Draft EIS Appendix 2 

APPENDIX 2—2003 COAL SCREENING PROCESS

SUMMARY

INTRODUCTION 

The Federal Coal Leasing Amendments Act of 1976 requires federal coal lands considered for leasing to 

be identified in a comprehensive land use plan. Most, but not all, of the federal coal lands within the 

current Rawlins Resource Management Plan Planning Area (RMPPA) were last evaluated in 1990 (BLM, 

1990). However, only unleased lands were evaluated; in accordance with regulations found under 43 

CFR 3461, unsuitability criteria cannot be applied to leased lands. Consequently, lands held by the coal 

leases in 1990 were exempt from evaluation under the coal screening process. Further, some of those 

previously leased federal coal lands are no longer under lease, and therefore, are eligible for evaluation at 

this time. 

To implement competitive coal leasing under regulations contained in 43 CFR 3420, the Bureau of Land 

Management (BLM) established (on November 9, 1979) a number of federal coal production “Regions,” 

including the Green River–Hams Fork Region, the federal coal region in which the RMPPA is located. 

The region was then decertified by the Green River-Hams Fork Regional Coal Team to allow the “leaseby-application” (LBA) process for coal leasing within the region. A decision document and request for 

public comment were published in the Federal Register (December 28, 1987). Only two comments were 

received, both supportive of an LBA process within the region. Because of the limited industry interest in 

additional tracts of federal coal in the region, it was determined that leasing in the region would 

henceforth be administered under the LBA process in accordance with 43 CFR 3425. 

Since the federal coal lands within the RMPPA were last reviewed and evaluated in 1990, there have been 

changes in the lease status within the Carbon Basin coal area. At that time, the 1990 Great Divide 

Resource Area RMP was prepared, approximately 60 percent of the federal coal lands within the Carbon 

Basin coal area were not included in the 1990 coal screening and planning process. The remaining 

portions of federal coal lands were not included in the coal screening process because of the lack of 

interest expressed in leasing the federal coal lands in this area. Development of the leased coal was never 

pursued, and the subject lease (Original Carbon Basin lease) expired in 1992. 

Subsequent to the 1992 lease expiration, Ark Land Company of St. Louis, Missouri (an affiliate of Arch 

of Wyoming, Inc., operator of the Medicine Bow and Seminoe II mines) filed an LBA with the BLM 

(pursuant to 43 CFR 3425.1) on federal coal lands within the Carbon Basin coal area. Upon filing of the 

LBA, BLM conducted an Environmental Assessment (EA) for the coal planning decisions in the Carbon 

Basin Coal Area; the subsequent Decision Record found that 12,118 unleased acres in Carbon Basin were 

acceptable for further consideration for coal leasing. Following completion of the EA, BLM prepared the 

Carbon Basin Coal Project Environmental Impact Statement (CBCPEIS) and the subsequent Record of 

Decision that was completed in March 1998. As a result of these investigations and findings, the Ark 

Land Company obtained federal coal lease WYW 139975 (December 1, 1999), comprising 5,235.15 acres 

of federal coal within the Carbon Basin coal area (covering both surface and underground mining). This 

lease is effective for 20 years, and thereafter as long as the condition of continued operation is met. The 

continued operation stipulation requires the operator to produce 1 percent of the recoverable coal reserves 

existing on the lease by December 1, 2009, or the lease will be terminated at that time by operation of 

law. This approval corresponds with the requirements for leasing of land as stated in the Final EIS 

(Chapter 2). 

Rawlins RMP A2-1 
Appendix 2 Draft EIS 

In addition to federal coal lease WYW 139975, the Ark Land Company holds other federal coal leases 

associated with Arch of Wyoming, Inc.’s Medicine Bow and Seminoe II mines, both of which are located 

near Hanna. These two mines are currently in the final stages of production, with termination of mining 

operations anticipated to occur within 5 years. Reclamation of both mines is anticipated to continue until 

2008. 

With the termination of mining operations at the Medicine Bow and Seminoe II mines, and in the absence 

of development of the Carbon Basin coal area, there will soon be no active mining or ongoing 

development of federal coal within the RMPPA. Current indications are that there will be no additional 

coal leasing activity or development for the duration of the 20-year planning period. However, as part of 

the existing EIS cumulative impact analysis, development of coal mines would be analyzed at levels 

identified in the CBCPEIS. 

The objectives in managing the federal coal resource in the planning area are: (i) to provide for both 

short- and long-range development of federal coal in an orderly and timely manner, consistent with the 

federal coal management program, policies, environmental integrity, national energy needs, and related 

demands; (ii) to identify federal coal that is acceptable for further consideration for leasing; and (iii) to 

identify appropriate mitigation for sensitive areas. 

However, at present, BLM will only complete the coal screening process through Step 2 (Application of 

Coal Unsuitability Criteria). This means that BLM will identify lands with coal development potential as 

“acceptable” or “unsuitable,” but will not proceed to complete the multiple use conflicts analysis or 

surface owner consultation steps of the screening process until receiving an LBA (43 CFR 3420.1-4 (e) 

(3) and (4)). If an LBA is filed with BLM, then BLM will perform the remaining two steps of the coal 

screening process and amend the land use plan to incorporate the decisions for the portions of land that 

are considered acceptable for leasing. 

CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION 

On February 25, 2003, BLM published a Notice of Intent to revise the Great Divide Resource 

Management Plan and called for coal and other resource information. The data call requested coal 

resource data and/or other information relative to determining interest in potential coal development 

within the RMPPA. No comments were received as a result of this data call. In particular, no comments 

or statements of interest were received from the coal industry (potential lessees). 

During March 2003, BLM conducted a series of scoping meetings to encourage participation in the RMP 

planning process and, again, to seek resource data and other information useful to the planning process 

within the RMPPA. 

Comments were received from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and Wyoming Game and 

Fish Department (WGFD) as required under the consultation requirement of the coal unsuitability criteria 

found at 43 CFR 3461. 

AREA DESCRIPTION 

All areas underlain by coal resources in the RMPPA were reviewed for coal leasing and development 

potential. The areas with greatest potential were in the Hanna coal field, which lies in the eastern portion 

of the Green River-Hams Fork coal region, and the Green River Basin, lying in the central portion of this 

region as shown on Map A2-1 (BLM 1990 and 2003, Glass and Roberts, 1979). The indicated area(s) 

comprise a total of 7 individual federal coal development potential areas (CDPAs) underlain by an 

A2-2 Rawlins RMP 
Draft EIS Appendix 2 

estimated 2,630,800,000 tons of federal coal. This coal contains an average of 10,420 British Thermal 

Units of energy per pound (BTU/lb.) and has an average sulfur content of 0.63 percent. 

Only the areas containing federally owned coal within the identified coal development potential areas 

were reviewed and evaluated. Any consideration for possible development of federally owned coal 

outside of these categories will be reviewed as future demand and need is indicated. Existing federal coal 

leases, as previously discussed, are not appropriate for review; however, existing federal coal leases were 

taken into account in the reasonably foreseeable coal development scenarios and in the impact analyses 

conducted for the Rawlins RMP EIS. 

Current active coal leases in the RMPPA are owned by Arch of Wyoming, Inc. These leases are 

comprised of the Medicine Bow mine (leases WYW-82736, WYW-72989, and WYW-58095) and the 

Seminoe II mine (leases WYC-033800, WYW-045728, and WYW-049338). No coal is being mined 

from these leases. Sales are from stockpiled coal resources, and the only current activity on the leases 

consists of reclamation. No new coal mining activity is projected from these leases. 

Presumably, Arch of Wyoming, Inc., would develop the Carbon Basin Coal Project in conjunction with 

the conclusion of operations at its Medicine Bow and Seminoe II mines. While Ark Land Company holds 

a valid, existing lease within the Carbon Basin area of the RMPPA, the possibility remains that under 

current and anticipated market conditions, the lessee may not actively pursue development of the lease 

within the projected 20-year planning period. This, in combination with the apparently limited mine life 

remaining at the Medicine Bow and Seminoe II mines and the indicated general lack of other industry 

interest in further coal leasing within the RMPPA, suggests that the coal development potential within the 

RMPPA is marginal, at best, over the applicable 20-year planning period. 

COAL SCREENING/PLANNING PROCEDURES 

The Federal Coal Management Program established four major steps to identify areas of federal coal that 

are acceptable for further leasing consideration under the process listed in 43 CFR 3420.1-4(e)(1-4). The 

four steps are (1) identification of areas with coal development potential; (2) application of the 

unsuitability criteria; (3) evaluation of other multiple use conflicts; and (4) surface owner consultation. 

Application of the latter three coal screening steps (as further described below) results in (a) identifying 

areas that are acceptable for further leasing consideration in each of these three steps; and (b) identifying 

areas that are unsuitable (Step 2), unacceptable (Step 3), or unavailable (Step 4) for further leasing 

consideration. Those federal coal areas that pass through the screening process are determined to be 

acceptable for further consideration for leasing. Collectively, these steps are called the “Coal Screening 

Process” (43 CFR 3420.1-4 (e) (1-4)) and are applied to the federal coal review area(s). 

The following is a description of the steps of the coal screening process and how they were applied to the 

federal CDPAs. Please note, however, that for the Carbon Basin Coal Project, the screening process was 

completed only through the second step for this RMP. Multiple-use conflicts analysis and surface owner 

consultation steps were deferred until an LBA is filed or industry begins expressing an interest in 

developing coal resources in the planning area. 

Step 1—Identification of Coal Development Potential 

All areas of known and assumed federal coal with development potential for both surface and subsurface 

mining are identified using geological and economic data. 

Rawlins RMP A2-3 
Appendix 2 Draft EIS 

Step 2—Application of Coal Unsuitability Criteria 

As required by 43 CFR 3461, the 20 coal unsuitability criteria are applied to all known and assumed 

federal CDPAs. The 1976 Federal Coal Leasing Amendments Act and the 1977 Surface Mining Control 

and Reclamation Act (SMCRA) are the legal authorities for applying the unsuitability criteria. 

These criteria involve consideration of existing resource values such as scenic areas, natural and historic 

values, wildlife, floodplains, alluvial valley floors, etc. The purpose of this step is to identify areas with 

key features of environmental sensitivity that would make them unsuitable for surface coal mining, or for 

underground coal mining where the surface is impacted. 

Step 3—Multiple-Use Conflict Evaluation 

This step is a review of those federal coal lands that remain acceptable after applying the coal 

unsuitability criteria. It involves consideration of other multiple-use values (i.e., not directly concerned 

with the unsuitability criteria) and identifying any areas that would be unacceptable (in addition to those 

identified as unsuitable) for surface or subsurface coal mining or for surface operations and impacts 

associated with coal mining. The multiple land use decisions (43 CFR 3420.1-4(e)(3)) place particular 

emphasis on protecting air and water quality; wetlands, riparian areas, and sole-source aquifers; and the 

federal lands, which, if leased, would adversely impact units of the National Park System, the National 

Wildlife Refuge System, the National System of Trails, and the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. 

Step 4—Surface Owner Consultation 

Section 714 (d) of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (SMCRA) and 43 CFR 3420.1­

4(e)(4) require BLM to consult with qualified owners of split estate lands (i.e., private surface ownership 

over federally owned coal) when surface mining of the federal coal is being considered. This step does 

not apply to areas where only subsurface mining methods are concerned. 

In this consultation process, qualified surface owners are asked to express their preference for or against 

surface mining of the federal coal under their private lands. An individual surface owner or significant 

numbers of these surface owners expressing a preference against surface mining could result in 

identifying some of these split estate lands as unacceptable for leasing and development of the federal 

coal. In such cases, these areas can still be considered for possible leasing beyond this land use planning 

stage. This is possible because the actual commitment of surface owner consent or refusal to consent 

does not occur until later in the coal inventory planning process, or in final processing of an individual 

coal lease application, prior to offering a lease for the federal coal involved. 

HOW THE PROCEDURES ARE APPLIED 

To help clarify the coal screening process conducted in the planning area, three categories of coal and 

land/mineral ownership relationships are identified: (1) federal coal lease areas; (2) areas where federally 

owned land surface overlies federally owned coal; and (3) areas where private and state owned land 

surface overlies federally owned coal. The federal coal areas are those areas containing coal with 

development potential to be considered for new federal coal leasing for either surface or subsurface 

mining methods, modifications to existing leases, emergency leasing, and exchanges. 

The following procedures are in accordance with the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, the Federal Coal 

Leasing Amendments Act of 1976, the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1977, the Federal 

A2-4 Rawlins RMP 
Draft EIS Appendix 2 

Coal Management Program adopted by the Secretary of the Interior in June 1979 (and modified by a 

secretarial decision issued in January 1986), and all related federal regulations. 

Findings 

The following is a summary of the findings and related recommendations resulting from conducting the 

coal screening process. All indicated acreages and tonnages are approximate. Additional documentation 

and background information (including step one of the process documentations, maps of coal areas, and 

areas of coal with development potential) explaining in detail how the procedures were used and the 

findings derived are available for public review at the BLM Rawlins District office. 

Step 1—Identification of Coal Development Potential 

Areas of federal coal (see Map A2-1) with development potential for both surface and subsurface mining 

were identified using geological and economic data submitted by coal companies, published sources, and 

interpretations of available geological data from other sources. 

Table A2-1: RMPPA Development Potential Coal, lists the approximate federal acreage and coal tonnage, 

number of mineable seams, and average coal quality characteristics (on a Proximate Analysis basis) for 

each of the CDPAs. 

Table A2-1. RMPPA Development Potential Coal 

Average Proximate Analysis 

Name of CDPA Fed. 

Acres 

Fed. Coal 

(thousand of

tons) 

Mineable 

Seams BTU/lb. % 

Moisture % Ash % Sulfur 

Atlantic Rim 3,840 91,000 4 10,471 13.56 5.15 0.92 

Carbon Basin 12,120 210,000 2 11,302 10.85 10.94 0.59 

China Butte 6,240 125,000 4 8,438 25.01 7.18 0.39 

Hanna Basin 30,040 2,081,000 9 10,487 11.47 9.44 0.65 

Indian Springs 2,560 35,800 3 9,626 14.75 8.24 0.33 

North Indian 

Springs 3,840 25,000 3 9,015 17.14 7.69 0.46 

Red Rim 9,720 31,000 5 8,931 20.97 7.58 0.33 

Total: 68,360 2,598,800 – 10,420 12.34 9.27 0.63 

Note: Coal quality and quantity data (mineable seams) for the Carbon Basin, Hanna Basin, Indian 

Springs, and North Indian Springs CDPAs are representative of depths ranging from the surface to 3,000 

feet below ground surface. Data for the Atlantic Rim, China Butte, and Red Rim CDPAs are for surfacemineable depth coal only. 

Step 2—Application of Coal Unsuitability Criteria 

Introduction 

As required by 43 CFR 3461, the 20 coal unsuitability criteria were applied to all areas identified as 

having coal development potential in Step 1 of the coal screening process. These criteria involve 

consideration of existing resource values such as scenic areas, natural and historic values, wildlife, 

floodplains, alluvial valley floors, etc. The purpose of this step is to identify areas with key features of 

environmental sensitivity that would make them unsuitable or require exceptions or exemptions to a 

criterion for surface coal mining or for surface impacts associated with coal mining. In addition, 

consultation with federal and state agencies such as the USFWS and/or the state wildlife agency is 

Rawlins RMP A2-5 
Appendix 2 Draft EIS 

required in the determination of coal unsuitability. For this project, the USFWS and the WGFD were 

contacted at the appropriate points in the evaluation process. 

Findings 

Application of the coal unsuitability criteria resulted in a determination that approximately 5,020 acres 

(containing an estimated 70.1 million tons of surface mineable federal coal) were unsuitable for surface 

coal mining. This reflects the six of the seven identified CDPAs; the North Indian Springs CDPA had no 

unsuitable areas. Table A2-2, RMPPA Unsuitable Coal Areas and Affected Tonnage, provides a 

summary (by category) of the approximate acreages and estimated affected coal tonnage as determined by 

the coal unsuitability analysis. In addition, unsuitable coal areas are depicted on Maps A2-2, A2-3, and 

A2-4. 

A2-6 Rawlins RMP 
Draft EIS Appendix 2 

Table A2-2. RMPPA Unsuitable Coal Areas and Affected Tonnage 

Unsuitable Criterion: Acres Tons 

#2—Rights of Way (ROWs) and Easements 470 299,000 

#15—Habitat for State High-Interest Wildlife and Plants 4,520 69,770,000 

#16—Riverine, Coastal, and Special Floodplains 30 0 

Total: 5,020 70,069,000 

It should be noted that the Carbon Basin floodplain development potential and unsuitability determination 

are going through a reevaluation process. The detailed screening process performed in 1998 for the 

Carbon Basin will be carried forward in support of the coal actions identified for the Carbon Basin in the 

alternatives evaluation section of Chapter 2 of the EIS. 

Some specific requirements are not known before the application is filed, and therefore BLM may deem 

additional assessment necessary. These requirements include some associated with criterion 9 (mitigation 

requirements as part of exception to the criterion), which discusses critical habitat for listed threatened or 

endangered plant and animal species, and with criteria 11–15 (bald or golden eagles [nest or buffer zone 

around the nesting areas, roost and concentration areas], falcon cliff nesting sites and buffer zone areas of 

the nest, migratory bird species, habitat for resident species of fish, and wildlife and plants of high interest 

to the state and that are essential to preserve the habitat). In addition, specific requirements for criterion 

16 (unsuitability of floodplain areas and alluvial valley floors for mining because of the potential loss of 

life or property) and criterion 19 (interruption to farming activities) may require additional assessments. 

These requirements are part of mitigation measures, which are exceptions to the criterion. 

Findings are presented in the individual CDPA Status Summaries Section. In addition, detailed 

discussion of the individual unsuitability criteria analyses is provided below. Note: The application of 

the Coal Unsuitability criterion will be reevaluated and updated once a lease application is received. 

Individual CDPA Status Summaries 

• Atlantic Rim: No unsuitable lands were identified within the Atlantic Rim CDPA for criteria 1– 

14 and 16–20. Approximately 1,390 acres (19,578,000 tons) were determined to be unsuitable 

for coal mining and surface disturbance associated with coal mining under criterion 15, Habitat 

for State High-Interest Wildlife and Plants, as associated with the Muddy Creek watershed and 

the presence of BLM sensitive fishes. In addition, further evaluation and/or mitigation 

requirements are or may be associated with criteria 9, 11–16, and 19, as discussed above. 

• Carbon Basin: No “unsuitable” lands were identified within the Carbon Basin CDPA for criteria 

numbers 1–15 and 17–20. Approximately 30 acres (no affected mineable coal tonnage) were 

determined to be “unsuitable” for coal mining and surface disturbance associated with coal 

mining under criterion 16, Riverine, Coastal, and Special Floodplains, as associated with 

floodplain areas of the Medicine Bow River. In addition, further evaluation and/or mitigation 

requirements are or may be associated with criteria 9, 11–16, and 19. 

• China Butte: No unsuitable lands were identified within the China Butte CDPA for criteria 1–14 

and 16–20. Approximately 3,130 acres (50,192,000 tons) were determined to be unsuitable for 

coal mining and surface disturbance associated with coal mining under criterion 15, Habitat for 

State High-Interest Wildlife and Plants, as associated with the Muddy Creek watershed and the 

presence of BLM sensitive fishes. In addition, further evaluation and/or mitigation requirements 

are or may be associated with criteria 9, 11–16, and 19 as discussed above. 

Rawlins RMP A2-7 
Appendix 2 Draft EIS 

• Hanna Basin: No unsuitable lands were identified within the Hanna Basin CDPA for criteria 1 

and 3–20. Approximately 440 acres (107,000 tons) were determined to be unsuitable for coal 

mining and surface disturbance associated with coal mining under criterion 2, Rights-of-Way 

(ROWs) and Easements, as associated with Highway 30/287 and Union Pacific Railroad 

(U.P.R.R.) ROWs. In addition, further evaluation and/or mitigation requirements are or may be 

associated with criteria 9, 11–16, and 19, as discussed above. 

• Indian Springs: No unsuitable lands were identified within the Indian Springs CDPA for criteria 

1 and 3–20. Approximately 20 acres (no affected mineable coal tonnage) were determined to be 

unsuitable for coal mining and surface disturbance associated with coal mining under criterion 2, 

ROWs and Easements, as associated with Interstate 80 ROWs. In addition, further evaluation 

and/or mitigation requirements are or may be associated with criteria 9, 11–16, and 19, as 

discussed above. 

• North Indian Springs: No unsuitable lands were identified within the North Indian Springs 

CDPA. However, further evaluation and/or mitigation requirements are or may be associated 

with criteria 9, 11–16, and 19, as discussed above. 

• Red Rim: No unsuitable lands were identified within the Red Rim CDPA for criteria 1 and 3– 

20. Approximately 10 acres (192,000 tons) were determined to be unsuitable for coal mining and 

surface disturbance associated with coal mining under criterion 2, ROWs and Easements, as 

associated with U.P.R.R. ROWs. In addition, further evaluation and/or mitigation requirements 

are or may be associated with criteria 9, 11–16, and 19, as discussed above. 

Individual Criteria Analyses 

Criterion 1—Federal Land Systems and Federal Lands in Communities 

No areas within the identified CDPAs were determined to be unsuitable under this criterion. 

Rationale: The identified CDPAs do not include any federal lands in the following land 

systems or categories: National Park System, National Wildlife Refuge System, National 

System of Trails, National Wilderness Preservation Systems, National Wild and Scenic 

Rivers System, National Recreation Areas, lands acquired with money derived from the 

Land and Water Conservation Fund, National Forests, and/or federal lands in 

incorporated cities, towns, and villages. 

Criterion 2—ROWs and Easement 

Certain locations within the Hanna Basin, Indian Springs, and Red Rim CDPAs (see Table A2-3) were 

determined to be unsuitable for coal mining and related surface operations and impacts because of the 

existence of ROWs and/or easements. 

Table A2-3. Unsuitable Locations for Coal Mining Because of the

Existence of ROWs

Coal Development

Potential Area 

Hanna Basin 

Hanna Basin 

Indian Springs 

Red Rim 

Unsuitable Location(s) 

Hwy 30/287 ROW 

U.P.R.R. ROW 

Interstate 80 ROW 

U.P.R.R. ROW 

Acres 

230 

210 

20 

10 

Coal (tons) 

88,000 

19,000 

0 

192,000 

A2-8 Rawlins RMP 
Draft EIS Appendix 2 

Coal Development

Potential Area 

Unsuitable Location(s) Acres Coal (tons) 

Totals 470 299,000 

No areas within the Atlantic Rim, Carbon Basin, China Butte, or North Indian Springs CDPAs were 

determined to be unsuitable under this criterion. 

Rationale: After applying the exceptions to this criterion, the federal coal lands along 

Highway 30/287 as well as those along the U.P.R.R. ROWs (within the Hanna Basin and 

Red Rim CDPAs) and the coal lands along the Interstate 80 ROWs (within the Indian 

Springs CDPA) remain unsuitable. Any unforeseen conflicts in these areas should be 

identified and resolved during the coal activity planning process, during processing of 

individual coal lease applications, or in mining and reclamation plan developments. 

There are no identified ROWs or easement conflicts within the Atlantic Rim, Carbon 

Basin, China Butte, or North Indian Springs CDPAs. 

Criterion 3—Buffer Zones for ROWs, Communities, and Buildings 

No unsuitable areas were identified with respect to buffer zones for ROWs, communities, and buildings 

within the CDPAs; however, location-specific unsuitable areas that meet the following criteria may 

evolve under any proposed coal development scenario(s). 

It was determined that a 100-foot buffer zone around cemeteries and a 300-foot buffer zone around 

occupied dwellings, public buildings, schools, churches, community or institutional buildings, or public 

parks would be considered unsuitable for coal mining and related surface operations and impacts. This 

would apply only to the extent such features are identified as being present in any proposed coal 

development scenario(s), and as such, no determination as to affected acreage or tonnage has been 

attempted in this coal screening process. 

Rationale: Buffer areas for ROWs are unnecessary because ROWs generally have 

sufficient area to contain their functions. Additionally, if a ROW can be relocated, a 

buffer would not be necessary. 

There are no known occupied dwellings, cemeteries, schools, churches, community or 

institutional buildings, or public parks on BLM-administered public land surface in the 

CDPAs. However, there may be some of these structures and facilities on split estate 

lands (i.e., private/state surface over federal coal), and on nonfederal lands that may be 

located within 100 to 300 feet of adjacent federal coal lands. Thus, it was determined 

that a 100-foot buffer zone around cemeteries and a 300-foot buffer zone around 

occupied dwellings, public buildings, schools, churches, community or institutional 

buildings, or public parks would be considered “unsuitable” for coal leasing and related 

surface operations and impacts. Should any conflicts arise, it would be the responsibility 

of the lease applicant to show that conflicts between mining and the buffer zone would be 

adequately addressed and mitigated. 

Because the numbers and locations of these structures and facilities and the effect they 

may have on the development of federal coal vary and are unpredictable, it is not possible 

to make a reasonable estimate of acreage and coal tonnage that may be affected. These 

situations will be addressed on a case-by-case basis in the course of processing coal lease 

applications. 

Rawlins RMP A2-9 
Appendix 2 Draft EIS 

Criterion 4—Wilderness Study Areas 

No areas within the identified federal CDPAs were determined to be unsuitable under this criterion. 

Rationale: There are no wilderness study areas within the identified federal CDPAs. 

Criterion 5—Scenic Areas 

No areas within the identified federal CDPAs were determined to be unsuitable under this criterion. 

Rationale: There are no Class I visual resource areas designated within the identified 

federal CDPAs. 

Criterion 6—Lands Used for Scientific Study 

No areas within the identified federal CDPAs were determined to be unsuitable under this criterion. 

Rationale: There are no scientific study areas under permit within the identified federal 

CDPAs. 

Criterion 7—Places Included in the National Register of Historic Places 

No areas within the identified federal CDPAs were determined to be unsuitable under this criterion. 

Rationale: There are no places within the identified federal CDPAs that are included in 

the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). 

Criterion 8—National Natural Landmarks 

No areas within the identified federal CDPAs were determined to be unsuitable under this criterion. 

Rationale: There are no designated National Natural Landmarks within the identified 

federal CDPAs. 

Criterion 9—Federally Listed Endangered Species Habitat 

No areas within the identified federal CDPAs were determined to be unsuitable under this criterion. 

Rationale: No areas were determined to be unsuitable; however, potential habitat areas 

for threatened and endangered species have not yet been searched to determine whether 

or not threatened and endangered species are present within the identified federal 

CDPAs. The necessary searches and consultation with USFWS would be conducted 

during any coal activity planning. 

Criterion 10—State-Listed Endangered Species Habitat 

No areas within the identified federal CDPAs were determined to be unsuitable under this criterion. 

Rationale: This criterion is not applicable because the State of Wyoming recognizes the 

federal list of endangered species and has no separate list of its own. 

Criterion 11—Bald and Golden Eagle Nest Sites 

A2-10 Rawlins RMP 
Draft EIS Appendix 2 

No areas within the identified federal CDPAs were determined to be unsuitable under this criterion. 

Rationale: It was determined that the federal CDPAs would be acceptable for coal 

development with the provision that any federal coal lease issued in the area would 

include a requirement for developing appropriate mitigation measures that would protect 

the long-term interests of the species involved. 

The requirement (or lease stipulation) would be to the effect that the lessee would be 

required to develop mitigation measures or habitat improvement, development, and 

reclamation plans (in conjunction with mining and reclamation plan requirements) in 

consultation with and to the satisfaction of BLM, the USFWS, and the appropriate state 

agencies. Mitigation measures may include, but are not limited to, seasonal operations in 

buffer zones around occupied nests, protection of active (not necessarily occupied) nests 

at all times (unless otherwise provided by the USFWS), off- or on-site habitat 

improvement or development, special reclamation measures, or other appropriate 

measures for long-term nest or habitat protection. 

Criterion 12—Bald and Golden Eagle Roosts 

No areas within the identified federal CDPAs were determined to be unsuitable under this criterion. 

Rationale: It was determined that the federal CDPAs would be acceptable for coal 

development with the provision that any federal coal lease issued in the area would 

include a requirement for developing appropriate mitigation measures that would protect 

the long-term interests of the species involved. 

The requirement (or lease stipulation) would be to the effect that the lessee would be 

required to develop mitigation measures or habitat improvement, development, and 

reclamation plans (in conjunction with mining and reclamation plan requirements) in 

consultation with and to the satisfaction of BLM, the USFWS, and the appropriate state 

agencies. Mitigation measures may include, but are not limited to, seasonal operations in 

roosting areas, special reclamation measures, or other appropriate measures for long-term 

habitat protection. 

Criterion 13—Falcon Cliff Nesting Sites 

No areas within the identified federal CDPAs were determined to be unsuitable under this criterion. 

Rationale: It was determined that the federal CDPAs would be acceptable for coal 

development with the provision that any federal coal lease issued in the area would 

include a requirement for developing appropriate mitigation measures that would protect 

the long-term interests of the species involved. 

The requirement (or lease stipulation) would be to the effect that the lessee would be 

required to develop mitigation measures or habitat improvement, development, and 

reclamation plans (in conjunction with mining and reclamation plan requirements) in 

consultation with and to the satisfaction of BLM, the USFWS, and the appropriate state 

agencies. Mitigation measures may include, but are not limited to, seasonal operations in 

buffer zones around occupied nests, protection of active (not necessarily occupied) nests 

at all times (unless otherwise provided by the USFWS), off- or on-site habitat 

Rawlins RMP A2-11 
Appendix 2 Draft EIS 

improvement or development, special reclamation measures, or other appropriate 

measures for long-term nest or habitat protection. 

Criterion 14—Migratory Bird Habitat 

No areas within the identified federal CDPAs were determined to be unsuitable under this criterion. 

Rationale: It was determined that the federal CDPAs would be acceptable for coal 

development with the provision that any federal coal lease issued in the area would 

include a requirement for developing appropriate mitigation measures that would protect 

the long-term interests of the species involved. 

The requirement (or lease stipulation) would be to the effect that the lessee would be 

required to develop mitigation measures or habitat improvement, development, and 

reclamation plans (in conjunction with mining and reclamation plan requirements) in 

consultation with and to the satisfaction of BLM, the USFWS, and the appropriate state 

agencies. Mitigation measures may include, but are not limited to, seasonal operations in 

buffer zones around occupied nests and other important habitat areas, protection of active 

(not necessarily occupied) nests at all times (unless otherwise provided by the USFWS), 

off- or on-site habitat improvement or development, special reclamation measures, or 

other appropriate measures for long-term nest or habitat protection. 

Criterion 15—Habitat for State High-Interest Wildlife and Plants 

Those coal areas situated within the Muddy Creek watershed (occupying portions of the Atlantic Rim and 

China Butte CDPAs) were determined to be unsuitable for coal mining and related surface operations and 

impacts because of the presence of BLM sensitive fish species and habitat (see Table A2-4). 

Table A2-4. Unsuitable Locations for Coal Mining Because of BLM Sensitive Fish

Species and Habitat 

Name of Area Unsuitable Area(s) Acres Coal (Tons) 

Atlantic Rim Portions of T18N; R90W 1,390 19,578,000 

China Butte Portions of T17-18N; R91W 3,130 50,192,000 

Totals 4,520 69,770,000 

No areas within the Carbon Basin, Hanna Basin, Indian Springs, North Indian Springs, or Red Rim 

CDPAs were determined to be unsuitable under this criterion; however, certain habitat areas within these, 

as well as the remaining CDPAs, would be subject to mitigation requirements as discussed in the Other 

Habitat Areas section. 

Rationale: Those portions of the Atlantic Rim and China Butte CDPAs that are within 

the Muddy Creek watershed are unsuitable for coal development because of conflicts 

with BLM sensitive fishes including the Colorado River cutthroat trout, round tail chub, 

flannelmouth sucker, and bluehead sucker. The Muddy Creek watershed represents the 

only remaining watershed in Wyoming where the four species can still be found, as 

confirmed by recent surveys conducted by the WGFD, University of Wyoming, and 

BLM. Coal development would impact the conservation of these four types of fishes. 

First, the extraction of coal within the Muddy Creek watershed would degrade the water 

quality of Muddy Creek and disrupt hydrologic processes that maintain suitable fish 

habitat. Second, the habitat could be directly removed by mining coal within the 

A2-12 Rawlins RMP 
Draft EIS Appendix 2 

floodplain of Muddy Creek. For these two reasons, it has been determined that the

Muddy Creek watershed is unsuitable for coal development.

Other Habitat Areas Suitable for Leasing But Subject to Mitigation Requirements 

Other habitat areas within the CDPAs that were determined to be suitable for coal leasing

and related surface operations and impacts, but subject to special restrictions and/or

mitigation requirements, are identified below.

The primary habitat considerations associated with the CDPAs are elk, deer, and antelope

crucial winter or yearlong ranges, and sage-grouse leks and nesting areas. It is

anticipated that mitigative measures can be combined with appropriate mining methods

to temper the impacts of mining. Therefore, these areas were determined to be suitable

for coal development with certain stipulated methods of leasing and mitigation

requirements under a concept of long-range leasing and development.

• Atlantic Rim: Approximately 3,030 acres of crucial winter and yearlong elk winter range and 

deer and antelope crucial winter range areas. 

• Carbon Basin: Various areas identified as deer and antelope crucial winter range and grouse lek 

and nesting areas. 

• China Butte: Various areas identified as deer and antelope crucial winter range and grouse lek 

and nesting areas. 

• Hanna Basin: Various areas identified as deer and antelope crucial winter range and grouse lek 

and nesting areas. 

• Indian Springs: Approximately 2,520 acres of pronghorn crucial winter range. 

• North Indian Springs: Approximately 2,570 acres of pronghorn crucial winter range. 

• Red Rim: Approval of any federal mining plan in the Red Rim CDPA must include a condition 

that restricts from development the pronghorn winter range located within the south portion of the 

area, until reclamation of pronghorn winter habitat in the north portion of the area has been 

demonstrated to be successful. It was determined that these CDPAs would be suitable for coal 

development with a provision that any federal coal lease issued in the respective area(s) would 

include a requirement for developing appropriate mitigation measures that would protect the 

long-term interests of the species and habitats involved. The requirement (or stipulation) would 

be to the effect that the lessee would be required to develop mitigation measures or habitat 

improvement, development, and reclamation plans (in conjunction with mining and reclamation 

plan requirements) in consultation with and to the satisfaction of BLM and the appropriate state 

agencies. Mitigation may include, but is not limited to, seasonal operations in some areas, off- or 

on-site habitat improvement or development, special reclamation measures (e.g., habitat 

recovery), timing and sequencing of mining or other appropriate measures for long-term nest or 

habitat protection, seasonal operations in roosting areas, special reclamation measures, or other 

appropriate measures for long-term nest or habitat protection. 

• Deer and Antelope Crucial Winter Range Considerations: With respect to deer and antelope 

crucial winter range, mitigative measures would be combined with appropriate mining methods to 

temper the impacts of mining in these areas under a concept of maintaining a long-term balance 

between habitat and coal development. If all or a significant part of the crucial winter range for 

one or more big game species were to be mined or made available for mining during one time 

Rawlins RMP A2-13 
Appendix 2 Draft EIS 

span, there probably would be significant long-term impacts on the survival of the herd. 

However, in considering the exceptions to the criterion, the BLM determined that there will not 

be significant long-term impacts on the species being protected under certain mining method 

stipulations (i.e., habitat recovery, limited surface occupancy, or other mitigation requirements) or 

under sequential mining over a long period to maintain a proper mix and balance between 

undisturbed areas and those areas disturbed by mining. 

• Elk Winter and Yearlong Range Considerations: With respect to elk winter and yearlong 

range, the federal CDPAs will be subject to mitigation and reclamation measures for the 

protection of wintering and yearlong resident elk. Any proposal by the lessee to conduct mining 

operations or construct mining-related surface facilities within the federal CDPAs will be subject 

to stipulations for specific placement, design, and type of facilities; management of elk forage; 

and restrictions on the level of mining and human activity. These stipulations and restrictions 

will be developed in consultation with WGFD and in conference with the USFWS, the Wyoming 

Wildlife Federation, and the National Wildlife Federation. In particular, the primary habitat 

consideration within the Atlantic Rim CDPA is crucial winter and yearlong range for elk. The 

elk rely on a total yearlong range of 784,000 acres, of which about 327,000 acres is winter range 

and about 131,000 acres (17 percent of the total range) is crucial habitat. Approximately 3,030 

federal acres of this crucial habitat lie within the Atlantic Rim CDPA. The area will be subject to 

mitigation and reclamation measures for the protection of wintering and yearlong resident elk. 

Any proposal to conduct mining operations or construct mining-related surface facilities within 

the Atlantic Rim CDPA will be subject to stipulations for specific placement, design, and type of 

facilities; management of elk forage; and restrictions on the level of mining and human activity. 

These stipulations and restrictions will be developed in consultation with WGFD and in 

conference with the USFWS, the Wyoming Wildlife Federation, and the National Wildlife 

Federation. 

• Grouse Lek and Nesting Area Considerations: With respect to grouse breeding (leks) and 

nesting, it was determined that grouse habitat areas are acceptable for coal leasing with 

stipulations and mitigation requirements for habitat improvement, development, and reclamation. 

Exploration activities and ancillary facilities would be allowed, provided: (1) the surface 

disturbing activities related to exploration and ancillary facility development avoid any lek and 

areas within a 1⁄4-mile distance around any lek, if possible, and where not possible, intensive 

mitigation would be applied; (2) permanent and high-profile structures, such as buildings, 

overhead power lines, other types of ancillary facilities, etc., are prohibited within a 1⁄4-mile 

distance from any lek area; (3) during the grouse mating season, surface uses and activities would 

be prohibited between the hours of 6:00 p.m. and 9:00 a.m. within a 1⁄2-mile distance from the 

leks; (4) surface disturbance in the nesting area within a 2-mile radius of a lek were limited to 

only actual mining activity and other activities were subject to seasonal limitations; and (5) it 

were attempted to relocate lek and nesting complexes that are disturbed or destroyed by coal 

mining (relocation efforts are to be coordinated with the BLM, WGFD, and other appropriate 

state agencies). 

Criterion 16—Riverine, Coastal, and Special Floodplains 

Certain floodplain areas associated with the Medicine Bow River that are present within the Carbon Basin 

CDPA were determined in 1988 to be “unsuitable” for coal leasing and related surface operations and 

impacts (however, no mineable coal was determined to be present). 

A2-14 Rawlins RMP 
Draft EIS Appendix 2 

Table A2-5. Unsuitable Locations for Coal Mining in Certain Floodplains of the

Medicine Bow River

Area Unsuitable Location Acres Coal (Tons) 

Carbon Basin Portions of Sec. 12; T20N; R80W 30 0 

No areas were determined to be unsuitable under this criterion in the Atlantic Rim, China Butte, Hanna 

Basin, Indian Springs, North Indian Springs, or Red Rim CDPAs because there are no proven riverine, 

coastal, or special floodplains within these areas, until an LBA is filed and analyzed, and coal screening 

process is completed and proven otherwise. 

There are riparian and wetland habitat areas mapped within each of the CDPAs; however, because no 

official delineation of the 100-year floodplain has been completed in the CDPAs, the riparian and wetland 

habitat areas will be further evaluated and the 100-year floodplain determined when addressing potential 

coal leasing (on a case-by-case basis). These areas should be evaluated prior to allowing any disturbance 

from surface mining. 

Rationale: With the exception of the small areas of the Medicine Bow River floodplain 

within the Carbon Basin coal development potential area, it was determined that the other 

floodplain areas (inclusive of the Separation Creek floodplain within the Red Rim CDPA 

and the Fillmore Creek floodplain within the China Butte CDPA) can generally be mined 

in such a manner that all or certain stipulated methods of coal mining can be undertaken 

without substantial threat of loss to people or property and to the natural and beneficial 

values of the floodplain, either on a coal lease tract or downstream. Examples of such 

stipulations or lease requirements may include, but are not limited to, relocation of 

channels during mining and restoration of channel locations after mining, controlling 

sediment yields and prohibiting spoil dumping in channels, lining channel bottoms, 

revegetation, and general mined land reclamation. 

Criterion 17—Municipal Watersheds 

No areas within the identified federal CDPAs were determined to be unsuitable under this criterion. 

Rationale: No municipal watersheds have yet been identified within the federal CDPAs, 

until an LBA is filed and analyzed, and the coal screening process is completed and 

proven otherwise. 

Criterion 18—National Resource Waters 

No areas within the identified federal CDPAs were determined to be unsuitable under this criterion. 

Rationale: No National Resource Waters (Class I waters including the 1⁄4-mile buffers), 

within the identified federal CDPAs have been identified by the State of Wyoming in its 

water quality management plan. However, it should be noted that the Hanna Basin 

CDPA is located upstream of National Resource Waters, specifically along the North 

Platte River and below Seminoe Reservoir. 

Criterion 19—Alluvial Valley Floors 

No areas within the identified federal CDPAs were determined to be unsuitable under this criterion, until 

an LBA is filed and analyzed, and the coal screening process is completed and proven otherwise. 

Rawlins RMP A2-15 
Appendix 2 Draft EIS 

Rationale: No alluvial valley floors have been identified by the State of Wyoming 

within the identified federal CDPAs. The State of Wyoming usually identifies alluvial 

valley floor areas and mitigative measures during the mine plan approval and mine 

permitting stage. The CDPAs remain acceptable for further leasing consideration subject 

to the condition that in potential alluvial valley floors, or in other areas near them, where 

coal mining could interrupt or intercept water flow to farming areas along the drainages, 

mining will be permitted only with mitigative measures that are made a part of an 

approved mine plan. 

Criterion 20—Unsuitability Criterion Proposed by a State or by an Indian Tribe 

No areas within the identified federal CDPAs were determined to be unsuitable under this criterion. 

Rationale: Neither the State of Wyoming nor any Indian tribes have proposed any 

unsuitability criteria to the Secretary of the Interior. Until an LBA is filed and analyzed, 

and the coal screening process is completed and proven otherwise, the above statement is 

true. 

Step 3—Multiple-Use Conflicts 

Procedurally, in this step of the coal screening process, those lands that are determined to be suitable for 

further coal leasing consideration after applying the unsuitability criteria would be further evaluated. This 

evaluation would involve consideration of potential conflicts of coal development with other multiple-use 

values (i.e., values not only or directly concerned with the unsuitability criteria) and identification of any 

additional areas that would be considered unacceptable for coal mining or related surface operations and 

impacts. The evaluation of other multiple-use conflicts typically involves a somewhat complicated 

procedure of sequentially analyzing and developing the various coal management scenarios. 

As stated before, the coal screening procedures consist of four steps, identification of coal development 

potential, application of coal unsuitability, multiple-use conflict evaluation, and surface owner 

consultation. Based on the completion of unsuitability, Step 2 of this process, no additional areas over 

and above the areas determined unsuitable during the 1998 EA were identified for the Carbon Basin 

areas. As a result, the Carbon Basin coal decision has identified 12,120 acres (federal acreage) and 210 

million tons of coal as acceptable for further consideration for leasing. This scenario is still valid and has 

been made part of the actions identified in Chapter 2 of the EIS. 

It has been determined from Step 2 of the process, that there is minimal likelihood for actual coal 

development to occur within the RMPPA and the applicable 20-year planning period. It was also 

determined that Step 3 of the coal screening process would not be carried out until an LBA is filed and 

analyzed. Therefore, the areas determined acceptable through Step 2 of the coal screening process will be 

the areas available for consideration for coal mining by the industry. 

Step 4—Surface Owner Consultation 

It has been determined from Step 2 of the process that there is minimal likelihood for actual coal leasing 

and development within the RMPPA and the applicable 20-year planning period. It was also determined 

that Step 4 of the coal screening process would not be carried out until a LBA is filed and analyzed. 

Therefore, the areas determined “acceptable” through Step 2 of the coal screening process will be the 

areas available for consideration for coal mining by the industry. 

A2-16 Rawlins RMP 
Draft EIS Appendix 2 

LITERATURE CITED 

BLM 

1990. Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan for the Great Divide Resource Area. 

Prepared by the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Rawlins District. 

2003. Mineral Occurrence and Development Potential Report: Rawlins Resource Management Plan Planning 

Area. 

Glass, G.B., and Roberts, J.T., 1979, Remaining strippable coal resources and strippable reserve base of the Hanna 

Coal Field in south-central Wyoming; Wyoming Geological Survey 37 Report of Investigations No. 17. 38. 

Rawlins RMP A2-17