Study Area 

Alternative 2, 5000 10000 20000 BLM's Preferred Alternative 

GRAPHIC SCALE (FEET) 

Figure 3-8.	 Maximum Modeled PM 10 and NOX Concentrations at the Belle Ayr Mine Ambient Air Boundary 

for the Year 2008. 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 

29 

32 

0 

3-41
48 

Bishop

T-7 Road 

T-7 Road 

BNSF RR 

Road 

BNSF & UP RR 

BNSF & UP RR 

Fairview

Road 

Corners 

Road 

State

 59 

Highway 

Creek 

Bishop 

Road 

Haight Road 

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

State Highway 59

Hilight Road

28 27 26 R. 72 W. R. 71 W. 28 27 26 R. 71 W. R. 70 W. 29 Four 

T. 

36 31 32 49 

N. 

T. 

49 33 34 35 36 31 32 33 34 35 

N. 

T. T. 5 5 4 3 2 1 6 48 4 3 2 1 6 

N. N. 

8 7 8 9 10 11 12 9 10 11 12 7 

18 17 16 15 14 13 18 17 16 15 14 13 

20 

21 24 19 21 22 22 23 23 24 19 20 

29 28 27 26 30 25 28 27 26 25 30 

T. T. 

48 33 34 35 36 31 32 

N. 

34 36 31 32 33 35 48

N. 

T. T. 

2 1 6 6 5 47 47 4 3 2 1 5 3 4 N. N. Hoe 

Road NOx=37.97 μg/m3 

12 7 8 12 7 8 9 10 11 9 10 11 

PM10=42.02 μg/m3 

13 18 17 16 15 14 16 15 14 13 18 17 

24 19 20 21 23 21 22 23 24 19 20 22 

25 26 30 29 29 28 27 28 27 26 25 30 

32 33 33 34 35 R. 72 W. R. 71 W. 34 35 R. 71 W. R. 70 W. 

LEGEND 

Ambient Air Boundary Belle Ayr Mine Permit Boundary 

Existing Belle Ayr Mine Federal Coal Leases 

Area Source 

Haul Roads 

Belle Ayr North LBA Tract as Applied for 

Receptor Location BLM's Study Area 

Alternative 2, 5000 10000 20000 BLM's Preferred Alternative 

GRAPHIC SCALE (FEET) 

Figure 3-9. Maximum Modeled PM 10 and NOX Concentrations at the Belle Ayr Mine Ambient Air Boundary 

for the Year 2013. 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 

29 

32 

0 

3-42
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

of the mines, including several along State Highway 59, which is located less than 

1⁄4-mile west of the Belle Ayr North LBA tract. Roads, highways, currently 

occupied dwellings, and school bus stops in the vicinity of the Belle Ayr North LBA 

tract are shown in figure 3-10. 

3.4.2.2.1.2 West Coal Creek LBA Tract 

TBCC estimates that the annual coal production is expected to average 13.4 

million tons, with or without the West Coal Creek LBA tract. Coal Creek Mine’s 

currently approved air quality permit from the WDEQ/AQD limits annual coal 

production to 50 million tons of coal. If the mine acquires the additional coal in 

the LBA tract, they would continue to produce at an average rate of 13.4 mmtpy 

for approximately 4.3 years under the Proposed Action and under Alternative 2, 

BLM’s preferred configuration. 

WDEQ/AQD issued air quality permit MD-1282 for the Coal Creek Mine on 

December 1, 2005. This air quality permit was issued based on an analysis using 

emission factors, estimation methods, and model selection consistent with 

WDEQ/AQD policy. WDEQ/AQD issued air quality permit MD-1343 on March 

30, 2006 to modify operations at the Coal Creek Mine with the addition of 

atomizer/fogger dust control systems, which replaced existing conventional 

baghouses. Material movement utilizes draglines, shovels, and trucks for removal 

of overburden, and shovels and trucks for removal of coal (TBCC 2005). 

WDEQ/AQD issued air quality permit MD-5393 on September 2, 2008 to modify 

the mining sequence, construct a near-pit truck dump/crusher and overland 

conveyor system, and to increase permitted annual production to 50 mmtpy 

(WDEQ/AQD 2008b). 

Particulate emission inventories for the mining activities at Coal Creek Mine were 

prepared for all years in the currently anticipated life of the mine. Two years were 

then selected for dispersion modeling of PM10 based on mine plan parameters and 

emission inventories. Fugitive emission sources and point sources were modeled 

using the ISCLT3 Model to estimate average annual PM10 concentrations 

(WDEQ/AQD 2008b). 

Geomatrix Consultants, Inc. reviewed regulatory modeling techniques to select the 

most appropriate air quality dispersion model to simulate dispersion of air 

pollutants emitted by the proposed project for a near-field AQIA. Following WDEQ 

guidance, the ISCLT3 was used in all modeling analyses. Long-term modeling 

indicates the currently projected mine activities will be in compliance with the 

annual PM10 ambient air standard for the life of the Coal Creek Mine. Based on 

mine plan parameters and highest emissions inventories, the years 2009 and 

2016 were selected as the worst-case years. The dispersion model showed a 

maximum concentration on the Coal Creek LNCM boundary of 32.7 μg/m3 in 

2009 and 38.9 μg/m3 in 2016. Coal production in both years was projected to be 

the maximum permitted production level of 50 million tons (WDEQ/AQD 2008b). 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 3-43 
28 

21 

28 

48 

Bishop

T-7 Road 

T-7 Road 

BNSF RR 

Road 

BNSF & UP RR 

BNSF & UP RR 

Fairview

Road 

Corners 

Road 

State

 59 Highway 

Creek 

Bishop 

Road 

Haight Road 

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

State Highway 59

Hilight Road

R. 72 W. R. 71 W. 26 R. 71 W. R. 70 W. 29 27 26 28 27 Four 

T. 

36 31 32 49 

N. 

T. 36 31 32 33 34 35 33 34 35 49 

N. 

T. T. 5 4 3 2 1 6 5 48 4 3 2 1 6 

N. N. 

8 11 12 7 9 10 11 12 7 8 9 10 

B 

CABALLO MINE OFFICE 

B 13 18 17 16 15 17 16 15 14 14 13 18 

B 

19 22 21 22 23 23 24 24 20 19 20 

29 28 27 30 26 25 27 26 25 30 

B 

T. T. 34 31 32 33 35 36 48 48 33 34 35 36 31 32 N. N. 

T. T. 

3 2 1 6 5 47 47 4 3 2 1 6 5 4 N. N. Hoe 

Road 

12 12 7 8 10 11 9 10 11 7 8 9 

BELLE AYR MINE OFFICE 

13 18 16 15 14 16 15 14 13 18 17

24 19 20 21 23 21 22 23 24 19 20 22 

25 26 30 29 29 28 27 28 27 26 25 30 

35 32 33 34 35 R. 72 W. R. 71 W. R. 71 W. R. 70 W. 33 34 

5000 10000 

GRAPHIC SCALE (FEET) 

LEGEND 

B School Bus Stop 

Single Occupied Residence 

Multiple Occupied Residences
 Exist Within this Area
 (Boundaries are Approximate)
 

20000 

36 31

Belle Ayr Mine Permit Boundary 

Existing Belle Ayr Mine Federal Coal Leases 

Belle Ayr North LBA Tract as Applied for 

BLM's Study Area 

Alternative 2, 

BLM's Preferred Alternative 

3-Mile Radius 

Figure 3-10. Residences, School Bus Stops, Public Roads, and Other Publicly Accessible Facilities Within 

3 Miles of the Belle Ayr North LBA Study Area. 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 

29 

32 

17 

0 

3-44
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

The locations of the maximum-modeled PM10 concentrations for 2009 and 2016 

are shown on figures 3-11 and 3-12, respectively. 

An inventory of all point sources, controls, and emissions for the MD-5393 air 

quality permit showed a potential to emit 34.4 tpy; therefore, a PSD increment 

consumption analysis was not necessary. Because this value is below the 100 tpy 

major source threshold limit specified in Chapter 6, Section 3 of the WAQSR, Coal 

Creek Mine will not be subject to the Title V Operating Permit program 

(WDEQ/AQD 2008b). 

ISCLT3 modeling conducted for the current Coal Creek Mine permit predicted no 

exceedances of the annual PM10 NAAQS at a 50-mmtpy production rate and there 

have been no exceedances of the 24-hour and annual PM10 NAAQS. TBCC 

estimates that the mine would produce at an average annual rate of 13.4 mmtpy if 

it acquires and mines the West Coal Creek LBA tract. At that average rate of 

production, there would be an extension of over 4 years in the time the mine 

would produce and there would be an increase in overburden thickness, but 

fugitive dust emissions are projected remain within daily and annual AAQS limits. 

Public exposure to particulate emissions from surface mining operations is most 

likely to occur along publicly accessible roads and highways that pass through the 

area of the mining operations. Occupants of dwellings in the area could also be 

affected. There are occupied dwellings and school bus stops located in the vicinity 

of the mine. Roads, highways, currently occupied dwellings, and school bus stops 

in the vicinity of the West Coal Creek LBA tract are shown in figure 3-13. 

3.4.2.2.1.3 Caballo West LBA Tract 

CCC projects that the annual coal production is expected to average 37.8 million 

tons, with or without the Caballo West LBA tract. Caballo Mine’s currently 

approved air quality permit from the WDEQ/AQD limits annual coal production to 

50 million tons of coal. If the mine acquires the additional coal in the LBA tract, 

they would continue to produce at an average rate of 37.8 mmtpy for 

approximately 2.2 years under the Proposed Action, or for about 2.5 years under 

Alternative 2, BLM’s preferred configuration. As discussed in section 3.0, the 

estimates of recoverable coal, associated disturbance, and mine life shown in table 

3-3 assume that the Bishop Road is not moved. As indicated in tables 2-5 and 2­

6, approximately 6.9 million additional tons of coal could be recovered if this 

public road is moved, which would slightly extend operations at the mine under 

Alternative 2. 

WDEQ/AQD issued air quality permit MD-1125 for the Caballo Mine on February 

18, 2005. This air quality permit was issued based on an analysis using emission 

factors, estimation methods, and model selection consistent with WDEQ/AQD 

policy. WDEQ/AQD issued air quality permit MD-1477 on November 7, 2006 to 

modify operations at the Caballo Mine to increase the permitted production to 50 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 3-45 
47 

Mills Road 

T-7 Road 

BNSF & UP RR 

BNSF & UP RR 

Haight Road

Hilight Road

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

21 22 23 R. 71 W. R. 70 W. 20 21 22 23 R. 70 W. R. 69 W. 20

Hilight Road

UP RR B

H

NSF &

ey adl R o oad 25 27 26 25 30 29 30 29 28 28 27 26 

T. T. 32 33 34 35 36 31 32 33 34 35 36 31 47 

N. N. 

T. T. 4 3 2 1 6 5 46 46 4 3 2 1 6 5 

N. N. NOx=47.68 μg/m3 

8 

8 9 10 11 12 7 8 12 7 9 10 11 

18 

17 16 15 14 13 18 17 16 15 14 13 

Hoadley Road 

PM10=32.73 μg/m3 

23 24 19 20 21 19 20 22 23 24 22 

21 

29 28 27 26 25 30 29 28 27 26 25 30 

T.Wagensen Road

46 33 

N. 

T. 

34 35 36 31 32 33 34 35 36 31 32 46 

N. 

T. T. 5 4 45 3 2 1 6 5 45 4 3 2 1 6 

N. N. Lawver Road 

11 12 7 8 9 10 11 12 7 8 9 10 

14 13 18 18 17 16 15 16 15 14 13 

24 19 20 21 22 23 24 19 20 21 22 23 

Breen Road Lawver Road Lawver Road

25 30 25 30

29 28 27 26 29 28 27 26 R. 71 W. R. 70 W. R. 70 W. R. 69 W. 

LEGEND 

Ambient Air Boundary Coal Creek Mine Permit Boundary 

Haul Roads Existing Coal Creek Mine Federal Coal Lease 

Area Source West Coal Creek LBA Tract as Applied for 

Receptor Location BLM's Study Area 

Alternative 2,
 BLM's Preferred Alternative
 0 5000 10000 20000 

GRAPHIC SCALE (FEET) 

Figure 3-11. Maximum Modeled PM 10 and NOX Concentrations at the Coal Creek Mine Ambient Air 

Boundary for the Year 2009. 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 

17 

3-46
47 

Mills Road 

T-7 Road 

BNSF & UP RR 

BNSF & UP RR 

Haight Road

Hilight Road

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

21 22 23 R. 71 W. R. 70 W. 20 21 22 23 R. 70 W. R. 69 W. 20

Hilight Road

RR B

H

NSF & UP

ey adl R o oad 25 30 29 28 27 26 25 30 29 28 27 26 

T. T. 32 33 34 35 36 31 32 33 34 35 36 31	 47 

N. N. 

T. T. 4 3 2 1 6 5 46 46 4 3 2 1 6 5 

N. N. NOx=47.81 μg/m3 

8 

8 9 10 11 12 7 8 12 7 9 10 11 

18 17 16 15 14 13 18 17 16 15 14 13 

Hoadley Road 

20 21 22 23 24 19 20 21 22 23 24 19

29 26 25 30 29 28 27 28 27 26 25 30 

T. Wagensen Road

46 33 

T. 32 

34 35 36 31 33 34 35 36 31 32 46

N. N. 

T. T. 5 4	 45 3 2 1 6 5 45 4	 3 2 1 6 

N. N. Lawver Road 

PM10=38.88 μg/m3 

11 12 7 8 9 10 11 12 7 8 9 10 

14 13 18 18 17 16 15 16 15 14 13 

24 19 20 21 22 23 24 19 20 21 22 23 

Breen Road Lawver Road Lawver Road

25 30 

28 27 26 29 25 30 28 27 26	 29 R. 71 W. R. 70 W.	 R. 70 W. R. 69 W. 

LEGEND 

Ambient Air Boundary Coal Creek Mine Permit Boundary 

Haul Roads Existing Coal Creek Mine Federal Coal Lease 

Area Source West Coal Creek LBA Tract as Applied for 

Receptor Location BLM's Study Area 

Alternative 2,
 BLM's Preferred Alternative
 0 5000 10000 20000 

GRAPHIC SCALE (FEET) 

Figure 3-12.	 Maximum Modeled PM 10 and NOX Concentrations at the Coal Creek Mine Ambient Air 

Boundary for the Year 2016. 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 

17 

3-47
25

29 

20 

17 

46 

Mills Road 

BNSF & UP RR 

Haight Road 

Hilight Road

Wagensen Road 

T-7 Road 

BNSF & UP RR 

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

20 21 22 23 R. 71 W. R. 70 W. 20 21 22 23 R. 70 W. R. 69 W.

Hilight Road

RR B

H

NSF & UP

ey adl R o oad

30 29 28 27 26 25 30 28 27 26 25 

T. T. 33 34 35 36 31 32 33 34 35 36 31 47 47 32 

N. 

T. 

N. 

T. 4 3 2 1 6 46 1 6 5 5 4 3 2 

COAL CREEK N. N. MINE OFFICE 

8 9 10 11 12 7 8 9 10 11 12 7 

14 13 18 18 17 16 15 17 16 15 14 13 

BLASTING Hoadley Road 

COMPANY 

OFFICE 

B 19 20 21 22 23 24 19 20 21 22 23 24 

B 

30 29 28 27 26 25 30 29 28 27 26 25 

T. T. 34 35 36 31 32 33 34 35 36 31 46 46 32 33 N. N. 

T. T. 5 4 3	 2 1 6 45 45	 3 2 1 6 5 4 N. N. Lawver Road B 

11 B	 10 11 12 7 9 10	 12 7 8 9 8 

14 13 18 18 17 16 15 16 15 14 13 

22 23 24 19 21 22 24 19 20 21 23 

Breen Road Lawver Road	 Lawver Road

29 28 27 26	 29 28 27 26 R. 71 W. R. 70 W. R. 70 W. R. 69 W. 

LEGEND 

Coal Creek Mine Permit Boundary 

Existing Coal Creek Mine Federal Coal Lease 

West Coal Creek LBA Tract as Applied for 

BLM's Study Area 

Alternative 2, 

BLM's Preferred Alternative 

3-Mile Radius 

B School Bus Stop 

GRAPHIC SCALE (FEET) 

0 5000 10000 20000 

Single Occupied Residence 

Figure 3-13.	 Residences, School Bus Stops, Public Roads, and Other Publicly Accessible Facilities Within 

3 Miles of the West Coal Creek LBA Study Area. 

3-48 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

mmtpy, add a dragline for overburden removal, revise the coal progression 

sequence, revise the location for the near-pit truck dump/crusher and overland 

conveyor system, and add passive enclosure control systems to the overland 

conveyor system. Material movement currently utilizes shovels and trucks for 

removal of overburden and coal (CCC 2006). 

Particulate emission inventories for the mining activities at Caballo Mine were 

prepared for all years in the currently anticipated life of the mine. Two years were 

then selected for worst-case dispersion modeling of PM10 based on mine plan 

parameters and emission inventories. Fugitive emission sources and point 

sources were modeled using the ISCLT3 Model to estimate average annual PM10 

concentrations. 

McVehil-Monnett Associates, Inc. reviewed regulatory modeling techniques to 

select the most appropriate air quality dispersion model to simulate dispersion of 

air pollutants emitted by the proposed project for a near-field AQIA. Following 

WDEQ guidance, the ISCLT3 was used in all modeling analyses. Long-term 

modeling indicates the currently projected mine activities will be in compliance 

with the annual PM10 ambient air standard for the life of the Caballo Mine. Based 

on mine plan parameters and highest emissions inventories, the years 2008 and 

2014 were selected as the worst-case years. The dispersion model showed a 

maximum concentration on the Caballo LNCM boundary of 36.77 μg/m3 in 2008 

and 46.98 μg/m3 in 2014. Coal production in both years was projected to be the 

maximum permitted production level of 50 million tons (CCC 2006). The locations 

of the maximum-modeled PM10 concentrations for 2008 and 2014 are shown on 

figures 3-14 and 3-15, respectively. 

An inventory of all point sources, controls, and emissions for the MD-1477 air 

quality permit showed a potential to emit of 26.3 tpy; therefore, a PSD increment 

consumption analysis was not necessary. Because this value is below the 100 tpy 

major source threshold limit specified in Chapter 6, Section 3 of the WAQSR, 

Caballo Mine will not be subject to the Title V Operating Permit program (CCC 

2006). 

ISCLT3 modeling conducted for the current Caballo Mine permit predicted no 

exceedances of the annual PM10 NAAQS at a 50-mmtpy production rate and there 

have been no exceedances of the 24-hour and annual PM10 NAAQS. CCC 

estimates that the mine would produce at an average annual rate of 37.8 mmtpy if 

it acquires and mines the Caballo West LBA tract. At that average rate of 

production, there would be an extension of over 2 years in the time the mine 

would produce and there would be an increase in overburden thickness, but 

fugitive dust emissions are projected remain within daily and annual AAQS limits. 

Public exposure to particulate emissions from surface mining operations is most 

likely to occur along publicly accessible roads and highways that pass through the 

area of the mining operations. Occupants of dwellings in the area could also be 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 3-49 
26 

14 

State 

Fairview 

Union Chappel Road 

Road

 59 Highway 

BNSF RR 

Road 

Corners 

Bishop Road 

Hoe 

Road 

Creek 

BNSF RR 

BNSF & UP RR 

Bishop Road 

State

 59 Highway 

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

R. 72 W. R. 71 W. 9 10 11 R. 71 W. R. 70 W. 8 9 10 11 8 

15 14 13 18 17 16 15 13 18 17 16 

23 24 19 20 21 22 23 24 19 20 21 22 

29 26 25 30 29 28 27 25 30 28 27 Four 

31 T. T. 36 31 32 33 34 35 32 33 34 49 49 35 36 N. N. 

T. T. 5 4 3 48 5 4 3 2 1 6 48 2 1 6

N. N. 

9 10 8 7 10 11 12 11 12 7 9 8 

16 15 17 17 16 14 13 14 13 18 15 18

PM10=36.77 μg/m3 21 22 24 20 21 22 23 19 23 19 24 20 

25 28 27 30 29 29 26 26 25 30 28 27 

36 

NOx=46.73 μg/m3 

T. 

31 32 33 34 48 

N. 

T. 

48 35 

N. 

36 31 32 33 34 35 

T. 

T. 3 47 2 1 6 5 4 47 3 2 1 6 5 4 N. 

N. 

11 12 7 8 9 10 11 12 7 8 9 10 

14 

13 18 

R. 72 W. R. 71 W. 17 16 15 14 13 18 R. 71 W. R. 70 W. 17 16 15 

LEGEND 

0 5000 10000 20000 

Receptor Location 

Area Source 

Ambient Air Boundary 

Haul Roads 

Caballo West LBA Tract as Applied for 

Existing Caballo Mine Federal Coal Leases 

Caballo Mine Permit Boundary 

BLM's Study Area (Alternative 2), 

BLM's Preferred Alternative 

GRAPHIC SCALE (FEET) 

Figure 3-14. Maximum Modeled PM10 and NOx Concentrations at the Caballo Mine Ambient Air Boundary 

for the Year 2008. 

3-50 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
14 

26 

14 

State 

Fairview 

Union Chappel Road 

Road

 59 Highway 

BNSF RR 

Road 

Corners 

Bishop Road 

Hoe 

Road 

Creek 

BNSF RR 

BNSF & UP RR 

Bishop Road 

State

 59 Highway 

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

11 R. 72 W. R. 71 W. 8 9 10 11 R. 71 W. R. 70 W. 8 9 10 

15 14 13 18 17 16 15 13 18 17 16 

19 20 21 22 

23 24 19 20 21 22 23 24 

29 30 26 25 30 29 28 27 25 28 27 Four 

NOx=59.80 μg/m3 

T. T. 31 

35 36 31 32 33 34 35 32 33 34 49 49 36 N. N. 

T. T. 5 5 4 3 48 4 3 2 1 6 48 2 1 6

N. N. 

9 10 8 7 9 10 11 12 11 12 7 

8 

16 15 

17 16 15 14 13 18 17 13 18 

PM10=46.98 μg/m3 

21 22 

20 21 22 23 24 19 23 24 19 20 

25 28 27 29 30 29 26 26 25 30 28 27 

36 

T. 

31 32 33 34 48 

N. 

T. 

48 35 

N. 

36 31 32 33 34 35 

T. 

T. 47 2 1 6 5 4 3 47 3 2 1 6 5 4 N. 

N. 

11 12 7 8 9 10 11 12 7 8 9 10 

14 13 18 

R. 72 W. R. 71 W. 17 16 15 14 13 18 R. 71 W. R. 70 W. 17 16 15 

LEGEND 

0 5000 10000 20000 

Receptor Location 

Area Source 

Ambient Air Boundary 

Haul Roads 

Caballo West LBA Tract as Applied for 

Existing Caballo Mine Federal Coal Leases 

Caballo Mine Permit Boundary 

BLM's Study Area (Alternative 2), 

BLM's Preferred Alternative 

GRAPHIC SCALE (FEET) 

Figure 3-15. Maximum Modeled PM10 and NOx Concentrations at the Caballo Mine Ambient Air Boundary 

for the Year 2014. 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 3-51
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

affected. There are occupied dwellings and school bus stops located in the vicinity 

of the mine, including several along State Highway 59, which is located less than 

1 mile west of the Caballo West LBA tract. Roads, highways, currently occupied 

dwellings, and school bus stops in the vicinity of the Caballo West LBA tract are 

shown in figure 3-16. 

3.4.2.2.1.4 Maysdorf II LBA Tract 

CMC estimates the annual coal production is expected to average 46.3 million 

tons, with or without the Maysdorf II LBA tract. Cordero Rojo Mine’s currently 

approved air quality permit from the WDEQ/AQD limits annual coal production to 

65 million tons of coal. If the mine acquires the additional coal in the LBA tract, 

they would continue to produce at an average rate of 46.3 mmtpy for 

approximately 9.4 years under the Proposed Action, or for about 10.0 years under 

Alternative 3, BLM’s preferred configuration. As discussed in section 3.0, the 

estimate of recoverable coal, associated disturbance, and mine life shown in table 

3-4 assume that Highway 59, the Haight and Hilight Roads, and the Burlington 

Northern Santa Fe & Union Pacific (BNSF & UP) railroad are not moved. As 

indicated in tables 2-7 and 2-8, approximately 15.2 million additional tons of coal 

could be recovered if the county roads are moved, which would slightly extend 

operations at the mine under Alternative3. 

WDEQ/AQD issued air quality permit MD-457 for the Cordero Rojo Mine on May 

2, 2000. This air quality permit was issued based on an analysis using emission 

factors, estimation methods, and model selection consistent with WDEQ/AQD 

policy. WDEQ/AQD issued air quality permit MD-1058 on September 17, 2004 to 

modify operations at the Cordero Rojo Mine with the addition of atomizer/fogger 

dust control systems, which replaced existing conventional baghouses. Material 

movement utilizes draglines, shovels, and trucks for removal of overburden, and 

shovels and trucks for removal of coal (CMC 1999). 

Particulate emission inventories for the mining activities at Cordero Rojo Mine 

were prepared for all years in the currently anticipated life of the mine. Two years 

were then selected for worst-case dispersion modeling of PM10 based on mine plan 

parameters and emission inventories. Area and line sources were modeled using 

the FDM to estimate average annual PM10 concentrations and the ISCLT3 Model 

was used to model all point sources. 

McVehil-Monnett Associates, Inc. reviewed regulatory modeling techniques to 

select the most appropriate air quality dispersion model to simulate dispersion of 

air pollutants emitted by the proposed project for a near-field AQIA. Following 

WDEQ guidance, the ISCLT3 was used in all modeling analyses. Long-term 

modeling indicates the currently projected mine activities will be in compliance 

with the annual PM10 ambient air standard for the life of the Cordero Rojo Mine. 

Based on mine plan parameters and highest emissions inventories, the years 2005 

and 2007 were selected as the worst-case years. The dispersion model showed a 

3-52 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
13 18

8 

State 

Fairview 

Union Chappel Road 

Road

 59 

Highway 

BNSF RR 

Corners 

Bishop 

Road 

Hoe 

Road 

Creek 

BNSF RR 

BNSF & UP RR 

Bishop Road 

State

 59 Highway 

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

R. 72 W. R. 71 W. 9 10 11 R. 71 W. R. 70 W. 9 10 11 8 

14 13 18 17 16 15 14 13 18 17 16 15

T. T. 

49 33 34 35 36 31 32 33 34 35 31 32 49 36 

N. N. 

T. T. 

48 4 3 6 2 1 6 5 4 3 2 1 5 48 

N. N. 

Road

8 7 9 10 9 10 11 12 11 12 7 

B 8 

13 17 18 16 15 14 13 B 17 16 15 14 18 

CABALLO MINE OFFICE 

B 

19 20 23 24 21 23 24 19 20 21 22 22 

30 29 26 25 29 28 27 26 25 28 27 30 Four 

20 19 21 22 21 22 23 23 24 19 20 24 

25 30 29 26 28 27 26 25 30 28 27 

B 

T. T. 32 36 31 48 33 34 32 33 34 35 48 35 31 36 N. N. BELLE AYR MINE OFFICE 

T. 

T. 5 47 1 6 47 4 3 2 5 4 3 2 1 6 N. 

N. 

9 10 11 12 7 8 9 10 11 12 7 8 

16 15 14 R. 72 W. R. 71 W. 17 16 15 14 R. 71 W. R. 70 W. 17 

LEGEND 

0 5000 10000 

B 

20000 

Single Occupied Residence 

School Bus Stop 

Multiple Occupied Residences 

Exist Within this Area 

(Boundaries are Approximate) 

Caballo West LBA Tract as Applied for 

Existing Caballo Mine Federal Coal Leases 

Caballo Mine Permit Boundary 

BLM's Study Area (Alternative 2), 

BLM's Preferred Alternative 

3-Mile Radius 

GRAPHIC SCALE (FEET) 

Figure 3-16. Residences, School Bus Stops, Public Roads, and Other Publicly Accessible Facilities Within 

3 Miles of the Caballo West LBA Study Area. 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 

29 

3-53
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

maximum concentration on the Cordero Rojo LNCM boundary of 46.56 μg/m3 in 

2005 and 45.66 μg/m3 in 2007. Coal production in both years was projected to be 

the maximum permitted production level of 65 million tons (CMC 1999). The 

locations of the maximum-modeled PM10 concentrations for 2005 and 2007 are 

shown on figures 3-17 and 3-18, respectively. 

An inventory of all point sources, controls, and emissions for the MD-457A air 

quality permit showed a potential to emit of 241 tpy; as a result, it was considered 

a major source, as defined by Chapter 6, Section 3 of the WAQSR, and required a 

Title V Operating Permit. However, when WDEQ/AQD issued air quality permit 

MD-1058 on September 17, 2004 to modify operations at the Cordero Rojo Mine, 

the replacement of the 14 existing conventional baghouses by the atomizer/fogger 

dust control systems reduced point source particulate emission levels such that 

the facility is no longer considered a major source and is no longer required to 

have a Title V Operating Permit (WDEQ/AQD 2004). 

ISCLT3 modeling conducted for the current Cordero Rojo Mine permit predicted no 

exceedances of the annual PM10 NAAQS at a 65-mmtpy production rate and there 

have been no exceedances of the 24-hour and annual PM10 NAAQS. CMC 

estimates that the mine would produce at an average annual rate of 46.3 mmtpy if 

it acquires and mines the Maysdorf II LBA tract. At that average rate of 

production, there would be an extension of nearly 10 years in the time the mine 

would produce and there would be an increase in overburden thickness, but 

fugitive dust emissions are projected remain within daily and annual AAQS limits. 

Public exposure to particulate emissions from surface mining operations is most 

likely to occur along publicly accessible roads and highways that pass through the 

area of the mining operations. Occupants of dwellings in the area could also be 

affected. There are occupied dwellings and school bus stops located in the vicinity 

of the mine, including several along State Highway 59, which is located adjacent 

to the Maysdorf II LBA tract. Roads, highways, currently occupied dwellings, and 

school bus stops in the vicinity of the Maysdorf II LBA tract are shown in figure 3­

19. 

3.4.2.2.2 No Action Alternative 

Under the No Action alternative, the coal lease applications would be rejected and 

coal removal and projected impacts related to PM10 emissions discussed above 

would not occur on the portions of the LBA tracts as applied for or the LBA tracts 

configured under Alternative 2 or 3 that will not be disturbed under the currently 

approved mining and air quality permits. Mining operations would continue as 

currently permitted on the existing and the Belle Ayr, Coal Creek, Caballo, and 

Cordero Rojo mines would continue to operate as currently permitted. Projected 

impacts related to PM10 emissions would not be extended onto those portions of 

the LBA tracts that will not be affected under the mines’ current mining and 

reclamation plans. 

3-54 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
24

22 

3 

22 

State 

T-7 Road 

BNSF & UP RR 

 59 Highway 

State 59 Highway

Hilight Road

Bishop 

Road 

Haight Road 

Hoe 

Road 

Creek 

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

R. 72 W. R. 71 W. 20 21 22 23 R. 71 W. R. 70 W. 

30 

20 21

29 28

23 

28 27 26 25 27 26 25 30 29 

T. T. 2 1 6 5 4 47 47 4 3 2 1 RR

H

BNSF & UP

ey adl R o oad 

PM10=46.4 μg/m3 T. T. 33 34 35 32 33 36 31 48 48 34 35 31 32 NOx=50.3 μg/m 36 3 N. N. 

6 5 N. N. 

12 7 8 9 10 11 10 11 12 7 8 9 

13 18 17 16 14 15 14 17 13 18 16 15 

19 20 21 22 23 24 19 20 21 23 24 22 

25 30 29 28 28 27 29 26 27 26 25 30 

T. T. 31 32 47 47 34 35 36 31 32 33 34 35 36 

N. N. 

T. T. 

3 2 1 6 5 4 46 46 3 2 1 6 5 4 

N. N. 

10 11 12 7 8 9 10 11 12 7 8 9 

13 18 17 16 15 14 13 18 17 16 15 14 

Hoadley Road 

21 24 19 20 21 23 24 19 20 22 23

25 25 30 30 29 28 27 26 29 28 27 26 R. 72 W. R. 71 W. R. 71 W. R. 70 W. 

LEGEND 

Ambient Air Boundary Cordero Rojo Mine Permit Boundary 

Existing Cordero Rojo Mine Federal 

Coal Leases 

Area Source 

Haul Roads 

Maysdorf II LBA Tract as Applied for 

Receptor Location BLM's Study Area (Alternative 2) 

Dust Suppression Loadout 

North Tract Under Alternative 3, 

BLM's Preferred Alternative 

South Tract Under Alternative 3, 

BLM's Preferred Alternative 

5000 10000 20000 

GRAPHIC SCALE (FEET) 

Figure 3-17. Maximum Modeled PM 10 and NOx Concentrations at the Cordero Rojo Mine Ambient Air 

Boundary for the Year 2005. 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 

33 

0 

3-55
24

22 

3 

22 

47 

State 

T-7 Road 

BNSF & UP RR 

 59 Highway 

State 59 Highway

Hilight Road

Bishop 

Road 

Haight Road 

Hoe 

Road 

Creek 

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

23
 R. 72 W. R. 71 W. 20
 21 22 23
 R. 71 W. R. 70 W. 

30
 

20
 21

29
 28 28 27 26 25 27 26 25 30 29
 

34 32
 33 35 31 33 48
 

NOx=49.6 μg/m3 36 

N.

RR

H

BNSF & UP

ey adl R o oad 

PM10=45.6 μg/m3 T. T. 

48 34
 35
 36 31
 32

N. 

T. T. 2 1 4 47 1 6 5 4 3 2 6 5
 N. N. 

12 7 8 9 10 11 10 11 12 7 8 9
 

13 18 17 16 14 15 14 17 13 18 16 15
 

19 20 21 22 23 24 19 20
 21 24 22 23
 

25
 28 27 30
 29 28 26 27 26 25 30
 29
 

T. T. 36 31 32 47 47 34 35 36 31 32 33 34 35
 

N. N. 

T. T. 6 5 4 46 46 3 2 1 3 2 1 6 5 4
 

N. N. 

10 11
 12 7 8 9 10 11 12 7 8 9
 

13 18 17 16 15 14 13 18 17 16 15 14
 

Hoadley Road 

21
 22
 24 19 20 21 23 24
 19
 20
 23

28 27 26 29 28 27 26 29 R. 72 W. R. 71 W. R. 71 W. R. 70 W. 

LEGEND 

Ambient Air Boundary Cordero Rojo Mine Permit Boundary 

Existing Cordero Rojo Mine Federal 

Coal Leases 

Area Source 

Haul Roads 

Maysdorf II LBA Tract as Applied for 

Receptor Location BLM's Study Area (Alternative 2) 

Dust Suppression Loadout 

North Tract Under Alternative 3, 

BLM's Preferred Alternative 

South Tract Under Alternative 3, 

BLM's Preferred Alternative 

0 5000 10000 20000
 

GRAPHIC SCALE (FEET) 

Figure 3-18. Maximum Modeled PM 10 and NOx Concentrations at the Cordero Rojo Mine Ambient Air 

Boundary for the Year 2007. 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 

33 

3-56
28 

29 

21 

48 

47 

State 

T-7 Road 

BNSF & UP RR 

 59 Highway 

State 59 Highway 

Hilight Road

Bishop 

Road 

Haight Road 

Wagensen Road 

Hoe 

Road 

Creek 

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

R. 72 W. R. 71 W. R. 71 W. R. 70 W. 20 21 22 23 20 21 22 23 24 19 24 19 

30 29 28 27 26 25 27 26 25 30 

T. T. 32 32 33 35 36 31 48 33 34 35 36 31 34

N. 

9 12 7 8 10 10 11 11 12 7 8 9

13 18 17 16 15 14 

13 18 16 15 14 17

CORDERO ROJO 

MINE OFFICE 

19 20 21 23 21 22 23 24 MAYSDORF 19 20 24 22 

POINT
 CEMETARY
 

RR

H

BNSF & UP

ey o

R

adl

oad 

N. 

T. T. 

3 2 2 1 1 6 5 47 4 3 6 5 4

N. 

T. 

N. 

T. 

30 29 29 28 27 28 27 25 30 26 25 26 

33 34 36 31 32 33 34 35 36 31 32 47 47 35 N. N. 

T. T. 

46 3 2 1 6 5 46 4 3 2 1 6 5 4 

N. N. 

10 11 8 12 7 9 10 11 12 7 8 9 

18 17 16 15 14 13 18 17 16 15 14 13 

BLASTING Hoadley Road 

COMPANY 

OFFICE 

B 21 24 19 20 22 23 24 19 20 22 23

B 

28 27 26 25 29 28 27 26 25 30 30 

R. 72 W. R. 71 W. 33 34 35 R. 71 W. R. 70 W. 33 32 34 35 

Cordero Rojo Mine Permit Boundary LEGEND Existing Cordero Rojo Mine Federal 

Coal Leases B School Bus Stop 

Maysdorf II LBA Tract as Applied for Single Occupied Residence
 

Multiple Occupied Residences
 BLM's Study Area (Alternative 2) Exist Within this Area
 

(Boundaries are Approximate)
 North Tract Under Alternative 3, 

BLM's Preferred Alternative 

South Tract Under Alternative 3, 

BLM's Preferred Alternative 

GRAPHIC SCALE (FEET) 

0 5000 10000 20000 

3-Mile Radius 

Figure 3-19. Residences, School Bus Stops, Public Roads, and Other Publicly Accessible Facilities Within 

3 Miles of the Maysdorf II LBA Study Area. 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 

32 

29 

3-57
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

As discussed in chapter 2, a decision to reject one or more of these four LBA lease 

applications at this time would not preclude an application to lease the tracts in 

the future. 

3.4.2.3 	 Regulatory Compliance, Mitigation, and Monitoring for Particulate 

Emissions 

Control of particulate emissions at all PRB coal mines is accomplished with a 

variety of measures. The WDEQ/AQD permits for all of the surface coal mines in 

the PRB require the following dust control measures, which are considered to be 

BACT measures: 

1.	 No mines are allowed to have out-of-pit open coal stockpiles. All coal 

removed from the mine pits must be stored in totally enclosed coal silos 

or barns. 

2.	 Unless specifically exempted, all coal mine main access roads are paved. 

3.	 As use and condition warrant, the minor access roads at coal mines that 

are unpaved must be watered or treated with dust suppressants. 

4.	 All coal conveyor transfer points are shrouded or otherwise enclose to 

direct coal fines from one belt to the next. 

5.	 The transfer point and crushers within coal processing plants are 

equipped with control devices and measures specified in individual 

permits. These control devices and measures may include, but are not 

limited to, the use of dust collection baghouses, cyclones, scrubbers, fog 

systems, and controlled flow transfer chutes. 

6.	 All out-of-pit conveyors are hooded or contained in a conveyor gallery. 

7.	 All out-of-pit coal dump hoppers are fitted with a dust control stilling 

shed, water sprays, or a baghouse dust collector. 

8.	 Active longer-term coal haul roads are treated with dust control 

chemicals and/or water. 

9.	 Active short-term mine haul roads that are continuously being relocated 

are maintained and watered while in use. 

10. All haul roads are regularly maintained to reduce the amount of dust reentrained by haulage equipment (WDEQ/AQD 2007). 

Additional site-specific requirements related to mine-specific layout and mining 

practices may be included in individual mine permits. 

Fugitive emissions are also controlled with a variety of other measures that the 

WDEQ/AQD considers BACT. Haul truck speed limits are imposed to further help 

to reduce fugitive emissions from roads. Material drop heights for shovels and 

draglines (bucket to truck bed or backfill) are limited to the minimum necessary to 

conduct the mining operations. Timely temporary and permanent revegetation of 

disturbed areas is utilized to minimize wind erosion. All of these control measures 

are employed at the Belle Ayr, Coal Creek, Caballo, and Cordero Rojo mines. 

3-58 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

In response to the measured exceedances of the PM10 NAAQS in certain areas of 

the PRB and in anticipation of possible future exceedances, the WDEQ/AQD has 

collaborated with the Wyoming Mining Association to develop a Natural Events 

Action Plan (NEAP) for the coal mines of the PRB of Campbell and Converse 

Counties, based on EPA Natural Event Policy guidance. A report describing the 

plan can be accessed on the WDEQ/AQD’s website on the Internet (WDEQ/AQD 

2007). The NEAP is discussed in appendix H. NEAP was designed and 

implemented to minimize PM10 concentrations and EPA will exercise its discretion, 

under Section 107(d)(3) of the CAA, not to redesignate areas as nonattainment, 

provided that the exceedances are demonstrated to be the result of natural events. 

Based on EPA’s Natural Events Policy, PM10 concentrations due to dust raised by 

unusually high winds will be treated as uncontrollable natural events under the 

following conditions: 1) the dust originated from non-anthropogenic sources, or 2) 

the dust originated from anthropogenic sources controlled with BACM. 

WDEQ/AQD may require implementation of the control steps outlined in the 

NEAP and may require continual evaluation of activity plans when exceedances 

are monitored at surface coal mines. Some of these measures have been formally 

implemented at the Black Thunder, North Rochelle, and Jacobs Ranch mines 

through the establishment of a formal, site-specific mitigative response plan at 

each of those mines. A mitigative response plan will be developed by any mine 

that records an exceedance or violation of the NAAQS downwind of its mining 

operations. 

Other operational control measures that WDEQ/AQD may require at specific 

mines when exceedances occur include, but are not limited to, site-specific 

watering of inactive areas and problem areas; relocation of overburden truckdumping operations and deferring blasting. The mines are experimenting with 

dust control treatments, including magnesium chloride, surfactants, and 

petroleum-based products. In addition, WDEQ/AQD may require additional 

monitoring, action levels based on continuous monitoring, expedited reporting of 

monitored exceedances, detailed reporting of contributing factors (e.g., 

meteorological conditions), and continual evaluation of activity plans when 

exceedances are monitored at surface coal mines. 

The WDEQ/AQD is continually reviewing the data and considering regulatory 

options, such as increasing the frequency of monitoring. Where elevated 

emissions have occurred, continuous PM10 monitors, or TEOMs, are installed, 

which allows monitoring of emissions on a real-time basis (WDEQ/AQD 2007). 

Other regulatory options may include enforcement actions such as Notices of 

Violation resulting in a consent decree and/or modified permit conditions. 

WDEQ/AQD is also coordinating with EPA to develop additional monitoring 

requirements in CBNG development areas, high PM10 mitigation action plans in 

permits, and additional mitigation measures under the SIP. 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 3-59 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

The PRB has one of the most extensive networks of monitoring sites for PM10 in 

the nation; most of these monitoring sites are funded and operated by the mines. 

WDEQ/AQD requires the collection of information documenting the quality of the 

air resource at each of the PRB mines. A discussion of the monitoring network, 

monitoring requirements, the data that have been collected, and PM10 

concentration trends since monitoring began are included in appendix H. 

3.4.3 Emissions of Nitrogen Oxides (NOX) and Ozone (O3) 

3.4.3.1 Affected Environment for NOX and O3 Emissions 

Gases that contain nitrogen and oxygen in varying amounts are referred to as 

nitrogen oxides, or NOX. One type of NOX is nitrogen dioxide (NO2), which is a 

highly reactive, reddish brown gas that is heavier than air and has a pungent 

odor. NO2 is by far the most toxic of several species of NOX. NO2 can combine with 

atmospheric moisture to form nitric acid and nitric oxide. Because several NOX 

species can be chemically converted to NO2 in the atmosphere, NO2 emissions 

control is focused on all NOX species, while the ambient standard is expressed in 

terms of NO2. O3 has been included in discussions on emissions of NOX since NOX 

is one of the main ingredients involved in the formation of ground level O3. 

According to the EPA (EPA 2001a): 

 NO2 may cause significant toxicity because of its ability to form nitric acid 

with water in the eye, lung, mucous membranes, and skin. 

 Acute exposure to NO2 may cause death by damaging the pulmonary 

system. 

 Chronic or repeated exposure to lower concentrations of NO2 may 

exacerbate pre-existing respiratory conditions, or increase the incidence of 

respiratory infections. 

Nitrogen oxides form when fuel is burned at high temperatures. They can be 

formed naturally or by human activities. The primary manmade sources are 

motor vehicles, electric utilities, and other fuel-burning sources. According to 

EPA, in 2002 motor vehicles/non-road equipment produced about 60 percent of 

the manmade NOx emissions, utilities produced approximately 22 percent of the 

emissions, industrial/commercial/residential activities each produced about 17 

percent of the manmade NOx emissions, and other sources accounted for the 

remaining 1 percent of the manmade emissions (EPA 2009b). 

The primary direct source of emissions of nitrogen oxides during coal mining 

operations is tailpipe emissions from large mining equipment and other vehicle 

traffic inside the mine permit area. Blasting that is done to assist in the removal 

of material overlying the coal (the overburden) can result in emissions of several 

3-60 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
 

 

 

 

 

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

products, including NO2, as a result of the incomplete combustion of nitrogenbased explosives used in the blasting process. When this occurs, gaseous, 

orange-colored clouds may be formed and they can drift or be blown off mine 

permit areas. 

Incomplete combustion during blasting may be caused by wet conditions in the 

overburden, incompetent or fractured geological formations, deformation of 

boreholes, and blasting agent factors. The rate of release is not well known but is 

believed to be dependent on a wide number of factors that likely include, but are 

not necessarily limited to: downhole confinement; downhole moisture; type/blend 

of ammonium nitrate, fuel oil (ANFO) and emulsion; and detonation velocity. 

Generally, blasting-related NOX emissions are more prevalent at operations that 

use the blasting technique referred to as cast blasting. 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. Coal Creek, Caballo, and 

Cordero Rojo mines currently employ direct cast blasting. 

Annual mean NO2 concentrations have been periodically measured in the PRB 

since 1975. NO2 was monitored from 1975 through 1983 in Gillette and from 

March 1996 through April 1997 at four locations in the PRB. Table 3-7 

summarizes the results of that monitoring. 

Table 3-7. Annual Ambient NO2 Concentration Data. 

Black 

Thunder Belle Ayr 

Site Gillette, WY Mine Mine Bill, WY 

Percent of Percent of Percent of Percent of 

Year Standard1 Standard1 Standard1 Standard1 

1975 6* 

1976 4* 1* 

1977 4* 5* 

1978 11* 

1979 11 

1980 12 

1981 14 

1982 11 

19832 17 

1996-973 16 16 22 22 

1 Based on arithmetic averaging of data. 

2 Monitoring discontinued December 1983, reactivated March 1996 to April 1997. 

3 Arithmetic average – actual sampling ran from March 1996 to April 1997. 

* Inadequate number of samples for a valid annual average. 

Source: (McVehil-Monnett 1997) 

Due to public concerns about emissions of nitrogen dioxides as a result of blasting 

and a general concern of the WDEQ about levels of nitrogen dioxides due to 

development of all types in the eastern PRB, the coal mining industry instituted a 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 3-61 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

monitoring network in cooperation with WDEQ/AQD to gather data on NO2 

beginning in 2001. Industry funded and operated the network for approximately 3 

years. Ownership of the monitoring equipment was transferred to WDEQ by the 

mines and WDEQ now funds and operates the NO2 monitoring network. The 

mines have been given ongoing access to the monitoring sites and provide 

electrical power for the instrumentation. WDEQ/AQD and the mines now share 

maintenance of these monitoring stations, and the AQD is relying on the ongoing 

monitoring data and emission inventories in the mines’ air quality permit 

applications to demonstrate compliance with the annual NO2 ambient air 

standard (table 3-6). The 2002 through 2008 data from this regional network are 

summarized in table 3-8. With respect to the general South Gillette analysis area, 

the Thunder Basin National Grassland Site is approximately 41 miles northnortheast, the South Campbell County Site is approximately 8 miles west, and the 

Tracy Ranch Site is approximately 29 miles southeast. 

Table 3-8. 2002 Through 2008 Mean Annual NO2 Concentration Data (μg/m3). 

Site Address 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 

Thunder Basin National 5.7 5.7 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.8 Grassland1 

Belle Ayr Mine1 -- 13.2 13.2 15.1 17.0 -- --

Antelope Mine1 -- 7.5 7.5 9.4 7.5 -- --

South Campbell County1 -- 13.2 9.4 7.5 5.7 7.5 5.6 

Tracy Ranch2 6.2 5.6 5.8 7.7 11.8 8.2 6.1 

Average 5.95 9.04 7.94 8.70 9.16 6.50 5.17 

1 Monitor values from EPA (2009c) 

2 Monitor values from TBCC (2009) 

O3 has the same chemical structure whether it occurs miles above the earth or at 

ground-level and can be "good" or "bad," depending on its location in the 

atmosphere. In the earth's lower atmosphere, ground-level O3 is considered "bad." 

Motor vehicle exhaust and industrial emissions, gasoline vapors, and chemical 

solvents as well as natural sources emit NOX and VOC that help form O3. 

Ground-level O3 is the primary constituent of smog. Sunlight and hot weather 

cause ground-level O3 to form in harmful concentrations in the air. As a result, it 

is known as a summertime air pollutant. Many urban areas tend to have high 

levels of "bad" O3, but even rural areas are also subject to increased O3 levels 

because wind carries O3 and pollutants that form it hundreds of miles away from 

their original sources. 

Under the Clean Air Act, EPA has set protective health-based standards for O3 in 

the air we breathe. Prior to May 27, 2008, the NAAQ 8-hour standard for O3 was 

0.080 ppm (157 μg/m3). On March 27, 2008 (effective May 27, 2008) EPA revised 

the 8-hour standard to 0.075 ppm (147 μg/m3). Ozone monitoring is not required 

by WDEQ at the SGAC mines but levels have been monitored at WDEQ/AQD 

3-62 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

operated and maintained ambient air quality monitor sites in the PRB since 2001 

(table 3-9). An exceedance of the O3 8-hour standard occurs if the 4th-highest 

daily maximum value is above the level of the standard (0.08 ppm prior to 2008 

and 0.075 ppm since 2008). 

Table 3-9. 2001 Through 2008 Annual 4th Max, 8-Hour Average O3 Values1 (ppm). 

Site Address 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 

Thunder Basin National 

Grassland 0.069 0.071 0.074 0.065 0.063 0.072 0.072 0.074 

South Campbell County -- -- 0.077 0.061 0.063 0.065 0.072 0.064 

1 Monitor values from EPA (2009c) 

Pre 2008 8-Hour O3 NAAQS – 0.08 ppm 

2008 8-Hour O3 NAAQS – 0.075 ppm 

3.4.3.1.1 Site Specific NOX and O3 Emissions 

Sources of fugitive NOX emissions at the Belle Ayr, Coal Creek, Caballo, and 

Cordero Rojo mines include overburden removal and coal blasting events, tailpipe 

emissions from the mining equipment, and emissions from the trains used to haul 

the coal from the mine. NOX point sources at the mines could include stationary 

engines and natural-gas fired heaters. 

To date, there have been no exceedances of the annual NO2 standards 

documented at the five sites that monitor NO2. There here have been no reported 

events of public exposure to NO2 from blasting activities at the Belle Ayr, Coal 

Creek, Caballo, and Cordero Rojo mines. There were two reports of off-site NOX 

clouds related to cast blasts at the Caballo Mine prior to September 2007 but no 

actual exposure complaints were reported (Emme 2009). The WDEQ has not 

required the mines to implement any specific measures to control or limit public 

exposure to NO2 from blasting. 

As noted in table 3-8, the 2008 mean annual NO2 concentration (5.6 μg/m3) for 

the site closest to the SGAC tract (South Campbell County Site) is significantly 

below the WAAQ annual standard for NO2 (100 μg/m3). 

No exceedances of the O3 standard have occurred at either of the two monitoring 

sites if evaluated under the standard in place at the time the values were recorded 

(table 3-9). If the strengthened 2008 standard was applied retroactively, one 

exceedance would have occurred in 2003 at the South Campbell County site (table 

3-9). 

3.4.3.1.1.1 Belle Ayr North LBA Tract 

As discussed in section 3.4.2.2, WDEQ/AQD issued the most recent air quality 

permit (MD-1476) for the Belle Ayr Mine on November 7, 2006, and the mine was 

required to conduct NO2 dispersion modeling in their permit. McVehil-Monnett 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 3-63 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Associates, Inc. reviewed regulatory modeling techniques to select the most 

appropriate air quality dispersion model to simulate dispersion of air pollutants 

emitted by the proposed project for a near-field AQIA. Following WDEQ guidance, 

the ISCLT3 was used in all modeling analyses. Emission rates were determined 

for the same worst-case years used in the PM10 modeling. NOX modeling closely 

followed many of the same procedures used in the PM10 analysis. Emissions were 

apportioned in a similar manner and the same meteorological data set was used. 

Area source, haul road, and point source information for the Belle Ayr, Coal 

Creek, Caballo, and Cordero Rojo mines and information for railroads, roads, 

power plants, and regional sources provided by WDEQ/AQD were included in the 

model. The amount of NOX emissions from blasting is related to the amount of 

ANFO utilized. NOX emission rates for 2008 and 2013 are expected to be 1,333 

tpy and 1,398 tpy, respectively. 

Long-term NOX modeling indicated the currently projected mine activities will be 

in compliance with the annual NOX AAQS for the life of the Belle Ayr Mine. For 

year 2008, the maximum annual NOX concentration along the Belle Ayr LNCM 

boundary was 38.5 μg/m3 and for year 2013, the maximum annual NOX 

concentration along the Belle Ayr LNCM boundary was 38.0 μg/m3 (FCW 2006). 

Coal production in both years was assumed to be the maximum permitted 

production level of 45 million tons. The locations of the maximum-modeled NOX 

concentrations along the Belle Ayr LNCM boundary for 2008 and 2013 are shown 

on figures 3-8 and 3-9, respectively. The potential NOX impacts from mining the 

Belle Ayr North LBA tract have been inferred to be similar to the currently 

permitted impacts of mining the existing coal leases at the Belle Ayr Mine because 

of the similarities in mining rates and mining operations. 

3.4.3.1.1.2 West Coal Creek LBA Tract 

As discussed in section 3.4.2.2, WDEQ/AQD issued the most recent air quality 

permit (MD-5393) for the Coal Creek Mine on September 2, 2008, and the mine 

was required to conduct NO2 dispersion modeling in their permit. Geomatrix 

Consultants, Inc. reviewed regulatory modeling techniques to select the most 

appropriate air quality dispersion model to simulate dispersion of air pollutants 

emitted by the proposed project for a near-field AQIA. Following WDEQ guidance, 

the ISCLT3 was used in all modeling analyses. Emission rates were determined 

for the same worst-case years used in the PM10 modeling. NOX modeling closely 

followed many of the same procedures used in the PM10 analysis. Emissions were 

apportioned in a similar manner and the same meteorological data set was used. 

Area source, haul road, and point source information for the Belle Ayr, Coal 

Creek, Caballo, and Cordero Rojo mines and information for railroads, roads, 

power plants, and regional sources provided by WDEQ/AQD were included in the 

model. The amount of NOX emissions from blasting is related to the amount of 

ANFO utilized. NOX emission rates for 2009 and 2016 are expected to be 1,033 

tpy and 1,493 tpy, respectively. 

3-64 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
 

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Long-term NOX modeling indicated the currently projected mine activities will be 

in compliance with the annual NOX AAQS for the life of the Coal Creek Mine. For 

year 2009, the maximum annual NOX concentration along the Coal Creek LNCM 

boundary was 47.68 μg/m3 and for year 2016, the maximum annual NOX 

concentration along the Coal Creek LNCM boundary was 47.81 μg/m3 

(WDEQ/AQD 2008b). Coal production in both years was assumed to be the 

maximum permitted production level of 50 million tons. The locations of the 

maximum-modeled NOX concentrations for 2009 and 2016 are shown on figures 

3-11 and 3-12, respectively. The potential NOX impacts from mining the Caballo 

West LBA tract have been inferred to be similar to the currently permitted impacts 

of mining the existing coal leases at the Coal Creek Mine because of the 

similarities in mining rates and mining operations. 

3.4.3.1.1.3 Caballo West LBA Tract 

WDEQ/LQD investigated the two complaints of off-site NOX clouds resulting from 

cast blasting at the Caballo Mine, and as a result WDEQ met with mine officials 

regarding the complaints. The mine instituted voluntary measures to eliminate 

NOX production, including the use of different blasting agents, different blends of 

blasting agents, different additives, different initiation systems and sequencing, 

borehole liners, and smaller cast blasts. There have been no subsequent reports 

of off-site NOX clouds, to date. As discussed in section 3.4.2.2, WDEQ/AQD 

issued the most recent air quality permit (MD-1477) for the Caballo Mine on 

November 7, 2006, and the mine was required to conduct NO2 dispersion modeling 

in their permit. McVehil-Monnett Associates, Inc. reviewed regulatory modeling 

techniques to select the most appropriate air quality dispersion model to simulate 

dispersion of air pollutants emitted by the proposed project for a near-field AQIA. 

Following WDEQ guidance, the ISCLT3 was used in all modeling analyses. 

Emission rates were determined for the same worst-case years used in the PM10 

modeling. Emissions were apportioned in a similar manner and the same 

meteorological data set was used. Area source, haul road, and point source 

information for the Belle Ayr, Coal Creek, Caballo, and Cordero Rojo mines and 

information for railroads, roads, power plants, and regional sources provided by 

WDEQ/AQD were included in the model. The amount of NOX emissions from 

blasting is related to the amount of ANFO utilized. NOX emission rates for 2008 

and 2014 are expected to be 1,597 tpy and 1,830 tpy, respectively. NOX modeling 

closely followed many of the same procedures used in the PM10 analysis. 

Long-term NOX modeling indicated the currently projected mine activities will be 

in compliance with the annual NOX AAQS for the life of the Caballo Mine. For year 

2008, the maximum annual NOX concentration along the Caballo LNCM boundary 

was 46.7 μg/m3 and for year 2014, the maximum annual NOX concentration along 

the Caballo LNCM boundary was 59.8 μg/m3 (CCC 2006). Coal production in 

both years was assumed to be the maximum permitted production level of 50 

million tons. The locations of the maximum-modeled NOX concentrations for 2008 

and 2014 are shown on figures 3-14 and 3-15, respectively. The potential NOX 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 3-65 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

impacts from mining the Caballo West LBA tract have been inferred to be similar 

to the currently permitted impacts of mining the existing coal leases at the Caballo 

Mine because of the similarities in mining rates and mining operations. 

3.4.3.1.1.4 Maysdorf II LBA Tract 

As discussed in section 3.4.2.2, WDEQ/AQD issued the most recent air quality 

permit (MD-1058) for the Cordero Rojo Mine on September 17, 2004, and the mine 

was required to conduct NO2 dispersion modeling in their permit. McVehilMonnett Associates, Inc. reviewed regulatory modeling techniques to select the 

most appropriate air quality dispersion model to simulate dispersion of air 

pollutants emitted by the proposed project for a near-field AQIA. Following WDEQ 

guidance, the ISCLT3 was used in all modeling analyses. Emission rates were 

determined for the same worst-case years used in the PM10 modeling. NOX 

modeling closely followed many of the same procedures used in the PM10 analysis. 

Emissions were apportioned in a similar manner and the same meteorological 

data set was used. Only the Cordero Rojo Mine was modeled, regional activity was 

not considered. No NOX point sources exist at the mine. Additional area sources 

and line sources were added to describe the railroad tracks/loops on the Cordero 

Rojo Mine site. The amount of NOX emissions from blasting is related to the 

amount of ANFO utilized. NOX emission rates for 2005 and 2007 are expected to 

be 2,708 tpy and 3,022 tpy, respectively. 

Long-term NOX modeling indicated the currently projected mine activities will be 

in compliance with the annual NOX AAQS for the life of the Cordero Rojo Mine. 

For year 2005, the maximum annual NOX concentration along the Cordero Rojo 

LNCM boundary was 50.3 μg/m3 and for year 2007, the maximum annual NOX 

concentration along the Cordero Rojo LNCM boundary was 49.6 μg/m3 (CMC 

1999). Coal production in both years was assumed to be the maximum permitted 

production level of 65 million tons. The locations of the maximum-modeled NOX 

concentrations for 2005 and 2007 are shown on figures 3-17 and 3-18, 

respectively. The potential NOX impacts from mining the Maysdorf II LBA tract 

have been inferred to be similar to the currently permitted impacts of mining the 

existing coal leases at the Cordero Rojo Mine because of the similarities in mining 

rates and mining operations. 

3.4.3.2 Environmental Consequences Related to Short-Term NOX Emissions 

There are various compounds and derivatives in the family of nitrogen oxides, 

including NO2, nitric acid, nitrous oxide, nitrates, and nitric oxide, which may 

cause a wide variety of health and environmental impacts. According to EPA, the 

main causes of concern with respect to NOX are: 

 it is one of the main ingredients involved in the formation of ground level 

ozone, which can trigger serious respiratory problems; 

3-66 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

 it reacts to form nitrate particles, acid aerosols, as well as NO2, which also 

cause respiratory problems; 

 it contributes to the formation of acid rain; 

 it contributes to nutrient overload that deteriorates water quality; 

 it contributes to atmospheric particles that cause visibility impairment, 

most noticeably in national parks; 

 it reacts to form toxic chemicals; 

 one member of the NOX family, nitrous oxide or N2O, is a greenhouse gas 

that contributes to global warming; and 

 it can be transported over long distances (EPA 2009b). 

Potential health risks associated with inhalation of ground level O3 and NOX 

related particles include acute respiratory problems, aggravated asthma, 

decreases in lung capacity in some healthy adults, inflammation of lung tissue, 

respiratory-related hospital admissions and emergency room visits, and increased 

susceptibility to respiratory illnesses, including bronchitis and pneumonia (EPA 

2007b). 

Neither the EPA nor the WDEQ have established NAAQS for NO2 for averaging 

times shorter than one year. According to EPA, “...the exact concentrations at 

which NO2 will cause various health effects cannot be predicted with complete 

accuracy because the effects are a function of air concentration and time of 

exposure, and precise measurements have not been made in association with 

human toxicity. The information that is available from human exposures also 

suggests that there is some variation in individual response” (EPA 2001a). 

While extensive expert testimony was provided to the Wyoming Environmental 

Quality Council (EQC) during hearings in 2002 arguing for the establishment of a 

de facto “standard” ranging from 0.5 to 5.0 ppm for a 10-minute exposure, the 

EQC determined there was insufficient evidence to establish a short-term 

exposure limit and concluded additional study was required. The primary control 

measure for mitigating exposures to offsite residences is to avoid blasting when 

wind direction or atmospheric conditions are unfavorable. Such approaches are 

employed at the Belle Ayr, Coal Creek, Caballo, and Cordero Rojo mines and will 

be continued to be employed. Studies that have been conducted to evaluate NO2 

exposures from blast clouds in the PRB are described in appendix H. 

Although there is no NAAQS that regulates short-term NO2 levels, there is concern 

about the potential health risk associated with short-term exposure to NO2 from 

blasting emissions. The National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 3-67 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

(NIOSH), Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), and EPA have 

identified the following short-term exposure criteria for NO2: 

•	 NIOSH’s recommended Immediately Dangerous to Life and Health level is 

20.0 ppm (37,600 g/m3); 

•	 EPA’s Significant Harm Level, a 1-hour average, is 2.0 ppm (3,760 μg/m3); 

•	 OSHA’s Short-Term Exposure Limit, a 15-minute time-weighted average, 

which was developed for workers, is 5.0 ppm (9,400 g/m3), which must not 

be exceeded during any part of the workday, as measured instantaneously); 

•	 NIOSH’s recommendation for workers is a limit of 1.0 ppm (1,880 μg/m3) 

based on a 15-minute exposure that should not be exceeded at any time 

during the workday; and 

•	 EPA recommends that concentrations not exceed 0.5 ppm (940 μg/m3) for a 

10-minute exposure to protect sensitive members of the public (EPA 2003a). 

Through a cooperative agreement between AQD and the Wyoming Mining 

Association, the Powder River Basin NOx network began operation in January 

2001 (WDEQ/AQD 2008c). The purpose of the monitoring network is to conduct a 

comprehensive, multi-year monitoring and modeling study of NO2 exposures from 

blast clouds. The Black Thunder Mine also conducted a study designed to provide 

information on safe setback distances for blasting activities at that mine (TBCC 

2002). 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. 

Blast clouds are of a short-term, transient nature. While disagreement still exists 

regarding acceptable exposure levels, a large amount of actual data are now 

available from which informed decisions can be made regarding blasting practices. 

The data show clearly that reduction in blast (agent) size and increases in setback 

distances are effective methods for mitigating the frequency and extent of public 

exposure to blasting clouds. See appendix H for additional information about 

studies that were conducted to evaluate the levels of public exposure to NOX. 

3.4.3.2.1 Proposed Action and Alternatives 2 and 3 

Potential NOX emissions related to mining operations at the existing Belle Ayr, 

Coal Creek, Caballo, and Cordero Rojo mines are described below. Because of the 

similarities in mining rates and mining operations, the potential impacts of mining 

the LBA tracts have been inferred from the projected impacts of mining the 

existing coal leases as currently permitted. 

3-68 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

WDEQ/AQD has determined that an assessment of annual NOX impacts must be 

included as part of an air quality permitting analysis for new surface coal mines 

and existing mine plans revisions. Pursuant to WDEQ/AQD requirements, 

emissions from all stationary engines and natural-gas fired heaters, which are 

considered to be NOX point sources at the mine, were considered in the inventory. 

The regional background NOX annual concentration used was 20 μg/m3. 

Additional mobile sources were added to describe the railroad locomotives and 

large mining equipment on each mine site. 

The average overburden thickness is generally greater in the LBA tracts than 

within the current leases, but the thickness of the coal is about the same as in the 

existing mine areas (tables 3-1 through 3-4). If the Belle Ayr, Coal Creek, Caballo, 

and Cordero Rojo mines acquire the LBA tracts, there are no plans to change 

blasting procedures or blast sizes associated with the mining of the Belle Ayr 

North, West Coal Creek, Caballo West, and Maysdorf II LBA tracts. However, if 

the average annual rates of production are maintained, there would potentially be 

an increase in the frequency of blasting in order to remove the additional volume 

of overburden overlying the coal. 

If the applicant mines acquire the LBA tracts, current mining techniques for 

removing coal and overburden would be expected to continue for a longer period of 

time than is shown in the currently approved air quality permits. Modeling for the 

current Caballo, Belle Ayr, Cordero Rojo, and Coal Creek Mine permits projected 

no exceedances of the annual NOX NAAQS at the permitted production rates. 

Therefore, air quality impacts that result from mining the Belle Ayr North, West 

Coal Creek, Caballo West, or Maysdorf II LBA tracts by the applicants at their 

present production rates should also be within annual NAAQS limits. According 

to WDEQ, permit conditions designed to control or limit public exposure to NO2 

and flyrock from blasting operations would be no less stringent for mining 

operations on the LBA tracts than the permit conditions that are in place for 

blasting operations on the existing Belle Ayr, Coal Creek, Caballo, and Cordero 

Rojo Mine leases (Emme 2007). 

3.4.3.2.1.1 Belle Ayr North LBA Tract 

There have been no reported events of public exposure to NO2 from blasting 

activities at the Belle Ayr Mine through December 2008 (Emme 2009). The mine 

has, however, employed measures to control/limit public exposure to intermittent, 

short-term (blasting) releases as discussed in section 3.4.3.3. Public exposure to 

emissions caused by surface mining operations is most likely to occur along 

publicly accessible roads and highways that pass through the area of the mining 

operations. Occupants of dwellings in the area could also be affected. There are 

occupied dwellings located approximately 0.75 mile north of the LBA tract, and 

three school bus stops are located on the Bishop Road, one within the LBA tract 

(figure 3-10). 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 3-69 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3.4.3.2.1.2 West Coal Creek LBA Tract 

There have been no reported events of public exposure to NO2 from blasting 

activities at the Coal Creek Mine through December 2008 (Emme 2009). The mine 

has, however, employed measures to control/limit public exposure to intermittent, 

short-term (blasting) releases as discussed in section 3.4.3.3. Public exposure to 

emissions caused by surface mining operations is most likely to occur along 

publicly accessible roads and highways that pass through the area of the mining 

operations. Occupants of dwellings in the area could also be affected. There are 

occupied dwellings located approximately 0.2 mile and 1 mile west of the LBA 

tract, and two school bus stops are located on the Hoadley Road, approximately 1 

mile west of the LBA tract (figure 3-13). 

3.4.3.2.1.3 Caballo West LBA Tract 

There have been no reported events of public exposure to NO2 from blasting 

activities at the Caballo Mine through December 2008 (Emme 2009). There were 

two reports of off-site NOX clouds related to cast blasts at the Caballo Mine prior 

to September 2007 but no actual exposure complaints were reported. The mine 

has employed measures to control/limit public exposure to intermittent, shortterm (blasting) releases as discussed in section 3.4.3.3. Public exposure to 

emissions caused by surface mining operations is most likely to occur along 

publicly accessible roads and highways that pass through the area of the mining 

operations. Occupants of dwellings in the area could also be affected. There are 

occupied dwellings located approximately 0.6 mile west of the LBA tract, and three 

school bus stops are located along the Bishop Road, adjacent to the LBA tract 

(figure 3-16). 

3.4.3.2.1.4 Maysdorf II LBA Tract 

There have been no reported events of public exposure to NO2 from blasting 

activities at the Cordero Rojo Mine through December 2008 (Emme 2009). The 

mine has, however, employed measures to control/limit public exposure to 

intermittent, short-term (blasting) releases as discussed in section 3.4.3.3. Public 

exposure to emissions caused by surface mining operations is most likely to occur 

along publicly accessible roads and highways that pass through the area of the 

mining operations. Occupants of dwellings in the area could also be affected. 

There are occupied dwellings located approximately 0.4 mile south of the northern 

portion of the LBA tract and over 0.5 mile east of the LBA tract, and a school bus 

stop is located along the Hoadley Road, approximately 1.25 miles south of the LBA 

tract (figure 3-19). 

3.4.3.2.2 No Action Alternative 

Under the No Action alternative, the coal lease applications would be rejected and 

the Belle Ayr, Coal Creek, Caballo, and Cordero Rojo mines would continue to 

3-70 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

operate as currently permitted. A discussion of the currently permitted mining 

operations and potential impacts related to NOX emissions is included in section 

3.4.3.2.1, above. Impacts related to mining operations at the Belle Ayr, Coal 

Creek, Caballo, and Cordero Rojo mines would continue on the existing mine 

areas as permitted, but mining operations would not be extended onto those 

portions of the LBA tracts that will not be affected under the current mining and 

reclamation plans. 

As discussed in chapter 2, a decision to reject the Belle Ayr North, West Coal 

Creek, Caballo West, or Maysdorf II lease applications at this time would not 

preclude an application to lease the tracts in the future. 

3.4.3.3 Regulatory Compliance, Mitigation, and Monitoring for NOX Emissions 

To date, there have been no reported events of public exposure to NO2 from 

blasting activities at the Belle Ayr, Coal Creek, Caballo, and Cordero Rojo mines 

(Emme 2009). There were two reports of off-site NOX clouds related to cast blasts 

at the Caballo Mine prior to September 2007 but no actual exposure complaints 

were reported. The WDEQ has not required the mines to implement any specific 

measures to control or limit public exposure to NO2 from blasting, although mines 

have voluntarily committed to control blasting emissions. After WDEQ received 

reports of public exposure to NO2 from blasting operations at some of the PRB 

mines prior to September 2007, measures to prevent future such incidences were 

instituted at those mines when large overburden blasts are planned. 

The Wyoming EQC has issued site-specific orders that address procedures and 

notification protocols related to providing protections from overburden blasting 

within PRB mine area. The conditions stated that the specific procedures would 

be used when overburden blasting occurs within a certain distance residences and 

businesses adjacent to the mines. Orders have also placed limits of the size of the 

blasting that can be conducted within the mine areas and restricted blasting in 

the under certain atmospheric conditions. 

WDEQ/AQD has the authority revisit air quality issues and to impose site-specific 

restrictions on blasting/mining operations to control or limit public exposure to 

NO2 from blasting if elevated concentrations of NO2 are recorded and/or exposure 

to NO2 becomes a significant problem. 

WDEQ has required several mines, including North Antelope Rochelle, Black 

Thunder, Belle Ayr, Eagle Butte, and Wyodak (figure 1-1), to stop traffic on public 

roads during blasting due to concerns with fly rock and the “startle factor”. Public 

access to some of the roads in the area, including the Haight, Hilight, and T-7 

Roads, are currently blocked and will continue to be blocked during blasting 

operations when wind directions or proximity to the road warrant such closure. 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 3-71 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Mine operators in the eastern PRB have also been working with blasting agent 

manufacturers to reduce NOX emissions. Efforts to eliminate NOX production 

have included use of different blasting agents, different blends of blasting agents, 

different additives, different initiation systems and sequencing, borehole liners, 

and smaller cast blasts. Operators have tried adding substances like 

microspheres and rice hulls, using different blends of ANFO and slurries and gels, 

using electronic detonation systems that can vary shot timing, different shot hole 

patterns, and using plastic liners within the shot holes. No one single procedure 

or variation has proven consistently successful due to the numerous factors that 

are believed to contribute to the production of NO2. The most successful control 

measure has been reducing the size of the cast blasting shots (Emme 2003, 

Chancellor 2003). Using the techniques described above, several mines within the 

PRB have significantly reduced NOX production (Chancellor 2003). 

Mitigation measures will emphasize minimizing exposure to NOX to all areas 

adjacent to the mines, including areas near bus stops and residences near the 

mining areas. As discussed in section 3.4.3.2, the primary control measure 

employed at the Belle Ayr, Coal Creek, Caballo, and Cordero Rojo mines for 

mitigating exposure of offsite residences to NO2 is to avoid shooting cast blasts 

when wind direction or atmospheric conditions are unfavorable. 

Other voluntary measures that limit NO2 exposure that have been instituted at 

various PRB mines, particularly when large blasts are planned include: 

•	 telephone notification of neighbors (both private parties and other mining 

operations) in the general area of the mine prior to large blasts; 

•	 minimizing blast size to the extent possible; 

•	 closing public roads that enter the general mine area, depending on wind 

conditions and blast location with respect to the road; and 

•	 providing post-blast notification to neighbors of potential exposure to the 

blasting cloud. 

Mitigation measures implemented to reduce mine related NOX emissions should 

also reduce the potential for the formation of ground level O3 in the PRB. 

3.4.4 Air Quality Related Values (AQRVs) 

AQRVs are evaluated by the land management agency responsible for a Class I 

area, according to the agency’s level of acceptable change (LAC). These AQRVs 

include potential air pollutant effects on visibility and the acidification of lakes 

and streams. The AQRVs, and the associated LAC, are applied to PSD Class I and 

sensitive Class II areas and are the land management agency’s policy and are not 

legally enforceable as a standard. 

3-72 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
 

 

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3.4.4.1 Visibility 

Visibility refers to the clarity with which scenic vistas and landscape features are 

perceived at great distances. Visibility can be defined as the distance one can see 

and the ability to perceive color, contrast, and detail. Fine particulate matter 

(PM2.5) is the main cause of visibility impairment. Visual range, one of several 

ways to express visibility, is the furthest distance a person can see a landscape 

feature. Without the effects of human-caused air pollution, a natural visual range 

is estimated to be about 140 miles in the western U.S. and 90 miles in the eastern 

U.S. (EPA 2001b). 

Visibility is also expressed in terms of deciview (dv). The dv index was developed 

as a linear perceived visual change (Pitchford and Malm 1994), and is the unit of 

measure used in the EPA’s Regional Haze Rule to achieve the National Visibility 

Goal. The National Visibility Goal was established as part of the CAA in order to 

prevent any future, and remedy any existing, impairment of visibility in mandatory 

Federal Class I areas that result from manmade air pollution. The deciview index 

is a scale related to visual perception that has a value near zero for a pristine 

atmosphere. A change in visibility of 1.0 dv represents a “just noticeable change” 

by an average person under most circumstances. Increasing dv values represent 

proportionately larger perceived visibility impairment. 

3.4.4.1.1 Affected Environment for Visibility 

AQRVs, including the potential air pollutant effects on visibility, are applied to 

PSD Class I and Class II areas. The land management agency responsible for the 

Class I area sets an LAC for each AQRV. The AQRVs reflect the land management 

agency’s policy and are not legally enforceable standards. Table 3-10 shows the 

distances from 31 PSD Class I and Class II areas in the vicinity of the PRB to the 

general South Gillette analysis area. 

The Wyoming State Implementation Plan for Class I Visibility Protection states: 

“Wyoming’s long term strategy will focus on the prevention of any future visibility 

impairment in Class I areas that can be attributed to a source or small group of 

sources as the Federal Land Managers have not identified any current impairment 

in the State’s Class I areas due to such sources” (WDEQ/AQD 2005a). 

WDEQ/AQD prepared the 2003 Review Report on Wyoming’s Long Term Strategy 

for Visibility Protection in Class I Areas, as required by WAQSR, which calls for 

AQD to review and revise, if appropriate, the Long Term Strategy every 3 years. 

The 2003 Review Report is available on the WDEQ/AQD website at 

<http://deq.state.wy.us/aqd/visibility.asp>. 

The Regional Haze Rule calls for improved visibility on the most-impaired days 

and no additional impairment on the least-impaired days. EPA participates in the 

Interagency Management of protected Visual Environments (IMPROVE) visibility 

monitoring program as part of its visibility protection program. The IMPROVE 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 3-73 
 

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Table 3-10. Approximate Distances and Directions from the General South 

Gillette Analysis Area to PSD Class I and Class II Sensitive Receptor 

Areas. 

Distance Direction to 

Receptor Area (miles) Receptor 

Mandatory Federal PSD Class I Area 

Badlands Wilderness Area1 147 E 

Bridger Wilderness Area 206 WSW 

Fitzpatrick Wilderness Area 208 WSW 

Gates of the Mountain Wilderness Area 364 NW 

Grand Teton National Park 256 W 

North Absaroka Wilderness Area 202 WNW 

Red Rocks Lake Wilderness Area 312 W 

Scapegoat Wilderness Area 408 WNW 

Teton Wilderness Area 215 W 

Theodore Roosevelt National Park (North Unit) 266 NNE 

Theodore Roosevelt National Park (South Unit) 218 NNE 

U.L. Bend Wilderness Area 264 NNW 

Washakie Wilderness Area 183 W 

Wind Cave National Park 98 ESE 

Yellowstone National Park 224 WNW 

Tribal Federal PSD Class I 

Fort Peck Indian Reservation 275 N 

Northern Cheyenne Indian Reservation 108 NNW 

Federal PSD Class II 

Absaroka-Beartooth Wilderness Area 210 WNW 

Agate Fossil Beds National Monument 137 SE 

Badlands National Park 127 ESE 

Bighorn Canyon National Recreation Area 150 WNW 

Black Elk Wilderness Area 91 E 

Cloud Peak Wilderness Area 81 W 

Crow Indian Reservation 103 NW 

Devils Tower National Monument 50 NE 

Fort Belknap Indian Reservation 302 NNW 

Fort Laramie National Historic Site 134 SSE 

Jewel Cave National Monument 80 ESE 

Mount Rushmore National Memorial 96 E 

Popo Agie Wilderness Area 201 WSW 

Soldier Creek Wilderness Area 126 SE 

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. 

3-74 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 

1 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

monitoring sites were established to be representative of all Class I areas. On 

December 20, 2005, the IMPROVE Steering Committee approved a new algorithm 

for calculating current and natural background visibility. Figure 3-20 shows 

annual averages, based on the new algorithm, for the 20 percent best, average, 

and worst visibility days at Badlands National Park in South Dakota and Bridger 

Wilderness Area in Wyoming from 1989 through 2005 (IMPROVE 2007). To date, 

Badlands National Park has shown a trend toward improved visibility on the least, 

average, and most-impaired days. Bridger Wilderness has shown a trend toward 

improved visibility on the average and least-impaired days and no change in 

visibility on the most-impaired days. 

3.4.4.1.2 Environmental Consequences for Visibility 

3.4.4.1.2.1 Proposed Action and Alternatives 2 and 3 

The impacts to visibility from mining the Belle Ayr North, West Coal Creek, 

Caballo West, and Maysdorf II LBA tracts have been inferred from the currently 

permitted impacts of mining the existing coal leases at the Belle Ayr, Coal Creek, 

Caballo, and Cordero Rojo mines, respectively. If the mines acquire the additional 

coal in the LBA tracts, the LBA tracts would be mined as an integral part of the 

applicant mines. The average annual coal production for each mine is anticipated 

to remain at the projected post-2007 rates, with or without the Belle Ayr North, 

West Coal Creek, Caballo West, and Maysdorf II LBA tracts. Belle Ayr, Coal Creek, 

Caballo, and Cordero Rojo mines coal production and currently approved air 

quality permitted tons are shown in tables 2-1 through 2-4, respectively. If the 

mines acquire the additional coal in the LBA tracts, they would continue to 

produce at existing rates for a longer period of time (2 to 10 years). Therefore, 

impacts to visibility under the Proposed Action and Alternative 2 (Alternative 3 for 

the Maysdorf II Tract), BLM’s preferred alternatives, would be similar to the 

impacts under the No Action alternative, except they would be extended by 2.2 

years (for the Caballo West LBA tract as applied for) up to as many as 10.0 years 

(for the Maysdorf II LBA tract under Alternative 3). 

Current techniques for blasting, coal removal, and coal processing would be 

expected to continue for a longer period of time than is shown in the applicant 

mines’ currently approved air quality permits. Material movement would continue 

to utilize direct cast blasting, draglines, and/or truck and shovel fleets for 

overburden and truck and shovel fleets and overland conveyors for coal. The 

applicant mines would not propose significant changes to the facilities shown in 

the current air quality permits or the blasting procedures or blast sizes if they 

acquire the tracts. However, the blasting processes and required mitigation 

measures would be reviewed when the mining permits are amended to include the 

new lease areas, and the blasting plans would be modified to incorporate the 

BACT protection measures that are in effect at that time. Overburden is generally 

thicker in the LBA tracts than the current lease areas; therefore, state of the art 

methods to minimize any increases in blast sizes and/or blasting agents will be 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 3-75 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

20 

18 

16 

14 

12 

10 

6 

4 

2 

0 1989 

IMPROVE Station: BADL1 

Visibility in Badlands National Park 

8

Visibility (dv) 

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 

20% Clearest 

Average 

20% Haziest 

Visibility in Bridger Wilderness 

2000 2001 2002 2003 

Source: IMPROVE (2009) 

2004 2005 

20 

18 

16 

14 

12 

10 

6 

4 

2 

0 1989 

IMPROVE Station: BRID1 

8

Visibility (dv) 

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 

20% Clearest 

Average 

20% Haziest 

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 

Figure 3-20. Visibility in the Badlands and Bridger Wilderness Areas. 

3-76 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

employed. Thus, emissions from blasting are not expected to increase 

significantly, notwithstanding the increased thicknesses of overburden that would 

be excavated in these LBA tracts. 

Surface coal mines are not considered to be major emitting facilities in accordance 

with Chapter 6, Section 4 of WDEQ/AQD Rules and Regulations. Therefore, the 

state of Wyoming does not require mines to evaluate their impacts on Class I 

areas; however, BLM considers such issues during leasing. 

3.4.4.1.2.2 No Action Alternative 

Under the No Action alternative, the coal lease applications would be rejected and 

the Belle Ayr, Coal Creek, Caballo, and Cordero Rojo mines would continue to 

operate as currently permitted for about 8, 16, 15, and 11 more years, 

respectively. Coal removal would not occur on the LBA tracts. Impacts to visibility 

related to mining operations at the existing Belle Ayr, Coal Creek, Caballo, and 

Cordero Rojo mines would not be extended onto those portions of the LBA tracts 

that will not be affected under the current mining and reclamation plans. 

As discussed in section 2.2, a decision to reject the Belle Ayr North, West Coal 

Creek, Caballo West, and Maysdorf II coal lease applications at this time would 

not preclude an application to lease the tracts in the future. 

3.4.4.1.3 	Regulatory Compliance, Mitigation and Monitoring for Visibility 

Impacts 

As discussed above, fine particulate matter (PM2.5) is the main cause of visibility 

impairment. Mitigation measures being used to limit emissions of particulate 

matter are discussed in section 3.4.2.3. 

Visibility monitoring within the state of Wyoming consists of both the WDEQ/AQD 

sponsored Wyoming Visibility Monitoring Network and the IMPROVE program. 

WDEQ has sited two visibility monitoring stations in the PRB. One of these sites 

(the Thunder Basin National Grasslands site) is 32 miles north of Gillette and 

includes a nephelometer, a transmissometer, an IMPROVE aerosol sampler, 

instruments to measure meteorological parameters (temperature, RH, wind speed, 

wind direction), a digital camera, instruments to measure O3, and instruments to 

measure oxides of nitrogen (NO, NO2, NOX). The second visibility monitoring 

station (the Cloud Peak Wilderness Area site) is located 14 miles west of Buffalo 

and includes a nephelometer, a transmissometer, an IMPROVE aerosol sampler, 

instruments to measure meteorological parameters, and a digital camera. 

These sites are being utilized to characterize the extent, frequency of occurrence, 

and magnitude of visual air quality impacts. The IMPROVE Steering Committee 

approved the incorporation of the Thunder Basin and Cloud Peak sites into the 

IMPROVE network in June 2002. Although these stations are not located in areas 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 3-77 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

classified as Class I areas, the collected data will be comparable to monitoring 

data available from the state’s Class I areas. This information can help scientists 

determine the types and concentrations of air pollutants and their direction of 

travel in order to project visibility impacts to Class I areas. The Wyoming Visibility 

Monitoring Network was recently supplemented with the development of a website 

(http://www.wyvisnet.com/all.html) to allow public access to real-time monitored 

visibility and air quality conditions (WDEQ/AQD 2005b). 

3.4.4.2 Acidification of Lakes 

The acidification of lakes and streams is caused by atmospheric deposition of 

pollutants (acid rain). According to EPA, SO2 and NOX, primarily derived from the 

burning of fossil fuels, are the primary causes of acid rain (EPA 2009c). Most 

lakes and streams have a pH between 6 and 8, although some lakes are naturally 

acidic even without the effects of acid rain. Acid rain primarily affects sensitive 

bodies of water, which are located in watersheds whose soils have a limited ability 

to neutralize acidic compounds (called "buffering capacity"). Lakes and streams 

become acidic (pH value goes below a value of 7[on a scale of 1 to 14]) when the 

water itself and its surrounding soil cannot buffer the acid rain enough to 

neutralize it. In areas where buffering capacity is low, acid rain also releases 

aluminum from soils into lakes and streams; aluminum is highly toxic to many 

species of aquatic organisms. 

Several regions in the U.S. were identified in a national surface water survey as 

containing many of the surface waters sensitive to acidification. They include the 

Adirondacks and Catskill Mountains in New York State, the mid-Appalachian 

highlands along the east coast, the upper Midwest, and mountainous areas of the 

western U.S. 

Scientists predict that the decrease in SO2 emissions required by the Acid Rain 

Program will significantly reduce acidification due to atmospheric sulfur. Without 

the reductions in SO2 emissions, the proportions of acidic aquatic ecosystems 

would remain high or dramatically worsen (EPA 2005a). The U.S. Department of 

Agriculture – Forest Service (USFS) has been monitoring air quality in the Wind 

River Mountain Range in Wyoming since 1984 and is seeing a general trend of 

decreasing sulfates. Nitrates, on the other hand, have been increasing globally. 

3.4.4.2.1 Affected Environment 

AQRVs, including the potential air pollutant effects on the acidification of lakes 

and streams, are applied to PSD Class I and Class II areas. The land management 

agency responsible for the Class I area sets a LAC for each AQRV. The AQRVs 

reflect the land management agency’s policy and are not legally enforceable 

standards. Lake acidification is expressed as the change in ANC measured in 

microequivalents per liter (μeq/L), the lake’s capacity to resist acidification from 

acid rain. Table 3-11 shows the existing ANC monitored in some mountain lakes 

3-78 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Table 3-11. Existing Acid Neutralizing Capacity in Sensitive Lakes. 

Distance from 

General South 

Background ANC Gillette Analysis 

Wilderness Area Lake (μeq/L) Area (miles) 

Bridger 	Black Joe 69.0 240 

 Deep 61.0 230 

 Hobbs 68.0 245 

 Upper Frozen 5.81 250 

Cloud Peak	 Emerald 55.3 105 

 Florence 32.7 95 

Fitzpatrick Ross 61.4 240 

Popo Agie Lower Saddlebag 55.5 230 

1 The background ANC is based on only six samples taken between 1997 and 2001. 

Source: Argonne (2002) 

and their distance from the general South Gillette analysis area. The USFS 

considers lakes with ANC values between 25 and 100 microequivalents per liter 

(μeq/l) to be very sensitive to atmospheric deposition and lakes with ANC values 

less than or equal to 25 μeq/l to be extremely sensitive to atmospheric deposition. 

3.4.4.2.2 Environmental Consequences 

3.4.4.2.2.1 Proposed Action and Alternatives 2 and 3 

The Belle Ayr North, West Coal Creek, Caballo West, and Maysdorf II LBA tract 

would be mined as an integral part of the Belle Ayr, Coal Creek, Caballo, and 

Cordero Rojo mines, respectively; therefore, the impacts to air quality from mining 

the LBA tracts have been inferred from the impacts at the currently permitted 

mining operations. The applicant mines anticipate that coal production would 

remain unchanged from projected post-2007 levels if the LBA tracts are acquired. 

The applicant mines anticipate that coal production would remain unchanged 

from the projected post-2008 levels if the LBA tracts are acquired. Impacts to air 

quality related to lake acidification under the Proposed Action and Alternative 2 

(Alternative 3 for the Maysdorf II Tract), BLM’s preferred alternatives, would 

therefore be similar to the impacts under the No Action alternative, except they 

would be extended by 2.2 years (for the Caballo West LBA tract as applied for) up 

to as many as 10.0 years (for the Maysdorf II LBA tract under Alternative 3). 

The Belle Ayr, Coal Creek, Caballo, and Cordero Rojo mines would employ the best 

measures available to mitigate any potential emission increases associated with 

mining the LBA tracts. These would include, but would not necessarily be limited 

to, extension of overland conveyors to minimize haul distances and associated 

particulate and gaseous (i.e., nitrogen oxides, carbon oxides and sulfur dioxides) 

emissions from coal haulage, as well as state-of-the-art blasting practices to 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 3-79 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

mitigate any potential increases in nitrogen oxide emissions, which can also 

contribute to acidification. 

3.4.4.2.2.2 No Action Alternative 

Under the No Action alternative, the coal lease applications would be rejected and 

the Belle Ayr, Coal Creek, Caballo, and Cordero Rojo mines would continue to 

operate as currently permitted for about 8, 16, 15, and 11 more years, 

respectively. Coal removal would not occur on the LBA tracts. Lake acidification 

impacts related to mining operations at the existing Belle Ayr, Coal Creek, 

Caballo, and Cordero Rojo mines would not be extended onto those portions of the 

LBA tracts that will not be affected under the current mining and reclamation 

plans. 

As discussed in chapter 2, a decision to reject the Belle Ayr North, West Coal 

Creek, Caballo West, and Maysdorf II coal lease applications at this time would 

not preclude an application to lease the tracts in the future. 

3.4.4.2.3 Regulatory Compliance, Mitigation, and Monitoring 

Mitigation and monitoring for coal mine emissions, including the emissions that 

contribute to the acidification of lakes, are discussed in sections 3.4.2.3, 3.4.2.4., 

3.4.3.3, and 3.4.3.4. Other air quality monitoring programs that are in place in 

the PRB include Wyoming Air Resources Monitoring System (WARMS) monitoring 

of sulfur and nitrogen concentrations near Buffalo, Sheridan, and Newcastle, and 

the National Atmospheric Deposition Program (NADP) monitoring of precipitation 

chemistry in Newcastle. 

3.4.5 Residual Impacts to Air Quality 

No residual impacts to air quality would occur following mining and reclamation. 

3.5 Water Resources 

3.5.1 Groundwater 

3.5.1.1 Affected Environment 

The general South Gillette analysis area contains three water-bearing geologic 

units that have been directly affected by existing mining activities and would be 

directly affected by mining the four LBA tracts. In descending order, these units 

are the recent alluvium, the Wasatch Formation overburden, and the mineable 

coal seam in the Tongue River Member of the Fort Union Formation, referred to as 

the Wyodak or Wyodak-Anderson. The underlying, sub-coal Fort Union 

Formation, the Lance Formation, and the Fox Hills Sandstone are used for water 

supply at the four coal mines within the general South Gillette analysis area, but 

3-80 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

these units are not physically disturbed by mining activities. Both regional and 

site-specific baseline hydrogeologic environments within and around the general 

analysis area are extensively characterized in the WDEQ/LQD mining and 

reclamation permits for the four applicant mines included in this analysis (CCC 

2003, FCW 2003, CMC 2007a, and TBCC 2006). Figure 3-2 presents 

stratigraphic relationships and hydrologic characteristics of the units underlying 

the general South Gillette analysis area. 

3.5.1.1.1 Recent Alluvium 

Within the analysis area, alluvial (unconsolidated stream laid) deposits are present 

mainly in the valleys of the larger drainages such as the Belle Fourche River, Coal 

Creek, Caballo Creek, Duck Nest Creek, and Tisdale Creek. Less extensive 

deposits of alluvium are found along the lower reaches of draws that are tributary 

to these major streams. Colluvial and playa deposits associated with other minor 

surface drainages within the general area are very thin and not laterally extensive 

enough to be considered aquifers. 

Within the Belle Ayr North LBA tract, alluvial deposits are associated with Duck 

Nest Creek, an ephemeral tributary of Caballo Creek. The alluvial deposits consist 

of intermixed fine-grained sands, silts, and clays. The surficial deposits adjacent 

to the alluvium consist of fan and sheetwash materials where the terrain is nearly 

flat. The textures of these deposits are similar, making the outer edge of alluvial 

deposits difficult to distinguish. Alluvial deposits along Duck Nest Creek vary 

from 0 to approximately 20 feet thick and are typically around 10 to 15 feet thick. 

The alluvium’s saturated thickness averages about 10 feet, and alluvial 

groundwater flow is downvalley. Duck Nest Creek alluvium is recharged by 

streamflow, water in the channel impoundments, and groundwater discharged 

from a bedrock source underlying the alluvial deposits. The overburden 

groundwater discharge rate was estimated by FCW to be less than 0.1 acre-feet 

per year, which is only enough to create a marshy area with some small shallow 

pools of stagnant water. Patches of thick alkali crust are present around the 

edges of the pools and on the soil surface in this marshy area, which is referred to 

as the “saline seeps”. The saline seeps were located near the southern edge of the 

Belle Ayr North LBA tract and were disturbed by mining in 2006 and are no longer 

present. Groundwater yields measured by FCW at some Duck Nest Creek alluvial 

monitoring wells are very low, ranging from 0 to 3 gallons per minute (gpm). 

Aquifer testing indicates that the Duck Nest Creek alluvial aquifer has a very low 

hydraulic conductivity (ranging from about 0.05 – 0.35 ft/day). 

Duck Nest Creek alluvial groundwater quality is highly variable spatially and poor 

to very poor. In the saline seeps area, total dissolved solids (TDS) concentrations 

range from roughly 3,800 mg/L to over 51,000 mg/L. The alluvial groundwater 

type is generally a magnesium or sodium sulfate, with the sulfate concentration 

averaging over 25,000 mg/L and ranging up to almost 33,000 mg/L. Both TDS 

and sulfate concentrations are well over the maximum allowed in any 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 3-81 
 

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

WDEQ/WQD use classification (WDEQ/WQD 2005). Discharge from underlying 

bedrock (Wasatch Formation overburden) units in the saline seeps area 

contributes to the poor alluvial water quality. Alluvial groundwater quality 

upstream of the saline seeps area, within the LBA tract, is somewhat better but 

still poor and does not meet WDEQ/WQD standards for any use classification. 

The TDS concentration is generally around 20,000 mg/L to 25,000 mg/L, the 

sulfate concentration ranges from approximately 12,500 mg/L to over 15,000 

mg/L, and the sodium adsorption rate (SAR) values are high, ranging from 17.6 to 

19.8. 

Within the West Coal Creek LBA tract, alluvial deposits are associated with Coal 

Creek, an ephemeral tributary of the Belle Fourche River. These unconsolidated 

stream laid deposits consist of intermixed fine-grained sands, silts, and clays, and 

range from 10 to 25 feet thick. Saturated thicknesses range from 0 to a maximum 

of approximately 15 feet at the confluence of East Fork Coal Creek and Middle 

Fork Coal Creek. Field aquifer tests indicated that the Coal Creek alluvium has a 

very low hydraulic conductivity, ranging from nearly 0 to 2.35 ft/day. Due to its 

limited areal extent, limited saturated thickness, and low hydraulic conductivity, 

Coal Creek alluvium does not consistently produce enough water to be used 

beneficially. In addition, based on TDS concentrations, Coal Creek alluvial 

groundwater generally meets the WDEQ/WQD standards for livestock use. 

However, the quality is variable from well to well and at some locations it may 

exceed the livestock standard and at other locations it may be suitable for both 

livestock and agricultural use. 

Within the Caballo West LBA tract, alluvial deposits are associated with Tisdale 

Creek, an ephemeral tributary of Caballo Creek. The Tisdale Creek alluvial 

deposits are typified by both lateral and vertical heterogeneity and are generally 

comprised of gravels, coarse- to fine-grained sands, and local lenses of silty, 

commonly organic-rich clays. Alluvial materials presently being deposited by 

fluvial processes along Tisdale Creek are clayey and heavy-textured. The 

thickness of Tisdale Creek alluvial deposits within the LBA tract average 

approximately 12 feet, and the saturated thickness varies from almost 0 to more 

than 10 feet, and is greatest near the stream channel. Tisdale Creek alluvial 

monitor well water levels indicate that alluvial groundwater progresses downvalley under a hydraulic gradient similar to that of the valley profile. Recharge to 

the alluvium is from direct precipitation, streamflow infiltration, and groundwater 

contributions from underlying bedrock (Wasatch Formation overburden). The 

water table geometry near the stream suggests that the stream generally loses 

water to the alluvium but may gain water depending on the season and extent of 

saturation in the alluvium. Like the adjacent Duck Nest Creek, Tisdale Creek 

alluvial groundwater quality is poor, with a mean TDS concentration ranging from 

approximately 4,900 mg/L to 36,000 mg/L. Due to the high salinity, Tisdale 

Creek alluvial groundwater is considered unsuitable for domestic and irrigation 

uses, and is marginal in some areas for livestock and wildlife use. The low 

hydraulic conductivities and limited areal extent of saturation indicate that the 

3-82 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

alluvium does not exhibit aquifer characteristics adequate for producing 

groundwater in sufficient quantities for agricultural or domestic uses. There is 

currently no known use of alluvial groundwater in or near the Caballo West LBA 

tract. 

Within the Maysdorf II LBA tract, alluvial deposits are found primarily within the 

Belle Fourche River valley. The alluvium consists of recent stream channel 

deposits and topographically higher terrace deposits that predate the recent 

deposition. The deposits are typified by lateral and vertical heterogeneity and are 

generally comprised of gravels, coarse- to fine-grained sands, and local lenses of 

silty, commonly organic-rich clays. The upper-most terrace is comprised 

predominately of relatively homogeneous sandy silts and clays overlying basal 

gravel deposits. The alluvial materials presently being deposited by the stream are 

clayey and heavy-textured. The thickness of Belle Fourche River alluvial deposits 

varies from absent where bedrock is exposed in the stream channel to more than 

40 feet. Saturated alluvium along the river varies from absent (dry from land 

surface to the top of the underlying Wasatch Formation) to more than 10 feet 

thick, and is greatest near the stream channel. Field and laboratory aquifer tests 

indicate that the alluvium has very low productivity and low hydraulic 

conductivity. Alluvial monitor well water levels recorded by the Cordero Rojo Mine 

indicate that alluvial groundwater flows down-valley, and exhibits a hydraulic 

gradient similar to that of the valley profile. Recharge to the alluvium is from 

direct precipitation, stream flow infiltration, and adjacent upland overburden 

areas. In general, the groundwater quality in the saturated Belle Fourche River 

alluvium within the LBA tract is poor, with a TDS concentration averaging around 

4,100 milligrams per liter (mg/L) and the water type is characterized as a 

sodium/calcium-sulfate. 

Belle Fourche River alluvial groundwater is considered unsuitable for domestic 

consumption and irrigation and marginal for livestock and wildlife use because of 

the high salinity. The alluvial groundwater quality is similar to that of the 

underlying Wasatch Formation. The low hydraulic conductivities and limited 

areal extent of saturation indicate that the Belle Fourche River alluvium does not 

exhibit aquifer characteristics adequate for agricultural or domestic uses. There is 

currently no known use of alluvial groundwater in or near the tract. 

3.5.1.1.2 Wasatch Formation 

Within the PRB, the Wasatch Formation (the strata lying above the mineable coal, 

also called the overburden) consists of various non-marine, fluvial and aeolian 

deposits of interbedded sands, silts, and clays with occasional discontinuous 

deposits of coal and carbonaceous material. The Wasatch strata range in 

cohesion from unconsolidated (i.e., loose sands and silts) to lithified (i.e., 

sandstones, siltstones, shales, and coal stringers). Any of the deposits may be 

water bearing, although the sands and sandstones possess a greater, but laterally 

limited, potential for groundwater yield. These sands are generally discontinuous 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 3-83 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

and separated laterally and vertically by fine-grained deposits. This basic 

description generally holds true for all of the general South Gillette analysis area. 

The discontinuous nature of the sediments produce considerable variability in the 

occurrence of groundwater in the overburden both laterally and vertically. The 

hydraulic connection between water-bearing units is tenuous due to intervening 

shale aquitards; thus, groundwater movement through the Wasatch Formation 

overburden is limited. Due to the discontinuous nature of the permeable 

overburden sediments, premine overburden groundwater movement generally 

follows the topography. Because the water-bearing units within the Wasatch 

Formation are not continuous, the formation is not considered to be a regional 

aquifer. However, Wasatch sands and sandstones do provide limited amounts of 

groundwater for livestock and domestic uses on a local scale, provided the water 

quality is suitable. Channel-like deposits of unconsolidated sand (paleochannel 

sands) with up to about 60 feet of saturation occasionally occur in the Wasatch 

overburden, and wells developed in these sands may individually yield up to 50 

gpm. Paleochannels are typically less than 500 feet wide and are isolated laterally 

and vertically by silt and clay deposits of very low permeabilities. 

Another geologic unit that may be considered a part of the Wasatch Formation is 

scoria, also called clinker or burn. It consists of sediments that were baked, 

fused, and melted in place when the underlying coal burned spontaneously. 

These burned sediments collapsed into the void left by the burned coal. Scoria 

deposits can be a very permeable aquifer and can extend laterally for miles in the 

eastern PRB. The occurrence of scoria is site-specific, typically occurring in areas 

where coal seams crop out at the surface. The scoria provides infiltration of 

precipitation and recharge to laterally contiguous overburden and coal beds. The 

West Coal Creek LBA tract is the only tract in the general South Gillette analysis 

area that contains scoria deposits; however, they are isolated and not extensive or 

saturated enough to be considered an aquifer or a source of recharge. 

Recharge to the Wasatch Formation is from the infiltration of precipitation, 

surface water stored in playas and in-channel reservoirs, and lateral movement of 

water from adjacent scoria bodies. Regionally, groundwater is discharged from the 

formation by evaporation and transpiration, by pumping wells, by draining into 

mine excavations, and by seeping into the alluvium along stream courses. 

Overburden groundwater is not generally connected to the underlying Wyodak 

coal seam due to a low-permeability stratum at the base of the overburden, which 

is fairly widespread in the general South Gillette analysis area. However, some 

leakage between the aquifers provides vertical recharge to the coal aquifer. 

For the Wasatch Formation as a whole in the PRB, the discontinuous nature of 

the water bearing units results in low overall hydraulic conductivity and low 

groundwater flow rates. Because of the varied nature of the aquifer units within 

the Wasatch, hydraulic properties vary as well. Martin et al. (1988) reported that 

hydraulic conductivities within the Wasatch ranged from 10-4 ft/day to 102 ft/day, 

3-84 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

and the geometric mean hydraulic conductivity based on 203 tests was 0.2 ft/day. 

The geometric mean hydraulic conductivity from 70 aquifer tests using wells 

completed in sandstone in the Wasatch overburden was 0.35 ft/day, while that 

from 63 aquifer tests using wells completed in siltstone and claystone in the 

Wasatch overburden was 0.007 ft/day (Rehm et al. 1980). Field aquifer tests 

conducted in the general South Gillette analysis area by the four applicant mines 

indicate that the water-bearing Wasatch overburden strata typically have a low 

hydraulic conductivity, ranging from 0.004 ft/day to 78.0 ft/day, and verify that 

the overburden sand bodies are isolated hydraulically from one another. 

The quality of groundwater in the Wasatch Formation is extremely variable and 

generally poor. In the general South Gillette analysis area, TDS concentrations 

range from 525 mg/L to 13,000 mg/L and the water type is typically a calciumsulfate, magnesium-sulfate, or a sodium-sulfate. The median TDS for the group of 

mines located between Gillette and Wright, as calculated by WDEQ/LQD based on 

1,109 samples, is 2,996 mg/L (Ogle et al. 2005). Overburden groundwater is 

generally considered unsuitable for domestic consumption and irrigation use but 

is suitable for livestock and wildlife use. 

3.5.1.1.3 Wyodak/Wyodak-Anderson Coal 

The Tongue River Member of the Fort Union Formation contains the mineable coal 

zone, which is often divided by partings that separate it into two or more units. 

The mineable coal zones are referred to as the Anderson and Canyon, Roland and 

Smith, Wyodak-Anderson, Upper and Lower Wyodak, or Wyodak seams. A general 

discussion of the coal seam aquifer follows. 

Due to its continuity, the Wyodak coal seam is considered a regional aquifer 

because it is water bearing and is laterally continuous throughout the area. 

Historically, the Fort Union coal seams have been a source of groundwater for 

domestic and livestock uses in the eastern PRB. However, due to the 1 to 3 degree 

west-northwest dip of the coal beds, the coal generally becomes too deep to be an 

economical source of water within a couple of miles west of the PRB surface coal 

mines. 

Hydraulic conductivity within this coal seam is highly variable and reflective of the 

amount of fracturing the coal has undergone, as unfractured coal is virtually 

impermeable. Field aquifer tests indicate that the coal has a low to moderate 

transmissivity with a range of roughly three orders of magnitude. The yield of 

groundwater to wells and mine pits is smallest where the permeability of the coal 

is derived primarily from localized unloading fractures. These fractures, which are 

the most common, are created by the coal expanding of the coal as the weight of 

overlying sediments is slowly removed by erosion. Localized zones of moderately 

high transmissivity occur due to increased fracturing, and the highest 

permeability is imparted to the coal by tectonic fractures. These are throughgoing fractures of areal importance created during deformation of the Powder River 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 3-85 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

structural basin. The presence of these fractures can be recognized by their linear 

expression at the ground surface, controlling the orientation of stream drainages 

and topographic depressions. Due to their pronounced surface expression, these 

tectonic fractures are often referred to as “lineaments”. Coal permeability along 

lineaments can be increased by orders of magnitude over that in the coal fractured 

by unloading only. Such increased aquifer transmissivity occurs west of the 

Cordero Rojo Mine area and is attributed to structural development that has 

produced additional fracturing. 

Field aquifer tests conducted in the general South Gillette analysis area by the 

four applicant mines indicate that the coal aquifer is non-homogeneous and 

generally low in transmissivity with some local areas of high transmissivity. 

Hydraulic conductivity values reported by the four applicant mines for the 

Wyodak/Wyodak-Anderson coal seam ranges from 0.008 ft/day to 66.7 ft/day, 

with means ranging from approximately 4.0 ft/day to 14.0 ft/day. Storage 

coefficients measured within and around the general South Gillette analysis area 

range from 10–3 to 10–4, indicative of a confined aquifer. 

Recharge to the coal occurs principally by infiltration of precipitation in the clinker 

outcrop areas along the flank of the eastern Powder River structural basin. 

Secondary vertical recharge from the overburden also occurs, but is highly 

variable. Prior to mining, the direction of groundwater flow within the areally 

continuous coal aquifer was generally from recharge areas at the coal seam’s 

outcrop westward into the PRB, following the dip of the coal. Groundwater 

conditions varied from unconfined to confined, depending on the coal elevation 

and proximity to the outcrop area. Water levels were generally above the top of 

the coal away from the outcrop. 

Site-specific water-level data collected from coal monitoring wells by mining 

companies and the BLM in the analysis area and presented in the GAGMO 25­

year report (Hydro-Engineering 2007) indicate that the groundwater flow 

directions in the Wyodak coal have been greatly influenced by surface mine 

dewatering and groundwater discharge associated with CBNG development. 

Groundwater levels observed near active mining areas prior to 1997 were likely 

due to mine dewatering alone. The groundwater flow direction within the coal 

aquifer was typically toward the mine pits. By 2000, groundwater level decline 

rates had dramatically increased because drawdown caused by widespread CBNG 

development west of the mines was overlapping with drawdown caused by mining 

operations. A continuous cone of depression currently exists around the Belle 

Ayr, Coal Creek, Caballo, and Cordero Rojo mines due to their closeness to each 

other and the cumulative drawdown effects from pit dewatering and nearby CBNG 

discharges. The extent of drawdown west of the mines that is specifically 

attributable to mine dewatering can no longer be defined due to much greater and 

areally extensive drawdown caused by CBNG development. Roughly 30 years of 

surface mining and the more recent CBNG development has resulted in complete 

3-86 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

dewatering of the coal aquifer in localized areas, particularly near the mines’ pits 

and where the coal seams are structurally highest. 

Coal groundwater is typically only suitable for livestock and wildlife use because 

certain constituent concentrations commonly exceed many suitability criteria for 

domestic uses. Also, the water may have a high salinity and sodium hazard, 

which makes it unsuitable for agricultural uses. Within the general South Gillette 

analysis area, Wyodak coal groundwater quality is generally poor, but exhibits 

lower TDS concentrations than alluvial or overburden groundwater. The 

composition of groundwater in the coal is fairly uniform and there are no seasonal 

or long-term trends in composition. The composition of groundwater in the coal is 

generally characterized as a calcium/magnesium-sulfate type near the scoria 

outcrop recharge areas and transitions to a sodium-bicarbonate type as the 

groundwater moves downgradient. In the analysis area, TDS concentrations range 

from 442 mg/L to 4,400 mg/L, with averages reported by the four applicant mines 

ranging from approximately 950 mg/L to 1,700 mg/L. This compares to a median 

TDS of 920 mg/L calculated by the WDEQ/LQD for the Belle Aye Mine and 

adjacent mines, based on 1,200 samples collected from the coal aquifer (Ogle et al. 

2005). 

3.5.1.1.4 Subcoal Fort Union Formation 

The Fort Union Formation is divided into three members (in descending order): the 

Tongue River, the Lebo, and the Tullock. The mineable coal seams occur within 

the Tongue River Member. The subcoal Fort Union Formation consists primarily 

of lithified sands and shales and is divided into three hydrogeologic units: the 

upper Tongue River aquifer, the Lebo confining layer, and the Tullock aquifer (Law 

1976). Of the three units, the Tullock yields the most groundwater. 

Mining does not directly disturb the hydrogeologic units below the mineable coal, 

but many PRB mines use them for industrial water supply wells. In a few cases 

there have been drawdowns in the subcoal aquifer due to leakage into mine pits, 

dewatering, and CBNG development (BLM 2001b). The upper Tongue River 

aquifer consists of lenticular, fine-grained sandstone interbedded with mudstone. 

The Lebo confining layer is typically more fine-grained than the other two 

members and generally retards the movement of water (Lewis and Hotchkiss 

1981). The Lebo confining layer typically separates the Tongue River and Tullock 

aquifers hydraulically. The Tullock aquifer consists of discontinuous lenses of 

sandstone separated by interbedded shale and siltstone. 

Transmissivity is equal to an aquifer’s hydraulic conductivity, or permeability, 

times the aquifer’s saturated thickness, and is used when discussing the 

hydraulic properties of the subcoal Fort Union Formation where wells are 

completed by exposing many discrete sand lenses to the well bore. 

Transmissivities are generally higher in the deeper Tullock aquifer than in the 

shallower Tongue River aquifer, and many mines in the PRB have water-supply 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 3-87 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

wells completed in this interval (Martin et al. 1988). The city of Gillette also uses 

the Tullock aquifer to meet part of its municipal water requirements. The average 

transmissivity for the Tullock, as reported by OSM (1984), is 290 ft2/day. The 

four applicant mines use a total of eight wells completed in the subcoal Fort Union 

Formation for water supply, and they range in depth from approximately 850 feet 

to 2,487 feet. 

The water quality of the subcoal Fort Union Formation is generally good. TDS 

concentrations measured in various subcoal Fort Union Formation water supply 

wells in the eastern PRB range from 230 mg/L to 520 mg/L. Water from this 

formation is typically of the sodium-bicarbonate type. This water is generally 

suitable for livestock and wildlife watering and may be suitable for domestic use. 

Depending upon site-specific TDS concentrations and SAR values, groundwater 

from Fort Union Formation supply wells may also be suitable for irrigation. 

3.5.1.1.5 Lance Formation-Fox Hills Sandstone 

Underlying the Fort Union Formation is the Lance Formation of Cretaceous age. 

The Lance Formation is comprised of an upper confining layer and a lower aquifer. 

Individual sandstone beds of the lower aquifer sequence are up to about 100 feet 

thick, are fine-grained, and contain variable amounts of interbedded clay and silt. 

The Fox Hills Sandstone underlies the Lance Formation and is usually difficult to 

distinguish from the Lance. The Fox Hills is described as well-developed, fine- to 

medium-grained, marine sandstone that contains thin beds of sandy shale and 

averages around 250 feet thick beneath the general South Gillette analysis area. 

The Caballo and Cordero Rojo mines each have one industrial water supply well 

completed in the Fox Hills Sandstone, while two industrial water supply wells 

within Belle Ayr Mine’s existing permit area are completed in the Lance/Fox Hills 

aquifer. These wells are all around 4,000 feet deep. The city of Gillette also uses 

the Lance/Fox Hills aquifer to meet part of its municipal water requirements, as 

do the Wyodak Power Plant and various other eastern PRB surface coal mines. 

Groundwater quality from this aquifer is good enough to meet the standards for 

domestic use, depending upon the concentrations of TDS and various constituents 

such as fluoride. Sodium and bicarbonate are typically the predominant ionic 

constituents. 

3.5.1.2 Environmental Consequences 

3.5.1.2.1 Proposed Action and Alternatives 2 and 3 

Surface coal mining impacts the quantity of the groundwater resource in two 

ways: 1) the coal aquifer and any aquifers present in the overburden are removed 

from the mined areas during mining and replaced with unconsolidated backfill 

after the coal is removed, and 2) water levels in the coal and overburden aquifers 

3-88 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

adjacent to the mine pits are depressed as a result of seepage into and dewatering 

from the open excavations in the area of coal and overburden removal. 

If the tracts are leased and mined, the overall regional extent of coal removal and 

reclamation would increase, along with a potential increase of mining-related 

impacts to groundwater quantity. As mining expands, additional water-bearing 

bedrock strata would be exposed and groundwater would drain by gravity into the 

active pits. The overburden and coal aquifers within the tracts would be 

completely dewatered and removed, and the area of drawdown caused by 

overburden and coal removal would be extended further to the west of the active 

mine areas. However, the amount and extent of additional drawdown may not be 

great, as current drawdown associated with mining the existing leases combined 

with drawdown associated with CBNG development has nearly dewatered the coal 

aquifer within and immediately west of the general South Gillette analysis area. 

Approved mining will continue to remove the Wasatch Formation overburden, Fort 

Union Formation interburden (where present), and coal on the existing leases at 

the four mines. The stratified units will be replaced with backfill material 

composed of an unlayered mixture of the shale, siltstone, and sandstone from the 

Wasatch Formation overburden and Fort Union Formation interburden. The 

existing leases include approximately 39,346.6 acres. Mining each of the LBA 

tracts as maintenance leases would extend the area of overburden and coal 

removal by about 11,886.9 acres under the Proposed Action up to about 12,464.8 

acres under BLM’s preferred tract configurations (Alternative 2 for the Belle Ayr 

North, Wet Coal Creek, and Caballo West LBA tracts and Alternative 3 for the 

Maysdorf II tract). 

The 25-year Gillette Area Groundwater Monitoring Organization (GAGMO) report 

(Hydro-Engineering 2007) presents drawdowns that have developed in the last 25 

years from coal mining activity or other stresses to the groundwater system. The 

25-year drawdown map for the general South Gillette analysis area included in the 

report shows a continuous cone of depression around the Belle Ayr, Coal Creek, 

Caballo, and Cordero Rojo mines due to their proximity to each other and the 

large drawdowns caused to the west by CBNG development. Hydro-Engineering 

(2007) states that the extent of drawdown caused by mining alone to the west of 

the mines can no longer be defined due to the much larger drawdown caused by 

CBNG development. Drawdowns to the west of the mines are very large, mainly 

due to the discharge of groundwater from the Wyodak coal aquifer that is 

associated with CBNG production. Greater drawdowns exist west of these mines 

than near their present western boundaries. The present drawdown of the 

Wyodak coal potentiometric surface has made the comparison between the 25­

year drawdowns and the modeled groundwater drawdown predictions using the 

conservative, worst-case scenario for each mine to be unrealistic. Drawdowns in 

all areas have greatly increased in the last few years because of CBNG production. 

Potential overlapping impacts of the existing mining activities with other proposed 

activities are addressed further in chapter 4 of this EIS. 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 3-89 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Due to the inconsistent lithologic makeup of the Wasatch Formation overburden 

(discontinuous sandstone and sand lenses in a matrix of siltstone and shale), 

drawdowns in the overburden are variable and do not extend great distances from 

the active mine pits. The varied nature of the water-bearing units within the 

Wasatch Formation overburden make the extent of water level drawdowns variable 

as well. Water level drawdowns propagate much farther and in a more consistent 

manner in the coal seam aquifers than in the overburden due to the regional 

continuity and higher transmissivity of the coal seam. Drawdowns in the coal 

seam are primarily a function of distance from the pit, although geologic and 

hydrologic barriers and boundaries (crop lines, fracture zones, and recharge 

sources) can also influence drawdowns. As discussed below, each mine evaluated 

groundwater level drawdowns resulting from their existing operations based on 

site-specific characteristics such as hydraulic conductivity, mining sequence, and 

local geology. Mines usually model groundwater level drawdown using the 

conservative, worst-case scenario. Therefore, it is unlikely that the actual 

drawdown will extend as far from the mine pits as predicted. It is also difficult to 

predict the time for groundwater recovery since each mine uses different predictive 

modeling techniques and assumptions, and reports different recovery times. In 

general, drawdown in groundwater levels in both the coal and overburden will be 

greatest adjacent to the pit area and decrease with distance from the pits (Ogle et 

al. 2005). 

The subcoal aquifers (i.e., Tullock Member of the Fort Union Formation and Lance 

Formation-Fox Hills Sandstone) are not removed or disturbed by mining, so coal 

mining does not impact them. All four of the applicant mines located within the 

general South Gillette analysis area use water supply wells completed in aquifers 

stratigraphically below the Wyodak coal. If these four LBA tracts are leased and 

mined by the applicants, water would be produced from these wells for a longer 

period, but none of the mines would require additional sub-coal wells for 

industrial water supply to continue mining and reclaiming. 

The existing layers of sediment and rock in the area of coal removal would be 

replaced by homogeneous, unconsolidated backfill material, which would recover 

as a single hydrostratigraphic unit. The backfill unit created in the LBA tract 

areas would be in hydraulic communication with the undisturbed coal, 

overburden, and the adjacent mine backfill. Premining recharge areas, described 

in section 3.5.1.1, would not be disturbed by mining. Surface infiltration recharge 

rates for the backfill materials should equal or be greater than infiltration recharge 

through undisturbed overburden, primarily due to the swelling mined strata 

attendant with excavating the strata, and due to flatter postmining topography 

resulting in less surface runoff. Water levels in the affected aquifers would remain 

below premining levels for a long time, since groundwater discharge rates from the 

affected aquifers into the proposed mine pits are expected to be low. Groundwater 

would accumulated in the backfill and eventually discharge to hydrostratigraphic 

units bordering the backfilled pit, at which time, groundwater levels and flow 

patterns are expected to be similar to premining condition. Groundwater flow 

3-90 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
 

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

through the backfill and undisturbed bedrock near the pits would be interrupted 

until saturation levels in the backfilled pits have increased, and the rates of 

recharge to and discharge from the backfill have equilibrated. Postmining 

groundwater levels should approach steady state conditions some time after mine 

reclamation and impacts from CBNG development in the cumulative impact areas 

are completed. The rate at which the mine backfill resaturates and the 

postmining potentiometric surface reaches equilibrium depends on the hydraulic 

conductivity of the backfill and sources of recharge water. 

The hydraulic properties of the backfill aquifer based on the results of aquifer 

testing at mines in the PRB are quite variable, although generally equal to or 

greater than the undisturbed overburden and coal aquifers (Van Voast et al. 1978 

and Rahn 1976). It is early in the process of full reclamation and to date, not all 

of the backfilled materials have reached an adequate saturated thickness to be 

aquifer tested at the four applicant mines in the general South Gillette analysis 

area. The composition of the backfilled overburden materials at these four 

adjacent mines is quite similar; therefore, the hydraulic characteristics of the 

backfill at these four mines are also expected to be similar. To date, the backfill 

has not yet been aquifer tested at the Cordero Rojo and Coal Creek mines. 

Hydraulic conductivity values measured in existing monitoring wells completed in 

the saturated backfill at the Belle Ayr and Caballo mines range from 0.002 ft/day 

to 2.0 ft/day (FCW 2003 and CCC 2003), which is comparable but slightly lower 

than the reported hydraulic conductivity values determined for the Wasatch 

overburden and Wyodak coal seam. These data indicate that the backfill would 

readily resaturate as postmining potentiometric elevations recover in the 

surrounding undisturbed aquifers, and that wells completed in the backfill 

(including in these four LBA tracts) would be capable of supplying sufficient yields 

to wells constructed for livestock watering uses. 

Mining and reclamation also impacts groundwater quality; the TDS concentration 

in the water resaturating the backfill is generally higher than the TDS 

concentration in groundwater from the overburden coal seam aquifers prior to 

mining. This is due to the increased porosity and surface area of backfilled 

overburden sediments, causing exposure of fresh mineral surfaces to groundwater 

that moves through the backfill and increased oxidation that occurs from 

exposure of sediments during mining. Scientific tests in the laboratory and in the 

field show the predominant cause for high dissolved-solids contents in mine 

backfill is the availability of highly soluble salts in the overburden sediments. The 

soluble salts that are exposed to groundwater are readily mobilized; therefore, 

groundwater quality in recently backfilled mine pits is highly diverse due to the 

variable distribution of soluble salts and the variable permeability of the backfill. 

As the backfill is resaturated and groundwater flow patterns are reestablished, the 

soluble salts are leached by groundwater inflow. Groundwater quality in the 

backfill depends on a balance between the introduction of new salts by 

groundwater that recharges the backfill and the flushing of the newly exposed 

soluble salts by groundwater flow. Studies of backfill groundwater quality are not 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 3-91 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

conclusive due to a relatively short period of monitoring available in the PRB. A 

general observation is that the content of TDS, calcium, magnesium, and sodium 

sulfates, when compared to the undisturbed aquifers, is roughly two to three 

times as high. However, these elevated levels should decline as flushing and 

leaching of soluble salts reaches equilibrium. Even at a two to three fold increase 

in TDS concentration, the water in the backfill will, in most cases, be suitable for 

its predominant premining use, stock watering (Straskraba 1986). 

Using data compiled from 10 surface coal mines in the eastern PRB, Martin et al. 

(1988) concluded that backfill groundwater quality improves markedly after the 

backfill is leached with one pore volume of water. Van Voast and Reiten (1988) 

reached the same conclusions after analyzing data from the Decker and Colstrip 

mines located in the northern PRB. Their research indicates that upon initial 

saturation, mine backfill is generally high in TDS concentration and contains 

soluble salts (calcium, magnesium and sodium sulfates). TDS concentrations 

tend to decrease with time, indicating that the long-term groundwater quality in 

mined and adjacent lands would not be compromised. Clark (1995) conducted a 

study to determine if the decreases predicted by laboratory studies actually occur 

onsite. In the area of the West Decker Mine near Decker, Montana, Clark’s study 

found that dissolved solids concentrations increased when water from an 

upgradient coal aquifer flowed into a backfill aquifer, and apparently decreased 

along an inferred flow path from a backfill aquifer to a downgradient coal aquifer. 

WDEQ/LQD calculated a median TDS concentration of 3,293 mg/L for the backfill 

aquifer in the east-central area of the PRB, including the mines in the general 

South Gillette analysis area, based on 1,384 samples (Ogle et al. 2005). 

Changes to the premining hydraulic characteristics of the alluvial aquifer and the 

quality of alluvial groundwater are expected to be minor after final reclamation, 

because the applicant mines would be required to maintain the essential 

hydrologic functions of the alluvial valley floors (AVFs) declared in the general 

South Gillette analysis area and their alluvial aquifer systems (as is currently 

required for the already-approved mining operations). Additional discussions can 

be found in sections 3.5.1.3 and 3.6. 

As discussed in chapter 2, the Proposed Action and action alternatives assume 

that these four LBA tracts would be leased as maintenance tracts to existing 

mines. Direct and indirect impacts to the groundwater system resulting from 

mining the tracts included in this analysis would add to the cumulative impacts 

that will occur from current mining. There have been drawdowns in the coal and 

overlying aquifers because of existing mining and ongoing CBNG development in 

the vicinity of the LBA tracts. As of 2005, the level of groundwater in the Wyodak 

coal seam had lowered to around 40 feet above the base of the coal in the general 

South Gillette analysis area. 

The probable groundwater impacts from leasing and subsequent mining of each of 

the LBA tracts are described in the following paragraphs. Some or all of the 

3-92 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

impacts to the groundwater levels in the coal aquifer described below may already 

be occurring as a result of current coal mining adjacent to the LBA tracts and 

CBNG development. 

3.5.1.2.1.1 Belle Ayr North LBA Tract 

The existing leases at the Belle Aye Mine include approximately 6,345.3 acres. 

Mining the Belle Ayr North LBA tract as a maintenance lease would extend the 

area of overburden and coal removal by about 1,937 acres under the Proposed 

Action and up to about 1,947 acres under Alternative 2, BLM’s preferred tract 

configuration. 

Mining has affected alluvial groundwater level elevations only where the alluvial 

aquifer has been mined out. If the Belle Ayr North LBA tract is leased, mining 

would dewater and physically remove the Duck Nest Creek alluvial materials 

within the tract. Changes to the premining hydraulic characteristics of the 

alluvial aquifer and the quality of the alluvial groundwater are expected to be 

minor after final reclamation, because Belle Ayr Mine would be required to 

maintain the essential hydrologic functions of Duck Nest Creek and its alluvial 

aquifer system. Additional discussions can be found in sections 3.5.1.3 and 3.6. 

Overburden thickness in the tract range from about 120 feet to 400 feet and 

averages around 295 feet. Most of the overburden is composed of massive silty 

and clayey shales of very low permeability, although discontinuous, lenticularshaped sand bodies occur in the general analysis area. Some of these isolated 

sand bodies in the overburden are saturated, but groundwater yields from them 

are generally low. Due to the discontinuous nature of the permeable overburden 

sediments, premining overburden groundwater movement followed the 

topography. Before mining, overburden groundwater flow in the vicinity of the 

Belle Ayr Mine was toward, and discharged to the Belle Fourche River and Caballo 

Creek valleys. Groundwater flow has since been affected by the removal of 

overburden. Monitor well data indicate that overburden groundwater in the Belle 

Ayr North general analysis area now flows toward the Belle Ayr Mine’s and 

neighboring mines’ open pits. Mining has and will continue to depress water 

levels in the overburden, although the historical monitoring data do not indicate a 

correlation between water level drawdown in the overburden to distance and 

direction from the open pits. In general, overburden groundwater levels will begin 

to show steady decline in areas that are within about 1⁄2 mile of the mine pits as 

mining progresses. Future drawdown in the overburden is expected to be similar 

to that measured to date, and would be expected to continue to have a limited 

impact outside of the mined area. 

Water level drawdowns have propagated much farther and in a more consistent 

manner in the Wyodak coal seam aquifer than in the overburden. Groundwater 

level monitoring data collected by the Belle Ayr Mine and the other three mines 

located in the general South Gillette analysis area and presented in the GAGMO 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 3-93 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

25-year report (Hydro-Engineering 2007) indicate that the groundwater flow 

directions in the Wyodak coal have been greatly influenced by surface mine 

dewatering and groundwater discharge associated with CBNG development. 

Groundwater levels observed near active mining areas before 1997 were likely due 

to mine dewatering alone. The groundwater flow direction within the coal aquifer 

was typically toward the mine where it would drain by gravity into the open pits. 

By 2000, groundwater level decline rates had dramatically increased because 

drawdown caused by widespread CBNG development west of the mines was 

overlapping with drawdown caused by mining operations. A continuous cone of 

depression currently exists around the Belle Ayr, Coal Creek, Caballo, and 

Cordero Rojo mines due to their closeness to each other and the cumulative 

drawdown effects from pit dewatering and nearby CBNG discharges (HydroEngineering 2007). The extent of drawdown west of the mines that is specifically 

attributable to mine dewatering can no longer be defined due to much greater and 

areally extensive drawdown caused by CBNG development. 

Recent coal seam water level data presented in the GAGMO 25-year report (HydroEngineering 2007) illustrate that approximately 150 feet of drawdown has 

occurred near the western edge of the Belle Ayr North LBA tract, and 

approximately 50 feet of drawdown has occurred near the tract’s eastern edge. 

The 2005 coal seam water level contours in the area of the four mines depict the 

groundwater flow direction to be entirely to the west, away from the open pits. 

Roughly 30 years of surface mining and CBNG development has resulted in nearly 

complete dewatering of the coal seams in localized areas, particularly near the 

mines’ pits and where the coal seams are structurally highest. 

In 1997, the numerical groundwater flow model MODFLOW was used to predict 

the extent of water level drawdown in the Wyodak coal aquifer attributable to 

mining the existing leases at the Belle Ayr Mine. The results of the groundwater 

modeling are reported in Appendix 3.5-7 of the Belle Ayr Mine Permit 214-T6 

(FCW 2003). Groundwater level monitoring data prior to CBNG activity 

approximated the modeled drawdown predictions done in 1997. For the purpose 

of this analysis, the extent of coal-mining related drawdown (5-foot contour) in the 

Wyodak seam over the life of the Belle Ayr Mine if the Belle Ayr North LBA tract is 

mined was extrapolated by extending FCW’s 1997-modeled life-of-mine drawdown 

contour to the north and west by the dimensions of the Belle Ayr North LBA tract 

(figure 3-21). The area subject to lower water levels would increase roughly in 

proportion to the increase in area mined. This extrapolation serves as a general 

approximation of the potential impacts, based on experience, but it does not take 

variations in hydrologic properties, the time the pits are open, and the distance 

from previous mining and CBNG development into account. 

The rate and extent of the actual drawdown in the coal became much greater than 

the modeled drawdown in the late 1990s, effectively rendering the MODFLOW 

prediction obsolete. This occurred as drawdown caused by extensive CBNG 

development west of the Belle Ayr Mine permit area and the Belle Ayr North LBA 

3-94 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
49 31 49 

Bishop

T-7 Road 

T-7 Road 

Fairview 

Road Corners 

Road 

Road 

Creek 

Haight Road 

State

 59 Highway 

5 

5 

5 

5 

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

R. 72 W. R. 71 W. R. 71 W. R. 70 W. 

State Highway 59

Hilight Road

Four 

T. T. 36 31 36 31 

N. N. 

T. T. 1 6 6 1 6	 48 48 N. N. 

T. T. 

48	 36 31 48 31	 36 31	 N. N. 

T. T. 6	 1 6 1 6 47 47 N. N. Hoe 

Road 

36 31 31	 36 31 

R. 72 W. R. 71 W.	 R. 71 W. R. 70 W. 

LEGEND 

Belle Ayr Mine Permit Boundary 5 Extropolated Life of Mine Drawdown 

(5 feet) with Belle Ayr North LBA Tract 

Extent of Worst-Case Modeled and 

Existing Belle Ayr Mine Federal Coal Leases 

Approximate Wyodak Coal Outcrop Belle Ayr North LBA Tract as Applied for 

Clinker 

BLM's Study Area Clinker and coal outcrop information modified from
 

Plate 1 in Heffern and Coates (2000).
 Alternative 2,
 

BLM's Preferred Alternative
 0 6000 12000 24000 

GRAPHIC SCALE (FEET) 

Figure 3-21. Belle Ayr Mine Life of Mine Drawdown Map, Resulting from Currently Approved Mining with the 

Addition of the Belle Ayr North LBA Tract. 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 3-95
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

tract has overlapped with drawdown caused by mining operations. As such, the 

model predictions will not match “observed” drawdowns because the potential 

drawdown from mining is overshadowed by the much larger CBNG pumping. In 

order to predict the actual observed drawdown, the area covered by the existing 

model would need to be expanded and the model modified to include the CBNG 

pumpage. 

Continued drawdown effects from CBNG withdrawals will be likely; therefore, 

future drawdown to the Wyodak coal aquifer from mining the approved leases and 

the Belle Ayr North LBA tract would be negligible because the coal seam has 

essentially been dewatered. Groundwater elevation data collected by the Belle Ayr 

Mine for more than 30 years have formed the basis for quantifying groundwater 

level drawdowns since mining began and provide a reasonable and reliable means 

to predict trends in groundwater elevations associated with dewatering due to 

future mining. These data will continue to be recorded according to the mine’s 

WDEQ-approved groundwater monitoring program and included in the annual 

progress report that the mine submits to the WDEQ/LQD, as well as the GAGMO 

annual reports. If FCW acquires the Belle Ayr North LBA tract, WDEQ/LQD 

would require that future drawdown impacts due to mining alone be predicted in 

order to amend the tract into the Belle Ayr Mine permit area (section 3.5.1.3). 

The subcoal aquifers (Tullock Member of the Fort Union Formation and Lance 

Formation-Fox Hills Sandstone) are not removed or disturbed by mining, so they 

are not directly impacted by coal mining activity. The Belle Ayr Mine has four 

water supply wells completed in aquifers below the Wyodak coal. If the Belle Ayr 

North LBA tract is leased by the applicant, water would be produced from these 

wells for a longer period of time, but FCW would not require additional sub-coal 

wells to mine the LBA tract. 

To date, 19 wells have been installed in the backfill at the Belle Ayr Mine to 

monitor groundwater levels and groundwater quality (17 of which were actively 

monitored as of 2006). Most of these wells were installed between the early 1980s 

and early 1990s, and the historic groundwater hydrographs recorded by these 

wells indicate that the level of backfill saturation has increased at variable rates at 

nearly every well location. Aquifer tests performed in 1993 on selected backfill 

wells at the Belle Ayr Mine indicate the hydraulic conductivity ranges from 0.002 

ft/day to 0.78 ft/day (FCW 2003), which is comparable but slightly lower than the 

reported hydraulic conductivity values determined from most tests of the 

overburden and Wyodak coal seam within the Belle Ayr Mine area. These data 

therefore provide an indication that the backfill will readily resaturate as 

postmining potentiometric elevations recover in the surrounding undisturbed 

aquifers. Wells completed in the backfill (including in the Belle Ayr North LBA 

tract) would be capable of supplying sufficient yields to wells constructed for 

livestock watering uses. The exact configurations and hydraulic gradients of the 

postmining potentiometric surfaces may vary from premine conditions, reflecting 

the composite of overburden and coal heads in the backfill aquifer. However, 

3-96 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

postmining equilibrium groundwater movement should exhibit a hydraulic 

gradient toward Caballo Creek, as existed prior to mining (FCW 2003). 

Groundwater quality within the backfill at the Belle Ayr North LBA tract would be 

expected to be similar to groundwater quality measured in existing wells 

completed in the Belle Ayr Mine backfill. The Belle Ayr Mine has an extensive 

backfill groundwater monitoring network, having 14 wells that are currently 

sampled on a quarterly basis (FCW 2007). Over the period of record, the TDS 

concentration of the groundwater at five of these wells has decreased, while it has 

increased at five wells, and remained essentially constant at four wells. Based on 

the 2006 sampling results, the mean annual TDS concentration ranged from 

about 760 mg/L to 5,580 mg/L. TDS concentrations in only one of the 14 wells 

have normally exceeded 5,000 mg/L, but they have consistently remained below 

this value in the remaining 13 wells. The TDS concentration in three of the 14 

wells has consistently been around or under 1,000 mg/L. The 2006 average TDS 

concentration in the entire 14-well database was 2,889 mg/L (FCW 2007). 

TDS concentrations observed in the Belle Ayr Mine backfill monitoring wells to 

date are similar to those found in the undisturbed Wasatch Formation overburden 

but typically larger than those found in the Wyodak coal aquifer. Postmining 

groundwater quality is expected to improve after one pore volume of water moves 

through the backfill. In general, the mine backfill groundwater TDS can be 

expected to be quite similar to the premining overburden aquifer, and meet 

Wyoming Class III standards for use as stock water. 

3.5.1.2.1.2 West Coal Creek LBA Tract 

The existing leases at the Coal Creek Mine currently include approximately 6,854 

acres. Mining the West Coal Creek LBA tract as a maintenance lease would 

extend the area of overburden and coal removal by about 1,925 acres under the 

Proposed Action and up to about 2,210 acres under Alternative 2, BLM’s preferred 

tract configuration. 

With the exception of seasonal variations, Coal Creek alluvial groundwater levels 

have generally declined in recent years due to drought conditions. Mining has 

physically removed alluvial deposits associated with one unnamed tributary of 

Coal Creek within the current mine permit area. Coal Creek Mine’s approved 

mine and reclamation plan does not require that Coal Creek’s alluvial deposits be 

selectively removed and replaced (TBCC 2006). If the West Coal Creek LBA tract is 

leased, mining would physically remove additional alluvial deposits associated 

with Coal Creek. However, it is unlikely that WDEQ/LQD would require the mine 

to selectively remove and replace the alluvial deposits within the tract. Additional 

discussions can be found in sections 3.5.1.3 and 3.6. 

Hydrologic baseline studies conducted by TBCC in the Coal Creek Mine area and 

the West Coal Creek general analysis area concluded that the Wasatch Formation 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 3-97 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

overburden is an aquitard that lacks saturated areas (e.g., paleochannel sands) 

capable of yielding enough water to justify well construction (TBCC 2006). 

Therefore, due to the lack of a continuous saturated zone within the overburden, 

there have been no impacts to an overburden aquifer from mining and no impacts 

are anticipated if the West Coal Creek LBA tract is leased and mined. 

Groundwater level monitoring data collected by the Coal Creek Mine and the other 

three mines located in the general South Gillette analysis area indicate that the 

groundwater flow directions in the Wyodak-Anderson coal aquifer have been 

greatly influenced by surface mine dewatering and groundwater discharge 

associated with CBNG development. Coal Creek Mine development began in 1982 

and groundwater level declines observed at coal monitoring wells located near 

active mining areas prior to 1997 were due to mine dewatering alone. The 

groundwater flow direction within the coal aquifer was typically toward the mine 

where it would drain by gravity into the open pits. By 2000, groundwater level 

decline rates had dramatically increased because drawdown caused by widespread 

CBNG development west of the mine was overlapping with drawdown caused by 

mining operations. As such, model drawdown predictions will not match 

“observed” drawdowns because the potential drawdown from mining is 

overshadowed by the much larger CBNG pumping. In order to predict the actual 

observed drawdown, the area covered by the existing model would need to be 

expanded and the model modified to include the CBNG pumpage. 

Recent coal seam water level data presented in the GAGMO 25-year report (HydroEngineering 2007) and Coal Creek Mine’s 2007 WDEQ/LQD annual report (TBCC 

2007) indicate that from 50 to 70 feet of drawdown has occurred near the western 

edge of the West Coal Creek LBA tract. Wyodak-Anderson coal monitoring wells 

located more than 1⁄2 mile west of the West Coal Creek general analysis area have 

shown drawdowns over 400 feet due to CBNG development, whereas drawdowns 

between 25 and 50 feet have occurred in monitor wells located within 1⁄2 mile of 

the mine’s open pits. The 2005 coal seam water level contours in the West Coal 

Creek general analysis area depict the groundwater flow direction to be westnorthwest, rather than towards Coal Creek Mine’s open pits to the east-northeast 

(Hydro-Engineering 2007). 

In 2005, the extent of water level drawdown in the coal aquifer attributable to 

mining the existing leases at the Coal Creek Mine was estimated using the 

analytical line sink method. The results of the line sink analysis are reported in 

Addendum 3.5.1 of the Coal Creek Mine Permit 483-T5 (TBCC 2006). For this 

analysis, the extent of coal-mining related drawdown (5-foot contour) in the 

Wyodak-Anderson seam over the life of the Coal Creek Mine if the West Coal Creek 

LBA tract is mined was extrapolated by extending TBCC’s predicted life of mine, 

line sink drawdown contour to the north, west, and south by the dimensions of 

the LBA tract (figure 3-22). The area subject to lower water levels would increase 

roughly in proportion to the increase in area mined. This extrapolation serves as a 

general approximation of the potential impacts, based on experience, but it does 

3-98 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
9 

4 

Mills Road 

T-7 Road 

BNSF & UP RR 

BNSF & UP RR 

Haight Road

Hilight Road

5 

5 

5 

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

21 22 23 21 22 23 R. 71 W. R. 70 W. 20 R. 70 W. R. 69 W. 20

Hilight Road

UP RR

H

BNSF &

ey adl R o oad 25 28 27 26 25 30 29 28 27 26 30 29

T. T. 35 32 33 34 36 31 32 47 47 33 34 35 36 31 

N. N. 

T. T. 4 3 2 1 6 5 46 46 1 6 5 4 3 2 

N. N. 

8 9 10 11 7 11 12 7 12

10 

13 

15 14 18 17 18 17 16 15 14 13 16 

Hoadley Road 

20 21 22 24 19 21 22 23 24 19 20 23 

25 30 29 28 27 26 25 30 29 28 27 26 

T. 

34 33

WagensenRoad 

T. 35 36 31 32 33 34 35 36 31 32 46 46 

N. N. 

T. T. 6 45 45 3 1 5 1 6 3 2 2 5 4 N. N. Lawver Road 

11 9 12 10 11 7 9 10 12 7 8

14 13 18 18 17 16 15 16 15 14 13 

24 24 19 20 21 22 23 19 21 22 23 

Breen Road Lawver Road Lawver Road

25 30 

28 27 26 29 28 R. 71 W. R. 70 W. 

LEGEND 

Extent of Worst-Case Modeled and 

Extropolated Life of Mine Drawdown 

(5 feet) with West Coal Creek LBA Tract 

Approximate Wyodak Coal Outcrop 

Clinker 

Clinker and coal outcrop information modified from 

Plate 1 in Heffern and Coates (2000). 

5 

0 5000 10000 20000 

GRAPHIC SCALE (FEET) 

25 30
 

27 26
 R. 70 W. R. 69 W. 

Coal Creek Mine Permit Boundary 

Existing Coal Creek Mine Federal Coal Lease 

West Coal Creek LBA Tract as Applied for 

BLM's Study Area 

Alternative 2, 

BLM's Preferred Alternative 

Figure 3-22. Coal Creek Mine Life of Mine Drawdown Map, Resulting from Currently Approved Mining with 

the Addition of the West Coal Creek LBA Tract. 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 

8 

29 

20 

17 

8 

3-99
 

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

not take variations in hydrologic properties, the time the pits are open, and the 

distance from previous mining and CBNG development into account 

The rate and extent of the actual drawdown in the coal is much greater than the 

predicted life-of-mine drawdown. This has occurred as drawdown caused by 

extensive CBNG development west of the Coal Creek Mine permit area and the 

West Coal Creek LBA tract has overlapped with drawdown caused by mining 

operations. Continued drawdown effects from CBNG withdrawals will be likely; 

therefore, future drawdown to the Wyodak-Anderson coal aquifer from mining the 

approved leases and the LBA tract would be expected to be negligible because the 

coal seam has essentially been dewatered in the general South Gillette analysis 

area. Groundwater elevation data collected by the Coal Creek Mine since 1982 

formed the basis for quantifying groundwater level drawdowns since mining began 

and provide a reasonable and reliable means to predict trends in groundwater 

elevations associated with dewatering due to future mining. These data will 

continue to be recorded according to the mine’s WDEQ-approved groundwater 

monitoring program and included in the annual progress report that the Caballo 

Mine submits to the WDEQ/LQD, as well as the GAGMO annual reports. If ALC 

acquires the West Coal Creek LBA tract, WDEQ/LQD would require that future 

drawdown impacts from mining alone be predicted in order to amend the tract 

into the Coal Creek Mine permit area (section 3.5.1.3). 

The subcoal aquifers (Tullock Member of the Fort Union Formation and Lance 

Formation-Fox Hills Sandstone) are not removed or disturbed by mining, so they 

are not directly impacted by coal mining activity. Coal Creek Mine has two water 

supply wells completed in aquifers below the Wyodak-Anderson coal; both of 

which are completed in the Fort Union Formation at depths of approximately 850 

feet and 2,500 feet. If the West Coal Creek LBA tract is leased by the applicant, 

water would be produced from these wells longer, but TBCC would not require 

additional sub-coal wells to mine the LBA tract. 

To date, two monitoring wells have been installed in Coal Creek Mine’s backfill. 

The groundwater level hydrographs recorded by these two wells indicate that the 

level of saturation in the backfill has fluctuated very little since they were installed 

in 2001 and 2003. Current water level data indicate that approximately 12 feet 

and 65 feet of the backfill is saturated at their respective locations. Although 

neither of these wells has been aquifer tested to determine the hydraulic 

properties of the backfill, overburden at the four applicant mines within the 

general South Gillette analysis area is lithologically similar; therefore, the 

hydraulic characteristics of the backfill at all four mines should also be similar. 

Hydraulic conductivity values reported from tests conducted at the nearby Caballo 

and Belle Ayr mines range from 0.002 ft/day to 2.0 ft/day, which is an indication 

that the backfill will have comparable but slightly lower than the reported 

hydraulic conductivity values determined from most tests of the overburden and 

Wyodak coal seam. The backfill should readily resaturate as postmining 

potentiometric elevations recover in the surrounding undisturbed aquifers. Wells 

3-100 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

completed in the backfill (including in the West Coal Creek LBA tract) would be 

capable of supplying sufficient yields to wells constructed for livestock watering 

uses. The exact configuration and hydraulic gradient of the postmining 

potentiometric surface may vary from premine conditions; however, postmining 

equilibrium groundwater movement should exhibit a hydraulic gradient from 

recharge areas along the coal outcrop east of and along the eastern border of the 

Coal Creek Mine, toward the west and eventually discharge to the valleys of the 

Belle Fourche River and Caballo Creek, with some regional flow into the PRB, 

similar to premining conditions (TBCC 2006). 

Groundwater quality within the backfill at the West Coal Creek LBA tract would be 

similar to groundwater quality measured in Coal Creek Mine’s existing backfill 

monitoring wells. Based on the historical sampling results of the mine’s two 

existing backfill wells, one of which has been sampled since 2002 and the other 

beginning in 2004, the groundwater quality has been relatively constant over the 

period of record and relatively similar at both well locations. TDS concentrations 

have consistently ranged from around 2,700 to 3,000 mg/L (Hydro-Engineering 

2007), which are similar to those found in the undisturbed Wasatch Formation 

overburden and the Wyodak-Anderson coal aquifers. Based upon the current 

information, the mine backfill groundwater TDS can be expected to meet Wyoming 

Class III standards for use as stock water. 

3.5.1.2.1.3 Caballo West LBA Tract 

The existing leases at the Caballo Mine include approximately 11,705 acres. 

Mining the Caballo West LBA tract as a maintenance lease would extend the area 

of overburden and coal removal by about 1,350 acres under the Proposed Action 

and up to about 1,390 acres under Alternative 2, BLM’s preferred tract 

configuration. 

Mining has physically removed Tisdale Creek alluvial deposits within the current 

mine permit area. With the exception of the alluvial deposits at the confluence of 

Tisdale Creek and Gold Mine Draw (which is a declared AVF), Caballo Mine’s 

approved mine and reclamation plan does not require that Tisdale Creek’s alluvial 

deposits be selectively removed and replaced (CCC 2003). If the Caballo West LBA 

tract is leased, mining would physically remove additional alluvial deposits 

associated with Tisdale Creek. It is unlikely that WDEQ/LQD would require 

Caballo Mine to selectively remove and replace the alluvial deposits within the 

tract. Additional discussions can be found in sections 3.5.1.3 and 3.6. 

Before mining in the general South Gillette analysis area, the saturated thickness 

of the overburden was more than 200 feet in the western portion of the Caballo 

West LBA tract. Most of the overburden is composed of massive silty and clayey 

shales of very low permeability, although discontinuous, lenticular-shaped sand 

bodies (paleochannel sands) occur in the Caballo West general analysis area. 

Some of these isolated sand bodies in the overburden are saturated, and 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 3-101 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

groundwater yields from them may be great enough to necessitate pre-mine 

dewatering in order to improve highwall stability. Because of the discontinuous 

nature of the permeable overburden sediments, premining overburden 

groundwater movement generally followed the topography, and before mining, 

overburden groundwater flow in the vicinity of the Caballo Mine was generally 

toward, and discharged to the Caballo Creek valley. Groundwater flow has since 

been affected by dewatering and removing overburden. Monitor well data indicate 

that overburden groundwater in the Caballo West general analysis area now flows 

toward the Caballo Mine’s and neighboring mines’ open pits. However, water 

levels in overburden monitoring wells located more than 500 feet from the pits 

have shown no significant decline and any changes are generally only in response 

to seasonal fluctuations. Overburden groundwater levels in the vicinity of the 

Caballo West analysis area vary from approximately 25 feet to over 180 feet below 

land surface (Hydro-Engineering 2007). Mining operations have and will continue 

to depress water levels in the overburden, although the historical monitoring data 

do not indicate a correlation between water level drawdown in the overburden to 

distance and direction from the open pits. In general, overburden groundwater 

levels will begin to show steady decline in areas that are within about 1⁄2 mile of 

the mine pits as mining progresses. Future drawdown in the overburden is 

expected to be similar to that measured to date and would be expected to continue 

to have a limited impact outside of the mined area. 

Water level drawdowns have propagated much farther and in a more consistent 

manner in the Wyodak coal seam aquifer than in the overburden. Groundwater 

level monitoring data collected by the Caballo Mine and the other three mines 

located in the general South Gillette analysis area and presented in the GAGMO 

25-year report (Hydro-Engineering 2007) indicate that the groundwater flow 

directions in the Wyodak coal have been greatly influenced by surface mine 

dewatering and groundwater discharge associated with CBNG development. 

Groundwater levels observed near the active mining areas prior to 1997 were 

likely due to mine dewatering alone. The groundwater flow direction within the 

coal aquifer was typically toward the mines where it would drain by gravity into 

the open pits. By 2000, groundwater level decline rates had dramatically 

increased because drawdown caused by widespread CBNG development west of 

the mines was overlapping with drawdown caused by mining operations. A 

continuous cone of depression currently exists around the Belle Ayr, Coal Creek, 

Caballo, and Cordero Rojo mines due to their closeness to each other and the 

cumulative drawdown effects from pit dewatering and nearby CBNG discharges. 

The extent of drawdown west of the mines that is specifically attributable to mine 

dewatering can no longer be defined due to much greater and areally extensive 

drawdown caused by CBNG development. 

Recent coal seam water level data presented in the GAGMO 25-year report (HydroEngineering 2007) and Caballo Mine’s 2007 WDEQ/LQD annual report (CCC 

2007) illustrate that approximately 150 feet of drawdown has occurred near the 

western edge of the Caballo West LBA tract, and approximately 80 feet of 

3-102 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
 

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

drawdown has occurred near the LBA tract’s eastern edge, which is nearly 1 mile 

west of the Caballo Mine pits. Coal monitoring wells located over 1 mile north of 

the LBA tract had also recorded around 150 feet of drawdown. Due to safety, 

environmental, and economic reasons, many of the Caballo Mine’s coal monitoring 

wells west and north of the mine have been plugged and abandoned to prevent 

methane gas from escaping. The 2005 coal seam water level contours in the 

general South Gillette analysis area depict the groundwater flow direction to be 

predominantly to the west, away from the open pits (Hydro-Engineering 2007). 

Roughly 30 years of surface mining and CBNG development has resulted in nearly 

complete dewatering of the coal seams in localized areas, particularly near the 

mines’ pits and where the coal seams are structurally highest. 

In 1999, the numerical groundwater flow model MODFLOW was used to predict 

the extent of water level drawdown in the Wyodak coal aquifer attributable to 

mining the existing leases at the Caballo Mine. The results of the groundwater 

modeling are reported in Addendum MP-C of the Caballo Mine Permit 433-T5 

(CCC 2003). Groundwater level monitoring data through 1990, prior to CBNG 

activity, were selected to compare the observed to the predicted drawdown, and 

the verification provided good correlation to the 1990 conditions of the modeled 

area. For the purpose of this analysis, the extent of coal-mining related drawdown 

(5-foot contour) in the Wyodak seam over the life of the Caballo Mine if the Caballo 

West LBA tract is mined was extrapolated by extending CCC’s 1999-modeled lifeof-mine drawdown contour to the north and west by the dimensions of the Caballo 

West LBA tract (figure 3-23). The area subject to lower water levels would 

increase roughly in proportion to the increase in area mined. This extrapolation 

serves as a general approximation of the potential impacts, based on experience, 

but it does not take variations in hydrologic properties, the time the pits are open, 

and the distance from previous mining and CBNG development into account. 

The rate and extent of the actual drawdown in the coal became much greater than 

the modeled drawdown in the late 1990s, effectively rendering the MODFLOW 

prediction obsolete. This occurred as drawdown caused by extensive CBNG 

development west of the Caballo Mine permit area and the Caballo West LBA tract 

overlapped with drawdown caused by mining. As such, the model predictions will 

not match “observed” drawdowns because the potential drawdown from mining is 

overshadowed by the much larger CBNG pumping. In order to predict the actual 

observed drawdown, the area covered by the existing model would need to be 

expanded and the model modified to include the CBNG pumpage. 

Continued drawdown effects from CBNG withdrawals will be likely; therefore, 

future drawdown to the Wyodak coal aquifer from mining the approved leases and 

the LBA tract would be negligible because the coal seam has essentially been 

dewatered. Groundwater elevation data collected by the Caballo Mine for nearly 

30 years have formed the basis for quantifying groundwater level drawdowns since 

mining began and provide a reasonable and reliable means to predict trends in 

groundwater elevations associated with dewatering due to future mining. These 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 3-103 
State Highway 50 Bell Road

T-7 Road 

Fairview 

Union Chappel Road 

Road 

Haight Road 

Corners Road 

Road 

Bishop Road 

State

 59 Highway 

5 

5 

5 

5 

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

R. R. 72 W. R. 71 W. R. 71 W. R. 70 W. 73 W. R. 72 W. 36 31 36 31 36 31 

Highway State 59

Hilight Road

1 6 1 6 1 6 

Four 

T. 

49 

N. 

T. 

49 36 31 31 36 31 

N. 36 

T. T. 1 6 1 6 1 6 48 48 N. N. 

T. T. 

48 48 31 N. 36 31 36 31 36 N. 

T. T. 1 6 1 6 1 6 47 

N. 

47 Hoe N. Creek 

T. T. 

47 47 31 36 31 36 31 N. 36 N. 

T. 1 6 1 6 

46 

N. R. 73 W. R. 72 W. R. 72 W. R. 71 W. 

LEGEND 

Extent of Worst-Case Modeled and 5 Extropolated Life of Mine Drawdown 

(5 feet) with Caballo West LBA Tract 

Approximate Wyodak Coal Outcrop 

Clinker 

Clinker and coal outcrop information modified from 

Plate 1 in Heffern and Coates (2000). 

0 8000 16000 32000 

GRAPHIC SCALE (FEET) 

T. 1 6 

46 

N. R. 71 W. R. 70 W. 

Caballo Mine Permit Boundary 

Existing Caballo Mine Federal Coal Leases 

Caballo West LBA Tract as Applied for 

BLM's Study Area (Alternative 2), 

BLM's Preferred Alternative 

Figure 3-23. Caballo Mine Life of Mine Drawdown Map, Resulting from Currently Approved Mining with the 

Addition of the Caballo West LBA Tract. 

3-104 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
 

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

data will continue to be recorded according to the mine’s WDEQ-approved 

groundwater monitoring program and included in the annual progress report that 

the Caballo Mine submits to the WDEQ/LQD, as well as the GAGMO annual 

reports. If CCC acquires the Caballo West LBA tract, WDEQ/LQD would require 

that future drawdown impacts due to mining alone be predicted in order to amend 

the tract into the Caballo Mine permit area (section 3.5.1.3). 

The subcoal aquifers (i.e., Tullock Member of the Fort Union Formation and Lance 

Formation-Fox Hills Sandstone) are not removed or disturbed by mining, so they 

are not directly impacted by coal mining activity. The Caballo Mine has three 

water supply wells completed in aquifers below the Wyodak coal; two in the Fort 

Union Formation and one in the Fox Hills Sandstone. If the Caballo West LBA 

tract is leased by the applicant, water would be produced from these wells for a 

longer period of time, but CCC would not require additional sub-coal wells to mine 

the LBA tract. 

To date, 18 wells have been installed to monitor water levels and water quality in 

the backfill at Caballo Mine. Ten of these wells were constructed between 1981 

and 1984, four additional backfill wells were constructed between 1984 and 1989, 

and the remaining four wells were installed between 1989 and 1998. Eight of 

these backfill wells were included in the mine’s current (2007) groundwater 

monitoring program. The groundwater level hydrographs recorded by these wells 

over the period of record indicate that the level of saturation in the backfill has 

fluctuated considerably and largely depends on the well’s location with respect to 

the thickness of backfill, the physical characteristics of the backfill materials, and 

the source of groundwater recharge. Groundwater levels have increased by 5 to 

12 feet at six well locations, remained stable at one well location, and declined 9 

feet at the remaining well location (CCC 2007). In general, water level recovery 

has been greatest near recharge areas (the reclaimed Tisdale Creek channel and 

the coal crop line in the southeastern portion of the mine’s permit area). 

Aquifer tests performed to date on selected backfill wells at the Caballo Mine 

indicate the hydraulic conductivity ranges from 0.09 ft/day to 2.0 ft/day (CCC 

2003), which is comparable but slightly lower than the reported hydraulic 

conductivity values determined from most tests of the overburden and Wyodak 

coal seam within Caballo Mine’s permit area. Aquifer tests conducted on wells 

completed in backfill comprised primarily of alluvial deposits from the Tisdale 

Creek drainage show hydraulic conductivity values ranging from 0.5 ft/day to 

28.3 ft/day, which is much higher than that of the overburden and coal seam at 

the mine. These data provide an indication that the backfill will readily resaturate 

as postmining potentiometric elevations recover in the surrounding undisturbed 

aquifers. The wells completed in the backfill (including in the Caballo West LBA 

tract) would be capable of supplying sufficient yields to wells constructed for 

livestock watering uses. The exact configuration and hydraulic gradient of the 

postmining potentiometric surface may vary from premine conditions; however, 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 3-105 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

postmining equilibrium groundwater movement should exhibit a hydraulic 

gradient from east to west, as existed prior to mining (CCC 2003). 

Groundwater quality observed in Caballo Mine’s backfill is a function of the 

backfill material at the sampled well’s location as well as the source of recharge 

water (CCC 2003). The ten backfill monitoring wells that were constructed 

between 1981 and 1984 are all located in an area of the mine’s backfill that yields 

groundwater of relatively poor quality. Most of the samples collected initially from 

these wells had high TDS, selenium, and nitrate concentrations that exceeded 

Wyoming Class III standards for use as stock water. These ten wells were 

constructed in an area of the backfill that contains large amounts of alluvial 

material (originating from the Tisdale Creek drainage), which prior to mining 

yielded alluvial groundwater of very poor quality. The TDS, selenium, and nitrate 

concentrations at these wells have declined significantly over time. The four wells 

that were constructed between 1984 and 1989 are located in a different area of 

the mine’s backfill (originating from upland areas) that yields groundwater of 

much better quality. Groundwater samples collected from three of the mine’s 

remaining four backfill monitoring wells, which were installed between 1989 and 

1998 in yet another area of the mine’s backfill, are of relatively good quality, 

meeting Wyoming Class III standards (CCC 2003 and Murphree 2005). 

TDS concentrations observed in the Caballo Mine backfill monitoring wells to date 

are similar to those found in the undisturbed alluvial and Wasatch Formation 

overburden aquifers, but greater than those found in the Wyodak coal aquifer. 

Postmining groundwater quality is expected to improve after one pore volume of 

water moves through the backfill. In general, the mine’s backfill groundwater 

quality can be expected to be similar to the premining overburden aquifer and 

meet Wyoming Class III standards; however, there could be localized areas in the 

backfill that yield groundwater that does not meet Wyoming Class III standards, 

particularly where the poorer quality alluvial materials happen to be concentrated. 

Groundwater quality within the backfill at the Caballo West LBA tract would be 

expected to be similar to groundwater quality measured in existing wells 

completed in the Caballo Mine backfill. 

3.5.1.2.1.4 Maysdorf II LBA Tract 

The existing leases at the Cordero Rojo Mine currently include approximately 

14,442.4 acres. Mining the Maysdorf II LBA tract as a maintenance lease would 

extend the area of overburden and coal removal by about 6,675 acres under the 

Proposed Action up to about 6,917 acres under Alternative 3, BLM’s preferred 

tract configuration. 

With the exception of seasonal variations, alluvial groundwater levels adjacent to 

the Belle Fourche River have remained constant. Except for locations where the 

alluvium has been mined out, or where the river has been diverted, mining has 

not affected alluvial groundwater elevations, and is not expected to do so in the 

3-106 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

future, except where mining physically removes the alluvium, diverts the Belle 

Fourche River, or removes a source of recharge to the alluvium (CMC 2007a). 

Changes to the premining hydraulic characteristics of the alluvial aquifer and the 

quality of the alluvial groundwater are expected to be minor after final 

reclamation, because Cordero Rojo Mine is required to maintain the essential 

hydrologic functions of the Belle Fourche River and its alluvial groundwater 

system. Additional discussion can be found in section 3.5.1.3. 

Mining has directly impacted overburden groundwater within the mined areas by 

removing the water-bearing strata in the overburden, resulting in dewatering of 

the aquifer near the mine. Overburden groundwater levels ahead of (generally 

west) and adjacent to the mine have exhibited considerable variation. Mining has 

not necessarily caused water drawdowns in the overburden to be depressed in 

proportion to distance and direction from the open pits or in time since mining 

began. Water levels in overburden monitoring wells located more than about 1⁄2 

mile from the Cordero Rojo Mine pits have shown no significant decline. 

Overburden at the mine-pit face is typically fully dewatered, so the overburden’s 

potentiometric surface steepens considerably near the pits. Future drawdown in 

the overburden is expected to be similar to that measured to date, and would be 

expected to continue to have a limited impact outside of the mined area. 

Water level drawdowns propagate much farther and in a more consistent manner 

in the Wyodak coal seam than in the overburden because of the coal aquifer’s 

regional continuity and higher transmissivity. Coal groundwater has experienced 

the most pronounced drawdowns, and exhibits a spatially broader range of 

drawdown compared to that in the overburden (CMC 2007a). Cumulative 

drawdowns within the coal from 1980 to 1995 were in excess of 5 feet within 12 

miles west and 3 miles south of the active pits at the Cordero Rojo Mine (HydroEngineering 1996). Water level declines in most of the mine’s coal monitoring 

wells were gradual and mainly due to mine dewatering alone until 1994. 

Preliminary and experimental CBNG production immediately west of the mine 

began in 1994, and then increased to full-scale production by 1998. Because of 

CBNG development, larger water level declines began to appear in coal wells 

located roughly 3 miles or more west of the active pits than were observed in coal 

wells located within 3 miles of the open pits. Since 1995, coal monitoring wells 

located more than 1 mile west of the mine pits have recorded an increased rate of 

drawdown because of dewatering associated with CBNG production. By 2000, the 

extent of drawdown to the west of the Cordero Rojo Mine caused by mine 

dewatering could not be defined due to the much larger drawdown caused by 

CBNG development (Hydro-Engineering 2001a). In 2000, monitoring wells located 

within 1 mile west of the mine pits had recorded less than 100 feet of historical 

drawdown. However, monitoring wells located 3 or more miles west of the mine 

pits had recorded total drawdowns of 150 feet or more. Near Wyoming 59, which 

was 4 to 5 miles west of the mine pits in 2000, approximately 180 feet of 

drawdown had occurred (Hydro-Engineering 2001a). As of 2003, minimal 

additional drawdown had occurred immediately west of the advancing pits, 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 3-107 
 

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

although an additional 60 to 80 feet of drawdown had occurred in the vicinity of 

Wyoming 59 (Hydro-Engineering 2004). As of 2007, dewatering by existing mining 

and CBNG development activities had nearly completely drained the groundwater 

from the Wyodak coal aquifer in the area of the Cordero Rojo Mine, particularly 

where the coal seam is structurally highest. The Wyodak coal aquifer’s 

groundwater level is around 40 feet above the base of the seam within the 

Maysdorf II general analysis area. The direction of groundwater flow within that 

same area is predominantly to the west rather than towards Cordero Rojo Mine’s 

open pits to the east (Hydro-Engineering 2007 and CMC 2007a). 

The numerical groundwater flow model MODFLOW was used to predict the longterm, cumulative water level drawdown in the Wyodak coal aquifer attributable to 

mining the existing leases at the Caballo, Belle Ayr, Cordero Rojo, and Coal Creek 

mines. The results of these predictions are included within the Cordero Rojo Mine 

permit (CMC 2007a). Overall, actual groundwater level monitoring data prior to 

CBNG activity approximated the modeled drawdown predictions impacts relatively 

well through the mid-1990s. However, both the rate and extent of the actual 

drawdown in the coal became much greater than the modeled drawdown in the 

late 1990s, effectively rendering the MODFLOW prediction obsolete. This has 

occurred as drawdown caused by extensive CBNG development west of the 

Cordero Rojo Mine permit area and within and west of the Maysdorf II LBA tract 

has overlapped with drawdown caused by mining operations. Drawdown in the 

coal has substantially exceeded the modeled predictions due to CBNG production 

and will likely continue as long as CBNG production continues (CMC 2007a). As 

such, the model predictions will not match “observed” drawdowns because the 

potential drawdown from mining is overshadowed by the much larger CBNG 

pumping. In order to predict the actual observed drawdown, the area covered by 

the existing model would need to be expanded and the model modified to include 

the CBNG pumpage. Historic drawdowns observed at the Cordero Rojo Mine are 

addressed within the mine’s approved permit. The extent of the life-of-mine 

Wyodak coal drawdown attributed to mining only the existing leases is not 

included in the analysis. If the mine acquires the Maysdorf II LBA tract, 

WDEQ/LQD would require that future drawdown impacts due to mining alone be 

predicted in order to amend the tract into the Cordero Rojo Mine permit area 

(section 3.5.1.3). 

As mining progresses, the extent of drawdown in the Wyodak coal’s groundwater 

level elevations will depend on variations in hydrologic properties of the coal seam 

aquifer, the time the pits are open, the distance from mining and dewatering that 

has occurred because of previous mining, and to a greater extent, CBNG 

development. Continued drawdown effects from CBNG withdrawals will be likely; 

therefore, future drawdown to the Wyodak coal aquifer from mining the approved 

leases and the Maysdorf II LBA tract would be negligible due to the fact that the 

coal seam has essentially been dewatered. Groundwater elevation data collected 

by the Cordero Rojo Mine since 1974 have formed the basis for quantifying 

groundwater level drawdowns since mining began and provide a reasonable and 

3-108 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

reliable means to predict trends in groundwater elevations associated with 

dewatering due to future mining. These data will continue to be recorded 

according to the mine’s WDEQ-approved groundwater monitoring program and 

included in the annual progress report that the Cordero Rojo Mine submits to the 

WDEQ/LQD, as well as the GAGMO annual reports. 

A “no-coal” zone that exists in the southwest corner of the LBA tract, in sections 4 

and 5, T.46N., R.71W., appears to be a paleochannel that is comprised of nonindurated sand overlying fractured siltstone and claystone sequences (section 3.3). 

This no-coal zone will not be significantly disturbed by mining operations; 

therefore, the hydrogeologic functions of this potential aquifer will not be 

disrupted if the Cordero Rojo Mine acquires the Maysdorf II LBA tract. 

The subcoal aquifers (Tullock Member of the Fort Union Formation and Lance 

Formation-Fox Hills Sandstone) are not removed or disturbed by mining, so they 

are not directly impacted by coal mining activity. The Cordero Rojo Mine has five 

water supply wells completed in aquifers below the Wyodak coal. If the applicant 

leases the Maysdorf II tract, water would be produced from these wells for a longer 

period, but CRM would not require additional sub-coal wells to mine the LBA 

tract. 

It is early in the process of full reclamation and to date, the backfilled materials 

have not reached an adequate saturated thickness to be aquifer tested at the 

Cordero Rojo Mine. Therefore, no site-specific data are available for the hydraulic 

properties of the applicant mine’s backfill. The composition of backfill material at 

the adjacent Belle Ayr Mine is quite similar to that of the Cordero Rojo Mine, and 

the hydraulic properties of the backfill at both mines, as well as the Maysdorf II 

LBA tract, are also expected to be quite similar. Permeability values measured in 

existing monitoring wells completed in the saturated backfill at the Belle Ayr Mine 

range from 0.002 to 0.78 ft/day (FCW 2003), which is comparable but slightly 

lower than the reported hydraulic conductivity values determined from most tests 

of the overburden and Wyodak coal seam within the Cordero Rojo Mine area. 

These data provide an indication that the Cordero Rojo Mine backfill will readily 

resaturate as postmining potentiometric elevations recover in the surrounding 

undisturbed aquifers, and that wells completed in the backfill (including in the 

Maysdorf II LBA tract) would be capable of supplying sufficient yields to wells 

constructed for livestock watering uses. 

Groundwater quality within the backfill at the Maysdorf II LBA tract would be 

expected to be similar to groundwater quality measured in existing wells 

completed in the backfill at Cordero Rojo Mine. To date, nine wells have been 

installed to monitor water levels and water quality in the backfill at Cordero Rojo 

Mine. Based on the sampling results of six of these wells beginning as early as 

1982 and extending through spring 2004, average TDS concentrations have 

ranged from about 1,600 mg/L to 6,200 mg/L. TDS concentrations in two of the 

six wells have consistently exceeded 5,000 mg/L, but they have consistently 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 3-109 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

remained below this value in the remaining four wells. The TDS concentration in 

one of the six wells has consistently remained below 2,000 mg/L. The average TDS 

concentration in the entire six-well database was 3,803 mg/L. 

TDS concentrations observed in the Cordero Rojo Mine backfill monitoring wells to 

date are similar to those found in the undisturbed Wasatch Formation overburden 

but typically larger than those found in the Wyodak coal aquifer. Postmining 

groundwater quality is expected to improve after one pore volume of water moves 

through the backfill. In general, the mine backfill groundwater TDS can be 

expected to range from less than 2,000 mg/L to about 6,000 mg/L, similar to the 

premining Wasatch Formation aquifer, and meet Wyoming Class III standards for 

use as stock water. 

3.5.1.2.2 No Action Alternative 

Under the No Action alternative for each of these four LBA tracts, the coal lease 

application for that tract would be rejected, the area included in that tract would 

not be offered for lease, and coal removal would not occur on that tract at this 

time. Impacts to groundwater resources related to existing approved mining and 

CBNG development would continue as permitted on the existing applicant mine 

leases. Mining operations would not be extended onto portions of these LBA 

tracts that will not be affected under the currently approved mining and 

reclamation plans. 

As discussed in section 2.2, a decision to reject one or more of these four lease 

applications at this time would not preclude an application to lease that respective 

tract in the future. 

3.5.1.3 Regulatory Compliance, Mitigation, and Monitoring 

In order to obtain a mining and reclamation permit, the Surface Mine Control and 

Reclamation Act (SMCRA) and state law require surface coal mine operators to 

evaluate regional and site-specific baseline hydrogeologic environments within and 

around their mines. Prior to the cumulative drawdown effects of CBNG 

development and mining on the Wyodak coal seam aquifer, WDEQ required each 

mine to use a numeric groundwater flow model to predict the extent of water level 

drawdown that would occur from mining its existing leases. Current mine permit 

requirements state that future drawdown impacts from mining alone be 

addressed, although less rigorous methods such as historical groundwater level 

trend analyses and simple analytical models (i.e., line-sink analysis) can be used 

rather than more complex models. Results of these studies are included in the 

WDEQ/LQD mine permits for the existing Belle Ayr, Coal Creek, Caballo, and 

Cordero Rojo mines (FCW 2003, TBCC 2006, CCC 2003, and CMC 2007a). These 

studies would be revised accordingly and included in the mine permit amendment 

that would be required for each respective LBA tract that is leased. Permit 

3-110 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

revisions must be approved before mining could occur on each tract that is leased, 

regardless of who acquires the tract. 

As discussed in section 3.5.3.3, SMCRA and Wyoming regulations require mine 

operators to provide the owner of a water right whose water source is interrupted, 

discontinued, or diminished by mining with water of equivalent quantity and 

quality. 

The surface coal mines are also required to monitor water levels and water quality 

in the overburden, coal, interburden, underburden, and backfill. Operational 

groundwater monitoring programs are dynamic and modified through time as 

wells are removed by mining, discontinued from monitoring to eliminate 

redundancy, or added to replace those removed by mining and to facilitate 

monitoring of future mine expansion areas as mining has progressed. Additional 

wells have also been installed in the reclaimed backfill to monitor recovering, 

postmine groundwater conditions. Many groundwater monitoring wells installed 

by Belle Ayr, Coal Creek, Caballo, and Cordero Rojo mines within and around 

their current permit areas have been used to evaluate groundwater conditions in 

the general South Gillette analysis area since the early 1970s and continue to be 

monitored to reveal a long-term record of groundwater conditions. Wells for which 

monitoring has been discontinued are still in place and may be reincorporated 

into the monitoring network in the future. 

SMCRA and state regulations require surface coal mines to maintain the essential 

hydrologic functions of drainages declared AVFs not significant to farming and 

their alluvial groundwater systems that are disturbed by mining. In order to meet 

this requirement, the mines are typically required to salvage and stockpile the 

stream laid alluvial materials during mining and replace them upon final 

reclamation. 

3.5.2 Surface Water 

3.5.2.1 Affected Environment 

The Belle Fourche River and its tributaries drain the general South Gillette 

analysis area. For the purpose of this analysis, the area encompasses the four 

applicant mines (often referred to collectively as the middle PRB mines), the four 

LBA tracts that are proposed for leasing, the BLM study areas for these four LBA 

tracts, and the adjacent lands that would disturbed by mining the BLM study 

areas. From north to south, the analysis area is drained by Tisdale Creek, Duck 

Nest Creek, Caballo Creek, Coal Creek, and the Belle Fourche River. Tisdale 

Creek and Duck Nest Creek are tributaries of Caballo Creek, and Caballo Creek 

and Coal Creek are tributaries of the Belle Fourche River (figure 3-24). The 

general South Gillette analysis area lies within the mid-eastern part of the Powder 

River Structural Basin and within the Belle Fourche River drainage basin 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 3-111 
48 

Coal 

Fork 

Creek 

West 

Fork 

East 

Fork 

Middle 

Hay 

Creek 

Belle Fourche 

River 

Creek 

Dry 

Fourche 

Belle 

River 

Creek Caballo 

Caballo Creek 

Coal 

Creek 

Coal Creek 

Creek Bluegate 

Pile 

Creek 

Bone 

Hoe Creek 

Creek 

Caballo 

Duck Nest Creek 

Creek 

Coal 

48 

Gold Mine 

Draw 

Creek 

Tisdale 

Rattlesnake

Creek 

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

R. 74 W. R. 73 W. R. 72 W. R. 71 W. R. 70 W. 

T. T. CABALLO BELLE AYR 49 WEST LBA 49 NORTH LBA 

N. TRACT TRACT N. 

Caballo
 Mine T. T. 

N. N.

50 

Belle Ayr Mine 

T. T. Cordero 

47 Rojo Mine 47

N. N. 

MAYSDORF II
 

LBA TRACTS
 

59 

T. T. 

46 46

N. Coal N. Creek 

Mine 

WEST COAL 

CREEK LBA
 

TRACT
 

T. T. 

45 45 

N. N.

R. 74 W. R. 73 W. R. 72 W. R. 71 W. R. 70 W. 

LEGEND 

LBA Tracts as Applied for 

Existing Federal Coal Leases 

Perennial Streams 

Ephemeral Streams 

0 12000 24000 

GRAPHIC SCALE (FEET) 

48000 Note: Only the main stem of all named streams 

are depicted. Stream channels are depicted 

in undisturbed premining locations. 

Figure 3-24. Surface Drainage in the General South Gillette Analysis Area. 

3-112 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

(Hydrologic Unit Code [HUC] 101202), a tributary of the larger Cheyenne River 

drainage basin. 

The Belle Ayr North analysis area and the existing Belle Ayr Mine permit area are 

located in the Caballo Creek watershed. The Belle Ayr Mine disturbs Caballo 

Creek and several of its tributaries, and is currently permitted to disturb 

approximately 7 percent of the Caballo Creek watershed. A large portion of the 

Belle Ayr North LBA tract is within the mine’s existing permit area. Duck Nest 

Creek, a southeasterly-flowing ephemeral tributary of Caballo Creek, drains the 

southern and western portions of the Belle Ayr North general analysis area. Two 

small, first order tributaries of Caballo Creek and two internally-drained playas 

drain the remainder of the analysis area. 

Coal Creek and its three main branches, East Fork, Middle Fork, and West Fork, 

drain the West Coal Creek general analysis area and the existing Coal Creek Mine 

permit area. Typical of this semi-arid area, Coal Creek and its tributaries are all 

ephemeral streams. No playas or internally-drained topographic depressions have 

been identified within the analysis area. 

The Caballo West analysis area and the existing Caballo Mine permit area are 

located in the Caballo Creek watershed. The Caballo Mine is permitted to disturb 

approximately 12 percent of the Caballo Creek watershed. The mine’s existing 

permit area is located primarily within the Tisdale Creek drainage. There are also 

approximately 2,220 acres of area within the existing Caballo Mine permit area 

that drain internally toward playas formed by natural topographic depressions. A 

large portion of the Caballo West general analysis area is within the mine’s 

existing permit area. Tisdale Creek, a southeasterly-flowing ephemeral tributary 

of Caballo Creek, drains the northern and eastern portions of the analysis area, 

and a large playa drains the southern and western portions. This same playa also 

drains the northern portion of the adjacent Belle Ayr North LBA tract. 

The Belle Fourche River and its tributaries drain the existing Cordero Rojo Mine 

permit area and the Maysdorf II general analysis area. The Belle Fourche River 

flows east-northeasterly through the southern portion of the LBA tract. The 

central and southern portions of the Maysdorf II general analysis area are drained 

by several first order tributaries of the Belle Fourche River, while the northern 

portion is drained by a few first order tributaries that flow north to Caballo Creek. 

Two areas on and contiguous to the central portion of the analysis area do not 

contribute runoff to any stream and playas have formed in the lowest portions of 

these non-contributing drainage basins. 

As mentioned above, Tisdale Creek, Duck Nest Creek, and Coal Creek are 

ephemeral streams that flow only in response to rainfall or snowmelt runoff. 

Caballo Creek and Belle Fourche River demonstrate characteristics of both an 

ephemeral and intermittent stream. Streamflow monitoring stations have been 

operated by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and the applicant mines on these 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 3-113 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

streams in the analysis area since the mid-1970s. Some stream segments flow 

only in response to snowmelt runoff in the spring and thunderstorm runoff in the 

summer months, although there are some stream segments that flow throughout 

the year in response to alluvial groundwater discharge. Currently, and for some 

indefinite time into the future, CBNG discharge water is adding flow to Caballo 

Creek and Belle Fourche River. Streamflow is still very much a function of the 

amount and timing of precipitation and snowmelt runoff; however, since 1999, the 

PRB of northeastern Wyoming has experienced extreme drought conditions. 

Therefore, the mean annual streamflow rate and annual discharge volume has not 

significantly increased in these streams as a result of the discharge of CBNGproduced waters into surface drainages west of and upstream of the applicant 

mine, although extended periods of no flow are less common. 

Water quality in each of these streams depends highly on flow. Dissolved solids 

concentrations and specific conductance have an inverse relationship with 

streamflow; thus, the highest concentrations occur during low flows and lowest 

concentrations occur during high flows. Total suspended solids (TSS) show a 

direct relationship with streamflow; TSS concentrations are typically high during 

high flow and low during low flows. Because vegetative cover is sparse and 

surface water runoff occurs infrequently in this semi-arid environment, high TSS 

concentrations can be expected, especially from floods caused by thunderstorms. 

The Coal Creek drainage basin, in particular, has been identified as a significant 

source of sediment to the Belle Fourche River. The Coal Creek drainage is highly 

dissected and slopes are relatively steep, so combined with the occurrence of 

erodible soils, the sediment yields are greater than those in upland areas of the 

Belle Fourche River drainage basin (Ogle et al. 2004). 

Surface water monitoring programs required by WDEQ/LQD are included in the 

four applicant mines’ permits. This ensures that streamflows are measured and 

water quality samples are collected regularly from Tisdale Creek, Duck Nest Creek, 

Caballo Creek, Coal Creek, and Belle Fourche River at locations upstream and 

downstream of the respective mines. Comprehensive flow and water quality 

records are submitted to the WDEQ/LQD in the mines’ existing permits and 

annual reports that are on file and available for public review at WDEQ’s offices in 

Cheyenne and Sheridan, Wyoming. 

The USGS conducted a study from 2000 too 2005 within an area of CBNG 

development in the PRB to characterize the water quality of streams and assess 

change through time. That study concluded that annual runoff in all major 

drainage basins was less than average during 2001-2005 due to drought 

conditions. Water-quality characteristics were highly variable because of 

streamflow variability, geologic controls, and potential land-use effects. No 

significant trends in water quality were determined for sites in the Belle Fourche 

River drainage basin; however, drought conditions during the study period may 

3-114 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

not represent long-term water quality conditions for all sites studied (Clark and 

Mason 2007). 

The Belle Fourche River is listed in the WDEQ/WQD Surface Water Classification 

List as a Class 2ABww stream that is protected for drinking water, aquatic life 

(classified as a warm water fishery), recreation, wildlife, agriculture, industry and 

scenic value. However, the numeric human health criteria for iron and 

manganese do not apply to Class 2 waters in the Belle Fourche River drainage and 

the main stem of the river. Tisdale Creek, Duck Nest Creek, Caballo Creek, and 

Coal Creek are listed as Class 3B streams, which are non-fisheries, but are 

protected for other aquatic life, recreation, wildlife, agricultural and other uses 

(WDEQ/WQD 2007). 

Springs are uncommon in the general South Gillette analysis area. No springs 

have been identified within the four LBA tracts’ general analysis areas, although 

seeps created by groundwater discharging from the Wasatch overburden to the 

overlying Duck Nest Creek alluvium exist at the southern boundary of the Belle 

Ayr North LBA tract. The seepage rate is insufficient to sustain a base flow in the 

stream channel and only enough to create a marshy area and a few shallow pools 

of stagnant water. 

A few small in-channel reservoirs used for livestock water are located in the four 

LBA tracts’ general analysis areas. Most of these stock ponds are many decades 

old and have not been permitted with the Wyoming State Engineer’s Office (SEO). 

The SEO records were searched for surface water rights within a 3-mile radius of 

the four LBA tracts. They are listed in section 3.5.3 and the supplementary 

information document for this EIS. 

3.5.2.2 Environmental Consequences 

3.5.2.2.1 Proposed Action and Alternatives 2 and 3 

Changes in surface runoff characteristics and sediment discharges would occur 

during mining on each of the tracts because 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 areas. 

Since the LBA tracts would be mined as extensions of the existing mines under 

the Proposed Action or action alternatives, there would not be a large increase in 

the size of the area that is disturbed and not reclaimed at any given time as a 

result of leasing these tracts. Impacts would be similar for both the Proposed 

Action and action alternatives to the expected impacts for the current mining 

operations. Reclamation would be ongoing and concurrent with mining. 

The removal of soil and vegetation exposes overburden, which results in a 

potential for increased sediment production during runoff events. However, both 

state and federal regulations require all surface water runoff from mined lands be 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 3-115 
 

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

treated by passing through sediment control structures to meet Wyoming 

Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (WYPDES) and/or National Pollutant 

Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) discharge criteria before it is released 

downstream. Generally, the surface runoff sediment is deposited in ponds or 

alternative sediment control measures (ASCMs) inside the mine’s permit area 

before the surface runoff water is allowed to leave the permit area and be 

discharged to receiving streams. While mining is in progress, surface water 

quality would continue to be protected by directing surface runoff from affected 

areas to various sediment control structures (sediment ponds, traps, ditches, 

sumps, and mine pits). Under normal conditions, exceedances of effluent 

limitations are not expected in the future as mining extends into new drainages 

and additional sediment control facilities are added. The presence of disturbed 

areas creates a potential that sediment produced by large storms (i.e., greater 

than the 10-year, 24-hour storm) could adversely impact areas downstream of the 

mining operations. This potential for adverse downstream impacts would be 

extended if the LBA tracts were leased. 

The temporary diversion and impoundment of runoff water for sediment control 

may reduce stream flow volumes and peak flows downstream of the mined lands. 

Impounded water may be used on the mine site for dust control or lost due to 

infiltration and evaporation. However, in order to maintain adequate available 

storage volume in sedimentation ponds, the impounded water is discharged when 

if meets WPDES criteria. The WDEQ/LQD encourages the use of ASCMs to trap 

sediment and allow runoff to continue downstream (Ogle and Calle 2006). 

Immediately following reclamation, the loss of soil structure would act to increase 

runoff rates on the LBA tracts. However, the general decrease in average slope in 

reclaimed areas, as discussed in section 3.2.2, and drainage densities common in 

reclamation would outweigh the potential for an increase in runoff due to a loss of 

soil structure. Soil structure would gradually recover over time, and vegetation 

(after successful reclamation) would provide erosion protection from raindrop 

impact, retard surface flows, and control runoff at approximately premining levels. 

All surface drainage from reclaimed areas would be controlled using best 

management practices (BMPs), such as contour furrows, ponds or small 

depressions for sediment traps, and vegetation buffers, until the area is 

sufficiently stable that drainage control is no longer required. Surface water 

monitoring would continue to evaluate and identify anomalous variations in 

surface water quantity and quality and ensure that runoff leaving the site meets 

specific water quality criteria. 

Once mining is completed the pits would be backfilled and drainage would be 

reestablished. Surface water drainages would be designed and reconstructed to 

approximate the premining drainage basin and channel characteristics. The 

reclaimed drainageways would be constructed to blend with the existing drainage 

system above and below the area disturbed by the mining operation, providing a 

3-116 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

complete drainage system with surface water flow and quality approximating 

premining conditions. 

The impacts described above for surface water would be similar for the Proposed 

Action and BLM’s preferred tract configurations under Alternative 2 (Alternative 3 

for the Maysdorf II LBA tract), as well as for the current mining operations. Direct 

and indirect impacts to the surface water system resulting from mining the four 

tracts would add to the cumulative impacts that would occur from mining existing 

leases. These cumulative impacts are discussed in chapter 4 of this EIS. A 

description of surface water impacts from leasing and mining each LBA tract 

under the Proposed Action or Alternative 2, BLM’s preferred alternative 

(Alternative 3 for the Maysdorf II LBA tract) follows. 

3.5.2.2.1.1 Belle Ayr North LBA Tract 

Because the tract is near the headwater areas of three ephemeral Caballo Creek 

tributaries (Duck Nest Creek and two small drainages, locally named Draw No. 1 

and Draw No. 2), and because much of the tract drains internally to two closed 

basins, runoff would not be expected to be significant. During mining, hydrologic 

control would probably consist of allowing runoff to accrue to the mine pit, or to a 

flood control reservoir, where it would be treated and discharged according to the 

standards of WDEQ/WQD. 

3.5.2.2.1.2 West Coal Creek LBA Tract 

The West Coal Creek LBA tract lies at the confluences of the East Fork, Middle 

Fork, and West Fork of Coal Creek, which are all ephemeral streams. Hydrologic 

control during mining would probably consist of containing these ephemeral 

streams in flood control reservoirs, diverting flows around active pits, or allowing 

runoff to accrue to the mine pit, where it would be treated and discharged 

according to the standards of WDEQ/WQD. 

Coal Creek Mine’s existing hydrologic restoration plan includes the construction of 

12 permanent impoundments intended to provide replacement water storage for 

existing surface water rights in the permit area (TBCC 2006). Additional 

postmining impoundments would be included in the reclamation plan for the LBA 

tract. Significant changes to the area’s overall sediment yield after mining would 

be less likely due to the capture of sediment within the reconstructed stock ponds. 

3.5.2.2.1.3 Caballo West LBA Tract 

The Caballo West LBA tract lies near the headwaters of Tisdale Creek, an 

ephemeral tributary of Caballo Creek. Tisdale Creek drains the northern and 

eastern portions of the Caballo West general analysis area. A large playa drains 

the southern and western portions of the analysis area. Therefore, runoff within 

the tract would not be expected to be significant. During mining, hydrologic 

control would probably consist of allowing runoff to accrue to the mine pit, or 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 3-117 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

constructing small flood control reservoirs upstream of the pit where it would be 

treated and discharged according to the standards of WDEQ/WQD. 

3.5.2.2.1.4 Maysdorf II LBA Tract 

The Belle Fourche River has been diverted around active pits and mine facilities 

within the existing Cordero Rojo Mine permit area. During mining of the Maysdorf 

II LBA tract, hydrologic control would consist of constructing another diversion 

channel for the river around the open pit area. Because this tract is in the 

headwaters area of ephemeral Belle Fourche River and Caballo Creek tributaries, 

and because much of the tract drains internally to closed basins, runoff within the 

tract would be insignificant. Also, hydrologic control during mining would 

probably consist of allowing runoff to accrue to the mine pit where it would be 

treated and discharged according to the standards of the WDEQ/WQD. A need for 

large flood control reservoirs is not anticipated for the LBA tract. 

3.5.2.2.2 No Action Alternative 

Under the No Action alternative for each of these four LBA tracts, the coal lease 

application for that tract would be rejected, the area included in that tract would 

not be offered for lease, and coal removal and the associated disturbance to 

Tisdale Creek, Duck Nest Creek, Caballo Creek, Coal Creek, and/or the Belle 

Fourche River would not occur. The impacts to surface water resources related to 

existing approved mining and CBNG development, described above, would 

continue as permitted on the existing mines. Mining operations would not be 

extended onto portions of these LBA tracts that will not be affected under the 

currently approved mining and reclamation plans. 

As discussed in section 2.2, a decision to reject one or more of these four lease 

applications at this time would not preclude an application to lease that respective 

tract in the future. 

3.5.2.3 Regulatory Compliance, Mitigation, and Monitoring 

In accordance with SMCRA and Wyoming State Statutes, Tisdale Creek, Duck 

Nest Creek, Caballo Creek, Coal Creek, and Belle Fourche River stream channels 

would be restored after surface mining operations are completed on the four 

tracts. Surface water flow, quality, and sediment discharge would approximate 

premining conditions. The drainages that intersect the applicant mines’ permit 

areas would be reclaimed to exhibit channel geometry characteristics similar to 

the premining characteristics. Tisdale Creek, Duck Nest Creek, Caballo Creek, 

Coal Creek, and Belle Fourche River stream channels would be restored in 

approximately the same location as the natural channel, and its premining 

hydrologic functions would be restored. Additional discussion can be found in 

section 3.5.1.3. 

3-118 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Other WDEQ/LQD permit requirements for the existing four mines include 

constructing sediment control structures to manage discharges of surface water 

from the mine permit areas; treating all surface runoff from mined lands as 

necessary to meet effluent standards; and restoring stock ponds, playas, and inchannel impoundments disturbed during mining. These requirements would be 

extended to include the Belle Ayr North, West Coal Creek, Caballo West, and 

Maysdorf II LBA tracts when the respective mine permit is amended to include the 

tract. 

Monitoring requirements for each of the existing applicant mines include a 

program to assure that sediment ponds would always have adequate space 

reserved for sediment accumulation and collection of streamflow and water quality 

data from the above mentioned creeks and the Belle Fourche River. These 

requirements would be extended to include the LBA tracts when the respective 

mine permit is amended to include the tract. 

3.5.3 Water Rights 

3.5.3.1 Affected Environment 

The Wyoming SEO administers surface water and groundwater rights in Wyoming. 

Before developing water resources associated with energy development, water 

appropriations (either groundwater or surface water) in the PRB were typically for 

livestock use. Currently, mining companies and CBNG development companies 

hold the majority of the water rights in the general South Gillette analysis area. 

Records of the SEO were searched for groundwater rights within a 3-mile radius of 

the BLM study area for each LBA tract. This information is required for WDEQ 

permitting. The results of the most recent searches are provided below for each 

tract. A more detailed listing of the non-coal mine related groundwater rights 

within a 3-mile radius of each tract is presented in the supplementary information 

document for this EIS, which is available on request. 

For the Belle Ayr North LBA tract, SEO data indicate that, as of June 28, 2007, 

there were 1,103 permitted water wells within 3 miles of the tract, of which, 717 

are owned by coal mining companies. The other 386 non-coal mine related, 

permitted water wells, which include 315 wells permitted for uses related to CBNG 

development, are permitted for the following uses: 

• 315 CBNG 

• 31 livestock 

• 21 domestic 

• 11 monitoring 

• 5 industrial 

• 2 miscellaneous 

• 1 irrigation 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 3-119 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

For the West Coal Creek LBA tract, SEO data indicate that, as of November 16, 

2007, there were 284 permitted water wells within 3 miles of the tract, of which, 

141 are owned by coal mining companies. The other 143 non-coal mine related, 

permitted water wells, which include 69 wells permitted for uses related to CBNG 

development, are permitted for the following uses: 

• 50 CBNG and livestock 

• 42 livestock 

• 17 CBNG 

• 11 industrial 

• 11 livestock and domestic 

• 5 miscellaneous 

• 4 domestic 

• 1 CBNG and miscellaneous 

• 1 miscellaneous, dewatering, and CBNG 

• 1 unknown 

For the Caballo West LBA tract, SEO data indicate that, as of July 25, 2007, there 

were 1,382 permitted water wells within 3 miles of the tract, of which, 677 are 

owned by coal mining companies. The other 705 non-coal mine related, permitted 

water wells, which include 587 wells permitted for uses related to CBNG 

development, are permitted for the following uses: 

• 282 CBNG 

• 260 CBNG and livestock 

• 37 livestock 

• 36 domestic 

• 26 CBNG and miscellaneous 

• 19 CBNG, livestock, and miscellaneous 

• 18 domestic and livestock 

• 8 monitoring 

• 7 industrial 

• 5 miscellaneous 

• 1 domestic, livestock, and miscellaneous 

• 1 irrigation 

• 1 municipal and miscellaneous 

• 1 reservoir supply, industrial, and miscellaneous 

• 1 livestock and industrial 

• 1 livestock and irrigation 

• 1 livestock and miscellaneous 

For the Maysdorf II LBA tract, SEO data indicate that, as of May 29, 2007 there 

were 987 non-coal mine related, permitted water wells within 3 miles of the tract, 

which include 780 wells permitted for uses related to CBNG development. Those 

987 wells are permitted for the following uses: 

3-120 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

• 429 CBNG 

• 225 livestock and CBNG 

• 66 livestock 

• 57 livestock, miscellaneous, and CBNG 

• 52 miscellaneous and CBNG 

• 33 monitoring 

• 29 domestic and livestock 

• 26 miscellaneous 

• 21 industrial 

• 21 domestic 

• 16 miscellaneous, dewatering, and CBNG 

• 2 livestock and miscellaneous 

• 2 unknown 

• 1 CBNG and reservoir 

• 1 dewatering and miscellaneous 

• 1 dewatering, reservoir, and industrial 

• 1 miscellaneous and domestic 

• 1 livestock and industrial 

• 1 livestock and irrigation 

• 1 livestock, irrigation, and domestic 

• 1 temporary, industrial, and drilling 

SEO records were searched for surface water rights within a 3-mile radius of the 

study area for each tract (as applied for and the additional area evaluated by 

BLM). Like the groundwater rights, this information is also required for WDEQ 

permitting. The results of the most recent searches are provided below for each 

tract. A more detailed listing of the non-coal mine related surface water rights is 

presented in the supplementary information document for this EIS, which is 

available on request. 

For the Belle Ayr North LBA tract, SEO records indicate that as of July 6, 2007, 

there were 186 permitted surface water rights within the search area, of which 

coal mining companies own 95. The other 91 non-coal mine related, permitted 

surface water rights are permitted for the following uses: 

• 16 irrigation 

• 13 livestock 

• 4 irrigation and domestic 

• 1 livestock and domestic 

• 1 reservoir supply 

• 56 not designated 

For the West Coal Creek LBA tract, SEO records indicate that as of November 16, 

2007, there were 54 permitted surface water rights within the search area, of 

which coal mining companies own 30. The other 24 non-coal mine related, 

permitted surface water rights are permitted for the following uses: 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 3-121 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

• 7 livestock 

• 17 not designated 

For the Caballo West LBA tract, SEO records indicate that as of July 2, 2007, 

there were 9 non-coal mine related, permitted surface water rights within the 

search area. These surface water rights are permitted for the following uses: 

• 3 irrigation 

• 2 livestock 

• 1 temporary and industrial 

• 1 reservoir supply 

• 1 reservoir supply and irrigation 

• 1 reservoir supply, irrigation, and domestic 

For the Maysdorf II LBA tract, SEO records indicate that as of May 29, 2007, there 

were 90 non-coal mine related, permitted surface water rights within the search 

area. These surface water rights are permitted for the following uses: 

• 46 livestock 

• 16 irrigation 

• 10 irrigation and domestic 

• 8 temporary oil production, drilling, and industrial 

• 4 livestock and domestic 

• 3 temporary industrial 

• 1 livestock and irrigation 

• 1 reservoir supply and domestic 

• 1 livestock and fisheries 

3.5.3.2 Environmental Consequences 

3.5.3.2.1 Proposed Action and Alternatives 2 and 3 

As discussed above, there have already been significant drawdowns in the coal 

and overlying aquifers (where present) because of the past and existing mining 

activities and CBNG development in the general South Gillette analysis area. As a 

result, private water supply wells listed in section 3.5.3.1 have already been 

impacted. Continued effects from groundwater withdrawals associated with 

CBNG development activities will be likely. Future drawdown to the Wyodak coal 

aquifer resulting from mining the approved coal leases should be negligible 

because the coal seam has essentially been dewatered. Therefore, it is unlikely 

that any of these privately permitted water wells would be indirectly impacted by 

water level drawdown to a greater extent than current conditions; however, private 

wells may be physically removed by activities associated with mining the proposed 

LBA tracts. 

3-122 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Only a slight reduction in streamflow downstream of the applicant mines during 

mining is expected because runoff will be contained from the disturbed areas by 

mine pits and other control structures. Downstream surface water rights would 

be protected by minimizing detention of surface runoff for sediment control and 

maintaining unrestricted flow in Caballo Creek and Belle Fourche River. Changes 

to the overall flow and water quality of these streams during mining should be 

negligible. Any surface water rights listed in section 3.5.3.1 that are located 

within the proposed mining disturbance areas would be interrupted until the 

disturbance area is reclaimed. 

3.5.3.2.1.1 Belle Ayr North LBA Tract 

In June 2007, Wyoming SEO records indicated that 1,103 permitted water wells 

were located within 3 miles of the Belle Ayr North LBA tract. Approximately 65 

percent (717) of these wells are owned by coal mining companies and are used for 

groundwater monitoring and water supply. Approximately 82 percent of the 

remaining 386 non-coal mine related wells are permitted for uses related to CBNG 

development; 8 percent are permitted for livestock use; 5 percent are permitted for 

domestic use; 3 percent are permitted for monitoring uses; 1 percent are 

permitted for industrial uses; and about 1 percent are permitted for miscellaneous 

and irrigation uses. 

Some of these privately permitted water wells have been or will likely be impacted 

(either by removing the well or by water level drawdown) by mining and CBNG 

development. Future drawdowns to the Wyodak coal aquifer are expected to be 

negligible because the coal seam has essentially been dewatered. Therefore, it is 

unlikely that any of these privately permitted water wells would be impacted by 

water level drawdown to a greater extent than they currently are if this tract is 

leased and mined. 

3.5.3.2.1.2 West Coal Creek LBA Tract 

In November 2007, Wyoming SEO records indicated that 284 permitted water 

wells were located within 3 miles of the West Coal Creek LBA tract. Nearly 50 

percent of these wells are owned by coal mining companies and are used for 

groundwater monitoring and water supply. Approximately 48 percent of the 

remaining 143 non-coal mine related wells are permitted for some form of CBNG 

development. Of the 143 non-coal wells, approximately 44 percent are permitted 

either for multiple uses; 29 percent are permitted either for livestock use only; 12 

percent are permitted for CBNG development only; 8 percent are permitted for 

industrial uses; 4 percent are permitted for miscellaneous uses; 3 percent are 

permitted for domestic use; and less than1 percent had unknown uses. 

Some of these privately permitted water wells have been or will likely be impacted 

(either by removing the well or by water level drawdown) by mining and CBNG 

development. Future drawdowns to the Wyodak coal aquifer are expected to be 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 3-123 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

negligible because the coal seam has essentially been dewatered. Therefore, it is 

unlikely that any of these privately permitted water wells would be impacted by 

water level drawdown to a greater extent than they currently are if this tract is 

leased and mined. 

3.5.3.2.1.3 Caballo West LBA Tract 

In July 2007, Wyoming SEO records indicated that 1,382 permitted water wells 

were located within 3 miles of the Caballo West LBA tract. As discussed above, 

677, or approximately 49 percent of these wells are owned by coal mining 

companies and are used for groundwater monitoring and water supply. 

Approximately 83 percent of the remaining 705 non-coal mine related wells are 

permitted for some form of CBNG development. Of the 705 non-coal wells, 

approximately 47 percent are permitted for multiple uses; 40 percent are 

permitted either for CBNG development only; 5 percent are permitted either for 

livestock use only; 5 percent are permitted for domestic use only; 1 percent are 

permitted for monitoring; 1 percent are permitted for industrial use; and about 1 

percent are permitted for miscellaneous and irrigation uses. 

Some of these privately permitted water wells have been or will likely be impacted 

(either by removing the well or by water level drawdown) by mining and CBNG 

development. Future drawdowns to the Wyodak coal aquifer are expected to be 

negligible because the coal seam has essentially been dewatered. Therefore, it is 

unlikely that any of these privately permitted water wells would be impacted by 

water level drawdown to a greater extent than they currently are if this tract is 

leased and mined. 

3.5.3.2.1.4 Maysdorf II LBA Tract 

In May 2007, Wyoming SEO records indicated that there were 987 non-coal mine 

related, permitted water wells within 3 miles of the Maysdorf II LBA tract. 

Approximately 79 percent of the remaining 987 non-coal wells are permitted for 

some form of CBNG development. Of the 987 non-coal wells, approximately 43 

percent are permitted for CBNG development only; 39 percent are permitted for 

multiple uses; 7 percent are permitted either for livestock use only; 3 percent are 

non-coal monitoring wells; 3 percent are permitted for miscellaneous use only; 2 

percent are permitted either for domestic uses only; 2 percent are permitted for 

industrial uses; and less than 1 percent have unknown uses. 

Some of these privately permitted water wells have been or will likely be impacted 

(either by removing the well or by water level drawdown) by mining and CBNG 

development. Future drawdowns to the Wyodak coal aquifer are expected to be 

negligible because the coal seam has essentially been dewatered. Therefore, it is 

unlikely that any of these privately permitted water wells would be impacted by 

water level drawdown to a greater extent than they currently are if the tract is 

leased and mined. 

3-124 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3.5.3.2.2 No Action Alternative 

Under the No Action alternative for each of these four LBA tracts, the coal lease 

application for that tract would be rejected, the area included in that tract would 

not be offered for lease, and coal removal would not occur on that tract at this 

time. The impacts to water rights associated with existing approved mining and 

CBNG development, described above, would continue to occur. Mining operations 

would not be extended onto portions of these LBA tracts that will not be affected 

under the currently approved mining and reclamation plans. 

As discussed in section 2.2, a decision to reject one or more of these four lease 

applications at this time would not preclude an application to lease that respective 

tract in the future. 

3.5.3.3 Regulatory Compliance, Mitigation and Monitoring 

SMCRA and Wyoming regulations require mine operators to provide the owner of a 

water right whose water source is interrupted, discontinued, or diminished by 

mining with water of equivalent quantity and quality. This required mitigation is 

considered part of the action alternatives. The most probable source of 

replacement water would be one of the aquifers underlying the coal. For example, 

the subcoal Fort Union Formation aquifers are not removed or disturbed by coal 

mining and would be a potential source of replacement water. 

If the Belle Ayr North, West Coal Creek, Caballo West, and/or Maysdorf II LBA 

tracts are leased, the mine operator would be required to update the list of 

potentially impacted private water supply wells and predict impacts to those wells 

within the 5-foot drawdown contour as part of the permitting process. The 

operator would be required to replace those water supplies affected by mining with 

water of equivalent quality and quantity. 

3.5.4 Residual Impacts 

The area of coal and overburden removal and replacement of overburden and 

associated groundwater drawdowns would be increased under the action 

alternatives when compared with the same areas for each of the four existing 

applicant mines. The postmining backfill may take over 100 years to reach 

equilibrium water levels and water quality. Less time would be required near the 

mining boundaries. Monitoring data from wells completed in existing backfilled 

areas in the PRB suggest that an adequate quantity of water in the backfill to 

replace current use, which is for livestock. Water quality in the backfill would be 

expected to meet the Wyoming Class III standards for use as stock water. 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 3-125 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3.6 Alluvial Valley Floors 

3.6.1 Affected Environment 

WDEQ regulations define alluvial valley floors (AVFs) as unconsolidated stream 

laid deposits where water availability is sufficient for subirrigation or flood 

irrigation agricultural activities. Guidelines established by OSM and WDEQ/LQD 

for the identification of AVFs require detailed studies of geomorphology, soils, 

hydrology, vegetation, and land use. These studies are used to identify 1) the 

presence of unconsolidated stream laid deposits, 2) the possibility for artificial 

flood irrigation, 3) past and/or present flood irrigation, and 4) apparent 

subirrigated areas and the possibility for natural flood irrigation. Following these 

studies, areas passing the limiting criteria that are identified as AVFs are 

evaluated for their significance to farming by WDEQ/LQD. 

SMCRA prohibits surface coal mining operations that would interrupt, 

discontinue, or preclude farming on AVFs or cause material damage to the 

quantity or quality of water systems that supply AVFs. However, if the premining 

land use of the affected AVF is undeveloped rangeland that is not significant to 

farming or if the affected AVF is so small that it would have a negligible impact on 

a farm’s agricultural production, these prohibitions would not apply and mining 

would be allowed. The prohibitions also apply if AVFs that are downstream of the 

area proposed for mining would be affected by disruptions in streamflow. 

Provided WDEQ determines that an AVF is not significant to agriculture, it can be 

disturbed by mining but must be restored as part of the reclamation process. For 

any designated AVF, regardless of its significance to agriculture, it must be 

demonstrated that the essential hydrologic functions of the AVF, both within and 

outside the mine area, will be protected. 

In a decision by the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, Civil Action 

Number 69-1144 (1980) (known as the Flannery Decision), the court noted that an 

AVF must satisfy both geologic criteria (unconsolidated stream laid deposits) and 

hydrologic criteria (water sufficient to sustain agriculture). Therefore, the court 

emphasized that the key to the existence of an AVF is the presence of both 

geologic and water availability characteristics, which together sustain agricultural 

activities. 

FCW, TBCC, CCC, and CRM have conducted investigations to determine the 

presence of AVFs within and surrounding the Belle Ayr, Coal Creek, Caballo, and 

Cordero Rojo mines, respectively. AVF investigations conducted within the 

general South Gillette analysis area have identified an AVF that occurs along 

Duck Nest Creek on the Belle Ayr North LBA tract. AVFs have also been identified 

along Tisdale and Caballo creeks; however, those lands are located at considerable 

distances downstream of any of the LBA tracts. Figure 3-24 provides information 

on the location of the major streams with respect to the applicant mines and LBA 

tracts in the general South Gillette analysis area. 

3-126 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3.6.1.1 Belle Ayr North LBA Tract 

Duck Nest Creek, a southeast-flowing ephemeral tributary of Caballo Creek, 

drains the western portion of the Belle Ayr North LBA tract. Two smaller, 

unnamed ephemeral tributaries of Caballo Creek and three playas formed by 

natural topographic depressions drain the balance of the LBA tract. Those 

portions of Caballo Creek and its tributaries that lie within Belle Ayr Mine’s 

existing permit area have been investigated for the presence of AVFs. A large 

portion of the BLM study area for this tract is within the mine’s existing permit 

area; therefore, the entire reach of Duck Nest Creek within the BLM study area 

has been investigated for the presence of an AVF. The small unnamed ephemeral 

tributaries of Caballo Creek that also drain the LBA tract are almost completely 

within the mine’s existing permit area, but they were not investigated for the 

presence of an AVF because no streamlaid deposits were found along those 

drainages. 

The Belle Ayr Mine conducted AVF studies along the reach of Duck Nest Creek 

that is located within and adjacent to the tract in 1986 and 1987. These studies 

were combined into a comprehensive AVF assessment in 1991 (WWC 1992), which 

was part of the WDEQ mine permitting process for recovering coal in Belle Ayr 

Mine’s existing federal leases that are located in the western portion of the mine’s 

current permit area. The AVF assessment was referred to as the Duck Nest Tracts 

or Duck Nest Amendment Area AVF Study. Drainages within that study area 

included Caballo Creek, Bone Pile Creek, and Duck Nest Creek. Based on the 

original (1980) AVF study for the Belle Ayr Mine, WDEQ made a determination 

that the portions of Caballo, Bone Pile, and Duck Nest creeks located in the Duck 

Nest Amendment Area are not significant to farming (WDEQ/LQD 1988). 

Following the submittal of the 1991 AVF assessment to the WDEQ, approximately 

24.3 acres of AVF on Duck Nest Creek were formally declared within the Duck 

Nest Amendment Area AVF study area. Approximately 14.9 acres of that total 

declared acreage on Duck Nest Creek are located within the Belle Ayr North 

general analysis area. 

3.6.1.2 West Coal Creek LBA Tract 

Coal Creek and its associated ephemeral tributaries within the existing Coal Creek 

Mine permit area, including a portion of the BLM study area for the West Coal 

Creek LBA tract, have been evaluated for the presence of AVFs. Appendix D-11 in 

Coal Creek Mine’s approved mine permit (TBCC 2006) contains the AVF 

assessment for lands included within the current mine permit boundary. 

WDEQ/LQD determined that the AVF characteristics of Coal Creek are negligible 

and it does not meet the regulatory definition of an AVF because the stream laid 

deposits are limited in extent and not capable of supporting subirrigation or flood 

irrigation agricultural activities (WDEQ/LQD 2005b). Coal Creek’s narrow valley 

and terrain limitations reduce areas that could support agricultural activities. 

Surface water quantity is insufficient to support natural or artificial flood 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 3-127 
 

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

irrigation practices, and historic flood irrigation attempts have not been identified 

along Coal Creek. Due to its limited areal extent, limited saturated thickness, and 

low hydraulic conductivity, Coal Creek alluvium does not consistently produce 

enough water to be put to beneficial use. In addition, based on TDS 

concentrations, Coal Creek alluvial groundwater generally meets the WDEQ/WQD 

standards for livestock use. However, the quality is variable from well to well and 

at some locations it may exceed the livestock standard and at other locations it 

may be suitable for both livestock and agricultural use (WDEQ/LQD 2008). 

If the West Coal Creek LBA tract is leased and proposed for mining, an AVF 

assessment would be part of the mine permitting process, and formal declarations 

of the presence or absence of an AVF, its significance to agriculture, and the 

appropriate perimeter (areal extent) would be made by the WDEQ/LQD as part of 

the permitting process. Based on previous non-AVF declarations made on Coal 

Creek within and adjacent to the existing Coal Creek Mine permit area, including 

a portion of the BLM study area for the tract, some preliminary investigations that 

have been made by TBCC, and based on the lack of site-specific AVF 

determination factors, it is unlikely that the WDEQ/LQD would declare an AVF is 

present on the LBA tract that lies outside of Coal Creek Mine’s existing permit 

boundary. Final AVF determinations will be made by the WDEQ/LQD based on 

data, mapping, site visits and analysis of site-specific conditions. 

3.6.1.3 Caballo West LBA Tract 

Tisdale Creek and its associated ephemeral tributaries within the existing Caballo 

Mine permit area, including a portion of the BLM study area for this tract, have 

been investigated for the presence of AVFs by the Caballo Mine. Appendix D-11 in 

Caballo Mine’s approved mine permit (CCC 2003) contains the AVF assessment for 

lands included within the current mine permit boundary. The only portion of 

Tisdale Creek determined to be an AVF is at the stream’s confluence with Gold 

Mine Draw, which is located approximately 4 miles downstream and to the 

southeast of the Caballo West general analysis area. Within section 13, T.48N., 

R.71W., Gold Mine Draw was declared by WDEQ/LQD to be an AVF significant to 

agriculture. A tributary of Tisdale Creek, known locally as North Tisdale Creek, is 

located east and north of this tract, and it too has received a negative AVF 

declaration from WDEQ/LQD (2004). 

The Caballo Mine submitted an AVF predetermination document to the 

WDEQ/LQD for lands within a proposed permit amendment area, including that 

portion of the Caballo West general analysis area that is outside of the existing 

permit boundary. No streams that have AVF characteristics are located within 1⁄2 

mile of the proposed permit amendment area because the streams are incised and 

contain few stream laid deposits. In addition, there are no present or historical 

records of agricultural use, other than undeveloped range land, of the stream 

channels and associated stream laid deposits within the proposed permit 

amendment area. Based on previous non-AVF declarations made on Tisdale 

3-128 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Creek within and adjacent to this tract and based on the lack of site-specific AVF 

determination factors, it is unlikely that the WDEQ/LQD would declare that an 

AVF is present on the LBA tract that lies outside of Caballo Mine’s existing permit 

boundary where the drainages are smaller and AVF characteristics are negligible. 

Final AVF determinations will be made by the WDEQ/LQD based on data, 

mapping, site visits and analysis of site specific conditions. 

3.6.1.4 Maysdorf II LBA Tract 

Portions of the Belle Fourche River and its associated ephemeral tributaries within 

and adjacent to the existing Cordero Rojo Mine permit boundary, and portions of 

Caballo Creek within and adjacent to the existing Belle Ayr Mine permit boundary 

(north of the Maysdorf II LBA tract), have been investigated for the presence of 

AVFs (CMC 2007a and FCW 2003). 

Three separate areas along Caballo Creek, located within and upstream of the 

existing Belle Ayr Mine permit boundary and north of the LBA tract, were studied 

by FCW and determined by WDEQ/LQD to be AVFs (FCW 2003). One of these 

areas (located in sections 35 and 36, T.48N., R.71W.) was determined to be an 

AVF with possible significance to agriculture. The second area along Caballo 

Creek (located in sections 32 and 33, T.48N., R.71W. and section 5, T.47N., 

R.71W.) was determined to be an AVF not significant to agriculture. The third 

AVF study was conducted in 1996 by the Belle Ayr Mine to determine the presence 

of AVFs west of that mine’s original AVF study area. As a result of that study, 

WDEQ/LQD determined an area along Caballo Creek (located in section 31, 

T.48N., R.71W., section 36, T.48N., R.72W., and section 1, T.47N., R.72W.) to be 

an AVF that is not significant to farming. The declared AVF located in section 1, 

T.47N., R.72W. is within the Maysdorf II general analysis area. 

Several AVF studies have been conducted on the Belle Fourche River and its 

associated ephemeral tributaries within and adjacent to the existing Cordero Rojo 

Mine permit boundary. WDEQ/LQD has determined that the Belle Fourche River 

valley in the vicinity of the Cordero Rojo Mine is not an AVF because it is 

incapable of supporting subirrigation or flood irrigation agricultural activities, and 

that all lands within the existing permit area are considered undeveloped 

rangeland (CMC 2007a). The Belle Fourche River is considered an impractical 

water source for artificial flood irrigation practices due to poor water quality and 

infrequent water availability. Historic flood irrigation attempts have not been 

identified along the Belle Fourche River or its ephemeral tributaries within and 

adjacent to the existing Cordero Rojo Mine permit area. CRM’s baseline studies 

also determined that there is a small amount of groundwater in storage in the 

unconsolidated deposits of the Belle Fourche River, with subirrigation confined to 

a narrow area immediately adjacent to the channel (CMC 2007a). 

The most recent AVF study along the Belle Fourche River was completed by CRM 

in 2007 as part of a mine permit amendment process. The study area included 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 3-129 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

approximately 7.4 miles of the river upstream of the existing permit boundary 

through sections 9 and 16, T.46N., R.71W., which includes the southern portion 

of the Maysdorf II analysis area. The WDEQ/LQD can make a formal declaration 

of the presence or absence of an AVF, its significance to agriculture, and the 

appropriate areal extent as part of the mine permitting process, if the LBA tract is 

leased and proposed for mining. WDEQ/LQD Coal Rules and Regulations also 

allow for a pre-determination of the presence or absence of an alluvial valley floor 

(WDEQ/LQD 2001). WDEQ/LQD has determined that there are no AVFs within 

the 7.4 mile section of the Belle Fourche River described above (WDEQ/LQD 

2007). 

3.6.2 Environmental Consequences 

3.6.2.1 Proposed Action and Alternatives 2 and 3 

AVF investigations conducted within the general South Gillette analysis area have 

identified an AVF that occurs along Duck Nest Creek on the Belle Ayr North LBA 

tract. AVFs have also been identified along Tisdale and Caballo creeks; however, 

those lands are located downstream of the LBA tracts. 

If the Belle Ayr North LBA tract is mined by the applicant as an extension of the 

existing Belle Ayr Mine operations under the Proposed Action or Alternative 2, 

BLM’s preferred tract configuration, the mining operations would affect 

approximately 14.9 acres of declared AVF along Duck Nest Creek. Mining activity 

would not be restricted in the AVF areas because the WDEQ/LQD has declared 

them not to be significant to farming (WDEQ/LQD 1988). The entire reach of 

Duck Nest Creek downstream of the LBA tract has been affected by previous and 

current mining operations at the Belle Ayr Mine. 

AVF investigations conducted within and adjacent to the existing Coal Creek Mine 

permit area have determined that the AVF characteristics of Coal Creek and its 

associated ephemeral tributaries (West, Middle, and East forks) are negligible and 

do not meet the regulatory definition of an AVF (WDEQ/LQD 2005b). As indicated 

above, the entire West Coal Creek general analysis area has not yet been formally 

evaluated for the presence of AVFs, but the general absence of flood and 

subirrigation activity in this area indicates it is unlikely that mining the tract by 

the applicant as an extension of the existing Coal Creek Mine would be precluded 

by the presence of an AVF. Final AVF determinations will be made by the 

WDEQ/LQD based on data, mapping, site visits and analysis of site-specific 

conditions. 

Based on previous non-AVF declarations made on Tisdale Creek within and 

adjacent to the Caballo West LBA tract (WDEQ/LQD 2004) and based on the lack 

of site-specific AVF determination factors, it is unlikely that the WDEQ/LQD 

would declare an AVF on the tract that lies outside of Caballo Mine’s existing 

permit boundary where the drainages are smaller and AVF characteristics are 

3-130 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

negligible. As stated above, the nearest AVF in the vicinity of the tract is 

approximately 4 miles downstream on Tisdale Creek, and it was declared 

insignificant to farming. The entire reach of Tisdale Creek downstream of the tract 

has been affected by previous and current mining operations at the Caballo Mine. 

It is unlikely that mining the LBA tract under the Proposed Action or Alternative 2 

(BLM’s preferred tract configuration) would be precluded by the presence of an 

AVF. Final AVF determinations will be made by the WDEQ/LQD based on data, 

mapping, site visits and analysis of site-specific conditions. 

AVF investigations conducted within and adjacent to the Maysdorf II general 

analysis area have identified three small AVF areas that occur along Caballo 

Creek, downstream of the northern portion of the Maysdorf II LBA tract. No AVFs 

have been identified along the Belle Fourche River and its associated ephemeral 

draws within and adjacent to the existing Cordero Rojo Mine permit boundary. As 

indicated above, CRM conducted an AVF assessment in 2007 along the Belle 

Fourche River upstream of the mine’s existing permit boundary and within the 

southern portion of the Maysdorf II general analysis area. WDEQ/LQD has 

determined that there are no AVFs within the 7.4-mile section of the Belle Fourche 

River described above (WDEQ/LQD 2007). 

No direct, indirect, or cumulative impacts are anticipated to off-site AVFs from 

mining the four LBA tracts in the general South Gillette analysis area. 

Streamflows in the Belle Fourche River would be diverted around the active 

mining areas in a temporary diversion channel. Consequently, disruptions to 

streamflow that might supply AVFs on the Belle Fourche River downstream of the 

Belle Ayr Mine would not be expected to be substantial. Streamflows in the other 

drainages within the four LBA tracts would be diverted around active mining areas 

in temporary diversion channels, captured in flood control reservoirs above the 

pit, or allowed to flow into the mine pit and routed through settling ponds. If flood 

control impoundments and/or settling ponds are used, it would be necessary to 

evacuate them following major runoff events to provide storage volume for the next 

flood. Consequently, disruptions to streamflows that might supply downstream 

AVFs should be negligible. Groundwater and surface runoff intercepted by the 

mine pits would be routed through settling ponds as required to meet state and 

federal quality criteria. The pond discharges would increase the frequency and 

amount of flow in these streams, thereby increasing surface water supplies to 

downstream AVFs. 

If the LBA tracts are mined as an extension of existing operations, the mining 

would generally extend upstream on streams already in active mine areas. 

Therefore, no direct, indirect, or cumulative impacts are anticipated to off-site 

AVFs through mining of the Belle Ayr North, West Coal Creek, Caballo West, or 

the Maysdorf II LBA tracts. 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 3-131 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3.6.2.2 No Action Alternative 

Under the No Action alternative for each of these four LBA tracts, the coal lease 

application for that tract would be rejected, the area included in that tract would 

not be offered for lease, and coal removal would not occur on that tract at this 

time. Impacts to AVFs related to existing mining operations would continue to 

occur as permitted. Mining operations would not be extended onto portions of 

these LBA tracts that will not be affected under the currently approved mining and 

reclamation plans. 

As discussed in section 2.2, a decision to reject one or more of these four lease 

applications at this time would not preclude an application to lease that respective 

tract in the future. 

3.6.3 Regulatory Compliance, Mitigation and Monitoring 

SMCRA restricts mining activities that would affect AVFs that are determined to 

be significant to agriculture and impacts to those lands are not permitted. If the 

AVF is declared insignificant to agriculture, or if a permit affecting the AVF was 

issued before SMCRA to effect, the AVF can be disturbed during mining but must 

be restored as part of the reclamation process. In Wyoming, WDEQ/LQD 

determinates the significance to agriculture based on specific calculations related 

to crop production or forage on the AVF and the size of the existing agricultural 

operations on the land that is part of the AVF. For any designated AVF, regardless 

of its significance to agriculture, it must be demonstrated that the essential 

hydrologic functions of the stream valley will be protected. Mines are required to 

restore the essential hydrologic functions of any affected AVF and preserve the 

hydrologic functions of AVFs on adjacent lands. 

Downstream AVFs must also be protected during mining. The effects of mining on 

downstream AVFs are required by regulation by monitoring discharges of surface 

water from the current mine permit areas for quantity and quality during mining. 

These requirements would be extended and included in the mine permit 

amendment for each LBA tract if the tract is leased. Mine permit revisions must 

be approved before mining could occur on each tract that is leased, regardless of 

who acquires the tract. 

3.6.4 Residual Impacts 

No residual impacts to AVFs would occur following mining. 

3-132 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3.7 Wetlands 

3.7.1 Affected Environment 

Wetlands are aquatic features defined as “those areas that are inundated or 

saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to 

support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of 

vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands 

generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas” (33 CFR 328.3(b)). 

The prolonged presence of water creates conditions that favor the growth of 

specially adapted plants and promote the development of characteristic wetland 

(hydric) soils (EPA 2007c). Vegetation in wetland environments is highly 

productive and diverse and provides habitat for many wildlife species. These 

systems as a whole play important roles in controlling floodwaters, recharging 

groundwater, and filtering pollutants (Niering 1985). 

Wetlands must contain three components: hydric soils, a dominance of 

hydrophytic plants, and wetland hydrology. When the upper part of the soil is 

saturated with water at growing season temperatures, soil organisms consume the 

oxygen in the soil and cause conditions unsuitable for most plants. Such 

conditions also cause the development of soil characteristics (such as color and 

texture) of so-called “hydric soils”. The plants that can grow in such conditions, 

such as marsh grasses, are called “hydrophytes”. Together, hydric soils and 

hydrophytes give clues that a wetlands area is present. The presence of water by 

ponding, flooding, or soil saturation is not always a good indicator of wetlands. 

Except for wetlands flooded by ocean tides, the amount of water present in 

wetlands fluctuates as a result of rainfall patterns, snow melt, dry seasons and 

longer droughts. 

Waters of the U.S. (WoUS) include all areas subject to regulation by the U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers (COE) pursuant to the Clean Water Act (CWA), to include 

special aquatic sites, of which wetlands is a subset. The definition of WoUS has 

been broadly interpreted to include most major water bodies, streams, 

intermittent drainages, mud flats, wetlands, sloughs, prairie potholes, wet 

meadows, playa lakes, and natural ponds. Special aquatic sites are defined as 

“geographic areas, large or small, possessing special ecological characteristics and 

productivity, habitat, wildlife protection, or other important and easily disrupted 

ecological values” (40 CFR 230.3[q-1]). Special aquatic sites include “sanctuaries 

and refuges, wetlands, mud flats, vegetated shallows, coral reefs, and riffle and 

pool complexes” (40 CFR 230, Subpart E). 

Wetlands subject to CWA jurisdiction are known as “jurisdictional wetlands”, 

while those wetlands not subject to CWA jurisdiction are known as “nonjurisdictional” wetlands. Compliance with Section 404 and its implementing 

regulations requires a sequence of avoidance, minimization of impact, and 

mitigation of wetlands. Precise definitions of WoUS or navigability are ultimately 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 3-133 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

dependent on judicial interpretation and cannot be made conclusively by 

administrative agencies (33 CFR 329). Rules, regulations, policies, and 

procedures used in determining the extent of jurisdiction have changed and 

evolved with time. Many ephemeral channels and playas in the PRB have, in the 

past, been classified as WoUS. However, several changes have occurred to the 

COE regulatory program over the past several years that will have a bearing on the 

current status of numerous areas historically classified as jurisdictional. For 

example, in 2001 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that isolated waters and playas 

are not WoUS. A U.S. Supreme Court decision (Rapanos v. United States and 

Carabell v. United States, collectively referred to as the “Rapanos” decision) in 2006 

attempted to address federal jurisdiction over waters of the U.S. under the CWA 

(EPA 2007d). According to the Court’s decision, the EPA and COE must ensure 

that jurisdictional determinations, permitting actions, and other relevant actions 

are consistent with the Rapanos decision. The decision addressed where the 

federal government can apply the CWA, specifically by determining whether a 

wetland or tributary is a “Water of the U.S.”, being “relatively permanent, standing 

or continuously flowing bodies of water” connected to traditional navigable waters, 

and to “wetlands with a continuous surface connection (nexus) to” such relatively 

permanent waters. As a result of that decision, the COE has placed a moratorium 

on the issuance of approved jurisdictional determinations that will be in place 

until the COE headquarters, the EPA, and the Department of Justice determines 

how to proceed and issues appropriate legal guidance. 

Briefly, the agencies will assert jurisdiction over the following waters: 

	 Traditional navigable waters; 

	 Wetlands adjacent to traditional navigable waters; 

	 Non-navigable tributaries of traditional navigable waters that are relatively 

permanent where the tributaries typically flow year-round or have 

continuous flow at least seasonally (e.g., typically three months); and 

	 Wetlands that directly abut such tributaries. 

The agencies will decide jurisdiction over the following waters based on a factspecific analysis to determine whether they have a significant nexus (connection) 

with a traditional navigable water: 

 Non-navigable tributaries that are not relatively permanent; 

 Wetlands adjacent to non-navigable tributaries that are not relatively 

permanent; and 

 Wetlands adjacent to, but do not directly abut, a relatively permanent nonnavigable tributary. 

The agencies will generally not assert jurisdiction over the following features: 

	 Swales or erosional features (e.g., gullies, small washes characterized by low 

volume, infrequent, or short duration flow); and 

3-134	 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

	 Ditches (including roadside ditches) excavated wholly in and draining only 

uplands and that do not carry a relatively permanent flow of water. 

In describing wetlands, three very different types, from a permitting perspective, 

may be identified, those being jurisdictional, non-jurisdictional, and functional. 

Functional wetlands are areas that may contain only one or two of the three 

wetland criteria (presence of hydric soils, a dominance of hydrophytic plants, and 

wetland hydrology). The United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) uses 

this third categorization in producing National Wetland Inventory (NWI) maps, 

which are based on aerial photo interpretation with limited or no field verification. 

Wetlands occur in a variety of forms and are somewhat limited in size within the 

general South Gillette analysis area. Riverine wetlands, defined by their close 

association with perennial and intermittent streams, occur sporadically along 

drainages. Periodic flooding events can also support Riverine wetlands areas. 

Common vegetation species in these settings can include willows (Salix spp.), 

scouring rush (Equisetum spp.), sedges (Carex spp.), and rushes (Juncus spp.). 

Palustrine wetlands, defined by their close association with emergent herbaceous 

marshes, swales, and wet meadows, support a variety of lush plant life and occur 

sporadically along major drainages and where topographic depression areas are 

naturally subirrigated and/or sporadically flooded. Common species in these 

settings can include sedges, rushes, cordgrass (Spartina spp.), mint (Mentha spp.), 

and buttercup (Ranunculus spp.). Depressional areas that hold water may 

support lacustrine wetlands. When natural, these wetland areas are called 

playas; however, manmade structures such as stock ponds also may support 

these systems. The most common species in these settings include cattails (Typha 

spp.) and bulrush (Scirpus spp.), although lady’s thumb (Polygonum spp.), verbena 

(Verbena spp.), and milkweed (Asclepias spp.) may also occur (USFS 1987). 

In addition to wetlands, the general South Gillette analysis area may include 

jurisdictional other waters of the U.S., as defined by 33 CFR 328.3. These other 

waters of the U.S. are primarily ephemeral stream channels, open water, and 

other stream channels that carry water but do not meet the criteria for 

classification as wetlands. 

3.7.1.1 Belle Ayr North LBA Tract 

The wetlands analysis area for the Belle Ayr North LBA tract includes the BLM 

study area for the LBA tract plus a 1⁄4-mile disturbance buffer around the BLM 

study area sufficient to mine and reclaim the tract as a part of the Belle Ayr Mine 

operation. A formal wetland delineation has been confirmed by the COE for the 

portion of the LBA tract wetlands analysis area that is within the adjacent existing 

Belle Ayr Mine permit area (FCW 2003). A formal wetland survey for the portion of 

the wetlands analysis area that is outside of the current Belle Ayr Mine permit 

area has not yet been completed; however, a portion of the large playa located in 

sections 18 and 19, T.48N., R.71W. and section 13, T.48N., R.72W. is the only 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 	 3-135 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Water of the U.S. within the wetlands analysis area that has not yet had a 

determination made by the COE. 

A total of approximately 193.9 acres of waters of the U.S., including a total of 14.4 

acres of jurisdictional waters of the U.S., occur within the wetlands analysis area 

for the Belle Ayr North LBA tract. Approximately 11.9 of those acres are 

jurisdictional wetlands that occur along the watercourse of Duck Nest Creek. The 

2.5 acres of jurisdictional other waters of the U.S. that did not qualify as 

jurisdictional wetlands consist primarily of open water that is held within the inchannel impoundments and intermittent pools along Duck Nest Creek. The nonjurisdictional waters of the U.S. contained in the wetlands analysis area consists 

of the internally drained playas and total approximately 179.5 acres in area. As a 

result of recent court directives, playas are no longer identified as jurisdictional 

waters of the U.S. under Section 404 of the CWA (refer to section 3.7.1.3 below). 

These non-jurisdictional wetland features can however have significant biological 

and hydrological importance. 

3.7.1.2 West Coal Creek LBA Tract 

The wetlands analysis area for the West Coal Creek LBA tract includes the BLM 

study area for the LBA tract plus a 1⁄4-mile disturbance buffer around the BLM 

study area sufficient to mine and reclaim the tract as a part of the Coal Creek 

Mine operation. A formal wetland delineation has been confirmed by the COE for 

the portion of the LBA tract wetlands analysis area that is within the adjacent 

existing Coal Creek Mine permit area (TBCC 2006). Coal Creek Mine conducted a 

preliminary wetlands inventory in 2007, based on USFWS NWI mapping and 

vegetation mapping in the field (BKS 2007a), for the non-delineated portions of the 

wetlands analysis 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 West Coal Creek wetlands analysis area. 

The boundaries of the existing potential wetlands may vary to a greater or lesser 

extent from the boundaries shown on the NWI maps, and current field conditions 

may not be representative of the field conditions in the future. A formal wetland 

delineation of the area proposed for mining would be conducted and submitted to 

the COE for verification as part of the mining and reclamation permit process, if 

the West Coal Creek LBA tract is leased. 

Coal Creek, an ephemeral stream, drains the West Coal Creek wetlands analysis 

area. No emergent vegetation or hydric soils were identified along the stream 

channel and its banks within the wetlands analysis area during the vegetation 

survey conducted in the summer of 2007; however, standing water was present 

within its banks in many places as a result of recent thunderstorm events. A few 

in-channel, diked stock ponds are present and NWI mapping identifies them as 

probable wetlands; however, no palustrine emergent vegetation was found to be 

supported by these ponds and some were in fact dry. The primary plant species 

found along the channel and surrounding the stock ponds were Carex species 

3-136 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

(sedge), Elymus smithii (western wheatgrass), Bromus tectorum (cheatgrass brome). 

Occasionally occurring plant species included Vicia americana (American vetch), 

Eleocharis palustris (bald spikerush), Thlaspi arvense (field pennycress) and 

Spartina pectinata (prairie cordgrass). These stock ponds would be characterized 

as other waters of the U.S. and they total approximately 3.8 acres in area. 

During the 2007 vegetation field mapping, a tributary to West Fork Coal Creek, 

located in the southwestern portion of section 30, T.46N., R.70W., was found to be 

receiving CBNG discharge water from upstream of the wetlands analysis area. 

Approximately 4.2 acres of open water presently occurs within the channel, but 

wetland characteristics (e.g., hydrophytic wetland vegetation and hydric soils) 

were not identified. 

Based on the existing USFWS NWI mapping data (which may be somewhat 

outdated), the wetlands confirmed to be present within the adjacent Coal Creek 

Mine’s permit area, and the vegetation mapping that was conducted in 2007, a 

total of approximately 16.92 acres of wetlands and other waters of the U.S. occur 

within the West Coal Creek wetlands analysis area. The earlier wetland 

delineation confirmed by the COE identified a total of approximately 3.48 acres of 

wetlands, which are associated with the stream channels (both riverine- and 

palustrine marsh-types), within the wetlands analysis area. The 2007 preliminary 

wetlands survey identified approximately 13.44 acres of other waters of the U.S., 

which were areas of open water held within the stream channels, or in-channel 

impoundments identified by NWI mapping that were found to be dry at the time. 

Non-jurisdictional wetlands and other waters of the U.S. were included in the 

above acreages and were not identified separately because only the COE has the 

authorization to make such determinations. Non-jurisdictional wetlands are 

generally associated with internally drained depressions/playas that are isolated, 

and non-jurisdictional other waters of the U.S. generally occur where areas of 

open water are ponded in a depression/playa area. No internally drained playas 

have been identified within the West Coal Creek general analysis area. 

3.7.1.3 Caballo West LBA Tract 

The wetlands analysis area for the Caballo West LBA tract includes the BLM study 

area for the LBA tract plus a 1⁄4-mile disturbance buffer around the BLM study 

area sufficient to mine and reclaim the tract as a part of the Caballo Mine 

operation. A formal wetland delineation has been confirmed by the COE for the 

portion of the LBA tract wetlands analysis area that is within the adjacent existing 

Caballo Mine permit area (CCC 2003). Caballo Mine conducted a preliminary 

wetlands inventory in 2007, based on USFWS NWI mapping and vegetation 

mapping in the field, for the non-delineated portions of the wetlands analysis area. 

A formal wetland delineation survey would be conducted and submitted to the 

COE for verification as part of the mining and reclamation permit process, if the 

tract is leased. 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 3-137 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Most of the wetlands within the wetlands analysis area are associated with the 

watercourses of Tisdale Creek and an internally drained playa. Within the portion 

of the wetlands analysis area that is inside the adjacent existing Caballo Mine 

permit area, a total of 5.96 acres of jurisdictional wetlands are located along 

Tisdale Creek. NWI mapping shows small areas (approximately 0.55 acre total) of 

probable wetlands located in stock ponds or pools along a tributary draw in 

section 17, T.48N., R.71W., which are outside of Caballo Mine’s permit area, and 

therefore have not been previously confirmed by the COE. Within the wetlands 

analysis area is approximately 3,964 feet of ephemeral stream channel that is 

jurisdictional other waters of the U.S. 

Therefore, based on preliminary wetlands mapping completed in 2007 and earlier 

wetland delineation confirmed by the COE, a total of approximately 15.0 acres of 

waters of the U.S., including a total of 8.63 acres of jurisdictional waters of the 

U.S., occur within the entire wetlands analysis area. Approximately 6.51 of those 

acres are jurisdictional wetlands that occur along the water courses of Tisdale 

Creek. The 2.12 acres of jurisdictional other waters of the U.S. that did not 

qualify as wetlands consist primarily of open water that is held within the inchannel impoundments along Tisdale Creek. 

The playa located near the center of section 7, T.48N., R.71W., adjacent to the 

LBA tract as applied for and within the wetlands analysis area, was delineated in 

1996 as a jurisdictional wetland, but was later declared non-jurisdictional by the 

COE following a decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in Solid Waste Agency of 

Northern Cook County v U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (No. 99-1178, January 9, 

2001). Approximately 6.37 acres of non-jurisdictional wetlands are included in 

this playa. 

3.7.1.4 Maysdorf II LBA Tract 

The wetlands analysis area for the Maysdorf II LBA tract includes the BLM study 

area for the LBA tract plus a 1⁄4-mile disturbance buffer around the BLM study 

area sufficient to mine and reclaim the tract as a part of the Cordero Rojo Mine 

operation. Cordero Rojo Mine conducted a preliminary wetlands inventory in 

2005 and 2006 of the lands within the wetlands analysis area, based on USFWS 

NWI mapping and vegetation mapping in the field (ESCO 2007a). The area 

investigated is located almost entirely outside of the existing Cordero Rojo Mine 

permit area, west and south of the current permit boundary. 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 

Maysdorf II wetlands analysis area. The boundaries of the existing potential 

wetlands may vary to a greater or lesser extent from the boundaries shown on the 

NWI maps, and current field conditions may not be representative of the field 

conditions in the future. Due to the ephemeral nature of CBNG dewatering 

activities, the wetland boundaries and areas are likewise ephemeral. A formal 

wetland delineation survey of the area proposed for mining would be conducted 

3-138 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
 

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

and submitted to the COE for verification as part of the mining and reclamation 

permit process, if the LBA tract is leased. 

Wetlands occur in a variety of forms within the wetlands analysis area and are 

generally associated with the watercourses of the Belle Fourche River and Caballo 

Creek, diked or impounded ponds, and internally drained playas. The wetland 

areas mapped by USFWS in this area are described as palustrine (marshy) 

emergent vegetation. These wetlands support a variety of lush plant life and occur 

along the banks of the Belle Fourche River and Caballo Creek, around a few diked 

or impounded livestock ponds, and within a few closed depressions. The 

palustrine wetlands, which are supported by temporarily or seasonally flooded 

soils, are adequately supplied with surface runoff and/or discharged waters from 

CBNG production. 

The Streamside Bottomland vegetation community, which was mapped in 2005 

and 2006 along the banks of the Belle Fourche River and Caballo Creek, is 

considered wetlands by COE’s wetland delineation standards. The well-wetted 

banks of the Belle Fourche River have, at present, wetland vegetation, soils and 

hydrology; the latter being somewhat dependant upon the volume of water 

discharged into the drainage basin from CBNG dewatering activities. 

The Streamside Bottomland vegetation community also occurs along Caballo 

Creek in the wetlands analysis area. Through this reach, the steep banks of 

Caballo Creek has helped to minimize an increase in the wetted area caused by 

increased streamflow from CBNG development-related inflow. However, some 

areas adjacent to the stream have become more extensively moistened and are 

likely to exceed pre-CBNG development extents. As a result, some portions of 

these areas may now be considered wetlands (ESCO 2007a). In addition, 

increased water-borne salt load in Caballo Creek seems to have altered the 

Streamside Bottomland species composition from what it was in the mid-1990s 

(ESCO 1996). 

Based on the existing USFWS NWI mapping data (which may be somewhat 

outdated) and the vegetation mapping that was conducted in 2005 and 2006, a 

total of approximately 140.15 acres of wetlands and other waters of the U.S. occur 

within the wetlands analysis area. Of this 140.15 acres identified, approximately 

133.54 acres are vegetated wetlands and the remaining 6.61 acres are other 

waters of the U.S. The majority of the wetlands are associated with the 

watercourses of the Belle Fourche River and Caballo Creek, diked or impounded 

reservoirs, and internally drained depressions/playas, while the majority of the 

other waters of the U.S. are associated with ephemeral stream channels and areas 

of open water. 

Non-jurisdictional wetlands and other waters of the U.S. were included in the 

above acreages and were not identified separately because only the COE has the 

authorization to make such determinations. Non-jurisdictional wetlands are 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 3-139 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

generally associated with internally drained depressions/playas that are isolated, 

and non-jurisdictional other waters of the U.S. generally occur where areas of 

open water are ponded in a depression/playa area. Approximately 49.94 acres of 

playas occur in the area, and those internally drained areas would probably be 

considered non-jurisdictional by the COE. 

3.7.2 Environmental Consequences 

3.7.2.1 Proposed Action and Alternatives 2 and 3 

Formal delineations have been confirmed by the COE for wetland areas and other 

waters of the U.S. included in the proposed LBA tracts that lie within the four 

applicant mines’ existing permit areas. Based on those previous wetland surveys, 

NWI mapping by USFWS, and the vegetation mapping in the field that was 

completed from 2005 to 2007, a maximum of approximately 366 acres of wetlands 

and other waters of the U.S. would be disturbed if each of the four LBA tracts is 

leased and subsequently mined under Alternative 2, BLM’s preferred alternative 

(Alternative 3 for the Maysdorf II LBA tract). Formal wetland inventories covering 

the remainder of the wetlands analysis areas for the LBA tracts that are leased 

would be conducted and 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 by the COE, it would be made a part of the mine 

permit document. The reclamation plan would then be revised to incorporated 

replacement of at least equal types and number of jurisdictional wetlands. 

Disturbed non-jurisdictional wetlands would be restored as required by the 

authorized federal or state agency or private surface land owner as specified in the 

mining and reclamation permit, which would have to be approved by WDEQ/LQD 

before mining operations could be conducted on the LBA tracts that are leased. 

During the period of time after mining and before replacement of wetlands, all 

wetland functions would be lost. The replaced wetlands may not duplicate the 

exact function and landscape features of the premine wetlands, but replacement 

plans would be evaluated by the COE and replacement would be in accordance 

with the requirements of Section 404 of the CWA as determined by the COE. 

3.7.2.2 No Action Alternative 

Under the No Action alternative for each of these four LBA tracts, the coal lease 

application for that tract would be rejected, the area included in that tract would 

not be offered for lease, and coal removal would not occur on that tract at this 

time. Impacts to wetlands and other waters of the U.S. related to existing 

approved mining operations would continue to occur as currently permitted. 

Mining operations would not be extended onto portions of these LBA tracts that 

will not be affected under the currently approved mining and reclamation plans. 

3-140 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
 

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

As discussed in section 2.2, a decision to reject one or more of these four lease 

applications at this time would not preclude an application to lease that respective 

tract in the future. 

3.7.3 Regulatory Compliance, Mitigation and Monitoring 

A formal wetland delineation survey must be conducted prior to mining according 

to approved procedures (COE 1987) and submitted to the COE for verification as 

to the amounts and types of jurisdictional wetlands and other waters present. 

Once the delineation has been verified, it is made part of the mine and 

reclamation permit. 

The presence of jurisdictional wetlands and other waters of the U.S. on a mine 

property do not preclude mining. There are special required permitting 

procedures to assure that after mining there will be no net loss of wetlands. The 

COE requires replacement of all impacted jurisdictional wetlands in accordance 

with Section 404 of the CWA, and all wetland replacement plans have to be 

approved by the COE. As such, a formal jurisdictional wetland delineation survey 

would be conducted and submitted to the COE for verification as part of the 

mining and reclamation permit process for each of these four LBA tracts that are 

leased and proposed for mining. 

Section 404 of the CWA does not cover non-jurisdictional or functional wetlands; 

however, Executive Order (EO) No. 11990 – Protection of Wetlands (May 24, 1977) 

– requires that all federal agencies protect all wetlands. Mitigation for impacts to 

non-jurisdictional wetlands located on these four LBA tracts will be specified 

during the permitting process as required by the authorized state or federal 

agency (which may include the WDEQ, OSM, or the federal surface managing 

agency, if any federal surface is included in the tract) or the private surface owner. 

Surface land ownership on the general South Gillette analysis area is private and 

federal (see section 3.11). The federal surface is administered by the USFS. 

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 may also require replacement of sites with hydrologic 

significance. If any playas with hydrologic significance are located on the tract 

that is leased, WDEQ/LQD would also require their replacement. 

Finally, the surface mining regulatory authorities (WDEQ/LQD and OSM) typically 

require replacement of non-jurisdictional and functional wetlands as a measure to 

protect and enhance wildlife. 

Reclaimed wetlands are monitored using the same procedures used to identify 

wetlands prior to mining disturbances. 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 3-141 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3.7.4 Residual Impacts 

Replaced wetlands (jurisdictional or functional) may not duplicate the exact 

function and landscape features of the premining wetland, but all wetland 

replacement plans would be approved by the COE, which has special required 

permitting procedures to assure that there will be no net loss of wetlands after 

reclamation. 

3.8 Soils 

3.8.1 Affected Environment 

Numerous baseline soil surveys associated with surface mining operations and oil 

field development have been conducted in the eastern PRB. Soil surveys of 

Campbell County, Wyoming, including the four LBA soils analysis areas, have also 

recently been conducted by the National Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) 

(Westerman and Prink 2004). Each of the LBA soils analysis areas includes the 

BLM study area (the LBA tract as applied for under the Proposed Action and the 

additional area evaluated under action alternatives), as well as the additional area 

that would be disturbed in order to recover the coal in the study area (assumed to 

be a 1⁄4-mile buffer surrounding the BLM study area outside of existing permit 

boundaries). 

Soils vary depending upon where and how they were formed. Major factors 

involved in the formation of soils include whether or not the material was 

transported and how the material was weathered during transportation. Four 

primary soil formation processes causing different soil types were noted in this 

area: 1) soils developing predominantly in thin residuum from sandstone or shale 

on upland ridges, 2) soils developing predominantly in slopewash, colluvium, or 

alluvial fan deposits from mixed sources on gently sloping uplands, 3) soils 

developing predominantly in coarse-textured alluvium or sandy eolian deposits on 

rolling uplands, and 4) drainage soils developing in mixed stream laid alluvium on 

terraces and channels, and in fine-textured playa deposits in depressions and 

closed basins. 

The soil depths and types on the four LBA tracts soils general analysis areas are 

similar to soils currently being salvaged and utilized for reclamation at the 

adjacent Belle Ayr, Coal Creek, Caballo, and Cordero Rojo mines and other mines 

in the eastern PRB. Additional detailed information about the soil types on the 

Belle Ayr North, West Coal Creek, Caballo West and Maysdorf II LBA tracts is 

included in the supplemental information document, which is available on 

request. The site-specific soil surveys have located hydric soils and/or inclusions 

of hydric soils, which are one component used in identifying wetlands. Areas with 

soils that are not suitable to support plant growth include sites with high 

alkalinity, salinity, or clay content. 

3-142 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3.8.1.1 Belle Ayr North LBA Tract 

The Belle Ayr North LBA tract soils general analysis area (1,947.0 total acres) is 

the BLM study area for the tract (the LBA tract as applied for and the additional 

area evaluated under Alternative 2), as well as the additional area that would be 

disturbed in order to recover the coal in the study area (assumed to be a 1⁄4-mile 

buffer surrounding the BLM study area outside of existing permit boundaries). 

Soil surveys were completed in 2007 by James Nyenhuis to an Order 1-2 

resolution. The inventories included field sampling and observations at the 

requisite number of individual sites, and laboratory analysis of representative 

collected samples. Soils within the Belle Ayr North soils general analysis area 

were identified by series, which consist of soils that have similar horizons in their 

profile. 

3.8.1.2 West Coal Creek LBA Tract 

The West Coal Creek LBA tract soils general analysis area (2,210.1 total acres) is 

the BLM study area for the tract (the LBA tract as applied for and the additional 

area evaluated under Alternative 2), as well as the additional area that would be 

disturbed in order to recover the coal in the study area (assumed to be a 1⁄4-mile 

buffer surrounding the BLM study area outside of existing permit boundaries). 

Soil surveys were completed in 2007 by BKS Environmental to an Order 1-2 

resolution. The inventories included field sampling and observations at the 

requisite number of individual sites, and laboratory analysis of representative 

collected samples. Soils within the soils general analysis area were identified by 

series, which consist of soils that have similar horizons in their profile. 

3.8.1.3 Caballo West LBA Tract 

The Caballo West LBA tract soils general analysis area (1,390.4 total acres) is the 

BLM study area for the tract (the LBA tract as applied for and the additional area 

evaluated under Alternative 2), as well as the additional area that would be 

disturbed in order to recover the coal in the study area (assumed to be a 1⁄4-mile 

buffer surrounding the BLM study area outside of existing permit boundaries). 

Soil surveys were completed in 2007 by BKS Environmental to an Order 1-2 

resolution. The inventories included field sampling and observations at the 

requisite number of individual sites, and laboratory analysis of representative 

collected samples. Soils within the soils general analysis area were identified by 

series, which consist of soils that have similar horizons in their profile. 

3.8.1.4 Maysdorf II LBA Tract 

The Maysdorf II LBA tract soils general analysis area (6,917 total acres) is the BLM 

study area for the tract (the LBA tract as applied for and the additional area 

evaluated under Alternatives 2 and 3), as well as the additional area that would be 

disturbed in order to recover the coal in the study area (assumed to be a 1⁄4-mile 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 3-143 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

buffer surrounding the BLM study area outside of existing permit boundaries). 

Soil surveys were completed in 2007 by James Nyenhuis to an Order 1-2 

resolution. The inventories included field sampling and observations at the 

requisite number of individual sites, and laboratory analysis of representative 

collected samples. Soils within the soils general analysis area were identified by 

series, which consist of soils that have similar horizons in their profile. 

3.8.2 Environmental Consequences 

3.8.2.1 Proposed Action and Alternatives 2 and 3 

Removal and replacement of soils during mining and reclamation would cause 

changes in the soil resources. In reclaimed areas, soil chemistry and soil nutrient 

distribution would generally be more uniform and average topsoil quality would be 

improved because soil material that is not suitable to support plant growth would 

not be salvaged for use in reclamation. This would result in more uniform 

vegetative productivity on the reclaimed land. 

The baseline soils analyses for the LBA tracts indicate that the amount of suitable 

topsoil that would be available for redistribution on all disturbed acres within the 

soils general analysis areas during reclamation would vary from an average depth 

of 1.9 ft to an average depth of 3.1 ft. The replaced topsoil would support a stable 

and productive vegetation community adequate in quality and quantity to support 

the planned postmining land uses (wildlife habitat and rangeland). 

There would be an increase in the near-surface bulk density of the soil resources 

on the LBA tract after reclamation. As a result, the average soil infiltration rates 

would generally decrease, which would increase the potential for runoff and soil 

erosion. Topographic moderation following reclamation would potentially decrease 

runoff, which would tend to offset the effects of decreased soil infiltration capacity. 

The change in soil infiltration rates would not be permanent because revegetation 

and natural weathering action would form a new soil structure in the reclaimed 

soils, and infiltration rates would gradually return to premining levels. The 

reclaimed landscape would contain stable landforms and drainage systems that 

would support the postmining land uses. Reconstructed stream channels and 

floodplains would be designed and established to be erosionally stable. 

Direct biological impacts to soil resources on each LBA tract would include shortterm to long-term reduction in soil organic matter, microbial populations, seeds, 

bulbs, rhizomes, and live plant parts for soil resources that are stockpiled before 

placement. The following discussion is a description of potential impacts to soil 

resources on each LBA tract following reclamation under the Proposed Action or 

Alternatives 2 or 3. 

3-144 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3.8.2.1.1 Belle Ayr North LBA Tract 

Potential impacts to soil resources on the Belle Ayr North LBA tract after final 

reclamation under the Proposed Action or Alternative 2, BLM’s preferred 

alternative, are quantified as follows. Under the currently approved mining and 

reclamation plan, approximately 11,621 acres of soil resources will be disturbed in 

order to mine the coal in the existing leases at the Belle Ayr Mine (table 3-1). The 

Belle Ayr North LBA tract soil general analysis area is disturbance related to 

removing coal from the LBA tract under the Proposed Action would directly affect 

approximately 1,937 additional acres of soil resources not already permitted for 

disturbance, or approximately 1,947 acres under Alternative 2, BLM’s preferred 

alternative (table 3-1). Average topsoil thickness would be about 26.8 inches 

across the entire reclaimed surface. The types of soils and the quantities of the 

soil resource included in the Belle Ayr North LBA tract under the action 

alternatives considered in this EIS are similar to the soils on the existing leases at 

the Belle Ayr Mine. 

3.8.2.1.2 West Coal Creek LBA Tract 

Potential impacts to soil resources on the West Coal Creek LBA tract after final 

reclamation under the Proposed Action or Alternative 2, BLM’s preferred 

alternative, are quantified as follows. Under the currently approved mining and 

reclamation plan, approximately 8,355 acres of soil resources will be disturbed in 

order to mine the coal in the existing leases at the Coal Creek Mine (table 3-2). 

Preliminary estimates indicate that if the West Coal Creek LBA tract is leased, 

disturbance related to removing coal from the LBA tract under the Proposed 

Action would directly affect approximately 1,925 additional acres of soil resources 

not already permitted for disturbance, or approximately 2,210 acres under 

Alternative 2, BLM’s preferred alternative (table 3-2). Average topsoil thickness 

would be about 23 inches across the entire reclaimed surface. The types of soils 

and the quantities of the soil resource included in the West Coal Creek LBA tract 

under the action alternatives considered in this EIS are similar to the soils on the 

existing leases at the Coal Creek Mine. 

3.8.2.1.3 Caballo West LBA Tract 

Potential impacts to soil resources on the Caballo West LBA tract after final 

reclamation under the Proposed Action or Alternative 2, BLM’s preferred 

alternative, are quantified as follows. Under the currently approved mining and 

reclamation plan, approximately 16,898 acres of soil resources will be disturbed in 

order to mine the coal in the existing leases at the Caballo Mine (table 3-3). 

Preliminary estimates indicate that if the Caballo West LBA tract is leased, 

disturbance related to removing coal from the LBA tract under the Proposed 

Action would directly affect approximately 1,350 additional acres of soil resources 

not already permitted for disturbance, or approximately 1,390 additional acres 

under Alternative 2, BLM’s preferred alternative (table 3-3). Average topsoil 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 3-145 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

thickness would be about 23 inches across the entire reclaimed surface. The 

types of soils and the quantities of the soil resource included in the Caballo West 

LBA tract under the action alternatives considered in this EIS are similar to the 

soils on the existing leases at the Caballo Mine. 

3.8.2.1.4 Maysdorf II LBA Tract 

Potential impacts to soil resources on the Maysdorf II LBA tract after final 

reclamation under the Proposed Action or Alternative 3, BLM’s preferred 

alternative, are quantified as follows. Under the currently approved mining and 

reclamation plan, approximately 14,694 acres of soil resources will be disturbed in 

order to mine the coal in the existing leases at the Cordero Rojo Mine (table 3-4). 

Preliminary estimates indicate that if the Maysdorf II LBA tract is leased, 

disturbance related to removing coal from the LBA tract under the Proposed 

Action would directly affect approximately 6,675 additional acres of soil resources, 

or approximately 6,917 additional acres under Alternative 3, BLM’s preferred 

alternative (table 3-4). Average topsoil thickness would be about 23 inches across 

the entire reclaimed surface. The types of soils and the quantities of the soil 

resource included in the Maysdorf II LBA tract under the action alternatives 

considered in this EIS are similar to the soils on the existing leases at the Cordero 

Rojo Mine. 

3.8.2.2 No Action Alternative 

Under the No Action alternatives, the coal lease applications would be rejected and 

coal removal and the associated disturbance and impacts to soils would not occur 

on the additional acres included in the four LBA tracts. The additional acres 

disturbed in the Proposed Action or other action alternatives for the Belle Ayr 

North, West Coal Creek, Caballo West, and Maysdorf II LBA tracts are listed in 

tables 2-1 through 2-4, respectively. Coal removal and the associated soil removal 

and replacement would occur on the existing mine leases as currently permitted 

(as summarized in tables 3-1 through 3-4). Impacts to soils related to mining 

operations at the existing mines would not be extended onto portions of the LBA 

tracts that will not be affected under the current mining and reclamation plan. 

As discussed in section 2.2, a decision to reject the Belle Ayr North, West Coal 

Creek, Caballo West, or Maysdorf II lease applications at this time would not 

preclude an application to lease the tracts in the future. 

3.8.3 Regulatory Compliance, Mitigation and Monitoring 

Soils suitable to support plant growth would be salvaged for use in reclamation. 

Soil stockpiles would be protected from disturbance and erosional influences. Soil 

material that is not suitable to support plant growth would not be salvaged. Soil 

or overburden materials containing potentially harmful chemical constituents 

(such as selenium) would be specially handled. 

3-146 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
 

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Unsuitable materials would be buried under adequate fill (at least 4 feet of 

suitable overburden) prior to soil redistribution to meet guidelines for vegetation 

root zones. After topsoil is redistributed on reclaimed surfaces, revegetation would 

reduce wind erosion. Sediment control structures would be constructed as 

needed to detain sediments. 

Regraded overburden would be sampled to verify suitability as subsoil for 

compliance with root zone criteria. Redistributed soil would be sampled to 

document redistribution depths. Vegetation growth would be monitored on 

reclaimed areas to confirm vegetation establishment and acceptability for bond 

release. Appropriate normal husbandry practices may be implemented to achieve 

specific reclamation goals. 

These measures are required by regulation and are therefore considered to be part 

of the Proposed Action and other action alternatives for the Belle Ayr South, West 

Coal Creek, Caballo West and Maysdorf II LBA tracts. 

3.8.4 Residual Impacts 

Existing soils would be mixed and redistributed, and soil-forming processes would 

be disturbed by mining. This would result in long-term alteration of soil 

characteristics. 

3.9 Vegetation 

3.9.1 Affected Environment 

The vegetation general analysis area for each tract includes the BLM study area 

(the LBA tract as applied for under the Proposed Action and the additional area 

evaluated under the other action alternatives plus an additional area (assumed to 

be a 1⁄4-mile buffer that would be disturbed in order to recover the coal in the BLM 

study area outside of existing permit boundaries). Each of the SGAC LBA tracts’ 

vegetation general analysis area contains portions that are partially located within 

and adjacent to current mine permit boundaries. Consequently, portions of the 

vegetation general analysis areas were previously mapped and sampled in 

accordance with the current WDEQ/LQD mine permitting requirements. The 

balance of the vegetation assessments were completed for the Belle Ayr North and 

for the Maysdorf II LBA tracts by ESCO Associates, Inc. of Boulder, Colorado in 

2006and 2007 and for the West Coal Creek and Caballo West LBA tracts by BKS 

Environmental Associates, Inc. of Gillette, Wyoming in 2007. The vegetation 

communities in theses areas were appraised and mapped to provide a preliminary 

assessment. 

The vegetation within the analysis areas consists of species common to eastern 

Wyoming and consistent with vegetation that occurs within the adjacent mine 

permit areas. Water and disturbed areas were also mapped. The following 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 3-147 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

vegetation types were identified in the combined LBA vegetation general analysis 

areas: 

• Crested Wheatgrass Pasture 

• Cropland 

• Hayland 

• Grainland 

• Sagebrush/Grassland 

• Big Sagebrush 

• Silver Sagebrush 

• Saline Grassland 

• Sandy Grassland 

• Loamy Grassland 

• Playa Grassland 

• Upland Grassland 

• Mixed Grass Prairie 

• Rough Breaks 

• Rock Outcrop/Blowout 

• Streamside Bottomlands 

• Meadow 

• Lowland Grassland 

• Draw Bottomland 

• Water 

• Topsoil Stockpiles 

• Reclaimed Area 

• Disturbed Area 

• Pre-Mining Disturbance 

• Developed 

Table 3-12 presents the acreage and percent of the combined general analysis 

areas encompassed by each vegetation type. Additional more-detailed information 

about the vegetation types within the LBA tract is included in the supplemental 

information document, which is available on request. 

In terms of total acres of occurrence in the combined vegetation general analysis 

areas, the predominant vegetation types are the Sagebrush/Grassland 

(38.07percent) and Sandy Grassland (18.41 percent). Common plant species on 

these types include crested wheatgrass, smooth brome, needle and thread, 

threadleaf sedge, western wheatgrass, blue grama, and cheatgrass brome. 

Dominant shrubs/subshrubs in the Sagebrush/Grassland and Sandy Grassland 

vegetation communities include Wyoming big sagebrush and fringed sage. 

Lichens and manyspine plains pricklypear cactus are frequently large components 

of the vegetation cover. 

The predominant vegetation type on approximately 10 percent of the vegetation 

general analysis area is the crested wheatgrass pasture. This type consists of 

3-148 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Table 3-12. Vegetation Types Identified and Mapped Within the Combined LBA 

Vegetation General Analysis Areas. 

Vegetation Type Acres Percent of Area 

Sagebrush Grassland 4,744.73 38.07% 

Sandy Grassland 2,294.52 18.41% 

Crested Wheatgrass Pasture 1,238.36 9.93% 

Mixed Grass Prairie 740.57 5.94% 

Disturbed Area 693.24 5.56% 

Saline Grassland 314.64 2.52% 

Big Sagebrush 302.65 2.43% 

Cropland 296.80 2.38% 

Silver Sagebrush 276.85 2.22% 

Rough Breaks 228.01 1.83% 

Streamside Bottomlands 209.94 1.68% 

Playa Grassland 208.35 1.67% 

Pre-Mining Disturbance 177.26 1.42% 

Loamy Grassland 171.77 1.38% 

Hayland 98.55 0.79% 

Topsoil Stockpiles 90.00 0.72% 

Grainland 83.90 0.67% 

Upland Grassland 83.90 0.67% 

Reclaimed Area 73.41 0.59% 

Draw Bottomland 55.16 0.44% 

Pastureland 28.00 0.22% 

Lowland Grassland 21.60 0.17% 

Burn 13.22 0.11% 

Rock Outcrop/Blowout 5.50 0.04% 

Meadow 5.40 0.04% 

Developed 4.60 0.04% 

Water 3.80 0.03% 

Total 12,464.73 100.00% 

Source: BKS 2007a and 2007b, ESCO 2007a and 2007b 

areas that have been converted (at least originally and intentionally) from native 

vegetation of one of the above-described types to a monoculture of crested 

wheatgrass. Through time, those areas that have not been actively managed are 

likely to experience invasion by native plant species from adjacent areas. Blue 

grama, purple threeawn, Junegrass, and needle and thread are among the more 

commonly invading grasses. 

The various categories of disturbance (topsoil stockpiles, reclaimed area, disturbed 

area, pre-mining disturbance, and developed areas) account for approximately 8 

percent of the vegetation general analysis area. Areas mapped as disturbed are 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 3-149 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

mostly associated with advancing excavation associated with the backslopes of 

mine pits, disturbance associated with CBNG activity (roads to drill pads, 

wellpads, and pipeline construction), areas recently excavated and contoured as 

part of construction of a flood control, and rights-of-way for public roads. 

There are few occurrences of noxious weeds in the mine area; however, there are 

native areas adjacent to mine permit areas that are infested with noxious weeds, 

primarily Canada thistle 

3.9.2 Environmental Consequences 

3.9.2.1 Proposed Action and Alternatives 2 and 3 

Under the currently approved mining and reclamation plans, approximately 

51,568 acres of vegetation will be disturbed in order to mine the coal in the 

existing leases at the Belle Ayr, Coal Creek, Caballo, and Cordero Rojo mines. 

Under Alternative 2 (Alternative 3 for the Maysdorf II LBA tract), BLM’s preferred 

alternatives, mining of the four LBA tracts would progressively remove the native 

vegetation on approximately 12,465 additional acres on and near the LBA tracts. 

Vegetation removal on the LBA tracts under the Proposed Action and other action 

alternatives is presented as the additional mine disturbance area in tables 3-1 

through 3-4. 

Short-term impacts associated with the removal of vegetation from the LBA tracts 

would include increased soil erosion and habitat loss for wildlife and livestock. 

Potential long-term impacts include loss of habitat or loss of habitat carrying 

capacity for some wildlife species as a result of reduced plant species diversity or 

reduced plant density for some species, particularly big sagebrush, on reclaimed 

lands. However, grassland-dependent wildlife species and livestock would benefit 

from the increased grass cover and production. 

Reclamation, including revegetation of these lands, would occur 

contemporaneously with mining on adjacent lands, i.e., reclamation would begin 

once an area is mined. Estimates of the time elapsed from soil stripping through 

reseeding of any given area range from 2 to 4 years. This would be longer for 

areas occupied by stockpiles, haulroads, sediment-control structures, and other 

mine facilities. Some roads and facilities would not be reclaimed until the end of 

mining. No new life-of-mine facilities would be located on the LBA tracts under 

the Proposed Action or Alternatives 2 or 3 because the LBA tracts would be mined 

as an extension of an existing mine using existing facilities. 

Grazing restrictions prior to mining and during reclamation would remove up to 

100 percent of the LBA areas from livestock grazing. This reduction in vegetative 

production would not seriously affect livestock production in the region, and longterm productivity on the reclaimed land would return to premining levels within 

several years following seeding with the approved final seed mixture. There would 

3-150 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
 

 

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

not be a substantial restriction of wildlife use of the area throughout the 

operations. 

In an effort to approximate premining conditions, the applicants would plan to 

reestablish vegetation types that are similar to the premine types during the 

reclamation operation. Reestablished vegetation would be dominated by species 

mandated in the reclamation seed mixtures (to be approved by WDEQ). The 

majority of the approved species are native to the LBA tracts. Initially, the 

reclaimed lands would be primarily a mixture of prairie grasslands with 

graminoid/forb-dominated areas. An overall reduction in species diversity, 

especially for the shrub component, would occur. At least 20 percent of the native 

vegetation area would be reclaimed to native shrubs at a density of one per square 

meter as required by current regulations. Estimates for the time it would take to 

restore shrubs, including sagebrush, to premining density levels range from 20 to 

100 years. As indicated previously, sagebrush is a component of the 

Sagebrush/Grassland vegetation community, which occupies about 39 percent of 

the vegetation general analysis areas. Following completion of reclamation 

(seeding with the final seed mixture) and before release of the reclamation bond (a 

minimum of 10 years), a diverse, productive, and permanent vegetative cover 

would be established on the LBA tracts. The decrease in plant diversity would not 

seriously affect the potential productivity of the reclaimed areas, regardless of the 

alternative selected. The proposed postmining land use (wildlife habitat and 

rangeland) should be achieved even with the changes in vegetation composition 

and diversity. Native vegetation from surrounding areas would gradually invade 

and become established on the reclaimed land. Following reclamation bond 

release, management of the privately owned surface areas would revert back to the 

private surface owners, who would have the right to manipulate the reclaimed 

vegetation. 

A reduction in sagebrush would result in a long term reduction of habitat for some 

species and may delay use of the reclaimed area by shrub-dependent species, 

such as the sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus). An indirect impact of this 

vegetative change could be decreased big game habitat carrying capacity. 

On average, roughly 1,600 to 2,000 acres of surface would be disturbed per year 

of mining if all four proposed lease areas are mined concurrently, regardless of 

which alternatives are selected. By the time mining ceases, over 75 percent of 

these disturbed lands would have been reseeded. The remaining 25 percent 

would be reseeded during the following 2 to 3 years as the life-of-mine facilities 

area is reclaimed. 

The reclamation plans for the existing mines include steps to control invasion by 

weedy (invasive nonnative) plant species because WDEQ/LQD rules and 

regulations require surface coal mine operators to control and minimize the 

introduction of noxious weeds until bond release, in accordance with federal and 

state regulatory requirements. Section 3.9.4 includes a discussion of the steps 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 3-151 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

the mines use to control noxious weeds. As a result, there are few occurrences of 

noxious weeds in the mine areas. The reclamation plan for each LBA tract would 

also include steps to control invasion from such species. 

Wyoming, including the PRB, has experienced drought conditions since around 

2000. The climatic record of the western U.S. suggests that droughts could occur 

periodically during the life of the applicant mines. Such droughts would severely 

hamper revegetation efforts, since lack of sufficient moisture would reduce 

germination and could damage newly established plants. In such instances, 

reseeding may be necessary. Same-aged vegetation would be more susceptible to 

disease than would plants of various ages. Droughts could also result in stands of 

vegetation in which less gregarious plants like warm season grasses are better 

established. Severe thunderstorms could also adversely affect newly seeded areas. 

However, these events would have similar impacts as would occur on native 

vegetation once a stable vegetative cover is established. 

Changes expected in the surface water network on each LBA tract as a result of 

mining and reclamation would affect the reestablishment of vegetation patterns on 

the reclaimed areas to some extent. The postmining maximum overland slope 

would be 20 percent, in accordance with WDEQ policy. The average reclaimed 

overland slope on each LBA tract would not be known until WDEQ’s technical 

review of each permit revision application is complete. No major changes in the 

average overland slope are predicted. 

There would be no net loss of jurisdictional wetlands. They would be restored 

under the jurisdiction of the COE (section 3.7). Non-jurisdictional and functional 

wetlands would be restored in accordance with the requirements of the surface 

landowner or as required by WDEQ/LQD. 

3.9.2.2 No Action Alternative 

Under the No Action alternative, the coal lease applications would be rejected and 

coal removal and the associated disturbance and impacts to vegetation would not 

occur on the additional acres included in the four LBA tracts. The additional acres 

disturbed in the Proposed Action or other action alternatives for the Belle Ayr 

North, West Coal Creek, Caballo West, and Maysdorf II LBA tracts are listed in 

tables 2-1 through 2-4, respectively. Coal removal and the associated removal 

and replacement of vegetation would occur on the existing Belle Ayr, Coal Creek, 

Caballo, and Cordero Rojo mines leases as currently permitted (as summarized in 

tables 3-1 through 3-4, respectively). Impacts to vegetation related to mining 

operations at the existing mines would not be extended onto portions of the LBA 

tracts that will not be affected under the current mining and reclamation plans. 

As discussed in section 2.2, a decision to reject the Belle Ayr North, West Coal 

Creek, Caballo West, or Maysdorf II lease applications at this time would not 

preclude an application to lease the tracts in the future. 

3-152 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3.9.3 Threatened, Endangered, Proposed, and Candidate Plant Species, and BLM 

Sensitive Species 

Refer to appendix E the each of the four SGAC Biological Assessments and to 

appendix F for the SGAC Sensitive Species Evaluation. 

3.9.4 Regulatory Compliance, Mitigation and Monitoring 

Reclaimed areas would be revegetated as specified in the approved mine plan 

using reclamation seed mixtures that would be approved by WDEQ. The majority 

of the species would be native to the LBA tract. At least 20 percent of the native 

vegetation area would be reclaimed to native shrubs at a density of one per square 

meter as required by current regulations. Shrubs would be selectively planted in 

riparian areas. 

WDEQ/LQD Rules and Regulations require that: 

•	 Permit applications for surface coal mines include a description of any 

weeds or other plants listed by the local Weed and Pest Control District as 

harmful (Chapter 2, Section 2(a)(vi)(C)(2)); and 

•	 Surface coal mine operators control and minimize the introduction of 

noxious weeds in accordance with federal or state requirements (Chapter 4, 

Section 2(d)(xiv)). 

In accordance with these requirements, the Belle Ayr, Coal Creek, Caballo, and 

Cordero Rojo mines work with the Campbell County Weed and Pest Department 

and conducts an active noxious weed control program on their existing coal leases 

and would be required to continue those practices if the mines acquire leases for 

the applied for LBA tracts. 

Detailed wetland mitigation plans would be developed and approved by COE 

during the permitting stage to ensure no net loss of jurisdictional wetlands occurs 

within the total disturbance areas (section 3.7). Non-jurisdictional and functional 

wetlands would be restored in accordance with the requirements of the surface 

landowner or as required by WDEQ/LQD, as discussed in section 3.7. 

Revegetation growth and diversity would be monitored until the final reclamation 

bond is released (a minimum of 10 years following seeding with the final seed 

mixture). Erosion would be monitored to determine if there is a need for corrective 

action during establishment of vegetation. Controlled grazing would be used 

during revegetation to determine the suitability of the reclaimed land for postmining land uses. 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 3-153 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3.9.5 Residual Impacts 

Reclaimed vegetative communities may never completely match the surrounding 

native plant community. 

3.10 Wildlife 

3.10.1 General Setting 

This section discusses the affected environment and potential environmental 

consequences to wildlife in general. The subsequent sections address the 

potential impacts to specific groups of wildlife species. 

3.10.1.1 Affected Environment 

Background information on wildlife in the general South Gillette analysis area was 

drawn from several sources, including the Maysdorf Coal Lease Application FEIS 

(BLM 2007b), Wyoming Game and Fish Department (WGFD) and U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (USFWS) records, and personal contacts with WGFD and USFWS 

biologists. Site-specific data for the Belle Ayr North, West Coal Creek, Caballo 

West, and Maysdorf II LBA tracts were obtained from several sources, including 

WDEQ/LQD mine permit applications and annual wildlife monitoring reports for 

the applicant mines. In addition, FCW conducted baseline investigations during 

2006 and early 2007 specifically for the Belle Ayr North LBA tract; TBCC 

conducted baseline investigations during 2006 and early 2007 expressly for the 

West Coal Creek LBA tract; CCC conducted baseline investigations during 2006 

and early 2007 expressly for the Caballo West LBA tract; and CMC conducted 

baseline investigations during 2006 specifically for the Maysdorf II LBA tract. 

Baseline and annual wildlife surveys cover a large perimeter around the mine 

permit areas; consequently, a majority of the proposed lease areas have been 

surveyed as part of the required monitoring surveys for the Belle Ayr, Coal Creek, 

Caballo, and Cordero Rojo mines. Site-specific surveys for each lease area and 

appropriate perimeter would be part of the mine permitting process if the tracts 

are leased. 

The topography within the general South Gillette analysis area is mainly gently 

rolling and of moderate relief, influenced by the Belle Fourche River and it’s 

tributaries. Elevation ranges from approximately 4,515 to 4,885 ft above sea level. 

Rough breaks and streamside bottomland areas occur near the Belle Fourche 

River and Tisdale, Caballo, and Coal Creeks, which flow through the general 

South Gillette analysis area (figure 3-24). 

In an undisturbed condition, the major vegetation types in the vegetation general 

analysis areas (discussed in section 3.9) provide high quality habitats for many 

species. Vegetation types tend to occur in a mosaic across the landscape; 

therefore, many wildlife species can be expected to utilize more than one habitat 

3-154 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

type. Wildlife habitat types for the LBA tracts generally coordinated with the 

mapped vegetation communities but the general habitat types for the general 

South Gillette analysis area include shrubland, native grasslands, seeded 

grassland, streamside bottomland, and rough breaks. Various parcels of 

cultivated land also occur throughout the area. As a result of oil and gas 

development, there are networks of road and well-pad disturbance areas 

overlaying much of the areas, as well as tank batteries and miles of pipeline 

disturbance with varying degrees of recovering vegetative cover. No designated 

critical, crucial, or unique habitats are present. 

The predominant habitat is Sagebrush/Grassland and Sandy Grassland is the 

next largest habitat type (table 3-12). Seeded grassland is dominated by crested 

wheatgrass, but older seedings have a mixture of less dominant native plant 

species and, with the passage of time, these seedings begin to resemble 

Sagebrush/Grassland again. Bottomland grassland or streamside bottomland 

habitat is limited to a narrow band along the edges of the Belle Fourche River in 

the southern portion of the general South Gillette analysis area. Trees are limited 

along the river and its tributaries within the general South Gillette analysis area. 

Rough breaks habitat is distinguished by the irregularity of vegetation, slopes, and 

soils. Vegetation on the rough breaks is typically sparse, although the diversity of 

vascular plant species is greater than in the Sagebrush/Grassland and sandy 

grassland communities. 

Under natural conditions portions of Caballo Creek and the Belle Fourche River 

demonstrate characteristics of both an intermittent and ephemeral stream. All 

other streams within and adjacent to the LBA tracts are ephemeral. In response 

to surface discharge of groundwater associated with CBNG production upstream 

of the LBA tracts, which is a relatively recent phenomenon, streamflow occurrence 

is now more persistent. The Belle Fourche River and the distinctive shallow pools 

that are present along its natural course in the general South Gillette analysis 

area are now seldom completely dry, resulting in an increase in habitat for 

waterfowl, shorebirds, and aquatic species. Twenty-five small stock reservoirs and 

three playa areas exist within the four LBA tract study boundaries. One of the 

playas has been turned into a temporary shallow pond as the result of a CBNG 

well discharging within its drainage area. 

Cordero Rojo Mine’s approved WDEQ/LQD mine permit allows disturbance of the 

Belle Fourche River channel. Approximately 6 miles of the natural channel have 

been diverted to date within the Cordero Rojo Mine’s current permit area. CMC 

would propose another diversion of the Belle Fourche River if they acquire a lease 

for the Maysdorf II LBA tract. 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 3-155 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3.10.1.2 Environmental Consequences 

3.10.1.2.1 Proposed Action and Alternatives 2 and 3 

If the Belle Ayr North, West Coal Creek, Caballo West, and Maysdorf II LBA tracts 

were leased under the Proposed Action or Alternative 2, BLM’s preferred 

alternative, (Alternative 3 for the Maysdorf II LBA tract), coal removal and 

associated mining disturbance would extend onto the LBA tracts. Mining would 

be extended by 5.0 years at the Belle Ayr Mine, 4.3 years at the Coal Creek Mine 

and 2.4 years at the Caballo Mine under Alternative 2, BLM’s preferred 

alternative, and approximately 10.0 years at the Cordero Rojo Mine under 

Alternative 3, BLM’s preferred alternative. Impacts to wildlife that would be 

caused by mining the LBA tracts would be addressed by the WGFD and the 

WDEQ/LQD when the mining and reclamation permits are amended to include 

the LBA tracts. 

Mining directly and indirectly impacts local wildlife populations. These impacts 

are both short-term (until successful reclamation is achieved) and long-term 

(persisting beyond successful completion of reclamation). The direct impacts of 

surface coal mining on wildlife occur during mining and are therefore short-term. 

They include road kills by mine-related traffic, restrictions on wildlife movement 

created by fences, spoil piles, and pits, and displacement of wildlife from active 

mining areas. Displaced animals may find equally suitable habitat that is not 

occupied by other animals, occupy suitable habitat that is already being used by 

other individuals, or occupy poorer quality habitat than that from which they were 

displaced. In the second and third situations, the animals may suffer from 

increased competition with other animals and are less likely to survive and 

reproduce. If the Belle Ayr North, West Coal Creek, Caballo West, and Maysdorf II 

LBA tracts were leased and mined, the direct impacts related to mine traffic and 

mine operations would be extended within the general South Gillette analysis area 

by nearly 10 years. 

The indirect impacts are longer term. After the LBA tracts are leased, mined, and 

reclaimed, alterations in the topography and vegetative cover, particularly the 

reduction in sagebrush density, would cause a decrease in carrying capacity for 

some species and a decrease in vegetative diversity. Sagebrush would gradually 

become reestablished on the reclaimed land, but the topographic changes would 

be permanent. Microhabitats may be reduced on reclaimed land due to flatter 

topography, less diverse vegetative cover, and reduction in sagebrush density. 

3.10.1.2.2 No Action Alternative 

Under the No Action alternatives, the coal lease applications would be rejected and 

coal removal and the associated disturbance and impacts to wildlife would not 

occur on the additional acres included in the four LBA tracts. The additional acres 

disturbed in the Proposed Action or other action alternatives for the Belle Ayr 

3-156 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
 

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

North, West Coal Creek, Caballo West, and Maysdorf II LBA tracts are listed in 

tables 2-1 through 2-4, respectively. Coal removal and the associated impacts to 

wildlife would occur on the existing Belle Ayr, Coal Creek, Caballo, and Cordero 

Rojo mines leases as currently permitted to recover the coal in the existing leases. 

As discussed in section 2.2, a decision to reject the Belle Ayr North, West Coal 

Creek, Caballo West, or Maysdorf II lease applications at this time would not 

preclude an application to lease the tracts in the future. 

3.10.2 Big Game 

3.10.2.1 Affected Environment 

The two big game species that are common in suitable habitat throughout the 

general South Gillette analysis area are pronghorn (Antilocapra americana) and 

mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus). White-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) and elk 

(Cervus elaphus) are transients east of the general South Gillette analysis area. 

No crucial big game habitat or migration corridors are recognized by the WGFD in 

this area. 

Pronghorn are by far the most common big game species in this area. This 

species is most abundant in the sagebrush/grassland or mixed-grass prairie 

habitats. Reclaimed grassland constitutes only a small portion of the available 

habitat around the PRB mines, although pronghorn are observed during all 

seasonal surveys in these areas. Home range for pronghorn can vary between 400 

acres to 5,600 acres, according to several factors including season, habitat 

quality, population characteristics, and local livestock occurrence. Typically, daily 

movement does not exceed 6 miles. Pronghorn may make seasonal migrations 

between summer and winter habitats, but migrations are often triggered by 

availability of succulent plants and not local weather conditions (Fitzgerald et al. 

1994). The WGFD has classified the general South Gillette analysis area as 

primarily winter/yearlong pronghorn range (a population or a portion of a 

population of animals makes general use of this habitat on a year-round basis, 

with a significant influx of additional animals onto this habitat from other 

seasonal ranges in the winter) and yearlong pronghorn range (a population or 

substantial portion of a population of animals makes general use of this habitat 

on a year-round basis, but may leave the area under severe conditions on 

occasion). The entire general South Gillette analysis area is within the WGFD 

Highlight Herd Unit. In post-season 2007, the WGFD estimated the Hilight Herd 

Unit to be 12,397 animals, with an objective of 11,000 (WGFD 2008). 

Mule deer use nearly all habitats, but prefer sagebrush/grassland, rough breaks, 

and riparian bottomland. Browse is an important component of the mule deer’s 

diet throughout the year, comprising as much as 60 percent of total intake during 

autumn, while forbs and grasses typically make up the rest of their diet (Fitzgerald 

et al. 1994). Mule deer are frequently observed on mine reclaimed lands. In 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 3-157 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

certain areas of the state this species tends to be more migratory than white-tailed 

deer, traveling from higher elevations in the summer to winter ranges that provide 

more food and cover. However, monitoring has indicated that mule deer are not 

very migratory in the vicinity of the general South Gillette analysis area. The 

WGFD has classified a majority of the general South Gillette analysis area as 

being out of normal mule deer use range and a small portion as being yearlong 

mule deer use range, which means that a population or substantial portion of a 

population of animals makes general use of this habitat on a year-round basis, 

but may leave the area under severe conditions on occasion. The entire area is 

located within the WGFD Thunder Basin Mule Deer Herd Unit. No crucial or 

critical mule deer ranges or migration corridors occur on or within several miles of 

the general South Gillette analysis area. Crucial range is defined as any 

particular seasonal range or habitat component that has been documented as the 

determining factor in a population’s ability to maintain and reproduce itself at a 

certain level. The WGFD estimated the 2007 post-season mule deer population for 

the herd unit at 20,980, which is slightly above the current objective of 20,000 

(WGFD 2008). 

White-tailed deer are generally managed separately by the WGFD in the Central 

Herd Unit. White-tailed deer prefer riparian habitats and are therefore seldom 

observed in the general South Gillette analysis area due to the lack of that 

particular habitat. The WGFD classifies the entire general South Gillette analysis 

area as out of the normal white-tailed deer use range. A narrow corridor along the 

Belle Fourche River east of the Belle Ayr North LBA tract wildlife general analysis 

area is classified as yearlong range. White-tailed deer are occasionally recorded 

along the Belle Fourche River and Pine Hills to the east but have rarely been 

recorded in the general South Gillette analysis area. 

A resident elk herd resides in the Rochelle Hills south of the general South Gillette 

analysis area. Elk do wander from the protection of the Rochelle Hills to forage in 

native and reclaimed grasslands in the vicinity of the general South Gillette 

analysis area. None of the general South Gillette analysis area is classified by the 

WGFD as within normal elk use range. As more lands are reclaimed from mining, 

elk are shifting their winter use to these areas. The WGFD has designated an 

approximately 5 square mile area on reclaimed lands within the Jacobs Ranch 

Mine permit area as crucial winter habitat for the Rochelle Hills elk herd 

(Oedekoven 1994). Rio Tinto Energy America (RTEA), owner of the Jacobs Ranch 

Mine, and the RMEF finalized a formal agreement that created the Rochelle Hills 

Conservation Easement. The easement contains nearly 1,000 acres, with 75 

percent of that total comprised of reclaimed mining lands on RTEA’s Jacobs 

Ranch Mine. The easement acreage was donated to RMEF by RTEA to ensure that 

the reclaimed land continues to be used as grazing land and wildlife habitat for 

the extended future (RMEF 2007). The Jacobs Ranch Mine is located about 9 

miles south of the general South Gillette analysis area (figure 1-1). Elk have been 

observed within the general South Gillette analysis area in recent years, but they 

are typically restricted to the pine breaks east of the Cordero Rojo and Coal Creek 

3-158 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
 

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

mines. Limited observations have also been documented in and near the Belle Ayr 

Mine permit area in the last few years. 

3.10.2.2 Environmental Consequences 

3.10.2.2.1 Proposed Action and Alternatives 2 and 3 

Under the Proposed Action and Alternative 2 (Alternative 3 for the Maysdorf II LBA 

tract), BLM’s preferred alternatives, big game would be displaced from portions of 

the Belle Ayr North, West Coal Creek, Caballo West, and Maysdorf II LBA tracts to 

adjacent ranges during mining. Pronghorn would be most affected; however, no 

areas classified as crucial pronghorn habitat occur on or within 2 miles of the LBA 

tracts. Mule deer would not be substantially impacted, given their infrequent use 

of these lands and the availability of suitable habitat in adjacent areas. Whitetailed deer are not usually found in the area but are occasionally observed to the 

east. None of the land within the general South Gillette analysis area is 

considered by WGFD to be an elk use area and few elk have been observed within 

the vicinity of the general South Gillette analysis area in recent years. Those elk 

that were seen in the area were largely restricted to the pine breaks habitats in the 

eastern-most perimeter. Big game displacement would be incremental, occurring 

over several years and allowing for gradual changes in distribution patterns. Big 

game residing in the adjacent areas could be impacted by increased competition 

with displaced animals. Noise, dust, and associated human presence would cause 

some localized avoidance of foraging areas adjacent to mining activities. On the 

existing coal leases, however, big game have continued to occupy areas adjacent to 

and within active mining operations, suggesting that some animals may become 

habituated to such disturbances. 

Big game animals are highly mobile and can move to undisturbed areas. There 

would be more restrictions on big game movement on or through the proposed 

LBA tracts, however, due to the construction of additional fences, spoil piles, and 

pits related to mining. During winter storms, pronghorn may not be able to 

negotiate these barriers. WDEQ guidelines require fencing to be designed to 

permit pronghorn passage to the extent possible. 

Following reclamation, topographic moderation and changes in vegetation may 

result in a long-term reduction in big game carrying capacity, with effects varying 

by species. Eventual restoration of important shrub habitats would allow for the 

return of some animals to reclaimed mine lands over time. 

3.10.2.2.2 No Action Alternative 

The impacts to big game under the No Action alternatives would be similar to the 

impacts described in section 3.10.1.2.2 and above for the existing Belle Ayr, Coal 

Creek, Caballo, and Cordero Rojo Mine areas. 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 3-159 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3.10.3 Other Mammals 

3.10.3.1 Affected Environment 

A variety of small and medium-sized mammal species occur in the vicinity of the 

general South Gillette analysis area, although not all have been observed on the 

LBA tracts themselves. These include predators and furbearers, such as the 

coyote (Canis latrans), red fox (Vulpes vulpes), bobcat (Lynx rufus), striped skunk 

(Mephitis mephitis), long-tailed weasel (Mustela frenata), badger (Taxidea taxus), 

muskrat (Ondatra zibethicus), raccoon (Procyon lotor), and beaver (Castor 

canadensis). Prey species include various rodents (such as mice, rats, voles, 

gophers, ground squirrels, chipmunks, muskrats, black-tailed prairie dogs 

[Cynomys ludovicianus], and lagomorphs [jackrabbits and cottontails]). These prey 

species are cyclically common and widespread throughout the region. Porcupines 

(Erethizon dorsatum) and bats (such as hoary [Lasiurus cinereus] and big brown 

[Eptesicus fuscus]) also have habitat in the vicinity, primarily east of the Cordero 

Rojo Mine area. The prey species are important for raptors and other predators. 

The black-tailed prairie dog was added to the list of candidates for federal listing 

as a threatened or endangered species under the Endangered Species Act on 

February 4, 2000. The USFWS then removed the black-tailed prairie dog from the 

list of candidate species on August 12, 2004. On December 2, 2008, the USFWS 

announced a 90-day finding on a petition seeking federal protection of the blacktailed prairie dog under the ESA. The USFWS subsequently announced that it will 

conduct a 12-month finding, which will end February 2, 2009, to determine if 

listing of the species is warranted (USFWS 2009). The USFWS continues to 

encourage the protection of prairie dog colonies for their value to the prairie 

ecosystem and the myriad of species that rely on them (USFWS 2004a). The 

black-tailed prairie dog is a BLM Sensitive Species. 

The black-tailed prairie dog is a highly social, diurnally active, burrowing 

mammal. Aggregations of individual burrows, known as colonies, form the basic 

unit of prairie dog populations. Found throughout the Great Plains in short-grass 

and mixed-grass prairie areas (Fitzgerald et al. 1994), the black-tailed prairie dog 

has declined in population numbers and extent of colonies in recent years. The 

three major impacts that have influenced black-tailed prairie dog populations are 

the initial conversion of prairie grasslands to cropland in the eastern portion of its 

range from approximately the 1880s-1920s; large-scale control efforts conducted 

from approximately 1918 through 1972, when an Executive Order was issued 

banning the use of compound 1080; and the introduction of sylvatic plague into 

North American ecosystems in 1908 (USFWS 2000 and 2009). 

In Wyoming, this species is primarily currently found in isolated populations in 

the eastern half of the state (Clark and Stromberg 1987). The species is 

considered a common resident in eastern Wyoming, utilizing short-grass and midgrass habitats (Cerovski et al. 2004). USFWS’s most recent estimate of occupied 

3-160 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

black-tailed prairie dog habitat in Wyoming, which was made in 2004, is 

approximately 125,000 acres (USFWS 2004b). Many other wildlife species, such 

as the black-footed ferret (Mustela nigripes), swift fox (Vulpes velox), mountain 

plover (Charadrius montanus), ferruginous hawk (Buteo regalis), and burrowing owl 

(Athene cunicularia) may be dependent on the black-tailed prairie dog for some 

portion of their life cycle (USFWS 2000 and 2009). 

According to U.S. Department of Agriculture - Forest Service (USFS) observations 

on the Thunder Basin National Grassland, the largest concentrations of prairie 

dog colonies in the vicinity of the eastern PRB surface coal mines are found east of 

the coal burnline, which is outside and east of the area of surface coal mining 

(Tim Byer, personal communication 9/11/2003). The large prairie dog complexes 

in this area east of the coal burnline have been drastically impacted by outbreaks 

of plague. The prairie dog colonies west of the burnline, including the areas near 

the Belle Ayr North, West Coal Creek, Caballo West or Maysdorf II LBA tracts, are 

generally smaller and less densely concentrated. These colonies have not been 

affected by plague to the same degree, likely due to their reduced size and density. 

Qualified wildlife biologists with Intermountain Resources and Jones & Stokes 

have mapped the current acreage of prairie dog colonies in the vicinity of the Belle 

Ayr, Coal Creek, Caballo, and Cordero Rojo mines by walking the perimeters of 

colonies and delineating them using hand-held global positioning system receivers 

and/or by visually mapping them on topographic maps (figures 3-25 through 3­

28, respectively). There are overlaps between portions of the four prairie dog 

survey area boundaries but there is no overlap in the depiction of colonies on 

these figures or in the tract discussions that follow below. A total of three 

occupied prairie dog colonies encompassing approximately 130.4 non-contiguous 

acres were present on and within 2 miles of the general analysis areas for these 

four LBA tracts in 2007. A portion (13.3 acres) of one prairie dog colony is located 

within the four combined general analysis areas. 

No colonies are currently present on or within 2 miles of the Belle Ayr North or 

Caballo West LBA tracts under the Proposed Actions or action alternatives. One 

small colony is present approximately 1.25 miles southeast of the West Coal Creek 

LBA tract general analysis area (figure 3-26). That colony was poisoned in the 

past and was only occupied again beginning in 2000. Two other small colonies 

are located within 2 miles of the Maysdorf II LBA tract general analysis area (figure 

3-28). One colony is located east of the CMC mine permit area is not within 2 

miles of the Maysdorf II general analysis area. The boundaries shown on figures 

3-26 and 3-28 are historical town boundaries and, although black-tailed prairie 

dogs still exist in the areas, their numbers and distribution may be much smaller 

than previously recorded. 

The black-tailed prairie dog is recognized as a BLM Sensitive Species and is 

further discussed in the Sensitive Species Evaluation (appendix F) of this EIS. 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 3-161 
hway 

Bishop

Road 

State

 59 

Hig

Creek 

Tisdale 

Creek 

Caballo 

Pile 

Creek 

Bone 

Creek Tisdale 

Creek 

Caballo 

11 

2 

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

R. 72 W. R. 71 W. 

1 

6 5 3 2 4 3

SEO 

FH/SH 

12 

10 FH FH 8 9 10 11 7 FH BO FH FH FH 

SH H FH RTH 

H FH SH/GHO 

FH GHO GHO SH/GHO/RTH FH 

RTH 

15 

FH 

FH 

FH 

FH 

FH 

14 

FH 

13 18 BO 

17 

BO 

SH 

16 

H 

15 14 

FH BO GHO 

Lynde

Lek FH FH/GE 

FH 22 23 22 FH 21 19 20 23 24 GE 

BO SEO 

SH 

FH SH/FH FH RTH GHO/FH BO BO H RTH FH SH SH

SH FH FH GHO 28 27 26 30 27 26 29 25 B B B FH/GE H SH SH H SH SH 

H H FH SH SH/GHO/FH SH SH SH B H FH H RTH 

H GE RTH GHO/RTH FH GHO 

BO H

H GHO 33 H FH FH 32 34 34 35 36 T. T. 31 SH/GE RTH/GHO 

48 SEO SH H FH FH RTH 48

N. 

SH FH SH/FH GHO N. BO SH/RTH FH FH H FH

SH FH SH FH SH/FH FH

T. SH/RTH SH FH BO T.

47 BO BO 47

N. 4 3
 3
 N. Stowe 6 2 2 1 5 Lek 

Belle Ayr II
 Lek
 

Belle Ayr I Lek 

10 11 12 7 8 9 10 11 

Belle Ayr

North Lek R. 72 W. R. 71 W. 

LEGEND Existing Raptor Nest 

Former Raptor Nest Belle Ayr Mine Permit Boundary 

Occupied Sage-Grouse Lek Existing Platform Nest Belle Ayr North LBA (Active at Least Once Tract as Applied for Within the Last 10 Years) Former Platform Nest 

and 3-Mile Radius GE Golden Eagle BLM's Study Area 

Unoccupied (Destroyed) FH Ferruginous Hawk Alternative 2, Sage-Grouse Lek RTH Red-tailed Hawk BLM's Preferred Alternative (Destroyed and No Longer SH Swainson's Hawk Belle Ayr North Wildlife GHO Great Horned Owl Suitable for Breeding) General Analysis Area 

BO Burrowing Owl 2-Mile Buffer from the 0 3000 6000 12000 H Northern Harrier Belle Ayr North Wildlife 

SEO Short-eared Owl General Analysis Area 

GRAPHIC SCALE (FEET) B Buteo Species 

Figure 3-25. Raptor Nest Sites and Sage-Grouse Leks Within and Adjacent to the Belle Ayr North LBA Tract. 

3-162 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 

35 
R

o

oF

Fork 

East 

Coal 

Creek 

Creek 

Dry 

Belle 

River 

Fourche 

Creek

Coal 

Creek 

Coal rk West 

11 10 

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

R. 71 W. R. 70 W. 32 33 34 35 34 35 

UP R

H

BNSF &

R o ad ey adl

FH 

FH 

SH/GE FH T. 

45 

T. SH FH FH 

45 

BO N. N. 2 4 2 1 6 3 5 3 

Lawver Road B/SH 

12 7 8 10 11 R. 71 W. R. 70 W. 9 10 11 

Occupied Sage-Grouse Lek Existing Raptor Nest LEGEND

(Active at Least Once
 Within the Last 10 Years)
 Former Raptor Nest Coal Creek Mine Permit Boundary 

and 3-Mile Radius Existing Platform Nest West Coal Creek LBA 

Tract as Applied for Potential Sage Grouse Lek Former Platform Nest 

GE Golden Eagle BLM's Study Area 

Sage-Grouse Lek FH Ferruginous Hawk 

(No Activity for 10 Consecutive Years) RTH Red-tailed Hawk 

Unoccupied (Abandoned) 

Alternative 2, 

BLM's Preferred Alternative 

Unoccupied (Destroyed) SH Swainson's Hawk West Coal Creek Wildlife Sage-Grouse Lek GHO Great Horned Owl General Analysis Area (Destroyed and No Longer Burrowing Owl Suitable for Breeding) BO 2-Mile Buffer from the
 0 3000 6000 12000 H Northern Harrier
 West Coal Creek Wildlife 

SEO Short-eared Owl General Analysis Area 

Buteo Species GRAPHIC SCALE (FEET) Prairie Dog Colony B 

36 31 

FH 

RTH/FH/SH 4 3 2 1 6 5 Kay

Lek
 2 3 FH 

Belle Ayr

South Lek FH 

RTH/GHO/GE FH FH

H FH GE/RTH FH

RTH 12 FH FH FH FH 8 FH 9 10 11 RTH/SH 7 FH FH/RTH GE/FH/RTH/SH 

FH FH SH 

FH
 

Coal
 SEO Coal Creek I 

Creek II Lek Lek GHO SH/ 13 SEO 18 14 

15 

GHO/ 17 16 15 RTH RTH/GHO/GE
 GHO/SH 14 

RTH GE 

GE/GHO 

Hoadley Road 

Hoadley RTH FH SH/GHO Road Deaver I SH Coal Lek FH H Lek 19 RTH Creek III FH FH GE 20 21 Lek 22 FH FH 23 24 Coal Creek 23 GE SH/GHO IV Lek FH FH 22 FH SH/GHO

GE Thrush RTH/GHO Lek FH FH Deaver II SH GE FH/GE Lek RTH/GE FH RTH/

GHO FH FH 30 29 SH 28 RTH/SH 27 26 27 26 FH 25 SH FH B/SH SH

SH/RTH RTH/SH RTH/

GHO SH/GE/

GHO/RTH
 SH GE FH 

Rough FH SH Creek I

SH/FH Lek 31 FH 33 34 35

T. 34 35 36 FH FH FH 32 T. FH FH 46 FH FH FH FH 46

N. FH FH N. FH FH BO FH FH

Figure 3-26. Raptor Nest Sites, Sage-Grouse Leks, and Prairie Dog Colonies Within and Adjacent to the 

West Coal Creek LBA Tract. 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 3-163
State

 59 Highway 

Corners Road 

Bishop Road 

Hoe 

Road 

Creek 

Creek 

Tisdale 

Caballo 

Pile 

Creek 

Bone 

Hoe 

Creek 

Creek 

Caballo 

Creek Tisdale 

34 

22 

34 36 

49 

48 

49 

48 

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

R. 72 W. R. 71 W. 29 

27 26 25 30 Four 28 27 26 25 

SH GHO/RTH 34 33 35 36 31 32 SH T. 35 T. RTH/GHO/SH 

N. B/FH RTH/GHO/SH 

N. 

T. SH T. SH Gold Mine 

Draw Lek SH/GHO B/GHO/SH N. 2 1 5 4 3 N. 3 2 1 6 SH SH 

SH/RTH 

SH/RTH/GHO 

SEO SH/GHO FH/SH 

SH 12 

FH FH 8 9 10 11 12 10 11 7 FH BO FH FH FH 

SH H

FH RTH 

H SH/GHO/RTH SH/GHO RTH GHO GHO 

18 17 16 15 14 13

H BO SH BO 

15 14 13

FH 

FH BO 

Lynde GHO Lek FH FH/GE 

FH 20 21 22 23 23 19 FH 24 GE 

BO SEO SH/FH SH 

FH FH RTH 

BO GHO/FH BO H RTH FH SH SH SH FH FH GHO 28 27 26 27 26 30 29 SH 25 B B B FH/GE H SH SH 

H H FH SH SH B H 

H FH RTH Enyard H GE RTH GHO/RTH Lek
 FH 31 H FH 32 33 RTH/GHO GHO 36 35 36 GHO 35 T. T. SH/GE 34 FH RTH H

Creek SH GHO 

48 48 

N. N. FH BO FH SH

T. 

47 T. 

47 Stowe N. N. 3 2 Lek 3 2 1 5 4 1 6 

Belle Ayr 

II Lek 

12 7 Belle Ayr 11 12 10 8 9 10 11 R. I Lek 72 W. R. 71 W. 

Occupied Sage-Grouse Lek Existing Raptor Nest LEGEND (Active at Least Once Former Raptor Nest Within the Last 10 Years) Existing Platform Nest Caballo Mine Permit Boundary 

Former Platform Nest 

and 3-Mile Radius 

Caballo West LBA Unoccupied (Abandoned) GE Golden Eagle Tract as Applied for Sage-Grouse Lek FH Ferruginous Hawk (No Activity for 10 Consecutive Years) BLM's Study Area (Alternative 2), RTH Red-tailed Hawk BLM's Preferred Alternative Unoccupied (Destroyed) SH Swainson's Hawk Sage-Grouse Lek Caballo West Wildlife 

(Destroyed and No Longer GHO Great Horned Owl General Analysis Area 

Suitable for Breeding) BO Burrowing Owl 2-Mile Buffer from the
 0 3500 7000 14000 H Northern Harrier
 Caballo West Wildlife 

SEO Short-eared Owl General Analysis Area 

B Buteo Species GRAPHIC SCALE (FEET) 

Figure 3-27. Raptor Nest Sites and Sage-Grouse Leks Within and Adjacent to the Caballo West LBA Tract. 

3-164 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 

25 

24 
State 

T-7 Road

 59 Highway 

Hilight 

Road

Bishop 

Road 

Haight Road 

BNSF & 

Road 

Creek 

UP RR 

Caballo Creek 

Fourche 

Belle 

River 

Creek 

Caballo 

River 

Fourche Belle 

48 33 

30 

16 

9 

28 

21 

9 

4 

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Lynde R. 72 W. R. 71 W.	 R. 71 W. R. 70 W. Lek 23 20 21 22 21 22 23 24 19 20 21 24 19 

SH 29 28 29 28 27 26 25 28 27 26 25 30 

H SH/GHO/FH SH 

SH B Enyard BO FH H Lek T. T. H H

RTH 36 SH FH 31 32 33 48 32 33 34 35 36 34 FH 35 SH SEO FH RTH N. N. SH/RTH H FH SH GHO

SH/FH SH/FH BO FH FH

FH BO SH SH/RTH FH T. T. BO BO 1 Stowe Lek 1 6 5 4 47 47 4 2 FH 5 4 3 2 3 6 N. N. FH Belle Ayr

FH II Lek

Hoe RTH Belle Ayr FH FH I Lek FH 12 7 8 9 9 10 11 10 11 12 7 8 SH/GE Belle Ayr

RTH/GE GHO North Lek SH	 GE GE 

FH FH 16	 13 18 17 15 

22	 23 24 19 19 20 21 ey H adl R o oad

16 15 14 17 14 13 18 FH FH FH BO SH 

FH RTH RTH/GHO 

RTH/GHO SH/RTH 20 21 22 23 24 

FH 

Booze 

Lek GHO RTH/GHO 

SH/GHO/FH FH FH SH FH	 RTH 

28 SH 27 26 30 29 28 28 27 26 25 30 29 RTH 25 SH FH/SH BO FH 

T. T.	 31 32 33 34 FH 35 36 31 32 33 47 47 33 34 35 36	 FH FH FH N. N. FH FH 

FH T. T. RTH/FH/SH 4 6 5 4 46 46 GE 3 2 3 2 1 6 5 Kay

Lek N. 1 FH Belle Ayr N. GE South Lek 

GE RTH/GHO/GE GE 

Doud FH GE/FH H GE/RTH 

RTH Lek FH 9 GE 10	 FH 11 12 RTH/SH 7 8 9 10 11 12 7 8 FH FH GE FH SH RTH/FH GE/FH/RTH/SH FH 

Coal FH SEO Coal FH	 Creek II Creek Cordero Lek SH/GHO/RTH SEO I Lek Mine Lek	 18 13 17 16 16 15 14 13 18 16 17	 FH	 15 14 RTH/GHO/GE GHO/SH RTH GE FH FH Hoadley Road GE/GHO 

Hoadley RTH SH/GHO Road FH RTH FH FH H SH Coal RTH 21 RTH 22 FH FH Lek 24 19 RTH 20 Creek 21 22 23 24 19 20 FH FH 23 GE GE IV Lek

FH FH	 GE SH/GHO SCALE: 1"=10,000' Thrush SH/GHO Lek 

25 30 FH 27 FH 30 27 26 29 28 26 25 29 28

FH	 R.71W. R.70W. FH R. 72 W. R. 71 W. FH

Occupied Sage-Grouse Lek
 

(Active at Least Once

Within the Last 10 Years)
 

and 3-Mile Radius
 

Potential Sage Grouse Lek
 

Unoccupied (Abandoned)
 Sage-Grouse Lek
 

(No Activity for 10 Consecutive Years)
 

Unoccupied (Destroyed)
 Sage-Grouse Lek
 (Destroyed and No Longer
 Suitable for Breeding)
 

Prairie Dog Colony
 

Existing Raptor Nest 

Former Raptor Nest 

Existing Platform Nest 

Former Platform Nest 

GE Golden Eagle 

FH Ferruginous Hawk 

RTH Red-tailed Hawk 

SH Swainson's Hawk 

GHO Great Horned Owl 

BO Burrowing Owl 

H Northern Harrier 

SEO Short-eared Owl 

B Buteo Species 

Cordero Rojo Mine Permit Boundary 

Maysdorf II LBA Tract as Applied for 

BLM's Study Area (Alternative 2) 

North Tract Under Alternative 3, 

BLM's Preferred Alternative 

South Tract Under Alternative 3, 

BLM's Preferred Alternative 

Maysdorf II Wildlife 

General Analysis Area 

2-Mile Buffer from the Maysdorf II 

Wildlife General Analysis Area 

LEGEND 

Figure 3-28. Raptor Nest Sites, Sage-Grouse Leks, and Prairie Dog Colonies Within and Adjacent to the 

Maysdorf II LBA Tract. 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 3-165

21 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3.10.3.2 Environmental Consequences 

3.10.3.2.1 Proposed Action and Alternatives 2 and 3 

Medium-sized mammals (such as lagomorphs, coyotes, and foxes) would be 

temporarily displaced to other habitats by mining, potentially resulting in 

increased competition and mortality. However, these animals would rebound as 

forage is developed or small mammal prey species recolonize the reclaimed areas. 

Direct losses of small mammals would be higher than for other wildlife, since the 

mobility of small mammals is limited and many will retreat into burrows when 

disturbed. Therefore, populations of such prey animals as voles, ground squirrels 

and mice would decline during mining. However, these animals have a high 

reproductive potential and tend to re-occupy and adapt to reclaimed areas 

quickly. Research projects on habitat reclamation on mined lands within the PRB 

for small mammals concluded that reclamation objectives to encourage 

recolonization by small mammal communities are being achieved (Clayton et al. 

2006 and Shelley 1992). Those studies evaluated sites at mines in Montana and 

Wyoming. 

Leasing and mining the Belle Ayr North, West Coal Creek, Caballo West or 

Maysdorf II LBA tracts would not affect black-tailed prairie dogs because no 

colonies are currently present on the tracts as applied for or the areas added by 

the Alternative 2 (Alternative 3 for the Maysdorf II LBA tract), BLM’s preferred 

alternatives. One colony is located approximately 1.3 miles south of the West Coal 

Creek LBA tract. The colony is not within the anticipated disturbance area for the 

LBA tract. Similarly, two colonies are located within 2 miles of the Maysdorf II 

LBA tract, but they are west of Highway 59 and not within the anticipated 

Maysdorf II disturbance area. 

3.10.3.2.2 No Action Alternative 

The impacts to small mammals under the No Action alternatives would be similar 

to the impacts described in section 3.10.1.2.2 and above for the existing Belle Ayr, 

Coal Creek, Caballo, and Cordero Rojo Mine areas. 

3.10.4 Raptors 

3.10.4.1 Affected Environment 

The raptor species expected to occur in suitable habitats in the general South 

Gillette analysis area include the golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos), ferruginous 

hawk, red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), Swainson's hawk (Buteo swainsoni), 

rough-legged hawk (Buteo lagopus), northern harrier (Circus cyaneus), American 

kestrel (Falco sparverius), prairie falcon (Falco mexicanus), great horned owl (Bubo 

virginianus), burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia), and short-eared owl (Asio 

flammeus). 

3-166 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

The bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) is a migrant and common winter 

resident of the Wyoming PRB region. On July 9, 2007, the USFWS published a 

Federal Register notice (72 FR 37346) announcing that the bald eagle would be 

removed from the list of threatened and endangered (T&E) species under the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.); de-listing 

was effective as of 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 Sensitive Species and is further 

discussed in appendix F of this EIS. 

Those species that commonly nest in the general South Gillette analysis area are 

the ferruginous hawk, golden eagle, red-tailed hawk, Swainson’s hawk, northern 

harrier, and great horned owl. The burrowing owl and short-eared owl 

occasionally nest in the area. Habitat is limited for those species that nest 

exclusively in trees or on cliffs, but several species have adapted to nesting on the 

ground, creek banks, buttes, mine highwalls, or rock outcrops. 

Figures 3-25 through 3-28 show the locations of raptor nests identified since 

monitoring began in the Belle Ayr North, West Coal Creek, Caballo West, and 

Maysdorf II LBA tracts, respectively, in the areas included in the respective wildlife 

general analysis areas and 2-mile buffers. There are overlaps between portions of 

the four raptor survey area boundaries, and as such, there are overlaps in the 

depiction of raptor nests on these figures and in the tract discussions that follow 

below. Over time, new nests have been built, natural forces have destroyed many 

nests, and others have been relocated for mitigation or removed by mining 

activities. In some cases, nests have been created to mitigate other nest sites 

impacted by mining operations. A total of 133 intact raptor nests were 

documented on and within 2 miles of the general analysis areas for these four LBA 

tracts in 2007 and 2008. A total of 25 of these 133 nests are located within the 

four general analysis areas (the areas likely to be affected under Alternative 2 

(Alternative 3 for the Maysdorf II LBA tract), BLM’s preferred alternatives). 

3.10.4.1.1 Belle Ayr North LBA Tract 

Through 2008, surveys conducted by Jones & Stokes had documented eight 

raptor species (golden eagle, ferruginous hawk, northern harrier, red-tailed hawk, 

Swainson’s hawk, great horned owl, burrowing owl, and short-eared owl) nesting 

at least once within the Belle Ayr North LBA tract raptor survey area. That raptor 

survey area is defined as a 2-mile radius around the Belle Ayr North wildlife 

general analysis area (figure 3-25). 

In 2008, 43 intact raptor nests were present within the Belle Ayr North raptor 

survey area. Only two (a Swainson’s hawk and a multi-species nest) of the 38 

nests intact in 2008 are located on the Belle Ayr North LBA tract as applied for 

under the Proposed Action. Two additional intact nest sites are present within the 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 3-167 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Belle Ayr North wildlife general analysis area: a burrowing owl nest site and a 

platform nest used by ferruginous hawks and golden eagles in the past (figure 3­

25). All intact raptor nests except the burrowing owl nest site are already 

encompassed by the existing Belle Ayr Mine permit area. 

3.10.4.1.2 West Coal Creek LBA Tract 

Through 2008, surveys conducted by Jones & Stokes had documented eight 

raptor species (golden eagle, ferruginous hawk, red-tailed hawk, Swainson’s hawk, 

northern harrier, great horned owl, short-eared owl, and burrowing owl) that had 

nested at least once within the raptor survey area for the West Coal Creek LBA 

tract. That raptor survey area is defined as a 2-mile radius around the West Coal 

Creek wildlife general analysis area (figure 3-26). Five of those eight species have 

regularly nested in the raptor survey area since annual monitoring began in 1982. 

Northern harriers and short-eared owls are heavily dependent on cyclic small 

rodent populations, and their presence tends to follow peaks and valleys in those 

prey populations. The recent occurrence of nesting burrowing owls in the raptor 

survey area coincided with the re-colonization of the small prairie dog colony 

southeast of the tract as applied for. 

Firty-five raptor nests were intact within the raptor survey area during the 2008 

breeding season. Five intact nests were on the West Coal Creek LBA tract as 

applied for, including one red-tailed hawk nest, one ferruginous hawk nest, one 

Swainson’s hawk nest, and two multi-species nests (figure 3-26). Four of those 

five nests are also within or immediately adjacent to the existing Coal Creek 

permit area. No intact nests were present in lands added under Alternative 2, and 

only three additional nests (a ferruginous hawk, a red-tailed hawk, and a multispecies hawk nest) were within the West Coal Creek wildlife general analysis area. 

3.10.4.1.3 Caballo West LBA Tract 

Through 2008, surveys conducted by Jones & Stokes had documented eight 

raptor species (golden eagle, ferruginous hawk, red-tailed hawk, Swainson’s hawk, 

northern harrier, great horned owl, short-eared owl, and burrowing owl) that had 

nested at least once within the wildlife survey area for the Caballo West LBA tract. 

That raptor survey area is defined as a 2-mile radius around the Caballo West 

wildlife general analysis area (figure 3-27). Of those eight species, the Swainson’s 

hawk has been the most common nester in the raptor survey area for this tract 

over time. The presence of other nesting raptor species has been associated with 

cyclic lagomorph or small rodent populations and the availability of nest sites 

(e.g., intact nests of other species for great horned owls, and the presence of 

platform nests for ferruginous hawks and golden eagles). 

In 2008, 38 intact raptor nests were present in the Caballo West raptor survey 

area. Two intact nests were observed in the Caballo West wildlife general analysis 

area (a Swainson’s hawk nest on the tract as applied for and a burrowing owl nest 

3-168 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

site on lands added under Alternative 2). The Swainson’s hawk nest is within the 

current permit area for the Caballo mine; that nest was last active in 2002. The 

burrowing owl nest was active only in 1988. 

3.10.4.1.4 Maysdorf II LBA Tract 

Surveys conducted by Intermountain Resources documented eight raptor species 

(golden eagle, ferruginous hawk, red-tailed hawk, Swainson’s hawk, northern 

harrier, great horned owl, short-eared owl, and burrowing owl) that had nested at 

least once within the wildlife survey area for the Maysdorf II LBA tract. That 

raptor survey area is defined as a 2-mile radius around the Maysdorf II wildlife 

general analysis area (figure 3-28). During surveys that were completed in 2006­

2007 a total of five raptor species (golden eagle, ferruginous hawk, red-tailed 

hawk, Swainson’s hawk, and great horned owl) were found to be currently nesting 

within the Maysdorf II survey area. In the past, the prairie falcon, northern 

harrier, short-eared owl, and burrowing owl have also been identified nesting 

within or adjacent to the survey area. 

The 2008 survey identified 47 intact raptor nests in the raptor survey area. There 

were 12 intact nests within the Maysdorf II wildlife general analysis area including 

10 ferruginous hawk nests, one red-tailed hawk/ferruginous hawk nest and one 

red-tailed hawk/golden eagle nest. 

3.10.4.2 Environmental Consequences 

3.10.4.2.1 Proposed Action and Alternatives 2 and 3 

Mining the LBA tracts would not impact regional raptor populations; however, 

individual birds or pairs may be impacted. Mining activity could cause raptors to 

abandon nests proximate to disturbance. The USFWS recommends a 1-mile 

buffer around all ferruginous hawk nests. 

3.10.4.2.1.1 Belle Ayr North LBA Tract 

One intact ferruginous hawk nest (a multi-species nest) was present on the Belle 

Ayr North LBA tract under the Proposed Action and on lands added by Alternative 

2 in 2008, and one platform nest exists at the extreme southern end of that tract’s 

wildlife general analysis area. That platform nest is on reclamation inside the 

existing Belle Ayr mine permit area. 

3.10.4.2.1.2 West Coal Creek LBA Tract 

There are two intact ferruginous hawk nests within the West Coal Creek wildlife 

general analysis area; one intact ferruginous hawk nest within the West Coal 

Creek LBA tract under the Proposed Action. No intact nests were located in 2008 

on lands added by Alternative 2. Both ferruginous hawk nests in the West Coal 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 3-169 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Creek wildlife general analysis area have alternate nests and/or nest sites within 

their respective territories that are outside of the wildlife general analysis area for 

that tract. 

3.10.4.2.1.3 Caballo West LBA Tract 

No intact ferruginous hawk nests were present within the entire Caballo West 

wildlife general analysis area in 2008. 

3.10.4.2.1.4 Maysdorf II LBA Tract 

In 2008 there were 10 intact ferruginous hawk nests within the Maysdorf II 

wildlife general analysis area; six of these intact ferruginous hawk nests were 

within the Maysdorf II LBA tract under the Proposed Action. No intact nests were 

located on lands added by Alternatives 2 and 3. 

USFWS and WDEQ/LQD approval would be required before mining would occur 

within buffer zones for active raptor nests. The Belle Ayr, Coal Creek, Caballo, 

and Cordero Rojo mines annually monitor territorial occupancy and nest 

productivity on and around their existing leases. Raptor nesting activity has 

previously occurred in active mining and construction areas. Many of those nests 

have succeeded due to a combination of raptors becoming acclimated to the 

gradual encroachment of mine operations, and successfully executed state-of-theart mitigation techniques to maintain viable raptor territories and protect nest 

productivity. 

Mining near raptor territories would impact the availability of native foraging 

habitats for nesting birds. However, equipment yards associated with mining 

provide additional habitat for prey species such as cottontails, and several raptor 

pairs voluntarily nest quite near those areas. Additionally, increased acreage of 

reclamation within the permit areas would offset new habitat loss as mining 

progresses. At surface mines throughout the region, raptor nesting efforts have 

typically been influenced primarily by natural factors such as prey abundance and 

availability of nesting substrates. Due to the paucity of woody vegetation, raptors 

that nest in trees or on cliffs are not as abundant as those that either nest on the 

ground or are adaptable to nesting on mine facilities or other man-made 

structures (platform nests, etc.). During mining, nesting habitat is created by the 

excavation process (highwalls), as well as through enhancement efforts (nest 

platforms, nest boxes, and tree plantings). Nests in highwalls within active mining 

areas, and in other areas of potential conflict, will be moved following proper 

permitting requirements and coordination with all corresponding agencies. 

3-170 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3.10.4.2.2 No Action Alternative 

The impacts to raptor species for the existing Belle Ayr, Coal Creek, Caballo, and 

Cordero Rojo Mine areas under the No Action alternatives would be similar to the 

impacts described in section 3.10.1.2.2. 

3.10.5 Upland Game Birds 

3.10.5.1 Affected Environment 

Four upland game bird species are known to occur in suitable habitats in the 

general South Gillette analysis area. These species are sharp-tailed grouse 

(Tympanuchus phasianellus), mourning doves (Zenaida macroura), gray partridge 

(Perdix perdix), and Greater sage-grouse. 

Based on annual lek searches since the mid 1980’s, sharp-tailed grouse do not 

appear to be as prevalent as sage-grouse near the surface coal mines in northeast 

Wyoming. The nearest sharp-tailed grouse lek to the general South Gillette 

analysis area is the Timber Creek Lek, which is located approximately 8 miles 

northeast of the Caballo West wildlife general analysis area. 

Mourning doves are a migrant and are relatively common in the area during 

spring and fall with fewer observations during the nesting season. This species is 

a relatively common breeding bird in Campbell County and may be found in a 

variety of habitat types. Doves are most often seen near sites with water sources 

and trees, though they are occasionally observed in sagebrush and greasewood 

stands. Mourning doves were common on the general South Gillette analysis area 

in 2006-07. 

The gray partridge (a.k.a. Hungarian partridge or Hun) is an introduced, nonmigratory game bird species that form flocks (or coveys) outside the breeding 

season. Gray partridge have been infrequently observed on reclaimed areas, 

sagebrush shrublands, upland grassland, and cultivated lands in the general 

South Gillette analysis area. In some years, this species is occasionally 

encountered, while in other years, partridge appear to be totally absent. Gray 

partridge were not observed on the general South Gillette analysis area in 2006­

07. 

The Greater sage-grouse, hereafter referred to as sage-grouse, is a species of 

concern throughout the West and is considered a “landscape species”, which 

means that large expanses of unfragmented land are required in order to provide 

all the habitat components for their annual life cycle. Relying on sagebrush for 

food, cover, and shelter, sage-grouse require sagebrush habitat year-round and for 

every phase of their life cycle, and exhibit seasonal movements to utilize discrete 

sagebrush habitats. These movements are often in response to fidelity to seasonal 

use areas (breeding, nesting/brood rearing, summering, and wintering), with 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 3-171 
 

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

adjustments related to severity of winter weather, topography, and vegetative 

cover. 

Sage-grouse breeding occurs on strutting grounds (leks) during late March and 

April. Leks are generally established in open areas surrounded by Wyoming big 

sagebrush, which is used for escape and protection from predators. Generally, lek 

sites are used year after year and are considered to be the center of year-round 

activity for resident sage-grouse populations. On average, approximately twothirds of sage-grouse hens nest within 3 miles of the lek where they were bred. 

New spring plant growth, residual cover, and understory are important habitat 

components for nesting sage-grouse hens. 

Areas near nests are used for several weeks by hens for brood rearing. The 

habitats used during the first few weeks after hatching must provide good cover to 

conceal the chicks and must provide essential nutritional requirements during 

this period of rapid development. Brood-rearing habitats that have a healthy and 

wide diversity of plant species, particularly grasses and forbs, tend to provide a 

variety and abundance of insects that are an essential protein supply for the 

young birds. 

Summer habitat consists of sagebrush mixed with areas of wet meadows, riparian, 

or irrigated agricultural fields. As summer progresses and forbs mature and dry 

up, sage-grouse broods must move to more mesic, wet meadow-type habitats 

where succulent plants and insects are still available. This can be especially 

important in drier years and during long drought periods. As the fall season 

nears, sage-grouse form flocks as brood groups come together. As fall progresses, 

sage-grouse move toward their winter ranges. 

During winter, sage-grouse feed almost exclusively on sagebrush leaves and buds. 

Suitable winter habitat requires sagebrush above snow. It is crucial that 

sagebrush be exposed at least 10 to 12 inches above snow level as this provides 

food and cover for wintering sage-grouse. Population and habitat analyses 

suggest that wintering habitat can be as limiting as breeding habitats. 

Sage-grouse populations are generally considered to be cyclic, with periodic 

intervals between peaks in region-wide male lek attendance. However, sagegrouse populations and their distribution in Wyoming have declined over the last 

five decades despite higher counts in some years (Jahnke 2008). 

Since 1999, the USFWS has received eight petitions requesting that the sagegrouse be listed under the Endangered Species Act as threatened or endangered. 

Three of the petitions requested that sage-grouse be listed as endangered across 

its entire range. On January 12, 2005, following a 12-month status review on the 

species, the USFWS concluded that listing was not warranted at that time. On 

December 4, 2007, U.S. District Court, District of Idaho, ruled that the USFWS 

12-month petition finding on sage-grouse was in error and remanded the case 

3-172 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

back to the Service for further reconsideration. On February 26, 2008, the 

USFWS announced the initiation of another status review for the Greater sagegrouse. 

USFWS has indicated the need for continued efforts to conserve sage-grouse and 

sagebrush habitat on a long-term basis, and has encouraged continued 

development and implementation of conservation strategies throughout the 

species’ range. In May 2002, the USFWS office in Cheyenne, Wyoming, released a 

list entitled Coal Mine List of 40 Migratory Bird Species of Management Concern in 

Wyoming, which replaced the previous Migratory Birds of High Federal Interest List. 

The sage-grouse is included on the updated list, giving further impetus to ongoing 

annual survey efforts. The sage-grouse is also a BLM Sensitive Species and 

Management Indicator Species (see appendix F). 

On September 11, 2003, the Wyoming Game and Fish Commission announced 

that the 2003 hunting season for sage-grouse in Johnson, Sheridan, and 

Campbell counties would be closed, following the deaths of 11 sage-grouse in 

northeastern Wyoming from West Nile Virus in August and early September of 

that year. According to WGFD’s September 11, 2003 press release, the 

commission took this action because the incidence of infection was much higher 

in northeastern Wyoming than the rest of the state and the area is on the fringe of 

sage-grouse range with marginal, fragmented habitat. Recent lek count data 

indicate that Wyoming’s sage-grouse populations increased slightly from 2004 

through 2007. Lower incidences of West Nile Virus mortalities were also 

documented in those years, primarily due to cooler temperatures that reduced 

mosquito populations. Sage-grouse hunting seasons were consequently reopened 

in 2004 (Christiansen 2004). 

In 2007, Wyoming Governor Dave Freudenthal commissioned a Statewide Sagegrouse Implementation Team which emerged from the Governor’s 2007 SageGrouse Summit. On March 17, 2008, the Implementation Team preliminarily 

identified and mapped recommended sage-grouse core breeding areas in Wyoming 

in an effort to better understand what types of habitat the grouse prefer and what 

areas should be protected. The proximity of the SGAC tracts to these focus area is 

shown on figure 3-29. 

On August 1, 2008, the Governor of Wyoming released an executive order 

regarding sage-grouse core area protection (Office of the Governor of Wyoming 

2008). The sage-grouse focus area protection concept came about as a result of 

work by the Sage-grouse Implementation Team. The Implementation Team 

developed a core population strategy for the state of Wyoming “to maintain 

habitats and viable populations of sage-grouse in areas where they are most 

abundant” and delineated approximately 40 areas around the state with a focus of 

maintenance and enhancement of grouse habitats and populations within the 

focus areas. The areas were delineated by evaluating habitats within a 4-mile 

radius of selected sage-grouse leks in high lek-density areas. The BLM Wyoming 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 3-173 
49 

Mills 

T-7 Road 

T-7 Road 

BNSF RR 

Fairview 

BNSF & UP RR 

BNSF & UP RR 

Road 

State

 59 Highway

Hilight Road

BNSF RR 

Haight Road 

Wagensen Road 

Four Corners Road 

State

 59 Highway 

Hoe

Road

Creek 

 Road 

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

R. 72 W. R. 71 W. R. 70 W.

Hilight Road

ey H adl R o oad

T. T. 

49 

N. N. CABALLO
 WEST LBA
 TRACT
 LEGEND

BLM Sage-Grouse Focus Area 

BELLE AYR
 NORTH LBA
 Caballo West LBA 

Tract as Applied for TRACT 

BLM's Caballo West LBA 

Study Area (Alternative 2), T. T. BLM's Preferred Alternative 

48 48 

N. N. Belle Ayr North LBA 

Tract as Applied for 

BLM's Belle Ayr North LBA Bishop Road Study Area 

BLM's Belle Ayr North LBA 

Alternative 2, 

BLM's Preferred Alternative 

T. T. 

47 47 Maysdorf II LBA Tract 

N. N. as Applied for

BLM's Maysdorf II LBA 

Study Area (Alternative 2) 

North Tract Under Alternative 3, 

BLM's Preferred Alternative 

South Tract Under Alternative 3, 

BLM's Preferred Alternative 

MAYSDORF II
 LBA TRACTS
 

West Coal Creek LBA T. T. 

Hoadley Tract as Applied for Road 46 46 

BLM's West Coal Creek LBA 

Study Area 

N. N. 

West Coal Creek LBA 

Alternative 2, 

BLM's Preferred Alternative 

WEST COAL Lawver Road CREEK LBA 

TRACT 

T. T. 

45 

N. N.

Lawver Road 

SCALE: 1"=3 MILES 

R. 72 W. R. 71 W. R. 70 W. 

Figure 3-29. General South Gillette Analysis Area and Associated BLM Sage-Grouse Focus Areas. 

3-174 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 

45 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

State Office is in the process of developing a state-wide sage-grouse management 

policy and has incorporated sage-grouse focus areas based on the core area 

concept in the draft management policy. BLM has indicated that the sage-grouse 

management strategy for management of future surface disturbance (including 

actions proposed in this EIS) will likely be based on the sage-grouse focus areas 

(BLM 2008c). 

WGFD has adopted definitions for the purposes of collecting and reporting sagegrouse data (WGFD 2006). The definitions contain an assessment of the annual 

status and a management status of sage-grouse leks. The annual status is 

assessed annually based on the following definitions: 

	 Active – Any lek that has been attended by male sage-grouse during the 

strutting season. 

	 Inactive – Any lek where sufficient data suggests that there was no strutting 

activity throughout a strutting season. 

	 Unknown – Leks for which status as active or inactive has not been 

documented during the course of a strutting season. 

The management status is based on a lek’s annual status and a lek is assigned to 

one of three categories for management purposes. The status of SGAC sagegrouse leks is based on the WGFD management status as follows: 

	 Occupied – A lek that has been active during at least one strutting season 

within the prior ten years. Occupied leks are protected through prescribed 

management actions during surface disturbing activities. 

	 Unoccupied (formerly “historical lek”.) – There are two types of unoccupied 

leks, “destroyed” and “abandoned.” Unoccupied leks are not protected 

during surface disturbing activities. 

	 destroyed – A formerly active lek site and surrounding sagebrush habitat 

that has been destroyed and is no longer suitable for sage-grouse 

breeding. 

	 abandoned – A lek in otherwise suitable habitat that has not been active 

during a period of 10 consecutive years. To be designated abandoned, a 

lek must be “inactive” (see above criteria) in at least four non-consecutive 

strutting seasons spanning the 10 years. 

	 Undetermined – Any lek that has not been documented active in the last 10 

years, but survey information is insufficient to designate the lek as 

unoccupied. Undetermined leks will be protected through prescribed 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 3-175 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

management actions during surface disturbing activities until sufficient 

documentation is obtained to confirm the lek is unoccupied. 

The Belle Ayr, Coal Creek, Caballo, and Cordero Rojo mines have conducted 

surveys of known sage-grouse leks and searches for new leks as part of their 

wildlife baseline inventories and wildlife monitoring programs since the early 

1980s. Baseline inventories, which occurred prior to initial permitting and 

subsequent permit amendments, encompassed the respective mine’s permit area 

and a 2-mile perimeter. The mines continued annual surveys that included the 

respective mine permit area and a 1-mile perimeter that began when each mine 

was initially permitted. Those surveys became mandatory with the 

implementation of Appendix B of the WDEQ/LQD Coal Rules and Regulations in 

1993. Each occupied and undetermined lek is generally surveyed three times 

within a given breeding season. As a result, most of the general analysis areas for 

the Belle Ayr North, West Coal Creek, Caballo West, and Maysdorf II LBA tracts 

have been included in previous regular survey efforts. 

Figures 3-25 through 3-28 depict the locations of sage-grouse leks identified 

within the 2-mile perimeter that encompasses the general analysis area for the 

Belle Ayr North, West Coal Creek, Caballo West, and Maysdorf II LBA tracts, 

respectively, in 2006 and 2007. There are overlaps between the four sage-grouse 

survey area boundaries, and as such, there are overlaps in the depiction of sagegrouse leks on these figures and in the tract discussions that follow below. A total 

of 14 sage-grouse leks have been documented on and within 2 miles of the general 

analysis areas for these four LBA tracts. Six of the leks have been active during 

recent survey years and are classified as occupied; three leks have not been 

attended by displaying grouse for at least the last 10 years and are classified as 

unoccupied/abandoned; and five leks have been removed by mining activities and 

are classified as unoccupied/destroyed. 

There is limited potential for use of the four LBA tracts or their respective analysis 

areas by nesting sage-grouse hens due to the relatively small amount of nesting 

habitat (sagebrush) in those areas and the general paucity of sage-grouse residing 

there year-round. 

No sage-grouse broods were recorded on any of the four LBA tracts as applied for, 

or on lands added under each respective Alternative 2, during specific sage-grouse 

surveys or surveys incidental to other species. Sage-grouse broods were recorded 

in 1998 and 1999 during wildlife surveys more than 2 miles southeast of the West 

Coal Creek LBA tract during surveys along East Fork Coal Creek. Sage-grouse 

broods were infrequently documented within the Belle Ayr North LBA tract general 

analysis area during early fall in the late 1990s. Those sightings consisted of 

mixed groups of female and juvenile grouse walking or feeding along the Bishop 

Road in the northern portion of the Belle Ayr North wildlife general analysis area. 

The only other sage-grouse brood recorded at any of the four wildlife general 

analysis areas was within the 2-mile survey perimeter of the Belle Ayr North 

3-176 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

wildlife general analysis area. Six young upland game birds (presumed to be 

grouse) were seen along Caballo Creek in early May 2004, near a grouse carcass. 

No grouse of any age have been observed in that area since then. 

Although sage-grouse may occasionally occur in the general South Gillette 

analysis area, it is unlikely that grouse are yearlong residents of the specific 

wildlife general analysis areas for any of the four proposed LBA tracts for the 

following reasons: 

•	 As discussed in section 3.9, the Sagebrush/Grassland vegetation type, 

which is characterized by the moderate to heavy presence of Wyoming big 

sagebrush, occupies about 38 percent of the combined vegetation analysis 

areas. As indicated, that 38 percent does not represent a contiguous stand 

of big sagebrush, but rather is the total of all sage communities within the 

combined evaluation area. 

•	 Few active leks occur within 3 miles of a given wildlife general analysis area 

surrounding the tracts, and many of those that are present have 

experienced declines in peak male attendance in recent years. 

•	 The lands within each wildlife general analysis area have been included in 

annual wildlife monitoring surveys for the Belle Ayr, Coal Creek, Caballo, 

and Cordero Rojo mines for at least the last 15 years (1992-2006), and 

longer at some mines. No confirmed sage-grouse nests were encountered 

during that period. 

•	 Specific pedestrian surveys for sage-grouse broods were conducted twice 

annually from 1993 through 1999 in appropriate habitat within the existing 

permit areas of the Belle Ayr, Coal Creek, Caballo, and Cordero Rojo mines. 

Coincidentally, those survey routes included drainages that passed 

through, or were within one mile of, one or more of the proposed LBA tracts. 

Such surveys were no longer required by WDEQ/LQD after 1999. However, 

biologists watched for and recorded any sage-grouse broods seen incidental 

to other wildlife surveys during all subsequent monitoring years. 

Although winter surveys for sage-grouse are not required as part of the annual 

wildlife monitoring programs for the four applicant mines, such surveys have been 

conducted as part of the required baseline inventories for previously planned mine 

expansions. Additionally, winter surveys for other species (e.g., big game, bald 

eagle roosts, and other wintering raptors) have been conducted at the four mines 

in recent years. Due to their proximity to existing mine permit areas, the general 

analysis areas for these four LBA tracts have been included in a minimum of 

seven consecutive years of big game winter surveys (from 1993 through 1999) and 

no sage-grouse were ever documented in or near the LBA tracts. 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 3-177 
 

 

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3.10.5.1.1 Sage-Grouse Leks Associated With the Belle Ayr North LBA Tract 

No greater sage-grouse leks occur within the Belle Ayr North LBA tract as applied 

for, or within lands added under Alternative 2. Only one sage-grouse lek (Lynde) 

has been documented within 2 miles of the Belle Ayr North wildlife general 

analysis area during previous wildlife surveys conducted for the adjacent Belle Ayr 

and Caballo mines (figure 3-25). The Lynde Lek was last active in 1999. Three 

additional sage-grouse leks are present approximately 2.5 miles south of the Belle 

Ayr North wildlife general analysis area: Belle Ayr I, Belle Ayr II, and Stowe. Due 

to their proximity to one another, the WGFD considers all three to be within the 

Belle Ayr Complex. All three leks have essentially been inactive since 2004. The 

Bell Ayr II and Stowe leks are classified as unoccupied/destroyed. Although the 

Belle Ayr Complex leks themselves are beyond the 2-mile wildlife survey perimeter 

for the wildlife general analysis area, the 3-mile radius of concern for each lek 

overlaps the southern portion of the Belle Ayr North LBA tract as applied for. That 

radius represents the area in which two-thirds of the hens that were bred at those 

leks would be expected to nest. 

3.10.5.1.2 Sage-Grouse Leks Associated With the West Coal Creek LBA Tract 

No leks have been discovered within the West Coal Creek LBA tract as applied for 

or on lands added under Alternative 2 (figure 3-26). One lek site (Coal Creek II) 

was found within the West Coal Creek wildlife general analysis area, but has since 

been classified as unoccupied/destroyed. Since annual monitoring began in 

1980, seven additional known or potential lek sites have been identified within the 

2-mile wildlife survey area surrounding the West Coal Creek wildlife general 

analysis area (figure 3-26). Two known leks (Kay and Belle Fourche South) are 

considered unoccupied/abandoned, with no active use for at least the last 10 

consecutive years (1997-2006). The Hoadley Road and Coal Creek I leks are 

classified as unoccupied/destroyed. The Hoadley Road Lek has not been 

physically disturbed but activity/disturbance is great enough in the immediate 

vicinity of the lek that WGFD has listed it as destroyed. The remaining three sites 

(Thrush, Coal Creek III, and Coal Creek IV) have also experienced lengthy periods 

of little or no activity over the last 10-12 years, but have not yet met the criteria 

(10 consecutive years) and are still officially designated as occupied. The Thrush 

Lek was active during only 1 of the last 10 years (1997-2006), with two males seen 

there in 2000. One male was seen displaying within the Coal Creek Complex 

(Coal Creek III and IV) during 3 of the last 10 years. Four active leks are located 

east of, and beyond, the 2-mile wildlife survey perimeter, but in the general 

vicinity of the West Coal Creek LBA tract (figure 3-26): Deaver I and II, Rough 

Creek I, and Flora (not shown in the figure). The leks themselves are located more 

than 3 miles from the West Coal Creek wildlife general analysis area. 

Consequently, their respective 3-mile radii do not overlap the tract itself (as 

applied or lands added under Alternative 2). However, the 3-mile radii of concern 

for all four leks do overlap the eastern third of the 2-mile wildlife survey area 

(figure 3-26). Of those four sites, the Rough Creek I Lek has been the most active 

3-178 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
 

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

over time, with males observed every year since monitoring began in 1980. That 

lek is part of the five-lek Rough Creek Complex, which has been visited by up to 

300 grouse (males and hens) in a given year. The Deaver Lek was discovered in 

1989, and has gone through varying degrees of activity since then, including a 

shift in location that occurred in 2006. The Flora Lek is on private lands 

northeast of the West Coal Creek wildlife general analysis area; lands that have 

not been consistently accessible for monitoring. The lek was known to be active 

as recently as 2001, but accurate records for the last 10 years are not available. 

Annual monitoring efforts conducted at the adjacent Coal Creek Mine since the 

early 1980s, which overlapped the LBA tract and its two-mile perimeter, have 

demonstrated that sage-grouse use has been concentrated approximately 4 to 5 

miles east of the tract. It is unlikely that sage-grouse are regular yearlong 

residents in the West Coal Creek LBA tract (including Alternative 2 lands) or its 

two-mile perimeter due to area being dominated by a grassland vegetation type 

and not sagebrush. A more detailed discussion regarding sage-grouse use of the 

West Coal Creek LBA tract is included in the SGAC EIS Supplementary 

Information document, which is available on request. 

3.10.5.1.3 Sage-Grouse Leks Associated With the Caballo West LBA Tract 

No sage-grouse leks have ever been documented on or within 2 miles of the 

Caballo West wildlife general analysis area. Four greater sage-grouse leks (Belle 

Ayr I, Belle Ayr II, Lynde, Stowe) were found within 3 miles of the Caballo West 

wildlife general analysis area during previous studies conducted for the adjacent 

Caballo and Belle Ayr mines. The Belle Ayr II and Stowe leks are classified as 

unoccupied/destroyed. The other two leks have essentially been inactive since at 

least 2004. The Gold Mine Draw Lek is located just outside of this 3-mile radius. 

The 3-mile radius around the Lynde Lek overlaps the west-central portion of the 

Caballo West LBA tract as applied for, as well as lands added under Alternative 2 

and the Caballo West wildlife general analysis area in that region (figure 3-27). 

The 3-mile radius the Belle Ayr I Lek falls just outside of that perimeter. The 3­

mile radius for the Gold Mine Draw Lek does not intersect the Caballo West 

wildlife general analysis area, but does overlap the 2-mile wildlife survey area for 

the Caballo West LBA tract. 

3.10.5.1.4 Sage-Grouse Leks Associated With the Maysdorf II LBA Tract 

No leks have been discovered within the Maysdorf II LBA tract as applied for or on 

lands added under Alternatives 2 and 3 (figure 3-28). Two leks (Belle Ayr I and II) 

have been documented within the wildlife general analysis. Seven other sagegrouse leks have been documented within 2 miles of the Maysdorf II wildlife 

general analysis area: the Stowe, Doud, Belle Fourche South, Cordero Mine, 

Thrush, Hoadley Road, and Coal Creek II leks. The Belle Ayr I, Cordero Mine, and 

Thrush are classified as occupied. The Doud and Belle Fourche South leks are 

classified as unoccupied/abandoned and the Stowe, Belle Ayr II, Hoadley Road 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 3-179 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

and Coal Creek II leks are classified as unoccupied/destroyed. The Hoadley Road 

Lek has not been physically disturbed but activity/disturbance is great enough in 

the immediate vicinity of the lek that WGFD has listed it as destroyed. The Belle 

Ayr I and Belle Ayr II Belle Ayr leks are two nearly contiguous areas where sage 

grouse were observed strutting within the wildlife general analysis area. The peak 

number of males observed at the two leks was 12 in 1991, while no males were 

recorded in surveys conducted in 1992, 1993, 2004, 2006 or 2007. One male was 

recorded on the Belle Ayr I/II leks in 2005. Attendance has been relatively low, 

averaging less than four males over the last 18 years. The Stowe Lek is located 

approximately 0.4 mile north of the wildlife general analysis area. The Stowe Lek 

had a peak of eight males in 2001, but no birds were recorded on this lek in 2003, 

2004, 2005, 2006, or 2007. Due to their proximity to one another, the WGFD 

considers the Belle Ayr I, Belle Ayr II and Stowe leks to be within the Belle Ayr 

Complex. The Thrush Lek is located over 1.5 miles southeast of the Maysdorf II 

wildlife general analysis area. The Thrush Lek was not active in 1995 through 

1999 and 2001 through 2007. The peak number of males observed on the Thrush 

Lek was 19 (1990 and 1991). The Cordero Mine Lek is located approximately 0.5 

mile from the southwest corner of the wildlife general analysis area. A maximum 

of seven males were recorded at the Cordero Mine Lek in 2003, but no birds were 

in attendance in 2004, 2005, 2006, or 2007. The Lynde Lek is located 

approximately 2.9 miles northwest of the wildlife general analysis area and its 3­

mile radius just intersects the northwest corner of the analysis area. The 3-mile 

radii around the Belle Ayr I, Thrush, and Cordero Mine leks also extend onto the 

Maysdorf II wildlife general analysis area (figure 3-28). 

3.10.5.2 Environmental Consequences 

3.10.5.2.1 Proposed Action and Alternatives 2 and 3 

Leasing and mining the Belle Ayr North, West Coal Creek, Caballo West, and 

Maysdorf II LBA tracts would affect potential habitat for mourning doves, sharptailed grouse, and gray partridge; however, the tracts do not provide unique 

habitat for these species. Sightings of sharp-tailed grouse and gray partridge are 

infrequent in this area. 

Overall, the sage-grouse population has been steadily declining in Wyoming and 

across the rest of the west. A study prepared by the Western Association of Fish 

and Wildlife Agencies estimated that sage-grouse populations in western North 

America declined at an overall rate of 2.0 percent per year from 1965 to 2003 

(Connelly et al. 2004). The decline rate was greater from 1965 to 1985, with 

populations stabilizing and some increasing from 1986 to 2003. For Wyoming, 

this study estimated that sage-grouse populations declined at an average rate of 

9.66 percent from 1968 to 1986 (0.51 percent per year), and at an average rate of 

0.33 percent per year from 1987 to 2003. Population lows were reached in the 

mid-1990s and there has been some gradual increase in numbers since that time 

(Connelly et al. 2004). 

3-180 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

The Belle Ayr North, West Coal Creek, Caballo West, and Maysdorf II LBA tracts 

are within the Northeast Wyoming Local Sage-Grouse Working Group (NWLSWG) 

area, which includes portions of the WGFD Sheridan and Casper regions and the 

Thunder Basin National Grassland, which is located south of the general South 

Gillette analysis area. Sage-grouse monitoring has occurred within the NWLSWG 

area since 1967. Within this area, sage-grouse population trends have exhibited a 

cyclical pattern, although the overall trend indicates declining numbers since at 

least 1967 (figure 3-30). 

0

10

20

30

40

50

196819701972197419761978198019821984198619881990199219941996199820002002200420062008 

Year 

No. Males per Lek 

Figure 3-30. Average Male Sage-Grouse Lek Attendance Within the Northeast 

Wyoming Local Working Group Area (1968-2008). 

Source: USFS (2006), Thiele (2009) 

Population trends within the NWLSWG appear to be mirroring statewide trends in 

Wyoming, although the average number of males per lek in the NWLSWG Area, 

including in the Thunder Basin National Grassland, has typically been lower than 

those observed state wide (figure 3-31). Since 1996, sage-grouse populations 

within the state and in northeast Wyoming have fluctuated but exhibited an 

overall increase, with a recent peak in male lek attendance occurring in 2006. 

The causes of the range-wide decline in sage-grouse population levels are not 

completely understood, but they may be influenced by local conditions. However, 

habitat loss due to disturbance of leks, nesting and brood-rearing areas as a 

result of increasing development, drought, and the potential for West Nile virus, as 

well as loss of population connectivity are key threats to this species (Naugle et al. 

2004). 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 3-181 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Year 

0 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

30 

35 

40 

45 

19951996199719981999200020012002200320042005200620072008 

No. Males per Lek 

Statewide NW LSW G TBNG 

Figure 3-31. Average Male Sage-Grouse Lek Attendance Statewide and Within 

the Northeast Wyoming Local Sage-Grouse Working Group Area 

and the Thunder Basin National Grasslands (1995-2008). 

Source: USFS (2006), Thiele (2009), Painter (2009) 

Some potential impacts of mineral development (including coal mining and oil and 

gas development) on sage-grouse include: 1) direct habitat loss and fragmentation 

from mine, well, road, pipeline, transmission and power line construction, 2) 

alteration of plant and animal communities, 3) increased human activity which 

could cause animals to avoid the area, 4) increased noise, which could cause 

animals to avoid an area or reduce their breeding efficiency, 5) increased 

motorized access by the public leading to legal and illegal harvest, 6) direct 

mortality associated with water evaporation ponds and production pits, and 7) 

reduced water tables resulting in the loss of herbaceous vegetation. Some impacts 

may be long-term (30 years or more), and rehabilitation of impacted habitats may 

take many years to complete (WGFD 2003). In the case of sage-grouse lek 

attendance near the Belle Ayr, Coal Creek, Caballo, and Cordero Rojo mines, the 

decline in attendance preceded physical mining disturbance and thus may not be 

attributable to mine-related activities (Orpet 2007, TJS 2007). 

Areas of suitable habitat for nesting and strutting grounds are needed to sustain 

sage-grouse populations. One recent study suggests that availability of winter 

habitat may also affect sage-grouse populations (Naugle et al. 2006). The SageGrouse Implementation Team has delineated sage-grouse focus areas within 

Wyoming and a portion of the West Coal Creek LBA tract is adjacent to one of 

3-182 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

these focus areas (figure 3-29). According to the Implementation Team, 

development could occur within the sage-grouse core areas “when it can be 

demonstrated that the activity will have no negative effects on Sage-grouse, using 

a case-by-case localized approach and appropriate ground-truthing” (Sage-Grouse 

Implementation Team 2008). 

During mining, there is a short term loss of potential nesting habitat and potential 

disturbance to breeding activities, especially when mining operations occur in 

proximity to sage-grouse leks. Following reclamation, there may be a long term 

loss of nesting and winter habitat, including sage-grouse focus areas, depending 

on the amount of sagebrush that is restored relative to the amount of sagebrush 

that is present before mining. Should these four BLM study areas (the four LBA 

tracts as applied for and the additional areas evaluated by BLM under Alternative 

2) be leased, mined and reclaimed, alterations in the topography and vegetative 

communities would likely result in such changes in species composition from premine conditions. Some vegetative communities currently present in the BLM 

study areas, such as low-growth species (e.g., blue grama, and birdsfoot 

sagebrush) and big sagebrush, are often difficult to reestablish through artificial 

plantings. Until sagebrush returns to its premining density levels, there would be 

a reduction in potential habitat for wildlife species associated with the habitat in 

the general South Gillette analysis area. However, given the limited presence of 

sage stands in the area, it is not likely that many sagebrush obligates would be 

affected. 

If mining activities disturb a lek, sage-grouse would have to use an alternate lek or 

establish a new lek site for breeding activities. There are no documented sagegrouse leks within any of the four LBA tracts, either as applied for or with added 

lands under each respective Alternative 2. Only one unoccupied/destroyed 

(inactive 10 or more consecutive years) lek has ever been documented within the 

specific wildlife general analysis areas: the Coal Creek III Lek in the West Coal 

Creek LBA tract. Fidelity to lek sites has been well documented in the region as a 

whole (WGFD 2003), but monitoring of sage-grouse activities has indicated that 

the birds may change lek sites within a given complex. 

As discussed in section 3.10.5.1, 15 known or potential sage-grouse leks have 

been identified in the combined evaluation area (2-mile buffer areas) for the four 

LBA tracts analyzed in this EIS (figures 3-25 through 3-28). Seven of the 14 leks 

are classified by the WGFD as occupied, four are classified as unoccupied 

abandoned, and four are classified as unoccupied/destroyed. Five other known or 

potential leks with recent activity are all more than 2 miles from the specific 

wildlife general analysis area of each LBA tract. However, the 3-mile radii of 

concern for those five leks overlap one or more LBA tracts or tract wildlife general 

analysis areas. The 3-mile radius is the area in which two-thirds of the hens that 

were bred at those leks would be expected to nest. If the LBA tracts and/or added 

lands are leased and mined, potential nesting habitat for grouse that were bred at 

those leks would be affected by mining activity in those areas. However, as also 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 3-183 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

previously discussed, no sage-grouse nests or broods have been recorded on any 

of the four LBA tracts as applied for or on lands added under each respective 

Alternative 2, during specific surveys or incidental to other wildlife surveys 

conducted in those areas annually since at least 1994. The noise associated with 

mining operations may also disrupt sage-grouse breeding and nesting activities 

that might occur in those areas. 

There is some evidence that sage-grouse populations do repopulate areas after 

reclamation for the species, but there is no evidence that populations attain their 

previous levels and reestablishment in reclaimed areas may take 20 to 30 years, 

or longer (Braun 1998). Estimates for the time it would take to restore shrubs, 

including sagebrush, to premine density levels range from 20 to 100 years, which 

may delay sage-grouse repopulation in the reclaimed areas. 

3.10.5.3 No Action Alternative 

Impacts to upland game birds under the No Action alternative would be similar to 

the impacts described in section 3.10.1.2.2. 

3.10.6 Other Birds 

3.10.6.1 Affected Environment 

USFWS uses a list entitled Migratory Bird Species of Management Concern in 

Wyoming, specifically the Coal Mine List of 40 Migratory Bird Species of 

Management Concern in Wyoming, for reviews related to existing and proposed coal 

mine leased land (USFWS 2002). This list was taken directly from the Wyoming 

Bird Conservation Plan (Cerovski et al. 2001), and was current through 2006. The 

Migratory Bird Species of Management Concern in Wyoming list replaced the 

Migratory Birds of High Federal Interest list. All four mines have conducted specific 

surveys for migratory birds of concern annually since at least 1993, incorporating 

new lists and survey protocols as they were issued. The surveys, which are 

conducted in the spring and summer, include the existing permit area and a 1⁄2­

mile perimeter (1-mile perimeter for bald eagles). 

Due to the proximity of the proposed LBA tracts (including added lands and 

respective wildlife general analysis areas) to existing mine permit areas, a 

significant portion of all four LBA tracts has been included in annual surveys for 

avian species of concern since 1993. Results from surveys for migratory birds at 

the four applicant mines are available in baseline and annual wildlife reports, on 

file with WDEQ/LQD. Those reports include a tabulation of the regional status, 

expected occurrence, historical observations, and breeding records for each 

species on the current list of avian species of concern for a given report year, as 

well as two or more preceding years. Additional information for each species 

observed within the given year is provided in the text of those reports. 

3-184 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

The Wildlife Section of the supplemental information document to this EIS, which 

is available on request, includes a tabulation of the regional status and expected 

occurrence, historical observations, and breeding records for each of the species 

on the Coal Mine list of 40 Migratory Bird Species of Management Concern in 

Wyoming, based on a compilation of the results of the annual surveys conducted 

on and near the respective LBA tracts (as applied for and added lands). Twentythree of the 40 listed species have historically been observed within the combined 

evaluation area for the four proposed LBA tracts. Species that historically have 

been recorded, or are suspected of, nesting in the area include the burrowing owl, 

Brewer’s sparrow (Spizella breweri), Swainson’s hawk, short-eared owl, 

ferruginous hawk, lark bunting (Calamospiza melanocorys), grasshopper sparrow 

(Ammodramus savannarum), upland sandpiper (Bartramia longicauda), loggerhead 

shrike (Lanius ludovicianus), lark sparrow (Chondestes grammacus), sage thrasher 

(Oreoscoptes montanus), chestnut-collared longspur (Calcarius ornatus), McCown’s 

longspur (Calcarius mccownii), greater sage-grouse, and the vesper sparrow 

(Pooecetes gramineus). Other species documented less often in the area include 

the peregrine falcon (Falcon peregrinus), bald eagle, bobolink (Dolichonyx 

oryzivorus), common loon (Gavia immer), long-billed curlew (Numenius americanus), 

red-headed woodpecker (Melanerpes erthrocephalus), sage sparrow (Amphispiza 

belli), and merlin (Falco coumbarius). The bald eagle is only observed in the winter 

or as a migrant. The other non-nesting species have been observed infrequently 

as migrants. 

The mountain plover is included on the list of Coal Mine list of 40 Migratory Bird 

Species of Management Concern in Wyoming. The USFWS proposed listing the 

mountain plover as a threatened species in February 1999 but in September 2003 

the agency withdrew the proposed rule to list the mountain plover as threatened 

(USFWS 2008). The USFWS continues to encourage provisions that would provide 

protection for this species, as it continues to be protected under the Migratory 

Bird Treaty Act and as a sensitive species under BLM policy (Bureau Manual 

6840.06 E. Sensitive Species). 

Wildlife surveys conducted at the Belle Ayr, Coal Creek, and Cordero Rojo mines 

have failed to detect the presence of this species in their respective survey areas. 

The survey areas, which include the mines’ permit areas and a half-mile 

perimeter, are inventoried for suitable mountain plover habitat annually. Only a 

single observation of mountain plovers has been reported in the vicinity of the 

Caballo West LBA tract. In August 1992, a migrant flock of 12 individuals was 

seen in saline grassland habitat within the LBA tract as applied for. No plovers 

have been documented in that area or elsewhere in the general South Gillette 

analysis area during the subsequent 14 years (through 2006) of annual 

monitoring. 

The bald eagle is seasonally common and most frequently observed during the 

winter months. Bald eagles are relatively common winter residents and migrants 

in northeastern Wyoming’s PRB. No bald eagle roosting habitat is present on the 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 3-185 
 

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Belle Ayr North, Caballo West, or Maysdorf II LBA tracts or areas added by the 

other alternatives. No bald eagle winter roosts have ever been documented in or 

within one mile of either the Belle Ayr North or Caballo West wildlife general 

analysis areas. Potential winter roosting habitat for this species is present, but 

limited, in the vicinity of the West Coal Creek and Maysdorf II LBA tracts and 

adjacent lands. The West Coal Creek habitat consists of a relatively sparse 

cottonwood corridor along East Fork Coal Creek in the east-central portion of the 

LBA tract as applied for, and other isolated trees in that general area. Potential 

winter roosting habitat is located approximately 3⁄4-mile east of the Maysdorf II 

tract. No known nest sites, or consistent yearly concentrated prey or carrion 

sources for bald eagles are present in the vicinity of the Belle Ayr, Coal Creek, or 

Caballo mines, including the LBA tracts and their adjacent lands. However, a 

sheep ranching operation is located just west of the Maysdorf II LBA tract as 

applied for, on the north side of Haight Road. Eagles may feed or scavenge upon 

adult sheep carcasses in this area in the winter, although that source of food 

would not be consistent or abundant, and wintering migrant eagles have typically 

left the area prior to spring lambing season. 

In the winters of 2004-2005, 2005-2006, and 2006-2007, the bald eagle has been 

far more common and abundant in the area than in previous years. This may 

have been a result of mild winters and the abundance of lagomorphs (rabbits) to 

prey upon. Bald eagles also scavenged road-killed rabbits off of adjacent roads. 

Lagomorph numbers appeared to be at or near a peak in their cycle during those 

years. During those three winters, bald eagles frequently used a large windbreak 

within the existing Cordero Rojo Mine permit area approximately 3⁄4- mile east of 

the Maysdorf II tract. Bald eagles had never been observed concentrating in this 

windbreak during the previous 25+ years of wildlife surveys. A maximum of 29 

bald eagles were observed at this roost site on February 16 of 2005 with 

maximums of 20 and 15 recorded in 2005-2006 and 2006-2007, respectively. 

Very few birds had been observed at the roost site through late 2007. This roost 

site is within 1⁄4-mile of active mining operations and bald eagles were commonly 

observed around mining activities. The only winter roost site documented in the 

vicinity of the West Coal Creek LBA tract since 1980 was recorded during 

February 2007, when two to three adult bald eagles were observed perched in the 

same mature cottonwood on three different occasions. That tree is located within 

the LBA tract as applied for and immediately south of the current Coal Creek Mine 

permit area. 

The burrowing owl is uncommon and is observed as an occasional breeder in the 

combined evaluation area. Sage-grouse, recently added to the Level I list of avian 

species of concern at coal mines, are becoming less common in the general South 

Gillette analysis area but are still classified as a common breeder on and within 4 

miles of the Belle Ayr North, West Coal Creek, Caballo West, or Maysdorf II LBA 

tracts (see section 3.10.5 above). The USFWS considers Level I species as in need 

of conservation action, which includes having a monitoring and mitigation plan for 

those birds. 

3-186 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Suitable nesting habitat is scarce if not absent in the general South Gillette 

analysis area for the remainder of the 40 Migratory Bird Species of Management 

Concern in Wyoming; therefore, the other species have rarely or never been 

recorded. 

Under natural conditions, the Belle Ayr North, West Coal Creek, Caballo West, or 

Maysdorf II LBA tracts and adjacent lands provide limited waterfowl and shorebird 

habitat. The natural aquatic habitat, prior to CBNG development within the Belle 

Fourche River drainage basin, was mainly available during spring migration as 

ponds (primarily stock reservoirs and playa areas) and intermittent and ephemeral 

streams. Many of these water features generally got quite low or dried up during 

the summer. However, the relatively recent development of CBNG resources 

upstream and within the wildlife general analysis area has supplied the river, its 

tributaries, ponds, and playas with water nearly continuously, resulting in an 

increase in habitat for waterfowl and shorebird species. Broods of Canada geese 

(Branta Canadensis) American wigeon (Anas Americana), blue-winged teal (Anas 

discors), mallard (Anas platyrhynchos), northern pintail (Anas acuta), northern 

shoveler (Anas clypeata), gadwall (Anas strepera), and green-winged teal (Anas 

crecca) were observed during 2005 and/or 2006 throughout the area. 

3.10.6.2 Environmental Consequences 

3.10.6.2.1 Proposed Action and Alternatives 2 and 3 

Of the 23 Migratory Bird Species of Management Concern for Wyoming coal mines 

that have historically been observed in the wildlife general analysis area, the Level 

I species (those identified as needing conservation action) that have historically 

been recorded nesting in the area include the ferruginous hawk, burrowing owl, 

greater sage-grouse, Brewer’s sparrow, Swainson’s hawk, and McCown’s longspur. 

Level I species that do not have abundant nesting habitat available in the wildlife 

general analysis areas, but have been documented or presumed to nest, include 

the short-eared owl and upland sand piper. Other Level I species observed in the 

area include the peregrine falcon, long-billed curlew, sage sparrow, and bald eagle, 

with varying degrees of frequency. 

The existing habitat for these species on the Belle Ayr North, West Coal Creek, 

Caballo West, or Maysdorf II LBA tracts and their respective wildlife general 

analysis areas (tracts as applied for, added lands, and a one-quarter-mile 

perimeter around that combined area) would be destroyed during mining. The 

habitat loss would be short-term for grassland species, but would last longer for 

shrub-dependent species. There are currently no trees on three of the four LBA 

tracts (as applied for and with added lands). The West Coal Creek LBA tract and 

its wildlife general analysis area do support scattered trees along the primary 

drainages in that location. Current reclamation practices at the applicant mines 

are designed to provide a mosaic of upland grass and sagebrush habitats that 

would potentially host most of these species. Periodic breeding bird surveys at 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 3-187 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

other surface mines with similar habitats in the region since the mid-1980s have 

demonstrated that species richness and abundance in reclaimed habitats are 

equal to or greater than in their native counterparts, though species composition 

may not be the same due to differences between pre- and post-mining vegetation. 

Additionally, surface coal mines in the PRB of northeastern Wyoming are required 

to replace each tree lost to mining, though it will take many years for newly 

planted trees to reach maturity. Research projects on habitat reclamation on 

mined lands within the PRB for small mammals and birds concluded that the 

diversity of song birds on reclaimed areas was less than on adjacent undisturbed 

areas, although their overall numbers were greater (Clayton et al. 2006 and 

Shelley 1992). 

No impacts to mountain plovers are anticipated because they have only been 

observed one time in the last 14 years at or near any of the four LBA tracts, 

despite annual monitoring in those areas every year since the lone observation 

was recorded (1992). Additionally, the typical suitable habitat for this species is 

not currently present on the tracts. 

Potential impacts to the bald eagle, sage-grouse and other raptors in general, as 

well as measures in place to prevent impacts to these species from existing mining 

operations are included in the preceding discussions, in appendix E, or the 

Supplementary Information document (available on request). 

Mining the LBA tracts would have a negligible effect on migrating and breeding 

waterfowl and shorebirds. Sedimentation ponds created during mining would 

provide interim habitat for these fauna. Cordero Rojo Mine’s current reclamation 

plan requires that the portion of the Belle Fourche River channel affected by 

currently permitted mining be reclaimed to restore its premining functions and 

aquatic habitats. Similar requirements would be put into place whenever primary 

channels are diverted for mine operations at other properties. The Belle Fourche 

River diversion channel and other future diversions would not provide the same 

habitat as the natural channels, although natural stream flow and the presence of 

CBNG discharge water would not be affected. If the Maysdorf II LBA tract is 

leased and mined, current reclamation efforts would be extended onto the portion 

of the river affected by mining the tract. Replacement of all impacted jurisdictional 

wetlands would be required in accordance with Section 404 of the Clean Water Act 

(section 3.7) for all four tracts, as applicable. If the replaced wetlands on the LBA 

tracts do not duplicate the exact function and/or landscape features of the premine wetlands, waterfowl and shorebirds could be beneficially or adversely 

affected as a result. 

3.10.6.2.2 No Action Alternative 

Impacts to migratory bird species, waterfowl, and shorebirds under the No Action 

alternatives would be similar to the impacts described in section 3.10.1.2.2 and 

3-188 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

above for the existing Belle Ayr, Coal Creek, Caballo, and Cordero Rojo Mine 

areas. 

3.10.7 Amphibians, Reptiles, and Aquatic Species 

3.10.7.1 Affected Environment 

Wildlife surveys completed specifically for the applicants and adjacent mines, as 

well as biological research projects in the eastern PRB, have documented 

numerous other wildlife species that inhabit the region, including various 

amphibians, reptiles, and aquatic species. All these species are generally common 

inhabitants of the general South Gillette analysis area. 

Numerous reptile and amphibian species have been recorded during the various 

surveys on the Belle Ayr, Coal Creek, Caballo, and Cordero Rojo Mine areas and 

adjacent lands, including the specific wildlife general analysis areas. These 

species include the tiger salamander (Ambystoma tigrinum), plains spadefoot 

(Scaohiopus bombifrons), great plains toad (Bufo cognatus), Woodhouse’s toad 

(Bufo woodhousei), boreal chorus frog (Pseudacris triseriata maculata), northern 

leopard frog (Rana pipiens), common snapping turtle (Chelydra serpentina), 

western painted turtle (Chrysemys picta belli), eastern short-horned lizard 

(Phrynosoma douglassi brevirostre), northern sagebrush lizard (Sceloporus 

graciosus graciosus), prairie rattlesnake (Crotalus viridis viridis), plains hognose 

snake (Heterondon nasicus nasicus), bullsnake (Pituophis melanoleucas sayi), 

western plains garter snake (Thamnophis radix haydeni), red-sided garter snake 

(Thamnophis sirtalis parietalis), and eastern yellowbelly racer (Coluber constrictor 

flaviventris). The abundance of these reptiles and amphibians is difficult to 

determine but these species appear to be common to the area. 

Under natural conditions, aquatic habitat is limited by the temporary nature of 

most surface waters in the combined evaluation area. The lack of deep-water 

habitat and extensive and persistent water sources within that region limits the 

presence and diversity of fish and other aquatic species. 

3.10.7.1.1 Belle North LBA Tract 

The scarcity of mesic habitats throughout the majority of the Belle Ayr North 

wildlife general analysis area reduces the potential of the area to attract aquatic 

species. The adjacent Belle Ayr Mine has conducted a voluntary program of 

aquatic monitoring on Caballo Creek (south of the LBA tract) twice annually from 

fall 1986 through fall 1999, and in alternate years from 2001-2006. Those 

surveys were expanded in 2006 to include a new diversion on the creek. Caballo 

Creek has demonstrated characteristics of both an ephemeral and intermittent 

stream. Some stream segments flow only in response to snowmelt runoff in the 

spring and thunderstorm runoff in the summer months, although there are some 

stream segments that flow throughout the year in response to alluvial 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 3-189 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

groundwater discharge. Recent influxes of CBNG discharge water into the creek 

have provided extended periods of surface water in some, but not all, of the last 

few years. During 2006, several fish were documented in stretches of Caballo 

Creek, including the sand shiner (Notropis stramineus), fathead minnow 

(Pimephales promelas), green sunfish (Lepomis cyanellus), and bluegill (Lepomis 

macrochirus). Despite the presence of these species, Caballo Creek is not 

considered a viable fishery. 

3.10.7.1.2 West Coal Creek LBA Tract 

Coal Creek and its various tributaries associated with the West Coal Creek wildlife 

general analysis area have not historically exhibited flow persistent enough to 

warrant aquatic sampling. Nevertheless, limited fisheries sampling was conducted 

during the baseline studies for the Coal Creek Mine in three stock ponds within 

the existing permit area in 1975. The nearest survey site during those efforts was 

a pond located approximately one mile east of the LBA tract as applied for. The 

common fathead minnow (Pimephales promelas) was the only species captured at 

the pond. No specific sampling was required or conducted for herptiles or aquatic 

species during the West Coal Creek LBA tract baseline studies. Nevertheless, 

biologists watched for and recorded all incidental sightings of those animals 

during each site visit. 

3.10.7.1.3 Caballo West LBA Tract 

Monitoring of aquatic species is not regularly conducted at the Caballo Mine, and 

fish surveys were not required or conducted specifically for the Caballo West LBA 

tract. The nearest regular monitoring of aquatic species occurs as part of regular 

surveys in Caballo Creek, south of the Caballo West LBA tract, for the neighboring 

Belle Ayr Mine. All baseline and annual report documents for the Caballo and 

Belle Ayr mines are on file with WDEQ/LQD in Sheridan, Wyoming. 

3.10.7.1.4 Maysdorf LBA II Tract 

Fish surveys were conducted in the Belle Fourche River during baseline studies 

for the Cordero Rojo Mine in 1975 and on the Maysdorf LBA II Tract in 2005. 

These surveys were completed in the southern and southeastern portion of the 

existing Cordero Rojo Mine area in 1975 and throughout the Maysdorf LBA II 

Tract in 2005. Fish species observed during those surveys include the common 

carp (Cyprinus carpio), creek chub (Semotilus atromaculatus), flathead chub 

(Platygobio gracilis), sand shiner, brassy minnow (Hybognathus hankinsoni), 

fathead minnow, white sucker (Catostomus commersoni), black bullhead (Ameiurus 

melas), green sunfish, and yellow perch (Perca flavescens). The most abundant 

fish were the white sucker and various minnow species. 

In 1997, the Belle Fourche River was sampled at a location several miles upstream 

from the Maysdorf II LBA tract. The black bullhead, creek chub, carp, fathead 

3-190 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

minnow, green sunfish, sand shiner, and white sucker were found during those 

surveys (Patton 1997). WGFD has categorized the black bullhead as a Status 3 

species. Status 3 species are widely distributed throughout their native range 

with stable populations; however, habitat is declining or vulnerable. 

Excluding the black bullhead, none of the other aquatic species found during the 

1975, 1997, or 2005 surveys are of specific concern to state or federal agencies 

and the Belle Fourche River channel through the Maysdorf II LBA tract is not 

considered a viable fishery. The site rating for this stream reach was poor to very 

poor, based on the 2005 macroinvertebrate samplings and the WDEQ Indices. 

As discussed above, water discharged from CBNG wells has recently supplied the 

Belle Fourche River and some tributaries, ponds, and playas with water nearly 

continuously, resulting in an increase in habitat for aquatic species. However, in 

July of 2005 only 40 percent of the river’s channel length through the Maysdorf II 

LBA tract contained water, while the remaining 60 percent of the channel length 

was dry. These observations document that this reach of the Belle Fourche River 

has not become perennial, even with the addition of CBNG discharge water. 

3.10.7.2 Environmental Consequences 

3.10.7.2.1 Proposed Action and Alternatives 2 and 3 

Mining the tracts would remove habitat for aquatic species, amphibians and 

reptiles in a portion of the Belle Fourche River and sections of the ephemeral 

tributaries to the Belle Fourche. Although the channel and surface water flow 

would be restored during reclamation, the river would be diverted and habitat for 

these species would be lost during mining operations. Under natural conditions, 

habitat for aquatic species is limited on each of the four LBA tracts (as applied for 

and with added lands), however, as discussed above, a variety of aquatic species 

and reptiles and amphibians have been observed on and in the vicinity of the 

tracts. 

Under jurisdiction of Cordero Rojo Mine’s current WDEQ/LQD mine permit, two 

sections of the Belle Fourche River have been diverted in order to recover coal 

from the existing coal leases (section 3.5.2.1). A portion of one of these existing 

diversion channels that was approved by WDEQ in 1996 (WDEQ/LQD 1996) is 

just north of the Maysdorf LBA II Tract as applied for. 

Reclamation of the various drainage channels and restoration of surface water 

flow quantity and quality after mining to approximate pre-mining conditions 

would restore fish habitat and aquatic resources of the Belle Fourche River and 

other smaller drainages within the Belle Ayr North, West Coal Creek, Caballo 

West, and Maysdorf II LBA tracts. 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 3-191 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3.10.7.2.2 No Action Alternative 

Impacts to reptiles, amphibian, and aquatic species under the No Action 

alternative would be similar to the impacts described in section 3.10.1.2.2 above. 

3.10.8 	 Threatened, Endangered, Proposed, and Candidate Animal Species, and 

BLM Sensitive Species 

Refer to appendix E the each of the four SGAC Biological Assessments and to 

appendix F for the SGAC Sensitive Species Evaluation. 

3.10.9 Regulatory Compliance, Mitigation and Monitoring 

Regulatory guidelines and requirements designed to prevent or reduce surface coal 

mining impacts to wildlife include: 

•	 fencing designed to permit passage of pronghorn and other big game species 

to the extent possible; 

•	 development of a Monitoring and Mitigation Plan for raptors and other 

migratory bird species of management concern that must be approved by 

the USFWS, including the following provisions: 

	 creation of raptor nests and nesting habitat through enhancement 

efforts (nest platforms, tree plantings) to mitigate other nest sites 

impacted by mining operations; 

	 relocation of raptor nests that would be impacted by mining in 

accordance with the approved raptor monitoring and mitigation plan; 

	 obtaining a permit for removal and mitigation of golden eagle nests and 

those of other raptor species; 

	 restriction of mine-related disturbances from encroaching within 

stipulated buffers of active raptor nests from egg-laying until fledging to 

prevent nest abandonment and injury to eggs or young; 

	 reestablishment of the ground cover necessary for the return of a 

suitable raptor prey base after mining; 

	 required use of raptor-safe construction for overhead power lines; 

•	 development of a Migratory Bird Species of Management Concern for Coal 

Mines in Wyoming Monitoring and Mitigation Plan, which must be approved 

by USFWS; 

3-192 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

•	 restoration of sage-grouse habitat after mining including reestablishment of 

sagebrush and other shrubs on reclaimed lands and grading of reclaimed 

lands to create swales and depressions suitable for sagebrush obligates and 

their young; 

•	 restoration of diverse landforms, direct topsoil replacement, and the 

construction of brush piles, snags, and rock piles to enhance habitat for 

wildlife; 

•	 restoration of short-grass habitat for species that nest and forage in those 

habitat types; 

•	 restoration of habitat provided by jurisdictional wetlands; and 

•	 reclamation of the stream channels and restoration of surface water flow 

quantity and quality after mining to approximate pre-mining conditions. 

Belle Ayr, Coal Creek, Caballo, and Cordero Rojo mines’ current mine permits 

require reconstruction of bed form features in major stream channels, such as 

pools and runs, that should help restore the channels’ natural function, as well as 

provide habitat. Restoration will be or may be achieved by salvaging sufficient 

material from channel terrace alluvium or material having the same physical 

characteristics to reconstruct pool features. Current reclamation, as well as 

future reclamation of the Belle Fourche River by the Cordero Rojo Mine would 

incorporate alluvium salvaged from the original channel. These measures are 

included in the existing mining and reclamation permit and would be included in 

the amended mining and reclamation plans, if the LBA tract were leased and 

proposed for mining. 

Baseline wildlife surveys were conducted for the Belle Ayr, Coal Creek, Caballo, 

and Cordero Rojo mines before mining operations began at the mines. Annual 

wildlife monitoring surveys have been conducted since the mid-1980s. These 

surveys are required by state and federal regulations. All four mines also 

voluntarily conduct annual and/or periodic surveys for additional species that are 

not included in the monitoring required by state or federal regulations. The 

wildlife monitoring surveys cover the areas included in the mine permit areas and 

a perimeter beyond the permit areas that varies in size according to the species 

being surveyed. As a result, a majority of the Belle Ayr North, West Coal Creek, 

Caballo West, and Maysdorf II LBA tracts (as applied for, plus added alternative 

lands and a surrounding one-quarter-mile perimeter) have been surveyed as part 

of the required monitoring surveys for the Belle Ayr, Coal Creek, Caballo, and 

Cordero Rojo mines, respectively. 

The annual monitoring programs include: 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 3-193 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

•	 spring surveys for new and/or occupied raptor nests, upland game bird lek 

locations, T&E species, and migratory birds; 

•	 late spring surveys of raptor production for occupied nests, opportunistic 

observations of all wildlife species, T&E species, and migratory birds; 

•	 raptor territorial occupancy and nest productivity is surveyed annually on 

and within a 1- or 2-mile perimeter surrounding the existing permit areas, 

depending on the mine; 

•	 summer surveys for raptors, migratory birds, and lagomorph density; 

•	 winter surveys for bald eagle winter roosts on and within 1 mile of the 

permit area (conducted as needed based on proximity of disturbance to 

potential roosting habitat); 

•	 voluntary winter surveys for big game on and surrounding the permit area 

(currently conducted during alternate years) (Belle Ayr, Coal Creek, and 

Caballo mines only); 

•	 voluntary aquatic surveys for fish and macro-invertebrates within the 

existing permit area (previous annual schedule, currently conducted during 

alternate years) (Belle Ayr Mine only); 

•	 voluntary annual surveys for migrating and nesting waterfowl, shorebirds, 

and other water obligate avian species (historically Belle Ayr and Coal Creek 

mines, currently only Belle Ayr Mine); and 

•	 breeding bird surveys (previously voluntary and periodic at Belle Ayr Mine, 

now required annually at all mines). 

Monitoring data were collected by all of the surface coal mines in the PRB for big 

game species from at least 1995 until 1999, with most mines conducting annual 

surveys since the mid- to late 1980s. At that time, the WGFD reviewed monitoring 

data and requirements for big game species on those mine sites. They concluded 

that the monitoring had demonstrated a lack of impacts to big game on existing 

mine sites. No severe mine-caused mortalities had occurred and no long-lasting 

impacts on big game had been noted on existing mine sites. The WGFD therefore 

recommended at that time that big game monitoring be discontinued on all 

existing mine sites. New mines will be required to conduct big game monitoring if 

located in crucial winter range or in significant migration corridors, neither of 

which are present within the wildlife general analysis area. Although big game 

surveys are no longer required as part of the annual wildlife monitoring program 

at the Belle Ayr, Coal Creek, Caballo, and Cordero Rojo mines, FCW, TBCC, and 

PRCC have voluntarily continued these surveys on a reduced but regular 

schedule. 

3-194 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

There are approved raptor monitoring and mitigation plans for the Belle Ayr, Coal 

Creek, Caballo, and Cordero Rojo mines. These monitoring and mitigation plans 

would be amended to include the Belle Ayr North, West Coal Creek, Caballo West, 

and Maysdorf II LBA tracts (as applied for and added lands) if they are leased and 

proposed for mining. The amended raptor mitigation plans would be subject to 

review and approval by USFWS before the amended mining plans are approved. 

Monitoring and mitigation plans for Migratory Bird Species of Management 

Concern have also been developed in cooperation with USFWS for the existing 

Belle Ayr, Coal Creek, Caballo, and Cordero Rojo mining operations, and those 

plans would be amended to include the LBA tracts and any added lands. If 

additional species are documented nesting or using the area regularly, a 

mitigation plan would be developed to protect those birds and their habitat. 

3.10.10 Residual Impacts 

Although the Belle Ayr North, West Coal Creek, Caballo West, and Maysdorf II LBA 

tracts would be reclaimed in accordance with the requirements of SMCRA and 

Wyoming statutes, there would be some residual wildlife impacts. The 

topographic moderation would result in a permanent loss of habitat diversity and 

a potential decrease in slope-dependent shrub communities. This would reduce 

the carrying capacity of the land for shrub-dependent species. Reclamation 

standards for bond release may also limit replacement of habitat for some species 

that occupy somewhat specialized, low-growth form habitats. Those species may 

repopulate reclaimed areas, but populations may not attain pre-mining levels 

without special variances to accommodate those specific needs. For example, 

every effort would be made to preserve source populations of prairie dogs in the 

vicinity of development, as these animals can be valuable in restoring similar 

structural characteristics of pre-mine grassland species through regular clipping 

and harvesting of vegetation. 

Limited riparian habitat is present in the general South Gillette analysis area. 

Areas that currently support sagebrush would be altered to a grassland 

community, perhaps for decades, during the interim between sage plantings and 

maturity in reclamation. Until pre-mining habitats have been fully reestablished, 

such habitat transformations would likely result in a change in wildlife species 

composition. Minimal residual impacts to T&E, candidate, or proposed plant and 

animal species are expected to occur, because state and federal regulations 

require reclamation of specific habitats. 

3.11 Land Use and Recreation 

3.11.1 Affected Environment 

Surface ownership within the general South Gillette analysis area consists 

primarily of private lands with some intermingled federal lands. The federally 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 3-195 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

owned lands included in the tract are administered by the BLM. Surface 

ownership for each LBA tract study area is shown in table 3-13 and in figures 3­

32 through 3-35. 

Table 3-13. Distribution of Surface Ownership Within Each LBA Tract Study 

Area. 

Federal Ownership Private Ownership 

LBA Tract Configuration (Acres) (Percent)1 (Acres) (Percent)1 

Belle Ayr North 0.00 0.0 1,752.03 100.0 

West Coal Creek 0.00 0.0 1,232.17 100.0 

Caballo West 0.00 0.0 1,024.00 100.0 

Maysdorf II 284.96 5.8 4,610.67 94.2 

Total 284.96 3.2 8,618.87 96.8 

1 Based on total acres (Proposed Action plus action alternatives). 

Livestock grazing on native rangeland is the primary land use, while oil and gas 

production, wildlife habitat, communication and power lines, transportation, and 

recreation are secondary land uses for both public and private lands. 

Areas of disturbance within and near the proposed lease are generally associated 

with roads, oil and gas wells and production facilities, surface mine-related 

facilities, and ranching operations. State Highway 59 is adjacent to one LBA tract 

and up to several miles west of the other LBA tracts. Several county and 

unnamed two-track roads traverse and provide public and private access within 

and near the proposed lease areas. The county roads include the Haight Road, T7 Road, Hoadley Road, Bishop Road, and the Hilight Road. The BNSF & UP 

railroad right-of-way also crosses a small portion of the Maysdorf II Tact. 

The oil and gas estate within the general South Gillette analysis area is federally 

and privately owned, with the majority (approximately 90 percent) being privately 

owned. Most of the federally owned oil and gas estate is leased. The ownership of 

the oil and gas estate for the LBA tracts is shown on figures 3-36 through 3-39. 

Lists of the current federal oil and gas lessees within the Belle Ayr North, West 

Coal Creek, Caballo West, and Maysdorf II LBA tracts are listed in tables 3-14 

through 3-17, respectively. 

According to the WOGCC records as of December 13, 2007, there were 60 

permitted conventional oil and gas wells within the LBA tracts as proposed and 

the lands added under action alternatives (figures 3-36 through 3-39). Of these 

60 wells, 34 were permanently abandoned, 16 wells were still producing, seven 

well were active injectors, one well was shut in, one was a permanently abandoned 

injector hole, and one was temporarily abandoned. Of the 18 wells capable of 

producing, 13 have economically recoverable reserves. Eight of the 13 wells with 

recoverable reserves are on private leases. While the seven injector wells are not 

3-196 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
Bishop 

Road 

State

 59 Highway 

Creek 

Tisdale 

Creek 

Caballo 

Pile 

Creek 

Bone 

Creek 

Caballo 

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3 

T. 

49 

N. 

T. 

48 

N. 

35 

2 1 

36 31

R. 72 W. R. 71 W. 

6 

32 

5 

33 

4 

34 

3 

35 

2 

T. 

49 

N. 

T. 

48 

N. 

10 8 9 10 11 11 12 7 

15 16 15 14 18 17 14 13 

21 22 23 22 23 24 19 20 

27 

30 29 27 26 25 28 BishopRoad 

31 32 33 34 35 34 35 36 T. T.

48 

N. 

48 

N. 

T. 

47 

T. 

47 

N. 3 2 1 6 5 4 3 2 N. 

R. 72 W. R. 71 W. 

0 3000 6000 12000 

Belle Ayr North LBA Tract as Applied for 

Foundation Coal West, Inc. 

Belle Ayr Mine Permit Boundary 

LEGEND 

BLM's Study Area 

GRAPHIC SCALE (FEET) 

Figure 3-32. Surface Ownership Within the Belle Ayr North LBA Tract Alternatives. 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 3-197

26 
Hilight Road

Road 

11 

2 

Fork East 

Coal Creek 

Creek 

Dry 

Belle 

River 

Fourche 

Creek 

Coal 

Creek Coal Fork 

West 

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

UP RR B

H

NSF &

eyR o oad adl

28
 

34
 

R. 71 W. R. 70 W. 

4 3 1 6 5 3 2
 

9 10 12 7 8 10 11
 

16
 15 14 18 17 13 15 14
 

Hoadley Road 

20 21 22
 23 22 24 19 23
 

27 30 29 27 26 25
 

32 33 34 35 35
 36
 31 T. T.

46
 46

N. N. Lawver 

T. T.

45
 45 3 2 1
 6 5 4 3
 N. N.

2
 

11 12 7 8 9 10 10 11
 

R. 71 W. R. 70 W. 

0 3000 6000 12000
 

GRAPHIC SCALE (FEET) 

LEGEND 

Coal Creek Mine Permit Boundary 

West Coal Creek LBA Tract as Applied for 

BLM's Study Area 

Thunder Basin Coal Company LLC 

Dennis L. Edwards 

Figure 3-33. Surface Ownership Within the West Coal Creek LBA Tract Alternatives. 

3-198
 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 

26 
State

 59 Highway 

Bishop 

Road 

48 48 

Creek 

Tisdale 

Creek 

Caballo 

Pile 

Creek 

Bone 

Creek 

Tisdale 

Creek 

Caballo 

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

R. 72 W. R. 71 W. 

T. 

49 

N. 

35 36 31 32 33 

Four Corners Road

34 35 

T. 

49 

N. 

T. T. 

N. N. 5 4 3 1 6 2 2 

8 9 10 12 7 11 11 

13 17 16 15 18 14 14 

20 21 22 24 19 23 23 

29 28 27 26 25 30	 26

31	 34 36 32 33	 35 T. T. 35 

48 

N. 

48 

N. 

T. T. 

47 47 5 4 3 2 N. 2 1 6 N. 

R. 72 W. R. 71 W. 

LEGEND 

Caballo Mine Permit Boundary 

Caballo West LBA Tract as Applied for 

BLM's Study Area 

Foundation Coal West, Inc. 

James F. Rourke etal 

0 3000 6000 12000 Paul D. Rourke Living Trust 

GRAPHIC SCALE (FEET) 

Figure 3-34. Surface Ownership Within the Caballo West LBA Tract Alternatives. 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 3-199
State

T-7 Road 

BNSF & UP RR

 59 Highway

Haight Road 

Road 

Creek 

47 47 

Creek 

Caballo 

River Fourche Belle 

35 

23 

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

R. 72 W. R. 71 W. T. T. 

48 36 33 34 35 48 31 32
 

Road Hilight

36 N. N. 

T. T. 

N. N. 1
 1 3 2 2
 5 4 6
 

Hoe 

11 12 9 10 11
 12 7
 8

13 16 15 14
 17 14
 13 18
 

19
 21 20
 22
 23
 24
 

25
 

27 26 29 28
 26 25 30
 

R. 72 W. R. 71 W. 

LEGEND 36 32 33 34
 35

T. T.

Cordero Rojo Mine Permit Boundary 47
 

N. 

T. 

46
 

47
 

Maysdorf II LBA Tract as Applied for N. 

BLM's Study Area T. 

46 Foundation Coal West, Inc. N. N. 3 2 5
 4
 

Cordero Mining Company 

Caballo Rojo, Inc. 

Dept of Interior/BLM 

Earl D. Thrush, etal 10 11
 

Keidel Family LP 8 9 12
 

Norma L. DuVall Trust 

Tony S. Hayden 

Western RR Properties Inc. & BNR 

14 13 16 15
 17
 

0 3000 6000 12000
 Hoadley Road 

20 21 22 23 24 GRAPHIC SCALE (FEET) 

Figure 3-35. Surface Ownership Within the Maysdorf II LBA Tract Alternatives. 

3-200
 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 

24 

1 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

R. 72 W. R. 71 W. 

35	 T. 

49 

T. 31 32 33 34 35 36

49 

N. N. 

T. T. 

48 48 

N. N. 3 2 1 6 5 4 3 2 

10 11 12 7 8 9 10 11 

15 14 13 

PRIVATE 18 17 16 15 14 

22 23 24 19 20 21 22 23 

27 26 25 30 

WYW138121 29 28 27 26 

34 

3 

T. 

48 

N. 

T. 

47 

N. 

35 

2 

36 

1 

31 

6 

32 

5 

33 

4 

34 

3 

35 

2 

T. 

48 

N. 

T. 

47 

N. 

0 

R. 72 W. R. 71 W. 

3000 6000 12000 

GRAPHIC SCALE (FEET) 

Oil - Plugged & Abandoned 

OIL & GAS WELL TYPES 

Note: Well locations and status were derived 

from a download from the WOGCC website 

on 12/13/07. (Located by 1/4 1/4 for clarity) 

CBNG - Notice of Intent to Plug and Abandon 

CBNG - Plugged and Abandoned 

CBNG - Shut-In 

CBNG - Producing 

CBNG - Temporarily Abandoned 

LEGEND 

Oil & Gas Ownership Boundaries 

Federal Oil & Gas Lease Number 

Belle Ayr North LBA Tract as Applied for 

Existing Belle Ayr Mine Federal Coal Leases 

BLM's Study Area 

Belle Ayr Mine Permit Boundary 

Alternative 2, 

BLM's Preferred Alternative 

WYW138121 

Figure 3-36. Oil and Gas Wells and Oil and Gas Ownership Within the Belle Ayr North LBA Tract 

Alternatives. 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 3-201
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

R. 71 W. R. 70 W. 

3 2 5 4 3 2 1 6

10 11 12 7 8 9 10 11 

PRIVATE 

NOT POSTED 

15 14 13 18 17 16 15 14 

22 23 24 19 20 21 22 23 

WYW143935 

PRIVATE 

WYW0154562 

27 26 25 30 29 28 27 26 

T. 34 35 36 

WYW0154562 31 32 33 34 35 

T. 

46 46 

N. N. 

T. T. 

45 45 

N. N. 

3 2 1 6 5 4 3 

2 

10 11 12 7 8 9 10 11 

R. 71 W. R. 70 W. 

LEGEND 

OIL & GAS WELL TYPES Coal Creek Mine Permit Boundary 

Oil - Producing Existing Coal Creek Mine Federal Coal Lease 

Oil - Plugged & Abandoned West Coal Creek LBA Tract as Applied for 

Note: Well locations and status were derived 

from a download from the WOGCC website BLM's Study Area 

on 12/13/07. (Located by 1/4 1/4 for clarity) Alternative 2, 

BLM's Preferred Alternative 0 3000 6000 12000 Oil & Gas Ownership Boundaries 

WYW143935 Federal Oil & Gas Lease Numbers 

GRAPHIC SCALE (FEET) 

Figure 3-37. Oil and Gas Wells and Oil and Gas Ownership Within the West Coal Creek LBA Tract 

Alternatives. 

3-202 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

R. 72 W. R. 71 W. 

T. 

49 

N. 

T. 

48 

N. 2 

35 36 

1 

31 

6 

32 

5 

33 

4 3 

34 35 

2 

T. 

49 

N. 

T. 

48 

N. 

11 12 7 8 9 10 11 

WYW138121 

14 13 18 17 16 15 14 

PRIVATE 

23 24 19 20 21 22 23 

PRIVATE 

26 25 30 29 28 27 26 

T. 

48 

N. 

T. 

47 

N. 

35 

2 

36 31 

1 6 

R. 72 W. R. 71 W. 

32 

5 

33 

4 

34 

3 

35 

2 

T. 

48 

N. 

T. 

47 

N. 

0 3000 6000 12000 

GRAPHIC SCALE (FEET) 

Oil - Plugged & Abandoned 

OIL & GAS WELL TYPES 

Note: Well locations and status were derived 

from a download from the WOGCC website 

on 12/13/07. (Located by 1/4 1/4 for clarity) 

Oil - Dry Hole 

CBNG - Shut-In 

CBNG - Producing 

Oil & Gas Ownership Boundaries 

WYW138121 Federal Oil & Gas Lease Number 

LEGEND 

Caballo West LBA Tract as Applied for 

Existing Caballo Mine Federal Coal Leases 

Caballo Mine Permit Boundary 

BLM's Study Area (Alternative 2), 

BLM's Preferred Alternative 

Figure 3-38. Oil and Gas Wells and Oil and Gas Ownership Within the Caballo West LBA Tract Alternatives. 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 3-203
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

T. 

48 

N. 

T. 

47 

N. 

35 

2 

R. 72 W. R. 71 W. 

36 

1 6 

31 32 

5 

33 

4 

34 

3 

35 

2 

36 

1 

T. 

48 

N. 

T. 

47 

N. 

11 12 7 

PRIVATE 

8 9 10 11 12 

14 13 18 17 16 

WYW89313 

15 14 13 

WYW31763 

23 24 19 20 21 22 23 24 

R. 72 W. R. 71 W. 

LEGEND 

Maysdorf II LBA Tract as Applied for 

Existing Cordero Rojo Mine 

Federal Coal Leases 

Cordero Rojo Mine Permit Boundary 29 28 

PRIVATE 

27 26 

25 

0 3000 6000 12000 

BLM's Study Area (Alternative 2) 

North Tract Under Alternative 3, 

BLM's Preferred Alternative 

South Tract Under Alternative 3, 

BLM's Preferred Alternative 

Oil & Gas Ownership Boundaries 

WYW31763 Federal Oil & Gas Lease Numbers 

Oil - Plugged & Abandoned 

OIL & GAS WELL TYPES 

Note: Well locations and status were derived 

from a download from the WOGCC website 

on 12/13/07. (Located by 1/4 1/4 for clarity) 

CBNG - Spudded 

Conventional - Injector, Active 

Conventional - Injector, Permanently Abandoned 

Conventional - Plugged and Abandoned 

Oil - Producing 

Oil - Shut-In 

Oil - Temporarily Abandoned 

CBNG - Plugged and Abandoned 

CBNG - Shut-In 

CBNG - Producing 

Strat Test - Plugged and Abandoned 

T. 

47 

N. 

T. 

46 

N. 

32 33 

17 

8 

5 

16 

9 

4 

PRIVATE 

WYW132215 

34 

15 

10 

3 

WYW43056 

WYW66397 

WYW65173 

35 

14 

11 

2 

PRIVATE 

36 

13 

12 

1 

T. 

47 

N. 

T. 

46 

N. 

GRAPHIC SCALE (FEET) 20 21 22 23 24 

Figure 3-39. Oil and Gas Wells and Oil and Gas Ownership Within the Maysdorf II LBA Tract Alternatives. 

3-204 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Table 3-14. Belle Ayr North LBA tract Federal Oil and Gas Lessees of Record. 

Location 	 Lease Number Lessees of Record 

T.48N., R.71W.
 

Section 20 WYW 138121 Cavalier Petro Corp. 

Lot14 Michael Diefenderfer 

Pendragon Res. LP 

Note:	 From BLM OG Plat (11/20/07). The oil and gas rights (including CBNG) and coal rights 

for the above locations are owned by the federal government. For the rest of the LBA 

tract, the oil and gas rights (including CBNG) are privately owned, and the coal rights are 

federally owned. 

Table 3-15. West Coal Creek LBA tract Federal Oil and Gas Lessees of Record. 

Location Lease Number Lessees of Record 

T.46N., R.70W. 

Section 18 Not Posted 

Lots 14, 15 

Section 19 

Lot 17 

WYW 143935 Maurice W. Brown 

Section 30 WYW 0154562 Primary Natural Resources 

Lots 8, 9, 14, 16, 19 

Note:	 From BLM OG Plat (10/29/07). The oil and gas rights (including CBNG) and coal rights 

for the above locations are owned by the federal government. For the rest of the LBA 

tract, the oil and gas rights (including CBNG) are privately owned, and the coal rights are 

federally owned. 

Table 3-16. Caballo West LBA tract Federal Oil and Gas Lessees of Record. 

Location 	 Lease Number Lessees of Record 

T.48N., R.71W.
 

Section 17 WYW 138121 Cavalier Petro Corp. 

Lots 1, 8 Michael Diefenderfer 

Pendragon Res. LP 

Note:	 From BLM OG Plat (11/20/07). The oil and gas rights (including CBNG) and coal rights 

for the above locations are owned by the federal government. For the rest of the LBA 

tract, the oil and gas rights (including CBNG) are privately owned, and the coal rights are 

federally owned. 

capable of producing, they are important to continued field production. 

Approximately 97 percent of the conventional oil and gas wells within the LBA 

tract configurations were drilled between 1966 and 1999. Only two convention oil 

or gas wells were drilled between 2000 and 2007. Conventional oil and gas wells 

capable of production on or in the individual oil and gas general analysis areas are 

listed in appendix G. 

The Supreme Court has ruled that the CBNG belongs to the owner of the oil and 

gas estate (98-830). Therefore, the oil and gas lessees have the right to develop 

CBNG as well as conventional oil and gas on the LBA tracts. 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 3-205 
 

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Table 3-17. Maysdorf II LBA tract Federal Oil and Gas Lessees of Record. 

Location 	 Lease Number Lessees of Record 

T.47N., R.71W.
 

Section 7 WYW 144480 	 ABO Petro Corp. 

Lot 8	 MYCO Industries Inc. 

Yates Drilling Co. 

Yates Petroleum Corp 

Section 20 WYW 31763 Bowden Energy Co. Inc. 

Lot 1 

Section 21 WYW 89313 Club O&G LTD 

Lots 4, 5 Dunway Investment Co. 

Electra Investment 

JWD III Inc. 

Raymond T Duncan Oil Prop. LTD 

Walter Duncan Oil 

T.46N., R.71W. 

Section 9 

Lots 6, 7 

WYW 132215 Maurice W. Brown 

Section 10 WYW 43056 AG Andrikopoulos Res. 

Lots 8, 9, 10 Chaco Energy Co. 

Key Production Co. 

Nance Petroleum Corp. 

Section 11 WYW 66397 Key Production Co. 

Lot 13 Nance Petroleum Corp. 

P&M Petro Mgmt. CCC 

Section 11 WYW 65173 Mary Hudson Ard 

Lots 14, 15 Bill Barrett Corporation 

Delnar Hudson Lewis Living Trust 

Edward R Hudson Jr. 

William A Hudson III 

Lindy’s Living Trust 

Section 14 WYW 43056 AG Andrikopoulos Res. 

Lots 2, 3, 4 Chaco Energy Co. 

Key Production Co. 

Nance Petroleum Corp. 

Section 15 WYW 43056 AG Andrikopoulos Res. 

Lots 1, 2 Chaco Energy Co. 

Key Production Co. 

Nance Petroleum Corp. 

Note:	 From BLM OG Plats (1/12/07 & 10/4/07). The oil and gas rights (including CBNG) and 

coal rights for the above locations are owned by the federal government. For the rest of 

the LBA tract, the oil and gas rights (including CBNG) are privately owned, and the coal 

rights are federally owned. 

According to the WOGCC records as of December 13, 2007, there were 153 

permitted CBNG wells on lands included in the LBA tracts as proposed and the 

lands added under action alternatives (figures 3-36 through 3-39). Of these, 37 

CBNG wells that were producing, 75 were shut-in, 20 permanently abandoned, 

one was temporarily abandoned, one was spudded, one had a notice of intent to 

abandon, and 18 were permanently abandoned strat test holes. Extensive CBNG 

3-206 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

development has occurred west of the tracts. CBNG wells capable of production 

on or in sections adjacent to the LBA tracts are listed in appendix G. 

Additional information on the conventional oil and gas and CBNG development in 

the general South Gillette analysis area and surrounding area is included in 

section 3.3.2. Certain ancillary facilities are needed to support oil and gas 

production. These support facilities may include well access roads, well pads, 

production equipment at the wellhead (which may be located on the surface 

and/or underground), well production casing (which extends from the surface to 

the zone of production), underground pipelines (which gather the oil, gas, and/or 

water produced by the individual wells and carry it to a larger transmission 

pipeline or collection facility), facilities for treating, discharging, disposing of, 

containing, or injecting produced water, central metering facilities, electrical power 

utilities, gas compressor stations, and high-pressure transmission pipelines for 

delivering the gas to market. Currently, there are some oil and gas production 

facilities, primarily oil and gas pipelines, on the LBA tracts, as discussed in 

section 3.15 of this EIS. It is unlikely that additional support facilities will be 

constructed on the LBA tracts because approximately 70 percent of the 

conventional oil and gas and CBNG wells that exist on the tracts have been either 

shut in or plugged and abandoned due to exhausted reserves and diminished 

production. 

Coal mining is a dominant land use in the general South Gillette analysis area. 

The Belle Ayr, Coal Creek, Caballo, and Cordero Rojo mines form a group of 

contiguous or nearly contiguous surface coal mines located in Campbell County 

(Figure 1-1). Coal production from these mines increased by 65 percent between 

1994 and 2007 (from approximately 66 million tons in 1994 to 109 million tons in 

2007). Two leases, the West Rocky Butte lease and the South Maysdorf lease, 

have been issued within this group of four mines since decertification of the 

federal coal region. The currently pending Belle Ayr North, West Coal Creek, 

Caballo West, and Maysdorf II lease applications evaluated in this EIS are in this 

group of mines (tables 1-1 and 1-2). 

Campbell County does not have a county-wide land use plan, but has been 

working on a comprehensive land use plan jointly with the City of Gillette (City of 

Gillette 1978 and Campbell County 2005). The Gillette area land use plan is an 

integral part of the overall plan for Campbell County and recommends general 

types of uses for the area immediately surrounding the City of Gillette (City of 

Gillette 1978). The proposed lease area does not have a designated zoning 

classification. The City of Gillette/Campbell County Comprehensive Planning 

Program (City of Gillette 1978) provides general land use goals and policies for 

state and federal coal leases in the county. 

Big game hunting is the principal recreational land use within the general South 

Gillette analysis area, and pronghorn, mule deer, and white-tailed deer are 

present within the area (section 3.10.2). On private lands, hunting is allowed only 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 3-207 
 

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

with landowner permission. Land ownership within the PRB is largely private 

(approximately 80 percent), with some private landowners permitting sportsmen to 

cross and/or hunt on their land. There has been a trend over the past 2 to 3 

decades towards a substantial reduction in private lands that are open and 

reasonably available for hunting. Access fees continue to rise and many resident 

hunters feel these access fees are unreasonable. This trend has created problems 

for the WGFD in their attempt to distribute and control harvest at optimal levels, 

as well as for sportsmen who desire access to these animals (WGFD 2004). 

In general, publicly owned lands (i.e., Forest Service or BLM-administered federal 

lands and state school sections) are open to hunting if legal access is available. 

Due to safety concerns, however, public surface lands contained within an active 

mining area are generally closed to the public, further limiting recreational use. 

There are approximately 285 acres of public surface lands within the Maysdorf II 

LBA tract (figure 3-35). There are no public surface lands within the Belle Ayr 

North, West Coal Creek, and Caballo West LBA tracts (figures 3-32 through 3-34). 

A maximum of approximately 82 acres of the public surface are currently 

accessible to the public under any of the alternatives. 

Specific details regarding big game herd management objectives within and near 

the general South Gillette analysis area are contained in the Casper and Sheridan 

Region Annual Big Game Herd Unit Job Completion Reports (WGFD 2008). The 

WGFD classifies the entire general South Gillette analysis area as yearlong and 

winter/yearlong habitat for antelope. No crucial or critical pronghorn habitat is 

recognized by the WGFD in this area (Note: WGFD definitions of big game ranges 

are included in section 3.10.2.1). The proposed lease area is within pronghorn 

antelope Hunt Area 24, which is contained in the Hilight Herd Unit. In postseason 2007, the WGFD estimated the Hilight Herd Unit to be 12,397 animals, 

with an objective of 11,000 (WGFD 2008). 

Historical problems associated with the management of the Hilight Herd Unit 

include hunter access, over harvest on limited public lands, and quantifying 

landowner preferences and desires. Prior to 1997, the herd population was fairly 

stable and near the objective of 11,000 antelope. Losses from severe winters, poor 

production rates, and disease subsequently decreased the population, but it has 

recently recovered and is currently above the objective level. Hunt Area 24 

contains mostly privately owned surface lands with poor hunter access to limited 

publicly owned lands; therefore, the number of antelope is expected to steadily 

increase. If the population exceeds objective levels, more licenses will be needed 

and these may be difficult to sell in this mostly private land area. Nearly all 

landowners charge access fees for hunting and private land access is based on the 

desires and perceptions of the landowners. Increased harvest may be difficult to 

achieve because of the increased CBNG development, which is limiting rifle 

hunting on associated lands. Given the predicted harvest and average winter 

conditions, the 2008 post-season population was expected to be 12,129 antelope. 

3-208 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

The WGFD has classified the majority of the general South Gillette analysis area 

as yearlong mule deer use range. Crucial or critical mule deer habitat does not 

occur on or within several miles of the general South Gillette analysis area. The 

proposed lease area is located within mule deer Hunt Area 21, part of the Thunder 

Basin Mule Deer Herd Unit, which also includes Hunt Areas 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11. 

The Thunder Basin Herd Unit encompasses 3,642 square miles, of this, 71 

percent is privately owned. Access fees are common, resulting in heavy hunting 

pressure on accessible public lands, particularly in recent years. Between 1983 

and 2001, the post-season objective for this mule deer herd was 13,000, but the 

population was consistently above that objective. The 2003 post-season 

population was estimated at 19,299, which was 67 percent above the objective. 

WGFD increased the objective to 20,000 head in December 2001. Due to changes 

in the modeling program used to estimate mule deer populations, WGFD revised 

the herd unit population estimates following 2003, reducing the herd estimate. 

The revised 2003 population estimate was 17,616. The WGFD estimated the 2007 

post-season mule deer population for the herd unit at 20,980, which is slightly 

above the current objective of 20,000 (WGFD 2008). It is likely that insufficient 

harvest from private land within Hunt Area 21 will result in a population increase 

in the future. 

A majority of the South Gillette Analysis Area is within HA 129 ( a non-herd unit). 

The southern portion of the general South Gillette analysis area is within Elk Hunt 

Area 123 of the Rochelle Hills Herd Unit. The Rochelle Hills Elk Herd resides in 

the Rochelle Hills located east and south of the general South Gillette analysis 

area. The herd favors the ponderosa pine/juniper woodlands, savanna, and 

steeper terrain habitat offered by the Rochelle Hills. As more lands are reclaimed 

from mining, elk are shifting their winter use to these areas. The WGFD has 

designated an approximately five square mile area on reclaimed lands within the 

Jacobs Ranch Mine permit area as crucial winter habitat for the Rochelle Hills elk 

herd (Oedekoven 1994). RTEA (owner of the Jacobs Ranch Mine) and the RMEF 

finalized a formal agreement that created the Rochelle Hills Conservation 

Easement. The easement contains nearly 1,000 acres, with 75 percent of that 

total comprised of reclaimed mining lands on RTEA’s Jacobs Ranch Mine. The 

easement acreage was donated to RMEF by RTEA to ensure that the reclaimed 

land continues to be used as grazing land and wildlife habitat for the extended 

future (RMEF 2007). The Jacobs Ranch Mine is located about 9 miles south of the 

general South Gillette analysis area. No elk have been observed recently within 

any of the tracts but they are occasionally recorded in the Pine Hills to the east. 

This dispersion is likely due to increasing population density and habitat 

limitations within the normal herd boundary. Elk may potentially expand into the 

general South Gillette analysis area in the future. 

White-tailed deer are not managed separately by WGFD, but are included with 

mule deer as part of the Thunder Basin Herd Unit. White-tailed deer are seldom 

observed within the general South Gillette analysis area due to their preference for 

riparian woodlands and irrigated agricultural lands. WGFD classifies the entire 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 3-209 
 

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

general South Gillette analysis area, with the exception of a narrow corridor along 

the Belle Fourche River, as out of normal white-tailed deer use range. The narrow 

corridor along the Belle Fourche is classified as yearlong range. 

Under natural conditions, aquatic habitat is very limited by the ephemeral nature 

of surface waters in the general South Gillette analysis area; therefore, public 

fishing opportunities are very limited. The lack of deep-water habitat and 

extensive and persistent water sources limits the presence and diversity of fish 

and other aquatic species. However, water discharged from CBNG wells upstream 

of the general South Gillette analysis area has supplied the Belle Fourche River 

with water nearly continuously, resulting in an increase in habitat for aquatic 

species. The Belle Fourche River currently supports a variety of nongame fish in 

the general South Gillette analysis area (section 3.10.6). 

Sage-grouse, mourning dove, waterfowl, rabbit, and coyote are hunted in the 

general vicinity, and some coyote and red fox trapping may occur. 

As described above, approximately 97 percent of the surface estate of the SGAC 

LBA tracts is owned by private individuals/companies and most of the subsurface 

minerals (all of the coal and approximately 90 percent of the oil and gas estate) are 

federally owned, which results in split estate situations. In these situations, 

mineral rights are considered the dominant estate, meaning they take precedence 

over other rights associated with the property, including those associated with 

owning the surface. However, the mineral owner must show due regard for the 

interests of the surface estate owner and occupy only those portions of the surface 

that are reasonably necessary to develop the mineral estate (BLM 2009b). 

BLM has developed a policy to address the split estate issue. The BLM’s split 

estate policy only applies to situations where the surface rights are in private 

ownership and the rights to development of the mineral resources are publicly 

held and managed by the Federal government (BLM 2009b). 

BLM manages the public lands, including the Federal mineral estate, to enhance 

the quality of life for present and future generations of Americans, under a 

mandate of multiple use as described in the Federal Land Policy and Management 

Act. The Mineral Leasing Act guides the land use planning, leasing, bonding, 

operations and reclamation associated with all development of Federal oil and 

natural gas resources (BLM 2009b). 

Various laws granted land patents to private individuals but reserved the mineral 

rights to the Federal Government. BLM must comply with the provisions of the 

laws under which the surface was patented. However, many of those laws do not 

identify the rights of the surface owner in split estate mineral development 

situations (BLM 2009b). 

3-210 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3.11.2 Environmental Consequences 

3.11.2.1 Proposed Action and Alternatives 2 and 3 

The major adverse environmental consequences of leasing and mining the LBA 

tracts on land use would be the reduction of livestock grazing (cattle and sheep), 

loss of wildlife habitat (particularly big game), and curtailment of oil and gas 

development while the coal is being mined and during reclamation. This would 

include removal of all existing oil and gas surface and downhole production and 

transportation equipment and facilities. Wildlife and livestock use would be 

displaced while the tract is being mined and reclaimed. Grazing leases would be 

suspended on approximately 285 acres of federal lands if the LBA tracts were 

leased under the Proposed Actions and other action alternatives. This federal land 

is within Grazing Allotment #22027, currently held by Dave Edwards (valid 

through July 2014) and Grazing Allotment #02349, currently held by Donald 

Wagensen, Opal Marquis, and Doris Marquis (valid through January 2014). 

Access for recreational and other activities (i.e., ranching, oil and gas 

development) would be restricted during mining operations. Estimated 

disturbance areas for the Belle Ayr North, West Coal Creek, Caballo West, and 

Maysdorf II LBA tracts and the tract configurations for the action alternatives are 

presented in tables 3-1 through 3-4, respectively. 

Sections 3.3.2 and 3.11.1 and appendix G of this document address producing, 

abandoned, and shut in oil and gas (conventional and CBNG) wells in the BLM 

study areas. Well location information, federal oil and gas ownership, and federal 

oil and gas lessee information for the Belle Ayr North, West Coal Creek, Caballo 

West, and Maysdorf II LBA tracts are presented in figures 3-36 through 3-39, 

respectively and tables 3-14 through 3-17, respectively. BLM manages federal 

lands on a multiple use basis, in accordance with the regulations. In response to 

conflicts between oil and gas and coal lease holders, BLM policy advocates 

optimizing the recovery of both coal and CBNG resources to ensure that the public 

receives a reasonable return for these publicly owned resources. Optimal recovery 

of both coal and oil and gas resources requires negotiation and cooperation 

between the oil and gas lessees and the coal lessees. In the past, negotiations 

between some of the applicant mines and some of the existing oil and gas lessees 

have resulted in agreements that allow development of both resources in this area. 

Producing conventional oil and gas and CBNG wells are present on the LBA tracts. 

In the PRB, royalties have been and would be lost to both the state and federal 

governments if conventional oil and gas wells are abandoned prematurely, if the 

federal CBNG is not recovered prior to mining, or if federal coal is not recovered 

due to conflicts. State and federal governments can also lose bonus money when 

the costs of the agreements between the lessees are factored into the fair market 

value determinations. 

Up to 285 acres of BLM-administered federal surface would be affected during 

mining operations if the Belle Ayr North, West Coal Creek, Caballo West, and 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 3-211 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Maysdorf II LBA tracts are leased under the Proposed Action or action 

alternatives, but only about 82 of those acres are currently accessible by the 

public. The loss of access to federal lands is long term (during mining and 

reclamation), but is not permanent. Public access to federal lands would be 

restored after mining and reclamation are complete. 

Hunting on the LBA tracts, including the federal surface discussed above would be 

eliminated during mining and reclamation. Pronghorn and mule deer have been 

observed on and adjacent to the LBA tracts, as have sage-grouse, mourning doves, 

waterfowl, rabbits, and coyote. The federal lands actually represent a relatively 

small portion of the currently accessible public surface lands for recreational 

opportunity within the respective animal hunt areas. 

Following reclamation, the land would be suitable for grazing and wildlife uses, 

which are the historic land uses. The reclamation standards required by SMCRA 

and Wyoming State Law meet the standards and guidelines for healthy rangelands 

for public lands administered by the BLM in Wyoming. Following reclamation 

bond release, management of the privately owned surface would revert to the 

private surface owner and management of the federally owned surface would 

revert to the federal surface managing agency (BLM). 

Some conflicts may arise due to split estate issues regarding ownership of the 

surface on the SGAC LBA tracts and ownership of the subsurface minerals. 

Conflicts may also arise between oil and gas and coal lease holders. BLM must 

comply with the provisions of the laws under which the surface was patented. 

BLM policy also advocates optimizing the recovery of both coal and CBNG 

resources to ensure that the public receives a reasonable return for these publicly 

owned resources. 

3.11.2.2 No Action Alternative 

Under the No Action alternatives, the Belle Ayr North, West Coal Creek, Caballo 

West, and Maysdorf II coal lease applications would be rejected and coal removal 

and associated disturbance and impacts would not occur on the additional acres 

that would be disturbed under the Proposed Action or other action alternatives for 

each tract. Currently approved mining operations would continue on the existing 

Belle Ayr, Coal Creek, Caballo, and Cordero Rojo Mine leases. Impacts to land use 

related to mining operations at these mines would not be extended onto portions 

of the LBA tracts that will not be affected under the current mining and 

reclamation plan. 

As discussed in chapter 2, a decision to reject the Belle Ayr North, West Coal 

Creek, Caballo West, and Maysdorf II LBA lease applications at this time would 

not preclude an application to lease the tracts in the future. 

3-212 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3.11.3 Regulatory Compliance, Mitigation and Monitoring 

Mined areas would be reclaimed as specified in the approved mine plan to support 

the anticipated post-mining land uses of wildlife habitat and rangeland. The 

reclamation procedures would include stockpiling and replacing topsoil, using 

reclamation seed mixtures, which would be approved by WDEQ, and replacing 

stock reservoirs. 

Steps to control invasion by weedy (invasive nonnative) plant species using 

chemical and mechanical methods would be included in the amended mine plan. 

Revegetation growth and diversity would be monitored until the final reclamation 

bond is released (a minimum of 10 years following seeding with the final seed 

mixture). Erosion would be monitored to determine if there is a need for corrective 

action during establishment of vegetation. Controlled grazing would be used 

during revegetation to determine the suitability of the reclaimed land for 

anticipated post-mining land uses. 

See section 3.3.2.3 for discussion of regulatory requirements, mitigation and 

monitoring related to oil and gas development. 

3.11.4 Residual Impacts 

No residual impacts to land use and recreation are expected. 

3.12 Cultural Resources 

3.12.1 Affected Environment 

Cultural resources, which are protected under the National Historic Preservation 

Act of 1966, are nonrenewable remains of past human activity. The PRB, 

including the general South Gillette analysis area, appears to have been inhabited 

by aboriginal hunting and gathering people for more than 13,000 years. 

Throughout the prehistoric past, the area was used by highly mobile hunters and 

gatherers who exploited a wide variety of resources. Several thousand cultural 

sites have been recorded within the PRB. 

Frison’s (1978, 1991) chronology for the Northwestern Plains divides occupations 

from early to late into the Paleoindian, Early Plains Archaic, Middle Plains 

Archaic, Late Plains Archaic, Late Prehistoric, and Protohistoric periods. Frison’s 

chronology is listed below. The Plains designation within the Early, Middle, and 

Late Archaic periods has been omitted from the list. 

• Paleoindian period (13,000 to 7,000 years B.P.) 

• Early Archaic period (7,000 to 5,000-4,500 years B.P.) 

• Middle Archaic period (5,000-4,500 to 3,000 years B.P.) 

• Late Archaic period (3,000 to 1,850 years B.P.) 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 3-213 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

• Late Prehistoric period (1,850 to 400 years B.P.) 

• Protohistoric period (400 to 250 years B.P.) 

• Historic period (250 to 120 years B.P.) 

The Paleoindian period dates from about 13,000 to 7,000 years ago and includes 

various complexes (Frison 1978). Each of these complexes is correlated with a 

distinctive projectile point style derived from a general large lanceolate and/or 

stemmed point morphology. The Paleoindian period is traditionally thought to be 

synonymous with “big game hunters” who exploited megafauna such as bison and 

mammoth (plains Paleoindian groups), although evidence of the use of vegetal 

resources is noted at a few Paleoindian sites (foothill-mountain groups). 

The Early Archaic period dates from about 7,000 to 5,000-4,500 years ago. 

Projectile point styles reflect the change from large lanceolate types that 

characterize the earlier Paleoindian complexes to large side- or corner-notched 

types. Subsistence patterns reflect exploitation of a broad spectrum of resources, 

with a much-diminished utilization of large mammals. 

The onset of the Middle Archaic period (4,500 to 3,000 years B.P.) has been 

defined on the basis of the appearance of the McKean Complex as the 

predominant complex on the Northwestern Plains around 4,900 years B.P. (Frison 

1978, 1991, 2001). McKean Complex projectile points are stemmed variants of the 

lanceolate point. These projectile point types continued until 3,100 years B.P. 

when they were replaced by a variety of large corner-notched points (i.e., Pelican 

Lake points) (Martin 1999). Sites dating to this period exhibit a new emphasis on 

plant procurement and processing. 

The Late Archaic period (3,000 to 1,850 years B.P.) is generally defined by the 

appearance of corner-notched dart points. These projectile points dominate most 

assemblages until the introduction of the bow and arrow around 1,500 years B.P. 

(Frison 1991). The period witnessed a continual expansion of occupations into the 

interior grasslands and basins, as well as the foothills and mountains. 

The Late Prehistoric period (1,850 to 400 years B.P.) is marked by a transition in 

projectile point technology around 1,500 years B.P. The large corner-notched dart 

points characteristic of the Late Archaic period are replaced by smaller cornerand side-notched points for use with the bow and arrow. Around approximately 

1,000 years B.P., the entire Northwestern Plains appears to have suffered an 

abrupt collapse or shift in population (Frison 1991). This population shift appears 

to reflect a narrower subsistence base focused mainly on communal procurement 

of pronghorn and bison. 

The Protohistoric period (400 to 250 years B.P.) witnesses the beginning of 

European influence on prehistoric cultures of the Northwestern Plains. Additions 

to the material culture include most notably the horse and European trade goods, 

including glass beads, metal, and firearms. Projectile points of this period include 

3-214 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

side-notched, tri-notched, and unnotched points, with the addition of metal 

points. The occupants appear to have practiced a highly mobile and unstable 

residential mobility strategy. 

The historic period (250 to 120 years B.P.) is summarized from Schneider et al. 

(2000). The use of the Oregon Trail by emigrants migrating to the fertile lands of 

Oregon, California, and the Salt Lake Valley brought numerous pioneers through 

the state of Wyoming, but few stayed. It was not until the fertile land in the West 

became highly populated, along with the development of the cattle industry in the 

late 1860s, that the region currently comprising the state of Wyoming became 

attractive for settlement. The region offered cattlemen vast grazing land for the 

fattening of livestock, which could then be shipped across the country via the 

recently completed (1867-1868) transcontinental railroad in southern Wyoming. 

The settling of the region surrounding Gillette, Wyoming began in the late 1800s, 

after a government treaty in 1876 placed the Sioux Indians on reservations 

outside the territory. Cattlemen were the first settlers to establish themselves in 

the area, with dryland farmers entering the area after 1900. The town of Gillette 

was established by the railroad in 1891 in an effort to promote the settling of 

undeveloped areas along their rail lines. The presence of the railroad allowed for 

the greater development of the cattle industry because it facilitated shipping cattle 

from the area. Several early ranches established in the region include the 4J 

Ranch (1875), Half Circle L Ranch (1880s), I Bar U Ranch (1888), and the T7 

Ranch (1881). Early ranches established in the region surrounding the project 

area as of 1883 include the Ritchie Ranch, the McCray Ranch, and the 6 Ranch. 

Later arrivals to the area (as of 1908) include the Grant Ranch on Hay Creek, the 

Rooney Ranch on Rawhide Creek, and the Gardner and Wilson Ranches on the 

Little Powder River. George Oedekoven homesteaded in the area in 1917, and his 

family still maintains the property today. Site 48CA1918 was homesteaded by 

Bert Herrod in 1919. This homestead has been abandoned since at least 1983. 

The Dry Land Farming movement of the late 19th and early 20th centuries had a 

profound effect on the settlement of the PRB during the years around World War I. 

Although the principles of dry land farming were sound, success still required a 

certain amount of precipitation each year. Wyoming encouraged dry land 

settlement of its semi-arid lands through a Board of Immigration created in 1911. 

Newspapers extolled the virtues of dry land farming, and railroads conducted wellorganized advertising campaigns on a nationwide basis to settle the regions 

through which they passed. 

The most intensive period of homesteading activity in the Eastern PRB occurred in 

the late 1910s and early 1920s. Promotional efforts by the state and the railroads, 

the prosperous war years for agriculture in 1917 and 1918, and the Stock Raising 

Act of 1916 with its increased acreage (but lack of mineral rights) all contributed 

to this boom period. A large amount of land filings consisted of existing farms and 

ranches expanding their holdings in an optimistic economic climate. However, an 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 3-215 
 

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

equally large number of homesteaders had been misled by promotional advertising 

and were not adequately prepared for the experiences that awaited them in the 

PRB. It soon became apparent to the would-be dry land farmer that he could not 

make a living by raising only crops. Some were initially successful in growing 

wheat, oats, barley and other small grains, along with hay, alfalfa, sweet clover 

and other grasses for the increased number of cattle. 

A drought in 1919 was followed by a severe winter. The spring of 1920 saw 

market prices fall. Those homesteaders who were not ruined by the turn in events 

often became small livestock ranchers and limited their farming to the growing of 

forage crops and family garden plots. Some were able to obtain cheap land as it 

was foreclosed or sold for taxes. During the 1920s the size of homesteads in 

Wyoming nearly doubled and the number of homesteads decreased, indicating the 

shift to livestock raising (LeCompte and Anderson 1982). 

With serious drought beginning in 1932, several federal actions were taken. In 

April of 1932, Weston, Campbell, and Converse counties were eligible for a 

drought relief program. The Northeast Wyoming Land Utilization Project began 

repurchasing the sub-marginal homestead lands and making the additional acres 

of government land available for lease. This helped the small operator to expand 

the usable grazing land. Cropland taken out of production could be reclaimed and 

then added to the grazing lease program. Grazing associations were formed to 

regulate the grazing permits. In 1934, the Agricultural Adjustment Administration 

began studying portions of Converse, Campbell, Weston, Niobrara, and Crook 

counties. In all, 2 million acres were included in the Thunder Basin Project (LAWY-1) to alter land use and to relocate settlers onto viable farmland. Nationally, 

the program hoped to shift land use from farms to forest, parks, wildlife refuges or 

grazing districts. In marginal areas cash crops were to be replaced by forage 

crops, the kind and intensity of grazing would be changed and the size of 

operating units would be expanded (USFS n.d.). Land purchase work on the 

Thunder Basin Project began late 1934 and the purchasing of units started in 

1935. 

During the development program to rehabilitate the range, impounding dams were 

erected, wells were repaired, springs developed, and homestead fences were 

obliterated while division fences were constructed for the new community 

pastures. Farmsteads were obliterated and the range reseeded. Remaining 

homesteaders and ranchers often purchased or scavenged materials from the 

repurchased farmsteads. Pits were dug on some homesteads and machinery and 

demolished buildings buried (many of these were dug up during the World War II 

scrap drives). Ironically, the rehabilitation project utilized a labor pool of former 

farmers who had spent years building what the government paid them to destroy. 

Their efforts were so successful that almost no trace remains of many homesteads. 

While counties lost much of their population base as a result of the Resettlement 

Administration relocation program, they were strengthened financially: schools 

3-216 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

were closed, maintenance of rural roads was restricted to main arterioles, and 

delinquent taxes were paid. The remaining subsidized ranches were significantly 

larger and provided a stabilizing effect on the local economies. Three grazing 

associations were formed: the Thunder Basin Grazing Association, the Spring 

Creek Association, and the Inyan Kara Grazing Association. These associations 

provided responsible management of the common rangeland. 

Class III Cultural Resources Survey 

A Class III cultural resources survey is an intensive and comprehensive inventory 

of a proposed project area conducted by professional archaeologists and 

consultants. The survey is designed to locate and identify all prehistoric and 

historic cultural properties 50 years and older that have exposed surface 

manifestations. The goal of the survey is to locate and evaluate for the National 

Register of Historic Places (NRHP) all cultural resources within the project area. 

Cultural properties are recorded at a sufficient level to allow for evaluation for 

possible inclusion to the NRHP. Determinations of eligibility are made by the 

managing federal agency in consultation with the State Historic Preservation 

Office (SHPO). Consultation with the SHPO must be completed prior to the 

approval of the mining plan. 

After completion of a Class III cultural resources survey, additional investigations 

may be undertaken to complete an individual site record. If necessary, sitespecific testing or limited excavation may be utilized to collect additional data 

which will: 1) determine the final evaluation status of a site; and/or 2) form the 

basis of additional work to be conducted during implementation of a treatment 

plan if the site is determined eligible for the NRHP. A treatment plan is then 

developed for those sites that are eligible for the NRHP and are within the area of 

potential effect. Treatment plans are implemented prior to mining and can 

include such mitigation measures as avoidance (if possible), large scale 

excavation, complete recording, Historical American Building Survey/Historic 

American Engineering Record documentation, archival research, and other 

acceptable scientific practices. 

Data recovery plans are required for sites that are recommended as eligible for the 

NRHP and cannot be avoided by project development, following testing and 

consultation with the SHPO. Until consultation has occurred and agreement 

regarding NRHP eligibility has been reached, all sites recommended as eligible or 

undetermined eligibility must be protected from disturbance. Full consultation 

with the SHPO will be completed prior to approval of the mining plans. Those 

sites determined to be unevaluated or eligible for the NRHP through consultation 

would receive further protection or treatment. 

Numerous Class I (survey records review) and Class III cultural resource surveys 

associated with oil and gas field development and surface mining operations have 

been conducted in the general area. 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 3-217 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3.12.1.1 Belle Ayr North LBA Tract 

FCW contracted with TRC Mariah Associates, Inc. of Laramie, Wyoming to perform 

Class I and Class III surveys of the Belle Ayr North LBA tract and surrounding 

area in 2006. The 2006 Class I survey covered the BLM study area (the LBA tract 

as applied for under the Proposed Action and the additional area evaluated under 

Alternative 2). The Class III survey area included previously unsurveyed areas 

within the original BLM study area. 

The Belle Ayr North LBA tract cultural resource analysis area has been entirely 

surveyed for cultural resources at a Class I level. The Class I review of previous 

survey records identified 11 archeological sites, of which seven are prehistoric, two 

are historic, and two are multi-component. Prehistoric sites consist primarily of 

open camps and lithic scatters. All prehistoric sites are considered not eligible. 

Historic sites consist primarily of homesteads. The two historic sites are not 

considered eligible to the NRHP. The two multi-component sites consist mostly of 

lithic and historic debris and are considered not eligible. No isolated occurrences 

were identified during the Class I records search. 

All of the remainder of the Belle Ayr North cultural resources general analysis area 

was surveyed at a Class III level in 2006, 2008, and 2009. One archaeological site 

and five isolated occurrences were identified and recorded during the recent Class 

III inventories. The five isolates consist of prehistoric flakes and projectile points. 

The one newly recorded cultural site consists of a prehistoric open campsite and is 

considered not eligible for the NRHP. Two previously recorded sites (48CA1918 

and 48CA3222) located within the analysis area were reassessed during the 2006 

inventory. Site 48CA1918 consisted of a historic homestead and ranch was 

originally recommended as eligible the NRHP. Subsequent evaluations of this site 

in 1999 and 2006 found the site destroyed and it was recommended that it no 

longer be eligible for listing on the NRHP due to the loss of site integrity. Site 

48CA3222 consisted of prehistoric lithic scatter and was originally considered not 

eligible for the NRHP. The site could not be relocated in 2006 due to the dense 

ground cover in the area. Areas within the analysis area that had been surveyed 

prior to 1980, including four previously identified sites (48CA2394, 48CA2397, 

48CA2398, and 48CA6381), were reassessed in 2008. No cultural material was 

recovered. Three small parcels within the general analysis area not included in 

previous Class III level surveys were surveyed in 2009. No cultural material was 

recovered. 

To summarize the identified cultural properties, a total of 12 archaeological sites 

are located in the Belle Ayr North LBA tract cultural survey area. Of these 12 

sites, eight are prehistoric, two are historic, and two are multi-component. None 

of the 12 sites are recommended as eligible to the NRHP. Five prehistoric isolated 

occurrences were also recorded. Approximately 54 acres of the 1,947 acre Belle 

Ayr North cultural resources general analysis area have not been surveyed at a 

Class III level. Some areas previously surveyed at a Class III level were surveyed 

3-218 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

prior to 1980 and were thought to be considered substandard in terms of current 

methodology. These areas were resurveyed in 2008. 

3.12.1.2 West Coal Creek LBA Tract 

TBCC contracted with ACR Consultants, Inc. of Sheridan, Wyoming to perform 

Class I and Class III surveys of the West Coal Creek LBA tract and surrounding 

area in 2007. The 2007 Class I survey was larger than and included the West 

Coal Creek cultural resources general analysis area. The 2007 Class III survey 

included the entire BLM study area. 

The Class I review of previous survey records identified six archeological sites, of 

which five are prehistoric and one is multi-component within the West Coal Creek 

cultural resources general analysis area. The prehistoric sites include three lithic 

scatters, one lithic scatter with hearth, and one hearth. The multi-component site 

consists of lithic scatter with historic debris. None of the sites are considered 

eligible for the NRHP, although fives sites were unevaluated for NRHP eligibility. A 

total of five isolated occurrences (all prehistoric) were identified during the Class I 

records search. 

ACR recorded nine new sites during the Class III surveys, which covered the BLM 

study area. Five sites are prehistoric and four are multi-component. The 

prehistoric sites include two lithic scatters, two lithic scatters with hearths, and 

one habitation locale with cairns. The site containing cairns was identified as 

having potential significance to Native American tribes. BLM initiated 

consultation with several tribes (Northern Cheyenne, Crow, Three Affiliated Tribes, 

Oglala Sioux, Standing Rock Sioux, Fort Peck Assiniboine/Sioux, Eastern 

Shoshone and Northern Arapaho) and the Northern Cheyenne Tribe expressed 

interest in visiting the site. BLM cannot make a determination of eligibility for the 

site until an onsite with tribal representatives is conducted and consultation is 

completed. The multi-component sites consist two lithic scatter with historic 

debris and two prehistoric habitation locales with historic debris. All sites are 

considered not eligible. A total of 21 new isolated finds (17 prehistoric and four 

historic) during the Class III survey. ACR also revisited the four previously 

recorded sites within the BLM study area. Two of the sites were subsequently 

combined into one site, and one site was not found and was removed from the list 

of existing sites. 

Based on the Class I and Class III surveys, 15 archaeological sites have been 

verified within the West Coal Creek LBA cultural resource analysis area. Only 13 

sites could be verified (one site could not be found in the field and one site was 

combined with another site). Of these sites, eight are prehistoric and five are 

multi-component. None of the 13 verified sites are considered eligible for the 

NRHP, but one site within the 1⁄4-mile buffer is unevaluated for NRHP eligibility. A 

total of 26 isolated occurrences were recorded within the analysis area. The entire 

BLM study area has been surveyed to current standards. Some areas previously 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 3-219 
 

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

surveyed at a Class III level were surveyed prior to 1980 and were thought to be 

considered substandard in terms of current methodology. 

3.12.1.3 Caballo West LBA Tract 

In 2006, Powder River Coal, LLC, Gillette, Wyoming contracted GCM Services to 

conduct a Class I cultural resource inventory (records search) for the Caballo 

Mine, consisting of a contiguous block encompassing approximately 27,520 acres. 

The Caballo West cultural resources general analysis area, comprising roughly 

1,390 acres, is wholly contained within the 2006 Class I inventory area. The 

Class I review of previous survey records identified seven archeological sites, of 

which five are prehistoric, one is historic, and one is multi-component, within the 

Caballo West cultural resources general analysis area. Prehistoric sites consist 

primarily of lithic scatters and open camps. All prehistoric sites are considered 

not eligible. Historic sites consist primarily of homesteads and trash dumps. The 

historic site is considered not eligible. The one multi-component site consists of 

an open camp and homestead and is considered not eligible. A total of seven 

isolated occurrences were identified during the Class I records search. The four 

prehistoric isolates consist of two projectile point/tools and two historic debris 

items. The three historic isolates consist of trash scatters. 

A majority of the Caballo West LBA tract cultural survey area has been surveyed 

for cultural resources at a Class III level. Approximately 220 acres of the 1,390 

acre Caballo West Cultural resources general analysis area have not been 

surveyed at a Class III level and approximately 360 acres were surveyed at a Class 

III level in 1975 and are considered substandard in terms of current methodology. 

3.12.1.4 Maysdorf II LBA Tract 

CMC contracted with TRC Mariah Associates, Inc. of Laramie, Wyoming to perform 

Class I and Class III surveys of the Maysdorf II LBA tract and surrounding area in 

2007. The 2007 Class I survey was larger than and included the Maysdorf II 

cultural resources general analysis area. Areas identified as not having been 

surveyed at a Class III level were surveyed at that level later in 2007. 

The Class I review of previous survey records identified 33 archeological sites, of 

which 20 are prehistoric, 12 are historic, and one is multi-component. Prehistoric 

sites consist primarily of open camps, stone circles/cairns, and lithic scatters. 

Fifteen of the prehistoric sites are considered not eligible to the NRHP, two remain 

unevaluated, and three are considered eligible to the NRHP. The site containing 

stone circles and the cairn site was identified as having potential significance to 

Native American tribes. BLM initiated consultation with several tribes (Northern 

Cheyenne, Crow, Three Affiliated Tribes, Oglala Sioux, Standing Rock Sioux, Fort 

Peck Assiniboine/Sioux, Eastern Shoshone and Northern Arapaho) and the 

Northern Cheyenne Tribe expressed interest in visiting the site. BLM cannot make 

a determination of eligibility for the site until an onsite with tribal representatives 

3-220 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

is conducted and consultation is completed. Historic sites consist primarily of 

homesteads, trash dumps, and historic trails. Four historic trails (Hay CreekPorcupine Road, Hathaway’s-Black Hills Trail, Sawyer’s Expedition Trail, and 

Crook’s Military Trail) and one homestead are considered eligible to the NRHP. 

Seven historic sites are considered not eligible. The one multi-component site is a 

lithic and trash scatter and is unevaluated. A total of 13 isolated occurrences 

were identified during the Class I records search. The isolates consist of 

prehistoric flakes and tools. 

The remainder of the Maysdorf II cultural resources general analysis area was 

surveyed at a Class III level in 2007. A total of eight archaeological sites and 16 

isolated occurrences were identified and recorded during this recent Class III 

inventory. The eight newly recorded cultural sites consist of five historic sites (two 

homesteads, a windmill, a trash scatter, and a cemetery) and three prehistoric 

sites, including a cairn with artifacts, a stone circle site, and a lithic scatter. The 

remains within the cemetery have since been relocated in accordance with all 

applicable laws and regulations and following negotiations with the Campbell 

County Cemetery District and representatives for the Haight Family. Six 

archaeological sites will be recommended as not eligible. The 16 isolates consist of 

nine localities of prehistoric flakes and tools and seven localities of historic debris 

items. 

To summarize the identified cultural properties, a total of 41 archaeological sites 

are located in the Maysdorf II cultural resources general analysis area. Of these 

41 sites, 23 are prehistoric, 17 are historic, and one is multi-component. A total 

of eight sites are considered eligible to the NRHP. These sites include the four 

historic trails (Hay Creek-Porcupine Road, Hathaway’s-Black Hills Trail, Sawyer’s 

Expedition Trail, and Crook’s Military Trail), one homestead, and three prehistoric 

open campsites. A total of 10 sites remain unevaluated to the NRHP. Twenty-two 

sites have either been determined or are recommended as not eligible to the 

NRHP. One site (Maysdorf Point Cemetery) was listed as not recorded and the 

remains within the cemetery have been relocated. Twenty-two prehistoric isolated 

finds and seven historic isolated finds were also recorded. The entire Maysdorf II 

cultural resources general analysis area has been surveyed for cultural resources 

at a Class III level. 

3.12.2 Environmental Consequences 

3.12.2.1 Proposed Action and Alternatives 2 and 3 

Data recovery plans are required for sites that are recommended eligible to the 

National Register and cannot be avoided, following testing and consultation with 

the SHPO. In the case of a maintenance lease for an existing mine, full 

consultation with SHPO must be completed prior to approval of the MLA mining 

plan amendment for the mine. At that time, those sites determined to be 

unevaluated or eligible for the NRHP through consultation receive further 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 3-221 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

protection or treatment. Impacts to eligible or unevaluated cultural resources 

cannot be permitted. Eligible sites that cannot be avoided or that have not 

already been subjected to data recovery action are carried forward in the mining 

plan as requiring protective stipulations until a testing, mitigation, or data 

recovery plan is developed to address the impacts to the sites. Unevaluated sites 

that cannot be avoided must be evaluated prior to disturbance. Ineligible 

properties may be destroyed without further work. 

Any eligible sites on the Belle Ayr North, West Coal Creek, Caballo West, and 

Maysdorf II LBA tracts that cannot be avoided or that have not already been 

subjected to data recovery action would be carried forward in the mining and 

reclamation plans as requiring protective stipulations until a testing, mitigation, 

or data recovery plan is developed to address the impacts to the sites. The lead 

federal and state agencies would consult with Wyoming SHPO on the development 

of such plans and the manner in which they are carried out. 

Cultural resources adjacent to the mine areas may be impacted as a result of 

increased access to the areas. There may be increased vandalism and 

unauthorized collecting associated with recreational activity and other pursuits 

outside of but adjacent to mine permit areas. 

3.12.2.2 No Action Alternative 

Under the No Action alternative, the Belle Ayr North, West Coal Creek, Caballo 

West, and Maysdorf II coal lease applications would be rejected and coal removal 

and associated disturbance and impacts would not occur on the additional acres 

that would be disturbed under the Proposed Action or other action alternatives for 

each tract. Currently approved mining operations would continue on the existing 

Caballo, Belle Ayr, Cordero Rojo, and Coal Creek Mine leases. Impacts to cultural 

resources related to mining operations at these mines would not be extended onto 

portions of the LBA tracts that will not be affected under the current mining and 

reclamation plan. 

As discussed in chapter 2, a decision to reject the Belle Ayr North, West Coal 

Creek, Caballo West, and Maysdorf II LBA lease applications at this time would 

not preclude an application to lease the tracts in the future. 

3.12.3 Native American Consultation 

Native American heritage sites can be classified as prehistoric or historic. Some 

may be presently in use as offering, fasting, or vision quest sites. Other sites of 

cultural interest and importance may include rock art, stone circles, various rock 

features, fortifications or battle sites, burials, and locations that are sacred or part 

of the oral history and heritage but have no man-made features. 

3-222 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

No Native American heritage, special interest, or sacred sites have been formally 

identified and recorded to date within the general South Gillette analysis area. 

However, the geographic position of the general South Gillette analysis area 

between mountains considered sacred by various Native American cultures (the 

Big Horn Mountains to the west, the Black Hills to the east, and Devils Tower to 

the north) creates the possibility that existing locations may have special religious 

or sacred significance to Native American groups. If such sites or localities are 

identified at a later date, appropriate action must be taken to address concerns 

related to those sites. 

Tribes that have been identified as potentially having concerns about actions in 

the PRB include the Crow, Northern Cheyenne, Shoshone, Arapaho, Oglala Sioux, 

Rosebud Sioux, Crow Creek Sioux, Lower Brule Sioux, Standing Rock Sioux, 

Cheyenne River Sioux, Apache Tribe of Oklahoma, Comanche Tribe of Oklahoma, 

and Kiowa Tribe of Oklahoma. These tribal governments and representatives have 

been sent copies of the EIS. They have also been provided with more specific 

information about the known cultural sites on the tract in this analysis. Their 

help has been requested in identifying potentially significant religious or cultural 

sites in the general South Gillette analysis area. 

Native American tribes were consulted at a general level in 1995-1996 as part of 

an update to the BLM Buffalo Resource Area RMP. Some of the Sioux tribes were 

consulted by BLM on coal leasing and mining activity in the PRB at briefings held 

in Rapid City, South Dakota in March 2002. 

3.12.4 Regulatory Compliance, Mitigation and Monitoring 

Class I and III surveys are conducted to identify cultural properties on all lands 

affected by federal undertakings. Prior to any mining disturbance, SHPO is 

consulted to evaluate the eligibility of the cultural properties for inclusion in the 

NRHP. Cultural properties that are determined to be eligible for the NRHP are 

avoided or, if avoidance is not possible, a recovery plan is implemented prior to 

disturbance. 

Mining activities are monitored during topsoil stripping operations. If a lease is 

issued for the Belle Ayr North, West Coal Creek, Caballo West, or Maysdorf II LBA 

tracts, BLM would attach a stipulation to each lease requiring the lessee to notify 

appropriate federal personnel if cultural materials are uncovered during mining 

operations (appendix D). 

3.12.5 Residual Impacts 

Cultural sites that are determined to be eligible for the NRHP would be avoided if 

possible. Eligible sites that cannot be avoided would be destroyed by surface coal 

mining after data from those sites is recovered. Sites that are not eligible for the 

NRHP would be lost. 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 3-223 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Cultural sites are permanently destroyed by surface coal mining operations but, 

as a result of the intensive pedestrian inventories, site evaluations and excavation 

and analysis of prehistoric cultural resources discussed above, there is a more 

informed understanding of what types of resources exist in the region and a better 

understanding of local prehistory. 

3.13 Visual Resources 

3.13.1 Affected Environment 

Visual sensitivity levels are determined by people’s concern for what they see and 

the frequency of travel through an area. Landscapes within the general South 

Gillette analysis area include rolling sagebrush and short-grass prairie, which are 

common throughout the PRB. There are also areas of altered landscape, such as 

oil fields and surface coal mines. The existing active surface mines that are 

located on the eastern side of the PRB form three geographic groups that are 

separated by areas with no mining operations (figure 1-1). Two of the groups of 

surface mines are located east of Highway 59 from south of Gillette to south of 

Wright; the third mine group is located on the east side of U.S. Highway 14-16 

from Gillette north for about 13 miles. Other man-made intrusions include 

ranching activities (fences, homesteads, and livestock), oil and gas development 

(pumpjacks, pipeline rights-of-way, CBNG well shelters, and CBNG compressor 

stations), transportation facilities (roads and railroads), environmental monitoring 

installations, road signage, and electrical power transmission lines. The natural 

scenic quality in and near the immediate lease area is fairly low because of the 

industrial nature of the adjacent existing mining operations and oil and gas 

development. 

Visual resource management (VRM) guidelines for BLM lands are to manage 

public lands for current VRM classifications and guidelines. The VRM system is 

the basic tool used by BLM to inventory and manage visual resources on public 

lands. The VRM classes constitute a spectrum ranging from Class I through Class 

V that provides for increasing levels of change within the characteristic landscape. 

The inventoried lands were classified into VRM classes as follows: 

Class I – Natural ecologic changes and very limited management activity is 

allowed. Any contrast (activity) within this class must not attract attention. 

Class II – Changes in any of the basic elements (form, line, color, texture) 

caused by an activity should not be evident in the landscape. 

Class III – Contrasts to the basic elements caused by an activity are evident 

but should remain subordinate to the existing landscape. 

3-224 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
 

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Class IV – Activity attracts attention and is a dominant feature of the landscape 

in terms of scale. 

Class V – This classification is applied to areas where the natural character of 

the landscape has been disturbed up to a point where rehabilitation is needed 

to bring it up to the level of one of the other four classifications. 

For management purposes, BLM evaluated the visual resources on lands under its 

jurisdiction in the 2001 BLM Buffalo RMP update (BLM 2001a). In the general 

South Gillette analysis area, the predominant VRM classifications are Class IV for 

lands not yet disturbed by mining and Class V for lands that have already been 

disturbed by mining. For lands classified as VRM Class IV, activities, such as 

mining, attract attention and are dominant features of the landscape in terms of 

scale. Class V applies to areas where the natural character of the landscape has 

been disturbed up to a point where rehabilitation is needed to bring it up to the 

level of one of the other four classifications. 

Currently, mine facilities and mining activities at the Belle Ayr, Coal Creek, 

Caballo, and Cordero Rojo mines are visible from various public-use roads in the 

general South Gillette analysis area, including State Highway 59, Bishop Road, 

Hoadley Road, Hilight Road, and T-7 Road. 

3.13.2 Environmental Consequences 

3.13.2.1 Proposed Action and Alternatives 2 and 3 

Portions of the Belle Ayr North, West Coal Creek, Caballo West, and Maysdorf II 

LBA tracts are visible from State Highway 59, which is adjacent to the Maysdorf II 

Tract and from 2 to 3 miles west of the other three tracts. Therefore, some mining 

activities on the LBA tracts would be visible from this major travel route. Portions 

of each LBA tract would also be visible from Hilight Road, T-7 Road, Hoadley 

Road, Bishop Road, or Haight Road. 

If the Belle Ayr North, West Coal Creek, Caballo West, and Maysdorf II LBA tracts 

are leased and mined, the portions of the general South Gillette analysis area that 

would be disturbed under the Proposed Action or other action alternatives for each 

tract would be considered as VRM Class V prior to reclamation. After reclamation 

of the LBA tracts and adjoining mines, the areas classified as Class V would 

improve to resemble the surrounding undisturbed terrain. No visual resources 

that are unique to this area have been identified on or near the Belle Ayr North, 

West Coal Creek, Caballo West, and Maysdorf II LBA tracts. 

Reclaimed terrain would be almost indistinguishable from the surrounding 

undisturbed terrain. Slopes might appear smoother (less intricately dissected) 

and gentler (less steep) than undisturbed terrain and sagebrush would not be as 

abundant for several years; however, within a few years after reclamation, the 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 3-225 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

mined land would not be distinguishable from the surrounding undisturbed 

terrain except by someone very familiar with landforms and vegetation. 

3.13.2.2 No Action Alternative 

Under the No Action alternative, the Belle Ayr North, West Coal Creek, Caballo 

West, and Maysdorf II coal lease applications would be rejected and coal removal 

and associated disturbance and impacts would not occur on the additional acres 

that would be disturbed under the Proposed Action or other action alternatives for 

each tract and the current VRM Class IV and V designations would not change for 

those lands. Currently approved mining operations would continue on the 

existing Caballo, Belle Ayr, Cordero Rojo, and Coal Creek Mine leases. Impacts to 

visual resources related to mining operations at these mines would not be 

extended onto portions of the LBA tracts that will not be affected under the 

current mining and reclamation plan. 

As discussed in chapter 2, a decision to reject the Belle Ayr North, West Coal 

Creek, Caballo West, and Maysdorf II LBA lease applications at this time would 

not preclude an application to lease the tracts in the future. 

3.13.3 Regulatory Compliance, Mitigation and Monitoring 

Landscape character would be restored during reclamation to approximate 

original contour and would be reseeded with an approved seed mixture, including 

native species. 

See section 3.2 and section 3.9 for additional discussion of the regulatory 

requirements, mitigation, and monitoring for topography and vegetation. 

3.13.4 Residual Impacts 

No residual impacts to visual resources are expected. 

3.14 Noise 

3.14.1 Affected Environment 

Existing noise sources in the general South Gillette analysis area include coal 

mining activities, traffic on the nearby highways and county roads, rail traffic, 

aircraft traffic to and from the nearby airport, wind, and CBNG compressor 

stations. Noise originating from CBNG development equipment (e.g., drilling rigs 

and construction vehicles) is apparent locally over the short term (i.e., 30 to 60 

days) where well drilling and associated construction activities are occurring. The 

amount of noise overlap between well sites is variable and depends on the timing 

of drilling activities on adjacent sites and the distance between the site locations. 

3-226 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Studies of background noise levels indicate that ambient sound levels generally 

are low at many of the PRB mines, owing to the isolated nature of the area. The 

unit of measure used to represent sound pressure levels (decibels) using the Aweighted scale is a dBA. It is a measure designed to simulate human hearing by 

placing less emphasis on lower frequency noise because the human ear does not 

perceive sounds at low frequency in the same manner as sounds at higher 

frequencies. Figure 3-40 presents noise levels associated with some commonly 

heard sounds. 

No site-specific noise level data are available for the proposed lease areas. 

Because the four LBA tracts are adjacent to operating mines, the current median 

noise level is estimated to be 40-60 dBA for day and night, with the noise level 

increasing with proximity to active mining operations at the adjacent mine. 

Mining activities are characterized by noise levels of 85-95 dBA at 50 ft from 

actual mining operations and activities (BLM 1992). 

OSM prepared a noise impact report for the Caballo Rojo Mine (OSM 1980) that 

determined that the noise level from crushers and a conveyor would not exceed 45 

dBA at a distance of 1,500 ft. The air overpressure created by blasting is 

estimated to be 123 dBA at the location of the blast. At distances of 

approximately 2,500 ft (0.47 mile) or greater, the intensity of this blast would be 

reduced to 55 dBA (no adverse impact level). 

In 2004, Kennecott Energy (now RTEA) contracted with MMC to conduct an 

assessment of environmental noise and vibration conditions at the Cordero Rojo 

complex. Specifically, the assessment was designed to identify which components 

of the mine and which mine-related activities were the key contributors to external 

noise and vibration levels and understand the generation, propagation, and 

potential environmental impacts under a range of meteorological and operating 

conditions. All sound pressure level (SPL) data measured in 2004 at the residence 

nearest to mining activity met EPA standards for suitable living. All blasting 

events were found to be in compliance with OSMRE and USBM safe blasting 

levels. 

The nearest occupied dwellings to the four LBA tracts include in this analysis are 

presented in table 3-18. 

Figures 3-10, 3-13, 3-16, and 3-19 depict the locations of occupied residences 

with respect to the Belle Ayr North, West Coal Creek, Caballo West, and Maysdorf 

II LBA tracts, respectively. 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 3-227 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

HOW IT FEELS EQUIVALENT DECIBELS EQUIVALENT HOW IT SOUNDS
 

SOUNDS SOUNDS
 

Very quiet Danger to hearing

Near permanent damage 

level from short 

exposures 

Pain to ears 

Uncomfortably 

loud 

Discomfort 

threshold 

Very loud 

Conversation 

stops 

Intolerable for 

phone use 

Extra auditory 

physiological 

effects 

Quiet 

Sleep interference 

50 hp siren
 

(100 ft)
 

Jet engine
 

(75 ft)
 

Turbo-fan jet at
 

takeoff power
 

(100ft)
 

Scraper-loader
 

Jet fly over
 

(1000 ft)
 

Noisy newspaper
 

press
 

Air compressor at 20 ft.
 

Mining activity at 50 ft.
 

Power lawnmower
 

Steady flow of
 freeway trafic
 

10-HP outboard motor
 

Automatic
 

dishwasher
 

Vacuum cleaner
 

Window air
 

conditioner outside
 

at 2 ft.
 

Window air 

conditioner 

in room 

Occasional private 

auto at 100 ft. 

Quiet home during 

evening 

Bird calls 

Library 

Soft whisper 5 ft. 

Leaves rustling 

130 

120 

110 

100 

90 

80 

70 

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

10 

Jackhammer
 

Chainsaw
 

Fire cracker
 

(15 ft.)
 

Rock and roll
 

band
 

Unmuffled motor bike
 

(2-3 ft.)
 

Car horn
 

Unmuffled cycle
 

(25 ft.)
 

Garbage trucks
 

and city buses
 

Diesel truck
 

(25 ft.)
 

Garbage disposal
 

Food blender
 

Muffled jet ski
 

(50 ft.)
 

Passenger car
 

65 mph (25 ft)
 

Busy downtown area
 

Normal conversation
 

In a quiet house 

at midnight 

135 dB(A)
 

Approx. 64 times
 

as loud as 75dB(A)
 

125 dB(A)
 

Approx. 32 times
 

as loud as 75dB(A)
 

115 dB(A)
 

Approx. 16 times
 

as loud as 75dB(A)
 

105 dB(A)
 

Approx. 8 times
 

as loud as 75dB(A)
 

95 dB(A)
 

Approx. 4 times
 

as loud as 75dB(A)
 

85 dB(A)
 

Approx. 2 times
 

as loud as 75dB(A)
 

75dB(A)
 

55 dB(A)
 

Approx. 1/4
 

as loud as 75dB(A)
 

45 dB(A)
 

Approx. 1/8
 

as loud as 75dB(A)
 

35 dB(A)
 

Approx. 1/16
 

as loud as 75dB(A)
 

Adapted From ABC's of Our Noise Codes published by 

Citizens Against Noise, Honolulu, Hawaii 

Figure 3-40. Relationship Between A-Scale Decibel Readings and Sounds of Daily Life. 

3-228 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Table 3-18. Noise Related Impacts for the SGAC LBA Tracts. 

LBA Tract 

# of Dwellings Within 

3 Miles 

Single 

Family 

Multiple 

Family 

Distance to 

Closest 

Dwelling 

(ft) 

Max Noise 

Level to 

Closest 

(dBA) 

Potential 

Impacts 

Belle Ayr North 25 2 4,080 51 NAI* 

West Coal Creek 12 0 960 63 PI* 

Caballo West 41 2 3,160 53 NAI 

Maysdorf II 35 1 2,275 56 PI 

* NAI: No adverse impact (24-hour equivalent level of less than or equal to 55 dBA)

 PI: Potential Impacts - no hearing loss (24-hour equivalent level of less than 70 dBA) 

3.14.2 Environmental Consequences 

3.14.2.1 Proposed Action and Alternatives 2 and 3 

Noise levels on the LBA tracts would be increased considerably by mining 

activities such as blasting, loading, hauling, and possibly in-pit crushing. Since 

the LBA tracts would be mined as an extension of existing operations under the 

Proposed Action or other action alternatives for each tract, no rail car loading 

would take place on the LBA tracts. Under the authority of the Noise Control Act 

of 1972, EPA designates that a 24-hour equivalent level of less than 70 dBA 

prevents hearing loss and that a level at or below 55 dBA, in general, does not 

constitute an adverse impact (EPA 1974). 

Potential blasting related noises impacts for the Belle Ayr North, West Coal Creek, 

Caballo West, and Maysdorf II LBA tracts are presented in table 3-18. Because of 

the remoteness of the LBA tracts and because mining is already on going in the 

area, noise would have few off-site impacts. 

Wildlife in the immediate vicinity of mining may be adversely affected by the noise 

of the mining operations. Anecdotal observations at surface coal mines in the area 

suggest that some wildlife may adapt to increased noise associated with coal 

mining activity. After mining and reclamation are completed, noise would return 

to premining levels. 

3.14.2.2 No Action Alternative 

Under the No Action alternatives, coal removal and the associated noise impacts 

would not occur on the additional acres that would be disturbed under the 

Proposed Action or other action alternatives for each tract. Currently approved 

mining operations and associated noise impacts would continue on the Belle Ayr, 

Coal Creek, Caballo, and Cordero Rojo Mine leases. Noise impacts related to 

mining operations at these mines would not extend onto portions of the LBA tracts 

that will not be affected under the current mining and reclamation plan. 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 3-229 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

As discussed in chapter 2, a decision to reject the Belle Ayr North, West Coal 

Creek, Caballo West, and Maysdorf II lease applications at this time would not 

preclude an application to lease the tracts in the future. 

3.14.3 Regulatory Compliance, Mitigation and Monitoring 

Mine operators are required to comply with MSHA regulations concerning noise, 

which include protecting employees from hearing loss associated with noise levels 

at the mines. MSHA periodically conducts mine inspections to ensure compliance 

with the requirements of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977. 

3.14.4 Residual Impacts 

No residual impacts to noise are expected. 

3.15 Transportation 

3.15.1 Affected Environment 

Transportation resources near the general South Gillette analysis area include 

State Highway 59, five improved two-lane county roads (Haight Road, T-7 Road, 

Hilight Road, Hoadley Road, and Bishop Road), several unimproved local roads 

and accesses (unnamed two-track trails), the Gillette-Douglas rail line used jointly 

by BNSF & UP Railroads, oil and gas pipelines, utility/power lines, telephone 

lines, and associated rights-of-way. Figures 3-41 through 3-44 depict the current 

transportation facilities, excluding the oil and gas pipelines, within and near the 

Belle Ayr North, West Coal Creek, Caballo West, and Maysdorf II LBA tracts, 

respectively. Figures 3-45 through 3-48 depict the oil and gas pipelines within 

and near the Belle Ayr North, West Coal Creek, Caballo West, and Maysdorf II LBA 

tracts, respectively. 

State Highway 59 is the major north-south public transportation corridor in this 

area. Principal east-west public transportation corridors are the Haight and T-7 

Roads, which cross the Cordero Rojo Mine’s permit area, and the 

Wagensen/Hoadley Road, which accesses the Coal Creek mines from the west. 

North-south access to the general South Gillette analysis area is on the Bishop 

Road, which crosses between the Caballo and Belle Ayr mines and the Hilight 

Road accesses the Cordero Rojo Mine from the south. The highway and some 

improved roads provide public and private access within the general South Gillette 

analysis area. The unimproved local roads and accesses in the area are for both 

public and private use. 

Coal extracted from the existing surface coal mines in the Wyoming PRB, 

including the four applicant mines in the general South Gillette analysis area, is 

transported in rail cars along the BNSF and UP rail lines. The coal mines north of 

Gillette ship most of their coal via the east-west BNSF rail line that runs through 

3-230 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
tation

Bishop Road 

State

 59 

Highway 

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

R. 72 W. R. 71 W. 

5 4 3 2 1 6 

8 9 10 11 12 7

17 16 15 14 13 18

21 22 23 24 20 19 

25 

29 28 27

26 30

Subs

Subs tation

T. 

48 

N. 

35 36 31 32 33 34 

T. 

48 

N. 

T. 

47 

N. 

2 1 6 

R. 72 W. R. 71 W. 5 4 3 

T. 

47 

N. 

LEGEND 

Existing Belle Ayr Mine Federal Coal Leases 

Belle Ayr Mine Permit Boundary 

Belle Ayr North LBA Tract as Applied for 

BLM's Study Area 

0 2500 5000 

GRAPHIC SCALE (FEET) 

10000 

Alternative 2, 

BLM's Preferred Alternative 

Electric Corridor 

Telephone Corridor 

Figure 3-41. Transportation Facilities Within and Adjacent to the Belle Ayr North LBA Tract. 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 3-231
2 Lawver 

Road 

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

R. 71 W. R. 70 W. 

4 3 2 1 6 5 2 

UP RR

H

BNSF &

ey R o oad adl

16 15 18 17 14 13 14 

20 21 22 24 23 23 19 

29 28 27 25 30 26

26 

35 32 33 34 35 36 31 

T. T.

46 46

N. N.

T. T.

45 45

N. N.

Coal Creek Mine Permit Boundary 

Existing Coal Creek Mine Federal Coal Lease 

West Coal Creek LBA Tract as Applied for 

BLM's Study Area 

0 5000 10000 

GRAPHIC SCALE (FEET) 

20000 

Electric Corridor 

Telephone Corridor 

BNSF & UP Rail Line 

DM & E Proposed Rail Line 

Alternative 2, 

BLM's Preferred Alternative 

8 9 10 12 7 11 11 

5 4 1 6 3 2

R. 71 W. R. 70 W. 

LEGEND 

Figure 3-42. Transportation Facilities Within and Adjacent to the West Coal Creek LBA Tract. 

3-232 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
State

 59 Highway 

Bishop Road 

Bishop 

Road 

36 

49 49 

State

 59 Highway 

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

R. 72 W. R. 71 W. 

31 34 35 32 33 T. T. 

N. N. Four Corners Road 

T. 

48 

N. 

T. 

48 

N. 

1 6 5 4 3 2 

12 7 8 9 10 11 

17 16 15 14 13 18

20 21 22 23 24 19

25 29 30 28 26 27 

Subs tation

Subs tation

36 31 

R. 72 W. R. 71 W. 

32 33 34 35 

LEGEND 

Existing Caballo Mine Federal Coal Leases 

Caballo Mine Permit Boundary 

0 2500 5000 

GRAPHIC SCALE (FEET) 

10000 

Caballo West LBA Tract as Applied for 

BLM's Study Area (Alternative 2), 

BLM's Preferred Alternative 

Electric Corridor 

Telephone Corridor 

BNSF & UP Rail Line 

DM & E Proposed Rail Line 

Figure 3-43. Transportation Facilities Within and Adjacent to the Caballo West LBA Tract. 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 3-233
T-7 Road

Haight Road 

Hoe 

Road 

Creek 

Hilight 

Road

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

R. 72 W. R. 71 W. 

32 33 34 35 36 36 31
 35
 

State Highway 59

1
 6 1 5 4 3 2 2
 ey R

Hoadl

oad

B UP RR NSF & 

9 10 11 12 11 7 8 12
 

13 17
 15 14 16 14
 13 18
 

21 23 20 23 24
 19 22
 

30 26 25
 

LEGEND 

Cordero Rojo Mine 

Permit Boundary 

Existing Cordero Rojo Mine 

Federal Coal Leases 

Maysdorf II LBA Tract as Applied for 

BLM's Study Area (Alternative 2) 

North Tract Under Alternative 3, 

BLM's Preferred Alternative 

South Tract Under Alternative 3, 

BLM's Preferred Alternative 

Electric Corridor 

Telephone Corridor 

BNSF & UP Rail Line 

DM & E Proposed Rail Line 

T.
 

47
 

N.
 

T.
 

46
 

N.
 

25
 

28 27 29 26
 

34 35 32 33 36
 

3 2 1 5 4
 

10
 11 12 8 9
 

14
 13 17 16 15
 

T.
 

47
 

N.
 

T.
 

46
 

N.
 

Hoadley Road 0 3000 6000 12000
 

20 GRAPHIC SCALE (FEET) 21
 22 23
 

R. 71 W. 

Figure 3-44. Transportation Facilities Within and Adjacent to the Maysdorf II LBA Tract. 

3-234
 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 

24 

24 
Bishop 

Road 

State

 59 Highway 

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

R. 72 W. R. 71 W. 

4 3 2 5 1 6 

8 9 10 11 12 7

14 13 18 16 15 17 

19 20 21 22 23 24 

26 

29 28 27 

25 30

T. 

48 

N. 

35 36 31 32 33 34 

T. 

48 

N. 

T. 

47 

N. 

2 1 

R. 72 W. R. 71 W. 

6 5 4 3 

T. 

47 

N. 

LEGEND 

Belle Ayr Mine Permit Boundary 

Existing Belle Ayr Mine Federal Coal Leases 

Belle Ayr North LBA Tract as Applied for 

BLM's Study Area 

0 5000 10000 

GRAPHIC SCALE (FEET) 

20000 

Alternative 2, 

BLM's Preferred Alternative 

Oil or Gas Pipeline 

Figure 3-45. Oil and Gas Pipelines Within and Adjacent to the Belle Ayr North LBA Tract. 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 3-235
Lawver 

Road 

2 

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

R. 71 W. R. 70 W. 

4 3 2 2 1 6 5

UP RR B

H

NSF &

ey R o oad adl

17
 16
 15 13 18 14 14
 

21 24 19 20 22
 23 23
 

29
 28 27 30
 26 26 25
 

35 32 33 34
 35 36 31
 

T. T.

46
 46

N. N.

T. T.

45
 45

N. N.

8
 9 10
 12 7 11 11
 

5 4
 1 6
 3 2

R. 71 W. R. 70 W. 

LEGEND 

Coal Creek Mine Permit Boundary 

Existing Coal Creek Mine Federal Coal Lease 

West Coal Creek LBA Tract as Applied for 

BLM's Study Area 

Alternative 2, 

BLM's Preferred Alternative 5000 10000 20000
 Oil or Gas Pipeline 

Abandoned Oil or Gas Pipeline 

GRAPHIC SCALE (FEET) 

Figure 3-46. Oil and Gas Pipelines Within and Adjacent to the West Coal Creek LBA Tract. 

3-236 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 

0 
Bishop 

Road 

State

 59 Highway 

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

R. 72 W. R. 71 W. 

T. 

49 

N. 

T. 

48 

N. 

36 

1 6 

31 32 

5 

33 

4 

Four Corners 

34 

Road 

3 

35 

2 

T. 

49 

N. 

T. 

48 

N. 

12 8 9 10 11 7 

16 15 14 13 18 17

21 19 20 22 23 24 

25 30 29 28 27 26 

36 31 

R. 72 W. R. 71 W. 

32 33 34 35 

0 5000 10000 

GRAPHIC SCALE (FEET) 

20000 

LEGEND 

Caballo West LBA Tract as Applied for 

Existing Caballo Mine Federal Coal Leases 

Caballo Mine Permit Boundary 

BLM's Study Area (Alternative 2), 

BLM's Preferred Alternative 

Oil or Gas Pipeline 

Figure 3-47. Oil and Gas Pipelines Within and Adjacent to the Caballo West LBA Tract. 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 3-237
T-7 Road

Haight Road 

HoeRoadCreek 

Hilight

Road

State Highway 59

25 

29 

26 28 27 

26 25 30 

LEGEND 

Cordero Rojo Mine
 Permit Boundary
 

Existing Cordero Rojo Mine T. 32 33 34 35 36 T. 

Federal Coal Leases 47 

Maysdorf II LBA Tract N. 

47 

N. as Applied for 

T.

ey R

Hoadl

BLM's Study Area (Alternative 2) T. 

oad

46 

North Tract Under Alternative 3, N. 

46 

UP RR BNSF &

N. BLM's Preferred Alternative 3 2 1 5 4 

South Tract Under Alternative 3,
 BLM's Preferred Alternative
 

Oil or Gas Pipeline 

Oil or Gas Gathering Pipeline 

11 

8 9 10 12 

13 17 16 15 14 

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

R. 72 W. R. 71 W. 

32 33 34 35 36 35 36 31

1 1 2 4 3 2 6 5 

9 10 11 12 11 12 7 8 

14 13 16 15 17 14 13 18 

21 23 24 23 24 19 20 22

Hoadley Road 5000 10000 20000 

21 20 22 23 

GRAPHIC SCALE (FEET) R. 71 W. 

Figure 3-48. Oil and Gas Pipelines Within and Adjacent to the Maysdorf II LBA Tract. 

3-238 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 

0 

24 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Gillette for destinations in the Midwest. The coal mines in the south Gillette and 

Wright areas ship most of their coal via the Gillette to Douglas BNSF and UP joint 

trackage that runs south through Campbell and Converse counties and then east 

over separate BNSF and UP mainlines for destinations in the Midwest. Individual 

spur lines connect each PRB mine to the BNSF track or the joint BNSF and UP 

track. If built, the proposed Dakota, Minnesota and Eastern (DM&E) Railroad 

PRB Expansion Project would provide additional rail capacity for those mines 

located in the south Gillette and Wright areas. 

The Surface Transportation Board (STB) gave final approval to the DM&E PRB 

Expansion Project in 2002. However, in response to a successful appeal, the 8th 

Circuit Court of Appeals directed the STB to give further consideration to four 

environmental issues that were raised. The STB issued a Final SEIS on the 

expansion project December 30, 2005, which addressed the four issues that were 

remanded back to the STB with input from various Federal agencies, Tribes, 

organizations, environmental groups, businesses, and members of the general 

public (STB 2006). The issue-driven alignment has been determined and the 

DM&E rail line would potentially be in a position to haul coal produced by the 

Belle Ayr, Coal Creek, Caballo, and Cordero Rojo mines. If constructed, the 

DM&E project would be the largest railroad construction project in the United 

States in the last 100 years (Sheridan Press 2006). The STB granted final 

approval to construct the rail line on February 15, 2006. The SEIS was also 

appealed, but was upheld by the US Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit in 

December 2006. In early September, 2007, Canadian Pacific Railway Ltd 

announced acquisition of the DM&E and its subsidiaries (MSNBC 2007). The 

transaction was reviewed and approved by the STB in October 2008 (Canadian 

Pacific Railroad 2008). 

3.15.2 Environmental Consequences 

3.15.2.1 Proposed Action and Alternatives 2 and 3 

Essentially all of the coal mined on the LBA tracts would be transported by rail 

system. Since the Belle Ayr North, West Coal Creek, Caballo West, and Maysdorf 

II LBA tracts would be an extension of the operating mines, the existing rail 

facilities and infrastructure would be used during mining of the proposed lease 

areas. BNSF & UP have upgraded and are continuing to upgrade their rail 

capacities to handle the increasing coal volume projected from the PRB, with or 

without the leasing of the proposed Belle Ayr North, West Coal Creek, Caballo 

West, and Maysdorf II LBA tracts. The proposed DM&E Railroad expansion into 

this area is not dependent on leasing the four LBA tracts. 

Coal dust and fines blowing or sifting from moving, loaded rail cars has been 

linked to railroad track stability problems resulting in train derailments and to 

rangeland fires caused by spontaneous combustion of accumulated coal dust. 

The leasing and mining of the four LBA tracts would not increase the rate of 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 3-239 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

buildup of coal dust and fines but would prolong the issue. A collaborative effort 

between the National Coal Transportation Association, the mines, and the BNSF 

and UP Railroads resulted in an improved design for a coal loading chute that 

distributes coal more evenly and produces a lower profile load (UPRR 2006). 

Preliminary results have demonstrated that the new design has resulted in a 30 to 

60 percent reduction in coal dust blowing off the top of cars during the early 

portion of the route. The collaborative team is also analyzing the value of crushing 

the coal to a 3-inch diameter rather than 2-inch diameter to reduce dust and fines 

filtering through the bottom gates of rail cars, and using a surfactant applied to 

the top of the load to reduce coal dust emissions (UPRR 2006). 

Active pipelines and utility/power transmission lines currently cross the LBA 

tracts. Any relocation of these pipelines and utility lines would be handled 

according to specific agreements between the coal lessee and the pipeline and 

utility owners, if the need arises. There would be additional surface disturbance 

associated with construction when pipeline is relocated. 

As discussed in chapters 1 and 2, not all of the coal included in the LBA tracts is 

mineable. Coal included in the Belle Ayr North LBA tract and the Maysdorf II LBA 

tract under both the Proposed Action and other action alternatives and coal 

included in the Caballo West LBA tract under Alternative 2 is overlain by portions 

of existing county roads. In addition, some of the coal included in the tract under 

the Maysdorf II Proposed Action and Alternatives 2 and 3 is overlain by State 

Highway 59. SMCRA prohibits mining within 100 ft of the outside right-of-way 

line of any public road unless the appropriate public road authority allows the 

road to be relocated or closed after public notice, an opportunity for a public 

hearing, and a finding that the interests of the affected public and landowners will 

be protected [30 CFR 761.11(d)]. As a result, the coal underlying the highway and 

county road rights-of-way and adjacent buffer zones has been determined to be 

unsuitable for mining according to coal leasing Unsuitability Criterion Number 3 

[43 CFR 3461(c)]. 

The coal underlying the Bishop, Haight, and Hilight Roads and Highway 59 is 

included in the Belle Ayr, Caballo West, and Maysdorf II LBA tracts being 

considered for leasing because the coal under the roads could be mined if the 

authorized public road authorities determine that the roads could be moved [see 

43 CFR 3461.5(c)(2)(iii) and discussion in section 2.1]. If the roads are not moved, 

including the underlying coal in the leases would allow maximum recovery of all 

the mineable coal adjacent to the road rights-of-way and buffer zones (100 ft on 

either side of a road right-of-way). FCW and CCC are evaluating the feasibility of 

relocating the Bishop Road at this time. CMC does not currently have plans to 

relocate Highway 59 but is evaluating the feasibility of relocating the Haight and 

Hilight roads. 

All mining related road relocation option plans would be reviewed and approved by 

the Campbell County Commissioners and/or the WYDOT prior to road relocation, 

3-240 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

with or without leasing of the Belle Ayr North, West Coal Creek, Caballo West, and 

Maysdorf II LBA tracts. Vehicular traffic to and from the mines would continue at 

existing levels for over 10 additional years, depending on the LBA tracts involved 

and which alternatives are selected. 

3.15.2.2 No Action Alternative 

Under the No Action alternative, coal removal would not occur on the additional 

acres that would be disturbed under the Proposed Action or other action 

alternatives for each tract and the transportation resources located in those areas 

would not be affected by mining. Currently approved mining operations and any 

associated impacts to transportation resources would continue on the Belle Ayr, 

Coal Creek, Caballo, and Cordero Rojo Mine leases. Impacts related to mining 

operations at these mines would not be extended onto portions of the LBA tracts 

that will not be affected under the current mining and reclamation plan. 

As discussed in chapter 2, a decision to reject the Belle Ayr North, West Coal 

Creek, Caballo West, and Maysdorf II lease applications at this time would not 

preclude an application to lease the tracts in the future. 

3.15.3 Regulatory Compliance, Mitigation and Monitoring 

The regulatory requirements regarding transportation facilities require that no 

public road be relocated unless the appropriate public road authority allows the 

road to be relocated or closed and that existing pipelines and utility lines be 

relocated, if necessary, in accordance with specific agreements between the coal 

lessee and the pipeline and utility owners. 

3.15.4 Residual Impacts 

3.15.4.1 Coal Loss During Transport 

According to the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), with the opening of the 

Powder River Basin in Wyoming in the late 1970s, U.S. coal shipments have grown 

dramatically from 4.8 million carloads to 8.4 million carloads in 2006, as the 

railroads deliver low sulfur coal to help electric utilities achieve Clean Air 

Standards (FRA 2008). The largest rail coal movements are from the Powder River 

Basin to generating power plants in Illinois, Missouri, and Texas (FRA 2008). 

Sifting and blowing coal dust and coal chunks coming off freshly loaded moving 

railroad cars can accumulate along railroad tracks, railroad rights-of-way, and on 

adjacent lands. Coal dust can wash into drainages where large deposits of lost 

coal can accumulate. Accumulated coal dust has been linked to train derailments 

and can also spontaneously combust and cause wildfires. 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 3-241 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Coal can be lost from rail cars through leakage from the rail car discharge doors, 

spillage over the rail car sides, and can be blown from rail car tops during transit. 

In testing conducted by Union Pacific Railroad, Burlington Northern Sante Fe 

Railroad, and the National Coal Transportation Association (NCTA), the average 

loss of coal from an individual rail car’s rapid discharge doors was about 19 

pounds per 216 miles, or 0.09 pounds per mile (NCTA 2007). The same testing 

indicated that an average of 225 pounds of coal was lost from the top of a coal car 

through either top spillage or being blown off during a 567 mile test trip, which 

equated to about 0.40 pounds per mile (NCTA 2007). 

The derailment of two trains in the PRB in 2005 suspected to have resulted from 

track instability problems caused by a buildup of coal dust and other particles on 

the rail bed in combination with high concentrations of moisture (UPRR 2005). 

BNSF railway officials toured the PRB rail infrastructure in June, 2007. 

According to a BNSF official, when coal dust is blown off rail cars, it gets lodged in 

the rail bed, allowing moisture to intrude. The moisture then degrades the 

structural stability of the rail bed and leaves the rail more vulnerable to buckling 

under stress (Gillette News-Record 2007a). NCTA (2007) testing results suggested 

that rail car bottom spillage may have more of a negative impact on rail ballast 

stability than loss from the top of rail cars since the leakage is directly above and 

near the ballast. NCTA (2007) testing also showed that after the rapid discharge 

doors were adjusted, there was a 32 percent decrease in bottom spillage of coal. 

Accumulating coal dust and deposition has become a concern in Converse 

County. The majority of coal mined in the PRB travels through Converse County 

on railroads. Coal dust blows off the freshly loaded coal cars on their way from 

the PRB mine load-outs to Bill and through Converse County (Casper Star Tribune 

2007a). 

Spontaneous combustion of accumulated coal dust can cause rangeland fires. 

Smoldering coal dust within a railroad right-of-way can ignite a wildfire and 

quickly spread to surrounding private lands if the fire is not immediately 

controlled. The Douglas Volunteer Fire Department Chief, Rick Andrews, 

estimates that coal fires account for at least 50 percent of the department’s 

average summer call volume (Casper Star Tribune 2007a). Coal fires along the 

railroad tracks are an ongoing problem for the Douglas Volunteer Fire Department 

(Casper Star Tribune 2007a). Often water only temporarily puts down the flames; 

some fires repeatedly ignite over the course of several hours or days (Casper Star 

Tribune 2007a). While the county’s rural fire district is compensated for some of 

the costs involved in putting out fires caused by transported coal, the 

compensation doesn’t come close to the actual costs, according to the Douglas 

Volunteer Fire Department Chief (Casper Star Tribune 2007a). 

BLM was invited by a Converse county private land owner to examine and survey 

the coal deposition that has occurred from coal trains traveling through his land. 

On July 7, 2008, BLM personnel met with the private landowner and toured his 

3-242 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
 

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

rangeland that was adjacent to the railroad right-of-way, about 26 miles north of 

Douglas, Wyoming. BLM surveyed various coal accumulations in Box Creek; one 

area was found to have a coal accumulation of 1.8 feet thick (BLM 2008d). Water 

runoff washed coal lost from the trains into drainages, with the amount of coal 

deposition varying along the tracks (BLM 2008d). 

BNSF is working with the utility companies and the mines in trying to encourage a 

larger diameter of crushed coal to be delivered (3-inch versus 2-inch) in an effort 

to reduce the amount of small particles that are created in the crushing process 

(UPRR 2006). Another possibility that may help lessen blowing coal dust from 

trains is the use of surfactants applied to the tops of loaded coal cars (Gillette 

News-Record 2007a). When applied to coal, surfactants can adhere coal dust to 

larger coal chunks. Some tests have shown that coal dust on railroad tracks can 

be reduced by up to 95 percent with surfactant use (Gillette News-Record 2007a). 

Surfactant application requires large amounts of water and they would need to 

meet utility companies’ burning specifications in order to be used (Burget 2008 

and Gillette News-Record 2007a). 

A collaborative effort between the NCTA, PRB mines, and the BNSF and UP 

railroads has resulted in an improved design for a coal loading chute that 

distributes coal more evenly and produces a lower profile load (UPRR 2006). 

Preliminary results have demonstrated that this new design may result in a 30 to 

60 percent reduction in coal dust blowing off the top of cars during the early 

portion of the route (UPRR 2006). 

Converse County Commissioners have formally expressed concerns to BLM in 

regard to fire, health, and safety issues associated with blowing coal dust from 

trains. The Commissioners have stated that the health and well-being of Converse 

County citizens downwind of the railroad tracks continue to be jeopardized due to 

lack of coal dust mitigation in the coal mining permit process (BLM 2008e). The 

Converse County Commissioners have urged that coal dust mitigation be applied 

as a standard condition of approval upfront in the mining permit (BLM 2008e). 

BLM does not authorize mining permits nor regulate mining operations with the 

issuance of a BLM coal lease. In Wyoming, WDEQ has entered into a cooperative 

agreement with the Secretary of the Interior to enforce mining regulations and 

regulate surface coal mining operations. Any action related to the mining of 

leased coal must be approved by WDEQ before mining operations can occur on 

the leased federal coal lands. Mitigation and other requirements are developed as 

part of the mining and reclamation permit. 

Other agencies that may be stakeholders in this issue include the Federal Railroad 

Administration, which implements U.S. Department of Transportation 

environmental policies related to U.S. railroads, and the National Coal 

Transportation Association whose mission includes facilitating the resolution of 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 3-243 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

coal transportation issues in order to serve the needs of the general public and 

industry (NCTA 2008). 

3.16 Hazardous and Solid Waste 

3.16.1 Affected Environment 

Potential sources of hazardous or solid waste on the Belle Ayr North, West Coal 

Creek, Caballo West, and Maysdorf II LBA tracts would include spilled, leaked or 

dumped hazardous substances, petroleum products, and/or solid waste 

associated with coal and oil and gas exploration, oil and gas development, the 

BNSF & UP railroad, utility line installation and maintenance, or agricultural 

activities. No such hazardous or solid wastes are known to be present on any of 

the four LBA tracts. Wastes produced by current mining activities at the Belle 

Ayr, Coal Creek, Caballo, and Cordero Rojo mines are handled according to the 

procedures described in chapter 2, section 2.8. 

3.16.2 Environmental Consequences 

3.16.2.1 Proposed Action and Alternatives 2 and 3 

If the applicant mines acquire the four LBA tracts, the wastes that would be 

generated in the course of mining the tract would be similar to those currently 

being generated by the existing mining operation. The procedures that are used 

for handling hazardous and solid wastes at the existing mines are described in 

chapter 2, section 2.8. Wastes generated by mining the LBA tracts would be 

handled in accordance with the existing regulations using the procedures 

currently in use and in accordance with WDEQ-approved waste disposal plans at 

the Belle Ayr, Coal Creek, Caballo, and Cordero Rojo mines. 

3.16.2.2 No Action Alternative 

Under the No Action alternative, coal removal would not occur on the additional 

acres that would be disturbed under the Proposed Action or other action 

alternatives for each tract and no waste materials would be generated as a result 

of coal removal on the tracts. Coal removal and any associated waste production 

would continue on the existing Belle Ayr, Coal Creek, Caballo, and Cordero Rojo 

Mine leases. Impacts related to mining operations at this mine would not be 

extended onto portions of the LBA tracts that will not be affected under the 

current mining and reclamation plans, and no waste materials would be generated 

as a result of coal removal on the tracts. 

As discussed in chapter 2, a decision to reject the Belle Ayr North, West Coal 

Creek, Caballo West, and Maysdorf II lease applications at this time would not 

preclude an application to lease the tracts in the future. 

3-244 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3.16.3 Regulatory Compliance, Mitigation and Monitoring 

The regulatory requirements regarding production, use, and/or disposal of 

hazardous or extremely hazardous materials are discussed in chapter 2. All 

mining activities involving the hazardous materials are and would continue to be 

conducted so as to minimize potential environmental impacts. 

3.16.4 Residual Impacts 

No residual hazardous and solid waste impacts are expected. 

3.17 Socioeconomics 

The social and economic study area for the proposed project includes Campbell 

County and the City of Gillette. The community of Gillette, the county seat, would 

most likely attract the majority of any new residents due to its current population 

levels and the availability of services, shopping amenities, and educational 

institutions. 

3.17.1 Local Economy 

3.17.1.1 Affected Environment 

Wyoming’s coal mines produced 452.1 million tons in 2007, according to the 

Wyoming State Inspector of mines. This was an increase of almost 2 percent over 

the 444.9 million tons produced in 2006. PRB coal production (Campbell and 

Converse counties, 14 active mines) was over 436.6 million tons in 2007, which 

represented almost 97 percent of the state coal production (Wyoming Department 

of Employment 2006 and 2007a). 

Approximately 27 percent of the November of 2007 total employment in Campbell 

County and 40 percent of the second quarter 2007 total payroll was attributed to 

the natural resources and mining sector (Wyoming Department of Employment 

2007b and Wyoming Department of Employment 2008a). In 2007, Campbell 

County employment grew at a similar rate compared to the statewide average (3.7 

percent versus 3.6 percent change, respectively). Job growth occurred in 

construction, trade, manufacturing, transportation and utilities, and local 

government, but the most dramatic increase was in the manufacturing sector 

(Wyoming Department of Employment 2008b). 

Revenues to the federal government from the leasing and production of federal 

coal include retention of one-half of the lease bonus bids and federal mineral 

royalties. Lease bonus bids are paid to the federal government for the right to 

enter into lease agreements for federal coal. Bonus bids are paid in five annual 

installments; the state receives half of each installment. In 2004 and 2005, BLM 

held competitive sealed-bid lease sales for six federal coal tracts in the PRB (NARO 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 3-245 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

South, West Antelope, West Hay Creek, Little Thunder, West Roundup, and NARO 

North). No coal lease sales were held for federal coal tracts in the PRB in 2006 or 

2007. Two lease sales (Eagle Butte West and South Maysdorf) were held in 2008 

and one sale (North Maysdorf) has been held thus far in 2009. 

The successful bonus bids for the six lease sales held in 2004 and 2005 ranged 

from 30 cents per ton to 97 cents per ton and totaled $1.69 billion (BLM 2006b). 

Annual bonus bid payments from the six lease sales total $338.2 million. 

Combined with remaining bonus bid payments from lease sales held in previous 

years of $90.1 million, the annual bonus bid payment total for 2004 was $428.3 

million, derived directly from federal coal in Campbell and Converse counties. The 

Wyoming Consensus Revenue Estimating Group is projecting that coal lease 

bonus revenues to the state will be $169.8 million for fiscal years 2007, 2008, and 

2009. The bonus money received by the state is allocated to fund capital 

construction for cities and towns, the state’s highway fund, community colleges, 

and school capital construction (Wyoming CREG 2007). 

Wyoming, Campbell County, and the cities and towns in the county receive 

revenue from a variety of taxes and royalties on the production of federal coal in 

addition to the bonus bids. These include ad valorem taxes, severance taxes, 

royalty payments, sales and use taxes, and required contributions to the 

Abandoned Mine Land (AML) program and the Black Lung Disability Trust Fund. 

Federal mineral royalties are collected at the time the coal is sold and equal 12.5 

percent of the sale price. In the past, federal royalties and bonus bids had been 

divided equally with the state of Wyoming. However, for fiscal years 2008 and 

2009, Congress decreased the state’s royalty share to 48 percent, and increased 

the federal government’s share to 52 percent. The percentage of federal bonus, 

rental, and royalty payments distribution will revert back to 50 percent/50 

percent at the end of the 2009 fiscal year unless legislation is passed in the future 

to maintain or further modify the current percentage of distribution of royalties. 

Coal mines pay 31.5 cents per ton of surface coal mined to fund AML reclamation 

programs. Annual appropriations returned to the states vary depending on 

Congressional authorizations and AML program priorities. Additional sources of 

revenue include federal income tax and annual rentals that are paid to the 

government. 

Sales and use taxes, which are levied by the state and local governments, are 

distributed to cities and towns within the county and to the county’s general fund. 

Approximately 70 percent of the revenues generated from the statewide 4.0 

percent levy are retained by the state, the remainder being distributed to the 

counties, cities and towns according to statutory formula. In addition, the 

Campbell County government imposes a 1.0 percent general purpose local option 

tax and a 0.25 percent specific county option tax. Sales and tax revenues are vital 

for local governments. According to the Excise Tax Division of the Wyoming 

Department of Revenue (2004), the sales and use taxes collected from coal mines 

3-246 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

and coal mining-related services in Campbell County in fiscal year (FY) 2004 was 

$8.2 million. 

Ad valorem taxes comprise production and property taxes, with production taxes 

being far greater than property taxes for surface coal mines. Ad valorem taxes are 

collected by the county and disbursed to local governments and school districts 

that rely heavily on ad valorem taxes. Rising production and market values for oil 

and gas, and the increases in coal production tonnages have given rise to 

dramatic increases in the ad valorem tax bases of producing counties, particularly 

Campbell County. In 2005, Campbell County had an ad valorem tax base of 

$3.66 billion; more than 22 percent of the aggregate statewide assessed value on 

all real property and mineral production. The coal mining industry accounted for 

59 percent of Campbell County’s 2005 total assessed value (Wyoming Department 

of Revenue 2006 and Wyoming State Board of Equalization 2007). 

In 1994, the University of Wyoming estimated that the total fiscal benefit to the 

state of Wyoming for coal produced in the PRB was $1.10 per ton (Borden et al. 

1994). This study did not include AML fees or bonus bid payments in the 

calculation for fiscal benefits to the state of Wyoming. Calculating the estimated 

total fiscal benefit to the state of Wyoming in 2005 by including half of the bonus 

bid payments, half of the federal mineral royalties based on current prices, half of 

the AML fees, and all of the ad valorem taxes, severance taxes, and sales and use 

taxes for coal produced in Campbell County in 2005 results in an estimated $661 

million, or $1.62 per ton. Figure 3-49 depicts the estimated total revenues to 

state and federal governments from 2006 coal production in Campbell County. 

Recent (2004) Gross State Product (GSP) calculations for Wyoming indicate that 

the minerals industry (mining and oil and gas) accounted for about 21 percent of 

the state’s total GSP of $24.1 billion, which made it the largest sector of the 

Wyoming economy. The contribution of mining was nearly twice that of 

government, the next largest sector, and more than three times the contribution of 

the real estate industry, the next largest private sector. Mining alone accounted 

for 8.3 percent of the Wyoming GSP (Wyoming Department of Administration and 

Information 2007a). 

3.17.1.2 Environmental Consequences 

3.17.1.2.1 Proposed Action and Alternatives 2 and 3 

The federal and state revenues that would be generated by the leasing and mining 

of the LBA tracts would depend on which alternative is selected and the sale price 

of the coal. Coal prices increased in 2005, generally as a result of concerns over 

coal transportation and stockpile issues, but declined in 2006. According to the 

WSGS, the average spot price of 8,400 Btu coal in the PRB in the second half of 

2005 was $11.06 per ton, compared with an average spot price during the first 

half of 2005 of $7.29 per ton and an average spot price of $4.93 per ton the year 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 3-247 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Sales and Use Taxes 

$16.5 million 

(2.2%) 

Ad Valorem Taxes 

$149.3 million 

(20.2%) 

Bonus Bid Payments 

$192.4 million 

(26.0%) 

Federal Mineral Royalties 

$123.6 million 

(16.7%) 

Severence Tax 

$186.8 million 

(25.3%) 

AML Fund 

$71.2 million 

(9.6%) 

Total Wyoming Revenue = $739.8 Million 

Black Lung Fund 

$142.9 million 

(27.0%) 

Federal Royalties 

$123.6 million 

(23.3%) 

Bonus Bid Payments AML Fund 

$192.4 million $71.2 million 

(36.3%) (13.4%) 

Total Federal Revenue = $530.1 Million 

Figure 3-49. Estimated Wyoming and Federal Revenues from 2006 Coal Production in Campbell County. 

3-248 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
 

 

 

 

 

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

before (WSGS 2006). However, PRB spot prices declined throughout 2006. The 

average spot price for 8,400 Btu coal was $9.86 per ton in 2006 (WSGS 2008). 

The Wyoming Consensus Revenue Estimating Group is forecasting that the 

average gross sales prices for Wyoming coal production will ranged from $9.98 to 

$10.65 per ton from 2007 through 2012 (Wyoming CREG 2008). PRB prices are 

generally lower than prices for coal produced in other areas of Wyoming; however, 

most of the coal produced in Wyoming is from the PRB. For the purposes of this 

EIS, a conservative average price of $9.98 per ton (Wyoming CREG 2008) is 

estimated for the coal included in the Belle Ayr North, Coal Creek West, Caballo 

West, and Maysdorf II LBA tracts, which have an average Btu value of a little over 

8,400. 

Using the coal tonnages shown in tables 3-1 through 3-4, projected federal and 

state revenues for the LBA tracts are presented in table 3-19, assuming an 

average coal price of $9.98 per ton recovered and a potential range of bonus 

payments on the leased (mineable) coal of 30 to 97 cents per ton. 

Table 3-19. 	 Projected Socioeconomic Impacts from Leasing the South Gillette 

Analysis Area LBA Tracts Under the Proposed Action and 

Alternatives 2 and 3. 

No Action 

Tract and Item Alternative Proposed Action Alternatives 2 and 3 

(Existing Mine) 

Belle Ayr North LBA 

 State Revenues $382.9 million $276.1 – $331.3 million $267.7 - $321.1 million 

 Federal Revenues $283.6 million $210.9 – $266.1 million $204.5 - $258.0 million 

 Increased Mine Life 0 yrs 6.4 yrs 6.8 yrs 

 Additional Employees 0 8 	 8 

West Coal Creek LBA 

 State Revenues $353.2 million $102.1 to $123.3 million $102.1 to $123.3 million

 Federal Revenues $261.6 million $78.1 to $99.3 million $78.1 to $99.3 million 

 Increased Mine Life 0 yrs 4.3 yrs 4.3 yrs 

 Additional Employees 0 10 10 

Caballo West LBA

 State Revenues $949.6 million $146.0 – $175.3 million $163.6 - $196.5 million 

 Federal Revenues $703.4 million $111.5 - $140.8 million $125.0 - $157.9 million 

 Increased Mine Life 0 yrs 2.2 yr 2.6 yr

 Additional Employees 0 0 0 

Maysdorf II LBA

 State Revenues $854.0 million $778.0 – $939.7 million $822.8 - $993.7 million 

 Federal Revenues $632.6 million $595.1 - $756.7 million $629.3 - $800.3 million 

 Increased Mine Life 0 yrs 9.7 yrs 10.3 yrs 

 Additional Employees 0 60 63 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 3-249 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

If the Belle Ayr North, Coal Creek West, Caballo West, and Maysdorf II LBA tracts 

are leased and mined under the Proposed Actions or other action alternatives 

potential federal revenues would vary by LBA tract as indicated below. 

3.17.1.2.1.1 Belle Ayr North LBA Tract 

Under the Proposed Action, the potential additional federal revenues would range 

from approximately $211 million to $266 million. Under Alternative 2, potential 

additional federal revenues would range from approximately $205 million to $258 

million. 

If the LBA tract is leased and mined under the Proposed Action, the potential 

additional state revenues would range from about $276 million to $331 million. 

Under Alternative 2, potential additional state revenues would range from about 

$268 million to $321 million. 

The base of economic activity provided by wages and local purchases would 

continue for over 6 additional years, depending on which alternative is selected. 

3.17.1.2.1.2 West Coal Creek LBA Tract 

Under the Proposed Action and under Alternative 2, the potential additional 

federal revenues would range from approximately $78 million to $99 million. 

If the LBA tract is leased and mined under the Proposed Action and under 

Alternative 2, the potential additional state revenues would range from about $102 

million to $123 million. 

The base of economic activity provided by wages and local purchases would 

continue for just over 4 additional years. 

3.17.1.2.1.3 Caballo West LBA Tract 

Under the Proposed Action, the potential additional federal revenues would range 

from approximately $112 million to $141 million. Under Alternative 2, potential 

additional federal revenues would range from approximately $125 million to about 

$158 million. 

If the LBA tract is leased and mined under the Proposed Action, the potential 

additional state revenues would range from about $146 million to $175 million. 

Under Alternative 2, potential additional state revenues would range from about 

$164 million to $197 million. 

The base of economic activity provided by wages and local purchases would 

continue for over 2 additional years. 

3-250 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3.17.1.2.1.4 Maysdorf II LBA Tract 

Under the Proposed Action, the potential additional federal revenues would range 

from approximately $595 million to $757 million. Under Alternatives 2 and 3, 

potential additional federal revenues would range from approximately $629 million 

to $800 million. 

If the LBA tract is leased and mined under the Proposed Action, the potential 

additional state revenues would range from about $778 million to $940 million. 

Under Alternatives 2 and 3, potential additional state revenues would range from 

about $823 million to $994 million. 

The base of economic activity provided by wages and local purchases would 

continue for over 10 additional years, depending on which alternative is selected. 

3.17.1.2.2 No Action Alternative 

Under the No Action alternative, the potentially recoverable coal included in an 

LBA tract under the Proposed Action or other action alternatives would not be 

mined and the economic benefits associated with mining that coal would not be 

realized by the state or federal government. Currently approved mining operations 

and associated economic benefits would continue on the existing mine leases. 

Portions of the LBA tracts adjacent to the existing mines would be disturbed to 

recover the coal in the existing leases. 

As discussed in section 2.2, a decision to reject the Belle Ayr North, Coal Creek 

West, Caballo West, and Maysdorf II lease applications at this time would not 

preclude an application to lease a tract in the future. 

3.17.2 Population 

3.17.2.1 Affected Environment 

Campbell County’s population rose from 33,698 in 2000 to an estimated 40,433 in 

July 2007. This represents a 20 percent growth since 2000 and makes Campbell 

County the second fastest growing county in the state (following only Sublette 

County, which ranked fifth in growth in the nation between July 2006 and July 

2007). Campbell County’s population ranks it as the third most populous of 

Wyoming’s 23 counties (U.S. Census Bureau 2007). 

The majority of the four applicant mines’ employees and support services reside in 

Gillette and Wright. It is estimated that the total population in the City Limits of 

Gillette increased from 24,235 at the beginning of 2003 to 30,636 at the end of 

2007; an increase of 26.4 percent over five years. Gillette accounts for roughly 62 

percent of the county’s residents (City of Gillette 2008a). Wright’s population rose 

from 1,355 in July 2000 to an estimated 1,529 in July 2007, accounting for about 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 3-251 
 

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

4 percent of the county’s residents (U.S. Census Bureau 2007). Gillette is 

currently the fourth largest city in the state, following Cheyenne, Casper, and 

Laramie. (Wyoming Department of Administration and Information 2007a). 

3.17.2.2 Environmental Consequences 

3.17.2.2.1 Proposed Action and Alternatives 2 and 3 

As indicated by table 3-19, leasing and subsequently mining the Belle Ayr North, 

Coal Creek West, Caballo West, and Maysdorf II LBA tracts would extend the life 

of the existing mines and current employment at the mines by nearly 10 

additional years, depending on which LBA tract and which alternative is selected. 

Average yearly employment at the mines would increase by up to 63 positions 

under the Proposed Action and other action alternatives (Cordero Rojo Mine - table 

3-19). It is likely that the additional employees would be available from the 

existing workforce in Campbell County and no influx of new residents would occur 

as a result of filling these new positions. 

3.17.2.2.2 No Action Alternative 

Under the No Action alternative, the Belle Ayr North, Coal Creek West, Caballo 

West, and Maysdorf II coal lease applications would be rejected and the coal 

included in an LBA tract under the Proposed Action or other action alternatives 

would not be mined. Population levels would not be affected by any additional 

employment at the existing mines. Currently approved mining operations and 

associated employment levels would continue on the existing mines leases for 

from about 6 years at the Cordero Rojo Mine up to approximately 17 years at the 

Coal Creek Mine. 

As discussed in section 2.2, a decision to reject the Belle Ayr North, Coal Creek 

West, Caballo West, and Maysdorf II lease applications at this time would not 

preclude an application to lease a tract in the future. 

3.17.3 Employment 

3.17.3.1 Affected Environment 

The statewide total employment increased by more than 10 percent from 2003 to 

2006, and nearly one-of-three of the new jobs created during that 3-year period 

was in the mining industry. During the same period, statewide coal mining 

employment increased by 762 jobs, a 16 percent increase. From 2003 to 2006, 

total employment in Campbell County grew by 3,384 jobs, a 16 percent increase. 

From 2000 through November 2007, the number of employees in Campbell 

County grew by about 33 percent (19,299 to 25,762) (City of Gillette 2008a). The 

average unemployment rate in Campbell County for 2006 was 2.1 percent and 

less than 2.0 percent for 2007 (City of Gillette 2008a), even as the local labor force 

3-252 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

has grown due to immigration and attraction of additional residents into the labor 

force (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics 2008). 

Surface coal mining has changed substantially in recent times, largely as a result 

of new technologies and higher capacity equipment. The local coal mining labor 

force grew rapidly during the 1970s as more mines opened and production 

increased. Between 1980 and 1998, overall production rose while employee 

numbers generally decreased or remained constant. The employment declines 

followed large industry capital investments in facilities and production equipment, 

the majority of which were aimed at increasing productivity (BLM 2005c). Since 

1998, direct employment in the PRB coal mines climbed as total annual 

production increased by more than 45 percent (Wyoming Department of 

Employment 1998 and 2007a). 

The mining sector, which includes oil and gas workers, accounts for nearly 28 

percent of all employment in Campbell County, nearly four times the statewide 

percentage. In the fourth quarter of 2007, around 7,267 people were directly 

employed by surface coal mines or coal contractors in Campbell County, 

representing about 26 percent of the Campbell County employed labor force 

(Wyoming Department of Employment 2008a). Campbell County also has slightly 

higher percentages of construction and wholesale trade employment, which is 

keeping with the development demands of continuing growth and the county’s 

position as a commercial center for northeast Wyoming. 

3.17.3.2 Environmental Consequences 

In January 2008, the unemployment rate in Campbell County was 2.5 percent 

(664 unemployed persons out of a total labor force of 26,295) (Wyoming 

Department of Employment 2008b). It is likely that additional employees would 

be available from the existing labor force in Campbell County, depending on the 

timing of the hiring at the mines as compared to the timing of hiring for other 

ongoing and proposed projects in the county, which are discussed in section 4.1. 

3.17.3.2.1 Proposed Action and Alternatives 2 and 3 

3.17.3.2.1.1 Belle Ayr North LBA Tract 

Leasing and subsequently mining the Belle Ayr North LBA tract would extend the 

life of the Belle Ayr Mine by up to nearly 7 additional years, depending on which 

alternative is selected. As discussed above, average yearly employment at the 

mine would not increase under the Proposed Action and Alternative 2 (table 3-19). 

The economic stability of the community of Gillette would benefit by having the 

current Belle Ayr Mine workforce living in the community and employed at the 

mine for up to about 7 additional years. 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 3-253 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3.17.3.2.1.2 West Coal Creek LBA Tract 

Leasing and subsequently mining the West Coal Creek LBA tract would extend the 

life of the Coal Creek Mine by about 4 additional years, regardless of which 

alternative is selected. As discussed above, average yearly employment at the 

mine would not increase under the Proposed Action and Alternative 2 (table 3-19). 

The economic stability of the community of Gillette would benefit by having the 

current Coal Creek Mine workforce living in the community and employed at the 

mine for up to about 4 additional years. 

3.17.3.2.1.3 Caballo West LBA Tract 

Leasing and subsequently mining the Caballo West LBA tract would extend the life 

of the Caballo Mine by up to over 2 additional years, regardless of which 

alternative is selected. As discussed above, average yearly employment at the 

mine would not increase under the Proposed Action and Alternative 2 (table 3-19). 

The economic stability of the community of Gillette would benefit by having the 

current Caballo Mine workforce living in the community and employed at the mine 

for over 2 additional years. 

3.17.3.2.1.4 Maysdorf II LBA Tract 

Leasing and subsequently mining the Maysdorf II LBA tract would extend the life 

of the Cordero Rojo Mine by up to about 10 additional years, regardless of which 

alternative is selected. As discussed above, average yearly employment at the 

mine would increase by up to 63 positions under the Proposed Action and 

Alternative 2, Alternative 3 (North Tract) and Alternative 3 (South Tract) (table 3­

19). The economic stability of the community of Gillette would benefit by having 

the current Cordero Rojo Mine workforce living in the community and employed at 

the mine for up to about 10 additional years. 

3.17.3.2.2 No Action Alternative 

Under the No Action alternative, the LBA tract lease applications would be rejected 

and the coal included in an LBA tract under the Proposed Action or other action 

alternatives would not be mined. Mine life and existing employment levels would 

not be extended for nearly 10 additional years, and any increase in employees 

associated with mining the coal in the tract would not occur. Currently approved 

mining operations and associated employment would continue on the existing 

mines leases for from about 6 years at the Cordero Rojo Mine to approximately 16 

years at the Coal Creek Mine. Direct jobs provided by the mines and those 

supported indirectly by those operations and the consumer expenditures of the 

mines’ workforces would be lost sooner than if leasing were to occur. 

3-254 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
 

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

As discussed in section 2.2, a decision to reject the Belle Ayr North, Coal Creek 

West, Caballo West, and Maysdorf II lease applications at this time would not 

preclude an application to lease a tract in the future. 

3.17.4 Housing 

3.17.4.1 Affected Environment 

According to a 2001 report on housing needs in Campbell County, roughly 61 

percent of PRB surface coal mining employees live in Gillette and surrounding 

areas, 14 percent live in Wright, and 25 percent live outside of Campbell County 

(Pederson Planning Consultants 2001). 

There were 11,538 housing units in Campbell County reported in the 1990 

census. The 2000 census counted 13,288 housing units in Campbell County, of 

which 12,207 were occupied at the time. There were 8,989 (73.6 percent) owner 

occupied units and 3,218 (26.4 percent) occupied rental units (U.S. Census 

Bureau 2000). 

The number of housing units in Gillette increased from 7,078 in 1990 to 7,931 in 

2000, an increase of 12 percent. The number of housing units increased in 

Wright from 528 in 1990 to 544 in 2000, an increase of slightly over 3 percent. 

The types of housing units counted in 2000 included 6,698 single-family detached 

units, 794 single-family attached units, 2,276 multi-family units, 3,432 mobile 

homes, and 88 RVs, vans, or similar types of units. Subsequent construction 

added 561 single-family detached, 61 single-family attached, 498 manufactured 

homes, and 352 multi-family units in Gillette and Wright, plus an unknown 

number of single-family and manufactured units in rural areas. The resulting 

totals are estimated at 7,259 single-family detached units (49.2 percent), 855 

single-family attached units (5.8 percent), 2,628 multi-family units (17.8 percent), 

3,930 mobile/manufactured units (26.6 percent), and 88 RV/vans (0.6 percent) 

(CSI 2005). 

Population growth since 2000 has prompted new housing construction in the 

region. In Campbell County, net additions to the number of housing units from 

2000 through 2005 total 797. Construction has not kept pace with demand. As a 

consequence, vacancy rates are near record lows and housing prices have 

climbed. In the second half of 2006, vacancy rates of rental units were 0.4 

percent (6 units) in Campbell County (WCDA 2007). During 2006, there were 631 

housing units permitted; a new record. During 2007, another new record was 

established at 1,112 housing units permitted. The housing inventory in Gillette 

increased from 10,194 units to 11,347 units over the 2007 calendar year; an 

increase of 11.3 percent (City of Gillette 2008a). The number of units added in 

unincorporated, rural areas of Campbell County is not known because the county 

does not require building permits or certificates of occupancy for residential 

development in unincorporated areas (Braunlin 2004). 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 3-255 
 

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

A survey conducted in October 2004 estimated the vacancy rate of rental units to 

be 7.0 percent, based on a sample of approximately 40 percent of all rental units, 

mostly in larger complexes (CSI 2005). According to a 2006 housing survey, there 

was a 0.10 percent vacancy rate for rental property in 2007, while the average 

annual vacancy rate for manufactured home/mobile home rentals within the city 

limits was 5.2 percent (City of Gillette 2008a). Many apartments had long waiting 

lists. 

In the second quarter of 2007, average housing rental costs in Campbell County 

were $691 for a two-bedroom, unfurnished apartment, $292 for a single-wide 

mobile home lot, and $1,127 for a two or three-bedroom single family home 

(Wyoming Department of Administration and Information 2007b). In the second 

quarter of 2008, average housing rental costs in Campbell County were $717 (a 

3.8 percent increase) for a two-bedroom, unfurnished apartment, $318 (a 9.1 

percent increase) for a single-wide mobile home lot, and $1,314 (a 16.7 percent 

increase) for a two or three-bedroom single family home (Wyoming Department of 

Administration and Information 2008). 

The average selling price of homes in Campbell County, based on 528 sales, in 

2007 was $247,150. That average represents a 23.6 percent increase over that in 

2006 and sixth highest among Wyoming counties (WCDA 2008). 

In addition to permanent housing, temporary or transient housing is a 

consideration for any project that might have a construction component. 

Temporary housing can include hotels or motels, campgrounds, and possibly 

mobile home parks. Given the tight housing market in Gillette, some such units 

are reportedly being used for longer-term occupancy by workers and families 

waiting for traditional housing to become available (Langston 2005). 

There are 17 motels in Gillette with 1,346 guest rooms, one additional 27-room 

motel in Wright and a two-room bed & breakfast in Gillette. Hotel occupancy 

rates have recently been very high and several new hotels are proposed for 

construction (Gillette News-Record 2006). Gillette has two year-round commercial 

campgrounds with 150 hookups for RVs plus tent areas (Gillette Convention and 

Visitor’s Bureau 2004). Campbell County has a multi-event facility, the CAMPLEX, located in Gillette. It has 1,821 RV sites, which vary from 688 full service 

sites with rest rooms and shower facilities to electric only sites. The CAM-PLEX 

facilities are generally available only for scheduled special events, not for public 

camping (CAM-PLEX 2005). 

Gillette also has approximately 1,595 mobile home park spaces. Mobile home 

parks are generally considered permanent housing resources, but they sometimes 

provide temporary spaces for RVs as well if there are vacant spaces available. As 

of early October 2004, the average vacancy rate in Gillette’s mobile home parks 

was 35 percent, or 558 spaces (CSI 2005). 

3-256 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3.17.4.2 Environmental Consequences 

3.17.4.2.1 Proposed Action and Alternatives 2 and 3 

As discussed above, average yearly employment at the mines would increase by up 

to 63 positions (Cordero Rojo Mine) and employment at the mines would be 

extended by up to approximately 10 additional years, under the Proposed Actions 

and other action alternatives. No additional demands on the existing 

infrastructure or services in the community would be expected because little or no 

influx of new residents would be needed to fill new jobs. Although housing is tight 

in Gillette, it is likely that housing for the additional employees would be available 

from the existing and proposed units in Campbell County. 

3.17.4.2.2 No Action Alternative 

Under the No Action alternative, the coal lease applications would be rejected and 

the coal included in an LBA tract under the Proposed Action or other action 

alternatives would not be mined. Housing occupancy would not be affected by 

any additional employment at the mines. Currently approved mining operations 

and associated employment levels would continue on the existing mines leases for 

from about 6 years at the Cordero Rojo Mine to approximately 17 years at the Coal 

Creek Mine. When the existing leases are mined out, mining operations would 

cease likely triggering population out-migration from the area and adversely 

affecting housing markets. 

As discussed in section 2.2, a decision to reject the Belle Ayr North, Coal Creek 

West, Caballo West, and Maysdorf II lease applications at this time would not 

preclude an application to lease a tract in the future. 

3.17.5 Local Government Facilities and Services 

3.17.5.1 Affected Environment 

The availability of revenues generated by mineral production has helped local 

government facilities and services keep pace with growth. Current facilities and 

services are generally adequate for the current population, although several 

service providers are engaged in expansion plans to accommodate future growth. 

Campbell County School District No. 1’s enrollment as of December 2007 is listed 

as stable at 7,569 students, making it the third largest school district in Wyoming. 

The district facilities include: one high school (with two campuses) and two junior 

high schools in Gillette, a junior-senior high school in Wright and 15 elementary 

schools (including one in Wright and three in rural areas). The district also 

operates an alternative high school and aquatic center in Gillette (CCSD 2007). 

The Campbell County School District is involved in a major five-year plan to 

replace several schools, modernize others and complete major systems 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 3-257 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

maintenance and upgrades. The School District initiated a Capital Facilities Plan 

during 2007, and there are three new elementary schools under review at this 

time (City of Gillette 2008a). 

Law enforcement services throughout the county are provided by the Campbell 

County Sheriff’s Office, while the Gillette Police Department provides police 

protection within the City of Gillette. In addition to general law enforcement, the 

Sheriff’s staff and city police officers provide court security, detention facilities, 

and animal control. The Campbell County Detention Center is a 24-hour 

supervised, 128-bed facility that includes separate modules for women and 

juveniles (BLM 2005c). 

Fire suppression throughout Campbell County is provided by the Campbell 

County Fire Department, which is governed by a city-county joint powers board. 

The department maintains four stations in Gillette and six dispersed throughout 

the county. The department has 17 full-time staff and 150 trained volunteers. In 

addition, there are 30 to 40 volunteers in outlying areas who are trained and 

equipped primarily to fight wildland fires. Campbell County coal mines generally 

provide equipment and trained staff to fight fires on mine property, and if called 

upon, the County Fire Department provides backup assistance with personnel and 

equipment (Vonsik 2005). 

The primary medical care facility in Campbell County is Campbell County 

Memorial Hospital, a 90-bed acute care hospital, located in Gillette. The hospital 

has a medical staff of over 50 affiliated physicians in 20 specialties and a total 

staff of 800 (CCMH 2005). The hospital also operates the Wright Clinic, a satellite 

clinic with a full-time, family practice physician. Ambulance service for Campbell 

County is provided by the hospital, which has a 24-hour emergency service 

capability. The Campbell County Fire Department provides first responder service 

to emergency calls, but transport is the responsibility of the hospital affiliated 

ambulance service. 

Water and wastewater treatment systems are provided by the City of Gillette. 

Gillette’s water supply, which is a system of groundwater wells, has the capacity 

to serve approximately 30,600 people within the city limits and some nearby 

urbanized areas. Water use approaches capacity during the peak demand months 

in the summer when parks and private lawns are being irrigated (Morovits 2005). 

The City of Gillette and Campbell County have developed a long term water supply 

plan called the Gillette Regional Water Supply Project that includes an additional 

Madison Formation well field and pipeline with a capacity to serve approximately 

50,000 people (City of Gillette 2008b). Projected completion is about six years. In 

the interim, the city has other wells it can pump if necessary, but high natural 

fluoride levels require careful monitoring if they are used (Morovits 2005). 

Gillette’s sewer treatment system was designed for a service population of 

approximately 35,000 and improvements begun in the fall of 2004 were designed 

to increase treatment capacity to accommodate a projected population of 41,000. 

3-258 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Currently, the system serves an estimated 25,000 people in the city and 

surrounding areas. 

Water and wastewater treatment systems are provided to the community of Wright 

by the Wright Water and Sewer District. The Wright district’s water and sewage 

treatment facilities were designed to serve a population of approximately 3,000, 

albeit with an additional sewage lagoon required when the service population 

reached about 2,500 people. The district is planning an additional well to 

increase its water supply capacity by about 30 percent. The district’s facilities in 

Wright currently serve a population of approximately 1,400 people; essentially the 

entire town is served by the water system, and most lots are on the sewer system, 

although there are some private septic systems. 

3.17.5.2 Environmental Consequences 

3.17.5.2.1 Proposed Action and Alternatives 2 and 3 

As discussed above, average yearly employment at the mines would increase by up 

to 63 positions (Cordero Rojo Mine) and mine life would be extended by from 

about 2 years at the Caballo Mine to approximately 10 years at the Cordero Rojo 

Mine under the Proposed Actions and other action alternatives. No additional 

demands on the existing community facilities or services in the county would be 

expected because little or no influx of new residents would be needed to fill new 

jobs. It is likely that the demand for public facilities and services will be satisfied 

by the existing facilities and services currently in place in Campbell County. 

3.17.5.2.2 No Action Alternative 

Under the No Action alternative, the coal lease applications would be rejected and 

the coal included in the LBA tracts under the Proposed Action or other action 

alternatives would not be mined. Local government facilities and services would 

not be affected by any additional employment at the Belle Ayr, Coal Creek, 

Caballo, and Cordero Rojo mines. Currently approved mining operations and 

associated employment levels would continue on the existing mine leases for from 

about 6 years at the Cordero Rojo Mine to approximately 16 years at the Coal 

Creek Mine. Portions of the LBA tracts adjacent to the existing mines would be 

disturbed to recover the coal in the existing leases. 

As discussed in section 2.2, a decision to reject the Belle Ayr North, Coal Creek 

West, Caballo West, and Maysdorf II lease applications at this time would not 

preclude an application to lease a tract in the future. 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 3-259 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3.17.6 Social Setting 

3.17.6.1 Affected Environment 

The social setting for coal development in the PRB, summarized in section 

4.2.12.9, is described in the Task IC Report for the PRB Coal Review (BLM 2005c). 

That report emphasizes Campbell County and its communities as the nucleus for 

coal development in the PRB. The SGAC mines been in production since at least 

1972 and the mines and their employees contribute to the social and economic 

stability of Campbell County and the City of Gillette. 

3.17.6.2 Environmental Consequences 

3.17.6.2.1 Proposed Action and Alternatives 2 and 3 

As discussed above, employment at the mine is not anticipated to increase 

substantially under the Proposed Actions or Alternatives 2 and 3. Consequently, 

little or no change in the social setting of Campbell County or the community of 

Gillette would be anticipated under these alternatives. 

3.17.6.2.2 No Action Alternative 

Implementation of all of the No Action alternative would hasten the loss of 

approximately 1,500 relatively high paying mining jobs in the PRB. A majority of 

those losses would occur in Campbell County and the City of Gillette. Loss of the 

SGAC mine-related economic activity and tax revenues are described in preceding 

sections. These losses would likely result in a disruption in the social and 

economic stability of Campbell County and the city of Gillette and some 

population relocation, unless mine employees were able to find comparable 

employment within commuting distance of Gillette. Social effects of the No Action 

alternatives on the Town of Wright would be less substantial, because of the fewer 

number of employees involved and the potential for those employees to find other 

jobs in mines and other energy industries in Campbell County. 

3.17.7 Environmental Justice 

3.17.7.1 Affected Environment 

Environmental Justice issues are concerned with actions that unequally impact a 

given segment of society either as a result of physical location, perception, design, 

noise, or other factors. On February 11, 1994, Executive Order 12898, “Federal 

Action to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income 

Populations”, was published in the Federal Register (59 FR 7629). The Executive 

Order requires federal agencies to identify and address disproportionately high 

and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs, policies, 

and activities on minority populations and low-income populations (defined as 

3-260 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

those living below the poverty level). The Executive Order makes it clear that its 

provisions apply fully to Native American populations and Native American tribes, 

specifically to effects on tribal lands, treaty rights, trust responsibilities, and the 

health and environment of Native American communities. 

Communities within Campbell County, entities with interests in the area, and 

individuals with ties to the area all may have concerns about the presence of 

surface coal mines in the area. Environmental Justice concerns are usually 

directly associated with impacts on the natural and physical environment, but 

these impacts are likely to be interrelated with social and economic impacts as 

well. Native American access to cultural and religious sites may fall under the 

umbrella of Environmental Justice concerns if the sites are on tribal lands or 

access to a specific location has been granted by treaty right. 

Compliance with Executive Order 12898 concerning Environmental Justice was 

accomplished through opportunities for the public to receive information on this 

EIS in conjunction with consultation and coordination described in section 1.6 of 

this document. This EIS and contributing socioeconomic analysis provide a 

consideration of the impacts with regard to disproportionately adverse impacts on 

minority and/or low-income groups, including Native Americans. 

3.17.7.2 Environmental Consequences 

3.17.7.2.1 Proposed Action and Alternatives 2 and 3 

Economic and demographic data indicate that neither minority populations nor 

people living at or below the poverty level make up “meaningfully greater 

increment” of the total population in Gillette or Campbell County than they do in 

the state as a whole, or that they would be unequally impacted if the Belle Ayr 

North, Coal Creek West, Caballo West, and Maysdorf II LBA tracts are leased 

under the Proposed Actions or Alternatives 2 or 3. Also, the Native American 

population is smaller than in the state as a whole and there are no known Native 

American sacred sites on or near the proposed LBA sites. Consequently, 

implementation of the proposed project would not adversely affect the 

environmental justice considerations in the area. 

3.17.7.2.2 No Action Alternative 

Economic and demographic data indicate that neither minority populations nor 

people living at or below the poverty level make up “meaningfully greater 

increment” of the total population in Gillette or Campbell County than they do in 

the state as a whole, or that they would be unequally impacted if the Belle Ayr 

North, Coal Creek West, Caballo West, and Maysdorf II LBA tracts are leased 

under the Proposed Actions or Alternatives 2 or 3. Also, the Native American 

population is smaller than in the state as a whole and there are no known Native 

American sacred sites on or near the existing mines. Consequently, the No Action 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 3-261 
 

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

alternatives would not adversely affect the environmental justice considerations in 

the area. 

3.17.8 Regulatory Compliance, Mitigation and Monitoring 

Surface coal mines are required to pay royalty and taxes as required by federal, 

state, and local regulations. The BLM compares the amount of coal reported as 

produced with the estimated amount of coal in the ground to verify that the 

federal coal is efficiently mined and that royalties are paid on all of the coal that is 

mined. 

3.17.9 Residual Effects 

No socioeconomic residual impacts are expected. 

3.18 The 	Relationship Between Local Short-Term Uses of Man’s 

Environment and the Maintenance and Enhancement of Long-Term 

Productivity 

The NEPA regulations at 40 CFR 1502.16 require a discussion of the “relationship 

between short-term uses of man’s environment and the maintenance and 

enhancement of long-term productivity” as part of an EIS. This requirement is 

duplicated in the BLM NEPA Handbook Chapter V, Section B.2.a.(3) and C.3.h.(2) 

(BLM 2008a). 

3.18.1 Local Area 

If the Belle Ayr North, West Coal Creek, Caballo West, and Maysdorf II LBA tracts 

are leased, almost all components of the present ecological system, which have 

developed over a long period of time, would be modified as the coal is mined. In 

the long term, following reclamation, the land surface would be topographically 

lower and, although the reclaimed surface would resemble original contours, it 

would lack some of the original diversity of geometric form. 

Mining operations and associated activities would degrade the air quality and 

visual resources of the area on a short-term basis. Following coal removal, 

removal of surface facilities, and completion of reclamation, there would be no 

long-term impact on air quality. The long-term impact on visual resources would 

be minor. 

The forage and associated grazing and wildlife habitat that these four LBA tracts 

currently provide would be temporarily and incrementally disturbed during mining 

and reclamation. If the LBA tracts are mined, there would be a loss of native 

vegetation on a total of 11,886.9 acres (total of all Proposed Actions) up to a 

maximum of 12,464.8 acres (Alternatives 2 and 3) with an accompanying 

disturbance of grazing land and wildlife habitat. This disturbance would occur 

3-262 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

incrementally over a period of years. Soils would be replaced and vegetation 

would be restored, as required by the mining plan (see sections 3.8 and 3.9). In 

the long term, the reclaimed lands would be returned to equivalent or better forage 

production capacity for domestic livestock before the performance bond is 

released. Long-term productivity would depend largely on postmining range 

management practices, which to a large extent would be controlled by private 

landowners. 

Mining would disturb pronghorn and mule deer habitat. As discussed in section 

3.10.5, potential sage-grouse habitat is scarce throughout the general project 

area. There would be loss and displacement of wildlife in the short term but, 

based on monitoring of previously reclaimed lands, it is anticipated that the 

reclaimed lands would provide habitat that would support a diversity of wildlife 

species similar to premining conditions over the long term. The diversity of 

species found in undisturbed rangeland would not be completely restored on the 

mined lands for an estimated 50 years after the initiation of disturbance. 

Re-establishment of mature sagebrush habitat, which is crucial for pronghorn and 

sage-grouse, would be expected to take even longer. 

If the Belle Ayr North, West Coal Creek, Caballo West, and Maysdorf II LBA tracts 

are leased and mined, depths to groundwater in the overburden and coal would 

increase in an area extending further to the west and south of the existing mine 

areas in the short term. Groundwater flow through the undisturbed aquifers near 

the backfilled mine pits would be interrupted until saturation levels in the backfill 

have risen and the rates of recharge to and discharge from the backfill equilibrate. 

The water levels in the coal aquifer should return to premining levels at some time 

after mining and CBNG development in the vicinity have ceased because recharge 

areas would not be disturbed when recovering the coal in the LBA tracts. 

Groundwater quality in and near the backfilled mine pits would be different from 

pre-mining conditions after reclamation, although it would remain adequate for 

livestock and wildlife use. 

CBNG is currently being recovered from within and near these four LBA tracts, 

and BLM’s analysis suggests that a large portion of the CBNG resources on the 

tracts has been recovered or would be recovered prior to mining. CBNG resources 

that have not been recovered from the Wyodak-Anderson zone prior to mining 

would be lost when the coal is removed. CBNG is composed primarily of methane, 

which is a greenhouse gas. A discussion of methane emissions from coal mining 

operations in the SGAC area is included below and methane emission from U.S. 

coal mining is included in chapter 4, section 4.2.14. Total U.S. methane 

emissions attributable to coal mining would not be likely to decrease if these four 

LBA tracts are not leased at this time. Likewise, it would not be likely that total 

U.S. methane emissions in the long term would measurably increase if these four 

LBA tracts are leased at this time 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 3-263 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Short-term impacts to recreation values may occur from a reduction in big game 

populations due to habitat disturbance and reduction in access to some public 

lands. These changes would primarily impact hunting in the lease areas. 

However, because reclamation would result in a wildlife habitat similar to that 

which presently exists and access to any public lands affected by mining would be 

restored, there should be no long-term adverse impacts on recreation. 

The short- and long-term economy of the region would be enhanced as a result of 

the Proposed Actions and action alternatives. Leasing and subsequently mining 

the Belle Ayr North, West Coal Creek, Caballo West, and Maysdorf II LBA tracts 

would extend the life of the existing mines by just over 10 additional years, 

depending on which LBA tract and which alternative is selected. 

3.18.1.1 Human Health Impact Assessment 

In 2008, public concerns were brought to BLM’s attention in regard to conducting 

human health impact assessments (HIAs) in the PRB where coal mining activities 

occur. An HIA is a method used in assessing potential impacts of a proposed 

project on human health. HIAs examine health on a broad scale, including social, 

emotional, and cultural impacts as well as physical impacts. HIAs rely on 

available scientific data, public testimony, and modeling to predict potential health 

impacts. 

BLM does not have jurisdiction in regard to conducting specific human health 

assessments. However, BLM invited the Wyoming Department of 

Health/Environmental Health Section and the U.S. Center for Disease Control and 

Prevention to review and provide comment on the South Gillette Area Coal Lease 

Applications EIS. Neither agency was able to provide detailed information due to 

time and staffing constraints. Information regarding general aspects of HIA are 

included in sections 3.4 (Air Quality), 3.5 (Water Resources), 3.14 (Noise), 3.16 

(Hazardous and Solid Waste), and 3.17 (Socioeconomics). While this information 

may not provide a thorough discussion of all aspects of HIA, it is a summary of 

credible scientific evidence that is relevant to evaluating reasonably foreseeable 

significant impacts on human health. 

Public concerns included emissions from coal mining activities like particulate 

matter and nitrogen oxide exposure and their potential impact on the health of 

people living in the vicinity of surface coal mines located in the eastern PRB. 

Air pollution is controlled by state and federal air quality regulations and 

standards established under the federal Clean Air Act Amendments. State 

implementation plans are in place to ensure proposed actions like coal mining 

comply with all associated air quality regulations and criteria. The Wyoming 

Ambient Air Quality Standards (WAAQS) are stricter than the National Ambient 

Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and are enforced by WDEQ. 

3-264 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

As described in section 3.4.2.3 of this EIS, the WDEQ/AQD developed a Natural 

Events Action Plan for the coal mines of the PRB. The plan, based on EPA Natural 

Event Policy guidance, identifies potential control measures for protecting public 

health and minimizing exceedances of the PM10 NAAQS. 

All mines are required to conduct air quality modeling to show that their proposed 

operations will comply with the WAAQS and NAAQS, and they are required to 

monitor to demonstrate that their actual air emissions do not exceed the 

standards. The WDEQ/AQD coal mining permit process requires air quality 

modeling of the primary air pollutants PM10 and NO2. Section 3.4.2.3 in this EIS 

addresses air quality mitigation measures that WDEQ/AQD implemented in order 

to prevent exceedances of the WAAQS and NAAQS by PRB surface coal mines. 

As stated above and as discussed in section 3.4, mining operations and associated 

activities would effectively degrade the air quality in the vicinity on a short-term 

basis. Following coal removal, removal of all surface facilities, and completion of 

reclamation, there would be no long-term impact on air quality. 

According to section 3.5.1, postmining groundwater quality is expected to improve 

after one pore volume of water moves through the backfill. In general, the mine 

backfill groundwater TDS can be expected to be quite similar to the premining 

overburden aquifer, and meet Wyoming Class III standards for use as stock water. 

While mining is in progress, surface water quality (see section 3.5.2) would 

continue to be protected by directing surface runoff from affected areas to various 

sediment control structures, including sediment ponds, traps, ditches, sumps, 

and mine pits. Under normal conditions, exceedances of effluent limitations are 

not expected in the future as mining extends into new drainages and additional 

sediment control facilities are added. After mining and reclamation are complete, 

surface water flow and quality would approximate premining conditions. 

Noise levels on the LBA tracts would be increased considerably by mining 

activities such as blasting, loading, hauling, and possibly in-pit crushing. 

Because of the remoteness of the tracts and because mining is already on going in 

the area, noise would have few off-site impacts. No residual impacts to noise are 

expected. 

As discussed in section 3.16, wastes generated by mining the LBA tracts would be 

handled in accordance with the existing regulations using the procedures 

currently in use and in accordance with WDEQ-approved waste disposal plans at 

the Belle Ayr, Coal Creek, Caballo, and Cordero Rojo mines. Little or no change in 

the social setting of Campbell County or the community of Gillette would be 

anticipated under these alternatives. No residual hazardous and solid waste 

impacts are expected. 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 3-265 
 

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Social setting impacts are discussed in section 3.17.6. The SGAC mines have 

been in production since at least 1972 and the mines and their employees 

contribute to the social and economic stability of Campbell County and the City of 

Gillette. No socioeconomic residual impacts are expected. 

Coal mines (including the four SGAC mines) are also under the jurisdiction of the 

Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA). The mission of the MSHA is to 

“administer the provisions of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 (Mine 

Act), as amended by the Mine Improvement and New Emergency Response Act of 

2006 (MINER Act), and to enforce compliance with mandatory safety and health 

standards as a means to eliminate fatal accidents; to reduce the frequency and 

severity of nonfatal accidents; to minimize health hazards; and to promote 

improved safety and health conditions in the Nation's mines” (USDOL 2009). 

While an HIA is not within MSHA’s authorization, the agency does monitor and 

enforce some of the health and safety standards for mining that are related to HIA 

issues. 

3.18.2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions 

This section will address greenhouse gas emissions as specifically related to the 

Belle Ayr, Coal Creek, Caballo, and Cordero Rojo mines, the mines adjacent to the 

Belle Ayr North, West Coal Creek, Caballo West, and Maysdorf II LBA tracts, 

respectively. 

Ongoing scientific research has identified the potential impacts of anthropogenic 

(from human activities) greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, and changes in biologic 

carbon sequestration on the global climate. Through complex interactions on a 

regional and global scale, these changes cause a net warming effect of the 

atmosphere, primarily by decreasing the amount of heat radiated by the earth 

back into space. Although natural GHG levels have varied for millennia, recent 

industrialization and burning of fossil carbon sources have caused equivalent 

carbon dioxide (CO2e) concentrations to increase dramatically, and are likely to 

contribute to overall global climatic changes. As with any field of scientific study, 

there are uncertainties associated with the science of climate change. This does 

not imply that scientists do not have confidence in many aspects of climate 

change science. Some aspects of the science are known with virtual certainty, 

because they are based on well-known physical laws and documents trends (EPA 

2008a). 

Climatic change analyses are comprised of several factors, including GHG 

emissions, land use management practices, and the albedo effect (the cycle of 

increased temperature of the environment resulting from increased absorption of 

normally reflected light). In this chapter, the effects of recent global climate 

change on the environment in the area of the proposed action and alternatives 

have been identified. It is assumed that existing land and resource conditions 

within the analysis area have been and will continue to be affected by climate 

3-266 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

change under all alternatives. National and regional data that are available have 

been referenced, including a recent comprehensive report, The Effects of Climate 

Change on Agriculture, Land Resources, Water Resources and Biodiversity in the 

United States (U.S. Climate Change Science Program 2008). 

Specific levels of significance have not yet been established for GHG emissions, 

and given the state of the science; it is not yet possible to associate specific actions 

with the specific climate impacts. Since tools necessary to quantify incremental 

climatic changes associated with these GHG emissions are presently unavailable, 

the analysis cannot reach conclusions as to the magnitude or significance of the 

emissions on climate change. The impacts of climate change represent the 

cumulative impacts of, among other factors, all worldwide GHG and emissions 

and land use management practices. To the extent that emission data were 

available or could be inferred from representative data, potential GHG emissions 

have been identified that could result from development of the proposed LBA 

tracts, as well as emissions that will result from selection of the no action 

alternative. The analysis provides a qualitative measure of the incremental 

change on GHG emissions resulting from the proposed LBA tracts, as compared to 

no action. The analysis also provides a measure of the incremental change 

resulting from the LBA tracts in relation to GHG emissions from all current coal 

mining.” 

The greenhouse effect is a theory that certain gases in the atmosphere impede the 

release of radiation from the earth, trapping heat in the atmosphere like glass over 

a greenhouse. Many greenhouse gases occur naturally in the atmosphere, such 

as carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), water vapor, ozone (O3), and nitrous oxide 

(N2O), while others are synthetic, such as chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), 

hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) and perfluorocarbons (PFCs), as well as sulfur 

hexafluoride (SF6) (NOAA 2009). If the coal in the Belle Ayr North, West Coal 

Creek, Caballo West, and Maysdorf II LBA tracts is leased and mined, additional 

GHGs would be released into the atmosphere. 

As discussed in chapter 1, BLM does not authorize mining through the issuance 

of a federal coal lease. WDEQ, with oversight from OSM, has regulatory authority 

in issuing permits to mine coal in Wyoming. However, BLM considers the impacts 

of mining coal in this EIS because it is a logical consequence of issuing a 

maintenance lease to an existing coal mine. 

The use of the coal after it is mined is not determined at the time of leasing. 

However, almost all coal that is currently being mined in the Wyoming PRB is 

being used to generate electricity by coal-fired power plants. A discussion of 

emissions and by-products that are generated by burning coal to produce 

electricity is included in chapter 4, section 4.2.14 of the EIS and a more complete 

discussion of the current status of global climate change and cumulative 

considerations is included section 4.2.14.1. 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 3-267 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Not all four applicant mines have completed a GHG emissions inventory, although 

mines both within and outside the general South Gillette analysis area conducted 

inventories of expected emissions that occurred in 2007. These mines also 

projected emissions for a typical year of operations at the mines if additional lands 

are leased and mined. Emissions are measured as metric tons of CO2, a 

conversion to put any of the various gases emitted, i.e. methane or nitrous oxides, 

into the equivalent greenhouse effect as compared to CO2. The completed 

inventories included emissions for sources, such as all types of carbon fuels used 

in mining operations, electricity used on site (facilities lighting and operation, 

lighting to illuminate roads, power for electrically operated equipment, and 

conveyors), and mining processes (blasting, methane released from mined coal, 

carbon sink gain/loss from disturbed and reclaimed lands, and spontaneous 

combustion). An additional category contributing to CO2 emissions, which was 

not included in CO2 emissions estimates for the four applicant mines due to a lack 

of information, included rail transport, both on-site and to the buyers. 

The expected CO2 emissions that occurred in 2007 for the mines that have not 

completed emissions inventories were estimated by assuming the CO2 emission 

ratios (CO2 per million tons of coal produced, CO2 per million bank cubic yards of 

overburden moved, and CO2 per acres of disturbance) for the mines that 

completed emissions inventories would be equivalent. The correlations were 

based on the 2007 coal production, overburden production, and disturbance acres 

(facilities plus active pit acres) for three source types (fuel, electricity, and mining 

process) compared to Belle Ayr, Coal Creek, Caballo, and Cordero Rojo mines’ 

2007 coal production, overburden production, and disturbance acres (WWC 

2009a). Since the combined CO2 emissions for SGAC mines are estimated, based 

on limited information, the estimated values are tentative. For the purpose of this 

analysis, these combined total values are only included here as a means of 

obtaining a representation of potential CO2 emissions should the four SGAC tracts 

be leased and mined. 

CO2 emissions are projected to increase at the Belle Ayr, Coal Creek, Caballo, and 

Cordero Rojo mines if the Belle Ayr North, West Coal Creek, Caballo West, and 

Maysdorf II LBA tracts are added to the mining operations (table 3-20). The 

increase in CO2 emissions are expected to result from the additional fuels 

(especially diesel) that would be used in consideration of the increased coal and 

overburden haul distances, as well as increased use of electricity and explosives 

related to increasing overburden thicknesses. The incremental changes with the 

addition of these four LBA tracts to the applicant mines’ operations represent the 

estimated CO2 emissions for the Proposed Actions as well as Alternatives 2 and 3. 

Estimates assume that the combined annual production rate from these four 

mines is 127.5 million tons. 

The Center for Climate Strategies estimates that activities in Wyoming will account 

for approximately 60.3 million metric tons of gross CO2 emissions in 2010 and 

69.4 million metric tons in 2020 (Center for Climate Strategies 2007). Using those 

3-268 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Table 3-20. Estimated Annual Equivalent CO2 Emissions* at the SGAC 

Mines. 

Source 2007 With LBA Tracts 

Fuel 332,419 675,080 

Electricity 267,671 366,983 

Mining Process 116,120 139,856 

Total of Three Sources 716,210 1,181,920 

* Equivalent CO2 in metric tons 

Source: WWC 2009a 

projections, the 2007 mine emissions total (table 3-20) represents 1.2 percent of 

the 2010 state-wide emissions. With the addition of the Belle Ayr North, West 

Coal Creek, Caballo West, and Maysdorf II LBA tracts, the estimated total 

emissions at the four applicant mines would represent 1.7 percent of the projected 

2020 state-wide emissions. 

As mentioned above, the CO2 estimates for the combined Belle Ayr North, West 

Coal Creek, Caballo West, and Maysdorf II LBA tracts in table 3-20 include 

projected methane emissions vented from exposed unmined coal. The estimated 

annual amount of CO2 emissions from vented methane would be approximately 

97,100 metric tons, or about 8.2 percent of the estimated total annual CO2 

emissions from mining the four tracts (WWC 2009a). The total methane emission 

from anthropogenic sources in the U.S. in 2007 was estimated at 699.9 million 

metric tons (USDOE 2008a). Based on 2007 production from the Belle Ayr, Coal 

Creek, Caballo, and Cordero Rojo mines, the estimated annual methane emissions 

vented from recovered coal was 0.08 million metric tons CO2 (WWC 2009a), or 

about 0.01 percent of the total 2007 U.S. methane emissions from anthropogenic 

sources. 

As discussed in chapter 2, under the No Action alternative, the life of the Belle 

Ayr, Coal Creek, Caballo, and Cordero Rojo mines would be extended at about 

current levels for approximately 16 years while the mines recover their remaining 

estimated 1,564 million tons of recoverable coal reserves. Under the Proposed 

Actions or Alternatives 2 or 3, the Belle Ayr, Coal Creek, Caballo, and Cordero 

Rojo mines’ contributions to greenhouse gas emissions would be extended by just 

over 10 additional years. 

Please see section 4.2.14 for an assessment of cumulative impacts related to 

greenhouse gases, and how the proposed action and alternatives contribute. 

3.18.3 Regulatory Compliance, Mitigation and Monitoring 

CO2, CH4, water vapor, O3, and N2O are recognized as greenhouse gases. 

Although GHGs are not regulated at this time, EPA is required by the Clean Air 

Act to regulate emissions of six common "criteria air pollutants", including O3 and 

nitrogen dioxide (NO2), from an air quality standpoint. O3 and NO2 emissions are 

monitored at the Thunder Basin National Grassland and South Campbell County 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 3-269 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

air quality monitoring sites and monitoring results are included in the EPA 

AirData database (EPA 2009a). NO2 is not a greenhouse gas but it can react with 

other components of the atmosphere to form O3. O3 and NO2 emissions relating to 

the mining of the SGAC LBA tracts are discussed in section 3.4. Voluntarily 

mitigation measures to reduce mine-specific greenhouse gas emissions currently 

in place at some PRB mines include: 

•	 minimizing blast size to the extent possible to reduce CO2 and NO2 

emissions; 

•	 using different blends of ANFO and slurries and gels used in coal and 

overburden blasts to reduce CO2 and NO2 emissions; and 

•	 reducing fuel consumption by restricting equipment idling times, 

maintaining equipment (vehicles, compressors, generators, etc.) to improve 

fuel efficiency, focusing on high-efficiency engines for replacement, 

establishing overland conveyors to reduce coal hauling distances, and 

installing in-pit refueling facilities to reduce travel distance for fueling, 

thereby reducing CO2, NO2, and N2O emissions. 

3.19 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources 

The major commitment of resources would be the mining and consumption of 

731.4 million tons (Proposed Action for all four LBA tracts) up to a maximum of 

761.0 million tons (action alternatives for all four LBA tracts) of coal to be used for 

electrical power generation. CBNG that is not recovered prior to mining would 

also be irreversibly and irretrievably lost (see additional discussion of the impacts 

of venting CBNG to the atmosphere in section 3.18 and 4.2.14). It is estimated 

that 1 to 2 percent of the energy produced would be required to mine the coal, and 

this energy would also be irretrievably lost. 

The characteristics of topsoil on approximately 11,846 acres (Proposed Action for 

all four LBA tracts) up to a maximum of approximately 12,465 acres (action 

alternatives for all four LBA tracts) would be irreversibly changed. Soil formation 

processes, although continuing, would be irreversibly altered during miningrelated activities. Newly formed soil material would be unlike that in the natural 

landscape. 

Direct and indirect wildlife deaths caused by mining operations or associated 

activity would be an irreversible loss. 

Loss of life may conceivably occur due to the mining operations and vehicular and 

train traffic. On the basis of surface coal mine accident rates in Wyoming as 

determined by the Mine Safety and Health Administration (1997) for the 10-year 

period 1987-1996, fatal accidents (excluding contractors) occur at the rate of 

0.003 per 200,000 man-hours worked. Disabling (lost-time) injuries occur at the 

3-270	 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
 

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

rate of 1.46 per 200,000 man-hours worked. Any injury or loss of life would be an 

irretrievable commitment of human resources. 

Disturbance of all known historic and prehistoric sites on the mine areas would be 

mitigated to the maximum extent possible. However, accidental destruction of 

presently unknown archeological or paleontological values would be irreversible 

and irretrievable. 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 3-271 
 

 

 

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 Powder River Basin (PRB)1 and considers how 

those impacts would change if other projected development in the area occurs 

and if the four lease by application (LBA) tracts in the south Gillette general 

analysis area are leased and mined. 

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) completed three regional environmental 

impact statements (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 National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (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, coal bed natural gas, 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 

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


Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 4-1 
 

 

 

 

 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

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 

projects or applications, such as the four LBA tracts in the general South Gillette 

analysis area, 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/prbdocs.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 and 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 and reasonably foreseeable development activities in the PRB as of the 

end of 2003 and projects reasonably foreseeable development in the Wyoming 

4-2 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
B.N.S.F. RR 

B.N.S.F. RR 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

PSO Ash 

Creek Mine 

Big

Mine 

Horn SHERIDAN 

COUNTY CAMPBELL 

COUNTY
 SHERIDAN 

Arvada 

Dry Fork 

Wygen 1
 Wygen 2
 Wyodak BUFFALO 1 Neil Simpson 1

Neil Simpson 2
 GILLETTE 

Barber 

Creek 

2 

JOHNSON
 COUNTY
 

Hartzog WRIGHT 

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

SCALE: 1"= 20 MILES 

LEGEND 

Federal Coal Lease Areas 

Railroads 

Existing and Proposed Power Plants 

Former Surface Coal Mine Sites 

Task 1 and 2 Study Boundary 

COAL MINE SUBREGIONS 

Buckskin, Dry Fork, Eagle Butte, 1 Subregion 1 - Rawhide, and Wyodak Mines 

Belle Ayr, Caballo, Coal Creek, and 2 Subregion 2 - Cordero-Rojo Mines 

Antelope, North Rochelle/Black

3 Subregion 3 - Thunder, Jacobs Ranch, and North

Antelope/Rochelle Mines 

Two Elk 

Unit 1 

3 

CONVERSE
 COUNTY
 

Dave
 Johnston
 Mine
 

Dave Johnston 

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

Development. 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 4-3
 

 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

PRB through 2020. When appropriate, more current, i.e. 2007, development 

information is included. 

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 Powder River Regional Coal Team (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 January 2009, the 

BLM’s Wyoming State Office held 25 competitive coal lease sales and issued 20 

new federal coal leases containing almost 5.8 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 Interior Board of Land Appeals (IBLA) and one audit by the General 

Accounting Office (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 been incorporated into the Black 

Thunder Mine following its purchase by the operator of the Black Thunder Mine. 

4-4 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences Cumulative Tons Federal Coal Leased by Year Cumulative Tons Federal Coal Mined by Year 

Powder River Basin

Campbell and Converse Counties, Wyoming 

6,000,000,0005,000,000,0004,000,000,0003,000,000,0002,000,000,0001,000,000,000

0 

Tons 

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 

Year 

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 

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

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 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

2007 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) 25.3 42.0 Active Properties
 

Phillips/WFA &
 Dry Fork WFA 5.3 15.0 Active (includes form

Fort Union Ltd 

Eagle Butte Cyprus-Amax Foundation Coal West 25.0 35.0 Active Rawhide Carter (Exxon) Peabody Holding Co. 17.1 24.0 Active 

Wyodak Wyodak Resources Wyodak Resources 5.0 12.0 Active (includes form

Total 77.7 128.0 

SUBREGION 2 (South Gillette) 

Belle Ayr Cyprus-Amax Foundation Coal West 26.6 45.0 Active Caballo Carter (Exxon) & Western Energy Peabody Holding Co. 31.2 50.0 Active (includes Roc

Butte leases) 

Cordero Rojo Kennecott & Drummond Rio Tinto Energy America3 40.5 65.0 Active (consolidation 

Caballo Rojo Mines) 

Coal Creek ARCO Arch Coal Inc. 10.2 25.0 Inactive in 2003, op

Total 108.5 185.0 

SUBREGION 3 (Wright) 

Antelope Kennecott Rio Tinto Energy America3 34.5 36.0 Active 

Black Thunder ARCO Arch Coal Inc. 65.3 100.0 Active 

Jacobs Ranch Kerr-McGee Rio Tinto Energy America3 38.1 55.0 Active 

N. Antelope/ Rochelle Peabody Peabody Holding Co. 91.5 99.0 Active (consolidation 

and Rochelle Mines) 

N. Rochelle SMC (Zeigler) Arch Coal Inc. 20.9 35.0 Inactive since 2005, 

Thunder and North 

Total 250.3 325.0 TOTAL FOR 3 MINE GROUPS 436.5 638.0 

1 Wyoming State Inspector of Mines (Shamley 2008). 2 WDEQ 2007 permitted levels (Shamley 2008). 3 Kennecott Energy Company changed its name to Rio Tinto Energy America in 2006. 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area 
 

 

 

 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

The North Rochelle Mine leases were divided between Black Thunder and North 

Antelope Rochelle Mines 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. 

The lands within the Dave Johnston Mine permit boundary are owned by 

PacifiCorp. PacifiCorp requested a change in post mining land use from 

livestock/wildlife grazing to Industrial for the areas that would be affected by a 

wind project right-of-way. Some of the area was on full reclamation bond release 

and some area included was on pre-law lands. LQD approved this change of 

land use in three stages between September of 2007 and May of 2008. The 

Glenrock Wind Energy Project development is underway and, if all permits are 

granted, it is slatted to go on line in 2009. 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 no longer 

ongoing. The KFx Mine, located north of Gillette on privately owned coal, has 

stopped mining coal for processing at the KFx coal enhancement plant, which is 

discussed in section 4.1.1.2.4. The Fort Union plant was idled down in March 

2008, until further notice. 

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. 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 4-7 
 

 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

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 6 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. By 2007, about 38 percent of the coal mined in the United States came 

from the Wyoming PRB (USDOE 2008b). 

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

about 125,180 acres of federal coal leased in Campbell and Converse Counties. 

This represents approximately 4.1 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. The 2007 production level is 

shown on figure 4-3 as a reference point. 

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 

4-8 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

Lower Production Scenerio 

0

100,000,000 

Upper Production Scenario 

Tons/

Year 

600,000,000 500,000,000 400,000,000 300,000,000 200,000,000 

Year 

2003 2005 2010 2015 2020 2007 

Actual Production 

Figure 4-3. Projected Total Coal Production from Campbell and Converse Counties Under the Lower and 

Upper Production Scenarios. 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 4-9
4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

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

Cumulative 

Cumulative Area 

Cumulative Active Mining Disturbed and 

Cumulative Permanently Area and Unavailable 

Annual Disturbed Reclaimed Unreclaimed For 

Production Area Area Mined Area Reclamation1 Total Mine 

Subregion (million tons) (acres) (acres) (acres) (acres) 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 2005a) 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area 
4.0 Cumulative Envi

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

Subregion 

Annual 

Production 

(million tons) 

Cumulative 

Disturbed 

Area 

(acres) 

Cumulative 

Permanently 

Reclaimed 

Area 

(acres) 

Cumulative 

Active Mining 

Area and 

Unreclaimed 

Mined Area 

(acres) 

Cumulative 

Area 

Disturbed and 

Unavailable 

For 

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 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 2005a) 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 4-11 
 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

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. 

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

mining employment, water consumption, and water production. 

The four LBA tracts in the general South Gillette analysis area are associated 

with each of the four currently operating mines in the South Gillette subregion 

of mines. Each operating mine has an LBA pending. The analysis assumes that 

if the LBAs are offered and if the applicant becomes the lessee, each mine will 

increase current production to a level where the four mines collectively will 

produce at an aggregate production level midway between the low and high 

projected coal production scenarios for 2015 and 2020 shown in figure 4-3 and 

tables 4-2 and 4-3. The coal development levels and associated disturbance 

shown in tables 4-2 and 4-3 include production at the four South Gillette Area 

mines during the baseline year (2003) and projected production at the mines 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 LBA tracts in the South Gillette 

Area. The reserves in the LBA tracts if offered, and if the applicants become the 

lessees, would add to the mine life of each of the South Gillette Area mines. 

As discussed in sections 1.1 and 2.1, FCW estimates that there were 249.5 

million tons of recoverable coal reserves on the existing Belle Ayr Mine at the end 

of 2007. In 2007, the mine produced approximately 26.6 million tons and the 

currently approved by Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality/Air 

Quality Division (WDEQ/AQD) air quality permit allows mining of up to 45 

million tons of coal per year. If the mine produces at the estimated 29.0 million 

ton per year the remaining recoverable reserves would be depleted in less than 9 

years (2016). If the mine increases production to the permitted level, the 

remaining recoverable reserves at the Belle Ayr Mine would be depleted in about 

5.5 years (2013). FCW estimates that the Belle Ayr North LBA tract includes 

approximately 158.1 million tons of recoverable coal as applied for. Based on 

that estimate, acquisition of the Belle Ayr North LBA tract would increase the 

recoverable reserves at the Belle Ayr Mine by almost 30 percent. At the 

estimated future production level (29 mmtpy), mine life would be extended by 

over 5 years. However, if production levels increase to the currently permitted 

4-12 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

level (45 mmtpy) or if WDEQ/AQD approves a higher annual rate of production, 

the coal would be recovered more quickly. 

ALC estimates that there were 223.2 million tons of recoverable coal reserves on 

the existing Coal Creek Mine at the end of 2007. The Coal Creek mine resumed 

production in 2006 after a temporary shutdown, and produced approximately 

10.2 million tons in 2007. The average estimated future production rate is 13.4 

million tons per year (mmtpy) and the currently approved (by WDEQ/AQD) air 

quality permit allows mining of up to 50 million tons of coal per year. If the mine 

produces at the estimated 13.4 million ton per year the remaining recoverable 

reserves would be depleted in about 17 years (2023). If the mine increases 

production to the permitted level, the remaining recoverable reserves at the Coal 

Creek Mine would be depleted in about 4.5 years (2011). ALC estimates that the 

West Coal Creek LBA tract includes approximately 57.0 million tons of 

recoverable coal as applied for. Based on that estimate, acquisition of the West 

Coal Creek LBA tract would increase the recoverable reserves at the Coal Creek 

Mine by about 26 percent. At the estimated future production level (13.4 

mmtpy), mine life would be extended by just over 4 years. However, if 

production levels increase to the currently permitted level (50 mmtpy) or if 

WDEQ/AQD approves a higher annual rate of production, the coal would be 

recovered more quickly. 

CCC estimates that there were 600.3 million tons of recoverable coal reserves on 

the existing Caballo Mine at the end of 2007. In 2007, the mine produced 

approximately 31.2 million tons. The average estimated future production rate is 

37.8 million tons per year and the currently approved (by WDEQ/AQD) air 

quality permit allows mining of up to 50 million tons of coal per year. If the mine 

produces at the estimated 37.8 million ton per year the remaining recoverable 

reserves would be depleted in about 16 years (2022). If the mine increases 

production to the permitted level, the remaining recoverable reserves at the Coal 

Creek Mine would be depleted in about 12 years (2018). CCC estimates that the 

Caballo West LBA tract includes approximately 81.8 million tons of recoverable 

coal as applied for. Based on that estimate, acquisition of the West Coal Creek 

LBA tract would increase the recoverable reserves at the Coal Creek Mine by 

about 14 percent. At the estimated future production level (37.8 mmtpy), mine 

life would be extended by just over 2 years. However, if production levels 

increase to the currently permitted level (50 mmtpy) or if WDEQ/AQD approves 

a higher annual rate of production, the coal would be recovered more quickly. 

CMC estimates that there were 274.1 million tons of recoverable coal reserves on 

the existing Cordero Rojo Mine at the end of 2007. In 2007, the mine produced 

approximately 40.5 million tons. The average estimated future production rate is 

46.3 million tons per year and the currently approved (by WDEQ/AQD) air 

quality permit allows mining of up to 65 million tons of coal per year. If the mine 

produces at the estimated 46.3 million ton per year the remaining recoverable 

reserves would be depleted in about 6 years (2013). If the mine increases 

production to the permitted level, the remaining recoverable reserves at the 

Cordero Rojo Mine would be depleted in about 4 years (2011). CMC estimates 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 4-13 
 

 

 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

that the Maysdorf II LBA tract includes approximately 434.3 million tons of 

recoverable coal as applied for. Based on that estimate, acquisition of the 

Maysdorf II LBA tract would increase the recoverable reserves at the Cordero 

Rojo Mine by about 160 percent. At the estimated future production level (46.3 

mmtpy), mine life would be extended by just over 9 years. However, if 

production levels increase to the currently permitted level (65 mmtpy) or if 

WDEQ/AQD approves a higher annual rate of production, the coal would be 

recovered more quickly. 

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. 

2003 2010 2015 2020 

Coal-Related Disturbance (Acres) 4,891 4,966 5,911 5,911 

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

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. A small part, about 2 percent in 2007, of national coal production 

is exported abroad, but data are not published as to where this export coal is 

produced. The coal mines in the Wright and South Gillette subregions are 

served by a joint Burlington Northern Santa Fe and Union Pacific (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. Expansion work was completed by 2008 that 

increased capacity to approximately 450 mmtpy, and plans have been 

announced to raise capacity to 500 mmtpy by 2012 (BNSF 2008, CANAC 2007). 

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 Dakota, Minnesota & Eastern 

Railroad Corporation (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. 

4-14 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
 

 

 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

BNSF and UP have completed work to improve sections of the existing joint 

UP/BNSF rail line and had increased capacity from 350 mmtpy to 450 mmtpy 

by 2008 with plans to improve additional sections of the existing joint rail line 

and to further increase capacity to 500 mmtpy by 2012. This work includes 

construction of third and fourth main line track segments where needed. The 

increased capacity would accommodate the projected upper and lower 

production rates at the southern mines, which are projected to produce 439 

mmtpy and 455 mmtpy by 2020. The remaining planned expansion projects are 

considered highly likely to occur. 

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 Surface Transportation Board (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 

2007, Canadian Pacific Railway (CP) acquired DM&E and plans to integrate 

DM&E’s operations into Canadian Pacific Railway’s operations as soon as STB 

approval is received, which occurred on September 30, 2008 (STB 2008). The 

expansion into the PRB would require a substantial financial commitment and 

CP is concentrating on the acquisition of DM&E before making a decision on the 

expansion project. 

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 2007a). 

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. In 2007, a request was submitted to lease 

two tracts of state coal at Otter Creek (Billings Gazette 2007b). In July of 2008 

the Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation (DNRC) 

initiated an appraisal of the Otter Creek lease tracts. The tracts may be offered 

for lease in 2009. 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 4-15 
 

 

 

 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

4.1.1.2.2 Electric Power Generation 

Currently, there are five 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 

and II (80-MW and 95-MW, respectively), 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 (figure 4-1). 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 

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 two identified projects are considered likely 

for development by 2010: 

•	 North American Power Group has permitted a coal-fired power plant (Two 

Elk 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 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 2007b, 2007c). The air permit 

originally was issued in August 2002, then revoked temporarily and 

restored by DEQ in 2007. In 2008, the Wyoming Environmental Quality 

Council (WEQC) denied a request by the Sierra Club for a new hearing on 

the air quality permit allowing construction of the facility. The Sierra Club 

filed a law suit in District Court in Cheyenne to reverse the DEQ decision 

(Gillette News-Record 2008a). 

•	 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. The issuance of the air permit allowed construction to start at 

the Dry Fork Station. Construction on the plant started in November, 

4-16 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
 

 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

2007. In late October, 2007, several environmental groups filed an appeal 

of the air permit issued by WDEQ. The WEQC denied requests to suspend 

construction. After due process, on November 20, 2008 the WEQC 

approved orders to dismiss the issues before it and terminated the appeal. 

The orders were signed on December 12, 2008. The environmental groups 

announced intent to appeal in Wyoming District Court. 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 (NAPG) 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, sized at 100-MW, which is planned to be similar in design to the 

Wygen II plant. As of November 2008 the project was on schedule. The air 

permit for this facility was issued in March 2007 with construction started in 

2008. (SourceWatch 2007) The study assumes that all existing power plants in 

the PRB region would remain operational through 2020. 

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 coal bed natural gas (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 estimated that by 2020, four major transmission lines 

would be constructed. 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. Six specific proposals for these transmission 

lines have been identified. There is currently insufficient information to analyze 

or assign likelihood of development by 2020. 

The governors of California, Nevada, Utah, and Wyoming entered into a 

Memorandum of Understanding to encourage development of a high voltage 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 4-17 
 

 

 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

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. The 345KV Wyoming-Colorado Intertie, as well as 

the Trans West and Gateway West and South projects have been proposed in 

Wyoming, in order to move power from Wyoming to growing Idaho and Nevada 

and other western U.S. load demand areas (Casper Star Tribune 2007b). The 

TransWestern Express proposes to move electric power from Wyoming to Arizona 

through Colorado or Utah. The High Plains Express is proposed to move power 

from Wyoming to New Mexico and Arizona. 

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 (now Evergreen Energy) coal beneficiation plant, located near the Dry 

Fork Mine, north of Gillette, was operational but did not reach 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 enhanced coal had been loaded and sent to a customer in Ohio. 

Commercially viable product was produced through 2007 until the plant was 

idled down in 2008. It was predicted that the plant would eventually produce 

approximately 750,000 tons of enhanced coal per year. This operation had a 

high likelihood of proceeding with production given the technology being used 

and the forecast market conditions in the PRB. Evergreen Energy Inc. and its 

strategic partner, Bechtel Power Cooperation, have decided to relocate operation 

to a different location with a greater market and will improve the plant design 

(Evergreen Energy Inc. 2009). The company has suggested that up to five 

additional units will be built, some perhaps 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 Advanced Fuels, 

LLC, has announced that it plans to build a coal-to-liquids plant with an 

in-service year of 2013 in northern Carbon County, Wyoming. GE Energy 

and Rentech Clean Energy Solutions are also involved in the project, 

4-18 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
 

 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

which would obtain coal from Saddleback Hills 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 2010, with completion planned for 2011 (Casper Star 

Tribune 2007c, DKRW 2009). 

•	 Coal gasification development projects are being actively pursued by 

several groups, including the Wyoming Business Council, Campbell 

County Economic Development Corporation (CCEDC), and Converse Area 

New Development Organization (CANDO). Specifically, CANDO is 

pursuing the development of coal gasification leading to production of 

pure hydrogen with carbon dioxide (CO2) as a by-product within 5 to 8 

years. 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. 

4.1.2 Oil and Gas Development 

The following information on existing conventional and CBNG development is 

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

billion cubic feet (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 Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 4-19 
 

 

 

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 Employment (acres)3 

Past and Present 

1990 163 18 3 1 2,862 na 

1995 247 19 4 1 3,177 na 

2000 323 12 4 2 3,335 na 

2003 363 12 4 0 5,010 73,685 

Projected Development - Lower Coal Production Scenario 

2010 411 131 12 7 5,263 103,628 

2015 467 131 7 12 5,405 123,147 

2020 495 131 7 12 5,531 143,354 

Projected Development - Upper Coal Production Scenario 

2010 479 131 12 7 5,339 107,414 

2015 543 131 7 12 5,522 130,456 

2020 576 131 8 12 5,678 155,000 

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 

2005a) 

(WOGCC) reported that these wells produced approximately 13 million barrels of 

oil and 40 bcf of conventional gas in 2003 (WOGCC 2004). The U.S. Geological 

Survey (USGS) estimated that the mean undiscovered non-coal bed hydrocarbon 

resource in the PRB (including Montana) is 1.8 billion barrels of oil equivalent 

(BOE) (USGS 2002a). 

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 

4-20 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
 

 

 

 

 

 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

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 2005a) 

in the PRB study area (WOGCC 2005b); 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. 

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 

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 State 

Engineer’s Office (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 2007b). 

Average daily CBNG production was 900 million cubic feet of gas per day 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 4-21 
 

 

 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

(mmcfpd) in 2003 (Holcomb 2003) and it is estimated that it will average 1,150 

mmcfpd (1.15 bcfpd) for 2007 (WOGCC 2007b). 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 

environmental assessments (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 2003). 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. 

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) 338 284 480 500 443 

Active Wells 14,758 12,152 20,899 21,831 19,366 

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

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 

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. 

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 

4-22 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
 

 

 

 

 

 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

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 2005a) 

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. 

Major transportation pipelines also provide for transport of CO2 to conventional 

oil fields for enhanced oil recovery (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 originally 

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

into the Northern Border Pipeline system. 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. The Federal 

Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) received an application for the 302-mile 

Bison project proposal in April 2009 (FERC 2009). 

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

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

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 4-23 
 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

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 

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 

Construction of a new refinery was completed in the Wyoming PRB study area in 

2008. The NorthCut Refinery, owned and operated by Interline Resources, is 

located in Converse County, approximately 20 miles north of the town of 

Douglas, Wyoming. Construction of the refinery, which was a conversion of the 

previously existing Well Draw Gas Plant, included installation of a crude oil 

pipeline between the company’s existing crude gathering system and the 

refinery. 

The NorthCut Refinery is a crude oil topping plant, specifically engineered to 

process 4,000 barrels per day of sweet crude produced in the PRB. Output from 

the refinery will include naptha, off-road diesel, and reduced crude oil. The 

markets for the products include ethanol manufacturers, mines, and other 

refineries. The company-owned crude oil pipeline and third-party tanker trucks 

will be used for delivery of crude stocks. Tanker trucks also will be used to 

transport finished products from the facility (Interline Resources 2008). 

4-24 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

The refinery is adjacent to and east of SH 59, with the joint UP/BNSF rail line 

located just to the west of the highway. The site previously had been the location 

of the Well Draw Gas Plant (approximately 20 acres), which shut down in 2002 

following a fire. Interline has acquired an additional 12 acres bordering the 

original site for administrative, maintenance, and transportation-related uses 

(Interline Resources 2008). 

The level and composition of outputs from the existing NorthCut Refinery would 

respond to various markets, potentially resulting in the construction of 

additional infrastructure and/or facilities in the future. Any future changes and 

associated disturbances would occur within the property currently owned by 

Interline Resources at the NorthCut site (Williams 2008). No specific plans for 

expansion currently have been identified. As a result, the likelihood for project 

expansion currently is considered speculative. Therefore, it has been eliminated 

from further analysis in this study. 

No other reasonably foreseeable plans for construction and operation of new 

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 2003). 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. 

In the original Task 2 report (BLM 2005a), reasonably foreseeable uranium 

development was eliminated from further consideration because: 1) there were 

no specific projects with pending applications and 2) no development was 

anticipated, based on market conditions. Due to increased overall demand for 

energy in recent years, uranium prices have increased from a low of $7.00 a 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 4-25 
 

 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

pound in 2001 to over $138 a pound in 2007 (Barry 2008). The price fell 

precipitously after that, but appears to be stabilizing at approximately $75 per 

pound. 

In response to the increased price of uranium, a number of uranium mine 

developments currently are proposed in the Wyoming PRB study area (table 4-9). 

These include seven new proposed developments, two proposed expansions, and 

one proposed restart, all of which would use in situ recovery. Most of the 

proposed developments are in the Pumpkin Buttes uranium district in 

southwestern Campbell County. The actual number of the proposed 

developments that would become operational would depend on several factors 

including price and approval of permits. 

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 

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 

4-26 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

Table 4-9. U.S. Nuclear Resources Commission Applications for In-Situ 

Recovery Uranium Projects in the Wyoming PRB Study Area. 

Project/ 

Company Location 

Type 

Application 

Watershed/Mining 

District 

Likelihood/ 

Rationale 

Moore 

Ranch/Uranium 

One (formerly 

Energy Metals 

Corporation) 

T41-42N, R74-75W; 

Campbell and Converse 

counties. 

New Antelope Creek, Upper 

Powder River/Pumpkin 

Buttes District 

Moderate for 2010. 

Application filed with 

U.S. Nuclear 

Regulatory 

Commission (USNRC) 

October 2007. 

Nichols RanchHank Unit/ 

Uranerz 

Nichols Ranch: T43N, 

R76W; 

Campbell and Johnson 

counties. 

Hank Unit: 

T43-44N, R75W; 

Campbell County. 

New Upper Powder 

River/Pumpkin Buttes 

District 

Moderate for 2010. 

Applications filed with 

USNRC and WDEQ. 

Christensen 

Ranch/Cogema 

T44N, R76W; 

Johnson County. 

Restart Upper Powder 

River/Pumpkin Buttes 

District 

Moderate for 2010. 

USNRC application 

pending, received April 

2007. 

Smith 

Ranch/Cameco 

(Power 

Resources) 

T36N, R74W; 

Converse County. 

Expansion Middle North Platte 

River/South Powder 

Moderate for 2015. 

Expansion of existing 

facility, letter of intent 

March 2008, 

application expected 

2009. 

North 

Butte/Cameco 

T44N, R76W; 

Campbell County. 

Expansion Upper Powder 

River/Pumpkin Buttes 

District 

Moderate for 2015. 

Letter of intent to 

USNRC March 2008, 

application expected 

2009. 

Collins 

Draw/Uranerz 

T42N, T43N, R76W; 

Campbell County. 

New Upper Powder 

River/Pumpkin Buttes 

District 

Moderate for 2015. 

Letter of intent to 

USNRC March 2008, 

application expected 

2009. 

LudemanAllemandRoss/Uranium 

One 

Converse County New Antelope Creek Moderate for 2015. 

Letter of intent to 

USNRC March 2008, 

application expected 

2009. 

Ruby 

Ranch/Cameco 

T43N, R75W; 

Campbell County. 

New Upper Belle Fourche 

River/Pumpkin Buttes 

District 

Moderate for 2015. 

Letter of intent to 

USNRC March 2008, 

application expected 

2009. 

Reno Creek/ 

Strathmore 

Minerals 

Corporation 

T43N, R73; 

Campbell County. 

New Upper Belle Fourche 

River, Antelope 

Creek/Pumpkin Buttes 

District 

Moderate for 2015. 

Letter of intent to 

USNRC March 2008, 

application expected 

2010. 

Southwest Reno 

Creek/ 

Strathmore 

Minerals 

Corporation 

T42-43N, 

R73-74W 

New Antelope 

Creek/Pumpkin Buttes 

District 

Speculative. 

No information on 

applications available. 

Sources: Strathmore Minerals Corporation (2008), USNRC (2008a, 2008b, 2008c); World 

Information Service on Energy (2007) 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 4-27 
 

 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

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 Wind Power 

Wind power facilities have been proposed at various sites in Wyoming, including 

the Powder River Basin region. There is potential in the Wyoming sites for wind 

power, and these facilities can contribute to meeting forecasted electric power 

demands, however they are dependent on available transmission capacity to 

send power to users. The transmission capability is a constraining factor 

(Gillette News-Record 2008b). Wyoming ranks in seventh place in terms of wind 

energy potential with a current production in 14th place with 459 megawatts. 

Although many Wyoming locations having the highest potential are in the 

southern portion of the state, areas in both Converse and Campbell counties 

offer sufficient potential to support commercial-scale wind generation projects. 

	 One such project currently is under development in the Wyoming PRB 

study area, and another is in the planning stages. PacifiCorp is 

constructing a three-phase project in Converse County, approximately 15 

miles north of the existing Dave Johnston Power Plant, on and near the 

site of the former Dave Johnson Mine. The first two phases, known as the 

Glenrock Wind Energy Project and the Rolling Hills Wind Energy Project, 

are scheduled for completion in 2008. The third, currently unnamed 

phase is anticipated to be constructed between 2009 and 2011, depending 

on market demands and the performance of the first two phases. Each 

phase would consist of 66 wind turbine generators (each rated at 1.5 MW 

[99-MW total]) mounted on 80-meter-tall tubular towers, plus ancillary 

support facilities (PacifiCorp 2007). This project is considered highly likely. 

	 Third Planet Windpower is in the initial development phase of a wind 

generating project in the Pumpkin Buttes area of southwestern Campbell 

4-28 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
 

 

 

 

 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

County. Third Planet Windpower has acquired 13,000 acres of land leases 

for the project, installed meteorological towers on site, and is currently 

doing environmental and feasibility studies. Contingent upon the 

meteorological data and other results, the company could install up to 

167, 1.5-MW towers, yielding a total capacity of 250 MW, if fully 

constructed (Gartrell 2008). The site for the Reno Junction wind farm is 

close to the Black Hills Power substation and the companies are seeking 

an agreement for interconnection. Third Planet Windpower plans to start 

construction in June of 2010 with an online date in the end of 2010. 

	 Duke Energy’s Campbell Hill Windpower Project is in the final site 

permitting stage, with construction anticipated to start in early 2009. The 

Campbell Hill Wind Power Project is to be located approximately 15 miles 

northeast of Casper, WY and will consist of 66 wind turbines generating 

99 Megawatts per year. The facility is scheduled to come online in late 

2009. 

	 Chevron Global Power Company is in the site planning stages of a wind 

energy project north of Evansville, WY, at the site of the Old Texaco 

Refinery currently owned by Chevron. The project plans for 13 turbines 

generating 20 megawatts of power. There is no projected online date at 

this time although Chevron Global Gas – Global Power is seeking to hire 

the Wind Farm Operations and Maintenance Manager. 

4.1.3.4 Solar Power 

Although Wyoming has been given a rating of very good for Annual Solar 

Potential for Flat Plate Collectors, there currently are no utility scale solar power 

collection facilities on federal, state, or privet lands in the state of Wyoming. 

Furthermore, no applications for the development of utility scale solar energy 

projects have been filed as of January 1, 2009. 

The BLM and the U.S. Department of Energy (USDOE) are jointly preparing a 

solar energy programmatic environmental impact statement (PEIS) which could 

facilitate future solar energy development application processes. Wyoming is 

not covered in the PEIS but still may be affected by it. Information on the PEIS 

can be found at: http://solareis.anl.gov. The BLM currently evaluates solar 

energy project proposals on a case by case basis. 

Solar energy utilization in Wyoming is, as of January 1, 2009, limited to private 

residences and private commercial establishments. Current Wyoming solar 

energy incentives include a sales tax rebate on industrial or commercial solar 

energy generation equipment, a one time grant of up to $3000 offered thru 

lottery from the Wyoming Business Council, and the utility buy back of unused 

electricity at the wholesale price. Solar energy production equipment and 

installation at residential, commercial, and utility sites is expensive. Currently, 

the electric utility costs in Wyoming are such that, the cost of installation does 

not favor solar energy development over existing forms of energy development. 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 4-29 
 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

4.1.3.5 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 

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. 

4.1.3.6 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 Wyoming Department of Transportation (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. 

•	 The 2008 annual State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) 

includes planned construction for the 2008 fiscal year and preliminary 

engineering estimates for projects with anticipated construction dates 

through 2013 (WYDOT 2008). In general, Wyoming transportation 

4-30 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
 

 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

projects scheduled over the next 6 years include maintenance, 

reconstruction, and improvement projects. Airport improvement plans 

consist primarily of pavement rehabilitation and overlays, with some 

minor expansion of taxiways, aprons, and parking. No construction of new 

highways is scheduled, and no new airports are proposed. 

•	 In addition to highway projects included in the STIP 2008, the Eagle Butte 

Mine has received approval from WYDOT to relocate a portion of U.S. 

Highway 14/16 in the vicinity of the Gillette/Campbell County Airport, 

north of the city of Gillette. The relocation is to facilitate the recovery of 

approximately 35 million tons of additional coal recently acquired by the 

mine through the West Eagle Butte West LBA tract coal sale. Three 

alternative alignments, involving the construction of up to 2.75 centerline 

miles of new roadway, were identified and a preferred alternative was 

subsequently chosen and approved by WYDOT. Construction of the new 

highway segment began in March of 2009 (WYDOT and Foundation Coal 

Company 2008). 

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

courthouse was completed in late 2005 and a new public health building 

was completed in 2007. 

•	 Expansion of the county’s detention center and remodeling of the sheriff’s 

office were undertaken in 2007. 

• 	 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). 

•	 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 new $10 million headquarters for the Campbell County Fire Department 

providing administrative, training, and storage space in addition to 

multiple parking bays for firefighting apparatus. 

•	 A $55 million county recreation center is being planned, with opening 

expected in 2010. 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 4-31 
 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

•	 The city completed construction of a new Health Sciences Center at 

Gillette College. The facility will house the school’s nursing program, 

providing classrooms, labs, faculty offices, and other spaces. The nursing 

program functions in conjunction with the Campbell County Memorial 

Hospital. 

•	 The county, city, and Gillette College are partnering on a Campus Housing 

Complex and Industrial Technical Education Center. These facilities are 

part of a long-range master plan for the college that is designed to provide 

a broad college-level curriculum and provide more focused education and 

training to support local business and industry. 

•	 Campbell County Memorial Hospital is in the planning stage for a major 

expansion and renovation project (City of Gillette 2008a). 

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. 

4-32 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
 

 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

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, 

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 4-10 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. 

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 4-10 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 Wyoming and Montana PRB 

study area that was used to identify emissions sources for the air quality 

analysis. 

	 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. 

	 The groundwater drawdown was evaluated in the area surrounding and 

extending west of the surface coal mines, shown in figure 4-4, because 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 4-33 
Tongue 

Big 

Creek Goose 

Little Goose

Creek 

Prairie 

Dog 

Creek 

Sage Creek 

Dry Fork Cheyenne 

River 

Antelope Creek 

Porcupine Creek 

Little Thunder Creek 

Black Thunder Creek 

Bacon Creek 

Belle 

Fourche River 

Four 

Horse Creek 

Cr

Ca 

eek

ballo 

Cottonwood Creek 

Little

River 

Wild

Cat

Creek 

Salt 

Creek 

South

Fork Powder

River 

Buffalo Middle

Creek 

Fork Powder River 

Bear Trap 

Red Powder 

River 

North

Fork

River 

Crazy Woman

Creek 

Trabing

Dry Creek 

Crazy 

Woman

Creek 

Rock Creek 

Piney Creek 

Clear Creek 

Powder River 

Spotted Horse Creek 

Middle Prong

Horse 

Wild 

Creek 

Timber Creek 

Little

Powder River 

ForkCrazy 

Woman 

Creek 

Powder 

River 

Wild Horse Creek 

Bitter

Creek 

Fourmile Creek 

Pumpkin Creek 

Dry Fork Powder 

River 

North Fork Bear 

Creek 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

PSO ASH CREEK MINE BIG HORN MINE SHERIDAN River COUNTY Powder

Upper

Belle
 Fourche 2

SHERIDAN 

Little 

Powder
 River CAMPBELL 

COUNTY 

BUFFALO 1

Upper

Powder
 River
 

GILLETTE 

North 

South River 
 Fork
 

JOHNSON 

COUNTY 

Powder 

Fork 

Upper 

WRIGHT 

Creek 

River 

3
 

Dry Creek 

SCALE: 1"= 20 MILES Antelope

Creek
 

LEGEND 

Federal Coal Lease Areas 

CONVERSE Subwatersheds in the Environmental COUNTY Consequence Study Area 

Groundwater Model Domain 

Railroads 

Dry Fork Former Surface Coal Mine Sites Cheyenne River 

COAL MINE SUBREGIONS 

Buckskin, Dry Fork, Eagle Butte, DAVE JOHNSTON 1 Subregion 1 Rawhide, and Wyodak Mines MINE -

Belle Ayr, Caballo, Coal Creek, and 2 Subregion 2 - Cordero-Rojo Mines 

Antelope, North Rochelle/Black

3 Subregion 3 - Thunder, Jacobs Ranch, and North

Antelope/Rochelle Mines 

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

Consequences. 

4-34 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
 

 

 

 

 

 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

Table 4-10. Baseline Year and Projected Wyoming PRB Total Development 

Scenario – Task 3 Study Area. 

Acres Acres 

Total Acres Acres Acres Unavailable for Affected by 

Year Disturbed1 Reclaimed1 Unreclaimed1 Reclamation2 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 2005a) 

	 that is the area where groundwater drawdown related to surface coal 

mining operations and CBNG production operations would overlap. 

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 feet above sea level on the southern and western portions of 

the basin to less than 4,000 feet 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 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 4-35 
 

 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

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 4-10. 

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). Natural 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. USGS monitors the magnitude of blasting 

activity in the PRB under the Routine Mining Seismicity Earthquake Hazards 

Program (USGS 2008). Coal mine blasting operations induced seismic activity 

does occur throughout the PRB and has reached a USGS local magnitude rating 

of 3.6 (USGS 2004). 

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. 

4-36 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
 

 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

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 4-10. 

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. 

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 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 4-37 
 

 

 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

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 4-10. 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 

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 

There is substantial scientific evidence that increased atmospheric 

concentrations of greenhouse gases (GHG) and land use changes are 

contributing to an increase in average global temperature. However since these 

gases are not regulated pollutants, a discussion of this subject has been 

included in section 4.2.14. 

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

2005a) identifies reasonably foreseeable development activities for the years 

2010, 2015, and 2020. 

The Task 3A Report for the PRB Coal Review (BLM 2006c) 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. The 

updated Task 3A report for the PRB Coal Review Cumulative Air Quality Effects 

for 2015 uses a revised base line year of 2004 with revised projected 2015 

scenarios. Impacts for 2015 and 2020 were projected qualitatively using a state 

of the art guideline dispersion model based on evaluation of anticipated changes 

in emissions and on modeled impacts for the 2015 lower and upper coal 

production scenarios. BLM has updated the model and conducted impact 

analysis for the year 2015 (BLM 2008e) Currently, a revised baseline year 

emissions inventory has been developed using 2004 actual emissions data or 

emissions estimates and has incorporated the recent analyses of emissions in 

4-38 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

Wyoming and Montana, which were not available when the 2010 modeling study 

was done. 

Existing and projected emissions sources for the baseline year (2004) and 2015 

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 

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 version 5.8 (Scire et al. 1999) was 

used for this study, which differs from the version used in the Task 1A and 

original Task 3A studies. The impacts for the baseline year (2004) and for 2015 

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 updated Task 3A Report used actual emissions 

from existing sources representative of 2004 operations and projected those 

emissions for the expected level of development in 2015. Year 2004 emission 

inventory data were previously developed for the Montana Statewide Oil and Gas 

Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement. 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 Montana Department of Environmental Quality 

(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, 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 4-39 
 

 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

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 construction-related fugitive 

dust emissions, were computed based on EPA emission factors and on input 

data from WDEQ/AQD. 

The existing regional air quality conditions generally are 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) 

and good atmospheric dispersion conditions. The available data show that the 

region is in compliance with the ambient air quality standards for nitrogen 

dioxide (NO2) and sulfur dioxide (SO2). There have been no monitored 

exceedances of the annual PM10 (particulates finer than 10 microns in effective 

diameter) standard in the Wyoming PRB. 

Air quality modeling, as stated in the Update of Task 3A Report for the Powder 

River Basin Coal Review Cumulative Air Quality Effects for 2015, predict that the 

projected air quality impacts in Wyoming near the four South Gillette area 

operating mines will exceed the NAAQS for both the 24 hour and the annual 

PM10 and PM2.5 (particulates finer than 2.5 microns in effective diameter) in the 

near-field for both the high and low production scenarios in 2015. Annual NO2 

air standards are not exceeded. The model suggests that this is caused by a 

combination of both CBNG operations and coal mining activity impacts in the 

area. All applicants have indicated that they propose to mine the respective LBA 

tracts at a rate below the permit levels. 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 2005 (figure 3-20). 

Predicted impacts from baseline year (2004) and projected 2015 emissions were 

modeled for four air quality criteria pollutants (NO2, SO2, PM2.5, 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 (Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration) 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 4-11 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 

(2004) analysis and for both coal production scenarios for 2015. 

4-40 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
4.0 Cumulative Envir

Table 4-11. Projected Maximum Potential Near-field Impacts (μg/m3). 

2015 Lower 

Coal 

2015 Upper 

Coal 

Pollutant 

Averaging 

Time 

Base Year 

(2004) 

Impacts 

Development 

Scenario 

Impacts 

Development 

Scenario 

Impacts NAAQS 

Wyoming 

AAQS 

M

Wyoming Near-field 

NO2 Annual 31.3 46.7 47.4 100 100 

SO2 Annual 

 24-hour  3-hour 

15.3 

112.3 462.0 

16.2 

119.6 814.1 

16.2 

119.6 814.1 

80 

365 

1,300 

60 

260 

1,300 

PM2.5 Annual 

 24-hour 

13.4 

87.6 

18.7 

179.5 

21.4 

179.5 

1535

 15  35 

PM10

NO2

 Annual 

 24-hour 

 Annual 

 1-hour 

38.4 

250.4 

3.3 

409.0 

53.5 

512.8 

6.5 

826.3 

61.0 

512.9 

Montana Near-field 

6.5 

826.4 

---

150

100 

---

50 

150 

--­

--­

SO2 Annual 

 24-hour  3-hour  1-hour 

1.6 

16.1 

65.0 

162.9 

1.7 

16.5 

66.5 

166.6 

1.7 

16.6 

66.5 

166.6 

80 

365 

1,300 

---

--­

--­

--­

--­

PM2.5 Annual 

 24-hour 

1.0 

10.2 

1.8 

15.4 

1.9 

20.6 

15 

35 

---

---

PM10 Annual 

 24-hour 

2.8 

29.1 

5.2 

44.0 

5.3 

58.5 

---

150 

--­

--­

1 No standard or increment 
Value units are microgram per cubic meter (μg/m3) 


Bold values indicate projected exceedance of AAQS 
Source: PRB Coal Review Task 3A Report (BLM 2008e)
 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 4-41 
 

 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

Based on the modeling results, the baseline year (2004) maximum impacts on 

ambient air quality were well below the ambient air quality standards for NO2 

and SO2. The Annual PM2.5 and PM10 impacts in Wyoming are predicted to be 

over the Wyoming Annual Air Quality Standard (AAQS) for the 2015 lower and 

upper development scenarios. 

The 2004 maximum modeled 24-hour PM10 and PM2.5 levels in Montana are also 

well below the state and national AAQS; however, the 2004 maximum modeled 

24-hour PM10 and PM2.5 levels are greater than the 150 μg/m3 and 35 μg/m3 

AAQS, respectively, for some near-field receptors near PRB sources in Wyoming. 

The modeling also indicated that visibility impacts in the surrounding Class I 

and Class II areas for the modeled year 2015 showed some increase in visibility 

impacts. 

For the Montana near-field projected impacts, the modeling for the 24-hour PM10 

and PM2.5 levels projects a maximum impact below the state and national AAQS 

for both coal production scenarios for 2015. The upper coal production scenario 

shows an increase in the impact of roughly 100 percent above the baseline year 

for these two parameters. Projected impacts for SO2 and annual NO2 show 

compliance with the National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) and 

Montana AAQS. The 1-hour NO2 projected levels for the lower and upper 

development scenarios are above the Montana AAQS. For the Montana 

receptors, modeling for the NO2 and SO2 levels were projected to be essentially 

equal for both coal development scenarios for 2015. 

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 2015 lower 

and upper coal production scenarios at some receptors. For the 2015 upper 

development scenario, the modeled levels are above 150 μg/m3 for several 

relatively small areas surrounding coal mines and CBNG operations in the 

Wyoming PRB. As shown in table 4-11, the maximum modeled PM10 impacts 

from all sources for both the 2015 lower and upper coal development scenarios 

are over three times the 24-hour Wyoming AAQS standard. The maximum 

modeled PM2.5 impacts from all sources for both the 2015 lower and upper coal 

development scenarios are over five times the 24-hour Wyoming AAQS standard. 

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 “Best Available Work Practice” 

mitigation measures in all coal mine permits. 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. 

4-42 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

The maximum modeled impacts on the annual PM2.5 and PM10 annual levels are 

projected to be above the standard (15 μg/m3 and 50 μg/m3, respectively) at 

near-field receptors in Wyoming for the 2015 lower and upper coal production 

scenario. EPA has revoked the annual PM10 standard of 50 μg/m3 but until 

Wyoming enters into rulemaking to revise the WAAQS, that standard is still 

effective. It should be noted that WDEQ/AQD issues permits to mine coal. AQD 

cannot issue any permit that violates Ambient Air Quality Standards. Impacts of 

NO2 and SO2 emissions are predicted to be below the NAAQS and Wyoming 

SAAQS 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 4-12 lists the three Class I areas and two Class II areas where the modeled 

impacts are the greatest. Table 4-12 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 

(2004) and the two coal production scenarios for 2015 are less than the annual 

SO2 PSD Class I and Class II increment; below the PSD Class I and Class II 

increment levels for annual PM10, 24-hour SO2, and 3-hour SO2. The levels for 

24-hour PM10 are above the Class I and Class II PSD increment levels in the base 

line year of 2004 and show potential exceedances in both the lower and upper 

development scenarios. For annual NO2, the modeled impacts for the Northern 

Cheyenne Reservations are less than the annual increment for the baseline year 

and lower and upper coal production scenarios.. 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 lower coal production scenario. The modeled 24-hour PM10 in 

both of the Class II areas indicates potential exceedances in the upper coal 

production scenario. 

The projected modeled visibility impacts for the baseline year (2004) and for the 

lower and upper coal production scenarios for 2015 for all analyzed Class I and 

sensitive Class II areas are listed in table 4-13. 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 deciview (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 2015, the modeled visibility impacts for 2004 were subtracted from 

the model results for 2015. Table 4-13 shows the number of additional days 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 4-43 
4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

Table 4-12. Maximum Predicted PSD Class I and Sensitive Class II Area Impacts (μg/m3)1. 

Location Pollutant Averaging Period 

Base Year (2004) 

Impacts 

2015 Lower Coal 

Development 

Scenario 

2015 Upper 

Developme

Productio

Scenario 

Class I Areas 

Northern Cheyenne 

NO2 

SO2 

Annual Annual 

24-hour 

3-hour 

0.4 0.5 3.1 9.4 

0.6 0.6 3.4 9.6 

0.9 

0.7 3.4 9.6 

Indian Reservation PM2.5 Annual 0.3 0.5 0.5 

24-hour 3.4 5.1 5.1 

PM10 Annual 24-hour 0.9 9.6 1.5 14.4 1.5 14.6 

NO2 Annual 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Annual 0.2 0.2 0.2 

SO2 24-hour 3.0 3.1 3.1 

Washakie Wilderness 3-hour 6.3 6.3 6.3 

Area PM2.5 Annual 0.1 0.1 0.1 

24-hour 1.6 1.6 1.6 

Annual 0.2 0.2 0.2 

PM10 24-hour 4.5 4.6 4.7 

NO2 Annual 0.2 0.3 0.3 

SO2 

Annual 

24-hour 

0.7 3.7 

0.8 4.1 

0.8 4.1 

Wind Cave National Park 3-hour 7.0 7.4 7.4 

PM2.5 Annual 0.4 0.5 0.5 

24-hour 3.8 4.6 4.7 

PM10 Annual 24-hour 1.0 10.9 1.3 13.3 1.4 13.6 

Sensitive Class II Areas 

NO2 Annual 0.6 0.6 0.7 

Annual 0.5 0.6 0.6 

SO2 24-hour 3.6 3.7 4.0 

Big Horn Canyon 3-hour 14.3 14.3 14.3 

National Recreation Area Annual 0.5 0.5 0.7 

PM2.5 24-hour 5.9 7.8 11.9 

Annual 1.4 1.6 2.1 

PM10 24-hour 16.9 22.3 34.1 

NO2 Annual 0.9 1.4 1.7 

Annual 2.3 2.3 2.3 

SO2 24-hour 14.4 14.6 14.6 

3-hour 76.8 77.0 77.0 

Crow Indian Reservation 

PM2.5 Annual 0.8 1.0 1.4 

24-hour 7.2 9.4 14.3 

Annual 2.2 2.9 4.1 

PM10 24-hour 20.5 26.9 40.7 

1 μg/m3 = microgram per cubic meter.
 2 No standard or increment.
 

Bold values indicate exceedance of PSD Class I or II standards.
 Source: PRB Coal Review Task 3A Report (BLM 2008e)
 

-44 Final EIS, South Gillette Area 
 

 

 

 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

Table 4-13. Modeled Change in Visibility Impacts at Class I and Sensitive 

Class II Areas. 

2015 Upper 2015 Lower Coal Base Year Coal Development (2004) Development Scenario Scenario 

Change in Change in No. of Days No. of Days No. of Days >10% Location >10% >10% 

Class I Areas 

Badlands National Park 218 26 26 

Bob Marshall WA 8 0 0 

Bridger WA 144 2 2 

Fitzpatrick WA 91 2 2 

Fort Peck Indian Reservation 105 10 10 

Gates of the Mountain WA 55 0 0 

Grand Teton National Par 70 2 2 

North Absaroka WA 61 3 3 

North Cheyenne Indian Reservation 243 32 47 

Red Rock Lakes 42 2 2 

Scapegoat WA 27 1 1 

Teton W 57 4 4 

Theodore Roosevelt National Park 178 5 9 

UL Bend WA 77 8 10 

Washakie WA 83 5 5 

Wind Cave National Park 262 18 19 

Yellowstone National Park 84 2 2 

Sensitive Class II Areas 

Absaroka Beartooth WA 101 2 3 

Agate Fossil Beds National Monument 251 20 20 

Big Horn Canyon National Rec. Area 331 1 3 

Black Elk WA 236 34 36 

Cloud Peak WA 126 18 18 

Crow Indian Reservation 360 4 4 

Devils Tower National Monument 274 25 25 

Fort Belknap Indian Reservation 66 6 7 

Fort Laramie National Historic Site 260 10 10 

Jedediah Smith WA 79 1 1 

Jewel Cave National Monument 261 19 21 

Lee Metcalf WA 97 2 2 

Mount Naomi WA 51 1 1 

Mount Rushmore National Monument 222 36 36 

Popo Agie WA 139 4 4 

Soldier Creek WA 268 18 18 

Wellsville Mountain WA 130 10 10 

Wind River Indian Reservation 217 2 5 

Source: PRB Coal Review Task 3A Report (BLM 2008e) 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 4-45 
 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

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 showed 218 days with impacts 

greater than 1.0 dv in 2004. Under the 2015 lower coal production scenario, the 

modeling analysis projects an additional 26 days with impacts greater than 1.0 

dv, or a total of 244 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 2015; however, impacts remain well below the nitrogen and sulfur 

levels of concern (1.5 and 5.0 kilograms per hectare per year (kg/ha/yr), 

respectively). The acid neutralizing capacity (ANC) of sensitive lakes also was 

analyzed, and results are summarized in table 4-14. The base year study 

indicated that none of the lakes had predicted significant impacts except Upper 

Frozen Lake; however, the lower and upper development scenarios for 2015 

show an increased impact at Florence Lake, leading to an impact that is above 

the 10 percent ANC. 

The study also modeled impacts of selected hazardous air pollutant emissions 

(benzene, ethyl benzene, formaldehyde, n-hexane, toluene, and xylene) on the 

receptors with the highest ambient impacts. The near-field receptors in 

Wyoming and Montana were analyzed for annual (chronic) and 1-hour (acute) 

impacts. Model results for the base year (2004) and 2015 development 

scenarios show that impacts are predicted to be well below the acute Reference 

Exposure Levels, non-carcinogenic Reference Concentrations for Chronic 

Inhalation, and carcinogenic risk threshold for all hazardous air pollutants. The 

maximally exposed individual’s carcinogenic risk factor due to benzene exposure 

is predicted to increase 50 percent as a result of projected PRB development, but 

even with this substantial increase the predicted risk is well below U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) carcinogenic risk thresholds. 

For 2020, the PRB Coal Review updated 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 2004 to 2015 for the respective 

coal production scenarios. The production from conventional oil and gas 

activities is projected to peak at 2010, with slight declines predicted over the 

following decade. The production from CBNG activities is projected to peak at 

2015, with slight declines predicted over the following decade. Therefore, from 

these sources, expected impacts would decrease slightly from 2015 to 2020. The 

coal mining sources would be the major contributors to PM10 and PM2.5 impacts 

in the near-field between 2015 and 2020, 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. 

4-46 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
1 

4.0 Cumulative Envir

Table 4-14. Predicted Total Cumulative Change in Acid Neutralizing Capacity of Sensitive Lakes. 

2015 Lower Coal 2015 Upper 

Background Base Year Development Developm

ANC Area 2004 Change Scenario Change Scenario Ch

Location Lake (μeq/L) (hectares) (percent) (percent) (percent

Black Joe 67.0 890 4.00 4.11 4.11 Deep 60.0 205 4.70 4.82 4.82 

Bridger Wilderness Area Hobbs 70.0 293 3.95 4.03 4.03 

Upper Frozen 5.0 64.8 2.42 2.47 2.48 

Emerald 55.3 293 5.24 5.97 6.02 

Cloud Peak 

Florence 32.7 417 9.09 10.41 10.48 

Fitzpatrick Ross 53.5 4,455 2.72 2.79 2.79 Wilderness Area Popo Agie Lower 55.5 155 6.28 6.42 6.43 

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 back

Source: PRB Coal Review Task 3A Report (BLM 2008e) 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications

 4

-47 
 

 

 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

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 and PM2.5 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. Impacts should remain below the annual NO2 

standard for 2015 and 2020 in Wyoming and Montana. The 1-hour NO2 

Montana near-field impacts indicate potential exceedances. 

Based on modeling results, one of lakes (Florence) in the Cloud Peak Class I area 

and one lake (Upper Frozen Lake) in the Bridger Class I area, exceeded the acid 

deposition thresholds for both the lower and upper coal production scenarios for 

2015. With the exception of Florence and Upper Frozen lakes, the projected 

increases in coal development (and power plants) are not expected to raise the 

deposition levels above the thresholds, extended into 2020. The model results 

showed that the increased deposition, largely from SO2 emissions from power 

plants, exceeded the thresholds of significance for the ANC at sensitive (high 

alpine) lakes. The results indicate that with increased growth in power plant 

operations, the reduced ANC of the sensitive lakes 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. 

4.2.4 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. 

4-48 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

The PRB Coal Review Task 1B Report (BLM 2006d) describes the existing water 

resource conditions in the PRB Task 1 study area (figure 4-1). The Task 3B 

Report (BLM 2006e) 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 of the results of the Task 1B Report and the 

Task 3B surface water quality impact analysis, including a recent channel 

stability study. The Task 3B groundwater impact analysis will be incorporated 

into future EIS analyses when 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 4-15 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. 

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. 

In 1987, the USGS, in cooperation with the WDEQ and Office of Surface Mining 

Reclamation & Enforcement (OSM), conducted a study of the hydrology of the 

eastern PRB. The resulting description of the cumulative hydrologic effects of all 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 4-49 
 

 

 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

Table 4-15. Recoverable Groundwater in the Fort Union/Wasatch Aquifer 

System. 

Hydrogeologic 

Unit 

Surface Area (acres)Average Formation Thickness (ft)Percentage of Sand/CoalAverage Sand/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 2003). 

Source: BLM 2003 

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 major amendments to mining and reclamation permits 

are proposed, then the potential cumulative impacts of the revisions must also 

be evaluated. If the four South Gillette Area Coal LBA tracts are leased to the 

respective applicants, the existing mining and reclamation permits for each 

current mine must be revised and approved to include the new lease before it 

can be mined. 

The PRB Oil and Gas Project FEIS (BLM 2003) includes a modeling analysis of 

the groundwater impacts if an additional 39,000 new CBNG wells are drilled in 

4-50 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
 

 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

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 the 

Gillette Area Groundwater Monitoring Organization (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, 2001b, and 2007). 

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. 

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): 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 4-51 
 

 

 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

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, 2001b, 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 2001b). In the GAGMO 25-year report, 8.6 

percent of the 101 backfill wells measured contained water (Hydro-Engineering 

2007). 

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 four South Gillette Area Coal LBA tracts. 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. 

Scoria or clinker, the baked and fused rock formed by prehistoric burning of the 

Wyodak-Anderson coal seam, occurs all along the coal outcrop area (figure 4-5) 

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 scoria 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. 

Scoria occurs only in limited amounts on the LBA tracts as applied for under the 

Proposed Actions or within the additional areas evaluated under the other action 

alternatives. 

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, 

4-52 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
BNSF & UP RR 

BNSF RR 

5 

5 

5 

5 

5 

5 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

 R. 73 W. R. 72 W. R. 71 W. R. 70 W. R. 69 W. 

59 

T. T. 

49 49 

N. N. 

50 

T. 

48 

N. 

T. 

47 

T. 

48 

N. 

T. 

47 

N. N. 

T. 

46 

N. 

T. 

46 

N. 

T. T. 

45 

N.

45 

N. 

SCALE:1"=24,000'	 59 

 R. 73 W. R. 72 W. R. 71 W. R. 70 W. R. 69 W.

LEGEND 

Extent of WDEQ's Cumulative and 

Extrapolated Life of Mine Drawdown (5 feet) 

with South Gillette Area Coal LBA Tracts 

Approximate Wyodak Coal Outcrop 

Caballo West LBA 

Tract as Applied for 

Belle Ayr North LBA 

Tract as Applied for 

Existing Caballo Mine 

Federal Coal Leases 

Existing Belle Ayr Mine 

Federal Coal Leases 

Clinker Maysdorf II LBA Existing Cordero Rojo 

Groundwater cumulative impact area information taken Tract as Applied for Mine Federal Coal Leases 

from Plate 1 in WDEQ-CHIA-14 (Ogle et al. 2005). West Coal Creek LBA Existing Coal Creek Mine 

Clinker and coal outcrop information modified from Tract as Applied for Federal Coal Lease 

Plate 1 in Heffern and Coates (2000). 

Figure 4-5.	 Extrapolated Extent of Life of Mine Cumulative Drawdown Within the Wyodak Coal Aquifer With 

the Addition of the South Gillette Area Coal LBA Tracts. 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 4-53
 

 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

assessment of cumulative impacts to groundwater related to surface coal mining 

is based on impact predictions made by the South Gillette Area mines Those 

drawdowns are extrapolated to evaluate the potential impacts of mining of the 

Belle Ayr North, West Coal Creek, Caballo West, and Maysdorf II LBA tracts. 

Figure 4-5 depicts the extrapolated extent of the five-feet cumulative drawdown 

contour within the Wyodak coal aquifer resulting from the four mines in the 

South Gillette subregion. The extent of the five-feet 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 25-year report provides actual groundwater drawdown information 

after 25 years of mining (Hydro-Engineering 2007). Of the 530 monitoring wells 

included in the GAGMO 25-year report, 195 are completed in the coal beds and 

193 are completed in the overlying sediments (which include sand channels) or 

interburden between the coal beds at 16 active and proposed mine sites. The 

balance of the monitoring wells are completed in local alluvial aquifers or in 

strata below the lowest coal seam mined. 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 South Gillette Area 

mines, 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 feet 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 

which the shallower aquifers (Wasatch Formation, alluvium, and clinker) 

experience a five-feet drawdown would be much smaller than the area of 

4-54 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
 

 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

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 South Gillette Area Coal LBA tracts are leased and mined, the groundwater 

drawdown would be extended into the area surrounding the proposed new 

leases. 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 utilized water 

from the formation (Crist 1991). (Note: Gillette is mixing Fort Union 

Formation water with water from wells completed in the Madison 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 4-55 
 

 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

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 feet or more, a drawdown of 100 to 200 feet in the 

vicinity of a pumped well would not dewater the aquifer. 

Most of the existing coal mines in the PRB have permits from the Wyoming SEO 

for subcoal Fort Union Formation water supply wells. Two industrial water 

supply wells within Belle Ayr Mine’s existing permit area (Belle Ayr No. 2 Plant 

#2 Well) are completed in the Fort Union Formation. The Coal Creek Mine uses 

two wells (State 16-46-70 and CCFU-17-1) completed in this formation to supply 

water for human consumption and mining operations. The Caballo Mine uses 

two wells completed in the sub-coal Fort Union Formation (DW-1 and 

FTUNION#2) to supply water for human consumption and mining operations. 

Cordero Rojo Mine uses four wells (Rojo No. 1, Rojo No. 2A, PW-24-1-P, and PW24-2-P) completed in this formation to supply water for human consumption 

and mining operations. Locations of Fort Union Formation supply wells for the 

Belle Ayr, Coal Creek, Caballo, and Cordero Rojo Mines are shown on 

Supplementary Information document figures S1-3, S2-2, S3-3, and S4-3, 

respectively. Extending the life of the South Gillette Area mines by issuing new 

leases would result in additional water being withdrawn from the subcoal Fort 

Union Formation, but no new sub-coal 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 South Gillette Area mines. The Wyoming SEO is discouraging further 

development of the lower Fort Union Formation aquifers, so the most likely 

groundwater source for future power plants is 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 

4-56 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
 

 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

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 

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 

milligrams per liter (mg/L) for total dissolved solids (TDS) when recharge occurs 

(Martin et al. 1988). 

The 2000 annual GAGMO report (Hydro-Engineering 2001a) 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). 

WDEQ/LQD calculated a median TDS concentration of 3,293 mg/L for the 

backfill aquifer in the east-central area of the PRB, which includes the four 

mines located immediately south of Gillette, based on 1,384 samples (Ogle et al. 

2005). These results suggest that the TDS in the backfill aquifer in the middle 

group of mines meets the requirements for livestock use and is similar to TDS 

found in the undisturbed Wasatch Formation overburden but typically larger 

than TDS found in the Wyodak coal aquifer. The GAGMO 25-Year Report 

(Hydro-Engineering 2007) reported samples collected from 57 backfill monitoring 

wells, and of the last samples that were collected from those wells in 2005, the 

TDS concentrations ranged from a low of 656 mg/L at well RW2804 (at the Belle 

Ayr Mine) to and high of 12,409 mg/L at well SP-4-NA (at the North Antelope 

Rochelle Mine), with an average of 3,800 mg/L and a median of 3,670 mg/L. 

WDEQ/LQD calculated a median TDS concentration of 3,670 mg/L based on 

869 samples collected from monitoring wells with at least 15 years of data that 

are completed in the backfill at the three applicant mines included in this 

analysis, and concluded that the recovered concentrations will be suitable for 

post-mining land use (Ogle and Calle 2006). The incremental effect on 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 4-57 
 

 

 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

groundwater quality due to leasing and mining the South Gillette Area Coal LBA 

tracts 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 

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 2003). 

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 2001b). 

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 2003). 

After CBNG development and coal mining projects are completed, it will take 

longer for groundwater levels to recover due to the overlapping drawdown 

4-58 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

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. 

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 4-16. 

Table 4-16. 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 Ground- 


Categories 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 11,300 -- 11,300 -- 11,300 -­

Total 192,000 73,100 198,000 73,100 208,000 73,200 

1 Includes conventional oil and gas production water and CBNG production water. Source: HKM Engineering et al. 2002a 

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 4-17. 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. 

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. 

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 

groundwater baseline flow and from precipitation, especially from heavy storms 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 4-59 
 

 

 

 

 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

Table 4-17. 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 

during the summer months. Water use in the Northeast Wyoming River Basins 

as of 2002 is summarized in table 4-18. 

Table 4-18. 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 Ground-


Categories 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
 

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 

4-19. 

The portions of the PRB Coal Review Task 3B Report (BLM 2008f) 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, 

4-60 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
 

 

 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

Table 4-19. Surface Water Availability in the Northeast Wyoming River 

Basins. 

Surface Water Availability 

(acre-feet per year) 

Sub-basin Wet Years 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 

and projected development in 2010, 2015, and 2020 in the PRB Coal Review 

Task 3 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 4-10 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 1 percent to 7 

percent (Martin et al. 1988). Typically, sedimentation effects are short-term 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 

South Gillette Area mines are in the Upper Belle Fourche River subwatershed. 

Coal mine permits provide for removal of first- through fourth-order drainages. 

During reclamation, third- and fourth-order drainages must be restored; firstand second-order drainages often are not replaced (Martin et al. 1988). 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 4-61 
 

 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

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. 

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 2003), 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 proposed limits (MRPL) and least restrictive 

proposed limits (LRPL) regulatory standards for EC and SAR applicable to the 

subwatersheds were developed and used in the analysis. The limits presented in 

table 4-20 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. 

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 

4-62 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

Table 4-20. 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 

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 

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. 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 4-63 
 

 

 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

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 

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 Channel Stability 

A qualitative assessment of the impacts to receiving drainages resulting from the 

introduction of CBNG well production water was made. The channel of the Belle 

Fourche River below Moorcroft would change by less than 0.2%, while the 

channel of the Little Powder River near Weston would change by less than 0.3% 

(table 4-21). Given the low increase in mean annual discharge from introduced 

CBNG water, changes in channel geomorphology (width, depth, gradient, bed 

material transport and meander wavelength) are considered imperceptible. 

Discharge of CBNG well production water into ephemeral drainages may start or 

exacerbate erosion in the channel. Given the potentially greater increase in 

ephemeral drainages due to a lower natural flow, channel geomorphology is 

more likely to be perceptible. Monitoring and mitigation for erosion are included 

in water management planning for oil and gas drilling approvals. According to 

the BLM Task 3B Report, a special study was done of the Caballo Creek 

drainage in the Belle Ayr mine permit area, to see how reclaimed drainages were 

4-64 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
 

 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

Table 4-21. Impact of CBNG Production Water on Perennial Streams. 

Location 

Channel 

Forming 

Discharge (1) 

(cfs) 

CBNG 

Discharge Estimated Width 

Potential 

Impact 

[Increased 

Width] 

(cfs) (%) 

Existing 

Conditions 

(ft) 

Combined 

Discharge 

(ft) (ft) (%) 

Little Powder River 

above Dry Creek near 

Weston, Wyoming 

(USGS Gage 06324970) 

270 to 420 2.2 0.5% to 

0.8% 47.3 to 56.3 47.4 to 56.4 

0.15 to 

0.12 0.3% 

Belle Fourche River 

below Moorcroft, 

Wyoming 

(USGS Gage 06426500) 

652 to 789 3.9 0.5% to 

0.6% 66.9 to 72.1 67.0 to 72.2 

0.16 to 

0.14 0.2% 

(1) Discharge associated with the 1.5 to 2 year recurrence interval. 

impacted by increased CBNG discharges. It was determined that CBNG 

discharge represented less than 1% of the 2-year peak discharge. No active 

erosion was noted in the natural or diverted portions of the Caballo Creek 

channel, while an increase in vegetative diversity and density was noted. The 

minor amount of flow increase would not likely result in increased erosion in 

streams similar to Caballo Creek. While it is more likely that creeks with smaller 

drainage areas, like Duck Nest or Bone Pile Creeks may experience more erosion 

due to relatively larger flow increases due to CBNG discharge, such effects were 

not observed in the field (BLM 2008f). 

4.2.6 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 2005d), 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. 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 4-65 
 

 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

4.2.7 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 

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 4-10. 

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 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 2005a), 

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 generally low for the Upper Belle Fourche 

subwatershed and tend to exceed the MRPL after mixing with discharged CBNG 

4-66 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
 

 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

water during six months of the year while meeting the LRPL throughout the 

year. Land application of CBNG-produced water is not anticipated in this area. 

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. 

4.2.8 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 4-10. 

4.2.8.1 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 2005d). 

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 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 4-67 
 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

productivity in areas that would not be reclaimed in the near term (e.g., power 

plant sites, etc.). 

4.2.8.2 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 

protected under the ESA), BLM Sensitive Species, U.S. Department of 

Agriculture – Forest Service (USFS) Sensitive Species, and Wyoming Game and 

Fish Department (WGFD) Species of Special Concern in Wyoming. There are no 

USFS administered lands within the four LBA tracts. Further discussions of 

species that are protected under the ESA, as well as BLM Sensitive Species, are 

included in Appendices E and F of this EIS. One federally listed species (Ute 

ladies’-tresses orchid) and three USFS 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. 

4.2.8.3 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) 

 Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense) 

 Leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula) 

 Perennial sowthistle (Sonchus arvensis) 

 Quackgrass (Agropyron repens) 

 Hoary cress (Cardaria draba) 

 Perennial pepperweed (giant whitetop) (Lepidium latifolium) 

 Ox-eye daisy (Chrysanthemum leucanthemum) 

 Skeletonleaf bursage (Franseria discolor Nutt.) 

 Russian knapweed (Centaurea repens L.) 

 Yellow toadflax (Linaria vulgaris) 

4-68 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

 Dalmatian toadflax (Linaria dalmatica) 

 Scotch thistle (Onopordum acanthium) 

 Musk thistle (Carduus nutans) 

 Common burdock (Arctium minus) 

 Plumeless thistle (Carduus acanthoides) 

 Dyers woad (Isatis tinctoria) 

 Houndstongue (Cynoglossum officinale) 

 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 have a declared list of weeds 

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 all 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, the South Gillette Area mines 

work with the Campbell County Weed and Pest Department and conduct 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 Applications for Permit to Drill (APDs) or Plans of 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 4-69 
 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

Development (PODs) (BLM 2003). BLM also participates in a collaborative effort 

with the South Goshen Cooperative Extension Conservation District, the USDANatural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), private surface owners, WGFD, 

and the Weed and Pest District in a prevention program that includes a longterm integrated weed management plan, public awareness and prevention 

programs, and a common inventory (BLM 2003). 

4.2.8.4 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 2005d). 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 2003). 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. 

4.2.9 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 4-10. 

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 

4-70 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

(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 

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). 

4.2.9.1 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 4-22 through 4-25 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. 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 4-71 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1 

1 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

Table 4-22. Potential Cumulative Disturbance to Pronghorn Ranges from 

Development Activities—Lower and Upper Coal Production 

Scenarios (acres/percent affected). 

 Pronghorn Ranges1 

Time 

Period/Scenario Crucial Winter Severe Winter Winter Yearlong 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% 

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 White-tailed Deer Ranges 

from Development Activities—Lower and Upper Coal Production 

Scenarios (acres/percent affected). 

White-tailed Deer Ranges1 

Time 

Period/Scenario Crucial Winter Severe Winter Winter Yearlong 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% 

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 4-24. Potential Cumulative Disturbance to Mule Deer Ranges from 

Development Activities—Lower and Upper Coal Production 

Scenarios (acres/percent affected). 

Mule Deer Ranges1 

Time 

Period/Scenario Crucial Winter Severe Winter Winter Yearlong 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% 

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) 

4-72 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 

1 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

Table 4-25. Potential Cumulative Disturbance to Elk Ranges from 

Development Activities—Lower and Upper Coal Production 

Scenarios (acres/percent affected). 

 Elk Ranges1 

Time 

Period/Scenario Crucial Winter Severe Winter Winter Yearlong 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% 

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) 

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 

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. 

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 anticipates 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 

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. 

4.2.9.2 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, 

ancillary facilities, and transportation and utility corridors). Impacts also could 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 4-73 
 

 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

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. 

In addition, new power lines could pose an electrocution hazard for raptor 

species attempting to perch on the structure. Configurations greater than 69 kV 

4-74 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
 

 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

typically do not present an electrocution potential, based on conductor 

placement and orientation (APLIC 2006). 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. 

4.2.9.3 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 4-10 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 

lands adjacent to the existing mines. The removal of aquatic habitat eliminates 

existing and potential habitat for invertebrates and some fish species. This loss 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 4-75 
 

 

 

 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

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 

initial phases of the proposed Bison Pipeline project commenced in April 2008 

and is projected to be completed by November 2010. If the project is 

constructed as planned, 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, The Upper 

Belle Fourche River and its tributaries drain the existing South Gillette Area 

mine permit areas and the LBA tracts. All streams within and adjacent to the 

tracts 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 South Gillette analysis area. The results of fish surveys 

conducted in the Belle Fourche River, Caballo Creek, and various area stock 

ponds during baseline studies for the mines that started in the mid1970s 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 1 percent to 7 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 

4-76 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
 

 

 

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 million gallons 

per year (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 2003). 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. 

4.2.9.4 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 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 4-77 
 

 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

protected under the Endangered Species Act [ESA]), BLM Sensitive Species, 

USFS Sensitive Species, and WGFD Species of Special Concern in Wyoming. 

There are no USFS administered lands within any of the four LBA tracts. 

Further discussions of species that are protected under the ESA, as well as BLM 

Sensitive Species, are included in Appendices E and F 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 2005d). Additional information 

about the occurrence of these species in the general analysis area can be found 

in the Annual Wildlife Reports for the four South Gillette Area mines, 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, 

4-78 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
 

 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

eggs, or young as a result of any of these development activities would not 

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 or 

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 general South 

Gillette 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. 

Eighteen known or potential sage-grouse leks have been identified in the 

combined evaluation area for the four LBA tracts analyzed in this EIS. Five of 

those 18 sites are classified by the WGFD as historical, and 5 others have been 

largely inactive over the last 10-12 years. The eight leks with the most recent 

activity are all more than 2 miles from the specific wildlife general analysis area 

of each LBA tract. If the LBA tracts and/or added lands are leased and mined, 

potential nesting habitat for grouse that were bred at those leks would be 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 4-79 
 

 

 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

affected by mining activity in those areas. However, as discussed in section 

3.10.5.2, no sage-grouse nests or broods have been recorded on any of the four 

LBA tracts as applied for or on lands added under each respective Alternative 2, 

during specific surveys or incidental to other wildlife surveys conducted in those 

areas annually since at least 1994. The noise associated with mining operations 

may also disrupt sage-grouse breeding and nesting activities that might occur in 

those areas. Direct and indirect effects to greater sage-grouse within the general 

South Gillette analysis area as a result of development activities are outlined in 

appendix I of this EIS. 

Based on existing information, the spatial relationship between projected future 

disturbance and reclamation areas for the coal production scenarios and the 

resource-specific information in the Geographic Information Systems (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 4-26. 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 4-26.	 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 

Affected Leks 10 10 15 15 15 15 

Number of Leks 

within Two Miles of 

Coal Mining 47 47 47 49 50 49 

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 subwatersheds), 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 

4-80 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

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 disturbancerelated 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. 

4.2.10 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). 

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 4-10 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 4-27. 

Table 4-27. PRB Land Use by Surface Ownership. 

Surface Ownership Total 

Use Category BLM USFS State Private 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 2005d) 

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 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 4-81 
 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

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. 

4.2.10.1 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: 

•	 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. 

4-82 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
 

 

 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

Table 4-28 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 4-28.	 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) 

4.2.10.2 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. 

4.2.10.3 Recreation 

Accessible public lands provide diverse opportunities for recreation, including 

hunting, fishing, ORV use, sightseeing, and wildlife observation. The National 

System of Public Lands generally provides 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 USFS). Public lands are accessible via public roads or 

across private land with the landowner’s permission. 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 4-83 
 

 

 

 

 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

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 

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 5 percent every 5 years for most recreational activities (BLM 2003). 

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 3 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 5 percent increase in use every 5 years (BLM 2001a). After coaland oil and gas-related development activities have been completed and the 

4-84 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
 

 

 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

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 

2005d), 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. 

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. 

4.2.11 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 4-10 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 4-29 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 

description of Native American traditional cultural places and a summary of the 

program to protect sites in any of these categories. 

4.2.11.1 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 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 4-85 
4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

Table 4-29. Square Miles of Projected Cumulative Disturbance and Number of Potentially Affected 

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 (Appendices A and D) (BLM 2005a). 

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) 

-86 Final EIS, South Gillette Area 
 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

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. While 

prehistoric sites do exist in the general South Gillette analysis area, it does not 

appear to be particularly plentiful in significant prehistoric sites. 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 2005d). 

4.2.11.2 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 

2005d). 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. 

4.2.11.3 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. 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 4-87 
 

 

 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

4.2.11.4 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. 

4.2.12 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 

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 4-10. 

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 long4-88 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
 

 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

term, 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. Indirect effects would include 

potential impacts of the accumulation of coal dust and fines blowing or sifting 

from moving, loaded rail cars. The PRB Coal Review Task 3D Report does not 

discuss the cumulative effects of coal dust resulting from the transport of coal 

along rail lines. 

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 4-30). The PRB Coal Review Task 2 Report (BLM 2005a) 

projects that the proposed DM&E line would be built and operational by 2015 

(pending completion of additional environmental analysis), which would add 100 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 4-89 
 

 

 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

Table 4-30. 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 & 349- 87-	 417­ 400	 500 393-4392 79-882 500 83-912 

401 100	 4552 UP 

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) 

mmtpy in additional shipping capacity for the South Gillette and Wright 

subregions. A collaborative effort between the National Coal Transportation 

Association, the mines, and the BNSF and UP Railroads is resulting in measures 

to reduce coal dust emissions from loaded, moving rail cars. 

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 

identified for completion by November 2010. The filing for this project was made 

with Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) on June 2, 2008. Other 

potential projects are discussed in section 4.1.2.3.1 was (Bison Pipeline 2008). 

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. 

4.2.13 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 2005c 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 

4-90 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
 

 

 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

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 

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. 

4.2.13.1 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 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 4-91 
 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

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. 

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 

4-92 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
 

 

 

 

 

 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

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 20202. As 

compared to the employment projections under the lower coal production 

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. 

4.2.13.2 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 

2 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. 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 4-93 
 

 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

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. 

4.2.13.3 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 2006a). 

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 

4-94 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

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). 

4.2.13.4 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 

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). 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 4-95 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

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 4-31). 

Table 4-31. Recent and Projected PRB Population. 

Six 

County 

Campbell Converse Crook Johnson Sheridan Weston PRB 

Year County County County County County County 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) 

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 -U pperProduction 

Em ploym ent-U pperProduction 

Population -Low erProduction 

Em ploym ent-Low erProduction 

Source: PRB CoalReview Task 3C Report(BLM 2005f) 

Figure 4-6. Projected Campbell County Population and Employment to 2020. 

4-96 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
 

 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

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 3 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 compounded annual growth rate (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 six-county 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 

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. 

4.2.13.5 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 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 4-97 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

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 4-32). 

Table 4-32. 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 4-33). 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 4-33. Total Housing Stock in 2000 and 2005. 

Campbell Converse Crook Johnson Sheridan Weston Six-county 

Year County County County County County 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 (2006b) 

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 4-34). 

Table 4-34. 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 

$515 

$391 

$477 

$571 

$459 

$567 

25.8% 

31.4% 

17.4% 

-5.4% 

14.0% 

47.1% 

14.1% 

$283 

$152 

$125 

$170 

$285 

$119 

$225 

22.0% 

1.3% 

5.9% 

16.4% 

4.4% 

17.8% 

15.4% 

$975 

$545 

NA 

$700 

$857 

$567 

$782 

23.0% 

2.8% 

NA 

15.3% 

27.9% 

36.3% 

13.0% 

$758 

$452 

NA 

$518 

$650 

$505 

$561 

20.5% 

22.5% 

NA 

5.5% 

26.7% 

27.5% 

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 (2006)
 

4-98 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

Temporary housing resources are available in the PRB in the form of hotel-motel 

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. 

0 

500 

1,000 

1,500 

2,000 

2,500 

3,000 

3,500 

4,000 

4,500 

5,000 

2003-2010 2011-2015 2016-2020 

Cam pbell 

Converse 

Crook 

Johnson 

Sheridan 

W eston 

Figure 4-7. Projected Housing Demand in the PRB Study Area Under the Lower 

Coal Production Scenario. 

Source: PRB Coal Review Task 3C Report (BLM 2005f) 

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 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 4-99 
 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

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” 

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. 

4.2.13.6 Public Education 

There are 10 school districts in the six-county PRB study area, ranging in size 

from Campbell County School District (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) 

4-100 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
 

 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

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 1 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 

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 

C C SD #1,G rades K-8 C C SD #1,G rades 9-12 

O therD istricts,K-8 O therD istricts,9-12 

Source: PRB Coal Review Task 3C Report (BLM 2005f) 

Figure 4-8.	 Projected School Enrollment to 2020 Under the Lower Coal

 Production Scenario. 

Under either scenario, projected enrollments may cause short-term school 

capacity shortages, depending on the specific grade levels and residential 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 4-101 
 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

locations of the additional students. Under the Wyoming School Facilities 

Commission (WSFC) 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 (WSFC 2007 and Wyoming CREG 2007). 

4.2.13.7 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 

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. 

4-102 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
 

 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

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. 

4.2.13.8 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). 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 4-103 
 

 

 

 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

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 

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 4-35 and 4-36). 

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, 

4-104 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 1 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

Table 4-35. 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) 

Table 4-36. Summary of Mineral Development Tax Revenues Associated with 

Energy Resource Production Under the Upper Coal Production 

Scenario (million $). 

Industry and Taxes 2005-2010 2011-2015 2016-2020 Total1 

Coal1 $3,538.0 $3,703.0 $4,350.0 $11,591.0
 

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 $7,021.7 $7,355.8 $8,252.7 $22,630.3 

Severance Tax $2,104.1 $2,159.0 $2,415.4 $6,678.5
 

Federal Mineral Royalties $2,946.3 $3,099.9 $3,461.4 $9,507.6
 

State Mineral Royalties $233.5 $225.8 $251.4 $710.7 


Ad Valorem Tax (Counties) $435.8 $472.0 $535.0 $1,442.8
 

Ad Valorem Tax (Schools) $1,302.3 $1,398.9 $1,589.8 $4,291.0
 

Totals $7,022.0 $7,355.6 $8,253.0 $22,630.6 

Does not include coal lease bonus bids due to the uncertainty regarding timing. 

Source: PRB Coal Review Task 3C Report (BLM 2005e) 

including this application. The state receives 50 percent of the bonus bid 

revenue. 

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 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 4-105 
 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

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. 

4.2.13.9 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. 

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. 

4-106 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

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 

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 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 4-107 
 

 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

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. 

4.2.14 Coal Mining and Coal-Fired Power Plant Related Emissions and ByProducts 

As discussed in chapter 1, BLM does not authorize mining by issuing a lease for 

federal coal, but the impacts of mining the coal are considered in this EIS 

because it is a logical consequence of issuing a maintenance lease to an existing 

mine. The use of the coal after it is mined is also not determined at the time of 

leasing, however, almost all of the coal that is currently being mined in the 

Wyoming PRB is being used by coal-fired power plants to generate electricity. As 

a result, a discussion of emissions and by-products that are generated by 

burning coal to produce electricity is included in this section of the EIS. 

As discussed in chapter 2, under the currently approved mining plan, which 

represents the Alternative 1 (No Action alternative), from 2008 on, the Belle Ayr 

Mine would be able to produce coal at an average production level of 29.0 

mmtpy for another 8.6 years under, compared with an average of 29.0 mmtpy 

for 14.1 years under the Proposed Action, or an average of 29 mmtpy for another 

13.9 years under Alternative 2 (table 2-2). 

The Coal Creek Mine would be able to produce coal at an average production 

level of 13.4 mmtpy for another 16.7 years from 2008 on under Alternative 1 (No 

Action alternative), compared with an average of 13.4 mmtpy for 21 years under 

the Proposed Action and Alternative 2 (table 2-3). 

From 2008 on, the Caballo Mine would be able to produce coal at an average 

production level of 37.8 mmtpy for another 15.9 years under Alternative 1 (No 

Action alternative), compared with an average of 37.8 mmtpy for 18.1 years 

under the Proposed Action, or an average of 37.8 mmtpy for another 18.3 years 

under Alternative 2 (table 2-5). 

The Cordero Rojo Mine would be able to produce coal at an average production 

level of 46.3 mmtpy for another 5.9 years from 2008 on under Alternative 1 (No 

Action alternative), compared with an average of 46.3 mmtpy for 15.3 years 

under the Proposed Action, or an average of 46.3 mmtpy for another 15.9 years 

under Alternatives 2 and 3 (table 2-7). 

Section 3.4.5 contains estimates of greenhouse gas emissions resulting from the 

combined mine operations at the Belle Ayr, Coal Creek, Caballo, and Cordero 

4-108 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

Rojo Mines from projected operations under the proposed action and 

alternatives. 

4.2.14.1 Global Climate Change and Greenhouse Gas Emissions 

Ongoing scientific research has identified the potential impacts of anthropogenic 

(man-made) GHG emissions and changes in biological carbon sequestration due 

to land management activities on global climate. Emissions of GHG’s are 

typically reported as equivalent CO2 (CO2e), which is the amount of the gas 

emitted, multiplied by its warming potential relative to CO2. Through complex 

interactions on a regional and global scale, these changes cause a net warming 

effect of the atmosphere, primarily by decreasing the amount of heat radiated by 

the earth back into space. Although GHG levels have varied for millennia, recent 

industrialization and burning of fossil carbon sources have caused CO2 and 

other GHG concentrations to increase dramatically, and are likely to contribute 

to overall global climatic changes. As with any field of scientific study, there are 

uncertainties associated with the science of climate change. This does not imply 

that scientists do not have confidence in many aspects of climate change 

science. Some aspects of the science are known with virtual certainty, because 

they are based on well-known physical laws and documents trends (EPA 2008a). 

Climatic change analyses are comprised of several factors, including GHG 

emissions, land use management practices, and the albedo effect. In chapter 3, 

the effects of recent global climate change on the environment in the area of the 

proposed action have been identified. It is assumed that existing land and 

resource conditions within the analysis area have been and will continue to be 

affected by climate change under all alternatives. Existing climate prediction 

models are not at a scale sufficient to estimate potential impacts of climate 

change within the Powder River Basin. Reference has been made to national 

and regional data that is available, including the recent comprehensive report, 

The Effects of Climate Change on Agriculture, Land Resources, Water Resources 

and Biodiversity in the United States (U.S. Climate Change Science Program, 

2008). 

Tools necessary to quantify incremental climatic changes associated with those 

factors for the projected development activities in the PRB are presently 

unavailable. As a consequence, quantitative impact assessments of the effects of 

specific anthropogenic activities cannot be performed. In addition, the scientific 

community simply does not have the tools at the present time to evaluate any 

potential impacts of this kind given the spatial and temporal scales involved. 

Additionally, specific levels of significance have not yet been established. 

Therefore climate change analysis in this EIS is limited to accounting for and 

disclosing of factors that contribute to climate change. To the extent that 

emission data were available or could be inferred from representative type data, 

potential GHG emissions that could result from development of the proposed 

LBAs have been identified, as well as emissions that will result from selection of 

the no action alternative. 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 4-109 
 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

In the following analysis, the contribution of the proposed LBAs to cumulative 

effects on the environment of historic and projected development activity is 

evaluated. To do this, it is assumed that coal mining will proceed in accordance 

with permit conditions. It is further assume that this coal will be sold to coal 

users in response to forecasts of demand for this coal. Historically these users 

have been electric utilities in the United States, although there is potential for 

sales outside the U.S. This coal market is open and competitive and users can 

buy from the most cost effective suppliers that meet their needs. The BLM does 

not determine the destination of this coal, and the use of the coal is determined 

by the coal consumer. The electric utilities where this coal has historically been 

used are throughout the United States, and have a variety of coal combustion 

technologies and emission control, but all are licensed by the appropriate 

regulatory authorities and operate under necessary permit requirements, and in 

compliance with regulation. 

Assuming that all coal produced would be burned to generate electricity, the 

amount of GHG emissions that could be attributed to coal production that could 

result from leasing of the proposed LBAs, as well as from the forecast coal 

production from all coal mines in the Wyoming PRB has been estimated. This 

was done by relating the portion of coal mined to the total emission of GHG from 

all coal mined in the U.S. It is assumed that all PRB coal was used for coal fired 

electric generation as part of the total U.S. use of coal for electric generation. 

This gives an upper estimate of the GHG resulting from use of the coal that 

would be produced from the proposed LBAs, and for forecast total PRB coal 

production. Specific levels of significance have not yet been established for GHG 

emissions, and given the state of the science, it is not yet possible to associate 

specific actions with the specific climate impacts. Since tools necessary to 

quantify incremental climatic changes associated with these GHG emissions are 

presently unavailable, the analysis cannot reach conclusions as to the 

magnitude or significance of the emissions on climate change. The impacts of 

climate change represent the cumulative aggregation of all worldwide GHG 

emissions, land use management practices, and the albedo effect. The analysis 

does provide a meaningful context and measure of the relative significance of 

coal use from the proposed LBAs and overall projected PRB coal production on 

total GHG emissions. 

The National Assessment of the Potential Consequences of Climate Variability 

and Change, an interagency effort initiated by Congress under the Global 

Change Research Act of 1990, Public Law 101-606, has confirmed that climate 

change is impacting some natural resources that the Department of the Interior 

has the responsibility to manage and protect (DOI 2001). The Synthesis Report, 

the final part of the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel 

on Climate Change (IPCC) (available online at http://www.ipcc.ch), was released 

in preliminary form on November 17, 2007. The Synthesis Report (Bernstein et 

al. 2007) summarizes the results of the assessment carried out by the three 

working groups of the IPCC. Observations and projections addressed in the 

report include: 

4-110 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

	 “Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from 

observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperature, 

widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level.” 

	 “Observational evidence from all continents and most oceans show that 

many natural systems are being affected by regional climate changes, 

particularly temperature increases.” 

From 1850 to present, historic trend data show an increase of 1°C (1.8°F) in 

global mean temperature. The increase has not been linear over time, and there 

have been extended periods (decades) where temperature has dropped or stayed 

constant. This historic warming over that same period has caused sea levels to 

rise by about 20 cm (7.9 inches) on average, and has also resulted in changes in 

climate patterns on land. These changes are not uniform. In some areas near 

the equator, temperatures have cooled by about 5°C (9°F), while closer to the 

poles, temperatures have risen by equal amounts (Hansen and Lebedeff 1987). 

In northern latitudes (above 24° N), temperature increases of nearly 1.2°C (2.1°F) 

have been documented since 1900. Temperature changes can result in shifts of 

weather patterns (rainfall and winds) which may then affect vegetation and 

habitat. It is important to note that GHGs will have a sustained climatic impact 

over different temporal scales (EPA 2008a). 

Solar variability may play a role in global climate change, though the magnitude 

of the influence of increased sun activity is not well understood. Physical 

aspects of the sun, like sunspots and solar radiation output, are known to vary 

over time. The intensity of energy from the sun has varied through time and has 

resulted in global temperature variation. 

Human population doubled to two billion from the period 1780 to 1930, then 

doubled again by 1974. The atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases 

have increased as human populations have increased. More land and resources 

were used to provide for the needs of these populations. As human activities 

have increased, carbon-based fuels have been used to provide for those 

additional energy needs. Forests and vegetation were cleared in order to provide 

for food production and human use. 

CO2, methane (CH4), water vapor, ozone, and nitrous oxide (N2O) are recognized 

as the major greenhouse gases, although there are other gases that are 

considered GHGs. Through complex interactions on a regional and global scale, 

these GHG emissions and net losses of biological carbon sinks have had a net 

warming effect of the atmosphere, primarily by decreasing the amount of heat 

energy radiated by the earth back into space. Like glass in a greenhouse, these 

gases trap radiation from the sun and act as an insulator around the Earth, 

holding in the planet’s heat. 

According to the IPCC’s synthesis report (Bernstein et al. 2007): 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 4-111 
 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

	 “Global atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane, and 

nitrous oxide have increased markedly as a result of human activities 

since 1750 and now far exceed pre-industrial values determined from ice 

cores spanning many thousands of years.” 

	 “Most of the observed increase in globally-averaged temperatures since the 

mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in 

anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations. It is likely there has been 

significant anthropogenic warming over the past 50 years averaged over 

each continent (except Antarctica).” 

	 “There is high agreement and much evidence that with current climate 

change mitigation policies and related sustainable development practices, 

global greenhouse gas emission will continue to grow over the next few 

decades.” 

	 “Continued greenhouse gas emissions at or above current rates would 

cause further warming and induce many changes in the global climate 

system during the 21st century that would be very likely to be larger than 

those observed during the 20th century.” 

	 “There is high confidence that by mid-century, annual river runoff and 

water availability are projected to increase at high latitudes and in some 

tropical wet areas and decrease in some dry regions in the mid-latitudes 

and tropics. There is also high confidence that many semi-arid areas (e.g., 

Mediterranean Basin, western United States, southern Africa and 

northeast Brazil) will suffer a decrease in water resources due to climate 

change.” 

	 “Anthropogenic warming and sea level rise would continue for centuries 

due to the time scales associated with climate processes and feedbacks, 

even if greenhouse gas concentrations were to be stabilized.” 

	 “Anthropogenic warming and sea level rise could lead to some impacts 

that are abrupt or irreversible, depending upon the rate and magnitude of 

the climate change.” 

	 “There is high agreement and much evidence that all stabilization levels 

assessed can be achieved by deployment of a portfolio of technologies that 

are either currently available or expected to be commercialized in coming 

decades, assuming appropriate and effective incentives are in place for 

their development, acquisition, deployment and diffusion and addressing 

related barriers.” 

The National Academy of Sciences has confirmed these findings, but also has 

indicated there are uncertainties regarding how climate change may affect 

different regions. Computer model predictions indicate that increases in 

temperature will not be equally distributed, but are likely to be accentuated at 

4-112 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

higher latitudes. Warming during the winter months is expected to be greater 

than during the summer, and increases in daily minimum temperatures is more 

likely than increases in daily maximum temperatures. Increases in temperatures 

would increase water vapor in the atmosphere, and reduce soil moisture, 

increasing generalized drought conditions, while at the same time enhancing 

heavy storm events. Although large-scale spatial shifts in precipitation 

distribution may occur, these changes are more uncertain and difficult to predict 

(EPA 2008a). 

Relatively steep elevation gradients between valley floors and adjacent mountain 

ranges in the western U.S. produce considerable geographic climate variability. 

Warm, dry, semiarid conditions are typical on valley floors; moist and cool 

conditions are typical in higher parts of mountain ranges. Different plant 

communities occur within specific elevation zones. There also have been 

patterns of historic climatic variation in these areas for more than 10,000 years, 

during which plant communities gradually shift to higher or lower elevations 

depending on the direction of temperature and precipitation changes (Tausch et 

al. 2004). 

If global warming trends continue into the foreseeable future, Chambers (2006) 

and the 2008 report by the U.S. Climate Change Science Program (U.S. Climate 

Change Science Program, 2008) indicate that the following changes may be 

expected to occur in the West: 

	 The amount and seasonal variability of precipitation will increase over 

most areas. IPCC (2001) climate model scenarios indicate that by 2100, 

precipitation will increase about 10 percent in summer, about 30 percent 

in fall, and 40 percent in winter. Less snowfall will accumulate in higher 

elevations, more precipitation will occur as rain, and snowmelt will occur 

earlier in the spring because of higher temperatures. 

	 Streamflow patterns will change in response to reduced snowpacks and 

increasing precipitation. Peak flows in spring are expected to occur earlier 

and be of lower magnitude because of snowpack changes. Runoff from 

greater amounts of winter rainfall will cause higher winter flows. Summer 

flows will be lower, but with higher variability depending on the severity of 

storm events. 

	 Some populations of native plants, invasive species, and pests will expand. 

Increasing amounts of atmospheric carbon dioxide. and precipitation 

during the growing season will provide favorable growth conditions for 

native grasses, perennial forbs, woody species, and invasive annuals such 

as cheatgrass. Insect populations also will likely increase because milder 

winter temperatures will improve reproduction and survival rates. 

	 Fire frequency, severity, and extent will increase because of the increased 

availability of fine fuels (grasses, forbs, and invasives) and accumulation of 

fuels from previous growing seasons. Higher temperatures will extend the 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 4-113 
 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

length of fire seasons. Expansion of pinyon-juniper species and 

increasing tree densities could increase the number of high severity crown 

fires. Higher rates of insect damage and disease also may increase fuel 

accumulations. 

	 Sensitive species and overall biodiversity will be reduced. High-elevation 

habitats will shrink in area or disappear as lower-elevation plant 

communities expand. It is probable that some mammalian, avian, and 

other species that currently inhabit these high-elevation habitats may 

become extinct. Higher rates of disease and insect damage also may pose 

threats to other sensitive plant and animal species. 

In 2006, transportation sources accounted for approximately 29 percent of total 

U.S. greenhouse gas emissions (EPA 2008b). Transportation is the fastest 

growing source of U.S. GHGs, accounting for 47 percent of the net increase in 

total U.S. emissions since 1990 (EPA 2008a). Transportation is also the largest 

end-use source of CO2, which is the most prevalent anthropogenic GHG (EPA 

2008b, NOAA 2009). 

Historically, the coal mined in the PRB has been used as one of the sources of 

fuel to generate electricity in power plants located throughout the United States. 

Coal-fired power plant emissions include CO2, which has been identified as a 

principal anthropogenic greenhouse gas. According to the Energy Information 

Administration (USDOE 2007a, 2007b): 

	 CO2 emissions represent about 84 percent of the total U.S. greenhouse 

gas emissions. 

	 Estimated CO2 emissions in the U.S. totaled 5,934.2 million metric tons in 

2006, which was a 1.8 percent decrease from 2005. 

	 Estimated CO2 emissions from the electric power sector totaled 2,343.9 

million metric tons, or about 39.5 percent of total U.S. energy-related CO2 

emissions in 2006. 

	 Estimated CO2 emissions from coal electric power generation in 2005 

totaled 1,937.9 million metric tons or about 33 percent of total U.S. 

energy-related CO2 emissions in 2006. 

	 Coal production from the Wyoming PRB represented approximately 42 

percent of the coal used for power generation in 2006, which means that 

Wyoming PRB surface coal mines were responsible for about 13.9 percent 

of the estimated U.S. CO2 emissions in 2006. 

Wyoming PRB coal is shipped primarily nationwide, although it can also be 

shipped overseas. The mines in the Powder River Basin have sold, and are 

expected to sell coal into the open coal market. Each mine’s ability to sell coal in 

this market will determine annual production rates at that mine. Historically, 

4-114 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
 

 

 

 

 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

the coal buyers have been domestic electric producers, although the coal could 

be used in other coal applications and it has been exported. 

Relatively little PRB coal, about 2 percent, is burned in Wyoming. In 2005, 

Wyoming coal was shipped to 35 states besides Wyoming. As noted above, coal 

represented 50.2 percent of the fuel mix used by electric generators nationally in 

2004. In the NERC (North American Electric Reliability Corporation) power 

regions where PRB coal is sold, coal use ranges from 74.2 percent in the upper 

Midwest, to 15.6 percent in the northeast U.S. (EPA 2007e). 

There are methods of generating electricity that result in fewer greenhouse gas 

emissions than burning coal, including natural gas, nuclear, hydroelectric, 

solar, wind, and geothermal resources. However, coal-burning power plants 

currently supply about 50 percent of the electric power generated in the U.S. 

The demand for power is increasing in the U.S. and throughout the world. 

According to a recent report by the North American Electric Reliability Council, 

peak demand for electricity in the U.S. is expected to double in the next 22 years 

(Associated Press 2007). Many developing countries, including China and India, 

are also relying heavily on coal to meet their rapidly increasing power demands 

as coal is more economical and more available than other sources of electrical 

generation. 

Coal sales are made on short term contracts, generally to individual power 

generators, or coal is sold on a spot market. This market is very dynamic and 

competitive. During the coal leasing EIS process, it is uncertain and speculative 

to predict who might purchase future PRB coal, how it would be used, and 

where the coal might be transported to. 

Technologies for producing cleaner, more efficient and more reliable power from 

coal are becoming more available, although not yet commercially established. 

These include advanced pulverized coal, circulating fluidized bed, and integrated 

gasification combined cycle (IGCC) technologies. The FutureGen project 

proposes to produce electricity by turning coal into gas, remove impurities, 

extract CO2 from the waste stream, and then sequester the CO2 underground. A 

site in southeastern Illinois was recently selected for the plant, which has a goal 

of being operational in 2012 (Biello 2007). FutureGen is a public-private 

partnership between the USDOE and the FutureGen Industrial Alliance, Inc., a 

non-profit consortium of international energy companies. The Alliance is 

responsible for design, construction, and operation of the facility, and USDOE is 

responsible for independent oversight and coordinating participation of 

international governments. Under a cooperative agreement between USDOE and 

the Alliance, USDOE was to provide a majority of the project’s cost. On January 

30, 2008, USDOE proposed a major restructuring of the FutureGen project and 

that financing part of FutureGen at this time would be inappropriate. However, 

the full Senate Appropriations Committee passed legislation in July 2008 to 

protect $134 million of previously appropriated federal funding slated for 

FutureGen to keep the project moving forward (FutureGen 2008). 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 4-115 
 

 

 

 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

At this time, there is no national policy or law in place that regulates GHG 

emissions. A number of bills were introduced in the U.S. Congress in 2007 

related to global climate change. The Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act, 

which was introduced in October, 2007 by Senators Joseph I. Lieberman (ID-CT) 

and John W. Warner (R-VA), would establish a cap-and-trade within the United 

States. In short, the “cap” would set a legal limit on the quantity of greenhouse 

gases that a region can emit each year and “trade” would allow companies to 

exchange the permission – or permits – to emit greenhouse gases. This program 

would require a 70 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from covered 

sources, which represents over 80 percent of total U.S. emissions. It was voted 

out of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee in December, 2007 

(http://www.pewclimate.org, accessed 12/21/2007). The last action on the bill 

was on May 20, 2008 when it was placed on the Senate Legislative Calendar 

under General Orders. Calendar No. 740. President Obama, in an address to 

Congress in February 2009, advocated congressional action on a cap-and-trade 

program. 

Additionally, in 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court (Massachusetts v. EPA) held that 

CO2 qualifies as an air pollutant under the Clean Air Act (CAA) Section 302(g). 

The case was remanded to EPA to take further action to regulate CO2 under the 

CAA unless the EPA determines that CO2 does not endanger public health or 

welfare. On April 17, 2009, the Administrator of the EPA signed a proposal with 

two distinct findings regarding greenhouse gases under section 202(a) of the 

Clean Air Act. The Administrator is proposing to find that the current and 

projected concentrations of the mix of six key greenhouse gases - CO2, CH4, N2O, 

hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride 

(SF6)—in the atmosphere threaten the public health and welfare of current and 

future generations. This is referred to as the endangerment finding. The 

Administrator is further proposing to find that the combined emissions of CO2, 

CH4, N2O, and HFCs from new motor vehicles and motor vehicle engines 

contribute to the atmospheric concentrations of these key greenhouse gases and 

hence to the threat of climate change. This is referred to as the cause or 

contribute finding. This proposed action, as well as any final action in the 

future, would not itself impose any requirements on industry or other entities. 

An endangerment finding under one provision of the Clean Air Act would not by 

itself automatically trigger regulation under the entire Act. The EPA is accepting 

comment on this proposed action for 60 days (EPA 2009d). 

Federal, state, and local governments are also developing programs and 

initiatives aimed at reducing energy use and emissions. The 2002 Clear Skies 

and Global Climate Change Initiative is a voluntary national program to reduce 

greenhouse gas emissions. There are federal tax incentives for energy efficiency 

and conservation, and some states have renewable energy and energy efficiency 

policies. Regional initiatives have been started in the northeast (Northeast 

Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative) as well as the Western Climate Initiative in 

the western states. At this time, it is not possible to predict how all of these 

programs would be melded into a national regulatory process if one were to be 

enacted. 

4-116 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
 

 

 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

A number of U.S. financial and corporate interests have acknowledged that 

enactment of federal legislation limiting the emissions of CO2 and other 

greenhouse gases seems likely (NARUC 2007). There is uncertainty about 

anticipated CO2 emission limits and carbon capture/sequestration regulations. 

This has caused some proponents to cancel or delay their proposed projects that 

use existing and emerging technologies to produce electricity from coal (Casper 

Star Tribune 2007c, 2007d). 

The regulatory mechanisms proposed under the Climate Security Act, as well as 

the past regulation of other pollutants under the CAA, are imposed at the point 

when coal is burned and converted to electric energy and by-products like CO2. 

Over 95 percent of coal produced in the PRB is sold in an open market where 

coal is purchased on short term contracts or spot prices based on a coal feed 

stock that is suitable for each buyer’s power generating facility. Coal production 

at any one mine is not tied in any predictable way over a period of time to any 

one power plant. Power plant buyers attempt to buy coal from suppliers at the 

most economical prices that meet their needs. PRB coal has competed well in 

this market due to its low sulfur content. This makes it valuable in lowering 

sulfur dioxide pollution, as well as competitive mining costs when compared to 

delivered costs of coal from other coal producing areas. 

U.S. coal production increased from 1,029.1 million tons in 1990, when the 

Powder River federal coal region was decertified, to 1,161.4 million tons in 2006, 

an increase of 12.9 percent (USDOE 2007b). Wyoming coal production 

increased from 184.0 million tons in 1990 to 444.9 million tons in 2006, an 

increase of 242 percent (Wyoming Department of Employment 2007a). The 

share of electric power generated by burning coal was consistently around 50 

percent during that time frame. Also, the percentage of total U.S. CO2 emissions 

related to coal consumption was consistently around 36 percent during that 

same time frame. The percentage of U.S. CO2 emissions related to the coal 

electric power sector increased from about 31 percent in 1990 to about 33 

percent in 2006 (USDOE 2007a, 2007b). 

In 2006, the Wyoming Powder River Basin coal mines produced approximately 

432.0 million tons of coal. Using factors derived from laboratory analyses, it is 

estimated that approximately 716.9 million metric tons of CO2 would be 

generated from the combustion of all of this coal (before CO2 reduction 

technologies are applied). This number is based on an average Btu value of 

8,600 per pound of Wyoming coal and using a CO2 emission factor of 212.7 

pounds of CO2 per million Btu (USDOE 1994). The estimated 716.9 million 

metric tons of CO2 represents approximately 33.6 percent of the estimated 

2,134.1 million metric tons of U.S. CO2 emission from coal combustion (USDOE 

2007a). In 2006, Wyoming PRB mines accounted for approximately 37.2 

percent of the coal produced in the U.S (USDOE 2007c). 

Table 4-37 Estimated Annual Equivalent CO2 Emissions at Mines with Pending 

LBAs, shows the estimated cumulative annual CO2e emissions produced by all 

mines in the PRB which currently have LBAs pending. The cumulative 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 4-117 
 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

Table 4-37. Estimated Annual Equivalent CO2 Emissions* from Coal 

Production at Mines With Pending LBAs. 

Source 2007 With LBA Tracts 

SGAC Mines/LBA Tracts 0.716 1.182 

WAC Mines/LBA Tracts 1.245 2.503 

Antelope Mine/West Antelope II Tract 0.225 0.348 

Buckskin Mine/Hay Creek II Tract 0.197 0.197 

Total 2.535 4.229 

* Equivalent CO2 in million metric tons 

Source: BLM 2008g, IML Air Science 2009, WWC 2009a, WWC 2009b 

emissions calculated are those associated with the actual mining operations and 

not from the combustion of the coal produced and sold on the open coal market. 

The LBAs are addressed individually in the following EISs: The SGAC EIS, the 

WAC EIS, the West Antelope II EIS, and the Hay Creek II EIS. 

Wyoming coal production has increased at a more rapid rate than other 

domestic coal. Wyoming coal is low in sulfur, providing a way for electric 

generators to achieve acid rain reduction requirements. Coal coming out of the 

Wyoming PRB is mined using surface mining methods which are generally safer 

and less labor intensive than underground mining. Rural rangelands are the 

areas that are mainly mined; they are reclaimed according to WDEQ/LQD’s 

standards (see section 3.9.4). PRB coal reserves are in thick seams, resulting in 

more production from areas of similar land disturbance, and lower mining and 

reclamation costs. 

As discussed earlier in this chapter, future coal mining impacts are estimated 

based on two forecast scenarios for PRB coal production through 2020. In the 

low scenario, the percentage of coal use for electric generation would stay about 

the same, assuming that all forms of electric generation would grow at a 

proportional rate to meet forecast electric demand. In the high scenario, 

percentage of coal use would also remain about the same, but with PRB coal 

displacing coal from other domestic coal regions. 

If public sentiment results in changed electric demand, or if GHG emissions are 

ultimately regulated, the demand forecast for coal for electric generation could 

change. The USDOE has forecasted that by 2030, the coal share of total energy 

use will increase from 23 percent in 2006 to 25 percent in 2030, while the share 

of natural gas will fall from 22 percent to 20 percent, and the liquids share is 

predicted to fall from 40 percent to 37 percent. The combined share of carbonneutral renewable and nuclear energy is forecasted to grow from 15 percent in 

2006 to 17 percent in 2030. 

Taken together, projected growth in the absolute amount of primary energy 

consumption and a shift toward a fuel mix with slightly lower average carbon 

content will cause projected energy-related emissions of CO2 to grow by 16 

percent from 2006 to 2030. This is slightly lower than the projected 19 percent 

increase in total energy use. Over the same period, the economy becomes less 

carbon-intensive, because the 16 percent increase in CO2 emissions is about 

4-118 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
 

 

 

 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

one-fifth of the projected increase in GDP (79 percent), and emissions per capita 

decline by 5 percent. 

In the 2008 study, projected energy-related CO2 emissions grew from 5,890 

million metric tons in 2006 to 6,851 million metric tons in 2030. In the Annual 

Energy Outlook 2008 study, energy-related CO2 emissions were projected to 

grow by about 35 percent, to 7,950 million metric tons in 2030. This reflects 

both a higher projection of overall energy use and, to a lesser extent, a different 

mix of energy sources (USDOE 2008c). This forecast is within the range of the 

high and low scenarios presented in chapter 4. 

The Annual Energy Outlook 2008 report projected that energy-related emissions 

of CO2 will grow by 16 percent from 2006 to 2030. In this projection, the mix of 

sources for this generation include coal, natural gas, nuclear, liquids 

(petroleum), hydro-power, and non-hydro renewable (wind, solar, etc.). The 

forecasted generation mix by 2030 as compared to 2007 is included in table 4­

38. 

Table 4-38. Projected Percent of CO2 Emissions by Source (2007 and 2030). 

Source 2007 2030 

Coal 51% 58% 

Nuclear 21% 19% 

Natural Gas 18% 11% 


Petroleum 1% 1% 

Hydro Power 7% 6% 


Renewables 2% 5% 


The Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) attempted to identify a scenario of 

how the full portfolio of technologies to provide for electric energy would respond 

if national policy were to require that CO2 emissions be reduced to 1990 levels 

(James 2007). As noted earlier, there is no regulatory structure or CO2 emission 

levels or limits that have been set by national policy or law yet. This scenario 

provides some analysis of the possible effect of regulation as well as decreased 

demand through energy efficiency at the user end, in transmission, and at the 

producer end. The forecasted generation mix by 2030 as compared to 2007 is 

included in table 4-39. 

Table 4-39. Projected Percent of CO2 Emissions by Source (2007 and 2030) 

Under a Reduced CO2 Emissions Scenario. 

Source 2007 2030 

Coal 51% 52% 

Nuclear 21% 29% 

Natural Gas 18% 5% 


Petroleum 1% 0% 

Hydro Power 7% 5% 


Renewables 2% 9% 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 4-119 
 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

The EPRI study predicts that national policy that forces a reduction of CO2 

emissions to 1990 levels would promote increased energy efficiency, and the 

growth of “non carbon” sources such as nuclear and renewable. Renewable 

sources include wind and solar, as well as emerging technologies like tidal 

power, river turbines and others reported in the media. Hydropower is limited 

because most opportunities for hydropower have been used or require large 

infrastructure. Use of carbon based sources such as gas and petroleum are less 

than forecasted by the Energy Information Administration (EIA), while coal use 

remains about the same in the EPRI forecast, mostly due to forecasted 

improvement in GHG emission reduction in coal fueled generation. Both EIA 

and EPRI forecast increases in electricity cost. 

The mines in the Powder River Basin have sold and are expected to sell coal into 

the open coal market. In both EIA market projections and market projections 

that contemplate CO2 regulation, the coal market supplies half or more of the 

electric generation mix through 2020. Each mine’s ability to sell coal in this 

market will determine annual production rates at that mine. Historically, the 

coal buyers have been domestic electric producers, although the coal could be 

used in other coal applications or be exported. 

The SGAC Mines produced 100.1 million tons of coal in 2006, which represents 

about 22.7 percent of the coal produced in the Wyoming PRB accounting for 

about 3.2 percent of the estimated U.S. CO2 emissions in that year. Under the 

No Action alternative, CO2 emissions attributable to burning coal produced by 

the Belle Ayr, Coal Creek Caballo, and Cordero Rojo Mines would be extended at 

about this level for up to approximately 16 years, while the mines recover their 

remaining estimated 1,564 million tons of currently leased coal reserves. It is 

likely that, by that time, regulations limiting CO2 emissions will be in place and, 

potentially, projects utilizing the emerging technologies to reduce and/or 

sequester CO2 emissions would be more established. 

Section 3.18.2 contains estimates of greenhouse gas emissions resulting from 

the specific mine operations at the Belle Ayr, Coal Creek Caballo, and Cordero 

Rojo Mines from projected operations under the Proposed Actions and 

alternatives. 

Under the Proposed Action and Alternatives 2 and 3, the Belle Ayr, Coal Creek 

Caballo, and Cordero Rojo Mines anticipate producing the coal included in the 

Belle Ayr North, West Coal Creek, Caballo West, and Maysdorf II LBA tracts, 

respectively, at currently permitted levels using existing production and 

transportation facilities, which would extend CO2 emissions related to burning 

coal from the applicant mines for up to just over 10 additional years beyond July 

2008. It is not possible to project the level of CO2 emissions that burning the 

coal in the SGAC LBA tracts would produce due to the uncertainties about what 

emission limits will be in place at that time or where and how the coal in the 

SGAC LBA tracts would be used after it is mined. It is not likely that selection of 

the No Action alternatives would result in a decrease of U.S. CO2 emissions 

attributable to coal-burning power plants in the longer term because there are 

4-120 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

multiple other sources of coal that, while not having the cost, environmental, or 

safety advantages, could supply the demand for coal beyond the time that the 

Belle Ayr, Coal Creek Caballo, and Cordero Rojo Mines complete recovery of the 

coal in their existing leases. 

CBNG, which is composed primarily of methane, another greenhouse gas, is 

released into the atmosphere when coal is mined. According to the U.S. Energy 

Information Administration (USDOE 2007a and 2007b): 

	 U.S. anthropogenic methane emissions totaled 605 million metric tons 

CO2e) in 2006. 

	 U.S. 2006 methane emissions from coal mining were estimated at 64.7 

million metric tons CO2e, which represents approximately 10.7 percent of 

the U.S. total anthropogenic methane emissions in 2006. 

	 Surface coal mining operations in the U.S. were estimated to be 

responsible for methane emissions of about 14.2 million metric tons of 

CO2e in 2006, which represents about 2.35 percent of the estimated U.S. 

anthropogenic methane emissions in 2006, and about 22 percent of the 

estimated methane emissions attributed to coal mining of all types. 

	 The Wyoming PRB produced approximately 53.7 percent of the coal mined 

in the U.S. in 2006 using surface mining techniques, which means that 

Wyoming PRB surface coal mines were responsible for approximately 1.26 

percent of the estimated U.S. anthropomorphic methane emissions in 

2006. The three Wright Area coal mines contributed about 52 percent of 

the Wyoming PRB production in 2006. 

Since 1990, when BLM began leasing using the lease by application process, 

total U.S. anthropogenic methane emissions declined from 708.4 million metric 

tons CO2 equivalent to 605.1 million metric tons CO2 equivalent in 2006. Total 

coal mining related emissions declined from 97.7 million metric tons CO2 

equivalent to 64.7 million metric tons CO2 equivalent during the same time 

period. The Energy Information Administration (USDOE 2007b) attributes the 

overall decrease in coal mine emissions of methane since 1990 to the fact that 

the coal production increases during that time had been largely from surface 

coal mines that produce relatively little methane. 

CBNG is currently being commercially produced by oil and gas operators from 

wells within and near the SGAC LBA tracts. CBNG that is not recovered prior to 

mining would be vented to the atmosphere during the mining process. Selection 

of the No Action alternatives would potentially allow more complete recovery of 

the CBNG from the SGAC LBA tracts in the short term (ten years), during the 

time that the mine’s currently leased coal is being recovered. However, BLM’s 

analysis suggests that a large portion of the CBNG resources that are currently 

present on the tract would be recovered prior to mining under the Proposed 

Action or Alternatives 2 or 3. Selection of the No Action alternatives (Alternative 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 4-121 
 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

1) would not be likely to directly decrease U.S. methane emissions attributable 

to coal mining in the long term because there are multiple other sources of coal 

that could supply the coal demand beyond the time that the Belle Ayr, Coal 

Creek, Caballo, and Cordero Rojo Mines recovers the coal in their existing leases. 

4.2.14.2 Mercury, Coal Combustion Residues, and Other By-Products 

To meet the nationwide consumer demand and requirement for energy, coal is 

burned in power plants to produce electricity for the United States. Coal is an 

important component of the U.S. energy supply partly because it is the most 

abundant domestically available fossil fuel (USGS 2002b). One-quarter of the 

world’s coal reserves are found within the United States (USDOE 2008c); the 

energy content of U.S. coal resources exceeds that of all the world’s known 

recoverable oil (USDOE 2008c). Coal resources supply more than half of the 

electricity consumed by Americans (USDOE 2008c). Many countries are even 

more reliant on coal for their energy needs than is the United States (USGS 

2000). More than 70 percent of the electricity generated in China and India 

comes from coal (USGS 2000). The value of coal is partially offset by the 

environmental impacts of coal combustion (USGS 2000). As described below, 

some of these impacts may have direct or indirect effects on human health 

(USGS 2000). 

One of the concerns associated with burning coal for electricity production is the 

release of elements from coal to the environment (USGS 2002b). When coal is 

burned, carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and mercury are 

released (EPA 2009e). The principal pollutants generated by coal combustion 

that can cause health problems are particulates, sulfur and nitrogen oxides, 

trace elements (including arsenic, fluorine, selenium, and radioactive uranium 

and thorium), and organic compounds generated by incomplete coal combustion 

(USGS 2000). 

In coal combustion, concentrations of these elements and compounds vary 

depending on the chemistry of the coal deposits and on the type of air pollution 

controls in place when the coal is burned. Coal use in developing countries can 

potentially cause serious human health impacts (USGS 2000). Some coal mined 

in China is known to have caused severe health problems in several local 

populations because the coal was mined and burned with little regard to its 

chemical composition (USGS 2000). Chinese coals that contained high levels of 

arsenic, fluorine, selenium, and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons have caused 

severe, life-threatening health impacts to some residents that burned the coal in 

unvented stoves in their homes (USGS 2000). 

Coal that is burned in the U.S. generally contains low to modest concentrations 

of potentially toxic trace elements and sulfur (USGS 2000). Specifically, Powder 

River Basin coal is recognized as being a clean burning coal due to its low sulfur 

and low ash properties. In a 2002 analysis conducted by USGS (2002b), PRB 

coal was found to contain, on average, approximately 8 times less sulfur than 

coals being utilized from the Appalachian and Illinois basins to supply U.S. 

4-122 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

power plants (feed coal). PRB feed coal was also found to contain nearly half as 

much uranium (8.9 ppm), 7 times less arsenic (17 part per million [ppm]), 5 

times less lead (19 ppm), and 3 times less cadmium (1.1 ppm) as compared to 

Appalachian and Illinois basin feed coals. When burned, PRB coal produced, on 

average, 38 percent less fly ash than Appalachian and Illinois basin coals (USGS 

2002b). The fly ash resulting from combusted PRB coal contained 

approximately 39 times less mercury than fly ash that was generated from 

combusted Appalachian and Illinois basin coal (USGS 2002b). 

Additionally, many U.S. coal burning power plants use sophisticated pollutioncontrol systems that efficiently reduce the emission of hazardous elements 

(USGS 2000). The EPA conducted a detailed study of possible health impacts 

from exposure to emissions of approximately 20 potentially toxic substances 

from U.S. coal-burning power plants (USGS 2000). The EPA concluded that, 

with the exception of possibly mercury, there is no compelling evidence to 

indicate that emissions from U.S. coal-burning power plants cause human 

health problems (USGS 2000). 

Mercury is a naturally occurring element and enters the environment as a result 

of natural sources, such as active volcanoes, and through human activities such 

as industrial combustion and mining (EPA 2006). Natural sources of mercury, 

such as volcanic eruptions and emissions from the ocean, have been estimated 

to contribute about 33 percent of the current worldwide mercury air emissions; 

anthropogenic (human-caused) mercury emissions account for the remaining 67 

percent, though these estimates are highly uncertain (EPA 2009f). 

When fossil fuels burn, mercury vapor can be released into the atmosphere 

where it may drift for a year or more, spreading with air currents over vast 

regions of the globe (USDOE 2006a). In 1995, an estimated 5,500 tons of 

mercury was emitted globally from both natural and human sources (USDOE 

2006a). Coal-fired power plants in the United States contributed to less than 1 

percent of that total (USDOE 2006a). 

Mercury is a global problem that knows no national or continental boundaries. 

It can travel thousands of miles in the atmosphere before it is eventually 

deposited back to the earth in rainfall or in dry gaseous forms (EPA 2009d). EPA 

estimates that about one-third of the U.S. anthropogenic mercury emissions are 

deposited within the contiguous U.S. and the remainder enters the global cycle 

(EPA 2009f). 

Table 4-40 summarizes how the various continents contributed to the worldwide 

anthropogenic mercury emissions in 2004. The 2004 U.S. anthropogenic 

mercury emissions were estimated to account for about 3 percent of the global 

total (2009f). EPA (2006) estimates that 83 percent of the mercury deposited in 

the U.S. originates from international sources, with the remaining 17 percent 

coming from the U.S. and Canada. These figures include mercury from natural 

and anthropogenic sources. 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 4-123 
 

 

 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

Table 4-40. 2004 Percent Contribution to Worldwide Anthropogenic Mercury 

Emissions. 

Continent Percent 

Asia: 53% 

Africa: 18% 

Europe: 11% 

North America: 9% 

Australia: 6% 

South America; 4% 

Source: EPA 2009f 

In 2006, EPA estimated that 50-70 percent of current global anthropogenic 

atmospheric emissions came from fuel combustion, and much of it came from 

China, India, and other Asian countries (EPA 2006). Coal consumption in Asia 

is expected to grow significantly over the next 20 years (EPA 2006). This 

international source of mercury emissions may grow substantially if left 

unaddressed (EPA 2006). 

Over the past decade, addressing environmental and human health mercury 

risks has been a focus for EPA (EPA 2006). Overall U.S. mercury air emissions 

have been reduced by 45 percent since 1990 (EPA 2006). EPA is most 

concerned with methyl mercury, a potent form of mercury and the form to which 

humans are primarily exposed (EPA 2006). 

Atmospheric mercury can settle into water or onto land where it can be washed 

into the water. Certain microorganisms can transform mercury into methyl 

mercury, a highly toxic mercury compound that builds up in fish and shellfish 

when they feed. Methyl mercury is the only form of mercury that biomagnifies 

in the food web. Concentrations of methyl mercury in fish are generally on the 

order of a million times the methyl mercury concentration in the water. The 

primary pathway of human exposure to mercury is through eating fish 

containing methyl mercury (EPA 2006). 

There are adverse health effects to humans and other animals that consume 

these fish and shellfish. Birds and mammals that eat fish may be more exposed 

to mercury more than other animals in water ecosystems (EPA 2008c). At high 

levels of exposure, methyl mercury’s harmful effects may include death, reduced 

reproduction, slower growth and development, and abnormal behavior (EPA 

2008c). Research has shown that most people’s fish consumption does not 

cause a health concern, but high levels of methyl mercury in the bloodstream of 

unborn babies and young children may harm the developing nervous systems of 

those children (EPA 2006). 

DOE’s Office of Fossil Energy has been sponsoring studies on mercury emissions 

from coal-based power generators to identify effective and economical control 

options for the past decade USDOE 2006a). The Office of Fossil Energy manages 

the largest funded program in the U.S. for developing an understanding of 

mercury emissions and developing emission control technologies for the coal4-124 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
 

 

 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

fired electric generating industry in the U.S. (USDOE 2006a). Research on 

advanced and improved mercury control technology is ongoing (USDOE 2006a). 

In the U.S., coal-burning power plants are the largest human-caused source of 

mercury emissions being released into the air, accounting for about 40 percent 

of all domestic human-caused mercury emissions (EPA 2008c). However, these 

emissions contribute little to the global mercury pool. EPA estimated that 

mercury emissions from U.S. coal-fired power plants account for about 1 percent 

of the global total (EPA 2009f). 

Coal production from the Wyoming PRB represented approximately 42 percent of 

the coal used for power generation in 2006, which would represent about 0.4 

percent of the global anthropogenic mercury emissions. The South Gillette Area 

Mines produced about 22.7 percent of the coal produced in the Wyoming PRB in 

2006, which would represent about 0.1 percent of the global mercury emissions. 

Under the No Action alternatives, mercury emissions attributable to burning 

coal produced by the South Gillette area mines would be extended at about 

current levels of up to approximately 16 years, while the mines recover their 

remaining estimated 1,564 million tons of currently leased coal reserves. Under 

the Proposed Actions or Alternatives 1 or 2, the South Gillette Area mines 

contribution to global mercury emissions would be extended from 2 to 10 

additional years, depending on the tract and alternatives selected. Uncertainties 

about future regulatory requirements and the use of the coal mined from the 

South Gillette Area LBA tracts make it difficult to project the impacts of mercury 

emissions produced by burning SGAC coal. 

Additionally, burning coal in electric utility boilers generates residual materials 

which are referred to as coal combustion residues. These residues include noncombustible materials left in the furnaces and ash that is carried up the 

smokestacks and collected by air pollution control technologies. As previously 

referenced, coal and coal combustion residues can contain a variety of 

compounds, metals, and other elements depending on the coal deposit and upon 

the site-specific characteristics of where the coal originated from. Coal-fired 

boilers are required to have control devices to reduce the amount of emissions 

that are released into the atmosphere (EPA 2007f). The use of air pollution 

control equipment at power plants has resulted in fewer emissions but has also 

increased the amount of solid residues. 

In the past, coal combustion residues have generally been recycled or disposed 

of in landfills or surface impoundments. More recently, these residues have 

been disposed of in mines. There can potentially be risks of contamination of 

drinking water supplies and surface water bodies by coal combustion residues, 

particularly when they are disposed of in mines (National Academy of Science 

2006, EPA 2002). The EPA is evaluating management options for solid wastes 

from coal combustion, including whether current management practices pose 

risks to human health or ecological receptors. A draft report, dated August 6, 

2007, prepared for the EPA Office of Solid Waste, and entitled “Human and 

Ecological Risk Assessment of Coal Combustion Wastes”, is available at 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 4-125 
 

 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

http://www.earthjustice.org/library; however, the report is labeled as a draft 

document which is not to be cited or quoted. 

As discussed above, the South Gillette Area coal mines produced about 22.7 

percent of the coal produced in the Wyoming PRB in 2006. Under the No Action 

alternatives, production of coal combustion residue attributable to burning coal 

from the South Gillette area mines would be extended at about current levels for 

up to approximately 16 years, while the mines recover their remaining estimated 

1,564 million tons of currently leased coal reserves. Under the Proposed Action 

or Alternatives 1 or 2, coal combustion residue related to burning coal mined at 

the South Gillette area mines would be extended from 2 to 10 additional years, 

depending on the tract and alternatives selected. Uncertainties about future 

regulatory requirements and the use of the coal mined from the South Gillette 

Area LBA tracts make it difficult to project the impacts of disposing of coal 

combustion residues produced by burning SGAC coal. 

Depending on the size, shape, and chemical composition, some coal combustion 

residues can be recycled and beneficially reused as components of building 

materials or as replacement to raw materials that would ordinarily need to be 

mined such as sand, gravel, or gypsum (EPA 2007f). Coal combustion products 

(CCPs) are the materials produced primarily from the combustion of coal in coalfired power plants and can include the following materials: fly ash, bottom ash, 

boiler slag, and flue gas desulfurization material (EPA 2007f). Studies and 

research conducted or supported by the EPA, EPRI, other government agencies, 

and universities have indicated that the beneficial uses of coal combustion 

products have not been shown to present significant risks to human health or 

the environment (EPA 2008d). 

Fly ash is a byproduct of burning finely ground coal in a boiler to produce 

electricity. Physically, fly ash is a fine, powdery material composed mostly of 

silica and nearly all particles are spherical in shape. Fly ash is a pozzolan—a 

siliceous material which, in the presence of water, will react with calcium 

hydroxide at ordinary temperatures to produce cement like compounds. 

Because of its spherical shape and pozzolanic properties, fly ash can be useful in 

cement and concrete applications (EPA 2007g). 

Bottom Ash is agglomerated ash particles, formed in furnaces burning 

pulverized coal that are too large to be carried in the flue gases. Bottom ash is 

coarse with grain sizes spanning from fine sand to fine gravel. It can be used as 

a replacement for aggregate and is usually sufficiently well-graded in size to 

avoid the need for blending with other fine aggregates to meet gradation 

requirements (EPA 2007h). 

Boiler slag is the molten bottom ash collected at the base of slag tap and cyclone 

type furnaces. Boiler slag particles are uniform in size, hard, and durable with a 

resistance to surface wear. The permanent black color of this material is 

desirable for asphalt applications and aids in the melting of snow (EPA 2007i). 

4-126 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
 

 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

Flue Gas Desulfurization (FGD) is the technology used for removing or reducing 

SO2 emissions from the exhaust gas system of a coal-fired boiler (EPA 2007j). 

SO2 is an acid gas and so the typical materials used to remove the SO2 from the 

flue gases are alkaline. The reaction taking place in wet scrubbing uses a 

limestone slurry and produces calcium sulfate. When magnesium hydroxide is 

used as a scrubber, magnesium sulfate is produced. These materials can be 

used as embankment and road base material, wallboard manufacturing, and in 

place of gypsum for the production of cement. Currently, the largest single 

market for FGD material is in wallboard manufacturing (EPA 2007j). 

Utilizing or recycling CCPs can generate significant environmental and economic 

benefits (EPA 2009g). CCPs can be used for raw feed for cement clinker, 

concrete, grout, flowable fill, structural fill, road base/sub-base, soil 

modification, mineral filler, snow and ice traction control, blasting grit and 

abrasives, roofing granules, mining applications, wallboard, waste 

stabilization/solidification, and soil amendment. Using CCPs can reduce energy 

consumption and greenhouse gas emissions and can help reduce the need for 

landfill space. Economic benefits include reduced costs associated with 

managing coal ash and slag disposal, potential revenue from the sale of CCPs, 

and savings from using CCPs in place of other more costly raw materials (EPA 

2009g). 

CCPs offer product-performance benefits as well. Boiler slag is a sought-after 

replacement for sand in blasting grit because it is free of silica and eliminates 

the potential health risk of silicosis (EPA 2007i). High coal ash content concrete 

is used for building long-lived pavements designed to last 50 years—twice the 

lifetime of conventional pavements (EPA 2003b). Coal fly ash can create 

superior products because of its self-cementing properties (EPA 2007g). Using 

coal fly ash in concrete can also produce stronger and longer-lasting buildings 

(EPA 2007g). This not only reduces the costs of maintaining buildings, but 

provides the additional environmental benefit of reducing the need for new 

concrete to repair or replace aging buildings. This translates to a significant 

reduction in future energy consumption and GHG emissions (EPA 2007g). 

In 2005, demand had become so strong for coal ash that some power plants 

were selling all the ash they produced (EPA 2005b). EPA estimated that through 

the utilization of 15 million tons of coal fly ash, the U.S. reduced their 

greenhouse gas emissions equivalent to the annual emissions of nearly 2.5 

million passenger vehicles (EPA 2008e). 

Because of the many potential uses of CCPs, EPA has sponsored the Coal 

Combustion Products Partnership (C2P2) program to further the beneficial use of 

these coal combustion by-products (EPA 2003b). With more than 170 private 

and public partners (EPA 2008e), the C2P2 Program is a cooperative effort 

between EPA and various organizations to help promote the beneficial use of 

CCPs and the environmental benefits which can result from the proper use of 

these potentially recyclable materials (EPA 2003b). The C2P2 program will help 

meet the national waste reduction goals of the Resource Conservation 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 4-127 
 

 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

Challenge—an EPA effort to find flexible yet more protective ways to conserve 

valuable natural resources through waste reduction, energy recovery, and 

recycling (EPA 2008b). 

In 2007, the U.S. used approximately 43 percent of its coal combustion products 

(EPA 2008e). The C2P2 program aims to reduce adverse effects on air and land 

by increasing the use of coal combustion products to 50 percent in 2011 from 

32 percent in 2001 (EPA 2008e). The program also plans to increase the use of 

CCPs as a supplementary cementitious material in concrete by 50 percent, from 

12.4 million tons in 2001 to 18.6 million tons in 2011; this would decrease GHG 

emissions from avoided cement manufacturing by approximately 5 million tons 

(EPA 2009h). 

4-128 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
 

5.0 Consultation and Coordination 

5.0 CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION 

In addition to this environmental impact statement (EIS)1, 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 four coal lease applications included in this EIS were reviewed and discussed 

at Powder River Regional Coal Team (PRRCT) public meetings held on April 24, 

2005, in Gillette, Wyoming (Belle Ayr North Tract), on April 19, 2006 in Casper, 

Wyoming (Caballo West and West Coal Creek Tracts), and on January 18, 2007, in 

Gillette, Wyoming (Maysdorf II Tract). Each of the applicants presented 

information about their existing mine and pending lease application to the PRRCT 

at those meetings. Voting and nonvoting members of the PRRCT include the 

governors of Wyoming and Montana, the Northern Cheyenne Tribe, the Crow 

Tribal Council, the U.S. Department of Agriculture - Forest Service (USDA-FS), 

Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM), U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (USFWS), National Park Service (NPS), and U.S. Geological Survey 

(USGS). The PRRCT determined that the lands in the four applications met the 

qualifications for processing as production maintenance tracts. The PRRCT 

recommended that the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) continue to process all 

four lease applications. 

Governor's Consultation 

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Wyoming State Director notified the 

Governor of Wyoming on March 14, 2007, that Foundation Coal West (FCW) had 

filed a lease application with BLM for the Belle Ayr North Lease by Application 

(LBA) Tract. The BLM Wyoming State Director notified the Governor of Wyoming 

on April 27, 2006, that Caballo Coal Company (CCC) had filed a lease application 

with BLM for the Caballo West LBA tract. The Governor was notified on 

September 18, 2006 that Ark Land Company (ALC) had filed a lease application 

for the West Coal Creek LBA tract and that Cordero Mining Company (CMC) had 

filed a lease application for the Maysdorf II LBA tract. 

Public Notice 

A notice announcing the receipt of the Belle Ayr North coal lease application was 

published in the Federal Register on March 8, 2005; a BLM news release 

announcing the receipt of the Caballo West and West Coal Creek coal lease 

applications was issued on March 27, 2006; and a notice announcing the receipt 

of the Maysdorf II coal lease application was published in the Federal Register on 

December 12, 2006. These notices also announced the date, time, and place of 

the PRRCT meetings to be held to discuss these lease applications. BLM 

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

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 5-1 
5.0 Consultation and Coordination 

published a Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement and 

Notice of Scoping in the Federal Register on March 29, 2007 and in the Gillette 

News-Record on April 4, 2007. The publications served as public notice that the 

four coal lease applications had been received, announced the time and location of 

a public scoping meeting, and requested public comment on all four of the 

applications. 

Parties on the distribution list were sent letters announcing the time and location 

of a public scoping meeting in April 11, 2007 in Gillette, Wyoming. At the public 

meeting, the applicants orally presented information about their mines and their 

need for the coal. The presentations were followed by a question and answer 

period, during which no oral comments were made. The scoping period extended 

from March 29 through June 10, 2007, during which time BLM received written, 

e-mailed, and telephoned comments from six entities. 

The EPA published a notice announcing the availability of the draft EIS in the 

Federal Register on October 24, 2008. BLM published a Notice of 

Availability/Notice of Public Hearing in the Federal Register on October 17, 2008. 

The 60-day comment period on the draft EIS ended on December 24, 2008. A 

public hearing was held on November 19, 2008 at 7:00 pm at the Campbell 

County George Amos Memorial Building. One individual presented statements on 

the draft EIS during the hearing and written comments were received from 18 

individuals, agencies, or organizations during the comment period. A summary of 

the statements that were presented at the formal public hearing and the written 

comments, with agency responses, are included as appendix I of this FEIS. 

Parties on the distribution list have been sent copies of the completed FEIS, and 

the EPA and BLM have published Notices of Availability for the FEIS. After a 30­

day availability period, BLM will make separate decisions to hold or not to hold a 

competitive lease sale for the federal coal in each of these LBA tracts and a Record 

of Decision (ROD) for each of the tracts will be signed. Copies of each ROD will be 

mailed to parties on the mailing list and others who commented on this LBA 

during the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process. There will be a 30­

day appeal period after each ROD is signed before the ROD is implemented. 

Department of Justice Consultation 

After each 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. 

5-2 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
5.0 Consultation and Coordination 

Other Consultations 

Other federal, state, local, and Native American governmental agencies that have 

been consulted in preparation of this EIS 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 WWC Engineering, 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). 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 5-3 
 

 

5.0 Consultation and Coordination 

Table 5-1. List of Contributors and Reviewers. 

Name Project Responsibility 

BLM High Plains District Office 

Mike Karbs Project Supervisor 

Teresa Johnson SGAC EIS Project Manager, Environmental Protection 

Specialist 

Sarah Bucklin Wildlife, T&E Species 

Ginger Vickers Legal Assistant, Distribution List 

Mike Brogan Water Resources 

Patricia Karbs Editor 

BLM Wyoming State Office 

Bob Janssen Coal Program Coordination 

Linda Slone NEPA Coordination 

Janet Kurman NEPA Coordination 

Mavis Love Land Adjudication 

Larry Jensen Socioeconomics 

Steve Hageman Minerals Appraiser 

Bill Hill Resources 

Susan Caplan Air Quality and Climate 

John Zachariassen Air Quality and Climate 

Rick Schuler Water Resources 

Julie Weaver Land Adjudication 

Sheri Morris Printing Coordination 

BLM Wyoming Reservoir Management Group 

Dwain McGarry CBNG Geology 

Karl Osvald CBNG Geology 

Lee Almasy CBNG Reservoir Engineering 

Dave Chase Mineral Resources 

BLM Buffalo Field Office 

Tom Bills EIS Liaison 

B.J. Earle Cultural Resources 

Clint Crago Cultural Resources, Paleontology 

Buck Damone Cultural Resources 

Kay Medders Rangeland Resources 

Jerry Queen Geology, Mineral Resources, Mining Claims 

Larry Gerard Wildlife 

Chris Durham Wildlife, T&E Species, BLM Sensitive Species 

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 

Foster Kirby Archaeologist, EIS Cooperating Agency Representative 

Wyoming Department of Transportation 

Larry Konetzki EIS Cooperating Agency Representative 

University of Wyoming 

Bonnie Heidel Wyoming Natural Diversity Database Botanist 

Ron Hartman Rocky Mountain Herbarium Curator 

B. Ernie Nelson Rocky Mountain Herbarium Manager 

5-4 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
 

 

 

 

5.0 Consultation and Coordination 

Table 5-1. List of Contributors and Reviewers (Continued). 

Name	 Project Responsibility 

Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality (WDEQ)
 

Office of Outreach Services 


Dan Clark	 Ombudsman, EIS Liaison 

Don McKenzie 

Kathy Muller Ogle 

Mark Rogaczewski 

Doug Emme 

WDEQ Land Quality Division 

Administrator 

CHIA Program Supervisor 

District Three Supervisor 

Blasting Program Principal 

Kelly Bott 

WDEQ Air Quality Division 

Engineer/EIS Cooperating Agency Division Representative 

Mark Conrad 

WDEQ Water Quality Division 

Water Resources 

John Emmerich 

Wyoming Game and Fish Department 

Deputy Director – External Programs 

Tom Blickensderfer 

Steve Furtney 

Wyoming State Planning Office 

Policy Analysis 

Coal Issues Coordination/Cooperating Agency 

Representative 

Valerie Randall 

Dolora Koontz 

Eldon Strid, Matt Reilly 

Doree Dufresne 

Bruce MacDonald, PhD 

Robert Berry, PhD 

James Rumbaugh 

Brad Anderson 

ENSR International 

(Powder River Basin Coal Review) 

Project Manager 

Assistant Project Manager and Task 2 Manager 

(Existing Development and Reasonably Foreseeable 

Development) 

Existing and Projected Coal Development and Coal 

Transportation Scenarios 

Database Development 

Air Quality 

Water Resources 

Ground Water Modeling 

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 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association 

Pieter Tans	 Earth System Research Laboratory Global Monitoring 

Division Carbon Cycle and Greenhouse Gases Senior 

Scientist 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 5-5 
 

5.0 Consultation and Coordination 

Table 5-2. List of Preparers. 

Name 	Education/Experience Responsibility 

BLM Casper Field Office 

Mike Karbs 33 years professional experience, M.S., B.S. Project Supervisor 

Mineral Engineer, Public Policy 

Teresa Johnson M.S. course work in Ecosystem Management, EIS Project Leader/Editor 

B.S. Earth Systems Ecology, Native American 

Cultural Emphasis Phase 

3 years professional NEPA experience 

Patricia Karbs 	 27 years professional BLM editing experience EIS Project Editor 

WWC Engineering
 

Third-Party Contractor 


John Berry 	 B.S. Wildlife Biology, Project Management 

32 years professional experience Report Preparation 

Ken Collier 	 B.S. Geology, Report Preparation 

32 years professional experience 

(Licensed Wyoming Geologist) 

Heidi Robinson 	 18 years professional experience Document Production 

Mal McGill 	 11 years professional experience CADD 

Subcontractors for FCW 	 Responsibility 

TRC Mariah Associates, Inc. Paleontology Survey 

McVehil-Monnett Associates, Inc. Air Quality Assessment 

WWC Engineering Water Resources Study 

Preliminary AVF Assessment 

Wetlands Assessment 

James Nyenhuis Soil Survey 

ESCO Associates, Inc. Vegetation Survey 

T&E Vegetation Survey 

Thunderbird-Jones & Stokes Wildlife Survey 

T&E Animal Survey 

Environmental Solutions, Inc. Land Use Assessment 

TRC Mariah Associates, Inc. Cultural Resource Survey 

Planera, Inc./WWC Engineering	 Socioeconomic Study 

Subcontractors for ALC/TBCC 	Responsibility 

SWCA Environmental Consultants Paleontology Survey 

Knight Technologies, Inc Water Resources Study 

BKS Environmental Associates, Inc. Wetlands Survey 

BKS Environmental Associates, Inc. Soil Survey 

BKS Environmental Associates, Inc. Vegetation Survey 

T&E Vegetation Survey 

Thunderbird-Jones & Stokes Wildlife Survey 

T&E Animal Survey 

ACR Consultants, Inc. Cultural Resource Survey 

WWC Engineering Socioeconomic Study 

5-6 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
 

 

5.0 Consultation and Coordination 

Table 5-2. List of Preparers (Continued). 

Subcontractors for CCC Responsibility 

GCM Services, Inc. Paleontology Survey 

BKS Environmental Associates, Inc. Wetlands Survey 

BKS Environmental Associates, Inc. Soil Survey 

BKS Environmental Associates, Inc. Vegetation Survey 

T&E Vegetation Survey 

Thunderbird-Jones & Stokes Wildlife Survey 

T&E Animal Survey 

GCM Services, Inc. Cultural Resource Survey 

WWC Engineering Socioeconomic Study 

Subcontractors for CMC Responsibility 

Aqua Terra Consultants Geology 

TRC Mariah Associates, Inc. Paleontology Survey 

Aqua Terra Consultants Water Resources Study 

ESCO Associates, Inc. Wetlands Survey 

James Nyenhuis Soil Survey 

ESCO Associates, Inc. Vegetation Survey 

T&E Vegetation Survey 

Intermountain Resources Wildlife Survey 

T&E Animal Survey 

TRC Mariah Associates, Inc. Cultural Resource Survey 

WWC Engineering Socioeconomic Study 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 5-7 
 

Table 5-3. BLM Distribution List for the South Gillette Area Final EIS. 

Federal and State Officials 

Governor of Wyoming, Dave Freudenthal
 

Governor of Montana, Brian Schweitzer 


US Congresswoman Cynthia M. Lummis 


US Senator John Barrasso
 

US Senator Mike Enzi 


Representative Dave Edwards 


Representative Erin Mercer
 

Representative Sue Wallis 


Representative Thomas Lubnau 


Representative Timothy Hallinan 


Senator Jim Anderson
 

Senator John Hines 


Senator Michael Von Flatern 


Federal Agencies 

BLM Library, Denver CO 

BLM, Buffalo, WY 

BLM, Casper, WY 

BLM, Cheyenne, WY 

BLM, Miles City, MT 

BLM, Montana State Office, Billings, MT 

BLM, Washington, DC 

Bureau of Indian Affairs, Washington, DC 

Department of Energy, Casper, WY 

Department of Energy, Washington, DC 

Department of Interior, Denver, CO 

Devils Tower National Monument 

HQ-USA/CEVP 

Medicine Bow National Forest, Laramie, WY 

MMS, Denver, CO 

MMS, Helena, MT 

MMS, Herndon, VA 

National Park Service, Washington, DC 

NPS - Air Resources, Denver, CO 

NPS – Washington, DC 

NRCS, Douglas, WY 

OEPC, Denver, CO 

OSM, Casper, WY 

OSM, Denver, CO 

OSM, Washington, DC 

OSM/WR, Denver, CO 

Rocky Mountain Region Solicitor 

US Army Corps of Engineers, Cheyenne, WY 

US Department of the Interior Natural 

Resources Library 

US EPA Region VIII, Denver, CO 

US EPA, Washington, DC 

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 Government Printing Office, Washington, 

DC 


USDA Forest Service, Golden, CO 


USDA-FS Douglas Ranger District, Douglas, 

WY 

USDA-FS Rocky Mountain Region, Golden, 

CO 

USGS Water Resources Division, Cheyenne, 

WY 

Wyoming State Agencies 

Mineral Management Bureau 


Office of State Lands and Investments 


Office of the State Treasurer
 

State of Wyoming
 

State of Wyoming Commissioner of Public
 

Lands 

State of Wyoming Office of State Lands & 

Investments 

WDEQ - Water Quality Division, Cheyenne, 

WY 

WDEQ-Air, Cheyenne, WY 

WDEQ-Land Quality Division, Cheyenne, WY 

WDEQ-Land Quality Division, Sheridan, WY 

WY Department of Education 

WDEQ State Office 

WY Department of Employment Research & 

Planning 


WY Parks & Cultural Resource Dept.
 

WY State Geological Survey
 

Wyoming Department of Agriculture 


Wyoming Department of Transportation
 

Wyoming DEQ/ISD, Cheyenne, WY
 

Wyoming Farm Loan Board 


Wyoming Game and Fish, Cheyenne, WY
 

Wyoming Game and Fish, Lander, WY
 

Wyoming Game and Fish, Sheridan, WY
 

Wyoming Oil and Gas Commission
 

Wyoming Sate Historic Preservation Office 


Wyoming State Engineer's Office 


Wyoming State Geological Survey
 

Wyoming State Planning Office 


Wyoming Water Development Comm 


Local Government and Agencies 

Big Horn County Commission
 

Campbell County Board of Commissioners 


Campbell County Cemetery District
 

Campbell county Conservation District
 

Campbell County Engineer
 

Campbell County Roads and Bridges 


Campbell County School District
 

Campbell County Economic Develp. Corp. 


CANDO 


City of Douglas 


City of Gillette 


Converse County School District
 

Converse County Commission 


Converse County Joint Powers Board 


5-8 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
5.0 Consultation and Coordination 

Table 5-3. BLM Distribution List for the South Gillette Area Final EIS (Continued). 

Converse County Special Projects 


Gillette Department of Community 


Development
 

Rosebud County Commission 


Town of Wright
 

Weston County Board of Commissioners 


Tribal Organizations and Individuals 

Apache Tribe of Oklahoma 

Arapahoe Business Council 

Cheyenne River Sioux Tribal Council 

Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, THPO 

Cheyenne-Arapaho Tribes of Oklahoma 

Comanche nation 

Comanche Nation Business committee 

Comanche nation NAGPRA Coordinator 

Crow Creek Council 

Crow Creek Sioux Tribal Council Chair 

Crow Creek Sioux Tribe 

Crow Tribe THPO 

Eastern Shoshone Tribe THPO 

Flandreau Santee Sioux Tribe 

Flandreau Santee Sioux Tribe THPO 

Kiowa Business Committee 

Kiowa Business Committee Environmental 

Director 

Lower Brule Sioux Tribal Council 

Northern Arapaho Tribe THPO 

Northern Arapahoe Business Council 

Northern Cheyenne Cultural Commission 

Northern Cheyenne Tribal Council 

Oglala Sioux Tribal Council 

Oglala Sioux Tribal THPO 

Oglala Sioux Tribe 

Rosebud Sioux THPO 

Rosebud Sioux Tribal Council 

Rosebud Sioux Tribe Cultural Resource 

Coordinator
 

Santee Sioux Tribal Council 


Shoshone Business Council 


Standing Rock Sioux Tribal Council 


Standing Rock Sioux Tribe 


Standing Rock Sioux Tribe THPO 


Organizations 

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 

BioDiversity Conservation Alliance 

Center for Biological Diversity 

Defenders of Wildlife 

Federation for North American Wild Sheep 

Medicine Wheel Coalition 

National Mining Association 

National Wildlife Federation 

Natural Resources Defense Council 

Powder River Basin Resource Council 

Resolute Wyoming 

Sierra Club 

Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership 

Thunder Basin Coalition 

Trout Unlimited 

WildEarth Guardians 

WY Business Council/NE Region 

WY O & G Conservation Commission 

WY Association of Professional Archeologists 

Wyoming Bankers Association 

Wyoming Business Alliance 

Wyoming Mining Association 

Wyoming Outdoor Council 

Wyoming Public Service Comm 

Wyoming Stock Growers Association 

Wyoming Wildlife Federation, Cheyenne, WY 

Wyoming Wildlife Federation, Lander, WY 

Wyoming Wool Growers Association 

Companies / Businesses 

ABO Petroleum Corp
 

Ag Andikopoulos Resources 


All American Equipment 


American Colloid Company 


Antelope Coal Company
 

Ark Land Company
 

Ballard petroleum Holdings LLC
 

Bank of America, NA 


Barrett Resources Corporation 


Belle Fourche Pipeline Company 


BHCH Mineral, Ltd 


Bill Barrett Corporation 


Bjork Lindley Little PC
 

BKS Environmental
 

Blackbeard Oil & Gas, LLC
 

BNSF Railway Company
 

Bowden Energy Corporation 


Bridgeview Coal co 


Buckskin Mine 


Burns & McDonnell
 

Canaan Resources, LLC 


Carbon Recovery Technology 


Cavalier petro Corp.
 

CH Snyder Company
 

Chaco Energy Company 


Chess Oil & Gas LLC 


Chevron midcontinent LP
 

Citation Oil & Gas Corporation
 

Club O & G Ltd.
 

Coal Creek Mine
 

CONSOL Inc Expl & Land Dept
 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 5-9 
 

 

5.0 Consultation and Coordination 

Table 5-3. BLM Distribution List for the South Gillette Area Final EIS (Continued). 

Cordero Mining Company 

Cordero Rojo Mine 

Cramer Oil Company DAC Interests, LLC 

Cucker, Montgomery, Aronstein & Bess, PC 

Dee Bentley, Inc. 

Double T Resources, LLC 

Dry Fork Coal Company 

Ducker Montgomery et al. 

Duncan inc. 

Duncan Oil Inc. 

Dunlap Family LLC 

Dunway Investment Company 

Economic Analysis division 

EDE Consultants 

Electra Investment 

Ellbogen Property Management LTD, fbo 

John Ellbogen Foundation 

Ellbogen Property Management, Ltd. 

ENSR 

Environmental Solutions Inc 

Exxon Mobile Oil Corporation 

First National Bank of Gillette 

Five Star Energy, LLC 

Forest Oil Corp 

Foundation Coal West, Inc 

Foundation Coal West, Inc PKA 

Fredericksburg Royalty, Ltd 

Gene F Lang & Company 

GH Exploration, Inc. 

Great Points Energy 

Hardin & Associates 

Headington Minerals Inc. 

Hulett National Bank 

Inexco Oil Company 

ING (US) Capital LLC 

Intermountain Resources 

Interwest Mining Company 

Issacs Family Limited Liability Partnership 

J. Walter Duncan, Jr., Inc. 

Jacobs Ranch Coal Company 

JIREH Exploration and Consulting LLC 

John E. Jacobs Family Company LLC 

JWD III Inc. 

KAB Acquisition LP II 

Kaiser-Francis Oil Company 

Kenneth R. Paulsen Consultants 

Kerr McGee Oil & Gas Onshore LP 

Key Production Co. Inc. 

Key Production Company inc. 

Kiewit Mining Company 

Kiewit Mining Group Inc 

Kiewit Mining Properties Inc. 

Kinder Morgan Operating LPA 

KM Upstream, LLC 

KN Gas Gathering Inc. 

Koch Exploration Company LLC 

Lance Oil & Gas Company Inc. 

Landmark Oil & Gas, LLC 

Lario Oil & Gas Company 

Lasmo Oil & Gas Inc. 

LE Peabody & Associates 

Lindys Living Trust 

Lorie Amie Hayden Revocable Trust 

Louisiana Land & Exploration Co. 

M & K Oil Company, Inc 

Marquiss Minerals, Inc. 

Marquiss Minerals, Inc. Little Buffalo Ranch 

Marston & Marston 

Maxim Drilling & Exploration 

McCulloch Interstate Gas Corporation 

McGraw-Hill 

McVehil-Monnett Assoc Inc. 

Meagher Oil and Gas Properties Inc. 

MEG Wyoming Gas Service, LLC / Merit 

Management Partners I, LP 

Meineadair Consultants 

Merit Energy Partners III< LP 

Mine Engineers Inc. 

Mining Associates of Wyoming 

Moreenergy Exploration Company 

MYCO Industries, Inc 

Nance Petroleum Corp. 

Nerco Coal Company 

NM Doelger Consulting, LLC 

Norwest Corporation 

P & M Coal Mining CO 

P & M Petroleum management LLC 

Paseo Resources LLC 

Paul Charles Keidel c/o Keidel Family LP 

Paul Rourke Living Trust et al 

Peabody Energy 

Peabody Natural Gas LLC 

Petro Atlas Corporation 

Petrogulf II Ltd. 

Petroleum Association of Wyoming 

Paul Charles Keidel c/o Keidel Family LP 

Paul Rourke Living Trust et al 

Peabody Energy 

Peabody Natural Gas LLC 

Petro Atlas Corporation 

Petrogulf II Ltd. 

Petroleum Association of Wyoming 

Powder River Coal Company 

Powder River Energy Corporation 

Powder River Oil Company 

Primary Natural Resources Inc. 

Providence Energy Corporation 

Quantum energy 

Quiogue Woods Building Co. LLC 

5-10 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
5.0 Consultation and Coordination 

Table 5-3. BLM Distribution List for the South Gillette Area Final EIS (Continued). 

QWEST Communications International, Inc. 

Raymond T. Duncan Oil Properties, Ltd 

RIM offshore, Inc. 

RIM-CBM LLC 

Rio Tinto energy America 

Riverside Technology Inc. 

RMG I LLC 

Royal Properties Inc. 

RSR Energy, LLP 

Ruth R Ellbogen Limited partnership 

San Juan Coal Company 

Sapphire Bay, LLC 

States, Ltd 

T7 Resources LLC 

TC Minerals LLC 

Tetra Tech EC, Inc. 

The Ogle Corporation 

The Termo Company 

Thunder Basin Coal Company, LLC 

Thunder bird-Jones & Stokes 

TRC Environmental 

Union Pacific Railroad 

US Bank National Association 

US West Communications 

UV Industries, Inc / Mueller Industries, Inc. 

Veracruz Ventures, LLC 

Wachovia Bank, National Association 

Walter Duncan Oil 

Warren Broyles & Co. 

Well Fargo Bank, NA 

Wellstar Corporation 

Western Energy Company 

Western Fuels Association 

Whiting Oil & Gas Corp 

Williams production RMT Co. 

WWC Engineering 

Yates Drilling Co. 

Yates petroleum Corp et al 

Press 

Associated Press 

Casper Star Tribune 

Douglas Budget 

Gillette News-Record 

Platts 

Rocky Mountain Oil Journal 

Wyoming-Tribune Eagle 

Educational Institutions 

CSU Library 

Northwestern University 

NWU Policy Research Institute 

URS Greiner Woodward Clyde Library 

US Department of the Interior Natural 

Resources library
 

UW Libraries 


Individuals 

Atkins, Mary 

Baalman, Lynne & Mark 

Barbero, Ralph 

Belden, Scott 

Benson, Scott 

Bertalot, Kenneth & Angela 

Bierman, Sheldon 

Brandner-Daveis, Marjorie 

Brown, Maurice 

Carter, Chrystal 

Christensen, Nita 

Clabaugh, Bonnie 

Clabaugh, Kyle 

Cole-Ballantyne, Betty 

Coleman, Mark 

Collins, Kristina 

Conkey, Bonnie 

Couch, Marion 

Couch, Tom 

Cowan, Minnie 

Craft, Laic 

Cupery, Karla 

Deaver, Michael & Pam 

Diefenderfer, Michael 

Doyet, Barbre 

Duncan, Nicholas 

Duncan, Walter 

Dunlap, Helen 

Duvall, Kenneth & Norma 

Duvall, Norma 

Edwards, Dennis 

Edwards, Orin 

Edwards, Teddy & Renae 

Eichenberger, Lucy 

Ellexson, Vera 

Farrell, Jane 

Farrell, Joyce 

Farrell, Margaret 

Farrell, Martin 

Farrell, Thomas 

Fisk, Dennis 

Fisk, Sheila 

Fluharty, Kristi 

Freeburn, Jolene 

Fuller, R. 

Geis, Kahla 

Ghanavatzad, Khanon 

Glustrom, Leslie 

Graham, Terrel 

Graham-Bowe, Helen 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 5-11 
5.0 Consultation and Coordination 

Table 5-3. BLM Distribution List for the South Gillette Area Final EIS (Continued). 

Gray, Jess & Hellon Carol 

Greub, Twyla 

Guida, Betty 

Gulley, Beverly 

Haight, Bruce & Jilaine 

Haight, Leslie & Sandra 

Hall 

Harden III, James 

Harris, Tami 

Hayden, Dick 

Hays, Joseph 

Heisner, Bill 

Hewit, Betty 

Hill, Bruce 

Hoecher, Velda 

Hogan, Debbie 

Hudson II, William 

Hudson Jr., Edward 

Hunson, Bob 

Johnson et al, Bob & Chrystal 

Johnson, Steven & Debora 

Jourkeet et al, James 

Kamon, Ken 

Keidel, Craig 

King, Dorcas 

King, James 

King, John 

Kirkwood, Robert 

Kirkwood, Steven 

Knapp, Everett & Waruny 

Knotts, Marshal 

Koch, Kathy 

Kundrick, Kenneth 

Larson, Patsy 

Lauchnor, Emily 

Lawson, Robert & Beverly 

Lee, Helen 

Lee, Marcea 

Lippard, Gary 

Loflin, Linda 

McAfee 

Miller, Gary & Patty 

Miller, Glenn & Susan 

Mills, Edith & Dale 

Mills, Kahla 

Morgan Jr., Norvvid 

Morgan, Alice 

Morgan, Rock 

Morris, Julie 

Nelson, Toni 

Nely, Regina 

Nichols, Jeremy 

Nyenhuis, Jim 

O'Brien, Bradley & Cheryl 

Oedekoven, John 

O'Reilly, Jane 


Osborn, Dale
 

Papp, Alex 


Plemmons, Daniel 


Plemmons, Jason 


Plemmons, John 


Plemmons, Leonard 


Plemmons, Roy 


Prewitt, Jason & Megan 


Prucelli, Dean 


Raitt, Keith 


Ratcliff, Sam
 

Reyonlds, Jay 


Roudebush, Betty (Green) 


Saulcy, Bill 


Schicktanz, William & Dorothy 


Schott, Kim
 

Smith, Nancy 


Stock, Christopher & Barbara
 

Storey, Bill 


Terry, Kent & Charlotte
 

Thompson
 

Thrush, Earl 


Thrush, Jakob 


Thrush, Richard 


Thrush, Valdo 


Treselle, Rodger
 

Ukeiley, Robert 


Ultican-Spear, Lois 


Wagensen-Coltrane, Mary
 

Wagensen-Fisher, Leslie 


Wagner, David & Jean
 

Walter, Michael 


Ward, Linda
 

Williams, John 


Williams, Keith 


Williams, Monica 


Wilmot, Roger 


Wing, Everett & Virginia 


Winland, Mark
 

Winninger, Lora 


Trusts 

AG Hoadley Memorial Trust 

Aline Mankin, Trustee 

Alta Vivian-Hayden Trust 

Barbara Evans Family Trust 

Bessie Mae Trust 

Boyd Family Mineral Trust 

Delmar Hudson Lewis Living Trust 

DJR Trust 

Douglas B. Bickerstaff Revocable Trust 

Doyle & Lora Hayden, Trust 

Doyle G. Hayden Revocable Trust 

5-12 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
 

5.0 Consultation and Coordination 

Table 5-3. BLM Distribution List for the South Gillette Area Final EIS (Continued). 

First Interstate Bank, Trustee
 

Frank Ford, Trustee 


Gary Hayden, Trust
 

Ira Douglas & Pauline B. Wilson Family 


Revocable Trust 

John Jacobs Revocable Trust 

Kathleen Mae Glade Trust 

Labin Garret, Trust 

Larry & Katherin Dunlap Family Trust 

Linda Rourke, Rev. Living Trust 

Lindys Living Trust 

Lorie Amie Hayden Revocable Trust 

Lorraine Broyles Family Trust 

Louisiana Land & Exploration Co. 

M & K Oil Company, Inc 

Marquiss Minerals, Inc. 

Marquiss Minerals, Inc. Little Buffalo Ranch 

Maxim Drilling & Exploration 

McCulloch Interstate Gas Corp. 

Nina Mae Evans Partnership Richard Evans, 

Trustee 


North Trust Company, co-trustee Robert
 

Mcllvain Jr. 

Oswald Family Trust, Louis Oswald, Trustee 

Paul Rourke Living Trust et al 

PDI Trust 

Robert & John Davis Family Revocable Trust 

Robert E & Joan B Davis Revocable Trust 

Separate Property Trust 

Tess Garret, Trust 

Thomas Dorough Family Trust 

Viola Wilmot, Trust 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 5-13 
6.0 References Cited 

6.0 REFERENCES CITED 

Allen & Crouch Petroleum Engineers, Inc. (A&C), 2008, Report of Findings, A 

reserve estimate of conventional oil and gas resources in the general 

South Gillette analysis area. Prepared for WWC Engineering, January 

30, 2008. 

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. Available from website on the Internet as of December 2007: 

<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, D.C. 

, 2006, Suggested Practices for Raptor Protection on Power Lines: The 

State of the Art in 2006, Edison Electric Institute/Raptor Research 

Foundation, Washington, DC, 125 pp. 

Barry, J. 2008. Uranium Update. Available from website on the Internet as of 

May 2009: <http://www.uraniumseek.com/news/UraniumSeek/ 

1208186646.php. Article posted April 8, 2008. Accessed May 23, 2008>. 

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. 

Biello, 2007, “New Power Plant Aims to Help Coal Clean Up.” Scientific 

American, Available from website on the Internet as of March 2009: 

<http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=new-power-plant-may-help-coalclean-up>. 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 6-1 
 

6.0 References Cited 

Bigelow, S., 2004, Personal communication between S. Bigelow, Executive 

Director, Campbell County Economic Development Corporation, and G. 

Blankenship, Blankenship Consulting, LLC, July 9. 

Billings Gazette, 2006, “Coal Dust on Railways Targeted,” March 18, 2006, 

Available from website on the Internet as of March 2009: 

<http://billingsgazette.net/articles/2006/03/18/news/wyoming/50­

dust.txt >. 

, 2007a, “Federal board OKs final segment of Tongue River Railroad,” by 

Matthew Brown, Associated Press, October 10, Available from website on 

the Internet as of March 2009: 

<http://www.billingsgazette.net/articles/2007/10/10/ 

news/state/17-rail.txt>. 

, 2007b, “Railroad owner aims to make deal for leasing coal,” by Jim 

Gransbery, Available from website on the Internet as of March 2009: 

<http:www.billingsgazette.net/articles/2007/10/13/news/state/21­

railroad.txt>. 

, 2007c, “BNSF tries to bust dust on rails,” Associated Press, Available 

from website on the Internet as of June 2009: 

<http://billingsgazette.net/articles/2007/07/03/news/wyoming/45­

dust.prt>. 

Bison Pipeline LLC, 2008, Bison Pipeline LLC Internet site, Available from 

website on the Internet as of March 2009: 

<http.//www.bisonpipelinellc.com/>. 

BKS Environmental Associates, Inc. (BKS), 2007a, Report of Findings, 

Vegetation sampling and mapping in the West Coal Creek LBA Tract 

general analysis area, 2007. Prepared for Coal Creek Mine. 

, 2007b, Report of Findings, Vegetation sampling and mapping in the 

Caballo West LBA Tract general analysis area, 2007. Prepared for 

Caballo Coal Mine. 

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, B987. 

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. 

6-2 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
 

 

6.0 References Cited 

Braunlin, Deanna, 2004, Personal communication between D. Braunlin, 

Campbell County Planner, Gillette, Wyoming, and B. Strom, Planera, 

Inc., November 18. 

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-YA-EA-84-002-1327. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of 

Land Management, Cheyenne, Wyoming. 

, 1984, Final 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. 

, 1985, Buffalo Resource Area Resource Management Plan 

Environmental Impact Statement. U.S. Department of the Interior, 

Bureau of Land Management, Buffalo Re-source Area, Casper, Wyoming. 

, 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. 

, 1992, Final West Rocky Butte Coal Lease Application Environmental 

Impact Statement. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land 

Management, Casper District Office, Casper, 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 2009: 

<http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/wy/programs/planning 

/rmps.Par.94672.File.dat/2001rmp_update.pdf >. 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 6-3 
6.0 References Cited 

, 2001b, Reasonably Foreseeable Development Scenario for Oil and Gas 

Development in the Buffalo Field Office Area, Campbell, Johnson and 

Sheridan Counties, Wyoming. 

, 2003, 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 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. 

, 2005b, 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. 

, 2005c, 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. 

, 2005d, 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. 

, 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, Instruction Memorandum No. 2006-153. Policy and Guidance 

on Conflicts between Coalbed Natural Gas and Surface Coal Mine 

Development in the Powder River Basin. Reissued May 11, 2006. 

6-4 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
 

6.0 References Cited 

, 2006b, Powder River Basin Coal Leases by Application Data Sheets. 

Available from website on the Internet as of March 2009: < 

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

Coal/lba_title.html >. 

, 2006c, 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. 

, 2006d, 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. 

, 2006e, 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. 

, 2007a, BLM Land and Mineral Use Record web site. Available from 

website on the Internet as of March 2009: 

<www.geocommunicator.gov/NILS-PARCEL2/map.jsp?MAP=MC>. 

, 2007b, Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Maysdorf Coal 

Lease Application – WYW154432. U.S. Department of the Interior, 

Bureau of Land Management, Cheyenne, Wyoming. 

, 2008a, NEPA Handbook H-1790-1. U.S. Department of the Interior, 

Bureau of Land Management, Washington, D.C. 

, 2008b, June 12, 2008 Letter from BLM to Governor Freudenthal. 

Available from website on the Internet as of March 2009: 

<http://governor.wy.gov/Media.aspx?MediaId=529>. 

, 2008c, Invited field survey. Observations and measurements by BLM 

Casper Field Office staff, July 7. 

, 2008d, West Antelope II DEIS Public Hearing. Gillette, WY. March 24, 

2008. 

, 2008e, Update of Task 3A Report for the Powder River Basin Coal 

Review Cumulative Air Quality Effects for 2015. 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, October 2008. 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 6-5 
 

6.0 References Cited 

, 2008f, 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. 

, 2008g, Final West Antelope II Coal Lease Application Environmental 

Impact Statement. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land 

Management, Casper District Office, Casper, Wyoming. 

, 2009a, Powder River Basin Coal Leases by Application Data Sheets. 

Available from website on the Internet as of May 2009: 

<http://www.blm.gov/wy/st/en/programs/energy/Coal_Resources/PRB 

_Coal/lba_title.html>. 

, 2009b, Split Estate. Available from website on the Internet as of March 

2009: < 

http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/energy/oil_and_gas/best_managem 

ent_practices/split_estate.html>. 

Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF), 2008, Advisory Board, July 9, 2008. 

Burget, Wanda, 2008, Sr. Manager - Regulatory Services – West Powder River 

Coal Company - Peabody Energy, personal communication with Frank 

Earthorne, Converse County Commissioners, Douglas, Wyoming, June 

26, 2008. 

Byer, Tim, 2003, USDA Forest Service Wildlife Biologist, Douglas Ranger 

District, Douglas, Wyoming, personal communication with Nancy 

Doelger, BLM, Casper Field Office, September 11 and 29, 2003. 

Caballo Coal Company (CCC), 2003, Caballo Mine Permit Application, 

WDEQ/LQD Surface Mine Permit 433-T5, approved June 14, 2003. On 

file with WDEQ/LQD in Cheyenne and Sheridan, Wyoming. 

, 2006, Caballo Mine 2005-2006 Annual Report. On file with 

WDEQ/LQD. Cheyenne and Sheridan, Wyoming. 

, 2007, Caballo Mine 2006-2007 Annual Mine and Reclamation Report. 

On file with WDEQ/LQD in Cheyenne and Sheridan, Wyoming. 

Campbell County, 2005, Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan for Campbell County, 

Town of Wright and City of Gillette. Prepared by Beck Consulting. Final 

– November 2005. Available from website on the Internet as of December 

2005: <http://ccg.co.campbell.wy.us/>. 

Campbell County Memorial Hospital (CCMH), 2005, Campbell County 

Memorial Hospital information. Available from website on the Internet as 

of March 2005: <http://www.ccmh.net>. 

6-6 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
 

 

6.0 References Cited 

Campbell County School District No. 1 (CCSD), 2007, Facts About Campbell 

County School District. Available from website on the Internet as of April 

2007: <http://esc.ccsd.k12.wy.us/hr/distinfo.html>. 

CAM-PLEX, 2005, CAM-PLEX Multi-Event Facilities. (Brochure) Gillette, 

Wyoming. Available from website on the Internet as of November 2005: 

<http://www.cam-plex.com>. 

CANAC, Inc., 2007, Presentation by CANAC, Inc. at the 2007 Coal Marketing 

Days in Pittsburg, PA. 

Canadian Pacific Railroad, 2008, “Canadian Pacific assumes operational 

control of DM&E Railroad,” October 30, 2008. Available from website on 

the Internet as of February 2009: 

<http://www8.cpr.ca/cms/english/media/news/investors/2008/canadi 

an+pacific+assumes+operational+control+of+dme.htm>. 

Casper Star Tribune, 2007a, “Coal dust concerns Converse,” March 12, 2007, 

Available from website on the Internet as of January 2008: 

<http://www.trib.com/articles/2007/03/12/news/Wyoming/>. 

, 2007b, “Will Wyo's electrical export ambitions go up in smoke?,” 

December 16, 2007, Available from website on the Internet as of August 

2008: <http://www.trib.com/articles/2007/12/16/news/wyoming/ 

79d40159e02ad89c872573b200649bb7.txt>. 

, 2007b, “Plant Promises Regional Impact”, by Richard Hodges, 

September 13. 

, 2007c, “Clean-Coal Investors Plead for Regulations,” by Dusting 

Bleizeffer, October 11. 

, 2007d, “Utility Snuffs Coal Projects,” by Dustin Bleizeffer, December 11. 

Center for Climate Strategies, 2007, Wyoming Greenhouse Gas Inventory and 

Reference Case Projections 1990-2020, report for Wyoming Department 

of Environmental Quality, available from website on the Internet as of 

November 2008: 

<http://www.climatestrategies.us/ewebeditpro/items/O25F18230.pdf>. 

Cerovski, A., M. Gorges, T. Byer, K. Duffy, and D. Felley, 2001, Wyoming Bird 

Conservation Plan, Version 1.0, Wyoming Partners in Flight, Wyoming 

Game and Fish Department, Lander, Wyoming. July 1, 2001. 

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, 206 pp. 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 6-7 
6.0 References Cited 

Chambers, J.C., 2006, Climate change and the Great Basin, in proceedings 

prepared for Collaborative Watershed Research and Management 

Conference: November 28-30, 2006, Reno, Nevada, accessible on the 

Internet at <http://www.cabnr.unr.edu/GreatBasinWatershed/Issues_ 

Papers.pdf>. 

Chancellor, Rick, 2003, Personal communication between R. Chancellor, 

WDEQ, Cheyenne State Office, and Nancy Doelger, BLM, Casper Field 

Office, 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. 

, 2008a, Community Development Department, Building and Planning 

Divisions, “Developing Gillette, The Development Summary for January – 

December 2007.” January 2008. Available from website on the Internet 

as of November 2008: <http://www.ci.gillette.wy.us>. 

, 2008b, Administrative Office, Gillette Regional Water Supply Project. 

Available from website on the Internet as of March 2009: 

<http://www.ci.gillette.wy.us/special/GRWSP.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 pp. 

Clark, M.L. and J.P. Mason, 2007, Water-quality characteristics for sites in the 

Tongue, Powder, Cheyenne, and Belle Fourche River drainage basins, 

Wyoming and Montana, Water Years 2001-05, with temporal patterns of 

selected long-term water quality data: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific 

Investigations Report 2007-5146, 65 pp. 

Clark, T.W. and M.R. Stromberg, 1987, Mammals in Wyoming. Museum of 

Natural History, University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas. 

6-8 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
 

6.0 References Cited 

Clayton, Kort M., John D. Berry, Patrick Farmer, Bruce Waage, Chris Yde, and 

Jessica M. Gregory, 2006, Small Mammal Reoccupancy Of Reclaimed 

Habitat: A Potential Indicator Of Reclamation Success. Paper presented at 

the 2006 Billings Land Reclamation Symposium, June 5-8, 2006, 

Billings, MT and jointly published by BLRS and ASMR, 3134 Montavesta 

Rd., Lexington, KY 40502. 

Community Strategies Institute (CSI), 2005, Campbell County Housing Needs 

Assessment. Prepared for the Campbell County Economic Development 

Corporation. Denver, Colorado. January 2005. 

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. 

Cordero Mining Company (CMC), 1999, Air Quality Permit Application for the 

Cordero Rojo Complex to combine the Caballo Rojo and Cordero Mines, 

Permit No. MD-457A, prepared for CMC by McVehil-Monnett Associates, 

Inc., January 1999. 

, 2007a, Cordero Rojo Mine 2006-07 Annual Report. On file with 

WDEQ/LQD, Cheyenne and Sheridan, Wyoming. 

, 2007b, Cordero Rojo Mine Permit, WDEQ/LQD Surface Mine Permit No. 

237-T8, approved March 26, 2007. On file with WDEQ/LQD, Cheyenne 

and Sheridan, Wyoming. 

, 2008, Cordero Rojo Mine 2007-08 Annual Report. On file with 

WDEQ/LQD, Cheyenne and Sheridan, Wyoming. 

Crist, M.A., 1991, Evaluation of groundwater-level changes near Gillette, 

northeastern Wyoming. U.S. Geological Survey, Water Resources 

Investigations Report 88-4196. 

De Bruin, R.H., 2002, Oil and Gas Fields Map of the Powder River Basin, 

Wyoming, MS-51. Wyoming State Geological Survey, Laramie, Wyoming. 

De Bruin, R.H. and R.M. Lyman, 1999, Coalbed Methane in Wyoming. Pages 

61-72 in: Coalbed Methane and Tertiary Geology of the Powder River 

Basin of Wyoming and Montana. Wyoming Geological Association 50th 

Field Conference Guidebook. 

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. 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 6-9 
 

6.0 References Cited 

DKRW Advanced Fuels (DKRW), 2009, Fact sheet about Medicine Bow Fuel and 

Power LLC coal to liquids process. Available from website on the Internet 

as of February 2009: 

<http://www.dkrwadvancedfuels.com/fw/main/Fact_Sheet-112.html>. 

DOI, 2001, Secretarial Order 3226, Department of the Interior. 

Emme, Doug, 2003, Personal communication with D. Emme, WDEQ/LQD, 

Blasting Program Principal, May 7. 

, 2007, Personal communication with D. Emme, WDEQ/LQD, Blasting 

Program Principal, April 2. 

, 2009, Personal communication with D. Emme, WDEQ/LQD, Blasting 

Program Principal, February 24and 25. 

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, 

Wyoming, 8 pp. 

ESCO Associates Inc. (ESCO), 1996, Report of Findings, Ute Ladies’-Tresses 

Surveys, Belle Ayr Mine, Campbell County, Wyoming. Prepared for 

submittal to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Wyoming Field Office, 

Cheyenne. 

, 2007a, Report of Findings, Vegetation sampling and mapping in the 

Maysdorf II LBA Tract general analysis area, 2005 and 2006. Prepared 

for Cordero Rojo Mine. 

, 2007b, Report of Findings, Vegetation sampling and mapping in the 

Belle Ayr North LBA Tract general analysis area, 2005 and 2006. 

Prepared for Belle Ayr Mine. 

Evergreen Energy, Inc. (Evergreen), 2009, K-Fuel refined coal fact sheet. 

Available from website on the Internet as of March 2009: 

<http://www.evgenergy.com/fact_sheets/Commercialization2.PDF>. 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), 2009, Bison Pipeline LLC – 

Notice of Filing, Docket No. CP09-161. Available from website on the 

Internet as of May 2009: < 

http://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/search/intermediate.asp?link_desc=yes& 

slcfilelist=11997630:0>. 

Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Office of Policy & Communications, 

February, 2008, “Freight Railroads Background”. Available from website 

on the Internet: <http://www.fra.dot.gov/downloads/policy/ 

freight2006%20final.pdf>, accessed July 22, 2008. 

6-10 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
6.0 References Cited 

Fitzgerald, J.P., C.A. Meaney, and D.M. Armstrong, 1994, Mammals of 

Colorado. Denver Museum of Natural History, Denver, Colorado. 

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. 

Foundation Coal West, Inc. (FCW), 2003, Belle Ayr Mine Permit Application, 

WDEQ/LQD Surface Mine Permit 214-T6, approved November 25, 2003. 

On file with WDEQ/LQD in Cheyenne and Sheridan, Wyoming. 

, 2006, Air Quality Permit No. MD-1476, approved November 7, 2006. 

On file with WDEQ/AQD in Cheyenne and Sheridan, Wyoming. 

, 2007, Belle Ayr Mine 2006-07 Annual Report. On file with 

WDEQ/LQD, Cheyenne and Sheridan, Wyoming. 

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. 

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. 

FutureGen, 2008, General information obtained from FutureGen Alliance 

website on the Internet as of July 2008: 

<http://www.futuregenalliance.org>. 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 6-11 
6.0 References Cited 

Gardiner, S., 1985, editor, Rumblings from the Razor City: The Oral History of 

Gillette, Wyoming, an Energy Boomtown. 

Gartrell, P., 2008, “The Quest to Harness the Wind.” The Gillette News-Record, 

March 29. 

Gillette Convention and Visitor’s Bureau, 2004, “Gillette, Wyoming – Take 

Another Look!” (Brochure). Gillette, Wyoming. 

Gillette News-Record, 2006, “Weary travelers compete with workers who need a 

place to stay,” by Kelsey Dayton, July 10. 

, 2007a, “Railway Officials Focus on Coal Dust Solutions,” by Peter 

Gartrell, July 1. 

, 2007b, “Two Elk Plant Inks Transmission Deal,” by the Associated 

Press, October 5. 

, 2007c, “Will Wright Boom?” by Peter Gartrell, October 19. 

, 2008a, “Coal's future: Environmentalist groups threaten to tie up new 

coal-burning power plants, even as the nation's demand for energy 

skyrockets,” by Matthew Brown, January 15. 

, 2008b, “Forum focuses on harnessing Wyoming's wind,” by Wendilyn 

Grasseschi, March 3. 

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. 

Hansen and Lebedeff, 1987, Global Trends of Measured Surface Air 

Temperature, 92 J. Geophysical Res. 345. 

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. 

6-12 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
 

 

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. 

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, 2000 GAGMO Annual Report. Prepared for Gillette Area 

Groundwater Monitoring Organization by Hydro-Engineering, LLC, 

Casper, Wyoming. 

, 2001b, GAGMO 20-Year Report. Prepared for Gillette Area 

Groundwater Monitoring Organization by Hydro-Engineering, LLC, 

Casper, Wyoming. 

, 2004, 2003 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. 

, 2007, GAGMO 25-Year 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. 

IML Air Science, 2009, Report of Findings, CO2e emission source values for the 

Hay Creek II LBA Tract. Prepared March 2009. 

IMPROVE, 2007, IMPROVE Summary Data – Summary data through 2007. 

Available from website on the Internet as of March 2009: 

<http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/improve/Data/IMPROVE/summary_dat 

a.htm>. 

Interline Resources, 2008, News releases: Interline Announces Completion of 

NorthCut Refinery and Interline Purchases Expansion Property. Available 

from website on the Internet as of May 2009: 

<http://www.interlineresources.com/News>. 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 6-13 
6.0 References Cited 

International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), 2001, Third Assessment Report: 

Climate Change 2001. Available from website on the Internet as of 

March 2009: <http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/index.htm>. 

Jahnke, L., 2005, Personal communication between L. Jahnke, Wildlife 

Management Coordinator, Wyoming Game and Fish Department, 

Sheridan, Wyoming and B. Strom, ENSR, May 20. 

, 2008, WGFD long-term data, provided by L. Jahnke, Regional Biologist, 

to PRB coal mine wildlife contractors (personal communication with 

Gwyn McKee of Thunderbird J&S). 

James, R., 2007, Electricity Technology in a Carbon-Constrained Future, 

Carnegie-Mellon University, November, 2007 and The Full Portfolio, an 

article by Revis James in Electric Perspectives, January/February 2008. 

Langston, Tom, 2005, Director of Gillette Department of Community 

Development. Personal communication with Ron Dutton, Economist. 

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. 

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, Inc., 1997, NO2 Concentrations in Northeastern 

Wyoming: Historical Data and Projections. Report prepared and 

submitted to WDEQ/AQD July 1997. 

6-14 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
 

 

 

 

6.0 References Cited 

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>. 

Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA), 1997, 645 Database, Wyoming 

Summary Employment and Injury Information. 

Morovits, Pam, 2005, Senior Water Systems Operator, City of Gillette Water 

Division, Gillette, Wyoming. Personal communication with B. Strom, 

Planera, Inc., January 14, 2005. 

MSNBC, 2007, “Canadian Pacific buying U.S. railroad DM&E.” September 5, 

2007, Available from website on the Internet as of February 2008: 

<http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20601064/>. 

Murphree, P.A., 2005, Tracking the Source: Backfill and Backfill Water Quality 

at a Large Powder River Basin Coal Mine. Presentation to the 2005 

National Meeting of the American Society of Mining and Reclamation, 

Breckenridge CO, June 19-23, 2005. Published by ASMR, 3134 

Montavesta Rd., Lexington, KY 40502. 

National Academy of Science, 2006, Managing Coal Combustion Residues in 

Mines. National Academies Press. Available from website on the Internet: 

<http://www.nap.edu/catalog/11592.html>. 

National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners (NARUC), 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 Coal Transportation Association (NCTA), 2007, “Ballast Fouling 

Initiative on the PRB Joint Line”. February 13 PowerPoint presentation. 

Available from website on the Internet: 

<http://www.nationalcoaltransportation.org/events/BallastFoulingMitig 

ation _2_13_07.pdf>, accessed July 23, 2008. 

, 2008, Mission statement. Available from website on the Internet as of 

July 2008: <http:// www.nationalcoaltransportation.org>. 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 1969, 

Climatography of the United States: Asheville, North Carolina, National 

Climatic Center, Climatological Summaries, No. 20-48. 

, 2009, Greenhouse Gases Frequently Asked Questions. Available from 

website on the Internet as of February 2009: 

<http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/gases.html>. 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 6-15 
 

 

6.0 References Cited 

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, pp. 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 pp. 

Oedekoven, O.O., 1994, Distribution, habitat use, and population dynamics of 

the Rochelle Hills elk herd, Final Report, Wyoming Game and Fish 

Department, Gillette, Wyoming. 

, 2001, Sage-Grouse Job Completion Report, Sheridan Region, Wyoming 

Game and Fish Department. 

Office of the Governor of Wyoming, 2008, Executive Order 2008-2: Greater 

Sage-Grouse Core Area Protection. Available from website on the 

Internet as of January 2009: 

<http://governor.wy.gov/Media.aspx?MediaId=588>. 

Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM), 1980, Noise 

impact assessment for the Caballo Rojo Mine. Unpublished report 

prepared by James M. Montgomery, Consulting Engineers, Inc. Aurora, 

Colorado. 

, 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. 

, 2008, 2008 Annual Revaluation (July 1, 2007 to June 30, 2008). 

Available from website on the Internet as of January 2009: 

<http://www.osmre.gov/Reports/EvalInfo/2008/WY08-reg.pdf>. 

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., and M. Calle, 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-19. 122 p. 

6-16 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
 

6.0 References Cited 

Ogle, K.M., M. Calle, and C. Kimmi, 2004, Cumulative Hydrological Impact 

Assessment of Coal Mining in the Middle Powder River Basin, Wyoming. 

Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality, Land Quality Division, 

WDEQ-CHIA-11. 

Ogle, K.M., M. Calle, G. Mooney, and D.N. Dornak, 2005, Cumulative 

Hydrological Impact Assessment (CHIA) of Coal Mining in the Middle 

Powder River Basin, Wyoming. Wyoming Department of Environmental 

Quality, Land Quality Division, WDEQ-CHIA-14. 

Orpet, J., 2007, Maysdorf II Wildlife Technical Report document submitted to 

WWC Engineering and on file with BLM Casper Field Office. 

PacifiCorp, 2007, Wyoming Industrial Development Information and Siting Act 

109 Application Permit, Glenrock/Rolling Hills Wind Energy Project. 

Available from website on the Internet as of May 2008: 

<http://deq.state.wy.us/isd/downloads/Glenrock%20ISA%20Final_11­

25-07.pdf>. 

Painter, C.L., 2009, Personal communication between C. Painter, U.S. Forest 

Service Wildlife Biologist, Douglas, Wyoming, and WWC Engineering, 

regarding 2007 and 2008 sage-grouse data, May 28, 2009. 

Patton, T.M., 1997, Distribution and status of fishes in the Missouri River 

drainage in Wyoming: Implications for identifying conservation areas. 

PhD Dissertation, University of Wyoming, Laramie, Wyoming. 

Pederson Planning Consultants, 2001, Appendix D, in the Wyoming Energy 

Commission, Preliminary Progress Report to the Wyoming Legislature, 

Joint Minerals, Business and Economic Development Committee, 

December 14, 2001. Draft Report commissioned by the Wyoming Energy 

Commission, 34 pp. 

Pitchford, M.L. and W.C. Malm, 1994, Development and Applications of a 

Standard Visual Index, in Atmospheric Environment, 28(5): 1,049-54. 

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. 

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. 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 6-17 
 

6.0 References Cited 

Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation (RMEF), 2007, Rocky Mountain Elk 

Foundation News Release, RTEA and Jacobs Ranch Mine Donate 

Conservation Easement to Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, June 25, 

2007. Available from website on the Internet as of July 2007: 

<http://www.rmef.org/NewsandMedia/NewsReleases/2007/ 

JacobsRanch.htm>. 

ROMCOE, 1982, Center for Environmental Problem Solving, Rapid Growth 

Communities Project, Community Profiles. Boulder Colorado, July 1982. 

Sage Grouse Implementation Team, 2008, March 25, 2008 Letter from Sage 

Grouse Implementation Team to Governor Freudenthal. Available from 

website on the Internet as of February 2009: 

<http://governor.wy.gov/Media.aspx?MediaId=472>. 

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, 1999, A User’s Guide for the 

CALPUFF Dispersion Model (Version 5.0). Earth Tech, Inc., Concord, 

Massachusetts. October 1999. 

Shamley, Judy, 2008, Personal communication with J. Shamley, WDEQ/AQD, 

Senior Engineering Analyst. 

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. 

SourceWatch, 2007, Wygen Unit 3, Available from website on the Internet as of 

February 2009: 

<http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Wygen_Unit_3>. 

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. 

6-18 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
 

 

 

 

6.0 References Cited 

Straskraba, Vladimir, 1986, Groundwater Recovery Problems Associated with 

Open Pit Reclamation in the Western U.S. International Journal of Mine 

Water and the Environment, Vol. 5, No. 4. December 1986. 

Stratham, A., 2005, Personal communication between A. Stratham, Wyoming 

Game and Fish Department and B. Strom, ENSR, May 12, 2005. 

Strathmore Minerals Corporation, 2008, News release: Strathmore Completes 

Southwest Reno Creek, Wyoming NI 43-101 Technical Report. April 22, 

2008. Available from website on the Internet as of May 2009: 

<http://www.strathmoreminerals.com/s/NewsReleases.asp>. 

Surface Transportation Board (STB), 2006, News release, “STB issues Final 

SEIS on Dakota, Minnesota & Eastern’s PRB Expansion Project.” 

Available from website on the Internet as of January 2006: 

<http://www.stb.dot.gov/>. 

, 2008, News release, “Surface Transportation Board Approves Canadian 

Pacific Railway's Acquisition of Control of the Dakota, Minnesota & 

Eastern Railroad, Subject To Conditions.” Available from website on the 

Internet as of February 2009: 

<http://www.stb.dot.gov/__85256593004F576F.nsf/0/92E608894122E 

673852574D40051052C?OpenDocument>. 

Tausch, R.J., Nowak, C.L., and Mensing, S.A., 2004, Climate change and 

associated vegetation dynamics during the Holocene: The Paleoecological 

Record, in Great Basin Riparian Ecosystems: Ecology, Management, and 

Restoration, edited by J.C. Chambers and J.R. Miller, Island Press. 

Thiele, Dan, 2009, Personal communication between D. Thiele, Wyoming Game 

and Fish Department Wildlife Biologist, Buffalo, Wyoming, and WWC 

Engineering, regarding 2007 and 2008 sage-grouse data, May 7, 2009. 

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. 

, 2005, Chapter 6, Section 2 Permit Modification for Thunder Basin Coal 

Company, LLC Coal Creek Mine, WDEQ Air Quality Permit, Submitted 

September 2005. 

, 2006, Coal Creek Mine Permit Application, WDEQ/LQD Surface Mine 

Permit 483-T5, approved June 20, 2006. On file with WDEQ/LQD in 

Cheyenne and Sheridan, Wyoming. 

, 2007, Coal Creek Mine 2006-2007 Annual Mine and Reclamation 

Report. On file with WDEQ/LQD in Cheyenne and Sheridan, Wyoming. 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 6-19 
6.0 References Cited 

, 2009, Historical NOX data provided by Black Thunder Mine for the 

Tracy Ranch monitoring site, January 2009. 

Thunderbird-Jones & Stokes (TJS), 2007, Personal communications with G. 

McKee, TJS, January 11, 2007. 

Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR), 2005, Southern Powder River Updates – 2005, 

Available from website on the Internet as of January 2008: 

<http://www.uprr.com/customers/energy/sprb/updates_2005.shtm>. 

, 2006, Southern Powder River Updates – 2006 Year-End Review, 

Available from website on the Internet as of January 2008: 

<http://www.uprr.com/customers/energy/sprb/updates.shtm>. 

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 Economic Analysis, 2006, Regional Economic Information 

System – Full-time and Part-time Employment by NAICS, 1969 – 2004 

and Personal Income and Earnings NAICS, 1969 – 2004, Available from 

website on the Internet: <http://www.bea.gov/regional/ 

index.htm#state>. 

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/>. 

, 2008, Local Area Unemployment Statistics – 1997 to 2006, Not 

Seasonally Adjusted. Available from website on the Internet as of 

November 2008: <http://data.bls.gov/>. 

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 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/CO-EST2006-01.html>. 

, 2006b, 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/HU-EST2005-4.html>. 

6-20 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
6.0 References Cited 

, 2007, Annual Estimates of Population for Counties of Wyoming: April 1, 

2000 to July 1, 2007 (CO-EST2007-01-56), March 20, 2008, Available 

from website on the Internet as of August 2008: 

<http://www.census.gov/popest/counties/CO-EST2007-01.html>. 

U.S. Climate Change Science Program, 2008, The effects of climate change on 

agriculture, land resources, water resources, and biodiversity in the 

United States. Available from website on the Internet as of May 2009: 

<http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap4-3/finalreport/default.htm>. 

U.S. 	Department of Agriculture – Forest Service (USFS), 1987, Plant 

Associations of Region Two, Edition 4, USDA-FS publication RC-ECOL87-2. USDA-FS Rocky Mountain Region, Lakewood, Colorado. 429 pp. 

, 2006, Environmental Assessment – Yates Petroleum Corporation 

Marine Coal Bed Natural Gas Development Project. USDA–FS Douglas 

Ranger District, Medicine Bow-Routt National Forests and Thunder 

Basin National Grassland, Campbell County, Wyoming, June 2006. 

Available from website on the Internet as of July 2006: 

<http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/mbr/projects/mineral/adobepdf/Yates 

Marine_EA_Final.pdf>. 

, 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. 

U.S. Department of Energy (USDOE), 1994, “Carbon Dioxide Emission Factors 

for Coal”. DOE/EIA-0121(94/Q1), August 1994. Available from website 

on the Internet as of May 2009: 

<http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/coal/quarterly/co2_article/co2.html>. 

, 2006, “Mercury Emission Control R&D,” Available from website on the 

Internet as of July 2008: <http://www.fossil.energy.gov/ 

programs/powersystems/pollutioncontrols/overview_mercurycontrols.ht 

ml>. 

, 2007a, “Emissions of Greenhouse Gases in the United States 2006.” 

Available from website on the Internet as of December 2007: 

<http://www.eia.doe.gov/fuelcoal.html>. 

, 2007b, “2006 Annual Report.” Available from website on the Internet 

as of December 2007: <http://www.eia.doe.gov/fuelcoal.html>. 

, 2007c, Energy Information Administration’s Annual Energy Review 

2007. Statistics on coal production, consumption by sector, exports by 

country, stocks; prices; mining productivity; coke. Available from 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 6-21 
 

6.0 References Cited 

website on the Internet as of February 2009: 


<http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/coal.html>. 


, 2008a, “Emissions of Greenhouse Gases in the United States 2007.” 

Available from website on the Internet as of February 2009: 

<http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/ggrpt/methane.html>. 

, 2008b, Annual Coal Report 2007, Released September 2008, Coal 

Production and Number of Mines by State and Mine Type. Available from 

website on the Internet as of February 2009: 

<http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/coal/page/acr/table1.html>. 

, 2008c, Annual Energy Outlook 2008, Report, April 2008. Available 

from website on the Internet as of February 2009: 

<http://www.eia.doe.gov/bookshelf/brochures/aeo/index.html>. 

U.S. Department of Labor (USDOL), 2009, “MSHA’s Mission”. 	Available from 

website on the Internet as of July 2009: 

<http://www.msha.gov/MSHAINFO/MISSION.HTM>. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 1974, (Environmental Protection 

Agency). Information on Levels of Environmental Noise Requisite to Protect 

Public Health and Welfare with an Adequate Margin of Safety. EPA 550/9­

74-004. March. NNA19870406.0098. 

, 2001a, Region 8 comment letter to Nancy Doelger, BLM, on the North 

Jacobs Ranch Coal Lease Application 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. 

, 2002, Characterization and Management of Residues from Coal-Fired 

Power Plants, Interim Report, EPA-600/R-02-083. U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, December 2002. 

, 2003a, 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. 

, 2003b, “Coal Combustion Products Partnership (C2P2)” Fact Sheet. 

EPA530-F-03-004. January 2003. 

, 2005a, 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>. 

6-22 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
 

 

 

6.0 References Cited 

, 2005b, EPA May 20, 2005 News Release: Coal Waste Becomes Viable 

Product, Available from website on the Internet as of May 2008: 

<http://www.circainfo.ca/pdf/ US%20EPA%20Press%20Release.pdf>. 

, 2006, “EPA’s Roadmap for Mercury”. EPA-HQ-OPPT-2005-0013, 

Available from website on the Internet as of July 2008: 

<http://www.epa.gov/mercury/roadmap.htm. 

, 2007a, Particle Pollution, Health and Environment. Available from 

website on the Internet as of May 2009: <http://www.epa.gov/air 

/particlepollution/health.html>. 

, 2007b, NOx – How Nitrogen Oxides Affect the Way We Live and Breath – 

Health and Environmental Impacts of NOx. Available from website on 

the Internet as of May 2009: 

<http://www.epa.gov/air/urbanair/nox/hlth.html>. 

, 2007c, America’s Wetlands: Our Vital Link Between Land and Water. 

Available from website on the Internet as of July 2007: 

<http://www.epa.gov/owow/wetlands/vital/wetlands.pdf>. 

, 2007d, Clean Water Act Jurisdiction Memorandum following the U.S. 

Supreme Court’s Rapanos decision, June 5, 2007. Available from 

website on the Internet as of December 2007: 

<http://www.epa.gov/owow/wetlands/pdf/RapanosGuidance6507.pdf>. 

, 2007e, Clean Energy, eGRID, 2006 Version 2.1, April 2007. 

, 2007f, “About Coal Combustion Products,” Available from website on 

the Internet as of May 2009: 

<http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/conserve/rrr/imr/ccps/index.htm>. 

, 2007g, “Fly Ash,” Available from website on the Internet as of May 

2009: 

<http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/conserve/rrr/imr/ccps/flyash.htm>. 

, 2007h, “Bottom Ash,” Available from website on the Internet as of May 

2009: 

<http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/conserve/rrr/imr/ccps/bottomash.htm 

>. 

, 2007i, “Boiler Slag,” Available from website on the Internet as of May 

2009: 

<http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/conserve/rrr/imr/ccps/boilslag.htm >. 

, 2007j, “Flue Gas Desulfurization Material,” Available from website on 

the Internet as of May 2009: 

<http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/conserve/rrr/imr/ccps/fgd.htm>. 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 6-23 
 

 

 

6.0 References Cited 

, 2008a, “Climate Change – Science – State of Knowledge” webpage. 

Available from website on the Internet as of May 2009: 

<http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/stateofknowledge.html>. 

, 2008b, “Transportation and Climate.” Available from website on the 

Internet as of May 2009: <http://www.epa.gov/otaq/climate/>. 

, 2008c, “Mercury: Basic Information,” Available from website on the 

Internet as of May 2009: <http://www.epa.gov/mercury/ 

about.htm>. 

, 2008d, “Environmental and Health Information,” Available from website 

on the Internet as of May 2009: 

<http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/partnerships/c2p2/use/effects.htm >. 

, 2008e, “EPA Recognizes Leadership in Beneficial Uses of Industrial 

Materials,” Available from website on the Internet as of May 2009: 

<http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/0/4F3C92C9741B1827852 

5747A00632626>. 

,2009a, AirData Monitor Values Report – Criteria Air Pollutants (PM2.5 

and PM10) and Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) for Campbell and Converse 

Counties, Wyoming. Available from website on the Internet as of January 

2009: <http://oaspub.epa.gov/pls/airsdata/adaqs.monvals>. 

, 2009b, “NOx: What is it? Where does it come from?” Six common air 

pollutants. Available from website on the Internet as of January 2009: 

<http://www.epa.gov/air/urbanair/nox/what.html>. 

,2009c, Reducing Acid Rain. Available from website on the Internet as of 

May 2009: <http://www.epa.gov/acidrain/reducing/>. 

, 2009d, Proposed Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for 

Greenhouse Gases Under the Clean Air Act. Available from website on 

the Internet as of May 2009: 

<http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/endangerment.html>. 

, 2009e, Clean Energy, Air Emissions. Available from website on the 

Internet as of February 2009: 

<http://www.epa.gov/solar/energy-and-you/affect/air-emissions.html>. 

, 2009f, “Mercury Emissions: The Global Context,” Available from website 

on the Internet as of May 2009: 

<http://www.epa.gov/mercury/control_emissions/global.htm>. 

, 2009g, “Benefits of Using CCPs,” Available from website on the Internet 

as of May 2009

 <http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/partnerships/c2p2/use/benefits.htm>. 

6-24 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
 

6.0 References Cited 

, 2009h, Coal Combustion Products Partnership, C2P2. Available from 

website on the Internet as of May 2009: 

<http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/partnerships/c2p2/index.htm>. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 2000, 12-month finding for a petition 

to list the black-tailed prairie dog as threatened. Published in the 

Federal Register, February 4, 2000: Federal Register 65 (24): 5476 – 

5488. 

, 2002 , 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. 

, 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; August 12, 

2004 Finding for the Resubmitted Petition to List the Black-Tailed Prairie 

Dog as Threatened. Federal Register 69 (159): 51217. 

, 2008, Mountain/Prairie Region Endangered Species Program -

Mountain Plover, Available from website on the Internet as of January 

2008:www.fws.gov/mountain%2Dprairie/species/birds/mountainplover. 

, 2009, Recent actions on the black-tailed prairie dog. Endangered 

Species of the Mountain-Prairie Region. Available from website on the 

Internet as of January 2009: 

<http://www.fws.gov/mountain%2Dprairie/species/mammals/btprairie 

dog/> 

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), 2000, Health Impacts of Coal Combustion. 

USGS Fact Sheet FS-094-00. 

, 2002a, 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. 

, 2002b, Characterization and Modes of Occurrence of Elements in Feed 

Coal and Fly Ash—An Integrated Approach. USGS Fact Sheet-038-02. 

May 2002. 

, 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>. 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 6-25 
 

 

6.0 References Cited 

, 2006, Assessment of Undiscovered Oil and Gas Resources of the 

Powder River Basin Province of Wyoming and Montana – 2006 Update. 

Fact Sheet 2006-3135. December. 

, 2008, State-By-State List of Mining Region – Wyoming, Available from 

website on the Internet as of August 2008: 

<http://neic.usgs.gov/neis/mineblast/source.html>. 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (USNRC). 2008a, Application for Source 

Material License Moore Ranch Uranium Project - Environmental Report 

Volume I) - Letter from Energy Metals, Submitting Source Materials 

License Application for Moore Ranch Uranium Project. Available from 

website on the Internet as of May 2009: 

<http://adamswebsearch2.nrc.gov/idmws/ViewDocByAccession.asp?Acc 

essionNumber=ML072851218>. 

, 2008b, Uranerz Energy Corporation - Submittal of Source Material 

License Application to Construct and Operate the Nichols Ranch ISR 

Project Located in Campbell and Johnson Counties, Wyoming. Available 

from website on the Internet as of May 2009: 

<http://adamswebsearch2.nrc.gov/idmws/ViewDocByAccession.asp?Acc 

essionNumber=ML080080594>. 

, 2008c, Expected Uranium Recovery Facility Applications 

/Restarts/Expansions. Available from website on the Internet as of May 

2009: <http://www.nrc.gov/info-finder/materials/uranium/2008-urprojects-list-public.pdf>. 

Van Voast, W.A., and J.C. Reiten, 1988, Hydrogeologic response–twenty years 

of surface coal mining in southeastern Montana: Montana Bureau of 

Mines and Geology Memoir 62. 

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, 43 pp. 

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, USDAForest Service, and Wyoming Agricultural Experiment Station. 

6-26 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
6.0 References Cited 

Western Regional Climate Center (WRCC), 2007, Historical climatological data 

for the Gillette 9 ESE Station. Available from website on the Internet as 

of September 2007: <http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/cgibin/cliMONtpre.pl?wy3855>. 

Western Water Consultants (WWC), 1992, Geology, Geomorphology and 

Essential Hydrologic Functions of Caballo, Bone Pile, and Duck Nest 

Creeks for the 214-T4 Extension Area. Prepared for AMAX Coal Co., 

March 6, 1992. Appears as Appendix 2.11-12, Volume 8, Belle Ayr Mine 

Permit 214-T6. On file with WDEQ/LQD in Cheyenne and Sheridan, 

Wyoming offices. 

, 2009a, EIS Technical Support Document CO2e Emissions Calculations 

- Belle Ayr North LBA Tract, West Coal Creek LBA Tract, Caballo West 

LBA Tract, and Maysdorf II LBA Tract. Prepared March 2009. 

, 2009b, EIS Technical Support Document CO2e Emissions Calculations 

- Hilight Field LBA Tracts, West Jacobs Ranch LBA Tract, and Porcupine 

LBA Tracts. Prepared March 2009. 

Williams, M. 2008, CEO Interline Resources. Personal communication with R. 

Dutton, Sammons/Dutton LLC. June 9, 2008. 

Winterfeld, G.F., 1978, Unpublished field notes, surveys of coal mines in 

Powder River Basin, Wyoming. 

World Information Service on Energy, 2007, New Uranium Mining Projects ­

Wyoming, USA. Available from website on the Internet as of May 2009: < 

http://www.wise-uranium.org/upusawy.html>. 

Wyoming Community Development Authority (WCDA), 2007, The 2007 

Wyoming Housing Needs Forecast – Final Report. Available from website 

on the Internet as of November 2008: 

<http://www.wyomingcda.com/FRCST_2007_Final.pdf>. 

, 2008, The 2008 Wyoming Profile of Demographics, Economics and 

Housing, Semiannual Report, Ending June 30, 2008, Available on the 

internet as of October 2008: <http://www.wcda.state.wy.us>. 

Wyoming Consensus Revenue Estimating Group (Wyoming CREG), 2007, 

Wyoming State Government Revenue Forecast, Fiscal year 2008- Fiscal 

2012, October 2007. Available from website on the Internet as of 

January 2008: <http://eadiv.state.wy.us>. 

, 2008, Wyoming State Government Revenue Forecast, Fiscal year 2008-

Fiscal 2012, January 2008. Available from website on the Internet as of 

March 2008: <http://eadiv.state.wy.us>. 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 6-27 
6.0 References Cited 

Wyoming Department of Administration and Information, 2006, Economic 

Analysis Division. Wyoming population, cost of living, economic, and 

demographic data. Available from website on the Internet as of 

December 2006: <http://eadiv.state.wy.us>. 

, 2007a, Equality State Almanac. Population economic and demographic 

information. Available from website on Internet as of December 2007: 

<http://eadiv.state.wy.us>. 

, 2007b, Wyoming Cost of Living Index for Second Quarter of 2007. 

Available from website on Internet as of December 2007: 

<http://eadiv.state.wy.us>. 

, 2008, Economic Analysis Division, Wyoming Cost of Living Index for 

Second Quarter of 2008. Available from website on Internet as of 

November 2008: <http://eadiv.state.wy.us>. 

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>. 

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. 

, 1998, Office of the State Inspector of Mines, Annual Report for the Year 

Ending December 31, 1998. 

, 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. 

, 2005, Office of the State Inspector of Mines, Annual Report for the Year 

Ending December 31, 2005. 

6-28 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
6.0 References Cited 

, 2006, Office of the State Inspector of Mines, Annual Report for the Year 

Ending December 31, 2006. 

, 2007a, Office of the State Inspector of Mines, Annual Report for the 

Year Ending December 31, 2007. 

, 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>. 

, 2008a, Labor Market Information Fourth Quarter 2007. Available from 

website on the Internet as of March 2008: 

<http://www.doe.state.wy.us/lmi/07Q4_QCEW/07q4t65.htm>. 

, 2008b, Research and Planning Division. Wyoming Labor Force Trends, 

Vol. 45, No. 3. Available from website on the Internet as of November 

2008: <http://www.doe.state.wy.us/LMI/0308/laus2.htm>. 

Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality/Air Quality Division 

(WDEQ/AQD), 2004, Letter from Dan Olson, AQD Administrator and 

John Corra, WDEQ Director, to Kimberly Wolf, CMC Environmental 

Engineer, approving Cordero Rojo Mine’s modified dust control system, 

dated September 17, 2004. 

, 2005a, Wyoming State Implementation Plan for Class I Visibility 

Protection available from website on the Internet as of December 2005: 

<http://deq.state.wy.us/aqd/downloads/AirMonitor>. 

, 2005b, Wyoming Visibility Monitoring Network. Available from website 

on the Internet as of February 2005: <http://www.wyvisnet.com/ 

all.html>. 

, 2005c, Emissions monitoring data available from website on the 

Internet as of December 2005: <http://deq.state.wy.us/aqd/downloads/ 

AirMonitor>. 

, 2007, Natural Events Action Plan For The Coal Mines Of The Powder 

River Basin Of Campbell & Converse Counties, Wyoming. Available from 

website on the Internet as of January 2008: 

<http://deq.state.wy.us/AQD/NEAP%20Files/1-23-07NEAP.pdf>. 

, 2008a, Wyoming Ambient Air Monitoring Annual Network Plan - 2008. 

Available from website on the Internet as of June 2009: 

<http://deq.state.wy.us/aqd/downloads/AirMonitor/Network%20Plan_2 

008.pdf>. 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 6-29 
 

 

 

 

 

6.0 References Cited 

, 2008b, Permit Application for Thunder Basin Coal Company, LLC’s 

Application to Modify Operations at the Coal Creek Mine, Available at the 

Sheridan District Office, March 25, 2008. 

, 2008c, Wyoming Ambient Air Monitoring Annual Network Plan 2008. 

Available from website on the Internet as of May 2009: 

<http://deq.state.wy.us/AQD/downloads/AirMonitor/Network%20Plan_ 

2008.pdf>. 

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 Environmental Quality/Land Quality Division 

(WDEQ/LQD), 1988, Letter from Rick Engelmann, WDEQ/LQD Technical 

Support to Mickey Steward, AMAX Coal Co., stating that the portions of 

Caballo, Duck Nest, and Bone Pile Creeks located in the Duck Nest 

Amendment Area are not significant to farming, dated July 14, 1988. On 

file with WDEQ/LQD in Cheyenne and Sheridan, Wyoming offices. 

, 1996, Cordero Mine State Decision Document, Permit No. 237-T5, 

Change No. 13, Amendment No. 1, Item No. 2(f), p. 5. January 12, 1996. 

On file with WDEQ/LQD, Cheyenne and Sheridan, Wyoming. 

, 2001, Land Quality Rules and Regulations - Coal, Chapter 3. Permits 

for Special Categories of Surface Coal Mining, adapted June 4, 2001. 

Available from website on the Internet as of January 2009: 

<http://soswy.state.wy.us/Rules/RULES/4407.pdf>. 

, 2004, Cordero Mine State Decision Document, Permit No. 237-T7. 

Permit Renewal, September 16, 2004. On file with WDEQ/LQD in 

Cheyenne and Sheridan, Wyoming offices. 

, 2005a, Chapter 4 Environmental Protection Performance Standards for 

Surface Coal Mining Operations. Available from website on the Internet 

as of May 2009: Available from website on the Internet as of February 

2009: <http://soswy.state.wy.us/Rules/RULES/6002.pdf >. 

, 2005b, Thunder Basin Coal Company, Coal Creek Mine State Decision 

Document, Permit No. 483-T5, Signed, September 7, 2005. On file with 

WDEQ/LQD in Cheyenne and Sheridan, Wyoming offices. 

, 2007, Letter from Richard Chancellor, WDEQ/LQD Administrator, to 

Roy Liedtke, Cordero Mining Company, October 2, 2007. 

6-30 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
 

 

6.0 References Cited 

, 2008, Personal communication (email) from Don McKenzie, 

WDEQ/LQD Administrator, Cheyenne to Teresa Johnson, BLM, Casper 

regarding comments to the SGAC DEIS, December 16, 2008. 

Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality/Water Quality Division 

(WDEQ/WQD), 2005, Water Quality Rules and Regulations, Chapters 1 

and 8 (Wyoming Surface Water and Groundwater Quality Standards, 

respectively). Available from website on the Internet as of December 

2005: <http://deq.state.wy.us/wqd/WQDrules/>. 

, 2007, Water Quality Rules and Regulations, Chapter 1. Quality 

Standards for Wyoming Surface Waters, adapted February 16, 2007. 

Available from website on the Internet as of December 2007: 

<http://deq.state.wy.us/wqd/WQDrules/>. 

Wyoming Department of Revenue, 2004, Excise Tax Division, Sales and Use 

Tax Distribution Reports for Fiscal Year 2004. Available from website on 

the Internet as of March 2005: <http://revenue.state.wy.us/PortalVBVS 

/DesktopDefault.aspx?tabindex=3&tabid=10>. 

, 2006, Annual Report 2006, Available from website on the Internet: 

<http://revenue.state.wy.us/PortalVBVS/DesktopDefault.aspx?tabindex 

=3&tabid=10>. 

Wyoming Department of Transportation (WYDOT), 2008, State Transportation 

Improvement Program STIP 2008 – WYDOT Planning Program. Available 

from website on the Internet as of May 2009: 

<http://dot.state.wy.us/FileDownload.jsp?sCode=stpei&sDID=18264030 

23>. 

Wyoming Game and Fish Department (WGFD), 2003, Wyoming Greater SageGrouse Conservation Plan, June 24, 2003. Available from website on the 

Internet: <http://gf.state.wy.us/wildlife/wildlife_management/sage 

grouse.asp>. 

, 2004, Casper and Sheridan Region 2004 Annual Big Game Herd Unit 

Report. 

, 2006, Northeast Wyoming Working Group 2005 Annual Sage-Grouse 

Completion Report. Available from website on the Internet: 

<http://gf.state.wy.us/wildlife/wildlife_management/sagegrouse/pdf/20 

05sgjcrsbyregion/Northeast.pdf>. 

, 2008, Casper and Sheridan Region 2007 Annual Big Game Herd Unit 

Report. 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 6-31 
6.0 References Cited 

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>. 

Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (WOGCC), 2004, Wyoming 

Statistics. Available from website on the Internet: 

<http://WOGCC.state.wy.us/cfdocs/2002stats.html>. 

, 2005a, Personal communication with W. Berg, ENSR, regarding 

Application for Permit to Drill (APD) approvals, April 14, 2005. 

, 2005b, Rules and Statues. Available from website on the Internet as of 

March 2005: <http://wogcc.state.wy.us>. 

, 2007a, Oil and gas well information downloaded from website on the 

Internet as of December 2007: <http://wogc.state.wy.us>. 

, 2007b, 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: <Error! Hyperlink 

reference not valid.>. 

, 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 BLM Office-Reservoir Management Group (WSO-RMG), 2005, 

Review of Coalbed Natural Gas and Conventional Oil and Gas Reservoirs, 

Production and Economy, Eagle Butte LBA EIS, Powder River Basin, 

Wyoming, unpublished report, September 2005. 

, 2006, Review of Coalbed Natural Gas Resources, Production, and 

Economics, Powder River Basin, Wyoming. 

Wyoming State Board of Equalization, 2007, Wyoming Abstract & Mill Levy 

Report, 2006. Available from website on the Internet: 

<http://tasappeals.state.wy.us/s26abs1valueonly.htm.> 

Wyoming State Geological Survey (WSGS), 2002, Wyoming Geo-notes, No. 73, 

April 2002, 44 pp. 

6-32 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
 

 

 

6.0 References Cited 

, 2003, Wyoming Geo-Notes No. 78, November 2003, 47 pp. 

, 2004, Wyoming Geo-notes, No. 81, November 2004, 38 pp. 

, 2005, Industrial Minerals and Uranium Section, Uranium Page. 

Available from website on the Internet as of November 2005: 

<http://www.wsgs.uwyo.edu/minerals/uranium.aspx>. 

, 2006, Wyoming Minerals Update: Coal. July to December, 2005, by 

Nick Jones. Available from website on the Internet as of November 2006: 

<http://www.wsgs.uwyo.edu/djvu/default.aspx>. 

, 2008, Wyoming State Geological Survey, “Wyoming Mineral Update: 

Coal,” Available from website on the Internet as of February 2008: 

<http://www.wsgs.uwyo.edu/djvufirsthalf2006/Coal%20first% 

20half%202006.pdf>. 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 6-33 
7.0 Glossary 

7.0 GLOSSARY 

aboriginal - Related to early or primitive cultures in a region. Being the first or 

earliest known of its kind in a specific 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. 

anthropogenic - A direct result of human activities or are the result of natural 

processes that have been affected by human activities (IPCC/UNEP/OECD/IEA 

1997). 

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. In hydrology, a rock layer or 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 7-1 
7.0 Glossary 

sequence that contains water and releases it in appreciable amounts. The 

rocks contain water-filled pores that, when connected, allow water to flow 

through their matrix. A confined aquifer is overlain by a rock layer that does 

not transmit water in any appreciable amount or that is impermeable. There 

probably are few truly confined aquifers. In an unconfined aquifer the upper 

surface (water table) is open to the atmosphere through permeable overlying 

material. An aquifer also may be called a water-bearing stratum, lens, or zone. 

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. 

area source – A plant site that does not emit any single HAP (Hazardous Air 

Pollutants) 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. 

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 – An absorptive and colloidal clay used especially as a sealing agent 

or suspending agent 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)]. 

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. 

carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) - Measures for describing how much global 

warming a given type and amount of greenhouse gas may cause, using the 

functionally equivalent amount or concentration of carbon dioxide as the 

reference. CO2e is expressed as parts per million by volume. 

7-2 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
7.0 Glossary 

carbon sink - is a natural or manmade reservoir that accumulates and stores 

some carbon-containing chemical compound for an indefinite period. 

climate change - A change in long-term weather patterns, i.e. warmer or 

colder temperatures or an increase or decrease in annual amounts of rainfall or 

snowfall. 

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. 

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. 

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]. 

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. 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 7-3 
7.0 Glossary 

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. 

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 (FMV)- 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. 

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. 

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). 

7-4 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
7.0 Glossary 

geometric mean - The nth root of the product of the values of n positive 

numbers. 

global warming - An average increase in the Earth's temperature, which in 

turn causes changes in climate. 

greenhouse effect - A theory that certain gases in the atmosphere impede the 

release of radiation from the earth, trapping heat in the atmosphere like glass 

over a greenhouse. 

groundwater - 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. 

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. A used or discarded material that can 

damage the environment and be harmful to health. Hazardous wastes include 

heavy metals and toxic chemicals used in industrial products and processes as 

well as infectious medical wastes and radioactive materials such as spent 

nuclear fuel rods. 

human environment - The natural and physical environment in which 

humans preside or have an impact and the relationship of people with the 

surrounding 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. 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 7-5 
 

7.0 Glossary 

hydrocarbon - Any organic compound, gaseous, liquid, or solid, consisting 

solely of carbon and hydrogen. 

hydrology - The science dealing with the behavior of water as it occurs in the 

atmosphere, on the surface of the ground, and underground. 

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 (ISL) - Removal of the valuable components of a mineral 

deposit through chemical leaching without physical extraction of the rock. 

(ISL), also called in-situ recovery (ISR) or solution mining, is a process of 

recovering minerals such as copper and uranium through boreholes drilled into 

the deposit. The process initially involves drilling of holes into the ore deposit. 

Explosive or hydraulic fracturing may be used to create open pathways in the 

deposit for solution to penetrate. Leaching solution is pumped into the deposit 

where it makes contact with the ore. The solution bearing the dissolved ore 

content is then pumped to the surface and processed. This process allows the 

extraction of metals and salts from an ore body without the need for 

conventional mining involving drill-and-blast, open-cut or underground 

mining. 

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. 

7-6 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
7.0 Glossary 

lead agency - The agency or agencies preparing or having taken primary 

responsibility for preparing an environmental document (see 40 CFR 1508.16). 

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)]. 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 7-7 
7.0 Glossary 

meteorological - Related to the science dealing with the atmosphere and its 

phenomena, especially as relating to weather. 

methane - A colorless, odorless, and flammable gaseous hydrocarbon; the 

simplest hydrocarbon; chemical formula = CH4. It is the product of 

decomposition of organic matter and of the carbonization of coal, is used as a 

fuel and as a starting material in chemical synthesis, and is the simplest of the 

alkanes, 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. 

native species – Native species refer to wild animals and plants that have 

evolved in a particular region and environment. Native species are the most 

adapted to the area and are more disease and drought resistant than nonnative species. Native plants provide the greatest benefits to wildlife because 

the native wildlife evolved with native plants. Often the food provided by native 

plants is the most nutritious to our native wildlife. 

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 

7-8 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
 

7.0 Glossary 

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 - Overburden is the term used in mining to describe material that 

lies above (excluding topsoil) the area of economic interest, e.g., the rock and 

soil that lies above the coal seam. Also known as 'waste'. Overburden is distinct 

from tailings, the material that remains after economically valuable 

components have been extracted from the generally finely milled ore. 

Overburden is removed during surface mining, but is typically not 

contaminated with toxic components and may be used to restore a mining site 

to a semblance of its appearance before mining began. Overburden may also be 

used as a term to describe all soil and ancillary material above the bedrock 

horizon in a given area. 

oxides of nitrogen (NOX) - The generic term for a group of highly reactive 

gases, all of which contain nitrogen and oxygen in varying amounts. 

ozone - A gas that is created by a chemical reaction between oxides of nitrogen 

(NOx) and volatile organic compounds (VOC) in the presence of sunlight; 

chemical formula = O3. 

paleontological resource - A site containing evidence of plant or non-human 

animal life of past geological periods, usually in the form of fossil remains. 

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. 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 7-9 
 

7.0 Glossary 

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. 

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. 

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 

7-10 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
7.0 Glossary 

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 (with native plant life) and other work necessary to restore the 

disturbed area for post-mining use. In general where viable an attempt to put 

the terrain back to the pre-mining contours is also of paramount importance. 

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 (is economically feasible to recover) 

can actually be recovered for sale from the demonstrated coal reserve base. 

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. 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 7-11 
7.0 Glossary 

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. 

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 and or the environment as a result of an 

action(s) either direct or indirect. 

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 

7-12 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
7.0 Glossary 

according to the level of detail of field examination. Order I is the most detailed 

and Order V is the least detailed. 

split estate situation – Situations where the surface rights and subsurface 

rights (such as the rights to develop minerals) for a piece of land are owned by 

different parties. 

spontaneous combustion – The heating and slow combustion (self-ignition) of 

coal and coaly material initiated through chemical action (as oxidation 

(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. 

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. Sub bituminous coal contains a high percentage of volatile matter and 

moisture. 

surface disturbance - Any disturbance by direct or indirect 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. 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 7-13 
7.0 Glossary 

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 upper portion of a soil, usually dark colored and rich in organic 

material. It is more or less equivalent to the upper portion of an A horizon in an 

ABC 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. 

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. 

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. 

7-14 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
 

7.0 Glossary 

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 fossilized 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 organic compound (VOC) - Organic chemical compounds that have 

high enough vapor pressures under normal conditions to significantly vaporize 

and enter the atmosphere. 

waterfowl - A bird that frequents water, especially a swimming bird such as a 

duck or swan. 

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)]. 

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 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 7-15 
7.0 Glossary 

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. 

7-16 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
8.0 Index 

8.0 INDEX 

agriculture .........................................	 2-49, 2-65, 2-71, 3-115, 3-126, 3-128, 

3-129, 3-130, 3-132, 3-161, 3-215, 3­

267, 4-62, 4-65, 4-68, 4-81, 4-82, 4­

83, 4-109, 5-1, 5-8, 6-2, 6-21, 7-10, 

E-7, E5-3 

alluvial valley floor or AVF ..................	 ES-18, ES-32, ES-38, 1-7, 2-49, 2-50, 

2-65, 2-71, 3-2, 3-92, 3-101, 3-111, 

3-126, 3-127, 3-128, 3-129, 3-130, 3­

131, 3-132, 4-4, 4-65, 5-5, 5-6, 7-1, 

7-13, B-3, B-6, B-9, B-12, E2-18, E3­

7, E3-17 

Belle Fourche River ............................	 ES-32, 2-33, 2-63, 2-65, 3-9, 3-10, 3­

12, 3-26, 3-81, 3-82, 3-83, 3-93, 3­

101, 3-106, 3-107, 3-111, 3-113, 3­

114, 3-115, 3-118, 3-119, 3-123, 3­

129, 3-130, 3-131, 3-139, 3-154, 3­

155, 3-158, 3-187, 3-188, 3-190, 3­

191, 3-193, 3-210, 4-27, 4-33, 4-61, 

4-62, 4-64, 4-65, 4-75, 4-76, 4-77, 4­

80, 4-81, 4-86, 4-87, 6-8, E1-7, E3-7, 

E4-11, E4-12, E4-14, E4-15 

blasting..............................................	 ES-20, ES-21, ES-26, ES-36, 1-28, 2­

18, 2-25, 2-34, 2-49, 2-64, 3-29, 3-39, 

3-59, 3-60, 3-61, 3-63, 3-64, 3-65, 3­

66, 3-67, 3-68, 3-39, 3-70, 3-71, 3-72, 

3-75, 3-77, 3-79, 3-227, 3-229, 3-265, 

3-268, 4-36, 4-57, 4-127, 5-5, 6-10, 

6-19, H-8, H-17, H-18, H-19 

bonus payment or bonus 

bid payment .......................................	 ES-10, ES-11, ES-12, ES-13, ES-14,
 

ES-15, ES-16, ES-37, 2-56, 2-57, 2­

58, 2-59, 2-60, 2-61, 2-62, 3-246, 3­

247, 3-249 

Caballo Creek.....................................	 ES-32, 2-39, 2-63, 3-9, 3-10, 3-12, 3­

81, 3-82, 3-93, 3-97, 3-101, 3-102, 3­

111, 3-113, 3-114, 3-115, 3-117, 3­

118, 3-123, 3-126, 3-127, 3-129, 3­

130, 3-131, 3-139, 3-155, 3-177, 3­

189, 3-190, 4-64, 4-65, 4-76, E1-7, 

E1-8, E3-7, E4-11, E4-12, E4-14 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 8-1 
8.0 Index 

coal bed natural gas or CBNG ............ ES-17, ES-19, ES-20, ES-26, ES-32,
 

Environmental Protection Agency or 

EPA.................................................... 

fair market value................................
 

ES-36, ES-40, 1-25, 1-27, 2-6, 2-45,
 

2-46, 2-47, 2-63, 2-71, 2-72, 3-18, 3­

20, 3-21, 3-22, 3-23, 3-24, 3-25, 3-29,
 

3-59, 3-86, 3-87, 3-89, 3-91, 3-92, 3­

93, 3-94, 3-96, 3-98, 3-100, 3-102, 3­

103, 3-107, 3-108, 3-110, 3-114, 3­

118, 3-119, 3-120, 3-121, 3-122, 3­

123, 3-124, 3-125, 3-136, 3-137, 3­

138, 3-139, 3-150, 3-155, 3-187, 3­

188, 3-190, 3-191, 3-205, 3-206, 3­

207, 3-208, 3-210, 3-211, 3-212, 3­

224, 3-226, 3-263, 3-270, 4-1, 4-17,
 

4-19, 4-21, 4-22, 4-23, 4-24, 4-35, 4­

36, 4-37, 4-38, 4-40, 4-42, 4-46, 4-49,
 

4-50, 4-51, 4-54, 4-56, 4-58, 4-59, 4­

60, 4-61, 4-62, 4-63, 4-64, 4-65, 4-66,
 

4-67, 4-69, 4-70, 4-71, 4-73, 4-75, 4­

77, 4-78, 4-80, 4-84, 4-90, 4-91, 4-92,
 

4-94, 4-96, 4-103, 4-105, 4-108, 4­

121, 5-4, 6-21, 7-3, E-7, E-8, E1-11,
 

E1-12, E2-9, E2-11, E2-12, E3-10, 


E3-11, E4-11, E4-12, E4-15, G-1, G2, H-15 


ES-6, ES-20, ES-21, ES-39, 1-28, 1­

29, 2-48, 2-53, 3-28, 3-30, 3-31, 3-32,
 

3-38, 3-59, 3-60, 3-62, 3-63, 3-66, 3­

67, 3-68, 3-73, 3-78, 3-133, 3-134, 3­

227, 3-229, 3-265, 3-266, 3-269, 3­

270, 4-39, 4-40, 4-42, 4-43, 4-46, 4­

109, 4-111, 4-113, 4-114, 4-115, 4­

116, 4-122, 4-123, 4-124, 4-125, 4­

126, 4-127, 4-128, 5-2, 5-8, 6-22, 6­

23, 6-24, H-1, H-3, H-4, H-5, H-9, H10, H-12, H-14, H-16, H-17, H-18, H19 


ES-6, ES-8, 1-3, 1-4, 1-5, 1-28, 2-9,
 

2-15, 2-16, 2-22, 2-23, 2-29, 2-32, 2­

39, 2-43, 2-45, 2-46, 3-211, 7-4 


fugitive dust ....................................... ES-20, ES-21, 3-29, 3-38, 3-39, 3-40, 


3-45, 3-49, 3-54, 4-40, 4-89, H-8, H11 


8-2 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
8.0 Index 

grazing ...............................................	 ES-36, 1-10, 1-11, 1-13, 1-17, 1-28, 

2-11, 2-19, 2-25, 2-35, 2-50, 2-51, 2­

66, 2-68, 3-150, 3-153, 3-158, 3-196, 

3-209, 3-211, 3-212, 3-213, 3-215, 3­

216, 3-217, 3-262, 4-7, 4-81, 4-82, 4­

83, 5-5, E1-10, E1-13, E1-14, E2-11, 

E2-14, E3-9, E3-13, E4-13, E3-18 

human health ....................................	 ES-21, 1-28, 2-63, 2-64, 3-31, 3-115, 


3-260, 3-264, 4-122, 4-123, 4-124, 4­

125, 4-126, H-17 

hunting..............................................	 ES-40, 3-173, 3-207, 3-208, 3-209, 3­

212, 3-213, 3-264, 4-81, 4-82, 4-83, 

4-84, 4-85, 6-8, 6-11 

migratory birds...................................	 ES-18, 2-67, 3-2, 3-173, 3-184, 3­

194, E-5 

mitigation...........................................	 ES-9, ES-38, 1-21, 2-13, 2-20, 2-27, 

2-37, 2-40, 2-47, 2-48, 2-49, 2-50, 2­

51, 2-52, 3-1, 3-12, 3-17, 3-24, 3-27, 

3-58, 3-59, 3-71, 3-72, 3-75, 3-77, 3­

80, 3-110, 3-118, 3-125, 3-132, 3­

133, 3-141, 3-146, 3-153, 3-167, 3­

170, 3-186, 3-192, 3-195, 3-213, 3­

217, 3-222, 3-223, 3-226, 3-230, 3­

241, 3-243, 3-245, 3-262, 3-265, 3­

269, 3-270, 4-38, 4-42, 4-48, 4-58, 4­

64, 4-69, 4-88, 4-112, 6-6, 6-15, D-1, 

D-2, E-5, E-7, E-9, E1-6, E1-12, E2-4, 

E2-6, E2-12, E3-6, E3-11, E4-9, E4­

15, H-8, H-9, H-10 

MLA mining plan................................	 1-4, 1-20, 1-21, 2-46, 3-24, 3-25, 3­

221, A-1, E-6 

monitoring plan..................................	 2-47, 2-48, 2-49, 2-50, 2-51, 2-52, 3­

17 

nitrogen oxide or NOx .........................	 ES-20, ES-21, 1-28, 2-64, 3-29, 3-31, 

3-60, 3-61, 3-62, 3-63, 3-64, 3-65, 3­

66, 3-67, 3-68, 3-69, 3-70, 3-71, 3-72, 

3-77, 3-78, 3-79, 3-80, 3-150, 3-264, 

4-122, 6-23, 7-9, H-8, H-10, H-16, H17, H-18, H-19 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 8-3 
8.0 Index 

PM10...................................................	 ES-20, ES-21, ES-41, 2-44, 2-48, 2­

70, 3-29, 3-30, 3-31, 3-32, 3-38, 3-40, 

3-43, 3-45, 3-49, 3-52, 3-54, 3-59, 3­

60, 3-64, 3-65, 3-66, 3-265, 4-40, 4­

41, 4-42, 4-43, 4-44, 4-46, 4-48, 6-24, 

H-3, H-4, H-5, H-7, H-8, H-9, H-10, 

H-12, H-14, H-15, H-16 

power plant(s).....................................	 ES-20, 1-19, 1-28, 2-46, 2-64, 3-29, 

3-64, 3-65, 3-88, 3-241, 3-267, 4-8, 

4-14, 4-16, 4-17, 4-20, 4-25, 4-28, 4­

35, 4-38, 4-39, 4-48, 4-56, 4-68, 4-69, 

4-71, 4-82, 4-88, 4-90, 4-92, 4-93, 4­

99, 4-105, 4-106, 4-107, 4-108, 4­

114, 4-115, 4-117, 4-120, 4-122, 4­

123, 4-125, 4-126, 4-127, 6-1, 6-12, 

6-22, E-7, E-8, H-8 

reclamation ........................................	 ES-8, ES-18, ES-32, ES-34, ES-35, 

ES-36, ES-38, ES-40, ES-43, 1-4, 1-5, 

1-15, 1-20, 1-21, 2-8, 2-10, 2-11, 2­

15, 2-17, 2-18, 2-24, 2-25, 2-26, 2-28, 

2-31, 2-34, 2-35, 2-38, 2-41, 2-42, 2­

44, 2-45, 2-47, 2-48, 2-49, 2-50, 2-51, 

2-52, 2-55, 2-65, 2-66, 2-67, 2-68, 2­

70, 2-72, 3-2, 3-6, 3-7, 3-10, 3-12, 3­

17, 3-22, 3-24, 3-54, 3-71, 3-77, 3-80, 

3-81, 3-89, 3-91, 3-92, 3-93, 3-97, 3­

101, 3-107, 3-109, 3-110, 3-111, 3­

115, 3-116, 3-117, 3-118, 3-125, 3­

126, 3-132, 3-136, 3-137, 3-139, 3­

140, 3-141, 3-142, 3-144, 3-145, 3­

146, 3-147, 3-150, 3-151, 3-152, 3­

153, 3-156, 3-159, 3-166, 3-169, 3­

170, 3-183, 3-184, 3-187, 3-188, 3­

191, 3-193, 3-195, 3-210, 3-211, 3­

212, 3-213, 3-222, 3-225, 3-226, 3­

229, 3-241, 3-243, 3-244, 3-246, 3­

262, 3-263, 3-264, 3-265, 4-7, 4-10, 

4-11, 4-12, 4-22, 4-33, 4-35, 4-36, 4­

49, 4-50, 4-55, 4-57, 4-61, 4-65, 4-66, 

4-67, 4-69, 4-70, 4-75, 4-76, 4-77, 4­

80, 4-81, 4-82, 4-85, 4-88, 4-118, 5-1, 

5-4, 6-6, 6-9, 6-15, 6-16, 6-18, 6-19, 

6-20, 7-8, 7-9, 7-10, 7-11, A-1, D-1, 

D-3, E-3, E-4, E-5, E-6, E-7, E-8, E-9, 

8-4 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
8.0 Index 

reclamation (Continued) .....................	 E1-5, E1-6, E1-7, E1-12, E1-14, E2-6, 

E2-9, E2-12, E2-18, E2-19, E3-5, E3­

6, E3-8, E3-11, E3-13, E3-17, E3-18, 

E4-6, E4-12, E4-15, E4-17, H-15 

reclamation bond ...............................	 ES-34, 2-11, 2-18, 2-25, 2-34, 2-50, 


2-55, 3-7, 3-151, 3-153, 3-212, 3-213, 

4-7 

recreation...........................................	 ES-18, ES-35, ES-38, 1-11, 1-13, 1­

25, 2-68, 2-73, 3-2, 3-74, 3-115, 3­

195, 3-196, 3-213, 3-264, 4-31, 4-44, 

4-59, 4-60, 4-81, 4-82, 4-83, 4-84, 4­

85, 7-16, H-6 

royalty................................................	 ES-10, ES-11, ES-12, ES-13, ES-14, 

ES-15, ES-16, ES-37, 1-4, 1-20, 2-45, 

2-46, 2-47, 2-51, 2-56, 2-57, 2-58, 2­

59, 2-60, 2-61, 2-62, 3-24, 3-246, 3­

262, 4-104, 5-10, 6-15, 7-12, D-4 

sage-grouse........................................	 ES-35, 1-28, 2-67, 3-151, 3-171, 3­

172, 3-173, 3-175, 3-176, 3-177, 3­

178, 3-179, 3-180, 3-181, 3-182, 3­

183, 3-184, 3-185, 3-186, 3-187, 3­

188, 3-193, 3-210, 3-212, 3-263, 4­

78, 4-79, 4-80, 4-84, 6-2, 6-8, 6-9, 6­

16, 6-17, 6-19, 6-31, 6-32, E-5, E1­

16, E2-16, E3-15, F-2, F-5, F-8, F-11 

T&E species .......................................	 ES-38, 3-194, 5-4, E-1, E-3, E-5, E-9, 

E1-6, E1-9, E1-15, E2-6, E2-8, E2-9, 

E2-15, E2-16, E3-6, E3-8, E3-15, E4­

9, E4-10, E4-12, E4-19 

total dissolved solids or TDS...............	 ES-32, 2-64, 3-13, 3-81, 3-82, 3-83, 

3-85, 3-87, 3-88, 3-91, 3-92, 3-97, 3­

101, 3-106, 3-109, 3-110, 3-128, 3­

265, 4-57, 4-61, 4-76, 7-12, 7-14 

total suspended solids or TSS.............	 3-114 


U.S. Department of Agriculture - 3-78, 3-135, 3-161, 3-181, 3-182, EForest Service or USFS....................... 216, 4-68, 4-78, 4-81, 4-83, 5-1, 5-8, 

6-17, 6-21 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 8-5 
8.0 Index 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or 

USFWS............................................... ES-32, 1-27, 2-67, 3-78, 3-135, 3­

161, 3-216, 4-78, 5-1, 6-10, 6-25, 7­

14, D-3, E-4, E-5, E1-6, E1-9, E1-10, 

E1-11, E1-12, E1-13, E1-14, E1-15, 

E2-6, E2-9, E2-10, E2-11, E2-12, E2­

13, E2-14, E2-15, E3-6, E3-7, E3-8, 

E3-9, E3-10, E3-11, E3-12, E3-14, 

E4-9, E4-11, E4-12, E4-13, E4-14, 

E4-15, E4-16, E4-18, E4-19, E5-3, 

E5-4 

wetland(s)........................................... ES-18, ES-32, ES-33, ES-34, ES-38,
 

Wyoming Department of 

Environmental Quality or 

WDEQ................................................ 

1-28, 2-49, 2-50, 2-65, 2-72, 3-2, 3­

133, 3-134, 3-135, 3-136, 3-137, 3­

138, 3-139, 3-140, 3-141, 3-142, 3­

152, 3-153, 3-188, 3-193, 4-67, 4-70, 

7-73, 4-81, 5-5, 5-6, 5-7, 6-16, 6-20, 

6-23, 7-5, 7-15, A-1, E-5, E1-8, E1-9, 

E1-11, E1-12, E2-9, E2-10, E2-11, 

E2-12, E2-18, E2-19, E3-7, E3-8, E3­

10, E3-11, E3-17, E3-18, E4-11, E4­

12, E4-14, E4-15, E4-19, F-4, F-7, F10, F-13 

ES-8, ES-21, ES-26, ES-32, ES-34, 

ES-43, 1-4, 1-10, 1-11, 1-13, 1-17, 1­

20, 1-21, 2-9, 2-11, 2-17, 2-18, 2-24, 

2-25, 2-32, 2-33, 2-34, 2-35, 2-44, 2­

46, 2-48, 2-49, 2-53, 2-54, 2-65, 3-2, 

3-6, 3-7, 3-10, 3-12, 3-24, 3-28, 3-30, 

3-31, 3-32, 3-38, 3-39, 3-40, 3-43, 3­

45, 3-49, 3-52, 3-54, 3-58, 3-59, 3-60, 

3-61, 3-62, 3-63, 3-64, 3-65, 3-66, 3­

67, 3-68, 3-69, 3-71, 3-73, 3-77, 3-78, 

3-81, 3-82, 3-85, 3-87, 3-92, 3-96, 3­

97, 3-98, 3-100, 3-101, 3-102, 3-105, 

3-108, 3-109, 3-110, 3-114, 3-115, 3­

116, 3-117, 3-118, 3-119, 3-121, 3­

126, 3-127, 3-128, 3-129, 3-130, 3­

131, 3-132, 3-140, 3-141, 3-147, 3­

151, 3-152, 3-153, 3-154, 3-155, 3­

156, 3-159, 3-170, 3-176, 3-177, 3­

184, 3-190, 3-191, 3-213, 3-243, 3­

244, 3-264, 3-265, 3-267, 4-6, 4-12, 

4-13, 4-14, 4-16, 4-17, 4-27, 4-39, 4­

40, 4-42, 4-43, 4-48, 4-49, 4-50, 4-51, 

8-6 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
8.0 Index 

Wyoming Department of 

Environmental Quality or 

WDEQ (Continued).............................	 4-54, 4-55, 4-57, 4-65, 4-67, 4-69, 4­

70, 4-78, 4-118, 5-5, 5-8, 6-6, 6-7, 6­

8, 6-9, 6-10, 6-11, 6-15, 6-17, 6-18,
 

6-19, 6-20, 6-27, 6-29, 6-30, 6-31, E6, E-9, E1-6, E1-12, E1-14, E2-6, E2­

7, E2-12, E3-5, E3-6, E3-11, E3-13, 


E4-9, E4-15, E4-17, E4-19, E5-1, E5­

2, E5-3 


Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 8-7