BLM

Wyoming State Office  High Plains District

 

 

FINAL 

Environmental Impact Statement for the

South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 

WYW172585, WYW173360, WYW172657, WYW161248 

Volume 2 of 2
	

Appendices
	

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 
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 South Gillette Area Coal EIS ­

Belle Ayr North LBA Tract, West Coal Creek LBA Tract, Caballo 

West LBA Tract, Maysdorf II LBA Tract 

Appendix F. BLM Sensitive Species Evaluation for the South Gillette Area 

Coal EIS 

Appendix G. 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 H. Supplemental Air Quality Information for the Belle Ayr North, 

West Coal Creek, Caballo West, and Maysdorf II LBA Tracts 

Appendix I. Comment Letters on the Draft EIS and Responses 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications i 
APPENDIX A

FEDERAL AND STATE AGENCIES 

AND PERMITTING REQUIREMENTS 
Appendix A 

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

APPENDIX A: 

FEDERAL AND STATE AGENCIES & PERMITTING REQUIREMENTS1

Agency Lease/Permit Action

FEDERAL

Bureau of Land Management Coal Lease 

Resource Recovery & Protection Plan 

Scoria Sales Contract 

Exploration Drilling Permit 

Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and 

Enforcement 

Preparation of MLA Mining Plan Approval Document 

SMCRA Oversight 

Office of the Secretary of the Interior Approval of MLA Mining Plan 

Mine Safety and Health Administration Safety Permit and Legal ID 

Ground Control Plan 

Major Impoundments 

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms Explosive’s Manufacturer’s License 

Explosives Use and Storage Permit 

Federal Communication Commission Radio Permit: Ambulance 

Mobile Relay System Radio License 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission Radioactive By-Products Material License 

Radioactive Material Certificate of Registration 

Army Corps of Engineers Authorization of Impacts to Wetlands and Other Waters 

of the U.S. 

Department of Transportation Hazardous Waste Shipment Notification 

Federal Aviation Administration Radio Tower Facilities Construction Permits

STATE

State Land Commission Coal Lease 

Scoria Lease 

Department of Environmental Quality-Land 

Quality Division 

Permit and License to Mine 

Permit to Construct Sedimentation Pond 

Solid Waste Disposal Permit-Permanent and 

Construction 

Department of Environmental Quality-Air 

Quality Division 

Air Quality Permit to Operate 

Air Quality Permit to Construct 

Department of Environmental Quality-Water 

Quality Division 

Wyoming Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Water 

Discharge Permits 

Authorization to Construct Septic Tank & Leach Field 

Authorization to Construct and Install a Public Water 

Supply and Sewage Treatment System 

State Engineer’s Office Appropriation of Surface Water Permits 

Appropriation of Ground Water Permits 

Industrial Siting Council Industrial Siting Certificate of Non-Jurisdiction 

1 Individual Lease/Permit Actions listed below may not be required at all mines. 
 

APPENDIX B 

UNSUITABILITY CRITERIA FOR THE
 

BELLE AYR NORTH, WEST COAL CREEK, 


CABALLO WEST, AND MAYSDORF II 


LBA TRACTS
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix B 

APPENDIX B. UNSUITABILITY CRITERIA FOR THE BELLE AYR NORTH 

LBA TRACT 

UNSUITABILITY CRITERIA 

GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS FOR 

BUFFALO RESOURCE AREA (BLM 1985, 

2001a) 

FINDINGS FOR BELLE AYR NORTH LBA 

TRACT 

1. Federal Land Systems. With 

certain exceptions that do not 

apply to this tract, all federal lands 

included in the following systems 

are unsuitable for mining: 

National Parks, National Wildlife 

Refuges, National System of Trails, 

National Wilderness Preservation 

System, National Wild and Scenic 

Rivers, National Recreation Areas, 

Lands acquired through the Land 

and Water Conservation Fund, 

National Forests and Federal lands 

in incorporated cities, towns and 

villages. 

There are Federal lands located around 

Gillette, Sheridan, and Wright that were 

determined to be unsuitable under this 

criterion. 

None of the federal lands determined to be 

unsuitable under Criterion 1 are present 

on the Belle Ayr North LBA tract. 

Therefore, there are no unsuitable 

findings under this criterion. 

2. Rights-Of-Way and Easements. 

Federal lands that are within 

ROWs or easements or within 

surface leases for residential, 

commercial, industrial or other 

public purposes, on federally 

owned surface, are unsuitable for 

mining. 

Portions of the BNSF & UP railroad 

ROWs, the Tri-County 230-Kv 

transmission line ROW, the Wyoming 

State Highway 450 ROW, and the I-90 

ROW were found to be unsuitable under 

this criterion within the general review 

area. 

The portions of the Tri-County 230-Kv 

transmission line ROW, the Wyoming 

State Highway 450 ROW, the I-90 ROW, 

and the BNSF & UP railroad ROW that 

were determined to be unsuitable are not 

located on the Belle Ayr North LBA tract. 

Therefore, there area no unsuitable 

findings under Criterion 2 for the Belle 

Ayr North LBA tract. 

3. Buffer Zones for Rights-Of-Way, 

Communities, and Buildings. 

Federal lands within 100 ft of a 

ROW of a public road or a 

cemetery; or within 300 ft of any 

public building, school, church, 

community or institutional 

building or public park; or within 

300 ft of an occupied dwelling are 

unsuitable for mining. 

Portions of Wyoming State Highway 450, 

Interstate Highway I-90, and one 

cemetery were found to be unsuitable 

under this criterion. Decisions were 

deferred on other highways/roads, 

occupied dwellings, and one school until 

an application to lease is filed. 

Highway 450, I-90, and the cemetery are 

not located on the Belle Ayr North LBA 

tract. No occupied dwellings or schools 

are located on the tract. Portions of the 

Bishop Road, a public road, are located 

on the tract as applied for and under 

Alternative 2. Therefore, the portions of 

the Belle Ayr North LBA tract within the 

Bishop Road ROW and the associated 

100-ft buffer zone are designated 

unsuitable for mining and the lease will 

be stipulated to exclude mining within 

these areas unless a permit to move the 

road is approved by Campbell County 

Board of Commissioners. 

4. Wilderness Study Areas. Federal 

lands designated as wilderness 

study areas are unsuitable for 

mining while under review for 

possible wilderness designation. 

No lands in the general review area are 

within a wilderness study area. 

There are no unsuitable findings under 

Criterion 4 for the Belle Ayr North LBA 

tract. 

5. Scenic Areas. Scenic federal 

lands designated by visual 

resource management analysis as 

Class I (outstanding visual quality 

or high visual sensitivity) but not 

currently on National Register of 

Natural Landmarks are unsuitable. 

No lands in the general review area meet 

the scenic criteria as outlined. 

There are no unsuitable findings under 

Criterion 5 for the Belle Ayr North LBA 

tract. 

6. Land Used for Scientific Study. 

Federal lands under permit by the 

surface management agency and 

being used for scientific studies 

involving food or fiber production, 

natural resources, or technology 

demonstrations and experiments 

are unsuitable for the duration of 

the study except where mining 

would not jeopardize the purpose 

of the study. 

Two vegetation monitoring study sites on 

the TBNG (NE1⁄4 of Sec. 1, T.41N., R.71W. 

and NW1⁄4 NW1⁄4 of Sec. 30, T.41N., 

R.69W.), and the Hoe Creek Site (Sec. 7, 

T.47N., R.72W.) were found to be 

unsuitable under this criterion. 

The vegetation monitoring sites and the 

Hoe Creek site are not located on the Belle 

Ayr North LBA tract. There are no 

unsuitable findings under Criterion 6 for 

the Belle Ayr North LBA tract. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix B 

UNSUITABILITY CRITERIA 

GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS FOR 

BUFFALO RESOURCE AREA (BLM 1985, 

2001a) 

FINDINGS FOR BELLE AYR NORTH LBA 

TRACT 

7. Cultural Resources. All publicly 

or privately owned places which 

are included in or are eligible for 

inclusion in the NRHP and an 

appropriate buffer zone are 

unsuitable. 

On the basis of the consultation with 

SHPO, there were no unsuitable findings 

under this criterion in the general review 

area. Continue using the “Standard 

Archeological Stipulation” to new leases. 

There are no unsuitable findings under 

Criterion 7 for the Belle Ayr North LBA 

tract. The “Standard Archeological 

Stipulation” should be applied if this tract 

is leased. 

8. Natural Areas. Federal lands 

designated as natural areas or 

National Natural Landmarks are 

unsuitable. 

No lands in the general review area are 

designated as natural areas or as 

National Natural Landmarks. 

There are no unsuitable findings under 

Criterion 8 for the Belle Ayr North LBA 

tract. 

9. Critical Habitat for Threatened 

or Endangered Plant and Animal 

Species. Federally designated 

critical habitat for threatened or 

endangered plant and animal 

species, and scientifically 

documented essential habitat for 

threatened or endangered species 

are unsuitable. 

There is no federally designated critical 

habitat for threatened or endangered 

plant or animal species within the 

general review area. 

There are no unsuitable findings under 

Criterion 9 for the Belle Ayr North LBA 

tract. 

10. State Listed Threatened or 

Endangered Species. Federal 

lands containing habitat 

determined to be critical or 

essential for plant or animal 

species listed by a state pursuant 

to state law as threatened or 

endangered shall be considered 

unsuitable. 

Wyoming does not maintain a state list of 

threatened or endangered species of 

plants or animals. Therefore, this 

criterion does not apply. 

There are no unsuitable findings under 

Criterion 10 for the Belle Ayr North LBA 

tract. 

11. Bald or Golden Eagle Nests. An 

active bald or golden eagle nest 

and appropriate buffer zone are 

unsuitable unless the lease can be 

conditioned so that eagles will not 

be disturbed during breeding 

season or unless golden eagle 

nests will be moved. 

Defer suitability decisions and evaluate 

bald and golden eagle nests on a case by 

case basis at the time of leasing. 

Establish buffer zones around nests 

during mining and reclamation planning 

after consultation with USFWS. 

There are currently no bald or golden 

eagle nests (active or inactive) on the Belle 

Ayr North LBA tract. Evaluate suitability 

prior to lease issuance during 

consultation with USFWS. 

12. Bald and Golden Eagle Roost and 

Concentration Areas. Bald and 

golden eagle roost and 

concentration areas on federal 

lands used during migration and 

wintering are unsuitable unless 

mining can be conducted in such a 

way as to ensure that eagles shall 

not be adversely disturbed. 

Defer suitability decisions and evaluate 

bald and golden eagle roost areas on a 

case by case basis prior to lease 

issuance. Establish buffer zones after 

consultation with USFWS. 

There are no identified roost sites on the 

Belle Ayr North LBA tract. Evaluate 

suitability prior to lease issuance during 

consultation with USFWS. 

13. Falcon Nesting Sites and Buffer 

Zones. Federal lands containing 

active falcon (excluding kestrel) 

cliff nesting sites and a suitable 

buffer zone shall be considered 

unsuitable unless mining can be 

conducted in such a way as to 

ensure the falcons will not be 

adversely affected. 

Defer suitability decisions on falcon 

nesting sites and evaluate on a case by 

case basis prior to lease issuance. 

Establish buffer zones around nesting 

sites after consultation with USFWS. 

No falcon nesting sites have been 

identified on the Belle Ayr North LBA 

tract. There are no unsuitable findings 

under Criterion 13 for the Belle Ayr North 

LBA tract. 

14. Habitat for Migratory Bird 

Species. Federal lands which are 

high priority habitat for migratory 

bird species of management 

concern in Wyoming shall be 

considered unsuitable unless 

mining can be conducted in such a 

way as to ensure that migratory 

bird habitat will not be adversely 

affected during the period it is in 

use. 

Defer suitability decisions on high 

priority habitat for migratory bird species 

of management concern in Wyoming and 

evaluate on a case by case basis prior to 

lease issuance. Establish buffer zones 

for nesting areas during mining and 

reclamation planning after consultation 

with USFWS. 

Evaluate suitability during consultation 

with USFWS. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix B 

UNSUITABILITY CRITERIA 

GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS FOR 

BUFFALO RESOURCE AREA (BLM 1985, 

2001a) 

FINDINGS FOR BELLE AYR NORTH LBA 

TRACT 

15. Fish and Wildlife Habitat for 

Resident Species. Federal lands 

which the surface management 

agency and state jointly agree are 

fish, wildlife and plant habitat of 

resident species of high interest to 

the state, and which are essential 

for maintaining these priority 

wildlife species, shall be considered 

unsuitable unless mining can be 

conducted in such a way as to 

ensure no long-term impact on the 

species being provided will occur. 

Defer suitability decisions on grouse leks 

and evaluate on a case by case basis 

prior to lease issuance. Establish buffer 

zones after consultation with WGFD. 

There currently are no active or inactive 

sage grouse leks on the Belle Ayr North 

LBA tract study area. There are currently 

no active sage grouse leks within 2 miles 

from the Belle Ayr North LBA tract study 

area. Evaluate this criterion prior to lease 

issuance. Establish buffer zones during 

mining and reclamation planning after 

consultation with WGFD. 

16. Floodplains. Federal lands in 

riverine, coastal, and special 

floodplains shall be considered 

unsuitable where it is determined 

that mining could not be 

undertaken without substantial 

threat of loss of life or property. 

The BLM and USFS have determined that 

the identified floodplains in the general 

review area could potentially be mined. 

Therefore, all lands within the general 

review area are considered suitable. 

Site-specific stipulations and resource 

protection safeguards will be applied if 

necessary during mining and reclamation 

planning. There are no unsuitable 

findings under Criterion 16 for the Belle 

Ayr North LBA tract. 

17. Municipal Watersheds. Federal 

lands which have been committed 

by the surface management agency 

to use as municipal watersheds 

shall be considered unsuitable. 

There are no designated municipal 

watersheds in the general review area. 

There are no unsuitable findings under 

Criterion 17 for the Belle Ayr North LBA 

tract. 

18. National Resource Waters. 

Federal lands with national 

resource waters, as identified by 

states in their water quality 

management plans, and 1/4-mile 

buffer zones shall be unsuitable. 

There are no designated national 

resource waters within the general review 

area. 

There are no unsuitable findings under 

Criterion 18 for the Belle Ayr North LBA 

tract. 

19. Alluvial Valley Floors. Federal 

lands identified by the surface 

management agency, in 

consultation with the state, as 

AVFs where mining would 

interrupt, discontinue or preclude 

farming, are unsuitable. 

Additionally, when mining federal 

lands outside an AVF would 

materially damage the quality or 

quantity of water in surface or 

underground water systems that 

would supply AVFs, the land shall 

be considered unsuitable. 

Consider areas determined to contain 

AVFs significant to farming as 

unsuitable. Defer decisions on other 

AVFs and analyze on a case-by-case 

basis prior to lease issuance. 

No AVFs or potential AVFs have been 

identified on the Belle Ayr North LBA tract 

with characteristics indicating potential 

significance to farming. There are no 

unsuitable findings under Criterion 19 for 

the Belle Ayr North LBA tract. 

20. State or Indian Tribe Criteria. 

Federal lands to which is 

applicable a criterion proposed by 

the state or Indian tribe located in 

the planning area and adopted by 

rulemaking by the Secretary are 

unsuitable. 

There are no criterion proposed by state 

or Indian tribes that have been approved 

by the Secretary of the Interior. No tribal 

lands are located in or near the general 

review area. 

There are no unsuitability findings for this 

criterion on the Belle Ayr North LBA tract. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix B 

APPENDIX B. UNSUITABILITY CRITERIA FOR THE WEST COAL CREEK 

LBA TRACT 

UNSUITABILITY CRITERIA 

GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS FOR 

BUFFALO RESOURCE AREA (BLM 1985, 

2001a) 

FINDINGS FOR WEST COAL CREEK LBA 

TRACT 

1. Federal Land Systems. With 

certain exceptions that do not 

apply to this tract, all federal lands 

included in the following systems 

are unsuitable for mining: 

National Parks, National Wildlife 

Refuges, National System of Trails, 

National Wilderness Preservation 

System, National Wild and Scenic 

Rivers, National Recreation Areas, 

Lands acquired through the Land 

and Water Conservation Fund, 

National Forests and Federal lands 

in incorporated cities, towns and 

villages. 

There are Federal lands located around 

Gillette, Sheridan, and Wright that were 

determined to be unsuitable under this 

criterion. 

None of the federal lands determined to be 

unsuitable under Criterion 1 are present 

on the West Coal Creek LBA tract. 

Therefore, there are no unsuitable 

findings under this criterion. 

2. Rights-Of-Way and Easements. 

Federal lands that are within 

ROWs or easements or within 

surface leases for residential, 

commercial, industrial or other 

public purposes, on federally 

owned surface, are unsuitable for 

mining. 

Portions of the BNSF & UP railroad 

ROWs, the Tri-County 230-Kv 

transmission line ROW, the Wyoming 

State Highway 450 ROW, and the I-90 

ROW were found to be unsuitable under 

this criterion within the general review 

area. 

The portions of the Tri-County 230-Kv 

transmission line ROW, the Wyoming 

State Highway 450 ROW, the I-90 ROW, 

and the BNSF & UP railroad ROW that 

were determined to be unsuitable are not 

located on the West Coal Creek LBA tract. 

Therefore, there area no unsuitable 

findings under Criterion 2 for the West 

Coal Creek LBA tract. 

3. Buffer Zones for Rights-Of-Way, 

Communities, and Buildings. 

Federal lands within 100 ft of a 

ROW of a public road or a 

cemetery; or within 300 ft of any 

public building, school, church, 

community or institutional 

building or public park; or within 

300 ft of an occupied dwelling are 

unsuitable for mining. 

Portions of Wyoming State Highway 450, 

Interstate Highway I-90, and one 

cemetery were found to be unsuitable 

under this criterion. Decisions were 

deferred on other highways/roads, 

occupied dwellings, and one school until 

an application to lease is filed. 

Highway 450, I-90, and the cemetery are 

not located on the West Coal Creek LBA 

tract. No occupied dwellings, other public 

highways/roads, or schools are located on 

the tract. Therefore, there are no 

unsuitable findings under Criterion 3 for 

the West Coal Creek LBA tract. 

4. Wilderness Study Areas. Federal 

lands designated as wilderness 

study areas are unsuitable for 

mining while under review for 

possible wilderness designation. 

No lands in the general review area are 

within a wilderness study area. 

There are no unsuitable findings under 

Criterion 4 for the West Coal Creek LBA 

tract. 

5. Scenic Areas. Scenic federal 

lands designated by visual 

resource management analysis as 

Class I (outstanding visual quality 

or high visual sensitivity) but not 

currently on National Register of 

Natural Landmarks are unsuitable. 

No lands in the general review area meet 

the scenic criteria as outlined. 

There are no unsuitable findings under 

Criterion 5 for the West Coal Creek LBA 

tract. 

6. Land Used for Scientific Study. 

Federal lands under permit by the 

surface management agency and 

being used for scientific studies 

involving food or fiber production, 

natural resources, or technology 

demonstrations and experiments 

are unsuitable for the duration of 

the study except where mining 

would not jeopardize the purpose 

of the study. 

Two vegetation monitoring study sites on 

the TBNG (NE1⁄4 of Sec. 1, T.41N., R.71W. 

and NW1⁄4 NW1⁄4 of Sec. 30, T.41N., 

R.69W.), and the Hoe Creek Site (Sec. 7, 

T.47N., R.72W.) were found to be 

unsuitable under this criterion. 

The vegetation monitoring sites and the 

Hoe Creek site are not located on the West 

Coal Creek LBA tract. There are no 

unsuitable findings under Criterion 6 for 

the West Coal Creek LBA tract. 

7. Cultural Resources. All publicly 

or privately owned places which 

are included in or are eligible for 

inclusion in the NRHP and an 

appropriate buffer zone are 

unsuitable. 

On the basis of the consultation with 

SHPO, there were no unsuitable findings 

under this criterion in the general review 

area. Continue using the “Standard 

Archeological Stipulation” to new leases. 

There are no unsuitable findings under 

Criterion 7 for the West Coal Creek LBA 

tract. The “Standard Archeological 

Stipulation” should be applied if this tract 

is leased. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix B 

UNSUITABILITY CRITERIA 

GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS FOR 

BUFFALO RESOURCE AREA (BLM 1985, 

2001a) 

FINDINGS FOR WEST COAL CREEK LBA 

TRACT 

8. Natural Areas. Federal lands 

designated as natural areas or 

National Natural Landmarks are 

unsuitable. 

No lands in the general review area are 

designated as natural areas or as 

National Natural Landmarks. 

There are no unsuitable findings under 

Criterion 8 for the West Coal Creek LBA 

tract. 

9. Critical Habitat for Threatened 

or Endangered Plant and Animal 

Species. Federally designated 

critical habitat for threatened or 

endangered plant and animal 

species, and scientifically 

documented essential habitat for 

threatened or endangered species 

are unsuitable. 

There is no federally designated critical 

habitat for threatened or endangered 

plant or animal species within the 

general review area. 

There are no unsuitable findings under 

Criterion 9 for the West Coal Creek LBA 

tract. 

10. State Listed Threatened or 

Endangered Species. Federal 

lands containing habitat 

determined to be critical or 

essential for plant or animal 

species listed by a state pursuant 

to state law as threatened or 

endangered shall be considered 

unsuitable. 

Wyoming does not maintain a state list of 

threatened or endangered species of 

plants or animals. Therefore, this 

criterion does not apply. 

There are no unsuitable findings under 

Criterion 10 for the West Coal Creek LBA 

tract. 

11. Bald or Golden Eagle Nests. An 

active bald or golden eagle nest 

and appropriate buffer zone are 

unsuitable unless the lease can be 

conditioned so that eagles will not 

be disturbed during breeding 

season or unless golden eagle 

nests will be moved. 

Defer suitability decisions and evaluate 

bald and golden eagle nests on a case by 

case basis at the time of leasing. 

Establish buffer zones around nests 

during mining and reclamation planning 

after consultation with USFWS. 

There are currently no bald or golden 

eagle nests (active or inactive) on the West 

Coal Creek LBA tract. Evaluate suitability 

prior to lease issuance during 

consultation with USFWS. 

12. Bald and Golden Eagle Roost and 

Concentration Areas. Bald and 

golden eagle roost and 

concentration areas on federal 

lands used during migration and 

wintering are unsuitable unless 

mining can be conducted in such a 

way as to ensure that eagles shall 

not be adversely disturbed. 

Defer suitability decisions and evaluate 

bald and golden eagle roost areas on a 

case by case basis prior to lease 

issuance. Establish buffer zones after 

consultation with USFWS. 

There are no identified roost sites on the 

West Coal Creek LBA tract. Evaluate 

suitability prior to lease issuance during 

consultation with USFWS. 

13. Falcon Nesting Sites and Buffer 

Zones. Federal lands containing 

active falcon (excluding kestrel) 

cliff nesting sites and a suitable 

buffer zone shall be considered 

unsuitable unless mining can be 

conducted in such a way as to 

ensure the falcons will not be 

adversely affected. 

Defer suitability decisions on falcon 

nesting sites and evaluate on a case by 

case basis prior to lease issuance. 

Establish buffer zones around nesting 

sites after consultation with USFWS. 

No falcon nesting sites have been 

identified on the West Coal Creek LBA 

tract. There are no unsuitable findings 

under Criterion 13 for the West Coal 

Creek LBA tract. 

14. Habitat for Migratory Bird 

Species. Federal lands which are 

high priority habitat for migratory 

bird species of management 

concern in Wyoming shall be 

considered unsuitable unless 

mining can be conducted in such a 

way as to ensure that migratory 

bird habitat will not be adversely 

affected during the period it is in 

use. 

Defer suitability decisions on high 

priority habitat for migratory bird species 

of management concern in Wyoming and 

evaluate on a case by case basis prior to 

lease issuance. Establish buffer zones 

for nesting areas during mining and 

reclamation planning after consultation 

with USFWS. 

Evaluate suitability during consultation 

with USFWS. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix B 

UNSUITABILITY CRITERIA 

GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS FOR 

BUFFALO RESOURCE AREA (BLM 1985, 

2001a) 

FINDINGS FOR WEST COAL CREEK LBA 

TRACT 

15. Fish and Wildlife Habitat for 

Resident Species. Federal lands 

which the surface management 

agency and state jointly agree are 

fish, wildlife and plant habitat of 

resident species of high interest to 

the state, and which are essential 

for maintaining these priority 

wildlife species, shall be considered 

unsuitable unless mining can be 

conducted in such a way as to 

ensure no long-term impact on the 

species being provided will occur. 

Defer suitability decisions on grouse leks 

and evaluate on a case by case basis 

prior to lease issuance. Establish buffer 

zones after consultation with WGFD. 

There currently are no active or inactive 

sage grouse leks on the West Coal Creek 

LBA tract study area. There are currently 

three sage grouse leks, which have been 

active within the last ten years, identified 

on lands adjacent to the LBA tract: one 

within 1⁄4 mile and two within 2 miles of 

the West Coal Creek LBA tract study area. 

Evaluate this criterion prior to lease 

issuance. Establish buffer zones during 

mining and reclamation planning after 

consultation with WGFD. 

16. Floodplains. Federal lands in 

riverine, coastal, and special 

floodplains shall be considered 

unsuitable where it is determined 

that mining could not be 

undertaken without substantial 

threat of loss of life or property. 

The BLM and USFS have determined that 

the identified floodplains in the general 

review area could potentially be mined. 

Therefore, all lands within the general 

review area are considered suitable. 

Site-specific stipulations and resource 

protection safeguards will be applied if 

necessary during mining and reclamation 

planning. There are no unsuitable 

findings under Criterion 16 for the West 

Coal Creek LBA tract. 

17. Municipal Watersheds. Federal 

lands which have been committed 

by the surface management agency 

to use as municipal watersheds 

shall be considered unsuitable. 

There are no designated municipal 

watersheds in the general review area. 

There are no unsuitable findings under 

Criterion 17 for the West Coal Creek LBA 

tract. 

18. National Resource Waters. 

Federal lands with national 

resource waters, as identified by 

states in their water quality 

management plans, and 1/4-mile 

buffer zones shall be unsuitable. 

There are no designated national 

resource waters within the general review 

area. 

There are no unsuitable findings under 

Criterion 18 for the West Coal Creek LBA 

tract. 

19. Alluvial Valley Floors. Federal 

lands identified by the surface 

management agency, in 

consultation with the state, as 

AVFs where mining would 

interrupt, discontinue or preclude 

farming, are unsuitable. 

Additionally, when mining federal 

lands outside an AVF would 

materially damage the quality or 

quantity of water in surface or 

underground water systems that 

would supply AVFs, the land shall 

be considered unsuitable. 

Consider areas determined to contain 

AVFs significant to farming as 

unsuitable. Defer decisions on other 

AVFs and analyze on a case-by-case 

basis prior to lease issuance. 

No AVFs or potential AVFs have been 

identified on the West Coal Creek LBA 

tract with characteristics indicating 

potential significance to farming. There 

are no unsuitable findings under Criterion 

19 for the West Coal Creek LBA tract. 

20. State or Indian Tribe Criteria. 

Federal lands to which is 

applicable a criterion proposed by 

the state or Indian tribe located in 

the planning area and adopted by 

rulemaking by the Secretary are 

unsuitable. 

There are no criterion proposed by state 

or Indian tribes that have been approved 

by the Secretary of the Interior. No tribal 

lands are located in or near the general 

review area. 

There are no unsuitability findings for this 

criterion on the West Coal Creek LBA 

tract. 

B-6 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix B 

APPENDIX B. UNSUITABILITY CRITERIA FOR THE CABALLO WEST LBA 

TRACT 

UNSUITABILITY CRITERIA 

GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS FOR 

BUFFALO RESOURCE AREA (BLM 1985, 

2001a) 

FINDINGS FOR CABALLO WEST LBA 

TRACT 

1. Federal Land Systems. With 

certain exceptions that do not 

apply to this tract, all federal lands 

included in the following systems 

are unsuitable for mining: 

National Parks, National Wildlife 

Refuges, National System of Trails, 

National Wilderness Preservation 

System, National Wild and Scenic 

Rivers, National Recreation Areas, 

Lands acquired through the Land 

and Water Conservation Fund, 

National Forests and Federal lands 

in incorporated cities, towns and 

villages. 

There are Federal lands located around 

Gillette, Sheridan, and Wright that were 

determined to be unsuitable under this 

criterion. 

None of the federal lands determined to be 

unsuitable under Criterion 1 are present 

on the Caballo West LBA tract. Therefore, 

there are no unsuitable findings under 

this criterion. 

2. Rights-Of-Way and Easements. 

Federal lands that are within 

ROWs or easements or within 

surface leases for residential, 

commercial, industrial or other 

public purposes, on federally 

owned surface, are unsuitable for 

mining. 

Portions of the BNSF & UP railroad 

ROWs, the Tri-County 230-Kv 

transmission line ROW, the Wyoming 

State Highway 450 ROW, and the I-90 

ROW were found to be unsuitable under 

this criterion within the general review 

area. 

The portions of the Tri-County 230-Kv 

transmission line ROW, the Wyoming 

State Highway 450 ROW, the I-90 ROW, 

and the BNSF & UP railroad ROW that 

were determined to be unsuitable are not 

located on the Caballo West LBA tract. 

Therefore, there area no unsuitable 

findings under Criterion 2 for the Caballo 

West LBA tract. 

3. Buffer Zones for Rights-Of-Way, 

Communities, and Buildings. 

Federal lands within 100 ft of a 

ROW of a public road or a 

cemetery; or within 300 ft of any 

public building, school, church, 

community or institutional 

building or public park; or within 

300 ft of an occupied dwelling are 

unsuitable for mining. 

Portions of Wyoming State Highway 450, 

Interstate Highway I-90, and one 

cemetery were found to be unsuitable 

under this criterion. Decisions were 

deferred on other highways/roads, 

occupied dwellings, and one school until 

an application to lease is filed. 

Highway 450, I-90, and the cemetery are 

not located on the Caballo West LBA tract. 

No occupied dwellings or schools are 

located on the tract. Portions of the 

Bishop Road, a public road, are located 

on the tract under Alternative 2. 

Therefore, the portion of the Caballo West 

LBA tract within the Bishop Road ROW 

and the associated 100-ft buffer zone are 

designated unsuitable for mining and the 

lease will be stipulated to exclude mining 

within these areas unless a permit to 

move the road is approved by Campbell 

County Board of Commissioners. 

4. Wilderness Study Areas. Federal 

lands designated as wilderness 

study areas are unsuitable for 

mining while under review for 

possible wilderness designation. 

No lands in the general review area are 

within a wilderness study area. 

There are no unsuitable findings under 

Criterion 4 for the Caballo West LBA tract. 

5. Scenic Areas. Scenic federal 

lands designated by visual 

resource management analysis as 

Class I (outstanding visual quality 

or high visual sensitivity) but not 

currently on National Register of 

Natural Landmarks are unsuitable. 

No lands in the general review area meet 

the scenic criteria as outlined. 

There are no unsuitable findings under 

Criterion 5 for the Caballo West LBA tract. 

6. Land Used for Scientific Study. 

Federal lands under permit by the 

surface management agency and 

being used for scientific studies 

involving food or fiber production, 

natural resources, or technology 

demonstrations and experiments 

are unsuitable for the duration of 

the study except where mining 

would not jeopardize the purpose 

of the study. 

Two vegetation monitoring study sites on 

the TBNG (NE1⁄4 of Sec. 1, T.41N., R.71W. 

and NW1⁄4 NW1⁄4 of Sec. 30, T.41N., 

R.69W.), and the Hoe Creek Site (Sec. 7, 

T.47N., R.72W.) were found to be 

unsuitable under this criterion. 

The vegetation monitoring sites and the 

Hoe Creek site are not located on the 

Caballo West LBA tract. There are no 

unsuitable findings under Criterion 6 for 

the Caballo West LBA tract. 

7. Cultural Resources. All publicly 

or privately owned places which 

are included in or are eligible for 

inclusion in the NRHP and an 

appropriate buffer zone are 

unsuitable. 

On the basis of the consultation with 

SHPO, there were no unsuitable findings 

under this criterion in the general review 

area. Continue using the “Standard 

Archeological Stipulation” to new leases. 

There are no unsuitable findings under 

Criterion 7 for the Caballo West LBA tract. 

The “Standard Archeological Stipulation” 

should be applied if this tract is leased. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix B 

UNSUITABILITY CRITERIA 

GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS FOR 

BUFFALO RESOURCE AREA (BLM 1985, 

2001a) 

FINDINGS FOR CABALLO WEST LBA 

TRACT 

8. Natural Areas. Federal lands 

designated as natural areas or 

National Natural Landmarks are 

unsuitable. 

No lands in the general review area are 

designated as natural areas or as 

National Natural Landmarks. 

There are no unsuitable findings under 

Criterion 8 for the Caballo West LBA tract. 

9. Critical Habitat for Threatened 

or Endangered Plant and Animal 

Species. Federally designated 

critical habitat for threatened or 

endangered plant and animal 

species, and scientifically 

documented essential habitat for 

threatened or endangered species 

are unsuitable. 

There is no federally designated critical 

habitat for threatened or endangered 

plant or animal species within the 

general review area. 

There are no unsuitable findings under 

Criterion 9 for the Caballo West LBA tract. 

10. State Listed Threatened or 

Endangered Species. Federal 

lands containing habitat 

determined to be critical or 

essential for plant or animal 

species listed by a state pursuant 

to state law as threatened or 

endangered shall be considered 

unsuitable. 

Wyoming does not maintain a state list of 

threatened or endangered species of 

plants or animals. Therefore, this 

criterion does not apply. 

There are no unsuitable findings under 

Criterion 10 for the Caballo West LBA 

tract. 

11. Bald or Golden Eagle Nests. An 

active bald or golden eagle nest 

and appropriate buffer zone are 

unsuitable unless the lease can be 

conditioned so that eagles will not 

be disturbed during breeding 

season or unless golden eagle 

nests will be moved. 

Defer suitability decisions and evaluate 

bald and golden eagle nests on a case by 

case basis at the time of leasing. 

Establish buffer zones around nests 

during mining and reclamation planning 

after consultation with USFWS. 

There are currently no bald or golden 

eagle nests (active or inactive) on the 

Caballo West LBA tract. Evaluate 

suitability prior to lease issuance during 

consultation with USFWS. 

12. Bald and Golden Eagle Roost and 

Concentration Areas. Bald and 

golden eagle roost and 

concentration areas on federal 

lands used during migration and 

wintering are unsuitable unless 

mining can be conducted in such a 

way as to ensure that eagles shall 

not be adversely disturbed. 

Defer suitability decisions and evaluate 

bald and golden eagle roost areas on a 

case by case basis prior to lease 

issuance. Establish buffer zones after 

consultation with USFWS. 

There are no identified roost sites on the 

Caballo West LBA tract. Evaluate 

suitability prior to lease issuance during 

consultation with USFWS. 

13. Falcon Nesting Sites and Buffer 

Zones. Federal lands containing 

active falcon (excluding kestrel) 

cliff nesting sites and a suitable 

buffer zone shall be considered 

unsuitable unless mining can be 

conducted in such a way as to 

ensure the falcons will not be 

adversely affected. 

Defer suitability decisions on falcon 

nesting sites and evaluate on a case by 

case basis prior to lease issuance. 

Establish buffer zones around nesting 

sites after consultation with USFWS. 

No falcon nesting sites have been 

identified on the Caballo West LBA tract. 

There are no unsuitable findings under 

Criterion 13 for the Caballo West LBA 

tract. 

14. Habitat for Migratory Bird 

Species. Federal lands which are 

high priority habitat for migratory 

bird species of management 

concern in Wyoming shall be 

considered unsuitable unless 

mining can be conducted in such a 

way as to ensure that migratory 

bird habitat will not be adversely 

affected during the period it is in 

use. 

Defer suitability decisions on high 

priority habitat for migratory bird species 

of management concern in Wyoming and 

evaluate on a case by case basis prior to 

lease issuance. Establish buffer zones 

for nesting areas during mining and 

reclamation planning after consultation 

with USFWS. 

Evaluate suitability during consultation 

with USFWS. 

B-8 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix B 

UNSUITABILITY CRITERIA 

GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS FOR 

BUFFALO RESOURCE AREA (BLM 1985, 

2001a) 

FINDINGS FOR CABALLO WEST LBA 

TRACT 

15. Fish and Wildlife Habitat for 

Resident Species. Federal lands 

which the surface management 

agency and state jointly agree are 

fish, wildlife and plant habitat of 

resident species of high interest to 

the state, and which are essential 

for maintaining these priority 

wildlife species, shall be considered 

unsuitable unless mining can be 

conducted in such a way as to 

ensure no long-term impact on the 

species being provided will occur. 

Defer suitability decisions on grouse leks 

and evaluate on a case by case basis 

prior to lease issuance. Establish buffer 

zones after consultation with WGFD. 

There currently are no active or inactive 

sage grouse leks on the Caballo West LBA 

tract study area. There are currently no 

active sage grouse leks identified on lands 

within 3 miles of the LBA tract study area. 

Evaluate this criterion prior to lease 

issuance. Establish buffer zones during 

mining and reclamation planning after 

consultation with WGFD. 

16. Floodplains. Federal lands in 

riverine, coastal, and special 

floodplains shall be considered 

unsuitable where it is determined 

that mining could not be 

undertaken without substantial 

threat of loss of life or property. 

The BLM and USFS have determined that 

the identified floodplains in the general 

review area could potentially be mined. 

Therefore, all lands within the general 

review area are considered suitable. 

Site-specific stipulations and resource 

protection safeguards will be applied if 

necessary during mining and reclamation 

planning. There are no unsuitable 

findings under Criterion 16 for the 

Caballo West LBA tract. 

17. Municipal Watersheds. Federal 

lands which have been committed 

by the surface management agency 

to use as municipal watersheds 

shall be considered unsuitable. 

There are no designated municipal 

watersheds in the general review area. 

There are no unsuitable findings under 

Criterion 17 for the Caballo West LBA 

tract. 

18. National Resource Waters. 

Federal lands with national 

resource waters, as identified by 

states in their water quality 

management plans, and 1/4-mile 

buffer zones shall be unsuitable. 

There are no designated national 

resource waters within the general review 

area. 

There are no unsuitable findings under 

Criterion 18 for the Caballo West LBA 

tract. 

19. Alluvial Valley Floors. Federal 

lands identified by the surface 

management agency, in 

consultation with the state, as 

AVFs where mining would 

interrupt, discontinue or preclude 

farming, are unsuitable. 

Additionally, when mining federal 

lands outside an AVF would 

materially damage the quality or 

quantity of water in surface or 

underground water systems that 

would supply AVFs, the land shall 

be considered unsuitable. 

Consider areas determined to contain 

AVFs significant to farming as 

unsuitable. Defer decisions on other 

AVFs and analyze on a case-by-case 

basis prior to lease issuance. 

No AVFs or potential AVFs have been 

identified on the Caballo West LBA tract 

with characteristics indicating potential 

significance to farming. There are no 

unsuitable findings under Criterion 19 for 

the Caballo West LBA tract. 

20. State or Indian Tribe Criteria. 

Federal lands to which is 

applicable a criterion proposed by 

the state or Indian tribe located in 

the planning area and adopted by 

rulemaking by the Secretary are 

unsuitable. 

There are no criterion proposed by state 

or Indian tribes that have been approved 

by the Secretary of the Interior. No tribal 

lands are located in or near the general 

review area. 

There are no unsuitability findings for this 

criterion on the Caballo West LBA tract. 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications B-9 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix B 

APPENDIX B. UNSUITABILITY CRITERIA FOR THE MAYSDORF II LBA 

TRACT 

UNSUITABILITY CRITERIA 

GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS FOR 

BUFFALO RESOURCE AREA (BLM 1985, 

2001a) FINDINGS FOR MAYSDORF II LBA TRACT 

1. Federal Land Systems. With 

certain exceptions that do not 

apply to this tract, all federal lands 

included in the following systems 

are unsuitable for mining: 

National Parks, National Wildlife 

Refuges, National System of Trails, 

National Wilderness Preservation 

System, National Wild and Scenic 

Rivers, National Recreation Areas, 

Lands acquired through the Land 

and Water Conservation Fund, 

National Forests and Federal lands 

in incorporated cities, towns and 

villages. 

There are Federal lands located around 

Gillette, Sheridan, and Wright that were 

determined to be unsuitable under this 

criterion. 

None of the federal lands determined to be 

unsuitable under Criterion 1 are present 

on the Maysdorf II LBA tract. Therefore, 

there are no unsuitable findings under 

this criterion. 

2. Rights-Of-Way and Easements. 

Federal lands that are within 

ROWs or easements or within 

surface leases for residential, 

commercial, industrial or other 

public purposes, on federally 

owned surface, are unsuitable for 

mining. 

Portions of the BNSF & UP railroad 

ROWs, the Tri-County 230-Kv 

transmission line ROW, the Wyoming 

State Highway 450 ROW, and the I-90 

ROW were found to be unsuitable under 

this criterion within the general review 

area. 

The portions of the Tri-County 230-Kv 

transmission line ROW, the Wyoming 

State Highway 450 ROW, the I-90 ROW, 

and the BNSF & UP railroad ROW that 

were determined to be unsuitable are not 

located on the Maysdorf II LBA tract. 

Therefore, there area no unsuitable 

findings under Criterion 2 for the 

Maysdorf II LBA tract. 

3. Buffer Zones for Rights-Of-Way, 

Communities, and Buildings. 

Federal lands within 100 ft of a 

ROW of a public road or a 

cemetery; or within 300 ft of any 

public building, school, church, 

community or institutional 

building or public park; or within 

300 ft of an occupied dwelling are 

unsuitable for mining. 

Portions of Wyoming State Highway 450, 

Interstate Highway I-90, and one 

cemetery were found to be unsuitable 

under this criterion. Decisions were 

deferred on other highways/roads, 

occupied dwellings, and one school until 

an application to lease is filed. 

Highway 450, I-90, and the previously 

evaluated cemetery are not located on the 

Maysdorf II LBA tract. No occupied 

dwellings or schools are located on the 

tract. A portion of Wyoming State 

Highway 59, a public road, is located on 

the Maysdorf II LBA tract. Therefore, the 

portion of the Maysdorf II LBA tract within 

the highway ROW and the associated 100­

ft buffer zone are designated unsuitable 

for mining and the lease will be stipulated 

to exclude mining within these areas 

unless a permit to move the highway is 

approved by WYDOT. Portions of the 

Haight and Hilight Roads, public roads, 

are located on the tract as applied for. 

Therefore, the portions of the Maysdorf II 

Tract within the Haight and Hilight ROWs 

and the associated 100-ft buffer zones are 

designated unsuitable for mining and the 

lease will be stipulated to exclude mining 

within these areas unless a permit to 

move the roads is approved by Campbell 

County Board of Commissioners. In 

addition, an unevaluated cemetery was 

located within the northern block of the 

Maysdorf II LBA tract. The cemetery has 

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. 

4. Wilderness Study Areas. Federal 

lands designated as wilderness 

study areas are unsuitable for 

mining while under review for 

possible wilderness designation. 

No lands in the general review area are 

within a wilderness study area. 

There are no unsuitable findings under 

Criterion 4 for the Maysdorf II LBA tract. 

5. Scenic Areas. Scenic federal 

lands designated by visual 

resource management analysis as 

Class I (outstanding visual quality 

or high visual sensitivity) but not 

currently on National Register of 

Natural Landmarks are unsuitable. 

No lands in the general review area meet 

the scenic criteria as outlined. 

There are no unsuitable findings under 

Criterion 5 for the Maysdorf II LBA tract. 

B-10 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix B 

UNSUITABILITY CRITERIA 

GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS FOR 

BUFFALO RESOURCE AREA (BLM 1985, 

2001a) FINDINGS FOR MAYSDORF II LBA TRACT 

6. Land Used for Scientific Study. 

Federal lands under permit by the 

surface management agency and 

being used for scientific studies 

involving food or fiber production, 

natural resources, or technology 

demonstrations and experiments 

are unsuitable for the duration of 

the study except where mining 

would not jeopardize the purpose 

of the study. 

Two vegetation monitoring study sites on 

the TBNG (NE1⁄4 of Sec. 1, T.41N., R.71W. 

and NW1⁄4 NW1⁄4 of Sec. 30, T.41N., 

R.69W.), and the Hoe Creek Site (Sec. 7, 

T.47N., R.72W.) were found to be 

unsuitable under this criterion. 

The vegetation monitoring sites and the 

Hoe Creek site are not located on the 

Maysdorf II LBA tract. There are no 

unsuitable findings under Criterion 6 for 

the Maysdorf II LBA tract. 

7. Cultural Resources. All publicly 

or privately owned places which 

are included in or are eligible for 

inclusion in the NRHP and an 

appropriate buffer zone are 

unsuitable. 

On the basis of the consultation with 

SHPO, there were no unsuitable findings 

under this criterion in the general review 

area. Continue using the “Standard 

Archeological Stipulation” to new leases. 

There are no unsuitable findings under 

Criterion 7 for the Maysdorf II LBA tract. 

The “Standard Archeological Stipulation” 

should be applied if this tract is leased. 

8. Natural Areas. Federal lands 

designated as natural areas or 

National Natural Landmarks are 

unsuitable. 

No lands in the general review area are 

designated as natural areas or as 

National Natural Landmarks. 

There are no unsuitable findings under 

Criterion 8 for the Maysdorf II LBA tract. 

9. Critical Habitat for Threatened 

or Endangered Plant and Animal 

Species. Federally designated 

critical habitat for threatened or 

endangered plant and animal 

species, and scientifically 

documented essential habitat for 

threatened or endangered species 

are unsuitable. 

There is no federally designated critical 

habitat for threatened or endangered 

plant or animal species within the 

general review area. 

There are no unsuitable findings under 

Criterion 9 for the Maysdorf II LBA tract. 

10. State Listed Threatened or 

Endangered Species. Federal 

lands containing habitat 

determined to be critical or 

essential for plant or animal 

species listed by a state pursuant 

to state law as threatened or 

endangered shall be considered 

unsuitable. 

Wyoming does not maintain a state list of 

threatened or endangered species of 

plants or animals. Therefore, this 

criterion does not apply. 

There are no unsuitable findings under 

Criterion 10 for the Maysdorf II LBA tract. 

11. Bald or Golden Eagle Nests. An 

active bald or golden eagle nest 

and appropriate buffer zone are 

unsuitable unless the lease can be 

conditioned so that eagles will not 

be disturbed during breeding 

season or unless golden eagle 

nests will be moved. 

Defer suitability decisions and evaluate 

bald and golden eagle nests on a case by 

case basis at the time of leasing. 

Establish buffer zones around nests 

during mining and reclamation planning 

after consultation with USFWS. 

There are currently no bald or golden 

eagle nests (active or inactive) on the 

Maysdorf II LBA tract. Evaluate 

suitability prior to lease issuance during 

consultation with USFWS. 

12. Bald and Golden Eagle Roost and 

Concentration Areas. Bald and 

golden eagle roost and 

concentration areas on federal 

lands used during migration and 

wintering are unsuitable unless 

mining can be conducted in such a 

way as to ensure that eagles shall 

not be adversely disturbed. 

Defer suitability decisions and evaluate 

bald and golden eagle roost areas on a 

case by case basis prior to lease 

issuance. Establish buffer zones after 

consultation with USFWS. 

There are no identified roost sites on the 

Maysdorf II LBA tract. Evaluate 

suitability prior to lease issuance during 

consultation with USFWS. 

13. Falcon Nesting Sites and Buffer 

Zones. Federal lands containing 

active falcon (excluding kestrel) 

cliff nesting sites and a suitable 

buffer zone shall be considered 

unsuitable unless mining can be 

conducted in such a way as to 

ensure the falcons will not be 

adversely affected. 

Defer suitability decisions on falcon 

nesting sites and evaluate on a case by 

case basis prior to lease issuance. 

Establish buffer zones around nesting 

sites after consultation with USFWS. 

No falcon nesting sites have been 

identified on the Maysdorf II LBA tract. 

There are no unsuitable findings under 

Criterion 13 for the Maysdorf II LBA tract. 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications B-11 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix B 

UNSUITABILITY CRITERIA 

GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS FOR 

BUFFALO RESOURCE AREA (BLM 1985, 

2001a) FINDINGS FOR MAYSDORF II LBA TRACT 

14. Habitat for Migratory Bird 

Species. Federal lands which are 

high priority habitat for migratory 

bird species of management 

concern in Wyoming shall be 

considered unsuitable unless 

mining can be conducted in such a 

way as to ensure that migratory 

bird habitat will not be adversely 

affected during the period it is in 

use. 

Defer suitability decisions on high 

priority habitat for migratory bird species 

of management concern in Wyoming and 

evaluate on a case by case basis prior to 

lease issuance. Establish buffer zones 

for nesting areas during mining and 

reclamation planning after consultation 

with USFWS. 

Evaluate suitability during consultation 

with USFWS. 

15. Fish and Wildlife Habitat for 

Resident Species. Federal lands 

which the surface management 

agency and state jointly agree are 

fish, wildlife and plant habitat of 

resident species of high interest to 

the state, and which are essential 

for maintaining these priority 

wildlife species, shall be considered 

unsuitable unless mining can be 

conducted in such a way as to 

ensure no long-term impact on the 

species being provided will occur. 

Defer suitability decisions on grouse leks 

and evaluate on a case by case basis 

prior to lease issuance. Establish buffer 

zones after consultation with WGFD. 

There currently are no active or inactive 

sage-grouse leks on the Maysdorf II LBA 

tract study area. There are currently four 

sage grouse leks which have been active 

within the last 10 years, identified on 

lands adjacent to the LBA tract: one 

within 1⁄4 mile, two within 1 mile, and one 

within 2 miles of the Maysdorf II LBA tract 

study area. Evaluate this criterion prior 

to lease issuance. Establish buffer zones 

during mining and reclamation planning 

after consultation with WGFD. 

16. Floodplains. Federal lands in 

riverine, coastal, and special 

floodplains shall be considered 

unsuitable where it is determined 

that mining could not be 

undertaken without substantial 

threat of loss of life or property. 

The BLM and USFS have determined that 

the identified floodplains in the general 

review area could potentially be mined. 

Therefore, all lands within the general 

review area are considered suitable. 

Site-specific stipulations and resource 

protection safeguards will be applied if 

necessary during mining and reclamation 

planning. There are no unsuitable 

findings under Criterion 16 for the 

Maysdorf II LBA tract. 

17. Municipal Watersheds. Federal 

lands which have been committed 

by the surface management agency 

to use as municipal watersheds 

shall be considered unsuitable. 

There are no designated municipal 

watersheds in the general review area. 

There are no unsuitable findings under 

Criterion 17 for the Maysdorf II LBA tract. 

18. National Resource Waters. 

Federal lands with national 

resource waters, as identified by 

states in their water quality 

management plans, and 1/4-mile 

buffer zones shall be unsuitable. 

There are no designated national 

resource waters within the general 

review area. 

There are no unsuitable findings under 

Criterion 18 for the Maysdorf II LBA tract. 

19. Alluvial Valley Floors. Federal 

lands identified by the surface 

management agency, in 

consultation with the state, as 

AVFs where mining would 

interrupt, discontinue or preclude 

farming, are unsuitable. 

Additionally, when mining federal 

lands outside an AVF would 

materially damage the quality or 

quantity of water in surface or 

underground water systems that 

would supply AVFs, the land shall 

be considered unsuitable. 

Consider areas determined to contain 

AVFs significant to farming as 

unsuitable. Defer decisions on other 

AVFs and analyze on a case-by-case 

basis prior to lease issuance. 

No AVFs or potential AVFs have been 

identified on the Maysdorf II LBA tract 

with characteristics indicating potential 

significance to farming. There are no 

unsuitable findings under Criterion 19 for 

the Maysdorf II LBA tract. 

20. State or Indian Tribe Criteria. 

Federal lands to which is 

applicable a criterion proposed by 

the state or Indian tribe located in 

the planning area and adopted by 

rulemaking by the Secretary are 

unsuitable. 

There are no criterion proposed by state 

or Indian tribes that have been approved 

by the Secretary of the Interior. No tribal 

lands are located in or near the general 

review area. 

There are no unsuitability findings for this 

criterion on the Maysdorf II LBA tract. 

B-12 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
 APPENDIX C 

COAL LEASE-BY-APPLICATION 


FLOW CHART
 
 

 

 

Appendix C 

COAL LEASE-BY-APPLICATION
 

State Director (SD) notifies 

Governor and Regional Coal Team 

of application 

Field Office Manager (FM) ensures 

that application is in conformance 

with Land Use Plan (LUP) 

Minerals Staff receives application 

and prepares report on maximum 

economic recovery 

BLM STATE OFFICE 

RECEIVES APPLICATION 

Conformance with LUP: 

FM prepares site-specific 

Environmental 

Analysis 

Non-Conformance with LUP: 

FM recommends amendment 

of LUP and/or modification of 

application area 

FM prepares Environmental 

Analysis of LUP amendment 

and application 

Adjudicator evaluates 

applicant’s qualifications 

FM HOLDS PUBLIC 

HEARING 

Applicant submits/ 

Adjudicator reviews surface owner 

consent agreement(s) (if necessary) 

SD 

DECISION 

HOLD 

SALE 

REJECT 

APPLICATION 

SD consults with 

Surface Management Agency, Governor, 

Attorney General, and Indian Tribes 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications C-1 
APPENDIX D 

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT 


SPECIAL COAL LEASE STIPULATIONS 


AND FORM 3400-12 COAL LEASE 

Appendix D 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM) will attach the following special stipulations to 

each lease by application (LBA) tract that is leased: 

SPECIAL STIPULATIONS 

In addition to observing the general obligations and standards of performance set 

out in the current regulations, the lessee shall comply with and be bound by the 

following special stipulations. 

These stipulations are also imposed upon the lessee's agents and employees. The 

failure or refusal of any of these persons to comply with these stipulations shall be 

deemed a failure of the lessee to comply with the terms of the lease. The lessee 

shall require his agents, contractors and subcontractors involved in activities 

concerning this lease to include these stipulations in the contracts between and 

among them. These stipulations may be revised or amended, in writing, by the 

mutual consent of the lessor and the lessee at any time to adjust to changed 

conditions or to correct an oversight. 

(a) CULTURAL RESOURCES 

(1) Before undertaking any activities that may disturb the surface of the leased 

lands, the lessee shall conduct a cultural resource intensive field inventory in a 

manner specified by the Authorized Officer of the BLM or of the surface 

managing agency, if different, on portions of the mine plan area and adjacent 

areas, or exploration plan area, that may be adversely affected by lease-related 

activities and which were not previously inventoried at such a level of intensity. 

The inventory shall be conducted by a qualified professional cultural resource 

specialist (i.e., archeologist, historian, historical architect, as appropriate), 

approved by the Authorized Officer of the surface managing agency (BLM, if the 

surface is privately owned), and a report of the inventory and recommendations 

for protecting any cultural resources identified shall be submitted to the 

Regional Director of the Western Region of the Office of Surface Mining (the 

Western Regional Director), the Authorized Officer of the BLM, if activities are 

associated with coal exploration outside an approved mining permit area 

(hereinafter called Authorized Officer), and the Authorized Officer of the surface 

managing agency, if different. The lessee shall undertake measures, in 

accordance with instructions from the Western Regional Director, or 

Authorized Officer, to protect cultural resources on the leased lands. The 

lessee shall not commence the surface disturbing activities until permission to 

proceed is given by the Western Regional Director or Authorized Officer. 

(2) The lessee shall protect all cultural resource properties that have been 

determined eligible to the National Register of Historic Places within the lease 

area from lease-related activities until the cultural resource mitigation 

measures can be implemented as part of an approved mining and reclamation 

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

Appendix D 

or exploration plan unless modified by mutual agreement in consultation with 

the State Historic Preservation Officer. 

(3) The cost of conducting the inventory, preparing reports, and carrying out 

mitigation measures shall be borne by the lessee. 

(4) If cultural resources are discovered during operations under this lease, the 

lessee shall immediately bring them to the attention of the Western Regional 

Director or Authorized Officer, or the Authorized Officer of the surface 

managing agency, if the Western Regional Director is not available. The lessee 

shall not disturb such resources except as may be subsequently authorized by 

the Western Regional Director or Authorized Officer. 

Within two (2) working days of notification, the Western Regional Director or 

Authorized Officer will evaluate or have evaluated any cultural resources 

discovered and will determine if any action may be required to protect or 

preserve such discoveries. The cost of data recovery for cultural resources 

discovered during lease operations shall be borne by the lessee unless 

otherwise specified by the Authorized Officer of the BLM or of the surface 

managing agency, if different. 

(5) All cultural resources shall remain under the jurisdiction of the United 

States until ownership is determined under applicable law. 

(b) 	 PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES 

If paleontological resources, either large and conspicuous, and/or of significant 

scientific value are discovered during mining operations, the find will be reported 

to the Authorized Officer immediately. Mining operations will be suspended within 

250 feet of said find. An evaluation of the paleontological discovery will be made 

by a BLM-approved professional paleontologist within five (5) working days, 

weather permitting, to determine the appropriate action(s) to prevent the potential 

loss of any significant paleontological value. Operations within 250 feet of such 

discovery will not be resumed until written authorization to proceed is issued by 

the Authorized Officer. The lessee will bear the cost of any required 

paleontological appraisals, surface collection of fossils, or salvage of any large 

conspicuous fossils of significant scientific interest discovered during the 

operations. 

(c) 	 THREATENED, ENDANGERED, CANDIDATE, or OTHER SPECIAL 

STATUS PLANT and ANIMAL SPECIES 

(1) The lease area may now or hereafter contain plants, animals, or their 

habitats determined to be threatened or endangered under the Endangered 

Species Act of 1973, as amended, 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq., or that have other 

special status. The Authorized Officer may recommend modifications to 

D-2 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
Appendix D 

exploration and development proposals to further conservation and 

management objectives or to avoid activity that will contribute to a need to list 

such species or their habitat or to comply with any biological opinion issued by 

the Fish and Wildlife Service for the Proposed Action. The Authorized Officer 

will not approve any ground-disturbing activity that may affect any such 

species or critical habitat until it completes its obligations under applicable 

requirements of the Endangered Species Act. The Authorized Officer may 

require modifications to, or disapprove a proposed activity that is likely to 

result in jeopardy to the continued existence of a proposed or listed threatened 

or endangered species, or result in the destruction or adverse modification of 

designated or proposed critical habitat. 

(2) The lessee shall comply with instructions from the Authorized Officer of the 

surface managing agency (BLM, if the surface is private) for ground disturbing 

activities associated with coal exploration on federal coal leases prior to 

approval of a mining and reclamation permit or outside an approved mining 

and reclamation permit area. The lessee shall comply with instructions from 

the Authorized Officer of the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and 

Enforcement, or his designated representative, for all ground disturbing 

activities taking place within an approved mining and reclamation permit area 

or associated with such a permit. 

(3) Any potential habitat that has not already been surveyed for Ute ladies’ 

tresses according to the most recently approved USFWS survey methods within 

the project area shall be identified and surveyed prior to surface mining 

activities. 

(4) Any potential habitat that has not already been surveyed for blowout 

penstemon according to the most recently approved USFWS survey methods 

within the project area shall be identified and surveyed prior to surface mining 

activities. 

(d) MULTIPLE MINERAL DEVELOPMENT 

Operations will not be approved which, in the opinion of the Authorized Officer, 

would unreasonably interfere with the orderly development and/or production 

from a valid existing mineral lease issued prior to this one for the same lands. 

(e) OIL AND GAS/COAL RESOURCES 

The BLM realizes that coal mining operations conducted on Federal coal leases 

issued within producing oil and gas fields may interfere with the economic 

recovery of oil and gas; just as Federal oil and gas leases issued in a Federal coal 

lease area may inhibit coal recovery. BLM retains the authority to alter and/or 

modify the resource recovery and protection plans for coal operations and/or oil 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications D-3 
Appendix D 

and gas operations on those lands covered by Federal mineral leases so as to 

obtain maximum resource recovery. 

(f) RESOURCE RECOVERY AND PROTECTION 

Notwithstanding the approval of a resource recovery and protection plan (R2P2) by 

the BLM, lessor reserves the right to seek damages against the operator/lessee in 

the event (i) the operator/lessee fails to achieve maximum economic recovery 

(MER) (as defined at 43 CFR 3480.0-5(21)) of the recoverable coal reserves or (ii) 

the operator/lessee is determined to have caused a wasting of recoverable coal 

reserves. Damages shall be measured on the basis of the royalty that would have 

been payable on the wasted or unrecovered coal. 

The parties recognize that under an approved R2P2, conditions may require a 

modification by the operator/lessee of that plan. In the event a coal bed or portion 

thereof is not to be mined or is rendered unmineable by the operation, the 

operator/lessee shall submit appropriate justification to obtain approval by the 

Authorized Officer to leave such reserves unmined. Upon approval by the 

Authorized Officer, such coal beds or portions thereof shall not be subject to 

damages as described above. Further, nothing in this section shall prevent the 

operator/lessee from exercising its right to relinquish all or portion of the lease as 

authorized by statute and regulation. 

In the event the Authorized Officer determines that the R2P2, as approved, will not 

attain MER as the result of changed conditions, the Authorized Officer will give 

proper notice to the operator/lessee as required under applicable regulations. The 

Authorized Officer will order a modification if necessary, identifying additional 

reserves to be mined in order to attain MER. Upon a final administrative or 

judicial ruling upholding such an ordered modification, any reserves left unmined 

(wasted) under that plan will be subject to damages as described in the first 

paragraph under this section. 

Subject to the right to appeal hereinafter set forth, payment of the value of the 

royalty on such unmined recoverable coal reserves shall become due and payable 

upon determination by the Authorized Officer that the coal reserves have been 

rendered unmineable or at such time that the operator/lessee has demonstrated 

an unwillingness to extract the coal. 

The BLM may enforce this provision either by issuing a written decision requiring 

payment of the Mineral Management Service demand for such royalties, or by 

issuing a notice of non-compliance. A decision or notice of non-compliance issued 

by the lessor that payment is due under this stipulation is appealable as allowed 

by law. 

D-4 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
Appendix D 

(g) 	 PUBLIC LAND SURVEY PROTECTION 

The lessee will protect all survey monuments, witness corners, reference 

monuments, and bearing trees against destruction, obliteration, or damage during 

operations on the lease areas. If any monuments, corners or accessories are 

destroyed, obliterated, or damaged by this operation, the lessee will hire an 

appropriate county surveyor or registered land surveyor to reestablish or restore 

the monuments, corners, or accessories at the same location, using surveying 

procedures in accordance with the "Manual of Surveying Instructions for the 

Survey of the Public Lands of the United States." The survey will be recorded in 

the appropriate county records, with a copy sent to the Authorized Officer. 

(h) 	 BUFFER ZONES FOR RIGHTS-OF-WAY OF PUBLIC ROADS, SCHOOL 

BUILDING, AND OCCUPIED DWELLINGS 

(1) No mining activity of any kind may be conducted within the U.S. Highway 

59 right-of-way and associated 100-feet buffer zone. The lessee shall recover 

all legally and economically recoverable coal from all leased lands not within 

the foregoing right-of-way and associated buffer zone. Provided a permit to 

move the highway is approved by the Wyoming Department of, the lessee shall 

recover all legally and economically recoverable coal from all leased lands 

within the foregoing right-of-way and associated buffer zone. The lessee shall 

pay all royalties on any legally and economically recoverable coal that it fails to 

mine without the written permission of the Authorized Officer. 

(2) No mining activity of any kind may be conducted within Bishop, Haight, or 

Hilight Road rights-of-way and associated 100-feet buffer zones. The lessee 

shall recover all legally and economically recoverable coal from all leased lands 

not within the foregoing rights-of-way and associated buffer zones. Provided a 

permit to move the roads is approved by the Campbell County Board of 

Commissioners, the lessee shall recover all legally and economically 

recoverable coal from all leased lands within the foregoing rights-of-way and 

associated buffer zones. The lessee shall pay all royalties on any legally and 

economically recoverable coal that it fails to mine without the written 

permission of the Authorized Officer. 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications D-5 
Appendix D 

D-6 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
Appendix D 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications D-7 
Appendix D 

D-8 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
 

APPENDIX E 

BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENTS
 

FOR THE SOUTH GILLETTE AREA COAL
 

LEASE APPLICATIONS EIS,
 

BELLE AYR NORTH LBA TRACT 


WEST COAL CREEK LBA TRACT
 

CABALLO WEST LBA TRACT 


MAYSDORF II LBA TRACT
 
 

 

 

 

 

Appendix E 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 


INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................E-1 


CONSULTATION TO DATE ...........................................................................E-4 


REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS AND MITIGATION ......................................E-5 


CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ...............................................................................E-7 


LIST OF FIGURES 

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


 Tracts......................................................................................E-2 

SECTION 1, BELLE AYR NORTH LBA TRACT 

E1-1.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION AND 


 ALTERNATIVES ...........................................................................E1-1 


 PROPOSED PROJECT..................................................................E1-6 


E1-1.1 The Proposed Action ......................................................E1-1 


E1-1.2 Alternatives to the Proposed Action ................................E1-4 


E1-1.2.1 Alternative 1................................................E1-4 


E1-1.2.2 Alternative 2................................................E1-4 


E1-2.0 SPECIES HABITAT AND OCCURRENCE AND EFFECTS OF THE 


E1-2.1 Threatened Species ........................................................E1-9 


E1-2.1.1 Ute Ladies’-tresses ......................................E1-9 


E1-2.2 Endangered Species.....................................................E1-12 


E1-2.2.1 Black-footed ferret.....................................E1-12 


E1-2.2.2 Blowout Penstemon...................................E1-14 


E1-3.0 SUMMARY OF DETERMINATIONS .............................................E1-15 


E1-4.0 CREDENTIALS OF SURVEY PERSONNEL ..................................E1-16 


E1-4.1 Jones & Stokes of Gillette, Wyoming ............................E1-16 


E1-4.2 ESCO Associated Inc. of Boulder, Colorado ..................E1-16 


SECTION 1, LIST OF TABLES 

Table E1-1	 Effects Evaluation of Sensitive and Federal T&E Species in 

the Area of the Belle Ayr North LBA Tracts...........................E1-15 

SECTION 1, LIST OF FIGURES 

Figure E1-1 	 Belle Ayr North LBA Tract Alternatives ..................................E1-2 


Figure E1-2 	 Surface Ownership Within the Belle Ayr North LBA Tract 

Alternatives...........................................................................E1-3 

SECTION 2, WEST COAL CREEK LBA TRACT 

E2-1.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION AND 


 ALTERNATIVES ...........................................................................E2-1 


E2-1.1 The Proposed Action.......................................................E2-1 


E2-1.2 Alternatives to the Proposed Action ................................E2-4 


E2-1.2.1 Alternative 1................................................E2-4 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications E-i 
Appendix E 

E2-1.2.2 Alternative 2................................................E2-4 

E2-2.0 SPECIES HABITAT AND OCCURRENCE AND EFFECTS OF THE 


 PROPOSED PROJECT..................................................................E2-6 


E2-2.1 Threatened Species ......................................................E2-10 


E2-2.1.1 Ute ladies’-tresses .....................................E2-10 

E2-2.2 Endangered Species.....................................................E2-13 


E2-2.2.1 Black-footed ferret.....................................E2-13 

E2-2.2.2 Blowout Penstemon...................................E2-14 

E2-3.0 SUMMARY OF DETERMINATIONS .............................................E2-15 


E2-4.0 CREDENTIALS OF SURVEY PERSONNEL ..................................E2-16 


E2-4.1 Jones & Stokes of Gillette, Wyoming ............................E2-16 


E2-4.2 BKS Environmental Associated, Inc. of Gillette, 


 Wyoming......................................................................E2-16 

SECTION 2, LIST OF TABLES 

Table E2-1.	 Effects Evaluation of Sensitive and Federal T&E Species in 

the Area of the West Coal Creek LBA Tracts ........................E2-16 

SECTION 2, LIST OF FIGURES 

Figure E2-1. West Coal Creek LBA Tract Alternatives ................................E2-2 


Figure E2-2. Surface Ownership Within the West Coal Creek LBA 

 Tract Alternatives..................................................................E2-3 

Figure E2-3. T&E Species Survey Area for the Coal Creek Mine and 

the West Coal Creek LBA Tract..............................................E2-8 

SECTION 3, CABALLO WEST LBA TRACT 

E3-1.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION AND 


 ALTERNATIVES ...........................................................................E3-1 


E3-1.1 The Proposed Action.......................................................E3-1 


E3-1.2 Alternatives to the Proposed Action ................................E3-4 


E3-1.2.1 Alternative 1................................................E3-4 

E3-1.2.2 Alternative 2................................................E3-4 

E3-2.0 SPECIES HABITAT AND OCCURRENCE AND EFFECTS OF 


THE PROPOSED PROJECT ..........................................................E3-5 


E3-2.1 Threatened Species ........................................................E3-8 


E3-2.1.1 Ute ladies’ tresses........................................E3-8 


E3-2.2 Endangered Species.....................................................E3-11 


E3-2.2.1 Black-footed ferret.....................................E3-11 

E3-2.2.2 Blowout Penstemon...................................E3-13 

E3-3.0 SUMMARY OF DETERMINATIONS .............................................E3-15 


E3-4.0 CREDENTIALS OF SURVEY PERSONNEL ..................................E3-15 


E3-4.1 Jones & Stokes of Gillette, Wyoming ............................E3-15 


E3-4.2 BKS Environmental Associates, Inc. of Gillette, 


 Wyoming......................................................................E3-16 


E-ii Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications
Appendix E 

SECTION 3, LIST OF TABLES 

Table E3-1.	 Effects Evaluation of Sensitive and Federal R&E Species 

in the Area of the Caballo West LBA Tracts..........................E3-15 

SECTION 3, LIST OF FIGURES 

Figure E3-1 	 Caballo West LBA Tract Alternatives .....................................E3-2 


Figure E3-2 	 Surface Ownership Within the Caballo West LBA Tract 

 Alternatives...........................................................................E3-3 

SECTION 4, MAYSDORF II LBA TRACT 

E4-1.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION AND 


 ALTERNATIVES ...........................................................................E4-1 


E4-1.1 The Proposed Action.......................................................E4-1 


E4-1.2 Alternatives to the Proposed Action ................................E4-3 


E4-1.2.1 Alternative 1................................................E4-3 

E4-1.2.2 Alternative 2................................................E4-5 

E4-1.2.3 Alternative 3................................................E4-7 

E4-2.0 SPECIES HABITAT AND OCCURRENCE AND EFFECTS OF THE 


PROPOSED PROJECT..................................................................E4-9 


E4-2.1 Threatened Species ......................................................E4-12 


E4-2.1.1 Ute ladies’-tresses .....................................E4-12 

E4-2.2 Endangered Species.....................................................E4-15 


E4-2.2.1 Black-footed ferret.....................................E4-15 

E4-2.2.2 Blowout Penstemon...................................E4-18 

E4-3.0 SUMMARY OF DETERMINATIONS..............................................E4-19 


E4-4.0 CREDENTIALS OF SURVEY PERSONNEL ...................................E4-19 


E4-4.1 Intermountain Resources of Laramie, Wyoming............E4-19 


E4-4.2 ESCO Associated Inc. of Boulder, Colorado ..................E4-20 


SECTION 4, LIST OF TABLES 

Table E4-1. Effects Evaluation of Sensitive and Federal T&E Species in the 

Area of the Maysdorf II LBA Tracts.........................................E4-19 

SECTION 4, LIST OF FIGURES 

Figure E4-1. 	 Maysdorf II LBA Tract Alternatives......................................E4-2 


Figure E4-2. 	 Surface Ownership Within the Maysdorf II LBA Tract 

 Alternatives ........................................................................E4-4 

Figure E4-3. 	 T&E Species Survey Area for the Cordero Rojo Mine and the 

Maysdorf II LBA Tract .......................................................E4-10 

SECTION 5 REFERENCES CITED.............................................................E5-1 


Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications E-iii 
Appendix E 

INTRODUCTION 

Between 2004 and 2006, operators of four coal mines in Campbell County, 

Wyoming applied for four tracts of federal coal as maintenance leases under 

the Leasing on Application regulations at 43 CFD 3425. The environmental 

impacts of leasing these four lease by application (LBA) tracts are being 

evaluated in one environmental impact statement (EIS), the South Gillette Area 

Coal (SGAC) EIS. The four tracts, which are shown in Figure E-1, and 

applicant mines are: 

 Belle Ayr North LBA tract adjacent to and north of the Belle Ayr Mine; 

 West Coal Creek LBA tract adjacent to and west of the Coal Creek Mine; 

 Caballo West LBA tract adjacent to and southwest of the Caballo Mine; 

and 

 Maysdorf II LBA tract adjacent to and west of the Cordero Rojo Complex. 

The purpose of this Biological Assessment is to provide information about the 

potential effects that leasing the Belle Ayr North, West coal Creek, Caballo 

West, and Maysdorf II LBA tracts would have on federally listed threatened or 

endangered (T&E) species. T&E species are managed under the authority of 

the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (PL 93-205, as amended). The 

Endangered Species Act requires Federal agencies to ensure that all actions 

they authorize, fund, or carry out are not likely to jeopardize the continued 

existence of any federally listed species or result in the destruction or adverse 

modification of their critical habitat. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) does 

not authorize mining by issuing a lease for federal coal, but the impacts of 

mining the coal are considered at the leasing stage because they are a logical 

consequence of issuing a lease. 

This biological assessment was prepared to disclose the possible effects to T&E 

species (plant and animal) that are known to be present or that may be present 

within the area influenced by the Proposed Action and the alternative to the 

Proposed Action being evaluated by the BLM. It was prepared in accordance 

with Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. 

Biological assessment objectives are: 

1. To comply with the requirements of the Endangered Species Act that 

actions of federal agencies not jeopardize or adversely modify critical 

habitat of federally listed species. 

2. To provide a process and standard by which to ensure that threatened or 

endangered species receive full consideration in the decision making 

process. 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications E-1 
Converse County Niobrara County 

Weston County 

387 

Appendix E 

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

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 

16 

E-2
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix E 

If a decision is made to hold competitive lease sales for the Belle Ayr North, 

West coal Creek, Caballo West, and Maysdorf II LBA tracts and if there is a 

successful bidder at a sale, a lease would be issued for the tract of federal coal 

as applied for. The tracts offered for lease would be subject to standard and 

special lease stipulations developed for the Wyoming Powder River Basin (PRB). 

The stipulations that would be attached to a lease for the four tracts are listed 

in appendix D of the SGAC EIS document. The following stipulation relating to 

T&E species is one of the special stipulations developed for the Wyoming PRB: 

THREATENED, ENDANGERED, CANDIDATE, or OTHER SPECIAL STATUS 

PLANT and ANIMAL SPECIES – The lease area may now or hereafter 

contain plants, animals, or their habitats determined to be threatened or 

endangered under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, 16 

U.S.C. 1531 et seq., or that have other special status. The Authorized Officer 

may recommend modifications to exploration and development proposals to 

further conservation and management objectives or to avoid activity that will 

contribute to a need to list such species or their habitat or to comply with any 

biological opinion issued by the Fish and Wildlife Service for the Proposed 

Action. The Authorized Officer will not approve any ground-disturbing activity 

that may affect any such species or critical habitat until it completes its 

obligations under applicable requirements of the Endangered Species Act. The 

Authorized Officer may require modifications to, or disapprove a proposed 

activity that is likely to result in jeopardy to the continued existence of a 

proposed or listed threatened or endangered species, or result in the 

destruction or adverse modification of designated or proposed critical habitat. 

The lessee shall comply with instructions from the Authorized Officer of the 

surface managing agency (BLM, if the surface is private) for ground disturbing 

activities associated with coal exploration on federal coal leases prior to 

approval of a mining and reclamation permit or outside an approved mining 

and reclamation permit area. The lessee shall comply with instructions from 

the Authorized Officer of the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and 

Enforcement, or his designated representative, for all ground disturbing 

activities taking place within an approved mining and reclamation permit area 

or associated with such a permit. 

It is assumed that an area larger than a tract would have to be disturbed in 

order to recover all of the coal in the tract. The disturbances outside of a tract 

would be due to activities like overstripping, matching undisturbed topography, 

and construction of flood control and sediment control structures. 

The coal mining unsuitability criteria listed in the federal coal management 

regulations at 43 CFR 3461.5 were applied to high to moderate coal 

development potential lands in the Wyoming PRB. As indicated in sections 1.1 

and 1.5, some of the coal in the six tracts is overlain by rights of way (ROWs) 

for a state highway or county roads, or portions of the BNSF and UP railroad 

ROW and has been determined to be unsuitable for mining under Unsuitability 

Criterion 2 and/or Unsuitability Criterion 3 (43 CFR 3461.5). The Surface 

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

Appendix E 

Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA) prohibits surface mining 

operations on lands within 100 feet of the outside line of the ROW for a public 

road (SMCRA Section 522(e)(4) and 30 CFR 761.11(d)). There is an exception 

to this prohibition in the regulations at SMCRA Section 522(e)(4) and 30 CFR 

761.11(d)(2), which can be applied if the appropriate road authority (Wyoming 

Department of Transportation (WYDOT) for state highways and Campbell 

County Board of Commissioners for county roads) allows a public 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. Although the federal coal underlying the railroad and road ROWs 

and associated buffer zones may not be mined, it is included in a tract because 

it would allow maximum recovery of the mineable coal adjacent to but outside 

of the railroad and road ROWs and associated buffer zones and comply with 

the coal leasing regulations that do not allow leasing of less than 10-acre 

aliquot parts. 

Under the Proposed Actions for each tract, it is assumed that the LBA tract 

would be developed as maintenance lease to extend the life of the adjacent 

existing applicant mine. As a result, under the Proposed Actions, the coal 

included in the tract would be mined by existing employees using existing 

facilities and roads. 

CONSULTATION TO DATE 

The existing applicant mines and Belle Ayr North, West coal Creek, Caballo 

West, and Maysdorf II LBA tracts are included in the area determined to be 

“acceptable for further consideration for leasing” as part of the coal screening 

process. The coal screening process is a four part process that includes 

application of the coal unsuitability criteria, which are defined in 43 CFR 

3461.5. BLM has applied these coal screens to federal coal lands in Campbell 

County several times, starting in the early 1980s. Most recently, in 1993, BLM 

began the process of reapplying these screens to federal coal lands in 

Campbell, Converse, and Sheridan Counties. The results of this analysis were 

included as Appendix D of the 2001 Approved Resource Management Plan for 

Public Lands Administered by the BLM Buffalo Field Office (BLM 2001), which 

can be viewed on the Wyoming BLM website at http://www.wy.blm.gov in the 

NEPA documents section. Consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

(USFWS) occurred in conjunction with the unsuitability findings under 

Criterion 9 (Critical Habitat for Threatened or Endangered Plant and Animal 

Species), Criterion 11 (Bald or Golden Eagle Nests), Criterion 12 (Bald and 

Golden Eagle Roost and Concentration Areas), Criterion 13 (Falcon Nesting 

Site(s) and Buffer Zone(s)), and Criterion 14 (Habitat for Migratory Bird 

Species). 

Appendix B of the SGAC EIS document summarizes the unsuitability criteria, 

describes the general findings for the screening analyses discussed above, and 

presents a validation of these findings for the Belle Ayr North, West coal Creek, 

Caballo West, and Maysdorf II LBA tracts based on the current information. 

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

Appendix E 

The USFWS maintains a list of T&E and candidate species and designated 

critical habitat on their official website; the website includes those species 

found in Wyoming. USFWS updates the species list annually, or sooner if any 

listing changes occur. The species list on the USFWS website fulfills the 

obligation of the USFWS, under section 7(c) of the Endangered Species Act of 

1973, to provide a list of T&E species upon request for federal actions and 

NEPA compliance. 

According to USFWS information (USFWS 2008a), three federally listed species 

could potentially occur in the Belle Ayr North, West Coal Creek, Caballo West, 

and Maysdorf II general analysis areas; the Ute ladies'-tresses orchid 

(Spiranthes diluvialis) (threatened), the black-footed ferret (Mustela nigripes) 

(endangered) , and the blowout penstemon (Penstemon haydenii) (endangered). 

The effects upon these three species are described and analyzed in detail in 

this appendix. 

The August 8, 2007 memorandum provided recommendations for protective 

measures for T&E species in accordance with the Endangered Species Act. 

Protective measures for migratory birds in accordance with the Migratory Bird 

Treaty Act and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act and recommendations 

for the protection of wetlands (under Executive Order 11990 and Section 404 of 

the Clean Water Act) and for other fish and wildlife resources (under the Fish 

and Wildlife Coordination Act and the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956) were also 

included. The memorandum identified the greater sage-grouse as a species of 

specific interest and the importance of identifying grouse habitats within the 

lease area and appropriate mitigation measures to minimize potential impacts 

to this species. The memorandum also stated that the USFWS would work 

with the BLM to ensure that the species-specific protective measures and 

programs for the conservation and recovery of listed species as required by 

under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act are satisfied and carried out. 

The Wyoming Game and Fish Department (WGFD) provided BLM with scoping 

comments for the four tracts included in the SGAC EIS in a letter from John 

Emmerich, Deputy Director, WGFD, Cheyenne, Wyoming, to Teresa Johnson, 

BLM, Casper Field Office, Casper, Wyoming, dated April 10, 2007 (WGFD 

2007). WGFD recommended consideration be given to possible impacts to big 

game, sage grouse, raptors, and nongame species and their habitat, and 

aquatic resources within the South Gillette Area Coal project area. 

REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS AND MITIGATION 

The issuance of a Federal coal lease grants the lessee the exclusive rights to 

mine the coal, subject to the terms and conditions of the lease. Lease 

ownership is necessary for mining federal coal, but lease ownership does not 

authorize mining operations. Surface coal mining operations are regulated in 

accordance with the requirements of the Surface Mining Control and 

Reclamation Act of 1977 and Wyoming State regulations. The Surface Mining 

Control and Reclamation Act gives the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications E-5 
Appendix E 

and Enforcement (OSM) primary responsibility to administer programs that 

regulate surface coal mining operations and the surface effects of underground 

coal mining operations. Pursuant to Section 503 of the Surface Mining Control 

and Reclamation Act, the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality 

(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 nonfederal 

lands within the State of Wyoming. In January 1987, pursuant to Section 

523(c) of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act, WDEQ entered into 

a cooperative agreement with the Secretary of the Interior authorizing WDEQ to 

regulate surface coal mining operations and surface effects of underground 

mining on federal lands within the state. In order to get approval of this 

cooperative agreement, the state had to demonstrate that the state laws and 

regulations are no less stringent than, meet the minimum requirements of, and 

include all applicable provisions of the Surface Mining Control and 

Reclamation Act. 

If the Belle Ayr North, West coal Creek, Caballo West, and Maysdorf II LBA 

tracts are leased, they would be a maintenance lease for the existing applicant 

mines, which currently have both approved Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (MLA) 

mining plans and approved State mining and reclamation permits. In the case 

of maintenance leases, such as the Belle Ayr North, West coal Creek, Caballo 

West, and Maysdorf II LBA tracts, the existing MLA mining plans and State 

mining and reclamation plans must be amended to include any newly leased 

area before that area can be mined. In order to amend the existing MLA 

mining plans and State mining and reclamation permits, the companies would 

be required to submit a detailed permit application packages to WDEQ before 

starting surface coal mining operations on any newly acquired leases. 

Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality/Land Quality Division 

(WDEQ/LQD) would review the permit application packages to insure the 

permit applications complies with the permitting requirements and the coal 

mining operation will meet the performance standards of the approved 

Wyoming program. If the permit application packages do comply, WDEQ would 

issue the applicants amended permits that would allow the permittee to extend 

coal mining operations onto the newly acquired leases. 

Protection of fish, wildlife, and related environmental values is required under 

the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act regulations at 30 CFR 816.97, 

which state: 

“No surface mining activity shall be conducted which is likely to jeopardize 

the continued existence of endangered or threatened species listed by the 

Secretary of which is likely to result in the destruction or adverse 

modification of designated critical habitats of such species in violation of the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended.” 

In addition to requiring the operator to minimize disturbances and adverse 

impacts on fish, wildlife, and related environmental values, the regulations at 

E-6 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
 

Appendix E 

30 CFR 816.97 disallow any surface mining activity which is likely to 

jeopardize the continued existence of endangered or threatened species and 

require that the operator use the best technology currently available to 

minimize electrocution hazards to raptors; locate and operate haul and access 

roads to avoid or minimize impacts on important fish and wildlife species; and 

design fences, conveyors, and other potential barriers to permit passage of 

large mammals. Section 7 consultation would be required prior to approval of 

the mining and reclamation plan modification. Additional measures to ensure 

compliance with the Endangered Species Act and the Surface Mining Control 

and Reclamation Act can be developed when the detailed mining plan, which 

identifies the actual location of the disturbance areas, how and when they 

would be disturbed, and how they would be reclaimed, is developed and 

reviewed for approval. At the leasing stage, a detailed mining and reclamation 

plan is not available for evaluation or development of appropriate mitigation 

measures specific to an actual proposal to mine. 

The following is a partial list of measures related to federally-protected species 

that are required as part of the mining and reclamation permits: 

• 	 avoiding bald eagle disturbance per the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection 

Act of 1940 and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act; 

• 	 restoring bald eagle foraging areas disturbed by mining; 

• 	 using raptor safe power lines; and 

• 	 surveying for Ute ladies’-tresses if habitat is present. 

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS 

Existing habitat-disturbing activities in the PRB include surface coal mining; 

conventional oil and gas and coal bed natural gas (CBNG) development; 

uranium mining; sand and gravel, and scoria mining; ranching; agriculture; 

road, railroad, and power plant construction and operation; recreational 

activities; and rural and urban housing development. Mining, construction 

and agricultural activities, and urban development tend to have more intense 

impacts on fairly localized areas, while ranching, recreational activities, and oil 

and gas development tend to be less intensive but spread over larger areas. Oil 

and gas development and mining activities have requirements for reclamation 

of disturbed areas as resources are depleted. The net area of energy 

disturbance in the Wyoming PRB has been increasing. In the short term, this 

means a reduction in the available habitat for T&E plant and wildlife species. 

In the long term, habitat is being and will continue to be restored as 

reclamation proceeds. 

BLM is in the process of completing a regional technical study of current and 

proposed or potential development activity in the PRB to help the agency 

evaluate the impacts of coal development in the PRB. The Powder River Basin 

Coal Review consists of three tasks: Task 1 updates the BLM’s 1996 status 

check for coal development in the PRB, Task 2 develops a forecast of 

reasonably foreseeable development in the PRB through the year 2020, and 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications E-7 
Appendix E 

Task 3 predicts cumulative impacts that would be expected to occur as a result 

of the projected development. The information about existing development in 

the following paragraphs is taken from the Powder River Basin Coal Review 

Task 2 report (BLM 2005a) and BLM lease records. The completed PRB Coal 

Review reports can be accessed at the BLM Wyoming website at 

http://www.wy.blm.gov/minerals/coal/prb/prbdocs.htm. The project area for 

Tasks 1 and 2 of the PRB Coal Review encompasses over eight million acres 

and includes all of Campbell, Sheridan, and Johnson Counties and the 

northern portion of Converse County in northeastern Wyoming. 

Oil and gas exploration and production have been ongoing in the PRB for more 

than 100 years. Conventional (non CBNG) oil and gas fields are, for the most 

part, concentrated in the central and southern parts of the structural basin. 

Development of the CBNG resources from the coal beds is a more recent 

occurrence, with CBNG production in the Wyoming PRB starting in the late 

1980s. As of 2003, an estimated 187,761 acres had been disturbed in the coal 

review project area as a result of oil and gas development activities, but 

approximately 115,045 acres of that disturbance has been reclaimed. This 

includes conventional oil and gas and CBNG wells and associated facilities and 

major transportation pipelines. 

BLM estimates that the existing federal coal leases in the Wyoming PRB 

include approximately 121,185 acres. The currently pending federal coal LBA 

tracts (including the Belle Ayr North, West coal Creek, Caballo West, and 

Maysdorf II LBA tracts) include approximately 35,245 additional acres. The 

majority of the coal in the areas permitted for surface coal mining is federal, 

but some state and private leases are included within some of the existing mine 

permit areas. All of the current and proposed federal coal leases are 

concentrated near the outcrop of the Wyodak coal bed, which is located in 

eastern Campbell County and the extreme northeastern edge of Converse 

County. 

As of 2003, the base year for the PRB Coal Review, the surface coal mining 

operations along the Wyodak outcrop had disturbed approximately 68,794 

acres. Approximately 24,097 of those acres of disturbance are occupied by 

“permanent” mine facilities, such as roads, buildings, coal handling facilities, 

etc., which are not available for reclamation until after coal mining operations 

end. Of the remaining 44,697 acres of disturbance available for reclamation, 

approximately 21,238 acres had been reclaimed. 

The Powder River Basin Coal Review identified an estimated 4,891 additional 

acres of coal-related development disturbance (i.e., coal-fired power plants, 

railroads, and coal technology projects) as of 2003. 

The estimated total development-related disturbance in the Wyoming PRB in 

2003 was 264,704 acres. In addition to the coal and oil and gas development 

discussed above, this total includes other types of development disturbance, 

such as reservoirs and industrial fabrication firms, as well as public and 

E-8 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
Appendix E 

private infrastructure, such as highways and roads, government buildings, and 

residential and commercial real estate development. It should be noted that 

some of these disturbances overlap one another. In such cases, the 

disturbance acreage is counted separately under each category, but is not 

counted twice in determining the total area of disturbance. 

Cumulative effects would also occur to T&E plant and wildlife resources as a 

result of indirect impacts. One factor is the potential import and spread of 

noxious weeds around roads and facilities. Noxious weeds have the ability to 

displace native vegetation and hinder reclamation efforts. Control of noxious 

weeds is addressed in surface coal mining and reclamation plans. If weed 

mitigation and preventative procedures are applied to all construction and 

reclamation practices, the impact of noxious weeds on T&E plants and wildlife 

would be minimized. 

In reclaimed areas, vegetation cover often differs from undisturbed areas. In 

the case of surface coal mines, re-established vegetation would be dominated 

by species mandated in the reclamation seed mixtures (to be approved by 

WDEQ). The majority of the species in the approved reclamation seed mixtures 

are native to the area; however, reclaimed areas may not serve ecosystem 

functions presently served by undisturbed vegetation communities and 

habitats. In the short-term in particular, species composition, shrub cover, 

and other environmental factors are likely to differ from pre-disturbance 

vegetation communities and habitats. Establishment of noxious weeds and 

alteration of vegetation in reclaimed areas has the potential to alter T&E plant 

and wildlife habitat composition and distribution. 

Potential adverse effects to listed and proposed species that have occurred and 

would continue to occur as a result of existing and potential future activities in 

the PRB would include direct loss of habitat, indirect loss of habitat due to 

human and equipment disturbance, and habitat fragmentation. The existing 

mines have developed mitigation procedures, as required by the Surface Mining 

Control and Reclamation Act (at 30 CFR 816.97) and Wyoming State 

regulations, to protect T&E species. These procedural requirements would be 

extended to include mining operations on the Belle Ayr North, West coal Creek, 

Caballo West, and Maysdorf II LBA tracts, if they are leased as proposed and 

after required detailed plans to mine the coal and reclaim the mined-out areas 

are developed and approved. Species specific cumulative impacts are 

discussed below by tract. 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications E-9 
SECTION 1
 

BELLE AYR NORTH LBA TRACT 
 

Appendix E 

E1-1.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES 

E1-1.1 The Proposed Action 

On July 6, 2004, RAG Coal West, Inc. filed an application with the BLM to 

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

to the Belle Ayr Mine (Figure E-1). The tract was assigned case file number 

WYW161248. In August 2004, RAG Coal West, Inc. finalized the sale of the 

Belle Ayr Mine to Foundation Coal West, Inc. (FCW), a directly held subsidiary 

of Foundation Coal Corporation. Under the Proposed Action for the Belle Ayr 

North LBA tract, the tract as applied for by FCW would be offered for lease at a 

sealed-bid, competitive lease sale. The boundaries of the tract would be 

consistent with the tract configuration proposed in the Belle Ayr North LBA 

tract lease application (Figure E1-1). The Proposed Action assumes that FCW 

will be the successful bidder on the Belle Ayr North LBA tract if it is offered for 

sale. 

The legal description of the proposed Belle Ayr North LBA tract coal lease lands 

as applied for by FCW under the Proposed Action is as follows: 

T. 48 N., R. 71 W., 6th PM, 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 PM, Campbell County, Wyoming 

Section 24: Lots 1, 8. 82.77 acres 

Total: 1,578.74 acres 

The coal estate in the tract described above is federal and the surface estate is 

owned by FCW. Surface ownership is shown in Figure E1-2. 

The tract as applied for includes approximately 1,578.74 mineable acres. It is 

assumed that an area larger than the tract would have to be disturbed in order 

to recover all of the coal in the tract. The disturbances outside of the tract 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications E1-1 
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

35 36 31 32 34 35 49 33 34 33

State Highway 59

Appendix E 

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 E1-1 Belle Ayr North LBA Tract Alternatives. 

E1-2 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 

29 

32 

0 
Bishop 

Road 

State

 59 Highway 

Creek 

Tisdale 

Creek 

Caballo 

Pile 

Creek 

Bone 

Creek 

Caballo 

Appendix E 

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 E1-2. Surface Ownership Within the Belle Ayr North LBA Tract Alternatives. 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications E1-3

26 
 

Appendix E 

would be due to activities like overstripping, matching undisturbed topography, 

and construction of flood control and sediment control structures. 

E1-1.2 Alternatives to the Proposed Action 

E1-1.2.1 Alternative 1 

Under Alternative 1, the No Action Alternative, the 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, and the coal included in the tract would not be 

mined. This would not affect permitted mining activities and employment on 

the existing leases at Belle Ayr Mine and would not preclude an application to 

lease the federal coal included in the Belle Ayr North LBA tract in the future. 

No additional surface of the Belle Ayr North LBA tract would be disturbed due 

to overstripping to allow coal to be removed from the adjacent existing leases. 

E1-1.2.2 Alternative 2 

Under Alternative 2 for the Belle Ayr North LBA tract, BLM would reconfigure 

the tract, hold a competitive coal sale for the lands included in the reconfigured 

tract, and issue a lease to the successful bidder. In evaluating the Belle Ayr 

North coal lease application, BLM identified a study area, which includes 

unleased federal coal adjacent to the northern edge of the tract as applied for 

(Figure E1-1). BLM is evaluating the potential that some or all of these lands 

could be added to the tract to provide for more efficient recovery of the federal 

coal, increase competitive interest in the tract, and/or reduce the potential that 

some of the potentially mineable federal coal in this area would be bypassed in 

the future if it is not included in the Belle Ayr North LBA tract. 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, as discussed above. Alternative 

2, holding a competitive coal sale for a modified tract, is BLM’s Preferred 

Alternative. 

Alternative 2 for the Belle Ayr North LBA tract assumes that FCW would be the 

successful bidder on the tract if a lease sale is held and that the tract would be 

developed as a maintenance lease to extend the life of the adjacent Belle Ayr 

Mine. Other assumptions are the same as for the Proposed Action. The lands 

that BLM is considering adding to the tract are: 

T. 48 N., R. 71 W., 6th PM, Campbell County, Wyoming 

Section 17: Lots 13, 14; 82.53 acres 

Section 18: Lots 19 (NE1⁄4); 10.34 acres 

Section 20: Lots 3 (E1⁄2, NW1⁄4), 4 (NE1⁄4), 

7 (N1⁄2), and 9 (N1⁄2); 82.19 acres 

E1-4 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
Appendix E 

Total Added: 175.06 acres 

The area BLM is evaluating removes the following lands from the tract as 

applied for: 

T. 48 N., R.72 W., 6th PM, Campbell County, Wyoming 

Section 24: Lots 1, 8. -82.77 acres 

Total (Net Change): 92.29 acres 

The legal description of BLM’s reconfiguration of the Belle Ayr North LBA tract 

under Alternative 2 is as follows: 

T. 48 N., R. 71 W., 6th PM, 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, 9through 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 

Not all of the coal included in the Belle Ayr North LBA tract is considered to be 

mineable at this time. A portion the Bishop Road (County Road 12) overlies 

some of the coal included in the tract. As discussed in Chapter 1, section 1.1, 

the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act prohibits mining within 100 ft 

on either side of the right-of-way of any public road (43 CFR 3461). There 

would also be a quantity of 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 Bishop Road and its right-of-way, and the 100 ft 

buffer zone within the Belle Ayr North LBA tract could be mined if the 

Campbell County Board of Commissioners, the authorized agency, determines 

that the road can be moved [30 CFR 761.11(d)]. FCW is evaluating the 

feasibility of relocating the road at this time. 

FCW estimates that the reconfigured tract includes approximately 221.1 

million tons of in-place coal and 162.6 million tons of mineable coal. Using 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications E1-5 
Appendix E 

FCW’s projected recovery factor of 94 percent, the reconfigured tract would 

contain about 152.8 million tons of recoverable coal. 

E1-2.0 	 SPECIES HABITAT AND OCCURRENCE AND EFFECTS OF THE 

PROPOSED PROJECT 

The Belle Ayr Mine began producing coal in 1972. Wildlife monitoring has 

been conducted annually for the mine since 1984. This wildlife monitoring was 

designed to meet the WDEQ/LQD, WGFD, and federal requirements for annual 

monitoring and reporting of wildlife activity on coal mining areas. Detailed 

procedures and site-specific requirements have been carried out as approved 

by WGFD and USFWS. The monitoring program was conducted in accordance 

with Appendix B of WDEQ/LQD Coal Rules and Regulations. Because the 

areas covered in the wildlife surveys included the mine’s permit area and a 

large perimeter around the permit boundary, the entire Belle Ayr North LBA 

tract has been included in baseline inventories and annual wildlife surveys 

conducted for the Belle Ayr Mine since wildlife studies began. 

The approved Belle Ayr Mine Permit 214 Term T6 (FCW 2005) includes 

monitoring and mitigation measures for the Belle Ayr Mine that are required by 

the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act and Wyoming State Law. If 

the Belle Ayr North LBA tract is acquired by FCW, these monitoring and 

mitigation measures would be extended to cover operations on the LBA tract 

when the Belle Ayr Mine’s mining permit is amended to include the tract. This 

amended permit would have to be approved before mining operations could 

take place on the tract. These monitoring and mitigation measures are 

considered to be part of the Proposed Action and Alternative 2 during the 

leasing process because they are regulatory requirements. 

Background information on T&E species in the vicinity of the Belle Ayr North 

LBA tract was drawn from several sources, including: the original baseline 

inventory (1974), wildlife survey reports submitted by the Belle Ayr Mine to the 

WDEQ/LQD from 1984 through 2006, the Final South Powder River Basin 

Coal EIS (BLM 2003), the Final EIS for the Maysdorf Coal Lease Application 

(BLM 2007), a Wyoming Natural Diversity Database search (University of 

Wyoming 2001), and from WGFD and USFWS records and contacts in 2007. In 

addition, the Belle Ayr North LBA tract wildlife study area falls within the 

wildlife monitoring areas for the nearby Caballo and Cordero Rojo Mines 

(Figure E-1). 

Site-specific data for a substantial portion of the tract as applied for and the 

study area for Alternative 2 were obtained from several sources, including 

WDEQ/LQD permit applications and annual wildlife reports for the Belle Ayr 

Mine and other nearby coal mines. Baseline wildlife studies were conducted by 

Thunderbird-Jones & Stokes, expressly for the Belle Ayr North LBA tract in 

2006 early 2007. 

E1-6 	 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
 

Appendix E 

The Belle Ayr North LBA tract is in an area of gently rolling terrain of moderate 

relief influenced by Duck Nest Creek and other tributaries of Caballo Creek. 

Elevations range from 4,515 to 4,666 ft within the LBA tract and from 4,515 to 

4,704 ft including the area added under Alternative 2. Within the LBA tract 

and the area added under Alternative 2, slopes range from flat to over 28 

percent in the eastern portion of the tract, south of the Bishop Road. The 

slopes of the gently rolling uplands, which comprise most (about 74 percent) of 

the LBA tract, seldom exceed 4 percent. A slope analysis would be done for the 

LBA tract if a lease sale is held and it is proposed for mining. 

Predominant wildlife habitat types classified on the LBA tract and adjacent 

area correspond with the major plant communities defined during the 

vegetation baseline study and consist primarily of crested wheatgrass pasture 

and sagebrush/grassland. Other habitats present in limited extent include 

disturbed areas and grassland areas. Networks of road, pipeline, tank battery, 

and well-pad disturbance areas associated with oil and gas development 

overlay much of the study area. 

The Belle Ayr Mine site is situated near the center of the PRB, which is a broad 

structural trough that lies between the Big Horn Mountains and the Black 

Hills. The PRB is drained by three separate drainage systems: the 

Powder/Little Powder, the Cheyenne, and the Belle Fourche Rivers. Lying 

between the Powder River and Cheyenne River drainage basins is the Belle 

Fourche River drainage system, which is a narrow, linear-shaped basin 

extending from the Pumpkin Buttes northeast to the Black Hills. The 

topography of the Belle Fourche drainage basin is typified by broad, flat, interstream uplands and a wide, level expanse of eastward-sloping plains broken by 

a few isolated buttes. 

The Belle Ayr Mine lies within the Caballo Creek watershed, which is a 

tributary of the Belle Fourche River. Caballo Creek flows from west to east 

through the mine’s permit area and empties into the Belle Fourche River 

approximately 7 miles east-southeast of the Belle Ayr North LBA tract in 

Section 3, T.47N., R.70W. (Figure 3-27 in the SGAC EIS document). The total 

drainage for Caballo Creek is approximately 260 square miles, and the 

mainstream channel is about 51 miles long. The Caballo Creek watershed has 

a dendritic drainage pattern with an approximate width (north-south) of 12.8 

miles and an approximate length (east-west) of 25.0 miles. The relief of Caballo 

Creek’s basin is 740 feet from its headwaters to its confluence with the Belle 

Fourche River. 

The Belle Ayr Mine disturbs several drainages within the Caballo Creek 

watershed and Caballo Creek is currently diverted by the mining operation. 

The Belle Ayr Mine is currently permitted to disturb approximately 7 percent of 

the Caballo Creek drainage basin. The entire undisturbed Caballo Creek 

drainage basin was extensively studied by the Belle Ayr Mine and the results of 

that study are included in the mine and reclamation permit (FCW 2003). A 

large portion of the Belle Ayr North LBA tract is within the mine’s existing 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications E1-7 
 

 

 

Appendix E 

permit area, and Duck Nest Creek, a southeast-flowing ephemeral tributary of 

Caballo Creek, drains the western portion of the LBA tract. Two smaller, first 

order tributaries of Caballo Creek (called Draw No. 1 and Draw No. 2 by the 

Belle Ayr Mine) and three playas formed by natural topographic depressions 

drain the eastern portion of the Belle Ayr North LBA tract. The Belle Aye Mine 

permit area, the Belle Ayr North LBA tract, and a portion of the undisturbed 

Caballo Creek watershed are shown on Figure 3-27in the SGAC EIS document. 

Belle Ayr North LBA Tract Wetlands 

Wetland inventories have been completed on those portions of Caballo Creek 

and its tributaries that lie within Belle Ayr Mine’s existing permit area. A large 

portion of the Belle Ayr North LBA tract is within the mine’s existing permit 

area (Figure S1-6 in the SGAC Supplementary Information document); 

therefore, a wetland inventory on Duck Nest Creek, including the entire stream 

segment that lies within the BLM study area for the LBA tract, has been 

conducted and is included in the mine’s approved mine permit. 

There have been numerous correspondences between the U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers (COE) and Belle Ayr Mine on wetland inventories and determinations 

related to mine permit revisions. Most recently, on September 29, 1999, the 

COE conducted a site visit of wetland areas within the Belle Ayr Mine’s permit 

area. Following that visit, a revised premining wetland delineation and 

discussion of wetlands to be impacted for the entire permit area was presented 

to COE in a letter from the mine, dated September 30, 1999. A response letter 

from COE to the mine, dated October 1, 1999, authorized the revised 

delineation and impact determination (FCW 2003). These premining wetland 

areas that occur within and adjacent to the Belle Ayr North LBA tract are 

shown on Figure S1-6 in the SGAC Supplementary Information document. 

Belle Ayr Mine’s most recent delineation of wetlands and other Waters of the 

U.S. over the existing permit area identified these four types of wetlands: Man 

Made, Stream Channel, Saline, and Playa (FCW 2003). The man-made 

wetlands are found in association with small reservoirs and stock ponds. 

Stream channel wetlands are primarily moist to wet grassy meadows, usually 

less than 20 feet wide, and restricted to the stream channel and areas 

immediately adjacent to the stream bank. Saline wetlands occur only along the 

upper section of Duck Nest Creek and are characterized by saturated soils that 

commonly have salt deposits on the surface. Playa wetlands occur on areas 

with internal drainage that are intermittently flooded in response to spring 

runoff or runoff from intense thunderstorms. These individual wetland units 

and their respective areas (in acres) are shown within the Belle Aye North LBA 

tract wetlands analysis area on Figure S1-6 in the SGAC Supplementary 

Information document. Accordingly, 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 

E1-8 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
Appendix E 

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 (approximately 179.5 acres) 

consists of the internally drained playas. 

Within the proposed lease area and adjacent study area there is no “critical” 

habitat designated by USFWS for T&E species. The following discussion 

describes species’ habitat requirements and their occurrence in the area of the 

Belle Ayr North LBA tract and evaluates the potential environmental effects of 

the Proposed Action and Alternative 2 on federal T&E species. 

E1-2.1 Threatened Species 

E1-2.1.1 Ute ladies’-tresses 

Ute ladies’-tresses, a member of the orchid family, was listed as threatened on 

January 17, 1992, due to a variety of factors, including habitat loss and 

modification, hydrological modifications of existing and potential habitat areas, 

and invasion of exotic plant species. At the time of listing, Ute ladies’-tresses 

was only known from Colorado, Utah, and extreme eastern Nevada. Ute ladies’­

tresses orchids were discovered in Wyoming in 1993. It is currently known 

from western Nebraska, eastern Wyoming, north-central Colorado, 

northeastern and southern Utah, east-central and southeastern Idaho, 

southwestern Montana, and central Washington. 

Biology and Habitat Requirements: Ute ladies’-tresses is a perennial, 

terrestrial orchid with erect, glandular-pubescent stems 12 to 50 cm tall 

arising from tuberous-thickened roots. Ute ladies’-tresses occurs primarily on 

moist, subirrigated or seasonally flooded soils bordering wetland meadows, 

springs, lakes, or perennial streams. The elevation range of known occurrences 

is 4,200 to 7,000 feet in alluvial substrates along riparian edges, gravel bars, 

old oxbows, and moist to wet meadows. Most populations are found on alluvial 

sand, coarse silt, or whitish loamy clay with a slightly basic pH. These soils are 

derived from Quaternary alluvial deposits or drab Eocene- age sandstones and 

claystones (Fertig 2000). Ute ladies’-tresses is not found in heavy, tight clay 

soils, saline, or alkaline soils. 

This orchid can be commonly associated with horsetail, milkweed, verbena, 

blue-eyed grass, reedgrass, goldenrod, bentgrass, and arrowgrass (USFWS 

2005). Wyoming populations often occur in moist meadow communities 

dominated by redtop, common quackgrass, Baltic rush, foxtail barley, or 

switchgrass within a narrow vegetative band between emergent aquatic 

vegetation and dry upland prairie (Fertig 2000). Vegetative cover tends to range 

from 75-90 percent and is usually less than 45 cm tall (Fertig 2000). The 

orchid seems intolerant of shade. Plants usually occur as small scattered 

groups and occupy relatively small areas within the riparian system. 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications E1-9 
Appendix E 

In Wyoming, this species typically blooms from early August to early 

September, with fruits produced from mid-August to September (Fertig 2000). 

Leaves persist during flowering (Moseley 1998). Flowers are white or ivory and 

are clustered into a spike at the top of the stem. No direct observations of 

pollination have been made in Wyoming. In their 1994 report, Sipes and 

Tepedino indicated that large, long-tongued bumblebees in the genus Bombus 

are the primary pollinators in Utah and Colorado (Fertig 2000). Smaller bees 

may also visit these flowers, but have the incorrect body shape or mass to 

properly accommodate the orchid’s large, sticky anther/pollen clusters (Fertig 

2000). 

This species reproduces basically by sexual reproduction and can produce as 

many as 7,300 tiny seeds per fruit (Fertig 2000). The plant requires 

mycorrhizal fungi to germinate and establish. Individual plants may not flower 

in consecutive years under adverse environmental conditions but will persist 

below ground with their mycorrhizal symbionts (Fertig 2000). 

Flowers are needed for positive plant identification. The species can be reliably 

located only when it is flowering (Heidel 2001). Plants probably do not flower 

every year and may remain dormant below ground during drought years. In 

general, the species’ best flowering years seem to correspond with extreme heat 

during flowering. Preliminary review of climate data also indicates that growing 

seasons that start out as relatively cold and wet correspond with low flowering 

levels (Heidel 2001). 

The orchid is well adapted to disturbances from stream movement and is 

tolerant of other disturbances such as grazing that are common to grassland 

riparian habitats (USFWS 1995). Populations are often dynamic and “move” 

within a watershed as disturbances create new habitat or succession 

eliminates old habitat (Fertig and Beauvais 1999). Ute ladies’-tresses colonize 

early successional riparian habitats such as point bars, sand bars, and lowlying gravelly, sandy, or cobbley edges, persisting in those areas where the 

hydrology provides continual dampness in the root zone through the growing 

season. The orchid has been known to establish in heavily disturbed sites, 

such as revegetated gravel pits, heavily grazed riparian edges, and along welltraveled foot trails on old berms (USFWS 1995). 

Existing Environment: Prior to 2005, four orchid populations had been 

documented within Wyoming, all discovered between 1993 and 1997 (Fertig 

and Beauvais 1999). Four additional sites were located in 2005 and one 

additional site was found in 2006 (Heidel, 2007). The new locations were in the 

same drainages or tributaries as the original four populations. Drainages with 

documented orchid populations include Antelope Creek and tributaries in 

northern Converse County, Bear Creek in northern Laramie and southern 

Goshen Counties, Horse Creek in Laramie County, and Niobrara River in 

Niobrara County. No occurrences have been recorded in Campbell County 

including the Belle Ayr North vegetation general analysis. 

E1-10 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
 

 

 

 

Appendix E 

Areas of suitable habitat within the Belle Ayr North LBA tract and adjacent 

study area were surveyed by ESCO Associates, Inc. of Boulder, Colorado in 

August 2006 and August 2007. Topographical and wetland delineation maps 

for the study area were reviewed to identify all significant drainages and 

potential habitat that may contain the orchid. 

Suitable habitat was traversed on foot during the time of actual flowering of the 

known population, and it involved walking entire lengths of the drainages 

documenting locations of potential habitat and searching for this species. 

The environs of the Duck Nest Creek drainage that passes through the study 

area constitute the closest approximation of suitable habitat for the plant. 

However, while naturally prone to accumulating moisture because of 

topographic position, they also are underlain by Arvada soils (or the similar 

saline phases of Heldt and Bidman soils) that have considerable salt 

accumulation, and, during dry years are themselves quite dry. As such, these 

areas do not constitute likely habitat for the plant by virtue of lack of 

dependable moisture and high salinity. A pedestrian survey of these areas in 

August 2006 revealed no individuals of Ute Ladies’-Tresses Orchid. 

Playa Grassland was suggested by USFWS (personal communication) as 

suitable habitat and the portion of the LBA site occupied by this type was also 

searched in August 2006 with the same results. Eastern Wyoming playas, 

except during hypothetically potential extraordinary years of unrelenting rain, 

would probably never naturally sustain the moist conditions required by the 

orchid. Even following the springs when the playas do occasionally, but only 

temporarily, include standing water, subsequent summer conditions 

accompany a thorough drying that excludes any routine manifestation of 

moisture-loving perennial plant species such as the orchid. 

Effects of the Proposed Project: Mining the federal coal included in the Belle 

Ayr North LBA tract, if the tract is leased under the Proposed Action or 

Alternative 2, may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect Ute ladies’­

tresses. Typical suitable habitat for this species on the tract is very limited 

and found along the CBNG-impacted bottomlands of Little Duck Nest Creek 

and its tributaries. However, the quality of potential habitat is extremely poor. 

Outside of the narrow riparian strips located along these impacted 

watercourses, typical suitable habitat is rare or non-existent in the study area. 

Multiple surveys of the existing suitable habitat at the Belle Ayr Mine and other 

mines in this area have not found any Ute ladies’-tresses. Because of the 

ability of this species to persist below ground or above ground without 

flowering, single season surveys that meet the current USFWS survey 

guidelines may not detect populations. If undetected populations are present, 

they could be lost to surface disturbing activities. Any potential habitat that 

has not already been surveyed for Ute ladies’-tresses within the project area 

should be identified and surveyed prior to surface mining activities. 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications E1-11 
Appendix E 

Jurisdictional wetlands located in the Belle Ayr North LBA tract that are 

destroyed by mining operations would be replaced in accordance with the 

requirements of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, as determined by COE. 

The replaced wetlands may not duplicate the exact function and landscape 

features of the pre-mine wetlands. COE considers the type and function of 

each jurisdictional wetland that will be impacted and may require restoration 

of additional acres if the type and function of the restored wetlands will not 

completely replace the type and function of the original wetland. Replacement 

of non-jurisdictional and functional wetlands may be required by the surface 

land owner and/or WDEQ/LQD. WDEQ/LQD allows and sometimes requires 

mitigation of non-jurisdictional wetlands affected by mining, depending on the 

values associated with the wetland features. 

Cumulative Effects: Alterations of stream morphology and hydrology are 

believed to have extirpated Ute ladies’-tresses from most of its historical range 

(USFWS 2002). Disturbance and reclamation of streams by surface coal 

mining may alter stream morphology and hydrology. The large quantities of 

water produced with CBNG development and discharged on the surface may 

also alter stream morphology and hydrology. 

E1-2.2 Endangered Species 

E1-2.2.1 Black-footed ferret 

The black-footed ferret, a nocturnal mammal and an obligate associate of 

prairie dogs (Cynomys spp.), was listed as endangered in March, 1967. This 

species is thought to have historically inhabited a nearly contiguous matrix of 

prairie dog colonies spanning the short-grass prairies of the eastern and 

southern Rockies and the Great Plains of North America (Forrest et al. 1985). 

Since the early 1930s, numerous factors have led to substantial declines in 

prairie dog colonies in that region. Reductions in some states are estimated as 

high as 90% from formerly occupied colonies (Rose 1973, Tyler 1968). 

Conversion of grasslands to agricultural landscapes, eradication of prairie 

dogs, and diseases such as the plague and canine distemper have resulted in 

severe reductions in prairie dog colonies across the west, colonies which 

provided food, shelter, and habitat for black-footed ferrets. This species of 

ferret is currently one of the most endangered mammals in North America and 

was thought to be extinct until a small population was discovered in Meeteetse, 

Wyoming in September, 1981. Since then, successful captive breeding and 

reintroduction programs have released black-footed ferrets back into the wild 

in several western and Great Plains states including Wyoming, Montana, South 

Dakota, Colorado, Utah, and Arizona. 

Biology and Habitat Requirements: Ferrets rely on prairie dogs to provide both 

shelter and food (Hillman and Clark 1980). Ferrets produce one litter per year, 

typically giving birth to four or five kits. The decline in ferret populations has 

been largely attributed to the reduction in the vast prairie dog colonies that 

E1-12 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
 

 

Appendix E 

historically existed in the western United States. Despite extensive ferret 

surveys over the past 20 plus years throughout Wyoming, the last known wild 

black-footed ferret population was discovered near Meeteetse in 1981 (Miller et 

al. 1996). Those surveys included numerous USFWS-approved clearances for 

coal mining and other development in the Powder River Basin of Wyoming, as 

well as U.S. Department of Agriculture – Forest Service (USFS) surveys for 

ferrets on the TBNG. Reintroduction efforts involving captive bred individuals 

have successfully established one black-footed ferret population in the Shirley 

Basin area in south-central Wyoming. Currently, this is the only known blackfooted ferret population within the state, though other populations are present 

elsewhere in the United States and Mexico. 

Existing Environment: The Belle Ayr North LBA tract is within the historical 

range of the black-footed ferret, although no black-footed ferrets are presently 

known to occur in northeastern Wyoming. During the 1980s, WGFD, in 

cooperation with other agencies, conducted searches for black-footed ferrets in 

Wyoming in the places they were most likely to be found, but these searches 

were not successful (Martin Grenier, personal communication, 10/14/2003). 

In a February 2, 2004 letter to interested parties, the USFWS declared that 

black-footed ferret surveys are no longer necessary in black-tailed prairie dog 

colonies within Wyoming. 

No black-tailed prairie dog colonies are currently present on the Belle Ayr 

North wildlife general analysis area. No evidence of ferrets has been recorded 

during general or specific ferret surveys over the last 30 years (1976–2006) 

conducted by wildlife consultants for the Belle Ayr Mine and other mines in 

this area. 

Effects of the Proposed Project: Mining the federal coal included in the Belle 

Ayr North LBA tract, if a lease is issued under the Proposed Action or 

Alternative 2, would have no effect on black-footed ferrets. Given the 

documented absence of black-footed ferrets in the region, including the general 

analysis area during specific surveys for this species, the lack of colonies 

within the LBA tract and surrounding area, the block clearance issued by 

USFWS for black-tailed prairie dog colonies throughout the entire state, and 

the distance of the LBA area from future reintroduction sites, mining the 

general analysis area will not result in any direct or indirect effects on blackfooted ferrets. 

Mine activities include, but are not limited to, large-scale topsoil stripping, the 

intense presence of heavy machinery, extended human presence, loud noise 

and various linear disturbances such as roads, power lines and fences. 

Additionally, ongoing disturbance (grazing, oil and gas production, etc.) from 

sources unrelated to mining would likely continue, with some activities 

occurring within prairie dog colonies in the area. These activities would result 

in less habitat disturbance than surface mining, but physical disturbance 

would occur. 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications E1-13 
Appendix E 

Based on more than 20 years of historic and recent survey efforts and other 

general analysis area data and information, it is unlikely that ferrets exist in 

the Belle Ayr North wildlife general analysis area. 

Cumulative Effects: Mineral development within black-tailed prairie dog 

colonies is a leading cause of ferret habitat loss in the PRB. Surface coal 

mining tends to have more intense impacts on fairly localized areas, while oil 

and gas development tends to be less intensive but spread over larger areas. 

Oil and gas development and mining activities have requirements for 

reclamation of disturbed areas as resources are depleted. In reclaimed areas, 

vegetation cover may differ from undisturbed areas. In the case of surface coal 

mines, re-established vegetation would be dominated by species mandated in 

the reclamation seed mixtures (to be approved by WDEQ). The majority of the 

approved plant species are native to the area; however, reclaimed areas may 

not serve ecosystem functions presently served by undisturbed vegetation 

communities and habitats, particularly in the short-term, when species 

composition, shrub cover, and other environmental factors are likely to be 

different. Shifts in habitat composition or distribution following reclamation 

could increase or decrease potential habitat for prairie dogs and associated 

habitat for black-footed ferrets. However, black-tailed prairie dogs have been 

recorded invading and establishing towns on reclaimed coal mined lands in 

northeastern Wyoming (IR 2005). 

Potential ferret habitat is also affected by other impacts to prairie dog 

populations. Plague can infect and eliminate entire prairie dog colonies. 

Poisoning and recreational prairie dog shooting may locally reduce prairie dog 

populations, but seldom completely eliminate colonies. 

E1-2.2.2 Blowout Penstemon 

Blowout Penstemon, a member of the figwort family, was listed as endangered 

on October 1, 1987. It is known from multiple populations in western 

Nebraska and in the Ferris dunes area in northwestern Carbon County, 

Wyoming. The plant was first discovered in Wyoming in 1877 and then 

rediscovered in 1996 (BLM 2008). The removal of fire, leveling of dunes, 

reduction of grazing, and cultivation of stabilizing cover crops drastically 

reduced the amount of habitat available for this species. Loss of habitat, 

coupled with impacts from insect outbreaks, drought, inbreeding, and potential 

over collection, has caused problems for the plant (University of Wyoming 

2009). Only 3,500-5,000 plants are currently found in Nebraska at about a 

dozen sites. The Wyoming population is limited to three sites in northern 

Carbon County that contain several thousand plants (BLM 2008). Threats to 

the plant may occur when sand dunes are removed or overly disturbed by 

vehicular traffic (USFWS 2008b). 

Biology and Habitat Requirements: Blowout penstemon is a perennial herb 

with stems less than 12 inches tall. The inflorescence is 2 to 6 inches long and 

has six to ten compact whorls of milky-blue to pale lavender flowers. This 

E1-14 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
 

 

Appendix E 

species typically flowers from mid-June to early-July. The plant’s current 

know range in Wyoming is restricted to two habitat types: steep, northwest 

facing slopes of active sand dunes with less than 5 percent vegetative cover; 

and on north facing sandy slopes, on the lee side of active blowouts with 25 to 

40 percent vegetative cover (USFWS 2008b). 

Existing Environment: The Belle Ayr North LBA tract is not within the 

documented historical range of the blowout penstemon. It is located 

approximately 150 miles northwest of the Nebraska known occurrences and 

approximately 150 miles northeast of the Wyoming occurrences. No suitable 

sand dunes (whether stable or blownout) are currently present on the Belle Ayr 

North vegetation general analysis area. 

Effects of the Proposed Project: Mining the federal coal included in the Belle 

Ayr North LBA tract, if a lease is issued under the Proposed Action or 

Alternative 2, would have no effect on blowout penstemon. Typical 

suitable habitat for this species on the tract is non-existent. If undetected 

populations are present, they could be lost to surface disturbing activities. Any 

potential habitat that has not already been surveyed for blowout penstemon 

within the project area should be identified and surveyed prior to surface 

mining activities. 

Cumulative Effects: This species is potentially vulnerable to habitat loss and 

degradation resulting from sand mining, water development, energy 

development, ORV use, and associated destabilization of its sand dune habitat. 

It also could be vulnerable to negative effects related to the spread of nonnative species within its range. 

E1-3.0 SUMMARY OF DETERMINATIONS 

Table E1-1 summarizes the determinations for federally listed T&E species in 

the area of the Belle Ayr North LBA tract that may result from implementing 

the Proposed Action or Alternative. 

Table E1-1. Effects Evaluation of Sensitive and Federal T&E Species in the 

Area of the Belle Ayr North LBA Tracts. 

Status Species Common Name Potential Effects 

Threatened: Ute ladies’-tresses May affect1 

Endangered: Black-footed ferret No effect 

Endangered: Blowout Penstemon No effect 

Not likely to adversely affect individuals or populations. 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications E1-15 

1 
 

 

Appendix E 

E1-4.0 CREDENTIALS OF SURVEY PERSONNEL 

E1-4.1 Jones & Stokes of Gillette, Wyoming 

Gwyn McKee 

Ms. McKee obtained a Master of Science degree in Wildlife 

Ecology/Management from the University of Missouri-Columbia. She has 

accumulated nearly 20 years of professional experience, with the last 14 spent 

working with the energy industry in Wyoming, Montana, and South Dakota. 

Ms. McKee has conducted the wildlife surveys and impact analyses for most of 

the surface coal mines in the Powder River Basin during her tenure in 

Wyoming, including two of the three properties analyzed in the South Gillette 

Area Coal EIS. She has also provided and/or reviewed the pertinent text 

related to impact assessments for vertebrate species of concern for most of the 

coal EISs that have been prepared in the Powder River Basin since 2000. 

Jennifer Ottinger 

Ms. Ottinger received a B.S. in Zoology from Colorado State University in 1993, 

with a minor in Microbiology. She has 12 years of professional experience with 

a variety of vertebrate species, including surveys for sage-grouse and mountain 

plovers, though her work has focused on raptors during that period. Ms. 

Ottinger has worked throughout the U.S. and abroad. She joined Jones & 

Stokes as a Wildlife Biologist in 2004. She has strong raptor identification and 

handling skills, research experience, proven abilities in data analysis and 

technical writing, and has presented and/or published several articles in a 

variety of professional meetings and publications, respectively. 

E1-4.2 ESCO Associates Inc. (ESCO) of Boulder, Colorado 

David L. Buckner 

Education: B.A., M.A., and Ph.D. in Plant Ecology, University of Colorado, 

Boulder 

Familiarity with Spiranthes diluvialis: observation of flowering populations in 

Boulder County, 1991-2005; observation of vegetative sprouts of individuals 

occurring in Boulder County populations, January to April 1992, June 1993, 

May 1995. 

Other Rare Plant Survey Experience (representative): Asclepias ruthiae, Grand 

County, Utah, 1982; Stellaria irrigua, La Plata County, Colorado; Sclerocactus 

glaucus, Mesa and Garfield Counties, Colorado, 1987; Penstemon harringtonii, 

Eagle, Grand, and Routt Counties, Colorado, 1982, 1990, 1991, 1993, and 

1994; Ptilagrostis porteri, Teller County, Colorado, 1992, Carex oreocharis, 

Carex scirpoidea, Rubus (Cylactis) arctica ssp. acaulis, Mimulus gemmiparus, 

Salix candida, Aquilegia saximontana, Botrychium lunaria, and Listera borealis, 

E1-16 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
Appendix E 

Clear Creek and Park Counties, Colorado 1995, 1996; Lesquerella congesta, 

Physaria obcordata, Astragalus lutosus, Festuca dasyclada, Gentianella 

tortuosa, Lesquerella parviflora, and Thalictrum heliophilum, Rio Blanco 

County, Colorado 2002. 

Contacted References for Spiranthes: William F. Jennings, Louisville, Colorado 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications E1-17 
SECTION 2
 

WEST COAL CREEK LBA TRACT 
Appendix E 

E2-1.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES 

E2-1.1 The Proposed Action 

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

BLM to lease federal coal reserves in a tract located west of and immediately 

adjacent to the Coal Creek Mine (Figure E-1). The Coal Creek Mine is operated 

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

Resources, LLC. In this EIS, ALC is referred to as the applicant and TBCC is 

referred to in discussions of mine operations. The West Coal Creek LBA tract 

was assigned case file number WYW172388. Under the Proposed Action the 

tract as applied for by ALC would be offered for lease at a sealed-bid, 

competitive lease sale. The boundaries of the tract would be consistent with 

the tract configuration proposed in the West Coal Creek LBA tract lease 

application (Figure E2-1). The Proposed Action assumes that ALC will be the 

successful bidder on the West Coal Creek LBA tract if it is offered for sale. 

The legal description of the proposed West Coal Creek LBA tract coal lease 

lands as applied for by ALC under the Proposed Action is as follows: 

T. 46 N., R. 70 W., 6th PM, Campbell County, Wyoming 

Section 18: Lots 14 through 17; 161.95 acres 

Section 19: Lots 7 through 10, 15 through 18; 323.60 acres 

Section 30: Lots 5 through 20. 665.71 acres 

Total: 1,151.26 acres 

The coal estate underlying this tract described above is owned by the federal 

government and administered by the BLM. The surface estate of the tract is 

privately owned. Surface ownership is shown in Figure E2-2. 

The tract as applied for includes approximately 1,151.26 mineable acres. It is 

assumed that an area larger than the tract would have to be disturbed in order 

to recover all of the coal in the tract. The disturbances outside of the tract 

would be due to activities like overstripping, matching undisturbed topography, 

and construction of flood control and sediment control structures. 

Under the Proposed Action for the West Coal Creek LBA tract, if a decision is 

made to hold a competitive lease sale and if there is a successful bidder at that 

sale, a lease would be issued for the tract of federal coal as applied for. The 

tract offered for lease would be subject to standard and special lease 

stipulations developed for the Wyoming PRB. The stipulations that would be 

attached to a lease for the West Coal Creek LBA tract are listed in appendix D 

of the SGAC EIS document. 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications E2-1 
47 

Mills Road 

T-7 Road 

BNSF & UP RR 

BNSF & UP RR 

Haight Road

Hilight Road

Appendix E 

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 E2-1. West Coal Creek LBA Tract Alternatives. 

E2-2 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 

17 

0 
Hilight Road

Road 

11 

2 

Fork East 

Coal Creek 

Creek 

Dry 

Belle 

River 

Fourche 

Creek 

Coal 

Creek Coal Fork 

West 4 3 1 6 5 3 2
 

UP RR B

H

NSF &

eyR o oad adl

28
 

34
 

Appendix E 

R. 71 W. R. 70 W. 

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.

T. 

Lawver 

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 E2-2. Surface Ownership Within the West Coal Creek LBA Tract Alternatives. 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications E2-3

26 
Appendix E 

TBCC estimates that the West Coal Creek LBA tract under the Proposed Action 

includes approximately 63.3 million tons of in-place and mineable coal. Using 

TBCC’s projected recovery factor of 90 percent, the tract would contain about 

57.0 million tons of recoverable coal. 

Under the Proposed Action, it is assumed that the LBA tract would be 

developed as a maintenance lease to extend the life of the adjacent existing 

Coal Creek Mine. As a result, under the Proposed Action, the coal included in 

the tract would be mined by existing employees using existing facilities and 

roads. 

E2-1.2 Alternatives to the Proposed Action 

E2-1.2.1 Alternative 1 

Under Alternative 1, the No Action Alternative, the 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, and the coal included in the tract would not 

be mined. This would not affect permitted mining activities and employment 

on the existing leases at Coal Creek Mine and would not preclude an 

application to lease the federal coal included in the West Coal Creek LBA tract 

in the future. No additional surface of the West Coal Creek LBA tract would be 

disturbed due to overstripping to allow coal to be removed from the adjacent 

existing leases. 

E2-1.2.2 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 for the West Coal Creek LBA tract 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. 

As applied for, the West Coal Creek LBA tract consists of a single block of 

federal coal (Figure 1-3). 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 West Coal Creek LBA tract, 

and/or 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 

E2-4 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
Appendix E 

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 E2-1). 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 E2-1. BLM wanted to 

evaluate 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 did make a decision to 

add 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 

potentially 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 E2-1). 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 West Coal Creek 

LBA tract under Alternative 2 is as follows: 

T.46N., R.70W., 6th P.M., Campbell County, Wyoming 

Section 18: Lots 7 through 10, 14 through 17; 242.86 acres 

Section 19: Lots 7 through 10, 15 through 18; 323.60 acres 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications E2-5 
Appendix E 

Section 30: Lots 5 through 20. 665.71 acres 

Total: 1,232.17 acres 

TBCC estimates that the reconfigured tract includes approximately 69.3 

million tons of in-place coal and approximately 63.3 million tons of mineable 

coal. Using TBCC’s projected recovery factor of 90 percent, the reconfigured 

tract would contain about 57.0 million tons of recoverable coal. 

E2-2.0 SPECIES HABITAT AND OCCURRENCE AND EFFECTS OF THE 

PROPOSED PROJECT 

The Coal Creek Mine began producing coal in 1982. Wildlife monitoring has 

been conducted annually for the mine since 1983. This wildlife monitoring was 

designed to meet the WDEQ/LQD, WGFD, and federal requirements for annual 

monitoring and reporting of wildlife activity on coal mining areas. Detailed 

procedures and site-specific requirements have been carried out as approved 

by WGFD and USFWS. The monitoring program was conducted in accordance 

with Appendix B of WDEQ/LQD Coal Rules and Regulations. Because the 

areas covered in the wildlife surveys included the mine’s permit area and a 

large perimeter around the permit boundary, the entire West Coal Creek LBA 

tract has been included in baseline inventories and annual wildlife surveys 

conducted for the Coal Creek Mine since wildlife studies began. 

The approved Coal Creek Mine Permit 483 Term T5 (TBCC 2006) includes 

monitoring and mitigation measures for the Coal Creek Mine that are required 

by Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act and Wyoming State Law. If the 

West Coal Creek LBA tract is acquired by FCW, these monitoring and 

mitigation measures would be extended to cover operations on the LBA tract 

when the Coal Creek Mine’s mining permit is amended to include the tract. 

This amended permit would have to be approved before mining operations 

could take place on the tract. These monitoring and mitigation measures are 

considered to be part of the Proposed Action and Alternative 2 during the 

leasing process because they are regulatory requirements. 

Background information on T&E species in the vicinity of the West Coal Creek 

LBA tract was drawn from several sources, including: wildlife survey reports 

submitted by the Coal Creek Mine to the WDEQ/LQD from 1983 through 2006, 

the Final South Powder River Basin Coal EIS (BLM 2003), the Maysdorf Coal 

FEIS (BLM 2007), and from WGFD and USFWS records and contacts in 2006 

and 2007. In addition, the entire West Coal Creek LBA tract and all but the 

southwestern corner of its corresponding two-mile perimeter wildlife study area 

fall within the wildlife monitoring areas for the nearby Cordero Rojo Mine 

(Figure E2-1). 

Site-specific data for a substantial portion of the tract as applied for and the 

study area for Alternative 2 were obtained from several sources, including 

E2-6 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
Appendix E 

WDEQ/LQD permit applications and annual wildlife reports for the Coal Creek 

Mine and other nearby coal mines. Baseline wildlife studies were conducted by 

Thunderbird-Jones & Stokes, (TJS) expressly for the West Coal Creek LBA tract 

during 2006 and 2007. Figure E2-3 depicts TJS’s T&E animal species survey 

areas for the West Coal Creek LBA tract. 

The West Coal Creek general analysis area is situated in an area of gently 

rolling terrain of moderate relief influenced by the East and West forks of Coal 

Creek. Elevations range from 4,555 to 4,710 ft within the LBA tract and from 

4,580 to 4,725 ft within the area added under Alternative 2. Within the LBA 

tract and the area added under Alternative 2, slopes range from flat to over 33 

percent, with the steeper slopes primarily occurring in the southern portion of 

the study area. The slopes of the gently rolling uplands, which comprise most 

(about 65 percent) of the BLM study area, seldom exceed 4.4 percent. 

Predominant wildlife habitat types classified on the LBA tract and adjacent 

area correspond with the major plant communities defined during the 

vegetation baseline study and consist primarily of sagebrush/grassland and 

mixed grass prairie. Other habitats present in limited extent include 

streamside meadow and premine disturbance. Networks of road, pipeline, tank 

battery, and well-pad disturbance areas associated with oil and gas 

development overlay much of the study area. 

All streams within and adjacent to the general analysis area are ephemeral. 

Storm runoff is typically of short duration and exhibits temporal patterns 

similar to the precipitation events. Streamflow is characteristically low to 

nonexistent from October through January. Streamflow frequently results 

from snowmelt during the late winter and early spring. Although peak 

discharges from such events are generally small, the duration and therefore the 

percentage of annual runoff volume can be considerable. During the spring, 

storms (both rain and snow) can result in both large runoff volumes and high 

peak discharges. Intense, short-duration summer thunderstorms also result in 

large runoff volumes and high peak discharges. 

All streams draining the general analysis area are categorized as class 3B 

waters of the state by the WDEQ/Water Quality Division. No playas or 

topographic depressions have been identified within the general analysis area. 

Springs are uncommon in the general area and have not been identified in the 

general analysis area. 

Four reservoirs used for livestock watering have been identified in the West 

Coal Creek general analysis area. None of these reservoirs have been permitted 

through the SEO. Most appear to have been in place for several decades. Three 

permitted sediment ponds (industrial and miscellaneous use) for the Coal 

Creek Mine are also located within the general analysis area. Each of these 

sediment ponds is associated with a WYPDES outfall. 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications E2-7 
R

T-7 Road 

Fork 

East 

Coal 

Creek 

Creek 

Dry 

Belle 

River 

Fourche 

Creek 

Coal 

Creek

Coal Fork 

West 

11 

Appendix E 

R. 71 W. R. 70 W. 32 33 34 35 35
 36 31 34
 

UP R B

H

NSF &

ey R o oad adl

45
 45

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

Lawver Road 

12
 7 10 11
 8 R. 71 W. R. 70 W. 9 10 11
 

LEGEND 

Coal Creek Mine Permit Boundary 

West Coal Creek LBA Tract as Applied for 

BLM's Study Area 

Alternative 2, 

BLM's Preferred Alternative 

West Coal Creek Wildlife General Analysis Area 

Two-Mile Buffer from the West Coal 0 3000 6000 12000
 Creek Wildlife General Analysis Area 

Prairie Dog Colony
 GRAPHIC SCALE (FEET)
 

4 3 2 2 1 6 5 3
 

8
 12
 9 10 11 7 10
 

13
 18
 17 16
 15
 14 15
 14
 

Hoadley Road 

24 19 20 21
 22 22
 23
 23
 

27 30 28 27 26
 29 25
 

31 32 33
 34

T. 34 35 36
 T.

46
 46

N. N.

T. T.

Figure E2-3. T&E Species Survey Area for the Coal Creek Mine and the West Coal Creek LBA Tract. 

E2-8 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 

35 

26 
Appendix E 

West Coal Creek LBA Tract Wetlands 

A preliminary wetlands inventory, based on USFWS National Wetlands 

Inventory (NWI) mapping and vegetation mapping in the field, was conducted in 

2004. The wetland analysis area includes the West Coal Creek LBA tract as 

applied for, the lands added under Alternative 2, and a 1⁄4-mile disturbance 

buffer around the tract sufficient to mine and reclaim the tract as a part of the 

existing Coal Creek Mine operation. A formal wetland delineation has been 

confirmed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (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 2007), 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 survey of the lands proposed for mining disturbance 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 and 

proposed for mining. 

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. These areas that occur within and adjacent to the 

West Coal Creek LBA tract are shown on Figure S2-5 in the Supplementary 

Information document. 

Within the proposed lease area and adjacent study area there is no “critical” 

habitat designated by USFWS for T&E species. The following discussion 

describes species’ habitat requirements and their occurrence in the area of the 

West Coal Creek LBA tract and evaluates the potential environmental effects of 

the Proposed Action and Alternative 1 on federal T&E species. 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications E2-9 
Appendix E 

E2-2.1 Threatened Species 

E2-2.1.1 Ute ladies’-tresses 

Ute ladies’-tresses is a perennial, terrestrial orchid with erect, glandularpubescent stems 12 to 50 cm tall arising from tuberous-thickened roots. Ute 

ladies’-tresses occurs primarily on moist, subirrigated or seasonally flooded 

soils bordering wetland meadows, springs, lakes, or perennial streams. The 

elevation range of known occurrences is 4,200 to 7,000 feet in alluvial 

substrates along riparian edges, gravel bars, old oxbows, and moist to wet 

meadows. Most populations are found on alluvial sand, coarse silt, or whitish 

loamy clay with a slightly basic pH. These soils are derived from Quaternary 

alluvial deposits or drab Eocene- age sandstones and claystones (Fertig 2000). 

Ute ladies’-tresses is not found in heavy, tight clay soils, saline, or alkaline 

soils. 

This orchid can be commonly associated with horsetail, milkweed, verbena, 

blue-eyed grass, reedgrass, goldenrod, bentgrass, and arrowgrass (USFWS 

2005). Wyoming populations often occur in moist meadow communities 

dominated by redtop, common quackgrass, Baltic rush, foxtail barley, or 

switchgrass within a narrow vegetative band between emergent aquatic 

vegetation and dry upland prairie (Fertig 2000). Vegetative cover tends to range 

from 75-90 percent and is usually less than 45 cm tall (Fertig 2000). The 

orchid seems intolerant of shade. Plants usually occur as small scattered 

groups and occupy relatively small areas within the riparian system. 

In Wyoming, this species typically blooms from early August to early 

September, with fruits produced from mid-August to September (Fertig 2000). 

Leaves persist during flowering (Moseley 1998). Flowers are white or ivory and 

are clustered into a spike at the top of the stem. No direct observations of 

pollination have been made in Wyoming. In their 1994 report, Sipes and 

Tepedino indicated that large, long-tongued bumblebees in the genus Bombus 

are the primary pollinators in Utah and Colorado (Fertig 2000). Smaller bees 

may also visit these flowers, but have the incorrect body shape or mass to 

properly accommodate the orchid’s large, sticky anther/pollen clusters (Fertig 

2000). 

This species reproduces basically by sexual reproduction and can produce as 

many as 7,300 tiny seeds per fruit (Fertig 2000). The plant requires 

mycorrhizal fungi to germinate and establish. Individual plants may not flower 

in consecutive years under adverse environmental conditions but will persist 

below ground with their mycorrhizal symbionts (Fertig 2000). 

Flowers are needed for positive plant identification. The species can be reliably 

located only when it is flowering (Heidel 2001). Plants probably do not flower 

every year and may remain dormant below ground during drought years. In 

general, the species’ best flowering years seem to correspond with extreme heat 

during flowering. Preliminary review of climate data also indicates that growing 

E2-10 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
Appendix E 

seasons that start out as relatively cold and wet correspond with low flowering 

levels (Heidel 2001). 

The orchid is well adapted to disturbances from stream movement and is 

tolerant of other disturbances such as grazing that are common to grassland 

riparian habitats (USFWS 1995). Populations are often dynamic and “move” 

within a watershed as disturbances create new habitat or succession 

eliminates old habitat (Fertig and Beauvais 1999). Ute ladies’-tresses colonize 

early successional riparian habitats such as point bars, sand bars, and lowlying gravelly, sandy, or cobbley edges, persisting in those areas where the 

hydrology provides continual dampness in the root zone through the growing 

season. The orchid has been known to establish in heavily disturbed sites, 

such as revegetated gravel pits, heavily grazed riparian edges, and along welltraveled foot trails on old berms (USFWS 1995). 

Existing Environment: Prior to 2005, four orchid populations had been 

documented within Wyoming, all discovered between 1993 and 1997 (Fertig 

and Beauvais 1999). Four additional sites were located in 2005 and one 

additional site was found in 2006 (Heidel, 2007). The new locations were in the 

same drainages or tributaries as the original four populations. Drainages with 

documented orchid populations include Antelope Creek and tributaries in 

northern Converse County, Bear Creek in northern Laramie and southern 

Goshen Counties, Horse Creek in Laramie County, and Niobrara River in 

Niobrara County. No occurrences have been recorded in Campbell County 

including the West Coal Creek vegetation general analysis. 

Areas of potential habitat within the West Coal Creek LBA tract and adjacent 

study area were surveyed by BKS Environmental Associates, Inc during 

vegetation and wetland sampling in July 2007. The Coal Creek channel and its 

tributaries primarily had water present but for the most part lacked 

hydrophytic wetland vegetation or in some areas no vegetation was present 

along the steeply incised creek banks, with soils that primarily had clay 

textures. 

Potential habitat was traversed on foot during the time of typical flowering of 

the known population, and it involved walking entire lengths of the drainages 

documenting locations of potential habitat and searching for this species. 

No individuals of the Ute ladies’-tresses orchid were located during the 2007 

survey. The land within the West Coal Creek LBA tract and adjacent study 

area is not potential suitable Ute ladies’-tresses habitat. This includes highly 

disturbed or modified sites, upland habitat types, and sites inundated by 

standing water. Poor habitat (3.48 acres of Riverine and palustrine wetland 

channel) within the study area is very limited and is mostly found along the 

CBNG-impacted bottomlands of the Middle and West Forks of Coal Creek. Poor 

habitat factors included areas within and immediately adjacent to stream 

channels and floodplains, less steep stream banks, light soil texture having 

close lateral or vertical distance (within approximately 18 inches) to perennial 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications E2-11 
 

 

Appendix E 

water source during the flowering period, lack of plant competition, lack of 

general soil alkalinity/salinity, and current or historical management practices 

that did not promote overgrazing and extensive use of riparian areas. 

As discussed above, 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. 

Effects of the Proposed Project: Mining the federal coal included in the West 

Coal Creek LBA tract, if the tract is leased under the Proposed Action or 

Alternative 1, may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect Ute ladies’­

tresses. Potential habitat for this species on the tract is very limited and found 

along the CBNG-impacted bottomlands of West Fork, Middle Fork, and East 

Fork Coal Creek. However, the quality of potential habitat is extremely poor. 

Outside of the narrow riparian strips located along these impacted 

watercourses, potential habitat is rare or non-existent in the study area. 

Multiple surveys of the existing habitat at the Coal Creek Mine and other mines 

in this area have not found any Ute ladies’-tresses. Because of the ability of 

this species to persist below ground or above ground without flowering, single 

season surveys that meet the current USFWS survey guidelines may not detect 

populations. If undetected populations are present, they could be lost to 

surface disturbing activities. Any potential habitat that has not already been 

surveyed for Ute ladies’-tresses within the project area should be identified and 

surveyed prior to surface mining activities. 

Jurisdictional wetlands located in the West Coal Creek LBA tract that are 

destroyed by mining operations would be replaced in accordance with the 

requirements of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, as determined by COE. 

The replaced wetlands may not duplicate the exact function and landscape 

features of the pre-mine wetlands. COE considers the type and function of 

each jurisdictional wetland that will be impacted and may require restoration 

of additional acres if the type and function of the restored wetlands will not 

completely replace the type and function of the original wetland. Replacement 

of non-jurisdictional and functional wetlands may be required by the surface 

land owner and/or WDEQ/LQD. WDEQ/LQD allows and sometimes requires 

mitigation of non-jurisdictional wetlands affected by mining, depending on the 

values associated with the wetland features. 

Cumulative Effects: Alterations of stream morphology and hydrology are 

believed to have extirpated Ute ladies’-tresses from most of its historical range 

(USFWS 2002). Disturbance and reclamation of streams by surface coal 

mining may alter stream morphology and hydrology. The large quantities of 

water produced with CBNG development and discharged on the surface may 

also alter stream morphology and hydrology. 

E2-12 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
Appendix E 

E2-2.2 Endangered Species 

E2-2.2.1 Black-footed ferret 

The black-footed ferret, a nocturnal mammal and an obligate associate of 

prairie dogs (Cynomys spp.), was listed as endangered in March, 1967. This 

species is thought to have historically inhabited a nearly contiguous matrix of 

prairie dog colonies spanning the short-grass prairies of the eastern and 

southern Rockies and the Great Plains of North America (Forrest et al. 1985). 

Since the early 1930s, numerous factors have led to substantial declines in 

prairie dog colonies in that region. Reductions in some states are estimated as 

high as 90% from formerly occupied colonies (Rose 1973, Tyler 1968). 

Conversion of grasslands to agricultural landscapes, eradication of prairie 

dogs, and diseases such as the plague and canine distemper have resulted in 

severe reductions in prairie dog colonies across the west, colonies which 

provided food, shelter, and habitat for black-footed ferrets. This species of 

ferret is currently one of the most endangered mammals in North America and 

was thought to be extinct until a small population was discovered in Meeteetse, 

Wyoming in September, 1981. Since then, successful captive breeding and 

reintroduction programs have released black-footed ferrets back into the wild 

in several western and Great Plains states including Wyoming, Montana, South 

Dakota, Colorado, Utah, and Arizona. 

Biology and Habitat Requirements: Ferrets rely on prairie dogs to provide both 

shelter and food (Hillman and Clark 1980). Ferrets produce one litter per year, 

typically giving birth to four or five kits. The decline in ferret populations has 

been largely attributed to the reduction in the vast prairie dog colonies that 

historically existed in the western United States. Despite extensive ferret 

surveys over the past 20 plus years throughout Wyoming, the last known wild 

black-footed ferret population was discovered near Meeteetse in 1981 (Miller et 

al. 1996). Those surveys included numerous USFWS-approved clearances for 

coal mining and other development in the Powder River Basin of Wyoming, as 

well as the USFS surveys for ferrets on the TBNG. Reintroduction efforts 

involving captive bred individuals have successfully established one blackfooted ferret population in the Shirley Basin area in south-central Wyoming. 

Currently, this is the only known black-footed ferret population within the 

state, though other populations are present elsewhere in the United States and 

Mexico. 

Existing Environment: Few ferrets have historically been recorded in locations 

away from prairie dog colonies. The Coal Creek Mine and LBA study area are 

beyond the focus area for ferret reintroduction efforts on the nearby Thunder 

Basin National Grassland and elsewhere in the general region (USFS 2002, 

Grenier 2003). One small (approximately 34 acres) prairie dog colony is 

present just south of the BLM study area and its one-mile perimeter (Figure 

E2-3). As indicated, that colony does not meet the 80-acre minimum, nor does 

it fall within a larger complex of colonies, to be considered as potential blackFinal EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications E2-13 
 

 

Appendix E 

footed ferret habitat by the USFWS (1989). Likewise, the colony does not 

provide sufficient habitat to persistently support individuals or breeding 

females, whose needs are estimated to be at least 30 and 123.5 acres, 

respectively (Forrest et al. 1985). Ferrets have never been documented at Coal 

Creek Mine or in the surrounding region during surveys conducted over the 

last 20 plus years by a variety of private, state, and federal entities. The lack of 

black-footed ferret observations and scat in the BLM study area leads to the 

conclusion that ferrets are not present in the area. On 2 February 2004, the 

USFWS declared that surveys for black-footed ferrets are no longer required in 

black-tailed prairie dog colonies throughout Wyoming (file letter ES61411/BFF/WY7746). 

Effects of the Proposed Project: Mining the federal coal included in the West 

Coal Creek LBA tract, should the tract be leased under the Proposed 

Action Alternative, will have no effect on black-footed ferrets. Given the 

documented absence of this species in the region, including the LBA study 

area, during specific surveys for this species, the isolated nature and small size 

of the lone colony within the LBA survey area, the block clearance issued by 

the USFWS for black-tailed prairie dog colonies throughout the entire state, 

and the location of the LBA area beyond future reintroduction sites, mining the 

LBA area will not result in any direct or indirect effects on black-footed ferrets. 

Cumulative Effects: As indicated, coal mining and natural gas development 

have occurred in the general project area for more than 20 years, with energy 

extraction activities expected to increase in the immediate future. Leasing and 

mining the West Coal Creek LBA tract would not contribute to cumulative 

adverse effects to black-footed ferrets within either the study area or region. 

No black-footed ferret populations exist within northeastern Wyoming. The 

USFWS issued a block clearance for this species in black-tailed prairie dog 

colonies throughout the state. The LBA study area and surrounding perimeter 

are beyond the focus area for future ferret reintroduction efforts in the general 

region (USFS 2002, Grenier 2003). Furthermore, the Proposed Action 

Alternative would not conflict with any future objectives to manage the area for, 

or reintroduce black-footed ferrets into, northeast Wyoming. 

Potential ferret habitat is also affected by other impacts to prairie dog 

populations. Plague can infect and eliminate entire prairie dog colonies. 

Poisoning and recreational prairie dog shooting may locally reduce prairie dog 

populations, but seldom completely eliminate colonies. 

E2-2.2.2 Blowout Penstemon 

Blowout Penstemon, a member of the figwort family, was listed as endangered 

on October 1, 1987. It is known from multiple populations in western 

Nebraska and in the Ferris dunes area in northwestern Carbon County, 

Wyoming. The plant was first discovered in Wyoming in 1877 and then 

rediscovered in 1996 (BLM 2008). The removal of fire, leveling of dunes, 

reduction of grazing, and cultivation of stabilizing cover crops drastically 

E2-14 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
 

 

Appendix E 

reduced the amount of habitat available for this species. Loss of habitat, 

coupled with impacts from insect outbreaks, drought, inbreeding, and potential 

over collection, has caused problems for the plant (University of Wyoming 

2009). Only 3,500-5,000 plants are currently found in Nebraska at about a 

dozen sites. The Wyoming population is limited to three sites in northern 

Carbon County that contain several thousand plants (BLM 2008). Threats to 

the plant may occur when sand dunes are removed or overly disturbed by 

vehicular traffic (USFWS 2008b). 

Biology and Habitat Requirements: Blowout penstemon is a perennial herb 

with stems less than 12 inches tall. The inflorescence is 2 to 6 inches long and 

has six to ten compact whorls of milky-blue to pale lavender flowers. This 

species typically flowers from mid-June to early-July. The plant’s current 

know range in Wyoming is restricted to two habitat types: steep, northwest 

facing slopes of active sand dunes with less than 5 percent vegetative cover; 

and on north facing sandy slopes, on the lee side of active blowouts with 25 to 

40 percent vegetative cover (USFWS 2008b). 

Existing Environment: The West Coal Creek LBA tract is not within the 

documented historical range of the blowout penstemon. It is located 

approximately 150 miles northwest of the Nebraska known occurrences and 

approximately 150 miles northeast of the Wyoming occurrences. No suitable 

sand dunes (whether stable or blownout) are currently present on the West 

Coal vegetation general analysis area. 

Effects of the Proposed Project: Mining the federal coal included in the Belle 

Ayr North LBA tract, if a lease is issued under the Proposed Action or 

Alternative 2, would have no effect on blowout penstemon. Typical 

suitable habitat for this species on the tract is non-existent. If undetected 

populations are present, they could be lost to surface disturbing activities. Any 

potential habitat that has not already been surveyed for blowout penstemon 

within the project area should be identified and surveyed prior to surface 

mining activities. 

Cumulative Effects: This species is potentially vulnerable to habitat loss and 

degradation resulting from sand mining, water development, energy 

development, ORV use, and associated destabilization of its sand dune habitat. 

It also could be vulnerable to negative effects related to the spread of nonnative species within its range. 

E2-3.0 SUMMARY OF DETERMINATIONS 

Table E2-1 summarizes the determinations for federally listed T&E species in 

the area of the West Coal Creek LBA tract that may result from implementing 

the Proposed Action or Alternative. 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications E2-15 
1 

Appendix E 

Table E2-1. Effects Evaluation of Sensitive and Federal T&E Species in the 

Area of the West Coal Creek LBA Tracts. 

Status Species Common Name Potential Effects 

Threatened: Ute ladies’-tresses May affect1 

Endangered: Black-footed ferret No effect 

Endangered: Blowout Penstemon No effect 

Not likely to adversely affect individuals or populations. 

E2-4.0 CREDENTIALS OF SURVEY PERSONNEL 

E2-4.1 Jones & Stokes of Gillette, Wyoming 

Gwyn McKee 

Ms. McKee obtained a Master of Science degree in Wildlife 

Ecology/Management from the University of Missouri-Columbia. She has 

accumulated nearly 20 years of professional experience, with the last 14 spent 

working with the energy industry in Wyoming, Montana, and South Dakota. 

Ms. McKee has conducted the wildlife surveys and impact analyses for most of 

the surface coal mines in the Powder River Basin during her tenure in 

Wyoming, including two of the three properties analyzed in the South Gillette 

Area Coal EIS. She has also provided and/or reviewed the pertinent text 

related to impact assessments for vertebrate species of concern for most of the 

coal EISs that have been prepared in the Powder River Basin since 2000. 

Jennifer Ottinger 

Ms. Ottinger received a B.S. in Zoology from Colorado State University in 1993, 

with a minor in Microbiology. She has 12 years of professional experience with 

a variety of vertebrate species, including surveys for sage-grouse and mountain 

plovers, though her work has focused on raptors during that period. Ms. 

Ottinger has worked throughout the U.S. and abroad. She joined Jones & 

Stokes as a Wildlife Biologist in 2004. She has strong raptor identification and 

handling skills, research experience, proven abilities in data analysis and 

technical writing, and has presented and/or published several articles in a 

variety of professional meetings and publications, respectively. 

E2-4.2 BKS Environmental Associates, Inc of Gillette, Wyoming 

Dr. Brenda K. Schladweiler 

Dr. Brenda K. Schladweiler obtained her Ph.D. in Soil Science from the 

University of Wyoming, 2003. M.S. in Soil Science from University of Wyoming 

1995, and B.S. Range Management (Land Rehabilitation) from Colorado State 

University, Fort Collins, Colorado 1980. 

E2-16 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
 

 

 

 

Appendix E 

Dr. Schladweiler has extensive experience over the last 26 years in conducting 

rare plant surveys. The following is a list of recent threatened and endangered 

plant studies she has conducted: 

Location Date Plants Surveyed 

Wharf Mine, Lawrence Co., SD 1992 Various, State of SD 

Heritage Plants 

Ferris Haggerty Mine, Carbon Co., WY 1998 Various, State of WY 

Crow AML, Big Horn Co., MT 1999 Various, State of MT 

Caballo Mine 1999 Spiranthes diluvialis 

Wright Clinic AML, Campbell Co., WY 1999 Spiranthes diluvialis 

Kane Environmental, Campbell Co., WY 1999 Spiranthes diluvialis 

Atlantic City Mine, Knight Piesold, Fremont 

Co., WY 

2000 Spiranthes diluvialis 

Eagle Butte Mine, Campbell Co., WY Spiranthes diluvialis 

West Antelope Mine, Converse Co., WY 2001 Spiranthes diluvialis 

BRS, Bighorn Basin Water Project, Washakie 

Co., WY 

2001 Various, State of 

Wyoming Plant 

URS, Transmission Line, Campbell Co., WY 2001 Spiranthes diluvialis 

Wright, (bike path) Campbell Co., WY 2001 Spiranthes diluvialis 

Gillette, PCA sewer line, Campbell Co., WY 2002­

2004 

Spiranthes diluvialis 

Gillette, PCA trunk line, Campbell Co., WY 2002­

2004 

Spiranthes diluvialis 

Pinehaven (Wester-Wetstein), Crook Co., WY 2003 Spiranthes diluvialis 

Spotted Horse, (CBMA CH4), Campbell Co., 

WY 

2003 Spiranthes diluvialis 

Bowers Oil (Antelope Creek)Campbell/ 

Converse Co., WY 

2003 Spiranthes diluvialis 

Gillette, PCA Swanson Rd., Campbell Co., WY 2003 Spiranthes diluvialis 

North Rochelle Mine USFS Survey, Campbell 

Co., WY 

2004 Various USFS Sensitive 

Species for TBNG 

Westport Oil & Gas, Nicholson POD, Campbell 

Co., WY 

2004 Spiranthes diluvialis 

Devon Energy, Mustang POD, Campbell Co., 

WY 

2004 Spiranthes diluvialis 

NARM, Beckwith Rd., Campbell Co., WY 2004 Spiranthes diluvialis 

Yates Petroleum, Campbell Co., WY 2004 Spiranthes diluvialis; 

various USFS Sensitive 

Species for TBNG 

PRCC, Ridgeroad USFS, Campbell Co., WY 2004 Spiranthes diluvialis 

Lance, Black Thunder POD, Campbell Co., WY 2004 Spiranthes diluvialis 

Devon Energy, Mulie POD, Campbell Co., WY 2004 Spiranthes diluvialis 

Devon Energy Whitetail POD, Campbell Co., 

WY 

2004 Spiranthes diluvialis 

Devon Energy, Bighorn POD, Campbell Co., 

WY 

2004 Spiranthes diluvialis 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications E2-17 
Appendix E 

Numerous actions have been taken by Dr. Schladweiler to become acquainted 

with the known locations and the appearance of Spiranthes diluvialis. 

Research has been conducted through the Wyoming Natural Diversity 

Database and the Internet for sensitive plants. In addition, she has actually 

visited the population on the Unnamed Tributary to Antelope Creek numerous 

times over the last approximate 10 years. This known population verification 

was completed as part of a field survey conducted for Yates Petroleum 

Company in the Rochelle Hills POD, Campbell County, Wyoming on August 29, 

2004. She has also visited the known population near Chugwater, Wyoming. 

Dr. Schladweiler on numerous occasions has been in contact with Mr. Ernie 

Nelson, University of Wyoming, Rocky Mountain Herbarium, and George Jones, 

Wyoming Natural Diversity Database. In addition, she has consulted with Mr. 

Walt Fertig, previously from the University of Wyoming. 

Katie Halvorson 

Katie Halvorson holds a B.S. in Environmental Studies with a minor in Biology 

from Bemidji State University, Bemidji, Minnesota (2005). Ms. Halvorson has 

been employed by BKS Environmental since the spring of 2005. She has been 

conducting mineland reclamation monitoring for various coal mines in 

Campbell and Converse County, Wyoming since her employment. She has also 

performed vegetation sampling for numerous CBM projects and baseline 

vegetation surveys in the Powder River Basin. In addition, she has conducted 

rare plant species surveys, wetland delineations, and environmental 

compliance assessments. Threatened, endangered, proposed and sensitive 

plant survey experience includes: 

 Visited a tributary of Antelope Creek and observed a Spiranthes diluvialis 

(Ute Ladies’ Tresses orchid) population. 2005. 

 Powder River Coal LLC – North Antelope Rochelle Mine Umbrella Botany 

Evaluation, in Campbell County, Wyoming. 2005. 

 Powder River Coal LLC – Gold Mine Draw AVF Exchange – Ute Ladies’ 

Tresses orchid survey, in Campbell County, Wyoming. 2005. 

 West Roundup Resources, Inc. – School Creek Mine – Ute Ladies’ Tresses 

orchid survey in Campbell County, Wyoming. 2005 and 2006. 

 Devon Energy Corporation – Juniper Draw Unit – Ute Ladies’ Tresses 

orchid survey in Johnson County, Wyoming. 2005. 

 Devon Energy Corporation – Crossroads Unit – Ute Ladies’ Tresses orchid 

survey in Johnson County, Wyoming. 2005. 

 Marathon Oil Company – Knudson 9 Unit – Ute Ladies’ Tresses orchid 

survey in Campbell County, Wyoming. 2006. 

 Marathon Oil Company – Twenty Mile Butte Unit – Ute Ladies’ Tresses 

orchid survey in Campbell County, Wyoming. 2006. 

 Marathon Oil Company – West Innes 27 Unit – Ute Ladies’ Tresses orchid 

survey in Campbell County, Wyoming. 2006. 

 Rio Tinto Energy America – Antelope Mine – Ute Ladies’ Tresses orchid 

habitat survey in Converse County, Wyoming. 2007. 

E2-18 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
Appendix E 

Cindy Robinson 

Cindy Robinson holds a Masters of Business Administration (MBA) and a B.S. 

in Environmental Science from the University of Denver, Denver, Colorado 

(2005). Ms. Robinson has been employed by BKS Environmental since April of 

2006. She has been conducting mineland reclamation monitoring for various 

coal mines in Campbell County, Wyoming during the last year. In addition, 

she has conducted rare plant species surveys, wetland delineations, and 

environmental compliance assessments. Ms. Robinson has also visited an 

Astragalus barrii site, on USFS lands at the proposed School Creek Mine area 

when the species was blooming. Threatened and endangered and sensitive 

plant survey experience includes: 

 West Roundup Resources, Inc., – School Creek Mine – Barr's Milkvetch 

survey in Campbell County, Wyoming, 2006. 

 West Roundup Resources, Inc., – School Creek Mine – Ute Ladies’ 

Tresses orchid survey in Campbell County, Wyoming, 2006. 

 Thunder Basin Coal Company, Black Thunder Mine – West Hilight – 

Barr's Milkvetch survey, August 2006. 

 Wellstar Corporation (Jones and Stokes), Ute Ladies Tresses orchid 

survey, 2007. 

Jamie Eberly 

Jamie Eberly holds a B.S. in Range Management, Rangeland Livestock Option 

with a Business Administrations minor from Chadron State College, Chadron, 

Nebraska (2005). Ms. Eberly has been employed by BKS Environmental since 

the fall of 2006. She has been conducting mineland reclamation monitoring 

for various coal mines in Campbell and Converse County, Wyoming since her 

employment. She has also performed vegetation sampling for numerous CBM 

projects and baseline vegetation surveys in the Powder River Basin. In 

addition, she has conducted rare plant species surveys, wetland delineations, 

and environmental compliance assessments. Threatened, endangered, 

proposed and sensitive plant survey experience includes: 

	 Williams Production Company, West Cripple Creek POD, Biological 

Evaluation/Biological Assessment in Campbell County, Wyoming. 2007. 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications	 E2-19 
SECTION 3
 

CABALLO WEST LBA TRACT 
 

Appendix E 

E3-1.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES 

E3-1.1 The Proposed Action 

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

BLM to lease federal coal reserves in a tract located west of and immediately 

adjacent to the Caballo Mine (Figure E-1). The tract was assigned case file 

number WYW172657. Under the Proposed Action for the Caballo West LBA 

tract, the tract as applied for by CCC would be offered for lease at a sealed-bid, 

competitive lease sale. The boundaries of the tract would be consistent with 

the tract configuration proposed in the Caballo West LBA tract lease 

application (Figure E3-1). The Proposed Action assumes that CCC will be the 

successful bidder on the Caballo West LBA tract if it is offered for sale. 

The legal description of the proposed Caballo West LBA tract coal lease lands 

as applied for by CCC under the Proposed Action is as follows: 

T. 48 N., R. 71 W., 6th PM, 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 coal estate underlying this tract described above is owned by the federal 

government and administered by the BLM. The surface estate of the tract is 

privately owned. The federal surface estate is administered by BLM. Surface 

ownership is shown in Figure E3-2. 

The tract as applied for includes approximately 777.49 mineable acres. It is 

assumed that an area larger than the tract would have to be disturbed in order 

to recover all of the coal in the tract. The disturbances outside of the tract 

would be due to activities like overstripping, matching undisturbed topography, 

and construction of flood control and sediment control structures. 

CCC estimates that the tract as proposed includes approximately 98.2 million 

tons of in-place coal and 87.5 million tons of mineable coal. Using CCC’s 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications E3-1 
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 

Appendix E 

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 E3-1. Caballo West LBA Tract Alternatives. 

E3-2 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
State

 59 Highway 

Bishop 

Road 

48 48 

Creek 

Tisdale 

Creek 

Caballo 

Pile 

Creek 

Bone 

Creek 

Tisdale 

Creek 

Caballo 

Appendix E 

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 E3-2. Surface Ownership Within the Caballo West LBA Tract Alternatives. 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications E3-3
 

Appendix E 

projected recovery factor of 93.5 percent, the tract would contain about 81.8 

million tons of recoverable coal. 

E3-1.2 Alternatives to the Proposed Action 

E3-1.2.1 Alternative 1 

Under Alternative 1, the No Action Alternative, the application to lease the coal 

included in the Caballo West LBA tract would be rejected, the tract would not 

be offered for competitive sale, and the coal included in the tract would not be 

mined. This would not affect permitted mining activities and employment on 

the existing leases at Caballo Mine and would not preclude an application to 

lease the federal coal included in the Caballo West LBA tract in the future. No 

additional surface of the Caballo West LBA tract would be disturbed due to 

overstripping to allow coal to be removed from the adjacent existing leases. 

E3-1.2.2 Alternative 2 

Under Alternative 2 for the Caballo West LBA tract, BLM would reconfigure the 

tract, hold a competitive coal sale for the lands included in the reconfigured 

tract, and issue a lease to the successful bidder. In evaluating the Caballo 

West coal lease application, BLM identified a study area, which includes 

unleased federal coal adjacent to the southwestern edge of the tract as applied 

for (Figure E3-1). BLM is evaluating the potential that some or all of these 

lands could be added to the tract to provide for more efficient recovery of the 

federal coal, increase competitive interest in the tract, and/or reduce the 

potential that some of the potentially mineable federal coal in this area would 

be bypassed in the future if it is not included in the Caballo West LBA tract. 

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, as discussed above. 

Alternative 2, holding a competitive coal sale for a modified tract, is BLM’s 

Preferred Alternative. 

Alternative 2 for the Caballo West LBA tract assumes that CCC would be the 

successful bidder on the tract if a lease sale is held and that the tract would be 

developed as a maintenance lease to extend the life of the adjacent Caballo 

Mine. Other assumptions are the same as for the Proposed Action. The lands 

that BLM is considering adding to the tract are: 

T. 48 N., R. 71 W., 6th PM, 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 

E3-4 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
 

 

 

Appendix E 

Total: 246.51 acres 

The legal description of BLM’s reconfiguration of the Caballo West LBA tract
 

under Alternative 2 is as follows: 

T. 48 N., R. 71 W., 6th PM, 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. 122.88 acres 

Section 21: Lots 11, 12. 81.25 acres 

Total: 1,024.00 acres 

Some of the coal in Caballo West LBA tract under this alternative is not 

currently considered to be mineable due to the presence of the Bishop Road 

(County Road 12). A portion the Bishop Road overlies some of the coal 

included in the tract under Alternative 2. As discussed in Chapter 1, Section 

1.1, the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act prohibits mining within 

100 ft on either side of the right-of-way of any public road (43 CFR 3461). 

There would also be a quantity of coal south 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 Bishop Road, its right-of-way, and the 

estimated layback needed on both sides of the county road to safely recover the 

coal (including the 100 ft buffer zone) within the Caballo West LBA tract under 

Alternative 2 could be mined if the Campbell County Board of Commissioners, 

the authorized agency, determines that the road can be moved [30 CFR 

761.11(d)]. CCC is evaluating the feasibility of relocating the road at this time. 

CCC estimates that the reconfigured tract includes approximately 131.4 

million tons of in-place coal and approximately 98.1 million tons of mineable 

coal. Using CCC’s projected recovery factor of 93.5 percent, the reconfigured 

tract would contain about 91.7 million tons of recoverable coal. 

E3-2.0 	 SPECIES HABITAT AND OCCURRENCE AND EFFECTS OF THE 

PROPOSED PROJECT 

The Caballo Mine began producing coal in 1978. Wildlife monitoring has been 

conducted annually for the mine since 1986. This wildlife monitoring was 

designed to meet the WDEQ/LQD, WGFD, and federal requirements for annual 

monitoring and reporting of wildlife activity on coal mining areas. Detailed 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications	 E3-5 
 

Appendix E 

procedures and site-specific requirements have been carried out as approved 

by WGFD and USFWS. The monitoring program was conducted in accordance 

with Appendix B of WDEQ/LQD Coal Rules and Regulations. Because the 

areas covered in the wildlife surveys included the mine’s permit area and a 

large perimeter around the permit boundary, the entire Caballo West LBA tract 

has been included in baseline inventories and annual wildlife surveys 

conducted for the Caballo Mine since wildlife studies began in the early 1970s. 

The approved Caballo Mine Permit 433 Term T5 (CCC 2003) includes 

monitoring and mitigation measures for the Caballo Mine that are required by 

Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA) and Wyoming 

State Law. If the Caballo West LBA tract is acquired by CCC, these monitoring 

and mitigation measures would be extended to cover operations on the LBA 

tract when the Caballo Mine’s mining permit is amended to include the tract. 

This amended permit would have to be approved before mining operations 

could take place on the tract. These monitoring and mitigation measures are 

considered to be part of the Proposed Action and Alternative 2 during the 

leasing process because they are regulatory requirements. 

Background information on T&E species in the vicinity of the Caballo West LBA 

tract was drawn from several sources, including: wildlife survey reports 

submitted by the Caballo Mine to the WDEQ/LQD from 1974 through 2005, 

the Final South Powder River Basin Coal EIS (BLM 2003), the Final South 

Powder River Basin Coal EIS (BLM 2003), the Maysdorf Coal FEIS (BLM 2007), 

a Wyoming Natural Diversity Database search (University of Wyoming 2001), 

and from WGFD and USFWS records and contacts in 2004 and 2005. In 

addition, the Caballo West LBA tract wildlife study area falls within the wildlife 

monitoring area for the nearby Belle Ayr Mine (Figure E3-1). 

Site-specific data for a substantial portion of the tract as applied for and the 

study area for Alternative 2 were obtained from several sources, including 

WDEQ/LQD permit applications and annual wildlife reports for the Caballo 

Mine and other nearby coal mines. Baseline wildlife studies were conducted by 

Thunderbird-Jones & Stokes, (TJS) expressly for the Caballo West LBA tract 

beginning in April of 2004 and continuing through December of 2004. Figure 

TJS surveyed T&E animal species within 2 miles of the Caballo West LBA tract. 

The Caballo West LBA tract is in an area of gently rolling terrain of moderate 

relief influenced by Tisdale Creek and its tributaries. Elevations range from 

4,532 to 4,704 ft within the LBA tract and from 4,532 to 4,572 ft within the 

area added under Alternative 2. Within the LBA tract and the area added 

under Alternative 2, slopes range from flat to over 26 percent in the central 

portion of the tract. The slopes of the gently rolling uplands, which comprise 

most (about 60 percent) of the LBA tract, seldom exceed 4.5 percent. A slope 

analysis would be done for the LBA tract if a lease sale is held and it is 

proposed for mining. 

E3-6 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
Appendix E 

Predominant wildlife habitat types classified on the LBA tract and adjacent 

area correspond with the major plant communities defined during the 

vegetation baseline study and consist primarily of big and silver sagebrush, 

cropland, and grassland. Other habitats present in limited extent include 

disturbance and bottomlands. Networks of road, pipeline, tank battery, and 

well-pad disturbance areas associated with oil and gas development overlay 

much of the study area. 

The Caballo West LBA tract consists predominantly of upland topography 

between Tisdale and Caballo Creeks, although a portion of Tisdale Creek 

overlies an AVF. Tisdale Creek flows roughly east-southeast through the 

northern portion of the tract. Tisdale Creek is now interrupted to the north of 

the Caballo West LBA tract by Caballo’s T7 Reservoir, from where water is 

pumped around the mine to Gold Mine Draw. Gold Mine Draw and North 

Tisdale Creek are tributaries to Tisdale Creek, which is a tributary to Caballo 

Creek and the Belle Fourche River. 

All streams, including Tisdale Creek, within and adjacent to the tract are 

typical for the region, in that flow events are ephemeral. Stream runoff is 

typically of short duration and exhibits temporal patterns similar to 

precipitation events. All streams in the region show the characteristic extreme 

low-flow period from October through January. Flow events frequently result 

from snowmelt during the late winter and early spring. Although peak 

discharges from such events are generally small, the duration and 

corresponding percentage of annual runoff volume can be considerable. 

During the spring, general storms (both rain and snow) increase soil moisture 

which decreases infiltration capacity, and subsequent rainstorms can result in 

both large runoff volumes and high peak discharges. Portions of Tisdale Creek 

downstream of the Caballo Mine receive recharge from bank storage 

(groundwater stored in the alluvium and bedrock along the stream channel) 

creating intermittent reaches. 

Caballo West LBA Tract Wetlands 

Wetland inventories have been completed and confirmed by the U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers on those portions of Caballo Creek and its tributaries that 

lie within the adjacent Caballo Mine’s existing permit area. A large portion of 

the Caballo West LBA tract is within Caballo Mine’s permit area; therefore, a 

wetland inventory on Tisdale Creek that lies within the BLM study area for the 

LBA tract has been conducted and is included in the mine’s approved mine 

permit. 

Figure S3-6 in the Supplementary Information document depicts the wetlands 

analysis area for the Caballo West LBA tract, which includes the BLM study 

area for the LBA tract plus a 1⁄4-mile disturbance buffer around the study area 

sufficient to mine and reclaim the tract as a part of the Caballo Mine operation. 

Caballo Mine conducted a preliminary wetlands inventory in 2007, based on 

USFWS NWI mapping and vegetation mapping in the field, on the portions of 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications E3-7 
Appendix E 

the wetlands analysis area that are outside of the current Caballo Mine permit 

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 and proposed for mining. 

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 in-channel impoundments along Tisdale Creek. The internally drained 

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. 

Within the proposed lease area and adjacent study area there is no “critical” 

habitat designated by USFWS for T&E species. The following discussion 

describes species’ habitat requirements and their occurrence in the area of the 

Caballo West LBA tract and evaluates the potential environmental effects of the 

Proposed Action and Alternative 2 on federal T&E species. 

E3-2.1 Threatened Species 

E3-2.1.1 Ute ladies’-tresses 

Ute ladies’-tresses, a member of the orchid family, was listed as threatened on 

January 17, 1992, due to a variety of factors, including habitat loss and 

modification, hydrological modifications of existing and potential habitat areas, 

and invasion of exotic plant species. At the time of listing, Ute ladies’-tresses 

was only known from Colorado, Utah, and extreme eastern Nevada. Ute ladies’­

tresses orchids were discovered in Wyoming in 1993. It is currently known 

from western Nebraska, eastern Wyoming, north-central Colorado, 

northeastern and southern Utah, east-central and southeastern Idaho, 

southwestern Montana, and central Washington. 

Biology and Habitat Requirements: Ute ladies’-tresses is a perennial, terrestrial 

orchid with erect, glandular-pubescent stems 12 to 50 cm tall arising from 

tuberous-thickened roots. Ute ladies’-tresses occurs primarily on moist, 

subirrigated or seasonally flooded soils bordering wetland meadows, springs, 

lakes, or perennial streams. The elevation range of known occurrences is 4,200 

to 7,000 feet in alluvial substrates along riparian edges, gravel bars, old 

oxbows, and moist to wet meadows. Most populations are found on alluvial 

E3-8 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
Appendix E 

sand, coarse silt, or whitish loamy clay with a slightly basic pH. These soils are 

derived from Quaternary alluvial deposits or drab Eocene- age sandstones and 

claystones (Fertig 2000). Ute ladies’-tresses is not found in heavy, tight clay 

soils, saline, or alkaline soils. 

This orchid can be commonly associated with horsetail, milkweed, verbena, 

blue-eyed grass, reedgrass, goldenrod, bentgrass, and arrowgrass (USFWS 

2005). Wyoming populations often occur in moist meadow communities 

dominated by redtop, common quackgrass, Baltic rush, foxtail barley, or 

switchgrass within a narrow vegetative band between emergent aquatic 

vegetation and dry upland prairie (Fertig 2000). Vegetative cover tends to range 

from 75-90 percent and is usually less than 45 cm tall (Fertig 2000). The 

orchid seems intolerant of shade. Plants usually occur as small scattered 

groups and occupy relatively small areas within the riparian system. 

In Wyoming, this species typically blooms from early August to early 

September, with fruits produced from mid-August to September (Fertig 2000). 

Leaves persist during flowering (Moseley 1998). Flowers are white or ivory and 

are clustered into a spike at the top of the stem. No direct observations of 

pollination have been made in Wyoming. In their 1994 report, Sipes and 

Tepedino indicated that large, long-tongued bumblebees in the genus Bombus 

are the primary pollinators in Utah and Colorado (Fertig 2000). Smaller bees 

may also visit these flowers, but have the incorrect body shape or mass to 

properly accommodate the orchid’s large, sticky anther/pollen clusters (Fertig 

2000). 

This species reproduces basically by sexual reproduction and can produce as 

many as 7,300 tiny seeds per fruit (Fertig 2000). The plant requires 

mycorrhizal fungi to germinate and establish. Individual plants may not flower 

in consecutive years under adverse environmental conditions but will persist 

below ground with their mycorrhizal symbionts (Fertig 2000). 

Flowers are needed for positive plant identification. The species can be reliably 

located only when it is flowering (Heidel 2001). Plants probably do not flower 

every year and may remain dormant below ground during drought years. In 

general, the species’ best flowering years seem to correspond with extreme heat 

during flowering. Preliminary review of climate data also indicates that growing 

seasons that start out as relatively cold and wet correspond with low flowering 

levels (Heidel 2001). 

The orchid is well adapted to disturbances from stream movement and is 

tolerant of other disturbances such as grazing that are common to grassland 

riparian habitats (USFWS 1995). Populations are often dynamic and “move” 

within a watershed as disturbances create new habitat or succession 

eliminates old habitat (Fertig and Beauvais 1999). Ute ladies’-tresses colonize 

early successional riparian habitats such as point bars, sand bars, and lowlying gravelly, sandy, or cobbley edges, persisting in those areas where the 

hydrology provides continual dampness in the root zone through the growing 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications E3-9 
 

Appendix E 

season. The orchid has been known to establish in heavily disturbed sites, 

such as revegetated gravel pits, heavily grazed riparian edges, and along welltraveled foot trails on old berms (USFWS 1995). 

Existing Environment: Prior to 2005, four orchid populations had been 

documented within Wyoming, all discovered between 1993 and 1997 (Fertig 

and Beauvais 1999). Four additional sites were located in 2005 and one 

additional site was found in 2006 (Heidel, 2007). The new locations were in the 

same drainages or tributaries as the original four populations. Drainages with 

documented orchid populations include Antelope Creek and tributaries in 

northern Converse County, Bear Creek in northern Laramie and southern 

Goshen Counties, Horse Creek in Laramie County, and Niobrara River in 

Niobrara County. No occurrences have been recorded in Campbell County 

including the Caballo West vegetation general analysis. 

Areas of suitable habitat within the Caballo West LBA tract and adjacent study 

area were surveyed by BKS Environmental Associates, Inc. in the latter half of 

August 2007. Topographical and wetland delineation maps for the study area 

were reviewed to identify all drainages that may contain the orchid. Suitable 

habitat factors included less steep stream banks, light soil texture and well 

drained soils, close lateral or vertical distance to perennial water source during 

the flowering period, lack of plant competition, lack of general soil 

alkalinity/salinity, and current or historical management practices that did not 

promote overgrazing and extensive use of riparian areas. Suitable habitat was 

traversed on foot during the time of actual flowering of the known population, 

and it involved walking entire lengths of the drainages documenting locations 

of potential habitat and searching for this species. 

No individuals of the Ute ladies’-tresses orchid were located during the 2007 

survey. Most of the habitat suitable for Ute ladies’-tresses orchid within the 

Caballo West LBA tract and adjacent study area is found within the Lowland 

Grassland vegetation type. This area covers 21.6 acres of the Caballo West 

LBA tract. The ephemeral drainage containing Lowland Grassland generally 

flows from south to north through the northern portion of the Caballo West 

LBA tract. In response to surface discharge of groundwater associated with 

CBNG development within the drainage, which is a relatively recent 

phenomenon, streamflow occurrence is now more persistent and the drainage 

channel is seldom completely dry. A total of 8.63 acres of jurisdictional Waters 

of the U.S., occur within the entire wetlands analysis area. 

Effects of the Proposed Project: Mining the federal coal included in the 

Caballo West LBA tract, if the tract is leased under the Proposed Action or 

Alternative 2, may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect Ute ladies’­

tresses. Marginal habitat for this species is present within the Lowland 

Grassland vegetation type only. Surveys of the existing suitable habitat at the 

Caballo Mine and other mines in this area have not found any Ute ladies’­

tresses. Because of the ability of this species to persist below ground or above 

ground without flowering, single season surveys that meet the current USFWS 

E3-10 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
Appendix E 

survey guidelines may not detect populations. If undetected populations are 

present, they could be lost to surface disturbing activities. Any potential 

habitat that has not already been surveyed for Ute ladies’-tresses within the 

project area should be identified and surveyed prior to surface mining 

activities. 

Jurisdictional wetlands located in the Caballo West LBA tract that are 

destroyed by mining operations would be replaced in accordance with the 

requirements of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, as determined by the U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers (COE). The replaced wetlands may not duplicate the 

exact function and landscape features of the pre-mine wetlands. COE 

considers the type and function of each jurisdictional wetland that will be 

impacted and may require restoration of additional acres if the type and 

function of the restored wetlands will not completely replace the type and 

function of the original wetland. Replacement of non-jurisdictional and 

functional wetlands may be required by the surface landowner and/or 

WDEQ/LQD. WDEQ/LQD allows and sometimes requires mitigation of nonjurisdictional wetlands affected by mining, depending on the values associated 

with the wetland features. WDEQ/LQD also requires replacement of playas 

with hydrologic significance. 

Cumulative Effects: Alterations of stream morphology and hydrology are 

believed to have extirpated Ute ladies’-tresses from most of its historical range 

(USFWS 2002). Disturbance and reclamation of streams by surface coal 

mining may alter stream morphology and hydrology. The large quantities of 

water produced with CBNG development and discharged on the surface may 

also alter stream morphology and hydrology. 

E3-2.2 Endangered Species 

E3-2.2.1 Black-footed ferret 

The black-footed ferret, a nocturnal mammal and an obligate associate of 

prairie dogs (Cynomys spp.), was listed as endangered in March, 1967. This 

species is thought to have historically inhabited a nearly contiguous matrix of 

prairie dog colonies spanning the short-grass prairies of the eastern and 

southern Rockies and the Great Plains of North America (Forrest et al. 1985). 

Since the early 1930s, numerous factors have led to substantial declines in 

prairie dog colonies in that region. Reductions in some states are estimated as 

high as 90% from formerly occupied colonies (Rose 1973, Tyler 1968). 

Conversion of grasslands to agricultural landscapes, eradication of prairie 

dogs, and diseases such as the plague and canine distemper have resulted in 

severe reductions in prairie dog colonies across the west, colonies which 

provided food, shelter, and habitat for black-footed ferrets. This species of 

ferret is currently one of the most endangered mammals in North America and 

was thought to be extinct until a small population was discovered in Meeteetse, 

Wyoming in September, 1981. Since then, successful captive breeding and 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications E3-11 
 

 

Appendix E 

reintroduction programs have released black-footed ferrets back into the wild 

in several western and Great Plains states including Wyoming, Montana, South 

Dakota, Colorado, Utah, and Arizona. 

Biology and Habitat Requirements: Ferrets rely on prairie dogs to provide both 

shelter and food (Hillman and Clark 1980). Ferrets produce one litter per year, 

typically giving birth to four or five kits. The decline in ferret populations has 

been largely attributed to the reduction in the vast prairie dog colonies that 

historically existed in the western United States. Despite extensive ferret 

surveys over the past 20 plus years throughout Wyoming, the last known wild 

black-footed ferret population was discovered near Meeteetse in 1981 (Miller et 

al. 1996). Those surveys included numerous USFWS-approved clearances for 

coal mining and other development in the Powder River Basin of Wyoming, as 

well as the USFS surveys for ferrets on the TBNG. Reintroduction efforts 

involving captive bred individuals have successfully established one blackfooted ferret population in the Shirley Basin area in south-central Wyoming. 

Currently, this is the only known black-footed ferret population within the 

state, though other populations are present elsewhere in the United States and 

Mexico. 

Existing Environment: The Caballo West LBA tract is within the historical 

range of the black-footed ferret, although no black-footed ferrets are presently 

known to occur in northeastern Wyoming. During the 1980s, WGFD, in 

cooperation with other agencies, conducted searches for black-footed ferrets in 

Wyoming in the places they were most likely to be found, but these searches 

were not successful (Martin Grenier, personal communication, 10/14/2003). 

In a February 2, 2004 letter to interested parties, the USFWS declared that 

black-footed ferret surveys are no longer necessary in black-tailed prairie dog 

colonies within Wyoming. 

TJS has mapped the current acreage of prairie dog colonies in the vicinity of 

the Caballo Mine by walking the perimeters of colonies and delineating them on 

topographic maps. No black-tailed prairie dog colonies are currently present 

within the Caballo West wildlife general analysis area. No evidence of ferrets 

has been recorded during general or specific ferret surveys over conducted by 

wildlife consultants for the Caballo Mine and other mines in this area. 

Effects of the Proposed Project: Mining the federal coal included in the 

Caballo West LBA tract, if a lease is issued under the Proposed Action or 

Alternative 2, would have no effect on black-footed ferrets. Given the 

documented absence of black-footed ferrets in the region, including the general 

analysis area during specific surveys for this species, the block clearance 

issued by USFWS for black-tailed prairie dog colonies throughout the entire 

state, and the distance of the LBA area from future reintroduction sites, mining 

the generally analysis area will not result in any direct or indirect effects on 

black-footed ferrets (USFWS 2004). 

E3-12 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
Appendix E 

Mine activities include, but are not limited to, large-scale topsoil stripping, the 

intense presence of heavy machinery, extended human presence, loud noise 

and various linear disturbances such as roads, power lines and fences. 

Additionally, ongoing disturbance (grazing, oil and gas production, etc.) from 

sources unrelated to mining would likely continue, with some activities 

occurring within prairie dog colonies in the area. These activities would result 

in less habitat disturbance than surface mining, but physical disturbance 

would occur. 

Based on more than 20 years of historic and recent survey efforts and other 

general analysis area data and information, it is unlikely that ferrets exist in 

the Belle Ayr North wildlife general analysis area. 

Cumulative Effects: Mineral development within black-tailed prairie dog 

colonies is a leading cause of ferret habitat loss in the PRB. Surface coal 

mining tends to have more intense impacts on fairly localized areas, while oil 

and gas development tends to be less intensive but spread over larger areas. 

Oil and gas development and mining activities have requirements for 

reclamation of disturbed areas as resources are depleted. In reclaimed areas, 

vegetation cover may differ from undisturbed areas. In the case of surface coal 

mines, re-established vegetation would be dominated by species mandated in 

the reclamation seed mixtures (to be approved by WDEQ). The majority of the 

approved plant species are native to the area; however, reclaimed areas may 

not serve ecosystem functions presently served by undisturbed vegetation 

communities and habitats, particularly in the short-term, when species 

composition, shrub cover, and other environmental factors are likely to be 

different. Shifts in habitat composition or distribution following reclamation 

could increase or decrease potential habitat for prairie dogs and associated 

habitat for black-footed ferrets. However, black-tailed prairie dogs have been 

recorded invading and establishing towns on reclaimed coal mined lands in 

northeastern Wyoming (IR 2005). 

Potential ferret habitat is also affected by other impacts to prairie dog 

populations. Plague can infect and eliminate entire prairie dog colonies. 

Poisoning and recreational prairie dog shooting may locally reduce prairie dog 

populations, but seldom completely eliminate colonies. 

E3-2.2.2 Blowout Penstemon 

Blowout Penstemon, a member of the figwort family, was listed as endangered 

on October 1, 1987. It is known from multiple populations in western 

Nebraska and in the Ferris dunes area in northwestern Carbon County, 

Wyoming. The plant was first discovered in Wyoming in 1877 and then 

rediscovered in 1996 (BLM 2008). The removal of fire, leveling of dunes, 

reduction of grazing, and cultivation of stabilizing cover crops drastically 

reduced the amount of habitat available for this species. Loss of habitat, 

coupled with impacts from insect outbreaks, drought, inbreeding, and potential 

over collection, has caused problems for the plant (University of Wyoming 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications E3-13 
 

 

Appendix E 

2009). Only 3,500-5,000 plants are currently found in Nebraska at about a 

dozen sites. The Wyoming population is limited to three sites in northern 

Carbon County that contain several thousand plants (BLM 2008). Threats to 

the plant may occur when sand dunes are removed or overly disturbed by 

vehicular traffic (USFWS 2008b). 

Biology and Habitat Requirements: Blowout penstemon is a perennial herb 

with stems less than 12 inches tall. The inflorescence is 2 to 6 inches long and 

has six to ten compact whorls of milky-blue to pale lavender flowers. This 

species typically flowers from mid-June to early-July. The plant’s current 

know range in Wyoming is restricted to two habitat types: steep, northwest 

facing slopes of active sand dunes with less than 5 percent vegetative cover; 

and on north facing sandy slopes, on the lee side of active blowouts with 25 to 

40 percent vegetative cover (USFWS 2008b). 

Biology and Habitat Requirements: Blowout penstemon is a perennial, 

perennial herb with stems less than 12 inches tall. The inflorescence is 2 to 6 

inches long and has six to ten compact whorls of milky-blue to pale lavender 

flowers. This species typically flowers from mid-June to early-July. The plant’s 

current know range in Wyoming is restricted to two habitat types: steep, 

northwest facing slopes of active sand dunes with less than 5 percent 

vegetative cover; and on north facing sandy slopes, on the lee side of active 

blowouts with 25 to 40 percent vegetative cover (USFWS 2008b). 

Existing Environment: The Caballo West LBA tract is not within the 

documented historical range of the blowout penstemon. It is located 

approximately 150 miles northwest of the Nebraska known occurrences and 

approximately 150 miles northeast of the Wyoming occurrences. No suitable 

sand dunes (whether stable or blownout) are currently present on the Caballo 

West vegetation general analysis area. 

Effects of the Proposed Project: Mining the federal coal included in the Belle 

Ayr North LBA tract, if a lease is issued under the Proposed Action or 

Alternative 2, would have no effect on blowout penstemon. Typical 

suitable habitat for this species on the tract is non-existent. If undetected 

populations are present, they could be lost to surface disturbing activities. Any 

potential habitat that has not already been surveyed for blowout penstemon 

within the project area should be identified and surveyed prior to surface 

mining activities. 

Cumulative Effects: This species is potentially vulnerable to habitat loss and 

degradation resulting from sand mining, water development, energy 

development, ORV use, and associated destabilization of its sand dune habitat. 

It also could be vulnerable to negative effects related to the spread of nonnative species within its range. 

E3-14 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
1 

Appendix E 

E3-3.0 SUMMARY OF DETERMINATIONS 

Table E3-1 summarizes the determinations for federally listed T&E species in 

the area of the Caballo West LBA tract that may result from implementing the 

Proposed Action or Alternative. 

Table E3-1. Effects Evaluation of Sensitive and Federal T&E Species in the 

Area of the Caballo West LBA Tracts. 

Status Species Common Name Potential Effects 

Threatened: Ute ladies’-tresses May affect1 

Endangered: Black-footed ferret No effect 

Endangered: Blowout Penstemon No effect 

Not likely to adversely affect individuals or populations. 

E3-4.0 CREDENTIALS OF SURVEY PERSONNEL 

E3-4.1 Jones & Stokes of Gillette, Wyoming 

Gwyn McKee 

Ms. McKee obtained a Master of Science degree in Wildlife 

Ecology/Management from the University of Missouri-Columbia. She has 

accumulated nearly 20 years of professional experience, with the last 14 spent 

working with the energy industry in Wyoming, Montana, and South Dakota. 

Ms. McKee has conducted the wildlife surveys and impact analyses for most of 

the surface coal mines in the Powder River Basin during her tenure in 

Wyoming, including two of the three properties analyzed in the South Gillette 

Area Coal EIS. She has also provided and/or reviewed the pertinent text 

related to impact assessments for vertebrate species of concern for most of the 

coal EISs that have been prepared in the Powder River Basin since 2000. 

Jennifer Ottinger 

Ms. Ottinger received a B.S. in Zoology from Colorado State University in 1993, 

with a minor in Microbiology. She has 12 years of professional experience with 

a variety of vertebrate species, including surveys for sage-grouse and mountain 

plovers, though her work has focused on raptors during that period. Ms. 

Ottinger has worked throughout the U.S. and abroad. She joined Jones & 

Stokes as a Wildlife Biologist in 2004. She has strong raptor identification and 

handling skills, research experience, proven abilities in data analysis and 

technical writing, and has presented and/or published several articles in a 

variety of professional meetings and publications, respectively. 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications E3-15 
 

 

 

 

Appendix E 

E3-4.2 BKS Environmental Associates, Inc of Gillette, Wyoming 

Dr. Brenda K. Schladweiler 

Dr. Brenda K. Schladweiler obtained her Ph.D. in Soil Science from the 

University of Wyoming, 2003. M.S. in Soil Science from University of Wyoming 

1995, and B.S. Range Management (Land Rehabilitation) from Colorado State 

University, Fort Collins, Colorado 1980. 

Dr. Schladweiler has extensive experience over the last 26 years in conducting 

rare plant surveys. The following is a list of recent threatened and endangered 

plant studies she has conducted: 

Location Date Plants Surveyed 

Wharf Mine, Lawrence Co., SD 1992 Various, State of SD 

Heritage Plants 

Ferris Haggerty Mine, Carbon Co., WY 1998 Various, State of WY 

Crow AML, Big Horn Co., MT 1999 Various, State of MT 

Caballo Mine 1999 Spiranthes diluvialis 

Wright Clinic AML, Campbell Co., WY 1999 Spiranthes diluvialis 

Kane Environmental, Campbell Co., WY 1999 Spiranthes diluvialis 

Atlantic City Mine, Knight Piesold, Fremont Co., 

WY 

2000 Spiranthes diluvialis 

Eagle Butte Mine, Campbell Co., WY Spiranthes diluvialis 

West Antelope Mine, Converse Co., WY 2001 Spiranthes diluvialis 

BRS, Bighorn Basin Water Project, Washakie 

Co., WY 

2001 Various, State of 

Wyoming Plant 

URS, Transmission Line, Campbell Co., WY 2001 Spiranthes diluvialis 

Wright, (bike path) Campbell Co., WY 2001 Spiranthes diluvialis 

Gillette, PCA sewer line, Campbell Co., WY 2002­

2004 

Spiranthes diluvialis 

Gillette, PCA trunk line, Campbell Co., WY 2002­

2004 

Spiranthes diluvialis 

Pinehaven (Wester-Wetstein), Crook Co., WY 2003 Spiranthes diluvialis 

Spotted Horse, (CBMA CH4), Campbell Co., WY 2003 Spiranthes diluvialis 

Bowers Oil (Antelope Creek)Campbell/ 

Converse Co., WY 

2003 Spiranthes diluvialis 

Gillette, PCA Swanson Rd., Campbell Co., WY 2003 Spiranthes diluvialis 

North Rochelle Mine USFS Survey, Campbell 

Co., WY 

2004 Various USFS Sensitive 

Species for TBNG 

Westport Oil & Gas, Nicholson POD, Campbell 

Co., WY 

2004 Spiranthes diluvialis 

Devon Energy, Mustang POD, Campbell Co., 

WY 

2004 Spiranthes diluvialis 

NARM, Beckwith Rd., Campbell Co., WY 2004 Spiranthes diluvialis 

Yates Petroleum, Campbell Co., WY 2004 Spiranthes diluvialis; 

various USFS Sensitive 

Species for TBNG 

PRCC, Ridgeroad USFS, Campbell Co., WY 2004 Spiranthes diluvialis 

E3-16 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
Appendix E 

Lance, Black Thunder POD, Campbell Co., WY 2004 Spiranthes diluvialis 

Devon Energy, Mulie POD, Campbell Co., WY 2004 Spiranthes diluvialis 

Devon Energy Whitetail POD, Campbell Co., WY 2004 Spiranthes diluvialis 

Devon Energy, Bighorn POD, Campbell Co., WY 2004 Spiranthes diluvialis 

Numerous actions have been taken by Dr. Schladweiler to become acquainted 

with the known locations and the appearance of Spiranthes diluvialis. 

Research has been conducted through the Wyoming Natural Diversity 

Database and the Internet for sensitive plants. In addition, she has actually 

visited the population on the Unnamed Tributary to Antelope Creek numerous 

times over the last approximate 10 years. This known population verification 

was completed as part of a field survey conducted for Yates Petroleum 

Company in the Rochelle Hills POD, Campbell County, Wyoming on August 29, 

2004. She has also visited the known population near Chugwater, Wyoming. 

Dr. Schladweiler on numerous occasions has been in contact with Mr. Ernie 

Nelson, University of Wyoming, Rocky Mountain Herbarium, and George Jones, 

Wyoming Natural Diversity Database. In addition, she has consulted with Mr. 

Walt Fertig, previously from the University of Wyoming. 

Katie Halvorson 

Katie Halvorson holds a B.S. in Environmental Studies with a minor in Biology 

from Bemidji State University, Bemidji, Minnesota (2005). Ms. Halvorson has 

been employed by BKS Environmental since the spring of 2005. She has been 

conducting mineland reclamation monitoring for various coal mines in 

Campbell and Converse County, Wyoming since her employment. She has also 

performed vegetation sampling for numerous CBM projects and baseline 

vegetation surveys in the Powder River Basin. In addition, she has conducted 

rare plant species surveys, wetland delineations, and environmental 

compliance assessments. Threatened, endangered, proposed and sensitive 

plant survey experience includes: 

 Visited a tributary of Antelope Creek and observed a Spiranthes diluvialis 

(Ute Ladies’ Tresses orchid) population. 2005. 

 Powder River Coal LLC – North Antelope Rochelle Mine Umbrella Botany 

Evaluation, in Campbell County, Wyoming. 2005. 

 Powder River Coal LLC – Gold Mine Draw AVF Exchange – Ute Ladies’ 

Tresses orchid survey, in Campbell County, Wyoming. 2005. 

 West Roundup Resources, Inc. – School Creek Mine – Ute Ladies’ Tresses 

orchid survey in Campbell County, Wyoming. 2005 and 2006. 

 Devon Energy Corporation – Juniper Draw Unit – Ute Ladies’ Tresses 

orchid survey in Johnson County, Wyoming. 2005. 

 Devon Energy Corporation – Crossroads Unit – Ute Ladies’ Tresses orchid 

survey in Johnson County, Wyoming. 2005. 

 Marathon Oil Company – Knudson 9 Unit – Ute Ladies’ Tresses orchid 

survey in Campbell County, Wyoming. 2006. 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications E3-17 
Appendix E 

 Marathon Oil Company – Twenty Mile Butte Unit – Ute Ladies’ Tresses 

orchid survey in Campbell County, Wyoming. 2006. 

 Marathon Oil Company – West Innes 27 Unit – Ute Ladies’ Tresses orchid 

survey in Campbell County, Wyoming. 2006. 

 Rio Tinto Energy America – Antelope Mine – Ute Ladies’ Tresses orchid 

habitat survey in Converse County, Wyoming. 2007. 

Cindy Robinson 

Cindy Robinson holds a Masters of Business Administration (MBA) and a B.S. 

in Environmental Science from the University of Denver, Denver, Colorado 

(2005). Ms. Robinson has been employed by BKS Environmental since April of 

2006. She has been conducting mineland reclamation monitoring for various 

coal mines in Campbell County, Wyoming during the last year. In addition, 

she has conducted rare plant species surveys, wetland delineations, and 

environmental compliance assessments. Ms. Robinson has also visited an 

Astragalus barrii site, on USFS lands at the proposed School Creek Mine area 

when the species was blooming. Threatened and endangered and sensitive 

plant survey experience includes: 

 West Roundup Resources, Inc., – School Creek Mine – Barr's Milkvetch 

survey in Campbell County, Wyoming. 2006. 

 West Roundup Resources, Inc., – School Creek Mine – Ute Ladies’ 

Tresses orchid survey in Campbell County, Wyoming. 2006. 

 Thunder Basin Coal Company, Black Thunder Mine – West Hilight – 

Barr's Milkvetch survey. August 2006. 

 Wellstar Corporation (Jones and Stokes), Ute Ladies Tresses orchid 

survey. 2007. 

Jamie Eberly 

Jamie Eberly holds a B.S. in Range Management, Rangeland Livestock Option 

with a Business Administrations minor from Chadron State College, Chadron, 

Nebraska (2005). Ms. Eberly has been employed by BKS Environmental since 

the fall of 2006. She has been conducting mineland reclamation monitoring 

for various coal mines in Campbell and Converse County, Wyoming since her 

employment. She has also performed vegetation sampling for numerous CBM 

projects and baseline vegetation surveys in the Powder River Basin. In 

addition, she has conducted rare plant species surveys, wetland delineations, 

and environmental compliance assessments. Threatened, endangered, 

proposed and sensitive plant survey experience includes: 

	 Williams Production Company, West Cripple Creek POD, Biological 

Evaluation/Biological Assessment in Campbell County, Wyoming. 2007. 

E3-18 	 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
SECTION 4
 

MAYSDORF II LBA TRACT 
Appendix E 

E4-1.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES 

E4-1.1 The Proposed Action 

On September 1, 2006, Cordero Mining Company filed an application with the 

BLM to lease federal coal reserves in a tract located west of and immediately 

adjacent to the Cordero Rojo Mine (figure E-1). The tract was assigned case file 

number WYW173360. Under the Proposed Action for the Maysdorf II LBA 

tract, the tract as applied for by CMC would be offered for lease at a sealed-bid, 

competitive lease sale. The boundaries of the tract would be consistent with 

the tract configuration proposed in the Maysdorf II LBA tract lease application 

(figure E4-1). The Proposed Action assumes that CMC will be the successful 

bidder on the Maysdorf II LBA tract if it is offered for sale. 

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 PM, 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 PM, Campbell County, Wyoming 

Section 7: Lots 6 through 11, 14 through 19; 490.18 acres 

Section 17: Lots 1 through 15, and W1⁄2; 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; 157.69 acres 

Section 28: Lots 4, 5, 12, 13; 165.80 acres 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications E4-1 
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 

Appendix E 

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 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 E4-1. Maysdorf II LBA Tract Alternatives. 

E4-2 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 

33 

28 

0 
Appendix E 

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 PM, Campbell County, Wyoming 

Section 12: Lots 1 through 16; 647.10 acres 

Section 13: Lots 1 through 8. 325.04 acres 

Total: 4,653.83 acres 

The coal estate underlying this tract described above is owned by the federal 

government and administered by the BLM. The surface estate of the tract is 

privately and federally owned. The federal surface estate is administered by 

BLM. Surface ownership is shown in figure E4-2. 

The tract as applied for includes approximately 4,653.8 mineable acres. It is 

assumed that an area larger than the tract would have to be disturbed in order 

to recover all of the coal in the tract. The disturbances outside of the tract 

would be due to activities like overstripping, matching undisturbed topography, 

and construction of flood control and sediment control structures. 

CCC estimates that the tract as proposed includes approximately 98.2 million 

tons of in-place coal and 87.5 million tons of mineable coal. Using CCC’s 

projected recovery factor of 93.5 percent, the tract would contain about 81.8 

million tons of recoverable coal. 

The Maysdorf II LBA tract as applied for contains approximately 504.0 million 

tons of in-place coal reserves. Excluding the federal coal reserves within the 

railroad right-of-way, 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 482.7 million tons 

of mineable coal reserves. Using CMC’s projected recovery factor of 90 percent 

of the mineable coal reserves included in BLM’s tract reconfiguration, the tract 

would contain about 434.5 million tons of recoverable coal. At the average 

annual coal production rate of 46.3 mmtpy, mining this coal would extend 

mine life by over 9 years. 

E4-1.2 Alternatives to the Proposed Action 

E4-1.2.1 Alternative 1 

Under Alternative 1, the No Action Alternative, the application to lease the coal 

included in the Maysdorf II LBA tract would be rejected, the tract would not be 

offered for competitive sale, and the coal included in the tract would not be 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications E4-3 
State

T-7 Road 

BNSF & UP RR

 59 Highway

Haight Road 

Road 

Creek 

47 47 

Creek 

Caballo 

River Fourche Belle 

35 

23 

Appendix E 

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 E4-2. Surface Ownership Within the Maysdorf II LBA Tract Alternatives. 

E4-4 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 

24 

1 
Appendix E 

mined. This would not affect permitted mining activities and employment on 

the existing leases at Cordero Rojo Mine and would not preclude an application 

to lease the federal coal included in the Maysdorf II LBA tract in the future. No 

additional surface of the Maysdorf II LBA tract would be disturbed due to 

overstripping to allow coal to be removed from the adjacent existing leases. 

E4-1.2.2 Alternative 2 

Under Alternative 2 for the Maysdorf II LBA tract, BLM would reconfigure the 

tract, hold a competitive coal sale for the lands included in the reconfigured 

tract, and issue a lease to the successful bidder. In evaluating the Maysdorf II 

coal lease application, BLM identified a study area, which includes unleased 

federal coal adjacent to the northern edge of the tract as applied for (figure E4­

1). BLM is evaluating the potential that some or all of these lands could be 

added to the tract to provide for more efficient recovery of the federal coal, 

increase competitive interest in the tract, and/or reduce the potential that 

some of the potentially mineable federal coal in this area would be bypassed in 

the future if it is not included in the Maysdorf II LBA tract. 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, as discussed above. 

Alternative 2 for the Maysdorf II LBA tract assumes that CMC would be the 

successful bidder on the tract if a lease sale is held and that the tract would be 

developed as a maintenance lease to extend the life of the adjacent Cordero 

Rojo Mine. Other assumptions are the same as for the Proposed Action. The 

lands that BLM is considering adding to the tract are: 

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 Maysdorf II LBA tract 

under Alternative 2 is as follows: 

T. 46 N., R. 71 W., 6th PM, 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 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications E4-5 
Appendix E 

Section 15: Lots 1 through 4; 162.59 acres 

T. 47 N., R. 71 W., 6th PM, Campbell County, Wyoming 

Section 7: Lots 6 through 11, 14 through 19; 490.18 acres 

Section 17: Lots 1 through 15, and W1⁄2; 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; 157.69 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. 47 N., R. 72 W., 6th PM, 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: 4,895.63 acres 

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

Road 44) and the Hilight Road (County Road 52) overlie some of the coal 

included in the tract. As discussed in Chapter 1, Section 1.1, the Surface 

Mining Control and Reclamation Act prohibits mining within 100 ft on either 

side of the right-of-way of any public road (43 CFR 3461). The coal underlying 

the portions of Highway 59, the Haight and Hilight Roads, and their rights-ofway, and the 100 ft buffer zones within the Maysdorf II LBA tract could be 

mined if 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 CMC is 

evaluating the feasibility of relocating the county roads. CMC estimates that 

approximately 3.0 million tons of mineable coal are included within the rightof-way of Highway 59 and associated 100 ft buffer zone that is within the LBA 

tract. 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 ft buffer zones that are within the LBA tract. 

E4-6 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
 

Appendix E 

CMC estimates that the reconfigured tract includes approximately 533.2 

million tons of in-place coal. After eliminating coal that lies within the railroad 

ROW, the public road rights-of-way and buffer zones, CMC estimates that the 

reconfigured tract includes approximately 510.5 million tons of mineable coal. 

Using CMC’s projected recovery factor of 90 percent, the reconfigured tract 

would contain about 459.5 million tons of recoverable coal. 

E4-1.2.3 Alternative 3 

Under Alternative 3 for the Maysdorf II LBA tract, BLM is considering dividing 

the tract and offering two tracts for sale at separate, competitive sealed bid 

sales (figure E4-1). The two tracts would each be subject to standard and 

special lease stipulations developed for the PRB and for each tract if they are 

offered for sale, as discussed above. Alternative 3, offering two tracts for sale, 

is BLM’s Preferred Alternative. 

Alternative 3 for the Maysdorf II LBA tract assumes that CMC would be the 

successful bidder on the two tracts if lease sales are held and that the tracts 

would be mined as maintenance leases for the Cordero Rojo Mine. Other 

assumptions would be the same as for the Maysdorf II LBA tract Proposed 

Action. 

As shown in figure E4-1, the Maysdorf II LBA tract is comprised of two noncontiguous blocks of federal coal. Under Alternative 3, the North Maysdorf II 

LBA tract would consist of the northernmost block of coal and the South 

Maysdorf II LBA tract would consist of the two southern blocks of coal, as 

shown in figure E4-1. BLM is considering dividing the tract because the north 

tract would potentially be of competitive interest to more than one mine. 

As discussed under Alternative 2, BLM has identified a study area, described 

above and shown in figure E4-1. Under Alternative 3, the BLM could add all, 

part, or none of the study area to the Maysdorf II LBA tract as applied for. 

The lands that BLM is considering including in the north tract are: 

T. 47 N., R. 71 W., 6th PM, Campbell County, Wyoming 

Section 7: Lots 6 through 11, 14 through 19; 490.18 acres 

Section 17: Lots 1 through 15, and W1⁄2; 639.73 acres 

Section 18: Lots 5 through 14, 19, 20; 481.50 acres 

T. 47 N., R. 72 W., 6th PM, 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 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications E4-7 
 

 

Appendix E 

Section 13: Lots 1 through 8; 325.04 acres 

Total: 2,825.35 acres 

The lands that would be included in the south tract under BLM’s Alternative 3 

are: 

T. 47 N., R. 71 W., 6th PM, 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 PM, 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 

Under Alternative 3 reconfiguration of the Maysdorf II LBA tract, the north 

tract would include approximately 2,825.4 acres containing approximately 

326.4 million tons of in-place coal and the south tract would include 

approximately 2,070.3 acres containing approximately 206.8 million tons of inplace coal, according to information provided by the applicant. The north tract 

includes the area that would not be mined within the highway ROW and buffer 

zone, as discussed above. The south tract includes the areas that would not 

be mined within the Haight and Hilight County Roads and buffer zones, the 

BNSF & UP railroad ROW, as discussed under Alternative 2. 

E4-8 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
 

Appendix E 

E4-2.0 	 SPECIES HABITAT AND OCCURRENCE AND EFFECTS OF THE 

PROPOSED PROJECT 

The Cordero Rojo Mine began producing coal in 1976. Wildlife monitoring has 

been conducted annually for the mine since the early 1980’s. This wildlife 

monitoring was designed to meet the WDEQ/LQD, WGFD, and federal 

requirements for annual monitoring and reporting of wildlife activity on coal 

mining areas. Detailed procedures and site-specific requirements have been 

carried out as approved by WGFD and USFWS. The monitoring program was 

conducted in accordance with Appendix B of WDEQ/LQD Coal Rules and 

Regulations. Because the areas covered in the wildlife surveys included the 

mine’s permit area and a large perimeter around the permit boundary, the 

entire Maysdorf II LBA tract has been included in baseline inventories and 

annual wildlife surveys conducted for the Cordero Rojo Mine since wildlife 

studies began. 

The approved Cordero Rojo Mine Permit 237 Term T8 (CMC 2007) includes 

monitoring and mitigation measures for the Cordero Rojo Mine that are 

required by SMCRA and Wyoming State Law. If the Maysdorf II LBA tract is 

acquired by CMC, these monitoring and mitigation measures would be 

extended to cover operations on the LBA tract when the Cordero Rojo Mine’s 

mining permit is amended to include the tract. This amended permit would 

have to be approved before mining operations could take place on the tract. 

These monitoring and mitigation measures are considered to be part of the 

Proposed Action and Alternatives 2 and 3 during the leasing process because 

they are regulatory requirements. 

Background information on T&E species in the vicinity of the Maysdorf II LBA 

tract was drawn from several sources, including: wildlife survey reports 

submitted by the Cordero Rojo Mine to the WDEQ/LQD from 1974 through 

2005, the Final South Powder River Basin Coal EIS (BLM 2003), the Maysdorf 

Coal FEIS (BLM 2007), a Wyoming Natural Diversity Database search 

(University of Wyoming 2001), and from WGFD and USFWS records and 

contacts in 2004 and 2005. In addition, the Maysdorf II LBA tract wildlife 

study area falls within the wildlife monitoring areas for the nearby Belle Ayr 

and Coal Creek Mines (figure E-1). 

Site-specific data for a substantial portion of the tract as applied for and the 

study area for Alternatives 2 and 3 were obtained from several sources, 

including WDEQ/LQD permit applications and annual wildlife reports for the 

Cordero Rojo Mine and other nearby coal mines. Baseline wildlife studies were 

conducted by Intermountain Resources (IR) expressly for the Maysdorf II LBA 

tract in 2006-2007. Figure E4-3 depicts IR’s T&E animal species survey areas 

for the Maysdorf II LBA tract. 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications	 E4-9 
State 

T-7 Road 

 59 Highway 

State 59 Highway

Hilight 

Road

Bishop 

Road 

Haight Road 

BNSF & 

Road 

Creek 

UP RR 

Caballo Creek 

Fourche 

Belle 

River 

Creek 

Caballo 

River 

Belle Fourche 

47 

30 

16 

28 

21 

Appendix E 

R. 72 W. R. 71 W. R. 71 W. R. 70 W.

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

31 

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

16 

20

RR B

H

NSF & UP

ey R o oad adl

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

N. N. 

T. T. 

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

Hoe 

13 18 17 15 16 15 14 14 17 13 18 

19 24 21 23 21 22 23 24 19 20 22 

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

T. T. 32 33 34 35 36 31 32 33 47 4733 34 35 36 31 

N. N. 

T. T. 

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

N. N. 

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

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

Hoadley Road 

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

27 25 30 28 26 25 30 29 28 29 27 

26 

R. 72 W. R. 71 W. R. 71 W. R. 70 W. 

LEGEND 

Cordero Rojo Mine Permit Boundary 

General Analysis Area Maysdorf II LBA Tract as Applied for 

Maysdorf II Wildlife 

Two-Mile Buffer from the Maysdorf II 

Wildlife General Analysis Area 

BLM's Study Area (Alternative 2) Prairie Dog Colony 

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 E4-3. T&E Species Survey Area for the Cordero Rojo Mine and the Maysdorf II LBA Tract. 

E4-10 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 

21 

0 
 

 

 

Appendix E 

The Maysdorf II LBA tract is in an area of gently rolling terrain of moderate 

relief influenced by the Belle Fourche River and its tributary, Caballo Creek. 

Elevation ranges from 4,540 to 4,885 ft within the LBA tract and from 4,520 to 

4,885 ft including the area added under Alternatives 2 and 3. Within the LBA 

tract and the area added under Alternatives 2 and 3, slopes range from flat in 

the Belle Fourche River floodplain to over 57 percent in the adjacent breaks. 

The breaks are sharp transitions between the bottomlands and the uplands. 

The slopes of the gently rolling uplands, which comprise most of the LBA tract, 

seldom exceed 10 percent. A slope analysis would be done for the LBA tract if 

a lease sale is held and it is proposed for mining. 

Predominant wildlife habitat types classified on the LBA tract and adjacent 

area correspond with the major plant communities defined during the 

vegetation baseline study and consist primarily of sagebrush/grassland, 

grassland, and seeded grassland. Other habitats present in limited extent 

include disturbance, bottomland, and rough breaks. Networks of road, 

pipeline, tank battery, and well-pad disturbance areas associated with oil and 

gas development overlay much of the study area. 

The Maysdorf II LBA tract consists predominantly of gently rolling topography, 

although the southern portion is dissected by the Belle Fourche River 

bottomlands and breaks. The Belle Fourche River flows roughly east-northeast 

through the southern portion of the tract and is currently diverted from its 

natural channel in this area to facilitate mining within the existing Cordero 

Rojo Mine permit area. The diversion channel was constructed in 1995. All 

streams in the region show the characteristic extreme low-flow period from 

October through January. Flow events frequently result from snowmelt during 

the late winter and early spring. Although peak discharges from such events 

are generally small, the duration and therefore the percentage of annual runoff 

volume can be considerable. During the spring, general storms (both rain and 

snow) increase soil moisture; hence decreasing infiltration capacity, and 

subsequent rainstorms can result in both large runoff volumes and high peak 

discharges. Limited segments of the Belle Fourche River do receive recharge 

from bank storage (groundwater stored in the alluvium along the stream 

channel) and flow throughout the year, making the stream locally intermittent. 

Maysdorf II LBA Tract Wetlands 

The wetland analysis area includes the Maysdorf II LBA tract as applied for, the 

lands added under Alternatives 2 and 3, and a 1⁄4-mile disturbance buffer 

around the tract sufficient to mine and reclaim the tract as a part of the 

existing 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 (2007). 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 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications E4-11 
Appendix E 

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 and submitted to the COE for 

verification as part of the mining and reclamation permit process, if the LBA 

tract is leased. 

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. These areas that occur within and adjacent 

to the Maysdorf II LBA tract are shown on figure S4-6 in the SGAC 

Supplementary Information document. 

Within the proposed lease area and adjacent study area there is no “critical” 

habitat designated by USFWS for T&E species. The following discussion 

describes species’ habitat requirements and their occurrence in the area of the 

Maysdorf II LBA tract and evaluates the potential environmental effects of the 

Proposed Action and Alternatives 2 and 3 on federal T&E species. 

E4-2.1 Threatened Species 

E4-2.1.1 Ute ladies’-tresses 

Ute ladies’-tresses is a perennial, terrestrial orchid with erect, glandularpubescent stems 12 to 50 cm tall arising from tuberous-thickened roots. Ute 

ladies’-tresses occurs primarily on moist, subirrigated or seasonally flooded 

soils bordering wetland meadows, springs, lakes, or perennial streams. The 

elevation range of known occurrences is 4,200 to 7,000 feet in alluvial 

substrates along riparian edges, gravel bars, old oxbows, and moist to wet 

meadows. Most populations are found on alluvial sand, coarse silt, or whitish 

loamy clay with a slightly basic pH. These soils are derived from Quaternary 

alluvial deposits or drab Eocene- age sandstones and claystones (Fertig 2000). 

Ute ladies’-tresses is not found in heavy, tight clay soils, saline, or alkaline 

soils. 

This orchid can be commonly associated with horsetail, milkweed, verbena, 

blue-eyed grass, reedgrass, goldenrod, bentgrass, and arrowgrass (USFWS 

2005). Wyoming populations often occur in moist meadow communities 

E4-12 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
Appendix E 

dominated by redtop, common quackgrass, Baltic rush, foxtail barley, or 

switchgrass within a narrow vegetative band between emergent aquatic 

vegetation and dry upland prairie (Fertig 2000). Vegetative cover tends to range 

from 75-90 percent and is usually less than 45 cm tall (Fertig 2000). The 

orchid seems intolerant of shade. Plants usually occur as small scattered 

groups and occupy relatively small areas within the riparian system. 

In Wyoming, this species typically blooms from early August to early 

September, with fruits produced from mid-August to September (Fertig 2000). 

Leaves persist during flowering (Moseley 1998). Flowers are white or ivory and 

are clustered into a spike at the top of the stem. No direct observations of 

pollination have been made in Wyoming. In their 1994 report, Sipes and 

Tepedino indicated that large, long-tongued bumblebees in the genus Bombus 

are the primary pollinators in Utah and Colorado (Fertig 2000). Smaller bees 

may also visit these flowers, but have the incorrect body shape or mass to 

properly accommodate the orchid’s large, sticky anther/pollen clusters (Fertig 

2000). 

This species reproduces basically by sexual reproduction and can produce as 

many as 7,300 tiny seeds per fruit (Fertig 2000). The plant requires 

mycorrhizal fungi to germinate and establish. Individual plants may not flower 

in consecutive years under adverse environmental conditions but will persist 

below ground with their mycorrhizal symbionts (Fertig 2000). 

Flowers are needed for positive plant identification. The species can be reliably 

located only when it is flowering (Heidel 2001). Plants probably do not flower 

every year and may remain dormant below ground during drought years. In 

general, the species’ best flowering years seem to correspond with extreme heat 

during flowering. Preliminary review of climate data also indicates that growing 

seasons that start out as relatively cold and wet correspond with low flowering 

levels (Heidel 2001). 

The orchid is well adapted to disturbances from stream movement and is 

tolerant of other disturbances such as grazing that are common to grassland 

riparian habitats (USFWS 1995). Populations are often dynamic and “move” 

within a watershed as disturbances create new habitat or succession 

eliminates old habitat (Fertig and Beauvais 1999). Ute ladies’-tresses colonize 

early successional riparian habitats such as point bars, sand bars, and lowlying gravelly, sandy, or cobbley edges, persisting in those areas where the 

hydrology provides continual dampness in the root zone through the growing 

season. The orchid has been known to establish in heavily disturbed sites, 

such as revegetated gravel pits, heavily grazed riparian edges, and along welltraveled foot trails on old berms (USFWS 1995). 

Existing Environment: Prior to 2005, four orchid populations had been 

documented within Wyoming, all discovered between 1993 and 1997 (Fertig 

and Beauvais 1999). Four additional sites were located in 2005 and one 

additional site was found in 2006 (Heidel, 2007). The new locations were in the 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications E4-13 
 

 

Appendix E 

same drainages or tributaries as the original four populations. Drainages with 

documented orchid populations include Antelope Creek and tributaries in 

northern Converse County, Bear Creek in northern Laramie and southern 

Goshen Counties, Horse Creek in Laramie County, and Niobrara River in 

Niobrara County. No occurrences have been recorded in Campbell County 

including the Maysdorf II vegetation general analysis area. 

The Maysdorf II LBA includes a reach of the Belle Fourche River and along that 

reach are wetland and “moist-land” plant communities that offer seemingly 

possible habitat for Ute Ladies’-Tresses Orchid. Likewise, there exist isolated 

wet depressions along some upland drainages that support hydrophytes such 

as common spikerush or field clustered sedge. These latter sites were deemed 

unlikely though remotely possible habitat so were included in field searches. 

Pedestrian surveys of the Belle Fourche and isolated upland depression areas 

were conducted for Ute Ladies’-Tresses Orchid by ESCO Associates in August 

2005 and 2006. 

Playa Grassland was suggested by USFWS (personal communication) as 

suitable habitat and the portion of the LBA site occupied by this type was also 

searched in August 2006 with the same results. Eastern Wyoming playas, 

except during hypothetically potential extraordinary years of unrelenting spring 

and summer rain, would probably never naturally sustain the moist conditions 

required by the orchid. Even following the springs when the playas do 

occasionally, but only temporarily, include standing water, subsequent 

summer conditions accompany a thorough drying that excludes any routine 

manifestation of moisture-loving perennial plant species such as the orchid. 

The highly saline nature of certain of these interior drainages also makes it 

unlikely that the orchid would occur. 

No individuals of the Ute ladies’-tresses orchid were located during the 2005 

and 2006 surveys. Other than limited areas along the Belle Fourche River and 

at isolated upland depressions, most of the land within the Maysdorf II LBA 

tract and adjacent study area is not potential Ute ladies’-tresses habitat. This 

includes highly disturbed or modified sites, upland habitat types, and sites 

inundated by standing water. 

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. 

Effects of the Proposed Project: Mining the federal coal included in the 

Maysdorf II LBA tract, if the tract is leased under the Proposed Action or 

Alternatives 2 and 3, may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect Ute 

E4-14 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
Appendix E 

ladies’-tresses. Typical suitable habitat for this species on the tract is very 

limited and found along the CBNG-impacted bottomlands of the Belle Fourche 

River and its tributaries and at isolated upland depressions. However, the 

quality of potential habitat is extremely poor. Outside of the narrow riparian 

strips located along these impacted watercourses, typical suitable habitat is 

rare or non-existent in the study area. Multiple surveys of the existing suitable 

habitat at the Cordero Rojo Mine and other mines in this area have not found 

any Ute ladies’-tresses. Because of the ability of this species to persist below 

ground or above ground without flowering, single season surveys that meet the 

current USFWS survey guidelines may not detect populations. If undetected 

populations are present, they could be lost to surface disturbing activities. Any 

potential habitat that has not already been surveyed for Ute ladies’-tresses 

within the project area should be identified and surveyed prior to surface 

mining activities. 

Jurisdictional wetlands located in the Maysdorf II LBA tract that are destroyed 

by mining operations would be replaced in accordance with the requirements of 

Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, as determined by COE. The replaced 

wetlands may not duplicate the exact function and landscape features of the 

pre-mine wetlands. COE considers the type and function of each jurisdictional 

wetland that will be impacted and may require restoration of additional acres if 

the type and function of the restored wetlands will not completely replace the 

type and function of the original wetland. Replacement of non-jurisdictional 

and functional wetlands may be required by the surface land owner and/or 

WDEQ/LQD. WDEQ/LQD allows and sometimes requires mitigation of nonjurisdictional wetlands affected by mining, depending on the values associated 

with the wetland features. 

Cumulative Effects: Alterations of stream morphology and hydrology are 

believed to have extirpated Ute ladies’-tresses from most of its historical range 

(USFWS 2002). Disturbance and reclamation of streams by surface coal 

mining may alter stream morphology and hydrology. The large quantities of 

water produced with CBNG development and discharged on the surface may 

also alter stream morphology and hydrology. 

E4-2.2 Endangered Species 

E4-2.2.1 Black-footed ferret 

The black-footed ferret, a nocturnal mammal and an obligate associate of 

prairie dogs (Cynomys spp.), was listed as endangered in March, 1967. This 

species is thought to have historically inhabited a nearly contiguous matrix of 

prairie dog colonies spanning the short-grass prairies of the eastern and 

southern Rockies and the Great Plains of North America (Forrest et al. 1985). 

Since the early 1930s, numerous factors have led to substantial declines in 

prairie dog colonies in that region. Reductions in some states are estimated as 

high as 90% from formerly occupied colonies (Rose 1973, Tyler 1968). 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications E4-15 
Appendix E 

Conversion of grasslands to agricultural landscapes, eradication of prairie 

dogs, and diseases such as the plague and canine distemper have resulted in 

severe reductions in prairie dog colonies across the west, colonies which 

provided food, shelter, and habitat for black-footed ferrets. This species of 

ferret is currently one of the most endangered mammals in North America and 

was thought to be extinct until a small population was discovered in Meeteetse, 

Wyoming in September, 1981. Since then, successful captive breeding and 

reintroduction programs have released black-footed ferrets back into the wild 

in several western and Great Plains states including Wyoming, Montana, South 

Dakota, Colorado, Utah, and Arizona. 

Biology and Habitat Requirements: Ferrets rely on prairie dogs to provide both 

shelter and food (Hillman and Clark 1980). Ferrets produce one litter per year, 

typically giving birth to four or five kits. The decline in ferret populations has 

been largely attributed to the reduction in the vast prairie dog colonies that 

historically existed in the western United States. Despite extensive ferret 

surveys over the past 20 plus years throughout Wyoming, the last known wild 

black-footed ferret population was discovered near Meeteetse in 1981 (Miller et 

al. 1996). Those surveys included numerous USFWS-approved clearances for 

coal mining and other development in the Powder River Basin of Wyoming, as 

well as the USFS surveys for ferrets on the TBNG. Reintroduction efforts 

involving captive bred individuals have successfully established one blackfooted ferret population in the Shirley Basin area in south-central Wyoming. 

Currently, this is the only known black-footed ferret population within the 

state, though other populations are present elsewhere in the United States and 

Mexico. 

Existing Environment: The Maysdorf II LBA tract is within the historical range 

of the black-footed ferret, although no black-footed ferrets are presently known 

to occur in northeastern Wyoming. During the 1980s, WGFD, in cooperation 

with other agencies, conducted searches for black-footed ferrets in Wyoming in 

the places they were most likely to be found, but these searches were not 

successful (Martin Grenier, personal communication, 10/14/2003). In a 

February 2, 2004 letter to interested parties, the USFWS declared that blackfooted ferret surveys are no longer necessary in black-tailed prairie dog colonies 

within Wyoming. 

Intermountain Resources has mapped the current acreage of prairie dog 

colonies in the vicinity of the Cordero Rojo Mine by walking the perimeters of 

colonies and delineating them on topographic maps. No black-tailed prairie 

dog colonies are currently present on the Maysdorf II LBA tract as proposed 

and on the area added by Alternatives 2 and 3. One black-tailed prairie dog 

colony is located less than 1 mile east of the Cordero Rojo Mine’s current 

permit area while two other small colonies are located within 2 miles of the 

Maysdorf II LBA tract. One of these colonies is within the Maysdorf II wildlife 

general analysis area (figure E4-3). The boundaries shown on figure E4-3 and 

are historical town boundaries and, although black-tailed prairie dogs still exist 

E4-16 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
 

Appendix E 

in the areas, their numbers and distribution may be much smaller than 

previously recorded. 

Effects of the Proposed Project: Mining the federal coal included in the 

Maysdorf II LBA tract, if a lease is issued under the Proposed Action or 

Alternatives 2 and 3, would have no effect on black-footed ferrets. There 

are no black-tailed prairie dog colonies present on the Maysdorf II LBA tract or 

in the BLM study area under Alternatives 2 and 3. The black-footed ferret is 

almost entirely dependent on the prairie dog for survival. The reductions in 

black-tailed prairie dog populations due to poisoning prior to 1972 and due to 

recent plague outbreaks have reduced the potential for black-footed ferret 

survival in northeastern Wyoming. Searches of the best remaining black-footed 

ferret habitat in Wyoming conducted in the 1980s were not successful in 

finding any ferrets. General wildlife surveys and specific ferret surveys have 

been conducted for many years at the Cordero Rojo Mine, and at other mines 

in this area. No black-footed ferrets were observed within BLM study area 

during these surveys. Two black-tailed prairie dog colonies are located within 

2 miles of the Maysdorf II LBA tract (one within the Maysdorf II wildlife general 

analysis area), but they are west of Highway 59 and not within the anticipated 

Maysdorf II disturbance area (figure E4-3). 

Cumulative Effects: Mineral development within black-tailed prairie dog 

colonies is a leading cause of ferret habitat loss in the PRB. Surface coal 

mining tends to have more intense impacts on fairly localized areas, while oil 

and gas development tends to be less intensive but spread over larger areas. 

Oil and gas development and mining activities have requirements for 

reclamation of disturbed areas as resources are depleted. In reclaimed areas, 

vegetation cover may differ from undisturbed areas. In the case of surface coal 

mines, re-established vegetation would be dominated by species mandated in 

the reclamation seed mixtures (to be approved by WDEQ). The majority of the 

approved plant species are native to the area; however, reclaimed areas may 

not serve ecosystem functions presently served by undisturbed vegetation 

communities and habitats, particularly in the short-term, when species 

composition, shrub cover, and other environmental factors are likely to be 

different. Shifts in habitat composition or distribution following reclamation 

could increase or decrease potential habitat for prairie dogs and associated 

habitat for black-footed ferrets. However, black-tailed prairie dogs have been 

recorded invading and establishing towns on reclaimed coal mined lands in 

northeastern Wyoming (IR 2005). 

Potential ferret habitat is also affected by other impacts to prairie dog 

populations. Plague can infect and eliminate entire prairie dog colonies. 

Poisoning and recreational prairie dog shooting may locally reduce prairie dog 

populations, but seldom completely eliminate colonies. 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications E4-17 
 

 

Appendix E 

E4-2.2.2 Blowout Penstemon 

Blowout Penstemon, a member of the figwort family, was listed as endangered 

on October 1, 1987. It is known from multiple populations in western 

Nebraska and in the Ferris dunes area in northwestern Carbon County, 

Wyoming. The plant was first discovered in Wyoming in 1877 and then 

rediscovered in 1996 (BLM 2008). The removal of fire, leveling of dunes, 

reduction of grazing, and cultivation of stabilizing cover crops drastically 

reduced the amount of habitat available for this species. Loss of habitat, 

coupled with impacts from insect outbreaks, drought, inbreeding, and potential 

over collection, has caused problems for the plant (University of Wyoming 

2009). Only 3,500-5,000 plants are currently found in Nebraska at about a 

dozen sites. The Wyoming population is limited to three sites in northern 

Carbon County that contain several thousand plants (BLM 2008). Threats to 

the plant may occur when sand dunes are removed or overly disturbed by 

vehicular traffic (USFWS 2008b). 

Biology and Habitat Requirements: Blowout penstemon is a perennial herb 

with stems less than 12 inches tall. The inflorescence is 2 to 6 inches long and 

has six to ten compact whorls of milky-blue to pale lavender flowers. This 

species typically flowers from mid-June to early-July. The plant’s current 

know range in Wyoming is restricted to two habitat types: steep, northwest 

facing slopes of active sand dunes with less than 5 percent vegetative cover; 

and on north facing sandy slopes, on the lee side of active blowouts with 25 to 

40 percent vegetative cover (USFWS 2008b). 

Existing Environment: The Maysdorf II LBA tract is not within the documented 

historical range of the blowout penstemon. It is located approximately 150 

miles northwest of the Nebraska known occurrences and approximately 150 

miles northeast of the Wyoming occurrences. No suitable sand dunes (whether 

stable or blownout) are currently present on the Maysdorf II vegetation general 

analysis area. 

Effects of the Proposed Project: Mining the federal coal included in the Belle 

Ayr North LBA tract, if a lease is issued under the Proposed Action or 

Alternative 2, would have no effect on blowout penstemon. Typical 

suitable habitat for this species on the tract is non-existent. If undetected 

populations are present, they could be lost to surface disturbing activities. Any 

potential habitat that has not already been surveyed for blowout penstemon 

within the project area should be identified and surveyed prior to surface 

mining activities. 

Cumulative Effects: This species is potentially vulnerable to habitat loss and 

degradation resulting from sand mining, water development, energy 

development, ORV use, and associated destabilization of its sand dune habitat. 

It also could be vulnerable to negative effects related to the spread of nonnative species within its range. 

E4-18 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
1 

Appendix E 

E4-3.0 SUMMARY OF DETERMINATIONS 

Table E4-1 summarizes the determinations for federally listed T&E species in 

the area of the Maysdorf II LBA tract that may result from implementing the 

Proposed Action or Alternative. 

Table E4-1. Effects Evaluation of Sensitive and Federal T&E Species in the 

Area of the Maysdorf II LBA Tracts. 

Status Species Common Name Potential Effects 

Threatened: Ute ladies’-tresses May affect1 

Endangered: Black-footed ferret No effect 

Endangered: Blowout Penstemon No effect 

Not likely to adversely affect individuals or populations. 

E4-4.0 CREDENTIALS OF SURVEY PERSONNEL 

E4-4.1 Intermountain Resources of Laramie, Wyoming 

Jim Orpet 

Mr. Orpet obtained a Bachelors of Science degree in Wildlife Management and a 

Master of Science degree in Range Management from the University of 

Wyoming and has accumulated over 28 years of field experience in wildlife 

surveys. This experience includes surveys for T&E species, surveys for species 

of high state or federal interest and preparation of wildlife reports for over 100 

projects throughout Wyoming. Mr. Orpet was qualified in 1987 by the 

WDEQ/LQD to conduct T&E and other plant and animal surveys on 

Abandoned Mine Lands (AML) projects within the state. Qualification at that 

time was based on review and approval of Mr. Orpet’s credentials by the WGFD 

and the USFWS. Mr. Orpet has also completed numerous wetland surveys that 

have been approved by the COE. 

Russel Tait 

Mr. Tait obtained a Bachelor of Science degree in Wildlife Management from the 

University of Wyoming and has accumulated 14 years of field experience in 

wildlife surveys in Wyoming. Mr. Tait has assisted Mr. Orpet in completion of 

wildlife inventories for over nine years on coal mines and other resource 

development projects in Wyoming, including black-footed ferret surveys, bald 

eagle surveys, sage grouse lek surveys and surveys for other species of high 

federal or state interest. 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications E4-19 
Appendix E 

E4-4.2 ESCO Associates Inc. of Boulder, Colorado 

David Buckner 

Mr. Buckner obtained a Bachelors of Arts degree, Master of Arts degree, and 

Ph.D. in Plant Ecology from the University of Colorado and has accumulated 

over 21 years of field experience in vegetation and rare plant surveys. 

Mr. Buckner’s rare plant survey experience includes: 

 Asclepias ruthiae, Grand County, Utah, 1982; 

 Stellaria irrigua, La Plata County, Colorado; 

 Sclerocactur glaucus, Mesa and Garfield Counties, Colorado, 1987; 

 Penstemon harringtonii, Eagle, Grand, and Routte Counties, Colorado, 

1982, 1990, 1991, 1993, and 1994. 

Mr. Buckner’s familiarity with Spiranthes diluvialis includes: 

 observation of flowering populations in Boulder County, Colorado, 1991­

2004; 

	 observation of vegetative sprouts of individuals occurring in Boulder 

County populations, January to April 1982, June 1993, and May 

1995.H-9.0 

E4-20 	 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
Appendix E 

E5.0 REFERENCES AND LITERATURE CITED 

BKS Environmental Associates, Inc. (BKS), 2007, Report of Findings, 

Vegetation sampling and mapping in the West Coal Creek LBA Tract 

general analysis area, 2007. Prepared for Coal Creek Mine. 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM), 2001, Approved Resource Management 

Plan (RMP) for Public Lands Administered by the Bureau of Land 

Management, Buffalo Field Office, Buffalo, Wyoming. 

, 2003, Final South Powder River Basin Coal Environmental Impact 

Statement, December 2003, Casper Field Office, Casper, Wyoming. 

, 2005, Task 2 Report for the Powder River Basin Coal Review, Past, 

Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Development Activities. Prepared 

for BLM Casper Field Office, Casper, Wyoming, by ENSR Corporation, 

Fort Collins, Colorado, October 2005. 

, 2007, Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Maysdorf Coal 

Lease Application – WYW154432. U.S. Department of the Interior, 

Bureau of Land Management, Cheyenne, Wyoming. 

, 2008. Wyoming’s Threatened and Endangered Plant Species Blowout 

Penstemon. Bureau of Land Management. U.S. Government Printing 

Office: 2008-760-342/48004 Region No. 8, BLM/WY/GI-08/020+1150. 

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. 

Cordero Mining Company (CMC), 2007, 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. 

ESCO Associates Inc. (ESCO), 2007, Report of Findings, Vegetation sampling 

and mapping in the Maysdorf II LBA Tract general analysis area, 2005 

and 2006. Prepared for Cordero Rojo Mine. 

Fertig, W. 2000. Survey for Ute Ladies Tresses (Spiranthes diluvialis) Along the 

Sweetwater River in Pathfinder National Wildlife Refuge. Wyoming 

Natural Diversity Database, University of Wyoming, Laramie. 15 pp. 

Fertig, W., and G. Beauvais, 1999, Wyoming Plant and Animal Species of 

Special Concern. Unpublished report. Wyoming Natural Diversity 

Database, Laramie, Wyoming. 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications E5-1 
Appendix E 

Forrest, S. C., T. W. Clark, L. Richardson, and T. M. Campbell III, 1985, Blackfooted Ferret Habitat: Some Management and Reintroduction 

Considerations, Wyoming BLM Wildlife Technical Bulletin #2, U.S. 

BLM, Cheyenne, Wyoming, 49 pp. 

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. 

, 2005, Coal Creek Mine Permit, WDEQ/LQD Surface Mine Permit 428­

T5, approved November 1, 2005. On file with WDEQ in Sheridan and 

Cheyenne, Wyoming. 

Grenier, Martin, Wyoming Game and Fish Department, personal 

communication with Nancy Doelger, BLM Casper Field Office, October 

14, 2003. 

, 2003. An Evaluation of Black-footed Ferret Block Clearances in 

Wyoming: Completion Report, Wyoming Game and Fish Department, 

Lander, WY, 16pp. 

Heidel, B. 2001. Monitoring Ute Ladies’-tresses (Spiranthes diluvialis), in 

Jefferson County, Montana, 1996-2000. Report to Bureau of Land 

Management. Montana Natural Heritage Program. Helena. Hillman, 

C.N. and T.W. Clark, 1980. Mustela nigripes, Mammalian Species No. 

126. 

, 2007. Personal communication between Jim Orpet (Intermountain 

Resources, Laramie, Wyoming) and Bonnie Heidel, botanist (Wyoming 

Natural Diversity Database, University of Wyoming, Laramie). Hillman, 

C.N. and T.W. Clark, 1980. Mustela nigripes, Mammalian Species No. 

126. 

Hillman, C.N. and T.W. Clark, 1980. Mustela nigripes, Mammalian Species No. 

126. Intermountain Resources (IR), 2005, WWC Engineering’s personal 

communication with Jim Orpet, December 13, 2005. 

Intermountain Resources (IR), 2005, WWC Engineering’s personal 

communication with Jim Orpet, December 13, 2005. 

Miller, B., R.P. Reading, and S. Forrest, 1996, Prairie night: Black-footed 

ferrets and the recovery of endangered species, Smithsonian Institution 

Press, Washington, D.C. 

Moseley, R. 1998. Ute Ladies’-tresses (Spiranthes diluvialis) in Idaho: 1997 and 

1998 Status Reports. Idaho Bureau of Land Management, Technical 

Bulletin No. 98-16. 23 pp. 

E5-2 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
Appendix E 

Rose, B. J. 1973. History of prairie dogs in South Dakota. In: Black-footed 

Ferret-Prairie Dog Workshop Proceedings, Sep. 4-6, 1973. S. Dak. State 

Univ., Brookings, pp. 76-77. 

Tyler, J. D. 1968. Distribution and vertebrate associates of the black-tailed 

prairie dog in Oklahoma. Ph.D. Dissert., Univ. of OK, Norman. 85 pp. 

Thunder Basin Coal Company (TBCC), 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. 

University of Wyoming, 2001, Data search for species listed with the Wyoming 

Natural Diversity Database. Letter and computer printouts from A.J. 

Fedder to G. McKee (TWC), dated April 16, 2001. 

, 2009, Wyoming Natural Diversity Database - State Species Abstract 

(Penstemon Haydenii) Blowout Penstemon - Family: Scrophulariaceae, 

Available from website on the Internet as of January 2009: 

<http://www.uwyo.edu/wynddsupport/docs/Reports/ 

SpeciesAbstracts/Penstemon_haydenii.pdf>. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture-Forest Service (USFS), 2002, Supplemental 

Information Report disclosing changes to black-tailed prairie dog 

habitat within proposed management area 3.63 of the Thunder Basin 

National Grassland Plan resulting from the 2001 Sylvatic plague 

outbreak. January 14, 2002. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 1989, Black Footed Ferret Survey 

Guidelines for Compliance with the Endangered Species Act. U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, Denver, Colorado and Albuquerque, New Mexico. 

, 1995, Ute ladies’-tresses draft recovery plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Denver, Colorado, 46 pp. 

, 2002, Biological and Conference Opinion for the Powder River Basin 

Oil and Gas Project, Campbell, Converse, Johnson, and Sheridan 

Counties, Wyoming, Cheyenne, Wyoming, 51 pp. 

, 2004, File letter ES-1411/BFF/WY7746 issuing block clearance for 

black-footed ferrets in all black-tailed prairie dog colonies throughout 

Wyoming, and select white-tailed prairie dog colonies, Wyoming Field 

Office of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Cheyenne. 

, 2005, Memorandum from Brian Kelly, Field Supervisor, USFWS 

Wyoming Field Office, Cheyenne, Wyoming, to James Murkin, BLM, 

Field Office Manager, Casper Field Office, Casper, Wyoming, dated 

February 15, 2005. 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications E5-3 
Appendix E 

, 2008a, Letter from Brian Kelly, USFWS, Field Supervisor, USFWS 

Wyoming Field Office, Cheyenne, Wyoming, to Joe Meyer, BLM, Field 

Office Manager, Casper Field Office, Casper, Wyoming, dated December 

19, 2008. 

, 2008b, Endangered, Threatened, and Candidate Species and 

Designated Critical Habitat for Wyoming Counties, February 2008, 

available from website on the Internet: http://www.fws.gov/mountainprairie/endspp/CountyLists/Wyoming.pdf>, accessed October 2008. 

Wyoming Game and Fish Department, 2007, Letter from John Emmerich, 

Deputy Director, WGFD, Cheyenne, Wyoming, to Teresa Johnson, BLM, 

Casper Field Office, Casper, Wyoming, dated April 10, 2007. 

E5-4 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
APPENDIX F 

BLM SENSITIVE SPECIES EVALUATION FOR THE 


SOUTH GILLETTE AREA COAL EIS 

 

 

Appendix F 

BLM SENSITIVE SPECIES EVALUATION
 

INTRODUCTION 

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Wyoming has prepared a list of 

sensitive species to focus species management efforts towards maintaining 

habitats under a multiple use mandate. The authority for this policy and 

guidance comes from the Endangered Species Act (ESA), as amended; Title II of 

the Sikes Act, as amended; the Federal Land Policy Management Act of 1976 

(FLPMA) (43 U.S.C. 1716); Department Manual 235.1.1A; and BLM Manual 

6840.06 E. Sensitive Species. 

The goals of the sensitive species policy are to: 

• 	 Maintain vulnerable species and habitat components in functional BLM 

ecosystems. 

• 	 Ensure sensitive species are considered in land management decisions. 

• 	 Prevent a need for species listing under the ESA. 

• 	 Prioritize needed conservation work with an emphasis on habitat. 

PROJECT DESCRIPTION 

Under the Proposed Action, BLM will hold separate competitive lease sales for 

the federal coal lands in the Belle Ayr North Lease by Application (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) (see figures 2-1 through 2-4 and the 

land descriptions in section 2.1 of this environmental impact statement [EIS]). 

There are four Proposed Actions, one for each of the LBA tracts. For each tract, 

the Proposed Action assumes that the applicant for a tract would be the 

successful bidder and that the tract would be mined as a maintenance lease for 

an existing mine. The surface estate on each LBA tract is privately owned with 

the exception of the Maysdorf II Tract, which has approximately 284 acres of 

federally owned surface. This federally owned surface is managed by BLM. 

SPECIES OCCURRENCE AND HABITAT DESCRIPTIONS 

Sensitive species were listed for the BLM Buffalo Field Office within its range. 

Some sensitive species could or do occur within the four LBA tracts. 

Specialized habitat requirements (i.e., caves, cliffs, calcareous rock outcrops) 

make occupation for other sensitive species unlikely. Tables F-1 through F-4 

list BLM sensitive species, summarize their habitat requirements, and indicate 

if they have been observed on or around the general analysis areas for the LBA 

tracts. These tables represent the most current sensitive species lists (BLM 

2002), and observations were based on field surveys and file searches 

completed in 2007 and 2008. Additional information on occurrences of these 

species on the tracts and surrounding wildlife survey areas can be found in 

section 3.10 of this EIS. 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications F-1 
Appendix F 

Table F-1. BLM Sensitive Species for the Buffalo Field Office and Habitat Requirements and Ob

North LBA Tract. 

Common Name (scientific name) Habitat Observed on Bel

Amphibians Northern leopard frog (Rana pipiens) Beaver ponds, permanent water in plains and foothills No 

Spotted frog (Ranus pretiosa) Ponds, sloughs, small streams No1 

Birds Baird’s sparrow (Ammodramus bairdii) Grasslands, weedy fields No1 Brewer’s sparrow (Spizella breweri) Basin-prairie shrub Yes, Presumed Breeder 

Burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia) Grasslands, basin-prairie shrub No, Historic Breeder 

Ferruginous hawk (Buteo regalis) Basin-prairie shrub, grasslands, rock outcrops No, Common Breeder in 

Greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) Basin-prairie shrub, mountain-foothill shrub No, Common Breeder in Loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus) Basin-prairie shrub, mountain-foothill shrub No, Uncommon Breeder 

Long-billed curlew (Numenius americanus) Grasslands, plains, foothills, wet meadows No, Infrequent Migrant Mountain Plover (Charadrius montanus) Shortgrass/midgrass grasslands, basin-prairie shrubs No1 

Northern goshawk (Accipiter gentilis) Conifer and deciduous forests No1 Peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus) Cliffs No, Occasional Migrant 

Sage sparrow (Amphispiza billneata) Basin-prairie shrub, mountain-foothill shrub No, Rare Visitor Sage thrasher (Oreoscoptes montanus) Basin-prairie shrub, mountain-foothill shrub No, Rare Breeder 

Trumpeter swan (Cygnus buccinator) Lakes, ponds, rivers ----1 

White-faced ibis (Plegadis chihi) Marshes, wet meadows ----1 Yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus) Open woodlands, streamside willow and alder groves No1 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area 
Table F-1. BLM Sensitive Species for the Buffalo Field Office and Habitat Requirements and Ob

North LBA Tract (Continued). 

Common Name (scientific name) Habitat Observed on BelFish Yellowstone cutthroat trout (Oncoryhynchus clarki) Cold water streams and lakes No1 Mammals Black-tailed prairie dog (Cynomys ludovicianus) Shortgrass/midgrass grasslands No1 Fringed myotis (Myotis thysanodes) Conifer forests, woodland chaparral, caves and mines ----1 Long-eared myotis (Myotis evotis) Conifer and deciduous forest, caves and mines ----1 Spotted bat (Euderma maculatum) Cliffs over perennial water, basin-prairie shrub ----1 Swift fox (Vulpes velox) Grasslands No Townsend’s big-eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii) Forests, basin-prairie shrub, caves and mines ----1 White-tailed prairie dog (Cynomys leucurus) Basin-prairie shrub, grasslands ----1 Plants Northern Arnica (Arnica lonchophylla) 

Open woods and slopes on sandy-gravel or limestone and shady, moist north-facing birch-hazelnut forests. Elev. 6,500-8,000 ft. 

----1 

Porter’s sagebrush (Artemisia porteri) 

Sparsely vegetated badlands of ashy or tufaceous mudstone and clay slopes; 5,300 to 6,500 ft 

----1 

Soft Aster (Aster mollis) 

Sagebrush grasslands and mountain meadows on deep, calcareous soils at the edge of aspen or pine woodlands. Elev. 6,400-8,500 ft 

----1 

William’s wafer parsnip (Cymopterus williamsii) 

Open ridgetops and upper slopes with exposed limestone outcrops or rockslides; 6,000 to 8,300 ft 

----1 

Mountain Lady's Slipper (Cypripedium montanum) 

Shady moist forests and riparian shrublands. Elev. 5,400-5,500 ft. 

----1 

Rabbit Buckwheat (Eriogonum brevicaule var. canum [E. Lagopus]) 

Barren sandy or clay soils and rock outcrops in juniper woodlands and sagebrush steppe communities. Elev. 3,800-5,500 ft. 

----1 

Hall's Fescue (Festuca hallii) 

Meadows, slopes, and open woods. Elev. 7,400-10,500 ft. 

----1 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications F-3 
Appendix F 

Table F-1. BLM Sensitive Species for the Buffalo Field Office and Habitat Requirements and Obse

North LBA Tract (Continued). 

Common Name (scientific name) Habitat Observed on Bel

Contracted Indian Ricegrass (Oryzopsis contracta [O. hymenoides var. contracta]) 

Basin and foothill areas on dry, sandy soils. Elev. 4,800-7,500 ft. No 

Cary's Beardtongue (Penstemon caryi) 

Calcareous rock outcrops and rocky soil within sagebrush, juniper, Douglas fir, and limber pine communities. Elev. 5,200-8,500 ft. 

----1 

Northern Blackberry (Rubus arcticus ssp. acaulis [R. acaulis]) Boggy woods and marshes. Elev. 7,000-9,000 ft. ----1 Ute Ladies’ Tresses (Spiranthes diluvialis) 

Moist, subirrigated or seasonally flooded soils bordering wetland meadows, springs, lakes, or perennial streams 4,200-7,000’ 

No 

Hapeman's Sullivan (Sullivantia hapemanii var. hapemanii) 

Moist calcareous outcrops and boulders in shady canyons and streams. Elev. 4,600-8,200 ft. 

----1 

1 Habitat generally lacking or very limited 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area 
Table F-2. BLM Sensitive Species for the Buffalo Field Office and Habitat Requirements and Obs

Creek LBA Tract. 

Common Name (scientific name) Habitat Observed on Wes

Amphibians Northern leopard frog (Rana pipiens) Beaver ponds, permanent water in plains and foothills ----1 

Spotted frog (Ranus pretiosa) Ponds, sloughs, small streams No 

Birds Baird’s sparrow (Ammodramus bairdii) Grasslands, weedy fields No1 

Brewer’s sparrow (Spizella breweri) Basin-prairie shrub Presumed Breeder 

Burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia) Grasslands, basin-prairie shrub Recent Breeder 

Ferruginous hawk (Buteo regalis) Basin-prairie shrub, grasslands, rock outcrops Common Breeder 

Greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) Basin-prairie shrub, mountain-foothill shrub Common Breeder 

Loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus) Basin-prairie shrub, mountain-foothill shrub Infrequent Breeder 

Long-billed curlew (Numenius americanus) Grasslands, plains, foothills, wet meadows Infrequent Migrant 

Mountain Plover (Charadrius montanus) Shortgrass/midgrass grasslands, basin-prairie shrubs Never Recorded1 

Northern goshawk (Accipiter gentilis) Conifer and deciduous forests No1 Peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus) Cliffs Rare Migrant Sage sparrow (Amphispiza billneata) Basin-prairie shrub, mountain-foothill shrub Rare Visitor 

Sage thrasher (Oreoscoptes montanus) Basin-prairie shrub, mountain-foothill shrub Rare Breeder 

Trumpeter swan (Cygnus buccinator) Lakes, ponds, rivers ----1 

White-faced ibis (Plegadis chihi) Marshes, wet meadows ----1 Yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus) Open woodlands, streamside willow and alder groves No1 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications F-5 
Appendix F 

Table F-2. BLM Sensitive Species for the Buffalo Field Office and Habitat Requirements and Obs

Creek LBA Tract (Continued). 

Common Name (scientific name) Habitat Observed on WesFish Yellowstone cutthroat trout (Oncoryhynchus clarki) Cold water streams and lakes No1 Mammals Black-tailed prairie dog (Cynomys ludovicianus) Shortgrass/midgrass grasslands No1 Fringed myotis (Myotis thysanodes) Conifer forests, woodland chaparral, caves and mines ----1 Long-eared myotis (Myotis evotis) Conifer and deciduous forest, caves and mines ----1 Spotted bat (Euderma maculatum) Cliffs over perennial water, basin-prairie shrub ----1 Swift fox (Vulpes velox) Grasslands No Townsend’s big-eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii) Forests, basin-prairie shrub, caves and mines ----1 White-tailed prairie dog (Cynomys leucurus) Basin-prairie shrub, grasslands No. Plants Northern Arnica (Arnica lonchophylla) 

Open woods and slopes on sandy-gravel or limestone and shady, moist north-facing birch-hazelnut forests. 

Elev. 6,500-8,000 ft. 

----1 

Porter’s sagebrush (Artemisia porteri) 

Sparsely vegetated badlands of ashy or tufaceous mudstone and clay slopes; 5,300 to 6,500 ft 

----1 

Soft Aster (Aster mollis) 

Sagebrush grasslands and mountain meadows on deep, calcareous soils at the edge of aspen or pine woodlands. Elev. 6,400-8,500 ft 

----1 

William’s wafer parsnip (Cymopterus williamsii) 

Open ridgetops and upper slopes with exposed limestone outcrops or rockslides; 6,000 to 8,300 ft 

----1 

Mountain Lady's Slipper (Cypripedium montanum ) 

Shady moist forests and riparian shrublands. Elev. 5,400-5,500 ft. 

----1 

Rabbit Buckwheat (Eriogonum brevicaule var. canum [E. Lagopus]) 

Barren sandy or clay soils and rock outcrops in juniper woodlands and sagebrush steppe communities. Elev. 3,800-5,500 ft. 

----1 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area 
Table F-2. BLM Sensitive Species for the Buffalo Field Office and Habitat Requirements and Obs

Creek LBA Tract (Continued). 

Common Name (scientific name) Habitat Observed on Wes

Hall's Fescue (Festuca hallii) 

Meadows, slopes, and open woods. Elev. 7,400-10,500 ft. 

----1 

Contracted Indian Ricegrass (Oryzopsis contracta [O. hymenoides var. contracta]) 

Basin and foothill areas on dry, sandy soils. Elev. 4,800-7,500 ft. No 

Cary's Beardtongue (Penstemon caryi) 

Calcareous rock outcrops and rocky soil within sagebrush, juniper, Douglas fir, and limber pine communities. Elev. 5,200-8,500 ft. 

----1 

Northern Blackberry (Rubus arcticus ssp. acaulis [R. acaulis]) Boggy woods and marshes. Elev. 7,000-9,000 ft. ----1 Ute Ladies’ Tresses (Spiranthes diluvialis) 

Moist, subirrigated or seasonally flooded soils bordering wetland meadows, springs, lakes, or perennial streams 4,200-7,000’ 

No 

Hapeman's Sullivan (Sullivantia hapemanii var. hapemanii) 

Moist calcareous outcrops and boulders in shady canyons and streams. Elev. 4,600-8,200 ft. 

----1 

1 Habitat generally lacking or very limited 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications F-7 
Appendix F 

Table F-3. BLM Sensitive Species for the Buffalo Field Office and Habitat Requirements and Obs

West LBA Tract. 

Common Name (scientific name) Habitat Observed on CaAmphibians Northern leopard frog (Rana pipiens) Beaver ponds, permanent water in plains and foothills No Spotted frog (Ranus pretiosa) Ponds, sloughs, small streams No1 Birds Baird’s sparrow (Ammodramus bairdii) Grasslands, weedy fields No1 Brewer’s sparrow (Spizella breweri) Basin-prairie shrub Yes, Presumed Breeder 

Burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia) Grasslands, basin-prairie shrub No, Historic Breeder 

Ferruginous hawk (Buteo regalis) Basin-prairie shrub, grasslands, rock outcrops No, Common Breeder in 

Greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) Basin-prairie shrub, mountain-foothill shrub No, Common Breeder in Loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus) Basin-prairie shrub, mountain-foothill shrub No, Uncommon Breeder 

Long-billed curlew (Numenius americanus) Grasslands, plains, foothills, wet meadows No, Infrequent Migrant Mountain Plover (Charadrius montanus) Shortgrass/midgrass grasslands, basin-prairie shrubs No1 

Northern goshawk (Accipiter gentilis) Conifer and deciduous forests No1 Peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus) Cliffs No, Occasional Migrant 

Sage sparrow (Amphispiza billneata) Basin-prairie shrub, mountain-foothill shrub No, Rare Visitor Sage thrasher (Oreoscoptes montanus) Basin-prairie shrub, mountain-foothill shrub No, Rare Breeder 

Trumpeter swan (Cygnus buccinator) Lakes, ponds, rivers ----1 

White-faced ibis (Plegadis chihi) Marshes, wet meadows ----1 Yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus) Open woodlands, streamside willow and alder groves No1 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area 
Table F-3. BLM Sensitive Species for the Buffalo Field Office and Habitat Requirements and Obs

West LBA Tract (Continued). 

Common Name (scientific name) Habitat Observed on CaFish Yellowstone cutthroat trout (Oncoryhynchus clarki) Cold water streams and lakes No1 Mammals Black-tailed prairie dog (Cynomys ludovicianus) Shortgrass/midgrass grasslands No1 Fringed myotis (Myotis thysanodes) Conifer forests, woodland chaparral, caves and mines ----1 Long-eared myotis (Myotis evotis) Conifer and deciduous forest, caves and mines ----1 Spotted bat (Euderma maculatum) Cliffs over perennial water, basin-prairie shrub ----1 Swift fox (Vulpes velox) Grasslands No Townsend’s big-eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii) Forests, basin-prairie shrub, caves and mines ----1 White-tailed prairie dog (Cynomys leucurus) Basin-prairie shrub, grasslands ----1 Plants Northern Arnica (Arnica lonchophylla) 

Open woods and slopes on sandy-gravel or limestone and shady, moist north-facing birch-hazelnut forests. Elev. 6,500-8,000 ft. 

No. Habitat is not preparent material and bpopulations in Wyoming Counties. 

Porter’s sagebrush (Artemisia porteri) 

Sparsely vegetated badlands of ashy or tufaceous mudstone and clay slopes; 5,300 to 6,500 ft 

No. Habitat was not plimiting factor. Known Fremont county. 

Soft Aster (Aster mollis) 

Sagebrush grasslands and mountain meadows on deep, calcareous soils at the edge of aspen or pine woodlands. Elev. 6,400-8,500 ft 

No. Habitat is not preWyoming are in NWashakie, Big Horn and 

William’s wafer parsnip (Cymopterus williamsii) 

Open ridgetops and upper slopes with exposed limestone outcrops or rockslides; 6,000 to 8,300 ft 

No. Habitat limitation

elevations and lack oKnown populations in Washakie, and Natrona 

Mountain Lady's Slipper (Cypripedium montanum ) 

Shady moist forests and riparian shrublands. Elev. 5,400-5,500 ft. 

No. Habitat is not preseand lower elevations. Kare in Sheridan and Joh

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications F-9 
Appendix F 

Table F-3. BLM Sensitive Species for the Buffalo Field Office and Habitat Requirements and O

West LBA Tract (Continued). 

Common Name (scientific name) Habitat Observed on CaRabbit Buckwheat (Eriogonum brevicaule var. canum [E. Lagopus]) 

Barren sandy or clay soils and rock outcrops in juniper woodlands and sagebrush steppe communities. Elev. 3,800-5,500 ft. 

No. This species wavegetation survey of thhabitat are present due and rock outcrops. Kn

are in Sheridan and Big 

Hall's Fescue (Festuca hallii) 

Meadows, slopes, and open woods. Elev. 7,400-10,500 ft. 

No. Habitat is not preslack of montane meadopopulation in Wyomincounties. 

Contracted Indian Ricegrass (Oryzopsis contracta [O. hymenoides var. contracta]) 

Basin and foothill areas on dry, sandy soils. Elev. 4,800-7,500 ft. 

No. Contracted Indian during the vegetation sareas of habitat are prWyoming are in Camp

Natrona, Sweetwater, Ca

Cary's Beardtongue (Penstemon caryi) 

Calcareous rock outcrops and rocky soil within sagebrush, juniper, Douglas fir, and limber pine communities. Elev. 5,200-8,500 ft. 

No. Habitat is not preslack of soils and vegetspecies is found. Knowfound in Big Horn, Wash

Northern Blackberry (Rubus arcticus ssp. acaulis [R. acaulis]) Boggy woods and marshes. Elev. 7,000-9,000 ft. 

No. Habitat is not presvegetation communities 

Known populations in Wcounty. 

Ute Ladies’ Tresses (Spiranthes diluvialis) 

Moist, subirrigated or seasonally flooded soils bordering wetland meadows, springs, lakes, or perennial streams 4,200-7,000’ 

No 

Hapeman's Sullivan (Sullivantia hapemanii var. hapemanii) 

Moist calcareous outcrops and boulders in shady canyons and streams. Elev. 4,600-8,200 ft. 

No. Habitat is limited dmoisture conditions w

Known populations iSheridan, Johnson, Natcounties. 

1 Habitat generally lacking or very limited 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area 
Table F-4. BLM Sensitive Species for the Buffalo Field Office and Habitat Requirements and Obs

II LBA Tract. 

Common Name (scientific name) Habitat Observed on M

Amphibians Northern leopard frog (Rana pipiens) Beaver ponds, permanent water in plains and foothills Yes, incidental siting du

Spotted frog (Ranus pretiosa) Ponds, sloughs, small streams ----1 

Birds Baird’s sparrow (Ammodramus bairdii) Grasslands, weedy fields No, Rare Breeder 

Brewer’s sparrow (Spizella breweri) Basin-prairie shrub Yes, Common Breeder 

Burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia) Grasslands, basin-prairie shrub No, Uncommon Breeder 

Ferruginous hawk (Buteo regalis) Basin-prairie shrub, grasslands, rock outcrops Yes, Common Breeder 

Greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) Basin-prairie shrub, mountain-foothill shrub Yes, Common Breeder Loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus) Basin-prairie shrub, mountain-foothill shrub Yes, Uncommon BreedeLong-billed curlew (Numenius americanus) Grasslands, plains, foothills, wet meadows No, Uncommon Spring M

Mountain Plover (Charadrius montanus) Shortgrass/midgrass grasslands, basin-prairie shrubs No, limited habitat, Rare Northern goshawk (Accipiter gentilis) Conifer and deciduous forests ----1 

Peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus) Cliffs No, incidental migran

wildlife surveys 

Sage sparrow (Amphispiza billneata) Basin-prairie shrub, mountain-foothill shrub 

No, Rare Breeder 

Sage thrasher (Oreoscoptes montanus) Basin-prairie shrub, mountain-foothill shrub Yes, Uncommon Breede

Trumpeter swan (Cygnus buccinator) Lakes, ponds, rivers ----1 

White-faced ibis (Plegadis chihi) Marshes, wet meadows ----1 Yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus) Open woodlands, streamside willow and alder groves ----1 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications F-11 
Appendix F 

Table F-4. BLM Sensitive Species for the Buffalo Field Office and Habitat Requirements and Obs

II LBA Tract (Continued). 

Common Name (scientific name) Habitat Observed on MFish Yellowstone cutthroat trout (Oncoryhynchus clarki) Cold water streams and lakes ----1 Mammals Black-tailed prairie dog (Cynomys ludovicianus) Shortgrass/midgrass grasslands No prairie dog towns on Fringed myotis (Myotis thysanodes) Conifer forests, woodland chaparral, caves and mines ----1 Long-eared myotis (Myotis evotis) Conifer and deciduous forest, caves and mines ----1 Spotted bat (Euderma maculatum) Cliffs over perennial water, basin-prairie shrub ----1 Swift fox (Vulpes velox) Grasslands No, Uncommon Breeder Townsend’s big-eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii) Forests, basin-prairie shrub, caves and mines ----1 White-tailed prairie dog (Cynomys leucurus) Basin-prairie shrub, grasslands No. Plants Northern Arnica (Arnica lonchophylla) 

Open woods and slopes on sandy-gravel or limestone and shady, moist north-facing birch-hazelnut forests. 

Elev. 6,500-8,000 ft. 

----1 

Porter’s sagebrush (Artemisia porteri) 

Sparsely vegetated badlands of ashy or tufaceous mudstone and clay slopes; 5,300 to 6,500 ft 

----1 

Soft Aster (Aster mollis) 

Sagebrush grasslands and mountain meadows on deep, calcareous soils at the edge of aspen or pine woodlands. Elev. 6,400-8,500 ft 

----1 

William’s wafer parsnip (Cymopterus williamsii) 

Open ridgetops and upper slopes with exposed limestone outcrops or rockslides; 6,000 to 8,300 ft 

----1 

Mountain Lady's Slipper (Cypripedium montanum ) 

Shady moist forests and riparian shrublands. Elev. 5,400-5,500 ft. 

----1 

Rabbit Buckwheat (Eriogonum brevicaule var. canum [E. Lagopus]) 

Barren sandy or clay soils and rock outcrops in juniper woodlands and sagebrush steppe communities. Elev. 3,800-5,500 ft. 

----1 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area 
Table F-4. BLM Sensitive Species for the Buffalo Field Office and Habitat Requirements and Ob

II LBA Tract (Continued). 

Common Name (scientific name) Habitat Observed on M

Hall's Fescue (Festuca hallii) 

Meadows, slopes, and open woods. Elev. 7,400-10,500 ft. 

----1 

Contracted Indian Ricegrass (Oryzopsis contracta [O. hymenoides var. contracta]) 

Basin and foothill areas on dry, sandy soils. Elev. 4,800-7,500 ft. No 

Cary's Beardtongue (Penstemon caryi) 

Calcareous rock outcrops and rocky soil within sagebrush, juniper, Douglas fir, and limber pine communities. Elev. 5,200-8,500 ft. 

----1 

Northern Blackberry (Rubus arcticus ssp. acaulis [R. acaulis]) Boggy woods and marshes. Elev. 7,000-9,000 ft. ----1 Ute Ladies’ Tresses (Spiranthes diluvialis) 

Moist, subirrigated or seasonally flooded soils bordering wetland meadows, springs, lakes, or perennial streams 4,200-7,000’ 

No 

Hapeman's Sullivan (Sullivantia hapemanii var. hapemanii) 

Moist calcareous outcrops and boulders in shady canyons and streams. Elev. 4,600-8,200 ft. 

----1 

1 Habitat generally lacking or very limited 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications F-13 
Appendix F 

REFERENCES AND LITERATURE CITED 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM), 2002, BLM Wyoming Sensitive Species 

Policy and List September 20, 2002, available on the Internet as of March 

2009: 

<http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/wy/wildlife.Par.9226.Fi 

le.dat/02species.pdf>. 

F-14 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
APPENDIX G 

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
 
CBNG WELLS CAPABLE OF PRODUCTION ON SECTIONS WITHIN AND ADJACENT TO T

BELLE AYR NORTH, WEST COAL CREEK, CABALLO WEST, AND MAYSDORF II LBA TRA

Api 

Number 

(Short) 

Company Well Name/No. TWP RNG Location WOGCC STATUS 

Cumulati

Productio

Gas 

(MCF) 

532114 LANCE OIL & GAS COMPANY INC No. 14-9 46N 71W SW1/4 SW1/4 Sec. 9 SP 0 

530420 DCD INC No. 11-11 46N 71W NE1/4 SW1/4 Sec. 11 SI 0 

534331 RIM OPERATING INC No. 14-14 46N 71W SW1/4 SW1/4 Sec. 14 PS 39,515 

534389 RIM OPERATING INC No. 24-14 46N 71W SE1/4 SW1/4 Sec. 14 PS 38,480 534615 RIM OPERATING INC No. 13-14 46N 71W NW1/4 SW1/4 Sec. 14 PS 46,697 

534616 RIM OPERATING INC No. 23-14 46N 71W NE1/4 SW1/4 Sec. 14 PS 10,354 542179 RIM OPERATING INC No. 33-14 46N 71W NW1/4 SE1/4 Sec. 14 PS 5,402 

542180 RIM OPERATING INC No. 43-14 46N 71W NE1/4 SE1/4 Sec. 14 PS 5,938 

542181 RIM OPERATING INC No. 34-14 46N 71W SW1/4 SE1/4 Sec. 14 PS 16,224 542182 RIM OPERATING INC No. 44-14 46N 71W SE1/4 SE1/4 Sec. 14 PS 13,623 543286 RIM OPERATING INC No. 32-14 46N 71W SW1/4 NE1/4 Sec. 14 SI 14,758 

532393 PRIMARY NATURAL RESOURCES INC No. 24-15 46N 71W SE1/4 SW1/4 Sec. 15 PS 259,396 

532745 PRIMARY NATURAL RESOURCES INC No. 23-15R 46N 71W NE1/4 SW1/4 Sec. 15 FL 125,341 

534278 PRIMARY NATURAL RESOURCES INC No. 42-15 46N 71W SE1/4 NE1/4 Sec. 15 PS 34,556 

534279 PRIMARY NATURAL RESOURCES INC No. 21-15 46N 71W NE1/4 NW1/4 Sec. 15 PS 92,916 

534280 PRIMARY NATURAL RESOURCES INC No. 44-15 46N 71W SE1/4 SE1/4 Sec. 15 FL 41,862 

532389 PRIMARY NATURAL RESOURCES INC No. 42-16 46N 71W SE1/4 NE1/4 Sec. 16 FL 317,601 

532392 PRIMARY NATURAL RESOURCES INC No. 13-16 46N 71W NW1/4 SW1/4 Sec. 16 PR 113,509 

532534 PRIMARY NATURAL RESOURCES INC No. 12-16 46N 71W SW1/4 NW1/4 Sec. 16 FL 136,355 

532585 PRIMARY NATURAL RESOURCES INC No. 43-16R 46N 71W NE1/4 SE1/4 Sec. 16 FL 240,727 

532589 PRIMARY NATURAL RESOURCES INC No. 41-16R 46N 71W NE1/4 NE1/4 Sec. 16 FL 318,413 532736 PRIMARY NATURAL RESOURCES INC No. 22-16R 46N 71W SE1/4 NW1/4 Sec. 16 FL 220,184 551220 PRIMARY NATURAL RESOURCES INC No. 43-16 46N 71W NE1/4 SE1/4 Sec. 16 SI 1,479 541898 ROCKY MOUNTAIN GAS INC No. 6-24-47-71-A 47N 71W SE1/4 SW1/4 Sec. 6 SI 25,056 

541907 ROCKY MOUNTAIN GAS INC No. 6-23-47-71A 47N 71W NE1/4 SW1/4 Sec. 6 SI 46,071 

541913 ROCKY MOUNTAIN GAS INC No. 6-33-47-71-A 47N 71W NW1/4 SE1/4 Sec. 6 SI 111,389 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications G-1 
Appendix G 

CBNG WELLS CAPABLE OF PRODUCTION ON SECTIONS WITHIN AND ADJACENT TO T

BELLE AYR NORTH, WEST COAL CREEK, CABALLO WEST, AND MAYSDORF II LBA TRACTS (C

Api 

Number 

(Short) 

Company Well Name/No. TWP RNG Location WOGCC STATUS 

Cumulati

Producti

Gas 

(MCF) 

541914 ROCKY MOUNTAIN GAS INC No. 6-34-47-71-A 47N 71W SW1/4 SE1/4 Sec. 6 SI 45,457 

541915 ROCKY MOUNTAIN GAS INC No. 6-43-47-71-A 47N 71W NE1/4 SE1/4 Sec. 6 SI 61,239 541916 ROCKY MOUNTAIN GAS INC No. 6-44-47-71-A 47N 71W SE1/4 SE1/4 Sec. 6 SI 1,565 

542112 ROCKY MOUNTAIN GAS INC No. 6-12-47-71-A 47N 71W SW1/4 NW1/4 Sec. 6 SI 38,613 

542113 ROCKY MOUNTAIN GAS INC No. 6-22-47-71-A 47N 71W SE1/4 NW1/4 Sec. 6 SI 69,372 

542186 ROCKY MOUNTAIN GAS INC No. 6-13-47-71-A 47N 71W NW1/4 SW1/4 Sec. 6 SI 13,074 

542301 ROCKY MOUNTAIN GAS INC No. 6-21-47-71A 47N 71W NE1/4 NW1/4 Sec. 6 SI 29,790 

542363 ROCKY MOUNTAIN GAS INC No. 6-42-47-71-A 47N 71W SE1/4 NE1/4 Sec. 6 SI 4,152 

542364 ROCKY MOUNTAIN GAS INC No. 6-32-47-71-A 47N 71W SW1/4 NE1/4 Sec. 6 SI 0 

542458 ROCKY MOUNTAIN GAS INC No. 6-31-47-71-A 47N 71W NW1/4 NE1/4 Sec. 6 SI 10,769 

530273 ROCKY MOUNTAIN GAS INC No. 7-13 47N 71W NW1/4 SW1/4 Sec. 7 SI 96,384 

541908 ROCKY MOUNTAIN GAS INC No. 7-22-47-71-A 47N 71W SE1/4 NW1/4 Sec. 7 SI 11,296 

541909 ROCKY MOUNTAIN GAS INC No. 7-21-47-71-A 47N 71W NE1/4 NW1/4 Sec. 7 SI 13,759 

541910 ROCKY MOUNTAIN GAS INC No. 7-31-47-71-A 47N 71W NW1/4 NE1/4 Sec. 7 SI 33,113 

541911 ROCKY MOUNTAIN GAS INC No. 7-41-47-71-A 47N 71W NE1/4 NE1/4 Sec. 7 SI 51,648 

541912 ROCKY MOUNTAIN GAS INC No. 7-32-47-71-A 47N 71W SW1/4 NE1/4 Sec. 7 SI 37,333 

541920 ROCKY MOUNTAIN GAS INC No. 7-12-47-71-A 47N 71W SW1/4 NW1/4 Sec. 7 SI 51,458 

542746 ROCKY MOUNTAIN GAS INC No. 7-14-47-71-A 47N 71W SW1/4 SW1/4 Sec. 7 SI 74,511 

542747 ROCKY MOUNTAIN GAS INC No. 7-24-47-71-A 47N 71W SE1/4 SW1/4 Sec. 7 SI 66,879 

542748 ROCKY MOUNTAIN GAS INC No. 7-23-47-71-A 47N 71W NE1/4 SW1/4 Sec. 7 SI 25,070 

544412 ROCKY MOUNTAIN GAS INC No. 7-13-47-71-A 47N 71W NW1/4 SW1/4 Sec. 7 SI 33,458 

545410 ROCKY MOUNTAIN GAS INC No. 7-24-B 47N 71W SE1/4 SW1/4 Sec. 7 SI 0 

545411 ROCKY MOUNTAIN GAS INC No. 7-23-B 47N 71W NE1/4 SW1/4 Sec. 7 SI 0 

545412 ROCKY MOUNTAIN GAS INC No. 7-14-B 47N 71W SW1/4 SW1/4 Sec. 7 SI 0 

529869 PURE PETROLEUM LLC No. 13-16 47N 71W SW1/4 SW1/4 Sec. 16 SI 626,449 

530790 LANCE OIL & GAS COMPANY INC No. 1-16 47N 71W NE1/4 NE1/4 Sec. 16 TA 5,584 

530793 LANCE OIL & GAS COMPANY INC No. 8-16 47N 71W SE1/4 NE1/4 Sec. 16 TA 9,494 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Co
CBNG WELLS CAPABLE OF PRODUCTION ON SECTIONS WITHIN AND ADJACENT TO T

BELLE AYR NORTH, WEST COAL CREEK, CABALLO WEST, AND MAYSDORF II LBA TRACTS (C

Api 

Number 

(Short) 

Company Well Name/No. TWP RNG Location WOGCC STATUS 

Cumulati

Producti

Gas 

(MCF) 

533763 BOWDEN ENERGY COMPANY INC No. 44-17 47N 71W SE1/4 SE1/4 Sec. 17 FL 74,741 

533764 BOWDEN ENERGY COMPANY INC No. 34-17 47N 71W SW1/4 SE1/4 Sec. 17 FL 136,924 

533766 BOWDEN ENERGY COMPANY INC No. 12-17 47N 71W SW1/4 NW1/4 Sec. 17 FL 82,739 

533767 BOWDEN ENERGY COMPANY INC No. 11-17 47N 71W NW1/4 NW1/4 Sec. 17 FL 65,878 

533768 BOWDEN ENERGY COMPANY INC No. 22-17 47N 71W SE1/4 NW1/4 Sec. 17 FL 70,364 

533769 BOWDEN ENERGY COMPANY INC No. 23-17 47N 71W NE1/4 SW1/4 Sec. 17 FL 98,180 

533770 BOWDEN ENERGY COMPANY INC No. 13-17 47N 71W NW1/4 SW1/4 Sec. 17 FL 83,131 

531369 LANCE OIL & GAS COMPANY INC No. 18-34 47N 71W SW1/4 SE1/4 Sec. 18 SP 0 

533761 BOWDEN ENERGY COMPANY INC No. 41-18 47N 71W NE1/4 NE1/4 Sec. 18 FL 116,473 

533765 BOWDEN ENERGY COMPANY INC No. 42-18 47N 71W SE1/4 NE1/4 Sec. 18 FL 97,216 

535669 CNX GAS COMPANY LLC No. 18N 47N 71W SE1/4 SW1/4 Sec. 18 SI 40,845 

542357 ROCKY MOUNTAIN GAS INC No. 18-22-47-71-A 47N 71W SE1/4 NW1/4 Sec. 18 SI 17,324 

542358 ROCKY MOUNTAIN GAS INC No. 18-11-47-71-A 47N 71W NW1/4 NW1/4 Sec. 18 SI 17,950 

542359 ROCKY MOUNTAIN GAS INC No. 18-12-47-71-A 47N 71W SW1/4 NW1/4 Sec. 18 SI 25,849 

542360 ROCKY MOUNTAIN GAS INC No. 18-21-47-71-A 47N 71W NE1/4 NW1/4 Sec. 18 SI 27,679 

545406 ROCKY MOUNTAIN GAS INC No. 18-22-B 47N 71W SE1/4 NW1/4 Sec. 18 SI 0 

545408 ROCKY MOUNTAIN GAS INC No. 18-12-B 47N 71W SW1/4 NW1/4 Sec. 18 SI 0 

545409 ROCKY MOUNTAIN GAS INC No. 18-11-B 47N 71W NW1/4 NW1/4 Sec. 18 SI 0 

530889 LANCE OIL & GAS COMPANY INC No. 23-19 47N 71W NE1/4 SW1/4 Sec. 19 PR 0 

535670 CNX GAS COMPANY LLC No. 19C 47N 71W NE1/4 NW1/4 Sec. 19 SI 40,586 

535673 CNX GAS COMPANY LLC No. 19F 47N 71W SE1/4 NW1/4 Sec. 19 SI 43,907 

533762 BOWDEN ENERGY COMPANY INC No. 31-20 47N 71W NW1/4 NE1/4 Sec. 20 FL 120,213 530982 PURE PETROLEUM LLC No. 7-21 47N 71W SW1/4 NE1/4 Sec. 21 SI 32,655 

530983 PURE PETROLEUM LLC No. 4-21 47N 71W NW1/4 NW1/4 Sec. 21 SI 20,400 

544549 CORDERO MINING CO No. 21-44 C 47N 71W SE1/4 SE1/4 Sec. 21 PS 0 

544551 CORDERO MINING CO No. 21-44 47N 71W SE1/4 SE1/4 Sec. 21 FL 69,799 

544553 CORDERO MINING CO No. 21-43 C 47N 71W NE1/4 SE1/4 Sec. 21 SI 0 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications G-3 
Appendix G 

CBNG WELLS CAPABLE OF PRODUCTION ON SECTIONS WITHIN AND ADJACENT TO T

BELLE AYR NORTH, WEST COAL CREEK, CABALLO WEST, AND MAYSDORF II LBA TRACTS (C

Api 

Number 

(Short) 

Company Well Name/No. TWP RNG Location WOGCC STATUS 

Cumulati

Producti

Gas 

(MCF) 

544555 CORDERO MINING CO No. 21-43 47N 71W NE1/4 SE1/4 Sec. 21 FL 62,659 

544557 CORDERO MINING CO No. 21-42 C 47N 71W SE1/4 NE1/4 Sec. 21 PS 0 544559 CORDERO MINING CO No. 21-42 47N 71W SE1/4 NE1/4 Sec. 21 SI 31,975 

531776 CITATION OIL & GAS CORPORATION No. 33-32 47N 71W NW1/4 SE1/4 Sec. 32 FL 316,299 

531777 CITATION OIL & GAS CORPORATION No. 44-32 47N 71W SE1/4 SE1/4 Sec. 32 FL 253,885 530433 ROCKY MOUNTAIN GAS INC No. 1-13 47N 72W NW1/4 SW1/4 Sec. 1 SI 226,897 

530434 ROCKY MOUNTAIN GAS INC No. 1-22 47N 72W SE1/4 NW1/4 Sec. 1 SI 82,201 

530435 ROCKY MOUNTAIN GAS INC No. 1-24 47N 72W SE1/4 SW1/4 Sec. 1 SI 252,745 

530610 ROCKY MOUNTAIN GAS INC No. 1-12 47N 72W SW1/4 NW1/4 Sec. 1 SI 114,13

542361 ROCKY MOUNTAIN GAS INC No. 1-43-47-72-A 47N 72W NE1/4 SE1/4 Sec. 1 SI 0 

542362 ROCKY MOUNTAIN GAS INC No. 1-44-47-72-A 47N 72W SE1/4 SE1/4 Sec. 1 SI 430 

542384 ROCKY MOUNTAIN GAS INC No. 1-14-47-72-A 47N 72W SW1/4 SW1/4 Sec. 1 SI 39,993 

542386 ROCKY MOUNTAIN GAS INC No. 1-21-47-72-A 47N 72W NE1/4 NW1/4 Sec. 1 SI 1,433 

542387 ROCKY MOUNTAIN GAS INC No. 1-23-47-72-A 47N 72W NE1/4 SW1/4 Sec. 1 SI 31,760 

542388 ROCKY MOUNTAIN GAS INC No. 1-33-47-72-A 47N 72W NW1/4 SE1/4 Sec. 1 SI 13,119 

542389 ROCKY MOUNTAIN GAS INC No. 1-34-47-72-A 47N 72W SW1/4 SE1/4 Sec. 1 SI 16,999 

530359 LORAL OPERATING LLC No. 2-31 47-72 47N 72W NW1/4 NE1/4 Sec. 2 SI 358,58540857 LORAL OPERATING LLC No. 2-42 47-72 47N 72W SE1/4 NE1/4 Sec. 2 SI 110,390 

540860 LORAL OPERATING LLC No. 2-32 47-72 47N 72W SW1/4 NE1/4 Sec. 2 SI 73,273 

540861 LORAL OPERATING LLC No. 2-41 47-72 47N 72W NE1/4 NE1/4 Sec. 2 SI 3,624 

540877 SUNSHINE VALLEY PETROLEUM No. 22-2 47N 72W SE1/4 NW1/4 Sec. 2 SI 31,681 

540878 SUNSHINE VALLEY PETROLEUM No. 21-2 47N 72W NE1/4 NW1/4 Sec. 2 SI 0 

530305 LORAL OPERATING LLC No. 11-22 47-72 47N 72W SE1/4 NW1/4 Sec. 11 SI 549,302 

530381 LORAL OPERATING LLC No. 11-33 47-72 47N 72W NW1/4 SE1/4 Sec. 11 SI 363,256 

530611 LORAL OPERATING LLC No. 11-23 47N 72W NE1/4 SW1/4 Sec. 11 SI 385,029 

533777 LORAL OPERATING LLC No. 11-13 47N 72W NW1/4 SW1/4 Sec. 11 FL 780 

533778 LORAL OPERATING LLC No. 11-12 47N 72W SW1/4 NW1/4 Sec. 11 SI 87,163 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Co
CBNG WELLS CAPABLE OF PRODUCTION ON SECTIONS WITHIN AND ADJACENT TO T

BELLE AYR NORTH, WEST COAL CREEK, CABALLO WEST, AND MAYSDORF II LBA TRACTS (C

Api 

Number 

(Short) 

Company Well Name/No. TWP RNG Location WOGCC STATUS 

Cumulati

Producti

Gas 

(MCF) 

533779 LORAL OPERATING LLC No. 11-11 47N 72W NW1/4 NW1/4 Sec. 11 SI 66,681 

540859 LORAL OPERATING LLC No. 11-34 47-72 47N 72W SW1/4 SE1/4 Sec. 11 SI 147,686 

541894 LORAL OPERATING LLC No. 11-21 47N 72W NE1/4 NW1/4 Sec. 11 SI 99,096 

543621 LORAL OPERATING LLC No. 11-44-47-72 47N 72W SE1/4 SE1/4 Sec. 11 SI 108,976 530285 ROCKY MOUNTAIN GAS INC No. 12-11 47N 72W NW1/4 NW1/4 Sec. 12 SI 355,633 

530307 ROCKY MOUNTAIN GAS INC No. 12-33 47N 72W NW1/4 SE1/4 Sec. 12 SI 188,434 534985 CNX GAS COMPANY LLC No. 12M 47N 72W SW1/4 SW1/4 Sec. 12 SI 42,074 

534986 CNX GAS COMPANY LLC No. 12L 47N 72W NW1/4 SW1/4 Sec. 12 SI 8,852 

535468 CNX GAS COMPANY LLC No. 12G 47N 72W SW1/4 NE1/4 Sec. 12 SI 86 

535469 CNX GAS COMPANY LLC No. 12B 47N 72W NW1/4 NE1/4 Sec. 12 SI 24,667 

541917 ROCKY MOUNTAIN GAS INC No. 12-43-47-72-A 47N 72W NE1/4 SE1/4 Sec. 12 SI 32,101 

542414 ROCKY MOUNTAIN GAS INC No. 12-12-47-72-A 47N 72W SW1/4 NW1/4 Sec. 12 SI 70,255 

542415 ROCKY MOUNTAIN GAS INC No. 12-22-47-72-A 47N 72W SE1/4 NW1/4 Sec. 12 SI 76,273 

542417 ROCKY MOUNTAIN GAS INC No. 12-21-47-72-A 47N 72W NE1/4 NW1/4 Sec. 12 SI 20,941 

542419 ROCKY MOUNTAIN GAS INC No. 12-34-47-72-A 47N 72W SW1/4 SE1/4 Sec. 12 SI 48,890 

542420 ROCKY MOUNTAIN GAS INC No. 12-44-47-72-A 47N 72W SE1/4 SE1/4 Sec. 12 SI 64,874 

534974 CNX GAS COMPANY LLC No. 130 47N 72W SW1/4 SE1/4 Sec. 13 SI 76,681 

534975 CNX GAS COMPANY LLC No. 13L 47N 72W NW1/4 SW1/4 Sec. 13 SI 44,277 

534977 CNX GAS COMPANY LLC No. 13J 47N 72W NW1/4 SE1/4 Sec. 13 SI 32,588 

534981 CNX GAS COMPANY LLC No. 13G 47N 72W SW1/4 NE1/4 Sec. 13 SI 13,790 

534983 PEABODY NATURAL GAS LLC No. 13B 47N 72W NW1/4 NE1/4 Sec. 13 SI 20,177 

534990 CNX GAS COMPANY LLC No. 13E 47N 72W SW1/4 NW1/4 Sec. 13 SI 39,530 

534991 CNX GAS COMPANY LLC No. 13D 47N 72W NW1/4 NW1/4 Sec. 13 SI 46,331 

544593 CNX GAS COMPANY LLC No. 13K-D 47N 72W NE1/4 SW1/4 Sec. 13 PS 0 

544594 CNX GAS COMPANY LLC No. 13G-D 47N 72W NW1/4 SE1/4 Sec. 13 PS 0 

544597 CNX GAS COMPANY LLC No. 13G-D 47N 72W SW1/4 NE1/4 Sec. 13 PS 0 

544598 CNX GAS COMPANY LLC No. 13F-D 47N 72W SE1/4 NW1/4 Sec. 13 PS 0 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications G-5 
Appendix G 

CBNG WELLS CAPABLE OF PRODUCTION ON SECTIONS WITHIN AND ADJACENT TO T

BELLE AYR NORTH, WEST COAL CREEK, CABALLO WEST, AND MAYSDORF II LBA TRACTS (C

Api 

Number 

(Short) 

Company Well Name/No. TWP RNG Location WOGCC STATUS 

Cumulati

Producti

Gas 

(MCF) 

556116 CNX GAS COMPANY LLC No. 13F2-D 47N 72W SE1/4 NW1/4 Sec. 13 PS 0 

530430 LORAL OPERATING LLC No. 14-21 47-72 47N 72W NE1/4 NW1/4 Sec. 14 SI 408,292 

530431 LORAL OPERATING LLC No. 14-22 47-72 47N 72W SE1/4 NW1/4 Sec. 14 SI 564,958 

531518 LORAL OPERATING LLC No. 14-42 47N 72W SE1/4 NE1/4 Sec. 14 SI 21,351 

531521 LORAL OPERATING LLC No. 14-41 47N 72W NE1/4 NE1/4 Sec. 14 SI 1,640 

533773 LORAL OPERATING LLC No. 14-32 47N 72W SW1/4 NE1/4 Sec. 14 SI 9,450 

533774 LORAL OPERATING LLC No. 14-31 47N 72W NW1/4 NE1/4 Sec. 14 SP 9,311 

533775 LORAL OPERATING LLC No. 14-12 47N 72W SW1/4 NW1/4 Sec. 14 SP 4,283 

533776 LORAL OPERATING LLC No. 14-11 47N 72W NW1/4 NW1/4 Sec. 14 SP 245 

535662 CNX GAS COMPANY LLC No. 14 I 47N 72W NE1/4 SE1/4 Sec. 14 SI 41,936 

535663 CNX GAS COMPANY LLC No. 14 J 47N 72W NW1/4 SE1/4 Sec. 14 SI 37,087 

535664 CNX GAS COMPANY LLC No. 14 O 47N 72W SW1/4 SE1/4 Sec. 14 SI 31,480 

535665 CNX GAS COMPANY LLC No. 14P 47N 72W SE1/4 SE1/4 Sec. 14 SI 52,255 542844 MTG OPERATING COMPANY No. 14-12C 47N 72W SW1/4 NW1/4 Sec. 14 SP 0 

533607 PRB OIL & GAS INC No. 11-7-48-71A 48N 71W NE1/4 SW1/4 Sec. 7 SI 123,158 533608 PRB OIL & GAS INC No. 4-7-48-71A 48N 71W NW1/4 NW1/4 Sec. 7 SI 6,104 

533609 PRB OIL & GAS INC No. 5-7-48-71A 48N 71W SW1/4 NW1/4 Sec. 7 SI 50,432 

533612 PRB OIL & GAS INC No. 6-7-48-71A 48N 71W SE1/4 NW1/4 Sec. 7 SI 42,142 

533613 PRB OIL & GAS INC No. 7-7-48-71A 48N 71W SW1/4 NE1/4 Sec. 7 SI 59,456 

533614 PRB OIL & GAS INC No. 10-7-48-71A 48N 71W NW1/4 SE1/4 Sec. 7 SI 69,741 

534727 PRB OIL & GAS INC No. 9-7-48-71A 48N 71W NE1/4 SE1/4 Sec. 7 SI 57,080 

534728 PRB OIL & GAS INC No. 14-7-48-71A 48N 71W SE1/4 SW1/4 Sec. 7 SI 100,093 

534729 PRB OIL & GAS INC No. 15-7-48-71A 48N 71W SW1/4 SE1/4 Sec. 7 SI 120,210 

534730 PRB OIL & GAS INC No. 16-7-48-71A 48N 71W SE1/4 SE1/4 Sec. 7 SI 256,365 

535013 PRB OIL & GAS INC No. 13-7-48-71A 48N 71W SW1/4 SW1/4 Sec. 7 SI 40,125 

535014 PRB OIL & GAS INC No. 12-7-48-71A 48N 71W NW1/4 SW1/4 Sec. 7 SI 84,260 

536768 PRB OIL & GAS INC No. 3-7-48-71A 48N 71W NE1/4 NW1/4 Sec. 7 SI 14,936 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Co
CBNG WELLS CAPABLE OF PRODUCTION ON SECTIONS WITHIN AND ADJACENT TO T

BELLE AYR NORTH, WEST COAL CREEK, CABALLO WEST, AND MAYSDORF II LBA TRACTS (C

Api 

Number 

(Short) 

Company Well Name/No. TWP RNG Location WOGCC STATUS 

Cumulati

Producti

Gas 

(MCF) 

538277 PRB OIL & GAS INC No. 1-7-48-71A 48N 71W NE1/4 NE1/4 Sec. 7 SI 275,886 

538715 PRB OIL & GAS INC No. 8-7-48-71A 48N 71W SE1/4 NE1/4 Sec. 7 SI 29,461 

538716 PRB OIL & GAS INC No. 2-7-48-71A 48N 71W NW1/4 NE1/4 Sec. 7 SI 35,368 

538280 PRB OIL & GAS INC No. 3-8-48-71A 48N 71W NE1/4 NW1/4 Sec. 8 SI 273,077 

538281 PRB OIL & GAS INC No. 5-8-48-71A 48N 71W SW1/4 NW1/4 Sec. 8 SI 201,773 

543705 BLACKSTONE OPERATING INC No. 8-32 48N 71W SW1/4 NE1/4 Sec. 8 SI 38,376 

551841 BLACKSTONE OPERATING INC No. 8-43 48N 71W NE1/4 SE1/4 Sec. 8 SI 64,174 551843 BLACKSTONE OPERATING INC No. 8-34 48N 71W SW1/4 SE1/4 Sec. 8 SI 72,295 

554361 BLACKSTONE OPERATING INC No. 8-41 48N 71W NE1/4 NE1/4 Sec. 8 SI 12,307 

557544 PRB OIL & GAS INC No. 34-8-48-71M 48N 71W SW1/4 SE1/4 Sec. 8 PS 0 

554360 BLACKSTONE OPERATING INC No. 9-12 48N 71W SW1/4 NW1/4 Sec. 9 SI 14,368 

554362 BLACKSTONE OPERATING INC No. 9-23 48N 71W NE1/4 SW1/4 Sec. 9 SI 56,542 

542941 BLACKSTONE OPERATING INC No. 16-21 48N 71W NE1/4 NW1/4 Sec. 16 SI 113,693 542942 BLACKSTONE OPERATING INC No. 16-23 48N 71W NE1/4 SW1/4 Sec. 16 SI 92,478 

542944 BLACKSTONE OPERATING INC No. 16-14 48N 71W SW1/4 SW1/4 Sec. 16 SI 100,275 542948 BLACKSTONE OPERATING INC No. 16-12 48N 71W SW1/4 NW1/4 Sec. 16 SI 60,791 

542187 ROCKY MOUNTAIN GAS INC No. 17-14-48-71-A 48N 71W SW1/4 SW1/4 Sec. 17 SI 108,017 

547183 BLACKSTONE OPERATING INC No. 43-17 48N 71W NE1/4 SE1/4 Sec. 17 SI 52,715 

547184 BLACKSTONE OPERATING INC No. 23-17 48N 71W NE1/4 SW1/4 Sec. 17 SI 80,297 

547185 BLACKSTONE OPERATING INC No. 21-17 48N 71W NE1/4 NW1/4 Sec. 17 SI 52,397 

547186 BLACKSTONE OPERATING INC No. 34-17 48N 71W SW1/4 SE1/4 Sec. 17 SI 86,117 

547190 BLACKSTONE OPERATING INC No. 12-17 48N 71W SW1/4 NW1/4 Sec. 17 SI 55,292 

557530 PRB OIL & GAS INC No. 23-17-48-71 M 48N 71W NE1/4 SW1/4 Sec. 17 PS 0 

557531 PRB OIL & GAS INC No. 32-17-48-71 M 48N 71W SW1/4 NE1/4 Sec. 17 PS 0 557532 PRB OIL & GAS INC No. 21-17-48-71 M 48N 71W NE1/4 NW1/4 Sec. 17 PS 0 

557533 PRB OIL & GAS INC No. 12-17-48-71 M 48N 71W SW1/4 NW1/4 Sec. 17 PS 0 557534 PRB OIL & GAS INC No. 43-17-48-71 M 48N 71W NE1/4 SE1/4 Sec. 17 PS 0 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications G-7 
Appendix G 

CBNG WELLS CAPABLE OF PRODUCTION ON SECTIONS WITHIN AND ADJACENT TO T

BELLE AYR NORTH, WEST COAL CREEK, CABALLO WEST, AND MAYSDORF II LBA TRACTS (C

Api 

Number 

(Short) 

Company Well Name/No. TWP RNG Location WOGCC STATUS 

Cumulati

Producti

Gas 

(MCF) 

534731 PRB OIL & GAS INC No. 1-18-48-71 48N 71W NE1/4 NE1/4 Sec. 18 SI 250,20

534732 PRB OIL & GAS INC No. 5-18-48-71A 48N 71W SW1/4 NW1/4 Sec. 18 SI 99,556 

534733 PRB OIL & GAS INC No. 6-18-48-71A 48N 71W SE1/4 NW1/4 Sec. 18 SI 105,148 

534734 PRB OIL & GAS INC No. 7-18-48-71A 48N 71W SW1/4 NE1/4 Sec. 18 SI 100,807 

534735 PRB OIL & GAS INC No. 8-18-48-71A 48N 71W SE1/4 NE1/4 Sec. 18 SI 67,223 

534736 PRB OIL & GAS INC No. 10-18-48-71A 48N 71W NW1/4 SE1/4 Sec. 18 SI 44,148 

534737 PRB OIL & GAS INC No. 9-18-48-71A 48N 71W NE1/4 SE1/4 Sec. 18 SI 36,586 

534738 PRB OIL & GAS INC No. 11-18-48-71A 48N 71W NE1/4 SW1/4 Sec. 18 SI 81,723 

534739 PRB OIL & GAS INC No. 12-18-48-71 48N 71W NW1/4 SW1/4 Sec. 18 SI 159,917 540318 BLACKSTONE OPERATING INC No. 31-18 48N 71W NW1/4 NE1/4 Sec. 18 SI 30,742 

540319 BLACKSTONE OPERATING INC No. 21-18 48N 71W NE1/4 NW1/4 Sec. 18 SI 22,231 

540320 BLACKSTONE OPERATING INC No. 11-18 48N 71W NW1/4 NW1/4 Sec. 18 SI 19,700 

542007 ROCKY MOUNTAIN GAS INC No. 18-34-48-71-A 48N 71W SW1/4 SE1/4 Sec. 18 SI 72,913 

542008 ROCKY MOUNTAIN GAS INC No. 18-44-48-71-A 48N 71W SE1/4 SE1/4 Sec. 18 SI 30,676 

542009 ROCKY MOUNTAIN GAS INC No. 18-24-48-71-A 48N 71W SE1/4 SW1/4 Sec. 18 SI 25,913 

536481 ROCKY MOUNTAIN GAS INC No. 19-12 48N 71W SW1/4 NW1/4 Sec. 19 SI 90,500 

536482 ROCKY MOUNTAIN GAS INC No. 19-13 48N 71W NW1/4 SW1/4 Sec. 19 SI 90,500 

536483 ROCKY MOUNTAIN GAS INC No. 19-14 48N 71W SW1/4 SW1/4 Sec. 19 SI 90,500 

536484 ROCKY MOUNTAIN GAS INC No. 19-22 48N 71W SE1/4 NW1/4 Sec. 19 SI 90,500 

536485 ROCKY MOUNTAIN GAS INC No. 19-23 48N 71W NE1/4 SW1/4 Sec. 19 SI 74,208 

536486 ROCKY MOUNTAIN GAS INC No. 19-24 48N 71W SE1/4 SW1/4 Sec. 19 SI 90,500 

536487 ROCKY MOUNTAIN GAS INC No. 19-32 48N 71W SW1/4 NE1/4 Sec. 19 SI 90,500 

536488 ROCKY MOUNTAIN GAS INC No. 19-33 48N 71W NW1/4 SE1/4 Sec. 19 SI 90,500 

536489 ROCKY MOUNTAIN GAS INC No. 19-34 48N 71W SW1/4 SE1/4 Sec. 19 SI 33,280 

542003 ROCKY MOUNTAIN GAS INC No. 19-41-48-71-A 48N 71W NE1/4 NE1/4 Sec. 19 SI 14,584 

542004 ROCKY MOUNTAIN GAS INC No. 19-42-48-71-A 48N 71W SE1/4 NE1/4 Sec. 19 SI 20,976 

542005 ROCKY MOUNTAIN GAS INC No. 19-31-48-71-A 48N 71W NW1/4 NE1/4 Sec. 19 SI 14,189 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Co
CBNG WELLS CAPABLE OF PRODUCTION ON SECTIONS WITHIN AND ADJACENT TO T

BELLE AYR NORTH, WEST COAL CREEK, CABALLO WEST, AND MAYSDORF II LBA TRACTS (C

Api 

Number 

(Short) 

Company Well Name/No. TWP RNG Location WOGCC STATUS 

Cumulati

Producti

Gas 

(MCF) 

542006 ROCKY MOUNTAIN GAS INC No. 19-21-48-71-A 48N 71W NE1/4 NW1/4 Sec. 19 TA 15,222 

542069 ROCKY MOUNTAIN GAS INC No. 19-11-48-71-A 48N 71W NW1/4 NW1/4 Sec. 19 SI 20,190 

556640 PRB OIL & GAS INC No. 19-23N-48-71 48N 71W NE1/4 SW1/4 Sec. 19 PS 0 

556643 PRB OIL & GAS INC No. 19-33NW-48-71 48N 71W NW1/4 SE1/4 Sec. 19 PS 0 556644 PRB OIL & GAS INC No. 19-32SW-48-71 48N 71W SW1/4 NE1/4 Sec. 19 PS 0 

556645 PRB OIL & GAS INC No. 19-32NW-48-71 48N 71W SW1/4 NE1/4 Sec. 19 PS 0 556646 PRB OIL & GAS INC No. 19-13SW-48-71 48N 71W NW1/4 SW1/4 Sec. 19 PS 0 

556647 PRB OIL & GAS INC No. 19-31SW-48-71 48N 71W NW1/4 NE1/4 Sec. 19 PS 0 

556650 PRB OIL & GAS INC No. 19-22S-48-71 48N 71W SE1/4 NW1/4 Sec. 19 PS 0 

556651 PRB OIL & GAS INC No. 19-22N-48-71 48N 71W SE1/4 NW1/4 Sec. 19 PS 0 556652 PRB OIL & GAS INC No. 19-13NE-48-71 48N 71W NW1/4 SW1/4 Sec. 19 PS 0 

556653 PRB OIL & GAS INC No. 19-12SE-48-71 48N 71W SW1/4 NW1/4 Sec. 19 PS 0 

556654 PRB OIL & GAS INC No. 19-12NE-48-71 48N 71W SW1/4 NW1/4 Sec. 19 PS 0 

556655 PRB OIL & GAS INC No. 19-11SE-48-71 48N 71W NW1/4 NW1/4 Sec. 19 PS 0 

556656 PRB OIL & GAS INC No. 19-21S-48-71 48N 71W NE1/4 NW1/4 Sec. 19 PS 0 

556744 PRB OIL & GAS INC No. 19-12-48-71 48N 71W SW1/4 NW1/4 Sec. 19 PS 0 556745 PRB OIL & GAS INC No. 19-13-48-71 48N 71W NW1/4 SW1/4 Sec. 19 PS 0 

556746 PRB OIL & GAS INC No. 19-22-48-71 48N 71W SE1/4 NW1/4 Sec. 19 PS 0 

556747 PRB OIL & GAS INC No. 19-23-48-71 48N 71W NE1/4 SW1/4 Sec. 19 PS 0 

556748 PRB OIL & GAS INC No. 19-32-48-71 48N 71W SW1/4 NE1/4 Sec. 19 PS 0 

556749 PRB OIL & GAS INC No. 19-33-48-71 48N 71W NW1/4 SE1/4 Sec. 19 PS 0 

542115 ROCKY MOUNTAIN GAS INC No. 20-12-48-71-A 48N 71W SW1/4 NW1/4 Sec. 20 SI 14,694 

542190 ROCKY MOUNTAIN GAS INC No. 20-11-48-71-A 48N 71W NW1/4 NW1/4 Sec. 20 SI 20,965 

542191 ROCKY MOUNTAIN GAS INC No. 20-22-48-71-A 48N 71W SE1/4 NW1/4 Sec. 20 SI 11,799 

547187 BLACKSTONE OPERATING INC No. 21-20 48N 71W NE1/4 NW1/4 Sec. 20 SI 86,025 

547188 BLACKSTONE OPERATING INC No. 32-20 48N 71W SW1/4 NE1/4 Sec. 20 SI 38,030 

547189 BLACKSTONE OPERATING INC No. 41-20 48N 71W NE1/4 NE1/4 Sec. 20 SI 39,085 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications G-9 
Appendix G 

CBNG WELLS CAPABLE OF PRODUCTION ON SECTIONS WITHIN AND ADJACENT TO T

BELLE AYR NORTH, WEST COAL CREEK, CABALLO WEST, AND MAYSDORF II LBA TRACTS (C

Api 

Number 

(Short) 

Company Well Name/No. TWP RNG Location WOGCC STATUS 

Cumulati

Producti

Gas 

(MCF) 

543831 BLACKSTONE OPERATING INC No. 21-21 48N 71W NE1/4 NW1/4 Sec. 21 SI 61,270 

543833 BLACKSTONE OPERATING INC No. 21-12 48N 71W SW1/4 NW1/4 Sec. 21 SI 91,327 

544857 BLACKSTONE OPERATING INC No. 21-32 48N 71W SW1/4 NE1/4 Sec. 21 SI 40,587 

536507 ROCKY MOUNTAIN GAS INC No. 30-11 48N 71W NW1/4 NW1/4 Sec. 30 SI 69,692 

536508 ROCKY MOUNTAIN GAS INC No. 30-12 48N 71W SW1/4 NW1/4 Sec. 30 SI 69,692 

536509 ROCKY MOUNTAIN GAS INC No. 30-13 48N 71W NW1/4 SW1/4 Sec. 30 SI 69,692 

536510 ROCKY MOUNTAIN GAS INC No. 30-14 48N 71W SW1/4 SW1/4 Sec. 30 SI 69,692 

530419 LORAL OPERATING LLC No. 13-12 48-72 48N 72W SW1/4 NW1/4 Sec. 13 SI 833,848 

530470 LORAL OPERATING LLC No. 13-13 48N 72W NW1/4 SW1/4 Sec. 13 SI 93,209 

530523 LORAL OPERATING LLC No. 13-11 48N 72W NW1/4 NW1/4 Sec. 13 SI 631,588 

533053 LORAL OPERATING LLC No. 13-14 48-72 48N 72W SW1/4 SW1/4 Sec. 13 SI 120,654 539382 PRB OIL & GAS INC No. 9-13-48-72A 48N 72W NE1/4 SE1/4 Sec. 13 SI 77,878 

539393 PRB OIL & GAS INC No. 8-13-48-72A 48N 72W SE1/4 NE1/4 Sec. 13 SI 40,669 

539394 PRB OIL & GAS INC No. 15-13-48-72A 48N 72W SW1/4 SE1/4 Sec. 13 SI 87,250 

539395 PRB OIL & GAS INC No. 10-13-48-72A 48N 72W NW1/4 SE1/4 Sec. 13 SI 75,764 

539405 PRB OIL & GAS INC No. 7-13-48-72A 48N 72W SW1/4 NE1/4 Sec. 13 SI 62,410 

539406 PRB OIL & GAS INC No. 3-13-48-72A 48N 72W NE1/4 NW1/4 Sec. 13 SI 55,542 

539407 PRB OIL & GAS INC No. 2-13-48-72A 48N 72W NW1/4 NE1/4 Sec. 13 SI 35,352 

539408 PRB OIL & GAS INC No. 1-13-48-72A 48N 72W NE1/4 NE1/4 Sec. 13 SI 63,781 

541880 LORAL OPERATING LLC No. 13-22 48N 72W SE1/4 NW1/4 Sec. 13 SI 54,379 

542409 ROCKY MOUNTAIN GAS INC No. 13-44-48-72-A 48N 72W SE1/4 SE1/4 Sec. 13 SI 83,713 

544704 ROCKY MOUNTAIN GAS INC No. 13-23 48N 72W NE1/4 SW1/4 Sec. 13 SI 23,722 

544705 ROCKY MOUNTAIN GAS INC No. 13-24 48N 72W SE1/4 SW1/4 Sec. 13 SI 22,543 

542067 ROCKY MOUNTAIN GAS INC No. 24-41-48-72-A 48N 72W NE1/4 NE1/4 Sec. 24 SI 104,180 

542068 ROCKY MOUNTAIN GAS INC No. 24-31-48-72-A 48N 72W NW1/4 NE1/4 Sec. 24 SI 79,438 

542336 ROCKY MOUNTAIN GAS INC No. 24-44-48-72-A 48N 72W SE1/4 SE1/4 Sec. 24 SI 44,586 

542337 ROCKY MOUNTAIN GAS INC No. 24-34-48-72-A 48N 72W SW1/4 SE1/4 Sec. 24 SI 20,588 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Co
CBNG WELLS CAPABLE OF PRODUCTION ON SECTIONS WITHIN AND ADJACENT TO T

BELLE AYR NORTH, WEST COAL CREEK, CABALLO WEST, AND MAYSDORF II LBA TRACTS (C

Api 

Number 

(Short) 

Company Well Name/No. TWP RNG Location WOGCC STATUS 

Cumulati

Producti

Gas 

(MCF) 

542400 ROCKY MOUNTAIN GAS INC No. 24-23-48-72-A 48N 72W NE1/4 SW1/4 Sec. 24 SI 58,338 

542401 ROCKY MOUNTAIN GAS INC No. 24-11-48-72-A 48N 72W NW1/4 NW1/4 Sec. 24 SI 9,368 

542402 ROCKY MOUNTAIN GAS INC No. 24-13-48-72-A 48N 72W NW1/4 SW1/4 Sec. 24 SI 24,575 

542403 ROCKY MOUNTAIN GAS INC No. 24-43-48-72-A 48N 72W NE1/4 SE1/4 Sec. 24 SI 21,622 

542404 ROCKY MOUNTAIN GAS INC No. 24-22-48-72-A 48N 72W SE1/4 NW1/4 Sec. 24 SI 21,045 

542405 ROCKY MOUNTAIN GAS INC No. 24-21-48-72-A 48N 72W NE1/4 NW1/4 Sec. 24 SI 18,614 

542406 ROCKY MOUNTAIN GAS INC No. 24-33-48-72-A 48N 72W NW1/4 SE1/4 Sec. 24 SI 43,460 

542407 ROCKY MOUNTAIN GAS INC No. 24-32-48-72-A 48N 72W SW1/4 NE1/4 Sec. 24 SI 49,287 

542408 ROCKY MOUNTAIN GAS INC No. 24-42-48-72-A 48N 72W SE1/4 NE1/4 Sec. 24 SI 48,386 

544707 ROCKY MOUNTAIN GAS INC No. 24-14 48N 72W SW1/4 SW1/4 Sec. 24 SI 21,327 

536496 ROCKY MOUNTAIN GAS INC No. 25-31 48N 72W NW1/4 NE1/4 Sec. 25 SI 67,993 

536497 ROCKY MOUNTAIN GAS INC No. 25-32 48N 72W SW1/4 NE1/4 Sec. 25 SI 69,692 

536498 ROCKY MOUNTAIN GAS INC No. 25-33 48N 72W NW1/4 SE1/4 Sec. 25 SI 69,692 

536499 ROCKY MOUNTAIN GAS INC No. 25-34 48N 72W SW1/4 SE1/4 Sec. 25 SI 67,993 

536500 ROCKY MOUNTAIN GAS INC No. 25-41 48N 72W NE1/4 NE1/4 Sec. 25 SI 57,016 

536501 ROCKY MOUNTAIN GAS INC No. 25-43 48N 72W NE1/4 SE1/4 Sec. 25 SI 69,692 

536502 ROCKY MOUNTAIN GAS INC No. 25-44 48N 72W SE1/4 SE1/4 Sec. 25 SI 69,692 

544708 ROCKY MOUNTAIN GAS INC No. 25-11 48N 72W NW1/4 NW1/4 Sec. 25 SI 34,024 

544709 ROCKY MOUNTAIN GAS INC No. 25-21 48N 72W NE1/4 NW1/4 Sec. 25 SI 0 

Status Code: FL = Flowing, PR = Pumping Rods, PS = Pumping Submersible, SI = Shut-In , SP = Well Spudded, TA = Temporarily Abandon 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications G-11 
Appendix G 

CONVENTIONAL OIL AND GAS WELLS CAPABLE OF PRODUCTION WITHIN THE BELLE AYR NORTH, W

CABALLO WEST, AND MAYSDORF II LBA TRACTS' GENERAL ANALYSIS AREAS 


Api 

Number 

(Short) 

Company Well Name/No. TWP RNG Location WOGCC STATUS 

Cumulati

Productio

Gas 

(MCF) 

522675 PRIMARY NATURAL RESOURCES INC No. 4-3 46N 70W SW1/4 NE1/4 Sec. 30 PR 12,412 556853 PRIMARY NATURAL RESOURCES INC No. 30-4 46N 70W NE1/4 NE1/4 Sec. 30 PR 69,069 

526188 CHACO ENERGY COMPANY No. 14-11 46N 71W SW1/4 SW1/4 Sec. 11 PR 416,573 526189 CHACO ENERGY COMPANY No. 32-14 46N 71W SW1/4 NE1/4 Sec. 14 PR 1,038,54

524327* BOWDEN ENERGY COMPANY INC No. 34-17 47N 71W SW1/4 SE1/4 Sec. 17 AI 4,228 

524394* BOWDEN ENERGY COMPANY INC No. 2-17 47N 71W NE1/4 SW1/4 Sec. 17 AI 0 

524991 BOWDEN ENERGY COMPANY INC No. 3-17 47N 71W NE1/4 SE1/4 Sec. 17 PR 4,606 

525072 BOWDEN ENERGY COMPANY INC No. 1-17 47N 71W NW1/4 NW1/4 Sec. 17 PH 10,994 

527775* BOWDEN ENERGY COMPANY INC No. 5-17 47N 71W SW1/4 NW1/4 Sec. 17 AI 0 

530089 BOWDEN ENERGY COMPANY INC No. 6-17 47N 71W NW1/4 SW1/4 Sec. 17 PR 3,288 

530110 BOWDEN ENERGY COMPANY INC No. 44-17 47N 71W SE1/4 SE1/4 Sec. 17 PH 18,449 

530225* BOWDEN ENERGY COMPANY INC No. 7-17 47N 71W NW1/4 SE1/4 Sec. 17 AI 598 

529208 BOWDEN ENERGY COMPANY INC No. 1-18 47N 71W NE1/4 SE1/4 Sec. 18 SI 4,177 

529372 BOWDEN ENERGY COMPANY INC No. 2-18 47N 71W SE1/4 SE1/4 Sec. 18 PR 16,174 

530469 BOWDEN ENERGY COMPANY INC No. 3-18 47N 71W NE1/4 NE1/4 Sec. 18 PH 4,623 

532016* BOWDEN ENERGY COMPANY INC No. 1 47N 71W NW1/4 SE1/4 Sec. 18 AI 20,730 

532437 BOWDEN ENERGY COMPANY INC No. VIII 47N 71W NE1/4 NE1/4 Sec. 19 SI 0 

524219 BOWDEN ENERGY COMPANY INC No. 41-20 47N 71W NE1/4 NE1/4 Sec. 20 PH 28,237 

524311 BOWDEN ENERGY COMPANY INC No. 43-20 47N 71W NE1/4 SE1/4 Sec. 20 PR 6,312 

524418 BOWDEN ENERGY COMPANY INC No. 1-20 WSW 47N 71W NE1/4 NW1/4 Sec. 20 PS 0 

524498* BOWDEN ENERGY COMPANY INC No. 2-20 47N 71W SW1/4 NE1/4 Sec. 20 AI 0 

527871* BOWDEN ENERGY COMPANY INC No. 4-20 47N 71W NW1/4 SE1/4 Sec. 20 AI 6,198 

527872 BOWDEN ENERGY COMPANY INC No. 5-20 47N 71W SW1/4 SE1/4 Sec. 20 PH 29,586 

528223 BOWDEN ENERGY COMPANY INC No. 44-20 47N 71W SE1/4 SE1/4 Sec. 20 TA 5,046 

528376 BOWDEN ENERGY COMPANY INC No. 1 47N 71W NW1/4 NE1/4 Sec. 20 TA 136 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Co
CONVENTIONAL OIL AND GAS WELLS CAPABLE OF PRODUCTION WITHIN THE BELLE AYR NORTH, W

CABALLO WEST, AND MAYSDORF II LBA TRACTS' GENERAL ANALYSIS AREAS (CONTIN

Api 

Number 

(Short) 

Company Well Name/No. TWP RNG Location WOGCC STATUS 

Cumulati

Productio

Gas 

(MCF) 

524721 BOWDEN ENERGY COMPANY INC No. 1-21 47N 71W SW1/4 SW1/4 Sec. 21 PR 35,926 

524738 BOWDEN ENERGY COMPANY INC No. 1-28 47N 71W SW1/4 NW1/4 Sec. 28 PR 7,180 

527396* BOWDEN ENERGY COMPANY INC No. 2-28 47N 71W NW1/4 SW1/4 Sec. 28 AI 0 

524593 BOWDEN ENERGY COMPANY INC No. 1-29 47N 71W NE1/4 NE1/4 Sec. 29 PR 0 

528261 BOWDEN ENERGY COMPANY INC No. 2-29 47N 71W NW1/4 NE1/4 Sec. 29 AI 0 

506395 WELLSTAR CORPORATION No. 14-12A 47N 72W SW1/4 SW1/4 Sec. 12 PR 0 

522352 WELLSTAR CORPORATION No. 22-13 47N 72W SE1/4 NW1/4 Sec. 13 PR 0 

530578* WELLSTAR CORPORATION No. 33X-13 47N 72W NW1/4 SE1/4 Sec. 13 AI 0 530912* WELLSTAR CORPORATION No. 11X-13 47N 72W NW1/4 NW1/4 Sec. 13 AI 0 

523424 WILDFIRE PARTNERS INC No. 3 48N 71W SW1/4 NW1/4 Sec. 8 SI 0 

* Injector well - Not capable if production but important to area production Status Code: AI = Active Injector, DH = Dry Hole, PH = Pumping Hydraulic, PR = Pumping Rods, PS = Pumping Submersible, SI = Shut-In , TA = Temporarily Aba

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications G-13 
 

APPENDIX H 

SUPPLEMENTAL AIR QUALITY INFORMATION FOR THE
 

BELLE AYR NORTH, WEST COAL CREEK, CABALLO 


WEST, AND MAYSDORF II LBA TRACTS 

Appendix H 

H-1.0 INTRODUCTION 

The purpose of this appendix is to provide background information on air 

quality issues, including the regulatory framework, regional air quality 

conditions, dispersion model methodologies, and the Best Available Control 

Technology (BACT) process. 

The air quality discussion in Chapter 3 of this Environmental Impact 

Statement (EIS) focuses on potential air quality impacts specific to the Belle 

Ayr, Coal Creek, Caballo, and Cordero Rojo Mines and the Belle Ayr North, 

West Coal Creek, Caballo West, and Maysdorf II Lease by Application (LBA) 

Tracts (Figure H-1). Cumulative air quality-related impacts associated with 

coal leasing in the Powder River Basin (PRB) of Wyoming are addressed in 

Section 4.2.3 of this EIS, which summarizes the results the Task 1A (Current 

Air Quality Conditions) and Task 3-A (Cumulative Air Quality Effects) Reports 

of the Powder River Basin Coal Review, prepared by the ENSR Corporation for 

the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Wyoming State Office, BLM Wyoming 

Casper Field Office, and BLM Montana Miles City Field Office, September 2005. 

H-2.0 REGULATORY FRAMEWORK 

Ambient air quality and air pollution emissions are regulated under federal and 

state laws and regulations. In Wyoming, the Wyoming Department of 

Environmental Quality/Air Quality Division (WDEQ/AQD) is responsible for 

managing air quality through state regulations promulgated in the Wyoming 

Air Quality Standards and Regulations (WAQSR) and through the Wyoming 

SIP. WDEQ/AQD has also been delegated authority by the Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) to implement federal programs of the Clean Air Act 

Amendment (CAAA) of 1990. 

The WDEQ/AQD implements WAQSR and CAAA requirements through various 

air permitting programs. A proponent initiating a project must undergo new 

source review and obtain a pre-construction permit or a permit waiver 

authorizing construction of the project. This process ensures that the project 

will comply with the air quality requirements at the time of construction. To 

ensure on-going compliance, WDEQ/AQD also implements an operating permit 

program that can require on-going monitoring of emissions sources and/or 

source control systems. 

H-2.1 National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

The Clean Air Act (CAA) requires the EPA to establish National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards (NAAQS) to protect public health and welfare. These 

standards define the maximum level of air pollution allowed in the ambient air. 

The Act established NAAQS for six pollutants, known as “criteria” pollutants, 

which “...cause or contribute to air pollution which may be reasonably 

anticipated to endanger public health or welfare and the presence of which in 

the ambient air results from numerous or diverse mobile or stationary 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications H-1 
Converse County Niobrara County 

Weston County 

387 

Appendix H 

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

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 

16 

H-2
Appendix H 

sources.” The six, present-day criteria pollutants are lead, nitrogen dioxide 

(NO2), sulfur dioxide (SO2), carbon monoxide (CO), ozone (O3) and particulate 

matter (PM10 and PM2.5), where PM10 is coarse particulate with mean 

aerodynamic diameters less than 10 microns and PM2.5 is fine particulate with 

a diameter of 2.5 microns or less. 

The CAA and CAAA allow states to promulgate additional ambient air 

standards that are at least as stringent, or more stringent, than the NAAQS. A 

list of the criteria pollutants regulated by the CAA, and the currently applicable 

NAAQS set by the EPA for each, is presented in Table H-1. The Wyoming 

Ambient Air Quality Standards (WAAQS), set by the WDEQ/AQD are also listed 

in this table. In some instances, the Wyoming standards are more stringent 

than the NAAQS. 

During the new source review process, applicants must demonstrate that the 

facility will not cause or significantly contribute to exceedance of these 

standards. These demonstrations are made via atmospheric dispersion 

modeling or other means, including monitoring data approved by the 

WDEQ/AQD administrator. 

H-2.2 Attainment/Non-Attainment Area Designations 

Pursuant to the CAA, the EPA has developed a method for classifying existing 

air quality in distinct geographic regions known as air basins, or air quality 

control regions, and/or Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs). For each federal 

criteria pollutant, each air basin (or portion of a basin or MSA) is classified as 

in “attainment” if the area has “attained” compliance with (that is, not 

exceeded) the adopted NAAQS for that pollutant, or is classified as in “nonattainment” if the levels of ambient air pollution exceed the NAAQS for that 

pollutant. Areas for which sufficient ambient monitoring data are not available 

to define attainment status are designated as “unclassified” for those particular 

pollutants. 

States use the EPA method to designate areas within their borders as being in 

“attainment” or “non-attainment” with the NAAQS. Existing air quality 

throughout most of the PRB in Wyoming, including the South Gillette Area 

Coal analysis area, is designated an attainment area for all pollutants. 

However, the town of Sheridan, Wyoming, located in Sheridan County about 

150 miles northwest of the project area, is a moderate non-attainment area for 

PM10 due to localized sources and activity within the town. There are no other 

non-attainment areas within 150 miles of the project area. 

H-2.3 Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) 

Under requirements of the CAA, the EPA has established PSD rules, intended 

to prevent deterioration of air quality in attainment (and unclassifiable) areas. 

Increases in ambient concentrations of NO2, SO2, and PM10 are limited to 

modest increments above the existing or “baseline” air quality in most 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications H-3 
Appendix H 

Table H-1. Assumed Background Air Pollutant Concentrations, Applicable AAQS, and PSD 

μg/m3). 

Criteria Pollutant Carbon m onoxide

Averaging 

Time1 

1-

hour 

8-hour 

Background 

Concentration 

3,3364 

1,381 

Primary 

NAAQS2 

40,000 10,000 

Secondary 

NAAQS2

40,000 10,000 

WAAQ

S 

40,000 10,000 

PSD C

Increm

----

N itrogen dioxide A nnual

 7

5 100 100 100 2

O zone 8-hour 1326 147 147 157 --

Sulfurdioxide 3-hour 

24-hour 

A nnual 

1417 

717 117 

---

365 

80 

1,300 

------

1,300 

260 

60 

25 

5 2 

PM 10 8 24-hour 

A nnual 

709 

169 

150 

--

150 

--

150 

50 

8 4 

PM 2.5 8 24-hour 

A nnual 

1510 

610 

35 15 

35 15 

65 15 

----

1 A nnualstandardsarenotto beexceeded;short-term standardsarenotto beexceeded m orethanonceperyear.
 

2 Prim arystandardsaredesigned to protectpublichealth;secondarystandardsaredesigned to protectpublicwelfare.
 

3 AllN EPA analysiscom parisonsto thePSD increm entsareintended to evaluateathreshold ofconcernand do notrepresentaregulatoryP

A nalysis.
 

4 D atacollected by A m oco atRyckm anCreekforan eight-m onthperiod during 1978-1979,sum m arized inRileyRidgeEIS (BLM 1983).
 

5 D atacollected atsitelocated 15 SSW ofG illette,Cam pbellCounty,W yom ing,2005-2008.
 

6


 OnO ctober17,2006,EPA published finalrevisionst theNAAQS forparticulatem atterthattookeffectonD ecem ber18,2006.Therev

D a

tacollected atW yodakSite4,Cam pbellCounty,W yom ing,2005-2008 (8-hour4th high). 

7 D atacollected atW yodakSite4,Cam pbellCounty,W yom ing,2005-2008. 8

o 

PM 2.5 standard from 65 to 35μg/m 3 and revokestheannualPM 10 standard of50 μg/m 3. TheStateofW yom ing willenterinto rulem aking

9 D atacollected attheBelleA yrM ine,Cam pbellCounty,W yom ing,2005-2008.
 10 D atacollected attheBelleA yrM ine(SiteBa-4,5n,5s),Cam pbellCounty,W yom ing,2005-2008.
 

Source:(BLM 2005aand W DEQ/AQD)
 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area 
Appendix H 

attainment areas of the country (Class II areas discussed below), and to very 

small incremental increases in pristine attainment areas (Class I areas 

discussed below). 

For the purposes of PSD, the EPA has categorized each attainment area within 

the United States into one of three PSD area classifications. PSD Class I is the 

most restrictive air quality category, and was created by Congress to prevent 

further deterioration of air quality in national and international parks, national 

memorial parks and national wilderness areas of a given size threshold which 

were in existence prior to 1977, or those additional areas which have since 

been designated Class I under federal regulations (40 CFR 52.21). All 

remaining areas outside of the designated Class I boundaries were designated 

Class II areas, which allow a relatively greater deterioration of air quality over 

that in existence in 1977, although still within the NAAQS. No Class III areas, 

which would allow further degradation, have been designated. 

The federal land managers have also identified certain federal assets with Class 

II status as “sensitive” Class II areas for which air quality and/or visibility are 

valued resources. 

Table H-2 is a list of mandatory federal Class I areas, tribal Class I areas, and 

federal Class II areas that are of special interest in the region and their 

distance from the general South Gillette Area Coal analysis area. The closest 

Class I area to the South Gillette Area Coal analysis area is Wind Cave National 

Park in South Dakota, located about 98 miles east-southeast of the site. The 

next closest Class I area is the Northern Cheyenne Indian Reservation (tribal 

federal Class I area), located about 108 miles to the north-northwest. The 

closest sensitive Class II areas are the Devils Tower National Monument, the 

Jewel Cave National Monument, and the Cloud Peak Wilderness Area, which 

are approximately 50 miles northeast, 80 miles east-southeast, and 81 miles 

west of the South Gillette Area Coal analysis area, respectively. 

PSD regulations limit the maximum allowable increase (increment) in ambient 

PM10 in a Class I airshed resulting from major stationary sources or major 

modifications to 4 micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m3) (annual geometric 

mean) and 8 μg/m3 (24-hour average). Increases in other criteria pollutants 

are similarly limited. Specific types of facilities listed in the PSD rules which 

emit, or have the potential to emit, 100 tons per year or more of PM10 or other 

criteria air pollutants, or any other facility which emits, or has the potential to 

emit, 250 tons per year or more of PM10 or other criteria air pollutants, are 

considered major stationary sources and must therefore demonstrate 

compliance with those incremental standards during the new source permitting 

process. However, fugitive emissions are not counted against the PSD major 

source applicability threshold unless the source is so designated by federal rule 

(40 CFR 52.21). As a result, the surface coal mines in the PRB have not been 

subject to permitting under the PSD regulations because the mine emissions 

that are subject to PSD applicability levels fall below these thresholds. 

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

Appendix H 

Table H-2.	 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 Towner 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. 

H-6 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 

1 
 

Appendix H 

H-2.4 Best Available Control Technology (BACT) 

All sources being permitted within Wyoming must meet state-specific BACT 

requirements, regardless of whether the source is subject to state/federal PSD 

review. During new source review, a BACT analysis is developed for the 

proposed project. The BACT analysis must evaluate all control options on the 

basis of technical, economic and environmental feasibility. BACT for mining 

operations in the PRB is largely dictated by categorical control requirements 

defined in the WAQSR. BACT decisions are mandated through the new source 

review pre-construction permit. 

H-2.5 New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) 

The NSPS are a program of “end-of-stack” technology-based controls/ 

approaches required by the CAA and adopted by reference into the WAQSR. 

These standards, which apply to specific types of new, modified or reconstructed stationary sources, require the sources to achieve some base level 

of emissions control. For surface coal mining in the PRB, this includes certain 

activities at coal preparation plants. Specifically, the applicable requirements 

can be found at 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart Y (Standards of Performance for Coal 

Preparation Plants), and in the WAQSR. However, in Wyoming these standards 

are typically less stringent than state-level BACT limits. 

H-2.6 Federal Operating Permit Program 

The CAAA of 1990 required the establishment of a facility-wide permitting 

program for larger sources of pollution. This program, known as the Federal 

Operating Permit Program, or “Title V” (codified at Title V of the 1990 CAAA), 

requires that “major sources” of air pollutants obtain a federal operating 

permit. Under this program, a “major source” is a facility that has the potential 

to emit more than 100 tpy of any regulated pollutant, 10 tpy of any single HAP, 

or 25 tpy or more of any combination of HAPs, from applicable sources. An 

operating permit is a compilation of all applicable air quality requirements for a 

facility and requires an ongoing demonstration of compliance through testing, 

monitoring, reporting and recordkeeping requirements. The potential to emit 

for PM10 under the existing air quality permits for the Belle Ayr, Coal Creek, 

Caballo, and Cordero Rojo Mines were well below the 100 tpy applicability 

threshold. 

H-2.7 Summary of Pre-Construction Permitting Procedures 

The WDEQ/AQD administers a permitting program to assist the agency in 

managing the state’s air resources. Under this program, anyone planning to 

construct, modify, or use a facility capable of emitting designated pollutants 

into the atmosphere must obtain an air quality permit to construct. Coal 

mines fall into this category. A new coal mine, or a modification to an existing 

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

Appendix H 

mine, must be permitted by WDEQ/AQD, pursuant to the provisions of 

WAQSR Chapter 6, Section 2. Under these provisions, a successful permittee 

must demonstrate that it will comply with all applicable aspects of the WAQSR 

including state and federal ambient air standards. 

When a permittee decides to construct a new surface coal mine or modify 

operations at an existing surface coal mine that will cause an increase in 

pollutant emissions, they must submit an application, which is reviewed by 

WDEQ/AQD new source review staff and the applicable WDEQ/AQD field 

office. Typically, a company will meet with the WDEQ/AQD prior to submitting 

an application to determine issues and details that need to be included in the 

application. A surface coal mining application will include the standard 

application, BACT measures that will be implemented, an inventory of point 

and fugitive sources for the mine in question as well as neighboring mines and 

other sources, and air quality modeling analyses addressing cumulative 

impacts in the mining region. 

BACT must be employed at all sources permitted/exempted in Wyoming. Per 

WAQSR Chapter 6, Section 2, BACT at large mining operations typically 

include but may not be limited to: paving of access roads, treating of haul 

routes with chemical dust suppressant (and water) and storage of large 

amounts of materials/coal awaiting shipment in enclosures such as silos, 

troughs or barns. These (and other) mitigation measures are considered in the 

development of emission inventories used for modeling/permitting. 

For the modeling analyses, an applicant must compile an emission inventory of 

PM10 from their mining operation, neighboring mines and other surrounding 

sources. For PM10 from the applicant mine, both point source and fugitive dust 

emissions are quantified. The emissions are based on the facility’s potential to 

emit in each year of the life of mine (LOM). The applicant also examines the 

surrounding coal mining operations and their previous air quality permits to 

determine their emissions throughout the LOM. Two or more worst-case years 

(generally with the highest potential emissions) are then modeled in detail. 

Other surrounding emission sources, such as power plants, compressor 

stations, paved highways, long-haul railroad lines and municipalities are also 

considered in the modeling analysis. 

Coal mines in the PRB are also required to quantify NOx emissions from their 

operations. Dispersion modeling is required to demonstrate compliance with 

the ambient NO2 standard. Potential emissions from diesel powered mining 

equipment, blasting and locomotive emissions (on mine property) are 

considered in the modeling analyses. In a fashion similar to the PM10 analysis, 

neighboring mining operations and other surrounding sources are also 

included in the NOx /NO2 analysis. 

H-8 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
 

Appendix H 

Long-term PM10 modeling is conducted for the permit application to 

demonstrate compliance with the annual PM10 standard. For both point and 

area sources, the Industrial Source Complex Long Term model, version 3 

(ISCLT3) is typically used. 

The AQD has recently required all mines in the PRB to “submit and justify a 

background PM10 concentration with each permit application” (WDEQ-AQD, 

2006b). Based on monitoring from 2001 through 2004 at the Belle Ayr Mine, a 

site specific PM10 background concentration of 15 μg/m3 was developed in the 

modeling analysis for the Belle Ayr, Coal Creek, and Cordero Rojo Mines, while 

a background concentration of 14.4 μg/m3 was developed for the Caballo Mine. 

The modeling results are added to the background and compared to the annual 

standard. Likewise, compliance with the annual NO2 standard is verified using 

ISCLT3 and an NO2 background concentration of 20 μg/m3. 

Short-term PM10 modeling is not required by WDEQ-AQD, nor does WDEQAQD consider it to be an accurate representation of short-term impacts. 

Section 234 of the 1990 CAAA mandates the administrator of the EPA to 

analyze the accuracy of short-term modeling of fugitive particulate emissions 

from surface coal mines. A June 26, 1996 letter from EPA Region VIII to 

Wyoming state representative, Ms. Barbara Cubin, details the results of an EPA 

study wherein the short-term model failed to meet evaluation criteria and 

tended to significantly overpredict 24-hour impacts of surface coal mines. The 

memorandum of agreement of January 24, 1994 between EPA Region VIII and 

the state of Wyoming allows WDEQ-AQD to conduct monitoring in lieu of shortterm modeling for assessing coal mining-related impacts in the PRB. This 

agreement remains in effect and ambient particulate monitoring is required of 

each coal mine through conditions of their respective permits. The 1994 

Memorandum of Agreement also requires WDEQ/AQD to implement “Best 

Available Work Practice” mitigation measures at any mine where an exceedance 

of the PM10 air quality standard has occurred. 

The permit application is reviewed by WDEQ/AQD to determine compliance 

with all applicable air quality standards and regulations. This includes review 

of compliance with emission limitations established by NSPS, review of 

compliance with ambient standards through modeling analyses, and 

establishment of control measures to meet BACT requirements. The 

WDEQ/AQD proposed permit conditions are sent to public notice for a 30-day 

review period after which a final decision on the permit is made (or a public 

hearing is held prior to a final permit decision). 

The Belle Ayr, Coal Creek, Caballo, and Cordero Rojo Mines have prepared 

permit applications and conducted air quality modeling analyses when mine 

plan changes have dictated and as required by WDEQ/AQD. These 

applications and analyses demonstrate that mining operations have complied, 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications H-9 
 

Appendix H 

and will continue to comply, with all applicable aspects of the WAQSR and the 

federal CAAA. 

In conducting an analysis of air quality impacts in the PRB for the Wyoming 

and Montana BLM, the Task 1a Report for the Powder River Basin Coal Review 

reports a background concentration of 5 μg/m3 for NOx for the entire PRB. The 

air permit actions for the Belle Ayr, Coal Creek, and Cordero Rojo Mines used a 

background concentration of 15 μg/m3 for PM10 and the Caballo Mine used a 

background concentration of 14.4 μg/m3. These concentrations are based on 

recently monitored values in Gillette, Wyoming and at the Belle Ayr, Coal 

Creek, Caballo, and Cordero Rojo Mines, and include all sources operating at 

the time the value was measured, including existing coal mine operations 

located around Gillette. 

H-2.8 Natural Events Action Plan (NEAP) 

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 for the coal mines of the PRB, based on EPA Natural Event 

Policy guidance. The plan was submitted to and approved by EPA. A report 

describing the plan can be accessed on the WDEQ/AQD’s website on the 

Internet (<http://deq.state.wy.us/AQD/NEAP%20Files/1-23-07NEAP.pdf>). 

The Natural Events Action Plan recognizes that certain NAAQS exceedances 

due to natural events are uncontrollable. While all practical mitigation 

measures need be implemented during those events, the exceedances should 

not be considered against the NAAQS attainment designation for the region. 

Specific NEAP goals include: 

 Provide for the protection of public health, 

 Develop public information program, 

 Provide a mechanism for “flagging” exceedances due to uncontrollable 

natural events, 

 Implement Best Available Control Measures (BACM) and Reactionary 

Control Measures (RACM) based on the severity of the event, and 

 Provide mechanism for excluding flagged data when they meet 

specific wind speed criteria and BACM and RACM are in place. 

The Natural Events Action Plan identifies, in addition to the BACT measures 

generally included in individual mine air quality permits, two other categories 

of control measures designed to prevent exceedances during high wind events 

(WDEQ/AQD 2007). One of these, BACM, is an additional list of control 

measures that the mines can implement continuously so that they are in place 

before a high wind event occurs. These measures are not current requirements 

H-10 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
Appendix H 

in all of the mines’ air quality permits. They primarily address the principal 

mine-controlled sources of fugitive dust, which are large contiguous disturbed 

areas. These measures include: 

1.	 Stabilizing topsoiled area as soon as practicable following topsoil 

replacement. 

2.	 Ripping, windrowing, mulching, temporarily seeding or chemically 

treating areas greater than 300 contiguous acres in size that have 

been stripped of topsoil but will not be mined in the near future. 

3.	 Ripping, windrowing, temporarily seeding or chemically treating 

graded backfill areas greater than 300 contiguous acres in size. 

4.	 Ripping, mulching, temporarily seeding or chemically treating longterm out-of-pit overburden and topsoil stockpiles that have been 

graded. 

5.	 Applying non-vegetative barriers such as gravel or other largediameter particles to erodible surfaces to reduce surface erosion 

where appropriate. 

6.	 Cleaning, treating, and maintaining pads in front of truck dumps to 

prevent accumulations of spilled materials from getting pulverized. 

7.	 Scheduling topsoil removal, backfill grading and topsoil replacements 

concurrently to minimize open areas when possible. 

8.	 Requiring contractors to apply water and/or chemical dust 

suppressants in their haulage areas. 

The second additional category of control measures discussed in the Natural 

Events Action Plan includes measures that are not currently required by all 

individual air quality permits but are actions that can be taken during a high 

wind event, depending on site specific conditions (WDEQ/AQD 2007). These 

include: 

1.	 The mine operator will consider relevant information, including 

National Weather Service (NWS) forecasts and local meteorological 

information, to confirm that a high wind event is occurring. 

2.	 The mine operator will visually determine areas of mining activity that 

are generating excessive visible dust and direct water trucks to those 

areas. 

3.	 The mine operator should direct overburden operations to the 

shortest haul distance available during a high wind event. 

4.	 The mine operator will evaluate the practicality of dumping the 

overburden as low as possible. 

5.	 Mine employees will inspect for and extinguish coal fires. 

6.	 The mine operator will evaluate shutting down scoria crushing 

operations that appear to be generating excess dust. 

7.	 The mine operator will evaluate shutting down road maintenance 

activities that are generating dust. 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications H-11 
Appendix H 

8.	 The mine operator will evaluate ordering contractors to increase 

water, reduce operating equipment or shut down haulage. 

9.	 The mine operator will evaluate the need to shut down and/or reduce 

earthmoving activities as the mine schedule and conditions will allow. 

If a Natural Events Action Plan is designed and implemented to minimize PM10 

concentrations, EPA will exercise its discretion, under Section 107(d)(3) of the 

CAA, not to redesignate areas as nonattainment, provided that the exeedances 

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. 

The WDEQ/AQD Natural Events Action Plan includes a public education plan, 

a public notification and health advisory program, and a plan to abate or 

minimize appropriate contributing controllable sources of PM10, which includes 

three categories of control measures. The Natural Events Action Plan approved 

by EPA only includes measures for control of coal mine sources since it is the 

ambient monitoring systems around the large surface coal mines that have 

recorded the exceedances of the 24-hour PM10 NAAQS. If it is demonstrated 

that there are non-coal sources contributing to elevated measurements in an 

area of concern, WDEQ/AQD may address these additional sources separately 

from the approved Natural Events Action Plan or as a future update of the 

plan. 

H-3.0 EXISTING AIR QUALITY 

H-3.1 Regional Particulates 

The federal and state standards for particulate matter pollutant are discussed 

in Chapter 3, Section 3.4.2.1 of the EIS. 

As a result of WDEQ/AQD requirements for the PRB mines to collect air quality 

data, which is discussed in Section 3.4.2.3 of the EIS, the eastern PRB is one 

of the most intensely monitored areas in the world. There are numerous 

monitors located at and adjacent to mining operations in the PRB, as shown in 

Figure H-2. According to EPA AirData, in 2007 there were six total suspended 

particulates (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. Table H-3 summarizes the annual arithmetic average of these 

data from 1980 through 2007 of all sites located at Campbell and Converse 

County mining operations. 

H-12 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
Appendix H 

CROOK 

COUNTY 

WESTON 

COUNTY 

NIOBRARA 

COUNTY 

SHERIDAN 

COUNTY 

JOHNSON 

COUNTY 

NATRONA 

COUNTY 

CAMPBELL 

COUNTY 

CONVERSE 

COUNTY 

CASPER DOUGLAS 

GILLETTE BUFFALO 

SHERIDAN 

MONTANA 

SOUTH DAKOTA 

LEGEND 

PM10 Monitoring Station, Active in 2006 

0 12.5 25 50

GRAPHIC SCALE (MILES) 

Source: EPA(2007) 

PM2.5 Monitoring Station, Active in 2006 

Figure H-2. Active Particulate Monitoring Stations in Northeastern Wyoming. 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications H-13
 

 

 

Appendix H 

Table H-3. Summary of WDEQ/AQD Reports on Air Quality Monitoring for 

Surface Coal Mines1 in Wyoming's PRB, 1980-2007. 

Number of Mines Number of 

Coal Overburden Operating/ TSP/PM10 TSP PM10 

Produced Moved Monitoring TSP/ Monitoring Average Average 

Year (mmtpy) (mmbcy) Monitoring PM101 Sites2 (μg/m3) (μg/m3) 

1980 58.7 105.3 10/14/0 34/0 35.5 na3 

1981 71.0 133.4 11/13/0 35/0 39.4 na 

1982 76.1 141.1 11/14/0 40/0 31.2 na 

1983 84.9 150.9 13/14/1 41/1 32.6 11.2 

1984 105.3 169.5 14/16/1 42/1 33.9 11.1 

1985 113.0 203.4 16/17/0 49/0 32.3 na 

1986 111.2 165.7 16/17/0 45/0 29.3 na 

1987 120.7 174.6 16/17/0 43/0 31.7 na 

1988 138.8 209.7 16/17/0 43/0 37.7 na 

1989 147.5 215.6 15/17/3 40/3 32.1 15.9 

1990 160.7 220.1 17/17/5 47/5 34.3 14.8 

1991 171.4 242.3 17/17/5 46/6 32.7 16.5 

1992 166.1 296.0 17/17/7 41/7 31.7 15.9 

1993 188.8 389.5 17/17/8 40/11 27.8 14.5 

1994 213.6 483.9 17/18/8 44/11 31.7 15.5 

1995 242.6 512.7 16/18/8 41/12 29.6 12.9 

1996 257.0 605.4 17/18/8 41/12 35.4 16.0 

1997 259.7 622.0 16/17/10 39/15 33.3 15.9 

1998 293.5 669.0 16/17/12 36/17 33.9 15.9 

1999 317.1 762.9 15/17/12 36/18 55.3 21.6 

2000 322.6 868.9 15/15/12 31/17 56.1 23.4 

2001 354.1 927.7 12/11/12 29/29 57.5 27.2 

2002 359.7 1,032.1 13/11/13 23/38 56.0 23.3 

2003 363.6 1,044.2 13/10/13 16/34 51.9 20.8 

2004 381.6 1,184.4 13/6/13 7/33 --4 20.3 

2005 390.3 1,147.6 12/6/12 7/33 --4 21.5 

2006 431.9 1,256.7 13/5/13 6/33 --4 24.2 

2007 436.5 1,268.5 14/4/14 4/33 --4 25.2 

1	 Mines include Buckskin, Rawhide, Eagle Butte, Dry Fork, Fort Union (acquired by Dry 

Fork), Clovis Point (acquired by Wyodak), Wyodak, Caballo, Belle Ayr, Caballo Rojo, 

Cordero (Caballo Rojo now combined with Cordero), Coal Creek, Jacobs Ranch, Black 

Thunder, North Rochelle, North Antelope, Rochelle (North Rochelle, North Antelope & 

Rochelle now combined), Antelope, and Dave Johnston (no longer producing coal). 

2	 Some sites include more than one sampler, so the number of samplers is greater than 

the number of sites. 

3	 Not applicable because no monitoring for PM10 was done. 

4	 Data no longer pertinent due to paucity of monitoring sites. 

Sources:	 1980 through 1996 emissions and production data from April 1997 report 

prepared by WMA for WDEQ/AQD. 1997 through 2007 emissions data from EPA 

AirData and WDEQ/AQD databases (EPA 2005a, WDEQ/AQD 2005c). 1997 

through 2007 production data from WDEQ/AQD and Wyoming State Inspector of 

Mines (WDEQ/AQD 2005c and 2008 and Wyoming Department of Employment 

1997-2004). 

H-14 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
Appendix H 

As indicated in Table H-3, the long-term trend in particulate emissions 

remained relatively flat through 1998. The overall average annual TSP 

concentration was 33.1 μg/m3 from 1980 through 1998, with annual averages 

ranging between 27.8 μg/m3 and 39.4 μg/m3. There were increases in 1988 

and 1996, which may have been the result of fires in the region during those 

years. Annual average PM10 concentrations from 1989 through 1998 were 

similarly relatively flat, ranging between 12.9 μg/m3 and 16.5 μg/m3, with an 

overall average of 15.4 μg/m3. 

The 1980-1998 time period was associated with significant growth in the 

surface coal mining industry. Coal production increased from about 59 million 

tons per year (mmtpy) to over 293 mmtpy (an increase of almost 400 percent), 

and associated overburden production increased from 105 million bank cubic 

yards (mmbcy) to 669 mmbcy per year (an increase of over 537 percent). From 

1990 through 2007, the average annual increase in coal production was 6.3 

percent, while annual overburden production increased an average of 11.3 

percent over the same time period. The larger annual increase in overburden 

production is probably due to the fact that the mines are gradually moving into 

deeper coals as the shallower reserves are mined out. 

The relatively flat trend in particulate emissions from 1980 through 1998 is 

due in large part to the Wyoming Air Quality Program that requires BACT at all 

permitted facilities. BACT control measures, which include watering and 

chemical treatment of roads, limiting the amount of area disturbed, temporary 

revegetation of disturbed areas to reduce wind erosion, and timely final 

reclamation, are discussed in Section 3.4.2.3 of the EIS. 

The average annual TSP concentration increased from 33.9 μg/m3 in 1998 to 

55.3 μg/m3 in 1999, and remained greater than 50.0 μg/m3 through 2003, 

when tracking of TSP concentrations was discontinued. The average annual 

PM10 concentration was 15.9 μg/m3 in 1998 and peaked in 2001 (27.2 μg/m3) 

and have been less than 27.2 μg/m3 since that time as shown in Table H-3. 

The increases in coal production over the last 5 years (an average of 4.0 

percent per year and 15.4 mmtpy per year over the 5-year period) and 

associated overburden production (an average of 6.6 percent per year and 68.8 

mmbcy per year over the 5-year period) were less than a majority of the 

previous 20 5-year running average periods, but the particulate concentrations 

remained relatively constant. There were no major fires in the region between 

1998 and 2005 but major fires were experienced in the region in 2006 and 

2007. There was an increase in CBNG development in the PRB between 1998 

and 2005 and northeastern Wyoming has experienced extreme drought 

conditions as well as a dramatic increase in surface disturbance activities 

associated with CBNG development since 1999. All of these factors have 

exacerbated particulate emissions. 

There were no monitored exceedances of the 24-hour PM10 standards anywhere 

in the Wyoming PRB through year 2000. From 2001 through 2006, there were 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications H-15 
Appendix H 

29 monitored exceedances of the 24-hour PM10 standard, at seven operating 

mines and in 2007 a total of 11 exceedances were reported at six mines. A 

majority of the 29 exceedances reported between 2001 and 2006 were 

associated with elevated winds exceeding 20 mph, which could have qualified 

as a high wind event under the NEAP. Of the 11 exceedances reported in 2007 

within the PRB, five have been designated as exceptional events by EPA under 

the NEAP and will be treated as uncontrollable natural events (not considered 

when determining the region’s air quality designation). Five of the remaining 

six exceedances are currently under review by EPA and may be designated as 

an exceptional event under the NEAP (Shamley 2008). Within the PRB, 27 of 

30 of the valid exceedances (not considered exceptional events under NEAP) 

took place in the group of mines located south and east of the town of Wright; 

the remaining three valid exceedances occurred in the group of mines located 

north of Gillette (Figure H-1). 

There were no monitored exceedances of the 24-hour PM10 standards anywhere 

in the Wyoming PRB through year 2000. From 2001 through 2006, there were 

29 monitored exceedances of the 24-hour PM10 standard, at seven operating 

mines and in 2007 a total of 11 exceedances were reported at six mines. A 

majority of the 29 exceedances reported between 2001 and 2006 were 

associated with elevated winds exceeding 20 mph, which could have qualified 

as a high wind event under the NEAP. Of the 11 exceedances reported in 2007 

within the PRB, five have been designated as exceptional events by EPA under 

the NEAP and will be treated as uncontrollable natural events (not considered 

when determining the region’s air quality designation). Five of the remaining 

six exceedances are currently under review by EPA and may be designated as 

an exceptional event under the NEAP (Shamley 2008). Within the PRB, 27 of 

30 of the valid exceedances (not considered exceptional events under NEAP) 

took place in the group of mines located south and east of the town of Wright; 

the remaining three valid exceedances occurred in the group of mines located 

north of Gillette (Figure H-1). 

H-3. 2 Regional NOX and O3 Concentrations 

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, motor vehicles produce about 55 percent of the manmade NOx emissions, 

utilities and industrial/commercial/residential activities each produce about 

22 percent of the manmade NOx emissions, and other sources account for the 

remaining 1 percent of the manmade emissions (EPA 2007b). 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. O3 has been included in discussions on concentrations 

of NOX since NOX is one of the main ingredients involved in the formation of 

ground level O3. 

H-16 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
 

Appendix H 

Blasting that is done to remove the material overlying the coal (the overburden) 

can result in emissions of several products, including NO2, as a result of the 

incomplete combustion of nitrogen-based 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. 

NO2 is a product of incomplete combustion at sources such as gasoline- and 

diesel-burning engines or from mine blasting activities. Incomplete combustion 

during blasting may be caused by wet conditions in the overburden, 

incompetent or fractured geological formations, deformation of bore holes, and 

blasting agent factors. Generally, blasting-related NOx emissions are more 

prevalent at operations that use the blasting technique referred to as cast 

blasting (Chancellor 2003). Cast blasting refers to a type of direct blasting in 

which the blast is designed to cast the overburden from on top of the coal into 

the previously mined area. The Belle Ayr Mine has never conducted cast 

blasting but may use that blasting procedure in the future. 

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. 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 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 H-1). The 2002 

through 2008 data from this regional network are summarized in Table H-4. 

With respect to the general South Gillette analysis area, the Thunder Basin 

National Grassland Site is approximately 41 miles north-northeast, the South 

Campbell County Site is approximately 8 miles west, and the Tracy Ranch Site 

is approximately 29 miles southeast. 

In the mid-to late-1990s, OSM received complaints from several citizens about 

blasting clouds from several mines in the PRB. EPA expressed concerns that 

NO2 levels in some of those blasting clouds may have been sufficiently high at 

times to cause human health effects. In response to those concerns, several 

studies have been conducted, the mines have modified their blasting 

techniques, and the WDEQ has imposed blasting restrictions on several mines. 

More information about these studies and restrictions is presented in the 

following discussion. 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications H-17 
Appendix H 

Table H-4. 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 (2009) 

2 Monitor values from TBCC (2009) 

On the order of the Director of the WDEQ, members of the mining industry in 

the PRB conducted a comprehensive, multi-year monitoring and modeling 

study of NO2 exposures from blast clouds. 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. Monitors for that 

study were located close to blasts in order to collect data for a modeling project; 

they were located within the mine permit boundary in areas that are not and 

would not be accessible to the public during mining operations and these areas 

are also cleared of employees during blasting. The measured NOX levels ranged 

from non-detectable to 21.4 ppm. The highest value was measured 361 feet 

from the blast. 

Using a combination of NO2 measurements collected near 91 blast sites (78 

valid runs) and a conservative modeling/extrapolation approach, the authors 

developed a series of “safe” setback curves for coal, overburden and cast shots 

for various wind speed classes. The curves were derived from the sampled 

data, conservative projections of concentrations at greater/lesser distances 

than measured and an assumed safe level (based on a comprehensive review of 

available health effects data) of 5.0 ppm for 10 minutes. 

Subsequently, the data in the 2002 report (collected at the Black Thunder 

Mine) were augmented with monitored data/analyses from an additional 45 

validated blast events at the Eagle Butte, North Antelope Rochelle, Buckskin 

and Cordero-Rojo mines. New curves, based on the entire basin-wide data set 

encompassing 123 valid tests, were developed but differed only slightly from 

the original Black Thunder curves. 

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 

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

Appendix H 

Ayr, Coal Creek, and Cordero Rojo mines. There were two complaints of public 

exposure to NO2 at the Caballo Mine prior to September 2007 (Emme 2009). 

WDEQ/AQD investigated these complaints of NO2 exposure resulting from cast 

blasting at the Caballo Mine and 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 exposure, to date. 

Measures that are used by the mines to control NO2 emissions related to 

blasting by the PRB mines are discussed in Chapter 3, Section 3.4.3.3 of the 

EIS. 

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 operated and maintained ambient air quality monitor sites in the 

PRB since 2001 (Table H-5). 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 H-5. 2001 Through 2008 Annual 4th Max, 8-Hour O3 Value (ppm). 

Site Address 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 

Thunder Basin National 

Grassland1 0.069 0.071 0.074 0.065 0.063 0.072 0.072 0.074 

South Campbell County1 -- -- 0.077 0.061 0.063 0.065 0.072 0.064 

1 Monitor values from EPA (2009) 

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 

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications H-19 
Appendix H 

were recorded (Table H-5). If the strengthened 2008 standard was applied 

retroactively, one exceedance would have occurred in 2003 at the South 

Campbell County site (Table H-5). 

H-4.0 REFERENCES AND LITERATURE CITED 

All references cited within this appendix are included within Section 6.0 of this 

EIS. 

H-20 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
APPENDIX I 

COMMENT LETTERS ON THE 

DRAFT EIS AND RESPONSES 
, j 

1'-, -"-'_ . 

FOUNDA TlON COAL WEST, INC. 

BeIe Ayr & EBQIe Butte Mnes 

P.o. Box 3030 

GIIeIIe, WY 82717-3039 

December. 23. 2008 

Theresa Johnson 

Bureau of Land Management 

Casper District Office 

2987 Prospector D~e 

Casper, WY 82604 

RE: Draft South Gillette Area EIS Comments 

Dear Ms. Johnson: 

Please accept the following comments on the .Draft EIS. The comments are generally directed 

toward sections of the EIS that are specifIC to the Belle Ayr Mine. 

1 

PaM ES-34. paraGraph 5; There is a statement that adverse noise Impacts would occur if 

mining occurs within 2500 feet of dwellings. This statement appears to be in conflict with the 

statements made on page 3-218. Table 3-17 points out potential impacts. Are potential A 

impacts considered adverse? The last sentence on page 3-218 states -Because of the 

remoteness of the LBA tracts and because mining is already ongoing in the area noise would 

have few off-site impacts-. The statements on these two separate pages don't seem to 

comptinent each other. 

p. 1.5. StctIon 1.1.1 Belle Ayr North Tract The discussion of minable and recoverable 

tone COI

nd

ntai

1

·

58

"'1 witHhHo!" the as a~ folyr tractThese If Bish~ Road is not mobeVedinstates

nfti 

168 •. 2 mTi::B 

tons a . m n tons respective . estimates appear to COllet 

ES-2 and the discussion of tons on page 2-10. Table ES-2 and page 2-10 list the minable and 

recoverable tons as 164.7 million tons and 154.8 million tons respectively. 

PlAt 2-12. paragraPh 2; The discussion states that all crushing operations and conveying, 3 C 

transferring and storage facilities at Belle Ayr Mine are equipped with atomlzerlfoggers. This is 

incorrect. Belle Ayr utilizes baghouses. atomizerlfoggers. and PEe's as control equipment 

Pa. 3-2. """,ph 1; The nOO1ber of acres under lease as it appears was confusing until 

the footnote on Table 3-1 was read. It might be helpful to state that the lease acnt8 are 

comprIeed of federal. state and private coal on page 3-2 paragraph 4. Table ES-2 states D 

4,946.5 acnt8. Please check the lease acres as Belle Ayr's records show 4,845.5 acres. 

Belle Ayr records may be incorrect but please confirm. Page 2-13, paragraph 3 again states 

the lease acres at approximately 4,946?, 

PaM 3-•• Stc1Ion 3.12,1.1 BtIIt Ayr North Tract; The write-up 88 presented appears to) E 

not be using the latest survey in~. It states 54 acres of the general analysis area .. 

~OUNDATION CC)AL 

Phone: 307.887.3400 Fax: 307.tJB7.3470 
1 1 

not being surveyed at a Class III level. It further states that areas previously surveyed at a 

Clasa III level prior to 1980 may be substandard in terms of current methodology. Belle Ayr 

has surveyed the project area to a Class III level and has resurveyed specific areas Identified 

by the Buffalo Field Office to be substandard. The DEIS was published October 2008 and the E 

latest survey Infonnatlon was finalized November 2008. Belle Ayr reconvnende the FInal EIS 

be updated with the information that was submitted following consultation with the Buffalo FIeld 

OffIce Archeologist. Additionally, please note that the text stated that the Sawyer Expedition 

Trail (48CA1570) is unevaluated for the NRHP. This may be the case but survey information 

suggests that the site might not be located in the project area. 

If you have any questions regarding the comments please feel free to contact me at 307-687-

3410. 

Sincerely, 

. ') alL '-,< ,.... v . ~ ._->c~\.. _ ..__ 

William L. Boger 

Environmental Manager 

Cc: File 

John Berry, WWC 

t:60NDATION COAL 

Ptton.: 307 . ..,.3«Jt) Fax: 307.".3470 
 

 

 

 

Response to Comment Letter 1: Foundation Coal West 

Comment Response 1A: The statement on page ES-34 does state that an 

adverse noise impact would occur to dwellings and businesses located within 

2,500 feet of mining activities. As depicted on Table 3-17, an adverse impact 

would occur to the buildings located near West Coal Creek and Maysdorf II as 

the LBA tracts are above the 55 dBA level designated by the EPA. A statement 

has been added to the “Noise” section of the Executive Summary for 

clarification. Also, the text in Section 3.14.1 states that “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).” 

Comment Response 1B: A revision has been made to Section 1.1.1 to correct 

the error in the coal tonnages. It now states, “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.” 

Comment Response 1C: A revision has been made to Section 2.1.1 in the 

paragraph where it talks about coal being produced from the WyodakAnderson coal seam in the final EIS to include baghouses, atomizer/foggers, 

and PECs (pass enclosure control systems) as control equipment. 

Comment Response 1D: A revision has been made in Chapter 3 in the 

discussions for Belle Ayr, Coal Creek, Caballo, and Cordero Rojo to clarify that 

the lease acreage includes federal, state, and private coal. The acreage figure 

(4,945.5) is correct according to our records. 

Comment Response 1E: Section 3.12.1.1 EIS has been updated with the 

November 2008 cultural resources survey information. Also, the reference to 

the Sawyer Expedition Trail was removed. The removal of the Sawyer 

Expedition Trail resulted in revisions to the number of cultural resources sites. 
under the Clean Air Act. With literally the fate of our planet at stake, the DEIS must be revised 

to properly evaluate the global warming impacts of all reasonably foreseeable consequences of 

leasing the LBA Tracts. 

I. The DEIS Falls to Adequately Describe Global Warming as Part of the Environmental 

Setting. 

The warming of our climate system is unequivocal.2 There have been significant increases in 

global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global 

average sea level.3 Eleven of the past twelve years rank among the warmest in the instrumental 

record of global surface temperature, and it is likely that average temperatures in the Northern 

Hemisphere have been the highest in at least the past 1,300 years.4 On August 17, 2007, the 

National Snow and Ice Data Center ("NSIDC',) reported that Arctic ice had diminished to its alltime lowest recorded level.s Climate scientists, including those from the Nobel Prize-winning 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change ("IPCC") and the U.S. government, have become 

increasingly certain about the causes of anthropogenic climate change and what those causes 

portend if left unchecked. Noted climatologist Dr. James Hansen recently stated that "if we burn 

all the coal, there is a good chance that we will initiate the runaway greenhouse etTect"-i.e., a 

relatively rapid increase of C02 concentrations in the atmosphere that can stimulate the 

potentially unstoppable release of massive amounts of stored carbon and methane into the 

atmosphere, eventually boiling the oceans and destroying all life on earth.6 The inescapable fact 

is that global warming and climate change now presents a dire situation for life on Earth, and as 

a major emitter ofGHGs, the United States must act quickly and deliberately, using any and all 

the tools at its disposal to eliminate or reduce the dangers to human health and the environment. 

NEPA requires project analyses to be of high quaJity, and requires agencies to insure "the 

professional integrity, including scientific integrity" of those analyses? Yet, the DEIS vastly 

2 California State Motor Vehicle Pollution Control Standards; Notice of Decision Denying a Waiver ofCIean Air 

Act Preemption for California's 2009 and Subsequent Model Year Greenhouse Gas Emission Standards for New 

Motor Vehicles, 73 Fed. Reg. 12156,12163-69 (Mar. 6, 2008). 

3 Id. at 12167. 

4 IPCC, 2007: Summary for Policymakers. In: Climate Change 2007: Mitigation. Contribution of Working Group 

III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [B. Metz, O.R. Davidson, 

P.R. Bosch, R. Dave, L.A. Meyer (eds»), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, 

NY, USA, at 2. 

5 National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIOC). 2007a. Arctic Sea Ice News Fall 2007. 

www.nsidc.orglnewsipressl2007_seaiceminimuml20070810_index.html(lastvisitedDec.24.2008).Atl.63 

million square miles, the minimum sea-ice extent on September 16,2007 was about one million square miles (equal 

to the area of Alaslca and Texas combined) below the average minimum sea ice extent between 1979 and 2000 and 

50 percent lower than conditions in the 1950s to the 1970s. Stroeve, J. et aI. 2008. Arctic sea ice extent plummets in 

2007. EO$ 89:13-20. This minimum was lower than the sea-ice extent most climate models predicted would be 

reached after 2050. Id. 

6 Hansen, J. Climate Threat to the Planet: Implications for Energy Policy and Intergenerational Justice. Bjerknes 

Lecture (slides), American Geophysical Union (Dec. 17,2008). 

7 40 C.F.R. § 1502.24. 

Comments of Center for BiologIcal Diversity 

DEIS for the South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 

December 24, 2001 

Page 2of23 

A 
underestimates the gravity of the threat of climate change to life on Earth, and the contribution to 

the problem that leasing the LBA Tracts would make. 8 

Not surprisingly, as a consequence of the disconnect between the true nature of the climate 

change problem and the discussion about climate change in the DElS, the DEIS omits altogether 

or glosses over many important and sobering facts about climate change. 

A. The DEIS Falls to Account for All Greenhouse Gases. 

The DEIS states that GHGs "currently" include carbon dioxide, methane, water vapor, ozone, 

and nitrous oxide.9 No support is provided in the DEIS for this list, which omits widelyrecognized GHGs such as chlorofluorocarbons, sulfur hexafluoride, hydrofluorocarbons, 

pertluorocarbons, and nitrogen tritlouride.lo As a result of the omission of all GHGs from the 

list, the DEIS fails to account for all existing GHG emissions and all GHG emissions that will 

occur as a result of the proposed action. This renders the DEIS incomplete. II 

B. The DEIS Vastly Underestimates the Existing Effects and Threat of Global Warming. 

In qualifying statements about global warming, the DEIS fails to adequately retlect the dire 

situation posed by this problem. 

For example, the DEIS fails to account for the fact that at 383 ppm of C02 currently, we are 

already in a danger zone that could potentially disasterous consequences. Hansen et al. (2008) 

use "paleoclimate data to show that long-tenn climate has high sensitivity to climate forcings and 

that the present global mean C02, 385 ppm, is already in the dangerous zone.,,12 Their findings 

are briefly summarized as follows: 

If humanity wishes to preserve a planet similar to that on which civilization 

developed and to which life on Earth is adapted, paleoclimate evidence and 

ongoing climate change suggest that C02 will need to be reduced from its current 

385 ppm to at most 350 ppm, but likely less than that. The largest uncertainty in 

the target arises from possible changes of non-C02 forcings. An initial 350 ppm 

C02 target may be achievable by phasing out coal use except where C02 is 

captured and adopting agricultural and forestry practices that sequester carbon. If 

the present overshoot of this target C02 is not brief, there is a possibility of 

seeding irreversible catastrophic effects. 13 

S See, e.g., OEIS at 3-253 (stating that GHGs "may" playa role in climate change); id. at 4-104 (ruminating that 

solar variability-i.e., sunspots-may be a cause of climate change). 

, OEIS at 3-253. 

10 Prather, M.1. and J. Hsu. 2008. NF3, the greenhouse gas missing from Kyoto. Geophys. Res. Lett., 35: L12810. 

\I See, e.g., OEIS at 3-254 (estimating combined ~ emissions for the Belle Ayr, Coal Creek, Caballo, and 

Cordero Rojo Mines). 

12 Hansen, J., et 01. 2008. Target Atmospheric CO2: Where Should Humanity Aim? The Open AtmO.Jpheric 

ScinrceJouma/, 2008,2,217-231. 

13 Id. at 217. 

Comments of Center for Biological Diversity 

DEIS for the South Gillette Are. Coal Ltue Applications 

December 24, 2008 

Page 3 of 23 

A 
I 

I I, 

Due to the slow response time for the full effects of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions to 

be manifested in the climate system, "[w]arming 'in the pipeline', mostly attributable to slow 

feedbacks, is now about 2°C (Fig.2). No additional forcing is required to raise global 

temperature to at least the level of the Pliocene, 2-3 million years ago, a degree ofwanning that 

would surely yield 'dangerous' climate impacts.,,14 

Hansen et al. (2008) define several concepts: "(1) the tipping level, the global climate forcing 

that, if long maintained, gives rise to"a specific consequence, and (2) the point of no return, a 

climate state beyond which the consequence is inevitable, even if climate forcings are reduced. 

A point of no return can be avoided, even if the tipping level is temporarily exceeded. Ocean and 

ice sheet inertia permit overshoot, provided the climate forcing is returned below the tipping 

level before initiating irreversible dynamic change."IS 

However, reducing atmospheric C02 concentrations to 350 ppm would not be enough to stabilize 

Arctic sea ice and save imperiled species such as the polar bear and the entire Arctic web of life: 

Stabilization of Arctic sea ice cover requires, to first approximation, restoration of 

planetary energy balance. Climate models driven by known forcings yield a 

present planetary energy imbalance of +0.5-1 W 1m2. Observed heat increase in 

the upper 700 m of the ocean confirms the planetary energy imbalance, but 

observations of the entire ocean are needed for quantification. C02 amount must 

be reduced to 325-355 ppm to increase outgoing flux 0.5-1 Wlm2, if other 

forcings are unchanged. A further imbalance reduction, and thus C02 -300-325 

ppm, may be needed to restore sea ice to its area of 25 years ago. 16 

Atmospheric C02 concentrations must be reduced quickly: "Indeed, if the world continues on a 

business-as-usual path for even another decade without initiating phaseout of unconstrained coal 

use, prospects for avoiding a dangerously large, extended overshoot ofthe 350 ppm level will be 

dim." 17 Yet, as Hansen et al. (2008) note, "[ r ]ealization that we must reduce the current C02 

amount has a bright side: effects that had begun to seem inevitable, including impacts of ocean 

acidification, loss of fresh water supplies, and shifting of climatic zones, may be averted by the 

necessity of finding an energy course beyond fossil fuels sooner than would otherwise have 

occurred. ,,18 

Ultimately, these authors conclude 

[w]ith simultaneous policies to reduce non:-C02 greenhouse gases, it appears still 

feasible to avert catastrophic climate change. Present policies, with continued 

construction of coal fired power plants without C02 capture, suggest that decisionmakers do not appreciate the gravity of the situation. We must begin to move 

now toward the era beyond fossil fuels. Continued growth of. greenhouse gas 

14 Id at 225 (internal citation omitted). IS !d. 

16 Id at 226 (internal citations omitted). 

17 Id at 227. 

18 Id at 228. 

Comments of Center for Biological Diversity 

DEIS for the South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 

December 24, 2008 

Page 4 of 23 

A 
emissions, for just another decade, practically eliminates the possibility of nearterm return of atmospheric composition beneath the tipping level for catastrophic 

effects. The most difficult task, phase-out over the next 20-25 years of coal use 

that does not capture C02, is Herculean, yet feasible when compared with the 

efforts that went into World War II. The stakes, for all life on the planet, surpass 

those of any previous crisis. The greatest danger is continued ignorance and 

denial, which could make tragic consequences unavoidable. 19 

Unfortunately, the DElS vastly underestimates-and indeed, even ignores altogether-the 

gravity of this situation, the stakes for life on Earth, and the need to phase-out coal use 

immediately in order to avoid catastrophic climate change. 

The DElS similarly avoids disclosing information about the effects to the quality ofthe human 

environment that global warming is already causing. There is now a massive body ofpeerreviewed literature on the science and impacts ofglobal warming, demonstrating unequivocal, 

current harm to both public health and welfare, and the certainty of far greater harm to come if 

GHG emissions are not rapidly and deeply reduced.20 

Thus, the EPA has explicitly acknowledged that climate change resulting from elevated GHG 

levels would result in human health risks such as heat-related mortality, exacerbated air qualitY, 

aggravated risks for respiratory infection, aggravation of asthma, and potential premature death 

for people in susceptible groups,21 and thus has in effect already made an endangerment finding 

for GHGs. The World Health Organization has estimated that as of the year 2000, 154,000 

deaths and the loss of5.5 million daily adjusted life years per year worldwide were already 

attributable to global warming.22 These figures have clearly mounted over the past eight years 

and will continue to grow until effective emissions reductions are implemented. In addition, the 

EPA has published or cited favorably to mUltiple documents evaluating the harms associated 

with the climate crisis and by highlighting many ofthese impacts.23 The EPA's recent decision 

document denying California's application for a waiver under § 209(b) ofthe CAA, while 

legally fatally flawed, explicitly used the word "harm" when discussing continued GHG 

emissions.24 Moreover, the Fourth Assessment Report ofthe Intergovernmental Panel on 

Climate Change (IPCC AR4), a conservative synthesis of the most reliable scientific knowledge 

available about climate change, leaves absolutely no question that the emissions ofGHGs and 

the resulting changes to Earth's climate are endangering the public health and welfare.25 

A 

19 Id at 229. 

20 Much ofthis literature-none ofwhich is cited in the DEIS--was cited by the Supreme Court in Massachusetts 

v. EPA, and by the Environmental Protection Agency in a recent Advanced Notice ofProposed Rulemaking under 


the Clean Air Act and supporting documents. See Massachusetts v. EPA, 121 S.Ct. 1438, 1462 (2001); Advance 


Notice ofProposed Rulemaking, Regulating Greenhouse Gas Emissions Under the Clean Air Act, 13 Fed. Reg. 


44354 (July 30, 2008). 


21 13 Fed. Reg. at 44426-21. 


22 World Health Organization, 2002. The World Health Report 2002. Available at 


www.who.intlwhr/2002lenlindex.html. 


23 13 Fed. Reg. 44426-21. 


24 73 Fed. Reg. 12156-01 (Mar. 6,2008). 


25 IPeC 2001. 


Comments of Center for Biological Diversity Decernber24,2008 

DEIS for the South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications Page 5of23 
Also not mentioned in the DEIS is the fact that the climate crisis the most significant and 

pervasive threat to biodiversity worldwide, affecting both terrestrial and marine species from the 

tropics to the poles. The IPCC AR4 recognizes this, finding that the resilience ofseveral 

ecosystems is likely to be overcome this century by a dangerous brew of climate change, 

associated disturbances (such as flooding, drought, wildfire, insects and ocean acidification) and 


other environmental drivers such as pollution and over-exploitation ofresources.26 Along with 


increases in global average temperatures beyond 1.5-2.5° C and accompanying increased levels 


of atmospheric C02 concentrations will come major changes in ecosystem structure and function, 


species' ecological interactions, and species' geographical ranges.27 


Other scientific reports have reached the same conclusion as the IPCC that anthropogenic 

warming has had a recognizable influence on biological systems. In a study published in Nature 

in 2003, the authors reported a "globally coherent fingerprint ofclimate change impacts across 

natural systems.,,28 In documenting this "fingerprint" of global warming on ecosystems, 

scientists have predicted three categories ofmeasurable impacts from recent warming: (1) earlier 

timing ofspring events and later autumn events (i.e., changes in "phenology"), (2) extension of A 

species' range poleward or upward in elevation, and (3) a decline in species adapted to cold 

temperatures and an increase in species adapted to warm temperatures.29 And leading 

herpetologists believe that global warming has already resulted in the extinction of dozens of 

harlequin frog species.3o 

Moreover, the DEIS omits disclosure or consideration ofinformation about the effects of 


climate change to the western United States, where the proposed mines are located. The 


Scientific Assessment Report made the following factual findings regarding the social and 


environmental impacts resulting from increased GHG emissions, such as: 


• 	"[A] severe drought has affected the southwestern United States from 1999 through 

2007,,·31, 

• 	 "Streamflow has decreased bi about 2% per decade in the central Rocky Mountain 

region over the past century,,;3 

26 Bernstein et al. 2007. Summary for Policymakers. In: Synthesis Report in Climate Change 2007: A Report o/the 


Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Available at http://www.ipcc.ch. 
 27 [d. 

28 Parmesan, C. & G. Yohe. 2003. A globally coherent fingerprint ofclimate change impacts across natural 

s~stems. Nature 421: 37-42. 


2 Parmesan, C. & G. Hector. 2004. Observed Impacts ofGlobal Climate Change in the U.S. Prepared for the Pew 


Center on Global Climate Change. 
 30 Pounds, lA., M.R. Bustamante, L.A. Coloma, lA. Consuegra, M.P. L. Fogden, P.N. Foster, E. La Marca, K.L. 


Masters, A. Merino-Viteri, R. Puschendorf, S.R. Ron, G.A. Slinchez-Azofeifa. C.l. Still. B.E. Young. 2006. 


Widespread amphibian extinctions from epidemic disease driven by global warming. Nature 439: 161-167. 


31 Scientific Assessment of the Effects ofGlobal Change on the United States: A Report of the Committee on 


Environment and Natural Resources National Science and Technology Council (May 2008) at 5. 
 32 Id. 

Comment. of Center for Biological Diversity December 24, 2008 

DEIS for the South Gillette Area Coal lease Applications Page 6 of 23 
• 	 "The annual peak of streamflow in snowmelt-dominated western mountains is now 

generally occurring at least a week earlier than in the middle of the 20th century. Winter 

stream flow is increasing in basins with seasonal snow cover. The fraction of annual 

precipitation falling as rain (rather than snow) increased in the last half century,,;33 

• 	 "Most climate models project an increase in winter precipitation ih the northern tier of 

states and a decrease in portions of the Southwest during the 21st century,,;34 

• 	 "[I]t is very likely that the human-induced increase in greenhouse gases has contributed to 

the increase in sea surface temperatures in the hurricane formation regions. There is a 

strong statistical connection between tropical Atlantic sea surface temperatures and 

Atlantic hurricane activity as measured by an index that accounts for storm intensity, 

frequency, and duration on decadal timescales over the past 50 years. This evidence 

suggests a substantial human contribution to recent hurricane activity',;3s 

• 	 "The snow-covered area of North America increased in the November to January season 

from 1915 to 2004 due to increases in precipitation. However, spring snow cover in 

mQuntainous regions of the western United States generally decreased during the latter 

half of the 20th century. The IPCC determined that this latter trend is very likely due to 

long-term warming ...,,;36 

• 	 "In the last three decades, the wildfire season in the western United States has lengthened 

and bum durations have increased. Climate change has also very likely increased the size 

and number of insect outbreaks and tree mortality that help to fuel wildfires in the interior 

West, the Southwest, and Alaska. These trends are very likely to continue,,;37 

• 	 "Projections suggest that efforts to offset the declines in available surface water by 

increasing withdrawal of groundwater will be hampered by decreases in groundwater 

recharge in some water-stressed regions, such as the southwestern United States,,;38 

• 	 "Less reliable supplies of water are expected to create challenges for managing urban 

water systems as well as for industries that depend on large volumes of water. Across 

North America, vulnerability to extended drought is increasing as population growth and 

economic development create more demands from agricultural, municipal, and industrial 

uses, resulting in frequent over-allocation ofwater resources;39 

• 	 "Wildfires pose significant direct health threats. They can also have substantial effects 


through- increased eye and respiratory illnesses due to fire-related air pollution and 


mental health impacts from evacuations, lost property, and damage to resources" and 


33 Id. 

34Id. 

35 Id. at 3. 

36 Id. at 6. 

37 Id. at 10. 

31 Id. at 12. 

A 

39 Id. at 12. I 

Comments of Center for Biological Diversity 	 December 24, 2008 I I DEIS for the South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 	 Page 70'23 

'I 


I 
"associated decrements to air quality and pulmonary effects, are likely to increase in 

frequency, severity, distribution, and duration in the Southeast, the Intermountain West 

and the West,,·40, 

• 	 "Another example of the ecological consequences of climate change involving insects 

and affecting adaptability is the devastation of millions of acres of western U.S. and 

Canadian pines by bark beetles during the wannth and drought of 2000 to 2004. Recent 

modeling and observations revealed that beetles invading the northernmost lodgepole 

pine trees are now only a few miles from previously pristine jack pine populations 

(Logan and Powell, 2007). This may create a direct pathway of invasion to valued pine 

forests in the eastern United States and Canada,,;41 

• 	 "As the climate wanns, stream temperatures are likely to increase, with effects on aquatic 

ecosystems. There is some evidence that temperatures have increased in some western 

U.S. streams, although a comprehensive analysis has yet to be conducted. Temperature 

changes will be most evident during low flow periods, when they are of greatest 

concern,,;42 

• 	 "The forested area burned in the western United States from 1987 to 2003 is 6.7 times the 

area burned from 1970 to 1986 (Westerling et aI., 2006),,;43 

• 	 "In regions with winter snow, wanning has shifted the magnitude and timing of 

hydrologic events (Mote et aI., 2005; Regonda et aI., 2005; Stewart et at., 2005). The 

fraction of annual precipitation falling as rain (rather than snow) increased at 74% of the 

weather stations studied in the western mountains of the United States from 1949 to 2004 

(Knowles et aI., 2006),,;44 

• 	 "Streamflow peaks in the snowmelt-dominated western mountains of the United States 

occurred one to four weeks earlier in 2002 than in 1948 (Stewart et at, 2005),,;45 

• 	 "The most recent (IPCC Fourth Assessment Report) climate model simulations project 

increased runoff over the eastern United States, gradually transitioning to little change in 

the Missouri and lower Mississippi, to substantial decreases in annual runoff in the 

interior of the West (Colorado and Great Basin). The projected drying in the interior of 

the West is quite consistent among models. These changes are, very roughly, consistent 

with observed trends in the second half of the 20th century, which show increased 

streamflow over most ofthe United States, but sporadic decreases in the West'.46; 

40 [d. at 14-15. 


41 [d. at 39-40. 


42 [d. at 89. 


43 [d. at 113. 


44 [d. at 147. 
 45 [d. 


46 [d. at 148. 

Comments of Canter for Biological Diversity December 24, 2008 

DEIS for the South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications Page 8of 23 

A 
• 	 The area that is expected to face the most serious water constraints is 

southwestern United States;47 and 

• Stream temperatures are likely to increase as the climate warms and are very likely to 

have effects on aquatic ecosystems and water quality. Changes in tem~erature will be 

most evident during low flow periods, when they are ofgreatest concern.4 

Given the tremendous significance and far-reaching implications of the analysis and conclusions 

in the Scientific Assessment Report, and the direct relevance ofthis information in this instance, 

it is patently arbitrary and capricious for BLM to ignore the federal government's own Scientific 

Assessment Report in the nEls. The information presented in the Scientific Assessment Report 

specifically addresses the nature, extent, and causation of impacts caused by man-made GHG 

emissions (especially C02). BLM may not make a decision on leasing the LBA Tracts that fails A 

to evaluate the significance ofeach of the concerns raised in the Scientific Assessment Report 

and to explore all available opportunities to ameliorate any contribution ofthe proposed project 

to adverse health, welfare, or environmental effects.49 

By failing to disclose the true nature ofthe problem ofclimate change, the DElS is fatally 

flawed, as BLM is required to "describe the environment ofthe areas to be affected or created by 

the alternatives under consideration.,,50 The establishment of the baseline conditions of the 

affected environment is a fundamental, practical requirement of the NEPA process.S1 To comply 

with NEPA, the DElS must be revised to include this information and recirculated for public 

comment. 

II. The DEIS Fails to Take aHard Look at the Environmental Consequences of Leasing the LBA 

Tracts. 

Agencies must take a "hard look" at their actions under NEP A.52 NEP A requires that federal 

analysis 

agencies 

of 

consider 

GHG emissions 

"any adverse 

in the 

environmental 

DElS---and the 

effects" 

contribution 

of their 

of

"major 

all reasonably 

... actions."s3 

foreseeable 

The B

47 [d. at 191. 


41 /d. at 12. 


49 See also Barnett, T.P., et al. 2008. Human-Induced Changes in the Hydrology ofthe Western United States. 


Science DOl: 10.1 1 26/science. 1 152538. Based on observations showing that the hydrological cycle of the western 


U.S. has changed significantly over the last half of the twentieth century, Barnett et al. (2008) presented a regional, 

muItivariable climate-change detection and attribution study, focusing on the changes that have already affected this 

primarily arid region with a large and growing population. The results show up to 60 percent of the climate-related 

trends ofriver flow, winter air temperature, and snow pack between 1950 and 1999 are human-induced. They 

~rtend, in conjunction with previous work, a coming crisis in water supply for the western United States. 

40 C.F.R. § 1502.15. 

51 See HalfMoon Bay Fisherman's Marketing Ass 'n v. Carlucci, 857 F.2d 505, 510 (9th Cir. 1988) (''without 

establishing ... baseline conditions ... there is simply no way to determine what effect [an action] will have on the 

environment, and consequently, no way to comply with NEPA"). 

52 Muckleshootlndian Tribe v. United Slates Forest Serv., 177 F.3d 800, 814 (9th Cir. 1999) (per curiam) (quoting 

Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Council, 490 U.S. 332, 350,104 L. Ed. 2d 351,109 S. Ct. 1835 (1989» 

~internal quotation marks omitted). 

3 42 U.S.C. § 4332(C). 

Comments of Center for Biological Div....,ty December 24, 2008 

DEIS for the South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications Page 9 of 23 
consequences of leasing the LBA Tracts-fails to meet this basic requirement in the numerous 

ways discussed below. These omissions render the DEIS inadequate under NEPA. 

A. 	 The DEIS Fails to Account for All GHG Emissions Resulting from Leasing the LBA 

Tracts. 

In quantifying the GHGs that will be emitted as a consequence of leasing the LBA Tracts, the 

DEIS inventories only those emissions resulting from mining operations themselves, including 

electricity used on site and mining processes.54 The OEIS expressly omits inventories ofGHGs 

emissions resulting from on-site transport and rail transport to buyers~oal-fired power plants 

for electricity generation-stating that such infonnation is lacking. ss 

This conclusory assertion is flatly inadequate under NEP A, which requires environmental impact 

statements to "insure the scientific integrity" oftheir analyses, contain "accurate scientific 

analysis," and "provide full and fair discussion ofsignificant environmental impacts."s6 Indeed, 

it is not at all clear that such infonnation is, in fact, elusive or lacking, but even assuming that it 

is, the "CEQ has devised a specific procedure for 'evaluating reasonably foreseeable significant 

adverse effects on the human environment' when 'there is incomplete or unavailable 

infonnation. ",57 Thus, after disclosing that infonnation is lacking, "ifthe infonnation relevant to 

reasonably foreseeable significant adverse impacts cannot be obtained because the overall costs 

of obtaining it are exorbitant or the means to obtain it are not known," the agency must include 

in the environmental impact statement" a statement "that such infonnation is incomplete or 

unavailable"; a statement of "the relevance ofthe incomplete or unavailable infonnation to 

evaluating reasonably foreseeable significant adverse impacts on the human environment"; a 

"summary of existing credible scientific evidence which is relevant to evaluating the reasonably 

foreseeable significant adverse impacts on the human environment," and the agency's 

"evaluation of such impacts based upon theoretical approaches or research methods generally 

accepted in the scientific community.,,58 None of this infomlation was provided in the DEIS. 

B. 	 The DEIS Falls to Account for the GHG Emissions Resulting from Combustion of the 

Coal. 

The DEIS contains no mention ofthe GHG emissions resulting from combustion of the coal that 

would be mined as a direct consequence ofleasing the LBA Tracts. While the DEIS 

acknowledges that the proposed action would result in a "major commitment of resources" in the 

fonn ofthe "minin§ and consumption" of 731.2 to 760.8 million tons ofcoal for "electrical 

power generation," 9 the OEIS fails to inventory the GHGs that will be emitted as a result of 

consumption (i.e., combustion) ofthis coal. 

~ DEIS at 3-254. 55 ld. 


S6 40 C.F.R. § 1502.24, §1500.l(B), §1502.l; see also Mid States Coal.for Progress v. Surface Transp. Rd., 345 


F.3d 520,549-50 (8th Cir. 2003) (when the nature of the effect is reasonably foreseeable but its extent is not, we 


think: that the agency may not simply ignore the effect") (emphases in original). 


51 ld. (quoting 40 C.F.R. § 1502.22). 


S8 ld at § 1502.22(b). 


S9 DElS at 3-255. 


Comments of Center for Biological Diversity December 24, 2008 

DEIS for the South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications Page10of23 
This is flatly inadequate under NEP A. Again, NEPA requires federal agencies to consider "any 

adverse environmental effects" oftheir "major ... actions.,,60 The CEQ regulations, which are 

binding on the agencies, explain that "effects" include both "direct" effects and "indirect" 

effects.61 Indirect effects are defined as those that "are caused by the action and are later in time 

or farther removed in distance, but are still reasonably foreseeable.'.62 "Indirect effects may 

include ... effects on air and water and other natural systems, including ecosystems.',63 This 

language leaves little doubt that the type of effect at issue here, GHG emissions, is indeed 

something that must be addressed in an ElS if it is "reasonably foreseeable,,,64 and an 

environmental effect is "reasonably foreseeable" ifit is "sufficiently likely to occur that a person 

of ordinary prudence would take it into account in reaching a decision.'.65 Accordingly, it is 

arbitrary to disclose and consider basic information about the GHG emissions resulting from all 

phases ofthe mines' life-cycle in the DEIS.66 

C. 	 The DEIS Falls to Account for Impacts of the Proposed Action Resulting from 

Combustion By.Products like Black Carbon. 

The DEIS excludes any and all considemtion of combustion by-products like black carbon, or 

soot, which is generated (among other things) by combustion of fossil fuels including coal. 

Black carbon is a particulate that deposits to the surface ofthe Earth, often in Alaska, Greenland, 

or the Arctic Ocean, within about a week of its emission, which usually occurs in the northern 

hemisphere. Black carbon influences the climate both in the atmosphere and at the surface, 

before and after it is deposited; the contrast between black carbon, the darkest aerosol, and snow 

and ice, the brightest surfaces ofthe planet, causes black carbon to absorb sunlight and to warm 

the Arctic atmosphere by approximately the same amount as human-injected C02 in spring and 

/ill 42 U.S.C. § 4332(C) (emphasis added). 

61 40 C.F.R. § 150S.S. 62 [d. 

63 [d. 

64 [d. 

6S Mid Slales, 456 F.3d at 549 (citing Sierra Club v. Marsh, 976 F.2d 763, 767 (1st Cir. 1992». 

66 [d. (holding that "it would be irresponsible for the [Surface Transportation] Board to approve [an upgrade and 

construction ofcoal rails lines] without first examining the effects that may occur as a result of the reasonably 

foreseeable increase in coal consumption"). This analysis must also include disclosure and consideration of the 

cumulative effects ofieasing the LBA Tracts. 40 C.F.R. § 150S.7. (Cumulative impact is the "impact on the 

environment which results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable actions.") The cumulative impact analysis is intended to address the classic "one cigarette at 

a time" problem: a chain smoker can always claim that the cigarette he is currently smoking is too insignificant to 

have an effect upon his health. But the action, repeated over and over again, surely does. Similarly, NEPA's 

cumulative impacts analysis requirement is intended to address problems like GHG emissions that may appear 

individually insignificant, but cumulatively create a serious environmental problem. It is difficult to imagine a 

more important cumulative impact analysis than that ofcoal, and the American public and our decision-makers are 

entitled to understand the impacts that result from the greenhouse gas emissions ofour coal use. 

Comm.nts of Center for Biological DIv.rslty December 24, 2008 

DEIS for the South Gillette Area Coal Leale Applications Page 11 0123 
summer, when snow and ice are most vulnerable to melting.61 The DElS must be revised and 

recirculated to include black carbon in its analysis of climate impacts.68 

D. 	 The DEIS Fails to Address the Impacts of the Proposed Action to Species that are 

Threatened by Climate Change. 

Species-including species that are listed as threatened or endangered under the Endangered 

Species Act-are threatened by the effects of global warming and therefore, the GHG emissions 

that would result from leasing the LBA Tracts may affect such species. BLM cannot reasonably 

dispute that leasing the LBA Tracts would affect species through climate impacts. Thus, in both 

the EIS and through consultation under the Endangered Species Act, 16 U.S.C. § 1531 et seq. 

("ESA") (where applicable), BLM must analyze the direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of 

the project on species that may not necessarily occur in the immediate vicinity of the proposed 

project, but will nonetheless be impacted by the proposed project's GHG emissions. 

Species affected by global warming include two listed coral species, elkhorn and staghorn 

corals, as the final listing rule for these species specifically discussed the impacts of global 

warming and greenhouse gas emissions on the species.69 Indeed, coral reefs are among the first 

ecosystems to show the significant adverse impacts of global warming. As the National Marine 

Fisheries Service stated in the listing rule: "The major threats to these species' persistence (i.e., 

disease, elevated sea surface temperature, and hurricanes) are severe, unpredictable, have 

increased over the past 3 decades, and, at current levels of knowledge, the threats are 

unmanageable.,,10 Each of these threats is directly related to GHG emissions. Moreover, CO2 

emission themselves are reSUlting in acidification of the ocean, inhibiting coral growth. 

Along with elevated sea surface temperature, atmospheric carbon dioxide levels have increased 

in the last century, and the trend is likely to continue. As atmospheric carbon dioxide is 

dissolved in surface seawater, seawater becomes more acidic, shifting the balance of inorganic 

carbon away from carbon dioxide and carbonate toward bicarbonate. This shift decreases the 

ability of corals to calcify because corals are thought to use carbonate, not bicarbonate, to build 

their aragonite skeletons. Experiments have shown a reduction of coral calcification in response 

61 Zender, C.S. 2007. Arctic Climate Effects ofB1ack Carbon. Written testimony to the Oversight and Government 

Reform Committee, U.S. House ofRcpresentatives. See also Schwartz, J. 2007. Testimony for the Hearing on 

Black Carbon and Climate Change House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform United States House of 

~tatives. 

61 HalfMoon Bay Fishermans' Marketing Au 'n v. Carlucci, 857 F.2d 505, 508 (9th Cir. 1988) (quoting California 

v. Block, 690 F.2d 753, 770-71 (9th Cir. 1982» (''NEPA's public comment procedures are at the heart ofthe NEPA 

review process" and "reflect 'the paramount Congressional desire to internalize opposing viewpoints into the 

decision making process to ensure that an agency is cognizant of all the environmental trade-offs that are implicit in 

a decision.'" Thus, "[i]t is only at the stage when the draft EIS is circulated that the public and outside agencies 

have the opportunity to evaluate and comment on the proposal" and "[ n]o such right exists upon issuance ofa final 

EIS".); id. ("an agency's failure to disclose a proposed action before the ilsusnce ofa final EIS defeats NEPA's goal 

ofencouraging public participation in the development of information during the decision making process"). 

69 See 71 Fed. Reg. 26852. 

70 Id. at 26858. 

Comments of Center for Biological Diversity December 24, 2008 

DEIS for the South Oillette Area Coal Lease Applications Page 120f23 
to elevated carbon dioxide levels; therefore, increased carbon dioxide levels in seawater may be 

contributing to the status of the two species.71 

In 1998, which at the time was the warmest year on record, bleaching occurred in every ocean, 

ultimately resulting in the death of 10-16 percent ofthe world's living coral.72 In 2005, which 

eclipsed 1998 as the warmest year on record, a major bleaching event swept through the 

Caribbean, bleaching more than 90 percent of live coral in some areas and resulting in the 

ultimate death of about 20 percent of living coral region-wide.73 Before this unprecedented 

single-year die-off even began, the Caribbean contained the world's most degraded coral reefs, 

having already lost as much as 80 percent of live coral over the preceding 30 years.74 It will not 

take many more episodes like the 200S bleaching event before living coral reefs in the 

Caribbean disappear entirely.75 

While coral reefs are threatened by many additional factors, including pollution and direct 

destruction from dredging and other activities, climate change is an increasingly dominant 

threat. There is clear evidence that the record-setting ocean temperatures of 1998 and 200S that 

triggered widespread bleaching and mortality are the product ofglobal warming.76 And while 

the link between coral bleaching and global warming is relatively intuitive, even the outbreaks 

of coral disease that ravaged the elkhorn and staghorn coral species have been linked to elevated 

water temperatures.77 FinaUy, scientific evidence indicates that global warming increases the 

probability ofsevere weather events like the series ofintense hurricanes that have so impacted 

Caribbean reefs in recent decades.78 

While bleaching is perhaps the most well-known impact of global warming on coral reefs, it is 

far from the being the only such impact. At the same time the oceans absorb increased heat 

71 Id. at 26858-59. 


72 Hoegh-Guldberg, O. 2005. Marine Ecosystems and Climate Change. Climate Change & Biodiversity, [Lovejoy, 


T.E., L. Hannah (eds.)]. 


73 Hansen, J., M. Sato, R. Ruedy, K. Lo, O. W. Lea, M. Medina-Elizade. 2006. Global temperature change. 


Proceedings ofthe National Academy ofSciences (PNAS) Published online September 25, 2006, 


doi: 10. t073/pnas.060629 I I 03; Federal Response to the 2005 Caribbean Bleaching event, available at 


http://coralreefwatch.noaa.gov/caribbean2005/docsl2005 bleaching~federal~response. pdf (last accessed 


Jan. 29, 2008). 


74 Gardner, T. A., I. M. Catc, J. A. Gill, A. Grant, and A. R. Watkinson. 2003. Coral reef decline in the Caribbean: 


Response to Buddemeir and Ware. Science 302:392-393. 


75 Hoegh-Guldberg 2005. 


76 Hansen et 01.2006; see also Alley et 01.2007. Summary for Policy Makers In Climate Change 2007: The 


Physical Science Basis Contribution ofWoriting Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report ofthe Intergovernmental 


Panel on Climate Change. Available at http://www.ipcc.ch. 


77 Harvell, C.O., C.E. Mitchell, lR. Ward, S. Altizer, A.P. Dobson, R.S. Ostfeld, M.D. Samuel. 2002. 


Climate Wanning and Disease Risks for Terrestrial and Marine Biota. Scie1fCe 296: 2158-2162. 


71 Santer, B. D., T. M. L. Wigley, P. J. Glecltlera, C. Bonfilsd, M. F. Wehnere, K. AchutaRaoa, T. P. 


Barnettf, J. S. Boylea, W. Brilggemanng, M. Fiorinoa, N. GiIlettb, J. E. Hanseni, P. D. Jonesh, S. A. Kleina, 


G. A. Meehlc, S. C. B. Raperj, R.W. Reynoldsk, K. E. Taylora, W. M. Washington. 2006. Forced and 


Unforced Ocean Temperature Changes in Atlantic and Pacific Tropical Cyclogenesis Regions. 


Proceedings ofthe National Academy ofSciences (PNAS). Published online September 19, 2006, 


doi:10.I073/pnas.060286J 103; see also Alley et a1. 2007. 


Comments of Center for Biological Diversity December 24, 2008 

DeIS for the South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications Page 13 of 23 
added to the climate from the burning ofgreenhouse gases, so, too, do they absorb the increased 

levels ofthe most important greenhouse gas--C02. The growth in atmospheric C02 

concentrations leads to increasing acidification ofthe ocean, and this acidification only adds to 

the global warming-induced changes threatening the survival of coral and other important 

marine species.79 

A letter signed by the top 25 marine scientists who study ocean acidification emphasized that the 

decrease in EH due to un-checked C02 emissions will be devastating and irreversible on human 

time scales. 0 The authors predict that without immediate carbon dioxide emissions reductions, 

pH will decrease by more than 0.2 units by midcentury, and the IPCC estimates that over the 

21st century, the ocean's pH level could decrease to as much as 0.35 units.81 

Already, the oceans have taken up about 50 percent of the C02 that humans have produced since 

the industrial revolution, and this has lowered the average ocean pH by 0.11 units.82 Currently, 

the ocean takes up about 22 million tons ofC02 each day.83 While preindustrial levels of 

atmospheric C02 hovered around 280 ppm, they have now increased to over 380 ppm; if current 

trends continue, they will increase another 50 percent by 2030.84 These rising C02 levels are 

irreversible on human timescales, and over time, the ocean will absorb up to 90 percent of this 

C02, greatly affecting the oceans' pH level.8s 

This foretells a stark future for marine life. Due to acidification, within our lifetimes, coral reefs 

may erode faster than they can rebuild.86 Corals are extremely vulnerable to ocean acidification 

and scientists studying acidification predict that coral reefs will decline in density and diversity 

unless C02 emissions are stabilized at present levels.87 Under conservative models of future C02 

79 Alley et al. 2007. Acidification occurs as a natural result ofthe ocean's carbonate buffer system. Carbon dioxide 

that is absorbed by seawater reacts to form carbonic acid, which dissociates to fonn bicarbonate and releases 

hydrogen ions, which then bond with carbonate ions to form more bicarbonate. This reaction reduces the amount of 

carbonate ions and decreases pH. Reduction in carbonate is an important concern because many organisms depend 

on it to form their shells and skeletons. Thus, as C02 enters the oceans' waters, there is a profound impact on the 

entire marine ecosystem, for ocean acidification severely affects many calcifying species like coral and 

~ytoplankton that playa crucial role in supporting marine life. 

Caldeira, K. and 25 others. 2007. Comment on "Modem-age buildup ofC02 and its effects on seawater acidity 

and salinity" by Hugo A. Loaiciga, Geophysical Research Letters 34: L18608. 

II Id; Alley et al. 2007. 

82 Sabine, C.L., R.A. Feely, N. Gruber, R.M. Key, K. Lee, J.L. Bullister, R. Wanninkhof, C. S. Wong, D.W. R. 

Wallace, B. Tilbrook, F.J. Millero, T. Peng, A. Kozyr, T. Ono, A.F. Rios. 2004. The Oceanic Sink for 

Anthropogenic C02. &ience 305: 367-371.; Alleyet al. 2007 . 

• 3 Feely, R.A., et al. 2006. Carbon Dioxide and Our Ocean Legacy (2006). 


84 Orr, lC., V.J. Fabry, O. Aumont, L. Bopp, S.C. Doney, R.A. Feely, A. Gnanadesikan, N. Gruber, A. 


Ishida, F. Joos, R.M. Key, K. Lindsay, E. Maier-Reimer, R. Matear, P. Monfray. A. Mouchet, R.G. Najjar, 


G. Plattner, K.B. Rodgers, C.L. Sabine, lL. Sarmiento, R. Schlitzer, R.D. Slater, U. Totterdell, M. Weirig, 

Y. Yamanaka, A. Yool. 2005. Anthropogenic ocean acidification over the twenty-first century and its 

il!'Pact on calcifying organisms. Nature 437: 681-686. 


85 Kleypas, 1.A., R.A. Feely, V.J. Fabry, C. Langdon, C.L. Sabine, L.L. Robbins. 2006. Impacts ofOcean 


Acidification on Coral Reefs and Other Marine Calcifiers: A Guide for Future Research. Available at 


www.ucar.edulnewslreleasesl2006/report.shtml. 


S6 Feely 2006. 


87 Hoegh-Guldberg, 0., PJ. Mumby, A.J. Hooten, R.S. Steneck, P. Greenfield, E. Gomez, C.D. Harvell, 

CorNntnts of Center for BIological DiversIty December 24, 2008 

DEIS for the South GINette Arta Coal L.... Applications Page 14 of 23 
emissions, most of the world's coral reefs, already bleaching in the warmer waters, will erode to 

rubble by the end ofthe century.88 Corals provide vital functions for marine ecosystems, and 

their loss will likely bring grave impacts to the oceans and the species that inhabit them. 

Ocean acidification also impacts calcifying plankton species at the base of the marine foodchain. 

Like coral, plankton also playa vital role in the marine ecosystem. These organisms contribute 

much ofthe organic material entering the marine food chain and are responsible for about 50 

percent ofthe earth's primary production.89 Carbon dioxide uptake by the ocean causes impaired 

growth and development for calcifying plankton, and acidification dissolves the protective armor 

of some plankton, limiting their ability to survive. Thus, as the ocean absorbs more C02 and pH 

levels continue to decrease, the marine environment is expected to undergo profound changes 

due to impacts at many different levels in the food chain. 

Marine ecosystems and species are not the only species threatened by the effects ofglobal 

warming. The leading study on the quantification ofrisk to species from climate change, 

published in 2004 in Nature, included over I, I 00 species distributed over 20 percent of the 

earth's surface area.90 Under a relatively high emissions scenario, 35 percent, under a medium 

emissions scenario 24 percent, and under a relatively low emissions scenario, 18 percent of the 

species studied would be committed to extinction by the year 2050.91 Extrapolating from this 

study to the Earth as a whole reveals that over a million species may be at risk. It is important to 

note that we are currently on a traject07 to exceed the emissions assumed in the high warming 

scenario used by Thomas et a1. (2004.). 2 The essential message is that we must reduce 

emissions immediately in order to save many thousands ofspecies and protect the ecosystems 

upon which we all depend. 

The Edith's checkerspot butterfly is one ofthe first species for which scientists have documented 

a clear range shift due to global warming. The butterfly's range has moved both northward and 

upward in elevation in response to a 0.720 C increase in regional warming.93 The range shift was 

not due to butterfly populations actually moving, but instead to a higher proportion ofpopulation 

extinctions in the southern and lowland portions of the range.94 These population extinctions are 

P.F. Sale, A.J. Edwards, K. Caldeira, N. Knowlton, C.M. Eakin, R. Iglesias-Prieto, N. Muthiga, R.H. 

Bradbury, A. Dubi, M.E. Hatziolos. 2007. Coral Reefs Under Rapid Climate Change and Ocean Acidification. 

Science 318: 1737-1742. 88 [d. 

89 Royal Society. 2005. Ocean Acidification Due to Increasing Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide. Available 


at: http://royalsociety.org/document.asp?id=3249 (last accessed Dec. 24, 2008). 


90 Thomas, C.D., A. Cameron, R.E. Green, M. Bakkenes, L.J. Beaumont, Y.C. CoIlingham, B.F.N. 


Erasmus, M. Ferreira de Siqueira, A. Grainger, L. Hannah, L. Hughes, B. Huntley, A.S. van Jaarsveld, G.F. 


Midgley, L. Miles, M.A. Ortega-Huerta, A. Townsend Peterson, O.L. Phillips, S.E. Williams. 2004. 


Extinction Risks from Climate Change. Nature 427: 145-148. 
 91 /d. 

92 Thomas, C.D., A. Cameron, R.E. Green, M. Bakkenes, L.J. Beaumont, Y.C. CoIlingham, B.F.N. 


Erasmus, M. Ferreira de Siqueira, A. Grainger, L. Hannah, L. Hughes, B. Huntley, A.S. van Jaarsveld, G.F. 


Midgley, L. Miles, M.A. Ortega-Huerta, A. Townsend Peterson, O.L. Phillips, S.E. Williams. 2004. 


Extinction Risks from Climate Change. Nature 427: 145-148. 


93 Parmesan &; Yohe 2003. 


94 /d. 

Comments of Center for Biological Diversity December24,2008 

DEIS for the South GIHette Area Coal Lease Applications Page 150f23 
the result ofthe fact that the species' host plant, Plantago erecta, now develops earlier in the 

spring, while the butterfly's caterpillars continue to hatch at the same time.9s As a result, the 

caterpillars now hatch on plants that have already completed their lifecycle and dried up, instead 

ofon younger edible plants.96 The tiny checker:rot caterpillars are unable to move far enough to 

find other food and, as a result, starve to death.9 

Another animal struggling under the heavy hand of climate change is the American pika. This 

small mammal, a relative of the rabbit, is adapted to life in talus piles on high, treeless mountain 

peaks. Fossil evidence demonstrates that pikas once ranged widely over North America, but 

their range has contracted to a dwindling number of isolated peaks during the warm periods of 

the last 12,000 years.98 Pikas are limited by their metabolic adaptation to their cold habitat 

niche.99 Hence, while more mobile alpine species such as birds may be able to shift their ranges 

poleward as warming temperatures and advancing treelines, competitors, and predators impact 

their mountain habitat, pikas are generally incapable ofsuch long range dispersal. 100 Rather, 

they can only migrate upslope as the climate warms.IOI In large portions ofits range, however, 

the American pika is already occupying the highest elevation talus habitats that exist on a given 

mountain range; in such cases there is no upslope habitat to migrate to, and the mountain's 

population will ultimately disappear as the climate continues to warm. Already, at least 9 of 25 

(36 percent) ofpika populations found in the Great Basin have been extirpated, and the pika 

range has shifted upslope by 900 feet in this region. This small creature may well become one of 

global warming's first victims. 

Species such as the checkerspot butterfly and American pika demonstrate how climate change 

brought about by global warming will influence the earth's biodiversity as various species 

struggle to adapt to their changing habitats. Likewise, sensitive ecosystems, some literally 

melting under the impacts of global warming, have provided even more evidence ofthe dire 

consequence global warming will have on the earth's biological balance. 

B 


The Arctic has experienced the effects ofglobal warming earlier and more intensely than any 

other area on the planet. Over the past 100 years, average Arctic temperatures increased at 

almost twice the global average rate. 102 Specifically, in parts ofAlaska and western Canada, 

winter temperatures have increased by as much as 3.50 C in the past 30 years. l03 Over the next 

9J /d. 

96 Id. 


<n Id. 


91 Krajick, K. 2004. All Downhill From here? Science 303: 1600-1602. 
 99 [d. 


100 [d. 


101 /d. 


102 Alley et al. 2007. 


103 Rosenzweig, C., G. Casassa, DJ. Karoly, A. Imeson, C. Liu, A. Menzel, S. Rawlins, T.L. Root, B. Seguin, P. 


Tryjanowski, and C.E. Hanson, 2007: Assessment ofobserved changes and responses in natural and managed 


systems. In Climate Change 2007: Impacts. Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution ofWorking Group II to the 


Fourth Assessment Report ojthe Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. M.L. Parry, O.F. Canziani, J.P. 


Palutikof, and P.J. van der Linden, Eds. Cambridge University Press, pp. 79-131. 


Comments of Center for BIological Diversity December 24, 2008 

DEIS for the South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications Page 16 of 23 
100 years, under a moderate emissions scenario, annual average temperatures in the Arctic are 

projected to rise an additional 3-50 C over land and up to 70 C over the oceans. 104 

This rapid warming of the Arctic is reflected in the devastating melt of the Arctic sea ice, which 

is highly sensitive to temperature changes. As stated above, in 2007, summer sea-ice extent 

reached an unpredicted and utterly stunning new record minimum. lOS At 1.63 million square 

miles, the minimum sea-ice extent on September 16,2007 was about one million square miles 

(equal to the area ofAlaska and Texas combined) below the average minimum sea ice extent 

between 1979 and 2000 and 50 percent lower than conditions in the 1950s to the 1970s.106 This 

minimum was lower than the sea-ice extent most climate models predicted would be reached 

after 2050. 107 This stark reality ofglobal wanning in the Arctic is having a disturbing and 

demonstrated effect on polar bears. One ofthe most ice~dependent ofall Arctic species, polar 

bears require sea-ice habitat for survival.108 For example, polar bears rely on sea ice as a 

platfonn from which to hunt ringed seals and other prey, to make seasonal migrations between 

the sea ice and their terrestrial denning areas, and for other essential behaviors such as mating. 

As the sea ice rapidly melts away, so, too, does the polar bears' essential habitat. 

The scientific projections of future melting of the sea ice are particularly troubling. Under B 

optimistic future emissions scenarios, summer sea ice will decline 50-100 percent by the end of 

the century.l09 Under more likely scenarios, however, leading sea ice researchers now believe 

that the Arctic could be completely ice free in the summer by 2030110 or even by 2012. 111 Even 

without a complete disappearance of sea ice, scientists have predicted a cascade of impacts to 

polar bears from global warming and melting ice that will affect virtually every aspect ofthe 

species' existence, including its hunting season and ability to efficiently hunt its ice-dependent 

prey; female bears' ability to reach their preferred denning areas on land; and increases in bearhuman interactions. 112 The combined effects of these global warming consequences on 

individual bears' reproduction and survival translate into impacts on polar bear populations. 

Polar bear populations are already declining. The Western Hudson Bay polar bear population 

104 Meehl, G.A., T.S. Stocker, W.D. Collins, P. Friedlingstein, A.T. Gaye, J.M. Gregory, A. IGtoh, R. 


Knutti, J.M. Murphy, A. Noda , S.C.B. Raper, LG. Watterson, A.J. Weaver, Z. Zhao. 2007: Global Climate 


Projections. Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis ofClimate Change. Contribution of 


Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report ofthe Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 


[Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyl, M.Tignor and H.L. Miller (eds.)]. 


Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA. 


105 Stroeve, J. et al. 2008. 


106 Id.; NSIDC. 2007. 


107 Stroeve, J. et al. 2008. 


101 Regehr et al. 2007. Effects of earlier sea icc breakup on survival and population size ofpolar bears in 

Western Hudson Bay. Journal o/Wlldlife Managelffe"t71(8):2673-2683; Derocher, A.E., N.J. Lunn, and 1. 


Stirling. 2004. Polar bean in a warming climate. Integrated Comparative Bfology 44: 163-176. 


109 Holland, M.M., Bitz. C.M., Tremblay, B. 2006. Future Abrupt Reductions in the Summer Arctic Sea Ice. 


Geophysical Research Letlers. 33: L23503 doi:lO.l029I2OO6GL028024. 


110 Stroeve, 1. etal. 2008. 


111 Kima, T. 2008. Lacking Studies, State Still Disputes Polar Bear "Doom." Anchorage Daily News. 


January 27, 2008. Available at www.adn.comJ626/story/295420.html(last accessed Dec. 24, 2008). 


112 Derocher et al. 2004. 


Comment. of Center for Biological Diversity December 24, 2008 

DEIS for the South Gillette Area Coal leaH Applications Page 17of23 
B 

has declined by 22 percent since 1987, from 1,194 bears to 935.113 Likewise, the Polar Bear 

Specialist Group has classified the Southern Beaufort Sea polar bear population as declining. I 14 

Within this group ofpolar bears, researchers have observed starvation, increased drownings, and 

cannibalism motivated by nutritional stress, a behavior without precedent. I IS U.S. Geological 

Survey biologists, in a landmark series of reports released in September 2007, have concluded 

that under a business as usual emissions scenario, two-thirds ofthe world's polar bears will be 

extirpated by 2050. 116 

The impact ofglobal wanning on wildlife is reflected not only in the voluminous literature but in 

recent regulatory action under the Endangered Species Act as well. On May 15, 2008, the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service listed the polar bear as a threatened species throughout is range due to 

global wanning. 117 On May 9, 2006, the National Marine Fisheries Service listed the staghorn 

and elkhorn corals as threatened due in part to increasing ocean temperature and ocean 

acidification due to anthropogenic greenhouse emissions. I IS Global wanning was cited by the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in its critical habitat rulemakings for the Quino Checkerspot and 

Bay Checkerspot butterfiies. 119 

Global wanning is one ofthe greatest challenges our civilization faces. It threatens to transfonn 

everything about our landscape, and to alter much in nature such as the timing of the rains and 

the modulations ofthe seasons--even the ocean currents may be altered. Moreover, global 

climate change impacts are occurring more rapidly than scientists anticipated even just a few 

years ago. Indeed, a review ofhundreds ofresearch studies tells us that animal and plant species 

have begun dying off or changing sooner than predicted because of global wanning. The DEIS 

contravenes NEPA because it does not adequately describe climate change and its impacts. The 

DEIS has not canvassed the literature to support its (implicit) claims that coal remains a suitable 

energy source in the face ofglobal warming, nor has it revealed the science behind global 

wanning or discussed the environmental "baseline," which scientists already suggests will cause 

dramatic changes to our landscape, our wildlife, our weather, and our oceans. Accordingly, the 

DBIS has failed to take a hard look at both the affected environment and the environmental 

effects surrounding this project. 

III Aars, J., N.J. Lunn, and A.E. Derocher. 2006. Polar Bea,..: Proceedings o/the 14th Woning Meeting o/the 


IUCNISSC Polar Bear Specialist Group, 20-24 June 2005, Seattle, Washington. USA., at 44. IUCN, 


Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. 
 114 [d. 

lIS Regehr et al. 2006; Amstrup, S.C., I. Stirling, T.S. Smith, C. Perham, and G.W. Thiemann. 2006. Recent 


observation. of intraspecifIC predation and cannibalism among polar bean in the southern Beaufort Sea. Polar 


Biology DOl 10.1007/.00300-006-0142-5. Monnett, C. and J.S. Gleason. 2006. Observations of 


mortality associated with extended open water swimming by polar bears in the Alaskan Beaufort Sea. 


Polar Biology 29(8):861-687. 


116 Amstrup, S.C., B.O. Maroat, and D.C. Douglas. 2007. Forecasting the Range-wide Status ofPolar 


Bears at Selected Times in the 21ltCentury. U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia, USA. 


117 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants, Determination of Threatened Status for the Polar Bear (Ursus 


maritimus) Throughout its Range, 73 Fed. Reg. 28212-28303 (Mayl5, 2008). 


Il8 71 Fed. Reg. 26852. . 


119 73 Fed. Reg. 3328-3373; 72 Fed. Reg. 48178-48218. 


Comments of Center for Biological OMnity December 24, 2008 

DEIS for the South GIllette Area CoIl L....App"catlons Page 18of23 
III. 	 The DEIS Falls to Ensure Conformity wl'th Federal and State Air Quality Standards and the 

Appllcabte Implementation Plan. 

Under the implementing regulations for NEPA, BLM must analtze, among other things, whether 

the alternatives will meet federal and state air quality standards. 20 Moreover, the action cannot 

cause or contribute to any new violation ofthe National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

{"NAAQS"} or delay timely attainment of any standard or any required interim emission 

reduction or other milestones. 121 

BLM failed to sufficiently analyze whether its preferred alternative for the Project will comply 

with federal and state laws related to air quality. In addition to these leases, there are several 

other proposed or existing coal mines and coal-fired power plants in the immediate area and 

region. While the BLM includes some discussion ofthe air quality impacts ofleasing the LBA 

Tracts in the DElS, there is inadequate information presented in the DEIS from which to evaluate 

the cumulative environmental impacts of the preferred alternative as well as from the projected 

future increases in air pollution that would result from all ofthese activities. This renders 

BLM's air quality analysis inadequate under NEPA. 

In addition, BLM has wholly failed to demonstrate conformity with section 176(c} of the Clean 

Air Act (CAA), as amended, 42 V.S.C. 7401 et seq., and regulations under 40 C.F.R. part 93, 

subpart w, which states that "no department, agency or instrumentality of the Federal 

Government shall engage in, support in any way or provide financial assistance for, license or 

permit, or approve any activity which does not conform to an applicable implementation plan." 

In order to comply with the CAA's federal conformity provision, BLM must have ensured that 

the proposed plan conformed with the applicable state implementation plan ("SIP") before the 

approving the plan. BLM failed to do this in the DEIS. 

Conclusion 

For the reasons set forth above, the Center requests that BLM prepare a revised ElS that 

complies with NEP A. 

Sincerely. 

Amy R. Atwood 

Senior Attorney 

120 See 40 C.F.R. §1508.27 (10) (requiring that the preparing agency evaluate "[w]hether the action threatens a 

violation ofFederal, State, or local law or requirements imposed for the protection ofthe environment''). 121 40 C.F.R. Part 93. 

Comments of Center for Biological Dlvnlty December 24, 2008 

DEIS fur the South Gillette Arli Coal leaH Applications Page 19 of 23 
Public Lands Energy Director 

CENTER FOR BIoLOGICAL DIVERSITY 

PO Box 11374 

Portland, OR 97211-0374 

503-283-5474 phone 

atwood@biologicaldiversity.org 

Attachments: 

Aars, J., N.J. Lunn, and A.E. Derocher. 2006. Polar Bears: Proceedings ofthe 14th Working 

Meeting ofthe IUCNISSC Polar Bear Specialist Group, 20-24 June 2005, Seattle, Washington, 

USA, at 44. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK 

Alley et al. 2007. Summary for Policy Makers In Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science 

Basis Contribution ofWorking Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Available at http://www.ipcc.ch 

Amstrup, S.C., B.G. Marcot, and D.C. Douglas. 2007. Forecasting the Range-wide Status of 

Polar Bears at Selected Times in the 21st Century. u.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia, 

USA 

Barnett, T.P., et al. 2008. Human-Induced Changes in the Hydrology of the Western United 

States. Science 001: 10.1l26/science.1152538. 

Caldeira, K. and 25 others. 2007. Comment on "Modern-age buildup ofC02 and its effects on 

seawater acidity and salinity" by Hugo A. Loaiciga, Geophysical Research Letters 34: L 18608 

Derocher, A.E., N.J. Lunn, and 1. Stirling. 2004. Polar bears in a warming climate. Integrated 

Comparative Biology 44:163-176. 

Feely, R.A., et al. 2006. Carbon Dioxide and Our Ocean Legacy (2006) 

Gardner, T. A., I. M. Cote, J. A. Gill, A. Grant, and A. R. Watkinson. 2003. Coral reef decline in 

the Caribbean: Response to Buddemeir and Ware. Science 302:392-393 

Hansen, J. 2008. Climate Threat to the Planet: Implications for Energy Policy and 

Intergenemtional Justice. Bjerknes Lecture (slides), American Geophysical Union. 

Hansen, J., M. Sato, R. Ruedy, K. Lo, D. W. Lea, M. Medina-Elizade. 2006. Global temperature 

change. 

Proceedings ofthe National Academy ofSciences (PNAS) Published online September 25, 2006, 

doi:l0.1073/pnas.0606291103; Federal Response to the 2005 Caribbean Bleaching event, 

available at 

Comments of Center for BIoIogICII Diversity December 24, 2008 

DEIS for the South Gillette Area Coal Lease. Applications Page 20 of 23 
http://coralreefWatch.noaa.gov/caribbean2005/docs/2005 _ bleachinlL federalJesponse.pdf (last 

accessed Jan. 29, 2008) 

Hansen, J., et al. 2008. Target Atmospheric C02: Where Should Humanity Aim? The Open 

Atmospheric Science Journal, 2008,2, 217-231 

Harvell, C.D., C.E. Mitchell, J.R Ward, S. Altizer, AP. Dobson, R.S. Ostfeld, M.D. Samuel. 

2002. Climate Warming and Disease Risks for Terrestrial and Marine Biota. Science 296: 2158­

2162 

Holland, M.M., Bitz, C.M., Tremblay, B. 2006. Future Abrupt Reductions in the Summer Arctic 

Sea Ice. Geophysical Research Letters. 33: L23503 doi:l0.1029/2006GL028024 

IPCC, 2007: Summary for Policymakers. In: Climate Change 2007: Mitigation. Contribution of 

Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report ofthe Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 

Change [B. Metz, O.R. Davidson, P.R. Bosch, R. Dave, L.A. Meyer (eds)], Cambridge 

University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA 

Kizzia, T. 2008. Lacking Studies, State Still Disputes Polar Bear "Doom." Anchorage Daily 

News. January 27, 2008. Available at www.adn.coml626/story/295420.html(last accessed Dec. 

24,2008). 

Kleypas, J.A., RA. Feely, V.l Fabry, C. Langdon, C.L. Sabine, L.L. Robbins. 2006. Impacts of 

Ocean Acidification on Coral Reefs and Other Marine Calcifiers: A Guide for Future Research. 

Available at www.ucar.edulnews/releascs/2006/report.shtml 

Krajick, K. 2004. All Downhill From here? Science 303: 1600-1602. 

Meehl, G.A, T.S. Stocker, W.D. Collins, P. Friedlingstein, A.T. Gaye, 1M. Gregory, A. Kitoh, 

R Knutti, 1M. Murphy, A Noda, S.C.B. Raper, I.G. Watterson, A.J. Weaver, Z. Zhao. 2007: 

Global Climate Projections. Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis ofClimate 

Change. Contribution ofWorking Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report ofthe 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, [Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. 

Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M.Tignor and H.L. Miller (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, 

Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA 

Monnett, C. and J.S. Gleason. 2006. Observations of mortality associated with extended open 

water swimming by polar bears in the Alaskan Beaufort Sea. Polar Biology 29(8):861-687 

National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC). 2007a. Arctic Sea Ice News Fall 2007. 

www.nsidc.org/news/press/2007_seaiceminimurnl20070810jndex.html(last visited Dec. 24, 

2008). 

Orr, lC., V.J. Fabry, O. Aumont, L. Bopp, S.C. Doney, R.A Feely, A. Gnanadesikan, N. 

Gruber, A Ishida, F. Joos, R.M. Key, K. Lindsay, E. Maier-Reimer, R Matear, P. Monfray, A. 

Comments of Center for Biological Diversity December 24, 2008 

DEIS for the South GIllette Area COIl Lease Applications Page 21 of23 
Mouchet, R.G. Naiiar, G. Plattner, K.B. Rodgers, C.L. Sabine, J.L. Sarmiento, R SchIitzer, RD. 

Slater, 1.1 Totterdell, M. Weirig, Y. Yamanaka, A. Yooi. 2005. Anthropogenic ocean 

acidification over the twenty-first century and its impact on calcifying organisms. Nature 437: 

681-686. 

Parmesan, C. & G. Yohe. 2003. A globally coherent fingerprint ofclimate change impacts across 

natural systems. Nature 421: 37-42. 

Parmesan, C. & G. Hector. 2004. Observed Impacts of Global Climate Change in the U.S. 

Prepared for the Pew Center on Global Climate Change. 

Pounds, 1.A., M.R. Bustamante, L.A. Coloma, lA. Consuegra, M.P. L. Fogden, P.N. Foster, E. 

La Marca, K.L. Masters, A. Merino-Viteri, R Puschendorf, S.R Ron, G.A. Sanchez-Azofeifa, 

C.J. Still, B.E. Young. 2006. Widespread amphibian extinctions from epidemic disease driven by 

global warming. Nature 439: 161-167 

Prather, MJ. and J. Hsu. 2008. NF3, the greenhouse gas missing from Kyoto. Geophys. Res. 

Lett., 35: L12810 

Regehr et al. 2007. Effects ofearlier sea ice breakup on survival and population size ofpolar 

bears in Western Hudson Bay. Journal o/Wildlife Management 71(8):2673-2683 

Regehr et ai. 2006; Amstrup, S.C., I. Stirling, T.S. Smith, C. Perham, and G.W. Thiemann. 2006. 

Recent observations of intraspecific predation and cannibalism among polar bears in the southern 

Beaufort Sea. Polar Biology 001 IO.1007/s00300-006-0142-5 

Rosenzweig, C., G. Casassa, 0.1. Karoly, A. Imeson, C. Liu, A. Menzel, S. Rawlins, T.L. Root, 

B. Seguin, P. Try janowski, and C.E. Hanson, 2007: Assessment of observed changes and 

responses in natural and managed systems. In Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and 

Vulnerability. Contribution o/Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report o/the 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. M.L. Parry, O.F. Canziani, J.P. Palutikof, and PJ. 

van der Linden, Eds. Cambridge University Press, pp. 79-131. 

Royal Society. 2005. Ocean Acidification Due to Increasing Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide. 

Available at: hltp:llroyalsocicty.orgldocumcnt.asp?id=3249 (last accessed Dec. 24,2008) 

Sabine, C.L., R.A. Feely, N. Gruber, R.M. Key, K. Lee, J.L. Bullister, R. Wanninkhof, C. S. 

Wong, D.W. R. Wallace, B. Tilbrook, F.J. Millero, T. Peng, A. Kozyr, T. Ono, A.F. Rios. 2004. 

The Oceanic Sink for Anthropogenic C02. Science 305: 367-371. 

Santer, B. D., T. M. L. Wigley, P. 1 Glecklera, C. Bonfilsd, M. F. Wehnere, K. AchutaRaoa, T. 

P. Barnettf, J. S. Boylea, W. BrUggemanng, M. Fiorinoa, N. Gilletth, J. E. Hanseni, P. D. Jonesh, 

S. A. Kleina, G. A. Meehlc, S. C. B. Raperj, R.W. Reynoldsk, K. E. Taylora, W. M. Washington. 

2006. Forced and Unforced Ocean Temperature Changes in Atlantic and Pacific Tropical 

Comments of Center for BlologlcII DIversity December 24, 2008 

DEIS for the South Gillette Am Coal Lea..Applications Page 22 of 23 
Cyclogenesis Regions. Proceedings o/the National Academy o/Sciences (PNAS). Published 

online September 19, 2006, doi:l0.l073/pnas.0602861103 

Schwartz, J. 2007. Testimony for the Hearing on Black Carbon and Climate Change House 

Committee on Oversight and Government Refonn United States House ofRepresentatives 

Seager, R., et a1. 2007. Model Projections ofan Imminent Transition to a More Arid Climate in 

Southwestern North America," Science 316: 1181-1184 

Stroeve, J. et a1. 2008. Arctic sea ice extent plummets in 2007. Eos 89: 13-20. 

Thomas, C.D., A. Cameron, R.E. Green, M. Bakkenes, L.J. Beaumont, y.c. Collingham, B.F.N. 

Erasmus, M. Ferreira de Siqueira, A. Grainger, L. Hannah, L. Hughes, B. Huntley, A.S. van 

Jaarsveld, G.F. Midgley, L. Miles, M.A. Ortega-Huerta, A. Townsend Peterson, O.L. Phillips, 

S.E. Williams. 2004. Extinction Risks from Climate Change. Nature 427: 145-148. 

World Health Organization, 2002. The World Health Report 2002. Available at 

www.who.intlwhr/2002/cnlindex.html. 

Zender, C.S. 2007. Arctic Climate Effects ofBlack Carbon. Written testimony to the Oversight 

and Government Refonn Committee, U.S. House of Representatives. 

Comments of Center for Biological Diversity December 24, 2008 

DEIS for the South Gillette Area Coal Leue Applications Page 23 of 23 
Response to Comment Letter 2: Center for Biological Diversity 

Comment Response 2A: Ongoing scientific research has identified some of 

the potential impacts of GHG emissions, and changes in biologic carbon 

sequestration capacity 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 carbon 

dioxide equivalent (CO2(e)) concentrations to increase dramatically, and are 

likely to contribute to overall global climatic changes. 

Climatic change analyses are comprised of several factors, including GHG 

emissions, land use management practices, and the albedo effect. In Chapter 

3, we have identified the effects of recent global climate change on the 

environment (the affected environment) in the area of the proposed action. We 

have 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, including the No Action Alternative. Existing climate prediction 

models are not at a scale sufficient to estimate potential impacts of climate 

change within the analysis area. We have referenced national and regional 

data that is available, most recent being the 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 specific activities like mining of an LBA tract are presently 

unavailable. As a consequence, impact assessment of effects of specific 

anthropogenic activities cannot be performed. Additionally, specific levels of 

significance have not yet been established. Therefore climate change analysis 

in this EIS is limited to accounting and disclosing factors that contribute to 

climate change. To the extent that emission data were available or could be 

inferred from representative type data, we have identified potential GHG 

emissions that could result from development of the proposed LBAs, as well as 

emissions that will result from selection of the no action alternative. 

The site-specific impacts analyzed in this EIS are based on the assumption that 

if the LBA tracts are offered for competitive lease, a lease would be issued, and 

mining would be permitted. We further assume that the applicant would be 

the lessee and that the lease would be permitted as an extension of their 

current mining operations. In Chapter 3, Affected Environment and 

Environmental Consequences, we have estimated the change to emissions of 

GHG under each alternative LBA configuration, including the No Action 

Alternative. 
In Chapter 4, Cumulative Environmental Consequences, the contribution of 

the site-specific alternatives to cumulative effects on the environment is 

evaluated. To do this, it is assumed that coal mining will proceed in 

accordance with permit conditions. We 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 are 

also some 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. 

We have estimated 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. 

This information is included in Chapter 4 (4.2.14.1). This was done by relating 

the portion of coal mined to the total emission of GHG from all coal mined in 

the U.S. We 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. Given the state of the science, specific levels of significance have 

not yet been established for GHG emissions. 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 precise conclusions as to 

the magnitude the emissions will have 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 EIS 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 FEIS acknowledges that that in addition to the major GHGs listed in the 

DEIS, other gaseous compounds, while occurring in much smaller 

concentrations, are also considered GHGs. There is no list of EPA recognized 

GHGs at this time. 

As noted above, we have 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 

analysis area. The affected environment descriptions reflect any measurable or 

observable affect on the subject as a result of historic climate change as well as 

other historic factors. In Chapter 4, we have summarized and referenced 

studies of national and regional climatic affect, most recent being the 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). In Chapter 3, revisions have been made to include an updated 

discussion of GHGs. 

As coal is a mine on demand product, its development is inherently regulated 

by the amount of public use. Demand for coal is further adjusted by the 

regulations imposed by both federal and state governments on mining 

operations and combustion facilities. Therefore, the mining of coal will adjust 

to the demand for coal. 

Comment Response 2B: This EIS addresses the leasing of federal coal 

reserves and does not authorize or permit either surface disturbance or mining. 

Mining is addressed as it is a logical consequence of leasing. The greenhouse 

gases that would be emitted by mining operations as a result of leasing are 

discussed in Section 3.18.2. 

We have estimated the amount of GHG emissions that could be attributed to 

coal production that could result from leasing the proposed LBAs, as well as 

from the forecasted coal production from all coal mines in the Wyoming PRB. 

This information is included in Chapter 4 (4.2.14.1). This was done by relating 

the portion of coal mined to the total emission of GHG from all coal mined in 

the U.S. We 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 estimate of the maximum GHG resulting from use of the coal that 

would be produced from the proposed LBAs and for forecast total PRB coal 

production. 

Wyoming PRB coal is sold on the open market; therefore, it is not possible to 

know with any reasonable certainty what power plants would use this coal or 

in what amount. The variety of burning and emission control apparatus 

installed in the many facilities to which PRB coal is sold would also make 

calculating CO2 emissions difficult. We agree that some sort of calculation is 

possible for CO2 released during the laboratory combustion of coal. The 

following information has been added to the final EIS in section 4.2.14.1: “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 (DOE 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 (DOE 2007a). In 

2006, Wyoming PRB mines accounted for approximately 37.2 percent of the coal 

produced in the U.S (DOE 2007d).” 
 

 

Black carbon is a general term applied to various carbonaceous products of 

incomplete basic combustion. In coal combustion facilities, they are monitored 

and regulated by the Wyoming DEQ/AQD. The WDEQ enforces regulations on 

particulate emissions from coal combustion facilities at or above the standards 

set by the EPA. The EPA sets standards for emissions based on the principals 

set forth in the Clean Air Act and the amendments to that act. The effects of 

black carbon as a particulate are included in the discussion of the effects of 

particulates on air quality. State enforced mitigation procedures for the effects 

of black carbon are already in place at coal combustion facilities. There are 

state and federal operations in place to facilitate the retrofit or 

decommissioning of older combustion facilities within the United States. This 

is being done in order to meet or exceed the current U.S. or state air quality 

standards, whichever is the stricter of the two. 

The BLM has generated an update to the “Air Quality” section of the PRB Coal 

Review Task 3A report published in October of 2008. The new data has been 

incorporated into Section 4.2.3 (air quality) of the final EIS. 

The other source of black carbon from mining results from the use of the 

internal combustion engine in mining equipment. The U.S. Department of 

Transportation (DOT) and the EPA regulate air quality standards for 

carbonaceous particulates released from exhaust pipes on equipment used 

during mining operations. This is done during the research and development 

stage and before production of equipment using internal combustion engines. 

The EPA and the DOT enforce the regulations. At this time, there is direction 

by presidential mandate to the EPA and DOT to further reduce total U.S. green 

house emissions that effect equipment which use an internal combustion 

engine. 

The USFWS is responsible for administration of the ESA. This agency manages 

threatened and endangered species and consults, through the Section 7 

process, with other agencies in how proposed projects might impact and affect 

listed species. All federal agencies have a responsibility under Section 7(a)(1) of 

the ESA to conserve federally listed threatened and endangered species. BLM 

cooperates with the USFWS in fulfilling our Section 7 consultation obligations 

and responsibilities. The biological assessment (Appendix E) and the BLM 

sensitive species evaluation (Appendix F) for this FEIS have been prepared and 

provided to USFWS for their review. We continue to work with USFWS in order 

to address concerns and provide any additional information needs. The EIS 

has been revised based on comments and oral discussions with the USFWS. 

Section 7 consultation will be completed before a decision is made on whether 

to lease or not to lease any of the LBAs discussed in this EIS. 

The USFWS is currently monitoring trust resources to see how they are 

affected by climate change. On May 14, 2008, the USFWS developed an 

analytical framework for addressing species affected by federal actions which 
 

could emit GHG. BLM will continue to coordinate and consult with USFWS on 

listed species and will work to ensure that our projects do not adversely affect 

threatened and endangered species. 

Currently, there are not enough non-carbon based, energy producing facilities 

and available electric transmission capacity in place in the United States to 

take coal out of the energy portfolios developed by either the Bush or the 

Obama presidential administrations. For more information on the ObamaBiden comprehensive New Energy for America plan, please see 

www.whitehouse.gov. 

Comment Response 2C: This EIS contains analyses of both the site-specific 

and cumulative impacts of the proposed action and alternatives. Please see 

sections 3.4 and 4.2.3 and Appendix H (old Appendix K) of the draft EIS. 

The WDEQ/AQD has permitted the current level of operations at these mines, 

and would have to approve any change if the level of operation is raised above 

the current permit levels. All mines are required to conduct long-term 

modeling, followed by on the ground monitoring, to show that their proposed 

and ongoing operations are in compliance with the NAAQS and the WAAQS. 

Air quality permits specify the mitigation measures that operators must 

conduct and maintain to continue mining operations. WDEQ/AQD is a 

cooperator on the EIS, because they have jurisdiction for the management of 

air quality in Wyoming. 
I 

3 

• 

Teresa To Gin Vickers/CFOJWV/BLMlOOI@BLM 

JohnsonICFOlWY/BLM/DOI cc 


1212212008 03:15 PM 
 bee 

Subject 	 Fw: Comments on Draft EIS for South Gillette Area Coal 

lease Applications 

Teresa Johnson 

Environmental Protection Specialist 

BlM Wyoming High Plains Distrid Office 

National System of Public lands 

ph: 307-261-7510 

Teresa_Johnson@blm.gov 

-- Forwarded by Teresa Johnson/CFOlWY/BLM/DOI on 12122/200803:15 PM­

"Uedtke. Roy (RTEA)" 


<LIEDTKEROrlotlnto.com> To <casper_wymail@blm.gov> 


12/2212008 02:31 PM cc 

Subject 	 Comments on Draft EIS for South Gillette Area Coal lease 

Applications 

TO: Ms. Teresa Johnson 

Following are comments on the Draft EIS for South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications. 

• 	 Section 2.4.1, Page 2-34: The last paragraph discusses coal handling at the two Cordero 


Rojo Mine facilities (north and south). Please note the Cordero Rojo north facility 
 A 

consists oftwo coal storage silos while the Cordero Rojo south facility consists of four 

coal storage silos and a covered storage slot (a total ofsix coal storage silos, not four as 

stated). 

• 	 Section 3.6.1.4, Page 3-125: The last paragraph discusses the most recent alluvial valley 


floor (AVF) study along the Belle Fourche River that was completed by Cordero Rojo 


Mine in 2001. This paragraph states "Formal declaration ofthe presence or absence ofan 


A VF, its significance to agriculture, and the appropriate areal extent would be made by 


the WDEQ/LQD as part of the mine permitting process if the LBA tract is leased and 


proposed for mining." While it is true the "fonnal" declaration is made during the mine 


permitting process, the WDEQ/LQD Coal Rules & Regulations, Chapter 3, Section 2(a) 


allow for "a pre-application determination ofthe presence or absence ofan alluvial valley 


floor ... ". This pre ..application determination has already been made by WDEQ/LQD for 


the 2001 A VF study. WDEQlLQD determined there are no A VFs in the Maysdorf 


application area. A copy ofthe pre-application determination letter from WDEQILQD is 


B 
attached. 

Thank you for the opportunity to comment 

Roy Liedtke 

Sr. Environmental Engineer 

Cordero Rojo Mine .. Rio Tinto Energy America 

P.O. Box 1449 

748 T-7 Road 

Gillette, WY 82717-1449 

307...685..4544 

rov.liedtke@riotinto.com 

CONFIDENTIAL and PROPRIETARY information of Rio Tinto Energy America. All rights reserved. This work contains 

Information that Is confidential and proprietary to Rio Tlnto Energy Amenca. The senders contact Information is also 

protected by the Rio Tinto Energy America Data Protection Polley. and should not be circulated. Removal of this notice, 

use, transfer, republication, disclosure and/or copying of all or part of this message, or its attachments, is strtctty 

prohibited. except with the express, written permission of Rio Tinto Energy America. If you have received this e-mail 

message In error please return it and contact Roy Liedtke at 301-685-4544. 

~ Maysdorf AVF Predeterminationpdf 
................ 


.. , 

: .. Or 

Department of Environmental Quality ~ 

To protect, conserve and enhance the quality of "'Yoming's 

environment for the benefit of current and future generations. 

John Corra, ~ctor 

October 2. 2007 

Mr. Roy Liedtke 

Cordero Mining Company 

P. O. Box 1449 

Gillette, WY 82111-1449 

RE: 	 Cordero Mining Company's Cordero Mine, Permit No. 137..1'8, Approval of 

Maysdorr Pre-permit Alluvial Valley Floor (AVF) Study, TFN 4 4/360 

Dear Mr. Liedtke: 

TIle Land Quality Division (LQD) District III staffreviewed the referenced application 

which was initially received March 19, 2007, under cover of Aqua Terra ConsUltants;< (ATe) 

Steve Stresky's letter of March 16,2007. Modifications ofthe application were received 011 

July 30, 2007. 

This letter approves the Alluvial Valley Floor Predetennination application as set out in 

the July 30, 2007, revisions. nus AVF Predetenninatiol1 declares that: 

1. 	 There are no AVF units as detailed within this application for portions ofthe Belle 

Fourche River (from near the northeast comer ofSection 10, T.46N" R.71 W. and ending 

approxinlately 7.4nutes upstream in the SWy..NW~ of Section 21, T.46N.J R.71 W.). 

The Land Quality Division agrees that there are no A VFs within these described lands. 

You shouJd note that: 

2. 	 This approved A VF Predetennination does not constitute review ofnor approval for 

Appendix 0-11 as it nlay appear in the Maysdorf BDlenchnent appljcation. All materials 

submitted in the amendment application's Appendix D-Il will be fully reviewed by the 

LQD staff. 

3.. 	 ATe should write this AVF Predetennination approval and the supporting infonnation 

into the Ap~endix D-11 for the Ma~do(j am~ndment. appli~tion. 

4. 	 This approval letter closes TFN 4 4i360; subseq~ent ~ori-eSpo~d~n'ce should r~fer~n~e the approved A VF Predetermination. 

Herschler Building • 122 West 25th Street • Cheyenne, Wyoming 82002 • bttp:lldaa.8tata.wy.ul 

ADMINIOUTRIACH A8ANDONl!D ItINl!S AIR QUALITY INDUSTRIAL smNG LAND QUALm SOUD • HAZ. WASTE WA11!R QUALITY 

(307) 777-7758 

FAX 711-3110 

(307, m.a14S 

FAX 777-8461 

(301) 777-1391 

FAX 777-11816 

(307) m-7381 

PAX m..fi937 

(307) m-TI5t 

FAX 777-5164 

(307'777-7752 

FAX 717-5973 

('307) 777-7781 

FAX 771-5973 
.. ,. 

".. 

Cordero Mining Compony's Cordero Rojo Mine, 

Permit No. 137-T8 

MaysdorCPre-permlt Alluvial Valley Floor (AVF) Study, TFN 44/360 

September ,2008 

Page 2 

If you or the ATC have any questions, please contact Glenn Mooney in the District ill Office. 

Sincerely, 

~~~ LQD Administrator 

RAC\gm 

cc: 	 District III 


Steve Stresky, ATC 


2l1ov(acccptlcL1am 
Response to Comment Letter 3: Cordero Rojo Mine – Rio Tinto
 

Energy America
 

Comment Response 3A: Revisions have been made in Section 2.4.1 in the 

final EIS to correct the discussion on Cordero Mine facilities to state: “There 

are six existing coal storage silos (two at the north facility and four at the south 

facility) and a covered slot storage structure.” 

Comment Response 3B: Revisions have been made to the last paragraph of 

Section 3.6.1.4 updating the status of AVF inventories within the Maysdorf II 

tract. It now states that “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).” 
II 

4 

NadoMlII~l1arca. 

11)0 17th Str,~. "'.w. I Wa,llington. D.C. !col(j-~ I rell01.•6g?..~)4(lO I fa'l' 7o,..681.rUI 


........ ....... 


Bureau ofLand Management 

Casper Field Office 

Attn: Teresa Johnson 

2987 Prospector Drive 

Casper, Wyoming 82604 

casper wymail@blm.gov 

December 23, 2008 

Re: Comments on the South Gillette Area Coal Lease 

Dear Ms. Johnson: 

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the South Gillette Coal Lease and Draft 

Environmental Impact Statement ("DEIS"). These comments are submitted on behalf of 

Defenders ofWildlife ("Defenders"), a non-profit public interest conservation organization 

with over 500,000 members nationally. 

Defenders is dedicated to protecting imperiled species and their habitats by 

combining scientific research, public organizing, and administrative and legal advocacy. 

Defenders relies on the Endangered Species Act ("ESA"), and other federal conservation 

Jaws to protect endangered and threatened species, and imperiled species not currently 

benefiting from ESA protections. In addition to species-specific litigation, Defenders is a 

committed advocate for the protection ofthe nation's wildlife refuges, parks, forests and 

other public lands. 

In February 2007, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change ("IPCC") 

declared, "[w]arming ofthe climate system is unequivocal," and it is "very likely" that most 

ofthe warming since the middle ofthe 20th century is the result ofhuman pollutants. Global 

warming is a global crisis with well-documented and considerable local impacts. In addition 

to its other disruptive direct effects, the mining ofcoal will likely result in the generation of 

high quantities ofgreenhouse gas emissions, a significant contributor to global warming. The 

Bureau ofLand Management ("BLM") was obligated to consider the impacts ofa coal lease 

sale in the DEIS. 

The DEIS failed to considered global warming on four notable fronts. The DEIS fails 

to: (1) analyze the greenhouse gas emissions inevitably reSUlting from a lease sale; (2) 

analyze the observed and projected effects ofglobal warming on the welfare ofecosystems; 

(3) analyze alternatives to coal based energy in meeting energy needs; and (4) analyze the 

COlDDlenta on the Soutb Gillette Area Coal Leue AppUcation 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement 
A 

I I 

NatJar.aj 1Ic:"u.ar••a 

1I~ 17th Strc«.1\7.W. I Wullington. D.C. "coJ6-46o.a. I «':1 ',01..6I.h..~)~O I fax 10".68".I)J' 

.".....defe.dcrLOl'l 

impacts ofthe lease sale on threatened and endangered species protected under the ESA, as 

well as imperiled species that have yet to be listed. 

These comments address and analyze the effects ofa coal lease sale on greenhouse 

gas emissions and the deficiencies ofthe DEIS. Federal agencies, including the BLM, are 

required to incorporate global warming and its impacts in their decision calculus under a 

number of mandates, including the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 42 U.S.C. §§ 

4331 et~. (''NEP A"). In addition, the project fails to comply with the Endangered Species 

Act ("ESA"), 16 U.S.C. §§ 1531-1544. We believe that the DEIS must be revised, as it 

violates NEPA, and must be supplemented to integrate global warming in its analysis. 

The DEIS Fails to Analyze Greenhouse Gas Emissions 

The Bureau ofLand Management ("BLM") failed to consider and analyze the 

greenhouse gas emissions that would result from the lease sale ofthe South Gillette Area 

Coal ("SGAC") tract in the Powder River Basin ("PRB") in Wyoming. The BLM 

administers mineral resources owned by the federal government. It leases these resources for 

development under the Mineral Leasing Act, 30 U.S.C. § 221 et~, and manages them 

according to resource management plans developed under the Federal Land and Policy and 

Management Act ("FLPMA"), 43 U.S.C. § 1701 et~. BLM's failure to consider the 

greenhouse gas and global warming considerations in the DEIS is arbitrary and capricious. 

NEP A requires federal agencies to "ensure 'that the agency analyzes the probable 

environmental aspects oftbeir ordinary duties." Arizona Cattle Growers' Ass'n v. 

Cartwright, 29 F.Supp.2d 1100, 1110 (D. Ariz. 1998). NEPA requires that the agency prepare 

an Environmental Impact Statement ("EIS") for "major Federal actions significantly 

affecting the quality ofthe human environment." 42 U.S.C. § 4332(c). The EIS is "a 

procedural obligation designed to assure that agencies give proper consideration to the 

environmental consequences oftheir actions." Arizona Cattle Growers' Ass'n at 1110 (citing 

Merrell v. Thomas, 807 F.2d 776, 777-78 (9th Cir. 1986». In addition, the EIS serves to 

inform both decision makers and the public about the alternatives and adverse impacts ofthe 

project. See Columbia Basin Protection Ass'n v. Scb1esinm. 643 F.2d 585, 592 (9th Cir. 

1981) ("[T]be preparation ofan EIS ensures that other officials, Congress, and the public can 

evaluate the environmental consequences independently."). 

Coal-fIred electric power plants are the nation's largest emitter ofgreenhouse gases, 

the leading culprit ofglobal warming, yet the BLM failed to do more than a cursory analysis 

ofthe impacts that will result from the lease sale on global warming. This is especially 

egregious given that Wyoming coal production has increased at a more rapid rate than other 

domestic coal sources. DEIS, 4-109. The Department ofEnergy estimates that by 2030, the 

Comments on the South Gillette Area Coal Lease AppUcation 2 

Dnft Environmental Impact Statement 
........ n ' ....... 
 nlO.,.. .....M•• I --..... o.C 1CGI~ I teI ...-..,.. I .... 1GLAII..,,, 
 au ,.' .. 

, 

coal abare oftotal eDerJJY 1111 wiD iDc.nue iolD 23 pen:eat ia 2006 tID 25 pen:eat ill 2030. 

DBlS, 4-109. 

The SOAC MiMI produced 100.1 miDioa toDI ofcom iD 2006, totaIiDa 

approximately 22.7 perceDI oftile com produced iD tire W,.,....Powder Riwr BaIiD iD 

2006, or abOut 3.2 pen:eat ofdle .duidod u.s. cubon cIioxide llDillioDi iD 2006. Dms, 4­

111. UDder tile No AdioD CQa emiIIioIII aarIIutable to ......coal procIuced 

by the Belle Ayr, ColI Creek CabI., ...Cordero Roao Ma. would be at..... at _at 

tbiI lewl." up to IppIUXimItely 16 )WIll, ill which time the miaea recowr ....rema--. 

OItimato 1,564 miIIioatoIII of ...coal lall1 NL 14 

,.. d__fbrtber below, the public ....1pII:)' decilioa ........, entitled. to 


bow die true COllI .... jll'l_ofaD IIpOCII of'" coal,.... iaclacliai die UbI)' 


.......1M emiIIioDL OutIiDiq the true in..-.... COllI oftile cIhct .... c:umalltiw 


...,....,.....eaduio. hilithe coaI"'~'"clilcloaiq aJtmuativeIaad 
 . _iptioa .......would \WY Ubly'"to _a_ad --uCOIIICnIIioa ....a. of 

reaewable eDIIJY I01IICeI. IIICef« ...Rip.,.' DmnilJ, CoII""O" oa PIOpoJecI 


OUter CoaIi....SheIf(OCS) on .... 011 DriIUq ...._ ...2007-2012. CoameatI 


onDraI_Iapat StII_..die PIOpoJecI oc:s ......." 2007-2012, 71 


Ped. ...50457-.504S (2006) ("CBD eo,,·,_"). CoatI_" to the .....0 ofNBPA to 
 A 

clilclole the fbII 0Jl¥ir0ameJdaI COIIIeqIIOJICeI ofdle Souda Gillette Ana ColI Leue, die 

81M produced aDBIS dill bit die true ..........e."". ofbJIft1PDIII. TIle BLY 


It8ted thIt it iI "Dot poIIibIe to pmject tile ....ofCOa el' illl..thIt .......the coal ill die 


SOAC LBA tmcI would procD:e clue to tile.-........... wIIIt....iDa IimitI wiD be 


ia place IIthIt time or wbere ........the coal ill tile SOAC tmcI would be UIed after • ill 


....." DBlS, ....112. 1'111 BLM'.1dIIn to COIIIider die ...............foDi oftire 


coal reI018'CeI fIaWI..-y IIpICt oftile DBIS ...tile cIeciIiD. wIrin. pmceII. 1'111 BLM 
 _ ......anMled DBJS tIIIt pmperIy co.idIJI tile......,.....ad..,.,........ iqllicata- ofdle ......" prior to pmceodina'" die FiaaI HIS. IIICBD CoIIJIIIeIllL 

'DI DR' rl"'.A··...1M,......,'....tCt!41t1es!r "".....w..... 

O............_*_..........................,....... of 


bioctiveniIy warldwide, aact..bolla ta.........-WlJIICiII. TIle periodic 
 ••11_.....iIIued by till UIIiIed lIIa..,__••Palloa cu... 


a...,..("IPCC').".••- ..... ....._of.... ' 
a_ ..10.......,.,.. ........ TIle IPCC'.......II to ~."'Iy""oIJjectMly 


--tile .-iftc..........IOCiDecoaoI.............'--ID........... 
 c........,.....1 i,..............idIpI............ioa(IPCC 


MtncIIte). The tedlaiNI .........".,.. dIIDII periocIic I.e ._....,.... ofdle 


c. I"".........G-...AnllCeil"-A..Ie..... 
 3 

DnlI K............1..........-, 

I I 

NatJa.aj IIa..Ltwuter. 


11)0 17fh Srr,,,(,(. N.W. I \,,"ullington. D.C. ,.co,6"-460+ I (\",;1 ,.o1.•681..~J400 I f.11' 1o,".Qb.1Hf 


www.cIefaMk..... 


existing scientific and technical literature compiled by the world's leading climate change 

experts, representing the collective wisdom ofthousands ofscientists from around the world, 

including hundreds ofacademic and government researchers within the U.S. The reports 

represent the ''best available science" addressing climate change and its impacts on the 

natural world. 

The IPCC reports convincingly indicate that greenhouse gases, including carbon 

dioxide ("C02"), endanger public health, welfare, and the environment. The IPCC's fourth 

assessment report, issued in February 2007, determined that the evidence ofwarming global 

temperatures is "unequivocal" and that observed changes in temperatures since the mid-20th 

century have been "very likely" (>9()O!o chance) caused by increases in anthropogenic 

greenhouse gas emissions. In addition, the largest growth in global greenhouse gas 

emissions between 1970 and 2004 has come from the energy supply sector (an increase of 

145%) (IPCC). 

Many ofthe public resources managed by the Department ofthe Interior are being 

harmed by global warming resulting from increased greenhouse gas emissions (see generally 

GAO, Climate Change). As stated by the U.S. Supreme Court last year, "[t]he harms 

associated with climate change are serious and well recognized." Massachusetts v. EPA, 127 

S. Ct. 1438, 1455 (2007). These harms-already occurring worldwide-include "the global 

retreat ofmountain glaciers, reduction in snow-cover extent, the earlier spring melting of 

rivers and lakes, [and] the accelerated rate ofsea levels during the 20th century relative to the 

past few thousand years." Id. (quoting National Research Counci~ Climate Change: An 

Analysis ofSome Key Questions, at 16). The impacts from global warming on species and 

ecosystems are not too uncertain to predict. 

For example, one ofthe most immediate general effects ofclimate change on 

terrestrial plants and wildlife are shifts in geographical ranges, catalyzed by changes in the 

normal patterns oftemperatures and humidity that generally determine such ranges (Thuiller 

2007). As a result ofwarming temperatures, significant range shifts averaging 6.1 kilometers 

per decade towards the poles and an advancement ofspring events by 2.3 days per decade 

have already occurred (Parmesan & Yohe 2003). Because many ecosystems and species 

cannot make such "shifts," global warming presents risks ofwidespread extinctions (Thomas 

et a1. 2004; Thuiller 2007). 

In addition to general impacts, different regions throughout the world will be 

increasingly affected in ways specific to those locations. 

The Arctic region has been the most obvious early indicator ofthe effects ofglobal 

warming on the planet. While the planet as a whole warmed approximately 1°F during the 

Comments on the South Gillette Area Coal Lease Appleatlon 4 

Draft EnvironmeDtal Impact Statement 
I I 

National II~uar~r. 

UJO 17th SrlX"rr. N.W. I \V'ullington. D.C. ,cOJ6-~0+ I I'd ,.o1'..6Ih.~)400 I fn ,o,..6~b.l~~r 

W'WW.d.cfcaden... 


20th century, some regions ofthe Arctic experienced warming of4-5°P since the 1950s 

alone, and the region continues to warm at rates approximately twice that in the rest ofthe 

world (ACIA 2004).' Most notably, the melting of Arctic sea ice due to global warming has 

occurred much more rapidly and on a scale that scientists believed would not happen for 

another half century. At the end ofsummer in 2007, the volume ofArctic sea ice was half 

what it was only four years ago, nearly 23 percent below the previous record-Iow. 

(Borenstein 2007). 

The rapid melting ofthe Arctic ice has grave repercussions for the many Arctic 

species that rely wholly or partially on the ice for feeding, nesting, breeding, sheltering, and 

other essential behavioral functions. The melting ofArctic sea ice caused by global warming 

directly threatens the polar bear, which is completely dependent on the ice for every aspect of 

its life cycle. Melting sea ice will shorten the time frame in which polar bears can hunt seals 

due to earlier ice break-up and later freeze-up dates, reduce availability ofprey, increase 

distances bears need to swim because of melting ice, and increase bear-human conflicts as 

bears move into terrestrial and populated areas in search of food. 

Additionally, the world's oceans, occupying 70 percent ofthe planet, are being 

profoundly affected by global warming, as primarily evidenced by warming temperatures and 

increasing acidification ofthe oceans (Rosenzweig 2007). Coral reefs have served as an 

early bellwether ofthese changes, and NMFS on May 9,2006 determined two species-the 

elkhorn (Acropora palmata) and staghom (A. cervicornis) corals-to be threatened, the first 

coral species to be give protection under the ESA. 71 Fed. Reg. 26,852. 

In addition to the precipitous declines in staghorn and elkhorn coral popUlations as a 

result ofglobal-warming inducted bleaching, global warming also adversely affects coral 

species by increasing the acidification ofocean waters (Hoegb-Guldberg 2007). Ocean 

acidification is especially driven by C02; as greater levels ofCO2 enter the ocean, it reacts 

with seawater to produce carbonic acid, which ultimately reduces the amount ofcarbonate 

available to the reefs, leading to decreased calcification and increased erosion. In a recent 

study, a team ofresearchers presented three scenarios based on the business-asusua1lalternative scenario approach, and found that even ifC02 emissions leveled at 380 

ppm, coral reefs worldwide would still undergo fundamental changes (Hoegh-Guldberg 

2007). Ifcarbon dioxide levels rise to double that ofpreindustrial levels under a business-asusual approach, "[ t ]hese changes will reduce coral reef ecosystems to crumbling frameworks 

I A phenomena known as the "Ice-Albedo feedback" is largely responsible for these disproportionate 

effects. Because the arctic ice has high albedo, meaning it reflects much more solar radiation than 

other sources, once that ice melts, the uncovered land and water absorbs more solar radiation, leading 

to a positive feedback loop and rising temperatures. 

Comments on the South GUlette Area Coal Lease Appleation 5 

Draft Envlronmentallmp.t Statement 
Nadoaalllt!ad..uar~•• 

lIJO 11ch SrlX"(,c. ".,,:. I \VI~hinltton. D.C. '!cOJ6--460+ I (\'":1 "o1..6lh.~)400 I fAx ,o,..68~.IHr 

www.defeade ... ·OIJ 

with few calcareous corals ...Under these conditions, reefs will become rapidly eroding 

rubble banks" (Hoegh-Guldberg 2007). 

Like the rapidly accumulating evidence addressing the negative effects ofglobal 

warming on coral reefspecies and the polar bear, new scientific information demonstrates 

that global warming is increasingly having negative effects throughout the western United 

States. The west has warmed more than any other area in the country outside ofAlaska, with 

projections offuture warming varying from 3 to 7°F, to as much as 14°F in the Southwest 

(Leung and Qian 2005; Overpeck 2005). As new scientific information developed since 1996 

convincingly demonstrates, global warming is already affecting the West by causing wetter 

and warmer winters wjth reduced snowpacks and earlier springs with associated early-season 

melting ofthe already-reduced snowpack (Mote et al. 2005). In addition, many areas ofthe 

West are in the midst ofthe worst drought in hundreds ofyears, and researchers believe 

global warming could cause drought to become essentially permanent. 

This combination ofeffects is already having real-world consequences for biological 

resources. For example, scientists identified high temperatures as one ofthe likely causes of 

a massive die-offofpifton and ponderosa trees across 3.5 million acres ofArizona and New 

Mexico (Breshears et a1. 2005). In addition, less snowpack and earlier snowmelt have been 

correlated with increasing numbers oflarge forest ftres in the west, as earlier snowmelt acts 

to dry out forest fuels (Westerling 2006). B 

The effects ofglobal warming present heightened risks to species already imperiled 

by other causes, especially those with restricted ranges or highly specific ecological needs 

(Randall 2006). Climate change during the past 30 years has in fact already been implicated 

in one species-level extinction, and a potential mass extinction (an estimated 67 percent of 

110 species) ofAte/opus, a genus ofamphibians endemic to the American tropics (Pounds et 

al. 1999; Pounds et al. 2006). Iflevels ofgreenhouse gases continue to rise unabated, newlydeveloped science indicates that extinction levels in the U.S. and worldwide would likely be 

catastrophic. As stated by James Hansen, senior scientist at Columbia University Earth 

Institute and Director ofthe NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies: 

In my opinion there is no significant doubt (probability >99%) that (] 

additional global warming of 2°C would push the Earth beyond the tipping 

point and cause dramatic climate impacts including eventual sea level rise of 

at least several meters, extermination of a substantial fraction ofthe animal 

and plant species on the planet, and major climate disruptions. Much 

remains to be learned before we can define these effects in detail, but these 

consequences are no 10nKer speCUlative climate model results. 

C8mments 8. the S8uth Gillette Area Coal Lease AppUcation 6 

Draft EnviroDmental Impact Statement 
I I 

NatiouJ lIadquarteli 

uJO 11th Srr,,·("C'. ~.w. I ''''uhinRton. D.C. '!col6-~o.t- I (\,,:1 ,.o?,6tc1'~c}..f.t)O I fay 1'ol..6H?,IJlJ 

W'WW.deleadel'LOl'l 

(Hansen 2006). Echoing this assessment, a team of 18 scientists recently estimated that 15-37 

percent ofterrestrial species within sample regions covering approximately 20 percent ofthe 

Earth's surface would be "committed to extinction" by 2050 if greenhouse gas emissions B 

continue rising on current trajectories (Thomas et at. 2004). Ifthose percentages ofloss are 

extrapolated to a planetary level, more than 1 million species could be driven extinct in the 

next fifty years (Thomas et at. 2004). Many ocean species will also suffer pronounced losses 

(Hunter 2007). 

The BLM is required under NEPA to analyze global warming impacts that result from its 

actions 

In April 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision that recognized the severity 

ofthe climate change crisis, and the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency's obligation to 

confront the problem. The Supreme Court held, in Massachusetts v. EPA,. 127 S. Ct. 1438 

(2007), that the "unambiguous" definition of "air pollutants" includes carbon dioxide and 

other greenhouse gases. This case was initiated by a dozen states and numerous 

environmental organizations, and the Supreme Court's ruling is widely viewed as a landmark 

recognition ofthe global warming crisis by the judiciary. The Court noted that the "[t]he 

harms associated with climate change are serious and well recognized." Id. at 1455. The 

Court also acknowledged "the enormity ofthe potential consequences associated with manmade climate change," and the contribution ofcarbon dioxide emissions to global warming. 

Id. at 1457-58. Given the Supreme Court's conclusion that, "[t]he harms associated with 

climate change are serious and well recognized," the federal government has a responsibility 

to take action to reduce it, even ifsuch action may not completely reverse global warming. 

Id. at 1458. BLM is not exempt from that responsibility. 

Since 1990, 19 coal leases containing more than five billion tons offederal coal have 

been issued following competitive sealed-bid sales in the Powder River Basin. DEIS, 4­

4.This mined coal will inevitably be used in coal-fired power plants. Coal-fired power plant 

emissions include carbon dioxide (C02), which is the principal anthropomorphic greenhouse 

gas. C02 emissions represent about 84 percent ofthe total U. S. greenhouse gas emissions. 

DEIS, 3-168. Ofthat 84 percent, estimated CO2 emissions from the electric power sector 

totaled 2,343.9 million metric tons, or about 39.5 percent oftotal U.S. energy ...related C02 

emissions in 2006. Massachusetts, 127 S. Ct. at 1446 '("A well documented rise in global 

temperatures has coincided with a significant increase in the concentration ofcarbon dioxide 

in the atmosphere. Respected scientists believe the two trends are related ... It is therefore a 

species-the most important species--ofa 'greenhouse gas."'). 

The concentration ofC~ in the Earth's atmosphere now exceeds 380 parts per 

million (''ppm''), more than 80 ppm greater than the maximum levels ofat least the last 

Comments on the South GlUette Area Coal Lease AppUcation 7 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement 
Nadaaalllc:ad.llar~,. 

UlO 17rh Srr('("(". ]\;.w. I \'fullington. D.C. "co~(j-#o+ I (\.~I ,.r)1..6lt1..~J-VlO I fno 1o,..6)b.IH' 


www.c&efeadc:n.cN.J 


740,000 years, and perhaps the last 20 million years (Hoegh-Guldberg et aI2007). Because 

coal-ftred power plants are one ofthe two "largest and fastest growing" sources ofcarbon 

dioxide emissions, their greenhouse gas outputs "must be addressed to move emission trends 

off the Business-as-Usual path and onto something approximatin& the Alternative scenario" 

(Hansen 2006; EPA 2007:8) (emphasis added). 

Greenhouses gases emissions are within the direct, indirect and cumulative effects 

that NEPA documents must analyze. 40 C.F.R. § 1508.8. Not only are increased greenhouse 

gas emissions ''reasonably foreseeable" but so too are their climate consequences. 40 C.F.R. 

§§ 1508.7, 1508.8. As discussed previously, the overwhelming consensus ofnational and 

international scientific evidence supports the conclusion that the build-up ofgreenhouse 

gases in the atmosphere is contributing to global warming, and that the subsequent changes 

will adversely affect local, regional and global environments. ''The OEIS should have 

disclosed and analyzed the greenhouse gas emissions from past, proposed, and estimated 

future coal production. The OEIS should also have examined other major sources of 

greenhouse gas emissions to provide an adequate overall description ofcumulative impacts. 

The OEIS fails to do so." CBO Comments. 

Coal-fIred power plants are a significant contributor to the generation ofgreenhouse 

gases, and consequently, to global warming. The BLM has a responsibility to examine not 

only the increase in greenhouse gases from the proposed leasing and development ofthe 

SGAC tract, but also the regional and global impacts ofglobal warming on resources. The 

current OEIS neither discusses these impacts nor attempts to quantify them. 

There is now growing scientific consensus that greenhouse gas emission reductions 

must begin within the next decade; otherwise, the planet will cross a "tipping point," beyond 

which "it is virtually certain that there will be large-scale disastrous climate impacts for 

humans as well as for other inhabitants ofthe planet," including "extermination ofa 

substantial fraction ofthe animal and plant species on the planet" (Hansen 2006: 15, 30). The 

impacts ofclimate change, which are exacerbated by coal leasing and development are much 

more than ''reasonably foreseeable"-and the BLM must analyze them in the OEIS. 

The DEIS Fails to Analyze the Alternative. to Coal Based Energy and the "No Action" 

Alternadve 

The OEIS correctly acknowledges that the demand for power is increasing in the U.S. 

and throughout the world. DEIS, 4-107. According to the North American Electric 

Reliability Council, peak demand for electricity in the U.s. is expected to double in the next 

22 years. DEIS, 3-169 (citin& Associated Press, 2007). There are methods ofgenerating 

electricity that resuh in fewer greenhouse gas emissions than burning coa~ including natural 

COlDJIIeots 00 the South GWette Area Coal Leue AppUeatlon 8 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

c 
N.doaai 1I1E.d.llarller. 

1fJO l1rh Srr('('(. N.W: I 'Vul.. in~ton. D.C. "cOJ6-#o+ I fI..,,:1 ,.0'1.• 6tc,..~J400 I fax ,o1..6S,.. IHJ 

'tI'WW.dJeadc:ra_OIJ 

gas, nuclear, hydroelectric, solar, wind, and geothermal resources. DEIS, 4-101. According 

to the IPCC, "there is high agreement and much evidence that all stabilization levels can be 

achieved by deployment ofa portfolio oftechnologies that are either currently available or 

expected to be commercialized in coming decades .... " DEIS, 4-105. The existence ofa 

viable but unexamined alternative renders an EIS inadequate. An agency must look at every 

reasonable alternative. Alaska Wilderness Recreation & Tourism Ass'n v. Morrison 67 F.3d 

123, 129 (9th Cir.1995) 

NEPA mandates that federal agencies "study, develop, and describe appropriate 

alternatives to recommended courses ofaction in any proposal which involves unresolved 

conflicts concerning alternative uses ofavailable resources." 42 U.S.C. § 4332(2XE). Yet the 

DEIS failed to consider alternative methods. NEPA "requires that alternatives ... be given full 

and meaningful consideration." Bob Marshall Alliance v. Hodel 852 F.2d 1223, 1229 (9th 

Cir. 1988). The BLM failed to meet NEPA's requirements. 

Climate change scientists have shown that imminent action is necessary to stabilize 

and reverse the rapid climate change already occurring. Regardless ofwhat actions are taken 

to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, some level ofglobal warming is already "in the 

pipeline," because ofpast and current emissions. Scientists, however, have generally D 

outlined two broad scenarios based on levels of future emissions: the "Business-as-Usual" 

scenario and the "Alternative" scenario. Under the alternative scenario, which would yield 

global warming ofless than 1 °C in the 21 st century, carbon dioxide emissions must 

moderately decline before 2050 and then have a subsequent steeper decline in order that 

atmospheric carbon dioxide peaks at 415 ppm in 2100 and declines slowly thereafter. Under 

the business-as-usual scenario, if emissions continue to rise 2 percent a year, the same rate of 

increase as the first five years ofthe 21 st century, there will be at least 2°C ofglobal 

warming by 2100. Ifwarming approaches these levels, the Earth will be a "different planet," 

and "it is virtually certain that there will be large-scale disastrous climate impacts for humans 

as well as for other inhabitants ofthe planet" (Hansen 2006). 

The window ofopportunity to implement the alternative scenario is exceedingly 

narrow. Ifcarbon dioxide emissions continue to rise at 2 percent per year for another decade, 

"the 35% increase [] (between 2000 and 2015) will make it implausible to achieve the 

Alternative scenario"). As the same time, ''the tripwire between keeping global warming less 

than 1°C, as opposed to having a warming that approaches the range 2-3°C, may depend 

upon a relatively small difference in human-made direct forcinas" (Hansen 2006). 

The BLM was required to compare all ofthe environmental impacts from the coal 

lease, including the utilization ofthe anticipated coal resources, to the environmental impacts 

ofnot using them and instead relying on ahemative energy sources. NEP A requires 

Comments on the South GUlette Area Coal Lease AppUeation 9 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement 
E 

NadouJ Ilad.aar~l'. 

UJO 17m Str~('f. ".w. I Washington. D.C. lco~6-~ I eel ,.o1..6~",,'J4I.\o I fay 101.68,..IHI 

www..defe.dclll.GII 

disclosure to facilitate better decision making, and allow the public and decision makers to 

change harmful behavior. CBD Comments. The BLM's attempt to discount the impact ofthe D 

greenhouse gas emissions from the proposed coal production, "has prevented this process 

from functioning and attempted to turn its assumption about the continuing use of fossil fuels 

into a self-fulfilling prophecy." Id. ''This violation cannot be countenanced in light ofthe 

severe environmental consequences ofcontinued fossil fuel use." M. 

The DEIS FaDs to Analyze tbe Impacts of tbe Coal Lease on Threatened and 

Endangered Species 

In both generalities and particulars, extensive new scientific information strongly 

demonstrates that global warming will adversely affect and jeopardize the continued 

existence ofmany threatened and endangered species. 

Statutory Background 

Congress enacted the ESA, in part, to provide a "means whereby the ecosystems upon 

which endangered species and threatened species depend may be conserved ... [and] a program 

for the conservation ofsuch endangered species and threatened species ... " 16 U.S.C. § 

1531(b). The ESA "is the most comprehensive legislation for the preservation ofendangered 

species ever enacted by any nation." Tennessee Valley Authority v. Hill, 437 U.S. 153, 180 

(1978). The Supreme Court's review ofthe ESA's "language, history, and structwe" 

convinced the Court "beyond a doubt" that "Congress intended endangered species to be 

afforded the highest ofpriorities." Id. at 174. As the Court noted, "the pJain intent of 

Congress in enacting this statute was to halt and reverse the trend toward species extinction, 

whatever the cost." Id. at 184. 

Under section 7(a)(2) ofthe ESA, every federal agency "shall ...insure that any action 

authorized, funded, or carried out by such agency ("action agency") is not likely to 

jeopardize the continued existence ofthe endangered or threatened species or result in the 

destruction or adverse modification ofhabitat ofsuch species ...determined ... to be 

critical. ... " 16 U.S.C. § 1536(aX2) (Section 7 consultation). Agency "action" is defined in 

the ESA's implementing regulations to include "all activities or proarams ofany kind 

authorized, funded, or carried out, in whole or in part, by Federal agencies in the United 

States or upon the high seas. Examples include, but are not limited to: (a) actions intended to 

conserve listed species or their habitat; (b) the promulgation ofregulations; (c) the granting 

of licenses, contracts, leases, easements, rights-of-way, permits, or grants-in-aid; or (d) 

actions directly or indirectly causina modifications to the land, water, or air." 50 C.F.R. § 

402.02. (emphasis added). 

Comments on the South GUlette Area Coal Lease AppHeation 10 

Draft Environmental Impaet Statement 
Nationalilcad.uuter. 

lIJO 17fh St~(,f. J\.\X~ I \Vullington. D.C. "!cOJ6-460+ I rei 1.o1..6lh.9400 I fa'!' 'o".6~b.1Hr 

www.defendcn_OJ'I 

The South Gillette Area Coal Lease "Affects" ESA-Listed Species 

The scientific community has made enormous strides in its understanding ofthe 

nature and scope ofanthropogenic global warming, as well as the enormous risks it poses to 

wildlife, birds, fish, and piants-especially those species that are already imperiled. 

Numerous species will be affected by global warming. Species that are already imperiled by 

habitat destruction and fragmentation, pollution, over-harvesting and other mctors will be 

especially prone to extinction as a result ofglobal warming (Hannah et at. 2005:3-14). 

Therefore, the greenhouse gas emissions ofthe South Gillette Area Coal Lease "may affect" 

such species, triggering the consultation requirement. 

More pronounced global warming effects in the western U.S. pose particular risks to 

the region's many threatened and endangered species. For example, the "sky island" 

mountains ofArizona, so named because they contain "islands" offorested habitat rising 

above a "sea" ofdesert and grasslands, contain at least 28 threatened or endangered species 

listed under the ESA. Because many ofthe mountain ranges are isolated from one another, 

their forested expanses contain a high proportion ofendemic wildlife with highly restricted 

ranges. The U.S. Forest Service, which administers most ofthe land within these ranges, E 

recently concluded that rising temperatures associated with global warming had adverse 

impacts on the sky islands, stating that its plants and wildlife "have not evolved to tolerate 

these new conditions" (Egan 2007). For species that exist at the higher elevations ofthese 

ranges, there may be no opportunity to adapt; as temperatures rise, their habitat will simply 

disappear. As stated by one prominent scientist, "[a]s the climate warms, these species on 

top ofthe sky islands are literally getting pushed off into space." Or in the words ofanother 

researcher, "I honestly believe that we are standing at the edge ofa very, very large mass 

extinction, and top-of-mountain species are going to be the fust to go" (Erickson 2005). 

The highly imperiled Mt. Graham red squirrel, listed as endangered, vividly illustrates 

this risk. Endemic to a sky island range known as the Pinalenos, its population numbers have 

already been dramatically reduced through historic habitat loss. Beginning in 1996, the 

species' only forest habitat bas been akered through a series ofinsect outbreaks driven by 

warmer and drier conditions caused by global warming (Koprowski et a1. 2005). As noted by 

scientists studying the species, "these impacts are expected to increase with current trends in 

global climate change" (Koprowski et a1. 2005: 491; Ayres and Lombardero 2000). Ifthose 

trends do continue, "[i]n a sense, the topmost community [ofthe Pinalenos] (the spruce-fir 

community [will] literally he[! burned up into the sky," causing the Mt. Graham red squirrel 

to go extinct (Warsha1l2007). 

2 Global warming and, in particular, longer drought, is also predicted to negatively impact another 

squirrel species endemic to the eastern U.S., the Delmarva fox squirrel (Hilderbrand et al. 2007). 

Comments on the South Gillette Area Coal Lease AppHcatton 11 

Draft EnvlronlDental Impact Statement 
Natloaal IIcad..uar~•• 

UJO 17fh Srr("C'C'. "".w: I \'(fullington. D.C. '.cOJ6-#04- I t'C1 '.Q1•• 6lC",,~)400 I fax 10l.6·"?.IHr 

www.dJcadct.LOI'I 

The adverse effects ofglobal warming on listed species within the western U.S. are 

by no means limited to mountaintop species, however. For example, global warming has 

been identified as a driving factor in the extirpation ofthirty ofthe eighty peninsular bighorn 

sheep populations in California, as researchers have correlated those extirpations with those 

places where the climate has been the warmest and driest (Epps et al. 2004). In addition, 

decreasing snowfall associated with global warming has been found to negatively affect the 

Canada lynx, through decreased prey availability and decreased competitive advantage over 

other carnivores (Carroll 2006). 

BLM is Violating Section 7 the ESA 

Section 7 ofthe ESA requires federal agencies to insure that any "action" 

they authorize, fund, or carry out is not likely to '~eopardize the continued existence ofany 

endangered [] or threatened species," or result in the destruction or adverse modification of 

critical habitats. 16 U.S.C. § 1536(a)(2). As noted in TVA v. Hill, ''this language admits of 

no exception. 437 U.S. 153, 173. The applicable regulations direct agencies, in considering 

whether formal consultation is required, ''to determine whether any action may affect listed 

species or critical habitat." 50 C.F.R. § 402.14(a). A later portion ofthe same regulation 

confirms that agencies must consider the "effects ofthe action as a whoIe." 50 C.F.R. § 

402. 14(c). The "[e]ffects ofthe action" include the "direct and indirect effects ofan action on 

the species or critical habitat," and "[i]ndirect effects are those that are caused by the 

proposed action and are later in time, but still are reasonably certain to occur." 50 C.F.R. § E 

402.02. 

Despite increasing recognition that global warming poses grave threats to both human 

society and the natural world, and the fact that the mining and burning ofcoal is one ofthe 

paramount contributors to such warming, the BLM continues to approve new coal leases, 

which will in turn feed new coal-rued power plants. Coal mining emissions, and their 

contribution to global warming and species endangerment, are thus an "effect" ofthe BLM 

coal leasing program triggering a duty to initiate formal consultation. The BLM and Services 

are currently in violation ofsection 7, as they have failed to commence formal consultation. 

Under these regulations, federal agencies are required to consider the ''total impact'" 

ofa proposed project on listed species when conSUlting under section 7. Riverside Irrigation 

Dist. v. Andews, 758 F.2d 508, 512 (10th Cir. 1985); North Slope Borough v. Andrus, 642 

F.2d 589, 608 (D.C. Cir. 1980) (agency must look at "all ramifications" ofits action). By 

requiring federal action agencies to broadly assess the effects oftheir proposed actions, and 

to consider such effects in the context of independent, baseline harms already occurring to a 

species, ESA regulations ensure that the section 7 consultation process is not conducted "in a 

vacuum," and that agencies will "not take action that will tip the species from a state of 

Comments on the South Gillette Area Coal Lease AppUeation 12 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement 
II 

NadoaaJ lIead.Dar~r. 

IIW 17(h Str(,(,f. ~. W. I Wul1ington. D.C. '!cOJ6-~0+ I rei ,.o1.,6l<'~~J.oVlO I fax lOl.ti8,.. IHf 

www.dJe.de..·OIJ 

precarious survival into a state oflikely extinction." NWF v. NMFS, 481 F. 3d 1224 (9th 

Cir.2007). 

By defining "effects ofan action" broadly, the ESA regulations do not distinguish 

between direct and indirect effects-both must be considered during consultation. Indeed, 

the centrality 0 f indirect effects analysis to the consultation process is highlighted throughout 

the section 7 regulations. In addition to "effects ofthe action" encompassing both "direct 

and indirect effects," the regulatory definition of"action" (actions include those "indirectly 

causing modifications to the land, water, or air"), "action area," ("all areas to be affected 

directly or indirectly by the Federal action and not merely the immediate area involved in the 

action") and "destruction or adverse modification" ofcritical habitat ("a direct or indirect 

alteration that appreciably diminishes the value ofcritical habitat") all explicitly include 

indirect effects. 50 C.F.R. § 402.02 (emphasis added); see also Village ofFalse Pass v. 

Qm:k, 733 F.2d 605,611 (9th Cir. 1984) (consultation must insure that direct and indirect 

effects ofagency action will not jeopardize listed species); COnnor v. Burford, 848 F.2d 

1441, 1452 (9th Cir. 1988) (section 7 requires preparation ofbiological opinion analyzing all 

phases ofagency action). 

In determining what constitutes an indirect effect, the regulations demand only that 

they be ''reasonably certain to occur," 50 C.F.R. § 402.02, a standard that is consistent with 

normal tests ofproximate causation and foreseeability. While "[p]roximate causation is not a 

concept susceptible ofprecise defmition ... It is easy enough [] to identify the extremes." 

Babbitt v. Sweet Home Chapter ofCmtys. for a Great Ore., 515 U.S. 687, 713 (0' Connor, 

1., concurring). As such, questions ofcausation "depend[] to a great extent on considerations 

ofthe fairness ofimposing liability for remote consequences ... [A]t the least, [] proximate 

cause principles inject a foreseeability element into the statute." Id. 

Under even the most rigid offormulations, the contribution ofcoal-burning power 

plants on global warming are reasonably foreseeable indirect effects ofthe BLM coal leasing 

program under ESA regulations. 3 The causal chain at issue is, in fact, short and 

unattenuated: the BLM permits the lease ofcoal, the Office ofSurface Mining ("OSM") 

approves the mining ofcoal under its coal regulatory program, and the mined coal is then 

utilized at coal-fired generating stations that comprise the largest source ofC02 in the 

country. The greenhouse gas emissions and their contnbution to global warming-which 

pose greater risks ofmass extinctions that any other activity in human history-are 

consequently a reasonably foreseeable consequence ofthe BLM's action. C.t: Friends ofthe 

3 As noted above, the actual process ofcoal mining, and the handling and transportation ofthe mined 

coal, both result in significant greenhouse gas emissions, particularly methane. Thus, global warming 

is also a direct effect ofthe OSM coal mining program. 

Comments on the Soutb G"tte Area Coal Lease AppHcation 13 

Draft Environmental Imp.t Stateme.t 
NadoMJ Jle.d.uartz•• 

IIJO J10 rh Str..;'~(. "t\.W: I \Vul\inRton. D..C. 'COJ"-#O+ I rei "01..6tc,..~)400 I f.1Y ,o".6~b.IHr 

.......~1'iI·0IJ 

Earth v. Watson, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 42335 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 23, 2005) (finding causation 

for standing purposes in action against agencies that provide loans, loan guarantees, and 

insurance to U.S. companies that invest in large international energy projects which 

contribute to global warming). It is equally clear that the mining and burning ofcoal within 

the U.S., by contributing to global warming, poses threats to listed species far beyond the 

regulation's de minimis "may affect" threshold. See 51 Fed. Reg. 19,926, 19,949 (June 3, 

1986) (section 7 rulemaking in which FWS and NMFS interpreted the "may affect" threshold 

for initiation and reinitiation ofconsultation as a very low bar, finding that "any possible 

effect, whether beneficial, benign, adverse, or ofan undetennined character, triggers the 

formal consultation requirement.") (emphasis added). Consequently, greenhouse gas 

emissions from coal-fired power plants, and their effect on global warming and listed 

species, are an indirect effect ofthe BLM's coal mining program compelling formal 

consultation. 

In addition to the requirement to consider greenhouse gas emissions as an indirect 

effect ofthe coal program, the ESA regulations create an independent duty on the BLM to 

consider coal-fired power plant emissions as an interrelated and interdependent action. 

''The test for interrelatedness or interdependentness is 'but for' causation: but for the federal 

project, these activities would not occur." Sierra Club v. Marsh, 816 F. 2d 1376, 1387 (9th 

Cir. 1987) (Quoting 51 Fed. Reg. 19,932 (1986». Here, U.S. coal-fired power plants would 

not and could not operate without the domestic coal mining program possible through coal 

leases administered by the BLM. In recent years, approximately 90 percent ofcoal mined in 

the U.S. has been utilized at domestic power plants, while importation has always 

"represented a negligible share ofU.S. coa~" and has not risen above 3.5 percent of 

domestic consumption for the past 35 years (EIA 2006:17; EIA 2007:3). Because these coalfrred power plants are interrelated to, and interrelated with the BLM coal leasing program, 

their effects on threatened and endangered species present an additional and independent 

basis compelling the BLM to initiate consultation. 

Conclusion 

Although the BLM does not authorize mining by issuing a lease for federal coa~ it is 

a logical consequence ofissuing a maintenance lease to an existing mine that coal will be 

mined. Although the use ofthe coal after it is mined is not detennined at the time ofleasing, 

almost all ofthe coal that is currently being mined in the Wyoming Powder River Basin is 

being used by coal-flfed power plants to generate electricity. Therefore, and based on the 

aforementioned deficiencies, we believe the BLM must revise the DEIS and update it to 

include an accurate, current, and complete discussion ofthe impacts ofgreenhouse gas 

emissions from the lease sale, ofthe impacts ofglobal warming on the resources affected, 

and ofimpacts on listed species and non-listed' species. 

CommeDts OD the South Gmette Area Coal Lease Application 14 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement 
NadouJ Ilcad.uartIClI 

Ill<> 17rh Srr('("c. 'P\.W: I \Vul,inRton. D~C. 'coJ6-46001- I rei "o1.. 6ttl..~J4f.lO I fn 1o,..682.1Hf 

WWW.dJeadc....OI'I 

All references cited in the text are listed in the Literature Cited section below. We 

request that the BLM carefully review and consider these important references. A CD with 

the scientific studies will be provided at a later date and under a different cover. They are 

also part ofthe administrative record for this rulemaking. 

Thank you very much for your consideration ofthese comments. Please contact me at 

(202) 682-9400 or at the address on this letterhead ifyou have any questions or concerns. 

Sincerely, 

tI"" _ • 

C(..~_ ~. l.vuAErin Lieberman 

Legal Fellow 

Literature Cited 

COlDIDents on the South Gillette Area Coal Lease AppUcation 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

15 
Natiaealllc:M4UartE... 


1IJO 17th Srr,·C'C'. ".W: I ''fuhington. D.C. !cOJ6-..J.6o+ I rd '.0?.• 61.(1..')400 I fay 10l.6~b,):nr 

.........dc:,....... 


ACIA. Impacts 0/a Warming Climate,' Arctic Climate Impact Assessment. Cambridge 

University Press. (2004). 

Ayres, M.P., Lombardero, M.J. Assessing the consequences ofglobal change for forest 

disturbance from herbivores and pathogens. Science o/the Total Environment 262, 263-286. 

Borenstein, S. Arctic sea ice gone in summer within five years? National Geographic News, 

Dec. 12, 2007. 

Breshears, D.O., Cobb, N.S., Rich, P.M., Allen, C.D., Balice, R.G., Romme, W.H., Kastens, 

J.H., Floyd, M.L., Belnap, J., Anderson, J.J., Myres, O.B., and Meyer C.W. Regional 

vegetation die-off in response to global-change-type-drought. Proceedings 0/the National 

Academyo/Science 102,15144-15148. 

Center for Biological Diversity, Comments on Proposed Outer Continental Shelf(OCS) Oil 

and Gas Drilling Program/or 2007-2012 and Comments on Draft Environmental Impact 

Statement/or the Proposed oes Program/or 2007-2012, 71 Fed. Reg. 50457-50463. Nov. 

21, 2006. 

Egan, T. Heat Invades Cool Heights Over Arizona Desert. New York Times. Mar. 27,2007. 

EIA (Energy Information Administration, Office ofCoa~ Nuclear, Electric and Alternate 

Fuels, U.S. Department ofEnergy). Coal Production in the United States. (2006). 

EIA. Quarterly Coal Report July-September 2007 (2007). 

Erickson, 1. Vital Signs: Taking the Pulse ofGlobal Warming. Rocky Mountain News. Dec. 

14,2005. 

GAO, Climate Change: Agencies Should Develop Guidance for Addressing the Effects on 

Federal Land and Water Resources. Aug. 2007. 

Hannah, L., Lovejoy, T.E. & Schneider, S.H. 2005. Biodiversity and climate change in 

context. In: Climate Change and Biodiversity (T.E. Lovejoy & L. Hannah, eds). Yale 

University Press: New Haven. 

Hansen, J. E. Expert Declaration, Green Mountain Chrysler-Plymouth-Dodge-Jeep v. Torti, 

Consolidated Cases 2:05-CV-302, and 2:05-CV-304 (D. Vt. Aug 14, 2006). 

Comments on the South Gillette Area Coal Lease AppUcation 

Duft Environmental Impact Statement 

16 
Nationallladquartaa 

IIJO l1rh S(f("({.. l\.w. I \VuhinRron. D.C. '!coJ6-..J.60+ I ~I ,.o1..6tc1..~J..f.OO I fax 701.68z.1Hf 

.....~n·OII 

Hoegh-Guldberg, 0 et al. Coral reefs under rapid climate change and ocean acidification. 

Science 318, 1737-42 (2007). 

Hunter, P. The impact ofC02. The global rise in the levels ofC02 is good for trees, bad for 

grasses and terrible for corals (2007). 

IPCC. IPCC's Second Assessment, Climate Change 1995 (1995). 

IPCC. Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution o/Working Group 

I to the Fourth Assessment Report o/the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 

Cambridge University Press (2007). 

Koprowski, J.L., Alanen, M.I., and Lynch, A.M. Nowhere to run and nowhere to hide: 

Response ofendemic Mt. Graham red squirrels to catastrophic forest damage. Biological 

Conservation 126, 491-498 (2005). 

Leung, L.R., and Y. Qian. Hydrological Response to Climate Variability, Climate Change, 

and Climate Extreme in the USA: Climate Model Evaluation and Projections, Proceedings 

ofSymposium S6 held during the Seventh IAHS Scientific Assembly at Foz do 19uacu, 

Brazil, April 2005, IAHS Publ. 295, 37-44 (2005). 

Overpeck, J.T. Climate Change: What's Ahead/or the Southwest. Presentation to New 

Mexico Climate Change Advisory Group, Santa Fe, New Mexico. July 27, 2005. 

Mote, P.W., Hamlet, A.F., Clark, M.P., Lettenmaier, D.P. Declining mountain snowpack in 

western North America. Bulletin o/the American Meteorological Society 86, 39-49 (2005). 

Parmesan, C. & G. Yohe. A globally coherent fingerprint ofclimate change impacts across 

natural systems. Nature 411, 37-42 (2007). 

National Research Council, Climate Change: An Analysis 0/Some Key Questions 

Pounds, I.A., Fogden, M.L.P. & Campbell, J.H. Biological response to climate change on a 

tropical mountain. Nature 398, 611-615 (1999). 

Pounds, J.A., Bustamante, M.R., Coloma, L.A., Consuegra, lA., Fogden, M.P.L., Foster, 

P.N., La Marca, E., Masters, K.L., Merino-Viteri, A., Puschendorf, R., Ron, S.R., SancheAzofeifa, G.A., Still, C.J., Young, B.E. Widespread amphibian extinctions from epidemic 

disease driven by global warming. Nature 439, 161-167 (2006). 

Randall, lA. Climate change, wildlife, and endangered species. (2006). 

Comments on the South GDlette Area Coal Lease AppUcatlon 

Draft Environmental IlOpact Statement 

17 
I I 

Nationallladquarcaa 

lIJO 17fh Srn:t'r. ".~: I \Vl5hjn~ton. D.C. ,co~6-..jii0+ I (\~I "o1.. 6Ih·.~)400 I faY lo,..682.1:nr 

W'WW·cWe.dc:"'·ora 

Rosenzweig, C., Casassa, G., Karoly, OJ., Imeson, A., Liu, C., Menze~ A., Rawlins, S., 

Root, T.L., Seguin, B., Try janowski, P. Assessment ofobserved changes and responses in 

natural and managed systems. Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. 

Contribution o/Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report o/the Intergovernmental 

Panel on Climate Change. Parry, M.L., Canziani, O.F., Palutikof, J.P., van der Linden, P.J., 

Hanson, C.E., Eds., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 79-131. 

Sauders S. Warming in the West.' Evidence o/Climate Disruption in Western Sates. The 

Rocky Mountain Climate Organization and Natural Resources Defense Council (2008). 

Thomas, C.D. Extinction risk from climate change. Nature 427, 145-148 (2004). 

Thuiller, W. Climate change and the ecologist. Nature 448, 550-552 (2007). 

Warhsall, P. A battered squirrel faces global warming, too. Restoring Connections: 

Newsletter ofthe Sky Island Alliance 10, 7 (2007). 

West erling, A.L., Hidalgo, H.G., Cayan, D.R., and Swetnam, T.W. Warming and earlier 

spring increase western U.S. forest wildfwe activity. Science 313, 940-43 (2006). 

COlDIDeDts on the South Gillette Area Coal Lease AppUcatioD 

Draft EDviroDmental Impact Statement 

18 
Response to Comment Letter 4: Defenders of Wildlife 

Comment Response 4A: Ongoing scientific research has identified the 

potential impacts of anthropogenic greenhouse gas 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 CO2e concentrations to increase dramatically and are likely to 

contribute to overall global climatic changes. 

Tools necessary to quantify incremental climatic changes associated with those 

factors for specific activities like mining of an LBA tract are presently 

unavailable. As a consequence, impact assessment of effects of specific 

anthropogenic activities cannot be performed. Additionally, specific levels of 

significance have not yet been established. Therefore climate change analysis 

in this EIS is limited to accounting and disclosing factors that contribute to 

climate change. To the extent that emission data were available or could be 

inferred from representative type data, we have identified potential GHG 

emissions that could result from development of the proposed LBAs, as well as 

emissions that will result from selection of the No Action Alternative. 

The site-specific impacts analyzed in this EIS are based on the assumption that 

if LBA tracts are offered for competitive lease, a lease would be issued, and 

mining would be permitted. We further assume that the applicant would be 

the lessee and that the lease would be permitted as an extension of their 

current mining operations. In Chapter 3 (3.18.2), Affected Environment and 

Environmental Consequences, we have estimated the change to emissions of 

GHG under each alternative LBA configuration, including the No Action 

Alternative (please see table 3-19 in the DEIS). 

In Chapter 4, Cumulative Environmental Consequences, the contribution of 

the site-specific alternatives to cumulative effects on the environment is 

evaluated. To do this, it is assumed that coal mining will proceed in 

accordance with permit conditions. We 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 are 

currently some 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. 

In Section 4.2.14.1 in the DEIS, we estimated 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. This information is included in Chapter 4 (4.2.14.1). 

This was done by relating the portion of coal mined to the total emission of 
 

GHG from all coal mined in the U.S. We 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. 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 EIS 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. 

Comment Response 4B: Climatic change analyses are comprised of several 

factors, including GHG emissions, land use management practices, and the 

albedo effect. We have identified the effects of recent global climate change on 

the environment in the area of the proposed action. We have 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 analysis area. We have referenced 

national and regional data that is available, most recent being the 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). 

Comment Response 4C: Again, we direct you to the above referenced analysis 

in Sections 3.18 and 4.2.14 of the DEIS. In the Chapter 3 section, we have 

estimated the change to emissions of GHG under each alternative LBA 

configuration, including the No Action Alternative. We have added a reported 

GHG emission level from all coal mining in the U.S. as a frame of reference in 

the FEIS. 

The analysis in Chapter 4 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. As noted in that analysis, specific levels of 

significance have not yet been established for GHG emissions. 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 EIS 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. 

Comment Response 4D: This EIS addresses a full range of alternatives to the 

proposed action, a lease by application submitted by the lease applicant. The 

range includes an alternative which would represent all lands that include coal 

reserves that are comparable to those applied for, which may be efficiently 

recovered with the LBA, which may enhance competitive interest in the tract, 

and which could be bypassed if not leased. On the other end of the range is 

the No Action Alternative. The scope and affect of the decision on this 

proposed action is reflected within this range of alternatives. 

The BLM is a multiple use land management agency that manages the federal 

coal reserves under the predominantly private land surface in the Gillette area 

of the Powder River Basin. In the land area covered by these LBAs, only 3% of 

the surface ownership is federal land. Although there are many wind and solar 

resources that can be used for energy development, the BLM does not have 

authority over private land surface use and surface development. The BLM 

neither permits for the surface disturbance nor for the mining operations in 

coal mining operations. Therefore, the reasonable alternative options available 

for BLM to review in this EIS are leasing alternatives exploring the lease size, 

and shape, and the No Action Alternative where leasing one or more of these 

LBAs does not occur. 

As discussed in the DEIS, if this coal is leased, and if mining is permitted, coal 

sales would likely be into the steam coal open market which is competitive and 

where users can buy from the most cost effective suppliers that meet their 

needs. This market is influenced by electric demand. The DEIS contains an 

analysis of the likely portfolio of electric supply and the relative proportion 

expected to be met by coal fired electric generation. Ongoing scientific research 

has identified the potential impacts of GHG emissions on the global climate. 

The addition of non-carbon based electric generation sources could reduce 

GHG emissions, which may influence the electric supply portfolio. Further, the 

addition of alternate sources of electric generation would conserve carbon fuels, 

which are not renewable in the short term, and would provide a broader 

portfolio of electric sources, likely enhancing national security and the national 

economy. This EIS estimates likely long term electric generation portfolios, 

assuming some constraint on carbon based fuels. However the specific 

environmental effects of the variety of alternative electric generation 

technologies are not in the scope of decisions on the proposed actions for which 

this EIS was done. These technologies would be evaluated under NEPA as they 

are proposed to be permitted and built. 

Comment Response 4E: The USFWS is responsible for the administration of 

the Endangered Species Act. This is the lead agency that manages threatened 

and endangered species and consults, through the Section 7 process, with 
 

 

other agencies in how proposed projects might impact and affect listed species. 

All federal agencies have a responsibility under Section 7 (a)(1) of the ESA to 

conserve federally listed threatened and endangered species. BLM is partnered 

with USFWS in fulfilling our Section 7 consultation obligations and 

responsibilities. Biological assessments (Appendix E) and the BLM sensitive 

species evaluation (Appendix F) for each proposed LBA have been prepared and 

provided to USFWS for their review. We continue to work with USFWS in order 

to address concerns and provide any additional information needs. The EIS 

has been revised based on comments and oral discussions with the USFWS. 

Section 7 consultation will be completed before a decision is made on each 

LBA. It is the mandate and responsibility of USFWS to provide guidance to 

federal agencies in how to avoid adverse impacts to protected species and 

habitats. Comments that we received from USFWS on December 19, 2008 

indicated that they felt the DEIS was well written and, with some additional 

specific information, effectively addressed BLM sensitive species, threatened, 

and endangered species and migratory bird issues. 

USFWS is currently monitoring trust resources to see how they are affected by 

changing climate. The USFWS endangered species program is working to 

develop interim guidance regarding relevant aspects of ESA implementation 

involving climate change with a focus on how to evaluate and include the best 

available scientific information on climate change information in the decision 

making process. BLM will continue to coordinate and consult with USFWS on 

plant and animal species and follow direction from the USFWS on the handling 

of threatened and endangered species on BLM projects. 

One of the contributors linked to climate change is greenhouse gas emission. 

As discussed in our response to your earlier comments, the DEIS has 

estimated GHG emissions. Although the BLM does not authorize or permit 

either surface disturbance or mining, mining is addressed as it is a logical 

consequence of leasing. The WDEQ and OSM handle the permitting for coal 

operations. Again, we direct you to the above referenced analysis in sections 

3.18 and 4.2.14 of the DEIS. In the Chapter 3 section, we have estimated the 

change to emissions of GHG under each alternative LBA configuration, 

including the No Action Alternative. We have added a reported GHG emission 

level from all coal mining in the US, as a frame of reference in the FEIS. 

The analysis in Chapter 4 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. As noted in that analysis, specific levels of 

significance have not yet been established for GHG emissions. 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. This EIS 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. 
5 

Kenneth Duvall 
 

9498 State Hwy. 59 S 
 

HeR 83 
 

Gillette, WY 82718 
 

December 24, 2008 

Teresa Johnson 

Bureau ofLand Management, High Plains District 

2987 Prospector Drive 

Casper, WY 82604 

Dear Ms. Johnson: 

Please accept this letter as comments to the Draft Environmental Impact Sta~ement for the 

South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications dated October 2008 ("EIS"). Initially, please let me 

state that the EIS appears to be written to favor coal mine development and minimizes impact to 

the environment, the citizens affected by the coal mine, wildlife, and other industries. In fact, 

unless I missed it, the report does not address the devastation to the surface owner or to the 

historical agriculture operations which has historically been Wyoming's primary industry. 

The EIS fails to address the income which mineral owners have been and will be deprived 

as a result ofcoal mining activity pertaining to the escape ofmethane gas and significant time 

delay in producing conventional oil and gas. Additionally, the EIS fails to address enforcement 

problems by the BLM and the failure of the BLM to require coal mines to actively and timely 

reclaim the mined areas in order to allow mineral owners the right to develop conventional oil B 

and gas reserves below coal seams. Because the coal mine companies are not required to actively 

and timely reclaim mined areas,' 25 to 35 years can lapse before a mineral owner can benefit from 

the oil and gas reserves beneath coal seams. It seems contrary to fundamental citizen rights that 

the interest ofthe federal government are placed above the interest ofindividual citizens. It 

would seem equitable that mineral owners are given a period ofyears to explore for and develop 

oil and gas reserves located under coal seams prior to coal mine production. Once the oil and gas 

reserves are depleted, then coal mining activities can commence with no financial detriments to 

mineral owners. Similarly, while the conventional oil and gas reserves are being developed, 

coalbed methane development can also occur rather than having such resources lost forever as a 

result ofcoal mine activity. 
With regard to the level ofconventional oil and gas production as stated in the EIS, at 

first reading, the EIS places at the forefront the fact that current oil production is from old fields 

and the production is declining. Burried within the paragraph is an acknowledgment that 

production is expected to increase in the Powder River Basin. More emphasis should have been 

placed on the fact that productio.n is increasing, new fields are being developed, and new 

technology is being implemented to recover oil and gas reserves. The report also fails to address c 

the nwnber of active, producing wells that are plugged and abandoned due to coal mine 

activities. Again, the practice ofplugging and abandoning in order to advance a coal mine seems 

contrary to a citizen's right to protect property interests. It is no secret that large corporate mining 

companies "buyout" oil and gas operators in order to plug wells depriving mineral owners of 

income and property rights. 

In general, there has historically been conflict between surface coal mining and the 

development ofoil and gas reserves. Obviously, both industries require use ofthe earth's surface 

for production. It would seem that in order to balance the rights ofcitizens and property owners 

against the federal government, an emphasis should be placed on and a priority given to which 

ever industry can impact the surface least and which ever industry can recover the natural 

resources in the least amount oftime. In other words, ifthe oil and gas industry can disturb only a 

small portion ofthe surface and recover most ofthe oil and gas reserves in 10 to 20 years, then 

the oil and gas industry should be given priority for such mineral extraction over a coal mine 

which will destroy the entire surface and take 20 to 30 years to restore the property back to its 

natural state. 

The Bureau ofLand Management has an obligation and duty to protect the environment, 

manage natural resources to the greatest benefit ofall, preserve historical sites, and other such 

preservation activities. In addition, the Bureau of Land Management must be a "watch dog" over 

big corporations that seek only to profit from the earth's natural resources. This "watch dog" duty 

must include an eye toward protecting individual citizens, their property rights, and obtaining the 

greatest gain from mineral development. The greatest gain would be developing oil and gas first, 

then coal. The EIS should address this issue. 

Because there seems to be a demand for clean coal initiatives, coal to liquids 

development and other environmental initiatives pertaining to our country's natural resources, it 

would seem that placing coal mine development on hold for a period ofyears makes sense to 

allow companies and organizations to develop methods which will benefit our environment in 

the long run. These would include methods to efficiently and cost effectively burn coal for power 

production in a clean and environmentally safe manner and utilize coat to produce hydrogen as a E 

clean energy source. Perhaps in the process ofcreating clean fuel initiatives, methods can be 

developed to ensure that air quality is protected in the mining process. Currently, the dust and 

emissions created by the mining and blasting activities ofa coal mine are detrimental to citizens 

living in the vicinity of a coal mine. 
With all due respect, the EIS was obviously prepared with a slant towards coal mine E 

development versus responsibly using the land for the greatest good ofall natural resource 

development. The BIS should also address the impact and destruction ofthe surface as it relates 

to the surface owner. 

Sincerely, 

Kenneth Duvall, Karen Duvall & Kenna Lou Duvall 
 

Response to Comment Letter 5: Kenneth Duvall, Karen Duvall, and
 

Kenna Lou Duvall
 

Comment Response 5A: The EIS addresses impacts of the proposed action 

and alternatives to existing agricultural operations, as well as other land uses 

that exist (see sections 3.11 and 4.2.10. The BLM does not lease coal under 

lands where the surface is private without the consent of the surface owner, if 

that surface owner is qualified (43CFR3400.0-5(gg). Often the applicant is the 

surface owner. In situations where the applicant is not the surface owner, and 

the surface owner is qualified, BLM cannot offer a lease unless the surface 

owner has filed consent with the BLM. 

Comment Response 5B: The DEIS addresses the oil and gas activity that 

exists in the area of the proposed LBAs. Mineral owners have the right to 

develop mineral resources subject to the laws and regulations of the state of 

Wyoming. Our policies promote the optimum development of oil and gas 

resources in the coal seams prior to mining, and provide royalty incentives in 

areas permitted for coal mining, or areas expected to be leased for coal. BLM 

does not restrict the development of private or state oil and gas resources. 

Mining activities are long term, and publicly permitted, so that mineral 

developers can assess the economic feasibility of drilling and producing for 

predictable periods in advance of mining. 

BLM does not enforce reclamation of mined lands in Wyoming. That is under 

the authority of the WDEQ/LQD. We are unaware of any problems with the 

timeliness of reclamation. 

Comment Response 5C: No conventional gas wells have been completed 

within the four LBA tract study areas since 1997. Oil and gas production in 

the PRB has declined sharply since 2000. As stated in the EIS, analyses 

indicate that most of the recoverable conventional oil and gas and CBNG 

resources on the LBA tracts have been extracted by the existing wells. There 

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

the four-tract study area. Of the 18 wells, 13 are considered to have 

recoverable reserves using in-place recovery methods. While it is true that new 

fields are being discovered in the PRB, there is no indication that these new 

fields will be discovered on the four LBA tracts or reverse the downward trend 

of oil and gas production. Appendix G contains further information on 

conventional oil and gas. 

Coal mining companies will need to attempt to come to an agreement with oil 

and gas operators to plug wells prior to mining through the well bore. If such 

an agreement is reached, production may be able to be reestablished after mine 

through or the well may be redrilled if reserves are sufficient to justify the cost. 

These possibilities would be addressed in the terms of an agreement. BLM is 
not a party to these types of agreements, and we are unsure of a mineral 

owner’s involvement and legal recourse in such agreements. 

Comment Response 5D: The BLM policy advocates optimizing the recovery of 

both coal, and oil and gas reserves. The EIS includes a substantial discussion 

of the impacts to oil and gas operations as a result of mining activity. Within 

Section 3.3.2 of the EIS is a discussion the current activity and expected 

impact of each alternative for the four proposed LBAs. In particular, Section 

3.3.2.3 discusses the mechanisms in place that can be used to facilitate the 

recovery of both conventional oil and gas and CBNG resources prior to mining. 

The time between the leasing of the LBA tracts, should they be offered and 

awarded, and the time of disturbance from coal operations is sufficient that 

some conventional oil and gas operations may continue until they are depleted 

or the operation becomes economically unproductive. 

Comment Response 5E: The proposed actions before the BLM are four 

leasing actions to maintain the production of four operating mines. As noted in 

the analysis, particularly the No Action Alternative, a decision to not offer these 

leases will not stop mining in the short term. Mining would continue on the 

adjacent permitted leases operated by these four mines. 

Coal mining is permitted under the authority of OSM and WDEQ. For dust 

and emissions created by the mining operations, please see Section 4.2.3., 

Section 3.18.2 (Greenhouse Gas Emissions), and Section 4.2.14.1 (Global 

Climate Change and Greenhouse Gas Emissions). There will be no leases 

offered where qualified surface owner consent has not been obtained. 
6 

NAME: Brad Mohrmann 

ORGANIZATION: Sierra Club 

ADDRESS: 45 E. Loucks 

CITY /ST ATE/ZIP: Sheridan, WY 82801 

December 22, 2008 

Comments on the South Gillette Area EIS 

I am submitting comments on behalf of the Sierra Club. Sierra Club has over 1.3 

million supporters and members with approximately 1000 members in Wyoming. 

The Sierra Club has members who live and recreate in the areas that would be 

impacted by the South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications. Sierra Club's goals 

are to ensure that citizens have safe, healthy communities in which to live, find 

smart energy solutions to combat global warming, and protect Ainerica's wild 

places. 

Air Quality Concerns 

Air quality concerns are a very real problem for areas around the proposed mine 

expansions. Particulate matter is of special concern. The BLM should work to 

address air quality wues. CampbeU County is among one of the worst counties in 

the nation for PM 2.5 and PM 10 emission levels. Nitrogen oxide and sulfur dioxide 

emissions are also elevated in the area. The BLM needs to address these serious 

shown 

health concerns 

that even 

when 

low levels 

deciding 

of PM 

to 

2.5 

lease 

can 

more 

lead 

land 

to premature 

to development. 

death along 

Studies 

with 

have 

other A

serious health problems. There are no safe levels of particulate matter. Expanding 

aU four mines will only compound this problem for years to come. The health of 

citizens in CampbeU County should be taken seriously. The BLM should work in 

conjunction with the Wyoming Department of Health and the US Department of 

Health and Human Services in order to assess the health risks on local communities 

from expanded coal mining operations. 

Water Resources Concerns 

In an area with scaree water resourees we ak that the BLM take into aecount the 

impaeta on the ranching community. With expanded mining operations water 

resources will continue to be .tretched thin putting a strain on the local ranchers 

who depend on that water for their operations. CHmate change will make water B 

increasingly scarce in the future. 
Climate Change Concerns and expansion need 

The BLM should take future climate change legislation into aecount. President-elect 

Obama has stated his desire to make fighting climate change a priority. New 

legislation would likely put limits on C02 emissions maldng coal less desirable as an 

energy source. Mine expansions should be held off until it is clear what future 

legislation will require. As the country moves to find more emcient measures and 

demands more renewable, clean energy expanding coal mining in the region may 

not be the best choice for this area. These mine expansions include approximately 

12,000 acres and 800 million tons of coal. The environmental impacts ofthese 

expansions would be immense. Many states are adopting renewable energy 

portfolios and pushing to reduce their dependence on coal-fired power generation. 

Expansion on this scale may not be needed. The BLM needs to do a detailed 

assessment of current coal reserves to determine need for these expansions. 

Reclamation 

Reclamation should be taken very seriously. No new mine expansions should be 

allowed until all existing reclamations projects are complete. Currently lands in 

Wyoming are being reclaimed at a 3 to 1 ratio. The BLM needs to address this 

growing divide. Reclamation is extremely important for the health of our ecosystem 

and needs to be analyzed and addressed. Poor reclamation can lead to a number of D 

problems including loss of habitat, decrease in wildlife diversity, and increased 

invasive weeds. 

Sage Grouse 

Sage grouse numbers have been in alarming decline in recent decades. Energy 

development from coal and caolbed methane has had adverse affects on sage grouse 

populations. Sage grouse leks have been indentified in the areas of the lease 

expansions. Great care must be taken by the BLM to make certain that sage grouse 

populations, habitat, and leks are protected. Surface mining effectively takes away 

possible sagebrush habitat for the sage grouse. The nutrients the sage brush need 

are depleted in topsoil removed for strip mining. This makes it dimcuk for sage 

brush to re-establish during the reclamation process. The loss ofsage brush will 

make it extremely unlikely that sage grouse numbers will recover even after mining 

operations are complete. This loss of sage brush will also open land to invasive 

weeds that could have large impacts on surrounding ranchland. This habitat needs 

to be protected. These mine expansions will have negative impacts on sage grouse 

especially considering that mine reclamation is not on par with new development. 

We are removing habitat without taken mealures to mitigate this loss. Noise and 

commotion from mining operations will allo negatively Impact sage grouse 

activities. All ofthe development in the area wiD have a cumulative negative Impact 

on the sage grouse. 

E 

c 
Comment Period 

A major concern is that of the comment period itself. More time should be given to 

allow involvement from citizens. As well as more time, the BLM should avoid 

comment periods between Thanksgiving and the ChristmaslNew Year season. 

Numerous projects have comment periods during this time. Many citizens who F 

would normally get involved in the process will miss the opportunity due to time 

and family constraints brought on by the holiday season. This time ofthe year 

should be avoided for the purpose of public comments. A democracy only works 

when citizens are able to take part in the process. Every opportunity should be given 

to make sure citizens get that opportunity. 

Cumulative Impacts 

These four mine expansions are not the only current or planned development in the 

area. BLM needs to take this into consideration. The industrial development in the 

Powder River Basin has reached an alarming rate. This current level of 

development is not sustainable. When viewed as part of a whole, as opposed to a 

stand alone development, it becomes dear that these mine expansions will just add 

to the current environmental problems in the Powder River Basin. Water and air 

quality, citizen health, loss of public land access, loss of habitat and habitat 

fragmentation, as well as a loss of the scenic value that many citizens of Wyoming 

have come to love will only get wone as a result of expanded mining operations. 

The BLM's Buffalo Resource Management Plan Revision is in beginning stages and 

it would be beneficial to allow a new management plan to be worked out before 

committing to mine expansions. Sierra Club asks that the BLM not accept these 

coal mine expansions. It is not in our nation's best interest to continue using coal as 

an energy source. The health of our citizens and the health of our environment are 

at risk from the continued use of coal. 

Sincerely, 

Brad Mohrmann 

G 


Brad Mohrmann 

45 .E. Loueks 

Sheridan, WY 82801 

(307) 672-0425 

brad.mohrmann@sierraelub.org 
Response to Comment Letter 6: Sierra Club 

Comment Response 6A: Air pollution is controlled by state and federal air 

quality regulations and standards established under the Clean Air Act and 

amendments. State implementation plans are in place to ensure that proposed 

actions like coal mining comply with all associated air quality regulations and 

criteria. The WAAQS for the PM10 annual and the SOx annual and 24-hour 

levels are more stringent than the NAAQS and are enforced by the 

WDEQ/AQD. 

As stated in Section 3.4.2.3 of the EIS, WDEQ/AQD has developed a Natural 

Events Action Plan for the coal mines of the Powder River Basin. 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 long-term air quality modeling to show that 

their proposed operations comply with the National and Wyoming ambient air 

quality standards. Please see Section 3.4.2.3 to review air quality mitigation 

measures that WDEQ/AQD implemented in order to prevent exceedances of 

the NAAQS and WAAQS by surface coal mines. 

According to recorded data collected from air quality monitors in the field, the 

four mines in the South Gillette area comply with the current ambient air 

quality standards for PM2.5 and NO2. To date, there have been two reports of 

public exposure related to the Caballo Mine. Text in Section 3.4.3.1.1 has been 

revised to include updated discussions. NO2 emissions have been monitored 

near these mines since 2002 (Table 3-8). The maximum annual NO2 

concentration measured at these mines ranged from 4 to 17 ug/m3, as 

compared to the NAAQS of 100 ug/m3. 

The WDEQ/AQD coal mining permit process requires air quality modeling of 

the primary air pollutants (PM10 and NO2). If the four LBAs are leased, it is not 

anticipated this would cause any exceedances of state or annual federal air 

quality standards. If exceedances do occur, they will be documented, analyzed, 

and acted upon accordingly by the WDEQ. 

Cumulative impacts to air quality are analyzed in Section 4.2.3. In this section 

the effect of foreseeable development in the PRB, added to the impacts of the 

continued operation of the four South Gillette mines, is analyzed. In the FEIS, 

we have added specific modeling results for cumulative impacts by year 2015, 

to the 2010 impact discussion presented in the draft. This was done to provide 

trends in predicted cumulative air quality impacts. 

Section 3.17.9.1 concerns human health impact assessments. BLM does not 

have jurisdiction in regard to conducting human health assessments. BLM 
 

 

has contacted the Wyoming Department of Health/Environmental Health 

Section and has invited them to review and provide comment on the EIS. BLM 

has also contacted the Center for Disease Control and Prevention but have not 

received a response. 

Comment Response 6B: As with ongoing mining, water of adequate quantity 

and quality for the ranching community will continue to be available from the 

shallow Wasatch aquifers as well as from zones below the coal to be mined. 

Mining is currently only occurring in the upper coals of the Tongue River 

Member of the Fort Union Formation. The shallower Wasatch Formation is 

comprised of a multitude of primarily discontinuous lenticular sandstones 

which are typically not areally extensive. If existing ranching operations are 

currently using water from the coal seam to be mined or one of these lenticular 

deposits that is interrupted by mining, there is a potential for conflict between 

the two operations. Any water rights disputes that may develop would follow 

standard procedures as described in the Wyoming State Engineer’s Office 

Regulations and Instructions (Part 2 Section 17). The discontinuous, lenticular 

nature of the Wasatach sands will likely continue to provide water for local use. 

Deeper coals and sands, particularly the sands of Tullock Member of the Fort 

Union, will not be directly impacted by mining in the upper seams. 

We have identified the effects of recent global climate change on the 

environment in the area of the proposed actions. We have 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 analysis area. We have referenced 

national and regional data that is available, most recent being the 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). 

Comment Response 6C: The BLM has done a detailed assessment of current 

coal reserves for each applicant mine, and has assessed the amount of coal 

required for each mine to maintain its current rate of production. The coal 

applications involved in the EIS are for maintenance leases and not for mine 

expansions. If leased, the LBAs represent the amount of coal needed for 

continued activity with possible annual increases in production based on each 

applicant’s air quality permit limits and national demand. The national 

demand may be influenced by the political climate set forth by the new 

presidential administration or the national cultural climate. We have updated 

the EIS to reflect the fact that President Obama, in an address to Congress in 

February, 2009, advocated congressional action on a cap and trade program 

addressing climate change. Possible future national policies and legislation, 

because of this proposal or congressional action, is unknown. Any climate 

change bills that were previously submitted to the 110th Congress had not been 

resubmitted to the 111th Congress as of the President’s cited address. 
Comment Response 6D: Lands that are disturbed to recover coal must be 

reclaimed following mining in accordance with the requirements of state and 

federal law. Wyoming DEQ has strict parameters for coal mine reclamation 

procedures, species composition, final land surface contour, and environmental 

sustainability. The Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 

requires sufficient bonding to cover anticipated reclamation costs. When 

mining is permitted, the WDEQ/LQD sets the bond amount for reclamation of 

all disturbed lands, and the operator posts an acceptable bonding instrument 

for this amount with the State of Wyoming. The reclamation bond is not 

released until a minimum of ten years have elapsed from the date of final 

seeding and the WDEQ/LQD has determined that all reclamation verifications 

have occurred. 

Individual coal mine annual reports are available to the public at WDEQ/LQD 

offices which include specific reclamation information. The OSM also prepares 

reports describing reclamation activities in Wyoming. 

Currently, the BLM is using a regional technical study, the PRB Coal Review, to 

evaluate cumulative impacts of coal and other mineral development in the PRB. 

The study includes a look at past and present coal development and develops a 

forecast of reasonably foreseeable development in the PRB through 2020. 

Tables 4-2 and 4-3 in the FEIS address baseline and projected reclaimed and 

unreclaimed mining acres in the PRB. BLM is also completing work on a 

comprehensive database to use in tracking development activities in the PRB. 

The database will track cumulative actual reclaimed and unreclaimed acreages 

of coal mines. 

The EIS discusses reclamation in Chapter 2 for each applicant. Not all 

disturbed land has been mined. Some of the surface acres disturbed contain 

permanent structures such as buildings and rail lines. Reclamation follows as 

mining progresses. It is true that as coal deepens, additional surface 

disturbance is required in advance of operations to allow a series of benches or 

a stable incline to reach the coal depth while maintaining a safe and stable 

working area, and this practice does increase disturbance. Further explanation 

on the reclamation process has been added in Chapter 2. 

Comment Response 6E: The EIS discusses greater sage grouse and other 

sensitive species in the “Wildlife” section (3.10) and in Appendices E through I 

in Volume 2 of the draft EIS. Among other important habitat components, sage 

grouse require vast expanses of sagebrush-steppe communities with extensive 

mosaics of sagebrush of varying densities and heights. As stated in the EIS, 

there are no large expanses of contiguous sagebrush in the South Gillette EIS 

general analysis area. Please see Section 3.10.5.1 for a discussion on sagegrouse. 
There are no known leks within the South Gillette EIS general analysis area. 

About 25 years of annual or biannual monitoring studies from 1982 to 2006 

performed by the mines in the South Gillette area documented that sagegrouse are rare in the survey areas. Requirements to protect sage-grouse 

during mining operations are addressed as part of the existing mining and 

reclamation plan for each individual mine. An approved raptor mitigation plan 

is also in place for the applicant mines. If the proposed tract is leased and 

permitted for mining, the wildlife monitoring and mitigation plans would be 

amended, as required by WDEQ/LQD and USFWS, to include newly leased 

tracts. 

In 2007, Wyoming Governor Dave Freudenthal commissioned a Statewide 

Sage-Grouse Implementation Team. On March 17, 2008, the team 

preliminarily identified and mapped recommended sage-grouse focus areas in 

Wyoming in an effort to better understand what types of habitat grouse prefer 

and what areas should be protected. The South Gillette EIS applicant mines’ 

general analysis areas are not located within any of the mapped focus areas as 

the EIS states in Section 3.10.5.1. In the “Affected Environment” section 

(3.10.5.1.2) there is a discussion of the focus area outside and adjacent to the 

West Coal Creek LBA. Also, the South Gillette Supplementary Information 

document contains a more detailed discussion. 

The EIS analyzes and thoroughly describes how proposed activities will impact 

habitats and species. Like all proposed projects at BLM, we consult with 

USFWS to fulfill Section 7 consultation obligations and responsibilities. 

USFWS has determined that our analysis effectively addresses sage-grouse 

issues. The WGFD also assessed that the EIS adequately addresses potential 

impacts to game species. Professional wildlife biologists at the WGFD, USFWS, 

and the BLM Buffalo Field Office have also reviewed the wildlife analysis. 

Comment Response 6F: The BLM’s Departmental Manual 516-chapter 4.26A 

states that “The minimum review period for a draft EIS will be forty-five (45) 

days from the date of publication by the EPA of the notice of availability.” The 

revised BLM NEPA Handbook H-1790-1 January 2008, Section 9.3.2, page 99, 

second paragraph, states that, “The public comment period for all draft EISs 

must last at least 45 days (516 DM 4.26)...”. This information can also be 

found at 40 CFR 1506.10. We allowed 60 days for review, as stated in the 

“Abstract A and the “Dear Reader” letter in the DEIS. The 60-day review period 

on the South Gillette draft EIS commenced on the date the EPA published the 

Notice of Availability in the Federal Register. Comments received after the 

comment period are still accepted for the record, reviewed, and are addressed 

to the extent practicable. 

Comment Response 6G: Chapter 4 is dedicated to addressing current or 

planned development in the PRB. The mines that exist today have been 

operating since 1990 or before. The Executive Summary contains a map of all 
pending and issued LBAs in the PRB (Figure E-1). Tables 1-1 and 1-2 also 

show existing and pending LBAs and exchanges in the Powder River Basin. 

The EIS discusses other federal, state, and private activities in the PRB in 

Section 4.1.3. The discussion of development activities has been projected to 

the year 2020 with calculations and predictions for both upper and lower 

production scenarios. The Powder River Basin Coal Review reports have been 

incorporated into this EIS, and a discussion can be found at the beginning of 

Chapter 4. 

The Buffalo RMP was approved initially in 1985, and updated in 2001. The 

RMP was based on an older system of land use planning done by BLM in the 

1970s, called management framework plans. Coal planning has run 

consistently through these comprehensive, multiple use plans and has been 

done consistent with the BLM’s land use planning and coal management 

regulations. The proposed actions in this EIS were reviewed against the 

existing planning requirements and were determined to be in conformance. 
7 

Lesley Collins/CFO/WY/BLM/DOI 
 

12/16/2008 02:30 PM 
 

To 
 

Teresa Johnson/CFO/WY/BLM/DOI@BLM 
 

cc 
 

bcc 
 

Subject 
 

Fw: So. Gillette Area LBA Draft EIS 
 

History: 
 

This message has been forwarded. 
 

Lesley A. Collins 
 

Public Affairs 
 

High Plains District 
 

Office: 307-261-7603 
 

----- Forwarded by Lesley Collins/CFO/WY/BLM/DOI on 12/16/2008 02:30 PM 
 

"McKenzie, Don" <dmcken@wyo.gov> 
 

12/15/2008 02:41 PM 
 

To 
 

<casper_wymail@blm.gov> 
 

cc 
 

"Ogle, Kathy" <kmogle@wyo.gov>, "Emme, Douglas" <demme@wyo.gov>, 
 

"Rogaczewski, Mark" <mrogac@wyo.gov>, "Hunter, Joe" <jhunte@wyo.gov>, 
 

"Clark, Dan" <dclark@wyo.gov> 
 

Subject 
 

So. Gillette Area LBA Draft EIS 
 

Teresa, 
 

I have enclosed a few comments by our LQD CHIA Supervisor regarding the 
 

referenced EIS. I also had a couple comments that are listed below: 
 

Volume 

fourth sentence 

1 of 2, Chapter 

- Reportable 

2, Section 

quantities 

2.7, page 

of hazardous 

2-54, first 

or extremely 

full paragraph, 
 3

hazardous substances require immediate notice to the WDEQ Emergency A 

Coordinator, Mr. Joe Hunter, not the WDEQ Solid and Hazardous Waste 

Division. Mr. Hunter relays the information of a reportable release to 

the 

other WDEQ Divisions as appropriate. 

Volume 2 of 2, Appendix A, page A-1 under ~STATEH header - Solid waste ~ disposal, such as a landfill type of facility, are addressed through th~ B 
WDEQ Land Quality Division coal mine permit. 

Thank you for the opportunity to comment. 

Don McKenzie 
Memo 

To: 	 Don McKenzie, Administrator, WYDEQILQD 

From: 	 Kathy Muller Ogle, Geological Supervisor 

Date: 	 December 9, 2008 

Subject: 	 Review of marked sections ofthe Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the 

South Gillette Area Coal lease Applications (dated October 2008), Bureau of Land 

Management (BLM) 

Introduction 

Per your request, I have examined the marked pages ofthe above referenced document for 

consistency with Wyoming Department ofEnvironmental QualitylLand Quality Division's 

(WDEQILQD) cumulative hydrologic impact assessments (CHIA) work. No significant problems 

were found in those sections. Since WDEQILQD does not complete a CHIA on the lease areas until 

after an amendment is submitted to WDEQILQD, individual impacts could not be assessed but the 

general approach was evaluated. 

Only two areas are recommended for revision (Items 2. and 4.). First, the discussion on the 

Coal Creek alluvial aquifer water quality should be revised to reflect current data or alternatively, the 

supporting data for the conclusions presented in the EIS should be cited in the document. Second, the 

alluvial valley floor (A VF) discussion should be revised to reflect that the responsibility for A VF 

determination lies with WDEQILQD and is based on site specific conditions. 

Individual Sections: 

1.:. 	 Page ES-29: The general cumulative descriptions are comparable to our analysis approach, 


but WYDEQ/LQD has not completed a CHIA analysis for these amendments. 


Recommendation: No change 

2. 	 Page 3-77: The statement that "In addition, Coal Creek alluvial groundwater is generally 


poor quality and does not meet WDEQIWQD standards for domestic and agricultural uses, 


and is marginal for livestock and wildlife use." was examined using total dissolved solids 


(TDS) concentrations as an overall indicator ofwater quality. 


Recommendation: Based on the data examined (attached as addendum 1), it is 

recommend that either the statement be revised as follows or that the BLM include a 

discussion ofthe data supporting the statement. Currently. the document characterizes 

the water quality in the Coal Creek alluvial groundwater as poorer than what 

WDEQILQDs data and analysis reflect. 

c 
D 

Suggested Revision: 

"Based on TDS concentrations, Coal Creek alluvial groundwater generally 

meets the WDEQIWQD 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. " 

Or the data supporting the conclusions in the document should be cited. 

3. Page 3-85: The general discussion is based primarily on the GAGMO 25-Year report. 

WDEQILQD also uses that report as part ofthe CHIA analysis. However, the sentence 

"Hydro-Engineer (2007) states that the extent ofdrawdown caused by mining alone to the 

west ofthe mines can no longer be defined due to the much larger drawdown caused by 

CBNG development" is likely an accurate summary of what is presented in the GAGMO 

report. However, WDEQILQD has found that statement to be applicable in some areas ofthe 

basin but not to other areas. When data from individual coal monitor wells are examined, 

some data support that statement, while other data show different trends. 

Recommendation: No change. The statement accurately reflects the cited report, but 

some ofWDEQILQD's data indicates that that statement is not accurate for all areas. 

4. Page 3-122 to125: The general discussion ofthe AVF appears appropriate. Two phrases do 

raise flags. 

There are statements like "There are no streams that meet the definition ofan A VF 

within one-half mile ofthe proposed pennit amendment area, because the streams are 

incised and containfew stream laid deposits. " in several sections. 

It should be noted that an EIS document does not determine if there is an A VF. The 

responsibility and authority for an A VF determination lies with WDEQILQD. 

Recommendation: It is suggested that those statements be rephrased. 

Under individual LBA Tract discussions, there are statements like "Based on previous 

non-AVF declarations made on the Belle Fourche River within and adjacent to the 

MaysdorfII LBA Tract, it is unlikely that the WDEQILQD would declare that an AVF 

is present. " 

It should be noted that site specific conditions often determine an A VF declaration 

and the assumptions supporting this statement may not hold true at individual sites. 

A VF determinations will be made by the WDEQILQD based on data, mapping, site 

visits and analysis of site specific conditions. 
Recommendation: It is suggested that those statement be rephrased. 

5. 	 Page 4-45: This general discussion reflects the fmdings in LQD's latest CHIA in the area 

and the CHIA is correctly cited. Ofcourse, LQD has not assessed the impacts ofthese LBAs 

yet, since they will not be submitted to LQD as an amendment until after the leave process. 

Recommendation: No change. 

cc: 	 Carol Bilbrough 
Addendum 1 

Summary of Alluvial Aquifer Data Examined from the Coal Creek Mine: 

In the latest CHIA in that area, WDEQILQD found the overall alluvial aquifer water quality 

concentrations ofTDS were below the livestock standard of 5,000 mg/l with a median concentration 

of3,314 mg/l. That data support the conclusion that the alluvial aquifer is suitable for livestock, but 

probably not for domestic or agricultural. In that CHIA, WDEQ/LQD did not analyze discrete alluvial 

aquifers on individual streams. 

However, to assess the accuracy ofthe statement in this BIS, WDEQI LQD's most recent 

hydrology data for alluvial wells on the Coal Creek Mine were examined. Over the years ofmining 

in the area, Coal Creek Mine has installed 39 alluvial monitor wells. Eight ofthose wells are listed as 

still actively monitored. Further examination reveals that four of those eight are monitored for water 

quality. Those four alluvial monitor wells are completed from 15.5 feet to 19.7 feet in depth. Ta~le 1 

below summarizes TDS concentrations at those four wells. 

Table 1. Summary of the total dissolved solids (TDS) concentrations at four alluvial aquifer monitor well, 

Coal Creek Mine, middle Powder River Basin, 2008. [As a point of reference, TDS of 500 mgll is the 

maximum Water Quality Division (WQD) standard for domestic use; 2,000 for agricultural use, and 5,000 

mgll for livestock use.] 

Dates Total Dissolved Solids @ 180 C in mg/l 

Mine, Number 

Aquifer, First Latest Latest Minimum Maximum of 

Well Name Sample Sample Concentration Concentration Concentration Samples 

COAL 

CREEK, 

ALLUVIUM, 

CCA-14C 4/26/1989 1111512007 2,210 1,360 2,230 25 

COAL 

CREEK, 

ALLUVIUM, 

CCA-2C 4/26/1989 1111412007 880 582 1,060 24 

COAL 

CREEK, 

ALLUVIUM, 

CCA-4C 4/26/1989 11119/2007 2,050 1,824 4,170 25 

COAL 

CREEK, 

ALLUVIUM, 

CCA-5C 5/19/1989 11114/2007 6,850 2,434 8,300 26 

Data from these four wells indicate that only one, CCA-5A, exceeds the livestock standard for 

TDS for the latest's concentration and the maximum concentration. Time series plots are shown for 

IDS concentrations at each of the wells in Figures 1,2,3, and 4. Please note the concentration scale 

for Figure 4 is twice the concentration scale for the other figures. Based on TDS alone, well CCA-2C 
is suitable for agricultural use and CCA-14C and CCA-4C have been or are approaching the 

agricultural use standard. Of course, there may be other constituents that impact the alluvial aquifer's 

use. Ifthat is the case, those constituents and the supportive information should be included in the 

EIS. 

TDS DRIED AT 180 C (mg/l) 

5000 

4500 

4000 I ~CCA·14C.. J 

3500 

3000 

2500 .6 .... ~ 

2000 ...... 

1500 .... 1000 

;... ~ ...... ~ 

500 

o 

811111987 5",1990 113111993 1012811995 712411998 411912001 111412004 1011012006 71612009 

Figure 1. Time series plot of total dissolved solids at 180 C at alluvial aquifer monitor well CCA-14C, Coal 

Creek Mine, middle Powder River Basin, Wyoming, 2008. 

TDS DRIED AT 180 C (mg/l) 

5000 

4500 

4000 

3500 I ~CCA-2C.. 1 

3000 

2500 

2000 

1500 

-"'0. 1000 ~ 

500 ~ ~ ......".. .. -­ o 

811111987 5"'1990 113111993 1012111995 712411998 411912001 111412004 1011012006 71812009 

Figure 2. Time series plot of total dissolved solids at 180 C at alluvial aquifer monitor well CCA-2C, Coal 

Creek Mine, middle Powder River Basin, Wyoming, 2008. 
TOS DRIED AT 180 C (mg/l) 

5000 

4500 

A I -+-CCA-4C.. l 4000 

3500 /\

A ~ \ 3000 ..I ~...- \ 2500 ....................


2000 .----­

.-.- "" ~ 

1500 


1000 


500 


o 

8/11/1987 sn/1990 1/31/1993 10/2811995 7124/1998 4/19/2001 1/1412004 10/1012006 71812009 

Figure 3. Time series plot of total dissolved solids at 180 C at alluvial aquifer monitor well CCA-4C, Coal 

Creek Mine, middle Powder River Basin, Wyoming, 2008. 

TDS DRIED AT 180 C (mg/l) 

10000 


9000 


8000 


7000 ~ .. ~ \. ~ ,.,. .... 

V' ..... 

6000 '-- /1 r'-...... ... ..... 5000 I 
 

4000 I 
 

3000 J 
 

¥

2000 -+-CCA-5C.. 
 

1000 
 

o 

8/11/1987 5/711990 1/31/1993 10/28/1995 712411998 411912001 1/1412004 1011012006 71612009 

Figure 4. Time series plot of total dissolved solids at 180 C at alluvial aquifer monitor well CCA-5C, Coal 

Creek Mine, middle Powder River Basin, Wyoming, 2008. 
Response to Comment Letter 7: Department of Environmental Quality,
 

Land Quality Division
 

Comment Response 7A: Section 2.7 of the final EIS, where it discusses 

release of reportable quantities of hazardous or extremely hazardous 

substances has been revised to read “If a reportable quantity of a hazardous or 

extremely hazardous substance is released, immediate notice must be given to 

the WDEQ Emergency Response Coordinator.” 

Comment Response 7B: Appendix A has been revised to reference the 

WDEQ/LQD as the agency responsible for solid waste disposal management. 

Comment Response 7C: Section 3.5.1.1.1 where it discusses alluvial deposits 

for the West Coal Creek tract has been changed to incorporate your suggested 

revision in the final EIS. 

Comment Response 7D: The suggested revisions have been made in the final 

EIS to Sections 3.6.1.2, 3.6.1.3, and 3.6.2.1 to indicate that the WDEQ/LQD 

makes AVF determinations, and that those determinations are made based on 

data, mapping, site visits, and analysis of site-specific conditions. 
8 

Lesley Collins/CFO/WY/BLM/DOI 

12/24/2008 10:19 AM 

To 

Teresa Johnson/CFO/WY/BLM/DOI@BLM 

cc 

bcc 

Subject 

Fw: Comments on DEIS for the South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 

Lesley A. Collins 

Public Affairs 

High Plains District 

Office: 307-261-7603 

----- Forwarded by Lesley Collins/CFO/WY/BLM/DOI on 12/24/2008 10:19 AM 

"Downing, Doug" <DDowning@archcoal.com> 

12/23/2008 03:05 PM 

To 

<Casper_wymail@blm.gov>, <Teresa_Johnson@blm.gov>, <Mike_Karbs@blm.gov> 

cc 

"Rowlands, Mike" <MRowlands@archcoal.com>, "Sturgill Jr, BJ" 

<BSturgill@archcoal.com>, "Addison, Jeff" <JAddison@archcoal.com> 

Subject 

Comments on DEIS for the South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 

Teresa, below are Ark Land Company comments on the above 

mentioned DEIS. Ark's comments focus on the broader issue of Global 

Climate Change/Greenhouse Gas Emissions as opposed to grammatical and 

typographical anomolies. My contact Information is listed below if you 

wish to discuss our comments further. Thank you for the opportunity to 

comment and we look forward to the completion of the NEPA process. Happy 

Holidays! 

The discussion of Global Climate Change and Greenhouse Gas Emissions in 

the Draft EIS, page 4-103 to page 4-113, generally provides the requisite 

analysis of the reasonably foreseeable effects of climate change. 

However, the narrative style of the presentation at times makes it hard 

to 

follow how the section is tracking the CEQ requirements for discussion of 

cumulative effects, and in particular, what steps the agency undertook to 

determine when data were lacking to carry the analysis of effects 

further. 
.' 

Following are specific section comments: 

1. Section 3.18.2 (Affected Environment & Environmental Consequences, ~ Greenhouse Gas Emissions). This section should include some discussion of 

mitigation measures that would mitigate greenhouse gas emissions from the 

proposed action. If there are no feasible mitigation measures, the 

document should state that and explain why. 40 C.F.R. 1502.16(h). 

2. Section 4.2.14.1 (Cumulative Environmental Consequences, Global 

Climate 

Change and Greenhouse Gas Emissions). The document should contain a 

meaningful discussion of the direct and indirect effects of the proposed 

action on climate change when added to the aggregate effects of other 

past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. See 40 C.F.R. 

1508.7. In particular, the current draft does not give a completely 

clear 

sense of the project's relationship to past, present, and future actions 

related to the leasing of federal coal. If the information needed to 

estimate the incremental effects of the proposed action on global climate 

change is unavailable, the document should clearly follow the steps in 40 

C.F.R. 1502.22 regarding unavailable information. The BLM should update 

the entire discussion under Section 4.2.14.1 with current information 

that 

is available at the time the Final EIS is prepared. The BLM 

appropriately 

described the percentage of anthropogenic carbon dioxide and methane gas 

emissions that are attributed to Powder River Basin coal mines. 

3. The BLM stated that 'it is not possible to project the level of C02 

emissions that burning the coal" mined from the proposed lease tracts 

would have. Draft EIS at 4-112. The BLM should take a second look at 

this matter. It should make a reasonable estimate of the level of C02 

emissions that would occur if the coal mined from the proposed lease 

tracts is burned, perhaps by using published emissions factors that exist 

today for bituminous coal. The BLM should estimate what cumulative 

effect 

those anticipated emissions would have on the percentage of greenhouse 

gas 

emissions attributed to coal on page 4-107. The BLM should disclose 

whether the C02 emissions from the proposed lease tracts would change the 

estimates of C02 emissions presented in Tables 4-36 and Tables 4-37. It 

should be noted that t~e last bullet on page 4-107 should indicate that 

the coal mined from the Wyoming PRB, not the "surface coal mines H were 

responsible for about 13.9 percent of the U.S. C02 emissions in 2006. 

4. The BLM should make similar estimates for methane gas emissions 

associated with the proposed lease tracts on pages 4-112 to 4-113 of the 

Draft EIS. The BLM should identify whether the methane gas emissions 

associated with the proposed lease tracts will change the percentage of 

greenhouse gas emissions attributed to Powder River Basin surface coal 

mines on page 4-112. 

5. At the end of the first paragraph under Table 4-37 on page 4-111, it ~ 

~ 

B 
 

o 
 

is suggested that the text be revised as follows: "Both EIA and EPRI 

and 

forecast 

the associated 

increases 

shifts 

in electricity 

projected 

costs 

in the 

with 

sources 

regulation 

of power 

of C02 

away 

emissions 

from E

c 
coal." 

Douglas Downing 

One City place 

St. Louis, MO 63141 

ddowning@archcoal.com 

314-994-2954 

314-378-3462 (cell) 

********** Email Disclaimer ********** 

The information contained in this e-mail, and in any 

accompanying documents, may constitute confidential and/or 

legally privileged information. The information is intended only 

for use by the designated recipient. If you are not the intended 

recipient (or responsible for delivery of the message to the 

intended recipient), you are hereby notified that any dissemination, 

distribution, copying, or other use of, or taking of any action in 

reliance on this e-mail is strictly prohibited. If you have received 

this e-mail communication in error, please notify the sender 

immediately and delete the message from your system. 
Response to Comment Letter 8: Ark Land Company 

Comment Response 8A: A discussion of monitoring and mitigation measures 

for greenhouse gas emissions during mining operations has been added as 

Section 3.18.3, “Regulatory Compliance, Monitoring and Mitigation.” 

Comment Response 8B: We have updated the discussion of direct and 

indirect effects of the proposed leasing actions when added to the effects of 

other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions as it relates to 

climate change. As stated in Section 4.2.14 in the final EIS, climatic change 

analyses are comprised of several factors, including GHG emissions, land use 

management practices, and the albedo effect. Tools necessary to quantify 

incremental climatic changes associated with those factors for specific activities 

like mining of an LBA tract are presently unavailable. Therefore, impact 

assessments for effects of specific anthropogenic activities cannot be 

performed. Additionally, specific levels of significance have not yet been 

established. Consequently, 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, we have identified potential GHG emissions that could 

result from development of the proposed LBAs, as well as emissions that will 

result from selection of the No Action Alternative. 

The site-specific impacts analyzed in this EIS are based on the assumption that 

if LBA tracts are offered for competitive lease, a lease would be issued, and 

mining would be permitted. We further assume that the applicant would be 

the lessee, and that the lease would be permitted as an extension of their 

current mining operations. In Chapter 3, Affected Environment and 

Environmental Consequences, we have estimated the change to emissions of 

GHG under each alternative LBA configuration, including the No Action 

Alternative. A table has been added to Section 4.2.14 in the final EIS to assist 

in describing the combined effects of leasing all currently pending LBAs. 

Also, in Chapter 4, Cumulative Environmental Consequences, the contribution 

of the site-specific alternatives to cumulative effects on the environment is 

evaluated. To do this, it is assumed that coal mining will proceed in 

accordance with permit conditions. We 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. 

We have estimated 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. 

This information is included in Chapter 4 (4.2.14.1). This was done by relating 
 

the portion of coal mined to the total emission of GHG from all coal mined in 

the U.S. We 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. 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 EIS 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. 

Comment Response 8C: Wyoming Powder River Basin coal is sold on the 

open market; therefore, it is not possible to know with any reasonable certainty 

what power plants would use this coal or in what amount. The variety of 

burning and emission control apparatus installed in the many facilities to 

which PRB coal is sold would also make calculating CO2 emissions difficult. 

We agree that some sort of calculation is possible for CO2 released during 

laboratory combustion of coal. The following information has been added to 

the final EIS in section 4.2.14.1: “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 (DOE 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 (DOE 

2007a). In 2006, Wyoming PRB mines accounted for approximately 37.2 percent 

of the coal produced in the U.S (DOE 2007d).” 

Comment Response 8D: A new discussion on coal bed methane released from 

the coal face has been added to Chapter 3 at the end of Section 3.18.3. Table 

3-19 was calculated to show the effects of all greenhouse gases released during 

mining operations. The calculations have been edited from those presented in 

the draft EIS. 

Comment Response 8E: The last two sentences of the first paragraph under 

Table 4-37, “Carbon based sources such as coal, gas and petroleum are 

reduced as compared to the EIA forecast. Both EIA and EPRI forecast 

increases in electricity cost.”, has been reworded to say: “Use of carbon based 
sources such as gas and petroleum are less than forecasted by the 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.” 
II 

9 

rWILDEAim 

GUARDIANS 

A FORCE FOR NATURE 

December 24, 2008 

BYE-MAIL 

Casper Field Office 


Bureau of Land Management 


Attn: Teresa Johnson 


2987 Prospector Drive 


Casper, WY 82604 


casper :wymail@blm.gov 


Re: 	 Comments on South Glliette Area Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Four 

Federal Coal Lease by Applications, Wyoming 

Dear Ms. Johnson: 

WildEarth Guardians, Clean Energy Action, Biodiversity Conservation Alliance, the 

Sierra Club, and Mark Squillace submit the following comments on the Bureau of Land 

Management's ("BLM"s") draft environmental impact statement ("DEIS") for four coal lease by 

applications ("LBAs") in the South Gillette Area of the Powder River Basin of Wyoming 

(hereafter "South Gillette LBAs"). The four LBAs include the Belle Ayr North Coal Tract, the 

West Coal Creek Tract, Caballo West Coal Tract, and Maysdorf II Coal Tract. For the foregoing 

reasons, we oppose the proposed LBAs and request the BLM withdraw its proposal to offer for 

lease the four tracts. These comments are timely submitted within 45 days ofthe publication of 

the notice ofavailability ("NOA") ofthe DEIS in the Federal Register. See 73 Fed. Reg. 61903­

61905. 

Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act ("NEP A"), we also request an 

extension ofthe comment period regarding this DEIS. Although we have attempted to provide 

thorough comments to the BLM with regards to the DEIS, because the deadline for comments 

has fallen so close to the holiday season, we do not feel that we have been provided adequate 

opportunity to comment. We request an additional 30 days to submit more detailed comments to 

the BLM with regards to the South Gillette LBAs OBIS. 

The Powder River Basin has been Erroeneously Decertified al • Coal Production Region 

The Powder River Basin was "decertified" as a Federal coal production region coal 

production region in January of 1990. In other words, the BLM has asserted that the Powder 

River Basin is outside a coal production region in accordance with 43 CFR § 3400.5. This A 

312 Montezuma Ave. Santa Fe, NM 87501 505·988·9126 (p) 505·989·8623 (f) www.wildearthguardians.org 

SANTA FE OENVER PH()ENIX 
I I 

"decertification" was made on the recommendation ofthe Powder River Regional Coal Team in 

October of 1989. At the time, this decertification was deemed appropriate "based on decreasing 

industry interest in new competitive Federal coal leasing and the condition of the coal market." 

See Environmental Assessment ofthe West Black Thunder Coal Lease Application as Applied 

for by Thunder Basin Coal Company (Federal Coal Lease Application WYWl18907) (August 

1991) at 1. 

Although it is questionable whether the "decertification" ofthe Powder River Basin as a 

coal production region was appropriate in 1990, it is clear that it is inappropriate today. Indeed, 

coal production in the Powder River Basin region is significant and has increased substantially 

over the years. According to data from the BLM's own website, coal production in the Powder 

River Basin has increased from 293 million tons to more than 436 tons in 2007. See, Chart 

below. The region is currently producing record amounts of coal. 

Buckskin 

Coal Creek 

Rawhide 

Wyodak 

A 

Coal produced in Powder River Basin (data in millions of tons). Chart available at 


http://www.blm.gov/wv/stJen/programs/energy/CoaIResources/PRBCoal/production.html. 


Furthennore, the Powder River Basin region produces more coal than any other region in 

the United States. Currently, the Powder River Basin provides more than 35% ofthe nation's 

coal, a figure that has grown substantially over the years. See, Chart below. According to the 

2 
Energy Information Administration, the Powder River Basin currently produces more coal than 

all the coal mines combined east ofthe Mississippi River. Indeed, in 2007, the Powder River 

Basin produced more than 479,000 tons of coal while mines east of the Mississippi produced 

477,006. See htt.p:llwww.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/coaUpage/acr/tablel.htmI.This is a significant 

amount of coal to be produced from a single region. 

Percent of Total U.S. Coal Production MIned 'rom The Powder RIVer Basin, Wyoming 

40.0% 

350% 

30.0% 

25.0% 

J200% 

150% 

100% 

5.0% 

00% 

"..9 ~s ",9 (90 

Sources' Energy Information Administratiol'VAnnuaiEnergy Review. State Inspector of Mines of 'l'.Y. & 0 0.1. Federal Coal ManagementReport 

Chart available at 

A 

www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/wv/programs/energy/coaI/prb.Par.5321.1mage.-1.-1.1.gif. 

Because the Powder River Basin remains a decertified coal production region, leasing is 

done on an application filed by a private company. The LBA process allows private coal 

company, and not the federal government, to design the tract ofland subject to leasing. In the 

Powder River Basin this has allowed each major federal coal producer in the area to submit 

applications for lease federal coal leases in areas and on tracts that they have designed. This 

raises significant concerns that coal companies have designed tracts that are immediately 

adjacent to their existing mines. The result is that the lease applicant is typically the only bidder 

for the tract when the "competitive bidding" auction is held. This raises concerns that the 

Federal government is not ensuring fair market value ofany privately designed and nominated 

lease tracts. 

Regardless, the "decertification" ofthe Powder River Basin is contrary to 43 CFR § 

3400.5, which requires the BLM to identify coal production regions and to adhere to the 

competitive leasing procedures of43 CFR §§ 3420-3422. At the least, it is clearly arbitrary and 

capricious in light of the fact that the Powder River Basin is the nation's leading producer of 

coal. Ifthe BLM moves to lease the South Gileue LBAs, it will be acting contrary to its coal 

3 

B 

leasing regulations and arbitrarily and capriciously. 

If the BLM believes it cannot assess through the South Gillette LBAs whether or not the 

Powder River Basin should be certified as a coal production region in accordance with 43 CPR § A 

3400.5, then we hereby the BLM consider these comments a request for rulemaking submitted 

pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act ("APA"), 5 USC § 553(e). Pursuant to the APA, 

we petition the BLM to revise its prior "decertification" of the Powder River Basin as a coal 

production region and appropriately identify the region as a coal production region in accordance 

with 43 ~FR § 3400.5. 

The Charter of the Powder River Regional Coal Team, as well as BLM Regulations 

Regarding the Function of the Coal Team, Violate the Federal Advisory Committee Act 

Although the Powder River Regional Coal Team has been established as an advisory 

committee under the Federal Advisory Committee Act ("FACA"), the Team's role in coal 

leasing decisions appears to go beyond what is allowed under F ACA. Indeed, the Charter ofthe 

Powder River Regional Coal Team provides that "[t ]he team's recommendations on regional 

leasing levels, tracts to be offered, and sales scheduled, shall be accepted, except in the case of 

an overriding national interest, or in the case that the advice of the Governor(s) is accepted 

pursuant to 43 CFR § 3420.4-3(c)." Charter, 6.b(ii) (emphasis added). Furthennore, BLM 

regulations provide that with certain exception, Regional Coal Team recommendations on 

leasing levels and on regional lease sales "shall be accepted" by the Secretary. 43 CFR § 

3400.4(d) (2006). 

The Charter of the Powder River Regional Coal Team provides, however, that 

"[0 ]peration and administration of the team will be in accordance with the Federal Advisory 

Committee Act of 1972 (FACA). 5 U.S.C. Appendix (1982) .... " Charter, 13.e. The FACA states 

clearly that "the function of advisory committees should be advisory only, and that all matters 

under their consideration should be determined in accordance with law, by the official, agency, 

or officer involved" (emphasis added). Given that the recommendations of the Powder River 

Regional Coal Team are not "advisory only," it thus appears that the RCf Charter, as well as the 

BLM regulations, violate the FACA. See 5 U.S.C. Appendix I (Supp. III, 1973), as amended, 5 

U.S.C. Appendix I (Supp. I, 1975). 

The Draft EIS Fails to Adequately Analyze and Assess Global Warming Impacts 

We appreciate the attention given to global warming concerns in the DEIS. However, the 

DEIS falls short in key regards and fails to adequately analyzing and assessing global warming 

impacts. Further, ,the PElS falls short of exploring reasonable alternatives that would address the 

global warming impacts offuture mining that would be authorized by the South Gillette LBAs. 

• 	 The Draft EIS Falls to Address the Cumulative Impacts of Other Department of 

Interior-authorized actions 

BLM needs to consider the cumulative impact of this action and other actions undertaken 

by the Department of Interior on climate change. These other actions include other BLM oil and 

gas lease sales such as the upcoming February 9, 2009 oil and gas lease sale by the Wyoming 

State Office of the BLM, as well as recent lease sales in other states such as Colorado, Montana, 

4 


c 
New Mexico, Utah. These other actions also include BLM's revision of its plan for oil and gas 

extraction at the Pinedale Anticline in Wyoming and the actions covered in the Great Divide 

Resource Management Plan. These other actions also include the issuance ofall Applications for 

Pennits to Drill for oil and gas activities that are occurring now or are reasonably foreseeable. 

The BLM's sister agency, the Minerals Management Service, also authorizes offshore oil and gas 

drilling and development of production and processing facilities. 

Furthennore, the cumulative actions that BLM must consider in tenns ofgreenhouse gas 

emissions are not limited to oil and gas activities. For example, coal fired power plants are the 

largest source ofgreenhouse gas emissions in the United States. BLM is currently considering 

authorizing the construction of the Toquop coal fired power plant in Nevada. Additionally, the 

Bureau ofIndian affairs is preparing an EIS over the Desert Rock coal-fired power plant in 

northwestern New Mexico. Emissions ofgreenhouse gases from this plant, and any other coal 

fired power plant BLM and other Interior agencies are considering, must also be considered in the 

cumulative impacts analysis. 

Livestock is also a major source ofgreenhouse gas emissions. See e.g. Henning Stein field, 

Livestocks Long Shadow: Environmental Issues and Options, (2006). Thus, BLM must consider 

its actions which involve livestock grazing in its cumulative impacts analysis ofgreenhouse gas 

emissions. 

Coal mining is also a major source ofgreenhouse gases. Indeed, the DEIS discloses that 

the coal mines in the South Gillette area contribute to more than 3% of the United States' total 

greenhouse gas emissions. As the DEIS discloses, greenhouse gases are released during mining 

activities, during coal processing and transport, and when the coal is burned. This is a significant 

amount, indicating that mining authorized by other Interior agencies--including the BLM, the 

Office ofSurface Mining, and the Secretary's Office-likely cumulatively amount to a significant 

source ofgreenhouse gases. 

Therefore, BLM must consider the impacts of its proposal to authorize the South Gillette 

LBAs cumulatively with other Department of Interior authorized activities that also contribute 

to global wanning. Until such time as BLM analyzes the cumulative impacts ofgreenhouse gas 

emissions from other Department ofInterior authorized oil and gas development, coal-fired 

power plants, livestock grazing, coal mining, and other activities activities, BLM cannot move 

forward with the South Gillette LBAs in compliance with NEPA. 

• The Draft EIS Fails to Consider Alternatives that Address Global Warming 

The DEIS fails to consider alternatives that limit or eliminate greenhouse gas emissions. 

Such alternatives could include requiring capture and use ofany methane vented as a result ofcoal 

mining activities, alternatives that require more efficient mining equipment, such as mine hauling 

trucks, alternatives that require the mine operators to secure offsets ofgreenhouse gases 

attributed to mining activities, alternatives that limit annual coal production to contribute to D 

reductions in greenhouse gases from coal combustion, and alternatives that factor in the cost of 

greenhouse gas emissions and global wanning when determining the fair market value of the coal 

5 


c 
to be leased. 

The Draft EIS Fails to Adequately Analyze and Assess Air Quality Impacts 

The BLM must analyze and assess the impacts of the South Gillette LBAs to air quality 

to ensure compliance with Sate and Federal air pollution standards in accordance with the 

Federal Land Policy and Management Act ("FLPMA"). 43 USC § 1712(c)(8). Unfortunately, 

the DBIS falls short in key regards in adequately analyzing and assessing air quality impacts 

under NEPA, raising questions over whether authorization ofthe LBAs will comply with State 

and Federal air quality standards. 

• Ozone 

The DEIS does not analyze impacts to the current ozone standards. On March 27, 2008, 

the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency established new national ambient air quality 

standards ("NAAQS") for ozone, limiting concentrations to no more than 0.075 parts per million 

over an eight hour period. See, 73 Fed. Reg. 16436-16512. Ozone fonns when precursor 

pollutants volatile organic compounds ("VOCs") and nitrogen oxides ("NO x") react with 

sunlight. While the DEIS recognizes ozone as a harmful air pollutant, there is no analysis of 

impacts to ambient ozone concentrations. This is particularly troublesome given that EPA E 

monitoring data online at 

http://iaspub.epa.gov/airsdataiadags.monvals?geotype=co&geocode=56005+56009&geoinfo=co 

--56005+56009--Campbell+Co%2C+Converse+Co%2C+Wyoming&pol=03&year=2008+2007+ 

2006+2005+ 2004+2003+2002 + 200 1+ 2000&fld=monid&fld=siteid&fld=address&fld=city &fld= 

county&fld=stabbr&fld=regn&rpp=25 shows that there have been a number ofexceedances of 

the ozone NAAQS over the years in Campbell County, Wyoming. 

Also of concern is that the results ofthe modeling prepared for the Western Regional Air 

Partnership strongly indicate that attainment and maintenance ofthe 8-hour ozone NAAQS is at 

risk throughout the Western States, including in the Powder River Basin ofWyoming. See, 

Tonnesen, G., Z. Wang, M. Omary, C. Chien, Z. Adelman, and R~ Morris, "Review ofOzone 

Perfonnance in WRAP Modeling and Relevance to Future Regional Ozone Planning," 

presentation given at WRAP Workshop on Regional Emissions and Air Quality Modeling 

Studies (July 30, 2008). This modeling in fact shows that the annual fourth maximum 8-hour 

ozone concentration will exceed 0.075 ppm throughout much ofWyoming. See Figure below. 

6 

0.100 94 

o.oso 

0.080 

0.070 

0.080 

0.050 

0.040 

0.030 

03 

WRAP ~rp~~ 

4th8-HR MAX 

0.020 32 "--____~.a..._~____________....... 

ppmv 10 79 

January 12002 o~:oo 

tAin- 0.031 at(l4.73~ Max- 0.103 at (41 ..85) 

Projected 2018 annual fourth maximum ozone concentrations. Orange and red indicate 

exceedances and/or violations of the ozone NMQS of 0.075 parts per million. 

• PSD Increments 

The DEIS indicates the BLM does not believe it has to perform an analysis of impacts to 

Prevention ofSignificant Deterioration ("PSD"). This belief is flawed. FLPMA requires the 

BLM to ensure compliance with Federal and State air quality standards, and that includes PSD 

increments. The BLM must assess the degree to which any mining activities authorized by the 

LBAs will consume Class I and Class- II PSD increments in the region to ensure compliance with 

Federal and State air quality standards as required by FLPMA. 

• PM-tO Impacts 

The DEIS claims that modeling shows that mining authorized by the South Gillette LBAs 

will not exceed and/or violate NAAQS for PM-tO. nis claim is undennined by the fact that 

monitoring shows the PM-I0 NAAQS of 150 micrograms/cubic meter has been exceeded on 

7 

F 

I I 

numerous occasions at coal mines in the Powder River Basin over the last several years. Data 


accessible on the EPA's website at 


http://iaspub.epa.gov/airsdata/adaqs.monvals?geotype=co&geocode=56005+56009&geoinfo=co 


--56005+56009--Campbell+Co%2C+Converse+Co%2C+ Wyoming&pol=PM I 0&year=2008+20 
 E 

07+2006+ 2005+ 2004+ 2003+ 2002+200 1+2000&fld=monid&fld=siteid&fld=address&fld=city& 


fld=county&fld=stabbr&fld=regn&rpp=25 shows that PM-l 0 NAAQS have likely been violated 


over the years. It is unclear how this monitoring data factored into the BLM's analysis and 


unclear how the BLM can reasonably conclude that PM-l 0 NAAQS will be complied with 


pursuant to FLPMA. 


The Draft EIS Fails to Analyze the Impacts of Connected Actions 

Regulations implementing NEP A require an agency to consider connected actions - those 

"closely related" - and similar actions in an EIS. 40 C.F.R. § 1508.25(a)(I); (a)(3). The purpose 

ofthe 'connected action' requirement "is to prevent an agency from dividing a project into 

multiple actions, each ofwhich individually has an insignificant environmental impact, but 

which collectively have a substantial impact." Great Basin Mine Watch v. Hankins, 456 F .3d 

955,969 (9th Cir. 2006). A connected action is defined as being "closely related" to other 

actions, and are considered "connected" ifthey: 

(i) Automatically trigger other actions which may require environmental impact 


statements; 


(ii) Cannot or will not proceed unless other actions are taken previously or 


simultaneously; 


(iii) Are interdependent parts ofa larger action and depend on the larger action for 


their justification. 


Id. Similar actions are those that "when viewed with other reasonably foreseeable or proposed 

agency actions, have similarities ,that provide a basis for evaluating their environmental 

consequences together, such as common timing or geography." 40 C.F.R. § 1508.25(a)(3). 

In this case, there are a number ofconnected actions that appear connected with the South 

Gillette LBAs, namely a number ofpending LBAs at coal mines in the Powder River Basin. 

The OEIS at page 1-2 indicates there are a number of pending LBAs. It does not appear that the 

direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of these pending LBAs were addressed in the DEIS, in 

violation ofNEPA. 

The Draft EIS Falls to Analyze a Range ofReasonable Alternatives 

NEPA requires agencies to "study, develop, and describe appropriate alternatives to 

recommended courses of action in any proposal which involves unresolved conflicts concerning 

alternatives uses ofavailable resources." 42 U.S.C. § 4332(2)(E). To achieve these ends, an EIS 

must "[r ]igorously explore and objectively evaluate all reasonable alternatives." 40 C.F.R. 

analysis 

§ 1502.14; 

is ''the 

Utahns/or 

heart" of

Better 

any environmental 

Tramp., 305 F.3d 

review 

at 1166 

pursuant 

(emphasis 

to NEP 

added). 

A. 40 C.F 

The 

.R. 

alternatives 

§ 1502.14. G

Here, the BLM failed to rigorously explore and objectively evaluate alternatives that would 

reduce air quality impacts, reduce global warming impacts, or otherwise present a range of 

reasonable alterative to ensure the decisionmaker can make a fully informed decision. 

8 

The action alternatives analyzed in detail for the South Gillette LBAs amount fail to 

represent a range ofreasonable alternatives that address unresolved conflicts. For every LBA, 

the BLM either analyzes the proposed action (Le., the action recommended by the private coal 

company) or a modified alternative that seeks to "enhance" coal recovery. No action alternative 

attempts to address significant issues, namely concerns over global wanning, air quality, and 

other environmental impacts. In fact, it does not appear that environmental conflicts were even 

considered by the BLM in developing alternatives to the proposed actions. Rather, it appears G 

that all action alternatives to the proposed actions seek primarily to maximize direct economic 

gain for the federal government. 

Although the BLM analyzes a "no action" alternative for every LBA, this is not an action 

alternative and therefore cannot serve, alone, to fulfill the agency's duties to analyze a range of 

alternatives. 

Thank you for the opportunity to comment. 

Sincerely, 

Jeremy Nichols 


Climate and Energy Program Director 


WildEarth Guardians 


1536 Wynkoop, Suite 301 


Denver, CO 80202 


(303) 573-4898 x 537 


inichols@wildearthguardians.org 


on behalfof: 

Erik Molvar 


Executive Director 


Biodiversity Conservation Alliance 


Laramie, WY 


Leslie Glustrom 


Clean Energy Action 


Boulder, CO 


Aaron Isherwood 


Senior StaffAttorney 


Sierra Club Environmental Law Program 


San Francisco, CA 


Mark Squillace 

9 

Response to Comment Letter 9: Wild Earth Guardians 

Comment Response 9A: You are correct in that the Powder River Coal 

Production Region was “decertified” as a federal coal production region in 1990, 

and that it remains “decertified” currently. This is similar to most of the 

original federal coal production regions established as part of the Federal Coal 

Management Program. Coal leasing in the PRB operated as a certified federal 

coal production region, with leasing developed under the regional leasing 

process as described under 43 CFR 3420, through the 1980s. 

Many of the federal coal production regions were decertified in the later 1980s, 

in large part because of a decline of interest in leasing federal coal. 

The Powder River Coal Production Region had no leasing interest during the 

late 1980s. The mines that exist today were operating or already had adequate 

reserves to begin operating. The PRB had become a mature mining region, that 

is, a region where sufficient mining operations had been established to meet 

expected coal demand. 

In 1990, based on the advice of the Powder River Regional Coal Team, BLM 

decertified the region. However, there were certain conditions of the 

decertification established in part based on the RCT’s advice. The region was 

decertified for production maintenance leasing, and the RCT would remain 

active and periodically review BLM’s leasing activity to provide advice on the 

leasing in a regional perspective. 

In a region that is decertified, BLM is able to consider leasing by application 

under the rules at 43 CFR 3425. The RCT has met about once each year since 

the decertification. BLM has presented lease by applications to the RCT and 

has considered their advice on how to proceed with those applications. 

You are correct that production of PRB coal has increased steadily since 

decertification. Part of this growth is due to an increase in the demand for 

electric power and the related increase in demand for steam coal as a fuel for 

low cost electric generation. There are also cost (mining and reclamation) 

advantages that have favored PRB coal over other domestic coal regions as well 

as the low sulfur content which results in cost-effective air pollution control. 

The production increase has been made with no new mining operations 

opening since decertification, although several of the operations have 

consolidated. As shown in Figure 4-2 in the EIS, leasing under the LBA 

process has essentially been at the same rate as reserves existing before 

decertification have been being depleted. This level of leasing activity remains 

consistent with the 1990 decertification action. 
The interpretation of the lease by application process made in this comment is 

incorrect, and it is not borne out by practice or results. The lease application 

is made to identify those lands that the applicant has identified as needed to 

maintain production at an existing mine. BLM identifies alternatives 

(Alternatives 2 and 3 in this EIS) which include more lands than are included 

in the application. Under these alternatives, BLM is able to reconfigure the 

tract in the public interest to conserve coal resources, enhance competitive 

potential, and mitigate impacts. BLM has frequently (in almost every LBA 

offered) delineated a preferred alternative smaller or larger than the 

application, and containing some different lands than those applied for. 

It is logical, and prudent, for the lease tracts to be adjacent to one or more 

existing mines. These are production maintenance tracts and, as such, are 

located so that existing operations can pass onto these tracts without gaps 

requiring the significant additional disturbance and cost required to open a 

new pit rather than extend an existing one. 

We have had several sales where there were multiple bids and sales where the 

applicant was not the successful bidder. The sales are always competitive, 

even if there is only one bidder, because the BLM sets a fair market value and 

will not accept any bid that does not meet that value. These values are not 

disclosed, and bidders recognize that they need to bid a fair value or the bids 

will be rejected. BLM has rejected numerous bids that were the apparent high 

bid. 

All of this evidence demonstrates that BLM’s practice has ensured fair market 

values are received for LBA tracts that are designed by BLM to allow production 

to be maintained at already operating mines, with the coal resource being 

managed to avoid bypass, isolation, and to encourage competition. 

The BLM properly established the Powder River Coal Production Region as 

required by 43 CFR 3400.5. The change to the region was published in the 

Federal Register. BLM has, and continues to manage the lease by application 

process in conformance with the status of the Powder River Coal Production 

Region, and the criteria and conditions for the change to a decertified coal 

region. 

Processing the South Gillette LBAs is consistent with the practice we follow in 

the decertified Powder River Coal Production Region. These are production 

maintenance tracts, have been reviewed by the Powder River Regional Coal 

Team, and are being reviewed under the leasing by application process (43 CFR 

3425). 

The Powder River Regional Coal Team meetings are public and provide an 

opportunity for public comment and statements. BLM staff will provide the 

team a briefing of your request at the team’s meeting later this year. You are 
welcome to present your petition, either in person or in writing, to the team at 

that meeting. The meetings are published in the Federal Register and a press 

release is posted on the BLM web site. To accommodate you better we have 

added your name and the email address you provided with your comment letter 

to the email notification list for the RCT meetings. 

Comment Response 9B: The Powder River Regional Coal Team was 

established under the coal program regulations (43 CFR 3400.4) for the 

purpose of the duties specified in 43 CFR 3420. The RCT is not an advisory 

group as established under the regulations for advisory committees under 43 

CFR 1784, although it is bound to use the public participation procedures (43 

CFR 1784.4-2, 43 CFR 1784.4-3, and 43 CFR 1784.5) as in the advisory 

committee regulations. 

The item you point out (from Charter PRBRCT, approved October 24, 1995, 

Section 6.c (11)), where the RCT’s advice shall be accepted, with certain 

exceptions, pertain only to one specific duty: regional leasing in a certified coal 

production region. The Powder River Coal Production Region has not operated 

in the regional leasing mode since 1990. 

The section of the charter defining the team’s duties when operating in the LBA 

mode (Charter PRBRCT, approved October 24, 1995, Section 6.b) is relevant to 

the way the team is presently operating. The role is that of an advisor to solicit 

and consider public views. 

In section 6.a of the charter, which defines all operations of the team, if BLM 

chooses not to accept the team’s recommendations, “a written explanation of 

the reasons will be prepared by the BLM Director’s authorized representative 

and provided to the team and the public.” 

Comment Response 9C: The purpose of this EIS is to disclose the potential 

effects to the natural and human environment from the proposed leasing of 

four LBAs that have been requested to maintain production of four currently 

operating mines in the Powder River Basin of Wyoming. The EIS assesses the 

site-specific impacts resulting from a range of alternative actions to the 

proposed action of leasing a specific tract of land. The EIS also assesses the 

cumulative impact on the environment which results from the incremental 

impact of the proposed LBA when added to other past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable future actions that would add to the impact of the proposed action. 

In this EIS, cumulative impacts are discussed in Chapter 4. 

The analysis of cumulative impacts in this EIS is based on a comprehensive 

study designed to provide a basis for assessing the level of cumulative impacts 

resulting from reasonably foreseeable actions occurring in the Powder River 

Basin. The analysis recognizes that the areal extent of each type of effect 

depends on the environmental value affected. In recognition, the “effect area” 
for each value is scaled to be that area where the effects of development in the 

PRB can be estimated. In some cases this is a multiple county area, in others 

it is multi state, in others it is just the actual lands that are affected. For each 

environmental value, the effect area extends the analysis of the cumulative 

impact to where that impact is no longer quantifiable or is at a level as to be 

insignificant. 

The comment suggests that this EIS look at actions in a variety of areas with 

the only connection being that the actions are under the jurisdiction of the 

Department of the Interior. This approach does not recognize that each of 

these proposals are federal actions in their own right, and must be evaluated in 

light of the effects of that action when added to other past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (Federal or 

non-Federal) or person undertakes such other actions. 

Comment Response 9D: The EIS addresses a full range of alternatives to the 

lease by application submitted by the lease applicant. The range includes an 

alternative which would represent all lands that include coal reserves that are 

comparable to those applied for, which may be efficiently recovered with the 

LBA, which may enhance competitive interest in the tract, and which could be 

bypassed if not leased. On the other end of the range is the No Action 

Alternative. 

The comment suggests this is not a “no action” alternative, but does not 

provide a reason. This alternative assumes that the lease as applied for is 

rejected, and that no lands are offered for lease. 

The BLM is a multiple use land management agency that manages the federal 

coal reserves under the predominantly private land surface in the Gillette area 

of the Powder River Basin. In the land area covered by these LBAs, only 3% of 

the surface ownership is federal land. Although there are many wind and solar 

resources that can be used for energy development, the BLM does not have 

authority over private land surface use and surface development. The BLM 

neither permits for the surface disturbance nor for the mining operations in 

coal mining operations. Therefore, the reasonable alternative options available 

for BLM to review in this EIS are leasing alternatives exploring the lease size, 

and shape, and the No Action Alternative where leasing one or more of these 

LBAs does not occur. 

Other forms of addressing increasing electric demand are noted in this EIS. 

Ongoing scientific research has identified the potential impacts of GHG 

emissions on the global climate. The addition of non carbon fueled electric 

generation sources could reduce GHG emissions. Further, the addition of 

alternate sources of electric generation would conserve carbon fuels, which are 

not renewable in the short term, and would provide a broader portfolio of 

electric sources. The EIS estimates likely long term electric generation 
portfolios. However, the specific environmental effects of the variety of 

alternative electric generation technologies are not in the scope of this EIS. 

These technologies would be evaluated under NEPA as they are proposed to be 

permitted and built. 

Comment Response 9E: Ozone has been included in discussions on 

emissions of NOX since NOX is one of the main ingredients involved in the 

formation of ground level ozone. Ozone 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 ozone 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 ozone. Ground-level ozone 

is the primary constituent of smog. Sunlight and hot weather cause groundlevel ozone 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" ozone, but even rural areas are also subject to increased ozone. 

Under the Clean Air Act, EPA has set protective health-based standards for 

ozone in the air we breathe. Prior to May 27, 2008, the NAAQ 8-hour standard 

for ozone was 0.080 ppm (157 μg/m3). In May of 2008, EPA revised the 8-hour 

standard to 0.075 ppm (147 μg/m3). According to the EPA AirData website, 

ozone levels have been monitored in the PRB since 2001. An exceedance of the 

ozone 8-hour standard occurs if 4th-highest daily maximum value is above the 

level of the standard (0.08 ppm prior to 2008 and 0.075 ppm since 2008). 

There are two ozone monitoring stations available: one with data starting in 

2001 and the other with data starting in 2003. The Thunder Basin National 

Grassland monitor read 0.074 ppm in 2003 and 0.074 ppm in 2008. All other 

values read at the Thunder Basin National Grassland monitor were below that 

level. The south Campbell County monitor read 0.077 ppm in 2003 and 0.072 

ppm in 2007. All other values read at the Thunder Basin National Grassland 

monitor were below that level. This discussion as well as associated tables has 

been included in the final EIS. 

The EIS evaluates PSD, and it is addressed in Chapters 3 and 4. Section 169 

of the Clean Air Act addresses visibility protection. On June 15, 2005, EPA 

issued final amendments to its July 1999 regional haze rule. These 

amendments apply to the provisions of the regional haze rule that require 

emission controls known as Best Available Retrofit Technology, or BART, for 

industrial facilities emitting air pollutants that reduce visibility. The nearest 

Class I PSD areas to the general analysis area for this LBA are Wind Cave 

National Park (about 100 miles east), and the Badlands Wilderness Area (about 

150 miles east). There are also five Class II PSD areas 80 to100 miles away 

from the LBA general analysis area; all others are at least 100 miles away. 

These are listed in Table 3-9 in the DEIS. This EIS uses two tools to evaluate 

visibility impact. Regional modeling is used to estimate and disclose the 
 

change in the number of days that a change of 10% or more in extinction 

would occur by 2010, in relation to a baseline, also modeled, for 2002. On site, 

monitoring at Class I areas is included to show actual measured changes in 

visibility over the period of record (1989 to 2005). While monitoring results 

show annual variability in visibility impairment at the two sites illustrated in 

Figure 3-20 in the DEIS, the trend is stable overall with some slight lessening 

of impairment in recent years. 

We were unable to locate the statement in the EIS where BLM does not believe 

it has to perform an analysis of impacts to the PSD. There is a statement in 

Section 4.2.3 explaining Table 4-11, where it is clarified that the cumulative air 

quality modeling “did not separate PSD increment-consuming sources from 

those that do not consume increment.” This explains that the modeling was 

designed to include both known and predicted sources, regardless of regulatory 

status. Also, Appendix H (old Appendix K) does include an explanation of the 

fact that PRB surface mines have not been subject to permitting under the PSD 

regulations because the mine emissions that are subject to PSD applicability 

levels fall below regulatory thresholds. 

Because the WDEQ/AQD requires the PRB mines to collect air quality data, 

which is discussed in Section 3.4.2.3, the eastern PRB is one of the most 

intensely monitored areas in the world. 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 dates back to 1980 and data for 

PM10 dates back to 1989. Approximately 57,000 TSP samples had been 

collected through 2004, 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 (old Appendix K). Existing site-specific air quality 

information is included in the SGAC EIS Supplementary Information 

document, which is available on request. No exceedances of the 24-hour or 

annual PM10 particulate standards have been documented by the Belle Ayr, 

Coal Creek, Caballo, or Cordero Rojo mines through 2006. 

The federal standard for particulate matter was measured as TSP until 1987. 

This measurement included all suspendable dust (generally less than 100 

microns in diameter). In 1987, EPA changed from a TSP-based standard to a 

PM10-based standard. In 2006, EPA again revised the air quality standards for 

particulate matter by changing the 24-hour fine particle standard from the 

previous level of 65 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 

Table 3-6. Wyoming added the PM10 standard in 1989. 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. 

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

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

actual emissions and operations for that year. Emissions from permitted 

minor sources were estimated due to unavailability of actual emissions data. 

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

selected sensitive areas surrounding the region. The analysis specifically 

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

development activities. 

The Task 2 Report for the PRB Coal Review (BLM 2005d) identifies reasonably 

foreseeable development activities for the years 2010, 2015, and 2020. The 

updated Task 3A report for the PRB Coal Review Cumulative Air Quality Effects 

(BLM 2006b) for 2015 uses a revised base line year of 2004 with revised 

projected 2015 scenarios. Impacts for 2020 were projected qualitatively 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. Air quality modeling 

indicates the projected mine activities at the four South Gillette area operating 

mines will be in compliance with the PM10 and PM2.5 near-field and short-term 

NO2 air standards for the 2015 modeled air quality impacts at their currently 

permitted mining rates. All applicants have indicated that they propose to 

mine the respective LBA tracts at a rate below the permit levels. 

Based on the modeling results the annual PM10 and PM2.5 in Wyoming is 

predicted to be over the Wyoming SAAQS for the 2015 lower and upper 

development scenarios. The 2004 maximum modeled 24-hour PM10 are greater 

than the 150 μg/m3 ambient air standard for some near-field receptors near 

PRB sources in Wyoming. 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 

above150 μg/m3 for several relatively small areas surrounding coal mines and 

CBNG operations in the Wyoming PRB. As shown in Table 4-10, the maximum 

modeled PM10 impacts from all sources for the 2015 upper coal production 

scenario are nearly three times the 24-hour WAAQS 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 Wyoming to implement “Best 
Available Work Practice” mitigation measures at any mine where an exceedance 

of the PM10 and PM2.5 NAAQS has occurred. The monitored exceedances at 

surface coal mines in the Wyoming PRB and the measures that WDEQ/AQD 

has implemented or is proposing to implement to prevent future exceedances of 

the PM10 NAAQS are discussed in Chapter 3, Sections 3.4.2.1 and 3.4.2.3. It 

should be noted that WDEQ/AQD issues permits to mine coal. AQD cannot 

issue any permit that violates ambient air quality standards. 

Comment Response 9F: You are correct that a number of LBAs are pending 

in the PRB. We have grouped the applications for NEPA evaluation. Each 

grouped EIS considers those LBAs that are geographically clustered in that 

group. It also includes a comprehensive analysis of cumulative direct and 

indirect impacts of all reasonably foreseeable development activity, including 

all the applications shown on Figure 1-1. 

LBAs are combined by mine group, in the same mine groupings that are 

studied in the PRB coal review. Chapter 4 discusses development in the 

Powder River Basin and the consequences of that development. Both low and 

high production scenarios with projections to the year 2020 are also discussed. 

Past, present and reasonably foreseeable development and the cumulative 

environmental consequences of that development are also detailed. 

Comment Response 9G: The EIS addresses a full range of alternatives to the 

lease by application submitted by the lease applicant. The range includes an 

alternative which represents all lands that include coal reserves that are 

comparable to those applied for, which may be efficiently recovered with the 

LBA, which may enhance competitive interest in the tract, and which could be 

bypassed if not leased. On the other end of the range is the No Action 

Alternative. This alternative assumes that the lease as applied for is rejected, 

and that no lands are offered for lease. 

Action alternatives assume the decision is to offer a lease, with the assumed 

result that the coal is leased and ultimately mined. No action assumes the coal 

is not offered. The affects of these alternatives are evaluated both specific to 

the lands that would or would not be offered for lease, as well as the effects of 

leasing added to the cumulative effects of past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable future PRB development. 

The EIS recognizes that coal mining will continue at the mines adjacent to the 

proposed LBAs under any of the alternatives. This activity is permitted, and 

impacts of this activity would not be mitigated by any alternative to the 

proposed action. Your comment suggests, but does not specify, alternatives to 

activity already permitted. We did not include alternatives for this purpose, 

since they are beyond the scope of the decision options proposed in this EIS. 
 

The BLM is a multiple use land management agency that manages the federal 

coal reserves under the predominantly private land surface in the Gillette area 

of the PRB. The BLM does not regulate the uses for which coal can be used. In 

the land area covered by these LBAs, only 3% of the surface ownership is 

federal land and 97% is privately owned surface. Although there are many 

wind and solar resources that can be used for energy development, the BLM 

does not have authority over private land surface use and surface development. 

The BLM neither permits for the surface disturbance nor for the mining 

operations in the Powder River Basin. Therefore, the reasonable alternative 

options available for BLM to review in this EIS are leasing or not leasing 

alternatives which explore the lease size, and shape, and the No Action 

Alternative where leasing one or more of these LBAs does not occur. 
10 

December 22, 2008 

BLM Casper Field Office From: Kenneth Duvall 

A1TEN110N: Teresa Johnson 9498 Hwy 59, HeR 83 

2987 Prospector Drive Gillette, WY 82718 

Casper, WY 

Fax: (307) 261-7578 

On page 3-20 ofthe BLM October 2008 Environmental Impact S~ent, it 

is stated the Maysdorf II LBA area is ''unfavorable'' for conventiopal oil 

and gas discoveries. One oil and gas representative has told us th$ ''it is a 

big stretch for the BLM to state the cummt outlook for conventi~ oil and 

gas discoveries in the vicinity ofthe Maysdorfn LBAis "unfiJv~le". 

Another oil representative wrote "don't you believe that the oil is ~lng 

completely 

conventional 

depleted 

oll and 

in 

gas 

your 

as ''unfavorable'' 

area". As we 

would 

understand. 

be risking 

it, 1abeling 

dopreqiation 

~ 

of A

the present value aftho patented OJ" "fee" oil and SO estates in du$ area, 

including landowners, the state ofWyoming and the fcdcral gov~t. 

Since the ms states that the " study area bas not been tested", we<the 

Duvalls) request that a study be done for "conventional" oil and Ms in the 

Maysdorfn LBAbefore a permit is issued. 

We request this for the following reasons: . 

At the present time an oil and gas company is negotiating for l~ of 

available land for drilling in the Maysdorfarea. : 

We understand there is amoratorium on all drilling on federal Ian4s whereJ B 

coal is available, due to a lawsuit. : 

, 

From negotiations with Rio TmtoICMC. we have reuon to bel.iev&J they 

have entered into a "no drill" agreement with Dun~ Oil and and 

possibly with other companies in the BLM areas. Due to a "gag c~" C 

included in all Rio Tmto EnergyAmerica contracts, ajudie will n~ to 

assist in obtaining the paperwork to substantiate this. ; 
Thank you for considering this matter. 

Please note that I, Kenneth Duvall, am trustee ofthe Nonna Duvall Trust, 

whose land is included in the MaysdorfII LBA. 
Response to Comment Letter 10: Kenneth Duvall 

Comment Response 10A: Section 3.3.2.1.1 discusses conventional oil and 

gas activity in the general analysis area and mentions that as of December 

2007 only two oil wells have been drilled within the LBA tracts since 2000. The 

most recent well was completed in 2006. No conventional gas wells have been 

completed within the four LBA tracts study areas since 1997. Also, Section 

3.3.2.2.1 states that although the general South Gillette analysis area appears 

to be unfavorable for additional conventional oil and gas discoveries, the entire 

study area has not been tested. The BLM’s Wyoming Reservoir Management 

Group concludes that having only two wells drilled on the LBA tracts since 

2000 would make the area unfavorable for additional oil and gas discoveries. 

The BLM is not responsible for conducting studies to determine if an area is 

favorable for conventional oil and gas discoveries. There are private companies 

available that could do that type of analysis for you. 

Comment Response 10B: We are unaware of a moratorium on all drilling on 

Federal lands where coal is available due to a lawsuit. 

Comment Response 10C: The BLM is not familiar with or privy to any 

agreements between Rio Tinto/CMC and Duncan Oil and Gas or with any other 

companies concerning a “no drill” agreement. 
II 

11 

"Leslie Glustrom" <lglustrom@gmail.com> 

12/24/2008 08:22 PM 

To 

"Teresa_Johnson@blm.gov" <Teresa_Johnson@blm.gov> 

cc 

bcc 

Subject 

South Gillette DEIS--Glustrom Comments 

Hi Teresa--Attached are some comments on the South Gillette Coal Lease 

Application Draft Environmental Impact Statement. 

I truly appreciate all your work, but am concerned about the seriousness 

of leasing over 700 million tons of federally-owned coal and of the 

myriad 

extremely serious environmental impacts that will ensue. 

I hope your holiday is/was fun. 

Sincerely, Leslie 

Leslie Glustrom with Clean Energy Action 

Boulder, Colorado 

www.cleanenergyaction.org 

303-245-8637 

19lustrom@gmail.com 
I I 

III 

4492 Burr Place, Boulder, CO 80303 303-245-8637 

Bureau of Land Management 

2987 Prospector Drive 

Casper, Wyoming 82604 

December 24, 2008 

RE: The South Gillette Coal Lease Applications Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Dear Ms. Johnson, 

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Draft Environmental Impact 

Statement for the South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications issued in October 2008. 

First of all, thank you to you and the team that has prepared the Draft EIS. Clearly a lot of 

work went into the document and I appreciate that hard work. Nonetheless I am very 

concerned about the quality of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement. The correct 

measure of quality is not the number of pages, but rather the quality of the information in 

the pages-and the clarity with which the direct, indirect, cumulative impacts and the 

irretrievable loss of resources are discussed and presented. Unfortunately, this DEIS fails 

very seriously to properly analyze and present these impacts. Major new analyses must be 

completed and a very serious rewriting is needed to properly present impacts and 

irretrievable loss of resources so that the decision maker has a clear presentation of the 

environmental impacts, as envisioned by the National Environmental Policy Act. 

Presently, the DEIS is so dense and difficult to read that it is almost impossible to tease 

the most important information out of it and it really serves as a several hundred page 

smoke-screen rather than as a document that clearly informs the decision maker. 

Before presenting my comments, I request that commenters be given another 30 

days to review the Draft EIS. The EIS is very dense and extremely difficult to read in a 

comprehensive fashion for the reasons explained below. Also, the Final Environmental 

Impact Statement for the West Antelope II Lease Application was recently released and 

an analysis of how the Bureau of Land Management ("BLM") replied to the extensive A 

comments on that document can help inform the comments on the South Gillette DEIS 

since in many cases the BLM used the same (often seriously flawed) data and analysis for 
" 

both the West Antelope II and the South Gillette EISs. As a result, I ask that the comment 

deadline for the South Gillette DEIS be extended until January 24,2009. 

My comments are as follows: 

1) Lease by Application is Inappropriate in the Powder River Basin-the 

Largest Coal Producing Region in the United States. It is highly inappropriate for 

coal mining companies to be designing lease applications in the Powder River Basin, the 

largest coal producing region in the United States. Rather, the PRB should designated a 

coal producing region under 43 CFR ~~ 3400.5 and the lease tracts should be designed 

and leased in accordance with 43 CFR ~~ 3420-3422. It is clearly an abuse of 

administrative discretion to designate the Powder River Basin as not a coal producing 

region and allow "lease by application" sales as it is presently doing. This must be 

addressed before any further action is taken on the South Gillette or any other coal lease 

in the Powder River Basin. 

2. The Draft EIS is so Dense as to Be Essentially Unreadable: While I 

appreciate the tremendous effort that goes into these EISs-the decision to lease over 700 

million tons of federal coal is an extremely serious decision given the multitude of 

impacts that will follow from both the mining and the use of the coal. Presently these 

impacts are buried in pages and pages of dense text and justified by old data and serious 

impacts mentioned in passing but not clearly highlighted in either the Executive 

Summary or the text of the £IS. This needs to be addressed through better formatting of 

both the Executive Summary and of the text of the EIS. Presently the Executive 

Summary is approximately 40 pages of dense text and tables with no subheadings or clear 

delineation of direct, indirect and cumulative impacts and irretrievable loss of resources. 

These should all be clearly identified in the Executive Summary, with references 

provided to the pages in the text where the conclusions are drawn. In the text of the EIS, 

each chapter should be prefaced with a Table of Contents and for each heading and 

subheading, the conclusions drawn in that section should be clearly stated at the 

beginning ofthe heading or subheading-e.g. in bold type at the beginning of the 

subheading. As it is presently, the reader has to comb through hundreds of pages of dense 

text looking for impacts and comparing data and analytical methods spread all over the 

document. While I sincerely appreciate the efforts of the staff to produce these large 

documents, unless these readability issues are addressed through major rewriting and 

highlighting of key conclusions, the document is close to useless for readers-and 

presumably for busy decision makers. 

3. Assumptions About Reclamation Must Be Replaced with An Analysis of 

Existing Reclamation Efforts for Each Mine: Throughout the DEIS it is assumed that 

the mine will be reclaimed. This is a highly questionable assumption. I was unable to 

locate where existing reclamation efforts for each mine were tabulated. If that 

information is not provided then it should be provided in an easily accessible location and 

all analyses related to what happens after reclamation is complete need to be rewritten in 

light of how much of the existing mine is presently reclaimed and reasonable projections 

are made as to how much of the proposed lease tract will be reclaimed in light of the 

2 

B 

c 

D 

.....---.----~.--.-.-.-.-.-.--.-....~.~.~.~.~.-.-.-.-.-.-.-----------------.,. 

'lFOrmatted: Position: Horizontal: Center, ! 

, ~;~;~~;p~,:~;;I;;u~~cal: ~_~~:tIV: to: , 
I: 

increasing overburden that will have to be moved and moved back again as the mine 

expands. 

4. The EIS Needs to Present Existing Overburden Statistics So That Proper 

Comparisons Can be Made on Everything from Air Pollution Analyses to Mine 

Reclamation Assumptions: Page 3-10 presents the average overburden thickness for 

the proposed lease areas. This should also be presented as a range-and preferably as sort 

of a weighted average (e.g. what percentage of the land is at what overburden level) and 

this should be translated into stripping ratios, preferably providing a range, an average 

and a weighted average for each lease area. The overburden and stripping ratio also needs 

to be provided for the existing mines so that proper comparisons can be made related to 

air pollution modeling and reclamation projections. Generally speaking, it can be 

assumed that the more overburden and the greater the stripping ratios the worse the air 

pollution and the more difficult it will be to reclaim the mine. 

5. Air Pollution Data Needs to be Updated and Adjusted for Stripping 

Ratios: Others are likely to comment on the air pollution data. Some of the modeled 

PMlO values are very close to the Annual NAAQS and there are violations of 24 hour 

standards (e.g. see pages ES 19-23 and ES-37). This is all of concern and it isn't clear 

that the models have properly accounted for increasing overburden. As overburden and 

stripping ratios increase, more blasting will be required and more dirt will need to be 

moved affecting the quantity of air pollutants that are created. Also, some baseline data 

was taken from mines that are north of Gillette-many miles away from these mines. 

(See page 3-29.) The reasons for this are not clear and it doesn't make much sense if, as 

is claimed on page 3-30 the Powder River Basin is "one ofthe most intensely monitored 

areas in the world." 

G 

6. Visibility Impacts and the Clean Air Act Provisions Need to Be Clearly 

Presented: Visibility issues are discussed on pages 3-68 to 3-70 and the key table is on 

page ES-38. This is a prime example of the DEIS serving to confuse rather than clarify a 

key issue. The requirements of the Clean Air Act are to remedy existing and prevent 

future impairment of visibility in Class I areas. (This concept is buried in a paragraph at 

the bottom of page 3-68.) There are numerous Class I areas near the Powder River Basin 

(see page 3-70) and existing violations of visibility standards are numerous (see page ES38). Importantly, in order to make sense of this data the reader has to know what he or 

she is looking for and then flip back and forth between the pages. Table ES-9 does not 

appear to be explained in the text of the EIS yet it is critical to an evaluation of the issue. 

The Badlands National Park violated the 10% impairment standard 238 days of the year 

or 65 % of the time. (238/365 x 100 = 65%) The federal government is supposed to be 

remedying existing impairments and preventing future ones rather than obscuring the 

issue. The graphs on page 3-71 are not informative as to the goals of the Clean Air Act. 

They only show how badly the standards are being violated over time. They do not show 

that existing impairments are being remedied, as called for in the Clean Air Act. The data 

in the graphs on page 3-71 is a little like saying "Gee Officer-this week I was only 

going 55 in a 30 mile per hour zone and last week 1 was going 60 so shouldn't you let me 

off because I'm improving??" Clearly, the goal is not j LIst to reduce how badly the 

3 

E 

F 

, Formatted: Position: Horizontal: Center, 

Relative to: Margin, Vertical: 0", Relative to: 

Paragraph, Wrap Around ~~~~~----------------
standards are being violated, but to eliminate the violations. Also these graphs should be} 

updated to include 2006 and 2007 data before making a decision about leasing more j 

federal coal in the Powder River Basin. 

4) The Use of Old Data Needs to Be Addressed: Using old data is to fail to 

comply with the goal of the National Environmental Policy Act regulations to use the 

best possible scientific data and analyses. In many cases the DEIS uses embarrassingly 

old data. For example the discussion of Alluvial Va1ley Floors on page ES-31 cites a 

study from 1988. This, and all other citations to old references should be updated. Mining 

in the Powder River Basin has been expanding rapidly in the past 15 years and using data 

more than a couple of years old is not likely to provide the best possible information. 

5) Ute Ladies'-Tresses Surveys Are Inadequate: The DEIS is clear that Ute 

Ladies' -Tresses are notorious for potentially flowering over a several month period and 

potentially laying dormant for several years. (e.g. see page H-18 and the references cited 

therein). Yet, surveys for Ute Ladies'-Tresses were typical1y conducted only once during 

one or possibly two years on the tracts under consideration. (e.g see pages F-!5, G14 and H-19 in Volume 2). The nature of these surveys is obscured on page ES-33 in the 

Executive Summary and the Executive Summary is not very c1ear about when and where 

the surveys were conducted. Ute Ladies'-Tresses are a threatened species. No further 

action should happen on the coal leases until surveys are conducted during each month of 

potential blooming (e.g. July-October) for a minimum of three years on each of the tracts 

under consideration. 

G 


H 


" 

I 


6) Raptor Impacts Should be Carefully Assessed and Highlighted: Figures 3­

25 through 3-28 show the large number of raptor nests inc1uding many golden eagle nests 

in the eval uation areas. The presence of these nests in and near the lease tracts should be 

clearly identified in both the Executive Summary and the text of the EIS so that the 

probable loss of raptor nests in the, tracts being considered and the possible disruption of 

nesting raptors (including eagles) in areas surrounding the lease tracts is clearly identified 

for both readers and the decision maker. Note that Bald Eagles are discussed on pages 3­

178 and 3-179 and this discussion is buried in a discussion of "Other Birds," (rather than 

with the discussion of raptors that starts on page 3-161). Once again this is very 

confusing for the reader who is already having a hard time finding the key issues of 

concern. 

7) Sage Grouse Impacts Should be Clearly Highlighted: The body of the DEIS 

has an extended discussion of sage grouse on pages 3-166 through 3-177 and notes the 

steadily declining populations of sage grouse (e.g. page 3-173) and the location of 18 

sage-grouse leks in the evaluation area with 13 having been active during the survey 

years (see page 3-170 and Figures 3-25 through 3-28) and of the possible impacts of coal 

mining and oil and gas development that could reduce sage-grouse populations and K 

breeding success (see page 3-174 to 3-177). Yet, the Executive Summary buries the 

discussion of sage-grouse impacts in the middle of a paragraph on page ES-33 and 

implies that reclamation efforts will keep the impacts on sage-grouse habitat to a minimal 

Formatted: Position: Horizontal: Center, and apparently acceptable level. This is not the conclusion that is drawn from the body of Relative to: Margin, Vertical: 0", Relative to: 

Paragraph, Wrap Around 

4 
I I 

the DEIS. Given the concern about the sage-grouse, this is another critical issue that } K 

should be clearly highlighted in both the Executive Summary and the body of the DEIs.l 

8) Information on Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive Species Should be 

Summarized and Highlighted in the Body of the DEIS: On page 3-184 the reader that 

wants to know about threatened, endangered or sensitive species needs to refer to 

Appendices E through I which most readers won't have unless they thought to ask for a 

copy of Volume II. This is critical information that should be clearly summarized in the L 

body of the DEIS in Volume I. In addition to making information on threatened and 

endangered species easy to find, the EIS should also summarize the information in 

Appendix I on sensitive species as several of them are found as "Common Breeders" in 

some of the tracts (e.g. see Table 1-4 on the Maysdorf II tract.) 

9) The Relationship Between Climate Change and Species Extinction Should 

be Thoroughly Discussed and Highlighted: Global warming and the resultant changes 

in climate and habitat are expected to have extremely serious impacts on species 

extinction. This is discussed in Working Group II report of the Intergovernmental Panel 

on Climate Change available at www.ipcc.ch. The IPCC results as well as the scientific M 

studies cited in the IPCC report should be highlighted in the EIS. I have also submitted eJ 

mail comments noting the need to discuss this indirect consequence on species. All of 

this should be thoroughly discussed in the EIS. 

10) Ocean Acidification Should Be Included as a Key Indirect Impact: Ifwe 

take the coal out of the ground and oxidize it to form C02, one of the clearly predictable 

This 

impacts 

should 

will 

be 

be 

clearly 

further 

discussed 

acidification 

and 

of 

highlighted 

the oceans 

in 

and 

both 

loss 

the 

of 

body 

sensitive 

of the 

ocean 

EIS and 

species. 

the N

Executive Summary. Acidification of the oceans is a clear irreversible impact that must 

be considered before leasing over 700 million tons of federally-owned coal. 

11) The Loss of Carbon Stored in the Soils Should Be Analyzed and 

Highlighted: Disturbing the soils of the lease tracts will lead to the loss of carbon stored o 

in the soil. This should be analyzed and quantified and clearly highlighted in the body of 

the EIS and the Executive Summary. 

12) The Discussion of Greenhouse Gas Emissions in Chapter 3 Should be 

Largely Replaced with a Thoughtful Discussion of This Critical Environmental 

Issue: The amount of greenhouse gases emitted by the leased coal should be calculated 

(and supplemented with other GHG emissions such as methane from the coal deposits 

and the carbon released during the mining operations) and then discussed in the context 

of the overwhelming amount of science that is available and that is referenced in the 

IPCC reports-as well as in the scientific papers I've submitted with my e-mail 

comments. In general the discussion in Chapter 4 (See pages 4-101 through 4-112) is 

generally better, but the comment on "solar variability" on page 4-104 should be 

eliminated and replaced with an analysis based on the IPCC reports. The issue of natural 

forcings (such as solar variability) has been carefully assessed by the IPCC (See Working 

Formatted: Position: Horizontal: Center, Group I report and the extensive references therein) and vetted through that extensive Relative to: Margin, Vertical: 0", Relative to: 

Paragraph, Wrap Around 

.. ' 5 
scientific review process. Making unsubstantiated claims that reflect the knowledge 

typically found on an internet blog has no place in an EIS. The emission of carbon 

dioxide molecules that endure for thousands of years represent indirect impacts and 

irretrievable loss of resources that must be thoroughly discussed and then clearly 

highlighted in both the Executive Summary and the body of the EIS. 

13) All the Impacts to Ground and Surface Water Quantity and Quality as 

Well as Wetlands Need to be Clearly Presented and Highlighted: Once again, there 

are serious impacts to ground and surface water quantity and quality as well as wetlands 

(see Chapter 3). These need to be clearly presented and highlighted in both the Executive Q 

Summary and the body of the EIS. Presently they, as with so many of the impacts and 

irretrievable losses, are buried in the endlessly dense text and difficult to tease out for the 

interested reader or the responsible decision maker. 

14) The claim that Socioeconomic Impacts are Significant and Presumably 

Positive Needs to Be Carefully Assessed: When compared to both quantity and quality 

of

coal 

jobs, 

mining 

typically 

and fossil 

development 

fuel developments-and 

of renewable energy 

certainly 

resources 

a local 

is more 

economy 

productive 

is much 

than 

more R

sustainable if it is built on resources that are not depletable, as coal is. This needs to be 

thoroughly analyzed and clearly presented in the EIS. 

Well, that is all for now. I sincerely appreciate how much work these EISs must 

be-but until they clearly highlight the direct, indirect and cumulative impacts and the 

irretrievable loss of resources through rigorous analysis and clear highlighting of the 

consequences, the EISs are not fulfilling their purpose under the National Environmental 

Policy Act and cannot be used to support an agency decision. 

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed leasing of over 700 million 

tons of coal owned by the federal government in trust for our country-and, if we are 

wise, for future generations. 

Sincerely, 

Leslie Glustrom 

4492 Burr Place 

Boulder, CO 80303 

.----... ---------~ 

1Formatted: Position: Horizontal: Center, 

, • ~ Relative to: Margin, Vertical: 0", Relative to: l Paragraph, Wr.~p.~r_ou_nd______..J 

6 
s 

I: 

"Leslie Glustrom" <lglustrom@gmail.com> 

12/24/2008 02:03 PM 

To 

"Teresa_Johnson@blm.gov" <Teresa_Johnson@blm.gov> 

cc 

bcc 

Subject 

South Gillette Coal Lease DEIS Comments--Part 10--Alternatives and 

National Transmission 

HI Teresa--The final key (for now) when considering alternatives to 

burning coal is to consider the concept of "shipping electrons" instead 

of 

"shipping coal" as we do presently--with all of the terrible 

environmental 

consequences from mercury emissions to climate change to coal combustion 

wastes to obscuring visibility to acidifying lakes and watersheds to 

causing premature deaths and contributing to childhood asthma and 

elevated 

levels of ozone ets. etc. 

The last is to build national transmission and ship electrons instead 

of shipping coal. I've attached a news article and a PPT about American 

Electric Power's vision as well as a Scientific American concept article 

on the idea of a national grid. Also, Argonne National Lab has done a 

background paper on High Voltage DC lines for long distance transmission 

of electricity. I don't have a copy of that study but it should be cited 

and summarized in the EIS. 

Presently our transmission system is like a system of two lane highways 

and what is being said is that we need to do for transmission what 

Eisenhower did for the highway system. While no one likes transmission 

(including me) it is a lot better than continuing on our present 

trajectory towards run away climate change. 

It is just about making electrons flow and then shipping them long 

distances. We know how to do that, but we don't know how to "build" 

another planet... 

All of this should be discussed under Alternatives in the Final EIS on 

the 

West Antelope II Final EIS. 

Well-that's all for now... 

11m sorry to have just given you a huge of work-but we must stop 

blithely leasing coal just because that's what we've always done in the 

past. We only have one planet-and it is absolutely irreplaceable. 

Coal is easily replaced. The planet is not. 

It is that simple and I'm afraid you will now be in the middle of that 

discussion. 
II 

Thanks in advance for all your work-both past and future! 

Best Regards. Leslie 

Leslie Glustrom 

4492 Burr Place 

Boulder, CO 80303 

19lustrom@gmail.com 

303-245-8637 

Leslie Glustrom with Clean Energy Action 

Boulder, Colorado 

www.cleanenergyaction.org 

303-245-8637 

19lustrom@gmail.com 
cc 

.. Leslie Glustrom" <lglustrom@gmail.com> 

12/24/2008 12:35 PM 

To 

"Teresa_Johnson@blm.gov" <Teresa_Johnson@blm.gov> 

bcc 

Subject 

South Gillette DEIS Comments 2 -Irretrievable Loss of Coal USGS 2008-1202 

Hi Teresa--The South Gillette EIS must consider USGS 2008-1202 (Abstract 

and Link Below). Most of the coal in the Powder River Basin is buried too 

deep to be economically recoverable. Before leasing over 400 million tons 

of federally owned coal, the BLM must clearly discuss the irretrievable 

loss of this very valuable national resource and discuss (in detail) all 

the alternatives to burning coal to produce electricity in power plants 

that are less than 40% efficient. This is what the NEPA act is for--to 

make sure that we don't do something massively stupid--like burning all 

the coal in inefficient power plants before we've built the solar, wind, 

geothermal, smart-grid and transmission infrastructure that will power 

our T 
 

country in the 21st century. 

The Easter Islanders are said to have cut down all the trees before they 

built the boats to get off the Island--As wild as it sounds, we also risk 

doing something that remarkably stupid if we don't soon pay attention to 

the very real geologic and economic constraints facing our country's coal 

supplies. 

All of this should be thoroughly discussed and highlighted before leasing 

400 million tons of federally owned coal. 

Thanks. Leslie 

Leslie Glustrom 

303-245-8637 

19lustrom@gmail.com 

http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2008/1202/ 

Open-File Report 2008-1202 

(Issued in August 2008) 

Assessment of Coal Geology, Resources, and Reserves in the Gillette 

Coalfield, Powder River Basin, Wyoming By James A. Luppens, David C. 

Scott, Jon E. Haacke, Lee M. Osmonson, Timothy J. Rohrbacher, and 

Margaret 

S. Ellis 

ABSTRACT 

The Gillette coalfield, within the Powder River Basin in east-central 
I I 

Wyoming, is the most prolific coalfield in the United States. In 2006, 

production from the coalfield totaled over 431 million short tons of 

coal, 

which represented over 37 percent of the Nation's total yearly 

production. 

The Anderson and Canyon coal beds in the Gillette coalfield contain some 

of the largest deposits of low-sulfur subbituminous coal in the world. By 

utilizing the abundance of new data from recent coalbed methane 

development in the Powder River Basin, this study represents the most 

comprehensive evaluation of coal resources and reserves in the Gillette 

coalfield to date. Eleven coal beds were evaluated to determine the 

in-place coal resources. Six of the eleven coal beds were evaluated for 

reserve potential given current technology, economic factors, and 

restrictions to mining. These restrictions included the presence of 

railroads, a Federal interstate highway, cities, a gas plant, and 

alluvial 

valley floors. Other restrictions, such as thickness of overburden, 

thickness of ~oal beds, and areas of burned coal were also considered. 

The total original coal resource in the Gillette coalfield for all eleven 

coal beds assessed, and no restrictions applied, was calculated to be 201 

billion short tons. Available coal resources, which are part of the 

original coal resource that is accessible for potential mine development 

after subtracting all restrictions, are about 164 billion short tons (81 

percent of the original coal resource). 

Recoverable coal, which is the portion of available coal remaining after 

subtracting mining and processing losses, was determined for a stripping 

ratio of 10:1 or less. After mining and processing losses were 

subtracted, 

a total of 77 billion short tons of coal were calculated (48 percent of 

the original coal resource). 

Coal reserves are the portion of the recoverable coal that can be mined, 

processed, and marketed at a profit at the time of the economic 

evaluation. With a discounted cash flow at 8 percent rate of return, the 

coal reserves estimate for the Gillette coalfield is10.1 billion short 

tons of coal (6 percent of the original resource total) for the 6 coal 

beds evaluated. Available Products 

Download OFR 2008-1202 (92.3 ME) 

<http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2008/1202/pdf/ofr2008-1202.pdf> 

This report is available online in Portable Document Format (PDF). If you 

do not have the Adobe Acrobat PDF Reader 

<http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/readstep.html> , it is available 

for free download from Adobe Systems Incorporated. 

Document Accessibility: Adobe Systems Incorporated has information about 

PDFs and the visually impaired. This information provides tools to help 

make PDF files accessible. These tools and the accessible reader may be 

obtained free from Adobe at Adobe Access <http://access.adobe.com/> . 

The citation for this report, in USGS format, is as follows: 

Luppens, J. A., Scott, D. C., Haacke, J. E., Osmonson, L. M., Rohrbacher, 

T. J., and Ellis, M. S., 2008, Assessment of Coal Geology, Resources, and 

Reserves in the Gillette Coalfield, Powder River Basin, Wyoming: U.S. 
II 

Geological Survey Open-File Report 2008-1202, 127 p. 

Leslie Glustrom with Clean Energy Action 

Boulder, Colorado 

www.cleanenergyaction.org 

303-245-8637 

19lustrom@gmail.com 

Leslie Glustrom with Clean Energy Action 

Boulder, Colorado 

www.cleanenergyaction.org 

303-245-8637 

19lustrom@gmail.com 

Leslie Glustrom with Clean Energy Action 

Boulder, Colorado 

www.cleanenergyaction.org 

303-245-8637 

19lustrom@gmail.com 

Leslie Glustrom with Clean Energy Action 

Boulder, Colorado 

www.cleanenergyaction.org 

303-245-8637 

19lustrom@gmail.com 
"Leslie Glustrom" <lglustrom@gmail.com> 

12/24/2008 12:06 PM 

To 

"Teresa_Johnson@blm.gov" <Teresa_Johnson@blm.gov> 

cc 

bcc 

Subject 

South Gillette Coal Lease DEIS Comments--Part 1 Irreplacable Loss of Coal 

History: 

This message has been forwarded. 

Hi Teresa--I will be sending a series of e-mails with reports that need 

to 

be considered and summarized before preparing the Final EIS on the South 

Gillette area. At the very least these documents should be cited in the 

FEIS because they are all from very credible sources and the BLM should 

be 

using the best science and information that it has available before 

making 

a decision to lease over 400 million tons of federally owned coal. 

To begin with I'd like you to consider the 2007 Inventory of Assessed 

Federal Coal Resources that is attached. In particular, the diagrams on 

pages 25 and 33 are key and should be included in the Final EIS. Page ix 

reminds us that 70% of the coal in the Powder River Basin has a stripping 

ratio of greater than 10:1. The key point is that increasing overburden 

means that coal that has less overburden is very valuable and we should 

be 

considering the need to leave this coal in the ground, so future 

generations will have some relatively accessible coal to use for purposes 

that don't have good alternatives. 

The irretrievable loss of reasonably economically accessible coal is a 

key 

issue that should receive extended discussion. The supply of coal that is 

reasonably economically accessible is a key national security 

resource--and it is much more constrained than is widely understood. We 

have other ways of making electricity--but we don't have any way of 

making 

new sources of coal, and leaving some for critical needs of future 

generations is both economically and morally imperative. This should be 

clearly addressed in the EIS and underscored in the Executive Summary and 

ultimately in the Record of Decision. 

We have lots of way to make electricity, but the planet won't be making 

any more coal anytime soon and there are some purposes (e.g. making 

steel) 

for which it may be difficult to find other alternatives. 
More e-mails to follow. Thanks. Leslie 

Leslie Glustrom 

4492 Burr Place 

Boulder, CO 80303 

19lustrom@grnail.com 

303-245-8637 

Leslie Glustrom with Clean Energy Action 

Boulder, Colorado 

www.cleanenergyaction.org 

303-245-8637 

19lustrom@grnail.com 
I I 

"Leslie Glustrom" <lglustrom@gmail.com> 

12/24/2008 01:01 PM 

To 

"Teresa_Johnson@blm.gov" <Teresa_Johnson@blm.gov> 

cc 

bcc 

Subject 

South Gillette Coal Lease DEIS Comments--Part 3 Carbon Dioxide 

Persistence 

Articles 

Hi Teresa-Part 3 of the South Gillette DEIS Comments. It is critical to 

realize that once coal (highly reduced carbon) is taken out of the ground 

and oxidized into C02 we've made a molecule that will be us for hundreds 

and thousands of years--trapping heat, warming the planet, contributing 

to 

extreme weather events and species extinction for such a time that 

it 

might as well be considered "forever. II In the process we will be 

irretrievably losing some of the assimilative capacity of the oceans and 

the atmosphere. These articles need to be cited, summarized in the EIS 

and 

the consequences clearly highlighted in both the Executive Summary and in 

the body of the EIS. 

Carbon Dioxide stays in the atmosphere for a really long time. The 

attached talk about approx 25% staying for over a thousand years. 

-Archer Journal of Geophys Research 110, C09S05 (2005) 

- Montenegro Geo Physical Research Letters 34, L19707 (2007) 

These are important to consider when we take coal out of the ground. Once 

the carbon becomes oxidized and turns into C02 it will stay in the 

atmosphere essentially forever. Before we take coal out of the ground we 

have to give this the deepest of thought. 

We have many ways of making electricity but once the C02 is in the 

atmosphere it will be there essentially forever heating up our planet and 

accelerating feed back cycles. This is critical to think about before we 

take the coal out of the ground. 

More e-mails to follow. 

Thanks. Leslie 
II 

Leslie Glustrom 

4492 Burr Place 

Boulder, CO 80303 

19lustrom@gmail.com 

303 245-8637 

Leslie Glustrom with Clean Action 

Boulder, Colorado 

www.cleanenergyaction.org 

303-245 8637 

19lustrom@gmail.com 
.. Leslie Glustrom" <lglustrom@grnail.com> 

12/24/2008 01:03 PM 

To 

"Teresa_Johnson@blm.gov" <Teresa_Johnson@blm.gov> 

cc 

bcc 

Subject 

South Gillette Coal Lease DEIS Comments Part 4--Caldeira on C02 

Reductions 

HI Teresa-The attached paper from Caldeira 

Geo Phys Res Letters 35 

L04705 (2008) 

discusses the need to essentially reduce C02 emissions to zero to start 

stabilizing the climate of the planet. This is a paper which should be 

cited and summarized in the Final EIS and the implications clearly 

highlighted in the Executive Summary and in the body of the EIS. 

Thanks. Leslie 

Leslie Glustrom 

4492 Burr Place 

Boulder, CO 80303 

19lustrom@grnail.com 

303-245-8637 

Leslie Glustrom with Clean Energy Action 

Boulder, Colorado 

www.cleanenergyaction.org 

303-245-8637 

19lustrom@grnail.com 
I I 

"Leslie Glustrom" <lglustrom@gmail.com> 

12/24/2008 01:24 PM 

To 

"Teresa_Johnson@blm.gov ll <Teresa_Johnson@blm.gov> 

cc 

bcc 

Subject 

South Gillette Coal Lease DEIS Comments--Part 6 Accelerated Ice Melt-­

IPCC 

AR4 Too Conservative 

Dear Teresa-With respect to the South Gillette Coal Lease DEIS it is 

critical that the EIS discuss the strong evidence that, as dire as its 

predictions were, the IPCC Fourth Assessment was probably remarkably 

conservative when predicting the rate of climate . While there will 

always be natural variability and cold winters to let us think that maybe 

all those scientists were wrong, but it is unscientific to think 

that a trend is made by one or two seasons. The climate scientists have 

carefully gathered and analyzed the actual data (not of bloggers 

on the Internet ... ) and after 20 years of extensive scientific work 

(backed by the hundreds and hundreds of papers cited by the IPCC) they 

have concluded that global warming is "unequivocal." (See www. .ch) 

Moreover, the rate of change is much faster than the most conservative 

IPCC models predicted--as shown by the rapid loss of Arctic sea ice in 

the 

summer. 

As you probably know, it is now clear to the scientists that 

underestimated the rate of loss of ice sheets in the IPCC Assessment 4. A 

few scientific articles (or their abstracts) are attached. These issues 

were generally not covered in the IPCC AR4. The articles are: 

1) "Changes in the Velocity Structure of the Greenland Ice 

Sheet, " and Kanagaratnam, Science 311, 986 (2006) 

2) "Abrupt Increase in the Permafrost Degradation in Arctic 

Alaska," Jorgensen et. al. Geo Res Letters 33, L02503 (2006) 

3) IIPermafrost and the Global Carbon Budget, " Zimov et.al. 

Science 312, 1612 (2006) 

4) "Paleoclimatic Evidence for Future Ice-Sheet Instability 

and Rapid Sea-Level Rise," Overpeck et al. Science 311, 1747 (2006) 

5) "Missing feedbacks, asymmetric uncertainties, and the 

underestimation of future warming," Margaret Torn, Geophys Res Letters 

33, L10703 (2006) 

All of this should be discussed in the Final EIS with the attached 

articles cited and summarized and the consequences clearly highlighted in 

the Executive Summary and the text of the EIS. The dynamic melting 

processes that are beginning to occur are stunning the climate change 

scientists and I wish I was exaggerating when I say you can see, hear and 
I. 

feel the panic when these scientists speak about what is happening to the 

planet. 

Before taking more coal out of the ground just to produce electricity 

when 

we have so many other good low- or non-carbon ways of producing the same 

electricity we need to carefully consider the impacts on the only planet 

we know of that supports life. 

I'll send some of the data and articles from 2007 and 2008 when I next 

get 

a chance. 

Thanks. Leslie 

Leslie Glustrom 

4492 Burr Place 

Boulder, CO 80303 

Iglustrom@gmail.com 

303-245-8637 

Leslie Glustrom with Clean Energy Action 

Boulder, Colorado 

www.cleanenergyaction.org 

303-245-8637 

Iglustrom@gmail.com 
" 

"Leslie Glustrom" <lglustrom@gmail.com> 

12/24/2008 01:35 PM 

To 

"Teresa_Johnson@blm.gov" <Teresa_Johnson@blm.gov> 

cc 

bcc 

Subject 

South Gillette Coal Lease DEIS Comments--Part 7 2007 Ice Melt Data 

Hi Teresa, With respect to the South Gillette the following articles as 

well as those identified from a thorough literature search should be 

cited 

and summarized in the EIS and the consequences clearly highlighted in the 

Executive The science on the dire consequences of the build up of C02 in 

the atmosphere is telling us that things are probably even worse than the 

IPCC stated in the Fourth Assessment Report. This must be thoroughly 

discussed the consequences clearly stated before approving the coal lease 

application. 

Here are the articles: 

1) "Arctic Sea Ice Decline: Faster than 

Forecast, " 

Geo Phys Res Letters 34, L09501 (2007) 

2) "Greenland Surface Melt Trends 19730-2007: 

Evidence of a Large Increase in 2007 Geo Phys Res Letters 34, L22507 

(2007) 

3) A Younger, Thinner Arctic Ice Cover: 

Increased 

Potential for Rapid, Extensive Sea-Ice Loss," Geo Phys Res Letters 34, L 

24501 (2007) 

4) "Pushing the Scary Side of Global Warming," 

Science 316, 1412 (2007) 

5) "Why is Climate Sensitivity So Unpredictable?" 

Science 318, 629 (2007) 

6) "Climate Change and Trace Gases," Phil Trans 

Royal Society A 365, 1925 (2007) 

7) "Disappearing Arctic Lakes," Science 308, 1429 

(2005) 

Thanks. Leslie 

Leslie Glustrom 

4492 Burr Place 

Boulder, CO 80303 
II 

19lustrom@grnail.com 

303-245-8637 

Leslie Glustrom with Clean Energy Action 

Boulder, Colorado 

www.cleanenergyaction.org 

303-245-8637 

19lustrom@grnail.com 
I I 

"Leslie Glustrom" <lglustrom@gmail.com> 

12/24/2008 01:44 PM 

To 

"Teresa_Johnson@blm.gov" <Teresa_Johnson@blm.gov> 

cc 

bcc 

Subject 

South Gillette Coal Lease DEIS Comments Part 8- Risks to Species from C02 

Accumulation Plus Carbon Loss From Soils and Southwest Drying 

Hi Teresa--With respect to the South Gillette DEIS, the C02 that will be 

formed once the coal is taken out of the ground poses very serious risks 

to species all around the planet and this should be carefully analyzed 

and 

considered before issuing the Final EIS. 

I've attached a few articles to get you going. They all contain many 

references that should also be discussed in the FEIS along with any 

scientific articles that appear before the FEIS is issued. I've added a 

couple of more on related subjects including the drying of the interior 

west and the increasing loss of carbon from the soils-one of the feedback 

loops that appears to be beginning. I've also included a classic Jim 

Hansen paper from 2005 on the energy irrillalance on the planet. It is key 

to 

a thorough discussion of the science. 

All of these articles should be cited and summarized in the EIS and the 

consequences clearly highligted in the Executive Summary and the text of 

the EIS. 

The articles are: 

1) "Past Peak Water," SW Hydrology (2006) 

2) "Carbon Losses From All Soils Across England and Wales 

from 

1978-2003," Nature 437, 245 (2005) 

3) "Extinction Risk From Climate Change," Nature 427, 145 

(2004) 

4) "Climate warming and Disease Risks for Terrestrial and 

Marine Biota," Science 296, 2158 (2002) 

5) "Earth's Energy Imbalance: Confirmation and Implications," 

Science 308, 1431 (2005) 

6) "Coral Reefs Under Rapid Climate Change and Ocean 

Acidification," 318, 1737 (2007) 

Clearly, the threat to species is much broader than just what will happen 

in the vicinity of the mines in the Powder River Basin. This must all be 

discussed and carefully considered before approving a lease to take more 

coal out of the ground. 

Also the EIS should thoroughly discuss the irretrievable loss of 

sequestered carbon contained in the soils that will be disturbed by 

mining. Once disturbed it is highly likely that the carbon contained in 
II 

the soils will be lost to the atrnoshpere as either C02 or CH4, further 

accelerating the feedback cycles of global warming and increased loss of 

carbon from the soils, permafrost, vegetation and oceans. All of this 

should be quantified and discussed in the EIS and the consequences 

clearly 

highlighted in the Executive Summary and the text of the EIS. 

Thanks. Leslie 

Leslie Glustrom 

4492 Burr Place 

Boulder, CO 80303 

19lustrom@grnail.com 

303-245-8637 

Leslie Glustrom with Clean Energy Action 

Boulder, Colorado 

www.cleanenergyaction.org 

303-245-8637 

19lustrom@gmail.com 
I I 

"Leslie Glustrom" <lglustrom@gmail.com> 

12/24/2008 01:52 PM 

To 

"Teresa_Johnson@blm.gov" <Teresa_Johnson@blm.gov> 

cc 

bcc 

Subject 

South Gillette Coal Lease DEIS Comments Part 9A--Alternatives--CSP 

Dear Teresa-Before finalizing the EIS for the South Gillette coal lease 

it 

is imperative that alternative ways of generating electricity be 

discussed 

in detail. A key technology for displacing coal plants is Concentrating 

Solar Power--which produces steam to drive a steam turbine by harvesting 

and concentrating sunlight. 

There are several summaries of the potential for Concentrating Solar 

Power 

attached--as well as many articles about utilties that are moving ahead 

with CSP developments. Instead of burning coal to boil water and produce 

electricity in power plants that are less than 40% efficient, we can boil 

water to produce the steam with the "sunlight and mirrors" of CSP 

technology. Then 

A second e-mail will follow with more references. 

There is lots of information readily available on wind and geothermal. A 

key technology for replacing steam fired plants is Concentrating Solar 

Power. I've attached: 

1) A two page information sheet with a few key references on 

it. 

2) An Introduction to Concentrating Solar Power (e.g. Solar 

Thermal Electric) by Ausra (with much more information available at 

www.ausra.com) 

3) David Mills conceptual paper on meeting most of our 

electric needs with CSP 

3) Several media clips on utilities moving ahead with CSP 

Technical information is available at www.nrel.gov/csp/troughnet 

We can boil water with sunlight and mirrors-we don't need to burn coal 

just to boil water. 

The key to making this work is to build national transmission and start 

shipping electrons around the country instead of shipping coal on mile 

long trains. The key is to ship the finished product (i.e. electricity) 

not shipping the fuel (i.e. coal.) Some references on the concept of 

national transmission will be forwarded. 
II 

We have more than enough solar potential to run the country many times 

over-but we have to decide the planet is worth it and not keep burning 

coal just to boil water because that is how they did it 100 years ago! 

Thanks. Leslie 

Leslie Glustrom 

4492 Burr Place 

Boulder, CO 80303 

19lustrom@gmail.com 

303-245-8637 

Leslie Glustrom with Clean Energy Action 

Boulder, Colorado 

www.cleanenergyaction.org 

303 245-8637 

19lustrom@gmail.com 
II 

"Leslie Glustrom" <lglustrom@gmail.com> 
 

12/26/2008 03:17 PM 
 

To 
 

"Teresa_Johnson@blm.gov ll <Teresa_Johnson@blm.gov> 
 

cc 
 

bcc 
 

Subject 
 

Fwd: South Gillette Coal Lease DEIS Comments--Part 9B--Alternatives--CSP 
 

Hi Teresa--9B is on CSP as an alternative to mining and transporting coal 
 

to boil water. The original "9B" e-mail is below but perhaps it bounced 
 

back. 
 

With CSP we use the country's abundant solar resource in the southwest 
 

and 
 

ship electrons instead of shipping coal. 
 

I've attached Dr. David Mills"concept paper on the ability of CSP to meet 
 

grid demand for electricity. It is also available on the Ausra website 
 

www.ausra.com 
 

Ive split this e-mail up and will forward the California study on CSP in 
 

the next e-mail. 
 

Thanks. Leslie 
 

Leslie Glustrom with Clean Energy Action 
 

Boulder, Colorado 
 

www.cleanenergyaction.org 
 

303-245-8637 
 

19lustrom@gmail.com 
 

-- ------ Forwarded message -------­


From: Leslie Glustrom <lglustrom@gmail.com> 
 

Date: Dec 24, 2008 1:58 PM 
 

Subject: South Gillette Coal Lease DEIS Comments--Part 
 

9B--Alternatives--CSP 
 

To: "Teresa_Johnson@blm.gov" <Teresa_Johnson@blm.gov> 
 

Dear Teresa-Before finalizing the South Gillette EIS it is imperative 
 

that 
 

alternative ways of generating electricity be discussed. 
 

There is lots of information readily available on wind and geothermal. A 
 

key technology for replacing steam fired plants is Concentrating Solar 
 

Power. This e-mail provides the following paper: 
 

1) David Mills conceptual paper on meeting most of our 

electric needs with CSP 
.. 

2) The Black and Veatch study of CSP benefits for 

California. 

These summaries should be cited and summarized as part of a discussion of 

alternatives to blindly going forward with the mining and burning of 

coal. 

The availability of a cost-competitive, semi-dispatchable steam 

technology 

that is ready to scale now must be thoroughly discussed in the E1S and 

clearly highlighted in the Executive Summary and the text of the E1S. 

Technical information is available at www.nrel.gov/csp/troughnet 

We can boil water with sunlight and mirrors-we don't need to burn coal 

just to boil water. 

The key to making this work is to build national transmission and start 

shipping electrons around the country instead of shipping coal on mile 

long trains. The key is to ship the finished product (i.e. electricity) 

not shipping the fuel (i.e. coal.) 

We have more than enough solar potential to run the country many times 

over-but we have to decide the planet is worth it and not keep burning 

coal just to boil water because that is how they did it 100 years ago! 

Thanks. Leslie 

Leslie Glustrom 

4492 Burr place 

Boulder, CO 80303 

19lustrom@gmail.com 

303-245-8637 

Leslie Glustrom with Clean Energy Action 

Boulder, Colorado 

www.cleanenergyaction.org 

303-245-8637 

19lustrom@gmail.com 
II 

"Leslie Glustrom" <lglustrom@grnail.com> 
 

12/26/2008 03:19 PM 
 

To 
 

"Teresa_Johnson@blm.gov" <Teresa_Johnson@blm.gov> 
 

cc 
 

bcc 
 

Subject 
 

Fwd: South Gillette Coal Lease DEIS Comments--Part 9C--Alternatives--CSP 
 

Hi Teresa--I've attached the Black and Veatch study on CSP for 
 

California. 
 

It provides lots of background information on this important alternative 
 

for producing solar (thermal) electricity. 
 

Thanks. Leslie 
 

Leslie Glustrom with Clean Energy Action 
 

Boulder, Colorado 
 

www.cleanenergyaction.org 
 

303-245-8637 
 

19lustrom@grnail.com 
 

---------- Forwarded message ---------­


From: Leslie Glustrom <lglustrom@grnail.com> 
 

Date: Dec 24, 2008 1:58 PM 
 

Subject: South Gillette Coal Lease DEIS Comments--Part 
 

9B--Alternatives--CSP 
 

To: "Teresa_Johnson@blm.gov" <Teresa_Johnson@blm.gov> 
 

Dear Teresa-Before finalizing the South Gillette EIS it is imperative 
 

that 
 

alternative ways of generating electricity be discussed. 
 

There is lots of information readily available on wind and geothermal. A 
 

key technology for replacing stearn fired plants is Concentrating Solar 
 

Power. This e-mail provides the following paper: 
 

1) David Mills conceptual paper on meeting most of our 

electric needs with CSP 

2) The Black and Veatch study of CSP benefits for 

California. 

These summaries should be cited and summarized as part of a discussion of 

alternatives to blindly going forward with the mining and burning of 

coal. 

The availability of a cost-competitive, semi-dispatchable stearn 

technology 

that is ready to scale now must be thoroughly discussed in the EIS and 
II 

clearly highlighted in the Executive Summary and the text of the EIS. 

Technical information is available at www.nrel.gov/csp/troughnet 

We can boil water with sunlight and mirrors-we don't need to burn coal 

just to boil water. 

The key to making this work is to build national transmission and start 

shipping electrons around the country instead of shipping coal on mile 

long trains. The key is to ship the finished product (i.e. electricity) 

not shipping the fuel (i.e. coal.) 

We have more than enough solar potential to run the country many times 

over-but we have to decide the planet is worth it and not keep burning 

coal just to boil water because that is how they did it 100 years ago! 

Thanks. Leslie 

Leslie Glustrom 
 

4492 Burr Place 
 

Boulder, CO 80303 

19lustrom@gmail.com 
 

303-245-8637 
 

Leslie Glustrom with Clean Energy Action 

Boulder, Colorado 

www.cleanenergyaction.org 

303-245-8637 

19lustrom@gmail.com 
• I 

"Leslie Glustrom" <lglustrom@gmail.com> 

12/24/2008 02:42 PM 

To 

IITeresa_Johnson@blm.gov" <Teresa_Johnson@blm.gov> 

cc 

bcc 

Subject 

South Gillette Coal Lease DEIS Comments--Part 5--Climate Change and 

Species Loss- IPCC Working Group II 

HI Teresa--This bounced back because it was too big. 

I took off the IPCC WGII Technical Summary, but ask that you go to 

www. .ch and read it as it related to species extinction and then cite 

and summarize it in the EIS for the South Gillette coal lease. 

Also, the IPCC in turn cites many scientific articles on the relationship 

between global warming and species extinction. These articles should be 

cited and summarized in the EIS. The relationship between a coal, C02, a 

warming planet and species extinction is very, very serious and must be 

treated as such in the EIS on the South Gillette coal leases. 

Sincerely, Leslie Glustrom 

19lustrom@gmail.com 

303-245-8637 

---- Forwarded message 

From: Leslie Glustrom <lglustrom@gmail.com> 

Date: Wed, Dec 24, 2008 at 12:13 PM 

Subject: South Gillette Coal Lease DEIS Comments--Part 5--Climate Change 

and Species Loss--IPCC Working Group II 

To: "Teresa_Johnson@blm.gov" <Teresa_Johnson@blm.gov> 

Hi Teresa--Taking coal out of the ground and turning it into C02 can be 

predicted to contribute to species loss around the planet. 

It is essential therefore that the EIS thoroughly discuss the 

relationship between climate change and species loss. This is addressed 

in 

the report of Working Group II to the IPCC as well as in the numerous 

scientific articles that are discussed in the IPCC report. The full IPCC 

reports can be accessed at www.ipcc.ch and the scientific articles are 

referenced at the end of each chapter. The EIS needs to cite these 

extensive peer-reviewed studies and include a detailed assessment of this 

science on the relationship between climate change and species loss. The 

irretrievable loss of species needs to be clearly highlighted in the 

Executive Summary and the text of the EIS. 
II 

When coal comes out of the ground it will be oxidized much faster than it 

would if it stayed in the ground and the resulting C02 will impact 

species 

all around the globe. This should be addressed in great detail in the 

Final EIS. 

Sorry to create more work, but we must take these decisions to take coal 

out of the ground and oxidize it very, very seriously because the impacts 

on our planet will go on for thousands of years. 

Thanks. Leslie 

Leslie Glustrom 

4492 Burr Place 

Boulder, CO 80303 

19lustrom@gmail.com 

303-245-8637 

Leslie Glustrom with Clean Energy Action 

Boulder, Colorado 

www.cleanenergyaction.org 

303-245-8637 

19lustrom@gmail.com 

Leslie Glustrom with Clean Energy Action 

Boulder, Colorado 

www.cleanenergyaction.org 

303-245-8637 

19lustrom@gmail.com 
Response to Comment Letter 11: Clean Energy Action 

Comment Response 11A: The BLM’s Departmental Manual 516-chapter 

4.26A states that “The minimum review period for a draft EIS will be forty-five 

(45) days from the date of publication by the EPA of the notice of availability.” 

The revised BLM NEPA Handbook H-1790-1 January 2008, Section 9.3.2, page 

99, second paragraph, states that, “The public comment period for all draft 

EISs must last at least 45 days (516 DM 4.26)...”. This information can also be 

found at 40 CFR 1506.10. We allowed 60 days for review, as stated in the 

“Abstract” and the “Dear Reader” letter in the DEIS. The 60-day review period 

on the South Gillette draft EIS commenced on the date the EPA published the 

Notice of Availability. Comments received after the comment period are still 

accepted for the record, reviewed, and are addressed to the extent practicable. 

Comment Response 11B: Coal leasing in the PRB operated as a certified 

federal coal production region, with leasing developed under the regional 

leasing process as described under 43 CFR 3420, through the 1980s. 

The Powder River Coal Production Region had no leasing interest during the 

late 1980s. The mines that exist today were operating or already had adequate 

reserves to begin operating. The PRB had become a mature mining region; that 

is, a region where sufficient mining operations had been established to meet 

expected coal demand. 

Based on the advice of the Powder River Regional Coal Team, BLM decertified 

the region as a federal coal production region in 1990, and it remains 

decertified currently. This is similar to most of the original federal coal 

production regions established as part of the Federal Coal Management 

Program. Many of the federal coal production regions were decertified in the 

later 1980s, in large part because of a decline of interest in leasing federal coal. 

There were certain conditions of the decertification established in part based on 

the RCT’s advice. The region was decertified for production maintenance 

leasing, and the RCT would remain active and periodically review BLM’s leasing 

activity to provide advice on the leasing in a regional perspective. The decision 

followed the process and notification requirements in 43 CFR 3400.5. 

In a region that is decertified, BLM is able to consider leasing by application 

under the rules at 43 CFR 3425. The RCT has met about once each year since 

the decertification. BLM has presented any lease by applications to the RCT 

and has considered their advice on how to proceed with those applications. 

Production of PRB coal has increased steadily since decertification. Part of this 

growth is due to an increase in the demand for electric power and the related 

increase in demand for steam coal as a fuel for low cost electric generation. 

There are also cost (mining and reclamation) advantages that have favored PRB 
coal, over other domestic coal regions, as well as the low sulfur content which 

results in cost-effective air pollution control. 

However, the production increase has been made with no new mining 

operations opening since decertification, although several of the operations 

have consolidated. As shown in Figure 4-2 in the EIS, leasing under the LBA 

process has essentially been at the same rate as reserves existing before 

decertification have been being depleted. This level of leasing activity remains 

consistent with the 1990 decertification action. 

Comment Response 11C: The EIS contains a great deal of information all of 

which is necessary to address the issues and concerns that have been raised 

over the history of the program. The “Executive Summary” is a synopsis of the 

EIS. It has been modified in the FEIS to make it seem less dense and more 

reader friendly without removing any information. 

Comment Response 11D: Lands that are disturbed to recover coal must be 

reclaimed following mining in accordance with the requirements of state and 

federal law. WDEQ has strict parameters for coal mine reclamation 

procedures, species composition, final land surface contour, and environmental 

sustainability. The Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 

requires sufficient bonding to cover anticipated reclamation costs. When 

mining is permitted, the WDEQ/LQD sets the bond amount for reclamation of 

all disturbed lands. The operator posts an acceptable bonding instrument for 

this amount with the State of Wyoming. The reclamation bond is not released 

until a minimum of ten years have elapsed from the date of final seeding and 

the WDEQ/LQD has determined that all reclamation verifications have 

occurred. 

Individual coal mine annual reports which include specific reclamation 

information are available to the public at WDEQ/LQD offices. The OSM also 

prepares reports describing reclamation activities in Wyoming. 

Currently, the BLM is using a regional technical study, the PRB Coal Review, to 

evaluate cumulative impacts of coal and other mineral development in the PRB. 

One of its tasks includes a look at past and present coal development in the 

PRB and a forecast of reasonably foreseeable development in the PRB through 

2020. Tables 4-2 and 4-3 in the FEIS address baseline and projected 

reclaimed and unreclaimed mining acres in the PRB. BLM is also completing 

work on a comprehensive database to use in tracking development activities in 

the PRB. The database will track cumulative actual reclaimed and 

unreclaimed acreages of coal mines. 

The EIS discusses reclamation for each applicant in Chapter 2. Not all 

disturbed land has been mined. Some of the surface acres disturbed contain 

permanent structures such as buildings and rail lines. Reclamation follows as 
 

 

mining progresses. It is true that as coal deepens, additional surface 

disturbance is required in advance of operations to allow a series of benches or 

a stable incline to reach the coal depth while maintaining a safely stable 

working area, and this practice does increase disturbance. Further explanation 

on the reclamation process has been added to the FEIS in Chapter 2. 

Comment Response 11E: Table 3-5 has been updated in the FEIS to include 

more overburden, interburden, and coal thickness information for the existing 

leases within the South Gillette analysis area. 

Comment Response 11F: The air quality sections are located at 3.4 and 

4.2.3. Section 4.2.3 has been updated with new information. WDEQ/AQD 

regulates air quality in the PRB. That agency issues the air quality permits to 

each mine, monitors actual air quality in the PRB, and handles enforcement. 

The air quality information in the EIS does take into account the expected 

increase in overburden ratios. 

The statement you quote from page 3-30 relates specifically to particulate 

monitoring. For other climatic and air quality components, we have used 

nearby and reliable sources for monitoring data. 

Comment Response 11G: Visibility is addressed in the air quality sections, 

specifically 3.4.4.1 and 4.2.3. The Chapter 4 discussion addresses cumulative 

visibility effects. Figure 3-20 in the draft includes the most recent data from the 

IMPROVE website. 

Comment Response 11H: We agree that issues addressed in the EIS require 

the most recent data available from the most reliable sources. The 1988 study 

cited in your comment is the specific study that WDEQ performed to determine 

the AVF status of Duck Nest Creek. It was conducted for mining permitting at 

the Belle Ayr Mine. BLM is responsible to work with WDEQ to evaluate AVFs 

prior to leasing to assure that AVFs significant to farming are not leased. 

Comment Response 11I: A detailed discussion of Ute ladies’-tresses can be 

found in Appendix E. The Ute ladies'-tresses surveys for the SGAC mines 

completed to date are: 

Belle Ayr North: 2 surveys - August 2006 and 2007 by ESCO Associates 

West Coal Creek: 1 survey - July 2007 by BKS Environmental 

Caballo West: 1 survey - August 2007 by BKS Environmental 

Maysdorf II: 2 surveys - August 2005 and 2006 by ESCO Associates 

Both Coal Creek and Caballo will conduct surveys in the summer of 2009. 

This issue of Ute ladies’-tresses is also a concern of the USFWS who reviews 

this document and with whom we fully consult. The USFWS has requested 

that in the biological assessment (Appendix E) that any potential habitat that 
 

has not already been surveyed for Ute ladies’ tresses within the project area 

will be identified and surveyed prior to surface mining activities. The biological 

assessments have been updated with the information requested by the USFWS. 

The USFWS is responsible for administration of the ESA. This agency manages 

threatened and endangered species and consults, through the Section 7 

process, with other agencies in how proposed projects might impact and affect 

listed species. All federal agencies have a responsibility under Section 7(a)(1) of 

the ESA to conserve federally listed threatened and endangered species. BLM 

cooperates with the USFWS in fulfilling our Section 7 consultation obligations 

and responsibilities. The biological assessments (Appendix E) and the BLM 

sensitive species evaluation (Appendix F) for the FEIS have been prepared and 

provided to USFWS for their review. We continue to work with USFWS in order 

to address concerns and provide any additional information needs. The EIS 

has been revised based on comments and oral discussions with the USFWS. 

Section 7 consultation will be completed before a decision is made on whether 

to lease or not to lease any of the LBAs discussed in this EIS. 

Comment Response 11J: Impacts to raptors are discussed in several 

locations. There is a discussion of raptors in the “Wildlife” Section in the 

Executive Summary. In Section 3.10.4 there is a discussion of raptors broken 

down by each LBA with nesting detail. Section 3.10.6.1 addresses raptors 

again, and raptors are included in Section4.2.9.2. Some raptors are discussed 

under the “Special Status Species” Section 4.2.9.4. Please see these sections 

for information on raptors. 

Wildlife biologists at the USFWS, the WGFD, and the BLM Buffalo Office review 

the EIS and the raptor information presented. Concurrence with the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service Section 7 consultation is reached before BLM offers a lease 

for sale. Furthermore, wildlife as well as raptors and their nesting activities 

and other species are monitored yearly as part of each mines’ permit process. 

This information is available to the public through the Wyoming DEQ. 

Comment Response 11K: The EIS discusses greater sage grouse and other 

sensitive species in the “Wildlife” Section (3.10) and in Appendix E in Volume 2 

of the DEIS. Among other important habitat components, sage grouse require 

vast expanses of sagebrush-steppe communities with extensive mosaics of 

sagebrush of varying densities and heights. As stated in the EIS, there are no 

large expanses of contiguous sagebrush in the South Gillette EIS general 

analysis area. Please see Section 3.10.5.1 for a discussion on sage-grouse. 

There are no known leks within the South Gillette EIS disturbance areas. 

About 25 years of annual or biannual monitoring studies from 1982 to 2006 

performed by the mines in the South Gillette area documented that sagegrouse are rare in the survey areas. Requirements to protect sage-grouse 

during mining operations are addressed as part of the existing mining and 
 

reclamation plan for each individual mine. An approved raptor mitigation plan 

is also in place for the applicant mines. If the proposed tract is leased and 

permitted for mining, the wildlife monitoring and mitigation plans would be 

amended, as required by WDEQ/LQD and USFWS, to include newly leased 

tracts. 

In 2007, Wyoming Governor Dave Freudenthal commissioned a Statewide 

Sage-Grouse Implementation Team. On March 17, 2008, the team 

preliminarily identified and mapped recommended sage-grouse focus areas in 

Wyoming in an effort to better understand what types of habitat grouse prefer 

and what areas should be protected. The South Gillette EIS applicant mines’ 

general analysis areas are not located within any of the mapped focus areas as 

the EIS states in Section 3.10.5.1. In the “Affected Environment” Section 

(3.10.5.1.2) there is a discussion of the focus area outside and adjacent to the 

West Coal Creek LBA. Also, the South Gillette Supplementary Information 

document contains a more detailed discussion. 

Comment Response 11L: The discussion of threatened, endangered, and 

sensitive species can be found in the body of the text primarily in Sections 3.9 

and 3.10 with more discussion in Sections 4.2.8 and 4.2.9. As you note in 

your comment, more detailed discussion of threatened, endangered, and 

sensitive species are included in the appendices. A summary of the 

threatened, endangered, and sensitive species which could be found on the 

LBA tracts is located in the Executive Summary. 

Comment Response 11M: Comments M and N are similar in that they 

highlight scientific investigation of the effects of sustained climate change. 

Ongoing scientific research has identified the potential impacts of 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 CO2(e) concentrations to increase dramatically 

and are likely to contribute to overall global climatic changes. 

Tools necessary to quantify incremental climatic changes associated with those 

factors for specific activities like mining of an LBA tract are presently 

unavailable. Consequently, impact assessment of effects of specific 

anthropogenic activities cannot be performed. Additionally, specific levels of 

significance have not yet been established. Therefore, climate change analysis 

in this EIS is limited to accounting and disclosing factors that contribute to 

climate change. To the extent that emission data were available or could be 

inferred from representative type data, we have identified potential GHG 

emissions that could result from development of the proposed LBAs, as well as 

emissions that will result from selection of the No Action Alternative. 
The site-specific impacts analyzed in this EIS are based on the assumption that 

if LBA tracts are offered for competitive lease, a lease would be issued, and 

mining would be permitted. We further assume that the applicant would be 

the lessee, and the lease would be permitted as an extension of their current 

mining operations. In Chapter 3, we have estimated the change to emissions of 

GHG under each alternative LBA configuration, including the No Action 

Alternative (please see table 3-19 in the DEIS). 

In Chapter 4, the contribution of the site-specific alternatives to cumulative 

effects on the environment is evaluated. To do this, it is assumed that coal 

mining will proceed in accordance with permit conditions. We 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. 

In Section 4.2.14.1 in the DEIS, we estimated the amount of GHG emissions 

that could be attributed to coal production as a result of leasing the proposed 

LBAs, as well as from the forecast coal production from all coal mines in the 

Wyoming PRB. This information is included in Chapter 4 (4.2.14.1). This was 

done by relating the portion of coal mined to the total emission of GHG from all 

coal mined in the U.S. We 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. 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 EIS 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. 

Comment Response 11N: See response to comment M. 

Comment Response 11O: The exact amount of carbon stored in PRB 

rangeland soils has been tested and found to be typically very low 

(insignificant) due to low annual soil temperatures and the low organic content 

of the soil. To account for the range of carbon that could be present in the 

soils, and released during mining activities from PRB range soils, the 

calculations in Table 3-19 for “Mining Process” include an allowance for CO2 
released from soil. The CO2 emission estimates used in this EIS for the SGAC 

combined tracts did include consideration of the loss of the carbon sink due to 

soil salvage vs. the benefit of the improved carbon sink from the reclamation 

(better vegetation cover). The discussion of the CO2 figures had left out 

mention of soil carbon sink and this has been corrected. 

Comment Response 11P: As stated in the response to comment M above, 

tools necessary to quantify incremental climatic changes associated with those 

factors for specific activities like mining of an LBA tract are presently 

unavailable. Consequently, impact assessment of effects of specific 

anthropogenic activities cannot be performed. Additionally, specific levels of 

significance have not yet been established. Therefore, climate change analysis 

in this EIS is limited to accounting for and disclosing factors that contribute to 

climate change. To the extent that emission data were available or could be 

inferred from representative type data, we have identified potential GHG 

emissions that could result from development of the proposed LBAs, as well as 

emissions that will result from selection of the No Action Alternative. Actual 

greenhouse gas emission calculated for each LBA that include methane and 

CO2 released from soils at disturbance are located in Chapter 3 (Section 

3.18.2). A discussion of greenhouse gas emission from the assumed 

combustion of the coal mined from these LBAs, as well as from coal produced 

in the PRB, is in Chapter 4 (Section 4.2.14.1). Solar variability and other 

natural forcings are valid concepts. 

Comment Response 11Q: Groundwater, surface water, water quantity and 

quality, and wetlands are addressed in the EIS in Chapters 3 and 4. In 

Chapter 3, the discussion is in Section 3.5 (Water Resources), Section 3.6 

(Alluvial Valley Floors), and Section 3.7 (Wetlands). In Chapter 4, please see 

Section 4.2.4 (Water Resources), Section 4.2.5 (Channel Stability), and Section 

4.2.6 (Alluvial Valley Floors). Wetlands are discussed in Chapter 4 (Section 

4.2.8.4), and fisheries are discussed in Section 4.2.9.3. These headings are 

listed in the Table of Contents and discussed in the Executive Summary. 

Comment Response 11R: The socioeconomic impacts from mineral 

development in the PRB are overall positive. There is currently little or no 

renewable energy resource development in the area. While it is true that local 

economies based on sustainable development tend to be more stable, as the 

EIS states, mineral development is currently the major source of economic 

stimulus in the Powder River Basin. Socioeconomics are discussed in Chapter 

3 at 3.17 continuing through section 3.17.9. Socioeconomics is also addressed 

in Chapter 4 in sections 4.2.13 through 4.2.13.9. A synopsis of 

socioeconomics can also be found in the Executive Summary. 

Comment Response 11S: The EIS addresses a full range of alternatives to the 

proposed action--a lease by application submitted by the lease applicant. The 

range includes an alternative which would represent all lands that include coal 
 

reserves that are comparable to those applied for, which may be efficiently 

recovered with the LBA, which may enhance competitive interest in the tract, 

and which could be bypassed if not leased. On the other end of the range is 

the No Action Alternative which explores the prospects of not leasing one or all 

of the tracts of federal coal. The scope and effect of the decision on this 

proposed action is reflected within this range of alternatives. 

The BLM is a multiple use land management agency that manages the federal 

coal reserves under the predominantly private land surface in the Gillette area 

of the Powder River Basin. In the land area covered by these LBAs, only 3% of 

the surface ownership is federal land. The BLM does not have authority over 

private land surface use and surface development. The BLM neither permits 

for the surface disturbance nor for the mining operations in coal mining 

operations. Therefore, the reasonable alternative options available for BLM to 

review in this EIS are leasing alternatives exploring the lease size, and shape, 

and the No Action Alternative where leasing one or more of these LBAs does not 

occur. 

As discussed in the DEIS, if this coal is leased, and if mining is permitted, coal 

sales would likely be into the steam coal open market for electrical generation, 

which is competitive, and where electricity users can buy from the most cost 

effective and appropriate suppliers of electricity that meet their needs for 

mandated carbon footprints. This market of electricity producers is influenced 

by electric demand. The DEIS contains an analysis of the likely portfolio of 

electric supply and the relative proportion expected to be met by coal fired 

electric generation. Ongoing scientific research has identified the potential 

impacts of GHG emissions on the global climate and is discussed in this EIS. 

Further, the addition of alternate sources of electric generation would conserve 

carbon fuels, which are not renewable in the short term, and would provide a 

broader portfolio of electric sources. This EIS estimates likely long term 

electric generation portfolios, assuming some form of constraint on carbon 

based fuels. However, the specific environmental effects of the variety of 

alternative electric generation technologies are not in the scope of decisions on 

the proposed actions for which this EIS was done. These non-carbon 

technologies would be evaluated under NEPA as well, as they are proposed on 

federal lands to be permitted and built. 

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

regional distribution system of electricity 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. 

Currently, the electric transmission lines associated with wind development are 

predominantly at transmission capacity and not available for additional 

electrical distribution. Distribution power lines associated with conventional 

oil and gas and CBNG development occur within the study area. These lines 
were also included in the scope of the analysis in this EIS. The issue with 

shipping electricity out of Wyoming at this time is the lack of available 

transmission line capacity. 

The PRB Coal Review estimates 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 energy 

development discussed in this EIS. Six specific proposals for these 

transmission lines have been identified. There is currently insufficient 

information to analyze or assign likelihood of development by 2020 for all of 

them. 

The governors of California, Nevada, Utah, and Wyoming entered into a 

memorandum of understanding to encourage development of a high voltage 

power transmission line (Frontier Line) which would connect those states in 

April 2005. Since that time, no specific plans have been announced as to the 

exact location or timing of the Frontier Line. The 345KV Wyoming-Colorado 

Intertie, as well as the Trans West, Gateway West, and South projects have 

been proposed in Wyoming in order to move power from Wyoming to Idaho, 

Nevada, and other western U.S. load demand areas (Casper Star Tribune 

2007a). The TransWestern Express proposes to move electric power from 

Wyoming to Arizona through Colorado or Utah. The High Plains Express 

proposes to move power from Wyoming to New Mexico and Arizona. Section 

4.1.1.2.3 discusses electric transmission lines. For non-carbon based utility 

scale energy development to progress in Wyoming, a transmission 

infrastructure capable of transporting the load must first be developed and 

added to the network that is currently in place. 

Comment Response 11T: NEPA requires the evaluation of a No Action 

Alternative. The No Action Alternative for each tract considered in this EIS is 

to reject the lease application. Under that alternative, a tract would not be 

offered for competitive sale, and the coal contained within the tract would not 

be mined as proposed at this time. Chapter 2 contains an evaluation of the No 

Action Alternative and explains that rejecting an application would not affect 

currently permitted mining activities on existing leases at any of the applicant 

mines. Selection of the No Action Alternative would not preclude an 

application to lease any rejected tract in the future. The No Action Alternative 

is also addressed in the Executive Summary. 

BLM participated in the 2007 inventory of assessed federal coal resources. 

This is a broad-scale assessment of the availability of coal resources in the 

PRB. As coal resources with lower overburden are depleted by mining, the 

general overburden ratio increases. Overburden ratio is directly related to 
mining cost, making lower overburden coal relatively lower cost coal. The value 

and interest in acquiring a coal lease depends on the prospective coal lease 

applicant’s expectation that the coal can be mined at a cost far enough below 

expected revenue to result in a reasonable return on investment. 
12 

December 8 2008 

MEMORANDUM 

TO: Teresa Johnson 

Bureau of Land Management 

Casper Field Office 

FROM: Foster Kirby 

Acting NW Branch Manager 

Program Support Division 

OSM - Western Region, Denver 

SUBJECT: Comments on the "Draft Coal Environmental Impact Statement for the South 

Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications" by Office ofSurface Mining Reclamation and 

Enforcement Western Region, Denver, Colorado 

The Office ofSurface Mining Western Region (OSM) as a cooperating agency has reviewed the 

"Draft South Gillette Area Coal Environmental Impact Statement for Campbell County 

Wyoming". The DEIS is well written, organized and successfully pulls together a vast amount of 

information about four potential coal leasing actions. The document adequately describes the 

purpose and need for the proposed action(s) and the alternatives considered. It is anticipated that 

the final EIS will serve OSM's NEPA needs in preparing a Federal Mining Plan recommendation 

(if one or all ofthe properties are leased) for the Department of Interior Assistant Secretary of 

Lands and Minerals under the Mineral Leasing Act. Our review found no substantive issues or 

areas needing correction or clarification in the main document or the appendices. 

NOTE: Volume 2 Cover - "Appendicies" should be "Appendices" J A

Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Should you have any questions please call me at 

(303) 293-5039. 

OSM Western Region 

1999 Broadway, Ste 3320 

Denver, CO 80202-5733 

MAIL: POB46667.Denver.CO 80201-6667 

303-293-5039 

Fax 303-293-5032 
Response to Comment Letter 12: Office of Surface Mining 

Comment Response 12A: The spelling error on the cover of Volume 2 has 

been corrected in the final EIS. 
,...; "F';.1$:"~ 13

United States Department of the Interior ; I 

U. S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY ::, ·~ti\·i; /!;,JG~' :~. :;:,~+D 

Reston, VA 20192 CASPEH ;: iEi=h'~]FFICE 

ZOU8 DEC I 5 P 2: 35 

In Reply Refer To: 

Mail Stop 423 DEC02_

Ms. Teresa Johnson 

Bureau ofLand Management 

Casper Field Office 

2987 Prospector Drive 

Casper, WY 82604 

Subject: Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the South Gillette Area Coal Lease 

Applications, WY 

Dear Ms. Johnson: 

As reques~ed by your correspondence ofOctober 1, 2008, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 

has reviewed the subject draft environmental impact statement (DEIS) and offers the following 

comments. 

SPECIFIC COMMENTS 

Executive Summary, pages ES-18 (bottom) to ES-19 (top) 

The DElS states, "CBNG (coal bed natural gas) 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 ofpublicly A 

owned resources." While there has been significant CBNG recovery in the Gillette area and it is 

possible CBNG resources in the area ofconcern have already been depleted, methane is a 

significant greenhouse gas. Perhaps prior environmental documents have addressed this issue, 

but ifnot, then BLM may need to consider addressing the impact of CBNG release to the 

atmosphere in the Environmental Consequences section ofthe DEIS. 

Section 3.5.1.2.1 Proposed Action and Action Alternatives, page 3-90 to 3-104 

The text misrepresents the limitations of ground-water flow models. A flow model was used to 

predict the extent ofwater level drawdown in the Wyodak coal aquifer. Due to CBNG 

production, the rate and extent ofthe actual drawdown in the late 1990s became much greater 

than the modeled drawdown. It is correctly stated that predictions of observed drawdown were 

made obsolete by the CBNG withdrawals. However, the conclusion that drawdown specifically B 

attributable to mining cannot be defined and numerical ground-water models are no longer 

practical to predict drawdown due to mining alone is not true (p. 3-90, third full paragraph, last 

sentence; p. 3-94, first partial paragraph, last sentence; p. 3-104, first partial paragraph, third-to­
2 


last sentence). Ground-water flow models can still be used to determine the amount ofdrawdown 

that would occur if CBNG withdrawals were not taking place. Ifpumping for mining is 

occurring at about the rate predicted in the 19905 simulations, then that model is capable of 

predicting the contribution to the total drawdown produced by mining. The model predictions 

will not match "observed" drawdowns, however, 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. Eliminating the misconception that model simulations B 

will be useless as a predictive tool merely because another larger stress, specifically CBNG 

pumpage, has been added to the system is important to the credibility ofthe DElS, which states 

on page 4-52 (fourth full paragraph) that numerical ground-water modeling was used to predict 

the impacts ofthe cumulative stresses. 

Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the DEIS. Ifyou have any questions 

concerning our comments, please contact Lloyd Woosley, Chief ofthe USGS Environmental 

Affairs Program, at (703) 350-8797 or at lwoosley@usgs.gov. 

Sincerely, 

Senior Advisor for Science Applications 
Response to Comment Letter 13: U.S. Geological Survey 

Comment Response 13A: A new discussion on the estimated amount of coal 

bed methane released from the exposed unmined coal face in 2007 and the 

projected annual amount of methane vented from exposed unmined coal with 

the addition of the four LBA tracts was added to Chapter 3 at the end of 

Section 3.18.3. Table 3-20 has been calculated to show the effects of the 

primary greenhouse gases released during mining operations. The calculations 

have been updated from those presented in the DEIS. 

Comment Response 13B: Revisions have been made in the FEIS to Section 

3.5.1.2.1 to clarify the drawdown modeling concept to clarify the practical use 

of such models, and the causes of modeled results relating to observed 

drawdowns. 
"~ ... , ~ 

...-.""""" GOVERNOR 

OAve FREtJOEN'noIAL 14

DIRECTOR WYOMING GAME AND FISH DEPARTMENT STE'JE FERREll 

COIIMlSSIONERS 

JERRY GAlLES - Praldent 5400 Bishop Blvd. Cheyenne, WY 82006 CLIFFORD KIRK - VIce President 

ClARK AllAN Phone: (307) n7-4600 Fax: (307) n7-i610 FREO LINDZEY 

RONLOVERCHECK Web site: http://gf.state.wy.us EOMIGNERY 

BIll WILLIAMS. DVM 

December 10, 2008 

WER 11596.02 

Bureau ofLand Management 

Casper Field Office 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

South Gillette Area Coal, 

Campbell County 

Teresa Johnson 

Bureau of Land Management 

Casper Field Office 

2987 Prospector Drive 

Casper, WY 82604 

Dear Ms. Johnson: 

The staff ofthe Wyoming Game and Fish Department has reviewed the Draft 

Environmental Impact Statement for South Gillette Area Coal in Campbell County. We 

previously submitted comments in a letter dated June 6, 2008. We have no additional concerns 

at this time. 

Thank you for the opportunity to comment. 

Sincerely, 

JOHN EMMERICH 

DEPUTY DIRECTOR 

N i-:l.~'·'.' JE:MF:gtb 

cc: USFWS 

"Conserving Wildlife - Serving People" 
Response to Comment Letter 14: Wyoming Game and Fish Department 

Comment Response 14: We have incorporated your previous comments into 

the draft and then the final EIS. Your concerns will be considered in any 

decision BLM makes on the lease applications. 
15 i' 

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

REGION 8 


1595 Wynkoop Street 


DENVER, CO 80202-1129 


Phone 800-227-8917 

h~p:/Iwww.epa.gov/region08 

DEC 1"91008 

Ref: 8EPR-N 

Ms. Teresa Johnson 

Bureau of Land Management, Casper Field Office 

2987 Prospector Drive 

Casper, Wyoming 82604 

Q 

o ;".­

Re: 	 South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

CEQ # 20080426 

Dear Ms. Johnson: 

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 8 (EPA) has reviewed the South 

Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). Our 

comments are provided in accordance with our authorities under the National Environmental 

Policy Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. Section 4332(2)(C) and Section 309 ofthe Clean Air Act, 42 

lJ.S.C. Section 7609. 

The Bureau of Land Management proposes to hold competitive lease sales and issue 

maintenance leases for four Lease by Applicant (LBA) tracts (Caballo West, Belle Ayr North, 

Maysdorf II and West Coal Creek) located adjacent to four existing coal mines (Caballo, Belle 

Ayr, Cordero Rojo and Coal Creek). The DEIS also considers two alternatives that modify and 

expand the proposed tracts. The area under consideration is located in Campbell County, 

Wyoming between eight and twenty-five miles south-southeast of Gillette. The Belle Ayr North 

LBA Tract includes a portion of the Bishop Road, and the MaysdorfII LBA Tract includes 

portions of Highway 59, Haight and Hilight county roads, and MaysdorfCemetery. The DEIS 

indicates that the coal underlying these structures is considered unsuitable for mining, although a 

study is being done to analyze the feasibility of relocating Bishop Road and plans are underway 

to relocate Maysdorf Cemetery. After carefu1 review of the DEIS, EPA's primary concern is air 

quality. Additional comments regarding wetlands, noxious weeds and greenhouse gas emissions 

are enclosed. 

EPA is particularly concerned with assuring that air quality in the Powder River Basin 

does not exceed the Clean Air Act standards and minimizing potential localized air quality 

impacts from blasting and mining activities to the surrounding school bus stops and residences. 

Section 3.4.2.3, references the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between the Wyoming 

Department of Environmental Quality (WDEQ) and EPA (January 24, 1994), which A 

acknowledges that some limitations may exist in modeling short term Particulate Matter (PM 10) 

and that PM 10 monitoring should be used for compliance purposes. While no exceedances have 

been measured recently at the South Gillette Coal Mines listed in the DEIS, EPA is concerned 
since a significant number of exceedances have occurred in the last 2-years at nearby mining 

facilities. The control measures described in the DEIS Section 3.4.2.3 significantly reduce point 

source and fugitive dust emissions and should be updated with cooperation with the WDEQ as 

appropriate or if exceedances of a standard occurs. A condition ofthe MOA is to continue PMIO A 

monitoring near the mine to ensure compliance with the 24...hour PMIO NAAQS. BLM should 

ensure that the mine operators consult with the WDEQ on any monitoring site adjustments or 

additions due to changes in the active mine area. Particular attention should be made to shifting 

active mine areas and the placement of air monitoring sites in order to determine maximum air 

quality impacts from the mine. 

The DEIS also includes the results ofthe cumulative analysis for the Powder River Basin 


Coal Review (2006), which are presented in Tables 4 ... 10, 4-11 and 4-12. The Coal Review 


analysis predicted several negative adverse air quality impacts for the base case year of 2002 and 


future year for the lower and upper production scenarios of2010. The Final EIS needs to be 
 B 

updated to include the findings ofthe most recent Task 3A Powder River Basin Coal Review 


analysis (2008), which projects exceedances ofPMlOand PM2.S for both annual and 24-hour 


NAAQS in Wyoming in 2015. 


EPA is also concerned about the proximity ofthe mining operation to homes and school 


bus stops. Children may be especially susceptible to the health effects ofN02 and fine 


particulates. Children have greater exposure to air pollution because oftheir faster breathing 


rates and the amount oftime spent playing outdoors. Particulates and N02 can aggravate asthma, 


irritate airways, and cause coughing and breathing difficulties. The Final EIS (FEIS) should 


detail mitigation and monitoring measures that will be undertaken to minimize exposure to 


particulates and N02 for children waiting at bus stops near the mining areas. 


It i~ EPA's responsibility to provide an independent review and evaluation ofthe 

potential environmental impacts ofthe project. The DEIS includes the proposed alternative as 

well as two alternatives that slightly modify the lease tracts being proposed for lease. The DEIS 

does not indicate which alternative is the preferred alternative and most ofthe impacts are the 

same for the proposed action and actions 2 and 3. Because ofthis, it is impossible to determine 

which alternative is the least environmentally damaging. EPA is rating this DEIS as 

Environmental Concerns - EC, Insufficient Infonnation - 2 (EC-2). The Ee rating means that 

EPA's review ofthe proposed alternatives has identified environmental impacts to air quality that 

should be avoided in order to fully protect the environment. Mitigation measures should be fully 

fleshed out and implemented to reduce the environmental impact. The 2 rating means the DEIS 

does not contain sufficient information to fully assess the environmental impacts that should be 

avoided in order to fully protect the environment. A full description ofEPA's EIS rating system 

is enclosed. 

If you have any questions regarding the NEPA process or this rating, please contact 


Rachel Eichelberger at 303-312-6008 or me at 303-312-6004. 


2 


C 
Sincerely, 

cY-­ Larry2boda 

Director, NEPA Program 

Office of Ecosystems Protection and Remediation 

Enclosures 

3 

Additional Comments by the Region 8 Environmental Protection Agency 


Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the South Gillette Area Coal Lease DEIS 


Air Quality 

EPA commends BLM for updating the Powder River Coal Review (2008) to help D 

evaluate the cumulative impacts of coal and other energy development in the Powder River Basin 

through 2015. EPA recommends the updated modeling be included in the South Gillette Area 

Coal Lease FEIS. 

EPA recommends that the DEIS disclose that emissions from coal combustion have been 

identified as a significant source of atmospheric mercury. EPA's Web site at 

http://www.epa.gov/oar/mercury.html has several reports summarizing the environmental 

impacts of mercury, primarily bioaccumulation in the aquatic food web. Concentrations of E 

mercury emitted as a result of combustion vary depending on the chemistry of coal deposits and 

the type of air pollution controls. For purposes of the DEIS, we recommend including any 

existing information on mercury emissions from power plants currently burning coal from the 

mines. 

Table 3-6 contains background measured ambient data through 2002 or 2004. Data J F 

should be updated to reflect current conditions through 2007 please refer to the following link: 

http://www.epa.gov/air/datalindex.html 

Proximity to Residences and School bus stops 

EPA is concerned about the potential health risk to the public associated with short term 

exposure to N02 from blasting emissions. In Section 3.4.3.3, the DEIS discusses various 

mitigation strategies that have been used historically to mitigate NOz exposures in the Powder 

River Basin, but does not commit to any specific mitigation strategy. It goes on to say that the 

WDEQ has not required the mines to implement any specific measures, but the mines have G 

voluntarily committed to control blasting emissions. The DEIS acknowledges that while no one 

single procedure has consistently proven successful in mitigating blasting-related N02 emissions, 

the most successful control measure has been to reduce the size ofthe cast blasting shots. 

Wetlands 

Executive Order 11990 directs all Federal Agencies to provide leadership and take action to 

minimize the destruction, loss or degradation ofwetlands, and to preserve and enhance the 

natural and beneficial values of wetlands. Indirect draining of, or direct disturbance of, wetland 

areas should be avoided. Ifthere may be wetlands in the project area, EPA recommends 

consultation with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to determine whether any ofthe project H 

activities require a Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 404 permit. If disturbance is unavoidable, 

EPA suggests BLM require a commitment to replace in'kind such impacted wetlands. As studies 

indicate that traditional mitigation is generally not successful in fully restoring wetland function, 

EPA suggests that BLM require a two-to-one mitigation of wetland disturbance. Due to the time 
it can take to adequately reclaim disturbed wetlands and the potential life ofthis project, BLM JH 

may consider requiring mitigation to begin concurrently with the disturbance. 

Noxious Weeds 

Noxious weeds are becoming an increasingly difficult problem to manage on western 

lands, including in the Powder River Basin. The FEIS should list the noxious weeds and exotic 

plants that occur in the resource area. EPA recommends the FEI S detail a strategy for 

prevention, early detection of invasion, and control procedures for each species of noxious weed 

that may pose a threat in the project area. EPA is pleased that the reclamation plans for the 

existing mines include steps to control invasion by noxious weeds. 

. 

Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Global Warming 

EPA is pleased that the DEIS includes a section on greenhouse gas emissions and global 

warming, including estimates of CO2 equivalent emissions at the SGAC Mines. However, there 

is no mention of any greenhouse gas emission mitigation measures in the DEIS. The FEIS 

should include some potential mitigation for the additional greenhouse gases that will emitted by 

the SGAC Mines ifthe maintenance leases are issued. BLM should also include an estimate of 

the greenhouse gases emitted in the burning ofthe mined coal, as that is a logical consequence of 

mining the coal, and accounts for a large percentage of greenhouse gas emissions. 

2 


I 
Response to Comment Letter 15: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Comment Response 15A: There have been no monitored exceedances of the 

annual PM10 standard in the Wyoming PRB. Also, there have been no 

monitored exceedances of the 24-hour PM10 standard at the four South Gillette 

mines through 2006. However, as discussed in Section 3.4.2.1, monitoring 

sites at some of the surface coal mines have shown some numerical 

exceedances of the 24-hour PM10 standard since 2000. 

According to WDEQ/AQD, the circumstances associated with the monitored 

exceedances of the 24-hour PM10 standard in the PRB prior to 2007 provide 

adequate reason to conclude that high wind events and blowing dust had 

caused exceedances of the ambient air quality standards that otherwise would 

not have occurred. 

In response to the measured exceedances of the 24-hour PM10 ambient air 

quality standards and in anticipation of conditions that would potentially lead 

to future exceedances, the WDEQ/AQD collaborated with the Wyoming Mining 

Association to develop a Natural Events Action Plan for the coal mines of the 

Powder River Basin. The plan was based on EPA Natural Event Policy 

guidance. A report describing the plan was submitted to EPA. Section 3.4.2.3 

and Appendix H (H-3.2.8) in the EIS describe the plan, its proposed measures 

for implementation, and dust control measures considered best available 

control measures. 

The WDEQ permits the mining and issues the air quality permit. WDEQ works 

closely with the mine operators to monitor air quality by using required placing 

of air quality monitoring equipment as well as additional data from monitors 

placed by the mining operators. Compliance with the air quality permit 

stipulations are enforced by the WDEQ. 

Comment Response 15B: The “Air Quality” section (4.2.3) in the final EIS has 

been updated to include the most recent Task 3A Powder River Basin coal 

review analysis. 

Comment Response 15C: Text has been added to the appropriate pages to 

indicate that mitigation measures should reduce NOx exposure to the areas 

around active mining, including bus stops and residences. 

Comment Response 15D: See response to comment B. 

Comment Response 15E: A discussion of atmospheric mercury released from 

coal during combustion is located in Section 4.2.14.2 (Mercury, Coal 

Combustion Residues, and Other By-Products) in Chapter 4. This section 

addresses mercury in the food web as well as mercury emissions from power 
 

plants burning PRB coal. This discussion uses EPA mercury reports which are 

more recent than December 1997. 

Comment Response 15F: Table 3-6 has been updated as requested. 

Comment Response 15G: See response to comment C. 

Comment Response 15H: If the South Gillette Area LBA tracts are leased and 

mined, restoration of jurisdictional wetlands will be required. Additional 

consultation with the COE would be completed during the permitting process. 

The COE requires mitigation of all impacted jurisdictional wetlands in 

accordance with Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. They approve the plans 

for wetland mitigation and restoration as well as the number of acres to be 

restored. The COE considers the type and function of each jurisdictional 

wetland that will be impacted and may require restoration of additional acres if 

the type and function of the restored wetlands will not completely replace the 

original wetland. The wetland mitigation plan approved by COE then becomes 

part of the WDEQ/LQD mining permit. There are special required permitting 

procedures to assure that after mining, there would be no net loss of wetlands. 

WDEQ/LQD is the agency that permits mining operations and has authority to 

enforce mining regulations. 

Comment Response 15I: Section 4.2.8.3 addresses noxious and invasive 

weed species. A list of the plants that the State of Wyoming has designated as 

noxious weeds is included. Campbell County does not have a declared county 

list of weeds. There are few occurrences of noxious weeds in the mine areas 

because WDEQ/LQD rules and regulations require surface coal mine operators 

to control and minimize the introduction of noxious weeds in accordance with 

federal and state requirements. The South Gillette Area mines work with 

Campbell County Weed and Pest Department and conduct an active noxious 

weed control program on their existing coal leases. A plan for controlling 

noxious weeds is included in the mining and reclamation plan permit for each 

mine. Mining and reclamation plans for newly permitted coal tracts would also 

include steps to control invasion from noxious weeds. 

Comment Response 15J: The final EIS has a new subsection in Chapter 3 

(3.18.3) covering greenhouse gas mitigation. 

Wyoming Powder River Basin coal is sold on the open market; therefore, it is 

not possible to know with any reasonable certainty what power plants would 

use this coal or in what amount. The variety of burning and emission control 

apparatus installed in the many facilities to which PRB coal is sold would also 

make calculating CO2 emissions difficult. We agree that some sort of 

calculation is possible for CO2 released during laboratory combustion of coal, 

and that this estimate would give a relative value to reported national or 

international totals of CO2 emission. The following information has been added 
 

 

to the final EIS in Section 4.2.14.1: “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 (DOE 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 (DOE 

2007a). In 2006, Wyoming PRB mines accounted for approximately 37.2 percent 

of the coal produced in the U.S (DOE 2007d).” 
16 

I 


I 


1 

I 2 Bureau of Land Management 

RECEIVED 


3

I JAN 232009 4 PUBLIC HEARING 

I Bureau of Land Mar;8~1·:n:HI\ 

5 Casper Field Of:.:.r:­

6 NOVEMBER 19, 2008 I 7 GILLETTE, WYOMING 

I 8 

I 9 

10 SOUTH GILLETTE AREA COAL LBA EIS 

i 11 

I 

I 12 

13 

14 

15 

I 

I 16 

17 

18 

J 
 

I 

I 

19 

20 

21 

I 22 

23 

24 

I 25 

I Dwande E. LeMay

Court Reporter 
5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

I 2 

I 
 

1 WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 19, 2008, 7:05 P.M. 

I 2 

PROCEEDINGS 

I 3 

I 

4 MR. KARBS: Now, we'll start the public 

I hearing. 

6 First of all, has everyone signed in at the 

7 door? Looks like Sarah said if you haven't I would 

I 8 appreciate it if you will sign in before you leave 

9 tonight. Also, please include your address if you want I 

to be added to the mailing list for this coal EelS and 

i 11 also since we have several others going on if you want 

12 to be included on any or other mailing lists. I 13 Please note that the comments B1M receives 

I 14 during this hearing and the registration sheets that 

you signed in with will be available for public review. 

I 

I 16 Individuals who want to withhold their name and address 

17 from public review or disclosure under the Freedom of 

) 

18 Information Act must indicate that in the comments they

J 19 submit or on the registration form. Submissions from 

organizations or from individuals who identify 

I 

21 themselves as representing organizations or businesses 

I 22 will be made available to the public. 

23 I would like to welcome you to this hearing 

24 for the South Gillette area coal ElS. Again, I am Mike 

I Karbs, assistant district manager for solid minerals at 

I Dwande E. LeMay 

Court Reporter 
I 3 

I 
 

I 

1 the Wyoming High Plains District of the BLM, and I will 

I 2 be the hearing officer this evening. Dwande LeMay is 

3 the court reporter this evening. 

I 

4 If you wish to make a statement during the 

I 5 hearing, we ask that you come up to the podium here, 

6 and it's kind of a tall podium so just come up front, 

7 whatever you're comfortable with. Theresa has got a 

I 8 microphone if you'd like to use that if you want to 

9 stand here. I 10 The important thing is so Dwande can see you 

i 11 and then make sure we get a good transcript, so she may 

12 direct you a little bit. And also we want the folks in I 13 the audience to hear any statements or testimony you 

I 14 provide. If you want a copy of the transcript please 

15 contact Dwande and she can make arrangements to get you I 

I 

16 one of those. 

17 This is a public hearing for the purpose 

I 

18 of gathering comments on four proposed coal lease 

I 19 applications or LBAs, lease by applications. It is not 

20 a forum for questions or debate. The purpose of this 

I 

21 hearing is to accept and record public comments on the 

I 22 environmental impact statement that BLM prepared for 

23 the South Gillette area coal lease by applications. 

24 I would ask that you let B1M know if you are 

I 25 aware of any information that we should consider -- oh, 

I Dwande E. LeMay 

Court Reporter 
I 4 

I 
 

I 

1 I would also like to ask if you are aware of any 

I 2 information that you would like us to consider in 

3 evaluating fair market value of any of these coal lease 

4 applications or the maximum economic recovery of 

I 5 federal coal included in the applied for applications. 

6 By way of background RAG Coal West I 

7 Incorporated filed an application on July 6, 2004, with 

I 8 the BLM to lease federal coal reserves in the tract 

9 north of and immediately adjacent to the Belle Ayr I 10 Mine in Campbell County, Wyoming, approximately ten 

i 11 miles south, southeast of Gillette. RAG finalized the 

12 sale of the Belle Ayr Mine and the applicant became I 13 Foundation Coal West in August of 2004. 

I 14 BLM refers to this tract as the Belle Ayr 

I 

I 15 North LBA tract. The federal coal reserves were 

16 applied for as a maintenance tract for the Belle Ayr 

17 Mine. The applied for coal lease application includes 

18 about 1578 acres and approximately 208 million tons of 

I 

I 19 coal. 

20 Ark Land Company filed an application on 

21 February 10, 2006, with the BLM to lease federal coal 

I 22 reserves in a tract west of and immediately adjacent to 

23 Coal Creek Mine in Campbell County, Wyoming, J 

24 approximately 25 miles south, southeast of Gillette. 

I 25 BLM refers to this tract as the West Coal Creek LBA 

I Dwande E. LeMay 

Court Reporter 
'I 5 

I 

1 tract. The federal coal reserves were applied for as a 

I 2 maintenance tract for the Coal Creek Mine. These 
 

3 applied for coal lease applications includes about 
 I 
 

:1 

4 1,151 acres and approximately 63 million tons of coal. 

I 5 Caballo Coal Company filed application on 

6 March 15, 2006, with the BLM to lease federal coal 

7 reserves in the tract west of and immediately adjacent 

I 8 to the Caballo Mine in Campbell County, Wyoming, 

9 approximately 8 miles south, southeast of Gillette. I 10 BLM refers to this tract as the Caballo west LBA tract. 

j 11 The federal coal reserves were applied for as a 

12 maintenance track for the Caballo Mine. The applied I 

I 

13 for coal lease application includes about 777 acres and 

14 approximately 92 million tons of coal. 

I 

15 And, finally, the Cordero Mining Company I 16 filed an application on September 1, 2006, with the BLM 

17 to lease federal coal reserves on tracts west and south 

I 

18 of and immediately adjacent to the Cordero-Rojo Mine in 

I 19 Campbell County, Wyoming, approximately 15 miles south, 

20 southeast of Gillette. BLM refers to this tract as the 

I 

21 Maysdorf II LBA tract. The federal coal reserves were 

I 22 applied for as a maintenance tract for the Cordero-Raja 

23 Mine. The applied for coal lease application includes 

24 about 4654 acres and approximately 504 million tons of 

I 25 coal. 

I Dwande E. LeMay 

Court Reporter 
'I 6 

I 

1 The BLM is preparing one enviromental impact 

I 2 statement for these four coal lease applications. EIS 

I 3 will be used to help decide whether or not to offer the 

4 federal coal included in the lease applications for 

I 5 competitive sale in accordance with the regulations at 

I 6 

7 

43 CFR 3425. 

The United States must receive the fair 

I 8 market value of the coal included in the lease 

I 9 

10 

applications before the land applied for can be leased. 

B1M mailed a draft EIS for the coal lease applications 

i 11 to the public starting in October 17, 2008. The 

I 12 

13 

comment period on the draft EIS ends on December 24, 

2008. 
 

I 14 BLM may not be able to consider comments 
 

I 15 

16 

received after December 24th on the final EIS, and 

again this EIS will be used to make a decision whether 

I 17 or not to offer the coal in any of these LBAs for 

I 

18 

19 

competitive sale. To reiterate, written comments to be 

faxed or mailed to Theresa Johnson at the Bureau of 

I 20 Land Management, Wyoming High Plains District. We will 

I 

21 

22 

accept written comments here tonight. 

I know some of that was repetition but it 

I 23 never hurts. 

I 

24 

25 

Before I begin to recognize those of you who 

have asked to testify, I would like to set a few simple 

I Dwande E. LeMay 

Court Reporter 
5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

I 7 

I 
 

I 

1 grounds rules. First, if you have not registered 

I 2 please do so. 

3 You're all good. 

J 

4 If you indicated that you wished to testify 

J when you registered, I will recognize you in the order 

6 that you have registered. If you did not indicate that 

7 you wished to testify when you registered but decide 

I 8 you want to during the hearing, at any point now, I 

9 will ask for additional comments after all of those who I have registered to speak have had an opportunity. 

i 11 When you're recognized please come up to the 

12 podium or up to the front here. It's important to J 

J 

I 

13 state your name and address and if you represent 

) 14 someone other than yourself, the name of that 

organization. Please speak clearly so that Dwande can 

16 hear your remarks. I don't think we're going to put 

17 any particular limit on the testimony. At least we 

I 

18 don't have a lot of people registered to testify, so I 

J 19 won't worry about that. And, again, to help our 

transcript if you have a copy of your statement that 

21 will help the reporter make an accurate record. ) 22 And, finally, this is a public hearing for 

J 23 the purpose of gathering comments on the South Gillette 

24 Area Coal Environmental Impact Statement. I ask you

I not to question anyone during their testimony. The 

I Dwande E. LeMay 

Court Reporter 
'I 8 

I 

I 

1 reporter or I may need to ask a question for 

I 2 clarification of those who do testify. 

3 And I realize that some of you may have 

I 

4 questions or discussion after we close the formal 

I 5 hearing. All of us will stick around and attempt to 

6 answer any questions you have or any items that you 

7 want to discuss. So feel free to do that after the 

I 	 8 hearing has been closed, we'll be glad to accommodate 

9 you. I 10 With that I'll call the first speaker 

i 11 registered to testify and that would be Shannon 

12 Anderson. I 13 	 MS. ANDERSON: Good evening. My name is 

I 14 Shannon Anderson. I'm with the Powder River Basin 

I 

I 15 Resource Counsel. OUr address is 934 West Main Street 

16 in Sheridan. For those of you that are not familiar 

,17 with our organization, the Powder River Basin Resource 

18 Counsel is a local organization based in Northeast 

.1 

J 

19 Wyoming. Most of our members are rural family farmers 

20 and ranchers in the Powder River Basin who live near 

I 

21 the coal mines in the basin and other energy

I 22 development there. 

23 We do first want to acknowledge B1M for this 

24 environmental impact statement. I think the breadth 

I 25 and scope of the statement are much stronger than 

I 	 Dwande E. LeMay 

Court Reporter 
5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

A 

I 9 

I 


I 

1 previous statements, the analysis particularly of 

I 2 climate change, how air quality impacts with the 

3 additional appendix and other information. We greatly 

4 appreciate, together, you know, a better picture of the 

I impacts of coal mining in the basin. 

6 With that said I do have, you know, just a

I 

7 few comments. I will be submitting, you know, larger 

I 8 written comments later on down the road, but the first 

9 comment is just about the purpose and need of this I environmental impact statement. 

j 11 The permit statement we feel is much too 

12 narrow. It's stated on page 119 that the purpose is to I 

I 

13 allow the applicant mine access to a continuing supply 

14 of low sulfur compliance coal, and we question whether 

I 

or not that's really the BLM's purpose or whether, you

I 16 know, it's actually a private purpose. That shouldn't 

'17 necessarily be the purpose of an environmental impact 

18 statement. 

J 

I 19 We also believe that the statement that new 

lease tracts will help provide a stable supply of power 

21 to meet increasing demands without a potentially 

I 22 significant increase in power costs completely ignores 

I 
 23 a carbon constrained future with carbon taxes or cap 


24 and trade regulation. 

I So, you know, the BLM as a manager of the 

I Dwande E. LeMay 

Court Reporter 

B 
D 

10 


public lands should be considering other uses for the 

land in addition and maybe alternatives to coal mining 

for part of its duty and its job, you know, if a wind B 

farm should be there, you know, other potential uses as 

alternatives. And it's possible that coal mining still 

is the best option but you need to kind of do that 

alternative analysis. 

So we do know, you know, that coal fire power 

plants and demand for coal fire power in the nation 

right now is decreasing whereas internationally that 

demand is still there. So we urge BLM to kind of 

tighten that analysis and really give a few, you know 

broader picture of where this coal is going and if it's 

really being used to meet domestic demands. 

Secondly, we would -- you know, we have great 

concerns about reclamation in the basin right now. You 

know, according to OSM documents the current rate of 

Dwande E. LeMay 

Court Reporter 

We also, you know, slightly question the 

statement that continued extraction of coal is 

essential to meet the nation's future energy needs 

given the fact that Powder River Basin coal is now 

being exported to China so -- and that was actually 

stated by Ralph Purlis, who's the governor's energy 

adviser, this morning before the joint minerals 

comnittee. 

c 
5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

I 11 

I 


J 

1 reclamation is about three to one. You know, given 

I 2 this map's requirement for contemporaneous reclamation, 

3 you know, that ratio should really be one to one. We 

4 encourage B1M to take a step back and look at 

I reclamation particularly to these four mines and see if 

6 that ratio is one to one before new tracts are leased. I 

7 Thirdly, again, we would just like to 

I 8 acknowledge climate change impacts and particularly 

9 local impacts to Wyoming as a result of climate change, I 

you know lack of water resources, increased drought and 

~ 11 wild fires. OUr state climatologist Steve Craig and

12 other experts have acknowledged that climate change I 

I 

13 will have dramatic impacts on the state, particularly E 

14 agricultural users like our members. 

I 

I The USDA recently came out with a report 

16 that, you know, kind of overlays climate changes has 

17 for agriculture producers in our nation. So I would 

I 

18 encourage BLM to appropriate some of those analyses

I 19 particularly talk about local impacts of climate 

change. 

21 We continue to be concerned about air quality 

J 

J 22 in the basin. I think, you know, anybody who works out 

23 there, who lives out there does know that the air is F 

24 being degraded as, you know, this environmental 

I statement documents. So, you know, we are continuously 

I Dwande E. LeMay 

Court Reporter 
'I 12 

I 

I 

1 concerned about air quality. I'll submit a document 

I 2 for the record that's from Score Card.org. 

3 It's, you know, an analysis of different, 

I 

4 know, environmental impacts, in particular smog and 

I 5 particulate reports documenting that Campbell County is 

6 in the worst 10 percent of the counties in the nation 

7 as far as PMI0 and PM2.5 levels. And that, you know, 

I 8 really concerns our members, you know, third and fourth 

9 generation ranchers in the basin. You know, they've I 10 seen the impacts of air quality deteriorate over their 

i 11 lifetimes, you know, and we just worry about the future F 

12 of this county when we talk about, you know, new coal I 13 fire plants, new development. 

I 14 You know, at what level is there a tipping 

15 point, you know, where this country would no longer be I 

I 

16 healthy to live in. So, you know, maybe the tipping 

17 point is for these new coal mines but, you know, we 

I 

18 need to have a broader, a broader look and a broader 

I 19 analysis of, you know, air quality and, you know, 

20 management alternatives. 

21 And I think EIS does a good job of talking 

I 

I 22 about mitigation measures and management options of the 

23 mines who currently employ and are projected to employ 

24 with these particular lease tracts. We also do 

I 25 encourage -- particularly that I know blasting 

I Dwande E. LeMay 

Court Reporter 
5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

I 13 

I 


I 

1 requirements that some of the other mines do in the 

I 2 basin, especially given the proximity of same of these 

3 mines to Highway 59. 

4 You know, you see the signs as you go down 

I by, you know, Black Thunder Mine and we'd encourage 

I 6 as these mines go a little bit closer to Highway 59 to " 

" 7 include some of those warnings. It's probably more 

I 8 appropriately their province but to think about those 

9 issues. I And then, finally, on that note we would 

i 11 encourage BLM to maintain the hundred foot buffer G 

12 between the coal mining and roads, particularly J 13 Highway 59. I regularly drive down Highway 59. I know 

I 
 14 a number of you do probably more often than I do. You 


I 

I know, it is the main thorough fair between Gillette and 

16 the southern part of the state. 

17 You know, we've invested significant tax 

I 

18 dollars in Highway 59 through the passing lanes. You 

I 19 know, we're going to invest more tax dollars and 

potentially get a four lane highway on all the way and, 

J 

21 you know, when these new tracts come online, you know, 

I 22 10 to 12 years down the road, we hate to see those tax 

23 dollars go to waste. And, you know, having to move the 

24 entire highway doesn't seem like the right, the right 

I thing to do. 

I Dwande E. LeMay 

Court Reporter 
5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

I 14 

I 
 

I 

1 And, finally, we'd just like to encourage BLM 

I 2 to think about the Buffalo R&P amendment process and 

3 how that process will work with these lease tracts just 

4 as that's going forward right now. 

I Okay. Thank you so much for the time. 

6 MR. KARaS: All right. Thank you, Shannon. ,.) 

7 That was -- Shannon was the person that 

I 8 registered to testify but, like I said, if anybody else 

9 would like to testify now is the time to let us know I and we'd certainly welcome you to do that. 

i 11 Going once, twice. 

12 Okay. All right. Well, if I didn't say it I 13 before, and I don't remember if I did, I do appreciate 

I 14 you all carning out tonight and participating in this 

and I appreciate the comments we got and I'll close the I 16 hearing. 
 

17 I did want to, since Shannon brought it up, 
 I 
 

I 

18 the concept that we had mentioned. BLM is in the 

.1 19 process of amending, modifying -- I'm not sure of the 

exact word -- the resource management plan for 

21 Campbell, Johnson, and Sheridan counties which is for 

I 

I 22 us our Buffalo field office and at least one of us, me, 

23 will be a part of that process. 

24 So I'm kind of painfully aware of what we're 

I doing but that process will be going on over the next 

I Dwande E. LeMay 

Court Reporter 
I 15 

I 
 

I 

1 several years and we just started in to it. I think 

I 2 we'll start our scoping on that. The resource 

3 management plans are kind of our guideline basic 

.1 

4 operating policies or resource, or management of all 

I 5 the resources that BLM administered in a geographic 

6 area. So I encourage you to get involved in that if 

7 you're interested. 

I 8 Again, thanks and safe travels and we'll be 

9 around if anybody wants, has any questions or follow up I 10 to do individually. We'll stay until you all wander 

i 11 out. 

12 (Off the record at 7:36 p.m.) I 13 

J 14 

J 

I 15 

16 

17 

18 

I 

J 19 

20 

21 

I 

I 22 

23 

24 

I 25 

I Dwande E. LeMay 

Court Reporter 
I 	 16 

I 


1 	 CERTIFICATE 

I 

I 2 

3 I, DWANDE E. LEMAY, Professional Court 

I 

4 Reporter and a Notary Public of the State of Wyoming, 

I 5 do hereby certify that the foregoing transcript is a 

6 true and accurate transcription of my stenographic 

7 notes of the BLM hearing. 

I 8 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my 

9 hand and affixed my Notarial Seal this 21st day of I 10 January, 2009 


i 11 


12 I 13 

I 14 

I 	 15 

16 

I 17 

18 

I 

I 19 

20 

21 

I 

I 22 

23 

24 

I 	 25 

I 	 Dwande E. LeMay 

Court Reporter 
 

 

 

Response to Comments from the November 16, 2008 Public Hearing 

Shannon Anderson – Powder River Basin Resource Counsel 

Comment Response 16A: The purpose of the EIS is to assess and disclose 

the impacts of competitively offering for lease certain coal reserves applied for 

by four operating coal mines. The EIS also analyzes alternatives to these 

leasing actions and discloses those impacts prior to a decision. As noted in 

Section 1.2, leasing is recognized as a prerequisite to mining but it is not the 

enabling action that will allow mining. In their application, the applicant 

companies have identified their need for coal. 

The rate at which remaining reserves at these mines would be mined and sold 

is based on forecasting coal demand into the future. Coal production has 

increased through 2007 both domestically and internationally. The FEIS 

contains additional discussion of the forecasting used to identify future coal 

production rates, both at these mines and on a cumulative basis for the PRB. 

This forecasting depends on market demand. A major factor in this market has 

been, and is predicted to be, electric demand. 

The statement under the “Purpose and Need for Action” section relating to 

maintaining a stable supply of power to meet increasing demand without a 

potentially significant increase in power costs is in the context of the costs of 

pollution compliance, alternate coal supplies, as well as the relative cost of 

electricity from alternate generation methods. In the Chapter 4, there is a 

discussion of GHG emissions, the cost of electricity, as well as the mix of 

electric generation sources in a carbon-constrained scenario. 

Comment Response 16B: Other forms of addressing increasing electric 

demand are noted in this EIS. Ongoing scientific research has identified the 

potential impacts of GHG emissions on the global climate. The addition of noncarbon fueled electric generation sources could reduce GHG emissions. 

Further, the addition of alternate sources of electric generation would conserve 

carbon fuels, which are not renewable in the short term and would provide a 

broader portfolio of electric sources. The EIS estimates likely long term electric 

generation portfolios. However, the specific environmental effects of the variety 

of alternative electric generation technologies are not in the scope of this EIS. 

These technologies would be evaluated under NEPA as they are proposed to be 

permitted and built. 

The BLM is a multiple use land management agency that manages the federal 

coal reserves under the predominantly private land surface in the Gillette area 

of the Powder River Basin. In the land area covered by these LBAs, only 3% of 

the surface ownership is federal land. Although there are many wind and solar 

resources that can be used for energy development, the BLM does not have 
authority over private land surface use and surface development. The BLM 

neither permits for the surface disturbance nor for the mining operations in 

coal mining operations. Therefore, the reasonable alternative options available 

for BLM to review in this EIS are leasing alternatives exploring the lease size, 

and shape, and the No Action Alternative where leasing one or more of these 

LBAs does not occur. 

Comment Response 16C: Coal is sold in an open market which can include 

non-domestic buyers. There are a limited percentage of PRB coal exports. The 

heat value disadvantage of PRB coal for export would indicate that the 

likelihood of extensive export is minimal. Information from the Energy 

Information Administration for 2001 to 2007 shows that both imports and 

exports have increased with a net export of coal in 2007 of 23 million tons (2% 

of the total domestic production). Ninety percent is exported to Canada and 

Europe. Most exports are of eastern coal which is higher in heat value, an 

advantage in export. The expectation (GLG News 2008) is that PRB coal may 

be used to replace the eastern coal that is exported. 

Comment Response 16D: There is considerable uncertainty now as to 

possible regulation of coal fired electric generation, the resulting costs, and the 

effect on coal demand. The EIS does look at the long term mix of electric 

generation sources, and these show a large and fairly stable requirement for 

coal fueled electric generation through the year 2030, the period of time these 

LBAs would be in production if leased and permitted. 

Coal is sold in an open market which can include non-domestic buyers. There 

are a limited percentage of PRB coal exports. The heat value disadvantage of 

PRB coal for export would indicate that the likelihood of extensive export is 

minimal. Information from the Energy Information Administration for 2001 to 

2007 shows that both imports and exports have increased with a net export of 

coal in 2007 of 23 million tons (2% of the total domestic production). Ninety 

percent is exported to Canada and Europe. Most exports are of eastern coal 

which is higher in heat value, an advantage in export. The expectation (GLG 

News 2008) is that PRB coal may be used to replace the eastern coal that is 

exported. 

Comment Response 16E: Climatic change analyses are comprised of several 

factors, including GHG emissions, land use management practices, and the 

albedo effect. We have identified the effects of recent global climate change on 

the environment in the area of the proposed action. We have 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 analysis area. We have referenced 

national and regional data that is available, most recent being the 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). 

Comment Response 16F: Air quality impacts are addressed in this EIS, both 

in the area of the proposed LBAs, as well as in the context of all development, 

past present and reasonably foreseeable, within the PRB. In the FEIS, we have 

added new air quality modeling for cumulative air quality effect predicted in 

2015. We have also added more discussion of monitored ozone levels. 

The air quality sections, located at 3.4 and 4.2.3, have been updated with new 

information. WDEQ/AQD regulates air quality in the PRB. That agency issues 

the air quality permits to each mine, monitors actual air quality in the PRB, 

and handles enforcement. The air quality information in the EIS does take into 

account expected increases in development. 

Comment Response 16G: Lands within 100 feet of the right of way for a 

public road are considered unsuitable for mining. There is a process in the 

regulations (30 CFR 522) governing mine permitting under SMCRA, which 

provides mechanisms for exceptions. However, the most typical occurrence is 

that roads are relocated if economically feasible in order maintain separation of 

public roads from mining operations. 
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 

Ecological Services 
 

5353 Yellowstone Road, Suite 308A 
 

Cheyenne, Wyoming 82009 
 

In Reply Refer To: 

ES-61411/W.021 WY09FAOOll 

Memorandum 

To: 	 Field Manager, Bureau of Land Management, Casper Field Office, Casper, 

Wyoming 

From: /.2-(>'-Field Supervisor, u.S. Fish and W~ldlife Service, Wyoming Field Office, Cheyenne, u· wyomjn~ ./JrkJ)/J 

Subject: 	 Comments for the South Gillette Area Coal Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) received the Bureau ofLand Management's 

(Bureau) Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the South Gillette Area Coal Lease 

Application on October 20,2008. This OEIS assesses the environmental consequences ofthe 

competitive lease of an approximately 8, 161-acre tract of Federal coal located in Campbe)) 

County, Wyoming. In response to your request for our review ofthe DElS, the Service is 

providing the following comments. 

General Comments 

The Service finds that the DEIS is generally well written and by incorporating the 

recommendations below, the BLM will have effectively addressed sensitive species, threatened, 

and endangered species, and migratory bird issues. 

Specific Comments 

Section 3.9.3 Threatened. Endangered. Pmposed. and Candidate Plant Species. and BLM 

Sensitive Species (Page 3-148): Based on new information, the Service has reevaluated the 

potential for occurrence ofthe blowout penstemon (Penstemon haydenii) in this area. Blowout 

penstemon is a perennial herb with stems less than 12 inches tall. The inflorescence is 2-6 inches 

long and has 6-10 compact whorls ofmilky-blue to pale lavender flowers. Blowout penstemon 

was listed as endangered on October I, 1987. Blowout penstemon is known from multiple 

populations in western Nebraska (Fertig 2001). The plant's current known range in Wyoming 

consists ofthe Ferris dunes area in northwest Carbon County where the plant is restricted to two A 

habitat types: steep, northwest facing slopes ofactive sand dunes with less than 5 percent 

vegetative cover; and on north facing sandy slopes, on the lee side of active blowouts with 25-40 

percent vegetative cover. Known populations in Wyoming are found between 6,680-7,440 feet 

(Fertig 2001). However, recent surveys have indicated that systematic surveys may be warranted 

in some lower elevations (below 6,700 feet) in Wyoming where active sand blowout features 

occur (BLM 2005, Fertig 200 1). 
Blowouts are formed as strong winds deposit sands from the windward side of a dune to the 

leeward side and result in a sparsely vegetated crater-like depression. Associated vegetation 

includes blowout grass, thickspike wheatgrass, lemon scurfpea, Indian ricegrass and western 

wheatgrass. Threats to the plant occur when sand dunes are removed or overly disturbed by 

vehicular traffic. Surveys should be conducted from mid-June to early-July when flowering 

occurs by knowledgeable botanists trained in conducting rare plant surveys. 

Since blowout penstemon could occur in this area, we recommend the DEIS address this recent 

species update by including language such as: 

"Habitatfor the blowout penstemon (Penstemon haydenii) will be identified prior to any 

surface disturbing activities. Ifhabitat is determined to be present on the site. surveys 

will be conductedfor the presence ofthis species. Ifthe species isfound. a O.25-mi/e no 

surface disturbance b~ffer will be placed around the population consistent with the 


Bureau's Biological Assessment (BLM 2005) . .. 


Appendix E. Page E-16. Paragraph I (same text also appears on pages F-lS. G-14. and H-19l: 

We previously expressed our concerns regarding the statement that the proposed action may 

affect, but is not likely to adversely affect Ute ladies' tresses (Spiranthes diluvialis) as included B 

in the first sentence ofthe paragraph 1. In our July 16, 2008 letter, we stated: 

"In accordance with the Service's J996formal consultation and resultant biological 

opinion to the Office ofService Mining. coal mines in Wyoming are required to develop 

species-specffic protection measures ffadverse impacts to threatened and endangered 

species may be anticipated. Therefore. we recommend that any potential habitat that has 

not already been surveyedfor Ute ladies' tresses within the project area should be 

identified and surveyed prior to surface mining activities . .. 

We request that you specify in the biological assessments that any potential habitat that has not 

already been surveyed for Ute ladies' tresses within the project area will be identified and 

surveyed prior to surface mining activities. 

Appendix I. Page 1-6. Black-tailed Prairie Dog: In the column "Observed on Maysdorff II LBA 

Tract", the black-tailed prairie dog is marked as a "recent breeder". We assume this is a 

typographical error referring instead as a response under the "birds" column. If not, we 

recommend clarifying what this means. 

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the South Gillette Area Coal DElS. Please feel 

free to contact our office at any time to discuss issues or concerns regarding this proposed coal 

lease. If you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact Scott Covington at (307) 

772-2374 extension 246. C") 

~ :>U> 	 rn 

cc: 	 FWS, National Environmental Policy Coordinator, Denver, CO (Tim Modde)g ~3:§5 

BLM, Statewide Listed Species Coordinator, Cheyenne, WY (C. Keefe) C"') ::u~rq 

WGFD, Lander, Non-Game Coordinator (B.Oakleaf) ~ :':!>E; f'T1Cj 

WGFD, Cheyenne, Statewide Habitat Protection Coordinator (V.Stelter) » CSl~ 

"-),,:1­

.,..J 	 -'::,::.;::>­

'l-f~ 

N n CJ 

0- f'll 

2 


c 
n MWJQI:i) 

References 

Fertig, Walt. 2001. 2000 Survey ofBlowout Penstemon (Penstemon haydenii) in Wyoming. 

Report prepared for the Wyoming Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, US Fish 

and Wildlife Service, a Wyoming Game and Fish Department by the Wyoming Natural 

Diversity Database, Laramie, Wyoming. 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management. 2005. Statewide Programmatic Biological Assessment: 

Blowout Penstemon (Penstemon haydenii). U.S. Bureau of Land Management, 

Cheyenne, Wyoming. 115 pp. + Appendices. Available on-line at: 

http://www.hlm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialih/hlm/wy/wildlitc/pcnstemon.Par.88533.Filc.datlb 

!!:llili' 

3 

 

Response to Comment Letter 17: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Comment Response 17A: Revisions have been made in the FEIS to Appendix 

E adding a discussion about blowout penstemon in the endangered species 

discussion. 

Comment Response 17B: Appendix E has been revised in the FEIS to include 

the following text: “Any potential habitat that has not already been surveyed for 

Ute ladies’-tresses within the project area should be identified and surveyed 

prior to surface mining activities.” 

Comment Response 17C: The sensitive species appendix has been revised in 

the FEIS to change the classification of the prairie dog from a “recent breeder” 

to “No” to indicate that habitat is generally lacking or very limited. 
18 

Teresa To Gin VICkeIsICFOIWYI8LMlOOt@8LM 

JohneonlCFOlWYl8LM/DOI cc 
 0210412009 01:36 PM 
 bee 

Subject A comment thats not on the Jist i think 

here is a comment that I dont think got onto the list. maybe its one of the corupted ones? 

Teresa Johnson 

Environmental Protection Specialist 

BLM Wyoming High Plains DIstrict OffICe 

National System of Public Lands 

ph: 307-261-7510 

Teresa_Johnson@blm.gov 

---- FOlWarded by Teresa Johnson/CFOlWY/BLM/DOI on 02/04/2009 01 :35 PM ----­

-Stowe. Robert­

<RStoweOan:hcoal·com> To <Teresa_Johnson@blm.gov> 


0112112009 12:10 PM CC "Hutchinson. Wendy" <WHutchinson@archcoal.com> 

Subject 

Teresa. 

Attached are general comments that Coal Creek and Black Thunder staff made to the South Gillette Coal 

Draft EIS document. which had been passed along to our corporate office. They chose to focus their 

comments on GHG and Climatic Change. but In the desire to put together as clean and accurate an FEIS 

as possible, we feft that we would pass these comments on to you. 

Robert R. Stowe 

EnvIronmental Engineer 

Black Thooder Mine 

PO Box 406 

Wright. WY 82732 

rstowe@archcoal.com 

~:307~-2238 

fax: 307-464-2313 

********** Email Disclaimer ********** 

The information contained in this e-mail, and in any 

accompanying documents, may constitute confidential and/or 

legally privileged information. The information is intended only 

for use by the designated recipient. If you are not the intended 

recipient (or responsible for delivery of the message to the 

intended recipient), you are hereby notified that any 

dissemination, 

distribution, copying, or other use of, or taking of any action 
in 

reliance on this e-mail is strictly prohibited. If you have 

received 

this e-mail communication in error, please notify the sender 

immediately and delete the message from your system. 

Conwnern on the South 

~ Gilette Draft EIS.doc 
Comments on the South Gillette Draft EIS - Consolidated from TBCC 

1. 	 Page 3-54 BACT measures #1 should read "out-of-pit open coal stoCkpiles') A 

It currently reads "out-or-pit". 

2. 	 The word "exceedances" is misspelled. {page 3-56 - 4th paragraph/lst .3 B 

sentence} 

3. 	 Reference is made to "If a Natural Events Action Plan (NEAP) is designed3 C 

and implemented". A NEAP was a~roved by EPA in 2007 for the PRB 

mines. {page 3-56 - 4th paragraph/4 sentence} 

4. 	 There is distinct mention of''mitigation plans" designed for "Black Thunde~ 

Mine, North Rochelle, and Jacobs Ranch Mine". Those mines do not fall D 

within the project area ofthe SGAC. What relevant does the plans concerning 

those mines have with this project EIS? {page 3-56 - 5th paragraph} The 

reference to these mines should be removed. 

5. 	 Coal Creek Mine's new Air Quality Pennit (MD-5393), was issued on ~ September 2, 2008 for a maximum production rate of 50 MM tpy. The new E 

parameters associated with that pennit will change the paragraph {page 3-59}, 

{page 4-13, etal}, and all references to it throughout the document. 

6. 	 In calculating the percentages of private water wells potentially impacted, the3 F 

percentages add up to more than 100 per cent at each ofthe mines pages {3­

119.& 3-120}. BLM should probably check the calculations provided in that 

sectIon. . 

7. 	 The words "were recorded" should be removed from the 1st sentence in the 33 G 

paragraph on page 3-209. 

8. 	 The word ''relocated'' in the 2nd sentence ofthe 4th paragraph is misleading H 

and should be changed to "found" or "found in the field". 

9. 	 The archaeological section {page 3-209} should be written consistently. The 

last sentence ofthe 4th paragraph should be reworded similar to the last 

sentence ofthe Belle Ayr Section 3.12.1.1. The last sentence of the Coal I 

Creek Section is misleading and it should read: ''The West Coal Creek BLM 

study area has been surveyed at the current Class III level. Some ofthe area, 

located within the Coal Creek Mine permit, was surveyed prior to 1980 and 

may be considered substandard in terms of current methodology." 

10. 	 The last sentence in the 3mparagraph ofpage 3-246 supplies incomplete data ) J 

to detennine increased needs. ...s 

11. 	 Page 4-4-last paragraph. The document states that the North Rochelle miJ 

has 'ceased operations'. That's not really true. The should rewrite the K 

sentence to say N •••the North Rochelle Mine has been incorporated into the 

Black Thunder Mine.... N 

12. 	 Page 4-37. The January 1994 MOU between EPA and AQD does not require3 

Wy to implement best available work practices where an exceedance has L 

occurred. The W AQD requires Best Available Work Practices in all permits, regardless ofwhether or not an exceedance has occurred. . 

13. 	 Page 4-45. paragraph 2; 4th sentence: should say "Ifmajor J 

amendments ... " instead of "Ifrevisions ... " CHIA's are only done on 	 M 

amendments and not on every little change to the permit. 
14. 	 Page 4-51. paragraph 2. sentence 2. typo. need "is" after "power plants" 1 N 

15. 	 The statement concerning total dissolved solids (TOS) {page 4-52} ''The 2005 

Annual GAGMO report indicates that TOS concentrations in 2005 ranged 

from 802 mWI at BTB-24 (Black Thunder Mine) to 12,409 mgll at SP-4-NA o 

(North Antelope Rochelle Mine)" needs to be removed from this document. 

Those two mines at south of the SGAC and the information included has no 

relevance to this document. 

16. 	 Page 4-60. 2nd paragraph under soils. they say " ...and the essentially j permanent removal ofsoil resources at industrial sites." I think it would be p

more appropriate to say"... the temporary removal and replacement of soil 

resources at mining sites. " 

17. 	 

discussion 

GHG discussion. 

on what 

There 

is presented 

appears 

as 

to 

'fact' 

be a 

vs. 

considerable 

theory. Here 

amount 

are examples: 

ofopinionated ....J 'l Q

18. 	 {Page 4-103} 'recent industrialization and burning offossil carbon sources ~ 

have caused C02 concentrations to increased dramatically" - is that true? R 

19. 	 {Page 4-104} last paragraph - ' GHG emissions ...cause a net warming effect 

ofthe atmosphere' S 

20. 	 {Page 4-107} first paragraph - "C02 ...is the most prevalent GHG" -- is it, or is) 

water vapor the most prevalent GHG? T 

21. 	 {Page 4-108} paragraph on supreme ct. - They need to be clearer on the firstJ 

EPA 

sentence. 

could 

the 

determine 

court said 

it endangered 

C02 qualified 

public 

as an 

health 

air pollutant 

or welfare. 

under 

that 

CAA 

should 

only 

be 

IF 

. U

stated clearly in the first sentence. 
 

 

Response to Comment Letter 18: Thunder Basin Coal Company 

Comment Response 18A: The spelling error in Section 3.4.2.3, item #1, has 

been corrected in the FEIS. 

Comment Response 18B: The word “exceedances” on page 3-56, 4th 

paragraph, 3rd line of the draft EIS is correct. 

Comment Response 18C: Revisions were made to the text in Section 3.4.2.3 

to clarify the statement. The text now states: “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.” 

Comment Response 18D: The mines you refer to on page 3-56, 4th paragraph 

(Black Thunder, North Rochelle, and Jacobs Ranch) of the DEIS were 

referenced as examples of mines where NEAP control measures have been 

formally implemented. The reference will be left in place in the FEIS. 

Comment Response 18E: Text in Sections 3.4.2.2.1.2 and 3.4.3.1.1.2 have 

been revised to update the most recent Coal Creek air quality permit references 

(including modeling for PM10 and NOx). 

Comment Response 18F: In Sections 3.5.3.2.1.2, 3.5.3.2.1.3, and 3.5.3.2.1.4 

of the DEIS, many wells were within 3 miles of more than one mine; therefore, 

the same well could be counted more than once. Revisions were made in the 

FEIS to clarify the discussion. 

Comment Response 18G: The duplicated text you noted in the DEIS has 

been removed from Section 3.12.1.2, the third paragraph. 

Comment Response 18H: The word “relocated” in the DEIS has been 

replaced with “found in” under Section 3.12.1.2 in the FEIS. The text now 

reads, “Only 13 sites could be verified (one site could not be found in the field 

and one site was combined with another site).” 

Comment Response 18I: The West Coal Creek general analysis area includes 

the BLM study area and 1⁄4-mile buffer. Not all of the general analysis area has 

been surveyed at this time. No changes will be made to the section. The BLM 

is currently reviewing the 2007 Ark Land Company inventory report. 

Additional work relating to subsurface testing and Native American 

consultation is required before Wyoming State Historic Preservation Office 

consultation can be completed for the West Coal Creek LBA. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Comment Response 18J: Revisions have been made to Section 3.17.5.1 to 

clarify the text. The text now states: “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 2005b).” 

Comment Response 18K: A revision has been made to Section 4.1.1.1 in the 

FEIS to clarify the status of the North Rochelle Mine. It now reads, “Since 

2003, the Coal Creek Mine has resumed operations and the North Rochelle Mine 

has ceased operation (as a distinct entity) following its purchase by the operator 

of the Black Thunder Mine.” 

Comment Response 18L: In Section 4.2.3., the text discussing near-field 

receptors in Wyoming has been changed clarifying the implementation of best 

available work practices in the final EIS. The text now states: “This agreement 

also requires WDEQ to include in each PRB mining permit “Best Available Work 

Practice” mitigation measures.” 

Comment Response 18M: The “Groundwater” section (4.2.4.1) in the FEIS 

has been revised to read, “If major amendments to mining and reclamation 

permits are proposed, then the potential cumulative impacts of the revisions must 

also be evaluated.” 

Comment Response 18N: The word “is” has been inserted where you 

suggested in the final EIS. 

Comment Response 18O: Revisions have been made to Section 4.2.4.1 to 

revise the discussion on TDS. 

Comment Response 18P: In Section 4.2.7, the text discussing permanent 

removal of soils has been clarified in the FEIS. It now states, “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 temporary and, in 

some instances, the essentially permanent removal of soil resources at industrial 

sites.” 

Comment Response 18Q: Please see responses R through U below. 

Comment Response 18R: The statement is based on measured increases in 

atmospheric CO2 concentrations since 1800. The inference is that this trend 

matches corresponding increases during that same time in population and 

industrialization. 
 

Comment Response 18S: This paragraph is explaining the greenhouse 

concept as applied to atmospheric gases. A climatic change analysis would be 

comprised of several factors, including GHG emissions, land use management 

practices, and the albedo effect. Tools necessary to quantify incremental 

climatic changes associated with those factors for specific activities like the 

proposed actions in this EIS are presently unavailable. Consequently, impact 

assessment of effects of specific anthropogenic activities cannot be performed. 

Additionally, specific levels of significance have not yet been established. 

Comment Response 18T: Water vapor is the most prevalent factor in the 

greenhouse effect. Water vapor concentrations have changed relatively little 

over the same period (1800 to 2000) that is referenced when talking about CO2 

concentration increase. CO2 has been identified as a principal anthropogenic 

GHG. 

Comment Response 18U: In Section 4.2.14.1, the paragraph that talks about 

the 2007 Supreme Court decision has been clarified in the FEIS. The text now 

states, “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), if EPA determined it to endanger public health or welfare.”